Where is Steve Thomas today?

fr brown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
745
Reaction score
1,426
Ramsey NEVER left the house that morning.That was only one of the lies told by police!

No, that's one you made up.

"Detective Arndt could not account for John Ramsey until about noon. She found him reading some correspondence, and she incorrectly assumed he had stepped out to get his mail. She was unaware that the house did not have an exterior mail box and that the mail came in through a front door slot. Ramsey had been out of contact for over an hour. In coming months, we realized that the time lapse would have allowed Ramsey plenty of time to roam his house."

Thomas, Steve. JonBenet (p. 28). St. Martin's Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
 

fr brown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
745
Reaction score
1,426
"Detective Arndt could not account for John Ramsey until about noon. She found him reading some correspondence, and she incorrectly assumed he had stepped out to get his mail. She was unaware that the house did not have an exterior mail box and that the mail came in through a front door slot. Ramsey had been out of contact for over an hour. In coming months, we realized that the time lapse would have allowed Ramsey plenty of time to roam his house."

Thomas, Steve. JonBenet (p. 28). St. Martin's Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

In Death of Innocence, published in 2000, John admits to being alone in the basement sometime between 10am and noon. He says that at some point after the deadline for the ransom call had passed, he remembered breaking a basement window the previous summer so he goes down there to check it. He finds it cracked open with a suitcase underneath and concludes that the kidnapper might have gone in and out that way. So he runs up the stairs and tells the detectives, right? Um, no. He walks up the stairs and wonders about how such a terrible thing could happen in Boulder and thinks about how his computer business started in a basement. Then "morning drifts into afternoon." There's no indication that he tells anyone about his discovery. This is his book, remember. Oof.

In his '97 interview, John tells the police that his first of two trips to the basement probably happened before 10am. When he sees the window broken, he remembers that he broke it the previous summer. John says it being unlatched and cracked open just struck him as a bit odd. He says he can't remember if he told anyone about it.

In his '98 interview, John says that his first trip to the basement happened between 7am and 9am because they were expecting the call from the kidnappers between 10am and noon [sic]. At the time, John didn't think the basement window being slightly open was all that odd. He doesn't remember telling anybody about it.
 
Last edited:

fr brown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
745
Reaction score
1,426
....The truth of the matter is that the six CBI analysts [sic - fr brown] gave Patsy a score of 4.5 out of a possible 5.0, with 5.0 meaning elimination as the possible writer. The CBI declared that it was a very low probability that Patsy wrote the ransom note.

I don't want this to go unrebutted because we often hear a version of this from the Ramsey side. The "4.5 out of 5.0" business comes from the two Ramsey handwriting experts. CBI expert Chet Ubowski's opinion was that there were "indications that Patsy wrote the note."

"Our experts [Howard Rile, Lloyd Cunningham] had impeccable law enforcement reputations. They went through the same materials the police did. In the end, they totally eliminated me as a potential writer of the ransom note, and Patsy came out with a low similarity score, indicating little likelihood of having written it. On a scale of one to five (with one being a definite match and five being a virtual impossibility), the experts assessed the possibilities of my being the author at 5 and Patsy writing the note at 4.5, a very low probability" -- Death of Innocence, 2001
 

fr brown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
745
Reaction score
1,426
"'[Stewart] Long said that John Ramsey climbed into a van with him and John Andrew and told them that JonBenét 'was with Beth now.' The father and son broke down in tears as John Ramsey described how he had discovered the body around eleven o’clock that morning. I almost dropped the telephone as I reached to make sure the 'record' button was pressed on my tape recorder. 'When you say eleven o’clock that morning, are you assuming that was Mountain time or Eastern time?' 'I’m assuming that was Mountain time. He said eleven o’clock, so I’m assuming he was speaking of his own time reference' I was blown away. We had just found a credible witness who heard John Ramsey say he’d discovered the body two hours earlier than we previously believed. That punched a big hole in the generally accepted timeline. Eleven o’clock would have been just about the time John Ramsey temporarily vanished from the sight of Detective Arndt, when she thought he had gone out to get the mail. I recalled how Arndt described the marked change in his behavior after he came back, silent, brooding, and nervous."-- Thomas, Steve. JonBenet (pp. 156-157). St. Martin's Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Coupled with John Ramsey's admission that he was alone in the basement between 10-something and noon, we can make the same inference Thomas did: that Ramsey first found JonBenet's body around 11am (rather than 1pm). We can also infer that he didn't actually think that an intruder got in the not-hermetically-sealed basement window, otherwise he would have told someone about his discovery. He wouldn't have walked up the stairs pondering the irony of something bad happening in idyllic Boulder and then sit around letting morning drift into afternoon.

I took some poetic license when I described John walking up the stairs thinking about how his business got started in a basement. In DOI, it's the writer (ostensibly John) who ruminates about that, as he's contemplating himself walking up the stairs. I found that offensive, but I think it's just "chaff and redirect," intended to keep the reader from asking questions about what else John might have found there, where other than the train room he might have gone, what else he might have done, how long he was down there and what made him go down there in the first place.
 
Last edited:

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,446
"'[Stewart] Long said that John Ramsey climbed into a van with him and John Andrew and told them that JonBenét 'was with Beth now.' The father and son broke down in tears as John Ramsey described how he had discovered the body around eleven o’clock that morning. I almost dropped the telephone as I reached to make sure the 'record' button was pressed on my tape recorder. 'When you say eleven o’clock that morning, are you assuming that was Mountain time or Eastern time?' 'I’m assuming that was Mountain time. He said eleven o’clock, so I’m assuming he was speaking of his own time reference' I was blown away. We had just found a credible witness who heard John Ramsey say he’d discovered the body two hours earlier than we previously believed. That punched a big hole in the generally accepted timeline. Eleven o’clock would have been just about the time John Ramsey temporarily vanished from the sight of Detective Arndt, when she thought he had gone out to get the mail. I recalled how Arndt described the marked change in his behavior after he came back, silent, brooding, and nervous."-- Thomas, Steve. JonBenet (pp. 156-157). St. Martin's Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Coupled with John Ramsey's admission that he was alone in the basement between 10-something and noon, we can make the same inference Thomas did: that Ramsey first found JonBenet's body around 11am (rather than 1pm). We can also infer that he didn't actually think that an intruder got in the not-hermetically-sealed basement window, otherwise he would have told someone about his discovery. He wouldn't have walked up the stairs pondering the irony of something bad happening in idyllic Boulder and then sit around letting morning drift into afternoon.

I took some poetic license when I described John walking up the stairs thinking about how his business got started in a basement. In DOI, it's the writer (ostensibly John) who ruminates about that, as he's contemplating himself walking up the stairs. I found that offensive, but I think it's just "chaff and redirect," intended to keep the reader from asking questions about what else John might have found there, where other than the train room he might have gone, what else he might have done, how long he was down there and what made him go down there in the first place.

fr brown,
Coupled with John Ramsey's admission that he was alone in the basement between 10-something and noon, we can make the same inference Thomas did: that Ramsey first found JonBenet's body around 11am
Not really a safe inference, as you can ask: is JR speaking truthfully?

If, as he claimed, he found JonBenet prior to his 1pm discovery, then why walk away, and rediscover her later?

Sounds more like he moved JonBenet to the wine-cellar in anticipation of his subsequent discovery?

Then of course we have Fleet White looking into the wine-cellar long before John Ramsey was alone in the basement, and he never noticed anything at all.

Yet John Ramsey's account of finding JonBenet includes:
07-09-1998 A&E Documentary - 'Who Killed JonBenet’ by Michael Tracy and David Mills
John Ramsey: "As I was going through the basement, I opened the door and knew immediately that I'd found her because I saw a white blanket. Her eyes were closed, I feared the worse yet I'd found her and she was back in our safe protection again.

When John Ramsey looked into the wine-cellar at approximately 1pm he did not know that Fleet White had looked in earlier!

So how does John Ramsey, with very poor eyesight, see what Fleet White could not?


It has to be more smoke and mirrors from John Ramsey has he has nothing to gain from telegraphing his earlier movements in the basement?

.
 

fr brown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
745
Reaction score
1,426
Let me put my thinking cap on here....John might not want to have been the one to find the body. He might not want to have found the body alone. He might have wanted time to think.

I'm not sure why he would want to move a body to the wine cellar. The only place more remote is the crawl space, and from what I can tell from the layout, moving a body from the crawl space to the wine cellar would entail moving through an area where he might be seen by a roaming policeman.

But the only reason the wine cellar wasn't searched earlier is because of the drop-down latch. French (and Reichenbach) pulled on the door knob, but didn't enter because they were looking for a way for a kidnapper to exit and reasoned that someone could not have latched the door from inside that room.

Fleet White couldn't see the body because he didn't turn on the light, the switch being in an unusual place. John could see the body on his first pass because he turned on the light, because he knew where the switch was because he lived there, because it was his house.

And of course, no one would move the body to the wine cellar mid-morning because you wouldn't know if the empty room had been searched earlier by French with a flashlight--or Reichenbach, or some other policeman, or by a Fleet White who had found the light switch.
 
Last edited:

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,446
Let me put my thinking cap on here....John might not want to have been the one to find the body. He might not want to have found the body alone. He might have wanted time to think.

I'm not sure why he would want to move a body to the wine cellar. The only place more remote is the crawl space, and from what I can tell from the layout, moving a body from the crawl space to the wine cellar would entail moving through an area where he might be seen by a roaming policeman.

But the only reason the wine cellar wasn't searched earlier is because of the drop-down latch. French (and Reichenbach) pulled on the door knob, but didn't enter because they were looking for a way for a kidnapper to exit and reasoned that someone could not have latched the door from inside that room.

Fleet White couldn't see the body because he didn't turn on the light, the switch being in an unusual place. John could see the body on his first pass because he turned on the light, because he knew where the switch was because he lived there, because it was his house.

And of course, no one would move the body to the wine cellar mid-morning because you wouldn't know if the empty room had been searched earlier by French with a flashlight--or Reichenbach, or some other policeman, or by a Fleet White who had found the light switch.

fr brown,
I guess you fell asleep with the Thinking Cap on?

There are lots of things folks would not do mid-morning after JonBenet's has been kidnapped.

I'm not sure why he would want to move a body to the wine cellar.
To fake finding her, going straight to crawl space would incriminate him.

Fleet White couldn't see the body because he didn't turn on the light, the switch being in an unusual place. John could see the body on his first pass because he turned on the light, because he knew where the switch was because he lived there, because it was his house.
The above is all invented by you. You were not there, you do not know what Fleet White could see.

How about we review what John Ramsey actually said about the switch, rather than your assumption?


Text of John Ramsey's deposition
Deposition of John Bennett Ramsey, December 12, 2001
MR. HOFFMAN: Good morning. This is the deposition of John Ramsey in the case of Robert Christian Wolf versus John Bennett Ramsey and Patricia Paugh Ramsey. I am the lead counsel for the plaintiff Chris Wolf. Would the gentlemen here identify themselves?

...

Q. Do you remember whether or not Fleet White said anything to you while you were down in the basement showing him the broken window and the suitcase?

A. I don't remember that he said anything.

Q. Okay. Were you the first one to go to the cellar door?

A. I don't know.

Q. When you opened the cellar door, can you describe, to the best of your recollection today, what it was that you saw?

A. I saw a white blanket, and I knew immediately I found JonBenet.

Q. Had you turned the light on or —

A. I don't remember turning the light on.

So John Ramsey does not claim he turned the light on, just that he saw a white blanket.

Whereas under similar circumstances earlier that morning Fleet White observed no white blanket, despite having much better eyesight than John Ramsey who had very poor eyesight, so bad that under federal aviation flying rules he had to hire a pilot!!

.
 
Last edited:

fr brown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
745
Reaction score
1,426
"Moving deeper into the basement, he [White] found the same white door that had been checked by Sergeant Reichenbach. Fleet White turned the makeshift latch and pulled the door open, toward him. It was totally dark inside, and when he could find neither of two light switches, he closed the door, relatched it, and went back upstairs. He never saw JonBenét." -- Thomas, Steve. JonBenet (p. 21). St. Martin's Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

This a thread about Steve Thomas and his theory. Everybody knows, or should know, that Thomas thinks that John Ramsey discovered the body during the time that Arndt lost track of him, between 11am and noon. Ramsey's spontaneous admission to Stewart Long puts Ramsey's discovery of the body at 11am. Ramsey would have turned the light on in the wine cellar so that he could see the inside of the room (the way people do), but John Ramsey, as everybody knows, does not admit that he was in the wine cellar during this earlier trip. He only admits to seeing the broken window. When Ramsey is discussing finding the body, he's talking about his 1pm trip with Fleet White. If he's found the body earlier, he wouldn't need to turn the light on during his 1pm trip because he already knows what's there. And quite possibly on that second trip he didn't turn the light on.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,446
"Moving deeper into the basement, he [White] found the same white door that had been checked by Sergeant Reichenbach. Fleet White turned the makeshift latch and pulled the door open, toward him. It was totally dark inside, and when he could find neither of two light switches, he closed the door, relatched it, and went back upstairs. He never saw JonBenét." -- Thomas, Steve. JonBenet (p. 21). St. Martin's Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

This a thread about Steve Thomas and his theory. Everybody knows, or should know, that Thomas thinks that John Ramsey discovered the body during the time that Arndt lost track of him, between 11am and noon. Ramsey's spontaneous admission to Stewart Long puts Ramsey's discovery of the body at 11am. Ramsey would have turned the light on in the wine cellar so that he could see the inside of the room (the way people do), but John Ramsey, as everybody knows, does not admit that he was in the wine cellar during this earlier trip. He only admits to seeing the broken window. When Ramsey is discussing finding the body, he's talking about his 1pm trip with Fleet White. If he's found the body earlier, he wouldn't need to turn the light on during his 1pm trip because he already knows what's there. And quite possibly on that second trip he didn't turn the light on.

Hope this helps.

fr brown,
So John does not need the light switch on his second visit as he knows what he is going to find?

Ramsey's spontaneous admission to Stewart Long puts Ramsey's discovery of the body at 11am.
discovery??

Ramsey would have turned the light on in the wine cellar so that he could see the inside of the room (the way people do), but John Ramsey, as everybody knows, does not admit that he was in the wine cellar during this earlier trip.
BBM: even if all he doing is placing JonBenet into the wine-cellar, which he dresses up as a discovery to Stewart Long?

If JonBenet is already in the wine-cellar JR does not need to go anywhere near the basement or the wine-cellar when he goes missing, as he already knows she is there??

i.e. JR is undertaking a redundant walk and reporting something to Stewart Long of which he was already aware either because the case is JDI or he assisted with the staging?

Bottom line: JR only needs to turn the light on on his second 1am visit, as he is not supposed to know what he can see.

Fleet White saw nothing and he was looking before JR's first visit!

Could be JR in his report to Stewart Long was attempting to take account of some information that has not been made public to date?

.
 

fr brown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
745
Reaction score
1,426
The darkness in the windowless wine cellar is described as "stygian" in JonBenet. That Fleet White did not see the body when he looked in the room is not an argument for her body not being there.

I also think it's a possibility that John Ramsey, with a heightened sense that it wasn't a kidnapping, did open the wine cellar door, see the white blanket and know in that instant it was JonBenet's body. Maybe when he opened the door he could smell faint decomposition, maybe he could smell the freshly-laundered blanket. The rush of adrenaline would dilate his pupils so I suppose it's possible he could see a white blanket in a pitch-black room. (Steve Thomas describes John as snapping his fingers in the retelling: John's "illustrator" is congruent with his story.) But that would be an argument for John being shocked to find her body. And, yes, then he would probably turn on the light. (Don't want to leave anything out.)
 
Last edited:

fr brown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
745
Reaction score
1,426
The darkness in the windowless wine cellar is described as "stygian" in JonBenet. That Fleet White did not see the body when he looked in the room is not an argument for her body not being there.

I also think it's a possibility that John Ramsey, with a heightened sense that it wasn't a kidnapping, did open the wine cellar door, see the white blanket and know in that instant it was JonBenet's body. Maybe when he opened the door he could smell faint decomposition, maybe he could smell the freshly-laundered blanket. The rush of adrenaline would dilate his pupils so I suppose it's possible he could see a white blanket in a pitch-black room. (Steve Thomas describes John as snapping his fingers in the retelling: John's "illustrator" is congruent with his story.) But that would be an argument for John being shocked to find her body. And, yes, then he would probably turn on the light. (Don't want to leave anything out.)

The book makes plain that Fleet White abandons his investigation of the wine cellar because he can't find a light switch, and he can't see it even though it's close to him on an adjacent wall.
 

fr brown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
745
Reaction score
1,426
A better question would be, Does he [Steve Thomas] still think Patsy did it?
It sounds like you think James Kolar uncovered information which Steve Thomas failed to find. I doubt that. All Kolar has are some speculative "CSI notes" which Thomas no doubt also saw.

When Thomas and Kolar were on with Tricia, Thomas went silent when Kolar was speaking about his BDI theory. I suppose that being on the program with Kolar could be seen as an endorsement, but I haven't seen anything else--which seems a little odd since they are good buddies. (I also noticed that Carol McKinley went silent when Tricia and cynic were rhapsodizing recently about Kolar and his book.)

On the topic of silence speaking volumes, I listened to Ellis Armistead in an interview recorded several years ago. He's a slow-talkin' kind of feller: I liked him. They got around to the Ramsey case at the end of a seemingly endless podcast. Armistead didn't say much but I gleaned that he is indifferent to the DNA analyses going on (or not going on). He also said that Burke had been "drug through the mud." He has said something similar on another occasion about Santa Bill. But who didn't he say had been drug through the mud? Patsy and John Ramsey. Armistead went on to say that Det. Arndt shouldn't have put John Ramsey in the position of finding his daughter's body.

From the above I gather that Armistead doesn't think John Ramsey killed his daughter, but has sinned at the very least by trashing, or allowing his lawyer to trash, innocent people. Nor does Armistead think Burke did it. Or an intruder. Which leaves PPRBSJ....
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,446
It sounds like you think James Kolar uncovered information which Steve Thomas failed to find. I doubt that. All Kolar has are some speculative "CSI notes" which Thomas no doubt also saw.

When Thomas and Kolar were on with Tricia, Thomas went silent when Kolar was speaking about his BDI theory. I suppose that being on the program with Kolar could be seen as an endorsement, but I haven't seen anything else--which seems a little odd since they are good buddies. (I also noticed that Carol McKinley went silent when Tricia and cynic were rhapsodizing recently about Kolar and his book.)

On the topic of silence speaking volumes, I listened to Ellis Armistead in an interview recorded several years ago. He's a slow-talkin' kind of feller: I liked him. They got around to the Ramsey case at the end of a seemingly endless podcast. Armistead didn't say much but I gleaned that he is indifferent to the DNA analyses going on (or not going on). He also said that Burke had been "drug through the mud." He has said something similar on another occasion about Santa Bill. But who didn't he say had been drug through the mud? Patsy and John Ramsey. Armistead went on to say that Det. Arndt shouldn't have put John Ramsey in the position of finding his daughter's body.

From the above I gather that Armistead doesn't think John Ramsey killed his daughter, but has sinned at the very least by trashing, or allowing his lawyer to trash, innocent people. Nor does Armistead think Burke did it. Or an intruder. Which leaves PPRBSJ....

fr brown,
Well just who has got it right? Thomas is PDI, Kolar is BDI, and there will be some detective who is JDI?

Thomas' book was ghost written for him, he was sued in court for some of its content, the Ramsey's complained to BPD about the reference to an alleged sexual assault, e.g. incest, so it was renamed as Vaginal Trauma.

The upshot was Thomas had to revise the contents of his book. So how do we know he nailed the case down?

Kolar saw Lin Wood coming so just dropped hints about BDI in his book, so the Ramsey's have never taken him to court.

If there were next to nothing to connect BR to the death of his sister we could all just toss a coin on JDI or PDI, or both?

Yet there is evidence linking BR to the wine-cellar, and his Dr Phil outing did him no favors at all.

Then there is the non-filing of the GJ True Bills. Now we know both PR and JR are named therein, with an anonymous reference to a person who did sexually assault and murder JonBenet in the first degree.

You have to wonder why JR is still trawling about TV studios offering his paid opinion on this or that regarding his daughter's death?

Where is BR, does he not want to join in? Will he ever get married, does anyone want his children. The Lifestyle magazines will soon be doing articles on him, asking all the usual JonBenet questions.

We can demonstrate all three Ramsey residents colluded in the postmortem staging of JonBenet.

So the case is RDI, i.e. no intruder. With no smoking gun, you can only eliminate suspects.

Problem being given the motive was sexual who do you drop: JR or BR?

.
 

icedtea4me

Former Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
539
If there were next to nothing to connect BR to the death of his sister we could all just toss a coin on JDI or PDI, or both?

You can't just toss a coin in a matter like this.


<snip>Then there is the non-filing of the GJ True Bills. Now we know both PR and JR are named therein, with an anonymous reference to a person who did sexually assault and murder JonBenet in the first degree.<snip>

It doesn't occur to you that at least 9 out of the 12 grand jurors were confident enough that John assisted. And 9 out of the 12 grand jurors were confident enough that Patsy assisted. If they had reached the same consensus as to who was primarily responsible for the prosecution's Count I of Murder in the First Degree, then the assisting charge against that person would've been dropped.
You have to wonder why JR is still trawling about TV studios offering his paid opinion on this or that regarding his daughter's death?
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,446
I don't think Thomas changed his book. He might have added an epilogue.

fr brown,
You have no way of knowing. You never saw the original draft. He tells you in his book in the chapters where they discuss the sexual assault how they had to revise and rename aspects, to suit the Ramseys.

All you read was the revised book, with a PDI theory based on bedwetting.

I reckon the original draft promoted a sexually motivated homicide which the Ramsey's did not approve of.

.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,446
You can't just toss a coin in a matter like this.




It doesn't occur to you that at least 9 out of the 12 grand jurors were confident enough that John assisted. And 9 out of the 12 grand jurors were confident enough that Patsy assisted. If they had reached the same consensus as to who was primarily responsible for the prosecution's Count I of Murder in the First Degree, then the assisting charge against that person would've been dropped.
You have to wonder why JR is still trawling about TV studios offering his paid opinion on this or that regarding his daughter's death?

icedtea4me,
We do not need the GJ to demonstrate that the parents staged the wine-cellar crime-scene.

Its an inescapable conclusion from the forensic evidence they left behind.

There was enough forensic evidence for the GJ to reach a majority on PR killing JonBenet, her fibers are in the ligature knotting, possibly not a smoking gun but good enough to level a Murder1 True Bill.

It's likely the GJ had access to forensic evidence that has never been made public?

Making them think, although its probable one of the parents asphyxiated JonBenet and assisted with the staging, its also possible some other Ramsey was responsible for initiating the crime, with the parents simply cleaning up and finalising the staging?

Otherwise why do we need the constant reference to the anonymous person, there are only three candidates on offer, and if you think its a sexually motivated homicide that drops to two?

And from that two, one is named in the True Bills, the other is afforded the luxury of anonymity via Colorado Child Safety Statutes.

If the case were JDI, i.e. incest, then with JR's fibers found on JonBenet's thighs, the GJ should have had no problem in leveling a True Bill of sexual assault against JR and Murder In The First Degree against Patsy, with both parents guilty of staging a cover up?

You have to wonder why JR is still trawling about TV studios offering his paid opinion on this or that regarding his daughter's death?
Not because the case is JDI, he is just promoting the concerned father line along with hints why it is an IDI case, just in case anything pops up to muddy his alleged narrative.

You know, like the CBS BDI alleging BR whacked JonBenet for stealing some of his pineapple?

.
 

proust20

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
375
Reaction score
594
In the USA, one cannot be sued for libeling a dead person. Speaking about PR is not the third rail it once was. The bed wetting and the pineapple snatch are both weak motivations for such a brutal and sustained attack. ST was earnest but not sharp enough to contend with the Rs. JR was cunning or he'd not become so successful in his business.
 
Top