Crime Weekly - S1 Ep9: The Murder of JonBenét Ramsey (Part IV)

Episode Date: January 29, 2021

It was December 26th, 1996 in Boulder Colorado. Boulder had seen a great deal of snow fall the previous week, but by the morning of the 26th, only a trace of it remained, just a small dusting that would most likely disappear as the sun rose. In an upper class Boulder neighborhood, the occupants of stately, million dollar homes were still slumbering peacefully, getting in their last moments of sleep before the day after Christmas chaos began, the cleaning up and getting back into the everyday routine.  But inside 749 15th St, the home of the Ramsey family, it was a much different scene. At 5:52 AM, 911 operator Kim Archueletta received a phone call from a frantic mother claiming she had woken up to a ransom note, and her six year old daughter missing from her bed. But JonBenét Ramsey had not been taken, she was not missing from her home, she had been there the whole time, and the events that would follow would lead to one of the most tragic mysteries the true crime world has ever known, a case that has often been referred to as the largest unsolved crime in America. The fourth and final part of our deep dive looks at the remaining suspects, and we discuss our own theories on what happened to JonBenét... Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod

Hey guys, we just wanted to talk to you and tell you that we realized there was some sound issues with my mic this episode and the past one. We had some technical difficulties just with my mic specifically, but since then we've fixed the problem. So going forward, the sound is going to be exactly as you would expect it to be, which is very good. Thank you so much for being patient and understanding and enjoy the show. Hello and welcome to Crime Weekly presented by i-D. I'm Stephanie Harlow. And I'm Derek Levasseur. On this podcast, we do talk about difficult subjects. We're talking about real crimes and real people. And due to the graphic nature of some of this content, listener discretion is advised.

Hello, everybody. Welcome back to Crime Weekly. So today is the fourth and final part of our JonBenet Ramsey series, The Murder of JonBenet Ramsey. And before we continue on or get started for today, I want to tell you guys about a new podcast from Investigation Discovery. This podcast is going to follow hosts Billy Jensen and Alexis Linkletter, and they also host the First Degree podcast, and they're going to investigate the untold story of the Long Island serial killer in a podcast called Unraveled, Long Island Serial Killer. Unraveled is a search for answers in one of the biggest murder mysteries in American history. It's been 10 years since 11 bodies were found on the coast of Long Island. Amongst the backdrop of police corruption and cover-ups at the highest levels of Suffolk County,

co-hosts Alexis Linkletter and Billy Jensen reinvestigate the murders from a decade ago to expose the untold story of why the case remains unsolved. So yeah, check it out. It's a good case. I'm sure they'll cover it well. Go ahead and listen to it. Available wherever you get your podcasts. And when we last left off in part three, we went over a lot of information. We did some housekeeping, things that we'd forgotten to talk about in the previous parts. We also covered some issues with the Boulder police. We covered, you know, how the Ramseys were essentially considered guilty in the court of public opinion, as well as by the majority of the Boulder Police Department, or at least many of them. And we talked about the possibility of the Ramsey family as suspects, both Patsy and Burke, because John Ramsey was never really considered a suspect by anybody.

Today, we're going to talk about the other suspects. We're going to go over them, you know, pretty quickly, each one, because there were a couple. But I do want to mention again that the Ramseys and the suspects we're talking about today, they were all cleared by DNA. So this is still an unsolved case. And even though a couple of people confessed, even though the police thought they got close a couple of times, even though the Ramseys thought they knew who did it a couple of times, nobody's ever been charged for this little girl's murder. Yeah. And that's probably why we are where we are right now, right? Because everyone has an opinion on this case. And sometimes it's easy for people to forget evidence that may contradict their theory. And the interesting thing about the DNA is what you said last week, which is

the DNA is nothing and it's everything, right? It's DNA. It's important. I think in our society today, DNA is like the be all end all in the case, right? If there's DNA, that's all you need. But in this particular situation, this mixed DNA is kind of the holdup here, or it could be the saving grace because either way, they haven't been able to match it to anyone. The question is, is that because it's a mixture and there's some contamination issues, or is it because we just haven't found the person yet? Well, it's actually interesting that you bring up the DNA because I did say that and I mean it. It's either everything or it's nothing. But John Ramsey and his son, John Andrew, they were just on Extra a week ago. They did an interview. And I think it's nothing. But John Ramsey and his son, John Andrew, they were just on Extra a

week ago. They did like an interview. And I think it's because of the ID show that just came out. So they're doing some media stuff again. But John Ramsey believed that there was all sorts of mistakes that were made in the investigation. And he said he knew about some of them at the time, and some of them he and his family kind of figured out as the years went on and things were kind of released. But he says that he believes that their fundamental mistake was rushing to a conclusion. So I assume that means rushing to the conclusion of believing it was, you know, one of them. And he said that he wants to see this case solved because he believes that it's a cloud over his children's legacy, his remaining surviving children's legacy.

And then John Andrew or John Jr., he actually said something interesting. He said, you know, those items were tested back in 1996. Technologies advanced, sensitivity of methods have evolved in the past 24 years. And he feels that not only do those items need to be retested, but he says there's dozens, if not hundreds of other items that have never been tested. And I'm completely on board with this. I do think it would be helpful to have these things retested with newer DNA technology. And I think that if there was anything that's involved in the case that wasn't tested, as he's suggesting, dozens, if not hundreds of items that weren't tested, I believe that it should all be tested. What's the likelihood of that happening? It's possible. It depends on who's testing it. I know there's a backlog with the FBI as far as

testing DNA evidence because although the JonBenet case is one we all know, there are thousands of cases just like this and no case is more important than the other, right? Because they're all involved family members who are waiting for that answer as to what happened to their loved ones. So they're all in the queue. I know from personal experience, there are cases that I'm involved with still that are in the queue right now that I'm waiting on the results for. And it's been years, years since I've heard anything about it. And it's not something you can have done privately either. I was going to ask if as the family, the Ramseys, could they have it done privately? Could they do anything to expedite it? Is there any control that they have over it? There's a chain of custody. There are companies that are, for lack of a better term, they're accredited. They're approved as an agency that can do it. There are private labs. I wonder how it would be from an ethical standpoint, if the family can pay for that, or I don't know. I don't want to say for certain. I know that there have been grants awarded and

stuff, you know, for things like this, but I don't know if a family can pay directly for evidence to be tested because there is a chain of custody. So it has to still be submitted by law enforcement. And then I don't know if that would be an issue. If someone did come back positive, I'm sure the defense would try to find a way to use that. I know they would. I mean, even if it's valid or not, they would. So there's probably some ethical things that they'd have to work out there. But overall, this is a common sad story in law enforcement, which is there's so much DNA out there in evidence lockers right now. And if we could only get around to testing all of it, we would solve hundreds of cases tomorrow.

And that's kind of what I was just about to say. This DNA backlog thing seems to be a consistent issue in almost every state, at least every state where I've done research on cases. And this is a common theme where it keeps popping up, especially for sexual assaults and things. Well, yeah, the DNA sitting there waiting to be tested. How could we possibly solve this issue? What would it take? More personnel, more labs, more money, all of the above? Yep. All of the above. I've actually had discussions and maybe it's something that you and I can discuss down the road, but I've had discussions with some pretty prominent people in the criminal justice field, the system to maybe start a nonprofit, a nonprofit that would involve the raising of money specifically for DNA testing while also building DNA testing facilities that would be accredited

and allowed to test government cases because of the standards they would have to meet. They would basically be viewed as a state crime lab, essentially. So I think it's possible. There's never too much money for it because it's very, very expensive. $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 for 10 pieces of evidence in some cases. So I remember at one point it was like $3,000 a year. Are you serious? That can't really do the math. Make that make sense. That doesn't make sense. A lot of things don't make sense as far as how much people charge for things.

I was even thinking incentives to like get people like scholarships, maybe to get people to go to school, to be trained as, you know, forensic crime lab technicians, because like you said, manpower is probably also an issue. They just don't have enough people trained to do it. Yeah, no. And again, there's a lot of private labs. There's a lot of private labs that are, you know, for profit labs. Um, and the issue becomes, you know, are their standards high enough where if they got a result, if they got a hit, is it going to be admissible in a court of law? And, you know, and that's, that's really what it comes down to because the detectives are turning over that evidence to them and therefore they are now part of chain

of custody. And, you know, how are they storing this evidence? Are they keeping it away from other items? There's so many specifics that I don't even know about, you know, how they're using the DNA. Are they in a specific area of their labs where it's not contaminated by other, you know, so many different angles, especially a defense attorney could play if it's not done the right way. And you would hate to wait 10 years to get it tested, get a hit, have it be an active and positive hit, but have it dismissed because of, you know, the handling of it, you know? Yeah, that is something I think we should

talk about at a later date because I think that's something like that's missing from the world. It's definitely a conversation we can have, but I think our listeners have waited long enough. Are you ready to get into these other suspects? Yes. So we talked about pretty much the Ramseys as suspects because Patsy and Burke Ramsey are two of the people who have been pointed to, I would say, the most in this case. And now we're going to talk about the other suspects, suspects that were named by the Ramseys in the book they wrote about their daughter, Jeanne Benet, suspects that have been brought over the years. Some people have confessed, some people have allegedly confessed. We're going to dive into that.

Yeah. And listen, guys, let me preface it by saying we're covering some of the bigger ones. It's not all of them. If we wanted to spend time on every single suspect that's ever been named in this case, this series would be at least 10 episodes. So yeah, I absolutely agree. And that's kind of why we have the legal process that we do to make sure that even though people look guilty, they get a fair shot. And we're not just putting a bunch of innocent people who look guilty in prison. Yeah, we're going to cover some of the big ones. We know there's more, but these are the ones we thought we should cover, at least in this short little series that we're doing. Stephanie, why don't you kick us off? Well, I want to quickly go over the other suspects that would sort of support Lou Smith's external intruder theory.

And there were a few of note over the years. One was Gary Oliva. I think he's probably the most popular one. He allegedly confessed to killing her in letters to a friend. At the time of her murder, he was sort of a transient and he was living, I believe, in a shelter that was just 10 blocks away from her home. In 2016, He was convicted of possession of child porn. And when the police confiscated his phone from this charge, they found 335 pictures of Jean Benet Ramsey on his phone, including pictures of these sorts of shrines that were made to Jean Benet Ramsey, as well as autopsy photos that he had found on the internet, which never should have been there. I'll say it again, but this dude had her autopsy pictures on his phone,

which I think is incredibly crazy. But the guy who actually got these letters from him, his name was Michael Vail. He was a former classmate of Gary's. And Michael Vail alleges that Gary called him the night that Jean-B Benet Ramsey was murdered and Gary was crying and saying that he'd hurt a little girl. And there was also a little issue of Gary previously attempting to choke his mother with a telephone cord. So that's something that could show an MO, I guess. And he was found with a stun gun in his backpack, if you're, I guess, buying into the whole stun gun theory, which I personally don't, but, um, so I've listened to this, this guy, Michael Vale talk about, um, why he thinks Gary Oliver did this. And this is my personal opinion. So don't come for me. I hope that Michael Vale

doesn't choose to sue me because I don't think this is defamatory, but I don't buy it. He sounds like somebody who's kind of just trying to get his five minutes of fame, trying to get in the spotlight, trying to associate himself with this case. I think he wrote a book and merit to it. And additionally, you know, Gary has never been charged for this crime. His DNA didn't match. And Boulder police said he was investigated and cleared of this crime, at least. I mean, he's obviously a disturbed person who belongs in prison because of his other offenses, but he was cleared of this case. This one for me, you know, a lot of compelling stuff. Again, we could argue over should these photos have been available online? And I wouldn't argue with you. I agree with you. But again, we're given a short version of it, but I'm sure there was a series of information and evidence that was exculpatory in nature and basically definitively ruled him out as a suspect. And that's why police were so confident in saying that he was not the killer. And again, exculpatory evidence, quick definition of that, basically evidence that proves that you weren't responsible for a crime, just like some evidence can prove you weren't responsible for it. So exculpatory is good if you don't want to be convicted of a crime. Yeah. And I mean, obviously these are all suspects, so they've all been cleared for

one reason or the other because nobody's been arrested and charged for this murder. Yep. Absolutely. So next we have John Mark Carr, who to me is one of the most disturbing individuals I've ever heard of. This guy actually was a school teacher for a while. He apparently married teenagers twice, one who was just 13 at the time, and they both claimed they were coerced to marry him, which I completely agree because they were teenagers. He was a school teacher in the United States for a while, and he also worked in Germany for a little while. He was a private tutor and caregiver of three young girls, all who are under the age of 13, that he remembers, you know, giving them baths and getting them ready for bed and

things. He's real creepy. He also was arrested in Thailand after saying that he'd been with John Bonet Ramsey when he died. He basically confessed to police and said that he'd been with John Bonnet Ramsey when he died. He basically confessed to police and said that he'd picked her up from school, drugged her, and had sex with her before accidentally killing her. And he too was arrested for child pornography. John Mark Carr became sort of obsessed with the John Bonnet Ramsey case and another case, the Polly Class case, another little girl who was missing from California. So obviously he was suspicious in the way where people were like, why is he obsessed with this case? And he's definitely a creeper, right? But once again, his DNA didn't match the DNA found at the scene. And nobody could even prove he was in Colorado at the time. And his wife, who he was married to in 1996, she says

she doesn't believe he was because it was Christmas time and they wife, who he was married to in 1996, she says she doesn't believe he was because it was Christmas time and they would have been celebrating Christmas together. Yeah. So there you go. Exculpatory evidence. Literally, you can't be in two places at once as far as I know. So if you're in a certain location with an unbiased witness who says, listen, this individual was with me and I have no reason to lie to you about it because he's confessing, but he's got some issues. That in conjunction with the other factors, the DNA, et cetera, all these things, no connection to the family, they're able to pretty quickly rule them out. I'm glad they investigated. I'm glad they looked into it. But it just goes to show something here too, right?

A confession isn't always concrete. It should be considered and it does raise an eyebrow. But at the end of the day, we live in a sick world now. And these two individuals that we're talking about here clearly need to, I don't know, reconsider their personal decisions, specifically John Carr, but it doesn't mean they had anything to do with JonBenet. And based on what I've read, in addition to what you've said, that appears to be the case. As much as I'd like to find out what happened to JonBenet, it does not appear to be these two individuals. Yeah. And we're not saying that John Mark Carr or Gary Oliver are like these great upstanding

citizens that you want to hire to babysit your kids. But false confessions are so much more common than, than it's even, you know, made publicly available. Like they're so common. I think in the Black Dahlia Elizabeth Short case, which happened so long ago, there was multiple false confessions, like something like 30. I mean, this is a number off the top of my head, but tons of people were calling into the LAPD and confessing to this murder and why they do it. I don't know. I don't want to get it. There's multiple reasons. I don't want to get in the heads of these people because I think it's absolutely crazy. And you're taking away resources and time from the police department who could be actually, you know, looking for the real person. I think it's disgusting and

it is illegal to do like you're, you're not allowed to do that, but it's very common. It's a tale as old as time. Unfortunately, these people are sick. And, uh, yeah, I do think Gary and John Mark Carr are sick men who should probably stay behind bars. Next, we're going to talk about Bill McReynolds and he's a very popular, uh, suspect in this case because he, he played Santa Claus. He was kind of friends with the Ramseys, actually. He was well known to them. And he was the big jolly guy. He had a white beard. He looked like Santa 365. Okay, it wasn't just Christmas and he put on a fake beard. He was Santa all year round. And he was actually hired by Patsy to play Santa Claus at the Ramseys Christmas party in both

1995 and 1996. And he was actually at the Ramsey home on, I think it was December 24th, Christmas Eve when they had their Christmas party. And at this time, Jean Benet, who was familiar with him, knew him as Santa, you know, didn't know him as Bill, thought he was legitimately Santa that came to her house at Christmas time. She took him on a personal tour of her house, including her bedroom. So if you're talking about somebody who's been in the Ramsey house, if you're talking about somebody who would know the layout, if you're talking about somebody who would know where JonBenet's room was located and wouldn't have to wander about a lot to find it, that's your guy. He also seemed to have a special place in his heart for her. She gave him a vial of stardust or, you know, it wasn't

stardust, it was glitter, but she gave him a vial of it the previous Christmas. And he just pretty much like carried around with him. And when she died, he wanted to talk to the media a lot and told them about the stardust. And he said, you know, he brought it with him for good luck when he had surgery and her murder was harder on him than his operation. She made a profound change in me. I felt very close to that little girl. I don't really have other children that I have this special relationship with, not even my own children or my grandchildren. When I die, I'm going to be cremated. I've asked my wife to mix the stardust Jean Benet gave me with my ashes. We're going to go out behind the cabin here and have it blow away in the wind. So it's weird. I think it's safe to say for an older man who's

not related to this child to be so intimate with her. And when I mean intimate, I don't necessarily even mean physically. I mean, like just mentally intimate with her. Like I'm so close to her, closer than my own children and grandchildren. I'm going to be cremated and then have her stardust mixed in with my ashes. He's going hard there. There was something else because it wasn't just Bill that seemed suspicious to police. It was his wife, Janet. And apparently on December 26, 1974, Bill and Janet's nine-year-old daughter had been kidnapped along with her friend.

And this daughter had witnessed her friend's sexual abuse. And this happened 22 years to the day before JonBenet was murdered. And Janet had also written a play. And this play was about a little girl who was molested and murdered in her own basement. The play was called a little girl who was molested and murdered in her own basement. The play was called Hey, Rube. And it wasn't as if she was inspired by what happened to Jean Benet. It was actually written 20 years before Jean Benet Ramsey was killed. Now, Bill and his wife were named as one of the suspects or one of the five potential

suspects in the Ramsey's book. And John Ramsey did mention Bill in his police interview being like, well, if somebody's kind of like sketchy, you know, Santa Bill is. And we have to remember, you know, he had been at their house for the party. He could have had access to the notepad, the pen. He could have had access to the paintbrush. He could have gotten all of these things previous, knowing what he was going to do. And apparently he'd told Jean Benet at the Christmas party, you know, Santa's going to

pay you a special visit after Christmas. Like Santa's got a special gift for you that's coming after Christmas. And obviously she was killed on December 26th, which is technically after Christmas. Oh, actually he'd given her a card with a message saying you will receive a special gift after Christmas. And that card was found in her garbage can. So kind of odd. What do you think about that? Have you seen pictures of this gentleman? Yeah. He looks so jolly. He looks creepy. I would not let my kids sit on this man's lap. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to make light of that. I'm sorry, Bill. Yeah, you're not doing it for me. But you laid it out perfectly as far as the reasons that he would be implicated in addition to John implicating him or suggesting

that he could be possibly involved. And then some of the really odd things, um, that you laid out as far as his own daughter and then her Janet writing the script 20 years earlier, uh, you could definitely see why he would be considered someone of interest, which he clearly was. Um, but you know, at the end of the day, the facts don't change and his DNA did not match the DNA that was found. You would think that the hair in his beard would be all over the crime scene. It was not. No hair from Bill's beard was found at the crime scene. And here's the reality of it. And you can look at these pictures of him for yourself.

I don't know how. We don't even know if there was an intruder. But if there was, how they entered the house. Again, it's believed they may have entered through the basement window. This man does not look like the type of individual who would be able to get in and out of that window without severely hurting himself, honestly. I mean that as no insult or to make light of the situation. Personally, I think if he had attempted to do that, they would have found Bill stuck in the window the next morning. Personally, I was thinking like, yeah, Lou Smith, like small, wiry Lou Smith could slip in there. But Bill McReynolds is going to get stuck in that window.

There's there's no way Bill would have been coming through the front door if he had came in and and honestly i think he would have not been able to handle the situation with john bonnet you know and and restrain her and do the things he would have to do he just looked like he looked like a frail man uh again i've never met him but he doesn't look like he's in the best condition and would have been able to carry this out and with a level of the stealth that would have taken place to not be apprehended or at least detected in the house. He had, he had heart surgery, so he had a heart problem. And they, they said after the police, they were like, you know, Bill's old. He had health issues, including a heart problem. It would have been physically taxing to do what he, what he had to do for a man in his condition. And police didn't believe

that he would have the strength for it. Yeah. And again, so that is an opinion, but you take into consideration the DNA, the lack of hair follicles left behind by Bill, all these other situations. And then more importantly, we're just giving the quick bullet points here, but I'm sure they went to his house. I'm sure they checked with neighbors to see if, you know, did you see anybody lights in at the house that night? Did you see him leave at all? You know, neighbors of JonBenet's area, did you see any suspicious vehicles? All this extra stuff. And ultimately the police felt comfortable stating that he wasn't involved. And the one final thing I'll say about it is John has mentioned him numerous times, but John has also mentioned other individuals, most of which we discussed. And you're actually going to mention one more in about a second. So yes, he was mentioned, but it wasn't like this person was more higher on the radar for John than any, than the other people. The reality is if, if, if the Ramseys had nothing to do with her death, they, they don't

really know who did it. And that's why they were throwing out multiple names. Yeah. And I know that Bill's wife, Janet, the fact that she wrote this really creepy script 20 years prior seems suspicious. I mean, the similarities are obviously very coincidental. But it turns out Janet was actually a film buff. And she wrote this play hey rube based on the actual case of a little girl from indianapolis so it actually happened she was

inspired by a case it just wasn't john bonet's case and you know it was no like prophecy or you know her just writing out her internal wishes it was based on a case of a little girl that this had happened to in Indianapolis. And they both supplied handwriting samples. They didn't match, like I said, neither of their DNA match. So they were cleared. Yeah. I'm glad you brought that up because if you just hit the bullet points, you could say, oh man, this is a strong suspect.

But when you put it in context with the other things that discredit the idea that they did it, in addition to something so trivial, like you just said about Janet, you can easily leave that out and make it look more suspicious than it is, but there's clearly a justification for it that the, you know, investigators who were directly involved with the case found sufficient. Yeah. Now, Michael Helgoth is actually, I guess if I was looking and saying, you know, the DNA, because the DNA is what's ruling everybody out here, right? The DNA has ruled's ruling everybody out here. The DNA has ruled the Ramseys out. The DNA has ruled all these suspects out. And you kind of start wondering, like, this DNA was tested in 1996. Things have really advanced since then as far as technology.

So maybe we should redo it because this is, you know, ruling everyone out. But Michael Helgoth was the person I would probably wonder the most if he was involved. And he happened to be a 26-year-old electrician, and he worked at a nearby auto salvage yard. He also lived just a couple miles away from the Ramseys. And he was familiar with the Ramseys due to some property dispute, which I can't find clarified anyway or anywhere. Like, what was it a property dispute about? Who was it with? John or Patsy, you know, et cetera. But there was some sort of property dispute. And this man actually committed suicide just one day after the district attorney, Alex Hunter, did his very popular

announcement where he was like, we're narrowing down the suspects and soon the only person that's going to be left is you. He was found dead. And next to his body, there was a stun gun found. CNN also reported that Michael Helgoth owned a hat that had the initials SBTC on it. And that's crazy. He also had a pair of boots that had the high-tech logo on the bottom of them. And there's a lot to do with him because it was the Ramsey's private investigator, I think, who first brought this man to law enforcement's attention. But there was another woman, her name's Bernice Johnson. She was at the Denver Correctional Facility. She was in her 60s at this time. And she said that she believed the father of her child, and believe. I think it's Jack Kennedy. But he says he saw the two of them together before, and so he knows that they were related to each other.

And then right after the murder, apparently Helgoth changed his appearance. He had longer blonde hair, and he shaved his head so that he wouldn't be recognized. And in November, he was reported telling this man who, I forget his name, it's Jack or John Kennedy, and I remembered because it is- John Kennedy, and by the way, he's also, according to what I found, a convicted sex offender himself. True. So John Kennedy says that in November, Helgoth told him, you know, me and my partner are going to make $50,000 to $60,000 each on this job. And then after the murder, Kennedy asked him, you know, like, how did it go? And he was like, oh, it fell through.

But if you're thinking, you know, $50,000 to $60,000 each for this job, that's about the amount that this ransom note was requesting. And John Kennedy said that he'd also mentioned, Michael Helgoth had also mentioned to him, you know, I'd like to know what it would be like to crack a human skull. So, but this is all, once again, just secondhand information. Yeah, I saw a lot. There was a lot on it. Kennedy, as you said it, I think that's the way you pronounce it. It looks like Kennedy, but it's not. He also made a lot of allegations. He said that, you know, Helgoth owned a flashlight that, you know, it was like his prized possession. But after the crime, the flashlight suddenly disappeared. And again, you know, as an investigator, you got to consider the source. And this guy, Kennedy, had a lengthy record.

And by the way, I got to say, every time I say Kennedy, I feel like I'm impersonating Forrest Gump and it embarrasses me. But I just had to put that out there because every time I say Kennedy, I feel like I'm impersonating Forrest Gump and it embarrasses me, but I just had to put that out there because every time I say it, I cringe. Well, the only reason I remembered that his first name was John or Jack is because the last name reminded me of Kennedy. So I was thinking John and Jack Kennedy. And so that's how I remember because I didn't have his name written down. But yeah, it's Kennedy, but it starts with a K. I mean, the fact that there was a property dispute with the Ramseys, that's like public record, right? The fact that he lived not far, that's public record. But all this other stuff is pretty much just secondhand information.

And it turned out that the police did get these boots, these high-tech boots, and they said they weren't the right size. They weren't the ones that made the imprint on the Ramsey's basement floor. And I mean, this is Colorado. So these are hiking boots, lots of people on Colorado hikes. So this isn't going to be an uncommon thing for many households to have. Also though, his DNA doesn't match, right? And the stun gun they did find near his body also didn't match the marks found on John Bonnet's neck. So if you just look at everything in a bubble or in an echo chamber, you're like, oh man, this is the dude. But if you look at where the information is coming from, like you said, consider the source, who is also a

pedophile himself. And if you look at the fact that there's absolutely no, like, did they check his bank accounts to see if he, you know, had gotten money? I mean, he wouldn't have gotten money, but if he was telling this dude that he had a big job and he's going to get 50 or $60,000, was there any sign of any money going into his account? Things like that. They, they cleared him. So he's been cleared and, and he's not considered to be, you know, the person who did this. Yeah. And it really brings up an interesting, uh, interesting aspect of investigations. That's it's really, uh, it's a blessing and a curse, but it's, it can definitely be disheartening because in cases like this, where you really want to solve the crime, it can't be close to matching as far as evidence, it has to be an exact match. And then just to sum it up

really quick, like if I'm looking for a guy in a,bok hoodie size large in this specific area that in the color red, and I go there and I find a Reebok hoodie on this guy, same size, same area, all these things, but it happens to be orange. Just because it's close doesn't mean it works. It has to be exact. And there's a lot of times as I'm investigating something that happened to me numerous times in cases that simple as a larceny, where you get really close and you think you're on the right track and everything lines up and then you get to the next layer that has to match up and it doesn't. And you go back to square one. It's the way it goes. So all these cases, all these people we're talking about here, there are elements of their criminal profile, if you want to call it that, that fit the profile

of the person that may have committed this crime. But when you really dive into that next layer, they just don't line up. And the examples of that is the taser. Oh, there was a taser. But then when you go to that next layer, the taser doesn't match the prong marks on her body. So guess what? Doesn't work. And that appears to be the case with most of these guys. They have elements that fit, but just like a puzzle, they all got to fit.

So, you know, you got to keep moving on. You got to keep trying and you got to keep exploring different opportunities and different options as possible suspects until hopefully one day we know who's actually responsible. The one other thing I want to say, Stephanie, we don't have to dive into it because too much, but you brought it up two minutes ago. They did also look at all of John Ramsey's colleagues and employees because of the amount mentioned in the ransom note. That was something where they really spent a lot of time looking at potential suspects within his own organization because not many people knew that exact amount of that bonus structure.

So we're just hitting on a few of them, but there were probably hundreds, if not thousands of potential suspects that they looked at, even if it was only from a surface level that they looked at for this case. And regardless of what you think about the Boulder PD or how they conducted their investigation and make no mistake about it, their, their hearts in the right place. They want to catch the bad guy. Uh, doesn't mean they did it the right way, but we, we only hit the surface as far as how many people were looked at for this case. We just tried to hit some more of the prominent ones, but if we wanted to, we could probably spend, like you said, 12 episodes just covering potential suspects. Yeah. And I mean, John Ramsey said in a podcast, I forget what the podcast was called. Oh,

the killing of Jean Benet, the final suspects. So this was about a year ago. And the producer claimed that John Ramsey told him that he believed Jean Benet was killed because of him. Like he believed she was targeted because of what he did for work. So why he believed that he may know something that the rest of us don't. He's he might have some like intel or inside information on certain like military deals. But he did sell his company to Lockheed Martin, which does have government contracts, which does have military contracts, things like that. So it could be a small foreign faction. We don't know. Absolutely. And we may never know.

That's the sad reality. But I think we hit on most of the main suspects. Why don't we keep going now that we've talked about these suspects? Let's talk about what had happened after the initial investigation, the first couple of years, and what happened over the next few years to where we are today. Okay. But I do want to talk a little bit about the grand jury in 1999. Now, it was the district attorney at the time, Alex Hunter, I believe, who decided to put the Ramseys in front of a grand jury. And I remember reading something where at the time the Ramseys lawyers told them, you know, you should expect to be indicted. But then they went to the grand jury and everything was kind of kept private after that. So they don't tell you the

results of the grand jury. And then the Ramsey's, you know, they didn't get charged or anything. They didn't go to jail. Nothing happened. So I think everybody assumed that the grand jury had voted to not indict. But then I think it was in 2013. So remember, this grand jury happens in 1999. And then in 2013, previously sealed court documents were released. And it showed that a Colorado grand jury voted in 1999 to indict the parents of JonBenet Ramsey. And they were indicting these parents or they had voted to indict parents on charges of child abuse resulting in death and being accessories to a crime. And I remember when I because I remember talking to you one day, I think it was last week. And

you were like, yeah, I mean, they were indicted. They were indicted for No, you said they were not indicted. That was probably for a reason. The jury probably looked at the evidence and said, there's not enough here to indict. And I was like, yeah, that's actually really showing in their favor. And then I was doing more research and I came upon the CNN article about these previously sealed court documents. And it says that the jury voted to indict them. And I called you and I was like, did you know this? And you were like, no, that can't be. And I said, yeah, it is. Because what happened is the jury decided to indict, but then it was Alex Hunter, the district attorney, who declined to bring charges against John and Patsy Ramsey. And according to you got to remember, you just said at the top of what you were just laying out, Alex Hunter was the one who brought convened the grand jury in the first place.

So he's basically saying, hey, this is what we have. I feel like this is probably going to be the extent of what we get. Let's put it in front of a jury of their peers and see if there's enough to indict. And, you know, if there is, then, you know, we'll bring it to a trial. So why convene that grand jury if you've already made up your mind? He had already seen all the evidence at that point. What would be the purpose behind going through a grand jury trial just to overrule what the outcome was? And in this case wanted to catch up and you can actually go and watch and everyone listening can do this. You can go see the video footage of the actual press conference where Alex Hunter comes out, you know, he's at the podium and it's misleading how he says it because he just says there will be no charges pursued against John and Patsy. He doesn't say that they were indicted and that he's the one deciding not to do it or him and his team are the

ones deciding not to do it. So I think that's where the misconception comes from. And to your point, just to show what was expected, I watched an interview with John Ramsey where he himself said that they had already had a friend watching Burke or family member watching Burke and they were anticipating them going down to be booked or to be brought into court or talked to about this because of what was going to happen. They were planning on having to go deal with this after the announcement that they were, in fact, going to be indicted. So John himself was very surprised with what Alex Hunter had to say that day. Well, I don't know if you said why would he put together this case and put them in front of the grand jury if he was just not going to pursue charges. And I don't know if it was a

rhetorical question, but I think I have what I believe to be an answer. And there was an incredible amount of public pressure. There was an incredible amount of pressure. There was an incredible amount of pressure, not only from the public, but from the Boulder Police Department. So I think a lot of it was probably for show, like, okay, let me just do this, shut people up. I don't think Alex Hunter thought that the grand jury would vote to indict. And then when they did, he was like, well, my back's to a wall. Like, I didn't want to prosecute these people. The grand jury voted. I have the power to veto this essentially but it's not going to make me look great but that's what that's what i have to do or that's what i feel uh that i have to do and so am i right in in assuming that when this happens at the grand

jury alex hunter would have been the one to have presented the case to the grand jury yeah he and his team right because they're the ones that would ultimately prosecute it as well. So they're basically putting on a mini trial. It's what it is. But I say mini trial, it's not to minimize what it is. It's a presentation of all the critical evidence that would be used at trial. So it's basically the entire case. And I think you bring up some good points. We'll never know the truth, but it has been highly speculated that the DA's office, including Lou Smith, who was working as an investigator and the Boulder PD were not on the same page. To your point, they were under the impression it was an intruder and that when they presented it to a grand jury, they would ultimately feel the same way. And that would be the end of that conversation, right? Because then the DA could turn around and

say, hey, Boulder PD, we understand that you think the Ramseys did it, but we brought it to a grand jury and they don't agree. So you can let it go now because we can't pursue something if they're not indicted. But as you just said, that's not what happened. And so at that point, Alex Hunter had to show his cards. And I don't want to put the blame right on Alex Hunter because he has a team of people, a team of lawyers that are working this case as well. And it was a collective decision that was made. It always is. And I can tell you, it happens more than you think. Not this, where a DA turns around and basically goes in the opposite direction of the grand jury results, but just in general, where the DA's office or the attorney general's office do not agree with the detectives in the cases.

But I think it was also because you said the Boulder police believed that it was the Ramseys and the DA's office believed it was this intruder theory. Overall, it's a mess. It really is a mess. The fact that they're supposed to be working as a team. They clearly were not. It was messy. It's why there was a lot of resignations. It's why a lot of things were leaked to the press. And it's ultimately why this case has never been solved. Just really shoddy police work at certain stages and maybe not the highest level of professionalism on the part of the DA's office. I don't want to go too far down this path because it's kind of getting off what we're talking about right now. But the DA's office hired Lou Smith and they hired him to conduct his own

investigation in addition to what Boulder PD was doing. So right there in and of itself, you know that the DA's office didn't have confidence in the Boulder PD's investigation. They hired outside investigators to work it. And as far as Lou Smith's concerned, I think he was a good guy. I think he did a great job. But, you know, there's a point in the, you know, right in the documentary with him where within like the first week of him starting his investigation for this case, he made it a point to go by the Ramsey home every morning in his truck or his van and pray for a couple of minutes before starting his day. And John Ramsey himself admitted, and Lou Smit actually in his recordings, that one morning Lou Smit was out in his van getting ready to pray in front of the Ramsey house. And John and I believe his wife, Patsy, came out to

the van, introduced themselves and got in the van and prayed with him for a few minutes. It was honestly, personally, I love to hear it. It was an emotional moment. But again, as an investigator, you're starting a case with potential suspects in your van and you're praying with them. You're tainted. You're emotionally tainted. So this is the lead investigator for the DA's office. So you can see how this whole thing was a mess and there was a lot of missteps. And ultimately, that's why we are where we are today. So after this indictment or lack of an indictment came out, police chief Tom Kobe, who had previously confidently said, you know, our man won't walk, he resigned. And then Detective Steve Thomas, one of the original investigators, alleged that the prosecutor's

office had thoroughly compromised the probe, which I assume the probe in this case is the investigation. Yeah. Yep. Sergeant Larry Mason filed a lawsuit after being removed from the investigation because of suspicions that he had leaked information to reporters. And I'm not saying whether he did or didn't. There was information leaked from the Boulder police to reporters and to the public. That's something that's pretty undisputable at this point. We just don't know exactly who it was. And then Detective Linda Arndt, who was severely criticized in the aftermath, pretty much like all the blame went on her. And, you know, they said And she alleged that they had violated her rights to free speech by preventing her from speaking out. She also appeared on Good Morning America. And I think that's the interview that we were talking about before. And she said she knows who the killer is,

but the person who killed Jean Benet will not see justice as we would like to see. So this was all in the aftermath of the grand jury indictment and then you know alex hunter not actually bringing these charges so what does that say to you that does it say to you that the boulder police legitimately believed the ramses were responsible and were completely pissed off that that hunter had passed up the chance or does it does it maybe suggest to you that they had this tunnel vision and they didn't want to look stupid when it didn't, when it didn't pan out. I think it depends on where you, where you land on this, right? Like if you're from the Boulder PD side and again, we're in front, you know, I don't want to speculate, but it's highly inferred by some of the interviews that have been given since this

investigation by Linda Arndt, some of the other ones as well, that they believe they have identified the individual or individuals responsible for John Bonet's death. They don't think it's a mystery. They think they figured it out. They believe they had enough to pursue charges. Apparently a grand jury agreed. And even in spite of all of that, Alex Hunter decided not to. So if you're the DA's office and you're from their perspective, they feel that although there is elements of this case that are suggestive, the Ramseys were somehow involved, they feel there's too much evidence that says they're not involved. And they have a responsibility

and an ethical responsibility at that to only pursue charges if they reasonably believe they can get a guilty conviction. So if they feel believe they can get a guilty conviction. So if they feel that they can't get a conviction at trial, they have an ethical responsibility not to pursue it. And ultimately, I don't think they felt like they had enough. And that's the decision they made. But they weren't indicted for murder, right? So the grand jury alleged that Patsy Ramsey would be, they wanted her to be indicted for, well, here, I'll actually read it verbatim. The grand jury had alleged that Patricia Powell Ramsey, who died from ovarian cancer in 2006, and husband John Bennett Ramsey did permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of Jean-Bernie Ramsey. They also alleged, the grand jury, that each parent, quote, did render assistance to a

person with intent to hinder, delay, and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death. So technically they're not saying we think you killed her. I think what they're saying is we think your actions or inactions directly led or indirectly led to her death and that you helped whoever did it by either assisting or covering it up afterwards. Exactly right. Yeah, that's my interpretation as well. And I believe the Ramsey's attorney had something to say about the release of the indictments as well, right? Yeah. Lin Wood, he said that they were nonsensical. The released indictments were nonsensical. And he said, quote, they reveal nothing about the evidence reviewed by the grand jury and are clearly the result of a confused and compromised process. The Ramsey family and

the public are entitled to the benefit of the full and complete record, not just a historical footnote. Fairness dictates that result, end quote. And I agree. I think it should all be released. I would really love to have every single piece of evidence and paperwork and document from this case because why shouldn't we have all the information at this point? How many years later, 24 years later, why is some of it still sealed or kept from the public? I think it's because there's still an opportunity to solve this case. So if, for example, I'm not going to say the case, but it's a case that I worked and there was something found on the body. It was an extension cord, but it was a very specific extension cord that wasn't supposed to be in the area where this person was found. It was definitely brought there with the victim. And nobody to this day knows about this extension cord or how it was tied around the victim. It was never released by investigators or myself.

And yet, if the public knew about that, we could have someone come forward and say, you know what? I want to confess. I killed this individual. And now that they know about this extension cord, they could give the details of it. And so that their statement becomes unverifiable. However, if we're the only people internally that know about that extension cord and someone comes out publicly and says, listen, I killed so-and-so, well, so-and-so, you have to tell us how you killed her or him. And you have to also explain

what you did to do it. Well, I use a yellow extension cord. It was from Home Depot. It was exactly a hundred feet. Things that nobody knows, guess what? That person just gained a lot of credibility as far as their statement. So the only way to have that edge and to be able to verify if this person's credible or not is to have pieces of this case has been released and enough has leaked that I don't know what anybody could really prove. I mean, I'm sure there's something. But then I'd have to question why the Black Dahlia Elizabeth Shorts files are still locked up at the LAPD and nobody can see them. Because there's no chance that somebody is going to come forward and confess to that crime now. It happened how many years ago? Everybody's dead from that time, essentially. So it does also feel almost like a secretive sort of thing. And I don't like

that because I've tried to use freedom of information requests often. And 50% of the time, I'm either given the runaround or just completely shut down. And I think that there's a little bit of something unethical there because they're really supposed to give them over if the case is not considered to be active and open. Yeah. You and I talked about this and we could debate it. I don't completely agree with you. And again, that's probably because I'm on the other side of it. But if it was my family member, I would 100% be on your side. So that's where the dilemma is for me because I 100% understand where you're coming from. But I also see how if it was my case, and even if I wasn't the original detective, but I'm the new detective on it because of a 40-year-old cold case, and you just give away the only

aces I have, well, you just hindered my ability to find the killer. So I can see both sides to it. You and I, from our phone conversation about this, we'll probably not agree on it, but that's why it's a polarizing topic. And I think that's why a lot of people talk about it. It's not just you that feels that way. There's a lot of people that feel that way. So, you know, I don't think any, I don't think we're ever going to have a complete. That there's this huge DNA backlog and, you know, in, in most crime labs, right? So how are we going to solve these cases? Otherwise, when we have these ginormous DNA backlogs and DNA is like you

said, the way to solve these cases these days, if you could get through these backlogs, you could solve a hundred cases just like that. So essentially more than that, more than that. Yeah. So essentially you're telling me like the majority of these cases are at a standstill waiting on that. Yeah. So essentially you're telling me like the majority of these cases are at a standstill waiting on that. And then while that's happening, nothing moves on it. Nothing happens. So it's not going to get solved either way. It's not going to get solved now. And it hasn't been solved 25, 30 years. I think the response would be, it's not going to get solved now, but eventually we will get to it and it will get solved. That's what that's when the suspect is dead. I agree. But, you know, it's not only about finding the killer.

It's about getting a conviction. And I think that's where, like, the process comes in. I'm not saying I agree with it, but a lawyer or a D.A. or someone who is in charge of prosecuting these cases would say, hey, that's great. We just identified Derek as the killer. But we went through all these additional hoops that aren't technically the protocol for doing it. And the defense attorney knows that. So now they're going to bring up all those issues and they're going to get that piece of evidence, that DNA that we just got a hit on finally after 15 years, they're going to get it thrown out now. So now we have no case. Well, I get that. And I mean, I think the legal system is flawed in many ways, but let me play devil's advocate and ask you, you've got somebody, let's say this person

killed John Benet Ramsey and he was an outsider. This person's been walking around doing God knows what else since to God knows who. So isn't it better to maybe identify them even within the confines of the police department so he can be monitored or she can be monitored and watched to make sure that they're not hurting anybody else? Don't you at least want to know so that you're just letting this person walk around doing whatever he or she wants for how many years? And then by the time you match their DNA and the stupid backlog's done, he's already lived his life, maybe assaulted or molested a bunch of more children or killed some women. Well, we had to wait until we had the DNA.

You know, there's, there's a little irresponsibility there. I think when I feel like more can be done on these cold cases, because you've got criminals walking around, just not being brought to justice and also being allowed to hurt other people. I think it's a valid point. I can't, I can't disagree with it. It's, it's one of the negative attributes of having to be ethical and go through a process that's been in place for years that probably needs to be updated. But it's the current system that we have, and it's definitely flawed. I mean, I can tell you that 100%.

So I'm not saying it's perfect. It's far from it. And what you just laid out is a negative aspect of it. You have people who have committed crimes whose DNA is in an evidence locker right now, and yet it's not uploaded. And that person may die before they're ever held accountable for what they've done, which is not right to the victims, but also not right to everyone else who may have experienced something from this person after they committed that initial crime. So I agree with you there. Yeah. I mean, you've probably got rapists walking around like, yeah, I know my DNA is on the victim, but they're not

going to get to that for like another 10, 15 years. So I got time, you know? Yeah. Not right. It's part of why I did my show Breaking Homicide is to try to alleviate some of that pressure because those cases kind of get stuck in a locker room somewhere and never seen again. And the issue is a lot of detectives don't want outside investigators touching their work, you know, for where that's for ego reasons or for, you know, the integrity of the case. It's probably a mixture of both, but it's a real problem. So I'm acknowledging it. And, you know, hopefully as time progresses and we all have, you know, a voice in this, you know, laws change and processes change and we're able to expedite the indictment was, to be fair to the Ramseys, was this case was highly publicized, right? So just like in a lot of other major cases like OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony and Scott Peterson, it's going to be really hard, even if you change your venue, to find a jury that hasn't heard about this, hasn't already formed an opinion about the case before they sit down. Is that fair to say? Yeah, that's fair to say, but that's, that's,

again, it happens a lot. And, uh, it's the prosecutor and the defense's, uh, job to convene a grand jury through their process of interviewing these individuals to find 12 people who are, and listen, there's a lot of them who are not caught up on the case and who may not have been watching their TV the entire time and really don't give a damn about the case itself. Trust me, there are people like that and who are going to be able to be impartial and objective. That's their job to vet the jury members until they find 12 that fit what they're the criteria. Sure. But you have seen instances where a jury member will say, oh, I've never heard of this case because they have heard of it and they're like obsessed

with it and they want to see the person that they perceive to be guilty already because they've watched so much about it they want to see this person um face justice this is this happened i think in scott peterson's case uh if i remember correctly there was one juror who was like i have never heard of this case and um and then it out, you know, afterwards that she had and she had to be removed. But that does happen to be fair. And then you also didn't have the DNA evidence at that point that allegedly exonerated the Ramseys. So the Grand Jury didn't have that DNA evidence at that point. Maybe if they had, their decision would have been different.

And on that DNA point, Lynn Wood, who was the Ramsey's lawyer and still is, I believe, he said in a statement that the grand jury didn't have what was later to be, quote, the conclusive 2008 DNA testing that led to the unequivocal public exoneration of the Ramsey family by the Boulder District Attorney. And we're going to talk about that right now. I actually have the letter from the following district attorney, who I believe was named Mary Lacey. Yeah, Mary Lacey was the district attorney in 2008. And at the time she wrote this letter on July 9th, 2008, Patsy Ramsey had already passed away. So she addressed it to Mr. John Ramsey. And she says, as you are aware, since December 2002, the Boulder District Attorney's Office has been the

agency responsible for the investigation of the homicide of your daughter, Jeanne Benet. I understand that the fact that we have not been able to identify the person who killed her is a great disappointment that is continuing hardship for you and your family. However, significant new evidence has recently been discovered through the application of relatively new methods of DNA analysis. This scientific evidence convinces us that it is appropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife Patsy, and your son Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime. I wish we could have done so before Mrs. Ramsey died. We became aware last summer that some private laboratories were conducting a new methodology described as touch DNA. One method

of sampling for touch DNA is the scraping method. This is a process in which forensic scientists scrape places where there are no stains or other signs of the possible presence of DNA to recover for analysis any genetic material that might nonetheless be present. We contracted with the Bode Technology Group, a highly reputable laboratory recommended to us by several law enforcement agencies to use the scraping method for touch DNA on the Long Johns that Jean Benet wore and that were probably handled by the perpetrator during the course of this crime. The Bode Technology Laboratory was able to develop a profile from DNA recovered from the two sides of the Long Johns. The previously identified profile from the crotch of the underwear worn by Jean Benet at the time of the murder matched the DNA recovered from the Long

Johns at Bode. Unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime is powerful evidence. The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there's no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that Jeanne Benet was wearing at the time of her murder. Solving this crime remains our goal and its ultimate resolution will depend on more than just matching dna however given the history of the publicity surrounding this case i believe it is important and appropriate to provide you with our opinion that your family was not responsible

for this crime based on the dna results and our serious consideration of all of the other evidence we are comfortable that the profile now in codis is the profile of the perpetrator of this murder. So basically, she goes on, she just apologizes. And when she says in the future, they the DA's office intends to treat the Ramseys of victims of this crime with the sympathy due to them because of the horrific loss they suffered. What do you think about this? I think we talked about this a little bit on the phone, but Mary Lacey in this letter uses some terminology that I'm not comfortable with a DA using, such as the Long Johns were probably handled by the perpetrator of the crime. I mean, that's kind of probably, we probably think that they were probably, probably not. We know that they were, but what do you think about that? I respect and appreciate her coming out publicly with this evidence because it is important

to kind of tip the scale, so to speak, because I think at that point, a big part of the population believed the Ramseys had something to do with the death of their daughter. So, you know, based on what had already been released. So I think it's important to, you know, because of what's already been released to show the other side of it as well. Um, I was pretty good with the letter until the last portion, which you kind of paraphrased, which is basically apologizing to them and completely exonerating them from any possibility of remotely being connected to this, because that very well may be the case, but until you have someone in handcuffs and convicted of this crime, I don't think it's wise to do that because now you're putting yourself into a situation where you're not even impartial any longer. Because hypothetically, if information came forward months later, even a year later, and this woman Lacey was still in charge of this case,

do you think as a human being, it would be part of her consideration as far as whether to charge or not that she just came out publicly and cleared these people? And then if something came out to contradict that, how bad it would affect her from a professional level? You don't think that plays into a decision-making process for a human being? So she kind of sets herself up there with no real recourse to back out of it if new information comes forward that changes it. I don't like that. But I think everything short of that was fine. What about the paragraph, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're the detective, but she talks about touch DNA in the third paragraph, this new methodology described as touch DNA,

which now in 2021, that's not a new methodology. But then she says, unexplained DNA on the victim is powerful evidence. The match of male DNA and two separate items of clothing worn by the victim makes it clear to us, like she's saying unequivocally, makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. Isn't touch DNA, can't it be transferred from one article of clothing to another? Isn't that kind of some of the point of touch DNA? Yeah, that's my understanding of it. If I touch a pair of shorts and then my DNA is on those shorts and I rub my shorts up against my underwear, boxers, whatever you want to call them, they

could transfer to it. And I'll also say this, back then the understanding of touch DNA was still fairly new and she was probably speaking out of line because it's like me speaking about it even now. As an investigator, we drop off the evidence to a lab with experts and scientists who know what they're talking about, where their job is to do what they do and then explain it in a way that I can understand it as a detective. So it'd be the same thing of me explaining what touched DNA to that level without really knowing all the answers. So clearly she probably didn't know all the answers in 2008. Yeah, because she says the presence of three sites on these two different types of clothing that she was wearing at the time of her murder. If she was wearing

these two different articles of clothing at the time of her murder, the DNA could have transferred from one article of clothing to another. Um, and, and I, I think that's, that's a little strange to just say, oh, yes, we definitely unequivocally think that because of this, an unknown male handled these. And I think in the, what was it, the CBS documentary, they talked about this a little bit too. And once again, I'm not using it as evidence, but just as an interesting theory, that the DNA could have come from like the person in the factory that made her underwear. So this person in this factory could have made her underwear, his DNA could have gotten on the underwear, and then the DNA from the underwear could have gotten onto her long johns, just as a touch DNA process kind of works. So that is, I mean, that is a plausible theory.

And that would explain too, why this profile went into CODIS and it's never popped up with anything. Because if you think about it, especially in 1996, a lot of like these kinds of types of clothing, like little girl underwear and things was all being made in China and then shipped here. So yeah, if some Chinese factory worker made these underwear, touched the underwear, his DNA transferred to the long johns from the underwear, he's going to be an unknown male because nobody's checking different countries. What do you think about that? I agree. And I'll say that there's technology now. One of the companies I think about is Parabon, where they may not be able to give you a direct match, but they can take a very minimal amount of DNA and tell you what this person would possibly look like, what the color of their eyes would be, what the color of their hair would be, what nationality they are, what their skin complexion might be.

And they can actually create a digital snapshot of what this person might look like today. It's fascinating. So would it come back to someone who would fit the description of one of the potential suspects that would, that would be interesting to me. And if it hasn't been done, what do you have to lose? I love Parabon labs, by the way, I'm a big fan, big fan. And I did look into that technology that you're talking about. Yeah. They can actually show you exactly, they can make a picture, like a composite from the DNA. It's so cool. And you've got DNA now that can, like we were talking about earlier, not link maybe the person, but can

link to male relatives of the person. So you can kind of track down male relatives like they did with the Golden State Killer and kind of track this person down that way. So I definitely would like to see the FBI get more involved and maybe push for it. But like you said, what's the point for them? Where's the benefit for them to do that? Agreed. Yeah. But from an outside perspective, would love to see it. All right. So should we move on now to- Yeah. Our closing and our opinions. Okay. Patsy Ramsey, she died from ovarian cancer at the age of 49 in June of 2006. And she'd actually been battling with ovarian cancer for quite a long time.

I think she actually beat it once and went into remission. And then, you know, at the age of 49, she couldn't beat it, which is very sad. No matter what you think of her. John Ramsey has since remarried in 2011 to a fashion designer named Jan Russo. He says they were drawn to each other because of common interests. He said she was cute and lively, and she told him that she liked The Office. So apparently John Ramsey is a big Office fan, which makes me like him even more because if you don't like The Office, you're insane. But before getting married to Jan, John Ramsey actually dated the

mother of Natalie Holloway in 2007, which I found interesting because Natalie Holloway was a girl who went missing, a teenager who went missing in 2006. And they broke up eventually not long after. And he said, you know, it was because Natalie's mother was behind him in the grief cycle since Natalie had just gone missing the past year and his daughter had been gone for quite some time and he knew what happened to his daughter and she was still kind of like looking for closure and what happened with her daughter. So they dated and then broke up and now he's happily married to a beautiful woman who loves the office. And I will say he is still very much in the public eye. He's,

you know, still consistently doing interviews and doing, we have been talking about it numerous times. He's recently done the investigation discovery documentary. He's not hiding. Say that much right now. He's not hiding. No, and why should he? He has a very, very strong legal team. He has no reason to hide. And he professes to be completely innocent. And and I believe I will 100% say that I don't think John Ramsey had anything to do with what happened to John Benet. I want to talk about Burke really quick. Burke, I, you know, he's just doing his thing. He, he works a lot. He keeps out of the public eye. So

where you said John Ramsey is not, you know, shy about being in the public eye, Burke does not like being in the public eye. Would you agree? Yeah. I haven't seen much of them since the Dr. Phil interview. And that's probably because as you said a few episodes ago, you know, he's just someone who has always kind of kept to himself and you can't blame the guy if he really didn't have anything to do with JonBenet's death. I mean, he knows what people think of him and I would probably choose to stay to myself as well. Yep. And he still denies any involvement in his sister's death. He's never wavered from that. And you know, he's actually grown into quite a handsome young man. He's, he's very good looking. So I just wanted to mention that. I don't know if that

matters, but I was just scrolling past this news article and I saw a picture of him and, you know, he looks very handsome. And I just hope for, you know, everyone's sake, because it's sad to think if he had nothing to do with this. Are we looking at the same picture? The same guy? No, like look at this in touch weekly.com article where it says, you know, where's Mark Ramsey now? he's they got this picture of him and this really beautiful blonde woman um that he that an australian news outlet shared to social media so he was 28 at the time he looks tan his blue eyes are just popping he's handsome okay yeah okay i'll just i'm just gonna say okay by no means am i a leo dicaprio so i'm just going to say, okay, by no means am I a Leo DiCaprio, so I'm just going to shut up.

I'm just going to shut up. It's funny that you use Leo DiCaprio as the ultimate man. I would say- Chris Hemsworth is the ultimate, but Leo's in there. I mean, if we're going old school, it's Brad Pitt all day. Yeah, Chris Hemsworth, my guy. But Brad, you know- It's like the man doesn't age. Brad Pitt.

Yeah, it's true. Well, he did do, what is it, Benjamin Button? He did do Benjamin Button. He's gorgeous. He gets better looking every single year. You, Benjamin Button? He did do Benjamin Button. He's gorgeous. He gets better looking every single year. You know who else gets better looking every single year? Ted Danson. Steffi.

Steffi. Stay focused, Steffi. Anyways, this picture that I'm looking at him with this blonde girl, I feel kind of bad because it kind of makes me feel like maybe this could have been him and JonBenet if she was still alive. And their lives would have been so different. Maybe he would be more outgoing. Maybe he would be more willing to, you know, put himself out there and he'd be sitting there and taking pictures of himself and his sister and he'd be putting them on his own social media, not some Australian news outlet, like sneaking the picture and putting it on their

social media. It's just sad because if the Ramseys weren't responsible, you know, their lives were so affected, I think without, without any end to it. Like John Ramsey said, it's going to be a shadow over their legacy. So I guess let's talk about our final thoughts. You go first. So I could talk about this for another 45 minutes as far as how I feel about it because I'm not dead set on anything. And I'll just put the disclaimer on it. This is not my professional opinion. I would only give that if I had opportunities to look at the evidence directly myself, case files, go out to Colorado, look at the crime scene. This is not my, I'm not working this case. This is just me

giving an opinion like you guys would give an opinion based on what I've heard, based on what I've read, based on what I've seen. So this is my thought on it. I understand where people are coming from as far as could this have been an accident and a family that decided instead of losing two children, they were going to just try to save one. And I've seen the CBS documentary and again, I'm friends and colleagues with people who worked on that show and I respect their opinion. And in fairness to them, they have had access to a lot more information than I'll ever have. Did they have access to more information? I mean, they were in Colorado, and they were meeting with people.

And again, they had recruited some of the top experts in their fields to work that case with them, Jim Fitzgerald and Henry Lee. We're just talking about this here. So not being able to consult with them and talk to them directly, again, they had more of a hands-on approach than we have. And I respect how good they are at what they do as well. So that being said, I'm going off what I've read and like I said, what I've had a chance to absorb.

And here's my opinion on it. I don't believe that this was a situation where Patsy or John got upset with JonBenet over anything. I don't care what it is. And they abused her to the point where they accidentally killed her. This doesn't appear to be a situation where these kids were being consistently physically abused As a form of punishment, I don't see it. I don't see it when I see the videos of these kids I don't see it when I see the interviews afterwards I don't see it in patsy and john either So that's out for me

So then it leaves you with this theory that burke Got upset and accidentally or maybe even intentionally, I don't know, killed his sister. And Patsy and John, or even one of them, made a decision that they had to turn this into a situation that would completely clear Burke of any wrongdoing and lead police down a different path. So if you're to believe that, you have to believe that Burke got upset, possibly struck JonBenet with some object that fractured her skull. The Ramseys come down, they see what he's done, and they make this decision. And if you're to believe that, you have to believe when you look at Jon Ramsey or you look at Patsy Ramsey, that they not only covered it up for their son, but they proceeded to bring their daughter

down to a basement, strangle her, sexually assault her with a paintbrush, tie her up, put tape on her mouth, and leave her there in that condition. I'm not talking about the ransom note. I'm not talking about any of it because I can't explain the ransom note. I just can't. It doesn't make sense to me, the ransom note, either way. But I don't believe when I look at them that they were capable of doing that. And I don't even see the point of it. If you were going to cover it up and make it look like it was just a kidnapping that went wrong, you put tape on her body, you maybe put a rope or two on her wrist and you leave her downstairs. All this extra stuff that was done to her that has been scientifically proven in conjunction with the unknown male DNA found on her body, in conjunction with the unknown male DNA found on

her body, in conjunction with the screaming that was heard, all these different variables that we've heard about over these last four episodes, in my opinion, are very strong when you consider the possibility that an intruder carried out this act. It's very possible that an intruder was in that house for a short period of time and was able to see that he had recently got a bonus. Investigators have said there was information right on his desk that showed that he had recently received that $118,000. So it wouldn't be too far of a stretch for a kidnapper to go in there and see that that's the money he had just gotten and write that in a note. Is it crazy to think that the kidnapper might have been in there sitting there for 20 something minutes writing this note? Yep, absolutely. But it's also crazy to think that anybody would do this to a child in the first place. So clearly the person that we may be

talking about is not someone of a strong mental stability. So in my opinion, I believe I'm slightly leaning towards the possibility that this was in fact an intruder and that the Ramseys are innocent. And that if we had conducted this case now and had a experienced, prepared team of investigators, the evidence would have been better collected, better preserved. There would have been no leaks. Procedures would have been followed more appropriately. And the evidence that we do have would be more usable in a court of law or to ultimately lead to the person who committed this crime. I'll my final thought on this is I am definitely leaning towards the intruder theory. And I say that because of what was done to JonBenet that we can ultimately say with 100% certainty that it happened because of the autopsy report. I cannot envision a world where one or both of the parents proceeded to do what they proceeded to do to JonBenet in that basement for the sake of protecting their other child.

I can't see it. And that's where I land. Okay. So I went back and forth. And you did too. I did. Over the past couple of weeks. I have to be completely honest and say when I made my YouTube video on this, I 100% thought someone in the Ramsey household had done

this. When I started my research for the podcast, I 100% still thought that someone in the Ramsey household had done this. And I was so concrete on that belief that I didn't think there was any moving me. So the fact that I moved or budged it all away from that says a lot, says a lot. I want to start by saying that I think the mishandling of the crime scene by the Boulder police, whether it was intentional or unintentional or just due to a lack of experience, to me, that's something that's going to completely cripple this entire case because I can't trust any of the evidence, honestly, that came out of that house due to that. It should have been sealed off. There should have been people in there wearing, you know, those little booties and gloves from

the second they walked in. I know that they didn't think they were dealing with a murder right away, but I mean, I think as a police officer, you need to go into a scene thinking that anything could happen. Handle it as if it was a murder because maybe it could be. So come in right off the bat, like, like you're going to be dealing with the worst thing ever. Protect the scene, protect yourself so that your DNA is not getting all over. And then to let like, what did you say, 18 people, like a bunch of people, traipse in and out of there, that could be an issue too with touch DNA. And now looking back at it, yeah, in 1996, they didn't really know much about touch DNA. So the police may have not even known that was a possibility.

But any one of those people could have brought DNA in on their shoes from like the grocery store or from their own house, anything. And she was placed in one of the most high traffic areas of the house right by the front, you know, front entrance hall where people walk through with their shoes on when they come in. So I can't trust any of the DNA that comes out of, I mean, I can't trust any of the evidence that comes out of this crime scene. And I also think that the DNA profile could be incorrect. Like John Jr. said, John Andrew, this DNA was tested in 1996 and it really hasn't been retested since and better technology has come along. So it could be just a completely inaccurate profile, we could be looking for a person that doesn't exist. Like I said, I think within for, you know, the first five minutes of the first,

the first episode or the first part of this, if that ransom note wasn't there, I would be more apt to believe in the intruder theory. So I'm all on board the intruder theory if the ransom note doesn't exist, but it does exist. And I have to, I have to remember that it's, it just seems so stupid. I cannot get past that ransom note. I really, I just really can't, but I do agree with you the treatment of her body afterwards. If this was staged as a human being, not even as a parent, but as a human being. And there's nothing to suggest that John or Patsy Ramsey were violent people or mentally unstable people or had psychological problems. John had children before. There was never reports

of abuse there. I cannot believe that you could do that to your daughter's body. I cannot believe that an adult who has a heart and a soul and just a normal brain could do that to a child. So that is kind of like the ransom letter for me when it comes to the Ramseys. So when it comes to the intruder theory, I'm like, yeah, except for the ransom letter. And when it comes to the Ramseys, I'm like, yeah, except for the way that she was handled after. I can't see anybody doing that. And as we talked about, I can't see nine-year-old Burke fashioning this garret and going all out like this with his baby sister. And then you said something in your breakdown where you said the scream that was heard. And I just want to counter that and say the scream that was allegedly heard, because we also discussed this off camera where this neighbor told the police afterwards, oh, I heard a child scream.

But sometimes people just do this in cases and crimes. They'll report things, you know, false things to just somehow insert themselves. We don't know who this neighbor was. We don't know what kind of person he or she was. Maybe they're this like lonely person that just sits in their house all day waiting for something to happen to them. And they saw a chance to bring some excitement to their life, even if it just meant a visit from a couple of detectives. It could be that there was no scream ever at all. And that's the thing with a lot of these cases, in this case especially, there's all this alleged, well, we heard that Burke hit Jean Benet in the face with the golf club. We heard that there was a scream that night. All of this stuff could just be irrelevant because it never happened. And it's all hearsay. But lastly, I would like to say that if it was an intruder and it very well could have been,

Jean Benet would have been a prime target for, for a person who was a pedophile or had pedophilic tendencies. She was very much a public figure in Boulder. She was like this little mini celebrity. She was well known as little beauty pageant. And these beauty pageants, they're done publicly. So people can go and buy tickets, sit in the audience. Nobody's giving background checks to these people before they're sitting in the audience. I would be interested to see if there was the same person who had continually showed up to her pageants to watch. I don't know if the police ever looked into that, but if you have this one person, one man or even woman, who went to

every single one of her pageants, that would be suspicious to me because how much of a fan can you be of children's beauty pageants to the point where you're there at every single one that she's in. And I also heard that Janthanae took dance classes a few times a week and she took them in this building and the dance studio kind of had a wall of windows. So you could basically be a passerby and you could look in at these little girls doing their routines and dancing and practicing and anybody on the street could just stop and watch or see them as they were passing by. She was very much a parent to everybody. You know, everyone knew her. And if there was somebody out there who was mentally disturbed and a pedophile, she would have been somebody that they could have easily latched onto because she was so visible. So to me, I can't say one way or the other what I believe. I think both are possible. And that's not to say that I feel like anybody

should go after John Ramsey or Burke Ramsey because at this point, everybody is obviously innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But due to the evidence we have, not all of it looks great. Them trying to get a private plane out, you know, within an hour, half an hour after finding out that Jean Bonnet died. Can it be explained away? Sure. But is it something that typically people would do? Probably not. A lot of the stuff that happened is crazy. And that

ransom letter, I cannot forget about it. And I can't exclude it as something that will always be a linchpin for me that prevents me from moving on and saying it was an intruder all day conclusively. So that's pretty much where I'm at. And I think you're right in thinking that. I think that's where a lot of people lie. And I think that's why we're still talking about this case and there's still specials on it all the time because the reality is this case will more than likely never be solved. And not only- John Ramsey says he thinks it's going to be solved. He just said that last week. He said, maybe not in my lifetime, but I think it will be. I don't think so. And I'll tell you why, because we talk about evidence a lot and the way the evidence was obtained and how it was tainted and how it was released. I think that it may be solved in the

eyes of public opinion. They may have someone who comes out, but to get a successful prosecution, which is what I consider a solve, I don't know if we're ever going to get there because of how many issues we've had with the investigation itself. But I want to say this because I'm not trying to sway anyone and Stephanie makes some great points. That's why I love having these conversations with her. But when I was looking at the intruder theory and I was looking at the inside job, family theory, she brought up some points where she couldn't get there. And I just want to leave you guys with this list. I'm not going to dive into it. If you want to go back to it, go back to our

other episodes. But here were the things for me that I had written down that, you know, if you have one of these things, you can call it a red herring or an outlier, right? Like if everything else fits and you just have one of these elements, you could say, it's an outlier. It's a red herring, dude. Don't, don't go too deep on it. That's what I would do as an investigator, but just hear me out. And you guys take this how you will will because i'm sure you could probably counteract it I'm sure stephanie could counteract it Unknown male dna on the long johns and on the underwear. That's a problem. Okay the

Two dots on her neck and on her back some say track marks Honestly when I looked at them, they looked like burn marks to me. They look like a taser There was no taser found in the house. Okay High-tech boots. There was a footprint clearly on the ground in some mold or whatever it was, some overgrowth, no high-tech boots in the house. Okay. Open window. Shouldn't be there. Right under the window, you have a suitcase filled with a duvet cover and a sham pillow cover. Not only do you have that, but fibers from that duvet cover are on JonBenet's

clothing that she's in that night. That's a question for me. The flashlight that was found in the kitchen. According to the Ramseys, that flashlight was foreign to that house. They don't know who it was. The cord. Stephanie, you and I talked about that at length. I have my suspicions about the cord being foreign, but again, according to the Ramseys, that cord is not from that house. Then you brought up something else, the duct tape that was found on Jaminé's body. Again, foreign to the house, not found to be attached to any role of duct tape that was found in the house. It appears to be ripped from another role that was never found. And finally, the ransom note. The ransom note bothers me as much as it

bothers you. And I can't really interpret it and I've lost a lot of sleep trying to. But this is where I summarize the ransom note for me because it's the only tangible thing I can go off of. There are eight experts that had the opportunity to examine that note. Seven of them got to examine the actual note. And out of those eight experts, six concluded that it was not Patsy Ramsey's handwriting. And for me, that's all I can go off of. So that's why I leaned the other way. But again, this is our opinions. It's based on very limited information. I respect everybody who's looked into this case and developed their own opinions. But those different points that I've laid out is why I said what I said tonight.

And it doesn't mean I'm right, but it's just where I lie. I have two questions. Okay. One, when did you start representing the Ramseys? Like, when did you come on as their counsel? Why? So are you saying it's pretty good then? I mean, it sounded like you just made a case for them being innocent. And I appreciate that. But I guess, first of all.

So when did you start working for Boulder PD is what I think I'm going to say after you rebuttal me. I'm not working for Boulder PD, but I don't take too much stock in the handwriting analysis, by the way, just that's my personal opinion. You should see my notebooks and I have hundreds of notebooks because for some reason, every case I cover, I start in a notebook and I never throw them out. Depending on what time of day it is, depending on how tired I am, depending on how long I've been writing, my handwriting looks like it could be a completely different person. Sometimes I'm writing in shorthand. Sometimes I'm writing in cursive. Sometimes I'm writing like in this cute little black print that looks like I was writing when I was in middle school. I even looked today and it was crazy because I wrote a word that had two

E's in it. And one E, I wrote like a normal undercase E. And then one E in the same word, I wrote like this bubbly uppercase E that looked like cursive. And I was like, what am I doing? So I don't put too much stock in that. And I know there's people that really believe in and take it as a science. I don't. So the handwriting analysis on the note, it means very little to me. think it could be possible. Let's say there was somebody who was involved with Lockheed Martin or somebody from the outside of the United States. And they came in and they're mad at John Ramsey about something. And they're going to kidnap Jean Benet. But let's say it's not just one person. It's three guys or two guys. And one of them is the head. And this is just speculating. But they go there together and they write this ransom

note. And then the main guy is like, all right, you got this covered from here. Just make sure you take care of the girl, get her out of here. And I'm going to go back to headquarters or whatever, or base. Meet me there in like an hour once you have her out. And then the other guy who's left behind either mistakenly hurts her in a struggle and then ends up killing her because he's mad or because he's a deviant and he just wants to sexually abuse her. He's just crazy.

And maybe the first person who was there left the ransom note, the second guy ended up killing her and they didn't, you know, talk about this or converse about this. That's the only time this outside person leaving this ransom note makes sense to me. And we both have to admit, it sounds like the plot of some really bad, bad movie or like a really bad USA series, like corporate affairs or something like, it's not probable, but it is possible. Yeah. And I think, I think that's a great point to end on because the conversation that you and I just had over the last five, 10, 15, whatever it was about this case and just how you can take one piece of evidence

and interpret it multiple ways is a great summary for what this case represents because that's just it, right? It's interpretation, it's subjective, and that's why there's so much debate about this case years later. I mean, not only years later, but there was debate about this case as it was occurring between individuals and entities that were supposed to be working together. So it's a really polarizing investigation, a really polarizing case. And hopefully what we take from this case, I know I do as a police officer or former police officers, just got to do right by the case. Got it. Like you even said, as a civilian, you know, approach every case, like it could be a murder because you never know what you're going to step into. And at the end of the day, that mistake to not search that back room of the wine, you know, of the basement, you know, ultimately might've changed the trajectory of this case. So I think law enforcement officers who are listening to this case and shout out to them, because I know we have a couple listening. They were tweeting at me saying, Hey, this is going to help me out on my 12-hour shift

tonight. If you're listening to this, treat every case as if it was someone you were working, a family member or a friend. And for anybody who's not in law enforcement and is just listening, I think we can all do a better job to make sure that we don't always judge a book by its cover because I know there's a lot of people out there who have a hard opinion. I've seen the responses on Twitter and Instagram about this case, and you guys have been very step-fast on what you think happened. And some of the information you guys have based it on, I know is inaccurate, but I'm not going to sit there and critique it all. And it's one of those things where I think we got, you know, everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and that includes the Ramseys. And we have to understand

that there's a real reality and it sucks to say this, but we may never know what happened. And I know it's tough as human beings to accept that, but that's the reality of the situation. But what a fascinating case. And I'm so glad we took our time with this, Stephanie. And I'm learning from you because you're a great researcher and you really care about these people. And I see that in your research. And I see why everyone loves listening to you so much because you really do care about these cases. And I see that not only when we're recording, but also off air when we're just talking about the case in general. So I really respect it. And I think, I hope we did this case justice. Yeah, I think we did as best as we could with what we had, what anybody has. But I am interested in hearing from everyone else. Where can we see some of these comments?

Can they go on Facebook and talk about it? Instagram, Twitter, send us a message. We want your guys' opinions. We want to know if you agree, if you disagree, if you learned new things that you didn't know before. Has your opinion been swayed one way or the other? Please give us some feedback and let us know specifically what you think about this case because both Derek and I have gotten really close to this case in the past couple of weeks. We've been living and breathing it almost. I mean, we call each other several times a day to talk about it, even outside of the podcast recording session. And we want to know what everybody else talk about it, even outside of the podcast recording session.

And we want to know what everybody else thinks about it, where you stand on it. And if you changed your mind, and I did change my mind slightly coming into this, which I never thought ever, ever could happen. So I think that's saying something because I didn't think I was going to budge. Did anybody else budge? Please go on social media, send us a message, let us know. We would love to hear from you. Yep. And you can follow us on our social media handles if you're not already. It's Crime Weekly Pod on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. And if you want to weigh in on how you feel about these multiple part episodes, especially this four-parter, let us know. Do you prefer these? Would you like to see more one-or or two one-offs? Let us know. We're constantly growing. We're constantly learning. We want to hear from you. We appreciate you guys coming back

every week, taking the time to listen. And it's a pleasure to bring this to you. And hopefully, we are all taking something away from it and we add it to the next one we do. And I want to say, just in this case alone, Eric and I have spent roughly eight to nine hours with you guys just on this case alone. So I feel like we're friends now, all of us. And I feel like because we're friends, you should definitely subscribe to the podcast if you haven't already. You should definitely leave a review five stars preferably because it really helps us

grow and it really helps us to continue giving you this content. Who knows? Maybe we'll get this going so well, we'll start doing multiple a week. We won't survive it, but we'll, you know, maybe. Yeah, I would do it. I would talk about it all day. I really appreciate you guys. Everyone have a great weekend and we'll see you next week. See you next week. Bye. Crime Weekly, presented by i-D, is a co-production by Audioboom and Main Event Media.