Kidnapping Cases

So, I was wondering if anyone besides me on this site finds it interesting to research abduction cases?

The only one I am kind of interested in is Madeleine McCann, and that would be a big "kind of".

The Hornbecks are good friends of our neighbors. I know Shawn personally. That was a case that hit very close to home. I didn't know him before he was kidnappedI only ever met him afterwards. He was just "that kid" before the whole thing went down. Afterwards he became "that kid that was on TV because he was kidnapped". I think I was morbidly interested in it when I was younger. Of course, he probably has some really lasting mental health problems after the whole deal but he acted relatively normal right afterwards. (Our neighbors own a little cabin resort and the Hornbecks rented it after Shawn was found. I presume to get away from media.) He was really interested in our horses. He wanted to try riding a horse. I guess maybe everyone felt bad for him, y'know. My parents set up a little thing and let him ride my mother's horse.

The whole case was a big deal here. My parents went on really tight alert and I wasn't able to leave their sides for a second. It was a scary thing even for me. I didn't want to get snatched by someone.

Edit: I guess I forget that there was a big crime case that was close to me. There's been a couple of times people on this site have asked that, and I've always answered there never was one. It never clicks with me until I think about kidnapping cases. Shawn is just Shawn to me now. I don't associate him with "that kid on the TV because he was kidnapped" anymore. As I got older, he was just another person to me. I think that's how he'd prefer to be thought of anyways.

If you haven't already seen it, there is an insane documentary on Netflix that I would recommend watching.

Abducted in Plain Sight

AmericaMan wrote:

The only one I am kind of interested in is Madeleine McCann, and that would be a big "kind of".

I wonder if this is because she has received so much attention from the media and because she has yet to be found?
Maybe you also find the theory about Madeleine's parents trying to cover up her death with a staged kidnapping, intriguing?

Glamazon wrote:

AmericaMan wrote:

The only one I am kind of interested in is Madeleine McCann, and that would be a big "kind of".

I wonder if this is because she has received so much attention from the media and because she has yet to be found?
Maybe you also find the theory about Madeleine's parents trying to cover up her death with a staged kidnapping, intriguing?

I was first introduced to McCann by looking at a meme about her. After that, I just went to the Wikipedia page to get the context of the joke. But other than looking at random articles about the case, that was pretty much it.

Encyclopedia Dramatica seems to agree with this theory. But we all know who really did it:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

To be honest, the E-fit for the kidnapper's face looks like her dad:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

AmericaMan wrote:

Glamazon wrote:

AmericaMan wrote:

The only one I am kind of interested in is Madeleine McCann, and that would be a big "kind of".

I wonder if this is because she has received so much attention from the media and because she has yet to be found?
Maybe you also find the theory about Madeleine's parents trying to cover up her death with a staged kidnapping, intriguing?

I was first introduced to McCann by looking at a meme about her. After that, I just went to the Wikipedia page to get the context of the joke. But other than looking at random articles about the case, that was pretty much it.

Encyclopedia Dramatica seems to agree with this theory. But we all know who really did it:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

To be honest, the E-fit for the kidnapper's face looks like her dad:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Honestly, I think most people believe in this theory, because it’s the most intriguing theory. It’s like how a lot of people think that JonBenet Ramsey’s brother Burke, killed his sister in a fit of rage, because he allegedly harbored a lot of pent-up anger and jealousy towards her for getting so much attention and praise. Also, I’ve never read about a single case where it was proven that the parents staged their child’s kidnapping in order to cover up foul play. This is why I tend to think that the staged kidnapping theory is the least probable theory whenever I hear about these types of cases, even though I know that there are countless of shitty parents out there and that accidents happen.

Personally, I think Madeleine was either sold to an infertile couple or abducted by a sex offender and became a victim of a pedophile ring. I really don’t want to suspect that the latter happened to her, but I’ve read about a lot of messed up kidnapping cases, so it’s definitely a possibility unfortunately =S

The facial composite does resemble her dad somewhat, BUT I can also discern several differences between their facial features. The facial composite looks like a Southern European male, in my opinion.

Look up Jake Patterson. Extremely interesting kidnapping case. He just got sentenced to life in prison

sscc wrote:

If you haven't already seen it, there is an insane documentary on Netflix that I would recommend watching.

Abducted in Plain Sight

I've already watched it. Her parents are so incredibly weird =S

DanielGardner wrote:

Look up Jake Patterson. Extremely interesting kidnapping case. He just got sentenced to life in prison

Other than the perpetrator's young age and the fact that he shot both of the victim's parents before kidnapping her, I don't find this case particularly interesting. There aren't a lot of details about what the victim endured during her captivity and one of the most important questions still remains; Why did the abductor kidnap Jayme? From what I gather, she wasn't sexually assaulted, like the majority of kidnapped children. I'm guessing that the kidnapper was socially inept and couldn't make friends or attract a romantic partner, so he kidnapped a kid to keep him company. Maybe he was planning on gradually turning his captive into his dream partner and hoping that she'd eventually fall in love with him, like Wolfgang Priklopil allegedly tried to do.

Yes I agree he was trying to make her like him, that’s what she said in her court statement too

DanielGardner wrote:

Yes I agree he was trying to make her like him, that’s what she said in her court statement too

Yeah, he was probably hoping that she'd develop Stockholm's syndrome.
So, are there any other kidnapping cases that you find intriguing? =3

Much interest in the JonBenet Ramsey case (even made a thread, but no replies) which has many similarities to the Columbine case, though same problem (only worse) as the McCann's that that's a staged kidnapping. Colorado. 90s. Infamous. Suburbia. "The Ramseys" when it's John and Patsy who both did different things (like Patsy calling 911 show her innocence) and "the Columbine shooters" when it's Eric and Dylan (neither innocent, but did different things for different reasons). And others, but will stop there.

cakeman wrote:

Much interest in the JonBenet Ramsey case (even made a thread, but no replies) which has many similarities to the Columbine case, though same problem (only worse) as the McCann's that that's a staged kidnapping. Colorado. 90s. Infamous. Suburbia. "The Ramseys" when it's John and Patsy who both did different things (like Patsy calling 911 show her innocence) and "the Columbine shooters" when it's Eric and Dylan (neither innocent, but did different things for different reasons).  And others, but will stop there.

I am also very interested in the JonBenet Ramsey case. It's the most intriguing cold case out there, in my opinion. I honestly don't know what to believe. There are several theories about who killed JonBenet that make sense at first glance, but when you examine them more thoroughly and weigh them against other theories, you notice that they contain flaws and that there's no theory that is flawless. Who do you personally think killed her?

Glamazon wrote:

cakeman wrote:

Much interest in the JonBenet Ramsey case (even made a thread, but no replies) which has many similarities to the Columbine case, though same problem (only worse) as the McCann's that that's a staged kidnapping. Colorado. 90s. Infamous. Suburbia. "The Ramseys" when it's John and Patsy who both did different things (like Patsy calling 911 show her innocence) and "the Columbine shooters" when it's Eric and Dylan (neither innocent, but did different things for different reasons).  And others, but will stop there.

I am also very interested in the JonBenet Ramsey case. It's the most intriguing cold case out there, in my opinion. I honestly don't know what to believe. There are several theories about who killed JonBenet that make sense at first glance, but when you examine them more thoroughly and weigh them against other theories, you notice that they contain flaws and that there's no theory that is flawless. Who do you personally think killed her?

Very confident that the perp is/was John Ramsey, the one whose name she has. I don't know of any flaws in that theory. I was no less confused about the case until I read the blog "solvingjonbenet" at blogspot. It was using similar methods I resolved a lot of my concerns with Columbine. It does what it claims. The simple version goes like this
1) There was no intruder. No forced entry. No foot prints. Nothing heard. No reason to write a note but not take the victim; no reason to hide the victim; no reason to  write the note in the house; no reason to leave the note in the house, etc.
2) Not Burke, he was 9, and no 9 year old wrote that note or dealt that blow or tied that knot, and any thing a 9 year old did would be easily reported as an accident.
3) Not Patsy, she dialed 911, early in the morning, exactly what the note says not to do.
4) John.

In an attempt to address the other complexities without tl;dr - John Ramsey was the main suspect, until "handwriting experts" (some of whom he hired) "ruled him out" as a writer of the note.  Then focus shifted to Patsy, as the intruder was absurd. Nobody thought about Burke until James Kolar's book in 2012, and it shouldn't even be addressed.  Since Patsy called 911, no case could be made against her, and so the DA balked on charging anyone. In the media, John and Patsy always presented a "united front", and thus people talk about "The Ramseys" calling 911, which, if true, would mean there really was an intruder despite the absurdity. But "The Ramseys" didn't call 911. Patsy did, and not John, despite John being the man of the house. Despite John being a millionaire CEO. Despite John being the one whom the note addressed.  Rather, It was John's lawyers who stonewalled the case, it was John who found the body, who lied about breaking the window, who got lost by the only detective in the house for around an hour, who was the man of the house and so therefore the obvious suspect for a murder in the house.

Indeed only the above mentioned theory even tries to address the ransom note. Most just bizarrely brush off that it says don't call 911 and Patsy called 911. In fact, it seems most, including myself at one point, ignore the contents of the ransom note to say "oooh a handwriting expert could prove it", as if it was a forged signature on a check. But what did the note do for an 'intruder'? Nothing, would be another clue for cops when he didn't get any money since he didn't take the body. Worse still, if it's an intruder, then surely the note is literal, but most don't see it that way - the note speaks of 3 intruders, but no theory ever does.  People sense this like most murders is the work of one person with a few sheets of paper to misdirect and nothing more.  The note doesn't benefit Patsy in any way either. And she called the cops and handed it to police, when in this scenario she knows the body was still in the house, making the note obviously phoney and her neck on the line. Only John could have withdrawn the money it asks for.  Only the body being hidden by John from Patsy makes sense. Only the note being left for Patsy to find makes sense. It was to scare Patsy into not calling police or searching the house, and then get her and Burke out of the house, then dump the body on the pretext of delivering the ransom.  "It's up you now John!"

All the evidence pointed to for Patsy is crap. Steve Thomas pointed out that she wore the same thing the night before, and inferred she was up all night (molesting, bludgeoning, strangling her daughter, and writing the note), but if you were up all night doing that, wouldn't you shower and change? John did. According to Patsy, she woke up to John showering.  Makes a lot more sense if John was up all night. Her paintbrush was used, her journal was used. Yes, and she'd be an idiot to use her own things. The pattern is nothing tying to John. Burke's knife was used to cut the cords, and his son with his first wifes briefcase was used to step up and break the window.

The "handwriting experts" have nothing scientific backing them, and most who bring Patsy's handwriting similarity (there is none) have never seen John's handwriting, which looks more like it.  People see the note as feminine. Well, nothing feminine about referencing Clint Eastwood films and Speed and talking about law enforcement countermeasures and tactics and beheading. The only thing feminine is the use of manuscript "a".  Well, John's business was computers, and if the note was traced from a word processor, there would explain your manuscript a. Would also explain disguising his handwriting, and e. g. the margins are kept perfect.

John was in the Navy and a seasoned boatman, he knew how to tie knots like those found on the ligature. The ligature is a kind of mock garrote. John was stationed in the Philippines, where one might find a 'foreign' faction, at the Subic Bay Training Center (SBTC is how the note is signed).  John was a pilot and the case has a resemblance to the Lindbergh kidnapping. John lied to his first wife about an affair for two years. He licks his lips in every interview (wish I could play poker against him, and I suck at poker). John's Christmas bonus was $118,000. Would 3 intruders split $118,000 dollars for a federal crime? doubtful. Did Patsy or Burke benefit from $118,000? No. John did, it was only his bonus, not a serious amount of cash for him. Not only was she murdered in the house, which should make you look at the man in the house, she was molested in that house, and again the man is the most likely to do that. It's also the most likely motive, his money combined with being exposed as a child molester, though one can prove murder without providing motive.

Will also add Linda Arndt, the only detective in the house, says 'obviously' John Ramsey killed her. "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" is definitely the best book on the murder, as it doesn't present a theory, just a lengthy account of the facts.

cakeman wrote:

Only John could have withdrawn the money it asks for. Only the body being hidden by John from Patsy makes sense. Only the note being left for Patsy to find makes sense. It was to scare Patsy into not calling police or searching the house, and then get her and Burke out of the house, then dump the body on the pretext of delivering the ransom.  "It's up you now John!"

Hmm, interesting. I actually never thought of that before. I used to think that there was a possibility that John was the culprit and that he killed JonBenet after molesting her so that she wouldn’t tell anyone about it. But how do you explain the fact that neither one of the suspects are a match to the DNA evidence that was found (a pubic hair from a male that was collected from JonBenet’s underwear), including John? As a matter of fact, JonBenet’s family was cleared in 2008 because of the aforementioned DNA evidence.

Glamazon wrote:

cakeman wrote:

Only John could have withdrawn the money it asks for. Only the body being hidden by John from Patsy makes sense. Only the note being left for Patsy to find makes sense. It was to scare Patsy into not calling police or searching the house, and then get her and Burke out of the house, then dump the body on the pretext of delivering the ransom.  "It's up you now John!"

Hmm, interesting. I actually never thought of that before. I used to think that there was a possibility that John was the culprit and that he killed JonBenet after molesting her so that she wouldn’t tell anyone about it. But how do you explain the fact that neither one of the suspects are a match to the DNA evidence that was found (a pubic hair from a male that was collected from JonBenet’s underwear), including John? As a matter of fact, JonBenet’s family was cleared in 2008 because of the aforementioned DNA evidence.

You're confusing a few things here and none of them respond to the things brought up previously. In short, the DNA is a joke and they were "cleared" by Mary Lacy who James Kolar worked with and Kolar rips apart the intruder theory.  The "pubic hair" is not the source of the DNA, and Patsy could "not be excluded" as its source.  They were "cleared" because of "touch DNA" on clothes that could easily come from a factory worker. Very simply, if the intruder wore gloves, there'd be zero DNA. If they didn't wear gloves, it would be everywhere. Also, where it's found is important.  The hair wasn't in her underwear. It was on the blanket she was wrapped in.  Her underwear was changed to a size too big for her (who is more likely to mess that up, mom or dad? and other than blood or semen, why do that?) and a fiber from John's shirt he wore that day was found in it.

With respect, this kind of myth-making to get around the blaring sirens of John as main suspect is all too common. There was no intruder. It would be absolutely by far the looniest case in history if there were. Can't just go "oh but DNA", you have to explain what has already been bought up. How did he get in? out? Knew the alarm wasnt set? Federal kidnapping charges for $40,000? Write the note in the house? 3 pages? In his own hand? Kill his cash cow? Leave the note without taking the victim? Hide the victim? Leave the note on the staircase? None of these make sense. If Mary Lacy is what you chalk up as the problem for the John did it theory, the theory is impenetrable.

Glamazon wrote:

Yes I agree he was trying to make her like him, that’s what she said in her court statement too

Yeah, he was probably hoping that she'd develop Stockholm's syndrome.
So, are there any other kidnapping cases that you find intriguing? =3

Well I normally don’t research kidnapping cases, but I’m subscribed to abc news so I don’t miss any mass shooting news, and I saw the story on jake Patterson and found it interesting

Glamazon wrote:

cakeman wrote:

Much interest in the JonBenet Ramsey case (even made a thread, but no replies) which has many similarities to the Columbine case, though same problem (only worse) as the McCann's that that's a staged kidnapping. Colorado. 90s. Infamous. Suburbia. "The Ramseys" when it's John and Patsy who both did different things (like Patsy calling 911 show her innocence) and "the Columbine shooters" when it's Eric and Dylan (neither innocent, but did different things for different reasons).  And others, but will stop there.

I am also very interested in the JonBenet Ramsey case. It's the most intriguing cold case out there, in my opinion. I honestly don't know what to believe. There are several theories about who killed JonBenet that make sense at first glance, but when you examine them more thoroughly and weigh them against other theories, you notice that they contain flaws and that there's no theory that is flawless. Who do you personally think killed her?

I forgot about this case when I posted earlier. It is a case that I do have interest in. My interest was sparked again recently when Burke was interviewed on TV. I subscribe to the theory that there was no kidnapping and the killer came from inside the house. I think the most likely scenario is something happened accidentally (whether it was caused by Burke or not) and the family panicked. They staged the whole kidnapping thing. I read a pretty good theory on another crime site: JonBenet had some head trauma. It's plausible that Burke and her were either playing or got into a little spat and he either pushed her or hit or with an object. We know she was awake to eat the pineapple and milk, so this could have occurred then. After reading that, I thought it seemed like something that could be very likely. As said before, the family just panicked and staged the kidnapping. I don't think I will ever believe the whole kidnapping thing. The ransom note had Patsy's handwriting (or one that was practically identical) and the note came from inside the house. It just seems sketchy to me, idk.

Abduction cases are very intriguing to me. Maybe it’s because of the massive amounts of unknown answers. I go down a rabbit hole when I start on abductions cases online. The Jonathan Kushner case from 73 is one I got into last year. If anyone is into reading I suggest picking up his brothers book: Alligator Candy. It’s very well written and graphic at times in regards to his brother.

hvernon wrote:

Glamazon wrote:

cakeman wrote:

Much interest in the JonBenet Ramsey case (even made a thread, but no replies) which has many similarities to the Columbine case, though same problem (only worse) as the McCann's that that's a staged kidnapping. Colorado. 90s. Infamous. Suburbia. "The Ramseys" when it's John and Patsy who both did different things (like Patsy calling 911 show her innocence) and "the Columbine shooters" when it's Eric and Dylan (neither innocent, but did different things for different reasons).  And others, but will stop there.

I am also very interested in the JonBenet Ramsey case. It's the most intriguing cold case out there, in my opinion. I honestly don't know what to believe. There are several theories about who killed JonBenet that make sense at first glance, but when you examine them more thoroughly and weigh them against other theories, you notice that they contain flaws and that there's no theory that is flawless. Who do you personally think killed her?

I forgot about this case when I posted earlier. It is a case that I do have interest in. My interest was sparked again recently when Burke was interviewed on TV. I subscribe to the theory that there was no kidnapping and the killer came from inside the house. I think the most likely scenario is something happened accidentally (whether it was caused by Burke or not) and the family panicked. They staged the whole kidnapping thing. I read a pretty good theory on another crime site: JonBenet had some head trauma. It's plausible that Burke and her were either playing or got into a little spat and he either pushed her or hit or with an object. We know she was awake to eat the pineapple and milk, so this could have occurred then. After reading that, I thought it seemed like something that could be very likely. As said before, the family just panicked and staged the kidnapping. I don't think I will ever believe the whole kidnapping thing. The ransom note had Patsy's handwriting (or one that was practically identical) and the note came from inside the house. It just seems sketchy to me, idk.

This is just Kolar's theory which is the height of absurdity and did not exist before 2012, and I can't believe anybody honestly finds it likely, it's just desperation after the Patsy avenue is exhausted and parroting what everybody else says (ahem, I mentioned its similarities with another case). The blow was strong enough to fell a 300 pound man. The pineapple reasoning is very superficial. Yes, she ate pineapple. Yes, Patsy and Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl. No, that doesn't mean they were there when she ate the pineapple. The fingerprints didn't come with a date and time. They lived in the house and use its bowls. Nor does Burke hitting her over pineapple make any sense.  John probably just used the surprise of a Christmas midnight pineapple snack to lure her out of her room.

If Burke hit her on the head, you call 911 and report an accident. Burke wasn't even old enough to be prosecuted. If you wanted to stage something, put her at the bottom of the stairs and say she fell. You don't strangle her to death to make sure she's dead and make you charged for murder, hide the body (from whom? not police, John knew they'd find it eventually and brought it out for them), then stage a kidnapping. And for heaven's sake- WHY?! what the HELL is plausible about staging a KIDNAPPING because of Burke hitting her?! They didn't just stage an assault or a fall, but a kidnapping by a foreign faction. Like all popular theories - intruder, Patsy, or Burke, they don't even try to explain a single sentence of the ransom note. What the hell did that do for them? "They just panicked" is punting on the question, and the note isn't panicked, but methodical. The Ts are crossed and Is dotted, the margins are perfect, has a beginning/middle/end, etc.

"The ransom note had Patsy's handwriting" No, it didn't, it doesn't look like her flowing, feminine handwriting at all. Drop that assumption which is an opinion, not a fact, and I promise you everything falls into place. It's a fact that Patsy called 911 early in the morning with the body still in the house, meaning she could not have written the note as the author clearly did not want that. That there was a ransom for a kidnapping + the body still in the house is how you know the kidnapping and note was phoney on top of being written in the house. The same applies to any scenario with John and Patsy working together. They would have called after the note's deadline then.

cakeman wrote:

You're confusing a few things here and none of them respond to the things brought up previously. In short, the DNA is a joke and they were "cleared" by Mary Lacy who James Kolar worked with and Kolar rips apart the intruder theory.  The "pubic hair" is not the source of the DNA, and Patsy could "not be excluded" as its source.  They were "cleared" because of "touch DNA" on clothes that could easily come from a factory worker. Very simply, if the intruder wore gloves, there'd be zero DNA. If they didn't wear gloves, it would be everywhere. Also, where it's found is important.  The hair wasn't in her underwear. It was on the blanket she was wrapped in.  Her underwear was changed to a size too big for her (who is more likely to mess that up, mom or dad? and other than blood or semen, why do that?) and a fiber from John's shirt he wore that day was found in it.

With respect, this kind of myth-making to get around the blaring sirens of John as main suspect is all too common. There was no intruder. It would be absolutely by far the looniest case in history if there were. Can't just go "oh but DNA", you have to explain what has already been bought up. How did he get in? out? Knew the alarm wasnt set? Federal kidnapping charges for $40,000? Write the note in the house? 3 pages? In his own hand? Kill his cash cow? Leave the note without taking the victim? Hide the victim? Leave the note on the staircase? None of these make sense. If Mary Lacy is what you chalk up as the problem for the John did it theory, the theory is impenetrable.

Look, I’m not saying that what you’ve brought up doesn’t make any sense. We just can’t overlook the pubic hair. I mean, unless John purposefully planted false evidence at the crime scene to take the heat off himself, he’s not the murderer. So your theory isn't flawless.

Btw, is anyone interested in the kidnapping of Natascha Kampusch? If you are, I would highly recommend watching the movie, ”3069 days” which is based on this case. It’s available on Netflix right now. For those who aren't familiar with the case, here are som facts;

- Natascha was ten years old when she was kidnapped by Wolfgang Priklopil.
- She was never fully clothed while doing household chores, because Wolfgang was convinced that she wouldn’t run out on the street half-naked.
- Wolfgang admired Hitler.
- Whenever Natascha mentioned her parents, he'd say, "I’m your family. I’m now your everything. You no longer have a past. I’ve created you.”
- In the dungeon, Natascha tried to strangle herself with clothes at the age of 14 and when she was 15 she tried to slit her writsts with a large sewing needle. She also tried to start a fire by putting paper on her hotplate.

Glamazon wrote:

cakeman wrote:

You're confusing a few things here and none of them respond to the things brought up previously. In short, the DNA is a joke and they were "cleared" by Mary Lacy who James Kolar worked with and Kolar rips apart the intruder theory.  The "pubic hair" is not the source of the DNA, and Patsy could "not be excluded" as its source.  They were "cleared" because of "touch DNA" on clothes that could easily come from a factory worker. Very simply, if the intruder wore gloves, there'd be zero DNA. If they didn't wear gloves, it would be everywhere. Also, where it's found is important.  The hair wasn't in her underwear. It was on the blanket she was wrapped in.  Her underwear was changed to a size too big for her (who is more likely to mess that up, mom or dad? and other than blood or semen, why do that?) and a fiber from John's shirt he wore that day was found in it.

With respect, this kind of myth-making to get around the blaring sirens of John as main suspect is all too common. There was no intruder. It would be absolutely by far the looniest case in history if there were. Can't just go "oh but DNA", you have to explain what has already been bought up. How did he get in? out? Knew the alarm wasnt set? Federal kidnapping charges for $40,000? Write the note in the house? 3 pages? In his own hand? Kill his cash cow? Leave the note without taking the victim? Hide the victim? Leave the note on the staircase? None of these make sense. If Mary Lacy is what you chalk up as the problem for the John did it theory, the theory is impenetrable.

Look, I’m not saying that what you’ve brought up doesn’t make any sense. We just can’t overlook the pubic hair. I mean, unless John purposefully planted false evidence at the crime scene to take the heat off himself, he’s not the murderer. So your theory isn't flawless.

It's literally Patsy's armpit hair - when she lived in the house, in a place that's irrelevant to the murder, as I just explained. You are not even approaching a flaw in the John theory. You can't ignore literally everything else by pretending that matters. You have to explain the looniest intruder in history.

And yeah, he almost certainly did plant evidence, like the duct tape. He was lost by detectives for about an hour.  There was no intruder. Patsy called 911. Burke was 9. John was the only other one in the house. The man in the house is the most likely to commit a murder or molest a girl. It was John's Christmas bonus, which only he could withdraw. It was John at Subic Bay Training Center, in the Philippines which is known for garottes. It was John who knew how to tie knots from the Navy, and was lost for an hour, and 'found' the body. It was very, very obviously John. The only reason people don't see it is because of his being "ruled out" by handwriting "experts". There's no other reason.  I have no idea why so many people go to bat for him.  I recommend reading the blog I posted above instead of feigning expertise.

It'd be interesting to get some closure on Maura Murray's disappearance, since we don't even know if she left her hometown by her own will (thus faking her car accident) or she's actually been kidnapped by some acquaintance or stranger