![Creator Commentary: JonBenét Ramsey [+ Update]](https://img5.xaiju.com/storage/11/ac/mk/d38796-019e82cf-709b-7328-bd51-9ad2e75641bd.jpg)
Creator Commentary: JonBenét Ramsey [+ Update]
Added 2025-05-21 06:40:05 +0000 UTCAnother Creator Commentary to tide you over! Sorry to anyone who's tired of the subject at this point, but with this commentary that should mark the conclusion of any and all MOCAS content on the case. [A link and additional note from the commentary can be found below the updates]
UPDATE ON QUESTIONS/CHALLENGES TO THE JBR ADDENDUM:
I answered a bunch of comments up to a certain point and then had to move on to dedicating all of my attention to working on the next vid. After the next vid is released, I will try to answer all (or close enough to) of the remaining questions on that thread. So if you want to throw something at me, get it in on the Addendum thread in the next couple of weeks or so. Once I've gotten to the end of those, I'll officially count myself as having made good on my promise of getting back to everyone in due course. Not saying I'll out and out refuse to answer any questions past that point, but you can change your default assumption from "likely hearing back from me" to "likely not hearing back from me" come that time.
UPDATE ON NEXT VID [Full Black Screen Update at 1:47:43]:
Good news! It's not very far away! I just need to write the very, very last 1-3 paragraphs and then I can set to voicing and animating it. I was hoping I could get it out just before the end of May and will still try for that, though it might be a touch too ambitious. Early June for sure though. I'd be surprised if I don't have the Early Premiere up by the 5th. I'm not going to give away the subject, but a lot of people have been asking for an "out of the box" ep and you're definitely getting one! I'm very excited for it, and we're well overdue for a break from a typical true crime subject. Crime is definitely an element of the story, but it's more about...Let's say "Leadership."
STUFF FROM COMMENTARY:
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town Full Movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwtmCmkWPnI
(Lawrence Schiller was the name of the author/director)
An Expert Arguing Head Blow Came Before Strangulation:
This is the relevant excerpt from James Kolar's book:
"Dr. Lucy Rorke, a neuro-pathologist with the Philadelphia Children’s Hospital, helped explain the timing of some of the injuries sustained by JonBenét. She told investigators that the blow to the skull had immediately begun to hemorrhage, and it was not likely that she would have regained consciousness after receiving this injury. The blow to the head, if left untreated, would have been fatal.
The presence of cerebral edema, swelling of the brain, suggested that JonBenét had survived for some period of time after receiving the blow to her head. Blood from the injury slowly began to fill the cavity of the skull and began to build up pressure on her brain. As pressure increased, swelling was causing the medulla of the brain to push through the foramen magnum, the narrow opening at the base of the skull.
Dr. Rorke estimated that it would have taken an hour or so for the cerebral edema to develop, but that this swelling had not yet caused JonBenét’s death. “Necrosis,” neurological changes to the brain cells, indicated a period of survival after the blow that could have ranged from between forty-five (45) minutes and two (2) hours.
As pressure in her skull increased, JonBenét was beginning to experience the effects of “brain death.” Her neurological and biological systems were beginning to shut down, and she may have been exhibiting signs of cheyne-stokes breathing. These are short, gasping breaths that may be present as the body struggles to satisfy its need for oxygen in the final stages of death.
The medical experts were in agreement: the blow to JonBenét’s skull had taken place some period of time prior to her death by strangulation."
-Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (pp. 64-65). (Function). Kindle Edition.
*I'll note 45 mins plus between probably more supports the typical BDI theory (parents discovering JB a fair stretch of time after the fact) but it still isn't totally incompatible with John Alone, or even Patsy for that matter.
Comments
I disagree that the note being pre-written makes any theory stronger. The note is so sloppy and rambling, at times repetitive and at other times inconsistent, as if someone wrote it on the fly in a frazzled state of mind. If it was written beforehand, it would be more concise and just generally better.
Erico
2025-11-14 03:57:50 +0000 UTCnothing they could do would compare. it won't have the heart 😢
nope not
2025-10-01 08:30:28 +0000 UTCI see Netflix now has a documentary on Rob Ford (“Trainwreck”). At first I thought it was lousy timing for you. But, on second thought, it could spark interest in your video.
Steve
2025-06-24 02:24:28 +0000 UTCThe Somosierra kid on Spain (where I'm from) is another weird AF case that you could cover.
Amaya
2025-06-12 14:15:46 +0000 UTCDid you watch the recent TV series? I enjoyed it so much! ♥️
Amaya
2025-06-12 14:13:30 +0000 UTCThis crime occurred the year after I graduated from law school. Decades later, after raising my own son and daughter, I have three thoughts: 1. The Christmas date;m was not a coincidence. My own kids would get jealous if they felt the other was favored. I would never give one a bike and not the other. So many family disputes occur from seemingly minor matters that ignite long festering resentments. 2. If I had killed my daughter, I would have been more afraid of my wife than the police. Even if she remained silent, there’s no way she would have made joint appearances like John and Patsy did on Larry King. 3. If my wife had killed our daughter, I too would have trouble remaining silent. If she then died from cancer at a young age, and our son was living under a cloud of suspicion, I would throw her reputation to the wolves to clear him.
Steve
2025-06-05 11:33:30 +0000 UTCYou have to make a trump video at some point when it's all over. I'm here in America and it is.. It's certainly something.
Gizmo
2025-05-29 01:30:25 +0000 UTCHe's saying "M.O.C.A.S.", as in Matt Orchard Crime And Society
Mel T.
2025-05-27 03:50:22 +0000 UTCThe one huge “benefit” to BDI is that it’s the one theory where there isn’t a “bad guy” (at least not in the same way as the other theories). Like for either RDI theories, a parent murdered her and covered it up (in one case, the parent was a pedophile that premeditated the murder). For IDI, some evil intruder that’s eluded justice for decades did it and will likely never be caught. Those possibilities are obviously huge downers, but BDI is notably less sinister, since it’s a (relatively) understandable accident that the parents (who would probably be really tired after the day they’d had) then clumsily tried to cover up for their son’s benefit. It’s not that it’s the theory that’s the best substantiated by the evidence, but it’s the theory with the least “troubling” narrative that’s also technically possible.
SpergGurtDirt
2025-05-27 02:35:55 +0000 UTCGuesses: Diddy? Hard to make that funny though. Hey, is your name Marcus? I always thought Matt was your actual name! Or is Marcus a joke I don’t get?
Ann Silberman
2025-05-26 22:54:50 +0000 UTCOk my guess for the next subject is... Monica Lewinski and her dreadful boss Bill. If I'm right I think I'll just about wet my pants! Fingers crossed I guess?
Claire
2025-05-26 05:43:37 +0000 UTCI was leaning IDI ... but the addendum swung me to JDI. In the handwriting, the dot above the i bothered me. It didn't match Patsy's, directly above the letter and a dot, instead of over the next letter and more of a dash as in the note. Then it matched John's small sample easily. It resolved other things that I couldn't settle with for the case. Like the threat of beheading which was bizarre. If she was already killed, she wasn't coming back alive. So you'd have to carry it out. Why add it to the note. But that could hide the injury to her neck or even head. It answered her discovery. It's odd that a room was checked then she happened to be there. That he went almost straight there. At that point there was no way to take her out the house with all the people there. He could have hidden her but realised that things were spiralling. It resolves the window as a plan interrupted. Like he said, he'd do a better job staging. He would have ... but it went wrong. Ideally he'd have smuggled the body away and had more time to have her be found. He had an idea of what he was going to do then had to change tact. The switch to John in the note, the bonus number being included in the note, inconsistency with putting her to bed, all the other points mentioned. It's a relief to have something that makes sense to me after all the, wait but why this. And I'm grateful with all this on the emphasis of her as a person. Thanks Matt!
Noella
2025-05-24 12:46:40 +0000 UTCI think it would be rad if you set up a camera recording you recording your dialogue and then turning it into a silent time-lapse, I love those hahaha.
Claire
2025-05-24 11:31:22 +0000 UTCI’m so looking forward to the new video - I can’t imagine what it could be but I know it will be good!
MG
2025-05-23 17:04:46 +0000 UTCThe 118 thousand in the note may have been another cue to Patsy to not call the police but instead comply with the "kidnappers", buying John more time to deal with things, because it would be a figure she knew for a fact the family had to pay and get JonBenet back - that number scores for John did it for me.
Tracy McClendon
2025-05-23 16:07:07 +0000 UTCthings I think it would explain: the note, both length & fantastical content; the varied & intricate nature of the injuries to jonbenet. maybe it even explains his motivation to do it + sexually assault jonbenet at all. or if you think john was too highbrow for crack (though i've known millionaires who do crack, lol) you could call it adderall psychosis. i think my theory makes a lot of sense if you ignore the fact that there's no evidence for it at all
Rosalind Margulies
2025-05-23 04:28:35 +0000 UTCI can’t wait to find out the next topic. I’ll die if it’s Jeremy Dewitte but he might be too obscure even for MOCAS. I literally asked ChatGPT what it could be, I’m tragic
Allison
2025-05-23 03:40:23 +0000 UTCI wonder if the note was written by somebody on crack. The maid, who worked for them at the time of JonBenet’s killing was later arrested for selling it. So it could explain where John got it. I think it would explain a lot of things
Rosalind Margulies
2025-05-23 02:11:45 +0000 UTCThat person complaining you didn't want to validate the stun gun argument was being asinine. The train track theory, correct or not, is a far superior explanation.
JC Foster Takes It To The Moon
2025-05-22 21:50:22 +0000 UTCVery random thought as I watch this - as an Irish dude, the Sophie du Plantier case is one that intrigues and frustrates us to no end. I'm sure it's been suggested before, but thought I'd put it on your radar!
Ben Harrington
2025-05-22 20:17:06 +0000 UTCIt's a very odd name, and mentioning the frenchness is even stranger because "benêt" in french means "simpleton." I guess somewhere there's a parallel universe where a kid is called JeanMoron
Alan Holding
2025-05-22 11:51:22 +0000 UTCGood to hear your next video will be somewhat out-the-box. Your Anthony Weiner video is one of my favorites
Vent
2025-05-22 11:42:38 +0000 UTCLiterally exclaimed "yay!" to myself when I saw this post. Happy days. Thanks Matt.
Claire
2025-05-22 09:56:59 +0000 UTCLove the discussion of her name. The dynamic of naming your daughter after the father and giving her such a peculiar name helped the notoriety of this case I think.
Marie
2025-05-22 08:14:10 +0000 UTCGreat video Matt! Have you thought of covering the Lucy Letby case? At one stage everyone seemed to agree that the evidence for her guilt seemed overwhelming, but now there's a lot of talk of her innocence. I agree that some of the evidence that originally convicted her probably wasn't right but it still feels like a leap to say it was all a coincidence. For me it has the flavour of West Memphis Three/David Bain where public opinion seemed to overcorrect and ignore important evidence. I'm not really sure what to think and not sure where to go for unbiased information
David Short
2025-05-22 07:19:32 +0000 UTCYou smell the smoke, but will you wait for the fire to burn you to believe it?
Michael Taglione
2025-05-22 06:31:53 +0000 UTCJust to add on to the incongruity of John saying it's "insulting" to be treated as a suspect: in his own account, when he brought the body upstairs, John told detective Arndt, "It must have been an inside job." If an innocent John is able to make that deduction, in the most frightening moment of a parent's life no less, then he should be able to follow the logic of why the family members--the only people confirmed to have been at the location of the murder--why the family members need to be treated as suspects. That whole interview from John doesn't pass the sniff test. Then moments later Patsy makes a statement no less incriminating. I don't know why she said there are "two people" on the face of the earth who know how JonBenet died, but what I do know is that the explanation she procedes to give, "the killer ... and someone the person may have confided in", isn't how she planned on ending the sentence. The dramatic pause and the feeble explanation of who the second person would be really come off as someone changing her sentence midway through, realizing that she can't say what she initially was going to say. I supposed the Devil's Advocate response is that she is asking for tips on the killer, and so the "second person" isn't literally one other person, but collectively "you", the viewers watching the interview, anyone who may have information about the night of the crime. But that's not how her statement comes across. I place close to zero faith in statement analysis, but I will say it feels very off to me, even allowing for her to be heavily medicated. {Edits as I keep watching}: I am with you about the hidden voices at the end of the 911 call. I don't find it compelling, and even if the Ramseys did actually say everything reportedly on the end of the call, it's far from proof of BDI (it would be hard to square with a Ramseys innocent narrative, I guess). But I wanted to ask why is it "BS" specifically about an audio enhanced version of the call the investigation team listened to? I don't know anything about audio enhancement. John's dodginess about that window is very strange, isn't it?
Jonathan Gill
2025-05-21 23:56:59 +0000 UTCRegarding how the note/locked doors gel with the IDI theory: I've often thought that maybe the intruder was someone who kind of idolised/envied the Ramseys, maybe someone connected to the pageant world. Not a total maniac, but definitely someone with disorganised thinking, delusions of grandeur and stalker tendencies. I think that maybe they'd gotten into the house hours before the family arrived home (with a stolen key, maybe?) and after a little snooping around wrote this bizarre fantasy of a note as a way to feel kind of connected to the family. Then, obviously, hours pass and by the time they get around to kidnapping JonBenet they've moved on from that fantasy in their head to a new one. I don't know. I can just sort of picture the psychological profile of someone who is kind of awed by this crazy rich family with the beautiful daughter, and wants desperately to be an important person in their life, even if that is profoundly negative. Also, I can imagine John lying about checking the doors because he didn't want to be blamed for his daughters death.
E
2025-05-21 22:45:40 +0000 UTChell, i know how much my CEO's bonus was this year and i've never even met him. people talk, these things get around, especially among people like the Ramseys. It seems as though it would have been easy for an intruder to have gleaned the bonus amount through a number of channels, including from stuff lying around inside the house but also just from normal gossip.
AR
2025-05-21 22:12:05 +0000 UTCI'm British and live in the US. I've never heard anyone in the Brit community refer to themselves as, "foreign." If it comes up, it's their country of birth, "I'm English" or, "I'm Scottish." I did wonder if political climate has linked too many negative connotations with foreign but I'm nearly 50 and don't know a time it didn't carry that perception. So, overseas, French, whatever, but not foreign.
PityTheHateful
2025-05-21 21:37:41 +0000 UTCHey Matt, love your content and the earnestness with which you present it all. I think presenting true crime, especially violent crime, requires a deference that is either fully missing from or haphazardly tacked onto most productions in this field. I appreciate and respect your ability to cover violent crimes with what appears to be genuine respect while still finding ways to add levity in inoffensive ways. You ought to take pride in that. I apologize in advance for the wall of text; this case just keeps me up at night more than any other. I wanted to give my take on your prompt of squaring the IDI circle with regards to the unhinged nature of the note in contrast to the impressive lack of evidence on scene. And for the record, I think I currently fall somewhere on the spectrum oscillating between RDI and sometimes more specifically JDI. Approaching this from the IDI perspective, which I have often forced myself to do, I've found myself putting very little stock in the lack of evidence at the scene. As you said yourself, Boulder PD was extremely ill-prepared for a crime of this nature. In my opinion, I think that the police (in the most crucial early hours of investigation) managed to do exactly the wrong thing at nearly every possible juncture. Their inability to secure the scene and sequester witnesses and possible suspects immediately poisoned the well of any evidence (or lack thereof) subsequently found. Unless a criminal leaves behind something macro such as a piece of clothing, most evidence is surprisingly frail. This is exactly why the first step of CSI is properly securing the scene. While not an IDI believer myself, I can easily imagine a scenario in which an "out and out maniac" sloppily commits this crime, writes that absolutely bizarre note, and leaves behind tangible evidence that is subsequently either destroyed or rendered uninterpretable by the utterly complete contamination of the scene from the first minutes of investigation. There was a small circus of third parties parading through that scene all morning: police, the Ramsey's, family friends, victim's advocates, the list goes on. I just think the notion that the crime scene is incompatible with anything other than a consummate professional criminal is completely bunk. I think I, a bumbling idiot, could have committed this crime and gotten away with it; the BPD made for an excellent unwitting accomplice to whatever creature did this to JonBenét. All that said, I think this idea cuts both ways in terms of whodunnit. One of the Ramsey's could just have easily benefitted from the incompetence of the police as well. I don't think it's a coincidence that so many of the most infamous unsolved cases involve accusations of police incompetence. I think there is absolutely a causal relationship here and that the vast majority of cases that receive adequate investigation don't go unsolved. There simply aren't that many cunning criminals out there. Last point for anybody reading this far. Matt, you made a comment in your addendum regarding The Prosecutor's coverage of this case, and it resonated with me. I found Brett and Alice during their coverage of the Hae Min Lee/Adnan Syed case (done to death but I'd watch your coverage in a heartbeat). I had only watched Serial up to that point and had softly landed on Adnan's innocence. Their coverage of that story completely changed my mind. I found their approach to analyzing the evidence as it stood very thorough, genuine, and refreshing. That's why I was pretty shocked by their frankly dogmatic approach to this case (and many of their newer cases). It seems like at some point they fell into the IDI camp and began enshrining evidence that supported them and hand-waving the evidence that didn't. Their complete dismissal of JR as a suspect struck me as bizarre and I've had trouble digesting their content since. It felt like they (perhaps unconsciously) dismissed John in order to prop up Patsy, a much easier suspect to defend, as a strawman to dismantle. I don't know, I think that they understandably have a hard time being critical of law enforcement and prosecutors and it colors their approaches to cases. I try not to let their politics affect my opinion of them, but some of the more scandalous things Brett has been party to have also really tanked my interest in their coverage.
Drew
2025-05-21 18:46:57 +0000 UTCWhat's interesting is in all the time's I've watched that clip I never saw "duper's delight" until Matt pointed out people see it, and then I'm all "omg yeah!" The power of suggestion with 'body language experts' should be considered. The fact that these expert pop up in trashy magazines to tell you celebrity X doesn't really love celebrity Y, to me, indicates it is not a serious arm of psychology. It is interesting, and there /may/ be some insights to be gained from it but when that's your starting point or main point it can come across as people finding the evidence to suit their theories rather than coming up with theories based on evidence.
TinTicket
2025-05-21 18:14:49 +0000 UTCOkay, but if there's a first murder of 1996 what's the second one? That's really where I thought you were going with the people keep asking...
TinTicket
2025-05-21 16:32:48 +0000 UTCI genuinely don't think that Patsy had anything to do with it. I remember when JonBenet was murdered and at that stage I did think that both parents were involved. Upon hearing the 911 call though I have changed my mind on Patsy's involvement. The woman sounds absolutely distraught.
Erin Morrison
2025-05-21 15:37:05 +0000 UTCAyyyy Majority Report mentioned
Warren Commission Test Skull
2025-05-21 15:17:13 +0000 UTCI absolutely agree. It's one thing to put your self-preservation ahead of trying to save your child's life; it's quite another to put your self-preservation ahead of putting away your child's killer, when that won't bring your child back or do them any good. At that point, I wouldn't *fault* anyone for focusing on justice; but I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with a family who just crawled off to lick their wounds after that.
Naomi Rivkis
2025-05-21 15:05:31 +0000 UTCI love MOCAS. Just like to point out the one blind assumption that EVERYONE seems to make, which could be a throwing off of all consequent analysis: the assumption that the note was written the day of the incident and not, fully or partially, in advance, as a part of an intent to stage a kidnapping for attention, which then went terribly wrong a la Lindbergh. The Lindbergh movie had been aired only a couple of months before, the Reynolds had written a kidnapping story, and there had been a recent scare with the White child hiding but thought to be missing. I am firmly PDI, and feel this may explain her odd comment about "two people knowing," and fits her craving for attention through JonBenet before and after. The note very well could have been practiced and written before a planned staged kidnapping, then possibly added onto in a panic the day of. This explains the notable shift in tone between the clinical first part and the vitriolic personal anti-John tone in the second. It may tie in to the "secret visit from Santa" that JonBenet had been promised and told to keep secret. This would be a way to lure her to the basement, where there were in fact wrapped presents. I further feel it's quite possible that Patsy convinced John that it had been Burke, and that is why he covers for him still. Just a theory no better than any other, but it strongly bothers me how everyone ASSUMES the note was written that day and not before. Isn't that a pretty big assumption?
Laura Polley
2025-05-21 15:00:26 +0000 UTCTo answer your question about the total maniac/Machiavellian thinker dichotomy (I'm not necessarily IDI but since I don't have a firm opinion, I think from all perspectives when they're brought up), what if the whole point of that ransom note was that it's supposed to look faked? If they were trying to implicated the Ramseys by ensuring it didn't look as if anyone had been in and out of the house, why couldn't they try to implicate the Ramseys by sending a ransom note that would look as if it had been made up by one of them to cover their actions? Is that at all feasible?
Naomi Rivkis
2025-05-21 14:58:36 +0000 UTCMaybe by Christmas this year we’ll be done with this case 🤞
Cronker Waltite
2025-05-21 14:47:40 +0000 UTCMy biggest problem with the "Self-preservation should be second to finding your daughter's killer" is... why? They had a son, they had lives. If JonBenét was alive and actively missing, that's one thing. But in the hypothetical scenario where the Ramseys are 100% innocent and KNOW they're innocent, I think it's unfair to say they should put "finding their daughter's killer" over "Self preservation, stay out of prison." What good does finding the killer actually do them? A sense of closure? Psychology experts are in disagreement on whether or not a guilty verdict actually helps with the grieving process. If it's not for closure, maybe a legal duty to keep the killer off the streets? In that case, I'd argue it's not John or Patsy's responsibility to prioritize that over staying out of jail and continuing to raise their living son. IDK, it just always rubbed me the wrong way that people argue "Don't talk to the police, but in this case specifically how COULDN'T you?" Because I have yet to hear one compelling argument as to how it would benefit an innocent John or Patsy in any measurable way. They're educated, they're informed, and they listened to their lawyers. There was nothing to gain from cooperation, and everything to lose. Innocent OR guilty.
Simply Snaps
2025-05-21 13:50:28 +0000 UTCOne thing about the 188k ransom, if I remember correctly, it was mentioned in a note that was his bonus, would it have been possible was an intruder to have seen that and thought, 'he has that lying around and could get it without raising too much suspicion', perhaps that was the reason?
Gekkotor
2025-05-21 13:34:21 +0000 UTCI don't have a strong opinion any direction on this case. Gun to my head, I think I'm between JDI and IDI, but I don't really lean either way. To address your question about the note, I do think the strongest explanation for it is a "twisted maniac trying to terrorize the Ramseys." The 1996 equivalent of someone who loves the Joker too much, ya know? As for leaving no trace, no damning DNA, no proof of their existence? Dennis Oland (likely) got so lucky. Why couldn't this intruder? I think anyone categorically ruling out an intruder as impossible is far too confident, but I also think it's ridiculous to say there isn't reasonably suspicion for John.
Simply Snaps
2025-05-21 13:22:18 +0000 UTCYou touch on it at several times, but the damage done by popular crime psychologists is pretty big. So many people just draw conclusions based on basic learned signs, without doing any of the legwork. Like a high school debater calling out logical fallacies without making actual, substantive arguments, there is a crowd that just regurgitates "tells" and draws quick conclusions from them. Duper's Delight, "That child", self-soothing, therefore guilty. No baseline analysis, no personal expertise, just armchair psychology.
corvdb1992 .
2025-05-21 08:40:07 +0000 UTCAhhhh fuck I’ll check it out- thanks
Matt Orchard
2025-05-21 08:15:32 +0000 UTCAudio drops out at around 1:10 for about three minutes (I'm guessing there was part of the commentary track that didn't make it)
Alan Holding
2025-05-21 08:14:02 +0000 UTCA very good point!
Matt Orchard
2025-05-21 07:51:19 +0000 UTCRe: the $118k amount in the ransom note, it just struck me that it makes sense in the “plan interrupted” theory. If JDI, and he wanted to buy time before Patsy called the police, $118k is a perfect choice because she knows he certainly has exactly that much cash ready to go, no need for police involvement, no need to delay, just follow the instructions to get JonBenet back. If the number had been $3million (or what have you) it would be more likely for Patsy to involve the police immediately, because they likely don’t have that cash on hand ready to go.
2bit
2025-05-21 07:50:11 +0000 UTCThanks for checking it out and being open minded! It's something I have to keep reminding myself to be now that I've developed my own pretty darn strong opinions :)
Matt Orchard
2025-05-21 07:06:41 +0000 UTCI lived three blocks away from the Ramsey house in Boulder and have been obsessed with the case for decades. In all those years, I never wavered from my initial theory that Burke committed the murder and Patsy and John helped cover it up... that is, until your glowing review of Doc G's book compelled me to buy a copy. I had heard the theory before, but I didn't really understand the full scope of it until I read the entire thing (in one sitting). It has completely turned the case on its head for me. I was SURE it was Burke, for years, decades, I told myself it was the only logical conclusion to the total clusterfuck. Now I don't know what to think. It's been a deeply humbling experience, to say the least. Thanks for the recommendation
N. M.
2025-05-21 07:05:04 +0000 UTC
