Best book?

New Posts

ST's book is still available in paperback in Barnes & Nobel. Online as well.
I read it quite a while ago; I think I am due for a re-read.
As far as PMPT, I'll watch the DVD every once in a while. It's pretty true to the book, and you get it done in 2 hours.
 
Lawrence Schiller: "I know that he went into the basement and found the broken window open. He himself told this to the police on April 30, 1997".
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...=9780060191535
Click to expand...

Sorry Mr. Schiller, but you can't "know" that John went to the basement and found the window open because you were not there as an eye-witness. You simply accepted as fact what the suspect told the police.

jmo
 
rashomon said:
What good reasons did Steve Thomas have not to reveal John's involvement?
Click to expand...

I remember ST saying he thought JR knew it was Patsy who wrote that note as soon as he read it. And that then JR had to make a decision.

He said this during the famous LKL ST/Ramsey show. You can probably find the transcript online.
 
rashomon said:
What good reasons did Steve Thomas have not to reveal John's involvement?
Click to expand...
Could it be that he didn't want to "reveal his hand" to the Ramseys? I mean, did ST really believe in his Patsy killed JonBenet because of bedwetting theory, or was that some sort of bait to lure in John?


-Tea
 
icedtea4me said:
Could it be that he didn't want to "reveal his hand" to the Ramseys? I mean, did ST really believe in his Patsy killed JonBenet because of bedwetting theory, or was that some sort of bait to lure in John?


-Tea
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...that's a good thought!!!
 
Ames said:
Hmmmm...that's a good thought!!!
Click to expand...
I have to wonder that myself,and UK and RiverRat have given compelling reasons to think that may just be the case.So perhaps the potty theory is a 'sandwich filler',of sorts.Thomas is laying out his theory for Smit in his book..figuring Smit is part of a conspiracy,it wouldn't be wise to give all the cards away to his opponent.
On that note,I think most would agree that Thomas didn't really think that Patsy disposed of evidence like the cord and tape in a storm drain or neighbor's garbage,nor did she tear that small piece of tape from a roll of tape that came from a drawer upstairs,where she kept several rolls of tape.I think he knew the tape had likely been previously used, and came from something else (like the AG doll),and that either there was no tape or cord left,or the rest had been hidden in JR's golf bag and or removed by PP.(no surprise there,right).So see,those are just filler comments for what he really thinks or knows about the cord and tape,and he's not about to reveal any of that publicly,one way or another.Better to let the other side wonder.
I do rule out BR,though.I don't see LE putting pressure on Patsy if it had been BR.
 
trixie said:
I remember ST saying he thought JR knew it was Patsy who wrote that note as soon as he read it. And that then JR had to make a decision.
Click to expand...
He did,in his book,I don't know about LKL,but...of course,that behavior is far too passive for a parent who doesn't know where his child is!! That's why I don't think that line "Don't try to grow a brain,John", was meant for John,written solely by Patsy.It was meant to mislead LE,and was put there by JR,to point to Merrick and friends.(was Patsy a fat cat herself?)Patsy couldn't have possibly known what JR's reaction would have been...what if he'd called LE and said 'Hey,I think my spouse wrote that note...please help me find my daughter !!!" (Thats what I would do).Or what if he'd decided not to call 911,and deal with Patsy and the situation himself??? After all,the note did say not to contact anyone,or "SHE DIES".That's why that scenario makes no sense.
And what was JR to do,the way he was said to have acted,(if he was thinking Patsy wrote the note???);he might have just as well been sitting there twiddling his thumbs,thinking 'ho hum,yea,JB's missing and I think Patsy wrote that note,but...I'm just gonna sit here and not do a darn thing about it...I'll just have to wonder what happened....." I mean.....WHAT???? That behavior is WAYYYY to passive for the parent of a missing child !!!! He would have been out of his mind !! Also,he would have had several minutes before LE arrived to confront Patsy about the note,too.As well as I think he would have searched outside the house,and had LE to as well...if he thought Patsy had hurt JB,then what if she'd left her outside,to look as if someone else did it,and JB needed help?? No parent would be so passive in such a situation.
But,I do think this is a filler story as well.He can't reveal all he knows,but I do think Thomas put a heck of a lot of integrity into his investigation,and did the best he could,in spite of all the obstacles he faced.And for the IDI's,NO,I don't think his book was about money or ego !! (the R's was though !!).
 
icedtea4me said:
Could it be that he didn't want to "reveal his hand" to the Ramseys? I mean, did ST really believe in his Patsy killed JonBenet because of bedwetting theory, or was that some sort of bait to lure in John?


-Tea
Click to expand...

How do I say this delicately?????? :waitasec:

YES!!!
 
icedtea4me said:
Could it be that he didn't want to "reveal his hand" to the Ramseys? I mean, did ST really believe in his Patsy killed JonBenet because of bedwetting theory, or was that some sort of bait to lure in John?

-Tea
Click to expand...
I don't think it was a bait to lure in John, for at the time Steve Thomas was writing his book, he was no longer part of the investigation.

Imo Steve Thomas gave John Ramsey a pass because he was not aware of the fiber evidence implicating John. For additional tests were done after June 1998:

17 MR. WOOD: Well, and fairly, I

18 anticipated there might be something because,

19 I mean, the forensics issue is one that I

20 think everyone is aware of, tests that have

21 been done subsequent to June of 1998, and I

22 just wanted to make sure that we were not

23 asking her to answer questions that are based

24 on what could be differing opinions on

25 forensics --
Click to expand...
Interesting to note that Lin Wood himself says he "anticipated there might be something" (i. e. that the lab might have found something).
And indeed they did. Additional fibers from Patsy's jacket were found in the paint tray, in the wrappings of the wooden handle and on the blanket covering JonBenet's 's body. (source: year 2000 interview with Patsy Ramsey).
And fibers from John's shirt were found on JonBenet's crotch and in the size 12 underwear.

I always found it strange that in his book, Steve T. only mentioned Patsy's fibers on the duct tape, but none of the other fiber evidence. But since additional evidence was tested after June 1998, this might explain it.
 
RiverRat said:
How do I say this delicately?????? :waitasec:

YES!!!
Click to expand...
I think it's entirely possible.Parts of the potty theory make no sense.Like for example,most of us think JR did already know JB was dead by the time the 911 call was made.I don't see how Thomas didn't know it,either.Yet he left JR out of the scenario entirely.
I've also never thought it made sense to say Patsy wrote the RN,hoping that JR would 'catch on' to what was happening.If so,then she must have been pretty darned psychic,because the whole thing played out just as she wanted it to.Truth is,if that had been the case,she would have had no clue what he would do.What if he'd turned on her???? Patsy wasn't so stupid as to take such a chance.
 
Just remember this.....Steve did not write a "Tell-All" book. He did pen a book that blew the whistle on how the Ramseys were enabled by the District Attorney's Office and confirmed many of the stories we've had heard - but it was far from a Tell-All He Knows book.
 
RiverRat said:
Just remember this.....Steve did not write a "Tell-All" book. He did pen a book that blew the whistle on how the Ramseys were enabled by the District Attorney's Office and confirmed many of the stories we've had heard - but it was far from a Tell-All He Knows book.
Click to expand...

exactly ! and for others who say we're demeaning Thomas to say we think JR was involved before the fact,or that we disagree w/ the potty theory (or parts of it)...not at all !!! I have nothing but utmost respect for him.
 
JMO8778 said:
exactly ! and for others who say we're demeaning Thomas to say we think JR was involved before the fact,or that we disagree w/ the potty theory (or parts of it)...not at all !!! I have nothing but utmost respect for him.
Click to expand...

In this case, it is very hard to find someone to respect.....Steve is at the top of a hand few that I can count with Fleet & Priscilla right beside him. Knowing just how decent these people are really makes me despise Team Scamsey that much more. Thanks for your company!!!
 
icedtea4me said:
Could it be that he didn't want to "reveal his hand" to the Ramseys? I mean, did ST really believe in his Patsy killed JonBenet because of bedwetting theory, or was that some sort of bait to lure in John?


-Tea
Click to expand...

When I said..."Hmmmm..that's a good thought"...in an earlier post...I was referring to the part in your post about luring John. I DO believe that ST believes in the bedwetting theory...and so do I. But, I don't think that he actually believes that John didn't know about it, until he read the RN...and then figured out that it was Patsy that wrote it. I think that this part could possibly have been the bait to lure in John.
 
[JMO8778]:I think it's entirely possible.Parts of the potty theory make no sense.Like for example,most of us think JR did already know JB was dead by the time the 911 call was made.I don't see how Thomas didn't know it,either.Yet he left JR out of the scenario entirely.
I've also never thought it made sense to say Patsy wrote the RN,hoping that JR would 'catch on' to what was happening.If so,then she must have been pretty darned psychic,because the whole thing played out just as she wanted it to.Truth is,if that had been the case,she would have had no clue what he would do.What if he'd turned on her???? Patsy wasn't so stupid as to take such a chance.
Click to expand...
Indeed it doesn't make sense.

But ST was no longer part of the investigation when he wrote his book. What would he have to gain from pretending to be clueless about John's possible involvement?
 
rashomon said:
Indeed it doesn't make sense.

But ST was no longer part of the investigation when he wrote his book. What would he have to gain from pretending to be clueless about John's possible involvement?
Click to expand...

rashomon,

It does not make sense because the Toilet Rage theory is not consistent, its only one of many theories considered by the investigators.

Steve Thomas was under a legal obligation not reveal any evidence that might harm any future trial. e.g. there is no mention in his book about the missing piece of the paintbrush. The PDI is not the main subject, his book is really a thinly disguised expose of the corruption involved in the case.

There was no bedwetting, JonBenet never saw her own bed, her pajamas were still on her bed, she was discovered still wearing her white-gap top, urine-stained longjohns and size-12's, a curious choice when attempting to hide a Toilet Rage homicide? Why not leave JonBenet naked from the waist down, as per the result of an abduction and assault by a very nasty intruder?


What would he have to gain from pretending to be clueless about John's possible involvement?
Click to expand...
He gains the advantage of not telegraphing to the Ramsey's any potential line of questioning.
 
rashomon said:
Indeed it doesn't make sense.

But ST was no longer part of the investigation when he wrote his book. What would he have to gain from pretending to be clueless about John's possible involvement?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's about what he could have gained,it's about what he didn't want to give away.He is clearly keeping TR in he dark by leaving JR out of the scenario,and by saying things like Patsy disposed of the cord and tape in a nearby sewer or neighbor's trash.
Of course he put in the book that JR asked for his golf bag,and that PP raided the house.But by not identifying one or the other as to what evidence he thinks went where,he's not giving anything away.That is truly up to the reader to decide.
I imagine TR thought they'd get to gain some insight into what LE truly thought or had evidence of, when Thomas' book came out.And surely JR was prepared with numerous excuses in DOI,but,it didn't happen.
I do think he dropped several hints though,but as I said,for the reader to discern.Things like JB crying and saying she 'didn't feel pretty',that she had seen the school nurse several times that month,and always on a Mon.,and that the word incest had been looked up in the dictionary.
Of course you have those in the investigation saying they thought she'd been subjected to sexual contact,and then Thomas saying he thought it was some sort of corporal punishment being metered out by Patsy.
The most interesting thing to me is that Thomas and Mark Fuhrman went through the evidence together,and Furhman later says it was 'not an accident,in fact,it was quite intentional'.And Thomas says it was an accident,at least up until the cord was placed around her neck.
To me,that says it was not an accident,right from the beginning.If so,then why did Fuhrman fill in the word 'accident' with 'intentional'?
 
RiverRat said:
In this case, it is very hard to find someone to respect.....Steve is at the top of a hand few that I can count with Fleet & Priscilla right beside him.
Click to expand...

yes,and I have give credit to Melinda's fiance as well,for risking his relationship in order to do the right thing,by letting LE know what he'd heard JR say.She really got herself a nice guy there. :)

Knowing just how decent these people are really makes me despise Team Scamsey that much more. Thanks for your company!!!
Click to expand...
Amen,and you are quite welcome ! :)
 
JMO8778 said:
I don't think it's about what he could have gained,it's about what he didn't want to give away.He is clearly keeping TR in he dark by leaving JR out of the scenario,and by saying things like Patsy disposed of the cord and tape in a nearby sewer or neighbor's trash.
Of course he put in the book that JR asked for his golf bag,and that PP raided the house.But by not identifying one or the other as to what evidence he thinks went where,he's not giving anything away.That is truly up to the reader to decide.
I imagine TR thought they'd get to gain some insight into what LE truly thought or had evidence of, when Thomas' book came out.And surely JR was prepared with numerous excuses in DOI,but,it didn't happen.
I do think he dropped several hints though,but as I said,for the reader to discern.Things like JB crying and saying she 'didn't feel pretty',that she had seen the school nurse several times that month,and always on a Mon.,and that the word incest had been looked up in the dictionary.
Of course you have those in the investigation saying they thought she'd been subjected to sexual contact,and then Thomas saying he thought it was some sort of corporal punishment being metered out by Patsy.
The most interesting thing to me is that Thomas and Mark Fuhrman went through the evidence together,and Furhman later says it was 'not an accident,in fact,it was quite intentional'.And Thomas says it was an accident,at least up until the cord was placed around her neck.
To me,that says it was not an accident,right from the beginning.If so,then why did Fuhrman fill in the word 'accident' with 'intentional'?
Click to expand...
Steve Thomas called it an accident, but from his description of events it becomes quite clear that he thinks it was a rage attack, and imo Mark Fuhrman meant the same by using the word 'intentional'.

What happened to JonBenet was not an 'accident' in the true sense, i. e. without parental rage being involved in the harm done to JonBenet.
A true accident for example would be when a parent backs out of the garage with the car and accidentally runs over their child whom they overlooked.
 
rashomon said:
Steve Thomas called it an accident, but from his description of events it becomes quite clear that he thinks it was a rage attack, and imo Mark Fuhrman meant the same by using the word 'intentional'.

What happened to JonBenet was not an 'accident' in the true sense, i. e. without parental rage being involved in the harm done to JonBenet.
A true accident for example would be when a mother or father backs out of the garage witrh the car and accidentally run over their child whom they overlooked.
Click to expand...

That's the way I see it, too. Actually, it may be a matter of semantics- with Thomas and Fuhrman describing the same thing, but with different definitions of "accident" here. Thomas sees it as a rage attack- where PR lost her temper and violently hurt her child. It was not her intention to kill her- it was over in a split-second, and before she realized it, she had killed her daughter. (This specifically relates to the head bash only). Then Fuhrman sees the garrote and that's the part he sees as intentional, and of course, it was. Maybe he's seeing that as primary, and ST is seeing the head bash as primary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 55 more.
Total: 3,153 (members: 56, guests: 3,097)

Online statistics

Members online
56
Guests online
3,097
Total visitors
3,153
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,398
Messages
17,968,355
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top