:floorlaugh:
Are the Ramseys involved or not?
- Thread starter Britt
- Start date
New Posts
-
Japan - Miyazawa family of 4 murdered, Setagaya, Tokyo, 30 Dec 2000 #3- Latest: FacelessPodcast
- Status
:floorlaugh:
Don't bother. We know the "investigators" you're talking about. He never lifts a finger unless there's money to be made.
I believe THAT sentiment is unanimous!
Yeah, we know. And it might help you to know a little bit about this DA. Here's a good start:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379981,00.html
This is the same person who gave us John Mark Karr;
who focused on Bill McReynolds as the perp from Day One;
who hired back Lou Smit and John Douglas even though they were damaged goods;
who went to Patsy Ramsey's funeral on her own dime;
who promised Patsy she'd find the real killer;
who only got the case because the Ramseys threatened a lawsuit against the city unless the case was taken over by someone they felt was competent (Lin Wood admitted that Lacy was ideal);
who was described by her own campaign staff as a radical feminist;
who chastised Tom Haney (an investigator who makes Lou Smit look like Clouseau) for being too tough on Patsy during her interview (prompting Haney to remark, "who the hell does she think she is?")
And that's just for openers! That's not even touching on her conduct in the Univ of CO, Boulder rape case (where there was no case) or in the death of Jason Midyette (where she had to have one of Bill O'Reilly's guys show up on her lawn before she did anything).
You want I should keep going, 'cause I will!
The note has been debated by the experts.
Summary Findings Favorable to Patsy Ramsey
No BPD-Hired Experts Identified Patsy as RN Author. "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) [Emphasis added.]
*
Odds "Very Low" Patsy Wrote Note
Carnes Decision. "Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF P 196; PSMF P 196.) On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF P 203; PSMF P 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF P 204; PSMF P 204.) (Carnes 2003:26).
Hunter Deposition. Alex Hunter videotaped a deposition in the Wolf v. Ramsey case on November 27, 2001; according to Internet poster Jameson, parts of this deposition are under seal. However, the deposition was referenced in the videotaped deposition of Gideon Epstein May 17, 2002 which has been made public. (In this section, which begins on p. 165, line 2, the questioner is James RawlsQ. "You've read the testimony of Alex Hunter -- A. I have. Q. --that is part of Defendant's Exhibit 9; have you not? A. Yes. Q. And you understand that from Alex Hunter's perspective, the sum total of the handwriting analysis done by the investigation on Patsy Ramsey was that she was somewhere at about a 4.5 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 being elimination. A. (Nods head). Q. Do you not, sir? A. That's what he says. Q. Thus, that from Alex Hunter's perspective, Patsy Ramsey was not eliminated by the experts chosen by the district attorney, but she was close to elimination; correct? A. That's what he says, yes."
Patsy Ramsey Statement. From Larry King Live (3/28/2000): "KING: Is your handwriting cleared, both of you? P. RAMSEY: John's definitively was cleared. And I scored a 4.5 out of 5. Five is definitely no match, and it just..." CNN*RU*****ranscript*(html). On Larry King Live (4/14/2000), Steve Thomas stated: "Well, they're saying that she scored a numerical scale of 4 1/2, but that apparently is from their own defense handwriting experts." CNN*RU*****ranscript*(html).
*
Other*Individuals*Not*Eliminated*as*RN*Writer.
*
Well, except for that bolded part, that's more incorrect information. We talked about this at length on the radio program from August 15th. There were numerous problems with a lot of the original examiners, for one thing.
For another, Patsy was the only person out of 100 that showed similarities with the note. Carol McKinley actually interviewed the CBI expert about that.
For yet another, no less than ten experts have named Patsy specifically as the note writer. I know there have been PLENTY of lies spread about those examiners (which we ALSO touched on).
Actually, they're NOT unidentified. The two are Michael Kane and Bruce Levin, two specialists who worked on the Grand Jury. Their records as prosecutors speak for themselves.
We've tackled this many times. Mr. Wood is in bad need of a civics lesson (and anyone who is familiar with his work would agree!). It's true, police CAN lie to a suspect to see how they will respond. And that's the key here: POLICE can lie. These two men CAN'T. The Colorado Civics Statute forbids them from doing so. I quote:
Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct state: Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."
End quote. Kane and Levin would have to be real morons to state falsehoods while being recorded, knowing that they could face any punishment from censure up to and including having their law licenses revoked.
Are you kidding? Have you actually READ what the police said? Just as an example: ST's book is a very long counter to those claims you've made.
DD's right: all the claims you've given ARE from Team Ramsey. And you'd better believe we can prove it. We're not Johnny-Come-Latelies around here.
Well, then you're in luck, Junebug. Where would you like to start? If I could suggest a place, we have some excellent comparison charts right here at websleuths.
Also, as with so much of the Carnes ruling, the idea that the experts the BPD hired couldn't name Patsy as the author is problematic AT BEST. Again, Carnes only had the Ramseys' assertions as to what the handwriting reports said. She didn't see the real ones. And if what Darnay Hoffman and Lin Wood said about them is any indication, there's good reason to believe that they DON'T say what the ruling claims.
I'll be specific here. During the Wolf suit, Hoffman challenged Wood to produce the actual reports in order to prove that they said what he claims. Wood said he'd be glad to, since it would shut Hoffman up.
But here's the problem. Wood went to Hal Haddon, the Ramseys' defense attorney to get them. As defense counsel, Haddon would have access to those reports.
Here's where it gets interesting. Wood had already asked Haddon for those reports, and Haddon REFUSED to give them up, citing the Grand Jury secrecy laws. Well, by the time of the Wolf trial, the Grand Jury secrecy law had been struck down, and Wood tried again. Haddon STILL would not give him those reports. To THIS DAY the Ramseys have not released the reports that supposedly are on their side. And that's troubling, because they release EVERYTHING ELSE they think will help them. They released John Douglas's profile of a suspect, they released the results of their polygraph test, etc. But they hardly ever MENTION the ransom note.
A little sourcing never hurts:
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9939"]John Ramsey Deposition - Wolf Case - December 12, 2001 - Forums For Justice[/ame]
4 And so for the purposes of this
5 record, I would indicate that that might not be
6 available to counsel.
7 MR. WOOD: I have asked Hal Haddon
8 since that ruling to produce those for me, and he
9 declined.
How can you agree with the experts when they DIDN'T say that an intruder wrote the note??? Just how much research have you done, Junebug? Because if you had, you'd know that Patsy Ramsey was never ruled out as the writer, not even by the experts her husband hired.
By contrast, the expert who did the most extensive analysis, Chet Ubowski, told his boss that Patsy was the likely writer.
That's not even COUNTING Gideon Epstein, Larry Ziegler, Cina Wong and Tom Miller!
This is embarrassing!
For one thing, that "4.5 out of 5" scale is a bunch of nonsense. The Ramseys' own hired experts came up with that out of thin air. There is no ushc scale. And you don't have to take my word for that, either. In US v. Thornton, the court stipulated to the use of a NINE-point scale, with 1 being "identification," 5 being "inconclusive" and 9 being "elimination."
I can see we have a lot of work to do here!
IDI likes to talk about that. The problem is, whomever wrote the note most likely was not familiar with those movies either! And you can tell because a good number of those so-called "movie quotes" are actually MISQUOTED.
Moreover, you'd be surprised what women will watch. Add in the possibility that John helped her write it, and the game is on.
You say he was a genius, but if you look at his record, you'll discover two things: one, he never did it alone; two, and more importantly, the majority of his collars were poor and ignorant. He'd never run into people like the Ramseys before.
I find it interesting that you're willing to heap praise upon him based on his accomplishments, but you brush aside the link that Mikebr provided. Roger DePue is the former head of the FBI's Behavioral Sciences Unit, a man with much greater and more comprehensive experience than Lou Smit. Point-of-fact, Smit was present when the BPD held conference with the FBI's elite CASKU division. Smit COULD have said something, but didn't.
How much time do you have? because it's a LOOOOOONNNGGG list! And pretty shameful!
-Three days after arriving on the case, before he'd even read the file, he sat back in his chair and said, "I don't think the Ramseys did it." He never budged from that position
-The whole "praying incident" set it in concrete. That SHOULD have been the deal-breaker right there. But it wasn't.
Smit is often referred to as the evidence man in the case. He puts so much stock in evidence, he makes up his own! Just to give you a SMALL sampling of the "evidence" Lou Smit invented out of thin air, the stun gun leaps to mind. He created the stun gun myth. With NO evidence, no backing from any pathologist (but plenty of opposition from them!) he set out to prove that one had been used. Leaving aside that a stun gun would be totally impractical to use, he attributed abilities to the weapon that it does not possess, such as the blue line.
Then he shopped around until he found an expert who agreed with him: Michael Doberson. Problems arose immediately. He'd already said he couldn't agree: "You really can't tell from a photo," Doberson said in 1998.
Doberson's expertise stems from a case where a stun gun was used. Gerald Boggs was murdered in the area. The body of Gerald Boggs was exhumed after it had been buried for 8 months by the infamous Dr. Doberson. It was then proven that a stun gun was used on him which helped convict his ex-wife and her lover of Boggs' murder. A stun gun which matched the marks just below Boggs' ear was found in his ex-wife's car. The problem was, the photos of the marks taken after he was exhumed don't match the marks on him when he was fresh.
-Smit claims that the knots in the cord used to strangle JonBenet were highly sophisticated knots and that no one in the Ramsey family could have tied them. Again, he whips something out of thin air, First of all, John Ramsey was an accomplished sailing enthusiast. He would know how to tie a knot. But it doesn't matter. The knots were not sophisticated. Anyone could have tied them. In 2003, Michael Kane mentioned them on MSNBC:
"I don't know where this came from that these were sophisticated knots. I don't know that anybody had the opportunity to untie those knots who was an expert in knots, but the police department had somebody who fit that category and that was not the opinion of that person. These were very simple knots."
-Smit believes that the head blow came last, since JonBenet did not bleed heavily into the skull. This is contradicted by several pathologists, including Werner Spitz, Thomas Henry, Henry Lee, and Ronald Wright. In his book, Schiller says that they agreed the head wound could have been anywhere from ten to forty-five minutes before the strangulation. "She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled," said Wright in an interview for the Rocky Mountain News. 'That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.' He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation.
The blood story is another fantasy. The autopsy report describes three different areas of bleeding: the scalp hemorrhage, the subdural hematoma, and a subarachnoid hemorrhage. What's more, the sulci and the gyri were flattened against the skull. That means JonBenet's brain swelled so much it was pressed against the inside of her skull. That takes time. What's more, according to Denver neurologist Kerry Brega, it's fairly common for head wounds not to bleed. "We see a lot of people with skull fractures without bleeds in the brain, and they didn't all get strangled on the way in," she said.
-This leads into another story. Smit claims that since JonBenet's head wound came last, she must have fought her killer while being strangled. He describes multiple scratches on JonBenet's neck where she clawed at the rope. He can't even keep his own story straight. First he says she was stun gunned to keep from fighting, then she fought like a hellcat. Trouble is, the autopsy photos clearly show no signs of any kind of scratches.
-Smit has always claimed that if evidence were to arise implicating the Ramseys, he'd go after them. But on several occasions, that has happened. and he was one of the first to pooh-pooh it. In 2002, Gideon Epstein, one of the country's leading handwriting experts, studied the ransom letter, then offered to have Smit go over his findings with him. Smit flat-out refused. Why? If he's the man he says he is, he certainly wouldn't turn down a good lead, right? And if Epstein's conclusions are nothing but hooey, if Smit's evidence of innocence is so overwhelming, what could he possibly have to fear? Secondly, he claimed that the fibers that actually can be traced to the night of the killing, those from Patsy Ramsey, don't mean anything. Although when pressed, he conceded that they are incriminating. Smit apparently thinks he's smarter than all the experts, Epstein being just one example. During his deposition in a lawsuit filed against the Ramseys (more on that later), he essentially admitted that he didn't speak to anyone who didn't agree with him.
I'm not even going to get INTO his conduct during his 1998 interview with John Ramsey, but it's no wonder why Thomas threw the remote at the monitor and screamed, "he's controlling the *advertiser censored**ing investigation!" in a rage.
I think it's helpful to remember that for all of this talk about what a great homicide detective Lou Smit is, his record of over 200 homicides solved is due to several factors. Number one, he never solved them alone. He always worked with a team, not as a lone wolf. Secondly, the great majority of the murders he dealt with were open-and-shut cases. Uneducated killers who barely had enough sense to drop the gun, as it were. He'd never handled anyone like John and Patsy Ramsey. Thirdly, his own wife at the time was suffering from cancer. I regret to say that she has since passed away. When he saw that Patsy had fought it and lived through it, maybe he felt some projected affection. Maybe he figured no one who survived cancer could kill. Fourthly, he admits that he has almost no experience with staging. He said in 2000 that only two of the cases he worked involved staging and that it was very minimal. So he really wouldn't know what to look for.
Then there's the fact that he STOLE (in the very strictest sense--took illegally) evidence from the police file and then blackmailed the DA into letting him keep it!
Ironically, Smit's mantra is "the obvious is usually the right answer." I don't regret taking his advice. I just wish to God he had.
As far as I'm concerned, Lou Smit is a big reason why no one has had to answer for JonBenet's death. He allowed himself to be taken in by a couple of ruthless manipulators and supplied them with evidence that he took illegally. He should not have been allowed to remain on the case when his biases became obvious, and he should have gone to jail.
But they were smart enough to work with people who WERE!
The biggest screw-up the police made was not arresting the Ramseys and placing them in separate holding cells until one of them confessed. But even then, they can't be blamed. We've got our bloody friend Alex Hunter to thank for that!
Dave, I don't have the time to respond to everything you posted. But i would like to clear one thing up, the DNA under the finger nails did match. You RDI keep denying it but it's true. Funny how many headlines read Ramseys no longer suspects, or Ramseys cleared. Experts argue, they disagree. I just happen to believe different than you do. That doesn't mean I am dumb, or I don't follow the case, I do, I just came to a different conclusion than you. Lou Smit was 200 for 200, he was pissed that innocent people were being falsely accused. So are suggesting that Lou Smit made up lies and planted evidence? ********.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-09/...et-ramsey-dna-tests-ramsey-family?_s=PM:CRIME
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-09/...et-ramsey-dna-tests-ramsey-family?_s=PM:CRIME
Footwarrior
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2011
- Messages
- 2,236
- Reaction score
- 1,036
It would be nice to see this become standard practice on WS.
Oh, man, not this again!
The notion that the DNA was useful in clearing people as long as they weren't a Ramsey is an old one, another bit of Ramsey propaganda. (Also, you're confusing the TDNA with something else.) ST admits in his deposition that people were NOT cleared solely upon the DNA!
But even if that HAD been the case, and the DNA was enough to clear people in and of itself, it depends on how the two different viewpoints are constructed. Where RDI did the smart thing and based itself on the totality of evidence, IDI decided very early on that they were going for a smoking gun, with the DNA as their main artillery. That was a big mistake, because they have bricked themselves into a corner by doing that. By touting the DNA as a case-breaker, they have limited themselves as to how they can pursue suspects. What this means is that, even if a suspect does come along who matches everything else related to the crime--fibers, handwriting, etc.--if his DNA comes back negative for a match, none of that other stuff is going to matter. That's it. Game over. Guilty as hell, free as a bird. Don't let the door smack you in the butt on the way out.
No, he wasn't. That's another myth, one we discussed on the radio program. The story that JMK was cleared because his DNA didn't match is an extreme oversimplification. He was cleared because there was no other evidence that could have tied him to the crime. See, the JMK debacle is the perfect illustration of the point I just made.
By the time he arrived back in the US to have his DNA tested, his story had already started to unravel. The DNA not matching was the final nail in the coffin. I have no doubt that the DA Lacy would have done a 180 and pursued a case against him even when the DNA didn't match except for one small problem: she COULDN'T. As the DA herself said, the problem was not that his DNA didn't match. The problem was that his confession was constructed in such a way where literally EVERY SINGLE piece of evidence would HAVE to match him.
Does that help?
Number one, her JACKET was red, black and grey. Her SWEATER was all red. But even if you were right, and it WAS the jacket, there's actually a very simple explanation: none of the black and grey areas came into contact with the staging.
See, this is something that you have to understand: we're not claiming that the fibers simply FELL into the crime scene as Patsy was staging it. If that were the case, we'd expect to find fibers all over JB's body as well. But they DIDN'T. Do you understand? They WEREN'T on JB's body. They were ONLY on items and in places the Ramseys claimed they never had and never went near. The circumstances of the fiber evidence is much more damning than just them being there: it's the likelihood of HOW they go there. Since was not a heavily-shedding article of clothing, it stands to reason--as far as this humble Internet investigator goes--that the fibers got onto the tape and cord because those items came into contact with the garment at the time it was worn. This blows IDI's innocent transfer theory to little pieces (not that THEY would admit it!).
Hmm! You know, Junebug, I owe you a big thanks! For YEARS I've tried to put that explanation into words, but I was never quite able to do it until now! I hope you'll continue to bring me good luck!
I don't HAVE to explain them, Junebug, for the reasons I just outlined. See, the fibers from Patsy's clothing have time and circumstance placement, ie CONTEXT. We know WHEN they were transferred and a pretty good idea HOW they were transferred. That's not true for the other ones you speak of. They could have come from anywhere anytime.
Yeah, COPS lie. This is a bit different.
Pretty close to it!
You mean assuming he didn't have a hand in it? I can think of a few reasons. My mother, RIP, explained it to me. As she put it, John had already lost JonBenet, and Beth. If he turned Patsy in he would have lost her too. A daughter and a wife all in one day. And when I say lost, I mean it. It's likely Patsy would have died in prison. He couldn't protect JB from Patsy, so in a sense, HE killed her. And if he ratted Patsy out, he would have killed her too.
first of all there are links to all kinds of stuff on the internet on this case and everything else.....but links are no more proof than opinion unless its evidence that can be used in a court. Here is a link that says Lacy was wrong to clear the parents and the DNA found was an artifact or contamination not evidence from the crime....my last link you said was just one man's opinion...what you say about this one..:great:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379981,00.html
That's precisely the issue, Junebug. By his OWN admission (several years after claiming exactly what you are), those "investigators" you speak of were NOT hired to "find out." They were hired to keep him out of prison. More specifically, they were hired to create reasonable doubt in the event that a case were brought against him or Patsy in court. And they did it by sabotaging potential witnesses, one of which actually got them to admit it in a court of law.
I believe madeleine has the quote from John Ramsey to this effect?
Yeah, I know, pilgrim. And as I pointed out earlier, that's a MYTH. NO ONE was ever cleared solely because their DNA didn't match, not even JMK. ST confirmed that in his depo. The BPD actually took the tack that IDI should have taken: they cleared people based on the totality of evidence, not just one thing.
I could SWEAR we tackled this issue on the radio broadcast. Did you miss it?
I don't know what you're laughing at, pilgrim.
Very few IDIs do, I can't help but notice. Must be my cologne.
No, I'm afraid it isn't, and it doesn't. And you're damn right we keep denying it, because it's nonsense. I know where you got that idea from, BTW. The lazy, cowed media and those goons the Ramseys hired. But it's just not true. There's no way any responsible investigator would describe ANYTHING that only had two markers as a "match" to ANYTHING. The media says a LOT of things about this case that are not true.
Cynic would be better to handle this than me. He has a science background.
Case in point. Since I haven't seen cynic reply to you yet, you're probably not aware that the new DA came out last year on the Dan Caplis radio show and UNcleared 'em!
Granted.
I sympathize, Junebug. I used to be one of you.
Number one, I never said you were dumb. Don't put words in my mouth.
Number two,
Junebug, I used to believe that exact same thing. But after a while, it just didn't hold up. Once I started examining WHY he thought them to be innocent, it wasn't long before the man's shining armor began to show some big patches of rust!
You seem to have misunderstood me, Junebug. (Either that, or you just didn't bother to READ what I wrote.) Because if you read what I said carefully, you'd see I'm not suggesting that he did either of those. Rather, I'm pointing out two very important things:
1) He decided they were innocent based on his own feelings rather than actual EVIDENCE;
2) then essentially created his own evidence to back it up, even though it had no basis. Sadly, these myths he created have been spread for year by Team Ramsey like plague bacilli, to the point where, for too many people, they have become accepted as truth.
This is a man who admitted in court that he thinks he knows better than the experts. He also admitted that he has almost no experience with staging. There was an article a few years back where he said that the only case he'd ever worked on where staging was involved was the classic case of a gun being put in a dead man's hand to look like suicide. Obviously, that would have left him unprepared for a case like this where the staging was not only incredibly elaborate, but there was, to quote the FBI experts, staging within staging.
I hope that clears it up. Or at least gives you something to mull over.
You obviously haven't been here long, then! Because for my money, this place is one of the best research hubs there is.
Speaking for myself, I'm just burned out from working so hard and not getting anywhere when I do. It's clear it wouldn't make a difference. What good does it do to post links if no one READS them?
- Status
DNASolves
Staff online
-
CarlK90245UID Moderator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 151
- Guests online
- 1,791
- Total visitors
- 1,942