Seeker said:
I take exception at your calling us all idiots because you want to believe the Ramsey's "won" anything. They didn't. Thomas didn't have to admit to doing anything wrong, nor did his book get pulled or edited for content.
Thomas was still talking after the case was settled, the Ramsey's weren't. In fact true to form they just "got on" with their lives and looked for their next victim to sue.
I didn't call anyone an "idiot" but if that's the logical conclusion you draw about RDI theorists based on how they mishandle evidence, so be it.
Thomas's book was #5 on NYT bestseller list:
http://www.sspfrance.com/library/bstsllrs500.htm
I haven't been able to find sales figures, but it's a safe bet he made some good money on that book. And even if he didn't, he must have surely thought he could given that he was the only insider unprofessional enough to report "facts" on an unsolved crime.
Judge Carnes is in a better position to judge Steve Thomas's credibility than you or I are. Consider her conclusions:
Carnes reserved special criticism for Thomas, the former Boulder detective upon whose theories the Wolf complaint was based. "Whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas' theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support," she wrote. "Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case. In short, the plaintiff's evidence that the [Ramseys] killed their daughter and covered up their crime is based on little more than the fact that defendants were present in the house during the murder," Carnes wrote.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/002340.html
Thus, on one side we have the FBI, Secret Service, 2 independent crime labs, an experienced detective and a federal judge and on the other side we have...Steve Thomas. Nearly everyone in Boulder apparently is a liar, except for Steve. Does that make sense to you? Do you think an IMPARTIAL jury would view things the same way you do?