For the last time, BURKE DIDN'T DO IT!!

[Seeker]

Yes Britt, Burke was there. I've often wondered just why Burke didn't ask 1001 questions as most 9/10 year old boys would. What normal 9/10 year old boy isn't going to ask questions when he sees police cars, police in his home, and most of his mom & dad's friends over that early in the morning his immediate family was suppose to be on their way to the airport?

He just quietly and calmly walks out with John Fernie and Fleet White? He doesn't ask where his sister is?

And people think Fleet White's behavior is odd....

 

[aRnd2it]

Not one single person? Last time I checked, Ramseys SUED Steve Thomas for his pack of lies and won the case!

I meant not one single person connected with the law enforcement side of the case. Even Lou Smit and Alex Hunter refuse to try and contradict what is in Thomas' book. And Beckner has called the book "essentially true".
What the Ramseys think is meaningless, they are the only suspects in their daughter's murder and they will always remain the only suspects.

And by the way, it was Steve Thomas' publisher that settled with the Ramseys, not Steve. The settlement didn't cost Steve a single penny. His book is still for sale and he still stands by every single word of it.
You know that, but you just want to spread more of your swamp propaganda like it has some value. -- Not.

 

[aRnd2it]

Yes Britt, Burke was there. I've often wondered just why Burke didn't ask 1001 questions as most 9/10 year old boys would.

Burke was up and awake during the time of the 911 call, then John ordered him to get back into bed and not come out until he or Patsy came and got him.

It was Christmas. Why would Burke (or any other kid) not think a house full of guests might have presents for him, instead of hiding in his bed pretending to be asleep.

 

[DocWatson]

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?

 

[DocWatson]

I meant not one single person connected with the law enforcement side of the case. Even Lou Smit and Alex Hunter refuse to try and contradict what is in Thomas' book. And Beckner has called the book "essentially true".
What the Ramseys think is meaningless, they are the only suspects in their daughter's murder and they will always remain the only suspects.

And by the way, it was Steve Thomas' publisher that settled with the Ramseys, not Steve. The settlement didn't cost Steve a single penny. His book is still for sale and he still stands by every single word of it.
You know that, but you just want to spread more of your swamp propaganda like it has some value. -- Not.

See my reply immediately above. I consider Judge Carnes part of LE, don't you? She LAMBASTED Steve's claims for their lack of evidentiary support. The Ramseys must be mighty wealthy to be able to pay off the FBI, Secret Service, 2 independent labs, AND a federal judge!

Please provide evidence that ST has stated that he stands by every word SINCE the settlement was made. I can't prove a negative, but my impression is that Steve's yap hasn't been flapping nearly as much as it was 4-5 years ago. The burden of proof is on you to support your claim.

 

[aRnd2it]

Judge Carnes is in a better position to judge Steve Thomas's credibility than you or I are. Consider her conclusions

Tell us DocWatson, do you REALLY think Darnay Hoffman presented ANY form of a case to Carnes? WHAT A JOKE!

Carnes read a bunch of myths that Lin Wood presented her--that was it. Hoffman presented NOTHING.
Carnes' decision is the same as if she ruled on the existance of the Santa Claus with only "The Night Before Christmas" as case material.

 

[aRnd2it]

Please provide evidence that ST has stated that he stands by every word SINCE the settlement was made. I can't prove a negative,

What you can't prove is anything you say. Since Carnes is ruled out because she saw only one side of the case--the side with all the lies and myths, you have no person in LE who is willing to stand up and say, "I was there. and it didn't happen the way Thomas wrote about it."

Thomas is on record as stating his book is completely factual. The timing of his statement is meaningless because YOU have to prove him wrong. The same way YOU would have to prove Albert Einstein wrong--you couldn't just say his theories are "outdated by lapsed time" so they don't count.

And you WON"T hear anyone in LE contradicting Thomas--because they're scared of him. They don't know what case files he might still have. If they contradict him, he just might pop up with supporting doctments that prove them liars.

 

[DocWatson]

"ALAN DERSHOWITZ, AUTHOR, "THE GENESIS OF JUSTICE": A prosecutor should bring a case only when on the basis of admissible evidence the case would be proved to satisfaction of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the constitutional standard. That's the standard we respect all through this country, and I think that Mr. Hunter was absolutely right in not bringing this country, and I think that Mr. Hunter was absolutely right in not bringing this case. I've looked at the Thompson [SIC: this comment was made immediately after Steve Thomas spoke: Dershowitz clearly was talking about Steve's book] book. It's full of speculation, theory, innuendo. He says his hypothesis is this. You know, that wouldn't even be a close case.

It would be unethical for a prosecutor to bring the case that is presented in this book to the -- to a jury. It would be wrong. It would be unethical. I think that Alex Hunter is, although he's become criticized ,I think he's a constitutional hero. "
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/04/lkl.00.html

I'm willing to accept Alan Dershowitz's conclusion that Steve Thomas's theory is full of speculation, theory, innuendo, are you? The problem is, we have this MOUNTAIN of evidence exonerating the Ramseys, but RDI theorists keep finding all manner of excuses to ignore it. Why? Because it doesn't fit their preconceived notion of who dunnit.

I don't know what to call that biased attitude, but it sure ain't sleuthing. Sherlock would be ROTFLHAOTIHE if he were here to observe the goings-on.

 

[Britt]

And Alan Dershowitz was involved HOW in this case? Whom did he represent? What police files did he read? Which evidence experts - medical experts, CBI, FBI, DNA, 911 sound techs and so on - directly involved in this case shared their information with Dershowitz?

 

[aRnd2it]

I'm willing to accept Alan Dershowitz's conclusion that Steve Thomas's theory is full of speculation, theory, innuendo,

This case will NEVER be solved. The Ramseys will go unpunished. Decades from now this case will still be debated and Steve Thomas' book will remain the definitive case reference.

 

[DocWatson]

What you can't prove is anything you say. Since Carnes is ruled out because she saw only one side of the case--the side with all the lies and myths, you have no person in LE who is willing to stand up and say, "I was there. and it didn't happen the way Thomas wrote about it." .

Uh, Lou Smit wasn't there at the beginning, but he certainly was privy to all the information ST saw and then some. He reaches a conclusion quite the opposite of Steve's. But wait, I forget, yeah he's admittedly LE, BUT his opinions don't count because they don't fit aRnd2it's preconceived notion of this crime.

Thomas is on record as stating his book is completely factual. The timing of his statement is meaningless because YOU have to prove him wrong. The same way YOU would have to prove Albert Einstein wrong--you couldn't just say his theories are "outdated by lapsed time" so they don't count..

Sorry, once someday loses in court--and there's no other reasonable way to interpret the "settlement" however much you'd LIKE to spin it in Steve's favor--that's a pretty strong signal from the impartial legal system that the individual in question has been unable to make his case. Do you SERIOUSLY support ST's ridiculous theory or are you just arguing for the sake of argument?

And you WON"T hear anyone in LE contradicting Thomas--because they're scared of him. They don't know what case files he might still have. If they contradict him, he just might pop up with supporting doctments that prove them liars.

Let's see: LOU SMIT is willing to contradict Thomas on virtually every point. No one could possibly believe Lou Smit's theory and Steve Thomas's theory at the same time. Please understand that as I have stated earlier, I do not accept Smit's theory hook, line and sinker the way you apparently believe Thomas's theory. However, I offer him as an illustration that your claim is factually incorrect. Why would Lou Smit, who was retired and had nothing to gain by taking on this case, risk his entire reputation by trotting out a theory that ST could shoot down in a heartbeat?

Isn't it interesting that Steve--who has the means, motive and opportunity to get access to the original enhanced 911 tape and easily circumvent Mary Kane's outrageous hoodwinking of the public by her release of a redacted tape--has failed to do so? He can't find ONE outraged fellow officer who could lay hands on that tape and find a way to get it leaked? He can't find ONE outraged Aerospace Corporation employee willing to come forward (even ANONYMOUSLY?????) to corroborate Steve's account?

Whaddya think this tells us? That perhaps Steve's entire fairy tale about the tape was just that? Yeah, LE is just shakin' in their boots worried about Steve Thomas.

 

[Britt]

I don't know what to call that biased attitude, but it sure ain't sleuthing.

:laugh: And "sleuthing" is what, deciding the Ramseys are innocent and working backwards from there? Automatically dismissing anyone and anythng that tends to prove Ramsey guilt? Deciding any and all law enforcement that doesn't support the Ramseys is out to get them just because? I agree with you that a biased attitude sure ain't sleuthing.

 

[DocWatson]

And Alan Dershowitz was involved HOW in this case? Whom did he represent? What police files did he read? Which evidence experts - medical experts, CBI, FBI, DNA, 911 sound techs and so on - directly involved in this case shared their information with Dershowitz?

Alan Dershowitz is a defense attorney with DECADES of expertise in dealing with criminal cases, from which he knows what kind of evidence is needed to support a prosecution and conviction. He took Steve Thomas's claims at face value and asked himself a simple question: "in my experience, how credible is this theory of the crime based on the evidence the author provides in the book to support it?"

Lou Smit read all the police files and is privy to all the evidence Steve Thomas had (and then some, since he stuck with the case far long than Steve even though he was not in on it initially). Even though Lou has been happy to provide his speculations about the case (even to the point, in the view of some, of improperly disclosing evidence), neither he nor any other BPD officer has come forward to corroborate Steve's account. Wouldn't ya think that after Steve was HUMILIATED by losing to the Ramsey's, someone with access to that enhanced tape would have gotten the cohones to come forward and defend Steve's position. Those BPD weenies are just shameful. It's just AWFUL that the ONE brave officer in that department quit in disgust in 1998 and no one's left to carry on his brave fight.

 

[aRnd2it]

Isn't it interesting that Steve--who has the means, motive and opportunity to get access to the original enhanced 911 tape and easily circumvent Mary Kane's outrageous hoodwinking of the public by her release of a redacted tape--has failed to do so? He can't find ONE outraged fellow officer who could lay hands on that tape and find a way to get it leaked?

Oh I get it, because Steve Thomas is not a common criminal like Lou Smit who steals hard case evidence and makes it public, that makes him not credible.

Yeah....that makes a lot of sense.....LOL :doh:

Britt is right. Your perspective on this case starts at the -end and then works backward trying to figure out what animal's dung you're shoveling.

 

[aRnd2it]

Let's see: LOU SMIT is willing to contradict Thomas on virtually every point.

Please post ONE SINGLE QUOTE from Lou Smit where he says or implies Steve Thomas is untruthful. You won't find one. Smit knows every fact presented in Thomas' book is true.

Lou Smit's "intruder" theory might contradict Thomas' "Patsy" theory, but that does NOT contradict any of the case facts Thomas documented.

 

[sissi]

Steve was was not professional from the beginning. Did he not meet with the media, such as ,I believe , Ann Bardach from vanity fair to give up file information in an active case? How many have dinner with potential suspects, and let it be publicly known they believe their "new" friends suspect the Ramseys killed their daughter. Who was responsible for eliminating "subjects" such as Jessie and Bill McReynolds, the Whites and others ,based on what...gut feelings? What kind of investigators did Boulder have working on this case? Wasn't it insinuated that Linda Arndt was emotionally/perhaps sexually involved with Barbara Fernie? Why were these BPD employees allowed this freedom to literally sleep with the "subjects" that were not at that point eliminated as suspects? While developing these close relationships with these subjects we must consider what influence these possibly socially intimidating "subjects" had on these police officers.
Why didn't they do their job?

 

[Britt]

Alan Dershowitz is a defense attorney with DECADES of expertise in dealing with criminal cases, from which he knows what kind of evidence is needed to support a prosecution and conviction. He took Steve Thomas's claims at face value and asked himself a simple question: "in my experience, how credible is this theory of the crime based on the evidence the author provides in the book to support it?"

Objection. Non-responsive.

So Dersh disagrees with Thomas's hypothesis. Thomas's hypothesis may even be wrong. But it's only a hypothesis, which Thomas himself clearly states. Point: How does Dersh's opinion shed any light whatsoever on the facts and evidence here?

...neither [Smit] nor any other BPD officer has come forward to corroborate Steve's account.

Nor has anyone come forward to contradict it (facts/evidence). Thomas quoted a lot of people and reported on a lot of other cops' info/statements/notes... you'd think someone would object to his making all that up and putting words in all their mouths if it was a buncha lies.

And furthermore... what aRnd2it said. Not even Smit calls Thomas a liar.

 

[DocWatson]

You would except the conclusion of Jim Carey (the comedian) if he stated it. Your willingness to accept the ramblings of every fool who never even saw the actual case evidence (Carnes included) prove you don't have a leg to stand on...

This case will NEVER be solved. The Ramseys will go unpunished. Decades from now this case will still be debated and Steve Thomas' book will remain the definitive case reference.

The difference between you and Alan Dershowitz is that you apparently accept all of Steve Thomas's rantings as gospel truth, whereas Dershowitz, who has far more experience in criminal cases than you ever will, carefully sifts through the identical body of evidence--i.e., that presented by ST himself--and finds it severely wanting as a theory of the case. Let's face it: ST had AN ENTIRE BOOK in which to make his case. A typical lawyer has to sum up his case before a jury in far less time. Now it may simply speak to ST's complete ineptitude in presenting his case in a coherent way, but the fact is, large numbers of posters here evidently have been completely sucked into his severely flawed theory of the case, to the point that some posters are even willing to claim it is the "definitive case reference." That is laughable beyond belief.

The comedian here is ST, not Alan Dershowitz. The FBI, Secret Service, 2 independent audio labs and many handwriting experts were not performing stand-up when they reached conclusions that absolutely and positively refuted the lies contained in ST's book. The lawyer who encouraged Steve's publisher to settle rather than get mopped up by a far larger jury verdict had WAY more common sense than you exhibit.

 

[DocWatson]

:laugh: And "sleuthing" is what, deciding the Ramseys are innocent and working backwards from there? Automatically dismissing anyone and anythng that tends to prove Ramsey guilt? Deciding any and all law enforcement that doesn't support the Ramseys is out to get them just because? I agree with you that a biased attitude sure ain't sleuthing.

My rule of thumb and that of any good sleuth, is to rely on the "weight of the evidence." When we've got the FBI, Secret Service, 2 independent audio labs, and many handwriting experts all weighing in AGAINST ST's claims and we couple that with the observation that no other LE seem willing to come to ST's defense even after he loses his suit to the Ramseys, then the principle of Occam's Razor forces us to a pretty simple conclusion: ST is either delusional or a liar. Frankly it doesn't matter to me which explanation you choose: his credibility is severely in doubt. It doesn't make an LOGICAL sense to reach the opposite conclusion: FBI, Secret Service, 2 independent audio labs and many handwriting experts all have conspired to lie and protect the Ramseys. This defies common sense.

So unless you are for some reason emotionally invested in believing the Ramseys are guilty, your head will tell you they are innocent. It's absolutely conceivable they engaged in obfuscation or delay to protect themselves from inept or overly aggressive LE (fat lot of good THAT did them: they STILL were falsely accused!), but it makes little sense in light of all the evidence fairly evaluated that they are culpable in the killing, intentional or otherwise, of their daughter.

 

[DocWatson]

Oh I get it, because Steve Thomas is not a common criminal like Lou Smit who steals hard case evidence and makes it public, that makes him not credible.

Yeah....that makes a lot of sense.....LOL :doh:

Britt is right. Your perspective on this case starts at the -end and then works backward trying to figure out what animal's dung you're shoveling.

Your own earlier post stated: "And you WON"T hear anyone in LE contradicting Thomas--because they're scared of him. They don't know what case files he might still have. If they contradict him, he just might pop up with supporting doctments that prove them liars."

I'm accepting YOUR premise that ST is in the position of doing exactly as you claim: trotting out evidence to prove he is right. Of course, if Steve were the honorable and law-abiding person you claim, then LE wouldn't have a thing to fear, would they? I accept your implied premise that Steve could and would break the law if push came to shove, but here's the puzzle:

Even though ST theoretically is in exactly this position to right the great wrong that you and other RDI theorists see in letting Mary Keenan "get away" with misleading the public about the 911 tape, he mysteriously stays silent! All he would need to do is convince just ONE member of LE or Aerospace Corporation who is equally outraged to anonymously see that the tape gets into the right hands. So either the enhanced tape itself does not in fact say what ST claims OR there is not one single member of LE or AC who believes ST's absurd story. And hence we get no action. We can all draw our own conclusions about Steve's mysterious silence on this matter. Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers out of principle at great personal risk to himself. In a similar spirit, reporters today are willing to go to jail to protect their sources just to ensure that the public hears the truth when it needs to be told. Is it that ST is a huge chickens*** or simply that he has no evidence to leak that we can explain this behavior? Do tell: we're dying to find out what makes your hero tick.