Steve Thomas Update 2009

[Sophie]

It's a funny old thing though, that the Ramseys did the classic litigation trick - following the money. I mean, people have said far worse than ST and Fox (eg. Wendy Murphy has accused JR of unspeakable things while the worst ST said was that he suspected an accidental death followed by a cover-up) but the Ramseys went after Fox and ST backed up by a large publisher with massive insurance rather than taking on a lawyer with limited resources but the madre of all legal brains....

 

[Maikai]

It's a funny old thing though, that the Ramseys did the classic litigation trick - following the money. I mean, people have said far worse than ST and Fox (eg. Wendy Murphy has accused JR of unspeakable things while the worst ST said was that he suspected an accidental death followed by a cover-up) but the Ramseys went after Fox and ST backed up by a large publisher with massive insurance rather than taking on a lawyer with limited resources but the madre of all legal brains....

There may have been a statute of limitation...and then again, they picked which battles to fight. As far as I know, they sued those that attacked Burke.

There's a whole line that slandered the Ramseys, starting with Cyril Wecht----both on TV and in his book. Then you have Nancy Grace, Geraldo, various DA's around Colorada, and the governor himself. Once Lin Wood (attack dog) was on board, most of the talking heads shut up.

 

[Maikai]

Struggling to believe that, Maikai. With the personnel and resources available to them, I imagine the Ramseys could tell you details about ST's preferred brand of razors, never mind broad stroke stuff like marital status.

Patsy mentioned on Larry King she didn't know if he was married or not, or had children. I really don't think Patsy was that involved with the details. JR yes, but I don't think Steve Thomas was as important in their eyes, as ST was in his own.


Re Patsy flirting, I seem to recall her being apoplectic about that suggestion.

Patsy was also from the south....no slam an southern women, but they tend to appear more flirtatious...charming....I think it's more of a culture thing then anything else. You could tell in ST's book, he didn't any of the women in Patsy's family. Perhaps they should have walked around in birkenstocks, grey hair, and no makeup--the mountain look.

On the point of motive, ST didn't need a motive - he thought that the death was accidental.

Sure, he didn't need a motive----the DA would to get a successful prosecution. The Grand Jury is a test for how things may come out in court. The DNA was a huge stumbling block. ST needed more then a flimsy bedwetting rage. Patsy never showed anger about that....she had help.....it wasn't a big deal. Patsy never even raised her voice to either child.

 

[Sophie]

There may have been a statute of limitation...and then again, they picked which battles to fight. As far as I know, they sued those that attacked Burke.

There's a whole line that slandered the Ramseys, starting with Cyril Wecht----both on TV and in his book. Then you have Nancy Grace, Geraldo, various DA's around Colorada, and the governor himself. Once Lin Wood (attack dog) was on board, most of the talking heads shut up.

Thanks, Maikai. I hadn't though about a statute of limitations although the last Wendy Murphy article was relatively recent if memory serves....

This case (and the McCann case) has thrown up some unsavoury suggestions about all sorts of innocent people (the Santa Bill and Mr Hoffman-Pugh stuff early on was just vile and there's been some unspeakable stuff on the Internet about people associated with the McCann case).

In fact, I'll admit to having had some uncomfortable moments about ST's performance on LKL. However, in his case, he possibly felt that he had pretty much proven a case against the Ramseys and had been scuppered by politics and the DA and he wasn't an interested party to bring a civil case against the Ramseys so his best shot of getting them was if they sued him. I assume that in the US, it's the plaintiff who has to prove the libel rather than the defendant proving the reverse? I may be wrong and would like to be corrected if so. If they couldn't prove the libel, then it would make a powerful statement about their possible guilt. I have always assumed that this underlay ST's almost goading them to sue? And it`could possibly explain their willingness to settle?

 

[Sophie]

Sure, he didn't need a motive----the DA would to get a successful prosecution. The Grand Jury is a test for how things may come out in court. The DNA was a huge stumbling block. ST needed more then a flimsy bedwetting rage. Patsy never showed anger about that....she had help.....it wasn't a big deal. Patsy never even raised her voice to either child.

Hi Maikai, I didn't know that you needed to prove motive to get a conviction, certainly not for manslaughter where circumstances demonstrate a mitigating factor or lack of pre-meditation. I feel like a bit of an eejit :blushing::blushing:.


Thing is, ST admitted that his bedwetting theory was just that - a hypothesis. Her anger could have gone Vesuvius over just about anything and I don't believe that the person has been born who doesn't have a snapping point. It's just a grace of God thing that most of us never get to that point.

 

[madeleine]

Sure, he didn't need a motive----the DA would to get a successful prosecution. The Grand Jury is a test for how things may come out in court. The DNA was a huge stumbling block. ST needed more then a flimsy bedwetting rage. Patsy never showed anger about that....she had help.....it wasn't a big deal. Patsy never even raised her voice to either child.

How do you know that?:waitasec:

And:

"It was the same destination you always took JonBenet when it was time to punish her for bedwetting. You forget that I saw you take here there so many times before, shutting the door tightly behind you, so her screams could not be heard."

DEATH OF AN INNOCENT
By John and Patsy Ramsey's Housekeeper:
Linda Hoffmann-Pugh

 

[madeleine]

I seem to recall at least one member of Team R didn't think it was so good. Ellis Armistead resigned after that, didn't he?



Truth be told, I would have preferred a good old-fashioned fistfight to all of this legal-beagle palaver. Take me, for example. If someone insulted me, I wouldn't sue them. I'd prefer a duel.

And I KNOW how.



If by "kind" you mean condescending and manipulative, then yeah!

Obviously NOT, the way she tried to seduce him. And just whose bright idea was it for her to come on in that state, anyway?!

Yep,not only manipulative but also.......

P. RAMSEY: You know, this has subverted justice in this country like nothing in the history of the Constitution of this country. We have had now two detectives from the Boulder Police Department: First, Detective Arndt comes on, and emphatically, as emphatic as Mr. Thomas is this evening, says that John Ramsey was the murderer. She could see it in his eyes the day that we found JonBenet. Now, Mr. Thomas, as emphatic but with yet another idea of how this happened, says that Patsy is the murderer.

KING: Well, will you agree, Patsy, that almost none of it makes sense?

P. RAMSEY: You're right.

KING: None of it.

P. RAMSEY: It was an evil, evil...

KING: What was the guy doing?

P. RAMSEY: ... man.

KING: Why did the intruder do this?

J. RAMSEY: It was an evil, evil person.

P. RAMSEY: I don't know, but when we find out, God willing, we'll know.

J. RAMSEY: We will know when we find...

KING: But this person stalks the streets. I don't mean to be too...

P. RAMSEY: Yes, he does.

J. RAMSEY: Absolutely.

 

[madeleine]

KING: ... how about the idea that -- if I were accused of killing my child and didn't do, I'd be down there in the police office. I'd sleep in the police office.
J. RAMSEY: This was the police.

KING: I'd (UNINTELLIGIBLE) any question.

J. RAMSEY: This was the police.

KING: I'd do lie detector tests.

J. RAMSEY: This is who we had to work with.

KING: I'd do anything.

THOMAS: How much time...

J. RAMSEY: We're not fools. We're not fools.





I rest my case!!!

 

[madeleine]

I bet their lawyers didn't like their performance.It was a bad joke.Their entire performance on that show.

IMO

 

[Ames]

How do you know that?:waitasec:

And:

"It was the same destination you always took JonBenet when it was time to punish her for bedwetting. You forget that I saw you take here there so many times before, shutting the door tightly behind you, so her screams could not be heard."

DEATH OF AN INNOCENT
By John and Patsy Ramsey's Housekeeper:
Linda Hoffmann-Pugh

I have noticed that IDI's speak as if they were there...and lived with the Ramseys. And they will totally ignore what the housekeeper...who WAS there and heard and saw everything...has to say, because it just doesn't mesh with their theory...that the Ramsey's were a "Leave It To Beaver"/"Brady Bunch" kind of family.

 

[icedtea4me]

Yep,not only manipulative but also.......

P. RAMSEY: You know, this has subverted justice in this country like nothing in the history of the Constitution of this country. We have had now two detectives from the Boulder Police Department: First, Detective Arndt comes on, and emphatically, as emphatic as Mr. Thomas is this evening, says that John Ramsey was the murderer. She could see it in his eyes the day that we found JonBenet. Now, Mr. Thomas, as emphatic but with yet another idea of how this happened, says that Patsy is the murderer.

KING: Well, will you agree, Patsy, that almost none of it makes sense?

P. RAMSEY: You're right.

KING: None of it.

P. RAMSEY: It was an evil, evil...

KING: What was the guy doing?

P. RAMSEY: ... man.

KING: Why did the intruder do this?

J. RAMSEY: It was an evil, evil person.

P. RAMSEY: I don't know, but when we find out, God willing, we'll know.

J. RAMSEY: We will know when we find...

KING: But this person stalks the streets. I don't mean to be too...

P. RAMSEY: Yes, he does.

J. RAMSEY: Absolutely.

Did anyone notice that, instead of John agreeing with Patsy ("Yes, it was an evil man"), he contradicts her with the gender neutral "person"?

 

[icedtea4me]

I have noticed that IDI's speak as if they were there...and lived with the Ramseys. And they will totally ignore what the housekeeper...who WAS there and heard and saw everything...has to say, because it just doesn't mesh with their theory...that the Ramsey's were a "Leave It To Beaver"/"Brady Bunch" kind of family.

Now I've got that scene in my head of Mrs. Cleaver speaking jive in Airplane.

"She'll be right back with you on the med side."

Sorry...Back to topic.

 

[DeeDee249]

You don't need a motive for a murder conviction. You need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person on trial for the murder actually committed the murder. There are cases where there was no motive. Somebody just "snaps" and killed someone. Sometimes there is no motive. Sometimes it is an accident.
It was Hunter who felt he needed a motive. More important- he felt he needed a motive to even arrest them.
You don't need prior behavior either. There is a first time for everything. Everything.

 

[BBB167893]

It's a funny old thing though, that the Ramseys did the classic litigation trick - following the money. I mean, people have said far worse than ST and Fox (eg. Wendy Murphy has accused JR of unspeakable things while the worst ST said was that he suspected an accidental death followed by a cover-up) but the Ramseys went after Fox and ST backed up by a large publisher with massive insurance rather than taking on a lawyer with limited resources but the madre of all legal brains....

Quite so. Wendy Murphy has practically BEGGED them to sue her! Not just once, but several times. And the result is always the same: like holding a cross in front of a vampire. (Appropriate, IMO)

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks, Maikai. I hadn't though about a statute of limitations although the last Wendy Murphy article was relatively recent if memory serves....

Within the last year! It's not statute of limitations or "picking battles," or that nonsense. They just don't want to go up against anyone who knows what they're doing. That's why Wecht, Grace and some other mentioned have never shut up.

In fact, I'll admit to having had some uncomfortable moments about ST's performance on LKL.

YOU had uncomfortable moments! That was the first incident that began my conversion. I can't not see what my eyes see.

However, in his case, he possibly felt that he had pretty much proven a case against the Ramseys and had been scuppered by politics and the DA and he wasn't an interested party to bring a civil case against the Ramseys so his best shot of getting them was if they sued him.

I believe that's right.

I assume that in the US, it's the plaintiff who has to prove the libel rather than the defendant proving the reverse? I may be wrong and would like to be corrected if so.

You are correct.

If they couldn't prove the libel, then it would make a powerful statement about their possible guilt. I have always assumed that this underlay ST's almost goading them to sue? And it`could possibly explain their willingness to settle?

:clap:

 

[BBB167893]

Yep,not only manipulative but also.......

I know EXACTLY what you mean!

 

[Maikai]

No sweat. I'll show you. Just go to where the quote begins and type [ then QUOTE then ], then go to the end and type the same thing just with a / before the Q. Or, you can highlight the quote and press the word balloon icon.

Thank you!

 

[Maikai]

Within the last year! It's not statute of limitations or "picking battles," or that nonsense. They just don't want to go up against anyone who knows what they're doing. That's why Wecht, Grace and some other mentioned have never shut up.

They've all shutup! Of course, there's been other cases to keep them occupied, and Wecht had that legal hassle with the Pennsylvania attorney general about using govt. property for his own business.

 

[madeleine]

Did anyone notice that, instead of John agreeing with Patsy ("Yes, it was an evil man"), he contradicts her with the gender neutral "person"?

22 Q. (By Mr. Kane) How active have

23 you been involved in the investigation in the

24 last two years since we last met? How

25 actively have you taken part in it?

0005

1 A. Well, that's a relative term. I

2 don't know how to answer that question. I

3 am aware somewhat of what is going on.

4 Bryan Morgan shepherded the effort for a good

5 while after the grand jury and specifically

6 told me he didn't want to tell me a lot

7 because we were talking to the media and I

8 had a tendency to perhaps say things I

9 shouldn't. smart guy
10 Q. What kinds of things were you

11 concerned of saying? good question

12 A. He was concerned about keeping the

13 efforts of the investigation as confidential

14 as possible. nope,he was protecting YOU IMO

15 Q. Why is that?

16 A. I don't know. You have to ask

17 him.

18 Q. In your mind --

19 A. In my mind, it compromises the

20 effort.

21 Q. In your mind it compromises the

22 effort or in his mind?

23 A. Yes, in my mind.

24 Q. It compromises the effort to

25 disclose things?

0006

1 A. To find the killer, which is what

2 we were trying to do. BS

3 Q. That wasn't my question, how does

4 it compromise the effort to not disclose

5 things you are uncovering?

6 MR. WOOD: Disclose them publicly?

7 MR. KANE: Yes, yes.

8 THE WITNESS: We've always felt

9 that way.

 

[Ames]

Did anyone notice that, instead of John agreeing with Patsy ("Yes, it was an evil man"), he contradicts her with the gender neutral "person"?

No, I had never noticed that before. That ...TO ME...speaks volumes. So, either J KNOWS that a man didn't commit the crime...and that is why he says.."person", OR...he helped P with the staging...but, he wants to point the finger away from him...a man...and back at Patsy. Kind of like he did when he grabbed that legal pad and handed it to police. He wants to distance himself as far away as he can get...from Patsy.