Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[BBB167893]

No, it isn’t obvious. You just made that up. If it was obvious than BPD’s experts – all the experts – would have identified her as the author, but that didn’t happen. if it was obvious, there would be no disagreement and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
…

AK

Oh, give us a break, Anti-K! She doesn't know who wrote the captions in her own damn album? Sure, and I'm the czar of all Russia!

 

[BBB167893]

Carnes reasons for rejecting Epstein and Wong are clearly and soundly stated in her decision.

Doesn't mean she was right. Andreww is right: Lin Wood danced his dance and Hoffman made no attempt to challenge much of what he said. RIP.

 

[BBB167893]

Well one thing I've learned from the Ramseys is if you are confronted with evidence you don't like, deny deny deny. Oh and forget.




The R's had great lawyers. I just saw this quote from Lin Wood and it almost made me laugh:
0200
1 "MR. WOOD: Hey, I made more money
2 handling the Ramsey case than you've made in
3 your whole damn career practicing law, Darnay.
4 MR. HOFFMAN: -- instead of settling
5 for chump change, which you've done in all these
6 other cases, you're actually getting paid a
7 decent --
8 MR. WOOD: I've made more money in
9 the Ramsey case than you've made in your entire
10 career as a lawyer, you want to bet on that?"

Its a tad slimy though.

It's more than a tad slimy, Annapurna. It's called barratry. Wood should have lost his license for that.

 

[BBB167893]

There are many similarities in the OJ case and this one but I'd say that comes from the "school of Sleazeball Lawyering" more than any direct connection to the OJ case. I think the direct fallout from the OJ case that did affect this one was the firing of LA DA Gil Garcetti. I believe that had a direct effect on Alex Hunter, and he preferred to bury the case on the guise of bad policing rather than taking his chances in court against some of the most powerful attorneys in the country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. If the LA prosecutors, who are experienced in homicide cases, couldn't make a case against OJ with everything except the proverbial busload of eyewitness nuns, Hunter must have known his little *advertiser censored** didn't stand a chance.

 

[BBB167893]

The way these high priced attorneys work is pretty straight forward. First they set their defence strategy. Next they evaluate all the obstacles that stand in the way of that defence. Lastly, hire teams to discredit witness', evidence or experts that threaten your defence. The Ramsey's case was a lot simpler than OJ Simpsons in that Boulder had a lot fewer resources & experienced people than LA did. Team Ramsey simply did their best to keep the BPD busy, not giving them anything easily, and constantly feeding them tips about possible "intruders". BPD wasted plenty of man hours following up those leads simply because they knew that it was going to be pointed out that they had tunnel vision and only focused on the Ramseys. The end result, as in the OJ case, is that mistakes are made. While BPD are pulling their hair out trying to just negotiate an interview, Lin Wood is studying law and putting together case histories to show why the prosecution's handwriting experts shouldn't be allowed to testify. If it had ever gone to trial in a criminal court I'm sure good ole Lin Wood would have had a field day making Boulder LE look like bumbling stooges, regardless of whether their ineptness had anything to do with the quality of the evidence.

Actually, andreww, Lin Wood only practices civil law, not criminal law. Doesn't mean you're wrong, though. Just substitute Hal Haddon's name and you've got it! Heck, we KNOW that Haddon was up to no good.

As for our friend Alex Hunter, it should be noted that he had a very long history of not taking cases to trial. His whole game was to get a plea. Lazy. I'm sure that in his mind this case was never going to see a court unless their was a plea or a confession. Of course he took away all the tools that LE needed to obtain a confession, so the case was pretty much doomed from the get go.

BBM. I'd clap if my hands weren't so sore from facepalming other posts!

 

[BBB167893]

I think, when it comes to the note, that the jurors may have let their own eyes override anything any experts had to say.

Isn't that odd? Alex Hunter said that's what he'd prefer to do. (The one time I agree with him, BTW!) OTOH, there was Ubowski, who told the GJ that it was only the bleeding ink and disguised writing that kept him from ID'ing PR.

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, the question is why is the method only questioned in this case? The fact that both Liebman and Wong are both still in the business with more than 60 years experience between them, leads me to believe that their methods were just fine.

Like you and I have said before, andreww: in those cases, the opposing lawyers weren't able to control every damn thing.

 

[BBB167893]

I don’t remember if Epstein was ever approached (or, whatever),

Actually, he approached the DA's office first. That would have been early 2001, if I remember correctly.

but if there had been a trial and if he were challenged by the defence then I think he would be treated the same as he was with Carnes.

If you mean treated by the defense the same way, I have no doubt. But there are two important points to make. One, he was used to that. He'd testified in criminal trials before and his conclusions were accepted then. Two--and this is the point that andreww and I are trying to make--ideally, the prosecutor who called him would just a SMIDGEN more prepared and in touch with reality than Hoffman was and wouldn't let the other side have free reign. So say nothing of how criminal trials are different from civil trials and the lawyers aren't allowed that much leeway.

 

[Anti-K]

You are so awesome at avoiding answering questions AK, and I'm not gonna let you squirm out of this.

Your answer...



Your pal John admit's that he did see something unusual, the suitcase that "shouldn't have been there" under the open window, that he found while looking for an entry/exit point.

Answer the question again AK, why didn't he mention it too police? If you can come up with a reasonable answer for that I'll never question you again, but its a pretty safe bet that you can't and you won't, because there simply isn't a reasonable explanation.

Well, I asked John about the suitcase earlier today, while we were having lunch. He said, although the suitcase seemed out of place, it didn’t – at THAT time – seem important. There wasn’t any broken glass anywhere. The window was already broken and often left ajar. Plus, he confessed he might have been a bit panicked and not thinking clearly.

Sounded reasonable, to me.

…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

How about the "clever" clues such as the chair that blocked the entrance door to the room with the suitcase. John Ramsey thought that was "clever." It sounded more like Houdini to me.

How do you block the entry side of a door with a chair when you have exited out a window from the closed side of the door?

Does anyone know if that door opened out or opened into the room (opened in)?

Standing outside of the room, open the door – it opens into the room away from you. Stand in the doorway and turn around so that your back is to the room. Place chair. Turn around, walk into room and close door. Exit through window.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Yes, the question is why is the method only questioned in this case? The fact that both Liebman and Wong are both still in the business with more than 60 years experience between them, leads me to believe that their methods were just fine.

I think you mean Epstein and Wong.

The method is questioned because the defendants challenged it.

If you read Carnes (and, the Epstein depo, and the Kane letter) it becomes pretty clear why Wong was not permitted, however, if the defendants hadn’t raised a challenge, I think she probably would have been allowed.

And, Carnes is very clear in regards to Epstein. But, I think every case is different (in some cases Daubert or similar “guidelines” might not apply) and Epstein might do fine elsewhere. However, as with Wong, I think that if there had been no challenge, Epstein would have also been allowed.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

So, neither parent can remember writing the captions of their kids photos or recognize their own handwriting? Logically, they are lying, or someone else wrote them. Someone who's writing is very close to the RN. Seems like an important clue, if there was an intruder and they honestly don't know who wrote in their photo album.

I can only speak for myself. Maybe 50% of the time I cannot recognize my own handwriting. But, I think I might be 100% on recognizing my own printing. Anyway, even if IDI, Mrs Ramsey could have been lying. I can see her doing that. But, I don’t know that she’s lying.
…

AK

 

[Ellie9]

Standing outside of the room, open the door – it opens into the room away from you. Stand in the doorway and turn around so that your back is to the room. Place chair. Turn around, walk into room and close door. Exit through window.
…

AK

If I made a vine of myself doing this action what you'd see is me slamming the door into the chair, the door flying backwards due to every action having a reaction, and then probably me tripping over the chair.

This scene doesn't make any sense unless there was no chair, or the door opened outwards, in which case a chair makes no sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ellie9]

I can only speak for myself. Maybe 50% of the time I cannot recognize my own handwriting. But, I think I might be 100% on recognizing my own printing. Anyway, even if IDI, Mrs Ramsey could have been lying. I can see her doing that. But, I don’t know that she’s lying.
…

AK

To be honest, if an IDI then the Ramsey's really only have one or two passes for lying. Then it starts to look very suspicious.

If a suspect hid that from 10 to 11 they were having kinky sex with an outside lover, but were not at the scene of the crime, I'd be thinking, okay that's embarrassing and gives away something pretty personal and damning. I'd think, yeah they lied to the cops but I can see why.

But lying about who wrote captions is so pointless. It's silly. There is just no kind of reason for hiding this except to exclude evidence from the police.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

I think you mean Epstein and Wong.

The method is questioned because the defendants challenged it.

If you read Carnes (and, the Epstein depo, and the Kane letter) it becomes pretty clear why Wong was not permitted, however, if the defendants hadn’t raised a challenge, I think she probably would have been allowed.

And, Carnes is very clear in regards to Epstein. But, I think every case is different (in some cases Daubert or similar “guidelines” might not apply) and Epstein might do fine elsewhere. However, as with Wong, I think that if there had been no challenge, Epstein would have also been allowed.
…

AK

So if you believe that with more persistent lawyers, they would have been allowed to testify, the how can you honestly say no expert believed the note was written by Patsy. We know exactly what Wong and Epstein thought, the fact that they didn't get to say it doesn't make it go away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ellie9]

So if you believe that with more persistent lawyers, they would have been allowed to testify, the how can you honestly say no expert believed the note was written by Patsy. We know exactly what Wong and Epstein thought, the fact that they didn't get to say it doesn't make it go away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also how come every single expert that thinks the Ramsey's played a role are all incompetent? I mean, I'm fairly sure they played a role here, at least staging, but I don't go around call Lou smit an idiot. I think he's a good detective, but I think he's probably wrong in this particular case.

The way that other evidence is completely brushed aside is causing a noticeable backfire effect in myself. I came to this forum thinking maybe seventy five percent chance that RDI. But the way that IDI speak to RDI and fail to even consider another side makes me lean further and further from this theory. I think bias sets off red flags for me, and I'm probably not alone in thinking this.

Coming up with wild ideas to explain away every single thing makes certain posters seem closer to those alien conspiracy theorists. Even though they think that lizard people control the government they sure enough have an answer for every single thing thrown at them. The problem is that their answers, when taken all together, are too convoluted to be realistic.

Right now if I want to fully believe IDI, I have to put aside all reason. The Ramsay's have basically the worst memories in the world. Jonbenet started a brand new habit of sneaking food coincidentally the day she died. This intruder has handwriting that looks a ton like Patsy, by coincidence. The killer brought along only a couple things, possibly, of his own. He knew where the wine cellar was and the latch and light switch, somehow. He left no finger prints, and like maybe three small DNA samples. He didn't try any other doors. The alarm wasn't set. The Ramsay's decided to just not set their alarm, lucky for intruder. Jonbenet decided this day she would also start a new habit of wearing panties for girls twice her age.

Do I need to go on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Well, I asked John about the suitcase earlier today, while we were having lunch. He said, although the suitcase seemed out of place, it didn’t – at THAT time – seem important. There wasn’t any broken glass anywhere. The window was already broken and often left ajar. Plus, he confessed he might have been a bit panicked and not thinking clearly.

Sounded reasonable, to me.

…

AK

Doesn't sound clear to anyone else on the planet. If you listen to your buddy John talk about the scene at the window, rarely doe he speak about both the window and the suitcase at the same time. He will talk about the window saying "it was unlatched and broken, so I closed it, I didn't think it was unusual ". Then he will talk about the suitcase saying "that's wrong, it shouldn't be there". But Mr Ramsey purposely never discusses the two items together because the ridiculousness of his statement comes shining through. Even Ramsey loving Lou has to stop and ask him something to the effect of "shouldn't have that out of place suitcase under that open window set off alarm bells?" This whole thing is akin to finding an open unlocked window with a ladder underneath it and thinking nothing of it because the window is often open!

But whatever AK, you'll never answer this question because you know he's lying, just like you know he's lying about the pineapple and you know he's lying about his wife's handwriting, and you know he was lying about the reason why they wouldn't talk to LE, and you know he was lying about Fleet Whites behavior, etc, etc, etc.

Your lame, fictional excuses simply don't cut it for most people here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Annapurna]

But whatever AK, you'll never answer this question because you know he's lying, just like you know he's lying about the pineapple and you know he's lying about his wife's handwriting, and you know he was lying about the reason why they wouldn't talk to LE, and you know he was lying about Fleet Whites behavior, etc, etc, etc.

Your lame, fictional excuses simply don't cut it for most people here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be perfectly honest I'm starting to believe Anti-K just enjoys being a contrarian. I've never seen a theory, and all the uncomfortable questions are ignored, along with the uncomfortable evidence.

If you just want to play devil's advocate, fine. But all the excuses add up to a whole mess of coincidences. I don't believe there are so many coincidences, maybe one or two, but not the entire case!

 

[otg]

And also she changed the way she wrote starting with the handwriting samples. At least her letter a. I mean, it really doesn't look good. Similarities can be dismissed to a point, but going around trying to disguise your writing post ransom note looks really, really bad.

I think you are aware as I am that the Ramsey's were very stingy in providing any relevant samples from prior to the murder, so proving she changed her handwriting becomes more difficult. However, in the few samples that were found it was certainly evident that she was making her "a"s differently from the way she had been before the crime. You are also aware that she began typing her notes to Burkes school rather than hand writing them. She also denied writing in the family photo album. Again, with the Ramsey's you are always making excuses for them, "maybe she hurt her hand and had to type those notes" of "maybe she had a housekeeper put her photo album together?". These people are always followed by coincidences that point directly at them, and AK, you're always there to come up with far fetched explanations for them.

Patsy couldn't even remember which way to write her "a" within the same sample of writing she gave to investigators -- even twice using a capitol "A" when it wasn't appropriate:

Here’s a copy of her “London Letter”:

She did the same thing with the letter “u” (“Let’s see... should I put a tail on it or not? How did I do it in the ransom note?”):

Here's a sample of Patsy's writing before:

 

[otg]

BTW, is it not obvious to anyone else that in the RN, some of the “a”s had the upper tail added after the letter “a” had been completed?

It’s not my intent to turn this into a thread about the handwriting. But since these things were brought up earlier, I simply thought it would be helpful to have some examples of what was being discussed for anyone who wasn’t familiar with it firsthand.