It was obvious. And we know what happened to Boulders experts don't we? You can spout off about Carnes all you like, but lets not forget that handwriting experts were interviewed by the GJ, and we know what their verdict was.
Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll
- Thread starter newtv
- Start date
- Status
It was obvious. And we know what happened to Boulders experts don't we? You can spout off about Carnes all you like, but lets not forget that handwriting experts were interviewed by the GJ, and we know what their verdict was.
InstantProof
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 367
- Reaction score
- 171
It's obvious, but you can still disagree with and argue just about anything.
Do you think it's possible you can show parents their children's photo album and they can both say they don't know who wrote the captions? No one remembers doing it or recognizes the writing?
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.
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.
So this is totally off-topic but earlier there was some discussion about the big bloomies, and I found the link. I just wanted to share:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...Underwear-on-JonBenet-Modeled-By-Six-Year-Old
Thanks again to acandyrose, one of the best resources on this case.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...Underwear-on-JonBenet-Modeled-By-Six-Year-Old
Thanks again to acandyrose, one of the best resources on this case.
STANDREID
A slacker when slacker wasn't cool
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,681
- Reaction score
- 728
I checked the size charts and it looks like 12/14 girl's underwear size is the same as adult women's 2/4 waist size so those are underwear that a slender adult woman could wear. Could Patsy have bought matching underwear for both JonBenet and herself? Patsy looks bigger than a 2/4 to me but she may have been smaller a year or so previous. (This is a lenghty thread so perhaps it has already been mentioned.)
No I'm sorry but that wouldn't make any sense to me. These are clearly meant for little girls and they do not fit the same way as women's. The waistband comes up much higher and all in all, not cute.
She states in her interview they were for a cousin, Jenny Davis. Also I don't think patsy was a 2/4 tbh. I'll look back at pictures but I'd guess at least size 6/8 (or even larger looking at picture). I can't see PR wearing "granny panties" as one would refer to that style as an adult. She probably had fancy silk & lace, especially since she would be trying to regain her sexuality after her ovarian cancer (speculation of course).
*didn't see you already mentioned the 2-4 thing. The panties were purchased that November, 1996. "Mother Daughter trip" to new york.
She states in her interview they were for a cousin, Jenny Davis. Also I don't think patsy was a 2/4 tbh. I'll look back at pictures but I'd guess at least size 6/8 (or even larger looking at picture). I can't see PR wearing "granny panties" as one would refer to that style as an adult. She probably had fancy silk & lace, especially since she would be trying to regain her sexuality after her ovarian cancer (speculation of course).
*didn't see you already mentioned the 2-4 thing. The panties were purchased that November, 1996. "Mother Daughter trip" to new york.
The interesting backstory behind these oversized panties found on JBR that morning is here, at this link. These interviews shown really make it seem like PR was fibbing quite a lot. For example, she tries to suggest JBR wore panties a couple sizes higher than the panties she actually wore, as determined by the clothes removed from her drawer. She also downplays the size difference between her normal size and the size of the panties, but it is quite a big difference in reality! Then she tries to say that she just had them in the drawer so JBR herself must have put them on. Putting aside the strangeness of putting out clothes for a girl twice her age in her drawer, the police didn't recover this size from the drawer at all. Nowhere close.
Also these were day of the week panties with girlish designs and they are made for pre-pubescent girls. It would be really, really strange for a grown woman to wear little girls' panties. The equivalent of a forty year old dude wearing those comic book under-roos. It's not completely unheard of, but it's pretty unusual and unexpected unless this is just a quirk they are known for.
I was just reading this thread. It is interesting how vague PR is. She starts with"I'm sure I put them in the drawer". To all kinds of stuttering speech and passive voice:
20 A. Well, obviously we, you know, the
21 package had been opened, we made the
22 decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and
23 use them because, you know, we weren't going
24 to give them to Jenny after all, I guess,
25 so.
Using the collective "we" (P & who?) to distance. If you read the full interview you'll see PR's lawyer gets VERY testy during this line of questioning and is giving the cops a hard time.
And of course, as always plenty of "Don't remember"s Those R's, they sure didn't have great memories. Must be because they waited so damn long to have the police interviews!
20 A. Well, obviously we, you know, the
21 package had been opened, we made the
22 decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and
23 use them because, you know, we weren't going
24 to give them to Jenny after all, I guess,
25 so.
Using the collective "we" (P & who?) to distance. If you read the full interview you'll see PR's lawyer gets VERY testy during this line of questioning and is giving the cops a hard time.
And of course, as always plenty of "Don't remember"s Those R's, they sure didn't have great memories. Must be because they waited so damn long to have the police interviews!
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here. It was my understanding at the time that the "I don't recall / remember" line was used extensively by OJ Simpson during his trial. He won that trial, even though most people believe he could have done the crime. This whole OJ Simpson thing took place just before the Ramsey situation. They would have been familiar with the "I don't remember" tactic. It's unquestionable. If you say you don't remember, it kind of ends the questioning. It may look really shady, but there really isn't much a questioner can do if you keep proclaiming you have no recollection of certain things.
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
Carnes decision was based on something, but it was more likely good ole southern justice. I doubt those experts would have been tossed if the trial were in Boulder. Let's face it, that wasn't a criminal trial. The lawyering was lopsided and the judge and venue favored the Ramsey's. In my opinion Carnes' ruling should be taken with a grain of salt, not be considered legal gospel.
As for you calling the Ramsey's Mr and Mrs, that is a sign of respect. Even if they are not guilty of this crime as you contend, they still do not deserve any respect whatsoever as they failed in every way conceivable to help LE find justice for Jonbenet. They needed to talk to police that day and eliminate themselves as suspects. That is what loving parents do, not hiding behind attorneys, refusing to even speak with LE and lying through their teeth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Answer me this, why would an innocent John Ramsey, who had been charged with nothing and hadn't even spoken to the police, feel it was necessary to pay a lawyer a careers' worth of salary to protect his interests? Its one thing to protect your legal interests, its quite another to pay many millions to do it.
Lets Start by looking at a few quotes from John...
ST: So the morning of the 26th do you recall checking all the doors, and they were locked?
JR: I believed I checked all the first-floor doors, yeah. I did go out once. I went out to the door that leads into the garage to see if it was locked because theres a bunch of boxes piled in front of it and you couldnt get to it from the inside of the garage. So I did in fact go out of the house once, which would have been for, you know, half a minute.
ST: And that was from where to where?
ST: I went out the side door around to the back of the garage to see if that garage door into the garage was locked.
ST: And then immediately back into the house?
JR: Yeah.
So here we have John admitting that he was actively looking for a point of entry or exit. This is the first thing he does, before LE even arrives at the scene.
JOHN RAMSEY: (INAUDIBLE). They were leaving
21 little clues to analyze this. I think entry was
22 gained through the basement window.
23 LOU SMIT: Why do you think that?
24 JOHN RAMSEY: Because the window was cracked
25 open. There was this large suitcase under it, as
0041
1 if it was used to climb out. That suitcase didn't
2 belong there.
Now we have John (at a later date ) saying that the window was unlatched and there was a suitcase under it that didn't belong there. Any Alarm bells going off John?
JR: Ah, well, I remember they took me aside, and we sat in John Andrews room which is the one next to JonBenets and she went through what I should do when we talked to the caller and I must insist that I talk to JonBenet and that we need until 5 oclock to raise the money. Id actually called my (inaudible) and arranged for the money. Ah, and I think we had by that time started to wonder if one of the housekeepers might be involved. And there was some activity around that direction. We waited until past 11 and then we, and then I think we were in the living room and Linda said why dont you take someone and look through the house and see if theres anything you notice thats unusual. And Fleet and I, Fleet was standing there and said hed go with me. And we went down to the basement, went into the train room, which is, you know, the train set is, and thats really the only window thats, would let in entrance into he basement. And actually Id gone down there earlier that morning, into that room, and the window was broken, but I didnt see any glass around, so I assumed it was broken last summer. I used that window to get into the house when (inaudible) I didnt have a key. But the window was open, about an eighth of an inch, and just kind latched it. So I went back down with Fleet, we looked around for some glass again, still didnt see any glass. And I told him that I thought that the break came from when I did that last summer and then, then I went from there into the cellar. Pull on the door, it was latched. I reach up and unlatched it, and then I saw the white blanket, (inaudible).
So John has found a broken unlatched window with a suitcase under it that isn't supposed to be there while he is admittedly on the hunt for an entry/exit point, and his only action is to latch it and not mention it again for three months?
So AK, I'm not going to let you or your other IDI pals of the hook on this one. Tell me why John didn't mention this unlocked window again? Wait, lets let John explain first...
JOHN RAMSEY: But it was open and there
2 was
3 a suitcase under it. This hard Samsonite suitcase.
4 LOU SMIT: Describe how the suitcase was
5 positioned?
6 JOHN RAMSEY: It was against the wall. I think
7 the handle was on top. It was directly under the
8 window, as I recall. And I closed the window, I
9 don't know why, but I closed it. And then --
10 LOU SMIT: When you closed it, did you lock
11 it or close it?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: I latched it. There's a little
13 latch on it.
14 LOU SMIT: And you're sure of that?
15 JOHN RAMSEY: Pretty sure, yeah. Yeah, I am
16 sure. I don't think I looked anywhere else. I
17 think at that point I still was trying to figure
18 out how they'd get in the house.
19 LOU SMIT: Well wouldn't that trigger your
20 (INAUDIBLE).
21 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. Yeah.
22 LOU SMIT: Did you tell anybody about that?
23 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't really remember. I mean,
24 part of what is going on you're in such a state of
25 disbelief this can even happen. And the, you know,
0154
1 the window had been broken out. And you say hah,
2 that's it. But it was a window that I had used to
3 get into the house before. It was cracked and open
4 a little bit. It wasn't terribly unusual for me.
5 Sometimes it would get opened to let cool air in
6 because that basement could get real hot in
7 winter. So it was like, you know, after I thought
8 about it, I thought it was more of an alarming
9 situation how it struck me at the time. It was
10 still sort of explainable to me that it could have
11 been left open.
12 And the suitcase was unusual. That shouldn't have
13 been there. I took that suitcase downstairs, I
14 remember. But I sure wouldn't have taken it all
15 the way back there and put it against the window.
Okay AK, you're up. Lets hear your reasonable explanation for this obvious bit of BS straight out of "Mr Ramsey's" mouth?
andreww, this is my opinion as well. I believe it probably had quite a lot of influence on the case. The DA thing I think was vital to AH's decision. I believe that the R's would have been made more forensically aware during the course of that trial (learning about DNA, etc. I need to study OJ to know more specifically). Additionally there was the massive media attention, which no doubt would have continued throughout any trial (ah how I wish that had happened!). I bet JR knew, even without Bynum's advice that their best bet was to lawyer up with the best of the best, and fast.
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.
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.
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
While I agree that it seems an odd place to leave a ransom note, I dont see anything suspicious about it.
AK
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
Its also funny that not everything used originated in the house and that, although items were removed from the scene, items that could connect the crime to the house were left behind.
Yes, the house was so complicated to navigate that there are probably people still wandering around in it, trying to find their way out. the fact is that the killer only needed to find his was in, find the stairs (visible from Fernies door the door looked through when he saw the note on the floor) find the right bedroom (visible from outside, above and to right of Fernies door), find a pen (visible through window beside Fernies door), find the notepad (visible through Fernies door). Find the basement, unless he entered through the basement. as soon as you get to the bottom of the steps, the wc is straight ahead, so nothing to even look for there. The note is left on the stairs because it is the killers final act before exiting the house via the butler door. He never knows anything about anything in the house other than those rooms he passed through. He doesnt even know a second set of stairs exist. It could have been something like this.
AK
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
What happened to Boulders experts? I have no idea what youre referring to, but I do know that they were accepted by Carnes and that (quote) the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF, 196; PSMF 196.)14 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 203; PSMF 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." Carnes Decision
IMO the grand jury decision is virtually meaningless. Prosecutors disagreed with them. The jurors didnt seem to have any idea as to what happened or by whom and were quoted as more-or-less saying that they thought investigators would figure it out later. LOL. I think, when it comes to the note, that the jurors may have let their own eyes override anything any experts had to say. They suffered from what is known as the Illusion of Knowledge.
AK
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
Kane wrote Wong a letter explaining why she would not be a credible witness for the Grand Jury.
I dont remember if Epstein was ever approached (or, whatever), 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.
AK
- Status