Ask for foreign help?

[madeleine]

I KNOW that he was their defence attorney but that doesn't mean I am naive or that everything he says is pure bs.Hey if I'd be in trouble I'd be HAPPY to hire him to represent me.And with such cops,you definitely need clever lawyers.

 

[madeleine]

See,this is what I call immature and biased.I won't listen to X because he makes me throw up.I don't like H.Lee but I DID listen to what he had to say.Same with Wecht,Smit ,the cops,the DA and the beloved handwriting experts.Like it or not,I think you gotta listen to everybody if you wanna know the whole story and then make up your mind.If you ignore one side,you don't have all the facts.And then your theory is based on half truths.

 

[DeeDee249]

Interesting...with a whole new team in the DA's office and after 16 years, probably a lot of new members on the BPD...STILL no fresh eyes looking at this case or any (even marginally viable) suspects like CW.
LW claims CW was not cleared, but I thought he had been.

 

[BBB167893]

It doesn't mean that I buy everything he says,but yes I do listen to what he has to say and I can decide for myself what to believe.

Fair enough.

He seems to be right about lots of things.

Such as?

How do you claim to wanna listen to both sides if you can't because it makes you throw up?

I claim it because it's true. And I never said I can't listen to it. I DID. It's some (NOT ALL, SOME) of the people who articulate it that I have a problem with.

I KNOW that he was their defence attorney but that doesn't mean I am naive or that everything he says is pure bs.

I would agree with that, except that he's not their defense attorney. He's a litigation attorney, which means he has no stake in whether or not someone is guilty or innocent as long as he makes his money. Indeed, it would be more accurate to describe him as an "attack" attorney.

I won't say that everything he says is pure BS. I'm sure he believes what he says. I often wonder just how much he knows about the case and how much he chooses not to know. In that regard, I'm not sure it's fair to accuse him of outright lying, so I won't.

And I never accused you of being naive. I just wanted to know where you stood on him.

Hey if I'd be in trouble I'd be HAPPY to hire him to represent me.And with such cops,you definitely need clever lawyers.

Not this kind.

See,this is what I call immature and biased.I won't listen to X because he makes me throw up.

Let's be accurate here. LW himself is not my problem (although, I've certainly made my feelings about him clear; you asked yourself, if memory serves). It's the idea that he can go on TV unopposed and say cr@p, whether he knows it's nonsense or not, is what gets to me.

I don't like H.Lee but I DID listen to what he had to say.Same with Wecht,Smit ,the cops,the DA and the beloved handwriting experts.Like it or not,I think you gotta listen to everybody if you wanna know the whole story and then make up your mind.If you ignore one side,you don't have all the facts.And then your theory is based on half truths.

I would agree with all of that. That's mainly why I decided to write my book in the first place.

 

[BBB167893]

Interesting...with a whole new team in the DA's office and after 16 years, probably a lot of new members on the BPD...STILL no fresh eyes looking at this case or any (even marginally viable) suspects like CW.

That's the one funny thing to come out of this, DD. For several years, R mouthpieces like this guy claimed that the police were biased and the case needed fresh, unbiased eyes. The problem is, LW did everything he could to make sure ML got the case BECAUSE she was biased, just on his side. And she made sure to hire only people who agreed with her, many of which were not new or fresh. And she not only fails to make any appreciable progress, she set the case BACK and made herself look like an idiot.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Not necessarily. Even if so, why would they take it out on JBR, a little 6yo earthling girl child, who never did no one no harm?

I would have to say to that: Why would anyone take anything out on a little 6 yo girl? You're asking me for a rational or moral explanation in the exact place where none will be found regardless of who did it.

Its becoming clear we disagree on SFF, but at least I know that you don't buy into this BS of it not being a real strangulation or a real murder.

I mean, I can't believe anyone who held a badge could be that distorted in their thinking--that removed from reality. Given the opportunity, I'd have removed them from their job as well. I mean, to be so disconnected from reality as to be able to look at the deep furrow with petechial hemorrhaging, the clean slot hole with fragment, and acute sexual assault injury, and believe it was an accident. And then drumming up fictional tales of what happened, using only fibers as a basis. Fibers that are going to be found in their laundry basket anyway. All this while ignoring male DNA on inside crotch of underwear. Just how ignorant do they get?

How low will they go?

 

[madeleine]

Such as?

I just answered above,that everybody without an alibi should be checked for example.

It's the idea that he can go on TV unopposed and say cr@p, whether he knows it's nonsense or not, is what gets to me.

Like what for example.Whats's so cr@py about what he says in this particular video.That ST and Eller did what they did?It's true.That they didn't follow other leads?It's true.Just read the Wolf depositions fgs,they are admitting it with their own golden mouths.

 

[madeleine]

The problem is, LW did everything he could to make sure ML got the case BECAUSE she was biased, just on his side.

Proof?

 

[MurriFlower]

I would have to say to that: Why would anyone take anything out on a little 6 yo girl? You're asking me for a rational or moral explanation in the exact place where none will be found regardless of who did it.

Its becoming clear we disagree on SFF, but at least I know that you don't buy into this BS of it not being a real strangulation or a real murder.

I mean, I can't believe anyone who held a badge could be that distorted in their thinking--that removed from reality. Given the opportunity, I'd have removed them from their job as well. I mean, to be so disconnected from reality as to be able to look at the deep furrow with petechial hemorrhaging, the clean slot hole with fragment, and acute sexual assault injury, and believe it was an accident. And then drumming up fictional tales of what happened, using only fibers as a basis. Fibers that are going to be found in their laundry basket anyway. All this while ignoring male DNA on inside crotch of underwear. Just how ignorant do they get?

How low will they go?

I'm not sure if I disagree with your theory or not, as I've not actually seen your theory. I'm trying to understand how you are able to fit it into the events, seriously, that some group for political or idealogical reasons, committing this crime.

When I ask more specific questions about it, you get all evasive. I have no problem if you don't actually HAVE a theory, no that's probably not right, I'd have to wonder why you haven't formed some idea in your mind as to exactly how it played out?

I can kind of see something occurring with a foreign faction within the University just nearby, where some ideological problem coupled with a personal issue (probably with JAR seeing as how he was studying there) prompted a retaliation.

Or, possibly something to do with AG, maybe with CIA connections, as it would make a great cover for a nest of spooks. That and it's incredible growth is suspicious to me (or actually not the growth, but the funding of this massive growth).

So, you see, I've not dismissed or disagreed with the possibility of a SFF being involved, but it needs to have some reason or cause, not just a random hit against JR taken out on JBR. So, if you really don't have a theory on this at all, then we need to explore the possibilities anyway, so don't get defensive. If you do have a theory, then I'd like to take a look at it and test it for soundness. OK?

 

[BBB167893]

I just answered above,that everybody without an alibi should be checked for example.

Just making sure, is all.

Like what for example.Whats's so cr@py about what he says in this particular video.

His comments about the handwriting evidence, for one thing.

That ST and Eller did what they did?It's true.That they didn't follow other leads?It's true.

John Eller did a LOT of things that were just plain foolish. But this argument that the police didn't follow any other leads is indicative of what I've been talking about. I'm always loathe to use this comparison, but Josef Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, famously said that if a lie is told often enough, people will accept it as truth. One gets the feeling that Mr. Wood has read Herr Goebbels' book.

Just read the Wolf depositions fgs, they are admitting it with their own golden mouths.

I've read them. The Rs' lawyers did a fine job phrasing the questions to get the answers they wanted, which is typical in civil depositions, because lawyers have so much power there. But I contrast that with the 600 people interviewed

 

[BBB167893]

Proof?

Be specific here, maddy. Proof that Wood tried to put the case into her hands, or proof that she was biased towards the Rs? Because I can give you plenty of BOTH.

Let's see: in 2002, he threatened to bring a lawsuit against the police unless the case was turned over to her. Now, let's back up a bit. The Ramseys had been agitating for a more "competent" agency to take over the case. JR even went so far as to mention the FBI by name, saying he wished they'd taken the reins that morning. (I guess he forgot that Ron Walker WAS there that morning.) Trouble is, every time the police offered to turn it over to the Feds, JR would get his undies in a wad, claiming that the FBI was "corrupted" by their contact with the BPD and was part of the big, bad LE conspiracy. This led rather famously to ST's comment, "who do you want to take this case, the Border Patrol?"

So, skip ahead to 2002, and Wood threatens his suit. I honestly don't think that it would have done him any good. Any suit filed against the cops would probably have been booted in summary judgment, but it would have tied up resources and given the Rs access to the police file, which would really have made a mess of things. But the end result was that Lacy and her office got the case. I'm not aware of any other time when a DA's office has actively taken an unsolved case away from police. Moreover, I'm not aware of any instance where a threat from a suspect's attorney, and a LITIGATION attorney to boot, has any say in who can and cannot investigate a homicide case I'm not a legal expert, so I don't know if that could be constituted obstruction of justice, or collusion, or not, but it ought to be a disbarring offense. (Point of fact: LW has committed a BIG disbarring offense, that I know of.) As far as I know, it may be legal, but it can't be ethical.

As for ML being biased in the Rs' favor, where would you like me to start?

 

[madeleine]

Let's see: in 2002, he threatened to bring a lawsuit against the police unless the case was turned over to her.

Good.That also means he could have done that because he had plenty of evidence /arguments why the case shouldn't be handled by those cops.If they were scared......they had reasons to be.Plenty.

 

[madeleine]

or proof that she was biased towards the Rs?

Maybe she was or maybe she just knows more than we do.If I don't like her or disagree with what she did in general doesn't mean that I buy the "she was naive and L.Wood TOOK ADVANTAGE of her." line.Two different things IMO.It's not LW's fault that ML was weak.He would have succeeded with every other DA IMO because there is no evidence that the RDI.

And what is this bs anyway,that the CURRENT DA didn't clear them,only Lacy did.Like it or not she represented the system when she did.Will every new DA have to clear them from now on?

Beckner said they will look at DNA and linguistics.Don't think he meant PR.Do you?

 

[DeeDee249]

Maybe she was or maybe she just knows more than we do.If I don't like her or disagree with what she did in general doesn't mean that I buy the "she was naive and L.Wood TOOK ADVANTAGE of her." line.Two different things IMO.It's not LW's fault that ML was weak.He would have succeeded with every other DA IMO because there is no evidence that the RDI.

And what is this bs anyway,that the CURRENT DA didn't clear them,only Lacy did.Like it or not she represented the system when she did.Will every new DA have to clear them from now on?

Beckner said they will look at DNA and linguistics.Don't think he meant PR.Do you?

He SHOULD be looking at Patsy, though not only Patsy. I feel that this is one of the main reasons this case will not be looked at more closely no matter who gets it. Patsy is dead, and from their point of view (LE) she is still the most likely suspect. The new DA may agree with that, and so the case is not really going anywhere.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

And what is this bs anyway,that the CURRENT DA didn't clear them,only Lacy did.Like it or not she represented the system when she did.Will every new DA have to clear them from now on?

Police Form Cold Case Task Force


At the news conference, Beckner said more than 140 people had already been investigated as potential suspects, but none could be linked to the crime.

Beckner said his department plans to investigate the slaying as a cold case, inviting a team of 20 investigators from several state and federal agencies to join an advisory task force.

"We're bringing in people on this task force that are going to have a fresh perspective. (They're going to) look at this case, tell us what they think, challenge us, give us ideas," Beckner said.

The group plans to meet for two days in the next few weeks to review all the evidence in the case and identify additional DNA testing that might be useful.

Beckner said he wants to go into the first meeting with no preconceived notions.

"We are open to all possibilities," he said.

Beckner said new technology gives investigators tools they didn't have 10 years ago.


http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18622229/detail.html

I'm not sure, but I think this one remark is a de facto cancellation of ML's letter. Her letter specifically stated that the R's were no longer considered suspects, while this statement from BPD indicates otherwise.

 

[BBB167893]

Good.That also means he could have done that because he had plenty of evidence /arguments why the case shouldn't be handled by those cops.

I sincerely doubt it, maddy. Chances are better than good that a judge would have booted it the minute it came across his/her desk. And even if he/she didn't, it wouldn't have made it past summary judgment.

If they were scared......they had reasons to be.Plenty.

I think the only thing they were worried about was the Rs using the discovery process to gain access to the police file. Which, I suspect was the whole point of the suit, had it happened. Most likely, Wood probably knew his suit didn't stand a snowball's chance of actually succeeding. But it WOULD tie up a few years and a lot of resources.

Maybe she was or maybe she just knows more than we do.

Well, all I can go by is what people who worked with her have said about her. Frank Coffman worked on her campaign. He described her as a devoted feminist with a strong devotion to females she sees as victims. He also describes the aftermath of the 98 interviews where she chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy. Now, think about that: an assistant DA who has never tried a murder case in her whole career and had only peripheral involvement in the case up to that point, was telling one of the finest homicide cops in the country that he was too tough for using standard tactics that even a rookie on the beat would know.
And that's just for openers. ST in his book talks about her as someone who had made up her mind very quickly and wanted to prove everyone who doubted her wrong by being the hero of the case. And I could go on and on, but I believe my point is made.

If I don't like her or disagree with what she did in general doesn't mean that I buy the "she was naive and L.Wood TOOK ADVANTAGE of her." line.

I wonder that myself. Who was using who here?

It's not LW's fault that ML was weak.

That's true. I chalk it up to the general atmosphere of Boulder.

He would have succeeded with every other DA IMO because there is no evidence that the RDI.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I've certainly made my feelings plain.

And what is this bs anyway, that the CURRENT DA didn't clear them,only Lacy did.

Just what it says. The current DA has not endorsed her moves on the case.

Like it or not she represented the system when she did.

What a depressing thought.

Will every new DA have to clear them from now on?

That's essentially what Kane said.

Beckner said they will look at DNA and linguistics.Don't think he meant PR.Do you?

Oh, yeah, I do. Anyone could read between the lines he threw out.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm not sure if I disagree with your theory or not, as I've not actually seen your theory.I'm trying to understand how you are able to fit it into the events, seriously, that some group for political or idealogical reasons, committing this crime.

When I ask more specific questions about it, you get all evasive. I have no problem if you don't actually HAVE a theory, no that's probably not right, I'd have to wonder why you haven't formed some idea in your mind as to exactly how it played out?

I can kind of see something occurring with a foreign faction within the University just nearby, where some ideological problem coupled with a personal issue (probably with JAR seeing as how he was studying there) prompted a retaliation.

Or, possibly something to do with AG, maybe with CIA connections, as it would make a great cover for a nest of spooks. That and it's incredible growth is suspicious to me (or actually not the growth, but the funding of this massive growth).

So, you see, I've not dismissed or disagreed with the possibility of a SFF being involved, but it needs to have some reason or cause, not just a random hit against JR taken out on JBR. So, if you really don't have a theory on this at all, then we need to explore the possibilities anyway, so don't get defensive. If you do have a theory, then I'd like to take a look at it and test it for soundness. OK?

If what you're asking is why JR or why JBR, then I would consider that JR/JBR were selected the way serial killers select: they matched some criteria, part of a victim profiling/selection process. I already said several times that JR/JBR both represent the exact opposite ideology of this SFF. Neither JR's wealth nor JBR's pageant activity are allowed within SFF.

 

[madeleine]

He SHOULD be looking at Patsy, though not only Patsy. I feel that this is one of the main reasons this case will not be looked at more closely no matter who gets it. Patsy is dead, and from their point of view (LE) she is still the most likely suspect. The new DA may agree with that, and so the case is not really going anywhere.

They looked at Patsy for how many years now and nothing came out of it.Maybe they're barking up the wrong tree?You won't agree but I hope THEY consider it.Time to look at ALL the possibilities like they said they will.

 

[anne11]

I think chinese is a bit of a push, on average first language chinese studying english have a vocaubulary of 5000 english words, imo the cliches, grammar and punctuation show an american education. Here's a link to a study on the problems/differences in english and chinese translation
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/corpus/UCCTS2008Proceedings/papers/Jiang_and_Rij-Heyligers.pdf

Again russia has different alphabet i wonder if handwriting would be effected.

Another thing troubling me is the gardner, he didn't have anything nice to say about JBR even after she had been killed, not a sure sign of guilt but i hope he was properly investigated

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I think chinese is a bit of a push, on average first language chinese studying english have a vocaubulary of 5000 english words, imo the cliches, grammar and punctuation show an american education. Here's a link to a study on the problems/differences in english and chinese translation
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/corpus/UCCTS2008Proceedings/papers/Jiang_and_Rij-Heyligers.pdf

Again russia has different alphabet i wonder if handwriting would be effected.

I think you meant 'affected'

Anyway, the vocabulary of the ransom note author can't be shown to exceed those 5000 words. Plus, the cliches, grammar, and punctuation are either very awkward or they are drawn from movies.

A famous FBI profiler once said "the case is totally bizarre. I've never in my 35 years seen anything like this". I think this single thesarus entry could be used to describe many, many aspects of JBR's murder. From the sexual assault to the garrote to the ransom note. From beginning to end.

Main Entry: anomalous Part of Speech: adjective Definition: deviating from normal, usual Synonyms: aberrant, abnormal, atypical, bizarre, divergent, eccentric, exceptional, foreign, heteroclite, incongruous, inconsistent, irregular, odd, peculiar, preternatural, prodigious, rare, strange, unnatural, unorthodox, unrepresentative, untypical, unusual

Antonyms: conforming, normal, regular, standard, usual

Can RDI please help find anything about this crime that is conforming, normal, regular, standard, or usual for filicide? I mean, that wasn't just invented for convenience? I sure can't.