Oct. 1997 Article Vanity Fair - Check it

[joeskidbeck]

I really believe those pink pajama bottoms could tell the story of what happened that night, right down to who did what. It's things like this that make me believe BR was involved and questioning the bottoms would have led straight to him. LE was surely not so inept that they didn't realize the importance of those pajamas. Especially since they had a top and no bottom.

 

[UKGuy]

I really believe those pink pajama bottoms could tell the story of what happened that night, right down to who did what. It's things like this that make me believe BR was involved and questioning the bottoms would have led straight to him. LE was surely not so inept that they didn't realize the importance of those pajamas. Especially since they had a top and no bottom.

joeskidbeck,
Yes, simply the absence of the pink pajama bottoms allows us to assume they are important.

Also consider how the DA's office has gone out its way to exclude the Ramsey's as suspects, yet nothing is said about either JonBenet's size-6 underwear or her pink pajamas i.e. both items we know she had worn in the previous 24-hours, so its not speculation.


.

 

[joeskidbeck]

With each passing day I am more inclined to believe that officials in Boulder know exactly who killed her and since they cannot name the killer the case must remain open. If true, a very viscious circle that will never end. Unless, of course, the killer should break his silence. Not. Very. Likely.

 

[DeeDee249]

With each passing day I am more inclined to believe that officials in Boulder know exactly who killed her and since they cannot name the killer the case must remain open. If true, a very viscious circle that will never end. Unless, of course, the killer should break his silence. Not. Very. Likely.

I think you have pretty much said it all. But I like to think that some day, someone who knows what happened will stand up for this little girl and free her memory from the taint that it has had all these years.

Maybe they are waiting for LW to be out if the picture.

 

[BBB167893]

You mean if I were in Steve Thomas's position?

That's exactly what I mean.

I would never have gone to the media if I were part of an ongoing investigation---particularly sneaking off for a Vanity Fair article. I would have listened to a more seasoned detective such as Lou Smit...someone with a track record of successful cases.

That's precisely the problem for you, Maikai: he DID listen to more experienced investigators.

And I think Whaleshark said it best:

Even Lou Smit said that he himself should be taken off the case because he could not be objective either.

And praying with your client and thinking they are 'nice Christian' people that you can relate to, and so are just not capable of doing such a thing...is not being objective.

He's absolutely right. My mother's favorite saying was, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

I would have respected due process. I would have asked to be taken off the case when it became all consuming, and I couldn't be objective. I wouldn't have written a book with distorted information.

Interesting. Would you like to know what *I* would have done?

 

[Maikai]

That's exactly what I mean.



That's precisely the problem for you, Maikai: he DID listen to more experienced investigators. j

I don't consider Furman an expert in this case.


Interesting. Would you like to know what *I* would have done?

Yes, what would YOU have done?

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, what would YOU have done?

Depends on how far I was willing to take it.

FOR STARTERS, I would have turned in my resignation, loaded a gun with some blanks, walked into Alex Hunter's office, fired a few shots, and said "I QUIT" while he was cowering under the desk! Although, now that I think about it, anyone who was as big an a*****e as Hunter was with as many people as he'd pissed off in his career would probably have a REAL gun in his desk!

 

[Maikai]

Depends on how far I was willing to take it.

FOR STARTERS, I would have turned in my resignation, loaded a gun with some blanks, walked into Alex Hunter's office, fired a few shots, and said "I QUIT" while he was cowering under the desk! Although, now that I think about it, anyone who was as big an a*****e as Hunter was with as many people as he'd pissed off in his career would probably have a REAL gun in his desk!

Nice. The circumstantial case presented to Alex Hunter by the Boulder police wouldn't have convicted a ham sandwich. The Grand Jury cost a lot of money and was a waste of time---Hunter knew that, but was overruled by the Governor's office. The DNA would get anyone off---unless there is a match.

 

[BBB167893]

Nice.

And that's just for openers!

The circumstantial case presented to Alex Hunter by the Boulder police wouldn't have convicted a ham sandwich.

Not with ol' Alex at the helm, that's for damn sure! Otherwise, that statement is a bunch of garbage, and you KNOW IT. Roy certainly knows it. He's not afraid to admit the truth: plenty of people have gone to prison and even death row on a LOT less!

The Grand Jury cost a lot of money and was a waste of time---Hunter knew that, but was overruled by the Governor's office.

Finally, something we agree on! Although, I'm guessing that we don't agree for quite the same reasons.

The DNA would get anyone off---unless there is a match.

I'm tempted to remember that old saw about 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty...

 

[BBB167893]

I'd be more than happy to explain it to you!



That means absolutely NOTHING to me.



That's just IT, Maikai: whomever did this crime didn't have a CLUE what they were doing! That's not just my opinion, either.



THAT'S WHAT I'm SAYING! And it REALLY torks me off that he forgot that!

Would anyone else like to weigh in? Please, don't be shy!

 

[Maikai]

Well, we agree the perps didn't know what they were doing.....but why only the parents? There's too many things in their favor......they didn't have the criminal minds to do any kind of staging. They had no motive---quite the opposite. They didn't know the movie lines or themes. They had no history of mistreating their children....there's nothing there...let alone the type of assault that was done to JBR. She was alive when the garrotte was being tightened---those are nail l/2 moon marks on her neck. There's a high probablity a stun gun was used...there is the same DNA in more than one place. Patsy's handwriting did not match---she scored a 4.5 out of 5---5 being she did not do it.

The perp was not a stranger to breaking and entering...or violence. He just took it a step farther thinking he could pull off a kidnapping, and blew it.

 

[wonderllama]

Patsy's handwriting did not match---she scored a 4.5 out of 5---5 being she did not do it.

Maybe read this...

Also, if you're going to quote ONE source for the score of the handwriting match, perhaps you should balance it out with a couple of sources giving independent views.

Such as found here...

 

[Maikai]

Maybe read this...

Also, if you're going to quote ONE source for the score of the handwriting match, perhaps you should balance it out with a couple of sources giving independent views.

Such as found here...

That was a good summary of all the "experts." I like Hunter's quote:

In his deposition for the Wolf v. Ramsey libel case, Alex Hunter acknowledged that these experts had concluded chances of Patsy writing the note were "very low" and also asserted there were other individuals who were under suspicion whose handwriting was analyzed that were not eliminated as the author of the note.

Steve Thomas had a way with words, when he talked about the 73 people whose handwriting was analyzed (supposedly). He adds of those "in the home" that night. He doesn't say how many of the 73 they looked at had handwriting matches that were closer than Patsy's. Handwriting analysis isn't an exact science....however, it appears to me, the overall opinions by legitimate experts was Patsy scored low. There is one letter in the note that has always baffled me, and I think was not disguised----it's an f with a line through it. That type of "f" I was told could have been made by someone familiar with drafting----that's how it is written.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, we agree the perps didn't know what they were doing.....but why only the parents?

You mean OTHER than the fact that no one else can be proven to have been in the house that night? Okay, how does this hit you: you'd expect a premeditated crime perpetrated by an outsider to have at least SOME preparation!

There's too many things in their favor......they didn't have the criminal minds to do any kind of staging.

Maybe you didn't notice, Maikai, but that's one of the things that points to them: whomever did this didn't know what they were doing either.

And incidentally, could you be a tad more specific as to what you mean by that statment? Seems a bit muddled to me.

They had no motive---quite the opposite.

You don't need motive for accidental death.

They had no history of mistreating their children....there's nothing there...let alone the type of assault that was done to JBR.

That argument MIGHT have some merit if this were a premeditated killing.

She was alive when the garrotte was being tightened

No argument.

---those are nail l/2 moon marks on her neck.

You must be looking at a different victim than me! The autopsy report is quite clear on what they are.

You know, if you're going to repeat Lou Smit's fabrications, you could at least do it with a little more guile!

There's a high probablity a stun gun was used...

There is NO probability that a stun gun was used! Believe me, I KNOW!

there is the same DNA in more than one place.

So what? DNA is all over the place.

Patsy's handwriting did not match---she scored a 4.5 out of 5---5 being she did not do it.

(Buzzer sounds) Oh, I'm sorry, that is incorrect. More accurately, it's yet another batch of Ramsey propaganda. That "4.5 out of 5" nonsense was cooked up by their hired "experts."

On Larry King Live (4/14/2000), Steve Thomas stated: "Well, they're saying that she scored a numerical scale of 4 1/2, but that apparently is from their own defense handwriting experts."

Yeah, SHE F***IN' DID IT! It took me a long time to admit it, but I did.

 

[BBB167893]

Maybe read this...

Also, if you're going to quote ONE source for the score of the handwriting match, perhaps you should balance it out with a couple of sources giving independent views.

Such as found here...

They could at least put some effort into it, llama!

 

[BBB167893]

That was a good summary of all the "experts." I like Hunter's quote:

In his deposition for the Wolf v. Ramsey libel case, Alex Hunter acknowledged that these experts had concluded chances of Patsy writing the note were "very low" and also asserted there were other individuals who were under suspicion whose handwriting was analyzed that were not eliminated as the author of the note.

The way I'm to understand it is that Hunter was actually misinformed about that.

Handwriting analysis isn't an exact science....however, it appears to me, the overall opinions by legitimate experts was Patsy scored low.

That's not the way I heard it. Let me lay this on you:

during the Chris Wolf case, Darnay Hoffman challenged Lin Wood to produce the actual handwriting reports and prove that they say what Wood claims they say. Wood said that it would be a pleasure.

The plot thickens. Wood had already asked Hal Haddon, the Ramsey defense lawyer, for those reports. Since Haddon was defense counsel, he'd have them. Haddon REFUSED. Haddon said that Grand Jury secrecy laws made it impossible for him to give out that information. But in 2001, the Grand Jury secrecy law was struck down. Wood tried again after Hoffman challenge, but Haddon STILL would not give them up. TO THIS DAY he will not release them. Any idea why that is?