Questions that I have

[Britt]

Ivy, excellent post.

But there were two sides to this civil case. What about Wolf's attorney, Darnay Hoffman? What about his handling of the case?

IMO Hoffman is partially if not fully to blame for the Carnes decision. It was the lawyers' jobs to present the case for Carnes to rule on. It was Carnes' job to rule solely on what was presented to her in that civil case, which had nothing to do with the criminal investigation. It is unfair to blame her for Hoffman's (IMO) failings.

What Ramsey supporters refuse to realize is that Carnes' decision had zero to do with the Boulder criminal case. She was merely ruling on Wolf's civil suit, based on the limited information available to her in that context.

For all the RST spewage about separating truth from spin, you'd think they would recognize Wood's spin on Carnes' ruling.

It is Ramsey supporters who need to get their facts straight:

The civil suit and the criminal case are not related.

The Carnes ruling was not, and did not have the authority to be, exoneration of the Ramseys in the criminal case. She does not have the authority to clear suspects in the Ramsey criminal investigation.

Sissi... I don't think Carnes is an idiot (technically speaking), but since you posted several articles about the Carnes ruling (and Wood's spin thereof), are you presenting the above spin as fact? Are you trying to say that Carnes has cleared the Ramseys?

 

[sissi]

I would love to read the information concerning "Burke owning Hi-techs" could you please link me to something?

 

[Ivy]

Britt, Darnay Hoffmann didn't have access to the police files either, but IMO he did fail to present the case adequately, especially in regards to the handwriting documents. He didn't have Epstein in his depostion elaborate on his methodology or go into detail about his analysis.

Although some people may excuse Carnes's ignorance of the facts as not being her fault because the only information she had was what the Ramseys fed her, she herself decided to dismiss Gideon Epstein's expert opinion, his "absolute certainty" that Patsy wrote the note. As I mentioned above, Carnes thought Epstein should have been more specific in his depostion and gone into detail about his methodology. Had Carnes given Epstein the chance by letting the Wolf case go forward, Epstein would have been able to do just that. Now he won't.

Until he retired in 2000, Epstein was director of the forensics unit of the documents lab at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. But he wasn't the only expert who believes Patsy wrote the note. David Leibman, former president of the National Association of Document Examiners, does too. Anyway, regardless of the opinions of the experts, Carnes had to be blind not to see from the handwriting comparison documents showing Patsy's exemplars next to the ransom note samples, that Patsy wrote the note. Rather than being an idiot, I think that by objecting to the unspecificity of Epstein's deposition, Carnes was very clever to pounce on this opportunity to favor the Ramseys and make sure the Wolf case didn't go to trial.

 

[Britt]

Ivy, I certainly agree with you about the handwriting, but IMO Hoffman's incompetence doomed this case from the get-go. Instead of a simple defamation/libel/slander suit based on the only fact that was relevant - that Wolf had been cleared by LE yet the Ramseys named him as a suspect anyway - Hoffman turned it into a Patsy-criminal-prosecution. I think this created unnecessary problems for Hoffman which he wasn't up to handling. Possibly this partly explains Carnes' attitude/response (?)

 

[Ivy]

Britt, I totally agree that Darnay was trying to prove PDI and lost focus of what the Wolf case was really about.

I remember when Darnay used to post here at WS how determined he was to prove Patsy wrote the note and to see to it that she be charged with felony murder. The felony he had in mind was kidnapping. Darnay explained that kidnapping merely required a person to be moved against their will from one room to another, or, if I recall correctly, to be moved against their will anywhere, even to another part of the same room.

Darnay said that even if someone other than Patsy kidnapped and killed JonBenet, if it was proved that Patsy wrote the note, she could be charged with felony murder. Darnay said it was the same as in cases where drivers of bank robbery get-away cars can be charged with felony murder if the actual robbers happen to kill someone during the heist.

I remember waiting and waiting for Darnay to respond to my post asking how it could be proved JonBenet was taken anywhere against her will. Other posters had questions too, but I don't recall many of our questions being answered. I know mine wasn't.

 

[Toltec]

From the autopsy report:

Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen.

Dr. Cyril Wecht explains the autopsy report as JonBenet suffering from acute AND chronic abuse.

I am presenting FACTS here and I too am tired of some people posting without quoting sources. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but they should say it is only opinion...not based on FACTS.

 

[Ivy]

sissi, I've posted the link to the article containing the information about Burke's Hi Tec shoes many times, including in a post I made a while back on the subject. I even posted the article link earlier in this thread, in the post wherein I told MrsMush I considered the article a Must Read, although I see I neglected to post the link later in the thread, when I spoke of Burke's shoes. I humbly beg everyone's forgiveness for being remiss. Here is the link again:

Solving the JonBenet Case

If, after reading the article, anyone wishes to dispute the fact that Burke and his friend testified before the grand jury that Burke owned Hi-Tech shoes and that Patsy was informed in 2000 of this, I suggest you take it up with the article's author, Ryan Ross. He is a legal affairs expert living in Denver, whose articles have appeared in National Law Journal and Legal Times, as well as other publications. He has also appeared on Nightline as a legal expert.

 

[sissi]

Toltec's quote Dr. Cyril Wecht explains the autopsy report as JonBenet suffering from acute AND chronic abuse.

NO! This is not a fact,this is an interpretation,and is in direct opposition to the opinions of those directly involved with the case. The autopsy showed some chronic inflamation,not chronic abuse,that is a "call",a supposition,a guess..

 

[Britt]

Originally posted by sissi
Toltec's quote Dr. Cyril Wecht explains the autopsy report as JonBenet suffering from acute AND chronic abuse.

NO! This is not a fact,this is an interpretation,and is in direct opposition to the opinions of those directly involved with the case. The autopsy showed some chronic inflamation,not chronic abuse,that is a "call",a supposition,a guess..

Sissi, could you please elaborate?

Can you please quote/source and/or link to this opposite interpretation of those autopsy findings?

 

[sissi]

You are right Ivy, I would have to take issue with the author,his is more of an editorial,and the few facts that he sources,are questionable,for ex. Wecht's description was that of strangulation then head hit,I believe this author got that one wrong,claiming the opposite. He has "sources" but doesn't name them,that always makes material "highly" suspect ,IMO. If Burke owned those Hi-techs,or any Hi-techs,I wonder why the more "mainstream" media didn't pick up the coverage. From personal experience,I happen to know writers take license, in the best of journals one cannot expect accuracy to be 100%.
We all read the same information,we just choose what we believe . JMO IMO

 

[Ivy]

sissi, you know you're going to believe what you want to, no matter what the evidence says.

Do I have it right that you now place value on Wecht's opinions? Hello?

 

[sissi]

For Britt,

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/timeline4.html

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/02/20-1.html

We have to remember Wecht was not directly involved in this case .

 

[Britt]

Thank you, Sissi.

But the most we can conclude from those articles is that the experts were "in disagreement" and "evidence of sexual assault was inconclusive."

Bottom line: No one can say for sure that she was not sexually abused.

JB's doctor himself, Dr. Beuf, did not know whether JB was abused or not.

From Diane Sawyer's interview with Dr. Beuf:

DIANE SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.

He couldn't say for sure. He didn't look. He didn't know.

ABC Primetime Live, September 10, 1997

 

[Britt]

Originally posted by sissi
We have to remember Wecht was not directly involved in this case .

Is it necessary for a medical expert to be directly involved in a case in order to have the expertise to interpret autopsy findings?

What about expert witnesses in trials? What about the other experts consulted in this case?

 

[sissi]

I do not believe that to be the case. In a trial, the coroner that does the autopsy,is traditionally the one that presents his findings,not someone from across the country who had no access to actual tissue samples. If he ,Wecht, would be called in for the prosecution,it would be difficult to take anything he promotes as anything more than speculation. Remember he lost his credibility when he claimed John Ramsey murdered his daughter.

On the same side of this is Doberson,his testimony will also be lacking in the fact he is drawing conclusions based on photos,not on actual examination.

These are two similar situations, I can understand picking one to believe,it's human nature.

Which "guy" do you believe and why?
IMO JMO

 

[sissi]

Oh,and Britt,my first post was lost ,my connection shut down,I wanted to say,Yes,you are right,there is no way to conclude either way.

 

[Britt]

Originally posted by sissi
In a trial, the coroner that does the autopsy,is traditionally the one that presents his findings,not someone from across the country who had no access to actual tissue samples.

True, the coroner testifies, as well as experts called by both sides.

My point was that an expert witness such as Wecht (not necessarily Wecht) could be called at trial and the fact that he/she wasn't present for the actual autopsy nor directly involved in the case does not diminish his/her expertise. The autopsy report is written in a 'language' that can be interpreted by anyone with the expertise to understand it.

I think we're talking about two separate things here: interpretation of the autopsy report, and theory of the crime. I believe Wecht's interpretation of the autopsy findings, but not his theory of the crime. IOW, I believe JB was sexually abused prior to the night of her death, but I don't believe John killed her during a sex game.

 

[Toth]

Might interest you to know that under the Frye test a determinaiton of stun gun use may be made from forensic quality photographs and not from examination of epidermal tissue.

 

[gretchen]

MrsMush, Boy did you open a can of worms!

My suggestion is to read all the books on the case BEFORE reading the forums. To do otherwise will only confuse you! I have read everything I can about this case and still get some of the facts mixed up. It is easy to do-so much information and so many opinions all wrapped together.

But anyway, welcome to the JBR forum. I think you will like it here, just keep in mind that opinions vary considerably and most of us have very definate opinions on who did it.

To me, the most frustrating part is the lack of law enforcement to do anything with this case. I don't believe for one minute a real investigation is being conducted by Mary Keenan.

Good luck!

 

[SisterSocks]

Welcome Mush=)

Socks