Something that has been bugging me... (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT)

[icedtea4me]

Patsy and John weren't even able to take a change of clothes with them when they left, how did they take any evidence?

There's this thing women carry items in. You may have heard of it before. It's called a purse or a handbag.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Well, you ask me to provide a quote to back up my statement about ST's book not being accurate.
When I provide this, you accuse me of concentrating only on things that back my position?
And then go on to argue that the example I gave did not mean that ST's book was unreliably sourced, but that the expert Ubowski himself was unreliable instead!!



I was suggesting that " if you think he is that unreliable then you would dismiss his conclusions regardless of whether he thought she did write it or not, so there is no further need to discuss them.", but you then continue the discussion, by trying to further discredit the expert witness that you previously relied on for incriminating evidence against the Ramseys.
In which case I suggested that it makes sense "to concentrate on the ones that agree with your position."



What I said was "ST himself when under oath, was forced to admit that much of what he wrote in support of his theory about the Ramseys was either incorrect or unable to be verified and much of it came by word of mouth third or fourth hand."
I've given you an example which you argued with, finally dismissing the expert as the one whose credibility is being questioned.
I can see if I were to give you further examples, it would lead to the same conclusion.

BBM: If you go back and re-read each other's posts, you will see you were the one who "accused" me of unjustified bias by writing, "Yes, best to concentrate on the ones that agree with your position." I thought we were having a rather nice discussion until you started pointing fingers at me.

BBM: Well, there's only one way to find out, isn't there?

 

[BOESP]

There's this thing women carry items in. You may have heard of it before. It's called a purse or a handbag.

:giggle:

 

[icedtea4me]

Well, they know because the four red fibers found on the tape were "consistent" with the red fiber of the jacket!

So, it is my understanding that you're saying that the solid red sweater and the black, grey, and red jacket were made of the same material. Therefore, why couldn't the four red fibers have come from the sweater?

 

[inspector rex]

So, it is my understanding that you're saying that the solid red sweater and the black, grey, and red jacket were made of the same material. Therefore, why couldn't the four red fibers have come from the sweater?

We don't even know if it was the same jacket she had on that night, do we?
But despite that we know that the four red fibers matched

 

[icedtea4me]

We don't even know if it was the same jacket she had on that night, do we?
But despite that we know that the four red fibers matched

I believe I know what you're getting at. The four red fibers were fleece. The black, grey, and red jacket was also fleece; therefore, the four red fibers came from the jacket. This is where some cry out "But what about the black and grey fibers? Why weren't there any black and grey fibers there too?" What if Patsy had only been wearing her red turtleneck sweater which was also made out of fleece? What if she looked at what her sweater was made out of and then purchased a similar looking red turtleneck sweater that was made out of something else to turn in as evidence?

 

[icedtea4me]

Leaving aside any urge to make a PERSONAL comment, you just triggered something in my mind, rex. I said a while back that I didn't think there was any leftover tape to get rid of. Here's what I mean: what if Henry Lee is right? What if the tape had been used before?

Wasn't there said to have been a lack of tape residue around her mouth?

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*
Since no one noticed where JR went for quite a while, it's not beyond possibility. That assumes, of course, that they weren't already carrying them. Of course, THAT assumes that they hadn't been disposed of already. And THAT assumes that there was any to dispose of. *snip*

The following is part of a synopsis of a Malcolm in the Middle episode: Reese, who broke Dewey's future birthday present and was psyched to hide the evidence in Aunt Helen's casket,http://malcolminthemiddle.tktv.net/Episodes1/ (#11: Funeral)

In DOI Patsy said that John tucked a scarf around JonBenet (pp 39-40). This would be an ingenious way to hide evidence so no one could ever gain any access to it. Have the items rolled up in one end of the scarf, tuck it under the body, and tuck the other end on the other side.

 

[inspector rex]

I believe I know what you're getting at. The four red fibers were fleece. The black, grey, and red jacket was also fleece; therefore, the four red fibers came from the jacket. This is where some cry out "But what about the black and grey fibers? Why weren't there any black and grey fibers there too?" What if Patsy had only been wearing her red turtleneck sweater which was also made out of fleece? What if she looked at what her sweater was made out of and then purchased a similar looking red turtleneck sweater that was made out of something else to turn in as evidence?

Well, for my part, I'm naturally skeptical.
I think there's a good chance that ANY garment given to them for testing, providing it was similar to the one she wore that night, would have come back as "a match" according to BPD.

If they did give the garments they wore that night, then this demonstrates that the Ramseys were totally confident that there was no incriminating evidence to be found there and is certainly supporting their innocence.
If the garments they gave were not those they wore that night, then that demonstrates the lengths that BPD would go to to try to incriminate the Ramseys, and of course, the Ramseys would have been well aware of this.

We really do not know, nor does the BPD.
In actual fact, the only persons who may know are the Ramseys themselves.
And only one of them remains.

So, this is why I see this fiber evidence as flimsy at best.
Even leaving aside whether or not it is incriminating for the four red fibers to have been found on the tape.

 

[Anti-K]

Olivia, Ubowski was the only handwriting expert to testify at the GJ. No one here is privy to what he said; his testimony is part of the sealed records of the GJ. If he was not credible, and the members of the GJ felt an intruder wrote the note, then the assumption from the indictment would be that Patsy and JR allowed their daughter to be placed in danger, and then covered for the intruder who wrote the note and killed their daughter.

An excerpt from Forensics Under Fire; Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice. P. 193:
“Kane cross-examined these well intentioned and highly qualified men [Smit, and document examiners Rile, Cunnigham and Vacca] as though they were enemy defence witnesses at a criminal trial. The last thing Kane needed were four credible witnesses tearing down a case that was already weak, and he took out his frustration on them. Howard Rile, the former Colorado Bureau of Investigation document examiner, was stunned and shaken by the viciousness of Kane’s attack. He would later describe his grand jury appearance as a nightmare. After he recovered from Kane’s unprecedented assault, Riel asked for a second chance before the panel. Kane denied his request.”

So, according to this source, document examiners Rile, Cunningham and Vacca also testified before the Grand Jury.
...

AK

 

[otg]

An excerpt from Forensics Under Fire; Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice. P. 193:
“Kane cross-examined these well intentioned and highly qualified men [Smit, and document examiners Rile, Cunnigham and Vacca] as though they were enemy defence witnesses at a criminal trial. The last thing Kane needed were four credible witnesses tearing down a case that was already weak, and he took out his frustration on them. Howard Rile, the former Colorado Bureau of Investigation document examiner, was stunned and shaken by the viciousness of Kane’s attack. He would later describe his grand jury appearance as a nightmare. After he recovered from Kane’s unprecedented assault, Riel asked for a second chance before the panel. Kane denied his request.”

So, according to this source, document examiners Rile, Cunningham and Vacca also testified before the Grand Jury.
...

AK

I’ve never seen before that “Rile, Cunningham and Vacca also testified before the Grand Jury”, so I was curious. I know, AK, you were simply responding to qft's statement that "Ubowski was the only handwriting expert to testify at the GJ". However, since you included part of the author's prejudiced (IMO) opinion about them, I have to respond.

It’s interesting that the book referenced (author, Jim Fisher) discusses how corruptible and unreliable “expert” witnesses are, and yet he refers to statements apparently made to him (Fisher) about “secret” GJ testimony by the three “hired guns” on the Ramsey payroll during the Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Case (2003). (“Hired gun” BTW is the author’s term for them, unless he feels they fit in one of the other three classifications of that chapter -- Fisher’s section of his book about the Ramsey case is titled “Hired Guns, Smoke Blowers, and Phonies: The Expert Witness Problem”.) How appropriate is it that their account of something is in the section on the venality of document examiners?

If there is any doubt about Fisher’s position, take look at the words Fisher uses in describing them, as opposed to the words he uses in reference to Mike Kane and his actions:

Rile, Cunningham, Vacca:
​

well intentioned
highly qualified
credible witnesses​

Michael Kane:
​

a case that was already weak
he took out his frustration on them
the viciousness of Kane’s attack
Kane’s unprecedented assault
​

Incidentally, there is no such thing as a “cross-examination” in a GJ proceeding because there are no opposing sides. There is only an investigation into the facts of the case. The DA’s office (in this case represented by a Special Prosecutor) presents all the evidence available in order to determine probable cause. From http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/why-prosecutors-choose-grand-juries-preliminary.html:

(T)he grand jury does not make its decision in the context of an adversary proceeding. Rather, grand jurors see and hear only what prosecutors put before them. (Prosecutors technically have an obligation to present “exculpatory” evidence -- evidence that suggests that a defendant might not be guilty -- though there is not much other than the prosecutor’s conscience to enforce this rule.)
​

Were they already working for Team Ramsey in 1999 while the GJ was in session? Were they actually called before the GJ? Was their account of their experience as nightmarish and one-sided as they described? So far as I know, we have only Jim Fisher’s account (of their account) of what happened.

One more thing to note about the referenced book is these excerpts from a review by someone who read the book (www.amazon.com/review/R1FVVIWSRACTDP/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0813542715&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books):

Anyone with Ramsey case knowledge knows immediately on which side of the aisle Fisher stands, and that has a negative effect on any reader's expectations of objectivity. I was surprised that Fisher was not more careful to present the facts of the case without personal bias, especially since his book is meant for criminal justice instruction.

It is a shame that Fisher relied on Lou Smit for his case evidence as it is woefully outdated.

In my opinion, Fisher should have been more careful in what he stated was evidence and presented the Ramsey chapters without personal bias, especially since some readers (especially students) may have no other reference for Ramsey case information.
​

 

[otg]

I truly don't understand why these GJ documents are not being released in full. Has anyone involved explained why they aren't?

By law, GJ proceedings, witness testimony, and all reports presented to the GJ are required to be kept from the public. However, any finding (or action) of the GJ is supposed to be made public. This would be any True Bills that the GJ finds, or if there are no TBs -- a report of findings to present to the public giving the reasons there were no TBs found. The purpose of the GJ secrecy is to protect witnesses so they feel free to give testimony without fear of reprisal, protect suspects if they are not found indictable, and to preserve the secrecy of any evidence in case it is ever to be used in the future.

Usually when the GJ members vote to indict (and some legal scholars have argued that this is required by law), the DA signs the TB document and presents it in open court to either charge or recommend to the judge that he not charge. Either way the public is shown what kind of case the prosecutor might have or not have because of the fact that the public is who paid for the GJ's work. If there is no TB, the GJ can write and present a public report to account for the public's investment.

In the Ramsey case, Hunter chose simply to not sign the TBs voted on by the GJ -- which interestingly makes the TBs signed by the GJ foreman not valid. This technicality meant that the GJ could not therefore write an official report of its findings (since it DID in actuality vote to indict). Hunter's charade was to carefully craft his public statement to make it appear that the GJ members did not vote to indict while reminding them (the GJ members) and the public that they were bound by law to not disclose the truth about anything that happened.

Since the documents signed by the GJ foreman are considered to be part of the public record because they are deemed "official actions of the GJ" (even though they were not signed by the DA), they are supposed to be made public. Charlie Brennan's lawsuit challenged the fact that they had not been made public once he had evidence that they did exist. But even though he won a partial victory, the judge (Lowenbach) decided to only make public the TBs that were voted on by a 9/12 majority of the GJ (link to decision below). The other considered TBs were not made public. Many speculate (and I now believe) that the unreleased TBs would make the findings of the GJ much more apparent and possibly injurious to anyone who was involved but not charged for reasons that would be obvious if they were made public. (If that is not clear enough, I'll put it more succinctly: It was to protect a nonchargeable minor.) A careful reading of the exact wording of the released TBs should make this apparent enough (second link below).

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li... Release of Official Action of Grand Jury.pdf

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/10/us/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/?hpt=hp_t1

 

[andreww]

Ok, so have you heard that Chet Ubowski stated that he believed Patsy wrote the RN as her handwriting was consistent in 24 out of 26 letters of the alphabet?

Privately, however, Ubowski, who had made the early discovery that Patsy’s handwriting was consistent with the ransom note on twenty-four of the twenty-six alphabet letters, had recently told one detective, “I believe she wrote it.”
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 174

However, during the course of his deposition, he was questioned about the accuracy of this:

2 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) After your book
3 came out, sir, were you aware that
4 Mr. Ubowski publicly denied the accuracy of
5 the statement that he concluded Patsy Ramsey
6 wrote the ransom note?
7 A. No. You're telling me this for
8 the first time.
9 Q. Are you familiar that Mr. Ubowski
10 stated that he had never reached the
11 conclusion that 24 of her letters out of the
12 26 letters of the alphabet were matched with
13 the ransom note?
14 A. No, I have not heard that.
15 Q. And you stated to the contrary in
16 your book, didn't you?
17 A. Yeah, I stated what I was told by
18 my detective sergeant.
19 Q. And you weren't even, I guess,
20 aware that Mr. Ubowski and the CBI said they
21 don't even make that kind of analysis with
22 respect to the 24 out of the 26 letters of
23 the alphabet, you don't know anything about
24 that --
25 A. No.
1 Q. -- in terms of the public
2 statement by the CBI after your book was
3 published?
4 A. The CBI made a public statement?
5 Q. Yes, sir.
6 A. As an organization, I haven't seen
7 that.

Does that prove that Thomas was mistaken or was lying? Certainly not. Ubowski can deny making that statement all he likes but that does not mean he didn't make it. And considering the number of people that were being slapped with lawsuits for making anti-Ramsey insinuations, I don't know if I blame him if he did change his tune. What I do know is that good, honest people don't make stuff up with that kind of detail. If Thomas had written "My sergeant felt Ubowski believed Patsy wrote the note", I would say that maybe the sergeant misinterpreted Ubowski's comments. But here we have a quantification of sorts and it would be quite odd for Thomas to pull that out of thin air. Somebody said it, and they wouldn't have said it unless Ubowski had given them some indication that it was true.

And again, this was not a criminal investigation. Wood was under no obligation to disclose the information that he blindsided Thomas with. If it had been a criminal trial, I'm sure that Thomas' sergeant would have been called to corroborate and Ubowski would have been called to say under oath that he did not say what was attributed to him. I'm pretty sure that his story might have been a little different under the threat of perjury.

 

[andreww]

I not much on lying or in dealing with liars. It destroys confidence. But, if they felt the need to lie (although the true bill suggests the adult Ramseys were chargeable) then someone should have put a muzzle on John and Patsy ... loose lips sink ships and all that jazz. :gaah:

Why the hell would they? Team Ramsey had already silenced witnesses, the media, and even Alex Hunter. Make no mistake about it, by 1998 the Ramsey's were running this carnival. They said what they liked, John taking the lead and Patsy deferring whenever he looked at her.

 

[andreww]

Because Ubowski said it did not, "suggest the full range of her handwriting". Full range being the key words. Did you interpret what he said differently?

I took it to mean that the samples he was given did not cover all the different styles she was capable of, or that in the post crime samples she was purposely being deceptive (the letter "a" for example).

 

[CorallaroC]

I’ve never seen before that “Rile, Cunningham and Vacca also testified before the Grand Jury”, so I was curious. I know, AK, you were simply responding to qft's statement that "Ubowski was the only handwriting expert to testify at the GJ". However, since you included part of the author's prejudiced (IMO) opinion about them, I have to respond.

It’s interesting that the book referenced (author, Jim Fisher) discusses how corruptible and unreliable “expert” witnesses are, and yet he refers to statements apparently made to him (Fisher) about “secret” GJ testimony by the three “hired guns” on the Ramsey payroll during the Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Case (2003). (“Hired gun” BTW is the author’s term for them, unless he feels they fit in one of the other three classifications of that chapter -- Fisher’s section of his book about the Ramsey case is titled “Hired Guns, Smoke Blowers, and Phonies: The Expert Witness Problem”.) How appropriate is it that their account of something is in the section on the venality of document examiners?

If there is any doubt about Fisher’s position, take look at the words Fisher uses in describing them, as opposed to the words he uses in reference to Mike Kane and his actions:

Rile, Cunningham, Vacca:
​

well intentioned
highly qualified
credible witnesses​

Michael Kane:
​

a case that was already weak
he took out his frustration on them
the viciousness of Kane’s attack
Kane’s unprecedented assault
​

Incidentally, there is no such thing as a “cross-examination” in a GJ proceeding because there are no opposing sides. There is only an investigation into the facts of the case. The DA’s office (in this case represented by a Special Prosecutor) presents all the evidence available in order to determine probable cause. From http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/why-prosecutors-choose-grand-juries-preliminary.html:

(T)he grand jury does not make its decision in the context of an adversary proceeding. Rather, grand jurors see and hear only what prosecutors put before them. (Prosecutors technically have an obligation to present “exculpatory” evidence -- evidence that suggests that a defendant might not be guilty -- though there is not much other than the prosecutor’s conscience to enforce this rule.)
​

Were they already working for Team Ramsey in 1999 while the GJ was in session? Were they actually called before the GJ? Was their account of their experience as nightmarish and one-sided as they described? So far as I know, we have only Jim Fisher’s account (of their account) of what happened.

One more thing to note about the referenced book is these excerpts from a review by someone who read the book (www.amazon.com/review/R1FVVIWSRACTDP/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0813542715&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books):

Anyone with Ramsey case knowledge knows immediately on which side of the aisle Fisher stands, and that has a negative effect on any reader's expectations of objectivity. I was surprised that Fisher was not more careful to present the facts of the case without personal bias, especially since his book is meant for criminal justice instruction.

It is a shame that Fisher relied on Lou Smit for his case evidence as it is woefully outdated.

In my opinion, Fisher should have been more careful in what he stated was evidence and presented the Ramsey chapters without personal bias, especially since some readers (especially students) may have no other reference for Ramsey case information.
​

OTG THANK YOU. I'm going to try to read up on these transcipts if they exist still for public eye. When Anti-K said what she did, my first thought was that she was complaining about Kane's harsh grilling of handwriting experts. I guessed that Kane wasn't GRILLING anyone unless the GJ witness was trying to purport All-or-nothing total yes-or-no about the PR handwriting sample analysis. Her samples just were not coherent enough for ANY expert to say definitively IMO my opi nion ok

 

[Anti-K]

I’ve never seen before that “Rile, Cunningham and Vacca also testified before the Grand Jury”, so I was curious. I know, AK, you were simply responding to qft's statement that "Ubowski was the only handwriting expert to testify at the GJ". However, since you included part of the author's prejudiced (IMO) opinion about them, I have to respond.

It’s interesting that the book referenced (author, Jim Fisher) discusses how corruptible and unreliable “expert” witnesses are, and yet he refers to statements apparently made to him (Fisher) about “secret” GJ testimony by the three “hired guns” on the Ramsey payroll during the Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Case (2003). (“Hired gun” BTW is the author’s term for them, unless he feels they fit in one of the other three classifications of that chapter -- Fisher’s section of his book about the Ramsey case is titled “Hired Guns, Smoke Blowers, and Phonies: The Expert Witness Problem”.) How appropriate is it that their account of something is in the section on the venality of document examiners?

If there is any doubt about Fisher’s position, take look at the words Fisher uses in describing them, as opposed to the words he uses in reference to Mike Kane and his actions:

Rile, Cunningham, Vacca:
​

well intentioned
highly qualified
credible witnesses​

Michael Kane:
​

a case that was already weak
he took out his frustration on them
the viciousness of Kane’s attack
Kane’s unprecedented assault
​

Incidentally, there is no such thing as a “cross-examination” in a GJ proceeding because there are no opposing sides. There is only an investigation into the facts of the case. The DA’s office (in this case represented by a Special Prosecutor) presents all the evidence available in order to determine probable cause. From http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/why-prosecutors-choose-grand-juries-preliminary.html:

(T)he grand jury does not make its decision in the context of an adversary proceeding. Rather, grand jurors see and hear only what prosecutors put before them. (Prosecutors technically have an obligation to present “exculpatory” evidence -- evidence that suggests that a defendant might not be guilty -- though there is not much other than the prosecutor’s conscience to enforce this rule.)
​

Were they already working for Team Ramsey in 1999 while the GJ was in session? Were they actually called before the GJ? Was their account of their experience as nightmarish and one-sided as they described? So far as I know, we have only Jim Fisher’s account (of their account) of what happened.

One more thing to note about the referenced book is these excerpts from a review by someone who read the book (www.amazon.com/review/R1FVVIWSRACTDP/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0813542715&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books):

Anyone with Ramsey case knowledge knows immediately on which side of the aisle Fisher stands, and that has a negative effect on any reader's expectations of objectivity. I was surprised that Fisher was not more careful to present the facts of the case without personal bias, especially since his book is meant for criminal justice instruction.

It is a shame that Fisher relied on Lou Smit for his case evidence as it is woefully outdated.

In my opinion, Fisher should have been more careful in what he stated was evidence and presented the Ramsey chapters without personal bias, especially since some readers (especially students) may have no other reference for Ramsey case information.
​

Judging from your comments, it seems to me that you have not read the book you are criticizing. IMO, this sorely hurts your credibility on this matter.

“Hired Guns, Smoke Blowers, and Phonies: The Expert Witness Problem” section of the book is comprised of 6 chapters. One of these chapters discusses handwriting experts (using the Ramsey case as context) and another discusses graphologists (using JMK case as context).

Fisher does not discuss “how corruptible and unreliable “expert” witnesses are.” That’s a blatant misrepresentation of the book in general, and the Ramsey chapter in particular .

I missed the part in the book where Fisher refers to statements made to him by “the three ‘hired guns’ on the Ramsey payroll.” He refers to statements made to him by Rile. Nothing “secret” or unethical to see here, as the courts did determine (see: http://tinyurl.com/krhse8s) that witnesses may speak “about their testimony once a grand jury is disbanded.”

Other “experts” discussed in this chapter include the four BPD experts, miller, Osborn, Liebman, Wong, and Epstein.

BTW, of Ubowski, Fisher writes, “His law enforcement colleagues were counting on him to identify Patsy Ramsey as the ransom note writer. Of the four [BPD] experts, Ubowski came the closest to doing just that. On a scale of one to nine – one being that Patsy had not written the note, and nine that she had – Ubowski classified Patsy as a five. In other words, there was a fifty-fifty chance she had written the note, a forensic toss of the coin.” P. 184

Fisher was a special agent for the FBI from ’66 and ’72. He also taught criminal investigation, criminal law and forensic science at the University of Pennsylvania.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

OTG THANK YOU. I'm going to try to read up on these transcipts if they exist still for public eye. When Anti-K said what she did, my first thought was that she was complaining about Kane's harsh grilling of handwriting experts. I guessed that Kane wasn't GRILLING anyone unless the GJ witness was trying to purport All-or-nothing total yes-or-no about the PR handwriting sample analysis. Her samples just were not coherent enough for ANY expert to say definitively IMO my opi nion ok

Anti-K is a HE, not a SHE.

I didn’t say or complain about anything. What I posted was a direct quote from the book.
...

AK

 

[otg]

Judging from your comments, it seems to me that you have not read the book you are criticizing. IMO, this sorely hurts your credibility on this matter.

I truly appreciate your concern for my credibility, AK. But, never having claimed that I read the book, I don’t think my credibility will suffer from my simply pointing out the obvious slant the author takes in his choice of words in the quote that you selected from the book. I also included some of the opinion of the book by someone else who did read the book, along with a link so anyone can read it.

“Hired Guns, Smoke Blowers, and Phonies: The Expert Witness Problem” section of the book is comprised of 6 chapters. One of these chapters discusses handwriting experts (using the Ramsey case as context) and another discusses graphologists (using JMK case as context).

Fisher does not discuss “how corruptible and unreliable “expert” witnesses are.” That’s a blatant misrepresentation of the book in general, and the Ramsey chapter in particular .

Again, I never claimed to have read the book. My response was only to the section you quoted which showed how the author conspicuously chose his words to give the reader a slanted view. Your quote came from the section titled “Hired Guns, Smoke Blowers, and Phonies: The Expert Witness Problem”. Given the title, I think my assumption about its subject matter is reasonable -- I was not attempting to make a “blatant misrepresentation of the book in general” (or any kind of representation of the “book in general” for that matter).

I missed the part in the book where Fisher refers to statements made to him by “the three ‘hired guns’ on the Ramsey payroll.” He refers to statements made to him by Rile.

Perhaps you missed it in the quote you selected where it says the following (I bolded the words in your quote that are clues to his speaking about more than just Rile):

Kane cross-examined these well intentioned and highly qualified men [Smit, and document examiners Rile, Cunnigham and Vacca] as though they were enemy defence witnesses at a criminal trial. The last thing Kane needed were four credible witnesses tearing down a case that was already weak, and he took out his frustration on them.”
​

Since witnesses can only testify alone (or with legal representation if they so choose), Fisher had to be claiming in his book that he heard from each of the four (including Smit) about their experience, unless he made those assumptions without their input.

Nothing “secret” or unethical to see here, as the courts did determine (see: http://tinyurl.com/krhse8s) that witnesses may speak “about their testimony once a grand jury is disbanded.”

I never claimed anything was unethical about their discussing their testimony.

Other “experts” discussed in this chapter include the four BPD experts, miller, Osborn, Liebman, Wong, and Epstein.

BTW, of Ubowski, Fisher writes, “His law enforcement colleagues were counting on him to identify Patsy Ramsey as the ransom note writer. Of the four [BPD] experts, Ubowski came the closest to doing just that. On a scale of one to nine – one being that Patsy had not written the note, and nine that she had – Ubowski classified Patsy as a five. In other words, there was a fifty-fifty chance she had written the note, a forensic toss of the coin.” P. 184

Fisher was a special agent for the FBI from ’66 and ’72. He also taught criminal investigation, criminal law and forensic science at the University of Pennsylvania.

Okay. How is any of that relevant to what you chose to quote? I understood your first post about a quote from the book to simply be providing information that Ubowski was not the only handwriting expert to testify in front of the GJ. Since that’s the only place I’ve ever heard that the other three also testified, I looked into it and passed along my impression about the source.

giggle: I thought from previous discussions, that’s what we are here for -- to tear down any books written about the Ramsey case that weren’t written by the Ramseys.)

By the way, I have now been told that James Kolar's book, The Bonita Papers, and now Steve Thomas's book are unreliable and should be taken with a grain of salt. Should I just take the Ramseys' word for everything and throw anything that brings suspicion upon them out the window?

​

 

[elannia]

The following is part of a synopsis of a Malcolm in the Middle episode: Reese, who broke Dewey's future birthday present and was psyched to hide the evidence in Aunt Helen's casket,http://malcolminthemiddle.tktv.net/Episodes1/ (#11: Funeral)

In DOI Patsy said that John tucked a scarf around JonBenet (pp 39-40). This would be an ingenious way to hide evidence so no one could ever gain any access to it. Have the items rolled up in one end of the scarf, tuck it under the body, and tuck the other end on the other side.

Thats a thought, imagine if those items were in the scarf and had fallen out as he wrapped her in it, talk about being in big trouble