What was part of the staging,what not?

[madeleine]

Want More?

I think ID'ing the RN is bogus. They proved nothing really. The prior sexual abuse is very interesting. Even though it points both ways, some strong statements almost make me lean to some abuse. Even though much of fingernail DNA contamination has been reported, I believe the same DNA is a match or strong consistantly to the rest of it. But yeah, I have heard collection of it has some issues. I have read contrasting reports on the animal hair, boot prints, and I believe there are strong signs of an intruder getting in that house. I have some real problems with Ramsey statements.

@bold

But can it be tested if it's contaminated or degraded?
Asking cause I don't know.

 

[Roy23]

@bold

But can it be tested if it's contaminated or degraded?
Asking cause I don't know.

Numerous reports regard it as a match. Even in court. I have an opinion that it was degraded after testing. It is just like all the rest of the evidence in this case. A big ?

 

[Roy23]

Hey, make no mistake: I go with my gut feelings because they tend to be right. But even then, I cannot sit here and say with absolute confidence that I KNOW for a fact who did it.

That said, I think you should rephrase that. It might do better if you were to say that you think that position is idiotic, not they themselves. They are my friends, after all.



One of the big problems in this case, in my view.



You know, it's odd you say that, because occasionally the Rs have commented that at least a trial would have given them a chance clear their names. Just as a side note, I'm not too sure about that. I've always felt that if the Rs WERE brought to trial, either PR would have died before it was over (and it's NOT just me who thought that; several R supporters wondered the same thing) or it would have ended in a plea bargain. Don't ask me who would have asked for one, though.



So can I...



When it comes to attorneys, Roy, I happen to think that Shakespeare was onto something.



Well, I wouldn't got anywhere nearly that far, but I will say that these more, shall we say esoteric fields do have their share of problems.



If that's a request, you're asking the right guy!



I do my best.



It's frustration, Roy. I understand it (like you wouldn't believe).



I accept it, Roy. But what you have to understand is that it swings both ways. It's just as much a problem for your side as mine, if not more so.



I suppose.



Don't I know it. The only thing that I find helps is to use my own judgement.



I'm game. You know that.



Well, I guess we'll have to disagree there. But like I said, these fields aren't without issues.



Indeed?



I have strong doubts.



It's not just that.



For what it's worth, I used to think that.



Such as?

I would love to know more on the abuse. But I don't think you can give me anything that I haven't already heard. I feel like the door is open but not enough information is given from both sides to draw a definite conclusion. I would like to see more dialogue.

And Dave, I always use my judgement just as you do. That is why I lean heavy IDI. My gut instinct tells me that in 2009, RDI isn't playing with a full deck. What I mean to say by that is that you have to rely on old information back when everyone was spewing to the media. It is the same information that I have too and we are not privy to why the focus of this case has changed.

I am not an optimist by nature, but I believe a resolution to this case is coming soon. But you are right that IDI's have major problems in getting a conviction. But I blame that squarely on all the unethical people involved in this case, mainly BPD and Steve Thomas.

I also think we will look back and see that all the dialogue, media stories, criticisms of one another, will seem like it was a waste of time. The answer was just so simple. I think a conspiricy between the Ramsey's is ridiculous. But I could see one of them, with the help of another outside person, could be the mastermind. And for my own reasons, I think it has to be John and not Patsy.

 

[BBB167893]

I would love to know more on the abuse. But I don't think you can give me anything that I haven't already heard. I feel like the door is open but not enough information is given from both sides to draw a definite conclusion. I would like to see more dialogue.

As would I. Trouble is, hardly anyone mentions it. But what I can tell you is that several experts, more or less independently, arrived at the conclusion that JB had been subjected to some form of long-term vaginal abuse. Who caused it and how long it went on is up for debate, certainly. But for my part, I've always been bothered at the Rs' attitude towards the subject.

And Dave, I always use my judgement just as you do. That is why I lean heavy IDI. My gut instinct tells me that in 2009, RDI isn't playing with a full deck. What I mean to say by that is that you have to rely on old information back when everyone was spewing to the media. It is the same information that I have too and we are not privy to why the focus of this case has changed.

Or how much it's changed. Glad you specified, because one could take that "not playing with a full deck" business the wrong way. Well, there's always a Joker in the deck. True, it is older information. But it hasn't gone away.

I am not an optimist by nature, but I believe a resolution to this case is coming soon.

Heck, I couldn't live if I weren't an optimist.

But you are right that IDI's have major problems in getting a conviction.

That's one way to say it.

But I blame that squarely on all the unethical people involved in this case, mainly BPD and Steve Thomas.

That's funny, because I blame the lack of progress in this case on unethical people, too. Except they're different people than you name!

I also think we will look back and see that all the dialogue, media stories, criticisms of one another, will seem like it was a waste of time.

I can't believe that. The pursuit of justice is NEVER a waste of time.

I think a conspiricy between the Ramseys is ridiculous.

Well, I can't address that until I know what you mean by "conspiracy."

But I could see one of them, with the help of another outside person, could be the mastermind. And for my own reasons, I think it has to be John and not Patsy.

I've got a brother you'd get along with quite well. He believes exactly that.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I also think we will look back and see that all the dialogue, media stories, criticisms of one another, will seem like it was a waste of time. The answer was just so simple. I think a conspiricy between the Ramsey's is ridiculous. But I could see one of them, with the help of another outside person, could be the mastermind. And for my own reasons, I think it has to be John and not Patsy.

Dont forget all the lawsuits. Hundreds of millions of dollars. Its a bloodbath, and as you say its not even over.

Thanks for a good laugh on a couple of your posts. I'd elaborate but there's some sensitivity if you know what I mean.

 

[Sophie]

Hi Roy,

A couple of things:

1. When we first chatted, you said that you 'love Steve.' We all go back and forth on this case so I'm not commenting on the volte face - just wondering what occasioned it.

2. You ask why I don't get it re Thomas seeking settlement and accuse me elsewhere of bias. See, I am genuinely baffled that you won't accept the many reasons for which plaintiffs in libel cases seek settlement and can only conclude that this is because of your bias. In fact, today I was in the office preparatory to returning to work and, thinking that you were right, and my neurons were failing me, I spoke to one of the media law partners about this case and he came up with another three reasons besides the ones enumerated by the RDI on here. This is obviously just something we aren't going to agree on so I'll leave that, but let me ask you this: why do think the Ramseys agreed to settle? (Assuming that ST did solicit the settlement).

HAPPY FRIDAY, BTW:crazy:

 

[Roy23]

Hi Roy,

A couple of things:

1. When we first chatted, you said that you 'love Steve.' We all go back and forth on this case so I'm not commenting on the volte face - just wondering what occasioned it.

2. You ask why I don't get it re Thomas seeking settlement and accuse me elsewhere of bias. See, I am genuinely baffled that you won't accept the many reasons for which plaintiffs in libel cases seek settlement and can only conclude that this is because of your bias. In fact, today I was in the office preparatory to returning to work and, thinking that you were right, and my neurons were failing me, I spoke to one of the media law partners about this case and he came up with another three reasons besides the ones enumerated by the RDI on here. This is obviously just something we aren't going to agree on so I'll leave that, but let me ask you this: why do think the Ramseys agreed to settle? (Assuming that ST did solicit the settlement).

HAPPY FRIDAY, BTW:crazy:

Lawsuit Conclusion Letter
August 6, 2002


August 6, 2002




A Letter From Steve Thomas

The frivolous lawsuit filed by the Ramseys has concluded.

I am sorry for the delay in making a public statement until now, but the Ramsey announcement of a resolution in March was premature.

I am bound by the terms of the settlement not to discuss its conclusive points but I can tell you this: it was a thoughtful, deliberate decision. For the record, I was not the one who sought out a settlement in this case.

My absolute requirement for any resolution was the mandate that I would admit no wrongdoing whatsoever, nor would I personally pay a single dollar in settlement. And that is exactly what was achieved with this resolution. In fact, the book can continue to be published, advertised, quoted, and marketed. I will continue to speak on the case whenever I wish. I continue to stand resolutely by my book and the opinions I expressed in it. My beliefs have not changed.

The reality was this: I was well within my Constitutional rights to have stated my opinion regarding the events surrounding this murder. But this was a civil case. It was about money. Justice and "doing the right thing" do not always prevail in these cases, as we all know.

On the other hand, we would have enjoyed deposing and taking people in front of a jury, and discovering the truth. Unfortunately, financial constraints continued to prohibit this, as I was in no position to take on the Ramseys' wealth. In fact, I lost my house and savings during this struggle.

After almost 6 years, I can now look forward to a much brighter future. I continue to receive a warm welcome and tremendous support from police around the country. Although I miss police work, and have had invitations to re-join law enforcement, I have respectfully declined. I am taking my life in a new direction and am enjoying it with people I care about.

Again, I want to reiterate that I personally paid not one red cent, not one thin dime, not one single dollar to settle this suit. I tried to the very end to take a principled position in this tragic case, and I believe I have done so.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Lawsuit Conclusion Letter
August 6, 2002


August 6, 2002




A Letter From Steve Thomas

The frivolous lawsuit filed by the Ramseys has concluded.

I am sorry for the delay in making a public statement until now, but the Ramsey announcement of a resolution in March was premature.

I am bound by the terms of the settlement not to discuss its conclusive points but I can tell you this: it was a thoughtful, deliberate decision. For the record, I was not the one who sought out a settlement in this case.

My absolute requirement for any resolution was the mandate that I would admit no wrongdoing whatsoever, nor would I personally pay a single dollar in settlement. And that is exactly what was achieved with this resolution. In fact, the book can continue to be published, advertised, quoted, and marketed. I will continue to speak on the case whenever I wish. I continue to stand resolutely by my book and the opinions I expressed in it. My beliefs have not changed.

The reality was this: I was well within my Constitutional rights to have stated my opinion regarding the events surrounding this murder. But this was a civil case. It was about money. Justice and "doing the right thing" do not always prevail in these cases, as we all know.

On the other hand, we would have enjoyed deposing and taking people in front of a jury, and discovering the truth. Unfortunately, financial constraints continued to prohibit this, as I was in no position to take on the Ramseys' wealth. In fact, I lost my house and savings during this struggle.

After almost 6 years, I can now look forward to a much brighter future. I continue to receive a warm welcome and tremendous support from police around the country. Although I miss police work, and have had invitations to re-join law enforcement, I have respectfully declined. I am taking my life in a new direction and am enjoying it with people I care about.

Again, I want to reiterate that I personally paid not one red cent, not one thin dime, not one single dollar to settle this suit. I tried to the very end to take a principled position in this tragic case, and I believe I have done so.

"On the other hand, we would have enjoyed deposing and taking people in front of a jury, and discovering the truth. Unfortunately, financial constraints continued to prohibit this, as I was in no position to take on the Ramseys' wealth. In fact, I lost my house and savings during this struggle."

Yeah right.

Not much truth would've been discovered except for exposing a former case investigator that decided to presume guilt and share information with various media. Not even an inch closer to solving the case, if thats what he was implying.

The R's were asking for what, 70 million? It seems to me that since settlement went in Ramsey's favor they won something. Now, RDI somehow seems to be turning what is simply another loss in a series of losses into something else. A loss is a loss.

 

[Roy23]

Hello Sophie,

Don't let this bother you so much. It is not worth the cornary. But let me give you my thoughts for the final time on this. I like Steve, I really think his heart is good. He quit because of issues he deemed with the DA's office. But he wrote a book, and went on talk shows slandering the Ramsey's. Some of the comments in his letter here I deem sincere but some are obvious distortions of truth. Steve states that the Ramsey's were first seeking a settlement. I don't know if that is true but I will give it to you. But, obviously, both were fine with a settlement. They both settled, and were bound to keep most of the details under wraps.

For the Ramsey's to win it all out, they were to prove that unequivably that they were innocent. That seems like a taller task than even "reasonable doubt" in a criminal case. Steve says he lost his house and savings. I will leave it to you if you want to believe that he was destitute. He says he will continue to talk on the case as he wishes. Notice he doesn't say that he is allowed to. And he has backed off, big time. He even makes sure when he talks of his book, that they are opinions and beliefs. He was afraid that he would lose. The principled man after the civil suit, being destitute, has retired and turned down other jobs with people he cares about.

You asked why the Ramsey's would seek settlement. Even though Steve claims it was frivilous and about money, the Ramsey goal of getting tens of millions of dollars impossible for a man that doesn't have it. They can't prove 100% that they are innocent no more than Boulder can prove that they are beyond a reasonable doubt. And we know Steve doesn't have that kind of money. The answer was it was never about money. It was about hurting Steve Thomas and protecting their reputation. And that is exactly what they did. They went on Larry King and baited Steve. That is my take.

I want the murderer of JBR caught. But a public servant with limited information on a case, six years after it happened, slandered a family whose daughter was killed is unethical. I believe that Steve believe so strongly in his opinions that he did what he did. His biggest beef should be with his own city government which he expressed, but in this case he has an OPINION but ACCUSED a mother of MURDER on national TV. That is not the way to conduct your business when you are a SWORN SERVANT.

He has been muzzled.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Very nice, Roy. I was thinking if I were in his shoes, I'd make a list and give it to CBI or the governor. But, I would not give up my badge. If I really suspected the R's I would probably be even quieter and actually do my job instead, which would be to use my position to find the smoking gun.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thank you Roy, I feel your sentiments are from the heart, and you are not mean-spirited.
But as abhorrent as it may seem, as you put it, to accuse a mother on national TV of murdering her child- when that person is a suspect, a detective working on the case has every right to name his suspects. Being the mother doesn't absolve you from being considered the murderer. ST was, to the best of his knowledge, following the evidence. And he was not the only one who felt that way. That "umbrella of suspicion" was mentioned by other LE was well. And it remained over them for years. Frankly, it should STILL be over them- until the perp is IDENTIFIED.

 

[Sophie]

Thanks, Roy: a brilliant post. I will reply properly later. I'm rushing around today and didn't want you think I was ignoring you.

 

[madeleine]

Hello Sophie,

Don't let this bother you so much. It is not worth the cornary. But let me give you my thoughts for the final time on this. I like Steve, I really think his heart is good. He quit because of issues he deemed with the DA's office. But he wrote a book, and went on talk shows slandering the Ramsey's. Some of the comments in his letter here I deem sincere but some are obvious distortions of truth. Steve states that the Ramsey's were first seeking a settlement. I don't know if that is true but I will give it to you. But, obviously, both were fine with a settlement. They both settled, and were bound to keep most of the details under wraps.

For the Ramsey's to win it all out, they were to prove that unequivably that they were innocent. That seems like a taller task than even "reasonable doubt" in a criminal case. Steve says he lost his house and savings. I will leave it to you if you want to believe that he was destitute. He says he will continue to talk on the case as he wishes. Notice he doesn't say that he is allowed to. And he has backed off, big time. He even makes sure when he talks of his book, that they are opinions and beliefs. He was afraid that he would lose. The principled man after the civil suit, being destitute, has retired and turned down other jobs with people he cares about.

You asked why the Ramsey's would seek settlement. Even though Steve claims it was frivilous and about money, the Ramsey goal of getting tens of millions of dollars impossible for a man that doesn't have it. They can't prove 100% that they are innocent no more than Boulder can prove that they are beyond a reasonable doubt. And we know Steve doesn't have that kind of money. The answer was it was never about money. It was about hurting Steve Thomas and protecting their reputation. And that is exactly what they did. They went on Larry King and baited Steve. That is my take.
I want the murderer of JBR caught. But a public servant with limited information on a case, six years after it happened, slandered a family whose daughter was killed is unethical. I believe that Steve believe so strongly in his opinions that he did what he did. His biggest beef should be with his own city government which he expressed, but in this case he has an OPINION but ACCUSED a mother of MURDER on national TV. That is not the way to conduct your business when you are a SWORN SERVANT.

He has been muzzled.

Well put.
Re bold: See Roy,this is something that always bothered me.The R's priorities.

 

[madeleine]

If I fight with someone and I know that person's wrong and he/she looks ridiculous when stating pathetic lies about me or what I did......why bother silence that person?

You said it was not about money(I agree),it was about hurting ST and protecting their reputation.You'd think they could have saved the energy for looking for the killer.And what reputation,the damage was done already if you can put it like this and ST was just one out of many who thought they did it.

They sued him because they couldn't stand him,because they could.Ego thing.And it's fine,their option,but I still think they should have had totally other priorities back then.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

He has been muzzled.

Not exactly. You can still buy his book.

 

[BBB167893]

They sued him because they couldn't stand him,because they could.Ego thing.And it's fine,their option,but I still think they should have had totally other priorities back then.

ST said it best: it seemed like they were angrier at him than they were at JB's killer. That Larry King incident is a BIG reason why I am where I am today.

 

[Roy23]

Well Dave and Madeline,

You shouldn't be surprised that I disagree with you both. The Ramsey's, if innocent, had perfect reasons to be angry with ST. Never in history has a family been so crucified by media in a case with so little. The media and ST set a major tone in even some of the perception here today. And to judge as if you know how much or little they grieved is totally unfair. Neither of you really know. Just because of their actions on national TV give us no insight really.

It would be like me stating I think or know they are innocent because they were so angry with ST. And I could make that argument.

 

[BBB167893]

Well Dave and Madeline,

You shouldn't be surprised that I disagree with you both.

I'm NOT. I'm just saying.

The Ramsey's, if innocent, had perfect reasons to be angry with ST.

Maybe so, but to me it's a question of priorities. They had reason to be angry with a lot of people, yet they've always been very selective as to who they target and who they leave alone. I'm very interested as to why that is.

Never in history has a family been so crucified by media in a case with so little.

Roy, you know I don't ask much. But I'm not much loaded words like "crucified."

The media and ST set a major tone in even some of the perception here today.

Of that I have no doubt.

And to judge as if you know how much or little they grieved is totally unfair.

I'm not saying that I do know.

Neither of you really know.

And I pray to every god with a name that I never have to find out!

Just because of their actions on national TV give us no insight really.

I don't know.

It would be like me stating I think or know they are innocent because they were so angry with ST. And I could make that argument.

No doubt you could.

 

[Roy23]

I'm NOT. I'm just saying.



Maybe so, but to me it's a question of priorities. They had reason to be angry with a lot of people, yet they've always been very selective as to who they target and who they leave alone. I'm very interested as to why that is.



Roy, you know I don't ask much. But I'm not much loaded words like "crucified."



Of that I have no doubt.



I'm not saying that I do know.



And I pray to every god with a name that I never have to find out!



I don't know.



No doubt you could.

Fair enough, Dave. I can tell you that the interview that we speak of gives me problems too. The biggest part of which is the way John tries to keep Patsy from speaking. I don't think it indicates guilt and I suspect he was baiting ST to also say he was complicit. Now we know that was not part of ST theory, but it was a goal of team Ramsey for him to say so. And he did and it is history from there. But, yeah, I know why it bothers you. And me as well.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

ST said it best: it seemed like they were angrier at him than they were at JB's killer. That Larry King incident is a BIG reason why I am where I am today.

As if JR is going to say something to excite the killer when he doesn't know who it is?? He was under an umbrella of suspicion, not an umbrella of protection.