What was part of the staging,what not?

[Roy23]

All of it well-deserved.



How so?



That's not quite accurate. The judge said that all the evidence SHE SAW pointed to an intruder. She never saw the police file.



I wasn't aware that either of those happened.

Moreover, we all seem to have gotten off-subject of this thread.

Well,

Steve Thomas had a judgement against him even though the Ramsey's had to prove that he was wrong. That is because he settled. You, especially should pay attention to this since you are writing a book. Stick to quotes, don't offer your opinion. Otherwise you might be wearing a Bozo suit as well.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well,

Steve Thomas had a judgement against him even though the Ramsey's had to prove that he was wrong. That is because he settled. You, especially should pay attention to this since you are writing a book. Stick to quotes, don't offer your opinion. Otherwise you might be wearing a Bozo suit as well.

What was the settlement?

 

[Roy23]

What was the settlement?

That depends on who you ask. A monetary judgement was made but Steve says that he did not pay the Ramsey's any money. He says legal fees made him lose his house and then some. But other reports say other. A defense fund was made on Steve's behalf but him deciding to settle before it got further, other concessions were made. In a sense, he agreed not to say certain things as well as the details of the settlement were not to be for public consumption. But keep in mind, the burden of proof was on the Ramsey's to prove he was wrong and he could have countersued for legal fees. In a nutshell, he lost and has restrained his comments since.

 

[Roy23]

Also Holdon, Steve's publisher was sued. Now I am not trying to say that Dave and Steve Thomas are 100% wrong. I think the RDI's here have some good points to have suspicion but I think they go about it in a bad way. They defend Steve and Boulder PD and criticize the DA's office at every turn. It is this that gets under my skin. I think Dave is a bright guy, but he ain't gonna get a book published. On top of that, I think it would be unethical to do so no matter what happened.

 

[Sophie]

Well,

Steve Thomas had a judgement against him even though the Ramsey's had to prove that he was wrong. That is because he settled. You, especially should pay attention to this since you are writing a book. Stick to quotes, don't offer your opinion. Otherwise you might be wearing a Bozo suit as well.

He didn't have a judgment against him. The case settled before it went to court because the Ramseys couldn't prove that he was wrong. The Ramseys solicited the settlement. If anyone has lost any credibility, it's the Ramseys. They claim they only want to clear their name and aren't bothered about the money but settle against ST (or rather his publishers' insurers mainly) rather than risk losing in court and sue Fox, pretty much the most affluent broadcaster on the planet and part of the Murdoch empire, while ignoring Dr Wendy Murphy's accusations and her plea that the Ramseys do in fact sue her.

My theory is that ST would have been quite happy to go court since a civil case where she had to prove that ST's position was wrong was probably as close as she'd ever get to being tried. He actually discussed with a high profile lawyer (whose name escapes me) the possibility of suing the Ramseys in a civil case for the wrongful death of JBR and was advised that he wasn't an interested party so he couldn't. The same lawyer ended up on ST's legal team to defend the Ramsey action. Do you really think that, between them, they couldn't have faced court? Of course, ST did agree to settle, but his life had essentially been suspended for five years and I, for one, don't blame him.

 

[Sophie]

There hasn't actually been that much to comment on, has there? Besides, he wants a private life. I'd be worried about him if he was still talking endlessly about it.

 

[Roy23]

Hi Roy,

1) Lacy deserves the bad rep. In her haste to exonerate the Ramseys, she didn't realise that she was basically hobbling the case against many potential defendants, not just the Ramseys. An intruder who fit all the criteria and confessed but whose DNA didn't match probably wouldn't even see court because of her faith in the unknown DNA. She basically handed the defence their reasonable doubt and this may harm the case under future prosecutors.

2) The Federal judge didn't see all the evidence. She admitted this herself.

3) Muzzled him? Er, he can still sell, market and discuss his book and is free to opine on the case (eg. Greta interview him regarding the JMK debacle, clown suit notwithstanding). He certainly doesn't discuss it that much any more but, then, he and his family deserve some peace so you can't really blame him from limiting his comments to the occasional update. He has a life. This isn't being muzzled.

Sophie,

Thank you very much for your comments. I just don't think much of your response is accurate. Steve is muzzled. He will say that he stands by his book, but that is all he will say. And since the case has gone back to Boulder PD, he doubts there will be resolution but he wishes them luck. But no details will come from his mouth. I totally believe that he stands by his convictions, but even his knowlege of the evidence is limited now. I think he is a very principled man who wanted to see justice done but he crossed a line. A line that is not in conjunction with the United States Judicial System. He slandered based on a opinion that does not meet the smell test. And that was unacceptable.

A lot of the evidence in this case contradicts itself. It is unique. And unfortunately a lot of information is out there that quite frankly not accurate. Both and IDI and RDI can use it in their favor. The case has been handled awfully by everyone. But at the end of the day, the RDI's only case is to arrest a Ramsey and pray for a confession. Under almost any circumstance, it is a DA's duty to avoid jeopardy in a case like this. And since that time, we as crime buffs have only seen evidence that points to an intruder. But that does not mean it was an intruder.

 

[Roy23]

He didn't have a judgment against him. The case settled before it went to court because the Ramseys couldn't prove that he was wrong. The Ramseys solicited the settlement. If anyone has lost any credibility, it's the Ramseys. They claim they only want to clear their name and aren't bothered about the money but settle against ST (or rather his publishers' insurers mainly) rather than risk losing in court and sue Fox, pretty much the most affluent broadcaster on the planet and part of the Murdoch empire, while ignoring Dr Wendy Murphy's accusations and her plea that the Ramseys do in fact sue her.

My theory is that ST would have been quite happy to go court since a civil case where she had to prove that ST's position was wrong was probably as close as she'd ever get to being tried. He actually discussed with a high profile lawyer (whose name escapes me) the possibility of suing the Ramseys in a civil case for the wrongful death of JBR and was advised that he wasn't an interested party so he couldn't. The same lawyer ended up on ST's legal team to defend the Ramsey action. Do you really think that, between them, they couldn't have faced court? Of course, ST did agree to settle, but his life had essentially been suspended for five years and I, for one, don't blame him.

Sophie,

You need to google and read up. You are absolutely wrong. It is not that hard to find out that Steve did not have the nuggets to roll the dice.

Why would the Ramsey's settle a suit as Plaintiff? Your bias is showing.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Also Holdon, Steve's publisher was sued. Now I am not trying to say that Dave and Steve Thomas are 100% wrong. I think the RDI's here have some good points to have suspicion but I think they go about it in a bad way. They defend Steve and Boulder PD and criticize the DA's office at every turn. It is this that gets under my skin. I think Dave is a bright guy, but he ain't gonna get a book published. On top of that, I think it would be unethical to do so no matter what happened.

ST was the lead investigator or one of the investigators for BPD. He then took a leave claiming 'health concerns'. Less than a month later he 'set the record straight' as he quit in mid 1998 (11 years tomorrow), and accused the DA's office of mishandling the case.

He then wrote a book that was published just two years later. Is this right?

Did he have health concerns AND irreconcilable differences of opinion on the case, all at the same time? Coincidence?

http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2003/May/16/leak-in-ramsey-case-idd/

 

[Roy23]

ST was the lead investigator or one of the investigators for BPD. He then took a leave claiming 'health concerns'. Less than a month later he 'set the record straight' as he quit in mid 1998 (11 years tomorrow), and accused the DA's office of mishandling the case.

He then wrote a book that was published just two years later. Is this right?

Did he have health concerns AND irreconcilable differences of opinion on the case, all at the same time? Coincidence?

I really don't know his reasons for leaving or what he claimed. I do believe his misunderstanding of the legal system and his values of right and wrong is the reason why he did what he did. I have no way of knowing that he intended on writing a book. I think he really believes his theory and I also believe he violated the justice system. Does it have to do with his inexperience in murder case law? I don't know. I think he is a good man who believes his theory and many others did too. But he acted like a beotch instead of trying to understand what the DA's responsibility was as well.

For a man who gave up his livelyhood based on his principles, though, he wasn't willing to roll the dice in the Ramsey's suit against him. So money, family life as Sophie says, reputation, are also important or more important that his principles.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I really don't know his reasons for leaving or what he claimed. I do believe his misunderstanding of the legal system and his values of right and wrong is the reason why he did what he did. I have no way of knowing that he intended on writing a book. I think he really believes his theory and I also believe he violated the justice system. Does it have to do with his inexperience in murder case law? I don't know. I think he is a good man who believes his theory and many others did too. But he acted like a beotch instead of trying to understand what the DA's responsibility was as well.

For a man who gave up his livelyhood based on his principles, though, he wasn't willing to roll the dice in the Ramsey's suit against him. So money, family life as Sophie says, reputation, are also important or more important that his principles.

We do know he had by then already been discussing with the media details of the case that had not been approved for release.

If I were in his shoes and believing in RDI, I would've outlined my arguments with CBI or the Governor. IOW I wonder what other avenues besides a for-profit 'book' he used to voice his greivance.

 

[Roy23]

We do know he had by then already been discussing with the media details of the case that had not been approved for release.

If I were in his shoes and believing in RDI, I would've outlined my arguments with CBI or the Governor. IOW I wonder what other avenues besides a for-profit 'book' he used to voice his greivance.

I didn't know that. I do know that when the Ramsey's went on Larry King with him, it was Lin Wood's way of handing Steve his clown suit. And he was dumb enough to put it on. And Steve, like the Ramsey's, listened and follwed the orders of his attorney. Kind of ironic if you know Steve's game against the Ramsey's. But hey, his theory could be partly true.

It is funny how so much has actually changed, but so many here still cling to the BPD and old media stories. I hope we see justice.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I didn't know that. I do know that when the Ramsey's went on Larry King with him, it was Lin Wood's way of handing Steve his clown suit. And he was dumb enough to put it on. And Steve, like the Ramsey's, listened and follwed the orders of his attorney. Kind of ironic if you know Steve's game against the Ramsey's. But hey, his theory could be partly true.

It is funny how so much has actually changed, but so many here still cling to the BPD and old media stories. I hope we see justice.

http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2003/May/16/leak-in-ramsey-case-idd/

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It is funny how so much has actually changed, but so many here still cling to the BPD and old media stories. I hope we see justice.

The old initial bias prevented discovery and hindered initiative on the part of almost everyone. Subtle clues were missed, tips were ignored. One thing is for certain: IDI not RDI will someday solve this case.

Science agrees with IDI.

 

[Sophie]

Sophie,

You need to google and read up. You are absolutely wrong. It is not that hard to find out that Steve did not have the nuggets to roll the dice.

Why would the Ramsey's settle a suit as Plaintiff? Your bias is showing.

I'm not. This is an excellent, interesting thread and it's not fair to hijack it with an off-topic debate about ST. However, I'll bite once:

People settle suits as plaintiffs all the time (trust me, I've been practising law for well over ten years and in my litigation days persuaded more than one client to settle, including plaintiffs). In fact, I can't believe you are suggesting otherwise. They realise that their case isn't that strong, that they are spending more money than they wanted in a suit that they may not win and that they don't want to go court (Patsy would have to PROVE that ST was wrong). Sometimes plaintiffs find out that their lawyer isn't quite as good as they thought or that their lawyer has exaggerated the chances of their winning. This latter is actually quite a biggie in liibel suits as many media lawyers will tell you. Their motive for settling is so obvious it's unbelievable.


Taken together with your earlier comments, it actually sounds as though you don't believe the case settled and that it went to court. I can't think that you would be so 'off' on a given in the case so we'll leave that for now.


Regarding ST being in some way cowardly and finding the evidence of this on Google, I'm afraid you must have been mistaking speculation for fact. The terms of the agreement and the respective obligations are not in the public domain - neither principal can discuss the specfic terms of the agreement - so anyone claiming to have proof that ST lost far more than he said is being mischievous. The nature of the negotiations aren't in the public domain either so no one can really second guess his reasons for agreeing to settle. His life being taken over by this case, being wiped out financially by legal costs and, I daresay, wanting to put his family first are legitimate reasons to settle and they are the opposite of cowardly.

 

[Sophie]

I don't think Lin Wood even contradicted ST's statement that it wasn't he who solicited the settlement. Is that right?

 

[madeleine]

Well,

Steve Thomas had a judgement against him even though the Ramsey's had to prove that he was wrong. That is because he settled. You, especially should pay attention to this since you are writing a book. Stick to quotes, don't offer your opinion. Otherwise you might be wearing a Bozo suit as well.

http://www.forstevethomas.com/08062002letter.htm

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.

 

[madeleine]

I should change the thread title to Ramsey's vs Steve Thomas,right IDI/s?

 

[Sophie]

http://www.forstevethomas.com/08062002letter.htm

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.

TY, Madeleine.

 

[madeleine]

Yvw Sophie