What was part of the staging,what not?

  • #61
I should change the thread title to Ramsey's vs Steve Thomas,right IDI/s?

LOL, Madeleine.

I was just going to go back on topic after that meandering to talk about 'acting.' Not technically staging but in the same ballpark, I always found Officer French's report about Patsy 'eyeballing him' through splayed hands very telling and also John looking around before hugging JBR's little body. Fascinating body language.
 
  • #62
LOL, Madeleine.

I was just going to go back on topic after that meandering to talk about 'acting.' Not technically staging but in the same ballpark, I always found Officer French's report about Patsy 'eyeballing him' through splayed hands very telling and also John looking around before hugging JBR's little body. Fascinating body language.

I think it was Arndt that said at some point that John's demeaneour suddenly changed after he went to the basement ,his earlier trip to the basement.I wonder what really happened.

And yeah,I don't recall which expert it was now that once said that in this case behaviour is crucial.Yeah we all know that you can't charge someone based on his/her behaviour but we can clearly understand a lot of things by observing it.
 
  • #63
I think it was Arndt that said at some point that John's demeaneour suddenly changed after he went to the basement ,his earlier trip to the basement.I wonder what really happened.

And yeah,I don't recall which expert it was now that once said that in this case behaviour is crucial.Yeah we all know that you can't charge someone based on his/her behaviour but we can clearly understand a lot of things by observing it.

I'm suspect of Linda Arndt's description of John Ramseys behavior for two reasons. One, she had a lawsuit against the city that she was left alone at the house. It was in her best interest to state she could have been left with a murderer to bolster her lawsuit (which she lost). Secondly, I think the case affected her deeply---not just the murder, but all the media press that made her look like the class idiot, and she could not respond...nor would the police respond. She didn't go skulking off in the middle of the night like Steve Thomas did to meet with a reporter. You notice nothing ever came out about French missing one of the most crucial items in this case--he didn't open the cellar door. The police gathered around him and protected him, but they hung Linda out to dry.
 
  • #64
LOL, Madeleine.

I was just going to go back on topic after that meandering to talk about 'acting.' Not technically staging but in the same ballpark, I always found Officer French's report about Patsy 'eyeballing him' through splayed hands very telling and also John looking around before hugging JBR's little body. Fascinating body language.

I believe French's report about the splayed fingers was produced by Steve Thomas to the Vanity Fair article. Consider the source. Likewise John looking around before hugging JBR's body. I think that was fabricated too.
 
  • #65
"It's VERY, VERY important to understand what went down in this case, what she saw, and as important WHAT WAS OCCURING WHEN THIS CASE WAS IN DISCOVERY. Namely BIG TIME hinky behavior by Steve Thomas, first, Thomas refusing to accept a lawfully served subpoena from the Ramseys for this case, which the subpoena server documented in an affidavit, then Thomas not showing up at the Miller trial, where his buddy White also openly refused to testify and was jailed for contempt of court, then Thomas settling outright with the Ramseys, ALL well before plaintiff's evidence and final motions were submitted to the Court. Thomas settled with the Ramseys in March, 2002, and the final motion papers were not submitted to Carnes until discovery was over in October, 2002. Carnes knew all about Thomas's settlement, as it was leaked to the pro-Ramsey reporter, R. Robin McDonald by Lin Wood and placed on the cover of the local legal newspaper The Fulton County Daily Report, so she couldn't miss what Darnay's most important witness had done."


Only Steve Thomas might argue that he did not settle in this case. I have a whole lot more.
 
  • #66
Technically speaking, the Ramsey's did settle with Steve Thomas. He claims to have never paid a dime, but read the below passage and tell me the Ramsey's did not win. This argument is kind of over:grouphug:


"Part 26: 170.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1988, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey are entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees as the result of the violations of 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 by Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators as set forth herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey, demand:
(a) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas and Unknown Officials of the Boulder, Colorado Police Department, including, but not limited to, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, on Count Four of this Complaint for compensatory damages in an amount not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00);
(b) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas and Unknown Officials of the Boulder, Colorado Police Department, including, but not limited to, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, on Count Four of this Complaint for punitive damages in an amount not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) to punish and penalize said Defendants and deter said Defendants from repeating their unlawful conduct;
(c) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas and Unknown Officials of the Boulder, Colorado Police Department, including, but not limited to, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, on Count Four of this Complaint for attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount shown to be reasonable and just by the evidence; and
(d) That all costs of this action be assessed against said Defendants.
TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON COUNT FOUR.""
 
  • #67
Books on specific murders are only going to get written or published for notorious murders. I wonder, for books published on notorious murders, if a four year span is typical, short, or long. And if the case was officially unsolved at the time of publish. Was this a first?

eta It looks like the best example of 'speed to the press' is the unsolved murder of Nicole Brown Simpson.
 
  • #68
Books on specific murders are only going to get written or published for notorious murders. I wonder, for books published on notorious murders, if a four year span is typical, short, or long. And if the case was officially unsolved at the time of publish. Was this a first?

eta It looks like the best example of 'speed to the press' is the unsolved murder of Nicole Brown Simpson.

Ha ha!

It is definitely different than the norm. I think the biggest issue is not only the books, but the media. From all of the misinformation, you can make a case IDI or RDI. The problem is that for every point there is a counterpoint. I can sit here and argue with everyone about the RN, prior sexual abuse, the DA's office, boot prints, animal hairs, receipts from Hardware stores, but at the end of the day everyone has a different source.

The one thing, and you nailed it, that we do argue over that RDI's have to face is the DNA. No matter what any of us thinks, a match has to be made to someone. If John Ramsey were to confess, it still must happen.
 
  • #69
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.

I realize I have nothing but my gut instinct, but I just can't help but think that there was a LOT more going on there than meets the eye. There was something dirty about that whole business. Again, just a feeling I have.

You, especially should pay attention to this since you are writing a book.

Oh, but I HAVE! I've learned a great deal. I won't make the same mistakes that others have made.

Stick to quotes, don't offer your opinion.

It would be a pretty short book if I did that! Espcially since the whole point of the book is to give a "common man's view" of the case and how it's ruined my faith in justice.

Otherwise you might be wearing a Bozo suit as well.

Threats don't scare me.
 
  • #70
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.

Then please enlighten me as to what a good way would be.

They defend Steve and Boulder PD and criticize the DA's office at every turn. It is this that gets under my skin.

Better get used to it.

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.

So now my ethics are in question, is that it?
 
  • #71
I realize I have nothing but my gut instinct, but I just can't help but think that there was a LOT more going on there than meets the eye. There was something dirty about that whole business. Again, just a feeling I have.



Oh, but I HAVE! I've learned a great deal. I won't make the same mistakes that others have made.



It would be a pretty short book if I did that! Espcially since the whole point of the book is to give a "common man's view" of the case and how it's ruined my faith in justice.



Threats don't scare me.

Dave,

I just don't think you are being logical about this. I see what you are saying about the "common man's view". I am assuming there is a fine line on that and what Ramsey team could deem as slander. I am glad you are doing your homework on that. But if you ended up sitting in a court room, you would be scared. And you would probably follow your lawyer's advice just as Steve did. I don't know if you have a family, a home, or whatever but the precedent has been set.
 
  • #72
Er, Roy: have you actually compared this with the original claim?
 
  • #73
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.

Yes, not only did they go back on their claim to want satisfaction (whatever happened to good, old-fashioned duels?), they always seem very selective in whom they go after...
 
  • #74
Then please enlighten me as to what a good way would be.



Better get used to it.



So now my ethics are in question, is that it?

I am not going to waste my time with that because I have seen already that it doesn't matter. You can take it personal if you want to and I understand that the justice system isn't perfect. The DA himself felt at that time that a Ramsey was guilty but taking that case to trial would have been grossly negligent. But I will say this, Slandering a family based on the circumstancial information on this case is not ethical. They suffered a huge loss. Especially in a case where most of the evidence contradicts itself.
 
  • #75
Dave,

I just don't think you are being logical about this. I see what you are saying about the "common man's view". I am assuming there is a fine line on that and what Ramsey team could deem as slander. I am glad you are doing your homework on that. But if you ended up sitting in a court room, you would be scared. And you would probably follow your lawyer's advice just as Steve did. I don't know if you have a family, a home, or whatever but the precedent has been set.

And in fact as the Ramseys' lawyers advised them - they didn't actually have to settle. They could have gone to court and proven that ST was wrong. They elected not to prove their innocence, presumably on the advice of their lawyer.

LOL: the threats on LKL etc and then they settle rather than stand up in court and face questioning on JBR's death to prove that ST was wrong. Oh, the humanity.

Q: ST only suggested that Patsy had accidentally killed JBR and objected to their failure to help find their daughter's killer. Wendy Murphy accused John of the vilest thing a father can do and begged Lin Wood to sue her. Why?
 
  • #76
Er, Roy: have you actually compared this with the original claim?


What does this have to do with Soccer schedules?
 
  • #77
Yes, not only did they go back on their claim to want satisfaction (whatever happened to good, old-fashioned duels?), they always seem very selective in whom they go after...


Poor Poor Steve. His Lawyer knew a good out when he saw it. A pretty good Lawyer too. And good ole Steve got muzzled. It happens when you act unethically.
 
  • #78
And in fact as the Ramseys' lawyers advised them - they didn't actually have to settle. They could have gone to court and proven that ST was wrong. They elected not to prove their innocence, presumably on the advice of their lawyer.

LOL: the threats on LKL etc and then they settle rather than stand up in court and face questioning on JBR's death to prove that ST was wrong. Oh, the humanity.

Q: ST only suggested that Patsy had accidentally killed JBR and objected to their failure to help find their daughter's killer. Wendy Murphy accused John of the vilest thing a father can do and begged Lin Wood to sue her. Why?

Excellent post :clap:

May I add another question?
Why did they offer "innocent" explanations for one of the red fiber and couldn't find any for the other 2 and if they were at it,why didn't they found one for John's black fiber found in the victim's c.area?
 
  • #79
I am not going to waste my time with that because I have seen already that it doesn't matter. You can take it personal if you want to and I understand that the justice system isn't perfect. The DA himself felt at that time that a Ramsey was guilty but taking that case to trial would have been grossly negligent. But I will say this, Slandering a family based on the circumstancial information on this case is not ethical. They suffered a huge loss. Especially in a case where most of the evidence contradicts itself.



Have you read Wendy Murphy's 'And Justice for Some?' If John didn't sue her, I can't see him suing Dave for his treatise - especially since there is genuine public interest in the justice issues and, in any event, Patsy being dead, can't be libelled at law. Furthermore, do bear in mind the judge in the Fox case who said that if the Ramseys wanted this crime solved then they had to accept debate and couldn't complain if this debate was unflattering to them.

Similarly, litigation is generally about chasing money. I don't know Dave's circs but I can't imagine that they could retire on a judgment against him and, if he gets a small niche publisher, they may not be worth suing either.
Remember tht guy who did the vanity publication - 120 Clues on who Killed JBR? Was he even asked to cease and desist? Or that ex-FBI guy who has the electronic thing available for sale?
 
  • #80
Poor Poor Steve. His Lawyer knew a good out when he saw it. A pretty good Lawyer too. And good ole Steve got muzzled. It happens when you act unethically.

Poor Ramsey's under the same old umbrella of suspicion.It happens when you don't cooperate with LE (shall I also mention obstruction of justice )and don't care about your daughter's murder.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
1,248
Total visitors
1,381

Forum statistics

Threads
632,447
Messages
18,626,707
Members
243,154
Latest member
findkillers
Back
Top