Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The numerical rating, by paid Ramsey team. Its been discredited by many other non Ramsey professionals, equally knowledgeable in their fields. Well respected in his field, Dr Wecht, who disagreed with the autopsy findings. For every professional opinion, theres another to disagree. It always rolls back, to who you chose to believe.
I'm sincerely interested in the Ramsey indictment release. They already had two pieces of DNA evidence from panties and finger nails. They didn't need touch DNA to exonerate the Ramsey's.
So...what information does this indictment contain, leading to grand juries belief, of third person involvement. These questions lead to more speculation, and I'm not fond of speculation.
^^^I've been interested in true crime for about 25 years, and I or anyone who shares this interest here does not have to explain why or defend said interest to anyone. I'd like very much to see this resolved, and part of that process would be to unseal the indictment papers. If Patsy's innocent, what does John Ramsey have to hide? Throw the doors open!
And I honestly do not know who to believe due to the back-and-forth of "this handwriting analysis expert was discredited; he's no good, along with the other three or four...but John and Patsy's expert is the only one who is RIGHT," and so on, ad infinitum.
Yes, I just said two pieces of evidence show the touch DNA weren't needed for exoneration of the Ramseys. Investigators would've looked like keystone cops in trial. I've said all this before.
I can't say with 99% certainty, the Ramseys are completely honest. John Ramsey is very much alive and well.
I'll always remain open to other plausabe scenarios.
And againm, indictment should be released. We'll have to agree to disagree here. It happens.
What you are supposed to do is say with around 99% or more certainty (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the best evidence proves one or more of the Ramseys killed Jon Benet in a criminal act.
But there is no such evidence that can do that, nor has there ever been such evidence.
The extremely obvious plausible scenario you say that you remain open to is simply that someone else murdered Jon Benet. And that incredibly plausible scenario is fully supported by the very best evidence; i.e., the DNA evidence, which the D.A. found to be exonerating evidence and used to issue a formal apology to the entire Ramsey family.
As for the age-old GJ indictment, it is not evidence. It will never be evidence. It was opinion based on but a probable cause (51/49) standard from a one-sided presentation of the evidence that existed at that time.
Since that time, the best evidence (DNA) has been assessed and made known to the public by the D.A., which resulted in a formal public apology to all members of the Ramsey family, which included Patsy.
Why you insist on casting ominous shadows on Patsy's grave is truly beyond me. And you won't explain why.
She can't be convicted. She can't be found guilty. She will never will be found guilty. She and her family were wrongfully accused and tortured with such accusations why she was living. And you appear to desire to continue to do so ad infinitum. What can you possibly gain by doing so?
No. What it rolls back to is evidence, and the evidence is not there and never has been there. And this absolutely includes all of the handwriting evidence. Moreover, it certainly will never be there against Patsy.
I think you might be addressing the wrong poster. There are others here who never post links, evidence, or even a simple "here's my opinion on this"; they simply respond emotionally against the Ramseys for whatever reason. Virgode has weighed the evidence, posted links, states her opinion, etc. You may be getting her confused with someone else.
I'd like very much to see this resolved, and part of that process would be to unseal the indictment papers. If Patsy's innocent, what does John Ramsey have to hide? .
I think we all agree about that. Isn't that what Lou Smit (and JR) wanted to do as well? Wonder if it will ever happen.
Spent my morning reading the sample of Laurence Smith's book on the Internet and have an opinion. More than that, I have a list of the errors found in just the little sample he has made available. I quoted very little so the posts should not be removed due to copyright.
After these notes, I have a true story to tell about an email I got last night from someone saying they were Laurence's research assistant. That I know will not be allowed to remain here so I will post it elsewhere, easy to find.
But here's my notes on the sample for those who may have considered buying that ebook.
Laurence Smith's book is "The Last Christmas of JonBenet Ramsey". In his author's notes, found on page 6 of the 31 page sample, he says, "It is my sole intent to simply lay out the known facts about her death..." Let's see how well he does in this free sample. Not a lot of the book is available but I think there's enough to show the true intent of the author and the value of his book.
On that same page, he makes his position clear. There was no intruder. But I am not going to be concerned with his opinion here, everyone is entitled to one, he has the right to be wrong. I am just going to go through the sample looking for obvious misinformation - facts any good research assistant would never have permitted to go to press. I will also permit myself to make my opinion known on his spin - and painful writing.
Error #1
On page 13 of the 31, he states that there is a "lack of any DNA left by any intruder". The fact is, there was foreign DNA found under her nails, mixed with her blood in her panties and later found on the outside of the longjohns JonBenet was wearing when her body was found. This DNA has been the subject of many media programs and documented in legal documents released by Boulder authorities.
Error #2 found on same page
He says there was "no sign of forced entry and no footprints found in the snow surrounding the Ramsey home." Actually, police did find pry marks on one door but don't feel that was the point of entry. The window in the bassement had been broken months before so there really was no need to break in another way. As for no footprints in the snow, please go to this link and look at how much snow actually SURROUNDED the house. While there was snow in the front yard, the back alley, driveway and walkway on the side of the house (where the broken window was) was clear.
Error #3 found on same page
"There is virtually no reason whatsoever to believe that this crime was perpetrated by a pedophile or child molester." Really? The autopsy tells us that without a doubt, she was sexually assaulted that night, someone put his hands down her pants and assaulted her. That is hardly necessary if all you want is to rob a house or take a child - - or even to kill that child. His fantasies were played out and included a stun gun, duct tape, cord, a garotte, and sexual assault. I would say he was a child molester, a pedophile. But that IS just MY opinion.
Error #4
He writes, "..we have to conclude that the staging and the ransom letter were nothing more than a diversionary ruse to cover up an aborted kidnapping attempt or whatever his actual mission was." I don't think staging has been proven but there is no logic at all in aborting the kidnapping attempt and then writing that note to leave with a body. The first thing Lou Smit told DA Alex Hunter was that the note was written BEFORE the crime. Was it ever a serious ransom note? I don't think so, that's my opinion based largely on the small ransom amount. But experts have agreed that it was most probably written before - even a career criminal would have a hard time writing that note under pressure with his adrenolin high. Dismissing the letter as a ruse rather than a clue to the killer's fantasies is a big mistake to make. You'd think a psychologist would know better.
Error #5 found on page 15 of 31
"John Ramsey rarely invited anyone outside of his close friends into the home. Business associates were rarely invited...." Simply not true. The Ramseys remodeled that home and it was a showplace - - and they loved to show it off. THere were tours of the house and the Ramseys let church groups they didn't belong to into the house for large dinners. They had parties, plenty of them. When being questioned about visitors to the house, Patsy spoke of several business connections being guests there. Add to that the fact that the teenage son, John Andrew, had a room there (as well as a dorm room nearby) and was in and out with friends, it was a very busy house.
By the way, some of these errors could be described as out and out lies since all the information I am sharing is public knowledge, well documented.
Errors found on page 20 of the 31
1. Smith has the killer hanging out in the neighborhood starting in the early afternoon, there is no evidence of that and if we used Mr. Smith's hypothesis (or fantasy) as truth, we would eliminate all suspects who ate dinner at home late that afternoon - a big mistake.
2. He has the killer joining carolers - there is no mention of caolers in that neighborhood. The carolers we know of were in the Whites' neighborhood.
3. He has the killer watching John lead his family from the house, on foot, to go to the Whites'. Fact is, the Ramseys parked in the back of the house, either in the driveway or garage. Not visible from the front of the house. I wonder if Mr. Smith or his research assistants looked at images of the house and crime scene. Lots wrong here on those details. But on we go.
4. "He strides up the walk leading to the Ramsey front door, allowing himself a short but hard glance at the street-level basement window down and to his left. The window's glass is still partially broken..." Well, he really blows it there. The window in that position was not broken but did have a vent pipe running from it. The broken basement window that was probably the way the killer entered and retreated was not in the front of the house at all but on the side, halfway down the side of the house, in an alcove, protected from view from either the front or back of the house.
5. Smith has the killer using a perloined key to get into the Ramsey house through the front door. No evidence of that at all, but I will give him him a bit of space here since it is his theory, one he says he has no faith in. This is a real special book, this one. Rather sickening, if you really want to know.
Errors from page 21 of 31 -
1. The window with the grate is described as being 3 to 4 feet across, it is longer than that. He says the killer would have had to reach in through the broken glass and undo a latch 2 feet to the side. That is simply not so. We don't know if the window was latched to begin with, but even if it was, the latch is easily reached. I know because I have gone in and out that window myself.
2. He insists more than once in the book that the killer had to be in the house for 8-10 hours, starting before the sun set. That is not necessarily so. He could have been in there for a far shorter time. The killer could have had a nice Christmas dinner at home and left after dark to go into this house where there were always lights on in the bathrooms, stairwells, over the sink. Since the Ramseys left lights on and did not draw drapes, there's no reason to believe he had to enter during the day, he could have had a very good idea what the layout of the house was. This misguided theory could have cost a few good suspects to miss being investigated. Glad Mr. Smith wasn't in charge of the investigation.
3. His description of the house is TERRIBLE! He has the kitchen to the left of the main entry - it is, in fact, on the right and that is documented all over the Internet.
4. He has the killer go up the front staircase where he goes directly into John Andrew's room. But the front stairs went to Burke's room. John Andrew's room was at the top of the stairwell found in the BACK of the house, beyond the kitchen. Again, a simple mistake Mr. Smith's research assistant should certainly have corrected before this book was published.
5. Next the intruder leaves that room, John Andrew's, and going to the bedroom next door which, according to this book, belonged to Burke. Well, he is right that Burke's room is near the front staircase, but it was not near John Andrews. So wrong again.
1. He has the killer locating JonBenet's room and incorrectly states that the room next door is feminine, belonging to Melinda. No, that room belonged to John Andrew and there was a bag and rope found in it that case followers know about. Putting that in the front of the house isn't very good when telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
2. Besides his shock that parents may sleep on a different floor from their kids, he has the placement of the parents' room wrong. He has their bedroom in the back of the house, over JonBenet's room. In fact, that space is occupied by John and Patsy's dressing rooms and separate bathrooms. Their bedroom is in the FRONT of the house.
3. His description of the house so far, is clearly off. Now he comes to that pad of paper and the words he says are visible on the top sheet are "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey" . He is wrong again. The so-called 'practice note' did not include the word Ramsey but just the first downstroke of the first letter of that word. And it was not found on the top sheet. According to police files, the practice note was on page 26 with other pages still intact on top of it. Please see the page at bestnote A careful research assistant would have found that information. Maybe if Smith had used a research assistant with credentials he would have avoided this error.
Errors from page 26 of the 31
1. His placement of the rooms in the basement is wrong. Not even going to correct that mess.
2. Besides the incorrect placement of the rooms, he has the broken window in the trainroom (which really is not at the front of the house). The train room had no window in it - the broken window was in a room beyond the train room.
3. Not sure where he has placed the windowless wine room but he still doesn't understand the nature of that room. The tall wine cabinets he describes never existed. The wine room was not used to store wine. That was rather a joke.
Again, there's a lot wrong with the theory, I am not going to correct everything he wrote when he says himself it is ludicrous.
Errors from page 28 of 31
1. Smith has the killer using Patsy's art bench to copy the ransom note he carried in with him. First, there is no artist's bench down there, the place was a cluttered mess with no artist's bench. And - well, I guess if Smith wants the killer to copy a note he can. His theory, afterall.
Not an error but a very interesting quote to share. Smith wrote, "Only an improbable thrill killer would have been immune to feeling empathy for killing JonBenet." But this man easily accusing her family of the same crime, is so sure they could live with it later, never cracking, never confessing. Just moving on. This author, and his friends, are people I hope never to meet, wouldn't want them in my circle of friends.
2. Smith puts a Subic Bay Military Naval Base plaque right there in the basement and says that is the meaning of SBTC. But there is no evidence of a plaque like that in the basement. That is a theory turned urban myth as far as I know.
3. At this point he has put the killer in the house at 4:42 and the time is now 7:15. Smith says the killer is in total darkness. Not so. The Ramseys left lights on all over the house, inside and out. In the basement, there were rooms where the killer could shut the door and turn a light on and be free to sit and wait because even the little light seeping out from around the door would not be visible from outside. He really should have read up on the house.
Page 30 - I actually found no great errors to report, but there's not much there, it's the end of the sample.
I think you might be addressing the wrong poster. There are others here who never post links, evidence, or even a simple "here's my opinion on this"; they simply respond emotionally against the Ramseys for whatever reason. Virgode has weighed the evidence, posted links, states her opinion, etc. You may be getting her confused with someone else.
It's absurd to think that the D.A.'s office had a true expert graphologist who would have testified under oath that Patsy wrote the ransom note. The original D.A., Hunter, certainly said that he did not have any such evidence, and it was not even close.
To me, it's just an incredibly flimsy excuse to bash Patsy, because people can't or simply refuse to assess and factor in the absolute top shelf evidence; i.e., the DNA, which is not only highly exculpatory, it's exonerating -- per the D.A.'s office.
It's not a hard call. it's not even a close call. The Ramsey's have been exonerated, formally. And that includes Patsy.
LE stank the case up from the git go. The BPD looked and acted like absolute fools from the beginning, and they have been proven to have been so. They hoped to redeem themselves by highlighting the parents, because they were easy and available targets who had astutely lawyered up and LE didn't like that nor did they like the way they behaved -- more behavior tea reading rubbish.
Linda Arndt and Steve Thomas were truly rank amateurs. Steve personally proved that to the entire nation when he quit LE and then wrote his ridiculous book, which allowed L. Lynn Wood to drag him over miles of hot legal lava in a civil lawsuit until he screamed mea culpa 100 times over.
And sure, crimetainment denizens everywhere picked on on BPD's cue and formed a national hate society against the Ramsey nearly from the opening salvo, which is pretty much par for the course in high-profile cases. But when years pass and exonerating DNA becomes available that proves the mob was wrong, it's time for mobsters to quit with the demonization and slither off into the shadows instead of continuing to cast shadows on a dead person -- from which absolutely nothing can possibly be gained.
Absolutely not; on the other hand, why are you here; to discredit posters who don't hold your opinion? You just split hairs over use of the word 'coaching'. I tried to explain it to you twice, when I thought the first explanation were reasonable enough to be understood.
My reply to jameson on other break-ins, simple to understand;
had there been ransom notes left with dead little girls bodies, they may have followed the same course as JB case. Its not a stretch.
The numerical rating, by paid Ramsey team. Its been discredited by many other non Ramsey professionals, equally knowledgeable in their fields. Well respected in his field, Dr Wecht, who disagreed with the autopsy findings. For every professional opinion, theres another to disagree. It always rolls back, to who you chose to believe.
I'm sincerely interested in the Ramsey indictment release. They already had two pieces of DNA evidence from panties and finger nails. They didn't need touch DNA to exonerate the Ramsey's.
So...what information does this indictment contain, leading to grand juries belief, of third person involvement. These questions lead to more speculation, and I'm not fond of speculation.
OK, I would like to weigh in here.
I don't know if I like the word "coaching", but I do believe the Ramseys were advised on how to answer questions. Answer just what was asked, offer nothing beyond the scope of the question. Don't hesitate to deny something if you actually have no memory of the act. Waffling isn't a good thing. I know other people who were deposed got that advice and I believe the same advice would have been given to John and Patsy. jmo
On your reply to me about no notes in other kidnappings - - would like to make it clear the police were OBLIGATED to suspect the parents right off the bat. They were in the house - the police didn't know what kind of people they were. If anything, I am angry that they didn't handle that correctly from the minute they went into the house. The Ramseys should have been separated, asked for their clothing, examined for injuries. They should have been questioned immediately. The note really shouldn't have mattered. Verify the integrity of the note later - but first preserve the scene and talk to the parents.
On to the handwriting... As for the numerical score, read Hunter and Beckner in the Wolf case - - they said the experts who actually examined the note said Patsy was at the low end of the scale. Those reports saying she DID write the note came from people who admitted they didn't have the note and couldn't say for sure. Some even asked THEN to be allowed to do it for real, to be allowed to see the note and do a real examination. Carnes' decision speaks well to the integrity of those people.
On the indictment - they were not indicted for murder but because they somehow permitted JonBenét to be placed in a dangerous situation that led to her death and the second charge had to do with possibly helping the killer elude justice. So let's look at that. Grand jurors may have heard how the Ramseys put her in pageants, let her "masterbate" with a saxaphone while wiggling around - and a pedophile may have seen her. The police may have said that was a dangerous hobby, would YOU do it? Well, let us punish them because that may be how the killer knew about her. Give us a chance to prove it in court. We believe we can. And grand jurors like to help LE. There may be another explanation for that charge, I'm just pointing to one and saying how easy it can be to get a group to go along with THAT when they are NOT going to indict for murder. On the second charge, the cops say - they didn't talk to us enough, they didn't give us enough names of people who might have been angry at them. They could be covering for someone. Give us a chance to take this to trial, to really put the pressure on and see what happens.
That is how some departments use the grand jury. Honest. Just to get to court when the DA really knows there is no case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
