And yes, the Ramsey case is also a nut case along very similar lines. You need to keep adjusting all the different pieces of the puzzle until the kernel of truth pops out.
And speaking of nuts, here's my favorite nutty squirrel video of all time:
See if you can figure out what's going on.
Sorry, but I can't resist adding one more squirrel video:
While this too is hilarious, it demonstrates how clever, and persistent, these little critters can be. If that squirrel can make its way to the bird feeder, then maybe there's some hope this case can eventually make it to court.
Doc, some questions for you if you don't mind. Regarding the DNA testing - and I'm no DNA expert so the questions may be shaky at best but here goes:
ReplyDeleteComments from the video stated that skin cells are easily transferred from one person to another or person to object by sneezing, or touch, etc. The specific places touch DNA was identified on JB's clothing that were not assigned to any male Ramsey were taken from her underwear, her pajamas and the nightgown?
1) Was John Ramsey's touch DNA found anywhere on those garments?
That is to say, whether touch, handling, sneezing, or otherwise, was his DNA found after testing?
Also Patsy's. She of course did change JB into the longjohns.
2) DNA mixed with JB's blood mixed in the underpants were a composite showing it came from three subjects - JB and two unidentified. Was it unidentified due to degradation, or was a partial DNA composite obtained that also matched the unidentified male DNA on the pajamas?
3) If John were wearing gloves, his touch DNA would still have shown up on her somewhere when he carried her to bed, for instance on her sweater. Was he ruled out as having contributed DNA to her only from the waist down?
1. I've never seen any reference to John's DNA being found on or around JBR's body -- but I think we can safely assume that, if they looked carefully enough, they'd find it. He carried her into the house the previous night and carried her body upstairs the following day. Same with Patsy, who had also been in close contact with her daughter when putting her to bed.
Delete2. The DNA mixed with her blood was a partial and degraded sample made of bits of JBR's DNA and bits of DNA from at least one other source, possibly two. It did not strictly "match" the other DNA from her longjohns, but it was consistent with it.
3. John's or Patsy's DNA would have been deemed irrelevant, as both of them were known to have been in contact with her at some point. I have no idea where John's DNA was found, or if any was found at all. They probably didn't test every single part of her body or every segment of her clothing. Maybe they'll now do a more thorough job. If John's DNA were found in her vagina, then of course that would be a very different story, but I assume nothing of that sort was found.
Thank you very much Doc. I tried going all the way back to July 2012 when you discussed this but couldn't find specific one. And now if they are going to retest we'll see if it's going to be relevant or not. Appreciate your response. Inq
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI asked Doc because he responded to Mike's video regarding the DNA. Absolutely anyone can answer the above if they so choose. I have said from the get go that Doc's theory was well thought out and well written. I have not changed my mind there, but if I read something I doubt or question for myself then I am going to ask.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI have a question for any JDI, so here goes.
ReplyDeleteIs your stance that John Did It and Patsy was in no way involved? So, IF Patsy is proven to have been involved, do you still believe John Did It?
----felt nice to be gone for a few days :-)
-J
Just to clarify, when I say involved, I mean in the staging, writing of the note, etc. I don't believe that Patsy murdered JB
Delete-J
If Patsy's involvement can be proven, then it's not so easy to determine whether or not John is the one who killed her, or even whether Burke did it. My principal reason for believing that John is the killer is my conviction that Patsy could NOT have been involved in any way, other than as an innocent dupe, manipulated to support John's version of what happened while never actually suspecting the truth.
DeleteIf, for example, it can be determined beyond question that Patsy wrote the note, then all bets are off. There would be no way to tell which of the three actually assaulted JonBenet, as far as I can tell.
Doc - thanks for the response. I thought that's how you saw it, but wanted to verify. Personally, I believe Patsy was involved in the staging, but if I only had something definitive to say that was the case then I would be getting somewhere. :-)
Delete-J
Can anyone tell me if it was certain that John went to his hanger at the airport on Christmas day for hours and why? Being gone alone on Christmas day of all days is very odd to me. Wonder if there was surveillance tapes.
ReplyDeleteI read that he went to the airport to bring the Christmas gifts they were bringing for the rest of the family. He said it in an interview I believe with the police, but not 100% sure.
DeleteEG
If the killer wanted it to look like a sexual assault, they would have ripped her clothes off. who ever killed her wanted it to Not look like a sexual assault, that is why she had been cleaned off and underwear changed.
ReplyDeleteThat's a really interesting observation, k. It's been assumed "the Ramseys" staged a sexual assault by a pedophile intruder. But if that were the case, then why not rip her clothes off?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOoh good point k1234. I am wondering if Burke assaulted her that night. Maybe the assault wasn't staged at all...
DeleteSorry for the multiple posts. But I just wanted to reiterate that the reason JR killed JBR was to protect his image, name and business. And because he is so incredibly narcissistic that is the very same reason they went on CNN to defend themselves. Funny that they don't want to cooperate with police but they damn sure want to defend themselves to the public. I say " they" because Patsy was drugged up and just present. If she was guilty or knew anything JR would not want her drugged up because she would possibly slip. he wanted her drugged up so he can control her and she wont suspect him. Same reason why 20 years later he still cant stay out of the news defending the Ramsey name.
ReplyDeleteBurke is filing suit against CBS. On NBC nightly news any moment now.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.eonline.com/news/818456/jonbenet-ramsey-s-brother-burke-files-750-million-defamation-lawsuit-against-cbs
GS
This is exciting news, GS. He's suing all the on-camera participants as well as CBS, he's suing them for defamation per se, and he wants $500M in punitive damages, $250M compensatory. This will be fun to watch. Thanks for the heads up.
DeleteCC
Yes, I saw that on the NBC news tonight. I was wondering when Lin would finally get around to filing that suit and thinking that maybe he'd chicken out.
DeleteLet's hope and pray it goes to court, as that trial promises to be a doozy. But I have a feeling CC is right, and CBS will settle. They have no case whatsoever against Burke and yet the whole show is based on the certainty that he killed his sister. If brought to trial that aspect should be a slam dunk for Wood. But if they focus on unravelling the intruder theory, things could get very hot for John.
Wood was likely waiting to see Spitz's Answer to the CBS Detroit Radio suit, which I believe was due on 12/1. Truth is a defense to a charge of defamation, and had Spitz had any true facts or actual evidence against Burke it would have been in that Answer, and Wood would thus have gained valuable information to help him frame the new lawsuit filed today. No truth in sight; Spitz's response was a pro forma First Amendment defense, the guy is toast, and the new lawsuit duly filed.
DeleteCC
Filing a lawsuit against an individual is one thing, but against a network is quite another. I'm pretty sure CBS has a bank of high paid lawyers who thoroughly vetted the show before it was broadcast. I personally don't think there will be a settlement. Hope not, anyway. This is my first post. Great blog by the way. I am a JDI, and always have been. I've been at Websleuths, but it's predominantly PDI. So glad I've found this blog that has a lot of JDI people.
DeleteWelcome, freebird. Unlike Websleuths, you'll find this forum open to all points of view -- and closed to personal attacks.
DeleteAs for CBS and its lawyers, frankly as I watched this show I was shocked by the manner in which the participants focused in no uncertain terms on Burke as the killer. It wasn't just that he was identified as a possible suspect, but that he was singled out as the only one who could have killed JonBenet. And on the basis of only one piece of evidence, some fingerprints on a bowl of pineapple. The rest of their "case" was sheer fantasy, for the most part. Yet they insisted: HE was the one. NOT just an opinion, which is of course protected under the First Amendment, but a dead certainty, which is flirting with libel.
There's a huge difference between determining whether someone MIGHT have committed a crime and proving he actually committed it. They were able to demonstrate -- to some extent -- the former, but certainly NOT the latter. Which leads me to wonder about all those high powered CBS lawyers. Corporate lawyers are notoriously cautious so it's really surprising that they'd have permitted such a show to air. In the absence of slam dunk proof, of which there was not even a trace, CBS was almost inviting a lawsuit. All that was needed was some sort of statement that the conclusion naming Burke was hypothetical and could only be determined in a court of law. But the case was presented as though it were conclusive, not hypothetical. Looks to me as though the lawyers dropped the ball. And one way or another, CBS will most likely pay a bundle for their mistake.
I bet John wishes it was him that was named in the CBS special, he is probably so jealous of all that money his son might get.It would be pretty cool if CBS and its lawyers knew this would be coming and have some sort of plan regarding BPD and gathering evidence in a future trial.
ReplyDeleteIf John had been named instead of Burke, it would have been worse for CBS, because there is no way John did it. Unless, of course . . .
DeleteHere's a Denver link on the lawsuit, probably not much different than the earlier link up thread.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/burke-ramsey-files-750m-lawsuit-against-cbs-over-special-report
Since John has been the one to keep Lin Wood around all of these years I'm sure he's going to get a slice of the CBS payoff pie, should they settle. That should not make any of you happy, does it?
ReplyDeleteThis is not the first time CBS has been mired in controversy, such as The Killian documents in Sept. 8, 2004 where producers had failed to authenticate documents before airing, leading to the firings of several CBS executives and the resignation of Dan Rather.
ReplyDeleteLin Wood is not on some sort of permanent retainer - John has paid him nothing out of pocket in 20 years. Wood has become a wealthy man working for JR on a contingent fee basis, taking 1/3-1/2 of all seven recoveries to date. As far as I'm concerned, he's welcome to his take from CBS - that child was grievously slandered.
ReplyDeleteCC
Apparently it's not the first time CBS has aired something not factual, I have no love of CBS. Do you believe the lawsuit will do anything about all of the podcasts that came after?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't team Ramsey have to prove how Burke has been harmed? How airing the special has ruined his ability to make a living, cost him his job, his standing in the community (if he had a standing), his relationships, etc. in order for a determination to be made and a settlement amount fixed upon?
ReplyDeleteNo. Those are standards of proof for defamation per quod. This case has been filed as defamation per se, meaning the slander is so egregious it is accepted as "true on its face", or per se.
DeleteCC
Who said what they aired wasn't factual? Burke sued because why wouldn't he. It doesn't mean what was said didn't happen and it doesn't mean the CBS special was crap.
ReplyDelete-J
By not factual I mean evidence not in fact. No one saw him hit her over the head, you can't make a connection between whether he was eating pineapple at the time when she took a piece, and then he chased her with a flashlight and hit her with it - the way they played the scenario.
DeleteNo, I agree J. It was a point of view. But coming right out and saying they believed he did it - that wasn't a good idea. Didn't they end with taking a vote or something?
ReplyDeleteMaybe not the best idea, but I have to say it was very refreshing as a viewer to see a non fluff piece like all the rest of the JBR specials. I am BDI, but I will say that IF he didn't do it, then this REALLY sucks for him.
Delete-J
It's going to really suck for him either way. He's avoided the limelight for 20 years, now he may be in it's headlights.
Deletesorry one more for the day. It's about money. How was Burke harmed? After this airing were people calling in to the BPd asking for Burke to be arrested? Did he lose his job? Can he not make a living any more? Did his girlfriend leave him? Did it make any difference at all? This won't be he first time Lin Wood has filed suit in behalf of the Ramseys, let's see if they get a big payoff or not.
ReplyDeleteThe damages you're referring to are called special damages, are chiefly economic, and only pertain to defamation per quod. Burke filed defamation per se, which has different standards, and requested general damages for past and future harm to reputation, mental anguish, and personal humiliation. He also asks for $500M in punitive damages, which are intended to punish a defendant for willful malice. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation, so if CBS can prove that their allegations were true, they will prevail. I see nothing to indicate they can do so.
DeleteWood has been very successful in his seven prior defamation suits filed on behalf of the Ramseys; no reason this case will be any less so.
CC
Burden is on Burke to prove the statements were false though, not on CBS to show that they were truthful.
DeleteBurden is only on Burke to show that he was defamed - which he clearly was.
DeleteCC
Here's from a law school professor commenting in People Mag: "What will matter is what is revealed during the discovery process,” he tells PEOPLE. “Burke Ramsey has to prove the story [presented by CBS] is false, so the burden of proof is on him
DeleteI would think the proper term is: unsubstantiated. It's almost impossible to prove a negative and I doubt that this would be expected. If someone says I pulled a knife on him, how can I possibly prove him wrong if there were no witnesses? But I CAN claim that the accusation is unsubstantiated.
DeleteJohn is no doubt driving this train. From the time it happened to now Burke has seemed like he just wanted to "forget", "move on", stay away from the press, the media.
DeleteDoc - that's not the burden. Plus someone saying you pulled a knife wouldn't rise to the level of defamation. For Burke to prevail, he has the burden of demonstrating the conclusion reached was false. That's why this suit is so important.
DeleteA word about the John Douglas assessment.
ReplyDeleteI initially just accepted the John Douglas assessment that John Ramsey wasn't involved. Douglas is about the most experienced investigator of these matters and I don't doubt his integrity so it seemed natural to just accept that.
However his assessment is on based a suspect's past behavior, the idea that if JR was responsible for the sexual attack and the ligature strangulation then he'd already have a police record, a proven history of assault and a whole collection of bondage magazines nearby.
I'd just make that point that knowing the past behavior of a suspect is a whole lot easier if they're not extremely wealthy like John Ramsey. A multi millionaire like JR can afford to have a whole other life and it won't show up on his official phone records, his known bank accounts, he won't be bothering his work colleagues etc.
So I just don't accept that anyone can assess the past behavior of a suspect rich enough to conceal their past behavior, especially if the suspect is very controlling and determined to keep their public persona free of scandal.
The John Douglas expert assessment is like the handwriting evidence that "proves" that JR wasn't involved. It meant that JR was not taken seriously enough as a suspect, even though the basic facts that Doc has pointed out mean he's the most likely culprit.
Martin
This may be a stupid question, but can anyone in the general public file a civil lawsuit against JR for the wrongful death of JB?
ReplyDeleteYou might have to show you were wronged in some way by her death? Don't know.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe long awaited defamation suit by Burke was finally filed. Please let this get to trial. If he can't prove that what CBS aired was false, then we have our answer. If he can, then we have one less suspect.
ReplyDeleteIt's beyond sick and twisted, but I always felt like Burke and John truly are invincible. The reason...Patsy Ramsey. She isn't here to defend herself and if John or Burke were ever backed into a corner they could say that Patsy told them she did it and they didn't know until after the fact.
ReplyDelete-J
That's sad ... and likely true. Wouldn't surprise if Burke in pursuit of $750M from CBS says that he knows his mother did it.
DeleteI doubt that. Surely he has respect for his deceased mother. Or rather I hope he does...
DeleteI agree, Kathy. I don't believe Burke would throw his mother under the bus. John - he'd have no problem doing it, because he's thrown everyone else he knows under the bus - but not Burke. Give the kid a break, guys. He's not your killer, he has no reason to "frame" his mother.
DeleteI believe the family will stick together like glue. No one is going to defect. It always appeared to me early on that John knew full well - at what point I don't know - who did this, whether it was an accident and then staged coverup, or intentional, and his demeanor on television was watchful, measured, and a bit fearful whilst Patsy was under the influence. He was likely very grateful for Lou Smit presenting an alternative theory that moved away from the family, and very helpful in supplying Lou with possible suspects - but to me it could either be indicative of his own guilt, or protecting Burke and Patsy or just Patsy. Would that it really could be an intruder! I so wanted it to be. Yep, this is a nutty case.
ReplyDeleteBut to be defamed he has to show that the statements were false. The burden is never on the defendant.
ReplyDeleteAnd what Dr. Spitz is going to say is that he merely gave an opinion.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't have to though. Burke has to prove the conclusion reached was false. That's a heavy burden for him if he did it. Either way, we will find out.
DeleteYeah, Dog. I see your point. Burden of proof. Love it.
ReplyDeleteIf only Burke could reveal what he knows that would sink John. It's too bad that the Boulder police haven't caught onto John's misdirection after all of these years. He's changed his story so many times.
ReplyDeleteOf course how can he prove the conclusion reached was false. In otherwords that he did not kill his sister? It's trying to prove a negative. I would think he'd have more success proving that what Spitz said and CBS aired hurt him either financially or emotionally.
ReplyDeleteit's defamation suit.
DeleteIt doesn't matter if he was harmed. What matter is that he was harmed by false statements. That's why truth is always a defense. But the burden is on Burke to show what CBS said is false, then to show he's harmed. It has nothing to do with proving a negative. CBS concluded he didn't, for Burke to claim defamation, he now has to show that he didn't.
Delete"Burke filed defamation per se, which has different standards, and requested general damages for past and future harm to reputation, mental anguish, and personal humiliation."
ReplyDeleteCC: I understand what you're saying, but doesn't Wood have to present some tangible evidence that the standards have been met? Mental anguish and humiliation, I suppose, could be corroborated by a psychiatrist, but what evidence can Wood present to the court that demonstrates Burke's future reputation has been irrevocably damaged? If rejection in the job market qualifies, how is it linked to his being falsely accused of murder as opposed to some other factor or set of factors? Also, can past successful lawsuits be used as evidence demonstrating Burke's reputation suffered in the past? Just curious.
Mike G
CC has her burdens mixed up. She's very, very knowledgeable about the law, but simply has it backwards here. 99.9% of the time, she's spot on.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe JDI, but this whole Burke lawsuit thing could be the weak spot that ultimately slays the dragon.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean? Are you suggesting the "dragon" may turn out to be an "intruder" after all whose identify will be revealed at trial, assuming one takes place? Or is the dragon a synonym for Burke?
DeleteYour statement leaves us wondering how firmly you believe your own theory that JDI, which many of us, myself included, happen to share, and how a "lawsuit thing" translates into a "weak spot" in that theory? Please explain.
Mike G.
All dragons have a weak spot. Poke it.
DeleteThat's a very cryptic response that didn't actually answer anything.....I'd also like to know what/who you think is the "weak spot".
DeleteIt's your dragon. You stick it.
DeleteMike G.
This case is the dragon, this lawsuit(s) could result in exposing truths that could get us closer to the obvious.
DeleteOne other new thought I had, was someone knocked JBR over the head, probably JR, so that she would be out but not dead. If she were dead, that would make it difficult to dispose of the body, as cadaver dogs could track the body. So someone wanted to take her out alive, first, and then kill her at the site.
ReplyDeleteThen the plans got changed for some reason and he had to kill her there.
No one said speculative thought can't be novel, but that doesn't make it any more deserving of consideration. Nice try though.
DeleteMike G
It does not hurt to try and figure out why there were two injuries, spaced apart in time. That's called putting together a theory.
DeleteYou've really got to let this "cadaver dogs" thing go.....murders occur in the perpetrator's own home often. Clearly, cadaver dogs are not a deal breaker.....especially if a crime is committed in the heat of the moment, which some of us are undecided on in regards to John.
DeleteYou seem to be focusing on the one or two things that you feel even remotely point towards John Ramsey's innocence, all the while willfully ignoring the plethora of evidence that undeniably points towards his guilt. As Mike said in a previous post, any doubt that JR didn't commit this crime is unreasonable, and the sad thing is, it really all boils down to personal bias from what I see here on this blog and others like it.
You're clutching at straws. Your theories aren't plausible - I have to wonder, are you perhaps Inquisitive's alt? You sure are both hung up on the cadaver dogs, you like to use the blog as a place to think out loud (someone here eloquently referred to it as "brain dumping"), and you two twitter away to each other just like Inq did with Leigh Too, who funnily enough disappeared right about the same time you hit the scene! Come on...tell us, is that you, Inquisitive??? :P
"It does not hurt to try and figure out why there were two injuries, spaced apart in time. That's called putting together a theory."
DeleteFiguring out why your theories are several and spaced apart in time doesn't hurt either, but it is a waste of time. That's called being honest.
Mike G
With respect to the cadaver dog thing, as I understand it, cadaver dogs are trained to identify a scent. I don't think it really matters whether the object of the search is alive or dead, what matters is the dog's ability to identify the scent they've been previously exposed to, usually from someone's clothing.
DeleteThus, if John had been concerned about cadaver dogs identifying JonBenet's scent, he could have placed the body on the floor of the car itself instead of hiding it in the trunk. If it had been wrapped in a blanket, it would look innocent enough, assuming anyone noticed it at all. If cadaver dogs later identified JBR's scent, it wouldn't mean much, since she obviously had been a passenger in that car on many occasions.
Cadaver dogs are trained to pick up on the scent of death only, not on the scent of a person. In the Madelaine McCann case, for instance, a cadaver dog picked up the scent of death in the hotel room that Madelaine disappeared from and later in a rental car that the McCann's rented after her disappearance, thus leading authorities to believe the parents guilty in her disappearance.
DeleteSC Shaefer is Leigh, I suspected this after reading about 2 of her posts.
DeleteSC could not be Leigh as Leigh would not put forth any theory that involved Ramsey's whatsoever. Look up ahead at posting 12:22 a.m.
Delete"Cadaver dogs are trained to pick up on the scent of death only"
DeleteYes, you're probably right. Only John might not have realized that, just as, apparently, the McCann's didn't.
And notably, the McCann have escaped charges and prosecution. There are several reasons why they haven't, but the finding of the cadaver dogs, for some reason, has not turned out to be the smoking gun that nailed them.
DeleteSorry Doc, you need to watch more Nancy Grace maybe. Cadaver dogs are trained to pick up the scent of a dead human. If they take out a live JBR in car, then, it's just another normal day of JBR in car. If they take out a dead JBR, they are going to have to explain to police how a dead human ended up recently in their car.
DeleteIf they try and walk out the dead body, and bury her nearby, the dogs can follow the human death scent to her burial spot.
The Ramseys are perhaps more knowledgeable about that than you. That is why they left her in the house.
Because in the McCann case, the scent was very slight. And Mrs. McCann said she had recently handled a dead body in her medical practice as a doctor. Although it still seems questionable to me.
DeleteMs D. I am focusing in on cadaver dogs, because any murderer with any intelligence knows about cadaver dogs. The thing is, a random murderer can use their own car, you have to find the car. If they drive miles away, not very easy for police dogs to find. That's how they get away with it. If one of the parents murdered her, they have to use "their" car. The death scent would be in their car and they would have to explain it.
DeleteThat is why the Ramseys left her there. They were smart enough to get it.
And second of all, you don't seem to read my posts well. I say JR was involved too, but also I say they were both involved. It's the only way to explain the manuscript A in the RN.
Your explanation won't work in the McCann case. And if the intention was not to dump JonBenet's body, then the "ransom note" makes no sense. I really doubt whether John was worrying about cadaver dogs after killing his daughter -- what he needed was to get her body out of the house. If you read the note with any degree of care, you'll see the plan clearly outlined. Either he was assuming the police would believe him or he just wasn't thinking about the possibility of cadaver dogs being used. Neither, apparently, were the McCann's.
DeleteAnd what you say about the use of manuscript "a" in the ransom note strikes me as ridiculous. You assume John would make sure to use his usual letter forms in a document deliberately intended to deceive? As though there were some law preventing him from using manuscript a as part of his deception?
What do you mean about my explanation not working in the McCann case? It DID work in the McCann case. The mother is a medical doctor. She said she had recently handled a dead body at work and that is how the scent got there. You might want to look it up.
DeleteSo Doc, you think JR wanted a very very rare printed form of A, mostly only used today by women with delusions of societal grandeur, in a not supposedly written by a sex predator male? What kind of sex predator male is this? Some tea and cookie cotillion sex predator? How about John just use the normal 'a', like 99% of Americans do for the ransom note? Unless you think he wanted to frame Patsy with the note? Which is a possibility. But then THAT is getting too complicated.
And btw, it is not just the manuscript A. There are many many other similarities in the writing of the RN and Patsy's writing. You can take almost any letter and see it, as well as on a macro level too.
DeleteSo the only other explanation is, JR wanted to make it "look" like PR wrote the note. Maybe a back up plan, to finger her, if all went wrong. But I don't think he could do that. And why would he bother really?
You're just expressing your opinion, SC. And in this case, opinions are a dime a dozen. I've done more than that, I've actually presented actual comparisons, and I've done that extensively. What's more, if it was as obvious as you think, it's hard to see how the 4 examiners hired by Hunter would not have seen it. And no, there is no evidence JR tried to make the note look like Patsy wrote it. If you forget about cherry picking individual letters and compare complete samples of her writing with the note you'll see how different they are. Assuming you are willing to see what's actually in front of your face rather than what you want to see.
DeleteNo it is not my "opinion" that a manuscript a was used in the RN, it is a fact. It is also a fact that that is a very rare type of a. I looked up in the handwriting tutorials, I did not see it in one style. I personally never saw it used before this.
DeleteIt is also a fact that JR never used that type of a before this. It is also a fact that PR DID use that type a before this.
But somehow, you want us all to overlook those 'facts'.
I just looked it up, DA Hunter is the one who did not go forward with the grand jury ruling of the parents. I would not trust his experts handwriting opinions. I would trust the prior experts.
Either way, yes my idea the handwriting matches, is an opinion. Your idea that the handwriting does not match, is ALSO an opinion. And actually since I actually read some books on the subject, and you never did, and I could tell you did not use common terms associated with handwriting analysis and did not seem to know much about it, I think my opinion holds a little more weight than yours. So sorry I am not going to blindly follow your opinion on this.
Just google 'Pasty Ramsey, ransom note, and expert' and you will see entry after entry of experts saying the handwriting matches. Here's one:
Deletehttp://people.com/crime/jonbenet-ramsey-case-expert-believes-patsy-ramsey-wrote-ransom-note-in-upcoming-2020-special/
"In an upcoming episode of ABC’s 20/20, veteran handwriting expert Cina Wong points the finger at Ramsey’s now-deceased mother, Patsy.
“It is highly probable she wrote the ransom note,” Wong tells ABC News’ Amy Robach.
Wong spent three weeks examining the handwriting on the three-page ransom note and comparing it to 100 samples of Patsy’s handwriting, finding more than 200 similarities between the two.
“You will see that just with the A’s, the ransom note writer has four different variations of the letter A, and then Patsy Ramsey uses the same variation of the four different types of As,” Wong said"
And I agree with that, I also saw many similarities, just glancing at the notes. I am sure I could many more if I spent more time on it. And you expect us to go by YOUR opinion, who never studied handwriting analysis in your life, because like, you saw two S's that did not match perfectly? That is not how it works my friend.
Leave it to the experts.
I've demonstrated Cina Wong's incompetence in a series of three blog posts beginning here: https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2016/11/more-handwriting-evidence.html
DeleteThis is more than just an opinion, it's a clear demonstration of serious flaws in her methods and her tendency to be guided by confirmation bias.
And I don't care how many books you've read, if you see the manuscript a's in the ransom note as some sort of proof that John could not have written it, then I'm sorry but your opinions are worthless.
DocG - did you perform your own handwriting analysis? I'm going to read that blog post you linked to, but I'm just curious. Pretty incredible if you did!
Delete"So Doc, you think JR wanted a very very rare printed form of A, mostly only used today by women with delusions of societal grandeur, in a not supposedly written by a sex predator male?"
DeleteFirstly, I've pointed out several times I use the manuscript "a", so I resent your pseudo-psychological evaluation of me as obviously suffering from "delusions of societal grandeur" based solely on the way I compose my "a"s. That is utterly preposterous - and you expect us to take you seriously in regards to you being the authority on handwriting?!
Secondly, tell me, SC, how does a "sex predator male" write? More importantly, how does he write when trying to disguise his hand?
Here's more. JR heard BR and JBR downstairs eating pineapple. JR went down. BR went up. He knocked JBR on the head with something, he took the chance he had to do this, as he had already planned it. He was going to dispose of the body. But PR came downstairs and busted him. He lied to PR and told her BR did it. He told her JBR was already dead. PR pretended to believe it, even though she knew it was not true, but she was weak and guilty of her own abuse. JR could not take JBR out of the house now. So he killed her downstairs. JR was still thinking about maybe removing the body, but then PR came up with the idea to stage a botched kidnapping.
ReplyDeleteOMG SC...write down some of your thoughts and debate them before dumping every thought you ever had. I like all theories bUT PLEASE THINK ABOUT THINGS BEFORE POSTING
DeleteWhat, you got better things to do, after this crime is still unsolved after 20 years? I would think you would love to read any theory you can.
DeleteI am just coming up with new ways to weave all of the characters together.
But the theories are completely illogical, SC. They have no merit whatsoever.
DeleteThis is what Doc is trying to avoid in his blog.....haven't you read any of his posts at all? It seems you haven't, because you're ignoring everything he spent a great deal of time detailing back in 2012. It's all there, why don't you take a look, instead of repeating the very misinformation we're trying to avoid on this particular blog?
I do not think PR strangled JBR, because that would take too much force. But I think PR wrote the note. That is why I think they were both involved.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteWell, to be fair SC, your latest theory is completely irrational.....as I've said before, you seem hell bent on making each one of your - seemingly inexhaustible - scenarios as convoluted as possible. Why, I sincerely don't know. Perhaps you are a frustrated author of murder mysteries and feel that the superfluous embellishments are a nice touch.....but they only lead us deeper into the "morass".
DeleteSC, you really want me to believe that Patsy sexually abused JBR? Or, if you're saying she abused her in some other way, she thought it a good idea to have JBR dead? Listen, I live in Atlanta, know people who know the Paugh family, and that is a family of people who absolutely adore their kids. Even if you thought there was something wrong with the pageant involvement, you can't tell me that pageant moms would rather have their precious one dead vs. grow up to say, "my mom ruined my life with the pageant obsession." Patsy was turning into a stage mom. There are LOTS of stage moms out there. There is no good reason for her to want her child to be dead. Finally, her display of grief was totally believable to me. On the other hand, John's apparent lack of grief, shifty eyes, lip-licking, throwing people under the bus, hiring lawyers right away, trying to get on a plane to get out of Dodge right after the body was found, his knowledge of his bonus amount...all odd behaviors that far outweigh the ridiculous theory that both parents wanted that child out of their lives for different reasons.
DeleteSorry Ms. D. I think you all are going to have to go back to the drawing board. You have to explain how a manuscript A showed up in the ransom note if JR wrote it.
DeleteYou have allowed this obvious inconsistency to go unheeded for years apparently. So in that case, my theory makes a lot more sense, than yours. And you have not explained why you think it is irrational, other than it's "too complicated". I know you like simple, it probably feels better to you, but, if it doesn't match the facts, simple or not, it does not work. Perhaps best to analyze with some facts next time, not on what makes you feel good.
Anonymous, I think it is possible PR allowed the sex abuse of JBR by John to go on. She knew what was happening, and she allowed it. At some point she began to resent her daughter. That is a common reaction of mothers whose daughters are sex abused by the fathers. Some kind of jealousy and resentment. Now that JBR was getting older, and say, did not want to wear matching outfits with her anymore, PR was starting to resent her even more.
DeleteShe knew that if JBR came to at the hospital, the sex abuse would be discovered, and then JR would point the finger at her. She could not bear the thought that her reputation and her family's reputation would be publicly besmirched like this, she instead allowed JR to end JBR, with her implicit permission. It was a joint decision.
"Sorry Ms. D. I think you all are going to have to go back to the drawing board. You have to explain how a manuscript A showed up in the ransom note if JR wrote it."
DeleteBecause he was disguising his handwriting, I think that is rather obvious.
If Patsy wrote the ransom note, why did she start out with the standard, lower case "a", then go back and change it to her distinct, manuscript "a"? I've asked you three times, and you've avoided answering it every time. If Patsy wrote the RN, she would have either A. wrote the "a"s in her typical manuscript form because it came naturally to her, or B. Deliberately avoided using her manuscript "a" because it could possibly point to her involvement, in which case she certainly wouldn't have decided, as an after thought, to add the "hats". That these were added later proves the author was trying to disguise his handwriting. One does not attempt to disguise their handwriting by deliberately inserting their trademark writing style into the piece, that should be rather obvious.
btw, could someone fill me in on a summary, on why it is many here feel Patsy could not have been involved too?
ReplyDeleteDoc's logic: if PR was involved, she wouldn't have called 911 with the body in the house.
Delete-Sisu
Okay, thanks. Will ponder that.
DeleteIn a nutshell, the author of the note had nothing to gain by calling the police. Doc outlines in his first few posts, dating back to 2012, why the author of the ransom note cannot be the same person who made the 911 call. It's what convinced me that no one else but John was involved in this crime. I suggest you read it, Doc makes a compelling argument.
DeleteI am hoping that this lawsuit might possibly allow the public to learn more from the White family's observations. As they were at the Ramsey home days prior for the party, then hosted the Ramseys at their home Christmas eve, then back to the Ramseys Christmas Day morning with the big gathering, then had Burke at their home that morning before JonBenet's body was found. As well as attended the funeral in Atlanta, and later testified at the grand jury. They knew all of the Ramseys better than most on a consistent basis, and in more relaxed situations rather than one would have at work or church. They also have seemed to want justice for JonBenet with their correspondence to the DA and police that was never shown by Patsy's family or John's family that I'm aware of.
ReplyDeleteCC:
ReplyDeleteDoes John have to be convicted before Inquisitive, SC Shafer, and Zed can be arrested and charged with obstruction of justice?
CC:
ReplyDeleteNow that the lawsuit has been filed, is CBS entitled to view all the evidence on the case, including a full transcript of the Grand Jury proceedings? If so, what if any are the ramifications of that in so far as what information might become public that heretofore the police have kept sealed?
Mike G
Wow, what a great question. Can't wait to read CC's response.
DeleteBy the way, the times attached to these comments are way off. Is that my fault?
DeleteOK, that's better. I just fixed it.
Delete"I agree, Kathy. I don't believe Burke would throw his mother under the bus. John - he'd have no problem doing it, because he's thrown everyone else he knows under the bus - but not Burke. Give the kid a break, guys. He's not your killer, he has no reason to "frame" his mother. He deserves "a break" ? He hasnt had a chance to throw anyone under the bus because he has hid and refused to speak for 20 years so your point is irrelevant. Spare me the he is a nice kid from a normal family and knows nothing (at the least) BS. Here is a kid who was home when his sister was brutally murdered and wouldnt speak to LE and has no care at all in finding out who killed his sister just like the rest of the Ramseys. He refuses to speak publicly or to LE for 20 years yet has no problem whatsoever suing and repititively profitting off of her murder. I personally find it sickening and a complete and total miscarriage of justice that he has been able to make money off of her death. Spare me more BS that it is JR behind all of it with some kind of brainwashing or gaslighting. His refusals, behavior and reactions to his sisters death are odd to say the least, whether he is guilty or not and spare all of us the BS of pretending to "know" that he is not the guilty party.
DeleteYes, CBS will be entitled to all of that. What becomes public is left to the determination of the court and the parties in moving for protective orders.
DeleteI think everyone is getting too excited over the possible things that could happen with this CBS lawsuit. CBS provides entertainment. And if you would read the scandal they were a part of, involving not properly vetting forgeries of former George W. Bush's service records before airing, the Killian documents, you can see that this network, like many, are about moving ahead with information for political purposes or providing entertainment as fact. Fortunately George W. Bush didn't sue. For them. So they policed themselves by firing executives and letting a formerly respected journalist, Dan Rather, go. I haven't seen him commenting on anything recently. Rather than pay out a huge settlement amount in this case they will likely offer something, but no where near what Burke, John Ramsey and Lin Wood are asking. As for Spitz, he has always been controversial. He has shared opinions on the stand in many trials usually for the defense, that point away from the defense attorney's client. Same with Henry Lee. I mean it would be great if a kernel falls out of the nut case puzzle, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
DeleteThat's a well reasoned point, Inquisitive. I'm looking at it solely from what Burke's burden is in this lawsuit. In turn, by logical reasoning, if Burke can't prove that he didn't do it (which he's now required to do by bringing this suit - think the exact opposite of the burden a prosecutor faces in trying to prove someone did commit a crime)then it can be inferred that he may have actually been the one to do it.
DeleteGoing back and reading the comments for the past few days, I find it humorous that you JDI think Garnett was speaking about JR. He isnt even on Garnett's or anyone else in LE radar. You already know this, Helllooo ! He is speaking of BR and even mentions that BR is who the Grand Jury was looking at right after his comment. His comment about if he got enough evidence to take the case to court was his way of saying it will never go to trial as he has pretty much said throughout the years, if he knew who did it as he said, and it was JR then he would have been building a case long ago. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, with no new evidence and for absolutely reason he just comes up with JR as the guilty party ? I think not.
ReplyDeleteDoc's theory is a very compelling argument but it is just not the case here. The key to this case is not the 911 call but what is said after the 911 call. And the very first thing that is said is PR asking in an angry and distraught tone of voice "What did you do" ?! PR is speaking to either BR or JR. So first off that tells us that she knows what happened and either she just found out what happened OR just came into first contact with the person who did this. Next you hear a younger childlike voice say something close to "what did you find"? And last but not least you hear JR loud and clear say "We are not speaking to you". Its pretty easy to figure this out, either BR just got up and came downstairs and into JR and PR's presence or PR and JR are arguing and PR is asking JR what did you do and BR just happened to show up right then thus JR telling BR that we are not speaking to you. Either way it is very clear to me that PR, at this point or possibly earlier, is aware of what occured, thus by her own words discluding her from the murder. If you are JDI then your only plausible theory for JDI is that JR killed JBR but blamed it on BR or PR knows JDI and covered up for him. This is fact to me and some others. If you are JDI then you conveniently can not hear anything at all, just to keep your agendalike theories alive ;))
ReplyDeleteKeiser, in listening to the recording, I don't hear that conversation. To me there is way too much cross-talk and that so-called conversation cannot be confirmed. It it was so clear, I think the police would have gone in the direction of your theory. Instead, they went with poopy pants.
Delete"And the very first thing that is said is PR asking in an angry and distraught tone of voice "What did you do""
DeleteI don't hear that said.
Of course you dont ! You cant hear a thing, as I stated in my last post, JDI go deaf during this part and cant hear anything ;) I have heard the aerospace version and rest assured that it leaves no doubt, not that I care to persuade, with all these twisted, in depth, evidence avoiding theories that keep me oh so entertained. Sorry but it really does not matter obe bit if you can hear anything at all because LE and professionals CAN AND HAVE heard it, as has a grand jury and BR himself who had to admit in open court that yes it did sound like himself. The very few JDI that there are will next turn the trick of turning blind when a videotape of that night comes out as well.
DeleteOK, first of all, the CBS "experts" first heard Patsy saying "Help me Jesus." But the tech guy said he thought it sounded like "What did you do?" And they immediately agreed. Why? Because that sounded better to them in view of the case they were trying to make.
DeleteNow I'm sorry but "Help me Jesus" and "What did you do" are two totally different statements, with literally nothing in common. If these sounds were legible in any ordinary sense, a confusion of that sort would simply not be possible. It's only when you try to impose a meaning on sounds that are in fact meaningless that you can get a disagreement of that sort.
Secondly, my reluctance to accept your interpretation of these sounds has nothing to do with my JDI theory. In fact, Burke's presence in the kitchen at that time would bolster my theory, because as I see it, the official story they've presented about what happened prior to and during that 911 call is a fabrication. So, if the "experts" were right and Burke was actually down there at that time, that would not be inconsistent with my theory.
Morever, there would be no reason for Patsy to ask Burke what he did if she already knew what he did and was covering for him.
She says both Help me Jesus, which can be heard on any recording of the 911 call and then after says what did you do. You can hear it well enough to hear who it is and the tone of voice they are using, even on CBS limited clean up of the recording. It may have taken CBS and their "less as enhanced version" a minute to get it correct but in the end they got it spot on. Regardless of your denial of not being able to hear anything really does not matter, because clearly the experts, LE, the grand jury and BR himself CAN hear it and obviously that is much more important than YOU not being able to hear anything other than what you are calling crosstalk. Your twisting of common sense here Doc is quite obvious. How does this fit your theory ? Burke getting up and coming downstairs and PR seeing him awake for the first time and asking him what did you do ? That does not fit your theory at all. The only way that anything here could fit your theory is if PR and JR were arguing and PR was asking JR what did you do and BR just came downstairs and thus his voice is on the recording, which is entirely possible but either way PR knows what occured by that morning. The thought that she goes through all of this and has first hand account of all of it yet nevers knows anything and thinks an intruder did it is beyond absurd, its impossible. Any theory of JR's guilt must including PR covering for him.
Delete"Any theory of JR's guilt must including PR covering for him. "
DeleteThank you Keiser, because I agree.
No, they're not entitled to the BPD and DA evidence files - this is still an open investigation. Grand jury proceedings remain sealed, barring a fluke like Charlie Brennan's lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteCC
It's not as simple as that. The key is whether Burke will be relying on that evidence. If Burke is, then CBS is most certainly entitled to it.
DeleteIt's exactly that simple, as Burke cannot be relying on evidence he's never seen.
DeleteCC
I'm not following you. What else is he going to rely on to prove his case? Part of the argument purportedly set forth in the complaint (I can't find a copy of it online and I'm not sure where in Michigan it was filed) is set forth here: “Defendants’ accusation that Burke Ramsey killed his sister was based on a compilation of lies, half-truths, manufactured information, and the intentional omission and avoidance of truthful information about the murder of JonBenét Ramsey,” the suit asserted. “Defendants’ accusation that Burke Ramsey killed his sister was negligently published and was published with actual knowledge of falsity and/or a reckless disregard of the truth.”
DeleteLin Wood is clearly implying that he's relying on evidence to refute the opinions espoused by CBS and its team of experts. They have to in order to prevail.
Respectfully, as I stated, it's not as simple as you're making it out to be.
The other thing to keep in mind about the first lawsuit filed against Spitz is that he is asserting a First Amendment defense that allows him the freedom of speech to espouse his opinion. Not to be snarky or cause, but if Spitz can be liable for defamation there, DocG could face similar punishment for his views on this blog. (Of course, DocG would only be sued if he had the financials for the lawsuit to be worth it).
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't sound snarky Dog; it sounds like a threat.
DeleteMike G.
LOL, not a threat at all. What exactly would I be threatening? I was simply trying to draw a parallel to show what's being alleged by Burke as it pertains to Dr. Spitz. As DocG's theory is that JDI, John could assert the same lawsuit against DocG for his blog.
DeleteAnd as the "participants" appearing on the show are being sued independent of CBS, can "posters" on internet blog sites be sued independently too? My understanding is that internet law in this area is still evolving. If so, what does that mean? And what IS the current law? Can future law be applied retroactively? I would think not, but I'm familiar enough with it to know it can sometimes surprise you.
DeleteMike G
I would think Doc might be vulnerable to a lawsuit by virtue of the book he has written. Then again, is he not protected by virtue of his a) remaining anonymous and/or b) making it available ONLY through the internet?
DeleteMike G.
Mike G - you raise excellent questions. By no means am I a defamation expert. I'm merely sharing the bits that I am 100% certain of. You are also correct as to the ever evolving laws surrounding the internet. With that said, Doc's opinion published on the internet certainly appears to fit within the "publication" requirement of defamation lawsuits.
DeleteAs stated though, this all just a mental exercise much like a law school hypo. DocG has no real worry of a lawsuit being brought against him - unless he has CBS type money.
Apparently we have a new attorney here in the house who goes by the name Dog and who is disputing CC's understand of defamation cases. I'll stand by CC's word until Dog tells us a little more about himself, his credentials, and how he came upon this blog site.
ReplyDeleteOf one thing we can all be sure; there is no "confirmation bias" where a rudimentary understanding of the law is concerned. I mean We're not talking about originalism vs a non-originalism here.
Dog said a few posts back:
"CC has her burdens mixed up. She's very, very knowledgeable about the law, but simply has it backwards here. 99.9% of the time, she's spot on."
I think we all deserve to know 1) whether Dog assumes or knows CC is a female and 2) on what basis does he assert "she" is spot on 99.9% of the time.
Mike G.
I've read her comments before and, unless I'm completely mixed up on commenters, she has stated that she's female.
DeleteI'm a lawyer myself and have read this site for many years. I was a pretty regular commenter several months ago. Early in my legal career, I clerked for several judges and worked on several defamation cases. (I also remember a couple things I learned in law school. Moreover, I quoted the law professor that People interviewed who furthered my understanding of the law and is much more of an expert of this than either CC or I).
SO so glad to have you Dog.
DeleteJust happy to be able to clarify where I can. CC does an excellent job. I've read her thoughts and analysis numerous times over the years and believe she's truly fantastic.
DeleteI also enjoy the thoughtfulness that you, Inquisitive, bring to the comments section. You always seem to have a type of deeper thinking going on.
I'm sorry, Dog, I have no idea how much legal experience you may have, but it's absurd to assume Burke would need to prove his innocence in such a lawsuit. All he would need to prove was that he was defamed, and that his reputation was seriously damaged as a result. If proof of innocence was necessary then Lin would have been a fool to sue -- and would have lost all his previous lawsuits, instead of forcing a settlement in each case.
DeleteAs far as suing me is concerned, yes, I could certainly be sued for defaming John, as I've made it clear in no uncertain terms that I'm convinced of his guilt. I would in fact welcome such a lawsuit, as it would give me the opportunity to, in effect, put John on trial for murder. Spitz backtracked because there is no way he can prove Burke killed his sister. As for me, I do believe I can muster a convincing case against John, especially as I'd be able to put him on the stand and force him to answer some very damaging questions. And he would not have recourse to the Fifth Amendment, he'd have to respond or risk losing his case. For that reason, I seriously doubt he would ever dare to sue me. And as far as Lin Wood is concerned, my pockets aren't deep enough to interest him.
I totally get your assertion now. If Burke Ramsey is going to assert that CBS negligently published he killed his sister, actually KNEW it was false, as well as disregarded the truth then Lin Wood/Burke would have to state what the truth is, for which it was disregarded. I think I have it straight now. Long story short - what is the truth Burke?
DeleteFurther legal analysis on Burke's burden:
ReplyDelete"Insight into the possible defamation case was also provided by Harvard Law Professor John Goldberg, who says that an additional burden of proof is actually on Burke Ramsey due to his semi-public figure status and the fact that he himself has publicly spoken about the case, like he has done in a recent Dr. Phil interview.
'Burke could only prevail on a defamation claim against CBS or the investigators by proving not only that the allegations against him are false, but also that CBS and/or the investigators either KNEW that they were false when they made them, or were RECKLESS with regard to the truth or falsity of the allegations.'”
[Emphasis is the authors, not mine].
Who IS the author?
DeleteYep, you summarized perfectly Dog. Thank you for taking the time to explain this simply.
DeleteI think the key word in the Harvard lawyer's statement is "reckless." That sums it up as far as I'm concerned. Their allegations were reckless because they lacked any basis in fact, and yet they presented them as though they were factual.
DeleteDocG - you are absolutely correct that "reckless" would be one component. But you only get to that component AFTER a demonstration that the "allegation against him are false." If you can't get past the first part, you never reach the "reckless" part.
DeleteAlso Dog what do you think the chances are of CBS, with their team of lawyers, can bankrupt John Ramsey by filing paper after paper tying this case up for a few years. At the very least Lin Wood cannot take the juggernaut CBS on alone. There could also be counter suits, from the defendants in this case: the experts that were used in making the special.
ReplyDeleteI would imagine that CBS has a nearly infinite bankroll. I'm sure what the public doesn't know is that CBS surely has a massive insurance policy behind it that will cover all of the defense costs associated with this lawsuit, as well as a large majority, if not all, of any award that Burke would be entitled to. (Let's be honest, the $750M number is Lin Wood's effort to scare them into settlement without actually pursuing the case. Everyone knows Burke didn't suffer those kinds of damages). CBS will get some of the most esteemed legal minds in this area (not me) and, as you suggest, will keep this going forever. I think once the insurance money really gets going, the various insurers on CBS' tower of insurance will work to facilitate a settlement. With that said, I would LOVE to see a trial and the discovery process associated with the same.
DeleteDocG - I understand where your confusion is coming from. Defamation lawsuits are very difficult to understand. I see where your disconnect is coming from you. When you state that "All he would need to prove was that he was defamed, and that his reputation was seriously damaged as a result" you're misunderstanding the application aspect of HOW he would prove that he's defamed. The only way to prove that he was defamed, especially as a semi-celebrity where the burden is all the more heightened, he would need to demonstrate that those statements are false.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I never meant to imply that you would be sued. Again, I was just drawing a parallel based on what Burke is actually doing with respect to Dr. Spitz. In no way do I at all believe that anyone would attempt to sue you. (Unless you're secretly a multi-millionaire. Which if you are, good for you!).
I'm not a lawyer, so at this point I'm interested in what CC has to say on this matter. To me it makes no sense for anyone ever to sue if in order to do so they need to prove a negative. There is clearly no way for Burke to prove that he didn't strike his sister over the head with a flashlight. The only way to prove that would be if the case were already solved and it can be established that she was killed by someone else. So if this is the standard, there would be no point in suing at all. Yet Wood is a highly experienced lawyer with many such lawsuits under his belt and I feel sure he knows what he is doing. And he has already in effect won several lawsuits hinging on whether Burke was defamed.
DeleteSo I'm sorry, but at this point I just don't get it. What do you think, CC?
I never knew defamation insurance policies were available.
DeleteI can only imagine all the factors the market must juggle to set prices for them.
Mike G.
DocG - whether you understand it or not, you're choosing to ignore two law professors who have said in the media what the exact standard is. They have both stated that for Burke to prevail, he must demonstrate that the statements were false. Again, that is not merely my opinion, I am reiterating the opinions of legal experts in this field. Whether you agree or disagree is totally your prerogative.
DeleteMike G. - Many Commercial Insurance policies cover defamation. I'm assuming (with no access to CBS' policy) that it has a comprehensive one that would, at worst, cover them on a costs of defense basis even if no indemnity were available.
I'm not disputing what the professors have said, I'm expressing my puzzlement at how Lin Wood managed to force settlements from defendants who could easily argue that there was no way to prove those accusations to be false. Or why he'd take on CBS based on a case he knew he couldn't win. The only way to prove those accusations are false would be to prove the intruder theory, which has never been done and imo never can be done.
DeleteSeems to me that once it's determined that there is no way to prove the accusations false, then the case would be tossed out of court. Why settle when you have a slam dunk?
Unless Lin is counting on Lacy's "exoneration," based on DNA evidence that's now seriously in question. If that's the basis for his suit, and what you're saying is correct, then he will certainly lose.
I would honestly have to read significantly more of what true experts in this field to further opine. I think the filing of the lawsuit is a way for Lin Wood to give some positive publicity to Burke in saying, "Hey, I likely am not going to be able to win this thing, but I'm going to try and show you that I'm fighting it because it's not true." The $750M dollar figure was likely just a way to make sure that the media gave it adequate coverage. Maybe get a couple headlines of "Burke Ramsey tries to prove his innocence by filing lawsuit."
DeleteDon't be surprised if within a couple of months you get a "settlement for an undisclosed amount."
If Doc is correct, isn't a case that is "tossed out of court" ipso facto "settled"? That wouldn't be good for JDI's because the spectre of BDI would be reincarnated perhaps with more flesh than it had before. But it would make it less risky for other "entertainers", as Inquisitive might put it, to produce a documentary focusing solely on John Ramsey, something we have yet to see.
DeleteMike G
If the case is "tossed" (i.e. by way of a dispositive motion), that would definitively mean that Burke could not demonstrate that what CBS portrayed was false. To me, and this is purely my legal opinion and admittedly requires an assumption, that's a pretty strong indication that he murdered his sister, and in the manner that the CBS experts suggested that he did.
DeleteWow. I can't believe you said that. How is failure to prove them wrong an indication that Burke murdered his sister? Just about every allegation in the CBS special was unsubstantiated. The whole thing amounted to little more than a fantasy. Just because it's impossible to prove it could not have happened that way, does not by any means indicate that it actually did happen that way, or even that it was likely to have happened that way.
DeleteIf you lived in Boulder at that time and had no alibi, someone could accuse YOU of killing JonBenet -- could you prove they were wrong? Sorry, but I find it difficult to take you seriously at this point.
If I lived in Boulder at that time, I could easily prove that I didn't kill her lol. That's very silly for you to say.
DeleteWith all due respect, this is your blog, but you're ignoring exactly what this lawsuit is all about. I already admitted that I was making an assumption and that is based solely on MY opinion. I didn't realize that you try to close out differing opinions of people.
To the initial comment, for Burke to prevail and have his case not get "tossed," he HAS to prove the CBS conclusion and the statements contained therein were false. If he can't prove their conclusion that HE committed the murder is false, what other assumption are you supposed to draw?
I have to agree with Doc on this one. Not proving something false doesn't mean the truth of its opposite has been establish. Besides, the standard of proof require in civil cases, that what is alleged is more likely than not to have happened, falls way short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt---the standard required in criminal cases.
DeleteMike G.
All I've done is present to everyone what the legal standard. If you want to ignore it, that's totally cool. I'm not sure why you're citing standards of proof. Bottom line - Burke has brought a lawsuit alleging the conclusion reached by CBS is false. To prevail, he must prove those statements were false - as said repeatedly by esteemed law professors (as well as myself).
DeleteI'll ask again though - if Burke cannot prove the statements are false, what other logical inference is left to draw? I'm truly interested in hearing your opinions.
I have no skin in this game. I don't care who did it, I just want there to be justice.
Realistically, Dog, you are right, obviously no one is going to accuse you of murdering JonBenet. Theoretically, however, if you lived in Boulder during that period AND had no alibi, then it seems you might have a very hard time proving your innocence, in the event that you WERE accused. Any thoughts on how you might do that?
DeleteAgain, my intention is not to question the judgement of the legal scholars you've quoted, but to question the logic behind a law that requires someone to prove his innocence when faced with a slanderous accusation.
I guess we're just going to have to wait and see how this lawsuit plays out -- and hope it goes to court so we can actually see what Wood had in mind. Maybe he actually thinks he can prove the intruder theory. If that's the extent of his case, then he'd be taking a huge risk.
DocG - very simply, to charge someone with a crime you need some sort of reasonable basis to do so. Here, there wouldn't be anything linking me to the crime; alibi or not. Assuming arguendo that I were to be charged the burden would be on the prosecution to prove that I was guilty. Not on me to prove I'm innocent. It's the opposite here because the essence of Burke's lawsuit is him saying that he was defamed *because* the statements made and conclusions reached by CBS were false. He has the burden to now show they were false.
Delete"If proof of innocence was necessary then Lin would have been a fool to sue -- and would have lost all his previous lawsuits, instead of forcing a settlement in each case."
ReplyDeleteSettlements in no way are admissions of guilt. More often than not, settlements are made on costs of defense basis to avoid future litigation costs. The party paying the money is simply saying they want no part of the lawsuit and the costs associated with the same.
Yep. It's a way of washing your hands of it. In the case of CBS they would like to go on producing television shows without sales being affected or have a lawsuit taint their abilities to have sponsors. And in some ways to continue putting out nonfactual information for the purposes of entertainment if they so choose (dig at CBS). In no way shape or form are they going to hand over $750 million dollars to Burke Ramsey, but I doubt they are going to fight him tooth and nail to protect a possible tarnished image. They are already tarnished - and don't care. "That's Entertainment" (musical notes applied):)
ReplyDeleteMaybe CBS and the show's participants, knowing they were already knee deep in the mud with regards to this lawsuit, reconsidered their position and concluded that, if wasn't Burke, Patsy, an intruder, or "the parents", only one possibility remained. If so, they might also conclude that the costs of being wrong the first time, might well be made up for by leveraging the positive publicity for financial gain that flows from being THE media organization credited with helping resolve the most controversial cold-case murder mystery in American history.
ReplyDeleteOne can only hope.
Mike G.
And btw, that was probably another reason JR picked up JBR's body asap. He wanted to have a reason to have the cadaver scent on him. Without doing that, the dogs could have picked him up.
ReplyDeleteThat is also probably why they wrote the fake ransom note. To give themselves time so they would not be searched right away.
One other thing I am wondering, were there computers seized and did they check on what they searched that night? Like to see if they searched anything related to dead bodies and murder that might?
Nope, sorry after thinking about it, the theory on this page does not hold water. Sorry to be the skunk at the garden party here.
ReplyDeleteBut the idea that no one would call 911 with the body in the house is wrong.
They called 911, because they could not take the body out of the house. It was too risky. There would be cadaver scent on whatever they used. That would have pointed suspicion directly to them.
They had to leave body in house. The wrote a note, one, to give themselves more time. So that they could arrange what they needed. Maybe have time to leave the house. Also to have a reason to have the cadaver scent on them, after body is found. And second, to throw shade. Like I already said, you can't write a ransom note, AFTER, someone is dead. So they pretended JBR was not dead, only kidnapped. They wrote this note that they thought was so clever, and would point to people in other directions. Three, also writing a note would give them a reason to call 911 quickly, without having to discover body themselves. Maybe they thought that was less suspicious.
So the two main assumptions used here, do not work. You all have to come up with a new theory.
"They might also conclude that the costs of being wrong the first time, might well be made up for by leveraging the positive publicity for financial gain that flows from being THE media organization credited with helping resolve the most controversial cold-case murder mystery in American history." Who said CBS was wrong ? I really dont think that any expert on that show is going to rebutt their claim that BR is the guilty party. I am sure that they all have plenty of inside knowledge that we do not have, including knowledge of the grand jury proceedings, so hopefully, CBS,with their deep pockets they stick to their guns and take this case to the end, which in my opinion will be dropped by Lin Wood and BR if a settlement is not agreed upon. I love how it never even occurs to JDIs (all 7 of you) that the experts and ex detectives etc just might have some inside knowledge of this case that you and I do not have. That is a given btw ..FYI
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect to DocG, he truly seems to be mean that disagree with his conclusion. It's kind of disheartening to see as he's someone who clearly spent a lot of time and research developing his opinion. I would hope someone who did that would be open to seeing the holes in the argument and respectfully attempting to fill them in. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be occurring.
Delete"Who said CBS was wrong ? I really dont think that any expert on that show is going to rebutt their claim that BR is the guilty party."
DeleteWhy would ANYBODY rebutt their own claim?
Dog, your last post comes very close to being a personal attack and as such I was tempted to simply delete it, something I am always reluctant to do. If you have something specific to say regarding my take on this case then by all means spell it out.
DeleteI've never ignored anyone who claimed to have found a hole in my theory and in each case I've responded patiently, explaining why I've interpreted things as I do. You are of course free to disagree. But I in turn am free to disagree with you as well, and if you can't handle that then you don't belong here.
DocG - in no way was it a personal attack. Your prior comments were very hostile toward people. For example, by simply explaining a legal theory to you, while quoting experts, you replied with "it's very hard to take you seriously." What was the basis for that attack?
DeleteDoc seems to be of the train of the thought that you just claim to be defamed and collect 750 million dollars. How can you sue someone for making false claims if you can not prove they are false ? The only reason that Lin and the Ramseys collected on past lawsuits is because the defendants settled. That is exactly what Lin and the Ramseys are counting on to happen here. If justice finally shows up in this case at all then CBS does not back down and we can watch Lin Wood scramble looking for some alternative reason to give us as to why they are dropping the case other than the obvious reason.
ReplyDeleteThis guy gets it!
DeleteDocGNovember 4, 2016 at 7:43 AM
ReplyDeleteI've been wondering about the same thing. If Lin backs down now it would look pretty bad for John and Burke for sure. Which tells me he won't back down. If it's a matter of 30 days, the suit could be announced any day now.
And by the way, if it does go to trial, then CBS will have the right to cross examine Burke and possibly John as well. And they wouldn't be able to take the 5th because it wouldn't be a criminal trial.
--------
DocG, I was reading the comments for the handwriting article you linked to. I notice that you made that following comment. I need to provide some clarification here. Your assertion that you can only plead the 5th in a criminal trial is 100% incorrect.
You absolutely can plead the 5th, and you won’t be held in contempt for failing to testify. Though the provision says that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” the Supreme Court has made clear that this extends to compelling a person to testify in a civil case, when that compelled testimony could later be used against him in a criminal case. See, e.g., McCarthy v. Arndstein (1924). Here, the JBR investigation remains open and Burke (as well as anyone else) could still be charged. If he testified in the civil trial, that could later be used against him in any criminal proceeding. Therefore, he can absolutely plead the 5th should this defamation lawsuit go to trial, even though it's only a civil case.
Yes, of course one can always plead the fifth. But as I thought I made clear, if he refuses to answer certain questions, this would weaken his case considerably. Whereas in a criminal trial his refusal to answer questions would not be held against him.
DeleteThat is totally dependent on the jurisdiction, it some states a negative inference is permitted to be drawn. In others, no negative inference can be drawn. It's interesting that Wood chose to file this in Michigan - it wouldn't surprise me if Michigan is a state that doesn't permit negative inferences to be drawn.
DeleteInteresting. Thanks, Dog.
DeleteMichigan law for defamation lawsuits - An action for libel or slander shall not be brought based upon a communication involving public officials or public figures unless the claim is sustained by clear and convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false.
ReplyDelete----
Isn't the whole point of this that nothing is clear and convincing? The answer is "yes", which is why the case has been cold for so many years. As such, how could CBS "knowingly" publish something "false" or even be "reckless" when Burke was looked at as a suspect.
Hence my continuous reiteration of why this is a lawsuit Burke - a public figure - cannot win UNLESS he can prove the statements were false. Apparently several law professors agree with my position.
Well, I was wondering whether they could be accused of falsely claiming that certain assumptions were facts. That would not require proof of Burke's innocence, no? Does that make sense?
DeleteBREAKING NEWS!
ReplyDeleteSo far as I can tell, the following list of 70 reasons why Burke could not have committed this crime, submitted by Lin Wood to CBS et.al, contains many facts never before released to the public.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/70-points-burke-ramsey-says-prove-his-innocence-
Mike G.
Mike, which ones seemed to be new facts? I didn't find anything new. In fact, some of the information doesn't seem correct. For instance, I thought the police arrived BEFORE the friends arrived. And obviously some of the statements about the DNA are not totally correct. The list does seem to point away from Burke, but honestly all I think he needs for his case is the fact that police ruled him out in 1997.
DeleteUgh are those "reasons" from his legal team? Those aren't reasons they're just the ID I narrative. And there are some falsehoods... Burke and John admitted on Dr. Phil they were up that night with the flashlight. Unless they were lying about that or "misremembered" which I'm sure they'll say. I couldn't even read all 70 points as it made me too angry!
DeleteYes, if this is all Wood's got then he's in serious trouble. None of this is proof of anything. This is NOT what I expected, I must say.
DeleteI had the impression the case was going to be about the fact that practically every detail of the CBS "investigation" was unsubstantiated by evidence of any kind. I thought that was all the plaintiff needed to establish. Now, however, it seems as though it's necessary to provide proof of Burke's innocence -- and the only way to do that is to prove the intruder theory.
Which means that the trial, if one takes place, is going to boil down to a consideration of the intruder theory rather than the specific accusations made against Burke. From Wood's point of view this is NOT good news, because that theory simply can't be proven. But from our point of view it's very good news indeed, because it's going to take us to the heart of this case and in the process some very interesting things are going to be revealed. And this is even moreso when we consider that John will no doubt be expected to take the stand.
Wood's only hope is that the CBS lawyers won't understand the case very well and won't know what questions to ask.
If this article presents the essence of Wood's case he's going to have a very hard time of it -- and I see no reason for CBS to settle. So hopefully it will go to court and just maybe something significant will be revealed. Let's hope.
That's what I'm hoping for too, Doc! Hopefully the lawyers will talk to the CBS investigators because while I know you don't think they proved Burke did it, I feel like they definitely proved it WASN'T and intruder. (Not like that's hard to prove!)
DeleteMegan, I feel sure it wasn't an intruder, but frankly, though I appreciated their arguments in that regard, I don't think they ever addressed the fundamental issue. You can't prove there was no intruder simply by demonstrating that some of Lou Smit's allegations were incorrect. Nor can you prove it by questioning the DNA evidence. I didn't get the impression that they went any more deeply than that, though maybe I missed something. To me what demonstrates that there was no intruder is the absurdity of any possible intruder theory, regardless of how one might want to interpret the evidence.
DeleteTHE Ramseys and Wood disgust me and yeah I get it. I suppose we will get some excuse as to why they are dropping the cade if CBS doesnt back down, which Isure hope they do not. I would venture to say that CBS knew this was a real possibility before they ever aired the show so hopefully they had a plan in mind. I just do not see any Ramsey taking the stand. Even if they did take the stand my guess is they would make a mockery of the justice system as they have since day 1 with I cant recalls or I dont remember to every other question. Thank you for explaining how the Ramseys taking the stand can be used in a criminal case, I have brought that up here many times as the Ramseys 2000 depos, Patsys in particular was riddled with obvious lies, inconsistencies and constant interjections by wood, to the point that it was nothing more than a big joke.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading a bit more on this case just now, it's occurred to me that Wood could legitimately accuse CBS of presenting unsubstantiated theories as though they were facts. The question on my mind is whether that could be considered a lie. If so, then it might not be necessary to prove Burke's innocence in order to establish defamation.
ReplyDeleteWould this type of argument stand up, I wonder?
Doc: Did you read this?
Deletehttp://variety.com/2016/biz/news/jonbenet-ramsey-cbs-lawsuit-1201949899/
I'm starting to get confused by all the differing opinions regarding what kind of defamation case this is and is not, the standards of proof it requires, who can plead the 5th....blah, blah, blah, etc...and so on. We need CC back!
Mike G
Mike G - just go back and read my comments more closely. I've already laid this all out. That article you just linked to does a nice job going deeper into everything I've said.
DeleteThe type of defamation case this is, is irrelevant. That only relates to what's necessary to obtain certain damages - not the burden placed on the plaintiff bringing the lawsuit.
I'm truly glad you posted that article, it bolsters what I've said. Every legal mind they quote there discusses how difficult this case will be for Burke, which I have reiterated from the start. The USC professor even thinks CBS may have this dismissed by a dispositive motion!!
Thanks Mike G for the latest news article, I've added that to the thread on cold cases on my forum. Several statements aren't "facts" per Burke's legal team, smh. I don't think I'd ever read about a baseball bat being found INSIDE the home that the family denies as theirs. Let's hope that was taken into evidence and tested, as then no DNA of the family should be on it. Unless that was wiped down like the flashlight allegedly was.
ReplyDeleteLin is proud of the news piece since he linked it on his Twitter.
~also, thanks Dog for your insight, enjoyed reading your comments.
According to this link: http://usfinancepost.com/jonbenet-ramsey-case-still-unsolved-two-decades-later-27056.html
ReplyDeleteLin Wood says there was a DNA profile found in what appears to be saliva found on JBR's crotch area. He believes this proves that Burke is not the killer. Is this all that Burke needs to prove his innocence in the CBS defamation case? It will be interesting to learn if this saliva evidence is enough to make CBS back down and settle. My thought is: if the DNA found in the so-called saliva is that compelling, why didn't Mary Lacy use THIS to exonerate the Ramseys? Instead she used the touch DNA findings from the long johns that she says were also found in the underpants. Does anyone have any more info on the saliva DNA?
The saliva may certainly help if it's presented as you stated and accurate. However, Burke is still going to have a difficult time proving the panel of experts have anything more than their opinion. As the case remains unsolved, he would also seemingly have a very difficult time demonstrating that the experts knew their opinion was false - can any opinion regarding Burke or John truly be proven to be true or false at this point?
DeleteThey do seem to imply at certain points in that broadcast that certain hypotheticals are facts. If it can be proven that they are NOT facts, and that their lack of factuality is obvious, then that might be an effective tactic for Wood, no?
DeletePardon me if I'm using this blog as a brain dump for my thoughts on the JBR case, but I've become addicted to reading the thought- provoking comments presented here. I go to bed thinking about who killed JBR and wake up thinking about the same. I've even written several essays addressing the topic, making (imo) convincing arguments for JDI, PDI, BDI, and IDI. Previously I believed John molested and killed his daughter. Then I thought Patsy flew into a rage and accidently caused Jon Benet's death. Now I'm leaning toward BDI, mostly because he is the only one of that family with a history of violence toward JBR. Perhaps the defamation case against CBS will bring new evidence to light. As it is now, the JBR case is like a book given to a literate person and that person is told, "Read." But the person can't read it for the book is sealed.
ReplyDeleteDocG - this is from the article that A commenter linked to earlier. Can you possibly elaborate on this based on your knowledge?
ReplyDelete"Eventually, John searched the "wine cellar" in the basement, which the family used as a storage area. Boulder Police did note the cellar in the previous search, but did not open the door because it was locked from the outside. In another search, Fleet opened the cellar but did not turn on the light."
How would Fleet have been able to open the cellar? Did he have a key? If he did, why would he open it and not turn on the light?