Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).

NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book: I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Friday, January 5, 2018

Hoo Hah!

The judge rejected the defendants' plea that the accusations directed at Burke (and by implication, John and Patsy as well) on the CBS special we've all seen, were only statements of "opinion," protected by the First Amendment. So the case will proceed to the next steps. Read all about it here.

According to Judge Groner,
This Court finds that the statements at issue and the docu-series as a whole could reasonably be understood as stating actual facts about Plaintiff. This Court does not find that the “disclaimer” at the beginning and at the end of the program negate the docu-series potentially defamatory meaning.
As someone who watched this travesty with a growing sense of dismay, I fully agree

150 comments:

  1. Good evening Doc, after checking the lottery numbers online I jumped over here next and saw your new post! Thank you for the news on this.
    Looking forward to the next step.

    ReplyDelete
  2. $750M cha ching!

    https://radaronline.com/videos/jonbenet-ramsey-brother-burke-lawsuit-victory/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes Burke was defamed; yes CBS was reckless in putting out theory couched as fact, for entertainment purposes and for ratings (nothing new there, in the era of fake news where stories are bought and paid for and sources are not vetted and material is passed on to the media in order to incriminate and destroy, it really is nothing new). One could say ever since Bill Paley and his management style shifted to others in charge long ago, CBS has become more and more reckless as the years have gone by. Does any of this mean Burke is innocent? Or just that he was defamed. When Mary Lacy exonerated the Ramsey's over touch DNA does that mean they are innocent? I think all we can say for sure is the last line from Anonymous's google feed article: "JonBenet's 1996 murder remains unsolved." John and Burke will get their million dollar pay day and Lin Wood can spin this any way he chooses. Unless of course CBS would want to fight it by showing real evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Imo CBS will have no choice but to settle, and we will probably never know for how much. It would be great if this went to trial, and if it did, the publicity would be huge. But there is NO real evidence of Burke's involvement, only speculation based on very subjective interpretations of certain facts, the meanings of which are ambiguous at best. As I see it, there is only one logical path through the maze of this case, but no one in a position to make a difference is willing to go there.

    The only problem for CBS in coming to a settlement is the question of whether they are willing to disown their show and broadcast a public apology. The other defendants may need to do the same. Will they be willing to do so? And if not, then they may have no other recourse than going to trial, attempting to convince the judge (or jury) that Burke actually did kill his sister. Maybe it would be worth taking the chance, since so many who watched this show were so easily swayed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You bring up a good point, Doc. Lest we forget, there are other named defendants involved here, 6 or 7 of 'em, as I recall, who may not share counsel with CBS, and who may choose to go their own way, depending less on their integrity and more on the limits of their individual liability insurance, but still.

      Delete
    2. I think that this is good news, too. In my view, I don't think I can blame any of the family. I don't think they could have caused her death. At least, they did not on purpose.

      Delete
    3. I don't think any of us want it to be a family member, it's just that an intruder theory has too many inherent contradictions.

      Was it a kidnapping? If so, why kill her in the house? And once you had, why not take the body? Was it intended to be murder from the get go? Then why the RN, and why so unnecessarily wordy? Why ask for such a small amount? Why the vaginal penetration - are we to believe an intruder incorporated multiple psychopathies - kidnapping for financial gain, pedophilia AND murder? How did he know her blanket was in the dryer on the second floor, and why cover her in any case? And he/they did it all without leaving a single hair, fiber or fingerprint?

      It gets too dense for me, 101.

      Delete
    4. CC, Blogger101 doesn't believe it was an intruder OR a family member. He/she believes JB caused her own death, but doesn't wish to elaborate.

      Delete
    5. Thanks, D. I was hip deep in an equally senseless duel with MM, and missed your exchange with 101.

      Ask me about my earlier statement about the blanket having been taken from the dryer...I've made a new discovery (new to me, at any rate).

      Delete
  5. I think it would be nothing for CBS to issue an apology. They apologized and fired Dan Rather during the Bush administration, but they keep rolling along. It's doubtful they will disown their show. If they do they may never be able to make another "Special" and tout it as investigative expert journalistic reporting. Lin Wood will probably take the money and run.

    It's ironic that James Kolar took every precaution when writing his book and on advice of attorney, left out his scenario in Foreign Faction (how he thinks it happened) to protect himself from a lawsuit - and yet, here is he being sued. Drs. Henry Lee and Werner Spitz are no strangers to controversial forensic explanations, usually testifying for the defense in sensational trials, but Kolar should have known better. He was an investigator, concerned with fact finding to solve a case. He may have had his own personal agenda for agreeing to make the special, having been rebuffed and ignored by Mary Lacy, and rebuffed and ignored by Stan G. for his theory of prosecution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's ironic is that it was Kolar, in the CBS docuseries, who speculated on camera that Burke may have hit his sister on the head with a Maglite in anger, the most defamatory statement in the entire show.

      Delete
    2. I'm glad I chose not to watch.

      Delete
    3. If Ms D is right (and she usually is), my suggestion is to immerse yourself in every book, article and TV show you can find, 101, 'cause the idea that JBR killed herself in some sort of auto-erotic play was propounded here years ago and, justifiably, handily dismissed.

      Delete
    4. Like I told her, you mistook my words.

      Delete
    5. If you're unwilling to expound on 'em, that's going to happen.

      Delete
    6. Fine. Here is my rundown of the events from that night.

      12/25/96
      1) felt not well and it’s late, so carried in from car after party to kitchen by dad, JR-bet. 9:30-10:30
      2) got set down in kitchen by dad and threw up from cocktail at party in bowl b/c it’s late &/ allergic to pineapple/ milk-bet. 10:30-11:30
      3) laid head down on kitchen table and flashlight 11:30-12:30
      4) carried down to bathroom by dad 12:30-1:23
      12/26/96
      1) died next morning at 1:23 a.m.
      2) prior events and their timing unclear-Choking was just staging.

      Delete
    7. Not helpful, and not factual - the child died of strangulation, nothing but the deprivation of oxygen causes petechial hemmorhage.

      All unfounded supposition and nonsense, and does not set forth a narrative. Do better.

      Delete
    8. Yeah. She died off of strangulation from pineapple/milk. Garrote was just staging.

      Delete
    9. Demonstrably not. A single piece of pineapple was found in her upper small intestine, partially digested.

      Delete
    10. How are we to distinguish PDI (Patsy Did It) from PDI (Pineapple Did It)? This is getting too complicated.

      Delete
    11. So, she threw the rest up, and choked instead on it.

      Delete
    12. And that's why I don't post here anymore - because the funniest and most obvious response to the comment above would be censored, and would see me censured. :)

      Delete
    13. I think Blogger101 is having us on.

      Delete
    14. It does rather beg for a humorous and caustic retort, MHN. One learns to work around the censorship.

      Pineapple on wry, anyone?

      Delete
    15. Hoo Hah all over again. With an extra "hah" tossed in for the heck of it. Of course 101 is having some fun with you all. (Or should I say "yins"?) Actually here in the States we say "putting you on." "Having"? "Putting?" Let's call the whole thing off -- as in: let's move to another topic, can we PLEASE???? :-)

      Delete
    16. Actually, Doc, I read of a very similar scenario on a JBR forum a couple of years ago, my guess is that Blogger101 is probably the one who posted it, as I've not heard such a strange scenario before....if it is the same person, he/she certainly didn't appear to be trolling.

      However.....there are a couple of things that don't add up if this person is being sincere, as 101 seems to have done a complete "about face" in the days since he/she first introduced their theory.
      Therefore, to ascertain whether you're being genuine or not, Blogger101, I have a couple of questions for you, which, if you're being sincere, I believe you'll endeavor to at least attempt to answer:

      On the previous thread, you said the following, none of which is consistent with the accidental choking theory you're suggesting now:

      "You probably will like this idea least of all, but I think that it's possible JBR did all of this to herself."

      "Little kids sometimes can cause accidents. Or, someone put the idea into her head and she went through with the idea."
      (This comment implies, in no uncertain terms, you believe it was an intentional act involving another person/persons, which rules out an accidental suffocation by pineapple).

      Then you proceeded to post the following link in support of your theory, yet it never once alludes to any kind of choking accident:

      "This might make things more clear: http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html"

      So which is it: child play turned bad or accidental choking? The latter, of course, not accounting for the blow to the head PRIOR to the alleged choking, nor does it explain why a sinister cover up would be necessary for such an innocent death. It certainly does not account for the vaginal penetration.

      My questions are reasonable. If you're serious about your theory, you will at least attempt to answer them. If you are merely trolling, it is in extremely bad taste and I question your motives for doing so.

      Delete
  6. You do have a good memory CC. I had forgotten that. Truthfully I found the Special unwatchable and I more or less wasn't paying all that much attention. The worst part for me were the experts sitting around the table listening to the audiotape trying to hear Burke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Castor, it's amazing how many BDIs have said to me since the CBS special aired, "Burke MUST have done it, they PROVED it was his voice on the tape!"

      No, they most certainly did not "prove" anything at all, therein lies the problem with most of the claims made on the show. They stuck with the narrative, which was obviously based heavily on Kolar's theory, so heard want they needed to hear in order for the show to conclude in the manner in which it was always intended. Personally, I couldn't hear a damn thing, with the possible exception of Patsy pleading with Jesus. Nevertheless, it was the tape that sealed the deal for most.
      Like the voices allegedly heard on the tape, most claims made in that documentary were based on dubious speculation (and nothing most of us hadn't heard before), but presented as though it were fact, which was enough to convince gullible viewers it was gospel. Didn't the presenter actually say at the beginning of part one, in no uncertain terms, that at the end of part two they were going to "solve the case and name JonBenet's killer"? Doesn't sound like there is any room for ambiguity in a statement like that - that is blatantly accusatory.

      Delete
    2. Yes, Ms. D, precisely. But let's back up a bit. I too did not hear Burke or John or anyone else, except maybe Patsy, after the 911 hangup. But what if Burke WAS there at the time, and what if he DID say something like "What did you find?" How on Earth does that tell us he must be guilty? How is it even remotely suspicious?

      All it would tell us is that they lied about his being there at the time. But why would they want to lie about something like that? How would such a lie deflect suspicion away from Burke?

      What it DOES tell us is something about the mindset of the "experts" gathered by CBS in order to "solve" this case. As you say, they heard what they wanted to hear. And interpreted what they wanted to hear in line with the foregone conclusion they wanted to convey. All I can say is: where do you draw the line between deception and incompetence?

      Delete
    3. CC - can you please elaborate about the blanket? My memory is fuzzy. Thank you.

      Delete
    4. Michael, mine! Are ye back then, laddie? Missed your pithy remarks.

      Delete
    5. Not quite, CC - I do lurk, but my contributing days, as meagre as they were, are over. I was just intrigued by the blanket comment, and now I see you've solicited requests for more info, so I feel sure you won't be annoyed at me for asking. I hope you and everyone here had a festive Saturnalia and you have my very best wishes for the new year. Now, that blanket, if you please!

      Delete
    6. When shown photos of the crime scene, the housekeeper said she changed JBR's bedding when she was there 12/23, putting on "checked sheets that matched the comforter", but she espied those sheets in the dryer in a crime scene photo. She went on to tell the cops that Patsy stripped JBR's bed of wet sheets and white blanket and had often already tossed them in the wash by the time LHP arrived for work.

      The sheets on the bed the morning of 12/26 were Beauty and The Beast themed, so it seems obvious JBR wet her bed the night of the 23rd, and Patsy changed her linen, washing the soiled sheets, blanket and Barbie nightgown, as the PJs at the head of the bed in the crime scene photos were the pink longjohns she wore Christmas Eve and was photographed in Christmas morning.

      Have a look at Lou Smit's photo 002, or the RadarOnline video: the comforter is turned down, relatively neatly, not removed, as it would have to be in order to remove the white blanket from beneath it.

      All of which is a laborious way of postulating that someone knew that blanket was in the 2nd floor dryer, and removed it to wrap JBR in before taking her downstairs. Neither Burke nor JBR could have reached it, an intruder would not know where to find it - leaving only Patsy and, to a lesser extent, John.

      Heresy, I know, particularly from me, but I tend to find that behavior points to Patsy. Please disabuse me of the notion, as I'm still convinced John killed his daughter because he was sexually abusing her. I just can't make this blanket business fit.

      Delete
  7. Interesting. I'm waiting to see what Doc says. I have my popcorn and safety googles ready.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doc sez the following: it is not necessary to know where something is in order to find it.

      Delete
    2. Very Zen.

      Why bother to find it at all if, as you allege, one's initial purpose is just a clandestine diddle?

      Delete
    3. After he'd clubbed her, he needed something to cover her body with, just in case Patsy peeked into the room where he'd stored it. My guess is that he placed it in a rear corner, hoping she wouldn't notice there was anything under that blanket.

      The drier was probably as likely to contain a blanket as any other place in that house.

      Delete
  8. And there was a washer/drier in the basement as well as on the second floor.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Linda Arndt, "I know who killed JonBenet. There is no doubt in my mind who killed Jonbenet" Arndt said in an interview with ABC News in 1999.She also said. "While this investigation is still on going. I don't think its appropriate I say the name out loud"

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why creep back to the 2nd floor for JBR's "favorite" blanket? Or for clean, too-large Wednesday underwear, as Doc posits?

    Look at the crime scene photos. He could have shoved her behind the window screens stored in the WC, or used the blanket from the ground floor he covered the body with in the LR hours later, to Arndt's chagrin.

    No. This either enhances my theory of premeditation, or Patsy was involved. And I don't believe Patsy was involved.

    ReplyDelete
  11. CC, a couple of legal questions:
    1) I noted once that the BPD (through attorneys) made it a prerequisite to do Patsy’s interview first in the year 2000. Why would they have made that demand?

    2) I peeked again at the Haddon law firm and saw that Haddon still lists JR as a present client. Do you believe that is a mistake or does JR wish to have them available for any criminal proceeding against him? I can’t help but think that it is a mistake, but I could be wrong.
    -Anon5

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martindale Hubbell and other listings ask for "representative clients", without specifying past or present. Many attorneys view that as bragging rights; I very much doubt John has the Haddon firm on retainer.

      I noticed that, too, Anon5. Patsy led off in all three LE interviews, and I've no idea why. Got any theories?

      Delete
    2. My impression was that Patsy was taking her cues from JR. I know that may go against Doc’s theory that PR knew nothing. But she was a good Southern gal and, I’ve always believed, was super protective of her family – JR, BR, her sisters and parents in Georgia; it is not difficult for me to believe that she would protect them, no matter if she knew, didn’t know or was in denial about what JR had done.

      JR was responsible for securing attorneys, for giving the green light to the hire of Korten and Douglas, to having a little private ‘chat’ with attorney Bynum and Dr. B the night of the 26th. PR followed JR's lead. I think the investigators wanted her ‘fresh’ answers, not answers molded by the Grand Master JR.
      -Anon5

      Delete
  12. JDI's reacted to the CBS Special a lot like Foxnews does every night that a Trump/Russia bombshell comes out. Understandably none of you liked the CBS Special in regards to your theories, but it doesn't make it not true. There were some major takeaways from the Special, even if you didn't like the conclusion.
    There was a narrative going around for a long time that a child Burke's age couldn't have had the force necessary to deliver the head blow. The show proved that he could have. If anything, it casted significant doubt over the theory that Burke wasn't strong enough. Also, some really good points were made about the pineapple, but we don't need to go down that road again.
    Regarding Burke's voice on the 911 tape, I personally do hear something. I think he says "What did you find" or something to that effect. Why is this important? Because John and Patsy LIED about it. They said over and over that he was upstairs sleeping....well IF it is his voice, then the Ramsey's lied about the whereabouts of a key player in this whole case. For those that don't hear his voice...ok that's fine. I don't think it's definitive by any means.
    I am just VERY curious about one thing. If all things were equal and the CBS Specials last 15 minutes names John Ramsey as the killer, would all you of you JDI's have a problem with the special?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I needed no persuading that a nine year-old could have delivered a head blow that resulted in an 8-1/2" skull fracture. Kids' skulls are soft and still growing together until the age of 12 or 13, and are easily friable. Ask any mother. But that fact was not presented by CBS. Instead they delivered a highly pejorative demonstration of one kid whaling away at a dummy in a blond wig. This is someone's idea of science?

      They teased an interview with Fleet White, led us right to his street corner, and then delivered . . . nothing. This is someone's idea of expert investigators?

      Lee and Spitz pontificated there was no prior chronic sexual abuse, without having viewed the tissue samples and slides relied on by others who disagreed, and despite Drs Meyers' and Sirontak's first hand views of the body and their resultant conclusions - none of whom were mentioned. This is someone's idea of investigative journalism?

      The show was a crock, J-man. Yeah, they could have served up John and I wouldn't believe a word of it.

      Delete
  13. I know it was informational for you J. My take on it was simply that it was all speculative, and had no value other than for entertainment purposes. Had it been presented documentary-style, laying out everything we do know, and allowed the audience to come to our own conclusions based on facts in evidence I would have found it interesting. It was marketed as having solved the case and offering something new. It was a let down. If you got value from it though, then you didn't waste your time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Hunt for the Zodiac was a total waste of time. It was horrible and they even lied directly on camera on purpose. It was disgusting.

    The CBS show naming Burke as the culprit wasnt too bad to be honest, despite the views of most on here. Yes, the Fleet scene was crap. The scene which involved the operator who took the 911 call was crap.

    But the rest of the show did a pretty good job.

    The fact is, prior sexual abuse is not confirmed...even though CC will state it is. It's very much up in the air. And if there was, I think Burke was a better candidate for that anyway.

    The head blow scene was great. Burke could certainly have cracked her skull and most on here said this was not possible.

    And the pineapple saga points to Burke being with JBR that night. Is that 100%? No. But its the best bet by a long way.

    The Burke "hit her" theory makes the mose sense out of anything. People on here struggle to buy into it because they don't understand how the parents could react and perform the way they did after. Human beings are pretty perplexing mammals.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Prior chronic sexual abuse is not at all up in the air. Both Thomas and Kolar referred to it in their books, and Beckner confirmed it in an interview not more than two years ago.
    Burke had no discernible interest in girls or sex, or his sister for that matter. He was a nine year old dweeb who liked flight simulations and Nintendo.

    The "Burke hit her" theory makes no sense at all. No parents finding an unconscious child engineer a failed kidnapping-cum-murder. They call 911 or they - at most, at worst - stage an accident.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is your opinion and I will respect that.

      Delete
    2. It's not an opinion. It's simple common sense.

      Delete
    3. Doc - please don't state it as a fact. What a load of rot.

      Delete
    4. It's NOT a fact and I never claimed it was. As I said, it's common sense. Which is not always 100%. But if you want to deny simple common sense then you'd better be prepared with some very convincing evidence, not simply a bowl of pineapple with fingerprints on it from people who lived in that house.

      Delete
    5. If there was significant evidence of prior chronic sexual abuse, the Ramseys would have been charged. They weren't. Ergo, there wasn't significant evidence of prior abuse. Try using some logic CC.

      Delete
    6. There was indeed significant evidence of prior sexual abuse, and the GJ recommended both Rs be charged, but Hunter would not indict

      Try taking your own advice, Matt.

      Delete
    7. What the grand jury recommends is meaningless. The only thing that matters is what a prosecutor decides. They looked at the evidence and decided there wasn't evidence of chronic sexual abuse. Notice I have reality on my side (No charges ever filed, none ever brought). You have conspiracy theories (lots of internet comments and self described expert analysis).

      Delete
    8. No. The GJ looked at the evidence and testimony and decided there was insufficient evidence to charge murder.

      The GJ found evidence of child abuse. Statutorily, "child abuse" includes child sexual abuse. The child was not beaten or neglected. Drs Meyer and Sirontak viewed the body and saw evidence of prior sexual abuse. Six preeminent forensic pathologists and child sexual abuse experts who viewed tissue samples and slides agreed. Thomas referred to it in his book. Kolar referred to it in his. Beckner stated it as a fact in a recent interview.

      The GJ handed down two True Bills. It is unheard of for a DA to convene a GJ and then fail to indict on it's recommendations.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. Colorado Statute 18-6-403, a subset of the Child Abuse Statue, Matt. Check it out.

      I know of no "conspiracy" or other theory regarding prior chronic sexual abuse other than my own, and assure you I have no co-conspirators and damned few supporters.

      "Self-styled experts is a misnomer. Sirontak was nationally known for his work in the field, and being at Denver Childrens', was close at hand for Dr Meyer. The panel I alluded to were nationally and internationally recognized forensic pathologists and child sexual abuse experts. I suggest you read "A Case for Prior Chronic Sexual Abuse" on Doc's archives.

      Your ideas about grand juries, their function and their importance, are misguided and inaccurate. I'll tell you what I told Castor/Inq a few days ago: Believe what you like, justify it any way you please, but do not pretend you have any legal knowledge worth anyone's consideration.

      Delete
    11. We've had this discussion before. I have to remind you, you're not debating me. I'm irrelevant. You're debating reality, which I'm merely pointing out.

      Grand Jury has no power. No authority. No function. The prosecutor is the only legal authority that matters. They didn't file any charges. None at all.

      That's the reality. The prosecutor, who is a professional trained in determining if a case has sufficient evidence to bring a case to trial, in fact it is practically their only job, did not bring charges. From this we can determine that there was not sufficient evidence.

      You are the one with the opinion, not me. Your opinion is there was sufficient evidence, but the prosecutor, perhaps as part of a conspiracy, chose to ignore their professional obligation to bring a case to trial.

      I side on reality (what actually happened) vs your opinion as an internet poster (what you allege on a comment board).

      Delete
    12. This is theonly "comment board" on which I comment, though Miss Marple quotes my legal opinions on the JBR Encyclopedia.

      Your understanding of reality and the law is deeply flawed.

      Bring legal creds or evidence or stand down.

      Delete
    13. Alex Hunter's inequities have been well-documented.

      Grand Juries, in the real world, outside The Magic Kingdom, have great power and much authority.

      Again, put up or shut up re the law.

      Delete
    14. You should direct your comments to the Colorado Grand Jury, who had no authority (proof - they had no authority and their decisions and votes were utterly ignored and tossed in the trash).

      Or the various prosecutors in charge of the case who didn't believe there was significant evidence against the Ramseys, which obviously would include prior sexual abuse (proof - they never at any point filed any charges of any kind).

      Don't shoot the messenger.

      Delete
    15. You're no kind of messenger just a perpetual twit. Again: No legal knowledge, no insight, no real information. As my friend Zed would say, Pffft.

      Direct your comments to Doc in future. He, largely, supports my thesis, and his patience for fools is legendary.

      Delete
    16. I don't have any questions or comments about this case. It is unsolvable, insufficient evidence. I think Doc has a nice theory that sounds probable, but unprovable.

      You apparently have a lot to talk about with the various prosecutors who have handled this case over the years, since you think they have acted unprofessionally and unethically. Obviously they would disagree with your assessment that there was sufficient evidence, and I suppose at that point you would have to call them liars. Maybe one day you can take your beef up with them.

      Delete
    17. Happily, I have undergrad and L-school friends who still reside and practice in Boulder, and who took up the cause years before I became involved, and managed to ditch Hunter and Lacy without any input from me.

      Delete
    18. CC, I hate to say this, but Matt is on the money here. There is no evidence of sexual abuse...it is totally up in the air and up for debate. The prosecutors obviously didn't think there was any sexual abuse.

      The whole sexual abuse discussion became a mountain out of a mole hill.

      And please don't refer to Sirontak as an "expert".

      Delete
    19. "Matts (sic) Neighbour"?

      You know one's position must be very tenuous indeed when they feel they have to resort to using an alias on one of their alternate accounts in order to applaud their own argument.....and there seems to be a growing number of them here these days.

      Tip: when using an alias, avoid including your original moniker in the title.

      Delete
    20. I have Drs Meyer, Sirontak (head of Denver Childrens' Hospital Child Protection Unit), McCann, Jones, Kirschner, Monteleone, Wright and Rau, and BPD officers Arndt, Harmer, Thomas, Kolar and Beckner on my side. All confirmed prior chronic sexual abuse.

      Matt has . . . his neighbor.

      Delete
    21. Judge Lowenbach referenced her sexual abuse, which LE described as "prior vaginal injuries", in his release of the True Bills. If Matt and Matt's Neighbor don't accept the experts' opinions, it's doubtful they will even believe the Judge was accurate. However, the Judge should be quoted again anyway. Lowenbach's information was taken from the GJ material he was furnished. This is simply a restatement of fact from the GJ via Lowenbach.

      Delete
    22. This is why you guys end up endlessly discussing this case for years to no end, because you can't accept basic reality. You live in a world of conspiracy that you've somehow solved from an internet comment board.

      In the real world, multiple prosecutors who, above anything else, would love nothing more than to put a child molester behind bars, looked at the evidence and said "this isn't worth a tin s***." That's the end of it.

      Sometimes the fish gets away. You deal with it and move on.

      Delete
    23. Doc has a theory. I support it and have tried to contribute to it. I have not conspired with anyone. Doc promotes no conspiracy theory. Check your dictionary.

      Hunter, in his limited ability, saw no value in prosecuting the Rs for Count IV; he was intent on murder. It was poor strategy - Patsy would likely have turned.

      It's the choice of those participating here to continue to discuss the case, occasionally ferret out new bits of information. Feel free to make a different choice. Feel free to do it soon.

      Delete
    24. There's a difference between discussing a case and stating opinion as established fact. If I was a random passerby that knew nothing of this case, and took you at your word, I would be under the impression the Boulder District Attorney's office was sitting on undeniable and strong proof of motive in a murder investigation against a suspect with means and opportunity, and choosing not to move forward for unknown reasons, that I could only guess must be conspiratorial.

      The evidence of chronic sexual abuse is like everything else in this case, ambiguous and contestable.

      Delete
    25. Alex Hunter did indeed sit on "undeniable and strong proof of motive in a murder investigation against a suspect with means and opportunity". That's precisely what he did.

      I think he was inept and spineless rather than venal and conspiratorial, but to each his own.

      Upon what do you base your belief that the sexual abuse was "ambiguous and contestable"? I showed you mine, after all; let's see yours.

      Delete
    26. Well there we go, Matty. This jury's in. Ya' had more than 24 hours to identify your sources and could not.

      You are, in fact, just another random passerby with nothing to contribute.

      Delete
  16. That is the one point where Zed and J won't budge - that upon finding an unconscious JB, both parents participated in a strangulation and coverup. They cite reasons for parental coverup as status in the community, family name, business name, appearances, or panicking. They are unclear as to who did what exactly - maybe John dictated the note, Patsy wrote it, someone wiped down the Maglite, John strangled her child, Patsy put the duct tape over her mouth and the blanket around her body. Burke must have been put back to bed where he spent a sleepless night, terrified, knowing he had done something bad since she wasn't moving, but they somehow convinced him it would be okay and later on told him or he overheard, his sister had been kidnapped. Burke said he thought she might be found and turn up later, safe. But no, he's told she's in heaven. Poor Burke! He's just none the wiser, totally confused now, goes on about his life and 20 years later tells Dr. Phil it must have been a pedophile from the pageant circuit.

    Another way to look at it, and one I think EG embraces, is that Burke strangled his sister and hit her during that strangling. There would be no need to call the police over, other than to do the right thing and explain it as an accident, but then the cord would have to be disposed of with the stick dangling from it and her panties pulled back up and her skin wiped down. The parent that was still up, getting ready for the trip was the only one he ran to and told. She and she alone, staged the crime scene to look like something it wasn't. She may have even tried CPR, shedding more of her jacket fibers on her face and elsewhere. Patsy staged it the way she thought would work best. Had she pulled John into it John states, he wouldn't have written a note, he would have typed it. He wouldn't have left a note at all.

    Whatever side you are on, you just need to make your case. The logical line of inquiry is who benefited, and who survived.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Castor, that is exactly what I think, with one exception. I just don't know whether or not BR and JBR were alone and that there wasn't someone else involved.( And I don't mean PR or JR)

      The GJ was privy to evidence that we weren't ( I assume) and yet they couldn't say whether or not JDI or PDI. What they basically did say is that someone did something horrible that night and PR and JR didn't prevent it from happening or help JBR while it was happening? What that means exactly, I don't know because I don't even think the jurors knew. Had they been presented with evidence that JR was the guilty party, they would have indicted him--or PR, for that matter. They did find them guilty, but not of murder.

      There are still too many inconsistencies that I can't reconcile. I wish I could get to the place the JDI's are, where they're positive that JR did it. I just can't put a man away for life based on the evidence presented.

      Question for the JDI's.---If you were on the grand jury, based on the evidence presented (or lack thereof), would you have indicted JR for murder?

      EG

      Delete
    2. I know where you are coming from EG. There are still too many unanswered questions. Transcripts and acandyrose only goes so far. Books reflect the opinion of the author. Schiller got a few of his facts wrong in PMPT. And since the case is still open, the FOIA will not help us in getting a release on those case files. So we continue on in mystery.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, Ms D. The GJ true bills actually charged John and Patsy with one count each of (a) child abuse resulting in death, and (b) accessory. Not murder.

      Delete
    5. Thank you, CC! ;)

      EG

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  17. The only interesting and worthwhile thing in the entire CBS travesty was, imo, the only experiment they performed that resulted in new evidence: Lee opened a sealed package of children's underwear and found unknown DNA, thereby forever casting reasonable doubt on IDI.

    We're agreed Burke cannot be prosecuted because of his age in 1996, right Zed and J? And we're further agreed that Patsy is dead and beyond any judicial remedy? Why, then, did Garnett order re-testing of DNA last year? Why did he state, in an interview, that he knows who did it, and ". . . If I can ever bring a case in open court, I'll tell the world"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CC, you are focusing too much on a few man's words 20 years after the murder. If Garnett knows something, maybe he knows that Burke whacked his sister over the head and both parents performed the sinister acts after. His words make complete sense to me. As for the DNA testing, fantastic! What's your point?

      You are grasping at some seriously slippery straws.

      Delete
    2. By the way, if anyone wants to email Stan Garnett and ask for an update on the new DNA testing that was promised for last year, it would at least show him that a few people in the U.S. are still interested:

      boulder.da@bouldercounty.org

      Delete
    3. Let's parse Stan's statement out together, Zed, maybe that will help:

      "Yes, I know who did it." Seems self-explanatory. Any questions?

      "If I can ever make a case in open court, I'll tell the world." Open court means the accused has been charged with a criminal act, and is being tried in a public courtroom, open to anyone who cares to attend. Burke cannot be charged because of his age. Patsy cannot be charged because of being dead and all, leaving only John.

      John cannot be charged with anything short of murder; the statutes of limitations have run on any other possible charge other than conspiracy, and again, his theoretical co-conspirator is still, well, dead, nixing that idea. The two true bills from the GJ have expired. It's John or no one, murder or nothing.

      Those are the facts, Zed. Please explain to me how that is a "slippery straw" to which I'm desperately grasping.

      Delete
    4. A DA does not order the re-testing of DNA on a whim. He orders it because he's hoping new techniques can bring out new evidence that will enable him to bring charges and clear a cold case. Again, that lets out Burke and Patsy, leaves only John.

      Delete
    5. ...or someone else, CC.

      EG

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. CC....I am not sure if it was DS, but I do think someone else was involved, someone known to the family and not an intruder. Someone that both R's would cover up for, in addition to BR. I know that JAR had an airtight alibi, or that's what I've read anyway, but something just doesn't sit right with me. There is a key piece missing, IMHO, of course.

      EG

      Delete
    8. That would tie it all up, wouldn't it EG? Early on it was thought the Ramsey's were covering for someone. When JAR had an airtight alibi, and Burke was thought to be too "frail" to have struck a blow so hard or strangled her with such force I think the media just dropped the idea that another person was involved, someone in the inner circle or a family member. But the Grand Jury counts 4 and 7 are strange. What was the "situation" that posed a threat of injury to the JonBenet's life "which resulted in death"? And who were the parents "rendering assistance" to? Thank you for your sleuthing!

      Delete
    9. Not quite. Early on the Rs were the primary suspects; BPD later investigated the rest of the immediate family, then friends, then strangers, as is typical in any LE investigation... ever-widening circles.

      Neither GJ true bill is strange. The jurors saw insufficient evidence for Murder One, Murder Two or Manslaughter, and so settled on the fourth count - child abuse resulting in death.

      Count IV, imo, clearly refers to the prior chronic sexual abuse, probably brought in through Dr Meyer's testimony of his and Dr Sirontak's first-hand observations, then later, through Tom Wickman, the corroborative findings of the six panel members were introduced.

      Count VII seems to indicate the GJ was divided on which parent did the deed and which participated in a cover-up. These waters were no doubt muddied by the testimony of Chet Ubowski of the CBI, who thought it likelier than not that Patsy penned the RN. And the use of her paintbrush, pad and pen may have struck some as suspicious.

      Delete
    10. The GJ said "child abuse", not "child sexual abuse" resulting in death - and how could sexual abuse result in death - she wasn't raped.Nor did the GJ allude to sexual abuse as a motive, since they didn't use those words at all. I don't believe Count IV clearly refers to prior chronic sexual abuse. Count IV states (the parents) "did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury"...."which resulted in the death..."

      Lin Wood said there is more to the Grand Juror's verdicts that was not released. I hope so.

      Delete
    11. Child abuse encompasses child sexual abuse. There is no evidence that JBR was subjected to beatings or starvation or neglect. There is extensive evidence she was subjected to sexual abuse.

      The GJ is saying that the abuse was the proximate cause of her murder, not that the abuse directly resulted in her death.

      The GJ is not required to state a motive.

      There are 14 pages of GJ findings that were not released.

      Believe what you like, justify it any way you please, but don't pretend you have any legal knowledge worth consideration.

      Delete
    12. Castor..

      The GJ's findings are baffling and I wish we could get our hands on those 14 pages, which would lead us to why they indicted on those particular counts. There is only so much we can assume or surmise from the information out there. "permitting a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat or injury". So, let's take that charge and discuss it. What does that mean? To me, that sounds like they left the child unattended in a situation which caused injury. Do they mean, left the child open to harm by not putting on the house alarm or giving out keys to just about anybody or leaving JBR in the company of others that caused her harm.

      What do you make of that charge?

      EG

      Delete
  18. Another article about Burke's lawsuit ruling with comments from Lin Wood.

    http://www.westword.com/news/jonbenet-ramseys-brother-burke-his-750-million-cbs-lawsuit-lives-on-9863717

    MNLizzieB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Lizzie. Interesting - Wood just set forth his discovery and trial strategies: He's going to attempt to prove that CBS began with an unproved, largely unknown theory based on Kolar's book, circumvented its own in-house legal department by hiring an outside production company, and hired a group of people who were willing to support that theory, on camera.

      Hopefully, things will move more quickly now; Judge Groner scheduled a status conference for 6 weeks from the review hearing, a clear sign from Hizzoner that he wants to see discovery proceedings and evidence of settlement negotiations before March 8th.

      Delete
  19. An extract from the article:

    "This was a reckless grab by CBS for money and ratings at the expense of the reputation of an innocent young man."

    Maybe that is somewhat true. But doesn't mean CBS were wrong. Kolar's theory is simply the most logical one out there. IDI, JDI and PDI are erratic and nonsensical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sez you, and a host of lemmings who get their information from television.

      Kolar's theory is based on some kind of childhood sexual aberration he read about - not from any substantive facts about Burke; no one in the BPD or the DA's office gave it any credence. But hey, it was on TV, so it must be true, right?

      Delete
    2. In the last line of the westworld article above, Lin Wood says "The rulings pave the way for justice for Burke and John and for accountability on the part of CBS for its intentional wrongdoing."

      What about justice for JonBenet? Does John, Burke or Lin Wood even care about that?

      Delete
  20. This post is in reply to CC.

    Let's parse Stan's statement out together, Zed, maybe that will help:

    "Yes, I know who did it." Seems self-explanatory. Any questions?

    ME: Yes, I agree that is self-explanatory. He most likely thinks John and Patsy did it. I agree. Doesn't mean Burke didn't deliver the head blow which started the entire event. Any questions?

    "If I can ever make a case in open court, I'll tell the world." Open court means the accused has been charged with a criminal act, and is being tried in a public courtroom, open to anyone who cares to attend. Burke cannot be charged because of his age. Patsy cannot be charged because of being dead and all, leaving only John.

    ME: Not sure what you are trying to prove? I believe Burke delivered the headblow and the parents ended up staging and ultimately killing their daughter (quite possibly unknowingly killing her). I believe John did most of this and Garnett wants to "tell the world". Next.

    John cannot be charged with anything short of murder; the statutes of limitations have run on any other possible charge other than conspiracy, and again, his theoretical co-conspirator is still, well, dead, nixing that idea. The two true bills from the GJ have expired. It's John or no one, murder or nothing.

    ME: I agree. I would love to see John charged with murder. Again, doesn't rule out my theory whatsoever.

    Those are the facts, Zed. Please explain to me how that is a "slippery straw" to which I'm desperately grasping.

    ME: Yep those are the facts. But you are looking at them with those lovely rose-tinted shades you like to put on from time to time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure how believing a successful, wealthy CEO got away with brutally murdering his six year old daughter in cold blood in order to save himself from being outed as her abuser can be viewed as looking through "rose tinted glasses", but whatever makes you feel better about your own, warped, theory...

      Delete
    2. I don't know what it will take to convince you Zed, that two parents could not have divided up the duties of a coverup that night.

      Delete
    3. Castor/Inq...whatever your name is. You change your theory more times than I change undies. I'll take your comments with a grain of salt.

      Two parents could have very easily divided up the actions of that night. I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

      Delete
    4. I think the only theory you don't take with a grain of salt is your own, and it doesn't make sense.

      Delete
    5. Process of elimination, Zed. We know why it wasn't an intruder, and only Hercule (unless there are others who aren't saying) think it was Patsy, but based on the popular theory, or Steve Thomas's, that doesn't meet the smell test.

      So yes, it was either John and all John. Or Burke, with a Patsy assist. How can anyone be 100% sure?

      Delete
  21. Zed, I'm curious, why do you think John told his older kids that he found JB's body at 11:00? Do you think he wanted them to believe it was Patsy, or do you think he was just confused?

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps he was taking the time zone difference into account?

      Delete
    2. As we've seen on numerous occasions, John lies even when he doesn't have to. He lies so often, I don't think he even knows what is truth and what is fiction half the time.

      Delete
    3. That's a stretch for me Doc:)

      K

      Delete
    4. Me too, K.
      I think it was just a mistake. It had been a harrowing morning (whether John was guilty or innocent), I think he'd been drinking by that point, and he would not have been thinking too clearly, considering the day's events. I really don't think it was a Freudian Slip...then again, I'm convinced JR never "found" JB's body at all - not at 1 o'clock, 11 o'clock or any other time.

      Delete
  22. Recent news is that DA Garnett is resigning. See the article on the Daily Camera. http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_31586373/stan-garnett-resigns-boulder-da

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A cool guy and great DA wants to make sufficient bucks to ensure his retirement. I get it. He's done his job, in spades, and brought much-needed change to Boulder County.

      Godspeed.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  23. Garnett was quoted as saying he didn't believe charges would ever be filed in the Ramsey case.

    Those words stunned me, as I was still hoping. Not so much now.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, K. Stan was our last, best shot, feeble it was. An ethical, committed guy.

      As Neil Young famously phrased it. "Everybody knows this is nowhere. "

      Delete
    2. I don't think we should stop talking about it though. If John did this, which makes the most sense to me, I want him to know that there are people who still care about justice. He can "go on with his life", but it will never go away.

      If Burke knows something, he should talk to an independent lawyer and stand up for his sister.

      K

      Delete
  24. Surely wrapping JBR in her "favorite blanket" and dressing her in "clean, too-large underwear" (underwear which JBR had made known to PR that she liked) denotes a loving, motherly touch. Even so, it doesn't mean PR murdered her daughter, but it makes me wonder if she knew who did and took the truth to her grave.

    GB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or, Patsy gave John the blanket and underwear and told him to put this on her. Either way, there is just too many inconsistencies, lies and a host of other things that point to Patsy being involved.

      Delete
    2. Does dumping your daughter's body in that filthy basement room indicate a "motherly touch"? Sorry, I'm not buying it. If she was being motherly then why not position her body on her bed?

      Delete
    3. A "Motherly touch"? Oh, you mean like twisting a ligature around her daughter's throat with a stick until it is embedded deeply into her flesh? Not violent at all - definitely the act of a loving mother. The vicious defiling of her dead or dying daughter's genitalia is certainly only something a mother would do.

      Come on now.

      Too much is made of this "favourite blanket".
      Being a blanket JB was fond of means it was used frequently, thus would have been laundered more often than the rest. Therefore, it was the one that was in the basement dryer when John opened it - simple. We know it was most likely retrieved from the dryer, as her nightie was still clinging to it due to the static caused by tumble drying. John, upon being shown the crime scene photo, even exclaimed, "that isn't supposed to be there" (in regards to the nightgown), which is a pretty compelling reason to believe it was HE who placed it there, and is thus wondering how in the hell the nightie ended up alongside it.

      Delete
    4. As far as the underwear goes, a mother doesn't redress her child in panties two sizes too big and a pair of boy's long johns with a fly at the front. That sounds like the work of someone who was unfamiliar with where JB's underwear and pajamas were kept. wouldn't you agree? After all, you all love to remind us how obsessed Patsy was with appearances.....such a pedantic, superficial woman would be sure to present her daughter's body to the police in a matching ensemble - or at the very least, clothing that actually belonged to HER. The redressing, whilst odd and unnecessary whichever theory you buy into, makes the LEAST sense in the PDI scenario (or any other scenario that has her involved in the cover up).

      Delete
    5. It makes complete sense with the evidence that is available, unless you are a complete and utter moron. Next up, why people followed cult leader James Jones and How OJ did not kill his wife.

      Delete
    6. I'm with you, GB. PR knew what happened, and took it to her grave. As will JR. I think Garnett is right. No charges will ever be filed. Unless, of course, the DNA can tell us something.

      EG

      Delete
    7. Instead of always relying on juvenile name calling in lieu of an actual argument, "Anon", why don't you try a reasoned, lucid, defense instead? I find they are usually more effective in a discussion than the "I'm right ya moron just cos I say so" type responses.

      Delete
  25. DocG - I am sure John and Patsy spoke about dumping her body somewhere. But not only would that have been too risky, Patsy would not want her only daughter dumped somewhere. So the basement was a much more "motherly" decision, despite the irony in that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. CC has been studying this cass for how long and has such strong beliefs and opinions about it yet just recently learned where the blanket JBR came from ???? How can anyone who does not know such basic facts about the case have any opinion at all ? The blind leading the blind ......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh joy. MM is back, with his/her twisted syntax and non sequiturs.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Anon, you know darn well CC is well-versed on the case. Suggesting she is not, simply because you don't agree with her, is childish.

      The fact of the matter is, the blanket coming from the dryer is not really a fact. That came from LHP, as well as the idea that the Barbie nightgown ended up stuck to the blanket, due to static cling. While it may be true, it is not a fact. There is no harm in going back and reexamining case information by anyone at any point.

      Delete
  27. "It is now perfectly obvious to us that throughout the period from December 26, 1996 until at least early 2009, the official investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide has been under the effective control of people within and outside government who did not want John or Patsy Ramsey charged with crimes in relation to the homicide of their daughter." - Fleet and Priscilla White (Comments made to the Boulder City Council March 18, 2014)

    Maybe Hercule's insight shouldn't be dismissed after all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I'm aware, the Whites' animus was caused by the Ramsey decision to avoid interviews with LE.

      I've no idea why people assume they have evidence that could contribute to this case, but that mythos is widespread - and innacurate. Fleet was behind John when he "discovered" the body in the WC. That's it.

      Delete
    2. "Maybe Hercule's insight shouldn't be dismissed after all."

      And what "insight" might that be?????

      Fleet looked into that room earlier that day and saw nothing unusual. Since it was so early, the sun had not yet come out and his eyes would have been dark adapted. When John opened that door, it was daytime, and his eyes would NOT have been dark adapted. Yet according to Fleet's version of what happened, he immediately cried out -- BEFORE turning on the light. That's evidence, yes. John's refusal to allow the police to interrogate Patsy the following day also contributed to his suspicions, no doubt. Not to mention the likelihood that Fleet is intelligent enough to grasp the absurdity of the intruder theory.

      And by the way, he referred to "John OR Patsy", not John AND Patsy.

      Delete
  28. CC, thank you for your clarification of the status of BR's lawsuit, which you posted on the last thread.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You betcha', Heather. Thanks for your clarification in re Jim Marino on the last thread.

      Delete
  29. “For the purpose of assisting them in the Ramsey investigation, the Boulder Police Department in July 1997 accepted the pro bono legal services of Daniel S. Hoffman with the firm of McKenna & Cuneo, Robert N. Miller with the firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Green, and MacRae, and Richard N. Baer with the firm of Sherman & Howard. All are prominent Denver attorneys. Responding to our public information request, the Boulder city attorney's offce supplied us with copies of the final agreement between the city and these attorneys dated July 30, 1997 and an earlier draft of that agreement dated July 28, 1997. In the draft, these attorneys jointly made the following disclosures to the city: "As we indicated to you, our respective firms have or had certain relationships that we feel obligated to disclose to you. Specifically:

    1. Sherman & Howard L.L.C. ("S. & H.") represents Lockheed Martin in various matters. Lockheed Martin currently owns Access Graphics, the company that employs the father of the deceased. In addition, in 1994, S. & H. represented Access Graphics in a lawsuit brought by a terminated employee...

    2. Mr. Hoffman is outside counsel for Lockheed Martin in a number of litigations, one of which is currently pending. It is reasonable to assume that during our representation of you, Mr. Hoffman may be retained by Lockheed Martin. Additionally, Mr. Haddon represents Mr. Hoffman personally, in a case against Mr. Hoffman, his former law firm, and a number of Mr. Hoffman's former partners at the firm.

    3. Robert Miller is currently co-counsel with Mr. Haddon on a litigation in which they obtained a significant verdict for their client and which will proceed on appeal.''

    John Ramsey was the president and chief executive officer of Access Graphics, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. In the fall of 1997 Access Graphics was sold by Lockheed Martin to GE Capital in a complicated transaction reported in the news media to be valued at $2.8 billion. The value attributed to Access Graphics was likely in excess of $200 million. Prior to the sale, John Ramsey left Access Graphics under adverse circumstances after attempting to purchase Access Graphics from Lockheed Martin. Mr. Hoffman was identified in the April 18, 1997 issue of Colorado Journal to be the "lead attorney'' for Lockheed Martin in an age discrimination case which days before had resulted in a $7.6 million settlement. The "Mr. Haddon'' referred to in the disclosures is Harold Haddon, the criminal defense attorney currently representing John Ramsey. The final agreement that was executed by the city and these three attorneys did not contain these disclosures. According to Mr. Baer, they were deleted at the request of the city attorney. The city attorney has recently indicated to us that he has no knowledge of the role these attorneys have played in the investigation.“ - Fleet White (August 1998)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Isn’t it obvious? All of these lawyers were connected to the Ramseys, Lockheed Martin, and the political powers. This is no coincidence. Alex Hunter was a puppet. It was his job to make sure the Ramseys had everything they needed to defend themselves. He not only made it possible to delay the Ramseys’ interrogations, but also the grand jury proceedings. Would someone like to tell us who was pulling those strings?

    ReplyDelete
  31. John was in the process of trying to buy back AG.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That didn’t go too well, did it?

      Delete
    2. John was otherwise preoccupied, so no, it didn't.

      Hal Haddon was the premier criminal defense attorney in Colorado. Anyone with any sense and a net worth of $6M who committed murder would hire HM&F.

      Delete
    3. LM completed its transfer of 3 businesses to GE including AG by the end of ’97. GE, before the deal was closed, informed John’s boss that they were not intending to keep him employed. So why then, timing-wise, was it in LM’s interest to continue to use Hunter as a puppet?

      As far as DA AH goes, he rather went beyond delaying the Grand Jury and misleading the public about the True Bills. Four months after the GJ had concluded crazy news began. AH went on record in the Daily Camera giving credence to the whole Nancy Krebs fiasco. He also seemed to particularly share suspicions about FW. BPD knew Krebs was a “5150.” It was Michael Kane who asked AH what the h*ll he was doing by promoting the Nancy Krebs story, and AH backed away from it. He announced his retirement in year 2000. What AH’s intentions were, can’t be known, but as Alan Prendergast wrote: “The failure to indict anyone in JonBenét's death didn't put to rest the frenzied media speculation over who had killed the little girl. It did, though, shift the focus of public attention to a seemingly endless supply of alternate suspects.”

      It appears AH was still taking active steps after the GJ to create additional possible suspects, so one has to wonder what was motivating him.
      Anon5

      Delete
  32. For an intelligent and informed assessment of the claims made by CBS's cast of "forensic experts," see https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/3-big-ways-the-case-of-jonbenet-ramsey-got-it-wrong-w440970

    ReplyDelete
  33. Someone should write an article on how bad that Rolling Stone article is....

    They claim CBS stuffed up by getting three things wrong.

    The first was the voice on the 911 call. The voice was purely for marketing and in no way was it needed for their theory. Take that away and their theory is just as solid.

    The second mistake CBS apparently made was not doing enough with the DNA. Rolling Stone even suggested that the DNA could belong to a child molester and the intruder theory is plausible. Please. CBS did a great job of ruling the DNA out as nothing but noise.

    The third apparent mistake was the linguistics and human behavioral tangents CBS leant on. Some of these are debateable, I'll admit. However, there was a lot of good analyis performed and these experts (no idea why people use inverted commas around this word because they ARE experts) provided some very rationale explanations.

    CBS 3 Rolling Stones 0

    ReplyDelete
  34. "The problem is, at least as far as the 911 call analysis goes, Clemente and Richards lost credibility by failing to disclose that the leaked results from the Aerospace Corporation's analysis are word for word what they seemed shocked and awed to hear on the other end of those headphones."

    There was no excuse whatsoever for this deception. Given the resources thrown into this purported re-examination of the evidence from the ground up, CBS had every opportunity to do a genuine scientific analysis of the tape: let 100 randomly selected observers who have never heard it before listen and independently write down what they heard. You can be CERTAIN that if such an experiment had been conducted well under half the sample would have heard anything remotely similar to what these hack "investigators" claim to have heard. The fact that this team instead elected to engage in flagrant deception and promotion of a pet theory of one of the team's own investigators should tell any unbiased observer all they need to know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely Miss Marple.

      I have not been shy with sharing my opinion on that particular segment of the show. It was poorly done and wasn't needed. Same to be said for the part which involved them chasing down Fleet. Was a waste of time and did tarnish the show's reputation.

      However, despite them including this, the rest of their theory is extremely solid so I'm happy to let them off the hook.

      Delete
  35. Does anyone know who Ann Johnson is, and what her relation to the Ramsey case might be?

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete