Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:45 pm

Attention all real crime addicts. A marathon of broadcasting on this 20 year old case opens up Monday night with a 2 hour special on A and E. Next Monday, a three part series on ID starts. Sometime in the next couple of weeks, Jon Benet's brother is going to be interviewed on the Dr. Phil show.
Will all of this bring the case up to the level of the Avery and Syed case in terms of public obsession?
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:24 pm

A and E comes down squarely on the "outside" job side of the argument based on 1. the ease of entry, 2. evidence tending to show actual entry, 3. use of Taser, 4. DNA of an unknown male in two places on the vic, 4. no credible evidence of prior sexual abuse and 5. other factors. They argue that the Ramseys were callously screwed over by the media and the police. Their presentation is very persuasive.
Now we have to hear from CBS (starts 9/18), Dr. Phil (starts 9/12), and ID (starts 9/12). Also - later this fall from Lifetime.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Annella » Tue Sep 06, 2016 3:55 am

'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1410
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:09 pm

It appears that NBC will have a Dateline 2 hour show on the Ramsey case this Friday at 9.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:58 am

NBC'S Dateline special was more ambivalent on the inside/outside debate. On the pro inside side, 1. the possible presence of the son on the 911 call, 2. the pineapple issue, 3. the refusal of the family to be interviewed by the police, 4. the "sympathetic" placement of the body, 5. the failure of the parents to react when the deadline for the "ransom call" passed. On the pro outside side, 1. evidence of a break in, 2. the DNA evidence, 3. the items which could not be traced to anything in the house.
Polygraphs would have been nice here. I might also be more aggressive gathering DNA from a wider net of suspects.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:59 am

ID's special is next in the batter's box - Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights.
Also Dr. Phil is coming up with an interview of the son.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sat Sep 10, 2016 12:39 pm

I am looking forward to watching the 3-night event. Retired FBI Agent Jim Clemente worked on this. As many may know, he was a strong supporter of Amanda and Raffaele.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sat Sep 10, 2016 12:41 pm

'The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey' Fills in Important "Missing Piece" of the Puzzle (Exclusive Video)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jonbenet-ramsey-cbs-series-investigators-926624
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby samzilla » Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:20 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:I am looking forward to watching the 3-night event. Retired FBI Agent Jim Clemente worked on this. As many may know, he was a strong supporter of Amanda and Raffaele.


Based on clips from the A&E special (which appears to show footage from a different investigative program appearing within the A&E show), it seems Clemente will come down on the side of the parents being guilty.
samzilla
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:06 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:30 pm

Even if they are guilty, I think it is just too late to try them in good faith even though in most jurisdictions there is no statute of limitation on murder.
I also consider Jim Clemente as something of a media whore. Not the worst but still not always the best. There have been several studies on criminal profiles and there is as much voodoo as reality.

Edit: Just because somebody was in the FBI does not give them credibility necessarily, look at Ted Gunderson and the McMartin Day Care center
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Sep 10, 2016 11:04 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Even if they are guilty, I think it is just too late to try them in good faith even though in most jurisdictions there is no statute of limitation on murder.
I also consider Jim Clemente as something of a media whore. Not the worst but still not always the best. There have been several studies on criminal profiles and there is as much voodoo as reality.

Edit: Just because somebody was in the FBI does not give them credibility necessarily, look at Ted Gunderson and the McMartin Day Care center



It would be hard to prove a murder case since even those who think they are guilty are not sure exactly what happened. And for lesser crimes like reckless endangerment, child abuse, accessory after the fact, interference with an investigation, perjury, etc. the statute of limitations may well have run.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:52 pm

ID's three part series is on deck to start tonight. CBS is next up after that - starting a week from today.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:56 am

CBS led off last night with a definite tilt toward the "inside job" thesis. I think that they may point the finger at the son. We will see tonight.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Dougm » Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:26 pm

I saw most of Part 1 on CBS last night. They said they started off totally neutral, but to me it seemed they had a clear bias from the get go that the parents are involved. That might not be true, but that was the impression given by the show.
When you berate someone and push them and confuse them and lie to them and convince them that they're wrong you're not finding the truth.

Amanda Knox
Dougm
Moderator
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Chris_Halkides » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:27 pm

"The firm confirmed that the DNA it collected on the waistband of the two sides of the longjohns matched the DNA of a blood drop on the inside crotch of JonBenet's underwear."
http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/201 ... l-dna.html
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/ne ... et-s-death

"Tests conducted in March revealed that new DNA collected from a pair of long johns matched a sample previously taken from the child's panties."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/09/jonbenet.dna/

The DNA underneath JonBenet's fingerprints also sounds significant: "Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonbenet-dn ... t-parents/

The various news reports do not perfectly align. However, the mere fact of fingernail DNA cannot be ignored in my opinion.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:57 pm

(Spoiler Alert!) CBS concluded that Burke swung the flashlight at her not necessarily intending to do serious injury and that the impact led to a fatal head injury and that the parents covered it up. I would like to get more detail on the DNA evidence - the CBS team dismissed it but I would like to hear more of a pro and con argument. Also I was not completely convinced that their argument that the cobweb had not been disturbed proved that no one could have gotten in through the window. And I still think that there is a possibility of a lurker who got in much earlier perhaps at a social event, committed the crime and then exited through the front door.
Several big problems with their theory - 1. if there was any doubt at all that Jon Benet was dead when the parents first found her, the instinct to call 911 and get an ambulance if there is any chance at all of saving her would have been very very strong, 2. they really would have been better off telling the truth if Burke did it - he was too young to be prosecuted and the burden of living with the lie is enormous - also the case would never have gotten this amount of publicity, 3. I would think that one or more of the three of them (especially Burke) would have talked by now (in his case, to a best friend while drunk, to a girlfriend, etc.), 4. they had no way of knowing whether Burke would spill the beans, whether it would be clear than no one broke in, etc.
It would be really great to have interviews with some of Burke's friends, teachers, co-workers, etc.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Annella » Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:35 am

erasmus44 wrote:CBS led off last night with a definite tilt toward the "inside job" thesis. I think that they may point the finger at the son. We will see tonight.


But the note! Could this young boy have penned that note? I think not.
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1410
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Chris_Halkides » Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:53 am

I suppose the note could have been written by John or Patsy, to cover up for Burke. John Douglas does not think that Burke is a likely suspect, as he talks about in Law and Disorder.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Chris_Halkides » Tue Sep 20, 2016 6:49 am

Findings. "The coroner took nail clippings from JonBenet. Male DNA was found under JonBenet's right hand fingernail that does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF P 174; PSMF P 174.) Defendants also assert that male DNA was found under JonBenet's left hand fingernail, which also does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF P 173.)" (Carnes 2003:22). This is consistent with Internet poster Margoo's screen capture showing a "mix" of DNA only 3 of the 13 DNA samples submitted: #7 Bloodstains from panties; #14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/pag ... 20Evidence

I have no idea whether or not this is a trustworthy site. I have had people tell me that there was no foreign DNA under her fingernails. Someone should retest with YSTR DNA profiling.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:08 am

Annella wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:CBS led off last night with a definite tilt toward the "inside job" thesis. I think that they may point the finger at the son. We will see tonight.


But the note! Could this young boy have penned that note? I think not.



The theory is that Patsy or John wrote the note as part of a "staging" to protect Burke.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:53 pm

One of the many problems with the CBS theory of the case is that it would have involved John, Patsy and Burke being willing to stand by if - as was entirely possible - the authorities prosecuted, convicted, and executed a completely innocent defendant. Of course, there are people who could and would do this, but I just don't sense that they have the stomach for that kind of thing.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Chris_Halkides » Tue Sep 20, 2016 1:50 pm

That's a good point. It is also difficult to see how one would control what a ten year old child would say, day in and day out.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Chris_Halkides » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:45 pm

Peter Gill's excellent book, "Misleading DNA evidence" discussed DNA from fingernails in two spots, pp. 43-36 and pp. 67-80. Here is my quick and dirty summary. Foreign (non-self) DNA is uncommon (about 5-20%), and it sometimes yields only a few loci, as opposed to a complete profile. When a couple cohabitates, then there is a greater chance for foreign DNA (about 35%), but it is often from the partner. More vigorous scratching produced higher quality DNA profiles.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Chris_Halkides » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:46 pm

Found this at the CBS link: "Instead, they leaked information to the media -- sometimes fabricated information, charges of pornography and sexual abuse -- to put pressure on the Ramseys." Does this sound familiar?
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:08 pm

Here's where I am -
A. Arguments for an inside job - 1. the ransom note, 2. the head injury (consistent with a blow not intended to inflict serious bodily harm), 3. the refusal to be interviewed separately and immediately, 4. Burke's history of hitting her before, 5. the pineapple, 6. the cobweb, 7. their seeming lack of concern when the time limit in the note for a call passed and no call was received, 8. Burke's demeanor in his original interview,
B. Arguments against inside job - 1. DNA, 2. the fact that the parents would have had a strong tendency to call 911 and get an ambulance, 3. no one apparently talking all these years, 4. the implausibility of expecting a 9 year old to keep his mouth shut, 5. foreign objects in the house (the line, the duct tape, the suitcase, the flashlight), 6. some decent external suspects, 7. Jon Benet as an target for a perv due to pageants, 8. Lou Smit's judgment.
I am not really convinced either way at this point and I am surprised that the Boulder authorities were so sharply polarized (DA saying it must be an outside job and police saying it must be an inside job) but I think that this is, yet again, an example of confirmation bias with each side discarding evidence that didn't "fit" its preconceived theory.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby jane » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:22 am

It's really shameful that accusations against the family are being revived.

John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey were exonerated by the Boulder DA in 2008:

DA clears Ramsey family

By Karen Auge and John Ingold | jingold@denverpost.com
PUBLISHED: July 9, 2008 at 3:32 pm | UPDATED: September 19, 2016 at 9:49 pm

Armed with new DNA evidence that points to an unknown male as JonBenet Ramsey’s killer, Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy on Wednesday took the extraordinary step of publicly exonerating the child’s parents and immediate family in her death.
In a letter hand-delivered to John Ramsey, Lacy said she is confident the DNA belongs to the killer.
“Significant new evidence . . . convinces us that it is appropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime,” Lacy wrote.
.................

http://www.denverpost.com/2008/07/09/da ... -family-2/
jane
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby jane » Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:20 am

Lin Wood has given the Ramseys very effective respresentation for years. CBS may regret this miniseries.
********
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/burke- ... spartanntp

A lawyer for JonBenét Ramsey's family says he will sue CBS for a recent docuseries that pointed the finger for her killing at her older brother, Burke Ramsey, PEOPLE confirms.

"I'm absolutely going to sue CBS on behalf of Burke as a result of the false accusations and the fraud of the docuseries by CBS," attorney L. Lin Wood tells PEOPLE.
Wood, an Atlanta-based lawyer, told Reuters that "CBS' false and unprofessional attacks on this young man are disgusting and revolting."
But network officials aren't backing down, saying in a statement to PEOPLE, "CBS stands by the broadcast and will do so in court."
In the two-part The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, which aired Sunday and Monday, a panel of investigators developed a theory of what they allege happened on the night the 6-year-old beauty pageant queen was found dead in the basement of her family's Boulder, Colorado, in December 1996.
On the show, a team including a criminal behavioral analyst, a forensic scientist, a former FBI profiler and a pathologist alleged that Burke accidentally killed his sister.
Wood told Reuters that the show was filled with "lies, misrepresentations, distortions and omissions." ...................
jane
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:11 am

jane wrote:Lin Wood has given the Ramseys very effective respresentation for years. CBS may regret this miniseries.
********
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/burke- ... spartanntp

A lawyer for JonBenét Ramsey's family says he will sue CBS for a recent docuseries that pointed the finger for her killing at her older brother, Burke Ramsey, PEOPLE confirms.

"I'm absolutely going to sue CBS on behalf of Burke as a result of the false accusations and the fraud of the docuseries by CBS," attorney L. Lin Wood tells PEOPLE.
Wood, an Atlanta-based lawyer, told Reuters that "CBS' false and unprofessional attacks on this young man are disgusting and revolting."
But network officials aren't backing down, saying in a statement to PEOPLE, "CBS stands by the broadcast and will do so in court."
In the two-part The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, which aired Sunday and Monday, a panel of investigators developed a theory of what they allege happened on the night the 6-year-old beauty pageant queen was found dead in the basement of her family's Boulder, Colorado, in December 1996.
On the show, a team including a criminal behavioral analyst, a forensic scientist, a former FBI profiler and a pathologist alleged that Burke accidentally killed his sister.
Wood told Reuters that the show was filled with "lies, misrepresentations, distortions and omissions." ...................


They have to be careful. A lawsuit opens up discovery which - in the civil process - can be exhaustive and exhausting. The other side gets to take wide ranging depositions and to go through emails, etc. CBS did include a disclaimer at the end of the show but I do think that they went too far in the "inside job" direction based of evidence which could really lead in either direction. This is a case somewhat like McDonald in which a botched investigation leaves us in doubt. With respect to the criminal process, doubt should result in either no prosecution or an acquittal. The civil process is different - put this thing in front of a jury with the preponderance of evidence standard and literally anything could happen.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Desert Fox » Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:07 pm

I think they are safe in a legal sense if they can state
1. The diligently researched the subject
2. by that research, they think that person is guilty.
I am pretty sure that in order to sue them, one would have to prove dishonesty.

Now, they can try to sue in British court, where the burden of proof is on the defense [In civil trials], but that would look pretty bad probably.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Chris_Halkides » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:28 pm

""There's a Dance West school where the victim of the assault in our case, the one that we investigated, and the Ramsey girl, both attended," says Peterson, who now believes Jon Benet was first targeted at that dance studio because of what happened to his client, just nine months after JonBenet was murdered." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonbenet-dn ... t-parents/

Why stage the crime and undo some of your own handiwork (John took off the tape, etc.)? Why stage the crime and hire John Douglas to analyze it?
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:09 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:""There's a Dance West school where the victim of the assault in our case, the one that we investigated, and the Ramsey girl, both attended," says Peterson, who now believes Jon Benet was first targeted at that dance studio because of what happened to his client, just nine months after JonBenet was murdered." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonbenet-dn ... t-parents/

Why stage the crime and undo some of your own handiwork (John took off the tape, etc.)? Why stage the crime and hire John Douglas to analyze it?



This is a classic in confirmation bias. The police investigator stated in one interview that she concluded they were guilty from just about the moment she walked in the front door. There has to be a mandatory course on keeping an "open mind".
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Chris_Halkides » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:17 pm

John Douglas discusses detective Linda Arndt in his book with Mark Olshaker, "Law and Disorder." At the time her behavior toward the family was exemplary, but she later claimed to have looked into John's eyes when she told him JonBenet was dead and had a flash of insight that he was guilty. "But why? What about the look in his eyes told her that?" (We might as well believe that the Perugian policeman could pull a knife out of a drawer and have it be the murder weapon, all on police intuition.) This may have been the same officer, but I am beginning to wonder whether her recollections of that day are colored by her later conclusion.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Dougm » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:33 pm

erasmus44 wrote:Here's where I am -
A. Arguments for an inside job - 1. the ransom note, 2. the head injury (consistent with a blow not intended to inflict serious bodily harm), 3. the refusal to be interviewed separately and immediately, 4. Burke's history of hitting her before, 5. the pineapple, 6. the cobweb, 7. their seeming lack of concern when the time limit in the note for a call passed and no call was received, 8. Burke's demeanor in his original interview,
B. Arguments against inside job - 1. DNA, 2. the fact that the parents would have had a strong tendency to call 911 and get an ambulance, 3. no one apparently talking all these years, 4. the implausibility of expecting a 9 year old to keep his mouth shut, 5. foreign objects in the house (the line, the duct tape, the suitcase, the flashlight), 6. some decent external suspects, 7. Jon Benet as an target for a perv due to pageants, 8. Lou Smit's judgment.
I am not really convinced either way at this point and I am surprised that the Boulder authorities were so sharply polarized (DA saying it must be an outside job and police saying it must be an inside job) but I think that this is, yet again, an example of confirmation bias with each side discarding evidence that didn't "fit" its preconceived theory.


I'm pretty much with you on all of this, and agree I don't get why Boulder authorities, on both sides, became so convinced they know what happened.

One thing I disagree with though. In your section "A", you list, "2. the head injury (consistent with a blow not intended to inflict serious bodily harm)". In reading about the autopsy, and looking at the photos, it seems she had an 8.5" fracture of her skull. Did I read this wrong, or does this not seem like a very severe injury, caused either by an extreme blow to the head (either from attack, or falling and hitting head hard on bathtub, staircase, etc.?). The severity of the head injury is one of the things that is used by both sides to draw conclusions: The "intruder" folks claim that must have been from a violent attack by an adult, and the "family" folks say it shows she was already dead before the garrote was applied. If the head injury is consistent with one that was not intended to cause bodily harm, that changes things, in my mind. Still don't know who did it!
When you berate someone and push them and confuse them and lie to them and convince them that they're wrong you're not finding the truth.

Amanda Knox
Dougm
Moderator
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:47 pm

Dougm wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Here's where I am -
A. Arguments for an inside job - 1. the ransom note, 2. the head injury (consistent with a blow not intended to inflict serious bodily harm), 3. the refusal to be interviewed separately and immediately, 4. Burke's history of hitting her before, 5. the pineapple, 6. the cobweb, 7. their seeming lack of concern when the time limit in the note for a call passed and no call was received, 8. Burke's demeanor in his original interview,
B. Arguments against inside job - 1. DNA, 2. the fact that the parents would have had a strong tendency to call 911 and get an ambulance, 3. no one apparently talking all these years, 4. the implausibility of expecting a 9 year old to keep his mouth shut, 5. foreign objects in the house (the line, the duct tape, the suitcase, the flashlight), 6. some decent external suspects, 7. Jon Benet as an target for a perv due to pageants, 8. Lou Smit's judgment.
I am not really convinced either way at this point and I am surprised that the Boulder authorities were so sharply polarized (DA saying it must be an outside job and police saying it must be an inside job) but I think that this is, yet again, an example of confirmation bias with each side discarding evidence that didn't "fit" its preconceived theory.


I'm pretty much with you on all of this, and agree I don't get why Boulder authorities, on both sides, became so convinced they know what happened.

One thing I disagree with though. In your section "A", you list, "2. the head injury (consistent with a blow not intended to inflict serious bodily harm)". In reading about the autopsy, and looking at the photos, it seems she had an 8.5" fracture of her skull. Did I read this wrong, or does this not seem like a very severe injury, caused either by an extreme blow to the head (either from attack, or falling and hitting head hard on bathtub, staircase, etc.?). The severity of the head injury is one of the things that is used by both sides to draw conclusions: The "intruder" folks claim that must have been from a violent attack by an adult, and the "family" folks say it shows she was already dead before the garrote was applied. If the head injury is consistent with one that was not intended to cause bodily harm, that changes things, in my mind. Still don't know who did it!


The CBS special seemed to indicate that given the fragility of the skull of a six year old, it would be perfectly possible for a 9 year old to strike her hard enough with the right blunt object to cause this injury. And I got the impression that it wouldn't necessarily have to be a full force, wind-up-and-put-your-body-weight-into-it blow.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby jane » Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:39 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:"The firm confirmed that the DNA it collected on the waistband of the two sides of the longjohns matched the DNA of a blood drop on the inside crotch of JonBenet's underwear."
http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/201 ... l-dna.html
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/ne ... et-s-death

"Tests conducted in March revealed that new DNA collected from a pair of long johns matched a sample previously taken from the child's panties."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/09/jonbenet.dna/

The DNA underneath JonBenet's fingerprints also sounds significant: "Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonbenet-dn ... t-parents/

The various news reports do not perfectly align. However, the mere fact of fingernail DNA cannot be ignored in my opinion.


From the A&E special on Labor Day weekend:

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/10/cold-case-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-case/
..........
For example, A & E’s two-hour documentary that appeared on Monday disclosed that new DNA testing that can identify a person’s racial background reveals that the killer is most likely of Hispanic heritage. Such evidence excludes the Ramsey family and could help detectives hone their investigation to only Hispanic suspects.

But those DNA tests were conducted by Richard Eikelenboom, who was allegedly discredited last month during a Denver trial after a prosecutor got him to admit he was self-trained to conduct DNA profiles, “that he had no direct DNA extraction or analysis experience,” and operates a lab that has not been accredited.

Besides doing DNA forensic work in JonBenét’s case, Eikelenboom has testified in high-profile cases for Timothy Masters, Casey Anthony and David Camm. All three have been acquitted of murder charges. But Eikelenboom said he is accredited in Holland and the U.S. by the American Society of Crime Lab Directors.

Two weeks ago, Eikelenboom entered the unidentified DNA profile into national DNA databases and determined that the donor of the blood found on JonBenét’s panties is 10,000 times more likely to be Hispanic than Caucasian or black. He said Boulder police should enter just the Y-chromosome DNA profile of the donor in the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System to possibly get a so-called familial match.

Boulder police have not indicated whether they are focusing on Hispanic suspects based on the results of DNA tests.

*********
I wonder how the prosecutor was able to discredit Eikelenboom. He's been accepted as an expert in several high profile trials.

http://www.ascld-lab.org/promotion-of-ilac-and-iaac-arrangements/

And he is accredited by an international agreement.
jane
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:26 am

I just started watching the program
1. I think trying to pull voices from the background audio is basically just voodoo
2. While maybe a bit odd, I would not attribute guilt to hanging up after talking to 9-11
3. That ransom letter really is long and complex. Seems to show either somebody well educated or at least a prolific reader. It also would take a really long time to write. If it was already written was one thing but writing it at the scene seems really bold and argues for an inside job.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sat Sep 24, 2016 7:23 am

"In a study involving deliberate scratching of another individual (n = 30), 33% of individuals had a foreign DNA profile beneath their fingernails from which the person they scratched could not be excluded as the source; however when sampling occurred ∼6 h after the scratching event, only 7% retained the foreign DNA." This quote is from the abstract of a 2012 study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21680274

The first link below is to more information on the DNA in the Ramsey case. Taking the two profiles on the left versus right nails as a given, I would point out that if the nail clippers had not been cleaned properly, the possibility of accidental transfer of one profile unrelated to a crime should not be ruled out (I seem to recall that DNA can be transferred during autopsies and even via fingerprint brushes). The BBC reported on a case in a 2014 article (second link below), which involved inadvertent DNA transfer due to nail cuttings many years earlier. However, with two profiles in the Ramsey case, the possibility of cross-contamination seems less likely. The third link below is a brief but information article on fingernail DNA in cold cases.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comme ... lating_to/
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26324244
http://www.sekiedge.com/blog/pointing-f ... ime-scene/
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby jane » Sat Sep 24, 2016 8:00 am

This is a link to the full A&E special about the case. You may find that you have free access to it through your internet provider. It's really an excellent documentary about the case and its investigation.

Updated link:

http://www.aetv.com/specials/the-killin ... -uncovered

Click on the key in the picture, then on your internet provider or other connection.
jane
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby jane » Sat Sep 24, 2016 5:03 pm

JonBenet Ramsey Family Lawyer: Why Burke Ramsey is Suing CBS Over New Murder Claims
By L. Lin Wood On 9/22/16 at 10:37 AM

http://www.newsweek.com/jonbenet-ramsey ... der-501571
...............
Walter Cronkite and Mike Wallace spent their lives pursuing truth. They must be rolling over in their graves today.
This week their former employer, media giant CBS, under the guise of investigative docuseries The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey, perpetrated a fraud on the viewing public for ratings and profit by falsely accusing Burke Ramsey of killing his sister, JonBenet. Burke was nine years old when his sister—his life’s best friend—was brutally tortured and murdered.

CBS represented the docuseries to be a “new” investigation of the death of JonBenet by a “panel of experts.” There was no new investigation. There was no panel of legitimate experts. The so-called “experts” are television personalities who used embellished credentials to essentially serve as actors in a script written years ago by panelist James Kolar in his self-published book. Kolar’s book relied on lies, misrepresentations, distortions, disproven rumors and innuendo, many of which have been in the public domain for years.

As just one example of the fraud by CBS, its panel claimed to have conducted an analysis of the 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey on December 26, 1996, publicizing that it had used “today’s technology” to reveal “a never before heard” conversation. Totally false. The purported analysis of the 911 call was previously described verbatim in Kolar’s 2012 book, in a book published in 2000 by former Boulder police detective Steve Thomas and in a 1997 article published in the Boulder Daily Camera. The product of a new investigation? No. A fraudulent misrepresentation to attract viewers? Absolutely.

The docuseries also claims to have conducted an analysis of 1997 and 1998 video interviews of Burke Ramsey. The portions of Burke’s interview that were highlighted and discussed by the CBS experts were mere repetitions of the uninformed, speculative analysis of the interviews in Kolar’s book.

In rehashing Kolar’s book under the guise of a new investigation to accuse this young man, CBS intentionally ignored the truth and the actual evidence. In May 1999, the Boulder District Attorney’s Office and the Boulder Police Department issued public statements confirming that Burke was not a suspect or even a possible suspect in connection with the investigation of the murder of his sister. This official clearance of Burke was issued because these law enforcement agencies were outraged by sensational headlines published by the tabloid Star Magazine and republished by the New York Post accusing Burke of his sister’s murder. Subsequently, Burke successfully sued both of these media entities for defamation. Truth prevailed.

And for the next 16 years, no member of the mainstream media or even the tabloid media ever again made this outrageous and untrue accusation against this young man—until CBS did so in its fraudulent broadcast this week. Reckless? Yes. Morally reprehensible? Absolutely.

In truth, CBS did not put together this docuseries to commemorate the 20th anniversary of JonBenet’s murder. In fact, CBS put together this show in hopes of emulating the recent successes of competing networks’ “true crime” docuseries. And CBS broadcast the shows during September Sweeps, not in the anniversary month of December. Did the hype of a “new” investigation by a panel of experts who would solve the case work? Yes. CBS far surpassed the ratings for the competing Emmys with a reported audience of 10 million viewers.

Burke Ramsey was not one of the 10 million viewers, but CBS’s false accusation against him will change his life forever. After living the past 20 years under the shadow of his sister’s murder and false accusations against his parents in periodic media frenzies, Burke will now live the remainder of his life with Google searches proclaiming, “CBS Proves Burke Ramsey Killed His Sister JonBenet.” Every professional and personal interaction and relationship Burke has from now until his death will be tainted by this false accusation. A lie for profits. A fraud on the public.

Will Burke Ramsey sue CBS for its false accusations and fraudulent show? Absolutely. His lawsuit will expose the many lies conveyed to the public by CBS. His lawsuit will establish the truth...................
jane
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Sep 24, 2016 7:54 pm

It's hard for us to admit that we just can't figure out for sure what happened but - in this unusual case - that is probably the truth. As I noted above, there is evidence cutting both ways on the inside job/outside job debate and I really find it hard to see how anyone can be terribly confident on the issue. A DNA match might clarify things and there are intruder suspects who should have been investigated more thoroughly. The failure to do this - as well as the total failure to secure the crime scene - means that we will probably never have an answer due to the palpable negligence of the Boulder police.
I do think that there is a tendency for people and institutions to try to rationalize mistakes by adopting a theory of reality under which the mistake "caused no harm" ("I didn't put Johnny in his car seat but he would have been paralyzed in the accident even if he had been in his car seat"). In this case, the Boulder police screwed up the crime scene to such a degree that they made the Perugia police look like Sherlock Holmes. But if they can convince themselves that it was an inside job all along, then screwing up the crime scene didn't really make any difference. So "no harm, no foul" - it is obviously an inside job so who cares whether we sat on our asses for several hours while people milled around inside the house as if it were an auction gallery and the victim's corpse lay under our noses unexamined. It didn't really make any difference that we allowed the father of the victim to be the one searching the area unsupervised and let him pick the victim up and move her body to a few different locations. None of this really matters when you look at the "big picture" because we know it was an inside job.
If you admit the possibility of doubt which might be clarified by more evidence, then the screw up which led to the contamination of that evidence has to be recognized as the inexcusable disaster that it really was.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Sep 24, 2016 8:44 pm

I still don't see how any lawsuit against CBS will work.
If anything, it will make him look guilt just like when Terry Hobbs tried to sue Natalie Maines
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby LarryK » Sun Sep 25, 2016 2:23 am

I'm satisfied with the analysis by John Douglas in "Law & Disorder". It was not the family who did this.
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby jane » Sun Sep 25, 2016 7:26 am

This is a link to a transcript from a 2002 special on the case: Jon Benet, A Second Look. Much of the information in this transcript about Lou Smit's investigation was included in the recent A&E special.

http://www.acandyrose.com/11072002court ... ndlook.htm
jane
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby jane » Sun Sep 25, 2016 9:34 am

This is a link to case documents.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/pag ... 0Documents

Several lawsuits were filed and settled years ago.

Here's one of them:

Burke Ramsey vs. Court TV, AOL Time Warner, Time Warner Entertainment and Liberty Media (2001)

This libel case was filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Georgia. The case relates to the airing of "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey: Prime Suspects" on November 5, 1999 and a companion press release issued on October 27, 1999; there is no on-line transcript of this broadcast.

A summary of the complaint is posted at acandyrose.com but most of the legal documents concerning this case no longer are posted.
According to Internet poster Candy a confidential settlement was approved October 23, 2002.

The CourtTV site contains the following disclaimer which is presumably part of this settlement: "On November 5, 1999, Court TV telecast a program entitled "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey? Prime Suspects." In that program, Court TV did not intend in any way to suggest that Burke Ramsey had any involvement in the murder of his sister, JonBenet. To the contrary, the discussion of Burke Ramsey was intended to convey to the viewers that the participants in the program did not believe that Burke Ramsey should be considered a suspect. In this connection, the program acknowledged that, in May of 1999, Boulder County District Attorney Alexander M. Hunter publicly released a statement that officially stated that Burke Ramsey was not a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister."
jane
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Desert Fox » Sun Sep 25, 2016 12:14 pm

With regard to the DNA being contamination DNA, there is an interesting case out of Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby jane » Sun Sep 25, 2016 4:19 pm

Desert Fox wrote:With regard to the DNA being contamination DNA, there is an interesting case out of Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn


Interesting article. However, it doesn't apply to the Ramsey case where there were full DNA profiles on two pieces of her clothing.

Your article refers to mitochondrial DNA.
jane
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Desert Fox » Sun Sep 25, 2016 5:05 pm

What I am simply showing is that innocent DNA transfer is not just possible but it has occurred in real life.

Nobody ever is going to be prosecuted for this crime unless it really was a stranger attack and dna evidence is linked to a person with a record for such attacks.
If Burke did it, he was nine at the time and he was not responsible for his actions. If his father covered for the crime, I am willing to let sleeping dogs lie at this stage.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby jane » Fri Oct 07, 2016 5:58 am

Burke Ramsey Files $150 Million Lawsuit Against Famed Pathologist Who Said He Killed His Sister JonBenet
by Rachel Stockman | 6:42 pm, October 6th, 2016

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/burke-r ... -jonbenet/

This article also includes the document.

Lawsuit against CBS will be filed in Los Angeles in the near future.
jane
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby jane » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:07 pm

Burke Ramsey Lawsuit: JonBenet Family Lawyer Rips CBS Docuseries and More
Monday, October 10, 2016 at 5:44 a.m.

http://www.westword.com/news/burke-rams ... re-8390450
jane
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby jane » Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:25 pm

Burke Ramsey Sues CBS and Several Experts for $750 Million Over JonBenét Series

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/burke- ... spartanntp

Burke Ramsey has filed a second defamation lawsuit over a recent CBS docuseries that advanced the theory he killed his younger sister, JonBenét, more than two decades ago, PEOPLE confirms.
After suing forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz in October for $150 million in damages, lawyers for Burke on Wednesday filed another civil suit — this one, naming CBS as well as Critical Content LLC, the production company behind The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, and seven experts and consultants featured in the special, which aired over two nights in mid-September.

PEOPLE obtained a copy of the second suit, which seeks $250 million in compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages.

In addition to listing Spitz as a defendant, the suit filed Wednesday names retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent and criminal profiler Jim Clemente; criminal behaviorist Laura Richards; Jim Kolar, a former lead investigator in the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation; forensic linguistics expert James Fitzgerald; statement analyst Stanley Burke; and forensic scientist Dr. Henry Lee.
...........................
jane
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:01 pm

jane wrote:Burke Ramsey Sues CBS and Several Experts for $750 Million Over JonBenét Series

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/burke- ... spartanntp

Burke Ramsey has filed a second defamation lawsuit over a recent CBS docuseries that advanced the theory he killed his younger sister, JonBenét, more than two decades ago, PEOPLE confirms.
After suing forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz in October for $150 million in damages, lawyers for Burke on Wednesday filed another civil suit — this one, naming CBS as well as Critical Content LLC, the production company behind The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, and seven experts and consultants featured in the special, which aired over two nights in mid-September.

PEOPLE obtained a copy of the second suit, which seeks $250 million in compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages.

In addition to listing Spitz as a defendant, the suit filed Wednesday names retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent and criminal profiler Jim Clemente; criminal behaviorist Laura Richards; Jim Kolar, a former lead investigator in the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation; forensic linguistics expert James Fitzgerald; statement analyst Stanley Burke; and forensic scientist Dr. Henry Lee.
...........................


This is risky. CBS will defend aggressively and retain top notch lawyers. Burke Ramsey will be deposed and asked tough questions. My wife videotaped the Westmoreland deposition in his libel case and he got a tough going over. I think it will also be legitimate to depose John Ramsey. It should get very interesting. I think Burke will make a bad witness in front of a jury.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby jane » Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:08 am

erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:Burke Ramsey Sues CBS and Several Experts for $750 Million Over JonBenét Series

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/burke- ... spartanntp

Burke Ramsey has filed a second defamation lawsuit over a recent CBS docuseries that advanced the theory he killed his younger sister, JonBenét, more than two decades ago, PEOPLE confirms.
After suing forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz in October for $150 million in damages, lawyers for Burke on Wednesday filed another civil suit — this one, naming CBS as well as Critical Content LLC, the production company behind The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, and seven experts and consultants featured in the special, which aired over two nights in mid-September.

PEOPLE obtained a copy of the second suit, which seeks $250 million in compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages.

In addition to listing Spitz as a defendant, the suit filed Wednesday names retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent and criminal profiler Jim Clemente; criminal behaviorist Laura Richards; Jim Kolar, a former lead investigator in the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation; forensic linguistics expert James Fitzgerald; statement analyst Stanley Burke; and forensic scientist Dr. Henry Lee.
...........................


This is risky. CBS will defend aggressively and retain top notch lawyers. Burke Ramsey will be deposed and asked tough questions. My wife videotaped the Westmoreland deposition in his libel case and he got a tough going over. I think it will also be legitimate to depose John Ramsey. It should get very interesting. I think Burke will make a bad witness in front of a jury.


Lin Wood has been through this before. He will be well prepared.

Excerpts from a recent interview with Lin Wood:

Lin Wood: Since 1999 and 2000, when I successfully sued Star magazine, the New York Post and Court TV for falsely accusing Burke Ramsey of the death of JonBenét, no member of the mainstream media or even the tabloid media has dared to make that accusation against this young man again. He was officially and publicly cleared — being described as not being a suspect or a possible suspect by the Boulder Police Department in May of 1998 and the Boulder District Attorney's Office in May of 1999. And there has been no evidence developed in the case since then other than DNA evidence developed in 2008 that was used by then-district attorney Mary Lacy to exonerate the entire family. Burke had already been exonerated. So other than, as you say, wild accusations that have floated around in the Internet world over the last twenty years, no credible attack has ever been made against Burke Ramsey since the foolishness in 1999 and 2000.

Jim Kolar's book was published a few years ago. It was self-published. It had no credibility. No mainstream publisher would touch it. I know for a fact that Jim Kolar approached a number of members of the mainstream media in New York seeking interviews to publicize the book, and they refused to interview him. They refused any attempt to give publicity or credibility to his book, Foreign Faction. And that book is the cornerstone of the CBS docuseries that was recently broadcast. So while Jim Kolar was not worth a lawsuit a few years ago, because I did not feel he had any credibility and I did not want to give him the appearance of credibility that would publicize his book by filing a lawsuit against him, obviously things have changed now, because CBS used this book as part of its script for the docuseries.

You've probably seen me quoted as saying this series was a fraud. There was no new investigation by a new team of experts. This was a scripted show, primarily off of Jim Kolar's book.
…….
The idea that there would be any hesitation in suing over this case because of fear of the discovery process is utter nonsense. I have already filed and successfully pursued three cases on behalf of Burke Ramsey, all those years ago. I have also filed defendant cases for John and Patsy Ramsey. They have been deposed. There is absolutely no concern whatsoever in engaging fully in the discovery process.

Discovery in this case is going to support my client's position. Because his position is based on fact and evidence. On the other hand, discovery is going to expose Dr. Spitz in his case and CBS in its case. It's going to expose the utter lack of evidentiary foundation for the accusations against Burke Ramsey. And it's going to, I believe, prove by clear and convincing evidence that this accusation was manufactured in order to produce big ratings during September sweeps and get the CBS docuseries off to a good start with an intent to avoid CBS's internal standards. That's because they did not allow this broadcast to be produced by 48 Hours. 48 Hours is the arm of CBS that produces true-crime programs in what might be generally described as the entertainment area. 48 Hours has done at least three shows on the JonBenét Ramsey case. They were, in fact, supposed to produce the twentieth-anniversary segment. But it was pulled by CBS Entertainment to give the show to Critical Content. And in so doing, it allowed the show to be produced outside CBS's internal standards. They were allowed to have greater freedom to make this false accusation against Burke, which no other show has made against this young man………

I can't tell you in strong enough words: There is absolutely not one iota of physical evidence that links this young man to the murder of his sister.... It's not even a matter of exonerating him. It shows that he is not even a legitimate suspect, as acknowledged by law enforcement authorities publicly in 1998 and 1999. So in order to accuse this young man, you've either got to intentionally misrepresent the evidence, intentionally ignore the evidence, or manufacture evidence to come up with the sensational, for-profit headline that Burke Ramsey was somehow involved in the murder of his sister…………

It is unconscionable conduct that CBS would openly defy the findings of legitimate law enforcement authorities, would ignore actual evidence in the case, would manufacture evidence, and would go out and pay money to these television expert whores such as Werner Spitz and Henry Lee, to come onto their air to give some kind of feigned credibility to these false accusations............

http://www.westword.com/news/burke-rams ... re-8390450
jane
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:24 pm

jane wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:Burke Ramsey Sues CBS and Several Experts for $750 Million Over JonBenét Series

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/burke- ... spartanntp

Burke Ramsey has filed a second defamation lawsuit over a recent CBS docuseries that advanced the theory he killed his younger sister, JonBenét, more than two decades ago, PEOPLE confirms.
After suing forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz in October for $150 million in damages, lawyers for Burke on Wednesday filed another civil suit — this one, naming CBS as well as Critical Content LLC, the production company behind The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, and seven experts and consultants featured in the special, which aired over two nights in mid-September.

PEOPLE obtained a copy of the second suit, which seeks $250 million in compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages.

In addition to listing Spitz as a defendant, the suit filed Wednesday names retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent and criminal profiler Jim Clemente; criminal behaviorist Laura Richards; Jim Kolar, a former lead investigator in the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation; forensic linguistics expert James Fitzgerald; statement analyst Stanley Burke; and forensic scientist Dr. Henry Lee.
...........................


This is risky. CBS will defend aggressively and retain top notch lawyers. Burke Ramsey will be deposed and asked tough questions. My wife videotaped the Westmoreland deposition in his libel case and he got a tough going over. I think it will also be legitimate to depose John Ramsey. It should get very interesting. I think Burke will make a bad witness in front of a jury.


Lin Wood has been through this before. He will be well prepared.

Excerpts from a recent interview with Lin Wood:

Lin Wood: Since 1999 and 2000, when I successfully sued Star magazine, the New York Post and Court TV for falsely accusing Burke Ramsey of the death of JonBenét, no member of the mainstream media or even the tabloid media has dared to make that accusation against this young man again. He was officially and publicly cleared — being described as not being a suspect or a possible suspect by the Boulder Police Department in May of 1998 and the Boulder District Attorney's Office in May of 1999. And there has been no evidence developed in the case since then other than DNA evidence developed in 2008 that was used by then-district attorney Mary Lacy to exonerate the entire family. Burke had already been exonerated. So other than, as you say, wild accusations that have floated around in the Internet world over the last twenty years, no credible attack has ever been made against Burke Ramsey since the foolishness in 1999 and 2000.

Jim Kolar's book was published a few years ago. It was self-published. It had no credibility. No mainstream publisher would touch it. I know for a fact that Jim Kolar approached a number of members of the mainstream media in New York seeking interviews to publicize the book, and they refused to interview him. They refused any attempt to give publicity or credibility to his book, Foreign Faction. And that book is the cornerstone of the CBS docuseries that was recently broadcast. So while Jim Kolar was not worth a lawsuit a few years ago, because I did not feel he had any credibility and I did not want to give him the appearance of credibility that would publicize his book by filing a lawsuit against him, obviously things have changed now, because CBS used this book as part of its script for the docuseries.

You've probably seen me quoted as saying this series was a fraud. There was no new investigation by a new team of experts. This was a scripted show, primarily off of Jim Kolar's book.
…….
The idea that there would be any hesitation in suing over this case because of fear of the discovery process is utter nonsense. I have already filed and successfully pursued three cases on behalf of Burke Ramsey, all those years ago. I have also filed defendant cases for John and Patsy Ramsey. They have been deposed. There is absolutely no concern whatsoever in engaging fully in the discovery process.

Discovery in this case is going to support my client's position. Because his position is based on fact and evidence. On the other hand, discovery is going to expose Dr. Spitz in his case and CBS in its case. It's going to expose the utter lack of evidentiary foundation for the accusations against Burke Ramsey. And it's going to, I believe, prove by clear and convincing evidence that this accusation was manufactured in order to produce big ratings during September sweeps and get the CBS docuseries off to a good start with an intent to avoid CBS's internal standards. That's because they did not allow this broadcast to be produced by 48 Hours. 48 Hours is the arm of CBS that produces true-crime programs in what might be generally described as the entertainment area. 48 Hours has done at least three shows on the JonBenét Ramsey case. They were, in fact, supposed to produce the twentieth-anniversary segment. But it was pulled by CBS Entertainment to give the show to Critical Content. And in so doing, it allowed the show to be produced outside CBS's internal standards. They were allowed to have greater freedom to make this false accusation against Burke, which no other show has made against this young man………

I can't tell you in strong enough words: There is absolutely not one iota of physical evidence that links this young man to the murder of his sister.... It's not even a matter of exonerating him. It shows that he is not even a legitimate suspect, as acknowledged by law enforcement authorities publicly in 1998 and 1999. So in order to accuse this young man, you've either got to intentionally misrepresent the evidence, intentionally ignore the evidence, or manufacture evidence to come up with the sensational, for-profit headline that Burke Ramsey was somehow involved in the murder of his sister…………

It is unconscionable conduct that CBS would openly defy the findings of legitimate law enforcement authorities, would ignore actual evidence in the case, would manufacture evidence, and would go out and pay money to these television expert whores such as Werner Spitz and Henry Lee, to come onto their air to give some kind of feigned credibility to these false accusations............

http://www.westword.com/news/burke-rams ... re-8390450



It will come down to how a jury will respond. CBS is not a sympathetic defendant but I think Burke will turn out to be one of the worst witnesses in the history of Western litigation. His demeanor is so off-putting that a jury may enter a verdict for the network solely on the basis that they don't like him. So it may turn out to be a battle between two very disliked parties (similar to our recent election).
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

"Everything about this is crazy, it has no rhyme or reason"

Postby charlie_wilkes » Sun Jan 01, 2017 2:58 pm

Burke didn't do it. TV "experts" are grasping for wild theories because this is one of those rare cases that does not seem to fit any known type of criminal behavior, i.e.:

- Personal cause
- Criminal enterprise
- Random violence/mental illness
- Mob violence
- Sexual gratification
- Political violence/terrorism
- Vice
- Criminal negligence

Many crimes involve mixed behaviors, like a burglary that turns into rape. But a kidnapping for ransom does not turn into a sexual homicide at the point of abduction. That is unheard of. I understand why police thought the Ramseys had staged the crime scene to cover up a domestic homicide.

But I don't think that is correct. The evidence points to one or more intruders who hid in the house and carried out the crime after the family had gone to bed. We just don't know why.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately because of another, more recent crime that is equally baffling - the Sherri Papini abduction.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... california

It wasn't a sex crime, it does not appear to have been staged, and nothing suggests kidnapping for ransom. So what was it? I'm damned if I know. Same with the Ramsey case.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Chris_Halkides » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:58 am

For what it's worth, I think that the pineapple business is probably not relevant. For one thing the spoon in the bowl looks like a serving spoon, not a spoon that someone would use to serve himself or herself a late night snack. Possibly a neighbor dropped a bowl off on the 26th, and Patsy and Burke handled it and forgot about doing so.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: "Everything about this is crazy, it has no rhyme or reas

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:51 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:Burke didn't do it. TV "experts" are grasping for wild theories because this is one of those rare cases that does not seem to fit any known type of criminal behavior, i.e.:

- Personal cause
- Criminal enterprise
- Random violence/mental illness
- Mob violence
- Sexual gratification
- Political violence/terrorism
- Vice
- Criminal negligence

Many crimes involve mixed behaviors, like a burglary that turns into rape. But a kidnapping for ransom does not turn into a sexual homicide at the point of abduction. That is unheard of. I understand why police thought the Ramseys had staged the crime scene to cover up a domestic homicide.

But I don't think that is correct. The evidence points to one or more intruders who hid in the house and carried out the crime after the family had gone to bed. We just don't know why.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately because of another, more recent crime that is equally baffling - the Sherri Papini abduction.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... california

It wasn't a sex crime, it does not appear to have been staged, and nothing suggests kidnapping for ransom. So what was it? I'm damned if I know. Same with the Ramsey case.


I have used the word "lurker" for someone who hides in a house and then emerges in the night to commit crimes. I have long thought that this may be the answer in the Ramsey case. I also think it may explain the Routier case. It is an attractive alternative when there is evidence that there wasn't a break in but also evidence that it wasn't an "inside job."
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: "Everything about this is crazy, it has no rhyme or reas

Postby charlie_wilkes » Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:51 pm

erasmus44 wrote:I have used the word "lurker" for someone who hides in a house and then emerges in the night to commit crimes. I have long thought that this may be the answer in the Ramsey case. I also think it may explain the Routier case. It is an attractive alternative when there is evidence that there wasn't a break in but also evidence that it wasn't an "inside job."


It doesn't resolve the puzzle. Methods depend on circumstances and are not fundamental to any specific type of crime. A kidnapper who aims to collect ransom will do whatever works to carry out the crime. The same goes for a high functioning sexual predator. If the best tactic is to break in while everyone is gone, lie in wait, and strike after the family goes to bed, so be it.

This method does however suggest patience and forethought, which in turn points to some coherent motive. But we don't have that with the Ramsey case, and still less with Routier. With the Ramsey case, we seem to be looking at a carefully laid plan without a recognizable purpose. If it was a kidnapping for ransom, and something went wrong such that it escalated to murder, why not take the body and still try to collect ransom? Or, if the perpetrator(s) decided to abandon the plan in a moment of panic, why stage an apparent sexual assault?

If, on the other hand, this crime was the work of a pedophile, then why the ransom note?

As a point of comparison, I have always thought Sam Sheppard murdered his wife. I base this on the crime scene. The room was tossed as though the perp was searching for a specific item. A medical bag was rifled as though the perp was a drug addict. The victim's pants were pulled down as though it was a sex crime.

I assess that as staging by someone whose thinking was superficial. The crime scene presents a number of familiar motifs, but does not fit any specific type of criminal behavior. Therefore, while I accept that Sheppard was the victim of prejudicial media coverage, I still think he probably did it.

By that yardstick, I ought to think the Ramseys killed their daughter. But I don't. The DNA evidence is too robust, involving too many samples with the same unidentified profile, to be waved away. The evidence of a stun gun is strong if not conclusive. I know of no reason to suspect the Ramseys of child abuse, and I think they would have acted much differently had they scrambled to cover up a death resulting from abuse. I do not believe either of them, gripped by panic, would have composed such an eccentric and unnecessarily long ransom note.

I am satisfied they didn't do it. Someone else did it. The question that nags me is not who, but why.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Chris_Halkides » Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:35 am

I can see two answers to the question of why. Personal cause (John Douglas believes this to be the case) or sexual gratification of some kind (Lou Smit favored this hypothesis). I tend toward the latter view. The guy was in the house for a while, and may have found a paper with the $118,000 figure on it (such a paper was there, if I am reading "Law and Disorder" correctly). Therefore, he may have written a ransom note with the $118,000 figure as a distractor. That leave who. I have a couple of posts ("What about Bob") at ISF about someone that an author of one of the books on this case calls "Bob." From what I can gather Bob had previously engaged in one or more crimes involving sex.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby charlie_wilkes » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:58 am

Chris_Halkides wrote:I can see two answers to the question of why. Personal cause (John Douglas believes this to be the case) or sexual gratification of some kind (Lou Smit favored this hypothesis). I tend toward the latter view. The guy was in the house for a while, and may have found a paper with the $118,000 figure on it (such a paper was there, if I am reading "Law and Disorder" correctly). Therefore, he may have written a ransom note with the $118,000 figure as a distractor. That leave who. I have a couple of posts ("What about Bob") at ISF about someone that an author of one of the books on this case calls "Bob." From what I can gather Bob had previously engaged in one or more crimes involving sex.


I favor the sexual motive as well. I think the Ramseys treated their children well and with the best of intentions, but the pint-sized beauty pageants would be sure to draw the interest of pedophiles. The open house provided a chance to scout the premises and devise a plan. It could be that a sexual predator wrote the bizarre ransom note mostly because he had time on his hands, and he figured it would be useful as a red herring. He may have intended to remove the victim from the premises, but he ended up killing her in the basement because he could not control her or keep her from screaming.

That fits the facts as well as anything. But it is pure speculation.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby jane » Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:47 pm

JonBenet Ramsey's father suing CBS over TV report

The father of JonBenét Ramsey -- a child beauty pageant winner who was found dead inside her parents' Colorado home in 1996 -- has filed a lawsuit against CBS over a “docu-series” about the highly publicized case.

John Ramsey’s suit, filed Sept. 14, also names participants in the production of "The Case of JonBenet Ramsey," specifically Stanley Burke, Jim Clemente, James Fitzgerald, James Kolar, Henry Lee, Laura Richards and Werner Spitz, the Daily Camera newspaper in Boulder reported.....................

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... eport.html
jane
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby jane » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:47 pm

John Ramsey has filed a $350 million dollar lawsuit against CBS and assorted individuals...............

http://www.westword.com/news/john-ramse ... am-9582176

John Ramsey vs. CBS, et. al.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3613957 ... -CBS-et-al
jane
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Mediocrates » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:34 pm

I think the CBS crew made a VERY compelling case! A lot of the pieces fell into place with their theory. In fact, I think they probably solved it. That Burke fellow seems to have had(/has) some VERY serious issues. And I have no problem accepting the notion that 2 arrogant/ image-obsessed parents might have tried to manage an ugly family tragedy privately rather than call 911 and risk losing their boy to the system.

It surely would explain their odd behavior toward law enforcement in the wake of the killing.

I'm SUPER interested to see how the law suits filed by Burke and John turn out! I hope they're not quietly 'settled out of court' - I'd love to see what courts have to say on the issues raised.
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby Samson » Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:41 am

Mediocrates wrote:I think the CBS crew made a VERY compelling case! A lot of the pieces fell into place with their theory. In fact, I think they probably solved it. That Burke fellow seems to have had(/has) some VERY serious issues. And I have no problem accepting the notion that 2 arrogant/ image-obsessed parents might have tried to manage an ugly family tragedy privately rather than call 911 and risk losing their boy to the system.

It surely would explain their odd behavior toward law enforcement in the wake of the killing.

I'm SUPER interested to see how the law suits filed by Burke and John turn out! I hope they're not quietly 'settled out of court' - I'd love to see what courts have to say on the issues raised.

I can't believe this. You posit a vast number of moving parts, when a predator stalking these fools for putting a child in adult regalia is so plausible. Plague on all their intents and how they reaped.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Jon Benet Ramsey - Here We Go!

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:42 am

Mediocrates wrote:I think the CBS crew made a VERY compelling case! A lot of the pieces fell into place with their theory. In fact, I think they probably solved it. That Burke fellow seems to have had(/has) some VERY serious issues. And I have no problem accepting the notion that 2 arrogant/ image-obsessed parents might have tried to manage an ugly family tragedy privately rather than call 911 and risk losing their boy to the system.

It surely would explain their odd behavior toward law enforcement in the wake of the killing.

I'm SUPER interested to see how the law suits filed by Burke and John turn out! I hope they're not quietly 'settled out of court' - I'd love to see what courts have to say on the issues raised.



The lawsuits will definitely dredge up a lot of stuff. Burke will be deposed and that could get interesting. If he is guilty, it would take a lot of balls to file a suit like this but it would not be impossible. This is another case in which I am on the fence but leaning to an intruder theory.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm


Return to Injustice Anywhere Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron