John Ramsey on LKL tonight (Dec. 20th)

[MissOtisRegrets]

John Ramsey on Larry King Live tonight (Dec. 20th)

:seeya:

MissO

[LindaA]

MissO -- where've you been? Missed you!!

I jsut finished watching LKL with JR. I'll tell you what, if that man killed his daughter he is one fine actor. I know if I had done it, I would keep myself off network TV. How easy would it be to slip and say something that would give yourself away.

[thewhitewitch1]

I missed it. It figures. :(
I can't comment on his "acting skills", I guess. ;)

[sweetcharlotte]

I just posted the LKL transcript up on the links thread if anyone is interested.

[andU]

I just posted the LKL transcript up on the links thread if anyone is interested.

Thanks, Sweet! I did miss it.... I left a comment there for you.

[MissOtisRegrets]

MissO -- where've you been? Missed you!!

I jsut finished watching LKL with JR. I'll tell you what, if that man killed his daughter he is one fine actor. I know if I had done it, I would keep myself off network TV. How easy would it be to slip and say something that would give yourself away.


Hi Linda! :seeya: We had a terrible ice storm here and I lost my electricity for a week. When I finally got back to CTV I didn't get any farther than the Blake board.

I couldn't agree with you more. I can't imagine the strength that family has needed. For the first time last night it really made an impression on me that all of this happened while Patsy was fighting for her life and trying to fit a lifetime with her children into five years.

[Sprocket]

From the transcript

That -- people ask me the most dramatic moment in the history of this program. It had to be the time that detective was on, who had left the Boulder Police Department and sat there live...

J. RAMSEY: Yes.

KING: ... and pointed to Patsy and said, "I think you did it and I think you" -- he pointed to you -- "are covering up."

J. RAMSEY: Well, you've got to understand, he had no credentials to be a detective. He was a jail guard two years before. So...


This is a flat out lie by John Ramsey. He won't mention him by name, but he's referring to Steve Thomas, and Steve was never, at any time, a jail guard. Keep spinning those lies John. You'll be caught in them every time.

[sweetcharlotte]

From the transcript



This is a flat out lie by John Ramsey. He won't mention him by name, but he's referring to Steve Thomas, and Steve was never, at any time, a jail guard. Keep spinning those lies John. You'll be caught in them every time.

I'm sure you must have a link to provide us that proves Steve was never a jail guard?

[Coloradokares]

From the transcript



This is a flat out lie by John Ramsey. He won't mention him by name, but he's referring to Steve Thomas, and Steve was never, at any time, a jail guard. Keep spinning those lies John. You'll be caught in them every time.

That is correct Steve Thomas was a Lakewood Police officer prior to his being hired by Boulder. What makes me want to vomit is this is the stuff people believe......cause it was on Larry King Live. Gack and double gack. Jail guard. Indeed. Gack!!:flamemad: Yes I am mad. Its one thing to do the crime....another to lie about nearly every single thing from the window to their stellar cooperation with LE and another to keep throwing good people under the tires of the bus and bus has gotten a lot of milage and gone over a lot of bumps in 10 years. Infuriating. Why if they are as innocent as the driven snow. And have we got snow out here!!! Did they hire PR firms and Lawyers to keep them out of jail not find the real killer. Sorry for the rant...but has it occured to John Q Public that there is every real possibility that JonBenet may have died at the hand of a parent or parents and the other parent covered as well. Proabably cause they both had things to hide and they could not be forced legally to testify one agaist the other. One thing is certain... they sure can't keep a consistent story together yet somehow in ten years they have failed to be held accountable for those inconsistencies in their statements. Its a shame. A rotten shame. Steve Thomas was a jail guard. Unqualified. He was a detective hello....Perhaps not as experienced but what he lacked in experience he certainly gave in dedication..... JMHO Why then are the Ramseys 10 years still under suspicion. Boulder wants answers not fabrications excuses and fairtales woven. Its time for the truth. JMHO. JonBenet deserves justice.

[nuisanceposter]

Try this:

http://www.forstevethomas.com/stevethomas.htm

Steve Thomas, former Boulder Police Detective, was enjoying his police career as an inconspicuous undercover narcotics detective until a fateful Christmas homicide in 1996.

<snip>

A graduate of the University of Colorado, Steve Thomas received more than a hundred commendations and awards during his 13-year police career, including the Award of Excellence, a medal for lifesaving, a SWAT citation, and a Distinguished Service Award. Thomas' career included a variety of assignments, ranging from recruit training and SWAT to special investigations and undercover narcotics. One of Thomas' drug cases was heard by the Colorado Supreme Court, resulting in a unanimous search-and-seizure decision favoring law enforcement. After two officer-involved shootings, Thomas also instructed on surviving critical incidents. Prior to the Ramsey case, Thomas worked on a multi-state task force investigating racketeering and organized crime that resulted in numerous grand jury indictments.


According to this thread and ST's book, the jail guard was Peter Hofstrom, who worked at San Quentin.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8122



You're right, Sprocket. JR's been caught in his lies yet again.

[sweetcharlotte]

>snip<
Perhaps not as experienced but what he lacked in experience he certainly gave in dedication.....
<snip>




Don't forget how he ruined his health.

[andU]

That is correct Steve Thomas was a Lakewood Police officer prior to his being hired by Boulder. What makes me want to vomit is this is the stuff people believe......cause it was on Larry King Live. Gack and double gack. Jail guard. Indeed. Gack!!:flamemad: Yes I am mad. Its one thing to do the crime....another to lie about nearly every single thing from the window to their stellar cooperation with LE and another to keep throwing good people under the tires of the bus and bus has gotten a lot of milage and gone over a lot of bumps in 10 years. Infuriating. Why if they are as innocent as the driven snow. And have we got snow out here!!! Did they hire PR firms and Lawyers to keep them out of jail not find the real killer. Sorry for the rant...but has it occured to John Q Public that there is every real possibility that JonBenet may have died at the hand of a parent or parents and the other parent covered as well. Proabably cause they both had things to hide and they could not be forced legally to testify one agaist the other. One thing is certain... they sure can't keep a consistent story together yet somehow in ten years they have failed to be held accountable for those inconsistencies in their statements. Its a shame. A rotten shame. Steve Thomas was a jail guard. Unqualified. He was a detective hello....Perhaps not as experienced but what he lacked in experience he certainly gave in dedication..... JMHO Why then are the Ramseys 10 years still under suspicion. Boulder wants answers not fabrications excuses and fairtales woven. Its time for the truth. JMHO. JonBenet deserves justice.

ST dedication didn't solve anything, did it? Boulder isn't the only city crying out for answers, CK.... many of us on this board are from all over the country. We all know what you are looking for when you speak of justice, since you are so close, why don't you dig up evidence to back up what you are implying. If the Ramsey's are guilty, prove it!

[sweetcharlotte]

ST dedication didn't solve anything, did it? Boulder isn't the only city crying out for answers, CK.... many of us on this board are from all over the country. We all know what you are looking for when you speak of justice, since you are so close, why don't you dig up evidence to back up what you are implying. If the Ramsey's are guilty, prove it!

I waiting for books to be located, boxes unpacked, etc....... to back up some of the "claims" made here. :read:

[nuisanceposter]

Personally, I admire a man who, as a detective on a child's homicide, is so dedicated to the child and justice for her that he works himself ragged trying to solve the case.

Apparently the Rs felt some measure of admiration for him too, because on page 304 of DOI, they say they really felt he had been sincere in his desire to avenge their daughter's death, and were grateful for his passion. They felt he truly wanted to serve JonBenet.

As for Thomas's experience - Thomas wasn't the only person who thought PDI was a valid theory. He had some substantial experts backing him up, including the Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit of the FBI (CASKU.) The lack of experience aspect may hold up if Thomas hadn't come upon a theory that other more experienced experts like CASKU agreed most fit the crime scene - an accidental death and cover up with parental involvement.

[Coloradokares]

Don't forget how he ruined his health.

Thats what you do well Sweetcharlotte. Remind us of the details we inadvertently forgot to mention. :D But seriously....I have a question for you what if one day it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that the Ramsey(s) did this , what then? I am not saying they did. I am saying that they are not removed from suspicion for many good reasons and the possibility exists that this case needs a very serious revisiting by an office of special prosecutors. I am fully prepared should it be proven that JonBenet was killed by an intruder who was the mastermind of all murders to be humbled in my opinions. This case is not one that is easy to form 250% conclusions about. I have a real hard time also with thinking a parent could do this to their child and continue for 10 years not to clear their conscience. I have said before I am not a typical IDI or RDI or fence sitter. I don't think its possible if your from Boulder to fit the niche allowed for those 3 distinct categories. However I am not so blatantly blind as to believe that the possiblity does not exist. Now please spare me the sythroid steves and twisting Thomases.... and such. Not a single insult will change the facts of this murder. Somebody did this to this little girl and that is a fact. I hate it but parents do these things. As ghastly as it seems. I see many inconsistencies that cannot be explained away on the part of the Ramseys.
How do you square the inconsistencies or do you just turn your sharp intellect off and what you refuse to acknowledge ceases to exist as any part of your reality? I am not so easily convinced that all I have witnessed ongoing out here is just so much smoke and mirrors. Its possible....my question is what are the probables. We can't find the intruder in 10 years not a sniff..... whats the chances of that?

[andU]

Nor has there been proof produced that the Ramseys killed their own daughter.... huh?

[sweetcharlotte]

Personally, I admire a man who, as a detective on a child's homicide, is so dedicated to the child and justice for her that he works himself ragged trying to solve the case.

Apparently the Rs felt some measure of admiration for him too, because on page 304 of DOI, they say they really felt he had been sincere in his desire to avenge their daughter's death, and were grateful for his passion. They felt he truly wanted to serve JonBenet.

As for Thomas's experience - Thomas wasn't the only person who thought PDI was a valid theory. He had some substantial experts backing him up, including the Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit of the FBI (CASKU.) The lack of experience aspect may hold up if Thomas hadn't come upon a theory that other more experienced experts like CASKU agreed most fit the crime scene - an accidental death and cover up with parental involvement.

Oh, please! John Douglas thought the Ramseys couldn't possibility have done it - and don't say that's because they paid him.

Ever thought that you and I need some new material?

[Coloradokares]

ST dedication didn't solve anything, did it? Boulder isn't the only city crying out for answers, CK.... many of us on this board are from all over the country. We all know what you are looking for when you speak of justice, since you are so close, why don't you dig up evidence to back up what you are implying. If the Ramsey's are guilty, prove it!

Would that were possible. All the evidence is sitting sealed up in a warehouse and you think you can get near it with a 10 ft. pole. No But as best as can be done for someone with only a tattered trench coat. Its been 10 long years and still ......what prevents you from coming out here. Can you unseal all the privacy issues and open the floodgates to the unanswered questions. As a private citizen I don't have a leg to stand on but to keep asking the questions of the people I think might have a clue or knowledge or even an inkling that could lead to an answer. My friends think I am nuts over even caring about JonBenet anymore. They encourage me to get a life. My family tetters on the brink thinking a courtordred committal might be the kind thing to do for me. I was fine till I got on these forumes. Life had perspective balance and occasionally when I'd drive by I'd glance over and feel the burn inside again that its 10 years nothing. Now and again I'd sit and just look at the house and wonder if the walls could speak. What changes the fact that 10 years later she is just as dead as she was then. You think sitting on a forum discussing it and debating it back in forth is the action that will solve the crime and bring justice to JonBenet. I am to old to go to Police Acadamy .... I got snow to scoop. Now thats something I can do to relieve tensions and see progress on.

[sweetcharlotte]

Personally, I admire a man who, as a detective on a child's homicide, is so dedicated to the child and justice for her that he works himself ragged trying to solve the case.


I think that's what you call working "hard", not smart.

BTW - what's the "all hail" icon all about? Designed for anyone in particular? j/k......

[nuisanceposter]

Oh, please! John Douglas thought the Ramseys couldn't possibility have done it - and don't say that's because they paid him.

Douglas's own colleagues wondered at his decision, too. *wait, I've got a link!*

http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mccrary_jbr.html

In his interview with "Dateline NBC" this week, Douglas has said that "his heart" tells him that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, weren't involved in her murder. And he relies heavily on his 4 1/2 hour interview with the couple to reach his conclusion, he said. If John Ramsey is a liar, Douglas said on national TV, he's one of the best.

But one of Douglas's former FBI colleagues, Gregg McCrary, watched the television interview with more than a passing interest. He turned down the job as the Ramsey family's profiler a couple of weeks ago. McCrary found some notable flaws in Douglas' profiling work for the Ramseys. NBC referred, without contradiction from Douglas, to the profiler's "interview with the parents for 4 1/2 hours."

McCrary said the parents should have been interviewed separately, not jointly, for the profiling work to be valid. "That's always the correct way to do this. It's fundamental," McCrary said. "You separate the people, you interview them independently, you lock them into statements and then you compare." To do otherwise virtually invalidates the effort, he said. And he wasn't impressed with Douglas' conclusion that John Ramsey is telling the truth. "I've talked to guilty offenders in the penitentiary, and some of them are so manipulative and persuasive that they almost have you believing they didn't do it," he told me yesterday.

Top-notch criminal profilers, he said, "always put more weight on behavior than on words. The behavior of the offender is much more telling than what he says later," McCrary said. And the behavior of JonBenet's killer speaks very, very loudly.

For instance, McCrary said evidence at the scene strongly disputes any theory that the killer may have been a disgruntled employee of Ramsey. "This crime was not about getting back at the father," said McCrary, who couldn't recall a case of "someone killing a kid to get back at a parent." He said the sexual assault of JonBenet "was a deviant, psychopathic sexual behavior, not an expression of anger at the father."

If revenge on the father had been a motive, McCrary said, "the killer would have displayed the body; he wouldn't have hidden it in the basement."

The profiler said the body would have been placed in a manner "to shock and offend" John Ramsey if anger or hate or revenge had been the motive.

Additionally, he said that by assaulting JonBenet, killing her, taking her from an upper-floor bedroom to a far corner of the basement and writing a lengthy ransom note - all negated a revenge killing.

"If that had been the reason for a killer being in the house that night," McCrary said, "they would have killed the little girl and gotten out as fast as possible."

It's that behavior that a profiler puts most credence in, rather than in someone's words, according to McCrary. And McCrary comes with unusually good credentials. Douglas himself considers McCrary to be among "the top criminal profilers and investigative analysts in the world."

Ever thought that you and I need some new material? Yeah, I have...any ideas?

Where's the "all hail" icon?

[sweetcharlotte]

Good read, thanks. But I still believe Douglas' comments re: no precursors, etc.

Icons - some to my right as I post, some below (scroll down).

Way O/T, but do you remember when we were discussing JMK and the disappearance of several little girls in AL. One of the girls' remains were found yesterday (being discussed on CTV - Current Crime thread.) I still haven't put JMK in an envelope marked "closed."

[Sprocket]

You might not want to fall all over yourself quoting John Douglas's opinion about this case.

Douglas now says that he never did a profile of JonBenet's killer

http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3105&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=450


johndouglas
Joined: 15 Sep 2004
Posts: 63
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:57 pm Post subject: Setting the Record Straight Reply with quote

I have a few minutes to advise some of you that I never did a profile for the Ramsey attorneys. A profile was released by the defense without my permission. I had no input and you're correct there's not much to the profile which was released. I wasn't too happy to be associated with a report I did not do.

However, that does conflict from what he wrote in his book, The Cases That Haunt Us


"On Monday January 6, I was in Provo, Utah, preparing a training seminar...When I called in to chack my voice mail, I had a message from a provate investigator named H. Ellis Armistead from Denver, who said he had been hired by the Ramsey family...The next day Armistead got in touch with me...He indicated that attorney Lee Foreman...attorneys for John Ramsey...would be contacting me...Foreman called around 9:00 that night and said he woudl like me to....conduct an analysis for them....When I got to Denver, I met with Lee Foreman and Bryan Morgan in their law office."

The remainder of the chapter is about Douglas's interviews with the Ramseys, and Morgan appears to be present during all of them.

Ah Douglas. The man who couldn't even follow his own FBI guidelines for interview of potential suspects and developing profiles. I think it's called backpedaling. I doubt he still has the respect from his former collegues.

[sweetcharlotte]

You might not want to fall all over yourself quoting John Douglas's opinion about this case.



Excuse me? Fall all over myself? And when did I quote John Douglas?

[elvislives]

And the behavior of JonBenet's killer speaks very, very loudly.

He said the sexual assault of JonBenet "was a deviant, psychopathic sexual behavior, not an expression of anger at the father."

?

I've read extensively about that dispute among FBI profilers as to the Ramsey's guilt or innocence. I suppose that's one of the things that makes this case so interesting...and probably the reason no one has been tried for the murder....the experts are often times on opposite ends of the spectrum.

I'm not a huge advocate of behavioural science, but I do find GM's assessment interesting...that the killer was a deviant sexual psychopath. Does he think John or Patsy or some unknown intruder is the deviant sexual psychopath?

[elvislives]

You might not want to fall all over yourself quoting John Douglas's opinion about this case.

Douglas now says that he never did a profile of JonBenet's killer

http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3105&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=450



However, that does conflict from what he wrote in his book, The Cases That Haunt Us



The remainder of the chapter is about Douglas's interviews with the Ramseys, and Morgan appears to be present during all of them.

Ah Douglas. The man who couldn't even follow his own FBI guidelines for interview of potential suspects and developing profiles. I think it's called backpedaling. I doubt he still has the respect from his former collegues.

I hear all kinds of bashing of the "experts" on this board and I truly believe that regardless of which side they are on--whether it's Steve Thomas, John Douglas, Lou Smit, etc--that they are legitimately after the same thing...that is justice for JB. I don't think any of them formed their opinions so they could sell more books, make a name for themselves, have their 15 minutes of fame, or for any other selfish motive. I just think they all looked at the facts and formed different conclusions. JMO

[Louisadelmar]

I hear all kinds of bashing of the "experts" on this board and I truly believe that regardless of which side they are on--whether it's Steve Thomas, John Douglas, Lou Smit, etc--that they are legitimately after the same thing...that is justice for JB. I don't think any of them formed their opinions so they could sell more books, make a name for themselves, have their 15 minutes of fame, or for any other selfish motive. I just think they all looked at the facts and formed different conclusions. JMO

Absolutely. That's why the idea that John Ramsey bribed or bought off people like Douglas, Judge Carnes, Lou Smit, 2 DAs plus assorted ADAs, Jeanne Boylan, Beuf, etc. is ridiculous and an insult to all these professionals.

[docg]

What we should all be aware of is the fact that John Douglas was hired by a Ramsey attorney, which placed him under attorney-client privilege. This means, first of all, that there was no risk incurred by the Ramseys in hiring Douglas. If he'd found something suspicious, that finding would never have been made public. Second of all, it means that any number of profilers may also have been hired. It's a simple tactic: keep hiring profilers until you find one that thinks you're innocent. And have THAT one go public. From what Douglas says on his forum, he was only paid one or two thousand bucks. John Ramsey was a multimillionaire. At those rates, he could certainly have afforded to buy a whole lot of profilers!

[Louisadelmar]

What we should all be aware of is the fact that John Douglas was hired by a Ramsey attorney, which placed him under attorney-client privilege. This means, first of all, that there was no risk incurred by the Ramseys in hiring Douglas. If he'd found something suspicious, that finding would never have been made public. Second of all, it means that any number of profilers may also have been hired. It's a simple tactic: keep hiring profilers until you find one that thinks you're innocent. And have THAT one go public. From what Douglas says on his forum, he was only paid one or two thousand bucks. John Ramsey was a multimillionaire. At those rates, he could certainly have afforded to buy a whole lot of profilers!

I'm not sure there is a priviledge here. But (as with other experts in other cases) that is the whole point of giving a verbal analysis first. Then if they don't like it nothing goes on paper. If they do, it gets written up.

[Louisadelmar]

Cases That Haunt Us, p. 292

I gave Foreman the standard rap I'd given all potential clients since I'd left the Bureau, whether they were private citizens or police agencies: you can buy my time if I have it to give, but my analysis is completely independent, and you can't influence it. I will give you my report verbally. You may or may not like it or agree with what I have to say and it's up to you whether you use it or not. If you wish I will then produce a written report, which, since I am not an attorney, may be subject to subpoena. I won't reveal any priviledged or protected information you give me or say anything based on it. But if I'm asked for my opinion based on public information, I reserve the right to give it.

Since he's also not a PI I don't think there is any priviledge there either.

[docg]

Cases That Haunt Us, p. 292

I gave Foreman the standard rap I'd given all potential clients since I'd left the Bureau, whether they were private citizens or police agencies: you can buy my time if I have it to give, but my analysis is completely independent, and you can't influence it. I will give you my report verbally. You may or may not like it or agree with what I have to say and it's up to you whether you use it or not. If you wish I will then produce a written report, which, since I am not an attorney, may be subject to subpoena. I won't reveal any priviledged or protected information you give me or say anything based on it. But if I'm asked for my opinion based on public information, I reserve the right to give it.

Since he's also not a PI I don't think there is any priviledge there either.

Douglas knows better than to confuse the fact that he's not an attorney with attorney-client privilege. He was HIRED as a consultant by a Ramsey attorney, which placed his findings under attorney-client privilege whether he himself was an attorney or not. Note how carefully his last sentence has been crafted: "But if I'm asked for my opinion based on public information, I reserve the right to give it." He was hired to interview the Ramseys and review the evidence and come up with an opinion based on THAT. Neither his interviews nor the evidence he reviewed would have been public information, so his disclaimer is meaningless.

[docg]

MissO -- where've you been? Missed you!!

I jsut finished watching LKL with JR. I'll tell you what, if that man killed his daughter he is one fine actor. I know if I had done it, I would keep myself off network TV. How easy would it be to slip and say something that would give yourself away.

John HAS in fact slipped during interviews, many times. He's used the phrase "and hence"; he frequently uses percentage figures, in a manner quite similar to the way they were used in the note; one of his favorite words is "proper" as in "proper burial"; he's stated "I respect the legal system," an unusual usage, echoing the phrase "we respect your business," etc. He and Patsy also gave away the fact that they'd taken (and apparently failed) a private polygraph. When they were asked about that, on Burden of Proof, they claimed attorney-client privilege, a dead giveaway. He also arranged NOT to be asked about the ransom note during the excuse for a polygraph that they organized, and paid for, themselves.

Under ordinary circumstances John would be a defense lawyer's worst nightmare. But this is no ordinary case. John gets past everyone's radar because he was "ruled out" as writer of the note. So he could NOT have written it. Fer sher. Musta been Patsy. Right! That's the ticket, Patsy the Patsy. So John is in the catbird seat. He can say and do anything he damn well pleases and no one will pick up on it, because they're all looking in some other direction.

John's been given a pass. License to lie, cheat, murder, and play the wronged innocent on national TV. Maybe someone ought to ask him about how he cheated on his wife, i.e. systematically lied for 2 years -- and got away with it -- until his infidelity became obvious. :flamemad:

[shill]

John HAS in fact slipped during interviews, many times. He's used the phrase "and hence"; he frequently uses percentage figures, in a manner quite similar to the way they were used in the note; one of his favorite words is "proper" as in "proper burial"; he's stated "I respect the legal system," an unusual usage, echoing the phrase "we respect your business," etc. He and Patsy also gave away the fact that they'd taken (and apparently failed) a private polygraph. When they were asked about that, on Burden of Proof, they claimed attorney-client privilege, a dead giveaway. He also arranged NOT to be asked about the ransom note during the excuse for a polygraph that they organized, and paid for, themselves.


Any chance that someone despised and hated John so much they couldn't stand to hear him talk and his little catch phrases drove them crazy so they threw it back at him in a vengeful ransom note to add to the payback attack on John?

[andU]

IMO, the profilers are doing the same thing that we all do, with the exception of them having professional experience. They are guest-timating after they've conducted their interviews... what type of person could have commited this crime. They may have been paid for their opinion, but it is just that: their perceived opinion based on their professional experience. It offers insight, but is not rock solid. I read them with a grain of salt, no matter the source.

[andU]

Any chance that someone despised and hated John so much they couldn't stand to hear him talk and his little catch phrases drove them crazy so they threw it back at him in a vengeful ransom note to add to the payback attack on John?


Yepper, I think so; of course, my opinion is worth as much as anyone's.

[Tober]

Oh, please! John Douglas thought the Ramseys couldn't possibility have done it - and don't say that's because they paid him.

How he came to that conclusion is questionable at best: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/printthread.php?t=145

[sweetcharlotte]

How he came to that conclusion is questionable at best: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/printthread.php?t=145

Have you read Douglas' book, "The Cases That Haunt Us?"
I did. Formed my own opinion of his conclusions.

[Tober]

Have you read Douglas' book, "The Cases That Haunt Us?"

John Douglas contends that JonBenet's killer is a male. What sound evidence exists that would exclude a female as having been JonBenet's killer?

[LindaA]

John Douglas contends that JonBenet's killer is a male. What sound evidence exists that would exclude a female as having been JonBenet's killer?
Perhaps the DNA that is from a male?

[Tober]

Perhaps the DNA that is from a male?

To arrive at that conclusion would require the profiler to view the DNA exclusively in and of itself and not in light of the totality of evidence. That violates a most basic first principle of crime scene reconstruction.

[nuisanceposter]

There's no guarantee that the DNA belonged to the killer. Even Patsy Ramsey allowed for the possibility of the killer being female, saying we don't know if the killer was a man or a woman in the CNN interview. She also told Steve Thomas during a police interview, "You know maybe it's a female that wrote that note." (ST, hb, pg 170.) Perhaps if semen had been found on JonBenet, then the killer being female could be ruled out.

[Tober]

Perhaps the DNA that is from a male?

The DNA might not even be the killer's, as noted by Mary Lacy and others. See Exhibit 6: The DNA: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5233834,00.html

[shill]

The DNA might not even be the killer's, as noted by Mary Lacy and others. See Exhibit 6: The DNA: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5233834,00.html

It was used to exclude John Mark Karr.
Why would they compare it to Karr's if it may not be the killers?
Without that DNA, they could have held Karr as long as they wanted from his confession, but they didn't.

[Tober]

It was used to exclude John Mark Karr.

The DNA test excluded Karr as the donor of the DNA, it didn't exclude him as JonBenet's killer. What excluded him as JonBenet's killer was that his confession did not match the evidence, and he couldn't be placed at or near the crime scene at the necessary time.

[Tober]

Why would they compare it to Karr's if it may not be the killers?

Since the DNA was found, it cannot be ignored. It can be inferred to a reasonable degree of certainty that the DNA was not deposited by JonBenet's killer. However, in the interest of investigative integrity, it must be tested against potential suspects.

[shill]

To arrive at that conclusion would require the profiler to view the DNA exclusively in and of itself and not in light of the totality of evidence. That violates a most basic first principle of crime scene reconstruction.

Thinking you're assumptions are correct violates a most basic first principle of crime scene reconstruction.

[Tober]

Have you read Douglas' book, "The Cases That Haunt Us?"

John Douglas contends that JonBenet's killer used a stun gun on her. The stun gun theory has been examined, tested, and invalidated: http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/criersmit.html

[Athena]

John Douglas contends that JonBenet's killer used a stun gun on her. The stun gun theory has been examined, tested, and invalidated: http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/criersmit.html

It has not been validated or invalidated; and Stratbucker's depo was dismissed as when he was presented with legitmate information (not second-hand copied photos) he even admitted had he seen this evidence he may have said they WERE consistent with stun gun marks:

When they had gathered sufficient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wickman met with the coroner, John Meyer. After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenet's face and back were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun.

Ainsworth met with Dr. Robert Deters a pathologist on the case of a 13 month old girl from Larimer County who had been murdered in 1988. Deters examined the photos of JBR and agreed that the marks were consistent with a stun gun injury but he did not think the body had to be exhumed. Deters believed that nothing more could be learned by examing the skin tissue.

Source: PMPT

Read Stratbucker's depo:

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/05302002Depo-RobertStratbuckerMd.htm

[Tober]

It has not been validated or invalidated; and Stratbucker's depo was dismissed as when he was presented with legitmate information (not second-hand copied photos) he even admitted had he seen this evidence he may have said they WERE consistent with stun gun marks:

When they had gathered sufficient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wickman met with the coroner, John Meyer. After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenet's face and back were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun.

Ainsworth met with Dr. Robert Deters a pathologist on the case of a 13 month old girl from Larimer County who had been murdered in 1988. Deters examined the photos of JBR and agreed that the marks were consistent with a stun gun injury but he did not think the body had to be exhumed. Deters believed that nothing more could be learned by examing the skin tissue.

Source: PMPT

Read Stratbucker's depo:

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/05302002Depo-RobertStratbuckerMd.htm

The theorist bears the burden of proving their theory. John Douglas contends the marks are from a stun gun, but he cannot prove that. Lou Smit has searched high and low for a stun gun that would align with those marks, and has been unable to find one. Furthermore, as noted by Dr. Meyer in JonBenet's autopsy report, the marks are abrasions.

[Athena]

The theorist bears the burden of proving their theory. John Douglas contends the marks are from a stun gun, but he cannot prove that. Lou Smit has searched high and low for a stun gun that would align with those marks, and has been unable to find one. Furthermore, as noted by Dr. Meyer in JonBenet's autopsy report, the marks are abrasions.

There has been NO theory proven and the stun gun theory has not been DISproven so your point escapes me. Furthermore abrasions can also be first-degree burns. Abraision is just a generic description of a superficial injury to the top layer of skin.

[Tober]

There has been NO theory proven and the stun gun theory has not been DISproven so your point escapes me.

As I've noted, the stun gun theory has been examined, tested, and invalidated: http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/stungun.html

[AmyW]

I'm not sure we'll ever know the truth. I hope I'm wrong. JonBenet deserves justice and her loved ones deserve peace of mind. There are so many conflicting theories and so much information to muddle through, I find myself thoroughly frustrated with this case. However, I am enjoying reading everyone's thoughts on the case.

I know this doesn't add to the discussion; just wanted to put my 2 cents worth in.

:)

[bullmoose]

Tober: What you present as proven fact is not accepted as fact by myself or others on this board, IMO. When you want to strongly push your thoughts and opinions just add IMO and go ahead and let fly with whatever. But insisting that the issue is settled and proven to all is just silly.

[Athena]

As I've noted, the stun gun theory has been examined, tested, and invalidated: http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/stungun.html

Because you repeat it does not make it true. The site you link to uses the very same NBC photo that made Stratbucker state that given the originals he may have very well agreed that the abrasions (aka first-degree burns) were consistent with stun gun marks which aided in his depo being thrown out since he was testifying as an expert who did not have the original photos. Scanned images get distorted and because you have accepted it is as true doesn't make it so; it is just YOUR opinion that you accepted this as proof and it is MY opinion that I don't agree with it. JMO

[Tober]

The site you link to uses the very same NBC photo that made Stratbucker state that given the originals he may have very well agreed that the abrasions (aka first-degree burns) were consistent with stun gun marks which aided in his depo being thrown out since he was testifying as an expert who did not have the original photos.

That is typical IDI spin. Dr. Meyer, in JonBenet's autopsy report, identifies the marks as abrasions. Dr. Meyer full well knows the difference between abrasions and first-degree burns. What IDIs are doing, is implying that Dr. Meyer (who performed JonBenet's autopsy) got it wrong, and they have it right. Had the marks been burns, Dr. Meyer would have noted so. The IDIs desperately want those marks to have been burns because that's all they have (actually, they don't even have that).

[Tober]

Tober: What you present as proven fact is not accepted as fact by myself or others on this board, IMO. When you want to strongly push your thoughts and opinions just add IMO and go ahead and let fly with whatever. But insisting that the issue is settled and proven to all is just silly.

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/criersmit.html "I know for a fact that this was submitted to various experts in stun guns and manufacturers, criminalists, forensic pathologists, law enforcement people, they all rejected it. I also know for a fact that Mr. Smit, pursuant to his own request, presented this to one of the top-flight forensic scientists, who along with another top-flight forensic scientist of a different subspecialty, rejected it." - Dr. Cyril Wecht. And so, it is unecessary for me to write IMO.

[Zoey]

That is typical IDI spin. Dr. Meyer, in JonBenet's autopsy report, identifies the marks as abrasions. Dr. Meyer full well knows the difference between abrasions and first-degree burns. What IDIs are doing, is implying that Dr. Meyer (who performed JonBenet's autopsy) got it wrong, and they have it right. Had the marks been burns, Dr. Meyer would have noted so. The IDIs desperately want those marks to have been burns because that's all they have (actually, they don't even have that).

Wrong. I am an IDI and have been for the past 10 years. I never have believed that the marks were caused by a stun gun, nor do I believe they are burns. I, as an IDI, have no idea whatsoever what could have caused those marks on JB. I, as an IDI do not believe I am right and Dr. Meyer is wrong. And I don't think any IDI is desperate for anything other than the facts, IMO.

[Tober]

Wrong. I am an IDI and have been for the past 10 years. I never have believed that the marks were caused by a stun gun, nor do I believe they are burns. I, as an IDI, have no idea whatsoever what could have caused those marks on JB. I, as an IDI do not believe I am right and Dr. Meyer is wrong.

My apologies, I should have said "some IDIs."

[shill]

That is typical IDI spin. Dr. Meyer, in JonBenet's autopsy report, identifies the marks as abrasions. Dr. Meyer full well knows the difference between abrasions and first-degree burns. What IDIs are doing, is implying that Dr. Meyer (who performed JonBenet's autopsy) got it wrong, and they have it right. Had the marks been burns, Dr. Meyer would have noted so. The IDIs desperately want those marks to have been burns because that's all they have (actually, they don't even have that).
As an IDI, I have never once argued a stun gun was involved.
I went along with an RDI's suggestion that it might be burns from twinkle lights on the spiral stairs, but that supports nothing.
Save your "Ah-hahs" for something else.

[Athena]

That is typical IDI spin. Dr. Meyer, in JonBenet's autopsy report, identifies the marks as abrasions. Dr. Meyer full well knows the difference between abrasions and first-degree burns. What IDIs are doing, is implying that Dr. Meyer (who performed JonBenet's autopsy) got it wrong, and they have it right. Had the marks been burns, Dr. Meyer would have noted so. The IDIs desperately want those marks to have been burns because that's all they have (actually, they don't even have that).

Tober I don't know if a stun gun was used or not and again I will say too much emphasis has been put on that theory as it is. Even if a stun gun were used IMO has no bearing on solving the crime anyway. It's not that I believe a stun gun was used; I am just addressing your comments.

Abrasions are a GENERIC term used in an autopsy report when there is no identification of what caused the abrasions. I am just pointing out that first-degree burns are considered abrasions as they are a superficial injury to the top layer of skin. When Dr Meyer was asked if those marks could have been caused by a stun gun he said it was possible. If he were so sure as to what caused those marks or that it could not have been a stun gun he would have stated that.

[LadyFisher]

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/criersmit.html "I know for a fact that this was submitted to various experts in stun guns and manufacturers, criminalists, forensic pathologists, law enforcement people, they all rejected it. I also know for a fact that Mr. Smit, pursuant to his own request, presented this to one of the top-flight forensic scientists, who along with another top-flight forensic scientist of a different subspecialty, rejected it." - Dr. Cyril Wecht. And so, it is unecessary for me to write IMO.

I am an IDI, and I believe those marks on JBs body could have very well come from a stun gun! Dr. Wecht isn't infallible, he's human and can make errors just like anyone else. Why did Meyer who was the ME, and Peter Mang and Sue Kitchen of the CBI state these marks could have been from a stun gun? If they aren't from a stun gun, exactly when and how did those marks gets there?

[Coloradokares]

As an IDI, I have never once argued a stun gun was involved.
I went along with an RDI's suggestion that it might be burns from twinkle lights on the spiral stairs, but that supports nothing.
Save your "Ah-hahs" for something else.

Shill correct me if I am wrong but was it not you who was questioning if it couldnt have been from the garland lights on the spiral stairs. I think we agree now that it was most likely not as they don't get hot enough and these are abrasions not burns. Which RDI suggested that it was the twinkle lights. I thought that was your question. I am confused.

[shill]

Shill correct me if I am wrong but was it not you who was questioning if it couldnt have been from the garland lights on the spiral stairs. I think we agree now that it was most likely not as they don't get hot enough and these are abrasions not burns. Which RDI suggested that it was the twinkle lights. I thought that was your question. I am confused.
Ames Ames is offline
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,240
The Christmas lights...
Do you guys think that it is possible that the lights that were wrapped around the staircase railing, could be the source of those injuries on JB that look like stun gun marks? Back in 1996, or around that time...there had been a recall on those types of lights, because they got too hot...and would burn down people's Christmas trees...and sometimes, even their houses. They are not hot to the touch now, just warm....but that was ten years ago. (IMO)

[Coloradokares]

Ames Ames is offline
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,240
The Christmas lights...
Do you guys think that it is possible that the lights that were wrapped around the staircase railing, could be the source of those injuries on JB that look like stun gun marks? Back in 1996, or around that time...there had been a recall on those types of lights, because they got too hot...and would burn down people's Christmas trees...and sometimes, even their houses. They are not hot to the touch now, just warm....but that was ten years ago. (IMO)


Thanks Shill. Didn't mean to put you through such an effort. :seeya:

[Tober]

Why did Meyer who was the ME, and Peter Mang and Sue Kitchen of the CBI state these marks could have been from a stun gun?

Because at first glance, the marks look somewhat similar to those left by a stun gun. However, upon careful examination, it becomes apparent that the marks aren't from a stun gun.