PMPT Reality Check

[watson]

Hi ho everyone. I just read the book Perfect Murder Perfect Town (PMPT) 'THE' book about the Ramsey case by Larwrence Schiller, Harper-Collins 1998 (Lawrence Schiller writes books about sensational true life cases, and is a tv producer). I'm probably the only person on Ramsey case boards that had never read this 9 year old book before. I usually try to stay away from authors books about unsolved cases because inevitably they are authors opinions of other authors opinions of something that was leaked and spun in the press way back when etc., and I don't want it coloring my opinion and look at the real evidence.
Here's the reality check.......Lawrence Schiller put together a big book full of info and detail on what happened in the Ramsey case in 1997 and early 1998, BUT check out the authors own warning page (the 6th pre page in the book) where Schiller states all in the book is only from his memory after reading about the case in the media, un-named reports he reviewed, the memories of others, and stuff he copied from media articles, rearranged and put in his own words. Schiller warns that even when he does quote someone or something in his book (which he doesn't usually)....those passages 'are edited. Words, phrases, and even segments of the interviews on which passages are based were removed and sentances rearranged to present the material.....' in line with his book and what he wanted to say (PMPT pre p.6), So the guy warns everyone that his book is not 'the truth', or the actual evidence, or intended to be, there is no guarantee of accuracy, and even any 'quotes' have been patially made up. There is no bibliography of sources and the book itself provides no proof or any way to back up anything Schiller put in there.
Still IMO it's still a good primer and starting point for a load of case detail (which may or may not be true) that we can consider and look up, and think about in the real world to see if it's true or usefull or not.
Just be careful not to get fooled if you read it, or have.
PS thanks to NP for finally making look at Schillers work.

[Louisadelmar]

This book attempts to take the story of the murder investigation if JonBenet Ramsey out of the context of the newspaper reports and sound bites that have formed the nation’s opinion of the case and place it into a more complete context.

The book is based on the memories of those interviewed, my own observations, reports, transcripts, and other documents I obtained during my research.

The passages that appear in the first person have been edited. Words, phrases, and even segments of the interviews on which the passages are based were removed and sentences rearranged to present the material in continuity. It was not done to make accounts more meaningful or to improve on what interview subjects said but to avoid duplication and confusing references and to make the transition from speech to print more fluent.

Lawrence Schiller
September, 1999

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by watson

Hi ho everyone. I just read the book Perfect Murder Perfect Town (PMPT) 'THE' book about the Ramsey case by Larwrence Schiller, Harper-Collins 1998 (Lawrence Schiller writes books about sensational true life cases, and is a tv producer). I'm probably the only person on Ramsey case boards that had never read this 9 year old book before. I usually try to stay away from authors books about unsolved cases because inevitably they are authors opinions of other authors opinions of something that was leaked and spun in the press way back when etc., and I don't want it coloring my opinion and look at the real evidence.
Here's the reality check.......Lawrence Schiller put together a big book full of info and detail on what happened in the Ramsey case in 1997 and early 1998, BUT check out the authors own warning page (the 6th pre page in the book) where Schiller states all in the book is only from his memory after reading about the case in the media, un-named reports he reviewed, the memories of others, and stuff he copied from media articles, rearranged and put in his own words. Schiller warns that even when he does quote someone or something in his book (which he doesn't usually)....those passages 'are edited. Words, phrases, and even segments of the interviews on which passages are based were removed and sentances rearranged to present the material.....' in line with his book and what he wanted to say (PMPT pre p.6), So the guy warns everyone that his book is not 'the truth', or the actual evidence, or intended to be, there is no guarantee of accuracy, and even any 'quotes' have been patially made up. There is no bibliography of sources and the book itself provides no proof or any way to back up anything Schiller put in there.
Still IMO it's still a good primer and starting point for a load of case detail (which may or may not be true) that we can consider and look up, and think about in the real world to see if it's true or usefull or not.
Just be careful not to get fooled if you read it, or have.
PS thanks to NP for finally making look at Schillers work.

I have never read PMPT. Have only read Death of Innocence.

[Louisadelmar]

I think everyone should read PMPT, DOI and ST's book.

[shill]

I think only the depositions, subpoenas, police and autopsy reports should have been read.
Are there police reports available?

[watson]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

This book attempts to take the story of the murder investigation if JonBenet Ramsey out of the context of the newspaper reports and sound bites that have formed the nation’s opinion of the case and place it into a more complete context.

The book is based on the memories of those interviewed, my own observations, reports, transcripts, and other documents I obtained during my research.

The passages that appear in the first person have been edited. Words, phrases, and even segments of the interviews on which the passages are based were removed and sentences rearranged to present the material in continuity. It was not done to make accounts more meaningful or to improve on what interview subjects said but to avoid duplication and confusing references and to make the transition from speech to print more fluent.

Lawrence Schiller
September, 1999

*********************************************
Thanks for copying the whole quote from the preface to Schillers book. I didn't copy the whole thing because I type too slow, and frankly so I could arrange Mr. Schillers statement with more 'continuity' to what I was typing. But complete preface, or no, what Schiller is saying is clear....he does change and rearrange the statements of others (so actually their not quotes but what he terms 1st party statements (edited)), and his book by his own list is 1st based on 'memories', 2nd, on Schillers 'personal observations', 3rd on un-named 'reports, transcripts and other documents'....he says he obtained.

[LindaA]

Funny you sould post this today. I read PMPT when it first came out and no longer have it, but just picked up a new copy of it yesterday. I was reading the short piece at the very beginning written by gardener Brian Scott and was puzzled to read that he said on page 5 of my paperback edition, " In early December of '96, I was raking the blanket of leaves..." Then on page 6 he refers to picking up the newspaper on the morning after her murder as being "six weeks later." Unless months are longer in Colorado than anywhere else, that doesn't add up. If makes me wonder what else is inaccurate in PMPT and I was going to start a thread about it myself.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by LindaA

Funny you sould post this today. I read PMPT when it first came out and no longer have it, but just picked up a new copy of it yesterday. I was reading the short piece at the very beginning written by gardener Brian Scott and was puzzled to read that he said on page 5 of my paperback edition, " In early December of '96, I was raking the blanket of leaves..." Then on page 6 he refers to picking up the newspaper on the morning after her murder as being "six weeks later." Unless months are longer in Colorado than anywhere else, that doesn't add up. If makes me wonder what else is inaccurate in PMPT and I was going to start a thread about it myself.

I'm not sure whether that was a typo and he was raking in November or if it was just a faulty memory and it seemed like 6 weeks later.

But you can be sure if a Ramsey had said it it would be declared proof of a lie.

[LindaA]

You are absolutely right about that, Louisa.

[watson]

Originally Posted by LindaA

Funny you sould post this today. I read PMPT when it first came out and no longer have it, but just picked up a new copy of it yesterday. I was reading the short piece at the very beginning written by gardener Brian Scott and was puzzled to read that he said on page 5 of my paperback edition, " In early December of '96, I was raking the blanket of leaves..." Then on page 6 he refers to picking up the newspaper on the morning after her murder as being "six weeks later." Unless months are longer in Colorado than anywhere else, that doesn't add up. If makes me wonder what else is inaccurate in PMPT and I was going to start a thread about it myself.

************************************************** *
Like I said above I just for the first time ever read PMPT in the last few days, I did find several internal errors (in the book itself from page to other pages) and just in the relating of complex info or events (such as medical), but the book as the author suggests at the begining is in essence a compendium, or weave and summary of 'all' the stuff the author could glean from the media and the other sources on the case avaiable back in 1997, (the information, and misinformation, the spin, the rumor, the inside story) and then weave into some kind of coherent order. He doesn't guarantee correctness. There's bound to be errors, duplications, and contradictions.

[Louisadelmar]

I think PMPT is admirably neutral as to guilt. Its biggest value is it gives a skeleton on which to hang all the other info.

[KingCoyote]

I vote with Shill.

Police Interview Transcripts, Depositions, Autopsy Report, Search Warrants and Court Documents from the various civil cases are the best source. I also put DOI in the category of primary source since it is written by parties to this matter.

I read PMPT first because I heard it was neutral and did not point a finger. I read ST (Steve Thomas) next and found it to be naturally leaning to the Police viewpoint. I read DOI and found it to be naturally leaning to the Ramsey viewpoint.

I rarely use ST and not because I think ST is personally lacking credibility but because of the following: Police officers when they are seeking a warrant which is to be based upon probable cause may rely on information from whom they believe to be a reliable source. Reliable sources to one police officer are usually other police officers. That may be all well and good for preparing an affidavit for a search warrant but it doesn't fly when you are publicly presenting your point of view that someone has committed murder in a book. ST or his publisher or editors should have thought of this. Although there was a settlement in ST's case where ST suffered no liability, he did have to suffer through a lawsuit which probably could have been avoided with a lot of fact checking.

I will use PMPT frequently but try to back it up with a more primary source. I might say that in most of my Database entries I found PMPT the most consistent of the three books.

KingCoyote

[Athena]

King.... Your last sentence basically says what I wanted to. I believe any book written on this case will contain errors however as you say it was the most consistent of any I have read. It is also neutral and basically leaves it up to the reader to interpret the data. Many of his facts are taken directly from the police reports and others close to the investigation and he presents details in a non-biased way. Much of the information he does have in the book can be corroborated with the interviews which is what makes me believe it is the best source available.

Steve Thomas' book hypes too much about his unproven theory and many of the "facts" that he presents in his book were contradicted by his own depo and by the interviews which makes me believe it is less than a reliable source although I do also believe he does present some factual information. Whatever I find from other sources that can corroborate what he says I believe --alot of it I discard.

I have also very rarely relied on the Ramsey's book even though I tend to lean towards IDI because it too in certain aspects is obviously slanted.

PMPT is probably the best source but I have said many times posting on these boards -- with everything that is read there should be an attempt to verify. JMO

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

I vote with Shill.

Police Interview Transcripts, Depositions, Autopsy Report, Search Warrants and Court Documents from the various civil cases are the best source. I also put DOI in the category of primary source since it is written by parties to this matter.

I read PMPT first because I heard it was neutral and did not point a finger. I read ST (Steve Thomas) next and found it to be naturally leaning to the Police viewpoint. I read DOI and found it to be naturally leaning to the Ramsey viewpoint.

I rarely use ST and not because I think ST is personally lacking credibility but because of the following: Police officers when they are seeking a warrant which is to be based upon probable cause may rely on information from whom they believe to be a reliable source. Reliable sources to one police officer are usually other police officers. That may be all well and good for preparing an affidavit for a search warrant but it doesn't fly when you are publicly presenting your point of view that someone has committed murder in a book. ST or his publisher or editors should have thought of this. Although there was a settlement in ST's case where ST suffered no liability, he did have to suffer through a lawsuit which probably could have been avoided with a lot of fact checking.

I will use PMPT frequently but try to back it up with a more primary source. I might say that in most of my Database entries I found PMPT the most consistent of the three books.

KingCoyote

The authors of DOI would if I don't miss my quess, as suspects to this day in this murder, would have as much reason as anyone to have selective recall and memory in their own favor and would cast themselves in as good a light as possible as well. So I have difficulty in seeing your rational.

[KingCoyote]

ColoradoKares:

If I understand your query as to my rationale for making DOI a primary source while I make ST and PMPT secondary sources let me explain it this way. DOI contains statements directly from the Ramseys. Those statements are not hearsay. Almost all statements within PMPT are hearsay as they are statements Schiller heard and then repeated. Those statements are not directly from the person making the statement.

The same holds true for much of what Steve Thomas says: his statements are, in many instances based upon what someone else told him, not what he heard directly from the source which is simple hearsay, but in even some instances the statements are heard by another officer from the direct source, repeated to Thomas and then repeated by Thomas. It is a form of double hearsay.

So if I rank the quality of the books, DOI statements are direct; PMPT statements are hearsay pure and simple and ST statements can go all the way to rank hearsay.

Did that make sense or did I just muddy the waters some more?

KingCoyote

[shill]

Hearsay is not admissible in court. It would be a tough challenge to bring much of what has been said into court as evidence against the Ramseys, where the Ramsey’s testimony would all be admissible.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

ColoradoKares:

If I understand your query as to my rationale for making DOI a primary source while I make ST and PMPT secondary sources let me explain it this way. DOI contains statements directly from the Ramseys. Those statements are not hearsay. Almost all statements within PMPT are hearsay as they are statements Schiller heard and then repeated. Those statements are not directly from the person making the statement.

The same holds true for much of what Steve Thomas says: his statements are, in many instances based upon what someone else told him, not what he heard directly from the source which is simple hearsay, but in even some instances the statements are heard by another officer from the direct source, repeated to Thomas and then repeated by Thomas. It is a form of double hearsay.

So if I rank the quality of the books, DOI statements are direct; PMPT statements are hearsay pure and simple and ST statements can go all the way to rank hearsay.

Did that make sense or did I just muddy the waters some more?

KingCoyote

I see your point, but there are many places in ST where he's telling the reader about interviews he conducted himself, such as the times he sat and talked with Nedra Paugh, for example, and interviewed suspects. ST telling us what he heard the Ramseys say would be admissible in court - I recently participated in a custody hearing in which I was a witness, and all statements I had personally heard from the parents were admissible. ST also lists information that would only be known by police, such as what investigation yielded what result. I don't think you should discount that as less important. PMPT I can see, because Schiller wasn't part of the investigation but just wrote about it - however, anything he heard the Rs or police say in person would be admissible in court....unless family court is completely different.

I can't see DOI as a primary source before the others, because even if the testimony is coming straight from the Ramseys, that doesn't make it fact. There are parts in DOI that are distinctly different from PMPT and ST, such as the Rs saying FBI weren't on the case and were being kept at bay by police - and as I have pointed out from excerpts of PMPT and ST, that was not true - police called FBI in on the case and police not only did not keep them at bay, but Sgt Mason drove Agent Ron Walker over to the R house himself.

IMO, like CK said, the Ramseys have more reason to put out false information than anyone else. Their very freedom and innocence is at stake. Just because you're hearing something directly from them doesn't mean it's accurate and more valid. You need all three books at the same time (and even some online sources, such as articles from back in the day) to differentiate between what is and is not fact.

That's your goal, here, right, KC? Get to the meat and dish up the facts?

[LindaA]

In academic research the term "primary source" refers to documents produced by the subject of the research and not by an "outsider". The only reason it is considered preferable to other sources is that it is kind of a first generation source not colored by some outsider's interpretation of the facts. That's not to say primary sources cannot be biased. Everything has a certain bias, but the bias is that of the person being studied and therefeore pertinant to the research. Therefore, DOI is a primary source because it was written by suspects/witnesses/victims -- depending on your POV -- in the Ramsey case.

[nuisanceposter]

And what's the proper title of Steve Thomas's book? It's JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation. And there's what pov it was written from - inside the investigation, from a man who was as directly involved in the investigation as the parents of the murdered child. He was the main detective on the case, and according to Lawrence Schiller himself, ST may know more about what happened in this case and the investigation than anyone else. That cannot be discounted. Some of his book is recalling what he'd heard from other officers, etc, but much of it is his firsthand recounting of what his personal investigation uncovered.

[KingCoyote]

Shill:

You are correct, but (and here I go again wading into the uncharted waters of law) I understand there are a whole bunch of exceptions to the hearsay rule that allows a lot of second hand type statements into evidence.

NuisancePoster:

You are correct that calling something a primary source does not make it factual. I am simply classifying sources, not judging the quality of the source. See above post by LindaA. She states it better than I do.

P.S. I love meat but my doctor says I should lower my cholesterol so I guess I will have to settle for "figurative" meat instead of "literal" meat.

Thanks for your comments.

KingCoyote

[LindaA]

If any part of it is a re-telling of what he heard from others, it is a second generation source and not a primary one. After all, ST was a not there the night of the murder, or even when the body was discovered,was he?

[nuisanceposter]

And is any part of DOI a retelling of what they've heard from others? Why, yes...it is. As for not being there that day, that's why police record information in official police reports - the officers who respond and initially glean information may not be the detectives that investigate the case, but the info they learned can be used by detectives as a valid source in the case.

[LindaA]

Np, give it up. We have defined a primary source for you. If you don't like it, fine. Quit with the sarcasm!!

[nuisanceposter]

???

I wasn't even trying to be sarcastic that time...

[LindaA]

Sometimes you don't even have to try. If a person has ever been sarcastic, people tend to see it everywhere. Peace.

[andU]

Actually, to quote a very old television cop, "Just the facts, M'am ... just the facts." If only there were some way to glean out the opinions and 'just the facts'. I prefer to form my own opinion from the 'official' reports (and I wish we had access to all of those).

I too just read PMPT. I've never read DOI or the ST book, but if I had to rank them in terms of credibility I'd put PMPT first, followed by ST, then DOI last. And I agree with all here that the info in these novels cannot be relied upon as fact. I did see an interview with Schiller a few months ago where they were challenging many of the "facts" in his book. And his response was something to the effect of, "while all the facts may not be accurate, the SPIRIT of the book is accurrate'. I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I do agree with Shill that the autopsy, police reports, etc are the only documents that can be used as evidence.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by elvislives

I too just read PMPT. I've never read DOI or the ST book, but if I had to rank them in terms of credibility I'd put PMPT first, followed by ST, then DOI last. And I agree with all here that the info in these novels cannot be relied upon as fact. I did see an interview with Schiller a few months ago where they were challenging many of the "facts" in his book. And his response was something to the effect of, "while all the facts may not be accurate, the SPIRIT of the book is accurrate'. I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I do agree with Shill that the autopsy, police reports, etc are the only documents that can be used as evidence.

Why would you rank DOI last in terms of credibility? You are reading first hand from the people closest to the crime. If I were you, I'd be scrutinizing that book very closely and comparing it with the interviews and depositions. If anyone says the Ramseys are so intellegent, then you need to wonder why they wouldn't have the intellegence to make their book support what was said by themselves in LE interviews etc and what were known facts about the murder. Lies and contradictions is what you get in DOI. How can you so easily dismiss that??

Originally Posted by thewhitewitch1

Why would you rank DOI last in terms of credibility? You are reading first hand from the people closest to the crime. If I were you, I'd be scrutinizing that book very closely and comparing it with the interviews and depositions. If anyone says the Ramseys are so intellegent, then you need to wonder why they wouldn't have the intellegence to make their book support what was said by themselves in LE interviews etc and what were known facts about the murder. Lies and contradictions is what you get in DOI. How can you so easily dismiss that??

DOI was written by two people who were/are the prime suspects in a murder and would probably say anything to deflect attention from themselves or shape public opinion. I havent read the book because I think--since the Ramsey's wrote it--it would be completely biased in their favor. E.g. I don't consider the R's impressions of the police investigation as FACT...I consider it their perception. And I do not believe that their perception is necessarily the reality.

Originally Posted by thewhitewitch1

Why would you rank DOI last in terms of credibility? You are reading first hand from the people closest to the crime. If I were you, I'd be scrutinizing that book very closely and comparing it with the interviews and depositions. If anyone says the Ramseys are so intellegent, then you need to wonder why they wouldn't have the intellegence to make their book support what was said by themselves in LE interviews etc and what were known facts about the murder. Lies and contradictions is what you get in DOI. How can you so easily dismiss that??

Oh I think I get what you are saying now (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong). Are you saying that I should read the book so I can see all their lies and inconsistencies? Not interested and here's why...their book is simply a novel...they are not under oath and cannot be cross-examined on the content, they are simply telling a story. I am presuming that the book is full of spin and that's why I am not interested in reading it.

[KingCoyote]

Elvislives:

If my limited undertanding of the rules of court procedure is anywhere near close, and that is debatable, I think there is something called "prior inconsistent statements", which would allow an attorney on cross examination to use the prior inconsistent statement to impeach the credibility of the witness if the witness contradicts the prior statement. (I hope I got close on that one. Legalese confuses me even more than this case does.)

KingCoyote

[LindaA]

Actually, I have wondered ever since DOI came out why, if they are guilty, the Rs would draw attention to themselves in that way. They took a h*ll of a chance having it published.

And I would by no means call it a novel. A novel is a work of fiction; the term that comes closest to describing the Ramsey bookis "memior" -- a person's own reflection on his life or a part of it. There may well be spin in it, but it meant to be read and believed.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

Elvislives:

If my limited undertanding of the rules of court procedure is anywhere near close, and that is debatable, I think there is something called "prior inconsistent statements", which would allow an attorney on cross examination to use the prior inconsistent statement to impeach the credibility of the witness if the witness contradicts the prior statement. (I hope I got close on that one. Legalese confuses me even more than this case does.)

KingCoyote

This is true King. That is exactly what Wood did with the statements ST made in his book during his deposition. The fact that he made the statements opened them up to examination either direct or cross. Same would hold true for any statements made in the Ramsey book. Seems to me that PMPT would be considered hearsay since Schiller was not a first-party to the investigation and basically repeated statements made to him or what he had read in the police reports.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by elvislives

Oh I think I get what you are saying now (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong). Are you saying that I should read the book so I can see all their lies and inconsistencies? Not interested and here's why...their book is simply a novel...they are not under oath and cannot be cross-examined on the content, they are simply telling a story. I am presuming that the book is full of spin and that's why I am not interested in reading it.

It doesn't matter if they were under oath or not. Their version of what happened in their book does not always coincide with statements they made to LE. It is not a work of fiction so I don't understand how you can dismiss it like that. The way I see it, their story, in their own words is every bit as important as the official interviews and depos.

[cami]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

I think everyone should read PMPT, DOI and ST's book.

I just can't get into it...I've picked it up and put it down so many times that I doubt I will ever finish it. I just hate Schiller's writing style...I get so confused, I spend most of my time flipping back to the front of the book trying to understand who he is talking about.

As for DOI, I saw it as the Ramsey's window dressing at the time I read it. I am going to read it again...and read it with new eyes this time.

[aussiesheila]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

ColoradoKares:

If I understand your query as to my rationale for making DOI a primary source while I make ST and PMPT secondary sources let me explain it this way. DOI contains statements directly from the Ramseys. Those statements are not hearsay. Almost all statements within PMPT are hearsay as they are statements Schiller heard and then repeated. Those statements are not directly from the person making the statement.

The same holds true for much of what Steve Thomas says: his statements are, in many instances based upon what someone else told him, not what he heard directly from the source which is simple hearsay, but in even some instances the statements are heard by another officer from the direct source, repeated to Thomas and then repeated by Thomas. It is a form of double hearsay.

So if I rank the quality of the books, DOI statements are direct; PMPT statements are hearsay pure and simple and ST statements can go all the way to rank hearsay.

Did that make sense or did I just muddy the waters some more?

KingCoyote

KingCoyote! What ???!!! OK so DOI is not hearsay, but really!!! If either of the Ramseys are guilty in any way even a direct statement from them is hardly likely to be objective, is it??

No-one knows for sure yet that neither of the Ramseys were completely innocent.

I think DOI was largely Patsy’s work (I think John was out trying to earn a buck while it was being written). I also think Patsy was involved in the coverup and therefore had a lot to hide, so I think anything written in DOI has a significant spin of Patsy’s in it.

PS I haven’t read DOI and I am in agreement with shill wrt where serious sleuths should be researching and with Louisadelmar wrt using PMPT as a resource that provides the framework for the events.

[KingCoyote]

aussiesheila:

Let me see if I can muddy the waters more:

I think PMPT is the most neutral and objective of all books written. I use is for a lot of my research, at least to start with. But the fact still remains it is a secondary source, not a primary source because it is purely hearsay and I therefore must compare Schiller's statements to direct statements of parties actually involved.

I use DOI and ST as well but I realize that even though they are first hand statements and not hearsay, (for the most part because even JR and ST relied on others' statements), the non hearsay statements of ST and JR/PR are still subject to scrutiny because of the lack of objectivity.

Hearsay and objectivity are two differrent topics and not necessarily mutually exclusive. I weigh all statements as to source and objectivity. I think my statements about direct/hearsay, primary/secondary and objective/subjective simply created another bog with semantics and collateral issues.

Sorry if I caused or continue to cause confusion.

KingCoyote

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by LindaA

Np, give it up. We have defined a primary source for you. If you don't like it, fine. Quit with the sarcasm!!

But is your academic definition of 'primary source' really helpful here?
Two murder suspects have written a book in which they present themselves as innocent. That's all. That's your primary source here. What comes out straight of the suspects' mouth has no factual validity in terms of being the truth, and therefore is not a 'preferable' source in a murder investigation.

For example, if O. J. Simpson (being a 'primary source') wrote a book in which he claims his innocence, would you consider his book as a preferable source compared to e. g. Vincent Bugliosi's "Outrage"?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally Posted by rashomon

But is your academic definition of 'primary source' really helpful here?
Two murder suspects have written a book in which they present themselves as innocent. That's all. That's your primary source here. What comes out straight of the suspects' mouth has no factual validity in terms of being the truth, and therefore is not a 'preferable' source in a murder investigation.

For example, if O. J. Simpson (being a 'primary source') wrote a book in which he claims his innocence, would you consider his book as a preferable source compared to e. g. Vincent Bugliosi's "Outrage"?

That's exactly what I was trying to point out, rashomon, but backed off when I saw it was becoming a personal issue I didn't want to be involved in.

It doesn't matter if the statements are coming firsthand from someone if you aren't even sure if the people making the statements are telling the truth, and have, in fact, been exposed as not telling the truth when their version of events is compared to the other main books, ST and PMPT.

The example I gave earlier defines this idea - both ST and PMPT say FBI was on the case the morning of 12/26 because BPD called them and had them get involved, and even drove an agent over to the house, but JR says BPD didn't want FBI involved and held them at bay. The version in DOI, while coming straight from JR, is designed to help the Rs promote the image they want people to see, whether it is accurate or not.

I'm very reluctant to name a book whose very accuracy is at question as a primary source just because it was written by the people involved in the case, especially when they have every reason to portray an inaccurate relation of events, and have been exposed as doing so.

Steve Thomas says: his statements are, in many instances based upon what someone else told him, not what he heard directly from the source which is simple hearsay, but in even some instances the statements are heard by another officer from the direct source, repeated to Thomas and then repeated by Thomas. It is a form of double hearsay.

Here's something that ST heard and observed directly. It's Patsy's own words and behavior.

ST book, hardback, pgs 55-56:

Patsy was unsteady as I had her lift the sleves of her loose denim blouse so I could check for bruises or scratches on the fronts and backs of her hands and arms. Then I checked her face and neck and found nothing unusual. We were standing in a row at the counter, with Patsy in the middle where she shifted slightly and wispered to Gosage, "Will this help find who killed my baby?"
He carefully replied, equally softly, "I hope so."
Patsy looked at her inked fingers and spoke again. "I didn't kill my baby." The lawyer apparently did not hear her, but my head snapped around as if on a swivel. colorado Revised Statute Procedure 41l1 spelled out that we couldn't as ingestigative questions during this evidence collection, but we could certainly listen if anything was said voluntarily, and the mother of the murder victim had blurted out something totally unexpected. I directed my comment to Gosage "What di she just say?"
[b]Patsy Ramsely repested to me this lime, "I didn't kill my baby."
The lawyer launched way from the wall, placed his hands on her shoulder,s brought his face to within inches of her ear, and wispered emphatically. She didn't say another word during the entire session, but what she had already said hung like thunder. I didn't kill my baby." No one suggested that she had.

To me, that entire event screams "consiousness of guilt" by Patsy.

The problem with your conclusion of ST's book being "mostly" what other sources heard and observed and not being first hand, direct experience of ST himself is:

The statements from other officers as to what they observed/noted during the course of the investigation that Steve Thomas includes in his book would be part of the official police record. And ST worked that case for a long time, and had complete access to the entire case file. Just because Steve Thomas writes about them, (and may not have experienced every event he writes about himself) does not negate their validity.

Another event that ST experienced himself was the presentation of the case to the FBI CASKU investigators. Their analysis of the case that ST writes about says it all for me. They've investigated over 1700 child murders. They have seen the worst of the worst, from stranger abduction to parents who kill intentionally to tragic accidents in the home. They are the nation's experts in crime scene analysis, and it's why many of our nation's police departments call on them for help/guidance in directing their investigations.

To dismiss the FBI CASKU's analysis of the case calls into question an individual's ability to proper evaluate expert opinions.

I'd like to see what specific parts of the book that, because you feel they are "double heresay" can not be considered a facutal source of information, and therefore can not hold much wieght, or be considered when attempting to review the case.