ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Colorado cases , Jon-Benet Ramsay , murder cases , unsolved crimes

Reply
Old 29th April 2018, 10:17 PM   #1001
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,636
I was unaware the being rich or mot being rich would constitute exculpatory or inculpatory evidence.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2018, 02:22 AM   #1002
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
This is what I posted on topix forum about the JonBenet Ramsey case in 2009 and I stand by this now:

Quote:
I think JonBenet's murderer came from the inner circle. It wasn't a Ramsey or a Stine or somebody who was out of state at the time, or a vagrant who hardly knew the Ramseys. It was an 'inside job' as John Ramsey once remarked.

It might have been Fleet White and one of his accomplices. I could never comprehend why the Boulder cops always were and probably still are only fixated on the Ramseys.

In my opinion, either the Boulder cops haven't a clue how to solve a difficult murder and develop leads and suspects or one or two of them were involved in the murder themselves in order to make money by writing Ramsey case books and leaking confidential information to the media. All supported by the FBI and Justice Department.

Any half-suspicion about a pedophile ring in the JonBenet murder was, and still is, ignored by the Boulder cops for no good reason.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2018, 02:25 AM   #1003
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
That posting of mine came from here, with some rather rude replies to it from Commonsense, who I take to be Fleet White:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonb.../its-up-to-you
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2018, 02:34 AM   #1004
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
This is odd and suspicious.

In theory there should have been no visitors to the crime scene at all and both John and Fleet should have had a police escort at all times in the house.

This is what was written about the matter in the Schiller PMPT book:

"A strip of black “duct” tape, estimated to be about 5” in length, was found covering the child’s mouth by the father when he discovered JonBenet’s body in the windowless room. In the ensuing frantic moments, he removed the tape and laid it aside on top of the white blanket. Shortly thereafter, Fleet White returned to the windowless room, where he also picked up the tape, felt the adhesive side noting that it felt sticky, and laid it back down on the white blanket (PMPT, p.18, 21, PB, Schiller)."
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2018, 05:56 PM   #1005
KatieG
Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry
 
KatieG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail
Posts: 3,841
Patsy called a whole bunch of people and asked them to come right over. While the Boulder PD failed to keep the scene contained, all those adults should have known better then to wander around the house.
__________________
What a time to be alive! It's like the collapse of Rome but with WiFi

Basically, if the GOP doesn't want to be called the white supremacy party, they should stop acting like they are.
-Mumbles

Last edited by KatieG; 8th May 2018 at 05:57 PM.
KatieG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2018, 11:04 AM   #1006
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,402
One aspect of this case that I have wondered about is the garrote. It seems very unlikely that a 9 year old boy would have familiarity with this kind of weapon and I suspect many adults don't even know what it is.

I looked at some pictures of the garrote here: http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-cord-garrote.htm

It certainly looks like it was made by an adult and I would guess an adult male based on the notion that I would expect many more males would be familiar with this kind of weapon than females and that most violent crime is committed by males.

After reading through much of this thread, I have about the same view as before I did this reading: I lean a bit to the idea that it was an intruder. The garrote seems to support the intruder theory a bit. Of course, it doesn't rule out any of the Ramseys, but it certainly would be very strange for anybody in the house to have made it and used it. But it doesn't rule out one proposed scenario that the boy killed Jon Benet and his father attempted a cover up by creating the garrote. Supposedly Jon Benet was alive when she was garotted and it seems wildly unlikely that either the father or mother killed Jon Benet while she was alive to me.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

Last edited by davefoc; 14th May 2018 at 11:05 AM.
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2018, 09:39 PM   #1007
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,039
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
One aspect of this case that I have wondered about is the garrote. It seems very unlikely that a 9 year old boy would have familiarity with this kind of weapon and I suspect many adults don't even know what it is.

I looked at some pictures of the garrote here: http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-cord-garrote.htm

It certainly looks like it was made by an adult and I would guess an adult male based on the notion that I would expect many more males would be familiar with this kind of weapon than females and that most violent crime is committed by males.

After reading through much of this thread, I have about the same view as before I did this reading: I lean a bit to the idea that it was an intruder. The garrote seems to support the intruder theory a bit. Of course, it doesn't rule out any of the Ramseys, but it certainly would be very strange for anybody in the house to have made it and used it. But it doesn't rule out one proposed scenario that the boy killed Jon Benet and his father attempted a cover up by creating the garrote. Supposedly Jon Benet was alive when she was garotted and it seems wildly unlikely that either the father or mother killed Jon Benet while she was alive to me.
Yeah it's a couple of key pieces of evidence from being solved. If there was credible evidence of prior abuse of Jonbenet and Patsy didn't claim to help clean up the broken basement window glass months prior we could safely conclude John Ramsey killed his daughter. If we had a stronger DNA sample we could safely conclude an intruder. I'm 50/50 between the two. Don't really buy the kind/mom angle. Doesn't look solvable at this point.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 07:54 AM   #1008
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
DNA under the fingernails might be "Bob's"

I have written a few comments in the thread about a possible intruder; some are titled with a variation of "what about bob?" The presence of fingernail DNA is suggestive of an intruder.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 12:00 PM   #1009
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,402
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
I have written a few comments in the thread about a possible intruder; some are titled with a variation of "what about bob?" The presence of fingernail DNA is suggestive of an intruder.
I read through many of your posts with particular interest. I had heard that the evidence proved the intruder theory. But it doesn't seem to measure up to that. My take away was that there were several touch DNA samples that didn't match each other. The most significant result perhaps was the DNA from the blood sample on JBR's panties. But was that the blood of a theoretical intruder or was it the blood of Jon Benet? If it was the blood of Jon Benet an incidental deposition of DNA seems plausible, there just happened to be some blood there.

FWIW, as I've thought about the case since I made my last post my opinion has changed to leaning towards the possibility that it was a family member. It is an annoying situation where it seems like there is a lot of relevant evidence so that it seems like at least a good guess one way or the other should be supported, but based on what I know of the evidence that doesn't seem to be true.

Several people in this thread expressed strong opinions one way or the other. Maybe if I understood the case as well as they do I would share their opinion.

ETA: Sample of one test of my theory that most women wouldn't know what a garrote was: My wife didn't know what a garrote was.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

Last edited by davefoc; 15th May 2018 at 12:03 PM.
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 12:32 PM   #1010
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,039
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post

Several people in this thread expressed strong opinions one way or the other. Maybe if I understood the case as well as they do I would share their opinion.
I don't know about people in this thread, but the people over at solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com believe John Ramsey is guilty so strongly because they believe the evidence of prior sexual abuse against Jonbenet is significant and credible. So we can at least see where the strong opinion stems from there. But the evidence of prior abuse seems ambiguous at best, which is consistent with the prosecutor's decision to not charge the family after the GJ indictments.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2018, 08:18 AM   #1011
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
If there was any prior sexual abuse, and there are grave doubts about that, then there is not a shred of evidence that it was caused by any Ramsey. Burke Ramsey is innocent and CBS must be made to pay for their libel against the Ramseys.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2018, 02:06 AM   #1012
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
There seems to be some interesting recent news about the psychiatrist involved in the JonBenet Ramsey case:


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/643901...-dead-arizona/

Quote:
Dr Pitt hit the headlines in the 90s after he consulted on the famous murder of the American child beauty queen who was murdered at the age of six.
JonBenet Ramsey was found dead at her home in Boulder, Colorado in 1996.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 4th June 2018 at 02:08 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2018, 02:33 AM   #1013
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
I find it interesting that the Ramsey case psychiatrist Dr Pitt has been recently murdered. It may be it is connected to JonBenet, and that he knew too much about the case. There is a fair and just article about the JonBenet on the internet, which does not, however, mention the prime suspect Fleet White, but does mention his possible accomplices:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...a1a34780225a4d

Quote:
In a recent interview, 29-year-old Burke denied that he harmed his sister, and said he suspected a paedophile who stalked child beauty pageants was the killer. He also denounced the CBS documentary theorising he killed his sister as a “false and unprofessional television attack” that is riddled with “lies, misrepresentations, distortions and omissions.”
The new program suggests a third possibility. What if someone familiar with the family, who had access to the house, committed this heinous crime?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th June 2018 at 02:35 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 02:11 AM   #1014
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
There is more recent information about the murder of the JonBenet Ramsey case psychiatrist at this website:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/02...en-linked.html

Quote:
Pitt, 59, is known for his work in assisting in investigations into the high-profile 1996 Colorado death of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey, as well as helping Phoenix police catch an attacker known as the “Baseline Killer” following a string of killings in the city in 2006.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 8th July 2018 at 02:13 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 02:20 AM   #1015
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
There is an interesting website, which makes a change from the usual 'Burke did it' crap theories at:

https://www.inquisitr.com/4314668/jo...-by-plea-deal/

Quote:
“Her killer may have protected himself from prosecution by going to jail!” a source told the outlet. “At least one Ramsey investigator had this man’s name on his suspect list.”

The unsolved murder of JonBenet Ramsey has been garnering some national attention in recent months, thanks in part to documentaries from CBS and A&E on her murder and the subsequent investigation. These came under criticism, with Rolling Stone noting that they offered no new evidence but instead relied on new interpretations of details that have been public for nearly two decades.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th July 2018 at 02:22 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2018, 08:18 AM   #1016
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
There is a fair and just article about the JonBenet Ramsey case and the CBS case with regard to Burke at:

http://www.thefederalist.com/2016/09...plete-garbage/

Quote:
It went on and on like this. Really, “The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey” allowed experts to rehash old evidence and offer a theory that was no more informed than one made by anyone who could use Google. The only thing the series proves is that JonBenét will never have her justice.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 22nd July 2018 at 08:22 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2018, 04:00 AM   #1017
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
for what it's worth

The article is fair to Burke, but it is unfair to the Ramseys. "Longtime Ramsey reporter Paula Woodward stresses in A&E's Killing of JonBenét: The Truth Uncovered that 'no handwriting expert has ever concluded that Patsy wrote the [ransom] notes.'" Link.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2018, 06:07 AM   #1018
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
Deposition on discrete dissemination of disinformation

A Romper article quoted attorney L. Lin Wood as follows: "However, I acknowledge that the conclusion by District Attorney Lacy is difficult for many uninformed viewers to accept as the media with the active assistance of the Boulder Police Department disseminated lies about the family and the evidence for many years in a calculated public relations plan to apply pressure to John and Patsy. That plan was undertaken at the suggestion of the FBI and I confirmed that involvement and the existence of the plan as undisputed fact when I deposed former District Attorney Alex Hunter in past litigation related to the investigation."
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 23rd July 2018 at 06:12 AM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2018, 02:18 AM   #1019
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I was unaware the being rich or mot being rich would constitute exculpatory or inculpatory evidence.
The point is that the American media have always portrayed Fleet White as a quite wealthy oil tycoon, rather than him being involved in child prostitution. That is patently untrue like all this crap from CBS that Burke was supposed to have done it, or the ridiculous Fleet White theory without facts that JonBenet could have fallen down the spiral staircase.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2018, 08:05 AM   #1020
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
I can't quite see how any TV journalist can think Burke did it after this cross-examination of Boulder cop Steve Thomas by Lin Wood:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...tember-21-2001
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2018, 08:33 AM   #1021
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,636
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point is that the American media have always portrayed Fleet White as a quite wealthy oil tycoon, rather than him being involved in child prostitution. That is patently untrue like all this crap from CBS that Burke was supposed to have done it, or the ridiculous Fleet White theory without facts that JonBenet could have fallen down the spiral staircase.
There's a very reasonable explanation for that.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 08:35 AM   #1022
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
Detective Steve Ainsworth, who was a good Boulder County murder investigator involved in the initial investigation, thought Fleet White and Chris Wolf and Santa Bill McReynolds were the prime suspects in the JonBenet murder. He was on the correct murder trail until he was taken off of the case. Now we have Kolar, who has been described as Steve Thomas on steroids, and CBS who are making it up that Burke did it. The trouble is that American judges are always on the side of the government and corporate media and FBI:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93419

Quote:
Boulder County sheriff's Detective Steve Ainsworth and former Boulder County prosecutor Trip DeMuth also appeared on the NBC program, supporting Smit's thesis.
"I have not seen any evidence that would be compelling to suggest that John and Patsy did kill their daughter at this point," Ainsworth said.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd August 2018 at 08:37 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2018, 08:51 AM   #1023
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
Nancy Krebs provided information about Fleet White and his father but she was not believed by the genius detectives in the Boulder police and FBI. They called her a fruitloop. Beckner, the Boulder chief of police, later admitted that the Nancy Krebs case was not properly or thoroughly investigated. The trouble was that, not being a professional detective herself, she somehow got it into her head that her really evil Uncle Johnnie when she was an infant might have been John Ramsey. The Ramsey lawyers would therefore not touch her information with a bargepole. There was never a shred of evidence for that and she was never helped by her relatives to make her mind clear about the matter:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...rebs-Interview


Quote:
D. But I do remember things with uh Fleet White Jr.

A. Okay um

D. Who woulda been about 15 or 16 years old

A. Okay was Fleet White Jr. the victim of these assaults, or was he a suspect in the assaults, Was he a perpetrator when can you can first remember the assaults when he was present?

D. I think that he was made to do things to me

A. Okay

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 3rd September 2018 at 08:57 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 08:32 AM   #1024
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
There are websites which think the Ramseys and Burke are innocent. Personally, I think the prime suspect is Fleet White, who has never been properly investigated, or never been investigated at all apart from a few cursory background checks:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...a1a34780225a4d

Quote:
WHY NOT THE RAMSEYS?
For this picture-perfect family to be behind JonBenet’s murder requires some mental gymnastics. Mrs Ramsey’s stage mother role struck many people as deeply suspicious at the time, but child pageants are now a familiar phenomenon, whatever we may think of them.

The Ramseys appear to have deeply loved their child. They had no history of child abuse or domestic violence, which might be expected if either had really snapped and killed the little girl.

If they covered up for Burke, they would have had to fashion a garotte and tie it so tightly around JonBenet’s neck it left abrasions, then calmly stage a crime scene in the basement. Mrs Ramsey would have had to painstakingly write a two-and-a-half page ransom note in handwriting so different to her own that it has never been definitively matched.

Then they would have had to spend years faking it for the TV cameras and teaching their child to lie, too. All this when the boy was too young to go to prison in the state anyway.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th September 2018 at 08:34 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2018, 02:23 AM   #1025
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
If that stupid cop Kolar thinks Burke did it he must be a bigger fool than I thought.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2018, 02:52 AM   #1026
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
I still think the denials of the so-called taser expert Dr. Stratbucker that a taser was ever used on JonBenet do not ring true. From the Dr. Stratbucker deposition being cross-examined by Lin Wood:

www.acandyrose.com/20020530stratbuckerdepo.txt


Quote:
24 Q. Why don't you go read the record
25 that was filed in the courthouse in Boulder
00076
1 County?
2 A. Well, I will be happy to.
3 Q. It seems to me, sir, that there is
4 an awful lot you don't know about this case.
5 Could you concede that at least?
6 A. I think there is an awful lot about
7 this that most people don't know, including you.
8 Q. I am not asking you about most
9 people because most people -- excuse me. Most
10 people didn't come into federal court and sign a
11 Rule 26 affidavit. You did.
12 A. All right.
13 Q. And I am asking you, will you
14 concede that there is apparently an awful lot
15 that you do not know about this case and what
16 happened to this little girl?
17 A. No, I won't concede that.
18 Q. So you got it all?
19 A. I have no reason to.
20 Q. You've got it all?
21 A. No, I did not say I have it all.
22 You said I have it all.
23 Q. What efforts have you ever made to
24 try to get the crime scene photographs?
25 A. Well, one of the efforts that I made
00077
1 was to make a special trip to New York City to
2 try to find out whether or not --
3 Q. To go up with NBC for Mr. Tuttle?
4 A. Mr. Tuttle had nothing to do with
5 it.
6 Q. Mr. Tuttle knew where you were. Mr.
7 Tuttle is with Air TASER. And you know that
8 Mr. Tuttle -- you know this, sir.
9 A. Well, you are telling me now for the
10 first time.
11 Q. Excuse me.
12 A. Thanks very much.
13 Q. You know --
14 A. I appreciate that.
15 Q. You know -- if we have time, we
16 will see whether we do or not, I'm going to
17 tell you a lot of things you apparently don't
18 know.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. But I'm going to tell you one thing
21 that I think you do know. Bill Tuttle does
22 not want his Air TASER stun gun associated with
23 the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. It is just not
24 good public relations. And you know that for a
25 fact; don't you, sir?
00078
1 A. No, I don't know that. We have not
2 discussed that. I don't any -- that is your
3 invention, not mine.
4 Q. How do you know it is my invention?
5 A. Well, you just stated it.
6 Q. How do you know where I get it
7 from? I mean, so far I haven't been inventing
8 anything when I come up here and start showing
9 you your sworn testimony, which we will go back
10 to, where you said that there is not a coroner
11 or medical examiner in the country that is
12 capable of identifying a stun gun mark, that you
13 are the only one.
14 A. Oh, well, you show me where I said
15 that.
16 Q. Sit tight.
17 Page 1109 of your sworn testimony,
18 recross-examination by Mr. Belser.
19 Question: Doctor, you are saying
20 that no forensic pathologist anywhere in this
21 country who did the autopsies for the state and
22 the crime labs and the prosecutor, none of these
23 people have enough expertise like you to
24 recognize a stun gun mark?
25 Answer: They didn't.
00079
1 Question: And you are the only
2 expert that can do that, not the doctors who
3 look at the bodies, but you with your
4 transformations on the photograph; is that what
5 you are telling the jury?
6 Answer: I think that's correct,
7 yes.
8 A. Well, in that case it was correct,
9 yeah. The autopsy --
10 Q. Did you testify to that, sir?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 MR. WOOD: We are going to take
13 that recess, Darnay? But I have one question.
14 I want to make this clear, if I could.
15 MR. HOFFMAN: We can make the recess
16 and then when you come back, I'm going to talk
17 on the record.
18 MR. WOOD: Let me just ask this
19 doctor one question.
20 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes.
21 Q. (By Mr. Wood) And I really, Doctor,
22 could care less what you base this on. It can
23 be your trip to NBC. It can be your
24 monitoring of the internet. It can be your
25 monochrome photographs. For all I care, it can
00080
1 be based on the Stratbucker Children's Trust.
2 Are you accusing my client Patsy
3 Ramsey or my client John Ramsey of criminal
4 involvement in the murder of their daughter
5 JonBenet? I want you to answer that question
6 for me under oath.
7 A. Accusing them?
8 Q. Yes, sir.
9 A. No.
10 Q. You don't have the slightest idea
11 how this child died; do you?
12 A. Probably as good an idea as anybody
13 else, which is not very much.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 2nd October 2018 at 02:58 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2018, 02:26 AM   #1027
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
The Lou Smit homicide detective deposition in the Ramsey case is still on the internet. He shocked the Boulder Police Department at a meeting once by telling them he didn't believe the Ramseys did it, and that includes Burke. Forums for Justice has always been anti-Ramsey and the deposition starts with some silly remarks about it:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...January-9-2002

Quote:
Q. In terms of -- and I want to come back to the discussion of the crime scene photographs. But, first, you bring up a point that I want to pursue with you, Detective Smit,

Page 28

the idea of a homicide investigator adopting a theory of a case as to the suspect.

There is a difference between the approach taken by a homicide investigator and, say, the approach taken by a narcotics investigator; isn't there?

A. I would say there is.

Q. How would you describe that difference? A. Usually, the narcotics investigator knows who he is looking for. A homicide investigator doesn't. You have to leave your mind open to anybody that could be involved in a case. Narcotics investigators, you are usually targeting a certain specific person, and you go for him. So you know who your suspect is at that time.

Q. From your experience and your involvement in homicide investigations over the course of your 35 plus years in law enforcement, do you believe that it is a proper technique and procedure in homicide investigation to adopt a theory of the case and then investigate the case trying to find evidence to support that

Page 29

theory?

A. No. I don't believe you should let the theory dictate it. You let the evidence dictate it.

Now, you will sometimes have various theories, and you will work on various theories, but you don't pick one out and put all your eggs in that basket and just investigate that one theory. You have to look at all aspects of it, because you never know where your killer is. Sometimes he can be someplace that you never even looked at before.

So you cannot just say, I am going to target you as a suspect in this case, and then devote your time and efforts to just targeting that person.

One of the things that I was taught, and maybe this is what should be passed on to other detectives, your job isn't only to convict somebody. It is also to prove their innocence.

Q. Is that because that approach best ensures that you ultimately get the right person?

A. Yes. You get the right person because your object is to get the bad guy off the street. You don't want him out there.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 17th October 2018 at 02:29 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2018, 03:59 AM   #1028
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
There is an interesting article on the internet about the Judge Carnes ruling on the JonBenet Ramsey case. How CBS can still think Burke did it I do not know:

www.truthinjustice.org/ramsey.htm

Quote:
"The Boulder authorities did not take Mr. Hoffman's unsubstantiated theories seriously and considered much of his submissions to be 'off the wall,'" Carnes' order stated.

In mid-1997, Hoffman began soliciting handwriting experts to tie Patsy Ramsey to the ransom note. Carnes rejected one's being an expert because "she is not qualified to provide expert testimony ... has never taken a certification exam, completed an accreditation course in document examination, or been an apprentice to an ABFDE [American Board of Forensic Document Examiners] certified document examiner or worked in a crime lab."

Carnes also discounted testimony of a second handwriting expert recruited by Hoffman, ruling that he offered "no hint of the methodology" he used in determining that the ransom note "with 100 percent certainty" was written by Patsy Ramsey.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 31st October 2018 at 04:02 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2018, 05:16 AM   #1029
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,019
Henri, did your 14-day alarm go off? I envision a pop-up message, "Don't forget to blow by the Trials and Errors threads to leave a comment that [insert felon's name here] didn't do it."
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2018, 07:27 AM   #1030
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,636
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Henri, did your 14-day alarm go off? I envision a pop-up message, "Don't forget to blow by the Trials and Errors threads to leave a comment that [insert felon's name here] didn't do it."
The veil of suspension was lifted.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2018, 08:24 AM   #1031
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
certainty needs to be based on something

In regards to Henri's McPhee's most recent post, any expert who speaks in terms of 100% certainty would need to support this claim with some sort of proficiency exam or other data IMO. Hearing it from a handwriting expert is...interesting.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 31st October 2018 at 09:32 AM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2018, 09:44 AM   #1032
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
In regards to Henri's McPhee's most recent post, any expert who speaks in terms of 100% certainty would need to support this claim with some sort of proficiency exam or other data IMO. Hearing it from a handwriting expert is...interesting.
The evidence that Patsy or John or Burke wrote the ransom note is hardly conclusive evidence. The matter was discussed at the Steve Thomas deposition with Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...tember-21-2001

Quote:
8 Q. You don't know that. You do know
9 that there were other experts that reviewed
10 Patsy Ramsey's handwriting and did not find
11 evidence of authorship, true?
12 A. Who were those?
13 Q. Do you think there were not three
14 other people that looked at this and did not
15 find that there was evidence to find that she
16 wrote the note?
17 A. I don't know who you're referring
18 to.
19 Q. Well, there was a Secret Service
20 examiner, Mr. Dusak?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. Speckin Laboratories?
23 A. Mr. Speckin, yes.
24 Q. Right. And there is one other,
25 help me. I can pull it if you want me to?

212

1 A. Alfred, Alford, Edwin Alford.
2 Q. Did you look at their conclusions
3 and remember them?
4 A. I did.
5 Q. What was Mr. Dusak's conclusion?
6 A. Mr. Dusak, I believe, his official
7 conclusion on his report for courtroom
8 purposes was no evidence to indicate.
9 Q. No evidence to indicate that Patsy
10 Ramsey executed any of the questioned material
11 appearing on the ransom note, was that
12 Mr. Dusak's conclusion?
13 A. Among other things.
14 Q. And he was a document analyst for
15 the United States Secret Service, right?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. Then we have Mr. Edwin F. Alford,
18 Jr., police expert, examination of the
19 questioned handwriting, comparison of the
20 handwriting specimen submitted has failed to
21 provide a basis for identifying Patsy Ramsey
22 as the writer of the letter. Is that his
23 conclusion?
24 A. I remember Mr. Dusak. If you
25 have a document that would help --

213

1 Q. This is Mr. Alford.
2 A. I know. I remember Mr. Dusak.
3 If you have a document that would help me
4 refresh my memory on Mr. Alford, I don't
5 recall --
6 Q. Not beyond what I have just told
7 you, but if that helps you refresh you one
8 way or the other what I've just told you is
9 I believe Mr. Alford concluded?
10 A. Will you repeat his --
11 Q. Sure.
12 A. -- what he concluded.
13 Q. The examination of the questioned
14 handwriting comparison with the handwriting
15 specimen submitted has failed to provide a
16 basis for identifying Patricia Ramsey as the
17 writer of the letter?
18 A. If that's what the report says.
19 I certainly don't disagree with --
20 MR. DIAMOND: He's asking you
21 whether that refreshes your recollection.
22 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Do you recall
23 Mr. Alford coming to that conclusion?
24 A. To a -- yeah, I think that's the
25 conclusion.

214

1 Q. And then Leonard A. Speckin, he
2 said that he found no evidence that Patsy
3 Ramsey disguised her handwriting exemplars.
4 Did you -- were you aware of that conclusion
5 by Mr. Speckin, a police expert?
6 A. Among other conclusions, yes.
7 Q. You understood enough about the
8 handwriting analysis that a legitimate
9 handwriting questioned document examiner
10 analyzes not just similarities, but also has
11 to analyze and account for dissimilarities,
12 right?
13 A. If you say so, Mr. Wood, I'm
14 not --
15 Q. I'm asking you, sir.
16 A. No, I'm not a handwriting expert
17 and don't purport to be.
18 Q. So you can't --
19 A. If you're asking me about my
20 layman's knowledge about handwriting science I
21 would be happy to answer your question.
22 Q. I'm asking you about your
23 understanding of the science when you were
24 the, quote, one of the lead detectives. Did
25 you not listen to what the experts were

215

1 saying and what their bases were and did you
2 not grasp the fundamental idea when you were
3 listening that they were saying we've got to
4 analyze both similarities and dissimilarities?
5 MR. DIAMOND: Objection.
6 Compound. You may answer.
7 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did you understand
8 that to be the case or not?
9 A. That was among many things that I
10 understood them to look at.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 31st October 2018 at 09:46 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2018, 11:50 AM   #1033
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
Is handwriting analysis objective?

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
In regards to Henri's McPhee's most recent post, any expert who speaks in terms of 100% certainty would need to support this claim with some sort of proficiency exam or other data IMO. Hearing it from a handwriting expert is...interesting.
"Carnes also discounted testimony of a second handwriting expert recruited by Hoffman, ruling that he offered "no hint of the methodology" he used in determining that the ransom note "with 100 percent certainty" was written by Patsy Ramsey."

I realize that my original comment should have quoted this passage. My original objection to it was that I would not trust someone's saying that they are 100% certain without evidence such as blind proficiency tests. My second objection is that I don't have confidence in handwriting as a forensic discipline, although I have not looked into it as deeply as is possible to do. It is also my understanding that various experts have come to a broad spectrum of conclusions with respect to whether or not Patsy wrote this note.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 04:15 AM   #1034
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
I still think Fleet White is a suspicious character in the JonBenet case whatever the 'fake news' thinks about the matter.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 03:00 AM   #1035
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
When Fleet White was trying to sue the Boulder Daily Camera over the Nancy Krebs information he admitted to Boulder cop Chuck Hagel that he knew Nancy Krebs. Then in 2015 the journalist Prendergast from Westword reported that Fleet White never knew Nancy Krebs. It's an obvious lie and inconsistency by the 'fake news' and it's deeply suspicious to my mind.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 03:39 AM   #1036
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,204
Don't you think this photo of Fleet and Priscilla White makes them look suspicious and gives you a funny feeling, if not a turn?:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?v...x=1&ajaxhist=0
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 02:25 PM   #1037
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Don't you think this photo of Fleet and Priscilla White makes them look suspicious and gives you a funny feeling, if not a turn?:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?v...x=1&ajaxhist=0
Yes! It's clear that whoever took this photo was deliberately trying to make them look suspicious. Find that photographer and you have your killer!
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 03:17 PM   #1038
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,387
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Don't you think this photo of Fleet and Priscilla White makes them look suspicious and gives you a funny feeling, if not a turn?:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?v...x=1&ajaxhist=0
It's certainly a very unflattering photo. If I were running for political office against either one of them I would love for the PAC that was doing my attack ads to use this photo in. If they hired a professional photographer to take this photo and it was the best he took they should have gotten their money back.

Is it in any way, shape or form evidence that either of them was involved in killing Jon Benet Ramsey? No.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 11:20 AM   #1039
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,796
While I sincerely hope the murderers /assaulters of ANY child will be found out and tried, convicted and heavily punished, I do not at this point see any reason to believe we will ever know absent a deathbed confession. Nothing I have seen in these posts you have made shows any reason to hope this will happen.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:21 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.