JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Wickerman]

In his September 1998 resignation letter, Smit stated that "the Ramseys did not do it" and cited "substantial, credible evidence of an intruder and a lack of evidence that the parents are involved".[3] Smit later worked for the Ramseys in helping establish their innocence and was portrayed by Kris Kristofferson in a CBS television miniseries based on the case, Perfect Murder, Perfect Town

Yes, "later", long after the "intruder" theory had been developed. Which shows he was not working on their behalf when assembling the theory.
It doesn't matter if he worked for them after, that has no bearing on his belief.

[Wickerman]

I believe Patsy didn't think that the police would be smart enough to look through her pad (those first drafts were in the middle somewhere)

It was John Ramsey who offered her pad, and his pad, to the police, as they apparently did use two separate writing pads, "his" & "hers".

An unusual step for a man who knows(?) his wife wrote the ransom note, as you seem to think.
There were a bunch of pages missing from the middle of Patsy's pad, they were never found.

[Wickerman]

You always have them to hand? Oh that's all right then.

You only have to ask.

Whitson told the cameras that he learned his errors almost immediately. He knew the crime scene should have been locked down for forensics and he should not have permitted all and sundry to tramp through the house. Some of Patsy's friends were even allowed to wipe down the kitchen surfaces while they waited.

Yes, but Whitson was in no position to take control, the first officer arrived at 05:56 am but Whitson didn't arrive until after 08:30 am, meanwhile two families and several officers had arrived at the Ramsey's, and Burke had left.

No, what Whitson learned due to his PhD study was how to read the evidence, in 1996 the police, including him, had read it all wrong - in his later opinion.

Exactly

Then why suggest he did learn all that from a photograph?

As far as I know he came to that conclusion after all investigations had been completed, as best they could be under the circumstances.

You may recall that John Douglas, of the F.B.I. Behavioral Science Unit interviewed John & Patsy just two weeks after the murder. His conclusion was that the Ramsey's were not involved with either the crime or a cover-up.
Mark Beckner ignored his conclusion, it seems he thought he knew better.

For what its worth, John & Patsy both passed polygraph tests administered by Dr. Gelb, a nationally recognised polygraph expert, yet Beckner ignored this two.

As I quoted a source earlier, the Boulder Police had staked their reputation on blaming Patsy & John, which means they were incapable of functioning as an investigative department.

[louisa]

It was John Ramsey who offered her pad, and his pad, to the police.
An unusual step for a man who knows(?) his wife wrote the ransom note, as you seem to think.
There were a bunch of pages missing from the middle of Patsy's pad, they were never found.

Whitson told John he wanted samples of both his and Patsy's handwriting. John went out to the hall and picked up a white spiral notebook. Whitson had noticed a yellow pad with Patsy's scribbings on it and took that.

Whitson later changed it to "John handed me the notepads" He was then writing a book about the case telling people the Ramseys were innocent. Personally I doubt if he truly thought they were innocent. He wanted to sell his book and not get sued by the Ramseys. I believe he was in awe of the Ramseys' wealth, as a lot of people were.

Evidence such as the missing pages, tape etc., could have been disposed of over during the Ramseys clearing up and staging processes. Possibly put into John's golf bag (the one he specifically asked for a day later) or Patsy could have simply walked out of the house later that day with stuff in her handbag. She was not a suspect at that time and knew she would not be searched.

-----------------------------------
Originally Posted by louisa:-

You always have them (sources for your comments) to hand? Oh that's all right then.

You only have to ask.

Well, okay then, that's what I'll be saying to you next time you call me a liar for omitting to put the source of my comments. "You only had to ask"

[louisa]

-----------------------------------------------
Louisa's comment:
Whitson told the cameras that he learned his errors almost immediately. He knew the crime scene should have been locked down for forensics and he should not have permitted all and sundry to tramp through the house. Some of Patsy's friends were even allowed to wipe down the kitchen surfaces while they waited.
-------------------------------------------------

Yes, but Whitson was in no position to take control, the first officer arrived at 05:56 am but Whitson didn't arrive until after 08:30 am, meanwhile two families and several officers had arrived at the Ramsey's, and Burke had left.

No, what Whitson learned due to his PhD study was how to read the evidence, in 1996 the police, including him, had read it all wrong - in his later opinion.

You're making excuses for him now. You criticise the police for messing up the investigation - but Whitson was the worst of the bungling cops and admits it. And now you're believing every word he writes like it's coming from the Burning Bush or something.

----------------------------------------------
Louisa's comment:
Exactly.

Then why suggest he did learn all that from a photograph?

Because Wicksy, once again you did not give your SOURCE. As far as I know this police Sheriff was not at the autopsy. As far as I know only the investigators saw the duct tape enough to make any kind of comment so I have to presume that he only saw a photo.

If you can tell me differently, that he saw the actual evidence and provide a link, then that will be fine.

[louisa]

As I quoted a source earlier, the Boulder Police had staked their reputation on blaming Patsy & John, which means they were incapable of functioning as an investigative department.

Has it not occurred to you that if the Boulder Police staked their reputation on Patsy and John being the culprits then they must have been pretty certain they had the right people?

It most certainly does not mean that "they were incapable of functioning as an investigative department" - that is YOUR own opinion, which makes no sense.

You probably also think that the Seattle Police Department should not have focused their attention on Ted Bundy because it would mean they "were not functioning as an investigative department"?

The Polygraph Tests:

In May, 2000, John and Patsy Ramsey took polygraph (i.e. "lie detector") tests administered by an "expert" hired by their lawyers, one Edward Gelb. Not surprisingly, they "passed."

They got the questions ahead of time to practice.

Before this John kept refusing to take a polygraph test because he described being asked as "insulting". Eventually they got their own. They took a few polygraph tests, every one of them had to comply with the Ramseys' requirements beforehand.

As for John Douglas...!

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10280-John-Douglas%92-latest-misinformation-on-the-JonBenet-case-Law-and-Disorder

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby.
Look at it this way, if unknown fingerprints were found throughout the house, would that weaken the argument for an intruder?

if they didn't all match each other but a couple of other sets did, then yes it would.

It shows your going to get a bunch of unknown sets no matter what, because it would seem to be the normal course of things.

[Abby Normal]

hey wick
there was a lot of politics going on here we, can all agree on that!

All I know, is that in the umpteen true crime shows and books Ive read, NOT ONCE has any expert gone against the side that's paying them.

The DA, Alex Hunter was typical lawyer coward and didn't want to touch this thing with a ten foot pole. And Lou Smit (shocker) hired by Hunter goes from initially thinking the ramseys did it to an intruder theory (which agree or not-he did a good job at it).


Lets also not forget the Grand Jury voted to indict. so obviously there is some credence to suspecting the Ramseys.

[louisa]

Well done Abby for summing it up nicely.


Boulder Police presented their case to prosecutors in June 1998. That September, the DA's office started presenting the case to the grand jury. In October 1999, prosecutors announced there wasn't enough evidence to file charges against either John or Patsy Ramsey in connection with JonBenét's death. (The indictment unsealed in 2013 revealed that prosecutors had accused the parents in 1999 of two counts each of child abuse resulting in death.)

It's that everything about the case — a case in which the stone-cold, incontrovertible facts were disturbing enough—was just wrong. When you think about the forensic evidence, the hours of interviews, the man power spent on the investigation, you wonder how crimes ever get solved. Because wasn't there enough to go on to solve this one? Were the police dealing with criminal masterminds? Or does a bold-faced lie just become all the more powerful when there's an ingrained class system and a hefty sack of funds at the ready to back it up?

[Wickerman]

The Polygraph Tests:

In May, 2000, John and Patsy Ramsey took polygraph (i.e. "lie detector") tests administered by an "expert" hired by their lawyers, one Edward Gelb. Not surprisingly, they "passed."

They got the questions ahead of time to practice.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the procedures for conducting a polygraph test.

The subject is always given the questions in advance.
I had better include the source for this so you can read it yourself.

"formulate and review with the examinee all the questions that will be asked of him or her during the polygraph examination."

http://home.total.net/~galcar/html/polygraph_procedures.html

[Wickerman]

hey wick
there was a lot of politics going on here we, can all agree on that!

All I know, is that in the umpteen true crime shows and books Ive read, NOT ONCE has any expert gone against the side that's paying them.

The DA, Alex Hunter was typical lawyer coward and didn't want to touch this thing with a ten foot pole. And Lou Smit (shocker) hired by Hunter goes from initially thinking the ramseys did it to an intruder theory (which agree or not-he did a good job at it).

Lets also not forget the Grand Jury voted to indict. so obviously there is some credence to suspecting the Ramseys.

Hi Abby.
If sufficient evidence existed to charge the Ramsey's, there would be no need for a Grand jury.

You convene a Grand Jury when you don't have sufficient evidence, and the Boulder police admitted in March '98 that they need a Grand Jury because they do not have enough evidence to charge them.

Alex Hunter knew about the DNA evidence and he expected it to be presented at the Grand Jury, but it wasn't. The police sat on it.

So obviously any conclusion the Grand Jury arrived at was one sided - they were not given the whole story. The DNA evidence would have lent credence to the intruder theory presented by Lou Smit.
Which was one of the considerations why Hunter refused to indict the Ramsey's.
Justice was being circumvented by the Boulder police.

[Wickerman]

if they didn't all match each other but a couple of other sets did, then yes it would.

It shows your going to get a bunch of unknown sets no matter what, because it would seem to be the normal course of things.

If the crime scene contains a variety of unknown fingerprints, the same as DNA evidence provides a variety of unknown sources, then I don't understand how it can weaken the intruder theory.

Wouldn't it be rational to assume any one of those samples could be an intruder?
I would think it lends support for the theory, not weakens the theory.

[louisa]

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the procedures for conducting a polygraph test.

The subject is always given the questions in advance.
I had better include the source for this so you can read it yourself.

"formulate and review with the examinee all the questions that will be asked of him or her during the polygraph examination."
http://home.total.net/~galcar/html/p...rocedures.html

Can you please point out exactly WHERE it states that the subject is always given the questions in advance because this is the first I've heard of it.

Maybe I need SpecSavers. Either that or you do!

[louisa]

Hi Abby.
If sufficient evidence existed to charge the Ramsey's, there would be no need for a Grand jury.

You convene a Grand Jury when you don't have sufficient evidence, and the Boulder police admitted in March '98 that they need a Grand Jury because they do not have enough evidence to charge them.

Alex Hunter knew about the DNA evidence and he expected it to be presented at the Grand Jury, but it wasn't. The police sat on it.

So obviously any conclusion the Grand Jury arrived at was one sided - they were not given the whole story. The DNA evidence would have lent credence to the intruder theory presented by Lou Smit.
Which was one of the considerations why Hunter refused to indict the Ramsey's.
Justice was being circumvented by the Boulder police.

Where the heck did you get this load of mis-information?

There was EVERY need for a Grand Jury because the DA's office were digging their heels in and not wanting to go to trial.

It was the Ramseys lawyers who "sat on" evidence.

The Grand Jury WERE given every bit of evidence that they needed. Just because Lou Smit was not permitted to present some of his more hair brained theories.

He was still allowed to present his evidence though, in the same way that everyone else was.

And despite all of that, the Grand Jury still voted to indict the Ramseys.

The only justice that was being circumvented was that of the victim JonBenet. Because Alex Hunter lied regarding the Grand Jury's vote to indict (by stating there wasn't enough evidence), it meant the Ramseys were able to get off scot free.

[Wickerman]

Can you please point out exactly WHERE it states that the subject is always given the questions in advance because this is the first I've heard of it.

Maybe I need SpecSavers. Either that or you do!

What?
Here....https://www.specsavers.com/