JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[louisa]

As for the Paula Woodward book. I put the words Paula Woodward JonBenet into Google and found these links. It seems that this lady is another one in Team Ramsey. Right in their pockets. A great friend of John Ramsey. On that basis this book can be put with the others on the Fiction shelf.

As there have been no new relevant facts that we have not already discussed on this forum I can only speculate that Mark Beckner was correct in saying that if there were any new developments then he would have heard about them.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10268-Long-rumored-book-by-Paula-Woodward-shows-up-at-Amazon

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TODAMDH57BNSR8Q2T

[Pcdunn]

Burke's guesses

Burke Ramsey was overheard explaining to a school friend how he thought his sister died; hit with a hammer, manually strangled, stabbed with a knife.....

If he was involved in his sisters death in any way the odds are favorable that he will at least get one detail correct.

Hi, Wickerman,

I don't know about the school friend story, but the CBS documentary did include a clip from an interview between Burke and a child psychologist, some three weeks after the murder, in which Burke acted out with his fist someone "hitting" JonBenet on the head, when asked what he thought had happened to her.

This, of course, like much in the case, means little in context and could be taken to support either theory (i.e., Burke knows nothing and was guessing, or Burke did know details).

[Abby Normal]

As for the Paula Woodward book. I put the words Paula Woodward JonBenet into Google and found these links. It seems that this lady is another one in Team Ramsey. Right in their pockets. A great friend of John Ramsey. On that basis this book can be put with the others on the Fiction shelf.

As there have been no new relevant facts that we have not already discussed on this forum I can only speculate that Mark Beckner was correct in saying that if there were any new developments then he would have heard about them.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10268-Long-rumored-book-by-Paula-Woodward-shows-up-at-Amazon

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonb...AMDH57BNSR8Q2T

I read the book. I was very disappointed. It said on the cover, one of the only books on the murder case where the author lays out all the facts and lets the reader decide. I should have returned the book after half way through the first chapter for false advertising! Its unbelievably biased to the point I couldn't even trust half of what she was saying is even true!!Grrrr.

[Abby Normal]

what are the best books on the case? are any unbiased?

[louisa]

what are the best books on the case? are any unbiased?

Abby,

Good for you in wanting a book that gives a neutral perspective. If you find one then please post the details here.

Every author has his/her own agenda so you'll be hard pressed to find one that isn't biased.

I'll have to do some research to find one that will give you the facts without bias.

The one Wicksy recommends "Perfect Murder Perfect Town" comes to no real conclusion about who the murderer was, so perhaps that could be described as non-biased but it is a rather boring book full of facts and figures and deals mainly with the animosity between the Boulder Police Department at the DA's office. You'll be asleep before long.

James Kolar's book 'Foreign Faction' is one I also found rather tedious and reaches no conclusion although he has his own theory which he really only hints at (for fear of being sued, maybe?)

[Wickerman]

what are the best books on the case? are any unbiased?

Perfect Murder Perfect Town, chock full of detail chronologically laid out, and no bias towards any particular theory.
He leaves conclusions up to the reader.
Being a 1998/9 publication you can pick up a copy real cheap.

Foreign Faction is also very detailed, but brings the reader up to 2012 with the latest 'evidence'.



With respect to both Pat & Louisa.
Paula Woodward is an icon in the Denver area, an investigative reporter for Chanel 9 News. She was known for digging deep to expose the truth.
Woodward is so well respected that when the police were analyzing the new "Touch DNA" discoveries, they chalked up a header, an acronym, - WWPWS - in their situation room for points to debate on the DNA.

What Would Paula Woodward Say

[louisa]

With respect to both Pat & Louisa.
Paula Woodward is an icon in the Denver area, an investigative reporter for Chanel 9 News. She was known for digging deep to expose the truth.
Woodward is so well respected that when the police were analyzing the new "Touch DNA" discoveries, they chalked up a header, an acronym, - WWPWS - in their situation room for points to debate on the DNA.

What Would Paula Woodward Say

Nice bit of C & P ing Wicksy.

What would Paula say? I know what Paula would say if it was related to the JonBenet case.....

"The parents are innocent!"

She's a friend of the Ramseys so is going to be extremely biased. Therefore there is No point in reading anything she writes about the case.

If somebody is knowledgable about the case and wants to write a book about it - then that would probably be worth reading. But only if they are NOT connected to the Ramseys in any way.



I have just read a section of PW's book and already I am taking issue with it. She states that the pineapple found in JB's stomach was actually fruit cocktail which contained pineapple.

A bit of a coincidence then, really, isn't it, that the University of Colorado stated pineapple was found in JB's stomach, and coincidentally a bowl of pineapple (not fruit cocktail) was found sitting uncovered, with a spoon in it, on the kitchen counter?

So she is really trying to cast suspicion away from the Ramseys, whose prints were found on the bowl.

I don't know whether she is trying to stretch credulity even further by hoping we will believe an 'intruder' came in and brought a tin of fruit cocktail with him!

He remembered that.....but he forgot to bring a ransom note.

.

[Wickerman]

Louisa:

Whitson didn't even know the house was a crime scene before allowing the public to tramp all over it.

Maybe that comment was not too well thought out.

Then why did he state - on television - that it was his biggest mistake?

Whitson was at home when the 911 call came in, two detectives plus two uniform officers arrived within minutes. Whitson coordinated everything by phone from his home because this apparently was a kidnapping so he was responsible to contact the FBI immediately, which he did and set up a meeting for 10:00am.
Eventually Whitson arrived at the Ramsey's sometime after 8:30, the house was already occupied with four family friends, two victims advocates and several officers.
Whitson was in no position to prevent anyone calling at the house, he was at home phoning around to get officers involved and making sure all departments were activated.

"I worked in the narcotics unit, which was a specialized unit within the detective bureau, and I was not involved with the "investigative team" which conducted the extended investigation into JonBenet's murder, nor did I have access to information in the case file. I was told by Boulder Police Department members on the investigative team that John and/or Patsy Ramsey murdered JonBenet. I did not have any reason to question their opinion for four years. This was before I spoke with Lou Smit, John San Agustin, or anyone outside of the Boulder Police Department about the case."
Injustice, Whitson, 2012, p.10.

I know you prefer to ridicule some of these professionals, but you clearly know nothing about Robert Whitson.

Robert Whitson Ph.D. had 22 years of experience in law enforcement when JonBenet was murdered.
Whitson taught criminal justice for seven years at Metropolitan State College of Denver and Community College of Denver. He presently teaches criminal justice to college students in Florida.
He has a master's degree in public administration, a master's degree in psychology and a doctorate degree in criminal justice.
He researched psychology for his PhD dissertation.

I don't see "bungling cop" listed there anywhere....

[Wickerman]

Railroaded? Stop quoting Lou Smit. You are so very wrong. That is the nonsense the Ramseys spout in their self-serving book. Why should we believe anything this couple has to say when I can give you a whole list of their lies? And I will happily do so upon request.

Whitson had a book by a Dr. Gerald McMenamin, Ph.D. of the Univ. of Calif, the book was called Forensic Linguistics. McMenamin had determined that Patsy Ramsey was excluded as the writer of the ransom note.

Beckner told Whitson not to give that book to the D.A., Whitson wrote: "I was being ordered to withold exculpatory information concerning John and Patsy Ramsey from the D.A.'s office.".
"I also identified two neighbors who were never interviewed by investigators from the B.P.D. This was four years after the murder."
These neighbors saw two suspicious vehicles in the area on the night of the murder and, one neighbor saw a white male walking around the Ramsey's home at dusk on Christmas Day.
Mark Beckner told me not to interview them.

Lou Smit, Attorney Trip DeMuth of the D.A.'s office and Det. Steve Ainsworth of the Sherrif's Department all believed that an intruder was responsible for the death of JonBenet.

One by one, directly or indirectly, these detectives were removed from the case by Beckner.

Beckner wanted to punish anyone who publicly disagreed with the assumption Patsy Ramsey murdered JonBenet. Beckner told me not to disagree with Boulder Detectives who believed Patsy murdered JonBenet. Beckner wanted everyone within the B.P.D. on the same page.
Beckner's message was clear, he would find a way to punish me or any employee of the B.P.D. who disagreed with his opinion.

Trip DeMuth approached Mark Beckner about the intruder theory and was told by Mark Beckner, "everyone needed to believe Patsy murdered JonBenet."

Detectives working on the case who thought the evidence pointed to an intruder were being threatened by Mark Beckner to fall in with the "group-think" as defined by Beckner himself.

This has nothing to do with anything written by John Ramsey.

[Wickerman]

Louisa: Beckner didn't do anything early in the case because he wasn't even there!

I informed you that:
Beckner was a Commander of Police at the time, I think the equal of John Eller.

To which you replied:

Incorrect (again!) As I have already stated Beckner took over from Chief Koby in 1998. Stop making me repeat myself.

Press Release - March 12, 1998.

"Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby and Commander Mark Beckner today requested and recommended that the Boulder District Attorney convene a Grand Jury investigation into the homicide of jonBenet Ramsey. While there is still some investigation left to be done, both Chief Koby and Commander Beckner believe the investigation has....etc.

Commander Beckner has worked closely with the District Attorney's Office in recent weeks in preparation of the commendation for a Grand Jury. According to Beckner, "We only make this request / recommendation after 14 grueling months of investigation...etc."

Later in August 1998 Fleet & Priscilla White wrote an open letter to the public. In this letter they refer to "Chief Koby and Lead investigator Mark Beckner...."

Do I need to repeat myself?
Commander Mark Beckner was working on the case long before he took over as Chief.

Nobody was asking for anything confidential.

The DA has an obligation to disclose whether or not the Grand Jury voted to Indict.

I already told you that the conclusions arrived at by the grand jury are not to be shared with the public.

Why do you keep wasting both our time on this?

[louisa]

I informed you that:
Beckner was a Commander of Police at the time, I think the equal of John Eller.

To which you replied:

Incorrect (again!) As I have already stated Beckner took over from Chief Koby in 1998


Press Release - March 12, 1998.

"Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby and Commander Mark Beckner today requested and recommended that the Boulder District Attorney convene a Grand Jury investigation into the homicide of jonBenet Ramsey. While there is still some investigation left to be done, both Chief Koby and Commander Beckner believe the investigation has....etc.

Commander Beckner has worked closely with the District Attorney's Office in recent weeks in preparation of the commendation for a Grand Jury. According to Beckner, "We only make this request / recommendation after 14 grueling months of investigation...etc."

Later in August 1998 Fleet & Priscilla White wrote an open letter to the public. In this letter they refer to "Chief Koby and Lead investigator Mark Beckner...."

Do I need to repeat myself?
Commander Mark Beckner was working on the case long before he took over as Chief.

Get it right Wicksy before you make even more of an ass of yourself.

You stated in a previous post that Beckner had been on the JB case right from it's beginning.

Mark Beckner became Chief of the Boulder Police in June 1998, although he had been helping to work on the JB case since September 1997.

Koby left at the end of 1998, although 'the writing had been on the wall', so to speak, since the previous September.

I already told you that the conclusions arrived at by the grand jury are not to be shared with the public.

Why do you keep wasting both our time on this?

And I have already told YOU (twice already) that I would not expect any classified information that was heard by the Grand Jury to be shared with the public.

My complaint is that the Boulder DA, Alex Hunter, withheld the fact that the Grand Jury voted to Indict the Ramseys over the death of their daughter. The DECISION should have been made public.

This bit of deception was only made public in 2013. Until then he allowed the world to believe that the Jury voted not to Indict.

This allowed his buddies, the Ramseys, to walk away scot-free, when obviously, they should have gone to trial.


(Although, as an aside, I honestly believe that the transcripts of a Grand Jury should be made public as the whole shebang was funded by US taxpayers. It's not state secrets, after all).

Oh and please.....stop quoting and referring to that bungling cop (Tom Whitson) who is so far up the Ramseys backsides that it must actually be painful.



I see you haven't addressed the more interesting and pertinent queries that I raised a couple of days ago - how come there were NO fingerprints on the 'ransom note'? Not even the Ramseys?

And the fact that John said he had to move a chair from the hallway behind the train room (the room with the window) in order to gain access to it? I think he dropped a bit of a clanger there, but that's what he said and he had to stick by it.

At 6.06am Fleet White searched the basement and there was no chair in front of the door.

Which means that John had to have gone down there before 6am.


.

[Wickerman]

Get it right Wicksy before you make even more of an ass of yourself.

You stated in a previous post that Beckner had been on the JB case right from it's beginning.

Well, from one ass to another, ...what I did say was:

"Beckner couldn't possibly have had a case to suspect Patsy Ramsey so early in the investigation when they had not gathered all the evidence.

Beckner was clueless."

I made no mention of when Beckner became involved in the case. I wouldn't need to as he belongs to the B.P.D. and was a Commander (which you said was not true!!!), so it is not possible for us to determine whether he was involved from day 1, or 2 or 3.
His opinions on the culpability of the Ramsey's only means he had access to the case files and was in communication with the investigators.

Mark Beckner became Chief of the Boulder Police in June 1998, although he had been helping to work on the JB case since September 1997.

Koby left at the end of 1998, although 'the writing had been on the wall', so to speak, since the previous September.

My comment had nothing to do with Beckner being Chief - this is another example of you leaping to assumptions, and making a fool of yourself in the process.
Have you learned what constitutes RAPE yet?

And I have already told YOU (twice already) that I would not expect any classified information that was heard by the Grand Jury to be shared with the public.

My complaint is that the Boulder DA, Alex Hunter, withheld the fact that the Grand Jury voted to Indict the Ramseys over the death of their daughter. The DECISION should have been made public.

I hi-lited the relevant bit, above.

Once again....Alex Hunter is NOT permitted to DIVULGE the conclusion of the grand jury.
ALL Alex Hunter is permitted to do is declare whether the D.A.'s office will now proceed with a case against the Ramsey's.
The D.A.'s decision was announced to the public - Hunter did what he was supposed to do.

Your theory seems to rely on a distorted understanding of procedure.

(Although, as an aside, I honestly believe that the transcripts of a Grand Jury should be made public as the whole shebang was funded by US taxpayers. It's not state secrets, after all).

One reason my dear is, an offender was not charged so any revelation of the opinion of the grand jury is prejudicial to an accused.

Read and learn...
Indictments: The attorney general can petition the court ordering any indictment to be sealed and no person may disclose the existence of the indictment until the defendant is in custody or has been admitted to bail except when necessary for the issuance or execution of a warrant or summons. (Section 13-73-107, C.R.S.)

https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Alert_Docs/grand_juries.pdf

Oh and please.....stop quoting and referring to that bungling cop (Tom Whitson) who is so far up the Ramseys backsides that it must actually be painful.

I'm talking about BOB Whitson.
See, you just can't help yourself can you. Your arguments are so weak you have to resort to condescending name-calling. More emotion that rationale.

I see you haven't addressed the more interesting and pertinent queries that I raised a couple of days ago - how come there were NO fingerprints on the 'ransom note'? Not even the Ramseys?

The intruder theory already assumes he/they wore gloves.
However, I think the claim was "no latent prints" which does not mean no fingerprints were on the note. Just that no useful examples were identifiable.
Which is different to what you are claiming.

And the fact that John said he had to move a chair from the hallway behind the train room (the room with the window) in order to gain access to it? I think he dropped a bit of a clanger there, but that's what he said and he had to stick by it.

I'm aware of that, Kolar went over it in detail.
He wasn't even sure how that detail helped any theory.

At 6.06am Fleet White searched the basement and there was no chair in front of the door.

Not true, Fleet never mentioned a chair, that's all.
At no point did he say "there was no chair in front of the door".

It's what is called 'negative evidence' which is not evidence at all.

[louisa]

Louisa:
Mark Beckner became Chief of the Boulder Police in June 1998, although he had been helping to work on the JB case since September 1997.

Koby left at the end of 1998, although 'the writing had been on the wall', so to speak, since the previous September.

My comment had nothing to do with Beckner being Chief - this is another example of you leaping to assumptions, and making a fool of yourself in the process.
Have you learned what constitutes RAPE yet?

What in the world has your last comment got to do with Beckner being Chief of Police?

Get a grip on yourself, man!

Surely you are not still saying that JonBenet was raped? !

I suppose I'm going to have to remind you of something..........


JONBENET WAS NOT RAPED!


So stop saying she was. I know it and most of the world knows it. It's only you who doesn't.


-----------------------------------------------------

Here you are........Definitions of Rape

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law

Main articles: Rape and Laws regarding rape

"Rape is a statutory offence in England and Wales. According to the law, a rape can only be committed by a male as the penetration can only be done with his penis. If a victim is forcefully penetrated with an object, this is classed as "Sexual Assault by Penetration".
The offence is created by section 1[1] of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:"

-------------------------------------------------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

------------------------------------------------------
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...statutory+rape
--------------------------------------------------------

http://content.met.police.uk/Article.../1400008450549

----------------------------------------------------------

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/rape/

---------------------------------------------------------

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...rape-laws.htm#

"Sexual assault occurs when there is penetration (however slight) with an object or body part between a minor who is 14 or younger and a defendant who is at least four years older than the minor. It also includes penetration between a 15 or 16 year old minor and a defendant who is at least ten years older than the minor. This offense is a class one misdemeanor, which incurs a fine of at least $500 (and up to $5,000), at least six months in jail (and up to two years in prison), or both".


Don't thank me. I'm happy to help.
.
.

[louisa]

Louisa:
And I have already told YOU (twice already) that I would not expect any classified information that was heard by the Grand Jury to be shared with the public.

My complaint is that the Boulder DA, Alex Hunter, withheld the fact that the Grand Jury voted to Indict the Ramseys over the death of their daughter. The DECISION should have been made public.

I hi-lited the relevant bit, above.

Once again....Alex Hunter is NOT permitted to DIVULGE the conclusion of the grand jury.
ALL Alex Hunter is permitted to do is declare whether the D.A.'s office will now proceed with a case against the Ramsey's.
The D.A.'s decision was announced to the public - Hunter did what he was supposed to do.

Your theory seems to rely on a distorted understanding of procedure.

He did not do what he was supposed to do.

The Grand Jury found the Ramseys were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and voted to send them to trial.

And you are saying that the DA was quite right in refusing to sign the Indictment?

See, you just can't help yourself can you. Your arguments are so weak you have to resort to condescending name-calling. More emotion that rationale.

I think that anyone reading these posts can see exactly who the name-caller is.



.
.

[louisa]

Louisa posted:

I see you haven't addressed the more interesting and pertinent queries that I raised a couple of days ago - how come there were NO fingerprints on the 'ransom note'? Not even the Ramseys?

The intruder theory already assumes he/they wore gloves.
However, I think the claim was "no latent prints" which does not mean no fingerprints were on the note. Just that no useful examples were identifiable.
Which is different to what you are claiming.

Wicksy - Can I ask you to read my posts more carefully in future? Thank you.

I am asking why the Ramseys prints were not found the on the 'ransom note'.

No fingerprints were found on the note. As the Ramseys were supposed to have picked the note up that seems a little odd, doesn't it?

------------------------------

Louisa posted:

And the fact that John said he had to move a chair from the hallway behind the train room (the room with the window) in order to gain access to it? I think he dropped a bit of a clanger there, but that's what he said and he had to stick by it.

I'm aware of that, Kolar went over it in detail.
He wasn't even sure how that detail helped any theory.

He wasn't sure how that detail helped any theory? How strange. You would have thought 'that detail' would help allay the idea that somebody had gained entry through that little window, or had, indeed exited from it.

And there is the other point which I raised and you ignored. John must have been in the basement before 6am. Explain that if you can.

------------------------------------------

Louisa posted:

At 6.06am Fleet White searched the basement and there was no chair in front of the door.

Not true, Fleet never mentioned a chair, that's all.
At no point did he say "there was no chair in front of the door".

It's what is called 'negative evidence' which is not evidence at all.

Oh is that what it's called? Thank you for that.

You read my post incorrectly.

Fleet would not have found the chair because JOHN had already moved it before Fleet went down there.

Or would you be suggesting something totally ludicrous - that Fleet moved the chair in order to look in the train room (omitting to mention this in his deposition) and then replaced it in front of the door when he left? (Also forgetting to mention this)
.
.