Something that has been bugging me... (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT)

[questfortrue]

[Originally Posted by OliviaG1996
By the way, I have now been told that James Kolar's book, The Bonita Papers, and now Steve Thomas's book are unreliable and should be taken with a grain of salt. Should I just take the Ramseys' word for everything and throw anything that brings suspicion upon them out the window?]

~RSBM~
giggle: I thought from previous discussions, that’s what we are here for -- to tear down any books written about the Ramsey case that weren’t written by the Ramseys.

​

:lol:


I didn’t want anyone to hit their “Buy Me” button on Amazon.com without a bit more thought.

My little chapter review (on only the R chapter) is not directed at anyone, so no one should take it defensively. Since I hadn’t heard of this book, I wished to dig a bit deeper. The testimony about these three experts – Vacca, Cunningham, and Rile – has not been noted on the Grand Jury page of ACR. I’d only heard Chet Ubowski referenced for giving testimony at the GJ.

While my librarian furnished me an e-copy of the book (for free-which, imo, is the right price for this book), actually there is also a pretty lengthy sample of the book on Amazon.com.

Here’s the issue as I see it: No one knows – if indeed the handwriting experts Vacca, Cunningham and Rile did testify – what they said, whether the author was interpreting Smit’s information regarding how Kane made Rile feel, or if Rile himself complained to Fisher. IDK. I am not disputing Fisher, I am only saying no one can verify what he reports, because it is, as otg characterizes it, Fisher’s account.

Fisher doesn’t footnote his conversations. He only provides “sources” in his appendix, using primarily The Rocky Mountain News, The Daily Camera, and ACR for his information about the case. Except for handwriting experts like Rile and Cunningham and some dialog with Detective Lou Smit, Fisher did not interview folks involved with the case as ST and Schiller did. He did not have first-hand access to evidence as Kolar did. His account about the case is pretty much second and third hand information. (Though I do detect in his praise of Lou Smit, Fisher was influenced by Smit’s home-spun charm and convictions.) The reference he provides for Cunningham and Rile is from an interview with them at a 2004 convention in Baltimore. He does not document with footnotes.

Since I can't verify the GJ stuff, the manner in which I evaluate a book is usually to look at whether the information provided is accurate. Here’s what Fisher stated which I call into question. Book quotes are in italic:

He copied the RN from the RMN, but he substituted words like “nation” for “faction”. He also changed the real RN phrasing from “If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies” to “If you talk to a stray dog, you die.” OK, maybe his proof reader wasn’t so hot.

During the next 2 hours, amid friends and family who had come to console the family . .: Inaccurate, ML and JAR did not arrive until after the body is discovered.

JonBenet had lengths of white rope coiled around her neck: Inaccurate. It was cord, not rope and it was not “coiled,” as the ligature was only wrapped once around her neck.

The rope around her neck was tied to what looked like the handle of a paintbrush. Refinement of information. It looked like a handle of a paintbrush, because it was a paintbrush handle.

Detective Arndt picked up the child, placed her body next to the Christmas tree and covered it with a sweatshirt. Inaccurate. According to the police report Ramsey left and returned approximately two minutes later, and before Arndt could stop him, he grabbed a blanket in the room and placed it over her body. Someone else placed a sweatshirt over JonBenét’s bare feet. (FF)

Trace of blood under her fingernails and on her underwear were determined to be unsuitable for DNA analysis. Inaccurate. There was no blood under her fingernails and the blood in her panties was analyzed and found to be her own blood.

The meeting (with Vacca) had been arranged by Miller, who introduced Craig Lewis as a “representative of a large corporation.” So far correct. Miller pulled an envelope out of his brief case and offered it to Vacca. The envelope contained $30000 in cash Inaccurate. Miller documents in his book the following: Vacca testified twice, once to the Jefferson County Grand Jury and a second time at my trial, that Lewis reached inside his coat and pulled out a manila envelope filled with $30,000. He swore under oath that it concerned him when Lewis reached inside his coat, telling the grand jury that it made his heart go “pit-a-pat,” and at my trial that his police training made him believe Lewis was going to pull a gun. It isn’t Lewis’ style to pull a gun. I do know that he wasn’t wearing a gun, nor carrying a manila envelope with $30,000 inside his coat, because he wasn’t wearing a coat. The money was in a 10″ by 12″ manila envelope that he carried openly in his hands with his notebook.

Because I believe Fisher was very lax in fact checking the case, it does call into question some of his other conclusions. But I also really don’t care if anyone believes Fisher’s account or not. These three handwriting experts were hired by the R team, so I would describe them as R hired guns, a characterization others might find offensive. Not meaning to offend. One would therefore assume their testimony, if it was given, supported Smit’s intruder theory. The point I circle back to is this: In spite of the testimony of Lou Smit, forensic profiler JD and any or all of the handwriting experts, the GJ did vote to indict. And that was my more important point to Olivia.

Humor alert from Fisher’s book: Two handwriting experts claimed certainty that JMK wrote the RN. One of them said “If the DNA evidence does not put Karr at the scene of the crime, then he had a hand in writing the note and didn’t do the crime.” IOW, the two men agreed Karr wasn’t a child-molesting killer, just a man who broke into homes and left bizarre ransom notes.

 

[Anti-K]

I truly appreciate your concern for my credibility, AK. But, never having claimed that I read the book, I don’t think my credibility will suffer from my simply pointing out the obvious slant the author takes in his choice of words in the quote that you selected from the book. I also included some of the opinion of the book by someone else who did read the book, along with a link so anyone can read it.


Again, I never claimed to have read the book. My response was only to the section you quoted which showed how the author conspicuously chose his words to give the reader a slanted view. Your quote came from the section titled “Hired Guns, Smoke Blowers, and Phonies: The Expert Witness Problem”. Given the title, I think my assumption about its subject matter is reasonable -- I was not attempting to make a “blatant misrepresentation of the book in general” (or any kind of representation of the “book in general” for that matter).


Perhaps you missed it in the quote you selected where it says the following (I bolded the words in your quote that are clues to his speaking about more than just Rile):

Kane cross-examined these well intentioned and highly qualified men [Smit, and document examiners Rile, Cunnigham and Vacca] as though they were enemy defence witnesses at a criminal trial. The last thing Kane needed were four credible witnesses tearing down a case that was already weak, and he took out his frustration on them.”
​

Since witnesses can only testify alone (or with legal representation if they so choose), Fisher had to be claiming in his book that he heard from each of the four (including Smit) about their experience, unless he made those assumptions without their input.



I never claimed anything was unethical about their discussing their testimony.


Okay. How is any of that relevant to what you chose to quote? I understood your first post about a quote from the book to simply be providing information that Ubowski was not the only handwriting expert to testify in front of the GJ. Since that’s the only place I’ve ever heard that the other three also testified, I looked into it and passed along my impression about the source.

giggle: I thought from previous discussions, that’s what we are here for -- to tear down any books written about the Ramsey case that weren’t written by the Ramseys.)

​

Sorry, but I didn’t express any concern for your credibility. I merely commented on it within a specific context.

How do you know that the paragraph quoted shows an “obvious slant?” Perhaps, in an earlier paragraph Fisher established that the persons named were well intentioned, highly qualified and credible witnesses.

And, maybe Kane’s case was weak (many would agree); maybe Rile described Kane as being vicious in his attack and Fisher was simply using his description; maybe, Fisher, in a previous paragraph, showed reason to believe Kane was frustrated; etc (you don’t know, because you didn’t read the book).

Fisher does not need to be claiming that he heard from each of the four men. He could have spoke to one of them, he could have spoke to someone else present, he could have extrapolated one thing from another, he could have been carried away with hyperbole and assumptions; etc.

I think that when you write “it’s interesting that the book referenced (author, Jim Fisher) discusses how corruptible and unreliable “expert” witnesses are, and yet he refers to statements apparently made to him (Fisher) about “secret” GJ testimony by the three “hired guns” that you are indeed talking about ethical behavior. Indeed.

As to how my closing remarks were relevant to the quote - what? See where I wrote, BTW? That means that I’m adding information.

BTW, the title for the chapter being discussed is: Expert vs Expert.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

:lol:


I didn’t want anyone to hit their “Buy Me” button on Amazon.com without a bit more thought.

My little chapter review (on only the R chapter) is not directed at anyone, so no one should take it defensively. Since I hadn’t heard of this book, I wished to dig a bit deeper. The testimony about these three experts – Vacca, Cunningham, and Rile – has not been noted on the Grand Jury page of ACR. I’d only heard Chet Ubowski referenced for giving testimony at the GJ.

While my librarian furnished me an e-copy of the book (for free-which, imo, is the right price for this book), actually there is also a pretty lengthy sample of the book on Amazon.com.

Here’s the issue as I see it: No one knows – if indeed the handwriting experts Vacca, Cunningham and Rile did testify – what they said, whether the author was interpreting Smit’s information regarding how Kane made Rile feel, or if Rile himself complained to Fisher. IDK. I am not disputing Fisher, I am only saying no one can verify what he reports, because it is, as otg characterizes it, Fisher’s account.

Fisher doesn’t footnote his conversations. He only provides “sources” in his appendix, using primarily The Rocky Mountain News, The Daily Camera, and ACR for his information about the case. Except for handwriting experts like Rile and Cunningham and some dialog with Detective Lou Smit, Fisher did not interview folks involved with the case as ST and Schiller did. He did not have first-hand access to evidence as Kolar did. His account about the case is pretty much second and third hand information. (Though I do detect in his praise of Lou Smit, Fisher was influenced by Smit’s home-spun charm and convictions.) The reference he provides for Cunningham and Rile is from an interview with them at a 2004 convention in Baltimore. He does not document with footnotes.

Since I can't verify the GJ stuff, the manner in which I evaluate a book is usually to look at whether the information provided is accurate. Here’s what Fisher stated which I call into question. Book quotes are in italic:

He copied the RN from the RMN, but he substituted words like “nation” for “faction”. He also changed the real RN phrasing from “If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies” to “If you talk to a stray dog, you die.” OK, maybe his proof reader wasn’t so hot.

During the next 2 hours, amid friends and family who had come to console the family . .: Inaccurate, ML and JAR did not arrive until after the body is discovered.

JonBenet had lengths of white rope coiled around her neck: Inaccurate. It was cord, not rope and it was not “coiled,” as the ligature was only wrapped once around her neck.

The rope around her neck was tied to what looked like the handle of a paintbrush. Refinement of information. It looked like a handle of a paintbrush, because it was a paintbrush handle.

Detective Arndt picked up the child, placed her body next to the Christmas tree and covered it with a sweatshirt. Inaccurate. According to the police report Ramsey left and returned approximately two minutes later, and before Arndt could stop him, he grabbed a blanket in the room and placed it over her body. Someone else placed a sweatshirt over JonBenét’s bare feet. (FF)

Trace of blood under her fingernails and on her underwear were determined to be unsuitable for DNA analysis. Inaccurate. There was no blood under her fingernails and the blood in her panties was analyzed and found to be her own blood.

The meeting (with Vacca) had been arranged by Miller, who introduced Craig Lewis as a “representative of a large corporation.” So far correct. Miller pulled an envelope out of his brief case and offered it to Vacca. The envelope contained $30000 in cash Inaccurate. Miller documents in his book the following: Vacca testified twice, once to the Jefferson County Grand Jury and a second time at my trial, that Lewis reached inside his coat and pulled out a manila envelope filled with $30,000. He swore under oath that it concerned him when Lewis reached inside his coat, telling the grand jury that it made his heart go “pit-a-pat,” and at my trial that his police training made him believe Lewis was going to pull a gun. It isn’t Lewis’ style to pull a gun. I do know that he wasn’t wearing a gun, nor carrying a manila envelope with $30,000 inside his coat, because he wasn’t wearing a coat. The money was in a 10″ by 12″ manila envelope that he carried openly in his hands with his notebook.

Because I believe Fisher was very lax in fact checking the case, it does call into question some of his other conclusions. But I also really don’t care if anyone believes Fisher’s account or not. These three handwriting experts were hired by the R team, so I would describe them as R hired guns, a characterization others might find offensive. Not meaning to offend. One would therefore assume their testimony, if it was given, supported Smit’s intruder theory. The point I circle back to is this: In spite of the testimony of Lou Smit, forensic profiler JD and any or all of the handwriting experts, the GJ did vote to indict. And that was my more important point to Olivia.

Humor alert from Fisher’s book: Two handwriting experts claimed certainty that JMK wrote the RN. One of them said “If the DNA evidence does not put Karr at the scene of the crime, then he had a hand in writing the note and didn’t do the crime.” IOW, the two men agreed Karr wasn’t a child-molesting killer, just a man who broke into homes and left bizarre ransom notes.

This is all fair criticism, but I think the important thing to note is that this is not a book about the Ramsey case. It uses the case to discuss the issue of dueling experts in the field of document analysis.

There are some errors as you’ve pointed out. Issues with sloppy proofreading, editors, research assistants – who knows? They’re kind of like when Kolar, in his book, makes mention of the tape on Jonbenet’s legs. They’re called mistakes and every book has them (anybody remember PMPT’s first edition?).

If this was a book about the Ramsey case, or a chapter on the murder or its investigation I might be a little more alarmed, but as it is... meh.

I agree that the three handwriting experts hired by the Ramseys could be described as hired guns. This should not make them less credible or less honest; etc.

Yes, the gj voted to indict. IMO, they did so because they believed that Mrs Ramsey wrote the note. What’s up with that? 
.
In the JMK chapter that you reference Fisher also wrote that the “...JMK chapter in the Ramsey case has provided further evidence that in the United States there are so many unqualified handwriting experts rendering unscientific opinions, the entire filed of forensic document examination may lose its credibility.”

Fisher’s closing words on the matter:
In the expert witness business, hired guns who don’t shoot straight are a problem that can be fixed by judges who have learned how to identify the phonies and keep them off the stand. Because the pretenders have created their own pseudo professional organizations and are not above embellishing their resumes, this is not an easy task. Even among legitimate forensic science organizations, weeding out the bad ones has been difficult. The problem with experts, it seems, will not be solved anytime soon.
.

BTW, nice post.
...

AK

 

[OliviaG1996]

The following is part of a synopsis of a Malcolm in the Middle episode: Reese, who broke Dewey's future birthday present and was psyched to hide the evidence in Aunt Helen's casket,http://malcolminthemiddle.tktv.net/Episodes1/ (#11: Funeral)

In DOI Patsy said that John tucked a scarf around JonBenet (pp 39-40). This would be an ingenious way to hide evidence so no one could ever gain any access to it. Have the items rolled up in one end of the scarf, tuck it under the body, and tuck the other end on the other side.

That's a great find, icedtea4me. Good thinking. That could also explain why JR was so adamant about JonBenet's body not being exhumed:

From CBS News (found here):
Unfortunately, with only photographs to go by, no expert can be sure. The best way to determine the answer would have been to exhume the body to study the injuries. Smit admits that in the months following JonBenet's death, investigators considered going to court to have her body exhumed. They decided against it.

So did John Ramsey. "We had buried our child, she was at peace, she was safe. That was just an abhorrent thought to me," he says. "We've got people that know what they're doing that say with 95 percent medical certainty that a stun gun was used, no question." Despite the uncertainty that leaves, he says he didn't want to disturb his child.

 

[BBB167893]

He published his book when? 2000?

Sounds right.

He's not being forgetful, he is simply stating that to his recollection, there was no fiber evidence linking Patsy to JonBenet (aside from the four red fibers).

I'm thinking if there was any evidence he wouldn't have had any trouble remembering it?

I'm not saying he forgot, rex. Do you really think that the investigation STOPPED when he left?

 

[BBB167893]

You wrote that the totality of the evidence is RDI’ I replied that you were wrong because exculpatory evidence does exist. And, now you say that that's the point you've tried to make these many years. You’re contradicting yourself.

My head hurts. Look, I'm not interested in these semantic games, so I'll lay it out like this:

Don't believe what you see on TV. I have yet to run across a case where there wasn't SOMETHING that didn't fit.

 

[BBB167893]

It was a jacket (from the 2000 interview):

16 Q. You were shown, I believe,
17 photographs that were taken -- and this is
18 during your '98 interview -- photographs that
19 were taken at the White's house Christmas
20 night at dinner. In that you are wearing a
21 red coat, kind of a wool, wool jacket. Do
22 you recall seeing that?
23 A. It is kind of a black and red
24 and gray fleece.
25 Q. Cut more like a blazer than --
0154
1 A. Like a peacoat.
2 MR. WOOD: Well, the picture is
3 the picture, isn't it?
4 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Right, like a
5 peacoat. I just want to make sure we are
6 talking about the same thing. Do you
7 remember that jacket?
8 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
9 Q. I would like you to give us a
10 little background on that coat,

Nobody can seem to agree on this one.

Very easy for Mrs Ramsey to explain away those fibers if she had wanted to and IMO she would have if RDI was true.

Apparently, it WASN'T very easy. It took her two full years and that was contradicted by her own book. As for your opinion, well...

Thanks, I’m aware of Thomas’ version of events

Then why did you ask?

 

[BBB167893]

Persons were eliminated as being the source for the DNA. That is not a myth. It is a fact.

“The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet.” Mark Beckner http://tinyurl.com/n6pt3kz
...

AK

I didn't say that people weren't eliminated as the source of the DNA. I SAID that no one was eliminated as a SUSPECT solely because of the DNA. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[BBB167893]

Some might say that the exculpatory evidence (since strengthened with the inclusion of the tDNA) was one of the reasons that this didn’t go to trial.
...

AK

If one believes there was ever the INTENT to take it to trial...

 

[Anti-K]

My head hurts. Look, I'm not interested in these semantic games, so I'll lay it out like this:

Don't believe what you see on TV. I have yet to run across a case where there wasn't SOMETHING that didn't fit.

The only thing that the unsourced trace evidence doesn’t fit is RDI. Maybe, there’s something wrong with RDI?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Nobody can seem to agree on this one.



Apparently, it WASN'T very easy. It took her two full years and that was contradicted by her own book. As for your opinion, well...



Then why did you ask?

I don’t see where people are disagreeing; it seems clear from the 2000 interview that it was a jacket. “Like a peacoat,” Mrs Ramsey says. “Right, like a peacoat.” Says Levin. Hey! Look! Agreement – it was like a peacoat.
.

If RDI, it would have been easy. If IDI, it would have not been easy. And, you’re saying it wasn’t easy? Okay.
.

I asked because I thought you might have had something substantial to show me.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

Ok, so have you heard that Chet Ubowski stated that he believed Patsy wrote the RN as her handwriting was consistent in 24 out of 26 letters of the alphabet?

Privately, however, Ubowski, who had made the early discovery that Patsy’s handwriting was consistent with the ransom note on twenty-four of the twenty-six alphabet letters, had recently told one detective, “I believe she wrote it.”
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 174

However, during the course of his deposition, he was questioned about the accuracy of this:

2 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) After your book
3 came out, sir, were you aware that
4 Mr. Ubowski publicly denied the accuracy of
5 the statement that he concluded Patsy Ramsey
6 wrote the ransom note?
7 A. No. You're telling me this for
8 the first time.
9 Q. Are you familiar that Mr. Ubowski
10 stated that he had never reached the
11 conclusion that 24 of her letters out of the
12 26 letters of the alphabet were matched with
13 the ransom note?
14 A. No, I have not heard that.
15 Q. And you stated to the contrary in
16 your book, didn't you?
17 A. Yeah, I stated what I was told by
18 my detective sergeant.
19 Q. And you weren't even, I guess,
20 aware that Mr. Ubowski and the CBI said they
21 don't even make that kind of analysis with
22 respect to the 24 out of the 26 letters of
23 the alphabet, you don't know anything about
24 that --
25 A. No.
1 Q. -- in terms of the public
2 statement by the CBI after your book was
3 published?
4 A. The CBI made a public statement?
5 Q. Yes, sir.
6 A. As an organization, I haven't seen
7 that.

What official report was Wood quoting again? Oh, right; I forgot: he didn't HAVE the actual reports. Why? Haddon wouldn't give them to him!

 

[BBB167893]

Apparently the investigators taped the clothing in the closets for fibers, so they must have had some inkling what they were looking for?

Pam made the raid two days after the murder. Were the cops already taping the closets by then? I've always been under the impression that the police hadn't gotten organized by that point.

Well, because I'm thinking there would have been quite a lot of evidence that he would have had to take out of the house.
Of course, what exactly it would have been, depends on which RDI theory you embrace.

Now we're getting somewhere. Be specific, rex. Tell me plain what items they would have had to remove.

Because as I see it, the only things they would have had to take out were the cord and tape. Assuming, of course, there was any left to take. As for their clothes, well, easiest way in the world to carry that out: wear it.

I expect that there would be quite a bit of evidence to take out, depending on which RDI theory you embrace LOL.

Like I said, I'm going to need specifics.

By "no one" I'm thinking you mean Det Arndt? The only person who was asked, the only officer in the house at that time if I'm not mistaken, or more correctly the person who actually made the assumption that he was missing (to get the mail - although she later recanted), simply because SHE lost sight of him or didn't remember him being there for a period of time. And she probably could probably said that applied to pretty much everyone in the house, at one time or another, as there were a lot of people to keep track of, but it was only John's whereabouts that she was questioned on.

Just so we have this all straight, you wondered why the cops wouldn't notice them gathering up all the evidence to carry out. Why would they wait until AFTER the cops got there??

Er, yeaaarrrs... assuming that there was any evidence for them to dispose of.

Let me be specific on this: if there was no other cord or tape in the house, they wouldn't need to dispose of it.

So like I say, if RDI could come up with one single cohesive theory, then we could go through and work out exactly what they needed to get rid of, or not, as they case may be.

That would be nice. But, at the risk of sounding pessimistic, I doubt strongly that's going to happen.

On a side note, I actually took some heat a while back for asking IDI for the same thing. Ain't life funny?

They were savvy enough to take all the incriminating evidence with them.
Yet they (according to RDI) left the head-bash weapon (flashlight) sitting in plain sight on the kitchen counter??
Didn't even put it back in the drawer where it belonged.....

Actually, I'm not saying that they were "savvy" at all. More like lucky.

It appears that "investigators never even asked to see the other panties in the matching set her mother bought her (though the DA's office now has them, Wood says)"
And as far as the timeline is concerned " It is not clear at what point in time this transfer to BPD would have been made, but presumably was sometime after the Boulder DA took over the case in late 2002 and June 2003." (Clay Evans, "We're Failing JonBenet" Boulder Daily Camera, June 15, 2003)

Maybe someone could help us out. I distinctly remember the issue being raised in the August 2000 interviews and finding out they had them then.

Of course.

Not sure what you mean by that, but okay.

 

[BBB167893]

BBM: I'd like to read this public statement. Is it available online?

Apparently not, OliviaG1996. God knows I've looked!

 

[BBB167893]

I’d love to read that public statement, too. I’ve kept an eye open for it, but don’t recall ever coming across it. Or, any reference to it.

Nice to know it's not just me!

However, the interesting thing about these depositions is that the interviewers are not permitted to lie or intentionally mislead or misrepresent evidence. This is in contrast to the interviews where in the interviewers (yes, Levin included as during the interviews he was acting in an investigative role <1>) are permitted to do these things.
<1> http://tinyurl.com/bpvd2d4

Look again, Anti-K. You've got it just the other way around!

 

[BBB167893]

Regardless of what ST said someone said Ubowski said, when Ubowski spoke for himself at the grand jury he said "the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion."

That's pretty final don't you think?

"Can't say so by court standards" is pretty damn far from "she didn't write it," rex. Let's not forget he ALSO told the Grand Jury that it was only the bleeding ink from the pen and disguised letters that prevented him from that definite conclusion.

 

[BBB167893]

Really? Well, if you think he is that unreliable then you would dismiss his conclusions regardless of whether he thought she did write it or not, so there is no further need to discuss them.

That's a whole other pot of coffee, rex. If anyone wants to talk about that, there's already a thread for it.

 

[BBB167893]

I just think that proves how unreliable Ubowski is, saying one thing to investigators (according to the sources I've provided) and another to the grand jury. Not how Steve Thomas is unreliable.

That may be a bit harsh, OliviaG1996. Experts tell the cops things they can't say in court all the time.

 

[BBB167893]

Yeah, well, I don’t trust the Pope, either. Anyway, I made no mention of the exoneration. So, here you are again responding to me with non sequiturs.

The True Bills show that most (all?) of the Grand Jurors thought there was sufficient grounds to charge the Ramseys so that they could be tried. Probable Cause. Apparently, the DA and his advisors, although divided, disagreed with the Jurors.

All the gj decision shows is that there is an RDI case. Some (most?) of us IDI already knew this. We just happen to agree with the DA’s decision, not so much because the IDI case is strong, bur because the RDI case is so weak.

Don't fool yourself, Anti-K. The DA disagreed with it because HE was weak.

Do you know WHY I titled my book An Angel Betrayed, Anti-K? (I'll take a wild guess that you haven't read it.) It's because EVERYBODY in this case betrayed her. Her parents and extended family, the police, the prosecutors, right on down the line, and all for the same reason: because all they cared about was themselves. THEIR lives. THEIR public image.

Far as I'm concerned, they can all rot.

 

[BBB167893]

Wasn't there said to have been a lack of tape residue around her mouth?

Now we're talkin'!