1273 users online (292 members and 981 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 134
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    red bluff, ca.
    Posts
    315

    Henry Lee's new book, anyone?

    Has anyone read Dr. Henry Lee's new book? He talks about the JonBenet Ramsey case. What does he say?
    http://groups.msn.com/CTVChatPeople/...hergaggle.msnw

    When you've got a hammer in your hand everything looks like a nail!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    11,080
    Quote Originally Posted by duffy
    Has anyone read Dr. Henry Lee's new book? He talks about the JonBenet Ramsey case. What does he say?

    I wonder if he was ever in Boulder and if he went into the house and looked at the crime scene, personally checked her body, etc. If he did then I would be interested to read what he has to say. If not, I doubt if I would bother.
    My faith in Dr. Lee kind of went down the drain when he spit that ketsup at the trial of Michael Peterson. I do enjoy watching his weekly TV show because he actually goes to the crime scene, etc, and explains how he is getting the info he comes up with. He works with real evidence.

    If anyone here has read the book will you please let us know what he has to say????

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    red bluff, ca.
    Posts
    315
    Whaaat? Spit the ketchup? I don't know anything about that. lol I wondered about Henry Lee during o.j. simpson trial but I do know he is highly respected. I watch that show too which is why my estimation of him has been restored. Maybe. Spit the ketchup?

    Henry Lee was called in after JonBenet was buried but I guess he had access to a lot of stuff, the house etc. I have also heard Boulder P.D. withheld evidence from him too. I'm not sure what the truth is.

    I don't think Henry Lee is a liar though.

    Hopefully someone will respond. Anybody????
    http://groups.msn.com/CTVChatPeople/...hergaggle.msnw

    When you've got a hammer in your hand everything looks like a nail!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    Henry Lee should be ashamed of himself for still trying to capitalize on JonBenet's name.

    Accordong to Lee ... he says that there is a 50/50 percent chance that the case will be solved. He doesn't think the police had tunnel vision in this case,because everyone is suspect. He remains unsure whether JonBenet was murdered or died in what started as a accident. He doesn't see this as a DNA case.

    That's it! So,as you can see,Henry Lee doesn't know any more, than any of us posters here at WS.

    Yet, any chance he gets,he tries to act like he was a big part of the investigation.

    It's all Lee's part of sensationalism to have people buy his book,or fill the halls where he is speaking.

    I've once admired him ... I don't any longer.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    red bluff, ca.
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by capps
    Henry Lee should be ashamed of himself for still trying to capitalize on JonBenet's name.

    Accordong to Lee ... he says that there is a 50/50 percent chance that the case will be solved. He doesn't think the police had tunnel vision in this case,because everyone is suspect. He remains unsure whether JonBenet was murdered or died in what started as a accident. He doesn't see this as a DNA case.

    That's it! So,as you can see,Henry Lee doesn't know any more, than any of us posters here at WS.

    Yet, any chance he gets,he tries to act like he was a big part of the investigation.

    It's all Lee's part of sensationalism to have people buy his book,or fill the halls where he is speaking.

    I've once admired him ... I don't any longer.
    This is what Henry Lee says in his book? When I was reading about it, sorry can't remember where, it eluded to some of the evidence pointing to the ramseys. If that is the case I will send him a scathing email!!!
    http://groups.msn.com/CTVChatPeople/...hergaggle.msnw

    When you've got a hammer in your hand everything looks like a nail!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    Quote Originally Posted by duffy
    This is what Henry Lee says in his book? When I was reading about it, sorry can't remember where, it eluded to some of the evidence pointing to the ramseys. If that is the case I will send him a scathing email!!!
    Duffy,

    No,it's not from his new book,in fact I am not aware of a new book by Henry Lee. I did buy his book about two years or so ago,for my sister as a gift,and she said Lee had nothing we didn't already know as far as the Ramsey case.

    The information I gave in my previous post,was from all the interviews by him.which was no information.

    50/50 chance the case will be solved. (Half chance it will,half chance it won't.Not much info there.

    Everyone is a suspect.(Of course,if you're not cleared,your a suspect.Not much info there.)

    The point I was trying to make,is that Henry Lee can be posting on this forum,and not come up with any more,than what we are. Yet he keeps including JonBenet's name in all his books and speeches,leading people to believe,as a forensic scientist,he knows more than us.He doesn't.

    It's all about boosting his ego,and money.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Emerald City
    Posts
    714
    Lee was consulted by the case. He met with Hunter and Kane. He was privy to case documentation and probably knows a great deal more about the case than we do.

    Anywho...whoever said that they lost respect for Lee from the ketchup spitting incident during the "other" Peterson trial - I lost it when he was looking at the blood and trying to come up with ANYWAY it could have been splattered like it was without implicating Peterson. It was so obvious that he was being paid to agree with the defense that I was sickened.
    "To be a good Republican, you have to believe that God hates homosexuality, but loves the death penalty." Ann Richards

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514
    Dr. Lee stated in his book that a practice note - with writing similar to that in the note - was found crumpled up in a wastebasket in the Ramsey home. That was the first I'd ever heard of that. I'd heard they found another page in the tablet the note came from that was addressed to the Ramseys and nothing else written. But have we ever been told just what was written on that page - or pages - discovered crumpled up in the wastebasket???

    Also, Dr. Lee included a list of experts that were consulted in the investigation in the Ramsey case. One popped out at me. They enlisted the help of an "Incest Survivor Expert". Now WHO was that survivor they were curious about?????
    This post is my opinion.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,606
    The book is no longer new. It has some interesting points; however, it contains some errors, also. (to the best of my memory)

    Just read it anyway. You never know what you might find insightful.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9
    Actually, Dr. Lee sold his soul at the OJ trial. His "something wrong" comment he led the jury to believe that it spoke to all the tested samples instead of just the one. He knew darn well that there was no problem with the samples, heck the defense in the civil trial stipulated that all the samples where who the plaintiff said they were. Lee knew all this and still put on his dog and pony show. Same thing is true for Barry Scheck. His Innocence Project is a real good thing, but his performance in the OJ trial extremely tarnishes his reputation in my book. Same for Lee.


    SB


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,795
    I agree. If you read Petrocelli's book you'll find the "Something wrong" wasn't just a lucky bit of confusion. They worked long and hard at coming up with just the right phrase.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,300

    Yup

    Quote Originally Posted by duffy View Post
    Has anyone read Dr. Henry Lee's new book? He talks about the JonBenet Ramsey case. What does he say?
    While I was reading Lee's synopsis of the case I kept wondering why he even bothered writing on this case. As far as I can tell, he repeated evidence already out there and stated he had formed no opinion...even about the sexual assault!!

    Then I read the last paragraph of Famous Crimes Revisited
    "But one thing is clear to me: Alex Hunter has carried a heavy cross from the outset, and he had the courage not to push the Grand Jury for an indictment. And why? Lack of sufficient evidence. He is an honest and fair gentleman - a truth seeker who is know for thoughtful deliberation.

    Quite the bromance.

    Anyway, here's the points he makes Intruder v. Insider:

    Intruder:
    -Basement window with scuff marks
    -Marks of a stun gun
    -Small amount of DNA under fingernails
    -Small amount of DNA on underwear
    -Ransom note
    -Ramseys passed polygraph
    -Baseball bat outside with fibers from basement
    -Signs of sexual assault
    -Shoe print on floor of cellar

    Insider:
    -Place where body was found clearly secondary location
    -Wine cellar is not an obvious room in the house, indicating knowled of the house layout
    -Ransom note not typical and writing obviously disguised
    -Ink and paper used for ransom note found in house
    -Practice ransom note found in garbage
    -The fingernail and underwear DNA very minute suggesting contamination
    -Fibers
    -911 call inconsistent with later Ramsey statements

    Now wait a minute.
    Why is the evidence of sexual assault only an indication of an intruder? Lee's too experienced to only think an intruder could have sexually assaulted her that night. Same with the ransom note...as evidence it isn't limited to an intruder!

    His enumeration of experts in the case is interesting, mostly typical experts except a few jumped out to me; child abuse consultants, juvenile witness interview experts, plant experts and most interesting advocates for incest survivors.
    I'm going to take my ball and go home

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    12,667
    Quote Originally Posted by 2 percent View Post

    Then I read the last paragraph of Famous Crimes Revisited
    "But one thing is clear to me: Alex Hunter has carried a heavy cross from the outset, and he had the courage not to push the Grand Jury for an indictment. And why? Lack of sufficient evidence. He is an honest and fair gentleman - a truth seeker who is know for thoughtful deliberation.
    focusing on this part of the quote, Sounds to me like he agrees with AH and how he decided to not charge the R's based on the GJ..

    It corroborates what I have been saying. Something was wrong with that indictment and AH knew it. He knew that something was hinky.
    Atticus Finch: “You never really understand a person . . . until you consider things from his point of view.” To Kill A Mockingbird

    All my posts are my opinion only.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,697
    My comments are bolded below.
    Quote Originally Posted by 2 percent View Post
    While I was reading Lee's synopsis of the case I kept wondering why he even bothered writing on this case. As far as I can tell, he repeated evidence already out there and stated he had formed no opinion...even about the sexual assault!!

    Then I read the last paragraph of Famous Crimes Revisited
    "But one thing is clear to me: Alex Hunter has carried a heavy cross from the outset, and he had the courage not to push the Grand Jury for an indictment. And why? Lack of sufficient evidence. He is an honest and fair gentleman - a truth seeker who is know for thoughtful deliberation.

    Quite the bromance.

    Anyway, here's the points he makes Intruder v. Insider:

    Intruder:
    -Basement window with scuff marks
    (possibly left by John when he skivvied in earlier)

    -Marks of a stun gun
    (that's been discounted by the maker of the stun gun Lou Smit claims was consistent with the marks on JonBenet, which weren't truly consistent)

    -Small amount of DNA under fingernails
    (possibly from anywhere/anybody)


    -Small amount of DNA on underwear
    (possibly from anywhere/anybody)

    -Ransom note
    (possibly, but I'll go with the opinion of the FBI on this one)

    -Ramseys passed polygraph
    (John passed in a reasonable manner; Patsy passed after several tries; the polygraphers were hired by the Ramseys so bias comes into play, plus the testing was done months and months (maybe years?) after the homicide)

    -Baseball bat outside with fibers from basement
    (can this be linked to the crime or just linked to the house?)

    -Signs of sexual assault
    (doesn't preclude a family member committing the assault)

    -Shoe print on floor of cellar
    (could have been left by an investigating officer or Burke Ramsey who also owned a pair of hi-tech shoes or left by a worker; this print has not been linked to an Intruder)

    Insider:

    -Place where body was found clearly secondary location
    (those insiders who knew of this room and/or had access were eliminated)

    -Wine cellar is not an obvious room in the house, indicating knowledge of the house layout
    (I agree plus same as above ... those "in the know" were eliminated)

    -Ransom note not typical and writing obviously disguised
    -Ink and paper used for ransom note found in house
    -Practice ransom note found in garbage
    (after studying the above note, etc., I'm convinced Patsy wrote the note)

    -The fingernail and underwear DNA very minute suggesting contamination
    (agreed)

    -Fibers
    (agreed because it would hard for fibers to float in the air and become entwined in knots or land on newly opened underwear, especially since Patsy claimed she never wore the jacket in question while in the basement)

    -911 call inconsistent with later Ramsey statements
    (yeah, the Ramseys lied)

    Now wait a minute.
    Why is the evidence of sexual assault only an indication of an intruder? Lee's too experienced to only think an intruder could have sexually assaulted her that night. Same with the ransom note...as evidence it isn't limited to an intruder!

    His enumeration of experts in the case is interesting, mostly typical experts except a few jumped out to me; child abuse consultants, juvenile witness interview experts, plant experts and most interesting advocates for incest survivors.
    Incest survivors. So who would the survivor(s) be? Child abuse? Juvenile witness interview experts as opposed to juvenile victim experts?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    My comments are bolded below.


    Incest survivors. So who would the survivor(s) be? Child abuse? Juvenile witness interview experts as opposed to juvenile victim experts?
    My theory is that all the children were exposed to incest in that household. Dirty family secret. Not sure if the older boys learned from the parents or just decided to pick on poor JB.
    There's many things that point in that direction. IMO.
    That's why the parents wanted to cover it up, it would ruin their social standing to tell the truth or to punish the guilty parties.

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. IL Il: Henry ellis 59/m/b 2/6/13
    By raine1212 in forum Matches & Resolved
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2013, 04:59 PM
  2. Dr Henry Lee's Book
    By Sophie in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 06-18-2009, 10:59 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-07-2006, 10:28 PM