I know that Steve Thomas was sued by the Ramseys for $80 million and the case was settled out of court (I believe in the Ramsey's favor). Does anyone have an answer as to why I have not heard of Schiller being sued or Hodges (who wrote 2 books implicating the Ramseys and who is much more vocal about sexual abuse than Steve Thomas is). Thanks for any help.
Question re Lawsuits
- Thread starter Solace
- Start date
Solace said:
John Ramsey hated Steve Thomas...and believing that a suit would compell Steve Thomas to reveal all that he knew, i.e. evidence the Ramseys are not privy to....they went ahead with the suit.
As it goes, Steve Thomas had no way to defend himself as he would, (quoting him, give away the store).
I may be wrong in this,but didn't ST actually accuse Patsy of killing JonBenet accidentally in his book? I don't think any other book did,they may have alluded to someone,but never named anyone,leaving that up to the readers to decide.Could that be why the Ramsey's sued him?
capps said:
Yeah,wow, Hodges books are far worse than Thomas' I would say. He not only accuses John of molesting JB but also accuses Patsy of killing her. He does name names and goes all the way. I've never understood why he has not been sued, although he pretty much left Burke alone and all of the lawsiuts were about Burke, with the exception of Thomas.
Wouldn't everyone love to know what the LE has in their files that we don't know about!
Any guesses?
The only ones I can think of at the top of my head is:
The DNAX,which we don't know where it's from.I heard it's not from JonBenet's body,but I don't know how true that is.
Pictures from the White's Christmas Party.Could there possibly be someone in those pictures,that can tie into the murder? Who knows.
Can anyone else come up with anything else?
Any guesses?
The only ones I can think of at the top of my head is:
The DNAX,which we don't know where it's from.I heard it's not from JonBenet's body,but I don't know how true that is.
Pictures from the White's Christmas Party.Could there possibly be someone in those pictures,that can tie into the murder? Who knows.
Can anyone else come up with anything else?
Hi Capps.
I think the pics from the Whites christmas party could be very telling.....theres something in them that is being hidden from public knowledge.....I find it strange that the graphic autopsy pics have being displayed....but not pics from an innocent christmas party
I think the pics from the Whites christmas party could be very telling.....theres something in them that is being hidden from public knowledge.....I find it strange that the graphic autopsy pics have being displayed....but not pics from an innocent christmas party
icedtea4me
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 1,744
- Reaction score
- 556
You brought up a point I have often wondered about, Solace. Hodges' first book on the Ramsey case was released in July(?) 1998. Months and months go by without a word from John and Patsy. Then the months turned into years and still no word. Steve Thomas released his book on April 11, 2000 and 50 days later on Larry King, John tells Steve, "We're suing you". As for them not going after Hodges, well, I think that can be summed up in one little word - distancing.Solace said:
-Tea
capps said:
I must be on everyones "ignore" list. Oh well, I still just keep right on posting don't I? Regarding your list I can tell you that DNAX is definately female. I got that from reading Mark Beckners deposition. About where it was found, it was only referred to as the "crime scene". So take your pick, I suppose that could be anywhere in the whole house.
narlacat said:You're not on my ignore list trixie
I thought DNAX was female too.
Oh Hi there Narlacat! Looks like a quiet sunday night tonight. Thanks for responding. I don't get responses very often unless it's Aussiesheila!! lol!
I don't post very often, just read mostly. When I do they mostly get skipped over. Oh well. Hope you are having a decent Monday!narlacat said:It's monday here.
I've never noticed anyone avoiding your posts, but I miss stuff probably
Jayelles
New Member
Thomas had more credibility than Hodges as he was privy to the most confidential of reports and files. Therefore his book was based upon unique knowledge of the case. Hodges book is just his take on the case, life, the universe...... Many case followers (myself included) have so little regard for Hodge that we didn't even buy the book.
I think that is why Thomas was sued and Hodges wasn't.
Wecht wasn't sued either.
I think that is why Thomas was sued and Hodges wasn't.
Wecht wasn't sued either.
for whats its worth...just watched an American show called Close to home....it started with a missing child...and a policeman saying..dont let this be another jonbenet Ramsey case......but this child was found outside of the house..I watched the rest of the show and it had very little bearing on our case....but I thought it was worth a mention
dingo said:Hi Trixie...I dont post often either....and sometimes I get skipped over.....but I do read your posts
So keep posting.
Hi dingo! Thanks for replying, that was nice. I read everyones posts too. I love this board.
sharkeyes
Queen of Swords and Cups
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 277
- Reaction score
- 35
I purchased Hodges book (mistake!...I'm glad I bought it used) as well as Wecht's and I've read Thomas' book (which I think is excellent).Jayelles said:
Hodges comes right out and basically calls Patsy a murderer and John an accomplice as well as child molester, but the way he dissects the ransom note and the "hidden meanings" he describes are a little too 'out there' for me [almost laughable]. I do believe Patsy could have done it - but not without help either in the act itself or the cover up/staging. Do I WANT to believe Patsy did it - well, no, but my gut tells me she's the one.
CAPPS, He says the blow to the head came first and it was an accident, believing that JB was accidently somehow pushed against the bathtub, BUT he believes that she was not dead then (even though she would have died from the damage to her skull); but he believes that Patsy (alone) decides to "take a left turn" and strangles her thereby committing murder.capps said:
Nuisanceposter
Remembering Little Miss Christmas
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 1,399
- Reaction score
- 23
Thomas says on pg 286 -7 of his book,Solace said:CAPPS, He says the blow to the head came first and it was an accident, believing that JB was accidently somehow pushed against the bathtub, BUT he believes that she was not dead then (even though she would have died from the damage to her skull); but he believes that Patsy (alone) decides to "take a left turn" and strangles her thereby committing murder.
"I believed JonBenet was slammed against a hard surface, such as the edge of the tub, inflicting a mortal head wound. She was unconscious, but her heart was still beating. Patsy would not have known JonBenet was still alive, because the child already appeared to be dead. The massive head trauma would have eventually killed her.
It was the critical moment in which she had to either call for help or find an alternative explanation for her daughter's death. It was accidental in the sense that the situation had developed without motive or premeditation. She could have called for help but chose not to. An emergency room doctor probably would have questioned the "accident" and called the police. Still, little would have happened to Patsy in Boulder. But I believe panic overtook her.
John and Burke continued to sleep while Patsy moved the body of JonBenet down to the basement and hid her in the little room."
He then goes on to theorize that Patsy then wrote the note and after that went back down and fashioned the "garotte" from cord she found and the paintbrush from her tote and strangled JB from behind to fit in with her made-up scenario.
As much as I consider Steve Thomas to be one of the only ones truly concerned with delivering that poor dead child justice, I'm not sure I completely buy his theory. I'm not sure the head wound preceeded the strangulation, and I'm not sure what implement was used to incur the head wound.