Steve Thomas' book

New Posts

J

Jay78

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
285
Reaction score
251
I just re-read the book, and i found several of his arguments quite good. For instance, would an intruder know where to find the sharpie pen with which he/she wrote the note, and why would he/she put the pen back? what about the pineapple which was never explained? he also said they couldn't move through the house without creeking. Also, Thomas claimed he COULD hear a scream from the basement upstairs. I also found it interesting that Thomas claimed with the light off, he could not see into the room where JB was found, although john claimed he saw her instantly. Finally, Thomas said navigating the house in darkness was impossible.

Think what you will, but i think Thomas' book contains the answers and he provides logical proof to reinforce his argument.
 
Jay78 said:
I just re-read the book, and i found several of his arguments quite good. For instance, would an intruder know where to find the sharpie pen with which he/she wrote the note, and why would he/she put the pen back? what about the pineapple which was never explained? he also said they couldn't move through the house without creeking. Also, Thomas claimed he COULD hear a scream from the basement upstairs. I also found it interesting that Thomas claimed with the light off, he could not see into the room where JB was found, although john claimed he saw her instantly. Finally, Thomas said navigating the house in darkness was impossible.

Think what you will, but i think Thomas' book contains the answers and he provides logical proof to reinforce his argument.
Click to expand...
LHP said the same thing.
 
Jay78 said:
I just re-read the book, and i found several of his arguments quite good. For instance, would an intruder know where to find the sharpie pen with which he/she wrote the note, and why would he/she put the pen back? what about the pineapple which was never explained? he also said they couldn't move through the house without creeking. Also, Thomas claimed he COULD hear a scream from the basement upstairs. I also found it interesting that Thomas claimed with the light off, he could not see into the room where JB was found, although john claimed he saw her instantly. Finally, Thomas said navigating the house in darkness was impossible.

Think what you will, but i think Thomas' book contains the answers and he provides logical proof to reinforce his argument.
Click to expand...

Jay78,

Yes its a good book, he makes many interesting points, also there is no forensic evidence, absolutely none, zero, to support the notion an intruder murdered JonBenet. Sadly his central claim regarding toilet rage is inconsistent wrt the current forensic evidence.

I always had the impression he knew more than what was written in his book, also in the event of any prosecution, why telegraph your prosecution strategy in book form?

So it could all have been a cat and mouse game or smoke and mirrors with Smit promoting an Intruder Theory and Thomas a Ramsey Theory. With nobody charged and the legal teams on board, the Ramsey's always had the inititive.

I find it interesting that both theories are probably incorrect, yet both have served their intended purpose, e.g. internet sleuthers have something to chew over, and the investigators have a pitch to offer. All of which neatly sidesteps the central issue.


.
 
narlacat said:
LHP said the same thing.
Click to expand...
Also, he went right to her when Det. Arndt told him to recheck the house. The parents always find the body and the Ramseys are no exception.
 
UKGuy said:
Jay78,

Yes its a good book, he makes many interesting points, also there is no forensic evidence, absolutely none, zero, to support the notion an intruder murdered JonBenet. Sadly his central claim regarding toilet rage is inconsistent wrt the current forensic evidence.

I always had the impression he knew more than what was written in his book,
Click to expand...
Me too.In some parts, I can see obvious omissions of certain evidence.Like I think he knew for sure which shirt JB wore to the party.I also suspect he might have known that JR was involved somehow as well,but left that out as he felt PR was the killer and he didn't want to be sued by both.

also in the event of any prosecution, why telegraph your prosecution strategy in book form?
Click to expand...
right.

So it could all have been a cat and mouse game or smoke and mirrors with Smit promoting an Intruder Theory and Thomas a Ramsey Theory. With nobody charged and the legal teams on board, the Ramsey's always had the inititive.

I find it interesting that both theories are probably incorrect, yet both have served their intended purpose, e.g. internet sleuthers have something to chew over, and the investigators have a pitch to offer. All of which neatly sidesteps the central issue.
Click to expand...
I wonder that, too.By concentrating so hard on PR and leaving JR out of it all....was he trying to get her to admit to him being involved somehow?
 
I recently reread his book as well. His frustration with the ridiculous kid glove treatment of the Ramsey's seeps through every page, and rightfully so.

I for one hope there is evidence that hasnt been leaked to the press/public in some form or fashion that makes him so sure in his convictions.

I dont know what to make of Smit. He seems to be grasping at straws. I really think highly of ST for showing LS such respect in his book, even though the two were polar opposite theory wise. That goes to character, and credibility, and ST has both.

More than I can say for some characters in this case.
 
The sharpie and the notepad. I find it very hard to swallow that an "intruder" would take the time to waltz about the home in leisure, admiring the artwork, cooing over the decor, looking for a pen and paper to compose the ransom note....um, not likely. In the dark? Even more unlikely that this "intruder" will stumble across the pen and paper.
 
I dont know what to make of Smit. He seems to be grasping at straws. I really think highly of ST for showing LS such respect in his book, even though the two were polar opposite theory wise. That goes to character, and credibility, and ST has both.
Click to expand...

Much nicer than I.
 
goddess said:
I recently reread his book as well. His frustration with the ridiculous kid glove treatment of the Ramsey's seeps through every page, and rightfully so.

I for one hope there is evidence that hasnt been leaked to the press/public in some form or fashion that makes him so sure in his convictions.

I dont know what to make of Smit. He seems to be grasping at straws. I really think highly of ST for showing LS such respect in his book, even though the two were polar opposite theory wise. That goes to character, and credibility, and ST has both.

More than I can say for some characters in this case.
Click to expand...
And one more thing...CLASS.Something the R's certainly haven't acted like they have.It just goes to show you that the measure of true *class* has nothing to do with money :)
I think he had a lot of patience with LS..I don't know how he did it...I really don't.If I'd have been up debating with LS all night,I think I'd have finally lost it and ended up superglueing a copy of the ransom note to his face until he got he fact that PR wrote the dang note !!!
One more thing about class...the R's have shown they don't have an ounce of it by lying and doing nothing but dishonoring JB from the day she died.And so has *******.To resort to name-calling,websites that don't agree with *their opinion and defensive lying is the lowliest form of slime I can think of.So is putting that garbage in their book,DOI.
Bottom line? Can you see John Walsh or Marc Klass for one second stooping so low as to even worry about name-calling someone else a BORG and even putting it in a book (or on a website?).NO,because no. 1-they aren't liars and no. 2-they aren't childish like the R's are.To even worry about something like that, instead of trying to find the killer speaks volumes !!!
 
I've always found the fact that JR was a Trekkie a quirky little coincidence.
 
SuperDave said:
Much nicer than I.
Click to expand...
I keep getting the feeling you know ST.(Ignore that if you want,I won't probe further).
 
Steve Thomas' book is deeply moving and compelling. It gives a shocking insight into a murder investigation in which everything that could go wrong went wrong.
Hunter, DeMuth and Co. should have been charged with obstruction of justice.


But still Steve Thomas is a very polarizing figure.

I think he was a dedicated cop and in many ways a good detective who
wanted to do what had to be done, but who got monstrous obstacles thrown
into his way by the coward A. Hunter and his minions, who did not
really want this case to be thoroughly investigated.

I'm also convinced that, had SteveThomas been at the crime scene on the
morning of the 26th, he would have had the Ramseys arrested on the spot
as soon as it turned out that this was no kidnapping, but a homicide.
Like he sarcastically wrote in his book: "Locked home. Dead child. Two
parents in the home. Hello?"

BUT, his pointing the finger at Patsy
WITHOUT presenting a theory based on factual evidence and a convincing
time line is not enough.
His failure to do so was what finally 'buried' Thomas.

For ST never tried to fit the many loose ends in his theory together,
and therefore was not able to present a complete and consistent picture.

That's what has been bugging me about ST from the start. He doesn't even
try to fit it together, but if he purports to have a theory, he HAS to
fit the pieces of the puzzle together.
For example, he wrote verbatim in his book that the garote was "a
terrible killing tool", i. e. he
failed to recognize this as a staged scene . But when I recently
mentioned this on C&J, I was surprised that even well-informed posters
did not believe this was so.
One poster for example wrote on the 'Thomas vs. Smit thread'
that ST thought that the garrote was a 'useless weapon'. But this is wrong.

For ST actually thought it was a functioning weapon, otherwise he would
not have called it a 'terrible killing tool'.
But it did NOT kill JB 'terribly'. No damage to the larynx, no broken
hyoid bone point in that direction. And this forensic evidence actually
confirms Delmar England's assessment of the garrote as a mere contraption which was
clumsily done and would have been totally ineffective if anyone ever
tried to actually garrote someone with it.

And aside from that, how does the terrible killing tool fit in with the
head bash in ST's theory? No explanation from him there either.

Suppose an enraged Patsy inflicted the head bash first - then why go to
the trouble of then constructing a garrote to finish JB off? If Patsy's
final decision was to kill JB, why not deliver one more head bash which
would do the job?

And if it was toilet rage which caused Patsy to inflict the paintbrush
injury on JB, what is ST's sequence of events on that ? So Patsy struck
the head blow, and then ran down into the basement, broke a paintbrush,
ran up the stairs again and jabbed it into the child's vagina?
Ridiculous.

And it is just as ridiculous the other way round: Patsy ran into the
basement, came back with the broken paintbrush to 'punish' JB, and then
delivers the head blow? Not convincing at all.

Why did ST give John a pass? Another question I'd like to ask him. Imo
there is no reason at all to give JR a pass. What makes ST so sure that
John wasn't involved at least in the staging of the scene? What about
John's shirt fibers in the crotch area of JB's underwear?

Maybe Steve Thomas did not know about the fiber evidence against John at the time he wrote his book? Is it possible that some evidence was tested so late afterward?
For (if memory serves) SteveThomas doesn't mention Patsy's fibers in the garrote wrappings and in the pain tote either, only those on the sticky side of the duct tape.
 
I don't know, but he did put the report in the book about the manual strangulation coming first.
I wonder that about JR as well..his behavior that morning was not that of a parent who's child is missing..(forget the no script excuse...that doesn't fly).Along with all the other evidence...I beleive he played a part in at least the coverup, and maybe more.
I can only guess that ST didn't want to be sued by both JR and PR,seeing as they both had separate legal rep.
 
I keep getting the feeling you know ST.(Ignore that if you want,I won't probe further).
Click to expand...

I don't. but I have been accused of being him!
 
JMO8778 said:
I don't know, but he did put the report in the book about the manual strangulation coming first.
I wonder that about JR as well..his behavior that morning was not that of a parent who's child is missing..(forget the no script excuse...that doesn't fly).Along with all the other evidence...I beleive he played a part in at least the coverup, and maybe more.
Click to expand...
According to Steve Thomas (p. 286), the vaginal trauma was a corporal punishment inflicted on JB.
He also says that JB probably was slammed against a hard surface (which caused the head injury).
But in his book, he offers no time line as to what happened when.
He presents no sequence of events as to when the vaginal injury and the head injury occurred.

For, judging from the sliver of wood found in the child's vagina, the vaginal injury was inflicted by the broken paintbrush taken from the paint tray in the basement.
So Patsy Ramsey raced down into the basement, broke the paintbrush, ran upstairs and jabbed it into JB's vagina, and then slammed JB's head against a hard object?
Ridiculous imo.

And it is just as (even more imo) ridiculous the other way round:
Patsy slammed JB's head against a hard surface and then went down into the basement, broke a paintbrush, and went upstairs again to jab it into her (unconscious!) child's genital area to 'punish' her. Laughable.

In addition, Steve Thomas, although pointing out that the child had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse, doesn't even attempt to built this chronic abuse into his theory.
Again he gives John Ramsey a pass.
John Ramsey, who made a bee-line for the wine cellar where he 'discovered' JB's body.
John Ramsey, who closed the open basement window and didn't even mention it to investigators initially, although his daughter had allegedly been kidnapped and the window might have been the point of entry.

ITA with you that John Ramsey was involved at least in the cover-up, if not in more.
 
goddess said:
The sharpie and the notepad. I find it very hard to swallow that an "intruder" would take the time to waltz about the home in leisure, admiring the artwork, cooing over the decor, looking for a pen and paper to compose the ransom note....um, not likely. In the dark? Even more unlikely that this "intruder" will stumble across the pen and paper.
Click to expand...
Excellent point..
 
rashomon said:
Why did ST give John a pass?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it was a form of psychological distancing. Or maybe he was given a pass in order to set up the bait.


-Tea
 
icedtea4me said:
Or maybe he was given a pass in order to set up the bait.


-Tea
Click to expand...
I wonder that, too.
If he thought JR involved,then maybe putting all the blame on PR was a way to try to get her to point the finger at JR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 199 more.
Total: 3,486 (members: 200, guests: 3,286)

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
3,286
Total visitors
3,486
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,749
Messages
17,958,390
Members
228,602
Latest member
jrak
Back
Top