790 users online (131 members and 659 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019

    Dr Henry Lee's Book

    I'm sorry to start a thread but I can't find the thread where we discussed Dr Lee's findings on the tape on JBR's mouth and Dr Lee's book more generally. Apologies.

    Anyway, this book arrived today and I have just started reading it. Flicked forward to the tape section and his opinion isn't as strong as I remembered. He says that it was a visual match to tape attached to paintings in the Ramsey house and that this tape could be purchased in Boulder. It wasn't an exact scientific match to those paintings, but another painting was removed from the Ramsey house by Pam so...

    However, I have found a reference to an interview with Dr Lee in which he discusses the case and suggests that the tape had been usedpreviously. I will try to find this but have to admit that he isn't 100% assertive in his book.

    Not quite on point but there's an interesting 'error' in the book: he says that JAR was at the Ramsey house on Christmas Day. I know received wisdom is that JAR was the best part of a continent away but it's an interesting error in view of some posters' views on JAR.

    Will have more to say as I read more of the book but a cursory glance proves that IDI are wrong when they claim that Lee was an RDI hired gun. He is actually quite critical in places of the police and only just falls short of laughing at ST and the 25th Dec on the headstone. IMHO he makes the mistake of thinking that ST saw that as evidence as opposed to a circumstantial clue but it does prove that he wasn't some sort of police drone.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    The Rs neighbor the late Joe Barnhill SAID he saw JAR walking into the house, and he was pounced on by the RST, who denied JAR's presence in Boulder. Later, probably in response to threats from R lawyers, Barnhill recanted, saying he must have been mistaken. But what OTHER college-age young man would be walking into the Ramsey house that day? Plus, Barnhill knew the whole family well. He would certainly know who he saw.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    685
    Lee was hired for one reason---so the Ramsey's couldn't hire him. It's obvious from statements he's made that he didn't spend a great deal of time on the case---at one point he met with police at the Denver airport on his way to somewhere else. I don't have much respect for Lee---he's a paid witness. I doubt the BPD had the money to pay Lee more then just a cursory look at the case. The only thing I recall about the duct tape was it not found in the house and was produced by a plant in Hickory, NC not that long before the murder. It could be traced based on the glue composition.

    You don't hear much from Barry Scheck--he also was hired. IMO, Scheck told the police the DNA was a BIG problem.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Scheck told Thomas that he was 'on his side' regarding PDI.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    Lee was hired for one reason---so the Ramsey's couldn't hire him. It's obvious from statements he's made that he didn't spend a great deal of time on the case---at one point he met with police at the Denver airport on his way to somewhere else. I don't have much respect for Lee---he's a paid witness. I doubt the BPD had the money to pay Lee more then just a cursory look at the case. The only thing I recall about the duct tape was it not found in the house and was produced by a plant in Hickory, NC not that long before the murder. It could be traced based on the glue composition.

    You don't hear much from Barry Scheck--he also was hired. IMO, Scheck told the police the DNA was a BIG problem.
    Don't forget the identical tape and cord were found for sale in 2 places in Boulder. The Army-Navy store and McGuckin's hardware. A Ramsey credit card receipt was found from McGuckins's showing 2 purchases matching the cord and tape exactly in price and department.
    You know, evidence like this is certainly "circumstantial". But to me, circumstantial = coincidence. And there are too many "coincidences" in this case.
    Does this mean the Rs bought these items to murder their daughter? Of course not. This was NOT premeditated murder, IMO. But the likelihood of those items being purchased by the Rs for an innocent reason is very strong.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    Lee was hired for one reason---so the Ramsey's couldn't hire him. It's obvious from statements he's made that he didn't spend a great deal of time on the case---at one point he met with police at the Denver airport on his way to somewhere else. I don't have much respect for Lee---he's a paid witness. I doubt the BPD had the money to pay Lee more then just a cursory look at the case. The only thing I recall about the duct tape was it not found in the house and was produced by a plant in Hickory, NC not that long before the murder. It could be traced based on the glue composition.

    You don't hear much from Barry Scheck--he also was hired. IMO, Scheck told the police the DNA was a BIG problem.

    No matter how brief Dr Lee's view of the evidence may have been, he has actually seen the evidence so I'm quite happy to accept his general statements about the provenance of the tape. I can't see to what end he would publish untruths.

    Any DNA guru will tell you that a mere smidge of DNA which can't be conclusively linked with the crime is a big problem because the defence will always use it to raise reasonable doubt. So, yes, I think Scheck probably did warn the BPD that DNA which may just be an artifact (copyright Mary Lacy) could undo the case. If so, he appears to have been right.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by JMO8778 View Post
    Scheck told Thomas that he was 'on his side' regarding PDI.
    I don't believe it..........Scheck has devoted too much time to his innocence project.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    The Rs neighbor the late Joe Barnhill SAID he saw JAR walking into the house, and he was pounced on by the RST, who denied JAR's presence in Boulder. Later, probably in response to threats from R lawyers, Barnhill recanted, saying he must have been mistaken. But what OTHER college-age young man would be walking into the Ramsey house that day? Plus, Barnhill knew the whole family well. He would certainly know who he saw.
    He didn't say he walked into the house--just up to the door. It's another question. Did Barnhill actually see someone resembling JAR going up to the house, and could it have been the killer, checking to see if anyone was home?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    He didn't say he walked into the house--just up to the door. It's another question. Did Barnhill actually see someone resembling JAR going up to the house, and could it have been the killer, checking to see if anyone was home?
    I doubt they'd do that in broad daylight, especially walking up to the door. Anyone planning a crime like a kidnapping would be checking that house for days- and certainly the day they planned to do it. They'd have been watching to see when or if the car left with the family inside. Christmas Day would be the worst day of the year to plan a kidnapping, IMHO. Kids are either home with their families or visiting with their families. JB went to school- she played outside sometimes. There were other opportunities. Why commit a crime like this when you KNOW that the family is in the house.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    I'm a bit distraught that I have only just got around to Dr Lee's book. It makes sensational reading. For example, he doesn't even view the BPD's version of the 911 call as even vaguely controvertible. He also indicates that Burke was seriously investigated and he can barely contain his mirth at some of Patsy's little conceits (like her claim to have bought her furniture at Tiffany's).

    Anyway, I thought I'd do a little summary of the main points of Dr Lee's book if anyone is interested after all these years.


    Separately, my sister looked out the linguistics book which was such an attack on Donald Foster and mentions ST's 'blind faith' in the latter. It's mostly academic prima donnas (of which Foster was an example in all honesty but that doesn't make him any less right) arguing with each other but I'm very happy to do a summary if anyone is interested.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    off a dirt road in NE Georgia
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    I'm a bit distraught that I have only just got around to Dr Lee's book. It makes sensational reading. For example, he doesn't even view the BPD's version of the 911 call as even vaguely controvertible. He also indicates that Burke was seriously investigated and he can barely contain his mirth at some of Patsy's little conceits (like her claim to have bought her furniture at Tiffany's).

    Anyway, I thought I'd do a little summary of the main points of Dr Lee's book if anyone is interested after all these years.


    Separately, my sister looked out the linguistics book which was such an attack on Donald Foster and mentions ST's 'blind faith' in the latter. It's mostly academic prima donnas (of which Foster was an example in all honesty but that doesn't make him any less right) arguing with each other but I'm very happy to do a summary if anyone is interested.

    Sophie thanks for offering this service, I think it would be extremly interesting.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019

    Counterfeiting Shakespeare - Brian Vickers

    I've actually found this book on Amazon.co.uk. The link to the Ramsey-Thomas-Foster excerpt is below. It may not work owing to copyright verification issues. If so, go into amazon.co.uk, search 'Counterfeiting Shakespeare' then do an internal text search on Steve Thomas.

    [ame]http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0521772435?ie=UTF8&keywords=steve%20thomas&p=S0DQ& twc=3&avc=1&checkSum=MJOnBM6u31xKMS2xq2sK7q3TsHMsO 8eDoFc8oqWotSk%3D[/ame]

    This says nothing new but there is real comedy in the academic egos at work, real disappointment in ST being portrayed as a fule by a w*****r (my sister was taught by Vickers and that's her description of him) and real amazement in Jameson having got herself onto the Oxford University English Lit curriculum!

    ETA: I am pretty sure that everyone will know the background to this but, just in case, many years ago Foster identified an anonymous poem as being written by Shakespeare, the Oxford University Press wouldn't publish his theory without certain bits of evidence, Foster described himself as being Salman Rushdie to English universities, Foster was proven wrong - next week's episode: Foster gets his own back. Seriously, I wish had a bag of popcorn to watch this unfold

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Don't forget the identical tape and cord were found for sale in 2 places in Boulder. The Army-Navy store and McGuckin's hardware. A Ramsey credit card receipt was found from McGuckins's showing 2 purchases matching the cord and tape exactly in price and department.
    You know, evidence like this is certainly "circumstantial". But to me, circumstantial = coincidence. And there are too many "coincidences" in this case.
    Does this mean the Rs bought these items to murder their daughter? Of course not. This was NOT premeditated murder, IMO. But the likelihood of those items being purchased by the Rs for an innocent reason is very strong.


    IDI doesn't really care if the R's purchased these items. An intruder could've simply used them as he used the pen and paper.

    RDI cares, though. Because in order for RDI to exist, all items had to be on hand the night of the murder. It would help RDI's case to have the ability to source most if not all of the items that were used in the murder. Instead, RDI can source only the minority of items found in, on, or near JBR.



    RDI has a major problem here because MOST of the items in, on, or near JBR can't be sourced. Here's the list of things RDI can't source:
    • Pineapple
    • Cord
    • Tape
    • Unknown male DNA
    • Handwriting
    IDI can't source them either. Thats not a problem for IDI because it is not unexpected that items would be unsourced.

    The only thing RDI can really say (and be factual) is 'in our theory' the pineapple, cord, tape, and handwriting belong to the house, and 'in our theory' the unknown male DNA belongs there innocently.

    If JBR's death was accidental, then the likelihood of sourcing most of the items would be strong. Store cashier testimony, original intended uses of either material before or after the murder, remnants of either material found anywhere else in the house, or family or friend testimony. Any of these things could've sourced these items to the house.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    IDI doesn't really care if the R's purchased these items. An intruder could've simply used them as he used the pen and paper.

    RDI cares, though. Because in order for RDI to exist, all items had to be on hand the night of the murder. It would help RDI's case to have the ability to source most if not all of the items that were used in the murder. Instead, RDI can source only the minority of items found in, on, or near JBR.



    RDI has a major problem here because MOST of the items in, on, or near JBR can't be sourced. Here's the list of things RDI can't source:
    • Pineapple
    • Cord
    • Tape
    • Unknown male DNA
    • Handwriting
    IDI can't source them either. Thats not a problem for IDI because it is not unexpected that items would be unsourced.

    The only thing RDI can really say (and be factual) is 'in our theory' the pineapple, cord, tape, and handwriting belong to the house, and 'in our theory' the unknown male DNA belongs there innocently.

    If JBR's death was accidental, then the likelihood of sourcing most of the items would be strong. Store cashier testimony, original intended uses of either material before or after the murder, remnants of either material found anywhere else in the house, or family or friend testimony. Any of these things could've sourced these items to the house.

    That's no problem for RDI. We can source all of it. To the Rs.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    That's no problem for RDI. We can source all of it. To the Rs.
    Its not like you or I can source these things. They're simply not sourced, period.

    RDI needs them to be sourced. RDI doesn't do the sourcing though. LE does. And they haven't.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Henry Lee's new book, anyone?
    By duffy in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 133
    Last Post: 10-08-2013, 08:14 PM
  2. 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
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-07-2006, 10:28 PM