Incompetence or something else?

[claudicici]

Their choices were: December 25, which would mean she died before midnight; or December 26, which would mean she died after midnight, correct?

ooops I meant it sounds more significant then December 26th not 24th,sorry....I think the Patsy would have put 25th on the headstone whether or not JonBenet died after midnight...

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

ooops I meant it sounds more significant then December 26th not 24th,sorry....I think the Patsy would have put 25th on the headstone whether or not JonBenet died after midnight...

I think the 25th of December was put on the grave headstone as:

1. Patsy was a born again Christian. JonBenet sharing the same date of death with Jesus Christ's birthdate would not have escaped her.I think this would have had a symbolic meaning to Patsy in a sense.

2. And this is the main reason imo -- The Ramseys maintain an intruder killed JonBenet. In order to bolster that thesis, it is crucial they maintain the idea that the intruder was in the house when the Ramseys were at the party as it adds credence to how an intruder could do all the things they supposedly did without getting caught. Thus, by putting the 25th on the headstone the Ramseys were in effect trying to retrospectively cover their tracks and plant the seed that JonBenet died soon after she came home courtesy of the intruder who would have to have been present in the house on the 25th.The alternative was to put the 26th but to do that they would need justification and there simply wasn't any -- they were adamant they were innocent and were certainly not going to put a date of death (26th) which linked them to the death more than the 25th of December date.

It's a detail which reveals the thought process of people covering their tracks in my opinion.

 

[otg]

From LKL, 3-28-2000:

CALLER: Hello. I'd like to know, John and Patsy, why is December 25th the date of death on JonBenet's tombstone, not December 26th?

J. RAMSEY: Well, that's a question we've been asked, and I have -- I chose that date, and I'll tell you why. And I debated that, because I didn't know for sure when she died.
But I picked December 25th because I wanted the world to remember what happened to my daughter on Christmas day. I can't imagine a more horrible crime than a child being murdered on Christmas night. That was the main reason I picked December 25th.
I knew we'd be criticized. I knew it would raise suspicions, but I wanted the world to remember what was done to my daughter on Christmas night.

KING: Was the actual date the 26th?

J. RAMSEY: We don't know. I don't know. I don't know what's on the death certificate. I do know, when I found her, her body was cool. Her arms were rigid.

KING: So you're making a statement there?

J. RAMSEY: We were making a statement. The world went mad on December 25th, 1996.
​

A couple of things from this:

1) When this "interview" happened, it had been over three years since her death, and yet he says he doesn't know what was on the death certificate? (I don't think so.)

2) And, he says that when he found her, "her body was cool," and "her arms were rigid." And yet, when Det. Arndt looked at her cold, stiff, stinking body laid out on the floor, he asked, "Is she dead?" Is he stupid, or does he think everyone else is? (I think the latter.)
.

 

[otg]

ooops I meant it sounds more significant then December 26th not 24th,sorry....I think the Patsy would have put 25th on the headstone whether or not JonBenet died after midnight...

So by his own words on LKL, claudicici, I think John confirmed what you speculated, that the 25th sounded more dramatic and significant.
.

 

[claudicici]

...I just did not think John would have made that decision,I would have bet on Patsy.
Makes me want to rethink my whole theory,I go back and forth but most of the time I don't think he was involved much.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I think the Ramseys put December 25 on JonBenet's headstone because she really was killed on December 25. If an intruder had killed JonBenet, it is almost impossible that it happened on 12/25 since the Ramseys returned home at 10 pm. But if one of the Ramseys killed her, then it's very probable that something happened shortly after they returned home and JonBenet died on 12/25.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think the Ramseys put December 25 on JonBenet's headstone because she really was killed on December 25. If an intruder had killed JonBenet, it is almost impossible that it happened on 12/25 since the Ramseys returned home at 10 pm. But if one of the Ramseys killed her, then it's very probable that something happened shortly after they returned home and JonBenet died on 12/25.

I totally agree! Also- JR making that comment "we knew people would be suspicious" when LK asked about the date IS suspicious to me. The fact that he said that has to mean he KNEW people would feel her death occurred not that long after they returned home that night. So JR saying he "chose" that date so people would remember what happened to JB on Christmas night is pretty lame. And Mayer (in an inexplicable decision) chose to put the time JR found her rather than a TOD. Probably because he FAILED to perform the procedures to determine it, though the stage of rigor she was in as well as the location of the pineapple in her digestive tract would have been sufficient for him to do so. Had he been put on the witness stand, I hope that (his failure to perform those tests) would have been something he would have be asked about. But with the DA so loathe to ask the Rs anything (instead wishing the info would be "volunteered") you can't be certain ANY proper questioning would take place, especially with a DA who hadn't taken a case to trial in YEARS.

 

[BBB167893]

I voted money & connections AND incompetence. Not just regular incompetence, either: WILLFUL incompetence as a result of political agendas and social prejudices.

 

[MurriFlower]

I am not sure anymore that this case wasn't solved due to incompetence.

If you know that you can't handle such a case,why refuse the FBI's help.

Why were the first officers at the scene instructed to treat the parents as victims.

From ST's book:


"Although putting Trujillo on evidence would remove him from fieldwork,he seemed to have a problem with priorities,and I was concerned that his slowness in accomplishing tasks might hinder the testing of evidence.For instance,a full year passed before he completed his report on the initial Atlanta trip."


"The first officer was having difficulty in recollecting certain events."


Let's not forget Arndt's strange behaviour,now she's getting flowers from suspects,then she's going on TV claiming JR did it.

Everything the DA office did

ML,no need to comment.


At first I thought this case was screwed up because everybody in Boulder is incompetent.
Maybe I was wrong .

Maybe those who say it was about the money are right.Not sayin' the entire BPD knows,it's enough for their bosses to know,who then instruct their officers to follow leads that are going nowhere.

So why wasn't this case solved?
Incompetence?
Money&connections?
or
All of the above?

I just can't believe how unlucky JB was..........

While searching for some solid evidence on the size of the panties, I came across this news story:

"
Documents prepared by former assistant D.A. Trip Demuth years ago show what he called, the other side of the story. He believed that there were serious flaws in the case against the Ramseys.

Demuth was very surprised that 48 Hours had obtained the documents. "I’m actually, I’m shocked. I’m just shocked," he told Moriarty.

It was a lot of evidence that the public was never aware of.

"I really would appreciate it if you would mention that you came into this information from some other source than myself," Demuth said.

That’s true: 48 Hours obtained the documents from another source. They include crime scene evidence, police reports, and laboratory analysis of DNA.

"That report in essence says as of January 15th, 1997, there was a strong suggestion by the DNA results that the Ramseys were not responsible for this murder," Demuth says.

"You’re saying that less than a month after this murder was committed that there is DNA evidence that indicates that the Ramseys weren’t involved?" Moriarty asks.

"I’m saying that there is DNA evidence that creates a strong suggestion that they may not have done it, yes," he replies.

A Colorado Bureau of Investigation report shows that tiny amounts of DNA were found under JonBenet's fingernails and in her underwear, and that this DNA did not match John, Patsy, or anyone in the Ramsey family. Police at the time were not convinced that the DNA found at the scene belonged to the killer.

Trip Demuth interpreted the evidence differently. "How likely is it that it would be anybody but the killer? I think it’s highly unlikely that it would be anybody else but the killer," he says.

"I believe that when the case first started that it did look like the Ramseys did this. I even thought that initially when I was hired on board," says former detective Lou Smit.

He says at first, he wasn’t convinced the Ramseys were innocent and went along with the police theory, which was that Patsy killed her daughter accidentally out of frustration; that the garrote was placed around JonBenet’s neck to make it look like someone else had strangled her.

"The theory was that JonBenet was killed by Patsy over bed wetting and that all of this was staged. And that as a result of the staging that a ransom note, a very detailed ransom note was made. That the garrote was constructed for some reason to make it look like it was a kidnap killing gone bad, that was all part of the staging," Smit says.

But a closer examination of the evidence doesn’t support that theory. JonBenet was still alive during the strangulation, and probably fought her attacker.

"When she was strangled, she was struggling," Demuth says.

Asked if that is more consistent with a child abduction, he says, "If my conclusions are correct, yeah. That’s child abduction. She’s struggling, she’s breathing, and you’re strangling her. That’s no longer an act of staging."

"It’s murder," Moriarty remarks.

"It’s murder," Demuth agrees. "The conclusion of my summary of the physical evidence is, is a clear conclusion that an intruder committed this crime."

Demuth says the path of an intruder is evident in crime scene photographs: a grate that appeared to be lifted, an open basement window, scuff marks on the wall. During his investigation of the crime, Demuth also put the Ramseys character under the microscope.

"I have never seen two individuals that were more thoroughly investigated than John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey. I don’t remember one report of the type of pathology that I would expect to see for them to have committed this crime," he says.

In May of 1998, Trip Demuth presented his findings to the Boulder authorities. Four months after his presentation, Demuth says he and his entire team were removed from the case.

But his boss at the time, former Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter, says Demuth was removed because he was so focused looking outside the Ramsey family that he lost his objectivity.

Demuth regrets leaving the investigation, especially since subsequent DNA tests continued to point away from the Ramseys. But he is most sorry that he never got to treat Patsy Ramsey as a victim.

"Since I believe that the evidence shows an intruder committed this crime, as the prosecutor assigned to that case, she normally would have been my victim who I would have reached out to and held her hand through this process. But I was not given that opportunity," Demuth says.

He says he feels disappointed about that. "But that disappointment is tremendously overshadowed by the disappointment that the killer of this girl has not been brought to justice."
"

So, the BPD knew on 15th January 1997 that there was solid DNA evidence that pointed away from the R's and towards an intruder. However, they continued to try to find evidence against them in preference to vigorously following up an intruder. Investigators who did not agree with RDI were removed.

Incompetence, or something else??

 

[TotallyObsessed]

From what I've see so far (just now delving into this case) I think this case should be a study in "How NOT To Run A Kidnap Case" for every criminal justice major in the United States.

 

[BBB167893]

While searching for some solid evidence on the size of the panties, I came across this news story:

"
Documents prepared by former assistant D.A. Trip Demuth years ago show what he called, the other side of the story. He believed that there were serious flaws in the case against the Ramseys.

Demuth was very surprised that 48 Hours had obtained the documents. "I’m actually, I’m shocked. I’m just shocked," he told Moriarty.

It was a lot of evidence that the public was never aware of.

"I really would appreciate it if you would mention that you came into this information from some other source than myself," Demuth said.

That’s true: 48 Hours obtained the documents from another source. They include crime scene evidence, police reports, and laboratory analysis of DNA.

"That report in essence says as of January 15th, 1997, there was a strong suggestion by the DNA results that the Ramseys were not responsible for this murder," Demuth says.

"You’re saying that less than a month after this murder was committed that there is DNA evidence that indicates that the Ramseys weren’t involved?" Moriarty asks.

"I’m saying that there is DNA evidence that creates a strong suggestion that they may not have done it, yes," he replies.

A Colorado Bureau of Investigation report shows that tiny amounts of DNA were found under JonBenet's fingernails and in her underwear, and that this DNA did not match John, Patsy, or anyone in the Ramsey family. Police at the time were not convinced that the DNA found at the scene belonged to the killer.

Trip Demuth interpreted the evidence differently. "How likely is it that it would be anybody but the killer? I think it’s highly unlikely that it would be anybody else but the killer," he says.

"I believe that when the case first started that it did look like the Ramseys did this. I even thought that initially when I was hired on board," says former detective Lou Smit.

He says at first, he wasn’t convinced the Ramseys were innocent and went along with the police theory, which was that Patsy killed her daughter accidentally out of frustration; that the garrote was placed around JonBenet’s neck to make it look like someone else had strangled her.

"The theory was that JonBenet was killed by Patsy over bed wetting and that all of this was staged. And that as a result of the staging that a ransom note, a very detailed ransom note was made. That the garrote was constructed for some reason to make it look like it was a kidnap killing gone bad, that was all part of the staging," Smit says.

But a closer examination of the evidence doesn’t support that theory. JonBenet was still alive during the strangulation, and probably fought her attacker.

"When she was strangled, she was struggling," Demuth says.

Asked if that is more consistent with a child abduction, he says, "If my conclusions are correct, yeah. That’s child abduction. She’s struggling, she’s breathing, and you’re strangling her. That’s no longer an act of staging."

"It’s murder," Moriarty remarks.

"It’s murder," Demuth agrees. "The conclusion of my summary of the physical evidence is, is a clear conclusion that an intruder committed this crime."

Demuth says the path of an intruder is evident in crime scene photographs: a grate that appeared to be lifted, an open basement window, scuff marks on the wall. During his investigation of the crime, Demuth also put the Ramseys character under the microscope.

"I have never seen two individuals that were more thoroughly investigated than John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey. I don’t remember one report of the type of pathology that I would expect to see for them to have committed this crime," he says.

In May of 1998, Trip Demuth presented his findings to the Boulder authorities. Four months after his presentation, Demuth says he and his entire team were removed from the case.

But his boss at the time, former Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter, says Demuth was removed because he was so focused looking outside the Ramsey family that he lost his objectivity.

Demuth regrets leaving the investigation, especially since subsequent DNA tests continued to point away from the Ramseys. But he is most sorry that he never got to treat Patsy Ramsey as a victim.

"Since I believe that the evidence shows an intruder committed this crime, as the prosecutor assigned to that case, she normally would have been my victim who I would have reached out to and held her hand through this process. But I was not given that opportunity," Demuth says.

He says he feels disappointed about that. "But that disappointment is tremendously overshadowed by the disappointment that the killer of this girl has not been brought to justice."
"

So, the BPD knew on 15th January 1997 that there was solid DNA evidence that pointed away from the R's and towards an intruder. However, they continued to try to find evidence against them in preference to vigorously following up an intruder. Investigators who did not agree with RDI were removed.

Incompetence, or something else??

Sorry, Murri, but you'll have to try for a source that's just a little more credible next time!

Let's break it down:

"That report in essence says as of January 15th, 1997, there was a strong suggestion by the DNA results that the Ramseys were not responsible for this murder," Demuth says.

That's HIS interpretation. Let me give you a little background on Mr. DeMuth, because he's Exhibit A when it comes to talking about the insanity of the DA's office. If you read PMPT or especially ST's book, it becomes clear that DeMuth was unprofessional to the extreme. The FBI agents who met him even said, "is this guy for real?"

This is a man who decided, within a WEEK, before ANY evidence was in, that the Ramseys couldn't have killed JonBenet SOLELY on the basis of his belief that HE could not have done it to his own daughter. He didn't NEED DNA for his belief, and the fact that he's pushing this idea of DNA within a month is merely his own justification. I'm sure he latched onto it within that time, which just shows:

a) how little he actually understood DNA evidence, in this case and in general;

b) his own lack of prosecutorial competence.

I can forgive the average person for believing that a parent couldn't do this to their own child, but as a LEO, he should KNOW better! That kind of thinking has NO BUSINESS in law enforcement.

After leaving the DA's office, he went to work for the law firm of Michael Bynum, the man who convinced the Ramseys that they needed lawyers in the first place. Would that not constitute a conflict of interest?

A Colorado Bureau of Investigation report shows that tiny amounts of DNA were found under JonBenet's fingernails and in her underwear, and that this DNA did not match John, Patsy, or anyone in the Ramsey family. Police at the time were not convinced that the DNA found at the scene belonged to the killer.

Yeah, and the REASON for that was because the DNA was so degraded, it was of no use. JB's DNA was perfectly fresh. This WASN'T.

"I believe that when the case first started that it did look like the Ramseys did this. I even thought that initially when I was hired on board," says former detective Lou Smit.

He sure had a funny way of showing it! Smit--RIP--and Trip are two peas in a pod. Like DeMuth, he decided in three days, before he had a chance to read the police file, that the Rs were innocent. Why? Because they prayed with him.

"The theory was that JonBenet was killed by Patsy over bed wetting and that all of this was staged. And that as a result of the staging that a ransom note, a very detailed ransom note was made. That the garrote was constructed for some reason to make it look like it was a kidnap killing gone bad, that was all part of the staging," Smit says.

That's an excellent summation.

But a closer examination of the evidence doesn’t support that theory.

Wanna BET?

JonBenet was still alive during the strangulation, and probably fought her attacker.

"When she was strangled, she was struggling," Demuth says.

Asked if that is more consistent with a child abduction, he says, "If my conclusions are correct, yeah. That’s child abduction. She’s struggling, she’s breathing, and you’re strangling her. That’s no longer an act of staging."

"It’s murder," Moriarty remarks.

Yeah, Smit went to his grave pushing the idea that JB was alive while strangled and fought her attacker, and apparently DeMuth went along with it.

Trouble is, it's utter nonsense. Indeed, it's just one of MANY instances I could mention of where Smit fabricated evidence up out of thin air.

Here's what I wrote about it:

Smit claims that she must have fought her killer while being strangled. He describes multiple scratches on JonBenet's neck where she clawed at the rope. He can't even keep his own story straight. First he says she was stun gunned to keep from fighting, then she fought like a hellcat. Trouble is, the autopsy photos clearly show no signs of any kind of scratches.

This is based on the idea that JB's head blow must have come last, due to the lack of bleeding inside the head, which is also nonsense. DeMuth and Smit came up with this scenario IN THE FACE of multiple forensic experts, who they ADMIT they never even TALKED TO.

Demuth says the path of an intruder is evident in crime scene photographs: a grate that appeared to be lifted, an open basement window, scuff marks on the wall.

I could spend all day knocking THAT one to pieces!

"It’s murder," Demuth agrees. "The conclusion of my summary of the physical evidence is, is a clear conclusion that an intruder committed this crime."

Trip's not got a stellar record when it comes to interpreting physical evidence. He commented on the case of Jason Midyette, saying that just because a ten-month-old was dead with 28 fractures, it doesn't mean murder. I KID YOU NOT! I quote:

"But a coroner's definition of homicide doesn't mean a crime was committed, said Trip DeMuth, former Boulder County deputy district attorney. To a coroner, homicide means another human's actions caused the death, he said, much different from prosecutorial terms used in charging, such as murder and manslaughter." But speculating why the parents aren't talking is dangerous, DeMuth said.

"In this country we do have a right to seek advice of counsel, and we do have a right to remain silent and not have that silence used against us in a court of law," he said. "There's a danger to jumping to conclusions. ... We saw that in the Ramsey case."

Just so you know, Jason Midyette's father was finally convicted of his death--a manslaughter conviction--after Mary Lacy--the mental eunuch--dragged her feet on it until one of Bill O'Reilly's men cornered her in her own garage.

In May of 1998, Trip Demuth presented his findings to the Boulder authorities. Four months after his presentation, Demuth says he and his entire team were removed from the case.

But his boss at the time, former Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter, says Demuth was removed because he was so focused looking outside the Ramsey family that he lost his objectivity

For ONCE, Alex Hunter was right on the money! DeMuth, like so many of the IDIs, became more interested in sticking a finger in the eye of the police than in JUSTICE. And he's been doing it ever since. He's been pushing this story about how he was removed because he wouldn't go along with the lynch-mob, and that's a LIE! That way he gets to portray himself as this martyr-hero. In truth, he has only himself and his utter lack of professionalism to blame.

What got him booted was when his lack of professionalism upset Michael Kane so much that Kane went to Hunter and said, "it's him or me." . Thomas talks about these incidents at length. Schiller also talks about him, quote: "The detectives hated DeMuth. They felt he always talked down to them and that he didn't know the case."

As I said, DeMuth embodies the dysfunctional mindset of the Boulder DA's office, and it shows in his language:

But he is most sorry that he never got to treat Patsy Ramsey as a victim.

"Since I believe that the evidence shows an intruder committed this crime, as the prosecutor assigned to that case, she normally would have been my victim who I would have reached out to and held her hand through this process. But I was not given that opportunity," Demuth says.

UGH! Get out the violins; you're breaking my bleeding heart!

Trip has a thing about "witch hunts." He said the cops were on a witch hunt against the Ramseys, a witch hunt against the parents who beat that 10-month-old to death, and when Mary Lacy spent thousands of taxpayer dollars to bring back a crank because he confessed to the crime, he became afraid of a witch hunt against the DA. Does THAT sound like a good prosecutor?

"I have never seen two individuals that were more thoroughly investigated than John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey. I don’t remember one report of the type of pathology that I would expect to see for them to have committed this crime," he says.

My, my, if that is not the PERFECT example of the kind of circular reasoning that some around here are always talking about, I don't know WHAT is! He creates a scenario out of thin air, against the evidence, then says, "this person isn't the type to have done it."

It's EXACTLY that kind of thinking that put this case in the lousy shape it's in! I've said it a million times, but it bears repeating: if this had happened anywhere else, the Ramseys most likely would have gone to prison.

So, the BPD knew on 15th January 1997 that there was solid DNA evidence that pointed away from the R's and towards an intruder. However, they continued to try to find evidence against them in preference to vigorously following up an intruder. Investigators who did not agree with RDI were removed.

Only according to a biased source who hasn't been part of the case since 1998, and who is more interested in pushing his "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" narrative than he is in a little girl's death. He's about as trustworthy as a scorpion. I do not envy Trip DeMuth's life. And if what the nuns in Sunday School said has any truth to it, I do not envy him where he will go when he dies.

Not to mention that the network he did this interview with made NO attempt to present a balanced account. Probably have our bloody friend Lin Wood to thank for that.

Incompetence, or something else?

Exactly the question.

 

[otg]

.

Bravo, Dave. Over the fence.
.

 

[BBB167893]

Bravo, Dave. Over the fence.
.

Thanks, otg. "Over the fence" could describe me, as well. I went from one side to the other, and stuff like the things I mentioned are a big reason for that.

 

[Agatha_C]

Sorry, Murri,

Trip's not got a stellar record when it comes to interpreting physical evidence. He commented on the case of Jason Midyette, saying that just because a ten-month-old was dead with 28 fractures, it doesn't mean murder. I KID YOU NOT! I quote:

"But a coroner's definition of homicide doesn't mean a crime was committed, said Trip DeMuth, former Boulder County deputy district attorney. To a coroner, homicide means another human's actions caused the death, he said, much different from prosecutorial terms used in charging, such as murder and manslaughter." But speculating why the parents aren't talking is dangerous, DeMuth said.

"In this country we do have a right to seek advice of counsel, and we do have a right to remain silent and not have that silence used against us in a court of law," he said. "There's a danger to jumping to conclusions. ... We saw that in the Ramsey case."

Just so you know, Jason Midyette's father was finally convicted of his death--a manslaughter conviction--after Mary Lacy--the mental eunuch--dragged her feet on it until one of Bill O'Reilly's men cornered her in her own garage.

In May of 1998, Trip Demuth presented his findings to the Boulder authorities. Four months after his presentation, Demuth says he and his entire team were removed from the case.

But his boss at the time, former Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter, says Demuth was removed because he was so focused looking outside the Ramsey family that he lost his objectivity

For ONCE, Alex Hunter was right on the money! DeMuth, like so many of the IDIs, became more interested in sticking a finger in the eye of the police than in JUSTICE. And he's been doing it ever since. He's been pushing this story about how he was removed because he wouldn't go along with the lynch-mob, and that's a LIE! That way he gets to portray himself as this martyr-hero. In truth, he has only himself and his utter lack of professionalism to blame.

What got him booted was when his lack of professionalism upset Michael Kane so much that Kane went to Hunter and said, "it's him or me." . Thomas talks about these incidents at length. Schiller also talks about him, quote: "The detectives hated DeMuth. They felt he always talked down to them and that he didn't know the case."

As I said, DeMuth embodies the dysfunctional mindset of the Boulder DA's office, and it shows in his language:

But he is most sorry that he never got to treat Patsy Ramsey as a victim.

"Since I believe that the evidence shows an intruder committed this crime, as the prosecutor assigned to that case, she normally would have been my victim who I would have reached out to and held her hand through this process. But I was not given that opportunity," Demuth says.

UGH! Get out the violins; you're breaking my bleeding heart!

Trip has a thing about "witch hunts." He said the cops were on a witch hunt against the Ramseys, a witch hunt against the parents who beat that 10-month-old to death, and when Mary Lacy spent thousands of taxpayer dollars to bring back a crank because he confessed to the crime, he became afraid of a witch hunt against the DA. Does THAT sound like a good prosecutor?

"I have never seen two individuals that were more thoroughly investigated than John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey. I don’t remember one report of the type of pathology that I would expect to see for them to have committed this crime," he says.

My, my, if that is not the PERFECT example of the kind of circular reasoning that some around here are always talking about, I don't know WHAT is! He creates a scenario out of thin air, against the evidence, then says, "this person isn't the type to have done it."

It's EXACTLY that kind of thinking that put this case in the lousy shape it's in! I've said it a million times, but it bears repeating: if this had happened anywhere else, the Ramseys most likely would have gone to prison.



Only according to a biased source who hasn't been part of the case since 1998, and who is more interested in pushing his "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" narrative than he is in a little girl's death. He's about as trustworthy as a scorpion. I do not envy Trip DeMuth's life. And if what the nuns in Sunday School said has any truth to it, I do not envy him where he will go when he dies.

Not to mention that the network he did this interview with made NO attempt to present a balanced account. Probably have our bloody friend Lin Wood to thank for that.



Exactly the question.

Bravo Dave... Excellence as always... Thank you for the info on baby Jason, I was on my way to update the info I posted when I read this, seems you beat me too it... lol...

 

[BBB167893]

Agatha, to me, the Midyette case is a good companion examination to this one, because if nothing else, it shows that the DA's actions in this case were not isolated.

 

[otg]

Thanks, otg. "Over the fence" could describe me, as well. I went from one side to the other, and stuff like the things I mentioned are a big reason for that.

Wish I could claim I was smart enough to have intended the double meaning, but I can't -- just a simple baseball phrase.
.

 

[MurriFlower]

Sorry, Murri, but you'll have to try for a source that's just a little more credible next time!

Let's break it down:

"That report in essence says as of January 15th, 1997, there was a strong suggestion by the DNA results that the Ramseys were not responsible for this murder," Demuth says.

That's HIS interpretation. Let me give you a little background on Mr. DeMuth, because he's Exhibit A when it comes to talking about the insanity of the DA's office. If you read PMPT or especially ST's book, it becomes clear that DeMuth was unprofessional to the extreme. The FBI agents who met him even said, "is this guy for real?"

This is a man who decided, within a WEEK, before ANY evidence was in, that the Ramseys couldn't have killed JonBenet SOLELY on the basis of his belief that HE could not have done it to his own daughter. He didn't NEED DNA for his belief, and the fact that he's pushing this idea of DNA within a month is merely his own justification. I'm sure he latched onto it within that time, which just shows:

a) how little he actually understood DNA evidence, in this case and in general;

b) his own lack of prosecutorial competence.

I can forgive the average person for believing that a parent couldn't do this to their own child, but as a LEO, he should KNOW better! That kind of thinking has NO BUSINESS in law enforcement.

After leaving the DA's office, he went to work for the law firm of Michael Bynum, the man who convinced the Ramseys that they needed lawyers in the first place. Would that not constitute a conflict of interest?

A Colorado Bureau of Investigation report shows that tiny amounts of DNA were found under JonBenet's fingernails and in her underwear, and that this DNA did not match John, Patsy, or anyone in the Ramsey family. Police at the time were not convinced that the DNA found at the scene belonged to the killer.

Yeah, and the REASON for that was because the DNA was so degraded, it was of no use. JB's DNA was perfectly fresh. This WASN'T.

"I believe that when the case first started that it did look like the Ramseys did this. I even thought that initially when I was hired on board," says former detective Lou Smit.

He sure had a funny way of showing it! Smit--RIP--and Trip are two peas in a pod. Like DeMuth, he decided in three days, before he had a chance to read the police file, that the Rs were innocent. Why? Because they prayed with him.

"The theory was that JonBenet was killed by Patsy over bed wetting and that all of this was staged. And that as a result of the staging that a ransom note, a very detailed ransom note was made. That the garrote was constructed for some reason to make it look like it was a kidnap killing gone bad, that was all part of the staging," Smit says.

That's an excellent summation.

But a closer examination of the evidence doesn’t support that theory.

Wanna BET?

JonBenet was still alive during the strangulation, and probably fought her attacker.

"When she was strangled, she was struggling," Demuth says.

Asked if that is more consistent with a child abduction, he says, "If my conclusions are correct, yeah. That’s child abduction. She’s struggling, she’s breathing, and you’re strangling her. That’s no longer an act of staging."

"It’s murder," Moriarty remarks.

Yeah, Smit went to his grave pushing the idea that JB was alive while strangled and fought her attacker, and apparently DeMuth went along with it.

Trouble is, it's utter nonsense. Indeed, it's just one of MANY instances I could mention of where Smit fabricated evidence up out of thin air.

Here's what I wrote about it:

Smit claims that she must have fought her killer while being strangled. He describes multiple scratches on JonBenet's neck where she clawed at the rope. He can't even keep his own story straight. First he says she was stun gunned to keep from fighting, then she fought like a hellcat. Trouble is, the autopsy photos clearly show no signs of any kind of scratches.

This is based on the idea that JB's head blow must have come last, due to the lack of bleeding inside the head, which is also nonsense. DeMuth and Smit came up with this scenario IN THE FACE of multiple forensic experts, who they ADMIT they never even TALKED TO.

Demuth says the path of an intruder is evident in crime scene photographs: a grate that appeared to be lifted, an open basement window, scuff marks on the wall.

I could spend all day knocking THAT one to pieces!

"It’s murder," Demuth agrees. "The conclusion of my summary of the physical evidence is, is a clear conclusion that an intruder committed this crime."

Trip's not got a stellar record when it comes to interpreting physical evidence. He commented on the case of Jason Midyette, saying that just because a ten-month-old was dead with 28 fractures, it doesn't mean murder. I KID YOU NOT! I quote:

"But a coroner's definition of homicide doesn't mean a crime was committed, said Trip DeMuth, former Boulder County deputy district attorney. To a coroner, homicide means another human's actions caused the death, he said, much different from prosecutorial terms used in charging, such as murder and manslaughter." But speculating why the parents aren't talking is dangerous, DeMuth said.

"In this country we do have a right to seek advice of counsel, and we do have a right to remain silent and not have that silence used against us in a court of law," he said. "There's a danger to jumping to conclusions. ... We saw that in the Ramsey case."

Just so you know, Jason Midyette's father was finally convicted of his death--a manslaughter conviction--after Mary Lacy--the mental eunuch--dragged her feet on it until one of Bill O'Reilly's men cornered her in her own garage.

In May of 1998, Trip Demuth presented his findings to the Boulder authorities. Four months after his presentation, Demuth says he and his entire team were removed from the case.

But his boss at the time, former Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter, says Demuth was removed because he was so focused looking outside the Ramsey family that he lost his objectivity

For ONCE, Alex Hunter was right on the money! DeMuth, like so many of the IDIs, became more interested in sticking a finger in the eye of the police than in JUSTICE. And he's been doing it ever since. He's been pushing this story about how he was removed because he wouldn't go along with the lynch-mob, and that's a LIE! That way he gets to portray himself as this martyr-hero. In truth, he has only himself and his utter lack of professionalism to blame.

What got him booted was when his lack of professionalism upset Michael Kane so much that Kane went to Hunter and said, "it's him or me." . Thomas talks about these incidents at length. Schiller also talks about him, quote: "The detectives hated DeMuth. They felt he always talked down to them and that he didn't know the case."

As I said, DeMuth embodies the dysfunctional mindset of the Boulder DA's office, and it shows in his language:

But he is most sorry that he never got to treat Patsy Ramsey as a victim.

"Since I believe that the evidence shows an intruder committed this crime, as the prosecutor assigned to that case, she normally would have been my victim who I would have reached out to and held her hand through this process. But I was not given that opportunity," Demuth says.

UGH! Get out the violins; you're breaking my bleeding heart!

Trip has a thing about "witch hunts." He said the cops were on a witch hunt against the Ramseys, a witch hunt against the parents who beat that 10-month-old to death, and when Mary Lacy spent thousands of taxpayer dollars to bring back a crank because he confessed to the crime, he became afraid of a witch hunt against the DA. Does THAT sound like a good prosecutor?

"I have never seen two individuals that were more thoroughly investigated than John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey. I don’t remember one report of the type of pathology that I would expect to see for them to have committed this crime," he says.

My, my, if that is not the PERFECT example of the kind of circular reasoning that some around here are always talking about, I don't know WHAT is! He creates a scenario out of thin air, against the evidence, then says, "this person isn't the type to have done it."

It's EXACTLY that kind of thinking that put this case in the lousy shape it's in! I've said it a million times, but it bears repeating: if this had happened anywhere else, the Ramseys most likely would have gone to prison.



Only according to a biased source who hasn't been part of the case since 1998, and who is more interested in pushing his "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" narrative than he is in a little girl's death. He's about as trustworthy as a scorpion. I do not envy Trip DeMuth's life. And if what the nuns in Sunday School said has any truth to it, I do not envy him where he will go when he dies.

Not to mention that the network he did this interview with made NO attempt to present a balanced account. Probably have our bloody friend Lin Wood to thank for that.

Exactly the question.

So, here is a person who was an integral part of the investigation right from the beginning whom you refer to as unprofessional in the extreme, biased, lacking competence, simply because he believed an intruder murdered JBR. He was prepared initially to believe the 'party line' that RDI, however, he applied his own intelligence and gut feeling, and came up with something different. This was subsequently backed up by DNA evidence that became available only two weeks after the murder. Apparently the BPD did not tell the DAs office about the results of this DNA test and if memory serves me correctly, they actually 'lost' the panties (along with the report) for 6 months, while they persued evidence against the Rs. There are many anecdotal reports of this type of bias and pigheadedness by the BPD.

You see, I can fully understand just how the likes of Demuth and Smit were treated, because this is exactly the way IDI are treated on this forum. The idea I see is to remove anyone with contrary ideas, by ridicule and accusing them of bias, stupidity or anything they can think of in order to provoke an angry response.

No wonder the forum is overwhelmingly RDI. It is certainly not because the evidence points toward it being the most likely.

I was confident that there was enough evidence to solve this crime and still believe this to be true, eventhough there is probably a great deal of evidence we don't have access to. However, it won't be done by arguing tiny irrelevant issues for days on end, because some RDI have based their theory solely on it despite it never being established as a fact.

I am weary of the futility of posting here and frankly don't have the time to answer and counter the arguments of 20 rabid RDI on every issue, over and over. No RDI wants this solved unless it is RDI. It isn't and this isn't the place for me.

 

[BBB167893]

So, here is a person who was an integral part of the investigation right from the beginning

Actually, from what I understand, he wasn't THAT integral, at least not as he makes it out. In film terms, he was more of a supporting player who tried to shoehorn his way into the leading man.

whom you refer to as unprofessional in the extreme, biased, lacking competence, simply because he believed an intruder murdered JBR.

Actually, it's NOT that simple. It's actually putting words in my mouth. If you had read what I said, the problem with him is not that he believed IDI. The PROBLEM is WHY he thought that and HOW he went about it. It's all in ST's book and PMPT. And it's not just ME saying that either. The cops hated him, of course. But the fact that Alex-Freakin-Hunter thought that he had lost objectivity ought to tell you something. When you're too unprofessional for a guy like Hunter, who kept on such people as Lou Smit, you're practically living on another planet.

He was prepared initially to believe the 'party line' that RDI,

That's news to me, since most other accounts have him as an IDI within the first few days.

however, he applied his own intelligence and gut feeling, and came up with something different.

"His own intelligence and gut feeling." I'll remember you said that!

As for the rest of it, I try not to condemn IDI unless it's warranted, such as with DeMuth. I'd like the same courtesy. We're not blind, and we're not fools.

I was confident that there was enough evidence to solve this crime and still believe this to be true.

You won't get an argument from me there. Indeed, that's exactly why I think the problems with the DA's office need to be examined. How was it ever going to BE solved, Murri, when the prosecutors were acting like defense attorneys and putting their political agenda first? Tell me that.

I am weary of the futility of posting here

We all feel that way, sometimes. Lord knows I do.

and frankly don't have the time to answer and counter the arguments of 20 rabid RDI on every issue, over and over.

That's fairly obvious. You didn't even try to answer my specific points this time.

No RDI wants this solved unless it is RDI.

That statement is beneath consideration.

It isn't and this isn't the place for me.

Where exactly WOULD the place for you be, Murri? An IDI-exclusive forum? That would get pretty boring after a while, wouldn't it?

Look, whatever you decide, I wish you the very best with it, and I mean that. But the way I see it, when a little one's death is in the mix, you don't just up and leave. All of us owe JB that much. If a person can't stand the heat, there's no shame in fleeing the kitchen, but for me, it all comes down to what is more important: my ego, or justice?

 

[MurriFlower]

Actually, from what I understand, he wasn't THAT integral, at least not as he makes it out. In film terms, he was more of a supporting player who tried to shoehorn his way into the leading man.



Actually, it's NOT that simple. It's actually putting words in my mouth. If you had read what I said, the problem with him is not that he believed IDI. The PROBLEM is WHY he thought that and HOW he went about it. It's all in ST's book and PMPT. And it's not just ME saying that either. The cops hated him, of course. But the fact that Alex-Freakin-Hunter thought that he had lost objectivity ought to tell you something. When you're too unprofessional for a guy like Hunter, who kept on such people as Lou Smit, you're practically living on another planet.



That's news to me, since most other accounts have him as an IDI within the first few days.



"His own intelligence and gut feeling." I'll remember you said that!

As for the rest of it, I try not to condemn IDI unless it's warranted, such as with DeMuth. I'd like the same courtesy. We're not blind, and we're not fools.



You won't get an argument from me there. Indeed, that's exactly why I think the problems with the DA's office need to be examined. How was it ever going to BE solved, Murri, when the prosecutors were acting like defense attorneys and putting their political agenda first? Tell me that.



We all feel that way, sometimes. Lord knows I do.



That's fairly obvious. You didn't even try to answer my specific points this time.



That statement is beneath consideration.



Where exactly WOULD the place for you be, Murri? An IDI-exclusive forum? That would get pretty boring after a while, wouldn't it?

Look, whatever you decide, I wish you the very best with it, and I mean that. But the way I see it, when a little one's death is in the mix, you don't just up and leave. All of us owe JB that much. If a person can't stand the heat, there's no shame in fleeing the kitchen, but for me, it all comes down to what is more important: my ego, or justice?

It's not a matter of ego, it's more to preserve my sanity.

It's not about finding justice but proving RDI. You never will nor will you ever accept any evidence leading to IDI.

Call it a Victory! for RDI, you've won, I'm beaten. You can have a smilie party to celebrate.

 

[Steely]

I am weary of the futility of posting here and frankly don't have the time to answer and counter the arguments of 20 rabid RDI on every issue, over and over. No RDI wants this solved unless it is RDI. It isn't and this isn't the place for me.

I get you. I'm growing weary of the constant nitpicking on both sides and I've been guilty of it myself. I started my own thread for my curling iron theory because I felt my posts were being passed over and lost in the bickering. It seems to me like many of the posts with a lot of "thanks" contain snarky comments or pats on the back for them. I think there is room here for everybody and I, for one, will be sad if you leave.