Dr. Wecht interview

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by candy, Mar 21, 2004.

  1. candy

    candy Inactive

    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm a Wecht supporter and his book "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey" was full of good information from a medical standpoint. However, his sleuthing isn't all that great. In his book Wecht seemed to believe that John was the perp.

    True, there's enough evidence to hold the parents on criminal charges -- but WHAT criminal charges? Obstruction is a criminal offense, and John and Patsy are certainly guilty of that. They are up to their chins in doo doo when it comes to a coverup. But murder? Not in my opinion. The evidence for murder isn't there.

    Wecht's remarks would have to be more specific, such as WHAT evidence. IMO the strongest evidence points to Burke A/O a fifth person invited into the house that night.

    JMO
     
  3. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The statute of limitation for filing false-statement (misdemeanor) charges against the Ramseys expired on June 26, 2003. The DA has until the end of 2005 to file tampering with evidence (felony) charges against them.

    Source

    imo
     
  4. FULTON

    FULTON Member

    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Questioin??? Why hasn't Wood filed any suits against Dr. Wecht???
     
  5. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The evidence is that JonBenet is DEAD... Patsy's and John's fibers are all over the crime scene, there is no evidence of a home invasion nor an intruder (not in the real world, anyway).

    If any third parties were involved, it doesn't negate the physical evidence implicating the Ramseys. The possibility that they had help killing her doesn't make them any less involved.

    IMO, that's all anyone needs to bring murder charges against the Ramseys jointly. JB didn't kill herself and the evidence implicates them.

    IMO, any RST fantasies would easily be chewed up and spit out by a competent prosecutor in a trial.

    I, too, think Dr. Wecht's information is excellent.

    Fulton - excellent question! And why didn't they sue Dr. Andrew Hodges either? Interesting that both those theorists name John as the molester.

    Apparently the Ramseys don't want to go down that path. Why not?
     
  6. tipper

    tipper Former Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Probably because Wecht wrote the book in such away as to avoid saying much that would be considered libelous. When he wants to say something libelous he usually quotes someone else. Go back through the book with that in mind and you'll see there is very little to get a grip on. It's actually quite well done. He also has pages and pages of positive things to say about the Ramseys which would work in his favor too.

    Personally I think Wecht is a contrarian and a publicity hound. I'm sure he has ever been wrong too. As I recall he and Baden testified from opposite sides during the Binion trial. They couldn't both be right. Although they could both be wrong.

    As far as Hodges goes- My guess is either the statute of limitations had run out before Wood became their lawyer or they decided he wasn't worth the effort.
     
  7. candy

    candy Inactive

    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dr. Wecht wrote his book in 1998, and the statute of limitations on filing a libel suit had run out before Lin Wood was even hired.
     
  8. tipper

    tipper Former Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes they missed it by just a couple months but I still think it might have been difficult to win.
     
  9. TLynn

    TLynn New Member

    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tipper - just had to say, I followed the Binion Murder Trial (actually, Tabish & Murphy trial) - wish we had a forum about it at the time (there is going to be a retrial).

    Yes, one testified re: overdose and the other re: "Burking." Wouldn't it be ironic that John seems to get the "pass" from most - yet, he very well could've been the culprit.

    There was a poster (Doc?) that believed in the JRDI theory - had some strong arguements in favor.

    Wecht also believed in prior abuse as well. Anyone know what Baden's theory is?
     
  10. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    On the CTV special "Who Killed JBR," Dr. Baden said he thought Burke should be looked at.

    IMO
     
  11. Thorkim

    Thorkim Member

    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    One of the Assistant Attorney Generals I worked form (she is now retired) says she also thinks Burke was involved. So do a few more I work with.
     
  12. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It appears that Mark Fuhrman also casts a suspicious eye toward Burke. Several years ago he off-handedly said on live TV during a panel discussion there were male Ramsey DNA markers on JonBenet and they were not John's. Dr. Baden was on the same panel and the camera caught him shaking his head in ageement.

    JMO
     
  13. candy

    candy Inactive

    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Court TV settled with the Ramseys over that program, and what was said in it, and posted a disclaimer saying Burke was not a suspect on their site.
     
  14. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The title of the CTV special was Prime Suspects: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey? The Rs sued because Burke had never officially been named as a suspect, nor officially placed under the umbrella of suspicion as John and Patsy were. That is what that's about, Candy...period.

    IMO
     
  15. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and.......he thinks OJ is innocent?
    brilliant?
    IMO
     
  16. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re the OJ case, maybe Wecht was merely saying that the jurors did right in not convicting OJ based on the limited information they were privy to and on Henry Lee's assertation that the spots of OJ's blood contained a perservative which suggested the blood may have been planted by LE.

    IMO
     
  17. vicktor

    vicktor New Member

    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Apparently you have confused your wish list with what actually happened in the case. The only fibers which seem reliably factual are those found which are consistant with Patsy's sweater. The existance of black wool fibers reportedly linked to John's shirt were posited by one of the BPD detectives during an interview. I've never seen any other statement of evidence or corroboration in a deposition that supports this claim. There isn't really any incontrovertible evidence that connects the Ramseys to the crime.

    Your statement that RST conjectures would be attacked by a competent pro
    secutor is probably true, again since there isn't a lot of solid evidence to back them up. The BPD and the DA were clearly moving towards trying Patsy A/O John. A good prosecutor follows the adage of picking one's battles carefully. I. E., only get involved in those you will probably win. Knowing this and also that they would have one chance, they wisely didn't bring charges.
     
  18. Blazeboy3

    Blazeboy3 Inactive

    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He's AFRAID LOL?,... oh we'd be so lucky???

    "He also thinks there's enough evidence to hold the parents of slain 6-year-old Colorado beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey on criminal charges." :) :crazy:
     
  19. Blazeboy3

    Blazeboy3 Inactive

    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ...what's wrong w/this picture...HODGES WROTE 2 BKS...OTHERS WROTE 1...HELLO??? ... obviously it's too simply and therefore uncomprehendible...?
    AND in Dr.Hodges 2nd book...he tells you/us WHY BURKE DIDN"T DO IT(KILL JONBENET)...too simple... :innocent:
     
  20. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The only reason that no charges have ever been filed against any of the Ramseys for murder is that they do not know who was the murderer and who did the cover up.

    They cannot arrest them as a group. That is the reason the Ramseys have gotten away with murder. It has nothing to do with intruder "make believe" evidence or any "truthful" statements by the Ramseys. It is strictly that they cannot discern who did what
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice