Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by duffy, Jun 26, 2005.
Has anyone read Dr. Henry Lee's new book? He talks about the JonBenet Ramsey case. What does he say?
I wonder if he was ever in Boulder and if he went into the house and looked at the crime scene, personally checked her body, etc. If he did then I would be interested to read what he has to say. If not, I doubt if I would bother.
My faith in Dr. Lee kind of went down the drain when he spit that ketsup at the trial of Michael Peterson. I do enjoy watching his weekly TV show because he actually goes to the crime scene, etc, and explains how he is getting the info he comes up with. He works with real evidence.
If anyone here has read the book will you please let us know what he has to say????
Whaaat? Spit the ketchup? I don't know anything about that. lol I wondered about Henry Lee during o.j. simpson trial but I do know he is highly respected. I watch that show too which is why my estimation of him has been restored. Maybe. Spit the ketchup?
Henry Lee was called in after JonBenet was buried but I guess he had access to a lot of stuff, the house etc. I have also heard Boulder P.D. withheld evidence from him too. I'm not sure what the truth is.
I don't think Henry Lee is a liar though.
Hopefully someone will respond. Anybody????
Henry Lee should be ashamed of himself for still trying to capitalize on JonBenet's name.
Accordong to Lee ... he says that there is a 50/50 percent chance that the case will be solved. He doesn't think the police had tunnel vision in this case,because everyone is suspect. He remains unsure whether JonBenet was murdered or died in what started as a accident. He doesn't see this as a DNA case.
That's it! So,as you can see,Henry Lee doesn't know any more, than any of us posters here at WS.
Yet, any chance he gets,he tries to act like he was a big part of the investigation.
It's all Lee's part of sensationalism to have people buy his book,or fill the halls where he is speaking.
I've once admired him ... I don't any longer.
This is what Henry Lee says in his book? When I was reading about it, sorry can't remember where, it eluded to some of the evidence pointing to the ramseys. If that is the case I will send him a scathing email!!!
No,it's not from his new book,in fact I am not aware of a new book by Henry Lee. I did buy his book about two years or so ago,for my sister as a gift,and she said Lee had nothing we didn't already know as far as the Ramsey case.
The information I gave in my previous post,was from all the interviews by him.which was no information.
50/50 chance the case will be solved. (Half chance it will,half chance it won't.Not much info there.
Everyone is a suspect.(Of course,if you're not cleared,your a suspect.Not much info there.)
The point I was trying to make,is that Henry Lee can be posting on this forum,and not come up with any more,than what we are. Yet he keeps including JonBenet's name in all his books and speeches,leading people to believe,as a forensic scientist,he knows more than us.He doesn't.
It's all about boosting his ego,and money.
Lee was consulted by the case. He met with Hunter and Kane. He was privy to case documentation and probably knows a great deal more about the case than we do.
Anywho...whoever said that they lost respect for Lee from the ketchup spitting incident during the "other" Peterson trial - I lost it when he was looking at the blood and trying to come up with ANYWAY it could have been splattered like it was without implicating Peterson. It was so obvious that he was being paid to agree with the defense that I was sickened.
Dr. Lee stated in his book that a practice note - with writing similar to that in the note - was found crumpled up in a wastebasket in the Ramsey home. That was the first I'd ever heard of that. I'd heard they found another page in the tablet the note came from that was addressed to the Ramseys and nothing else written. But have we ever been told just what was written on that page - or pages - discovered crumpled up in the wastebasket???
Also, Dr. Lee included a list of experts that were consulted in the investigation in the Ramsey case. One popped out at me. They enlisted the help of an "Incest Survivor Expert". Now WHO was that survivor they were curious about?????
The book is no longer new. It has some interesting points; however, it contains some errors, also. (to the best of my memory)
Just read it anyway. You never know what you might find insightful.
Actually, Dr. Lee sold his soul at the OJ trial. His "something wrong" comment he led the jury to believe that it spoke to all the tested samples instead of just the one. He knew darn well that there was no problem with the samples, heck the defense in the civil trial stipulated that all the samples where who the plaintiff said they were. Lee knew all this and still put on his dog and pony show. Same thing is true for Barry Scheck. His Innocence Project is a real good thing, but his performance in the OJ trial extremely tarnishes his reputation in my book. Same for Lee.
I agree. If you read Petrocelli's book you'll find the "Something wrong" wasn't just a lucky bit of confusion. They worked long and hard at coming up with just the right phrase.
While I was reading Lee's synopsis of the case I kept wondering why he even bothered writing on this case. As far as I can tell, he repeated evidence already out there and stated he had formed no opinion...even about the sexual assault!!
Then I read the last paragraph of Famous Crimes Revisited
"But one thing is clear to me: Alex Hunter has carried a heavy cross from the outset, and he had the courage not to push the Grand Jury for an indictment. And why? Lack of sufficient evidence. He is an honest and fair gentleman - a truth seeker who is know for thoughtful deliberation.
Quite the bromance.
Anyway, here's the points he makes Intruder v. Insider:
-Basement window with scuff marks
-Marks of a stun gun
-Small amount of DNA under fingernails
-Small amount of DNA on underwear
-Ramseys passed polygraph
-Baseball bat outside with fibers from basement
-Signs of sexual assault
-Shoe print on floor of cellar
-Place where body was found clearly secondary location
-Wine cellar is not an obvious room in the house, indicating knowled of the house layout
-Ransom note not typical and writing obviously disguised
-Ink and paper used for ransom note found in house
-Practice ransom note found in garbage
-The fingernail and underwear DNA very minute suggesting contamination
-911 call inconsistent with later Ramsey statements
Now wait a minute.
Why is the evidence of sexual assault only an indication of an intruder? Lee's too experienced to only think an intruder could have sexually assaulted her that night. Same with the ransom note...as evidence it isn't limited to an intruder!
His enumeration of experts in the case is interesting, mostly typical experts except a few jumped out to me; child abuse consultants, juvenile witness interview experts, plant experts and most interesting advocates for incest survivors.
focusing on this part of the quote, Sounds to me like he agrees with AH and how he decided to not charge the R's based on the GJ..
It corroborates what I have been saying. Something was wrong with that indictment and AH knew it. He knew that something was hinky.
My comments are bolded below.
Incest survivors. So who would the survivor(s) be? Child abuse? Juvenile witness interview experts as opposed to juvenile victim experts?
My theory is that all the children were exposed to incest in that household. Dirty family secret. Not sure if the older boys learned from the parents or just decided to pick on poor JB.
There's many things that point in that direction. IMO.
That's why the parents wanted to cover it up, it would ruin their social standing to tell the truth or to punish the guilty parties.
Oh my gosh.. That is all I have.. now they are all pedophiles.. :scared:
All behavior is learned, and most of that learning comes from children modeling their parental caregivers.
Awful but true.
The incest thing made me sit up...who is that about? Burke?
I have to say the plant expert confuses me too. Does anyone know why a plant expert would be consulted? Other than the Christmas tree, I can't think of another plant involved.
maybe because of the leaves found in the window well and on the floor?
It's a change from his earlier statement, 2 percent. In his own book, ST relates a statement made by Lee to Hunter at the time he was considering whether to push forth on an indictment: "if you do this, you will have to confess your own sins."
For my money, that's the reason why Alex Hunter shut down the Grand Jury after the indictment. I'm not really concerned with being popular, so what I'm about to say will undoubtedly get some people angry, but I think it needs saying, so here goes.
I've often compared the DA's office in this case to the administration of Richard Nixon, specifically to Nixon's conduct vis-a-vis the Watergate scandal. There are people, such as my brother, who believe that Nixon's choice to resign rather than be put through an investigation and impeachment, were not out of respect for the office of president, but out of fear (possibly justified) that an investigation would uncover something MUCH worse.
Well, that's the tack that I've begun to take regarding the DA's office. I admit, it's a theory only. I couldn't even hazard a guess as to what Hunter and company might wish to keep hidden. But I can't ignore the pattern that I've noticed. That being: Hunter and his successors have fought very strongly to make sure that no one from the outside can examine the case files or work the case.
Exhibit A: The Grand Jury itself. Hunter was very clear that he did not want one and stated to the police and his assistants after the June 1998 interviews that one would not be called. He DID call one later that year, of course, but only AFTER ST's resignation letter made the rounds in the media and the governor of CO started feeling the heat. Hunter called the Grand Jury as a dog-and-pony show to present the image that he was doing something with the case so that the governor's office would not take the case from him and appoint a special prosecutor, which he was threatening to do.
You have to wonder WHY Hunter was so intent that the governor's office not take the case.
Exhibit B: The lawsuit-that-wasn't by the Rs against FOX NEWS. Determined not to make the same mistakes that had crippled Hoffman and Wolf, FOX NEWS's legal team made a concerted effort to obtain the case file and use it in court. Mary Lacy, who had replaced Hunter by then, announced publicly that she would fight the attempt. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed, but it would have been interesting to see what legal justification Lacy would have used in court to deny access to the files.
I bolded the one about the polygraph above the others (which are also highly questionable) because a forensics expert like Henry Lee should know that lie detectors mean NOTHING in investigations. Their purpose is purely to give police a "scientific" avenue of interrogation.
Look, we've had arguments here at WS over what is real crime science and what isn't. Every new approach or development has to prove itself in court. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, for any number of reasons. But polygraphs have been around almost 70 years, and they haven't been able to get it right. Which means that they probably never will.