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.