New book coming out by Paula Woodward

[BBB167893]

Did this guy work the case? I don't think so. So you have a cop who only saw the Ramseys while they played victim who writes a book about them being victims. The guy has very limited first hand knowledge that he wanted to turn in to a book, what other conclusion could he come to?

Dave said "cops who worked the case", so this guy doesn't really qualify. Neither does Lou Smit for that matter as, according to Thomas, he had already come to a conclusion without possibly having time to review the case file. He was hired to take the case in another direction, plain and simple.

Exactly: he was only peripherally involved. Now, he seems to be picking up where Smit left off.

Dave is correct though, any cop that actually investigated this case has come to the same conclusion, the murderer was a family member.

YUP!

 

[BoldBear]

The opening of chapter 15 and the beauty pageants.

"CHILD BEAUTY PAGEANT PHOTOS AND VIDEO became the criminal record the Ramseys didn’t have."

Woodward, Paula. We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenét Ramsey Twenty Years Later (Kindle Locations 2664-2665). Easton Studio Press, LLC. Kindle Edition.

Had the publicity and the press not blown-up on this case, this would have been buried. The Ramsey's attorneys would have had complete control. Alex Hunter would have done exactly the same thing only without any criticism. A few law enforcement careers would have still been destroyed with those officers/investigators being scapegoats. The investigation would have been written-off to incompetence. And everyone would have felt so sorry for the poor Ramseys. The intruder case wouldn't have been questioned.

I'm sorry, Paula, but the spotlight brought by the press stopped this case from being just written-off. Every detail has been scrutinized. No one has been able to come-up with a complete intruder theory that dismisses the behavior of the family. And Paula, your book intentionally avoided inconvenient details--details you don't have the answers to so you don't even bring them up. As a news journalist, I wish you would have understood the importance of impartiality. I wish you would have known the importance of unanswered questions. You don't need to answer them, but when you completely avoid them, your bias is painfully apparent. Had this book been about the Titanic, the ship wouldn't have sunk but simply disappeared. The White Star Line would have never had any responsibility and it would have all been written-off to aliens.

This is my opinion, of course.

 

[Ambitioned]

Yup! I can't believe she put in the bogus fruit cocktail report. We all know pineapple digests faster and grapes and cherries are harder to digest so they wouldn't be at the same location in the tract as the pineapple.

But then again what do we expect from someone who allows herself to be airbrushed to death to sell copies.

 

[BBB167893]

Yup! I can't believe she put in the bogus fruit cocktail report. We all know pineapple digests faster and grapes and cherries are harder to digest so they wouldn't be at the same location in the tract as the pineapple.

But then again what do we expect from someone who allows herself to be airbrushed to death to sell copies.

To say nothing of the Carol McKinley incident.

 

[Annapurna]

To say nothing of the Carol McKinley incident.

I'm nosy (obviously, lol), what is the Carol McKinley incident? TIA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

I'm nosy (obviously, lol), what is the Carol McKinley incident? TIA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Courtesy of our friend questfortrue:

Peter Boyles had McKinley on his show in 2013 when the news broke about the indictments. McKinley mentioned that in 2010 when the BPD wanted to interview BR that Dilson appeared in her own press conference and threw Wolf under the bus again. PW walked up to McKinley and told her she was going to put in her book that McKinley had an affair with Wolf, to extract information out of him. McKinley said words to the effect, 'You know that’s a total lie.'

 

[Annapurna]

Courtesy of our friend questfortrue:

Peter Boyles had McKinley on his show in 2013 when the news broke about the indictments. McKinley mentioned that in 2010 when the BPD wanted to interview BR that Dilson appeared in her own press conference and threw Wolf under the bus again. PW walked up to McKinley and told her she was going to put in her book that McKinley had an affair with Wolf, to extract information out of him. McKinley said words to the effect, 'You know that’s a total lie.'

Ethics in journalism seems to be an ancient and strange idea now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ambitioned]

Paula Woofward :lol:

 

[BoldBear]

I put Paula's book down for a while and went back to it tonight. She has a claim that's rather odd.

"...It was also possible that an intruder at times could have stayed in the basement crawl spaces."

Woodward, Paula. We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenét Ramsey Twenty Years Later (Kindle Locations 3674-3675). Easton Studio Press, LLC. Kindle Edition.

Crawl spaces are dirty places. Anyone going into and out of them will track a lot of dirt around. There would also be evidence of someone disturbing the dust and the spider webs in the crawl spaces. Tracking such dust would leave prints behind. If these were the crawl spaces under the first floor, an intruder would have had to climb to get into them. The walls would have been disturbed. Basically put, there would have been evidence.

Seriously, an intruder may have been in the home many times prior to the murder? How can that be an argument? Each entry of an intruder is bound to leave more and more evidence especially if he/she is hiding-out in crawl spaces. Then there's the possibility that someone would see them coming and going.

"The Ramseys’ attorneys said the paintbrush could have been removed covertly from the home and made into a garrote before the murder by an intruder who had broken into the home secretly and frequently."

Woodward, Paula. We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenét Ramsey Twenty Years Later (Kindle Locations 3677-3678). Easton Studio Press, LLC. Kindle Edition.

Let me get this straight. The intruder who hides out in the home's crawl spaces takes the writing pad, pen and paintbrush out of the home. He writes the note and makes the garrote away from the home. He then brings the notepad, pen and both halves of the paintbrush back. He puts the brush tip back into Patsy's tote. He then returns the notepad to the back hallway and drops the pen into the cup near the kitchen phone. And this was suggested by one of the Ramseys' attorneys? It's not so bad that someone told the lie, but someone repeated it and put it in print.

I'm beginning to wonder if Paula is insincere when arguing IDI. She's not arguing this with any conviction. It's almost like most of this book is a rebuttal to Steve Thomas' book and nothing more. It's attacked the press, the DA and the police. Paula supports the idea that the Ramseys were fully interviewed and then reverses herself by saying that the Ramseys should have been separately interviewed after the murder.

I asked for a light beer and got a near beer instead. I'm waiting for her to make an IDI case, but I've seen better on WS.

My opinion, of course.

 

[HarmonyE.]

The book should be called: "Murder in Boulder: Straw Men and Red Herrings".

I agree that she doesn't push IDI as hard as you'd expect, but the book is nothing but a series of take downs of various media reports and the cops. There was no snow on the walkways! The cops lied! They victimized the Ramseys. The media reported false stories of incest. The Ramseys are such victims! And on and on it goes.

I found the quotes from John's phony diary the most grating. He clearly wrote them long after the fact and yet she presents them as his real time thoughts to make him look sincere and more sympathetic.

The book reads like she's far more concerned with her personal agenda with others in the media and LE than the actual solving of the case. It's just awful.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

I put Paula's book down for a while and went back to it tonight. She has a claim that's rather odd.

"...It was also possible that an intruder at times could have stayed in the basement crawl spaces."

Woodward, Paula. We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenét Ramsey Twenty Years Later (Kindle Locations 3674-3675). Easton Studio Press, LLC. Kindle Edition.

Crawl spaces are dirty places. Anyone going into and out of them will track a lot of dirt around. There would also be evidence of someone disturbing the dust and the spider webs in the crawl spaces. Tracking such dust would leave prints behind. If these were the crawl spaces under the first floor, an intruder would have had to climb to get into them. The walls would have been disturbed. Basically put, there would have been evidence.

Seriously, an intruder may have been in the home many times prior to the murder? How can that be an argument? Each entry of an intruder is bound to leave more and more evidence especially if he/she is hiding-out in crawl spaces. Then there's the possibility that someone would see them coming and going.

"The Ramseys’ attorneys said the paintbrush could have been removed covertly from the home and made into a garrote before the murder by an intruder who had broken into the home secretly and frequently."

Woodward, Paula. We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenét Ramsey Twenty Years Later (Kindle Locations 3677-3678). Easton Studio Press, LLC. Kindle Edition.

Let me get this straight. The intruder who hides out in the home's crawl spaces takes the writing pad, pen and paintbrush out of the home. He writes the note and makes the garrote away from the home. He then brings the notepad, pen and both halves of the paintbrush back. He puts the brush tip back into Patsy's tote. He then returns the notepad to the back hallway and drops the pen into the cup near the kitchen phone. And this was suggested by one of the Ramseys' attorneys? It's not so bad that someone told the lie, but someone repeated it and put it in print.

I'm beginning to wonder if Paula is insincere when arguing IDI. She's not arguing this with any conviction. It's almost like most of this book is a rebuttal to Steve Thomas' book and nothing more. It's attacked the press, the DA and the police. Paula supports the idea that the Ramseys were fully interviewed and then reverses herself by saying that the Ramseys should have been separately interviewed after the murder.

I asked for a light beer and got a near beer instead. I'm waiting for her to make an IDI case, but I've seen better on WS.

My opinion, of course.

I'm loving your posts about this book. I think eventually I'll read it but not until I have a barrel full of Xanax at my disposal. About the bolded portion, does she actually assert the R lawyers thought the notepad and sharpie were taken out of the house by "the intruder" in her book? Just clarifying because that quote only mentioned the paintbrush. If so, that (in conjunction with the paintbrush being removed and returned and the perp hanging out in the crawl space on a regular basis) is the stupidest effing theory since Mary Lacy's phantom butt print. (In fact, isn't Patsy questioned about a photo taken Christmas day that shows the notepad in its normal place in the house?) (Also, didn't they find splinters on the floor by the wine cellar where apparently the paintbrush had been broken? So they broke it in the house before stealing it and brought it back?)

Now, why would this intruder feel the need to hide himself in the dirty crawl space (when he's not hiding under JAR's bed and leaving butt prints outside JB's room!) and gather all these materials from the Ramsey home for his crime days or weeks beforehand? Is there no other place he can access a stick for the "garrote" and a piece of paper for a ransom note? The only explanation I can see for that is if he's trying to FRAME the Ramseys. Is that what PW's implying?

I repeat, this theory is a strong, strong competitor with The Butt Print in the 20th Anniversary IDIocy 118K Marathon to Support Ramsey BS.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

I've been watching some interviews PW did promoting the book. And she annoys me so I'm in the mood to get nitpicky!

[video=youtube;-EEG7-ND-ew]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EEG7-ND-ew[/video]

With Fox News. I was able to download this one for future reference and may do a transcript for posterity (if anyone's interested). Just some thoughts:

- She starts out by dismissing CBS's conclusion about Burke being the perp by saying that he was too small. She does this in the next clip I'll link as well. Except...CBS proved that a ten-year-old boy of Burke's approximate size was fully capable of putting a hole in a skull with a heavy object in the first episode, so...did she not watch it or something?

- She and the anchor make a point that JB was "tortured" "brutally in a very sadistic fashion" which they claim "very few people know." PW tries to come off neutral throughout the interview (saying people can make up their own minds based on the evidence, etc) but says that knowing she was sadistically tortured "will lend credence to whatever you think happened." Well, not really. It pretty much rules out any of the many accidental death scenarios floating around.

- It appears her overarching theme is "correcting misconceptions" and she emphasizes the police and DA's office leaked false info. (Did they? There were leaks but how many of them were actually proven to have come from the BPD or DA and also be false?) She cites police reports describing "the Ramseys" acting upset to counter characterizations of the Ramseys as not acting right that day. "They were wailing on the floor, they were pounding on their knees, they would collapse, they would fall down, they would scream, they would cry - talking about the Ramseys." Without seeing the police reports in question I can't assess how incorrect (or not) later characterizations of their behavior was. For example, does she have police reports saying the Ramseys were united and comforting each other instead of the reports we've heard of them keeping each other at a distance? Is she refuting French's report that he observed Patsy watching him through splayed fingers as she seemingly sobbed in the dayroom? Those are the kinds of behavioral oddities that got to me. To say that Patsy was wailing and distraught and vomiting, no duh. Guilty or not I'm sure she was in immense pain and fear of getting caught. We've known about her melodramatic theatrics (including everything mentioned in the quote) since the beginning. It was John whose stoicism and aloofness that was called into question. Was he barfing and collapsing to the floor alongside Patsy?

- Another "misconception" she corrects is the "no footprints in the snow" story. She points out that the sun melted the snow "on the south side of the house" so "it made no difference." Except she's talking about later in the day, not the report from the first officer on the scene who walked the perimeter and saw no footprints in the *frost* that quickly melted as the sun came up. Surely she has French's police report. Shouldn't she know that?

Here's News9 speaking to her, more of the same:
http://www.9news.com/news/investiga...still-stirs-feelings-20-years-later/316120213
Actually, I don't really have anything to add to this one.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

Here's an old hour-long interview with John and Patsy with PW. I haven't had the chance/the stomach to watch it yet.

http://www.9news.com/news/investiga...hos-who-in-the-jonbenet-ramsey-case/339914819

 

[PositiveLight]

I've been watching some interviews PW did promoting the book. And she annoys me so I'm in the mood to get nitpicky!

[video=youtube;-EEG7-ND-ew]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EEG7-ND-ew[/video]

With Fox News. I was able to download this one for future reference and may do a transcript for posterity (if anyone's interested). Just some thoughts:

- She starts out by dismissing CBS's conclusion about Burke being the perp by saying that he was too small. She does this in the next clip I'll link as well. Except...CBS proved that a ten-year-old boy of Burke's approximate size was fully capable of putting a hole in a skull with a heavy object in the first episode, so...did she not watch it or something?

- She and the anchor make a point that JB was "tortured" "brutally in a very sadistic fashion" which they claim "very few people know." PW tries to come off neutral throughout the interview (saying people can make up their own minds based on the evidence, etc) but says that knowing she was sadistically tortured "will lend credence to whatever you think happened." Well, not really. It pretty much rules out any of the many accidental death scenarios floating around.

- It appears her overarching theme is "correcting misconceptions" and she emphasizes the police and DA's office leaked false info. (Did they? There were leaks but how many of them were actually proven to have come from the BPD or DA and also be false?) She cites police reports describing "the Ramseys" acting upset to counter characterizations of the Ramseys as not acting right that day. "They were wailing on the floor, they were pounding on their knees, they would collapse, they would fall down, they would scream, they would cry - talking about the Ramseys." Without seeing the police reports in question I can't assess how incorrect (or not) later characterizations of their behavior was. For example, does she have police reports saying the Ramseys were united and comforting each other instead of the reports we've heard of them keeping each other at a distance? Is she refuting French's report that he observed Patsy watching him through splayed fingers as she seemingly sobbed in the dayroom? Those are the kinds of behavioral oddities that got to me. To say that Patsy was wailing and distraught and vomiting, no duh. Guilty or not I'm sure she was in immense pain and fear of getting caught. We've known about her melodramatic theatrics (including everything mentioned in the quote) since the beginning. It was John whose stoicism and aloofness that was called into question. Was he barfing and collapsing to the floor alongside Patsy?

- Another "misconception" she corrects is the "no footprints in the snow" story. She points out that the sun melted the snow "on the south side of the house" so "it made no difference." Except she's talking about later in the day, not the report from the first officer on the scene who walked the perimeter and saw no footprints in the *frost* that quickly melted as the sun came up. Surely she has French's police report. Shouldn't she know that?

Here's News9 speaking to her, more of the same:
http://www.9news.com/news/investiga...still-stirs-feelings-20-years-later/316120213
Actually, I don't really have anything to add to this one.

:banghead::sick:

 

[PositiveLight]

Here's an old hour-long interview with John and Patsy with PW. I haven't had the chance/the stomach to watch it yet.

http://www.9news.com/news/investiga...hos-who-in-the-jonbenet-ramsey-case/339914819

I might have to wait to watch this one too....I don't want to ruin any chance of sleeping tonight.:gaah:

 

[PositiveLight]

I cannot explain how deeply it bothers me that they put her death date as 12-25-1996.
If nothing else points to their guilt it would be THAT. And it's in stone. They can make all the stupid excuses they want but at the end of the day there was only 2 hours left on Christmas night and only the killer would know she died (or thought she died) on the 25th. Otherwise you would go by the date she was found. This is not like a case where she was missing for years and the exact date couldn't be determined. There was a 2 hour window that was left that night for her to die. That's not including the supposed time JR spent with BR putting together a toy and PR packing. And the pineapple....
THAT DATE JUST BOTHERS ME TO THE CORE.
ullhair:

 

[Ambitioned]

I cannot explain how deeply it bothers me that they put her death date as 12-25-1996.
If nothing else points to their guilt it would be THAT. And it's in stone. They can make all the stupid excuses they want but at the end of the day there was only 2 hours left on Christmas night and only the killer would know she died (or thought she died) on the 25th. Otherwise you would go by the date she was found. This is not like a case where she was missing for years and the exact date couldn't be determined. There was a 2 hour window that was left that night for her to die. That's not including the supposed time JR spent with BR putting together a toy and PR packing. And the pineapple....
THAT DATE JUST BOTHERS ME TO THE CORE.
ullhair:

Agreed 100% For all we know she died close to midnight rather than the estimated 1AM. JMO.

 

[FairM1]

For anyone interested in this case. This book is a MUST READ!! This book is well sourced with actual police and DA files, includes BRAND NEW information and debunks the false information that many have come to believe in this case. Not only that, it includes many actual documents and never seen before photos. I appeal to anyone with an open mind and heart to read this book. I just finished reading it today.

One of the revelations is that not only was what resembled pineapple in JB stomach, there was also grapes, grape skin, and cherries. Which resembles a fruit cocktail.

It also clarifies much of the DNA misconceptions and includes actual reports. This book is a MUST read if you are interested in learning more about this case.

https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-Your-Daughter-Unsolved/dp/1632260778

I'm on page 153 , I agree it is an excellent read so far. Incredulous that Arndt took 13 days to write her report and all the errors in it! the police really didnt have a clue what they were doing that morning !

I like the way each chapter has a chronology and she links to actual documents etc to back up her claims.

 

[FairM1]

I cannot explain how deeply it bothers me that they put her death date as 12-25-1996.
If nothing else points to their guilt it would be THAT. And it's in stone. They can make all the stupid excuses they want but at the end of the day there was only 2 hours left on Christmas night and only the killer would know she died (or thought she died) on the 25th. Otherwise you would go by the date she was found. This is not like a case where she was missing for years and the exact date couldn't be determined. There was a 2 hour window that was left that night for her to die. That's not including the supposed time JR spent with BR putting together a toy and PR packing. And the pineapple....
THAT DATE JUST BOTHERS ME TO THE CORE.
ullhair:

That was the last date they saw her alive , how about that being a reason to add that date?

 

[Tortoise]

That was the last date they saw her alive , how about that being a reason to add that date?

The use of the word 'tomorrow' in the ransom note also makes me think the first part of this crime happened before midnight. Patsy lost track of the time after that, even if she was writing the note after midnight.