New book coming out by Paula Woodward

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by eileenhawkeye, Dec 16, 2013.

  1. BBB167893

    BBB167893 Former Member

    Messages:
    13,259
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Excuse me, but there was not a SINGLE expert who said she did not write it! None of them used those words, not even the three the Ramseys hired to do it.

    The man you mention, Richard Dusak, has several problems. For one thing, we don't know how much material he had to work with or how much time he spent on it. If he were contacted by the DA and not the police, I wouldn't be surprised if they "worked" the results to favor them. For another, I'm reminded of two things Gideon Epstein said: one, he doesn't know how much actual examination work Dusak did, so his experience might be questionable; two, he wasn't contacted until after the two Ramsey-hired experts had made their decisions. As Epstein pointed out, government handwriting examination is a very small field, and nobody in that field wants to go against anyone else because it would call the profession into question. AND, I would not be surprised to find out that the two Ramsey-hired guys put the word out, "Hey, don't go against us, because we'll make you look like monkeys in court."

    Tortoise is right: Dusak's report isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
     


  2. BBB167893

    BBB167893 Former Member

    Messages:
    13,259
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Like you say, two were for the defense, who only examined it for 3 hours. As for the other two, who knows what they had to work with and how much time they spent on it.

    Oh yes, it has. The last viable piece of intruder "evidence" went bye-bye last week.
     
  3. BBB167893

    BBB167893 Former Member

    Messages:
    13,259
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Don't talk to us about closed minds and bias, FairM1. The Boulder DA's office had nothing BUT closed minds and bias, and that's why this case is in the damn shape it's in.
     
  4. BBB167893

    BBB167893 Former Member

    Messages:
    13,259
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Folks, it all goes back to what I said: this was the American legal system's version of the Vietnam War: the good guys were not allowed to win.
     
  5. Ambitioned

    Ambitioned Active Member

    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If you want IDI, just head over to /r/JonbenetRamsey on reddit. There's a couple of staunch IDI (Brendon and Atticus) on there. If you challenge them on IDI they'll turn into full fledged *******s. I love it when RDI and BDI call them on it.
     
  6. BBB167893

    BBB167893 Former Member

    Messages:
    13,259
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I've noticed. IDI's not just grasping at straws now, they're grasping at fumes.
     
  7. Ambitioned

    Ambitioned Active Member

    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That is awesome. I must borrow this!
     
  8. BBB167893

    BBB167893 Former Member

    Messages:
    13,259
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You can, but as long as you ask me.
     
  9. BoldBear

    BoldBear Active Member

    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    43
    This is a paragraph from a chapter titled "Federal Judge Ruling."

    "First, JonBenét’s body was found bound with complicated and sophisticated bondage devices, namely neatly-made rope slipknots and a garrote designed to give control to the user … The parties agree that such devices necessarily were made by someone with expertise in bondage … While it is certainly possible that defendants possessed such unusual and specialized skills, there is no evidence that establishes this fact. Obviously, if defendants lacked the skills to fashion the bondage device, then it necessarily had to be an intruder who crafted the implement."

    Woodward, Paula. We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenét Ramsey Twenty Years Later (Kindle Locations 4795-4799). Easton Studio Press, LLC. Kindle Edition.

    Seriously, Paula is referencing Judge Carnes here. For such cases, they pull-in experts in handwriting, DNA and even spider webs. When did they hire experts in bondage? How did someone decide that these knots were beyond the scope of the ordinary person? It's just a sailor's knot. The handle is used for leverage. This isn't complicated.

    The 'bondage device' was designed to control the victim? By calling it a 'bondage device' we get to bring-in all the sexaul conotations associated with bondage. We just determined the purpose of the garrot. By doing that we can also infer the motive of the murder. So it was an intruder. That's why we don't call it a 'staging device' or the 'murder weapon'.

    Did the parents possess the skills to tie knots? John might not be sure if he does or not. That's something Patsy or Burke might remember. Ask them. Patsy would say she might remember if you showed her examples of knots she tied in the past.

    This book isn't a page turner. I've got a few more chapters. I can't put my finger on it, but it doesn't feel as researched as it should be. Paula's arguments don't seem very sharp and she goes over evidence that's been dismissed long ago like the pubic hair and the palm prints on the storage room door. It almost feels like she's trying to time travel back to 1996 and plant evidence in the house.

    Only opinion, of course.
     
  10. kanzz

    kanzz kanzz=kansas

    Messages:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Oh my. I would hardly call any knot on that ligature device "neatly made". What a stretch all of this is.
     
  11. Ambitioned

    Ambitioned Active Member

    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    38
    She just quoted Smit.

    Neatly made? HA! :pullhair:
     
  12. BBB167893

    BBB167893 Former Member

    Messages:
    13,259
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You can thank Lou Smit for that ruling, BoldBear. That was one of several things he came up with in his foolish head ("conjured" is the word Patsy used), and Hoffman didn't bother to challenge it. What unmitigated tripe.
     
  13. DrollForeignFaction

    DrollForeignFaction Active Member

    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Above all I find that about the supposed pubic hair especially ridiculous. Really, who does she think she is?
    She's been trying to sell this book for years, it got yanked the first time. She's had plenty of time to get caught up with her research before publication.

    Charlie Brennan leaked that info about the palm print (though he said it was Melinda's?) in 2002 and Carol McKinley simultaneously leaked the mitochondrial DNA linked to Patsy thing. In 2002! PW is one heck of an investigative journalist, that's for sure.

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...-the-Hi-Tec-Boot-print-And-partial-palm-print


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  14. BoldBear

    BoldBear Active Member

    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Starting chapter of "Who?"

    "...words like attaché with the accent correctly placed?"

    Woodward, Paula. We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenét Ramsey Twenty Years Later (Kindle Locations 4836-4837). Easton Studio Press, LLC. Kindle Edition.

    I believed the myth of the accent marker placed above attache until I really looked at the note. The supposed accent mark is a tail put on the y in the line above. The writer puts a small stroke of the pen up and to the right when finishing the many of the y's in the ransom note. It is not, however, consistent with every y written.
     
  15. BoldBear

    BoldBear Active Member

    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    43
    "Who?"

    Paula discusses various theories PDI, JDI, PDI & JDI, BDI, and IDI in this chapter.

    This was a hard chapter to read because Paula's logic is flawed. Somehow Paula argues that in order for Patsy to have committed the crime, Patsy would have to plant the boot print in the WC. The boot print may have nothing to do with the murder.

    She talks about the murderer having to dispose of items like the leftover rope. How does Paula know that all of the available rope wasn't used? For that matter, why did the killer need to dispose of the leftover rope? You have a body that's been tied-up with rope and left. What if the killer left a the remaining rope next to the body without disposing of it? "Oh, we wouldn't have been able to solve this, but now that we have a little leftover rope, the intruder is going to the electric chair."

    She'd expanding the argument that the intruder took the notepad, pen and paintbrush out of the house. He wrote the note and fashioned the elaborate bondage garrott device elsewhere. Once all that was done, he snuck back into the home with a murder kit containing rope and duct tape, put the notepad and pen back where they belonged, put the paintbrush tip back into the tote, committed the crime and then took the leftover tape and rope with him. This has to be an episode of South Park. How can anyone suggest this happened? Paula spent all these years writing this thing and this is her logic?

    The chapter on DNA is a throw-away. Absolutely nothing new or insightful.

    Two more chapters to go.
     
  16. Ambitioned

    Ambitioned Active Member

    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You have my admiration.
     
  17. Occams Razor

    Occams Razor Member

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    18
    :lol::lol::laughing::lol::lol:
     
  18. chlban

    chlban Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    All valid and scientific. and therefore the most legally compelling arguments. Those aside, you have it written on their notepad with their sharpie from their cup of pens in the kitchen.
    Last, but not least, that note screams drama queen Patsy.
     
  19. BoldBear

    BoldBear Active Member

    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    43
    To sum up the book: "The Ramseys were victimized by the Boulder police."

    Paula would have us believe that the police didn't consider any intruder theory. Their only focus was on the Ramseys. After reading Steve Thomas and James Kolar's books, I'm tired of this argument. It's just another sleight-of-hand and deflects attention from honestly considering the facts in the case. My hope was that Paula would give me a valid intruder argument--one based on a logical flow of evidence. Instead, I get presented with speculation from one of the Ramsey's attorneys about how the intruder frequently hid in one of the home's crawl spaces. She promotes Smit's theory where Smit believes the intruder was a bondage petofile master because he was able to use a sailor's knot and a knot commonly used in boating for the garrote handle--this theory requires a leap to believe the intruder's motive was to be sexually controlling. It dismisses the idea that the so called 'garrote' was only a murder weapon.

    I'm absolutely confused about the purpose of this book other than to be a rebuttal to Steve Thomas' book. It attacks the police and detectives by discrediting them. Once their credibility is destroyed, any observations they had on the day the body was discovered come into question. Suddenly any observations of odd behavior, any interviews about what Jonbenet was wearing before the kidnapping cannot be trusted. This is a defense attorney's argument and I'm not certain Paula came-up with this argument on her own.

    She spends an odd amount of time on Burke Ramsey refusing to be interviewed in 2010. She discredits the police and the media with a really dull story--why bother?

    Finally with Mark Beckner's reddit AMA (ask me anything), Paula takes particular pride that Mark had to redact his interview. He had to eat crow and claim that the DNA evidence was the key to finding the killer. Of course, this book was before KUSA and The Daily Camera ran their story discrediting the tDNA. Mark Beckner's description about the tDNA was correct, but anyone who frequents WS already knew that.

    Strange book. I don't know how you argue an intruder theory by arguing all intruder theories. I don't know how you exonerate the Ramseys with the argument that the police were out to get them. You prove that the Ramseys did it or that an intruder did it with evidence. I wish I would have seen that evidence in her book.
     
  20. singularity

    singularity New Member

    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Major props to BoldBear for keeping us up to speed on this book. I wanted to read this book when it came out even though I knew much of it would be IDI nonsense. I mainly wanted to check it out since it had a few things we hadn't seen before like police reports mentioning Burke crying and of course the other fruit she had eaten. I've been reading a few other books since its release though(Ric Flair's book and one on Hinterkaifeck) so delayed buying it.

    I was also intrigued by the 'squatter' theory even though I don't buy it.
     

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