New 48 Hours Rebuttal Thread

Ugh!

In the past month, I've read 2 books about the Dr. Sam Sheppard murder case of 1954 in Bay Village, OH. As some of you may know, he was imprisioned for 10 years for blugeoning his wife. F. Lee Bailey later appealed his case to the supreme court (that he did not receive a fair trial) and Sam was then was acquitted.

Evidence to date shows that Sheppard was railroaded , mainly by the coroner at the time in Bay Village. The coroner was an MD, Sam was a DO. At that time, there was a lot of vitriol between MD's and DO's. MD's believed that DO's had substandard training. Many still believe that today. Sam's father and brothers had a very successful practice in Bay Village in 1954. The coroner was reported to have told someone that he "would get the Sheppards someday." His opportunity came when Marilyn Sheppard was murdered. Sam took the rap.

As I read, I noticed many similarities in what the police accused Sam of back in 1954 that police have accused the Ramsey's of: not talking to police, refusing to take a polygraph, etc.

I started thinking to myself, hey, just maybe the Ramsey's are innocent. Maybe they really are being railroaded. . . just like Dr. Sam Sheppard. . . Consequently, I had made up my mind that I was going to watch this program about the Ramseys tonight with an open mind. I decided that I would REALLY hear them out about what evidence they had and try to make it fit.

The problem was that there was no evidence.

On the one hand we were informed that there was definate DNA evidence that definately belonged to the killer. We were told first that this DNA would solve the murder. A little later we were told not to take the DNA too seriously because it's not foolproof.

Next came the parading of what, 3 different suspects? We were told about past sins they comitted. Two were suspects simply because they owned stun guns. Nevermind the fact that it has NEVER been proven that a stun gun was even used in the murder of JonBenet. Helgoth had taped some news story about another missing girl - that too made him a suspect in the death of JonBenet. First they told us that the fact that Helgoth committed suicide after Hunter's warning made him a suspect - then they turned around and told us that he didn't comitt suicide, but was murdered by another person. What?

Olivia (sp?) lived in the area when JonBenet was killed and he was a convicted pedofile - that made him a suspect. Oh, and he also had a stun gun. Did you listen to that guy? How many of you believe that Olivia would have the mental ability to write that ransom note? Give me a break.

Now enter the guy who had his face blotted out. Where in the world did they dig him up? You know what? I'd hate to have these people visit my house. I have every book written about the case, I have an extensive notebook of newspaper articles, I have 3 or 4 websites that I visit that are about JonBenet - hell, I could be on their list of potential suspects!!!

The only problem is: my DNA would'nt match. JUST LIKE THE THREE SUSPECTS THEY PRESENTED TONIGHT. NO match. So, my question is: why are they even discussing these three men? It's a mute point. One's dead and the other two are wingnuts. In order to side step this slight little problem of the DNA not matching (LOL) they introduce yet another suspect - the accomplice. Yes, now we learn that there were TWO intruders.

So, while I tried to keep an open mind I increasingly felt as though these people presenting this really must think that the general population is really stupid. As the program drew to a close I began to wonder, "hey, wait a minute, what about the evidence?"

What about the pineapple? Which intruder fed her that? Did they have a little party before they killed her?

Which intruder wrote the ransom note? They stated that Helgoth expected to make an amount of money similar to the amount demanded in the ransom note (according to Kenady). Okay, so explain to me then how Helgoth knew that "use that good southern common sense of yours" was an inside family joke against John?

Nothing was mentioned about the legal pad and sharpie pen that belonged to Miss Thang.

Nothing was mentioned about the murder weapon.

Nothing was mentioned about the fact that Burke was awake and heard on the 911 call. Evidence that the Ramsey's lied. Why is still unknown.

Nothing was mentioned about the fact that the paintbrush was Miss Thang's paintbrush.

They could not provide one shred of evidence that any of these men were involved in the death of JonBenet Ramsey. Not one shred. All I heard were "maybe's" and "could be's" and "it's possible." In other words, it was B.S.

So, here I am back at square one. What about you?

 

Good answer, Free! And did you hear Smit re the "missing" leaves in front of the lttle basement window? Looks like that's morphed now too cuz it used to be absence of household dust and a friggin' spider web. I guess missing leaves is more convincing than the old spin which was debunked in 1997 by several experts.

And what about the Israeli sweater fibers that were found in the crotch of JB's panties? And what about the sweater fibers found entwined in the "garotte," that "sophisticated sexual torture device" that match Patsy Ramsey's jacket? Those bad dudes comprising "the dark side" of Boulder night life didn't appear all that well off to me. How could they afford high end sweaters and Hi-Tec boots? And what did they use to create an 8 1/2 inch skull fracture and why did they re-do her hair, wipe down the body, redress it and collect her favorite Barbie nightgown to leave her in?

If they brought a rope and left it in John Andrew's room, how did the rope's fibers come to be in JB's bed and in the very body bag that carried her out the door one final time? Did they also bring the duct tape but remembered to take that with them?

How did they know the little wine room was down in the basement? Why aren't they conducting a prince charming search throughout the land for THE owner of the unidentified/unsourced non-Hi-Tec boot print also found in the little room? Did Helgoth's boots contain any mold that sourced to the little room's floor?

I could go on and on.....

 

And why don't they mention the fact that this six year old little girl had only shreds of a hymen?

Why aren't the numerous trips to the doctor for infections mentioned?

Why don't they talk about the fact that she was being messed with PRIOR to the murder?

Who was it that was messing with her? Ask - Who had opportunity to be alone with her? Alone with time - without fear of being caught. That right there narrow's your suspects. Who had access to her?

What pedophile wipes down his victim and wraps her up in a blankie next to her favorite Barbie nightgown?

Pedophiles rape! JonBenet was not raped.

The so-called garrotte is metioned as a strangling device - tell me how could it strangle her when there was a simple knot tied, it was not a slip not which would be used for torture. What on earth is so "complex" about this thing? It's just a simple knot that any little kid could create. No damage was done to her neck, no broken bones.

I still believe the garrotte was placed around her neck following the blow to the head. Anybody knows that tremendous swelling follows trauma like that. Her neck simply swelled and caused some damage. There was no upward pull.

Have any of these people even glanced at the autopsy report?

Which one of the intruders drew the red heart in JonBenet's hand - oh, let me guess, they just found some wingnut that is an artist. That alone would be enough to make him a suspect by these people's standards.

Edited to say: I REALLY want to believe that John and Patsy are not involved in this!!!! I really had hopes that credible evidence would be presented, but it just wasn't there. This could not even be classified as material for reasonable doubt.

 

It's a pity that there isn't a journalist who more anxious to make a reputation on integrity and accuracy than on sensationalised stories.

You know, making a programme to rebut the misinformation put out in Tracey's documentary would make a FAR more interesting programme than this - i.e. how they mislead the British public by presenting PIs with no official connection to the case as though they were the official investigators, how they "new" evidence is actually very old evidence and how they fingered a completely innocent man for a catalog of henous crimes without even checking out whether he was in the state at the time!

Someone who would take Judge Carnes ruling and explain the foundations upon which it was made (and therefore its true value).

It just seems to me that these guys are so shallow. They all jumped on the "Ramseys did it" bandwagon in the first instance - without checking the facts and now they are jumping on the "any old intruder did it" without checking the facts.

 

reply to 48 hours thread

Dear Tricia,
Just sent you an email on this. I'll be following this thread. The 48 hours program was another Ramsey infomercial. The only thing worth focusing on--and focusing hard on it--is the claims they make about the DNA evidence. What's needed--once again--is a full discussion of that matter. The rest of the show was on the level of the worst kind of tabloid. But all of us need to be as scientific as possible on the DNA matter.
best,
Mac Davis

 

Yes, the DNA

They stated that the DNA found in her panties MATCHED the DNA found under her fingernails.

This is the first that I've heard this. If true, the DNA found in the panties could not be from the manufacturer of the panties in the packaging process as has been noted.

This was about the only thing in the program that intrigued me, but when I take into consideration the other LIES that were reported, it seems that this may be just another one.

Has anyone like the BPD or Keenan's Bennett spoken out regarding this match? Where/why would Ollie Gray, St. Augustine, Smit, and Wood have this information and not the BPD?

 

Freespirit- Oh yes it could. Say the DNA is deposited on the panties and she touches or scratches the panties. it would now be under her nails. In addition, this DNA was highly degraded and minute in quantity -- hardly left under the nails as "defensive flesh" as some wacko reporter wanna be claimed.

The DNA could have also been under her nails first- say from a playmate -- and later deposited in her panties during toileting.

Jayelles- Everyone is afraid of getting sued. Woods has been known to call,manipulate and threaten prior to shows being aired. In addition, the networks such as MSNBC, dislike their competitor, FOX, so they are promoting this fraud because of the upcoming hearing on the motion to dismiss Monday. They also want to be Ramsey-friendly in order to get a coveted interview.

Tricia-

First of all, there is nothing in the autopsy about a shot to the head. It is possible whoever found Helgoth, (and I am not sure about that- anyone know?) said he was shot in the head when they called 911. This is common when people come upon a crime scene, especially of someone they know, they are upset and confused. There is nothing in the autopsy saying a shot to the head. In my opinion, this was only mentioned on 48 Hours to make the initial investigators/cops look bad.

When one commits suicide with a gun to the chest it is not uncommon to hold the piston with the grip against the palm and the thumb on the trigger.

That would produce the left to right trajectory as described in the autopsy which is not exactly how the "detective" described it on the show.

In addition, there would have been gunpowder residue testing done, (STANDARD PROCEDURE IN ANY POTENTIAL SUICIDE WITH A FIREARM) this would never appear in the autopsy report (of which I have a copy of and Jameson has posted exerpts of) - it would be in the police reports- which we are not privy too. Not once has anyone claimed there was NO gpr, the same person who gave the crime scene photos to Tracey and sold them to the NE probably would have had access to this information. I am surprised the fools at 48 Hours who are claiming they "have new information to solve the case" didn't even know to ask about this. Or maybe they did, and did not like the answer! I understand Helgoth's family does not believe he committed suicide,so in a way, they are furthering the homicide theory. However, 80% of suicide victim's families don't believe the victim committed suicide-- even when there are notes the families say they were forged. It's alot easier to be in denial and believe your loved one was murdered than took their own life.

I think Tracey and his pals seized upon this to further their bogus theories about Helgoth and his "accomplice." There really is no question that this was a suicide. 48 Hours was smart enough not to mention anything identifying about Tracey's "accomplice". This speaks volumes about how bogus Tracey's production was.

Sadly, noone will take on CBS publicly like they did with the Dan Rather fraud. Fox however, should be able to expose this for what it is during litigation, if it goes that far.

Another thing, I don't understand is this Peterson P.I. At one time, he gave a press conference and all but announced that the killer was Santa. He now has somewhat changed his tune for the sake of appearing on 48 Hours!

The 48 transcript is up now, and is here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

 

I said I would not watch this crap, I didn't watch this crap, and I will never watch crap like this.

That said, from what I understand, the DNA under her fingernails was so old and degraded, they were only able to bring up two or three markers. Even if those two or three markers matched two or three markers in the incomplete DNA sample they got from the underwear, that is so far from a match, it is unconscienable for them to say the DNA matched. But, isn't that what these fools all about? How many times have we witnessed how they lie and exaggerate and make totally unsubstantiated statements of fact?

I have learned so much about the press from the JBR case and how they try to manipulate the public. I have given a lot of thought as to other cases I've seen on 48 Hours and other like shows that helped me form opinions. Tracey ought to be run out of town on a rail, and those "investigators" (Ollie Gray for one) should be publically exposed for his role in this farce.

This isn't journalism - it's perpetrating a fraud on the American public. 48 Hours has prostitutited itself for the sake of ratings and $$$. No wonder they are called 48 Whores. They are a disgrace to true investigative journalism.

 

Here is the transcript from Peterson's press conference in 1999. The guy is obviously an idiot and a publicity seeker.

Press conference held outside the Regent Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills. Representatives from ABC, KABC, KCAL, KCBS, KNBC, FOX, KCOP, CNN, Extra and others attended -- 9-29-1999
R.W. "Pete" Peterson: ...for two years now and we want to announce some of our findings which are somewhat contrary to the official line of Boulder quote-unquote authorities. We think should get on the right track. We realize it's been a myopic investigation there--different approach--Grand Jury for a year and we think we know who did it. In the next couple of days we'll pass out some of our handwriting comparisons--compare them with the ransom note, and other findings. Some of the people we think they should retarget are -or at least have under the umbrella of suspicion-are one William Irwin McReynolds, and his wife, Doris Janet McReynolds. For those of you familiar with the case, you know that Bill McReynolds is Santa Claus at the Christmas party, just prior to JonBenét's murder. And we think they should be reinvestigated.
RPTR: They've been cleared.
Peterson: Well, who hasn't, besides the parents?
RPTR: Besides the parents.
Peterson: Right.
RPTR: But Santa's been cleared, privately, if not publicly. So why are you picking on this man?
Peterson: No, he hasn't been cleared.
RPTR: He is not considered a suspect. It's amazing I know your case better than you do.
Peterson: You do? What do you know about it? How do you know he's been cleared?
RPTR: Well, if you want to pay me what the Ramseys are paying you, I'll tell you.
Peterson: You think he's been cleared on the DNA evidence? You don't know that because I know the case better than you do.
RPTR: Really. Please, don't let me interrupt.
Peterson: Let's be civil.
RPTR: Why? Are you saying that he should be reinvestigated or that he did it?
Peterson: I'm saying with 99% certainty that he did. We have handwriting comparisons here.
RPTR: But the CBI excluded both McReynolds and his wife from being the authors of that ransom note. How do you--?
Peterson: And who have they included?
RPTR: They have excluded the McReynolds.
Peterson: No, they haven't.
RPTR: What evidence do you have that leads you to think--?
Peterson: I have handwriting samples from when he was a journalism professor. We'll make these public in the next couple days. You know, I think it's been--there are a lot of people who have invested in the parents having done it. I think this thing happened after the O.J. Simpson case, and I think a lot of people didn't like them, didn't like their lifestyle, didn't like the fact that they have attorneys. And they don't want to believe--we could start with the psychological block to believe that old Santa did it.
RPTR: Who are you working for? Who's paying you?
RPTR: Yeah, who's paying you?
Peterson: We started out working for a client in Boulder, a Dr. Steve Dubovsky, whose daughter was molested in their house, and there are a lot of parallels to this case. A lot of parallels overlapped to this case, and--misdirected routes in the process. But we think we're onto the right route.
RPTR: You're saying this same suspect could have been responsible for both?
Peterson: No, no. We excluded the first one, who was involved in our client's case. But in the process, through that process, we got into this case with the blessing of the client. And determined--we know what occurred.
RPTR: So this is now paid for by the family, by the Ramseys?
Peterson: No.
RPTR: By Hal Haddon. A cut-out.
Peterson: No. I'm just gonna ignore you. Hal Haddon is their attorney--
RPTR: Yeah.
Peterson: --and he's an attorney, OK?
RPTR: So who is your client?
Peterson: We have no client. We had a client when we got into this case. It was a psychiatrist in Boulder whose daughter was molested in their house, and there are a lot of parallels to the Ramsey case. This person got in the house, hid in the house, after the alarms were set--or before the alarms were set, three hours later attacked the daughter. We thought there were parallels to the Ramsey case, and that's how we got into it.
RPTR: Was the person wrapped in cellophane like Santa would have had to be?
RPTR: Did you call this today because you think the investigation needs to be reopened into the Santa Claus character? Is that why this is called today?
Peterson: No, I think--realistically, anybody that's followed this case realizes that quote-unquote authorities in Boulder--I mean, they're the laughingstock of the country. Let's face it. I mean, they have absolutely nothing, zero evidence of the parents. It's dragged on, everybody's frustrated. Everybody knows it's a stressful case, but I think they need to look in another direction.
RPTR: What other evidence do you have besides the handwriting?
Peterson: We have a lot that we're gonna disclose to them in about two days.
RPTR: Who's "them"?
RPTR: For example. Humor us.
Peterson: We have an entire background on these people, going back to their childhood.
RPTR: Which implicates them as what?
Peterson: Which fits all kinds of profiles. That's kind of circumstantial. We think the handwriting is not.
RPTR: Patsy took five handwriting samples and has not been eliminated as the writer of the note.
Peterson: She hasn't been included either. Yeah, she's cooperated fully. I mean--
RPTR: So was Santa wearing plastic wrap so he didn't deposit DNA? The man's got a beard down to his--here.
Peterson: What DNA is there? You don't know this case. I'm not gonna talk to--
RPTR: Explain why you're holding the press conference at this time, sir.
RPTR: It seems a bit fantastic.
Peterson: Well, if we were worried about timing we would have probably held it on the 19th, just before the Grand Jury is disbanded. We're not worried about timing. We're only doing this because of our suspects.
RPTR: Why in Los Angeles?
Peterson: Because we were here.
RPTR: Because you were here?
Peterson: Yeah, and I won't get in a lotta detail, but it has to do with our suspects.
RPTR: So your suspect is here in town?
Peterson: No, they're on the East Coast.
RPTR: But you just came to town today. So why here, why now?
RPTR: Why are you here and not in Denver?
Peterson: We happen to be here working, and there's a timing factor that I can't get into. A lotta detail that I won't disclose here but we'll be happy to give it to the quote-unquote powers that be in Boulder.
RPTR: Wasn't McReynolds recovering from open-heart surgery at the time of the murder?
Peterson: Spry as can be! He carried his bags on the plane, we all know that. Went to Spain a month later, after the murders.
RPTR: Aren't you afraid he'll sue you for making him a--?
Peterson: Sure! Only if I'm wrong.
RPTR: Well, you're wrong.
Peterson: Thank you.
RPTR: Is it just the handwriting? Is that the only piece of evidence?
Peterson: No, we have other evidence. We're happy to share it with Hunter and the other people there.
RPTR: Why won't you share it with us?
RPTR: When will that be?
Peterson: We'll disclose that in about two or three days.
RPTR: So the only reason you're here tonight is to point the finger at Mr. McReynolds?
Peterson: That's pretty accurate, right.
RPTR: Will you say that?
Peterson: Huh?
RPTR: Will you say that for us?
Peterson: No, I won't say that--
RPTR: So that's not why you're here? Tell us why you're here tonight.
Peterson: I won't go quite that far. You said--to get the investigation on track?
RPTR: And you believe you're the man to do that?
Peterson: That's right. I've worked on it for two years.
RPTR: Have you been paying for this yourself then?
Peterson: I could sit down and tell you chapter and verse. I know the ransom note by heart. I know everything about this case that you don't.
RPTR: How do you know?
Peterson: I'm insulted by your question.
RPTR: Has the psychiatrist client been paying you for two years?
Peterson: No, he paid us for about four months.
RPTR: Who was that person? Can you name him, the psychiatrist?
Peterson: Dr. Steve Dubovsky of Boulder.
RPTR: How do you spell that?
Peterson: D-u-b-o-v-s-k-y, probably...s-k-i, possibly.
RPTR: You'd think he'd know.
Peterson: (OFF MICROPHONE) ...home, yes. He was out of town. The wife was there and the wife kept on bringing the guy into the house. He went out, went off the balcony. There were a lotta similarities there. This was about three months after the Ramsey murder.
RPTR: But then you said that--Santa Claus was not someone who was--
Peterson: No.
RPTR: Well, what was the catalyst?
Peterson: Because we got into it after that case. Working in Boulder, you know, ground level, we came across it. We were excluding people, trying to include people.
RPTR: I happen to know that--I was in Denver for the last two years working--and I believe Mr. McReynolds' handwriting was taken, his sample was taken.
RPTR: And his DNA and hair samples.
Peterson: His handwriting, from the last three notes--I bet you folks don't have it. The lady questioned whether the McReynolds' handwriting was excluded. I'm here, putting the old reputation on the line. I've been an investigator for 25 years. I'll give you copies of Santa, OK? You think his handwriting has been included? It hasn't. (This part was garbled) I don't know who--handwriting is a voodoo science. Handwriting analysis is a voodoo science. There's nobody--trust me--that's totally certified in that. It's an art and not a science.

 

RPTR: Then how can you base your evidence on that?
Peterson: Well, look, I don't want to stand here and be argumentative. We're just here to tell....
RPTR: Lies.
Peterson: ....the world that Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, the parents, did not do it.
RPTR: How did you get the--
Peterson: I studied handwriting for about 22 years. I think this is the 26th [?] year. And the last year-and-a-half I've really devoted a lotta time to it.
RPTR: Is that your background, sir, handwriting analysis?
Peterson: No. I have an investigative agency for 25 years [sic].
RPTR: Have you had any discussion with the prosecutors in the case?
Peterson: We talked to them way back. We sent them some information. We talked to Lou Smit, who resigned in protest because he didn't believe the case was handled properly. He thought the parents were being targeted unfairly and that they weren't looking at anybody else. He was kind of on the same page. Other than that, except for the event of a--you know, vilify the parents in the press. I think they've been persecuted for two years, and I think it's time. They won't have anything out of this Grand Jury because they didn't do it. So maybe it's time to look at somebody else. Maybe they would sit down and look at handwriting comparisons that we have from the real world--not longhand--against the printed note. Now, all the movie quotes, and we know some other things in the printed ransom note that purportedly Patsy Ramsey sat down and wrote after she garroted her daughter and sexually abused her in the basement of their house, that tie to other people.
RPTR: How did you get this note? How were you able to--?
Peterson: The note is on the Internet, by the way.
RPTR: The other handwriting samples?
Peterson: This is a second generation copy. We got it from a person who's--back a year-and-a-half ago.
RPTR: Sorry, from who?
RPTR: Michael Tracey?
RPTR: Did you analyze this note yourself or--?
RPTR: Would you give us your name again?
Peterson: It's Robert Peterson.
RPTR: o-n.
Peterson: P-e-t-e-r-s-o-n.
RPTR: Did you analyze this note yourself, without any other handwriting experts?
Peterson: No, I took it to a couple of other experts.
RPTR: Who?
Peterson: There's no such thing as a handwriting expert, by the way.
RPTR: Well, then, so how--?
Peterson: We took it to two other experts and they both thought it was a match, although they had excluded McReynolds earlier because all they had was cursive writing and they didn't have printed writing.
RPTR: Who are your two experts?
RPTR: I'm not clear: If you don't believe--
Peterson: They're in Denver. I'll get them later. I'll ask them if they want to tell you.
RPTR: If you don't believe that handwriting experts have any validity, then how can you say McReynolds wrote the note?
Peterson: Well, I'm saying that it's not a science. It's an interpretative thing. If you have six different handwriting experts in a room, they'll give you different opinions at any given time.
RPTR: So how do we get to McReynolds?
Peterson: Well, I mean, they could ask the--they could ask the person for printed samples, he could copy the note.
RPTR: He has done that.
Peterson: I mean, he's gonna change his writing.
RPTR: Besides you, who are the other people you had analyze the writing?
Peterson: I'll have to get--he's in the Denver phone book. But I'll be happy to get that for you.
RPTR: What is his official--what does he do for a living?
Peterson: I can get that for you. He's a court qualified expert. He's about 60 years old. He did it for 25 years, something like that.
RPTR: What other evidence do you have besides --?
Peterson: We have four other pieces of evidence. We have something to do with their alibi. These two people were in a cabin in Boulder purportedly that night, and--
RPTR: Longmont.
Peterson: Not Longmont. That's where the mother lives. It was Rollinsville. He lived in a cabin in Rollinsville. You know the case, right?
RPTR: So Santa did it 'cause he lives in a cabin and not a fancy house?
RPTR: Do you work for Ellis Armistead?
Peterson: If you don't know the case, you shouldn't--get on the Internet and learn the case before you come to a press conference. We can't reinvent the wheel.
RPTR: How do you sleep at night?
Peterson: Did you ask Barry Scheck that question in the O.J. thing?
RPTR: You said four pieces of evidence. What were the others?
Peterson: Actually we had four or five.
RPTR: What are some of the others?
Peterson: Well, we're not going to disclose that here.
RPTR: When you say "we," what does that--?
Peterson: We have three people working on this case.
RPTR: Who are the other two?
Peterson: I don't want to answer that.
RPTR: Ellis Armistead is the real P.I. who couldn't come up with anything.
RPTR: Have you talked to the Boulder police at all?
Peterson: Yeah, we have. Probably eight months ago, probably eight.
RPTR: Did you make them aware then of the evidence that you had?
Peterson: To some extent, yeah. At that point it was a little formative. We talked to Lou Smit who was at that time resigning from the Boulder Police Department--from the D.A.'s office.
RPTR: Why go to the press instead of the authorities?
Peterson: Well, what are the authorities doing?
RPTR: So this is to what, put public pressure on them?
Peterson: Yeah.
RPTR: --Steve Dubrovsky family--?
Peterson: We paid for them, yeah.
RPTR: What's your motivation for it?
Peterson: Well, when I got into it, we were working for the doctor, at his house. Let me put it to you this way, at the risk of sounding maudlin, I have an eight-year-old daughter who was six years old at the time. She likes to play dress up. She also likes to dance and sing. And the idea of portraying JonBenét Ramsey as this lurid little, you know, sex object kind of goes against--kind of galled me at that point.
RPTR: More than bleaching her hair?
Peterson: Is bleaching her hair a bad thing?
RPTR: For a four-year-old? That's when it started, when she was four.
Peterson: JonBenét was evil, ma'am. What media of the outlet [sic] do you work for, by the way?
RPTR: If you're such a great investigator you should know that.
Peterson: Well, why don't you just tell us that? I've never seen a media person carry such a cheap recorder.
RPTR: That's right, I'm just an interested party.
Peterson: Then butt out.
RPTR: You said you would share this with Alex Hunter?
Peterson: That's right, in the next one or two days.
RPTR: Will you approach him?
Peterson: No, been there and done...We're working on another matter here, which is why we did this, and for other reasons I won't detail here we needed to get this out there at some point. It has to do with our suspects. It'll make perfect sense in probably three or four months.
RPTR: But the indictments are coming down next week. Is Patsy ready to be deloused and strip-searched?
Peterson: Patsy? You want to delouse her?
RPTR: Someone oughta.
Peterson: You're convinced of her guilt?
RPTR: Yeah.
Peterson: On what basis?
RPTR: Would you like to go have a drink and I'll set you straight?
Peterson: No, I don't want to do talk with you.
RPTR: Too bad. Then I'll just talk to the people who matter.
RPTR: How long have you been doing this?
Peterson: Twenty-five years.
RPTR: Are you licensed?
Peterson: Are you a licensed journalist? I'm not big on wackos.
RPTR: Authorities in Boulder must be aware that you suspect Santa.
Peterson: Oh yeah, we've been working on it a year-and-a-half now.
RPTR: Have you had any feedback?
Peterson: I think they're fixated on the--no.
RPTR: Are you going to go to Denver and help out at all?
Peterson: I live in Denver.
RPTR: Well, why are you here then?
Peterson: I'm working on a case.
RPTR: Do you think they'll do anything with it?
Peterson: I think they have to, I think they have to.
RPTR: So you will go in and present it to the D.A.?
Peterson: Sure.
RPTR: When?
Peterson: I'm not going to go in. They can come to me. We tried. Been there and done that. I mean, they're still totally fixated on the parents. There's just no evidence.
RPTR: Well, there's more evidence toward them than Mr. McReynolds, at this point.
Peterson: Are you Bill's wife or something?
RPTR: Her name is Janet. Don't you know that?
Peterson: You're the person who kept calling our office, harassing us today.
RPTR: Yes. How do you do?
RPTR: You know the general opinion is, if not them, who?
Peterson: Well, how do you come to that conclusion? I wouldn't--they lived in the same house, right? If you're a parent, you live in the same house. It's a cliché to say that, well, statistically the parents or the family is going to be involved. Do you look nowhere else? The house was a sieve. There were seven entrances that were unlocked on the ground level.
RPTR: Right.
RPTR: Not right.
Peterson: They were there on the third floor, they could hear nothing. So anybody who wants to has the free will to do anything they want to.
RPTR: Is it your understanding that Mr. McReynolds had a key to the house?
Peterson: I don't think he would have needed a key.
RPTR: There was a chimney.
Peterson: He toured the house the year before.
RPTR: Just to clarify though, his handwriting was examined in Denver, was it not?
Peterson: Well, I've got his handwriting here. I'll let you look at it.
RPTR: Can we see it, maybe shoot it?
RPTR: You think they're just targeting the parents?
RPTR: Four thousand people were questioned.
Peterson: Here's the note. Are you aware there's five movie quotes in the note?
RPTR: Yes.
Peterson: I'm not real organized. The professional aesthetic of murder doesn't--there's an article by Kate Durbin about the play--actually the book that Kate Millett wrote, "The Basement." An adaptation of a human sacrifice which is what Janet McReynolds based her subsequent play on, that was called "Hey Rube." And it's about the murder of a girl in a basement. Now for those of you who don't know the case, I suggest you get on the Internet and review it so we don't reinvent the wheel. OK, I'll show you some handwriting samples. I know the case. If you'd like to call me within the next couple days, call our office, I'll get back to you. But first get on the Internet, know what the autopsy says, know what the ransom note says, know about the movie quotes.
RPTR: What's Santa's motivation for doing this?
RPTR: What are we looking at?
Peterson: (SHOWING TYPED TEXT WITH SOME HANDWRITTEN NOTES) These are classroom corrections. This is from Journalism 1-0-whatever, critiquing movies, whatever.
RPTR: This is Mr. McReynolds' writing?
Peterson: Yeah.
RPTR: So this is his handwritten note over the typewritten--?
Peterson: Right.
RPTR: And the handwriting matches Mr. McReynolds, or Mrs. McReynolds?
Peterson: I'm gonna let someone else be the judge of that since we're so conflicted about whether there's experts or not.
RPTR: Do you have her's too? Do you have Mrs. McReynolds' also?
Peterson: Yeah, yeah. She didn't write it.
RPTR: That's a small sampling.
Peterson: Yeah, well, right.
RPTR: Do you have any more?
Peterson: Uh, yes. So what else can I answer for you?
RPTR: Is Ellis out of it now and you're taking over? John Ramsey promised a world-class--
Peterson: Does anybody else have a question?
RPTR: Robert, what is the one thing you want us to learn from what you're talking about this evening?
Peterson: Well, I think, first of all, if you're new to this case you don't understand, you don't know anything about it. You can't have an opinion.
RPTR: No, wait a minute. You called for this press conference. I'm asking you a question. What do you want us to report?
Peterson: I want you to pressure the Boulder police.
RPTR: Well, you should have had this in Colorado. (LAUGHTER) Your office hung up the phone on me today when I asked what was going to be reported. They weren't very polite, and I'm just asking you a question. What do you want us to report on today?
Peterson: They should be looking elsewhere.
RPTR: Where?
Peterson: I think I've laid it out.
RPTR: Mr. Peterson, so what you're saying is--there's really nothing new in what you're saying because he has been looked at.
RPTR: He's not a suspect.
Peterson: They've excluded his handwriting. That's a mistake. I don't think that's been done. I don't think there's been much forensic evidence gathered. The evidence they gathered that is available at the scene is so limited that they can't--it's almost noncomparable [sic]. They can't analyze it.
RPTR: And do you think you have enough evidence to make a strong case against Mr. McReynolds?
Peterson: I think so.
RPTR: You might help our skeptical attitude if you give us a little bit more. You're saying you have other information?
Peterson: Yeah, and I won't go into that now.
RPTR: Well, you can see that people are not buying it.
Peterson: Well, time will be the judge of that, OK? You tell me six months from now if the Ramseys aren't convicted and where this case had gone, OK? We'll let time be the judge.
RPTR: Without even charging them for murder the Aisenbergs may be facing a 30-year sentence for obstruction of justice and fraud. The parallels to the Ramsey case are significant. No comment, huh? Gee, I can't understand.
RPTR: What besides the handwriting?
Peterson: We know the alibi doesn't hold up. We know three or four other things that I won't detail.
RPTR: Can you say that again, about the alibi?
Peterson: The alibi does not hold up.
RPTR: That he was supposedly where?
Peterson: Up in their cabin in Rollinsville.
RPTR: Home asleep.
Peterson: They had a little cabin.
RPTR: It doesn't bother you that you could possibly be slandering this man?
Peterson: No.
RPTR: How can you be sure?
RPTR: Why doesn't the alibi hold up?
Peterson: Who's been slandering the Ramseys with impunity for the last two-and-a-half years?
RPTR: But that has nothing to do with this guy.
Peterson: Let's face it. These people went on Larry King, they went on Good Morning America [sic]. I'd say three different--
RPTR: In lieu of talking to the police.
Peterson: No, I'm talking about the McReynolds now. Try to follow along, OK? They went on three different national TV programs and made statements about--talked about what they knew about JonBenét. So they're public figures.
RPTR: Why doesn't their alibi hold up?
Peterson: Well, for one thing--I won't get into a lot of detail but they're a husband and wife who were apparently home alone in a little cabin up in the mountains.
RPTR: Mr. Peterson, I have to say your reputation has been questioned in Denver. Is that why you're holding this news conference here?
Peterson: Oh, I'm controversial. My competition will tell you that.
RPTR: But you've served jail time, haven't you?
Peterson: Jail time? No. Where are you coming from?
RPTR: I'm coming from Los Angeles. Where are you coming from? What about your arrest?
Peterson: Oh, I had a DUI once. That doesn't make me a bad person.
RPTR: Can you be reached the next couple of days?
Peterson: You have our office number. Apparently you guys found us.
800-366-5860. Go to www--and have a look at it--rwpeterson.com.
RPTR: Who is paying you?
RPTR: So what is your motivation?
RPTR: Somebody put a lump of coal in his Christmas stocking.
END OF TRANSCRIPT

 

I didn't watch the whole thing,

but I began watching because I just wanted to see what direction they would go in. From what I did watch there were 2 things that stand out in my mind. The first is about Helgoth. The guy Kenady mentioned that Helgoth would be receiving a large amt of money very soon from 2 sources I believe. $50,000 from both sources. Then in the crock it had a shot of the circled $118,000. The voice over then said, see this is almost the same amount of money. Now folks, I may be way off base here but coming up $8,000 short isn't close to almost in my book. If that same amount of money were owed, let's say, it sure as hell wouldn't be close at all. That is my first complaint and the second is the statement that the DNA from under JBR fingernails and from her panties matched.

Whoa there, I believe that to be a huge bombshell. Poor Dr.Henry Lee and his statement, "This not a DNA case." Nor do I believe for a second htat there is a match. You can't match on 2 or 3 points. It is my understanding that we all match on 2 or 3 or even more points. We all belong to the same species as opposed to dogs or baboons. Am I correct here?

OK I lied. Here is another thing that I am curious about. I believe it was mentioned at least twice and perhaps more than that about sexual predators being in and around the same neighborhood as the Ramseys. They even stated at least 48 of them. That was 8 years ago now and my question is this. Was the Megan's Law in effect 8 years ago? How could they know that there were that many predators around the neighborhoods...or have acess to that kind of info if it wasn't. Does anyone know?

The reason I gave up on the program was because I was sick of hearing all the garbage of ifs, possiblys, and almosts. They have nothing and are reaching for more of nothing. Garbage and I was too weary to finish the program.

 

Hi Mac! Long time no see. Hope all is well with you and your family.

I'm impressed how quickly Little, DejuNu and others responded with the info!!! I don't feel worthy to post....I've not contributed much but my opinion.

Actually I have to give 48 Hours some credit. They did show the DNA snippet about not putting all your eggs in one basket and told that none of the "suspects" dna matched. That was good.

I missed it darn!!! It's too busy this time of year. I'm surprised 48 hours reported that....the Rams have nothing but degraded DNA to connect an intruder. Explain the DNA and nothing is left but the family.

 

It seems this was investigated and there was nothing to link the two cases.

 

"They stated that the DNA found in her panties MATCHED the DNA found under her fingernails.This is the first that I've heard this."

This alleged "matching" of panty DNA to fingernail DNA has been a Lin Wood promotion since late 1999. In almost every article discussing the DNA, LW's comments are riddled throughout that there is a match when, according to official police commentary, the fingernail DNA was far too degraded to match anything as WY posted.

The problem with all of this is it is the same tired old claims of evidence by Gray, Smit and St. Augustin, with LW's incentive, for the last 4 years. They refuse to accept that all of their theories and all of their "evidence" has been tested and proven no match by the officials. They just keep spinning it all as if it were true, lace it with continual false statements of BPD incompetence and bias, and, for the sake of sensationalism and ratings, the networks keep running stories on it.

I did notice in the 48 Hours show last night that Moriarity kept referring to the Dance West victim as "little girl" to associate in the public's mind that she was as young as JonBenet thus creating the illusion of a serial situation. She did at one point mention that this victim was 12 almost under her breath, but the truth is, this victim was 14 at the time of her assault, far older than JonBenet. Not only was Moriarity deceptive and duplicitous in her remarks about this victim, but claimed that BPD has just brushed this aside as well using almost the exact same words as LW has been quoted with in all these old newspaper articles.

It's clear LW is behind this and again, is using this to bolster his arguments against the Fox motion to dismiss and the officials' motions to quash Fox's records subpoenas. Just as Haddon used the media to taint the GJ pool, so now LW is using the same tactic to also taint a civil jury pool.

 

DNA doesn't "match"

Of course the Ramsey goon squad can make false statements like this all day long because who's going to dispute it? Nobody is being libelled there and nobody has a vested interest in disputing these claims.

Bores me to tears.

 

Good catch, Little--

Moriarty saying the other dance student was 12. What a liar! Pedophiles do not go after 14-year-olds. Also their hushed tones of innuendo, Moriarty implied that men came and went at the dance studio, and lingered on a balcony watching the dance kids. Absurd! Are all the parents who stayed with their kids at lessons deaf, dumb, and blind? They wouldn't notice the dregs of Boulder society standing on a balcony observing their kids?

The production values of this program were very poor. The darkness of most shots; the spooky narration; the jerking camera. They should have made it a Halloween special: "Boogeymen of Boulder". BOO!

Peterson, Gray, and their cute little puppet San Augustin claim they have not been paid for all this P.I. work. Does anyone here know of a P.I. who works four years to solve a murder out of the Goodness Of His Heart? Puhleeeeeze!

 

THEY HAVEN'T BEEN PAID?!!!! LOLLOLLOL!!!!! Garsh, why praytell, have they been working the case then? Don't tell me--out of the kindness of their hearts!! LOL!! Whatthefrikever! The sheer audacity here is almost funny!

Hey Lurker--I didn''t see the show, but was it littered with Traceyesque phrases like "could it be that..." and "it's not outside the realm of possibility that..?" You know, the same phrases people use in Bigfoot documentaries?

 

What I saw there was a little more than "could be" this or that; it elevated from being "possible" to being "probable."

"Peterson: We're just here to tell ... the world that Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, the parents, did not do it."

 

"You know, the same phrases people use in Bigfoot documentaries?"

Geez, Bobc, your crystal ball's working overtime. This is Tracey's next documentary project! :laffbig: :laffbig: :laffbig: