News Flash...Ramsey's on CNN Wednesday on Larry King Live

Tonites LKL Transcript

KING: We welcome to LARRY KING LIVE, good to see them again, Antrim City, Michigan, John and Patsy Ramsey, the parents of JonBonet Ramsey who was found strangled in the basement of their home in Boulder, Colorado,

Seems hard to believe, December 26, 1996. The Ramsey's are joining us tonight from Stone Waters Inn in Bell Aire, Michigan, where John has kicked of his campaign for a Michigan House seat.

Why, John, why politics?

JOHN RAMSEY, PARENTS OF LATE JONBENET RAMSEY: When we lost JonBonet, our life changed. Certainly that changed a lot of what was important to us. We realized a lot of things we thought important weren't important. But any parent who's lost a child knows what I'm talking about. More, in addition to that, through the next four or five years, hundreds and hundreds of people reached out to us with compassion, caring, sympathy. People took time out of their lives to reach out to us. And what we realized, were these people fellow strugglers, they were dealing with difficult issues in life. It opened our eyes to a different world than we had really been sensitive to. I think those two events really gave me a compassion to try to help my fellow man. All of a sudden I realized selling computers wasn't that important. And -- as we tried to work through that issue, how do we do that?

This door opened, let's go through it and see if that's what we're supposed to be doing. As we look at it, it's a way we can serve our fellow citizens, make a difference here in northern Michigan and so far so good.

KING: Why Michigan, is that where you grew up?

J. RAMSEY: Well, I did. Most people think of me, don't know me otherwise as the guy from Colorado, but we actually only lived there four years. I moved to Michigan when I was 12, went to junior high school, high school, college here, went off to the navy, came back for a master's degree and than left to find my fortune. And that's frankly a problem we have in Michigan, we export a lot of our youth. That's one of our objectives is to see if we can help with the issues of jobs and job retention. That's not a unique problem toward Michigan but the rest of the country as well.

KING: Patsy, John mentioned the loss of a child, one can only mention how tragic that is. But you had a double thing going, not only did you lose a child, but you're accused by many as being the cause of the child's death.

Is this going to help coming through that?

PATSY RAMSEY, MOTHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: I think we've already coming through that. Naturally, we're still hopeful and have every hope that the killer will be caught. But we have to get on with our lives. Like John said yesterday, we will not let evil prevail. This family has a lot to live for. We have a lot to contribute. We have coming through some difficult times. And the people of northern Michigan have stood the test of time with us. They have been walking side by side with us for years. And we just love Charlevoix, and the whole northern Michigan area so much, so John is really committed to these people, to return some of the good that they've sent into our lives over the past seven years.

KING: In that matter what do you make of the story today, Patsy, the tabloids may be changing. They used to attack you all the time. Now, there's a big story in one, the killer was actually -- they found the killer and he committed suicide.

How do you react to that?

P. RAMSEY: I tell you, I really don't read the tabloids. I really, don't put a whole lot of faith in that. I really think they just sometimes write things to sell newspapers. But we have more important things to deal with than reading the tabloids everyday.

KING: You're not hopeful in that regard maybe the killer was found and maybe he has passed away, maybe this is a conclusion.

P. RAMSEY: You can say maybe, maybe, maybe this, maybe that. We know the DNA evidence is very strong. We have been told they've the killer's DNA and that the killer can be found and will be found. So, there's no reason to speculate until the time that the people in authority and the district attorney's office say that they have apprehended the murderer.

KING: Do you keep in touch with them John, on a regular basis?

J. RAMSEY: They update us periodically, which we're very grateful for. And we certainly tell them anything they need from us, we will comply with instantly. But not on a daily basis. You know, once very month or so.

KING: Patsy, how you doing?

Reports you had a serious illness. You have cancer. Get us up to date.

P. RAMSEY: I had a doctor's appointment today. A really great report. No change of the last CT scan. I do have a recurrence ovarian cancer. My CA-125, for those of you who know about the silent symptoms of ovarian cancer, the CA-125 was an 8, which is very, very good. And I feel so good I've been working everyday in my new business. I started a new business in Charlevoix, webbookusa.com. And I'm in there everyday working. It's a Web site directory online and in print that brings local focus to small to medium companies much like the ones that are here in northwest Michigan, specifically like the Stone Water Inn we're here in Belliare tonight. We discovered on webbookusa.com. So...

KING: Isn't ovarian cancer most of the times a killer?

P. RAMSEY: Well, cancer is not a death sentence any longer. Fortunately we have wonderful medications. Chemotherapy is a tough road to hoe, I have to tell you that. But it is -- I'm grateful we have it. I respond very well to chemotherapy. I have a genetic form of ovarian cancer and do respond very well. So, that and the power of prayer. I believe God is still in the healing business, and he has a lot left for me to do on this earth. I will leave it in his hands. KING: What's -- what's the prognosis as of today?

P. RAMSEY: Larry, I say to everybody that asks me what is my prognosis, I say, it's the same as yours. Everybody's going to live until they die. Nobody knows that until God decides when that is.

KING: We're all terminal.

P. RAMSEY: You're absolutely right.

KING: We're going to take a break. I'm going to ask John Ramsey about running in a race, how he thinks the race might play out, what people might say about him or opposed to that. We'll also see a sample of his commercial. We'll also include some of your phone calls with the Ramsey's.

Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J. RAMSEY: I've very excited to tell you, we have filed the paperwork today and we're off and running for the opportunity to serve the citizens in northern Michigan as your next representative in state legislature.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: By the way, just to get things up to date, the status of the murder investigation, a federal judge and new Boulder D.A. have said that the weight of the evidence now is more consistent with the intruder theory than any other theory.

John is running for public office. He's running for the statehouse in the state of Michigan. Here's a sample of that campaign. Let's look at a TV commercial. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J. RAMSEY: My name is John Ramsey. I'm running for state representative from Northern Michigan. My family has been in Michigan for nearly 50 years. But sadly, most of you know my name only from the tragic death of my daughter JonBenet. Were it not for our faith, the grief of that event and the veil of suspicion cast upon us would have destroyed our family.

The federal judge, the district attorney and new DNA evidence have confirmed that these accusations were groundless. But we were left to pick up the pieces.

This episode gave me a great sensitivity to the plight of so many other families, here in our community and across the country. People victimized by crime, people who lost their jobs, had their dignity stripped away, young already people disillusioned by government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: And of course, the supportramsey.com is that bullet point at the bottom of the commercial.

John, how do you think that will play? The death of your daughter, how's it going to play in this race?

J. RAMSEY: You know, we think that -- we hope that most people understand the facts of this case now, a lot of significant changes took place about a year or so ago. Certainly, there was an avalanche of accusation for a number of years.

What we found, we found this really for the last eight years, people treat us wonderfully, with compassion, with sympathy. People asked us long ago, what's it like to be out in public. It's wonderful to be in public, people are so kind.

So, we have never, with rare exception, felt anything but compassion from our fellow man. How that plays out in an election, I don't know. My task, I think, is to let people know what I would like to do, and how I think I can help. If they choose that for me, they can do that, great. So -- go ahead.

KING: Couldn't one have easily said, John, why not just go away? You go into the night, start a new life, your wife is ill, fighting through that, live a life out, why go back into the public eye.

J. RAMSEY: Well Larry, we have to keep swinging until they haul us away in box. That's one of my fundamental philosophies in life. We're not going to give up. We're not going to make the highlight of our day going to the post office. I think we've got more to contribute than that.

And I think the real question for us is how do we contribute and how do we make as significant contribution as we can make.

You know, I've really changed in from being focused on really personal success to how do I make a difference in the community that I live? It's not matter of what used to be important to me. I'm not interested in building a company again, or rebuilding assets or getting a bigger home. Life's gotten a lot more sober for me, but a lot more real. That's a gift that my daughter's gave me.

KING: Let's take a call for the Ramseys. Salt Lake City, Utah hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. Thanks for having me on.

KING: Sure.

CALLER: Mr. Ramsey, you talk about giving back to the community, in your book "Death Of Innocence," you talk extensively about the JonBenet Ramsey Foundation. That foundation was closed, virtually did nothing. Yet in the book, it still says the proceeds from the book sales are going to the JonBenet Ramsey foundation. I wonder if you can explain that. And also, could you please tell everybody that in the civil case, the judge was only presented what Lynn Wood, your civil attorney showed him -- showed her -- and without benefit of the actual police files. I will hang up and listen. Thank you so much.

J. RAMSEY: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the second part of that question. But regarding the foundation we set up for JonBenet in her honor, we did the same for our daughter, Beth, when she died in 1992. It's a compassion that just, I think, flowed out of us. We weren't sure what we were going to do with it, but we wanted to do something to honor her name.

With Beth, our plan was to get the family together once a year and make a decision of what we could do with what we had available to give and make that a family decision. Certainly we set that up with JonBenet. That was our plan as well.

We have done some of that, not to the extent that we hoped. Frankly, we had hoped we could recover substantial damages from a lot of the very slanderous and wrong stories put out there about us. We did recover some things, but most of those were on behalf of our son, Burke. And so we've not yet, I think, done justice to what we had intended in our hearts for that to be.

P. RAMSEY: This week, however, we did present $1,000 worth of scholarships to Mount McSauba Day Camp here in Charlevoix, Michigan, where JonBenet and Burke both attended day camp. JonBenet was the camper of the year one summer. And we were very happy that the foundation was able to provide some scholarship money for campers this year.

KING: How is Burke doing?

J. RAMSEY: Burke's doing great. He's a junior in high school here in our hometown in Charlevoix. He just got his driver's license a couple of weeks ago and has hit the road.

KING: Venice, California. Hello.

CALLER: Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, I just was wondering, do you worry that the voters might think you're exploiting the infamy you got from your daughter's death by running for office?

J. RAMSEY: Listen, we're not doing this for money, we're not doing it to be on television. We've had enough of that. Yes, we've been given a platform of sorts. People would not known us otherwise, had we not lost JonBenet.

The real challenge for us, how do we make that horrible evil work for good? What should we do with this unusual platform we didn't ask for it? We would rather not had it. We certainly would give anything to have our life back before this all happened in 1996.

But given that, how do we make something good come out of this? I think JonBenet would be proud of us. I know she's proud of us. I know she's watching us right now. And we're trying to make good come out of that horrible tragedy. And we'll do the best we can until we can't do it anymore.

KING: Patsy, you have the faith to know that -- therefore you believe you'll be reunited with your daughters?

P. RAMSEY: Oh, absolutely. We have a promise through Jesus Christ there will be life eternal. He said this life will not be easy. There will be tribulation and people will revile you and slander you, but he has overcome and that we live for that.

We have hope, like those who have no hope, that is the real tragedy. I know JonBenet believed in Jesus, and she is there with him and with other family members who have gone on before. And I know that we will join her one of these days, and that gives us hope.

But until that time, we've got a beautiful life to live, and a lot to live for and a lot to do on her behalf. She would have been a great contributor to this country. We don't want to let her down.

KING: Darien, Connecticut, hello.

CALLER: John Ramsey, Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey. John, I like what you said about contribute to society, very motivational, uplifting. Patsy, will you then go around speaking about ovarian cancer, as a platform, which would be fabulous?

P. RAMSEY: Well, I have, thank you. I have actually, through the National Speaker's Bureau, been give an lot of opportunities to speak with the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition and talked, quite a great deal, about the silent symptoms of ovarian cancer.

It's a very elusive type of cancer, very deadly. It's deadly only because it's difficult to diagnose in the early stages. In my case, I was stage 4 when it was diagnosed in 1993.

KING: We'll take a break and be back with more moments with John and Patsy Ramsey. We'll ask John, by the way, why he chose the state legislature as his first shot at office, why not city council. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: John Ramsey, why the state legislature? Why not local office?

J. RAMSEY: Well, first of all, I believe in watching for doors that are open and walk through them and see if that's where I'm supposed to be going. Certainly, there was a door open here. We knew of the seat that was open. A friend of ours was going to run for it and chose not to and encouraged me to do so. More importantly, I think that the part I've gotten passionate about is really based on my background, which was business. That's an issue here in northern Michigan. How do we get more jobs into the area? How do we prevent jobs from leaving the area? Those kinds of things, I believe, are best impacted at the state level. We are a society of states. I think that's where -- what I can bring to the table the best would be most effectively used. KING: Is the presidential election going to be close in Michigan?

J. RAMSEY: Well, we hope not. I think -- I'm a big fan of George Bush. I think he's the right man for the time. I know that the Michigan Republican party is working very hard to see that he stays where he's at and runs the show.

KING: LaGrange, Kentucky, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Patsy, this is Marlene Irley (ph).

P. RAMSEY: Marlene! Oh, my gosh, how are you?

CALLER: I'm fine. I just wanted to know if you were still taking treatment at NIH?

P. RAMSEY: I am. Marlene. I met Marlene and her husband, her dear sweet husband was taking treatment at NIH when I was. And unfortunately, she lost her husband to cancer. He was a wonderful man. I appreciate you calling. I had a great check-up at the doctor. I've had three recent treatments and I'm great. Thank you for your prayers. It's great to hear from you.

KING: Santa Barbara, California, hello.

CALLER: Mr. Ramsey, besides the creation of jobs, what will your other priorities be if you are elected to office?

J. RAMSEY: There's a lot of local issues I've learned about. The bigger issues are there as well, healthcare, it's an issue for all of us. How do we keep the cost of healthcare down? How do we lower it? I think there's some things we can do at the state level that can get us started in that direction. It's not an easy problem to solve, but something our country is way behind on fixing. That's an issue. School funding. There's nothing more important in this country than our children. Our schools here are great schools, by and large, but they're struggling with funding. And that can't be a second priority item for us.

KING: How much money are you going to have to raise, John?

J. RAMSEY: Well, what I've learned is campaigning is expensive. We're hoping to raise about $200,000 to complete this campaign through November. It shouldn't be that way. It shouldn't be that expensive. Unfortunately, it is.

KING: Patsy, are you going to be very active in this campaign?

P. RAMSEY: I hope to be. I hope to be. I'm his biggest cheerleader. I really do. Between that and the new business, it will keep me busy and getting Bert (ph) through high school.

KING: It's no easy task, asking people to vote for you, is it? Not an easy journey. J. RAMSEY: It's -- no, it isn't. It's hard to do that. It's easier when you can tell them what you believe in and then ask for their support. It's very hard to ask people for monetary support. That's something I've never had to do. It's tough.

KING: Thank you both very much.

J. RAMSEY: Part of the process.

KING: We'll be keeping tabs and watching out in November.

J. RAMSEY: Thank you.

KING: John and Patsy Ramsey, the parents of the late JonBenet Ramsey, coming to us from the Stonewater's Inn in Bell Aire, Michigan, where he enters the race for the state legislature. I'll be back to tell you about tomorrow night another interesting show coming up then. Right after these words.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Tomorrow night, more on Iraq and a visit with Dr. Phil. Our own Dr. Phil here at the network is Aaron Brown. If we have problems, we contact Aaron Brown. Oh, he's in Washington tonight. That ain't New York City behind you.

AARON BROWN, HOST, "NEWSNIGHT": No, it is not.

KING: Mr. Brown, the stage is yours. Carry on.

 

Yep. Anyone notice Patsy had moved her button to the "correct" side during the interview?


:hiya: RST

 

The Foundation was terminated in 2000. How in the heck could it have donated $1000 to JonBenet's old day camp this year if it doesn't exist?????

 

Fyi

Tricia's question was not on the European edition of the programme!

The Interview clip began with John Ramsey talking about how they had hoped to recover damages from the slanderous things that had been said about them. I see from the transcript that this is the last part of John's reply to Tricia's question, but it wasn't obvious that he WAS replying to a caller's question - just sounded as though he was making a statement.

Edited to add:- The programme synopsis in the UK stated that "The parents of JonBenet Ramsey, John and Patsy Ramsey will be appearing to discuss the death of their SON".

 

From the transcript above, John's reply regarding the Foundation:

J. RAMSEY: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the second part of that question. But regarding the foundation we set up for JonBenet in her honor, we did the same for our daughter, Beth, when she died in 1992. It's a compassion that just, I think, flowed out of us. We weren't sure what we were going to do with it, but we wanted to do something to honor her name.

Funny that his thoughts to 'honor' JonBenet (and Beth) had to do with MONEY coming into themselves. Honoring JonBenet might, at minimum, include a simple website in her 'honor'. They can muster a website for John's political aspirations to garner money for him, but for JonBenet?

 

How'd I know they were going to try to pin JBR's murder on a dead man? What's his real name, Helgoth? Or was it one of the others? This reeks of a Smit set up, he and his secretary at the swamp are the only ones who have been pursuing a dead man as perp for the past several years. One way to clear it up, I suppose, since they are so hell bent on the DNA belonging to the killer - exhume his body and do DNA testing. That would solve everything, not that the BPD didn't already investigate the chit out of him. Let's just disregard everything the BPD did, everyone knows the BPD and the FBI and the CBI all lied about everything, just because they wanted to get the parents. Let's just all believe Lou Smit's far out BS because he is so fair and impartial.

Now, what I want to know is, who's leaking like a sieve within Mary Keenan's crack investigation team? Who is filtering these little tidbits to the tabs? The tabs don't just dream this chit up - someone is passing them information, and it's coming directly from Keenan's dream team, if not Keenan herself. Isn't this what they crucified Steve Thomas for? Well, hell, what's a little hypocricy amongst friends? It's only wrong when someone else does it, apparently. These things are being deliberately leaked - a campaign to futher muddy the waters by writing the end of the JBR case book by blaming it on a dead man who cannot defend himself and therefore, there will never be a public trial. The covers will be slammed shut, CASE CLOSED written across it, and everyone who believes otherwise will be told to go to hell while the Ramseys go on yet another litigation rampage.

Read these words and remember who said them. Some day I am going to come back and say, hey, do you remember when I said - well, I told you so.

Unfreakingbelievable.

 

"We weren't sure what we were going to do with it, but we wanted to do something to honor her name. "

I think John needs to go back and read his own words in D.O.I.
He must have forgotten last night what he wrote.....

 

My experience in the Ramsey case leaves me with the conclusion
that most reporters, talk show host, et al, are the equivalent of
carnival shills. So, once again, it’s time to put things in
perspective by the facts. I get very tired of repeating myself,
but I can repeat the truth as long as they repeat the lies.

KING: By the way, just to get things up to date, the status of
the murder investigation, a federal judge and new Boulder D.A.
have said that the weight of the evidence now is more consistent
with the intruder theory than any other theory. (From transcript
of May 12, 2004 show.)

“up to date�

"I have carefully reviewed the Order of United States District
Court Judge Julie Carnes in the civil case of Wolf v. John Ramsey
and Patricia Ramsey. I agree with the Court's conclusion that
"the weight of the evidence is more consistent with a theory that
an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with a theory that Mrs.
Ramsey did so."

Although issued in the context of a civil case, the Court's
ruling is a thoughtful and well-reasoned decision based on the
evidence that was presented by the parties in that case. It
should be read in its entirety." (Press release by PIO, April 7,
2003 )

"Keenan declined to comment for this story, but when the lawsuit
was dismissed, she said she agreed with the judge's conclusion
and that her office is following new leads that support the
intruder theory. However, SHE SAID SHE WAS NOT INFLUENCED BY THE
JUDGE'S DECISION, WHICH WAS ONLY BASED ON PARTIAL EVIDENCE, AND
WOULD NOT EXCLUDE THE RAMSEYS FROM INVESTIGATION." (DailyCamera,
May 25, 2003) (Emph. added)

The last time I looked, “up to date†meant the LAST relevant
date. Also, the last time I looked, May 25, 2003, is AFTER April
7, 2003, therefore, is the actual “up to date†position declared
by Keenan. Of course, we all know that Mary Keenan is nothing
but a wooden Wood’s puppet; nevertheless, the claim of “up to
date†exclusion of the Ramseys by Keenan is a flat out lie.

Between April 7, 2003 and May 25, 2003, Keenan received a 39 page
letter of information and analysis. Is this what prompted her to
change her position, a change which seems to go unnoticed by the
RST, Larry King, and a host of others? In any event, I suggest
they go ask Keenan NOW before making more claims they can’t back
up. I repeat: Keenan KNOWS there is no evidence of an intruder,
hence, will not dare to confirm the claims made by King and the
Ramseys.


As for the ruling by Judge Carnes:

"In addition, the Court notes that defendants have provided'
compelling testimony from homicide detective Andrew Louis Smit,
who is widely regarded as an expert investigator, in support of
the intruder theory. (SMF 168; PSMF 168.)" (From ruling)

Obviously, the “evidence†of which Carnes speaks came out of the
mouth of Lou Smit. So, where and how did Lou get this “evidence?â€

Lou Smit: "You know, we have been here for three days now. We
have gone over a lot of things and I think I have gotten to know
you pretty good at this time, and you have probably gotten to
know us, and, you know there is a lot of people out there that
really do believe that you did this to your daughter, or that
your wife did this. And you know that you have said that you
didn't do that, and I am going to take you at your word. We know
you are a Christian, John, and would you swear to God that you
didn't do this?"

John Ramsey: "I swear to God that I didn't do it."
(From book, Police Files)

Sequence: John declares his innocence. Without consideration of
the actual evidence, Smit accepts the declaration of innocence of
a prime suspect. Smit then proceeds to invent “evidence†such as
a stun gun that leaves a blue mark on skin, a “sophisticated
garrote†which simultaneously is a loop put over the head, yet
tied around the neck. To these absurd contradiction is added the
infinity of the “unknown†as “evidence.â€

Bolsterd by the “expert†detective’s “discovery†of evidence,
lawsuits and threats of lawsuits not only tended to silence
critics, but sufficed for a de facto takeover of the Office Of
Boulder District Attorney. When DA, Keenan decided to CYA and not
exclude the Ramseys in a public announcement on May 25, 2003, the
shift was ignored and a lie to the contrary was and is presented
by the Ramseys, the RST, Larry King, and others.


J. RAMSEY: The federal judge, the district attorney and new DNA
evidence have confirmed that these accusations were groundless.
But we were left to pick up the pieces. (Ibid)

The Carnes decision and DA claims have been shown to be without
fact and force. As for the “new DNAâ€, just another evasive
“unknown as evidence.â€

Recently, on TV, a DNA forensic expert reached over and lightly
touched the reporter on the wrist and stated in so many words, “I
now have your DNA under my fingernails.†Given this easy transfer
of DNA, (degraded at that in the Ramsey case), to claim that
unknown DNA is “evidence†of an intruder is ludicrous to the max.
It’s almost as absurd as a stun gun leaving blue marks or
standing on a suitcase while carrying it out the window.

There are many other Ramsey-serving fallacies which have been
making the rounds from the outset. The “beaten and strangledâ€
claim is but one of many. A head trauma and cord TIED around the
neck does not automatically equate with “beaten and strangled.â€

KING: Couldn't one have easily said, John, why not just go away?
You go into the night, start a new life, your wife is ill,
fighting through that, live a life out, why go back into the
public eye. (ibid)

The question has been asked many times. A truthful answer remains
hidden. Since John Ramsey consistently maintains media bias and
being falsely accused, why does he continually courts media
attention?

The fact is the major media has never aired the truth, only
fallacies and misrepresentations which directly or indirectly
favor the Ramseys while they pretend the opposite to create the
illusion of victim. The recent appearance of LKL was more of the
same.

Why did John and Patsy Ramsey go on CNN six days after the death
of JonBenet? Was it to help find a missing child who had already
been “found†dead in their basement? Was it to provide some
information to help prevent child abduction and homicide?

None of the above. Read the transcript of the first CNN
interview. Read ALL of the transcript from the many public
appearances, including the latest. Read John’s entrance speech.
They all sound the same: The pretense of evidence of an intruder,
the posturing as victims with repeated announcement of all the
support they have received.

The psychology of the situation is not all that deep. Patsy’s
lifelong “need†for public approval is well chronicled. That
“need†has been magnified by the circumstance. With media
attention running low, and with lawsuits waning, the compulsion
to gain “public approval†did not dissipate in step. It is
“needed†for validation of self to offset the devaluation of self
tied to the death of JonBenet. Public approval sought is the
“guilt drive†behind the “political ambition.â€

Run, John, run. See John run. It will never be fast enough, nor
far enough. Self can’t be left behind. Bad news, John and Patsy:
there is not enough public approval in the world to make the
truth go away. It will be wih you for the rest of your life. In
your “quiet moments†with no public din to drown out the horrible
truth and consuming guilt, you know this already.

 

JustinCase, Easy Writer

Thank you, Justin, for the transcript.

E.W. thank you for your brilliant analysis of John Ramsey's many conflicting statements, and of the psychology of these two consummate narcissists.

 

Question

I was reading at the Swamp where Dr. Henry Lee has co-authored a book with Dr. Jerry Labriola, "Famous Crimes Revisited: From Sacco-Vanzeetti to O.J. Simpson."

According to Margoo:

This is the first I've heard of Lee "agreeing" that the marks are consistent with stun gun use. Has anyone read this book or know what's going on?

She further quotes another poster's idea of proof of insider theory because of Lee's following remark:

So on the one hand, we've got Lee allegedly stating the abrasions are consistent with stun gun use; and on the other, that the DNA is minute and contaminated.

Wondering if anyone's read the book or knows enough about it to remark.

 

I vaguely recall that there were comments made in the beginning of the case that the Boulder coroner did not use a fresh (or sterile) nail clipper for each new case much less for each hand and foot or each individual nail. I don't recall who was being quoted or where the quote came from and it could have just been gossip.


I have not read Lee's book. I was hoping to receive it for my birthday but didn't. I plan to order it in the next couple of weeks when things slow down a bit around here and I have a little time to read.

 

Ever since the Orenthal Killer Simpson trial, I've looked at Henry Lee differently than I did before then. IMO, he is one of the reasons, along with a bunch of idiots on the jury, the killer of two people went free.

Everything he writes or says now, I look at with skepticism because of how he skewed things in that trial. He is right on the DNA in the JBR case, though. It's not an issue no matter how they try to spin it.

 

You are very welcome Lurker- I just wanted Tricia to know he did hear her question and I think she should raise hell until he answers it, he totally blew her off because he had no response; I hope this is something the Michigan voters catch onto quickly, he skirted around EVERY question lastnight.

 

Ginja, to answer your question, the book gave a list of items which pointed towards an intruder and a list which pointed towards someone in the home.

It never did come out and say what exactly Dr. Lee believes or what is his theory of the case,although from the hints he has given during interviews, it's pretty obvious.

 

John Ramsey

IMO John Ramsey's failure to answer Tricia's question is just another example of his talent for cutting off a line of questioning which he does not like.

 

Lee's Book -- Update

It happens that I was reading at Purg and found the actual 'source' for Margoo's post...Cheekysodd!

I'll say one thing, the BORI are always yapping how BORG are misinformed and misrepresent...that's crapola, folks (as if you all didn't know!).

Lee did not say the abrasions were consistent with stun gun use. He said the abrasions resembled marks left by a stun gun, which is a whole 'nutha ball game, and I posted such.

Cheeky said Lee listed (I think it was) 8 reasons that pointed to intruder, and 7 reasons that pointed to an inside job. I found it interesting that neither Cheeky or Margoo itemized those points, only noting the one point of interest to them that pointed to an intruder, being the abrasions "resembled" stun gun marks.

I don't want to buy a whole book to see a couple of pages, so I'm hoping if anyone else has had the opportunity to read the book if they'd post Lee's 15 points.

Oh, there was one other very interesting tidbit. Evidently, Lee says there was a partial note matching the writing of the rn in the garbage can in the house, listing this as pointing to an inside job.

 

Strange that - isn't it? ;-)

 

Okay Ginja - here are the points: (from page 177 of his book):
A. Supporting an intruder theory:
1. A basement window has been broken and there were black scuff marks on the inside surface of the wall.
2. Dotted injury patterns on her body resembled patterns made by a stun gun.
3. A small amount of foreign DNA was found on her fingernails.
4. A small amount of foreign DNA was found on her underwear.
5. A ransom note was found in the house.
6. The Ramseys pased a polygraph (lie detector) test.
7. A metal baseball bat was found in hte yard. It contained fibers similar to the basement carpet fibers.
8. There were signs of sexual assault.
9. A shoe print was found on the floor of the wine cellar.

B. Support an insider theory:
1. The place where the body was found was clearly a secondary location within the primary scene.
2. The "wine cellar" in the basement is located in a back room. The layout of the house is such that only a person familiar with the house would be able to find that room.
3. The language used inthe ransom note is unlike that found in the typical ransom note of a kidnapper. The entire note contained disguised printing.
4. The ink and paper used for the ransom message originated from the Ramsey house.
5. A partial note containing similar printing was found in a garbage can in the house.
6. The amount of foreign DNA found on her fingernails and underpants was extremely minute and could have been the result of contamination.
7. Fibers found in various areas of the house showed similar origins.
8. The content of the 911 tape recording was inconsistent with the Ramseys' statements.

(excuse the typos!)

 

here's something that I highlighted in my book:

(pg 179):
...but my mind drifted to its initial stages three years ago when I was called in as chief forensic advisor by DA Alex Hunter.
Since that time, I'd met all the key players, examined evidence, took in most of the media coverage, and heard different theories about the tragedy. Yet, whether or not it was a murder or an accidental death with staging of the scene remains an open question in my mind. Maybe I should ask Sam. What might his opinion be, or is he just like the others - still debating the guilt of either the Ramsey parents or an intruder?

Lee only does 11 pages to JonBenet in his book - including 2 pages of pictures.

Ginja - if you would like to borrow my book - I have no problem in sending that to you. PM if you like - or if any one else would like to read it!!

:cool2:

 

This is one for the Michigan voter thread too

"The amount of foreign DNA found on her fingernails and underpants was extremely minute and could have been the result of contamination."
Dr. Lee
Well, well, well, is it not the current Ramsey insinuation that THIS SAME DNA is what's supposed to clear their names well enough for them to be deemed innocent by a majority of the public?