The Ramseys and Lin Wood are More Despicable Than Ever.

Ohgivemeafreakingbreak

Candy, get a grip. Even Linda Wood isn't stupid enough to come after individual forum posters. If anyone should be deposed, it should be Candy, who should first undergo a psychiatric evaluation. What's Linda going to do, supoena hats? Is he going to demand pseudonyms show up in his office for a deposition? Where is he going to send the summons? WY, somewhere USA? Good luck. We are entitled to our opinions. He is not our boss, and I don't answer to Limpwood.

I heard Patsy say Help me Jesus at the end of that tape. Nothing Wood does or says can change that. He could depose me until the cows come home, it won't change the fact that I know what I hear on that tape. There are other reasons no one would have to be deposed, but I won't go into them. Wood talks out his butt.

Candy definitely has some problems, jealousy not being the least of them. I can't believe she is so vindictive she would wish harm to any of us. Shows what kind of person she really is.

 

Just because we know how much he hates it....

Smooch!

 

Fox Complaint Response

Hi Scarpetta! Good to see you again!! When the WOODpile crashes and burns, your pic reveals that he can always make a career as a drag queen--hubba hubba....

First off, this suit was filed in the same federal court in GA as DH's suit. This is important because the judges in this court uphold one another's rulings. Judge Carnes' opinion clearly stating that the evidence more strongly indicates an intruder rather than Patsy Ramsey is Wood's MAIN piece of evidence.

"22. During the course of the murder investigation, evidence has been discovered and developed that links an intruder to the brutal murder of JonBenét Ramsey."

Yes, the burden of proof is on Wood to substantiate the above comment. As I stated above, his best piece of evidence to support this comment is Carnes' ruling, which will be before another judge in her same district. Politics is everything, friends!

"24. John Ramsey did not murder his daughter, JonBenét.
25. Patsy Ramsey did not murder her daughter, JonBenét.
26. Burke Ramsey did not murder his sister, JonBenét."

Prove it, Wood! Have you ever tried to prove a negative? It's virtually impossible, but it should be amusing to watch the "master" at work here….

"28. In the Ramsey segment, Ms. McKinley uttered the following false and defamatory statements of and concerning John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey:

Detectives say they had good reason to suspect the Ramseys."

A simple reading of ST's book will prove this statement is not false and defamatory but absolutely true! A simple reading of the police files will also support the verity of McKinley's statement here.

"The couple and JonBenét?s nine-year old brother, Burke, were the only known people in the house the night she was killed.."

A thorough reading of all police records, AND THE RAMSEYS' OWN TESTIMONY, will prove that this statement is not false and defamatory but absolutely true. The key here is the word "known." The ONLY people who could have had knowledge than someone else was in the house on Dec. 25-26 would have been the Ramseys themselves, and their constant testimony was that no one else was there but them. It will be interesting to watch Wood prove that anyone KNEW someone else was in that home.

"JonBenét had been strangled, bludgeoned and sexually assaulted, most likely from one of her mother?s paintbrushes."

The autopsy report substantiates this comment as truth, not falsity and defamation. The words "most likely" are pure conjecture, not opinion, and therefore not defamatory.

" The longest ransom note most experts have ever seen ? three pages ? was left behind."

What is false and defamatory about this comment? Even the Ramseys' own testimony corroborates it.

"Whomever killed her spent a long time in the family home."

This comment by McKinley is again pure conjecture and therefore NOT opinion and therefore NOT false and defamatory.

"Yet, there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to her brutal murder."

Here is the one comment made by McKinley upon which this suit is solely based.

"29. The gist of the statements uttered by Ms. McKinley in the Ramsey segment is that in all probability, one or more of the Ramseys murdered JonBenét.

30. The gist of the statements uttered by Ms. McKinley in the Ramsey segment is false and defamatory.

31. The statement uttered by Ms. McKinley that ?there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to brutal murder? is a false statement of fact and defamed the Ramsey family members known to be in the home the night of her murder, namely, John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey."

"Gist" is an interesting representation. It suggests an illusion, not a fact and therefore not defamatory. Here Wood is contradicting himself by making his own comment that the Ramseys were the only KNOWN persons in the home that night!

These statements by Wood are based upon his own conjecture and supported by the following:

"1. Male DNA found on JonBenét?s panties that is not the DNA of anyone in the Ramsey family and has not been sourced;"

This evidence has most recently been submitted to the FBI lab for DNA matching purposes. It is my understanding that previous evidence testing was not able to rule out any of the male Ramseys either.

"2. Male DNA found under JonBenét?s fingernails of both hands that is not the DNA of anyone in the Ramsey family and has not been sourced;"

It is my understanding that this DNA evidence was, by CBI's opinion, far too degraded to match or rule out anyone, including the Ramseys, therefore, "sourcing" it is impossible. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that this degraded DNA came to be under JB's fingernails during the commissions of the crimes and therefore, affixing any timing of this evidence is impossible as well. Wood's statements here create a "gist" based in twisting truth, not presenting fact.

"3. Two pairs of marks on JonBenét?s body which indicate that a stun gun was used to subject and torture her;"

There is substantial expert testimony to discredit these marks as actual stun gun marks and of course, the Ramseys refused permission to exhume the body for actual testing which could have provided more substantial findings than simply Smit's "gist."

"4. Evidence of an intruder found in the Ramseys? basement, including a broken open window with a suitcase and broken glass under it, and a window-well to this window with signs of recent disturbance;"

As discussed ad nauseum on the forums for the last 7 years, the timing of this "evidence of an intruder" cannot be affixed as having occurred during the commission of any crime. John Ramsey himself testified repeatedly that he broke that window himself many months prior to JB's death. The alleged "signs of disturbance" refers to the infamous spider web and that notion was defeated by entomology experts early into the investigation.

"5. Material from the window-well found in the room where JonBenét was discovered;"

If Wood is referring here to packing peanuts and leaves, again, there is no way to affix a timing on this "evidence" to coincide with the commission of any of the crimes. This material could well have come to be in that room many days/weeks prior when the house was full of people decorating it for Christmas. The Ramseys' own testimony confirmed that the Christmas decorations that were used for that purpose were stored in that very room! Good luck proving this one too, Wood!

"6. Male pubic or ancillary hair and numerous fibers found on JonBenét?s body, clothing and blanket which do not match anything in the Ramsey home and have not been sourced;"

If Wood is referring to the male pubic hair found on the white blanket, it is my understanding that it was sourced to JAR. The dark fibers that Carnes indicated were sourced as beaver hair apparently matched the beaver fur on a pair of Patsy Ramsey's boots that she wore that very night.

"7. Unidentified shoe prints in the basement and unidentified palm prints on the door to the room where JonBenét was found, which do not match those of anyone in the Ramsey home and have not been sourced;"

It is my understanding that the shoe prints were in actuality a partial Hi Tec boot print, and that Burke Ramsey testified to the GJ that he did own a pair of these boots. The palm print I understood to have been matched to Melissa Ramsey.

"8. JonBenét?s autopsy findings, which indicate that she was sexually assaulted, strangled, tortured and then bludgeoned at or near the point of death;"

Interesting how Wood articulates a specific sequencing to these heinous events. According to the autopsy report, even the coroner couldn't sequence these acts!

"9. Physical evidence of the manner and timing of her death which does not fit the theory of an accidental killing by a parent or sibling followed by staging;"

According to whom? Does Wood have an expert other than Smit who will testify that all of this doesn't fit any theory of accidental killing or staging? According to the Vidocq Society, who had the privilege of reviewing the RN as presented by John Douglas, found that the RN was not authentic. Is there any greater an expert opinion than that?

"10. The garrote and slipknots used to bind and kill JonBenét were sophisticated torture and bondage devices which no one in the Ramsey family had the knowledge to construct;"

Only according to Smit. Everyone else of sound mind agrees that these ligatures were NOT expertly fashioned by some career S&M bondage freak but were amateurishly made and applied for the purpose of control only.

"11. Materials used to assault and strangle JonBenét ? the stun gun, nylon cord and duct tape ? which necessarily existed but which were never owned by the Ramseys and were not found in their home;"

IF a stun gun had truly been used, John Ramsey's own testimony revealed that the Ramseys possessed official materials relevant to ownership of a stun gun. Credit card receipts from a nearby hardware store signed by Patsy Ramsey indicate that shortly before the murder, she had purchased at least very similar if not the same nylon cord as was used in the murder. A small piece of duct tape could easily have been around that home, perhaps on the back of a picture painted by Patsy Ramsey herself or securing a box of Christmas decorations, and therefore available for use as a mouth binding. Patsy's sweater fibers were found on that duct tape and, the duct tape was not used to silence the victim. It was placed on her mouth post-mortem, therefore highly suggestive of staging, according to forensic testing and the autopsy report. ABSENCE of evidence as a claim to substantiate an intruder is a ridiculous foundation for Wood's claims here. He's using a negative to prove a positive!

"12. A missing portion of the paintbrush handle which was used to construct the garrote and may have been used to sexually assault JonBenét;"

Again, Wood is using a negative to try to prove his positive. Fibrous material from JB's vaginal tract was consistent with the paintbrush. Such overwhelming positive evidence to substantiate a sexual assault with it speaks far louder than the absent piece does to support Wood's intruder theory.

"13. A three-page handwritten ransom note which law enforcement experts have not identified as being authored by any member of the Ramsey family;"

A great play on words! The LE experts' opinion was that handwriting analysis could not rule OUT Patsy Ramsey as the author…

"14. Missing pages from the pad on which the ransom note was written;"

Another negative to try to prove his positive. Missing pages does not indicate an intruder committed this crime. It would have been quite easy for any of the Ramseys to remove any incriminating evidence by way of Pam Paugh or especially prior to calling 911. John Ramsey also mysteriously disappeared for a sufficient amount of time after police arrived to have removed such evidence from the premises.

"15. The ?butler?s? door found open the morning of the murder, near which was found an unsourced baseball bat that had fibers on it consistent with those found in the basement
where JonBenét?s body was found; and"

According to John Ramsey's own testimony, upon his inspection numerous times of the home that morning, he found no open doors. According to police reports, no evidence of forced entry was found. Wood here is proclaiming his own client a liar. Had this baseball bat been used to smash in JB's skull, DNA evidence consistent with her own tissues would have been found on it. They weren't. Had the baseball bat been wiped clean, no "fibers consistent with those found in the basement where JonBenet's body was found" would likely have remained. All the baseball bat evidence proves is that the bat was at one time stored in the basement. There is no way to affix a time to when the baseball bat came to be near the door, much less that it was used in the commission of the crimes.

"16. Complete absence of evidence of motive or history indicating that John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey were capable of murdering JonBenét or staging an elaborate cover up of the crime."

If Wood is referring here to the head injury, negligent homicide does not require motive, it's an accident. If he is referring to the strangulation, the obvious staging wherein the strangulation occurred bears its own motive, i.e., the cover-up of the first fatal injury. If Wood is referring here to the sexual assault, such crimes bear an obvious motive that would also require staging to cover up.

"44. As a direct and proximate result of the false and defamatory statements broadcast by Fox News, millions of members of the public were led to believe that John Ramsey was criminally
involved in the murder of his daughter as a principal and/or co-conspirator and/or as an accessory.

45. As a direct and proximate result of the false and defamatory statements broadcast by Fox News, millions of members of the public were led to believe that Patsy Ramsey was criminally
involved in the murder of her daughter as a principal and/or coconspirator and/or as an accessory.

46. As a direct and proximate result of the false and defamatory statements broadcast by Fox News, millions of members of the public were led to believe that Burke Ramsey was criminally
involved in the murder of his sister as a principal and/or coconspirator and/or as an accessory.

47. As a direct and proximate result of the false and defamatory statements broadcast by Fox News, John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey have suffered public hatred, contempt and ridicule."

Wood would have a very hard time in proving that public hatred, contempt and ridicule for the Ramseys was a direct and proximate result of McKinley's statements. It would seem to me that the Ramseys' earned the public sentiment Wood describes here far earlier than ANY of the alleged defamatory comments made by any of the press, as early as 3 weeks after the murder of their daughter when, refusing to cooperate with an official police investigation, they instead began their obnoxious single purpose of exhonerating themselves with a CNN "interview."

According to Wood himself: "``I represent innocent clients,'' Wood said. ``There has been a history since December of 1996 of anonymous law enforcement officials in ! Boulder, Colorado, leaking information to the media, which, in most ca ses, turns out to be either false or grossly distorted."

It should be interesting to watch Wood prove in a court of law that any mental and emotional distress or ruination of the Ramseys' reputation was caused or magnified in any way by McKinley's reporting at such a late date in the story.

Wy, you are absolutely correct in labeling this another of LW's nuisance suits for more money. BUT…we all should hope and pray this one WILL see the light of a courtroom somewhere other than GA (a change of venue is absolutely appropriate since Wood's suit rests almost exclusively on Carnes' ruling of Smit's chit). I would LOVE to see this arrogant sob who has no trial experience whatsoever PROVE the crap he states as fact in this complaint in a jurisdiction, say Michigan, where he has no knowledge of civil trial law and no political strings to rely on. I would LOVE to see him suffer the burden of proof of all these "facts" that forum people alone have easily disproven over the years, to say nothing of deposing all the extremely well respected and accomplished experts who have rendered contrary opinions over the years. I would LOVE to see Lou Smit finally cross-examined by an accomplished attorney on the witness stand, whose stellar career opinions in this case are as vapid as his Christianity. And I would LOVE to see Wood's version of Darnay's fiasco in the Wolf case, cuz this is truly what THIS latest stunt against Fox is, folks. It's the LW version of "proving" the intruder theory and no matter how deific Wood considers himself, with what he's relying on here, there is NO WAY he could prove it anymore than Darnay succeeded in proving Patsy killed JonBenet in the Wolf case.

The evidence based on Smit's opinion is either weak or absent, i.e., easily disproven, a judge's opinion supporting that evidence isn't evidence but merely opinion, and a DA's opinion of a judge's opinion of such weak or absent evidence isn't evidence but merely more opinion. Go ahead, LW, show us just how accomplished you really are. Get ready, FFJ, you're about to see another superstar lawyer meet his Waterloo!

 

Two drops of blood??

What two DROPS of blood?

Dec. 26, 2003, 9:33PM

DNA from Ramsey slaying sent to FBI
Girl's parents pin hopes on sample
Associated Press
DENVER -- A sample of male DNA found on JonBenet Ramsey's underwear has been submitted to FBI investigators seven years after the 6-year-old was slain in her parents' home, the family attorney said Friday.

"The Ramseys have a lot of hope that the DNA will solve the case," their lawyer, L. Lin Wood, said from Atlanta, where John and Patsy Ramsey now live.

The DNA sample was taken from two drops of blood on the garment, which has been in storage with authorities since the investigation began into the child's murder.

snip

Earlier DNA tests on the blood indicated it was from a male who was not a family member.

At the time, the DNA sample wasn't of a high enough quality to compare against a national databank of DNA, the attorney said.

Within the last few months, the Boulder District Attorney's office was able to get a high quality sample of DNA from the garment to send to the FBI, Wood said.

Phone lines at the district attorney's office were continuously busy Friday and no one could be reached for comment.

The DNA will be compared with other samples in the FBI's databank to see if it matches men convicted of violent crimes or samples from other unsolved crimes, Wood said.

 

"Within the last few months, the Boulder District Attorney's office was able to get a high quality sample of DNA from the garment to send to the FBI, Wood said."

The BDA's office???? Not CBI, not some other lab??? God, I hope my worst fears aren't coming true that Keenan et al would plant evidence to nail an innocent homeless perp....

 

Great thread

WY, you wrote: <i>Wood is being allowed to give his one-sided, very lop-sided version, and if anyone dares question him, he threatens to depose him or her. What has happened to the detectives (aside from Steve Thomas, who was slammed because he wasn't a team player) who originally worked on this case? How can they stand to listen to his BS when they know what the real evidence was from the start. What about the police who saw the condition of the basement window well and knew there was no disturbance there? Where are they?</i>

The cops are all right there, being professional and waiting for their turn to dispute this info in the proper forum. Be thankful that there is such discretion among the people who matter. Wood's trickery only makes their resolve more profound and keeps them alerted to what Haddon will throw their way in the eventual criminal case.

If there's one thing we don't want now it's cops and insiders talking out of turn. Luckily those who had loose lips have now been nullified. And since the experts can't give the "other side's" view, it falls to us to do so. Which you, among others, are so experienced in doing.

DejaNu, your comments and/or this URL should be sent to McKinley at once so she can forward them to the FOX attorneys. You really hit some major points. Nice job.

Re: "8. JonBenét's autopsy findings, which indicate that she was sexually assaulted, strangled, tortured and then bludgeoned at or near the point of death;"

And you wrote <i>Interesting how Wood articulates a specific sequencing to these heinous events. According to the autopsy report, even the coroner couldn't sequence these acts!</i>

I think Wood's comments prove he has read and understands Dr. Cyril Wecht's opinion on the case. Unlike McKinley's erroneous sequencing, Wood's (and Wecht's) order can be proven to a medical certainty. And will be. Meyer didn't have to interpret the sequence in his report, but a full understanding of the nature of the death suggests a clear path of what happened and how.

Also, a minor point, but it was former FBI profiler Robert K. Ressler who presented the Ramsey ransom note evidence to the Vidocq Society. John Douglas doesn't dare show his face to that auspicious crowd. Too many police in the room and he might be arrested for fraud.

Speaking of Douglas, how interesting that on tonight's radio show he spent a full hour speaking about his John Robinson book, and never once mentioned his coauthor Stephen Singular. What an affront to do all the work on a book for practically no money, then be deprived of proper credit. Yet another reminder of the nest of snakes among Team Ramsey.

 

Terrifying

The old news rehashed for the holiday has mame getting all moist over at the swamp.

That can only mean that she thinks she smells Fleet's blood in those two tiny drops.

Buyer Beware when it comes to what she is selling but if she is ready to speak the truth we could always ask her if she ever received $ from JW to take care of any little problems that she picked up in the Windy City.

It Takes Two to Tango-
RR

 

ReNA submitted in Ramsey case
By Valerie Singleton
The Daily Times-Call

The more I looked at the above named article, the more disgusted
I became. During my nearly four years being involved in the case,
I have never seen a single newspaper article, nor a single tv
show that comes close to telling the truth. I doubt this will
ever happen. If I can't change it, at least I can call attention
to it and vent my rage at the cowardice, incompetence and just
plain dishonesty.

The above captioned article followed close on the heels of
litigious Lin Wood's filing a suit against Carol McKinley and Fox
News. To put this thing in perspective, let's take a brief but
definitive look at not only the current lawsuit, but those in the
past as well.

A couple of decades or so ago, I knew an attorney who filed a
lawsuit against the coach of a children's baseball team. The suit
was to compel the coach to provide more playing time for the son
of his client.

As pertains to lawsuit, I thought this was as dumb as dumb gets.
Lin Wood has proven me wrong. His recent suit against McKinley
and Fox News setting himself up as the de facto Defendant
required to prove evidence of an intruder tops the baseball suit
as the epitome of absurdity.

Granted, Lin Wood is not the sharpest knife in the drawer; still,
he is not so stupid as to take this absurd Complaint into Court.
He did not and does not intend to do this. We all know that he
has had several opportunities to take a case to court and "prove"
the libel\slander, but has declined to do so. This makes it very
clear the objective is money, not his clients' good name.

I and many others have publicly stated again and again there is
no evidence of an intruder. I put my declaration in writing and
sent it to Mary Keenan as well as many other persons. Yet,
neither I, nor any other "regular person" has been sued or
threatened by Wood. Why not?

Money target means deep pockets as a prerequisite. A company or
corporation is more likely to have the deep pockets that an
ordinary citizen. Aside from that, it is more "socially
acceptable" to sue a big, rich conglomerate that try to
financially ruin an ordinary citizen. In attacking an ordinary
citizen, public sentiment creates a strong adverse tide in the
jury room. Also, an ordinary citizen being sued for millions is
fighting for his\her financial life, not to mention said ordinary
citizen may have enough integrity so as not to sell out. This is
a whole different ball game than suing a big business who looks
at a settlement out of court as nothing more than the lesser of
operation cost.


[For a long time now, Mr. Wood has been flirting with the
potential of charged with filing a frivolous suit, followed by
suit for malicious prosecution, inclusive of violation of civil
rights by attempting to supress free speech; all of which could
possibly result in substantial personal cost as well as permanent
disbarment. I would like to see Fox News take him down this road.
It would really make my day.]

Anyone who knows the facts of the case knows that Wood's alleged
"FACTUAL BACKGROUND" set forth in the Complaint is a joke. I
won't bother to address the fallacies since I and others have
done so in the past and other posters have done so in the present
as well. Instead, let's take a look as some of the supporting
fallacies as expressed and implied in the Valerie Singleton's
article.

There was probably no chance that the case could be solved while
it was being handled by the Boulder Police Department,
Wood said, adding that the department did not try to submit the
male DNA sample while it held the reins of the
investigation."(From the article)

There can be no evidence of an intruder AND evidence of Ramsey
guilt. If the DNA will match the killer, so will all the other
evidence. I look forward to Mr. Wood "proving" the "intruder
evidence" listed in his Complaint against Fox News. As soon as
Mr. Wood succeeds in "proving" the "unknown as evidence", I shall
write a book entitled, The "Dynamic Physics Of Nothing."

The fact that (Boulder County District Attorney) Mary Keenan
took over the case with an aim toward conducting a fair and
objective investigation alone increases the chances of success.
(ibid)

Of course, this "objectivity" was assured by threat of a lawsuit.

My honest answer on this is I do not know if it’s solvable,
says Tom Bennett, the lead investigator on the Ramsey case for
the DA’s office. I’m only one guy. I’ve been here six months. I
have a lot of stuff I have to look through. (ibid)

Translation: "Gee, to think they're buying this BS. What a bunch
of media mental misfits. I signed on for the pay and publicity.
I'm not about to rock the Ramsey boat and lose this cushy job.
Anyone thinks I'm really trying to get at the truth is really
slow on the uptake."

"That stuff includes stacks of tens of thousands of documents
that date back as far as Dec. 26, 1996, when the girl’s beaten
and strangled body was found in the basement of her Boulder home.
Little JonBenet’s murder once permeated lives."(ibid)

Here we go again with that "beaten and strangled" stuff. The
image this creates is a far cry from the truth. A head trauma is
fact. Whether is was by JonBenet's head being "beaten" with an
object or whether it was by her head coming in contact with a
object not wielded is not factually established although all the
facts strongly indicate the latter to be the case.

As for the "strangled", there may have been some strangling while
the cord was TIED around her neck, but the idea of "garrote", or
strangulation by noose by pulling the ridiculous mummy wrapped
handle is absurd.

"In addition, retired Colorado Springs homicide investigator Lou
Smit works the case part time."(ibid)

Oh yes. His "expertise" shows he has the uncanny ability to foul
up a steel ball with a rubber hammer. For further comment on Mr.
Smit's "thinking", see my letters to Keenan.

"And while Keenan says the investigation is on the right track,
she and her office have tendered a no comment policy, avoiding
the leaks that some believe sullied the early stages of the
investigation. Our investigator, with 28 years of homicide
experience, is working on it full time, Keenan said. In terms
of our expectations, we are making progress. "(ibid)

Translation: "no comment" means that Bennett has accomplished
nothing so there is nothing to report; "progress by nothing" is
right in line with "evidence via the unknown."

"It’s a 15-foot walk from Keenan’s office to the quarters where
Bennett works in the Boulder County Justice Center.
But the daily grind of running the Boulder County District
Attorney’s Office doesn’t afford Keenan the opportunity to become
fully immersed in the time-consuming Ramsey investigation, she
said."(ibid)

Mary Keenan knows damn well there is no evidence of any intruder.
She is distancing herself from the "investigation" for this
reason. (Yes, I can make this statement with impunity in hopes
she will challenge it. She won't.)

"Keenan said her office has been frugal in funding the
investigation and has managed to stay within its allocated
budget. She could not offer specific numbers as to the amount of
money that has been filtered into the investigation.
We’re making due with what we have, Keenan said. We have not
asked for any extra money outside of our regular budget, so it’s
pretty much on a shoe string. I can't give you a dollar amount
because we don’t spend money on it; we spend time. Not a moment
of that time is wasted, she said." (ibid)

Keenan is flat out lying. She knows full well that over two
millions dollars has been spent, most of it chasing an imaginary
intruder. I personally reminded her of this more than once. The
fraud continues and the amount wasted grows every day. Money for
fraud and more money to keep the fraud going. Who in the hell
does she think she's kidding?

He’s very competent, very detailed, very experienced, and I've
been impressed by his work here at our office, Keenan
said.(ibid)

What work would that be? What has he accomplished? Oh, excuse me.
I forgot, "no comment." So far, the only thing Bennett has found
is his paycheck and a pat on the back by his partners in fraud.

"Bennett was the 1997 recipient of Arvada’s Medal of Valor for
his involvement in a hotel shootout with a man wanted in the
murder of his girlfriend. And in 2001, he received the Colorado
Association of Robbery Investigators’ Lifetime Achievement
Award."

This helps solve the Ramsey case how? Spare me the rosy resume.
We've been down this road before with Smit.

"This is the most difficult thing I’ve worked on in my life, he
said. Nothing compares to it. Nothing. Nothing comes close to
it. This is mind-boggling. "(ibid)

"mind-boggling"? What boggles the mind is how anyone can find
this case "mind-boggling." The basics of the case are so
elementary that there is not enough of a mystery to make a short
chapter in a Nancy Drew novel. Open invitation to Mr. Bennett:
Write me or give me a call. I promise to "unboggle" your mind in
30 minutes or less.

I challenge anyone who says to the contrary to publicly release
their ‘recording’ and the full report of any so-called ‘expert’
who claims to hear Burke and John on the tape, Wood said."(ibid)

I challenge Mr. Wood to explain why John confessed an earlier lie
and admitted to Burke's presence during the phone call UNLESS
John knew that Burke's voice on the tape was quite possible? If
John admitted the possibility that Burke's voice could have been
on the tape, why, Mr. Wood, are you so foolish as to take a
position of denial when your own client's testimony tends to
strongly support that which you deny?

"In April, Keenan took a controversial stance when she openly
defended a federal judge’s ruling supporting the theory that an
intruder not Patsy Ramsey was responsible for JonBenet’s
murder......Keenan, who issued a statement calling the ruling a
thoughtful and well-reasoned decision, would not comment on
what specifically provoked her to issue public support for the
ruling."(ibid)

When it come to convenient memory, the Ramseys, Wood and the
whole RST lead the league in the category. How many times have
you heard or read about Ms. Keenan's endorsement of the Carnes'
decision? How many times have you heard of read of her RETRACTION
of that endorsement?

On April 7, 2003 about Judge Carnes' decision, Keenan said:

"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."

First, it is obvious the Carnes decision was made on Lou Smit's
intruder theory. Second, it is just as obvious that Mr. Smit
intruder theory is nothing more than nonsensical fairy tale
prattle. Third, on May 25, 2003, (two days after she received my
letter) Keenan's unequivocal support of the Carnes's ruling was
withdrawn:

"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)

"Partial evidence"? Isn't this like a little bit dead or
partially pregnant? When she got some very clear and irrefutable
news that there is no evidence of an intruder, she thought it
best to back off and wait to see which way the political wind was
going to blow.

Keenan is nothing more than a pathetic RST lackey. I consider her
opinion as negligible. However, since Wood puts much stock in it
for "official support", let's set the record straight.

EasyWriter

 

EasyWriter

Could you elaborate on this please? This is not something I am aware of. I thought the closest the Ramseys came to this was when they conceded that Burke had been awake - but in his bed *pretending* to be asleep, but I haven't seen where either of them have placed Burke downstairs when the phone call was made.

 

Could you elaborate on this please? This is not something I am aware of. I thought the closest the Ramseys came to this was when they conceded that Burke had been awake - but in his bed *pretending* to be asleep, but I haven't seen where either of them have placed Burke downstairs when the phone call was made.

Hi, Jayelles,

The following is the source for my conclusions and comments. Although John varied his story from time to time, I don't think there is any doubt, Burke was present when the 911 call was made. Wood is one doing all the talking about the tape. I've never known John to say that Burke wasn't present and that's it's impossible than his voice could be on the tape.


Re: THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER, APRIL 3, 2001, RAMSEY INTERVIEW

>In an exclusive ENQUIRER interview, the nation's most infamous
>murder suspects say Burke was jolted awake by screams in their
>Boulder, Colo. home.

>"Burke knew something horrible had happened. He heard us
>screaming. He heard Patsy...a woman in terror," John confessed.
>"We thought he was asleep but he wasn't. Burke was awake.

>"Burke was frightened. He had tears in his eyes. He knew
>something very, very wrong was going on."

>When asked when Burke woke up, John said it was after Patsy
>discovered the ransom note shortly after 5:30 a.m. Then he
>quickly changed his answer to say Burke woke up after the 911
>call.

>But then John changed his story again, calling The ENQUIRER as
>we went to press to say that Burke was awake BEFORE the 911
>call. John told us: "Burke recalled his mother screaming,
>'Where's my baby?' and me saying, Calm down, calm down, we need
>to call the police.'"

 

"DejaNu, your comments and/or this URL should be sent to McKinley at once so she can forward them to the FOX attorneys. You really hit some major points. Nice job."

Thanks, Fed, but my post was just a summation of everything all of us have done over the years on this case to punch holes in Smit's theory and keep the truth alive, with a little common sense included. And you are absolutely right about John Douglas and Vidocq; from what I was told, that Vidocq luncheon presentation was his undoing. Feel free to share with McKinley if you think it will help, and wish her good luck from me!

"And while Keenan says the investigation is on the right track, she and her office have tendered a no comment policy, avoiding the leaks that some believe sullied the early stages of the investigation. Our investigator, with 28 years of homicide experience, is working on it full time, Keenan said. In terms
of our expectations, we are making progress. "(ibid)"

While I heartily agree with your translation of this statement, Easy Writer, here's another translation for consideration: No leaks, no lawsuits, screw the public's right to know. The best thing about the RST's case is that it is positively RIFE with impeachment comments by the Ramseys themselves. In their obsession to clear their reputations, they have diligently discredited everything their PR team has worked so hard to spin. Thanks, John and Patsy!

 

It's been a long time since I've posted anything. I felt compelled to interject here - I know that Wood slants everything in a weak attempt to make the Ramseys appear innocent, and I do believe that his intentions now are to bully anyone who voices an opinion other than Ramsey innocence; HOWEVER, one thing he said that concerns me that I have not heard anyone discuss is the fact (so called) that this supposed DNA is in TWO places - in JonBenet's panties AND under her fingernails AND that THE TWO SAMPLES MATCH ONE ANOTHER . IF this is true, a big IF, then it blows the theory of the DNA from the panties coming from a worker at the factory where they were packaged. And secondly, that the DNA under her fingernails could have been caused from contamination from nail clippers used on another corpse. Does it not?

 

Hi Freespirit, I like that hat! LW's only legal skill is to skew information soas to favor the Ramseys, at the same time ignoring their own impeaching testimony. Therefore, there is no certain way to verify that the information he has provided re the two DNA samples is accurate. IF any prior testing was done by CBI or elsewhere to ascertain that these two samples do indeed match, logically, it would exclude an Asian factory worker. I am not aware, however, that this is the case. As I posted previously, the DNA material under the fingernails was determined to be way too degraded to source and therefore forensically useless. This is the first I, like many others here, have heard that the DNA material on her panties is actually blood, and miniscule amounts at that. I would really like to know how the BDA was able to "finally" obtain sufficient quantities from miniscule drops to send off to the FBI lab for database matching.

You mention what is a pretty common defense strategy at trial in discrediting or impeaching DNA evidence, that of contamination by the police or coroner. It is unknown if BPD bagged JB's hands once the body had been relocated to rest under the Christmas tree. Considering the number of people who were allowed to tamper with the body, such a defense has some, albeit slim IMO, chance of succeeding. There is no testimony from anyone at the scene that morning that would lead us to believe that anyone appropriated JB's fingernails to contaminate any forensic evidence. It is also unknown what standard methodologies were employed by the coroner's office in collecting the fingernail material on autopsy and if those methodologies were properly employed during evidence collection.

It has always been accepted that the fingernail material decomposition knocked this DNA out of any credible forensic analysis and conclusion. As to the alleged miniscule blood DNA from the panties, and any subsequent "collection" of sufficient samples for sourcing, we will have to await further information, if any, from the FBI before any conclusions may be accurately drawn.

 

I understand exactly what you are saying. I appreciate your reply. But you know, I've never heard anyone refute this one about the matching DNA like we heard them refute the foot print or palm print. . . not the BPD, not Kane, not Thomas, no one to my limited knowledge. I realize that this certainly does not mean that it is fact. Maybe everyone is just keeping their mouths shut and staying at task?

On the other hand, think about it. If they REALLY had DNA that was good enough to identify an "intruder" this murder would already be solved. We all know that if the Ramseys are not responsible then it had to be someone close to the family. All of the people who have been thrown under the bus for the past seven years have all given their DNA, right? So, why hasn't anyone been arrested? If the DNA is real, why hasn't this been officially pinned on Bill McReynolds, or White, or any one of the other countless bus victims?

Because none of them are responsible for JonBenet's death, that's why.

Now. . . think about this. . . if this DNA is so valuable and is PROOF of an intruder. . . then ask yourself why haven't John and Patrica Ramsey been publicly cleared by the DA's office?

 

Another Option

"But you know, I've never heard anyone refute this one about the matching DNA like we heard them refute the foot print or palm print. . . not the BPD, not Kane, not Thomas, no one to my limited knowledge. I realize that this certainly does not mean that it is fact. Maybe everyone is just keeping their mouths shut and staying at task?"

There are only 3 viable possibilities regarding this DNA evidence to answer your question: (1) no alleged "match" testing has ever been done; (2) any alleged "match" test results have never been publicly revealed until now; (3) no refutations could be made about evidence that doesn't exist. According to CBI and previous FBI testing, the fingernail DNA was far too degraded to provide accurate test results in any matching or sourcing technique available.

Additionally, for years, many forum posters wanted to believe this panty DNA source was semen. Suddenly, we are let in on the little secret that it is supposedly blood, and that suddenly, after 7 years, BDA has somehow magically derived sufficient samples from miniscule drops of it to send off for matching/sourcing. And THE insider to reveal this incredible feat is none other than the Ramseys' junkyard dog attorney??? My bet is on the 3rd possibility....

As to your point that if such DNA evidence was sufficient to charge either or both of the Ramseys, they would have done so by now, I would have to take exception. There is very strong evidence by way of Patsy's sweater fibers all over the crime scene and John's sweater fibers found in JB's crotch area that more than suffice to file charges. If Jesus Christ came forward to offer firsthand eyewitness testimony, I doubt Keenan et al would consider even that sufficient. The plan to kill this case and let the Ramseys off the hook began before the body was even buried and has, thus far, succeeded in the goal no matter what evidence does or doesn't provide good legal foundation. On the other hand, IF there were any credible match between the fingernail and panty DNA to indicate someone other than a Ramsey was good for it, you bet your sweet bippy the WOODpile would be singing a different tune! But again, considering the fingernail DNA has been adjudged too degraded to match it with anything, I highly doubt this revelation by Wood bears any existence in reality.

 

A successful libel suit rests on four pillars:

1) That the Defendant made a statement purported as fact (not opinion)
2) That the statement was defamatory to the Plaintiff.
3) That the Defendant made the statement with malicious intent (intending to defame the Plaintiff rather than just "report the news" for example--or with knowledge that this purported fact would be in fact, defamatory).
4) That the Defendant KNEW the defamatory statement was false (i.e., was made with "reckless disregard for the truth").

If you can remove ANY of those four pillars, you have a successful libel defense. Darnay Hoffman screwed himself by trying to build Pillar #4 by proving Patsy Ramsey guilty of the murder (utter stupidity on his part, did I mention that yet?) Pretty much all Lin Wood had to do was show up on time to the depos and the hearings, and watch Hoffman self-destruct.

Interestingly, Wood's suit against Fox News is ambitious, to say the least. His pillar #4 will be difficult to build and he will have to be careful in going about building it, mainly to avoid a Hoffmanesque mistake. The allegedly libellous statement was "there is no evidence of an intruder", and for pillar #4, Woodie needs to establish beyond reasonable doubt not only that there was, but that Fox KNEW that there was.

I don't know for sure what the quality is of Fox News' legal staff, but I would imagine that it couldn't just be a gaggle of clowns given that the entire left-leaning spectrum of American politics has a seething hatred of Fox for reporting that isn't entirely friendly to a Michael Moore or Natalie Maines world-view.

My guess is that Fox will internally assess whether there could be any raw material with which Woodie could build Pillar #4, and if they find none internally, their guess should be that Woodie cannot externally, and thus they may offer a teeny tiny "insultingly low" settlement just to save time, or politely invite Mr. Tort Bandit to follow in Darnay's footsteps. I don't think they will make a counter-suit for frivolity in tort-banditry, because winning that would be dicey enough and time-consuming enough to perhaps not get a risk management thumbs-up from Rupert's bean-counters.

JMHO there.

 

"Interestingly, Wood's suit against Fox News is ambitious, to say the least. His pillar #4 will be difficult to build and he will have to be careful in going about building it, mainly to avoid a Hoffmanesque mistake. "

But Adrian, that Hoffmanesque mistake is what we are all hoping for!

" The allegedly libellous statement was "there is no evidence of an intruder", and for pillar #4, Woodie needs to establish beyond reasonable doubt not only that there was, but that Fox KNEW that there was."

You are so right, but actually, the evidence threshhold in a civil case is not reasonable doubt but preponderance of evidence, a much easier threshhold to cross. Nevertheless, Wood's only means of "proving" evidence of an intruder, and Fox's knowledge of such evidence, is the laundry list of "evidence" he provided in his complaint. See my previous post for a comprehensive response. Pillar #4 will be Sampson's undoing again IMO should Fox take this all the way.

" My guess is that Fox will internally assess whether there could be any raw material with which Woodie could build Pillar #4, and if they find none internally, their guess should be that Woodie cannot externally, and thus they may offer a teeny tiny "insultingly low" settlement just to save time, or politely invite Mr. Tort Bandit to follow in Darnay's footsteps."

I'm hoping that Fox's impressive legal team will take a balls-to-the-wall stance on this and force Mr. Tort Bandit at least through discovery. Put up or shut up has always been a good slogan.

" I don't think they will make a counter-suit for frivolity in tort-banditry, because winning that would be dicey enough and time-consuming enough to perhaps not get a risk management thumbs-up from Rupert's bean-counters."

A simple motion to dismiss on this basis could and should be argued, but NOT in the GA District Court! Let's hope they file for a change of venue first.

 

LOL, I know, I know. I don't think it's a realistic hope though. Wood may be evil beyond repair as a human being, unsuitable even for compost, but that still doesn't make him stupid. Even without Hoffmanesque mistakes, and even with solid hard-charging toward his goal of another Jaguar or another thoroughbred racehorse, Wood still stands a better than even chance of losing this thing if it goes to trial. I do think it's a realistic hope for Fox News to be aware of that.

True, and I misspoke about "reasonable doubt". A lot of this has to do with playing it to the judge, which Woodie thinks he has mastered ten ways from Sunday. Even though all he had to do to beat Darnay Hoffman was just SHOW UP, he still thinks that makes him a litigating genius. I do believe that if he steps "into the ring" against Fox News' legal team, it will be like a bulky, muscular, but very human body-builder, standing in front of a speeding train. Woodie's good, but he's not THAT good.

If Fox is getting their hypothetical money's worth, that will be part of the plan.

 

Dear Dejanu, you replied (thank you) to my post by saying:

"As to your point that if such DNA evidence was sufficient to charge either or both of the Ramseys, they would have done so by now, I would have to take exception.

That's not what I said, or what I intended, at least. My point was that IF there was indeed true evidence of an intruder (which I don't believe there is) then the DA should have come out and cleared the Ramseys by now. My point is that the Ramseys have not been cleared therefore I sincerely doubt that there is real evidence of an intruder.

In my opinion, (which doesn't count for much) Wood contradicts himself. He states there is evidence of an intruder, but the Ramseys still remain "under the umbrella of suspicion." It can't be both ways, and since I have not heard otherwise I assume they remain under that umbrella.

What I said about the evidence convicting someone was about the bus victims, NOT the Ramseys. I was referring to all of the people they have fingered over the past seven years as being the possible perpetrator... people like McReynolds, White, Wolf, etc. All of those people had to give DNA samples way back when. So, before this so-called evidence was put into CODIS, I'm sure it was matched up to these bus victims first, right? Is it safe to assume that?

Since none of these bus victims (people known to JonBenet and the Ramseys) have been arrested for matching the DNA sample then one has to now believe that the person who killed JonBenet was a complete stranger to the Ramseys. That's why it is now being put into the CODIS data bank.

Do you see where I'm going with this?