Long-rumored book by Paula Woodward shows up at Amazon.

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by cynic, Dec 16, 2013.

  1. questfortrue

    questfortrue Member

    Thank you for bringing this to attention. Unless the BPD had taken JR’s Bible with their warrants, as original evidence, any fingerprints on it became useless after PP’s raid. But your post did also remind me of a couple of other ideas I’ve evaluated.

    First this passage was in a Bible at JR’s desk. (There was also a computer as noted by Thomas who sat in the chair at that desk.) Thomas mentions the view of the Flatirons so this confirmed to me the desk was located on the 3rd floor in the master bedroom. One would assume, as a subsequent thought, it’d be also possible/probable that someone sat at that desk to compose a draft of the RN. At least to me the likelihood is strong.

    Second your post also reminded me of the very knowledgeable work of Foster whose integrity was attacked in the same way that the RST attacked FW, ‘Doc’ Miller, Thomas and others. The contrast between JR’s and PR's avowed faith and their behavior in enabling/encouraging such aggressive attacks really told me all I needed to know about the masks someone may wear. Without revealing his personal views on JR, Kane told AH once that JR would make a 'believable' impression if he’d ever been asked to take the stand.

    I was thinking about JR’s charm ability when I saw that PW’s book is out and wondered if it might echo the flavor of JR’s seeming candor in TOSOS. Yes, I know 'seeming candor' is an oxymoron.

    Well, it wasn’t too much of a surprise that Foster’s letter to Patsy is introduced as a piece of evidence on PW’s website introducing her book. (If anyone out there still believes that PW has let go of the Intruder theory, or is impartial, the answer is nope, apparently not.) PW has a website promoting her book here. There’s a section on her website titled evidence where she features Foster’s letter to Patsy. If one has the stomach for reading evidence from Ollie (through Smit, of course), Whitson, Carnes, and ML, PW’s evidence offers a taste of the direction of her book. On the Amazon.com site one can preview portions of her book in which there are some outright contradictions to the evidence contained in Kolar’s and Thomas’ books.

    KoldKase’s words from a few years ago are rattling around inside my head. . it is indeed a frightening thing to witness such delusion :hypno:. Jmho.
  2. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    According to Steve Thomas, that Bible was removed by Pam Paugh soon after the murder. If it hadn't been, the police would have been the ones to discover "SBTC" as soon as one of them turned the page to the beginning of Psalm 35, which I'm sure Steve Thomas, at least, would have done.

    Her book contains Ofc. French's first report. She makes much of the fact that his impressions about something being off in Patsy Ramsey's appearance and manner aren't in that report. It's a "just the facts, ma'am" document so I wouldn't expect them to be there, but French did make contemporaneous comments to fellow officers so I'm not sure what her point is.

    And then French wrote that the wine cellar door opened "inward" when it opened outward. Maybe he was speaking from the perspective of the hallway, given that he never entered the room. Maybe he just made a mistake. What he's talking about is obvious.

    To me it's most interesting that his report says that Patsy told him JonBenet went to bed wearing the red turtleneck.​
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016
  3. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Hi, questfortrue. Over on WS, my alter-ego, SuperDave, posted my thoughts on having read the amazon.com preview. It made me so sick I wanted to throw up. I'm still upset. I didn't sleep well last night. Not only has she not read Thomas' book, if her index is anything to go by, she hasn't read Kolar's either. Kolar is only briefly mentioned twice. She also accused Mark Beckner's AMA of being inaccurate

    This level of delusion is not just frightening (after all, someone might believe this garbage), it's disheartening, frustrating, galling, and I would even say dangerous.
  4. questfortrue

    questfortrue Member

    An Interview with Ann Rule

    Thanks, Punisher. You always express your sentiments so well, and I think there are a lot of us who feel the same. Actually, I kinda expected to see something like this book near the 20th anniversary. Right now she (and JR) are probably congratulating themselves about the book, basking in the light of what they believe is a high peak of accomplishment – disputing all the true evidence of the police detectives and contradicting the R responses in interviews. In spite of this, I’m a believer in Tricia’s slogan that the truth eventually emerges and remains.

    You may find an interview I came across in the last few months interesting. Many people here are acquainted with Ann Rule, the queen of authors of True Crime. She has significantly more national cachet than PW as far as her instincts on crime and her work as a crime author. Most people are familiar with her book The Stranger Beside Me about Ted Bundy. It took her a long time to see what Bundy was and what he had done. Anyway, Rule spent some time in Boulder and, like all of us, pondered the Ramsey case. She did have her own theory about it, but believed cases like this are never proven in court because of their notoriety. Also, because of this notoriety, she did not want to write about the R case. I mention Rule not because of her specific theory but because after evaluating the crime, she also believed there was no intruder. From a CNN interview –

    Question: Ann...You will NEVER stop getting asked about the RAMSEY case, because people want to know! And so they ask the best. One more time. What are your thoughts, and did you see/hear anything while in Boulder that changed your way of thinking?
    Ann Rule: I think JonBenet was killed by her parents. I suspect the father was molesting her and she threatened to tell. I think her mother helped cover it up. Very sad.
    Question: I still get a chill when I recall him (Bundy) walking you to your car at night, to see you were safe!!
    Ann Rule: I get a chill too. But I was safe with Ted. For one, he knew me. For another, I wasn't his type.
    Question: The sad thing is that so many crimes like these never reach the courts.
    Ann Rule: That's true. There IS such a thing as a perfect murder. Lots of them.
    Question: If a person goes berzerk, like J MacDonald...I fail to understand why they do not show remorse...these types of murders seem so spontaneous, why the claim of innocence?
    Ann Rule: People without conscience have no remorse. Of all the things I've had to accept in my career, that is still the most difficult!
  5. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    Thanks for the Ann Rule post, qft. I always admired her.

    The fact that some people have no remorse or conscience doesn't bother me as much as reading that some people still push the Intruder theory, especially if pushed by a dead child's family member.
  6. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Well, qft, it all comes back to a common problem in this case. Paula Woodward's book is all about that old saw, "how could such lovely people do such a thing?" You said it yourself: "Without revealing his personal views on JR, Kane told AH once that JR would make a 'believable' impression if he’d ever been asked to take the stand."

    It just seems to me that the Ramseys "take" people in so easily. It's fairly well-known that I was taken in at the beginning. To this day, I feel great sympathy for Patsy. I don't doubt she loved JonBenet at all. But it's not evidence.
  7. questfortrue

    questfortrue Member

    I had writer's block.

    Just cue in some Wagnerian music. Or Credence Clearwater Bad Moon Rising! Credit to otg for inspiration:
    "And then I was reading on another forum, and I saw it... Like a greasy-haired apparition rising from the murky waters of the swamp -- it appeared!"

    Well, sorry to disappoint, but no, it’s just another year and just another day. Sue Bennett, the self-appointed colonel of the IDI has relaunched her double B website and is now leading a charge on ******** to raise money for a reinvestigation of the case. She claims the funds may pay for ads to bring in leads; perhaps will pay for testing more evidence. (Is the BPD allowing citizens to test evidence? Wowzer!)

    Folks reviewing this latest gambit noted she originally made a claim of “family” under her name, leading some to wonder if she was part of the R family after all. (The notation of “family” has since been changed to “community.”) And there in striking glory in all caps was the full name of JR JOHN RAMSEY contributing $1000 towards her ******** campaign. (That contribution has since been altered to “anonymous”, for whatever reasons - IDK.)

    And as it proves out, otg’s reference to Sherlock Holmes fits so well.
    “Come Watson, come! The game is afoot! Not a word! Into your clothes and come!”
    As we know the word “game” has two meanings – “quarry” (IDI?) as well as “competitive play”, a “diversion” or “distraction” for amusement.

    Yep, another day, another diversion for IDI proponents and a glorified distraction from reality. Yawn. . .

  8. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    I think that jameson is planning on DNA testing some "good suspects" she has identified (presumably by collecting discarded cigarettes or cups) and comparing their DNA to GSLDPD99178617 (a.k.a., I think, UM1's 13-marker profile in the Bode report, sometimes referred to as the panty "sneeze" DNA).

    Her recent under-the-table receipt of a report containing the profile GSLDPD99178617 is apparently what prompted this. I figure "GSLDPD" must stand for "Greg S. Laberge, Denver police department."

    Since the profile for the Bode report's UM1 comes from the Denver police department and jameson tells us that her "newly discovered" profile is already in CODIS, GSLDPD99178617 and UM1 are almost certainly the same profile. (Though from what Kolar said in Foreign Faction, I thought that only 10 markers had been developed.) For some reason, jameson refuses to confirm or deny that they are the same.

    Jameson was excited because she thought that all the important DNA in the case was now suspected to be mixtures of at least two non-JonBenet individuals--and GSLDPD99178617 isn't, as attested by Bode (and Laberge presumably). But I'm not sure that anybody had reason to think that about UM1. I've only seen an off-hand comment by some experts. I believe they were only looking at the Bode report which gives no indication that UM1 could be such a mixture.​
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
  9. questfortrue

    questfortrue Member

    Thanks for the clarification on Bennett/Jameson’s path of obfuscation. I think you’re spot-on as far as the DNA Bennett references. It sounds simply like more of the same gobbledygook from her in order to cast doubt upon the findings. Unknown Male 1= GSLDPD99178617.

    Some of the following has been stated before, but just to provide a refresher for new readers -

    FACT 1: The DNA from the second spot of blood in the underwear was uploaded into CODIS in 2003. The DNA sample was enhanced in the Denver lab by Gregg LaBerge, respected in his field.

    FACT 2: What was sent to CODIS** was 9.5 markers, barely 10 markers which was the minimum criteria at that point in time for uploading into this database.

    FACT 3: When the Unknown Male 1 (the DNA from the underwear) was analyzed by experts quoted in the Daily Camera their disbelief in its relevance was palpable.

    To recap some Daily Camera excerpts:
    The DNA profile referred to as Unknown Male 1 — first identified during testing on the panties — may not be the DNA of a single person at all, but, rather, a composite of genetic material from multiple individuals. As a result, it may be worthless as evidence.

    Christopher McKee, a former public defender in both Atlanta and Washington, D.C., and now director of the Schaden Experiential Learning & Public Service Programs at the University of Colorado Law School, concurred. "My own personal review of the material and looking at the allele information at the various loci is that it looks and appears to me to be at least three individuals," McKee said. McKee also teaches an advanced course on Forensic Science in the Courts at the CU Law School, teaches on the subject around the country and has been recognized by courts and nationally as an expert on the topic.

    Phillip Danielson, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Denver and science adviser to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, elaborated, "There are too many alleles to be accounted for by only JonBenet and this alleged Unknown Male No. 1 profile." (An allele is a specific genetic marker.)

    In 2008 a tweet from the R’s attorney stated: Boulder DA publicly exonerated them and apologized. DNA evidence conclusive. End of story," Wood tweeted. "This is a DNA case plain and simple."

    That contention is flatly refuted by the independent experts consulted by the Camera and 9NEWS. Danielson’s response: "No, it is not," Danielson said. "It's clearly not. We have a questioned profile that is very low level in terms of the amount of DNA. The quantity of DNA is very small, the profile is extremely complex. The one thing this case is not, it is not a 'DNA case pure and simple.'"

    **The FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database was established in 1994. In June 1998, the FBI announced the establishment of a set of 13 core STR loci for use in the National DNA Index System (NDIS). The set of core loci required for participation in NDIS is as follows: D3S1358, vWA, FGA, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D5S818, D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, TH01, TPOX, and CSF1PO. As of January 2017, CODIS requires a set of 20 core STR loci, with seven more loci added to the 13 listed above. These loci are: D1S1656, D2S441, D2S1338, D10S1248, D19S433 and D22S1045. From the book Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case (Kindle Locations 5764-5768).
  10. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    But what are McKee and Danielson looking at? Page 1 of the June 20, 2008 Bode report says:

    "Table One also contains an 'unknown male 1' profile deduced by the Denver PD and submitted to Bode by the Boulder Country District Attorney's Office December 3, 2007 via a PowerPoint slide and June 19, 2008 via a Specimen Detail Report."

    Table One, page 3, provides the following profile:

    "unknown male 1"

    D8S1179 = 13, 14
    D21S11 = 29, 31.2
    D7S820 = 12
    CSF1PO = 12
    D3S1358 = 15, 16
    TH01 = 7, 9
    D13S317 = 11, 13
    D16S539 = 11
    D2S1338 = not tested
    D19S433 = not tested
    vWA = 18,19
    TPOX = 8
    D18S51 = 11, 16
    Amel. = X, Y
    D5S818 = 10,12
    FGA = 22,26

    Notice that there are no more than two alleles per locus, the perfect number for those of us who are the products of mom and dad. McKee and Danielson aren't talking about Table One (which also contains JonBenet's profile, not reproduced here).

    On page 4 of that report, the results of the long john testing are displayed. At some loci of the interior top left half of the long johns, there are 5 alleles reported so that particular sample must have at least three contributors. I suspect that this chart, displaying the results for four areas on the long johns, is what McKee and Danielson are looking at.

    If the Bode report is all we're talking about, the Daily Camera synopsis appears to be unintentionally misleading.​
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice