Posted on 08/30/2006 4:39:05 AM PDT by libstripper
Two days into the JonBenet Ramsey/John Karr media deluge, a mid-fortyish male in line next to me at a food shop groaned at the day's newspaper headlines. "Now," muttered this stranger--though he wore a baseball cap with bill turned backward, which suggested a few things about him one could know right off--"now we're not going to hear about anything but this damned story for the next six weeks."
I sympathized, forbearing to tell him that it would have plenty of competition, what with the networks set to embark on round-the-clock wallowing in the Katrina anniversary.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
The writer states in line #8, "You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account." The kidnapper may know the Ramseys are wealthy, but how does the writer know they have $118,000 in their account. Most kidnappers would simply state "get the money." They don't care where you get it from just get it. 8. You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account.
I had read that John was very controlling of the money and gave Patsy an allowance and that she didn't know much about his income. It makes sense that he might have an account of his own. Now I am not sure that Patsy had anything to do with killing JonBenet but IMO she knows/knew who did and could have been covering up for them.
LOL! Spin, spin, spin....... It isn't like they hired some carny sideshow. These tests were administered by highly-credentialed and credible people. It isn't a matter of "getting away with" anything, because the tests aren't admissible in court. But given the clear pattern by Boulder Police of refusing to look at anyone else, I wouldn't advise them to take a polygraph from the Boulder Police either, if I were their lawyer.
I don't know who killed JonBenet - the only one I exclude is her brother.
What I resent how unfairly DA Mary Lacy has been treated in the media. I applaud her for bringing back the perverted John Mark Karr. At the least now everyone knows his face and knows to keep children away from him.
Just compare Lacy to Nifong. One of the Duke players has a far better alibi than Karr (actually a perfect one), his DNA does not match any associated with the accuser, he does not fit the physical description given by the accuser, and he has denied the charges. Yet instead of dropping the case, Nifong is going ahead.
You're right- the polygraph is not admissible in court. It is however, a valid investigative tool. To that end the Ramseys and their attorney blocked investigation by those charged with that responsibility.
Explain how the basement window, that the "intruder" supposedly entered the house by, had flaking paint and flaking wood all around the perimeter that was untouched. How could an "intruder" slide through the window without disturbing any loose paint flakes? It doesn't make any sense.
The only prints found on any of the windows were Patsy's.
You are doing a fine job of setting the record straight. There is so much wrong information about this case floating around on the net. It never ceases to amaze me how much info has been twisted around, and how many people believe it, without doing any research on the case.
The fact that the Ramsey's hired their own polygraph experts. But would have nothing to do with the FBI polygraph people. This is just one little part of a whole list of things. Added up, they don't look good for the Ramseys.
The spin on this case has just been unbelievable.
You'd think (and hope) not. But, there was a case here in San Diego County this week where an 11 year old girl beat her 6 year old stepsister to death.
Well that should settle it, Larry always gets at the truth.
I have never heard anything about flaking paint and wood.
Can you explain the suitcase and the smudge on the wall underneath the window? And the broken glass?
Steve Thomas, the idiot investigator, claims that the guy who was with John when they found the body put the suitcase there and just doesn't remember doing it.
"To that end the Ramseys and their attorney blocked investigation by those charged with that responsibility." Hogwash! Was the investigation "blocked" when investigators refused to even look at the results of polygraph tests conducted by Gelb who is "considered by many to be the nation's foremost expert" and Baxter,"the founder of the CIA's polygraph unit who was referred to Wednesday as the father of the modern polygraph testing techniques."
"he fact that the Ramsey's hired their own polygraph experts. But would have nothing to do with the FBI polygraph people." Ricahrd Jewell, accused Olympic bomber, did the same thing. I suppose that means he's guilty, too. Oh wait, the FBI jumped to the wrong conclusion in that case, didn't they?
by George W. Maschke 16 June 2003
Why would one of the most prominent polygraph operators in America falsely pass himself off as a Ph.D.? Edward I. Gelb of Los Angeles isn't saying.
Since 1969, after completing training at the Backster School of Lie Detection in San Diego, Gelb claims to have conducted in excess of 30,000 polygraph examinations. Along with attorney F. Lee Bailey, Gelb appeared on a nationally syndicated television program called "Lie Detector." Gelb has been interviewed about polygraph matters on such national television programs as "Entertainment Tonight," "Geraldo Rivera Live," "CNN Newstand," and CNN's "Larry King Live" show. His high profile clients include O.J. Simpson and John and Patsy Ramsey (parents of JonBenet Ramsey, whose murder remains unsolved). Gelb is a past president, executive director, and chairman of the board of the American Polygraph Association and in 1998 earned the association's Leonarde Keeler Award "for long and distinguished service to the polygraph profession."
Gelb has publicly claimed to hold a Ph.D. degree in psychology since at least 1996. In 1997, he represented himself as a Ph.D. to the highest court in the land -- the United States Supreme Court -- as a co-signer of the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists' amicus brief in U.S. v. Scheffer, where he is listed as "Ed Gelb, Ph.D."
But compelling evidence pieced together by discussants on the AntiPolygraph.org message board indicates that Gelb never earned a doctoral degree from any accredited university. The comprehensive Dissertation Abstracts database (the definitive worldwide collection of doctoral dissertations including over 1.6 million records dating back to 1861) includes no doctoral dissertation by an Edward Gelb.
Gelb did not return phone phone calls and e-mail seeking clarification regarding his educational background. However, AntiPolygraph.org has obtained a copy of Gelb's resume (80 kb PDF) that was included in court documents filed in a civil suit in 2002. Writing about himself in the third person, here is what Gelb says about his educational background: "Dr. Gelb was educated at the University of Southern California, LaSalle University and U.C.L.A.. He has been awarded a bachelor's degree in political science, a master's degree in psychology and a doctorate in psychology."
Gelb doesn't state where or when he earned which degree. Perhaps Gelb would like us to infer that he listed the universities in the same order that he listed his degrees and that he earned a bachelor's degree at USC, a master's degree at LaSalle, and a doctorate at UCLA. But this is certainly not the case. If Gelb had earned his Ph.D. at UCLA (or USC), his dissertation would surely be included in the Dissertation Abstracts database. That leaves LaSalle University. There is a legitimate institution of higher learning called LaSalle University in Philadelphia, but it awarded its first Ph.D. degree of any kind in 2002, years after Gelb began putting the letters "Ph.D." after his name. Ed Gelb didn't earn a doctoral degree there.
No, the "LaSalle University" that awarded Gelb his "doctorate" turns out to be a defunct, unaccredited diploma mill in Mandeville, Louisiana that was owned and operated by one Thomas James Kirk, A.K.A. Thomas McPherson. In 1996, LaSalle was raided by the FBI, and in 1997 Kirk pled guilty to federal fraud charges. (For more on the bogus LaSalle University, see "The swim 'doctor': Credentials of nutrition adviser to U.S. women's team questioned," by Danny Robbins and Margaret Jamison, Houston Chronicle, 7 September 2000 and "Chiropractors with False credentials and diplomas" on ChiroWatch.com.)
Ho-ho-ho...........so much for the Ramsey polygraph........
Oh my gosh!
That proves the Ramseys are guilty!
sarc/
Nope, that proves when you hire a fraud you get what you pay for. Fraudulent results.
LOL! So the fact that they conclude he got his PhD from a mill means he can't conduct a polygraph test? Are you telling us he was considered an expert in the field based solely on his PhD? And the expert from the CIA is a fraud, too?
My question IF it was a Ramsey family member how did they all holdit together this long? Mom and dad stayed together-the boy is in college-no mental breakdowns by any of them that we know about. If you killed your daughter or sister wouldn't there be a break at some time? Just asking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.