JonBenet

Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal ^ | August 30, 2006 | DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

[soccermom]

Thanks for setting the record straight. That is part of the problem. People say things in error and then that misinformation gets passed around as fact. Things spread like wild fire on the internet. Next thing you know, you have the Rameys looking like the calloused people who called their lawyer before even addressing their daughter. How many times does stuff like this happen? I recall people in this forum (long ago) suggesting that John Ramsey molested his daughter. These hurtful rumors make it impossible for the Ramseys to get a fair shake. And it isn't just the Ramseys. I remember when Elizabeth Smart disappeared, there was someone in this forum pointing to the dad, based on nothing more than the fact that the daughters shared a double bed --- as if that was evidence of sexual abuse.

As for moving her body, I would have done the same thing. It is an instinctive reaction. You see your beautiful baby lying dead in a basement! The first thing I would have done was scoop my baby into my arms. It may not have been the smartest thing to do in terms of an investigation, but what parent would be thinking about that at the moment?

[soccermom]

If the killer is someone who knew the family --- an employee or associate of John's, a relative of someone who worked in the house -- they could have easily been privy to the Ramsey's plans for day. The intruder didn't have to know "exactly" how long the Ramesys would be gone -- he only had to know they were going out for a party and it is reasonable to assume they are going to be gone for at least an hour.

[soccermom]

"You mean Jerry Toriello, the one before these polygraphers whose results they announced to the world? " No I mean Cleve Baxter, "the founder of the CIA's polygraph unit who was referred to Wednesday as the father of the modern polygraph testing techniques.". Incidentally Toriello referred the Ramseys to the Gelb.

[soccermom]

"Good grief, it's not something you broadcast or even talk about." No, it isn't -- but a jealous employee could make it his business to know. How many times have you seen news reports lately talking about eeeeevvvvvill CEOs from oil companies etc. that get "obscene" bonuses while the "little people" suffer. I don't presume to know anything about the company Ramsey worked for. But, for all I know, his bonus could have been a matter of public record --- especially if it pertained to shareholders.

[soccermom]

The Boulder police sought the the input of Denver pathologist Mike Doberson about the stun gun. They claim he discounted the possibility. He says that is not the case:

"MIKE DOBERSEN - That's right - and that was something of a mistatement since my real conclusion was that I couldn't, at that time, say whether this was a stun gun injury or not because we had to have a weapon to compare it to.
NARRATOR - When Smit showed him the Air Tazer stun gun, Doberson took a different position.
MIKE DOBERSEN - Lou had found a weapon with characteristics which fit as exactly as you could expect, the injuries on JonBenét's body.
NARRATOR - Since then, Mike Dobersen has conducted experiments on anaesthetized pigs. The Tazer stun gun exactly replicated the injuries on JonBenét and the distance, 3.5 centimeters, between those injuries.
MIKE DOBERSEN - My experiments, and the observations that we made and all the work that's been done, I feel that I can testify to a reasonably degree of medical certainty that these are stun gun injuries."

If the Boulder police are conducting an impartial investigation, why did they mischaraterize what Dobersen told them? Mind you, this is someone whose expertise they sought. So why are they disregarding it? Because that it doesn't fit into their neat little theory that the Ramseys did it?

[soccermom]

"Wecht is a prominent pathologist whose book was based on the autopsy results." And autopsy results are never wrong? How many times have you heard about bodies being exhumed because the ME missed something? Doberson is considered the leading pathologist in Colorado. His advice was sought by the Boulder police and his findings were contrary to what the autopsy stated about the marks on her body.

[Rte66]

It was his pilot he called within minutes, telling him to gas up the plane because they were leaving for Atlanta.

It was a whole 2-3 hours before he talked with his attorney, that we know of.

[Rte66]

That's a ridiculous thing to say. I wasn't one of the people in their home that night. Why would you drag me into this? Just another someone to throw under the bus?

[Rte66]

You said a whole lot of things in error, too. And you don't know that what you're insisting isn't true really isn't. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

[Rte66]

You said they had "plenty of time" to do all kinds of things. That is only known in hindsight. In reality, no intruder would hang around a house that long.

[Rte66]

*After* a series of practice polygraphs which were inconclusive. They were shopping.

[Rte66]

It wasn't.

[Protagoras]

That's a ridiculous thing to say. I wasn't one of the people in their home that night. Why would you drag me into this? Just another someone to throw under the bus?

I was pointing out the absurdity of the speculation by those engaged in bloodsport for amusement.

There is certainly no proof that you were in the house, but then again, your DNA hasn't been tested yet to compare to the DNA that was left by someone other than the people in the family who have already been tested.

There is the same amount of proof against you as anyone else,,,,NONE.

[Rte66]

He also said that no one could tell what the marks were from photos. That is still true. However, abrasions are not burns, and that is what the medical examiner *saw* on her body.

[Rte66]

And he and Lou got all kinds of accolades for a previous finding of a stun gun injury in another case, where it hadn't been suspected. All of a sudden they saw stun gun marks everywhere.

[Rte66]

Sorry, but there is a ton of evidence, all of it against people who had a reason to be in the house that night. That's the major problem with unattended deaths in the home.

[Protagoras]

I didn't talk about evidence, I talked about proof. And evidence isn't "against" anyone, it is just evidence. If you get enough of it, and it is the right kind, it can add up to proof.

Who does the DNA under her fingernails belong to? Or in her panties?

[daylate-dollarshort]

Psssshaww........... First Dr. Dobersen was hired by the Ramsey's, not the Boulder police department. Dobersen worked with Lou Smit as is evident in your selected quote. Further, subsequent to your quote, made after it was ascertained that he did not see the so-called stun gun injury in real time but had only seen photographs, Dobersen stated:

"There's some danger in making a decision based on photographs without having talked to the people who did the autopsy and who saw the injuries"

Chief Beckner, Boulder PD, didn't mischaracterize anything. He said that he was already familiar with Smit's theory that a stun gun was used on JonBenet.

"I can say, we have evidence to the contrary." He also said he was disturbed that Smit decided to talk about evidence in the unsolved case. "He's willing to go out and talk about his theory, but in so doing, he ignores a lot of other evidence,"

This stun gun theory is not accepted by most forensic scientists. Cyril Wecht, when asked whether he agreed with Dobersen and Smit's assertions that a stun gun was used, Dr. Wecht responded: "No I do not. Let me tell you that quite consistent with what Mr. Robinson has just stated regarding various other pieces of evidence, the stun gun theory has been around for some time. I know for a fact that this was submitted to various experts in stun guns and manufacturers, criminalists, forensic pathologists, law enforcement people, they all rejected it. I also know for a fact that Mr. Smit, pursuant to his own request, presented this to one of the top-flight forensic scientists, who along with another top-flight forensic scientist of a different sub-specialty, rejected it.

Even the stun gun manufacturers reject this theory. Hmmmmmmmmmm.....................

[daylate-dollarshort]

"Who does the DNA under her fingernails belong to? Or in her panties?"

You forgot-- is the DNA referred to, evidence relevant to the murder at all?

[Protagoras]

Good thinking, the chance of her having fresh skin and blood scrapings with DNA of someone outside the household and more fresh DNA inside her panties is probably unrelated to the crime.

Now that I understand that, I think I'll go apply for a job on the Boulder PD.