Steve Thomas's co-author speaks out, ...

Steve Thomas's co-author speaks out, re: JonBenet Ramsey grand jury

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
candy

East Lansing, MI

#1 Jan 28, 2013
Steve Thomas's co-author, Don Davis of the never more relevant than right now MUST READ AND KNOW book on this case:JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation speaks out about the Grand Jury revelations and Alex Hunter's refusal to prosecute THE INDICTED John and Patsy Ramsey:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22697...
candy

East Lansing, MI

#2 Jan 28, 2013
The last trial Alex Hunter tried before the Ramsey case was in 1986, which he lost. He never tried another case and retired in 2000. Steve Thomas's entire book is about how ill equipted, outmaneuvered Alex Hunter's DA's office was for the entire time Steve was working on the case, 1996-1998.

This subject links to a thread about Alex's record as DA: http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

#3 Jan 28, 2013
candy wrote:
Steve Thomas's co-author, Don Davis of the never more relevant than right now MUST READ AND KNOW book on this case:JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation speaks out about the Grand Jury revelations and Alex Hunter's refusal to prosecute THE INDICTED John and Patsy Ramsey:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22697...
The above articles should be VERY embarrassing for Mary Lacy and the IDIs. Obviously, the GJ viewed the evidences, and realized where the guilt was with their votes, and they had a better view than all of the people who were not involved in the case.

I doubt that Hunter or Lacy will ever comment on the articles.
CC
candy

East Lansing, MI

#4 Jan 28, 2013
Compare and contrast Alex Hunter's record, a LONG one of 28 years as DA, to the current AMAZING AND WONDERFUL District Attorney Stan Garnett. In just a little over four years in office, his office has tried over 175 felony jury trials, and has one of the highest conviction rates in the State of Colorado. He brought in a ace Prosecutor who had wokrd in the Manhattan District Attorney's office, Ryan Brackley, who is already the top cold case lawyer in the State of Colorado, training other prosecutors how to try these cases. Stan has indicted numerous AND WON NUMEROUS cold cases, indicted cases both Lacy and Hunter refused to prosecute like the 30 year old Sid Wells/Thayne Smika case. He has "the vision thing" as President Bush called it in spades. He saw as early as when he was elected in 2009, that marijuana was eventually going to be legalized in that state, and quit prosecuting the small time user, in favor of major felonies, MAJOR drug dealers (that office was involved in a big cocaine bust last week), using the resources of the office more wisely against the more DANGEROUS and money making criminals. HE'S why I have hope for this case. He has transformed that office in a breathtaking way in only four years.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#5 Jan 28, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
The above articles should be VERY embarrassing for Mary Lacy and the IDIs. Obviously, the GJ viewed the evidences, and realized where the guilt was with their votes, and they had a better view than all of the people who were not involved in the case.
I doubt that Hunter or Lacy will ever comment on the articles.
CC
Hi CC,

Alex was sworn into the grand jury, so he said he can't comment, and he's right, he can't, neither could Chief Beckner, who was also sworn in, so that's an "out" for Alex, not that he would ever want to talk about his track record in the courtroom, NOT the plea bargains he mostly engaged in. I don't think Lacy cares, she has totally left politics and the law and is retired.
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#6 Jan 28, 2013
In the article one juror talks “about being bothered by seeing a disparity between what was presented as evidence and what was being reported outside the courthouse..”

"At the beginning, they said,'Don't look at the media.' But this was a year-and-a-half we were doing this, so some time not long after the beginning, they said,'We really can't ask you not to look at the media. There is too much stuff going on.'"

And so, the juror said, "The instructions sort of changed to,'What you need to pay attention to is what's said in this room. You've already seen how much out there is not true…”

This drives me nuts, and it’s not the first time that we’ve seen a claim of this sort. So, what version of the evidence did they see and what did they base their decision on?

Anyway, I’m not really surprised that the jurors decided to indict, but I am surprised by the charge. I still am, and I don’t really understand it.

I think it would have been good to have a trial, and I’d like to see one now. But, even back then and without the evidence later developed the issue of who did what and why and a decent defense team and the Ramseys would have walked. It isn’t only the RDI who can’t agree on who did what and why, but the chief proponents Thomas and Kolar don’t agree either. This was a problem for any prosecution back then, and for any prosecution now.


Unidentified DNA found in incriminating locations represents suspects who must be identified and investigated. Every unidentified sample represents a suspect and if you want five or six of them then you have five or six suspects who must be identified and investigated. Maybe one – ONE – of them is the killer. No one can say he isn’t until he is identified and investigated. This false dichotomy, this poorly reasoned argument of Kolar’s that either every unidentified sample was involved in the crime or none of them were is an embarrassment of thought and people would do well by not repeating it.


AK

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

#7 Jan 28, 2013
I lost hope on the JB case years ago. Too many people think like IDIs, who defy the evidence, lack of evidence. and logic.
CC
Heloise

Harlow, UK

#8 Jan 29, 2013
Must say I think Kolar may be misinterpreted on the issue of the DNA. I think he essentially wanted to know why only one bit of DNA evidence was taken into account when there were several other samples as well as some Ramsey DNA in the proximity.

However, up to a point, the issue is with Mary Lacy's reasoning. She claimed that the one DNA profile proved an intruder. Does she therefore think the other DNA is irrelevant, and, on what basis is she excluding it from suspicion of involvement in the crime? In any event, if the 'Lacy' DNA is ever matched, you can depend on the owner using Mary's own argument and claiming that the other six samples (plus Ramsey DNA) should really exonerate him. Lacy's obsession with that one profile was a catastrophe for this case whether you are RDI or IDI.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#9 Jan 29, 2013
Heloise wrote:
Must say I think Kolar may be misinterpreted on the issue of the DNA. I think he essentially wanted to know why only one bit of DNA evidence was taken into account when there were several other samples as well as some Ramsey DNA in the proximity.
However, up to a point, the issue is with Mary Lacy's reasoning. She claimed that the one DNA profile proved an intruder. Does she therefore think the other DNA is irrelevant, and, on what basis is she excluding it from suspicion of involvement in the crime? In any event, if the 'Lacy' DNA is ever matched, you can depend on the owner using Mary's own argument and claiming that the other six samples (plus Ramsey DNA) should really exonerate him. Lacy's obsession with that one profile was a catastrophe for this case whether you are RDI or IDI.
When all else fails in a totally non related topic such as a GJ indictment, fall back on the DNA LOL, which is also useless. Had Lacy been honest and admitted ALL the unsourced DNA found instead of the focus of two particular samples, it would have been clear that the DNA could be from anywhere, anyone, at any time, considering the circumstances and lack of a bath for at least 48 hours that we are aware of.

Her argument clearing the Ramseys using the DNA would have been laughed at (as it was even without the now known knowledge) and the "exoneration" would never have happened.

Little by little, the small truths are becoming public and what is more revealing is what you mentioned earlier; so many people knew about the GJ indictment and I agree that Jameson also knew. If she didn't secretly tell her forum members, then they too were lied to and bamboozled by her....again LOL

You have to realize that so many people knew about the GJ's desire to indict and continued to use that handy excuse that they must be innocent because the GJ did NOT indict and "how dare the RDI when the GJ didn't...." blah blah just goes to show that innocent people and their supporters don't have the need to lie

They lied! 2+2 = 4 ....always

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#10 Jan 29, 2013
Thanks for the link to that article Candy

Alex Hunter scared? LOL

The only thing AH had to be scared of was Haddon et al. THAT is who he was working for IMO

His personal livelihood in real estate depended on a good working relationship with his BUSINESS PARTNER AND BREAKFAST BUDDY, HADDON!

Conflict of interest anyone?

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#11 Jan 29, 2013
Hi AntiK,

I have read all your comments regarding DNA since Kolar's book came out, and I don't believe you understand what Kolar was saying whatsoever.

How can you call Kolar's perception a false dichotomy, and back Lacy's?

A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.

Heloise explains your false dichotomy in her post:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

When you say had they been arrested and tried they would have walked, again you are only presenting two options ~ either or ~and forgetting all that would transpire with an arrest, further questioning, not being in the proximity to match their stories any longer, one being stronger leaving the other weaker and more susceptible to breaking and finally telling the truth, plea deals ~ and the list goes on.

The world isn’t black & white, and neither are investigations. There is seldom only two scenarios.
Anti-K wrote:
This false dichotomy, this poorly reasoned argument of Kolar’s that either every unidentified sample was involved in the crime or none of them were is an embarrassment of thought and people would do well by not repeating it.

AK
Steve Eller

United States

#12 Jan 29, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
Thanks for the link to that article Candy
Alex Hunter scared? LOL
The only thing AH had to be scared of was Haddon et al. THAT is who he was working for IMO
His personal livelihood in real estate depended on a good working relationship with his BUSINESS PARTNER AND BREAKFAST BUDDY, HADDON!
Conflict of interest anyone?
Terrific post. That pretty much sums it up. If anything though, perhaps you are being too restrained and kind in your portrayal of Alex Hunter.
Steve Eller

United States

#13 Jan 29, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Hi AntiK,
I have read all your comments regarding DNA since Kolar's book came out, and I don't believe you understand what Kolar was saying whatsoever.
How can you call Kolar's perception a false dichotomy, and back Lacy's?
A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.
Heloise explains your false dichotomy in her post:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...
When you say had they been arrested and tried they would have walked, again you are only presenting two options ~ either or ~and forgetting all that would transpire with an arrest, further questioning, not being in the proximity to match their stories any longer, one being stronger leaving the other weaker and more susceptible to breaking and finally telling the truth, plea deals ~ and the list goes on.
The world isn’t black & white, and neither are investigations. There is seldom only two scenarios.
<quoted text>
Great Post Seuss. I couldn't agree more.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#14 Jan 29, 2013
Heloise wrote:
Must say I think Kolar may be misinterpreted on the issue of the DNA. I think he essentially wanted to know why only one bit of DNA evidence was taken into account when there were several other samples as well as some Ramsey DNA in the proximity.
However, up to a point, the issue is with Mary Lacy's reasoning. She claimed that the one DNA profile proved an intruder. Does she therefore think the other DNA is irrelevant, and, on what basis is she excluding it from suspicion of involvement in the crime? In any event, if the 'Lacy' DNA is ever matched, you can depend on the owner using Mary's own argument and claiming that the other six samples (plus Ramsey DNA) should really exonerate him. Lacy's obsession with that one profile was a catastrophe for this case whether you are RDI or IDI.
I think it was the location of that DNA profile (on the waistband) that convinced Lacy it was significant. That was her rationale, anyway. And it seems she didn't even know about the others.

I was never able to get leggings on my daughter without pulling them up at the ankles so I doubt if an intruder would be able to. They should have checked there for the same profile, if they didn't.

Since: May 11

AOL

#15 Jan 29, 2013
Fr_Brown wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it was the location of that DNA profile (on the waistband) that convinced Lacy it was significant. That was her rationale, anyway. And it seems she didn't even know about the others.
I was never able to get leggings on my daughter without pulling them up at the ankles so I doubt if an intruder would be able to. They should have checked there for the same profile, if they didn't.
I've said the very same thing, FR! You can't put longjohns on without tugging at the ankle cuffs and there should have been a test on those. Anyone could have pulled on her waistband or touched it when they hugged her, but it wouldn't be probable that anyone other than the person who dressed her would touch those anle cuffs.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#16 Jan 29, 2013
Thank you Steve.

And there was so much more I never mentioned, like all the information they would have been able to gather through warrants that were denied them when there was no indictment handed down. The phone records jump to the front of the list. There have to be secrets hiding in some areas that no one, especially Hunter, wanted coming to the forefront of the investigation, plus he just didn’t want to do have to work. He just wanted to collect a salary.

Candy has verified Hunter's prosecutorial record, something the RDI have been hammering about for years, but she put it out in black and white.

You have to wonder why anyone would keep running for an office and then not perform the tasks assigned to that office. The job of the DA is to prosecute cases, not to sweep them all under the rug or plead them down. The people who kept Hunter in office by electing him over and over are just as guilty as he was for his job not being done properly. How would the rest of Boulder fare if the fireman didn't fight fires, or the EMTs didn't show up when called? The only people who tried to do their jobs were the BPD and of course the lawyers, LOL. We can’t say the lawyers didn’t work, can we?
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
Great Post Seuss. I couldn't agree more.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#17 Jan 29, 2013
The Scams lawyers and other DEFENSE, repeat DEFENSE lawyers praising Hunter is telling. It is like ONLY criminals praising the local Sheriff.

OF COURSE there are plenty of defense attorneys who want an Alex Hunter too gutless to try a case, AFTER A GRAND JURY HAS ALREADY INDICTED THE CASE.
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#18 Jan 29, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Hi AntiK,
I have read all your comments regarding DNA since Kolar's book came out, and I don't believe you understand what Kolar was saying whatsoever.
How can you call Kolar's perception a false dichotomy, and back Lacy's?
A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.
Heloise explains your false dichotomy in her post:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...
When you say had they been arrested and tried they would have walked, again you are only presenting two options ~ either or ~and forgetting all that would transpire with an arrest, further questioning, not being in the proximity to match their stories any longer, one being stronger leaving the other weaker and more susceptible to breaking and finally telling the truth, plea deals ~ and the list goes on.
The world isn’t black & white, and neither are investigations. There is seldom only two scenarios.
<quoted text>
As you say,“A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.” Therefore, I am correct in my assessment of Kolar’s DNA argument:
On page 426 of his book Kolar writes,“If I understand the DNA evidence correctly, I would propose that this trace evidence could be interpreted in either of two ways.”

The first of his two ways is to say that “the intruder theory must be expanded to incorporate the existence of six perpetrators…” His second way is to “legitimately argue that the numerous unidentified DNA samples collected in this case are explainable, and that their origin has nothing to do whatsoever with the death of Jonbenet.”

These two positions are extreme positions and there is a range in between them that Kolar ignores “either purposefully or out of ignorance.”

As for Lacey’s reasoning regarding ALL the unidentified DNA, I have no comment. I don’t know her reasoning and I’m not much of a supporter of hers. I can only tell you my reasoning – it ALL represents (because of locations found!) potential suspects who must be identified and investigated. Although I do not know how Lacey views all the DNA, I do know from her “letter” that the DNA was only one aspect of her ‘exoneration” of the Ramseys. And, please, let’s not argue over the exoneration, I don’t think it’s a meaningful document or worth much as far as further investigation or any possible indictment, etc. goes.

Also, I am not presenting a false dichotomy when I say that they Ramseys would have walked had there been a trial. A dichotomy presents two usually extreme (opposite) options, I am only stating one: they would have walked. Of course, I could be wrong; right?


AK

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#19 Jan 29, 2013
You can make the attempt to wordsmith my comments and continue to try and wordsmith Kolar's book like you have since it came out, and place words in his mouth, or my mouth, but I'm not buyin' whatever you are sellin’!

Chief Kolar himself does not interpret his book in the same manner as you do, so unless you believe you know more about what he "meant" than he did...(well you know where this is going, right?)

I know what I said and I think I can better explain it to you than you can to me, just sayin’. In all seriousness, I’m just unsure how well you would listen.

Additionally, in addressing your last paragraph, you don't have enough information to make that kind of assessment, because no indictment came down for the Ramseys, ergo, you only have half the story - LOL. So you are telling half a story – and attempting to reach a whole conclusion when only a fraction of the events actually happened. That reminds me of Carnes ~ another who reached a conclusion with only half of the available information!

So are you presenting neither a fallacy nor a dichotomy, or is it a synthetic or fractured truth?
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

#20 Jan 29, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
You can make the attempt to wordsmith my comments and continue to try and wordsmith Kolar's book like you have since it came out, and place words in his mouth, or my mouth, but I'm not buyin' whatever you are sellin’!
Chief Kolar himself does not interpret his book in the same manner as you do, so unless you believe you know more about what he "meant" than he did...(well you know where this is going, right?)
I know what I said and I think I can better explain it to you than you can to me, just sayin’. In all seriousness, I’m just unsure how well you would listen.
Additionally, in addressing your last paragraph, you don't have enough information to make that kind of assessment, because no indictment came down for the Ramseys, ergo, you only have half the story - LOL. So you are telling half a story – and attempting to reach a whole conclusion when only a fraction of the events actually happened. That reminds me of Carnes ~ another who reached a conclusion with only half of the available information!
So are you presenting neither a fallacy nor a dichotomy, or is it a synthetic or fractured truth?
Wordsmith your comments? I have no idea what you are talking about.

My assessment of Kolar’s argument on the DNA is correct. He presents a false dichotomy. He does so in an obvious fashion. I don’t pretend to know what Kolar meant to say, I can only comment on what he did say, on page 426 of his book Kolar writes,“If I understand the DNA evidence correctly, I would propose that this trace evidence could be interpreted in either of two ways.” His two ways are extremes, All eth DNA or None of the DNA. False dichotomy, bad reasoning, poor logic.

As to my assessment regarding a trial back then? It’s an opinion. It’s my opinon. There’s no “fallacy or dichotomy, or synthetic or fractured truth” about it, it’s just my opinion. And, did I not write,“Of course, I could be wrong; right?”


AK

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why would an intruder pick Christmas night? (Mar '16) 3 min PelicanBreefs 90
News JonBenet Ramsey murder suspect to be named (Feb '17) 1 hr PelicanBreefs 42
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 1 hr icu2 785
News The real history behind Netflixa s new criminal... 2 hr PelicanBreefs 36
News Wecht talks about some of his most famous cases 2 hr Buck Naked 2
Seriously? (Jun '15) 2 hr PelicanBreefs 159
Body disposal 3 hr PelicanBreefs 9
More from around the web