John & Patsy Ramsey
How many times do we have to say it?
If you follow your own prejudices, pre-conceived notions and confirmation biases rather than the evidence, you are headed for a miscarriage of justice.
Comes now Wendy Murphy – attorney, adjunct professor at New England Law School, frequent TV legal analyst and self-proclaimed leading expert on crime victims’ rights – with an article June 2 on womensenews.org, explaining, among other legal “tricks,” how John and Patricia Ramsey got away with the murder of their six-year-old daughter JonBenet the day after Christmas, 1996.
This is the same woman who extolled the prosecutor in the Duke University lacrosse team gang rape allegation fiasco, so be forewarned.
Through cleverly crafted “hypotheticals,” Ms. Murphy shows how each parent could use what she calls “cross-finger pointing” to create enough doubt about which one actually killed JonBenet so that neither could be convicted. To bolster her position, she cites the “bombshell announcement” in January that the Boulder grand jury wanted to indict the Ramseys, but that district attorney Alex Hunter refused to sign off. Maybe he knew something Ms. Murphy doesn’t.
Her complete case is contained in the revised version of her book, And Justice For Some: An Expose of the Lawyers and Judges Who Let Dangerous Criminals Go Free, which, according to her publisher, “provides unprecedented insight into the truth.” The introduction by that well-known arbiter of truth, Bill O’Reilly, asserts that Murphy “uses her pen like a blowtorch.”
That part we believe.
When we first heard about the Ramsey case, we thought there was a good chance the parents were guilty. Until we examine the evidence. Ms. Murphy brings up all sorts of pseudo-evidence such as fibers allegedly found on JonBenet’s body, yet seems to ignore the fact that DNA found on the body matched no one in the family. She also ignores the medical examiner’s report, which essentially proves on its own that the parents could not have been responsible. If you question that statement, read our book, Law & Disorder, which lays out the case for why the Ramseys could not have committed the murder.
Murphy also completely misconstrues behavioral indicators. As one small example, she castigates John for lashing out with profanity rather than giving a coherent answer when investigators suggested these fibers tied him to the murder.
Excuse us, counsellor, but that is exactly how we expect innocent people to respond. It is the guilty ones who try to fabricate a logical response to an illogical suggestion. In fact, it is one of the oldest interrogation techniques in the book.
Going back to the Duke lacrosse case for a moment, in the midst of the public hysteria, Ms. Murphy lauded soon-to-be-disgraced prosecutor Michael Nifong in his withholding from the defense of exculpatory evidence. USA Today quoted her as stating,”Nifong should be rewarded for respecting the defendants’ rights by not leaking the type of evidence that could help him personally respond to criticism.”
She told Fox News, “I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth.”
By the way, we have met a false rape claim; plenty of them. Apparently, the case Mr. Nifong laid out confirmed her own feeling that this was the way rape cases actually go down, so it must be true.
The act of Mr. Nifong’s she extolled ultimately led to his disbarment.
We live in an age in which all news sources and statements appear to be equal. To many, The Drudge Report carries the same weight of veracity as The New York Times. So when people like Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz make a public statement that the evidence against Amanda Knox is strong, or Wendy Murphy manages to re-victimize innocent people who have already been through the most devastating of ordeals, they merely spread ignorance, as well as extend and amplify the miscarriages of justice they claim to want to prevent.
Don’t take our opinion. It’s all about the evidence and where that evidence leads.
But here is our opinion: If you don’t understand that, at least have the decency to shut up.
I watched the Lindbergh baby case tonight on Nova and wanted to say I enjoyed it and agree with Douglas that Hauptmann is the perp. John Knoll is also obviously the co-kidnapper. I wonder why Hauptmann never gave him up? A hideous crime and I do not agree with the Lloyd fellow that Lindy was in on it. Although parents do kill their children, which is why I’m commenting here on the Ramsey case.
I agree with Wendy Murphy. I’ve read all of the books about the Ramsey case and its a no-brainer that the Ramsey’s orchestrated a phony kidnapping and ransom note. It’s completely obvious for many reasons that Patsy Ramsey wrote the 3-page educated ransom note that no real kidnapper would write using the paper and pen from her own home. And of course no one phoned because there never was a kidnapper. In his book “Cracking More Cases” forensic scientist Dr. Henry Lee theorizes that the whole thing started as an accident, but for some reason the Ramseys decided to let JB die rather than seek medical attention for her. I agree with Dr. Lee. It was an inside job. There is no “John Mark Karr” intruder – that’s absurd. I couldn’t believe the Boulder DA actually went off on such a wild goose chase when she had the perps right in her own backyard.
Finally, as a well-read and intelligent person, I resent the title of this thread. I think Wendy Murphy does know what she’s talking about and no she shouldn’t shut-up. Decency? It’s the Ramseys who had no decency. Patsy Ramsey rationalized the crime with her “S.B.T. C Victory” sign-off on her ransom note. Considering her well-known devotion to Jesus after her cancer scare the acronym obviously means “Saved by the Cross,” as Jesus forgives all sins. This is not a complicated case. If the Boulder police had isolated J and P Ramsey from each other at the get-go all would have been revealed. But the Boulder cops screwed up, everyone knows that. The most important book about the Boulder cops’ incompetence is by Detective Steve Thomas.
I don’t have any credentials in LE. What I do have are two degrees, BA and MA. I’m not stupid. The Ramseys are the perps. Regards, Ms. Observer, USA
Oh, I also meant to include that this is not a DNA case. It’s a ransom note case and PR wrote the ransom note.
“…yet seems to ignore the fact that DNA found on the body matched no one in the family.” So what? They had been at a Christmas party that night. It could have been anyone’s scrap of DNA. Who wrote the 3-page note? That is the key. Journalism major PR wrote the who/what/when/where ransom note. All she left out was the how. I’m going to get your “Law and Disorder” book to see what you’ve written about the case.
In defense of OReilly, Wendy Murphy has not been a part of his program for a long, long time. He started publishing on World Net Daily until an acquaintance of mine published a parody that Ward Churchill had made a publishing error on his manifesto. Instead of, “little Eichmanns” he meant to say, “Little Entenmanns”. WND published it w/o attribution, and my acquaintance, a journalism major, fired back hard. They responded as a sleezy site that they are.
In response to the Amanda Knox case I will be very interested to see the courts findings. I had a completely unbiased approach toward the case. My mom suggested I read her book and so I had. What I found was an extremely naive Washingtonian and that surprises me, no one grows up in W.State hearing horror stories?
Anyway, the most important aspect we have to consider is her behavior, and her actions based on her own statements in her book. As an investigator you should always be suspicious when someone close to the victim tries to guide your murder investigation. Amanda Knox seemed to always be the center of the investigation and that is typical in sociopath and psychopathic personalities.
If I were the Italian police, I have studied individuals in great detail and from the beginning her actions in attempting to influence my investigation would have alerted me that this is not the average investigation. Other factors also should be considered in her actions before and after the murder took place. I sometimes feel she may have deceived us all, her naive ability to write a book that shows me exactly where police tampered with evidence and how is fine. However, for her to never make these connections seems odd if she were be deceptive.
The immediate publication of her memoir for 3.8 million was very unsettling and so is some of her thoughts. I quote ” the police are focusing on me instead of looking for the real killer.” Amanda Knox said that and we must recall that Ted Bundy claimed that exact same thing. The authorities were to focused on him and not seeking the real killer. There was a mountain of evidence in the Salt Lake City case but it never even seemed Colorado intended to prosecute Ted. I see a lot of behavior in Knox that indicate no remorse and a self centered nature that others accused of murder share.
I have one last thought on Amanda Knox and that is the way she portrayed herself in court, wearing a Beatles shirt as? I mean SSA Douglas this is very revealing and I have to say her ability to manipulate is second to none. Make no mistake their is new evidence in Italy and it is my belief if she goes to trial there she is not coming back.
That is my opinion but she may be naive because of all the good detectives in W. State but I heard nothing of knowledge of the past in her book and that alarms me because of the post crime scene behavior.
Interesting and wise words as always SSA Douglas, I never thought this crime scene reflected that of a family member. I sent your administration my my conclusion on the case based on the behavioral evidence and some other complex factors. The most curious among them the note signed victory. This makes perfect sense to me and it is my firm belief this case can and will soon be solved. However, if I am incorrect in my analysis then we have a very sick and confusing society. But I do not feel that I can be and I certainly can not exclude the man I found to fit the profile, but the DNA can! Victory his ass, what doth it profit a man to gain the world and loose the soul?
The fact that Wendy Murphy is given airtime on supposedly mainstream TV networks is a testament to how much pressure the media is under to provide bombastic entertainment rather than thoughtful analysis.