Lin Wood, On Behalf of Burke Ramsey Sues CBS Over JonBenet Ramsey Series

cbs-jon-benet
I can’t believe I am about to write yet another JonBenet post, I know all the crime posts irritate all the reality show people but bear with me here because I need to explain what I think is going on.

It seems obvious to me that Lin Wood knew about all of the Ramsey shows coming up and contacted his friend (and sometime client) Dr. Phil to offer him Burke Ramsey on a platter so that Dr. Phil could get ratings and most importantly he can go on the show and spin things to refute all of the evidence against Burke.

As I pointed out before, it is my opinion that Lin Wood from the very beginning was hired to place plausible intruder theories out into the public in advance of any possible arrest of the Ramseys. He did his job and it worked. It is also my opinion that there were many people in Boulder who were also advocating for the Ramseys who should have been impartial. Like the DA’s office for example. In my opinion, the entire smear campaign against the Boulder Police Department began with the hiring of Lin Wood.  Did the BPD make a lot of mistakes in their investigation? Yes they did. And Lin Wood allegedly, in my opinion made sure that each one got national media attention. Because his job was to keep the Ramseys from getting arrested.  Twenty years later,  Lin Wood’s job is to protect the Ramseys from any further public speculation that they had any involvement with the events that occurred on Christmas night in 1996. His job was to maintain the presumption of innocence that all people indicted with a crime are entitled to. He did a really good job of that. And continues to do a good job of sheltering the surviving family members from suspicion. And Dr. Phil was a really good person to assist him in this latest round. In my opinion. Allegedly.

ramsey-lin-wood

 

So Lin Wood knew exactly what was going to be aired on the CBS farcical show of stupidity. As I mentioned it was originally scheduled to be six hours of nonsense instead of four and the original title was  Case Closed.  The title would lead viewers to believe that finally after twenty years this case would be resolved and we would all know exactly what happened.  Anyone who has carefully followed the case falls into two factions the RDIs (Ramseys did it) and the IDIs (Intruder Did it). These two groups have been warring over the entire 20 year period.  During that time Lin Wood, and many others worked tirelessly to inject potential intruders into the media. He also threatened lawsuits against the city if they did not take the case away from the Boulder Police Department and give it to the DA’s office.  You see, the police who are trained to investigate crimes were on team RDI based on their evidence and investigation. And the DA’s office, or more specifically the DA herself was IDI.  Lin Wood was quite fond of the DA and asked for her to take over the case. I will never in a million years understand how any of that was legal, but that is what happened.

I have read and analyzed a lot of the evidence from twenty years ago and used to belong to a site in  from about 2000 or 2001 to present where the evidence was discussed in detail. I have also spent a considerable number of hours researching all of the new information. Information that has come out as recently as this month for example that completely debunks all of the alleged DNA evidence. At five am this morning I was reading old motions by Lin Wood in a defamation case against Fox News regarding their statement that “there is no evidence to support the IDI theory.”  In that case Lin Wood made numerous assumptions and assertions that in my opinion were not factual, but because Fox News did not dispute any of the nonsense, are now taken by some with limited knowledge of the case to be held as fact after the judge, who had not read any of the police reports or first hand sources cited in her ruling against Fox News Network.

This brings us to CBS shit show. First of all, my extensive research into this case of the course of fifteen years or more has led me to the opinion that the RDI theory is the only one supported by the evidence. Please read that sentence again because I keep having RDI theorist argue with me about my opinion without fully understanding it. This is because much like the Ramsey camp put information out into the media that was not entirely true, so did the BPD. Neither side has a clean hands in all of this, in my opinion. Allegedly.  I also understand that like everyone else I have a healthy dose of conformational bias in my reporting after at some point years ago I decided that in my opinion the RDI theories were supported by the evidence and the IDI theories were not.  I have tried to include the IDI rebuttals as much as possible in my previous posts.

My personal issues with some commenters here are not because the support the IDI theories, it is because they cite evidence that they “heard somewhere” as fact when it is fallacy.

Ramsey house snow
So why didn’t I like the CBS miniseries if I am RDI and they were RDI?  For many reasons. After wasting two hours of my life on the first episode of utter nonsense,  I didn’t even bother to watch the second episode.  I have tried to a lay the facts out here considering both sides. They did not. They had Werner Spitz as an expert and I personally, in my opinion do not find him credible at all.  Plus when you are in the midst of a debate, and the village idiot shows up to support your side, well… nobody wants that.

I feel exactly the same way about the woman on Dr. Phil’s show who kept spouting off inaccurate statements that apparently Dr. Phil didn’t feel comfortable saying himself. Instead we had random woman saying things like “There was a ninja intruder who sexually assaulted a six-year-old girl blocks from the Ramseys house around that time. ” That is not an exact quote, but my recollection.  The truth was there was a 14-year-old girl who was allegedly assaulted by an intruder two miles from the Ramseys’ home nine month after her death. This was one of the IDI stories widely publicized by the Ramsey camp.  Her misinformation made me totally discount everything she said. Dr. Phil himself had some statements that were not in evidence. You have to watch both shows with the understanding that the CBS show is pushing the RDI theory and the Dr. Phil show is an orchestration by Lin Wood to get in a preemptive strike for the IDI theory. Because that is his job. And Lin Wood himself stated emphatically on the Dr. Phil show that no member of the Ramsey family own Hi Tec boots, when he knew very well that Burke testified to the grand jury that he did have those boots, and that he got them on a shopping trip to Atlanta with his mother.

Anyone with any depth of knowledge of this case knows that both shows had their own agendas and while asserting those agendas both shows made some very questionable statements. I was interested in hearing a first hand account from Burke Ramsey’s mouth. And that is what the big ratings card for Dr. Phil was.

So, people have been constantly emailing me things they have discovered for the first time because they are new to this case. There is way more information about this case than one could read in a few weeks. But one email made me laugh out lout. Someone emailed me about that CBS was doing a miniseries on the JonBenet murder and they were going to “name the killer!”

That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever her. You can’t go on a TV show and say that you have tried and convicted a person of murder, particularly a nine-year old boy and call it a day.  We have courts and judges and juries that determine the guilt of innocence of criminals. Networks have legal teams that keep idiots with TV shows from saying things like “We’ve looked at the evidence and it’s clear that Billy Bob killed Susie in the library with a dagger!”

dr-phil-john-ramsey
But the same people who were going to call the theatrical and ridiculous CBS miniseries Case Closed  apparently did just that. I say apparently, because I couldn’t take another minute of that hot mess and did not watch it. But someone on Team Ramsey did, and Lin Wood is suing on behalf of Burke Ramsey for defamation. And I hope they win and I hope they get millions of dollars in damages. Because you can’t do that.

You will notice that even this small time blogger whose opinion would never be important enough for anyone with any sense to sue attempts to insert numerous terms like “In my opinion” and “allegedly” into my discussion of this subject. That is because there is always an idiot with more money than sense that might sue the site.  And more importantly because I do not know what happened on that tragic night. All I know is that IN MY OPINION, based on my research, the evidence seems to strongly favor the RDI theories over the IDI theories.

I still can’t believe that the CBS show actual said something like “Burke Ramsey killed JonBenet with a flashlight.” which is what I’ve been told happened. That just seems to me to be too stupid to have actually happened. I did notice a disclaimer of sorts on the first episode that was briefly flashed up that essentially said, we are just stating the facts here and you should make up your own mind based on the evidence.  The thing is, they didn’t do a very good job discussing the evidence and they had a few quacks on there that just made shit up.

That is what the court system is for and the DA’s office outright refused to charge any of the Ramseys with any crime. They are to be considered innocent by the judicial system (judges and juries) until such time as the evidence presented proves otherwise. That is how justice is served in out country. Not on a TV miniseries.

And you know what else the legal system does? They determine defamation cases. My general opinion on defamation cases are that they are a petty waste of everyone’s time.  If someone woman writes a self published book that accuses you of criminally masterminding the crimes she was convicted for, and you have a great big audience, you don’t sue the woman and bring the information to a wider audience. Even if you think by doing so you can cause her financial harm. It’s counterproductive.  If some idiot on a talk show that rarely hits a million viewers says that you have terrible feminine hygiene issues, you don’t draw more attention than it ever got in the first place by suing for defamation. Even if you think by doing so you can cause her financial harm. It’s counter productive.

But if a major network airs a miniseries that states that you have murdered someone? You sue them for every single dollar you can get. Because they have broadcast that information in a literal sense to the millions who watched the show and every other place that social media and mainstream media discussed it afterward.

Big mistake. Huge. Time to meet Lin Wood in the courtroom bad.

Fun Fact: Lin Wood filed a $250 million libel suit against American Media, publishers of The National Enquirer and The star for publishing defamatory statements against Dr. Phil, and his family in July of 2016.  Libel and slander are one of Lin Wood’s  major area of litigation.

Idiots.

105 Comments

Filed under CBS, Dr. Phil, Entertainment News, News

105 responses to “Lin Wood, On Behalf of Burke Ramsey Sues CBS Over JonBenet Ramsey Series

  1. SamT

    I did watch both parts. And it was patently obvious that they began with or formed the conclusion that Burke was responsible very early on and from that point forward all of them were biased in looking at the evidence. I was frankly shocked they were so blatant about naming him the murderer so this lawsuit does not surprise me one bit. In fact, I hope Burke wins because the investigators were so obnoxious. It’s actually a bit frightening how they were able to twist the evidence to fit their pre-conceived conclusions, while stating they were being totally objective. Whether you believe Burke might be responsible or not, as you say TT he has not been charged with or convicted of this crime. Shame on them.

    • Chris

      You’re crazy. Burke did it. He proved it with his sinister smiling throughout his interviews knowing that he got away with it. Who smiles talking about a sibling who was murdered in such a horrible way?

      • Katie

        Okay, you’re crazy. I do think Burke killed her but he didn’t “prove it with his sinister smiling”. He’s on the spectrum and does not react normally to social cues.

      • SamT

        Having a different opinion than you doesn’t make me crazy. I concede it is a possibility that Burke is responsible. However I don’t think this show was balanced or objective.

  2. Dee

    Tamara, thank you so much! I was reading the previous JBR article when this popped up. Man you have been busy and I appreciate you so much!!

  3. CoBe

    Allegedly and in my opinion now I can guess why Burke was smiling so much. But it is only a hypothetical guess.

  4. blaine

    As a Canookian my USA geography is subpar, but did Colorado annex Boulder from Arizona? Because, Arizona… 😉

  5. Katherine

    Tamara, I rarely comment on your crime posts simply because I haven’t followed the cases enough to offer anything of value. BUT, I read them religiously because I know you’ve put in the time and effort and aren’t reckless in your analysis.
    Thanks for keeping a casual observer like myself in the know. Well done.

  6. Diana F.

    I thought that the CBS show was interesting in certain ways. Like getting to see the no-doubt-spendy re-creation of the interior of the Ramsey house.

    I thought the discussion about the note was VERY telling; that note is a goldmine! From the handwriting to the words used to the length to the paper used—-every single thing about that note was unlike any other note of that kind IN CRIMINAL CASE HISTORY, and I have heard this said by numerous, actual experts, over the last umpteen years; I accept this classification as fact.

    Part one of this travesty was “better” than part two; they went way off the deep end on part two.

    I thought it was super strange to have one of the allegedly bungling Boulder first responder cops on the show as an EXPERT, doing his best to explain why, among 8,274 other stupid moves and mistakes they made on the first day alone, John Ramsey was told by.the.cops to search the house! Talk about a wtf moment. He divulged through his words that the cops found John to be acting strange and suspicious almost immediately. Because of how he was “talking on the phone” during this tragic time……ok, so you were suspicious of him, but told him to go search the house anyway? Which is it? Did you think he was a grieving father or a killer?

    Despite this cop’s history as an alleged buffoon, all the “experts” assembled thus far on the show stood around, speaking and acting like he was terribly intelligent….a “snoop extraordinaire”. Yah right. Allegedly.

    But I desperately wanted a “suspect” to be named, or some sort of explanation; a valid theory if you will.

    I found the idea that JB wasn’t killed by strangulation but rather from the blow to the head to be particularly notable—because I think if that’s true, then the WHOLE situation reeks of accidentally killing JB and someone doing their best to cover it up. Allegedly.

    I know we are all aware of news stories where we learn the unthinkable happened, and a child is brutally killed, most often by a family member. I CAN imagine Mrs. R losing her shit in a fit of anger, and it is a fact that a skull injury on a young child can happen fairly easily given the right circumstance, meaning you don’t need a Hulk Hogan-type to do the job.

    The second part of the show (and TT I am disappointed that you didn’t watch it!!) showed some clips of interviews with Burke and a psychologist (or similarly licensed individual) right after the crime.

    Everything about his demeanor and responses was completely, IMO, normal. But the show’s hosts (British woman and the dude with glasses) would show a clip and then say stupid, inflammatory comments like “well that’s a very strange/odd/concerning way for a child/brother of murdered sister/grieving boy to act/move/sit/answer”. Allegedly. Not.

    Instead of, for instance, having a children’s behavioral specialist watching the tape with them, and offering professional opinions. But they didn’t do it that way and it’s obvious why not.

    And because of your background with children, I wanted to know what you thought-but you didn’t see it 🙃

    I think Burke should sue-the-greedy-pants right off of CBS. Straight up, regardless of their intentions this was NOT the way this idea should have been presented, if it should have been presented at all. They had some relatively interesting scientific points to make, that were all “cancelled out” because of all the Hollyweird stuff thrown in. Like the story wasn’t enough on its own. Idiots…..and not alleged!

    • mddc

      JB was alive at the time of the strangling as there were defensive marks on her neck showing she was pulling at the garrote.

      • tamaratattles

        mddc, I no longer have the time to type, THAT IS FALSE INFORMATION after all of your posts so I’m just going to move you to a room with a lovely view where we can’t here you.

    • tamaratattles

      Diana, I saw it on the first episode of the Dr. Phil interview and commented on it there. There was nothing about his behavior that was terribly odd in my opinion. You can read my thoughts at the time on that post. It seems like a month ago that I wrote about that. Click the tag below the post for JonBenet and you will see all the posts.

    • SamT

      Dude with glasses, Jim Clemente, is supposedly an expert in the interrogation of children and interpreting their responses. But I have to wonder if either of them have children themselves or have been around them very much, because I personally did not find young Burke’s responses to be troubling or strange. An adult responding that way, yes. Not a child.

      • You feel never expressing any sorrow or sadness that your little sister was killed is normal. As well as never exhibiting any fear that they may be in danger themselves. That’s hard to believe. Do you also feel that it’s normal for little Burke to be into playing with feces and putting big balls of it in his sisters bed and smearing it on things she may want to eat?

      • Janet

        That isn’t normal DonnieScott. I have raised a son and have numerous nephews and nieces and have worked at a school. I’m not an expert, but I’ve been around children plenty. My son would have cried his eyes out, and had a very hard time when even his childhood cat died that he had from ten to eighteen. The only kids I’ve seen that sometines don’t show any grief are toddlers to maybe five who don’t understand death yet. The feces thing I’ve never heard of unless it was a baby in a crib. Sounds horribly disturbing for a nine year old and doing it to his little sister is disgusting and sinister. I also totally disagree with all the he is on the autism spectrum. I dont think we can look and diagnois that by an interview, but I have not noticed people with autism or aspergers acting like Burke did grinning constantly and being down right eurphoric when discussing really really sad tragic events. The ones I’ve been around that function are very intelligent, nerdish, and robotic acting. Otherwise, they act pretty normal and don’t seem that odd to me. I was discussing the case today with an acquintance that thought the same, and she is around a fair amount of adults with special needs, as her uncle by marriage has downs syndrome and does a ton of activities with other adults with special needs. They have alot of programs and adult living group homes in our city. Anyway, I dont know about lawsuits solving or helping anything. I think whoever is just looking to cash in, and isn’t interested in truth and justice for Jon Bonet or was a participant in this horrible tragedy, is gonna get mega bad karma and no amount of money is going to compensate for what’s in store for them.

      • SamT

        Not everyone cries or acts outwardly very sad when someone close to them dies. My son was extremely close with his grandma and she died when he was 10. He didn’t cry or act upset. He internalized his grief. I think some kids deal with horrible events by desperately trying to pretend life is normal. I just didn’t agree with every “red flag” they brought up. Yes the feces stuff was weird. I think something is off with Burke – he may be on the spectrum, or who knows what – but I don’t think that alone makes him a murderer. The one thing that did strike me was how uncomfortable he seemed when they showed him the picture of the pineapple.

      • Yes and also how he very easily and casually acted out how an intruder must have either stabbed her or hit her in the head with a hammer. We know that he had hit her in the head before.
        I would also submit to you that your son’s grandma dieing was not a “horrible” event. That’s a sad but normal event that children and their parents understand is not preventable. In no way can it be compared to Burkes sister being abducted from her bed and be missing only to be found brutally murdered.in the basement he played in.

      • tamaratattles

        Donny, fecal smearing (scatolia) is a common method for young children to deal with stress. I have no idea why this is such a fascinating topic in a murder case, but the discussion about it causes all sort of people to make shit up. (see what I did there?) the scatolia with Burke happened when both Patsy was going through cancer the first time JonBenet was about two and Burke was about five. Both also began wetting the bed during this time. The “fecal smeared box of chocolate” is a story that was made up on the Internet.

        As for what is or is not normal, there is no standard norm for dealing with grief. As for the Dr. Phil interview, there is no denying that Burke’s responses were not smack in the middle of that bell curve. His responses there are not particularly representative of autism. He seems to make eye contact and has no overt self stimulating behaviors under stress.

        The unusual affect could simply be the coping mechanism he acquired being raised by a pageant mom where abnormally large smiling is a skill that is taught from a young age.

        There is nothing there to convict a guy of killing his sister there. It’s a reckless mindset you are applying in a dangerous fashion.

        However, if you would like to examine the relative evidence… you may reach the same conclusion.

      • Reggie

        He can sue all he wants. He’s a public figure when it comes to this very famous case, and CBS covered their rear ends with the disclaimer. CBS didn’t say Burke killed her. They had experts on who gave their opinion as to who they believe killed her. Defamation lawsuits are difficult to win. It’s the reaction expected from CBS, and Burke really doesn’t want anymore exposure. He doesn’t do too well when watched or videotaped. Shouting defamation doesn’t make people believe that he didn’t do it.

      • tamaratattles

        Good points all. As I have said, I didn’t watch the second part of the show; however, most who did here claimed that the investigators on the show said that Burke committed murder. Apparently, that did not happen.

        If that is the case you are correct and there is no defamation case. However, Wood has sued networks previous for less. It seems like a tool to continue to put out public statements that the Ramseys had no part in the events that killed JonBenet. It seems with all the shows currently airing and the upcoming Lifetime movie he finds it necessary to continue to put out to the media that his clients are innocent.

      • The smeared feces on the box of chocolates that was found during the police evidence search of the home is not a made up story on the internet. It was in Kolars’s book. He came across this information when he was hired to lead the DA investigation of the case. They also came across feces smeared pajamas that were too big to be JonBenet’s. What it means who knows, but it appears to be a piece of evidence according to one the the former investigators.

  7. PeachyKeen

    How you do what you do to provide us with your wise opinions.. amazes me…Not only this issue WHo did it?.. But all else.. As with Jon Benet…some things need to fade and if someone on
    their death bed comes and tells the truth..so be it. I just find this rehash of a tragic event/

  8. I’m a local and I have to comment now…..of course, this was going to happen. Anyone who speaks out is at risk of being sued. The thing is, there are facts to this case, as in any case that locals know that aren’t reported nationally. (I.e. Talked about on local talk radio, deceives that worked the case that quit in frustration, etc…..allegedly). One thing that is a fact, Nobody in the family was ever deposed and the reason was if ever a lawsuit (ANY lawsuit from my understanding..including the one above), the depositions could be called into court??? Mr. Wood repped Phaedra and supposedly did the same thing in the case with Angela, right? All of the local reporters that are in the CBS news (Paula from9News, etc) had access to the Ramsey’s because they were NOT allowed to ask ANY questions about THEM. they were like a press junket for the family, allegedly.

    I worked in Boulder at the time. Before this, happened, the town never had a murder since Robert Redford’s daughter’s boyfriend at CU years ago from what I remember. They were not equipped to handle anything other than drugs, rapes, etc….it’s a college town, very liberal….beautiful setting, getting crowded, but I still love going there because it sits right at the base of the foothills. There never has been another crime similar to this since so “there’s a killer on the loose” statement was way crazy, IMO. Murders have occurred now because our state is really going through a crazy growth period. Boulder has a “no growth” policy meaning land is outrageously expensive (for locals) and people keep moving in, homeless is a serious issue. Just giving an oversight of the town.

    I always wondered why Natalee Holoways mom divorced John Ramsey. I thought that was an odd pairing. I guess they were parents that grieved the loss of their children. Then again, I am a local of one of the crimes and saw it play out. So glad her mom got closure. Have always wished the same for Jon Benet.

    So sorry for the lengthy post.

    • Meri

      To the best of my knowledge (and I worked on the Holloway investigation) Beth Twiity did NOT divorce John Ramsey because they were never married. They dated for a short period of time. I find that when piece of information is so blatantly wrong other so-called facts are suspect as well. I see no grounds for a law suit because CBS did NOT say outright that Burke killed JonBenet. They talked about the possibilities and the evidence and narrowed it down but they did NOT name a suspect. At the end of the program they had a disclaimer saying that the case was open, etc. watched it all and NEVER heard the words “Burke did it”.

      • I stand corrected, thank you. I thought they were married. See what I mean when a person who doesn’t know about a case starts commenting? I know nothing from far away about Mrs. Holloway. I still can’t believe she was with him. Can you? It gives me the creeps.

        Mr. Wood will sue anyone was my point even with no grounds. Its a tragedy that this all this has gone on, the lawsuits, the people that have served time (inre lawsuits, Mr. White for contempt etc and not the focus).

  9. I for one am glad that you are posting about this. I have watched and followed this case for years and clearly remember when it happened. It was shocking, I never wanted to believe it was anyone to do with the Ramsey family. If it was Burke, I kind of get why they did what they did. I don’t condone or accept it but I get it. I have watched all sides talk over the years and it has been confusing and disheartening. Somewhere the face that a six year old child was dead has seemed to have gotten lost. For reasons of personal nature these cases hit me extra hard and I can’t seem to get over them. I was so glad to find that there was NO sexual assault after all. I believe the Ramsey’s grief was not for a second faked and I think that is what convinced me most of all that perhaps Burke was involved.
    I was shocked myself when all of that panel declared that Burke was the one who accidentally/purposely caused the death. It just seemed inflammatory to say the least. I knew there were going to be problems.
    On the second part they did have a legal expert explain about the infancy law where he had to be 10 to be charged and I do believe TT, you, already went through all that. So I am not sure even what any of this is going to mean.
    I do thank you for all of your insight and hard work. Your opinions are appreciated as are you.

    • Jon Bonet was sexually assaulted that night, and this has generally been well established, regardless of the CBS nonsense. This brutal death was the work of a sadistic sexual pedophile. Do you really think parents would fashion a barbaric instrument of torture, a garotte, no less, tape their little girl’s mouth closed so she couldn’t scream, embed the rope so deeply in their child’s neck that it was barely visible, slowly strangle her to death, (her death was caused by strangulation in conjunction with the head injury), torture her twice with a stun gun either before or during the killing (the stun gun marks are also disputed by the nutsy CBS special, but, forensic experts have said they are distinctive stun gun marks), and sexually manipulate their child’s ravaged body–to protect their 9 year old son? Really? No one (not even their enemies) has ever said the Ramsey’s were anything but loving parents to Jon Bonet. .

      • tamaratattles

        Nope. I don’t think any of that. And the evidence doesn’t point to it either. There is also zero actual evidence to support your sadistic pedophile either though.

        I wish no one had ever called the rope on a stick a garotte. It gives people all these bizarre ideas.

  10. TT, you are correct. According to Alan Pendergast of Westword (local mag), Lin Wood reps both Dr. Phil and Burke Ramsey. He brokered the interview and knew they were going to come out with the “he did it” theory, allegedly.

  11. The DA on the Jon Benet Ramsey case in 1996 is a man named Alex Hunter. He is the reason that detectives resigned and he was believed to have been paid off by John Ramsey. He was most definitely on the IDI team, or he knew the truth and the fact that they could NOT prosecute Burke regardless because he was only 9 years, 11 months old, so he helped his friend and political ally, John, cover up his youg son’s crime. HUnter even said aloud at a meeting with both sides (IDI and RDI) present that this was “a political decision.” I bring that up because the DA is being referred to as a “she” and “her” in the bottom of the paragraph about the CBS show being the “farcical show of stupidity.” The female DA who wrote the Ramseys letters apologizing for ever implicating them based on baseless “transfer DNA” evidence only became DA in later years.

    • tamaratattles

      Thanks for the reminder that more than one DA was IDI and appeared to be very fond of the Ramseys. Allegedly in my opinion, based on things I’ve read.

  12. evilgiraffe

    TT, have you read Foreign Faction? It’s an objective review of the evidence by one of the detectives. Really factual and interesting. He also concludes Burke with the parents covering.

  13. I’m normally a dedicated lurker and follower but wanted to chime in and say, “Great posts and discussions!” Thanks TT for your commentary and opinions. I have a renewed interest in reading about this case especially after reading your posts and comments from followers.

  14. Matzah60

    I guess I should be surprised to hear about this lawsuit, but sadly, I am not. It seems that with the knowledge that Lin Wood allegedly possessed about the airing of the CBS miniseries, Wood allegedly and proactively arranged for Burke to appear in a three part interview with Dr. Phil. There is a clear conflict of interest if indeed Burke and Dr. Phil are clients of Lin Wood. Some could conjecture that allegedly, Wood and Dr. Phil conspired to have Burke appear on the show for both ratings, financial gain, and to refute the claims made in the CBS series.

    • tamaratattles

      And what law would that be breaking exactly? And what sort of ethics violation is it to have clients who are friends? Because that is pretty much how lawyers get clients. Especially rich one.

    • Matzah60

      I wonder why the Mayor or governor didn’t appoint an independent prosecutor to the case given the tens of thousands of theories posed by ‘experts’ on the Ramsey defense, the clash between the BDP and DA, Alex Hunter, and Lin Wood’s insistence on the IDI theory.

      Only four pages of the grand jury indictment have been released which simply state on what grounds the Ramseys were indicted, but none of the hundreds of pages that explain how the Grand Jury came to that conclusion. In a case now two decades old, why not release that information on a cold case, yet one still considered an open case.

    • Matzah60

      I just thought it could be seen as a conflict of interest if it could be proven that Dr. Phil has not only been represented by Wood, but may allegedly have an ongoing friendship as well. How else can one explain how Burke landed on Dr. Phil.

    • MamaZ

      Their interests don’t conflict. So there is no conflict of interest. Plus even if there is a conflict, they can always waive it. And TT is right, lawyers are hired by their friends. Especially if they are rich!

    • Socalsun

      Burke’s interview with Dr. Phil was a joke. Burke has the maturity of a 16 year old & Phil’s questions were all “softball.” In my opinion, Burker accidentally killed her & the parents covered it up.

  15. Matzah60

    Tamara, I just want to thank you for the update and also for posting it here explaining how the suit transpired. I’d also like to thank you again for the depth and breadth of your reporting on this case. Like the OJ trial, I think it will always remain in the headlines as each milestone anniversary occurs with rehashing of old theories and more speculation by armchair ‘experts.’

    I appreciate that you went to the trouble to present not just the obvious facts, but the multiple theories from the Denver police, the DA, Alex Hunter, Lin Wood, Lou Smit, testimony, handwriting experts, and so on. You not only reported on all of these various sources aside from the Dr. Phil interview (3 parts, I might add), but followed the comments and responded in kind as to the veracity of comments and presented all of this info without any bias.

    I am a huge fan of true crimes and so I thoroughly enjoyed all these segments and I apologize to the reality TV watchers that you mentioned above who were a little irritated with all the Jon Benet reporting.

  16. GildedLily

    I was curious about the final outcome of the Ramsey’s civil suit against Fox News and found out the case was dismissed by the Federal District Court of Colorado. Apparently the case was moved to Colorado because of jurisdiction issues. The opinion is an interesting read and explains the standard used in a defamation suit. As I watched this show, I really started feeling bad for Burke. Whether or not he did it, he wouldn’t have been charged in her murder and it just seems wrong to hold him up to public scrutiny now.

  17. Cat

    Burke might as well cash in on this. It seems like everyone else has. Allegedly. In my opinion.

    • tamaratattles

      I feel confident the law suit w not Burke’s idea. It’s just 20 years of Lin Wood working hard for the moneyl

      • Cat

        Exactly. I never said it was his idea. But it seems he’s the only one that hasn’t made a profit on her death. He might as well. Why not?

        CBS and Dr. Phil will no doubt profit from it. Why not Burke?

        I agree, CBS and those accusing Burke should be sued. There is no direct evidence that he intentionally killed her. And, really, no evidence that he accidentally killed her. Just speculation.

        And since he can’t be charged, anyway…what is the point?

  18. Babs0909

    Brilliant summary, thank you. I follow crime stories, but the JonBenet saga was too much.
    So thankfully you have followed and gave us the synopsis.
    If RDI, was there justice for JonBenet?

  19. Did anyone else notice George Clooney smiling like Burke Ramsey when he heard
    about Brangelina divorce ?

    • OfcourseBurkekilledHer

      We saw the interview of George Clooney two times in different networks. He was most definitely NOT smiling in reference to Brangelina. We suspect you were on drugs when you watched

  20. Why, oh why, won’t anybody let the truth be known? Why is John not openly pursuing that the law keep this cold case going? Is it because he knows who the killer is and just wants the media attention to all go away. The man had deep pockets. He could have hired private investigators but nothing. I think the most we can hope for is a death bed confession. Patsy took any secrets to the grave. So sad.

  21. Shay

    Does anyone think it’s possible this was Lin Wood’s master plan? He knew the case was going to be in the spotlight. He not only wanted to control the narrative but conspired with Dr. Phil and Burke. Its almost like they set a trap.
    Woods reassures Burke that Dr. Phil will help protect his reputation. The worst-case scenario is also the best-case scenario: people outright accuse Burke of murdering his sister. If that happens, Lin Wood’s would sue for defamation and maybe Dr. Phil gets followup interviews?

    • Socalsun

      Did Dr. Phil disclose before the interview that he is a client of Lin Wood? If not, then Phil loses all credibility. The interview was definately made to look as if Burke has nothing to hide.

  22. Margarett

    I’d be the first to admit that I haven’t followed this case as obsessively as I have some others.

    I believe an intruder/s were responsible. I know many things point to the Ramsey’s. Lin Wood has nothing to do with my opinion.

    I simply believe that Patsy Ramsey could not do this cover up alone. If Jon was involved with it, I think it would have been done better.

    Take the ransom note, Jon would have done it the way a businessman would. Anyway, we’ll never know because so many people/agencies had their fingers in the pie that now there’s just a bit of crust left.

    I agree that the CBS show was pathetic. Dr. Lee did IMO seem embarrassed to be there. Thanks for providing a place to discuss it, Tamara.

    • You can certainly believe in the IDI theory if you’d like but I would suggest you have a better reason than “if John was involved with it, I think it would have been done better.”
      Why, because you feel he should be or is some kind of crime scene staging expert? I think you can clearly see that someone went to great lengths to cover up this event and make it look like something else. It’s not surprising that they had some slipups. It’s amazing to me what some people are willing to believe.
      Some things i can be certain of is sadistic killers don’t spend a half hour writing a ransom letter after 2 previous attempts, clean up after themselves, serve their victim her favorite dessert and then spend 2-3 hours killing her in stages and then making an appearance of a sexual assault without a real assault.

      • Margarett

        Donnyscott. No, I don’t expect expertise in staging a crime scene. To me, a ransom note is a lot like a business letter, and Jon Ramsey surely know how to do that.

        I certainly agree about kidnappers not writing a nearly 3 page ransom note. It would make sense to me that most anyone would also know that.

        IMO it really is a shame that this sad case will probably go unsolved.

      • You contradict yourself Margarett. On one hand you say you don’t expect expertise but on the other you do expect him to know about ransom letters. This was not a note. Who knows what he knows about writing ransom letters? More importantly who knows how the extreme stress of having your 6 yr old daughter dead on the floor and knowing your 9 yr old son killed her affects your actions when you’re trying to CONVINCE and FOOL the authorities.

        I agree Margarett that this whole case is very tragic so why rip on a show that’s following the most important evidence to where it leads them in an attempt to get to the truth? Also while enlightening us with clear evidence that JBR’s brother was disturbed which had been suppressed previously. That boy was terrorizing his little sister. At the very least this show forced Burke to come out of hiding and show himself to be every bit the disturbed 29yr old he was when he was a child.

  23. Theresa pritchett

    I am a very nervous person and I smile when so- Burke is young I did not take his smiling as guilt-leave the kid alone. People react different so don’t judge. Just saying

    • I strongly disagree that we should not judge other people. Wisdom means good judgment. Those who fail to judge wisely often fall victim to superficial deceits.

      • Janet

        I agree farfromperfect. People need to use their brains more logically and stop telling ourselves not to think, feel or judge or listen to our gut instincts. I noticed Dr. Phil sure changed his tune. At first he said he would not make any statements regarding Burke’s demeanor and would let the audience make their own conclusions. I actually liked that he did that. But then he turned around and told us a bunch of excuses for why Burke couldn’t stop grinning. Hmmm. I think Dr. Phil probably got a call from someone that said you better fix this bad impression Burke made.

  24. Patricia

    Do I think CBS, et al, should have allowed this production? No. Not at all. Do I think any member of the Ramsey Family deserves a dime. NO. Please know this response is of moral nature, not a legal one. So please don’t jump on my shit! JonBenet did not receive justice. Instead, her death became a 3 ring circus. Why? Money. The almighty dollar and all the power and influence associated with it. To think that the possible perpetrators now want to make more dollars on her death? Please. Let her lie in peace. If their innocent, don’t acknowledge it. Just let her lie in peace.

    • tamaratattles

      She’s dead. That is about as much peace as you can get in the world. You cannot go on national television and say someone murdered their sister when you’ve never in your life been charged with a crime. CBS needs to be sued to the point where it is VERY painful.

      • They will never sue Tamara because the last place they want to be is in a courtroom arguing over this evidence. The lawyer will make a big public case over threatening law suits but it will never come to fruition.

      • Tamara, you should watch Part 2 of “The Case Of”… because in it FBI Agent Clemente says that after JBR’s room was locked off investigators found feces smeared on her box of chocolates she had been given the day before. That’s pretty alarming to me especially after also being told that housekeepers had found a big ball of it in her bed previously. Should that not be a concern when this behavior seems to be directed at a younger sibling and their possessions?

      • tamaratattles

        Why on earth would I watch part 2 when part one was so ridiculous. You go on believing whatever you want to believe, and I’ll keep thinking you are the naive mentally slow audience member that show catered to.

  25. Patricia

    Am I the only one who found the recruitment of a 10 year old boy to smash a blonde-headed skull utterly revolting?

    • Diana F.

      Oh gawd I forgot to mention that in my post—YES that was THE number one creepy moment of ALL on-screen time. WTF were they thinking? I mean I get the premise of the test, good idea, interesting results yada yada, but no. Just no. MANY other ways the same thing could have been achieved.

      • It was rather disturbing. Who wants to picture a 10 year old smash a small child in the head with a heavy object. That’s the reason this case was never solved.
        Can you enlighten us on the other ways they could have achieved the same results.

  26. Meri

    It was not the many books that I read about the case nor was it the CBS program that convinced me that it was Burke…it was the interviews with Dr. Phil. So Lin Woods may have miscalculated in his ongoing campaign to perpetuate the IDI theory. I never suspected Burke prior to that interview and figured that he was innocent as the driven snow. That changed when I watched and listened to him. I don’t know if he’s on some kind of Spectrum as I am not qualified to diagnose those things but he is strange to say the very least and not truthful, imo. Why lie about things if you are innocent?

  27. Kat

    Question: In the Mini-Series – they brought in a lawyer that stated “no child under the age of 10 could be prosecuted for any crime”. Since Burke was 9 at the time of JB murder. Is it possible he could admit to doing it and still not ever be prosecuted?

  28. ZenJen55

    I never considered Burke until Dr Phil so youre right Meri, Lin Woods tactic backfired. IMO I think Burke did it. I think he did terrorize her.
    OK, will the brief forward enough to protect CBS? I agree it almost seems like Burke will be rewarded and that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

  29. Patricia

    My point exactly. CBS should have called this “The Lynching of Burke and Patsy Ramsey”. You cannot insinuate a person is guilty of murder in this country when they have not been tried in a court of law. But also in this country, you are not permitted financial gain from a crime committed. In my opinion, I believe Burke to be a very troubled individual who committed this act and therefore, should not reap any reward from it whatsoever. Bad taste indeed!

    • Michael

      Actually you can insinuate someone committed the act without them being tried. If sued for defamation, you only have to be found correct by 50.1 % margin. And truth is an ultimate defense. The Ramseys would be stupid to sue CBS. They have more resources than John Ramsey and it’s my belief they would spend millions, recover nothing, and the majority of America would come to believe CBS was correct.

      Burke can’t be tried for murder because he was 9 at the time. I’m sure the statute of limitations has expired for John and Patsy’s involvement in the coverup (and she dead anyway). It would be smart for the Ramseys to let this go rather than stoke dying flames.

      Before I can decide if the moderator is correct in her beliefs, I would need to know what qualifications she has that are greater than any of the experts on the show who she dismisses. I think they were spot on.

  30. queenoftorts

    I watched the Dr. Phil show – which told us nothing. And it now makes sense why it aired previous to the first installment of the CBS show with the Lin Wood PR Show. I also watched the CBS Series, and although you post that statements were made on both which did not support fact, I found the actual people interviewed on the CBS show to be credible. For example, the 911 operator, and subsequently the audio enhanced analysis of that 911 call can’t be disputed. The demonstration using an exact replica of the basement window with the spider webs was also compelling. The diffusion of the “stun gun” allegation was also very credible. And while the CBS version may not have proven Burke Ramsey was the perp, I think it did seal the deal that whomever killed Jon Benet was indeed in the house and not an intruder.

    • Janet

      Queenoftorts someone just called me tonight and said he and his wife thought the CBS series was really good and said Ive got to watch it. So I promised him I would. He told me about the 911 phone call where the phone wasn’t hung up and they heard Patsy saying what did you do!

  31. Patricia

    I, too, enjoyed hearing from the 911 dispatch operator. TT thinks she’s an idiot. While maybe not the brightest bulb, I think it was important that we finally hear from her. She was, after all, the very first contact involved in this debacle. Personally, I found the revelation of the 180 degree change in Patsy’s tone to be quite compelling….i.e. from hysteria to down to business with the “okay, I called the police, what’s next?” or something to that effect. I admit, I gotta kick out of the new “web” conspiracy. Anything to spice up the same ol, same ol.

  32. BeetsWhy

    I am also mostly Burke RDI. But there are two things I can’t reconcile. The unidentified DNA on her panties and long underwear and the garrote/vaginal penetration.

    Either they didn’t explain how Burke could be guilty with that DNA or I somehow missed it. About the strangulation and sexual element I guess we are to believe John or Patsy did that to cover for Burke?

    • The DNA was useless as a investigative tool. It was touch DNA that was easily transferable and shouldn’t have been used to rule in or out ANYONE. But a DA’s office that was committed to not investigating the Ramsey’s in the first place later decided to take them off the hook publicly for whatever reason.
      Another case of wealthy folks getting the benefit of the doubt. If this had been a poor family someone would have been locked 19 years ago.

  33. Patricia

    An entire segment was devoted to the DNA issue. Remember when they purchased several items of clothing like the women’s underwear? The investigative team took DNA samples of same and found DNA on some of the items even though they were brand new? Sound familiar now? I, too, struggle with the way JB was murdered. It’s difficult to put that on a parent. However, there is just an abundance of other issues I just can’t get past.

  34. Anon

    Hi TT,
    you’re knowledge of the legal process is quite good so I was hoping you may know the answer to this question. Since CBS is being sued for defamation, can their lawyer now depose Burke Ramsey? Or they can’t because Lin Wood is suing on his behalf?

    The reason I ask is because of another case I followed (The West Memphis Three) where the step father of one of the victims was publicly accused by Natalie Maines from the Dixie Chicks of committing the crime and the step father sued her for defamation. In the step father’s deposition he was asked questions pertaining to the crime which I think(?) can be used later against him in a court of law.

    Do you think if this is the case, this may possibly be why “the experts” gave their opinion in this fashion? Perhaps this was a way of goading Burke to sue and to get him to answer one way or another about that night, but this time being questioned as an adult on the record?

    • Anon

      Ugh, that should have been written “your knowledge”, not you’re… Sorry :(

    • tamaratattles

      Yes of course he could be deposed. But he was nine at the time. And he will say exactly what he said on Dr. Phil.

      Like I said, I did not watch part two because the series was ridiculous. I have no idea exactly what they said that Lin Wood finds defamatory. Whatever they said will be the part of the case that gets argued. And Lin Wood will hold up the ridiculous statements from the shady DA that “exonerated the entire Ramsey family” as proof of innocence.

      Fun fact Phaedra Parks depos when she sued someone for defamation were hilarious. http://tamaratattles.com/?s=Phaedra+v+Stanton

    • tamaratattles

      ALso, you need to pick a name to continue to comment here. ANON is no Bueno.

      It doesn’t need to be your name, just a name.

      • It'sNoBueno

        Thank you for taking the time to respond. I’m sorry about the anon name, I’ve read your blogs for sometime now but have only commented a couple times. I hope this new name is ok. Thanks for blogging about all that you do. I very much enjoy the topics and your writing style. :)

      • tamaratattles

        ROFLMAO. I KNEW you would choose that name. It’s perfect. Thanks. And comment away. I may rant and rave, but I can’t bite through the screen! :)

  35. Michael

    I’m completely confused by your blog. I watched the series. Admittedly, the six hours provided about 45 minutes of good information, but the Burke did it theory is the only one that makes sense to me. If the Ramseys sue, they open themselves up to depositions by the defense. Not just Burke, but John and every other person they’ve ever come in contact with over the last 20 years. I bet the suit doesn’t happen for that very reason.

  36. Patricia

    Michael,
    Just so you know, I used the word ” inferred” purposely. I was new and tipping my toes in the pond. It was a weak attempt on my part to try to gently advise the audience that CBS did not actually “say” anything with respect to who did what to whom. At least to my knowledge. It was, however, strongly inferred from the get-go and not extrapolated upon completion of their experiments. I did not want to enter like a bull in a china shop, hands on hips and stomping my feet. There were two reasons for this. One, because I was not physically, nor mentally, up to the challenge unlike my usual snarky self. Two, because it would have been rude.

    I’m not sure if that’s a concept you may understand. Why do you feel the owner of this blog should have to provide you with her qualifications? It seems to me she’s opinionated. So what. It is , after all, her blog. We all have opinions or else we wouldn’t be here. I could go on, but my city is in a state of civil unrest which is of more importance to me, and the rest of the nation, then having to take the time to answer some arrogant snot nose.

    Sorry if this comment confuses you.

    • Michael

      Patricia,

      How have I insulted you? Have I called you names? I did not demand Tamara provide her credentials. I’m just offering the opinion that a medical doctor is probably more persuasive on medical findings than someone who’s not a doctor. Don’t worry. You can’t offend me, which I obviously not the case with you.

      Conclusions:

      1. Burke did it.
      2. John and Patsy covered it up.
      3. The show was too long.
      4. There is no legal requirement that a person is tried before you accuse them of killing someone.
      5. The Ramseys will not sue CBS.

      Snot nosed enough for you?

      • tamaratattles

        These were my conclusions as well if you add “completely discredited by the inclusion of Spitz a a credible expert on anything” and “colossal
        waste of two hours of my time.”

        And eliminate #4 because you can’t go on TV and call someone a killer and not leave yourself open to legal action, particularly when a crooked DA has formally announced that the entire family is completely excluded as suspects.

        You sure get worked up over things we are mostly in agreement about.

        As four #5 I’m 50/50 on that. Burke will have no desire to. Lin is likely just sabre rattling and likely already tried to get an injuction which was most probably the reason the show was cut by two hours just prior to airing.

      • Michael

        The Ramseys sued Fox in 2003 for reporting “no credible evidence” an intruder did. Google “John Patsy Ramsey v. Fox”. The suit was dismissed with prejudice for failing to show an actionable claim. The opinion does a good job of laying out the standard to recover. So if I’m wrong about 5, the Ramsey’s will get dumped out by the court again.

        You stated the feces incident was years before, but the CBS show stated a maid reported a large amount of feces left on JonBenét’s bed just a short time before, feces being smeared on her bedroom wall at the crime scene, and also in a box of chocolates given to her just the day before.

      • tamaratattles

        I am aware of the Fox case. If Wood wants to bring another case, one that is a bit stronger, there is nothing to stop him from doing so, If I were on the jury, despite the fact we agree about #1 or more truthfully, I’m team RDI but I could be swayed as to how it all went down, I would cast my jury vote in favor of Burke Ramsey because it meets the defamation standard.

      • Michael

        It is defamation per se if it is published while known to be false or with a reckless disregard for the truth. I’m of the opinion the latter is the only argument that can be made, and the Ramseys would have a hard case at that.

        My original post stated I was confused. Let me explain, and no, I’m not trying to be arrogant.

        You are very dismissive of a show you only got a few minutes in to. They had experts of just about every kind; doctors, pathologists, criminalists, former FBI agents, detectives, lawyers, as well as eye witnesses. Who would have been better to do this type of examination with?

        I feel qualified to offer an opinion that Verner? literally looks like an exotic chicken, but not in any way am I able to impugn his professional background and training. Are there other people who could have examined this case who would have been better suited?

      • Cat

        I think the CBS “investigation” would have been more credible if they hadn’t done all the stupid reinactments.

        They constructed a replica of the house? A house?

        Then, their DNA “evidence”…A series of evidence bags that contained replicas of what was found at the crime scene? A flashlight that was NOT the original, but one that was similar? And they tested THAT for DNA?

        Come on. That’s not investigating. That’s grandstanding.

        They DID have a few interesting tidbits of information. But that could have been presented in 4 minutes, instead of 4 hours.

      • Michael

        I found the experiments informative. After all, they don’t have the option of going to the Boulder PD and getting the actual evidence to run tests on. I thought the replicas of the key rooms were informative as well.

        This show sealed the deal for me. I’ve thought about this case off and on for two decades. I couldn’t imagine a 9 year old was capable of doing it, which is what caused me to have doubts about the RDI theory. Confusion gone, and I liked the reenactment with the kid. I’m sure he’ll be fine.

    • tamaratattles

      As for the candy box. I am not going to debate “facts” you heard on that stupid show from “a maid”. Sorry. I don’t find that show to have any credibility. I have read the police reports however, and there is no such story there.

  37. Patricia

    My apologies to everyone. I am not an instigator. That remark just burned my butt.

  38. Patricia

    Please. Do you honestly think you can offend me? I don’t even know you. No, you did not insult me. You did not call me names. But let’s be honest. You DID want to know Tamara’s qualifications and I quote “before I can decide if the moderator is correct in her beliefs, I would need to know what qualifications she has that are greater than any of the experts on the show she dismisses”. How is that offering an opinion? What you stated was that you needed proof of her qualifications for her own belief system before YOU can decide if she is correct. THAT is what I found offensive. Come on. Think about it . Isn’t that a little offensive?
    This appears to be a non argumentative blog having much to do with reality and some other TV shows. I do not believe in arguing with people I cannot see eyeball to and this is definitely not the proper forum. That said, I apologize to you for calling you names.

    It seems silly to argue anyway. I agree with you on most points as I am sure the moderator does. With respect to your conclusions I wholeheartedly agree with points 1 through 3. I also agree with 4 with the exception of adding that you can do so, but the results may end in litigation. With respect to number 5, I don’t know. I’m not a mind reader.

    I love how I argued with you over the word inferred when the word I used was insinuated. Just goes to show how tired I am. I don’t really know what the fuck I’m talking about.

    Take that for what it’s worth.

  39. Steel_Magnolia

    I am disappointed that a network like CBS who has a history of giants like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, men who were once the most trusted men in America, would point a finger at anyone, let alone an individual who was 9 at the time of the crime, while having DNA evidence which cleanly indicates an intruder murdered Jonbenet Ramsey. The small disclaimer at the tail end of the special did little to convince me that CBS didn’t purposely go on a witch hunt against Burke Ramsey. He is a young man who has been through enough. It was clear from his appearance on Dr. Phil that while he may have some social awkwardness, he seems like a very nice young man who has done his best to become educated And lead a productive life. He deserves the peace and privacy as an adult that he missed as a child due to the tragedy his family suffered. When I think of Burke Ramsey, I am reminded of Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird. I think after his sister’s death, Burke was placed in a position to be everything for his parents. As Lee suggests in her book, “Let the dead, bury the dead.” In this case, so that those that are still living who suffered the loss of a child and a sister, be allowed after 20 years of suffering to find some peace and enjoyment in life. With CBS’ The Case of Jonbenet Ramsey, we see how low a media giant is willing to go to grab viewers using sensationalism vs. truth. I hope Burke Ramsey and attorney Lin Wood clean the financial plough of CBS.

    • tamaratattles

      ONCE MORE WITH FEELING! THERE IS NO CREDIBLE DNA EVIDENCE IN THE JonBenet Ramsey Case. The DA issuing the
      exoneration letter was AN IDIOT who sure seemed to be very PRO RAMSEY. Once can only wonder why.

      THE DNA “EXPERT” on the case has been Barred from ever being an expert witness in Colorado.

      A Denver prosecutor got Richard Eikelenboom to admit he “had no direct DNA extraction or analysis experience, that he operates a lab that has not been accredited, that he personally failed his basic proficiency tests in 2011 and 2012, and admitted that he was ‘self-trained’ in running DNA profiles,” the Denver District Attorney’s Office said in a statement Thursday.

      The DA’s office said the man had been debunked.

      “Testimony in Denver District Court earlier this week revealed that Eikelenboom has committed fundamental DNA analysis errors by not following accepted scientific standards in the DNA field,” the DA’s office said.

      Eikelenboom was rejected as a DNA expert by a Denver District Court court judge after the testimony.

      Eikelenboom’s purported areas of expertise are DNA and bloodstain pattern analysis and trace recovery. He works with his wife, Selma, at Independent Forensic Services, a private laboratory in the Netherlands.

      As for Werner Spitz he hasn’t done an actual autopsy in decades. He just comes in on high profile cases and testifies in favor of the highest bidder. He loves to disagree with autopsy done by the person who ACTUALLY SAW THE BODY and make up facts to please whoever is paying. His whole presence on the show was idiotic.

Please Read the COMMENTING RULES before commenting.