JonBenet Ramsey Case Re-Opened

/in /by
The Boulder Police have been given back the JonBenet Ramsey “cold case” from the D.A.’s office, and are said to be forming a multi-agency task force “including some of the region’s most experienced investigators” (1) from the federal and state level to take a fresh new look at this case. I am so happy to hear this.

Read moreLast year, many of you will remember the previous district attorney, Mary Lacy, got back Touch DNA evidence from JonBenet’s leggings that matched DNA from her underwear found at the crime scene. With that, Lacy cleared the entire Ramsey family of any involvement because they did not match the DNA.

Lacy automatically assumed that whoever touched JonBenet, in two places, had to be the killer. And for those of you who followed this case, I felt (along with many others) that this was a reckless move. Until the case is solved, no one can conclusively be cleared.

While I don’t know what the truth is, or what happened that night, I just have to ask this:

  1. How can we be certain that JonBenet wasn’t molested that night by a family friend or relative at that Christmas party, before they arrived home? DNA doesn’t give us the timing of events, or tell us when things occurred. With that, can we can conclusively say that the person who molested JonBenet is the same person who killed her?
  2. Furthermore, is it possible, and I don’t know, that JonBenet played with some children that night, scratched them, and contaminated herself on her leggings and underwear when going to the bathroom? Or that one child touched her on her leggings, while playing, and she then scratched them, and contaminated her underwear? Is that a possibility? Or can that be ruled out?
  3. Can we be certain there was no DNA cross-contamination at the crime scene or by the lab?
  4. Since Touch DNA is new, can we be certain it is foolproof? There have been other forensic evidence techniques developed in the past and used by the FBI that were later found to be flawed. Remember Touch DNA is new. We may not know all the pitfalls of using Touch DNA. The above referenced link talks about how a 40-year-old forensic technique was found to be flawed. Touch DNA was only used for 8 years prior to the JonBenet Ramsey case.
  5. Last, there are people who can be an accessory to a crime. That is, they know what happened, and keep it quiet in an attempt to protect others. How do we know that this is not the case in this situation? How can we conclusively say that John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey could not be accessory?

I think each of these things are plausible reasons why no one should be excluded from this investigation, including the Ramseys.

Do I think John Ramsey killed his daughter? I don’t know. I just know I personally don’t trust what John Ramsey says. Something isn’t right. In every interview I have seen of John Ramsey over the years, I have seen red flags.

Watch what was discussed on Nancy Grace last night:

You Decide

/in /by

There is a case I reviewed back in November about a Liberian immigrant who was beaten on election night. His story had a lot of red flags, and it made me suspicious. I can’t deny it. I wrote up my thoughts and shortly after I did, a foreign language teacher came by and posted her thoughts in the comment section. She explained to me his lack of emotions and his language skills were all likely due to the fact he was an immigrant. I agreed with her that what she pointed out was important to consider when looking at this case, but I was still unresolved. I was torn and suspicious, yet undecided.

A week later, when I heard there were suspects, I posted another post asking people to let me know if they saw the suspects speak. I wanted to watch them to get a better understanding of the situation, but they never spoke out. I never got a chance to look at them to come to a conclusive opinion. Four suspects have since been arrested and plead guilty (CNN). A reader informed me this morning.

So, this is your vote. You decide.

Related News Update Added February 7, 2009:
Ali Kamara, the Liberian immigrant discussed in this post above, was arrested for auto theft this week.

Record-breaking Day

/in /by

Today is a record-breaking day for “Eyes for Lies Blog”. We are surpassing our highest visitor count in one day, all before 2:00 PM today. We have another ten hours to go.

So far today, we’ve had 2,287 unique visitors, 5,012 page loads, and 146 returning visitors!

Just thought you’d like to know.

Update:
We broke all visitor record! The final tally for the day:

  • 10,148 page loads
  • 4,595 unique visitors
  • 320 returning visitors

My Thoughts on Ted Haggard

/in /by

Ted Haggard was on Oprah this week. Did you see him? It was an interesting show. If you missed it, the entire show is on YouTube in four parts.

Read moreHaggard tells us that he is, in his own words, “not gay”, and that he is a “…heterosexual male with homosexual attachments,” according to his “first” psychologist. He doesn’t inform us what the other consulted psychologists have said. It sure does make you wonder, doesn’t it?

Haggard also tells us that he still faces temptation, but he no longer feels the need to be “compulsive”; in other words, act on his desires, simply because, he says, he has come forward with the truth and is speaking openly about it now.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Has anyone ever been cured of temptation because they confessed to their desire?

It sounds like the fancy language of denial to me, personally. Or, maybe Haggard is testing the waters to see how people respond to the word “homosexual”?

I don’t disagree with Haggard that he has an internal struggle going on inside himself right now, because having homosexual desires, and being an Evangelical pastor don’t go hand-in-hand. They are fundamentally at odds.

I personally don’t think we’ve seen the last of this story yet. There is likely going to be another chapter. Whatever chapter unfolds, I only hope it doesn’t harm other peoples’ lives again.

I truly hope that Haggard finds the strength, the courage and the fortitude to embrace who he really is. When we accept ourselves as we are, we find true happiness, and only then can we truly be our authentic selves.

Q&A

/in /by

Here is your forum. Do you have a question? Feel free to ask it!

One reader today asked me if I could discern if someone was lying by watching a video of them, even though I couldn’t understand the language spoken. The reader believed that because the person was calm, and relaxed, that this indicated they were not lying.

The answer to their question was no, you cannot use body language alone (any body language) to conclusively identify if someone is honest or deceptive. It simply cannot be done, and is dangerous to do.

It’s not all about expressions. Language does matter. Emotions matter. Words matter. Facts matter. Behavior matters. The show “Lie to Me” isn’t explaining the nuances of this ability very well.

It’s also important that people realize there is not one universal clue that can be applied “across the board” to spot deception. Not one. What one person does when he is lying, another will do when he is honest. There is always an exception to every clue. Always. That’s what makes deception detection so hard for the average person, because this is not about clues. It is about understanding human behavior, to the core.

Deception detection is more about the sum of inconsistencies, and the sum in total indicates deception. This is so important, and clearly not being communicated on “Lie to Me”. Microexpressions, and the other clues shown on the show, are used in the process of discerning a lie, but they are not conclusive of anything in and of themselves, outside of indicating a person’s emotional state of mind (which will just provide you with a clue).