My own partial review of Woodward
#1
My thoughts from partial reading (about 1/2, plus various sections on specific subjects). Would be very interested to hear others' opinions:

For what it's worth, for those interested: I've gotten through nearly half of WHYD by Woodward, and it strikes me as very well researched and documented, pretty reliable and accurate, but far from perfect. Of course, no book on such a subject can be. But I am disappointed that she so often lets her pro-Ramsey bias show so plainly. Mind you, I don't think she misrepresents events or masquerades conjecture or opinion as being fact—in my estimation she is solid on facts and she documents nearly everything with sources. But she often goes overboard in her criticism of the media or the Boulder Police Dept., splitting hairs on borderline items in order to compile as long a list of errors/untruths as possible.
 
I fully appreciate that assembling such a book is a monumental task, and some number of errors is inevitable, but it's disappointing to see such simple errors as repeatedly referring to the contents of JBR's "stomach" when the autopsy clearly specifies small intestine. She may be biology-challenged and think there's no significant difference, and that stomach is close enough and easier for the reader, but the distinction goes to the heart of the debate she is describing, and her error will cause confusion and likely add many pages of unnecessary arguing to threads on forums like this.

Woodward also overdoes it in her criticism of Ofcr. French—not that he didn't make a lot of mistakes, but she throws everything but the kitchen sink at him, and for instance makes a very obvious error criticizing his decision not to open the wine cellar door and look inside. While it certainly was a mistake, his underlying logic is sound, i.e., they were investigating a kidnapping, and he was looking for points of entry/exit; the latch was on the outside of the door, so no one could have left by that route and then closed the latch behind them, and couldn't have entered that way if the latch was closed when they came in. Woodward doesn't even consider this.

But the errors I have found are few and far between, and quite frankly the most annoying thing to me is her refusal to use the names of people such the Whites, Stines and Fernies, constantly referring to them merely as "friends" (and, oddly enough, she does the same with a few BPD officers, too). This makes the narrative confusing at times (which friend is she talking about now?), and difficult to cross reference, and seems totally unnecessary since the names of these people and their respective roles in events have been public knowledge for many years. She makes it difficult to wholeheartedly recommend her book when the names Fernie, Stine and White are nowhere to be found in the index.

All in all, I think it is a top-notch addition to the literature of the JBR case, and I hope some RDI with any sort of open mind can look past the bias and shortcomings, and be able to recognize the contribution Woodward's extensive research and documentation makes to a clearer understanding of the case.
Reply
#2
I know she has a lot of notes from different people but I also know some police notes were made days later than they should have been and some have errors.

Right now, Paula is saying the Vicki Emery ads are not photos of JonBenet but Vicki was a friend of Patsy's and I remember discussing those ads with Patsy and Susan Stine so I believe Paul is wrong there.

I said something to Paula about her coverage of Don Foster and she didn't know that story.

As much as I have to acknowledge Paula has a relationship with John and has some files no one else has, she also is missing other files and I can't say she has everything right.

I also have to say I agree with you, leaving the names out of the book makes it confusing and feels "less credible". JMO
Reply
#3
Rather wondering why the Ramseys trusted her as they did.

After getting the BODE reports, I took days to study them, rearranging them by date, rearranging them by object tested, reading, studying.

I saw the information on GSLD99178617 - it is a good profile - 13 loci with most having 2 alleles - - it was the DNA found in her panties, the DNA of a single person found ALONE with JonBenet's - this has to be the DNA they used to clear Fleet White, Chris Wolf and John Mark Karr. And the BORG cheered. But the BORG would never allow it to permanently clear the family.

And Paula Woodward did not include that information in her book.

I regret being of any assistance to her in writing the book as now I see her as being far less than a friend to the Ramseys and far less than honest with her readers.

Feel free to share this elsewhere - - I wouldn't want anyone to think I support her - I do not. Her book has interesting quotes from the Ramseys and others in it, but Paula did JonBenet an injustice with her reporting.
Reply
#4
Tough criticisms, jameson.
But I have to believe you know the truth about her intentions, so I highly regard your opinion here.

Her timing was also quite notable. I have seen her on Facebook taking issue with photos as well.
I would view her book with more skepticism after reading your remarks.
Best,

J
Reply
#5
On the photos - - she said the photos in the Vicki Emory ads were not of JonBenét. She was wrong. I added the ads here and alerted the Ramseys to the misinformation Paula was putting out. Later Paula posted something like the photos were switched. I don't believe that for a minute. Paula, simply put, knows a lot but I no longer trust her to tell only the truth.

In her book, she leaves it with the DNA being useless. But she should have known about the GSLD99178617 profile. I can only imagine why she would have left that out.

I am not going to support her just because she was trusted by the Ramseys. I think that may have been a mistake but we'll see as things unfold.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)