Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 7
» Latest member: PeterSherri
» Forum threads: 1,742
» Forum posts: 5,542

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 38 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 38 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Jean Fortier
Forum: Neighbors
Last Post: jameson245
02-13-2021, 02:42 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 3,457
Diane Brumfit - South
Forum: Neighbors
Last Post: jameson245
02-13-2021, 02:28 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 3,344
Perry Freeman
Forum: BORG theories and BORG people of note
Last Post: jameson245
02-04-2021, 10:18 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 860
Marcel Eflers
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: Dave
02-04-2021, 09:59 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 95
Fleet White - 12/29/1996
Forum: December 26th
Last Post: jameson245
02-03-2021, 02:51 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 366
Retired FBI John Douglas
Forum: FBI involvement
Last Post: Dave
02-03-2021, 01:40 PM
» Replies: 27
» Views: 9,763
Suzanne Savage
Forum: Housekeepers, workers in the house
Last Post: jameson245
02-02-2021, 03:35 PM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 7,322
9 pageants
Forum: Pageants
Last Post: jameson245
01-28-2021, 04:12 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 1,138
interesting - was she ang...
Forum: Judith Phillips
Last Post: jameson245
01-28-2021, 04:10 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 113
Not sure
Forum: Pam and Kristine Griffin
Last Post: jameson245
01-28-2021, 03:40 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 1,123

  Brennan story on
Posted by: jameson245 - 01-17-2021, 08:50 PM - Forum: Flashlight - No Replies

Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)
June 8, 1997Browse Issues
Author/Byline: Charlie Brennan Kevin McCullen
Hidden in plain sight
A patrol officer who was among the first on the scene Dec. 26 noticed a heavy, police-style flashlight on the Ramseys' kitchen counter.
He asked who owned it. None of the police claimed it.
That officer, sources say, suggested to a detective that it be seized as potential evidence. He was rebuffed and told to keep his nose out of detectives' affairs, sources say.
The autopsy found that JonBenet had suffered a fractured skull caused by a heavy, blunt instrument.
The News has learned that a flashlight from the Ramsey home did, eventually, find its way to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation with dozens of other items seized from the residence.
But sources say the flashlight at the CBI is not the one spotted on the Ramseys' kitchen counter.
That flashlight's whereabouts remain a mystery.

Print this item

  BODE tested this nightgown
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-29-2020, 01:28 PM - Forum: Barbie nightgown - Replies (1)


[color=rgba(35, 32, 31, 0.6)][color=rgba(40, 26, 23, 0.8)]BODE TECHNOLOGY WRITTEN ANALYSIS ON DNA IN THE JONBENÉT RAMSEY CASE. [/color]
[color=rgba(40, 26, 23, 0.8)]NOVEMBER, 2016  [/color]
There are two years to focus on regarding the two different types of DNA testing in the JonBenét Ramsey case: 1997 and 2008
·        1997 – DNA Testing from JonBenét’s panties and from under her fingernails. Three different areas were tested. The method of testing was short tandem repeats.
January 15, 1997 - The first testing was done by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and delivered to Boulder Police on January 15, 1997. The report concluded:  
“The DNA profiles developed from [(bloodstains from panties as well as from right- and left-hand fingernails from JonBenét] revealed a mixture from which the major component matched JonBenét. If the minor components contributed from [bloodstains from panties as well as from right- and left-hand fingernails from JonBenét] were contributed by a single individual, then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey [etc.] would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits.”      
February 1997 – Boulder police send the Colorado Bureau of Investigation testing to CellMark Diagnostics. 
May, 1997 - The results from CellMark, which were delivered to Boulder Police in May of 1997, reveal “no surprises” as they were similar to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation results.
I asked DNA expert Dr. Elizabeth Johnson from Thousand Oaks, California to review the 1997 findings.  She wrote that the minor or foreign DNA was ‘very weak’.  Dr. Johnson indicated that the DNA from all three 1997 samples [panties and left and right fingernails from JonBenét] was from the same person. She added that, if the DNA from these samples was from the same person, it eliminated the Ramseys and their family members as contributors to the mixture.
There is additional comment on the 1997 testing. In 2008, when Bode Technology DNA investigators analyzed untested clothing, they also gave an opinion on the 1997 testing.  The two Bode DNA experts stated they believed the testing was accurate and would “testify” in court if necessary according to a Boulder District Attorney Investigator Report.   
Advances in DNA testing and identification developed very rapidly so in 2008, a decision was made by then-Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy, for a new type of DNA testing on previously untested clothing of JonBenét.
·        2008 – New Touch DNA Testing from four different areas of JonBenét’s ‘white long underwear bottoms’ at the waist band. – Exterior top right half of long johns, Exterior top left half of long johns, Interior top right half of long johns, Interior top left half of long johns: 
This Touch DNA testing was completed by Bode Laboratories/Technology. This clothing had never been tested. There were other items sent in for the touch DNA testing at that time, but the documents concentrated on for this portion are the touch DNA testing analysis from the long johns. Eight years later, DNA experts hired by Colorado television station KUSA and newspaper The Daily Camera questioned the validity of the 2008 DNA testing The experts analyzed the 2008 Bode tests including written and laboratory results.
The documentation below is the written analysis by Bode Labs on the long johns delivered to the Boulder District Attorney’s Office.  Again, there were four test areas completed on the waist band of the long johns. This is the first time this documentation has  been made public. Bode Technology stands by its results in these documents on its 2008 DNA JonBenét Ramsey testing.
·        March 24, 2008 – These are the results of the request by then-Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy for Bode Lab/Technology to examine the 2008 waist band/long john results and compare it to the 1997 DNA results from the different clothing  


June 20, 2008 – These are test results asked for by then-Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy for Bode Lab/Technology to compare the 2008 Touch DNA Test results from JonBenét’s long johns with the 1997 DNA testing from JonBenét’s panties and from under the fingernails of each hand.



May 12, 2008 – These are the results of Touch DNA testing on a different piece of clothing from the long johns.  It’s JonBenét’s “Barbie Nightgown” which was found in the storage room next to JonBenét’s body. The testing is described as “Blood Standards”.
They were taken from four areas of the nightgown:  Exterior and interior of the bottom front of nightgown, exterior of the left shoulder region front and back of nightgown, exterior of the right shoulder region front and back of nightgown, exterior and interior of the bottom back of nightgown.



There will be more JonBenét Ramsey DNA documentation on this website as it becomes available. I have made the written analysis documentation public for more transparency on the Ramsey case. It was obtained from a Colorado Open Records Request to the Boulder District Attorney’s Office in October of 2016.

Print this item

Posted by: jameson245 - 12-21-2020, 05:51 PM - Forum: The House at 755 15th Street, Boulder, CO - Replies (1)


Print this item

Posted by: jameson245 - 12-21-2020, 05:39 PM - Forum: The House at 755 15th Street, Boulder, CO - No Replies


Print this item

  Police can enter unlocked homes at will?
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-17-2020, 11:48 AM - Forum: Boulder crimes - No Replies

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.
BOULDER, Colo. — A Boulder woman who had her residence breached by a police officer when she was out for a walk with her dog is speaking out against the policy that permitted the officer to do so.
According to the Boulder Daily Camera, Chrissy Smiley returned home to her Boulder condo on June 6 to find a note on her dining room table from a Boulder police officer, alerting her to the fact he had entered her residence while she was away.
She called the officer to find out why the search was necessary. And although she called the officer “very nice,” she was disturbed by what he had to say.
“He said he had come back to follow up on another officer who had been there for something and he felt he had probable cause to make sure that I was safe,” Smiley told the Camera. “It’s just creepy that someone would come in when I am not there.
“Maybe it is uncommon to leave your door open, but whatever, it doesn’t invite them in.”
Boulder police Sgt. Michael Everett disagreed, telling the Camera that entering unsecured residences is standard practice for law enforcement agencies and unlikely to stop in Boulder.
“There are many reasons for checking residences that are left open,” Everett told the newspaper. “They include in-progress crimes and injured parties inside. There are situations which create a duty for officers to enter and check residences. Failure to do so creates liability for that officer and agency.”
Smiley said that while eliminating an officer’s ability to enter her unlocked residence may put her in harms way, that’s a risk she’s willing to take. She also said she will be pursuing legal action if an officer enters her residence without her consent in the future.

Print this item

  Fleet White - 12/29/1996
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-12-2020, 01:48 PM - Forum: December 26th - Replies (2)

Quoting Fleet White in a statement dated 12/29/1996

First on the Ramsey family - (Not sure exactly what the question was but here is the exact response)

"There's absolutely nothing about the Ramsey family, there's absolutely nothing about the Ramsey family that I know of that would.... there, there's no, there's noting about Patsy, there's nothing about John, there's nothing about JonBenét or Burke that, I mean  (redacted section).  And there's absolutely nothing that you could say about the Ramseys that - - - they're just wonderful folks.  You know?  And they have a good time together, they have a great time with their kids, their kids get along.  No one ever raises their voice, there's never any disharmony in their kids, no disharmony between Patsy and John.  There's no, there's not even a glimmer of it.

And on Burke leaving the house:

"At some point, probably 45 minutes into this, I don't really know, half hour, 45 minutes into this, by this time Barbara Fernie was there.  It might have been Barbara Fernie and I, maybe Priscilla and I, maybe Pricilla, Barbara and I, I don't know, somebody, but it was one of that group, we just thought, "What do we do with Burke?  You know?  He's upstairs asleep.  We can't let him wake up and walk down on this."  And so, this is probably around 7 o'clock. I, you know, we decided he'd come to our house.  Our kids, by that time our kids would have been up.  And we had four adults here, house guests, at the time, so, you know, that's why... out kids are there, that's why we could go down to the Ramseys.  So we thought that would be a perfect deal, you know, it's close.  We'll just get Burke in the car.  And then shortly after that we decide that we needed to go down and get the Fernies' kids because they were home alone.  That was Eliza and Luke.  So, I said I'll, we'll go up and get Burke and get going.  

I asked John to go wake up Burke  since I thought it would be better than John, you know, his dad wake him up than me go up, you know, waking him up.  So we both went up the stairs.  John went in.  I think he turned on the light.  Opened the door, flicked on the light, woke Burke up, and then Burke started, you know, to get up. 

I went back downstairs and for some... I don't know why I went back downstairs.  Maybe there was nothing I could do up there until Burke got dressed or something, so I just went back downstairs.  I probably went down and held Patsy or something, I don't know.  

So then, a few minutes later, I went back up and in the meantime, John had come back down.  John came back down almost immediately, as I recall.  He came back down.  Whether it was a...  you know, in any event, he came back down.  So I went back upstairs and helped Burke get dressed, got him ready to go.  I don't remember what that meant, I think I, you know, helped him put his shoes on, I don't know, and kind of got him going.  

And Burke.... and then Burke went over and picked up a new Nintendo game that he just got for Christmas and another toy, kind of a car on a track or something.  I'm not sure exactly what it was, with very small little cars, which I'm pretty sure he'd also just gotten for Christmas.  he kind of gathered, gathered those up and he walked, starting walking out and then I pulled his blanket up and his bedspread and threw the pillow on the bed.  Kind of made his bed.  

And then we walked downstairs and what'd I do?  We walked down the front stairs into the entry and I, and we just walked out the front door to my truck, which was parked in front of the house.  And I thought what I would do is get Burke up here first, drop him off.  get him squared away, and then go up to, rather than drive him all the way up to the Fernies' and back, I'd just drop him off and then go get the Fernie children.  So I did that. 

I brought him up and he got out of the car, walked up the stairs where, up to where I think my son was still asleep... or, I don't think that.  He was probably just kind of getting up, or he was awake.   he saw Burke was there, which was great.  So they went in and laid on our bed and plugged in a Nintendo game into our TV at the foot of our bed and started playing Nintendo."

Detective Linda Arndt asked, "What was Burke told about why he was coming over to your house?"

Back to quote from Fleet White:  "He didn't, he wasn't old anything.  Not a thing.  I don't remember telling him anything.  The only person who would have told him anything was me, and I, as far as I know, and I, I did leave the bedroom.  It's possible that John told him something, but if he did, I have no knowledge of what it was.  Other than John Ramsey, the only person who could have told him anything about the situation would have been me."

Print this item

  Pat Brown
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-06-2020, 01:32 PM - Forum: Names to remember - No Replies

MONDAY, JULY 14, 2008
A Touch of DNA

[Image: jonbenet.jpg]by Pat Brown

A "bombshell" piece of DNA evidence has emerged in the long unsolved murder of JonBenét Ramsey and cleared John and Patsy of any involvement in the death of their daughter, according to District Attorney Mary Lacy, who has written a long letter of apology to the family.

Touch DNA, a new technology developed by Bode Laboratories near Washington DC, has discovered nonfamilial DNA on the sides of JonBenét's long johns. "Touch" DNA is a process which allows analysts to scrape targeted areas of clothing for DNA that might have been left by the perpetrator of a crime.

In JonBenét's case, it was surmised her killer might have pulled down her long johns to commit a sexual assault upon her, thereby leaving microscopic skin cells that the new Touch DNA technology could identify.

A knife was scraped along the waistband and sides of the long johns and previously undiscovered genetic material was found. Tests proved the DNA to be from a male unrelated to the Ramseys. This new DNA supposedly matches some other unidentified DNA found on JonBenét's panties years ago.

Quite convincing stuff until I realized what was missing from this picture: Patsy Ramsey's Touch DNA, and JonBenét's Touch DNA. When I further considered how easily this Touch DNA might have transfered off of any other person to the hands of Patsy or JonBenét—and then onto the little girl's long johns and panties—my confidence in this new evidence waned.

JonBenét had had an exciting and busy day, this last day of her life. She had gone to a party with her parents and enjoyed the company of a number of other adults and children. She then fell asleep on the way home. John carried her into the house and to her room. He laid her down on the bed and took off her coat and shoes. Then Patsy removed her pants and replaced them with the long johns.

Reviewing who might have touched what—and when and where they might h[Image: 1221jon1.gif]ave done so—we can see John would have had the least opportunity to touch JonBenét's underwear (if he were not involved in the crime) as while he was carrying her, the underwear was still covered by her outer clothing. Patsy, on the other hand, certainly must have handled her undergarments. Where then is her Touch DNA on the long johns that she forced onto the sleeping child? This is not an easy task and I would bet she had to get a good grip on the waist band to pull them on properly. Surely, she touched the sides of the long johns as well.

And what of JonBenét? Isn't it likely that her own Touch DNA is on her panties (as she would have pulled them up and down to go to the bathroom)? Wouldn't her Touch DNA also be on the long johns since even sleeping children's hands may come in contact with their clothes as they toss and move about?

Furthermore, skin cells pass easily from one human to another, so that Touch DNA on JonBenét's clothing may have come from someone she touched before she touched herself. Touch DNA, therefore, is better as a test of inclusion rather than exclusion. If some 40-year-old sex offender ends up matching the DNA on JonBenét's underwear, well then, he would have a lot of explaining to do. However, if the match is an eighteen year old—someone who was but six years old at the time of JonBenét's murder—then John and Patsy are hardly off the hook.

We have also, at this point, only the DA's word that the tests were done properly and that they yielded those particular results. The DNA evidence has not been made public nor has it been examined in a court of law for its validity.

Lastly, let's say we accept that the DNA evidence came from a third party. It would seem likely that there should be more of that DNA at the scene. Where is it? If the perpetrator was careless enough to not wear gloves while sexually assaulting JonBenét, should we not find many more of those skin cells on her shirt, on the blanket, on the ransom note, etc.?

While no one is guilty until proven guilty in a court of law, the presence of DNA from an unknown source doesn't necessarily prove a one-time suspect innocent either. Of all people, the DA should know this and that letter of apology should have been kept in reserve until enough evidence surfaces to effect the arrest and prosecution of the actual killer of JonBenét Ramsey.

JULY 14, 2008 AT 9:01 AM
[Image: *]
Pat Brown said...

One other unknown piece is an email I have from John Ramsey in response to one I sent him. I noted the language and scenario in the ransom note was similar to that of "Choose Your Own Adventure" stories and the lettering of the ransom note was exactly the same font and size (as if one laid the note on top of the words in the book and traced them so as to disguise writing). As the Ramsey's son was just the right age to be a reader of these books, I told John my theory and mentioned the killer might have been in the son's room and borrowed one of these books to fashion his note.

John responded by commenting on the police incompetancy but said nothing about my theory. I found this odd as usually a family will jump on any new possible concept, even if it is absurd, and want more information on it or ask me to talk to the police. He did neither but said he would keep my email.

One other thing that always bothered me about the ransom note was the opening, "Listen carefully!" No one uses that when writing a note someone will be reading. This is only used when dictating while looking at another.

And so the evidence stacks up....
JULY 14, 2008 AT 10:26 AM

Print this item

  Carol McKinley talking to Peter Boyles
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-01-2020, 11:53 AM - Forum: Cord ligature - Garrote - No Replies

August 4th, 1999

"I started listening to some of the detectives, and the scientists, and people from different departments... people who had rifts before, and they all seem to be telling me that they believe JonBenet clawed at her neck as she was dying.  There are some marks on the autopsy report that are called "non-patterned marks", in other words, there's the furrow from the ligatures, then there are bruises and abrasions which are non-patterned, which means they are not in the pattern of the line that the furrow made, and they're in the left, right and center of her neck.  And it's consistent with her own clawing, that she clawed herself as she was dying, or trying to get a breath.  And that was opposite of what I had thought, which was that she was hit on the head so hard that she was just knocked out and never came to again.  To me, the big part of that is, that even after this long, it kinda gave me a stomach turn thinking about how she died...  you know it's different if she died with unconsciousness and never really felt anything after that, but if we know she was gasping for breath and trying to get a finger underneath that cord, as she was dying, it just makes us look at it a little differently.

Print this item

Posted by: jameson245 - 11-21-2020, 01:17 PM - Forum: December 26th - No Replies

Statements or information is not in any order here - - sources cited where possible

PMPT - hard cover page 15 - "White knelt beside Ramsey and touched on of JonBenét's feet.  The child was dead cold."

Thought - could this be that strange shape found near the two footprints?

Print this item

  ST on GJ (deposition)
Posted by: jameson245 - 11-21-2020, 12:37 PM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - No Replies

Quote:Steve Thomas Deposition (Atlanta, Georgia)
Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Action File No. 00-CIV-1187(JEC)

(Grand Jury Discussion)

17 Q. Did you ever receive any
18 information about grand jury testimony or
19 evidence in the case?
20 A. Never.


7 Q. Do you have any other documents
8 about this investigation, other than those
9 documents? Do you?
10 A. Oh, I'm sorry. If I understand
11 the question correctly, no, as I said, not
12 that I recall because post-August '98 began
13 the grand jury. And certainly I don't have
14 any information from the grand jury room.


4 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You said very
5 clearly to Mr. Hoffman you do not know the
6 state of the evidence with respect to the
7 JonBenet Ramsey investigation, as you sit here
8 today, the state of the evidence as of
9 September 2001, true?
10 A. After leaving the police
11 department, yes, that concluded my official
12 participation. I have followed the case
13 through the media, but as far as being privy
14 to anything that occurred in the grand jury
15 or continued evidence testing, I'm unaware of
16 that.
17 Q. You knew the state of the evidence
18 as it existed in the case as of March 2001,
19 true?
20 A. That was during the period which
21 -- no, the grand jury had concluded -- no, I
22 -- no, I wasn't inside the police department
23 reviewing evidence at that time either.

24 Q. But what you did know and you had
25 actual knowledge of was that a grand jury had


1 met for some 13 months and had not issued an
2 indictment against John and Patsy Ramsey,
3 right?
4 A. I don't know that. Do you know
5 that?
6 Q. Sir, was an indictment issued? Do
7 you have information there was an indictment
8 of my clients that nobody has bothered
9 telling them or me about?
10 MR. HOFFMAN: Actually, Lin,
11 Patrick Burke has information that he should
12 have told you about which he announced to the
13 media that according to him the grand jury
14 actually took a straw poll. Why don't you
15 ask Patrick Burke.
16 MR. WOOD: Let me tell you,
17 Darnay, that won't count against my time.
18 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
19 MR. WOOD: But you're right, it
20 was a straw poll; it was a vote not to
21 indict. Thank you for bringing something to
22 my attention that I already knew.
23 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.

24 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Would you answer
25 my question, sir? It's pretty simple. You

1 know that no indictment was issued by the
2 grand jury, true?
3 A. I don't know what the grand jury
4 did.
5 Q. I'm not asking you what they did
6 in terms of whether they voted or not, sir.
7 MR. DIAMOND: I think he's asking
8 you --
9 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I'm asking you
10 whether they issued an indictment to indict
11 John and/or Patsy Ramsey?
12 MR. DIAMOND: -- are you aware of
13 any public report of such an indictment.
14 A. No.
15 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You also know that
16 after the grand jury was dismissed that Alex
17 Hunter stated publicly that all seven of the
18 prosecutors in the case unanimously agreed
19 that this was not a case where they felt
20 that evidence was sufficient to justify at
21 that time a prosecution. You know that, too,
22 don't you, sir?
23 A. That Hunter --
24 Q. Made that statement publicly?
25 A. Made the statement that his

1 advisors supported that decision?
2 Q. Seven prosecutors, not his
3 advisors, seven prosecutors, you know that,
4 don't you, sir?
5 A. I know that statement was made.


Steve Thomas Deposition - 09-21-2001
Chris Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Case

(Grand Jury Discussion)


24 Q. Do you know of any prosecutor who
25 is familiar with the evidence that has

1 concluded that the evidence shows beyond a
2 reasonable doubt that Patsy Ramsey is guilty
3 of the homicide of her daughter?
4 A. No, because the prosecutors privy
5 to that evidence are bound by grand jury
6 secrecy and none have violated that with me.


13 Q. Why did you not, when you had old
14 Barry Scheck, a nice guy, Henry Lee, all
15 these VIPs there, why did you not include the
16 intruder evidence in the presentation to
17 objectively give those individuals both sides
18 of the case?
19 A. Because the Boulder Police
20 Department's position was, as I understood it
21 and understand it, the VIP presentation was
22 to show that there was sufficient probable
23 cause to arrest Patsy Ramsey and for the DA's
24 office to move it forward through the use of
25 a grand jury with that end in mind.

1 Q. Of an indictment which is a
2 finding by a grand jury of probable cause to
3 charge or arrest, right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You've been in the business long
6 enough to know that the grand jury can, as
7 they say, indict a ham sandwich, right? It
8 doesn't take much evidence to indict or
9 arrest, does it, sir?
10 A. My understanding of probable cause
11 is facts and evidence and circumstances that
12 are within the knowledge of a police officer
13 that would lead a reasonable person to
14 conclude that, A, a crime was committed and
15 B, that a particular individual was involved.
16 Sometimes, depending on the case,
17 that can sometimes be a great threshold.


24 Q. You state in your book there were
25 27 reasons for a grand jury and it's at page

1 309. But my question is, were those 27
2 reasons for a grand jury correlate to the 27
3 remaining tasks that were referred to in that
4 June '98 press release by the Boulder Police
5 Department?
6 A. Let me look at 309 real quickly.
7 308, 309?
8 Q. It's on 309 and I've got a copy
9 of that press release where he says there
10 were 27 tasks remaining. I'm just wondering
11 if that's the correlation.
12 A. Oh, if I understand you correctly,
13 did these 27 reasons correspond with the 27
14 tasks left on the to-do list?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. No.


6 Q. What I want to know is if you can
7 date that for me? "'The case is not being
8 handled well,' said the CASKU agents."
9 A. Shortly before I believe the
10 Ramseys' April 30, 1997 interview.
11 Q. Can you identify the three agents
12 for me?
13 A. Supervisory special agent Bill
14 Hagmaier, special agent Mike Morrow, and their
15 partner and the third special agent, his name
16 just escapes me at the moment.
17 Q. And those three agents prior to
18 April 30, 1997 said that the intruder theory
19 was absurd, Hofstrom needs to act like a
20 prosecutor not a public defender. Don't do
21 tomorrow's interview and get a grand jury as
22 soon as possible, right?
23 A. Yes.

Print this item