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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 31
» Latest member: SundanceIM
» Forum threads: 1,099
» Forum posts: 3,423

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 14 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 14 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
From Brill's Content
Forum: Footprints in the snow
Last Post: SundanceIM
03-29-2018, 07:55 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 312
from Thomas deposition in...
Forum: Barbie nightgown
Last Post: jameson245
03-15-2018, 06:04 PM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 1,563
Dr. Oz - Nancy Grace - Ju...
Forum: What is in the news - staying up to date
Last Post: jameson245
03-15-2018, 05:56 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 550
Burke lawsuit
Forum: Burke sues Werner Spitz for $150,000,000.00
Last Post: jameson245
03-15-2018, 05:53 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 517
Obituary
Forum: Peter Hofstrom
Last Post: jameson245
02-20-2018, 12:34 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 171
John Phillips
Forum: Opinions
Last Post: jameson245
01-31-2018, 03:54 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 283
Lin Wood says CBS is goin...
Forum: Burke sues CBS for 750 million
Last Post: jameson245
01-18-2018, 07:22 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 360
news story
Forum: John and Barbara Fernie
Last Post: Dispatcher
01-09-2018, 11:08 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 581
What they should have kno...
Forum: The CBS suit
Last Post: CA4Now
01-09-2018, 12:01 PM
» Replies: 11
» Views: 3,341
Case to go forward - Janu...
Forum: Burke sues CBS for 750 million
Last Post: jameson245
01-06-2018, 03:26 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 214

 
  INTERESTING - from Steve Thomas' deposition
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-25-2017, 10:27 AM - Forum: 911 call - Replies (3)

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) All right. That's really all I need to know. Now, I want to ask you about
the 911 tape which was -- became controversial because of alleged background noise and voice,
possible voice identifications. Did you ever have occasion to listen to the 911 tape analysis that was
done by a lab in Los Angeles or somewhere in California purportedly to show that Burke's voice was
on the back of that tape?

A. Yes.
MR. WOOD: He listened to the analysis?
Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Did you ever have occasion to hear the tape and actually hear what the
people were reporting as being Burke's voice in the background?
A. Not on the aerospace engineering equipment but on lesser equipment inside the Boulder Police
Department, yes.
Q. So it was actually audible on that equipment at the Boulder Police Department?
A. No, Mr. Hoffman, let me make sure I understand you. What are you -- what was audible?
Q. Burke's or the voice of someone who could have been Burke Ramsey talking in the background
at the very end of Patsy Ramsey's, you know, conversation with 911.
A. Well, you're cutting right to the punch line. There is a long story behind it but, yes, myself and
others listened to that tape and heard this third voice.
Q. So do you -- were you able to identify that third voice, you personally?
A. Well, I don't have any training in voice identification, but certainly it sounded to me to be a young
male voice.
MR. WOOD: Are you asking him, Darnay --
Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Were you able to draw based on your own personal experience of
hearing this tape that there was a voice of somebody who sounded like a young boy?
A. Yes, that was my personal observation coming away from that.
Q. Do you have any reason to believe that that voice could have been the voice of Burke Ramsey?
A. That's what I believe.
Q. Is it based on ever having heard Burke Ramsey speak?
MR. WOOD: You're talking about just listening to the child speak, whether or not he has done a --
that's a sufficient voice exemplar for testing purposes?
MR. HOFFMAN: No, no. I just want to know in the same way that you can look at handwriting for,
you know, purposes of article 9 -- article 900 in the Rules of Evidence, that whether or not based on
his
own personal experience if he's ever heard Burke Ramsey and whether or not he thought that was
Burke Ramsey based on his own knowledge of what Burke Ramsey sounded like.
MR. WOOD: I understand. I'm not -- he can answer. But I'm certainly notacceding to your
interpretation of rule, whatever you're talking about, article 900.
MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Well, I'm not asking you to accede. Actually, Lin, you don't really even
have to be involved in this, so quite frankly it's my question --
MR. WOOD: I will because I represent --
MR. HOFFMAN: And I don't know if it's appropriate for you to always to be trying to clarify it and
put your spin on it. I'm asking Mr. Thomas whether or not --
MR. WOOD: Why don't you ask him a question --
MR. HOFFMAN: -- he could identify the voice as being that --
MR. WOOD: -- that makes some sense and I might not have to try to clarify it.
MR. HOFFMAN: -- of Burke Ramsey.
MR. WOOD: Why don't you just ask him a straight-up question. I want to make sure and I have a
right to make sure that the record is understandable. You may not like that and I'm not trying to spin
it. I'm trying to make sure we understand because candidly and respectfully some of your questions
are difficult to follow which apparently --
MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Well, you know, you have that problem yourself, Lin. So and I've --
MR. WOOD: I agree.
MR. HOFFMAN: -- heard Mr. Diamond have to go in and ask for clarification; lawyers sometimes
have that problem --
MR. WOOD: I agree.
MR. HOFFMAN: -- not personal to you or to me.
MR. WOOD: I don't disagree with you.
MR. HOFFMAN: The fact is --
THE REPORTER: One at a time, please.
MR. HOFFMAN: I would like to be able to ask Steve Thomas this question without your helping with
the clarification of it.
MR. WOOD: Well, just as long as the record -- go ahead and ask him the question. I just want to
make sure that I have the right to understand what you're asking, too. But go ahead and ask him and
let's get an answer.
Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Okay. Do you have any reason to believe that the voice was Burke
Ramsey that you heard on the tape?
A. Yes, that's my belief and, absent there being other parties of whom or which I'm unaware in the
house that morning, this third party to me is believed to have been Burke Ramsey.
Q. What do you base that belief on --
MR. WOOD: I think your time is up, Darnay.
Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) -- that that voice is Burke Ramsey?
MR. WOOD: Darnay, I think your time is up. Is it up?
MR. RAWLS: Yes.
MR. WOOD: Go ahead and ask your last question. I didn't mean to cut you off.
MR. HOFFMAN: Given the fact, Lin, that you've interjected and eaten a little of my time up, I think
you should allow me that. Thank you.
MR. WOOD: As long as it doesn't cut into my time of what I know today to be 3 hours and 50
minutes.
Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Mr. Thomas, can you answer that?
MR. DIAMOND: It cuts into my time, Darnay.
MR. WOOD: I don't think you have time today.
MR. DIAMOND: I've got time to go home. Go ahead, ask your question.
Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Yes. Mr. Thomas, is there any -- what is the basis for your concluding
that the voice that you heard on the 911 tape was the voice of Burke Ramsey?
A. The basis of that and very -- having to synopsize this for you, Mr. Hoffman --
Q. Um-hum.
A. -- was Detective Hickman's travel to the Aerospace Corp. in Southern California, their
enhancement of that garbled noise at the end of that 911 call, those engineers preparing a report and
making findings I think identical to the detective who was there with the tape, her returning to the
Boulder Police Department with this information and then each of the detectives listening on
admittedly
lesser equipment inside the Boulder Police Department to these findings, I concurred with others that
there was a third voice on that tape that I believed to be Burke.
MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas.
THE DEPONENT: Thank you, Mr. Hoffman.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MR. WOOD: If we can go for about five or a few minutes I want to just kind of touch on a few things
that you brought up, Darnay, and then we will break for lunch.Is that okay guys?
MR. DIAMOND: That's fine.
MR. HOFFMAN: Fine.
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY-MR.WOOD:
Q. The FBI analyzed the 911 tape and they did not find any such language, true?
A. I don't know what the FBI and Secret Service did because it was my understanding there may
have been equipment that was incompatible to conduct this testing or for whatever reason but bottom
line is the Secret Service and --
Q. The FBI?
A. Federal Bureau -- yeah, were unable to --
Q. They didn't hear the voice that Aerospace heard, right?
A. I don't know what they did or didn't hear or what they did or didn't test. I don't -- I think one of
those agencies didn't even have equipment to test the tape.
Q. So you think the FBI didn't reach a conclusion with respect to the 911 tape; is that your
testimony?
A. I don't know what the FBI or Secret Service concluded, I know what Aerospace did.
Q. And you also know that the tape was taken to a fourth group and they came up with different
words from the tape than what Aerospace had come up with, true?
A. I know that Mr. Hofstrom took the tape to his brother-in-law for enhancement.
Q. Are you suggesting that his brother-in-law somehow falsified a report?
A. Did I say anything like that?
Q. No, sir, I'm just asking you're not suggesting that, are you?
A. No, you mentioned a fourth testing facility and I simply replied that Mr. Hofstrom took the tape to
his brother-in-law.
Q. So for whatever reason the FBI doesn't hear the third party, the Secret Service doesn't hear the
third party, Aerospace claims to hear it and then the fourth group hears something different; is that a
fair generalization of the 911 tape?
A. I'm not sure that the first two agencies ever heard anything because I'm not sure they ever
listened to the tape. I'm just --
Q. Did you not bother to ask the FBI, I mean, you -- please, Mr. Thomas?
MR. DIAMOND: Two questions.
Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did you ever bother to call the FBI and say, gentlemen, what did you find
about the 911 tape?
A. I'm sure Detective Hickman, whose assignment this was, may have done that.
Q. Well, what, did you ask Hickman what did the FBI say? You know, we've spent a lot of time
with the FBI, Tom, what did they say? Did you ask him?
MR. DIAMOND: Did he ask him what?
Q. (BY MR. WOOD) What the FBI had to say about the 911 tape?
A. Again, as I've said it's my understanding, Mr. Wood, that I don't know whether or not the FBI or
Secret Service even tested the tape. The first testing that was done on it, to my knowledge, was
through the Aerospace Corporation.
Q. And did you -- have you ever tried at any time as you sit here today to make any efforts to find
out about whether the FBI or the Secret Service even tested the tape and if so, what their results
were?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Have you made any efforts is my question?
A. No.
Q. As we sit here today, you've never made any effort to find that out --
A. No.
Q. -- right? Am I right? Sometimes the no comes out differently. The question is you've never
made any such efforts to find out about the FBI or the Secret Service testing of the tape?
A. I have not made calls or efforts trying to determine that to the FBI or SecretService.
Q. As we sit here today you have not done that?
A. That's right.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Mr. Thomas -- yeah, I've got it -- the 911 tape. Did you ever hear any
explanation as to why that tape was garbled in part?
A. At some point during the investigation I recall the tape coming to Detective Sergeant Wickman's
attention initially because the 911 operator who took that call thought there may have been
something at
the end of the conversation that was unintelligible.
Q. I appreciate that information. But I would like to get to my question because my time is limited
today at least and whether we finish or not is another issue. But my question is, did you ever, sir, hear
any explanation as to why a portion of the 911 tape was garbled?
A. I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me why --
Q. Yeah, was anybody trying to figure out why -- the 911 tape is a tape in realtime, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And one would think that you would hear in realtime voices that are on the tape. You say there is
something garbled. Was there ever any attempt to find out why this portion of the tape might be
garbled and not discernible to the human ear without some scientific analysis? That's my question.
A. I don't think that it was garbled in the sense that there was a defect in the tape or something,
that's certainly not my understanding. I think the description of garbled was meant to include the fact
that as this phone was apparently being attempted placed back into the cradle, there was some
conversation that was not as clear as Patsy Ramsey speaking directly into the phone, to the 911
operator.
Q. You knew the phone from your investigation was a wall phone, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you hear any effort on the tape to try to hang the phone up, a banging or a tapping or
anything of that nature?
A. The call obviously concludes with the line disconnecting but, no, not that I recall today without
listening to the tape of the phone banging.
Q. Do you know whether the 911 tapes that were being utilized at the time were recycled in the
sense that they might be taped over after a period of time?
A. I don't know.
Q. Was any effort made by the Boulder Police Department, to your knowledge, to try to ascertain
that information?
A. I would certainly think they did.
Q. But do you know the answer?
A. I don't have any knowledge of that.
Q. Secondhand or otherwise?
A. No.
Q. Take a look at your book, if you will, for me, page 15. Are you with me?
A. Yes.
Q. "In preliminary examinations, detectives thought they could hear some more words being spoken
between the time Patsy Ramsey said 'Hurry, hurry, hurry' and when the call was terminated." Have I
read that correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the truth, is that accurate?
A. Yes.
Q. "However, the FBI and the United States Secret Service could not lift anything from the
background noise on the tape." Have I read that correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the truth?
A. As we discussed earlier, yes.
Q. I thought you said you didn't know what efforts, if any, they had made earlier?
A. I said in one case at least I don't know that they had the proper or necessary compatible
equipment to try to enhance this tape, nor did I know of them ever submitting a report.
Q. All I would like to know is did the FBI to your knowledge or the Secret Service to your
knowledge ever send the tape back and say we don't have the proper equipment to see if we can lift
anything from the background noise on this tape?
A. Again, we have discussed that and that's my testimony, that not being my assignment, it was my
understanding that the tape came back from the FBI and the Secret Service without anything
definitive,
but I recall there being an issue that somebody didn't have proper equipment to do the testing.
Q. Well, you don't say anything like that here. This is definitive. The FBI and the United States
Secret Service could not lift anything from the background noise on the tape. Is that a true statement
or not?
A. Whether, because they didn't have the correct machine or because they didn't lift anything if they
did do some testing, yes, that's a true statement.
Q. Why wouldn't you -- I mean with all due respect I don't think you were trying to do the Ramseys
any favors in this book. Why wouldn't you have said here that they couldn't lift anything from the
background noise on the tape but that may have been the result of inappropriate equipment. You
didn't
say that or discuss that in your book, did you?
A. If we're talking about the production of the book, it was certainly limited. I couldn't put
everything in this case into the content of the book.
Q. The bottom line is we're confident that someone in the Boulder Police Department can answer
the question about the findings by the United States Secret Service and the FBI about this 911 tape.
That's in the case file, isn't it?
A. Undoubtedly.
Q. Good. And I don't believe I asked you this; I wanted to. Are you aware of any attempts to take
a voice exemplar from Burke Ramsey and have it analyzed against the voice you think your human ear
tells you or because it's a third-party voice that it's Burke Ramsey, any efforts to do a scientific
analysis
by way of a voice exemplar between Burke Ramsey's voice and the voice you think might have been
his on the 911 tape?
A. I certainly never received an assignment like that, nor do I recall hearing or knowing of anyone
else who did.

Print this item

  possibly into porn
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-25-2017, 10:25 AM - Forum: THE KILLER - No Replies

Many pedophiles look for kiddie porn for excitement, easier to get porn than a living child.  So police got a search warrant and looked for porn on the Ramsey computer.  This is from Steve Thomas' deposition and supports what we now know - - there was no porn on any Ramsey computer.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 6:23. We're going on the record.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Mr. Thomas, in terms of the search of the Ramseys' hard drive and their
computer, was anything found that was viewed as suspicious or incriminating in August?

A. There were, I think reams of documents that came off that recovered hard drive, but I think as
far as, I don't knowif the search included pornography, I think it did, nothing like that, but there was
other documents that were later used for Foster. But I --
Q. For handwriting analysis, I'm talking about beyond use for analysis of handwriting, anything --
A. You mean suspicious?
Q. Or incriminating?
A. I would have to flip back through it.
Q. Anything that jumps out at you as we sit here today?
A. No.
Q. And certainly there is never any finding despite a fairly extensive search that in any way linked
the Ramseys to any type of pornography; am I right about that?
A. Not that I'm aware of.

Print this item

  Jayelles wrote
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-25-2017, 05:46 AM - Forum: DNA-X - No Replies

There was a time when a few brave BORG joined Webbsleuths and dared try (unsuccessfully) to make their case against the parents.

I came across an old post by BORG Jayelles and have to share it here.  She had not like a post I made, said I read it wrong or interpreted it wrog - - then she wrote this interesting thought:


NOWHERE did I say that I doubted they could link DNA-x to the crime. I said it WOULD point to an intruder IF it was found at the crime scene AND matched the markers from the other DNA found in her underwear and under her fingernails. We don't know where it was found or whether it matched the other DNA, but it would be an indisputable fact pointing to an intruder if it did.     

-Jayelles

Print this item

  BORG evidence
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-25-2017, 05:30 AM - Forum: BORG theories and BORG people of note - Replies (3)

first a bit from Steve Thomas' deposition in the Wolf case:

Q. At page 232 of your book -- I apologize, I apparently have gotten the wrong cite in my record.
Oh, 236, I'm sorry, 236 where you say first paragraph under the line right here "With our Dream Team,
we tallied the points supporting probable cause and found more than 50 items."

A. Yes, I'm with you.
Q. When was that tally made? Date that for me.
A. Mr. Wood, I can't date it specifically but they assisted us in our preparation for the VIP
presentation and just a quick reading of this was maybe spring or late spring of '98. But no, it was
before that because later in the paragraph it talks about the Title-3, which was way back before
Christmas '97. So this was, I would guess, late '97, early to spring of '98.
Q. Can I -- I don't have the time today, at least, to ask you to go through and list those 50 items. But
can I be reasonably confident that if I set about myself in your book that I could find reference to those
50 items in this book, that you have included those somewhere in here?
A. No, I can't commit to that because of what was, I remember there was an easel that was used in
which everybody in the room put out evidence, information, that sort of thing that went on to this
50-plus point probable cause board.
Q. So it may have been all of your points, you may have --
A. It certainly wasn't.
Q. You may not agree with all of them?
A. Right.

Print this item

  Werner Spitz
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-24-2017, 08:12 PM - Forum: We Are the BORG. - No Replies

Margoo
Member since Nov-29-02
601 posts

Jun-06-03, 04:47 PM (EST)
[Image: mesg.gif] [Image: mesg_add_buddy.gif]  
6. "RE: Thomas depo 22 - Spitz"
In response to message #5
 
  
page 254-255 pb JBITRMI
In a three-page report, forensics expert Dr. Werner Spitz furnished a logical sequence of events on the night JonBenet was killed.
*First, there had been a manual strangulation, by twisting the collar of the shirt, with the perpetrator's knuckles casuing the neck abrasion. That was consistent with rage-type attack. (My question: where is this twisted collared shirt??)
**Then came the devastating blow to the head, followed by the garrote strangulation. The detectives felt this could have been done either to ensure death or as part of a staging (note: the detectives felt, not Spitz). Another doctor said that the head was hit with great force and that the cracking skull would have made a tremendous noise. It was agreed that the cord around the throat was applied to a victim who offered little or no resistance, probably as she lay grievously wounded by the head injury. (again, I don't see these words absolutely attributed to Spitz. As for resistance, how much resistance could a little wee girl give?)
***By examining the condition of the pineapple in the stomach and the rate of digestion, Spitz put the time of death "about or before 1 A.M."
(first of all, the stomach was empty, so let's just assume another error on ST's part. The condition of the pineapple in the small intestine indicated by Meyer was that it was "fragments" of a fruit or vegetable material. Steve seems to be missing a condition required for Spitz to reach this 1 A.M. conclusion because Spitz does not know what time JB consumed the material/pineapple. Something's wrong/missing in this statement attributed to Spitz.)

Print this item

  Ramseys not called to speak
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-24-2017, 08:03 PM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - No Replies

Parents of slain girl not subpoenaed to testify
By Charlie Brennan
Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer

BOULDER -- The JonBenet Ramsey grand jury will hear from new witnesses
when it returns to work Thursday, according to a source close to the case.
And they're not John and Patsy Ramsey.
The parents of 6-year-old JonBenet, considered suspects in their child's
Christmas night 1996 slaying, still have not been subpoenaed to testify
before the grand jury probing her murder, the source said.
The Ramseys, who now live in Atlanta with their
12-year-old son, Burke, have steadfastly
maintained their innocence.
The grand jury's 18-month term expires Oct. 20.
Exactly who will testify is unclear.
Burke Ramsey is the only family member known
to have testified before the eight-man,
four-woman panel. His testimony came just prior
to the grand jury's May 25 meeting, which was
followed by a layoff lasting all summer.
The list of those not yet called as witnesses
contains another surprise.
A former executive at Access Graphics, the $1
billion Boulder computer software firm where John
Ramsey worked as president and chief executive
in 1996, said no one from that company has
appeared.
"I don't know anybody from Access who has been
called," said the executive who stays in touch with
past and present company officials.
A 21/2-page ransom note Patsy Ramsey said she
found in the house Dec. 26, 1996, when JonBenet
was discovered missing suggested a possible
business connection in the murder.
The note said the culprits represented "a small
foreign faction" who told John Ramsey "we respect
your business, but not the country that it serves."
Former FBI criminal profiler John Douglas, hired
by the Ramseys, also concluded the crime was
likely committed by someone outside the family,
and possibly by someone with a business-related
grudge against John Ramsey.
Scott Robinson, a Denver attorney who has
followed the case closely, said the fact that
apparently, few people -- if any -- from John
Ramsey's former business have testified, could be
telling.
"It means either the Boulder police have
exhausted, independently of the grand jury, every
slimly related lead, or the grand jury -- for
whatever reason -- has focused elsewhere in the
search for JonBenet's killer," said Robinson.
"The police, in general, have long had the
Ramseys as their principle and apparently sole
suspects. But even with that in mind, it would be
beneficial to any eventual prosecution to rule out
business jealousy or business-related anger as a
potential motivation for the murder of JonBenet."
Robinson said the fact that more witnesses are
scheduled to appear before the panel, which
resumes its meetings Thursday after a four-month
break, shoots down one popular theory.
"This suggests that the jury has not been spending
the last few weeks working out the bugs on a
report, in lieu of indictment -- which had been a
plausible explanation for the hiatus," said
Robinson, "and that they have not yet decided
what to do. They want to make sure that no voice
goes unheard before reaching a determination."

Those who have not yet appeared include former
Ramsey neighbor Melody Stanton. Stanton, who
has since moved out of Boulder, lived across the
street from the Ramseys and told police she heard
a child's scream not long after falling asleep
Christmas night.

Her comments to police about the scream have
been the subject of much analysis for what that
scream might say about the possible time of
death, and for what it might say about where, in
the Ramseys' expansive home, the killing might
have taken place.

Authorities have never specified a time of death in
the case. The Ramseys told police they put
JonBenet to bed shortly after arriving home from
a party shortly after 9:30 p.m. on Christmas
night.
Among those witnesses who might still be
scheduled could be some of the same case
investigators who passed through the courtroom
in the grand jury's first days last fall.
Former prosecutor Dave Heckenbach, who ran
grand juries for the Denver district attorney's
office from 1986 to 1992, pointed out that as
recently as early summer, some of those
detectives were still actively interviewing
witnesses and seeking additional evidence.
"If they've done a lot of work, between the last
time they met and now, the grand jury would
have to meet a few times -- or have one
megasession, depending on how much work the
police have done in the interim."
September 22, 1999

Print this item

  Ramseys not called to speak
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-24-2017, 08:03 PM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - Replies (12)

Parents of slain girl not subpoenaed to testify
By Charlie Brennan
Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer

BOULDER -- The JonBenet Ramsey grand jury will hear from new witnesses
when it returns to work Thursday, according to a source close to the case.
And they're not John and Patsy Ramsey.
The parents of 6-year-old JonBenet, considered suspects in their child's
Christmas night 1996 slaying, still have not been subpoenaed to testify
before the grand jury probing her murder, the source said.
The Ramseys, who now live in Atlanta with their
12-year-old son, Burke, have steadfastly
maintained their innocence.
The grand jury's 18-month term expires Oct. 20.
Exactly who will testify is unclear.
Burke Ramsey is the only family member known
to have testified before the eight-man,
four-woman panel. His testimony came just prior
to the grand jury's May 25 meeting, which was
followed by a layoff lasting all summer.
The list of those not yet called as witnesses
contains another surprise.
A former executive at Access Graphics, the $1
billion Boulder computer software firm where John
Ramsey worked as president and chief executive
in 1996, said no one from that company has
appeared.
"I don't know anybody from Access who has been
called," said the executive who stays in touch with
past and present company officials.
A 21/2-page ransom note Patsy Ramsey said she
found in the house Dec. 26, 1996, when JonBenet
was discovered missing suggested a possible
business connection in the murder.
The note said the culprits represented "a small
foreign faction" who told John Ramsey "we respect
your business, but not the country that it serves."
Former FBI criminal profiler John Douglas, hired
by the Ramseys, also concluded the crime was
likely committed by someone outside the family,
and possibly by someone with a business-related
grudge against John Ramsey.
Scott Robinson, a Denver attorney who has
followed the case closely, said the fact that
apparently, few people -- if any -- from John
Ramsey's former business have testified, could be
telling.
"It means either the Boulder police have
exhausted, independently of the grand jury, every
slimly related lead, or the grand jury -- for
whatever reason -- has focused elsewhere in the
search for JonBenet's killer," said Robinson.
"The police, in general, have long had the
Ramseys as their principle and apparently sole
suspects. But even with that in mind, it would be
beneficial to any eventual prosecution to rule out
business jealousy or business-related anger as a
potential motivation for the murder of JonBenet."
Robinson said the fact that more witnesses are
scheduled to appear before the panel, which
resumes its meetings Thursday after a four-month
break, shoots down one popular theory.
"This suggests that the jury has not been spending
the last few weeks working out the bugs on a
report, in lieu of indictment -- which had been a
plausible explanation for the hiatus," said
Robinson, "and that they have not yet decided
what to do. They want to make sure that no voice
goes unheard before reaching a determination."

Those who have not yet appeared include former
Ramsey neighbor Melody Stanton. Stanton, who
has since moved out of Boulder, lived across the
street from the Ramseys and told police she heard
a child's scream not long after falling asleep
Christmas night.

Her comments to police about the scream have
been the subject of much analysis for what that
scream might say about the possible time of
death, and for what it might say about where, in
the Ramseys' expansive home, the killing might
have taken place.

Authorities have never specified a time of death in
the case. The Ramseys told police they put
JonBenet to bed shortly after arriving home from
a party shortly after 9:30 p.m. on Christmas
night.
Among those witnesses who might still be
scheduled could be some of the same case
investigators who passed through the courtroom
in the grand jury's first days last fall.
Former prosecutor Dave Heckenbach, who ran
grand juries for the Denver district attorney's
office from 1986 to 1992, pointed out that as
recently as early summer, some of those
detectives were still actively interviewing
witnesses and seeking additional evidence.
"If they've done a lot of work, between the last
time they met and now, the grand jury would
have to meet a few times -- or have one
megasession, depending on how much work the
police have done in the interim."
September 22, 1999

Print this item

  could it be heard?
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-24-2017, 07:45 PM - Forum: The Scream - Replies (4)

Boiler room theory arises in Ramsey killing
Theory supported, in part, by basement window facing street

By Charlie Brennan
Scripps Howard News Service






BOULDER— A key argument supporting a possible intruder in the JonBenét Ramsey case is a belief by some investigators that she was killed in a basement boiler room.
This theory is supported, in part, by the existence of a basement window facing the street, outfitted with an open air duct, the Denver Rocky Mountain News has learned. That air duct may explain how a neighbor could have heard a scream the night the child died.
The boiler room theory is further buttressed, sources say, by the fact that remnants of the paint brush used to fashion the fatal garrote were found just outside that room, which is adjacent to the wine cellar where her body was found.
When grand jurors toured the house and grounds Oct. 29, several were seen studying the boiler room window and its unsealed air duct from the outside.
Lou Smit, who recently resigned his position as investigator on the case for Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter, believes the boiler room theory, sources say, and thinks it argues against a family member's involvement in the crime.
Smit declined to discuss his theories Friday. "I wish I could, but I really can't, at least until I testify before the grand jury," he said.
Smit, a former El Paso County homicide detective who came out of retirement to work for Hunter on the Ramsey case, resigned Sept. 20. He cited frustration with other Ramsey investigators' reluctance to consider suspects outside the family.
"The case tells me there is substantial, credible evidence of an intruder and lack of evidence that the parents are involved," Smit said in his resignation letter. But the 2½-page letter did not detail his reasons for suspecting an intruder.
Melody Stanton, a Ramsey neighbor at the time, told police she woke with a start not long after midnight Dec. 26, 1996, to a frightening scream; her statement was first reported by the Globe supermarket weekly nearly a year later. ABC's "20/20" reported that Stanton typically slept with her window slightly open.
John and Patsy Ramsey have told police they heard nothing unusual after putting JonBenét to bed around 10 p.m. on Dec. 25.
Some investigators have had trouble reconciling that statement with the neighbor's account of a scream.
Smit is among those, however, who think the basement air vent opening toward the street — and no longer connected to anything in the boiler room — could have broadcast the scream toward houses across the street without the same scream being audible in the parents' bedroom on the third floor.
A source close to the family said auditory tests performed by police during a second search of the home in the summer of 1997 determined that sound travels more easily from the basement out to the street than it does up through the home's four levels.
Sources say Smit thinks that if the scream emanated from the boiler room, it's likely where the murder occurred and that Smit can't envision a family member selecting such a space to commit such a crime.
JonBenét was strangled, had a fractured skull from blunt trauma and had injuries consistent with sexual molestation.
"You wouldn't have to take her downstairs if you lived in the house," said an investigator familiar with Smit's thinking, who would talk only speaking on condition of anonymity. "If you were living in the house, you'd sure choose another place besides that."
JonBenét's body was discovered in a windowless basement room next to the boiler room by her father about seven hours after her mother called 911. She reported finding a 2-½-page ransom note demanding $118,000 for the child's safe return.
The child's parents are under suspicion but proclaim their innocence. The murder is under investigation by a grand jury that convened in Boulder on Sept. 15.
Robert Pence, former director of the FBI office for the Rocky Mountain region, sees the logic in Smit's reasoning. "I think that would be one good reason that would point to an outsider," he said. "A lot of these are spur-of-the-moment-type things, a rage or argument, something that got triggered, and wouldn't necessarily call for the person — whether it's a parent or siblings or whatever — to take the victim to an out-of-the-way room. I think it would explode right where it happened."
Even if Smit is right about the murder taking place in the boiler room, Pence still can't completely accept Smit's conclusion that such a scenario bolsters the intruder theory.
One reason is the ransom note, which Patsy Ramsey said she found on the bottom step of a back staircase while heading down to the kitchen early in the morning.
"If it were an intruder, the thing that would be most inconsistent would be the note," Pence said. "If it's an intruder, you're not going to leave the body and that note anywhere near the same crime scene. That just increases the trail of evidence."
An investigator close to the case also sees Smit's theory as flawed because no physical evidence was found in the boiler room.
And, the source said, if an outsider killed JonBenét in the boiler room, why take the time — after a scream loud enough to wake a neighbor — to move her body to yet another room?
"If that scream is loud enough to be heard, then that intruder is gone, because he knows Mom and Dad are upstairs," the police source said. "With this scream, if she (Stanton) in fact heard it, if in fact it happened, why stay? You're out of here. Are you going to waste additional time in there? Nah."


November 9, 1998



(My prints are on this.)

Print this item

  Melody and the scream
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-24-2017, 07:28 PM - Forum: The Scream - Replies (4)

Melody Stanton
(738 Fifteenth Street)
(Boulder, Colorado)
On December26, 1996, between 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. she woke from sleep, heard a child's scream that lasted 3 to 5 seconds. Her bedroom was on second floor facing the Ramsey house.  She said she woke her husband Luther, knew it was JonBenet but assumed her parents would take care of her.  Melody went back to sleep immediately.  Luther then heard the sound of metal hitting concrete. 


Melody told this to her neighbor, Diane Brumfitt and Diane reported the incident to the police. 

Information went quickly to the media and reporters started knocking on the Stanton door.  Eventually the Stantons denied knowing anything - - they clearly did not want to be witnesses any longer.  Melody suggested the scream may not have been an actual scream but "negative energy".  Or maybe she heard it another night.   But most believe her first report was the honest one.

In Schiller/Brennan book,  page 610 paperback, this was investigated by Officer Barry Hartkopp on 01-03-1997
but her interview wasn't signed or given under oath.

Print this item

  from Steve Thomas depo
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-24-2017, 07:09 PM - Forum: Stun Gun - Replies (1)

"Thomas depo 41 - Stun Gun"
 
  
Q. 154, right here, second blocked out, second paragraph, "Experts engaged by the police concluded
there was no stun gun involved at all, but the DA's team never relinquished their claim that such
weapon an exotic weapon was used to subdue JonBenet." Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.
Q. Who were the experts engaged by the police that you're referring; would you identify those for
me?
A. I know at least one was Dr. Werner Spitz, and Detective Trujillo would be able to identify
additional.
Q. Did any of those -- any police department consultants discuss at either of the presentations in
terms of what they thought about stun guns whether there was consistency. For example, Dr.
Doberson?
A. I'm sorry, run it back by me, Mr. Wood.
Q. Was Dr. Deters -- the Larimer County coroner involved in the investigation by the Boulder Police
Department?
A. No, I'm not familiar with that name.
Q. How about Sue Kitchens of the CBI?
A. I am familiar with her name, but I do not know what extent she may have been involved in the
investigation.
Q. How about Dr. Doberson?
A. I believe Trujillo and Wickman initially visited Dobersen on behalf of the police. But that was
later followed up by investigators Smit and Ainsworth.
Q. Dr. Doberson who I think you have a great deal of respect for?
A. I don't know Dr. Doberson.
Q. Do you recognize him, though, to be respected in the law enforcement community in Colorado?
A. I have no opinion. I don't know anything about Dr. Doberson.
Q. Do you know that he has stated within reasonable medical certainty that the marks on JonBenet's
face and back were caused by a stun gun. Are you aware of that?
A. Well, if you're telling me that's true --
Q. I'm just asking if you're aware of it. You said --
A. I saw that on --
Q. -- you watched some of the stuff. I'm just asking if that's what he said there?
A. Right.
Q. Did you watch the Tracy Mills documentary, two?
A. The second one, two?
Q. Yeah.
A. Two, as in the number two?
Q. Yeah, the second, there was one back a couple years ago, it's one that came out in the last
several months, haven't seen --
A. No, I haven't seen that.
Q. So you don't know what Dr. Doberson said in that, do you?
A. No.
Q. But he wasn't employed by the Boulder Police Department, among other things, to look at the
stun gun issue, true?
A. I don't know that he was employed but they went to him. Trujillo and Wickman I know did.
Q. What did the Boulder Police Department conclude caused these marks found on JonBenet
Ramsey's back?
MR. DIAMOND: Do you want to identify what you're putting in front of him just for --
MR. WOOD: I'm going to mark it and I'll do it by copy. I don't want to mark on this color copy but
this will be Defendants' 4.
MR. DIAMOND: Will you identify what it is for the record?
MR. WOOD: It's an autopsy photograph of JonBenet Ramsey.
MR. DIAMOND: Does it have a number on it or something?
MR. WOOD: I just put a number on it, a 4 just so I can copy it and mark it later. If you'll just hang on
to it. I don't want you to be flipping through there. There is one picture I am going to ask him about in a
moment.
MR. DIAMOND: Yeah.
(Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-5 marked.)
Q. (BY MR. WOOD) What did the Boulder Police Department determine caused those marks on
JonBenet Ramsey's back as shown on Defendants' Exhibit 4?
A. I don't know that the Boulder Police Department as an entity formed a consensus opinion, but
relying on the experts in this case, and Detective Trujillo specifically who was assigned to the stun gun
investigation told us and I remember seeing it that Werner Spitz concluded, I believe, what was believed
to be stun gun marks may have been a patterned object, if I recall correctly, or I think another
explanation was on her back lying on some sort of object.
Q. That was Dr. Spitz only?
A. Well, Dr. Spitz completed a report on that. I think Dr. Lee had some opinion on it. Certainly
Trujillo filed information about that.
Q. I'm going to show you defense Exhibit Number 5, which two photos, one is obviously Number 4
and then 5 is a picture of JonBenet's side of her face. There were two marks on her face. The marks
on her face and the marks on her back were the same distance apart, right?
A. I don't know that those were identical. I have heard --
Q. Do you deny that?
A. I have heard Mr. Smit say that they were identical. I have heard Trujillo say they're not.
Q. That the marks were not -- shouldn't one just measure this, sir?
A. Unfortunately you would have to, I think, triangulate it off of a photo because they weren't
measured, my understanding, at autopsy.
Q. Do you choose to believe Dr. -- Mr. Smit or Mr. Trujillo in terms of that issue or do you just not
have a position one way or the other in terms of the distance part of the two set matched pairs?
A. I don't believe necessarily either of them. But I have heard Mr. Smit and Mr. Trujillo had
conflicting measurements on that picture.
Q. But one thing for sure, you believe, I think you would say and have said before, that if a stun gun
was used on JonBenet that that is significant evidence that would point away from a family member or
parent, right?
A. I don't know where I have said that.
Q. You have never said that?
A. I don't know where I have said that, Mr. Wood.
Q. Do you deny that?
A. Refresh my memory. Where do you think I have said that?
Q. Do you deny that or is that accurate?
A. I think, and for the record let me just say, one other expert that I know the Boulder Police
Department consulted were I think stun gun reps, manufacturers or people in the stun gun industry.
Q. Do you know their names?
A. I don't. I think somebody from Air Tazer.
Q. Were there reports filed?
A. There certainly should be. As far as do I deny -- well, let me put my answer this way. I would
agree to an extent that it may be or would be less likely that a parent would be involved in the stun
gunning of a child. Maybe I'm naive in that thinking, as the FBI agents told us they have seen children
murdered in the most horrendous of ways, but I won't dispute you on that point today.

Print this item