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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 6
» Latest member: John Andrew
» Forum threads: 1,706
» Forum posts: 5,429

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 33 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 33 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Suitcase under broken win...
Forum: Suitcase
Last Post: jameson245
12-01-2020, 04:01 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 402
info from others
Forum: Judith Phillips
Last Post: jameson245
12-01-2020, 12:08 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 2,333
Carol McKinley talking to...
Forum: Cord ligature - Garrote
Last Post: jameson245
12-01-2020, 11:53 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 35
Are They Innocent?
Forum: good primer, perhaps
Last Post: jameson245
12-01-2020, 11:33 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 69
OTHER handwriting samples
Forum: Handwriting
Last Post: jameson245
11-30-2020, 07:19 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 2,363
FINDING THE BODY
Forum: December 26th
Last Post: jameson245
11-21-2020, 01:17 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 124
Persecutor Kane talks
Forum: Grand Jury Indictments
Last Post: jameson245
11-21-2020, 12:42 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 972
ST on GJ (deposition)
Forum: Grand Jury Indictments
Last Post: jameson245
11-21-2020, 12:37 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 19
Acandyrose on GJ - timeli...
Forum: Grand Jury Indictments
Last Post: jameson245
11-21-2020, 12:34 PM
» Replies: 10
» Views: 75
on NOT cooperating
Forum: Ramsey cooperation
Last Post: jameson245
11-20-2020, 04:17 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 85

 
  temp thread - a short search
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-15-2017, 09:47 AM - Forum: odds and ends - Replies (2)

A former teacher with a more-than-45-year history at the Marlboro Central School District is in custody following an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation into distribution of child pornography.
Thomas Albright, 71, of Marlboro, was arrested Jan. 12 on charges involving distributing, receiving and possessing child pornography, according to a statement from U.S. Attorney Richard Hartunian and Special Agent in Charge Andrew Vale of the Albany Division of the FBI.
The following day, Albright appeared in Albany before a U.S. magistrate judge. He was detained pending further court appearances.
Albright worked as a teacher with the Marlboro Central School District from Sept. 1970 to June 2002, according to a press release from the district. Following his retirement, Albright worked "periodically" as a substitute teacher and lifeguard for the district, last serving as a lifeguard in September 2016. The district declined to answer additional questions from the Journal regarding any other specific roles Albright served, and if the district had been contacted as part of the investigation.
Albright also worked as an assistant diving coach at Vassar College for both the men's and women's swim teams from Oct. 1, 2003 to Nov. 30, 2012, according to Amanita Duga-Carroll, director of media relations at Vassar.
Attempts to reach Paul Evangelista, the lead attorney representing Albright, were unsuccessful Tuesday.
Using a peer-to-peer file sharing network, Albright hosted numerous images and videos depicting "minors engaged in sexually explicit activity," according to the criminal complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. These images could be downloaded from Albright by users on the network.
Law enforcement officials searched Albright's computer and found hundreds of images and videos depicting child pornography, all of which Albright admitted to possessing, the complaint said.
During a polygraph test, Albright admitted to a "long-time attraction to young male boys between the ages of 14 and 17," according to the complaint.
If convicted on all charges, Albright faces at least five years in prison, with a maximum sentence up to 20 years. He would also face at least five years, and up to a life term, of post-imprisonment supervised release, and a maximum $250,000 fine. Albright would also have to register as a sex offender.
Abbott Brant: abrant@poughkeepsiejournal.com; 845-437-4809; Twitter: @AbbottBrantPoJo; Geoffrey Wilson: gwilson@poughkeepsiejournal.com, 845-437-4882, Twitter: Geoff_LW

Print this item

  Charlie Brennan's attempts to make all public
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-15-2017, 09:01 AM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - Replies (1)

Charlie Brennan: Why I fought for the Ramsey indictment's release
By Charlie Brennan Camera Staff Writer


The Daily Camera reported Jan. 27 in a front-page exclusive that the JonBenet Ramsey grand jury had voted, more than 13 years before, to indict both John and Patsy Ramsey on a charge of felony child abuse resulting in death.

Before that day, the true actions of those 12 Boulder County citizens had been misreported. The public had long been told that jurors had not taken a vote, or, alternatively, that they had elected not to indict anyone.

The January story, under my byline, was the culmination of literally years' worth of reporting and source development, finally reaching fruition only after I joined the Camera in November 2012. The Camera offered me the full editorial support required to report on the grand jury's conclusions, with sourcing and credibility that would justify its publication.

People have asked me numerous times in recent weeks, given that one target of the 1999 indictment died long ago and that the statute of limitations on child abuse resulting in death expired, why was it important to secure the actual Ramsey indictment -- having already reported on its existence?

I offer a brief anecdote. Several weeks following publication of the Camera's grand jury exclusive, I had lunch with a man who had worked the Ramsey case intensively for a local law enforcement agency in the immediate days, weeks and months following JonBenet's death.

During our meal, he asked me, "Are you saying that this was an informal straw poll of the jury, a show of hands or something, or are you saying that there is really a piece of paper with the box checked off and the signature -- the whole 9 yards?"

It was the latter, I told him. He put down his fork, shaking his head slightly, saying, "Holy (expletive)."

This is when I realized there was yet more work to do. Despite what I'd considered a thorough and well-sourced presentation of the grand jury indictment story weeks earlier, the maybe-it's-true, maybe-it-isn't skepticism that has attached like fungus over the years to the Ramsey saga might reduce this part of the story, too, to urban myth.

Now, one of the most pivotal events in the nearly 17-year Ramsey drama is fully out in the light.

Twelve citizens of this county labored for 13 months, through what jurors told me were often difficult and challenging sessions, and ultimately rendered their best decision. This, the public was never told.

Then-District Attorney Alex Hunter, we now know, exercised the discretion and power of his office by declining to sign and prosecute their indictment. This, the public was also never told.

The legal standard grand jurors were required to meet in order to indict was mere probable cause. That's the same standard a cop on the street needs to slap handcuffs on a suspect and then seek charges in court.



Hunter would have been forced to meet a much higher standard of proof -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- to convert the indictment into a conviction at trial. Although he has never discussed his thinking publicly, it is obvious Hunter did not believe there was adequate evidence to meet that more imposing burden before a jury.

Hunter did not make his historic decision in a vacuum. His thinking evolved in frequent consultation with veteran metro-area prosecutors such as Bob Grant and Bill Ritter, then the district attorneys of Adams and Denver counties, respectively. The day-to-day grand jury process was steered by another veteran prosecutor, Michael Kane, whose counsel Hunter also valued and heeded. Mitch Morrissey, now the Denver district attorney, was also part of Hunter's inner circle.

There is a reason that criminal actions are officially recorded as "The People" versus a named defendant. The courts belong to the people, and transparency of the courts is a central pillar on which our system is based. There was no transparency -- until today -- surrounding the Ramsey grand jury's final days and ultimate decision.

Judge Robert Lowenbach, in considering the suit brought by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and myself, noted, "There is no precedent in Colorado regarding the question of whether an indictment signed by the foreman of the Grand Jury but unsigned by the District Attorney is subject to disclosure to the general public."

But Judge Lowenbach apparently didn't deem this a very close call. It took him only eight working days, from hearing oral arguments, to issue a ruling that the grand jury's actions constituted an "official action," therefore permitting the indictment's release to -- and inspection by -- the public.

I believe the events of recent weeks, culminating in Judge Lowenbach's decision, may shape precedent in Colorado law, for what was, admittedly, a rare occurrence in grand jury proceedings. While grand jury witnesses and their testimony remain shielded for good reason, the ultimate decisions of juries and prosecutors must be public if the people are to retain any faith or trust in the rule of law.

Journalism has been called the rough first draft of history. The first and subsequent drafts relating to the Ramsey grand jury, which I consider one of the most critical chapters of the Ramsey story, had it wrong. Now, the record stands corrected and completed.

Two reporters stood outside JonBenet's home Dec. 26, 1996, at the time the coroner's staff brought the child's body out into the cold night and harsh light of an enduring public obsession. I was one of the two. Never did I suspect that 17 years later, the saga would still be unfolding.

One installment of the drama may now, finally, be at a conclusion.

Time has taught me better than to believe that the larger story is finally at an end.

Contact Camera Staff Writer Charlie Brennan at 303-473-1327 or brennanc@dailycamera.com

Print this item

  Pedophile thread
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-14-2017, 10:04 AM - Forum: THE KILLER - Replies (5)

If you have a difficult time discussing what a pedophile might do to a child, don't read this thread - it is dark and sick - - and shows the kind of mind some people have - - as did the killer of JonBenet.

I found this news story and it turned my stomach - but here are two people who clearly should be branded as UNSAFE AROUND CHILDREN.

Feds Charge Arizona Woman with Receiving Infant Porn, Describe Her Desire to Molest a Toddler
Monday, August 8, 2016 at 6:30 a.m.
By Ray Stern
[Image: sarah-cox-complaint.jpg]
An Arizona woman has been caught up in the federal investigation into an alleged child pornographer in Colorado.
On August 4, authorities charged 39-year-old Sarah Cox of Clarkdale with three counts of knowingly receiving child pornography. The complaint, filed in Arizona U.S. District Court by Homeland Security Investigations, alleges that Cox and Richard Hennis of Colorado Springs exchanged explicit online messages in which Cox described her desire to sexually abuse a friend's 3-year-old daughter.

In late March, federal agents arrested Hennis, 40, and 18-year-old Brandi Leonard, for producing child pornography involving an infant. Over the course of a two-month exchange, authorities allege, Leonard told Hennis that she'd sexually abused a 1-year-old girl. Hennis encouraged her to do it again and send him photos, which she did, according to a March news release by the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Both pleaded not guilty; a trial is scheduled for a December.
Hennis' digital trail led investigators to Cox. According to the complaint filed in Arizona, the two allegedly conversed online in November and December 2015 using the instant-messaging app Kik, Cox under the username "JadeJeckel" and Hennis under "funguy4u2use." Investigators identified Cox via an image file she sent Hennis: a photo of a woman with multiple tattoos on her face and a large skull and spider web tattooed on her upper chest. The distinctive body ink was a match for the driver's-license photo on file with the Arizona Department of Transportation.

A spokesman with the Arizona U.S. Attorney's Office declined to discuss the case for this story.

Federal investigators allege that at about 3:30 a.m. on December 23, 2015, Cox received three images from Hennis. Two showed an adult's fingers manipulating a infant girl's vagina; a third depicted a woman (presumably Leonard) performing oral sex on the same baby.

In earlier exchanges, Hennis and Cox had discussed child sexual abuse in explicit terms, according to transcripts included in the complaint.

On November 29, 2015, funguy4u2use messaged JadeJeckel about a woman who had told him she'd sexually abused a 1-year-old girl.
"Yummy," Cox allegedly replied.
Then: "I thought about getting my friend's 3 yr old girl."
And later: "I'm going to get the 3 yr old."
"When?" Hennis responded.
"ASAP."
"What are you going to do to her?"
"Eat her and touch her."
"I'm so jealous," Hennis typed, and then, "Will you let me watch?"
Cox: "I wish you were doing it with me."
The exchanges do not indicate that Cox actually carried out the scenario she described to Hennis.
New Times unsuccessfully attempted to contact Cox by phone and via various social-media accounts maintained under the username JadeJeckel.

Print this item

  James and Regina Rapp
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-13-2017, 08:02 PM - Forum: Names to remember - Replies (1)

In January, 1997, a man identifying himself as John Ramsey called McGucken Hardware in Boulder and asked for information on charges that were put on Patsy’s charge card. He later sent a letter requesting that information and signed it John Ramsey.

That information reached the police and media and went viral - was John checking on Patsy's purchases to prove she had bought the cord and tape?

Well, the answer is no.  The requests were made by James and Regina Rapp, later described as "information brokers".

Rapp had been convicted for car theft, violated parole and served time for that.  Colorado has no licensing laws for private investigators so Rapp figured he could use his past experiences and lessons to be a private investigator, to research and sell people's personal information.

 The Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct has rules that govern lawyers in Colorado and those rules prohibit a lawyer and his employees or agents, from using theft, fraud, deception or misrepresentation.

But Rapp wasn't a lawyer and he wasn't working for one.

He had a couple different business names -  TouchTone Investigations, Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap, and Phantom Investigations.

Print this item

  Suretape Duck tape from Casey Anthony case
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-13-2017, 06:25 PM - Forum: Duck Tape - Replies (4)


.pdf   shurtapeanalysisCaseyAnthony.pdf (Size: 1.03 MB / Downloads: 10)

Print this item

  Whites 3/18/14 to Boulder City Council
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-13-2017, 05:44 PM - Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White - Replies (1)


.pdf   White's 3-18-14 memo to Boulder City Council.pdf (Size: 911.78 KB / Downloads: 9)

Print this item

  From Ramsey and Thomas books
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-11-2017, 04:14 PM - Forum: Hi-Tec footwear - Replies (2)

From “Death of Innocence” released in March 17, 2000
Written by John and Patsy Ramsey



 
DOI Pg 232

A few days later, another telling story hit the newspapers, reporting that the police had been asking our friends if they owned shoes or boots with the brand SAS or Hi-Tec. We did not own either brand, and the police were trying to explain away the footprint they had found in the cellar near JonBenet's body. Obviously, the SAS or Hi-Tech footprint could be an important piece of evidence.

DOI Pg 373
 
7. The footprint by JonBenet's body. In the basement room where I found JonBenet, a funguslike mildew grew on the floors and walls due to the moist climate of the room. This room had no windows and was concrete on four sides and on the ceiling. Next to JonBenet's body the killer, I believe, left a clear footprint made by the sole of a Hi-Tec hiking shoe, from the area at the heel where the brand name was stamped. The markings are clear and should further help identify the killer.




From “JonBenet, Inside The Ramsey Investigation”
Released April 11, 2000, written by Steve Thomas




ST Page 236

We spent a long day going over every possible weak point. A Hi-Tec boot print found on the wine cellar floor where the body was discovered had not been identified. Neither had one of the palm prints on the cellar door. The DA's office still refused to allow testing of the

ST Page 237

confusing pubic hair found on the white blanket wrapped around JonBenet.

(SNIP)

The Hi-Tec boot print became one of the biggest questions of the investigation. Since Hi- Tecs are popular among cops, a year after the murder I became convinced that a sight-seeing law enforcement officer stepped somewhere he or she shouldn't have on December 26 and didn't want to admit it.

Detective Ron Gosage had the impossible job of trying to identify the origin of the boot print, a nightmare assignment if there ever was one. He contacted more than four hundred people, even construction

ST Page 238
 
workers who had been in the house five years ago, but did not find the matching print.

I doubted that any member of the Ramsey family would admit to owning a pair of Hi-Tecs, whether they did or not, but Detective Gosage had to ask them. That alerted Team Ramsey, and the defense lawyers and our DA's office soon began insisting that the unknown boot print was left behind by the intruder.

What they didn't know was that lab technicians had found not just one but three different unidentified shoe prints in that little room-the main print and two less pronounced impressions that overlapped each other. We considered that a positive development, for how likely would it be that three intruders carried the body into the room? And the possibilities were great that the print was totally unrelated to the murder. Just because something is found at the site of a murder doesn't mean it is part of the crime.

On a below-freezing winter day, I went with Gosage and another detective to Vail on a tip that a clerk recalled seeing Patsy and JonBenet try on hiking boots at Pepi Sports in that ski resort town. They might have been Hi-Tecs.

A bookkeeper carried in boxes crammed with thousands of receipts for everything from skis to bike rentals, and we hand-searched every one of them. It wasn't the first or the last hand search we made of receipts. In a Home Depot outside of Atlanta, Gosage and I had to check some twenty-five thousand individual records and journal rolls in a vain search for the possible purchase of cord and duct tape. A clerk said she had waited on Patsy Ramsey during such a transaction. We found nothing, and now we were doing it again in Vail.

"Why don't you just subpoena all the credit card records of the Ramseys?" asked the bookkeeper. .

"Long story." I was so tired of that question.

"Is the case as fucked up as it sounds? I mean, they've already finished TWA Flight 800, sentenced McVeigh to death for Oklahoma City, convicted Nichols, and are doing their thing with the Unabomber. Why are you guys taking so long?"

"Long story."

We found no receipts for the Ramseys, but a cash or check transaction would not have listed a name, unlike a credit card sale.

As with the palm print, the most frustrating part of the Hi- Tec hunt was the inexplicable lack of cooperation from other cops.

Two pairs of boots that were among the most difficult to retrieve belonged to Detective Sergeant Larry Mason and Detective Linda

ST Page 239

Arndt, both of whom had been in the house during the first hours. Arndt's clothing had been collected at the crime scene but not her footwear. It took a direct order from Commander Beckner before Arndt and Mason gave up their boots for testing, about a year after the murder, and it took still longer to get their fingerprints. Mason, the on-scene detective supervisor on December 26, had still not submitted a written report of his actions that day when I left after eighteen months.

A reserve sheriff's deputy who wore Hi- Tecs at the crime scene retained a lawyer before talking to Detective Gosage. Then we got the name of another patrol sergeant who had been in the basement that day. That was also a year late. At fourteen months, Gosage found that an FBI agent from Denver had been in the basement and owned Hi-Tecs. The final embarrassment in the Hi- Tec hunt came when Detective Gosage compared the radio log for December 26 with other reports and discovered that a number of boot-wearing law enforcement types had also been at the house but had never "aired out," or given their location, on the radio.

That meant we never really knew which cops, firefighters, paramedics, and sheriff's deputies were there. It seemed that everybody and their damned brother went wandering through the crime scene that day, and running them down was a virtual impossibility.

ST Page 240

The second possibility was that the flashlight was brought in by the intruder, used in the crime, then left behind in his haste to escape. To me, this was not consistent, for he had not hurried about anything else and, according to the intruder theorists, had carefully taken away other pieces of evidence such as the duct tape and cord. Since the flashlight held no fingerprints, did the intruder carefully wipe it down, inside and out, even the batteries, then just forget it? It didn't fit.

Besides its being the Ramseys', what also made sense was the third option, that some cop brought the heavy flashlight inside (they arrived before dawn) and left it on the counter by mistake. It was the Mag-Lite type preferred by policemen. That it bore no fingerprints was consistent with a piece of equipment being handled in cold weather by a cop wearing gloves. But we were unable to trace the serial number. And, like the palm print and Hi-Tec boot print, once the case blew up, no one wanted to claim ownership.

ST Page 271

On February 25 the mayor chewed me out. This politician was meddling in a criminal investigation, probably in violation of the city charter,

ST Page 272

and didn't know what the hell he was talking about, while Commander Beckner sat there watching, doing nothing to defend his detective.

Mayor Bob Greenlee wore khakis, loafers, a blue sports jacket, and no smile when I met him in Beckner's office. "The mayor wants to ask you a few questions," my boss said and retreated to a chair. "Detective," Mayor Greenlee began, all business. "What do you know about Jackie Dilson?" He gave me no chance to respond, and I had to suppress a grin. I knew all about Jackie Dilson, who was a regular visitor to police headquarters with her theory that her boyfriend probably murdered JonBenet.

Greenlee said he had personally met with Miss Dilson. "Did you know, detective, that her boyfriend, Chris Wolf, had Hi-Tec boots that Dilson purchased for him, that are by now undoubtedly in the bottom of some river? ..:

Print this item

  Frank's thoughts in 2000
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-11-2017, 03:05 PM - Forum: Frank Coffman - Replies (1)

Doing some studying and cross referencing and came across some old printouts I had saved.  This one is interesting.

The subject was Michael Helgoth - and by then Frank was pretty much convinced it was the family and tried to clear anyone else mentioned.

I don't care about that but this bit did bother me as I read it today.

"The Ramseys weren't well-known in Boulder before the murder of their daughter.  (As a Boulder resident I never heard of them.)  JonBenet wasn't famous.  JonBenet's name and photograph never appeared in the local newspaper while she was alive."

Well, I am not a resident of Boulder but I know the story of her father's business reaching a billion dollars in sales was in the paper, Patsy had been the focus of a magazine article (Colorado Woman??)  and JonBenet had been in the parade sitting in a convertible.  Famous?  No, I would agree she was not famous.  But the family was not totally unknown, either.

Print this item

  Geraldo transcript
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-11-2017, 11:05 AM - Forum: 911 call - Replies (1)

After this show aired, many BORG posters swore they had heard the actual tape and knew for a fact that Burke's voice was on the tape.  Simply put, that was an example of mass hypnosis.  Geraldo himself later stepped up and said he had not heard the tape, didn't know of anyone in the media who had - - they were talking about tips and gossip, never played the tape.


Rivera Live Transcript on August 21, 1998


ENHANCED 911 TAPE REVEALING BURKE RAMSEY SPEAKING IN THE BACKGROUND, WHEN HIS PARENTS SAID HE WAS UPSTAIRS SLEEPING




Page 17 of transcript:

Mr. SHEA: Sure. Thank you.

CLARK: We're gonna take a break here, and when we return, the latest in the JonBenet Ramsey investigation. New reports say that during Patsy Ramsey's hysterical 911 call to the police, John Ramsey is heard telling his young son, "Go Back to Bed." We'll be right back.

MARCIA CLARK, host:

There's news on two fronts in the JonBenet Ramsey case this week. First, there's surprising information about the 911 call that Patsy Ramsey made to police to report her daughter missing. Although the Ramseys told investigators that their son Burke, then 10 years old, was asleep when the call was made, a transcript of the 911 conversation apparently shows otherwise. According to the National Enquirer, which broke the story and other published reports, Burke can be heard speaking in a newly enhanced version of the audiotape.

After Patsy Ramsey screams, 'Help me, Jesus. Help me, Jesus,' Burke reportedly says, 'Please, what do I do?' According to the reports, John Ramsey then says in a supposedly angry voice, 'It's none of your business. Go back to bed. We're not speaking to you,' or words to that effect. Patsy's again heard screaming, 'Help me, Jesus. Help me, Jesus,' after which Burke clearly says, 'But what did you find?' Additionally, the Enquirer reports that, according to a source, Burke Ramsey recently told authorities he heard some kind of noises around the time his little sister was murdered. The paper quotes the source as saying, quote, "Detectives are convinced Burke saw or heard something that could crack this case," end quote.

Meanwhile, former close friends of John Ramsey have written an extraordinary 15-page letter asking that the people of Colorado should demand that the state's attorney general take over the case.

NBC's Leanne Gregg reports on this plea for the removal of the Bouldy--Boulder County district attorney.

LEANNE GREGG reporting:

Fleet White, a former friend of John Ramsey's and one of the pallbearers at JonBenet's funeral, in a scathing letter, accuses Boulder's district attorney, Alex Hunter, of having no intention of ever seeking an indictment. White was with John Ramsey when he found JonBenet's body in the basement of their home 20 months ago. White addressed the letter, acquired by The Denver Post, to the people of Colorado, asking them to demand that the state's governor immediately order the attorney general to take over the investigation.

Governor ROY ROMER (Democrat, Colorado): Let--let me make one last comment before you turn...

GREGG: Earlier this month, Governor Roy Romer, on the advice of four Denver area district attorneys, decided against replacing Hunter with a special prosecutor.

Gov. ROMER: I have concluded that it is not proper to appoint a special prosecutor because it would impair this investigation.

GREGG: Instead, Romer said the case is on track for a grand jury. In his letter, White accused Hunter of using the grand jury and its secrecy in an attempt to protect his career.

Unidentified Woman: (From video) Number 16, JonBenet.

GREGG: Frustrations over the lack of resolution of the case prompted White last December to ask the governor to appoint a special prosecutor. The governor declined. This latest plea is not likely to change his mind.

Within the next few weeks, Hunter is expected to appoint additional experts to help with the case.

He won't say when or where the grand jury will begin its part of the investigation. Leanne Gregg, NBC News, Denver.




Page 18 of transcript:

CLARK: Civil and criminal attorney--trial lawyer Craig Silverman now joins us in Denver. Craig served formerly as a chief deputy district attorney there.

Craig, I--I'm--I'm dying to know what you think is--of--of the current request that's on the table now, for the second time, that Alex Hunter be removed in favor of the attorney general. What do y--do you think it's likely to succeed? Do you think it should?

Mr. CRAIG SILVERMAN (Civil and Criminal Attorney, Former Prosecutor): N--no, it's not going to succeed. In fact, Governor Romer has already turned down Fleet White. But let's remember who Fleet White is. He's a star witness in this case, as is his wife, who also authored that letter. They have turned against this prosecutor. This follows Steve Thomas, lead investigator, putting down Alex Hunter. They're both requesting a special prosecutor and it--it casts a shadow over the case.

CLARK: Well, yeah, I mean, I understand that it does, except that--don't you think that there may be some merit to it? There's been no movement, and even since--it's been a while even since there was an announcement that there would be a grand jury investigation. That hasn't even begun.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Right. It's an interesting situation. And he points at--toward Governor Romer; he says, 'There's sort of a vast left-wing conspiracy here.' I think he overcharges, but he makes good, valid points: Alex Hunter, the Democrat DA in Boulder, being helped by an--a bunch of other established Democrats, and we've seen how people band together on partisan lines. Hopefully, that would not occur in a murder case, but it may be a matter of philosophy as much as politics.

CLARK: You know, but, Craig, I understand that Alex Hunter also hasn't had a whole lot of experience with high-profile cases, let alone with homicides. I understand--I--I've heard that he hasn't even had--tried one in his career. Maybe it is a good thing to get someone else in to run--guide the ship.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, what they're talking about now is bringing in a special deputy, somebody who will actually take charge of the case. Hopefully, it'll be somebody who's insulated from these political accusations...

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Mr. SILVERMAN: ...'cause when you look at Fleet White, you have to ask yourself: What is this man's motivation? And you can't come up with anything other than justice for JonBenet.

CLARK: Yeah, that's really true. That's--his netter--letter was very impressive to me, as was the detective's letter, the one who just retired. And I think that after Fleet White's letter--even though that's been turned down again by Governor Romer, there's probably going to be another and yet another.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Right.

CLARK: So hopefully, that will be resolved. We're gonna go to break here, Craig.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Sure.

CLARK: When we come back, we're--all of us left here, Paul Rothstein and Howard Price, will join us discussing the significance of this newly enhanced 911 tape. Stick around, folks. We'll be right back.

(Announcements)

CLARK: One of the most horrible parts about discussing this case is having to see those clips over and over again. They are so painful. The n--this latest story about the 911 tape that has been enhanced, assuming that it's been properly enhanced and--and there's been no funny business with it, that reveals the son's voice wh--at a time




Page 19 of transcript:

when the parents insist that he had been sleeping, what--what--let's play out the significance. Howard, what do you think? You've had a lot of high-profile murders.

Mr. HOWARD PRICE (Criminal Defense Attorney): Well, one, forgive my inherent skepticism, but this tape has been in their possession since day one. If there was background noise, which is what causes the enhancement, I would think it would've been enhanced a long time ago.

Mr. SILVERMAN: No.

Mr. PRICE: And, if indeed...

Mr. SILVERMAN: No, no, no.

Mr. PRICE: Well, pardon me. Maybe you're right. But indeed, if the words are as the audiologist determines them to be, clearly this is as close to a smoking gun as you're gonna get in this case.

CLARK: Mm-hmm. Maybe makes it fileable. Craig, why are you saying, 'No, no, no'?

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, I'm--I'm saying that right here it is a very significant fact. But let's look at this situation. The DA has known about this for some time, yet he still can't pull the trigger. But we now better understand why the Ramseys are under an umbrella of suspicion.

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Mr. SILVERMAN: As you so well know, Marcia, lies reveal so much about the truth.

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Mr. SILVERMAN: It's the topic earlier.

Professor PAUL ROTHSTEIN (Law Professor, Georgetown University): But I think wor...

Mr. SILVERMAN: People lie--people lie for a reason, and if this is a Ramsey family lie to say that Burke was not there...

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Mr. SILVERMAN: ...and apparently, Burke stuck with that story--that's very revealing...

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Mr. SILVERMAN: ...and it really throws aside any intruder theory. It does not necessarily then bring us to the point where we can say which Ramsey did what. That's the critical determination.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Oh, I think we're overestimating--Marcia...

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: ...I think we're overestimating the importance of this. Yes, it might be significant, but it might just be parents trying to protect their young son from the horrible ordeal of being questioned by the police and having publicity surround him.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Professor Rothstein...




Page 20 of transcript::

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: So they did--they did lie. Now it could--it could also mean that Burke had a role or that he heard or saw something between the parents that showed that they had a role, but--but we're jumping to conclusions here.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Come on. You--you really...

CLARK: Are we really, Paul? Do you have--yeah, go ahead, Craig.

Mr. SILVERMAN: You have to ask yourself this question: Why would the family--the immediate family of this beautiful little girl lie about anything to the police? They're not going to do it.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Well, but it--to protect your son. It's the living son. They've lost a daughter. This is the living son.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Protect him from what? Has he been protected?

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Protect him from the horrible ordeal of being questioned by the police...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, h--he's already been questioned.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: ...about the death of his--about the death--about the death of his sister.

Mr. SILVERMAN: At the time it--at the time this was first said, it was a kidnapping, and maybe the son had some clues. If the parents said, 'No, he didn't witness anything'...

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Well, they thought they'd question him--they thought they'd question him and see if he had some clues.

Mr. SILVERMAN: No, they s...

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Now I do admit the other fact is significant that friends--friends and neighbors are now suspicious.

CLARK: Wait, hang--hang on for a second, Paul. Hang onto the other fact.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Yeah. Yeah.

CLARK: Howard, you're shaking your head. Why?

Mr. PRICE: Well, I--well, I--I--I--Mr. Silverman knows this case 'cause he's monitoring. Maybe he can address the point a little bit further. Why is this just now coming to light?

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, because some things don't leak that fast. But beware of the false clue. According to the story, Patsy Ramsey unintentionally left the phone off the hook. If they shift blame toward Burke, Burke was one month shy of his 10th birthday. That's the age of culpability in Colorado, and he could not be charged with a doggone thing.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Oh, this is bizarre. This is bizarre...

CLARK: Really.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, I'm telling you that...




Page 21 of transcript:

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: ...to--to--that they're planting clues to implicate their own son...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Professor Rothstein--no, no.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: ...planting clues to implicate their own son, that's bizarre.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Professor Rothstein, whoever committed...

CLARK: Not to mention, Craig--let--let me ask you mo...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Whoever committed this crime staged the scene. Gregg McCrary and others have told you that. They are leaving false clues to hide who the killer is.

CLARK: Well, sure, like the ransom note.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Right, exactly.

CLARK: The ransom note, I--I can definitely see that as a false clue that's being left, but nevertheless...

Mr. SILVERMAN: I'm not saying--I'm not saying this is a false clue.

CLARK: Wait a minute. Are you trying to say that a 10-year-old child would've been capable--physically capable of constructing the kind of torqu--torquing device...

Mr. SILVERMAN: No way.

CLARK: ...that was used to kill...

Mr. SILVERMAN: No way am I...

CLARK: ...to strangle JonBenet and is capable of inflicting the kind of damage...

Mr. SILVERMAN: No...

CLARK: ...to her skull the way it was fractured?

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, th--is the--the first...

CLARK: You're telling me that a 10-year-old boy could do that?

Mr. SILVERMAN: I don't think so. I don't think he could do the garroting. He certainly could not write the ransom note. But it--to the extent--we have seen--we have se...

CLARK: Well, no, I mean, theoret--if you--if we accept your theory--if we accept your theory that they're trying to protect their son, then they would've written the ransom note to deflect, I suppose, the blame, but...

Mr. SILVERMAN: I'm saying just--I'm not saying it--I'm not saying...

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: There are things that point--there are things that point to the parents here. There are things that point to the parents, but this ain't one of them. I mean, this is stringing--yeah.

Mr. SILVERMAN: I'm not saying--I'm not saying...




Page 22 of transcript:

CLARK: Oh, you don't think it do--Paul, don't you think it--as--as Howard points out...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Oh, come on.

CLARK: ...don't you think it takes it out of the realm of being an intruder at all? I think it
confines it...

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: No.

CLARK: ...more than likely to the people inside that house.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Oh, listen. I think if something horrible like that happened in my house and I had a little child, a 10-year-old, I--I might not want to expose them to the full glare of publicity...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well...

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: ...and have--and--and have the police questioning the guy. That's a traumatic experience about death of his sister.

CLARK: Well, Howard, what do you think of that?

Mr. PRICE: Well, I--I--I...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Wouldn't you want the truth to get out?

CLARK: Howard...

Mr. PRICE: Listen, I haven't heard the--I haven't heard the tape, but it seems to me you wouldn't have expressed the professor's sentiments in the way that we're told that these sentiments are being expressed.

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Mr. PRICE: It just sounds to me to be very incriminating evidence. Seems to me that had they had this evidence, which I assume that they might have--and I have some doubt about this evidence to start with. But putting that aside...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Why?

Mr. PRICE: ...I can't believe--I can't believe that this has not been acted upon by the
authorities a long time ago.

CLARK: Well, at least it--it almost sounds to me like it becomes a fileable case with this if the tone of voice is being accurately depicted.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, who do you f--who do you file against, Marcia? Which Ramsey? Which Ramsey did what?

CLARK: Well, I c--oh, I don't know about--see, I don't know about Denver, I don't know about Colorado...

Mr. SILVERMAN: See, it--it...

CLARK: ...but I know in California you can charge them both and let the jury sort it out.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, let me--in Colorado there's a big difference between being an accomplice and being an accessory. And that's what the prosecution's probably figuring...




Page 23 of transcript:

CLARK: You can't charge them both with both crimes and let the jury sort it out? You can here.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: It's...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, if you don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it's a heck of a thing to charge somebody with first-degree murder.

CLARK: Oh, we gotta go, Craig. Sorry to cut you off. Thanks, everybody, for being our guests. Brian Williams up next on CNBC.

Print this item

  Howard Rile
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-08-2017, 08:54 PM - Forum: Handwriting - Replies (7)

First his CV



Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Print this item