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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 29
» Latest member: Gildedingold
» Forum threads: 1,072
» Forum posts: 3,357

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 15 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 15 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
$118,000.00
Forum: 118 thousand dollar ransom
Last Post: Summer Dawn
4 hours ago
» Replies: 5
» Views: 574
Dale Yeager
Forum: Discredited and discounted witnesses in this case
Last Post: Summer Dawn
4 hours ago
» Replies: 2
» Views: 2
Important info in "We hav...
Forum: We Have Your Daughter
Last Post: Summer Dawn
4 hours ago
» Replies: 9
» Views: 1,093
Cyril Wecht
Forum: John Ramsey sues CBS
Last Post: Summer Dawn
6 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 5
Judianne Densen-Gerber ...
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
7 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 5
COORS Event center
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: Summer Dawn
10-15-2017, 08:48 AM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 205
Evidence found in JonBene...
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: Summer Dawn
10-15-2017, 08:39 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 20
Look at the flashlight on...
Forum: Flashlight
Last Post: CA4Now
10-15-2017, 08:16 AM
» Replies: 14
» Views: 668
Baseball bats
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: CA4Now
10-14-2017, 09:54 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 18
from John Ramsey v CBS
Forum: Head Injury
Last Post: jameson245
10-14-2017, 02:33 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 13

 
  Public Presentation at Castle
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-13-2017, 10:15 PM - Forum: Presumed Guilty: An Investigation into the JonBenét Ramsey Case, the Media, and the Culture of Pornography - No Replies

Steve and his wife gave a public talk in Colorado and a friend attended.  This is the report sent to me on that meeting.


Last week, I attended an event at Cherokee Castle south of Denver where Stephen and Joyce Singular spoke on their updated version of "Presumed Guilty," their book on JonBenét's case.

I think my overall review of Singular's theory of a child pornography theory being the root of this, as well as a connection with a photographer or photographers and a sort of conspiracy to protect powerful people in Boulder, is that he may be on the right track as far as one investigative path--but that it should not be the primary avenue of investigation. He is the first to say that he is given to speculation. I think he does not have hard evidence, necessarily, but he also doesn't really give himself credit for the research he has done and information he has found that does support this theory. Because circumstantially, it is there, as a horrible and dark problem in Boulder. The missing link just seems to be what could connect specifically to this case.

With that said, I find his writing style very enjoyable and his demeanor pleasing. I would say the same of Joyce. 

The Singulars were unequivocal in their belief that the Ramseys had nothing to do with this. They were very clear about that. 

There was only one person during the Q&A after the talk who said she suspected a coverup within the family--I think specifically concerning Burke. She really sounded like someone who just wouldn't be swayed, particularly considering that she was sitting there with two presenters giving her facts to show why that wasn't right.

It also became apparent to me that there is a LOT of misinformation out there, some of which was brought up at the talk. There was someone who thought there was vomit at the crime scene. (No.) Things like that. I am not sure how these rumors get started and take off.

The gathering was very respectful, which was nice. No really hostile vibes, which is almost surprising with a case this controversial.

Stephen's point that he came back to a few times was to emphasize what the grand jury found: that they did not vote to indict for murder. That in addition to strange things that happened, such as why the entire indictment was not released when Charlie Brennan got 4 pages of it released. He spoke a lot about suspected coverup like that, and who is it that is being protected in Boulder by information not being released? Who was protected by the Boulder Police refusing so steadfastly to look anywhere other than the parents for investigation? I believe someone in attendance at the event brought up starting a petition to get the entire indictment released, and Stephen and Joyce received this idea favorably.

So, to sum it up: I don't really think this theory should be tied so closely with the Ramsey case without hard evidence, but it's certainly one theory that should be investigated closely. The connection is possible.

Also, I would recommend reading his updated version of "Presumed Guilty," which is a 70 page supplement, as well as some updated content in the rest of the book. It's available as an e-book from Amazon.

Print this item

  Miller misleads (Foster)
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-13-2017, 09:25 PM - Forum: JonBenet Ramsey: Prostitution of Justice - Replies (1)

Miller mentions Vassar Professor Don Foster in the first chapter of his book.  I post that section here then invite readers to go to the next post to read "the rest of the story" - - Foster was NOT discredited simply because he wrote a letter of condolence - he was discredited because he is a charlatan!

From Miller's book:

Don Foster, a professor in linguistics at Vassar College, is another citizen who voluntarily applied his professional expertise to the Ramsey case’s prime piece of evidence. Professor Foster had received worldwide recognition for his controversial work in identifying the authorship of a previously unknown work by William Shakespeare,[16] Ted Kaczynski as the Unabomber and Joe Kline, the originally anonymous author of Primary Colors. Hunter contacted Professor Foster and interested him in analyzing the ransom note. The linguistics professor came to the same conclusion as various handwriting experts, psycholinguistic and FBI profilers and a legion of other investigators: Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. Professor Foster explained his findings in March, 1998, to police and prosecutors.
While Dr. Hodges studied the ransom note for psychological fingerprints, Professor Foster examined it for stylistic similarities between it and Patsy’s Christmas letters, personal notes and other available writing samples. He analyzed the grammar, syntax, word choice, punctuation, characteristic use of parts of speech, etc.
District Attorney Hunter learned from the Ramsey attorneys that the professor had sent Patsy a note of condolence before doing his analysis of the letter. So had many, many other good citizens, stunned by the savagery of the crime. Rather than acknowledging the change in circumstances now that Professor Foster had studied the actual text of the ransom note, Hunter rejected the expert’s opinion. No matter which expert said to the DA that the note was Patsy’s creation, Hunter rejected their work. If such reports were to be acknowledged as valid, as they surely would have been by a fully informed and attentive grand jury, the arrest of Patsy would become inevitable. For some reason, that result was an anathema to the grand jury.
Professor Foster’s note with his condolences irreparably damaged his credibility for Hunter.[17] Shakespeare’s most extravagant comedy or tragedy couldn’t envision a story with so faithless an ending as Professor Foster’s damnation as a faithless and untruthful expert.

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 (3)


.pdf   shurtapeanalysisCaseyAnthony.pdf (Size: 1.03 MB / Downloads: 6)

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: 8)

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

  Hunter's affidavit October, 2000
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-11-2017, 11:46 AM - Forum: Burke Ramsey - bio - No Replies

AFFIDAVIT of ALEXANDER HUNTER - October 12th, 2000

State of Colorado
County of Colorado

Personally appeared before the undersigned officer duly authorized by law to administer oaths, ALEXANDER M. HUNTER, who being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

1. My name is Alexander M. Hunter. I am over 21 years of age and I am cmpetant to make and give this Affidavit, and do so from personal knowledge.

2. I am an attorney duly licensed in the State of Colorado. Since January 9th, 1973, I have been the elected District Attorney for the 20th Judicial District, County of Boulder, State of Colorado.

3. On or about December 26th, 1996, JonBenét Ramsey, a six year old minor child, was murdered in her home in Boulder, Colorado.

4. Since the date of her death, I have been continuously involved in the investigation of JonBenét's homicide.

5. As part of the investigation into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, questions about any possible involvement by her brother, Burke Ramsey, who was 9 years of age at the time of his sister's murder and who was one of the individuals present in the house at the time of her murder, were raised and investigated as part of standard investigative practices and procedures.

6. From December 26th, 1996, to the date of this affidavit, no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from that of witness to suspect.

7. In May of 1999, I was made aware that tabloid newspapers had indicated that Burke Ramsey was a suspect in the murder of JonBenét Ramsey or was believed to be her killer. As a result of these articles, I was contacted by media representatives and I instructed my office to release a press statement which publicly and officially stated that Burke Ramsey was not a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister and that stated in part, "...almost a year ago (Boulder) Police Chief Mark Beckner stated during a news conference that Burke (Ramsey) was not a suspect and that we are not looking at him as a possible suspect." The information in the May 1999 press release was true and correct.

8. From December 26th, 1996, to the present date, I have never engaged n plea bargain negotiations, talks or discussions with anyone in connection with the investigation into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey based in whole or in part on the premise that Burke Ramsey killed his sister. From December 26th, 1996, to the present date, no member of my office has ever engaged in plea bargain negotiations, talks or discussions with anyone in connection with the investigation into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey based in whole or in part on the premise that Burke Ramsey killed his sister.

9. I am aware that this Affidavit may be used by counsel for Burke ramsey in connection with libel litigation brought on his behalf in various jurisdictions.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT
This 12th day of October, 2000

signed by Alexander M. Hunter
notarized by Susan Ingraham

Print this item

  Geraldo transcript
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-11-2017, 11:05 AM - Forum: 911 call - No Replies

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

  review and Q&A
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-09-2017, 02:34 PM - Forum: Presumed Guilty: An Investigation into the JonBenét Ramsey Case, the Media, and the Culture of Pornography - Replies (1)

Q & A #50 – Stephen and Joyce Singular, “Presumed Guilty”
Posted on 09/27/2016 | Leave a comment
[Image: presumed-guilty-cover.jpg?w=214&h=300]Utter the three syllables out loud—JonBenet—and you’re bound to get a reaction. Everybody has an opinion. If you haven’t studied the case, even in cursory fashion, a brief glance at the murder will hurt your head.
Let’s say the murder didn’t happen but a scriptwriter today pitched the exact same storyline, as fiction, to “CSI.” Nobody would believe it as a story close to credible, possible, or within the realm of possibility. The facts of the murder were plenty bizarre, only to be eclipsed by the strange investigation and wacky decisions by those in charge of finding the killer. Or killers.
It’s almost 20 years since JonBenet’s death. It’s been 17 years since Stephen Singular published Presumed Guilty, An Investigation Into the Jon Benet Ramsey Case, the Media, and the Culture of Pornography. That book took Patsy Ramsey, JonBenet’s mother, off the hook. It made a strong case for looking at the broader context for the murder—specifically the world of child beauty pageants and its connections to pedophiles and child pornographers. The most vocal mouths of the media (talk radio, ahem) didn’t buy it. It’s impossible to forget the certainty with which these blathering microphone hogs carried on. It was a circus.
So much has transpired since the murder that Steve and Joyce Singular have completely updated the original book. It’s entirely worth reading now. A review follows. First, Steve and Joyce (The Spiral Notebook, Shadow on the Mountain, The Wichita Divide, When Men Become Gods and many others) were kind enough to answer a few questions by email.
++
Question: Did you watch the two-part CBS television show that attempted to deconstruct the case and all the theories? If so, what did you think?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  First of all, thanks for asking us to participate. We’ve just put up our 1999 book about the case, Presumed Guilty, on Kindle/Amazon. It’s been updated with about 70 new pages from the original version, bringing the story into the present. Anyone looking for a truly alternative explanation for JonBenet’s murder will find it here.
The CBS program was a mixed bag. The show’s suggestion that scenarios exist other than the Ramsey parents committing the crime (making them totally guilty) or an intruder coming into the house and killing the child (making the Ramseys completely innocent) was good. CBS did a fine job of depicting that a crime scene inside the Ramsey home was staged. They also did good work decoding the 911 call Patsy Ramsey made to the police the day the body was found. But they never addressed the more complicated questions raised in the years since the murder. In 1999, a grand jury concluded that a) the Ramseys did not kill their child, but exposed her to the circumstances that led to her death and b) the parents helped cover up the crime. Instead of exploring what the Ramseys may have exposed the child to, CBS leaped to the conclusion that 9-year-old Burke beat his sister to death with a flashlight because she ate a piece of his pineapple on Christmas night. Think about it for a moment: the program alleges that while covering up the crime, the parents wrote a nearly 400-word ransom note, fashioned a highly-complex garotte for JonBenet’s neck, choked her severely with it, and sexually assaulted her—but somehow forgot to hide the flashlight and left it out on the kitchen counter, in order to make their son look guilty.  This simply doesn’t make any sense and there’s no actual evidence of any kind—DNA or otherwise—to support the idea that Burke killed his sister. CBS walked right up to the edge of going below the surface of the case, and asked some provocative questions, but then stopped and did the predictable.
Question: Same kind of question—did you see JonBenet’s brother Burke’s appearance on “Dr. Phil” and, if so, what did you think?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  Burke came across as rather awkward and odd, but there’s nothing in his behavior or again the evidence to suggest that he killed his sister. One of his first comments to a psychiatrist—in unguarded circumstances following the murder—is that someone must have stabbed her to death with a knife. In other words, he’s clueless. Right after Patsy called 911, the Ramseys sent Burke over to a friend’s home, which was filled with strangers, who were visiting there for the Christmas season. Ask yourself this: If the Ramsey parents knew that their son had just viciously murdered his sister, and they’d covered up the crime for him, would you send him into house full of people he doesn’t know, where one slip of his tongue can put you in prison for many years to come? Or would you try to protect him and keep him away from others because of the inherent risks involved? You can only send him away like this because he doesn’t know anything incriminating—and that’s exactly how he comes off 20 years later with Dr. Phil.
Question: Your points in the book about the nature of Boulder—influence, power, politics, persuasion and how those might have influenced how the case was prosecuted—are compelling. Do you have any reason to believe that things have changed? That favoritism in another high-profile case isn’t a possibility today? Do you think the police and prosecutorial systems in Boulder have changed, been reformed?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  No, Boulder protects Boulder—very much as Aspen protected itself recently in the aftermath of a high-profile murder in that town.  Boulder DA Alex Hunter asked a grand jury to look at the evidence in the Ramsey case for a nearly-unheard-of thirteen months. In legal terms, that’s the equivalent of forever. After all their diligent work, the grand jurors told Hunter to indict the Ramseys on the two counts mentioned above. He refused. Why? Getting a conviction on these charges would have been much easier than getting a
[Image: singulars.jpg?w=300&h=198]
Stephen and Joyce Singular. Photo by Kerry Ransom.
Murder One conviction. Hunter went on to seal the indictment and it stayed that way for the next fourteen years. In 2013, the DA’s office was successfully sued, but it still decided only to release four pages of this 18-page document. Why was the rest concealed from the public? What’s in the remaining 14 pages? Are other people named as suspects? We suggest in Presumed Guilty that Hunter refused to prosecute the Ramseys because it would have opened up a much larger set of problems for Boulder. The grand jurors, after looking at all the evidence, did not say that Burke Ramsey killed his sister. They said that the Ramsey parents exposed JonBenet to events and a person or persons, which led to her death. What events and what person (s)? Whose DNA was left behind in several places on JonBenet? Is it possible that the scandal around her death touched prominent people in the community and no one wanted that to come out?
All these questions would have been explored in a Ramsey trial—and Hunter and the powers that be in Boulder weren’t going to let that happen. On the CBS show, ex-Boulder cop Steve Thomas quotes Hunter as saying that the decision to charge or not charge the Ramseys was going to be “political.” We think that both Hunter and Thomas were telling the truth. But what was the political issue here? What was Boulder trying to protect—or hide?
Question: Can you even count the number of ways this prosecution was fumbled within the first few hours and over the ensuing weeks, months and even years? What do you think is the biggest thing the cops or prosecutors should do today, if you were running the case?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  Go back and interview the pageant mothers around JonBenet at the time of her death. Learn from them about the photographers taking her picture then and how they behaved in the aftermath of the murder. Look for who insisted that he did not kill the child. Look for pictures of JonBenet on the Internet or elsewhere holding potential clues and suspects. Look into the criminal pool of child predators, some of whom operated on the edges of the pageant world…This area is where we began our investigation of the case in early 1997 and we feel that over the past two decade it’s been quite fruitful. We continue probing these areas today and there are a few people who’ve told us more about the case in 2016, when we re-interviewed them, than they did in 1997. They’re older now, they’re children are grown, and they’re less fearful about sharing important information that suggests a wider scandal in Boulder than the murder of one child. We’d tell the authorities to go to these people and start asking questions that go far beyond the Ramsey family as the only suspects. Dig into the issue of child exploitation in the Boulder area…in the years before the crime.
Question: Do you think the grand jury report will ever see the light of day?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  That seems very unlikely.
Question: You’ve managed to get close to some major cases—O.J., Warren Jeffs, JonBenet, the BTK Killer and others. How were you received in Boulder compared to those other cases? It almost seemed as if they were willing to share information and they offered the semblance of an open door even if they didn’t say much. Thoughts?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  Early on, Alex Hunter was quite willing to listen to outsiders and even reporters. A few months later, he stopped doing this. He told Steve face to face that he wanted the Internet/child porn angle investigated, but the Boulder police wouldn’t do this because they were fixated on the Ramsey parents. So the DA suggested that Steve look into this—an outlandish and astounding idea in a high profile murder case. To do what Hunter was asking, Steve would have had to break the law and that wasn’t going to happen. Steve also approached the Boulder police a number of times, but they were a brick wall when it came to receiving or exploring new information.
Question: You two invest so much of your own resources—time and money—into this case. What drove you to keep pursuing leads and making calls? Has it gotten easier or harder to make yourself part of the conversation in cases like these, given the way that journalism has changed?
Steve & Joyce Singular: The case just keeps finding us, as it has throughout 2016. It goes away for a year or two, but then someone contacts us with new information and our work lurches forward. Above all, this homicide remains a world-class murder mystery, so it holds its own level of interest for anyone who likes this sort of thing. It’s the only known murder where a body and a ransom note were found in the same location. There has to be an explanation for this. Neither CBS nor any of the other shows currently being aired on the case has explored this in any depth. That’s what our book is really about—and it gives readers more than two answers in the case. It also raises troubling questions: What keeps everyone involved with the murder quiet for two decades? What shuts down a legal process? What scenario makes everyone in Boulder look bad? What causes a family to spend a fortune protecting itself? What causes important legal documents to remain sealed? If a boy had killed his sister over a piece of pineapple, we believed the murder and its aftermath would have been resolved long ago.
Question: There are apparently over 30 books about the crime; other than yours, what is the best one out there?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  Lawrence Schiller’s Perfect Murder Perfect Town is a good collection of facts about the case from its early days. We believe that clues are buried inside that book, which were never really focused on or investigated enough.
Question: One thing you touch on the book but don’t really get into is the intense media frenzy that this case generated back when it first happened twenty years ago. Even “reporters” took strong, self-assured opinions about what must have happened. You mention one story about how you were treated by fellow reporters, care to share any other stories about how you were treated? Why did you think this case was elevated to this extreme fever pitch?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  There was a vacuum left behind after the OJ case. The general population and the media were hungry for a new murder narrative. The Ramsey case had just about everything: murder, mystery, money, sex, beauty, possible corruption in high places—and cable TV was now fully in motion, eager to fill up its 24-hour news cycle. The case was made for that. And more than a few legal or media commentators were willing to jump in and tell the world they’d solved the murder—when law enforcement was having a very hard time doing exactly that. Careers were made with people accusing the Ramseys of murder on TV and radio and the Internet, just as they’d done with OJ. It was a seismic shift in how these cases are portrayed to the public. Opinion crushed the known facts. Presumed Guilty was thrown into a trashcan on live national television because it dared to suggest another explanation for the crime, beyond the Ramseys as killers. All this has culminated with CBS, formerly the gold standard—the “Tiffany Network” of TV news—accusing a 9-year-old boy of murder when there is nothing at all to substantiate this. This media pattern makes doing any real journalism around the case much more challenging…and leaves the deeper questions behind: Why does a legal system and a city government decide not to prosecute the most visible case in Colorado history when it has an obligation to do so after spending $2 million of the public’s money on an investigation? What’s the real mystery behind the paralysis in this case?
What’s your best estimate for how this case will be resolved—or will it?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  It’s very unlikely it will ever be solved, unless there’s a DNA match with a currently unknown killer who left multiple DNA samples on the child and her clothing.
Question: What’s next for you two?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  We’re writing a fictional screenplay with our son, Eric, about an alternative energy resource. We’re working on a couple of other stories and when they’re more developed, we’ll post them on our website: www.stephensingular.com  Also posted there will be a notice about Steve’s upcoming appearance on the Lifetime Network for a program on the JonBenet Ramsey case, once the date is set.
++
REVIEW:
Follow the facts. Keep asking questions—and keep asking questions. Without a concrete answer to the death of JonBenet Ramsey, obviously, questions remain. As Stephen and Joyce Singular put it in Presumed Guilty, some murders just won’t leave you alone. And as they make painfully clear in this updated version of their 1999 book, there are still questions to be asked—still work that could be done.
I’m no expert on the case. But the Singulars do two things simultaneously—and they do them well. First, they look closely at the human behaviors of those immediately involved. Second, they widen the lens and look at the bigger picture. It’s very hard to read this book and not come to the same general conclusion—that the answer to this case lies in the troubling sublayers and dark underground of child beauty pageants and sick underground tunnels to child pornographers.
The murder alone is puzzling enough. The police work and prosecutorial efforts that followed were worse. As the Singulars write, “the case remains a world-class conundrum. The murder of JonBenet is the only example in the annals of American homicide where a body and a ransom note were found in the same location. Somehow, some way, there is logic behind that, but Boulder’s legal system was never able to explain what it was. Or perhaps it did, a long time ago, but we’ve never fully understood what this means.”
In the years following the murder, the Singulars write, their questions ran head-long into either “pervasive fear” or “absolute silence.”
Looking back, they write: “The most potent aspect of the Ramsey phenomenon was the stillness around it — from the family and its legal team, from Boulder cops and the D.A.’s office, from parts of the media, and in the very uneasy quiet that clung to the crime, even as the authorities tried to put it behind them. Presumed Guilty suggested that there were powerful reasons for this silence and the effort to bury the murder, rather than solve it. The book stood alone in speculating that there were more than the two ironclad scenarios the media and the police had laid out for the child’s death from the very beginning: either the Ramseys did it and were totally guilty or an intruder had come into their home and killed the girl, leaving the Ramseys completely innocent. A huge gap lay in between these poles and Presumed Guilty explored that space.”
As recent television news shows make clear, that space still remains. The Boulder police (in a videotaped message to the community at large, recorded in anticipation of the huge media onslaught coming with the two-decade anniversary) maintain they are actively pursuing leads to this day. I hope so. Perhaps they should start by reading this book; the Singulars lay out some compelling places to start.
It also suggests what we all largely suspect to the case—that deals were struck, that money and wealth got the privileged kid-glove treatment it thinks it deserves. Nothing else explains the actions of Boulder law enforcement in the days, weeks, and months following the murder.
In the updated version (I did not read the original), the Singulars take readers along for the ride. The book takes each thread and unspools it in a very conversational style.
These two get very close to the main players in the case; as independent journalists they brought information forward to Alex Hunter and others, with mixed results. The book becomes a series of interviews and conversations with those around the Ramseys—and a series of reactions by the authorities to what is brought forward. What did they find? See above. Pervasive fear and/or absolute silence. I won’t go blow by blow with each encounter, but the Pam Griffin conversation here certainly suggests there is more work to be done. (Griffin was the seamstress for JonBenet’s pageant attire and knew Patsy Ramsey very well.)
Presumed Guilty is a fascinating book, well worth a read; it’s brisk. The book concedes that it has only identified the what for the case, not the who. Until there is an answer, isn’t it a good idea to be open to all possibilities? And follow the facts—not the noise.

Print this item