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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Q. At page 232 of your book -- I apologize, I apparently have gotten the wrong cite in my record.
Oh, 236, I'm sorry, 236 where you say first paragraph under the line right here "With our Dream Team,
we tallied the points supporting probable cause and found more than 50 items."
A. Yes, I'm with you.
Q. When was that tally made? Date that for me.
A. Mr. Wood, I can't date it specifically but they assisted us in our preparation for the VIP
presentation and just a quick reading of this was maybe spring or late spring of '98. But no, it was
before that because later in the paragraph it talks about the Title-3, which was way back before
Christmas '97. So this was, I would guess, late '97, early to spring of '98.
Q. Can I -- I don't have the time today, at least, to ask you to go through and list those 50 items. But
can I be reasonably confident that if I set about myself in your book that I could find reference to those
50 items in this book, that you have included those somewhere in here?
A. No, I can't commit to that because of what was, I remember there was an easel that was used in
which everybody in the room put out evidence, information, that sort of thing that went on to this
50-plus point probable cause board.
Q. So it may have been all of your points, you may have --
A. It certainly wasn't.
Q. You may not agree with all of them?
A. Right.

Margoo
Member since Nov-29-02
601 posts
Jun-06-03, 04:47 PM (EST)
 
6. "RE: Thomas depo 22 - Spitz"
In response to message #5
 
  
page 254-255 pb JBITRMI
In a three-page report, forensics expert Dr. Werner Spitz furnished a logical sequence of events on the night JonBenet was killed.
*First, there had been a manual strangulation, by twisting the collar of the shirt, with the perpetrator's knuckles casuing the neck abrasion. That was consistent with rage-type attack. (My question: where is this twisted collared shirt??)
**Then came the devastating blow to the head, followed by the garrote strangulation. The detectives felt this could have been done either to ensure death or as part of a staging (note: the detectives felt, not Spitz). Another doctor said that the head was hit with great force and that the cracking skull would have made a tremendous noise. It was agreed that the cord around the throat was applied to a victim who offered little or no resistance, probably as she lay grievously wounded by the head injury. (again, I don't see these words absolutely attributed to Spitz. As for resistance, how much resistance could a little wee girl give?)
***By examining the condition of the pineapple in the stomach and the rate of digestion, Spitz put the time of death "about or before 1 A.M."
(first of all, the stomach was empty, so let's just assume another error on ST's part. The condition of the pineapple in the small intestine indicated by Meyer was that it was "fragments" of a fruit or vegetable material. Steve seems to be missing a condition required for Spitz to reach this 1 A.M. conclusion because Spitz does not know what time JB consumed the material/pineapple. Something's wrong/missing in this statement attributed to Spitz.)

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

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

Those who have not yet appeared include former
Ramsey neighbor Melody Stanton. Stanton, who
has since moved out of Boulder, lived across the
street from the Ramseys and told police she heard
a child's scream not long after falling asleep
Christmas night.
Her comments to police about the scream have
been the subject of much analysis for what that
scream might say about the possible time of
death, and for what it might say about where, in
the Ramseys' expansive home, the killing might
have taken place.

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

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

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

Those who have not yet appeared include former
Ramsey neighbor Melody Stanton. Stanton, who
has since moved out of Boulder, lived across the
street from the Ramseys and told police she heard
a child's scream not long after falling asleep
Christmas night.
Her comments to police about the scream have
been the subject of much analysis for what that
scream might say about the possible time of
death, and for what it might say about where, in
the Ramseys' expansive home, the killing might
have taken place.

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

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

By Charlie Brennan
Scripps Howard News Service

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

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

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

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

"Thomas depo 41 - Stun Gun"
 
  
Q. 154, right here, second blocked out, second paragraph, "Experts engaged by the police concluded
there was no stun gun involved at all, but the DA's team never relinquished their claim that such
weapon an exotic weapon was used to subdue JonBenet." Have I read that correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. Who were the experts engaged by the police that you're referring; would you identify those for
me?
A. I know at least one was Dr. Werner Spitz, and Detective Trujillo would be able to identify
additional.
Q. Did any of those -- any police department consultants discuss at either of the presentations in
terms of what they thought about stun guns whether there was consistency. For example, Dr.
Doberson?
A. I'm sorry, run it back by me, Mr. Wood.
Q. Was Dr. Deters -- the Larimer County coroner involved in the investigation by the Boulder Police
Department?
A. No, I'm not familiar with that name.
Q. How about Sue Kitchens of the CBI?
A. I am familiar with her name, but I do not know what extent she may have been involved in the
investigation.
Q. How about Dr. Doberson?
A. I believe Trujillo and Wickman initially visited Dobersen on behalf of the police. But that was
later followed up by investigators Smit and Ainsworth.
Q. Dr. Doberson who I think you have a great deal of respect for?
A. I don't know Dr. Doberson.
Q. Do you recognize him, though, to be respected in the law enforcement community in Colorado?
A. I have no opinion. I don't know anything about Dr. Doberson.
Q. Do you know that he has stated within reasonable medical certainty that the marks on JonBenet's
face and back were caused by a stun gun. Are you aware of that?
A. Well, if you're telling me that's true --
Q. I'm just asking if you're aware of it. You said --
A. I saw that on --
Q. -- you watched some of the stuff. I'm just asking if that's what he said there?
A. Right.
Q. Did you watch the Tracy Mills documentary, two?
A. The second one, two?
Q. Yeah.
A. Two, as in the number two?
Q. Yeah, the second, there was one back a couple years ago, it's one that came out in the last
several months, haven't seen --
A. No, I haven't seen that.
Q. So you don't know what Dr. Doberson said in that, do you?
A. No.
Q. But he wasn't employed by the Boulder Police Department, among other things, to look at the
stun gun issue, true?
A. I don't know that he was employed but they went to him. Trujillo and Wickman I know did.
Q. What did the Boulder Police Department conclude caused these marks found on JonBenet
Ramsey's back?
MR. DIAMOND: Do you want to identify what you're putting in front of him just for --
MR. WOOD: I'm going to mark it and I'll do it by copy. I don't want to mark on this color copy but
this will be Defendants' 4.
MR. DIAMOND: Will you identify what it is for the record?
MR. WOOD: It's an autopsy photograph of JonBenet Ramsey.
MR. DIAMOND: Does it have a number on it or something?
MR. WOOD: I just put a number on it, a 4 just so I can copy it and mark it later. If you'll just hang on
to it. I don't want you to be flipping through there. There is one picture I am going to ask him about in a
moment.
MR. DIAMOND: Yeah.
(Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-5 marked.)
Q. (BY MR. WOOD) What did the Boulder Police Department determine caused those marks on
JonBenet Ramsey's back as shown on Defendants' Exhibit 4?
A. I don't know that the Boulder Police Department as an entity formed a consensus opinion, but
relying on the experts in this case, and Detective Trujillo specifically who was assigned to the stun gun
investigation told us and I remember seeing it that Werner Spitz concluded, I believe, what was believed
to be stun gun marks may have been a patterned object, if I recall correctly, or I think another
explanation was on her back lying on some sort of object.
Q. That was Dr. Spitz only?
A. Well, Dr. Spitz completed a report on that. I think Dr. Lee had some opinion on it. Certainly
Trujillo filed information about that.
Q. I'm going to show you defense Exhibit Number 5, which two photos, one is obviously Number 4
and then 5 is a picture of JonBenet's side of her face. There were two marks on her face. The marks
on her face and the marks on her back were the same distance apart, right?
A. I don't know that those were identical. I have heard --
Q. Do you deny that?
A. I have heard Mr. Smit say that they were identical. I have heard Trujillo say they're not.
Q. That the marks were not -- shouldn't one just measure this, sir?
A. Unfortunately you would have to, I think, triangulate it off of a photo because they weren't
measured, my understanding, at autopsy.
Q. Do you choose to believe Dr. -- Mr. Smit or Mr. Trujillo in terms of that issue or do you just not
have a position one way or the other in terms of the distance part of the two set matched pairs?
A. I don't believe necessarily either of them. But I have heard Mr. Smit and Mr. Trujillo had
conflicting measurements on that picture.
Q. But one thing for sure, you believe, I think you would say and have said before, that if a stun gun
was used on JonBenet that that is significant evidence that would point away from a family member or
parent, right?
A. I don't know where I have said that.
Q. You have never said that?
A. I don't know where I have said that, Mr. Wood.
Q. Do you deny that?
A. Refresh my memory. Where do you think I have said that?
Q. Do you deny that or is that accurate?
A. I think, and for the record let me just say, one other expert that I know the Boulder Police
Department consulted were I think stun gun reps, manufacturers or people in the stun gun industry.
Q. Do you know their names?
A. I don't. I think somebody from Air Tazer.
Q. Were there reports filed?
A. There certainly should be. As far as do I deny -- well, let me put my answer this way. I would
agree to an extent that it may be or would be less likely that a parent would be involved in the stun
gunning of a child. Maybe I'm naive in that thinking, as the FBI agents told us they have seen children
murdered in the most horrendous of ways, but I won't dispute you on that point today.

"Thomas depo 17 - handwriting experts"
 
  
Q. (by Lin Wood) Have you ever had an opportunity to review any of Darnay Hoffman's handwriting
experts' reports, that would be a report from David Liedman, Cina Wong and another individual named
Tom Miller?
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether they were ever tendered to the prosecution or to the police department
and rejected as not credible?
A. It's my understanding and this may have been even after I left the police department, that Mr.
Hoffman made his experts available to the prosecution.
Q. And they declined saying that they were not credible or do you know?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know that. You do know that there were other experts that reviewed Patsy Ramsey's
handwriting and did not find evidence of authorship, true?
A. Who were those?
Q. Do you think there were not three other people that looked at this and did not find that there was
evidence to find that she wrote the note?
A. I don't know who you're referring to.
Q. Well, there was a Secret Service examiner, Mr. Dusak?
A. Right.
Q. Speckin Laboratories?
A. Mr. Speckin, yes.
Q. Right. And there is one other, help me. I can pull it if you want me to?
A. Alfred, Alford, Edwin Alford.
Q. Did you look at their conclusions and remember them?
A. I did.
Q. What was Mr. Dusak's conclusion?
A. Mr. Dusak, I believe, his official conclusion on his report for courtroom purposes was no
evidence to indicate.
Q. No evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on
the ransom note, was that Mr. Dusak's conclusion?
A. Among other things.
Q. And he was a document analyst for the United States Secret Service, right?
A. Right.
Q. Then we have Mr. Edwin F. Alford, Jr., police expert, examination of the questioned
handwriting, comparison of the handwriting specimen submitted has failed to provide a basis for
identifying Patsy Ramsey as the writer of the letter. Is that his conclusion?
A. I remember Mr. Dusak. If you have a document that would help --
Q. This is Mr. Alford.
A. I know. I remember Mr. Dusak. If you have a document that would help me refresh my
memory on Mr. Alford, I don't recall --
Q. Not beyond what I have just told you, but if that helps you refresh you one way or the other what
I've just told you is I believe Mr. Alford concluded?
A. Will you repeat his --
Q. Sure.
A. -- what he concluded.
Q. The examination of the questioned handwriting comparison with the handwriting specimen
submitted has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patricia Ramsey as the writer of the letter?
A. If that's what the report says. I certainly don't disagree with --
MR. DIAMOND: He's asking you whether that refreshes your recollection.
Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Do you recall Mr. Alford coming to that conclusion?
A. To a -- yeah, I think that's the conclusion.
Q. And then Leonard A. Speckin, he said that he found no evidence that Patsy Ramsey disguised
her handwriting exemplars. Did you -- were you aware of that conclusion by Mr. Speckin, a police
expert?
A. Among other conclusions, yes.
Q. You understood enough about the handwriting analysis that a legitimate handwriting questioned
document examiner analyzes not just similarities, but also has to analyze and account for dissimilarities,
right?
A. If you say so, Mr. Wood, I'm not --
Q. I'm asking you, sir.
A. No, I'm not a handwriting expert and don't purport to be.
Q. So you can't --
A. If you're asking me about my layman's knowledge about handwriting science I would be happy to
answer your question.
Q. I'm asking you about your understanding of the science when you were the, quote, one of the lead
detectives. Did you not listen to what the experts were saying and what their bases were and did you
not grasp the fundamental idea when you were listening that they were saying we've got to analyze
both similarities and dissimilarities?
MR. DIAMOND: Objection. Compound. You may answer.
Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did you understand that to be the case or not?
A. That was among many things that I understood them to look at.