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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

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

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 25 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 25 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
From Brill's Content
Forum: Footprints in the snow
Last Post: SundanceIM
03-29-2018, 07:55 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 308
from Thomas deposition in...
Forum: Barbie nightgown
Last Post: jameson245
03-15-2018, 06:04 PM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 1,555
Dr. Oz - Nancy Grace - Ju...
Forum: What is in the news - staying up to date
Last Post: jameson245
03-15-2018, 05:56 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 545
Burke lawsuit
Forum: Burke sues Werner Spitz for $150,000,000.00
Last Post: jameson245
03-15-2018, 05:53 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 512
Obituary
Forum: Peter Hofstrom
Last Post: jameson245
02-20-2018, 12:34 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 170
John Phillips
Forum: Opinions
Last Post: jameson245
01-31-2018, 03:54 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 283
Lin Wood says CBS is goin...
Forum: Burke sues CBS for 750 million
Last Post: jameson245
01-18-2018, 07:22 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 354
news story
Forum: John and Barbara Fernie
Last Post: Dispatcher
01-09-2018, 11:08 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 580
What they should have kno...
Forum: The CBS suit
Last Post: CA4Now
01-09-2018, 12:01 PM
» Replies: 11
» Views: 3,333
Case to go forward - Janu...
Forum: Burke sues CBS for 750 million
Last Post: jameson245
01-06-2018, 03:26 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 212

 
  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

  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