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



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 6
» Latest member: John Andrew
» Forum threads: 1,673
» Forum posts: 5,351

Full Statistics

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

Latest Threads
Lou on LKL
Forum: Ramsey cooperation
Last Post: Dave
Yesterday, 10:58 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 21
Geraldo transcript
Forum: 911 call
Last Post: jameson245
09-13-2020, 10:07 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 1,431
The Hoffman FAX
Forum: Darnay Hoffman
Last Post: jameson245
09-12-2020, 05:37 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 29
So where was the DNA-X?
Forum: DNA-X
Last Post: jameson245
09-12-2020, 12:38 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 2,023
Forum: Rope
Last Post: jameson245
09-12-2020, 11:59 AM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 2,176
Our introduction to DNA-...
Forum: DNA-X
Last Post: jameson245
09-12-2020, 11:29 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 3,138
from Ramsey interviews
Forum: Flashlight
Last Post: jameson245
09-12-2020, 11:20 AM
» Replies: 10
» Views: 782
Look at the flashlight on...
Forum: Flashlight
Last Post: jameson245
09-12-2020, 11:10 AM
» Replies: 17
» Views: 10,218
Forum: 911 call
Last Post: jameson245
09-12-2020, 10:34 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 42
MT's essay
Forum: Michael Tracey
Last Post: jameson245
09-11-2020, 03:41 PM
» Replies: 37
» Views: 380

  DNA discussed in Carnes' decision
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-01-2017, 06:32 PM - Forum: DNA under fingernails - Replies (6)

The coroner took nail clippings from JonBenet. [i]Male DNA was found under JonBenet's right hand fingernail that does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF ¶ 174; PSMF ¶ 174.) Defendants also assert that male DNA was found under Jon-Benet's left hand fingernail, which also does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF ¶ 173.) In addition, male DNA was found in JonBenet's underwear that does not match that of any Ramsey and has not yet been sourced. (SMF ¶¶ 175, 178; PSMF ¶¶ 75, 178.) The Boulder Police Department has yet to identify the male whose DNA was found at the crime scene. (SMF ¶77; PSMF ¶77.) Finally, a Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair was found on the blanket covering JonBenet's body. (SMF ¶79; PSMF ¶79.) The hair does not match that of any Ramsey and has not been sourced. (SMF ¶ 80; PSMF ¶ 180.)[/i]

Print this item

  From Carnes' decision in Wolf lawsuit
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-01-2017, 06:29 PM - Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White - Replies (2)

The Whites arrived at defendant's home at approximately 6:00 a.m., and Mr. White, alone, searched the basement within fifteen minutes of arrival. (SMF ¶ 23; PSMF ¶ 23.)

Mr. White testified that when he began his search, the lights were already on in the basement and the door in the hallway leading to the basement "wine cellar" room10 was opened. (SMF ¶ 25; PSMF ¶ 25; White Dep. at 147, 151-52.)

He further testified that a window in the basement playroom was broken. (SMF ¶ 26; PSMF ¶ 26; White Dep. at 28, 152 & 154.)

Under the broken window, Mr. White states there was a suitcase, along with a broken shard of glass. (SMF ¶ 27; PSMF ¶ 27; White Dep. at 28-29, 156-59, & 265.)

 He does not, however, remember whether the window was opened or closed.11 (SMF ¶ 28; PSMF ¶ 28; White Dep. at 153.)

Mr. White also opened the door to the wine cellar room, but he could not see anything inside because it was dark and he could not find the light switch. (SMF ¶29; PSMF ¶29; White Dep. at 159-61.)

Print this item

  The decision
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-01-2017, 06:26 PM - Forum: Judge Carnes Decision in Wolf Lawsuit - Replies (9)

Email | Print | Comments (0)
No. CIV.A.1:00-CV-1187-J.

253 F.Supp.2d 1323 (2003)
Robert Christian WOLF, Plaintiff, v. John Bennet RAMSEY and Patricia Paugh Ramsey, Defendants.
United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.
March 31, 2003.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Sean R. Smith, Thomas Maclver Clyde, Dow Lohnes & Albertson, Atlanta, Daniel M. Petrocelli, phv, Charles P. Diamond, phv, O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, CA, Richard Neal Sheinis, Hall Booth Smith & Slover, Atlanta, Andrew R. Macdonald, phv, Boulder County Attorney Office, Boulder, CO, David Lewis Balser, McKenna Long & Aldridge, Joe Dally Whitley, Alston & Bird, Atlanta, GA, for Steve Thomas, Alexander Hunter, Fleet White, Jr., City and County of Boulder, a subdivision of the State of Colorado, Robert E. Cook, movants.
Darnay Hoffman, phv, Law Offices of Darnay Hoffman, New York City, Evan M. Altaian, Office of Evan M. Altaian, Atlanta, GA, for Robert Christian Wolf, plaintiff.
James Clifton Rawls, Eric Schroeder, S. Derek Bauer, Powell Goldstein Frazer & Murphy, L. Lin Wood, Jr., Office of L. Lin Wood, Atlanta, GA, for John Bennett Ramsey, Patricia Paugh Ramsey, defendants.

CARNES, District Judge.
This case is presently before the Court on defendants' motion for summary judgment [67]; defendants' motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Cina Wong and Gideon Epstein [68]; and defendants' motion for oral argument [79].1 The Court has reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties and, for the reasons set out below, concludes that defendants' motion for summary judgment [67] should be GRANTED; defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Cina Wong and Gideon Epstein [68] should be GRANTED as to Ms. Wong and GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to Mr. Epstein; and defendants' motion for oral argument [79] should be DENIED.
This diversity case is one of the many civil suits that arose in the wake of the widely-publicized and unsolved murder of six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey in Boulder, Colorado, on December 26, 1996. Plaintiff Robert Christian Wolf is a Boulder, Colorado, resident who was named by defendent JonBenet's parents, on national television and in their book about their daughter's murder, The Death of Innocence: The Untold Story of JonBenet's Murder and How Its Exploitation Compromised the Pursuit of Truth (hereinafter referred to as the "Book"), as a potential suspect in JonBenet's death. Plaintiff claims that, to the extent defendants expressed an opinion that he might have killed their daughter, defendants knew such a statement to be untrue because defendant Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter and John Ramsey assisted her in covering up the crime.
The Court draws the undisputed facts from "Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" ("SMF") [67] and "Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts" ("PSMF"), in which plaintiff does not dispute the overwhelming majority of defendants' factual allegations. When plaintiff has disputed a specific fact and pointed to evidence in the record that supports its version of events, the Court has viewed all evidence and factual inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as required on a defendant's motion for summary judgment. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); McCabe v. Sharrett, 12 F.3d 1558, 1560 (11th Cir. 1994); Reynolds v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 989 F.2d 465, 469 (11th Cir.1993). In addition, the Court has reviewed plaintiffs separate statements of disputed material facts [88] ("PSDMF"), which consist, for the most part, of a restatement of theories espoused by former Boulder Police Detective Steven Thomas2, (PSDMF ¶¶ 44-75),
[253 F.Supp.2d 1327]
and of a lengthy recounting of statements previously made by defendants, accompanied by editorial comments suggesting such statements to be untruthful, but without an explanation or evidence for such an assessment. (PSDMF ¶¶ 103-117, 120-249, 250-261.)3 When the Court could discern a material factual dispute from this pleading, the Court has drawn all inferences in a light most favorable to plaintiff. Accordingly, the following facts are either not disputed or are viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
I. The Timeline of the Crime and the Crime Scene
Sometime on the night of December 25 or the early morning of December 26, 1996, JonBenet Ramsey was murdered. (SMF ¶ 2.) JonBenet's body was found in the basement of defendant's home. (SMF 115; PSMF ¶ 5.) Defendants have never been charged, arrested, or indicted for any offense in connection with the murder of JonBenet, and they deny any involvement in her death, although they have been under an "umbrella of suspicion" from almost the beginning of the murder investigation. (SMF ¶¶6-7; PSMF ¶¶ 6-7.)
On the night of December 25, 1996, the Ramsey family attended a Christmas party at the home of their friends Fleet and Priscilla White. (SMF ¶2; PSMF ¶ 12.) Nothing out-of-the-ordinary occurred at the party and the Ramsey family appeared happy. (¶13; PSMF ¶13.) On the drive home from the party, JonBenet and her brother Burke fell asleep in the car. Defendants put the children to bed when they returned home and then went to bed soon there after. (SMF ¶ 13 PSMF ¶ 13.) The family planned to rise early the following morning because they were to fly to Charlevoix, Michigan for a family vacation. (SMF ¶ 13; PSMF ¶ 13.)
JonBenet and Burke's bedrooms were located on the second floor of the Ramsey home. There was also an empty guest bedroom on the second floor, located atop the garage. Defendants' bedroom was located on the third floor of the Ramsey home in a converted attic space. The home also contained a basement. (SMF ¶ 14; PSMF ¶ 14.) There were two stairwells leading from the second floor to the ground floor level. The back stairwell led into the kitchen, where there was a butler door that led into the basement.
Defendants claim they were not awakened during the night. A neighbor who lived across the street from defendants' home, however, reported that she heard a scream during the early morning of December 26, 1996. Experiments have demonstrated that the vent from the basement may have amplified the scream so that it could have been heard outside of the house, but not three stories up, in defendants' bedroom. (SMF ¶48; PSMF ¶ 148.) The following morning, defendants assert they woke around 5:30 a.m. and proceeded to get ready for their trip. While Mr. Ramsey took a shower, Mrs. Ramsey put back on the same outfit she had on the night before and reapplied her
[253 F.Supp.2d 1328]
makeup. (SMF ¶ 15.) Mrs. Ramsey then went down the backstairs towards the second floor, then the spiral stairs to the ground floor, where, on a step near the bottom of the stairs, she discovered a handwritten note on three sheets of paper that indicated JonBenet had been kidnapped (the "Ransom Note"). (SMF ¶ 16.)
Plaintiff, however, contends that Mrs. Ramsey did not go to sleep the night of December 25, but instead killed her daughter and spent the rest of the night covering her crime, as evidenced by the fact she was wearing the same outfit the following morning. (PSMF ¶ 15.) He further posits that Mrs. Ramsey authored the Ransom Note in an attempt to stage a crime scene to make it appear as if an intruder had entered their home. (PSMF ¶16; PSDMF ¶¶ 38-39.) Plaintiff theorizes that, at some point in the night, Jon-Benet awoke after wetting her bed4 and upon learning of the bed-wetting, Mrs. Ramsey grew so angry that an "explosive encounter in the child's bathroom" occurred, during which tirade, Mrs. Ramsey "slammed" JonBenet's head against "a hard surface, such as the edge of the tub, inflicting a mortal head wound." (PSDMF ¶¶ 45, 47.) Plaintiff has provided no evidence for this particular theory.5
Plaintiff further contends, based again solely on Mr. Thomas's speculation, that "Mrs. Ramsey thought JonBenet was dead, but in fact she was unconscious with her heart still beating." (PSDMF ¶ 47.) Mr. Thomas then surmises that "t was that critical moment in which she had to either call for help or find an alternative explanation for her daughter's death." (PSDMF ¶ 48.) Plaintiff then speculates that Mrs. Ramsey chose the latter route and spent the remainder of the night staging an elaborate coverup of the incident.6
Specifically, plaintiff theorizes that, with Mr. Ramsey and Burke still asleep, Mrs. Ramsey moved the body of JonBenet to the basement, returned upstairs to draft the Ransom Note, then returned to the basement where she "could have seen—perhaps by detecting a faint heartbeat or a

[253 F.Supp.2d 1329]

sound or slight movement—that although completely unconscious, JonBenet was not dead." (PSDMF ¶¶ 49-50.) In Mr. Thomas's scenario then, rather than being grateful that her child was alive, Mrs. Ramsey nevertheless decided to finish the job off by fashioning a garrote from one of her paintbrushes, looping the cord around the girl's neck, and then choking JonBenet to death. (PSDMF ¶¶ 51-52.) Plaintiff notes that the fact JonBenet was "choked from behind" is consistent with the murder being committed by someone who knew JonBenet and did not want to look at her face as he or she killed her.
After murdering her child and staging the crime, plaintiff opines that, to cover her tracks, Mrs. Ramsey must have taken the items she used in the staging out of the house, "perhaps dropping them into a nearby storm sewer or among Christmas debris and wrappings in a neighbor's trash can." (¶¶ 53-54.) Indeed, the sources for the duct tape and cord used in the crime were never located, nor sourced,7 to defendants' home. Plaintiff claims that Mrs. Ramsey next placed the Ransom Note in a place "where she would be sure to `find' it." (PSDMF ¶ 53.)
Mrs. Ramsey disputes the above recitation of facts. She claims that, upon waking, she put back on the same clothes she had on the night before and applied her makeup. She then states she went downstairs to prepare for their departure on the family trip. (SMF ¶ 17.) As she descended the back stairwell, she discovered the Ransom Note and read only those few lines stating that JonBenet was kidnapped, but "safe and unharmed," and demanding $118,000 for her return. (SMF ¶ 17; PSMF ¶ 17.) Mrs. Ramsey immediately screamed and proceeded to check JonBenet's room, which was empty. (SMF ¶ 18; PSMF ¶ 8.) After hearing Mrs. Ramsey's scream, Mr. Ramsey ran downstairs and met Mrs. Ramsey in the stairwell. Together, they checked on their son who appeared to be asleep in his room. (SMF ¶ 18; PSMF ¶ 18.) Mr. Ramsey then went downstairs to read the Ransom Note, while Mrs. Ramsey called the police, informing them that her child had been kidnapped. (SMF ¶ 19; PSMF ¶ 19.) In addition to calling the police, defendants called several friends to their house, including Fleet and Priscilla White, who promptly came to the defendants' home. (SMF ¶ 20; PSMF ¶ 20.)8
Plaintiff contends Mr. Ramsey probably first grew suspicious while reading the Ransom Note that morning, which surmise is again based solely on the opinion of Mr. Thomas. (PSDMF ¶56.) Plaintiff speculates that upon examining the Ransom Note, Mr. Ramsey "must have seen his wife's writing mannerisms all over it, everything but her signature." (PSDMF ¶ 56.) Upon determining that his wife was involved in JonBenet's disappearance, plaintiff surmises that Mr. Ramsey chose to protect his wife, rather than to facilitate the capture of his daughter's murderer. (PSDMF ¶57.) Mr. Ramsey asserts, however, that he never once suspected his wife

[253 F.Supp.2d 1330]

to be involved in the crime. (PSDMF ¶¶254-255.)9
A series of events transpired that severely compromised the crime scene. Office Rick French of the Boulder Police arrived at the defendants' home in a marked car a few minutes before six a.m., followed soon after by Detective Linda Arndt. (SMF ¶ 21; PSMF ¶ 21.) Contrary to normal protocol, the police did not seal off the defendants' home, with the sole exception being the interior of JonBenet's bedroom. In other words, any person in the Ramsey house could, and often did, move freely throughout the home. (SMF ¶21; PSMF ¶22.)
The Whites arrived at defendant's home at approximately 6:00 a.m., and Mr. White, alone, searched the basement within fifteen minutes of arrival. (SMF ¶ 23; PSMF ¶ 23.) Mr. White testified that when he began his search, the lights were already on in the basement and the door in the hallway leading to the basement "wine cellar" room10 was opened. (SMF ¶ 25; PSMF ¶ 25; White Dep. at 147, 151-52.) He further testified that a window in the basement playroom was broken. (SMF ¶ 26; PSMF ¶ 26; White Dep. at 28, 152 & 154.) Under the broken window, Mr. White states there was a suitcase, along with a broken shard of glass. (SMF ¶ 27; PSMF ¶ 27; White Dep. at 28-29, 156-59, & 265.) He does not, however, remember whether the window was opened or closed.11 (SMF ¶ 28; PSMF ¶ 28; White Dep. at 153.) Mr. White also opened the door to the wine cellar room, but he could not see anything inside because it was dark and he could not find the light switch. (SMF ¶29; PSMF ¶29; White Dep. at 159-61.)
Later that same morning, at around ten a.m., Mr. Ramsey also searched the basement area alone. He testified he found the broken window partially open. (SMF If 30; PSMF If 30; J. Ramsey Dep. at 30.) Under the broken window, Mr. Ramsey also saw the same suitcase seen earlier by Mr. White. Mr. Ramsey testified that the suitcase belonged to his family, but was normally stored in a different place. (SMF ¶ 31; PSMF ¶31; J. Ramsey Dep. at 17.)

[253 F.Supp.2d 1331]

Mr. Ramsey then returned upstairs. Plaintiff theorizes that Mr. Ramsey actually found JonBenet's body at this time. (PSDMF ¶ 57.)
Later that afternoon, Mr. Ramsey and Mr. White together returned to the basement at the suggestion of the Boulder Police. (SMF ¶ 32; PSMF ¶ 32; White Dep. at 212-217; J. Ramsey Dep. at 17-20.) During this joint search of the basement, the men first examined the playroom and observed the broken window. (SMF ¶ 33; PSMF ¶ 33.) The men next searched a shower stall located in the basement. (SMF ¶ 34; PSMF ¶ 34.) Mr. Ramsey then noticed a heavy fireplace grate propped in front of a closet and Mr. White moved the grate so the closet could be searched. (SMF ¶ 35; PSMF ¶ 35.) Upon finding nothing unusual in the closet, the men proceeded to the wine cellar room. Mr. Ramsey entered the room first, turned on the light and, upon discovery of JonBenet's dead body, he exclaimed "Oh my God, my baby." (SMF ¶ 36, 37; PSMF ¶ 36, 37; White Dep. at 162-63, 193-93.)
JonBenet had black duct tape covering her mouth, a cord around her neck that was attached to a wooden garrote, and her hands were bound over her head in front of her; she was covered by a light-colored blanket. (SMF ¶ 138; PSMF ¶ 138.) A "Barbie" nightgown belonging to JonBenet was also found in the wine cellar near her body. (SMF ¶ 149; PSMF ¶ 149.) [i]Jon-Benet's
blood was found only on her body and the Barbie nightgown. (SMF ¶ 150; PSMF ¶ 150.) Mr. Ramsey ripped the duct tape off JonBenet's mouth and attempted to untie her hands. (SMF ¶ 39; PSMF 139.) He then carried her body upstairs. (SMF ¶ 39; PSMF ¶ 39.) It was only upon the discovery of JonBenet's body that the Boulder police began to secure properly the home as the crime scene. (SMF ¶ 53; PSMF ¶ 53.)
JonBenet's body was bound with complicated rope slipknots and a garrotte attached to her body. (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ. J. [67] at 19; SMF ¶ 163; PSMF ¶ 163.) The slipknots and the garrote are both sophisticated bondage devices designed to give control to the user. (SMF ¶ 161, 164; PSMF ¶ 161, 164.) Evidence from these devices suggests they were made by someone with expertise using rope and cords, which cords could not be found or "sourced" within defendants' home. (SMF ¶ 169; PSMF ¶ 169.) The garrote consisted of a wooden handle fashioned from the middle of a paintbrush, found in the paint tray in the boiler room. The end of a nylon cord was tied to this wooden handle and, on the other end, was a loop with a slipknot, with JonBenet's neck within the loop. (SMF ¶¶ 157-158; PSMF ¶¶ 157-158.) The end portion of the paintbrush used to construct the garrote was never found. (SMF ¶59; PSMF ¶ 159.) No evidence exists that either defendant knew how to tie such knots. (SMF ¶ 162; PSMF ¶ 162.) Further, fibers consistent with those of the cord used to make the slip knots and garrote were found on JonBenet's bed. (SMF ¶ 168; PSMF ¶ 168.) Although plaintiff agrees the garrote is the instrument used to murder JonBenet, he argues that the cord with which the wrists were tied would not have bound a live child and is evidence of a staging. (PSDMF ¶ 51.)
The black duct tape used on JonBenet's mouth has also not been sourced to defendants. (SMF ¶ 170; PSMF ¶ 170.) Both ends of the duct tape found on her were torn, indicating that it came from a roll of tape that had been used before. (SMF ¶ 171; PSMF ¶ 171.) No similar duct tape was found in the house, nor is there evidence that defendants ever used or owned such duct tape. (SMF ¶ 172; PSMF ¶ 172.) Plaintiff also notes that the strip of duct tape found on JonBenet's mouth[/i]
[253 F.Supp.2d 1332]

had a bloody mucous on it and a "perfect set of child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance." (PSDMF ¶ 53.) Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF ¶ 183; PSMF ¶ 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF ¶ 183; PSMF ¶ 183.) Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF ¶ 184; PSMF ¶ 184.)
Several recently-made unidentified shoeprints were found in the basement, imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. (SMF ¶ 151; PSMF ¶ 151.) In particular, a shoeprint of a "HI-TEC" brand mark on the sole of a shoe was found. (SMF ¶ 152; PSMF ¶ 152.) Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes, and none of the shoes found in their home match the shoeprint marks. (SMF ¶ 153; PSMF ¶ 153.) Another partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF ¶ 155; PSMF ¶ 155.) This shoeprint left only a partial logo. The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the shoeprints at the murder scene has never been identified. (SMF ¶ 154, 155; PSMF ¶ 154, 155.) In addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a palmprint that does not match either of defendants' palmprints. (SMF ¶ 156; PSMF ¶ 156.) The individual to whom it belongs had not yet been identified. (SMF ¶156; PSMF ¶ 156.)
Finally, items were left behind that defendants assert they did not own. (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ. J. [67] at 18-19.) A baseball bat not owned by the Ramseys found on the north side of the house has fibers consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF ¶ 185; PSMF ¶ 185.) A rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom of defendants' home, neither of which belonged to defendants. (SMF ¶ 181; PSMF ¶ 181.) Small pieces of the brown sack material were found in the "vacuuming" of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body. (SMF ¶ 181; PSMF ¶ 181.) Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF ¶ 181; PSMF ¶ 181.)
The autopsy of JonBenet's body was conducted on December 27, 1996 by the Boulder County Coroner's Office. (SMF ¶ 40; PSMF ¶ 40.) The cause of JonBenet's death was asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma. (SMF ¶ 41; PSMF 41.) The autopsy report supports the conclusion that she was alive before she was asphyxiated by strangulation and that she fought her attacker in some manner. (SMF ¶ 42-43, 46, 48; PSMF ¶ 42-43, 46, 48.) Evidence gathered during the autopsy is consistent with the inference that she struggled to remove the garrote from her neck. (SMF ¶44; PSMF ¶ 44.) Moreover, both parties agree the autopsy report reveals injury to JonBenet's genitalia consistent with a sexual assault shortly before her death. (SMF ¶ 48; PSMF ¶ 48.)12 Although no head injury was visible when she was first discovered, the autopsy revealed that she received a severe blow to her head shortly before or around the time of the murder. (SMF ¶ 51; PSMF ¶ 51. [i]See also
Report of Michael Doberson, M.D., Ph.D. at 6© attach, as Ex. 3 to Defs.' Ex. Vol. I, Part A[/i]
[253 F.Supp.2d 1333]

(stating the "presence of hemorrhage does indicated that the victim was alive when she sustained the head injury, however the relative small amount of subdural hemorrhage indicates that the injury occurred in the perimortem (close to death)13 period.").)
The coroner took nail clippings from JonBenet. [i]Male
DNA was found under JonBenet's right hand fingernail that does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF ¶ 174; PSMF ¶ 174.) Defendants also assert that male DNA was found under Jon-Benet's left hand fingernail, which also does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF ¶ 173.) In addition, male DNA was found in JonBenet's underwear that does not match that of any Ramsey and has not yet been sourced. (SMF ¶¶ 175, 178; PSMF ¶¶ 75, 178.) The Boulder Police Department has yet to identify the male whose DNA was found at the crime scene. (SMF ¶77; PSMF ¶77.) Finally, a Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair was found on the blanket covering JonBenet's body. (SMF ¶79; PSMF ¶79.) The hair does not match that of any Ramsey and has not been sourced. (SMF ¶ 80; PSMF ¶ 180.)
Finally, the coroner's report notes injuries on the right side of JonBenet's face and left lower back. While defendants assert that these injuries are consistent with the use of a stun gun, plaintiff notes that the coroner's report does not expressly state the injuries were the result of such an instrument. (SMF ¶ 47; PSMF 47.) Dr. Michael Doberson, a forensic pathologist retained by defendants who examined the Boulder Coroner's autopsy report and autopsy photos, concludes the injuries to "the right side of the face as well as on the lower left back are patterned injuries most consistent with the application of a stun gun." (Report of Michael Doberson, M.D., Ph.D. at 5(A), attach, as Ex. 3 to Defs.' Ex. Vol. I, Part A.)
II. The Ransom Note
The Ransom Note is believed by all parties to have been written by the killer or an accomplice of the killer and remains an extremely important clue in the murder investigation. (PSDMF ¶ 4.) Plaintiff claims that the single best piece of evidence that ties Mrs. Ramsey to the crime is the Ransom Note. (Id.) Mrs. Ramsey, however, flatly denies that she had anything to do with the note's creation. (SMF II189; PSMF ¶ 89.) Due to the pivotal role the Ransom Note plays in plaintiffs' allegation that Mrs. Ramsey was the murderer of her child, the facts surrounding the Ransom Note will be discussed in detail.
The Ransom Note was quite long, and in fact is one of the longest ransom notes in the history of kidnapping cases. (PSDMF ¶ 7.) This fact is important because the longer a document is, the harder it becomes to disguise one's handwriting. (PSDMF ¶ 9.) The Ransom Note is addressed to Mr. Ramsey alone and purports to be written by a group of individuals who "represent a small foreign faction" that have kidnapped defendants' daughter and seek $118,000 for her safe return. The Ransom Note was signed "S.B.T.C.", after the salutation "Victory!". (Ransom Note at 3.) The author of the Ransom Note instructs Mr. Ramsey to "[u]se that good southern [sic] common sense," an obviously inaccurate reference as Mr. Ramsey was originally from Michigan, whereas Mrs. Ramsey was originally from West Virginia. (Id.)[/i]
[253 F.Supp.2d 1334]

In addition, the Ransom Note was drafted on paper taken from the middle of a pad of paper located at defendants' home and with a pen found at defendants' home. Additional sheets were missing from the pad and were never located at defendants' home. The pen used to write the Ransom Note was sourced to defendants' home and found placed back in its normal place by the phone. Finally, there was another page in the pad that had written on it "Mr. and Mrs. I," which many believe to have been an early "false start" of the Ransom Note. (PSDMF ¶ 51.)
Both parties agree that the Ransom Note is not an ideal specimen for handwriting analysis, primarily due to the type of writing instrument, a broad fiber-tip pen, used to draft the note. This type of pen distorts and masks fine details to an extent not achievable by other types of pen, as for example a ball point pen. (SMF ¶ 243; PSMF ¶ 243.) In addition, the stroke direction used to construct certain letters and subtle handprinting features, such as hesitations and pen lifts, are difficult to ascertain because of the pen used in the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 244; PSMF ¶ 244.) Finally, the handwriting in the original Ransom Note showed consistency throughout the entire writing. (SMF ¶ 246; PSMF ¶ 246.) One of the most common means to disguise one's handwriting is to attempt to make the script erratic throughout the text. In sum, for the above reasons, the Ransom Note is not an ideal specimen for handwriting analysis. Nevertheless, the writer does not appear to have been trying to disguise his or her handwriting.
During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF ¶ 191; PSMF ¶ 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF ¶ 205; PSMF ¶ 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF ¶ 191; PSMF ¶ 191.) All six experts agreed that Mr. Ramsey could be eliminated as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 194; PSMF ¶ 194.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 195; PSMF ¶ 195.) Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 196; PSMF ¶196.)14 On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF ¶ 203; PSMF ¶ 203.) The experts

[253 F.Supp.2d 1335]

described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF ¶ 204; PSMF ¶ 204.) The two experts hired by defendants both assert that this evidence strongly suggests that Mrs. Ramsey did not write the Note. (SMF ¶ 254.)
Plaintiff, however, asserts that his retained experts believe Mrs. Ramsey to be the author of the Ransom Note. Indeed, Gideon Epstein and Cina Wong, the handwriting experts proffered by plaintiff, opine that they are "100 percent certain" Mrs. Ramsey wrote the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 256; PSMF ¶ 256; PSDMF ¶¶ 1-2.) In contrast to the experts relied upon by defendants and by the Boulder Police Department, however, neither of these experts have ever seen or examined the original Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 256; PSMF ¶ 256.) In fact, Mr. Epstein and Ms. Wong do not know what "generation" copy of the Ransom Note they examined. (SMF ¶ 257; PSMF ¶ 257.) Ms. Wong received her copy of the Ransom Note and certain writings alleged to be historical writings of Mrs. Ramsey from the tabloid, [i]The National Enquirer.
(SMF ¶ 258; PSMF ¶ 258.) Although it is widely considered "very important" to consult the original versions of writings when engaging in handwriting analysis, plaintiff asserts it was impossible for his experts to consult such materials because defendants failed to provide him with original exemplars.15 (PSMF ¶¶ 259-260.) Mr. Epstein, however, consulted with some of his peers, who concur with his analysis.16 Defendants' experts base their conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey is not the author of the Ransom Note on the "numerous significant dissimilarities" between the individual characteristics of Mrs. Ramsey's handprinting and of that used in the Ransom Note. (SMF f 247.) For example, defendants asserts Mrs. Ramsey's written letter "u" consistently differs from the way the same letter is written throughout the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 248.) Plaintiffs experts responds that this variation may be due to a conscious effort by Mrs. Ramsey to change her handwriting or to her heightened stress level. (PSMF ¶ 248.) In support of their conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey authored the Ransom Note, plaintiffs experts assert that there are similarities between letters found in the Ransom Note and exemplars and that the note contains proofreader marks 17 of the kind often used by newspaper reporters and journalists. (PSDMF ¶ ¶ 41.) Plaintiff also notes that Mrs. Ramsey was a journalism major in college. (PSDMF ¶ 42.)[/i]
[253 F.Supp.2d 1336]

Other experts believe the Ransom Note may have been authored by other people. In addition to Mrs. Ramsey, there were other individuals "under suspicion" who had their handwriting analyzed and who were not eliminated as the possible author of the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 205; PSMF ¶ 205.) For example, forensic document examiner Lloyd Cunningham cannot eliminate plaintiff as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 279; PSMF ¶ 279.) Plaintiffs exgirlfriend has also testified that she was "struck by how the handwriting in the note resembled [plaintiffs] own handwriting" and believes that he is the note's author. (J. Brungardt Aff. ¶ 43.) Further, to the extent that the use of a single editing mark might suggest to plaintiffs experts that Mrs. Ramsey was the author, given her bachelor's degree in journalism, one should also note that plaintiff, himself, has a Masters' degree in journalism. ([i]Id.
¶ 13.)
III. The Investigation of the Murder
At the time of JonBenet's murder, the Boulder Police Department had limited experience in conducting a murder investigation. (SMF ¶ 70; PSMF ¶ 70.) Commander Jon Eller was primarily responsible for the investigation, which was his first murder investigation. (SMF ¶ 67; PSMF ¶ 67.) One lead detective assigned to the case, Steven Thomas, had no prior experience with a murder investigation and had previously served as an undercover narcotics officer. (SMF ¶ 68; PSMF ¶ 68.) Finally, the officer who took charge of the investigation in October 1997, Mark Beckner, also had limited homicide experience. (SMF ¶ 69; PSMF ¶ 69.)
Many mistakes were made during the course of the investigation. For example, a series of events compromised the crime scene, as discussed supra. Moreover, the police did not request to interview defendants separately on the day that JonBenet's body was found. (SMF ¶ 57; PSMF ¶ 57.) They did, however, question defendants jointly at various times on December 26, 27 and 28, and, soon thereafter, began to focus the investigation on defendants as the main subjects. (SMF ¶¶ 54, 71-72; PSMF ¶ 54, 71-72.) Pursuant to the FBI's suggestion that the Boulder Police publicly name defendants as subjects and apply intense media pressure to them so that they would confess to the crime, the police released many statements that implied defendants were guilty and were not cooperating with police. (SMF ¶¶ 74-75; PSMF ¶¶ 74-75.) In addition to official police releases, many individual officers also released information about the investigation without official authorization, some of which disclosures were highly confidential and potentially undermined the investigation.
During the course of the investigation, defendants signed over one hundred releases for information requested by the police, and provided all evidence and information requested by the police. (SMF ¶ 61; PSMF 61.) Upon request, within days after the murder and in the months that followed, defendants provided the police with historical handwriting samples and supervised written exemplars. (SMF ¶ 55; PSMF ¶ 55.) Defendants also gave hair, including pubic hair, and DNA samples to the police. (SMF ¶ 56, 60; PSMF ¶ 56, 60.) Despite widespread criticism that defendants failed to cooperate in the murder investigation, defendants note that they agreed, on at least three occasions, to be interviewed separately by representatives of the police or the Boulder County District Attorney's Office. (SMF ¶ 62; PSMF ¶ 62.)
In March 1997, Andrew Louis Smit was hired by the Boulder District Attorney's Office due to his extensive experience as a homicide investigator for thirty years. (SMF ¶ 94; PSMF ¶ 94.) Detective Smit[/i]
[253 F.Supp.2d 1337]

is widely considered to be an expert investigator who has successfully cracked other child murder investigations. ([i]See, e.g.,
SMF ¶ 94; PSMF ¶ 94; Hunter Dep. at 46-47; Steven Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation 167-169 (2001).) During the course of his tenure with the police department, Detective Smit became familiar with all aspects of the murder investigation. (SMF ¶¶ 95-96; PSMF ¶¶ 95-96.) He resigned from the investigation at some point in September 1998, however, because he felt that the Boulder Police Department refused to investigate leads that pointed to an intruder as the murderer of JonBenet, and instead insisted on focusing only on defendants as the culprits. (SMF ¶¶ 97, 101; PSMF ¶ 97, 101.) Two other men, Detective Steve Ainsworth and Assistant District Attorney Trip DeMuth, who also believed the evidence pointed toward an intruder as the killer, were soon thereafter removed from the investigation. (SMF ¶¶ 98-100; 102; PSMF ¶ 99-100; 102.)
In June 1998, the Boulder police presented their evidence to the Boulder County District Attorney. (SMF 84; PSMF ¶ 84.) At some point in the summer of 1998, then-District Attorney Alex Hunter decided to convene a grand jury to investigate the murder of JonBenet and possibly bring charges. (SMF ¶ 86; PSMF ¶ 86.) On October 13, 1999, the grand jury was discharged by District Attorney Hunter with no indictment issued. (SMF ¶ 91; PSMF ¶ 91.) The District Attorney, and all other prosecutors involved in the proceedings, believed at that time that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against any person, including defendants, in connection with the murder. (SMF ¶¶ 91-92; PSMF ¶¶ 91-92.)
IV. Publicity Surrounding the Crime
Beginning on the morning of December 26, 1996, there has been and continues to be considerable public interest and media attention devoted to JonBenet's murder and the subsequent investigation into the crime. As discussed supra, the Boulder Police Department utilized the press, in an attempt to "smoke out" JonBenet's killer. In addition to this intentional use of the press, a number of leaks of confidential information, at various stages of the murder investigation, served to hamper the ability of the Boulder Police Department to conduct an effective investigation into crime. Finally, many people have attempted to capitalize on and profit from the widespread interest in JonBenet's murder. Indeed, plaintiff has attempted to gain a book deal and the chief theorist behind plaintiffs claims, former Detective Steve Thomas, also wrote a book. Likewise, the defendants have written a book about the murder, entitled The Death of Innocence: The Untold Story of JonBenet's Murder and How Its Exploitation Compromised the Pursuit of Truth. (SMF ¶ 8.)
Defendants assert that they wrote their book in response to media speculation that they were involved in their child's murder and to correct inaccurate media reports. Plaintiff, in contrast, asserts that defendants' Book was authored in an attempt to "escape prosecution for the murder of Jon-Benet." (PSMF ¶ 8.) The Book sets forth defendants' account of the investigation of their daughter's murder and their view that the police did not adequately investigate several leads. (SMF ¶ 9; PSMF ¶ 9.) In the Book, defendants promote the theory that an unknown intruder entered their home and murdered their daughter. (SMF ¶ 2, 11) Defendants state they believed when writing the Book, and believe now, that the statements contained in the Book represent either truthful fact or sincere opinion. (SMF ¶ 9.)
Defendants' Book names five people, including plaintiff, whom defendants contend[/i]
[253 F.Supp.2d 1338]

should be further investigated. (SMF ¶ 328; PSMF ¶ 328.) For example, one lead mentioned is Michael Helgoth, a man who committed suicide two months after the murder and one day after District Attorney Hunter issued a statement that the authorities were narrowing their search for the murderer of JonBenet Ramsey. (SMF ¶ 281; PSMF ¶ 281.) Indeed, a stun gun was found near Mr. Helgoth's body, as well as boots with a HI-TEC logo like that left on the basement floor of defendants' home. (SMF ¶ 281; PSMF ¶ 281.) [i]See
discussion supra at 1332, 1333.
Another lead mentioned is Gary Oliva, a transient with a history of child molestation, who was seen in the Boulder area in December 1996, picked up his mail one block from the Ramsey home, and was present at a memorial service for JonBenet. (SMF ¶ 282; PSMF ¶ 282.)
Another purported lead was Bill McReynolds, who portrayed Santa Claus at a Christmas Party at defendants' home in December 1996, whose wife had written a play about a young girl held captive in a basement, whose daughter had been kidnapped and sexually assaulted twenty-two years to the day before JonBenet's death, and who had written a card to JonBenet that was found in her trash can after the murder. (SMF ¶ 283; PSMF ¶ 283.)
Finally, another lead identified by Detective Smit was plaintiff, who in his estimation presented too many "unanswered questions." (SMF ¶ 284; PSMF ¶ 284.) Defendants identified all of these men, and others, in their book as possible suspects. (SMF ¶ 328; PSMF ¶ 328; The Book at 165-168, 199-201, 215-216, & 310-312.) In addition, the Book discusses, but does not name, eight other leads. (SMF ¶ 328; PSMF ¶ 328.) In Chapter 33 of the Book, defendants present a detailed profile of the smurderer. The profile offered is that of a male ex-convict, aged 25-35, who is familiar with and owns a stun gun. (SMF ¶ 329; PSMF ¶ 329.) The passage at issue from the Ramsey book, that is the heart of the present libel claim, criticizes the Boulder Police Department for failing to investigate these possible leads in the murder investigation. (SMF ¶ 180; PSMF ¶ 180.)
In addition to authoring the Book, defendants have appeared on various news programs. (PSDMF ¶¶ 105-118.) On March 24, 2000, defendants appeared on NBC's "Today Show," a television broadcast, in a segment taped in February 2000 with Katie Couric. (SMF ¶ 330; PSMF ¶ 330.) It is from this broadcast that plaintiffs slander claim arises. Defendants did not have any influence or control over the visuals displayed when they spoke, were not told that a photograph of plaintiff would be displayed during their appearance on the show, and were not told before taping what specific questions would be posed to them during the taping. (SMF ¶ 331; PSMF ¶ 331.) In other words, defendants had no editorial control over how the interview was edited or presented. (SMF ¶ 332; PSMF ¶ 332.) During the interview, Mr. Ramsey stated that:
I can tell you when when we first started looking at—at one particular lead early on—my reaction was This is it. This is the killer. And our investigator said `Whoa, whoa, whoa.' He'd say, `Don't do a Boulder Police on me. Don't rush to conclusions'—
(Transcript of Interview attach, as Tab 38 to Defs.' Ex., Vol. 1; J. Ramsey Aff. ¶ 19.) He claims that these statements were not in relation to plaintiff, but rather to Michael Helgoth,18 although plaintiffs photograph was being superimposed on the[/i]
[253 F.Supp.2d 1339]

telecast by NBC. (SMF ¶¶ 335; 338.) Plaintiff contends that the above statement, however, was intended by defendants to relate to him. (PSMF ¶¶ 335, 338.)
For his part, plaintiff too has appeared before the media and profited from discussing and critiquing the murder investigation. (SMF ¶ 292; PSMF ¶ 292.) In 1997, plaintiff voluntarily gave an interview to [i]Hard Copy,
a syndicated television program, in which he claimed to be a suspect in the murder of JonBenet and for which he received $5,000 compensation. (SMF ¶ 293; PSMF ¶ 293.) In addition, plaintiff discussed his status as a suspect with the news tabloid, The National Enquirer, and received $250 for that interview. (SMF ¶ 294; PSMF ¶ 294.) In addition, plaintiff provided information to Lawrence Schiller for use in his 1998 book about the murder, entitled Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. In several passages, attributed to plaintiff, the latter discusses his arrest and interrogation by the Boulder Police Department. (SMF ¶¶ 295-296; PSMF ¶¶ 295-296.)19
Plaintiff also attempted to capitalize on his association with the murder investigation through a book deal. On plaintiffs computer was a letter dated March 2, 1999, addressed to David Granger of Esquire magazine, discussing his status as a suspect in the murder and his related media and print appearances. (SMF ¶ 298; PSMF ¶ 298.) The letter requests a "generous fee" in return for plaintiff authoring a book about JonBenet's murder. (SMF ¶ 298; PSMF ¶ 298.)
Plaintiffs counsel Darnay Hoffman also became interested in the case early in the murder investigation and has contributed to the continued media interest through the filing of various lawsuits. In March 1997, Mr. Hoffman sent a letter to the Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter suggesting that Charles Lindbergh had killed his child in a hoax kidnapping and that one of the defendants had killed JonBenet in a similar type hoax. (SMF ¶ 339; PSMF ¶ 339.) In May 1997, Mr. Hoffman sent Mr. Hunter a second letter in which Mr. Hoffman theorized that Mrs. Ramsey killed her daughter, through a blow to the head, in a fit of rage caused by unhappiness, depression and marital problems. (SMF ¶ 340; PSMF ¶ 340.) The Boulder authorities did not take Mr. Hoffman's unsubstantiated theories seriously and considered much of his submissions to be "off the wall." (SMF ¶ 341; PSMF ¶ 341.)
In the fall of 1997 Mr. Hoffman began to solicit the involvement of various handwriting experts, claiming that, although prior expert reports given to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation showed Mrs. Ramsey to be at the "very lowest end of the spectrum, i.e. there is little or no basis for a match," it would be a "career move" for an expert to submit an affidavit for use by Mr. Hoffman. (SMF ¶ 343; PSMF ¶ 343.) Indeed, forensic document examiners were eager to jump into the high-profile investigation. In July 1997, Ms. Wong, now plaintiffs expert, had originally contacted defendants' attorneys and offered to analyze the Ransom Note and point out weaknesses in analysis by "Government handwriting experts." (SMF ¶ 342; PSMF ¶ 342.) Defendants declined such an offer.[/i]
[253 F.Supp.2d 1340]

In September 1998, Ms. Wong wrote District Attorney Hunter, Assistant District Attorney Michael Kane, and Judge Roxanne Bailin, asking to testify before the Grand Jury. (SMF ¶ 347; PSMF ¶ 347.) By letter dated January 20, 1999, Mr. Hunter rejected the request, informing Ms. Wong that it was his opinion that she did not use scientifically reliable methods, her testimony would be inadmissible, and that she lacked credibility. (SMF ¶ 348; PSMF ¶ 348.) In addition, Mr. Epstein, defendants' other handwriting expert, also wrote to Mr. Hunter, at sometime before the end of 2000, to offer his assistance in examining the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 349; PSMF ¶ 349.) Mr. Hunter did not take Mr. Epstein up on his offer, either. (SMF ¶ 349; PSMF ¶349.)
On November 14, 1997, Mr. Hoffman filed a Complaint in the District Court for Boulder County, Colorado, on his own behalf as a plaintiff, asking that Mr. Hunter be forced to explain why he had not filed murder charges against Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF ¶ 344; PSMF ¶ 344.) Attached to the Complaint was the affidavit of Ms. Wong who, notwithstanding her earlier overture to the Ramseys, now claimed that Mrs. Ramsey had written the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 345; PSMF ¶ 345.) Mr. Hoffman's complaint was dismissed on January 20, 1998. (SMF ¶ 346; PSMF ¶ 346.)
In March 2000, Mr. Hoffman again filed suit, again on his own behalf as plaintiff, against defendants in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, for $25,000,000 in damages based on the allegation that he was defamed by certain passages in the defendants' Book. (SMF ¶ 353; PSMF ¶ 353.) On April 21, 2000, Mr. Hoffman dismissed this complaint. (SMF ¶ 354; PSMF ¶ 354.)
In addition, Mr. Hoffman has served as a long time source to news tabloids for information about the investigation. (See, [i]e.g.,
John Latta, "JonBenet's Dad Was Framedby Mom, say insiders,") NATIONAL EXAMINER, June 24, 1997 (insider referred to is Mr. Hoffman); Art Dworkin, "Jon-Benet's Dad Lied Under Oath to Hide Death Fight," NATIONAL EXAMINER dated March 7, 2000 (quoting Mr. Hoffman's comments about Mr. Ramsey's deposition testimony); Art Dworkin, "Five Years Later JonBenet Parents Are Doing Little To Find Killer," NATIONAL EXAMINER, December 11, 2001 (quoting Mr. Hoffman as stating, among other things, that defendants "JUST DON'T CARE" about their daughter's murder investigation.)20
V. History of This Case
Plaintiff filed suit on May 11, 2000, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. He amended his Complaint on June 15, 2000 to add claims for libel and slander stemming from the Book and from comments by Mr. Ramsey on NBC's "Today" show, respectively. Mr. Wolf has stipulated that he is a limited public figure. (See Stipulation [8].) On February 9, 2001, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. (See Order dated February 12, 2002[15].)
After discovery ended, plaintiff withdrew his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (See Stipulation of Dismissal [64].) The libel and slander claims still remain. On August 30, 2002, defendants filed the present motion for summary judgment [67].[/i]
[253 F.Supp.2d 1341]

There are also other motions currently pending before the Court. On August 28, 2002, defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Cina Wong and Gideon Epstein as plaintiffs experts [68]. On the same day, defendants also moved for oral argument on defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claims [79].

I. Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony
Defendants have filed a motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony of Cina Wong and Gideon Epstein [68], two witnesses proffered by plaintiff as "forensic document examiners." For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that defendants' motion should be GRANTED as to Ms. Wong and GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to Mr. Epstein.
A. Daubert Principle
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 is quite liberal in the scope of evidence it deems properly admissible. The Rule states in relevant part that:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Fed.R.Evid. 702. The trial court must, however, act as a gatekeeper and determine, at the outset, whether the purported expert is qualified to express a reliable opinion based on sufficient facts or data and the application of accepted methodologies. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). See also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).21
In performing this gate-keeping responsibility, the Supreme Court has articulated four factors the court may consider:
(1) Whether a theory or technique can be or has been tested; (2) Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) Whether, in respect to a particular technique, there is a high known or potential rate of error and whether there are standards controlling the technique's operation; and (4) Whether the theory or technique enjoys general acceptance within a relevant scientific community.
Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 149-50, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-94, 113 S.Ct. 2786) (internal quotations marks and alterations omitted). These various factors are not an exhaustive list of all possible ways to assess reliability, nor must all of the factors be applied in every case. Id. at 150, 119 S.Ct. 1167. Dependdent[/i]
[253 F.Supp.2d 1342]

ing on the facts of the case and the type of testimony being challenged, it may very well be unreasonable to apply all of these factors. [i]Id.
at 151, 119 S.Ct. 1167. Accordingly, the trial judge is given discretion in determining how and in what manner to make reliability determinations pursuant to Daubert, "The burden of laying the proper foundation for the admission of expert testimony is on the party offering the expert, and admissibility must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence." Allison v. McGhan Med. Corp., 184 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 1999). Accord U.S. v. Gilliard, 133 F.3d 809, 815 (11th Cir.1998)(stating that expert testimony is admissible only if its proponent demonstrates the underlying methodology is reliable and relevant).
B. Background on Handwriting Analysis
Defendants argue that the opinions of plaintiffs' expert should not be admitted because the field of forensic document examination is not sufficiently reliable. In their Brief in Support of the Motion in Limine, defendants argue that the "science" of handwriting analysis does not meet the reliability standards of Rule 702: as the theoretical bases underlying this science have never been tested; error rates are neither known nor measured; and the field lacks both controlling standards and meaningful peer review. (Br. In Supp. Of Mot. In Limine [68] at 2.)
In examining defendants' contention, the Court notes that both parties agree that the field of forensic document examination is premised on the assumption that no two persons' handwriting is exactly alike; instead, each person has a unique handwriting pattern that allows the person to be identified through a comparison of proper handwriting specimens.22 (SMF ¶ 209; PSMF ¶ 209.) Forensic document examination involves the subjective analysis and assessment of writing characteristics found in a persons's handwriting or handprinting style, by examination of subtle and minute qualities of movement such as pen lifts, shading, pressure and letter forms. (SMF ¶ 210; PSMF ¶ 210.) Handwriting identification is an inexact endeavor that "cannot boast absolute certainty in all cases." (SMF ¶ 212; PSMF ¶ 212.) Two or more handwriting experts can reach different conclusions of authorship, even when examining the same questioned document and handwriting exemplars. (SMF ¶ 213; PSMF It 213.)
Forensic document examiners are generally trained through a "guild-type" apprenticeship process, in which supervised trainees study methods of document examination described by the field's leading texts. (Defs.' Mot. In Limine [68] at 3; Epstein Dep. at 40-41.) The only recognized organization for accrediting forensic document examiners is the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners ("ABFDE"). (Defs.' Mot. In Limine [68]; Epstein Dep. At 36.) There are common terms used within the field. For example, the unidentified writing is generally referred to as the "questioned document." (SMF ¶ 214; PSMF ¶ 214.) Writings prepared by a person in the past in the normal course of business are referred to in the field as "historical writings" or "course-of-business" writings. (SMF ¶ 215; PSMF ¶ 215.) In contrast, writings prepared on request for the purpose of comparison are referred to as "request exemplars." (SMF ¶ 216; PSMF ¶ 216.) Ideally, a handwriting expert should consult the original unidentified writing, not a[/i]
[253 F.Supp.2d 1343]

copy, to increase the reliability of his or her assessment. (SMF ¶¶ 218-219; PSMF ¶¶ 218-219.) The most reliable method of forensic document examination occurs when an examiner compares both historical writings and request exemplars to the questioned document. (SMF ¶ 217; PSMF ¶ 217.)
The recognized method for forensic document analysis occurs in several important steps. First, the expert determines whether a questioned document contains a sufficient amount of writing and enough individual characteristics to permit identification. After determining that the questioned document is identifiable, the expert examines the submitted handwriting specimens in the same manner. If both the questioned document and the specimens contain sufficient identifiable characteristics, then the expert compares those characteristics often through the use of a chart. (SMF ¶¶ 230-232; PSMF ¶¶ 230-232.) For example, the slant of the writing, the shapes of the letters, the letter connections, the height of the letters, the spacing between letters, the spacing between words, the "I" dots and "t" crosses are aspects of handwriting that can be used for comparison. Next, the expert weighs the evidence, considering both the similarities and the differences of handwriting, and determines whether or not there is a match. (SMF ¶ 232; PSMF ¶ 232.) Ignoring differences between characteristics is a frequent cause of error in handwriting identification. (SMF ¶ 233; PSMF ¶ 233.) Similarly, dismissing differences as merely the product of intentional disguise is another common mistake made in the analysis. (SMF ¶ 235; PSMF ¶ 235.) In addition, an examiner should not know the identity of the comparators and should consult more than one comparator to increase the reliability of his or her analysis. (SMF ¶¶ 256-57 & 268-72; PSMF ¶ 256-57 & 268-72.)
In addition to a recognized methodology, there are some accepted standards that should be employed when engaging in handwriting analysis. One standard is that the genuineness of the historical writing or request exemplar must be verified; that is, the forensic document examiner should ensure the purported author is the true and historical writing is indeed the author. (SMF ¶ 223; PSMF ¶ 223.) In addition, any differences between the questioned document and the comparison writings are generally considered to be more significant than are similarities, when attempting to determine whether someone is the author of a questioned document. (SMF ¶ 224; PSMF ¶ 224.) The reason that similarity, by itself, is not dispositive is because most people are taught handwriting as children from the same or similar "notebook styles" and, therefore, many people will share common handwriting characteristics called "class characteristics." (Defs.' Mot. In Limine [68] at 4; Albert S. Osborn, QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS 226 (2nd Ed. Patterson Smith, 1973), attach, to Defs.' Evid. In Supp., Vol. I, at Tab 16.) The existence of even one consistent fundamental difference between writings, however, has historically been viewed as a legitimate basis for concluding that two writings were not produced by the same person.23 (SMF ¶ 225; PSMF ¶ 225.) Finally, it is generally accepted that consistent characteristics present over the course of a long writing should be viewed as genuine characteristics of the author's handwriting, and not the product of an attempt to disguise. (SMF ¶ 237; PSMF ¶ 237.)

[253 F.Supp.2d 1344]

Based on the above undisputed information, the Court concludes, as a general proposition, that forensic document examiners, who are equipped with the proper background qualification and who employ the accepted methodology in their analysis, can serve to assist the trier of fact, in some regards, through providing reliable testimony about similarities or differences, or both, between a questioned writing and comparative exemplars.24 Such a holding is consistent with the precedent established by the Eleventh Circuit in [i]U.S. v. Paul,
175 F.3d 906 (11th Cir.1999). In Paul, the Eleventh Circuit held that a forensic handwriting expert can, in some instances, assist the "jury or trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." Id. at 911. In Paul, the expert was deemed qualified to provide reliable testimony based on his thirty years of experience in the field and application of widely accepted methods of analysis. Likewise, this Court concludes that when a forensic handwriting expert possesses the proper qualifications and when he or she employs reliable methodology, the testimony can qualify as "specialized knowledge" that can be admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. See also United States v. Jolivet, 224 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir.2000) (affirming the district court's admission of forensic document expert testimony and finding such opinion reliable because the expert was well-qualified in handwriting analysis and his testimony "may be properly characterized as offering the jury knowledge beyond their own and enhancing their understanding of the evidence before them."). Accord United States v. Jones, 107 F.3d 1147, 1160-61 (6th Cir.), cert, denied 521 U.S. 1127, 117 S.Ct. 2527,138 L.Ed.2d 1027 (1997).
C. Background and Qualifications of Plaintiffs Experts
Although the Court has concluded that a proper expert may assist a jury in a comparison of handwriting between a known and an unknown piece of writing, that conclusion does not mean that a person can be deemed as an expert in forensic document examination merely by announcing himself as such. Indeed, defendants assert that plaintiffs experts, in particular Ms. Wong, lack the necessary credentials to qualify as experts. (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Mot. In Limine [68] at 5-7; Reply Br. In Supp. Of Mot. In Limine [90] at 2.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees with defendants that Wong is not qualified to provide expert testimony. The Court, however, finds that Epstein is qualified to present certain expert testimony in this case.
Mr. Epstein is a forensic document examiner who served as the past president of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, is a registered member of the ABFDE, and has authored several authoritative texts in the field. (PSDMF [88] ¶ 1; Epstein Aff. ¶¶ 12-15.) He has a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from the University of Nebraska, a Masters of Forensic Science from Antioch School of Law, successfully completed a two-year resident training program in the forensic science of Questioned Document Examination at the U.S. Army Crime Laboratory[/i]
[253 F.Supp.2d 1345]

in Fort Gordon, Georgia, and has trained with the Post Office Identification Laboratory. ([i]Id.
12.) Plaintiff notes that Mr. Epstein has "appeared in 200 cases over a thirty year period, having examined thousands of documents ... [, has] established questioned document laboratories for not only the U.S. government, but for those of Eastern Europe and the Philippines as well, while teaching hundreds of government document examiners their professions." (Pl's Br. In Opp. To Defs.' Mot. In Limine [87] at 8.) In addition, Epstein has taught Forensic Document Examination at the George Washington Graduate School of Forensic Sciences, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and in programs offered to the United States Army Criminal Investigators. (Epstein Aff. ¶¶ 6-7.) The Court concludes that Mr. Epstein's background constitutes sufficient qualifications to allow him to testify in the field of forensic documents' examination. See, e.g., United States v. Paul, 175 F.3d at 911 (finding handwriting expert with fourteen years of experience should be admissible); United States v. Velasquez, 64 F.3d 844, 846 (3rd Cir. 1995) (finding same); Unites States v. Gricco, 2002 WL 746037, *2 (E.D.Pa. April 26, 2002) (finding forensic document analyst with similar extensive qualifications to be qualified as an expert).
In stark contrast to Epstein, Wong has never taken a certification exam

Print this item

  Using 1 to 5 scale
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-01-2017, 06:08 PM - Forum: Handwriting - Replies (3)

  1. Carnes Decision. "Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF P 196; PSMF P 196.) On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF P 203; PSMF P 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF P 204; PSMF P 204.) (Carnes 2003:26).
  1. Hunter Deposition. Alex Hunter videotaped a deposition in the Wolf v. Ramsey case on November 27, 2001; parts of this deposition are under seal. However, the deposition was referenced in the videotaped deposition of Gideon Epstein May 17, 2002 which has been made public. (In this section, which begins on p. 165, line 2, the questioner is James RawlsSmile
  2.  Q. "You've read the testimony of Alex Hunter --
  3.  A. I have.
  4. Q. --that is part of Defendant's Exhibit 9; have you not? 
  5. A. Yes. 
  6. Q. And you understand that from Alex Hunter's perspective, the sum total of the handwriting analysis done by the investigation on Patsy Ramsey was that she was somewhere at about a 4.5 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 being elimination. A. (Nods head). 
  7. Q. Do you not, sir? 
  8. A. That's what he says.
  9.  Q. Thus, that from Alex Hunter's perspective, Patsy Ramsey was not eliminated by the experts chosen by the district attorney, but she was close to elimination; correct? 
  10. A. That's what he says, yes."
  1. Patsy Ramsey Statement. From Larry King Live (3/28/2000):
  2. "KING: Is your handwriting cleared, both of you?
  3.  P. RAMSEY: John's definitively was cleared. And I scored a 4.5 out of 5. Five is definitely no match, and it just..." .
  4. On Larry King Live (4/14/2000), Steve Thomas stated: "Well, they're saying that she scored a numerical scale of 4 1/2, but that apparently is from their own defense handwriting experts."

Print this item

  Judge Morris Sanstead's discharge instructions
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-01-2017, 03:31 PM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - No Replies

Judge Morris Sanstead's discharge instructions to the Boulder County Grand Jury on October 14, 1999 :

"You've now concluded your service as jurors. The law requires that I thank you for your service at this time. I would personally like to extend my thanks as well as the thanks of Chief Judge (Roxanne) Bailin for your extraordinary service to this grand jury proceeding.
We have asked a great deal of you as individuals because of this case and, not only am I personally proud of the work you have done, but I know that the citizens of Boulder County also feel indebted to you for all the hard work you have put forth in this case.
The question may arise as to whether or not you can discuss the events which took place in front of the grand jury. The oath of secrecy that you swore at the time that you began your grand jury service remains in effect.
You may not to discuss this case with anyone other than the prosecutors who acted as your legal advisers through the course of these proceedings. If you violate the court's order in this regard, you are subject to criminal contempt.
It (has) been brought to my attention that you have requested that I issue an order prohibiting anyone with notice of contacting you directly concerning this case. Because of this request, I have drafted and will issue a written order which prohibits contact with any member of the grand jury concerning your service. Any violations of this order is subject to persecution for criminal contempt.
Once again, I would like to thank you for your diligent efforts in this case and, with that in mind, you are now discharged from your duties as members of the 1998 Boulder County Statutory Grand Jury."

Print this item

Posted by: Summer Dawn - 01-31-2017, 08:47 PM - Forum: Nancy Krebs - No Replies

Filed in the 
1779 6th STREET 

Defendants: Court Use Only 
a Colorado home rule municipality and 
MARK R. BECKNER, individually 
and in his capacity as Chief of the Boulder 
Department of Police and Custodian of Records for the Department of Police

Plaintiff filing Application for Order to Show 
Cause without attorney:

Names: Fleet Russell White, Jr. 
Priscilla Brown White 
Address: (redacted)

For its application for an order to show cause plaintiffs state as follows:
1. Plaintiffs Fleet Russell White, Jr. and Priscilla Brown White are husband and wife and are 
residents of Boulder, Colorado.

2. Defendant City of Boulder is a Colorado home rule municipality located in the City of 
Boulder, County of Boulder, Colorado.

3. Defendant Mark R. Beckner (“Beckner”) is employed by the City of Boulder as Chief of 
Police of the City of Boulder Department of Police (“Boulder Police”). Beckner is custodian as 
defined by CR S 24-72-302 (5) as evidenced by his control of Boulder police criminal justice 
records in this matter.

4. By letter dated March 20, 2002 plaintiffs made a written request to Beckner to inspect and 
copy all Criminal justice records relating to the concluded Boulder Police investigation of 
reports of criminal conduct made by an individual identified to plaintiffs by the Boulder Police as 
Nancy Jo Krebs (‘the Krebs investigation.). A copy of the March 20, 2002 letter is attached as 
Exhibit I.

5 According to an official City of Boulder News Release dated May 15, 2000 the 
Krebs investigation commenced no later than February 2000 and concluded on or about 
May 15, 2000. A copy of the May 15, 2000 City of Boulder Press Release is attached as 
Exhibit 2.

6. During the Krebs investigation plaintiffs learned that Krebs had falsely reported to the 
Boulder police that she had been a victim of serious and violent crimes committed by members 
of plaintiffs’ family including plaintiff Fleet Russell White, Jr. Additionally. Krebs falsely reported 
that plaintiffs were part of a child sex abuse conspiracy and that members of Krebs’ family 
were present at plaintiffs home on December 25, 1996 at which time and place JonBenet 
Ramsey was sexually abused and killed.

7. Any report made by Krebs to the Boulder Police alleging criminal conduct by plaintiffs was 
false. Plaintiffs have never met Krebs nor were plaintiffs aware of her existence until her 
identity was given to plaintiffs by a reporter seeking plaintiffs’ comment late in the evening 
prior the publication of Krebs’ allegations by the Boulder Daily Camera newspaper on February 
25, 2000. The February 25, 2000 Boulder Daily Camera article is attached as Exhibit 3 By 
knowingly making false reports to the Boulder Police, Krebs and possibly other individuals 
involved in causing the transmission of Krebs’ false reports violated CR5 18-18-111(b) and © 
and possibly other Colorado Criminal Statutes.

8. Any documents or materials made, maintained or kept by the Boulder Police relating to the 
Krebs investigation are criminal justice records as defined by C.R.S. 24-72-302(4).

9. By letter dated April 2, 2002 Beckner denied plaintiffs’ March 20, 2002 written request for, 
criminal justice records relating to the concluded Krebs investigation. In that letter. Beckner 
stated that the JonBenet Ramsey homicide is still under investigation. Pursuant to CR8. 
24-72-305(5), these materials are investigative files and are therefore not subject to disclosure 
under the criminal justice records statutes.’ A copy of Beckner’s April 2, 2002 letter is attached 
as Exhibit 4.

10. By letter dated April 25, 2002 plaintiff once again requested access to the criminal justice 
records relating to the Krebs investigation. A copy of plaintiff’s April 25, 2002 letter is attached 
as Exhibit 5.

11. By letter dated May 1, 2000 Beckner responded to plaintiffs’ April 25, 2002 letter by 
denying our request for access to the criminal justice records relating to the Krebs 
investigation. A copy of Beckner’s May 1, 2002 letter is attached as Exhibit 6.

12. By letter dated June 3, 2002, plaintiffs responded to Beckner’s letter of May 1, 
2002, and once again requested access to criminal records relating to the Krebs investigation. 
A copy of plaintiffs June 3, 2002 letter is attached as Exhibit 7.

13. By letter dated June 3, 2002, Beckner denied plaintiffs request for access to criminal justice 
records relating to the Krebs investigation. A copy of Beckner’s June 13, 2002 letter is attached 
as Exhibit 8.

14. The refusal of the Boulder Police and Beckner as custodian, to allow plaintiff to inspect and 
copy criminal justice records relating to the Krebs investigation violates the Colorado Criminal 
Justice Records Act, C.R.S. 24-72-301 et. seq.

15. C.R.S 24-72-305(7) provides that any person denied the right to inspect and copy any 
criminal justice record may apply to the district court of the district wherein the record is found 
for an order directing the custodian to show cause why he should not permit inspection and 
copying of such record. The statute further provides that a hearing shall be held at the earliest 
practical time.

16. The decision of the Boulder police and Beckner as custodian, to refuse to allow plaintiffs to 
inspect and copy the criminal justice records relating to the Krebs investigation is arbitrary and 
capricious, thereby entitling plaintiff to recover their costs pursuant to C.R.S. 21-72-305(7).

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an Order directing defendants 
to show cause why they should not permit plaintiffs to inspect and copy criminal justice records 
relating to the Krebs investigation. If this Court finds that denial or plaintiffs request was 
improper, plaintiff requests that this Court order defendants to permit such inspection. Plaintiffs 
further request that this Court award plaintiffs their costs and such further relief as this Court 
deems proper.

Respectfully submitted this 24th day of June 2002.
Fleet Russell White, Jr. 
Priscilla Brown White



I hereby certify that on this 24th day June, 2002, the original of this APPLICATION FOR ORDER 
TO SHOW CAUSE was filed with the Boulder 
District Court, and that a true and accurate copy of this APPLICATION FOR ORDER 
TO SHOW CAUSE was served on the other party by placing it in the United States 
mail. postage pre-paid and addressed as follows:
The City of Boulder 
Office of The City Attorney 
Joseph N. de Raismes. JR 
P0. Box 791 
Boulder CO 80306
Mark R. Beckner 
Chief of Police 
City of Boulder 
Department of Police 
1805 33t Street 
Boulder, CO 80301
Fleet Russell White, Jr. Plaintiff
Attached to Application for Order to Show Cause
Fleet Russell White and Priscilla Brown White 
(address redacted)
March 20, 2002
Via Certified Mail
Mary Keenan 
District Attorney 
Twentieth Judicial District 
P.O. Box 471 
Boulder, CO 80306
Mark R. Beckner 
Chief of Police 
City of Boulder 
Boulder Police Department 
1805 33rd Street 
Boulder, CO 80302
Subject: Request for Criminal Justice Records 
Dear Ms Keenan and Chief Beckner, 
Pursuant to Colorado statutes, we hereby request that all criminal justice records relating 
to the investigation of the allegations of Nancy Jo Krebs be made available to us for inspection 
and copying. Both of your agencies were involved in this investigation that commenced no later 
than February, 2000 and ended on or around May 15, 2000 when City of Boulder news release 
“Boulder Police and prosecutors have concluded an investigation that began in February when a 
37-year-old California woman reported her belief that JonBenet Ramsey was murdered as part 
of a child sex ring. The investigation found no additional evidence to support this theory.”
We would appreciate a timely response to this request.
Fleet Russell White, Jr Priscilla Brown White 
Exhibit 2 
Attached for Order to Show Cause 
News Release City of Boulder
May 15, 2000
Boulder Police end investigation into California woman’s report
Boulder Police and prosecutors have concluded an investigation that began in February when a 
37 yea rold California woman reported her belief that JonBenet Ramsey was murdered as part 
of a child sex ring. The investigation found no additional evidence to support this theory.
In February, The woman contacted the Boulder Daily Camera with allegations of a child sex 
abuse conspiracy involving her own family members, the Ramsey family and close friends of 
the Ramseys. The woman also claimed that some of her own family members were at a party 
attended by JonBenet Ramsey and her parents on December 25, 1996, just prior to JonBenet’s 
death. The woman believed JonBenet was likely killed at the party by adults who sexually and 
physically abused her.
Boulder Police spent about 11 weeks investigating the allegations which included conducting 22 
interviews, reviewing medical and psychological records, reviewing photographs and 
recordings, consulting with a forensic psychiatrist, and comparing the allegations against 
physical evidence and current knowledge of the case. As a result, Boulder Police and 
prosecutors working on the case have concluded that other than the woman’s statements, 
there is no evidence to support this theory of JonBenet’s murder.
“The Boulder Police have spent a significant amount of tine investigating the claims made by 
this woman and her attorney.” Prosecutor Mike Kane said. ‘There is simply no credible 
evidence to link anything she alleges to the death of JonBenet. The expenditure of additional 
police and prosecutorial resources is unwarranted.
Boulder Police have made no judgments or conclusions about abuse the woman may have 
suffered in prior years in California. It is well established that she was a victim of sexual abuse 
in 1979-80, for which a suspect was arrested and convicted. However. current investigation did 
not find any connection between the abuse she suffered and the death of JonBenet Ramsey.
Boulder Police have forwarded information to the FBI in reference to some of the woman’s 
allegations regarding the operation of a child ring. Police also advised her to contact California 
authorities with any information she has regarding crimes that may have occurred in California. 
This is the second time Boulder Police have investigated the possibility of JonBenet’s death 
being connected to a “sex ring” or pornographic operation involving numerous people. On each 
occasion, no credible evidence was found to support such speculation.
“We needed to take the time to complete a thorough investigation. Police Chief Mark Beckner 
said. Unfortunately, allegations have led to speculation that Fleet and Priscilla White, former 
close friends of the Ramseys and hosts of the 1996 Christmas party, were somehow involved 
in the sexual abuse and death of JonBenet. We have no evidence whatsoever to support this 
and have never had evidence to support such an allegation. Nor do we have any evidence that 
John and Patsy Ramsey were part of or participated in a child sex ring operation.”
Because she is a sexual assault victim, Boulder Police are not releasing the name of the 
California woman.
Exhibit 3 is a copy of the front page article in The Boulder Daily Camera from Friday, 
February 25, 2000 titled “DA pursues new Ramsey lead, and subtitled “Hunter asks police 
to investigate woman’s story of sex abuse.” by Barrie Hartman 
_______________EXHIBIT 4 _______________ 
Attached to Application for Order to Show Cause. 
April 2. 2002
Fleet White. Jr 
Priscilla White 
(address redacted) 
Dear Mr. and Mrs White:
I was out of state last week when your certified letter was delivered to my office. I returned to 
the office today and found your two “Request for Criminal Justice Records” which were 
contained in the certified letter. You have requested that “criminal justice records” on two 
matters be made available to you for your inspection and copying”: (1) The Boulder Police 
Department investigation (case P00-11362) conducted in 2000 allegations of criminal libel 
against you; and, (2) The Boulder Police Department investigation conducted in 2000 into the 
“allegations of Nancy Jo Krebs.”
As to your request to inspect and copy Boulder Police Department records relating to case 
number P00-2362, concerning your allegations of criminal libel against you: I believe that you 
were previously provided with a copy this material. However, you may contact Jojo Field, 
Manager ol the Boulder Police Department Records Division (phone number redacted) to make 
an appointment to inspect the records you are requesting. She can also provide you with an 
estimate of the costs for copying any or all of the materials.
As to your request to inspect and copy Boulder Police Department records relating to the 
investigation into the allegations of Nancy Jo Krebs:”I must deny your request to copy and 
inspect these materials. As you know, the JonBenet Ramsey homicide is still under 
investigation. Pursuant to C.R.S. 24-72-305 (5), these materials are investigative files and are 
therefore not subject to disclosure under the criminal justice records statutes.
Mark R. Beckner 
Chief of Police
Attached to Application (or Order to Show Cause)
Fleet Russell White, Jr. and Priscilla Brown White 
(address redacted)
Via Certified Mail
April 25, 2002
Mark R. Beckner 
Chief of Police 
City of Boulder 
Department of Police 
1805 33rd Street 
Boulder, C0 80301
Subject: Your letter dated April 2, 2002 re: request for criminal justice records 
Dear Chief Beckner: 
Thank your for your letter dated April 2,2002 responding to our letters dated March 20, 2002 in 
which we requested access to criminal justice records.
We appreciate your giving us JoJo Field’s name and phone number regarding our request to 
inspect and copy all Boulder Police Department criminal justice records relative to case number 
P00-11362 concerning our complaints of criminal libel. Those complaints were in response to 
the publication and dissemination of the allegations, claims, and beliefs of Nancy Jo Krebs. We 
will be contacting Ms Field in the near future to make an appointment to inspect those records.
In your letter you claim that Boulder Police Department criminal justice records relative to he 
investigation of Krebs’ allegations are not subject to disclosure under CRS 24-72 305 (5) since, 
the JonBenet Ramsey homicide is still under investigation.” On that basis, you have denied our 
request to inspect and copy the Krebs criminal justice records. Perhaps there is a 
misunderstanding. According to an official City of Boulder News Release dated May 15, 2000, 
an eleven-week Boulder police and prosecutor investigation found no credible evidence to link 
anything she (Krebs) alleges to the death of JonBenet.” Moreover, that same news release 
stated that “Boulder Police and prosecutors “had “concluded” their investigation of Krebs claims 
and allegations. Therefore, the criminal justice records we wish to inspect and copy are relative 
to an investigation of allegations, claims and beliefs that had nothing to do with the Ramsey 
homicide and which ended in May 2000, almost two years ago. We have enclosed a copy of the 
May 15, 2000 City of Boulder News Release.
Pursuant to Colorado open records statutes, we once again request access to all criminal 
justice records relative to the investigation of the allegations, claims and beliefs of Nancy 
Mark R. Beckner 
April 25, 2002 
Page Two
Jo Krebs. In the event you remain unwilling to provide such access on the basis of CRS 
24-72-305 (5), please provide us with a written statement describing the nature of the public 
interest to be protected by your denial as required by CRS 24-72-305 (6).
Fleet Russell White, Jr. Priscilla Brown White 

Exhibit 6
CITY Attached to Application for Order to Show Cause
Department of Police
May 1, 2000
Fleet White. Jr
Priscilla White
(address redacted)

Dear Mr. and Mrs. White:

I received your letter dated April 25. 2002, which again requests that the “Krebs criminal
justice records” be made available to you for your “inspection and copying.” I had previously
denied this same request from you on the grounds that the JonBenet Ramsey homicide is still
under investigation and, pursuant to CR.S. 24-72-305 (5), the requested materials are
investigative files and are therefore not subject to disclosure under the criminal justice records

In your new request, you refer to information contained in a May 15, 2000, City press release
regarding “Krebs allegations.” You cite language from the press release that the investigation
was ‘concluded” and that there was “no credible evidence” to link Krebs allegations to the death
oC JonBenet Ramsey. As I stated to you in my first letter, and as you know, the investigation
into the JonBenet Ramsey homicide is still open. The investigation of Krebs’ allegations
necessarily involved some issues and aspects of that investigation. To disclose aspects of our
investigation into tips and information received could inhibit persons from coming forward with
information and prevent witnesses from cooperating in the future. Furthermore, releasing
information concerning Krebs’ allegations could disclose information not previously made
public. The JonBenet Ramsey homicide investigation is still an open, active investigation.

For these reasons, I must again deny your request to copy and inspect these materials.
Pursuant to C.R.S. 24-72-305 (5), I believe JonBenet Ramsey homicide these materials are
investigative files and are therefore not subject to disclosure under the criminal justice records


Mark R. Beckner
Chief of Police
Attached to Application for Order to Show Cause

Fleet Russell White, Jr and Priscilla Brown White
(address redacted)
June 3, 2002

Mark R. Beckner
Chief of Police
City of Boulder
Department of Police
1805 33rd Street
Boulder, CO 80301

Subject: Your letter of May 1, 2002 re: request for criminal justice records

Dear Mr. Beckner:

We received your letter of May 1, 2002 responding to our letter dated April 25,2002 in which
we repeated our March 20, 2002 request for criminal justice records regarding the 2000
investigation of the
beliefs, claims and allegations of Nancy Jo Krebs. By your May 1 letter, you have once again
denied that request. We wish to review the basis for your denial.

In your letters of April 2 and May 1, 2002, you denied our request for criminal justice records
pursuant to C.R.S. 21-72-305(5). You thus claimed that releasing the requested records would
be contrary public interest. Apparently in an attempt to describe the “general nature of the
public interest to be protected” as required by C.R.S.24-72-305 (6), you stated in your May I
letter that he requested records are “investigative files” of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide
investigation that “is still an active, open investigation.” You further stated that the
“investigation of Krebs” allegations necessarily involved some issues and aspects of that
investigation” and that “releasing information concerning Krebs’ allegations could disclose
information not previously made public.”

We wish to repeat that we are requesting only those criminal justice records that relate to an
investigation that, according to your press release of May 15, 2000, had been “concluded” and
which found no credible evidence linking anything she (Krebs) alleges, to the death of As
persons in interest, we are seeking the release of only those criminal justice records relating to
a concluded investigation of reports to authorities alleging criminal conduct that were false and
not relevant to the Ramsey homicide investigation. Releasing the requested criminal justice
records will not injure the public interest since the false allegations reports by Krebs are not the
subject of an ongoing police or prosecutor investigation. That investigation concluded on or
about May 15, 2000. There is not, therefore, any legitimate basis for your claim that the Krebs
criminal justice records are exempt from lawful public disclosure on the grounds that they are
part of an ongoing investigation. We believe that your assertion that the requested criminal
justice records are part of the “investigative files” of the Ramsey investigation was made
Mark K Beckner
June 3. 2002
Page Two

in furtherance of an attempt to avoid or delay the lawful and proper release of those public

As for your statement that the requested records “could disclose” information that has not been
previously disclosed to the public, we fail to see any relevance to your claim of injury to the
public interest. Releasing the Krebs criminal justice records will obviously involve information
not previously disclosed. It is for that reason that we are making our request.

In your May 1, letter you also offered the following vague argument that disclosure of the
requested criminal justice records would be contrary to the public interest since:

“To disclose aspects of our investigation into tips and information received could only inhibit
persons from coming forward with information and prevent witnesses from cooperating in the

It is unclear whether you were referring to (1) persons and witnesses who may provide
information concerning Krebs’ allegations; (2) persons and witnesses who may provide
information concerning the Ramsey homicide; or (3) persons and witnesses who may provide
information concerning criminal activity in general. If you were referring to the possible
inhibiting of persons and witnesses in the investigation of Krebs’ false allegations of criminal
conduct by members of our family, we will remind you that the investigation was “concluded”.
Since the investigation was concluded (and Krebs allegations and claims and beliefs were
determined to be false). there is not an investigation to be hampered by the release of the
requested criminal justice records and, therefore, no possibility of injury to the public interest.

If, on the other hand, you were referring to the possible inhibiting of persons and witnesses
who may provide information concerning the Ramsey homicide or the possible inhibiting of
persons and witnesses who may provide information concerning crime generally, you are
referring to a problem we are unfortunately very familiar with. As you know members of our
families, including our children came forward to your agency with whatever information we had
concerning the Ramsey homicide. We did so willingly, without reservation and, eventually at
great sacrifice. In the months and years following JonBenet’s death the substance of our police
interviews, and in some cases our actual words have heen published in newspapers,
magazines, supermarket tabloids and books or broadcast during endless hours of television
programming and radio talk shows- As a direct result, our family has suffered harassment,
ridicule, intimidation, retaliation and a significant loss of our privacy. There is absolutely no
question that public disclosure by employees and agents of the Boulder Police Department and
the Boulder District Attorney of our information concerning the Ramsey homicide—all of which
Mark R. Beckner
June 3, 2002
Page Three

believed to be true and given in good faith——has drastically reduced the willingness of our
family to voluntarily come forward to law enforcement as crime victims or witnesses.

In the Krebs case, however the “tips and information” alleging serious crimes that your agency
received and investigated as a result of efforts and prodding by a disreputable attorney the
editor, the editor of a local newspaper, an author of true crime books and a vindictive and
discredited district attorney, were knowingly false. As you know, false reporting to authorities is
a crime punishable under Colorado law. Yet, to our knowledge, no one has been investigated
or punished as a result of Krebs’ knowingly false reports to your agency and to the Boulder
District Attorney and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We doubt very much that it is the
official policy of the Boulder Police Department, the Boulder District Attorney or any other
Colorado law enforcement agency or prosecutor to tolerate and overlook such a blatant and
extreme episode of criminal conduct. Yet, such has been the case with the false reports made
by Nancy Jo Krebs.

Mr. Beckner, releasing criminal justice records relating to the investigaiion of false reporrts that
were made or transmitted in bad faith, as they were in the Krebs case, will not inhibit the public
from coming forward in good Faith to report and bear witness to crimes. What does inhibit
people from coming forward is their perception that crime victims and witnesses can suffer
extreme mistreatment at the hands of law enforcement and the news media and that agencies
such as yours will foster or tolerate such mistreatment and allow it to be unquestioned,
uninvestigated, unchallenged and unpunished. Such mistreatment has been a hallmark of the
Ramsey investigation. The Krebs case and the wasteful and protracted eleven-week Boulder
Police “investigation” of her highly public , false and libelous allegations of pornography, child
sex abuse, rape, torture and homicide is perhaps the most egregious example.

Your contention that granting our request will somehow inhibit witnesses from coming forward
is illogical and dishonest and under the circumstances we deeply resent your attempt to avoid
releasing the Krebs criminal justice records on that basis.

There is simply no injury to the public interest that can be reasonably asserted or speculated
that will outweigh the certain and compelling public benefit that will result from a public review
and scrutiny of the decisions and conduct of numerous public servants and the news media with
respect to the extraordinary case of Krebs’ false reports to authorities. It is our belief that your
agency’s denial of our request was not motivated by a genuine desire to ovoid injury to the
public interest, but rather by a wrongful desire to prevent public scrutiny of official conduct in
the Krebs case. Your denial of our request for criminal justice records pursuant to C.R.S.
24-72405(5) is arbitrary, capricious and itself contrary to the public interest in the extreme.
Mark R. Beckner
June 3, 2002
Page Four

As you may be aware, the Boulder District Attorney has recently responded positively to our
requests for criminal justice records by providing us with documents in its custcdy and control
concerning Nancy Jo Krebs and the investigation of her false allegations. In doing so the
District Attorney has recognized that ‘Under the unique circumstances involved here” it is
“appropriate” 10 provide such criminal justice records.
Pursuant to Colorado public records statutes, we wish to make a final request for access to all
criminal justice records relative to the investigation of the allegations, claims and beliefs of
Nancy Jo Krebs.
-We will appreciate a prompt reply to this final request. Thank you.
Fleet Russell White, Jr. Priscilla Brown White
cc Ron Secrist, Boulder City Manager
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Attached to Application for Order to Show Cause
City of Boulder Mark R. Beckner
Department of Police Chief of Police

June 13, 2002
Mr And Mrs. Fleet Russell White Jr.
(address redacted)
Dear Mr. And Mrs. White,

Our decision in not releasing Ramsey case file information is firm. Please refer to my two
previous letters for our reasons for not releasing case information. I am sorry this decision is
upsetting to you, but there is nothing further I can say or do to assist you in this matter.


Mark R. Beckner
Chief of Police

Print this item

  Fleet White and Nancy Krebs
Posted by: Summer Dawn - 01-31-2017, 08:44 PM - Forum: Nancy Krebs - No Replies

Former Ramsey friend wants right to see
files mentioning him

By Travis Henry
The Daily Times-Call

BOULDER - Former Ramsey family friend Fleet White Jr. and
his wife, Priscilla, have filed a lawsuit in district court asking a
judge to order the Boulder Police Department to turn over
numerous documents related to the JonBenet Ramsey murder

White, who was with John Ramsey when he discovered his
6-year-old daughter's body in the family's basement in
December 1996, is seeking documents pertaining to a California
woman's claim she was sexually assaulted as a child, according
to the lawsuit.

"During the (California woman's) investigation, plaintiffs
learned that (the woman) had falsely reported to the Boulder
police that she had been a victim of serious and violent crimes
committed by members of plaintiffs' family including plaintiff
Fleet Russell White Jr.," the lawsuit states.

"Additionally, (the woman) falsely reported that plaintiffs were
part of a child sex abuse conspiracy and that members of (the
woman's) family were present at plaintiffs' home on Dec. 25,
1996, at which time and place JonBenet Ramsey was sexually
abused and killed," the lawsuit continued.

Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner said on Thursday that his
department and the city plan to fight in court against turning
over the documents.

"We don't want to release information from an open and active
case file," Beckner said. "That has been our position for the
last five years, coming up on six."

The lawsuit could signal White is still attempting to pursue an
investigation against journalists who wrote stories mentioning
him in the JonBenet Ramsey slaying.

White first sought criminal charges after a series of stories in
which the California woman accused a group - some of whom
were reportedly in Boulder on the day JonBenet Ramsey was
killed - of sexually assaulting her as a child.

The woman said she was assaulted in much the same manner
as JonBenet and has known the White family since she was a
small child.

The woman's therapist later said the woman's allegations were
made four years before the slaying of JonBenet Ramsey and
documented at that time.

White's requests for a criminal libel investigation were
eventually dismissed.

According to the lawsuit, the district attorney's office has
handed over some of the documents related to the woman's
claims about the sex abuse, even though it is part of the
Ramsey investigation.

District Attorney Mary Keenan didn't return phone calls
Wednesday, but Beckner said his department worked with the
DA's office in deciding what could be released from the files.

Beckner said most of the information given to the Whites was
"pre-investigation" and wouldn't compromise the Ramsey
murder investigation.

Last October, White was sentenced to 30 days in jail after he
pleaded guilty to ignoring two subpoenas in a Ramsey-related
trial .

White was subpoenaed in May and June of 2001 to appear as a
witness in a criminal bribery trial. He said he chose not to
appear because he didn't think he had any relevant testimony
to give.

The case involved lawyer Thomas Miller, who was accused of
trying to buy a copy of the ransom note found in the Ramseys'
house. Miller was acquitted.

Travis Henry can be reached at 303-776-2244, Ext. 326, or by
e-mail at thenry@times-call.com.

Former Ramsey friends request access to some
police files

July 4, 2002
BOULDER, Colo.- Two former friends of John and Patsy Ramsey want a
judge to grant them access to some of the police files kept in the
JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation.
Fleet White Jr. and his wife, Priscilla, have asked officials to turn over
files involving a California woman's claims that the Whites were part of a
child sex abuse ring that contributed to JonBenet's death.
Police have said there is no evidence to support the woman's theory.
Six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey was found strangled in the basement of
her family's home in Dec. 26, 1996. Police have yet to charge anyone in
her death.
The Whites requested access to some of the murder investigation files in
a three-page document filed June 24 in Boulder District Court.
Police Chief Mark Beckner has repeatedly refused the Whites' request,
saying the file is part of the murder investigation and not subject to
disclosure under the state's criminal justice records laws.
Fleet White was with John Ramsey on Dec. 26, 1996, when Ramsey
found JonBenet's body.
The night before, the Ramsey family, including JonBenet and her
then-9-year-old brother, Burke, attended a Christmas party at the
Whites' home.
In a June 3 letter to Beckner, the Whites said that releasing the records
"will not injure the public interest since the false allegations reported ...
are not the subject of an ongoing police or prosecutor investigation."

Print this item

  Full Videos of house after murder
Posted by: Moop - 01-31-2017, 11:40 AM - Forum: The House at 755 15th Street, Boulder, CO - Replies (3)

From Paula Woodward:







Print this item

  2 Crime scene videos
Posted by: Moop - 01-31-2017, 11:35 AM - Forum: The House at 755 15th Street, Boulder, CO - Replies (2)



Print this item

  The autopsy
Posted by: jameson245 - 01-30-2017, 07:42 PM - Forum: The Autopsy - No Replies

jameson TimeLine Autopsy
DOB: 08/06/90 DEATH D/T: 12/26/96@ 1323
AGE: 6Y AUTOPSY D/T: 12/27/96 @0815
SEX: F ID NO: 137712
I. Ligature strangulation
A. Circumferential ligature withassociated ligature furrow of neck
B. Abrasions and petechial hemorrhages,neck
C. Petechial hemorrhages, conjunctivalsurfaces of eyes and skin of face
II. Craniocerebral injuries
A. Scalp contusion
B. Linear, comminuted fracture ofright side of skull
C. Linear pattern of contusionsof right cerebral hemisphere
D. Subarachnoid and subdural hemorrhage
E. Small contusions, tips of temporallobes
III. Abrasion of right cheek
IV. Abrasion/contusion, posteriorright shoulder
V. Abrasions of left lower backand posterior left lower leg
VI. Abrasion and vascular congestionof vaginal mucosa
VII. Ligature of right wrist
blood ethanol - none detected
blood drug screen - no drugs detected
CLINICOPATHOLOGIC CORRELATION: Causeof death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.
John E. Meyer, M.D.
The body of this six year old female was first seen by me after I was called to an address identified as 755 15th street in Boulder, Colorado, on 12/26/96. I arrived at the scene approximately 8 p.m. on 12/26 and entered the house where the decedent's body was located at approximately 8:20 p.m. I initially viewed the body in the living room of the house. The decedent was laying on her back on the floor, covered by a blanket and a Colorado Avalanche sweatshirt. On removing these two items from the top of the body the decedent was found to be lying on her back with her arms extended up over her head. The head was turned to the right. A brief examination of the body disclosed a ligature around the neck and a ligature around the right wrist. Also noted was a small area of abrasion or contusion below the right ear on the lateral aspect of the right cheek. A prominent dried abrasion was present on the lower left neck. After examining the body, I left the residence at approximately 8:30 p.m.
[Image: faceathouse.jpg]
EXTERNAL EXAM: The decedent is clothed in a long sleeved white knit collarless shirt, the mid anterior chest area of which contains an embroidered silver star decorated with silver sequins.Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the shirt is a white cord. At the knot there is one tail end which measures 5.5 inches in length with a frayed end. The other tail of the knot measures 15.5 inches in length and ends in a double loop knot. This end of the cord is also frayed.
[Image: righthand.gif]
There are no defects noted in the shirt but the upper anterior right sleeve contains a dried brown-tan stain measuring 2.5 x 1.5 inches, consistent with mucous from the nose or mouth. There are long white underwear with an elastic waist band containing a red and blue stripe. The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waistband. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF INJURY: Located just below the right ear at the right angle of the mandible, 1.5 inches below the right external auditory canal is a 3/8 X 1/4 inch area of rust colored abrasion.
[Image: face2marks.jpg]
In the lateral aspect of the left lower eyelid on the inner conjunctival surface is a 1 mm in maximum dimension petechial hemorrhage.Very fine, less than 1 mm petechial hemorrhages are present on the skin of the upper eyelids bilaterally as well as on the lateral left cheek. On everting the left upper eyelid there are much smaller, less than 1 mm petechial hemorrhages located on the conjunctival surface. Possible petechial hemorrhages located on the conjunctival surface. Possible petechial hemorrhages are also seen on the conjunctival surfaces of the right upper and lower eyelids, but livor mortis on this side of the face makes definite identification difficult.
Wrapped around the neck with a double knot in the midline of the posterior
Page 3
neck is a length of white cord similar to that described as being tied around the right wrist.
[Image: faceright.jpg]
This ligature cord is cut on the right side of the neck and removed. A single black ink mark is placed on the left side of the cut and a double black ink mark on the right side of the cut. The posterior know is left intact. extending from the knot on the posterior aspect of the neck are two tails of the knot, one measuring 4 inches in length and having a frayed end, and the other measuring 17 inches in length with the end tied in multiple loops around a length of a round tan-brown wooden stick with measures 4.5 inches in length. This wooden stick is irregularly broken at both ends and there are several colors of paint and apparent glistening varnish on the surface. Printed in gold letters on one end of the wooden stick is the word "Korea." The tail end of another word extends from beneath the loops of the cord tied around the stick and is not able to be interpreted. Blonde hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the neck as well as in the cord wrapped around the wooden stick. The white cord is flattened and measures approximately 1/4 inch in width. It appears to be made of a white synthetic material. Also secured around the neck is a gold chain with a single charm in the form of a cross.
[Image: csneck.jpg]
A deep ligature furrow encircles the entire neck. The width of the furrow varies from one-eighth of an inch to five/sixteenths of an inch and is horizontal in orientation, with little upward deviation. The skin of the anterior neck above and below the ligature furrow contains areas of petechial hemorrhage and abrasion encompassing an area measuring approximately 3 X 2 inches. The ligature furrow crosses the anterior midline of the neck just below the laryngeal prominence, approximately at the level of the cricoid cartilage. It is almost completely horizontal with slight upward deviation from the horizontal towards the back of theneck. The midline of the furrow mark on the anterior neck is 8 inches below the top of the head. The midline of the furrow mark on the posterior neckis 6.75 inches below the top of the head.
The area of abrasion and petechial hemorrhage of the skin of the anterior neck includes on the lower left neck, just to the left of the midline, a roughly triangular, parchment-liferust colored abrasion which measures 1.5 inches in length with a maximum width of 0.75 inches. This roughly triangular shaped abrasion is obliquely oriented with the apex superior and lateral. The remainder of the abrasions and petechial hemorrhages of the skin above and below the anterior projection of the ligature furrow are nonpatterned, purple to rust colored, and present in the midline, right, and left areas of the anterior neck. The skin just above the ligature furrow along the right side of the neck contains petechial hemorrhage composed of multiple confluent very small petechial hemorrhages as well as several larger petechial hemorrhages measuring up to one-sixteenth and one-eighth of an inch in maximum dimension. Similar smaller petechial hemorrhages are
Page 4
present on the skin below the ligature furrow on the left lateral aspect of the neck. Located on the right side of the chin is a three-sixteenths by one-eighth of an inch area of superficial abrasion. On the posterior aspect of the right shoulder is a poorly demarcated,very superficial focus of abrasion/contusion which is pale purple in color and measures up to three-quarters by one-half inch in maximum dimension.
Several linear aggregates of petechial hemorrhages are present in the anterior left should just above deltopectoral groove. These measure up to one inch in length by one-sixteenth to one-eighth of an inch in width. On the left lateral aspect of the lower back, approximately sixteen and one-quarter inches and seventeen and one-half inches below the level of the top of the head are two dried rust colored to slightly purple abrasions.
[Image: csback.jpg]
The more superior of the two measures one-eighth by one-sixteenth of an inch and the more inferior measures three-sixteenths by one-eighth of an inch. There is no surrounding contusion identified. On the posterior aspect of the left lower leg, almost in the midline, approximately 4 inches above the level of the heel are two small scratch-life abrasions which are dried and rust colored. They measure one-sixteenth by less than on-sixteenth of an inch and one-eighth by less than one-sixteenth of an inch respectively.
On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present in the skin of the fourchette and the vestibule. Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly.The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 X 1 cm hymenal orifice. The hymen itself is represented bya rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions.The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall andpossibly the area anterior to the hymen. On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violet discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch. Incision into the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses no hemorrhage. A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault. No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified.
REMAINDER OF EXTERNAL EXAMINATION:The unembalmed, well developed nourished caucasian female body measures 47 inches in length and weighs an estimated 45 pounds. The scalp is covered by long blonde hair which is fixed in two ponytails, one on top of the head secured by a cloth hair tie and blue elastic band, and one in the lower back of the head secured by a blue elastic band. No scalp trauma is identified. The external auditory canals are patent and free of blood.The eyes are green and the pupils
Page 5
equally dilated. The sclerae are white. The nostrils are both patent and contain a small amount of tan mucous material. The teeth are native and in good repair. The tongue is smooth, pink-tan and granular. No buccal mucosal trauma is seen. The frenulum is intact. There is a slight drying artifact of the tip of the tongue. On the right cheek is a pattern of dried saliva and mucous material which does not appear to be hemorrhagic. The neck contains no palpable adenopathy or masses and the trachea and larynx are midline. The chest is symmetrical. Breasts are prepubescent. The abdomen is flat and contains no scars. No palpable organ omegaly or masses are identified. The external genitalia are that of a prepubescent female. No pubic hair is present. The anus is patent. Examination of the extremities is unremarkable. On the middle finger of the right hand is a yellow metal band. Around the right wrist is a yellow metal identification bracelet with the name "JonBenet" on one side and the date "12/25/96" on the other side.  A red ink line drawing in the form of a heart is located on the palm of the left hand.
[Image: heart.jpg]
The fingernails of both hands are of sufficient length for clipping. Examination of the back is unremarkable. There is dorsal 3+ to 4+ livor mortis which is nonblanching. Livor mortis is also present on the right side of theface. At the time of the initiation of the autopsy there is mild 1 to 2+rigor mortis of the elbows and shoulders with more advanced 2 to 3+ rigor mortis of the joints of the lower extremities.
INTERNAL EXAM: The anterior chest musculature is well developed. No sternal or rib fractures are identified.
Mediastinum: The mediastinal contents are normally distributed. The 21 gm thymus gland has a normal external appearance. The cut sections are finely lobular and pink-tan. No petechial hemorrhages are seen. The aorta and remainder of the mediastinal structures are unremarkable.
Body Cavities: The right and leftthoracic cavities contain approximately 5 cc of straw colored fluid. The pleural surfaces are smooth and glistening. The percardial sac contains 3-4 cc of straw colored fluid and the epicardium and pericardium are unremarkable.The abdominal contents are normally distributed and covered by a smooth glistening serosa. No intraabdominal accumulation of fluid or blood is seen.
Lungs: The 200 gm right lung and175 gm left lung have a normal lobar configuration. An occasional scattered subpleural petechial hemorrhage is seen on the surface of each lung. The cut sections of the lungs disclose an intact alveolar architecture witha small amount of watery fluid exuding from the cut surfaces with mildpressure. The intrapulmonary bronchi and vasculature are unremarkable. No evidence of consolidation is seen.
Heart: The 100 gm heart has a normal external configuration. There are scattered subepicardial petechial hemorrhages over the anterior surface of
Page 6
the heart. The coronary arteries are normal in their distribution and contain no evidence of atherosclerosis.The tan-pink myocardium is homogeneous and contains no areas of fibrosisor infarction. The endocardium is unremarkable. The valve cusps are thin,delicate and pliable and contain no vegetation or thrombosis. The major vessels enter and leave the heart in the normal fashion. The foramen ovaleis closed.
Aorta and Vena Cava: The aorta is patent throughout its course as are its major branches. No atherosclerosisis seen. The vena cava is unremarkable.
Spleen: The 61 gm spleen has a finely wrinkled purple capsule. Cut sections are homogeneous and disclose readily identifiable red and white pulp. No intrinsic abnormalities are identified.
Adrenals: The adrenal glands are of normal size and shape. A golden yellow cortex surmounts a thin brown-tan medullary area. No intrinsic abnormalities are identified.
Kidneys: The 40 gm right kidney and 40 gm left kidney have a normal external appearance. The surfaces are smooth and glistening. Cut sections disclose an intact corticomedullary architecture. The renal papillae are sharply demarcated. The pelvocaliceal system is lined by gray-white mucosa which is unremarkable. Both uretersare patent throughout their course to the bladder.
Liver: The 625 gm liver has a normal external appearance. The capsule is smooth and glistening. Cut sections disclose an intact lobular architecture with no intrinsic abnormalities identified.
Pancreas: The pancreas is of normal size and shape. Cut sections are finely lobular and tan. No intrinsic abnormalitiesare identified.
Bladder: The bladder is contracted and contains no urine. The bladder mucosa is smooth and tan-gray. No intrinsic abnormalities are seen.
Genitalia: The upper portions ofthe vaginal vault contain no abnormalities. The prepubescent uterus measures3 X 1 X 0.8 cm and is unremarkable. The cervical os contains no abnormalities. Both fallopian tubes and ovaries are prepubescent and unremarkable by gross examination.
Gallbladder: The gallbladder contains 2-3 cc of amber bile. No stones are identified and the mucosa is smooth and velvety. The cystic duct, right and left hepatic duct and common bile duct are patent throughout their course to the duodenum.
G.I. Tract: The esophagus is empty.It is lined by gray-white mucosa. The
Page 7
stomach contains a small amount (8-10 cc) of viscous to green to tan colored thick mucous material without particulate matter identified. The gastric mucosa is autolyzed but contains no areas of hemorrhage or ulceration. The proximal portion of the small intestine contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple. No hemorrhage is identified. The remainder of the small intestine is unremarkable. The large intestine contains soft green fecal material. The appendix ispresent.
Lymphatic System: Unremarkable
Musculoskeletal System: Unremarkable
Skull and Brain: Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area. This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7 X 4 inches. This grossly appears to be a fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization. At the superior extension of this area of hemorrhage is a linear to comminuted skull fracture which extends from the right occipital to posteroparietal area forward to the right frontal area across the parietal portion of the skull. In the posteroparietal area of this fracture is a roughly rectangular shaped displaced fragment of skull measuring one and three-quarters by one-half inch. The hemorrhage and the fracture extend posteriorly just past the midline of the occipital area of the skull. This fracture measures approximately 8.5 inches in length.
[Image: redskull.jpg]
On removal of the skull cap there is found to be a thin film of subdural hemorrhage measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right cerebral hemisphere and extending to the base of the cerebral hemisphere.The 1450 gm brain has a normal overall architecture. Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen. No inflammation is identified.There is a thin film of subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire right cerebral hemisphere. On the right cerebral hemisphere underlying the previously mentioned linear skull fracture is an extensive linear area of purple contusion extending from the right frontal area, posteriorly along the lateral aspect of the parietal region and into the occipital area. This area of contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches. At the tip of the right temporal lobe is a one-quarter by one-quarter inch similar appearing purple contusion. Only very minimal contusion is present at the tip of the left temporal lobe. This area of contusion measures only one-half inch in maximum dimension. The cerebral vasculature contains no evidence of atherosclerosis. Multiple coronal sections of the cerebral hemispheres, brain stem and cerebellum disclose no additional abnormalities. The areas of previously described contusion are characterized by purple linear streak-like discolorations of the gray matter perpendicular to the surface of the cerebral cortex. These extend approximately 5 mm into the
Page 8
cerebral cortex. Examination of the base of the brain discloses no additional fractures.
Neck: Dissection of the neck is performed after removal of the thoracoabdominal organs and the brain. The anterior strap musculature of the neck is serially dissected. Multiplesections of the sternocleidomastoid muscle disclose no hemorrhages. Sectionsof the remainder of the strap musculature of the neck disclose no evidence of hemorrhage. Examination of the thyroid cartilage, cricoid cartilage and hyoid bone disclose no evidence of fracture or hemorrhage. Multiple cross sections of the tongue disclose no hemorrhage or traumatic injury.The thyroid gland weighs 2 gm and is normal in appearance. Cut sections are finely lobular and red-tan. The trachea and larynx are lined by smooth pink-tan mucosa without intrinsic abnormalities.
MICROSCOPIC DESCRIPTION: (All sectionsStained with H&E)
(Slide key(A) scalp hemorrhage ,(B) sections of vaginal mucosa with smallest fragment representing area of abrasion at 7:00 position , © heart , (D-F) lungs , (G) liver andspleen , (H) pancreas and kidney , (I) thyroid and bladder , (J) thymusand adrenals , (K-L) reproductive organs , (M) larynx , (N-T) brain.
Myocardium: Sections of the ventricularmyocardium are composed of interlacing bundles of cardiac muscle fibers. No fibrosis or inflammation are identified.
Lungs: The alveolar architectureof the lungs is well preserved. Pulmonary vascular congestion is identified.No intrinsic abnormalities are seen.
Spleen: There is mild autolysisof the spleen. Both red-and-white pulp are identifiable.
Thyroid: The thyroid gland is composed of normal-appearing follicles. An occasional isolated area of chronic interstitial inflammatory infiltrate is seen. There is also a small fragment of parathyroid tissue.
Thymus: The thymus gland retains the usual architecture. The lymphoid material is intact and scattered Hassall'scorpuscles are identified. Mild vascular congestion is identified.
Trachea: There is mild chronic inflammationin the submucosa of the trachea.
Liver: The lobular architectureof the liver is well preserved. No inflammation or intrinsic abnormality are identified.
Page 9
Pancreas: There is autolysis ofthe pancreas which is otherwise unremarkable. Kidney: The overall architectureof the kidney is well preserved. There is perhaps mild vascular congestionin the cortex but no inflammation is identified.
Bladder: The transitional epithelium of the bladder is autolyzed. No significant intrinsic abnormalities areseen.
Reproductive Organs: Sections ofthe uterus are consistent with the prepubescent age. The ovary is unremarkable.
Adrenal: The architecture of the adrenal is well preserved and no intrinsic abnormalities are seen.
Brain: Sections from the areas ofcontusion disclose disrupted blood vessels of the cortex with surrounding hemorrhage. There is no evidence of inflammatory infiltrate or organization of the hemorrhage. Subarachnoid hemorrhage is also identified. Cortical neurons are surrounded by clear halos, as are glial cells.
Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation.The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen.
EVIDENCE: Items turned over to theBoulder Police Department as evidence include: Fibers and hair from clothing and body surfaces; ligatures; clothing; vaginal swabs and smears; rectal swabs and smears; oral swabs and smears; paper bags from hands; fingernail clippings; jewelry; paper bags from feet; white body bag; samples of head hair, eyelashes and eyebrows; swabs from right and left thighs and right cheek; red top and purple top tubes of blood.

Note from Dr. John Meyer August13, 1997
Contrary to several media reports over the past few days, the autopsy report on JonBenet Ramsey does not and has never contained information on the estimated time of death. I have not been able to determine the original source of the statement that the report contained the estimated time of death, but it certainly did not come from this office.
The time of an "unwitnessed" death is very difficult to determine with any precision, and at best is an estimate based not only on autopsy findings but also on investigative information.
I consider estimation of time of death to be an interpretive finding rather than a factual statement, and it is not this Office's practice to include this estimate as part of any autopsy report. As has been stated in the past, it would also be inappropriate for me, as a potential expert and material witness, to make interpretive statements prior to testifying in court.
John E. Meyer, M.D.
Boulder County Coroner

Print this item