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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 6
» Latest member: PeterSherri
» Forum threads: 1,759
» Forum posts: 5,600

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 23 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 23 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
9 pg notes
Forum: Linda Wickman
Last Post: jameson245
06-18-2021, 05:31 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 493
Professor Matrix v steve ...
Forum: Nancy Krebs
Last Post: jameson245
06-18-2021, 04:50 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 366
http://jonbenetramsey.pbw...
Forum: December 26th
Last Post: jameson245
06-15-2021, 10:50 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 2,527
Jane Stobie interview
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
06-02-2021, 07:53 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 513
Jane Stobie interview
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
06-02-2021, 07:53 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 309
MOre on Don Foster
Forum: Discredited and discounted witnesses in this case
Last Post: jameson245
05-19-2021, 07:23 PM
» Replies: 13
» Views: 9,945
Barbara Reffner aka A Can...
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-16-2021, 02:43 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 491
from 2021 blog
Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2021, 05:19 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 749
I met Rol
Forum: Rol Hoverstock
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2021, 05:15 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 2,251
Melody and Luther Stanton...
Forum: Neighbors
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2021, 05:08 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 7,725

 
  Lin Wood in CBS suit
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-04-2020, 09:43 AM - Forum: Pineapple or Fruit Cocktail? - No Replies

Clemente: Isn’t it possible that JonBenét came down and saw that Burke was eating this,
and took one piece? She didn’t touch the bowl, she didn’t touch the spoon—
Spitz: You know, I have three grandchildren myself. Kids will do that. They’ll go by and
pick out a piece with their fingers.
Page 97 of 108
654. To convince their audience that their rampant speculation is accurate, Defendants
splice in a clip of a blonde girl stealing a piece of pineapple from a young boy, who, in turn,
violently grabs the girl by the wrist.
655. Upon information and belief, Defendants had actual knowledge and failed to
disclose that a Boulder PD analysis after the autopsy determined that JonBenét’s small intestine
had the remnants cherries, grapes, and pineapple—common fruit cocktail ingredients. Yet,
because the presence of cherries and grapes completely undermines Defendants’ series of events,
Defendants consciously fail to share their knowledge with the viewer. Instead, Spitz merely asks
“Did the pathology report indicate what the pineapple looked like, or the gastric contents?”
656. Further, Spitz is aware that the presence of the fruit cocktail in JonBenét’s
stomach does not establish a concrete timeline from which investigators may glean her time of
death, and that the minimum amount of time it would require for the fruit to get to JonBenét’s
lower intestine undermines the theory that it “started the cascade of the rest of events that
happened on the day she died.”
657. Defendants also knowingly failed to disclose that the amount of time it would
have taken the pineapple to travel to JonBenét’s small intestine is fundamentally inconsistent
with the Burke-did-it accusation.
658. Defendants then note that while Burke and Patsy’s fingertips are on the bowl of
pineapple, JonBenét’s are not. This is explainable, Defendants speculate, because she must have
only taken “one piece” but “didn’t touch the bowl” or “touch the spoon.”
659. Defendants have no factual basis for speculating that JonBenét took a piece of
Burke’s pineapple, much less that her fingerprints are not present on Defendants’ purported
smoking gun because she only “snatched one piece.”
Page 98 of 108
660. The fact JonBenét’s fingerprints are not on the bowl of pineapple or the spoon is
actually strong evidence that she did not eat the pineapple from the bowl.
661. Upon information and belief, Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that there
was more than one piece of fruit in JonBenét’s digestive tract.
662. Upon information and belief, Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that there
was more than one type of fruit in JonBenét’s digestive tract.

Print this item

  Rosie Tapia
Posted by: jameson245 - 01-31-2020, 04:22 PM - Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds - Replies (1)

Rosie Tapia was 6 years old when she was kidnapped from her Salt Lake City apartment and sexually assaulted on August 13th, 1995. Her body was discovered several hours later in a canal off the Jordan River.


_____________
by: Marcos Ortiz
Posted: Jan 26, 2019 / 12:01 AM MST / Updated: Jan 26, 2019 / 05:42 AM MST


 

AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to WhatsAppShare to SMSShare to EmailShare to More

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4 News) – He kept this information to himself for more than 23-years.
But it may help solve the mystery behind Rosie Tapia’s murder.
In 1995, the 6-year-old was abducted from her bedroom. Her body was found in a canal near the apartment complex where her family lived.
But in the early morning hours of August 13, 1995, a man who wants to remain anonymous was standing outside his home.  He said he saw a white pickup truck parked near the bridge by the canal near 1500 West and 1700 South in Salt Lake City.  He saw a man in the pickup leave.
“And as he did that, a kid come walking down the sidewalk and what I noticed about him when he come under the light was that he had on denim pants,” said the man. “But from about the knees down, they were dark, dark colored and from the knees up they weren’t that dark.”
He thought the teen was flared pants which were a style worn in the late 1960s.
But that changed when he said the teen got within three feet of him.
“And when he come walking by me the sidewalk was wet,” he said.  “But when he walked by me I realized his pants were wet.”
Police found Rosie’s body in the canal.  
He said he tried passing that information to police the very day they started investigating the case.  But he claimed no  one would talk to him. He told a few people what he saw that morning.

About three years later, he met with police after a relative told them what he witnessed. Police gave him several images of men and asked him to create a composite.
“I was looking at them and I was, I can’t make a face out of these,” the witness recalled telling police at the time. “Who I was talking about was way younger. These pictures don’t match up. These look like these hardened criminal males.”
He said he left when police wouldn’t help him create a younger image. And he never talked about what he saw that night again. That is until this week when ABC4 News received a tip and tracked him down.
Thursday, Rosie’s mother met him for the first time at his home and he told her what he saw that night 23 years ago. She had never heard this before.
“I was stunned ’cause I always figured it was somebody older and I didn’t think it was somebody younger,” she told ABC4 News.
Salt Lake City police did release a composite in 2010, but it was of an older white man.   The witness said that’s not the person he saw.  He claimed to have seen a Hispanic teenager.
“(He was) between 16-and-18 (years old),” he said.  “Really thin. He had a gold chain, a real shiny gold chain around his neck.  His hair was cut neat.  It was combed straight back.”
Rosie’s mother wished he would have come forward years ago. But she said she understood why he didn’t.
“He got discouraged,” she said.  “So hopefully now they’ll listen to help find this person.” 
Tapias said she was also discouraged with police at the outset of the investigation.
“They seemed to not really care,” she said.
But now the witness told Tapia and her private investigator who was also present, that he will talk with police. They’re hoping police will work with him to create a new composite of the teen and do an age progression composite as well.

Print this item

  Monica Da Silva
Posted by: jameson245 - 01-31-2020, 04:11 PM - Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds - No Replies

MURDERED
MONICA DA SILVA, 7 Years Old

Disappeared September 23, 1990
Sparks, NV
REWARD

7 year old Monica was reportedly yanked out of an apartment window on Idlewild Drive and never seen alive again. On October 14, 1990, skeletal remains were found in Lagomarsino Canyon, east of Sparks. Because of the advanced decomposition of the remains there was a 10 month delay before the remains were identified as Monica's. An interagency task force formed in 1991 to review several missing persons cases helped in matching dental records to identify Monica, but came up empty in solving the murder.

Print this item

  April Rhodes - arrest of Jasper Goddard
Posted by: jameson245 - 01-31-2020, 03:59 PM - Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds - No Replies

Arrest In North Las Vegas Murder Ignites Hope In Reno Cold Case

 

April Rhodes, Monica DaSilva


By Ed Pearce | 
Posted: Sat 11:04 AM, Jul 13, 2013


RENO, NV - Few cases are etched into the memories of anyone living in Reno in 1990 as the kidnapping and murder of seven year old Monica DaSilva.
The thought of a young girl being snatched from her bedroom window in the middle of the night had every parent here watching their kids that much closer.
Four years earlier, families in North Las Vegas were just as shocked to hear of the abduction and murder of April Marie Rhodes.
The similarities between the two cases are difficult to ignore. Both victims seven years old, both taken from their apartment homes through the bedroom window.
Over the years investigators in both cities kept in touch, but the break came after Reno Police Detective Allan Fox requested a DNA sample from North Las Vegas P.D.
The sample checked against the growing DNA data base produced a match, a 61 year old registered sex offender living in Springfield, Missouri and, as it turned out, Jasper Everett Goddard had been living in the same apartment complex, just two doors away when April Rhodes was taken from her home.

Goddard is in custody in Missouri awaiting extradition. There's no evidence placing him in Reno at any time, but that possibility will be explored.
Goddard who was convicted of assault on a young child in Missouri fits the profile of a preferential predator preying on young children.
"He's in that prepubescent age range that we're looking at," says Fox.
But he's quick to add there's no evidence tying him to Reno or Monica DaSilva.
"Has he been up here or not? We're looking into that. It's still going to take a lot of phone calls, a lot of knocking on doors."
It may lead to a dead end. Still, the arrest in one cold case elsewhere, is enough to excite a detective working one here.
"We have to eliminate him," says Fox. "But when you eliminate a person that means you can move on to the person responsible."
And finding that person remains as important now as it was 23 years ago?
"Yes, because they're still out there and it's just a matter of not giving up."

Print this item

  McMenamin
Posted by: jameson245 - 01-12-2020, 11:37 AM - Forum: Handwriting - No Replies

 

 Gerald McMenamin's analysis of Patsy's writing in Forensic Linguistics  notes style markers and concluded Patsy's style differs from the ransom note writer's and she is therefore excluded as the author. He uses as an example of this that Patsy writes "pick up," John "pickup" and the RN writer "pick-up."

 PR 01 Correct spelling of "business"
PR 02 Correct spelling of "possession"
PR 03 Misspelling of "advise" as "advize"
PR 04 Lack of correction in spelling "denied"
PR 05 Misspelled "burial" as "buriel"
PR 06 Misspelling and correction of "advise" as "advize" with additional correction
PR 07 Misspelling of "scrutiny" as "scruitiny" in passes 1 and 2 (after which she spells it right)
PR 08 Use of capital "S" in "Southern"
PR 09 Presence of periods in "am"
PR 10 Periods (instead of "!") after "Victory" in passes 2 and 3 (and 4, 5)
PR 11 No periods used in "SBTC"
PR 12 "Unharmed" is one word
PR 13 Using the correct article in "an earlier"
PR 14 "Pick up" has no hyphen
PR 15 Writes "counter measures" (But she writes "countermeasures" in her individual word exemplars)
PR 16 Use of single word for "outsmart"
PR 17 Use of single word for "underestimate"
PR 18A $118,000. has no trailing zeroes PR 18b $100,000. has no trailing zeroes
PR 18C Wrote "100 dollar" without "$"
PR 18D Wrote "$18,000." with no trailing zeroes in pass 3 PR
18E Use of word "dollar" without "$"

Print this item

  story at end of GJ - not quitting
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-16-2019, 11:18 AM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - Replies (1)

Hunter: We're not quitting
By Karen Auge
Denver Post Staff Writer

Oct. 15, 1999 - BOULDER - John and Patsy Ramsey are still under that umbrella of suspicion.
In three separate news conferences Thursday afternoon, key figures in the Ramsey case admitted mistakes were made in the investigation, pledged to catch the killer and entertained the idea of having a special prosecutor pick up the case.
Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter and Police Chief Mark Beckner both stressed that efforts to find JonBenet Ramsey's killer didn't end Wednesday with the grand jury investigation - and said the grand jury's 13-month probe did not change the status of JonBene�t Ramsey's parents.
"We have not excluded the Ramseys,'' Hunter said.
In between Hunter's and Beckner's question-and-answer sessions at the Boulder County Justice Center, Gov. Bill Owens announced from the Capitol steps that he had assembled a seven-member task force to decide whether a special prosecutor should take over the case.
When asked about that possibility earlier, Hunter, a Democrat, responded that he wouldn't second-guess the Republican governor.
"We are interested in the pursuit of truth in this case. If he can assist in that, I don't think any of us would stand in his way,'' Hunter said.
Surrounded by his grand jury prosecution team, two of the district attorneys who have advised him and two Boulder police detectives, Hunter said he has an "aching heart about where this case is.''
He refused to discuss any element of the grand jury's investigation - including why John and Patsy Ramsey were not called to testify. Talking about the grand jury's work would violate the secrecy of the process required by law, Hunter and Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant said.
Hunter said the investigation into who killed the 6-year-old beauty queen was "significantly advanced'' by the grand jury's probe, but refused to elaborate.
The Ramseys, who released a statement Wednesday night saying they remain "committed to finding our daughter's killer,'' stayed out of the public eye Thursday. Their attorney, Hal Haddon, did not return phone calls.
"Tension and agony' Patsy Ramsey's sister Pam Paugh told CNN's Larry King on Thursday that she did not know whether her sister and brother-inlaw were relieved not to have been indicted.
"They had absolutely nothing to do with the murder,'' Paugh said.
She said Patsy Ramsey told her Thursday, " "Pam, someone has killed my child, I can never get her back and to this day we don't have her killer, so no, I'm not happy.' '' Mike Archuleta, a former pilot for the Ramseys, said he and his wife talked to them on the phone Wednesday night after the grand jury finished its investigation.
"Their prayers, our prayers have been answered,'' said Archuleta. "The tension and agony they have been going through is horrific. They feel very relieved. They're very grateful to the grand jury for doing what was right - the right thing for everybody.''
He said he hopes the grand jury decision will open new avenues to finding JonBene�t's killer.
"This whole case isn't about the Ramseys. This case is about JonBene�t. There is a brutal murderer out there. They need to be found. I don't know if they ever will. We pray and hope it can be so JonBene�t can rest in peace, so the family can finally rest in peace.''
Reporters queried Hunter about the possibility of other suspects, but the DA refused to elaborate on any suspects other than to say the Ramseys had not been cleared. Their daughter was found beaten and strangled in the basement of their Boulder home on Dec. 26, 1996.
The grand jury began hearing evidence in case on Sept. 15, 1998. Wednesday, the panel ended its work, and just over an hour later Hunter announced to scores of waiting reporters and photographers that no charges would be filed in the case.
"I and my prosecution task force believe we don't have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges . . . at this time,'' he said.
Hunter has never specifically said that the grand jurors voted against issuing an indictment - or that they voted on the matter at all. And he refused Thursday to answer any questions about grand jury proceedings, including whether the eight women and four men had wanted to issue a report on their findings.
Lingering issues If the grand jury never even voted on an indictment, "I find that troublesome,'' said Denver attorney Scott Robinson, who has served as a commentator on the case. "It doesn't mean the process was tainted, it just means the grand jury wasn't as autonomous as we had thought,'' Robinson said.
Hunter and Beckner both stressed that the investigation is not over, and Denver DA Bill Ritter talked about a case his office solved after 20 years and more than one grand jury.
"The grand jury was one phase,'' Hunter said, of an investigation he called a "continuum.''
Beckner later echoed that, saying, "This is an open, active homicide investigation.''
Before becoming chief of Boulder police last year, Beckner took over as lead detective on the Ramsey case in October 1997 after the previous head of the case was removed.
Beckner, who admitted that police made mistakes in the initial stages of what grew to be a $2 million investigation, said there is still more evidence to evaluate. However, Beckner, who coined the "umbrella of suspicion'' phrase, said work on the case "won't be a daily thing. It's not something that takes eight, 10 hours a day like it did in past.''
In response to a reporter's question, Beckner said that information uncovered in the grand jury investigation would be available only to the detective who had been sworn in as a grand jury deputy.
The secrecy that by law surrounds the grand jury proceedings raised questions about whether the seven-member task force appointed Thursday by Gov. Owens to review the investigation could have access to testimony the grand jury heard.
At one point in the press conference, Hunter was reminded that he had once stood behind a microphone and told JonBenet's killer, "We will find you.''
Asked if he had any message for the child's killer now, Hunter began his answer by saying, "If I had that to do again, I might do that a little differently. I thought I might smoke the killer out.''
But this time, he said, his message is: "We are going to continue our efforts.'' And calling his prosecution team one of the best ever assembled, he added, "If I were the killer I'm not sure I'd like to have this group looking for me.''
Denver Post staff writer Marilyn Robinson contributed to this report.

Print this item

  story at end of GJ - not quitting
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-16-2019, 10:17 AM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - No Replies

Hunter: We're not quitting
By Karen Auge
Denver Post Staff Writer

Oct. 15, 1999 - BOULDER - John and Patsy Ramsey are still under that umbrella of suspicion.
In three separate news conferences Thursday afternoon, key figures in the Ramsey case admitted mistakes were made in the investigation, pledged to catch the killer and entertained the idea of having a special prosecutor pick up the case.
Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter and Police Chief Mark Beckner both stressed that efforts to find JonBenet Ramsey's killer didn't end Wednesday with the grand jury investigation - and said the grand jury's 13-month probe did not change the status of JonBene�t Ramsey's parents.
"We have not excluded the Ramseys,'' Hunter said.
In between Hunter's and Beckner's question-and-answer sessions at the Boulder County Justice Center, Gov. Bill Owens announced from the Capitol steps that he had assembled a seven-member task force to decide whether a special prosecutor should take over the case.
When asked about that possibility earlier, Hunter, a Democrat, responded that he wouldn't second-guess the Republican governor.
"We are interested in the pursuit of truth in this case. If he can assist in that, I don't think any of us would stand in his way,'' Hunter said.
Surrounded by his grand jury prosecution team, two of the district attorneys who have advised him and two Boulder police detectives, Hunter said he has an "aching heart about where this case is.''
He refused to discuss any element of the grand jury's investigation - including why John and Patsy Ramsey were not called to testify. Talking about the grand jury's work would violate the secrecy of the process required by law, Hunter and Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant said.
Hunter said the investigation into who killed the 6-year-old beauty queen was "significantly advanced'' by the grand jury's probe, but refused to elaborate.
The Ramseys, who released a statement Wednesday night saying they remain "committed to finding our daughter's killer,'' stayed out of the public eye Thursday. Their attorney, Hal Haddon, did not return phone calls.
"Tension and agony' Patsy Ramsey's sister Pam Paugh told CNN's Larry King on Thursday that she did not know whether her sister and brother-inlaw were relieved not to have been indicted.
"They had absolutely nothing to do with the murder,'' Paugh said.
She said Patsy Ramsey told her Thursday, " "Pam, someone has killed my child, I can never get her back and to this day we don't have her killer, so no, I'm not happy.' '' Mike Archuleta, a former pilot for the Ramseys, said he and his wife talked to them on the phone Wednesday night after the grand jury finished its investigation.
"Their prayers, our prayers have been answered,'' said Archuleta. "The tension and agony they have been going through is horrific. They feel very relieved. They're very grateful to the grand jury for doing what was right - the right thing for everybody.''
He said he hopes the grand jury decision will open new avenues to finding JonBene�t's killer.
"This whole case isn't about the Ramseys. This case is about JonBene�t. There is a brutal murderer out there. They need to be found. I don't know if they ever will. We pray and hope it can be so JonBene�t can rest in peace, so the family can finally rest in peace.''
Reporters queried Hunter about the possibility of other suspects, but the DA refused to elaborate on any suspects other than to say the Ramseys had not been cleared. Their daughter was found beaten and strangled in the basement of their Boulder home on Dec. 26, 1996.
The grand jury began hearing evidence in case on Sept. 15, 1998. Wednesday, the panel ended its work, and just over an hour later Hunter announced to scores of waiting reporters and photographers that no charges would be filed in the case.
"I and my prosecution task force believe we don't have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges . . . at this time,'' he said.
Hunter has never specifically said that the grand jurors voted against issuing an indictment - or that they voted on the matter at all. And he refused Thursday to answer any questions about grand jury proceedings, including whether the eight women and four men had wanted to issue a report on their findings.
Lingering issues If the grand jury never even voted on an indictment, "I find that troublesome,'' said Denver attorney Scott Robinson, who has served as a commentator on the case. "It doesn't mean the process was tainted, it just means the grand jury wasn't as autonomous as we had thought,'' Robinson said.
Hunter and Beckner both stressed that the investigation is not over, and Denver DA Bill Ritter talked about a case his office solved after 20 years and more than one grand jury.
"The grand jury was one phase,'' Hunter said, of an investigation he called a "continuum.''
Beckner later echoed that, saying, "This is an open, active homicide investigation.''
Before becoming chief of Boulder police last year, Beckner took over as lead detective on the Ramsey case in October 1997 after the previous head of the case was removed.
Beckner, who admitted that police made mistakes in the initial stages of what grew to be a $2 million investigation, said there is still more evidence to evaluate. However, Beckner, who coined the "umbrella of suspicion'' phrase, said work on the case "won't be a daily thing. It's not something that takes eight, 10 hours a day like it did in past.''
In response to a reporter's question, Beckner said that information uncovered in the grand jury investigation would be available only to the detective who had been sworn in as a grand jury deputy.
The secrecy that by law surrounds the grand jury proceedings raised questions about whether the seven-member task force appointed Thursday by Gov. Owens to review the investigation could have access to testimony the grand jury heard.
At one point in the press conference, Hunter was reminded that he had once stood behind a microphone and told JonBenet's killer, "We will find you.''
Asked if he had any message for the child's killer now, Hunter began his answer by saying, "If I had that to do again, I might do that a little differently. I thought I might smoke the killer out.''
But this time, he said, his message is: "We are going to continue our efforts.'' And calling his prosecution team one of the best ever assembled, he added, "If I were the killer I'm not sure I'd like to have this group looking for me.''
Denver Post staff writer Marilyn Robinson contributed to this report.

Print this item

  Persecutor Kane talks
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-16-2019, 10:05 AM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - Replies (2)

[b]2001-12-18: Case haunts DA's aide who led grand jury[/b]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_912183,00.html
Case haunts DA's aide who led grand jury

Kane says he never felt that Ramseys gave him the straight story during his interviews

By Charlie Brennan, News Staff Writer

Michael Kane says he still thinks about the JonBenet Ramsey murder every day.

"And at least once a week, when I'm out running or something, this case will be running through my head," he said, "and I'll think, 'What if we did this now?' or 'What if that happened?' "

Kane, 49, joined former District Attorney Alex Hunter's team in June 1998, about 18 months after JonBenet was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her Boulder home.

He led the 13-month-long grand jury probe that concluded Oct. 13, 1999, with no indictments issued in the case.

JonBenet's parents remain under an "umbrella of suspicion" in the death.

Kane spent many hours questioning John and Patsy Ramsey about their daughter's murder. He said he believes they have yet to give him the straight story.

"When I met with them, I never felt that they were genuine," Kane said. "I always felt like I was talking to a press secretary who was giving responses with a spin.

"I always felt like their answers were very careful and, in some cases, scripted. And that caused me a lot of concern."

Kane said one of the biggest mistakes in the case was that officials didn't take it to a grand jury in the early going.

"I think the major problem with this case was the hard-core evidence gathering," Kane said.

He believes a grand jury should have been impaneled promptly -- not necessarily to secure a rapid indictment, but in order to use a grand jury's broad powers to subpoena witnesses and, equally important, personal records.

"I had this argument with them until the day (former Boulder prosecutors) Pete Hofstrom and Trip DeMuth were off the case" in August 1998, Kane said.

"That's what a grand jury is for, because a grand jury can order someone to produce documents. It's up to the DA's office to say, 'There's an awful lot of things we need to know about, and the only way we're going to know about it is by getting these records.'

"Instead, it was almost two years later when we started issuing subpoenas for information, and the trail sometimes grows cold. A lot of businesses don't keep records that long," Kane said.

Many people connected to the case claimed they tuned out the constant chatter it sparked in the media. Not Kane.

"There were lots of times, sitting in the (Boulder justice center) war room at night, I'd flip on the TV and they'd be doing a program about this case, and somebody would say something, and I'd say 'Darn, I wish I'd thought of that,' " Kane said. "And then, I'd follow up on it."

On occasion, such brainstorms still lead Kane to call and share ideas with Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner. And, periodically, he'll get a call from Beckner seeking Kane's thoughts on any new wrinkle in the case that might have arisen.

Kane has had virtually no contact, however, with Boulder District Attorney Mary Keenan. She inherited the case from Hunter after his retirement in January.

"I don't feel slighted" by Keenan, Kane said. "I worked that case intensely. I had my shot. I did everything with the information that I had at the time to try to come up with an answer. And it didn't happen.

"Maybe what this case needs now is someone coming to the case for the first time, who may have a light bulb come on."

Kane moved back to his native Pennsylvania and spent the time since November 1999 in private practice doing primarily civil litigation.

He returned Dec. 10 to the Pennsylvania State Department of Revenue, as deputy director for taxation. He had been working at that Pennsylvania state agency when Hunter picked him to pilot the Ramsey grand jury.

Kane, a divorced father of two girls -- Kathleen, 17, and Madeline, 13 -- makes his home in Mechanicsburg, Pa., less than a mile from where his daughters live with their mother.

Asked if he's frustrated that no one has been charged in JonBenet's slaying, he didn't hesitate: "Lots. In a word, lots. I didn't sign on there to not come up with a conclusion that was not prosecutable."

Kane participated in two interviews with the Ramseys after joining the case. In the first, he was teamed with former homicide investigator Lou Smit for an interrogation of John Ramsey that spanned three days -- June 22 to 24, 1998.

More recently, he traveled with Beckner to Atlanta for interviews with John and Patsy Ramsey, conducted Aug. 28 and 29, 2000, in the office of their lawyer, L. Lin Wood. Those contentious sessions ended with the Ramseys and the Boulder officials calling the interviews a waste of time.

Reflecting now on his interviews with the Ramseys, Kane said, "I never felt like I was getting a spontaneous response

"John Ramsey always left me with the impression that he was a very smart man, and he is very careful at answering questions," Kane said. "Whereas, Patsy struck me as somebody that just had an answer in advance of the question, and just kind of resorted to an 'I don't know' if she didn't have an answer in advance."

Kane said that with more than half a dozen books published and two movies made about the case, people could assume they know everything there is to know about the murder -- other than who did it, of course.

But, he said, such an assumption would be wrong.

There remain "dozens" of secrets, he said. "Absolutely. Dozens. And a lot of what the public thinks is fact is simply not fact."

He wouldn't disclose any of the former or correct any of the latter.

The legacy of the Ramsey case for Kane, personally, is that it left him in bad need of a vacation from criminal law.

"I got burned out on the cat-and-mouse aspects of it, after spending a year and a half focused on nothing else but that case," Kane said. "The process of going from small point to small point to small point, trying to find the truth, can be very intense and frustrating.

"Sometimes it's rewarding, but after doing it for a year and a half on this one case, I was just glad to get a break from it."

Contact Charlie Brennan at (303) 892-2742 or brennanc@RockyMountainNews.com.

December 18, 2001

Print this item

  from Steve Thomas deposition
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-16-2019, 10:02 AM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - No Replies

Quote:Steve Thomas Deposition (Atlanta, Georgia)
Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Action File No. 00-CIV-1187(JEC)

(Grand Jury Discussion)

48
17 Q. Did you ever receive any
18 information about grand jury testimony or
19 evidence in the case?
20 A. Never.



(SNIP)



53
7 Q. Do you have any other documents
8 about this investigation, other than those
9 documents? Do you?
10 A. Oh, I'm sorry. If I understand
11 the question correctly, no, as I said, not
12 that I recall because post-August '98 began
13 the grand jury. And certainly I don't have
14 any information from the grand jury room.



(SNIP)



202
4 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You said very
5 clearly to Mr. Hoffman you do not know the
6 state of the evidence with respect to the
7 JonBenet Ramsey investigation, as you sit here
8 today, the state of the evidence as of
9 September 2001, true?
10 A. After leaving the police
11 department, yes, that concluded my official
12 participation. I have followed the case
13 through the media, but as far as being privy
14 to anything that occurred in the grand jury
15 or continued evidence testing, I'm unaware of
16 that.
17 Q. You knew the state of the evidence
18 as it existed in the case as of March 2001,
19 true?
20 A. That was during the period which
21 -- no, the grand jury had concluded -- no, I
22 -- no, I wasn't inside the police department
23 reviewing evidence at that time either.

24 Q. But what you did know and you had
25 actual knowledge of was that a grand jury had


203

1 met for some 13 months and had not issued an
2 indictment against John and Patsy Ramsey,
3 right?
4 A. I don't know that. Do you know
5 that?
6 Q. Sir, was an indictment issued? Do
7 you have information there was an indictment
8 of my clients that nobody has bothered
9 telling them or me about?
10 MR. HOFFMAN: Actually, Lin,
11 Patrick Burke has information that he should
12 have told you about which he announced to the
13 media that according to him the grand jury
14 actually took a straw poll. Why don't you
15 ask Patrick Burke.
16 MR. WOOD: Let me tell you,
17 Darnay, that won't count against my time.
18 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
19 MR. WOOD: But you're right, it
20 was a straw poll; it was a vote not to
21 indict. Thank you for bringing something to
22 my attention that I already knew.
23 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.

24 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Would you answer
25 my question, sir? It's pretty simple. You

204
1 know that no indictment was issued by the
2 grand jury, true?
3 A. I don't know what the grand jury
4 did.
5 Q. I'm not asking you what they did
6 in terms of whether they voted or not, sir.
7 MR. DIAMOND: I think he's asking
8 you --
9 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I'm asking you
10 whether they issued an indictment to indict
11 John and/or Patsy Ramsey?
12 MR. DIAMOND: -- are you aware of
13 any public report of such an indictment.
14 A. No.
15 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You also know that
16 after the grand jury was dismissed that Alex
17 Hunter stated publicly that all seven of the
18 prosecutors in the case unanimously agreed
19 that this was not a case where they felt
20 that evidence was sufficient to justify at
21 that time a prosecution. You know that, too,
22 don't you, sir?
23 A. That Hunter --
24 Q. Made that statement publicly?
25 A. Made the statement that his

205
1 advisors supported that decision?
2 Q. Seven prosecutors, not his
3 advisors, seven prosecutors, you know that,
4 don't you, sir?
5 A. I know that statement was made.

.

Quote:
Steve Thomas Deposition - 09-21-2001
Chris Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Case

(Grand Jury Discussion)




(SNIP)



391
24 Q. Do you know of any prosecutor who
25 is familiar with the evidence that has

392
1 concluded that the evidence shows beyond a
2 reasonable doubt that Patsy Ramsey is guilty
3 of the homicide of her daughter?
4 A. No, because the prosecutors privy
5 to that evidence are bound by grand jury
6 secrecy and none have violated that with me.



(SNIP)



394
13 Q. Why did you not, when you had old
14 Barry Scheck, a nice guy, Henry Lee, all
15 these VIPs there, why did you not include the
16 intruder evidence in the presentation to
17 objectively give those individuals both sides
18 of the case?
19 A. Because the Boulder Police
20 Department's position was, as I understood it
21 and understand it, the VIP presentation was
22 to show that there was sufficient probable
23 cause to arrest Patsy Ramsey and for the DA's
24 office to move it forward through the use of
25 a grand jury with that end in mind.

395
1 Q. Of an indictment which is a
2 finding by a grand jury of probable cause to
3 charge or arrest, right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You've been in the business long
6 enough to know that the grand jury can, as
7 they say, indict a ham sandwich, right? It
8 doesn't take much evidence to indict or
9 arrest, does it, sir?
10 A. My understanding of probable cause
11 is facts and evidence and circumstances that
12 are within the knowledge of a police officer
13 that would lead a reasonable person to
14 conclude that, A, a crime was committed and
15 B, that a particular individual was involved.
16 Sometimes, depending on the case,
17 that can sometimes be a great threshold.



(SNIP)



424
24 Q. You state in your book there were
25 27 reasons for a grand jury and it's at page

425
1 309. But my question is, were those 27
2 reasons for a grand jury correlate to the 27
3 remaining tasks that were referred to in that
4 June '98 press release by the Boulder Police
5 Department?
6 A. Let me look at 309 real quickly.
7 308, 309?
8 Q. It's on 309 and I've got a copy
9 of that press release where he says there
10 were 27 tasks remaining. I'm just wondering
11 if that's the correlation.
12 A. Oh, if I understand you correctly,
13 did these 27 reasons correspond with the 27
14 tasks left on the to-do list?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. No.



(SNIP)



439
6 Q. What I want to know is if you can
7 date that for me? "'The case is not being
8 handled well,' said the CASKU agents."
9 A. Shortly before I believe the
10 Ramseys' April 30, 1997 interview.
11 Q. Can you identify the three agents
12 for me?
13 A. Supervisory special agent Bill
14 Hagmaier, special agent Mike Morrow, and their
15 partner and the third special agent, his name
16 just escapes me at the moment.
17 Q. And those three agents prior to
18 April 30, 1997 said that the intruder theory
19 was absurd, Hofstrom needs to act like a
20 prosecutor not a public defender. Don't do
21 tomorrow's interview and get a grand jury as
22 soon as possible, right?
23 A. Yes.

Print this item

  Witnesses CAN talk!
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-16-2019, 10:00 AM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - Replies (1)

[b]2001-07-06: Ruling strikes down ‘permanent’ silencing of grand jury witnesses[/b]

July 6, 2001
Ruling strikes down ‘permanent’ silencing of grand jury witnesses
By B.J. Plasket
The Daily Times-Call

DENVER — A federal judge on Thursday said a Colorado rule requiring life-long secrecy by grand jury witnesses is unconstitutional, paving the way for witnesses in the JonBenet Ramsey grand jury probe to speak about their testimony.

In throwing out the rule, U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel called it an impermissible restriction of First Amendment free-speech rights.

Daniel made the ruling in a suit filed last year by Linda Hoffman-Pugh, a former housekeeper for John and Patsy Ramsey . Hoffman-Pugh’s suit claimed she wanted to write a book but was fearful she would be prosecuted if she divulged information that she shared with the grand jury.

Noted New York attorney Darnay Hoffman, who represented Hoffman-Pugh, said the decision would free others who testified before the grand jury to tell what they know. He said enterprising journalists could “win a Pulitzer Prize” by digging into the testimony of the grand jury witnesses.

Boulder County Deputy District Attorney William Nagel said Daniel’s ruling will be appealed to U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Nagel did not request a stay of Daniel’s order until the appeal is decided, meaning any of the Ramsey grand jury witnesses are free to speak.

The ruling does not allow grand jury witnesses to divulge such things as what questions they were asked and does not allow them to comment on the proceedings of the jury.

The Ramsey grand jury met for more than a year before disbanding in October 1999 without returning any indictments. Then-District Attorney Alex Hunter, at the conclusion of the grand jury, vowed that the proceedings would remain secret forever.

In declaring the rule unconstitutional, Daniel said it was “virtually identical” to a Florida law overturned 10 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Nagel argued the two cases were different because the Colorado rule — unlike the one in Florida — did not prohibit witnesses from discussing information they knew before testifying.

The Colorado rule prohibited witnesses from discussing their testimony unless or until an indictment was issued or in the event a report was issued in the absence of an indictment. The Ramsey grand jury was not permitted to issue a report, and those who served on the jury are still sworn to silence.

Nagel argued the Colorado rule provided “a good balance between free speech and the criminal justice system.”

Daniel surprised the attorneys who were arguing the case when he ruled from the bench in granting Hoffman-Pugh’s motion for a summary judgment, declaring the rule unconstitutional. Prior to the hearing, Hoffman said he believed there was “no chance” Daniel would rule immediately and predicted the judge would issue a written ruling days or weeks from now.

Daniel gave an indication of how he might rule shortly after the hearing began. He told Nagel he was concerned the rule constituted an “indefinite and permanent” silencing of witnesses.

Daniel said the federal courts — and courts in 40 states — allow grand jury witnesses to discuss their testimony as soon as it is completed.

“The suggestion here is that there is some sort of problem with the Colorado law,” he said. “What information are they seeking to keep her from revealing?”

Daniel said that in order to restrict free speech, there must be a showing of “compelling governmental interest.”

Print this item