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



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 22 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 22 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
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: 7,724

  Patsy denied JonBenet a sweater and more
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-25-2017, 02:15 PM - Forum: Disproving Myths - No Replies

"10 . "uncorroborated stories"
Posted by MaskedMan on May-04-00 at 11:19 AM (EST)
Steve Thomas presents many unsourced and uncorroborated stories.

On page 5, he presents the improbable story that JonBenet was chilly at a restaurant,
but Patsy wouldn't let her put on a jacket because "You're still on show." Steve Thomas
didn't identify his source, but I know that this is one of Judith Phillips' urban legends.
When I aksed Judith about where and when this episode happened, she said that she
didn't know and that she didn't see it herself. She said someone else had seen it. I
asked her, "Who saw it?" She wouldn't tell me. So, this is just an unverified third-hand
Judith has done this repeatedly. She's lied to me about what she supposedly knows. She
would claim to have first-hand knowledge about something, but then she'd change her
story when I tried to pin her down. For instance:
Judith told me that Priscilla White had told her that John Ramsey tried to discourage
Fleet White from entering the wine cellar room on Dec. 26, 1996. I believed that story
for a long time. She was the source for a story to that effect in the National Enquirer of
April 1997. When I found out later that that never happened, I asked Judith how Priscilla
could have been so wrong about that. Then, Judith admitted that, uh, well, she didn't
hear the story directly from Priscilla, but from someone else...
Steve Thomas used Judith for several dubious stories. She is the anonymous "family
friend" whom Steve Thomas mentions. It wouldn't occur to Steve to double-check his
information, since any story unfavorable to the Ramseys is automatically true to him.
Positive stories, of course, don't appear in his book. "

(Remember, MaskedMan was Frank Coffman.)

Print this item

  Judith Phillip's views
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-25-2017, 02:11 PM - Forum: Pageants - Replies (2)

From Steve Thomas' deposition

Q. Take a look, if you would, at page 45 of your book. Second -- actually, first full paragraph. "An
acquaintance said that JonBenet was rebelling against appearing in the child beauty contests. She was
being pushed into the pageants by her mother and grandmother, said the witness." Who is that

A. I believe that was Judith Phillips.
Q. Did you find Judith Phillips to be credible?
A. At times.
Q. At times she was not credible?
A. No, I think Judith Phillips, like many others in Boulder, were devastated by this crime and she had
tough moments, I'm sure.
Q. Do you think John and Patsy Ramsey had tough moments because they would have been devastated by the death of their daughter?
A. They certainly may have.

Print this item

  Other ways to get in or out
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-25-2017, 12:07 PM - Forum: Broken window/ Spider web - Replies (8)

I am not 100% sure the killer went in or out the basement window.  Especially if he had been in the house more than once.    Here from Steve Thomas' deposition is information on other ways the killer might have gone in.

Q. There was clearly an indication from a member of the Boulder Police Department that they found
at least seven doors and windows unlocked at the Ramsey home on the morning of December 26,
1996. You remember that, don't you?

A. I've heard that referred to. I don't know -- what detective are you referring to?
Q. Have you heard that, sir? Has that not been part of a presentation made to you?
A. By Lou Smit or Mr. DeMuth?
Q. Either one.
A. What presentation are you talking about?
Q. There were two presentations, one in May and one in June. You attended both, true?
A. I did.
Q. You took notes, didn't you?
A. I may have.
Q. You paid careful attention to what was being said, didn't you?
A. I believe so.
Q. Have you ever heard that there were seven windows and doors found unlocked in the Ramsey
home on the morning of December 26, 1996?
A. I don't know who the source of that is right now but I --
Q. I didn't ask you the source. I asked you have you ever heard it, sir?
A. Yeah.
MR. DIAMOND: Have you heard that from any source?
A. Yeah.
Q. (BY MR. WOOD) From someone connected with the investigation, either in the district
attorney's office or the Boulder Police Department?
A. Or courtesy of you and the media, yeah, I believe I've heard that.
Q. Trust me, I wasn't there the morning of the 26th and I didn't find the status of the doors. I'm
asking you whether --
A. Nor was I, no.
Q. And I don't think I was around in May or June when the presentations were made. You heard
that a Boulder police officer had found as many as seven doors and windows unlocked in that house on
the morning of December 26, 1996, hadn't you, sir?
A. You're sourcing that to a -- now to a Boulder police officer detective and that's not my
recollection; DeMuth may have said that.
Q. Do you think Trip DeMuth made it up out of a whole cloth?
A. I don't know where Trip DeMuth uncovered a lot of things in his investigation.
Q. So you think that there was -- you feel like you can competently say that's not true, that there
were no doors found unlocked or windows found unlocked that morning?
A. I wasn't there that morning.
Q. Well, sir, you were not but you have to rely, as you say earlier in your testimony, on your fellow
officers, right?
A. That's right.
Q. All right. Well, did you go back and ever look to see if there were ever any reports that would
have indicated that there were as many as seven windows and doors found unlocked in that house that
A. I'm not familiar with the detective or the report you're speaking about.

Print this item

  Ramsey family history discussed
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-25-2017, 12:04 PM - Forum: THE KILLER - Replies (2)

From Steve Thomas' deposition

Q. Who is the pediatric expert that thought that there may have been some corporal punishment
inflicted on JonBenet for repeated bed wetting?
A. Dr. Krugman.
Q. Steve Thomas: What was interesting is that we found no history or pathology or evidence to
indicate that John Ramsey had any untoward relationship or discipline with his children. Is that true?
A. I've never thought that.
Q. I found Patsy Ramsey to be a complex person on many levels but there had been no reported
history of any abuse in the house; is that true?
A. What are you reading from, Mr. Wood?
Q. A CNN chat transcript, CNN April 14th, 2000, Author Steve Thomas tells his story.
A. Can you reread for me the Patsy Ramsey section?
Q. Be glad to. I found Patsy Ramsey to be a complex person on many levels but there had been no
reported history of any abuse in the house. Is that true?
A. Yeah, we had no reported incidents of any abuse in the house.

I spoke to Krugman and he seemed like a very sincere man who wanted justice for all children who are abused.  I asked about his involvement and would have no problem sharing what he told me.  He was consulted - shown minimal and clearly hand-picked information - - likely looking exactly for the response they got.  Or should I say they led the witness to make sure they got the "opinion" they sought.

Print this item

  Card from Santa
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-25-2017, 11:57 AM - Forum: Disproving Myths - Replies (1)

You decide - was there a card from Santa?  We have NEVER been told there was or what it said.  I personally think that may have been written by Patsy - she gave Santa something personal to say to each guest on the 23rd as he handed out gifts.  Anyway - what do you think?  This is from Steve Thomas' deposition

Q. Was there a note from Bill
7 McReynolds found torn up in JonBenet's trash
8 can in her room?
9 A. I have heard that.
10 Q. Did you ever check to see if that
11 were true?
12 A. I think I was told that it was
13 some sort of card.
14 Q. From Bill McReynolds?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Was it ever fingerprinted, do you
17 know?
18 A. Detective Trujillo would know that.
19 I don't.
20 Q. Did you ever try to find out?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did you ever try to find out what
23 the card said?
24 A. I recall at one time. I don't
25 now.

Print this item

  911 Test from CBS Special
Posted by: Dave - 03-25-2017, 11:56 AM - Forum: 911 call - Replies (14)

On the CBS television show The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, hosted by Jim Clemente and Laura Richards, Clemente and Richards promised to "follow the evidence," but they definitely did not do that.

At the start of the show, they showed some footage of "enhancement" of the 911 recording. They instructed the audio technician to zero in on the purported conversation, then could be heard to say things like, "Can you bring that up?" and "Can you clean that up a bit more?"

In other words, Clemente and whoever was with him at the time were directing the audio technician as to what to do. They had obviously already been informed of what the purported conversation consisted of, so were not at all concerned about whether or not this was actually conversation. Their presumption was that it was indeed conversation. Even the suggestion that it perhaps was anything other than conversation was not raised at all. The audio technician acted like a robot, just doing what he was asked to do.

This method of examining the 911 recording is not the least bit scientific but was dressed up to look like it was.

Instead, that incident was a shameful display of Group Confirmation Bias exercised by the so-called "crack team" of investigators.


In contrast to the utterly non-scientific approach by Clemente et al., scientific questions always allow for the possibility that things are not as they seem. They pose questions that put presumptions at risk. For example:

"If a wall phone is not hung up properly in a kitchen and conversation took place, what would it sound like?"

"If conversation is sent over a phone line, what would be the expected characteristics of its recording?"

For both of these latter questions, presumptions of the 911 recordings made by Clemente and others are at risk of being disproven by the answers.

Indeed, disproof is exactly what I found when examining recordings of the Ramsey 911 call from the Boulder County DA's office, namely disproof of the presumption that the 911 recording contained additional conversation carried over a phone line. I was not interested in wasting my time trying to determine what was said if there was no conversation, so I started by asking the type of question described above.  Three important findings were:

1) Frequencies that cannot be carried by phone lines are present in the alleged conversation.

2) There is little or no reverb in the noise that is alleged to be conversation compared to the 100% reverb sound that should be expected to be picked up by a telephone receiver mouthpiece aimed at a wall in kitchen rather than aimed towards the people who were speaking.  In addition, the off-hook phone speculation has the telephone receiver microphone at a significant distance from the source of the sound, not close-mic'd.  Any conversation should have been swamped with reverb, but it was not.

3) The automatic gain control (AGC) often brought background noise up to an audible level.  Sounds very similar to the alleged conversation are present throughout the recording, especially during moments of silence in the actual conversation.

Given that a number of members of the so-called “crack team” of investigators had some scientific background (or at least took some science courses) and claim to be experts in technical areas, and given the grave but baseless accusations that were made, this particular exercise in Group Confirmation Bias is serious professional misconduct.

To make matters worse: To produce the show, a replicate of portions of the Ramsey home was constructed, but it apparently never occurred to these geniuses that they could actually test the acoustics of a recording of the alleged conversations in a nearly identical setting as that of the Ramsey kitchen.  In addition to having a child hit a dummy head with a Maglite flashlight, they could have also had this same child speaking towards a phone that was off-hook and could have recorded this over a real phone line with vintage 911 recording equipment.  Based upon my own testing of phones off-hook, it would have become immediately apparent that there is no way that the alleged conversation was actually conversation  over a phone line because the transmitted sounds would have been swamped with reverb and would have been dramatically low-pass filtered.

This case is unbelievably, and very sadly, full of gross incompetence and misconduct; this is but one example.

Print this item

  the golf bag story
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-25-2017, 11:53 AM - Forum: Disproving Myths - Replies (4)

from Steve Thomas' deposition - -  how myths get going

Thomas depo 34 - golf bag story"
Well, here it is - the "source" for the BORG myth (John denies he ever asked after his golf clubs and no one has stepped forward to testify against him - - and now we get to hear the story started when...
Q. Page 48, the first full paragraph. "John was overheard to ask someone quietly, 'Did you get my
golf bag?'" Did I read that correctly?

A. Yes.
Q. Who overheard him ask that question?
A. I believe that was either John or Barbara Fernie.
Q. Who did they overhear him ask that question to? Who was the someone?
A. They could not identify that party.
Q. And when did that statement, was it allegedly made?
A. The did you get my golf bag statement?
Q. Yeah.
A. I think in the days following the murder.
Q. Do you know how many days after the murder?
A. No.

... some days after the murder someone (either John or Barbara, Thomas isn't sure) was not being spoken to but overheard a conversation to someone who they can't identify and they heard John asking after his golf clubs.
That sure doesn't sound like documented fact to me - not at all.

Print this item

  Steve Thomas depo
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-25-2017, 11:41 AM - Forum: Polygraphs - No Replies

Q. Page 75 of your book. The second paragraph "The FBI would tell us that the disposal of the
body of JonBenet had the classic elements of a staged crime, complete with a Hollywoodized ransom
note." Was there any specific member of the FBI that you attribute that statement to?

A. The meeting in I believe it was August or September of 1997.
Q. Quantico?
A. In Quantico at a big, many, many people in the room.
Q. If I hear you throughout this testimony and it seems to me and from your book, the FBI was
heavily involved in this investigation from early on; wouldn't you agree?
A. They were very supportive of us and involved, yes.
Q. Yeah, I mean, they were heavily involved for a case that really was not a federal jurisdiction
case, a murder?
A. Arguably.
Q. I mean when I was out there saying, you know, I didn't think the FBI is objective because they've
been involved in this case to a significant amount, whether you agree or not with my objectivity
conclusion, I was right about the fact that the FBI had been significantly involved in the case, wasn't I?
A. For the record I don't agree with the objectivity conclusion but, yeah, they were significantly
involved in the case.
Q. It seems like from what you're telling me that they were of the mind that you were, that Patsy
Ramsey they thought was involved in the death of her daughter?
A. That certainly seemed to be my impression.
Q. So whether that was an objective decision by then I certainly was right to have some concerns
about whether or not they had formed such a conclusion before I submitted John or Patsy to the FBI
examination, wasn't I?
A. Well, twofold. One, I don't think they would have -- I don't think there was anything
inappropriate with their polygraph unit or that they would have conspired in any way with their
Q. I also comment to you the ruse interview that was attempted on Richard Jewell by the FBI might
be enlightening about FBI tactics, legal and illegal

Print this item

  BORG vision on Ramsey family history
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-25-2017, 11:21 AM - Forum: BORG theories and BORG people of note - Replies (2)

From Steve Thomas' depo in Wolf v Ramsey

Q. I didn't think it did. I mean, you know you all were looking to see if there was any pathology in
this family on either John Ramsey's part or Patsy Ramsey's part, right?

A. We did.
Q. And you didn't find any, did you?
A. What do you mean by pathology, Mr. Wood?
Q. Mr. Thomas, please, you know what pathology means.
MR. DIAMOND: Don't give him that tone of voice or I'm going to pick him up and walk him out of
MR. WOOD: If you want to pick him up and walk him out of here, if you think you're justified, do so.
MR. DIAMOND: Cut out the sarcasm. If you have a problem with his answer, move on to another
MR. WOOD: All right. May I ask my question without your interruption, please?
MR. DIAMOND: You may.
Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Mr. Thomas, please, do you, sir, not know what I mean when I asked you
whether there was any pathology on the part of John or Patsy Ramsey from a criminal investigation
A. I simply asked you to explain to me what you mean by pathology.
Q. As used by the people that discuss that very term in your investigation. You knew what they
meant, didn't you?
A. I don't think, to answer your question, that there was anything remarkable or outstanding as far as
what you're inquiring about. Although, Pitt and others would describe to us their concerns about the
beauty pageant world and child beauty pageants, et cetera, if that's what we're talking about as far as
family history.
Q. Drug use, illegal drug use would be pathology, child abuse would be pathology, domestic violence
would be pathology, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You didn't find anything about that with respect to this family, did you, sir, John and Patsy
A. Drug use, child abuse, or spousal abuse, not that I'm aware of.
Q. Anything along the lines of pathology that you believe you heard the investigation found, other
than Pitt and others you say commenting about beauty pageants?
A. No, there wasn't any sort of untoward history or certainly no criminal history that I was made
aware of.
Q. When you were in these presentations, either one or both, wasn't it discussed that the experts
hired by the Boulder Police Department did not believe that there was pathology?
A. I don't know to which experts you're referring.
Q. Well, Dr. Krugman, do you remember him?
A. Yeah, certainly. Dr. Krugman was the one who put forth the bed-wetting, toileting, and rage
Q. Ken Lanning of the FBI?
A. I remember Mr. Lanning from Quantico.
Q. What did Mr. Lanning say with respect to his expectation in a case like this in terms of whether
you would expect to find serious pathology or not?
A. I don't recall. I'll refresh myself at some point I hope with that report.

Print this item

  Steve Thomas on the garrote
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-25-2017, 11:08 AM - Forum: Cord ligature - Garrote - Replies (2)

Q. You would tell me, too, that if JonBenet Ramsey was alive when she was strangled and alive
when she was molested and that there is evidence of a struggle in her neck area, that if you assume
those facts to be true, that that would be inconsistent with staging of a crime, correct?

A. I don't agree with the premise. I agree with the expert Dr. Spitz' conclusion on that.
Q. I'm asking you, though, sir. You're talking about staging the crime. If JonBenet were struggling
to try to get the garrote loose, that certainly would be inconsistent with the parent staging a crime
thinking her child was dead, true?
A. Mr. Smit did present to the police department that theory.
Q. But I'm not asking about Mr. Smit with all due respect.
A. I'm trying to answer the question.
Q. I'm asking you about the concept itself. If the child is found to be struggling to get at the garrote,
that would be totally inconsistent with the idea of staging by a parent who thought the child was dead. I
mean, that's just one and one equals two, doesn't it, sir?
A. Two different concepts. I disagree. I think that, as I've have said, I think parents have killed
their children in a variety of ways.
Q. I'm talking about staging where you think your child is dead or your child is dead and you're trying
to stage a crime scene. After the fact that's staging, right, to make it look like something that it's not,
A. Staging, my understanding is just that, recreating or messing with a crime scene to divert
attention, making it appear something that it's not.
Q. Then if you've got a child that is trying to pull at the garrote, that would not be consistent at all
with the parent placing a garrote and tightening it around the child's neck to make it appear that the
child was strangled as part of staging a crime, would it, sir, can't you --
A. No.
Q. -- acknowledge that --
A. I'm not going to go along with that and agree to it.
Q. Why not?
A. I just don't agree with it.
Q. So Patsy Ramsey theoretically had JonBenet Ramsey there pulling at this garrote around her
neck, scratching at it and you still believe that the garrote would have been placed there by Patsy
Ramsey to stage the crime; is that what your testimony is?
A. If that's what you're telling me, I won't dispute that's what happened.
Q. Do you believe that is what happened?
A. No. I've offered a hypothesis that I believe was consistent with the evidence as I knew it, that
possibly what happened.
Q. Let me ask you something about the use of the word hypothesis. Where did you come up with
that word? You use it in almost every interview.
A. I don't know, in school somewhere.
Q. As it applies to your book?
A. No, you asked me where I learned the word hypothesis.
Q. Are you prepared to state as a fact, sir, that Patsy Ramsey murdered her daughter?
A. No, I'm prepared --
Q. Thank you.
A. -- to say, as I have in the past, that that's my belief.

Print this item