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 25 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 25 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
9 pg notes
Forum: Linda Wickman
Last Post: jameson245
06-18-2021, 05:31 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 477
Professor Matrix v steve ...
Forum: Nancy Krebs
Last Post: jameson245
06-18-2021, 04:50 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 346
Forum: December 26th
Last Post: jameson245
06-15-2021, 10:50 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 2,496
Jane Stobie interview
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
06-02-2021, 07:53 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 495
Jane Stobie interview
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
06-02-2021, 07:53 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 296
MOre on Don Foster
Forum: Discredited and discounted witnesses in this case
Last Post: jameson245
05-19-2021, 07:23 PM
» Replies: 13
» Views: 9,890
Barbara Reffner aka A Can...
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-16-2021, 02:43 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 477
from 2021 blog
Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2021, 05:19 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 732
I met Rol
Forum: Rol Hoverstock
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2021, 05:15 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 2,236
Melody and Luther Stanton...
Forum: Neighbors
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2021, 05:08 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 7,701

Posted by: jameson245 - 03-06-2017, 05:31 PM - Forum: Rol Hoverstock - No Replies

Rol Hoverstock, beloved minister and cyclist, dies in Boulder at 73
Holstock offered counsel to thousands, including family of JonBenét Ramsey
By Alex Burness
Staff Writer
Posted:   10/02/2015 08:08:12 PM MDT | Updated:   about a year ago

[Image: 20151002__03DCAROLw%7E1.jpg]
Father Rol Hoverstock, longtime minister at St. John's Episcopal Church in Boulder, conducting the Blessing of the Animals to honor St Francis in 2003. He died Thursday. (Cliff Grassmick / Staff photographer)

Father Rol Hoverstock, longtime minister at St. John's Episcopal Church in downtown Boulder, and former owner of the iconic University Hill bike shop The Spoke, died late Thursday night. He was 73.
According to friends, Hoverstock had battled illness for months, and was admitted to hospice earlier this week. He died with his wife, Bea, and children, Molly and Joe, beside him.
"This is extremely sad news for everyone who knew and loved Rol," said Susan Springer, St. John's Rector, in a statement to the congregation. "He was friend, confidante, priest, mentor and companion on the way."
In his church capacity, clergy members say, Hoverstock was an effective, fair-minded leader.
"He got things done without invoking people's dislike or anger or anything like that," said Richard Collins, St. John's member and University of Colorado law professor.
Hoverstock was not an iconoclast — his views were consistent with the doctrine of the church, friends say — but he was a calm, reassuring voice to all types of people seeking his wisdom.
"I think he was so respected because he was so respecting to other people," friend Ginny Pine said. "Very strong in his faith, but very open to everybody."
Among those who sought his counsel were John and Patsy Ramsey, parents of JonBenét.
Not long after JonBenét's body was found inside the Ramsey's 15th Street home Dec. 26, 1996, Hoverstock led family and friends who were there in the Lord's Prayer.

"That was something that was a challenge, certainly, to his early years at St. John's," university classmate and lifelong friend David Cass said. "The press attention was a strain."
Hoverstock never spoke to the media about the case.
Prior to becoming a leader at St. John's in the mid-90s, he was a kid living outside Buffalo, N.Y., dreaming of going west for college. So, he enrolled at the University of Colorado.
"I think he just liked the idea of getting away from New York, and he loved it here," Cass said.
After college, he served in the AmeriCorps VISTA program in Florida. It was one of only two stints outside Colorado in his adult life; the other was to study in a South Dakota ministry.
One day in Florida, Cass was ushering a wedding, and he invited Hoverstock. There, Hoverstock met Bea, and the two remained together until his death.
In the late 70s and early 80s, Hoverstock co-owned The Spoke bicycle shop inside the University Hill space now occupied by Buchanan's coffeeshop.
Doug Emerson, who now owns University Bicycles on Pearl St., said Hoverstock would lead his employees on bike rides after close. The store, he said, was ahead of its time.
"This was back when most of the country was used to Schwinn stores," Emerson said. "The Spoke was a real pro's shop — Italian bicycles, British bicycles. He had the kind of stuff you didn't find in the U.S."
In whatever he did, loved ones say, he carried a strong belief in humanity, and always seemed to know the right thing to say, in any situation.
"He was an awesome man," friend Jim Bliley said. "He was loving, caring, and, in his own way, charismatic.
"He attracted people because of his love and humility as a person. He could always find the soft spot."
No memorial service has been announced yet, but St. John's has said it will update the community if and when a public one is scheduled.

Print this item

  new testing?
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-05-2017, 05:03 PM - Forum: DNA - more technical discussions - Replies (1)

(CNN)Authorities in Colorado are going to use new DNA testing technology in one of America's most famous unsolved murder cases.

But don't expect it to lead to an arrest in the 20-year-old JonBenet Ramsey case in the near future.
The Colorado Bureau of investigation is opening a new DNA testing facility in 2017 and will next year use new technology in the JonBenet case -- as well as other cold cases.

Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett told CNN's Jean Casarez that he expects the DNA testing results will be "not significant and not a big deal."
Garnett stressed the JonBenet investigation is much more than a DNA case. Any new results will only be significant if they can be matched with other evidence authorities already have.

Read More
As he told CNN affiliate KMGH: "To ever have a prosecutable case, we have to have several different pieces of evidence come together."

Garnett told CNN that his office along with the Boulder Police Department meets periodically with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation as they continue to keep up with the changes in DNA testing.
The district attorney said he isn't sure whether they will use DNA from pieces of evidence or only re-test results they already have.
Boulder police officials said they will only have comments if there is new information to be announced.
JonBenet's body was found in on December 26, 1996, in the basement of the family's home in Boulder, hours after her mother discovered a handwritten, three-page ransom note.
JonBenet was found with a garrote fashioned out of rope embedded deep into her neck. The same rope was around one of her wrists. At the end of the garrote was a broken paintbrush that appeared to be from the art set of her mother Patsy Ramsey.
Her father, John Ramsey, said he removed duct tape from her mouth when he found his 6-year-old girl.
Two years after JonBenet's killing, with the case not close to being solved, Boulder's district attorney convened a grand jury in 1998.
At the conclusion of the proceedings 13 months later, then-Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter convened a press conference broadcast live nationwide.
[Image: 131024130849-jonbenet-ramsey-medium-plus-169.jpg]

In 2008 there were new forensic findings. Unknown male DNA had been found on the waistband of JonBenet's long johns. Earlier tests had found unknown male DNA on the crotch of her underwear. The two samples matched or "were consistent" with each other, according to testing done by forensic scientist Dr. Angela Williamson.

Print this item

  information gleaned from other crimes
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-05-2017, 03:46 PM - Forum: Head Injury - No Replies

Charise Walker was 5 years old when she was murdered by a neighbor.

"...members of the search party were in the woods, searching with flashlights. They spotted her clothes first, "hanging from a briar about twenty or thirty feet" from a, place where "the leaves and all [on the ground] had been torn up.

William Sharpe described her location:
She was kinda in a thicket like, with briars and bushes. . . . It looked like her clothes were thrown in and she was thrown in behind them.
At this point, she was still alive, although horribly injured. Danny Watts testified:
When I got to the woods there was about four or five men standing around the little girl. I got between them -- I got on my knees where she was at. She had blood running out of both ears. She had blood running out of her mouth and nose. She had been beaten up around the head. Her leg had a bone sticking up -- not sticking through the skin but it was sticking up, you could see a big lump there.
. . . I tried to keep the blood from running out of her ears. I kept wiping it. It was coming out of her mouth and nose. I kept wiping her, and the paramedics finally arrived.
Charise was taken to the hospital, but she died from her injuries. Dr. Larry Howard performed the autopsy. Her anus and her vagina had been penetrated by something consistent in size and shape with a male sex organ. Both the vaginal and the anal tracts were lacerated internally. Her leg was broken, and her face bore a pattern lesion that was "highly suggestive" of having been caused by a belt buckle. Her whole head had been subjected to "severe impact injury and her skull was fractured in two places." Dr. Howard testified that Charise died as the result of injuries to the head.
Pruitt was interrogated by law enforcement officers after his arrest. He admitted taking the girl into the woods and attempting to have sex with her but claimed that because of her small size he was unsuccessful. He admitted hitting her with his fist when she began screaming"

Note the amount of bleeding from this head injury.

Print this item

  Francine Knox killed 7 month old nephew
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-05-2017, 02:26 PM - Forum: Stun Gun - No Replies

A Baby's Stun-Gun Death -  May 28, 1994

PEORIA, Ill., Nov. 24— A woman was charged on Wednesday with killing her 7-month-old nephew with an electric stun gun in an effort to stop his crying. The accused, Francine Knox, 37, who was also the foster mother of the baby, Brandon Jordan, repeatedly used the stun gun "to silence the child as he cried through the night," the authorities said. Stun guns, box-shaped weapons with two small metal prongs that typically transmit a 50,000-volt charge, are used by some police departments to temporarily disable violent suspects.


Francine Knox, 37, was charged with manslaughter Wednesday in the May 28 death of Brandon Jordan.

Knox was not charged immediately because authorities were investigating other cases and the effects of stun guns on children, officials said.

The infant was the son of Knox's brother, Anthony Jordan Jr., and Carolyn Hollins. After the couple lost custody of their four children, Brandon was placed in Knox's care.


Foster Mother Gets 14 Years in Stun-Gun Death of Nephew
PEORIA, Ill. - A Peoria woman convicted of electrocuting her baby nephew
with a stun gun because he would not stop crying has been sentenced to 14 years
in prison.
Francine Knox, 38, was convicted in June of involuntary manslaughter,
aggravated battery of a child and child endangerment in the May 28, 1994, death
of 7-month-old Brandon Jordan.
She was the boy's foster mother. He was born to a cocaine-addicted
sister-in-law of Knox.
Prosecutors said Knox first tried to quiet Brandon with cough and cold
medicine. When that did not work, Knox, irritated and sleep-deprived, stunned
the boy as he sat in a car seat in her bedroom about 2 a.m., prosecutors said.
Defense lawyers claimed any of five other people in the home at the time
could have killed the boy, and claimed police failed to properly investigate
the possibility.
Knox said at Wednesday's sentencing that she is "proud of my children and
everything I've done with them." She named several, including her daughter and
about 10 foster children she has cared for over the years. She did not mention

Print this item

  Who are the BORG?
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-05-2017, 08:50 AM - Forum: We Are the BORG. - Replies (3)

In Star Trek, they are a group known for taking over other thriving communities.  Individuals in those communities are forced to be "assimilated" into the BORG, they are implanted with nanoprobes and become drones who are not allowed to question or debate their host. 

From Wikipedia:

Borg Collective[edit]

Also referred to as the "hive mind" or "collective consciousness", the Borg Collective is a civilization with a group mind. Each Borg individual, or drone, is linked to the collective by a sophisticated subspace network that ensures each member is given constant supervision and guidance. The collective is broadcast over a subspace domain similar to that used by the transporter. Being part of the collective offers significant biomedical advantages to the individual drones. The mental energy of the group consciousness can help an injured or damaged drone heal or regenerate damaged body parts or technology. The collective consciousness not only gives them the ability to "share the same thoughts", but also to adapt with great speed to defensive tactics used against them.

In the Ramsey saga, it isn't much different.  There started out being different theories and different groups were forming, one, the Ramsey supports, was a very small group.  Lots were on the fence and then there were the ones who just believed it had to be the parents.  They started out being just a group with an opinion, but it wasn't long before that became an agenda.  Other posters were more than encouraged to adopt that theory - and if they did not they were criticized, shunned, attacked themselves and sometimes just banned from forums.

 The "hive mind" or "collective consciousness", the Borg Collectiv group mind is found in the Ramsey ynch mob.

 Each Borg individual, or drone, is linked to the collective by a sophisticated subspace network called the Internet.  Each member is given constant supervision and guidance, told where to post, where not to post, where to read, where not to read.  WHAT not to read.  WHO not to read.

Most members of the Ramsey BORG, for example, have been advised not to read pro-Ramsey books as they might get confused.  They can't read this forum because they may get educated and lose their BORG footing.

Being part of the BORG offers significant emotional advantages to the individual drones. The mental energy of the group consciousness can help an injured or damaged drone heal by assuring them they are right. (Steve Thomas is a good man, he is right and he believes.  or Hell, CBS even showed Burke hitting her in the head!)

The collective consciousness not only gives them the ability to "share the same thoughts", but also to adapt with great speed to defensive tactics used against them.  Like being in a gang (When you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way.)  they join forces and intentionally try to "take down" those who wouldn't be assimilated.  (Those who read everything and made educated efforts to find the truth.)

Lou Smit recognized the online (and BOULDER) lynch mob as a BORG type civilization - - he shared that with me and I adopted the term.

That is who BORG is.

Print this item

  McKinley on the EDGE before GJ ended
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-04-2017, 07:51 PM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - No Replies

October 12, 1999, Tuesday
Transcript # 101201cb.260
SECTION: News; Domestic
LENGTH: 2270 words
HEADLINE: The JonBenet Ramsey Grand Jury
GUESTS: Carol McKinley; Craig Silverman; Jeralyn Merritt
BYLINE: Paula Zahn
PAULA ZAHN, HOST: I'm Paula Zahn. This is THE EDGE.
Tonight: Late word out of Boulder, Colorado, tonight is that the grand jury will meet one more time. Will they finally tell us who they think may have killed JonBenet Ramsey?
But first FOX NEWS live.
ZAHN: Tonight on THE EDGE: O.J. Simpson is back.
going into a rehab." She got mad. She just got in her car. Now she's loaded out of her mind in her Mustang, driving around town. She needs to be stopped.
ZAHN: So what's he up to now? We'll have a report. Plus, a FOX exclusive. If Vermont authorities catch this woman, they'll take her son away. Why? They say she's not qualified to home school him. She says she is, claiming
Page 1
the schools are bad. Tonight we'll hear both sides, and you can be the judge. And later, an EDGE update. We told community. Well, he did, but not in person. And we're going to show you what happened.
All that's next on THE EDGE.
Leading THE EDGE tonight, the clock is ticking and time is running out for the grand jury investigating the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Hundreds of members of the press are camped outside the courtroom tonight. One of them is FOX NEWS's Carol McKinley.
CAROL MCKINLEY, FOX NEWS: Hello there, Paula.
It's "hurry up and wait" again for this grand jury. We just found out that this grand jury is coming back tomorrow. So on Wednesday of eight women and four men. We don't know what they're doing inside. We can only guess, but I do know that Dr. Henry Lee is very skeptical of the outcome. I talked with him on Monday, and he says the longer the grand jury meets with no additional evidence, it's like they're beating a dead horse.
(voice-over): Grand jurors found themselves in the center of a media storm when they arrived at the Boulder County Justice Center Tuesday morning. The eight women and four men stayed behind closed doors most of the day, possibly deliberating, leaving the media to wonder outside.
People across the country are enthralled with the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, but most Boulder-ites are tired of
BOULDER RESIDENT: I have no opinion. Thanks.
BOULDER RESIDENT: Care not to talk about it at all.
MCKINLEY: There were some residents willing to give an opinion.
BOULDER RESIDENT: The cops blew it.
BOULDER RESIDENT: Somebody reported a murder and they came in my house, I would be leaving in handcuffs, not after coffee, not after a drink, not after a week of tranquilizers.
BOULDER RESIDENT: This has gone on too long, and I don't think that much is going to happen with it, so...
MCKINLEY: Rumors were flying John and Patsy Ramsey were in Boulder Tuesday, but FOX NEWS has confirmed the couple is in Georgia waiting to hear news from the grand jury, just like everyone else. This panel has just over a week left in its term, but it probably won't need that much time. A decision is expected this week.
CRAIG SILVERMAN, FORMER DEPUTY DA OF BOULDER: You have to expect these grand jurors want justice for JonBenet.
MCKINLEY: Legal analysts say it's anyone's guess what the grand jury will decide.
SILVERMAN: If they're like the rest of the country, they probably have a diversity of opinions. But remember, it only takes nine out of twelve finding probable cause to indict.
Page 2
The JonBenet Ramsey Grand Jury FOX NEWS NETWORK October 12, 1999, Tuesday
MCKINLEY: Former Boulder detective Steve Thomas (ph) has said publicly the police had probable cause early on in this case. Investigative sources tell FOX NEWS the grand jury has been stuck somewhere between probable cause and reasonable doubt and that DA Alex Hunter doesn't want to move forward unless he has reasonable doubt.
I talked to some people who saw Alex Hunter in his office today pacing back and forth. They say he looks very tense. I called the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Paula, and these are the people who would go out and make a public arrest, if there's going to be one. They tell me they haven't heard from the Boulder police in months. In fact, they don't even know where John and Patsy Ramsey are.
We're live in Boulder. I'm Carol McKinley, FOX NEWS.
ZAHN: Well, that certainly wouldn't suggest an imminent arrest, would it.
MCKINLEY: No, it wouldn't. You know, it could be one of two things, Paula. It could mean that there's been an agreement for the Ramseys to be flown out here in a private jet and these things will be done in private, or it could mean there's not going to be any kind of indictment at all. If the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's out of the loop, it's pretty concerning.
ZAHN: Your sources have told you that the grand jury is hung up on probable cause or reasonable doubt. Do we have any idea what the specific evidence is that they're troubled by at the moment?
MCKINLEY: The specific evidence is this DNA, which points to no one, we keep hearing about. They found it in JonBenet's underwear. It's mixed with her own blood. They've gone out and tested hundreds of people to find the owner of that DNA. So far, no one's turned up. Prosecutors have tried to tell this grand jury, "Let's get past the DNA. Look at what we do have, a ransom note two and a half pages, plus three only -- only three known people who were in the house that night." But this DNA keeps rearing its ugly head, and this could be what's holding the grand jury up.
ZAHN: And you mentioned, Carol, that you had had a conversation with forensics expert Henry Lee, and he is on the record said how difficult it is for this grand jury to come up with any kind of verdict, based on the lack of evidence and/or witnesses. Is that also something that you hear that troubles the grand jury?
MCKINLEY: Well, I believe they have enough witnesses and they have Ramseys to help them out. I really think that Henry Lee is still hanging onto that DNA that doesn't point to anyone. Remember his history with the O.J. Simpson CASE. But Henry Lee's just another guy. It doesn't mean that that's what the grand jury thinks. We're just going to have to wait.
ZAHN: All right, Carol McKinley, thanks so much for that update.
Joining me now to discuss the investigation is Craig Silverman, a former chief deputy district attorney of Boulder, and criminal defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt.
Thank you both for joining us.
ZAHN: Thanks. Hello.
So Craig, what is your assessment of what the grand jury is dealing with at the moment?
SILVERMAN: Well, they're dealing with Alex Hunter. And let me correct you. I worked as a chief deputy in Denver, not in Boulder. I'm not sure I would have worked for Alex Hunter. He has a very unusual prosecutorial style.
Page 3
The JonBenet Ramsey Grand Jury FOX NEWS NETWORK October 12, 1999, Tuesday
He is by far the most liberal and probably timid prosecutor in all of Colorado. And I wouldn't be surprised if he's trying to persuade this grand jury not to indict.
But you know, the law is the law, and the law says that if there's probable cause, the grand jury is supposed to indict. Yet Alex Hunter may be trying to dissuade them from that, arguing "Hey, if there's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, don't stick me with an indictment because then it would cause problems for me."
ZAHN: Jeralyn, would that be the right way to go for Alex Hunter, or is that not a legitimate stance to have?
MERRITT: I'm not sure that I agree with that assessment. First of all, it's true that the only thing the grand jury needs to indict is probable cause. However, the canons of ethics for prosecutors require that a case not be filed unless the prosecutor has a good-faith belief that he or she can prove that case by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, in this instance, I believe that the DAs are trying mightily to get this grand jury to indict, but that something is stopping this grand jury. I agree with Carol McKinley that I believe it's the DNA. I believe it's the science. Henry Lee has also said that you need four things to make a good prosecution. You need a good crime scene, you need eyewitnesses, you need major pieces of physical evidence, and you need luck. He said, "In this case, we don't have any of those." So there may well not be an indictment.
ZAHN: Craig?
SILVERMAN: Who brought in Henry Lee? It was Alex Hunter. Alex Hunter, in his wisdom, chose to bring in Barry Scheck and Henry Lee, two incredibly smart people who had just been the most responsible for gaining O.J. Simpson an acquittal. That was their claim to fame. You know...
MERRITT: But they weren't...
SILVERMAN: ... Barry Scheck...
MERRITT: They weren't responsible...
SILVERMAN: Barry Scheck is a very...
MERRITT: ... for the crime scene in this case.
SILVERMAN: No, but it's highly predictable that if Henry Lee found a cockroach in the spaghetti in the O.J. Simpson case, he was going to find problems with this plate of pasta. We all knew the crime scene was compromised in this matter. Alex Hunter...
ZAHN: Let's talk about...
SILVERMAN: ... chose...
ZAHN: ... that for a moment, Craig...
ZAHN: ... before you go any further. Just how compromised was it? We know, in fact, that the police allowed for Mr. Ramsey to taint the scene when he went and located his daughter himself.
SILVERMAN: Absolutely. And you know, he's the one who brought up his daughter. He's the one who handled his daughter. This stray DNA, God only knows where it may have come from. But aside and apart from the problems in the case, you have a ransom note which was an obvious indication of staging. And you just go back to common
Page 4
The JonBenet Ramsey Grand Jury FOX NEWS NETWORK October 12, 1999, Tuesday
sense and the utter preposterous scenario that a stranger, an intruder, would come into that house, do the things he did to JonBenet and then sit down and write the "War and Peace" of ransom notes. It just doesn't make sense.
MERRITT: But Craig, common sense does not substitute for science. And in order for you to have some scientific evidence, you're going to have to have evidence that's properly collected at the crime scene. It must be properly stored, properly tested. Otherwise you can't trust the integrity of the results.
We also don't know that anyone has made a determination for the -- even for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, as to who wrote that ransom note. Without knowing who wrote the ransom note, it's pretty hard to figure out who is responsible for the death of this child.
ZAHN: But isn't it true that the Colorado Bureau of Investigation indicated that Patsy Ramsey very likely wrote that note?
MERRITT: I believe...
ZAHN: I thought that was the conclusion CBI drew.
MERRITT: I think their conclusion was that there are "indications" that Patsy Ramsey may have written the note, which is the lowest run on the handwriting totem pole.
ZAHN: All right, Jeralyn...
SILVERMAN: Right, but...
ZAHN: ... Craig, if you would, stand by. We're going to take a short break and continue our conversation.
And what do you think of the JonBenet Ramsey murder case? Will you an email or call us toll-free with your comments.
We'll be right back.
ZAHN: And it's time to talk more about the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation. Craig Silverman and Jeralyn Merritt are back.
Jeralyn, you mentioned this note that CBI indicated Patsy Ramsey might have written. Do you think it's a compelling piece of evidence?
MERRITT: I think if there was strong evidence that she wrote the note, it would be a compelling piece of evidence because I think it's obvious that whoever wrote the note was somehow involved in the death of this child. But I really believe that handwriting evidence is not science, to begin with. It's problematic when you try and get it introduced at trial. For example, in the Oklahoma City bombing case, the federal judge would not even allow the government's expert to give an opinion as to who wrote certain documents. So I think that the handwriting by itself is not going to be enough in this case.
ZAHN: And do you think that's something, Craig, that's giving the grand jury a problem?
SILVERMAN: No, I don't think so. I think handwriting is very compelling evidence. I have a person on death row
Page 5
The JonBenet Ramsey Grand Jury FOX NEWS NETWORK October 12, 1999, Tuesday
who I put there partially as a result of handwriting analysis. Your viewers can attest to the fact that they can identify relatives' handwriting. The ransom note is key. The whole scene was staged. This was not what the killer small foreign faction. Who would want to do that but for someone disguising a killing in the family?
MERRITT: But Craig, if it was an intruder and this killing does have earmarks of being a violent, brutal, planned murder, perhaps done for revenge, then that person would have tried to obscure their handwriting, as well.
SILVERMAN: You know, revenge against who? You know, they said they were a "small foreign faction." The FBI came, and you would think they would be concerned. Mr. Ramsey's business was associated with Lockheed-Martin. If there was a true international threat, I doubt the FBI would have walked away so fast. They understood what it was. This was, as so often is the case, a killing that most probably occurred within the family.
ZAHN: OK, thanks so much. We got to move on now.

Print this item

  the White letters
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-04-2017, 07:14 PM - Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White - Replies (6)

The Whites' First Letter-Jan. 1998
As witnesses in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, we are reluctant to express our views regarding the investigation. At this time, however, we feel compelled to address matters which we feel to be of great importance.
There is a widely held perception that the investigation has been plagued by intense news media coverage and the improper conduct of the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney.
There can be no question that the wide circulation of facts, evidence, and opinions has had a debilitating effect on the investigation. Equally damaging, however, have been public statements made by officials which, because of their nature and discontinuity, have created confusion and anxiety not only for the public but also for law enforcement personnel and witnesses. It must be clear at this point that the extraordinary circumstances of this crime and its investigation do not lend themselves to discussion or debate in a public forum. Doing so will only serve to jeopardize the civil rights of involved parties, reduce the willingness of witnesses to cooperate, and make the task of law enforcement agencies investigating the case more difficult.
Public officials who contemplate the release of information concerning the case or who desire to publicly express their opinions must be mindful of these risks. Such statements and the release of information should only serve the goals of furthering the investigation or protecting the public. There are simply no other valid reasons for making information regarding the investigation available to the public. It is likely that few, if any, statements of fact or opinion made by public officials concerning the Ramsey investigation have met this standard. For this case to proceed in a positive manner it will be necessary to do all that is practically possible to integrate the activities of a prosecutor and police investigators and shield their investigation from public view until such time when an arrest is made.
As witnesses, we have developed confidence and trust in Boulder Police Department investigators. While we recognize that errors have been made in the investigation, we feel strongly that these officers and their leadership are committed both personally and professionally to assembling a valid case which will lead to an arrest and conviction. Furthermore, we are greatly encouraged by their addition of competent legal counsel who are aiding their investigation.
We have not, on the other hand, developed such sentiments toward the Boulder County District Attorney. On the contrary, we feel that the Boulder County District Attorney has not acted in a manner consistent with an agency which must work with police investigators and witnesses in a positive and professional manner. Our sentiments toward the Boulder County District Attorney are based on our personal experiences which have been augmented by the following considerations:
There are various relationships between the Boulder County District Attorney and members of the Boulder and Denver legal communities which may have impaired the objectivity of the Boulder County District Attorney with respect to a case brought before it by the Boulder Police Department.
The Boulder County District Attorney under the leadership of District Attorney Alex Hunter has been criticized in the past for not being an aggressive prosecutor of homicide cases.
There appears to be an atmosphere of distrust and non-cooperation between the Boulder County District Attorney and the Boulder Police Department regarding the investigation. This relationship appears to be irreparably damaged with respect to the Ramsey case.
There is a strong impression that the Boulder County District Attorney has acted improperly by sharing evidence and other information with attorneys and other parties not officially involved in the investigation.
There is a strong impression that Alex Hunter and members of his staff have acted inappropriately by giving their opinions and information regarding the investigation to various news media organizations. This impression has been strengthened recently by the statements made by District Attorney Alex Hunter appearing in the Jan. 19, 1998, issue of New Yorker magazine. His comments regarding the police investigation are mean-spirited and entirely devoid of any constructive aspect. We feel that his decision to state publicly these opinions regarding an on-going homicide investigation clearly defines his poor judgment and wanton disregard for all parties involved in this investigation and for the criminal justice system. The fact that he made some of these statements five months ago, as has been recently suggested, does nothing to make them less inexcusable. What public service did Mr. Hunter envision when he made such statements and revealed details of the investigation over a period of five months to a noted journalist who has publicly announced his intention to write a book about the investigation?
These considerations cannot be ignored in an attempt to understand the present status of the investigation or in anticipating its future course. At a minimum, these considerations have created the strong appearance of impropriety, professional incompetence and a lack of objectivity. Additionally, the suit against Alex Hunter brought by Darnay Hoffman, regardless of its merit, has reinforced this appearance in the public consciousness. In this context, the following questions must be asked:
Is the Boulder County District Attorney capable of inspiring the confidence and trust of police investigators and relevant witnesses in order that a case may be developed in such a manner as to maximize the likelihood of an arrest?
Is the Boulder County District Attorney capable of objectively and professionally evaluating the merit of a case presented to it by the Boulder Police Department?
Is the Boulder County District Attorney capable of aggressively and professionally coordinating and conducting a prosecution or other court proceedings in a manner most likely to result in an indictment and a successful prosecution?
On Dec. 18, 1997, we met with Gov. Roy Romer to urge that he intervene immediately to remove the Boulder County District Attorney from any involvement in the case and appoint an independent special prosecutor. On Jan. 7, 1998, we were notified by Governor Romer that he had decided not to intervene. In a Jan. 12, 1998, letter from Gov. Romer, we were formally notified of his decision. In this letter, he stated that he had "decided not to intervene in this matter at this time" and indicated that his decision was "based in part on the fact that the police investigation is not yet complete and the case has not been referred to the district attorney for prosecution." While he did not specify what other factors were considered in arriving at his decision, we can only hope that they derive from sound recommendations received from knowledgeable and unbiased officials involved in the investigation who are in possession of compelling facts which are not available to us.
If Gov. Romer is inclined to intervene but feels that such a decision would now be untimely, we would submit that the passage of time cannot be expected to reduce the obstacles facing the investigation and the prosecution. In their effort to follow evidence, construct a valid case, and to maintain the confidence of witnesses, the Boulder Police Department needs the immediate participation and guidance of a supportive and competent prosecutor.
The idea of waiting for the case to be "completed" and to be "referred" to the Boulder County District Attorney presupposes that the negative effect of the presence of the Boulder County District Attorney in the investigation will somehow be mitigated in the future. It ignores the practical problem that the Boulder Police Department and relevant witnesses have no confidence in the ability of the Boulder County District Attorney to prudently handle evidence and to professionally and impartially consider a case presented to it.
Furthermore, it is unreasonable for Governor Romer or for any of us to rely on civic and law enforcement officials who offer assurances that they can somehow eliminate the differences between the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney in an effort to move the case forward purposefully when they have so amply demonstrated their inability to do so. Nor should we or Gov. Romer rely on the Hoffman suit or similar actions that may follow. It appears that these will only result in meaningless debate over semantics and, at best, lead to protracted and contentious court proceedings and investigations. As for the concern that the removal of the Boulder County District Attorney from the Ramsey case will jeopardize the future relationship between the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney on other cases, it is more likely that the continued presence of the Boulder County District Attorney in the Ramsey case will only serve to lessen the prospects of a healthy future relationship.
We again respectfully request that Gov. Romer intervene in this matter and level the playing field in Boulder. The Boulder Police Department has but one goal in this matter which is to bring the person or persons who have committed crimes to justice. The police are handicapped by those who are acting to obfuscate and confuse the facts of this investigation. At this point there is little to be gained by speculating about who these people are and what reasons they may have for doing so. That can be left for another day. We request that Governor Romer immediately intervene and remove the Boulder County District Attorney and its offices from the investigation and appoint a competent and completely independent special prosecutor who is capable of establishing and maintaining the confidence and the trust of the Boulder Police Department, witnesses in the case, and the public whereby to maximize the likelihood of a successful conclusion to this case. Regardless of the nature of his decision, we request that Governor Romer announce it publicly and that he make clear his reasoning. We ask the people of Colorado and especially the people of Boulder to join us in this respect.
The investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey has profoundly hurt many innocent people. It has caused the Boulder community and many of its leaders and institutions to be degraded. It has engendered contempt for Boulder`s law enforcement agencies and criminal justice system. Governor Romer, with the support of the people of Boulder, must attend to these matters now.

Print this item

  krugman interview
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-04-2017, 06:01 PM - Forum: The Autopsy - Replies (1)

Burden of Proof - Monday, December 29, 1997

Krugman interviewed on Burden of Proof

Also former FBI profiler Van Zandt

December 29, 1997

This transcript just covers the Ramsey case section

COSSACK: Doctor, you are a leading child abuse expert. The police brought to you the autopsy report of JonBenet Ramsey for your opinion. You concluded that this was not perhaps a case of sex abuse, but perhaps a case of child abuse, why?
KRUGMAN: Well first Roger child abuse to me includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, and a variety of other forms of abuse and neglect. What I said at the time was that I couldn't say with certainty that this was a sexual abuse case. It clearly was a physical abuse case. And it was a physical abuse case because of the massive brain injury, the skull fracture, and because of the strangulation.
COSSACK: Why were you not able to say with certainty about a sexual abuse case, Doctor?
KRUGMAN: Well for one to know with certainty that sexual abuse occurred that night I think one would need some forensic evidence that I'm not sure is available. I haven't seen any certainly to make me feel that way. There are a lot of people around the country who have from afar or even from looking at the autopsy said they are certain she was sexually abused. The problem is that children who are sexually abused may or may not have any physical findings. The reason I wouldn't say with certainty that she was or wasn't is because at least 40% of children have absolutely no physical findings and they are being sexually abused; whereas children who have some physical findings around the genital area, may have been physically abused or may have been sexually abused. And I saw nothing to let me know with certainty that sexual abuse was here in this particular case that particular night.
COSSACK: Doctor you made a statement which almost made it sound though that you believe that the sexual abuse was a coverup to perhaps hide the amount of physical abuse. Do you have a feel on that area?
KRUGMAN: In my view that's certainly a possibility.
COSSACK: Well why would you suggest that it is a coverup? I mean, what is there to suggest sexual abuse being a coverup to perhaps hide physical abuse?
KRUGMAN: Well let's again be careful of our terms. There was a lesion an abrasion on the hymen. That may have been part of sexual abuse. That may have been part of physical abuse. That may have been part of a coverup. I just don't see enough things in the autopsy to say with certainty what happened. And I think the main problem we have with this case and in this country is that we are using the wrong system that is the criminal justice system to try to deal retrospectively with a problem like child abuse, which is an enormous public health problem and has killed over 2,000 other children anonymously since JonBenet died.
COSSACK: Doctor what I am and I agree with you, of course, but what I am particularly interested in is your use of the word coverup here as some sort of way of perhaps hiding something. And I'm trying to get you to explain that to me.
KRUGMAN: Well I'm not sure I can explain it to you Roger other than to say that when you see an injury someplace on a child there can be a lot of different reasons why that injury is there. And if you are involved in an investigation or you are trying to work out diagnostic possibilities you need to think of them all and then you need to have other information that helps you sort out those possibilities.
COSSACK: Alright. Clint, working for the FBI, and we have heard the doctor explain leading abuse expert explain that perhaps there were some things that maybe we use word coverup maybe not. Where does that lead you? I mean, in terms of looking possible suspects, where does that lead you?
CLINT VAN ZANDT: Well you know one of the things you have to look at Roger is we have to differentiate between a pedophile and someone who would abduct a child for ransom two different breeds of cat. We don't have a cross-fertilization, psychologically, between these two different types of individuals. We also look at, from an investigative standpoint, usually it is 12 to one. When we look at the number of children that are killed around JonBenet's age, older, younger, 12 to one it is usually someone it is usually a parent or somebody within the home; somebody who has access to the home, as opposed on an unknown offender. Now, statistics don't make you guilty of anything but those have to play in and have to be part of this. I think perhaps what the doctor may be suggesting and obviously he speaks for himself is we saw a coverup as far as I'm concerned, with the note. I don't think that note was written by someone who actually expected to kidnap JonBenet, carry her away, and get $118,000 ransom. We see other things that were done to the victim the night of the crime, which, to me, suggests a coverup which to me suggests staging, someone trying to make a crime look like something it's not. So perhaps the staging that I see behaviorally might go along with the coverup that he is speaking about medically.
COSSACK: If I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is that perhaps this child was murdered before that note was written that perhaps that event occurred, and then somebody the murderer, perhaps wrote and planned this elaborate hoax to throw people off. Is that what you are suggesting?
VAN ZANDT: That's what I'm suggesting Roger. The idea that an unknown offender, at least two, perhaps three people would break into the house that night knowing what they were going to do but not have written that note in advance then would be able to find a pad of paper, start to write the note, tear it up, write another 3 page note, take the time to do that. In the note, one reference there is a dozen references we can talk about. One speaks that if the authorities are notified, the victim will be beheaded. That to me suggests that the victim was already dead that the killer already knew the type of ligature damage that was done to the victim and that translated into the note suggesting the victim might be beheaded.
COSSACK: Does that suggest an accidental death?
VAN ZANDT: My opinion Roger is that there was an accidental death that took place on the victim, in the house; and that there was a subsequent cover-up, physical damage, and other things that took place injuries to the victim. So we had an initial accidental injury. We had the death of a victim, and then we had to coverup by subject or subjects whoever were involved in this.
COSSACK: Alright. does that suggest and I want to eliminate, for the purposes of this conversation, the Ramseys? Does it suggest someone who the Ramseys knew? Does it suggest someone within the family?
VAN ZANDT: It suggests someone who knew the house, who knew the family, who knew enough about Mr. Ramsey to make some very interesting remarks in the note. It suggests that the killers either came from that house or had access to that house on a fairly common basis, as opposed to an unknown offender. We can't rule that out because we just don't know. But if we look at statistics, statistically the chances are greater from a behavioral standpoint that the killers either came from that house or had access to the house, as opposed to this unknown offender who just happened to come upon the Ramsey household and carried this off.
COSSACK: Suspicions, theories and media speculations. more than a year has passed since the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, and we have little more than that. There's no trial, there's no suspect in custody, and there's no indictment from a grand jury. Lisa, you've been covering this case from the beginning. There have been allegations of serious police mistakes right from the beginning. List them. what are the alleged police mistakes?
RYCKMAN: Well Roger I think the first and foremost mistake was that they did not secure the crime scene. And that opinion as being their biggest mistake comes from a lot of experts in homicide investigations, not from myself, of course. And as a result of that failure to secure the crime scene, there were a lot of people tramping through the crime scene, possibly contaminating or eliminating evidence. Another mistake that they made subsequent to leaving this crime scene unsecured was to ask John Ramsey, JonBenet's father, to go search his house again, and they allowed him to do this alone that is without a police escort he took two friends with him. This is when he found his daughter's body in the basement room. Of course, his instinct as a father was to go to the child to pick her up, to take the duct tape off her mouth to see if she was still breathing, and then to carry her upstairs out of the dark basement and into the light of the upstairs house and into the arms of her family. Of course, I'm sure your experts can speak to this. All kinds of evidence may have been lost or contaminated to the point where it would make a conviction in this case it would jeopardize it quite possibly.
COSSACK: Lisa, in defense of the police, at that time when they allowed Mr. Ramsey to do all those things they were treating this case as a kidnap rather than a murder. Isn't that true?
RYCKMAN: Well, I think yes of course that was true. But I think that what most police at least outside police investigators say is that it doesn't matter. Kidnapping, murder hey, whatever this is, it's crime, and this was the scene and it should be secured.
COSSACK: Alright. David Schertler, former federal prosecutor, let me throw this case file in your lap now. Where do we go with this?
SCHERTLER: That's the $40,000 dollar question. I think Lisa is absolutely right. This whole you know you have an upstairs bedroom where the child is kidnapped from. You have a ransom note on the first floor. The whole house should have been a crime scene. It should have been roped off. Everybody should have gotten out of the house. And what you would've liked is to have gotten important scientific evidence that could have solved the crime or told you who the killer was. Without that in the case with no witnesses, you don't have a whole lot to go on. You don't have scientific evidence that links anybody with this crime. You have evidence that even though the statistics seem to support the notion that it came from someone inside the home, the evidence doesn't rule out the possibility that it was an outside intruder. Without scientific evidence, somebody talking to you about confessions or statements that the killer might have made to them or without an eyewitness, you have nothing at this point. And I assume that at this point the police have exhausted all those avenues of investigation. Right now, the only thing I see happening in this case to solve it, and it's an unlikely proposition, is that the killer either the killer himself or herself or somebody close to the killer who knows something about the crime would come forward out of consciousness of guilt and tell the police, look, I got to get this off my chest. Here is what happened, or here is what so and so told me about committing this murder. That to me is the only way that you're going to solve this crime.
COSSACK: Alright. now I'm going to come to you and you're the prosecutor in this case, and I just repeat back to you what you've told me. And I say look David we don't have a heck of a lot, but we believe that perhaps there may be some involvement by the family or perhaps a close friend of the family. But we don't have a whole heck of a lot. Do we arrest anybody in hopes that somebody gets behind bars and then cracks or gives up some information?
SCHERTLER: Absolutely not. I think it violates a prosecutor's ethics to do that without significant evidence to establish probable cause that a particular person did it. I don't see anything close to probable cause in this case. All I do see is a lot of speculation, a lot of theories about what might have happened. And some of them, like Clint's, are good theories that make a lot of sense, but there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Even if you said this happened, and it was committed by somebody inside the home; who was it? Was it the father? Was it was the mother? Was it the 11yo brother? We don't know.
COSSACK: Let's go back to Denver for a second. Dr. Krugman you've had the ability to analyze this autopsy report. Was there a time when during your analysis you saw indications that perhaps a taser gun or a stun gun was used on this young girl.
KRUGMAN: No, I didn't.
COSSACK: Was there any marks whatsoever?
KRUGMAN: There were other marks. There were other abrasions noted, and various things noted on the autopsy report. But I think you might need a pathologist to tell you for sure whether or not there was a stun gun. But that speculation has arisen over the last couple of weeks and seems to be filling the airwaves again, and is probably yet another indication of everyone's frustration with the inability to solve this case.
COSSACK: Alright. Clint, is this frustration? I mean, are they just pulling at straws now?
VAN ZANDT: I think right now Roger we're at the point where you start turning the rocks over. We've turned them over once; they got to turn them over a second time. But after a year you know we've got 22,000 known homicide in the U.S. every year only about 65 percent of those are solved. And the scary thing is as we're suggesting right now, without hard, cold forensic evidence that can link an offender to the victim the only think we have is someone raising their hands and says I got to tell you, I feel so bad about what I did. If we don't have that if they had forensic evidence, they would have indicted by now.
COSSACK: There's a new chief investigator in this case, Mark Beckner, who says he wants to reinterview the Ramseys. Why?
VAN ZANDT: He's the new captain of the ship Roger. I don't care what's been done before for the last 367 days it's a brand new investigation as far a he's concerned and he's saying, I want to talk to them. I want to get a feel for them. I want to see the evidence. I want the neighbors re-interviewed.
SCHERTLER: Let me add I think that in terms of investigative tactics that might be the one thing you want to do reinterview potential suspects. If you can get them in inconsistency if somebody may break and say OK let me tell you what happened, that's a real possibility. Now of course, the Ramseys are represented by counsel. I have the feeling that any interviews with the Ramseys are going to be very carefully monitored.
COSSACK: And let me just say even though my cohost Greta Van Susteren is not here today if she were here she would be saying if I were their lawyer I wouldn't let them talk to anybody.

Print this item

  9/10/1997 Diane Sawyer
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-04-2017, 05:46 PM - Forum: Mike Bynum - No Replies

SEPTEMBER 10, 1997
Transcript # 97091003-j08 T


ANNOUNCER: PrimeTime -- now from New York, Diane Sawyer.

DIANE SAWYER, ABC News: It is the case that has had us all trying to puzzle out the truth. A magical six-year-old girl found murdered the day after Christmas, 1996. By instinct and experience, a lot of us started to suspect the parents or people close to the family. In this case, those suspicions solidified by leaks from unnamed sources. So PrimeTime decided to see if we could establish on the record some facts about the case. The district attorney in Boulder, Colorado, would not comment publicly to us, and the police would not return our phone calls. However, the Ramseys, for the first time, allowed a camera into their home and provided two people to address questions like this. Before the murder, was there any medical evidence of sexual abuse? And why would John and Patsy Ramsey rush to hire lawyers and refuse to talk to police if they were innocent? Here are their answers.

BEAUTY PAGEANT ANNOUNCER: It's the Ziegfeld Follies. The Ziegfeld Follies! Number 16, JonBenet!

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) Week after week, we have studied these pageant videos looking for clues. All these videos from one night in the life of a six-year-old girl who at home looked like this. And through all these months, we have also studied her parents, wondering, did they really act like innocent people? Why would innocent people rush to get a lawyer and refuse to talk to police? This is Mike Bynum, a former prosecutor and close friend of the Ramseys. Since the murder, he has been by their side and is now speaking for the first time.

MICHAEL BYNUM, Ramsey Family Friend: John and Patsy Ramsey are two very, very hurt people, obviously, based on what's happened to them. But in terms of the kind of people they are, they are caring, considerate, kind and very, very, very decent people.

DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) Do you think the Ramseys are capable of murder?

MICHAEL BYNUM: The Ramseys, in my opinion, based on everything I know, are absolutely incapable of murder and incapable of harming that child.

DIANE SAWYER: You're saying there has never, for a moment, been a flicker of even doubt in your mind?

MICHAEL BYNUM: In my mind, that is absolutely correct.

DIANE SAWYER: Because I was wondering if you ever asked them directly, "Did you do it?"

MICHAEL BYNUM: I am not going to get into specific discussions, but let me tell you, no, I never asked that question. I would never ask that question. My faith, my belief and what I've told you is unchanged.

DIANE SAWYER: December 26 -- how did you hear that something had happened?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I had been snowshoeing with my family and friends, and we were...

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) When Bynum, who had lost an infant grandchild of his own, learned that JonBenet had been murdered, he rushed to a friend's house, where the Ramseys and their nine-year-old son Burke (ph) had gone to stay.

(on camera) Can you tell me about what you saw when you walked in that door?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I think I can. John and Patsy were there with family and friends, their minister. And just after I got there, everyone was -- sorry --was kneeling in the living room and praying together. And when they got through, I went up and hugged John and -- and then I went over to Patsy. She was sitting on the couch. And I had to help her up and -- and give her a hug. So that was what I found when I got there. Everyone was devastated. It was difficult.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) And there is someone else who was there that night who says Patsy Ramsey had collapsed.

(From taped telephone conversation)

Dr. FRANCESCO (PH) BEUF, JonBenet's Pediatrician: She was just lying on the floor.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) His name is Dr. Francesco Beuf. He was JonBenet's pediatrician. He talked to me by phone about whether Mrs. Ramsey's grief was real.

(From taped telephone conversation)

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Oh, for God's sake, she was as devastated as anyone could be by a terrible loss like that. They called me to provide some tranquilizers for her. She was absolutely shattered by this.

DIANE SAWYER: And Mr. Ramsey?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: He looked absolutely devastated. To me, they were the most appropriate reactions in the world. God knows, I wouldn't know how I'd react if one of my children had been murdered, particularly in such horrible circumstances. He paced and paced and paced. He and I went out for a walk for a while that night. It's the wreckage of two human beings.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) Even so, we were told the Ramseys volunteered to give hair, fingerprint, blood samples. And John Ramsey offered to be formally interviewed by the police if he could do it in the house near his family. Bynum says it didn't happen only because police wanted both parents, and Dr. Beuf said Patsy Ramsey wasn't able to talk.

(From taped telephone conversation)

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: I had advised that it was not good to have Patsy there because she was under heavy sedation and would not have been able to function. And then the story came out that the Ramseys had refused to be interviewed by the police. That is just flat wrong. I sat there.

DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) Why did they get a lawyer?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I went, as their friend, to help. And I felt that they should have legal advice -- nothing more, nothing less.

DIANE SAWYER: So you're the reason they got a lawyer?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I'm the one.

DIANE SAWYER: It did not occur to them first?

MICHAEL BYNUM: They certainly never made any mention of it to me. DIANE SAWYER: I'm trying to imagine, if I am in the middle of this agony and my friend says to me, "You better get a lawyer " I think I'd go, "What? What?"


DIANE SAWYER: This horrible thing has happened to my child. There's a note here. I should get a lawyer?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Well, first of all, that was not the words that I used. I told John there were some legal issues that I thought needed to be taken care of. And John just looked at me and said, "Do whatever you think needs to be done," and he and Burke -- he went into a room to talk with Burke and so I did.

DIANE SAWYER: What made you think there were legal issues?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I was a prosecutor. I know how this works. I know where the police attention's going to go, right from the get go.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) And he says that's exactly what happened. By Saturday, two days after the murder that the police were openly hostile. An assistant DA gave him some news.

MICHAEL BYNUM: He said the police are refusing to release JonBenet's body for burial unless John and Patsy give them interviews. I have never heard of anything like that. I said to the DA, "I don't know whether or not this is illegal, but I'm sure it's immoral and unethical." I just was not willing to participate and facilitate or do anything other than to say "no." Not only no, but hell, no, you're not getting an interview. And I did say that.

DIANE SAWYER: Did they authorize you to say that?

MICHAEL BYNUM: John and Patsy? No. Absolutely not. They weren't in the room. They didn't know what was going on. And I wasn't going to bring them in on it. I did it.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) In the end, the body was released. The funeral was in Atlanta. Bynum insists the Ramseys still didn't know what he had told police when they suddenly accepted an invitation to go on CNN.

PATSY RAMSEY (From CNN Tape): If anyone knows anything, please, please help us.

DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) Was it a mistake?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Yes and no. At this point in time, with everything that's happened to them, it's pretty difficult for them to do anything that isn't going to be criticized. If they do something, it's criticized that they did. If they don't, it's criticized that they don't.

DIANE SAWYER: But of all the things that solidified suspicions against the Ramseys, probably the biggest was that four-month delay in granting police a formal interview. Bynum says the Ramseys wanted to talk, but their attorneys insisted that a member of the DA's office be present. Why? He says because police were so hostile and the DA makes the final decision whether the prosecute. He insists that the big holdup was that police waited so long to let the DA's office in.

MICHAEL BYNUM: The primary issue preventing an interview for all that time, despite everything people were told in the media, was the issue of the presence of the DA in there.

DIANE SAWYER: What about this assumption on people's part that if it had been them and their child and they were innocent, they would have said, "I don't care what you say, attorneys, I am going down -- I'm going to -- I'm not going to just give an interview. I'm going to camp out down there to make sure they know everything I know, and that they're on the trail of who did this. Nothing is going to stop me."

MICHAEL BYNUM: I think there's nothing wrong with that approach and that idea. But I want to tell you, for anyone in the circumstance that John and Patsy Ramsey were in, you go ahead and do that and pick up the pieces later because you're going to be shredded. And I know that there are good police. I know there are good police in Boulder, Colorado, but I've also seen it from the prosecution side. I've seen it from the defense side if a focus occurs what that means. And it means they're coming, and you better get ready.

DIANE SAWYER: Innocent or not?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Absolutely. Absolutely.

DIANE SAWYER: Polygraphs -- have they taken a lie detector?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Not to my knowledge.

DIANE SAWYER: Should they? Will they?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Not if I ever have anything to say about it.


MICHAEL BYNUM: Oh, that's -- that's ouija board science, number one. And I will also tell you, to my knowledge, that request has not been made of John and Patsy.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) So what's next? Can a murderer ever be found, since many observers think police let people contaminate the evidence that first day. Eight months later, the Ramsey house is empty. The only reminder that children once lived here, a swingset in the backyard. JonBenet Ramsey is a constant presence on TV, in these photos and that autopsy report, which will certainly be debated for years. Death, it says, from strangulation and a blow to the head. An abrasion on her hymen, which was otherwise intact, some vaginal area blood, some bruising. Some experts believe that sexual assault was staged to confuse police about the motive. Others have speculated something more.

(on camera) As you know, there are people in this country who simply believe that John Ramsey sexually abused his daughter.

MICHAEL BYNUM: This family has been investigated. They have been loving, caring parents. All of the medical records, all of the school records, anyone who's ever been around the family has confirmed it. There is no indication. There is no evidence.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) But what about those reports that JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr. Beuf, saw JonBenet 30 times in three years?

(From taped telephone conversation)

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Before your call, I sat down with her chart and counted. It was 27 times.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) This is the first time Dr. Beuf has gone over his records publicly.

(From taped telephone conversation) And is that unusual to see a child that many times?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Not with the kinds of problems which this child had. The majority of them were for sinus infections and for colds.

DIANE SAWYER: And by majority you mean?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably 20 of the lot. I counted three in which she'd complained of some pain in urination. And the rest of them were cold, strep throats, sinus infections.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) So many he said, there was some concern about asthma.

(From taped telephone conversation) How many times did you give her a vaginal examination?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Well, it was five or six times in that three-year period.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) We asked him to specifically review all notes that might pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.

September 1993 -- a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated with recent diarrhea. April 1994 -- a visit about a problem perhaps related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.

October 1994 -- a routine physical. No problems noted, though some indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr. Beuf says 20 percent to 25 percent of children that age wet the bed.

March 1995 -- abdominal pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem.

August 1996 -- another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this number of complaints?

(From taped telephone conversation) Would that be unusual?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better. But if you have four-year-old kids, you know how hard that is. The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally consistent with little girls her age.

DIANE SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.

DIANE SAWYER: Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual abuse?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are very acutely aware of.

DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) And some other notes. Dr. Beuf says he last saw JonBenet Ramsey in November 1996, and that was a checkup for a sinus infection. A couple of other things. Dr. Beuf says he has turned in people he has suspected of physical and sexual abuse in his career, and that he not only looks for physical evidence, but personality changes in the children involved. And he says he saw none of that with JonBenet Ramsey. And PrimeTime consulted other pediatric experts about JonBenet's records, and they agreed with Dr. Beuf's analysis that there was nothing unusual there for a girl her age. When we come back, we will take you to the Ramsey home.

ANNOUNCER: A PrimeTime exclusive. Our cameras take you on an eye- opening walk through the home where JonBenet Ramsey's body was found.

MICHAEL BYNUM: Straight ahead from this landing in the basement is actually the room where JonBenet's body was found.
v ANNOUNCER: A revealing look at the crime scene, when PrimeTime continues after this from our ABC stations.

ANNOUNCER: PrimeTime continues. Once again, Diane Sawyer.

DIANE SAWYER: So what is new this week in the case of JonBenet Ramsey? Well, yet another leak. This one citing a source close to the case saying that the piece of wood used in the strangulation came from one of Mrs. Ramsey's paint brushes. But a source in the DA's office told us they've heard nothing about such a discovery. At the same time, members of the Boulder police and DA's office have just returned from Quantico, Virginia, where they reviewed their evidence with FBI experts. And the Ramseys have continued their public campaign asking for clues in the case.

PATSY RAMSEY: I beg you to call us.

LARRY KING, Talk Show Host: With us on the phone, she has called in, is Patsy Ramsey.

DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) There's a real spin campaign going on here. This big publicity machine is roaring out for the Ramseys. Is that what's happening? Why now? Why all this now?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Well to the extent -- to the extent there's a spin machine and public pressure being brought, it is directed at getting information that will lead to discovery of the killer of JonBenet. That is the purpose.

DIANE SAWYER: One of the questions that's been raised is that this whole publicity, media blitz, of which we are presumably a part, is in anticipation of something serious coming out of Quantico.

MICHAEL BYNUM: That really doesn't make any sense. Whatever the police and the people at Quantico decide, it's going to happen as a decision that they make.

DIANE SAWYER: Whom do the Ramseys think killed their daughter? MICHAEL BYNUM: They don't know.

DIANE SAWYER: Do they have a suspicion? Do they have theories?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I guess it would be more appropriate to say leads that they have passed on, which they did some time ago, to the police and also to their investigators.

DIANE SAWYER: Are these real leads? Are they serious leads?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Oh, yes, very much so. We know absolutely that there's the evidence of an intruder. But that information, interestingly enough, hasn't been leaked.

DIANE SAWYER: Bynum believes most of the leaks are intended the hurt the Ramseys and said he would show us the house to address errors in published reports. He pointed out it's a house with a lot of entrances. He says the Ramseys didn't always turn on the alarm and lot of the locks are simple push buttons, not deadbolts. And though it's been called a mansion, the rooms are large, but not huge, many of them added on by the Ramseys. Bynum particularly wanted to point out a window in the basement because he said press reports have it wrong.

MICHAEL BYNUM: The basement window. People have told that there's no way to get in or out of there.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) He said several months before the murder, John Ramsey broke a window here because he had locked himself out. One pane was still broken the night of the murder, though this is a substitute window. Police have the original.

MICHAEL BYNUM: As you can see, this window opens to an opening that is, as I showed you earlier, easy enough to get in and out of for a person at least my size -- 5'10", 175. So, and then the grate up above, I'll show that to you as well. That's -- that grate was also taken, and the new grate's been put up there, and I had that locked so it's no longer movable.

DIANE SAWYER: But it was a loose grate?

MICHAEL BYNUM: It was a loose grate, yes.

DIANE SAWYER: And to get up to the window?

MICHAEL BYNUM: You can either hoist yourself up or step on an object such as this suitcase. And one of this nature was down here.

DIANE SAWYER: And you think you could get out it without leaving any fabrics of your clothes or any skin?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Well, I don't know what you can or cannot do. I just know this is a rather easy means of access to the home, as are a number of the other locations that I have showed you.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) And where was everyone sleeping that night?

(on camera) So this is where the bed was?

MICHAEL BYNUM: That's correct.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) Patsy and John Ramsey's bed was there at the far end of their room, a converted attic. To get to their daughter's bedroom, they had to walk this way, then down the stairs to the second floor. Burke's bedroom is around the corner. JonBenet's, right here.

(on camera) And there's a terrace. I didn't know there was a terrace here.

MICHAEL BYNUM: The terrace is off of her bedroom. And then the door leading out onto the terrace.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) This is that terrace from the outside. JonBenet's killer, whoever it was, presumably came into this bedroom, then took her across the small hall down the winding staircase where Patsy Ramsey would later say she had found the ransom note.

(on camera) This is the stairs down into the kitchen.

(voice-over) On the first floor, there are two options to reach the door to the basement -- straight through the entrance foyer or straight through the kitchen.

MICHAEL BYNUM: And then straight through the kitchen to this hallway, which is the entry to the basement.

DIANE SAWYER: Down these stairs?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Yep. Want to go down?


MICHAEL BYNUM: OK. When you come down into the basement and turn to your right...

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) We have all imagined this place so many times. To the right, that room with the broken window pane and laundry rooms. And straight ahead?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Straight ahead from this landing is the basement is actually the room where JonBenet's body was found.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) It is a windowless room of concrete where some household supplies and golf clubs were said to have been stored. There used to be a door on it, with a small latch at the top, but police took it as evidence. The room is not as hidden as some press reports suggest. Yet, still to find your way here.

(on camera) Given the layout of the house, then, doesn't it almost have to be someone who at least knew, that had a kind of map in their head of the house?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Well, I don't know that for sure. That's certainly a possibility. I don't think that that house is one that is too difficult to be described, at least in terms of getting in and around the house. DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) Bynum says a lot of people who had worked for the Ramseys had keys. He says on a Christmas tour two years ago 2,000 people passed through the house. And there were also contractors and construction workers. But is there real evidence of an intruder?

(on camera) What is the evidence that there's an intruder? There's no fiber sample. There's no DNA. There's no evidence of forced entry.

MICHAEL BYNUM: Well, you know more about the evidence apparently than I do. I don't think it's known what there is or is not. I think there are things in terms of the actions of this individual in that house, the note that was left, that really has been very, very secret from the public.

DIANE SAWYER: Can you tell me anything more about what you mean by "actions of that person in the house?"

MICHAEL BYNUM: No, I cannot. No I will not. I suppose I can, but I won't.

DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) Now, last January, the DA's office said there remains a real possibility that the murder was committed by an intruder. We called this week to see if the DA would still say that on record. We received no response. And again, the police would not return our calls.

DIANE SAWYER: Two things have probably caused the most speculation about JonBenet Ramsey's mother, Patsy. First, the ransom note.

(voice-over) Reportedly John Ramsey's handwriting has been ruled out, while hers cannot be, though the Ramseys have contradicting experts of their own.

(on camera) The second is general unease about her role in sending a little girl into the beauty pageants -- nine in two years. JonBenet's pediatrician told us the mother and daughter relationship was extremely loving, but tabloids have been on a constant search for signs of maternal control and temper.

(voice-over) This was a pageant in 1996. A bruise noted on JonBenet's arm. A friend of the family's said a hamster cage had fallen on her.

(From taped telephone conversation) Did you see this bruise?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: No, I didn't.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) Once again, Dr. Francesco Beuf, JonBenet's pediatrician, who says in 27 visits over three years, the only injuries he saw were the usual childhood accidents. His notes from October 1994.

(From taped telephone conversation)

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Has good appetite. Doesn't like much variety. Amount of TV she watches. Very cooperative behavior. Loves to draw. Scar on her check from being hit with a golf club. And if a parent had been involved in that, then we certainly would have jumped on the situation. I did not write down who had been the hitter.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) We're told it was a play accident with brother Burke. In 1995, his notes record a serious fall at a grocery store. A year after that, a finger hurt. Beuf indicated child abuse was not even a remote suspicion.


DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) But what about the beauty pageant videos that, for so many, fueled distrust of the parents?

(on camera) Nothing about it troubles you?

MICHAEL BYNUM: No. It's -- it's -- I've raised four boys who've played football and basketball and baseball and probably spent more time and effort and devotion and everything else to that than JonBenet ever did to the beauty pageants.

DIANE SAWYER: Maybe this is the question. Is she sexualized in some way in these pictures, and could that have created some kind of lure for someone, a pedophile, someone to hurt her?

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) A local art exhibit after the murder bore the title "Daddy's Little Hooker." Bynum read us a letter that John Ramsey wrote to the student artist.

MICHAEL BYNUM: "Dear Paul, I am writing this letter to you deeply hurt by how you have portrayed by daughter, JonBenet. We, as a family, have lost one of the most precious things in our lives, and it is difficult to imagine that we will ever have joy in our lives again. What you have incorrectly portrayed is a very small part of JonBenet's life. It was an activity that she and her mother enjoyed doing together, and she was a very competitive spirit. There was much more to her life. She was very religious. Did very well in school. Loved to go to the beach, and all the other things a normal six-year-old normally enjoys. You are young, and I can forgive you for what you have done."

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) He said he hoped the young man would learn that others can be hurt by his actions.

MICHAEL BYNUM: "Sincerely yours, John B. Ramsey."

DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) You're a former prosecutor. Do you think this case will ever be solved?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I do think the case will be solved. I'm just hopeful that the people the people who want to pay attention to this and be fair will do just that.

DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) The Ramsey case continues. And of course, we asked the Ramseys for an interview and were told they will not be speaking about the details of the case at this time.

DIANE SAWYER: Don't forget Nightline later. I'm Diane Sawyer. Good night, Sam.


Print this item

  open letter to Ramseys
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-04-2017, 05:42 PM - Forum: Peter Boyles - No Replies


The brutal murder of your beautiful daughter JonBenét has touched this nation in a way I haven't witnessed in my 25-year career. Our obsession is not with you, it is with finding justice.

It has been over seven months and I am angered by your behavior in hiring investigators, experts and lawyers in what appears to me to be an effort to protect your interest rather than to find the killer.

Please read the following carefully:

First, the experts tell me that your published "profile" of the killer is laughable.

Second, you are displaying certain characteristics that are totally opposite those of most victim parents, so we must look at the entirety of your behavior.

You claim the killer was likely to have exhibited certain behavior. You ask if we, the public, know someone who was experiencing one of the following before JonBenét was killed:

Conflict with a female
Conflict with family
Financial stress
Legal problems
Employment problems

We all know someone experiencing one or more of those situations. Your list describes the average American.

Your behavior over the past seven months has not elicited compassion or empathy, it has elicited suspicion and mistrust. For example:

The hiring of a public relations firm.

The hiring of separate teams of lawyers.

Your unwillingness to take separate lie detector tests administered by the Boulder Police Department.

Your substantial delay before you agreed to talk to police and then only when a long list of bizarre conditions had been met.

Your inconsistent theories on who killed JonBenét.

Your quick dismissal of the foreign terrorist as a suspect with no explanation.

Your assertion on CNN that Boulder was unsafe.

Your current theory that an acquaintance of the family suffering from marital, financial or employment problems killed JonBenét.

Your most recent flyer claims the killer continues to roam the streets of select Boulder neighborhoods.

Your continued tactic of talking only to handpicked members of the media and your unwillingness to engage in an unrestricted interview with an objective journalist, such as Ted Koppel.
Fred Goldman's behavior exemplifies the true victim parent of a child who has been murdered. You, on the other hand, have led Colorado and the nation on a seven month, low speed, white Bronco chase.

If you wish to respond to my letter you may call me collect anytime at (303)825-8255 or you may FAX me at (303)825-3299.


Peter Boyles

Print this item