Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314
Results 157 to 166 of 166
  1. #157

    Default

    Great post, OTG!

    Oh, that Patsy could dance ... with the help of her attorney partner, answerus interruptus Lin Wood, of course!

    Then, when pinned in a corner about the book passage, Patsy says "John wrote it!" Ha ha, that Patsy. So faithful to the end.

    Deflect, deny, lie. Over and over again, it's the Ramsey modus operandi. Deflect, deny, lie; deflect, deny, lie ... it's a waltz! The Ramsey Waltz. Kind of like the Tennessee Waltz, only more deadly.

  2. #158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Deflect, deny, lie. Over and over again, it's the Ramsey modus operandi. Deflect, deny, lie; deflect, deny, lie ... it's a waltz! The Ramsey Waltz. Kind of like the Tennessee Waltz, only more deadly.


    One, two, three... One, two, three... One, two, three...
    .
    All views expressed in my posts are my opinion and are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as “freedom of speech”.

  3. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Great post, OTG!

    Oh, that Patsy could dance ... with the help of her attorney partner, answerus interruptus Lin Wood, of course!

    Then, when pinned in a corner about the book passage, Patsy says "John wrote it!" Ha ha, that Patsy. So faithful to the end.

    Deflect, deny, lie. Over and over again, it's the Ramsey modus operandi. Deflect, deny, lie; deflect, deny, lie ... it's a waltz! The Ramsey Waltz. Kind of like the Tennessee Waltz, only more deadly.
    This is one of my favorite dances…
    (From Patsy’s 1997 interview with Thomas and Trujillo.)

    PR: . . .from my bathroom. Um, I started down the spiral stairs and when I got nearly to the bottom I saw these three pieces of paper, like notebook size paper, on, on the run of the stairs and uh, I went on down and turned around and started reading, reading it.
    And I uh, screamed for John. He was up in our bedroom still and he came running down and uh, I told him that there was a note that said she had been kidnapped. And uh, uh, I think he, he said, I said, ‘What should I do. What should I do,’ or something and he said, ‘Call the police,’ and I think somewhere, I remember I said something about, you know, check Burke or something and I think he ran back and checked burke and I ran back down the stairs and then he came downstairs. He was just in his underwear and he uh, took the note and I remember him being down hunched on the floor read, with all three pages out like that reading it and uh, and he said, ‘Call 911’ or ‘Call the police,’ or something and then I did.

    TT: Okay. You pick up the note and start to read it, um, go back upstairs to JonBenet’s room? Is that correct?

    PR: Well, I don’t remember if I picked it or, or just leaned over and read it. I can’t remember. I don’t think I picked it up cause I remember just then bounding up the stairs toward her room.

    TT: Okay. Patsy, do you recall who moved the note from the bottom of the stairs down to where John could read it with the good lighting.

    PR: I think he did. I, I (inaudible)
    . . .
    ST: Okay. When you came down the stairs the first time did you touch the note that time?

    PR: I don’t recall dong that but…

    ST: Okay.

    PR: …I may have.

    ST: Do you recall uh, did the note go back upstairs with you when you went up to check JonBenet’s room?

    PR: I don’t remember exactly, but I don’t think so. I think I just, you know, pounced up the stairs as fast as I could. I don’t, I don’t think I took it with me.

    ST: Do you recall moving the note from the stairs to it’s eventual position where John read it on the floor?

    PR: I, I don’t recall moving it. No.

    ST: Do you ever recall touching the note?

    PR: Um, not specifically, but I may have. I mean there, later on that morning there were, the note was on the coffee table and I remember, in the TV room, and we were talking about did anybody recognize the handwriting, so I may have touched it then…

    ST: Okay.

    PR: …but I just can’t remember.

    ST: So certainly your fingerprints may very well be on the note and, and, and explained that way?

    PR: Right. I, I, mean I may have touched it you know.

    TT: Okay. And the note was on, the note was on the floor and John was reading it when you called the police. Is that right?

    PR: When I was calling the police. Yeah, he, it was on the floor there in that back hall.

    TT: Okay. And you don’t recall who laid the note down there.

    PR: Right.

    ST: Patsy, did you write the note?

    PR: No, I did not write the note.

    ST: Is there any reason, Patsy, that your blatted print of your hand will be on that paper when it tests?

    PR: I did not write the note and I don’t, what’s blatted?

    ST: This portion of your hand.

    PR: I don’t know. I mean, if I picked it up or touched it, it may be on there, but I did not write the note.

  4. #160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otg View Post
    It's interesting how, after learning something new, things you didn't notice previously stand out. Patsy was questioned by Darnay Hoffman about the very passage you quoted, cynic, in one of her depositions. Notice how she carefully avoids answering the actual question about her "personal knowledge" by substituting her answers with public information:

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Now I am just going to go into -- I am going to ask for some clarification of things that are in the book, things that I didn't understand. I am going to turn your attention to page 378. It is chapter -- in fact, I can let you look at that. There are two statements there. In fact, Mrs. Ramsey, if you will just give me your book, I will just quickly highlight it. I am sorry about not having done this beforehand. All right. I would like you to read the highlighted portions on page 378 in your book "the Death of Innocence." That is the paperback edition.

    A. "The Boulder grand jury said no to an indictment."

    Q. And then the next statement that I highlighted.

    A. "The grand jury's secret decision."

    Q. Do you have any personal knowledge as to whether or not the grand jury did, in fact, make a decision based on that statement?

    A. Well, the district attorney, I believe, made a public statement that said there would not be an indictment.

    Q. There is a reference here to the grand jury's secret decision. Do you have any knowledge of a secret decision by the grand jury, any personal knowledge? Are you referring to that?

    A. Well, I think all of the grand jury information is under wraps or under seal or something.

    Q. But do you know whether or not the grand jury, in fact, made a decision in your case?

    A. Just going from what the district attorney said, that there was no indictment.

    Q. Okay. But this doesn't indicate -- the reason I am asking you this question is -- withdraw. Is Patrick -- is it Patrick Furman, was he an attorney of yours at one point?

    A. Yes, he was.

    Q. Were you aware that Mr. Furman made a statement that was published in the Boulder papers to the effect that there was a rumor that the grand jury had taken a straw poll and had decided not to indict?

    MR. WOOD: Object to the form of the question in that I think you have inadvertently, perhaps, made reference to the wrong lawyer; but if you have a statement to show her, that might be helpful.

    MR. HOFFMAN: I don't have that statement. I am just asking her if she has heard that.

    THE WITNESS: I am not aware of a statement by Mr. Furman in the paper.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Then I will ask you, by any of your attorneys --

    A. No, I am not.

    Q. -- to the effect that the grand jury -- that there was a rumor that the grand jury had taken a secret straw poll and had decided or voted not to indict?

    MR. WOOD: You are talking about public statements, not anything attorneys may have said to her?

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) No. No attorney. I don't want you to reveal anything that is an attorney/client.

    A. No, I am not aware of any such statement.

    Q. So the statement "The grand jury's secret decision" is not referring to any personal knowledge that you have about what went on in the grand jury room with respect to any decision to indict or not indict; is that correct?

    A. I think that adjective was used just referring to grand jury as a whole does everything behind closed doors.

    Q. So it is just a figure of speech; is that correct?

    A. Actually, I did not write this section. John wrote this. So you might want to ask him that question.

    Q. Okay. Thank you.


    I've believed for a long time that the GJ's decision was an "open secret" within the legal community in Boulder. I think it was whispered to other lawyers at the country clubs, shared with confidants, and hinted at to associates. The Ramseys knew how the GJ decided, and they knew a deal was struck with Hunter not to indict because of his intimidation in the face of actually pursuing a case in court. They knew, and they perpetuated the falsehood that the GJ did not find enough evidence to indict. And then with Hunter's carefully amended and signed statement that Burke was not a suspect, they were able to sue and settle with every publication that ever wrote about his possible participation. The only thing that could have made things any better for them would be a public "exoneration" from a DA.

    Sweet.
    Thanks OTG. I’ll add that although it would follow logically that prosecutors would have asked John about it, they did not.
    Below is the article that showcases the comments by Patrick Burke referred to in your post.

    A former attorney for Patsy Ramsey says he has heard that a majority on Boulder County's 1999 grand jury agreed not to indict anyone in the death of JonBenét Ramsey.
    "The rumors that I have heard, and they are just rumors, were that they took a straw poll of the grand jurors and said there was not going to be an indictment, and the case then was closed in terms of grand jury," Boulder attorney Patrick Burke told a group of attorneys gathered for a seminar Friday at the Adams Mark Hotel. Whether the grand jurors voted on the Ramsey case and what they concluded has been a tightly guarded secret, mandated by Colorado law and a court order.
    The only official statement on the grand jury was made Oct. 13, 1999, when District Attorney Alex Hunter announced that "no charges have been filed" and that prosecutors "do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at the present time."
    His office then put out a statement saying that no one connected to the case would ever discuss grand jury proceedings, unless ordered by the court, regardless of "how much that might help in the public's understanding."
    [SNIP]
    Burke's statements, if true, would dispel some speculation that the grand jury voted to indict a suspect and that prosecutors refused to sign an indictment out of fear the case could not be proven at trial.
    It could also mean that prosecutors avoided asking for a formal vote of the grand jury. Prosecutors avoided a formal grand jury vote in a Boulder County investigation of a 1983 slaying. A vote not to indict might be used by the defense if a target of the grand jury investigation were later prosecuted.
    [SNIP]
    Lin Wood, the current attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey, has included each member of the grand jury as a potential witness in the Ramseys' civil lawsuit against former Boulder police Detective Steve Thomas.
    "There are a number of very interesting legal issues regarding the grand jurors," Wood said. "Needless to say, I intend to fully explore these issues in an effort to establish publicly the truth that the grand jury voted and voted against an indictment."

    In the investigation of University of Colorado student Sid Wells' gunshot death in 1983, the Boulder County District Attorney's Office asked a grand jury to "make no decision in this case on the issue of whether or not the suspect had murdered Sid Wells," according to court records of the grand jury proceeding later released under court order.
    [SNIP]
    Denver Post, May 19, 2001
    http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ram...0/19lrams.html

  5. #161

    Default

    (rsbm)
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    (from Daily Camera article):
    Burke's statements, if true, would dispel some speculation that the grand jury voted to indict a suspect and that prosecutors refused to sign an indictment out of fear the case could not be proven at trial.
    [SNIP]
    Wonder where that speculation originated.

    Lin Wood, the current attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey, has included each member of the grand jury as a potential witness in the Ramseys' civil lawsuit against former Boulder police Detective Steve Thomas.
    "There are a number of very interesting legal issues regarding the grand jurors," Wood said. "Needless to say, I intend to fully explore these issues in an effort to establish publicly the truth that the grand jury voted and voted against an indictment."

    [SNIP]
    Denver Post, May 19, 2001
    Reading Lin Wood statements always reminds me of why so many people have such low regard for lawyers. (He knew the actual results of the GJ, IMO.) Sheesh!
    .
    All views expressed in my posts are my opinion and are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as “freedom of speech”.

  6. #162

    Default Testified at the Grand Jury

    This July it was announced that Dr. Lucy Rorke-Adams, a world-renowned pediatric neuropathologist, was retiring from her career spanning 50 years, including positions with the Children's Hospital and the old Philadelphia General Hospital. She was recently appointed to the Knowles Science Teaching Foundation Board of Trustees. As most likely everyone remembers, Dr. Rorke-Adams produced the report referenced by both Kolar and Beckner which gave the timing between the head blow and the strangulation as between 45 minutes and two hours.

    I've read biographical information as well as some of her testimony in two court cases. In reviewing her background in neuropathology her expertise was discussed enabling the court to approve her as an expert witness. She has testified for both defense and prosecution in court cases. It was estimated several years ago that she has performed roughly 30,000 brain autopsies and has worked on a daily basis with the ME in Philadelphia.

    To provide testimony the protocol was to review the autopsy and photos sent; she then would actually perform a neuropathological autopsy on the brain itself. (These brains were sent to her fixed in formalin.) The methodology she describes as used by all neuropathologists involves cutting into specific areas of the brain to review for disease, damage and prepare for microscopic review under the microscope.

    Having seen that Dr. Meyer would send brains fixed in formalin to specialists, especially in the event of a 'looming' court case, ('looming,' that's ironic, right) it doesn't surprise me that Meyer most likely did the same in the R case. What caught my eye in the most recent article about Dr. Rorke-Adams is that it's mentioned that she actually testified at the R Grand Jury.

  7. #163
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    I'd love to know what she testified about. The sexual assault maybe?
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  8. #164

    Default Kicking around a few historical embers . . .

    Elie Wiesel, a Nobel prize winner and a voice for those who lost their lives in the Holocaust, died a few weeks ago. Of course his recent death is a great loss to all he touched and helped. His life’s work held the importance of keeping the truth of the Holocaust alive, particularly as history gives way to more pressing current affairs. He recognized that many don’t know how hard the Nazis fought in the final months of the war to conceal the evidence of the gas chambers and death camps, to bury their evil deeds. And, as recently as 2007, Wiesel himself was attacked in a hotel by a Holocaust denier.

    While I don’t compare the Holocaust deniers to those who deny the fraud which occurred in Boulder, there is something abhorrent about burying the truth concerning a child’s death under legal devices. I will never, ever understand this. ‘Course it doesn’t come as any surprise to the faithful here that the words and actions of DA Hunter reveal a man totally committed to keeping the truth of what he did secret.

    One of the first things one might see in AH’s many public pronouncements is the number of times he mentions all the prosecutors who he claims endorsed his decision to not move forward on the case - LKL:
    They (American prosecutors) look at the sufficiency of the evidence. That's what happened here. And a number of us, you know, Bill Grant on one side -- I mean, Bill Ritter on one side; Bob Grant on another; Dave Thomas, the Columbine DA; Jim Peters; and then the three lawyers working with me, Mike Kane -- by the way, not a special prosecutor as John Ramsey said last night, but somebody I hired as a special grand jury person.
    KING: All saying?
    HUNTER: All saying insufficient evidence.


    I do doubt these other prosecutors told him to mislead the public about the True Bills, but they did keep silent about the fraud perpetrated on the public. Here’s an example how an AP writer understood AH’s announcement:
    BOULDER, Colo. –– The JonBenet Ramsey grand jury decided Wednesday there wasn't enough evidence to charge anyone in the 6-year-old beauty queen's killing, ending its investigation of a baffling case that cast a cloud of suspicion over her parents.

    Everyone may also remember AH’s brief exchange with Greta Susteren on LKL:
    KING: "Law and Order" takes an hour. Greta Van Susteren, who was on our show -- you saw her on Tuesday night -- called in with a couple of questions. I'll relay them to you.
    Under Colorado law, is it possible that a grand jury could indict and a prosecutor not file?
    HUNTER: Yes, because there has to be -- there has to be joint action. So the prosecutor's to sign off.
    KING: So you have to...
    (CROSSTALK)
    HUNTER: But you know, I'm not going -- and Greta knows this -- I'm not going to talk about what the grand jury did or didn't do.
    KING: No, the question was only...
    HUNTER: Yes.
    KING: ... is it possible that they could indict and a district attorney says, it's not -- despite the fact...
    HUNTER: The district attorney has got to sign it.


    Creepily hinted, imo.

    Finally there was also this brief scare AH suffered when he witnessed the verbal challenge between LW and Kane on LKL regarding going into court and discussing the grand jury before a judge. Was Kane so fed up he would have relished telling a judge there had been True Bills? Who knows, but AH was Johnny on the spot about this. From the Daily Camera:
    District Attorney Alex Hunter's statement that last year's Ramsey grand jury secrets will not be released came a day after a lead prosecutor on the case spoke on Larry King Live.
    "Mike Kane and I agree ... the rules of criminal procedure do not permit release of grand jury transcripts or any discussion of what a grand jury did or did not do," Hunter said. "The rule clearly states that grand jury proceedings are secret and shall remain that way until either an indictment is returned or a report is issued. Neither of that occurred."


    Damage Control.

    Some may not know that Thomas, also in a moment of being particularly annoyed with AH’s accusation about his book being ‘blood money’, revealed AH had developed a little side venture of speaking engagements in which he talked about ‘Managing the High-Profile Child Homicide.' One of AH’s several speaking engagements occurred in Hawaii on July 8, 2006. For those who think there’s no such thing as coincidences, July 9, 2006 was DA ML’s big ‘exoneration’ of the Rs.

    How about that timing!

    AH might have had some idea that his steadfast sidekick DA ML having failed at nailing JMK, had something else up her sleeve. Well, that’s just my conjecture.

    He must have been feeling as though he was living the dream, a charmed life. Not only was he able to avoid the court room and hide the True Bills’ existence, but he was able to garner personal glory in telling others how to manage such cases. Up until . . .Did AH wince or not when he learned the information about the True Bills would be released? Probably that news didn’t cause any ripple in his life at all.

    _________________

    Boulder’s DA office was the honey pit of deniers of family involvement in the death of JB. Possibly the revealing of the True Bills caused a little stir. But it was short lived. It looks like the devil is dancing once more as recycled Intruders are helping the tabloids make money on the case again. What AH enabled, the evil accusations against everyone except towards anyone in the R family, continue.

    As Wiesel proved there are some events, whether large or small, which will be forever denied.

    All JMHO
    Last edited by questfortrue; July 20, 2016, 2:00 pm at Wed Jul 20 14:00:22 UTC 2016. Reason: Add disclaimer

  9. #165
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Disgusting, isn't it qft?

  10. #166
    RiverRat's Avatar
    RiverRat is offline FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Left is Patsy Ramsey)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NoneYa Beessness
    Posts
    7,824

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by otg View Post
    It's interesting how, after learning something new, things you didn't notice previously stand out. Patsy was questioned by Darnay Hoffman about the very passage you quoted, cynic, in one of her depositions. Notice how she carefully avoids answering the actual question about her "personal knowledge" by substituting her answers with public information:

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Now I am just going to go into -- I am going to ask for some clarification of things that are in the book, things that I didn't understand. I am going to turn your attention to page 378. It is chapter -- in fact, I can let you look at that. There are two statements there. In fact, Mrs. Ramsey, if you will just give me your book, I will just quickly highlight it. I am sorry about not having done this beforehand. All right. I would like you to read the highlighted portions on page 378 in your book "the Death of Innocence." That is the paperback edition.

    A. "The Boulder grand jury said no to an indictment."

    Q. And then the next statement that I highlighted.

    A. "The grand jury's secret decision."

    Q. Do you have any personal knowledge as to whether or not the grand jury did, in fact, make a decision based on that statement?

    A. Well, the district attorney, I believe, made a public statement that said there would not be an indictment.

    Q. There is a reference here to the grand jury's secret decision. Do you have any knowledge of a secret decision by the grand jury, any personal knowledge? Are you referring to that?

    A. Well, I think all of the grand jury information is under wraps or under seal or something.

    Q. But do you know whether or not the grand jury, in fact, made a decision in your case?

    A. Just going from what the district attorney said, that there was no indictment.

    Q. Okay. But this doesn't indicate -- the reason I am asking you this question is -- withdraw. Is Patrick -- is it Patrick Furman, was he an attorney of yours at one point?

    A. Yes, he was.

    Q. Were you aware that Mr. Furman made a statement that was published in the Boulder papers to the effect that there was a rumor that the grand jury had taken a straw poll and had decided not to indict?

    MR. WOOD: Object to the form of the question in that I think you have inadvertently, perhaps, made reference to the wrong lawyer; but if you have a statement to show her, that might be helpful.

    MR. HOFFMAN: I don't have that statement. I am just asking her if she has heard that.

    THE WITNESS: I am not aware of a statement by Mr. Furman in the paper.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Then I will ask you, by any of your attorneys --

    A. No, I am not.

    Q. -- to the effect that the grand jury -- that there was a rumor that the grand jury had taken a secret straw poll and had decided or voted not to indict?

    MR. WOOD: You are talking about public statements, not anything attorneys may have said to her?

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) No. No attorney. I don't want you to reveal anything that is an attorney/client.

    A. No, I am not aware of any such statement.

    Q. So the statement "The grand jury's secret decision" is not referring to any personal knowledge that you have about what went on in the grand jury room with respect to any decision to indict or not indict; is that correct?

    A. I think that adjective was used just referring to grand jury as a whole does everything behind closed doors.

    Q. So it is just a figure of speech; is that correct?

    A. Actually, I did not write this section. John wrote this. So you might want to ask him that question.

    Q. Okay. Thank you.


    I've believed for a long time that the GJ's decision was an "open secret" within the legal community in Boulder. I think it was whispered to other lawyers at the country clubs, shared with confidants, and hinted at to associates. The Ramseys knew how the GJ decided, and they knew a deal was struck with Hunter not to indict because of his intimidation in the face of actually pursuing a case in court. They knew, and they perpetuated the falsehood that the GJ did not find enough evidence to indict. And then with Hunter's carefully amended and signed statement that Burke was not a suspect, they were able to sue and settle with every publication that ever wrote about his possible participation. The only thing that could have made things any better for them would be a public "exoneration" from a DA.

    Sweet.
    Damn She WAS Good....at lying through her teeth and never thinking that eventually the truth would be revealed like it did here. IF ONLY Dr. Phil would ask Burke about the Grand Jury issuing an ignored indictment....
    "Don't play dumb with me, RR! You're no good at it." The Punisher

    "Although no one is anticipating a prompt resolution to this long and much-detoured case, perhaps - just perhaps - might we see one of those moments “when a chance arrow of history scores a perfect bullseye on a deserving target”? Steve Thomas 2009

    "Justice hasn't had a chance so far. Anyone who doesn't have this as their prime goal, we'll have a falling out with." Fleet White - Time Magazine

    "What happens is that evil comes in," Fleet says. "If you don't have truth, all you have are lies, then what comes in is evil. And evil just does its thing. In the Ramsey case, it just did its thing, and it's eaten up so many people."



Similar Threads

  1. Ramsey grand jury voted to indict parents in 1999, DA refused to prosecute!
    By BobC in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: November 7, 2016, 6:48 pm, Mon Nov 7 18:48:57 UTC 2016
  2. Judge has ruled Ramsey Grand Jury indictment must be released
    By wombat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: August 21, 2016, 5:17 am, Sun Aug 21 5:17:22 UTC 2016
  3. Judge Who Dismissed JonBenet Ramsey Grand Jury To Retire
    By Little in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 7, 2009, 2:49 pm, Fri Aug 7 14:49:57 UTC 2009
  4. Grand Jury is NOT looking into anything Ramsey
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 4, 2004, 9:33 pm, Fri Jun 4 21:33:19 UTC 2004

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •