Wood and Rams want 911 tape released

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Watching You, Jan 8, 2003.

  1. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

    ROBERT CHRISTIAN WOLF

    Plaintiff.

    v.

    JOHN BENNETT RAMSEY and
    PATRICIA PAUGH RAMSEY

    Defendants.

    CIVIL ACTION FILE
    NO: 00-CIV-1187-JEC

    CITY OF BOULDER'S CONSENT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO MOVE FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

    The City of Boulder (1 meaning footnote) respectfully moves this Court to extend, until February 4, 2003, the time for the City of Boulder to move for a protective order pursuant to the Court's Order of May 20, 2001 (the "order") and, in support of its motion, states as follows:

    1. In connection with the above-captioned matter, Defendants John Bennett Ramsey and Patricia Paugh Ramsey subpoenaed the City of Boulder for the production of certain documents and materials, including an audio recording of a 911 call placed by Patricia Ramsey on December 26, 1996, the date of her daughter's death.

    2. On or about December 3, 2002, as a compromise to Defendants' subpoena, the City of Boulder agreed to allow Defendants' counsel, L. Lin Wood, to review this audio recording, subject to certain terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties and subject to the Order. The City of Boulder designated the audio recording, as well as Mr. Wood's review of the audio recording, as confidential, pursuant to the terms of the Order.

    3. On or about December 17, 2002, Mr. Wood reviewed the audio recording.

    4. On or about December 19, 2002, pursuant to paragraph 8 of the Order, Defendants gave written notice to the City of Boulder contesting the designation of the audio recording, and Mr. Wood's review of the audio recording, as confidential.

    5. By terms of paragraph 8 of the Order, to preserve the confidentiality of the audio recording and Mr. Wood's review of the audio recording, the City of Boulder has ten business days in which to seek a protective order from this Court. To this end, the City of Boulder recently retained the undersigned local counsel.

    6. Because the ten day period in which the City of Boulder may seek a protective order includes Christmas and New Years holidays, and because the City of Boulder only recently retained local counsel to seek a protective order, the City of Boulder request an enlargement of the time in which to seek a protective order. The twenty day enlargement sought by this motion will not prejudice Plaintiff or Defandants.

    7. Defendants consent, through Mr. Wood, to an enlargement of time in which the City of Boulder may seek a protective order through and including February 4, 2003.

    WHEREFORE, the City of Boulder respectfully requests that the Court enter an order extending the time for the City of Boulder to move for a protective order through and including February 4, 2003.

    Respectfully submitted, this 3rd day of January, 2003.

    Joe D. Whitley
    Georgia Bar No. 756150
    Alston & Bird LLP

    *Footnote 1 The "City of Boulder" refers to the City and County of Boulder, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado.*
     
  2. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Compromise?

    Compromise for what? What the flock has Keenan given away, now? What right did Lin Wood have to listen to that 911 tape? Apparently Wood subpoenaed a bunch of stuff from the DA's office in regard to the Wolf case, and Keenan gave him the 911 tape to listen to with the stipulation it remain confidential (yeah, like he didn't make a copy of it, right). Now, after he has reviewed the tape, he wants to change the rules and release the tape to the public.

    Wood looks more and more the snake that he is.
     
  3. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Lin Wood wants the unenhanced version of the tape released because he knows without the enhancement, Burke's voice is indistininguisable from the background noise. If he is successful, it will appear that Burke isn't on there--also, eve with the enhancement it is difficult to hear the voice particularly over televison. This is all part of a dishonest propaganda campaign.
     
  4. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    BobC that is the first thing I thought of when I heard the news.

    There is no way anyone will be able to tell Burke is on the tape just by listening to it. Even if it is enhanced because TV is not made to distinguish small, minute noises.

    What I am hoping is they released the enhanced tape. Somebody will be smart enough to get it on the net and hopefully tweak it enough so that we can tell it's Burke. I think with the digital technology we have on our own computers it might help the audio. Don't know for sure though.
     
  5. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    They won't do that.
     
  6. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Why not? Why wouldn't they release the enhanced tape?

    Could the fix be in? Naaaaaa.

    Ok so they release the tape. It's not enhanced.

    Anyone know a geek type at NASA who can slip into the office at night and enhance it for us? Anyone?

    I just have a feeling that if the tape is really released someone will enhance it if at all possible. That's a big "IF" I know.
     
  7. AK

    AK Member

    Not at NASA but...

    ...I know a P.I. who is considered the best tape man in the business. He helped the Aisenbergs (via their lawyer Barry Cohen) get out of their federal pinch, thanks to his reassessment of their tapes and transcripts.

    Only problem is he just got busted for having illegal weapons and hand grenades. He may be going away for a while. Ask again in 10 years. LOL!
     
  8. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Because they have an obligation to protect the evidence. If the prosecution side reveals it, they lose. Only Lin Wood and his murderous clients stand to gain from this.
     
  9. Mandarin

    Mandarin Member

    BobC

    Bob, that is exactly what I thought when I heard Lin Wood wanted the tape released. The tape he got from Keenan was obviously one without the enhancement. Maybe they just gave him a "copy" of the tape.

    Isn't the equipment they used to enhance the tape extremely expensive - really high tech?

    Wasn't the original (unenhanced) tape broadcast on TV a few years ago?

    Yup, Woodster is slithery, slimey snake with beadey eyes. I detest him, can you tell?

    Regards,
    Mandarin
     
  10. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    I've always thought people who felt like hey hated case-related people were silly. Until I "met" Lin Wood. I despise him.
     
  11. Mandarin

    Mandarin Member

    Me Too

    I can always understand boths sides of a coin in most situations, but the Ramsey case has opened up a whole new avenue of contempt for me.

    I gave Hunter the benefit of the doubt, even though I did not agree with his tactics. Lou Smit never really bothered me in the beginning, but lately he has become positively nauseating, even though I do not know him. For a long time, I thought he was just playing a game with the Rams, to try and get some sort of edge.

    I don't really hate any of them, but I do have disdain and enormous contempt for them. But I'll say this, if ever my butt was in the proverbial slinger, Wood would be the guy to hire, but since I don't have millions, he'd likely ignore me.

    Regards,
    Mandarin
     
  12. AK

    AK Member

    All's fair in love and law

    I don't hold a grudge against anyone doing his or her job, even though I may have to take a careful look at where they're drawing the line. It's all fodder for debate to me, so whether it's Cochran targeting Fuhrman, Feldman slamming the van Dams, or Wood spinning for the Rs, it's an interesting learning experience. This is what makes the intellectual practice of law so beautiful. I don't want to stop anyone from testing how elastic those boundaries are, but I take note about how the People will react when they feel there's been an infraction. So in that sense, your outrage has a purpose.

    A while back I found myself having drinks with one of the defense team on OJ's criminal case. I quickly learned that he doesn't define his existence by the shenanigans that went on during that trial. As an expert witness, the man works both sides of trials, and has brought his particular strain of science into new and wondrous applications. So I should be ****ed off at him over a trial that had other fundamental flaws? Nah! Instead I found a charming person who made me laugh for hours and, as it happened, didn't remember half of went on during Simpson-mania.
     
  13. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Fedorax I agree with everything you said. The guys are just doing their job no doubt

    BUT.....( you knew this was coming:)

    These people (limpwood, Westerfield defense attorney) have to have some sort of moral conscience don't they?

    There was a defense attorney early on, like in the first two days of the Simpson murders, who withdrew from the case based on what was told to him by O.J. He publicly said he was morally obligated to do so. It's not hard to draw a conclusion about what was told to him.

    Lin Wood and all the others like him who go forth like blood thirsty, starving, rabid, hyenas and rip apart innocent people are what's giving defense attorney's such a bad rap.

    Westerfield's foaming at the mouth attorney knew his client was guilty and yet he chose to destroy the parents of the child his client murdered. It's just wrong. It would be different if he didn't know but let's face it. He did.

    Wood will scream to anyone who will have his face on their show about the Ramsey's innocents. Ok fine. I doubt if the Ramsey's have told Wood any of the truth. However Wood has taken it a step further by becoming a one man suing machine goose stepping on the first amendment. He is really making the bucks while JonBenet lies in the ground. He isn't helping to look for the real killer. Wood is trolling the talk shows looking for anyone who dares breath a word of doubt about his baby killing client(s). That is just wrong.

    This is why people hate lawyers. Not that they give a rats a** that anyone hates them. That's the problem. People like Wood are the ones who are "morally bankrupt" in this case.

    Question:
    Where is the most dangerous place on earth.

    Answer
    Standing between Lin Wood and a camera.

    "I'm ready for my close-up Mistah King"...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2003
  14. Shadow

    Shadow FFJ Senior Content Moderator

    I, also agree with what Fedorax said. That's why I maintain <b>we have a system of laws, not justice</b> in this country. Seldom are either the prosecution or defense attorneys seeking justice in our courts - they are seeking a <b>win!</b> We should all be thankful that occasionally <i>justice</i> is actually achieved…

    And, Tricia, I am convinced that good defense attorneys must have <i>no moral conscience</i> (otherwise they would be losers or go crazy). If a defense attorney’s client says he/she is innocent, the attorney is obligated to assume he/she is innocent and to defend this client with any <b>legal</b> methods they have available. Since I’ve seen no attorneys disbarred for attacking the victims, police, system, etc., I assume this, while despicable, to be legal. Thus, Johnny Cochran in the OJ trial, Westerfield’s attorney, and other attorneys who attack the victims, police and system are just doing what our law system requires them to do - defend their clients.

    Also, IMHO, “expert witnesses†who work both sides of trials are basically whores. If they are willing to reach one “scientific†opinion based on who paid them in today’s trial and an exactly opposite “scientific†opinion based on who paid them in their next trial, they prostitute their “expertise†for money.

    And, finally - I'm not sure what to say about Lin Wood... the Ramseys most certainly have to be happy with his performance as their lawyer. Unless they really would like to "get on with their lives" - in that case neither Wood nor the Ramseys are doing a good job!!
     
  15. AK

    AK Member

    Advocacy

    Tricia, Howard Weitzman was OJ's first criminal attorney. He's a megadeal in L.A., and quite expensive. The theory is OJ confessed to him but said he was gonna plead innocent. No lawyer can take on a client who does that. He would have said, I'll find you someone else but don't confess unless you want him to quit too. Shapiro and Kardashian had a lot to do with the team that was assembled, and Cochran did a stellar job -- they all did.

    We can't take this stuff so seriously. Even murder cases. A jury member can turn on some bizarro element, like not liking a defendant's outfit. You can only do as best as you can, and if things go awry, there are appeals. More often than not, things work out just ducky.

    If we get angry about advocacy, we must do so across the board (and then we'd be too tired to do much of anything else). Is a woman using makeup and hair dye misrepresenting herself? If a package of detergent says New and Improved and we can't see the difference in our clothes, can we sue? If an agent tells a producer that his actor is a top equestrian and he's never ridden a horse, can we ban them from the biz? It's all just talking heads! Let Woodsy Creature babble all he wants to the public. Because when that hammer finally comes down, he'll be sent packing by a savvy criminal attorney who'll take over for much greater stakes. Let's save our heart attacks for then. :)

    Shadow, I can't go to the extent you did about expert witnesses, but I'll say that the best of them earn a fee for providing a report and if it doesn't fit what an attorney wants to hear, they're not called to trial, despite the even bigger money they'd get. That happens often and the public never hears about it. It happened on van Dam.

    Sure, some are more accommodating because they want to be part of a trial (esp one that's high profile or on TV), but that's why the EW lists are submitted ahead of time and countermeasures can be taken by the other side. It's also true that these folks are competitive and enjoy wrestling with opponents at their own level. And that it's possible a lesser EW might shade something to be able to compete in a bigger game.

    The less cynical way to look at this is, you've got Ph.Ds and LE aces who have finely honed skills and intellectual beliefs. They look at the same information and, because of their background, see different attributes. It doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong -- only a jury can determine that. But we would hope that they're revealing the best info they can. And the playing field is affected by how well they explain their stuff to jurors, and how personable they are.

    I can remember when EWs were considered total geeks and not in demand in socially. Now, due to Court TV, big cases and all the cable and network forensic shows, they are STARS! I've also seen a crush of new students entering the field, so that's amusing and neat.
     
  16. Shadow

    Shadow FFJ Senior Content Moderator

    I think you misunderstood me, FedoraX... the whores I was referring to are "experts" that testify one way in trial x and directly opposite in trial y based not on scientific facts but on what they are being paid to say. I'm not referring to the "dueling experts" that we've all come to expect and love. :)

    Also, while I agree that people need to cut defense attorneys a little slack, it's hard to blame people for getting upset when a lawyer gets off a guy who is charged with raping and killing a six year old girl, who is suspected of killing 10 others, and who everyone knows will kill another little girl soon thereafter. The ******* says he is innocent so the lawyer has to do his/her best to get the guy off, knowing full well the guy is going to kill again. This is the attorney whom I say must have no moral conscience or he/she will either "throw the case" or go crazy knowing what is coming.
     
  17. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Fedora as always you are a wealth of experience and I learn somehing new with every virtually every post.

    Even though I can understand completely what you're saying, I know you understand that some of us are really tired of seeing the wealthy get off because of cash. I can live with the R's not being charged but the whole making money off it thing just infuriates me. I can't help it.

    One thing you said caught my eye--the thing about if you confess to your defense lawyer he can't take the case. Westerfield's attorney allegedly got a coffession and he defended him anyway. What was your view of that?
     
  18. Shadow

    Shadow FFJ Senior Content Moderator

    BobC, I believe in VA an attorney can defend a client who confesses (to the attorney) that he/she did the crime and still demands to plead not guilty. However, the attorney and client would be better off if the client got a new lawyer because the attorney cannot lie in presenting the case (i.e., present evidence the attorney knows is untrue because of the confession). In addition, I believe that while the attorney cannot keep the client from testifying, the attorney cannot encourage the client to testify. If the client testifys, the lawyer cannot ask any questions that would encourage a lie. I'm not sure what the attorney's obligation is if the client lies under oath and the attorney knows this. It is a messy situation that most ethical lawyers would prefer to avoid.
     
  19. AK

    AK Member

    Westerfield

    That aborted plea bargain is an interesting aspect which I hope to find out more about when I attend a legal seminar soon. I would guess that if involves the physical way it went down, who was in the room and what they were exposed to. I haven't heard any prosecutor say what Feldman did was worth reporting to the bar, let alone having his license threatened. In fact, at a San Diego event recently Dusek said it wasn't a problem to him.

    BobC, I have kinda come out of my shell, haven't I? Heh. And I agree with you about wealthy justice. The only thing I can think that helps level that playing field is a diligent press.

    A prosecutor pal was so frustrated recently by Barry Scheck's Project Innocence, he wanted to create a Project Guilt. :) Another friend said all defendants should be automatically sentenced for perjury once they plead Not Guilty and are then convicted. :)

    Shadow, LOL about the ones we've "come to expect and love." But most of the science people are really telling it like they see it. And almost all EWs will go on either side, depending on who asks first. There have been cases where FBI ppl have testified for defendants.

    As far as the worst case scenario you described, I can't imagine any attorney not getting stomach tumors over something like that. You saw that with the lawyer who defended the guy who is charged with Samantha Runnion's murder. But the jury in the case involving his ex-girlfriend heard shaky testimony. The woman's story changed, she and her sister gave indications of being vengeful and erratic, and the kids may not have come across well. That burden of proof is something to really consider when you have a person's freedom in your hands. What I don't know is whether there were psych reports done and whether any testimony was included, and what kind of character witnesses the defendant may have had to put more points on his side to the jury. It's hard to second guess. But it seems a stretch that the attorney, or any attorney short of a true psychopath, would take glee at releasing a timebomb. Again, we have to count the victories which far outweigh the disasters.
     
  20. Shadow

    Shadow FFJ Senior Content Moderator

    FedoraX - "And almost all EWs will go on either side, depending on who asks first." TaDa!! I do believe this is the point that I've been trying to make. The same evidence, a different opinion based on who's paying! Or maybe it's just the glass is half empty testifying for the prosecution, and half full testifying for the defense??
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice