Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Austin (Metro area), TX
    Posts
    3,761

    Question Questions about the Steve Thomas Deposition

    After reading the deposition I would like to understand something here. 98% (as a rough estimate) of the questions asked had absolutely nothing to do with Chris Wolf. Why was Lin allowed to ask these questions other than as foundation?

    It's clear to me Lin Wood was on a fishing expedition and I do not understand why Steve's attorney didn't shut the door on most of the questions being asked.

    Can someone explain this to me?
    Never let the children, Elders, the sick, or the infirm be exploited.


    "I love everything that's old: old friends, old times, old manners, old books, old wines." Oliver Goldsmith


    Let's bring all our missing and military home safely!


    All of my thoughts written here are my constitutionally protected opinion.

    I reject any form of government in which the opinion of the village idiot is given the same weight as the opinion of Aristotle. (author unknown)

    ©

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,308

    Default

    Well I sure can't cause I've been sitting here wondering the same thing.

  3. #3

    Default

    JR:
    "After reading the deposition I would like to understand
    something here. 98% (as a rough estimate) of the questions asked
    had absolutely nothing to do with Chris Wolf. Why was Lin allowed
    to ask these questions other than as foundation?"

    Chris Wolf's suit was pretty much based on Thomas's theory. The
    core of this theory and the basis for slander\libel was that
    Patsy accidentally killed JonBenet, therefore knew that naming
    Wolf as a suspect was done with malice. The line of questioning
    by Wood was necessarily designed to destroy Thomas' theory as a
    defense against the Wolf suit. This in itself was not the
    problem. The problem was that both Thomas and Wolf were woefully
    unprepared and handled the situation with poor judgment.

    The Thomas deposition in the Chris Wolfe case is mostly one long
    yawn. However, there are some items of grave importance for the
    information they yield which is applicable in all places and in
    all times.

    Q. So Patsy Ramsey theoretically had JonBenet Ramsey there
    pulling at this garrote around her neck, scratching at it and you
    still believe that the garrote would have been placed there by
    Patsy Ramsey to stage the crime; is that what your testimony is?

    A. If that's what you're telling me, I won't dispute that's what
    happened.

    This was the worst possible answer. Its tantamount to Steve
    throwing away his whole case in one sentence.

    Don't get me wrong. I respect Steve for not having anything to do
    with the farce going on in the BPD. I am glad he tried to get the
    truth out even if I disagree with a lot of his conclusions, but
    why in the hell didn't he get his ducks in a row and prepare
    definitive argument on facts and never give up those facts rather
    than walk into their ballpark and concede the game before the
    first pitch?

    The best defense the Ramseys have are unprepared accusers. This
    has been evident from the outset, but emphasized in the Wolf case
    and the Carnes' ruling and shown again in Steve Thomas'
    deposition. This is what concerns me most. Its not an issue of
    hidden facts, but failure to assimilate facts already held in
    mind and present them in a definitive and conclusive manner.

    Steve Thomas claimed that Patsy killed JonBenet by accident.
    Right? "IF" this was true, "THEN" there was no deliberate murder.
    Right? "IF" there was no deliberate murder, "THEN", there can be
    no evidence of deliberate murder. Right? "IF" there is claimed
    evidence of deliberate murder, "THEN", it must be false. Right?

    The next logical step is to challenge, to make them try to prove
    the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder and alleged evidence
    of premeditated murder. This alleged evidence of an alleged
    intruder HAS TO BE shown as false, BEFORE, the claim of accident
    can be established as fact.

    He never even made at effort to challenge the "sophisticated
    garrote" claimed as "evidence " of an intruder\murder. He agreed
    with all the elements claimed as evidence of murder, yet claimed
    accident opposed to what he had already agreed with. He sabotaged
    his own case. A very large percentage of the questions Mr. Wood
    asked rested on the conclusion of premeditated murder. Thomas
    went along for the ride and was taken for a ride while his
    attorney sat there bickering with Woods without a clue to what
    was happening.

    Steve's position went to hell in a hand basket simply by failing
    to challenge the "quality" of the "garrote scene." Even if Steve
    did not understand ropes and knots, the importance of this is
    very clear. First, he could have asked (earlier) JR, Smit, et al,
    to explain the "garrote scene" in terms of efficiency vs non
    efficiency. They wouldn't have known where to start, or even how
    to fake it. Beside that, Steve could have gotten someone who does
    know to stand by and evaluate their "explanation." I shudder at
    the thought that this pivotal piece of evidence has (for years)
    simply been turned over to the RST to use to their advantage by
    pretending it to be something it isn't.

    Q. Are you aware from your investigation of any statements by
    John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey that they thought that Fleet White or
    Priscilla White or both killed their daughter JonBenet?

    A. Yes, if those transcripts serve memory correctly, yeah, they
    cast suspicion on the Whites, yes.

    Q. Well, then, I mean, please, with all due respect, casting
    suspicion by saying that you suspect someone is different than
    saying that you believe that they killed your daughter, can we
    not agree on that, sir?

    Proper answer: "Hell no." To say I suspect is to cast an
    inference of guilt. To say I accuse is to cast an inference of
    guilt. Both terms have exactly the same potential to affect the
    suspected or accused. So where is there any fundamental
    difference in terms of cause and effect as related to suspecting
    and accusing? It doesn't exist; so contrary to Mr. Wood's little
    word game to try to exonerate the Ramseys, semantics won't get
    the job done. (John Ramsey didn't accuse Bill McReynolds? Sure
    looked like it to me.)

    Q. Did you ever find the roll of duct tape because the duct tape
    was torn on both ends, wasn't it?

    A. We never found the roll of duct tape to source to the duct
    tape that was covering the victim's mouth.

    Q. And you didn't find any prior application of this type of duct
    tape in the house, did you?

    This silly tactic, a staple in Judge Carnes decision, the
    "unknown" as evidence is not only ridiculous, but in using the
    same rationale, Mr. Wood proves the opposite of what he intends.

    It is rather elementary that even IF there had been some
    remaining tape, it could have been disposed of with little
    effort. However, that is not our main concern here. The main
    concern is asking Mr. Wood to apply the same rationale equally to
    both sides of the equation. If "missing tape" is "evidence" of an
    intruder and Ramsey innocence, how about the presence of the pad,
    pen and other items? If "missing" equals innocence, doesn't
    presence equal guilt? Did anyone notice Mr. Wood mentioning the
    pad and pen in taking the Thomas deposition? No? Now we know why?

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

    Proper answer: If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his tail
    when he hopped. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds
    that not only is it a unproven hypothesis, but is predicated upon
    conclusions with which I disagree. Yes, she could have been alive
    when strangled and molested, but unconscious precluding any
    struggle; a scene quite consistent with staging.

    Q. I'm talking about staging where you think your child is dead
    or your child is dead and you're trying to stage a crime scene.
    After the fact that's staging, right, to make it look like
    something that it's not, true?

    RIGHT! Which is exactly what ALL the evidence says happened.
    (Sorry, Mr. Wood, Lou Smit's aberrations are evidence only of
    Lou's aberrations.)

    Even Lou Smit in a rare lucid moment correctly states that it
    either has to be Ramseys or an intruder. It logically follows
    that all evidence points to one or the other. To be true to my
    own conclusions, I am obliged to say there is no evidence of an
    intruder; hence, by default, I accuse the Ramseys.

    If this makes me subject to a libel\slander suit, so be it. If
    it went to court, Mr. Wood would be obliged to produce some
    evidence of an intruder, or join with me in accusing the Ramseys
    by default. Perhaps, I have a proposition that simplifies things
    and avoids all the legal hassel.

    If Mr. Wood will show me just one item of evidence of an
    intruder, I will voluntarily sign over all that I own without
    protest. Its not all that much, but its the most he can get from
    me.

    A desperate measure? Indeed, it is. Why? For over three years
    since I began looking into this case, I read and heard much about
    evidence of any intruder. Yet, an open invitation to meet me
    online and answer some questions about this alleged evidence did
    not produce a single taker. It seems this massive evidence of
    intruder exists only as long as it is shielded from questions.
    Need I say more to explain my offer.

    Delmar

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Austin (Metro area), TX
    Posts
    3,761

    Post

    So, had Chris Wolf simply sued the Ramseys for falsely accusing him of JonBenét's murder without trying to use Steve's theory then Steve would not have been forced into this asinine deposition is that what you are saying here?
    Never let the children, Elders, the sick, or the infirm be exploited.


    "I love everything that's old: old friends, old times, old manners, old books, old wines." Oliver Goldsmith


    Let's bring all our missing and military home safely!


    All of my thoughts written here are my constitutionally protected opinion.

    I reject any form of government in which the opinion of the village idiot is given the same weight as the opinion of Aristotle. (author unknown)

    ©

  5. #5

    Default

    JR:
    "So, had Chris Wolf simply sued the Ramseys for falsely accusing
    him of JonBenét's murder without trying to use Steve's theory
    then Steve would not have been forced into this asinine
    deposition is that what you are saying here?"

    It is not for sure he wouldn't have been deposed for some other
    reason, but when Wolf rested his case on Steve's theory, it was a
    pretty sure thing Steve would be called.

    Judge Carnes' ruling makes is pretty clear that her decision was
    rendered on who to believe. This narrowed down to Smit and
    Thomas. She went with the "experienced homicide detective"
    without a clue to what the truth actually is.

    As I have said before and will say again, the Ramseys' best
    defense is unprepared accusers. It is possible to pull a name out
    of a hat and come up with the perpetrator. However, putting
    together a convincing argument on the facts is a different
    matter. More often than not, an emotion-based conclusion is at
    the beginning and more arbitrary emotion-based assertions are
    used as filler.

    This won't hold up in examination in reference to the facts. Even
    if the correct party is identified as perpetrator, failure to
    validate the conclusion with facts is to the advantage of the
    defendant. It gives the appearance that there is no evidence to
    support the accusation. It is rarely considered that the accuser
    simply didn't see and use the evidence.

    A classic example of this, and there are many, is the book by Dr.
    Hodges, he names Pasty as the perpetrator. However, the reasons
    he gives for this are often ludicrous. On the witness stand, his
    credibility can be destroyed in ten minutes or less - to the
    benefit of the accused. Incompetent testimony against is
    testimony for. As previously indicated, Thomas' deposition and
    Wolf's suit are two examples of this; not just in a book, but now
    a part of official record.

    Delmar



Similar Threads

  1. Steve Thomas Deposition - Wolf Case - September 21, 2001
    By koldkase in forum Transcripts: Ramsey murder case
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 27, 2010, 3:41 pm, Mon Sep 27 15:41:17 UTC 2010
  2. Calling Steve Thomas
    By Jayelles in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: December 29, 2006, 1:24 pm, Fri Dec 29 13:24:58 UTC 2006
  3. Steve Thomas ROCKS!
    By Deja Nu in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: August 29, 2006, 6:25 pm, Tue Aug 29 18:25:42 UTC 2006
  4. Steve Thomas on Greta
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: August 28, 2006, 10:07 pm, Mon Aug 28 22:07:14 UTC 2006

Posting Permissions

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