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?
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
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?
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