More swamp disinformation

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Dec 21, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Geez. I can't stop myself. I can't tell you how many times through the years I have read pure ignorance passed off as fact at the swamp. Then there are the out and out lies....

    So thanks to Beth, whomever she is, for making logical and correct arguments at the (temporarily open to the public) swamp on topics the swampsters don't have the ability to grasp correctly. They are just making stuff up and then repeating it as fact...nothing new, I know. But it's so interesting to see jams and her devotees claim all the time BORG do this, are so wrong and bad people, when the swampsters are in a league all their own when it comes to pushing as truth pure propaganda and lies they make up as they go.

    Most recently:

    Jams once SPECULATED that the "missing cell phone records" for the month of December, 1996, might have been because the Rams lost that cell phone and so it wasn't used THAT MONTH. This was long debated, as John HIMSELF said in a sworn deposition LE used their cell phones that morning at their home because LE's batteries were dead. HEY, IT'S A THEORY...although it's like most swamp theories that EXCUSE AND DISTORT the truth about the HUGE PROBLEMS WITH THE RAMS' inconsistent stories. But now the swampsters are just citing as fact that the Rams lost that ONE cell phone and THAT'S why it had no records for THAT MONTH ALONE. BS! No one has EVER presented ONE STATEMENT BY THE RAMS that they LOST any cell phone. NO ONE. It's just jams' imagination and it's NOT FACT, nor it is even LIKELY, as the non-swamp member Beth argued quite well. (I predict she'll be banned soon--as usually happens when someone with some sense shows up to post.)

    So then jams argues the Rams' lawyer Bynum would have TOLD LE if the Rams had called him! What she doesn't know about law...well, she knows NOTHING about law. As Beth correctly pointed out, Bynum would have lost his license to practice law if he told LE anything about his interactions with the Ramseys which they did not first give him permission to reveal. A lawyer often won't even reveal who his clients ARE to LE unless they have been given permission or are asked to represent the client in a legal action and in so doing must reveal their professional association. So to state that BYNUM WOULD HAVE VOLUNTEERED INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE RAMSEYS DID TO LE had LE asked about any calls from the Rams BEFORE the 911 call (or any time) IS ABSURD IN THE EXTREME. LOOK IT UP.

    And while I'm at it, how deluded do the little heads have to be to believe that JUST BECAUSE JAMS SAYS IT, it's fact? Dave, who considers himself to be an extraordinary scientist and technician, doesn't even get the difference between "jams said it so it's fact" and "actual fact."

    But then, jams herself seems to think if someone said it TO her, that ALSO makes it fact: she says Bynum TOLD HER he only found out about the murder THAT AFTERNOON...so hey! He told her and she told us...FACT!

    OR FICTION. Nobody but Bynum and the Rams know when he came into the picture. And we don't know what anyone said to jams, and her history is hardly one that inspires belief or trust.

    So...what she says is hardly FACT.

    And speaking of FACT vs FICTION, would someone point me to the source where Geraldo said he did NOT play a copy of the Aerospace enhanced portion of the 911 tape on his old Geraldo night show? I have never seen that. I saw him say that another program had the exclusive airing of the ENTIRE 911 CALL, which is not the same thing, is it? Anyone? FACT OR FICTION?

    But who cares what Geraldo says, or what I say, as the other sources are impeccable? Steve Thomas, Schiller, and Michael Kane have ALL said ON TV there is an enhanced 911 tape with voices NOT Patsy or the 911 dispatcher--though Kane, in fact, said "something" is there, and he'd be happy to go with Wood to the DA's Office so Wood could hear it and decide for himself. I have never said I could decipher exactly what the voices said, verbatum, on the enhanced tape when Geraldo played it on his show. I have in fact said that I could not tell what was being said, though Geraldo put up the "words" on the screen transcribed in Thomas' book. I have said Geraldo AND HIS GUESTS all said they couldn't independently say exactly what was being said. At least half a dozen or more posters from these forums have all independentlly verified that the enhanced tape was played during a period of about 12 hours on a couple of different shows affiliated with the same parent broadcast company. I knew none of these people before nor since , nor was I even online when I heard this Geraldo show.

    But the point is the enhanced 911 tape is REAL. It's arguable what the words are, who said them, or how they got there, but it's ridiculous to argue it doesn't exist. NO ONE FROM THE BPD, DA, OR ANY LE HAS EVER COME OUT AND CALLED THOMAS A LIAR ON THIS TOPIC. NO one. NOT EVEN LOU SMIT. So again, just because Wood says it does NOT make it true. And whatever slight of hand Keenan/BSmitter is pulling with the "released" cd or audiotape, I wouldn't trust that woman to tell the truth about the time of day. She's untouchable and she knows it. She'll do what she damn well pleases to make her job easier for her and that's that.

    Lastly, Burke's lawyer was given a copy of the 911 tape BEFORE BURKE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, and that's a FACT. NOT the enhanced copy--there was no legal obligation to give Burke the processed evidence. Burke was given a copy of the actual 911 tape ONLY because LE believe a voice on it was BURKE'S. Alex Hunter argued AGAINST giving Burke a copy of the 911 tape, BUT THE JUDGE RULED BURKE WAS ENTITLED TO A COPY UNDER COLORADO GRAND JURY LAW. There is NO OTHER REASON for Burke to get that tape UNLESS LE BELIEVE HE WAS ON IT, THEREFORE THE TAPE CONTAINS A STATEMENT HE MADE. NONE. The Colorado law AT THAT TIME was that anyone who was testifying before the Grand Jury was entitled to review ANY STATEMENTS THEY MADE which LE had. That included ANY STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE WITNESS BY ANYONE. This is why the Ramseys were NOT called to testify for the Grand Jury. LE did NOT want to give them any more evidence from the case than what they already had. If someone LE interviewed even said "John told me blahblah" or "Patsy said blahblah," THOSE STATEMENTS WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE RAMSEYS AS WELL before they testified.

    Get it? The Ramseys were not called to testify BECAUSE of this Grand Jury law. Now follow this: BECAUSE OF THE DRAWBACKS OF THIS LAW FOR THE GRAND JURY'S INVESTIGATION IN THE RAMSEY CASE, COLORADO'S CONGRESS ACTUALLY CHANGED THE GRAND JURY LAW ON THIS. THIS RESULTED IN KANE THREATENING THE RAMSEYS WITH A NEW GRAND JURY, IN WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED TO ANSWER GRAND JURY QUESTIONS UNDER OATH, WITH NO LAWYER PRESENT TO FIELD QUESTIONS AND ADVISE THEM NOT TO ANSWER, AND NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE GIVEN TO THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR APPEARANCE, EITHER. THEY COULD EITHER LET LE INTERVIEW THEM AGAIN OR FACE A GRAND JURY. AND HENCE--THE ATLANTA INTERVIEWS TOOK PLACE.

    If you have any arguments about this, I'll be happy to debate it. I could be wrong, misremember parts, have misinterpreted stuff, or those who were discussing this and/or reporting on it could have been wrong or misinformed. But I'm not making any of this up. I heard many sources report and discuss this. It was all over the news, was debated in depth by lawyers and judges all over the talking heads shows, reported in print.... I'd be happy to be enlightened if everyone got it wrong. But I'll need to see argument backed up by facts, not fantasy.

    You see, I understand that just because someone SAYS something DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE OR FACT. Actual decent sources, credible ones without bias and personal or professional agendas, are helpful to make an informed judgment as to what is fact and what is opinion. IMO
     
  2. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well, jams, if you say you saw it but have no proof, it's just your gossip.

    But I'll bite:

    No, I'm not totally BORG, so let's get that straight right off the bat. I'm pro-victim. Anyone who has read my POV should know that. I go by the evidence and that's all. If I thought for one minute that there was anything credible to support an intruder theory, I'd be glad to say so and that intruder would have me on his back. I have yet to see anything that can remotely overcome the weight of the evidence against the Ramseys.

    As for the cell phone speculation, I distinctly remember you posing the "lost cell phone" as speculation, not as anything the Ramseys said in an interview or anywhere. Maybe I am misremembering, as my memory has failed me more lately than I ever thought it would. I'll look through my files when I can and get back to you on this.

    In the meantime, are you saying you saw this "lost cell phone" information in police files NOT AVAILABLE to the rest of us? If that is true, you never used this as your source before as I recollect, but maybe I missed that, too. This is also the first time I've ever heard the "cell phone Patsy bought John as a present" story. What interview with LE did that show up in? It does help when people just tell the truth instead of playing "I know something you don't." I've watched this game for years and it's caused nothing but misinformation and obstacles to the truth.

    Are you also suggesting that in 1996 John and Patsy had cell phones for JonBenet and Burke, who were 6 and 9 years old? Do you know this for a fact, did you read it in an interview, or is THIS speculation?

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------


    It was my understanding the discussion was about Bynum receiving a call from the Ramseys BEFORE the 911 call. It logically can be assumed if this is the question, he would have been called as a lawyer to advise the Ramseys regarding their dead or dying child, or even about her "kidnapping," which wouldn't seem unreasonable if there was a kidnapping and they'd simply admitted it. If you want to believe they'd just call him as a friend under those circumstances to ask about the weather, and therefore he would have been automatically released from any liability as their lawyer, go ahead. But it's an absurd argument on its face. It's like saying if you call 911 while you're being attacked, but you know the dispatcher personally, you're not expecting police help, just a friendly conversation.

    Also, I thought that Bynum worked as a lawyer for Access Graphics, of which John was CEO. That would at least bring the nature of such a phone call in such dire circumstances into question as legal advice, if it were made. I assume AG paid Bynum for his services. For all we know, Bynum might have then acted as an intermediary to Lockheed Martin, reaching out for help to keep that powerful international defense contractor out of the news in an unsavory murder. Of course, that's SPECULATION. Since those cell phone records are gone for good...we'll never know, will we?


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I don't need to call Geraldo and ask him anything. I heard what I heard, and I'm not delusional. I'd love to talk to Geraldo and tell him he's a liar if he denies it. But I doubt just any old person can get through to Geraldo. Maybe you can. Why not host an internet chat with him and I'll be glad to discuss it with him with everyone watching?

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On Abrams show when Wood called in, Kane did not say he'd release the tapes, he said he'd go with Wood to the DA in Boulder and they'd listen to them. Kane doesn't own the tapes and he'd never be so foolish as to pretend he could "release" them. They're evidence and under the jurisdiction of Keenan and Colorado now. Kane doesn't even live or practice law in that state. As for him "backing down" afterwards, were you there? Did you witness this? Or are you just repeating what someone else told you? People lie, exaggerate, do all kinds of things to save face. You might think about that when your sources with an agenda tell you something you cannot verify.

    Schiller made it clear on Abrams show he stood behind what was in his book. If Abrams hadn't interrupted him repeatedly, I'd like to have heard what Schiller was trying to get across when he kept asking Wood if Wood believed what was in Schiller's book. Whether Schiller himself heard the enhanced tape with voices or words, I've never heard him say, but he wasn't backing down from what was in his book on Abrams show a year ago.

    Thomas has not been discredited anywhere that I've seen but at your forum. Again, it's pure fiction to say that because Thomas' publishers "settled" with the Ramseys out of court, he "lost" or was "discredited." But you won't quit saying it because you like how it sounds. Of course, I remember when you said if the Ramseys settled with Thomas in that suit, you'd have to rethink your position on them. OH, yeah, I've got that post. Took you about 1 minute to rethink and conclude the Ramseys won.

    That's nothing but propaganda and you know it. A settlement is a settlement, and the Ramseys would have eaten glass before they'd have let themselves be questioned in a court before a jury about this murder. They brought the suit and they agreed to settle. They could have dropped it at any time. Until Wood publishes the legal document of that settlement, it's sealed and you know that, as well. Whatever you "claim" you know about that, please be very specific or it's just more propaganda that looks like it. If Lin Wood hasn't informed you of how civil suits work, that large companies--deep pockets Wood only sues--will almost ALWAYS settle out of court for an amount less than what it would cost them to defend a suit, even if they win...then he's just pulling your chain, knowing you don't know better. If you do know this and continue to misrepresent that legal deal, then you are the one who is discredited.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So are you saying you have heard the enhanced section of the 911 that Aerospace produced? Are you saying Aerospace doctored the tape to produce a child's voice? When Wood came out with his bruhaha last year about the enhanced tape being a lie, Aerospace stated in a press release they stand behind their work. Do you really think they meant they didn't produce the enhanced 911 tape in question? Do you really think NO ONE associated with this case with professional access to the enhanced tape would have revealed Thomas to be lying about it all, as hated as Thomas was by those he exposed, INCLUDING LOU SMIT? Or even just to get their own scoop in such an infamous case?

    It's not logical. It's not reasonable. And whatever you believe to be on that tape, or however you interpret it, or whatever you think Geraldo did or did not do, the evidence is clear to anyone who really wants to further this case with facts and not just obfuscate them. The enhanced tape exists, it's not a hoax, it's not doctored to falsely implicate anyone, and there is an open question as to what or who is being heard on it.

    I never heard this one before: was that really a recording of JonBenet being murdered? I hope you recorded it and turned it over to LE.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Continuing:

    Excuse me, but are you saying that the the prosecutor did not intend to play the 911 tape for the Grand Jury, much less the enhanced section, because the BPD didn't want to use it to make a case against the Ramseys? But the judge forced them to do so? That makes no sense. There is nothing on the original call that makes or breaks the case against the Rams that I can see, but it is the beginning of the case and so would undoubtedly have been played for the Grand Jury. That's a no brainer.

    The enhanced tape can be argued to hold "other voices" that may be puzzling, but are hardly a smoking gun, if they say exactly what the LE report says. So to what evil plan are you referring? If it is some evil evidence manufacturing, as you have now accused LE several times, why wouldn't they WANT to have the Grand Jury hear it? Why risk your career, prison, and integrity to fake evidence to nail innocent parents of a murdered child, then not use it? I believe Hunter argued before the judge to keep a copy of the 911 orginal tape from being given to BURKE, not to keep it from being heard by the Grand Jury. I have never seen a transcript of that hearing when the judge ruled Burke would be given a copy of the 911 tape, but the reports we read later said Hunter lost his argument and the judge ruled Burke got a copy of the original 911 tape.

    Are you saying Hunter argued that he wasn't going to PLAY the tape for the Grand Jury, original and/or enhanced, and that was his legal basis for not giving a copy of it to Burke? Because that would be a stupid argument for Hunter to make: the law didn't say only prior statements presented to the Grand Jury would be given to witnesses, it said any statements LE had that were attributed to the witness. How could the prosecutor know what the Grand Jurors might ask a witness? What if they asked Burke if he'd talked with his parents that morning and he started relating something he said before LE showed up, thus bringing in this very conversation alleged on the tape? Once Burke's lawyer asked for a copy of the tape, it was a done deal if the prosecutor called Burke to testify before the Grand Jury--IF AND ONLY IF LE HAD EVIDENCE THERE WERE VOICES ON THE TAPE NOT PATSY'S AND NOT THE DISPATCHER'S, ONE OF WHOM LE BELIEVED WAS BURKE. I have no idea what Hunter was thinking by arguing otherwise. Do you think Hunter didn't believe there were any voices on the tape? If he didn't, why did he care who heard it? 911 tapes are released every day to the press. That's why I didn't think much about it when I heard Geraldo playing it. I honestly didn't figure out until Wood had the original call played on TV that what Geraldo had played was not the original tape, but the enhanced section. It all happened so quickly, and it just didn't seem to be a big deal. Nobody showed up on TV or in the news screaming about it, so how could I know?

    What I do know is that there is NO LEGAL REASON for Burke to get a copy of the 911 tape, no reason his lawyer would even try to get it for him, EXCEPT THAT LE BELIEVE BURKE'S VOICE IS ON IT. Burke's lawyer might as well be asking for any random piece of evidence in the case file if he was just shooting in the dark: Hey, how about letting us have all the fiber evidence results you have? I am talking about then Colorado Grand Jury law regarding prior witness statements as the basis for Burke to petition the court for a copy of the 911 tape. You're speculating about faked evidence created by the BPD, who then attempted to withhold it from Burke and the Grand Jury--I think.

    Again, your argument is illogical and unsupported by anything but the accusation that the BPD manufactured false evidence when they had Aerospace analyze the 911 tape, which you conclude is the reason they didn't want the Grand Jury to hear it. Yet you are the only source I have ever seen claim that the BPD didn't want the Grand Jury to hear the enhanced tape. It's a circular argument and unsupported by anything but accusations you are creating out of thin air. If you have a source, then perhaps you can provide documentation.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



    If you actually believe any prosecutor alive doesn't salivate at the thought of getting prime suspects on the record, under oath, without their lawyer present, in front of a grand jury, you really are out of your league here.

    But the trade off was too great. What's the big deal of the Rams getting copies of ALL their past statements? The big deal is the Rams already had a great deal of the evidence, contrary to any prime suspects I have ever heard of, compliments of Let's Make A Deal Hunter. Having access to that evidence meant they could coordinate their responses with each other, so as not to get tripped up if they had something to hide. They could prepare for every single question, have an answer skillfully prepared with their lawyers to explain every inconsistency, every contradiction, and every piece of evidence AGAINST them. Furthermore, their "prior statements" also included ANYTHING ANY OTHER WITNESS SAID THE RAMSEYS TOLD THEM OR SAID. What that means is the Rams would have copies of OTHERS testimony in the case as it related to information the Rams may have revealed to others.

    I know, determined as you are they are innocent, you cannot possibly step back and look at the logistics of how damaging to a case this is for the prosecution. Whomever you believe did this crime, imagine if you will that before LE gets halfway into their investigation, before critical, standard investigation procedures and techniques can be completed on many levels, before the prosecutor can bring charges, before LE can even get a straightforward interrogation of YOUR INTRUDER, he is given access to much of the crime scene evidence, forensics, any statements he has made to LE, any statements his family, friends, business associates, or anyone has told LE he made at any time, before or after the murder, conversationally, casually, under pressure, extemporaneously, or even in his sleep! The forensics paint a picture, but the intruder has an answer for everything. LE can't trip him up, can they, because he already knows what he's got to have an excuse for, what to watch out for, as his lawyers have drilled him expertly to prepare him. So...the prosecutor won't risk losing the case to reasonable doubt. Your intruder gets away with child murder.

    That's how it works. The Ramsey lawyers didn't stand between them and LE for nothing. They knew exactly what to do and they did it. The Rams knew exactly WHY they were doing it and they went along, because they had one priority and only one: to obstruct the investigation. Their priority was not to find any intruder. I don't know one half-decent parent who would do what the Ramseys did...unless they knew who the killer was and wanted to do all they could to make sure LE could never make that case.

    So the Ramseys were not called before the Grand Jury because the Grand Jury prosecutor wanted to protect what little remained of evidence the Ramsey lawyers hadn't already squeezed out of Hunter. The way the case had been botched all the way around up to that point, it's hardly rocket science: the prime suspects were beating LE with their own sticks. Too bad for JonBenet. But we don't know what was said to the Grand Jury by those witnesses who were called. Maybe there was evidence or testimony that was important we've never seen and which the prosecutor didn't want the Rams to have handed to them before they even had to show up. Since the Grand Jury files are sealed forever by CO law, we'll never know.

    But when CO Grand Jury law about witness prior statements was changed, Kane could have called another Grand Jury, subpoenaed the Ramseys and they would have to have shown up and submitted to questioning UNDER OATH, including questions from the Grand Jurors, without a lawyer present and without receiving any information about prior statements attributed to them during their own interviews, or anyone else's, and that's a fact.

    Was Kane bluffing? Probably, because another Grand Jury would have cost more money, much less a real trial. By then, I don't think anyone really thought Boulder was going to pay for a trial that would have been messier and longer than OJ's, where the DA and the BPD would have been raked over the coals by any defense, what with all the publicity, public squalls, and screwed up investigating, and with the added horror of a child murdered like that.

    But the Ramseys took the bait, so Kane must have been convincing. They submitted to being questioned with Wood present, interrupting and cuing the Rams and often stopping them from answering questions at all. But I do admit that I'll have to hunt up the source for the information that Kane threatened to call another Grand Jury if they didn't submit to another interview, as it has been literally years since we discussed this. If I can't find it again, I'll admit it. We've been through 9 years of info of every kind in this, so it's harder to recall details as time goes by. There are also far fewer people to help us remember.

    I'll see if I can find the press reports or documents on these issues, but it's Christmas, and I am really nutz to be spending this time today debating this, so maybe others might recall the many discussions we had about this and can locate them quicker than I. If so, many thanks. Otherwise, it may be until after the new year starts before I'll have much time to really do a thorough search if I can't turn them up quickly. I do have a lot to do right now, but I'll give it the quick check at ACR's and google. My files...they take time.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




    That url is private, so I guess you meant that for your members.

    But you know what? It's Christmas. Enjoy your son's solo, your family, and your new grandchild, and yeah, have a happy holiday.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2005
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Thank god for the Longmont Times:

    http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail00.asp?ID=44

    8/11/2000
    New law prompts Ramsey interview


    by Travis Henry
    Daily Times-Call


    BOULDER — A change to Colorado statutes may be the reason that John and Patsy Ramsey have agreed to participate in interviews with the Boulder police, a source close to the case has disclosed.

    According to the source, who asked not be identified, prosecutors working for the Boulder County District Attorney's Office threatened in July to convene a new grand jury if the Ramseys didn't submit to new interviews with Boulder police.

    Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise would neither confirm nor deny that the Ramseys were threatened with a new grand jury to investigate the December 1996 murder of their daughter JonBenet, but said he was well aware of the change in statutes regarding grand juries.

    The Ramseys are scheduled to meet with Boulder law enforcement later this month.

    Under a new law passed this year, witnesses in grand juries can no longer examine statements made by them relayed to prosecutors by other witnesses who aren't law officials.

    "Under the new law, if you made a statement to your neighbor and your neighbor repeated that to police, you are not necessarily entitled to that," Appellate Chief Deputy Bill Nagle said about the change in the statute.

    The previous law allowed grand jury witnesses to examine any statement the prosecution has that they have made that relates to the case.

    Witnesses now are only allowed to review and copy statements that they have made under oath or to law enforcement and prosecution officials.

    Because of the new law, the Ramseys could risk making conflicting statements when testifying and damage their credibility.

    A new grand jury could also produce new evidence against the Ramseys that they would have no knowledge of and little time to dispute before prosecutors investigated it.

    Both of those facts were brought up by prosecutors during negotiations about an interview, according to a source.

    While not specifically commenting on the Ramsey case, prosecutor Trip DeMuth said that the law change may give prosecutors some leverage in a grand jury where witnesses once could examine all of the evidence against them and then invoke their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

    Ramsey attorney Lin Wood said prosecutors did make a veiled threat on July 7 to convene a grand jury with the Ramseys as the specific targets, but that was not the reason the couple agreed to an interview.

    "There is nothing about any changes in the law that serves as the basis of John and Patsy's reason to agree to this interrogation," Wood said.

    Wood said his clients will participate in the interviews against his legal advice.

    "They are trusting Mark Beckner to live up to his word," Wood said.

    [snip]

    Beckner, Boulder's police chief, has said he has new questions for the Ramseys that would help move the investigation forward.

    [snip]

    The interview will be between the Ramseys and seven prosecutors and law officers including Beckner, Cmdr. Tom Wickman and contracted prosecutor Michael Kane.

    No one who works full time for the Boulder County District Attorney's Office will be present.

    "You would think someone in the district attorney's office would want to be knowledgeable," Wood said.

    But Wise said Kane, Mitch Morrissey of the Denver District Attorney's Office and Adams County prosecutor Bruce Levin will attend as agents of Boulder County.


    [snip]
     
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    About Burke and the 911 tape

    http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail99.asp?ID=36

    6/2/1999
    Magazine: Lawyer given tape of 911 call


    by B.J.Plasket
    Daily Times-Call


    BOULDER — June is already looking a lot like May for the Ramsey grand jurors.

    The jury probing the 1996 death of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey did not hold its semi-regular Tuesday session, while most of the news was being made elsewhere. The jury also skipped several Tuesday sessions last month.

    And, much like the events of May, most of Tuesday's news centered on JonBenet's 12-year-old brother Burke, who was nine when she was slain in the family home.

    Newsweek, in an edition to be published this week, claims Burke Ramsey 's lawyer was given a copy of the tape of Patsy Ramsey 's 911 call early in the morning of Dec. 26, 1996.

    Burke Ramsey reportedly testified before the grand jury nearly two weeks ago and, according to the June 7 edition of Newsweek, Burke's Atlanta-based lawyer, Jim Jenkins, was given a copy of the tape.

    Earlier reports said the tape contradicts statements given by JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, indicating Burke was in bed during the entire ordeal.

    An enhanced version of the tape reportedly contains Burke's voice asking questions and the voice of an adult male — presumed to be John Ramsey — telling him to go back to bed.

    Analysts and prosecutors have said Burke Ramsey 's testimony could be a key to the now 29-month-old investigation. He is not considered a suspect, police and prosecutors have said.

    The Newsweek report said District Judge Roxanne Bailin ordered District Attorney Alex Hunter to turn over a copy prior to Burke's testimony. The article reportedly says Bailin ordered the tape to be turned over because Colorado law allows grand jury witnesses to see copies of earlier statements.

    According to the Newsweek article, John and Patsy Ramsey accompanied their son to Boulder for his late May appearance.

    [ME: And speaking of Kane's intent and money running out in Boulder, this was reported before the Grand Jury had even completed their work:]

    Sources have also said Hunter's office will not seek additional funding for the grand jury until late in the month, if it is needed at all.

    Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise has traditionally appeared before the county commissioners several weeks before the funding runs out. The county in March funded the probe through the end of June, but sources said he will not return for additional money until the last few days of the month.

    The commissioners approved the last appropriation without speaking with Wise. Commissioner Ron Stewart recently said he feels the county must continue funding the probe until the grand jury has done its work, saying, "Now is not the time to raise certain questions, but that time may come when the grand jury is done."
     
  6. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    And one more source:

    http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/28arams.html

    Ramseys to face police meeting

    By Christopher Anderson
    Camera Staff Writer
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    When Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner sits down for a day-long interview with John and Patsy Ramsey this morning, it will mark the first time the department's top officer has met with the couple.

    Beckner will be among a seven-member team of prosecutors and Boulder police detectives who will question the couple in back-to-back separate interviews, the first in more than two years.

    The interviews are unlikely to mean the Ramseys, who remain under police suspicion, will be arrested or cleared in the Dec. 26, 1996, strangulation and beating death of their 6-year-old daughter, JonBenét.

    "We don't expect any bombshells or significant pieces of information to come out of this," Beckner said.

    But police and prosecutors need to get answers to new questions that have developed over two years, some stemming from forensic evidence testing.

    Beckner said it is possible investigators also will ask about statements the couple made in their book, "The Death of Innocence," released earlier this year and accompanied by several lengthy interviews with reporters. Some legal experts believe police will be examining conflicting statements.

    Although Beckner spoke to Patsy Ramsey for the first time in a July 7 telephone conference, neither he nor former Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby have ever met with the couple.

    "They (the Ramseys) wanted to meet me; they wanted me be to be there," Beckner said. "I have been closely involved in the case and I just want to make sure if any problems or issues crop up, I am right there to deal with it....I'll primarily be there just observing."

    Costs of the interviews for police and prosecutors, including travel expenses, are expected to reach $4,000. Boulder police wanted to meet in Boulder, but the Ramseys said it would be more convenient for them to meet in Atlanta, where they now live.

    The interviews are scheduled to take place in the Atlanta law offices of Lin Wood, the Ramseys' civil attorney who will be present during questioning.

    In lengthy negotiations for the interviews, police stipulated that Patsy Ramsey would be questioned first or there would be no interviews at all.

    "She is the primary witness of the two," Beckner was quoted as saying in a USA Today article that appeared over the weekend. "She would have more knowledge than John in some areas. We're going to go where the evidence takes us."

    John Ramsey will be questioned immediately after his wife. The sessions will be videotaped and recorded by a certified court stenographer. Police have reserved the right to ask more questions again Tuesday if necessary.

    Wood repeatedly objected to a police "interrogation" of his clients and has likened the seven-member team of police and prosecutors to a "firing squad."

    But for the sake of "cooperation" — a word Wood repeatedly uses when talking about his clients — the Ramseys went against his advice to consent to the interviews, he said.

    But prosecutors also suggested during negotiations for the interviews that if the Ramseys had not agreed to the talks, the couple could be subpoenaed before a grand jury to answer questions.

    The Ramseys were not called before a grand jury that investigated the case in 1998 and 1999.

    Under Colorado law at that time, if the Ramseys testified before the grand jury they would have been entitled to review statements attributed to them by other witnesses.

    A newly drafted law that went into effect this year changed that requirement. They are still entitled to review their own statements, but not statements attributed to them by another party.

    Wood said any suggestion that the Ramseys agreed to today's interviews because of a threat of a grand jury is "absolutely false."

    He also pointed out the Ramseys wanted to testify before last year's grand jury.

    Beckner also said the grand jury remark, made by one of the prosecutors, "was not a threat."

    But he said only the Ramseys can say how that played into their decision to talk.


    When the Ramseys arrive for the interviews this morning, they are expected to walk past television cameras, through the front doors of the offices, demonstrating "they have nothing to hide," according to one source.

    Wood said he and the Ramseys "are appreciative" that Beckner will be present.

    "I think it brings a perspective...to listen to them and see how they respond in real life," Wood said. "They have got to have the Boulder Police Department's help to find their daughter's killer."

    Also notable about the interviews is that Wood is not a criminal defense attorney, although he said he is getting advise from Atlanta criminal attorney Steve Sadow.

    The Ramseys' criminal defense team of Bryan Morgan, Hal Haddon, Patrick Furman and Patrick Burke officially resigned from the case in May.

    The attorneys have not publicly commented on their decision to leave the case, although Wood has said part of the reason is that the Ramseys find it easier to have local counsel.

    Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter said today's interviews are important. He said criminologist Henry Lee, who has consulted on the case, has provided a list of questions he would like answered.

    "We go into this believing that we can advance the case," he said. "There are some things we need to know."

    He also noted that John Ramsey has said he and his investigators have important information for police to follow up.

    "He needs to pass that on," Hunter said.

    Contact Christopher Anderson at (303) 473-1355 or andersonc@thedailycamera.com.


    August 28, 2000
     
  7. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    So it was John Ramsey's cellphone which was lost and according to jameson, Patys got him a new one for his Christmas????

    Odd. My husband is a businessman. If he loses his cellphone (has happened), he hotfoots it to the cellphone shop to replace it. No way could he wait for a new one in his Christmas stocking. Wouldn't be the same with me. I use mine only occasionally. jameson's story does not ring true. I have so many saved examples of her spin and lies. She alters stories to fit her position.
     
  8. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Humbug! The end-all has to be when the occasional dissident wanders over there and is told that they can't believe their own eyes. Bullsmit to that! Sure, why believe what I see when it's so much easier to believe what I'm told? As John Wayne would say, "Are you gonna believe what you see or what I tell you?"
     
  9. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Testing

    Here is my message to you all:-

    This is for a post I made in WS. I am trying to upload an image and link to it. It may not be working from my Delphi account.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

    Jayelles,

    I'm not seeing anything.

    I usually send my photos to MOAB at writers@xmission.com, and then she fixes them up for posting here.
     
  11. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, well, I can see Beth at the swamp is no newbie, so she can take care of herself.

    The swampsters are all bent out of shape, what with "BORG BETH" challenging the party line on their own turf!

    Me, I'd rather concentrate on the facts, rather than condemning and damning people for not believing what I want them to believe. And I don't believe for one minute that Thomas and the BPD faked 911 tape evidence in this case. There is not one person anywhere who worked this case professionally who claims this. It's all in jams' head. She reports what she "was told," but I can report lots of stuff I "was told" and that doesn't make it fact, just GOSSIP.

    Not one professional from inside this case investigation has gone on the record saying the Aerospace enhanced 911 tape is fake and bogus or non-existent. NOT EVEN LOU SMIT. People are dreaming if they think Thomas would help manufacture evidence and then write about it in a book, where plenty of his professional peers could nail him to the wall with it, and we KNOW some wanted desperately to discredit him because of what he wrote in that book, especially Hunter. Does anyone believe Hunter wouldn't have "leaked" it if Thomas was lying or faking evidence? Hunter would have done ANYTHING to bury Thomas, if the LKL show I saw them on together was any indication.

    And would SOMEONE please enlighten those who don't know about law or LAW ENFORCEMENT PROTOCOL: no expert consulting agent or agency OF ANY KIND is going to do privileged professional work for LE and turn around AND RELEASE THEIR WORK PRODUCT TO THE MEDIA. Come on! Do these people really think that Kane is going to go on TV and spill his guts about privileged case information he is bound by his profession NOT TO REVEAL? Like EXACTLY WHAT IS ON THE ENHANCED 911 TAPE? Kane offered to go with Wood to the BDA and listen to the enhanced tape with him, saying there was "something" there, but Kane did not say WHAT it was. HE COULDN'T. HE'S A LAWYER WITH A LICENSE HE'D LIKE TO KEEP, no doubt.

    And can anyone really think that Aerospace is going to RELEASE TO THE PRESS, willy nilly, the technical and analytical data and report on EVIDENCE they were hired to process IN AN UNSOLVED MURDER CASE? When Wood came out with his media blitz after Keenan gave him a copy of whichever generation of the original 911 tape, Aerospace gave one press release that I saw in response to Wood's claim the report of additional voices is all lies: Aerospace said they stand by their work. What else can they say? It's obvious they are defending their professional and technical integrity. How hard is it to follow their logic: they can't give a detailed explanation of anything about their work on this evidence, as it would be the worst breach of trust and heads would roll, as they'd lose any respect in their field. But their work is being called fraudulent on national tv by a lawyer, so they do respond as briefly as they can to protect their reputation: "We stand by our work." Anyone in their industry and LE knows exactly what that meant, and it is clear to anyone else who really wants THE TRUTH on this matter.

    But not the RST. No, they call everyone liars and frauds, anything they can throw at the wall to deny deny deny what is clearly the truth: there is "something" on that tape, and many who have heard it believe it is additional voices. Denying it because you don't like it is standard RST.

    And it's really absurd to lose your credibility in a debate by throwing a hissy fit and using a straw man attack when there are arguments to be made about exactly what or WHO IS being heard on the enhanced tape. From what I heard, I can see how some might think it's a man and a child. All I could honestly discern over my lousy tv speakers hearing what had to be at least a 4th generation copy was the difference in tonal quality--a deep, stern voice and a higher, stressed voice--and a speech pattern that did sound like the "male" voice was chiding and the higher, "childlike" or "female" voice was upset. I couldn't make out word one. It was played a few times with a little discussion among the talking heads, with a transcript on the screen. Geraldo said point blank that he couldn't really make out the words and asked the others if they could, to which they mumbled no. I didn't even imagine I needed to tape the show, because, as I said, how many times do we hear 911 calls from cases on tv?

    You know, now that I think about it, I can remember that no one on the show had anything much to say about it. It was one of the more boring Geraldo shows he had on that show, in all honesty. The "911 tape" part didn't last that long, and then another topical discussion came on I didn't even listen to. It's been so long, I probably shouldn't even trust my memory at this point on their reactions, but it occurs to me that, considering how fast it disappeared into the ether, maybe the people on that show all knew Geraldo was in over his head playing this. Burke was, after all, a minor. The guests on the show were the usual cast of professionals, lawyers, etc.

    Well, whatever. Some people can't bear to believe they don't know everything and didn't do everything and don't own everything...but I know this for a fact because I heard it with my own ears, me and anyone else who happened to be watching that day: however they got there, whomever or whatever they were, the "something" is there, and it does sound like two voices in the background.

    But back to case...hehehe: here is an excellent thread at WS that answers some questions and creates others. For example, if the LE transcripts of the Ramsey interviews in '98 are jams' source for Patsy buying John a cell phone for "Christmas" of '96, I don't see that in this section why nutt was nice enough to post. Here Patsy is about as clear as mud on the cell phones...boy, she loves to put on the "dumb" act when it comes to critical information related to the murder of her daughter, doesn't she? But nowhere do I see any indication that John's "lost" cell phone was linked to the blank cell phone record in question from the month JonBenet was murdered. So it's pure SPECULATION, as I said originally, for jams to claim as FACT that the blank phone record resulted from John's "lost" cell phone.

    Unless you saw another LE transcript, jams...?

    http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33890
     
  12. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I'm not seeing anything, either, Jayelles.

    Great thread at WS, by the way.... I knew you'd get info for us. I agree that it's a hinky story all the way around, and if LE was asking Patsy about cell phones, and she was playing "airhead" to obscure the truth about them...the missing phone records are

    HUGE.

    This is the smoking gun, IMO.
     
  13. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    To all who read what Jayelles posted, bow down before her. She nails her point.
     
  14. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Ok

    Seeker caught on and solved the riddle. Here are two further images. The first shows a reveal of the pixel colour codes courtesy of the graphic software:-
     

    Attached Files:

  15. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    This image shows what happens when I substitute the message colour for a more distinct colour. I am enhancing the message information here-

    The first image shows the "wash" starting and the second shows it complete:-
     

    Attached Files:

  16. Elle

    Elle Member

    I'm not seeing anything either, Lurker. I could spit tacks when this happens to me. :(
     
  17. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    You won't see anything Elle. That's the whole point. The message is written in white on a white background. It is however a minutely different shade of white which is recognised by the computer - but imperceptible to the human eye. The point is that if you know where to look and how to look, you can find the message and "enhance it".

    The point of this exercise is that even if the human ear cannot detect voices on the 911 tape - it doesn't mean that they aren't there and that a computer wouldn't find them and be able to enhance them.

    So - you could stare at the graphic forever and not see the message. However, it is there!
     
  18. Elle

    Elle Member

    Ah I see, Jay. It's just as if I was typing white text on a white background, and you couldn't see it until you highlight it with another colour. Same kind of thing.
     
  19. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Ah...yes...this is exactly where I followed Jayelles into the rabbit hole...and caused my computer and monitor to part ways forevermore....
     
  20. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I have been working on a project with two university professors. They are experts in their field. We had a very nice discussion about jamspin.

    Here is a classic example:-

    At face value, it appears as though the DA and detectives said this. In fact, she doesn't actually say who she asked or who said this about Tricia.

    The DA and official ramsey detectives almost certainly did NOT say this to jameson. My guess is that if anyone stated that "jameson said" the DA and official detectives said this, she would deny it.

    Classic deception.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  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