Need Help/Hunter documents about Grand Jury on pg2

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Tricia, Jun 28, 2006.

  1. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Ok kids, I need some help.

    I need the best quote from Lee about the DNA and I need a quote from an expert about how the writing on the note matches Paty's.

    I really appreciate your help on this. It's important.

    Tricia
     
  2. wombat

    wombat Member

    Is Don Foster acceptable? http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

    Henry Lee:

    That's from a Court TV interview - http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2001/0202lee.html

    This could be used as a powerful conclusion, after listing the evidence we know to be real.
     
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    How long have you got for that handwriting analysis quote? Because this is quite a revealing deposition full of handwriting analysis case secrets revealed.

    You can get a good quote out of Epstein here, but it's soooo complicated, this might not be any help. Epstein states he concludes Patsy wrote the note. He's as qualified as anyone who examined the note, and more than most. He explains in great detail his long history as a government document examiner and teacher of same. He also explains why the conclusions of various examiners are so different. I can see he is being quite honest, and that he is very credible. But I believe Carnes excluded him because he didn't have the original documents to examine (if I'm not having a brain cloud). Neither did a lot of those who disagreed with Epstein...but the plaintiff had the burden of proof, and Darnay's other great analyst, Zeigler, quit in a huff when some idiot--now who could that be who could that be--insulted him...so...summary judgment for the defense.

    http://www.acandyrose.com/20020517epsteindeposition.txt

    I swear, if you've never read this deposition, and if you want to see just how the Wolf case went so wrong...READ IT.

    If you don't have the time or patience to get through the first 85%, go to the last 15%, where Wood and Darnay get into a pi$$ing contest. You'll laugh yourself silly...right up until the point where you bust out crying.

    Highlights:

    -where Darnay's really great expert, Epstein, disqualifies Darnay's really pathetic other expert, Cina Wong, compliments of Ramsey lawyer

    -where Darnay gets his really great expert, Epstein, to discount as incompetent another expert who is documented as saying Patsy wrote the note

    --where Wood reveals Darnay hasn't even met his own client in person, Wolf, much less his experts

    --where Wood hands DARNAY'S OWN EXPERT a check for being there, thereby hijacking Epstein, for the purpose of this deposition record under oath, and then dictating what Darnay could ask and could not "on Wood's dime"

    --where Wood reveals that Darnay has never paid the fee for Patsy's deposition to the court reporter, and therefore does not even have a copy of it

    --where Wood reveals that Darnay is not even going to depose the Ramsey's handwriting experts because he's too broke to pay for it

    --where Wood throws Darnay down on the floor and whips his butt...pretty much...

    [I am NOT making this up! I swear!]

    [OK, the last one about the whupa$$ was a bit of a metaphor...but that would have been kinder than what actually happened.]
     
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    AW, what the heck, it's free. Excerpts from the Gideon Epstein deposition:


    GRAPHIC VIOLENCE!! LAWYER PORN!!


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

    0193
    1 MR. HOFFMAN: You know what normally
    2 happens in depositions?
    3 MR. WOOD: Darnay, we don't need to
    4 hear that. I've been taking depositions for 25
    5 years. You haven't taken depositions -- I bet
    6 you haven't taken five depositions in your whole
    7 life.
    8 MR. HOFFMAN: Hey, Lin, given the
    9 fact that you've never tried a libel case in
    10 front of a jury --
    11 MR. WOOD: Darnay Hoffman, let me
    12 tell you something -- Darnay, you've never --
    13 the only case you ever tried you got hit for
    14 $45 million when Bernie Getz was found guilty
    15 for a crime he walked from in a criminal case.
    16 Listen, I have tried cases for 25
    17 years. I've tried more cases than you could
    18 count in your sleep, big boy.
    19 MR. HOFFMAN: -- your first libel
    20 case, okay.
    21 MR. WOOD: Darnay, I don't have to
    22 try a libel case to know how to try a case,
    23 but after listening to Fleet White's deposition
    24 it was obvious to me that you don't know how
    25 to take a deposition.
    0194
    1 MR. HOFFMAN: That's okay.
    2 MR. WOOD: Why don't you tell us
    3 how many depositions you've taken in your
    4 illustrious career?
    5 MR. HOFFMAN: I've taken plenty.
    6 MR. WOOD: I bet you haven't taken
    7 25.
    8 MR. HOFFMAN: Can I tell you
    9 something? I'm the only --
    10 MR. WOOD: I've tried more cases
    11 than you've taken depositions. So don't lecture
    12 me.
    13 MR. HOFFMAN: Hey, I'm the only man
    14 on the planet that's taken Patsy Ramsey's
    15 deposition, and plenty have tried, so don't --
    16 MR. WOOD: Let me tell you
    17 something, and it was a joke. You didn't know
    18 what you were doing.
    19 MR. HOFFMAN: I hope that's what you
    20 believe because I hope you prepare your trial
    21 case accordingly, underestimating me.
    22 MR. WOOD: You're not going to see
    23 a trial in this case. You're going to get
    24 booted on summary judgment just like you got
    25 booted out in Linda Hoffman Pugh's criminal
    0195
    1 case.
    2 MR. HOFFMAN: Sorry, you're wrong.
    3 I'm sorry, you're wrong. When you went --
    4 MR. WOOD: I'm sure you're 100
    5 percent certain like this guy sitting across the
    6 table is.
    7 MR. HOFFMAN: If I was supposed to
    8 be out of here, I would have been out on that
    9 motion to dismiss, but you guys --
    10 MR. WOOD: You got by that motion
    11 to dismiss by the thinnest of threads, only
    12 because you were willing to plead anything,
    13 despite the fact that you can't prove it.
    14 MR. HOFFMAN: And the judge paid me
    15 the complement of actually quoting extensively
    16 from my brief.
    17 MR. WOOD: I don't think the judge
    18 paid you any complements.
    19 MR. HOFFMAN: Hey, I'm here, and all
    20 I can tell you --
    21 MR. WOOD: You're here and you
    22 haven't even bought the deposition --
    23 MR. HOFFMAN: And you guys couldn't
    24 do what 95 percent of the lawyers in
    25 America --
    0196
    1 MR. WOOD: You're so proud of Patsy
    2 Ramsey's deposition, you haven't even bothered to
    3 pay for it. You haven't even paid the court
    4 reporter for taking it down yet.
    5 MR. HOFFMAN: Come on, who cares --
    6 MR. WOOD: You haven't even paid the
    7 court reporter for taking down Patsy Ramsey's
    8 deposition.
    9 MR. HOFFMAN: All right, so what?
    10 MR. WOOD: You never got a copy of
    11 it. I thought you were proud of it.
    12 MR. HOFFMAN: So what's your
    13 problem?
    14 MR. WOOD: You don't have the money
    15 to pay for it. It's a frivolous lawsuit filed
    16 by a frivolous lawyer and you don't even have
    17 the money to pay to come down and sit with
    18 your own deposition witness. You never even met
    19 your own client.
    20 MR. HOFFMAN: Hey, Lin, don't talk
    21 to me about frivolity and the fact that I had
    22 to go to an expert because your daughter had a
    23 horse show that you had to attend and you
    24 couldn't be a real lawyer over a weekend, you
    25 actually had to twist everything into God knows
    0197
    1 what in order to be able to --
    2 MR. WOOD: I just wanted to make
    3 damned sure that I would be there in Nebraska
    4 to shred Robert Stratbucker.
    5 MR. HOFFMAN: -- your family
    6 outings --
    7 MR. WOOD: I'm going to eat him
    8 alive. Be there. Be there, okay. Guess
    9 what? I'm going to be at my daughter's horse
    10 show and I'm also going to be in Omaha,
    11 Nebraska to rip Stratbucker a new rear end, and
    12 I bet you what, you aren't going to be there.
    13 You ain't going to bother to be
    14 there, neither is Evan Altman, because you don't
    15 have the money and you're not willing to spend
    16 the money on this frivolous case. You got
    17 that? I'll see you in Omaha. Are you going
    18 to be there or are you going to show up by
    19 telephone?
    20 MR. HOFFMAN: How can I not miss
    21 this invitation to be in Omaha? Okay?
    22 MR. WOOD: You be there. You be
    23 there. I bet you a thousand dollars you won't
    24 be there. Want to bet?
    25 MR. HOFFMAN: Lin --
    0198
    1 MR. WOOD: Because you're afraid to
    2 fly.
    3 MR. HOFFMAN: -- I would never,
    4 never bet you, you know better than that.
    5 MR. WOOD: You're afraid to fly;
    6 aren't you? That's what you told Susan Bennett
    7 -- Jamison.
    8 MR. HOFFMAN: I liked the AirTran to
    9 Atlanta, I told you that when I got there.
    10 MR. WOOD: It looked like you were
    11 scared to death.
    12 MR. HOFFMAN: Only of you, Lin.
    13 You frighten me.
    14 MR. WOOD: Well, that may be the
    15 only smart damned thing you've said since I laid
    16 eyes on you the first time. All right, I've
    17 vented enough.
    18 All I'm saying is this: I don't
    19 intend to sit here and listen to you lecture me
    20 one damned second about how to take a
    21 deposition. I know more about taking
    22 depositions on the thumbnail of my right thumb
    23 than you'll ever learn in your damn life. Do
    24 we understand each other?
    25 MR. HOFFMAN: Lin, I'll just have to
    0199
    1 take your word on that one.
    2 MR. WOOD: You can take the word of
    3 anybody that's ever had the opportunity to go up
    4 against me in a courtroom. I'll talk to people
    5 you've -- if we can find somebody.
    6 MR. HOFFMAN: Lin, this sounds like
    7 rank speculation on your part. Just drop it.
    8 MR. WOOD: Let me tell you
    9 something, if I am lucky enough, you will have
    10 your day with me, sir.
    11 MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, I hope so, and I
    12 hope --
    13 MR. WOOD: And it will be the
    14 pleasure of my career when I take you down, and
    15 that day may yet come because you still run
    16 your mouth to the media so much that you're
    17 going to get yourself sued eventually, you're
    18 going to get your experts sued eventually, so
    19 you just keep the business coming, Darnay. It's
    20 really good for my pocketbook. I'm taking a
    21 recess.
    22 MR. HOFFMAN: I know in this case
    23 that the Ramseys aren't paying a penny, the
    24 insurance company is paying you finally, okay,
    25 which is nice --
    0200
    1 MR. WOOD: Hey, I made more money
    2 handling the Ramsey case than you've made in
    3 your whole damn career practicing law, Darnay.
    4 MR. HOFFMAN: -- instead of settling
    5 for chump change, which you've done in all these
    6 other cases, you're actually getting paid a
    7 decent --
    8 MR. WOOD: I've made more money in
    9 the Ramsey case than you've made in your entire
    10 career as a lawyer, you want to bet on that?
    11 MR. HOFFMAN: You mean you've made
    12 more than a hundred dollars?
    13 MR. WOOD: Yes, I have made for
    14 than a hundred dollars, Darnay.
    15 MR. HOFFMAN: -- in this case.
    16 Well, good.
    17 MR. WOOD: I'd just like to know
    18 the poor person that paid you the hundred
    19 dollars. Maybe we'd have a good legal
    20 malpractice claim.
    21 MR. HOFFMAN: All right. Are we
    22 ready?
    23 MR. RAWLS: Do we want to take a
    24 short recess?
    25 MR. ALTMAN: Maybe we ought to.
    0201
    1 MR. HOFFMAN: Jim, if you'd like to,
    2 that's fine.
    3 Jim, just one thing I just want to
    4 say. If at any point during my questioning or
    5 whatever I'm in an area that you feel is
    6 inappropriate, just simply tell me and I'll move
    7 on.
    8 MR. RAWLS: I guarantee you I will
    9 do that.

    http://www.acandyrose.com/20020517epsteindeposition.txt
     
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    OK, Tricia, try something out of this part of the depo. Mr. Epstein had been rode hard and put up wet, but he held up like the pro he is, with full integrity, IMO:

    http://www.acandyrose.com/20020517epsteindeposition.txt

    Gideon Epstein=A

    Q. Now, you gave a Rule 26 report to
    16 Mr. Hoffman containing a conclusion of yours
    17 that Patsy Ramsey authored the ransom note; did
    18 you not, sir?
    19 A. I did.
    20 Q. What is your degree of certainty
    21 yourself as you sit here today that Patsy Ramsey
    22 wrote the note?
    23 A. I am absolutely certain that she
    24 wrote the note
    .
    25 Q. Is that 60 percent certain?
    0127
    1 A. No, that's 100 percent certain. 2 Q. You are 100 percent certain that
    3 Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note in this case;
    4 is that your testimony?
    5 A. Yes, it is.

    22 Q. But you will not testify that
    23 there's any possibility of a mistake on your
    24 part with respect to Patsy Ramsey; am I correct?
    25 A. No, that's -- in regards to Patsy
    0128
    1 Ramsey I feel that the conclusion that I reached
    2 is the correct one, and that is that she is
    3 the author of that note.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2006
  6. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    OH MY GOD.

    KK, I don't remember reading this part. Do you know what page?

    OMG. The pi$$ing match is so strange. Darnay backs down and Wood keeps going.

    What the hell was Darnay thinking when he told Susan Bennet about his fear of flying? That one came back to bite him.
     
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    And just for chits and giggles...lookie who gave the Ramseys evidence out of the Ramsey case file to use in the Wolf civil suit:


    13 Q. This document, you will notice,
    14 Mr. Epstein, has a BPD document number on it.
    15 The BPD is the Boulder Police Department.
    Would
    16 you take a look -- would you read this document
    17 to yourself and familiarize yourself with its
    18 contents for a moment?
    19 MR. HOFFMAN: Evan, would you read
    20 this document to yourself also, because I've
    21 never heard of this document.
    22 MR. ALTMAN: Okay.
    23 Q. Have you finished reading that
    24 document to yourself?
    25 A. I have.
    0087
    1 Q. And do you know John Paul Osborn?
    2 A. I do, yes.
    3 Q. Is he well-qualified?
    4 A. He meets all the qualifications of
    5 the profession.
    6 Q. Is he an author of one of the texts
    7 that you described earlier?
    8 A. No, he's not.
    9 Q. That was a different Osborn.
    10 A. That was his father and grandfather.
    11 Q. In fact, the name of his father is
    12 on the same letterhead on Defendant's Exhibit 5;
    13 is it not?
    14 A. Albert, yes, Albert and Albert D.
    15 Albert S. is the author of the books, and
    16 Albert D. was his son.
    17 Q. And who is Paul A. Osborn?
    18 A. He's the son of Albert -- no, of --
    19 John Paul Osborn is the son of Paul Osborn, who
    20 is, I guess, the fifth generation.
    21 Q. Would you please read into the
    22 record the paragraph that's the fourth paragraph
    23 of the letter, it begins with the words "in
    24 your letter"?
    25 A. "In your letter, which accompanied
    0088
    1 the reproductions you submitted, you indicate
    2 that you may wish to have a more detailed
    3 analysis," in parentheses, "should I find any
    4 similarities between the writing samples --"
    5 MR. WOOD: Excuse me, the two
    6 writing samples.
    7 Q. The two writing samples.
    8 A. "-- the two writing samples. There
    9 are some similarities between the handprinting in
    10 the ransom note and the writing you submit as
    11 that of Christian Wolf. However, there are also
    12 similarities between my own handprinting and that
    13 on the questioned note, if you disregard the
    14 poor line quality. Similarities, while playing
    15 a role in the process of examination and
    16 comparison of writing, are not as significant as
    17 fundamental or significant differences. Many
    18 people share common handwriting characteristics
    19 and even been some distinctive handwriting
    20 characteristics. The proper weight must be
    21 given to differences which cannot be accounted
    22 for by natural variation of a single writer."
    23 Q. Do you agree with that paragraph you
    24 have just read?
    25 A. I agree with the paragraph, but not
    0089
    1 its application in this case.
    2 Q. Do you agree with that paragraph
    3 with respect to Christian Wolf in this case?
    4 A. No. I can't say, because I really
    5 did not do a comprehensive examination of the
    6 Christian Wolf writing.
    7 Q. Why not?
    8 A. Because I had already been working
    9 on the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey, and after I
    10 concluded that examination, which was more than
    11 50 hours of work, I felt that I had identified
    12 sufficient significant handwriting characteristics
    13 with no significant differences, and that's where
    14 I differ with Mr. Osborn is where he states
    15 that there are significant differences.
    16 There are no significant differences.
    17 There are variations to the same basic
    18 handwriting patterns, but there are no
    19 significant differences. So once I've identified
    20 a writer, there's no reason for me to examine
    21 the handwriting of another person. If I didn't
    22 identify it or if I had qualified the
    23 identification, there would have been reason to
    24 continue to look at other writers. But once
    25 you've identified a person as having produced
    0090
    1 the writing, there is no reason to look for
    2 other writers.
    3 Q. And what was the date that you made
    4 that identification of Patsy Ramsey as the
    5 author of the ransom note?
    6 MR. ALTMAN: Do you need to refer
    7 to something?
    8 A. Well, there was a prior report to
    9 this -- to the Article 26 report, so it was
    10 the initial, the initial report that I
    11 submitted, and let me see if I have that.
    12 It was after the exemplars had all
    13 been released to me, and I produced the report
    14 prior to the Article 26 report, and that was
    15 probably in late -- in late 2001, but I don't
    16 have -- I don't have that particular report.
    17 MR. WOOD: We have it. We have it,
    18 we'll show it to you.
    19 Q. Why did you look at Chris Wolf's
    20 handwriting at all if you had already decided
    21 who wrote the ransom note?
    22 A. I didn't examine Chris Wolf's
    23 writing. It had been sent in to me, and I
    24 don't recall exactly at what point in time I
    25 received it in relation to when I actually
    0091
    1 completed the writing of Patsy Ramsey, but if I
    2 had not completed that examination or if I had
    3 not already reached a conclusion in the case,
    4 then I would have probably examined that, but I
    5 didn't because I had already completed my
    6 examination of the Patsy Ramsey writing.
    7 (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibit Number
    8 6 was marked for identification).
    9 MR. HOFFMAN: Jim, just as a point
    10 here, I never heard who the Paul Osborn letter
    11 was addressed to.
    12 MR. RAWLS: Darnay, the --
    13 MR. WOOD: It's been redacted.
    14 MR. RAWLS: There was a redaction
    15 after the word "dear", so none of us has ever
    16 seen the word or the name.
    17 MR. HOFFMAN: So basically, for the
    18 record, there is no identification as to who
    19 that letter was sent to; is that correct? Do
    20 you know who that letter was sent to?
    21 MR. WOOD: It was in the Boulder
    22 Police Department files.
    23 MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, I see. Okay. Is
    24 this something that was turned over to you by
    25 the Boulder police?

    0092
    1 MR. RAWLS: Yes.
    2 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. And they did
    3 not identify through any other document or list
    4 or anything else who the person that that was
    5 addressed to, was addressed to.
    6 MR. WOOD: No, they redacted the
    7 name.
    8 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
    9 MR. WOOD: The Boulder police did.
    10 MR. HOFFMAN: All right, thank you.
     
  8. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    A gifted snake oil salesmane at work, Woody pays the bill:

    0183
    1 Q. You told us earlier that your charge
    2 for an eight-hour day is twelve hundred dollars;
    3 am I correct?
    4 A. Examination time. Deposition and
    5 testimony time is sixteen hundred.
    6 Q. And I believe that is exactly the
    7 fee that Mr. Hoffman quoted to me for your
    8 deposition day, and he also quoted to me the
    9 amounts of your airfare and hotel expenses.
    10 I am, therefore, handing you a check
    11 now for $1,877. Please let me know if that
    12 does not cover your travel expenses plus your
    13 $1600 for your deposition today.
    14 A. Fine, thank you.

    15 Q. Does that appear to cover it?
    16 A. It seems to. I think the air are
    17 was -- round trip was $240 or something like
    18 that, and I imagine the hotel is being paid for
    19 directly.
    20 Q. If there is more that is needed,
    21 please let us know.
    22 I've got just another question or
    23 two, Mr. Epstein.
    24 Early in the day, in talking about
    25 your reasons for becoming involved in this case
    0184
    1 pro bono, and I think that under the
    2 circumstances we can consider that now partially
    3 pro bono and partially for fee; am I not
    4 correct?
    5 A. Certain portions of it I have billed
    6 for.
    7 Q. But your reasons for coming into
    8 this case had to do with justice.
    9 A. That was my only reason for coming
    10 into this case.
    11 Q. And you've told us here, however,
    12 that you do not accuse Patsy Ramsey of murder.
    13 A. No. There's no way I could do
    14 anything like that. I am only involved in the
    15 handwriting.
     
  9. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    This is classic Woody. And classless Darnay. It was no contest.

    MR. RAWLS: Darnay, my part of
    9 today's examination is concluded.
    10 You have earlier told us that you
    11 would like to ask some questions. I want to
    12 make sure you and I are in accord; that you
    13 have a perfect right to ask questions by way of
    14 clarification or correction of previous answers,
    15 but because I have paid for the witness' day,
    16 you have no right to use the time I have paid
    17 for for any direct examination of this witness
    18 to support any motion or any position on any
    19 motion that may be filed in this case.

    20 Do we agree?
    21 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, I don't know
    22 what you mean by that. Obviously if you attach
    23 his deposition to a summary judgment motion I'm
    24 going to use whatever is -- I'm going to use
    25 the complete transcript of this.
    0189
    1 However, I'm certainly going to treat
    2 this as cross-examination with respect to his
    3 testimony having been a direct examination, and
    4 I will certainly not try to go outside the
    5 bounds, so I'm not going to open up areas that
    6 you haven't already previously discussed.
    7 MR. WOOD: You're going to treat
    8 your examination as cross-examination, Darnay?
    9 MR. HOFFMAN: No, I'm going to treat
    10 my examination as if it were a cross-examination
    11 in the sense that -- or I guess that's the
    12 best way, for the purposes of just simply
    13 limiting my questioning to all those areas that
    14 were brought in your testimony as if yours have
    15 been -- your questioning, as if yours has been
    16 a direct examination. So I'm following that
    17 rule.
    18 MR. WOOD: What rule is that? We
    19 just took the discovery deposition of your
    20 expert witness on cross-examination.
    21 MR. HOFFMAN: Come on, Lin, stop
    22 trying to be a wise guy.
    23 MR. WOOD: Now, I'm not trying to
    24 -- you don't have the right --
    25 MR. HOFFMAN: Stop trying to be a
    0190
    1 wise guy, Lin, which is what you're doing right
    2 now.
    3 MR. WOOD: You do not have the --
    4 MR. HOFFMAN: I'm just analogizing.
    5 I'm treating it as if it were a direct
    6 examination for the purposes of trying to make
    7 this analogy understandable, and, very simply, I
    8 will not go outside the bounds of what was
    9 asked at this deposition as if it had been a
    10 direct examination at trial.
    11 MR. ALTMAN: I think we're on the
    12 same page on that.
    13 MR. HOFFMAN: That's a pretty simple
    14 concept.
    15 MR. WOOD: I thought the question
    16 was whether -- don't you agree you don't have
    17 the right to conduct a direct examination on our
    18 dollar.

    19 MR. HOFFMAN: Absolutely not. All I
    20 want to do is just simply allow him to answer
    21 a few of the questions that he might not have
    22 been allowed to answer more fully that were
    23 asked on your, you know, on your dime, so to
    24 speak.
    25 MR. WOOD: So you do agree that you
    0191
    1 do not have the right to do a direct
    2 examination on our dime.

    3 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, no, no. I
    4 don't agree that there's any law or authority to
    5 that effect so to that degree I don't agree
    6 that you have a legal right to make that as a
    7 requirement.
    8 However, as far as to just simply
    9 what I'm going to do is I'm certainly not going
    10 to try and take advantage of the situation.
    11 You certainly could have gone the full seven
    12 hours. I appreciate the fact that you're
    13 extending my witness the courtesy of letting him
    14 leave so he can catch his flight and also
    15 shorten your examination to give me a little
    16 time to what I hope will be a legitimate
    17 attempt to try and just let him augment some of
    18 the answers that he had given in response to
    19 your earlier questioning.
    20 But you have no legal authority, in
    21 my opinion, to limit it, and in that degree I
    22 don't agree with you. However I'm telling you
    23 that I will simply abide by our gentleman's
    24 agreement that we're making right here that I
    25 will limit it only to those areas that were
    0192
    1 gone into when you questioned him originally.
    2 MR. WOOD: I haven't made any
    3 agreement with you today. I don't think Jim
    4 Rawls has made any agreement with you today.
    5 MR. ALTMAN: Why don't we do this?
    6 Why don't we proceed forward, and if you have
    7 an objection, state your objection as we go.
    8 MR. RAWLS: Let me -- Darnay, I
    9 don't know if we're together. I understand what
    10 I said to you, I'm not sure I understand your
    11 intentions.
    12 But rather than your explaining them
    13 to me, let me say we will object if you
    14 attempt to use any part of today's deposition,
    15 all of which we've paid for, none of which
    16 you've paid for, nor, as I understand the
    17 witness' testimony, are you ever going to pay
    18 for.

    19 So if you attempt to use any part
    20 of this in a way that I consider the subject
    21 of a direct examination designed to get any
    22 opinions of this witness into evidence in the
    23 case, we will not only object, but we're late
    24 in the afternoon on a Friday, we'll need to
    25 call Judge Carnes about that.
    0193
     
  10. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Dear Holy Mother of the Lord. You can't make this stuff up.
     
  11. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    I wanna puke

    This is bringing it all up again on what a bastard Wood is (and what a dipshit Darnay was). I said it from the day he brought that suit that it was idiotic to try to Patsy in a civil defamation suit. Woody's just to slick to let Darnay get away with it, and now we have the Carnes judgment to prove it! And make no mistake, that's the ruling the RST is hunkering under (the umbrella of freedom!).

    Anyhooooo.....

    Dr. Lee.

    Maybe the sleuths here can find the exact quote (cuz I'm in work and away from my papers). But I think it's the most important quote of this case, especially since the RST is bent on making that panty dna proof of the killer.

    Dr. Lee said many times that "this was not a dna case."

    Even he knew that the miniscule amount of this "panty sample" meant absolutely nothing. A murder case cannot be hinged uponnon-existent evidence!
     
  12. "J_R"

    "J_R" Shutter Bug Bee

    But Lee is among the investigators who have reviewed evidence in the case and who downplay the DNA's significance.

    "My personal opinion is that the DNA evidence in this case does not really shed any light," said Lee.

    He cited the small size of the samples as a problem, and he contended that it is not definitively known that the DNA - which does not come from semen - is even that of the killer.

    "We don't know how it got there, if it's from somebody's handling, or a secondary transfer - there's lots of possibilities," said Lee.

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4801988,00.html
     
  13. "J_R"

    "J_R" Shutter Bug Bee

    I believe that quote came from Dr. Lee's book if it can't be found elsewhere. Unfortunately, my books are packed away.
     
  14. ACandyRose

    ACandyRose Super Moderator

    DNA quotes by Lee

    Here's a few quotes I found that relate to DNA by Henry Lee:

    =================================================

    Quotes from: Henry Lee's: Cracking More Cases (August 2004)

    Cracking More Cases pg 222

    "They also found that JonBenet had sustained a very pow

    Cracking More Cases pg 223

    erful blow to the head, which, though it did not cause external bleeding, caused intracerebral bleeding that would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded the garroting with scientific certainty, though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time. Dr. Spitz said that there had been no prior wounds to the vagina and that the cellulose dated from her time of death. Other experts later disagreed, saying that this damage had occurred much earlier that night. CBI investigators continued to wrestle with the weak and contaminated DNA samples taken from under the victim's fingernails, and determined these samples could not provide accurate findings. The list of unresolved issues continued to grow."

    Cracking More Cases pg 232

    "The investigators acknowledged that the trace amounts of foreign DNA evidence taken from under the victim's fingernails were weak, yet their presentation excluded the Ramseys and other individuals who had been investigated based on this DNA."

    Cracking More Cases pg 233

    "During the discussion of the black fibers found on the duct tape and how they seemed to match the jacket worn by Mrs. Ramsey on Christmas night, I worried that some of the investigators had confused the term "microscopically similar" with a "scientific match." Also, the fibers could have originally gotten onto the blanket by a simple secondary transfer while a mother kissed her child goodnight and then later were transferred from the blanket to the tape. "

    Cracking More Cases pg 243

    "Most recently, an attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey has come forward to criticize the lack of investigation on the source for the second DNA traces found in the underpants worn by JonBenet. This was, according to this attorney, an example of the tunnel vision that investigators applied in this case. The underpants worn by JonBenet were an adult size 7. Where this underwear came from is still a mystery. Boulder detectives were able to find that this type

    Cracking More Cases pg 244

    of underwear were sold only in Bloomingdale's and manufactured in Asia."

    =================================================

    Henry Lee on Catherine Crier August 25, 2004

    Catherine Crier: So you think this is a staging? You don’t think the DNA in her underwear was indicative that somebody else was involved, somebody from outside the house?

    Dr. Lee: Yeah, the DNA of course, have some foreign DNA. And a, no semen was found, the panty as you probably recall Catherine is a size seven adult. It’s not her size. The panty, the investigator did an excellent job in tracing this panty and a it’s made in Asia for Bloomingdales.

    Catherine Crier: So it could be.

    Dr. Lee: Right. We did some a test um, new garment. A lot of time the new garment, a panty, just come out of package, you found foreign DNA. Because today we use a very sensitive method of STI, that’s the third generation of DNA testing now. You multiply the DNA millions of copies then you test that multiplied copies.

    =================================================
     
  15. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Henry's the DNA man.
     
  16. Elle

    Elle Member

    Well done, BJ. btw I just finished typing a page from Steve's book for KK. Halfway through it, I remembered that I had seen some pages the last time I did this. Help me, help me. I hate being a Senior. :-( I think I'll have to put the initials ACR on a sticker to remind me to go to your site first, and save myself some work.
     
  17. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Does anyone have Hunter's statement he made after the Grand Jury finished up?

    It is worded so carefully I am convinced Hunter never asked the GJ to vote.
     
  18. ACandyRose

    ACandyRose Super Moderator

  19. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    How do I make the press release bigger so I can read it?

    I know...I am an idiot. Thank you.
     
  20. Cranberry

    Cranberry Member

    Click the box that comes up w/the 4 arrows in the lower right hand corner. Now, if I could learn how to copy quotes from the interviews, so I could get it exactly right. We could use a "how to" thread for us PC challenged people.
     
  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