1999 Flashback

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03062001woodstatement.htm

MARCH 6, 2001 STATEMENT OF L. LIN WOOD

I am out of my law office this week and will be unavailable to answer specific press inquiries about the filing this week of a libel lawsuit by Linda Hoffman-Pugh, one of the former housekeepers of my clients, John and Patsy Ramsey.

Immediately after the tragic murder of JonBenét, Ms. Hoffman-Pugh publicly described Patsy Ramsey as a wonderful person and loving mother who was not capable of harming her daughter. "Patsy's just the most wonderful person I've ever met in my life," she told Geraldo Rivera on national TV in 1997.

I have reviewed a copy of Ms. Hoffman-Pugh's complaint. I am also familiar with her recent statements for which she was paid, published in supermarket tabloids. Ms. Hoffman-Pugh is also actively seeking a publisher for a book by her about the Ramsey family. It should be obvious to any person familiar with her history that Ms. Hoffman-Pugh has sold out the truth about the Ramsey family for tabloid money and personal financial gain. In statements to the Associated Press in February 1999, Ms. Hoffman-Pugh was very clear what was motivating her to change her story:

"I'm tired of being used while everyone else is getting rich on this case. I think it's time for me to start making some money, too. This is the last free interview."

"Once I ran into a TV photographer in Boulder who told me he'd paid off his car, his house and his boat with money he got from the Ramsey story. A lot of people are making a lot of money."

When approached to sell her story for money and after receiving sums estimated in the tens of thousands of dollars, Ms. Hoffman-Pugh's description of Patsy Ramsey, and her fourteen-month experience as the Ramseys' housekeeper, dramatically changed to include the false accusations now set forth in her lawsuit and in her recent tabloid interviews. Ms. Hoffman-Pugh is not worthy of belief as a witness and her lawsuit is a frivolous publicity stunt. Her allegations are totally unsupported in fact. The discussion of Ms. Hoffman-Pugh in the Ramseys' book, The Death of Innocence, and the police investigation of her described therein, are accurate statements of fact.

I urge responsible members of the media to thoroughly investigate Ms. Hoffman-Pugh and her history before commenting publicly on her lawsuit and being used by her to further disseminate falsehoods for her personal financial gain.

NEITHER MY CLIENTS OR I WILL BE MAKING ANY FURTHER COMMENT ABOUT THIS CASE AT THIS TIME OR UPON THE FILING OF THIS FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT.

 

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03292001woodinwebbsleuthschat.htm

This is an "edited" chat by Jameson to remove, "entering and exit and small talk." Although there is no reference stated, Jameson's chat normally happen in her "#webbsleuths" chat room in IRC. All chat responses by Lin Wood are noted in red while other visitors in the chat room are noted in black.

"Lin is in chat - - "
Posted by jameson on Mar-29-01 at 11:10 PM (EST)

Just for a while - - join us!

2 . "Very interesting - "
Posted by jameson on Mar-30-01 at 00:37 AM (EST)

LP logged it and will post s cleaned up transcript tomorrow. There were about a dozen of us there - RST and BORG - and it was an open chat. Lin did pretty well keeping up with us - - and a lot of questions were answered.

He did say he would be on the morning talk shows next Tuesday and that Lou Smit was planning to give Katie Couric an interview that would air in installments over a week, probably in late May.

Lots of stuff covered... watch for it!

3 . "Transcript part one -"
Posted by jameson on Mar-30-01 at 02:00 AM (EST)

I did the best I could to take out all the entering and exit and small talk - -

jameson - Lin - would you mind if we invited in a few others? If you have a while?

LLW - The next few weeks and months will be very interesting...go right ahead...I can answer a few questions

LuvyPigen - this is a federal court suit, like the Wolf and LHP ones filed by Darnay?

LLW -Yes, filed in the same court in Atlanta

LuvyPigen - will the polygraphs be allowed in?

LLW - Interesting question...we would certainly welcome their admissibility

LuvyPigen - I read a couple of cases where 5th district allowed polygraph results

LLW -The myth about polygraphs is that most people believe they are not admitted in evidence because they are not reliable or a proven science

LuvyPigen - Daubert lets them in under federal court rules

LLW - Yet the real rationale behind not admitting them is the fear that the results would have undue influence on the jury

LuvyPigen - which means prosecutions don't want "passed" results in front of jury?

LLW - Absolutely, especially from Ed Gelb -- the best in the business

jameson - The forums are still saying the Ramseys failed tests - - could have cheated

shana - jams, yes, some cite other polygraphers

LLW - I was there -- the forums are wrong

LuvyPigen - Toriello, Baxter, Fonts

shana - LLW, what do you say in response to reports from other polygraphers w/ "inside info"?

LLW - I would have to know who those other polygraphers were and there factual basis

LLW - I know that I checked out Gelb and Baxter and they are the best -- their results are good enough for me

shana - LLW, thx, good answer

jameson - They are saying the Ramseys actually failed the New Jersey polygraphs and possibly some early ones with Gelb

LLW - There was no failure -- period

LuvyPigen - well, I"d like to see the Gelb/Ramsey tests admitted if ST case goes to trial

shana - Is it Backster or Baxter? Just curious

LLW - Backster...I stand corrected

jameson - Will the handwriting reports be made public in this deal? the US Secret service and the others

LuvyPigen - CBI, FBI

shana - ALL of them, hopefully

LLW - I think eventually all the handwriting reports will be made public...I want them to be released

jameson - HEY - - can Thomas be asked about what was said when he went to Quantico? how one side was shown, basically only the BORG side

LLW - Yes...just as Beckner and Wickman can be asked about some of the seminars they have recently given

shana -I would like to see all handwriting expert results posted, preferably in chart form.

LuvyPigen - I'd settle for just the conclusions

shana - there is confusion abt the indices

shana - LP, yeah, but on a scale w/ a legend please!

LuvyPigen -; if CO rules the grand jury secrecy rules unconstitutional, will that free up the handwriting reports?

LLW - I think the CO gj issue as it survived will not be as helpful as it appears...

LLW - there is nothing to prevent any witness from telling his or her story

shana -IS nothing? What?

LuvyPigen - as long as they don't reveal what they testified to at gj?

jameson - they just can't discuss what happened in the gj room, right?

shana - As long as they do it anon?

canadiana - i thought they could not discuss what they said to the gj?

LLW - they just cannot couch it in terms of this is what I told the grand jury or this is what I was asked by the gj

canadiana - so if they do not use the words 'i said in the grand jury....'

shana - LLW, OIC...but that's not actionable, even if it happens to be just the same as their GJ testimony? Curious.

LLW - correct Canadiana

canadiana - ; so, they can actually tell their story (the witnesses) but not say they told the gj?

LLW - ; Yes, Canadiana

canadiana - ; thanks. interesting. so people could be talking already if they chose.

jameson -; Darnay is using this to get people looking forward to her book

LuvyPigen - ; from what Darnay said on Crier yesterday, he wants LHP to be able to say how the GJ treated her

shana - ; didi, wonder why they haven't so far, don't you?

canadiana - ; yes. really wonder

canadiana - ; the jurors cannot talk though.

jameson - Lin - - is there any reason why Foster couldn't talk - - like he suggests in his book? I don't think so but some say he is bound to secrecy

LLW - Foster is looking for an excuse not to talk

jameson - that's what I think

LuvyPigen - can't blame him on that...it sure wouldn't help Foster any

maikai -; who are the DOE'S????

LLW - ; We do not know for sure but in discovery Thomas will have to identify them

maikai -; Can Thomas plead the First Amendment? protecting sources?

maikai -; I LOVED the part about not stopping the publishing of the book! My dad kept saying they should get a restraining order

LLW - ; It will be difficult to assert a privilege against individuals who have broken the law by revealing confidential police information

maikai -; oh good

LuvyPigen - ; unless Thomas claims he's a priest

maikai -; John Douglas? Lou Smit?

LLW - ; Your Dad was right but deep down the BPD wanted this book published

maikai -; I agree dad said the same thing

shana - ; Deep down as in Beckner?

LLW - ; The DA tried to gag Lou

maikai -; yup..

LuvyPigen - ; sounds like the BPD helped, from what Thomas wrote

LLW - ; true

maikai -; "some" of the BPD

shana - ; Oh, so these weren't his thoughts alone?

LLW - ; The Boulder 7

LuvyPigen - ; "some" I agree

LuvyPigen - ; shana he thanked officers still at BPD in his book for helping him with confidential materials

maikai -; and that "Jane" Doe.......

shana -; LP, yep, thx

LLW - ; LuyPigen --exactly right -- he admits they provided him with confidential information

LuvyPigen - ; yes, it's the first thing in his book..Author's Notes

LuvyPigen - ; if the secrecy rules are lifted, the jurors should be able to talk, shouldn't they?

maikai -; How many jurors do you think would REALLY talk?

jameson - do you fear him shredding evidence now?

canadiana - ; jams? who shredding evidence?

maikai -; I think ST is shredding like crazy, lol

jameson -; Lin - - does this mean - - could it be - - can you depose KANE???

LLW - ; I will depose Kane in Burke's suits based on the interview he granted to the Harrisburg newspaper

LuvyPigen - ; hmmm I vaguely remember the Harrisburg article...will have to look that one up

jameson -; I don't remember that paper

LLW - ; Patriot Times -- declaring "no evidence" to support the speculation about Burke

shana -; LLW, will there be more from the Ramseys in The Enquirer, perhaps followups by phone interviews?

shana -; Followups to "correct" info

jameson -; The enquirer reporter told me there wouldn't be more articles from that interview - just the one

canadiana - ; LLW? why did the Rs give the interview to the NE?

maikai -; why just one, jameson?

LLW - ; I suspect there will be follow up stories in the tabloids from the interview

LuvyPigen - ; there was much grumbling on the forums about the Enquirer interview being given

jameson -; the reporter said there wasn't anything else there (to twist, I think)

maikai -; was that partly an offensive strategy?

LLW - ; Examiner has already indicated another is forthcoming

shana -; LLW, but nothing official from the Ramseys to correct info/adjust impressions or how the story was written?

maikai -; Examiner is low on the tabloid food chain

LLW - ; but Jameson is right

jameson -; Examiner - - they work close with Darnay Hoffman

LuvyPigen - ; ugh

maikai -; like I said...LOW on the food chain lol

LLW - ; they had to make up facts to get one story from the interview

shana -; Which ones?

LuvyPigen - ; any chance the transcript of the Enquirer interview might be released via Lin Wood?

maikai -; why don't they offer a reward again?

shana -; LLW, so the speculation that the interviews were part of the Star settlement is completely OFF?

jameson -; I would like to see all two hours

LLW - ; John calling to change his story before the deadline...pure fiction

shana -; LLW, thx

canadiana - ; anything else?

LLW - ; Patsy hugging the reporter

maikai -; all the relationships with the tabloids are incestous

canadiana - ; and why did they do the interview in the first place?

LLW - ; Patsy offering cookies

LuvyPigen - ; Darnay Hoffman stated on the forums that the Ramseys were paid for their Enquirer interview

maikai -; what's wrong with cookies?

LLW - ; Patsy saying she considered John molested JBR

LLW - ; and the list goes on

canadiana - ; will you sue them for that? it is pretty damaging.

maikai -; did you have any idea they were going to twist things?

LLW - ; the Ramseys were not paid for the interview

LuvyPigen - ; thank you

shana -; LLW, she didn't say that per the article but it was implied...are you saying those words abt Nedra in the other bed weren't actually Patsy's?

maikai -; sue them for being A-holes? they'd love it

LLW - ; the story was reported first in PMPT at in early 1999

LLW - ; Patsy told the story about Nedra to emphasize how foolish it would have been to even consider the idea -- in response to an ugly question by Gentile about whether John might have had sex with JonBenet while Patsy was recovering from cancer

shana -; IC, so she considered it in response to the question

shana -; (or rather, such could be implied)

LuvyPigen - ; the interview was questions from tabloid, answers by Ramseys...story fictionalized around answers

LuvyPigen - ; that's how the tabloids write

jameson -; they took sentences out of context - - the better to twist

shana -; LLW, would you rather she not have answered the question that way, to leave such room?

canadiana - ; well the Ramseys arent' stupid. why would they think the NE would not 'twist' things? why on earth would they do the interview in the first place?

shana -; I'm no lawyer (ha!) but I'd think that wasn't the best answer to give

LLW - ; I believe in letting Patsy be Patsy...she is the real deal...what you see is what you get...consistently...I think she is great and incredibly courageous

Guest - deflamation of character? What about all the characters the R's defllamed? It could come back and haunt.......

LLW - ; Who did the Ramseys defame?

jameson -; The Ramseys really haven't defamed anyone

LuvyPigen - ; did the Enquirer make a contribution to charity in JonBenét's name?

shana -; LLW, I would like your comments on the JBR Fdn, if you would
shana -; What is its purpose, originally and now? It doesn't appear to be a charitable org to which one would contribute $.

shana -; It looks like part of a tax plan to me (nothing wrong w/ that) but it seems to be mentioned often as a donation source. What's up w/ that?

LLW - ; It was established for good and decent purposes but it has been maligned so badly that I fear it will never be a useful tool to help other kids and their families

[To be continued on next post]

 

[Webbsleuths/LW Chat Transcript continued from previous post]

4 . "Part 2"
Posted by jameson on Mar-30-01 at 02:17 AM (EST)

canadiana - ; BUT why did they do the interview?

shana -; LLW, had you been on the Ram Def team early on, would you have recommended they NOT do the "subtract interview" and others?

shana -; LLW, I'm curious about why a lawyer on their side would want the Ramseys to volunteer so much info

LLW - ; The Enquirer represented that they wanted to pursue a serious interview to write a serious article touting their recent articles on Rodham and Jackson

canadiana - ; and you all believed them?

shana -; LLW, that was the motivation behind the Ramsey acceptance of the interview for the NE, their good intentions?

maikai -; they cut their own throats by distorting things

LLW - ; the Ramseys have answered questions from BPD for over 66 hours...there are few new questions and only truthful answers

shana -; LLW, OK, but why so much public exposure (unleashed) by them? Wouldn't good legal representation suggest they stay quieter?

LLW - ; No, the Ramseys have been accused for so long as hiding behind their lawyers...in fact, they have not stared across the table at their worst accusers...with nothing to hide of fear

shana -; LLW, but you know as a lawyer that letting a client loose to speak serves-up fodder for speculation and then some

shana -; Starting 1/1/97...the CNN interview...damage to them from the beginning

jameson -; I know the answer but would like you to state it here -- Did you settle the Burke cases for "pennies" just to score a win - - as suggested by some...

maikai -; lawsuits are part of their operating costs.....

LLW - ; I cannot reveal any details of the financial amounts of the Burke lawsuits...I can only refer you to my background and track record of 24 years...draw your own conclusions

maikai -; Lin...do you think the killer will ever be found?

LLW - ; I am told that if objective , experience homicide detectives could take over the case, it could be solved in a matter of months

shana -; LLW, like who? Jay Salpeter?

LLW - ; Like the Boulder County Sheriff's Dept

shana -; LLW, really? Who from that dept?

maikai -; Boulder County Sheiff's dept? wonder if the perp is still in the area...or even alive

BraveHeart - What about the possibility of a special investigator?

maikai -; When are you going to be on the Today show? Any other shows?

LLW - ; I am scheduled to appear on CBS' Early Show next Tuesday am

LLW - ; If time permits I may do Today after CBS

LLW - ; Katie will be doing a 5 part Monday-Friday presentation on Lou Smit and his evidence in May

maikai -; wow! thanks!

LuvyPigen - ; that's good news

canadiana - ; are there other lawsuits pending? like the one who wrote the book...hodges?

Sparrow - Lin, what is the earliest that this will go to a jury?

;_lilly_of - Have you considered the possibility of this opening up other suits? and one last one from me is-what makes you think this one will fly?

LLW - ; Hoffman's suits could get to a jury before the suit against Thomas

shana -; Good question...any suits left unfiled?

LLW - ; This one meaning the suit against Thomas?

Sparrow2 - yes

LuvyPigen - ; are you involved in those suits against the Ramseys?

TeamR - if you don't mind my asking, are you doing this suit on contingency?

LLW - ; My representation of the Ramseys is on a contingency basis

maikai -; how will you get the evidence......to fight Darnay?

maikai -; your Thomas suit says Ramseys not privy to it

canadiana - ; are you planning a suit against hodges?

shana -; LLW, are there any other pending lawsuits Ramsey v on the pipeline?

LuvyPigen - ; don't feel overwhelmed...this is like a press conference...questions flying

jameson -; let him breath guys!

LLW - ; I am not sure Hodges like Boyles and Hoffman and others should be given a legal forum to promote themselves

canadiana - ; thanks!

shana -; I wonder abt the statute of limitations on those...how do you establish a toll date?

LLW - ; Burke will be suing Court TV

shana -; Oh my

jameson -; they are SO BAD

maikai -; Oh...I hope that godawful Grace witch

jameson -; J&P should sue them as well

TeamR -; glad we don't get CourtTV in Canada

shana -; Its anchors too?

;_lilly_of - Burke is rather young to sue anyone.
Sparrow2 - agree Jams

TeamR -; Zany Zahn and Co

canadiana - ; why court tv? we don't get it here so i have no idea.

jameson -; Burke was damaged, he can sue

_lilly_of - at his young age?

maikai -; he can...or parents can on his behalf?

_lilly_of - hie what 15?

jameson -; sure - accused of murder

TeamR -I thought so. Thanks

_lilly_of - no-just badgered.....IMO

LuvyPigen - ; there are statues of limitation...have to sue on his behalf while applicable

canadiana - ; court tv accused burke of murder?

maikai -; All these lawsuits....and the killer still goes free...sad

LLW - ; His parents on his behalf

LLW - ; very sad

6 . "end of chat with Lin"
Posted by jameson on Mar-30-01 at 10:18 AM (EST)

LLW - ; The system of justice has been turned upside down in the Ramsey case

LuvyPigen - ; no one wants their child maligned publcily

TeamR -; agree, LLW

LuvyPigen - ; agree

LLW - ; The victims forced to prove their innocence while a killer goes free

TeamR -; but it is noble work, Mr Wood. Remember that

maikai -; yup...and probably some lowlife loser

LuvyPigen - ; the public promotes that...prove your innocence or be maligned! that's wrong

maikai -; BTW: Had a lot of respect for you, Lin, in defending Richard Jewell

LLW - ; Thank Maikai still fighting the Atlanta paper for him

canadiana - ; LLW, how can the system be fixed now? do lawsuits really help?

TeamR -; You and the Rs are doing everyone a service with these suits

jameson -; I think there will be - - or should be - - new laws because of this case -- how to handle situations like this

Sparrow2 - ; agree TR i think our whole country will be better for these suits
maikai -; Amendment to the First Amendment!

LLW - ; draw a distinction between entertainment and news

shana -; LLW, I agree to that, but the Ramseys have provided entertainment too, despite their intentions

maikai -; Ramseys didn't provide entertainment..how can you say that?

jameson -; Will you get to rest a bit now tht this suit has been filed?

maikai -; hah! work has just begun

Sparrow2 - ; Lin, do you know who the killer is?

LLW - ; I only know who the killer is not

LuvyPigen - ; I'm in agreement with LLW again

LLW - ; but I do know that JonBenet was brutally murdered

maikai -; yup..she was

_lilly_of; LLW-Who is NOT the Killer?

maikai -; pssst...Lilly...Ramseys

TeamR -; lilly, who do you think?

maikai -; have you talked to the Aisenberg attorney? Cohen?

maikai -; yup...Cohen wants Congress to address it

canadiana - ; do you honestly believe the Ramseys should have behaved differently in the very beginning.

LuvyPigen - ; LLW can you tell us anything about the 911 tape?

LLW - ; the 911 tape -- if it supported the Thomas theory, it would have been leaked long ago

TeamR -; is the 911 tape going to be heard at this trial, Lin?

LLW - ; It was shopped as was other evidence until the "right" answer was purchased

LLW - ; I intend to take action to obtain the tape in the near future

TeamR -; I see

shana -; LLW, what do you mean? The tape was sent to several other labs b4 the one that heard Burke? Is that what you're saying?

LLW - ; yes

LuvyPigen - ; sure shana...it went to Secret Service and FBI first

TeamR -; shana - if you were entertained by
what the Rs have been through, you should seek help fast

_lilly_of; Sorry guys-obviously you gotta Non Pro Ram on----thanks-for lettin me vent here....trying to be civil....appreciate your hospitality

Sparrow2 - ; lilly, if you think the Ramsey's provided entertainment, I'd advise you to get some therapy

shana -; You don't have the enhanced tape?

maikai -; tape hasn't been released

TeamR -; of course he doesn't!!

LuvyPigen - ; only Burke's criminal lawyer received the tape copy

shana -; TR, really? Some have said they heard it on TV

TeamR -; some people have said they've seen Elvis

maikai -; how about taking action to "clear" the Ramseys like Richard Jewell?

LLW - ; fairly viewed, the GJ refusal to indict should have been their clearance -- the evidence is not there

maikai -; that's right!

shana -; LLW, fairly viewed, this was an investigative GJ, right?

LuvyPigen - ; by Colorado definition, it was an investigative grand jury

canadiana - ; did the GJ refuse to indict? i thought we did not know that.

maikai -; it was a GJ called for POLITICAL purposes only...gov was embarrassed...wanted media off his back

LLW - ; this was a GJ impaneled to indict John and Patsy Ramsey -- it refused to do so

shana -; LLW, do you know for a fact if the GJ was asked to vote on an indictment?

LLW - ; true, Maikai, but Kane wanted an indictment

shana -; Seems to me their tasks if not their attendance were severely limited
maikai -; Kane did.....Hunter knew better

LLW - ; if the GJ had voted to indict, it would have leaked

maikai -; sure it would have been leaked

shana -; LLW, OK then, the purpose of the GJ was investigative?

canadiana - ; but..wait. do you KNOW FOR A FACT the GJ refused to indict?

LLW - ; If the GJ was not allowed to vote because the prosecutors knew they would vote to no bill, I am sure the threats from the DA would chill any leaks

TeamR -; moving on...LLW, do you think it's accurate to call this the "civil trial of J & P Ramsey"?

LLW - ; yes

shana -; Well then it's good that the GJ jurors might be able to talk to clarify that

LLW - ; couple of more then off for some rest

LLW - ; I wish the grand jurors could speak freely...

maikai -; (make them good!)

canadiana - ; i still do not understand. are you saying you don't know for sure but you are assuming they refused to indict?

jameson -; agree Lin - - maybe one day they will be released from that vow of silence

shana -; IMO, the real question is, were they even working towards an indictment, or just as an investigative body w/ higher powers to subpoena

LuvyPigen - ; I think common and legal sense reveals that the GJ did not indict
maikai -; I think we all know what they were thinking

LLW - ; I do not know for sure but I did not check my common sense and legal experience at the door..this GJ would not indict if a vote was allowed

shana -; Personally, I don't think a vote was even asked for

maikai -; remember...there were a couple scientist types on the GJ

canadiana - ; i agree shana

LLW - ; I agree Shana

LLW - ; because Kane & Co. knew the outcome would be a no bill

shana -; LLW, that's where we differ...I don't think it was convened to indict

shana -; I think it was convened to garner evidence from reluctants, or w/ legal powers to obtain such info

LLW - ; Spend a few minutes with Kane, Shane...he dreams indictment every night

jameson -; lol

maikai -; Kane...evil

Sparrow2 - ; Kane will be having nightmares soon imo

maikai -; the DNA was one big stumbling block

LLW - ; DNA

Sparrow2 - ; and the pineapple maikai lol

maikai -; blasted pineapple

LuvyPigen - ; aaccck pineapple!

Sparrow2 - ; lololol

maikai -; I'd like to know if Meyer's revised his opinion....

maikai -; does he know about the pig experiments?

jameson -; Any lawsuits right around the corner?

LLW - ; give me a month

maikai -; more??

mapek - LLW, are you in favor of allowing the grand jury people speak? or do you think they should continue to be gagged?

_lilly_of; Let all speak who have something to say..............IMO

maikai -;Lou Smit...John Douglas

LLW - ; and Smit

mapek - LLW, are you in favor of allowing the grand jury people speak? or do you think they should continue to be gagged?

shana -;

LLW - ; I wish the grand jurors could speak freely...

jameson -; Lin - - I want to thank you for joining us and being so cordial with everyone - and if you ever want to join us again, I would be happy to set it up

TeamR -; LLW thanks very much for your time - I would wish you good luck, but honesty is the greatest ally, and the Rs certainly have it on their side. Take care...

_lilly_of; thanks for allowing me to visit guys-nite. Appreciate you LLW also....

canadiana - ; thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions

LLW - ; God night all...thanks for your interest

LuvyPigen - ; thank you LinWood

jameson -; Goodnight Lin

mapek - thank you for chatting with us llw

shana -; Nite, LLW, thanks again!

maikai -; good night, Lin...keep up the good fight!

Sparrow2 - ; Thank you

Fluppy - thanks LLW - ; MY best to you

BraveHear - Thanks Lin, give'm hell in court

*** LLW has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)

8 . "note"
Posted by jameson on Mar-30-01 at 10:23 AM (EST)

The log is LONG - - and full of comings and goings and side conversations. I put together the "journalist friendly" version and tried to make it easier to read with understanding.

I believe I did a good job.

Sorry there was no notice for this - - I was thanking him for the suit for posting and invited him to join me in chat with LovelyPigeon. He was right there! As you can see, he is a very open man - willing to answer our questions.

I think we got a lot out of this chat - - no doublespeak with Lin.


[End Webbsleuths/LW Chat Transcript]

 

http://www.boulderdailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/0830arams.html

Investigators not satisfied with outcome of questioning
By Christopher Anderson
Camera Staff Writer

After two days of interviews with John and Patsy Ramsey, Boulder police and prosecutors walked away Tuesday with unanswered questions.

"Due to the parameters of the interviews, we were not able to go into everything we had hoped to in this setting," Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said. "In that respect, it was less than we had hoped for."

The couple's attorney, Lin Wood, walked away calling for the investigation into the Ramseys to stop.

"The time has come for the police to come forward and publicly acknowledge that there's nothing left to do," he said. "The evidence is not there."

But by the end of Tuesday's talks, which concluded around noon in Atlanta, it appeared the answer to who is responsible for the beating and strangulation death of 6-year-old JonBenét Ramsey remained as much a mystery as it did on Dec. 26, 1996, the day her body was found in the basement of her family's Boulder home.

After a tension filled interview session on Monday that lasted about seven hours, Patsy Ramsey was interviewed again on Tuesday for about 30 minutes. John Ramsey was interviewed for about 2½ hours on Tuesday.

However, the interviews, held in Wood's Atlanta offices, were interrupted for several 20-minute breaks as both sides argued over the relevance of the questions, prosecutor Michael Kane said.

In a press conference following the interviews, the Ramseys said they hoped to someday be cleared in the death of their daughter, but acknowledge that would be unlikely unless someone else was arrested.

Patsy Ramsey, the focus of this week's questioning, said police told her she is under suspicion not for any one reason but because of "a lot of little things." The investigators would not tell her what those things are, she said.

Addressing Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner during the press conference, Patsy Ramsey said: "Whatever obstacles are in your way that make you think I killed my child, I want to help you get over that."

Before the interviews, Beckner called Patsy Ramsey "the primary witness" between the two parents.

The couple was interviewed separately with their attorney present. The Ramseys also provided information to police from their own investigative files.

The meeting marked the third official interview the couple has given to investigators and the first interview since June 1998. It also was the first time the couple met with Boulder's police chief.

Although Wood and the Ramseys had high praise for Beckner, interviews broke down Monday when Wood objected to questions about forensic evidence from Kane, who Wood called "overzealous."

Wood told reporters that Patsy Ramsey answered "every question that was fair."

But he instructed her not to answer "hypothetical questions" about forensic evidence he has not seen, he said.

Kane, a consultant for the Boulder County District Attorney's Office who led a grand jury investigation in the homicide, accused Wood of using the interview for public relations purposes.

"He wanted to make this into a media event so he could go out and talk about how cooperative his clients are," Kane said shortly after arriving back to his Pennsylvania law office Tuesday.

Kane said the Ramseys answered questions leading up to critical questions, but when the critical questions came, Wood made objections and stopped the questioning.

"It frustrated the effort," Kane said. "It was a waste of time."

Beckner, who was scheduled to return to Boulder on Tuesday evening, defended Kane.

"We certainly do not agree with the way Mike Kane was characterized by the Ramseys' attorney," he said. "Just as it's the job of the Ramseys' attorney to aggressively defend his clients, it's the prosecutor's job to aggressively pursue the justice in this case."

If police and prosecutors feel they cannot get answers from the Ramseys voluntarily, one option is to subpoena them before a grand jury.

Officials made the suggestion during negotiations for the latest interviews, but the Ramseys said they wanted to meet with police.

If they are called before a grand jury, the couple could invoke their Fifth Amendment rights not to testify.

The Ramseys were not called before a Boulder County grand jury, which investigated the case for 13 months before disbanding last October without charges being filed.

But since then, Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter, with the help of Gov. Bill Owens, pushed through a new law that would limit the statements that must be given to those who are targets of a grand jury. Under the old law, the Ramseys would have been privy to statements from others attributed to them.

Beckner and Hunter said it is too early to say what the next step will be, saying information collected from the interviews needs to be evaluated.

"We're not in a position to draw any conclusions at this time," Beckner said.

Contact Christopher Anderson at (303) 473-1355 or andersonc@thedailycamera.com TheAssociated Press wire service contributed to this report.

August 30, 2000

 

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/update_13.html?sect=7

The Interviews

On August 28, 2000, CNN reported that the long awaited "Ramsey interviews" with Boulder police finally came to fruition when Patsy Ramsey met with investigators for the first time in over 2 years. The meetings, conducted over two days, saw Patsy interviewed for a total of seven hours while the interview with John ran for just over two.

At the conclusion of the meetings, Ramsey attorney Lin Wood said his clients felt that "the line of questioning by the seven-member team was fair and pertinent to the case."

Prior to the meeting, Boulder police chief Mark Beckner had indicated that questioning "would focus on evidence developed over the last two years, some of which came from forensic testing conducted after the grand jury disbanded, and statements the Ramseys made in their book (The Death of Innocence)"

As before, when questioned if the Ramseys were the main focus of the investigation he would only say that they were "under suspicion."

The following day, via a faxed statement to CNN and other media, Beckner stated that the meetings between Boulder investigators and the Ramseys produced "less than we had hoped for." It is believed Beckner was referring to Attorney Wood's intervention during the Patsy Ramsey interview when he called the line of questioning by special prosecutor
Michael Kane, "overzealous" and "obsessive."

Beckner said his office had originally intended to explain to the Ramseys "what evidence we believed put them under suspicion, and explore whether they had any explanations for some of that evidence," but changed their minds when arguments between the respective attorneys broke out over questions concerning the couple's son, Burke.

Wood later told CNN that he had directed Patsy to answer all of the questions she was asked, except for the question about Burke which he believed was irrelevant to the investigation calling it "the disgusting tactic of an overzealous prosecutor."

Chief Beckner countered, saying that Wood insisted on seeing the lab reports relating to forensic evidence before he would allow his clients to answer questions about them. At the time Beckner refused, as he believed it "wasn't in the best interests of the investigation to release any further police reports on the crime."

He also disagreed with Wood's decision to release portions of the interview tapes to the media stating, "It is not in the best interests of the investigation to release any portion of videotaped interviews or their transcripts," Beckner said. "In fact, it potentially harms our ability to find justice for JonBenet."

According to Wood, Patsy Ramsey felt the interview process produced nothing that would lift the"umbrella of suspicion" she and husband John have been under since JonBenet's death. John Ramsey commented that he and Patsy could "never clear our names, after what's been done to us." He added that he felt no animosity towards the authorities and was thankful that they were still pursuing the case. "The last thing I want is for this to go into a file drawer," he said.

Attorney Wood told CNN that the Ramseys were cooperating with the police and had handed over "significant information" as a direct result of having their own investigator working on the case full time. "We have given them leads. They'll have to determine if those people are viable suspects. That's a determination for the police, not this family," he said.

Wood also dismissed the suggestion that the meeting was just a publicity stunt saying that the Ramseys had readily agreed to be questioned in the hope that they could help the police investigation. "Only a fool would subject themselves to questioning by seven investigators as some sort of publicity stunt," Wood said, "And my clients are not fools."

©2004 Courtroom Television Network LLC. All Rights Reserved.

 

News Release

April 25, 2000
Contact: Jana Petersen, Media Relations, (303) 441-3090
City's Home Page www.ci.boulder.co.us

No Polygraph exams scheduled for John and Patsy Ramsey #75

After several discussions with Boulder Police, an attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey today informed police Chief Mark Beckner that the Ramseys will not take polygraph examinations.

On April 11, the Boulder Police Department accepted John and Patsy Ramsey's public offer to take polygraph exams regarding the death of their daughter, JonBenet. The department agreed to the conditions as set forth by John Ramsey in a March 23 television interview as follows:

 The exam be conducted by an examiner independent from the Boulder Police Department
 The exam be conducted in Atlanta
 The results of the exam be made public.

Boulder Police arranged to have FBI specialists conduct the examination in Atlanta. After consulting with others in law enforcement, Boulder Police selected the FBI polygraphers specifically for their international reputation in criminal polygraphs and their independence from the Boulder Police Department. Other factors that weighed heavily in selecting the FBI were the specialist training received by FBI examiners, the quality control implemented in their examinations and supervisory oversight that is provided for every exam.

During subsequent discussions, Ramsey attorney Lin Wood told Boulder Police that the Ramseys were reluctant to take an exam administered by the FBI, as they believed involvement of the FBI and the FBI laboratories in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation prevented them from being "independent" examiners.

As a compromise to the Ramseys' concerns, the FBI agreed to assign an examiner who had no prior knowledge or involvement in the Ramsey case, and the Boulder Police Department agreed not to be involved in selecting the specific FBI examiners

This did not satisfy Ramsey concerns with the FBI involvement, and the Boulder Police Department is not willing to further compromise on this issue, so there will be no polygraph exams at this time.

"Obviously, we're disappointed that the Ramseys have declined to take the polygraph exams, after very publicly saying they would," Beckner said. "However, our offer still stands, should the Ramseys decide to change their position."

http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/comm/pressrelease/RAMSEY/pr000425a.html

 

News Release
Friday, December 20, 2002

Contact: Amy Mueller, Media Relations, (303) 441-3090 (before 5 p.m.)
Jennifer Bray, Media Relations, (303) 441-3851, ext. 6004 (after hours)
City Web site: www.ci.boulder.co.us

Ramsey Update #85: Ramsey Investigation Takes New Direction

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner today announced that the JonBenet Ramsey investigation will be taking a new direction. Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan and Chief Beckner have agreed that the District Attorney will follow-up on new leads and information in the case. This will involve the assignment of DA investigators who have not previously worked on the Ramsey case. This is an investigative strategy that has been discussed in the District Attorney’s Office and the Police Department for several weeks.

"The primary reason for this change is an attempt to further the investigation in a positive manner," said Chief Beckner. "The interests of the Boulder Police Department have always been to do what is in the best interests of the investigation. This is a strategy to address concerns expressed by the Ramseys and their attorney that the Boulder Police Department is not following up additional leads. This may provide the Ramseys and their attorney greater comfort in forwarding what they believe is new information or leads that need to be investigated."

"It is our hope that by changing the dynamics of the investigation, information maintained by the Ramseys will be forwarded to the DA’s Office for follow-up," stated Chief Beckner. "Obviously, it is impossible to investigate information you do not have access to. We also realize that a fresh look at the case from time to time is healthy and could lead to new progress in the investigation. This will be the fourth time over the course of the 6-year investigation that changes in strategy and responsibility have been made in an effort to further the investigation. Each time, we have had some success in moving the case forward."

Chief Beckner further stated, "It is important for all of us to remember that the ultimate goal is to solve the case for the victim, JonBenet Ramsey. We are willing to try just about any strategy in order to accomplish that goal. We will continue to work in cooperation with the District Attorney’s Office and provide consultation as needed. Any tips or new information received by the Police Department will be forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office for follow-up."

"We don’t care how or who solves this case, and if this helps, then it is the right thing to do," added Beckner.

http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/comm/pressrelease/RAMSEY/pr021220.html

 

LW's Love/Hate Relationship with the State of CO

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/11301999woodonlkl.htm

LKL Transcript 11-30-99

"Star" suit
Posted by Gates on Nov-30-99 at 11:21 PM (EST)

KING: Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE. On May 25th, 1999, the "Star" magazine printed this headline story: "Ramseys in Top-Secret Plea Bargain Talks as Evidence Shows JonBenet Was Killed by Brother Burke." That's May 25th of this year. June 22nd, less than a month later, this is the same -- the issue of the "Star," and on the bottom right-hand corner: "Plus, in addition to other stories, brother Burke cleared. We were wrong." And in view of that, a major lawsuit was filed today by Lin Wood, the attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey, on behalf of Burke, charging what? Saying what?

LIN WOOD, RAMSEY CIVIL ATTORNEY: Libel. This corporate conglomerate published vicious lies about a 12-year-old boy.

KING: That affects him how? There has to be cause and effect, right?

WOOD: It will damage his reputation for the rest of his life. And some time in the future -- luckily not now, the child has a great defense mechanism -- but sometime in the future, Burke Ramsey will look back, and he will know what was said about his family, but he will painfully know what was said about him.

KING: Had they printed a headline "We Were Wrong" across the top about Burke, would that have sufficed?

WOOD: It would have sufficed, potentially, to negate any claim for punitive damages, but a retraction does not negate claims for actual damages, damages to reputation.

KING: What was their source? Where did this come from?

WOOD: Good question, and perhaps we can ask the attorney for the "Star" when he comes on in a little bit.

KING: He's going to be joining us. He's -- you're seeking $25 million dollars in actual and punitive...

WOOD: $5 million in actual, $20 million in punitive. Remember that this is a multimillion dollar corporation, and the punitive damages are given to do two things: one, to punish this corporation; and two, to deter this corporation from ever doing this again to another child.

We cannot tolerate this type of viciousness and literally malicious lying about a child for profit, and this lawsuit is John and Patsy Ramsey's way of saying that they, as parents, will not tolerate it.

KING: Did they come to you right after this appeared?

WOOD: They came to me within a couple of months after this particular issue was published, and I have been representing them since that time.

KING: Did you call the "Star"? Usually attorneys call first, you don't just file a lawsuit. Were there exchanges?

WOOD: Well, actually, in this case, Jim Jenkins -- who is the attorney in Atlanta that represented Burke when he was testifying before the grand jury -- Jim wrote retraction demands to the "Star," and that resulted in, ultimately, the retraction -- the attempted retraction that was published in late June, almost a month later.

The fact of the matter is, the Boulder district attorney's office on May the 20th in a public statement, very clearly stated that Burke Ramsey was not a suspect, was not even a possible suspect. Not one phone call was ever placed at any time before these issues were published, not one phone call was ever placed by anyone at the "Star" to the Boulder district attorney's office or the chief of police of Boulder to verify the story. If they had called, they would have known that these stories were false.

KING: Did you call the "Star"?

WOOD: I did not, no. It was time to file suit. That was my job.

KING: Do you know what psychological damage it did to Burke?

WOOD: Well, I think from what we know right now, Larry, that, as I said, a child at his age has a very...

KING: Any of his friends at school, and this kind of thing? I mean...

WOOD: Listen, as -- we will know one day exactly, I think, what this will do to Burke psychologically. But I think that so far we can safely say that John and Patsy have shielded him from a lot of this. What kids say to him at school -- I hope that he probably doesn't hear it.

KING: You're kind of a veteran of this, Lin.

WOOD: Well, a little bit.

KING: You represented who?

WOOD: Richard Jewel -- still do represent Richard in our war against the "Atlanta Journal and Constitution."

KING: And you won money from this network, from NBC, right?

WOOD: Yes.

KING: And your still in lawsuits on that?

WOOD: One lawsuit left for Richard.

KING: Would you say this story, in a sense, was in that league?

WOOD: I think the treatment of John and Patsy Ramsey, and Burke Ramsey, is in that league. I have said before that I represent members of an exclusive club, and it is a club that no one else wants to join: People that have been convicted of heinous crimes in the court of public opinion by the media, but people who have never been charged with any crime.

I think we've got to make a decision as a society, Larry. We've got to decide that we give the media the right to inform us. We give the media the privilege to entertain us. But are we prepared to give the media the power to decide guilt or innocence? In this instance, the media decided guilt, guilt with respect to a 12-year-old child. I just don't think we can tolerate it. We go down that road, and we are literally all at risk.

KING: Now, of course you do open -- as your claimants know, the "Star" can now depose both John and Patsy Ramsey, and keep them there for days if they want.

WOOD: Well, days -- listen, there are protections for witnesses. We're in federal court, we have got some great judges in Atlanta. John and Patsy are prepared to answer any question that's asked of them in a deposition that is based on relevant issues. Just as John and Patsy Ramsey, by the way, answered every question that was put to them in three days of examination by the Boulder district attorney's office.

They don't have anything to hide, but they're not going to be abused in this litigation. We're not going to allow "Star" magazine, with its high-powered Washington, D.C. lawyers, to come down to Atlanta and abuse the civil process by trying to make it into a media circus, or in effect, to try to get information so they can go out and write more libelous stories about my clients. That will not happen in this litigation.

KING: We're going to spend some more moments with Lin Wood, and then Gerson Zweifach, the attorney for the "Star," will join us for the remainder of the program. Back with some more with Lin Wood, and then we'll meet the opposing attorney. They'll be on together right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: A couple of other things just for Lin Wood and then Gerson Zweifach of Williams & Connolly, the Washington firm -- the high- powered firm that you described...

WOOD: High-powered.

KING: ... will join us.

Between the May 25th initial story and the June 22nd retraction story there was a June 1st story called "Inside the Twisted Mind of JonBenet's Brother." Is that included in the lawsuit?

WOOD: It certainly is: an article that basically conveyed, in its gist, that Burke Ramsey killed his sister because he had a twisted mind. You asked me earlier were there sources. Perhaps we'll get the names of those sources in a couple of minutes. I don't think there were any reliable sources.

This was done for profit. This was calculated to be done because Burke Ramsey would sell papers.

KING: And they've said in a statement we'll ask Gerson to comment on that no publisher enjoys being sued, but they're happy because they intend to answer the question of who did this killing and they're going to be involved, the "Star," in the investigation.

WOOD: Well, let me tell you: If they think they're going to come down to Atlanta and litigate the issue of who killed JonBenet Ramsey in a libel case brought by Burke, I suggest that they're wrong, but we'll see.

The idea that they would be happy to be a defendant implies that they must take pride in this type of a publication about a child.

Listen, we may disagree about what the media can say about John or Patsy Ramsey. I think the media has gone way overboard with those people in convicting them of a crime they have never been charged with. But I don't think fair-minded people can differ when it comes to talking about what was done to a child.

KING: Have we had any lawsuits by children?

WOOD: I'm not aware of any.

KING: Libel lawsuits?

WOOD: I have been asked that question recently, and I'm not aware of any lawsuit that's similar to this case.

KING: The suit was filed today, is that correct?

WOOD: It was filed this morning.

KING: Did you -- do you expect any settlement attempt here?

WOOD: I don't...

KING: From that statement, it doesn't sound like it.

WOOD: Listen, I don't expect a media defendant -- they've got unlimited resources financially. These -- as I said, this is -- American media owns four of the tabloids: "Enquirer" -- "Star" just bought "The Globe" for $105 million. These people have financial resources to try to wear us down, beat us down. But as you say, I'm a veteran of those wars. We'll be there when the lights are turned off in this case.

KING: OK. Maybe we'll settle it here.

WOOD: Well, if he's brought his checkbook and he's got the right number of zeros, we might be able to.

KING: Gerson Zweifach is the attorney for the "Star." And he will join us. Lin Wood will remain. And we'll be back right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Lin Wood of Wood and Grant in Atlanta remains -- from Atlanta remains with us. We're joined now by Gerson Zweifach of Williams & Connolly in Washington, attorney for the "Star," which on May 25th published this story: "JonBenet Was Killed by Brother Burke." And then almost a month later on June 22nd, the retraction, of sorts, in the lower right-hand corner, which "Plus Brother Burke cleared; We Were Wrong."

Gerson, why such -- what do you make of this?

GERSON ZWEIFACH, CIVIL ATTORNEY FOR "STAR": Larry, we're going to defend this case the old-fashioned way, which is we're going to get at the facts. Nobody has been cleared by the state. Nobody's been charged by the state.

What we -- what we -- what we know is this: The governor of Colorado came on your program a month ago and said this investigation was stymied and stonewalled. We haven't been able to develop a provable criminal case. We have an idea who did this, but we're not ready to proceed. But their investigation was stonewalled. Ours won't be. Ours won't be.

We're going to be able to do that which the state has never been able to do: cross-examine John and Patsy Ramsey about everything involving this murder, every inconsistency, every detail. And we're going to get at the facts.

KING: They can do that, Lin?

WOOD: You know, no, they cannot, absolutely cannot. There was a phone call placed to one of the criminal defense lawyers a month or two ago out of Williams & Connolly and this same type of threat was made. We can't wait for you to sue the "Star." We're going to take John and Patsy Ramsey's deposition.

Let me tell you something: John and Patsy Ramsey have been examined by some of the toughest investigative questioners in Colorado. Three days, answered every question, offered to stay and answer more if they wanted them to.

This is the type of tactic you see from the tabloids.

[To be continued in next post]

 

[Continued from previous post]

KING: So they're not concerned.

WOOD: They're going to come in here and threaten us. John and Patsy Ramsey are not going to be threatened. They're going to assert the rights of their son, and they're going to hold this tabloid accountable.

ZWEIFACH: Look, it's very simple: The complaint that was filed this morning says in, I think, paragraph 24 that JonBenet Ramsey was killed by an unknown assailant. We're going to find out whether or not that's true.

Mr. Wood can't walk in and say, that's so and we have to accept it. We don't have to accept it.

KING: But...

ZWEIFACH: And what we were wrong about...

KING: Prima facie, Gerson: You're saying you were wrong.

ZWEIFACH: What we were wrong about -- we ran a story, as you see, that the state's theory -- that the state had targeted Burke. And we said we were wrong because the state came out and said, no, we haven't targeted Burke. And we said in words of one syllable, we're wrong. But that's quite a different question from whether they should have.

KING: You would agree that this headline sure doesn't look like the state. The headline is like "JonBenet Was Killed by Brother Burke."

ZWEIFACH: Well, what it says is that there were plea bargain talks going on, and there were talks going on. But if you go on and read what the retraction says, what the retraction says is the state has announced that it has not targeted Burke Ramsey. And we were wrong about that. But that is a separate question from whether or not they should have.

And so we're going to conduct...

KING: You're not even admitting that Burke wasn't involved?

ZWEIFACH: Absolutely not. We don't have the facts. The governor told you we don't have the facts. We're going to get the facts.

WOOD: Are you saying that Burke Ramsey is a prime suspect today?

ZWEIFACH: I am saying that no one is ruled out. I'm saying that the governor has told us...

WOOD: Wrong.

ZWEIFACH: ... that his investigation was stymied and ours will not be stymied.

WOOD: Wrong.

ZWEIFACH: We're going to conduct a full investigation.

KING: You're going to take this lawsuit and make it a story for yourself in a sense?

ZWEIFACH: We're going to defend it. And the way we're going to defend it is we're going to get at the facts.

KING: Because you don't want to hurt a 12-year-old boy, do you?

ZWEIFACH: No one wants to hurt a 12-year-old boy. But let's -- these are disturbing stories. But look at the facts. The fact is a 6-year-old girl was murdered in her own home with her parents and her brother the only ones there. The state, which has looked into it, has developed no credible evidence of an intruder. Something awful happened here. And we're going to look into it.

WOOD: Well, there's so much there. Let me quickly say this: No. 1, this is not a story about what the state felt about Burke Ramsey. This is a story based on alleged sources that Burke Ramsey killed his sister.

There's a paragraph in that story that says that JonBenet got out of her bed and went in and got in Burke's bed, and then his pent-up rage was released, and he physically assaulted her, sources say. Who are those sources? Tell us right now.

ZWEIFACH: Lin...

WOOD: If you want to bring some credibility to your investigation that "Star" magazine is now going to undertake for the state of Colorado, tell us then in your credible way who were the sources for this story. Here's your chance.

ZWEIFACH: Lin -- Lin, no newspaper burns its sources in the courtroom or on national television.

WOOD: I'd burn these sources because these sources were wrong.

ZWEIFACH: I will tell you -- I will tell you this.

WOOD: They weren't even close.

ZWEIFACH: We have said they're wrong, but what we're going to do is we're going to take on your allegation in the complaint that this child was murdered by an unknown assailant. You said it. Let's find out if it's true. Let's work together. Let's investigate together. Let's cooperate.

No one wants to abuse the Ramseys, but we want to cross-examine them. We want to get at the facts.

WOOD: You're for...

KING: You're not going to offer any settlement fee? You're not going to say, we'll give you this and let's let it go away?

ZWEIFACH: How can you settle the case when we don't know the facts?

KING: Because you're being sued for $25 million.

ZWEIFACH: Well, you know, it happens every day. People attach all the zeros they want. But what you have to do is if you have a story and someone attacks you, you've got to get at the facts. And the governor of Colorado has said they don't have all the facts.

One of the things they've never done is cross-examine these people under oath.

KING: And you feel they did this for money and they didn't mind hurting a little boy?

WOOD: There's no question about it. Other organizations owned by American Media are on record in tape-recorded conversations saying. we don't have anything on Burke, but we're going to write about him anyway because Burke sells.

KING: You have recordings of that?

WOOD:: Jeffrey Shapiro worked for "The Globe" -- I am sure this attorney is familiar with Mr. Shapiro, has those recordings, has written some articles published in "The Denver Post."

But let me say thing about -- just one second.

ZWEIFACH: Be fair.

WOOD:: You be fair about this -- Burke Ramsey, aged 12, has been officially cleared as a suspect. He has been officially recognized as not even a possible suspect, three years, millions of dollars -- don't attack this child again, stop, find some decency about making money and stay away from 12-year-old children. We don't need that in this society.

KING: I've got to get a break. We'll have Gerson respond when we come right back with more.

Don't go away.

This week on LARRY KING LIVE: Tomorrow night, we'll kick off our millennium month of guests with legendary talk show host Mike Douglas. And then on Thursday, Victoria Gotti speaks out about her family and organized crime. Friday night, Jack Lemmon discusses Tuesdays with Maury. And Saturday, Yoko Ono for the hour. It's all this week, 9:00 Eastern on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: I am personally going to invite both of these gentleman to come back one night, and we'll do a full hour on this.

In our remaining moments, Gerson, you've been accused of child beating here.

ZWEIFACH: Everything under the son. First of all, "The Globe" was acquired by American Media about a week ago, so the notion that whatever "The Globe" did should be chargeable to the "Star" and "The Enquirer" is just wrong.

KING: So, the suit isn't a against you?

ZWEIFACH: That's right.

But while we're talking about the tabloids, let's remember this. It was "The Enquirer" that found the picture of O.J. Simpson and the Bruno Magli shoes, that brought him to some measure of justice in the civil case. It was "The Enquirer" that broke open the Ennis Cosby murder case. So tabloids have served a useful purpose, served a productive role in major criminal cases, and that's what we want to do in this case.

KING: In the course of that, they shouldn't be allowed to go wild. I mean, obviously...

ZWEIFACH: They should do their best to publish the truth, to investigate the truth, but...

KING: In your opinion, was this story handled poorly?

ZWEIFACH: The facts will bear it out. We've already published an apology and a correction that the initial story that said he was targeted by the state, said it's wrong, said it in words of one syllable.

KING: Why didn't the apology make...

WOOD: For a variety of reasons, legal reasons, it was not sufficient. But let me just give you a practical reason why it was not sufficient, Larry. It's like yelling "fire," shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and then whispering under your breath "just kidding." The damage is done. The whisper will never undo the damage of the shout. This child will live with this for the rest of his life. This story was picked up -- a story that he was the killer. It was in "The New York Post." It was discussed in two television talk shows on a rival network. Nobody picked up the story about this minute retraction. Nobody discussed the retraction on your rival networks. Burke Ramsey has been tainted. He is a child. What was done to him is unconscionable.

KING: Did you advise them on that retraction?

ZWEIFACH: We were not the firm that was counseling them on the "Star" matter when it came up, and the folks thought we should take a fresh look at it when we litigate the case.

But to be fair, the "Star" was not the first entity to look at the family and even to look at Burke and to raise questions about his role. Back two years ago in "The Denver Post," there was a story that contrary to what he apparently told investigators, that he was asleep the whole time, the 911 tape shows that he was awake at 5:30. So there have been a lot of media reports, not just...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: ... to everybody in this? Are you going like it's your investigation in a sense? You're going to use this lawsuit as a spur?

ZWEIFACH: We're going to do everything we can to find out who killed JonBenet Ramsey.

KING: And you should want them, in that sense -- if they accomplish that, it should benefit all of us.

WOOD:: John and Patsy Ramsey have some priorities in their life. They want to find out who murdered their daughter.

KING: So they should be...

WOOD:: They want to bring justice for what was done to their son Burke. They are willing and have always been willing to embrace legitimate, professional investigators. I don't think the "Star" magazine falls into that category.

ZWEIFACH: And apparently you don't think the state of Colorado falls in that category, because 24 hours after this child was found, they hired criminal defense lawyers, limited access by the police to them. The governor complained bitterly in his statements on LARRY KING LIVE a month ago about the lack of cooperation that they gave the state. So it's not just the tabloids that are unhappy with them.

WOOD:: Let me in fairness say I spent a lot of hours getting to know the Ramseys and getting to know this case. And I was watching Governor Owens when he gave this press conference. And I think you know what my thoughts were about that press conference. John and Patsy Ramsey -- let's look at the facts -- voluntarily gave DNA, blood, hair, voice samples, three days -- the -- I could go on for a long time about the list of cooperation...

KING: The conclusion just for this portion -- you're saying everything is still open in this?

ZWEIFACH: Absolutely.

KING: And you're saying there's no doubt in your mind the boy was cleared?

WOOD:: No doubt about it. The issues are going to be very simple. It's not going to be a carnival and a circus down in Atlanta, Georgia.

KING: Hope to have you both back.

[End LKL Interview Transcript 11/30/99]

 

1998 Keenan/Ramsey Interview re Santa Bill

While this particular transcript does not involve Lin Wood, it is one of the most persuasive documents in the Ramsey case to prove Mary Keenan's long history of lack of objectivity in investigating the case.
***
0626
1 __________________________________________________
2 IN THE MATTER OF:
3
4
5 INTERVIEW WITH JOHN & PATSY RAMSEY
6
7 __________________________________________________
8
9
10 TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW
11
12
13 ADDENDUM TO VOLUME 4 OF PATSY RAMSEY
14 PAGES 626 - 666
15
16
17
18 JUNE 25TH, 1998
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0627
1 FOR JOHN & PATSY RAMSEY'S INTERVIEW,
2 THE FOLLOWING ARE PRESENT
3
4 MARY KEENAN
5 DAN SHULER
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 MARY KEENAN: I just have a list of
0628
1 questions.
2 DAN SHULER: Because you were writing
3 those down. What's the purpose of this whole
4 thing? Okay, the purpose is we want to talk to
5 you to gain additional information about Bill
6 McReynolds, which has kind of peaked our interest
7 a bit. And we want to do everything we can to
8 solve this case for you.
9 So what we'd like to do is, Mary Keenan has a
10 lot of questions that she has after viewing the
11 interviews about Bill and I know you have some
12 concerns yourself about Bill, and we'd like to
13 bring this out in the open so we don't forget
14 what we're doing and what we're focusing on. So
15 we don't forget any minute item. All right.
16 You want to just talk a little bit about Bill to
17 start?
18 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, we met him on the
19 mall around three years before December '96. He
20 was walking around in a Santa suit passing out
21 candy. We stopped and talked.
22 PATSY RAMSEY: We were in a (INAUDIBLE)
23 deli, he came in.
24 JOHN RAMSEY: Is that -- okay.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: We were having
0629
1 breakfast.
2 And we talked. I believe he was employed by the
3 downtown Boulder Chamber of Commerce or something
4 to be on the mall and greeting people and
5 whatever.
6 JOHN RAMSEY: And, I don't know that it
7 was the same year, I don't know that it was, that
8 we invited him to our house.
9 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, I think so; '94,
10 for a Christmas party.
11 JOHN RAMSEY: Okay. And the whole
12 procedure was, he would come in and the kids would
13 all be there. And we'd (INAUDIBLE) and Patsy had a
14 list of gifts that he's pass out. He usually had a
15 little saying or something kind saying, something
16 silly: oh, you've been really good, did this, or
17 you've been bad, you did this. I guess we had
18 gifts for the adults sometimes.
19 So he would sit and give out these gifts, and the
20 kids would sit around and he'd read them a story.
21 PATSY RAMSEY: He also came to adult
22 parties. We had tons of pictures sitting Santa's
23 knee, playing that whole role.
24 DAN SHULER: Would that be at the same
25 time or at different times?
0630
1 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, some Christmases
2 we had three or four different parties and one
3 might be primarily adults, and he would come just
4 to be part of kind of like a little feature at the
5 party, and all the ladies would sit on his knee
6 and get their picture taken and whatnot.
7 And then typically closer to Christmas, like
8 Christmas Eve, like in the year of '96 , we'd have
9 just a few close friends who had children. And we
10 had Santa come and we'd do the naughty and nice
11 list, and the gifts and all that.
12 JOHN RAMSEY: But JonBenet, of course,
13 was fascinated with him because he was Santa Claus
14 and I remember one year she led him around the
15 house and showed him a bunch of things, I don't
16 know what. But she just took him by the hand and
17 led him around.
18 '95, I guess we called him and invited him back
19 for the regular party. '96 we weren't going to
20 have a party. He called us, I guess you probably
21 heard that, and said that Charles Kuralt was doing
22 a special on him and he wanted to bring him to our
23 party because it was one of his favorites. And
24 will we have it.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: I mean, I really hadn't
0631
1 planned on it, but you know, he'd do it for free,
2 and I said, "I suppose I could. So we decided on
3 the 23rd. He suggested we have it earlier because
4 he had another engagement that evening.
5 JOHN RAMSEY: And Mrs. Claus came with
6 him on that visit. That's the only time she's been
7 to our house.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes.
9 JOHN RAMSEY: I remembered thinking
10 that
11 she was really kind of --
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Drippy.
13 JOHN RAMSEY: -- a drip. She really
14 wasn't with it. She was just there, almost acting
15 kind of irritated to be there. Didn't smile much
16 at all.
17 PATSY RAMSEY: I thought she was there
18 because he was he --
19 JOHN RAMSEY: He came in and said he
20 was frail and his wife was there to help him.
21 DAN SHULER: Was he frail?
22 JOHN RAMSEY: Not if he was in New York
23 a week later and off to Europe a few weeks later.
24 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
25 JOHN RAMSEY: I mean, I don't think.
0632
1 The hypothesis in my mind was, it was all a big
2 act.
3 DAN SHULER: What year was it that
4 JonBenet took him around the house and showed him
5 the house?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, it was the
7 preceding year of this; so it would have been
8 probably '95.
9 JOHN RAMSEY: Did she take him around
10 at all that, maybe, in '96? Could you remember?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: No, because he wasn't
12 there very long. He just came to the living room
13 there and sat in that chair.
14 JOHN RAMSEY: Where was Mrs. Claus?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: She was behind him,
16 there.
17 MARY KEENAN: What was the story with
18 Charles Kuralt and did that materialize?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: They never came to our house.
20 However, there was an article in the Camera about
21 -- cause I thought, when he called about that, I
22 thought: that's a little strange. I mean, why did
23 they pick him of all the Santas in the world or
24 whatever. And then, lo and behold, it was in the
25 paper that --
0633
1 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, he might have told
2 the paper the same thing.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. We can go
4 back and look at that timeframe for the paper
5 article.
6 JOHN RAMSEY: In December '96.
7 MARY KEENAN: Do you remember what you
8 paid him and how you paid him?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: Check. Usually $20, $25,
10 $20 to $50.
11 MARY KEENAN: What did you know about
12 his surgery?
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Just this letter that
14 said
15 he had open-heart surgery. And then I got this
16 when we got home for the lake that year. And
17 subsequently, a few, I don't know some days later,
18 I stuck my head into the little bakery, you know,
19 down there at Basemar Shopping Center, where is
20 son is a baker. And I said, "How's your dad? How
21 was his surgery?" And he said they'd almost lost
22 him a couple of times. That it was pretty tense.
23 MARY KEENAN: And had it been by
24 Christmas or had it been several months, three or
25 four months?
0634
1 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it says right here,
2 "I'm going into, next Tuesday, St. Joseph
3 Hospital," and it's August 23rd. So way August.
4 DAN SHULER: So, if I'm understanding
5 right, the first time he was in your home was
6 the Christmas season of '94?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Um hmm.
8 DAN SHULER: He returned in '95, then
9 again in '96. Now, was he in your home any other
10 times from '94 through '96?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, '94, two days
12 after Christmas -- I remember this because it was
13 after this was the year we had the big Christmas
14 tour of our house. Okay. And he showed up at the
15 door a couple days after Christmas with a small
16 gingerbread house which the bakery, his son, had
17 made. And he knew how much we loved Christmas, and
18 he wanted to give this to us.
19 So I invited him in. I said, "How am going to
20 explain that you're here to the kids." And he
21 told the children that he was Santa's brother who
22 lived in Netherlands and took care of the reindeer
23 throughout the year.
24 DAN SHULER: Okay.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: And that Santa said what
0635
1 a good time he had had at our house and all that
2 stuff.
3 DAN SHULER: Did JonBenet see him when
4 he brought the gingerbread house at that time?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Um hmm. Yeah.
6 DAN SHULER: And what was her reaction
7 to him?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: You know, not like --
9 because he wasn't like Santa Claus at that time.
10 He looked sort of kind of like Santa Claus but.
11 They didn't --
12 DAN SHULER: And did you tell her that
13 story?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. He told Burke and
15 JonBenet.
16 DAN SHULER: Did Burke still believe in
17 Santa Claus at that time?
18 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
19 DAN SHULER: And, what about later?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, --
21 DAN SHULER: When did he start --
22 PATSY RAMSEY: We've never really even
23 discussed that. Cause I've always said, when they
24 quit believing, he'd stop coming.
25 DAN SHULER: Oh.

 

0636
1 PATSY RAMSEY: So it was to their advantage
2 to continue to believe.
3 JOHN RAMSEY: Plus you get gifts from
4 Santa and gifts from mom and dad.
5 PATSY RAMSEY: He did too. As a matter of
6 fact, sometimes I'd say, "Well, what did you get
7 me?"
8 DAN SHULER: Did you ever run into him
9 outside your house during Christmas season:
10 downtown, in the mall, wherever he might be
11 working?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: I saw him at a Christmas
13 parade. He was at a Christmas parade.
14 DAN SHULER: Which year?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: It would have been '95
16 probably. It would have been '95.
17 DAN SHULER: Was JonBenet in the Christmas
18 parade?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: She was in the Christmas
20 parade.
21 DAN SHULER: And what was that contact like?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: I mean I just saw him on the
23 float; he waved or something.
24 DAN SHULER: Did he come over and see you,
25 or did he come over and see JonBenet?
0637
1 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
2 DAN SHULER: Did you notice, what you were
3 to think back on now, as any unusual affection
4 that he had towards her?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, this '96 Christmas when
6 he was there telling the story about, well his
7 rendition of Christmas sort of, and how -- and I
8 remember sort at the conclusion, sort of, and I
9 mean (INAUDIBLE) this little story he spins, you
10 know. But I remember him specifically, and here in
11 a room full of children, say, "JonBenet, where is
12 Santa," and I'm not sure if he said, "Where is
13 Santa," or "Where is Christmas kept all year long,
14 JonBenet?" And she said, "In your heart." And he
15 said, "That's right."
16 And I thought: well, how did she know where it was
17 kept. Yeah. I mean, it was kind of like something
18 he had told her before. I mean, it just kind of
19 hit me at that moment. He was like: JonBenet, and
20 she was like: in your heart.
21 DAN SHULER: (INAUDIBLE) the sprinkle
22 gesture. I think that John had referred to it was
23 kind of like the dust that make the reindeer fly,
24 is how he phrased it?
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, Santa has this glitter
0638
1 in his beard. And I think that prompted JonBenet.
2 She knew that he kept glitter in the craft shelf
3 in the basement there. I think she took him
4 downstairs to give him the bottle of this Disney
5 fairy dust to sprinkle.
6 And we had several bottles of it because I think
7 they used it for some promotion at the office one
8 year. Cause you brought a couple bottles home from
9 Frontier or something like that. Cause you and my
10 dad brought a bottle over. We had a couple of
11 them, two or three. And I think she may have given
12 him another one this '96 Christmas.
13 DAN SHULER: Could you describe that bottle?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: It's just like a little genie
15 bottle, like a little --
16 DAN SHULER: Hourglass?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, not even like a an
18 hourglass, but like a vinegar curette or
19 something, sort off.
20 DAN SHULER: Wider at the bottom?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: Wider at the bottom, tapers
22 through the top, cork in the top.
23 DAN SHULER: That's what Burke had described
24 to me when we were talking.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
0639
1 DAN SHULER: Did she give that to him on the
2 23rd?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: I believe she gave him a
4 second bottle then. Because then at the memorial
5 service, Father Rol asked, I think, and I mean I
6 was pretty out of it, but I think he asked if
7 anyone wanted to say anything or had any fond
8 memories, or something, of JonBenet and up walks
9 up Santa Claus, as Bill McReynolds at this point.
10 He's not in red and white. And I can't remember
11 what he said.
12 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember either. We
13 have a video of it, but (INAUDIBLE) of giving us
14 back this bottle of fairy dust. We aught to be
15 sure you have that video so you can look at it. I
16 assume that Ellis' office has it?
17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: As in, Loyal
18 (INAUDIBLE)?
19 JOHN RAMSEY: Loyal (INAUDIBLE).
20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Jennifer believes,
21 in fact, that it has been turned over. But we'll
22 check and be sure.
23 JOHN RAMSEY: Okay.
24 DAN SHULER: The presents; how would
25 you give the presents to him to pass out to the
0640
1 children?
2 PATSY RAMSEY: I left them in a kind of a
3 garbage bag out by the front door hidden. And then
4 he would come fill his bag with them so he had
5 them as he came in the door.
6 DAN SHULER: And what about the prearranged
7 notes? Would he rehearse through? Did you
8 (INAUDIBLE) to him?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I would just float
10 that to him. I mean It was just written out and
11 he'd just read it.
12 DAN SHULER: You mean like it was just
13 Santa's list?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
15 DAN SHULER: Would he bring like any small
16 items himself to pass out to the children other
17 than what you provided for him?
18 PATSY RAMSEY: It seems like he may have
19 brought candy canes, or had asked me to have candy
20 canes to give to them. Seems like I remember candy
21 canes.
22 DAN SHULER: If you happen to think of
23 anything like that, let us know, like later on.
24 Cause we have an interest in that. What about to
25 any of her pageants that she had? Would he ever
0641
1 show up to any of those?
2 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I never saw him.
3 DAN SHULER: Would he ever show up to any
4 other functions of hers that you were aware of?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: No. Well, he kind of stood
6 out in a crowd, so he wouldn't have been able to
7 hide. I never saw him.
8 DAN SHULER: Did he ever go to any school
9 Christmas pageant or anything like that? Now was
10 he the Santa Claus of the Boulder theater?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: I'm not sure. Like that
12 Christmas pageant they had there?
13 DAN SHULER: Yes.
14 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't remember. I'm don't
15 know.
16 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't know for sure, but
17 that kind of --
18 PATSY RAMSEY: They probably tape of that, I
19 know.
20 JOHN RAMSEY: But that kind of rings a bell
21 in my mind.
22 PATSY RAMSEY: Could have been.
23 DAN SHULER: when he had the children
24 passing out presents and things like that would he
25 whisper anything into their ear or anything as he
0642
1 was passing out presents, or would he have them
2 sit on his lap? How would he pass them out?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, he usually sat
4 stationery in the chair and he had this bag and
5 they were gathered kind of at the foot of his --
6 we probably have pictures of it -- and he'd just
7 kind of: Luke and he'd reach over. A couple times
8 maybe a couple would come over and sit on his lap.
9 DAN SHULER: Would he ever talk to the
10 children softly? Do you recall if he would whisper
11 something in their ear, that you recall?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't recall any overt
13 whispering or anything like that. He was very soft
14 spoken.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Down on their level, you
16 know.
17 DAN SHULER: Sure.
18 MARY KEENAN: Did he ever sing?
19 JOHN RAMSEY: He sang songs.
20 PATSY RAMSEY: He sang songs, yeah.
21 MARY KEENAN: You talked about '95 at the
22 Christmas parade. What about '96 Christmas parade?
23 PATSY RAMSEY: See, I don't know. Cause I
24 wasn't in town. My parents took JonBenet in their
25 car, you know. She rode with several of her small
0643
1 colleagues there. So I don't know if he was there
2 or not.
3 DAN SHULER: Now Burke recalled being in the
4 Christmas parade himself, with the scouts or
5 something like that?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
7 DAN SHULER: He said one year they got to
8 ride and the girls had to walk. And the next year
9 the boys go to (INAUDIBLE), it was vice versa. And
10 there was a sailboat or was it at boat that they
11 decorated ?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: They decorated, right.
13 DAN SHULER: Was that the '96 year?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: That was the '95.
15 DAN SHULER: The '95.
16 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
17 DAN SHULER: In '96, was he involved in
18 the parade also?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: No. He and Nathan -- just
20 watched, but he wasn't in the parade. He wasn't
21 scouting that year.
22 DAN SHULER: In '96, okay. So JonBenet
23 was in a car?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: A convertible, correct.
25 DAN SHULER: And what about in' '95?
0644
1 PATSY RAMSEY: '95 was when we did the
2 sailboat. She was Ms. Little Ms. Colorado, or
3 something or the other.
4 DAN SHULER: Okay.
5 PATSY RAMSEY: She sat on the sailboat
6 and sang "(INAUDIBLE) Lollipop", and it was
7 decorated like (INAUDIBLE) lollipop.
8 DAN SHULER: Okay.
9 PATSY RAMSEY: And the boy scouts were
10 decorated like packages.
11 DAN SHULER: Right. That's what you were
12 telling me.
13 PATSY RAMSEY: And that Santa had, and
14 they handed out lollipops to the kids along the
15 street.
16 DAN SHULER: Okay. I wasn't quite sure
17 which year that was. What about the video? Well
18 not the video, but the tape. Tell me a little bit
19 about that?
20 JOHN RAMSEY: I didn't listened to it.
21 PATSY RAMSEY: I haven't listened to it
22 either.
23 JOHN RAMSEY: I couldn't bring myself to
24 listen to it. But I passed it on to Ellis, and
25 he's given it to you guys (INAUDIBLE).
0645
1 DAN SHULER: Do you remember, for
2 clarification, just when he said that to you?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Well he had given one to
4 us "Santa's Simplest Gift" or something the
5 previous year.
6 DAN SHULER: '95.
7 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well I never listened to it.
9 I just put it in the tape drawer. But the next
10 year he said he had included JonBenet's name in
11 it, in the story, in some updated version or
12 something. I listened to it and it wasn't.
13 DAN SHULER: How good was his Santa suit?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: It was marginal, as I recall?
15 DAN SHULER: Did it look fairly authentic?
16 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
18 JOHN RAMSEY: It had been worn; it was a
19 worn Santa suit, to my recollection.
20 DAN SHULER: Okay. Some Santas wear
21 accessories and things like that. Did he wear any
22 accessories like gloves or other things on his
23 boots?
24 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't -- gosh.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: It seems to me like wore

 

0646
1 those little (INAUDIBLE) or gold -- you remember?
2 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember. We have got
3 pictures.
4 PATSY RAMSEY: We've got pictures.
5 JOHN RAMSEY: Because we took a lot of
6 pictures. We'll look at all the pictures we have
7 and send them to you.
8 DAN SHULER: All right. That would really
9 be helpful. Now would that be for the '96 one that
10 you have the photographs for?
11 JOHN RAMSEY: We gave those to the police.
12 They're on a roll of film that I just gave them.
13 Mr. Ellis should still have some pictures on him.
14 DAN SHULER: Okay. Do you remember his boots
15 at all, off the top of your head?
16 JOHN RAMSEY: They weren't -- I don't
17 remember them not being consistent with his
18 costume. They weren't big ugly ones or something
19 like that.
20 DAN SHULER: Other than his reindeer, do
21 you know what he showed up in?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: I think I opened the door
23 prematurely and they were coming out of a little,
24 kind of a little hatchback car. I don't know my
25 cars very well. But small, with the back end sort
0647
1 of lift up.
2 DAN SHULER: Like a little compact type
3 of car?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
5 MARY KEENAN: Do you remember the color?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, it was dark. I'm
7 (INAUDIBLE) say it was white or something.
8 MARY KEENAN: What car would you compare it
9 to if you had to?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know my cars real
11 well. Like a Pinto hatchback or something like
12 that.
13 MARY KEENAN: Smaller?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Smaller.
15 JOHN RAMSEY: One of the cars I noticed
16 driving by was a white, could have been a Pinto. I
17 don't know that I got a good look at who was in
18 it.
19 MARY KEENAN: Did you notice if it was one
20 person or two?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: I think one is what I
22 remember.
23 MARY KEENAN: And what was your initial
24 thought?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: Just thought I saw him drive
0648
1 by twice on Cascade and 126th, and there was
2 hardly any traffic
3 MARY KEENAN: What time?
4 JOHN RAMSEY: Early. Sevenish, probably. It
5 was early in the process.
6 DAN SHULER: So you noticed a small
7 white car?
8 JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm.
9 DAN SHULER: Hatchback type?
10 JOHN RAMSEY: It could have been. But it's
11 possible. I don't remember it specifically. But it
12 was a small white car.
13 DAN SHULER: Okay. Several times?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: I want to say twice.
15 MARY KEENAN: Twice in one direction, or
16 down and back?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: Possible twice in the same
18 direction. I mean it was a little suspicious to me
19 at the time, but it wasn't enough to really
20 (INAUDIBLE) in on it.
21 DAN SHULER: Talk a little bit about the
22 harp. You mentioned about the harp.
23 JOHN RAMSEY: That was in a letter, and
24 you have that letter.
25 MARY KEENAN: Um hmm. (INAUDIBLE).
0649
1 JOHN RAMSEY: Is one of these in
2 handwriting?
3 MARY KEENAN: I can't read that.
4 JOHN RAMSEY: (READING LETTER) I remember
5 this letter. (CONTINUING READING LETTER) I think
6 what he was trying to do was to get this woman,
7 she was like a journalist, he was trying to --
8 (CONTINUTING READING LETTER). I don't know how I
9 got that harp thing. But I'm sure --
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Was that in a magazine?
11 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, maybe.
12 PATSY RAMSEY: There was a picture and he
13 had a scarf around his neck. It was in a People
14 magazine article, I think.
15 DAN SHULER: He was in People?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it was a People
17 magazine. It had several people they've talked
18 with, you know. And he and his wife, and they had
19 the bottle of the fairy dust, and he had this
20 scarf around his neck.
21 JOHN RAMSEY: Now see here, he talks about
22 three other innocent children who lost their lives
23 too early. Now does the tape talk about Harvey and
24 the harp?
25 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I never
0650
1 listened to the harp, to the --
2 JOHN RAMSEY: That might be where it is. The
3 tape was described to me by; I haven't listened to
4 it.
5 DAN SHULER: Okay.
6 JOHN RAMSEY: And that may be where I got
7 the harp part out of.
8 DAN SHULER: Okay. What is the date on here?
9 Oh, February 14 of 1995.
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Um hmm.
11 MARY KEENAN: Wrong year.
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Um hmm.
13 MARY KEENAN: Two years off. (INAUDIBLE).
14 I noticed that too. Did he ever talk to you about
15 his family at all?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: Just that he has a son who
17 is a baker.
18 JOHN RAMSEY: He had a daughter or a
19 daughter's friend who was kidnapped on Christmas
20 or near Christmas or something like that.
21 MARY KEENAN: Did he tell you about that?
22 JOHN RAMSEY: No, we heard that later. I
23 also think I saw him once on television, not
24 remember that. And I was, "Oh, yeah. I forgot
25 about that We needing a break." Something like
0651
1 that. Even after the memorial service this was the
2 last guy we would have thought about. And these
3 funny things start to happen.
4 DAN SHULER: So he's been trying to
5 communicate with you more since JonBenet's death?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Um hmm.
7 JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm.
8 DAN SHULER: Do you recall if he ever took
9 any photographs of her? Or let me rephrase it. Not
10 even taking photographs of her, but asking for
11 some photographs of her.
12 PATSY RAMSEY: He asked me. I think I took
13 a picture of them one year at the parade, and he
14 said, "Oh, I would love to have a copy of that."
15 or something.
16 DAN SHULER: Had he ever seen a portfolio
17 of JonBenet? Or photographs that would have been
18 publicized or make any sort of comment that he had
19 seen a photograph in some sort of publicity?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: No. Not that I remember.
21 MARY KEENAN: What did JonBenet tell you
22 about the tour she took him on?
23 PATSY RAMSEY: Nothing. She just said she
24 gave him fairy dust, you know.
25 DAN SHULER: Also it seems in the letter that he
0652
1 made comment that she took him on a guided tour to
2 the house and he mentions unexpectedly memorable
3 was being taken to the basement. Is that typically
4 where the fairy dust was kept?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. That was where all the
6 glitter and glue and craft paper
7 DAN SHULER: Okay. Which room was that?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: That was beyond where the
9 train was; the train and the room to the corner.
10 DAN SHULER: That was where the window was
11 broken, right?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: Yes.
13 DAN SHULER: Okay.
14 MARY KEENAN: Did she also take him upstairs
15 to her room?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: I think so.
17 JOHN RAMSEY: Yes.
18 PATSY RAMSEY: To show him her Christmas
19 trees.
20 DAN SHULER: Were you aware she was taking
21 him on the tour?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. Yeah.
23 DAN SHULER: Did you have a sense of how
24 long it took, how long they were off together?
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Five or ten minutes. I mean,
0653
1 there were people all over the house. I mean, it
2 wasn't like they were just together.
3 MARY KEENAN: So when you were talking to
4 JonBenet about Christmas or reading stories did
5 she ever comment that Santa Claus does such and
6 such?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
8 MARY KEENAN: And did you ever hear
9 about any secret visits from Santa Claus?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
11 JOHN RAMSEY: The only thing we heard was
12 supposedly the mother of Costanek --
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, Costanek. Yeah.
14 JOHN RAMSEY: Barb Costanek .
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
16 JOHN RAMSEY: Said that JonBenet told her
17 Santa was playing there on the 25th. He had told
18 her he would be at their house.
19 PATSY RAMSEY: Not that day of the 25th.
20 JOHN RAMSEY: okay, what was it?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: The 24th.
22 JOHN RAMSEY: Okay. At their house. And she
23 said that Santa was going to come visit her -- no,
24 no, no. I think it was --
25 MARY KEENAN: After Christmas?
0654
1 JOHN RAMSEY: After Christmas. So I think
2 the day after Christmas. So the 26th or something
3 like that. Barb apparently said: no, you mean
4 tomorrow. She said no, it's going to be a special
5 visit the next night, or something like that.
6 DAN SHULER: Right.
7 JOHN RAMSEY: Are you kind of aware of that?
8 DAN SHULER: Yes.
9 MARY KEENAN: Would he know, would you have
10 told him or would JonBenet have told him that you
11 were leaving for Charlevoix in the morning?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: It's possible we may have.
13 PATSY RAMSEY: It's possible, I guess. But I
14 don't know when. I mean, that night he just came
15 into the chair and sat down and the kids were
16 right there, and he didn't --
17 JOHN RAMSEY: Did he ever call on the phone
18 for the kids or anything like that? (INAUDIBLE)
19 the house --
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Gee, yes. I do remember that
21 he did.
22 DAN SHULER: Did he call the children on
23 the phone?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. He said -- My God, I
25 just vaguely remember he called and said -- I

 

0655
1 think it was just when he called me, and I said,
2 "Santa wants to bring over some things."
3 DAN SHULER: Did they ever question that?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I said he's coming to
5 our party. I don't think they actually spoke. Then
6 they might have.
7 JOHN RAMSEY: I just vaguely seems like I
8 remember them talking to him on the phone.
9 PATSY RAMSEY: Could have been.
10 DAN SHULER: Would the children ever answer
11 the phone themselves?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: Oh, yeah.
13 PATSY RAMSEY: yeah.
14 DAN SHULER: As far as (INAUDIBLE) hang up
15 calls while you were living at the house? First I
16 want to say that I recall reading that somewhere.
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. (INAUDIBLE) so many
18 things it's hard to remember.
19 MNK: It talks about one in the morning?
20 JOHN RAMSEY: Oh, yeah. We one hang up call
21 in the eight to ten period while we were waiting
22 for the call.
23 MNK: Did anybody track that one?
24 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't know.
25 DAN SHULER: I believe that it was Linda
0656
1 that reported in one of her reports, said that
2 prior to Christmas, you were getting some hang up
3 calls.
4 JOHN RAMSEY: We may have.
5 PATSY RAMSEY: We may have. I can't
6 remember.
7 DAN SHULER: You don't remember?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
9 DAN SHULER: I wasn't sure.
10 JOHN RAMSEY: Didn't Linda answered the
11 phone for us once when she was there?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, Linda my friend. I was
13 thinking Linda Arndt.
14 DAN SHULER: Oh, no. I'm sorry.
15 JOHN RAMSEY: I was too.
16 PATSY RAMSEY: You mean Linda my cleaning
17 lady?
18 DAN SHULER: I'm sorry.
19 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, she answered the phone.
20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Do you remember
21 getting any phone calls on the 25th or the phone
22 ringing on the 25th?
23 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I just remember being in
24 the laundry area all day wrapping presents mostly.
25 No.
0657
1 DAN SHULER: What struck odd about Bill, now
2 thinking back on everything?
3 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, he was very effeminate;
4 he wasn't a jovial Santa Claus. He was kind of a
5 gay Santa Claus; I don't know how else to put it.
6 He always use to Ho, Ho, Ho.
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Not in a deep voice.
8 JOHN RAMSEY: It was kind of -- this is not
9 Santa Claus. (INAUDIBLE).
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Give me a ho, ho, ho.
11 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. So he was a bit strange
12 that way. And he never got out of that act, and I
13 never saw him any different than that. Even when
14 we'd be coming to the door and we'd always be
15 talking to him, as adults.
16 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. He was always playing
17 the roll of the (GESTICULATING EFFEMINATELY).
18 DAN SHULER: So you saw him several times
19 out of the Santa suit, right?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
21 JOHN RAMSEY: No. It was always --
22 PATSY RAMSEY: He was always circulating the
23 party. He wouldn't say, "Hey, can I have a beer."
24 He was always (GESTICULATING EFFEMINATELY).
25 JOHN RAMSEY: He was this very (INAUDIBLE),
0658
1 just very --
2 DAN SHULER: More of a (INAUDIBLE)?
3 JOHN RAMSEY: Shirley Temple was more of a
4 man than he was.
5 MNK: When he talked to you, did he mention
6 any other places that he was going to be Santa?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: No, but he said that the
8 night of the (INAUDIBLE) that he had another
9 engagement after that, and that he had been with
10 the TV crew, going around to events.
11 DAN SHULER: And Mrs. Claus wasn't very
12 jovial, right?
13 JOHN RAMSEY: No.
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Mrs. Claus was not, no.
15 JOHN RAMSEY: I thought she was not happy
16 to be there.
17 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I just presumed she was
18 there to keep him from falling or something. That
19 was the only impression I got.
20 JOHN RAMSEY: But she had on Mrs. Santa kind
21 of thing.
22 DAN SHULER: White wig and everything?
23 JOHN RAMSEY: No.
24 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
25 JOHN RAMSEY: Just a red --
0659
1 PATSY RAMSEY: Like a little apron or
2 something.
3 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.
4 DAN SHULER: Would he wear a wig?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
6 JOHN RAMSEY: No, he had a real beard.
7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Who else do you all
8 know that you know that may have used him?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: I tell you who you got to talk
10 to is Pam Archuletta. She was head of United Way.
11 She said they interviewed him and decided that he
12 was really a weird duck, and they wouldn't use
13 him. She has some very strong opinions about him.
14 I can give you Mike's office number. It's
15 877-4282, that's Mike Archuletta. Yeah, we've
16 talked about him after the fact and she had some
17 very strong feelings about him. (INAUDIBLE).
18 MARY KEENAN: Do you remember what she said
19 about him?
20 JOHN RAMSEY: It just supported some of the
21 things that we're hearing. A pedophile , you know.
22 DAN SHULER: Other than making toys during
23 the year, what did he do for a job?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: It seems like we asked him
25 that one time and it seems like he said -- did he
0660
1 say that he rode a motorcycles or was that that
2 man in Atlanta?
3 JOHN RAMSEY: It was one of the Santas.
4 PATSY RAMSEY: We had a Santa in Atlanta
5 too. I mean when we lived in Atlanta before.
6 JOHN RAMSEY: He was the one in Atlanta.
7 He was kind of cool.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, he was.
9 JOHN RAMSEY: He would say he was going to
10 ride his motorcycle to California.
11 DAN SHULER: What would be your best guess
12 about his financial condition?
13 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, based on how he was
14 dressed at the memorial service and what these
15 investigators who visited him said, he didn't have
16 a nickel to his name. In fact, we had heard
17 through our investigators that he had some
18 financial problems at one time. Does that ring a
19 bell?
20 UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: My belief was that he
21 was for many years a (INAUDIBLE) professor at CU,
22 which is not a particularly well-paying job; it's
23 certainly not courthouse. I believe that he's been
24 retired for some time. I don't know John. We can
25 certainly get you what else we've got.
0661
1 DAN SHULER: All right. Nothing urgent but,
2 if you all are about done, there are a lot of
3 people holding up waiting to do a diversion plan
4 to get you out of here.
5 We can certainly continue again, if you really got
6 some other important areas to cover. But you if
7 you're near the end I think you should kind of
8 move.
9 MARY KEENAN: Well, I think we will probably
10 have some more questions. But after we think about
11 it and listen to the tape if (INAUDIBLE).
12 DAN SHULER: What I want you to do, and if
13 you wouldn't mind, is to focus your thoughts on
14 this particular area. Jot down thoughts that you
15 have about it, what are some concerns. It would
16 help us and give us some ideas that you think that
17 you'd like to see us explore.
18 JOHN RAMSEY: The things that started
19 concerning us were, he started to fit kind of the
20 profile that Douglas had given us of somebody
21 who's been hanging around us; they kind of like
22 the limelight, he was on the Today Show; he was
23 interviewed on television; and then he split.
24 He fits. He's been in the house, could have been
25 jealous of, you know, if we had more money than we
0662
1 did. I mean, Patsy, Christmas at our place looked
2 liked (INAUDIBLE) cause she just loved Christmas.
3 It wasn't a modest Christmas, you know. So it was
4 a big deal.
5 MARY KEENAN: I have one other question.
6 You said you stopped in several times; just poked
7 your head in for a second?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Um hmm.
9 MARY KEENAN: And you'd heard about the
10 daughter. But do you know anything more about the
11 daughter, where did she move to, what did she do?
12 Does he ever talk about the daughter?
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh uh. That was the first
14 I'd heard about a daughter when all this came out:
15 about the play, and the daughter that --
16 JOHN RAMSEY: I know Dan Glick and Sharon
17 Keene-Osborne from Newsweek had (INAUDIBLE) real
18 hard. They might be someone good to talk to.
19 DAN SHULER: Right.
20 JOHN RAMSEY: Because they thought he
21 was the one from earlier on. There's Valentine's
22 Day too, incidents: hearts.
23 PATSY RAMSEY: Hearts.
24 DAN SHULER: Would he ever draw with paints
25 on the children?
0663
1 JOHN RAMSEY: Not that I ever saw.
2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) was that
3 in the original?
4 JOHN RAMSEY: He used blue and black.
5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Nothing unusual like
6 pink or red?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: No.
8 MARY KEENAN: (INAUDIBLE) the other one.
9 Do
10 you recall if that was a milk carton or some other
11 (INAUDIBLE)?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I don't. We probably have
13 the original, right?
14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I suppose so, yes.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Did we ever get her
16 handwriting samples?
17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't.
18 JOHN RAMSEY: You see, that's one thing I
19 would like to because I don't know how you'd get
20 it. We tried to pull together anything of them we
21 had, which would probably be just as horrible as
22 that. Did we have our guys look at that?
23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I believe so.
24 JOHN RAMSEY: I think we did.
25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think you all did.
0664
1 JOHN RAMSEY: Okay. Maybe it's written down.
2 But I'm would also be curious about Mrs. Claus.
3 According to our investigators when they went up
4 to talk to them, they said he was pretty cordial,
5 but she was very controlling and told him to shut
6 up.
7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:: Mary, do you want
8 any of this to write, or do you write any of this
9 down?
10 DAN SHULER: Would you?
11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah.
12 DAN SHULER: I would appreciate it. And
13 then if you have any thoughts who would be good to
14 speak with.
15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Other contacts.
16 DAN SHULER: Right.
17 JOHN RAMSEY: Something that I thought of
18 when Bryan came into, I'll think of somebody else
19 to talk to.
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, there's Scott Gibbons
21 next door. I had written a note to myself that one
22 year he saw Santa coming in, and so he caught him
23 on the way out and asked him to come over and stop
24 off at his kids for five minutes.
25 DAN SHULER: And did he?
0665
1 PATSY RAMSEY: I think so.
2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Did he give you any
3 references when you hired him that first
4 Christmas? Did you to talk to anyone down by
5 the mall?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I mean, just the fact
7 that he was the mall Santa Claus, and we had used
8 a Santa Claus from the Ridges in Atlanta.
9 MARY KEENAN: He worked for DBI Downtown
10 Business.
11 PATSY RAMSEY: (INAUDIBLE)?
12 MARY KEENAN: As Santa.
13 PATSY RAMSEY: As Santa, yes.
14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay, we'll go. You
15 check what you got and let us know anything you
16 still need from us in terms of video or pictures
17 that we may have that you don't.
18 JOHN RAMSEY: What kind of comments were
19 made in Europe? Do you have any memory about that?
20 MARY KEENAN: I don't know what the
21 comments were at all. I was told by someone else
22 that a woman called while they were in Spain. She
23 met them, ran into them, and he was talking about
24 JonBenet's death and making inappropriate
25 comments.
0666
1 DAN SHULER: Now what those comments were,
2 I don't know.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Wow. That's really,
4 (WHISTLE).
5 JOHN RAMSEY: Cause that was shortly after
6 her death. For a guy who could hardly walk in the
7 door, then he was in the City of New York on the
8 streets a week later and then off to Europe.
9 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
10 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't buy it.
11 (END OF INTERVIEW)

 

2000 Atlanta Police Interview/John Ramsey

Due to the length of these now notorious transcripts, only relevant portions of the full text are posted here in support of the Petition. These excerpts demonstrate LW's extreme hostility and contempt toward Michael Kane and the investigative efforts ongoing in the case. The full text of this transcript can be found in the FFJ JonBenet Ramsey Case Library under the "Transcripts" threads.

Page 0054
17 MR. WOOD: I think the position
18 is, to save some time, if you want to
19 question Mr. Ramsey about test results, that
20 it is absolutely fair that we be allowed to
21 see the result ourselves before we answer
22 questions so that we are not dealing with
23 speculation and hypotheticals that are not
24 supported by the facts as you might represent
25 them.

Page 0055
16 So we are not comfortable with
17 your characterization of any test results
18 forensically.

Pages 0056-0057
15 I said yesterday I thought it was
16 an injustice for you to make those kinds of
17 representations through your questions or
18 statements.
19 If you are going to make
20 statements that contain some form of innuendo
21 that an article of clothing might possibly be
22 connected to some portion of the crime scene
23 or this man's daughter's body, I think you
24 have an obligation, not only to him but to
25 whoever reads that report and this
0057
1 transcript, to be candid and give full
2 disclosure, show the people what the results
3 are, show the people what you also had in
4 terms of fiber evidence.
5 We are told there are hundreds of
6 fibers, for example, on the duct tape. And
7 I think you have a fundamental right,
8 fundamental fairness requires that you
9 disclose that information and not single out
10 some hypothetical innuendo that unfairly casts
11 perhaps in someone's mind that reads this
12 some finger of blame at John or Patsy
13 Ramsey. I think it is totally inappropriate
14 for you to do so, but if you want to go
15 ahead and make a record for whatever reason,
16 I certainly am not here to stop you. You
17 have the right.

Pages 0058-0059
14 MR. WOOD: Posing the question in
15 light of what I said to you yesterday is
16 nothing more than an attempt to make a
17 record that unfairly, unjustly, and in a
18 disgusting fashion points what you might
19 consider to be some finger of blame at this
20 man regarding his daughter, and you ought to
21 be ashamed of yourself for doing it, Bruce.
22 You knew we weren't going to
23 answer the question. Why don't you just
24 give us the report, and we'll put it out
25 there for someone to look at and tell us
0059
1 what it says and see how fair and accurate
2 you have been.
3 I know why you said what you said
4 yesterday about Patsy and the fibers and John
5 and the fibers. And you know why you did
6 it, Bruce. Because you want this somehow to
7 get out and then people will read that and
8 be prejudiced even further against this
9 family.

Page 0060
2 MR. WOOD: It could be, but you
3 pose your question as if it's not not.
4 That's what's unfair. Why don't you let us
5 see the report so we can know exactly what's
6 going on, exactly what other fibers were
7 found in that area so that you don't
8 unfairly cast an aspersion through innuendo
9 or suggestion toward this man and his
10 daughter.

20 doing. You are focusing on what you believe
21 is one specific area. And you are doing it
22 in a way that I think is just unfair.
23 Let me just answer your question
24 about you being quoted. Look, John and
25 Patsy Ramsey sat around for three years and

Pages 0061-0062
1 did not go public with this case, even
2 though your people were talking to tabloids
3 and writing books and appearing on
4 television. Linda Arndt, Steve Thomas, Alex
5 Hunter.
6 You want to go through the litany
7 of how your people have publicly prosecuted
8 and persecuted this family, and now they
9 decided enough is enough and they tried to
10 go out with me, yes, sir, and them and try
11 to refute some of the absolute lies that
12 have been told about them. Do you have a
13 problem with that?
14 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood.
15 MR. WOOD: Because your people
16 have been saying it. I am not calling your
17 name. I don't know who it is linked to.
18 I don't know who gave the ransom note to
19 Vanity Fair. I'm not suggesting it is you.
20 But don't sit here and tell me that because
21 Bruce Levin hasn't been quoted that this
22 investigation from the Boulder Police
23 Department and the district attorney's office
24 is a lily white when it comes to talking
25 about this case in the media because that is
0062
1 false, and you know it.

 

2000 Atlanta Police Interview Transcript/Patsy Ramsey Excerpts

As with JR's Police Interview Transcript, only excerpts will be posted on this thread in support of the Petition. The full text of this interview can be found in the FFJ Case Library under the "Transcripts" thread.

These excerpts are intended to display the extreme level of derogatory animosity and contempt LW has the Colorado officials attempting to continue investigating the case. The entire transcript of both interviews reveals a seething Lin Wood attacking Michael Kane, the Boulder Police Department, the Boulder DA's office and even Gov. Owens himself.

This egregious behavior by an attorney during a police interview is one of the worst I've ever seen. Even given the benefit of the doubt that LW is a civil, not criminal defense attorney, Lin Wood's complete lack of experience, to say nothing of his unprofessional conduct, is blatant in these transcripts as he utilizes utterly inappropriate strategies in a police questioning session, to obstruct, obfuscate and suppress potentially incriminating testimony by PR and Kane's efforts to get simple answers to very simple questions.

***
Pages 0198-0199
21 I do not want, nor do I think
22 you should expect for Mrs. Ramsey, for Patsy,
23 to speculate. Pure speculation is always
24 fraught with peril in anybody's part. And
25 your question not only calls for, I think,
0199
1 gross speculation, but it is at best a
2 hypothetical that reasonably may not even be
3 based on fact. Here is what I would offer
4 in terms of a compromise, and that is, you
5 have indicated, at least by your questions,
6 that you are comfortable in giving us, at
7 least, your verbal statement of the results
8 of these tests.

Page 0217
14 MR. WOOD: That is so, pardon my
15 language, asinine, Michael.

Page 0218
2 MR. WOOD: You are misrepresenting
3 what is happening here.

Page 0220
12 I am going to try, and I've been
13 doing, to give you all of the leeway I can
14 within the framework of your request, but you
15 don't have the right, Mr. Kane, to come in
16 here and ask unfair questions, and you don't
17 have the right to come in here and ask
18 questions in subject matters that the Chief
19 didn't ask for when he asked for the
20 request. That's unfair, and I am not going
21 to let it happen today, and it doesn't mean
22 one thing in terms of it reflecting adversely
23 or otherwise on my clients. It's simply not
24 what you asked to do. Okay?

Pages 0229-0230
23 in Atlanta, and you quickly said yes. I
24 asked for a stenographic reporter because of
25 the concern over an accurate transcript
0230
1 because there never had been one in the
2 prior interviews in April of '97 and in June
3 of 1998.
4 And that's it. I didn't impose
5 any conditions, and I don't want to be
6 misrepresented in that connection.

Page 0233
17 MR. WOOD: If you are implying my
18 job is to obstruct the truth, I take that as
19 a professional insult. And you will not be
20 staying in my office. I pay the rent here.
21 I will not be insulted by you.

Pages 0236-0237
17 MR. WOOD: And it's not a
18 condition now. I simply said that it would
19 be unfair to have a witness speculate about
20 a scenario's explanation based on a
21 representation of the significance of a
22 forensic test on the fibers when it seems to
23 me very simple, if you're going to sit here
24 and say that it appears to be her jacket, a
25 fiber from her jacket, and we are trying to
0237
1 figure out what "appears to be" means because
2 it was one of the weak areas of evidence in
3 the law, fiber evidence when you are talking
4 about appears to be and similarities, that,
5 you know, with all due respect, I wanted to
6 see not the full report, just the conclusion
7 of the person that did the test to find out
8 if that is really an accurate
9 characterization.

Pages -0239-0240
24 MR. WOOD: You are accusing me of
25 doing something improper in my objection and
0240
1 yet you won't --

17 wanted to do. Now you're making a record
18 that says I'm somehow improper in objecting.

Page 0244
14 MR. WOOD: I am going to make
15 you live up to what you said you came here
16 to do.

Page 0249
14 MR. WOOD: I am going to make
15 you live up to what you said you came here
16 to do.

Page 0250
18 MR. WOOD: -- where I instructed
19 Patsy not to answer that question. I think
20 what happened is you took off after me
21 because you didn't like me asking you the
22 question.

Page 0254
14 MR. WOOD: I think you came here
15 to leave. I don't think you came here to
16 question.

Page 0255
13 MR. WOOD: You people put a spin
14 in this thing for three and a half years
15 before I ever get involved with this thing.

Page 0256
1 MR. WOOD: That is a total
2 exaggeration of the truth. I was on one
3 series of days.

22 MR. WOOD: I painted too broad of
23 a brush when I said you all. You all
24 probably meant the Boulder Police Department,
25 at times the Boulder district attorney,

Page 0257
1 former members of the police department.

4 to -- well, I am not going to agree with
5 that. It's hard for me to sit here and be
6 accused of spin when all I do is turn on
7 Good Morning America and get spin --

10 MR. WOOD: -- from the other
11 side.

Pages 0258-0259
22 MR. WOOD: I am going to talk to
23 John and Patsy and make a decision whether
24 or not, when you come in here and you create
25 what I think is an artificial record to
0259
1 somehow justify --

12 MR. WOOD: Let me finish this by
13 saying something to you, Michael. I don't
14 know your background, but we are all trying
15 to do our jobs, and I am not going to laugh
16 at you. If you want to laugh when I say
17 something, that is your prerogative. I just
18 don't think that's productive because I
19 think, of all the people, of all the
20 people --
21 MR. KANE: You are doing your
22 job.
23 MR. WOOD: -- who get involved,
24 well I -- doing my job is not to laugh at
25 another professional.

Page 0260
14 I didn't physically block the door for John
15 and Patsy to come in here. I didn't feel
16 good about it. You know that one of the
17 reasons that I didn't feel good about it was
18 because you were going to be involved.
19 I went to the Chief after your
20 letters and our discussions and I said I
21 have some real concerns about Michael Kane's
22 objectivity,

5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- I
6 think you came here on a self-fulfilling
7 prophecy. I think you came in here ready to
8 jump on me the minute I opened my mouth.
9 If I made a request, it was going to be
10 called a condition. If I asked a question,
11 it would be deemed an objection. You kept
12 trying to get me to say that I was
13 instructing Patsy not to answer, and I don't
14 think that is what I have done.

Page 0265
1 not true. The only thing that I have told
2 you that we will not answer today are the
3 issues of the fiber based on what I think
4 are potentially mischaracterizations of
5 laboratory results that I would like to have
6 verified just by the result itself so that
7 we could then know exactly what facts we are
8 testifying to as opposed to speculation on
9 issues that may be hypothetical and not based
10 in fact.

18 John. You either are going to do what you
19 said you're going to do, gentlemen, or we
20 are done.

Page 0268
18 John. You either are going to do what you
19 said you're going to do, gentlemen, or we
20 are done.

Page 0282
23 MR. WOOD: I am asking you to
24 move on to something productive. You just
25 beat this one to death, man. Let's go.

Page 0284
1 MR. WOOD: Mr. Kane just wants a
2 free-for-all. We didn't come here prepared
3 to do that. Maybe we would have done it if
4 you asked for it. I don't know. But this
5 is not in good faith what you asked me to
6 do, Chief.

Page 0290
14 MR. WOOD: I mean, I'm so
15 disgusted at what you are doing, I am not
16 going to define anything for you, Mr. Kane.
17 MR. KANE: Well, then I have no
18 idea of whether any questions --
19 MR. WOOD: I don't think you have
20 any idea what is a relevant question in a
21 murder investigation.

Page 0291
13 MR. WOOD: Mr. Kane, that
14 doesn't -- I don't want to -- you may be
15 Superman, but I'm not.

 

Finally

Please, Gov. Owens, remember these words and your passion for justice for JonBenet Ramsey!

***

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/873432/detail.html

July 16, 2001

Ramsey Fallout: Police Chief Mounts Letter Campaign
Fellow Law Enforcment Officers Criticized For Speaking Out

BOULDER, Colo. -- Police Chief Mark Beckner has launched a letter writing war against critics in other police agencies who claim his investigators have ignored evidence that an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey.

The dispute was triggered after Boulder County Sheriff's Detective Steve Ainsworth and El Paso County Sheriff John Anderson commented on the case on national television and in newspapers over the past two months. Both supported a theory that an intruder killed JonBenet.


Boulder police detectives have been instructed not to cooperate with Ainsworth on any investigation, according to Chief Mark Beckner's letter to Boulder County Sheriff George Epp.

Becker (pictured, left) asked that Ainsworth "be appropriately disciplined for his misconduct" in discussing the case and criticizing the Boulder Police Department's investigation.

Beckner also told Epp that he has asked Louisville police Cmdr. Bill Kingston to remove Ainsworth from the multi-agency task force headed by Kingston, which investigates police shootings in Boulder County. "At the least, Ainsworth will not be allowed to participate in any investigations in Boulder as a member of the county's team that investigates police shootings," Beckner wrote.

Kingston declined to comment on Beckner's letter but said that Ainsworth will remain a member of the shooting investigation team.

Beckner sent the letter after Ainsworth appeared on NBC's "Today" show in early May and endorsed former investigator Lou Smit's theory that an intruder killed JonBenet. In the letter, Beckner reminded Epp of a May 2 meeting of county law enforcement heads, at which Beckner told Epp that he would "probably file a complaint" about the appearance.

Epp, Beckner wrote, said Ainsworth would only "talk about Smit's character." "In fact he spoke very little about Lou Smit, but was instead . . . critical of the BPD, and even expressed his own personal opinion," Beckner wrote.

Ainsworth said on NBC that he has not seen any "compelling" evidence pointing to John and Patsy Ramsey as suspects in their daughter's Dec. 26, 1996, death.

In a June letter, Beckner criticized Anderson for claiming a killer was on the loose in Boulder while police focused their investigation on the Ramseys.

"I am appalled that a police executive would be so outspoken about another agency's ongoing investigation, especially given the fact that you have no involvement in our investigation," Beckner wrote.

Anderson fired back with a letter of his own. He said that he spoke out to support his former homicide partner, Lou Smit, who crafted the intruder theory while working on the investigation. Anderson also offered to send detectives to Boulder to help solve the case.
"It is completely bizarre. This is yet another answer to the perennial Ramsey question, 'What next?"' said Denver attorney Scott Robinson, who has followed the case since the 6-year-old beauty queen was slain in 1996.

Beckner said Monday that police have not ruled out an intruder as the killer. "I think we have said that we find no evidence of a forced entry," he said.

Gov. Bill Owens, in a meeting with the editorial board of The Gazette, recently speculated that Beckner and investigators can disprove the intruder theory but don't want to show their hand prematurely.

"Prosecutors can address everything that Smit has raised that points to an outsider. But if they do that publicly, they tell the person who killed JonBenet what the prosecutor knows," he said. "My concern is what Lou has done is publicize evidence that should have remained private until the trial."

Owens met with prosecutors and reviewed the evidence not long after taking office in 1999. Smit resigned from the case in 1998, claiming the Ramseys were innocent.

JonBenet was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her family's home on Dec. 26, 1996, in Boulder. A grand jury examined evidence but disbanded without issuing an indictment. Her parents since have moved to the Atlanta area.

 

posted by DejaNu from the 4/13 Rocky Mtn News article:

This is the FIRST time that I have 'seen' these 2 DNA compared - can we take Wood's word on this? Anyone seen this any where "official"? Is this the 10 markers? If 1/2 dozen markers are the same - what about the other 4?? and then the other "3" original missing ones? (does that make sense?)

I'm actually posting from work - so I hope I don't get into trouble here - I didn't have time to post this weekend from home - but wanted to get my questions and comments out there for you all!

 

DejaNu posting on 4/13 from (again) the Rocky Mtn News: re John Ramsey depo article:

Yea, that I recall - too bad DH didn't deliver what he promised!! :foot: :banghead:

 

from DejaNu's post of 4/14 from Larry King Live 8/30/00:

soooo.... where ARE these release grand jury stuff? That was about 4 years ago - were they ever released?? :justice:

 

don't know if anyone else 'caught' this on the Larry King Live - Interview with Lin Wood, that DejaNu posted on 4/14 #46 post:

but then on page 39 of the same post, we have:

so, which was 'actually' said??