Gene Wallis Parker

Who was the poster?

At River's WebSleuths that had a contact within the news media ythat confirm the airing of the tape but that it was immediately hushed up?

The posters that openly admit to being a part of the mass hallucination have been subjected to harshness over the years - please be gentle with us!

RR

 

RRat and Adrian

I don't know about that poster Rat. I do know that there was a poster at JW named Janphi who had some sort of journalistic credentials or connections. She posted that she believed she had heard that the tape was aired once and then there was some sort of legal injunction filed to prevent it being aired again.

I tried to search over the internet for some evidence of an injunction but with no luck. Quite honestly I didn't even know what sort of court it would have been heard in.

Rat, do you remember the details of when it might have been aired? The last couple of years have been a blurr to me for personal reasons. I'll try tomorrow to search some archives and see if I can come up with a general time frame. I have 2 tests on Tuesday and have to help son with a science project tomorrow so I won't have too much time to look around.

 

Hmmmm

Well then suspicion at least can be cast on the affiliates that yanked the program. I got PMed the approximate date so I think I'll go rattle King World's chain a bit. See if they'll admit to aiding and abetting Lyin' Wood's highway robbery, or Korrupt Keenan's obstruction of justice, or both, in email, headers and all.

 

Adrian

I addressed this on another thread. The date was August 17, 1998.

I had turned on the TV in anticipation of Bill Clinton's apology speech. I was packing to go away on vacation, so I was in and out of the TV room, and heard the enhanced tape "with one ear", as it were.

I was not able to follow up on the forums for the next few days as I was AFK and computerless. (That was before I had a laptop).

 

I know Fed

says this never happened, but, I'm sorry, Fed, I think you're wrong this time. Too many people heard it, and the people who say they heard it are totally credible. Someone pulled it and buried the fact that it was ever televised. Yes, I believe that. I did not hear it. I wish I had heard it - I'd have been mouthing off a lot more than the posters who say they heard it and have been told they didn't.

 

I have the transcript.

PB: This man's name came up in a couple of news articles and news stories when John and Patsy Ramsey first announced to the entire world that they had passed the polygraph test. Please say "Good Morning" to Gene Parker. Mr. Parker has himself a former Police Chief . He also has been well involved in the polygraph business. Mr. Parker, Good Morning.

GP: Why Good Morning, from Meeker, Colorado.

PB: Thanks for coming on the show. There seems to be a number of things. I spoke with Mr. Parker yesterday in a private conversation. There's been an awful lot of talk about your involvement or on-involvement in this case. So let me bring up a couple of the questions that seem to be out there quite a bit. Did you ever do any work for John Ramsey or for his company prior to this?

GP: No, I never did.

PB: OK. Had you ever met the Ramseys?

GP: No, I never had.

PB: Who approached you to do this exam initially?

GP: Back on 11 December,'97 I was requested by a national newspaper to confirm the authenticity of a Diane Hollis, who is a former executive secretary of John Ramsey, as to her statement as to, ahh, what had occurred in, ahh, conversation in the Ramsey office.

PB: For the folks in our audience, what did Ms. Hollis say had occurred in terms of a conversation?

GP: She stated that, ahh, there was conversation going on with, umm, some remorse as to, ahh, what had taken place at the murder scene.

PB: Could you go further, elaborate further from that, Gene, if you would?

GP: Ohhhh, let me see. I'm looking at a deposition that I wrote at the time and, uhhh, regarding, uhh, the accuracy of the examination. But, the gist of it was that, uhhh, "Were you told that John Ramsey was molesting JonBenet? That Patsy saw it, swung at John but hit JonBenet instead?" And there was a 88% probability that Miss Hollis was truthful with her "Yes" response utilizing an instrument of the United States Government polygraph for that purpose.

PB: That's why this is significant. That, there's another very significant part of this as well. Again, if you would, Gene, the best of your knowledge who was Miss Hollis and what was her job working for John Ramsey?

GH: She was an executive secretary.

PB: And how did she come across this information?

GH: That, at this point, with due respect to your very fine radio station, I would be unable to provide for you, other than the fact that records show that Miss Hollis was an executive secretary for John Ramsey.

PB: And you tested Miss Hollis?

GH: Yes.

PB: And when Miss Hollis told you what you've just told us that she said, she tested out which way, true or false?

GH: Way to the absolute probability of truthfulness. That same, the same question was formulated three different ways and to each of those three different ways, uhhh, she, uhhh, the results of the examination shows that she was, the probability of truthfulness was very accurate, in the high 90's. The examination took approximately three hours and the actual exam itself about, uhh, 5 minutes times 3 times that was given to her.

PB: Now what's important about this is the Ramseys now tell us that they have total faith and trust in all polygraphs. And yet here comes this. And I don't know how much of this has ever gotten attention before so I wonder what their reaction will be, and I'm not asking for a comment from you. If we could then move on. Were you ever requested or did anyone ever come to you about doing the Ramsey polygraph on John and Patsy?

GH: Yes.

PB: Yep.

GH Some short period of time ago I received a telephone call from some people that identified themselves as attorneys for John Ramsey.

PB: Did they mention names or could you mention their names?

GH: Yes, they mentioned names but I'm not at liberty to give those out, with due respect.

PB: All right. Fair enough.

GH: At which time I said "yes" since I had done the first one that...

PB: By the way Gene, did they know you had done the Hollis exam?

GH: Yes. Yes. In so much that I utilized an instrument perfected by the United States government and I had done the first Hollis polygraph which kind of started the whole thing that, "Yes, I would be more than happy to examine John and Patsy." And I quoted my fee. At which time I stated that because of the high profile of the case that it would require that a urine examination be done with a medical doctor and a registered nurse, for obvious reasons, presence. Uhhhm, the attorney said, who stated that he was an attorney, I had reason to believe that he was, stated, "Fine, they would get back to me." Some three hours later I received a telephone call from that same telephone number on my Caller-ID that I originally had got stating that they had declined my offer, they had found someone that would not require a urine examination, thank you very much.

PB: But that, that other person would be the legendary now Mr. T, the guy in NJ, who finds, after testing Patsy a number of times, he can't get an accurate read which I am told, and I certainly don't have any expertise, that when you keep getting inconclusive results, you've got a liar.

GP: Yes and no. Uhhh, there are---the human mind is a very strange thing, a very complex thing in so much as that a lot of things can cause an inconclusive.

PB: But how many inconclusives can you keep getting?

GP: With this instrument I rarely get one.

PB: Hang on, Gene. Let me bring you back and get a wrap-up.

Break

PB: ...He had an opportunity to do a lie, ahh, polygraph, I say lie detectors and I've been told time again and again and again Don't say that, but polygraph examination on a woman who also plays out in this as well, her name is Hollis, and ahh, Miss Hollis, Diane Hollis was the former executive secretary to John Ramsey. And he did a polygraph on her. You were, I believe it was, if I know anything about this, this took place in Arvada? Or would you rather not say?

GP: In that area.

PB: Fair enough. And what she told you is that she was told, and again this is a former executive secretary, she was told by someone in the organization, or someone, I shouldn't even set it up that way but

GP: I think maybe I can help you. She had a conversation several times with a personal secretary of John Ramsey.

PB: And she also was the executive secretary.

GP: Right, the executive had discussion with the personal secretary of John Ramsey which stated incidents of remorse and of some discussion as to what really took place.

PB: And what she was told, the fact that you say that 88% probability that this woman is telling the truth.

GP: That's correct. I'm looking at my notes here to the second relevant question, uhhhm, "Did you give, did you have the discussion with the personal secretary which lasted over an hour and a half period of time regarding what took place with JonBenet Ramsey?" and there was a 97% probability she was truthful, that she gained the information from the personal secretary.

PB: Wow! And then they, when initially they came to you to do some polygraphing and then you wanted them to take a UA and they would not do it. Why would that be important or significant, Gene, to the uninitiated?

GP: This was again the follow-up, where the media and, uhhh, events of the time had brought it to the head that it has now that I received a phone call to take in, OK, a polygraph examines John and Patsy. And because of the high profile of the case, because of their great monetary abilities and ability of certain drugs that are available that could affect the human body system that is examined by polygraph why I insisted that there be a registered nurse and a MD there to take a urine examination prior to the examination. So there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that anything might have caused reaction to change to whatever from what it really is. At which time, some three hours later, the law office called back and stated "Thanks but no thanks."

PB: So if you wanted to do a UA on whether or not they were doing...

GP: Whether they had used a drug. Which could, which very well could cause for an inconclusive, let alone could even take and show a truthful being deceptive.

PB: What's interesting about this is, even if, because clearly if they were, if they could pass a UA, they'd have come to you. And I'm guessing that.

GP: Sure.

PB: But they couldn't pass the UA so they go to another guy who doesn't require a UA and they still, Patsy still comes out on two occasions inconclusive, apparently--Carol McKinley from Fox News in an interview with the Ramseys, they did tell her they're both taking Prozac and if you watch Patsy Ramsey on TV you know there's more than just Prozac going on there. I don't know if you know that but you can certainly believe it.

GP: Yes, my Masters being in Psychology I have studied the effects of drugs probably as reasons that I polygraph for the Department of Defense. And I have found that there are certain drugs, let alone in that financial-ability category of the Ramseys to take certain drugs that could very easily cause it, which was the reason why I required a medical doctor and an RN which is I think only about the fifth or sixth time in my 20 some odd years of polygraphing that I've needed it.

PB: Gene, if they'd 've given you a hot UA

GP: Umhmm.

PB: That, that kills the whole thing?

GP: That's correct.

PB: Would you like to, I mean, I don't know what further comments...By the way, do you mind if I give your web site a plug or?

GP: Yeah, go ahead. At 64 years of age, anything.

PB: Yeah (chuckling) what are they gonna do to you, right? Actually, I've got a couple of web sites and phone numbers. What would you like to give out to the public?

GP: Oh, I don't know, the one that's www.PolygraphPlace.com/ColoradoPolygraph is one.

PB: Do it again and do it slow.

GP:http://www.PolygraphPlace.com/ColoradoPolygraph

PB: Fair enough.

GP: And then there is the expert pages for the world in different categories. www.ExpertPages.com And when you get to that click into experts in polygraphs and you'll see a map, click into experts of the world, in this case, click on Colorado.

PB: We will say goodbye off air and I know we'll be in touch and I know we'll speak again, Gene. Thank you for being on KHOW this morning. hang on. OK?

 

Polygraph

Well, I have that polygraph -- at least part of it. Gene Wallis Parker sent it to me years ago. The polygraph does show
that she was truthful. It doesn't say who the woman caller is and I had never heard it was Pam Paugh.

 

Parker

Parker and his wife came to Denver several years ago and we met for lunch. Among other things, we discussed his employment by the Globe/Craig Lewis. It seems as though another paper found out about the Hollis polygraph and hired a PI to eavesdrop. The PI did his job well and the other paper scooped the Globe. Craig Lewis thought that Parker had leaked the story so he refused to pay Parker's full fee. That is why Parker talked about this and gave out copies of the exam. However, Parker claimed that the key information (Pam Paugh and "Him") was developed in his interview with Hollis prior to the actual polygraph.

 

Lin Wood

Didn't Lin Wood deny that he had ever aproached Gene Parker to do a polygraph? I have a recollection of this in the not so distant past.

 

Hadden et al?

not that I believe anything Wood says, but is it possible someone in Hadden's lawfirm called Parker?

 

Yes - here it is

Now.....?

 

Re: Adrian

And hopefully you can save me some time with this: do you know that it was Inside Edition, and not Hard Copy or Geraldo?

 

Watching You

I wonder if we could put a timing on it. Wood was the Ramsey attorney in 2000. That was when I first found the forums so I have no idea when he *became* the Ramsey attorney.

The Ramseys "passed" their private polygraphs in ... was it 2000 too? So some time prior to that, they had their inconclusive polygraphs with Gerry Toriello and presumably some time prior to THAT Gene Parker was approached about doing Ramsey polygraphs.

So the question is - when did Wood take over as attorney? It's certainly easy to deny something if you know someone else did it!

 

Parker polygraph

It was smart on his part to require a UA prior to doing the polygraph. And the Scamsey Spinsters tipped their hand by declining his polygraph and opting for one that doesn't require it. More guilty behavior by guilty people.

 

What would you say?

If (albeit highly unlikely) you caught your husband molesting your 6 year-old daughter, would you say:

“I thought I told you not to do this anymore.â€

As Pam Paugh says Patsy said ????

 

Spade,

I'm sure that Pam Paugh, ever the lady, cleaned up whatever her tough-mouthed sister Patsy said to her husband John Ramsey.

Patsy more likely said: "You f&*^ing sunnuvabeetch, I'm gonna cave in your balls. I told you never to do this again, you freakin' a**hle!'

WHAM! Then the maglite came down on JonBenet's head.

This scenario is as likely as any other.

Up until this thread appeared, I never heard of Gene Parker or Ms. Hollis. Somehow I missed that whole discussion.

If this is all true, how can Pam Paugh, who seems to me to be a really lovely person, live with this horrible knowledge eating away at her?

 

Adrian Monk,

As to which program I was listening to when I heard the enhanced call, I cannot say for sure. Since I turned on the TV in anticipation of the Clinton speech, which aired at 10pm, I would guess it was whatever program started at 9 pm. That would have been Geraldo, in my time zone.

 

Let's watch that language, Miss Lurker. You might be banished from Forums For Justice, as I was so unjustly banished from CTV.:devil:

Remember--THE LORD DON'T LIKE UGLY!! HE DON'T LIKE UGLY!!

 

Moab

I haven't gotten a response back from King World yet, but if I do it will probably be some polite excuse as to why they won't sell me a tape copy of that show.

Let's think about this a minute: BPD allegedly had it but kept it secret to prevent tipping their hand to the Ramseys that they had it. Even after they'd confronted the Ramseys in interviews what Aerospace found, they still wouldn't release it.

Then Keenan takes over the so-called "investigation", and now she has it. And she's sitting on it. And not doing a d@mn thing with it.

And now suddenly posters who had started threads on in-depth analysis of the 911 tape Lyin' Wood is using in his propaganda, has had the controversial segment erased, are turning around and saying "oh well, it's no big deal, it can't convict the Ramseys anyway."

I think the more a suspect (or group of suspects in this case) tries to hide something, the more valuable that something is, to the case. Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to hide it to begin with. But I seem to be the first individual to ask the question, why is the CITY of BOULDER trying to hide it? Why is the DA trying to hide it? Why did both the BPD and the Scamsey attorneys try to hide it? Both alleged "sides" of this case seem obsessed with hiding things, and at the same time go out of their way to dampen curiosity by saying "it doesn't matter" if Burke is on the tape, and John is screaming at him. SURE. It doesn't matter SO MUCH, it got pulled off the shelves of major TV networks for censorship. MmmmmmHM.

They always censor the trivial.

"Shhhhhhhh, don't tell anyone that today's weather is cold and partly cloudy!"