Bootman again

This is an excellent article, DejaNu, but I still have serious questions about Burke's GJ testimony being talked about outside the GJ room. I'm not saying it didn't happen, HOWEVER, if it did happen, and if prosecutors told Patsy Ramsey what her son's testimony was, aren't they in contempt of court, themselves? I don't know how Ryan Ross knows Patsy Ramsey was told by prosecutors what Burke's testimony was. Who told him? Patsy? The prosecutors?

If it is a fact that prosecutors told Patsy Ramsey what her son's testimony inside the GJ was, then the prosecutors broke the law and it really is time for the State of Colorado to take this case over and go after all these corrupted officials.

As an aside, it just kills me the way Keenan claims she has such tight control on the "investigation" her people are doing - why, they are not allowed to talk to anyone; yet, there is a code 6 wingnut who calls herself a reporter talking about "her sources" inside the investigation. Yes, I know we've heard it all before from that one - her sources didn't amount to a hill (no pun intended) of beans, but it's interesting to note that while Keenan claims there are no leaks, mame claims she has sources inside. That means someone is lying through her teeth.

Deceitful people make me crazy.

 

Atlanta 2000

The Ramsey's KNOW that Helgoth is being libeled. This is from the transcript of Patsy's interview in LinWad's office during August of 2000:

4 Q. (By Mr. Levin) In June of 1998,
5 you were interviewed by the Boulder D.A.'s
6 office; right?
7 A. That was Hannay, Mr. Hannay.
8 Q. Yes. Mr. DeMouth?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Prior to commencing that
11 interview, did you know that identifying the
12 source of the Hi-Tec shoes was a priority
13 for the investigation? That would be more
14 than two years after, a year and a half
15 after your daughter's murder.
16 MR. WOOD: Are you asking her if
17 she knew what was a priority in your all,
18 the investigator's minds?
19 MR. LEVIN: No, no, no. In her
20 mind. Did she believe --
21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Did you believe,
22 and if I didn't throw that in, I thought it
23 was clear, did you believe that, in the
24 course of the investigation, that identifying
25 the source of the Hi-Tec shoes was important?
0118
1 A. Well, I would think it is
2 important, yes. I mean, I can't remember at
3 that time if I knew about the Hi-Tec shoes
4 or not. I don't remember when all that
5 surfaced.
6 Q. You have since then, since 1998,
7 become aware that the source of the Hi-Tec
8 shoes is important?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You know that today?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you thought that one of the
13 things that made Helgoth viable was the fact
14 that you believe he had Hi-Tec shoes?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Have you, whether it was before
17 the interview in 1998 or subsequent to the
18 interview in 1998, have you personally made
19 attempts to find possible sources for the
20 Hi-Tec shoe impression?
21 A. You mean like ask around if
22 anybody had --
23 Q. Pick up the phone and call some
24 friends, for example.
25 A. I didn't, no.
0119
1 Q. Had you at any time, for example,
2 some of the kids, like the Colby kids ever
3 come over, did you ever go and just pick up
4 the phone or walk across the alley and say,
5 do you guys have Hi-Tec shoes? Did you ever
6 do anything like that?
7 MR. WOOD: You are assuming she
8 may have learned about it at the time she
9 still lived there. She told you she wasn't
10 sure when she first learned that.
11 THE WITNESS: No, I did not call
12 the Colbys to ask if their children had --
13 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Whether it was
14 from Boulder or Atlanta?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. Okay. Did you sit down and
17 discuss with Burke at any length whether or
18 not he ever had Hi-Tec shoes?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did it cross your mind that he
21 might be the source of that, for the Hi-Tec
22 shoes?
23 A. No. Because my understanding was
24 that it was an adult footprint. He was nine
25 years old at the time.
0120
1 Q. Do you know the source of your
2 belief that it was an adult's foot,
3 footprint?
4 A. Whoever told me about it or
5 wherever I learned it in the first place.
6 Q. Did you get any details concerning
7 how much of a shoe impression was present?
8 A. No. It was just a footprint.
9 Q. Did you take that to, to be a
10 full footprint, and by that I mean like a
11 shoe, a complete shoe impression?
12 A. That is what I imagined, yes.
13 Q. And that, whether you were told
14 that directly or you just assumed that, you
15 believe is the source of your belief that it
16 was an adult's shoe?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You have been asked about whether
19 or not anyone in your family owns Hi-Tec
20 shoes or ever owned Hi-Tec shoes?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And I am not restating a
23 question, Mr. Wood. And do you recall you
24 said no one ever did?
25 A. Yes.
0121
1 Q. You have had -- and that was in
2 '98, more than two years ago. You have had
3 an opportunity to, now that you are in
4 possession of knowledge causing you to
5 believe this is a significant fact in the
6 investigation, you have had almost, we will
7 assume, at least a year to rethink that.
8 Have you given it some thought as to maybe
9 someone in the family had Hi-Tec shoes?
10 MR. WOOD: Are you asking her
11 whether she thought about whether somebody in
12 the family -- I mean, all of the prefatory
13 comments leading up to that.
14 Is the question, since June of
15 1998, Ms. Ramsey, have you given any thought
16 as to whether someone in your family had
17 Hi-Tec shoes?
18 MR. LEVIN: That is correct.
19 That is the question.
20 MR. WOOD: All right. You can
21 answer that question.
22 THE WITNESS: No.
23 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Did you try, in
24 your mind, and perhaps to assist your
25 investigator, identify sources close to your
0122
1 family that might be the origin of the
2 Hi-Tec shoe impression?
3 A. I think, you know, I may have
4 asked Susan if she had ever seen any. I
5 mean, I didn't, I don't know what a Hi-Tec
6 boot looks like, per se. I have tried to
7 kind of, as I am in shoe stores, look around
8 trying to see what, what's the significance
9 and special about a Hi-Tec boot, and I
10 haven't, haven't even seen any yet. But I
11 may have asked Susan, did you know anybody
12 that looked like they wore Hi-Tec shoe,
13 boots, or whatever.
14 Q. Do you recall a period of time,
15 prior to 1996, when your son Burke purchased
16 a pair of hiking boots that had compasses on
17 the shoelaces? And if it helps to
18 remember --
19 A. I can't remember.
20 Q. Maybe this will help your
21 recollection. They were shoes that were
22 purchased while he was shopping with you in
23 Atlanta.
24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
25 as a fact?
0123
1 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as
2 a fact.
3 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Does that help
4 refresh your recollection as to whether he
5 owned a pair of shoes that had compasses on
6 them?
7 A. I just can't remember. Bought so
8 many shoes for him.
9 Q. And again, I will provide, I'll
10 say, I'll say this as a fact to you, that,
11 and maybe this will help refresh your
12 recollection, he thought that -- the shoes
13 were special because they had a compass on
14 them, his only exposure for the most part to
15 compasses had been in the plane and he kind
16 of liked the idea of being able to point
17 them different directions. Do you remember
18 him doing that with the shoes?
19 A. I can't remember the shoes. I
20 remember he had a compass thing like a
21 watch, but I can't remember about the shoes.
22 Q. You don't remember him having
23 shoes that you purchased with compasses on
24 them?
25 MR. WOOD: She will tell you that
0124
1 one more time. Go ahead and tell him, and
2 this will be the third time.
3 THE WITNESS: I can't remember.
4 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. Does it
5 jog your memory to know that the shoes with
6 compasses were made by Hi-Tec?
7 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
8 as a fact?
9 MR. LEVIN: Yes. I am stating
10 that as a fact.
11 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't know
12 that.
13 Q. (By Mr. Levin) I will state this
14 as a fact. There are two people who have
15 provided us with information, including your
16 son, that he owned Hi-Tec shoes prior to the
17 murder of your daughter.
18 MR. WOOD: You are stating that
19 Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec
20 shoes?
21 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
22 MR. WOOD: He used the phrase
23 Hi-Tec?
24 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
25 MR. WOOD: When?
0125
1 MR. LEVIN: I can't, I can't give
2 you the source. I can tell you that I have
3 that information.
4 MR. WOOD: You said Burke told
5 you.
6 MR. LEVIN: I can't quote it to
7 you for reasons I am sure, as an attorney,
8 you are aware.

 

Ahhhh, okay, then. Will someone refresh my memory what this interview was for? Was it something to do with Steve Thomas case? Who is Levin? Do lawyers in civil cases legally have access to GJ testimony? Where did Levin get this information? ST wasn't a part of the GJ proceedings.

I hate to keep asking this, but how did the GJ testimony get into the hands of reporters and now an attorney? I'm glad it did, of course, if this is what came out of it, but who is in contempt of court for repeating the testimony of a GJ witness? Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this? Are DAs and their staffs above the law?

Oh - I loved this one "Yes. Mr. DeMouth?" I assume they mean Mr. DeMuth, but DeMouth is more fitting.

 

Atlanta Interviews

1 VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEW OF
2
PATSY RAMSEY
3
Volume I
4
5
August 28, 2000
6
7
8
9 2140 The Equitable Building
100 Peachtree Street
10 Atlanta, Georgia
11
12
13
14 Alexander J. Gallo, CCR-B-1332

1 APPEARANCES
2 .
3 On behalf of John and Patsy Ramsey:
4 L. LIN WOOD, Esq.
5 Law Offices of L. Lin Wood
6 2140 The Equitable Building
7 100 Peachtree Street
8 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
9 .
10 On behalf of The United States:
11 MICHAEL KANE, Esq.
12 BRUCE LEVIN, Esq.
13 MITCH MORRISSEY, Esq.
14 MARK R. BECKNER
15 TOM WICKMAN
16 TOM TRUJILLO
17 JANE HARMER
18 .
19 Also present:
20 Ollie Gray
21 John San Agustine

This is the cover page of the Patsy's Atlanta interviews. WY-Are you having a senior moment?

 

Hell yes, I'm having a senior moment. I have them all the time.

It's going on eight years since JonBenet was killed in her home in Boulder. At the rate this case is going, everyone here is going to be having senior moments by the time it's solved. I'll probably be six feet under.

 

WY, darlin', go grab a Starbuck's and re-group. Then come back and read the rest of this post. I'll just wait here.....

Ok, now. Michael Kane was the special prosecutor appointed to the case, and the transcript excerpts posted by Spade were from the Ramseys' Atlanta police interviews in 2000. Michael Kane knew who testified before the GJ and what they said because he was the one who presented the CRIMINAL case to the GJ in behalf of the State of CO and questioned everyone who took the stand. As you know, the GJ disbanded prior to these Atlanta interviews, but Kane came back to conduct the interviews as an ongoing activity in the criminal case. He did not leak these interviews to anyone.

The only leaks in the case are happening ala Keenan and Smit. Hunter let Smit run away with the entire criminal case, evidence, transcripts, etc. Kane since moved to PA and is "getting on" with his life and career there.

Per the transcripts, Kane and his second in command, Barry Levin, were the one who informed Patsy Ramsey of her son's ownership of the Hi-Tec boots/shoes. If Kane said that was Burke's testimony, that WAS Burke's testimony. While the cops can make stuff up during interrogations to get a perp to confess, the prosecutor cannot. So the chance of Kane manufacturing this fact, as well as the fiber facts relating to Paty's jacket and John's sweater, are NIL. They are facts.

Feel better now?

 

Well, I was going to delete the post asking about this, because I did remember the Atlanta interviews after I thought about it, but I'm going to leave it there to give the idiot at the swamp something to post about.

If there weren't a zillion lawsuits that the Ramseys have filed with the requisite number of deposition transcripts, maybe I could keep the bloody things straight. Many or probably all of those depositions were taken in Atlanta with Lin Wood present as counsel for the Ramseys. I've got too much stuff going on in my head to remember which transcript is which.

Perhaps if I had nothing better to do than sit on my big fat a$s like the skank does day after day after year after year, I could memorize and obsess and dream up crap like she does 24/7, too. Too bad it hasn't helped her overcome her stupidity one iota.

Thanks, DejaNu. Yes, I do remember, and yes, it makes sense now.

:highfive:

 

WY, you're right. There are far too many civil lawsuits in this case, all with numerous deposition transcripts that, fortunately, we have privvy to. I frankly can't wait to read the ones in the Fox suit, but that's a way off.

But the Atlanta interviews in 2000 were police interrogations in the criminal suit, and we also have the initial police interviews as well. Yes, Lin Wood did represent them in these interrogations and that is also a HUGE departure from kosher. Lin Wood is a civil, not criminal attorney, and usually only criminal attorneys represent clients in police interrogations. That is exactly why those police interrogations were such dismal failures-Wood knows how to do it only one way, and his outrageous conduct, as can be read throughout the transcripts, were more fitting in a civil deposition forum than a police interrogation, although frankly, in 30 years in the biz, I've never seen an attorney, criminal or civil, behave as badly as Wood did. Somebody should have filed an ethics grievance against him with the GA Bar.

However, the Ramseys' criminal attorneys, Haddon Morgan Foreman, were never paid in full, so their representation of the Ramseys in any ongoing criminal matters stopped. Lin Wood's ego of course would take over that representation, and considering how holy broke the Ramseys are, that's a good thing cuz Woody's on contingency.

Moab and I were trying to get all the police interview transcripts loaded in the library, but I'm too much of a puter idiot to figure out how to do it! LOL

So you see, we each have our long and short comings. I've got your back on the legal, so let Jams bite me, k?

 

Wood's gone much further than his legal duties as the Ramseys' civil attorney in many ways. If he was getting paid on contingency, where was the contingency in his acting as their attorney during police interrogations? There wasn't any, of course, unless the cost for his representation was added on to one of the civil lawsuits' contingency. I too wondered why a civil attorney was acting as their attorney in a criminal matter.

What I've never understood is his advocacy role in all of it. It was more like activism with his being interviewed by Katie Couric and appearing with the Ramseys on the air. You don't see other civil lawyers doing that, it's just bizarre.

He is rude to the max and arrogance is just SOP to him.

 

Mystery

The tragedy of JonBenet's death has become a very complicated mystery. IMO It has become a mystery because of the lawyering. Like WY, I have never seen anything like it. IMO the BPD and the Michael Kane led GJ did an excellent job of investigating but as ST's book makes clear, they were stifled by an adversarial relationship with the Boulder DA's office.

I hope that everyone interested in this case will read ALL the LE interviews with the Ramseys (97-98-00), the Bonita Papers, and Steve Thomas' book(not so much for his theory of the crime but for his side of the BPD vs. BDA battle). This reading gave me a new appreciation for the BPD's professionalism and for the State of Colorado's case against the Ramseys.

 

Curious to know??

It would be curious to know IF this male DNA has been tested against John Kenady??

Anyone know?? :mears:

I haven't read the rest of this thread since I printed out on Friday at work - so if that has been asked and answered - I apologize! :winkaway:

:mears: :mears: :mears: by the way I collect EVERYTHING Mickey Mouse! I LOVE this new icon! :mears: :sothere:

 

Ewwwwwwwww - I have my hands on the National Enquirer. On Page 42 there is a lovely little column entitled "Have your say" :idea:

"Here's the chance to get things off your chest. Tell us YOUR gripes - or praise - about people and events in the news. Please include your mailing address. We'll pay $25.00 for each letter published. Write to: Letters, National Enquirer, P.O. box 3079, Boca Raton, FL 33431-0979, or e-mail us at: yoursay@nationalenquirer.com"

:mears: :mears: :mears: :mears: :mears:
(for Niner)

 

LinWad

"Anyone in a law enforcement investigation who is searching for
an innocent explanation for foreign male DNA found mixed in the
victim's blood on her underwear is either incompetent or
prejudiced to the point of being unqualified to participate in a
fair and objective investigation.†LinWad

IMO what LinWad should really be concerned about is how the fibers from Uncle Johnny's black shirt got into JonBenet's underwear.

 

who is john kenady?

is Uncle johnny the same john?

what role did he/they play?

I'm sooo far behind. LOL

 

MIManiac

john kenady is a boulder guy who sold info about Michael Helgoth to the National Enquirer.

Uncle Johnny is a nick name for John Ramsey. It comes from the false allegations of Nancy Krebs who "identified" John Ramsey as "Uncle Johnny", one of the adults who she claimed sexually abused her as a child.

 

thanks easy writer........for that email to the NE

i hope to goodness that they publish it!

i will praying for just that.

i appreciate you taking the time
to "speak for all of us" here on the forum......
by setting them straight....

and telling THE TRUTH!

you are the best,
purr

 

More Bootman Exposed

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523892.shtml

Searching: Other Suspects?

Oct. 4, 2002

(CBS) On the cold December night that marked the first anniversary of JonBenet’s murder, dozens of mourners showed up for a candlelight vigil outside the Ramsey home. One man in particular caught the eye of detective Lou Smit.

“Many times, criminals do return to the scene. And that was on the anniversary. That puts him right there at the Ramsey house a year later,†says Smit.

The man was Gary Oliva, 38, a convicted sex offender from Oregon who made frequent trips to Boulder. He has been classified as a paranoid schizophrenic. He was convicted of assaulting another 7-year-old girl in Oregon, and spent time in prison.

Smit is convinced that a pedophile came into the Ramsey home and killed their daughter. “I’ve probably got 25 good leads. And I probably have another 50 pages of other leads to follow,†he says.

Among the files he’s keeping on sex offenders in Boulder, Gary Oliva’s name stands out. Police said that in 1991, months after he sexually assaulted the little girl, Oliva tried to strangle his mother with a telephone cord. And in December 1996, Oliva, then a fugitive and a homeless drifter, may have been less than a block away from the Ramsey’s house.

John Sanegustin and Ollie Gray, the Ramseys’ private investigators, say Oliva frequented buildings owned by a local church, which fed homeless people. The buildings were 10 houses away from the Ramsey house.

According to Smit, Oliva called his friend right after the murder, crying, and said he would never be able to go to his house again, because the friend had children.

“The phone call started with him sobbing into the phone,†said Michael, the man whom Oliva called. Michael is Oliva’s best friend from high school. “He was sobbing on the phone. He related to me that he’d done something horrible.†Oliva mentioned he was in Boulder.

The call, Michael says, came just days after the Ramsey murder. Gary told him he had hurt a child. “He was sobbing like you’ve never heard a grown man sob or cry before in your life. And I knew it was serious. I knew this very serious.†So serious that Michael, who lived in a nearby state, called Boulder police.

What made Michael most worried was the cassette tapes the two had exchanged. After high school, Michael and Gary thought a fun way to keep in touch was through audio tapes.

“I’d go to Carl Jr.’s and interview someone, He’d go to the store and interview a macaroon cookie. Stupid stuff,†says Michael.

But in 1989, Oliva’s tapes, once amusing, changed dramatically. “The tapes started getting darker, more depraved, and sicker, it would turn my stomach,†says Michael.

According to Michael, on one tape Oliva pretended he’s been left alone to babysit a friend’s daughter. According to Michael, Oliva talks about raping a little girl. As the tape continues, Oliva appears to be simulating a rape. On another tape, he talks about hurting a child.

“Some of the things I do like making bacon strips out of little girl, you see, I’m into it, you know,†he claims Oliva said.

“These tapes are not a joke. These tapes are not a joke at all,†says Michael.

Michael says he left all his information on the Boulder police tip line. “I told them about the cassette tapes. I told them about the phone call. I told them about what I knew.â€

No one from the police called him and asked to listen to any of those tapes. “I mentioned I had cassette tapes. I mentioned I had hand writing samples. I don’t know what it’s worth but I thought, here’s a lead you might want to follow up on. I know this fellow was in Boulder, Colo., and I called up and told them that.â€

What did the Boulder police do with the tip? Nothing. According to Lou Smit, the Boulder Police didn’t follow up on 95 percent of the more than 3,000 phone tips that came in. In Oliva’s case, police didn’t investigate him until nearly four years after JonBenet’s death, when Oliva was caught with drugs - and a stun gun.

Oliva, who is wanted in Oregon for probation violations, turned himself in to the Boulder police two weeks ago. He claims he never used that stun gun on a child. He says he did not hurt or kill JonBenet.

When asked whether he told his friend he was attracted to little girls, he says: “I don’t want to talk about that.â€

While Oliva says he doesn’t remember making the disturbing audiotapes, what he will admit to is an obsession with JonBenet. “I believe that she came to me after she was killed and revealed herself to me. I’d like to see a memorial set up for her. I haven’t seen that, anywhere,†he says.

As it turns out, 48 Hours Investigates is not the only one interested in Oliva. A Boulder police officer assigned to the Ramsey case was in the room taking notes while Moriarty interviewed Oliva.

The Ramsey investigators had to physically take the evidence to the police before they would even evaluate it.

Why aren’t the Boulder police taking these leads more seriously? Police have dismissed Oliva because his DNA doesn’t match evidence at the scene. The Ramseys say police have a double standard: While some suspects have been cleared because their DNA doesn’t match, they have not been cleared for the same reason.

Just this week, police said Oliva is not a suspect. Sources say his DNA doesn't match evidence at the scene.

JonBenet Ramsey would have been 12 years old this year and starting the sixth grade. Instead, she’s in a Georgia cemetery, while her brutal killer or killers go free.

Searching For A Killer: Part I

 

the rams want their cake and eat it too

They can't have it both ways - either the DNA in the panties belongs to an intruder and that can't be Olivas because he doesn't match the DNA or the DNA isn't related to JBR's death. The RST just can't make up their minds. When they want to throw someone under the bus whose DNA doesn't match they ignore the DNA. When someone wants to suspect the Rams - well then that DNA belongs to an intruder and it rules them out. :bsflag:

 

purr:

“ thanks easy writer........for that email to the NEâ€


You’re welcome; and my thanks to you and all the others who have
and do contribute to getting out the truth.

Summation of judicial apocalypse:

Keenan recants her endorsement of the Carnes’ ruling about
evidence of an intruder.

Keenan says the Ramseys are not excluded as suspects. John
agrees.

Scientists discourage idea of unidentified DNA being necessarily
from intruder due to many possibilities of transfer and deposit.

Judge Carnes make is clear her ruling was based on the word of
Lou Smit.

Smit, the main source of “intruder evidenceâ€, has been totally
discredited by many errors of commission and omission in his
theory and has all but disappeared.

Picture this: Wood in a courtroom with only himself to “proveâ€
evidence of an intruder as a necessity to validate the suit
against Fox News. Now won’t that be special?