Lin Wood Affidavit for Alex Hunter. Unedited.

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Tricia, Apr 8, 2004.

  1. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    My thanks to Ryan Ross helping with this information.

    If you haven't read Ryan Ross' article about the JBR case then you must do so. It is very compelling.

    Feel free to take the following Affidavit to other forums for discussion purposes. Please just mention where it came from.

    Before I go any further I want to make something clear. By posting this information I am not suggesting Burke Ramsey was involved in any part of his sister's death. I have always been a Patsy did it person. I am posting the information for several reasons.

    1-It's a free country
    2-It inovles the Ramsey case
    3-It shows how cozy Wood and Hunter really were.

    What I am uploading is an Affidavit from Alex Hunter. It involves the Burke Ramsey case against the Star.

    The first page is a cover letter sent to Bill Wise from Lin Wood. Seems that Wood saved Hunter the time of doing his own affidavit in the Burke Ramsey/Star case. Wood typed one up for him.

    Not knowing what type of communication Hunter and Wood had before this letter was sent it's hard to guess why Wood was putting words into Hunters mouth. As you will read you will see that Hunter manually changed a few things. A few very important things.

    The only thing I edited out was Mr. Wood's Fed Ex number.

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 9, 2004
  2. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    My favorite quote from the letter:

    "While there are no guarantees. hopefully this Affidavit will minimize or negate any further appearances by Alex or a representative of the D.A.'s."

    In other words Alex sign this and we will leave you alone. But alas he did change a few things.

    Page number 2

    Attached Files:

  3. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Page three.

    Take note of what Alex Hunter changed.

    Attached Files:

  4. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Page four.

    Note Alex Hunter took out all of paragraph nine.

    Attached Files:

  5. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    I hope the people involved in the Fox News suit filed by Wood looks at this

    Wood is trying to turn the Fox suit into a "Burke suit." Yet this affidavit shows that Alex Hunter left the door open in case Burke had to be put back on the suspect list.

  6. Thor

    Thor Active Member

    Wow. I go back & forth between 3 male Ramseys in this case, being involved somehow, someway. I do believe Patsy was in on the coverup up to her eyeballs for sure, no question, plus possibly Lizard Tongue. But this information is amazing. I am now back to my original perp.
  7. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Thor what really bothers me is Alex Hunter was the sitting prosecutor when he did this.

    Imagine if O.J. Simpson's civil attorney asked Marcia Clark to sign an affidavit for the O.J. case. I crack up just thinking about it.

    I would think as the sitting prosecutor in an on-going investigation he would not allow himself to be involved in civil suits.

    Keenan did become involved in the C.U. mess but remember there was no on-going investigation in her office concerning the rapes and recruiting issues.
  8. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Maybe this is just the way business is done.

    Or perhaps it's just Business in Boulder.

    I don't know.
  9. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Thor to me this seems like a major CYA. Cover Your A$$ for Hunter.

    Take paragraph six last sentence.

    "No evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from that of a witness to suspect."

    Hunter then adds, "From December 26 1996, to the date of the affidavit."

    That's a big CYA in my opinion merely because Hunter knows he is going out of office and he has no idea what might develop when he is gone.

    Hunter then lined out all of paragraph 9 which reads, "From December 26th, 1996 to the date of this Affidavit, Burke Ramsey has not been and is not at present a suspect in the investigation into the murder of his sister JonBenet Ramsey."

    I think it was the phrase, "Has not been." As in past tense.

    Everyone was a suspect at one point. It would be false for Hunter to state that Burke has never been a suspect. Everyone in that house was a suspect.

    Burke is clearly not a suspect now in the eyes of Keenan.

    I go over and over the possible scenarios in this case.

    Other than I am certain that one or both parents have guilty knowledge of their daughters death I don't know what happened in that house.

    All of my statements are my opinion based on interpretation of evidence.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 9, 2004
  10. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland


    Tricia and to Ryan Ross. This is interesting. Goodness, how do people get hold of this stuff????
  11. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    The fact that LW had the audacity to prepare an affidavit for
    Alex Hunter to sign tells of Wood’s assumption of total control
    of the situation. The fact that Alex Hunter didn’t send the
    unsigned affidavit back to Wood with instructions where to put it
    tells of Hunter’s “pliability†and incompetence.

    Wood’s assessment of Hunter as mentally incapable of writing his
    own affidavit appears to be correct, but also negates the
    credibility of said witness. Furthermore, in the absence of
    naming and proving a party or parties as perpetrator(s)of the
    crime, all with ability and opportunity are suspects by logical

    I suspect you folks are tired of hearing me hammer this point,
    but it is a crucial point and horrendous error that has directly
    and indirectly supported the RST from the beginning; so, I’m
    going to have another go at it.

    “On or about December 26, 1996, JonBenet Ramsey, a six (6) year
    old minor child, was murdered in her home in Boulder, Colorado.â€
    (From Hunter’s affidavit)

    Notwithstanding all the legalese of “degrees†of killing, if one
    person causes the death of another, it is necessarily by
    conscious intent, or by accident. If there is conscious intent to
    initiate force and it accidentally culminates in the death of the
    subject, the perpetrator is cause regardless of what legal
    designation may be applied.

    That being said, the core issue here is whether by accident, or
    by conscious intent. It is rather obvious that if you START with
    the conclusion of murder, one’s viewpoint of the overall scene is
    colored (directed) by the conclusion. The Ramsey-serving
    conclusion of murder by strangulation has had and still has much
    publicity and presented in a manner as if there is no doubt. I do
    doubt and ask point blank by what alleged evidence does Hunter
    and\or others reach the conclusion of murder, meaning conscious

    From autopsy report:

    “CLINICOPATHLOGIC CORRELATION: Cause of death of this six year
    old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with
    craniocerebral trauma.

    Dr. Meyer makes it clear that he was unable to pinpoint cause of
    death, yet the persistent story making the public rounds for
    years is that JonBenet was murdered by strangulation. I submit
    that this conclusion is false; that it is derived from taking the
    staging at face value and jumping to an erroneous conclusion
    rather than relying on facts and physics to expose the truth.

    I do not challenge Dr. Meyer’s medical expertise. In fact, I
    would rely on it were I in a position to cross examine him as a
    witness. However, cords, ropes and knots are not in the realm of
    medical expertise, and I do question his call on this.

    First, he reported a double knot. A double knot by definition is
    a double throw knot with the second throw locking the first,
    meaning a non slip arrangement. There is no double knot in the
    crime scene. There is double hitch turn in finishing, but no
    double knot. (A hitch is different from a knot, but explanation
    is not required here.)

    Second, the evidence showed oxygen deprivation. What is did not
    show is the cause of the oxygen deprivation. Although oxygen cut
    off by the cord is possible, there are any number of ways that
    oxygen deprivation could have happened BEFORE the cord was TIED
    around the neck. In further indirect support of this possibility,
    Dr. Meyer did not report any internal throat damage consistent
    with force sufficient to strangle.

    Take a close look at the autopsy photo with the cord around the
    neck and see if you get the same evidentiary read that I do.

    The hair entwined in the knot tells that it was TIED around the
    neck. Even Lou Smit observes this. What he doesn’t observe is
    that this contradicts the idea of strangulation by noose action.

    Imagine the body face down. (Which could have been oxygen cutoff)
    From a position of straddling the body, or from the left side of
    the body, a cord is run under the throat and around the neck
    bringing it back to the other part of the cord held in the left
    hand. The cord brought around the neck is then brought over (or
    under) the cord area held in the left and back to the area of the
    neck cord creating a loop over the left hand cord. The end of the
    cord is then wrapped two or three times around the cord coming
    from around the neck and finished by putting the end through the
    opening created by the loop-around, then pulled to tighten.

    Cross pulling a cord around a neck can exert considerable
    pressure. The arrangement as shown in the autopsy photo is a
    different matter. In this TYING arrangement, even if you pulled
    as hard as you could, very little pressure would be applied
    around the circumference of the neck. Nearly all of the pressure
    would be at the point of the tie, which in this case is the
    left\rear side of the neck, not the throat. This truth is
    magnified by the use of a small cord tending to compress upon
    itself and further reduce circumferential pressure. (Try it and
    you will see what I mean.)

    The evidence, i.e., hair entwined in the knot, material chosen,
    type of construction, etc., all tell there was no conscious
    intent to strangle by noose action or otherwise. The evidence
    does not proclaim murder by strangulation. To the contrary, the
    gross amateurishness of the “garrote scene†tells of such an
    inept attempt at staging that only incompetent, blind fools
    believe it.

    Since staging by definition is designed to hide the truth, what
    truth is there to hide except the truth about the head trauma?
    Why would anyone want to hide this? Is there really an logical

    BTW, if Mr. Wood would like this for an affidavit, I will be not
    only be happy to oblige, but ready and willing demonstrate in
    court as well.

    Of course, this is not going to happen any more than a member of
    the RST is going to meet me online and answer some questions
    about the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder. Need more be

    Note: I incorporate by reference all other arguments I have
    submitted in the case inclusive of the letters to DA, (Dally
    Around), Keenan.
  12. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I hope someone

    lets FOX News know about this affadavit and letter and this thread as well. EasyWriter, I never tire of your posts. The RST have comprehension problems, though, most of your reasoning will go right over their heads. Wood will comprehend; I expect him to start spinning his wheels any time if this gets out to general public. Oops, it just did.

    Regarding Burke - I don't care what anyone in Boulder or elsewhere says about Burke's being cleared. That is just indicative of how incompetent this investigation really has been. JR's children in Atlanta were cleared because they had alibis. By virtue of the fact that he was inside that house that night, Burke has no alibi, just like his parents. In fact, he was smack dab in the middle of the crime scene, just like his parents. Why, then, would anyone clear him when it is possible, since he was there, that he could have been involved?

    The fact is, there may have been some pacifying statements made about Burke by Hunter's office, but nothing can take away the suspicion in some people's minds that Burke may have been involved. Wood can threaten anyone who dares breathe Burke's name, but he can't stop people from suspecting. Neither can any statements put out by LE. The only thing that will stop the suspicion dead in its tracks is for LE to finally arrest and convict the killer(s) of JBR.

    That's because people have brains and can think for themselves. I don't happen to be one of those who thinks Burke was involved, but I understand why others may think he was. And, who is to deny free thought and free speech? Who thinks he is God and can dictate whom others are supposed to suspect and not suspect? Oh, that's right. That would be the god, Wood. Not.

    It is one thing for LE to feel Burke had nothing to do with his sister's death; it's quite another to prove it. I don't THINK he had anything to do with it, either, but nobody has proven to me who did do it, and as long as there is no perp, Burke will be a suspect in much of the public's eye. He may not be a serious suspect, but he cannot be ruled out. Maybe that's what we should be saying - Burke cannot be ruled out for the simple reason that he was in the house when JB was killed and nobody has been arrested or convicted yet.

    I've said it a hundred times, I'll probably say it a hundred times more - if LE can eliminate Burke through the evidence and not just through guesswork, then I'd like to hear about it. If they can eliminate Burke from the suspect list, then they must have solid evidence that someone else committed the crime, right? So, where's the perp?

    Here's the clincher - when Hunter was still in office, John and Patsy Ramsey were the ONLY suspects - for good reason, IMO. No one in LE gave credence to the Burke-did-it theory because all roads led back to his parents. The RST keeps saying we are behind the times - still working on "old" evidence, but it would appear that's exactly what they do, when it benefits them. The fact is, Burke has not been cleared or Hunter would not have struck those paragraphs out of the Wood-created affadavit (how queer, why didn't lawyer Hunter write his own affadavit? He did know how, didn't he?)

    If Burke had been cleared, there would have been none of that duck-walking around the wording on the affadavit - Hunter would have just come out and said, we have evidence that Burke was not involved. He can't say that, because they do not have evidence that Burke was not involved. They only believe he was not involved, but they don't have anything to back that belief up with.

    What all this means to me is they were whistling Dixie then and they are still whistling Dixie - IOW, they are INCOMPETENT BOOBS. The best detectives they had were scoffed at, scolded, and run out of town on a rail. If not for Steve Thomas, we would still be in the dark as to what really happened in that investigation. We might even think it's a good thing that the investigation is now in the biased hands of the Ramsey loving DA and Ramsey loving detectives. Anyone who can't see the conflict of interest and/or corruption in that is either blind, deaf, or just plain stupid.

    Fantastic find, Tricia, and Ryan Ross, you rock.
  13. Spade

    Spade Member

    LinWad's Declaration

    On March 29, 2004, LinWad submitted a declaration supporting his argument to keep the Fox suit in GA. He makes the following statement:

    "In fact, detectives never had any reason to suspect Burke and he was never even a possible suspect."


    Isn't that what Alex crossed out on page 3 PP6 because he wouldn't sign that???
  14. Spade

    Spade Member

    Fleet White

    Ryan Ross obtained this document from the public record of the US District court in Denver. The court was hearing arguments in the NY Post suit about the ability of the BDA to limit discovery. The court ruled against the Boulder DA. This decision helped Fleet White obtain the BPD and DA's Krebscam files.
  15. Spade

    Spade Member


    Was at the NY Post hearing and spoke IN FAVOR of the NY Post receiving full discovery. Consequently, IMO he should have no objection to this draft of Alex's affidavit appearing on the forums.
  16. Ginja

    Ginja Member


    In civil litigation (and if I'm not mistaken, this affidavit was drawn up for use in a civil case), it's not unusual for adverse counsel to draw up documents for opposing counsel to sign. However, my experience has been that these documents are usually court orders drawn up based on hearings at the motion calendar on the pending motions/objections.

    In layman terms, the parties go to court for a hearing where one of the parties has asked for something, e.g., moves to dismiss, moves to default, moves to compel, etc. Counsel appear, make their arguments, and the judge makes a decision on those arguments. Based on that decision, an order is written up memorializing the decision and the judge then signs the order.

    So in that sense, one of the litigating attorneys will draft the order, pass it to the other attorney to review/revise, and it goes back and forth until both parties agree to the terms, submit it to the judge, who then signs.

    This process is also followed at the start of trials as to stipulated facts whereby both parties agree to certain facts of the case. (This way, they don't have to 'argue' these points or bring in experts or whatever as they agree on these facts.)

    However...what we're talking about here is an affidavit where Hunter (prosecutor) stipulates to certain facts where those "facts" have been ascertained by Wood (adverse counsel). In all honesty, I've never seen this done. Anytime you submit an affidavit to the court, it's written by the affiant and/or his attorneys.

    Here, Hunter wasn't a party to this civil suit involving Burke. So I suppose Wood, in order to get such an affidavit, wrote it up and presented it to Hunter whereby Hunter could review and make revisions. This was "lazy" on Hunter's part, but I suppose it was the only way Wood would get such a document, albeit with Hunter's changes. My thinking is that because Hunter wasn't a party to this suit, and this suit had nothing to do with the criminal investigation, he went along with it. Personally, I think it's regrettable and shouldn't have been done. But I guess we could say quite a bit in this case never should have been done, eh?

    It's not unheard of that adverse counsel will draft the initial document, but usually the affiant will either redline most of the document or turn around and simply rewrite the whole thing. Then it goes back and forth and can continue to go back and forth until the affiant is satisfied that the document is a true version of the facts as he sees them.

    Since Hunter made only a few changes, including NOT indicating that Burke had not and could not be completely cleared, indicates his laissez faire attitude since Day One of this murder case.

    Of course, after seeing his handling of the Krebs debacle, how could we expect him to do the right thing, e.g., be a responsible prosecutor!
  17. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member


    “In layman terms, the parties go to court for a hearing where one
    of the parties has asked for something, e.g., moves to dismiss,
    moves to default, moves to compel, etc. Counsel appear, make
    their arguments, and the judge makes a decision on those
    arguments. Based on that decision, an order is written up
    memorializing the decision and the judge then signs the order.â€

    True. I have drawn up affidavits for others as well as myself,
    and presented my own for the judge to sign as you describe.
    However, writing for another is only AFTER the party telling me
    what he\she wanted in it. In any event, I was not suggesting that
    Wood’s presenting Hunter with an affidavit to sign was a legal
    infraction, but indicative of Wood’s method of operation:
    Presuming to rest his case on “expert witness†as opposed to

    Wood’s basis for every suit is “Smit saidâ€, “Keenan saidâ€, etc.
    Without establishing a qualification in one field as expert
    testimony, he presumes that all his “witnesses†are experts in
    all fields. Worse yet, idiot Judges like Carnes go along with the
    BS while the opposing attorney just sits there and lets them get
    away with it.

    It’s wake up time! If Wood ever encounters an attorney or judge
    who demands evidence instead of non evidentiary opinion of
    incompetents, Woodpecker is dead in the water.
  18. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Lin Wood's response

    Crappy at CrankSleuths took it upon her self to meddle in another forum's affair, as usual, and claims she asked Lin Wood about it. "And, oh yes, heh, He's not afraid it's been published on that forum." Whoopdie dew.

    Since I'm sure Crappy made it a point to tell Wood which forum had the affidavit in another attempt to get the gutter posters, here's a big old howdy to Crappy and her new best friend, LimpWood - :wave: :hiya:

  19. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I think it's a riot

    the way Wood et al embrace Mike Kane when it benefits them, such as his statements about Burke Ramsey, but they can't slam him enough when it comes to his opinions on the rest of the Ramsey case.

    Selective hearing, perhaps.

    On another note, I think Mary Keenan owes the public a full explanation of why Ollie Gray, a Ramsey bought and paid for investigator, has full access to the police files in the murder of JBR.

    Hi Carpy. :snake:
  20. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland


    (When I saw this thread this morning, I did wonder how Candy would cope with not being first!)

    So, not to be outdone, she contacted Lin Wood about the posting of the affadavit. According to Candy, Wood isn't worried about the affadavit being posted here (not much he could do about it anyway) and he says it was standard handling for him to draft it. Also, that he knew why Hunter had made the changes and that he agreed with him (he's hardly likely to say otherwise now - is he?)

    Well, I have to say that Wood's "response" is in fact a classic legal "non-response" and it alters nothing. At the end of the day, Ryan Ross has obtained evidence that shows that what Hunter was willing to say fell short of what Wood wanted him to say. We also know that Wood subsequently misrepresented the extent of what Hunter was willing to say.

    Candy has obtained nothing of value - EXCEPT perhaps to have it confirmed that it was indeed Hunter who did the crossing out. At Purgatory, CheekySodd had questioned that.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice