#0, Patsy in Atlanta 2
Posted by jameson on Nov-04-03 at 08:21 AM
40 1 Q. You identified Priscilla White as 2 a suspect back in June of '98. Is there 3 anything since that time that -- is there 4 any additional information that keeps her on 5 your suspect list? 6 MR. WOOD: And, you know, you got 7 a lawsuit from Chris Wolf. I am not sure 8 of the terminology, Michael, that was used 9 precisely as I sit here, but I know you all 10 asked a lot of questions in the course of 11 your investigation, and information that is 12 provided to you may be in your minds 13 indicating someone is a, quote/unquote, 14 suspect. I am never sure what a suspect is 15 other than somebody that might be someone 16 that should be investigated. 17 I don't really think there is a, 18 quote/unquote, suspect list. I think that 19 carries with it a connotation that there is 20 reason to have evidence to say somebody did 21 this, and I think it is more of a list of 22 people that are leads or possibilities that 23 should be investigated. And I just don't 24 want somehow somebody to start, besides Chris 25 Wolf, filing lawsuits claiming that we've 41 1 identified them as a, quote/unquote, suspect. 2 That is my concern. I think you would 3 appreciate it. Clearly Lin was sensitive to this issue - he did not want it to be said his clients were making accusations - - but the BORG sure did put that out as fact anyway. 4 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Well, obviously 5 this is not -- I mean, we don't intend to 6 make this information public, but in the 7 course of the investigation, we need to know 8 if there is additional evidence other than 9 what we -- what you offered back in June of 10 1998 that would suggest that Priscilla White 11 was a viable suspect in this case, or 12 someone that cannot be excluded? 13 A. Well, it is kind of like Lin 14 said. We early on provided a list of people 15 who were, A, in our home, B, worked for us. 16 You know, we wracked our brains about, you 17 know, who this might have been because we 18 were told early on that it, you know, 19 possibly was someone that was close to us. 20 And, you know, those were -- they were close 21 friends of ours. 22 Q. Was Susan Stein ever a suspect? 23 MR. WOOD: By who, the police? 24 Q. (By Mr. Kane) No, by you. 25 A. No. I mean, the reason the 42 1 Whites, I think, kind of came up on the 2 radar screen was subsequent to JonBenet's 3 death they just seemed to act, to us, in a 4 very unusual manner in terms of being very 5 confrontational, and, you know, jumping in on 6 meetings with our priest, and writing 7 voluminous letters to the governor. To me 8 that just seemed unusual, and I wondered to 9 myself why someone would act that way. 10 Q. And it was this, the way they 11 were acting, is what, in your mind, made 12 them suspects, potential suspects? 13 A. Well, potentially, yes. But, I 14 mean, if I knew from you or from whomever 15 about a lot of people, whether, you know, 16 handwriting has thoroughly been checked, DNA 17 has been checked, et cetera, et cetera, you 18 know, that would help it cross off in my 19 mind. Sound to me like Patsy was all but begging for K&C to let her know if they COULD clear the Whites in their minds. But K&C certainly did not do that. I hope the Whites are reading this - - they aimed their anger at the Ramseys - - seems to me they had the wrong target.
#1, RE: Patsy in Atlanta 2
Posted by jameson on Nov-04-03 at 08:27 AM
In response to message #0
42 20 Q. Other than the thing that you 21 talked about the amount of blood indicating 22 that the asphyxiation occurred before the 23 blow to the head, are there any other 24 details that you have that would suggest the 25 sequence that you know of? 43 1 MR. WOOD: From the forensic 2 people? 3 MR. KANE: From any source. 4 THE WITNESS: That a stun gun was 5 used to silence her. 6 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Where was that 7 information? Where did you get that 8 information? 9 A. I believe that came from Lou 10 Smith. 11 Q. Have you talked to anybody other 12 than Lou Smith -- well, let me ask you that. 13 Have you talked to Lou Smith directly 14 yourself? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. About that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Have you talked to anybody else 19 other than Lou Smith about a stun gun having 20 been used? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And who was that? 23 A. Ollie Gray. 24 Q. Was Mr. Gray, did he offer up 25 conclusions about that, that a stun gun was 44 1 used? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And have you talked to any 4 medical people about whether a stun gun was 5 used? 6 A. I have not myself. 7 Q. Have you heard indirectly from any 8 medical people about a stun gun having been 9 used? 10 A. I believe so. 11 Q. Who was that that you heard it 12 from? 13 A. I don't know the names. 14 Q. What have you heard from these 15 people? 16 A. I have heard that it has been 17 substantiated that a stun gun was used. 18 Q. What was it that substantiated the 19 use of a stun gun? 20 A. Whatever they do to test markings 21 against known markings of a particular stun 22 gun. 23 Q. And so that is what it is, the 24 markings? 25 A. (Witness nodded head 45 1 affirmatively). 2 Q. Have you ever, to your knowledge, 3 you or Mr. Ramsey, ever hired a forensic 4 expert to look at that issue, to look at the 5 autopsy report or look at any other evidence 6 that might be available that would have a 7 bearing on whether a stun gun was used? 8 A. I can't say for sure. John may 9 know that. 10 Q. But to your knowledge, you 11 haven't? 12 MR. WOOD: I think she told you 13 she hasn't. 14 MR. KANE: She said she can't say 15 for sure. 16 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 17 MR. WOOD: I think when you say 18 you can't say for sure, is there anything to 19 add to that, Patsy? 20 THE WITNESS: No. I don't know. 21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mrs. Ramsey, in 22 the course of your conversation with Mr. 23 Schmidt concerning the stun gun, do you 24 recall whether or not he sat down and showed 25 you photographs of the injuries he believed 46 1 to be stun gun injuries? 2 A. I believe he did. 3 Q. Did you or, at your request, were 4 copies of those provided to any other medical 5 people, copies of the photographs to assist 6 them? 7 A. I don't know. 8 MR. LEVIN: Are you done, Mike? 9 MR. KANE: Yes. I have other 10 questions, but take a minute. AARGHHH!!! It is clear to me that K&C were trying to investigate the Ramseys and their investigation and contacts and not trying to get to the killer. Patsy said she knew a stun gun was used. Not one question about who may have had a stun gun - - not one question about tips that may have gone to the Ramseys about people who had stun guns. If I had been Patsy or Lin, I would have been tearing my hair out in frustration. How anyone can read this transcript and still support Kane is beyond me. He (and his team) did a terrible job.
#2, RE: Patsy in Atlanta 2
Posted by jameson on Nov-04-03 at 08:29 AM
In response to message #1
46 11 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) We know what 12 you said about Priscilla White. I am just 13 -- my question is, since we talked to you 14 last, have you developed any evidence that 15 would confirm your suspicion as far as 16 Priscilla White is concerned, anything that 17 you know of in the course of the 18 investigation that you have conducted that 19 would keep her on this list, independent of 20 what you might think we know, that kind of 21 thing? 22 A. No. 23 Q. How about Fleet White, anything 24 that you have developed since the last time 25 we spoke to you that would keep him on this 47 1 suspect -- or that would keep him on this 2 list? 3 MR. WOOD: Are you talking about 4 whether their investigators have developed 5 information as opposed to like an event 6 occurring such as filing a criminal civil 7 case, which is a little odd? 8 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Anything new 9 that we don't know about Fleet White that 10 you have developed or your investigators have 11 developed? 12 A. I can't remember any. The only 13 -- I just heard recently that we have come 14 across a copy of his statement to you folks 15 or to the police department on or the day 16 after JonBenet's death and that he was asked 17 about the ransom note and could very closely 18 recite the content, which seemed unusual. Oh yeah - - the BORG was right - - the Ramseys were really throwing their best friends to the sharks - - NOT!!! K&C seemed anxious to get the Ramseys to jump on that bandwagon - - didn't happen.
#3, RE: Patsy in Atlanta 2
Posted by jameson on Nov-04-03 at 08:33 AM
In response to message #2
47 19 Q. The same, I guess, the same 20 question in regard to Mr. McReynolds, and I 21 am sorry I don't remember Mr. McReynolds' 22 first name. 23 MR. WOOD: Is it Bill? 24 MR. LEVIN: Yes. 25 MR. MORRISSEY: William, yes. 48 1 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Anything, I 2 know his name came up, and I was wondering 3 if anything since the last time you spoke 4 to, I believe it was the Boulder district 5 attorneys, I think after the formal 6 discussion you had on tape and everything, 7 then you went -- and I heard an audiotape -- 8 where you were focusing on Mr. McReynolds 9 himself with Mr. DeMouth and a couple of 10 other people. I was wondering if anything, 11 any follow-up had been done as far as your 12 investigation is concerned, any new 13 information on Mr. McReynolds' possible 14 involvement. 15 A. I don't know. Morrissey didn't even remember Santa's first name? Geesh! So he asked about Santa and Patsy made it clear that she was not involved in the details of the investigation Ollie was running... Ollie was in the room - - maybe they should have had him pull a chair up to the table and asked HIM what was going on. But knowing Ollie, I think he might have insisted on a bit of tit-for-tat there - - brainstorming and not this idiotic one way street of half-asked questions (did ya get it? :-))
#4, RE: Patsy in Atlanta 2
Posted by jameson on Nov-04-03 at 08:40 AM
In response to message #3
48 16 Q. And Mr. Wolf? I mean these, 17 Bruce asked you these kind of in a group of 18 four. I was interested specifically, since 19 we last spoke to you, what have you 20 developed, if anything, about Mr. Wolf? 21 A. Well, I think subsequent to that, 22 I know we have a tape from his one-time 23 girlfriend. 24 Q. Ms. Dilson? 25 A. Dilson. She videotaped herself 49 1 imploring John and me to help her. She is 2 very frightened of him. She believes that 3 he did this. She is in hiding. 4 Q. Have you ever spoken to Ms. 5 Dilson in person or -- 6 A. I can't, I can't remember. 7 Q. Okay. But you viewed this tape 8 of her asking for your help? 9 A. Yes, uh-huh, uh-huh. 10 Q. Anything other than the tape that 11 would indicate to you or keep Mr. Wolf in 12 that position that he was in last time we 13 spoke? 14 A. I just can't think of anything 15 right now. 16 MR. KANE: Can I ask a question? 17 MR. LEVIN: I was going to just 18 follow-up on that, Michael. 19 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Have you sent 20 your investigators out to interview Ms. 21 Dilson or try to locate her to follow up on 22 this tape? 23 MR. WOOD: Well, let me help you 24 a little bit. Chris Wolf has filed a 25 lawsuit against John and Patsy Ramsey, so you 50 1 can rest assured that Chris Wolf and Ms. 2 Dilson, in terms of information, are being 3 developed about that in terms of the defense 4 to that case, among other things. So if we 5 come across anything in the course of that 6 civil litigation, we will get it as quickly 7 as we can copy it and get it to you. 8 Obviously we have begun to study a lot of 9 his appearances in some other things. 10 Q. (By Mr. Levin) So, Mrs. Ramsey, 11 I take it then that the answer to my 12 question as far as to date is no, that no 13 one has gone out and attempted to interview 14 Ms. Dilson on your behalf? 15 MR. WOOD: If you know. 16 MR. LEVIN: If you know. 17 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 18 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Have you received 19 any reports or any summaries from any 20 investigator that would cause you to believe 21 that she was contacted directly by your 22 representatives? 23 A. I just don't know. That would be 24 -- John, perhaps, would know. 25 Q. You have no recollection, as you 51 1 sit here, of seeing any follow-up information 2 in any form? 3 A. That is correct. 4 Q. This tape, was that unsolicited on 5 the part of your family? 6 A. Oh, yes. 7 Q. When did you receive that? 8 A. Probably sometime last spring. 9 Q. The spring of '99? 10 A. No. Spring of -- I think spring 11 of 2000 or maybe fall of 2000. 12 Q. Well, it wouldn't be fall. So 13 maybe spring of this year? 14 A. I mean spring, yes. 15 Q. Or fall of '99? 16 A. I'm just thinking of, I know we 17 saw it in our apartment. I am trying to 18 think when, how long we have been in that 19 apartment. The subject was abruptly changed by K&C. This was a waste of time, IMO. Patsy made it clear that she did not play investigator - but they keep going back to that. What difference does it really make if Patsy spoke to Jackie on the phone or in person? Didn't the BPD have Wolf as a suspect very early on? Didn't they talk to him themselves and take his handwriting sample? If they knew they could clear him, why not say so? if they knew they could not clear him, why not go investigate him - - talk to Jackie themselves? THAT might advance the investigation. How did this exchange advance the investigation? Please - - someone explain.
#5, RE: Patsy in Atlanta 2
Posted by jameson on Nov-04-03 at 09:00 AM
In response to message #4
51 21 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Have you had any 22 forensic people look into the issue of the 23 pineapple that was found in JonBenet's 24 digestive tract? 25 MR. WOOD: Let me ask you this, 52 1 Michael. Are you stating as a matter of 2 fact that it was pineapple without any 3 question? 4 MR. KANE: That was stated two 5 years ago in the interview. Yes. There is 6 no doubt about it. 7 MR. WOOD: Are you stating it as 8 fact? 9 MR. KANE: Lou Smith told Mr. 10 Ramsey that too. 11 MR. WOOD: I just want to make 12 sure it's clear that you're stating it as a 13 matter of fact and not opinion that it is 14 pineapple. 15 MR. KANE: It is pineapple. 16 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Why did you state, 17 let me ask you, why did you state in your 18 book that it was pineapple? 19 MR. WOOD: Are you going to 20 withdraw the last question? 21 MR. KANE: Lin, look, this is not 22 -- we are not in court. 23 MR. WOOD: But we are making a 24 record, and it is important, because I looked 25 at some of the stuff in the past, and it is 53 1 jumping back and forth. I want to make sure 2 that, if there is a question pending, the 3 record accurately reflects that she either 4 has answered it or at this point in time 5 you're not insisting upon an answer and you 6 will come back to it later. 7 I think from what you are telling 8 me is you are going to hold off on the last 9 question about forensics and go to the book. 10 MR. KANE: I'll ask it, but I 11 was going to preface it with the book, but I 12 will do it in the reverse order. 13 MR. WOOD: Okay. 14 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Have you talked to 15 anybody about findings of pineapple in her 16 digestive system? 17 A. No. 18 Q. In your book you said that this 19 was -- that that became an urban legend. 20 MR. LEVIN: Hang on a second. 21 MR. WOOD: Hang on one second, 22 Michael. 23 MR. LEVIN: Do you want to have 24 him change the tape? 25 MR. WOOD: He's got about nine 54 1 minutes, I guess. 2 MR. MORRISSEY: Can I ask a 3 question or are we just on break or 4 something? 5 MR. WOOD: While he goes to get 6 a book, yes, of course. 7 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Mrs. Ramsey, 8 will you have any trouble, problems with us 9 seeing this Dilson tape, at some point 10 getting us a copy of that? 11 A. Sure. That would be fine. 12 MR. MORRISSEY: I mean, I don't 13 know if -- 14 THE WITNESS: I am not sure where 15 it is right now, but I am sure we can run 16 it down. 17 MR. WOOD: Rest assured that, if 18 you have any kind of request like that, if 19 you'll make it to me, you know, I'll 20 carefully consider it. And if in any way 21 possible, I will try to get that stuff to 22 you. That is the kind of thing that's gonna 23 be clearly coming out in the civil case, 24 so -- 25 MR. MORRISSEY: Right. That is 55 1 why I wasn't sure. I just wanted to ask 2 her, but I wasn't sure what your position 3 was going to be -- 4 MR. WOOD: Well, you know -- 5 MR. MORRISSEY: --because I know 6 that is kind of a shadow case, but I would 7 sure like to see that tape. 8 THE WITNESS: She was very upset. It is clear from this exchange that brainstorming and sharing could benefit the investigation - - but it is not being handled right. Yes, it was pineapple in JonBenét's intestine - - at least K&C says so - - they have not shared that lab report either. (But yes, it is pineapple. That is a fact.) The Ramseys don't know when she ate it - - this line of questioning is, IMO, a waste of time here - - ground already covered in past interviews. Back to the Dilson tape. This interview took place on the 28th - the investigators were still there talking on the 29th - - why didn't they ask for the Ramseys to try to locate that tape and bring it in the next day if it was important? I don't know. I do know K&C never got that tape - if they had, I believe we would have heard about it by now. But - - and I hate to write this again - - what the hell difference did that tape make to the investigation? The cops had Wolf on their list - they had spoken to him and had access to Jackie if they wanted it... If they had cleared Wolf for good reason, why go for the tape. If they had not cleared him in their minds, why didn't they really go after it? How did this line of questioning advance the investigation?
#6, RE: Patsy in Atlanta 2
Posted by jameson on Nov-04-03 at 09:08 AM
In response to message #5
55 14 Q. (By Mr. Kane) You say 15 apparently, during the autopsy, an issue was 16 raised about the possibility of JonBenet 17 having eaten pineapple. Do you recall -- do 18 you recall, during the interviews in June of 19 1998, being told that there was, in fact, 20 pineapple in her system? 21 A. I don't remember the specific 22 discussion. I believe someone said there may 23 have been something that looked like 24 pineapple. 25 Q. Okay. 56 1 A. I'm not - no one ever has told 2 me that it was definitively pineapple. 3 Q. All right. Did John -- so John 4 never told you that Lou Smith told him that 5 it was definitely pineapple? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Have you, whether it was pineapple 8 or any other type of fruit, it is your 9 understanding that you haven't asked any 10 forensic experts to, gastroenterologist or 11 someone of that nature, someone with a 12 medical background, what their opinion of 13 that being in her system is? 14 A. I don't know. That may have been 15 part of the presentation that was being 16 prepared. 17 Q. Well, the presentation was Dr. 18 Sperry. Let me just clarify this. Was 19 anybody else besides Dr. Sperry going to take 20 part in that presentation, to your knowledge? 21 A. To my knowledge, there were 22 several people involved. 23 Q. But you don't know who these 24 people are? 25 A. No. 57 1 Q. Do you know what their fields of 2 expertise were? 3 A. I am sorry, I don't. 4 Q. And you didn't learn subsequent to 5 January who these people are and what their 6 fields of expertise are? 7 MR. WOOD: Specific names, I 8 think she's told you. 9 THE WITNESS: I mean, I think, I 10 think I was told, probably, you know, this 11 name, this name, and this is who he is and 12 that is and that is. They are all like 13 names with degrees this long. I just knew I 14 was very impressed by the caliber of the 15 individuals consulting on this. 16 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. All right. 17 And you don't have any problem with giving 18 us those names, do you, afterwards if you 19 and Mr. Ramsey -- 20 MR. WOOD: Whatever names were 21 offered to you and Pat Burke, I will tell 22 you, whatever names were offered in January 23 of 2000 by Pat Burke when that offer was 24 rejected, we will certainly provide you with 25 those names if you don't already have them. 58 1 MR. KANE: Well, I'll tell you 2 right now there was only one name that was 3 offered to me, and that was Dr. Sperry from 4 GBI. 5 MR. WOOD: That may be true, but 6 my understanding is there were other 7 individuals either contemplated in that 8 presentation, that it was more than one, but 9 you've got his name and if there were 10 others -- 11 THE WITNESS: And if we want to 12 do the presentation, we can do it. 13 MR. WOOD: - we will get those 14 names to you, no question. In fact, what we 15 can do at some point, if we can figure out 16 an appropriate time, but like this Dilson 17 tape, or these names, et cetera, if you can 18 get a list and you all can get it to me, 19 and then we will try to go through it and 20 see what we can get to you if you don't 21 have it. 22 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood, I am taking 23 maybe incorrectly, I am taking your statement 24 that if we wanted to personally just directly 25 contact Dr. Sperry that we can do that? 59 1 MR. WOOD: I would have to make 2 that decision. I haven't thought about it. 3 MR. LEVIN: I don't want to -- 4 MR. WOOD: I wouldn't make a seat 5 of the pants decision on something like that. 6 MR. LEVIN: Sure. 7 MR. WOOD: Obviously he is a 8 retained expert. 9 MR. KANE: Can I clarify that? 10 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Has he been 11 retained by you? That was the whole issue 12 that was presented to us when Pat Burke was 13 suggesting this meeting. I asked whether he 14 had been retained by you. Was he retained 15 by you? 16 MR. WOOD: If you -- 17 MR. KANE: If you know. 18 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 19 MR. WOOD: That is probably 20 something she wouldn't know the legal 21 niceties of. 22 THE WITNESS: I mean, I don't 23 know who. 24 MR. WOOD: Listen, we'll sort out 25 the question of Sperry's status. 60 1 MR. KANE: Okay. 2 MR. WOOD: And you know, 3 unfortunately I don't have the direct 4 knowledge that Pat Burke has, but we will 5 sort out that in terms of what he 6 contemplated offering you all and what their 7 status is and how available they will be. I 8 will get those answers to you one way or the 9 other. 10 MR. KANE: I just have one thing 11 to follow up on, Bruce. 12 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Bruce said that 13 Ellis Armistead had been hired in 1997. Do 14 you recall that Mr. Armistead, in fact, was 15 hired in December of 1996? 16 A. I can't say for sure. I don't 17 know. 18 MR. WOOD: I think that he was, 19 just if that helps you. 20 MR. KANE: Yeah, I just wanted to 21 clarify, Mr. Levin said '97. 22 MR. WOOD: He said as far back 23 as '97, as I recall. 24 MR. KANE: But it was as far 25 back as 1996. 61 1 THE WITNESS: I just remember he 2 was there very -- you know, my days are 3 really foggy then. I just remember we were 4 intensely afraid for our safety, and he -- I 5 just remember, you know, in my trauma, 6 looking up at this big guy and thinking, 7 boy, am I glad he is here. So I don't 8 know what day that was, or -- 9 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Did he ever 10 interview you? 11 A. Quite possibly. I can't remember. 12 Q. You don't have any recollection of 13 ever being interviewed by Mr. Armistead or 14 anybody else working for him? 15 A. I mean, we talked, certainly. I 16 don't know if you would say it was an 17 interview. 18 Q. Did Mr. Armistead or any other -- 19 I guess it was Jennifer Getty worked for 20 him. Do you recall her? 21 A. Uh-huh, uh-huh (affirmative). 22 Q. John Foster, do you recall him? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. David Williams, do you recall him? 25 A. Yes. 62 1 Q. Did any of these people ever take 2 statements from you about what happened? 3 MR. WOOD: Subsequent to June of 4 1998? 5 MR. KANE: No. 6 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Of the events of 7 December 25th, 26th, of 1996. 8 A. I can't remember. 9 Q. You don't have any recollection of 10 being interviewed? 11 MR. WOOD: She told you she can't 12 remember. 13 MR. KANE: Lin, if you are going 14 to object to every question --I asked you -- 15 THE WITNESS: I can go back and 16 look. 17 MR. KANE: Because I am asking a 18 clarifying question. 19 MR. WOOD: No, no. I am not 20 objecting. I am just making sure that we 21 are fair here. You know, when she says I 22 can't remember and you look over and go, you 23 mean you can't remember, I mean, the tone of 24 that implies that there is something wrong 25 with a truthful answer being I can't 63 1 remember. That is all -- she tells you 2 something, you know, you don't have to beat 3 her over the head with her answer. Once 4 ought to be enough. 5 MR. KANE: Well, is that your 6 objection, that I am beating her over the 7 head? 8 MR. WOOD: It is not an 9 objection. No, no. 10 MR. KANE: I think, you know, we 11 came down here with the understanding that we 12 could ask questions. And what you are 13 trying to do is channel those questions into 14 a certain tone. And I -- 15 MR. WOOD: No, I am not. I 16 really am not. I mean, you came down here 17 under the request of Chief Beckner to ask 18 new questions about information that has been 19 obtained by you since June of 1998 or 20 developments that have arisen since June of 21 1998. That was the request. We agreed to 22 that. 23 MR. KANE: Okay. 24 MR. WOOD: And all I am saying 25 is that, in the process of giving 64 1 information, there may be an answer that to 2 you strikes you, as you can't remember that. 3 If she can't remember, Mitch, that is the 4 truth, and, you know. 5 MR. MORRISSEY: I am Mitch. 6 MR. WOOD: I don't mean the 7 phrase, I am sorry, Michael. I don't mean 8 to use the phrase -- I don't think you beat 9 her over the head. I am just using the 10 phrase that sometimes lawyers do tend to beat 11 witnesses over the head when they don't 12 either like or necessarily react favorably to 13 an answer. You haven't beat her over the 14 head here today. I wouldn't let you do 15 that. And I don't mean to suggest otherwise 16 on the record. 17 MR. KANE: Okay. 18 MR. LEVIN: Lin, if I, if I can 19 just follow up your statement a little bit, 20 we are, the four of us, extremely experienced 21 trial lawyers, and I can't imagine that, in 22 the course of your practice, you have not 23 either, during the course of a deposition or 24 in formal interview with a witness or in a 25 courtroom, gotten a witness who says I can't 65 1 remember and then not follow it up to see if 2 you can kind of spark their memory. I think 3 that is all we are trying to do. 4 MR. WOOD: I am not going to 5 prevent that type of follow-up, and I know 6 you guys are experienced. And I have 7 managed to do a little bit of that myself 8 over the last 23 years. So I fancy myself 9 as quite experienced in trial law also. 10 And I understand the difference, 11 though, between an interview and a 12 cross-examination. In a cross-examination, 13 you might follow up and, as we lawyers say, 14 beat on the witness a little bit. This is 15 not a cross-examination of my client. And 16 there is a difference. 17 This is an interview where you 18 are here to get information about the new 19 questions, as I have earlier stated. But I 20 am not sitting here saying, Patsy Ramsey has 21 been offered up for you skilled trial lawyers 22 to cross-examine her. 23 MR. LEVIN: We have no intention. 24 MR. WOOD: That is the 25 difference. 66 1 MR. LEVIN: I'm sure it is 2 apparent to you that we are not 3 cross-examining your client. 4 MR. WOOD: Listen, I think we are 5 doing very well so far. I am pleased. 6 MR. LEVIN: I'm just saying that 7 we try to prod her memory a little bit, if 8 we get a -- 9 MR. WOOD: I have no problems 10 with you trying to jog someone's recollection 11 at all. 12 MR. LEVIN: Great. I appreciate 13 that. 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We need to 15 make a tape change. One moment. 16 (A recess was taken.) If K&C wanted to know who the Ramsey experts were and what they had, they should have met with them as the Ramseys had asked them to. This line of questioning angered me - and I thought Lin was being quite well-behaved where someone else might have been less... patient with them. (The patience did not last forever, though - we all know that. But even in the beginning, I think that K&C were wasting time and I wonder if they were not doing it intentionally hoping to get the whole thing cut short so they might accuse the Ramseys of being uncooperative. Why did Kane have the plane reservation for the next afternoon? They could have been there a week - - he knew they wouldn't. How?)
#7, RE: Patsy in Atlanta 2
Posted by Margoo on Nov-16-03 at 08:58 PM
In response to message #6
Did the Ramseys EVER have that presentation by their investigators and their experts made to LE? In 2000? In 2001? In 2002? With Keenan's New Team?
#8, RE: Patsy in Atlanta 2
Posted by jameson on Nov-16-03 at 10:20 PM
In response to message #7
Honestly don't know. The new investigation is being done very quietly. I do know that the Ramseys have always been willing to talk to Lou Smit - - from the very beginning, long before the new team took over - - and I am sure they would meet with Tom Bennett and the others at any time. I know some of the Ramsey group has met with the new investigative team, don't know how many or how formal that was but... little things have reached me so - yes - there has been some sharing.
#9, RE: Patsy in Atlanta 2
Posted by Rainsong on Nov-16-03 at 11:00 PM
In response to message #8
I think they did sit down with Mary Keenan, but what was discussed has not been made public. But I could be mistaken. Rainsong
#11, RE: Patsy in Atlanta 2
Posted by DonBradley on Nov-17-03 at 07:36 AM
In response to message #9
>they did sit down with Mary Keenan, but what was discussed has not been made public. No, I don't think it has been revealed. However, I doubt it was all that helpful anyway. "We went to sleep, we woke up in the morning but had heard nothing unusual during the night".I'm sure DA Keenan did not waste time with Burke's security arrangements in Atlanta several years after the murder that took place in Boulder.
#10, RE: Patsy in Atlanta 2
Posted by DonBradley on Nov-17-03 at 07:32 AM
In response to message #0
The purpose in Atlanta was to dredge up bad material on the Ramseys, it was not to investigate the case or advance the investigation one iota.Consider the recently gained knowledge that FW had an excellent grasp of the note's text soon after the crime. What do we have here? Something Patsy had recently learned of and it did not in any way lead Kane to ask a question such as 'do you have any opinion as to his memory skills based on incidents that you experienced with him'? Which might have elicited such things as 'in restaurants he could never even remember the menu or what he had ordered, in CHX he had to write down where the sailboat was kept because he had such a poor memory' or it might have elicited things like 'I had a general impression that he never forgot an appointment and could recall verbatim late in an evening conversations that had taken place earlier that day'. Anything like this would have clarified matters and advanced the investigation albeit on very tangential issues.
#12, RE: Patsy in Atlanta 2
Posted by jameson on Nov-17-03 at 08:33 AM
In response to message #10
Well, the 2000 transcripts are here - - we have some discussion - not as much as I had hoped...I am hardly surprised that the BORG sites haven't much to say at all. Kane and company made it sound like the Ramseys had been uncooperative - - I read this and I think the Ramseys cooperated - - and K&C wasted a lot of time..
#13, RE: Patsy in Atlanta 2
Posted by Mikie on Nov-17-03 at 09:34 AM
In response to message #12
Well, the case is pretty old now, no news for months, Borg are Bord? The investigators were trying to gather information regarding the Whites, McR's and Wolf because they know they are involved but similarly have little proof or simply cannot pursue any direction without sufficient evidence. Or, in my opinion, they wanted to make sure that the Ramseys are not getting too close to the truth.
|