#0, John's 2000 interview - Atlanta
Posted by jameson on Nov-01-03 at 09:37 PM
I have an official transcript of the 2000 interviews and will share the more interesting bits here - feel free jin in with comments. i will post 5-10 bits then move to a new thread. Lots here to talk about. 3 16 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay, Mr. Ramsey, 17 we've spoken before for quite a period of 18 time. When I first spoke with you earlier, 19 I explained to you that, if ever there were 20 going to be an intruder on trial, the 21 defense is going to be that you did it. Do 22 you remember that? 23 A. I remember that, but I am not 24 here to prove my innocence. I am here to 25 find the killer of my daughter. My comments will be in bold print. This is the opening statement in the interview - and it really did set up the mood for the meetings. Lin had agreed to have the Ramseys come in to discuss things not covered by other interviews - they expected that they would be helping the police get the investigation on the right track - - but as you will see, that is not what happened. The cops did not take advantage of the time to look at everything - they were really interested in "nailing the Ramseys".
You might remember that after these interviews were completed, a very short section was released - the news carried a bit where Kane and Lin went at it... well, it is time to know more.
#1, RE: John's 2000 interview - Atlanta
Posted by jameson on Nov-01-03 at 09:44 PM
In response to message #0
4 22 Q. (By Mr. Kane) How active have 23 you been involved in the investigation in the 24 last two years since we last met? How 25 actively have you taken part in it? 5 1 A. Well, that's a relative term. I 2 don't know how to answer that question. I 3 am aware somewhat of what is going on. 4 Bryan Morgan shepherded the effort for a good 5 while after the grand jury and specifically 6 told me he didn't want to tell me a lot 7 because we were talking to the media and I 8 had a tendency to perhaps say things I 9 shouldn't. 10 Q. What kinds of things were you 11 concerned of saying? 12 A. He was concerned about keeping the 13 efforts of the investigation as confidential 14 as possible. The Ramseys were protected by their friends in the beginning - it seems later their lawyers did the same thing. There were several times I was surprised that they were unaware of a suspect or lead or... but in the end it doesn't matter - the Ramseys are not investigators and will probably not be the ones to solve this case - - as long as the investigators get the information, we have a chance to see justice.
People email me wanting to get information to the Ramseys - I always advise them to get it to the DA and Lou Smit and Tom Bennett. Not vague tips like - - "I saw a man who looked guilty and I think he stole something from Walmart but I can't prove he was ever in Colorado and don't know if he has any criminal record or any interest in children..." I encourage they get a realistic statement together and go to the authorities with it.
#2, RE: John's 2000 interview - Atlanta
Posted by jameson on Nov-01-03 at 09:49 PM
In response to message #1
8 2 THE WITNESS: That I, first of 3 all, I believe that whatever has been 4 disclosed to me I am highly confident has 5 been given to the Boulder Police Department 6 as information. 7 We have, I know, pursued a good 8 number of leads. I don't know that any of 9 them are the killer. I don't know that one 10 of them is not the killer. They are 11 interesting leads, the ones I am aware of. 12 They need to be pursued. We are pursuing 13 them to the best of our ability as a private 14 citizen. 15 One of the reasons we are here 16 today is because we realize that there are 17 powers that the state has that we cannot, as 18 private citizens, exercise, and that's going 19 to be necessary to ultimately find the 20 killer. 21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) If I can 22 interrupt. Mr. Ramsey, what I would like 23 you to do, I mean, as an individual, I am 24 sure, who has thought about this all day, 25 every day, is just lay out for us what you 9 1 see as the significant lead so that we can 2 make sure that we have followed these things 3 up. 4 A. Well, the -- and this is the file 5 I've kept of leads that come in on the 6 internet. And we have a tip line, we get 7 lots of letters, most of which are not of 8 any interest or value, but these are ones 9 that I kept. I sent these on to Ollie, and 10 I think probably he has sent them on to you. 11 These aren't necessarily inclusive. John had a file of possible leads to share with Kane and company. I certainly have no problem with that - but I didn't sense any great interest in the leads the Ramsey investigators had come up with ... and it bothered me that Kane and company were not sharing at that time - perhaps Ollie, who was right there in the room, could have helped fill in some of their weak files.
#3, RE: John's 2000 interview - Atlanta
Posted by jameson on Nov-01-03 at 09:56 PM
In response to message #2
Understand - the Ramseys believed they were going to these meetings to brainstorm on some things - to help each other figure out what needed to happen next. Pay attention to how John starts going through some names of things he brought to discuss, perhaps - and see the "authorities" shut down any hope of "sharing". 9 12 This is just from a psychologist, 13 who had, I think, a good perspective on the 14 killer. 15 This is the Dorothy Allison stuff 16 which I believe you guys are familiar with. 17 Chris Wolf is still very much of 18 interest to me. I don't know that he is 19 involved. I don't know he's not. But -- 20 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Hang on. I 21 suppose what I'm -- I don't mean to cut you 22 off, Mr. Ramsey, obviously. But what I am 23 interested in, I mean, we had a list of 24 names that you provided early on, and I was 25 interested if there are recent people. I
10 1 mean, obviously we've looked at Chris Wolf 2 and we looked at Fleet and we've looked at 3 Priscilla and we've looked at Merrick, and 4 those people, and I'm looking for -- 5 MR. WOOD: Have they been 6 cleared, Bruce? Have they been cleared? 7 MR. LEVIN: I can't comment on the 8 status of the investigation. 9 MR. WOOD: Has he been cleared 10 from your list. Are we wasting our time? 11 Tell us so we won't waste Ollie's resources. 12 They can go elsewhere. 13 Well, let me go get the 50-page 14 document which the Ramseys gave to you all 15 and you ask him what is significant. 16 MR. LEVIN: Let me get post-98. 17 MR. WOOD: But you interrupted 18 him. Post '98, you gave us 51 pages almost 19 50 pages. Let's go through that because you 20 certainly thought that was significant. 21 Let's get that. Let me get that. 22 MR. LEVIN: Maybe my question 23 wasn't clear and maybe this will save you 24 the trouble. 25 MR. WOOD: Okay. 11 1 MR. LEVIN: What I'm interested 2 in is -- 3 MR. WOOD: You will not tell us 4 if the other people are cleared? 5 MR. LEVIN: No. 6 MR. WOOD: Thank you for the 7 cooperation. The "post '98" comment was referring to the fact that the 2000 interviews were to cover evidence and leads that came to be since the Ramseys were interviewed in 1998 - - they were not there to cover old ground. I have not seen the 50 page document but believe it was notes sent from the Ramseys to LE noting what they had uncovered in their investigation and indicating what they felt was interesting enough to follow up on. LE was never willing to go over that during the 2000 interviews. Lin sure did try. The sharing didn't happen.
#4, RE: John's 2000 interview - Atlanta
Posted by jameson on Nov-01-03 at 10:00 PM
In response to message #3
11 8 MR. LEVIN: I am interested in 9 what, I'm interested in what Mr. Ramsey felt 10 was significant, if there were people post 11 '98 that jumped out. 12 MR. WOOD: That 50 page document 13 was felt to be significant. 14 MR. LEVIN: To a man that it's 15 at the heart of who murdered his child. 16 THE WITNESS: Well, I can tell 17 you that I think you know there was this 18 whole issue of some strange activity in the 19 Cherry Knolls, and I've often thought, you 20 know, we lived there, it was a small town, 21 we were higher profile, you know, perhaps we 22 went to the wrong place. 23 I spent a little time this summer 24 talking to some of the people that I know 25 our investigators talked to. Some of the 12 1 information that I heard secondhand wasn't as 2 strong as I thought it was in terms of being 3 interesting. 4 We had the incident of someone 5 sleeping in JonBenet's bed while we were 6 gone. We had the incident of somebody 7 running down the hill saying they were going 8 to get even with me and harm my daughter. 9 I don't know if there is anything there or 10 not, but I think it's foolish not to look at 11 that. 12 MR. KANE: Can I ask -- 13 MR. WOOD: Wait, let him finish 14 answering the question. 15 MR. KANE: He did. 16 THE WITNESS: I am not finished. 17 MR. WOOD: I have a 50 page 18 document we're going to go through, 19 gentlemen. You are not going to cut him off 20 and say he doesn't have information that he 21 thought was significant. 22 MR. KANE: I just want to ask 23 one follow-up -- 24 MR. WOOD: Follow up after his 25 answer. We are going to talk about the 13 1 September of '97 incident. We're going to 2 talk about all of this. You want him to 3 give you this information. And I hope you 4 do want it This is the Charlevoix incident - B has written about it on this forum. Kane and company was not very interested in discussing it. Please note how LE cuts off the witness - it happened in 1997 and 1998 - Lin was determined not to let it happen in 2000. It will happen repeatedly.
#5, RE: John's 2000 interview - Atlanta
Posted by jameson on Nov-01-03 at 10:07 PM
In response to message #4
13 9 Here's a lead on a guy named 10 Pete F**** who was part of a motorcycle gang 11 in Casper, Wyoming called the Saints Bike and 12 Trail Club, SBTC, possible connections to 13 Linda Hawk, worked at the Tomahawk Lounge in 14 Casper, in the '70s. It was where the 15 Saints hung out. I don't know. You know, 16 I have, I have stretched my imagination to 17 the limit trying to figure out what SBTC is. 18 This lady continues to claim that 19 Larry P***** is the killer. She goes on and 20 on. I don't think that is terribly 21 significant, but what I look for in these 22 things is, is there something that they know 23 that really ties it together or is there 24 something they know that really isn't public, 25 which is kind of difficult because so much 14 1 has been public. These names have never been made public and I do not intend to put them out there now.
The point is that there were suspects that the Ramseys knew of - they would have liked to have been able to call the cops with tips before this interview but that wasn't happening. So here they were prepare for a brainstorming session and the cops weren't asking for details or saying this or that might connect with any information they had. Imagine being the Ramseys - a daughter murdered, innocent but suspected, trying to get the policeto work WITH you - - how would you feel if you had information like this and they didnt seem to care?
#6, RE: John's 2000 interview - Atlanta
Posted by jameson on Nov-01-03 at 10:11 PM
In response to message #5
14 2 This is a -- these Patricia 3 letters are incredibly bizarre. When I read 4 those things, this wasn't just an internet 5 quack, in my opinion. This was somebody who 6 was watching us, who knew a lot about us, 7 who would talk about the killer being 8 actually a pretty nice guy. 9 You know, we tried desperately to 10 track this back. He's a very clever fellow. 11 He used several servers in his Internet 12 transmissions. We couldn't, couldn't track 13 it back. But I still am very interested in 14 that. 15 I have an original letter that I 16 am convinced the same guy sent me that was 17 written in a different -- supposedly it is a 18 different author, but it's the same. So I 19 mean, it could be the killer. I don't know. 20 But it's a lead.As far as I know, the letters could not be tracked and that mystery will never be solved. Some have ideas of who Patricia was - - but no one is sure. (Except Misty and her idiot friend who identified meas the author - - they are sure - and they are wrong. But this is America and they have the right to be wrong and to go public with their delusions. Whatever - the fact is no one knows who wrote those letters.) Personally, I don't think Patricia was the killer. I believe it was some bored individual with a warped sense of humor.
#7, RE: John's 2000 interview - Atlanta
Posted by jameson on Nov-01-03 at 10:15 PM
In response to message #6
14 21 Here is a, this is a family 22 that -- oh, this is just some Dorothy 23 Allison information. This is about a killer 24 of a six-year-old child. 25 One of my theories is, frankly, 15 1 that the murder of a child is such a 2 horrible thing and so subhuman that there are 3 not many people around that do it. Here is 4 a fellow that murdered a six-year-old child, 5 or the name of a fellow. My contention is 6 that -- 7 MR. KANE: Dorothy Allison, can I 8 ask, is that a psychic? 9 THE WITNESS: No, no, this was 10 from -- 11 MR. WOOD: He is talking about 12 someone else now. 13 MR. KANE: No, but before you 14 said -- 15 MR. WOOD: You are going to let 16 him finish what he's saying. 17 MR. KANE: Oh, come on. Lin, 18 I'm just asking who is Dorothy Allison for 19 the record. 20 MR. WOOD: Let him finish. Make 21 a note and -- 22 THE WITNESS: Dorothy Allison was 23 on a television program. I believe she is a 24 psychic. I did not see it. I've never 25 have seen her. These are letters from 16 1 people who have sent information based on 2 what they heard on the television program. 3 MR. KANE: I just wanted to -- 4 MR. WOOD: It is going to be a 5 better procedure to let my client finish. 6 You are going to let my client answer his 7 question or you're going to leave. You're 8 not here to interrupt. Show some courtesy 9 and I will show it to you. 10 THE WITNESS: Dennis K****. This 11 is actually very interesting. 12 MR. KANE: If you want to play 13 that game, I will win. 14 MR. WOOD: Well, did you 15 answer -- hold on, John. 16 What did you say, sir? 17 MR. KANE: I said, if you want 18 to play that game, let's take a break. 19 MR. WOOD: Let's take a break. 20 I don't know what that means. We'll 21 consider what that means. I'm going to play 22 that game, you're going to win? I don't 23 know. 24 MR. KANE: You are playing games. 25 MR. WOOD: I am not playing a 17 1 game, Mr. Kane. 2 MR. KANE: He mentioned Dorothy 3 Allison, and I said who is Dorothy Allison. 4 MR. WOOD: Mr. Kane, I am not 5 going to waste my breath talking to you like 6 I did yesterday. I am going to take a 7 break now, but when you make comments about 8 me playing a game and you are going to win 9 when I asked you not to interrupt my client, 10 number one, sir, that was rude. I asked you 11 not to do it. I told you if you were 12 going to be discourteous to my client, you 13 would have to leave. 14 MR. KANE: I was not 15 discourteous. 16 MR. WOOD: If it is a game to 17 you, as you practice law, it is not a game 18 for me. 19 MR. KANE: Are we going to take 20 a break here? 21 MR. WOOD: We will get through 22 this, Chief, no matter what he tries to do, 23 we will get through it. I promise you. 24 MR. KANE: This is a stall. 25 MR. WOOD: And I will get that 18 1 50 page document too. 2 (WHEREUPON, a brief recess was 3 taken.) Remember, this interview took place after Patsy's interview - - Lin was pretty fed upwith his clients being interrupted. He wanted to make sure the record had their complete answers. (I know, I should have tackled Patsy's interview first. This is going to be a rather long process, a few threads a day if I can... be patient - it will come.)
#8, RE: John's 2000 interview - Atlanta
Posted by one_eyed Jack on Nov-02-03 at 00:51 AM
In response to message #7
Wow. Kane wasn't the least bit interested in what John had to say. He did interrupt John while he was trying to share his leads, couldn't be bothered to tell them if suspects the Ramseys were investigating were cleared or not, and started an argument with Lin right in the middle of the discussion. Kane accused Lin of playing a stall game, so it's obvious the interview was meant to be interogatory not informative as the Ramseys had hoped. Sad.
#9, RE: "Patricia"
Posted by Margoo on Nov-02-03 at 01:35 PM
In response to message #8
I noticed John refers to the author of the "Patricia Letters" as a "he". It sounds like they spent some time trying to track "him" down. Does anyone have more information on this? 2 This is a -- these Patricia 3 letters are incredibly bizarre. When I read 4 those things, this wasn't just an internet 5 quack, in my opinion. This was somebody who 6 was watching us, who knew a lot about us, 7 who would talk about the killer being 8 actually a pretty nice guy. 9 You know, we tried desperately to 10 track this back. He's a very clever fellow. 11 He used several servers in his Internet 12 transmissions. We couldn't, couldn't track 13 it back. But I still am very interested in 14 that. 15 I have an original letter that I 16 am convinced the same guy sent me that was 17 written in a different -- supposedly it is a 18 different author, but it's the same. So I 19 mean, it could be the killer. I don't know. 20 But it's a lead.
#10, RE:
Posted by one_eyed Jack on Nov-02-03 at 08:20 PM
In response to message #9
LAST EDITED ON Nov-02-03 AT 08:23 PM (EST) 15 I have an original letter that I 16 am convinced the same guy sent me that was 17 written in a different -- supposedly it is a 18 different author, but it's the same. So I 19 mean, it could be the killer. I don't know. 20 But it's a lead.I sure would like to know what that letter said. I don't know much about the Patricia letters, but it would fit the profile of a personal cause crime for the killer to make contact with John Ramsey after the murder. I don't understand why a prankster would spend so much time on something like this or why they would work so hard to cover their tracks so completely. I have no idea how to do that, so I assume one would have to learn how to do it. I wonder how difficult it is to go through several servers to remain anonymous. Dave, do you know? John also says that this person had to have had personal information about the family. It's just creepy. edited to add: Obviously, this person didn't write the letter to John in his own hand. Otherwise, it could have been compared to the RN. So, here again, if it is the same one who wrote the Patricia letters, he/she is trying to remain anonymous while contacting John Ramsey. Why go to such lengths?
#11, RE:
Posted by Rainsong on Nov-02-03 at 08:33 PM
In response to message #10
I don't think it would be that difficult to switch servers. Visit a net cafe, the public library, a kiosk, or a friend and you will have used possibly four separate servers. I'd like to see the Patricia letters. I've heard of them, read Misty's theory and seen Jameson state her innocence of authorship but never the actual letters. Rainsong
#12, RE:
Posted by one_eyed Jack on Nov-02-03 at 10:17 PM
In response to message #11
>I don't think it would be that difficult to switch servers. >Visit a net cafe, the public library, a kiosk, or a friend >and you will have used possibly four separate servers. I was thinking it was somehow being directed through several servers in one session. >I'd like to see the Patricia letters. I've heard of them, >read Misty's theory and seen Jameson state her innocence of >authorship but never the actual letters. >Rainsong I read a few lines, briefly, quite some time ago, so I'm looking them up tonight. Wierd stuff, huh?
#13, One of the Patricia letters
Posted by Maikai on Nov-03-03 at 00:31 AM
In response to message #12
LAST EDITED ON Nov-03-03 AT 00:34 AM (EST) "Received: from null (ida06.mail.com <165.251.32.73>) by discover-net.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA04425 for normette@discover-net.net; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:00:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smv02.mail.com by ida.email.com (Version 1.03) for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from anon.lcs.mit.edu (anon.lcs.mit.edu <18.26.0.254>) by smv02.mail.com (8.9.3/8.9.1SMV2) with SMTP id AAA11515 for sent by ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: 24 Jul 1999 04:58:54 -0000 Message-ID: <19990724045854.5360.qmail@nym.alias.net> From: AXD To: cheesy21@email.com Subject: Remember me as yor friend, for I loved you. X-Delivery: Mail.com IDA 1.03 X-UIDL: a711490e186fc5252612cb8aab397c01 MIME-Version: 1.0 Patti, I have not been at my home in Atlanta for some time. I cannot tell you if your letter arrived or not. I wish you no harm but deserve likewise from you. I will continue to filter out anything you say that I might feel is hurtful. I do not ask you to understand my reluctance to confirm my identity to you or anyone. I will only say that I feared for my life and the lives of those in my family. I do not ask you to begin to fathom what this family has gone through. I have worries that overshadow my concern that you believe I am who I say I am. I have been silent with you because you hurt me. I do not wish to go into depth about that at this time. You continue to hurt me. Once my friend, you have joined those who misunderstand me; those who doubt me and judge me. At first, I was shocked. Reality brought me to the realization that this has turned out like all the other attempts I have made in the past to appeal to a killer. Yes, my silence has cost me dearly. What would you do to protect your babies? I would do whatever it takes. I would disregard what anyone thought of it. I treasure the time we had together. You helped me through some trying times. I thank you for that. Patricia"
#14, Another one....
Posted by Maikai on Nov-03-03 at 00:39 AM
In response to message #13
It seemed pretty obvious to me they were a hoax:Received: from rmx10.globecomm.net (rmx10.iname.net <165.251.12.105>) by discover-net.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA10770 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 16:43:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smv10.globecomm.net by rmx10.globecomm.net (8.9.1a/8.8.0) with SMTP id RAA05278 ; Mon, 3 May 1999 17:51:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from anon.lcs.mit.edu (anon.lcs.mit.edu <18.26.0.254>) by smv10.globecomm.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1SMVSNAP) with SMTP id RAA22270 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 17:51:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: 3 May 1999 21:51:57 -0000 Message-ID: <19990503215157.27693.qmail@nym.alias.net> From: Ramsey To: cheesy21@email.com Subject: Patti, why are you doing this? X-UIDL: 0050df0605e030bd13c003d806b31c30 MIME-Version: 1.0 Dear Patti, Listen, I told you I am not Jameson. No, I did not know who that was until you told me she was aka Sue *******. Of course I know who Sue ******** is. I just did not know she also called herself Jameson. Why are you suddenly being so mean to me? I have been nothing but kind to you. In case you have decided to get wise and expose me for a fraud or a "dangerous killer" (which does not apply), you might save your breath with the following people. They all have know me and have possession of the address, ramsey@alias.nym.net: Boulder District Attorney Boulder Police Donald and Nedra Paugh The Ramsey Family Crime Stoppers I thought you were my friend. Instead, you have threatened me, in regards to my revealing my identity. You've made mention that I might be dangerous. I ask you, if I am dangerous, and the above people are aware of me, why am I talking to you and not in jail right now? You need leave well enough alone. Although, I have sent you nice mails, you are doing this to me. You are angry with me because I will not tell you I am Patricia Ramsey and did not answer your questions. Don't you think that is a bit rediculous? I told you from the beginning, I will not tell you who I am. Why do I have to tell you my name? You assured me that you were not interested in trying to uncover my identity. Why, suddenly are you threatening me with this? So go tell the world how much you hate a person you don't even know. I have already been talked about on public radio talk shows. People like Charlie Brennan would love to know about this address. If you want to join the crowd in a hate campaign against this family, go ahead and stab me in the back. It won't be the first time. Why do you think I do not trust? Why do you think I watch every word I say here? Because people turn on me and feed my words to the hungry wolves to be twisted and used to hurt this family. I'm not mad at you, Patti. I'm hurt. I thought you were different. Can't we work this out and be friends again?
#15, RE: Another one....
Posted by Rainsong on Nov-03-03 at 08:34 AM
In response to message #14
Interesting. Neither message 'sounds' like either Jameson or Patsy. Rainsong
#16, One-eyed Jack
Posted by Dave on Nov-03-03 at 04:50 PM
In response to message #10
LAST EDITED ON Nov-03-03 AT 04:52 PM (EST) One-eyed Jack,There are many, many ways to spoof yourself (hide your identity) when sending email, logging onto a server, etc. I've not done this myself, never had a reason to, but there's a lot of information all around telling one how to do it. Once upon a time, there even were people in Europe who set up anonymous servers to help others hide their identity. If you sent an email there, it would supposedly be resent without the original envelope --- as if it originated there, I believe. In this way, all that would show would be that server plus the others on the way to the final destination. No way to tell where the originals came from. I don't know if these servers still operate or not. There were lots of threats about serving search warrants to get the originals and so on. The server administrators started just deleting everything that came in as soon as it was resent, but still --- they could have had all their equipment seized once a week until they went broke. Bascially, yes, this is easy to do and was common once upon a time.
#17, Dave
Posted by one_eyed Jack on Nov-03-03 at 05:09 PM
In response to message #16
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. After looking into it a little further, it looks like the author of the Patricia letters did use an email anonymizer. Although, I was a bit curious about the emails going through what looks like a college or university. It may be that the institution was unaware this was happening. After reading a few of the letters, I think they were from someone who knew and was protective of the Ramseys...perhaps someone who was a bit of a practical joker. I don't believe they are relevant to the investigation.
#18, One-eyed Jack
Posted by Dave on Nov-04-03 at 01:36 AM
In response to message #17
One-eyed Jack,Security at colleges and universities is notoriously bad as a rule. There are a number of reasons for this. They are also common targets for hackers.
#19, RE: Jesse McReynolds
Posted by Evening2 on Nov-07-03 at 03:25 PM
In response to message #18
Isn't Jesse McReynolds quite computer savvy. Isn't he a software designer? Whoever wrote those letters, misspelled the word "rediculous". Also, the writer used parentheticals. Maybe the family they are referring to protecting is not the Ramsey family but the author's own family. Maybe a parent would do anything to protect their child.
|