MR. DIAMOND: Do you see that, Darnay?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) "In the sun room Patsy Ramsey examined a second-generation photocopy of
the ransom note, a smeary version that showed little more than the dark printed words. Rather than
commenting on the words and contents, she told one of her friends that the note was written on the
same kind of paper she had in her kitchen." Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was the friend that she told that to?

A. This was from Barb Fernie.

Q. And then "Police would wonder how she could tell since they saw no similarities." Have I read
that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. You're talking about police saw no similarities between the second-generation photocopy and the
actual ransom note itself?

A. No, trying to source a Xerox copy back to a particular note pad in the kitchen.

Q. The police couldn't tell the -- couldn't see the similarity of the Xerox copy and the note pad, right?

A. Right.

Q. They would wonder how Patsy could tell there was a similarity, right?

A. How one would make that suggestion, how a Xerox photocopy of a rather bland, generic piece of
paper on which the ransom note was written may have had its genesis from a tablet in the kitchen.

Q. Not that it had its genesis, but that it was similar, right? It was written on the same kind of
paper?

A. The Xerox copy did not leave me with that impression, that it did not strike me that way.

Q. Did that seem suspicious to you of Patsy Ramsey?

A. A bit.

Q. Did you ever stop and consider that she might have made the comment about the similarity
because she, sir, had seen the original of the ransom note prior in time?

A. But I think in this context she was looking at a photocopy.

Q. So you're telling me that she was trying to say that from the photocopy she thought that it was
similar. You don't think that she might have had the benefit of knowing what the actual note looked like
in terms of the paper? Would you concede that maybe that might be an inaccurate assumption on your
part, sir, you know, what you thought was suspicious wasn't suspicious at all?

A. No, I'm simply stating what struck the detectives in wonder is we thought that Barb Fernie's
statement was unusual, given this context.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We all caught this the day the book came out - - posters on every forum wondered why any detective would think that suspicious - - she HAD handled the original note - - she knew exactly what the paper was like - - the photocopy didn't change what she knew already.

A. We did.

Q. And you didn't find any, did you?

A. What do you mean by pathology, Mr. Wood?

Q. Mr. Thomas, please, you know what pathology means.

MR. DIAMOND: Don't give him that tone of voice or I'm going to pick him up and walk him out of
here.

MR. WOOD: If you want to pick him up and walk him out of here, if you think you're justified, do so.

MR. DIAMOND: Cut out the sarcasm. If you have a problem with his answer, move on to another
question.

MR. WOOD: All right. May I ask my question without your interruption, please?

MR. DIAMOND: You may.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Mr. Thomas, please, do you, sir, not know what I mean when I asked you
whether there was any pathology on the part of John or Patsy Ramsey from a criminal investigation
standpoint?

A. I simply asked you to explain to me what you mean by pathology.

Q. As used by the people that discuss that very term in your investigation. You knew what they
meant, didn't you?

A. I don't think, to answer your question, that there was anything remarkable or outstanding as far as
what you're inquiring about. Although, Pitt and others would describe to us their concerns about the
beauty pageant world and child beauty pageants, et cetera, if that's what we're talking about as far as
family history.

Q. Drug use, illegal drug use would be pathology, child abuse would be pathology, domestic violence
would be pathology, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You didn't find anything about that with respect to this family, did you, sir, John and Patsy
Ramsey?

A. Drug use, child abuse, or spousal abuse, not that I'm aware of.

Q. Anything along the lines of pathology that you believe you heard the investigation found, other
than Pitt and others you say commenting about beauty pageants?

A. No, there wasn't any sort of untoward history or certainly no criminal history that I was made
aware of.

Q. When you were in these presentations, either one or both, wasn't it discussed that the experts
hired by the Boulder Police Department did not believe that there was pathology?

A. I don't know to which experts you're referring.

Q. Well, Dr. Krugman, do you remember him?

A. Yeah, certainly. Dr. Krugman was the one who put forth the bed-wetting, toileting, and rage
scenarios.

Q. Ken Lanning of the FBI?

A. I remember Mr. Lanning from Quantico.

Q. What did Mr. Lanning say with respect to his expectation in a case like this in terms of whether
you would expect to find serious pathology or not?

A. I don't recall. I'll refresh myself at some point I hope with that report.

A. We did.

Q. And you didn't find any, did you?

A. What do you mean by pathology, Mr. Wood?

I think if I read anymore crap like this I am going to be physically ill. It's hard to believe that Lin Wood kept his cool as long as he did through this deposition. This OBVIOUS dissembling is what I would expect of a ciminal on the witness stand NOT the police officer. This is disgusting.

Yeah, it is enough to turn your stomach.

A. I believe that was Priscilla White.

Q. Did you ever consider that perhaps Patsy Ramsey wanted those jeans because she wanted some
casual clothes and did not at that time feel like going out and shopping?

A. No, it struck me as unusual, as I said, to transport a pair of jeans 1500 miles to Atlanta from
Boulder.

Q. You think that was incriminatory?

A. It struck me as odd, Mr. Wood.

Apparently when Thomas traveled from Boulder to Atlanta, he didn't carry a change of clothes? I mean, packing for a trip would have just been "odd" - - right? Geesh!

What an idiot.

The obvious confusion comes from the fact that he apparently considers Patsy Ramsey's pageant hobby as "pathology". I'm sorry, but I don't think that is in the DSMIII.

If that is "pathology" then any parent who has entered their child in such pageants is to be considered "dangerous" or prone to abuse or murder their children.

While I have no use for the entire child pageant deal...it's really no different than many sports children participate in. Take a trip to a kid hockey game...you'll find many are just as exploitive. Are they all thought to be murderers and abusers?

A. Yeah, certainly. Dr. Krugman was the one who put forth the bed-wetting, toileting, and rage scenarios.

I met Dr. Krugman - - went to his office in Denver. He was very kind - we spoke case.... he is a busy man and has many files on his deak, the Ramseys case is one of dozens he deals with - - and he was understandably NOT terribly well-versed on Ramsey details..... it wasn't his case.

We spoke of the bedwetting scenario - - I believe he had it put to him that the evidence pointed to that.....

I have grown quite skeptical of "experts" since starting to follow this case. Too often it seems they are given choice bits of evidence when consulted - - and their opinions are not what they might be if they had the whole file.