A. You know, this was a Beckner --

Q. It's at page 297 in your book.

A. I know.

Q. You adopted it as true, didn't you?

A. If I can answer the question.

Q. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to move along.

A. Beckner put together this as, I think you're right, as some sort of a press release, but I don't
disagree with these numbers.

Q. How many of those 1,058 pieces of evidence were shared with the Ramseys or the Ramsey
lawyers?

A. I don't know.

Q. You consulted 500 -- you interviewed 590 people. How many of those interviews were given to
the Ramseys or the Ramseys' lawyers?

A. I don't know.

Q. Consulted 64 outside experts. How many of those experts' reports were given to the Ramseys'
lawyers or the Ramseys --

A. Mr. Wood, you would know much better than I how much --

Q. I've got to tell you, Mr. Thomas, I do know and I've got about 14 pages and I could be off by one
or two and yet everybody keeps describing this incredible amount of evidence given to the Ramseys
and their lawyers. I'm just trying to go figure out where it is because that's not what I've got and that's
not what their lawyer has got. I mean, I understand they got to see the garrote and I understand they
got to see the first generation ransom note and I didn't get that. But I got the few pages, incomplete
pages of police reports that were bargained off with respect to the April '97 interview, right?

A. (Deponent nods head.)

Q. And I don't have any more reports. I don't know of any others that were given to John and Patsy
Ramsey according to their lawyers and I'm just trying to figure out what you were talking about when
you say you were describing on page 56 the incredible amount of evidence given to the Ramseys and
their lawyers?

A. Courtesy of Pete Hofstrom and I believe others in the DA's office who did this verbally so much
was shared by Pete Hofstrom's own admission. If you're just talking about hard copy documents, I
don't know what they do or you do or don't have.

These people are professionals - they were supposed to be able to remain professional at all times. Some were, some weren't.

We have NO evidence that Hofstrom broke the confidence of his position. We know Thomas did.

Attacking Hofstrom based on the fact that he continued to meet friends as he had before the murder is not going to help anything.

I'm beginning to wonder if Steve Thomas suffers from a mental disease of some sort.

It appears Fleet thinks that only the Ramseys shouldn't have legal protection. Now why is that? Could the answer be that he wanted the Ramseys not to have their rights protected? That would certainly be consistent behavior with the killer who framed the Ramseys. And isn't it interesting that Fleet made such a big scene over the Ramseys hiring lawyers--as if he wanted to make sure that everyone believed that they were acting guilty and hiding behind their lawyers.

Are you implying that Fleet committed this crime and then attempted to frame the Ramseys for the murder?

If that's the case, I have to disagree. While the police seem to have focused on the Ramseys, I saw no indication that they were "framed". Since Fleet had a key, he could easily have entered and exited and left ALL doors and windows locked, he would have left the other materials (cord, tape, practice note and bludgeoning object) hidden somewhere in the house. He could easily have obtained articles of the Ramseys clothes that he could have put blood on. Because he was good friends with them he would have had access to things that could easily implicate them.

I don't think Fleet did it.I think he became convinced by the BPD and Steve Thomas that they were involved and he became suspicious and afraid of the Ramseys.

I think Fleet White was confused by Steve Thomas and company - that he grew suspicious of his friends because of the misinformation and opinion briefings he was getting from LE.

I don't think Fleet ever felt in his heart the Ramseys were the killers or he would have gone public and said so - - the man isn't shy.

I do think he was confused, and unsure enough that he allowed himself to be manipulated. I think he wrote the letters for his new friends, but I think he wisely held back and did not make any accusations, instead calling for the DA to be removed.

Q. How many of those 1,058 pieces of evidence were shared with the Ramseys or the Ramsey lawyers?

A. I don't know.

****

For years now, we have discussed some of those 1,058 pieces of evidence - a loose term to be sure. We have a fairly lengthy list of some of those 'pieces of evidence' and the majority of them point to nothing (example: computers, computer books/manuals, computer discs, books, magazine articles, rolodex, gifts, a variety of pens, a variety of clothing and bedding, video cassettes/tapes, audio tapes, etc)

ST implies many of those pieces of evidence point to Patsy guilt. If you've seen the partial list of items in evidence, you might ask yourself how that could be.

Okay, so ST and other RDI posters are convinced John, Patsy, Burke, or JAR committed this crime. Where I get stuck is - based on what? Based on what evidence - not theory - evidence? Where is this mountain of evidence?

All the pens and paper collected and presumably examined have done nothing to point to any specific guilt.
The ornaments and ornament bag? Have they provided evidence of guilt that would point to a Ramsey?
All those towels and sheets?
All that toilet 'liquid', tissue, seat lid?
All the collected handwriting specimens have been proven to not indicate guilt or association to the crime.
The fibers and clothing collected and compared do very little to narrow anything down to a Ramsey.
The computer paraphernalia appears to have led nowhere.
The video tapes - the same.
Bricks? And wire?
Old photos and film?
Cigarette butts don't seem to have narrowed the focus to a Ramsey.
The sleeping mask?

So, the 1,058 pieces of evidence were collected. Good for them. Most of those pieces did very little to advance the case. Besides a theory, what hard cold facts of Ramsey guilt have any of these pieces of evidence provided?

Yes, there are those who harp on cooperation issues, pageant issues (bleaching JB's hair is an indicated pathology of a killer?), handwriting issues (determined to reveal no more than many other submissions), fibers (clearly not matched), POSSIBLE ownership of boots (proving a negative is impossible), behavior issues (from people most of us do not KNOW and based on a traumatic experience none of us have had to endure), personality issues, truth issues, political connection issues, debatable presence of voices on an 'enhanced' 911 tape, etc ....

Where's the beef?

The only thing I can see that ST has as evidence of guilt is that John, Patsy, and Burke were in the home that night (and please don't miss the point - that he has learned to qualify his accusations of evidence that point to PR guilt with that specific notation.) Why he would be stubbornly objecting to the legal minds refusing to indict on that basis is something I really cannot understand.

Smoke and mirrors.