jameson's Links  Terms of Service  News  Chat  Forum Archives  Cord Photos  Email  

jameson's WebbSleuths

Subject: "Patsy in Atlanta 3"     Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy    
Conferences Deposition discussion Topic #73
Reading Topic #73
Charter Member
13618 posts
Nov-04-03, 09:25 AM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
"Patsy in Atlanta 3"
23 Q. (By Chief Beckner) Now, I am
24 just a little bit confused because it
25 certainly had been our impression through

1 public statements and communications that you
2 and John have had very publicly about having
3 a secondary investigation conducted by your
4 people, hiring a team of experts to do
5 follow-up investigation, and had really
6 expressed a desire to share this information
7 with us.
8 I get the sense that you are not
9 controlling that investigation, sitting here
10 today, which is a different sense. So I
11 wanted to ask you if you are in charge of
12 that investigation.
13 A. Am I personally in charge of the
14 investigation?
15 Q. Are you and John heading up that
16 investigation into JonBenet's death?
17 A. Well, we are having the
18 investigation done.
19 Q. Who is directing it? Who is
20 directing that investigation? In other
21 words, who is making the day-to-day
22 decisions, we need to do this, we need to
23 hire this person, those sorts of things?
24 A. Ollie Gray.
25 Q. So you have hired Ollie Gray with

1 instructions to conduct an investigation, and
2 he is given a free hand to do whatever that
3 takes?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. WOOD: He is employed
6 full-time on that at the present time.
7 Q. (By Chief Beckner) Has that
8 always been the case or has that been a
9 recent development? Because we talked about
10 a lot of other people that have been
11 involved from '96 on.
12 A. Right.
13 Q. Is that a recent development?
14 A. Well, within the past year.
15 MR. WOOD: You are talking about
16 with Ollie?
17 CHIEF BECKNER: Yes, with Ollie.
18 Q. (By Chief Beckner) Is John more
19 involved than you are --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. - in terms of getting
22 information?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And knowing where the
25 investigation is going?

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. But John does not share that with
3 you?
4 A. He shares some of it with me.
5 Q. But not all of it?
6 A. That is right.
7 MR. KANE: Can I ask a follow-up
8 to that then?
9 Q. (By Mr. Kane) What is your
10 understanding of the reason that Ellis
11 Armistead is no longer working on the case?
12 A. Well, I think -- I don't know
13 exactly why he is not and why Ollie is, but
14 Ollie is full-time. They were I don't
15 believe capable of continuing it on on a
16 full-time basis.
17 Q. Is that your understanding?
18 A. That is my understanding.
19 Q. They couldn't do it full-time, so
20 you got somebody else?
21 A. Correct.
22 MR. WOOD: Let me just correct,
23 when you say -- Ollie has been involved
24 before Ellis left. And I think Ellis's
25 leaving was tied to the fact that Bryan and

1 Hal would no longer be in the case and the
2 question of how much could really be done
3 effectively and whether it could be done by
4 one full-time person and whether there was
5 really anything else for Ellis to do.
6 CHIEF BECKNER: Let me follow-up.
7 Q. (By Chief Beckner) Who was in
8 charge of the investigation prior to Ollie?
9 A. Ellis Armistead, John Foster, and
10 Williams, David Williams.
11 Q. So when Mr. Gray came on the
12 investigation, Ellis Armistead was still on
13 at that time?
14 A. Yes. There was a transition in
15 time.
16 Q. So Ellis was still in charge at
17 that time? 70
18 A. I don't know who was in charge.
19 I think it was kind of a change in command.
20 Q. And what was John's involvement at
21 that time?
22 A. I don't know exactly, but he
23 basically has been the point man.
24 MR. WOOD: And don't leave out
25 Pat Burke and Bryan Morgan, Chief. I think

1 they were taking on a more active role in
2 making decisions about things that could or
3 should be done as opposed to what now is
4 more Ollie's area.
5 CHIEF BECKNER: Yeah, I was just,
6 because the impression was that, based on
7 some of the statements that you've made
8 publicly and John specifically about spending
9 all of his time trying to find the killer of
10 JonBenet, I am trying to get at, you know,
11 what are you doing and how involved are you.
12 Because I was getting the sense here that
13 you aren't particularly involved in that.
14 THE WITNESS: Well, I am not
15 day-to-day involved with it. John speaks
16 with Ollie, I would say, on a daily basis.
17 You know, where we are, what's been --
18 CHIEF BECKNER: On a daily basis?
19 MR. WOOD: You sure about that?
20 THE WITNESS: I don't know if it
21 is daily, but it is frequently.
23 MR. KANE: Can I ask, is
24 Mr. Gray employed by you or employed by
25 Mr. Wood?

1 MR. WOOD: Employed by me, which
2 would be standard handling, as I understand
3 it.
4 Q. (By Chief Beckner) So the
5 decisions to hire the forensic people, those
6 were not made by you or John?
7 A. I, you know, I don't know who
8 actually says, you know, let's hire him and
9 him and him. I am sure that it was, this
10 is what we want to do. We want to have
11 people look at this and that and the other,
12 you know, competent experts, and we said
13 great.
14 I mean, we entrusted them to make
15 the decisions. I mean, we don't know how to
16 investigate.
17 Q. No, I understand that. Experts
18 can be quite expensive.
19 A. Yes, they are.
20 Q. Quite costly. So I am just, I'm
21 trying to figure out whether whoever is in
22 charge of the investigation at whatever
23 particular time has a free hand to hire
24 those experts. I mean, is it kind of like
25 an open checkbook kind of thing or do they

1 have to come back?
2 THE WITNESS: No, not --
3 MR. WOOD: I don't think it is
4 an open checkbook.
6 MR. WOOD: Certainly not now. I
7 don't think it ever has been, Chief. I
8 think that there was a -- Pat Burke and
9 Bryan Morgan were out there and dealing more
10 directly with that issue. I am quite
11 confident John, you all can ask him, he can
12 tell you, but I am quite sure that, as any
13 lawyer would do with any major expenditure
14 first, it has to be approved by the client.
15 So that is my understanding.
16 CHIEF BECKNER: That is what I am
17 getting at.
19 Q. (By Chief Beckner) It was
20 somebody, whether it was you or John,
21 somebody had to be aware of who was being
22 hired to do work for the investigation?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you think it was John who was
25 well aware of those decisions?

1 A. Yes.
3 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Mrs. Ramsey,
4 what does Mr. San Agustin do?
5 A. He assists Ollie.
6 Q. So he works for Ollie?
7 A. Now, there again, I don't know
8 who signs whose paychecks or whatever.
9 Q. Right. I am not asking you that.
10 A. But Ollie brought him in.
11 Q. What does he do? Do you know?
12 A. He is, in lay terms, a computer
13 whiz.
14 MR. WOOD: Business partner.
15 THE WITNESS: Business partner,
16 yeah, but he --
17 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) He is a
18 computer guy?
19 A. He is a computer guy.
20 Q. Okay.
21 MR. WOOD: I don't know if he
22 would necessarily agree with computer guy --
23 THE WITNESS: I mean, I know
24 that's probably not fancy enough.
25 MR. GRAY: He is basically, as

1 you know, Mitch, an evidence specialist as
2 far as courtroom evidence goes.
3 MR. MORRISSEY: Demonstrative
4 evidence type stuff, yeah, that has been my
5 experience with him. I just thought he was
6 in the employ of the El Paso County
7 Sheriff's Office.

Again, a huge block of time taken and what was gained? The Ramseys had a team of experts and they had asked K&C to sit with those experts to see their files. K&C didn't do that but here they are asking questions about who was hired - and Patsy clearly didnot have the answers.

We were all sitting at home while they were in that room and we all had ideas of what was happening in there.

The RST was hoping that an honest brainstorming session was taking place.

The BORG was sure Kane was "nailing the Ramseys" and they would come out in cuffs (that is a quote from an email I got at that time.)

But what was happening in there?

This CRAP!

I am purposely going to stop here - - and ask that people post on the transcript threads I have already posted.

I hope the details are discussed here and elsewhere. I hope people will even come up with questions they would like to see asked, sharing they might want to see happen in the future.

  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Charter Member
1433 posts
Nov-04-03, 08:54 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Maikai Click to send private message to Maikai Click to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: Patsy in Atlanta 3"
In response to message #0
   Why all the questions about who was directing the investigation? And how involved Patsy was in it? I think they need a facilitator, to conduct the meeting---someone not on either side, that states the ground rules, and then makes sure both sides adhere to it..and then get into brainstorming and things like that. Not sure how that would work with lawyers on either side butting in----but I think they could manage that.

  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Member since Jul-4-03
663 posts
Nov-04-03, 10:09 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Rainsong Click to send private message to Rainsong Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "RE: Patsy in Atlanta 3"
In response to message #1
   This entire line of questioning seems aimed at doing nothing more than discrediting the "Ramsey" investigation. In other words, if John and Patsy are not involved, hands-on, then the "Ramsey" investigation is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

But how many lay people know how to conduct an investigation? How many parents of murdered children would have the foggiest idea of what each step should be, what's first, second, fifty-second?

Kane and Company were still clearly focused on Ramsey guilt. If the parents aren't involved in the investigation by THEIR investigators, they aren't doing what they said they would do: Find the killer of their child.

The implication is they aren't involved because they already know 'who dunnit.'

Sure. Murderers would clearly empty their bank accounts to pay private investigators. Yeah, makes sense to me!


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic