7/25/02 65 CONSENT MOTION by plaintiff and defendants to briefly extend certain filing deadlines;
Motion for
summary judgment due 8/6/02, change response date to 9/9/02 (to JEC) (jph) {Entry date 07/26/02}

8/1/02 66 ORDER by Judge Julie E. Carnes GRANTING <65-1> joint motion to briefly extend certain filing
deadlines;
Motion for summary judgment due 8/6/02, change response date to 9/9/02 (cc) (jph) (Entry date
08/01/02}

8/6/02 67 MOTION by defendants for summary judgment with memorandum of law in support(FILED
UNDER SEAL),
statement of material facts (FILED UNDER SEAL), exhibits A&B, (FILED UNDER SEAL), and Volume I(2
envelopes)
and Volume II of exhibits (FILED UNDER SEAL) ***2 BOXES PLACED IN SEALED ROOM*** (jph) {Entry
date
08/07/02} {Edit date 08/07/02}

8/6/02 68 MOTION by defendants in limine to exclude testimony of Cina Wong and Gideon Epstein with
brief in support. (jph) {Entry date 08/07/02}

8/6/02 69 Notice of filing original discovery by defendants and request to file original discovery.
(Expert reports, CD's
of videotaped depositions, depos) (jph) {Entry date 08/07/02}

8/6/02 70 Notice of filing original discovery under seal pursuant to Court order by defendants. (Depos,
cd's of depos)
(jph) {Entry date 08/07/02}

8/6/02 71 Deposition of GIDEON EPSTEIN taken for defendants (jph) {Entry date 08/07/02}

8/6/02 72 Deposition of CINA L. WONG taken for defendants (jph) {Entry date 08/07/02}

8/6/02 73 Deposition of ALEXANDER HUNTER taken for defendants ***Filed Under Seal*** (jph)
{Entry
date 08/07/02}

8/6/02 74 Deposition of MARK R. BECKNER taken for defendants ***Filed Under Seal*** (jph) {Entry
date 08/07/02}

8/6/02 75 Deposition of CAREY WEINHEIMER taken for defendants ***Filed Under Seal*** (jph) {Entry

date 08/07/02}

8/6/02 76 Deposition of ROBERT CHRISTIAN WOLF taken for defendants ***File Under Seal*** (jph)
{Entry date 08/07/02}

8/6/02 77 Deposition of ANDREW LOUIS SMIT taken for defendants ***Filed Under Seal*** (jph)
{Entry date 08/07/02}

8/6/02 78 Deposition of FLEET RUSSELL WHITE, JR. taken for defendants ***Filed Under Seal*** (jph)

{Entry date 08/07/02}

8/6/02 79 MOTION by defendants for oral argument on dfts' John and Patsy Ramsey's motion for
summary judgment as to all remaining claims. (jph) {Entry date 08/07/02}

White was questioned by Wolf attorney Darnay Hoffman and Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood.

According to the Enquirer, he couldn'tremember searching the basement on his own before JonBenét's
body was found. Couldn't recall finding a suitcase down there and moving it. Couldn't remember
anything about the lightswitch in the windowless room or if he read the ransom note or if he saw the
heart in JonBenét's hand.

The importnat part of the article, IMO was that FW refused to say he thought the Ramseys were
guilty.

Fleet White said, "I would characterize Fleet White's testimony in general as being very favorable to
John and Patsy Ramsey. .... I have every confidence that as a factual witness, Fleet would never say
anything to harm John or Patsy."

The suggestion was that if FW knew Burke had Hi-Tek shoes, it might have been part of what JR and FW had their big falling out over, with FW wanting JR to fess up to the BPD but stopping short of ratting him out.

It could also explain FW's strange reaction to testifying under oath.

Anyway, I bet my copy of PMPT that the evidence the "investigators" have is a picture of Burke wearing some shoes, and that picture won't show any logo at all.

Still, I think this is an interesting take on the new "evidence", and is probably worth tossing around.

STILL, if Fleet White did say that, wouldn't you want to know the context of the statement?

Were the Boulder cops saying to him things like - - "What would you say if we told you the Ramseys said you had been in the basement room before the night of the murder so knew the room was there?" What if they were saying to him - - "There was a Hi-Tec print in the basement - -what would you say if we told you the Ramseys said YOU owned a pair of Hi-Tec shoes?"

If he then responded with something like - - "And what if I told you the Ramseys owned High-Tec shoes, and so did the Fernies, and so did the whold damn neighborhood!"

I don't know what Fleet White said, but whatever it was, I would like to hear it from him - - and in context.

The fact is, even the BPD would be extremely interested in a footprint found next to the body of murdered little girl, especially a footprint for which the brand of the shoe was so obvious it looked as if it may have been planted.

Lou Smit had access to all of the evidence, and after checking it all out he was still looking for Hi-Tek boots. Steve Thomas didn't know the source of the print, either. So, unless the shoes were discovered long after the Ramseys moved to another state, which would be at the very far end of unlikely, the source of the information has to have been a photograph. (Clearly, it could be a statement from a witness, but i'll just jump past it for the time being.)

If that is the case, then the BPD doesn't know squat about where the print came from. We already know the cops were wearing the same brand of shoes, in the house, both before and after the body was found. I suppose if one wanted to jump up and shout that the source of the print had been found, it wouldn't be unreasonable to point at one of the cops. To point at a picture of one of the Ramseys wearing shoes that look like one of the Hi-Tek models (just guessing here), and to say those shoes are the source of the print found in wine celler, well, excuuuussseeee me...that is just pure poppycock.

edited to change "before" to the much more meaningful "before and after".

The question is - - did they mean that Burke owned shoes that were really cool because they had "stuff" on them or if he meant the brand.

Fact is, the cops didn't find any Hi-Tec shoes anywhere in the house and they couldn't find any evidence that the Ramseys ever bought any. (They had access to the charge card records, not there.)

Seems the confusion starts and ends with a story about a compass on some footwear. Some remember maybe a compass on some shoes, others don't remember that at all. There are no photos of him wearing them, none were found in the house, no sales receipts for any, no one knows if they really existed or not.

But the BORG feels an obligation to put out as fact that Burke owned that footwear - - and that THOSE shoes (ghostly, nowhere to be found) made the prints in the basement.

I don't buy it. Next thing we will hear is that the garotte was made out of a shoelace from those same shoes. Why not? It would hlp the BORG ignore yet another bit of intruder evidence.