Atlanta 2000 Interviews

[Tricia]

River I hope you don't mind but I would like to post a link to FFJ.

Spade has transcribed part of the Atlanta interviews. It's a must read in my book.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=45081#post45081

Thanks River. I hope I am not out of line.

Tricia

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Tricia
River I hope you don't mind but I would like to post a link to FFJ.

Spade has transcribed part of the Atlanta interviews. It's a must read in my book.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=45081#post45081

Thanks River. I hope I am not out of line.

Tricia

THANK YOU!!! IMHO...it's a MUST READ !!!; I reposted it somewhere (?) ...!!!???

[Jayelles]

Tricia, I see that this is the first time these interviews have been posted on the Web. Have they just been released or has Spade got them from some other source?

[Blazeboy3]

Atlanta 2000
This is an excerpt from Bruce Levin's interview of Patsy Ramsey in Lin Wood's office. The next time Jams or any other idiot says that the Ramsey's have never pointed the finger at the White's use this to point out the truth. Everytime I re-read this I get more PO'd. John and Patsy are truly scum. The numbers are from the videotape this was transcribed from. They drive my scanner nuts.

BRUCE:
08:57:59:15 No. And I I certainly, Mr. Wood, would not expect her to do
that. That's not where I was going.

LIN WOOD:
08:58:03:21 I understand.

BRUCE:
08:58:04:01 But if this makes you more comfortable, I'll ask the question another way.

LIN WOOD:
08:58:06:18 Thank you very much.

BRUCE:
08:58:09:03 You've named Priscilla White in the past as a possible
suspect. During the course of the last two years, have you rejected that as
a possible suspect in the murder of your daughter? Have you rejected
Priscilla White?

PATSY RAMSEY:
08:58:21:21 No.

BRUCE:
08:58:23;06 You've named Fleet White, I believe, as a suspect.
Same question. Have you rejected him as a possible suspect?

PATSY RAMSEY:
08:58:28:23 No

BRUCE:
08:58:29:24 Phil McReynolds?

PATSY RAMSEY:
08:58:30:11 No.

BRUCE:
08:58:32:25 And no, you have not rejected them?

PATSY RAMSEY:
08:58:33:18 No, I have not rejected him.

BRUCE:
08:58:35:02 And I believe Chris Wolf (PH). You also named--



PATSY RAMSEY:
08:58:37:16 No, we-- has not been -- rejected.

BRUCE:
08:58:43:02 1 assume, then, that that's a function of the fact that you—
(BACKGROUND NOISE) have not received any significant information concerning
the murder of your child in the last two years that differs from the information that
you received prior to your interviews with representatives of the Boulder District
Attorney's Office.

LIN WOOD:
08:59:02:12 Hold it a second. We answered that. (PAUSE)
You understand that?

PATSY RAMSEY:
08:59:13:17 Not really.

BRUCE:
08:59:15:14 Okay, I'll-- I'll-- I'll rephrase it for you. In-- June of 1998, the
individuals that I've named were, in your mind, potential suspects in the murder
of your child, correct?

PATSY RAMSEY:

08:59:27 Mm-hmm. (AFFIRMATIVE) correct.

BRUCE:

08:59:30:03 You tell us that today -- in August of the year 2000, that those
individuals remain suspects, correct?

PATSY RAMSEY:

08:59:38:22 Correct.

BRUCE:
08:59:39;20 1 am assuming, based on that, that you have not received through
your investigators, or through your experts, any significant new information
about the killing, which caused you to abandon those opinions or suspicions.

LIN WOOD:
08:59:56:18 Lemme just caution you. Because he tells you it's sumthin' that he
assumes, Patsy. I mean I think what he really wants to know is why have you not
necessarily rejected these people in your own mind. Follow me? That's that I think
an easier question. Isn't that what you're driving at, Bruce? I mean

BRUCE:
9:00:13:15 Well no

LIN WOOD:
09:00:13:28 Like for example, Chris Wolf

BRUCE:
09:00:14:17 NO, it's not.

LIN WOOD:
09:00:15:09 why why do you still think he's not, in your mind, rejected
as a suspect. You know, what you're trying to get her to answer.

BRUCE:
09:00:20:04 What what I wanna know is is it would seem to me that, if you
have people d-- who are working on this case for you to develop information
concerning the killer, that if they had developed anything significant, that it might
impact your belief that Priscilla or Fleet or McReynolds or Wolf was involved. Do
you understand that so far?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:00:46:10 Yes.

BRUCE:
09:00:47:06 Is it a fair statement that you have not received any significant
information concerning the murder of JonBenet in two years?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:00:57:03 Now

LIN WOOD:
09:00:58:15 About?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:00:59:15 We have significant information.

BRUCE:
09:01:02:25 Okay. So why don't you

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:01:02:20 About the murder.


BRUCE:
09:01:03:11 Okay. Why don't you tell us what-- what is the significant
information that you've been provided in the past two years.

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:01:11 Okay. Well, this --

BRUCE:
09:01:12:18 And again, I'm not gonna you know, I'm not gonna ask you months
and days, when did you find this out. But I'd like to

LIN WOOD:
09:01:16:22 Significant information as to specific people?

BRUCE:
09:01:18:26 Specific information concerning the killer, generally. And you can
you can block it out any way you want.

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:01:25:06 Okay. Well, I don't know a whole lot of detail. John will-- perhaps
be much b

[Blazeboy3]

from the same interview. Lots of references to Chris Wolfe's ex-girlfriend. Also, note the reference to pineapple at the end. this come up later also. Michael is M Kane:

MALE VOICE:
09:24:23;02 We know what you said about Priscilla White. I'm just my question is since we talked to you last, have you developed any evidence that would confirmed your suspicion as far as Priscilla White is concerned? Anything that you know of during the course of the investigation that you have conducted that would keep her on this list independent of what you might think we know, that kind of a thing?

PATSY RAMSEY:


09:24:47;10 No.

MALE VOICE:
09:24:48;25 Oh, how about Fleet White? Anything that you have developed since the last time we spoke to you that would keep him on the
sus or keep him on this list.

MALE VOICE:
09:24:59;29 You're talking about whether the investigators have developed information as opposed to like an event occurring, such as

MALE VOICE:
09:25:03;27 Right, anything you knew that we don't.
09:25:05;17 (OVERTALK)

MALE VOICE:
09:25:05;29 (LAUGHTER) Which is a little odd.

MALE VOICE:

09:25:09;07 Anything new that we don't know about Fleet White that you have developed or your investigators have developed?

PATSY RAMSEY:


09:25:15;25 1 can't remember any. The only I just heard recently that he that we had come across a copy of his-- statement to you folks, or to the police department, on or the day after JonBenet's death. And that he was asked about the ransom note and could-- very closely recite the contents. Which-- seemed unusual.

MALE VOICE:
09:25:50;28 He the same I guess the same question, in regard to Mr. McReynolds (PH), and I' m sorry, I don't remember Mr. McReynolds's first name.

MALE VOICE:
09:25:58;23 Is it Bill? William

MALE VOICE:
09:25:59;18 Bill, William, yes. Anything I know he eventual his name came up. And I was wondering if anything since the last time
you spoke to, I believe it was the Boulder district attorneys. I think after the formal discussion you had on tape and everything, then you went, and I heard an audiotape of where you were focusing on Mr. McReynolds himself with Mr. Demue (PH) and a couple of other people.

09:26:30;00 1 was wondering if anything any follow up had been done as far as your investigation was concerned? Any new information on Mr. McReynolds? Possible involvement?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:26:42;05 I don't know.

MALE VOICE:
09:26:43;15 And Mr. Wolfe? I mean these -- Bruce asked you these kind of in a group of four. I was interested specifically, since, when we last spoke to you, what have you developed, if anything, about Mr. Wolfe?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:26:58;27 Well, I think subsequent to that, I know we have a tape from his-- one time girlfriend.

MALE VOICE:
09:27:07;14 Miss Dilson (PH)

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:27:08;23 Dilson. She videotaped herself employing John and me to help her. She's very
frightened of him. She believes he did this. She is in hiding. You know.

MALE VOICE:
09:27:28;03 Have you ever spoken to Miss Dilson in person? Or

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:27:34;13 I can't-- I can't remember.

MALE VOICE:
09:27:36;24 Okay. But you you viewed this tape asking for your help?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:27:41;08 Mmm Hmm (AFF.)

MALE VOICE:
09:27:42;03 Anything other than the tape that would indicate to you or keep Mr. Wolfe in that position that he was in last time we spoke?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:27:S6;20 I just can't think of anything right now.

MALE VOICE:
09:28:00;29 Mrs. Ramsey, would you

MALE VOICE:
09:28:02;08 Can I can I ask

MALE VOICE:
09:28:04;10 1 was just gonna follow up

MALE VOICE:
09:28:07;03 okay, go ahead.

MALE VOICE:
09:28:08;05 Have you sent your investigators out to interview Miss Dilson or locate her to try to follow up on this tape?

MALE VOICE:
09:28:15;19 Well, let me help you a little bit. Chris Wolfe has filed a lawsuit against John and Patsy Ramsey. And so you can rest assured
that Chris Wolfe and Miss Dilson, in terms of information, are being developed about that in terms of the defense to that case, among other things. If we come across anything in the course of that civil litigation, we'll get it as quickly as we can copy it and get it to you. (UNINTEL) study a lot of his appearances and some other things. So

MALE VOICE:
09:28:44;08 So Mrs. Ramsey, I take it then, that the answer to my question, as far as to date, is no? That no one's gone out and attempted
to interview Miss Dilson (UNINTEL)? If you know?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:28:56;01 1 don't know.

MALE VOICE:
09:28:56;29 You have you received any reports or any summaries from any investigator that would cause you to believe that she was contacted directly by your representatives?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:29:07;09 1 just don't know. I mean John, perhaps, would know.

MALE VOICE:
09:29:12;25 You have no recollection, as you sit here, of seeing any follow up information in any form?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:29:18;06 That's correct.

MALE VOICE:
09:29:20;16 This tape, was that unsolicited on the part of your family?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:29:24;07 Oh yes.

MALE VOICE:
09:29:25;22 When did you receive that?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:29:30;05 Probably some time last spring.


RAM #13 Pg. 74

MALE VOICE:
09:29:33;27 Spring of 199.

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:29:36;10 No, spring of I think spring of 2000. Or
maybe fall of 2000.

MALE VOICE:
09:29:44;16 Well, it wouldn't be fall, so maybe spring of this year.

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:29:47;24 Yes, right.

MALE VOICE:
09:29:49;04 or fall of 1999.

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:29:49;29 Yeah. I was thinking of when I know we
saw it in our apartment. I'm trying to think
when how long we've been in that apartment.
So.

MALE VOICE:
09:30:00;04 Michael?

MICHAEL:

[Blazeboy3]

..;.
from the same interview. Lots of references to Chris Wolfe's ex-girlfriend. Also, note the reference to pineapple at the end. this come up later also. Michael is M Kane:

MALE VOICE:
09:24:23;02 We know what you said about Priscilla White. I'm just my question is since we talked to you last, have you developed any evidence that would confirmed your suspicion as far as Priscilla White is concerned? Anything that you know of during the course of the investigation that you have conducted that would keep her on this list independent of what you might think we know, that kind of a thing?

PATSY RAMSEY:


09:24:47;10 No.

MALE VOICE:
09:24:48;25 Oh, how about Fleet White? Anything that you have developed since the last time we spoke to you that would keep him on the
sus or keep him on this list.

MALE VOICE:
09:24:59;29 You're talking about whether the investigators have developed information as opposed to like an event occurring, such as

MALE VOICE:
09:25:03;27 Right, anything you knew that we don't.
09:25:05;17 (OVERTALK)

MALE VOICE:
09:25:05;29 (LAUGHTER) Which is a little odd.

MALE VOICE:

09:25:09;07 Anything new that we don't know about Fleet White that you have developed or your investigators have developed?

PATSY RAMSEY:


09:25:15;25 1 can't remember any. The only I just heard recently that he that we had come across a copy of his-- statement to you folks, or to the police department, on or the day after JonBenet's death. And that he was asked about the ransom note and could-- very closely recite the contents. Which-- seemed unusual.

MALE VOICE:
09:25:50;28 He the same I guess the same question, in regard to Mr. McReynolds (PH), and I' m sorry, I don't remember Mr. McReynolds's first name.

MALE VOICE:
09:25:58;23 Is it Bill? William

MALE VOICE:
09:25:59;18 Bill, William, yes. Anything I know he eventual his name came up. And I was wondering if anything since the last time
you spoke to, I believe it was the Boulder district attorneys. I think after the formal discussion you had on tape and everything, then you went, and I heard an audiotape of where you were focusing on Mr. McReynolds himself with Mr. Demue (PH) and a couple of other people.

09:26:30;00 1 was wondering if anything any follow up had been done as far as your investigation was concerned? Any new information on Mr. McReynolds? Possible involvement?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:26:42;05 I don't know.

MALE VOICE:
09:26:43;15 And Mr. Wolfe? I mean these -- Bruce asked you these kind of in a group of four. I was interested specifically, since, when we last spoke to you, what have you developed, if anything, about Mr. Wolfe?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:26:58;27 Well, I think subsequent to that, I know we have a tape from his-- one time girlfriend.

MALE VOICE:
09:27:07;14 Miss Dilson (PH)

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:27:08;23 Dilson. She videotaped herself employing John and me to help her. She's very
frightened of him. She believes he did this. She is in hiding. You know.

MALE VOICE:
09:27:28;03 Have you ever spoken to Miss Dilson in person? Or

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:27:34;13 I can't-- I can't remember.

MALE VOICE:
09:27:36;24 Okay. But you you viewed this tape asking for your help?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:27:41;08 Mmm Hmm (AFF.)

MALE VOICE:
09:27:42;03 Anything other than the tape that would indicate to you or keep Mr. Wolfe in that position that he was in last time we spoke?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:27:S6;20 I just can't think of anything right now.

MALE VOICE:
09:28:00;29 Mrs. Ramsey, would you

MALE VOICE:
09:28:02;08 Can I can I ask

MALE VOICE:
09:28:04;10 1 was just gonna follow up

MALE VOICE:
09:28:07;03 okay, go ahead.

MALE VOICE:
09:28:08;05 Have you sent your investigators out to interview Miss Dilson or locate her to try to follow up on this tape?

MALE VOICE:
09:28:15;19 Well, let me help you a little bit. Chris Wolfe has filed a lawsuit against John and Patsy Ramsey. And so you can rest assured
that Chris Wolfe and Miss Dilson, in terms of information, are being developed about that in terms of the defense to that case, among other things. If we come across anything in the course of that civil litigation, we'll get it as quickly as we can copy it and get it to you. (UNINTEL) study a lot of his appearances and some other things. So

MALE VOICE:
09:28:44;08 So Mrs. Ramsey, I take it then, that the answer to my question, as far as to date, is no? That no one's gone out and attempted
to interview Miss Dilson (UNINTEL)? If you know?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:28:56;01 1 don't know.

MALE VOICE:
09:28:56;29 You have you received any reports or any summaries from any investigator that would cause you to believe that she was contacted directly by your representatives?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:29:07;09 1 just don't know. I mean John, perhaps, would know.

MALE VOICE:
09:29:12;25 You have no recollection, as you sit here, of seeing any follow up information in any form?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:29:18;06 That's correct.

MALE VOICE:
09:29:20;16 This tape, was that unsolicited on the part of your family?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:29:24;07 Oh yes.

MALE VOICE:
09:29:25;22 When did you receive that?

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:29:30;05 Probably some time last spring.


RAM #13 Pg. 74

MALE VOICE:
09:29:33;27 Spring of 199.

PATSY RAMSEY:
09:29:36;10 No, spring of I think spring of 2000. Or
maybe fall of 2000.

MALE VOICE:
09:29:44;16 Well, it wouldn't be fall, so maybe spring of this year.

PATSY RAMSEY

[Blazeboy3]

:confused: :cool: :o :) :(

[candy]

These Atlanta interviews have not been legally released by lawyers for the Ramseys, or the District Attorney's office. Spade shouldn't be posting these, he shouldn't even have them. It is not legal to post them.

I remember Spade making allegations about Darnay, Spade is posting materials that he is not supposed to have, that have not been released by those in lawful possession of them. :o

[Jayelles]

Then Spade DOES have contacts/inside information? Interesting.

[Jayelles]

YFL says she has the tapes of those interviews. Is THAT illegal too?

[Tricia]

Candy,

******* had parts of the Atlanta interviews up over 2 years ago.

******* posted the section where Michael Kane calls Lin Wood an "obstructionist?" Did you protest then that ******* had obtained the interviews illegally?

Rather than dog Spade about where he gets such valuable info I think you should be grateful that he has brought so much info to us. I would think if anyone would be grateful it would be you. You know how important it is to get information out so the Ramseys know their PR campaign isn't working.

I am thrilled that Spade has come forward with all kinds of new information. I look forward to what Spade will bring us next.

Candy please don't create problems where there are none. When you do this it discourages others from coming forward.

[Jayelles]

******* is accusing Spade of doctoring the transcript. She says that she's sent his post to Lin Wood. She says that she has the tapes and that Patsy wasn't shown a receipt for hi-tecs for Burke.

What is interesting is that she says she hasn't got the time to go back and verify the tapes against the transcript!

[TLynn]

Thanks, Spade.

Significant information from their detectives....my butt. So significant that it doesn't eliminate anyone or close in on anyone.

Then, they're trying to tap dance around the "are you sure" it's pineapple. Yes, it's pineapple!

Burke told the GJ he owned Hi-Tecs?! But Patsy can't remember buying Burke shoes with COMPASSES on them (she buys him so many shoes, you know)

BRUCE:
11:46:57;14 Mrs. Ramsey, I have scientific evidence from forensic scientists that say that there's
fibers in the paint tray that match your red
jacket. I have no evidence from any
scientist to suggest that those fibers are
from any source other than your red jacket

When asking Patsy if there could be an explanation of the red fibers being found in the paint tray - Wood won't let her answer. He wants to see the scientific evidence and what other sources were compared.

[Barbara]

"What is interesting is that she says she hasn't got the time to go back and verify the tapes against the transcript!"

LOL LOL LOL LOL

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Jayelles
What is interesting is that she says she hasn't got the time to go back and verify the tapes against the transcript! Is it any surprise that the pathological liar always leaves hirself a way out of the BS she spews? As Lou says, "we SEEN it all before"...

[candy]

Tricia said "Candy please don't create problems where there are none. When you do this it discourages others from coming forward."

LOL. Those are the property of the District Attorney's Office and the Ramseys. Those are the people legally entitiled to release them.

[Ivy]

Whether or not Patsy was actually shown the receipts, she was told by prosecutors in an interview that Burke and his friend both testified before the grand jury that Burke owned Hi Tech shoes. In 2002 Lin Wood, for whatever reason, released the videos of the 1998, 1999 and 2000 interviews, which proves Patsy was told about Burke's grand jury testimony that he owned the Hi-Tech shoes. Wood sent the videos to CNN, NBC and CBS, so obviously the Swamp Queen isn't the only one who has access to them.

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

[Nehemiah]

Has YFL come back into the building? What was that all about?

Jayelles, I remember the transcript info being posted at the Double B a long time ago, also.

[why_nutt]

Originally posted by candy
These Atlanta interviews have not been legally released by lawyers for the Ramseys, or the District Attorney's office. Spade shouldn't be posting these, he shouldn't even have them. It is not legal to post them.


As others have been saying, She Who Must Be Paid has already posted transcripted portions from the Atlanta interviews. I have found one such historical thread from her forum. She created the thread on April 5, 2001, it was titled "Transcript of Kane Show in Atlanta," and she thanks Dave for the transcript, which means not only that she illegally had the tape (as you say Spade illegally has it), but she illegally gave it to Dave, bringing him into the realm of violation of law.

[Nehemiah]

She'll have that taken down by nightfall, why_nutt. LOL

[candy]

That doesn't matter. She obtained hers from the Ramseys, who own the rights to them, along with the DA's office.

[Nehemiah]

We don't know how Spade got them, do we? Perhaps from a legal source who own the rights to them?

[why_nutt]

Originally posted by candy
That doesn't matter. She obtained hers from the Ramseys, who own the rights to them, along with the DA's office.

If the chain of legal ownership begins with the Ramseys or the DA's office and ends with the person whom the Ramseys or DA give the tape to, then she illegally gave the tape to Dave, who had no right to make a transcript from the tape, yet did. If ownership does not end with the first person the Ramseys or the DA gives the tape to, but continues on with the people that authorized recipients have contact with, then both Dave and Spade have been within their legal rights to view and transcribe the tape. Nobody is accusing Space of having actually stolen the tape. So which is it? If Spade had access to the tape illegally, then was Dave's access also not illegal?

[Tricia]

Candy WHO CARES...We finally have the truth.
I doubt Spade came by them illegally. I don't care. I am just thankful we are finally learning the truth.
Tricia

[Nehemiah]

Tricia, is the entire transcript posted there or just portions on the thread?

[Tricia]

Just portions. We have to wait and see what Spade posts next.

[Jayelles]

Why_Nut is right. I just found that thread. ******* posted extracts (favourable to Ramsey and unfavourable to kane) on 5th April 2001 and she thanked Dave for transcribing them!

[Jayelles]

I think it was a photograph that Patsy was shown and not a receipt. Did BlueCrab not talk about a photo of Burke wearing possible Hi-Tecs?

[candy]

LOLOL. As Darnay says, don't get in the way of people committing suicide.

[DejaNu]

Seems counselor should heed his own advice in re Joel Steinberg, doncha think?

[Nehemiah]

Jayelles, I remember there being discussion about a picture of Burke with Hi Techs but I don't think it ever surfaced. Some pics were even posted but I don't think any actually were proven to be the shoes in question.

I do remember Bluecrab sayhing there was a credit card receipt and the reason I remember that is because last year I was in Washington DC and met a former FBI person who told me the same thing about the credit card receipt. Now I don't claim that that is true, but just what I was told. When she said that, I instantly remembered what Bluecrab had said and had been attacked for saying.

I also met a woman there whose best friend served on the Grand Jury and she said that all her friend could/would say was that it was "sickeningly political". I'm going back in 2 weeks so maybe I'll run up on some more info. LOL

[Cherokee]

Originally posted by Tricia
... I am just thankful we are finally learning the truth.
Tricia

You got that right, sista!

There will never be a trial. NEVER. There's too much contamination of evidence, bungling of the investigation, non-cooperation from the family. It's a wash.

So the best we can hope for is to finally know the truth.

Go Spade go.



My opinion.

[Sabrina]

Jayelles,
I hope you saved the transcript so we can see how it differs.

Just like the 911 tape.

LOL

[Thorkim]

Nehemiah, very interesting quote from the Grand Jury. Sickeningly political. Who woulda thought? Please keep us posted, I wanna hear more.

[DejaNu]

As I posted at CS, Candy, if you're SO convinced Spade is posting misinformation re the Ramsey depo transcripts, why don't you get a copy of them from your bud LW and post them yourself so we can all know what you know...

[Cain]

Being this a discussion forum about the murder, what really matters is the accuracy of the information. And it seems Spade's information is accurate. How did he get the depos and if he can or cant't legally post them is Spade's problem, and Spade sounds clever enough to know what he can and what he can't do.

And I understand perfectly the Whites and ST, and even the Ramsey's, wishing to seal their depositions. Who wants see in print or in the internet hostile questionings where they ask you about very personal matters, not always retated to the case? Most of us, in this situation, wouldn't, for sure.


My opinion, as always.

[candy]

The Ramseys didn't want to seal their depositions, and didn't. It carried great weight with the Judge that they were upfront and honest in this manner.

Personal questions are "good cause" and never released under any circumstances as it is.

As I posted before, when CBS filed to open ST's depo, the Judge did everything to help them get it open to the public. The only reason Fleet's depo is sealed is because it hasn't been challenged as ST's was.

[Cain]

But there are many personal matters that Judge would consider "related" to the case. E. I., if I were a suspect of rape and they asked me "Have you ever bougth Hustler magazine?", although being innocent, and if the answer were yes, I wouldn't like to see that published, an probably read by mi children.

I know the Ramseys didn't object to the release oh their depos (in this particular suit you refer to); what I meant is that I would have understood if they had objected. But if they though that that was good for them, that's their privilege.

And if they didn't want to seal them... let's go on reading the excerpts.


My very humble opinion.

[Nehemiah]

Thorkim, I will be in a meeting with these same people with whom I spoke last year (former FBI agent and friend of GJ) and I will try to track them down and question more. :sneaky: I'll let you know if I find out anything.

[candy]

LOL Gossips. The other forum head is doing just that, from her legally obtained transcripts.

[Barbara]

Originally posted by candy
LOL Gossips. The other forum head is doing just that, from her legally obtained transcripts.

How do you know they are legally obtained?

I sure hope she appreciates all you are doing on her behalf. The last time your name was mentioned over there, she called you a "misguided BORG"

[Maxi]

Let's be careful with the name calling. I deleted a bunch of posts already. And how about someone alerting me when this sort of thing shows up? We need some neighborhood watch around here.

Barbara, this isn't directed at you. I know you are just repeating what the unnamed forum host said.

[candy]

LOLOL. Because I know who is legally entitled to them and who is not, such as Spade.

[why_nutt]

Originally posted by candy
LOL Gossips. The other forum head is doing just that, from her legally obtained transcripts.

You have not yet answered the real question, though. If the legal owner of a deposition transcript then gives that transcript away, is the person who receives it in legal possession of the transcript or not? "The other forum head" is in the process of giving portions of the transcript to the public; are public readers now complying with the law by having copies on their own computers, or are they in violation? If the former, then Spade, so long as he has received the transcript from someone who has it legally, or has received it from someone who themselves has it legally, is in the same position as "the other forum head"'s reading public. He would no more be violating the law than I would be if I quoted "the other forum head"'s own legally-obtained transcript.

[candy]

LOL Why_Nutt. Why don't you ask the District Attorney's office about that, who are the owners of this property?

[Barbara]

Thanks Maxi.

Gee Whiz Candy, lighten up a little. What's the difference anyway? Maybe now that they have been made public by Spade, the other forum leader can't sell them now can she?

She wouldn't post them before, and I have to wonder why, since she wants the truth out so badly, she is posting it now only AFTER Spade has already done so. Why hasn't she posted them before? She wants the truth remember? Let the chips fall where they may and all that....

I just bet she had a price tag on those tapes and transcripts. I am glad that Spade not only brought these to us, but that he didn't help hir sell them to the NE or wherever.

[RiverRat]

"The idea that I came by/post the transcripts of the Atlanta interviews "illegally" is ridiculous. ex- and darnay are worried that if this information goes public it will cut the profits from their scam to sell the same info to the tabs. That is the reason Fleet White hired a lawyer to have his deposition in the Wolfe case sealed and why ex- has turned on the White's."

The ex that he refers to is Candy. :evil:

Nuff Said-
RR

[candy]

I want to put this individual on notice:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=3774&perpage=12&pagenumber=4

His comments: "The idea that I came by/post the transcripts of the Atlanta interviews "illegally" is ridiculous. ex- and darnay are worried that if this information goes public it will cut the profits from their scam to sell the same info to the tabs. That is the reason Fleet White hired a lawyer to have his deposition in the Wolfe case sealed and why ex- has turned on the White's."

It's totally and utterly false and malicious to libel me saying I had any kind of scam to sell anything to the tabloids, with or without Darnay. It never happened, no plan of any such thing and is a product of this individual's very sick mind.

Lin Wood already outed this person's lie about him and showed what kind of a person you are talking about here.

The National Enquirer article on Fleet White's sealed deposition is a lot more credible in my opinion than anything Spade has to say covering for Fleet.

[candy]

Any kind of inference that I'm any kind of "ex" of Darnay's is more of the same false and malicious smear and libel from this individual.

[candy]

Hopefully, posters will be asking the District Attorney's office about Spade's transcript of unreleased evidence and the legality of him posting case file evidence without the permission of the District Attorney or the Ramseys.

[Spade]

Why is Candy upset that this information is being released? Is it misleading? I am fascinated by these revelations but certainly don't want to waste my time if it is just a batch of lies.

[candy]

There is the right way and the wrong way to release information Witness. The right way is having the legal authority and permission to do so. The wrong way is: Such as the Ramseys just deciding on their own to open Fleet White's deposition for example. That won't happen.

[Barbara]

This is really sad. The transcripts come out and there are those who are really overly upset about this.

I personally can only rationalize this one way: If the transcripts are accurate, and they sure seem to be based on the responses, then SOMEBODY is missing out on a profit!

In that case, GOOD! Shame on anyone who was going to put a price tag on this, whether for fame or for $$$$$$$

Congrats to you Spade!

[candy]

Gee Barbara, why don't you check out your facts? I don't know those tab hacks that Spade sells stories to. It's totally false and malicious. That's who he is friends with, tab hacks who have been sued successfully by the Ramseys. I would like to know to the nearest $50,000 how much in legal fees he has cost the people who have peddled his garbage and how much they paid out to the Ramseys because of him.

[Barbara]

I don't have to check any facts to know that these transcripts are now public knowledge.

We didn't have to pay to read them like the other NE interviews.

We, the public, who keep this case alive, like it or not, are reading them for free and to me that means we are not covering the costs of yet another lining for some bloodsucker's pockets.

As far as the rest of it, I personally don't care how Spade got them. As far as I'm concerned, anything that ******* has, the world has a right to have. I can't imagine why you or anyone else would really care about such a thing.

[DejaNu]

Right on, Barbara, like anyone else in this case has ever done things the proper, er, "legal" way...Like closing the barn door after the racehorses have gotten out....

[Show Me]

Sheesh! Is the point if you are not Darnay or *******...you have no right to public info and the release of it?

The last people on the forums I'd trust are Darnay and *******....especially when it comes to the truth.

I think Spade knows what he's doing.

[candy]

I certainly have no qualm about the transcripts being legally released. I believe both Darnay and Lin Wood wanted as much public as possible. Spade has no legal authority and is not doing the public any service. He's a Burke did it fanatic, a zealot. That's what he put out from the transcripts.

But as I said, these slime can't stand the truth and their many lies exposed to the light of day. The Ramseys have made quite a lot of money from Spade and his friends and will continue to for as long as they want, not just Ramsey, but Condit, and all the other cases they have peddled libel in.

[why_nutt]

Originally posted by Barbara
As far as the rest of it, I personally don't care how Spade got them. As far as I'm concerned, anything that ******* has, the world has a right to have. I can't imagine why you or anyone else would really care about such a thing.

The Ramsey case, as a microcosm of so much that happens in the wider world, has found its own Pentagon Papers, and the public is always better off when that happens.

What I have found most interesting, even in such small snippets, is the clear information from Burke's testimony about the subject of compasses that he was primarily familiar with them through airplane control panels, that his interest in them was in watching them point in different directions, and that Patsy concedes Burke may have owned one in the form of a watch. I recall Jayelles and I have gone over this ground before, but to rehash; there is absolutely no sense in putting a compass, let alone two or more, on a pair of shoelaces or shoes. A person should not have to crouch down to the ground or remove their shoes to bring a compass up to eye level. And not one person has yet brought to light even a hint of a shoe brand sold with compasses on them, let alone any accessory which permits attaching a compass to shoes. On the other hand, there are many, many brands of compass to be found in the form of a watch to put around the wrist. A wrist compass makes perfect sense. A shoe compass does not. So any reference to Burke's meaning of "high-tech" referring to compasses on his shoes is null and void. In another transcript snippet, John references lights on Burke's shoes, but this could not refer to "high-tech" either, as shoes with lights in them are not sophisticated, any more than any flashlight with a switch on it is "high-tech."

[candy]

LOLOL. This isn't the Pentagon Papers. I'm sure it took the Ramseys 5 seconds to figure out how he got the Atlanta interviews. It's very easy to figure out knowing what they know about him. The Ramseys were releasing DA interviews, depos, you name it, on their own, without Spade's "help"

[1000Sparks]

I thank spade for doing this.

Candy, why are you in such a tither over this?

If you, *******, and lin wood can't solve this case, maybe the people on the net can.

Patsy didn't know Burke had a pair of shoes with a compass?

bwahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Tricia]

Why_Nut thank you for explaining the "high tech" issue. Interesting. I had never thought of it like that before.

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

The Ramseys are claiming that if Burke said he owned a pair of "high tech" shoes he was referring to the fact that they were "high tech" because they had a compass on them. Or even lights. Not the brand name "Hi Tech" but the meaning "high tech."
Correct? Or am I being a total dope...be gentle now :)

[Nehemiah]

Didn't the Double B Forum Leader say all that about the shoes being High "Tech" rather than High "Tec"? Am I remembering that correctly from long ago? If so, that could be just spin. In fact, I think that when BlueCrab was in his heyday and giving out info along the lines of the Atlanta interviews, is when YFL chimed in with all the high tech talk. Just muddying the waters is all it seemed to do.

[candy]

Gee Sparky, why don't you ask the DA's office what they think about Spade and THE DA's evidence?

I notice posters haven't bothered to find out that the DA's office only released these materials under the strictest possible conditions to prevent the likes of Spade doing what he did. The result will be that the DA will not want to release what they did to anyone but the Ramseys. We won't be able to get the 911 call, or other documents, because of a Burke infomercial from a Burke fanatic.

[Barbara]

Wrong. We'll still get everything. Only now we'll have to wait until somebody pays the right price to someone else and then wait until it's published in the NE, or on 20/20, 48 hours, etc.

Let's not kid ourselves. This is not about justice, this is about the almighty dollar. ALL the lawyers have their own personal agenda and it shows more and more each and every day. Not one of them truly gives a s--t about this little murdered girl. Greed, greed and more greed. Lin can buy another Jaguar, Darnay can buy whatever it is he buys, (perhaps an engagement ring for Joel), and the Ramseys can continue to pay for their freedom.

What a bunch!

What difference does it make what Spade's personal theory is? These are the transcripts, regardless of his personal theory.

[candy]

It isn't about the buck or the Burke to the DA's office. It's about evidence in an open case. You'll get whatever the Ramseys want to give you. Spade's "sources", ahm, have all paid the Ramseys, he can't get anything else, they're out of the picture forever.

[Jayelles]

Eh?

[Jayelles]

I recall Jayelles and I have gone over this ground before, but to rehash; there is absolutely no sense in putting a compass, let alone two or more, on a pair of shoelaces or shoes. A person should not have to crouch down to the ground or remove their shoes to bring a compass up to eye level.

I did actually find a website which spoke of a pair of climbing boots with compasses built into them. I thought it was for real, but further investigation showed that it was a gameshow website where contestents had to make up an imaginary product. The compass shoes did not exist after all.

[Shylock]

This is the dumbest thread I've ever read.

Maybe all the posters here need to be reminded that 90% of all the case information we know was LEAKED when it wasn't supposed to be.

And that includes Thomas' entire book...sheeesh.

Without all the "LEAKS" this might just resemble a normal murder investigation!...DUH

[TLynn]

I believe Spade's release more than I would if it were released through "legal" means (i.e. Wood, etc.)

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Nehemiah
Has YFL come back into the building? What was that all about?

Jayelles, I remember the transcript info being posted at the Double B a long time ago, also.

Me too...
Yupper rues...old news ditto...

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Cherokee
You got that right, sista!

There will never be a trial. NEVER. There's too much contamination of evidence, bungling of the investigation, non-cooperation from the family. It's a wash.

So the best we can hope for is to finally know the truth.

Go Spade go.

Ditto that because most can't comprehend/see the truth-for what it is ...SAD... so sad !!!

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

"One expert summed it up well," Thomas writes, "when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault but with a child who was being physically abused."

Apparently referring to the reports of the pathologists, Det. Haney told Patsy during the 1998 interview that police had "reliable medical information" that JonBenet had been sexually abused well prior to her death. Haney did not indicate how often JonBenet had been abused, but the conclusion of the medical experts that the abuse had occurred well prior to her death meant that if JonBenet had been murdered by an intruder, the intruder wasn't responsible for the sexual abuse, unless the intruder was someone who had also been alone with JonBenet on numerous occasions well before her death.

"That's one of the things that's been bothering us about this case," Haney said.

"No damned kidding," Patsy said.

"What does it tell you?

"It doesn't tell me anything! I'm...I don't...I...my...I just am shocked, is all I can say. And I don't...I don't know what to think. I mean I'm...I just wanna see where it says that."

The possibility that appropriate sexual boundaries were not being followed in the Ramsey household was something authorities considered in the aftermath of JonBenet's death. Boulder Detective Linda Arndt suggested in a 2000 deposition in connection with a suit she filed against the city that social services personnel considered more than the possibility that John Ramsey was sexually abusing his daughter. She said her opinions about the case had been dismissed by her law enforcement colleagues, as had the opinions of "all of the department of social services."







My opinion.

[Blazeboy3]

Jesus...where did all the above posting go/vent/relate to?...?

[Blazeboy3]

I suggest IMHO that you all read the following/newest book out about JonBenet's murder/life... !

http://www.fetchbook.info/Evening_with_Jonbenet_Ramsey.html

An Evening with JonBenet Ramsey
By Walter A. Davis
Paperback / Xlibris Corporation / September, 2003 / 1413411088
List Price $21.99 / Books Similar to An Evening with JonBenet Ramsey
See also at Amazon.


Compare Prices All Editions Book Reviews
Email this page Add this page to your site
Searched for Editions of An Evening with JonBenet Ramsey. 2 titles matched your search. Search took 0.20 seconds.

Hardcover / September 2003 / 1413411096 / Compare Prices
Paperback / September 2003 / 1413411088 / Compare Prices

[Blazeboy3]

... and then vent/post about right/wrong ?!

[Maxi]

Vent in the Parking Lot, if you please!