Neighbours reports

Unfortunately the Bonita papers aren't exactly 100% accurate.

If memory serves John had a dark blue terry cloth robe though. There is the possibility that fibers were comingled in the dryer and adhered to the blanket that she was wrapped in and then shedded onto her. Or her long johns could already have had some fibers attached to them that weren't noticed.

Cops often try to trip suspects up by saying "we believe" or "what would you say if I told you we found XX and it appears to have come from..."

They never once in any of the interviews say they know positively that any of the fibers belonged to a certain article of clothing.

10 Q. You provided us with two shirts.
11 One of them had a collar, it's a wool shirt
12 made in Israel. The other one did not have
13 a collar. Do you have a belief as to which
14 one was the actual shirt that you were
15 wearing on Christmas '96?
16 A. I don't remember, I guess. And
17 if I -- well, I think the issue, if I
18 recall was I couldn't remember which one, so
19 I think we sent you both. But I mean, I'd
20 have to look at pictures, I guess, to
21 compare. I don't remember that far back.
22 Q. Mr. Ramsey, I take it, and
23 correct me if I am wrong, please, that the
24 fact that you sent two shirts as opposed to
25 one indicated you were not certain which of
0030
1 the two you were wearing?
2 A. Well, I think that's what we did,
3 but I don't, I mean, I don't remember
4 exactly the logic. I know that we were
5 asked about shoes, and the picture didn't
6 even show shoes, so I couldn't remember what
7 shoes we had on. So was it to send all my
8 shoes or one hundred percent sure.
9 Q. Those items of evidence, did you
10 continue, after the clothing was moved down
11 to Atlanta, after you moved to Atlanta, did
12 you continue to wear them? Were they
13 laundered? Were they -- one of them was
14 wool. I assume that would be dry cleaned.
15 Do you have any recollection in that regard?
16 A. No, I don't.

further down we have an interesting exchange (IMO) Wood clearly is aware of the "trip" tactic and demands actual proof of the fiber evidence. Unfortunately we don't get to see any of it...

19 If you are going to make
20 statements that contain some form of innuendo
21 that an article of clothing might possibly be
22 connected to some portion of the crime scene
23 or this man's daughter's body, I think you
24 have an obligation, not only to him but to
25 whoever reads that report and this
0057
1 transcript, to be candid and give full
2 disclosure, show the people what the results
3 are, show the people what you also had in
4 terms of fiber evidence.
5 We are told there are hundreds of
6 fibers, for example, on the duct tape. And
7 I think you have a fundamental right,
8 fundamental fairness requires that you
9 disclose that information and not single out
10 some hypothetical innuendo that unfairly casts
11 perhaps in someone's mind that reads this
12 some finger of blame at John or Patsy
13 Ramsey. I think it is totally inappropriate
14 for you to do so, but if you want to go
15 ahead and make a record for whatever reason,
16 I certainly am not here to stop you. You
17 have the right.
18 MR. LEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Wood.
19 I appreciate the opportunity.
20 MR. WOOD: Thank you.
21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is
22 our belief based on forensic evidence that
23 there are hairs that are associated, that the
24 source is the collared black shirt that you
25 sent us that are found in your daughter's
0058
1 underpants, and I wondered if you --
2 A. . I don't believe that.
3 I don't buy it. If you are trying to
4 disgrace my relationship with my daughter --
5 Q. Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to
6 disgrace --
7 A. Well, I don't believe it. I
8 think you are. That's disgusting.
9 MR. WOOD: I think you --
10 MR. LEVIN: I am not.
11 MR. WOOD: Yes, you are.
12 MR. LEVIN: And the follow-up
13 question would be --
14 MR. WOOD: Posing the question in
15 light of what I said to you yesterday is
16 nothing more than an attempt to make a
17 record that unfairly, unjustly, and in a
18 disgusting fashion points what you might
19 consider to be some finger of blame at this
20 man regarding his daughter, and you ought to
21 be ashamed of yourself for doing it, Bruce.
22 You knew we weren't going to
23 answer the question. Why don't you just
24 give us the report, and we'll put it out
25 there for someone to look at and tell us
0059
1 what it says and see how fair and accurate
2 you have been.
3 I know why you said what you said
4 yesterday about Patsy and the fibers and John
5 and the fibers. And you know why you did
6 it, Bruce. Because you want this somehow to
7 get out and then people will read that and
8 be prejudiced even further against this
9 family.
10 I just don't know why you want to
11 do it, but I can't stop you.
12 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood, if you
13 would like to, I would challenge you to find
14 any article anywhere that I have been quoted
15 as giving an opinion or any statement to the
16 press concerning this case.
17 MR. WOOD: You don't have to be
18 quoted. You don't have to be quoted.
19 MR. LEVIN: Or any piece of
20 evidence that I have released.
21 MR. WOOD: You don't have to be
22 quoted. You do not have to be quoted.
23 MR. LEVIN: This is a murder
24 investigation, and I am trying to get an
25 explanation, which can be an innocent
0060
1 explanation.
2 MR. WOOD: It could be, but you
3 pose your question as if it's not not.
4 That's what's unfair. Why don't you let us
5 see the report so we can know exactly what's
6 going on, exactly what other fibers were
7 found in that area so that you don't
8 unfairly cast an aspersion through innuendo
9 or suggestion toward this man and his
10 daughter.
11 It seems to me that you should
12 look over and go look, Mr. Wood, we want
13 your client's help, we will give you the
14 test results if it will help get this
15 answered, if it is so important, we'll tell
16 you whether there was another fiber or fibers
17 found that we doen't know where they came
18 from and maybe he can help you with that
19 information, but that is not what you are
20 doing. You are focusing on what you believe
21 is one specific area. And you are doing it
22 in a way that I think is just unfair.
23 Let me just answer your question
24 about you being quoted. Look, John and
25 Patsy Ramsey sat around for three years and
0061
1 did not go public with this case, even
2 though your people were talking to tabloids
3 and writing books and appearing on
4 television. Linda Arndt, Steve Thomas, Alex
5 Hunter.
6 You want to go through the litany
7 of how your people have publicly prosecuted
8 and persecuted this family, and now they
9 decided enough is enough and they tried to
10 go out with me, yes, sir, and them and try
11 to refute some of the absolute lies that
12 have been told about them. Do you have a
13 problem with that?
14 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood.
15 MR. WOOD: Because your people
16 have been saying it. I am not calling your
17 name. I don't know who it is linked to.
18 I don't know who gave the ransom note to
19 Vanity Fair. I'm not suggesting it is you.
20 But don't sit here and tell me that because
21 Bruce Levin hasn't been quoted that this
22 investigation from the Boulder Police
23 Department and the district attorney's office
24 is a lily white when it comes to talking
25 about this case in the media because that is
0062
1 false, and you know it.
2 MR. LEVIN: Now, Mr. Wood, if I
3 can just respond very briefly, and I want
4 Mr. Ramsey to listen to this because it's
5 important, the suggestion is that I am
6 suggesting that the only explanation for that
7 question is sinister. I am a part of a
8 team conducting an investigation into your
9 daughter's death, and an innocent explanation
10 that would help us further that investigation
11 is very welcome. I am not looking for a
12 sinister answer or innocent answer.
13 MR. WOOD: If you are looking for
14 that, then give us the test result and let
15 us know what it says.
16 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood, the fact
17 of --
18 MR. WOOD: No, Bruce. If you
19 wanted the answer so badly, you would give
20 us the test result instead of representing
21 what the test result is. I, for the life
22 of me, do not understand the logic.
23 You say we can tell you what the
24 test result is, but we can't show you the
25 test result. So trust us, Mr. Ramsey, and
0063
1 answer this hypothetical question.
2 If that information means that
3 much to this investigation, Bruce, you would
4 not hesitate to give us that report, period.
5 So let's move to something else.
6 MR. LEVIN: Let's move on to
7 another topic.


Now I have my deep seated suspicions and have posted about them (for years), but that doesn't mean I have any real proof as obviously and unfortunately the BPD didn't either.
It's sad to think that the killer of JBR is still out there free even though he's hiding from the media...all because there isn't any concrete proof to arrest him with.
 
Cops often try to trip suspects up by saying "we believe" or "what would you say if I told you we found XX and it appears to have come from..."
Levin was not a cop. He is an attorney and could not ask:

Mr. Ramsey, it is
22 our belief based on forensic evidence that
23 there are hairs that are associated, that the
24 source is the collared black shirt
that you
25 sent us that are found in your daughter's
0058

Unless he believed this to be the truth.
 
It wasn't cops that did the 2000 interviews, it was attorneys. Attorneys are forbidden to lie in the questioning of a suspect, unlike LE. That is why Woody goes overboard into damage control about the nature of the questions and forbids both his clients to answer them. The attorneys made it abundantly clear that according to modern technology, the fibers came from where they said they came from. Patsy did her interview first, and the attorneys make it clear that the fibers in question came from where they said they came from, the arguing goes on and on, and by the time JR's interview comes around, there's very little that the attorneys know that Wood will allow to be asked and how it can be asked without going into all the same arguing. Because of Woody arguing about the wording of the questions, they modify them as best they can in order to get an answer he will allow (which he never does).

Even with DNA evidence, experts can't say that their findings are an absolute match, they have to say "consistent with" (or give some number theory like one is so many million people match, etc). Woody is using this point in an attempt to argue the expert findings... one of the reasons Kane blows up and accuses Woody of a "sham".

Most of this is hashed out in PR's interview, so by the time JR is interviewed, there is not much that Woody will allow JR to answer or will allow questions to be phrased.

From Patsy's 2000 interview...

7 MR. LEVIN: I can state to you,
8 Mr. Wood, that, given the current state of
9 the scientific examination of fibers, that,
10 based on the state of the art technology,
11 that I believe, based on testing, that fibers
12 from your client's coat are in the paint
13 tray.
14 MR. WOOD: Are you stating as a
15 fact that they are from the coat or is it
16 consistent with? What is the test result
17 terminology? Is it conclusive? I mean, I
18 think she is entitled to know that when you
19 ask her to explain something.
20 MR. KANE: It is identical in all
21 scientific respects.
22 MR. WOOD: What does that mean?
23 Are you telling me it is conclusive?
24 MR. KANE: It is identical.
25 MR. WOOD: Are you saying it is
0186
1 a conclusive match?
2 MR. KANE: You can draw your own
3 conclusions.
4 MR. WOOD: I am not going to
5 draw my own conclusions.
6 MR. KANE: I am saying it is
7 identical.
8 MR. WOOD: Well, what you are
9 saying in terms of how you interpret a lab
10 result may or may not be the lab result.
11 If you have it, let's see it. I would be
12 glad to let her answer a question about it,
13 but I don't want to go into the area of
14 where we are dealing with someone's
15 interpretation of something that may not be a
16 fact and have her explain something because
17 she can't explain something that might be
18 someone's opinion or someone's interpretation.
19 She can try to answer something
20 if you are stating it as a matter of fact.
21 MR. LEVIN: Well, I believe that
22 Mr. Kane's statement is accurate as to what
23 the examiner would testify to.
24 MR. WOOD: Will he testify that
25 it is a conclusive match?
0187
1 MR. KANE: Yes.
2 MR. WOOD: Everybody is -- you
3 all want to take a minute and confer on
4 that?
5 MR. KANE: No.

[more arguing the "consistent with" point]

13 MR. LEVIN: Given -- and I want
14 to answer your question. I am going to try
15 to answer your question before I phrase it
16 to your client.
17 Given the status of fiber
18 analysis, the state of the art, that fiber
19 is identical in all respects to fibers from
20 your client's coat; however, as is the case
21 with any type of scientific evidence, even
22 DNA evidence, where you get numbers that say,
23 for example, the likelihood of a random match
24 would be 1 in, say, 14 trillion. An expert
25 is not going to get up, they'll talk about
0190
1 numbers, but they are not going to get up
2 and say that that is the DNA from that man.

[more arguing, then Beckner offers a compromise on the wording of the question that may satisfy Wood enough to allow Patsy to answer]

1 CHIEF BECKNER: Let me try to
2 offer a compromise.
3 MR. WOOD: We are ready to hear
4 it.
5 CHIEF BECKNER: Instead of wording
6 the question in terms of fibers from the
7 jacket or appear to be from the jacket,
8 maybe if you word it fibers that by
9 scientific analysis are identical to fibers
10 from the jacket and not say, not identify
11 those fibers from the jacket but say
12 identical to fibers --
13 MR. WOOD: What if we left out
14 the fiber problem altogether and just simply
15 ask her whether or not she ever had the
16 jacket, the red and black, gray jacket in
17 the proximity of the paint tray. We don't
18 have to fight the question of what the fiber
19 is or isn't. Isn't that what you really
20 want to find out?

The arguing goes on and on with no result. Woody isn't going to go on the record accepting the findings of the scientific evidence because if he did that means IN COURT he would HAVE to accept the findings of the expert who came to the conclusion that the fibers came from Patsy's jacket... and there is NO WAY any decent attorney will let themselves be boxed into that. The only chance a defense attorney has to argue expert conclusions is by providing an expert that refutes those conclusions. If Woody accepts the conclusions of the fiber evidence in this interview, he would not be able to provide a refuting expert in court with any hope of success... prosecution would just point to this transcript and show the jury that he already DID accept the conclusions of this expert.

All of Woody's arguing of this point is to preserve an attempt by him in court of providing his own expert to refute the findings of this expert... that's all it is. It wouldn't matter if they showed him the reports of the expert findings because they know what Woody is trying to to here, and they know he'd still refute the findings, but he'd get to see exactly what the reports said and prepare for that.

It's no wonder that Kane gets fed up and accuses Woody of creating a sham... it IS a sham. Woody doesn't want to come right out and say that he intends to shop around for an expert that will refute this expert's findings because a jury with that transcript would then question whether or not Woody's expert REALLY refutes the findings or if Woody just found someone who was willing to refute those findings for pay.

It's good theater. ;)
 
But then again Levin was probably repeating what he was told, by cops or whoever, therefor he wasn't lying (btw attorney's do lie even if they aren't suppose to). What I said about cops wasn't in direct context with the interview section I posted. It was just a general comment about some of the tactics cops employ to get information.

Now in direct context of the interviews...
The "we believe" means "in our opinion" because (unfortunately) they could not prove conclusively or exclusively that the dark fibers came from either of the 2 shirts that JR sent, or the fibers they found in the paint tray were from Patsy's sweater (Levin says her coat). Like Henry Lee said, "Consistant with does not mean a match".

But yes, it does make for interesting discussion. I wouldn't call it theater because the death of a child isn't entertainment to me. I do find it fascinating to read these exchanges. Hate him or not, Wood is a damned good attorney.
 
Doc, you hit it dead-on!

Seeker, I have a gift for you!
the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct state: Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."

That's pretty clear, I'd say.

"Hate him or not, Wood is a damned good attorney."

But a rotten human being.
 
SuperDave said:
Doc, you hit it dead-on!

Seeker, I have a gift for you!


That's pretty clear, I'd say.

"Hate him or not, Wood is a damned good attorney."

But a rotten human being.
Dave, I know the rules, but what I said was if he was repeating a lie told to him by a cop and he didn't know it was a lie then he wasn't lying. Follow?

BTW, I don't care what the rules are on conduct for attorney's, I know several who have lied, made unethical comments, etc. It happens all the time. There are some who do it unknowningly and there are some who do it intentionally by using semantics....
 
I don't think he'd be THAT stupid, Seeker!

As for Wood: in a fight, I could take him!
 
SuperDave said:
I don't think he'd be THAT stupid, Seeker!

As for Wood: in a fight, I could take him!
I don't know if Levin was given everything or not to research himself. Whatever happened to him in all the rest of the interviews? Did he only do those 2 (I can't remember now).

I wish you could Dave, but somehow I don't think you'd be able to. He's had years and years of practice at this and he's pretty smart and tricky.
 
Remember the neighbor who lived across David Westerfield? She was up feeding her newborn and noticed the blinds in Westerfields home drawn. She had never seen his blinds drawn like that.

Same goes for the neighbor who saw the kitchen light on...very important piece of information in regards to JonBenet's murder timeline.
 
Toltec said:
Remember the neighbor who lived across David Westerfield? She was up feeding her newborn and noticed the blinds in Westerfields home drawn. She had never seen his blinds drawn like that.

Same goes for the neighbor who saw the kitchen light on...very important piece of information in regards to JonBenet's murder timeline.
As in the Peterson case, the neighbor had never seen the blinds closed during the day. Laci opened them every morning. He killed her the night before.
 
Weren't the Rams asked about that and wasn't the reason something like they had to unplug it to plug in the x-mas lights or something like that?

I don't know that I look at my neighbors homes enough to know that one particular light is on in/outside of their house "every" night, or not, so I wouldn't be of any use as an eyewitness to their habits. That might be a good thing! lol
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
2,433
Total visitors
2,627

Forum statistics

Threads
589,984
Messages
17,928,662
Members
228,033
Latest member
okaydandy
Back
Top