National Examiner & Helgoth

[Jayelles]

Jayelles, please tell me how you think they lied about the altercation in Atlanta. That's the first I heard about this.

I explained in my last post above, but I mucked up the html so it's not clear to read.

In his deposition, JR denied there had been any altercation in Atlanta. In fact, not only had there been an altercation, the police had been called to it!

 

[tipper]

I explained in my last post above, but I mucked up the html so it's not clear to read.

In his deposition, JR denied there had been any altercation in Atlanta. In fact, not only had there been an altercation, the police had been called to it!

There are a number of things he doesn't remember in that interview. However, at the beginning of that deposition he says he is having problems remembering things either because of the Prozac or the stress. What is the point of asking him if his memory has been affected by anything if he is then going to be held to strict expectations of memory?

There is no benefit to John Ramsey to not remember this. Therefore, I don't think he's lying about it. I think at that point he didn't remember. In other interviews as well as DOI he does talk about FW strangeness in Atlanta. A lot of what happened he heard about from others but wasn't present for.

16 Q. I need to ask you a couple of other questions
17 that might sound awkward, but it's my attempt to insure
18 that we're getting your best testimony today.
19 I don't know, for example, whether you might be
20 under the influence of any medication or alcohol or
21 anything else?
22 A. No alcohol certainly, but I've been under
23 doctor's care for almost two years now and take Prozac.
24 Q. Yes, sir. That doesn't affect your ability to
25 recall though, does it? Maybe slightly?
[font=Helvetica,Arial]

[/font]Page 8

1 A. It seems like.
2 Q. Can't remember whether it affects it or not?
3 I'm not going to be --
4 A. I don't know whether it's that or just the
5 trauma we've been through, but --
6 Q. Yes, sir. I understand. We'll just deal with
7 that the best we can.

 

[Jayelles]

Tipper, with respect, I don't think you would ever find fault in the Ramseys - despite what you say about being unbiased.

As you know, I definitely don't think Patsy had anything to do with JonBenet's murder. I'm about 85-90% certain JOhn didn't either (I find it harder to trust him because of the wall of arrogance and lies), but I find their refusal to assist with the investigation incomprehensible and I would never seek to excuse it.

There will always be people who will find excuses for the worst of behaviour and conmen will always find gullible victims amongst them. Even the Kray twins (ruthless, violent London gangsters) had loyal fans who praised them as fine citizens and good men.

I'd have to call into question the value of a person's judgement when that person can see no wrong in a person. Sorry.

 

[tipper]

Jayelles:"He denied that they were friends with the Stines during his deposition. Yet they had visited them on Christmas day and even spent a weekend with them in new York! Not friends? LIE."

Where's the denial that they were friends?


John Ramsey deposition - Oct. 20, 1998
19 A. Susan and Glenn Stine.
20 Q. Should I add them to your list of close friends?
21 A. They were not close friends, believe it or not.
22 They were friends, but we didn't socialize a lot with
23 them.
24 Q. Can you help me complete a list of people who
25 would be on the same level of relationship as the Stines
[font=Helvetica,Arial][/font]Page 51

1 were to your family?
2 MR. CRAVER: At what time, Lee?
3 MR. LEE: Beginning in 1994 to date.
4 A. I can't think of the names.
5 Q. Mr. Ramsey -- to try and put you at ease -- it's
6 not intended to be a memory test at this moment, but as
7 those names occur to you, I would ask that you supplement
8 the deposition transcript.
9 A. Be glad to.
[…]

4 Q. When did you first meet the Stines?
5 A. Gosh, I don't know. It would have been when we
6 lived in Boulder. I don't remember when we first met
7 them.
8 Q. Were they also at your Christmas party in 1996?
9 A. Gosh, I don't remember. Possibly, but I don't
10 remember.
[…]



7 Q. How long had you known Mr. Bynum?
8 A. I had known him for two or three years, I guess.
9 Q. Was he a professional associate or a social
10 friend?
11 A. He was I guess more of a professional associate.
12 Q. Also something of a friend as well?
13 A. Sure.
14 Q. What strata would he belong in? Would he be
15 roughly in the same category as the Stines?
16 A. Uh-huh.
17 Q. Yes?
18 A. Yes.
[…]

11 A. We've had lots of supporters, people we knew and
12 didn't know.
13 Q. Will you please list all of them that you're
14 aware of as you sit here today?
15 A. I mean, we've gotten -- I've gotten boxes of
16 letters from all over the world.
17 Q. I understand that and I'm not asking you to list
18 every letter you've got, but I am interested in learning
19 the people who have counseled with you, who have met with
20 you, have spoken about this matter with you, your friends,
21 associates, well-wishers, volunteers so-to-speak, who have
22 offered you direct support following the tragedy who were
23 not employed by lawyers.
24 A. Well, Rol Hoverstock, our priest; my brother.
25 Q. What is his name?
[font=Helvetica,Arial]

[/font]Page 63

1 A. Jeff. My stepmother.
2 Q. Her name, please?
3 A. Irene.
4 Q. Ramsey?
5 A. She was re-married and her --
6 Q. It's not a memory test. At least she's not your
7 mother-in-law?
8 A. That's terrible. I'm blanked. I don't know.
9 The Stines; Doug and Mary Justice in Atlanta.
10 Those are the kinds of people that have supported us.
11 Q. We'll leave space in the transcript for you to
12 insert other names if that's all right.

Do you suppose he is also lying about not being able to remember his step-mother's name?

 

[Jayelles]

Look at the line above (the one you didn't highlight) - where JR says they were not close friends.... They weren't close friends yet they went away for weekends together, visited on Xmas day with presents.

 

[tipper]

Look at the line above (the one you didn't highlight) - where JR says they were not close friends.... They weren't close friends yet they went away for weekends together, visited on Xmas day with presents.

Actually I considered going back and highlighting that because it clarified that they were friends but not close. "believe it or not." They were invited by the Stines to New York for one weekend I know of. Are there others? Their "visit" on Christmas consisted of dropping off a basket on their way home and a short chat standing by the door.

Either way - I still am looking for John's denial that they were friends.

 

[UKGuy]

Rather than debate the semantics of "friendship" and whether it was "close" , "distant" or "neutral".

It may be more productive to consider the relationship between the Ramseys and the Stines. Noting where it differs from all the other family relationships the Ramseys had.

A notable feature is that Susan Stine was willing to misrepresent herself on the internet, in contravention of various US communications statutes regarding email etc.

Knowing that she engaged herself in such a manner, we are at liberty to ask were there any other such unknown and unreported instances in which she acted on behalf of Ramsey-Stine camp in an illegal capacity?

When people behave in such a manner they always play down the extent of their friendship usually to that of associate.

The reason for this is that they are usually involved in some form of conspiracy and so wish to hide their true relationship.

So possibly the Stine-Ramsey friendship can be characterised as one of collusion, a feature missing from say the White-Ramsey relationship. Why should the Stine-Ramsey relationship involve collusion and criminal conspiracy after JonBenet's death.

Can we assume these features were present prior to her death?





.

 

[capps]

I wonder why they didn't ask Patsy the same questions about close friends when they interviewed her separately? I'm curious to see how she would have answered it.

Although I'm more towards the Ramsey's didn't do it ... I have to admit,whenever I have to go back to reading any of the interviews,they end up giving me a headache.

And all participates are at fault:

The "pulling of teeth" of trying to get any clear direct answer from the Ramsey's

The lawyers constantly interjecting,and fighting over any little thing.

The interviewers for not sitting still for a moment,while the Ramsey's are hem hawing over an answer,and asking another question,before they answered the first.

IMO they are all to blame ... just like this whole case ... there is enough blame to go around for everyone.... from beginning to end.

 

[Zman]

Rather than debate the semantics of "friendship" and whether it was "close" , "distant" or "neutral".

It may be more productive to consider the relationship between the Ramseys and the Stines. Noting where it differs from all the other family relationships the Ramseys had.

A notable feature is that Susan Stine was willing to misrepresent herself on the internet, in contravention of various US communications statutes regarding email etc.

Knowing that she engaged herself in such a manner, we are at liberty to ask were there any other such unknown and unreported instances in which she acted on behalf of Ramsey-Stine camp in an illegal capacity?

When people behave in such a manner they always play down the extent of their friendship usually to that of associate.

The reason for this is that they are usually involved in some form of conspiracy and so wish to hide their true relationship.

So possibly the Stine-Ramsey friendship can be characterised as one of collusion, a feature missing from say the White-Ramsey relationship. Why should the Stine-Ramsey relationship involve collusion and criminal conspiracy after JonBenet's death.

Can we assume these features were present prior to her death?





.

What do you mean by Ramsey-Stine camp?

 

[tipper]

I wonder why they didn't ask Patsy the same questions about close friends when they interviewed her separately? I'm curious to see how she would have answered it.

Although I'm more towards the Ramsey's didn't do it ... I have to admit,whenever I have to go back to reading any of the interviews,they end up giving me a headache.

And all participates are at fault:

The "pulling of teeth" of trying to get any clear direct answer from the Ramsey's

The lawyers constantly interjecting,and fighting over any little thing.

The interviewers for not sitting still for a moment,while the Ramsey's are hem hawing over an answer,and asking another question,before they answered the first.

IMO they are all to blame ... just like this whole case ... there is enough blame to go around for everyone.... from beginning to end.

Amen!

 

[UKGuy]

What do you mean by Ramsey-Stine camp?

Its a reference to the fact that the Stine's aligned themselves with the Ramsey's in such a manner to offer them support and advice. On numerous occassions acting on their behalf, both in public and private.

On the basis that the Stines were mere friends their assistance is commendable, but when it crosses over into contravening criminal statutes, their position becomes one of being party to, or belonging to a "camp". That is having an unknown agenda to promote on behalf of that camp!

 

[halycon]

The reason for this is that they are usually involved in some form of conspiracy and so wish to hide their true relationship.
So possibly the Stine-Ramsey friendship can be characterised as one of collusion, a feature missing from say the White-Ramsey relationship. Why should the Stine-Ramsey relationship involve collusion and criminal conspiracy after JonBenet's death.
Can we assume these features were present prior to her death?

Excellent thinking. Misery loves company. Perhaps they enjoyed their shared sense of depravity. I pity their remaining kids.

 

[Jayelles]

Actually I considered going back and highlighting that because it clarified that they were friends but not close. "believe it or not." They were invited by the Stines to New York for one weekend I know of. Are there others? Their "visit" on Christmas consisted of dropping off a basket on their way home and a short chat standing by the door.

Either way - I still am looking for John's denial that they were friends.

I'll save you time. You are right - he didn't deny they were "friends", he denied they were "close friends". It was the fact that he lied that I remembered - as opposed to the precise wording of the lie. In this case, I didn't go back to examine every word of the deposition. Obviously I should have.

Like so many other discussions in the Ramsey case, it comes down to wording and semantics. It doesn't change the fact that he lied - one of many. He still lied to his wife and his ex-wife about his philandering ways, to investigators about the altercation in Atlanta andto America on national TV when they claimed they HAD MADE a donation to a children's camp from a trust which was no longer operational.

Doesn't make him a killer, just a liar, and therefore an unreliable witness.

 

[tipper]

Its a reference to the fact that the Stine's aligned themselves with the Ramsey's in such a manner to offer them support and advice. On numerous occassions acting on their behalf, both in public and private.

On the basis that the Stines were mere friends their assistance is commendable, but when it crosses over into contravening criminal statutes, their position becomes one of being party to, or belonging to a "camp". That is having an unknown agenda to promote on behalf of that camp!

I think Susan Stine wanted very much to be in the Ramsey's 'inner circle' of friends. The invitation to New York came from the Stines not the Ramseys. I'd love to know if the Ramseys gave the Stines a Christmas basket the previous year or was it an outgrowth of the NYC invite.

She got to be a self-appointed doorkeeper to Ramsey access. I'll bet she loved it. That the Stines were not called over on the 26th (though they only lived 2 or 3 minutes away) nor were they the Ramsey's first or even second choice of where to stay after the murder just confirms that, at that early point, they weren't 'close' friends.

In a dreadful way, JonBenet's death may have been a fantastic opportunity for Susan to get the close friend status she apparently wanted..

 

[Jayelles]

I think Susan Stine wanted very much to be in the Ramsey's 'inner circle' of friends. The invitation to New York came from the Stines not the Ramseys. I'd love to know if the Ramseys gave the Stines a Christmas basket the previous year or was it an outgrowth of the NYC invite.

She got to be a self-appointed doorkeeper to Ramsey access. I'll bet she loved it. That the Stines were not called over on the 26th (though they only lived 2 or 3 minutes away) nor were they the Ramsey's first or even second choice of where to stay after the murder just confirms that, at that early point, they weren't 'close' friends.

In a dreadful way, JonBenet's death may have been a fantastic opportunity for Susan to get the close friend status she apparently wanted..

Yes I would agree with you. I have always said that I believed Susan Stine gained from Jonbenet's death in the way you described. Patsy's made a lot of friends through the pageant scene and Susan Stine wasn't in that set - having only a boy. I wonder how she felt about that?

 

[BlueCrab]

That the Stines were not called over on the 26th (though they only lived 2 or 3 minutes away) nor were they the Ramsey's first or even second choice of where to stay after the murder just confirms that, at that early point, they weren't 'close' friends.

tipper,

The evidence is clear and convincing the Ramseys and the Stines were close friends both before and after the murder of JonBenet.

IMO the Stines weren't called on the 26th because they probably had their hands full in covering up their own part in the crime. There's a good chance the Stine house contained the missing crime scene evidence, and it should have been searched early-on.

Rationalize it all you want, but the fact remains the Ramseys and the Paughs spent 5 months jammed together in the Stine's single-family house. If that isn't evidence of the Stines being very close friends of the Ramseys, I don't know what else it could be.

BlueCrab

 

[Zman]

Its a reference to the fact that the Stine's aligned themselves with the Ramsey's in such a manner to offer them support and advice. On numerous occassions acting on their behalf, both in public and private.

On the basis that the Stines were mere friends their assistance is commendable, but when it crosses over into contravening criminal statutes, their position becomes one of being party to, or belonging to a "camp". That is having an unknown agenda to promote on behalf of that camp!

But by Ramsey-Stine camp you imply the R's are aware and support or even suggest this action to the Stines. The R's may have had no idea. Maybe they just think the R's are innocent and didn't know they were "contravening criminal statutes" its not like they have done it over and over agian.

I'll save you time. You are right - he didn't deny they were "friends", he denied they were "close friends". It was the fact that he lied that I remembered - as opposed to the precise wording of the lie. In this case, I didn't go back to examine every word of the deposition. Obviously I should have.

Its not a fact that he lied. That is not a lie.
That is not a lie. That's JR's opinion of their friendship. "close friends" may mean different things to different people.

 

[Jayelles]

Bumping up:-

They were:-

• FBI - at request of BPD
• Secret Service - at request of BPD
• Aerospace - at request of BPD
• Los Alamos Scientific COmplex, New Mexico - the the request of Pete Hofstrum
• Legal Audio - at request of MSNBC
• Team Audio - at request of MSNBC
• Some un-named company used by CBS

What these companies said:-

FBI

They were unable to lift the voices from the tape. However, it is known for a FACT that the FBI do not have the luxury of state of the art equipment. In doing my research on this fascinating subject, I made an excellent contact who informed me that the government agencies often sub-contract work to private companies for this reason. Aerospace does work free of charge for LE.



Secret Service

Ditto FBI - they were unable to lift the voices but it is known that they do not have state of the art equipment.



Aerospace

Using state of the art equipment, Aerospace enhanced the tape to reveal two more voices at the end of the tape - 1) a young voice and 2) a low male voice. Those who listened to the tape thought that the following conversation was a possibility:-

`` `Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus.' That was clearly Patsy's voice. Then, in the distance, there was another voice, which sounded like JonBenet's brother.

`` `Please, what do I do?'' Burke said.

`` `We're not speaking to you,' Hickman heard John Ramsey say.

``Patsy screamed again. `Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus.' ``And then, more clearly, Burke said, `What did you find?' ''



​

http://www.boston.com/globe/search/stories/books/lawrence_schiller.htm



Aerospace made a statement to say that they stand by their work:-

We stand by our work," Linda Brill, spokesperson for The Aerospace Corporation of El Segundo, Calif., told the Enquirer.


The company maintains a division of a Department of Justice - funded institute that offers space-age expertise to police departments nationwide.

"We are top shelf," said Brill. The NE broke the story about the 911 call in a world exclusive published in our Sept.1, 1998, edition


​

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3447&perpage=12&highlight=aerospace&pagenumber=1





Los Alamos Scientifi Complex, New Mexico

Los Alamos Scientif Complex, New Mexico

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]quote:[/font]


Pete Hofstrom would later take the 911 tape enhanced by the Aerospace Corporation to New Mexico to let his brother-in-law, who worked in the Los Alamos scientific complex, have a crack at analyzing it. The brother-in-law apparently declared that he heard a voice say, "I scream at you." That meaningless comment managed to cast doubt on the Aerospace conclusion that Burke said, "What did you find?" and was another gift to the defense lawyers. They would now be able to point out that even the
prosecutor's office and the police did not agree about what was on the tape.

​

Source - a post by jameson on a thread named "Opposing the BPD's request to seal 911" - March 2003.

What is important to note is that this company ALSO LIFTED VOICES - they just didn't agree on that those voices said.


Legal Audio

This company were hired by MSNBC who ran a feature on the 911 tape. Legal Audio said this:-

Interviewed in his state of the art New York City laboratory Mr. Piazza said, "I would say my findings are much more in parallel with the FBI's findings. There's not enough there to give any sort of conclusive, intelligible argument."






​

http://www.legalaudio.com/ontv.html



Note - he did not say there was nothing on the tape, just that they couldn't decipher it.



Team Audio

David Mariasy from Team Audio in Toledo, Ohio, agrees. “When it was suggested that we look for these other lines of dialogue and there’s two or three other people after the hang up, that didn’t happen,” he says





​

What a strangely worded statement. What didn't happen? Didn't they look for the dialogue? Didn't they find these other lines of dialogue? Or weren't there two or three other people? Is he referring to one, two or all three of these? His statement is ambiguous/poorly worded.



http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/



Some un-named company hired by CBS

Originally, CBS were to have the exclusive on the 911 tape. They too had the tape independently analysed and this is what they reported:-

But journalists with CBS' 48 Hours said that program declined to air the tape because there was also a compact disc copy of the 911 call with more noises at the end that could not conclusively be analyzed.



"Our own analysis showed that there was something there. It's almost impossible to detect what it was," said Al Briganti, executive editor of 48 Hours. "It was in conflict with what Lin (Wood) felt was on the tape, so we felt we didn't really have a story."

Wood could not be reached Friday evening to respond to the CBS explanation.




​

 

[Jayelles]

Dave (who analysed the 911 tape using a Pentium III computer, a "lite" version of some audio software and a little program which he wrote himself) - admits that there was a lot of noise on the 911 CD which was released by the DA's office and that a "junior high student could do a better job"

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID61/923.html#25

If that is the case, then it supports my argument that analysis of any version other than the original is a useless exercise.

The original tape is analogue - and therefore pure. Digitising requires sampling which by its very nature, omits parts of the analogue wave. We have no idea of the sampling resolution of the file used to store the digitial version of the sound and we don't know what generation of copy the released CD is.

It it absolutely POINTLESS to discuss the findings of any analysis which has not used the original, unadulterated, analogue recording.

The RST lash out that any analysis which is not done on the original ransom note is worthless. I say the same about the 911 tape.

 

[BlueCrab]

LE has possession of the original 911 tape. The final four seconds or so of that original tape was professionally enhanced by Aerospace Corporation and the voices of John, Patsy, and Burke are on it. I personally know BPD detectives have listened to it numerous times, and Burke's voice is on it.

The 911 tape places Burke not upstairs in his bedroom at 5:52 AM, but downstairs in the kitchen and proves the Ramseys were lying about events that had occurred that morning. Why lie to LE in the murder investigation of their own daughter? It suggest family complicity in the crime.

Burke's voice on the 911 tape destroys the credibility of everything else the Ramseys claim happened that morning.

BlueCrab