#0, John in Atlanta 3
Posted by jameson on Nov-01-03 at 10:55 PM
26
22 Q. Okay. Thank you. We received
23 from your lawyers in January of '97 two
24 black shirts which we received really
25 without -- 27
1 MR. BECKNER: January of '98.
2 MR. LEVIN: January of '98. I
3 am sorry.
4 Q. (By Mr. Levin) January of 1998.
5 It was in response to Boulder Police
6 Department's request for the shirt that you
7 are wearing in the photographs from Christmas
8 at the White's house. And they were given
9 to us without explanation of how they got
10 into their possession. I thought you could
11 explain that for us.
12 A. Well, I assume they were the
13 shirts that, when we were asked to provide
14 the clothing we had on that night before, we
15 couldn't remember. We asked for a picture
16 that was taken that night so we could
17 remember. As far as I know, those are the
18 only shirts that we sent.
19 Q. And that was in response to our
20 request --
21 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
22 Q. -- for the clothing that you were
23 wearing?
24 A. I suspect it was, yes.
25 Q. What I would like you, if you 28
1 recall, did you personally retrieve it, send
2 it off to your lawyers, and, if so, where
3 did you retrieve it from?
4 A. Gosh, I don't know. It would be
5 in December of '98, we were living in
6 Atlanta.
7 MR. TRUJILLO: Actually December
8 of '97.
9 MR. WOOD: I think the request
10 for the clothing was made in December of
11 '97, a year after the murder.
12 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, December
13 of '97, yeah, yeah.
14 MR. WOOD: And you turned it over
15 in January of '98.
16 MR. LEVIN: I believe that is
17 correct, sir.
18 THE WITNESS: We still lived in
19 Atlanta. So it was either in a box or in
20 my closet, I suppose.
21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Do you recall,
22 when, on September the 28th, when your
23 sister-in-law Pam went over to retrieve some
24 items for the family, was that among the
25 items that she took out of the house? 29
1 A. December?
2 Q. 28th, 1996. That Saturday
3 before -- that Saturday after the murder.
4 A. I don't know.
5 Q. So just so I am clear, your best
6 recollection is that that was an item that
7 was in the house that was packed up by the
8 movers that was sent off?
9 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
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 30
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. I am remembering the reason for the 2000 meetings - to go over new stuff - share information. Seems to me the Ramseys were being put on the grill instead. I don't know what I wore a month ago - let alone a year ago. I don't use the dry cleaner much but I couldn't go through my closet and say with certainty what clothes I washed and put away 2 or 3 weeks ago. How was John supposed to remember what happened in 1996, 1997, 1998 - - this was in 2000! The Ramseys sent it all in - - seems pretty cooperative to me.
#1, RE: John in Atlanta 3
Posted by jameson on Nov-01-03 at 11:02 PM
In response to message #0
30
17 Q. We have been provided, and again,
18 one of the sources of this information is
19 confidential grand jury material I can tell
20 you in the question, but we have been
21 provided information from two sources that
22 your son Burke, prior to the murder of your
23 daughter, owned and wore Hi-Tec boots that
24 had a compass on them, which makes them
25 distinctive. 31
1 Do you recall -- if you don't
2 recall that they actually were Hi-Tec, do you
3 remember Burke having boots that had a
4 compass on the laces?
5 A. Vaguely. I don't know if they
6 were boots or tennis shoes. My memory is
7 they were tennis shoes, but that is very
8 vague. He had boots that had lights on them
9 and all sorts of different things.
10 Q. But you do have some recollection
11 that he had some type of footwear that had
12 compasses attached to them?
13 A. I don't, I don't specifically
14 remember them, but my impression is that he
15 did, in my mind, yeah. But my impression
16 was that they were tennis shoes.
17 Q. Sneakers?
18 A. Sneakers. Yeah. Ask Burke if he
19 remembers it.
20 I said, ask Burke, perhaps he --
21 well, we could certainly ask Burke. Again, remember this was 2000 - close to 4 years after the murder. I don't know what happened in the GJ room - Burke and Fleet could have been confused... "Hi_Tec" or "high tech". John doesn't know if there were shoes with compasses on them, maybe sneakers... The Ramseys clearly were not prepared to deal with those questions - they were simply being honest and answering questions as they came up - - they didn't understand the interest in compasses in boots or shoes. No panic there. No lies.
#2, RE: John in Atlanta 3
Posted by jameson on Nov-01-03 at 11:04 PM
In response to message #1
31
22 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Mr. Ramsey, page
23 266 and 267 of your book, you quote a letter
24 you sent to Alex Hunter.
25 A. Okay. 32
1 Q. The last full paragraph of that,
2 finally I am willing, it's on 267, I am
3 willing and able to put up a substantial
4 reward, $1 million, through the help of
5 friends if this would help drive the
6 investigation.
7 Now, did you ever put up $1
8 million reward?
9 A. No. I was advised that it
10 wouldn't make any difference.
11 Q. Who was it that advised you of
12 that?
13 A. My attorneys. That $100,000 was
14 a significant amount of money. And I didn't
15 have a million dollars at that point. I
16 would have had to gone to friends for help.
17 And if it wasn't significant, I wasn't going
18 to approach my friends for that kind of
19 help.
20 Q. Did you talk to anybody else
21 about whether the amount of money offered
22 would have any bearing?
23 A. Well, I never got a response from
24 Alex on that, but I don't remember that I
25 did, no. 33
1 Q. Was there something about, in your
2 attorney's experience, that they cited --
3 MR. WOOD: I don't want to go
4 into anything further on that, about
5 attorneys. The things they cited to him,
6 would go into the privilege.
7 MR. KANE: Fine. No problem.
8 Q. (By Mr. Kane) What did you
9 think? What did your instinct tell you
10 about a million versus 100,000?
11 A. Well, in the beginning, I thought
12 that that would drive information. At the
13 beginning we couldn't get the police to even
14 acknowledge or participate in announcing a
15 reward. It was very frustrating.
16 And so we, you know --
17 Q. Do you have a reward outstanding
18 right now?
19 A. Yes. As far as I am concerned,
20 we do.
21 Q. I am sorry?
22 A. As far as I'm concerned, we do,
23 yeah.
24 Q. Is it publicized anywhere?
25 A. It is publicized on our internet 34
1 site, I believe.
2 Q. Who maintains that?
3 A. Ollie and I guess -- you can do
4 that yourself and have an internet service.
5 Q. You understand there is a reward
6 that is listed on your internet site?
7 A. (Witness nodded head
8 affirmatively).
9 Q. Is that that ramseyfamily.com?
10 A. It was originally. We changed
11 the number. I guess that is still how you
12 access it. I think you access it both ways,
13 don't you? Ramseyfamily.com, and we also set
14 up a JonBenetinfo@AOL.com.
15 Q. JonBenetinfo --
16 A. -- @AOL.com. That's not a
17 website.
18 Q. That is an e-mail?
19 A. Right. Someone care to explain to me how that discussion advances the investigation? For the record - I don't believe anyone is offering a reward at this time.
#3, RE: John in Atlanta 3
Posted by jameson on Nov-01-03 at 11:13 PM
In response to message #2
34
20 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, I know
21 that the -- it is my belief, I should say,
22 that the fact that certain people have
23 represented to you that there are stun gun
24 injuries to your daughter is a significant
25 fact. 35
1 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
2 Q. And I am curious, if you don't
3 mind, could you just tell us who has
4 provided you information in that regard that
5 has caused you to hold the belief that she
6 has suffered a stun gun injury?
7 MR. WOOD: That would be
8 information provided to him subsequent to
9 June of 1998?
10 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
11 MR. WOOD: Do you understand the
12 question, John? I know what you said in
13 June of 1998, but he is talking about since
14 the time of your last interviews. If you've
15 got anything else.
16 Let me ask him a question.
17 (Mr. Ramsey and his counsel
18 confer.)
19 THE WITNESS: We had, under
20 the -- kind of the direction of Pat Burke a
21 group of experts assembled to look at the
22 medical, from the scientific and medical
23 aspects of this, and that was one of the
24 things, I believe, that they looked at.
25 Q. (By Mr. Levin) That would be 36
1 Dr. Sperry?
2 A. Well, that would be one of the
3 names. There were two to three. I don't
4 remember the other names because I never met
5 them, but these are the people we offered to
6 have meet with you in January.
7 Q. Right, right. Were you provided
8 information from those folks that told you
9 that one of the things that they examined
10 were photographs of the reported stun gun
11 injuries, ask Mr. Sperry and his colleagues
12 if he had --
13 A. I don't, I don't remember what
14 they said, I guess. I never talked to him
15 directly. You know --
16 MR. WOOD: Bruce, as indicated
17 by your question, you all have now an
18 interest in the information from those
19 individuals and would like to reconsider the
20 request to meet with them which you earlier
21 rejected, again, I think I am pretty sure
22 that I can speak with Pat Burke and that
23 that can be done. As indicated by your
24 question, you are obviously interested in
25 what those people have to say, and we will 37
1 give them to you.
2 THE WITNESS: My position on stun
3 guns is that the people that have told me
4 that this was likely the case seemed pretty
5 qualified.
6 MR. LEVIN: But that, I am sorry,
7 Michael.
8 Q. (By Mr. Levin) But that, just a
9 follow up so I am clear, that information is
10 not from this group that was put together
11 after '98. That is some other individuals
12 that precede your June '98 interviews?
13 A. Well, the first time the stun gun
14 came up was in a meeting with Lou Schmidt
15 and Tom was there. I don't remember.
16 MR. WICKMAN: Pete Hoster?
17 MR. LEVIN: Ainesworth?
18 THE WITNESS: And he asked me to
19 keep it very confidential but did we have,
20 did we know anybody that owned a stun gun.
21 That is the first I heard about it. But
22 that was probably in '97.
23 MR. WICKMAN: Yeah.
24 Q. (By Mr. Levin) And since your
25 interviews in '98, there has been a passage 38
1 of a significant period of time, have you
2 come up with names of people you know that
3 have, that you were associated with, which
4 you know owned stun guns that were unfamiliar
5 with --
6 A. Not the -- I mean, my answer to
7 that back then was I don't know of anybody
8 that I know that owns a stun gun, and I
9 still don't. I mean, we have come up with
10 guys like Helgoth who we know owned the
11 brand that was a suspect, but --
12 MR. KANE: Let me follow up on
13 that.
14 Q. (By Mr. Kane) have you talked to
15 Lou Schmidt about the stun gun after he
16 resigned from the case?
17 MR. WOOD: After he resigned from
18 the case would have been?
19 MR. KANE: Would have been
20 September of 1998.
21 MR. LEVIN: '99?
22 MR. WOOD: '98.
23 MR. KANE: '98.
24 MR. LEVIN: '98.
25 THE WITNESS: Only, I think, that 39
1 he still believes it's very significant.
2 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Now, you said that
3 you hadn't talked to any of the experts that
4 had looked at it. What information did you
5 get, if any, from these people?
6 A. I think the most significant piece
7 of information, that they felt that the blow
8 to the head was after she had died or near
9 death.
10 Q. I am now talking about the stun
11 gun.
12 A. Oh, about the stun gun?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. I don't remember that they told
15 me anything about the stun gun that I didn't
16 already know, I mean, that I was aware of.
17 Q. What are you aware of, I guess,
18 is the question, about the stun gun?
19 A. Well, I was aware that it was
20 highly likely that one was used, which is a
21 very distressing fact. I learned, and I
22 think I heard this in the media, it might
23 have been Carol McCane, I don't remember,
24 said something about there were burn marks on
25 the tape. I don't know if that is true or 40
1 not.
2 Q. But you don't know of any experts
3 that say that?
4 THE WITNESS: No, I don't.
5 MR. WOOD: Because of what's
6 obviously of interest on your all's part, I
7 take it you would all be receptive with
8 meeting with them now? Are you interested
9 in hearing what they want to say? I assume
10 you would want us to arrange that, Bruce?
11 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
12 something we can talk about. There are
13 issues are surrounding those people that
14 isn't germane to our talking to Mr. Ramsey
15 at this time that maybe you and I can talk
16 about in the future.
As far as I know, Kane and Company never met with the experts who did this work.... I think they didn't want to know. They seemed interested in getting certain statements that could be twisted - JMO. Comments?
I am going to go to bed now and will do more tomorrow - first John then Patsy - let everyone see what happened in those 2000 interviews. Let everyone see that the BPD had plenty of work to do, plenty of opportunities to do more with the Ramseys. I am so glad the case is not in their hands now. (If people aren't interested in discussing this - - if the threads aren't active, I won't bother, so please, let us know what you think. Make the threads productive. The forum is only as good as the participants - - so be good!)
#4, RE: John in Atlanta 3
Posted by Margoo on Nov-02-03 at 03:17 AM
In response to message #3
Thank you - once again - for going to the trouble of posting this transcript. While I don't have a whole lot to say (YET), I do appreciate the information.So far, it looks to me like there was a whole load of information in the 50-page document for the BPD to follow up. Did they do anything? I don't think they did much of anything after the 1999 GJ disbanded. Kane's remarks - right off the bat - regarding an Intruder's best defense being that John did it says it all as far as Kane's interest in what the Ramseys were bringing to the table. He kicks off the whole deal by basically saying that no matter what the Ramseys' team of investigators have found, the case will roll back around to the question of Ramsey guilt. His line of questioning further bears that out. The case was far from solved; no Ramsey was found to be an indictable "ham sandwich" and yet he wants to stick to the old, worn out path. Sore loser, I think.
#5, Obviously the fibers from the
Posted by Maikai on Nov-02-03 at 08:26 AM
In response to message #4
black sweaters didn't match anything, or Kane wouldn't have been hammering away at that. It's hard to believe that the BPD would throw away all the leads the Ramsey's investigators came up with. And why was Kane running things, anyway? By that time he was pretty much out of the picture, wasn't he?
#6, RE: Obviously the fibers from the
Posted by Mikie on Nov-02-03 at 09:06 AM
In response to message #5
Kane is one of the conspiracy group which is trying to protect the real killer, in my opinion, by focusing on the Ramseys. There is no attempt to investigate anything which leads in any direction except in the one-track mind, predetermined direction. (Bat is Burkes, shoes are Burkes, fibers were Johns, etc.) This stuff makes me wqant to vomit. But please do put it up, I'll try to read it even though I think it is not going to reveal anything useful towards finding JonBenet's killer.One thought: Maybe there SHOULD be a reward fund. I know the Ramseys have some kind of a non-profit fund linked to their book sales that raises money for child murders, but perhaps someone who cares should start a fund that public could mail money to. On the Cecilia Zhang case, the police put up $50k, the parents $20k, and local Toronto Chinese community $15k, for a now $85k reward fund for information leading to her safe return. There is also talk that the community might raise money for a ransom if it is ever requested. Surely there are people out there who would like to see JonBenet's killer arrested.
#7, Problem with a reward is
Posted by Maikai on Nov-02-03 at 09:35 AM
In response to message #6
every kook will come out of the woodwork, offering leads that go nowhere, wasting a lot of time investigating them. There were plenty of leads in the beginning that weren't investigated. I think those could be very relevant---the ones that were called in soon after the crime.
#8, Shirts, shoes, rewards ...
Posted by DonBradley on Nov-02-03 at 01:22 PM
In response to message #7
It seems they are very interested in building an exact paper trail for shirts they asked for a year after the murder but don't show anywhere near such thoroughness in any other matter that is not designed to implicate the Ramseys.Shoes: Apparently, John Ramsey, like most fathers, has only a vague awareness about his son's shoes but seems to think that he had footwear than had all sorts of stuff on it: lights, compasses, etc.
Query: would you ever refer to this type of footwear as 'hi tech'? Would a nine year old? Particularly if that was a term used by the interogator and the nine year old was merely assenting to it? Rewards: It is well known that not only would a higher award have been unnecessary and useless, it would have been counterproductive. All LE personnel advise a modest award so as to keep as many of the nutcases who have nothing to contribute from thinking that inventing some weird tip is going to be easier than buying a lottery ticket. I'm not saying that I would necessarily have been suspicous if the Ramseys had posted a million dollar reward, but I would certainly think they had been ill-advised and that the reward was slowing the progress of the investigation by generating false leads.
#9, RE: Shirts, shoes, rewards ...
Posted by Margoo on Nov-02-03 at 01:56 PM
In response to message #8
LAST EDITED ON Nov-02-03 AT 01:57 PM (EST)
The Ramseys sent it all in - - seems pretty cooperative to me.
While so many have been critical towards the Ramseys regarding the clothing, what I read here is that it took the BPD ONE YEAR to ask for the clothing and a MONTH (or less) for the Ramseys to get the clothing to them. Further, with the question of "which" black shirt John might have been wearing, he sends them BOTH shirts!! Sounds to me like someone who is trying to PROVIDE assistance, not someone who is trying to obstruct.
#10, RE: Shirts, shoes, rewards ...
Posted by Margoo on Nov-02-03 at 02:05 PM
In response to message #9
17 Q. What are you aware of, I guess,
18 is the question, about the stun gun?
19 A. Well, I was aware that it was
20 highly likely that one was used, which is a
21 very distressing fact. I learned, and I
22 think I heard this in the media, it might
23 have been Carol McCane, I don't remember,
24 said something about there were burn marks on
25 the tape. I don't know if that is true or40
1 not.
2 Q. But you don't know of any experts
3 that say that?
4 THE WITNESS: No, I don't.
5 MR. WOOD: Because of what's
6 obviously of interest on your all's part, I
7 take it you would all be receptive with
8 meeting with them now? Are you interested
9 in hearing what they want to say? I assume
10 you would want us to arrange that, Bruce?
11 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
12 something we can talk about. There are
13 issues are surrounding those people that
14 isn't germane to our talking to Mr. Ramsey
15 at this time that maybe you and I can talk
16 about in the future.
Did they ever get together to discuss the stun gun tests and results?
#11, RE: Shirts, shoes, rewards ...
Posted by Mikie on Nov-02-03 at 02:21 PM
In response to message #10
Burn marks on the tape, that's a new one on me.
#12, RE: Shirts, shoes, rewards ...
Posted by jameson on Nov-02-03 at 05:11 PM
In response to message #11
>Burn marks on the tape, that's a new one on me. Not new to me. The thought is that one of the stun gun prongs actually landed on the tape and left the lesser mark on JonBenét's face - remember there was a white bit on her face at the house, it was gone when she got to the morgue - some think that was from the tape....
#13, RE: Shirts, shoes, rewards ...
Posted by Mikie on Nov-02-03 at 06:07 PM
In response to message #12
Why would anyone who knew, (about that burn on the tape), question the stun gun at all? Isn't the tape kept as evidence? Surely the tape could be used to verify stun gun, could it not?
#14, Stun gun the tape?
Posted by DonBradley on Nov-02-03 at 06:39 PM
In response to message #12
I wonder about stun guning the tape?
In order for that to happen, the tape would have to have been in place when the stun gun was used. So the pleasure of her screams was not one of the rewards of the stun gun application.
So what was the purpose?
To leave marks on her body which would haunt the parents even more?
#15, RE: Stun gun the tape?
Posted by jameson on Nov-02-03 at 06:52 PM
In response to message #14
Once bound and gagged, perhaps he would stun her so she could be carried out with no struggle?
#16, RE: Stun gun the tape?
Posted by DonBradley on Nov-02-03 at 08:08 PM
In response to message #15
>Once bound and gagged, perhaps he would stun her
>so she could be carried out with no struggle? Once bound and gagged, how is a 45 pound, six year old girl who may not even yet have fully awakened going to struggle against a grown man? If bound and gagged in the bedroom, a stun gun might be 'fun' but it would also be noisy. Perhaps not a great deal of noise, but more than would be wise to make under those circumstances. I'm thinking more that the bound, gagged and stun gunned took place in the basement, or atleast the stun gun use did. If she was gagged at the time, then the stun gun was not for the pleasure of hearing her cry.
#17, Cord fibers were found in the
Posted by Maikai on Nov-02-03 at 11:32 PM
In response to message #16
bed. It makes sense that the tape would have been applied at the same time, to keep her from crying out. She would have woken up---so stun gunning at least once while she was in her bedroom makes sense, too, as she started to struggle. Lou Smit theorized at one time that her ankles may have been tied.....and that was the cord used for the garotte in the basement. The garotte could have been used as a leash---to keep her from running away. I think it's possible she was subdued in her bed----rather than risk her waking up and squirming away--or yelling out.
#18, Subduing a 45 pound little girl?
Posted by Maikai on Nov-02-03 at 11:36 PM
In response to message #17
That's where I think it went wrong--he underestimated how hard it could be to subdue a small struggling child, and either panicked or got angry and struck out to the point of overkill.
#20, RE: Subduing a 45 pound little girl?
Posted by Margoo on Nov-02-03 at 11:55 PM
In response to message #18
LAST EDITED ON Nov-02-03 AT 11:59 PM (EST)
forgeddaboudid.
#19, RE: Duct tape's purpose unclear
Posted by Margoo on Nov-02-03 at 11:46 PM
In response to message #17
Wasn't it pretty well established that the duct tape would not have stifled anything? That it would not have been difficult to remove it by simply applying the power of opening the jaw? Also, if there was no tongue imprint on the tape (or is that a myth), there was no ATTEMPT to even TRY to get the duct tape off (by working the mouth or jaw).
#21, RE: Duct tape's purpose unclear
Posted by Rainsong on Nov-03-03 at 07:30 AM
In response to message #19
Much has been said about the length of the duct tape and its inability to stifle a child. One problem I see with this is, I believe, people are not taking into consideration the much smaller surface area of a child's face. A six inch length of tape would never work with an adult, but would be sufficient over a child's mouth as it would probably extend the full width of the face. I've also wondered about the lack of tongue impression. Would a frightened child make the attempt? Would her thought processes be at a level where she was capable of thinking of removing the tape? If she had been stungunned, I doubt it. I don't think the tongue thing is a basic instinct of our species so it would take thought to decide sticking your tongue out might remove the offending tape. Rainsong
#22, as far as I can tell
Posted by jameson on Nov-03-03 at 08:47 AM
In response to message #21
As far as I can tell, Kane and Company never got together with the Ramseys or their representatives to share, never made a sincere effort to sit with the Ramsey "experts" to get their views.That is a big reason the DA was justified in removing the case from that group - - thank goodness it is now in the hands of a special investigator and a new team.
#23, jonbenetinfo@aol.com
Posted by Mikie on Nov-03-03 at 02:59 PM
In response to message #22
LAST EDITED ON Nov-03-03 AT 03:04 PM (EST)
I see that email address is no longer functioning. I wonder, is there any way to email the Ramseys today?
Their website is "under construction". They have no tip line. They offer no reward. Hmm?
#24, RE: jonbenetinfo@aol.com
Posted by jameson on Nov-03-03 at 10:26 PM
In response to message #23
The Ramseys have chosen not to be readily accessible to the public - and who could blame them?
#25, RE: jonbenetinfo@aol.com
Posted by jameson on Nov-04-03 at 08:12 AM
In response to message #24
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.
If the authorities have a labratory analysis of those fibers, why not share - - are they wool? Exactly what color are they?
Again - were K&C there to brainstorm? Can't see anything like that here - - they were most definitely not playing nice with the Ramseys.
#26, RE: jonbenetinfo@aol.com
Posted by one_eyed Jack on Nov-04-03 at 07:09 PM
In response to message #25
>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.
>
>
>If the authorities have a labratory analysis of those
>fibers, why not share - - are they wool? Exactly what color
>are they? Makes me wonder if the fibers they did find were from something that had been dry-cleaned.
|