Sunday, January 19, 2014

Statement Analysis: Ramsey Deposition Part One


Did Patsy write the book that bears her name as author?

This is statement analysis of the deposition, with analysis in bold type.

A. Good morning.  You just heard your attorney explain,  basically, the claims in this action. Is there
 anything that you need clarified with respect to  what he said before we go forward?

 MR. WOOD: I don't think she can  answer that question.

 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. I just want to give her the opportunity to --

 MR. WOOD: We would have to send her to law school and let her go 24 years of  practice before we would ask her if she could  understand anything I might say.

One might consider the narcissistic nature of this statement.  Always note the importance of going from "we" to the strong, "I".  Not only would she need to go to law school to "understand" anything that Mr. Lin Wood might say, she would also need to have 24 years of practice.  

This is what Alex Hunter was up against and what he could have used in a battle for justice, rather than cave in and refuse to sign the Grand Jury's indictment. 


 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, I believe that you were the coauthor on a book  called "the Death of Innocence"; is that correct?

 A. Yes, sir.

 Q. And I would just like to ask you, in  your own words, though I know there is discussion in the book, why it is that you wrote the book  "Death of Innocence"?


Simply, Why did you write the book?  The expected answer may be about being falsely accused.  Please now note that the subject of the interview, Patsy Ramsey, had the knowledge that she was indicted of death by child abuse for her daughter, Jonbenet.  At the time of this interview, the public did not know this.  You may read the indictment HERE.

Having been indicted for child abuse causing the death, as well as covering up and hindering the investigation, the expected reason is to say "Because I did not kill my daughter" or "I did not abuse my daughter" or "I did not cause her death..." and so on.  The question is directed to Patsy, herself.  

 A. My husband and I wrote the book so  that we could make sure that the truth was presented accurately from our own hearts and lips.

Rather than a denial of what she had been indicted for, she turns to the plural, "My husband and I" and stated that they wrote the book so that "the truth was presented accurately"; begging the question, "Can the truth be portrayed inaccurately?"   Note also that the portrayal of the truth accurately comes from their own "heart" and "lips."


 Q. Were there any other reasons?
A. No, sir.

 Q. I am going to -- there is a reference on page 408 of your book. I am going to show that to Mr. Lin first.

MR. WOOD: Do you want to mark this?

 MR. HOFFMAN: No. I just simply  want to refresh her memory with respect to that.

 MR. WOOD: This is page 408 of the paperback?

MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, with respect to the paperback.

 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Where there is --

MR. WOOD: Are you asking her to look at the highlighted portion?

 MR. HOFFMAN: The highlighted portion there, just to refresh her memory with respect to maybe another reason why the book was written.

 MR. WOOD: You are not representing that this paragraph talks about why the book was written?

 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, it is one of the express reasons for going into the material that was gone into there with the hope that the killer will be caught; the truth being that the Ramseys,  contrary to media reports, were not responsible  for their daughter's death, and that this book, in fact, not only shows that, but also the book  contains a chapter on the murderer, meaning that there is a profile of the potential murderer. And I wanted to know from Mrs. Ramsey whether the purpose of the book was something more than just a general, you wanted the truth out.

 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Was the purpose of  the book also to present information to the  public who might then be able to come forward as to who the murderer was in this particular case?

 MR. WOOD: That doesn't have anything to do with page 408.
 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, it is mentioned  there. That is one of the stated goals.

 MR. WOOD: We may just be parsing words. This talks about their goals, bringing the  killer to justice.

 MR. HOFFMAN: Right.
 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Was this part of your goal?
 MR. WOOD: Was the book consistent  with part of your goals? I think that is a  fair question.

 THE WITNESS: So could you repeat the  question?

 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) You will be asking me to do a lot of that today. Believe me. Was one of the goals of writing the book to help in the solution of this crime, identifying the possible murderer; meaning that if you put this information before the public, that maybe someone would have information that could then come forward --

 MR. WOOD: Objection.

 MR. HOFFMAN: You object?

 MR. WOOD: I object to the form of the question, but go ahead and finish. I thought you were through.

 MR. HOFFMAN: I would like Mrs. Ramsey to explain whether or not that was part of the goal of the book was basically to assist in finding the killer of JonBenet Ramsey.

This would be a very strong motive for writing the book, one might think in an unsolved murder. 

THE WITNESS: Well, I believe there  was a section of the book that talks about the profile of the killer, as we have been told about  him. So that information, yes, was included in
 the book to be brought forth to the public in the event that that would assist in someone remembering things that would lead us to leads  that would lead us to the killer.

Note that the subject only "believes", with reduced commitment, that there is a section of the book she wrote, that has a profile of the "murderer."  If you were the parent of a murdered child, and wrote a book about your daughter's murder, would you forget or be uncertain about the inclusion of a profile of the "murderer"?  This is not credible.


 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) So would it be fair to say that the purpose of the book was to do something other than just simply tell the truth about the case, that there was -- that you were trying to assist the investigation in some way by including certain information in the book, such as the profile of the murderer?

 A. The reason that I wrote the book is so that there is in one place, in black and white, an accurate account of what happened. I mean, when I was writing it, I was thinking of my children and my grandchildren. There are so many stories out there that are false and misleading and untrue, I wanted -- you know, I was thinking of this as a historical document to give to my children.

Note that there are "so many stories" that are:

1.  False
2.  Misleading
3.  Untrue


 Q. Could you explain, to the best that you remember, the process by which you wrote the  book? I mean, did you sit down with a pen and  pad or did you use a Dictaphone? How was the book written, given that both you and John are  listed as authors, the actual writing process?

Note the word "listed" in "listed as authors" as the Interviewer already has raised doubt about true authorship.  

 MR. WOOD: I object to the form of  the question. You may answer the question, if you understand it. The problem is you kind of sometimes  ask two or three questions within one.

Wood will object often.  Here, he objects to compound questions.  

 MR. HOFFMAN: I understand.
MR. WOOD: I want her to be clear on  exactly what the question is. I think, correct me if I am wrong, I think he is trying to find out whether you actually physically typed on a computer, dictated into a tape, made handwritten notes  Is that what you are asking?

Note that Wood does not boil it down to a simple question. 


 MR. HOFFMAN: Exactly.
 MR. WOOD: Do you understand that?

 THE WITNESS: I think we did some of  all of that.

 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Did you and Mr. Ramsey sit physically together and write the book, or did you write it in separate, you know, environments, meaning you are in one part of the  house and he is in another part? Did you compose it that way?

In picturing two authors, the question seeks clarity.  

 A. Some of all of that. We were living  in an apartment at the time, so it was a small living space. So we were --

 Q. At some point, I believe there was -- well, I will withdraw that question. Did anyone else assist you in writing the book?

This is where he was going:  the belief that the book was not written entirely by the Ramseys.  Is it possible that a manuscript went to publication without being edited by Lin Wood?

 A. We had an editor that was provided by  the publisher and a ghost writer, if you want to call it that, who helped us with some of the structure and organization.

Here she brings in two others:  an editor, and then a ghost writer.  To answer the question, "Did anyone else assist you in writing the book?", she did not answer "yes" but mentioned the editor first, and then the ghost writer, which answers the question in the affirmative.  Since she avoided directly saying "yes", the question about someone else writing the book should be considered "sensitive" to Patsy Ramsey.  

 Q. Who is the ghost writer?
 A. I think his name is in the book there somewhere. Let's see. Oh, Robert Wise,  Reverend Robert Wise.

Note again the lack of familiarity with what is in the book.
Note the name is given, and then it is given with a title. 

 Q. When you looked at the final manuscript of the book, was it very different  from what you had originally prepared and given to Mr. Wise, or Reverend Wise?

MR. WOOD: Are you assuming they prepared a manuscript and gave to it Wise and
 then got back a manuscript?

 MR. HOFFMAN: At some point, I am assuming that their work product was turned into a manuscript of some sort and that Mr. Wise worked with it in some way.


 MR. WOOD: Well, I am not sure that is right. It may have been given to him  piecemeal, Darnay. I think you need to figure that out first.

Wood is going to make it as difficult as possible for the flow of information to continue.  This is a technique designed to frustrate the Interviewer, and draw out long hours on minor or inconsequential points, exhausting the resolve of the Interviewer.  


 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I will withdraw  that question and ask you very simply, explain exactly how you worked with Reverend Wise on writing the book.

If he had been working with someone who wanted the information to flow, asking Patsy to explain would have made things easy, but with her resistance, the information will be sparse. 


 A. Well, he would sit, and we would talk. I had some things that I had written, and sometimes he would ask questions about things. It was kind of a back and forth. Sometimes he would take something I had written and edit, and then would -- I mean, it was kind of an evolving process.

The information is sparse. 

Note that she tells us the ghost writer's body posture:  "sit"; indicating that there is an increase in tension for the subject at this point.  She did not write the book, rather she only "had some things written" instead. 

From the perspective of Statement Analysis:

There would be no way that the Ramsey attorneys would allow either of them to "sit down and write" out what happened that morning.  

This would have been an excellent technique to use on the morning of the 911 call, while they were "waiting" for the "ransom" call:  

Ask John and Patsy Ramsey to sit in different rooms and write out "What Happened" which would have yielded much information. 

Remember:  even when people are writing and deceptive, it is in the will to deceive that we find deception and the very words they employ are often helpful in learning the truth.  

It is very difficult to believe that much was committed to writing by either of the Ramseys knowing the attorneys they had, and that they were indicted. 



 Q. Did he use a tape recorder to tape  any of the things you were saying?

 A. I believe so, yes.

 Q. Did you give him written notes to look at?

 A. I can't remember exactly. I don't --

 Q. Did you prepare notes for the book,  written notes?

 A. Yes. Sometimes -- I mean, I had some things I had written and some things we  just talked about.

.Q.  Did you keep copies of your notes?

Herein would be the treasure of information.  


 A. No, I did not.

 Q. Do you know what happened to your  notes?

A. They were thrown away as I finished with that part of the writing.


"They were thrown away" is passive.  Passivity in language is used to conceal responsibility or identity.  Notes just don't get "thrown away"; someone throws them away.  That she avoids saying "I threw them away", the reader should note that the notes are sensitive to Patsy Ramsey.  The Interviewer caught the passivity:  

 Q. You threw them away?
 A. Yes.

 Q. Were you shown a copy of what we would call the rough draft of the book before it  was sent to the publisher?

 A. There were many drafts, yes, that we would keep reviewing.


 Q. Who would prepare the drafts?

 A. A typist, I think, or the editor,

Thus far we have John Ramsey as author, Patsy Ramsey as author, another editor, a ghost writer, and now a "typist" is added.  

 perhaps. She kept a main manuscript going.

Q. A main file?
 A. I am not sure how she did it, but she would keep it.

She understands that the Interviewer would like to see a copy.  

  Were you given an opportunity to review the final manuscript before it was sent to
 the publisher?

 A. I believe so. I believe so.

Weak commitment, repeated, making it very sensitive to her.   As an author of a book, would you not know if you received a final manuscript for approval?  This is a strong indicator that Patsy Ramsey did not write the book.  


 Q. Do you remember reviewing?

The Interviewer does not believe her weak assertion.  

Dishonest people use a high percentage of qualifiers in speech:  


 A. Not specifically. I mean, there were so many iterations, I can't remember exactly which.

noting her qualifying response, he asked a direct question: 

 Q. When was the first time you had an opportunity to read the book from beginning to end as it was published?

 MR. WOOD: After it was published?

Wood wants it to be after the public had received it. 

MR. HOFFMAN: In the form in which  it was published.

 MR. WOOD: Like the galleys?

Wood is skillfully running interference.  We will always note what topics necessitate interference as sensitive.  

 MR. HOFFMAN: It could have been a galley. I don't know at what point --

 THE WITNESS: You mean the hardback book?

Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) The hardback book, yes.

 A. Probably when it was completely published in March of 2000.

"probably" reduces commitment and "completely" seeks to avoid responsibility for the actual manuscript.  This is another indiction that she is not the author.  


 Q. Did you see anything that looked like what they call galleys?

 A. I don't think I saw galleys.

Qualifiers keep subjects from being called "liars" after truth is revealed.  

 Q. So the first time you actually were able to read the book, then, is when it appeared in hard cover in the actual bound, hard-covered issue?

almost incredulous that he cannot get a simple answer, he sums it up

 A. Well, I read the manuscript. I don't  know if you call that the book.

This is what the Interviewer has been trying to learn so that he can hold her accountable.  

 Q. So there was a manuscript, a completed manuscript that you were able to read before it  was sent to the printer; is that correct?

He acknowledges her answer, which is in the sound of an admission and seeks to hold her to it.  Note, yet again, the need to qualify:  

 A. I believe so.

Instead of "yes", she relies heavily on qualifiers.  

 Q. Did you review it?

 A. I believe I did.

By stating that she "believes" she did, she allows for others to believe otherwise, just as she might "change" her "belief."  This is used to avoid committing to an answer. 

As the author of a book, it is expected that the manuscript, written by you, is read by you.  But this becomes even more important with co writers, and even more important when co writers use a ghost writer, an editor, and a typist.  Very little progress has been made thus far due to the stalling tactics.  

Note that "well" is a pause, indicating a need to think about her answer first. 

End of Part One 


 Q. And did you look at portions of it in terms of statements that were accurate or not accurate?

 A. Well, I primarily -- the way the book is written, I speak, John speaks, I speak, John speaks. And I was mainly concentrating on what I had put in the book.

16 Q. Do you remember, in the book, whether
17 or not there is a theory of the crime that was
18 -- as you believed it may have been committed
19 talked about in the book, written about?
20 A. I am not sure what you mean.
21 Q. The book contains a theory of the
22 crime. Do you remember what the theory of the
23 crime was in the book?
24 MR. WOOD: Why don't you show her
25 what you are talking about in the book.

Page 24
1 THE WITNESS: I mean, the whole book
2 is --
3 MR. WOOD: There may be a number of
4 different theories that are discussed in whole or
5 in part.
6 MR. HOFFMAN: I just want to see
7 what she remembers.
8 MR. WOOD: We are not here to engage
9 in a memory contest about what is or is not in
10 the book. If you have a question about something
11 that is in the book, I think, fairly, you are
12 required to put it in front of her, give her the
13 opportunity to look at it, put it into context,
14 and then respond to your question.
15 So if there is something in the book,
16 be it theory or whatever, show her what you want
17 her to look at, and she will be glad to answer
18 your question.
19 MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to test her
20 memory right now.
21 MR. WOOD: We are not going to
22 engage in a memory contest of what is in the
23 book.
24 MR. HOFFMAN: It is not a memory
25 contest. I have a right to see what, if

Page 25
1 anything, Mrs. Ramsey currently remembers about
2 the theory of the crime.
3 MR. WOOD: That is a different
4 question. You are asking her about what is in the
5 book, and she is entitled, and you know she is
6 entitled, to see what you are referencing in the
7 book, put it into context, and then answer your
8 question.
9 MR. HOFFMAN: Mrs. Ramsey, I am going
10 to withdraw the question.
11 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I would like you
12 to tell me what, if anything, you can remember
13 about the theory of the crime that you may have
14 developed over time.
15 A. Someone was in our home the night of
16 December 25th and murdered our daughter while we
17 slept.
18 Q. Is there anything more about that
19 theory that you remember or have developed?
20 A. Well, that is basically it. There
21 was someone who is not a member of our family in
22 our home that night, took JonBenet from her bed,
23 and murdered her.
24 Q. With respect to that theory of the
25 crime, is there anything else that you can

Page 26
1 remember about it?
2 MR. WOOD: What do you mean is there
3 anything else she can remember about it?
4 MR. HOFFMAN: Remember about that
5 night as far as it leading to developing that
6 theory.
7 MR. WOOD: I am going to have to --
8 that is a question that is either so vague or so
9 broad -- you are asking her now to say, is there
10 anything she can remember about that night that
11 would lead to her developing that theory?
12 Why don't you ask her a specific
13 question, Darnay. That is too broad and too
14 vague.
15 MR. HOFFMAN: All right.
16 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) What is it about
17 the events of that evening and the next day that
18 has led you to this theory of the crime?
19 A. I found a ransom note. I found my
20 daughter missing from her bedroom. And several
21 hours later, our daughter was found dead in our
22 home. That is pretty clear to make one draw the
23 conclusion that someone came into our home and
24 murdered her.
25 Q. And you don't feel it was a member

Page 27
1 of your own family; is that correct?
2 A. No, sir.
3 MR. WOOD: I think your answer is
4 really "yes, sir." "Is that correct" would
5 require a "yes" response, so that the record is
6 clear.
7 Don't we agree, Darnay?
8 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, that is fine.
9 THE WITNESS: It was not a member of
10 my family.
11 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I am going to take
12 just a short break because I am going to go into
13 another area. I just wanted to sort of generally
14 establish it. So let's take a one- or two-minute
15 break. I know people can't hop up or whatever.
16 MR. WOOD: We don't mind moving.
17 MR. HOFFMAN: No need to. Just a
18 natural break.
19 MR. WOOD: Off the video, too?
20 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes.
21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the
22 video record at 9:39.
23 (A recess was taken.)
24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the
25 video record at 9:49.

Page 28
1 MR. HOFFMAN: Mrs. Ramsey, Lin, I
2 want to proceed when you are ready.
3 MR. WOOD: Absolutely. Go right
4 ahead.
5 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Okay. Mrs. Ramsey,
6 I would like you to look at page 407 of the
7 paperback edition of your book, "the Death of
8 Innocence." I have highlighted a section I would
9 like you to read, which begins number 4 and then,
10 "The ransom note."
11 Could you read that, please, for the
12 record.
13 A. "4. The ransom note. Considered
14 earlier and throughout the book, the note was
15 written by the killer and remains an extremely
16 important clue. An adequate amount of handwriting
17 samples from the killer should conclusively tie
18 him to the long and rambling note."
19 Q. Mrs. Ramsey, do you still agree with
20 that statement?
21 A. I am not sure which statement.
22 Q. The statement you just read in your
23 book, do you still agree with it?
24 A. Well, it is my belief that whoever
25 wrote the ransom note probably had something to

Page 29
1 do with her murder. Is that what you are asking
2 me?
3 Q. Yes, I am. I just want to know --
4 I know this book was written a couple of years
5 ago, and I just want to determine whether it is
6 still your belief, that this statement is still
7 your belief, that you believe this statement to
8 be true today?
9 A. Yes, I believe that. Yes, I believe
10 that.
11 Q. Now I would like you to turn to page
12 145 of "the Death of Innocence," the paperback
13 edition of it, and I would like you to please
14 read out loud starting where it is highlighted "A
15 week and a half after the first of February."
16 If you could, read that, please.
17 A. "A week and a half after the first
18 of February, the Denver Post ran an interesting
19 observation on the handwritten ransom note that
20 Douglas had spoken about on Dateline. The paper
21 said: 'Leaving a handwritten document at the
22 scene of the crime, in most cases, is tantamount
23 to leaving one's calling card. Bradley and other
24 forensic document examiners say that it is nearly
25 impossible for a person to disguise handwriting so

Page 30
1 that an expert can't link a suspect to a
2 document, such as the note found in the Ramsey
3 home. The older a person is, the more automatic
4 and difficult it becomes to conceal the clues.
5 And the longer a document is, the harder it
6 becomes to disguise one's writing.'"
7 Q. Thank you. Do you agree with that
8 statement?
9 MR. WOOD: For clarification, does she
10 agree that that is what the Denver Post said, or
11 are you asking her --
12 MR. HOFFMAN: I am not asking her if
13 that is what the Denver Post said because they
14 are indicating in the book.
15 MR. WOOD: Right.
16 MR. HOFFMAN: I just want to know if
17 she agrees -- just because the statement is in
18 here doesn't necessarily mean she agrees with it.
19 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I would just like,
20 for clarification, do you agree with that
21 statement?
22 MR. WOOD: Or has any understanding
23 of who Bradley is, for example.
24 MR. HOFFMAN: I am not really
25 concerned whether she knows who Bradley is. I

Page 31
1 just want to know if she agrees with the
2 statement that "leaving a handwritten document at
3 the scene of the crime in most cases is
4 tantamount to leaving one's calling card." And
5 also, the --
6 MR. WOOD: Do them one at a time.
7 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Start with that.
8 Do you agree with that statement?
9 A. Well, I have been told that this is
10 the ransom note of ransom notes, the longest that
11 people have ever seen, and that it is a lot of
12 information for discovering someone's handwriting,
13 so I don't know if it "is tantamount to leaving
14 a calling card."
15 Q. I was wondering why you had put this
16 statement in this book, if you don't agree with
17 it?
18 A. I didn't say I didn't agree with it.
19 MR. WOOD: I am not sure that is her
20 statement. Again, going back, looking in context
21 to who writes this.
22 THE WITNESS: This was something that
23 was in the newspaper.
24 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I know, but it was
25 included in the book for some purpose, and I am

Page 32
1 assuming, reading it -- and I don't want to make
2 an assumption, but I can only assume reading it
3 that it is put here because you agree with the
4 basic premise of the article, or at least the
5 basic premise of the section that is excerpted
6 for this.
7 MR. WOOD: What is the question?
8 MR. HOFFMAN: I just want to know if
9 she agrees with the first sentence, "Leaving a
10 handwriting document at the scene of the crime in
11 most cases is tantamount to leaving one's calling
12 card."
13 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Do you agree with
14 that statement?
15 MR. WOOD: With all due respect, I
16 think she has given you an answer to that exact
17 question.
18 MR. HOFFMAN: I wasn't certain that
19 she had.
20 MR. WOOD: Let me make sure. I
21 don't want you to not get an answer.
22 MR. HOFFMAN: I mean, it would be
23 consistent with the earlier statement on page 407
24 about "an extremely important clue."
25 MR. WOOD: I thought she did answer

Page 33
1 that. She said: "I had been told that this is
2 the ransom note of ransom notes, the longest that
3 people have seen, that it is a lot of information
4 for discovering someone's handwriting, so I don't
5 know if it is tantamount to leaving a calling
6 card." I mean, that is what she said.
7 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, if she could say
8 yes or no, it would be very helpful.
9 MR. WOOD: That would be, but it
10 would only be if it were the only answer she
11 could give. I think she is entitled to give you
12 her full answer, including an explanation.
13 I think she told you she doesn't
14 disagree with it, but the use of the phrase
15 "leaving a calling card" she is not in the
16 position to comment on.
17 THE WITNESS: A calling card would
18 have been better because it would have had the
19 person's name, address, and phone number.
20 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I was curious as
21 to why this had been put in the book, if you
22 remember. Do you know why this statement was
23 included in the book, the one you just read,
24 "Leaving a handwritten document at the scene of a
25 crime"?

Page 34
1 A. Well, I don't remember exactly. It
2 has been a couple of years.
3 Q. If you remember.
4 A. Well, I don't remember exactly why we
5 put it in here. I believe this is a section
6 that John wrote, so you might want to ask him
7 that.
8 Q. Were you ever asked to give
9 handwriting exemplars at any time by anyone after
10 your daughter's death?
11 A. Yes, I was.
12 Q. Can you tell me who asked you to do
13 that, not violating any attorney-client privilege?
14 A. The Boulder Police Department.
15 Q. Did anyone else ask you to give
16 handwriting exemplars besides the Boulder Police
17 Department?
18 A. I gave several of them. I believe
19 it all had to do with the Boulder Police
20 Department. Whether it was the CBI or --
21 Q. But nobody other than law enforcement
22 asked you to give them handwriting exemplars; is
23 that true?
24 A. I don't remember anyone else asking
25 me.

Page 35
1 Q. I just want to clarify. Do you
2 remember how many times you were asked to give
3 handwriting exemplars by the law enforcement
4 people, authorities? And I am assuming it is in
5 Colorado.
6 A. Yes. I -- five or six, I think.
7 Something like that.
8 Q. In the back of the book, Appendix A,
9 page 428 -- actually, you can identify it as 429.
10 It doesn't have 428 in the upper left-hand
11 corner. It is called "A Chronicle of Cooperation."
12 The paragraph that is second from the bottom,
13 there is an indication when handwriting samples
14 were given by John, and there are dates, and then
15 Patsy, and there are dates, and then Burke, and
16 there are dates.
17 Would you just review that and see if
18 that refreshes your recollection with respect to
19 the dates? Are those dates accurate or
20 substantially accurate, if you can remember?
21 A. I am sure they probably are.
22 Q. And I am counting them. There is a
23 date "December 28, January 4, February 28, April
24 12, and May 20." That is one, two, three, four
25 -- it looks like five.

Page 36
1 Is that what you remember --
2 A. That seems to be fairly --
3 Q. -- as to the number of times?
4 A. -- fairly accurate, yes.
5 Q. Were you ever given an explanation by
6 law enforcement authorities as to why they were
7 asking you to come in so many times to give
8 exemplars, why they needed you to give exemplars
9 over a period of five different dates?
10 A. I don't remember them really saying
11 why they needed more.
12 Q. Did anyone else, without telling me
13 what was actually said, give you a reason as to
14 why you were being asked for so many exemplars?
15 MR. WOOD: And here you are not to
16 give him, nor is he asking you to give him any
17 information about any discussion you had between
18 yourself and your attorneys, if there was any
19 such discussion. He is not entitled to know
20 that, and he is not asking you about that.
21 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Was there anybody
22 else?
23 For instance, maybe Lou Smit may have
24 asked you, maybe somebody from Alex Hunter's
25 office might have asked you or told you or

Page 37
1 whatever, something that is not a privileged
2 communication between you and your attorneys, if
3 you remember.
4 A. No. Just every time they asked me
5 to do it, I willingly gave it.
6 Q. Now I am going to ask you about your
7 reaction to it. Were you surprised that you were
8 asked for so many exemplars, to come back five
9 times, in fact? Were you surprised by that?
10 A. Somewhat, yes.
11 Q. Were you concerned about that?
12 A. I was not concerned, particularly.
13 Q. Do you know if anybody at any time
14 expressed an opinion as to whether you were the
15 author of the ransom note while you were doing
16 this?
17 A. During the handwriting exemplar
18 process?
19 Q. Yes. When you were being asked to
20 give handwriting exemplars, did anybody in law
21 enforcement express the opinion that they thought
22 you were the ransom note writer?
23 A. I don't recall them ever saying that.
24 Q. Do you know whether or not anybody
25 ever expressed the opinion in front of you that

Page 38
1 John was the ransom note writer?
2 A. I never heard anyone say that.
3 Q. Now, what I am going to do is I need
4 some -- we are going to go through a little
5 housekeeping. I am sorry. I just have to do
6 this for purposes of laying foundations.
7 MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to ask you
8 to mark these as exhibits.
9 And, Lin, I am going to give you a
10 copy.
11 MR. WOOD: Okay.
12 MR. HOFFMAN: This is for
13 identification purposes.
14 Lin, if you want to look at that.
15 MR. WOOD: Is there a way to relate
16 this to the exhibits that we have --
17 MR. HOFFMAN: What I am going to do
18 is, basically, I would like to show these to Mrs.
19 Ramsey at this time and ask her in a foundational
20 way, one, whether she recognizes what she is
21 being shown, can she identify it, and can she
22 identify the handwriting.
23 MR. WOOD: Are these the exhibits
24 that are attached to the first set of --
25 MR. HOFFMAN: Uh-huh (affirmative).

Page 39
1 MR. WOOD: Do you have them by
2 exhibit number so I can correlate?
3 MR. HOFFMAN: No, I don't. Right
4 now I am doing it in a particular order, which
5 doesn't relate to that. Whether these are
6 ultimately used or not is another matter,
7 but right now I would like to mark this as
8 Exhibit 1.
9 (Plaintiff's Exhibit-1 was marked for
10 identification.)
11 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, I am
12 going to show you a document that has been marked
13 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 for identification. I would
14 like you to look at it and take your time. I
15 am going to ask you if you recognize the
16 photograph.
17 MR. WOOD: Let me just say this for
18 the record, Darnay. I think you have given her
19 an enlarged copy of what was possibly one of the
20 exhibits to one of the reports that you filed
21 early in the case with respect to your mandatory
22 responses. And I think she has answered in
23 request for admissions to her best ability whether
24 she could decipher from those copies whether she
25 was the author of the handwriting.

Page 40
1 To the extent that you are giving her
2 the same exhibits but in a different form, either
3 larger or in color versus black and white, et
4 cetera, I just want to make sure that, if there
5 is any confusion down the road between her
6 ability to try to decipher it now and what she
7 looked at then, that that might be the
8 explanation.
9 So that is why I had asked if you
10 wanted to present her with the actual exhibits;
11 that would, I think, help us be able to look at
12 the same thing.
13 MR. HOFFMAN: I basically want her to
14 be able to see what it is. I am looking for
15 content, not --
16 MR. WOOD: Not comparison with other
17 copies of those from other sources.
18 MR. HOFFMAN: I want her to indicate
19 whether she recognizes the photograph.
20 MR. WOOD: That is fair.
21 THE WITNESS: I think I have seen
22 this photograph before.
23 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Can you identify,
24 without naming anybody in the photograph, can you
25 identify any of the individuals in the photograph?

Page 41
1 A. Just JonBenet.
2 Q. I would like you to now look at the
3 handwriting below the photograph. Do you
4 recognize the handwriting?
5 A. Not particularly.
6 Q. You say "not particularly." You don't
7 recognize this as being your handwriting; is that
8 correct?
9 A. I don't remember writing it. Is that
10 what you mean? I mean, I don't know. I may
11 have, but --
12 Q. Do you recognize the handwriting as
13 being your handwriting?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. Now we are going to go to
16 another exhibit.
17 (Plaintiff's Exhibit-2 was marked for
18 identification.)
19 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, I
20 would like you to examine a document I have given
21 you that has been labeled Plaintiff's Exhibit 2
22 for identification and ask you if you recognize
23 any of the photographs in the document.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I am going to ask you if you

Page 42
1 recognize any of the handwriting in the document.
2 A. Recognize it as mine or someone else's
3 or just --
4 Q. I will go to the next question. Do
5 you recognize any of the handwriting as being
6 your handwriting?
7 A. Not particularly.
8 Q. So you couldn't say, with any degree
9 of certainty, that that was your handwriting?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. HOFFMAN: Lin, I don't know what
13 you are doing with those.
14 MR. WOOD: You took the last one
15 back.
16 MR. HOFFMAN: Fine. Sorry about
17 this. This is one of the more boring parts of
18 depositions.
19 (Plaintiff's Exhibit-3 was marked for
20 identification.)
21 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Now, Mrs. Ramsey, I
22 am going to ask you to look at Plaintiff's
23 Exhibit 3 marked for identification and ask you
24 whether or not you recognize this document.
25 A. Yes, I do.

Page 43
1 Q. What do you recognize it to be?
2 A. An entry form for the Boulder
3 Christmas parade.
4 Q. Have you ever seen this entry form
5 before today?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Could you tell me when you have seen
8 it, if you remember?
9 A. Well, I obviously saw it to fill it
10 out.
11 Q. Okay. That was my next question.
12 Do you recognize the handwriting in this entry
13 form?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. Can you tell me whose handwriting you
16 recognize it to be?
17 A. My handwriting.
18 Q. So all of the handwriting on both
19 pages is your handwriting; is that correct? I
20 mean, no one else --
21 A. Well, this on the second page is
22 pretty blurry, but I believe it is mine.
23 Q. So nobody at this event filled in
24 part of it for you?
25 A. No.

Page 44
1 Q. You filled this in completely
2 yourself; is that correct?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. Now I am going to show you another
5 document which I am going to have the reporter
6 mark as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 for identification.
7 (Plaintiff's Exhibit-4 was marked for
8 identification.)
9 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Now, Mrs. Ramsey, I
10 am going to ask you to look at a document that
11 I handed you which has been marked Plaintiff's
12 Exhibit 4 for identification. I am going to ask
13 you whether or not you recognize this document.
14 A. No, I don't.
15 Q. I am going to ask you if you
16 recognize the handwriting on the document.
17 A. I recognize my signature.
18 Q. Do you recognize any other written
19 part of the document as being your handwriting?
20 A. It looks similar, but I can't say for
21 sure.
22 Q. So are you uncertain as to whether
23 the additional handwriting is yours or not,
24 outside of the signature?
25 A. I am uncertain.

Page 45
1 Q. Okay. Thank you.
2 MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to ask the
3 reporter to mark this as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5
4 for identification.
5 (Plaintiff's Exhibit-5 was marked for
6 identification.)
7 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Now, Mrs. Ramsey, I
8 am going to ask you to look at a document which
9 has been labeled Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 for
10 identification. And I am going to ask you
11 whether or not you recognize it.
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. What do you recognize it to be?
14 A. It looks like a greeting written on
15 the inside of a Christmas card.
16 Q. Do you remember writing a Christmas
17 card like this?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I am going to ask you whether or not
20 you can identify the handwriting.
21 A. Yes, I can.
22 Q. Can you tell me whose handwriting you
23 believe it to be?
24 A. Mine.
25 Q. Thank you very much.

Page 46
1 MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to ask the
2 reporter to please mark this document Plaintiff's
3 Exhibit 6 for identification. It is two pages, I
4 believe.
5 (Plaintiff's Exhibit-6 was marked for
6 identification.)
7 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I am going to ask
8 you, Mrs. Ramsey, whether or not you can identify
9 the document that I have handed you, which is
10 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 for identification.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you tell me what the document is?
13 A. It is a handwritten note.
14 Q. Can you identify the handwriting?
15 A. Yes. It is my handwriting.
16 Q. Thank you very much.
17 MR. HOFFMAN: Now I am going to ask
18 the reporter to please mark this as Plaintiff's
19 Exhibit 7 for identification.
20 (Plaintiff's Exhibit-7 was marked for
21 identification.)
22 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, I
23 would like to know if you could identify the
24 document or, actually, the image or figure on
25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 marked for identification.

Page 47
1 A. No, I can't.
2 Q. I am going to ask you to look at the
3 handwriting and tell me if you can recognize the
4 handwriting.
5 A. This is such a bad copy. Do you
6 have the original?
7 Q. No, I don't. If you can't recognize
8 the handwriting, you simply say you cannot.
9 A. I cannot.
10 Q. Thank you very much.
11 MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to ask the
12 court reporter to mark this document Plaintiff's
13 Exhibit 8 for identification.
14 (Plaintiff's Exhibit-8 was marked for
15 identification.)
16 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I am going to
17 direct Mrs. Ramsey's attention to the writing that
18 looks like it is on a box that says "Ramsey
19 Xmas" and also, it looks like, some writing on
20 the lower right-hand side which just says
21 "Ramsey."
22 I am going to ask you to look at
23 that carefully, and I am going to ask her, first
24 of all, if she can identify to the best of her
25 ability what is in this photograph.

Page 48
1 A. It looks like pictures of boxes taken
2 through a window pane.
3 Q. Now, I am going to ask you if you
4 can recognize any of the handwriting.
5 A. This lower one may be mine, but I am
6 not sure.
7 Q. And the upper left, which says,
8 "Ramsey Xmas"?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. So you don't recognize it as being
11 your handwriting?
12 A. Not specifically, no.
13 Q. Thank you. Coming to the end.
14 MR. HOFFMAN: I would like the
15 reporter to mark that as Plaintiff's Exhibit 9
16 for identification.
17 (Plaintiff's Exhibit-9 was marked for
18 identification.)
19 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, I am
20 going to ask you -- I am not going to even try
21 to ask you what you are looking at. I am going
22 to ask you if you can see any of the handwriting
23 in this document.
24 MR. WOOD: Is that an admission that
25 nobody can even determine what the object is?

Page 49
1 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, the objects would
2 be subject -- one looks like a box on the lower
3 part, but I am not going to ask Mrs. Ramsey to
4 determine it. I am going to ask Mrs. Ramsey if
5 she can make out the handwriting. And if she
6 can, can she, with any degree of certainty, tell
7 me if she recognizes any of the handwriting.
8 THE WITNESS: It is pretty hard to
9 tell.
10 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) You can simply say
11 no or you are not certain.
12 A. No.
13 Q. All right. Thank you.
14 A. If I can see the original, maybe.
15 Q. I understand, but based on this
16 document, you are not able to determine?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Thank you very much.
19 MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to ask the
20 reporter to mark this as Plaintiff's Exhibit 10
21 for identification.
22 (Plaintiff's Exhibit-10 was marked for
23 identification.)
24 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, what I
25 am showing you is a series of letters. I am

Page 50
1 not identifying their source. I am just simply
2 showing you a series of letters. I would like
3 you to look at them carefully.
4 Again, this is Plaintiff's Exhibit 10
5 for identification.
6 Can you, without knowing the source or
7 where these letters are from, identify any of
8 them?
9 A. No, sir.
10 Q. Now, I would like you to also look
11 at the letters and ask me if you see any
12 similarities in the way in which these letters
13 are written. And we will just start from the
14 bottom. Looking at the B.
15 A. Ask you if I see any similarities?
16 Q. No. I am going to ask you to
17 comment on whether you see any similarities in
18 the handwriting.
19 MR. WOOD: Let me just ask you,
20 Darnay, Patsy Ramsey is not a questioned document
21 examiner.
22 MR. HOFFMAN: I just want her
23 personal observation.
24 MR. WOOD: We don't know what
25 alterations have been done to these documents. I

Page 51
1 know where these documents came from. They came
2 from one of your experts.
3 MR. HOFFMAN: I would prefer you
4 don't identify the source --
5 MR. WOOD: Why not? She is entitled
6 to be --
7 MR. HOFFMAN: -- for the purpose of
8 this.
9 MR. WOOD: We are not here to play
10 games.
11 MR. HOFFMAN: No, no.
12 MR. WOOD: Let me finish, Darnay.
13 MR. HOFFMAN: Mr. Wood --
14 MR. WOOD: Let me finish, please.
15 MR. HOFFMAN: Mr. Wood, you can't
16 have a standing objection where you basically
17 counsel, give information to your client in your
18 objection, which is what you are doing right now.
19 I would like you to stop it.
20 MR. WOOD: Darnay.
21 MR. HOFFMAN: I have a right to show
22 her a document. For all you know, I am trying
23 to test her perception. You don't know what I
24 am doing in this.
25 MR. WOOD: Her perception --

Page 52
1 MR. HOFFMAN: I am not saying that
2 this means anything. I am asking her to look at
3 these letters, ask her if she recognizes any of
4 them, and then after doing that, asking her if
5 she can perceive any similarities in these
6 letters. That is all. Just as a lay person,
7 her personal observation. And I have a right to
8 do that. And I am going to ask her to do it.
9 MR. WOOD: I am not --
10 MR. HOFFMAN: I don't have to
11 identify the source. This could be an eye chart,
12 for all you know.
13 MR. WOOD: Darnay --
14 MR. HOFFMAN: For all you know, I am
15 testing her perception.
16 MR. WOOD: Darnay, it is not an eye
17 chart. It is a document that you --
18 MR. HOFFMAN: No, it is not. Don't
19 identify the document, Mr. Wood.
20 MR. WOOD: Are you going to let me
21 finish, Darnay?
22 MR. HOFFMAN: Not if you are going
23 to identify --
24 MR. WOOD: Let's take a break.
25 MR. HOFFMAN: Not if you are going

Page 53
1 to have a standing objection.
2 MR. WOOD: We are going to take a
3 break now, and then I'll come back. And when I
4 get a chance to make my statement on the record
5 to perfect the record, we will start again. But
6 if are you not going to give me that fundamental
7 right, then we are not going to start again,
8 Darnay. Do you understand me? Because you are
9 not the judge.
10 MR. HOFFMAN: If you want to stop
11 the deposition --
12 MR. WOOD: Let me finish.
13 MR. HOFFMAN: If you want to stop
14 the --
15 MR. WOOD: If you don't stop
16 interrupting me, we are going to have to stop.
17 MR. HOFFMAN: I have to interrupt you
18 if you are, in fact, going to give your client
19 information that you are not supposed to give
20 your client while I am asking her a specific
21 question, which is what you are trying to do
22 right now, at least in my opinion.
23 MR. WOOD: No, I am not.
24 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, you are.
25 MR. WOOD: You don't know what I am

Page 54
1 trying to do, because you won't let me do it.
2 MR. HOFFMAN: You are trying to
3 identify the source of this, and I don't want you
4 to do that for the purposes of this question.
5 MR. WOOD: We are going to take a
6 break now, and when I have the ability to make
7 my record without interruption and instruction
8 from you --
9 MR. HOFFMAN: I would like you to
10 make the colloquy.
11 MR. WOOD: You are not going to stop
12 interrupting; are you?
13 MR. HOFFMAN: I am not going to
14 basically let you give your client information in
15 a standing objection.
16 MR. WOOD: Darnay, Darnay, if I make
17 a statement on the record that is inappropriate,
18 you may take that up with Judge Carnes, and Judge
19 Carnes can determine whether I have
20 inappropriately instructed my client through an
21 objection. But you are not the judge, and you
22 are not going to make that decision today. You
23 have the right to say what you want to on this
24 record. I have that right, also.
25 So when you decide that we are going

Page 55
1 to play on that level playing field, let's get
2 started again. But you are not going to sit
3 here and be the judge and tell me what I am
4 going to do or not do, whether you like it or
5 agree with it or not.
6 MR. HOFFMAN: Mr. Wood --
7 MR. WOOD: So we are now going to go
8 off the record and take a break.
9 MR. HOFFMAN: Mr. Wood, for the
10 purposes of -- before we go off the record and
11 take a break, I foresaw this as a possible
12 stumbling block or speed bump, and as a result,
13 Evan Altman was kind enough to call Judge Carnes'
14 office, and she is willing, in a phone call, to
15 make an immediate ruling on whether or not what I
16 am asking Mrs. Ramsey to do is proper and whether
17 or not your objection is proper. She is in her
18 office. She is available for an immediate
19 conference.
20 MR. WOOD: I have not been allowed
21 to make my statement. And if we want to address
22 with Judge Carnes at this point --
23 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes.
24 MR. WOOD: Excuse me. If the issue
25 to be addressed with Judge Carnes is whether I am

Page 56
1 allowed to make an objection without interruption
2 from you, then I will be happy to take that up
3 with Judge Carnes.
4 If we are going to take up an
5 objection of mine with Judge Carnes, I think I
6 fairly ought to have the right to state it on
7 the record.
8 MR. HOFFMAN: But I would like you
9 to make the statement to Judge Carnes before you
10 make a statement in front of your client on the
11 record basically notifying your client of
12 precisely what it is that I am doing with respect
13 to this, which I don't want you to do.
14 MR. WOOD: I don't know what you are
15 doing with this. I am not trying to make a
16 representation of that.
17 MR. HOFFMAN: Let's talk to Judge
18 Carnes. Because we went through enough trouble
19 to establish, to call her office yesterday and
20 see if she was available for a conference,
21 because I foresaw this problem precisely coming
22 up.
23 MR. WOOD: I yet to understand what
24 you want to take up with Judge Carnes.
25 MR. HOFFMAN: Let's call her. I

Page 57
1 will tell her. Quite frankly, I am going to ask
2 her whether or not -- I am going to have you
3 state your objection that you are going to give
4 on the record to her on the phone, and we are
5 going to find out whether or not she thinks it
6 is proper for you to make that objection.
7 And then if she rules it is proper
8 to make it in that form, you can make it in
9 that form.
10 MR. WOOD: So you want me to state
11 my objection for the first time on the phone with
12 Judge Carnes?
13 MR. HOFFMAN: That is correct.
14 MR. WOOD: So you are going to call
15 Judge Carnes -- excuse me.
16 You are going to call Judge Carnes to
17 address with her an objection that you think is
18 inappropriate that I haven't even been allowed to
19 make yet?
20 MR. HOFFMAN: No. You started to
21 make it, and it was clear from your making it
22 what you were trying to do, which is basically
23 make the equivalent of a standing -- you were
24 trying to give your client information improperly
25 in order to influence her answer.

Page 58
1 MR. WOOD: That is just pure bunk,
2 Darnay.
3 MR. HOFFMAN: Sorry, but that is what
4 I see it to be. That is why we have Judge
5 Carnes waiting by the phone for us.
6 MR. WOOD: If you have an issue to
7 take up with Judge Carnes, you have a right to
8 do whatever you want to do. I don't have an
9 issue with Judge Carnes yet.
10 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, you may have it
11 if you don't get on the phone with us and talk
12 to her.
13 MR. WOOD: I am going to participate.
14 I am not going to allow you to ex parte a
15 conversation with Judge Carnes.
16 MR. HOFFMAN: No judge would allow an
17 ex parte communication. You know better than
18 that.
19 MR. WOOD: Why don't we define, so
20 we can read the record to her, exactly what the
21 controversy is at the moment because I still
22 don't understand it because I haven't been allowed
23 to state an objection. I might not even have an
24 objection.
25 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, in fact, I would

Page 59
1 like you to read back what you were about to
2 state as an objection, in fact.
3 MR. WOOD: Okay. I started off and
4 said -- you said, the question to Ms. Ramsey:
5 "I am going to ask you to comment on
6 whether you see any similarities in the
7 handwriting, and that is on this Exhibit 10,
8 without identifying it for her."
9 And I said: "Let me just ask you,
10 Darnay, Patsy Ramsey is not a questioned document
11 examiner.
12 "Mr. Hoffman: I just want her
13 personal observation.
14 "Mr. Wood: We don't know what
15 alterations have been done to these documents. I
16 know where these documents came from. They came
17 from one of your excerpts.
18 "Mr. Hoffman:" --
19 MR. HOFFMAN: That is the point at
20 which you are starting to give her information.
21 MR. WOOD: Excuse me.
22 "Mr. Hoffman: I would prefer you
23 don't identify the source.
24 "Mr. Wood: Why not? She is
25 entitled to," and then you interrupted, and I

Page 60
1 don't think we ever got any further.
2 MR. HOFFMAN: This is the area
3 that --
4 MR. WOOD: So the question is whether
5 or not, when you give her a document, is she
6 entitled to know the source of the document
7 before she answers questions about it --
8 MR. HOFFMAN: No.
9 MR. WOOD: -- let's put that issue
10 before Judge Carnes.
11 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Yup.
12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the
13 video record.
14 MR. HOFFMAN: We are going to read
15 that statement. That is what I am objecting to,
16 what you are doing there. So we will read that
17 to Judge Carnes.
18 MR. WOOD: I think I understand what
19 we want to do with Judge Carnes, and that is to
20 ask her, when you question her about a document,
21 if she is entitled to know what the document is.
22 MR. HOFFMAN: No. A particular type
23 of document. Okay? Not all documents.
24 MR. WOOD: She is entitled to know
25 what the document is.

Page 61
1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the
2 video record at 10:24.
3 MR. HOFFMAN: And I would like to
4 have this colloquy with the judge so that we
5 don't, basically, just sort of undermine the whole
6 purpose of this, which is to keep you from giving
7 information to your client. If your client is
8 present during this colloquy, it defeats the whole
9 purpose. Okay.
10 MR. WOOD: Darnay, I don't know what
11 you are up to, and the game here --
12 MR. HOFFMAN: It is not a game, Mr.
13 Wood.
14 MR. WOOD: It is not a game. I
15 think if you put a document in front of my
16 client, she is entitled to know what --
17 MR. HOFFMAN: This is what the
18 document is. It is a series of letters. Any
19 person can see what this is.
20 MR. WOOD: It is a series of letters
21 that is --
22 MR. HOFFMAN: That is all. I asked
23 her to look at it, asked her if she recognized
24 any of it, and then I asked her if she could
25 make any comment on whether she recognizes any

Page 62
1 similarities in the lettering of it.
2 That is all. It is a very simple
3 thing. I don't have to identify the source or
4 anything else.
5 MR. WOOD: Let me address this issue
6 with Mr. Rawls off the record, and we will come
7 back and see if we can solve the problem in a
8 different fashion.
9 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
10 (A recess was taken.)
11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the
12 video record at 10:33.
13 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, I am
14 going to show you a document that has been marked
15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 for identification. And I
16 would like you to look at the document. Please
17 look at it carefully.
18 What you -- this document, for the
19 record, contains eight letters that are side by
20 side vertically on the page. The letter D, what
21 looks like the letter S, what looks like letters
22 R and O, what looks like an N, what looks like
23 an O, what looks like an exclamation point, what
24 looks like a G, and what looks like a B.
25 I am going to ask you, Mrs. Ramsey,

Page 63
1 if you can identify any of these letters as being
2 your handwriting.
3 A. No, sir.
4 Q. Now I am going to ask you to look at
5 these letters and tell me -- in fact, I withdraw
6 the question.
7 I would like you to look at the
8 lower letter B, what looks like could be a letter
9 B at the bottom.
10 MR. WOOD: Left or right? There is
11 a mark with some sort of funny mark over it.
12 MR. HOFFMAN: That looks like a
13 little hat.
14 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Those letters, for
15 the purposes of this discussion, look like they
16 might be the letter B. I am going to ask you
17 whether you see any similarity in the two
18 letters, any visual similarity, you as a lay
19 person, not as an expert, just looking at it
20 visually, do you see any similarities?
21 MR. WOOD: And if I might have my
22 objection for the record --
23 MR. HOFFMAN: Sure, at this point
24 please.
25 MR. WOOD: -- is simply that I

Page 64
1 object to the form of the question. I do not
2 believe it is appropriate to ask a lay person a
3 question that goes to what you might believe to
4 be a question document issue from an expert,
5 particularly when you have not identified the
6 source of the writings before the witness, you
7 have not identified in answer whether these
8 documents have been in any way altered, blown up,
9 enlarged, positioned differently. So I object to
10 the form of the question for those reasons.
11 You may answer the question.
12 MR. HOFFMAN: Also, for the purposes,
13 I would like to state that this answer would not
14 be used for any evidentiary purpose, realizing
15 that there is no proper foundation as to source,
16 as to how these letters came to be what they
17 are. But I will just say one thing for the
18 record, that lay people are, under Article 9 of
19 the Federal Rules of Evidence, are occasionally
20 allowed to identify handwriting as lay people.
21 Frequently, letters are shown to lay
22 people, and they are allowed to authenticate
23 handwriting to that degree, if they have
24 familiarity, which is one of the reasons why
25 I asked you if you were familiar with any of

Page 65
1 the letters.
2 MR. WOOD: And I did not object when
3 you asked her whether she believed that to be her
4 handwriting.
5 MR. HOFFMAN: That is all I am
6 asking.
7 MR. WOOD: But now you are asking
8 her whether there is similarity from a lay
9 perspective, and I will accept your stipulation
10 that you will not use that answer for any
11 evidentiary purpose.
12 And with that stipulation, you may
13 answer the question.
14 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I would like you
15 to look at the letter B and tell me if those Bs
16 look at all similar to you.
17 A. Well, they are both lower case Bs.
18 Q. Is there anything about the Bs that
19 to you looks similar beside the fact they are
20 lower case? The way they are drawn?
21 A. No, not particularly.
22 Q. I am going to ask you to look above
23 the letter that we identified as being B at what
24 looks like it could be a G. I am going to ask
25 you to look at the G. I am going to ask you

Page 66
1 whether you see any similarities between the Gs
2 and what those similarities are.
3 MR. WOOD: Same stipulation?
4 MR. HOFFMAN: Same stipulation.
5 THE WITNESS: Well, they are both
6 lower case G. They are both more of the same
7 size than the Bs are.
8 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Is there anything
9 -- what about the way in which what looks like
10 could be described as a tail with the G, is
11 there any similarity with respect to that?
12 A. It swings to the left.
13 Q. Do they look similar, the tails to
14 the G?
15 A. Somewhat. I mean, a G, you make a G
16 with the tail to the left. Is that what you
17 mean?
18 Q. Those look similar, like similar
19 tails?
20 MR. WOOD: You are talking about --
21 well, again, I think she answered your question.
22 THE WITNESS: One is squiggly, and
23 one is smoother. But, I mean, it depends on how
24 many things you want to --
25 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Just looking for

Page 67
1 whatever points of similarity that you, as a lay
2 person --
3 A. I would say they are both similar in
4 size.
5 MR. WOOD: Or dissimilar, in fairness.
6 MR. HOFFMAN: Or dissimilar.
7 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) You can make
8 whatever visual observations you want about it.
9 I simply want your reaction.
10 A. The one on the right is more shaky,
11 it looks like.
12 Q. What about the one on the left?
13 A. It is not as shaky. And the one on
14 the right has a little swoop up on the tail, and
15 the one on the left does not.
16 The one on the left has a thicker
17 circle for the part of the G than the one on
18 the right.
19 Q. Now I am going to ask you to --
20 before I -- withdraw that question.
21 Do you have any other observations,
22 similarities or dissimilarities, that you would
23 like to express?
24 A. No.
25 Q. I am going to ask you to look to

Page 68
1 what looks like exclamation points, and I am
2 going to ask you if you see any points of
3 similarity or dissimilarity.
4 MR. WOOD: Same stipulation?
5 MR. HOFFMAN: Same stipulation.
6 MR. WOOD: Thank you.
7 THE WITNESS: One is thick. One is
8 thin. One has a bigger dot than the other.
9 That is fat. That is little.
10 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Anything about the
11 slope or angle or anything else that is similar
12 or dissimilar?
13 A. I don't know what "slope or angle"
14 means.
15 Q. The way in which it is going up and
16 down.
17 A. Well, that is how you make an
18 exclamation point is straight down with a dot
19 under it.
20 Q. Do they look similar or dissimilar
21 with respect to how vertical they are?
22 A. Well, the one on the left is
23 squigglier and leans at the top a little bit.
24 Q. Any other similarities or
25 dissimilarities, before I move to the next one?

Page 69
1 A. I don't think they look alike.
2 Q. The next object or letters look like
3 they might be Os, the letter O. Or they could
4 be a zero from a number. But in any case, a
5 zero or an O.
6 MR. WOOD: Or it could be even an
7 attempt to make a Q.
8 MR. HOFFMAN: Could be.
9 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) But you can
10 identify it any way you would like, Mrs. Ramsey.
11 And please point out any similarities or
12 dissimilarities that you see.
13 MR. HOFFMAN: And, Mr. Wood, the same
14 stipulation.
15 MR. WOOD: Same stipulation. Thank
16 you.
17 THE WITNESS: I don't think they look
18 a thing alike.
19 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) So you would say
20 they are just dissimilar. Would you point out
21 their dissimilarities?
22 A. The dissimilarities?
23 Q. Yes. The dissimilarities.
24 A. One is large. One is small. One is
25 really heavy and feathered, kind of, and one is

Page 70
1 smoother.
2 Q. Any other similarities or
3 dissimilarities before I move on that you would
4 like to make?
5 A. They both have an opening in the
6 middle.
7 Q. All right. The hole in the doughnut?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I would like you to look up to the
10 next letter. Now, that can be an N. That
11 could be a truncated R. It is hard to say. I
12 would like you to look at that and just tell me
13 what similarities or dissimilarities you see
14 between the two.
15 MR. WOOD: It could be an N, too.
16 THE WITNESS: It could be a pi.
17 MR. HOFFMAN: Could be. For all we
18 know, it is a little horse or something that is
19 truncated, or poodle, actually.
20 THE WITNESS: A poodle?
21 MR. HOFFMAN: One of those show
22 poodles.
23 MR. WOOD: I am not seeing the
24 poodle here, Darnay.
25 THE WITNESS: This is a psych test.

Page 71
1 MR. HOFFMAN: Rorschach for attorneys.
2 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) If you could, look
3 at that, those two letters.
4 MR. HOFFMAN: With the same -- Lin,
5 what is it, the same stip?
6 MR. WOOD: Same stipulation.
7 THE WITNESS: One is shorter than the
8 other one. The one on the right is shorter than
9 the one on the left. The one on the left has
10 like a little triangle thing over the top of it.
11 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I want to draw
12 your attention to the fact that they seem to
13 merge. There seems to be -- whatever it is, it
14 seems like one thing is running into another, or
15 there is something hanging off of it. It is an
16 awkward looking letter. It could be an R and an
17 O. It could be any other number of
18 configurations.
19 A. Which one are we looking at? Are
20 you looking at this one?
21 Q. Oh, no. I am sorry. Are we still
22 at the poodle? I thought we were going to
23 move on after the poodle.
24 MR. WOOD: I thought we were still
25 at the poodle.

Page 72
1 THE WITNESS: I never saw a poodle,
2 for the record.
3 MR. WOOD: Neither did I. That is
4 why I am staying there.
5 MR. HOFFMAN: Not going to go there;
6 right?
7 THE WITNESS: So you are at the
8 third one down now?
9 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Before I finish
10 that, I want to give you the opportunity, do you
11 have any other observation between similarity or
12 dissimilarity between the --
13 A. The little pi one?
14 Q. Yeah, the little pi.
15 A. I mean pi, like a Greek letter pi,
16 pi R squared.
17 Q. Now we will move to the next
18 configuration, whatever that is. I see it as an
19 R and an O, but that is just the way I look at
20 it. I would like you to tell me what you see
21 and similarities and dissimilarities between the
22 letter.
23 MR. WOOD: Same stip?
24 MR. HOFFMAN: Same stip.
25 THE WITNESS: I just -- that doesn't

Page 73
1 look like anything in the alphabet that I have
2 ever seen. I mean, it doesn't look like a
3 letter to me.
4 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Okay. Fair enough.
5 Any specific dissimilarities besides it
6 just doesn't look like a letter between the two
7 non --
8 A. Well, the one on the right seems to
9 be heavier and has a little piece sticking out
10 the left side. And the one on the left has a
11 little bird over the top of it or something mark.
12 Q. All right.
13 A. It looks like they were made with
14 different weights of pencil or something.
15 Q. If you have no further observations,
16 we will move to the next letter, what looks like
17 it could be an S.
18 A. Or it looks like it could be a 5.
19 Q. It could be a 5, too. Any
20 similarities or dissimilarities between the two?
21 A. The one on the left is larger than
22 the one on the right. The one on the right
23 looks more like an S than the one on the left.
24 The one on the left is more circular, kind of,
25 on the bottom. The one on the right is -- the

Page 74
1 bottom portion looks more angular.
2 MR. WOOD: We have the same stip on
3 this?
4 MR. HOFFMAN: Same stipulations.
5 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Any other
6 observations of either similarities or
7 dissimilarities before I move on, Mrs. Ramsey?
8 A. No.
9 Q. I will ask you to look at the top
10 and final one, what I would identify as a D, but
11 that doesn't mean it is a D. I would like you
12 to look at that and tell me what similarities or
13 dissimilarities that you see there.
14 MR. HOFFMAN: And, Lin, of course, we
15 have the same stip.
16 MR. WOOD: Thank you.
17 THE WITNESS: The left one looks like
18 an A to me, and the right one looks like a D.
19 It looks like maybe a shaky or older person might
20 have written it. Kind of squiggly.
21 This one has a higher -- the one on
22 the right has a higher stick on the side than
23 the one on the left.
24 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Right.
25 A. And the open space, the doughnut hole

Page 75
1 is bigger on the one on the right than the left.
2 I don't think they look alike.
3 Q. Okay. Fair enough.
4 A. They look like two different letters
5 to me.
6 Q. Thank you for putting up with that
7 exercise.
8 MR. HOFFMAN: And, Mr. Wood, thank
9 you also.
10 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) You remember earlier
11 I had you read about the handwriting from your
12 book. And I would say that maybe we both concede
13 that the handwriting is an important part of the
14 evidence in this crime.
15 MR. WOOD: She can speak for herself,
16 but we are not going to have her speaking for
17 you. Concessions are one thing. She has answered
18 your questions about that with respect to her
19 belief.
20 MR. HOFFMAN: I am just using that
21 foundationally to move on --
22 MR. LIN: That's okay. I wanted to
23 make sure.
24 MR. HOFFMAN: -- to move on so that
25 there is no question why I am moving into a

Page 76
1 particular area.
2 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) It goes to the
3 issue of why Mr. Wolf is here in this lawsuit
4 with respect to some elements of it, why in the
5 complaint there is what may appear to you to be
6 an extremely unfair accusation or representation
7 of you as author of the ransom note, as the
8 person who killed her daughter, or whatever.
9 And a lot of this is to try and
10 determine the degree to which the handwriting
11 experts that Mr. Wolf is using in this case can
12 accurately determine whether you are, in fact, the
13 author of the ransom note or not, which is part
14 of why we have been doing this.
15 I just want to show you something
16 that is -- I just want you to look at it. It,
17 again, is why, so to speak, why --
18 I would like you to mark this as
19 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11. I am going to show this.
20 Now, I am not making any
21 representations in this document as to whether, in
22 fact, its submission means anything other than
23 this was prepared by two handwriting experts.
24 This document is not being submitted to prove the
25 truth of anything in the document.

Page 77
1 So if you could, mark that.
2 Lin, we will stipulate to that effect.
3 Would you mark this document, please,
4 as Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.
5 (Plaintiff's Exhibit-11 was marked for
6 identification.)
7 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Now, Mrs. Ramsey, I
8 am going to tell you that that document, along
9 with reports, handwriting reports, were prepared
10 by document examiners Cina Wong and David Leadman.
11 And other handwriting was prepared -- other
12 handwriting was used in the form of the police
13 exemplars that were given to my office by Mr.
14 Wood pursuant to discovery requests.
15 And those documents are, without a
16 doubt, your handwriting because they were
17 identified by Mr. Wood as being the handwriting
18 exemplars that you personally gave to law
19 enforcement in Colorado at their request during
20 that five-day period.
21 Now, the problem for Mr. Wolf in this
22 case is the fact that not one of the experts --
23 Cina Wong, David Leadman, an expert known as
24 Gideon Epstein, Larry F. Siegler, and an expert
25 known as Don Lacey have all identified you as the

Page 78
1 ransom note writer. It is not a close call, as
2 far as they are concerned. They have identified
3 you. One of them, in fact, said, without doubt
4 you are the author of the ransom note.
5 So in order to be certain that they
6 are, in fact, correct in what they are looking at
7 as examples of your handwriting, I wanted you to
8 look at some of the documents that I gave you.
9 Now I want you to look at the document there and
10 see why, in fact, this, the issue of your
11 authorship, is such a problem.
12 MR. WOOD: Do you have a question?
13 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes.
14 MR. WOOD: Let's ask the question.
15 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Okay. Mrs. Ramsey,
16 did you write the ransom note?
17 MR. WOOD: Before you answer that, I
18 want to object to the form of the question. And
19 I want to specifically object to each and every
20 one of the prefatory comments with respect to
21 that question which started off a long time ago,
22 where you said: "-- to move on, so there was no
23 question why I am moving into a particular area."
24 "By Mr. Hoffman: It goes to the
25 issue of why Mr. Wolf is here in this lawsuit"

Page 79
1 -- beginning at that point down through and
2 including everything except for your stipulation,
3 which we will accept.
4 I want to move to strike all of the
5 prefatory comments from that beginning down
6 through where you said and ended, "Now I want you
7 to look at the document there and see why, in
8 fact, this, the question of your authorship, I
9 believe, is a problem."
10 All of those are improper as to form.
11 I move to strike each and every one of them with
12 the exception of your stipulation. I also want
13 to tell you that I was very courteous in letting
14 you sit here and, in effect, lecture my client.
15 That is your one and only lecture, Mr. Hoffman.
16 You are here to ask questions.
17 Now, your question, as I understand
18 it, if you would like to restate it, is, Did
19 Patsy Ramsey write the ransom note. Is that the
20 question?
21 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, it is.
22 MR. WOOD: Why don't you restate that
23 because I don't think the other question isn't
24 worth the paper it is written on or the time you
25 have taken up to ask it because it is totally

Page 80
1 improper as to its form.
2 Now, ask her a question.
3 MR. HOFFMAN: First of all, I am
4 going to respond to your ad hominem attack.
5 MR. WOOD: It is not an ad hominem
6 attack.
7 MR. HOFFMAN: It is an ad hominem
8 attack, and it is done for the purposes
9 grandstanding, which, you know, seems to be the
10 way you are operating, sir.
11 MR. LIN: Take that up with Judge
12 Carnes. Why don't you just ask your question.
13 MR. HOFFMAN: No. I am going to
14 respond to your ad hominem colloquy, which was,
15 in effect, an attack on me.
16 I was not lecturing Mrs. Ramsey.
17 And, Mrs. Ramsey, I apologize if I --
18 MR. WOOD: You don't have to respond
19 to that.
20 Do you have a question?
21 MR. HOFFMAN: No, Mr. Wood. I am
22 going to respond to your ad hominem attack, which
23 is what I consider it to be.
24 The fact is, I was not lecturing Mrs.
25 Ramsey. I was explaining to Mrs. Ramsey,

Page 81
1 prefatory to asking her a question which could be
2 regarded as very insensitive, which is simply, Did
3 you write the ransom note?, as to why I was
4 asking that question.
5 And, quite frankly, I don't think it
6 was improper of me to show a certain sensitivity
7 to a mother whose daughter has died rather
8 brutally.
9 MR. WOOD: Darnay, Darnay, you have
10 not shown this family any sensitivity since March
11 of 1997.
12 MR. HOFFMAN: That's not --
13 MR. WOOD: Let me stop you here.
14 MR. HOFFMAN: That's not before --
15 MR. WOOD: Let me stop you here.
16 No, sir. Let me stop you here.
17 I am not going to sit here and have
18 you go back and forth and talk with my client or
19 lecture my client. You are here under the
20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to ask questions.
21 I have the right to make an objection. If you
22 deem my objection to be an ad hominem attack,
23 take it up with Judge Carnes.
24 MR. HOFFMAN: Same here.
25 MR. WOOD: I believe my objection is

Page 82
1 100 percent good.
2 Now, ask your question, let's get
3 answers, and let's move on. We don't need the
4 back-and-forth every time I make an objection.
5 Okay. Please, let's get going.
6 MR. HOFFMAN: You are responsible, to
7 some degree, for the back-and-forth.
8 Quite frankly, under the Federal
9 Rules, I don't think you have the right to
10 interfere and try to control my deposition.
11 MR. WOOD: I have the right to make
12 an objection, I did make an objection, and I
13 asked you to state your question.
14 MR. HOFFMAN: But not an attack on
15 counsel, which is, in fact, what this was. This
16 was an ad hominem attack. You characterized what
17 I was doing with your client as lecturing her.
18 MR. WOOD: I think the record will
19 speak for itself.
20 MR. HOFFMAN: And also, I think you
21 spoke outside of anything that was going on here,
22 which was to conduct that you considered to be
23 improper on my part outside of this deposition.
24 MR. WOOD: I don't know what you are
25 talking about now.

Page 83
1 MR. HOFFMAN: You just made a
2 reference -- you can read it back -- to my lack
3 of sensitivity to the Ramsey family in general.
4 MR. WOOD: You are the one making
5 representations on the record about being
6 concerned.
7 MR. HOFFMAN: No. I am not making
8 representations. I am explaining.
9 MR. WOOD: You are wasting all of
10 our time now.
11 MR. HOFFMAN: No. This is my time.
12 MR. WOOD: Okay. If you want to
13 waste it.
14 MR. HOFFMAN: This is my deposition
15 time, and I am going to make a record responding
16 to your ad hominem attack on counsel.
17 MR. WOOD: Why don't you go ahead
18 and make that record.
19 MR. HOFFMAN: I just have been making
20 it. I have been making it.
21 MR. WOOD: When you are through, she
22 will come back and she will answer questions.
23 You don't have to sit here and listen
24 to this, Mrs. Ramsey.
25 MR. HOFFMAN: If she doesn't want to,

Page 84
1 that is fine.
2 MR. WOOD: You don't have to. You
3 can take a break, and you can go ahead and make
4 your response. And when you have a question, we
5 will bring her back in here, and we will answer
6 all your questions that are properly formed.
7 MR. HOFFMAN: All right. What we
8 will do is this, I am going to ask Mrs. Ramsey
9 a very simple question.
10 MR. WOOD: Thank you.
11 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, did
12 you write the ransom note that was discovered by
13 yourself on December 26, 1996, at your home?
14 A. No, sir, I did not.
15 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Thank you.
16 Now, at this point, I think we will
17 take a break. I think this would be an
18 appropriate time to take a break. Thank you.
19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the
20 video record at 10:55.
21 (A recess was taken.)
22 MR. HOFFMAN: Just for the purposes
23 of taking up briefly before we left off, I
24 believe Mr. Wood made a motion to strike or will
25 do so with respect to that, and I just want to

Page 85
1 formally say that I would object and I do object
2 to any motion to strike any of the material he
3 referred to earlier. That is all. I simply want
4 to be on record as objecting to that. And that
5 is all.
6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Ready to go on the
7 video record?
8 MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, I want to put that
9 on the video record. Sorry.
10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the
11 video record at 11:07.
12 MR. HOFFMAN: At this point, I would
13 like to move on to another topic area, but just
14 for the purposes of making a record, Mr. Wood
15 earlier in the deposition said that he was going
16 to object to or asked to strike statements that I
17 had made prefatory to a question that I asked
18 Mrs. Ramsey concerning the authorship of the
19 ransom note. And just for the record, I object
20 to any attempt to have that stricken from the
21 record. That is all I want to say with respect
22 to that.
23 Mr. Wood, if you want to add anything
24 to that.
25 MR. WOOD: Next question.

Page 86
1 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Now I am just
2 going to go into -- I am going to ask for some
3 clarification of things that are in the book,
4 things that I didn't understand.
5 I am going to turn your attention to
6 page 378. It is chapter -- in fact, I can let
7 you look at that. There are two statements
8 there. In fact, Mrs. Ramsey, if you will just
9 give me your book, I will just quickly highlight
10 it. I am sorry about not having done this
11 beforehand.
12 All right. I would like you to read
13 the highlighted portions on page 378 in your book
14 "the Death of Innocence." That is the paperback
15 edition.
16 A. "The Boulder grand jury said no to an
17 indictment."
18 Q. And then the next statement that I
19 highlighted.
20 A. "The grand jury's secret decision."
21 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge as
22 to whether or not the grand jury did, in fact,
23 make a decision based on that statement?
24 A. Well, the district attorney, I
25 believe, made a public statement that said there

Page 87
1 would not be an indictment.
2 Q. There is a reference here to the
3 grand jury's secret decision. Do you have any
4 knowledge of a secret decision by the grand jury,
5 any personal knowledge? Are you referring to
6 that?
7 A. Well, I think all of the grand jury
8 information is under wraps or under seal or
9 something.
10 Q. But do you know whether or not the
11 grand jury, in fact, made a decision in your
12 case?
13 A. Just going from what the district
14 attorney said, that there was no indictment.
15 Q. Okay. But this doesn't indicate --
16 the reason I am asking you this question is --
17 withdraw.
18 Is Patrick -- is it Patrick Furman,
19 was he an attorney of yours at one point?
20 A. Yes, he was.
21 Q. Were you aware that Mr. Furman made a
22 statement that was published in the Boulder papers
23 to the effect that there was a rumor that the
24 grand jury had taken a straw poll and had decided
25 not to indict?

Page 88
1 MR. WOOD: Object to the form of the
2 question in that I think you have inadvertently,
3 perhaps, made reference to the wrong lawyer; but
4 if you have a statement to show her, that might
5 be helpful.
6 MR. HOFFMAN: I don't have that
7 statement. I am just asking her if she has
8 heard that.
9 THE WITNESS: I am not aware of a
10 statement by Mr. Furman in the paper.
11 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Then I will ask
12 you, by any of your attorneys --
13 A. No, I am not.
14 Q. -- to the effect that the grand jury
15 -- that there was a rumor that the grand jury
16 had taken a secret straw poll and had decided or
17 voted not to indict?
18 MR. WOOD: You are talking about
19 public statements, not anything attorneys may have
20 said to her?
21 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) No. No attorney.
22 I don't want you to reveal anything that is an
23 attorney/client.
24 A. No, I am not aware of any such
25 statement.

Page 89
1 Q. So the statement "The grand jury's
2 secret decision" is not referring to any personal
3 knowledge that you have about what went on in the
4 grand jury room with respect to any decision to
5 indict or not indict; is that correct?
6 A. I think that adjective was used just
7 referring to grand jury as a whole does
8 everything behind closed doors.
9 Q. So it is just a figure of speech; is
10 that correct?
11 A. Actually, I did not write this
12 section. John wrote this. So you might want to
13 ask him that question.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you.
15 Now, there is an incident in the book
16 on page 191 which you might remember. It is
17 fairly lengthy. I just want you to review it.
18 I am not asking you to read it. It involves
19 the alarm system that apparently failed when you
20 came home. I think you were in your home in
21 Charlevoix. Is that it?
22 It is the next-to-last paragraph on
23 191. If you could, just look at that to refresh
24 your memory generally.
25 A. Where it says, "John put in an alarm

Page 90
1 system"?
2 Q. System, yes.
3 MR. WOOD: And you can read anything
4 you need to to put that into context.
5 MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay.
7 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Do you remember
8 that incident?
9 A. About putting the alarm system in?
10 Q. No. That incident where -- no.
11 Your feelings with respect to security and
12 whatever. It is not an incident.
13 I am going to refer to another part
14 of the book in a minute. Just simply your state
15 of mind in security systems.
16 A. I guess I am unclear about what you
17 are asking me.
18 Q. What I am going to ask you is this:
19 Do you know whether or not -- first of all, when
20 you were living in Boulder at the time of the
21 death of your daughter, did you have a security
22 system in your home?
23 A. Yes, we did.
24 Q. Was that a security system that you
25 used at the time you went out that night,

Page 91
1 December 25th, as you would explain it in your
2 book? When you went out visiting people, did you
3 have the security alarm on that night?
4 A. No, we did not.
5 Q. When you moved to Atlanta, did you
6 install a security system in your homes, any of
7 them?
8 A. Yes, we did.
9 Q. Did you have a security system in the
10 home that has been identified as the Atlanta --
11 not mansion, but that -- I don't have the
12 address. The house where John was assaulted in
13 May of, I think it was, 2001. Do you know if
14 there was a security alarm in that facility, that
15 home, in Atlanta?
16 A. There was. When we moved in, we
17 installed a very elaborate security system. And
18 subsequent to that, we had some extensive
19 remodeling done, and the security system was
20 dismantled and was subsequently reinstalled.
21 Q. Who was in charge of, in Boulder,
22 with turning the security system on or off? Was
23 that you or was that John, normally?
24 A. We normally did not use the security
25 system in Boulder.

Page 92
1 Q. Why was that?
2 A. Because we felt safe in Boulder.
3 Q. In Atlanta, I believe the security
4 system was not on when John was assaulted. Do
5 you know if that was true or not?
6 A. I don't believe that it was on.
7 Q. Do you know why it wasn't on?
8 A. I don't know why it wasn't on.
9 Q. Were you concerned that it hadn't been
10 left on?
11 MR. WOOD: You are assuming it was
12 not dismantled at that time?
13 MR. HOFFMAN: I actually ought to go
14 back to that, because you did mention
15 "dismantling."
16 MR. WOOD: I am trying to be lenient
17 with you. We have had a few back-and-forths,
18 Darnay, but I have a lot of trouble understanding
19 what this has to do with Chris Wolf and the
20 allegations in his claim or the defenses to this
21 case.
22 MR. HOFFMAN: Do you want me to
23 explain?
24 MR. WOOD: If you feel like you need
25 to, it might be helpful.

Page 93
1 MR. HOFFMAN: Fine. Oftentimes, a
2 jury or a trier of fact, as the case may be, is
3 allowed to consider something other than forensic
4 evidence in determining whether somebody is
5 involved in a crime or not, or just in any
6 event. And sometimes it is the demeanor of the
7 witness on the stand, whether a witness is, in
8 fact, telling the truth or not telling the truth,
9 or whether there are inconsistencies in the story
10 which are such that a jury would have a right to
11 draw what we call an inference; and from that
12 inference, what we call consciousness of guilt.
13 So the theory is that, if a person
14 is thought to be not telling the truth or just
15 simply the story is so implausible or inconsistent
16 that it indicates that there is a consciousness
17 of guilt, which a jury can use, at least in a
18 criminal case, to determine guilt or innocence, it
19 can be an element in it.
20 MR. WOOD: Talk to me.
21 MR. HOFFMAN: I hope I am stating
22 the law correctly. And that is one of the areas
23 I am going into in the deposition for the purpose
24 -- depositions, from what I understand, Lin, from
25 the federal rules, allow you to go into areas

Page 94
1 where you might be able to impeach a witness
2 later on. And so sometimes the questions don't
3 appear to be relevant except for the impeachment
4 purposes.
5 So that is one of the reasons why I
6 am going into this area.
7 MR. WOOD: Well, I am not going to
8 make a statement about whether I agree or
9 disagree with your statement of the law. It is
10 your right to make that statement. I understand
11 impeachment. I understand that it has to go to
12 a relevant and material issue.
13 I have grave doubts about whether an
14 incident in 2001 that occurred in the Ramseys'
15 home here where Mr. Ramsey was assaulted when he
16 got in and found someone that had broken in and
17 stolen a number of items from his home has
18 anything whatsoever to do, from a relevancy
19 standpoint or from an impeachment standpoint, with
20 the issues raised in Chris Wolf's libel lawsuit.
21 But I am going to let her answer the
22 question because I don't think it is -- you know,
23 it is one of those things we don't need to come
24 back and do later.
25 You can get the answer, but I just

Page 95
1 think that -- you know, just keep in mind that I
2 think you are pushing the envelope here, if not
3 going beyond it.
4 MR. HOFFMAN: For the purposes in
5 case you raise an objection, I will just simply
6 explain --
7 MR. WOOD: I will let her answer.
8 You do what you got to do.
9 MR. HOFFMAN: -- briefly why I am
10 doing this, and what it is about the security
11 system that I find intriguing in this case. And
12 it is the fact that there were concerns expressed
13 in the book about the security of the Ramsey
14 family and the fact that the Ramsey family felt
15 insecure.
16 And, naturally, one of the areas that
17 you would think would concern a family is the
18 fact that a night when their daughter had been
19 murdered, the security system had not been
20 working. And if there was any --
21 THE WITNESS: I believe in the
22 book --
23 MR. WOOD: No. Hold on.
24 This is where we don't need to go.
25 The security system was not turned on. And I

Page 96
1 think if you are familiar with the book, they
2 made it very clear why they didn't use it in
3 Boulder.
4 MR. HOFFMAN: Right.
5 MR. WOOD: The point is, you are
6 asking about an incident that occurred, you say,
7 in 2001 where Mr. Ramsey came home while his
8 house was under renovation with construction
9 workers there and found someone in his home
10 stealing items, and there was a physical
11 altercation. And you are asking about the
12 security system here in 2001.
13 And I am just simply letting you
14 know, Darnay, I am going to let her answer
15 questions about that, but I think you are over
16 the line on relevancy to the claims and defenses
17 in this case. But I am trying to be lenient
18 because I want you to have the opportunity to
19 push the envelope out, but I would just ask you
20 to keep in mind that we are stretching this, in
21 my view, and I would ask you to --
22 MR. HOFFMAN: I am trying to --
23 MR. WOOD: No explanations are needed.
24 Your theory of the case is not needed. Just ask
25 the question, and I am going to let her answer.

Page 97
1 MR. HOFFMAN: I am just trying to
2 enlarge the envelope so you see the envelope
3 isn't being stretched.
4 MR. WOOD: The envelope, to be
5 enlarged, is supposed to be under the rules by
6 you making a showing of good cause and getting a
7 court order.
8 MR. HOFFMAN: I am trying to do
9 that. I am trying to prevent you from having to
10 go in front of --
11 MR. WOOD: I am letting you ask it.
12 Just ask the question.
13 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
14 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, were
15 you at all concerned with the fact that your
16 husband was attacked in your Atlanta home -- I
17 don't know if you have one or two -- Atlanta
18 home, and the security system had not been turned
19 on?
20 MR. WOOD: I object to the form of
21 the question.
22 You may answer the question.
23 THE WITNESS: I was concerned when I
24 learned that my husband had been physically
25 attacked, yes.

Page 98
1 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Were you concerned
2 that the alarm system had not been turned on?
3 A. I did not know -- I was not at the
4 home when all this happened, so I didn't know
5 whether the alarm system was on or not.
6 Q. Do you know, were you told by anyone
7 if the alarm system was or wasn't on at the time
8 of Mr. Ramsey's assault?
9 A. I don't believe that it was on. You
10 would have to ask him that.
11 Q. But that is your belief; is that
12 correct?
13 A. Yes. It was midday.
14 Q. There was -- also I believe in your
15 book you described an incident where you came
16 back to your home in Charlevoix, and everyone was
17 waiting in front of the house. I think Mr.
18 Ramsey, in fact, describes this incident.
19 MR. WOOD: What page?
20 MR. HOFFMAN: I don't know if I
21 marked that. What I may have to do is go back
22 to this question after lunch, because I think
23 that this may be one page that I didn't mark,
24 and I will go back to it. I was just going to
25 ask her if she recalled that particular event

Page 99
1 without having to reference it to the book. If
2 she needs to --
3 THE WITNESS: Which event is that?
4 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) In Charlevoix,
5 there, I believe, is an incident where you
6 recount where something happened to the alarm
7 system, and I believe you and your mother and
8 maybe other members of your family were waiting
9 nervously outside for the alarm system people to
10 arrive, and they didn't. And I believe John went
11 looking through the -- I believe it was the
12 Charlevoix home to see if there was an intruder.
13 And I was just curious as to how that alarm
14 system had failed, that security system.
15 A. I don't recall that part in the book.
16 Q. Well, after the lunch break, I just
17 may bring you back very briefly to ask you if
18 you have any memory of that by referring to it
19 in your book there.
20 A. Okay. Thank you.
21 Q. Did you ever at any time make a
22 statement to anyone, other than your attorneys,
23 that you had written the phrase "Mr. and Mrs.
24 Ramsey," which had appeared on one of the pads
25 that the police found in your home, and has been

Page 100
1 referred to as the so-called "practice ransom
2 note"?
3 MR. WOOD: Let me just, for the
4 record -- are you stipulating that you have
5 evidence that the phrase "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey"
6 was written on what has been called a "practice
7 note"?
8 MR. HOFFMAN: No, I am not going to
9 stipulate to that.
10 MR. WOOD: I think, if you are going
11 to ask her about something, we ought to know
12 exactly what you are referring to, because I am
13 not sure that is correct at all.
14 MR. HOFFMAN: Fair enough. I didn't
15 want to have to bring it in in a long-winded
16 way.
17 In order to properly ask this
18 question, I am going to have to ask her a couple
19 of foundational questions.
20 MR. WOOD: Sure.
21 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, did it
22 ever come to your attention, through whatever
23 source that is not privileged, like
24 attorney-client privilege, that there may have
25 been what the police have identified as "a

Page 101
1 practice ransom note" being written?
2 A. Yes, I have heard of "a practice
3 ransom note."
4 Q. Now, can you tell me what it is that
5 you heard was on that practice ransom note?
6 A. I don't know that I ever heard
7 exactly what was on the practice ransom note.
8 Q. Did you at any time ever say to
9 anyone, say, Pam Griffin, or someone like that,
10 somebody you knew, that you, in fact, had written
11 whatever was on the practice ransom note?
12 A. No, sir.
13 Q. Now I am going to ask you to look at
14 your book here. And at page 210, it is right
15 by the photographs. Right down here, you will
16 see: "By now, anyone who knows John and me" --
17 just read the two sentences out loud.
18 A. "By now, anyone who knows John and me
19 will agree that, if there is anything we avoid,
20 it is the tabloids. When I pass the magazine
21 rack in the grocery store, I literally try to
22 look the other way."
23 Q. Is that an accurate statement of how
24 you feel?
25 A. Yes, it is.

Page 102
1 Q. Now I am going to ask the -- in
2 fact, let me make sure. That was from page 210
3 of "the Death of Innocence," the paperback
4 edition, that Mrs. Ramsey just read.
5 MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to have the
6 reporter please mark this as Plaintiff's Exhibit
7 12 for identification. And I am going to show
8 you this.
9 (Plaintiff's Exhibit-12 was marked for
10 identification.)
11 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, can
12 you identify Plaintiff's Exhibit 12?
13 A. It looks like a Xerox copy of Editor
14 & Publisher magazine.
15 Q. Can you tell me if you recognize the
16 people in the photograph?
17 A. I certainly do. Lin Wood, my husband
18 John, and myself.
19 Q. Do you remember sitting for that
20 photograph?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. Do you know why that photograph was
23 taken?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Can you tell me why?

Page 103
1 A. For this publication.
2 Q. For the purposes of being on the
3 cover of the publication; is that correct?
4 A. I didn't know at the time it was
5 going to be on the cover, necessarily, but yes.
6 Q. Did you have any idea of what the
7 substance of the article in the publication would
8 be about?
9 A. I believed it to be an article about
10 Lin Wood.
11 Q. And did you have an opportunity to
12 read the article when it came out?
13 A. When it came out, yes, I did.
14 Q. Do you remember what the article was
15 about?
16 A. It was just about Mr. Wood's law
17 practice.
18 Q. And would you say that this article
19 is consistent with an attorney who challenges the
20 media for misrepresentation?
21 MR. WOOD: I have got to ask you,
22 Darnay, what does this have to do with anything
23 in turn --
24 MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, it does. A lot --
25 I will --

Page 104
1 MR. WOOD: Why don't you tell us
2 succinctly what this article has to do with Chris
3 Wolf's claims or the defenses to his claims in
4 this libel action.
5 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. It has to do
6 with statements made in "the Death of Innocence,"
7 which I just had Mrs. Ramsey read.
8 MR. WOOD: We will answer questions
9 about that.
10 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Because the next
11 question is, given the fact that clearly you gave
12 your support to your attorney for the purposes of
13 this photo to appear on the cover of Editor &
14 Publisher --
15 MR. WOOD: Don't. I asked them if
16 they would have the photograph made because the
17 request was made to me.
18 Darnay, this is ridiculous. We don't
19 need to go into this. Ask her about "the Death
20 of Innocence." Is there a claim, Chris Wolf
21 claim that he was libeled by this article or
22 anything said in it?
23 MR. HOFFMAN: No.
24 MR. WOOD: Let's go to something else
25 that has relevance.

Page 105
1 MR. HOFFMAN: It goes to the issue
2 of one of the stated purposes in the book. You
3 have to understand, I have a right to know what
4 purposes were involved in this book.
5 MR. WOOD: Why Editor & Publisher
6 chose to write an article about my law practice
7 and my cases has nothing to do with the purposes
8 of John and Patsy Ramsey in writing the book "the
9 Death of Innocence."
10 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
11 MR. WOOD: So let's move on to
12 something that is relevant.
13 MR. HOFFMAN: I will try to connect
14 it up.
15 Please mark that Plaintiff's Exhibit
16 13 for identification.
17 (Plaintiff's Exhibit-13 was marked for
18 identification.)
19 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Now, Mrs. Ramsey, I
20 am going to ask you to look at what I have
21 marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 13 for
22 identification and ask you if you recognize it.
23 A. No, I don't.
24 Q. I am going to ask you if at any time
25 you ever gave an interview with The National

Page 106
1 Enquirer.
2 A. We spoke with a representative from
3 The National Enquirer as part of some litigation
4 we were involved with for Burke.
5 Q. Did you ever agree to be interviewed
6 by The National Enquirer for publication?
7 MR. WOOD: Hold on. Tell me how
8 this is relevant to the libel claims of Chris
9 Wolf, whether John and Patsy Ramsey were
10 interviewed by The National Enquirer.
11 MR. HOFFMAN: Because I am going to
12 ask her about statements that were made in The
13 National Enquirer which relate to the murder and
14 the case. That is why I am asking her.
15 MR. WOOD: Ask her about the
16 statements.
17 MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to first
18 lay the foundation that, in fact, she --
19 MR. WOOD: I let you say she gave
20 the interview. Why she gave the interview is not
21 relevant.
22 MR. HOFFMAN: I want to ask her why.
23 MR. WOOD: I told you that is not
24 relevant to any claim.
25 MR. HOFFMAN: You can't make that

Page 107
1 objection.
2 MR. WOOD: In the stipulation --
3 MR. HOFFMAN: You can direct her not
4 to answer. I want you to direct her not to
5 answer.
6 MR. WOOD: If you let me finish.
7 Why do you want me to do that? You mean you
8 came here with a plan to ask irrelevant
9 questions?
10 MR. HOFFMAN: No, not at all. Quite
11 simply because it is the proper form. I am
12 going to ask the question to Mrs. Ramsey and ask
13 her if she will answer it despite counsel's
14 objection.
15 MR. WOOD: Let's set the ground rules
16 right now. Mrs. Ramsey is going to follow the
17 instructions of her counsel, and you are not
18 going to ask her whether she will or will not.
19 MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, no, I will, and I
20 will tell you why, Mr. Wood.
21 MR. WOOD: You may --
22 MR. HOFFMAN: I will tell you why,
23 Mr. Wood.
24 MR. WOOD: You know, Darnay, you --
25 MR. HOFFMAN: I don't think you

Page 108
1 understand procedure.
2 MR. WOOD: I don't think you
3 understand courtesy. Down here in the south, we
4 don't interrupt people. You have interrupted me
5 repeatedly.
6 MR. HOFFMAN: You are using manners
7 as a ploy to avoid things.
8 MR. WOOD: Interruptions are
9 interruptions.
10 MR. HOFFMAN: You have interrupted me
11 many times.
12 MR. WOOD: Not repeatedly or
13 intentionally.
14 MR. HOFFMAN: If you want to go back
15 and count my interruptions of you, or Mr. Rawls
16 in Mr. Wolf's deposition --
17 MR. WOOD: You weren't even there
18 except by telephone.
19 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes. But the fact is
20 that no counsel interrupted you --
21 MR. WOOD: This man asked proper
22 questions. There was no need to have to go
23 through all this kind of back-and-forth.
24 MR. HOFFMAN: You are wrong. You
25 are out of order here, sir. You are out

Page 109
1 of order.
2 MR. WOOD: Darnay, Darnay, I am being
3 patient with you.
4 MR. HOFFMAN: No, no, no. I am
5 being patient with you.
6 This is my deposition. This is not
7 a forum for you to grandstand to look like a big
8 shot in front of your clients. That is not what
9 this is.
10 MR. WOOD: Darnay, Darnay, Darnay, I
11 am not going to sit here and listen to that.
12 You are not going to characterize what my efforts
13 are for my clients in a deposition as
14 grandstanding or otherwise. That is totally
15 inappropriate.
16 Look, I am trying to make an
17 objection, and, if necessary, an instruction which
18 at the beginning of this deposition we all agreed
19 was appropriate if you went outside of areas
20 relevant to the claims and defenses in the
21 lawsuit.
22 I happen to believe that, if the
23 question you are trying to get to is why did
24 John and Patsy Ramsey agree in the year 2000 or
25 2001 to an interview with The National Enquirer,

Page 110
1 that that is not relevant to the claims or
2 defenses in this libel lawsuit. That was the
3 question. I am going to instruct them not to
4 answer.
5 So why don't you just ask the
6 question and leave off all this back-and-forth,
7 and what I do think might be better to describe
8 now as somewhat of an ad hominem attack, which is
9 okay if you want to do it, but it is just a
10 waste of all of our time.
11 MR. HOFFMAN: Mr. Wood, just to
12 clarify one thing. I believe that, in the event
13 that the judge were to issue an order for Mrs.
14 Ramsey to compel her to answer certain questions,
15 that the record must reflect the fact that she
16 has refused to answer it, not that her counsel,
17 because the judge will not be ordering you to
18 answer it. They will be ordering Mrs. Ramsey.
19 And unless the court is clear that it is Mrs.
20 Ramsey who is refusing to answer the question and
21 not yourself, I have to make that as a record.
22 And that is the law, sir.
23 MR. WOOD: Darnay, please ask your
24 question, and then I am going to instruct my
25 client appropriately; and, if necessary, Judge

Page 111
1 Carnes will determine the law. Just ask the
2 question, for gosh sakes. Let's get going.
3 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, do you
4 know why you agreed to a National Enquirer
5 interview?
6 MR. WOOD: I instruct you not to
7 answer on the grounds that that issue is not
8 relevant to any claim or defense in this lawsuit.
9 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, will
10 you still answer the question?
11 MR. WOOD: I instruct you not to
12 respond to that question.
13 She will, in fact, follow her lawyer's
14 instructions just as any client should
15 appropriately follow her lawyer's instruction so
16 that she does not waive any right she has to
17 have Judge Carnes review this issue and rule
18 appropriately.
19 MR. HOFFMAN: Can I take that as a
20 no from your witness, that she will not --
21 MR. WOOD: You can take that exactly
22 for what it is, my statement on this record.
23 Next question, please.
24 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) All right. Mrs.
25 Ramsey, I am looking at this interview; and,

Page 112
1 actually, since we have two interviews, what I
2 would like to do is give you an opportunity to
3 review this interview because I am going to ask
4 you questions about statements that you allegedly
5 made in the interview. And since we have only a
6 minute to go before we change, I think this would
7 be an appropriate time to break and give you an
8 opportunity to read the interview.
9 MR. WOOD: Whatever you would like to
10 do.
11 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the
13 video record at 11:35.
14 (A recess was taken.)
15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the
16 video record at 11:43.
17 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, I have
18 shown you what has been marked Plaintiff's
19 Exhibit, I believe, No. 13. Has it been marked?
20 Yes. Plaintiff's Exhibit 13 for identification.
21 Have you had an opportunity to review the
22 document that I have handed you?
23 A. Yes, I have.
24 Q. I am now going to ask you again, do
25 you remember giving an interview for The National

Page 113
1 Enquirer?
2 A. I remember talking with them as part
3 of litigation we had with them concerning Burke.
4 Q. Now, I just want to ask you --
5 MR. HOFFMAN: Do we need to do that
6 again?
7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: No.
8 MR. HOFFMAN: Did you pick up the
9 answer?
10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I picked it up.
11 I picked it up.
12 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Just simply, I am
13 going to hand you another copy, and I've
14 highlighted just statements that The National
15 Enquirer claimed you made just simply for the
16 purposes of asking you whether or not you made
17 that statement. I am not going to go beyond
18 that. I just want to see if the Enquirer
19 quotes are, in fact, accurate where you are
20 quoted.
21 If you will, look at the bottom of
22 the first page. You will see they, quote, have
23 you say, "He has never -- we have never talked
24 about anything."
25 Is that an accurate quote?

Page 114
1 A. Who is the "he" they are talking
2 about?
3 Q. Burke. I will read the paragraph
4 before.
5 The Ramseys were asked whether Burke,
6 now 14, ever asked for details of JonBenet's
7 death. Quote, He has never -- we have never
8 talked about anything, said Patsy, who wore a
9 purple suit and a white blouse.
10 MR. WOOD: What is the question?
11 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) The question is,
12 did you, in fact, say that, "He has never -- we
13 have never talked about anything"?
14 MR. LIN: In that context?
15 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Is this quote
16 accurate?
17 MR. WOOD: They may have spoken to
18 her in an interview and taken bits and pieces out
19 of context. I don't know --
20 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Is --
21 A. I don't remember whether I said that
22 in conjunction with having talked to Burke or
23 not.
24 Q. Substantively, is that accurate? Have
25 you ever talked to Burke about anything regarding

Page 115
1 the JonBenet murder as they have stated here? I
2 want to determine if that is accurate.
3 A. Yes, we talked about some things.
4 Q. So is the substance of that quote
5 accurate or inaccurate?
6 A. Well, I may have said that, but it
7 may not have been about talking to Burke or not.
8 I don't -- I would have to see -- they take
9 things out of context a lot.
10 Q. I just want to know what it is that
11 they are taking out of context here. So again,
12 I don't mean to belabor this. Did you or did
13 you not, in substance, say that you never talked
14 to Burke about anything to The National Enquirer?
15 A. I don't remember saying that.
16 Q. Now, turn to the next page, and you
17 will see highlighted on the right, "When children
18 are really tired and they don't go potty before
19 they go to bed, sometimes they have accidents."
20 One, do you remember making that
21 statement to the Enquirer?
22 A. That sounds like something I may have
23 said.
24 Q. Is it substantively correct then?
25 A. Yes, I believe so.

Page 116
1 Q. Thank you.
2 I draw your attention down a little
3 but further where, quote -- I am going to read
4 the paragraph just prior to your quote to put it
5 in context.
6 "Patsy, who is naturally right-handed,
7 was asked if she can write with her left hand."
8 "Can I write with my left hand," she
9 said, pondering the question. A smile crossed
10 her face, and she replied, "I can, but not very
11 well."
12 Did you make that statement to the
13 Enquirer?
14 A. It sounds like something I might have
15 said, yes.
16 Q. Is it substantively correct that you
17 can write with your left hand, though not very
18 well?
19 A. Well, I am not left-handed. If push
20 came to shove, I could probably write something
21 if I had broken my right arm, but I am not in
22 the manner of writing with my left hand all the
23 time, no.
24 Q. Have you ever told anybody at any
25 time that you were ambidextrous?

Page 117
1 A. No.
2 Q. That is all with respect to that.
3 Thank you.
4 Now, with respect to your book, I am
5 going to ask you to turn to page 283. In fact,
6 what I am going to do is I am going to exchange
7 this and just show you the highlighted portion
8 there. If you wouldn't mind, I would like you
9 to read it to yourself and then read it out
10 loud.
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. If you don't mind reading it out
13 loud.
14 A. "For the first time I learned that
15 someone had drawn a heart on JonBenet's hand.
16 Who had drawn that heart? The killer? JonBenet?
17 I doubted that my daughter had done so.
18 Certainly, as a younger child, she might have
19 drawn things on her hand, but at almost seven
20 years old, she was beyond that stage, in my
21 opinion. She cared about her appearance and was
22 not likely to have done so. And if she had,
23 she would have had to have drawn it with her
24 right hand. Which hand was the heart on? I
25 don't know the answer to that."

Page 118
1 Q. I am going to ask you whether that
2 was John or yourself making that statement in the
3 book. Is that information from John or from you?
4 Sometimes it becomes confusing as to one voice is
5 and another is leaving off. It is for the
6 purposes of asking --
7 MR. WOOD: Let me see if I can help
8 cut to the chase. This is talking about the
9 June 1998 interrogation or interview. Lou Smit
10 interviewed John. Did he ever interview you?
11 THE WITNESS: No. It looks like
12 maybe this was John's.
13 MR. WOOD: Looking at the next
14 paragraph, it talks about, Darnay, the other
15 people's picture was crossed out, but mine was
16 circled. I think that is John's picture, so I
17 think that probably answers it.
18 THE WITNESS: I think that is John.
19 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I am going to ask
20 you whether or not you know personally whether or
21 not JonBenet ever drew hearts on her hand or
22 hands at any time when she was a small child.
23 A. When she was much younger, she did,
24 but not in recent years, no.
25 Q. So would it be fair to say that you

Page 119
1 would be surprised if JonBenet had drawn a heart
2 in her hand the day before?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you know whether or not JonBenet
5 had either washed her hands or had either bathed
6 or showered prior to going to bed that night at
7 any time on December 25th?
8 A. I can't recall.
9 Q. If she had drawn a heart in her
10 hand, do you think you might have seen it
11 sometime during the day?
12 A. I may have. I don't remember seeing
13 a heart.
14 Q. Are you surprised that the autopsy
15 apparently indicates that there might have been a
16 heart drawn in her hands?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you ever at any time tell anybody
19 that you were in the habit or practice of drawing
20 hearts in JonBenet Ramsey's hand --
21 A. No.
22 Q. -- just as a sign of affection?
23 A. No.
24 Q. I am going to give this back to you,
25 and I will take that back.
Page 120
1 I would like to ask you, with respect
2 to the beauty pageants regarding JonBenet Ramsey,
3 were those pageants frequent or infrequent?
4 MR. WOOD: I am going to ask you to
5 tell me what beauty pageants that JonBenet
6 participated in have to do with this lawsuit. We
7 have responded to your request for production of
8 documents where you asked for, in number 21, "all
9 documents concerning JonBenet Ramsey's involvement
10 and participation in child beauty pageants," and
11 we have stated in our response that we object
12 because it was limitless in time and scope,
13 unreasonable, and seeks documents with no
14 relevance to the claims or defenses made in this
15 lawsuit as JonBenet Ramsey's participation in
16 beauty pageants is not at issue.
17 You have not made any attempt to
18 compel or respond to that or taken any issue with
19 our position. I don't believe that JonBenet
20 Ramsey's involvement in beauty pageants has
21 anything to do with Chris Wolf or any of the
22 claims that you make in your lawsuit.
23 MR. HOFFMAN: Are you objecting to
24 the question, then?
25 MR. WOOD: If you want to do one of

Page 121
1 your explanations of how JonBenet Ramsey's
2 participation in beauty pageants has anything to
3 do relevancy-wise, if you could point me to the
4 claim in your lawsuit or the defense that it is
5 relevant to, that would help. Just give me a
6 simple --
7 MR. HOFFMAN: It goes to the issue,
8 again, of consciousness of guilt, impeachment for
9 the purposes of witness testimony at trial. It
10 would basically give us an opportunity if there
11 is, in fact, contradictions in the answer. Basic
12 things that all trial lawyers are trying to do
13 when they are having depositions.
14 MR. WOOD: Hold on one second.
15 I am going to give you some leeway
16 on this issue in terms of questioning. Your
17 question as I understand it is now asking her
18 whether the pageants were frequent or infrequent.
19 We will do it on a question-by-question basis,
20 understanding that I think the relevancy here is
21 tenuous at best. But I am going to give you
22 the opportunity to go through it a little bit,
23 please.
24 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I simply want to
25 know whether or not, as her mother, you felt that

Page 122
1 the level of activity in beauty pageants was high
2 or low, in your mind?
3 A. Low.
4 Q. Did you keep a room in the house
5 known as the pageant room in your home in
6 Boulder?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did you keep a room where you kept
9 all your trophies and all of JonBenet's pageant
10 trophies in your home in Boulder?
11 A. She had some in her room, some in
12 the play room and different places.
13 Q. I just have one other question. Did
14 you at any time tell anyone that JonBenet was
15 going to be the next Ms. America, or that she
16 was being groomed to be the next Ms. America?
17 A. Well, she could hardly be the next
18 Ms. America since she was only six years old.
19 Q. I understand. But at the time you
20 were taking her to the beauty pageants, did you
21 at any time say to anybody that you were grooming
22 JonBenet to be the next Ms. America?
23 A. I don't know. I may have said
24 something like that.
25 Q. If you don't know, fine.

Page 123
1 MR. HOFFMAN: How are we doing with
2 the time, gentleman?
3 MR. WOOD: A little before 12:00.
4 We can push on if you want.
5 MR. HOFFMAN: How much before 12:00
6 are we?
7 MR. WOOD: Just a few minutes.
8 MR. HOFFMAN: Why don't we break.
9 MR. WOOD: If that is what you want
10 to do.
11 MR. HOFFMAN: Is an hour adequate?
12 We are not going to run more than, tops, two
13 hours past the lunchtime, and it may not even be
14 that much.
15 MR. WOOD: So 3:00. Whatever. We
16 are here as long as you want us here.
17 MR. HOFFMAN: I understand. I am
18 just giving you a rough idea so that everybody
19 can be mentally out the door around that hour.
20 MR. WOOD: Is there any chance you
21 would like to go ahead and take John to see if
22 there is a chance you can finish him later today.
23 MR. HOFFMAN: I haven't finished my
24 preparation. I would like to start fresh in the
25 morning and just review the answers.

Page 124
1 MR. WOOD: I just want to make that
2 offer to you. Okay.
3 MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you very much.
4 It will be just a little bit longer than just a
5 couple of hours before the end of today.
6 MR. WOOD: Okay.
7 MR. HOFFMAN: And thank you very
8 much.
9 MR. WOOD: All right.
10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the video
11 record at 11:55.
12 (A recess was taken.)
13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the
14 video record at 1:03.
15 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, I am
16 going to ask you if you can tell me who Chris
17 Wolf is. Do you know who Chris Wolf is?
18 A. Yes. He -- yes, I can tell you who
19 he is. He is a suspect in the murder of our
20 daughter.
21 Q. When you say "a suspect," how do you
22 know he is a suspect in the murder of your
23 daughter?
24 A. Well, I understand that the police had
25 him as a suspect early in 1997, and his

Page 125
1 girlfriend is, I believe, the way we came by his
2 name.
3 Q. Do you know why his girlfriend came
4 to your attention?
5 A. Yes. She called and said that she
6 believed that he was the murderer.
7 Q. Do you know who she called?
8 A. She called my parent's home.
9 Q. And do you --
10 A. I believe she had tried to call the
11 Boulder Police Department, but they had not
12 returned her calls.
13 Q. And do you know who it was that she
14 spoke to in your family with respect to --
15 A. I think initially she spoke with my
16 mother and then I believe my sister.
17 Q. Do you know the substance of what she
18 said to your mother?
19 A. Generally, she said that she was his
20 girlfriend. She -- he came home to her
21 residence. Apparently, they were living together.
22 He came home late in the middle of the night,
23 changed his clothes, and acted very strangely the
24 next morning when he saw the things were being
25 reported.

Page 126
1 Q. Now, did you just say earlier in your
2 answer that she had been attempting to contact
3 the Boulder police but had been unsuccessful, and,
4 therefore, was contacting your parents for that
5 reason?
6 MR. WOOD: I object to the form of
7 the question. It misstates the witness'
8 testimony.
9 MR. HOFFMAN: Can I have a read back
10 with respect to the answer?
11 MR. WOOD: I can tell you. "I
12 believe she had tried to call the Boulder Police
13 Department, but they had not returned her calls."
14 I don't think that means she had not ever spoken
15 with them or been unsuccessful.
16 MR. HOFFMAN: I see. I was about to
17 ask her if she could clarify whether she knew the
18 calls were being returned because they had never
19 spoken to her.
20 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I just
21 know that she apparently had made an attempt to
22 reach them.
23 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Do you know what
24 your parents did with the information that -- or
25 the person that spoke to her on the phone, your

Page 127
1 parents' phone, what they did with that
2 information? Did they call anybody?
3 A. Well, I think they told us about it.
4 Q. Do you know who they told? Not
5 revealing any attorney-client privilege.
6 A. Well, I don't -- somehow in the chain
7 of events, we found out about it, alerted our
8 investigators about it, and then I don't know
9 what happened after that.
10 Q. Do you remember when you first heard
11 about Chris Wolf as a potential murder suspect;
12 you personally?
13 A. I can't remember exactly, no.
14 Q. Was there any discussion when you
15 wrote your book, "the Death of Innocence," over
16 Chris Wolf being included in the book? Do you
17 know if you had any discussions about that, you,
18 yourself, with any of the people that were
19 writing the book with you?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can you give me the substance of what
22 those discussions were?
23 A. I remember Janet Toma, the editor,
24 saying that she thought we should speak to a lot
25 of the untruths that had been imparted in other

Page 128
1 books or -- like, specifically, Steve Thomas'
2 book, and "The Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," or
3 something like that. That book.
4 And she said Chris Wolf had been
5 mentioned a lot in the media, and she felt like
6 we needed to speak to that as well as other
7 myths.
8 Q. Did you agree with that suggestion,
9 you personally?
10 A. Well, I remember -- I remember John
11 and I both saying that, you know, that -- we
12 kind of said, Well, are you sure we should really
13 go into all that detail? And she said,
14 Absolutely. She felt the readers wanted to know
15 any untruths that we knew of and could refute.
16 Q. What was the untruth in the issues
17 involving -- or the Chris Wolf's involvement in
18 the case that you were trying to clarify? What
19 was the untruth in reporting that Chris Wolf was
20 a suspect? What was your editor and what were you
21 trying to clarify by reporting that in your book?
22 A. Well, I don't know that that was an
23 untruth. I think she was just saying that he,
24 his name, had been brought up quite a number of
25 times, as had Bill McReynolds and Linda

Page 129
1 Hoffman-Pugh. Those were kind of the names being
2 bantered about in the media and other
3 publications, and she felt like we needed to
4 speak to those, talk about Fleet White, talk
5 about just names and incidents that were sort of
6 the no footprints in the snow, all those little
7 urban legends we called them.
8 Q. What was the urban legend about Chris
9 Wolf that you were trying to clarify?
10 MR. WOOD: I am going to object to
11 the form. I think you all may be missing each
12 other. I think she is talking about dealing with
13 myths and urban legends and addressing individuals
14 that had been talked about, and you are saying
15 that it is one in the same. That may be what
16 she is saying, but I don't think she means that.
17 If you are misunderstanding, maybe you
18 all can clarify what you are talking about,
19 Patsy.
20 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
21 THE WITNESS: Well, the editor said
22 that she felt like we should -- that anything
23 that had been already out there in the public,
24 that we should talk about anything that we knew
25 about that so that there wasn't -- I mean, Chris

Page 130
1 Wolf's name was not an urban legend. That was a
2 true statement, that he had been a suspect, you
3 know.
4 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Do you feel like
5 he was fairly a suspect?
6 A. Was he "fairly a suspect"?
7 Q. Yes. Do you feel it was fair that
8 he was a murder suspect or had been discussed as
9 one?
10 A. From what I know about his background,
11 yes, I do.
12 Q. Do you feel that, in the other media
13 that your editor was referring to, like "Perfect
14 Murder, Perfect Town," whatever, that there was
15 anything you needed to correct in the way of
16 misinformation?
17 A. I had never read that book, so I
18 don't know. I can't say that specifically. She
19 just said that his name had been mentioned, so we
20 just -- you know, she wanted us to address that.
21 Q. Were you ever given an opportunity to
22 look at any evidence that would implicate Chris
23 Wolf in this crime; you, personally, given any
24 evidence or an opportunity to look at any
25 evidence, without telling me what it was, did

Page 131
1 your investigators come to you and say, We have
2 evidence concerning Chris Wolf?
3 MR. WOOD: You are asking her now to
4 go into what would constitute attorney-client
5 privilege or work product privilege, I think.
6 Anything other than what you may have
7 learned from your attorneys' investigators or your
8 attorneys, he is entitled to know; otherwise, I
9 think he would agree it is privileged.
10 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I want to know if
11 you were ever shown any evidence, without
12 identifying who showed it. Just from the group
13 of people you are associated with in helping you
14 solve the crime, did anyone within your own group
15 show you evidence of Chris Wolf's involvement,
16 without identifying who the people were that
17 showed it to you? Just in a general way, did
18 you ever see a file involving -- about Chris
19 Wolf's involvement in the crime that may have
20 been prepared for you by somebody working for
21 you?
22 MR. WOOD: Or that might have been
23 prepared by someone working for her regardless of
24 who it was prepared for.
25 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes.

Page 132
1 MR. WOOD: Do you understand what he
2 is asking you?
3 THE WITNESS: Not quite.
4 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) I have to tread a
5 fine line here.
6 A. You are saying the evidence --
7 Q. Did you ever see anything, any
8 writing --
9 A. I had seen some of his effects; is
10 that what you are saying? Yes, I have.
11 Q. Or anything that was purported to be
12 evidence pointing to Chris Wolf as a potential
13 murder suspect, have you ever actually physically
14 seen any of that yourself?
15 A. I have seen some of his personal
16 effects, yes.
17 Q. Were these personal effects meant to
18 show that he might, in fact, be a murder suspect
19 or be someone who could have killed your
20 daughter?
21 A. I believe so.
22 Q. I have one sort of quick question
23 here. Did your sister Pam ever tell you that she
24 knew who the killer of JonBenet Ramsey was?
25 A. No, she didn't.

Page 133
1 Q. Never made a statement like that to
2 you?
3 A. Not emphatically like that. She has
4 given me her opinion of who she thought might be
5 this or that.
6 Q. Did she tell you who, in her opinion,
7 she thought was the killer?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can you name the person in question
10 or persons that she thought were the killer, was
11 or were the killers?
12 A. Could I?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. Yes, I could.
15 Q. Would you?
16 A. Well, she has named several people.
17 Q. Could you just give me their names?
18 THE WITNESS: Is that appropriate?
19 MR. WOOD: Let me ask you, Darnay,
20 what possible relevance could it have? I don't
21 know if Chris Wolf is one of them or not. You
22 could ask that, I think, but what possible
23 relevance could it have to your claims to go into
24 the issue of who her sister says she believes
25 might be the killer?

Page 134
1 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, because her sister
2 actually made statements that got reported in the
3 media to the effect that she knew who the killer
4 was, in fact, had seen that person only recently,
5 and I was wondering whether or not she had ever
6 made that statement around Patsy, a statement like
7 that, and then identify --
8 MR. WOOD: Why don't you take her
9 deposition to find out what she was talking 10 about. I think that would be more appropriate.
11 MR. HOFFMAN: I will take that under
12 advisement. Thank you.
13 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Okay. Back to the
14 issue of Chris Wolf.
15 Do you know whose decision it was,
16 when your book "the Death of Innocence" was bound
17 in hard cover and ready to sort of be given to
18 the media, who decided to issue press releases to
19 the effect that the book would name murder
20 suspects, your group of murder suspects?
21 MR. WOOD: When you use the phrase
22 "would name murder suspects," are you equating
23 that with the book stating the identities of
24 individuals who had previously been identified as
25 murder suspects? Because I don't know of anyone

Page 135
1 who was, quote/unquote, named a murder suspect as
2 if that was the first mention of that person in
3 that book.
4 Do you understand the difference I am
5 asking?
6 MR. HOFFMAN: I understand.
7 MR. WOOD: Because I think it is a
8 fair question to clarify.
9 MR. HOFFMAN: Absolutely.
10 MR. WOOD: Thank you.
11 MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to try and
12 ask it. I may have to ask it in multiple parts
13 with a yes or no.
14 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) When you were
15 preparing your book, did you think there might
16 come a time when the book was released that the
17 names of the people that were discussed as
18 possible murder suspects, either by yourself or by
19 law enforcement authorities, might actually become
20 public knowledge in the publication of this book?
21 A. Well, if their names are in the book,
22 it was going to be public knowledge.
23 Q. Do you know who made the decision to
24 advertise this book as naming -- well, actually,
25 I think the colloquial is, The Ramseys name their

Page 136
1 murder suspects.
2 MR. WOOD: Where is this?
3 MR. HOFFMAN: Not in here. It was
4 in media that was circulating around the time.
5 MR. WOOD: I don't think we can
6 speak to whatever media was circulating. The
7 bottom line is, Darnay, they identified people
8 that had already been identified as suspects, and
9 they discussed them.
10 Let me finish.
11 And you are trying to ask her about
12 some, perhaps, misinterpretation or some
13 interpretation circulating in the media that they
14 were for the first time going to identify
15 suspects. And I don't think it is fair to do
16 that unless you show her what you are talking
17 about, and then she can answer the question, and
18 then she will answer the question.
19 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Actually, really all
20 I want to know is who was responsible for
21 deciding how to promote this book in the media
22 when it came out. Do you know who the individual
23 was that made that decision?
24 A. I would say the people at Thomas
25 Nelson publishers.

Page 137
1 Q. Was there any specific person that you
2 know of personally that was going to be making
3 those decisions or did make those decisions on
4 how to promote the book?
5 A. It is a large company. They have a
6 marketing department. I don't know.
7 Q. So you were never introduced to
8 anybody in the marketing or promotional part of
9 Thomas Nelson who discussed the promotion of this
10 book with you, you, personally, that said, This
11 is what we are going to do or not going to do?
12 A. I don't remember having those specific
13 discussions, no.
14 Q. So you weren't actually asked for your
15 advice with respect to any of the marketing of
16 the book; there was no discussion between author
17 and the marketing or promotion part of it?
18 A. Not that I remember, no.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 Now, with respect to Steve Thomas --
21 MR. WOOD: Hold on.
22 (Deponent and her counsel confer.)
23 MR. WOOD: Let me ask you, Darnay,
24 because I don't think Patsy understood. When you
25 used the term "marketing and promotion," I

Page 138
1 interpret that as meaning you are including,
2 perhaps, discussing with them the interviews that
3 they were either considering or actually being --
4 or actually giving.
5 MR. HOFFMAN: Just an overall.
6 MR. WOOD: I don't think she got
7 that part because --
8 THE WITNESS: I was thinking like
9 advertising.
10 MR. WOOD: Like advertising in the
11 newspaper and things.
12 You may want to rephrase that again
13 including press interviews.
14 THE WITNESS: We had discussions about
15 where we were doing press interviews, but not
16 about print advertising or something like that.
17 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Then did there
18 really ever come a time when you were preparing
19 your book for publication that you had occasion
20 to talk at Thomas Nelson, or with anyone Thomas
21 Nelson might have hired to help in this area
22 involving media interviews such as print
23 interviews, radio interviews, television interviews,
24 anything like that? Were you brought into any
25 discussions involving that?

Page 139
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Were you given approval, the right to
3 approve or disapprove of any of those interview
4 vehicles?
5 A. I think the final decision fell with
6 Thomas Nelson, probably.
7 Q. In your media interviews or whatever,
8 were you ever told that there were areas that you
9 could go into or not go into by anybody at
10 Thomas Nelson when you talked in your interviews?
11 A. No.
12 Q. So that if you chose in an interview
13 to name an individual or not name an individual
14 who appeared in this book and who may or may not
15 have been named as a source in other books, that
16 the discussion of that individual, you weren't
17 told not to talk about anybody that was named in
18 the book, meaning that no one said, Don't talk
19 about Chris Wolf in your interviews, or, Don't
20 talk about anybody that is a potential murder
21 suspect?
22 MR. WOOD: Object to the form of the
23 question as being multiple in nature.
24 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
25 THE WITNESS: Did they tell me?

Page 140
1 What are you asking me? Did they tell me what
2 to say or not to say?
3 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Did they say there
4 were areas you really shouldn't discuss --
5 A. No.
6 Q. -- in your media interviews?
7 So any decision to, say, discuss Chris
8 Wolf or Linda Hoffman-Pugh, or mention in your
9 interviews, that was a decision you made for
10 yourself in doing the interview?
11 A. During the interview?
12 Q. Yes, during the interview.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So no one coached you or encouraged
15 you to make statements like that; they were made
16 voluntarily by yourself?
17 A. In answer to an interviewer's
18 question, yes.
19 Q. That is all I wanted to establish.
20 Thank you.
21 Now, this may be one of the last
22 topic areas I go into today with respect to your
23 deposition. I am going to ask you if you are
24 familiar with Steve Thomas' book, "JonBenet"?
25 A. I know he wrote the book. I have

Page 141
1 not read it.
2 Q. And this may be a subject of
3 discussion for Lin and I. He may or may not
4 object to it. We will see.
5 Since you haven't read it, what I
6 wanted you to do was to have an opportunity to
7 read -- you can review it. You can take
8 whatever time you want to just simply read three
9 or four pages of his book where he, in effect,
10 outlines his theory of what happened that night.
11 Because then I would like to be able to ask you,
12 for the record, whether or not any of these
13 statements are true or false.
14 A. You can go ask me the questions. I
15 generally know his theories.
16 MR. WOOD: Let me say this to you,
17 Darnay. Are you referring to --
18 MR. HOFFMAN: In the paperback, it
19 is 318.
20 MR. WOOD: Excuse me. In your
21 client's request for admission number 108, you set
22 forth, I thought, in verbatim quotations, Steve
23 Thomas' description or theory of the case and
24 asked my clients to admit or deny whether that
25 was an accurate statement of the passages from

Page 142
1 the book, which they admitted.
2 What I would say is we know they
3 have been forced to look at that by virtue of
4 responding to your request for admissions, even
5 though they didn't look at it in the book proper.
6 Why don't you just go ahead and ask
7 her specific questions, and let's leave Steve
8 Thomas' book to Steve Thomas' lawsuit because he
9 has enough to answer for that himself without her
10 answering for him.
11 MR. HOFFMAN: No. I understand.
12 All I wanted to do is just simply, because it is
13 one thing to simply say yes, you admit for the
14 purposes of request to admit that these statements
15 were made in the book.
16 MR. WOOD: Sure. She read it. She
17 has a general familiarity with it because you
18 included it in your request to admit. So I
19 would ask you to go ahead and ask her specific
20 questions. And, like I said, let's leave Steve
21 Thomas' book to his lawyers to worry about. As
22 I say, they have their hands full on that one.
23 We don't need to get into that today.
24 Why don't you ask her specific
25 questions about the murder of her daughter, the

Page 143
1 death of her daughter, factual questions about
2 what may or may not have been done, et cetera.
3 She will answer any question you have in that
4 regard.
5 MR. HOFFMAN: I had just basically
6 wanted her to review it before I asked her --
7 MR. WOOD: I don't believe it is
8 necessary because we are not going to test to the
9 truth or falsity of Mr. Thomas' book. We will
10 test her knowledge about factual issues related to
11 the death of her daughter. That is why I don't
12 want to put it in the context of Mr. Thomas'
13 book, which we, as you know, clearly contend to
14 be libelous.
15 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. I am just going
16 to need a minute to make sure I go into relevant
17 areas rather than irrelevant areas.
18 MR. HOFFMAN: All right. What I am
19 going to do, rather than -- because I think most
20 of what he talks about is not factual. It is
21 more his subjective interpretation of evidence,
22 and I can't ask her whether his subjective
23 interpretation is true or false.
24 I am going to ask her if she read
25 the complete statement. And then ask her whether

Page 144
1 or not she, in fact, was involved in any way in
2 the murder of her daughter, as Steve Thomas --
3 because I think these statements speak for
4 themselves as far as his hypothesis.
5 She doesn't know how to test a
6 hypothesis. I am not really asking her to do
7 that.
8 MR. WOOD: The question of whether
9 Steve Thomas' statements or hypothesis are
10 factual, capable of being proven true or false,
11 is not an issue for us to debate today, and I
12 think you understand that.
13 MR. HOFFMAN: That's right. Yes.
14 MR. WOOD: She is not here to
15 test Steve Thomas' hypothesis or factual
16 representations --
17 MR. HOFFMAN: I agree with that.
18 MR. WOOD: -- whatever the case may
19 be. She is here to answer any question. And I
20 want to say this to you without any doubt in
21 your mind of what I am telling you, Darnay. She
22 is here to answer any question, any question that
23 you have that asks her about factual information
24 relevant to the death of her daughter.
25 So you have the opportunity today for

Page 145
1 however many hours you have left under the
2 federal rules to ask her anything about that.
3 She is prepared, ready, and willing and able to
4 answer any of those questions.
5 So that is what I would like you to
6 do. Let's go at it that way. You fire away,
7 and she will answer them.
8 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) One of the most
9 controversial pieces of evidence is a red Boy
10 Scout knife or a whittling knife. I don't know
11 if it is a Swiss Army knife. Do you know
12 whether or not Burke owned a red knife at any
13 time?
14 A. He had a couple of them.
15 Q. He had more than one?
16 A. I believe so.
17 Q. Do you know if he had more than one
18 at one time?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So it wasn't like he owned one and
21 then lost it and then owned another one?
22 A. Oh, well, I don't know that exactly.
23 I guess he has had a couple of them in his
24 life. I don't know that.
25 Q. Do you know the whereabouts of that

Page 146
1 knife on Christmas day?
2 MR. WOOD: Which one?
3 MR. HOFFMAN: The red knife that I
4 was just referring to.
5 MR. WOOD: She said he had a couple.
6 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Do you know the
7 whereabouts of either one of those knifes?
8 A. No.
9 Q. There is apparently a kitchen knife
10 found.
11 MR. WOOD: Kitchen knife found where?
12 MR. HOFFMAN: Found at the scene of
13 the crime somewhere in the kitchen, or whatever.
14 MR. WOOD: That would be news to me.
15 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. All right.
16 MR. WOOD: I don't know what you are
17 talking about. If you can, help me. If the
18 question is, Did you have kitchen knives --
19 MR. HOFFMAN: I know she has kitchen
20 knives.
21 MR. WOOD: But when you represent,
22 please, when you represent something as being
23 evidence, I just have to make sure that that is
24 just not --
25 MR. HOFFMAN: I am not saying any of

Page 147
1 this is evidence.
2 MR. WOOD: -- made up out of whole
3 cloth because the tabloids said it was evidence.
4 Most of that doesn't exist.
5 MR. HOFFMAN: I want to know what
6 she knows is and isn't.
7 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Let me ask you
8 this question. Are you a coffee or a tea
9 drinker, generally?
10 A. I drink both.
11 Q. In the mornings, when you prepare
12 yourself for the day, generally what do you have,
13 coffee or tea?
14 A. Usually coffee.
15 Q. Could you just describe what would be
16 a typical weekday for you when you get up in the
17 morning?
18 MR. WOOD: Now or back in 1996?
19 MR. HOFFMAN: I am sorry. In 1996.
20 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Just a typical
21 weekday morning. Who would normally get up first
22 in the morning?
23 Was John generally an early riser?
24 Did you get up beforehand, that sort of thing, go
25 down and make coffee?

Page 148
1 MR. WOOD: Are we talking about a
2 typical Monday through Friday where the kids are
3 in school?
4 MR. HOFFMAN: Right, nobody on
5 vacation.
6 MR. WOOD: John was going to work?
7 MR. HOFFMAN: Uh-huh (affirmative).
8 MR. WOOD: Can you do that, Patsy?
9 Do you understand what he is asking you?
10 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Can you describe
11 it?
12 A. Just in general, get up, get the kids
13 ready for school. He would go to work. I
14 would do things around the house or shopping or
15 school volunteer work and pick up the kids. And
16 that was about it.
17 Q. When you would get up in the morning,
18 would you just generally dress first and go down
19 and start preparing meals for the family, or
20 would you go down, prepare the meals first, and
21 then go get dressed?
22 A. It was probably no set pattern, but
23 usually I would dress first.
24 Q. I am sorry, you would dress?
25 A. I would usually get dressed.

Page 149
1 Q. Before you would go down to the
2 kitchen to prepare meals?
3 A. Yes. Usually. I can't say for
4 sure, but --
5 Q. But --
6 A. Usually.
7 Q. Your best recollection.
8 And then after you had dressed and
9 gone downstairs, normally what was the meal
10 preparation like for your family?
11 A. The kids would usually have cereal, I
12 think, before school. Oatmeal sometimes, fruit,
13 Pop Tarts, whatever was around.
14 Q. And you were generally dressed for the
15 day by that time; and when that was done, then I
16 just take it that you would just go about your
17 business for the rest of the day, whatever that
18 was?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did you ever prepare meals in a more
21 informal way in the morning, like go down in
22 like, say, a black housecoat with something that
23 might have like rose color flowers on it, that
24 sort of thing? Ever prepare meals in the morning
25 informally?

Page 150
1 A. Oh, I probably -- I don't know about
2 the rose color robe you are talking about, but --
3 Q. The black robe with rose colors, or
4 anything like that.
5 MR. WOOD: Or anything like that?
6 MR. HOFFMAN: Or any type of clothing
7 like that.
8 MR. WOOD: What do you mean when you
9 say any clothing like --.
10 Like a black robe with red roses,
11 pink roses?
12 MR. HOFFMAN: Linda Hoffman-Pugh once
13 identified her as --
14 MR. WOOD: Why don't you just be
15 direct and ask her the question did she own such
16 a robe and had she ever worn it. Go right
17 ahead.
18 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Did you ever own a
19 black housecoat with pink roses on it, or a black
20 robe? I don't know if it was a housecoat or
21 how you would describe it. I don't know how
22 women identify these types of informal garments.
23 A. I can't remember. I know I have a
24 white one with pink roses.
25 I may have. I can't remember. I

Page 151
1 had a lot of robes.
2 Q. With respect to JonBenet, was
3 pineapple a favorite meal of hers?
4 A. She liked fruit, in general.
5 Q. No particular fruit?
6 A. Just most any fruit.
7 Q. And was that a preference for Burke
8 also, fruit, like his sister?
9 A. He liked it -- he likes fruit, but
10 not as much as she did.
11 Q. Do you know if JonBenet would play in
12 the basement area?
13 A. She did not play much in the
14 basement.
15 Q. Did she ever express an aversion to
16 playing in the basement area?
17 A. An aversion?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. No.
20 Q. What was the basement area generally
21 used for in the house?
22 A. Burke had a train set up in one area
23 of the basement. There was -- and generally the
24 rest of it was for storage of seasonal
25 decorations, art supplies, school project supplies,

Page 152
1 that kind of thing.
2 Q. So if you didn't know what to do
3 with something in the house, you would just take
4 it down, have it sent down to the basement. Was
5 that the general storage area for things?
6 A. Largely, yes.
7 Q. Because Linda Hoffman-Pugh told me
8 that if you didn't know what to do with something
9 in the house, you would always say, Take it to
10 the basement; that was a favorite phrase of
11 yours?
12 MR. WOOD: Are you asking her whether
13 Linda Hoffman-Pugh told you that or --
14 MR. HOFFMAN: No. Whether that is,
15 in fact, a favorite phrase of hers.
16 MR. WOOD: Let me ask you so that
17 the record is clear, would you rephrase it so she
18 will know exactly what you are asking her.
19 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Was the phrase
20 "Take it to the basement" a favorite phrase of
21 yours if there was something in the house that
22 you didn't know what to do with?
23 A. I can't say what is a favorite phrase
24 or not. I am sure I don't know what that is.
25 Q. Frequently, the solution to any

Page 153
1 problem about where to take or store anything in
2 the house.
3 A. Probably so.
4 Q. With respect to the day in question,
5 whose decision was it to call the police when you
6 found the ransom note? Do you remember?
7 A. John and I, we just said, "What do
8 we do? Call the police." I don't know if it
9 was specifically one's decision or the other.
10 Q. Whose idea was it to call all the
11 people that eventually arrived, your friends, your
12 whatever, that came afterwards?
13 A. Oh, I did that.
14 Q. Can you tell me why you did that?
15 A. It just seemed instinctive. It was
16 just kind of a very stressful time, and I just
17 called on friends.
18 Q. Had you read the ransom note by
19 that time?
20 A. I don't think I had read all of
21 it, no.
22 Q. Were you aware that there was a part
23 in the ransom note where you were told not to
24 contact authorities?
25 A. I think I read that later.

Page 154
1 Q. Did you think that there might be
2 a chance that, if you called a group of people
3 over to the house and it was being observed,
4 that the kidnappers might, in fact, see that
5 you had disobeyed the condition of their ransom
6 note?
7 A. Well, that just didn't go through my
8 mind at that time.
9 Q. Were there any -- I am going to
10 withdraw that. I don't know if it is going to
11 be relevant.
12 What I am going to do, because I
13 don't think there is very much more about that
14 particular day that I really want to go into that
15 you haven't already given in the way of
16 statements that I have received. I just want to
17 clarify a few things.
18 Lin has been very forthcoming in
19 giving me discovery and whatever, so rather than
20 rehash all that, I just wanted to address a few
21 questions.
22 I am going to close the deposition by
23 asking you one question. It is just I feel I
24 am obligated to do it, and then we are going to
25 end the deposition unless there is something Lin

Page 155
1 wants to add. I am just going to ask you a
2 question.
3 Mrs. Ramsey, did you write the ransom
4 note that was found on December 26 at your
5 Boulder home?
6 A. I believe you have already asked me
7 that, and I said I did not write the ransom
8 note, no.
9 Q. I am just asking. Did you have
10 anything to do with the death of your daughter?
11 A. No, sir, I did not.
12 MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you. I am
13 finished.
14 MR. WOOD: For the record, I
15 mentioned to you, Darnay, during the break that I
16 think there has been, correct me if I am wrong,
17 one instruction on my part to Mrs. Ramsey not to
18 answer a question.
19 Am I right?
20 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes.
21 MR. WOOD: That question went to
22 making inquiry of her as to why she and her
23 husband granted an interview to The National
24 Enquirer.
25 Since the last thing I want to do is

Page 156
1 to fight a motion battle over that, and because I
2 have been consistent throughout in my
3 representation of the Ramseys, as I think they
4 have been even before I was involved in terms of
5 trying to answer every question, if you will
6 agree that we are not waiving any right to the
7 question of relevancy in allowing her to answer
8 that question, I am going to let her answer it,
9 and effectively withdraw with that understanding
10 my objection and instruction. Is that okay?
11 MR. HOFFMAN: That is fine.
12 MR. WOOD: So with that agreement, if
13 you would like to ask her; and if, Patsy, you
14 would answer the question for him, please.
15 MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to formally
16 ask it.
17 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Mrs. Ramsey, I
18 showed you a document that was identified as
19 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. I am going to show that
20 document to you again. Could you identify what
21 it is that that document purports to be?
22 A. They are copies from a tabloid
23 article, National Enquirer tabloid article.
24 Q. Would you characterize the statements
25 that you made in this article as being statements

Page 157
1 that were made in the course of an interview,
2 formal interview with The National Enquirer?
3 A. It was an interview in conjunction
4 with some litigation for Burke that we were
5 involved with.
6 Q. If it was --
7 MR. HOFFMAN: See, this is why it is
8 a tricky area because for litigation, I don't
9 want to go into what the litigation was about,
10 and, naturally, if she gave it for the purposes
11 of the litigation, then she is required to by
12 law.
13 MR. WOOD: No, it was not given as a
14 requirement of the litigation as a matter of law.
15 MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, okay.
16 MR. WOOD: But I think what she is
17 saying is that the issue about the interview came
18 up in connection with actually the resolution of
19 some of Burke's claims.
20 MR. HOFFMAN: Because I don't want to
21 get into it if this is part of the settlement.
22 If that is really what she is going to say, that
23 she agreed to this interview because it was part
24 of a settlement agreement --
25 MR. WOOD: I don't think that is

Page 158
1 what she said.
2 THE WITNESS: I agreed to the
3 interview because, I mean, we are not afraid to
4 face even our most vile opponent, of which I
5 consider The National Enquirer to be one of the
6 most vile.
7 And, you know, we have faced Steve
8 Thomas. We have faced The National Enquirer. We
9 have nothing to hide. And I am facing you
10 today, Mr. Hoffman.
11 I did not kill my daughter, I did
12 not write the ransom note, and I don't know who
13 did either of those things. And I am not afraid
14 to answer any questions from either you or from
15 them or from the police department or from anyone
16 else, for that matter. And that is why the
17 interview was taken.
18 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
19 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) The only reason I
20 had asked it was in relation to a statement that
21 was made in the book about how disapproving you
22 were of the tabloids, and --
23 A. And to this day I disapprove of the
24 tabloids.
25 Q. And also, I believe Mr. Ramsey once

Page 159
1 stated that it was his intention to see that, if
2 anything came out of this case, it would be a
3 change in the way in which the media reported
4 certain news.
5 And I was just wondering why, after
6 these strong statements of principle, that you
7 basically were willing to give a tabloid an
8 interview. That is all, my only reason for
9 asking that.
10 A. Because we wanted to prove that we
11 have nothing to hide and that we can sufficiently
12 face our most vile opponent.
13 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Thank you very
14 much.
15 Lin, I have no further questions.
16 MR. WOOD: One second.
17 So that we are clear, because you
18 have obviously done a good job of economically
19 handling the time, despite some of the colloquy
20 earlier in the day, it is clear on this record
21 that you are completing well within the maximum
22 seven hours allowed by --
23 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes.
24 MR. WOOD: -- the Federal Rules of
25 Civil Procedure. You understand we are willing

Page 160
1 to sit here for the remainder of the afternoon --
2 MR. HOFFMAN: I understand.
3 MR. WOOD: -- for however many hours
4 and answer any questions?
5 MR. HOFFMAN: Absolutely.
6 MR. WOOD: Now that we made our one
7 change of heart, you understand, Mr. Hoffman, that
8 we have answered every question, Patsy Ramsey has
9 answered any question you have put to her and
10 expressed a willingness to stay for several more
11 hours and answer any other questions; right?
12 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, I do know that I
13 would have to review the transcript. You made
14 certain objections over and above the objection
15 with respect to that, and there was an ongoing
16 colloquy between the two of us.
17 MR. WOOD: We have that transcript
18 available on this computer, and I want to make
19 sure, because you have come a long way from New
20 York, and there are a lot of lawyers that are
21 here today to make sure that Chris Wolf and his
22 attorneys have had every opportunity to ask any
23 question relevant to the claims or defenses in
24 this case.
25 And if you are representing that you

Page 161
1 have now done so to your satisfaction, then the
2 deposition is, in fact, complete.
3 MR. HOFFMAN: Again, it is subject
4 to --
5 MR. WOOD: If there is any --
6 MR. HOFFMAN: -- any review.
7 MR. WOOD: -- issue you want to look
8 at now, we don't mind taking a break, turn my
9 computer around, you can scroll through the entire
10 deposition, and if there is a question, she is
11 here. We can come back after the break, and you
12 can clarify it.
13 THE WITNESS: Let's do that to make
14 sure.
15 MR. WOOD: I would rather take the
16 time today to make sure that you are done and
17 not take any chance that we would have to come
18 back and put together this type of a force of
19 people.
20 MR. HOFFMAN: I really don't foresee
21 that there is any area.
22 MR. WOOD: That is all I wanted to
23 know.
24 MR. HOFFMAN: And, Mr. Wood, I wanted
25 to tell you that at lunchtime, in light of our

Page 162
1 earlier discussion, I felt that, given -- I had a
2 chance to review all of the, which was quite
3 substantial, the discovery documentation, and in
4 doing that, I realized that a lot of what I
5 would be asking had been an asked-and-answered
6 situation, and there was simply no reason to
7 subject Mrs. Ramsey to answer questions and
8 answers that she has already given on other
9 occasions.
10 MR. WOOD: In fact, you have been
11 provided with complete transcripts of the April
12 1997 police interviews, of the June 1998 police
13 and district attorney interviews, and of the
14 August 2000 police interviews; we have given those
15 to you.
16 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, absolutely.
17 MR. WOOD: And I think you would
18 acknowledge, as she did today for you, she did in
19 every one of those, she answered every question;
20 didn't she?
21 MR. HOFFMAN: I believe she did, to
22 the best of her ability.
23 MR. WOOD: All right. Deposition
24 concluded. Thank you very much.
25 MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Ramsey,

Page 163
1 for coming.
2 MR. WOOD: Let's go back on. Are we
3 back on?
4 One thing I do want to make clear,
5 because this has come up in other depositions, in
6 whole or in part, and I want to state it now so
7 that there is no doubt about it being something
8 that even has to take a moment's reflection.
9 Subject to the court reporter's need
10 to coordinate the videotape with the stenographic
11 transcript, the written transcript, which I
12 understand takes some time in order to ensure
13 complete accuracy, I want to state that, on
14 behalf of the Ramseys, this deposition shall not
15 be deemed confidential. No part of this
16 deposition will be deemed confidential.
17 My clients are perfectly willing for
18 this entire deposition, either in the written
19 stenographic form or in the videotape form, in
20 its entirety, to be made public. And we make
21 that statement unlike any other witness in this
22 case. Every other witness has claimed
23 confidentiality in whole or in part. We claim no
24 such confidentiality.
25 We are willing to let anyone that

Page 164
1 wants to see it in its entirety see it.
2 So with that statement, then we are
3 completed.
4 MR. HOFFMAN: With that statement,
5 that means that when the videotapes are -- do you
6 need to review the videotapes before?
7 MR. WOOD: No. I have made my
8 statement without the necessity of reflection or
9 review. The Ramseys are willing to allow this
10 deposition to be made public in its entirety.
11 The only delay, as I understand it,
12 in being able to do that is for the videographer
13 and the stenographer to review the transcript in
14 writing and the videotape to make sure that there
15 is a coordinated and accurate transcript.
16 Once that process is done, whoever
17 would like to see this deposition in video or to
18 read it in writing, the Ramseys make no claim to
19 confidentiality.
20 MR. HOFFMAN: Fine. Thank you. And
21 thank you once again, Mrs. Ramsey.

22 comments:

Hobnob said...

25 Q. And you don't feel it was a member

Page 27
1 of your own family; is that correct?
2 A. No, sir.
3 MR. WOOD: I think your answer is
4 really "yes, sir." "Is that correct" would
5 require a "yes" response, so that the record is
6 clear.
7 Don't we agree, Darnay?
8 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, that is fine



Ooops, luckily for her, her attorney realised what she had just said and quickly corrected her

QuestionsAnyone? said...

Once again, Satan has reared her ugly head!
Wiretapping (both landline and mobile) and computer hacking is a serious crime and carry stiff criminal & civil penalities. You, my dear, gave many clues, both obvious and suble that emerged into a meaningful pattern... Your 'high' intelligence must be on low frequent, resulting from all the comments you post, because it was quiet easy to figure you out.

Note: If you listen carefully, you can hear the click. The click when someone is picking your phone up off the hook, or the recording kicks on.

If you have any questions for me, simply pick up the phone and dial my number. You know the number. lol

Paula said...

hobnob - I stopped reading this once I read exactly what you pointed out. That, to me, says it all. The question will always remain though - who caused the fatal blow, and who was in charge of the cover-up.

Paula said...

hobnob - I stopped reading this once I read exactly what you pointed out. That, to me, says it all. The question will always remain though - who caused the fatal blow, and who was in charge of the cover-up.

john said...

OT

Isabel Mercedes Celis Missing: Possible Tips In Missing Person Case

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/19/isabel-mercedes-celis-mis_n_4626931.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Anonymous said...

OT
Heather Elvis


Terry Elvis has made a promise to his daughter.

“No matter what, no matter where, no matter the cost. No matter the penalty, no matter the ramifications, whatever it takes, I will find you and fix it.”

huh??????????

Ivy said...

I tried to post this to the TV interview but was not successful. Trying again. One thing that jumped out at me reading the CNN interview this time, is just how weird it is for Patsy to say she didn't read the letter from the supposed kidnappers of her daughter. It makes zero sense. I can sort of see her not fully taking it in in the moment she realized JonBenet is missing (it's long) and wanting to take immediate action (look for her, call police) but to deny having read the note from the people who took her/murdered her when you claim you're trying to figure out who did this/why? They called police and then waited in the house for hours before finding JonBenet. You expect anyone to believe that in that period of time you didn't read the message from the people who took her? Wouldn't that just be of paramount importance? The leaves the question of why someone in that circumstance would deny familiarity with or even interest in so critical a piece of evidence. Not wanting to answer questions about things in the note? That's part of it. I think a lot of it is also disassociation: "Write it? Why, I didn't even read it! I couldn't even begin to tell you what it says" "Oh, the ransom note that proves an intruder murdered JonBenet? You know, I've just been so distraught, I haven't had time to read it."

This reminds me a bit of the Christie statement repeated in the press conference that he didn't ask any questions of his staff after the emails came out. He just had someone else fire them after finding out they lied. He gives as an excuse that he doesn't want to be accused of interfering with an investigation or whatever, but that's pretty weak, coming from someone who is assuring people this won't happen again and that he's trying to get to the bottom of what happened. Again, if your closest aides grossly abused their power in such way, lied to you about it, and created this total crisis/taint on your office, wouldn't you want to hear what their explanation or story was, even if you were dubious of its veracity? Not asking the staff member(s) what happened allows him to say he doesn't know what happened. Or as Peter suggests of Patty, he doesn't need to ask questions because he already knows the answer.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, right? None of us have any clout with LE anyway. Not an ounce.

They're not paying any attention to us, what we think, don't think, believe, don't believe, know, don't know; they couldn't care less what we think one way or the other. Aren't even listening or reading it.

None of the other cases have any clout or persuasion with any of their respective LE jurisdictions either. It's all just wasted time if any ones' expecting something different to be done.

Condensed definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a change.

Anonymous said...

OT
http://united4ayla.com/the-case-for-trista/

Lemon said...

Mr. Hoffman's compound questions were maddening. Was he overcompensating in the presence of Mr. Wood? Was he trying to sound smarter than he is? Was he trying to impress them? Did he think simple questions would make him sound simple?

Carnival Barker said...


I haven't read the entire article yet, but I thought I could offer a unique prospective on this one area that my fellow posters are talking about ... the example that Hobs has posted in the very first comment.

I'm a court reporter (the stenographer with that funny-looking machine that takes down all the testimony in a deposition or courtroom), so I encounter this situation literally every day. The example that Hobs posted is something even a truthful deponent does because they are answering the root question and not the echo "is that correct" question at the end. What that example proves to me is that Lin Wood is a very seasoned, record-concious attorney who realizes that when words get translated to paper the meaning of them sometimes appears differently than how they were stated. (Anyone who has ever had a text misinterpreted knows this.)

By the way, I think Patsy is guilty of killing her daughter, but looking at this one deposition question wouldn't be the smoking gun for me at all, since I have encountered this situation millions of times with truth-telling witnesses.

Carnival Barker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lemon said...

Word

a.n.o.n.y. mouse said...

Right, CarnivalBarker -
"No, Sir" I Don't feel it was a member of my own family - is what Patsy is trying to respond.

Pak31 said...

I'm starting to feel that Burke was involved and the parents covered it up. There was previous sexual abuse for JonBenet and the way Burke reacted during questioning showed signs of abuse in him as well. God only knows what went on in that family behind closed doors. I do believe that the family knew exactly what was going on from the moment that 911 call was made.

Maggie said...

Did Patsy have Munchausen by Proxy? It is VERY strange JonBenet was brought to the doctor 30 times in 3 yrs. What is almost as strange is that in the doctor's interview that Shelley posted on the last JonBenet thread, the doctor speaks very highly of Patsy. The doctor adamently insists he does not believe JonBenet had been sexually abused, yet, as JonBenet's doctor he does not offer any alternative explanation for why JonBenet had these constantly recurring infections. Maybe because JonBenet did not really have that many infections? Maybe it was because Patsy was a munchausen Mom seeking attention from the doctor in an extremely sick way by using her own daughter?
Maybe the ransom note and even JonBenet's terrible death was another horrible manifestation of Patsy's pathological desire for attention. The ransom goes on and on as if it was written by someone seeking attention.

Jen Ow said...

It's unreal the amount of interference Wood needed to provide for his 'innocent' client.

Practically every question Wood jumped in to give Patsy time to think, and to direct her how to avoid answering, with his 'objections', (rantings). I don't think I read a single answer by Patsy without at least one qualifier or reduced commitment. Then after all of the nonsense and time wasted by Wood, seeking clarification on EVERY word spoken, repeatedly stalling and making the deposition generally difficult...Wood makes a declaration on the record, (getting in the last word in when it wasn't even his deposition to begin with) that they want it known that Patsy has answered all questions and will gladly stay for more, and they want the record released to the public. As if anything would be accomplished if the deposition lasted 1000 hrs, while Wood and Patsy did everything possible to keep from providing actual information.

skeptic said...

Munchausen’s is also indicated in the question where it is pointed out that it was silly if not dangerous of Patsy to invite over a crowd of people, in correlation with a ransom note that said “don’t call the police”. It indicates that Patsy is more interested in the attention of her friends than she is in the recovery of her daughter, and if so, why? Isn’t she worried about the kidnappers seeing this throng and drawing the wrong conclusion? Admittedly I say this as an introvert, but if I were in this awful situation I wouldn’t want a crowd of people in my home trampling over evidence. I’d be doing all my fretting with my family in the house or freaking out in a room alone. I mean, we've all seen probably a thousand movies and TV series on the theme of kidnapping. What victim throws an impromptu party?! I'm not sure where this was in a timeline but wouldn't the police tell you not to invite a gaggle of looky-loos?

Maggie said...

Skeptic--Absolutely--Patsy assembled a crowd of people to witness them searching for JonBenet. Also, I always though it was very odd how Patsy reportedly implored her pastor to "bring JonBenet back to life" (or something like that I may not be recalling it exactly).
The ransom note makes sense if viewed through the lense of munchausen by proxy. A hallmark of MSBP is that the mother will make up more and more puzzling symptoms and the doctor will puzzle and run more tests trying to figure out what is causing the confusing symptoms. JonBenet's murder, staged crime scene and ransom note could be a similar dynamic where Patsy has created these conflicting, puzzling "symptoms" of what befell JonBenet that Christmas night.

Jen Ow said...

Hi Maggie,

The thing you mention about Patsy asking for JonBenet to be brought back to life, and the whole scenario surrounding her being 'found' has always been one of the strangest, and strongest indicators of the Ramsey's guilt, imo.

According to Steve Thomas' book JonBenet, in the moments after John 'found' Jonbenet's body, and callously carried it upstairs...Patsy did NOT move from the couch despite the intense commotion, and Fleet White screaming to call 911. She waited until John brought her up, laid her out, checked her pulse and asked the detective if she was gone, (although she was already stiff with rigor) moved her a SECOND time, covered her with a blanket (further contaminating the scene)...and THEN the female friends who were attending to Patsy helped her into the room, holding her upright, where she collapsed over JonBenet's body. The detective, who had lost control of the crime scene, asked the pastor to lead the group in prayer, and as he began to pray Patsy sprang to her knees and yelled, "Jesus you raised Lazarus from the dead, please raise my baby".

WHO. DOES. THAT.

Who sits and waits for the scene to be staged, then has to be dragged/carried into the room where their daughter is, after supposedly spending the morning terrified, and waiting for any word on her safety and whereabouts. I would be tackling anyone in my way. Who yells out a cheezy movie-esque line like "Jesus you raised Lazarus from the dead, please raise my baby", in the first throws of grief after 'finding' their daughter brutally tortured and murdered in their own home.

That hacky line couldn't sound more rehearsed if she stopped halfway through, cleared her voice, and said.."lets take it from the top..."Jesus you raised..."

Maggie said...

Hi Jen--You described the whole scene in more detail than I knew, and I totally agree with you--it is like Patsy was acting out a scene from a play. And she had obviously reharsed in her head the Lazarus line--thre's no way she came up with that off the top of her head and noone would naturally say something that theatrical. Maybe the ransom note was written by Patsy to throw people off long enough so that she could assemble a crowd to watch her performance when JonBenet was finally found in the basement?! Just recalling the ransom note in my head now, there are quite a few linguistic indicators of possible MSBP even the ransom note writer's fake concern for John's health and well-restedness before he makes his exhausting journey to deliver the money! Patsy Ramsey was truly a psycho!

Jen Ow said...

Yes Maggie, I agree Patsy was a very disturbed and self absorbed woman. In one interview her line about how JobBenet will never know cancer says it all to me. She saw her battle with cancer as a WORSE fate than what JonBenet suffered!? In what world is surviving cancer worse than being murdered?