Justice Watch Support JW "Are the Ramseys Up to Something?" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Are the Ramseys Up to Something?, darby, 05:11:35, 3/23/2001 Darby,, pinker, 05:17:41, 3/23/2001, (#1) I think she's saying, Holly, 06:03:28, 3/23/2001, (#2) Yea, but Holly,, gaiabetsy, 06:10:43, 3/23/2001, (#3) Hold everything, Newt, Watching you, 06:13:18, 3/23/2001, (#4) Part of settlement?, mary99, 06:53:21, 3/23/2001, (#5) more, mary99, 07:07:42, 3/23/2001, (#8) mary99, Holly, 07:06:46, 3/23/2001, (#7) Holly, mary99, 07:18:32, 3/23/2001, (#10) mary99., Holly, 10:56:14, 3/23/2001, (#19) Holly, mary99, 13:59:14, 3/23/2001, (#28) Well, darby, 07:00:38, 3/23/2001, (#6) GJ transcripts, fly, 07:13:10, 3/23/2001, (#9) fly, mary99, 07:52:30, 3/23/2001, (#11) Regarding 911 tape..., Twitch, 07:59:18, 3/23/2001, (#12) 'Twas I, janphi, 08:58:21, 3/23/2001, (#15) Chances are, darby, 08:24:12, 3/23/2001, (#14) ????, pinker, 08:23:01, 3/23/2001, (#13) Beginning of The End...., Voyager, 10:12:32, 3/23/2001, (#18) 911 tape..., Country Girl, 10:04:16, 3/23/2001, (#17) Possible theories:, Cassandra, 10:01:52, 3/23/2001, (#16) they've accomplished something, Edie Pratt, 11:32:09, 3/23/2001, (#22) Voyager,, zoomama, 11:32:04, 3/23/2001, (#21) querky, pinker, 11:27:43, 3/23/2001, (#20) Like Fly, Starling, 12:04:14, 3/23/2001, (#24) zoomama...., Voyager, 11:56:18, 3/23/2001, (#23) I have to strenuously, Watching you, 12:36:39, 3/23/2001, (#25) WY.....I love it when...., Voyager, 12:55:18, 3/23/2001, (#26) Me thinks..., JR, 13:34:55, 3/23/2001, (#27) Up to something - looks like it, Paulie, 14:18:53, 3/23/2001, (#29) Vpuager, Watching you, 15:54:32, 3/23/2001, (#30) Gottcha WY....., Voyager, 16:07:38, 3/23/2001, (#31) Like my Daddy, Watching you, 16:09:29, 3/23/2001, (#32) CG, Twitch, 16:22:45, 3/23/2001, (#33) Thanks, Twitch, janphi, 12:39:29, 3/24/2001, (#46) Twitch, mary99, 19:57:43, 3/23/2001, (#34) If, starry, 07:03:10, 3/24/2001, (#35) Starry, I think, Watching you, 07:12:14, 3/24/2001, (#36) Consider This, New York Lawyer, 07:39:46, 3/24/2001, (#37) Should be interesting, starry, 07:51:37, 3/24/2001, (#38) This is exactly, DuBois, 09:18:52, 3/24/2001, (#39) I thought my sister..., Ginja, 10:24:21, 3/24/2001, (#41) Yup, Watching you, 09:56:51, 3/24/2001, (#40) Ginja, New York Lawyer, 10:40:11, 3/24/2001, (#42) So, NYL, janphi, 12:42:48, 3/24/2001, (#47) Dear NYL, Edie Pratt, 11:17:22, 3/24/2001, (#43) Edie Pratt, New York Lawyer, 11:51:34, 3/24/2001, (#44) thanks, NYL, Edie Pratt, 12:18:53, 3/24/2001, (#45) NYL......, rose, 14:18:46, 3/24/2001, (#48) Something to Ponder...., Sabrina, 14:44:54, 3/24/2001, (#49) good question, Sabrina, Edie Pratt, 14:49:28, 3/24/2001, (#50) rose, New York Lawyer, 15:06:44, 3/24/2001, (#51) NYL, Ginja, 16:03:08, 3/24/2001, (#52) Defense Attorneys, Ginja, 16:15:27, 3/24/2001, (#53) thanks, Ginja, Edie Pratt, 17:33:51, 3/24/2001, (#54) DA turned DA, Anton, 11:45:21, 3/25/2001, (#55) And then there are the ones..., LurkerXIV, 12:13:15, 3/25/2001, (#56) ................................................................... "Are the Ramseys Up to Something?" Posted by darby on 05:11:35 3/23/2001 This is just a speculation thread. WY wondered aloud if perhaps this latest case news--a Ramsey interview with the Enquirer--has more to it than meets the eye. We've all been speculating that the Ramseys must be off their rockers to grant such an interview. We've even been wondering if Lin Wood has also lost a brain cell or two to apparently sanction his clients' interview with the Enquirer. I've been reading here, there and everywhere about this latest event, and I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps the Ramseys are up to something. (public figure) Susan Benett declared that, contrary to NYL's claims, the Ramseys weren't paid a dime for this interviw. Then she hinted on her forum that this will all come out later, and we'll all see that the Ramseys weren't paid. Is it just a coincidence that she has recently created a public forum--a forum she fills with provocative threads for anyone and everyone to attack? Maybe she isn't out of the loop after all. A week or two back, mame spoke of lawsuits out of the Ramsey camp, some possibly involving forums. And mame has all but declared on JW that one of her sources is Lou Smit (my guess). Lin Wood would be a fool if he neglected to record the Ramsey-Enquirer interview. Is it possible that the Enquirer might have mis-quoted or even alluded to something other than what the Ramseys really said? Could the Ramseys sue the Enquirer for something of that nature? Or could they even make a case, much like Fleet White tried to do, of filing some sort of a criminal libel suit against the Enquirer, based solely on unfavorable public interpretations of the Enquirer's article? Mainstream newspaper articles, comments by radio hosts such as Peter Boyles, and even internet forums could provide a wealth of supporting documentation for such a lawsuit. Have Patsy, John and Lin all lost their marbles at the same time? Or are they up to something? I gotta get ready for work now. Have at it. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Darby," Posted by pinker on 05:17:41 3/23/2001 Are you impling the NE may have set them up? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "I think she's saying" Posted by Holly on 06:03:28 3/23/2001 the opposite. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Yea, but Holly," Posted by gaiabetsy on 06:10:43 3/23/2001 in this day and age of FBI informants and crazy double agents, I can imagine BOTH SIDES attempting to set one another up. On another thread, I asked the question, but received no input, could a tabloid have sent a guy over to their house to bug it? Just think. Maybe the Rams considered that after the intruder, found a bug, reasoned some of their conversations were going to come back and haunt them because they admitted some things on the tape that would sooner or later be confirmed, so they came out in an offensive effort to thwart the negative consequences by putting their own spin on the info. Of course, they looked and sounded nuts, but their lawyer might have reasoned it's always better to get the dirt out rather than have someone else do it to you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Hold everything, Newt" Posted by Watching you on 06:14:21 3/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:14:21, 3/23/2001 gosh, Darb, this is how rumors get started, and WY can get into enough trouble by herself, haha. I think you attributed the wondering out loud thing to the wrong person. I've really not entertained such thoughts - at least not until others raised the issue that there may be more going on here than just an interview. Of course, you know I CRS, so maybe I said something to make you think I thought what it was you thought I said out loud. If so, I humbly beg your indulgence, as I am an oldish woman, and y'all know us oldish women aren't as sharp as some of the youngsters. Right. hahahahahahahaha Y'all, I edited this post because I do not wish to bed Darby's indulgence, I wish to beg it. Carry on. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Part of settlement?" Posted by mary99 on 06:53:21 3/23/2001 NYL says the Rams were paid--jamz sez they were not. How to reconcile the conflicting stories? The settlement from the Burke libel suit may not be disclosed. The GJ testimony may not be disclosed. This latest article explodes a Burke myth perpetrated by the Ramseys - that he was asleep. The tabs are owned by the same parent company. My take on this -- in the settlement with the Star, which was said to be low by those who might know, part of the agreement may have included a contract between the Rams and the parent company to give an interview at some point in the future which would give the Ramseys a chance to clear up any myths or untruths about Burke. The beauty of this arrangement is twofold: each side can say they were the winners; the tabs get the interview they always wanted and the Ramseys, theoretically, anyway, get a chance to clear their name. Of course, if the Ramseys were innocent, this would be a beneficial arrangement, giving the appearance of 'forcing' the tabs to let them speak. That the interview took place in Lin Wood's office, under his supervision, but he did not halt or impede the questioning is also telling. Apparently, he may not have had the right to stop the interview, if it was indeed part of the settlement. That the GJ transcripts may be released is a factor; both the Ramseys and the Enquirer are well aware of potential revelations. The Enquirer has the 911 call tape, I suspect. The Ramseys are at their mercy. They agreed to the interview because not to do so is to risk far more damaging exposure in an unfavorable light when and if the GJ testimony gag order is lifted, thanks to Darnay Hoffman. The above is JMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "more" Posted by mary99 on 07:07:42 3/23/2001 Sorry, I didn't explain this statement fully: The beauty of this arrangement is twofold: each side can say they were the winners; the tabs get the interview they always wanted and the Ramseys, theoretically, anyway, get a chance to clear their name. What I left out: Since the Ramseys have said all along they are innocent, and the Burke lawsuit relied heavily on him being unfairly targeted, naturally the tabs, in a conciliatory manuever, would make this offer you can't refuse, all the while knowing that the Ramseys, having lied, would find themselves "holding the wrong end of the stick". So the opportunity for the Ramseys to 'clear Burke's name' turned into an opportunity for the tabs 'to expose more Ramsey lies'. With the imminent release of the GJ transcripts, how could they refuse? They tried instead to do some preventative damage control. All I can say is, if this is damage control, the transcripts must have a few doozies! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "mary99" Posted by Holly on 07:06:46 3/23/2001 ENQUIRER might have a 911 tape - but not the BPD enhanced version. Of course they could do their own enhancing. But I just don't think anyone but forensic specialists and the BPD have that tape. Woody and the Rams might think they have the made the superior chess move, but Don Gentile is the master. He's the man. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Holly" Posted by mary99 on 07:18:32 3/23/2001 Ya know, it's been said that the tape was NEVER heard on TV, and other posters have said they did hear it. I heard it while I was taking a nap one afterbnoon with the TV on one of the afternoon shows--Hard Copy or Inside Edition, I think. I heard Burke's voice well enough without enhancing, though the words were indistinct. It only lasted a few seconds but immediately got my attention. I really do believe this tape was somehow 'acquired' and then immediately suppressed. Just like the autopsy photos--someone made an extra copy and passed it on. Most 911 tapes are available under the FOI act--except when they are to be considered evidence. I think the tape was released or copied, by mistake, before what was on it was fully appreciated. Once it played on TV, the BPD or DA's office must have clamped down and issued a harsh rebuke with threats of legal action if it was broadcasted again. It's the only explanation I can come up with for hearing it once and then never again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "mary99." Posted by Holly on 10:56:14 3/23/2001 Huh? Ma said the tape has never been aired on TV. Are you sure? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Holly" Posted by mary99 on 13:59:14 3/23/2001 See Janphi's account below--we both agree it was heard only once, on an afternoon show like Inside Edition or Hard Copy, and neither she nor I was posting or reading the JBR forums. If I hadn't been dozing, I would probably have more info (which show exactly, other segments of the show, etc), however, her account is correct as I remember it; it was subtitled and not a re-enactment. As far as being from PMPT (book or movie)- no, I don't think that's the answer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Well" Posted by darby on 07:00:38 3/23/2001 All I can say is that jams new "public forum" and the Rams' Enquirer interview are both very out of character for the parties involved, to say the least. WY--Maybe it was just your, "I don't get it" post (#23, first Enquirer thread) that got my wheels spinning. I don't get it either. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "GJ transcripts" Posted by fly on 07:13:10 3/23/2001 I am also wondering whether this interview somehow is connected to the lawsuits. There's got to be SOME reason for it, other than a 180 degree shift in the Ramsey's opinion of the tabs. However, I think some here are overestimating the role of the GJ testimony in this latest. I don't think the LHP lawsuit will result in the release of the entire transcript. I might be wrong, but I think it will (if successful) mainly allow witnesses to talk/write about their testimony - not make the transcript a public record. Isn't that how the federal GJ's work? If that is correct, there's little reason to believe that Burke's testimony would be released. Something is behind this, perhaps, but I doubt it is the LHP GJ suit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "fly" Posted by mary99 on 07:52:30 3/23/2001 You're right about the potential impact of the LHP lawsuit being multi-level. We could see the witness be allowed to write or talk about their testimony while the transcript stays sealed--a likely outcome, imo. But, in the worst case scenario for the defense, the judge may find that the sealing of the transcripts without a issuing report or an indictment has effectively defeated the goal of the law-which is to use the GJ to obtain evidence and make an indictment. If it appears the witnesses were called for the purpose of sealing their lips forever, and the case is 'on the shelf', the remedy may include releasing the transcripts. Whatever, it has the Ramseys running scared. Burke could always write a book or give an interview, for that matter, if the gag order is lifted. Maybe they wonder if he will portray them in a favorable light? He will come of age in just a few years and his parents will have no say in what he chooses to do. -beep--beep- [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Regarding 911 tape..." Posted by Twitch on 07:59:18 3/23/2001 I think maybe it was janphi who suggested that there was a injunction issued against the news/gossip show that carried it and that's why it was never heard again. I tried to find a listing of any court action on the internet but it was hopeless. I know I heard that tape and then it disappeared mysteriously. Why? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "'Twas I" Posted by janphi on 08:58:21 3/23/2001 I did post that last year and I've tried to post each time the subject comes up, but sometimes I don't have time. Yes, I HEARD the tape being played on TV. I did not look at the screen to see the text of the dialogue till the very, very end. I wasn't "into" the case at the time, but had always tried to keep my eyes and ears open about it. I wasn't watching, only listening, and there had been quite a build-up of promos throughout the day for this tape. It was on a tabloid show, like "Hard Copy" or "Inside Edition" whose slot here is in the afternoons between the end of the early news (4PM-4:30PM here) and the start of the 5PM News. Because I was absent-mindedly half-listening, I honestly thought it was on the "news News" and that it was a BIG revelation. But like I said, I wasn't following the case then. It was late 1999 or early 2000. Someone "over there" said it was a re-enactment as a promo for PMPT:The Movie. I don't know about that, maybe so--but why the "breaking news" type build-up, if so? (I can already hear certain posters saying how "naive" I am to "fall" for that--hey, I'm IN THE BUSINESS. I know what a promo is. I have to listen to TV with my "3rd ear" all the time, for client blurbs--there is a cadence and timing that I just "know," OK?) I even made a mental note to watch the 5PM News to see if they would replay it so I could hear the whole thing and see the text. When it wasn't on the 5PM News, I wondered what the deal was. Then at some point later--maybe 5:30-6:00 or so, while I was doing my usual business, I was on the phone with someone at that station, probably a producer, but I don't remember. Within our conversation, one of us mentioned "the tape" and I questioned why it wasn't on the 2nd time. This person obviously didn't have anything to do with the tab show or national programming, but said she had already heard that it had been pulled, probably because of an injunction. We speculated that it might have been stolen and passed to the show or that it might have been released by the enhancement company accidentally, without any approvals. That was all--and while I wondered what happened about it, I never actually thought about it again--until after I started lurking, reading, posting on the JBR fora. The first time I timidly "spoke up" and posted that I had heard it, I couldn't even remember who I heard saying "we're not talking to you." I thought it was Patsy. I honestly hadn't paid any attention until the thing was just about over--and it had flown by really fast, tho I think they even played it twice, not sure. So, I have no other details, but I know I heard it and I get sick of others (both here AND there) who say there is no way I did. I have no idea if it was the real thing or not, but there was a broadcast of the contents of that tape, both with audio and text. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Chances are" Posted by darby on 08:24:12 3/23/2001 My speculation probably isn't exactly what RamWood has in mind. I've got to think, however, that there is something to this other than just more of the same "we're innocent" publicity we've seen in the past. If nothing else, RamWood knows full well that there would be an international collective snicker about the decision to deal with a tabloid after making a big stink over how vile the tabloids are. Plus, ANY mainstream media would have stood in line to get this interview. Why on earth did the Ramseys choose the Enquirer? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "????" Posted by pinker on 08:23:01 3/23/2001 Has the technology improved in the past couple of years so that the enhancement has more credibility? That could be one of the newer pieces of evidence the public isn't privy to. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Beginning of The End...." Posted by Voyager on 10:21:22 3/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:21:22, 3/23/2001 With the recent decisions coming down on the Wolfe and especially on the LHP lawsuits...It seems obvious to me that the Ramsey Parents see the beginning of the end of the deceptions that have been perpetrated on the public for the last 4 yrs.... As the lawsuits progress, and the information previously held secret under the grande jury gag is released, the truth about many details of the Ramsey murder, and the Ramsey family will come to light publicly....Perhaps even enough information to identify JonBenet's murderer and those involved in the cover-up... From the extreme route that the Ramsey's are currently taking with giving an interview to a formerly adversarial tabloid newspaper, I occurrs to me that they are working on several elements to benefit themselves... Firstly, they are getting the public gently used to the idea that Burke may have been awake during part of that night/early morning, and that they just did not realize it or forgot or something of the sort...more blurring of the facts for public comsumption. Secondly, they are making friends with the tabloid media....they are going to need some friends in that particular venue in the coming months to interview them in the best possible light, to combat the traditional news media covering the real facts of the lawsuits forthcoming.. Thirdly, I think the Ramsey's sense that there is now a very real chance that with the release of the grand jury interview information, that enough facts may become available to current investigators, for an indictment of one or both John and Patsy....In this case, they will want to have their current public statements consistant with being able to "Throw Burke Under The Bus".... Yes, I do think that the Ramsey's would do this to save themselves from spending their lives in jail....as a last resort, I do think they would try to pin JonBenet's murder solely on Burke....and of course there is always some chance here that he may have been involved... Fourthly, whether Burke just knows what happened that night or whether Burke was involved, there is always the chance now that as Burke grows older and out of the constant control of his parents, that he may speak out to the press with information ranging from how long he was awake that night/morning, to how much he knows about the actual murder, to a personal confession....The Ramsey's may have found a Tabloid and a report who they think will be sympathetic long term to their family in coverage of the unfolding events... I can see a "deal" of sorts being made....a positive/sympathetic news slant in exchange for exclusive rights to interviews....Yep, I see this as a desperate act by a desperate couple with the approval of their desperate attorney....I see this interview as a very strategic move.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "911 tape..." Posted by Country Girl on 12:00:33 3/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:00:33, 3/23/2001 First of all, Burke's attorney was given a copy of the tape prior to his grand jury testimony by Judge Bailen (SP), so the consensus at the time was that the judge must have heard his voice or she would not have ruled it was his "prior testimony", and ruled accordingly. Think perhaps the Ramsey's were allowed to hear Burke's copy? Secondly, "Hard Copy" and "Inside Edition" are syndicated programs which air at different times on stations that purchase the programming. They are not done locally and no local station producer would have any control over their content. Has anyone contacted the syndicators of these two programs to find out if it was a clip from PMPT? Edited to add: Inside Edition is a King World property and Hard Copy was Paramount TV and from my brief research it was cancelled in the 1998 season. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Possible theories:" Posted by Cassandra on 10:04:07 3/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:04:07, 3/23/2001 Maybe their angle was just "Show Me the $$$!" Who knows, with these two? Publicity? Another round of tv interviews? God, NOT ANOTHER BOOK!!! My first instinct was that it was as* covering against some info that was expected to get out. What the Clinton crowd calls "getting ahead of the story" to take some of the sting out. I think I still lean toward that theory, but they would never sniff at some bucks coming their way, I guess. Maybe they just miss the media, and want to be on tv again. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "they've accomplished something" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:32:09 3/23/2001 alright, after telling my husband Joe IknownothingabouttheJBRcase Blow about the NE thing, he said, "Seeeee? I told you Burke did it!" Now this average citizen thinks Burke's guiltier than ever. I think THAT'S exactly what their motivation was. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Voyager," Posted by zoomama on 11:32:04 3/23/2001 Re: your post #18 I liked what you said. However I have a question for you. I think it was your third opinion where you said "enough facts may become available.....for an indictment of one or both John and Pasty". This is my query for you. If facts were presented...enough facts presented at Grand Jury then why no indictment then? Was Hunter so powerful that he told them to withhold any conclusion or written summation or issue and indictment or just plain "shut up"? That is hard to imagine but not impossible. So far the members of the GJ have all kept silent as they should. Not one peep to anyone...so far. If some of the GJ facts become known and they are unfavorable to the Rammers then why the silence...Just Hunter being himself? That would get him into plenty of trouble I would imagine. Anyway I'm not picking on you, I liked your post but just wondering about this. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "querky" Posted by pinker on 11:27:43 3/23/2001 If it's now been brought to light that Burke was awake doesn't that give the potential he may have been involved, the potential that previous libel lawsuit winnings are now null and void? Did the NE uncover this and confront the Ramseys, hence this interview? What the hell is going on? Has anyone been in touch with the NE? Which party initiated this story? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Like Fly" Posted by Starling on 12:04:14 3/23/2001 Like Fly, the more I think about it, there has to be a reason for this interview and it's content. Four things come to mind and in no specific order here they are: 1. It's a potential trap to get TV shows, Newspapers and Forums to speculate about Burke, for potential lawsuits. 2. Knowing depositions are coming down faster than Mir - they spoke up now, as to not shock the chit out of all of us, when their story changes under oath. 3. And this is the one bothering me personally. John and Patsy are both discussing a matter that was before the Grand Jury - and supposedly was a secret, and meant to be left that way. Isn't that why everyone was gagged to Kingdom Come in the first place? So if they have Burke's testimony at their fingertips or have been picking at his little brain and have suddenly decided to leak to a tab - why? What stands out, for me right now - is the last interviews they gave in Atlanta, with Kane and all them - and Kane so upset with Hee Haw Boy, that he went on LKL and agreed to go to court and have everything released from the Grand Jury. So that led me to believe - Kane wants it out there (transcript). Maybe it is going to be put out there. 4. All are off their rockers and/or medicines.LOL Star [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "zoomama...." Posted by Voyager on 11:57:37 3/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:57:37, 3/23/2001 In the Ramsey case, the grande jury was used as an investigative arm by the District Attorney Alex Hunter, who made the eventual decision that not enough conclusive evidence was produced by the grande jury investigation to successfully prosecute any known person for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey... Therefore Alex Hunter as district attorney with the power of that office, declared no indictment of any of the suspects, including the Ramseys, and put a severe gag order on the members of the grande jury and the grande jury witnesses....This gag order included a gag on the outcome of whether or not the members of the grande jury did themselves indict anyone for the murder.... Even if the grande jury did come to the decision to indict, Alex Hunter still was the final word on the decision to indict....Many of us here felt at the time that it was a travesty of justice that the public was not ever even informed of the grande jury's decision in this all important matter....However with the LHP lawsuit pending, we may know by summer exactly what the grande jury's final intentions were.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "I have to strenuously" Posted by Watching you on 12:36:39 3/23/2001 disagree that the Ramseys see the beginning of the end. This is the couple who have manipulated dozens of people, with the help of some smart lawyers and a few gullible friends. And, they have gotten away with it. So far. There isn't much doubt in my mind that there is something else going on here - something coming up they are trying to forestall. But, for anyone to think they are out of fight, haha, I've got news for you. These people don't know when to quit. They are foxy smart - street smart. They knew how to muck the case up, JR saw a police department that didn't have a clue - at first - and he manipulated everything to his advantage, including inviting his friends over and "finding" the body himself and destroying the crime scene. One wonders what might have happened if, say, Patsy had been out of town that night, or John had been out of town and only one of them had remained in the house. Could one of them have carried this farce out to this degree? Together they make a formidable team, but only because they are both manipulators of the truth. There is only one little problem with that. They can't keep their mouths shut. That one little problem is going to be their Waterloo. Some day I'm going to come in here and say, I told you so. They are going to hang themselves by trying to convince everyone they are innocent. They don't know when to leave well enough alone. JMMSO [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "WY.....I love it when...." Posted by Voyager on 12:55:18 3/23/2001 you so strenously disagree with me! heh.... I do not think the Ramsey's are so smart as you seem to think...I think they have, in the past, with their very substantial bankroll and influential friends, hired some very smart people and called in favors from some pretty savvy contemporaries....but personally, I think they are now two desperate people, out of their league... I don't think Lin Wood is the sharpest splinter on the board, and I think the Ramseys are running out of high powered friends and big money....they have run to the Tabs whom they have publicly and privately distained, to seek some sort of public sympathy and credibility....guess they are at least smart enough to realize that... Maybe this is the only sort of defense they can see themselves affording long term.....and with the law suits pending, looks as if this is still not going to be a short term affair... But WY, I will agree with you on several things....They should have kept their mouths shut...from that very first CNN interview, to the talk shows, the Crockumentary, the celebrity news cast interviews, their book, and now the Tab interview.... (But I do not know how that makes them smart!They are stupid! Why speak publicly?) And yes. their big mouths will be the single most important thing that trips them up and finally brings them to justice! Strenously Yours, Voyager [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Me thinks..." Posted by JR on 13:35:37 3/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:35:37, 3/23/2001 I slept through the murder of my child do to Melatonin and now the Prosac has made me say things I don't mean and which are untrue - better sue the drug companies while we are at it. Star wrote - All are off their rockers and/or medicines.LOL Star - maybe the happy pills have finally gotten into their (very cold) bloodstreams and they don't give a chit what people think? ;-\ Edited for speako (typo to Y'all) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Up to something - looks like it" Posted by Paulie on 14:18:53 3/23/2001 I just read Mrs. Brady's site and found out about the Enquirer interview. WHAT????? These are the same people who have been sniveling about and sueing tabloids? Giving an interview, one in which they discuss Burke! Why put Burke back in the tabloids? I think that the suit by LHP is having an impact. The Grand Jury info will probably be released. The Ramsey's will be deposed. And this interview is part of the game plan. Justice may be found in a Civil Court. I think it's hopeless it ever will be in a Criminal Court. And thanks to Mrs. Brady, in following her link to the Enquirer, I had to catch a glimpse of a headline declaring Michael Jackson and Macaulay Culkin in bed together. There's a visual I didn't need. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Vpuager" Posted by Watching you on 15:54:32 3/23/2001 Something got lost in the translation, I think. When I said "smart," I didn't mean smart "smart." I meant street smart. There is a difference. Street smart means they are cagey and not afraid to dick around with the cops and such. Smart smart is a whole other ballgame. I am smart smart, but I'm not all that street smart. My ex, OTOH, is very street smart. That's why I could always outsmart my ex, because street smart isn't smart at all - just stupid. Get it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Gottcha WY....." Posted by Voyager on 16:09:06 3/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:09:06, 3/23/2001 Yep, I think I understand you just fine now....and as long as we both agree on where there smart mouths are going to land them, we have nothing to get strenuous about... Also WY, I agree with you, you are one of our smartest and most perceptive posters....course that doesn't mean that you can spell worth a darn.... Look at the way you spelled Vpuager....kinda cool though, I am thinking of changing my name to Vpuager....Do you think anyone could pronounce it...lololol! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Like my Daddy" Posted by Watching you on 16:09:29 3/23/2001 I am 99 and 99/100 percent perfect. It's that other 1/100 percent that gets us into trouble, LOL. Sorry about the type. Couldn't fix it in the subject area. Not that I would, hahahaha. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "CG" Posted by Twitch on 16:25:42 3/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:25:42, 3/23/2001 I contacted InsideEdition about the tape. They list show contents on their website but not that far back. I called and talked to a very young male, perhaps and intern?, and he promised to get back to me and acted as if it would be no problem to let me know if they had aired it. Well, he never got back to me and when I called back they said they were not able to research it for me. I contacted HardCopy also and I got back a standardized email that was no help either. I decided to give up on it because I know what I heard and saw and I knew that the BPD had a copy of the tape. So, I didn't see what purpose it would serve except to be able to say "I told you so". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Thanks, Twitch" Posted by janphi on 12:39:29 3/24/2001 I had no desire to try to track it down--glad you did try, though. Country Girl--maybe you misunderstood what I wrote up above. I didn't say that I called my local station to ask about content on a tab show--I was already talking to someone at the station about some client coverage expected on the 10PM News later that night and I just asked about the 911 JBR tape in the process of the conversation. I didn't mean to imply that the producer with whom I was speaking knew anything about it--I think I said that, didn't I?--I was simply saying what the scuttlebutt was there in the newsroom about the national programming that had just aired. Evidently it was something others, not just JBR case followers, were talking about. Sorry if I wasn't clear. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Twitch" Posted by mary99 on 19:57:43 3/23/2001 "It never happened" doncha just love the spin? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "If" Posted by starry on 07:03:10 3/24/2001 this has been discussed somewhere, please forgive me as I'm awol for 99% of these discussions right now, but isn't the NE interview in violation of the grand jury gag order? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Starry, I think" Posted by Watching you on 07:12:14 3/24/2001 you are sort of right and sort of wrong. BTW, I don't recall any discussion on this point except what I offer here. The Ramseys did not testify in front of GJ, so they can't violate the gag order. However, as you so astutely noticed, they sort of violated it by proxy. There is no way the Rams should know what Burke told the GJ, unless either Burke or his lawyer told them. In that case Burke or his lawyer would have violated the gag order, and the Rams further violated it, though I don't know if they could be charged with anything. Now, I don't know how this works. What are they going to do to Burke for telling his parents, if he did? Nothing. He is still a minor. This is really a convoluted situation which needs a legal expert to sort out. Someone violated the gag order, but there must be some loop hole in this case, because I don't think Lin wood (haha) allow them to speak of it if they could be held in contempt, or whatever. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Consider This" Posted by New York Lawyer on 07:39:46 3/24/2001 Burke's lawyer was given a copy of the 911 tape with strict judicial instructions NOT to let anyone else hear it. He could be held in contempt of court and be disciplined by the bar association for violating a court order. So it is my guess that neither the John nor Patsy, or anyone else, for that matter, has heard the tape in Burke's possession. As for the Ramseys being "paid" for their interview, the most likely scenario, since American Media now owns ALL of the major tabloids, would be one in which the Ramseys agreed to an interview with the Enquirer for a higher dollar "settlement" from the STAR, which would be sealed from public scrutiny by court order, so that the Ramseys could have "deniability" when they proclaim the "purity" of their motives for giving the interview. As far as what the Ramseys are up to, consider this: Last week Lin Wood "postponed" a scheduled CBS This Morning Show interview. The reason: the Steve Thomas libel lawsuit, which is now being filed next week, wasn't ready yet. This is all part of the Ramseys' next public relations "Big Push." Watch and see.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Should be interesting" Posted by starry on 07:51:37 3/24/2001 to say the least! Thank you both so much for answering me. I didn't want to ask a dumb question that has been talked to death elsewhere, but as I've not been able to read "elsewhere" this seemed like a good as place to ask the question as any. It does appear that someone is in violation. Now what they're going to do about it is another story. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "This is exactly" Posted by DuBois on 09:18:52 3/24/2001 what i said in one of my posts, what NYL stated above. I felt that this interview was some kind of settlement with the tabs. Remember WY, when you said that that was liking feeding the dog that bit you? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "I thought my sister..." Posted by Ginja on 10:24:21 3/24/2001 was a nut when she told me she had heard the 911 "Patsy" tape. She told me this when the 911 "John" tape was released and I told her she was confused. She was adamant that she was not. Looks like I owe her an apology. There seems to be a lot of confusion about this grand jury secrecy and gag orders. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether or not, because Burke was a minor, that his attorney was allowed into the grand jury proceedings. Attorneys will accompany their client to the courthouse, but when the witness is called, only he/she enters the grand jury room; the attorney remains outside in the hall (usually biting his/her nails to the quick). The only people present in the proceedings would be the grand jurors and Kane, and then one by one, the witnesses. So what happens is that no one besides the jurors and prosecutor are "privy" to witness statements and evidence presented. Grand jury proceedings are conducted in camera, meaning behind closed doors, in secret. The only time you have any inkling as to what happened inside is if an indictment issues or a report is issued explaining why an indictment was voted against. (IOW, if the jury didn't even vote, there are no grounds for that report to issue as the case is officially still open.) Witnesses may speak to what they revealed to the grand jury, but they have to do it in such a way that they don't reveal what the exact questions were (or their exact answers). They can't say "the grand jury asked me... ," and I told them "... ." But go back down memory lane when the federal grand jury investigated the Lewinsky/Jones matters. Two things happened: (1) after their testimony, witnesses came outside to the press and talked about what they "talked" about...they didn't quote verbatim what they said, just spoke of the topic covered; and (2) since no indictment issued, a full report was released. So LHP could write her book and talk about the topics covered during her questioning. The reason why she's suing is because she's asking for ALL the records to be released, not just hers. She's looking to get everyone's testimony released. Going back to the confusion issue of the gag order, this was not issued by the court against the witnesses, because such is already inherent in the fact the proceedings are in camera. The gag order that was issued was done so BY REQUEST OF THE JURORS!!!! Again, their silence is already built in per the in camera proceedings. But they realized that the notoriety of this case would bring the press down upon them. So it was they who requested the judge issue a court order which would play against any person APPROACHING a grand juror. Any reporter or writer or whoever who so much as approached a grand juror to ask questions (any kind of questions) could then be reported by the juror to the court and the court would find the person asking questions in contempt...not in contempt of the grand jury proceedings, but rather, in contempt of the court order which forbade any person approaching the juror. As to what may be up the Ramseys sleeves as regards this NE interview? Frankly, I think it's just another round of confusion aimed at any kind of investigation or prosecution. You can't pin these people down. They keep changing their stories. That, coupled with the fact that they continue to play to the public in an attempt to dirty the pool. This is just a continuation of their tainting the pool which they've been doing since December 26, 1996. Watch. If either is ever arrested/indicted, their criminal attorney will first file a motion to dismiss based on the fact that the investigation was entirely played out to the public, thus his clients can't get a fair trial. When the judge denies that, the next motion will be to change the venue. THAT'S what's up their sleeves! (imho) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Yup" Posted by Watching you on 09:56:51 3/24/2001 but isn't it just so bizarre? They even attacked the tabs in DOI - they despise the tabs, so they say, and yet they make a deal with the devils for an interview? What hypocrits. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Ginja" Posted by New York Lawyer on 10:50:15 3/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:50:15, 3/24/2001 You're confused (so what else is new?).... LHP is NOT asking for the release of ALL the grand jury testimony. She only wants to be able to write and talk about HER testimony without being under the threat of criminal contempt proceedings. She would also like a copy of her grand jury transcript (something the federal judge in his recent ruling said she would have to get from Judge Bailin.) One of the residual effects of having the Colorado grand jury witness secrecy law declared unconstitutional is that it will allow all the other witnesses to speak out, if they so chose. As for your sister, it may interest you to know that you were right and she was (and still is) wrong. The 911 tape has NEVER, EVER been broadcast anywhere in this galaxy. If it had been, it would have been run on a continuous loop for a month on the Geraldo Show, MSNBC, etc. There is NO WAY a media outlet with evidence THAT "hot" would have ONLY played it once or twice. Stories about public broadcasts of the 911 tape (usually by people who generally don't follow the case and confuse the 911 tape "live broadcast" with transcript broadcasts of Patsy making her 911 call) is one of the great "Urban Legends" of the Ramsey case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "So, NYL" Posted by janphi on 12:42:48 3/24/2001 When was the Patsy only tape released? Just a year ago? Ya think that's what we heard? I certainly wouldn't swear to it one way or the other. I know I heard Patsy, but I thought the chipmunks were on there, too. I thought that was what the big deal was about it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Dear NYL" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:17:22 3/24/2001 awhile back, I asked you if LW REALLY believed his clients innocent, and you assured me he did. With this recent backtracking of their original statment that B was asleep, does this not prove LW knows without a shadow of a doubt, that they are indeed guilty as dirt? If you facilitated an interview between say, B Goetz and the tabs, where he sat in your office denying past staments to suit his purpose for upcoming suits, would that be a good indication that you were part and parcel to his lies? What would you think of your client's innocence then? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Edie Pratt" Posted by New York Lawyer on 11:51:34 3/24/2001 Good point. No it wouldn't. But I suspect that Lin, like most lawyers, knows that there is always the chance that they are either lying or engaged in wishful thinking. Hey, it wouldn't be the first and it won't be the last time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "thanks, NYL" Posted by Edie Pratt on 12:18:53 3/24/2001 so in essence you're saying it doesn't make a difference if he believes them or not? Money is the ultimate truth when it comes to lawyers? I mean, he'd have to be thicker than batter to still believe these two are victims of an overly zealous police force. Second question; how do lawyers like LW sleep at night? To assist a child's killer in lies and subterfuge just seems to me, unspeakable. You all can say "no", right? Where does a lawyer draw the line? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "NYL......" Posted by rose on 14:18:46 3/24/2001 What are the rules that cover how much evidence of an on going murder investigation can be unveiled in a civil law suit? For instance, can the Boulder authorities prevent GJ wittnesses from answering certain questions in a civil suit deposition? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Something to Ponder...." Posted by Sabrina on 14:44:54 3/24/2001 Wonder what Jerrilyn Merrit felt when she defended Tim McVeigh.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "good question, Sabrina" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:49:28 3/24/2001 or, I wonder what Howard Weisman felt when he DIDN'T defend OJ? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "rose" Posted by New York Lawyer on 15:06:44 3/24/2001 If Colorado's grand jury witness secrecy oath is declared unconstitutional, then everyone I depose will HAVE to answer my questions. No DA can prevent it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "NYL" Posted by Ginja on 16:03:08 3/24/2001 Misunderstanding would be a better word than "confused". :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Defense Attorneys" Posted by Ginja on 16:15:27 3/24/2001 It takes a special breed to represent criminal defendants. A lot of people don't have what it takes to be one (whatever "it" is. Chutzpah?) There are different reasons for taking on criminal clients. Some perhaps just like the notoriety that goes with it, not to mention the resulting 'fame and fortune'. There's certainly no guarantee of making big bucks, because most criminals don't have $$. Monied criminals are in the entertainment field or have certain "family" affiliations. But I think what really draws attorneys to represent criminal clients isn't so much the fame or fortune or notoriety, but rather, the challenge. They'll never ask their client if he's guilty or not; and they'll tell their client not to say anything to them about guilt or innocence. The real challenge to them is in going up against the law and finding loopholes or technicalities. They more or less enjoy challenging the law and that's how they look at their job. Not that they're trying to free a rapist or murderer, but how to keep the law from convicting their client. Then again, you've got attorneys like Barry Sheck who think every criminal has been unjustly accused. Yeah, right. Walk through a prison and every inmate will tell you he's innocent! :-) Bottom line, I think these attorneys put a wall between themselves and their clients....they don't associate themselves so much with defending criminals as they do to challenging the justice system. When that wall starts to break down, so, too, do many attorneys who find themselves going into different areas of law. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "thanks, Ginja" Posted by Edie Pratt on 17:33:51 3/24/2001 I watched a case last night about a creep that killed his fiance. The lawyer knew as much as everybody else, heard testimony from an eye witness, body, etc. The guy was acquitted. Then they found his stash of film and the victim's jewelry in his floor. They convicted him on perjury. He openly admitted to killing her, after the trial, of course, and his lawyer acts flabbergasted that his client "duped" him! Yeah, uh huh. I love how lawyers remove themselves when it's over, ala Robert Shapiro or Dersowitz. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "DA turned DA" Posted by Anton on 11:45:21 3/25/2001 Ginja, I agree, there are many reasons why lawyers go into criminal defense. I think you're particularly on target about the challenge of challenging the law. Seems like there are a lot of District Attorneys who leave office to become Defense Attorneys (DA turned DA). Interviews I've read indicate that some of those DA's leave office frustrated by the relative lack of power they felt they had. They couldn't challenge the laws while they were DA; they were restricted by the laws. As defense attorneys, that really is the point -- challenging the laws. Plus, there is the philisophical caveat: everyone deserves competent defense. Also, everyone hates lawyers until you need one. I feel aggravated by the Cochran-style lawyers who clearly flaunt the law and the legal system. That type of lawyering results in an ever-increasing complexity of laws as the states and Congress strive to cover the loopholes uncovered by lawyers. Granted, many of those loopholes need to be covered but it seems wasteful to me. I suppose I would feel differently if some legal loophole got me out of prison for something I didn't do. Anton [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "And then there are the ones..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 12:13:15 3/25/2001 ...like Alan Dershowitz, whose main purpose is to subvert the Constitution (while ever quoting it) and to reduce our justice system to a shambles. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]