Justice Watch Discussion Board "Transcript for press conference?" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Transcript for press conference?, Ryder, 12:14:10, 5/24/2000 ryder, fly, 13:22:07, 5/24/2000, (#1) forgot URL , fly, 13:23:24, 5/24/2000, (#2) Transcript, Chris, 14:51:13, 5/24/2000, (#3) Chris, Ryder, 15:00:07, 5/24/2000, (#4) Greatest threat to immediate well-being, Dorrie, 15:16:53, 5/24/2000, (#5) Transcript, LizzieB, 15:27:50, 5/24/2000, (#6) Thanks Liz, Chris, 15:33:39, 5/24/2000, (#7) Timeline Shows They're All Lying, janphi, 16:03:40, 5/24/2000, (#8) April testing, janphi, 05:48:08, 5/25/2000, (#31) Very good, janphi, Seashell, 16:48:11, 5/24/2000, (#15) Gelb didn't say..., maundy, 22:29:06, 5/24/2000, (#28) Wow janphi,, Sioux, 16:43:20, 5/24/2000, (#13) Wouldn't it be interesting if MSNBC (or some other network), lee2, 16:45:33, 5/24/2000, (#14) Not just CNN, Janphi, Edie Pratt, 16:25:31, 5/24/2000, (#10) Janphi, Hannah, 16:21:48, 5/24/2000, (#9) Well, lake, 16:33:53, 5/24/2000, (#11) Fallacious or Reclining?, cbreez, 00:52:42, 5/25/2000, (#30) From the Transcript 4-28-00, janphi, 17:05:08, 5/24/2000, (#17) Look ,J, lake, 17:11:07, 5/24/2000, (#19) Rearing ugly head again, Lake, Hannah, 16:42:21, 5/24/2000, (#12) Please read carefully, Seashell, 17:12:27, 5/24/2000, (#20) Sorry Lake, Seeker, 16:57:06, 5/24/2000, (#16) Sorry Seeker, lake, 17:07:48, 5/24/2000, (#18) Lake haha, tall-p, 13:00:30, 5/25/2000, (#36) Lake talks just like the Ramsey duo, Hannah, 18:52:36, 5/24/2000, (#27) The Rest of the Transcript, LizzieB, 17:45:11, 5/24/2000, (#23) The Ramsey's, Florida, 17:37:48, 5/24/2000, (#21) Florida, lake, 17:44:43, 5/24/2000, (#22) The Questions, Chris, 17:53:02, 5/24/2000, (#24) One source, lake, 18:04:35, 5/24/2000, (#25) lake, Sioux, 13:13:27, 5/25/2000, (#37) question, dixie, 18:10:50, 5/24/2000, (#26) Calling docg, maundy, 22:41:25, 5/24/2000, (#29) Toriello and Surgery, cbreez, 11:32:46, 5/25/2000, (#32) Cbreez, Ryder, 11:38:27, 5/25/2000, (#33) minor surgery?, Edie Pratt, 11:47:41, 5/25/2000, (#34) Edie, Ryder, 11:52:20, 5/25/2000, (#35) Oh, but,, gaiabetsy, 13:26:45, 5/25/2000, (#38) ................................................................... "Transcript for press conference?" Posted by Ryder on 12:14:10 5/24/2000 After 1 hour of the conference on CNN (the only access I had) Greta and Roger cut the conf. off. I really want to view (preferably) or at least read the full transcript of this thing. Can anyone PLEASE help me? [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "ryder" Posted by fly on 13:22:07 5/24/2000 You might check the CNN transcript site (below) in a few hours. Of course, if they do do a transcript, it probably will cover only the portion they broadcast. I don't think MSNBC doees transcripts, so we might have to depend on somebody on the forum typing it up. Maybe they could do only the part after CNN cuts off. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "forgot URL " Posted by fly on 13:23:24 5/24/2000 Here's the URL. My post isn't visible (again), even after refreshing, so have to do it this way. http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Transcript" Posted by Chris on 14:51:13 5/24/2000 GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, CNN ANCHOR: We now go to Atlanta, Georgia where Ramsey attorney Lynn Wood is holding a press conference. Let's listen: (JOINED IN PROGRESS) LIN WOOD, RAMSEY ATTORNEY: ... misrepresentative and false reports about some of the questions that were asked that day and the answers that were given. I'd first like to very briefly read to you an excerpt from the official transcript of that April 1997 interrogation, first of John Ramsey. And these excerpts will be provided to you at the conclusion of this news conference in a press packet that we have compiled for you. Former Boulder Detective Steve Thomas stated: "John, one of the things, as you know better than anybody, at some point, if you're not involved in this, we've got to take you out of the bucket. And you've been in it for four months and you certainly know why you're in that bucket, is you're in the house, and I don't need to say anything more than that. But -- and I asked this question of Patsy and where it might come out as, but I'll ask it. And I'm not asking you to take one, but if you were to take a polygraph, how would you do?" John Ramsey stated in April of 1997: "Well, what I've been told is that -- and I felt tremendous guilt after we lost JonBenet because I had not protected her, like I failed as a parent, and was told that that kind of emotion, you shouldn't take a lie detector test because you did not -- because you did have that guilt feeling. So I don't know about the test, but I did not kill my daughter, if that's what you want to ask me. She was the most precious thing to me in the world. So if the lie detector test is correct, and if it is done correct, I'd pass it 100 percent." Steve Thomas went on to say, "Well, I'll ask you point blank: At some point in this, would you take a polygraph?" John Ramsey answered, "I would be insulted if you asked me to take a polygraph test, frankly. I mean, if you haven't talked to enough people, we're telling you what kind of people we are. You guys -- I mean, I'll do whatever these guys recommend to me to do. We are not the kind of people you're trying to make us out to be." That's an official transcript of the questions that were asked of John Ramsey with respect to a lie detector or polygraph exam in April of 1997. Patsy Ramsey was asked the following question: Patsy said, first: "What does it take to move past me?" Steve Thomas said, "Well, let me ask you this. And I know Pat Berk's (ph)" -- who was there -- Patsy's lawyer -- "going to jump all over me. And I know -- well, let me ask you this way. I'm not asking you to take one, but, hypothetically, if you took a polygraph, how would you do?" Patsy Ramsey stated: "I'm telling you the truth. I would -- I mean, I don't know how those things work, but if they tell the truth, I'm telling the truth. I've never, ever given anybody a reason to think otherwise. I want to find out who did this, period." Steve Thomas: "Does that mean, yes, you'd pass it?" Patsy Ramsey said, "Yes, I would pass it. I'll take 10 of them. I don't care. You know, do whatever you want." In June of 1998, John and Patsy Ramsey again spent time asking -- questions with Boulder authorities. They again voluntarily agreed to answer questions, this time for three full days each. Interrogation for three full days in June of 1998 and not one word was asked, not one mention was made about a polygraph examination. In fact, from April of 1997 when they were interrogated by former Detective Thomas, until April of 2000, three years later, not one mention, not one request, no discussion from the Boulder Police or the Boulder D.A. about a lie detector or polygraph examination. In March of this year, John and Patsy had their book published, "The Death of Innocence," and they agreed to and undertook to, engaged in media interviews. And just as they had done back in April of 1997 and in June of 1998, they answered every question, and they answered every question honestly. And in defiance of their lawyers' advice to avoid getting embroiled in the polygraph controversy, counseled against it, but relying on their innocence and their honesty, John and Patsy Ramsey said in response to the media inquiries -- if asked, would you take a polygraph examination? -- they said, yes. Their only condition was that it be fair, that it be conducted by an examiner independent from the Boulder Police Department and its investigation, and that the results, whatever they may be, would be made public. So that there is no future misunderstanding about this fact, John and Patsy Ramsey, at the time they made those statements on national television, had never taken a polygraph examination. They did not even have a basic understanding of how such an examination worked. On April the 11th of this year, I learned from several phone calls from the media that the Boulder Police Department had apparently issued a press release, that Chief Mark Beckner had issued a press statement saying that he was going to accept the Ramseys' offer and wanted them to appear by a date certain to submit themselves to an FBI polygraph examination. I actually thought when I received the letter -- despite the fact that it was publicized before I got it, I actually thought that perhaps Chief Beckner would, with some discussions and negotiations, actually be willing to allow John and Patsy Ramsey to take a truly fair and independent polygraph examination. And I did at that time what had not been done before, but what I believe any good attorney would do, and I then arranged for John and Patsy to be privately tested. And I retained the services of an individual who was represented to me to be competent, qualified and fair: a gentleman by the name of Jerry Toriello, T-O-R-I-E-L-L-O, of Clifton, New Jersey. Jerry Toriello is not able to be here today. He had a minor surgical procedure on Friday and is not able to travel until the end of this week. Otherwise, Jerry Toriello would have been here. Consistent with their honesty and their candor, I will tell you that John and Patsy Ramsey, when tested by Jerry Toriello, ran what is referred to in the field as inconclusive charts, inconclusive examinations. Jerry Toriello recommended that John and Patsy be retested. But in making his recommendation, he made it clear to me that the appropriate protocol to be followed would be for someone else to perform the retest. He told me, if you want to go to the best in the country for a retest, you go to Dr. Edward I. Gelb in Los Angeles. I check out Dr. Gelb. Dr. Gelb's reputation was as represented by Jerry Toriello. He was, from everyone that I spoke with, considered to be the foremost polygraph examiner in the country: over 30,000 polygraph examinations conducted, former president of the American Polygraph Association, performs polygraph examinations on a regular basis for five law enforcement agencies in California, a man that was represented to me as one that could not be bought, that could not be fooled, a man of integrity, a man of ethics, one of the, if not the most qualified polygraphic examiners in the United States. I discussed Dr. Gelb with John and Patsy Ramsey, and said this, apparently, is the person that we should try to get to do the re-test, and John and Patsy said no, that if Dr. Gelb was as represented, if he was the best, and if he was fair, that they wanted me to go directly to Chief Mark Beckner and offer to take the test from Dr. Gelb. I did that having never spoken to Edward Gelb. I called Mark Beckner, and I said: John and Patsy Ramsey will take the test from Ed Gelb of Los Angeles, California. We made the offer fully aware of the fact that the test results from Dr. Gelb would be made public and, as part of the process Dr. Gelb would be fully aware of, and it would also be public that John and Patsy had run inconclusive tests from Jerry Toriello. Within a matter of a few short hours, Mark Beckner called me back and rejected the offer of Dr. Gelb without explanation. For the first time, I then called Dr. Gelb, told him what I had done, in offering his name, asked for his permission to use his name if I was asked who I has offered, and asked him if he would consider doing a private retest. He told me he did not want to discuss a private retest, that he would prefer to wait a period of time to see if Chief Beckner might learn of his reputation and standing and perhaps reconsider and ask him to do to test. I waited approximately one week. With each passing day, it became more clear that Mark Beckner was not going to reconsider. I called Dr. Gelb and asked if, in fact, he would be retained by me to perform the polygraph examinations. I also upon, his agreement, retained Cleve Baxter from San Diego, California. I had been told that if you want the best quality control review of a polygraph examination in the United States call Cleve Baxter. Cleve Baxter is the originator of the Baxter Zone Comparison Technique, and the originator of the numerical scoring system for polygraph examinations, both of which are now standard protocol in the field of polygraphy. This is the gentleman thought to be, literally, the father of the modern polygraph testing techniques, Cleve Baxter. He agreed to do to quality control of Dr. Gelb's test. John and Patsy Ramsey made a commitment to the public. They made a public commitment to take a fair and independent polygraph examination and to make the results public. They had hoped and we tried to get the Boulder Police Department to participate in a truly fair and independent examination. We offered for the examination to be conducted by a non-FBI examiner with FBI oversight of the entire process. That offer was rejected. We offered to have the FBI polygraph group come up with a list of non-FBI polygraph examiners that they felt were reliable, qualified, and trustworthy, and we would pick one of those examiners, and we would take the test, and that offer was rejected. My belief has been from very early on in this process that Boulder Police Department never intended to allow John and Patsy Ramsey to take a truly fair and independent polygraph examination in which they would participate. And my belief was confirmed May 16, when Mark Beckner rejected the offer of the American Polygraph Association to provide an examiner and a test that would be fair to both sides. John and Patsy Ramsey are here today to honor their commitment. I would now like to ask Dr. Gelb to address for you the test that was performed by him and the results of those tests -- Dr. Gelb. ED GELB, POLYGRAPH EXPERT: Thank you, Lin. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I think, in the interest of time, my reading to you the result report of the polygraph examinations may be the most succinct way to provide you with the information that I gleaned from all of the examinations that I conducted with the Ramseys. So I think that I will actually read the report to you. We'll have time for questions and answers, but I think this will give you a basic understanding of the process. This is a report that was directed to L. Lin Wood, the attorney in this matter. "Psychophysiological detection of deception examinations of John and Patsy Ramsey. This is summary report covering a series of examinations of John and Patsy Ramsey, conducted between May 6 and May 17 of the year 2000. The examinations were conducted in Atlanta, Georgia and Los Angeles, California. The issues under consideration dealt with the allegation that the Ramseys were involved in the murder of their daughter, JonBenet, who was found dead in the Ramsey home in Boulder, Colorado, December 26, 1996. Case information was provided by attorney L. Lin Wood and, through numerous reports of the murder in print. "During extensive pre-test interviews, both John and Patsy Ramsey denied involvement in JonBenet's murder. These examinations were requested by the Ramseys who agreed that the results of the examinations could be given to the authorities prior to their knowing the outcome themselves. "The equipment utilized, an axiton (ph) computerized polygraph calibrated to factory specifications were used for the five series of examinations. "Technique, a zone comparison technique was utilized for all of the examinations with three polygrams being collected for each of the five series conducted. The zone comparison technique has been validated in numerous studies conducted for United States governmental agencies. The resultant polygrams were numerically scored on a 7- position scale by the primary examiner Edward I. Gelb, Ph.D, and then subjected to quality control and blind scoring by Cleve Baxter, the originator of the numerical scoring system. "John Ramseys examinations: Two series of single-issue examinations were conducted with John Ramsey. In a single issue examination all of the relevant questions are necessarily included in one and are designed to mean the same thing; hence, it is a single- issue examinations. "The first examination was conducted to determine if he had direct involvement in the murder. In other words, whether John inflicted the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet. "The second examination was conducted to determine whether John knew who killed JonBenet. "The questions asked during the two single-issue examinations follow with John Ramsey's answers. "Series one, John Ramsey. Question 1: Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet. Answer: no. "2. Regarding JonBenet, did you inflict any of the injuries that caused her death. Answer: No. "3. Were those injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death inflicted by you? Answer: No. "Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examination in this series, John Ramsey was telling the truth when he denied inflicting the injuries that caused the death of his daughter, JonBenet. "Series 2, John Ramsey, Question 1. Do you know for sure who killed JonBenet? Answer: No. "Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her? Answer: No. "Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenet? Answer: No. "Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, John Ramsey was telling the truth when he denied knowing who killed JonBenet. "Patsy Ramsey's examinations. The first polygraph examination was unusable due to distortions. Appropriate cautions were suggested to eliminate the artifacts so that conclusive results could be obtained. Three series of single-issue examinations were conducted with Patsy Ramsey. The first examination was conducted to determine if Patsy Ramsey had direct involvement in the murder. In other words, whether Patsy inflected the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet. The second examination was conducted to determine whether Patsy knew who killed JonBenet. The third examination was conducted to determine if Patsy wrote the ransom note that was found at the scene. "The questions asked during the three single-issue examinations follow with Patsy Ramsey's answer. "Series one, Patsy Ramsey: Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet? Answer: No." "Regarding JonBenet, did you inflict any of the injuries that caused her death. Answer: No. "Were those injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death inflicted by you? Answer: No. "Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, Patsy Ramsey was telling the truth when she denied inflicting the injuries that caused the death of his daughter, JonBenet. "Series two, Patsy Ramsey. Do you know for who inflicted the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet? Answer: No. "Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her? Answer: No. "Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenet? Answer: No. "Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, Patsy Ramsey was telling the truth when she denied knowing who killed JonBenet. "Series 3, Patsy Ramsey: Did you write the ransom note that was found in your house? Answer: No. "Question 2: Regarding the ransom note, did you write it? Answer: No." "Question 3: Is that your hand-writing on the ransom note found in your house? Answer: No." "Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, Patsy Ramsey was telling the truth when she denied writing the JonBenet ransom note. "Quality control: A separate report covering the quality control of these examinations has been written by Cleve Baxter, who is one of the world's foremost experts in the field of detection of deception and the person who originated numerical scoring. Baxter's independent analysis corroborated the findings of the undersigned primary examiner. "Final conclusion: Based on extensive polygraph examination, neither John nor Patsy Ramsey were attempting deception when they gave the indicated answers to the relative questions." I will now turn this over to Cleve Baxter, who will discuss his quality control. CLEVE BAXTER: All, right my name is Cleve Baxter. I have been working with the polygraph for 52 years. They say, how do you become an expert in the field? I say, you just live longer and the rest of them die off. In 1948, I was trained by the late Leonard Keeler, who is a famous person in the background of polygraph. And 1949, I started the Central Intelligence Agency polygraph section. In 1962 -- which is, by the way is still in existence, that section. In 1962, I started the Baxter School of Lie Detection. And I have been director for 156 basic polygraph courses. And with 154 of these, I was also the chief instructor. The difference of the two, were two classes were taught in Spanish and I couldn't be chief instructor. In 1960, I developed the Baxter Zone Comparison polygraph technique and also introduced, as already has been mentioned, the first system for the numerical evaluation of polygraph charts, which is still in use. Now, most of this has already been covered. The results down- the-line, I am not going to repeat that because it is the same as yours. Now the quality control of polygraph examinations, a lot is dependent upon the adequacy of your case information, the strength of the issue concerned, and the distinctness of the issue of the issue concerned, in order to try to eliminate inconclusive polygraph examination results. The familiarity with the technique is not a factor, and the most a person may do is produce distortions on questions we call comparison questions that are compared against the relevant questions. In the zone comparison technique, we are not satisfied at all with the lack of reaction on a relevant question unless we see an accompanying reaction to the right or left of that question to show the person's capability of reactions at that very time. Now, in this particular case, the case information was adequate, the strength of the issue was really severe. The distinctness of the issue also was very very good. So this was a very acceptable case for polygraph testing. Now, I can only mention in conclusion. I could not fool the polygraph examination myself if a serious issue were involved. The most I could do is possibly create some kind of a apparent reaction on the comparison questions, but I could not eliminate the legitimate reaction on the relevant questions, and I have been in the field a long time. So I also, as far as the conclusion is concerned, after careful review. By the way, in reviewing these charts, I just don't accept the identity of the charts, not any kind of reflection with Edward Gelb, but I listen to the tape recording or videotape recording and I recreate, through a moving chart paper, a replica of the timing of each of the questions concerned, which varies. And then I take that and hold it up against the chart that has been submitted to me to be sure that I can identify that as being the actual chart. So I listened to everyone -- every minute of these polygraph examinations through videotape or through audio tape. And I really, without any reservation whatsoever, agree with the conclusions that have been reached by the original examiner. Thank you. WOOD: Let me add one last thing that today I have faxed to Alex Hunter, the Boulder district attorney, and to Mark Beckner, the chief of police for the city of Boulder, a letter that states very clearly that John and Patsy Ramsey have taken these tests from Dr. Gelb with quality control by Mr. Baxter. I have offered to wave any attorney privilege and allow the Boulder police, the Boulder district attorney, or their associates at the FBI to interview Dr. Gelb and Mr. Baxter so that they can answer any and all questions they may have with respect to this test. And we will be waiting to see what response we get. If any of you have questions now, I would ask that you would please identify yourself, if you have a question directed to one of the individuals, please so state, and we'll try to answer as many as we can within a fairly limited period of time. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) PATSY RAMSEY: I feel great. It is something that I have known the answers to for three years. The trust is the truth and it doesn't change. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) P. RAMSEY: I think that's unfortunate. I really wish we would stop playing games and I wish they open their eyes and their minds and their hearts and know that we did not kill our daughter and that a killer walks the streets of in this country, and we need to be look for that person. QUESTION: Is there ever a time -- ever a time despite the fact that you believe that the FBI is, in effect, working with the Boulder police, let's do this with the FBI, so at least we'll have the seal of approval so Commander Beckner can't say anything? Because right now, at this point, Commander Beckner is going to say: We don't accept these results. WOOD: Well, let me point out a couple of things, in fairness, because I dealt with this issue of the FBI for John and Patsy. Number one, the only condition, other than public disclosure, was a fair test that is conducted by an examiner independent of the Boulder Police Department. Now, I spoke with the FBI agents in Denver and the FBI polygraph examiner in Denver, who has conducted polygraph examinations for the Boulder police in connection with this very investigation. I asked those individuals: Tell me your protocol. The first thing that happens when you walk in the door, you sit down with a stranger and you are read your Miranda Rights, intimidation tactic number one. You then are not allowed to know in advance whether you will take a zone comparison test or another type of technique where evidence connecting questions are asked; and it's extremely difficult to prove truthful. You are then subjected to not knowing whether you are videotaped or audiotaped, even if you want it for quality control. You are not told what type of machine, computer or analogue, will be used. And you are going in the door, told that if there are any reactions, you will be subjected to an FBI interrogation that could last for hours. Now, when John and Patsy Ramsey walk into a room and close the door and sit down beside a stranger and get themselves hooked up to all these various contraptions in this test; I think that a fair- minded person would agree that they are entitled to walk in there and not have the slightest concern over whether that examiner will be fair to them. The FBI has worked closely with the Boulder police department since this matter started three years ago. They are not independent, but remember, we offered this test with FBI oversight, they refused. Mark Beckner can now complain that law enforcement was not involved. But Mark Beckner chose not to have law enforcement involved when he rejected the offer to have FBI oversight. We will give him another chance, when he can allow the FBI to come in and look at the work of the two foremost polygraph examiners in the country, and in that way, provide law enforcement, peer review or oversight. QUESTION: ... the polygraph test administered is more accurate than the test FBI administered? WOOD: I'll let Ed Gelb address that in terms of whether you can have a more accurate test. What I know is that going in the door, John and Patsy Ramsey knew that they would be treated fairly. Now let's clear up another misconception. It's not a matter of John and Patsy not trusting the FBI, John and Patsy do not trust the Boulder police department. They have seen their detectives go on national television and first blame John, and then another one go on national television to sell a book and then blame Patsy. They have been subjected to the leaks, they have been subjected to the lies, they have been subjected to having their child's grave monitored with video cameras and microphones and discussions with FBI agents about breaking into their home in Atlanta and planting a bug. They do not trust the Boulder police department and unfortunately any law enforcement agency that has worked with the Boulder police department in this investigation, is tainted by the incompetence and the mishandling given this case by the Boulder police department. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) J. RAMSEY: Well, we shouldn't have to prove our innocence. The Constitution was drafted with that very cleverly put into it, that you're innocent until proven guilty. But nevertheless, we've been forced through leaks, innuendoes and allegations to try to defend ourselves in the court of public opinion. We have, as Lin said, not one ounce of trust in the Boulder police, and that's sad, I wish that we did. We gave them our trust when this horrible thing happened and they lost it by their actions that took place in the beginning, and they continue even through today. That is a difficult predicament, we want the killer of our daughter found. The only thing we know to do now is to appeal to the public and say look: We have done everything we can, that we know we can do, you need to realize there's a killer of children that walks among us, it's not Patsy, and it's not I. Let's get on with finding the killer. That is our single and only objective in doing any of this. WOOD: Let me say something here, real quick. You just made a point that I think proves the point. Apparently Mark Beckner, if the news reports are accurate this morning, yesterday had his PR spokesperson announce that the test results today were meaningless. He did not know what the results were. He did not know who the examiners were. He did not have one shred of information about the test results that he attacked yesterday. So Mark Beckner proves the point. He is willing to jump to conclusions without even knowing the facts. This is the same thing he did early in this investigation with respect to John and Patsy. And he proved it again yesterday, that he is not willing to give them a fair and full opportunity to review the facts of this matter before he rushes to judgment. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) WOOD: I'm going to let you speak to the experts on that -- Dr. Gelb. GELB: Well, there are two things I'd like to cover here. One is when an examination is inconclusive and the government now calls that a "no opinion" examination, the examination is inconclusive. If we knew why it was inconclusive, it wouldn't be inconclusive. That's the simple answer to that. It was inconclusive, meaning, according to the government, no opinion. There was a question posed about whether the FBI test would be accurate. That's not what's at issue here. What's at issue is the examination that I conducted which was properly conducted and which was accurate. If you look at this thing statistically. What are the chances that two separate individuals would take a series of five polygraph examinations and pass them all, and yet be lying. You're going to find that it's somewhere between four in a thousand and one in a trillion, depending upon the variables. QUESTION: Dr. Gelb, does the FBI have a good reputation for doing polygraph tests? QUESTION: ... polygraph tests, do they get to see the questions beforehand? GELB: Refra -- Give me that again? QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) GELB: All of the questions are reviewed with you before the test. There are no trick questions, there are no hidden questions, because you want the subject to focus on that which they perceive the greatest threat to their immediate well-being. And let me tell you, if either of these people inflicted the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet, or knew who killed JonBenet, or Patsy wrote that note, they would certainly perceive those questions as the greatest threat to their immediate well-being and fail the test; they did not. QUESTION: Mr. Wood said earlier you offered to have the Ramseys take these tests with his independent examiner under FBI scrutiny, or observation. What difference would that make to you if you were conducting the test? GELB: Absolutely no difference, no difference, I would run the examination the way I ran it. You can look at the videotape of the examination and that's how a properly conducted polygraph examination is to be conducted. I don't care who is looking at that examination in real-time, in a video room, or who second-guesses the examination. It is what it is, a properly conducted examination. It wouldn't matter to me who. QUESTION: I talked to you earlier on in the investigation about the Ramseys and the test. And you were concerned that you had not made contact about all the information at the time. Do you question or wonder why the Boulder authorities have not looked at your background, looked at the fact you are the president of this organization and have you do the test for them? GELB: That's not my province, that's not my area of expertise. I have nothing do with the Boulder police department. What I have to do with is a properly constructed examination that was administered to these people. I have nothing to do with those other issues or areas. QUESTION: Did you conduct a drug test, a urinalysis test on John and Patsy Ramsey, prior to these examinations? GELB: No, I did not, because, one, the drugs that you might be thinking of do not effect the type of examination that was herein conducted. We did what's called a zone comparison examination, this requires reactivity to certain questions and those questions are compared to other questions where you might have less reactivity. No drug that you can name or that I know of can selectively effect that type of examination. In other words, if this was a guilty knowledge test, that would be a different issue. This is a zone comparison test. I don't know of a drug, and neither do you, that will selectively cause a suppression on certain questions and an elevation on other questions. And the FBI does not do drug screening before they run their polygraph examinations. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) was asked by the Ramsey team to do this polygraph. He insisted on a drug test. Lin Wood said, no. WOOD: Please, tell me who this individual is. QUESTION: I don't have his name. WOOD: Well, let's get our facts right. Let's have the name of the person because I will tell you that I have asked two polygraph examiners to conduct tests on John and Patsy Ramsey: Jerry Toriella, who accepted, Ed Gelb, who accepted. I have never discussed, never discussed anyone else conducting this examination. I have never had anyone asked -- be asked and refused. I've never had anyone discuss with me that they wouldn't do it because of a drug test. That's an absolute, unadulterated falsehood. Let's put it to rest right now. There was a requirement in Chief Beckner's letter to me to send to John and Patsy where he asked for a urine test to be performed with respect to the FBI polygraph. When I spoke with the FBI agents, I asked them specifically about that. They told me that was a requirement of the Boulder Police Department. They wanted it in the letter, that the FBI didn't want it, didn't need it. They didn't need any type of drug screening test because the exam itself, as Dr. Gelb has said, cannot be skewed by drugs. And if it is, the examiner would know it. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) the umbrella of suspicion that has been there. Where do we go now, Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey? Now that you've taken this polygraph test, now that we've heard the results, what's next? People have said, why can't they move on with their live? Why don't they just continue to live life? P. RAMSEY: As long as there is a killer at large who has murdered our child, our lives will never go on. I mean, that is just ridiculous. J. RAMSEY: Someone killed this 6-year-old child. We know that and we want them captured. P. RAMSEY: Ask Mark Beckner where we go next. J. RAMSEY: We're not going to go on with our lives until that happens. (CROSSTALK) WOOD: One second. QUESTION: Is there anything you could have done privately? J. RAMSEY: Oh, yes. P. RAMSEY: There's a lot going on privately. Yes, there is. J. RAMSEY: Definitely. We're doing everything we can as private citizens to find the killer. QUESTION: Is there anything you can share with us? QUESTION: Have you hired investigators? J. RAMSEY: Oh yes. P. RAMSEY: Yes, we have. J. RAMSEY: We've had investigators on this for 3 1/2 years. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) J. RAMSEY: Who's that? P. RAMSEY: Lou Smitt. J. RAMSEY: Lou Smitt has offered to work with us but not for us, so he's been of great assistance to us. We have other investigators that are working on this. We're not going to be very public about it because this isn't -- these people work best when they're not known and they're -- that's the way they operate. But I can tell you they're working on it every day of the week. QUESTION: Can give us a comment about the lawsuit that's been filed here in Atlanta, about someone who's named in your book as a suspect? WOOD: We didn't name any suspects in the book. What they did do is they discussed in the book an individual named Chris Wolfe (ph), and they discussed information about him that was already in the public domain. That lawsuit is frivolous. It's filed for publicity purposes by a lawyer who has sued a number of different cases relating to JonBenet. We will address that in a court of law, but that case has gotten an undue and undeserved amount of publicity. It really is not worth the paper it's written on. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) there are some out there, possibly in the Boulder Police Department (UNINTELLIGIBLE), this news conference, the polygraph tests, is all a part of a purpose of which is to persuade or sway potential jurors in the future. How do you respond to that? WOOD: Well, number one, I'm not in the business of persuading jurors by press conferences. The trial of any of the civil case will be probably years down the road. The purpose of this press conference is for John and Patsy to do exactly what they said they would do, to honor their commitment to take a fair and independent test and to make those results public. But let me say something to you that I think people need to appreciate: These people have been on trial in the court of public opinion for over three years, but they have never been charged with a crime. A grand jury met for months and did not find the evidence sufficient to indict them. Yet the leaks and the lies have persisted, books written, television shows, movies, putting these people on trial every day, convicting them of a crime they did not commit every night. So I want you to know that part of holding this press conference is for John and Patsy Ramsey to have their opportunity to let the public know their side of the story, to let the public know the truth. We're going to do it again in the future if we have to until we finally get an investigation that heads in the right direction. QUESTION: Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, a polygraph is sort of an unknown. What were you thinking as you went into this? You're walking in the door, you're beginning this process: Are you nervous? Are you concerned? What are you thinking during this time? P. RAMSEY: It was nerve-wracking. I mean, I really didn't know what a polygraph test amounted to. And there's been so much hoopla over it, you know, basically our guilt or innocence or whatever was hanging on whatever happened in this room, you know? So that's pretty heavy. What was I thinking? I had JonBenet's face in my mind from the moment I went into that room and I just kept saying, this is for you, honey, because we're going to find out who did this. And whatever I have to do, I will do until we find the person. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) WOOD: Would have been my call. And my recommendation would have been, no, but I can't tell you what John and Patsy would have said about that recommendation. But I want to make a point with respect to that. And I think we ought to all fairly ask the question: If they had failed the lie detector test, would you not agree there would have been a demand by the public to charge them because the cry of the public and the media would be, guilty? Shouldn't we, now that they've passed the test from the foremost polygraph examiners in the country, be equally fair and say that the results show innocence? QUESTION: It would seem that the question... WOOD: I had promised to come back here. You've been trying hard for a question. I'm sorry. QUESTION: I'm just wondering if the Ramseys have trust in the court of public opinion, that the things that you're saying might influence people? And could they make a difference? J. RAMSEY: We've been overwhelmed by people that we don't know coming to us with cards, letters, e-mails, stopping us in the street, giving us hugs. You know, surprising that we've come through this experience realizing that there's a lot of good people in the world, and they care. They're silent, they're quiet. They don't go on national television, they don't write letters to the editor, but they're out there. So we are very heartened by the people that have supported us through all this. Happens every day. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) J. RAMSEY: I hope so. I sincerely hope so. P. RAMSEY: Everything we've done for three years we've hoped would make a difference. You know, I think this is a big thing. I hope it will make a difference. But we needed to make a difference in Mark Beckner and the Boulder Police. That's who really counts here. QUESTION: Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, is there a part of you that says, why didn't we do this two or three years ago? That would have helped retrain the focus of the investigation (OFF-MIKE)? P. RAMSEY: Oh yes. J. RAMSEY: Sure, absolutely. Sure. QUESTION: Why didn't that happen? J. RAMSEY: It never occurred to us. I mean, we -- throughout all this, we have never really focused on trying to prove our innocence. We've been focusing on trying to find the killer and how do we get the police to do the rest of the investigation? It should be done beyond just the family. It's always seemed fruitless to try to prove our innocence because that's not the objective. The objective is to find the killer. (CROSSTALK) WOOD: Whoa, whoa, whoa. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) the focus was on you folks. I mean, it was clear all across the United States the focus was on you folks. How can you say you had no idea that the focus might be on you? P. RAMSEY: I didn't say that. You totally misunderstood me. Ask the question again. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) J. RAMSEY: No, that's not what I said. I said we were not focused on trying to prove our innocence. We knew we were the only targets of this investigation, and that was tragically wrong. QUESTION: Since you knew that, why did you not (OFF-MIKE)? J. RAMSEY: That's a silly question. WOOD: There was never a request made. When you look at the press packet, read the questions of Steve Thomas. Now, they know how to write a letter because they wrote one to me and said, we would like for your clients to submit to a polygraph investigation conducted at the FBI headquarters in Atlanta by a date certain. No such letter was ever sent. No formal... QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) WOOD: Who was not interested? QUESTION: The Boulder Police. WOOD: I think you ought to ask Mark Beckner why there was never a formal request made until April of 19 -- April of 2000 for a polygraph test. I think it was made at that time because Mark Beckner was feeling the heat from the media in Colorado demanding that they ask for the test because John and Patsy said they'd take it. I don't think Mark Beckner puts any great stock in polygraph examinations. QUESTION: Didn't they claim they couldn't interview them early on, though? WOOD: You know, if you take the time to go back and look at the facts of this case, you will find that John and Patsy Ramsey spent hours being interviewed by the Boulder Police and the district attorney's office. And keep in mind, they didn't have to answer one question -- not one question. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) WOOD: No one's ever taken a polygraph test with respect to the family, that I'm aware of, except for John and Patsy. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) if I may ask, why would you not just submit to an FBI-given polygraph test? WOOD: Well, I said John and Patsy Ramsey didn't necessarily themselves not trust the FBI. I said four years ago that I don't trust the FBI because I learned four years ago up close and personal how they tried to deceive and trick and fool an innocent man named Richard Jewell. And I would not let Richard Jewell take an FBI polygraph test. Wayne Grant and I said very publicly on your air, Richard Jewell will not take an FBI polygraph test because we don't trust the FBI. I haven't seen anything in the last four years, unfortunately, that has changed my mind about the FBI. But I will say this: I did not allow my own feelings from the Jewell case to interfere with John and Patsy's decision-making process. The issue that they addressed was simply this: Is the FBI, from an objective standpoint, an independent examiner, independent from the investigation? The answer is, no. Now, the question should be asked of Mark Beckner and the Boulder Police Department, why are you unwilling to allow these people, with participation by the Boulder Police, to take a truly fair and independent exam? Do you know why he was not willing to endorse that exam? Because the exam would be taken by someone like Ed Gelb and they would pass, and then what would Mark Beckner say to you and the citizens of Colorado whose millions of dollars and emotions he has wasted over the past three and a half years going after the wrong people? That's why he would never agreed to it. QUESTION: If he changes his position and agrees to do it with FBI oversight with Mr. Gelb, would the Ramseys agree to take another test? WOOD: Why would you want them to do that? They've now taken five tests: two by John, three by Patsy from the nation's leading polygraph examiner whose ethics, integrity, experience and qualifications cannot be attacked or questioned. Those results have been peer-reviewed by another gentleman, top in the country, whose ethics and integrity and qualifications cannot be questioned. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I give workshops to the FBI examiners. WOOD: These people -- by the way, these people have taught at the FBI academy in Quantico and they've taught at the Department of Defense. My question would be: They've taken the test from the best. Why would you expect them now to go back and take an FBI test? QUESTION: The potential might be that the questions were pretty soft. I mean, if the FBI were to give the test... J. RAMSEY: I don't think so. What's next? What's next, a bed of coals you want us to walk across? QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) P. RAMSEY: It's on videotape. It is -- you know, they can review this. GELB: Let's take the question or the statement these questions are soft. What would you ask? QUESTION: Well, I'm not an FBI agent (OFF-MIKE). GELB: Right, but what would you ask? QUESTION: I think you asked the same question... VAN SUSTEREN: We've been listening to a press conference coming out of Atlanta, Georgia. The headline in the Ramsey case is the Ramseys have two experts who say they have taken a polygraph test and they have passed it, that they were truthful. They actually took two polygraph tests. The first one was done be a man named Jerry Toriella out of the state of New Jersey. It was inconclusive. They then hired a man, Dr. Edward Gelb, who took the test for them -- or who gave them the test, and the questions were essentially this: Did they commit the murder? They denied it and the experts said that was a truthful response. They were then asked if they have knowledge as to who committed the murder. Again, they both denied it and, again, the experts said that response was truthful. Patsy Ramsey was asked an additional question, whether she wrote the ransom note. She denied that. Again, the expert says she was truthful. And there was a quality control done by a man named Cleve Baxter and he concluded that the tests given to the Ramseys were good tests, and he concluded that they, indeed, had answered correctly and truthfully in response to the polygraph test. We're expecting a reaction from the Boulder Police Department sometime today. And of course CNN will bring that to you when we get it. Roger, seems like the ball is now in the court of the Boulder Police. Ramseys have taken the test. They've passed it, according to their experts. Now what? ROGER COSSACK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you know, I don't think this really changes very much. Remember, the most important thing I think we can remember is that a grand jury investigated these people for a long, long period of time and there's no indictment and a lie detector test has never been admissible in court. So, you know, the fact that they've passed one really, perhaps, makes their side feel better, but it doesn't really add much one way or the other, and it's sure not going to have any influence on the police department. VAN SUSTEREN: Well, except that there's been incredible pressure on the Ramseys. A lot of people have assumed them guilty. They were never charged, never had a trial, and there's been this debate about whether or not they should take a polygraph examination or not. They said, we will take one, we just don't want the FBI to administer it. And the police department, which says they want to get to the bottom of this murder, apparently said no to their experts. They took it, they passed it, it now changes public opinion, and I think it puts a lot of pressure on that Boulder Police Department to explain what's wrong with the test and what they're doing to solve the crime. COSSACK: Well, but the problem is this: I mean, I don't know if there's anything wrong with the test. The problem is, though, that a lie detector test, as you know, is just not admissible in court. So it's not the kind of thing where suddenly someone says, oh my goodness, they've passed the lie detector test so obviously they didn't do it. And on the other hand, if they had failed the lie detector test, you couldn't say, well, obviously they must be guilty. They're simply just not admissible in court. And the fact is that they took two lie detector tests, as you pointed out. One was inconclusive, and they went and found another operator and they passed that one. I just don't know what this adds, Greta. VAN SUSTEREN: Well, actually, I think the fact that they had an inclusive first and then they passed it doesn't hurt them at all. I mean, what the important part is that they passed it. Indeed, it may not be admissible in court, but it's certainly -- you know, if they -- these polygraph exams are generally quite good. They're quite telling whether or not someone's being deceitful. If only one of them had passed it, that might be significant. COSSACK: Right. VAN SUSTEREN: But they both passed it. These are direct question: Did you do it? Do you have knowledge who did it? And, Patsy, did you write the note? COSSACK: No, I hear you. VAN SUSTEREN: And they both passed it. I mean, these polygraph examiners are very experienced polygraph examiners. COSSACK: Right. All right, but the fact is -- and we have to go -- is -- everything you say is correct, but they're still not admissible in court. But we have to go, but we'll continue to monitor the situation, what is happening with the Ramseys. But I'm afraid that's all the time we have for today on our extended BURDEN OF PROOF. Thanks to our guests and thank you for watching. For more on the Ramseys and on the United Airlines acquisitions of US Airways, stay tuned to "CNN TODAY" with Natalie Allen and Kyra Phillips. VAN SUSTEREN: And we'll be back tomorrow with another edition of BURDEN OF PROOF. We'll see you then. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Chris" Posted by Ryder on 15:00:07 5/24/2000 Thanks a million, Chris. Don't know how you got it or what it took. I've been trying to come up with it all day. Appreciate this more than I can say. You are a pro. I like to see the exact words before I digest the thing, and got a phone call in the middle of it. From the phone, I could hear JR getting quite upset and resented the fact that I did not see what got his back up. Thanks again. Haven't even read it yet, but was anxious to thank-you (for the 100th time!) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Greatest threat to immediate well-being" Posted by Dorrie on 15:16:53 5/24/2000 "GELB: All of the questions are reviewed with you before the test. There are no trick questions, there are no hidden questions, because you want the subject to focus on that which they perceive the greatest threat to their immediate well-being. And let me tell you, if either of these people inflicted the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet, or knew who killed JonBenet, or Patsy wrote that note, they would certainly perceive those questions as the greatest threat to their immediate well-being and fail the test; they did not." But where is the threat to their immediate well-being? They paid for the polygraph, it was done in privacy and the results to be released only with their approval. They waived attorney client privelge so the examiners could discuss the results, otherwise would they have been bound to secrecy? There was no real threat to the Ramsey's well being, so are the tests valid? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Transcript" Posted by LizzieB on 15:27:50 5/24/2000 I am working on the transcript from where the CNN transcript left off, and will post it when it's done. I just got home. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Thanks Liz" Posted by Chris on 15:33:39 5/24/2000 I didn't get to see it. That transcript is from Lexis-Nexis. Didn't take the little heads long to snap that one up, I wonder if they'll snag yours as quickly! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Timeline Shows They're All Lying" Posted by janphi on 16:03:40 5/24/2000 From the CNN Transcript of the Ramsey Press Conference, 5-24-00: Lin Wood speaking: "So that there is no future misunderstanding about this fact, John and Patsy Ramsey, at the time they made those statements on national television, had never taken a polygraph examination. They did not even have a basic understanding of how such an examination worked." [Emphasis in bold mine.] >>>That would be as of April 28, 2000, when the last of the national appearances took place. That is the date of their appearance on "Burden of Proof" when they denied having taken a polygraph test. Now Wood is affirming this denial.<<< "On April the 11th of this year, I learned from several phone calls from the media that the Boulder Police Department had apparently issued a press release, that Chief Mark Beckner had issued a press statement saying that he was going to accept the Ramseys' offer and wanted them to appear by a date certain to submit themselves to an FBI polygraph examination." >>>The date Beckner had given was April 26, 2000.<<< "I actually thought when I received the letter [April 11th, as he just stated]-- despite the fact that it was publicized before I got it, I actually thought that perhaps Chief Beckner would, with some discussions and negotiations, actually be willing to allow John and Patsy Ramsey to take a truly fair and independent polygraph examination. And I did at that time what had not been done before, but what I believe any good attorney would do, and I then arranged for John and Patsy to be privately tested." [Emphasis in bold mine.] "And I retained the services of an individual who was represented to me to be competent, qualified and fair: a gentleman by the name of Jerry Toriello, T-O-R-I-E-L-L-O, of Clifton, New Jersey..." >>>Wood is saying he began the testing arrangements on or shortly after April 11. What date he retain Toriello? What dates did the original tests take place? Before April 28? How long did they take? Next paragraph--Toriello tests inconclusive; Toriello recommends Gelb for re-test In order for the Ramseys and Wood to be telling the truth, the tests must have started on April 29, 2000. How many days did they last? Ten days, like the Gelb re-test? Let's say four days, to give them the benefit of the doubt. Now we're up to May 2, 2000. Add a day for Toriello's report and Gelb recommendation. We're up to May 3, 2000. Next paragraph--Wood checks out Gelb, gives Gelb credentials in this part We're up to May 4, 2000. Next paragraph--Discusses Gelb with Ramseys; Ramseys tell Wood to take offer of Gelb to Beckner, without talking to Gelb We're up to May 5, 2000. Next paragraph--Wood calls Beckner with Gelb offer Still May 5, 2000. Next paragraph--Beckner rejects Gelb offer same day; Wood calls Gelb for 1st time Still May 5, 2000. Next paragraph--One week later, Wood retains Gelb as well as Cleve Baxter for quality control Now we're up to May 12, 2000. How can that be, if the Ramseys said on national TV and Wood backed this up on national TV, today, that they had never taken a polygraph test as of April 28, 2000, and yet Gelb's "re-testing" of the Ramseys started on May 6, 2000? Every single one of them is lying to the American public. The Ramseys had taken the Toriello test before the Burden of Proof appearance where they denied it. And Lin Wood knew it. These are not MINOR lies, these are the basis of this whole trumped-up press conference. Shall we e-mail this to CNN or someone else? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "April testing" Posted by janphi on 05:48:08 5/25/2000 Well, at least one suspicion was just confirmed. Karla Davis, reporting on the polygraphs on Good Morning America, said that the "inconclusive" tests were taken in April. (I guess they got my e-mail!) Unless they just happened to have been taken on April 29-30 (of course, this is possible), it is still highly likely (28 to 2 would be the racetrack odds) that the first tests had already been taken before Patsy announced on CNN that they were "looking forward to taking the test." And Lin Wood was just plain bald-face lying (odds 28 to 2 on this also, of course). Why don't they just carry Dr. Gelb around with them everywhere they go--sure would make our lives a lot easier, lol. Two sidebar notes: I thought the Rams said these tests had to be done in Atlanta. How'd Los Angeles become an exception? Must've been the Patster and the Backster. Also, confirmed this a.m. that Gelb does indeed pronounce JonBenét with a "hard J", rather than Patsy's (and Katie Couric's, but not Diane Sawyer's) preferred "French J." Yup, those questions on that test were definitely asked about some other little girl. (I know, I know, there was only one JonBenét in the whole world, but let's humor the Grafstress on this one.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Very good, janphi" Posted by Seashell on 16:48:11 5/24/2000 I'm reminded of them changing the arrival time of when they say that got home to give themselves time to do all their chores before the murder. We figured out that they must have still been up when the murder started and now this. They do have problems with time, don't they? Mail this to EVERYBODY except CNN. "We did what's called a zone comparison examination, this requires reactivity to certain questions and those questions are compared to other questions where you might have less reactivity. No drug that you can name or that I know of can selectively effect that type of examination. In other words, if this was a guilty knowledge test, that would be a different issue." The implication here is that drugs would affect a guilty knowledge test (and why weren't they given that)? "This is a zone comparison test. I don't know of a drug, and neither do you, that will selectively cause a suppression on certain questions and an elevation on other questions. And the FBI does not do drug screening before they run their polygraph examinations." So what he's saying is that the FBI actually does tests (guilty knowledge) that can be affected by drugs but doesn't screen beforehand? Pretty sloppy work! Or is he saying that the FBI never gives the guilty knowledge test, so screening isn't important. Ahhhh, I think he put his foot in his mouth. It's pretty clear that the Ramseys don't want to take the guilty knowledge test. I wonder why. :-) We need to find out what kind of test the FBI/BPD wanted to administer. And lying Wood would have us believe that the Ramsey don't have an issue with the FBI, but the BPD. This man is more oily than the Exxon spill. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Gelb didn't say..." Posted by maundy on 22:29:06 5/24/2000 whether the FBI ever does drug screens after a polygraph exam. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Wow janphi," Posted by Sioux on 16:43:20 5/24/2000 you are sharp ! YES we should mail CNN. IN MASS please. What's the adress? Also, have you considered a PETITION to a major press chain, like CNN itself?. It could state something that we always talk about: the people that interview the Rams are not neceessarly "Ram-case-buffs" so they don't go further. I really don't know how much is that they are politically correct and how much is palin ignorance of the case. What do you think? Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Wouldn't it be interesting if MSNBC (or some other network)" Posted by lee2 on 16:45:33 5/24/2000 would do one of those "Town Hall" meetings with select members from JusticeWatch and the Ramseys. Talk about some pointed questions! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Not just CNN, Janphi" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:25:31 5/24/2000 EVERY NETWORK OUT THERE!!! You are so sharp, I could never untangle such a web. If the networks that aired this have any journalistic integrity, they/someone will surely pay attention to what you've unwound. Well done, Janphi! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Janphi" Posted by Hannah on 16:21:48 5/24/2000 Send it to Boyles, MSNBC, and CNN and the Governor, who has lost his tongue. You are incredible. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Well" Posted by lake on 16:33:53 5/24/2000 The problem is that the Ramseys did not say in the BOP appearance if April, 28 that they had not taken a PG. The Rs told RC that that was attorney client privilage. So maybe it is YOU that is lieing. But what is new about that? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Fallacious or Reclining?" Posted by cbreez on 00:52:42 5/25/2000 Your post was a little unclear, so I'm going to have to go out on a limb here and extrapolate a little so that I and others that read it have a clear understanding of your intent. You did not seem to be implying that Janphi was involved in trying to foist some kind of underhanded, well pre-meditated fallacy upon us... because that would be "lying". What you did suggest is that Janphi was "lieing", which I'm going to assume you meant was that this person was reclining? Which, in my mind, makes this person quite remarkable. Not only did this person clearly and concisely form a timeline with holes in it that we all had missed, this person was able to do so whilst in a prone position. Now, that's talent. That is what you were trying to point out, isn't it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL cbreez ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "From the Transcript 4-28-00" Posted by janphi on 17:05:08 5/24/2000 P. RAMSEY: There is no question that we are afraid to ask. The truth does not change. If you ask me any question, I will, as truthfully as I possibly, humanly can, answer the question. And there's nothing I'm afraid to answer. COSSACK: John, why do you think it's attorney-client privilege just for the notion of whether or not you took the test? I'm not asking you what the results were, but just merely whether or not you have taken the test independently. P. RAMSEY: We're looking forward to taking the test. Sorry, lake, but "looking forward to taking the test" means they haven't taken it yet, just as Lin Wood said today on national TV. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Look ,J" Posted by lake on 17:11:07 5/24/2000 You could be looking forward to haveing sex, but does that mean that you have not had sex before? I rest my case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Rearing ugly head again, Lake" Posted by Hannah on 16:42:21 5/24/2000 Tell me lake, just what the hell do you think attorney client privilege is? Hiding behind your lawyers. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Please read carefully" Posted by Seashell on 17:12:27 5/24/2000 Wood: "Now, I spoke with the FBI agents in Denver and the FBI polygraph examiner in Denver, who has conducted polygraph examinations for the Boulder police in connection with this very investigation. I asked those individuals: Tell me your protocol. The first thing that happens when you walk in the door, you sit down with a stranger and you are read your Miranda Rights, intimidation tactic number one." This is unbelievable! Well, then, let's just arrest the Ramsey without reading them their rights, especially the attorney part. And don't give them a phone call. Is this man crazy? he cont: "You then are not allowed to know in advance whether you will take a zone comparison test or another type of technique where evidence connecting questions are asked; and it's extremely difficult to prove truthful. You are then subjected to not knowing whether you are videotaped or audiotaped, even if you want it for quality control. You are not told what type of machine, computer or analogue, will be used. And you are going in the door, told that if there are any reactions, you will be subjected to an FBI interrogation that could last for hours." Sounds about right to me, if you're suspects in a murder. he cont: "Now, when John and Patsy Ramsey walk into a room and close the door and sit down beside a stranger and get themselves hooked up to all these various contraptions in this test; I think that a fair- minded person would agree that they are entitled to walk in there and not have the slightest concern over whether that examiner will be fair to them." Translation: John and Patsy should NOT be treated as other suspects. They should have comfy seats, make sure "for sure" is included, and know exactly what test is being administered; they should know if they're being audio or video taped: they should know what type of machine is being used and what it does; and for God's sake, assure them that, no matter what, they will not be interrogated by the FBI. In other words, the Ramseys called the shots AGAIN, and were given special privileges because, after all, they're not like the little people who have to take the tests according to procedure. It's so insulting!!!!! And so many questions couldn't be heard. Hardly a slip-up. More control. lake is back in force finding out the flaws so he can report back and lick the Ramfeet so they can start damage control. Yes, janphi, send it out and ignore the spin. You can bet if the Rams had taken a test and passed, the universe would have known about it. A whole question was asked about how Patsy felt - what a waste of journalism. mame, BJ, isn't it time to go on some of these talk shows? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Sorry Lake" Posted by Seeker on 16:57:06 5/24/2000 but you are mistaken. That information came directly out of John Ramsey's mouth! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Sorry Seeker" Posted by lake on 17:07:48 5/24/2000 But you are telling lies again. That or you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Don't know if you are a lier, misinformed or just ignorant. But for sure, it is one of the three. And to whoever equated attorney client confidentiality with a lie; you must be a total moron. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Lake haha" Posted by tall-p on 13:00:30 5/25/2000 But you are telling lies again. That or you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Don't know if you are a lier, misinformed or just ignorant. But for sure, it is one of the three. And to whoever equated attorney client confidentiality with a lie; you must be a total moron. Lake, you take the prize for ignorance, because everyone of your posts has a misspelling or malapropism. John and Patsy said that they couldn't answer the question (if they had taken a polygraph), because of attorney client privilege. That is not an honest answer, and attorney client privilege has to do with the attorneys knowledge and not the Ramsey's knowledge of anything. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Lake talks just like the Ramsey duo" Posted by Hannah on 18:52:36 5/24/2000 Keep ranting, the only moron on this forum is you. I try to ignore you, and from now on I will. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "The Rest of the Transcript" Posted by LizzieB on 17:45:11 5/24/2000 FROM THE END OF THE CNN TRANSCRIPT: http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/24/se.02.html QUESTION: The potential might be that the questions were pretty soft. I mean,if the FBI were to give the test... J. RAMSEY: I don't think so. What's next? What's next, a bed of coals you want us to walk across? QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) P. RAMSEY: It's on videotape. It is -- you know, they can review this. GELB: Let's take the question or the statement these questions are soft. What would you ask? QUESTION: Well, I'm not an FBI agent (OFF-MIKE). GELB: Right, but what would you ask? QUESTION: I think you asked the same question... THIS IS WHERE CNN LEFT OFF, WITH CLOSING COMMENTS BY VAN SUSTEREN AND COSSACK. CONTINUATION OF TRANSCRIPT: GELB: Three different times, in one test. QUESTION: I'm just saying I think there would be more in-depth questions, harder questions . . . GELB: What's the bottom line here? The bottom line is, did you inflict the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet? The bottom line is, do you know who killed JonBenet? The bottom line for Patsy is, because she was not excluded by handwriting analysis, did she write the ransom note? Now, once you've gotten that far on single-issue tests, which have the greatest validity of any type of examination, why are you continuing? Where are you going? QUESTION (Carol McKinley): Dr. Gelb, the Boulder Police are saying that they want someone who is familiar with the investigation. They would ask questions like, "Do you know what weapon caused the head wound?" Something like that, that might throw people off-guard. That's why they want someone who knows the case. You, obviously, haven't been on the case for three years. BAXTER: (OFF-MIKE) GELB: Go ahead. Mr. Baxter will speak to that. BAXTER: One of the things we depend on very much in the zone comparison test is a person to focus - it's the prioritizing of the mind to focus their psychological set either on character evaluation questions that we call comparison questions, or the "did you" questions. Now the worst thing you can do is to put a secondary involvement question in that test series, because they might not feel comfortable with that secondary involvement, and that would kill the responses to the comparison questions, which we depend upon to get our numerical score. It would be the worst kind of test going. QUESTION: Sir, does the FBI submit questions prior to a polygraph as well? BAXTER: Submit to whom? QUESTION: I understand that the questions in this particular test were submitted ahead of time. In other words, John and Patsy Ramsey looked at them prior to . . . BAXTER: They're reviewed very carefully ahead of time. GELB: What we're talking about is the questions are submitted at the time of the examination prior to instrumentation, not that they're given the questions a week ahead of time. At the time the examination is conducted, all of the questions are reviewed and if you recall, earlier I said that the reason for that is so that they can focus on that which poses the greatest threat to their immediate well-being, and that's how the FBI would conduct the examination. QUESTION: The sessions were video-taped? GELB: Yes. BAXTER: Or audio. QUESTION: Well, then is there any possibility that that would be released to the public? WOOD: I know we have video-tape on some; I'm not sure all were video-taped in Atlanta. They were all audio-taped. GELB: They were all audio-taped, and the video-tapes were done on the examinations conducted in Los Angeles, because I had that equipment for the examinations there. You had a question? QUESTION: What exactly does the test measure? Does it measure respiration, does it measure sweat, breathing? GELB: It measures a number of physiological changes such as the changes in the rate or volume of breathing, the changes in electrical conductivity, the changes in blood pressure and pulse rate. QUESTION: What is electrical conductivity? GELB: How the body impedes current . . . BAXTER: Galvanic skin response. GELB: . . . known as galvanic skin response. And all of these various things that we measure are indices of stress. QUESTION: How long were these tests? GELB: Hours. Each one was a couple of hours at least, some two - three hours. QUESTION: [Several people asking questions at once, unintelligible] P. RAMSEY: You know, I don't think you understand, as I did not understand, how a polygraph examination works. I mean, I thought, like probably a lot of you thought, that they'd bring you into a room, they'd sit you down, they'd hook you up to all this paraphernalia and then they say, you know, "Are you sitting down? Are you standing up? Are you Patsy Ramsey?" You know. The question, I mean this is real layman's terms, but you spend a large amount of time in basically an interrogation kind of situation. Then you're hooked up for, you know, a series of yes-no questions. [Laughing] I'm insulting this guy. GELB: [Laughing] How many years since you went through this process? BAXTER: We call it pretest interview, not interrogation. P. RAMSEY: Well, anyway, take it from me. And afterwards, they interro. . . question again some more. So it's not just . . . if it were just this little 5-10 minute yes-no thing, it wouldn't take very long. But part of the whole process, and there again, this is very lay terminology, is to, you know, get you to kind of think about what it is that you're going to be tested about. GELB: One of the reasons that polygraph works is what we call the conditioned response theory. The theory that most of you are familiar with is the fear of detection of deception. But polygraph works because of what we call the conditioned response theory. Did you strike the blows that caused the death of so-and-so? When you're asked that question and you did not do it, you have no recall of that event and you may not like the stigmatic nature of the question, but that's about it. If you are the person who in fact struck the blows that caused the death of so-and-so, you're brought back to the scene of that event much like Pavlov and the dogs and ringing the bell. And your manifestation of stress is very similar to what was happening at the time of that event if in fact you were there. And that is why we couch our questions in this kind of language, "Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet?" You might say, "Well, did you kill JonBenet?" and we might not say that because we might feel that the person could rationalize that all they did was strike some blows but she died later. So there's method to our madness. QUESTION: Is you conclusion that they passed the test or that they're telling the truth or both? GELB: My conclusion is that they were not practicing deception to any of the questions. [To Baxter] What's your conclusion? BAXTER: Same. In other words, when a person answers a question, we, in our capability as polygraph examiner can merely comment on whether we feel they were attempting deception when they answered the above-listed, relevant questions. We cannot relate that to guilt or innocence. That's up to the courts. QUESTION (Dan Abrams): Can you tell us, in very straight-forward language, what are the chances that they're lying? GELB: Well, why don't we go first to the validity of the technique, and you realize that this validity is assessed in an academic setting. When we talk about polygraph being accurate in the mid-90's, let's say 94, 95 percent, that's based on college studies where they ask some young person to take money out of a desk and they say, we're going to give you extra points if you get it right or get it wrong. Contrast that with a real-life situation. The problem in assessing validity in real-life is that we don't know what ground truth is. If I say, you, Stan [sic], apparently committed that crime and you hang tight, I don't have my charts validated, so I don't know if I was right or wrong to call you deceptive. Make sense? So, we're going by academic studies that tell you that the technique is 95% accurate. In real life, with the stress attendant to killing another human being, probably far more accurate. QUESTION: The time that has passed, the three-and-a-half years, does that have any impact? GELB: I'm glad you asked that question. I can tell you from personal experience. I polygraphed a woman who was involved in one of the most notorious cases in the US fifty years ago. She not only failed the test, but. . . MSNBC took a station break and interrupted the questioning for a minute or two. BAXTER: . . . and in the pre-test interview, you remind the individual of that, and what is still at stake, so you have re-invigorated the strength of the issue concerned. Now, another thing too. This August in Florida I have a featured spot on the program of the American Polygraph Association, and the title of my talk is, "How to Reduce Inconclusive Polygraph Examination Results." I mean, this I'm giving to experienced examiners who have been in the field for years and years. So yes, they can be fine-tuned. So can the FBI be fine-tuned. I've given three workshops at Quantico, at the FBI headquarters, Department of Defense, etc. They are depending on me to fine-tune the technique that I started. QUESTION (Paula Woodward): Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, why do you think two Boulder police chiefs, the Boulder DA, and the Governor of Colorado are all resistant to, in your words, search for the killer who might be out walking the streets? What do you think? J. RAMSEY: I don't know. I think this case has been surrounded by such heavy media attention, I mean world-wide media attention. I think it's put a huge amount of pressure on the civil servants in Colorado. Certainly the police have staked their careers on our guilt. They did that on December 26, 1996. Um, that's an issue for them. Very difficult to say we're wrong. I don't know, it's baffling. WOOD: It might be a simple word called inexperience. You know, the lead detective at one point, Steve Thomas, when he investigated this case, had worked one homicide prior in time. And that was a homicide where one of his fellow police officers had arrived at the scene of a spouse problem and one spouse shot and killed the other in the presence of a police officer, not exactly the mother of whodunnits. Steve Thomas worked on that case. That was his experience before he got involved in the JonBenet Ramsey case. Look, look at the simple logic of the facts. Lou Smit, who was brought into this case with 32 years of homicide experience, a legend in that area of the country, hired by the Boulder DA's office, didn't come in to help John and Patsy Ramsey, didn't know John and Patsy Ramsey, looked at all of the evidence, and concluded that John and Patsy Ramsey were innocent. Now, I'm going to go with the guy who's got 32 years of experience and 200 homicide investigations with an 80-90% success rate. I'm not going to put my money on the Steve Thomases or the Linda Arndts of this world. Unfortunately, the officials in Colorado bet on Linda Arndt and Steve Thomas, and they bet on the wrong horse. P. RAMSEY: Can I say something? Can I just say something to Paula. You know, this has somehow arrived at a place where it seems like it's a "we vs. they," you know, "we're right, they're wrong, they're right, we're wrong." There is no "win" in this. We have lost a child here. No one is going to win, even when we find the killer. That's not going to bring JonBenet back, you know, so I wish we would just stop this, you know, "he said, she said, they said." You know, let's don't, it's not getting us anywhere. None of this is going to bring JonBenet back. But at least we can find out who did this, get them off the street so there's not another family in this country that will have to face what we have faced in these three years. WOOD: We'll take about two or three more questions, and then we're gonna wrap this up. QUESTION: Can you tell us how much money you've spent in trying to prove your innocence? You've guys have obviously spent a lot of money financially. Can you tell us how you're doing? J. RAMSEY: We have spent virtually all of our savings on both defending our civil rights and looking for the killer. QUESTION: Sandra Parrish, WSB(?) Radio. You had mentioned earlier that you would be willing to give the Boulder PD one more chance. Can you clarify that, what you meant by giving them another chance? WOOD: Yeah, what I said I would do is, we'll provide all the information, all of the charts, video, audio. We'll provide everything that these two experts have produced to the Boulder authorities. We will make them available to answer any questions they have about the test, and then let's find out if the Boulder authorities are going to even attempt to attack the integrity and quality of this examination. They're not going to do it. P. RAMSEY: It's not another chance. We want them. We need them. You know, we have to work together. QUESTION: (Unintelligible, but something about the Toriello examination] WOOD: Let me tell you, the Toriello results have been reviewed by Dr. Gelb and he concurred that they were inconclusive and yes, that's all part of the body of knowledge that Ed Gelb has looked at. QUESTION: Would you give those to Boulder, though? WOOD: I don't know how to make it any plainer. Yes. I mean, we will give them anything.that Dr. Gelb and Mr. Baxter produced or utilized in reaching the conclusions that they reached in this case. QUESTION: Did they receive a million dollars from the National Enquirer for the test? Can you address that? WOOD: The National Enquirer, apparently in November of 1997, offered a million dollars to John or Patsy if they would take a test from the foremost polygraph examiner in the country, Dr. Edward Gelb, and either pass it or fail it, it didn't matter. And if one took it, $500,000. That offer, unfortunately, expired December 31, 1997. Maybe, though, in good faith, the National Enquirer, that has made tens of millions of dollars over the tragedy and suffering of this family, maybe in good faith the National Enquirer will now take this million dollars and donate it, if not to the Jonbenet Ramsey Children's Foundation, at least to a worthwhile charity, to show good faith since they not only took the test, they took five of them, and they passed them conclusively. QUESTION: How is the foundation right now? It's been going on for several years. How much money have you raised and what activities have come out of that? J. RAMSEY: Well, we set up the foundation to honor our daughter, just as we set up a foundation to honor my daughter Beth when she was killed. We didn't set it up to solicit money from the public. We funded it largely from our own pockets. The foundation is focused on protecting America's children from predators and we hope to fund it handsomely through lawsuits. QUESTION: How much money have you raised, and have you done any activities as of yet? J. RAMSEY: We've done a few activities, but we put it in place anticipating that we hopefully could fund it very handsomely. WOOD: And we have a number of civil lawsuits filed as you all know, and you're looking at some very competent and skilled litigators that are involved in this, and there will be lawsuits forthcoming. This has never been about publicity, this has never been about gamesmanship. These people have had their rights trampled. They have been libeled, they have been slandered, and they have been accused, and we are going to take the steps to bring accountability for what's happened to them. And I will tell you, I'll violate the Golden Rule, which you're not supposed to do when you argue to a jury. If it happened to you, you'd do the same thing. Thank you very much for your attention today. THE END [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "The Ramsey's" Posted by Florida on 17:37:48 5/24/2000 claimed "attorney-client privilege" when they didn't want to answer the question. THEY are the client and THEY can break "attorney-client privilege anytime THEY want. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Florida" Posted by lake on 17:44:43 5/24/2000 So what? What does that have to do with the question of did the Rs say that they had not taken a PG? I think that silly attorney client thing should have told everyone that they had probably taken a PG but did not want to say so at that time. BUT, they certainly did not lie about it. And the only people they mislead were the morons out there. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "The Questions" Posted by Chris on 18:00:46 5/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:00:46, 5/24/2000 Questions Asked in Ramsey Lie Test BODY: Questions asked by polygraph expert Ed Gelb in several sessions with John and Patsy Ramsey between May 6 and May 17. Both John and Patsy Ramsey were asked the series 1 and series 2 questions. Only Patsy Ramsey was asked the series 3 questions regarding the ransom note. The Ramseys answered ''no'' to all questions. Series 1: 1. Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet? 2. Regarding JonBenet, did you inflict any of the injuries that caused her death? 3. Were those injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death inflicted by you? Series 2: 1. Do you know for sure who killed JonBenet? 2. Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her? 3. Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenet? Series 3 (Patsy Ramsey only) 1. Did you write the ransom note that was found in your house? 2. Regarding that ransom note, did you write it? 3. Is that your handwriting on the ransom note found in your house? Source: Lin Wood, Ramseys' attorney Also, consider the source, but the leader of the little heads has posted their scores as: John's scores were +10 and +17 Patsy's scores were +10, +12, and +16 The +16 concerned writing the note - just wanted to note that. A score higher than +9 was truthful, a score from +9 to -18 was indefinite and a score lower than -18 indicated deception [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "One source" Posted by lake on 18:06:22 5/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:06:22, 5/24/2000 The other two sources are the Gelb and the guy that reviewed the results of the PG. But of course, some of you would call into question the the character of Jesus Christ if you thought it would advance your imaginary case against the Rs. Most of the presumed guilty posters, along with the media are in deep irreversable denial about the con job that the BPD and the media have pulled off in this case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "lake" Posted by Sioux on 13:13:27 5/25/2000 **some of you would call into question the the character of Jesus Christ if you thought it would advance your imaginary case against the Rs.** Always the religious imagery...... **Most of the presumed guilty posters, along with the media are in deep irreversable denial ** lake , lake, stop projecting yourself in cyberspace. Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "question" Posted by dixie on 18:10:50 5/24/2000 I wonder if they were asked any about previous sexual abuse of JonBenet? that would seem revelant to this case I would think. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Calling docg" Posted by maundy on 22:41:25 5/24/2000 They didn't ask John if he wrote the note? Is this glaring loophole covered in another thread? Do you know for sure who killed her? No, there were too many fingers in the pie, just for that reason. Are you concealing the identity of the killer? No, I haven't changed my name and moved to Paraguay yet. I'm sorry, I haven't actually made my way thru the transcripts yet. Brother Love Wood said he hired the one guy. Never said he didn't hire anybody else. Was that question asked? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Toriello and Surgery" Posted by cbreez on 11:32:46 5/25/2000 I read this morning that he is recovering nicely from his minor procedure. Seems the poor guy had to have his tongue removed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Cbreez" Posted by Ryder on 11:38:27 5/25/2000 LOL, that one really cracked me up. I know, these guys (Wood and the like) really take people for fools. How convenient not to have THAT expert on hand. Wood probably scheduled the press conference for the exact time of "minor surgery" (assuming there was one). I don't think we've heard the last of Mr. T. You can bet on it. THAT will be the next thing to look forward to, but I bet that the RAms will concoct something to grab media attention from Mr. T. at the appropriate time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "minor surgery?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:47:41 5/25/2000 are we sure he's not dead? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Edie" Posted by Ryder on 11:52:20 5/25/2000 Yes, lol, he died in a double suicide along with the intruder. (just kidding folks, don't want to start a rumor) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Oh, but," Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:26:45 5/25/2000 don't you know we're all supposed to believe it was just a simple excuse and a legitimate one at that. Maybe he was aching to talk about his findings, but I don't necessarily buy it. I also know what "staging" is and I would not be at all surprised if this guy decided to take "elective surgery" before coming in front of the press and explaining himself and his tests. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]