Justice Watch Discussion Board "Questions about LKL etc." [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Questions about LKL etc., Ryder, 01:19:23, 6/03/2000 Of Course, Ryder, lake, 01:24:50, 6/03/2000, (#1) imho, maundy, 02:12:29, 6/03/2000, (#2) Wait a minute John.., Florida, 06:43:55, 6/03/2000, (#3) Condition?, v_p, 07:12:26, 6/03/2000, (#4) Ryder, Ginja, 07:38:10, 6/03/2000, (#5) Out of the mouths of....?, canadiana, 08:17:27, 6/03/2000, (#6) Ryder, Ribaldone, 08:24:44, 6/03/2000, (#8) Do ya think, janphi, 08:21:19, 6/03/2000, (#7) Janphi, Ribaldone, 08:28:20, 6/03/2000, (#9) reverse speech, Nandee, 08:59:44, 6/03/2000, (#10) reverse speech, sue2, 09:00:06, 6/03/2000, (#11) janphi et al, maundy, 09:23:32, 6/03/2000, (#12) Sue2, Ribaldone, 09:53:45, 6/03/2000, (#13) Re: the note-writer and the killer, fiddler, 10:38:14, 6/03/2000, (#14) reverse speech, Nandee, 10:43:48, 6/03/2000, (#15) Questioning ala ST, Paralegal, 11:02:02, 6/03/2000, (#16) Paralegal, Ribaldone, 12:25:34, 6/03/2000, (#21) Paralegal, maundy, 11:19:57, 6/03/2000, (#17) I agree, Nandee, 12:11:55, 6/03/2000, (#19) Admissibility of Tapings, Ginja, 11:51:24, 6/03/2000, (#18) What occurs to me is, JR, 12:26:05, 6/03/2000, (#22) Do you support the Death Penalty, chebrock, 12:13:33, 6/03/2000, (#20) chebrock and reverse speech, maundy, 12:26:32, 6/03/2000, (#23) I still need someone to explain to me, nana2, 16:28:04, 6/03/2000, (#24) "independent", Ryder, 18:52:20, 6/03/2000, (#27) Larry king's question about consent, pat, 17:54:54, 6/03/2000, (#25) Pat #25, Ryder, 19:06:19, 6/03/2000, (#28) Ribaldone, you're right about , fiddler, 18:46:51, 6/03/2000, (#26) fiddler, Ryder, 19:10:24, 6/03/2000, (#29) Crosstalk Analysis?, janphi, 19:54:31, 6/03/2000, (#30) Crosstalk, Ryder, 01:10:59, 6/04/2000, (#31) Thanks, Ryder, janphi, 09:49:36, 6/05/2000, (#34) Linguistics, Andrea, 06:42:14, 6/05/2000, (#32) Andrea, Ryder, 09:05:37, 6/05/2000, (#33) ................................................................... "Questions about LKL etc." Posted by Ryder on 01:19:23 6/03/2000 Now that I have read the entire transcript (35 pages!) several times, I have some questions regarding parts of it. #1. Close to the beginning of the programme, Larry asks both John and Patsy if they had agreed to be on the show without dispute. He makes a point of asking John and then Patsy this. At the time, I thought "What's this about?" I wondered if indeed there had been some dispute behind the scenes and if LK thought it important to get them to be clear on this issue with the cameras rolling. I don't recall any such questions being raised with other guests. Did anyone notice that too? And if you did, what do you make of it? It looked to me like Patsy said "Yes," but reluctantly. At any rate, in the first shot that we see of her, she is already looking very displeased.Here is that exchange: KING: Patsy, did you wholeheartedly agree to come? Did any of you dispute coming here tonight? P. RAMSEY: No, not a bit. KING: You felt you wanted to confront this. P. RAMSEY: Absolutely. It's time. While she is saying this, she does not look too convinced. _________________ #2. As I was reading the transcript, I noticed the following exchange: J. RAMSEY: I don't know, but we eliminated that possibility by insisting they be independent. We went to the best polygrapher in the country, had the results quality control by the person who invented the polygraph system. KING: And he was going to release the results no matter what, right? P. RAMSEY: Absolutely. KING: There was a given understanding that it would be made public, no matter what they found. J. RAMSEY: That was the condition we agreed to. ------- Now here is my question: This promise to release the results no matter what, making it public, no matter what they found, really wasn't kept. We still have no comments or specifis from Mr. Toriello. I mean,does releasing the results of the 3rd time Patsy undergoes the test and finally passes honor the above promise? I don't think so. #3. I wonder what all the ramifications of getting both John and Patsy to admit that they think the note writer was the killer could be. A minor one is that I guess ONE element of the ransom note which the Rams no longer buy is the "foreign faction" of writer + 2 gentlemen who don't like JR. But I've just come from the thread where people were discussing a possible connection between the present BPD and ST (a cooperation for the interview) and I'm wondering if this stated belief of both Rams could be important for the BPD's current case. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Of Course, Ryder" Posted by lake on 01:24:50 6/03/2000 And if you click your heels three times you will be back in Kansas with Auntie M. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "imho" Posted by maundy on 02:12:29 6/03/2000 I hope i'm not spilling any beans if i'm rght...maybe i should cut out my tongue (actually last night i accidentllyerased 3/4 of my LKL tape, after i had been warned by Gd. seee, Sioux, that's why I don't think Patsy's crzy for being Higher-Powered). If there's a conspiracy re Ramses, BPD, ST, LKL, and maybe even JD and the Millenium group are in on it. Maybe ST (SThomas I like to think of him now) is deep undercover. Notice it is his hypothesis. But what is his conclusion? The q asked by Larry is a standard Q asked by therapists whne they are trying to access the alters of a person with DID. Notice what ST said about Pasty's response to the LD: she answered truthfully. Go thru the transcript and look for all the msstatements, like the one pointed out where JR said he wouldn't cover for Patsy "Nt in a NY minute." the misue of the metaphor indicates somethiikng (i meant something, but somethinking works). catching this kind of thing is where Hodges excels. interpreting JR he seems to do extremely well. PR, well....yuck. (BTW, i figured out David Icke is also d.icke. also DI. maybe Di is taking care of his agenda). Did you notice ST's earpiece? looks like one to me anyway. any chance someone backstage coaching? coaching LKL even? hmmmmm? btw, if i turn out to be right, i want credit. (so much for for that bright and shining light i thgouht i saw). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Wait a minute John.." Posted by Florida on 06:43:55 6/03/2000 J. RAMSEY: I don't know, but we eliminated that possibility by insisting they be independent. We went to the best polygrapher in the country, had the results quality control by the person who invented the polygraph system. KING: And he was going to release the results no matter what, right? P. RAMSEY: Absolutely. KING: There was a given understanding that it would be made public, no matter what they found. J. RAMSEY: That was the condition we agreed to. That was the condition they agreed to IF the BPD was involved in the tests. Lin Wood said he would NOT have announced the results if they had failed the Gelb tests. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Condition?" Posted by v_p on 07:12:26 6/03/2000 Who placed the conditions on the test? The polygrapher? Lin Wood? The Ramseys? "...conditions we agreed to." Big whoop. Your point? V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Ryder" Posted by Ginja on 07:38:10 6/03/2000 >#1. Close to the beginning of the >programme, Larry asks both John and >Patsy if they had agreed to >be on the show without dispute. >He makes a point of asking >John and then Patsy this. At >the time, I thought "What's this >about?" dispute (d´-spy›t") v. disputed disputing 1. To argue (about); debate. 2. To question the truth or validity of; doubt. 3. To strive against; oppose. n. Ryder, the Rams have questioned the validity of anything and everything when approached. Their response to any kind of request has always been "to place conditions". IOW, if they can't control the situation, they don't involved themselves. Put another way, they oppose any true investigation, or questioning, into the murder of their daughter. My belief here is that LK was asking them, in a sense, if they had placed any 'conditions' with this confrontation with one of their accusers. They don't confront any of their accusers...not the BPD, the DA or the FBI. They openly dispute the validity of these agents/agencies search for the truth. IOW, since Day One they've done everthing they could to impede the investigation, aka oppose it. It was a good question, and LK asked it up front to 'set the stage'. >I don't recall any >such questions being raised with other >guests. Did anyone notice that too? Other guests have always been open and haven't set conditions on what they can or can't be asked, or who can or can't ask the questions. >And if you did, what do >you make of it? It looked >to me like Patsy said "Yes," >but reluctantly. At any rate, in >the first shot that we see >of her, she is already looking >very displeased.Here is that exchange: >KING: Patsy, did you wholeheartedly agree to >come? Did any of you dispute >coming here tonight? >P. RAMSEY: No, not a bit. >KING: You felt you wanted to confront >this. >P. RAMSEY: Absolutely. It's time. What a crock! It's time to confront this? If that were true, they'd be in Boulder confronting the police and answering questions! >#3. I wonder what all the ramifications >of getting both John and Patsy >to admit that they think the >note writer was the killer could >be. This was a magnificent coup for the investigation! There are far too many familial references in that note to have been written by anyone other than one of them, another family member, or a very close friend who knows a great deal of their personal information. What they did was admit that this was an inside job. To take it another step further, the FBI already knew it was an inside job. Process of elimination and the evidence points to there being no other adults in the house with access, opportunity and motive EXCEPT the Rams themselves. We witnessed their defenses to all the elements of this heinous crime...how could a mother kill her child, how could a father condone it, blah blah blah. The more they talk, the more they sink themselves. Thomas has already noted that the BPD is getting tapes of all these appearances and using their statements to compare with statements they made to police. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Out of the mouths of....?" Posted by canadiana on 08:17:27 6/03/2000 On LKL JR said "J. RAMSEY: I don't know, but we eliminated that possibility by insisting they be independent. We went to the best polygrapher in the country, had the results quality control by the person who invented the polygraph system." When I watched this exchange this really struck me...."but we eliminated that possibility". It is very interesting how this was thought out; was discussion initiated by ? as to how they were going to get away with not using the FBI. Well, then. We will just eliminate that possibility. Interesting, very interesting. Not normal conversation, nor normal behaviour. JMO, of course. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Ryder" Posted by Ribaldone on 08:24:44 6/03/2000 I noticed too that Larry made a point of asking if they had any dispute about appearing on the show with Steve. My thought was that by doing this they can eliminate any chance of the Ramsey's claiming they made statements under "duress." If, in fact, they were to make any incriminating statements that might be used against them in court later on. They would not be able to claim the statement(s) was made under duress. The authorities could show that the Rams were there of their own free will and, according to Patsy, actually WANTED to be there. Just a thought. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Do ya think" Posted by janphi on 08:21:19 6/03/2000 that lab in CA that enhanced the 911 call could likewise unscramble the LKL crosstalk for us? I'd ante up a few of my meager $$$ for that. maundy--I loved that "not in a NY minute" turn of phrase by JR, too. No, he'd wait a ver-r-r-y long time before he'd cover for Patsy, then he'd do it for perhaps a NY minute. LOL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Janphi" Posted by Ribaldone on 08:28:20 6/03/2000 "Do ya think that lab in CA that enhanced the 911 call could likewise unscramble the LKL crosstalk for us? I'd ante up a few of my meager $$$ for that." If you're referring to the Reverse Speech, I'm all for it! My husband called me at work on Thursday morning to say that Howard Stern was on the radio talking about the Ramseys and playing the Reserve Speech tapes. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "reverse speech" Posted by Nandee on 08:59:44 6/03/2000 http://paranormal.about.com/science/paranormal/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.reversespeech.com/ramsey.shtml [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "reverse speech" Posted by sue2 on 09:02:45 6/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:02:45, 6/03/2000 what is the "reverse speech" tape? tell us more about what howard stern said ... although i hate howard stern, i like to have all the ramsey info that i can. thanks sue2 edited to note that i posted at the same time the reverse speech hyperlink was... so my answer is in the post above. but i would still like to have more on what howard stern said. sue2 [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "janphi et al" Posted by maundy on 09:23:32 6/03/2000 janphi, were you the one who pointed that out on the LKL thread? oy, i'll find out for sure after i post... (oy cuz i haven't already). ribaldone, good point. but check out the phrasing of the q lkl uses. "any of you". if he's id "any part of you in dispute" he'd have sounded like her therapist. Re: that bright and shining light, maybe it was the company i was keeping. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Sue2" Posted by Ribaldone on 09:53:45 6/03/2000 Unfortunately, I don't really know much more except that Stern was playing the reverse speech audio that has JonBenet saying, "I know evil love," and a few others. My husband was only in his car for a short time so didn't hear the whole thing. I don't like Howard Stern so I never listen, but I thought it was interesting that he was discussing the Ramsey case. Maybe he'll invite Patsy to come on and participate in a psuedo-beauty/strip pageant with Stern, Robin and his other croonies as the judges! Patsy'd probably say yes as long as it was televised. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Re: the note-writer and the killer" Posted by fiddler on 10:38:14 6/03/2000 being the same person--shouldn't we apply the "Ramsey rule" here? That is, the actual truth is always the OPPOSITE of whatever the Ramseys are spinning at the time. Therefore, since they agreed "absolutely" that the note-writer and killer must be the same person, doesn't that in itself argue that one person wrote the note, and a different person did the killing? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "reverse speech" Posted by Nandee on 10:43:48 6/03/2000 Reverse speech is simply playing back what someone has said on tape, backwards. Sometimes you can actually hear words and statements. I don't know how scientific it is, but is is interesting.... You have to listen and judge for yourself...... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Questioning ala ST" Posted by Paralegal on 11:02:02 6/03/2000 I truly believe that the ST/Rammers head-on collision the other night on LKL was an intentional golden opportunity for the FBI, and that ST was earpieced into agents behind the scenes directing his questioning of the Rams. The reason why both the Rams were asked to state on the record that they consented to appear and discuss the case was to cover the consent issues on this evidence when the trial proceeds. A common defense from defendants in these types of situations was that the evidence (videotapes) of any appearances were not consentual, therefore, inadmissable. ST and LK got the Rams to admit that not only were their presences consentual, but that everything they said was, as well. This is a CYA legal maneuver. The blah blah blah about the polygraphs is truly just another diversionary tactic of the Rams. This is not anything that is usable at trial to prosecute, and therefore, a waste of time IMHO to try to analyze. Police usually just use polys to impeach perps' prior admissions and the intimidation nature of a police-conducted poly sometimes succeeds in getting perps to confess. What is majorly significant in this event is that ST got the Rams to make some pretty damning statements about their participation in the crime. This will play out well at trial. One example of such is both PR and JR admitting that whoever wrote the note also committed the crime. And who doesn't love PR demanding numerous times that ST should tell her step-by-step how SHE killed her daughter! Watch for the videotape of this event to come up again at the trial, it will be conclusive stuff! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Paralegal ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Paralegal" Posted by Ribaldone on 12:25:34 6/03/2000 Absolutely! I noticed that earpiece that Steve was wearing, but couldn't see one on the Ramsey's. I also believe that Larry asked about their willingness to participate for a reason. This was a very savvy move by Thomas and the FBI or BDP (if either was involved) and a HUGE mistake for the Ramseys. A move like that was a no win situation for the Ramseys and could only prove to hurt them -- and it did BIG TIME. The Ramsey's are very dumb and are guided by Patsy's love of the spotlight and a very bad attorney. When the Ramsey's are on trial, much of the blame (or credit) will go to Lin Wood. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Paralegal" Posted by maundy on 11:48:09 6/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:48:09, 6/03/2000 Yessss!!! (sorry, i need a little acknowledgement that i take up mass in the universe). although i disagree with your assessment of Patsy. re: the Ramseys saying the opposite of the truth, I assume Patsy is truthful. ST said it, plus if Patsy's multiple, the alter answering the q regarding culpability of the author of the ramson note (love that typo, but i forgot who's hat gets credit) probably ain't been told by the alter who knows the truth re JR. JR, OTOH, has been trying to fry Patsy since Day One. Remember how eagerly and in such loving detail he described the handwriting experts' case against Patsy? Re: reverse speech, didn't JR say, "ooh little sister" in the one where he's talking abot the letter from the 8yo? i found that creepy forwards. Re: it was Luvsa Mystery who caught JR's misuse of the "NY minute" metaphor, Team Ramsey thread, #22. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "I agree" Posted by Nandee on 12:14:39 6/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:14:39, 6/03/2000 Paralegal.... That moment when ST got Patsy to admit the writer of the note was the killer reminded me of F. Lee Baily in the OJ case making Fuhrman state under oath that he hadn't used the N word in 10 years. I knew they had proof he was lying. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Admissibility of Tapings" Posted by Ginja on 11:51:24 6/03/2000 A common defense from defendants in these types of situations was that the evidence (videotapes) of any appearances were not consentual, therefore, inadmissable. ST and LK got the Rams to admit that not only were their presences consentual, but that everything they said was, as well. This is a CYA legal maneuver. PL, I have a major migraine blasting away here, so bear with me. This doesn't sound right. I know where you're coming from re admissibility of videos. But in essence, the Ramseys have already "consented" to the content and use of those videos by agreeing to the taping in the first place. They had full knowledge of who was going to be on the show with them and the purpose of the appearance (confrontation with an accuser). This was all up front before the tape started rolling. It was advertised as such several days in advance. LK's word was "dispute"...not consent. Jmho, but I think that was intentional, in that the Rams are famous for putting conditions down before they agree to anything. This was a major coup for King to get the Rams on live television to confront Thomas. The Rams have made no secret that they despise this man, and have been talking lawsuits since he released his book. This is the Ram's promo tour, one they've developed and initiated. They have chosen to go public. They initiated their public figure status. I think it would be pretty lame for them to later try to suppress the video on the basis they didn't consent to its taping. It may be a common defense for certain defendants, but not these two...they're in a class of their own having nothing to do with other defendants in a similar situation, e.g., there are no other similar situations comparable to this one. Actually, you've got me scratching my head trying to figure out or recall another defendant in a similar situation. Any cites? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "What occurs to me is" Posted by JR on 12:26:05 6/03/2000 The Ramsey's were on LKL promoting their book and now on again with Steve Thomas. Maybe LKL wanted it perfectly clear there was no dispute i.e. the Ramsey's agreed to appear with Steve if LKL let them promote their book on his show first. Now one would think coerced is a better word than dispute under such conditions IMHO so maybe dispute was used to cover ALL bases? Or, maybe the Ramsey's didn't want to agree to participate with Steve but wanted the book promo so bad that after arguing the situation they reluctantly agreed and LKL is covering the show's backside? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Do you support the Death Penalty" Posted by chebrock on 12:13:33 6/03/2000 This appears to be a major question for Steve. When he asked John, John emphatically said NO because there were too many innocent people on death row. Patsy agreed. Then Steve threw the question to Patsy, "Patsy, do you support the death penalty in this case?" Patsy NEVER answered the question. She didn't even say NO even though she had just supported John and his belief. All Patsy could say was that she supported a DNA database. This is very strange and I'm trying to find some reference to this question being used in interrogations because I bet a guilty person hardly ever be able to answer that question. If they say NO, then the interrogator might think they are trying to save their own necks BUT if they say YES, they are committing suicide. There is guilt written all over Patsy's response. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL chebrock ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "chebrock and reverse speech" Posted by maundy on 12:26:32 6/03/2000 chebrock, i paid attention to that part after your first post about it. john speaks, then steve asks patsy and she says, "i concur" then steve asks her again. presumably, her answer could mean she concurred with ST, not JR. by repeating the question, ST was making her be specific, which she couldn't. can someone analyze her q to St about, "do you have children" and something about "in your arms". it's very convoluted and i don't get where she was going at all. she seemed to swicth gears mid-thoughts. Re:reverse speech. I looked at that a while back but could't find it again. just went back and reviewed. i can't hear the real audio, so i could only read the RS from the baba wawa show, not the original statements. but, oh my, did you read what it said? cracking the seventh seal? nazis? clinton? there are a few possibilities here: 1) the RS guys are inserting reverse speech into the audio (or someone is). 2) it's really there, but coiincidental (see jung, re: synchronicity) 3) it really is the stand. luckily i only believe in gollums. bw, what's a drop man? i thin ki researched it once and it was the guy involved who takes the fall, but i could be wrong. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "I still need someone to explain to me" Posted by nana2 on 16:28:04 6/03/2000 How a polygraph that you pay for can be considered independent. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. ""independent"" Posted by Ryder on 18:57:48 6/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:57:48, 6/03/2000 Nana2, I agree with you and would like for someone who is more savvy about terms to tell us what the official meaning of independent in this context would be. For me this is ambiguous as it could mean: a private practioner as opposed to someone or agency from the government, it could mean independent from the investigation or independent from the government. Can anyone help? Your post also brought something else to mind. We know that "independent" is the Ramsey word - from interviews and particularly from THIS interview. Watch what happens in this exchange, which was BTW the way LK began the show: KING: Since last with us, the Ramseys took a lie detector test, not under FBI order. And your lawyer said that you didn't want the FBI to do it. Why? JOHN RAMSEY, FATHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: We didn't necessarily not want the FBI to do it. We wanted someone that was fair and independent. KING: Do you think the FBI would have been partial, Patsy? I mean, do you think the FBI cares? PATSY RAMSEY, MOTHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: I'm not saying that, I'm not accusing that at all, just that was not the definition of independent. KING: Do you think they come with a degree of opinion? J. RAMSEY: I don't know, but we eliminated that possibility by insisting they be independent. ______ Now, what I see here is King incessantly attempting to get the Rams to explain further what their objections to the FBI were, but the Rams incessantly refuse to say "why" they have objections and return endlessly to what seems to be an argument of semantics or definition. Question #1: KING: Since last with us, the Ramseys took a lie detector test, not under FBI order. And your lawyer said that you didn't want the FBI to do it. Why? Comment: This question is very clear and is asking the Ramseys to explain substance of fear or concern. He is asking what do you think that the FBI might have DONE that would be objectionable to you. I can't imagine the question having been made clearer: Why don't you want the FBI? But watch what happens. Answer #1: JOHN RAMSEY, FATHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: We didn't necessarily not want the FBI to do it. We wanted someone that was fair and independent. Comment: The first sentence denies LK's claim with a double negative and the vague "necessarily". We did NOT necessarily NOT want the FBI to do it. Huh? Now, anyone who has more than a superficial knowledge of the case knows that the Rams have fought taking an FBI polygraph. They have refused that, we know that LK's initial statement is true. The Ramseys did not want an FBI polygraph. BUT "Didn't necessarily not want" could imply that maybe the FBI would have been okay with them. We know that a statement with a double negative, while denying the claim made, makes no assertion of its own. Thus if I say "I'm not saying that you don't understand" could imply that I am saying that you DO understand, but not necessarily. I'm merely denying what you have stated but I am refusing to tell you what I AM saying. i.e. no information is given regarding that. Now after JR basically tells LK "you don't have that right" he does offer his affirmative to correct LK's supposed misconception: We wanted someone that was fair and independent. Now you and I have already agreed that "independent" doesn't clarify things much. "Fair" however does. So again, rather than state outright the following, he implies it: The FBI would probably not be fair. He implies this without saying it by the 2 juxtaposed sentences. So, King, having caught the word "fair" here (the only word of real content) follows up with what he thinks to be the concern of the Rams re: the FBI polygraph - fair + independent = impartial and he asks the same question, this time to Patsy, but now even suggesting a possible answer, certainly the one he has been able to surmise from JR's rather oblique answer: Question #2: KING: Do you think the FBI would have been partial, Patsy? I mean, do you think the FBI cares? The first of these questions is clear and, assuming that PR and JR agree, should elicit an affirmative response, since that is what JR has IMPLIED. But again watch what happens. Answer #2: PATSY RAMSEY, MOTHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: I'm not saying that, I'm not accusing that at all, just that was not the definition of independent. But surprise! We get the same tactic. She disagrees with what has been again suggested by LK (just as JR did). She, however brings in the word "accusing" and so we understand that she wishes to fend off any responsibility for making any derogatory statement about the FBI. She doesn't want to be held accountable for "accusing" the FBI of anything at all. She, like JR simply wants to re-align the debate to one word: "independent". Of course we know that King has this right too, just like he had his first assumption right. He first assumed that the Ramseys didn't want an FBI polygraph. We (and the police) know that King's assumption is right. Not so, says JR. Then King assumes that the Rams object that the FBI is not impartial. We know that this assumption is also correct. Not so, says Patsy. She too, like John, after denying the assumption, offers an affirmation and this affirmation, this time, since it is not accompanied by a clarifying adjective like "fair" in JR' answer, just sticks to the word "independent". Her answer is void of substance for anyone who is still trying to get beyond the word "independent" as King has been trying to do from question #1. Of course, nothing has been made any clearer for LK, through Patsy's answer, so he returns with yet a third question on the same issue. Question #3: KING: Do you think they come with a degree of opinion? This of course, does not differ much in meaning from "partial vs impartial". It is perhaps a softer way to distance one's self from an outright accusation. And the question comes bouncing back to John, who replies: Answer #3: J. RAMSEY: I don't know, but we eliminated that possibility by insisting they be independent. And of course, in keeping with the above pattern, there is a 2 stage answer here. The first stage is "I don't know" which again signifies the desire to not pronounce one with regard to the subject. Regarding this, anyone who knows this case, knows that the Ramseys, 1] do not want to do an FBI polygraph 2] do think that the FBI is impartial and 3] do think that the FBI comes with a degree of opinion. BUT, what we see, is that they do not wish for the public to know any of these stances of theirs. But finally, JR decides to clarify a bit... sort of ... by saying "we eliminated that possibility by insisting they be independent." Now we do understand that he is implying that he thinks that it is possible that the FBI may come with a degree of opinion. But folks what kind of convoluted manner of beating around the bush is this? On a fairly simple point. And notice that all he has admitted to is that he thinks: 1] that it is "possible" (at other times they go beyond "possible" and "probable" to state that the FBI held the BPD's hand) 2] that the FBI comes with a "degree" of opinion - again notice how LK has worded this to mean perhaps a slight opinion, a bit of opinion. But even there, JR is careful not to agree with this. This is already so long that I will stop here. BUT it is worth contrasting all of this to the portion of the show where the issue returns. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Larry king's question about consent" Posted by pat on 17:54:54 6/03/2000 was to cover cnn's ass in case the rams, notorious suers, decided to sue him. And to protect steve thomas from suit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Pat #25" Posted by Ryder on 19:06:19 6/03/2000 I think you may be right. Another possibility that came to my mind is that there MAY well have been dispute with CNN. Over at the Jameson forum, when they were still claiming disbelief regarding the possibility that the Rams would be on with ST on LKL, one poster said that PR had personally told her that the Rams WOULD be on LKL BUT that PR had not mentioned anything about ST being on with them. Now, assuming that the poster is telling the truth (and no, we have no way of knowing that) my theory is this: The Rams may have accepted to go on the LKL a while back, BUT maybe they just learned at the same time that we did, that ST would be on with them. When did we learn that exactly? The day before? So my guess is that once they learned that, the Rams may well have disputed this with CNN, but were reluctant to pull out at the last minute and look like they were afraid to go on with ST. So, my guess is that LK may have been told that there was some dispute by CNN people, but wanted to see what they would say on live TV. AND also to avoid any possibility of being sued for anything, as the Rams are doing to other people. My very strong guess is that there was dispute from Patsy. She may have demanded that they still go on as planned but that ST should be taken off the bill. Who knows? With those 2, anything is possible. I do think that she looked very upset at the beginning and could barely bring herself to say that there had been no dispute. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Ribaldone, you're right about " Posted by fiddler on 18:46:51 6/03/2000 Lin Wood not giving the Rams very good advice--but then, I suspect the Ramseys' definition of a good attorney is one who tells them what they want to hear. And they have enough money to sustain their version of reality, at least for a little while. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "fiddler" Posted by Ryder on 19:10:24 6/03/2000 You are so right. I really do think that these 2 do not have a grip on reality at all. I mean that quite literally. They are totally out of touch with the world regarding this issue, in a major cocoon of denial, not just of the circumstances re: JB's death, but the public's reading of everything subsequent to that. And I agree that the success of any attorney re: the Rams is going to be tricky because it involves protecting them against the consequences of reality, yet not displeasing them by breaking too many of their illusions. i.e. telling them just what they want to hear. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Crosstalk Analysis?" Posted by janphi on 19:54:31 6/03/2000 Actually, when I asked about the crosstalk in another post up there, I was hoping someone here had taped the show and was in the laborious process of separating the statements made by all participants speaking over one another during the gaps referred to as "crosstalk" in the transcript (not reverse speech). I was listening on the 'Net rather than watching and there was some very important stuff said when they were shouting each other down. I see that CNN hasn't posted a full transcript yet, with the crosstalk separated and written out. Perhaps they won't, but they are the only ones who could do it easily if each was miked separately--and I'm sure they were. Each will have his/her own track mixed into the audio that goes out combined on the video signal. That is what I was hoping for, even if it took enhancement by an "independent" lab like the one that analyzed and beefed up the audio on the 911 call where Burke's voice is alleged. Maybe that lab isn't in CA. like I thought--is that what was confusing about my post? Well, is anyone here re-listening to the tape and have you made out any of the statements made in the crosstalk? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Crosstalk" Posted by Ryder on 01:10:59 6/04/2000 For those of you who wondered about transcripts of the crosstalk. Most of it is simply a repetition of what people say either before, or after the word "crosstalk". The CNN transcript is not 100% accurate but the lack of accuracy doesn't betray the dialogue in any major way. I noticed 2 sentences which were not transcribed fully: 1] On page 7 (if you've printed it out) The following segment is missing the last sentence in the transcript although it is clearly heard. J. RAMSEY: Because you have assaulted her. You've called her a murderer. You have checked 73 suspects and said because Patsy's handwriting was the only one that couldn't be eliminated, therefore, she is a murderer. That is absurd. And you said that in front of 6 billion people. I found #2 a bit more revealing (pg 10 of printed transcript) P. RAMSEY: So you will not say in a court of law when you're taken to suit. The transcript leaves out "when you're taken to suit". ----- This second one, says that PR had the law suit against ST on the brain. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Thanks, Ryder" Posted by janphi on 09:49:36 6/05/2000 Appreciate your taking that time and passing this along--I've copied it into my transcript. I sure thought there were a lot more heated exchanges than that! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Linguistics" Posted by Andrea on 06:42:14 6/05/2000 I watched my tape of LKL with ST and the R's again last night. And, something caught my attention last night that hadn't before. At the beginning of the show, ST had mentioned pediatric experts that were brought into the case by the BPD. JR is attacking him on that issue and then sarcastically refers to the Linguistics Expert that was also brought in by the BPD. THEN, at the end of the show, JR says that this "intruder" left them a 3 page gift and that when they find the right suspect, that suspect's handwriting will be proven as the writing of the ransom note. So, it seems JR believes in handwriting analysis only when it suits his purpose, as well as in the case of the polygraphs. Of the over-70 suspects who submitted handwriting samples, PR is the only one who cannot be eliminated. Yet, the R's want us to believe that the "real killer" or creature (aka "the boogeyman") who did this is still out there. But, PR is the only one of those over-70 people that can be proven to be in the house that night. Sorry, my thought process is a little unorganized, but it's Monday morning and my brain is still in slo-mo. Andrea [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Andrea" Posted by Ryder on 09:05:37 6/05/2000 Good point. I noticed that too. I remember him going on about this gift of 3 pages of letter and how they would get a perfect match etc. There are quite a few mistakes in the CNN transcript, some important ones where the word "not" was left out. I know that CNN says that it was a "rush" transcript. Do they usually leave it at that or do they usually replace the unofficial transcript with an official one? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]