Justice Watch Discussion Board "My close, personal friend Mike Bynum" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... My close, personal friend Mike Bynum, guardian, 09:44:54, 6/11/2000 Try this, v_p, 09:57:51, 6/11/2000, (#1) continued, guardian, 10:07:17, 6/11/2000, (#2) The deposition, guardian, 10:10:42, 6/11/2000, (#3) Bynum, Ginja, 10:16:36, 6/11/2000, (#4) You're Welcome, v_p, 10:27:30, 6/11/2000, (#5) he could see what was going on, Edie Pratt, 10:50:06, 6/11/2000, (#6) Edie Pratt, socks, 16:19:36, 6/12/2000, (#30) Pretty clear answer..., GuyGene, 10:57:13, 6/11/2000, (#7) guygene, v_p, 11:02:03, 6/11/2000, (#8) Grand jury, guardian, 11:21:06, 6/11/2000, (#9) Thanks, Guygene, Ginja, 11:46:30, 6/11/2000, (#10) I'm confused..., GuyGene, 12:20:33, 6/11/2000, (#11) GuyGene, Ginja, 15:00:14, 6/11/2000, (#14) Gee, I guess the close personal friend, sally denver, 14:06:07, 6/11/2000, (#12) Edie P. #6, Ryder, 14:32:36, 6/11/2000, (#13) lies, Seashell, 15:02:34, 6/11/2000, (#15) Ryder, here's another thing, Edie Pratt, 16:31:27, 6/11/2000, (#16) Just some trivia, Maggie, 20:46:12, 6/11/2000, (#19) When did Ramsey call Bynum?, Ginja, 16:47:03, 6/11/2000, (#17) Phone records, v_p, 19:55:09, 6/11/2000, (#18) Then again..., Seashell, 00:04:54, 6/12/2000, (#20) Another JR slip of the tongue???, JR, 07:51:49, 6/12/2000, (#22) cell phone records, pinker, 07:39:44, 6/12/2000, (#21) two cell phones?, Edie Pratt, 11:09:58, 6/12/2000, (#23) I really should finish ST's book, Seashell, 11:37:35, 6/12/2000, (#24) I'd Rather Be Lucky Than Good!, shadow, 12:07:17, 6/12/2000, (#25) Addition to post #7 , sebastian, 12:38:11, 6/12/2000, (#26) v_p, socks, 15:25:20, 6/12/2000, (#27) PILLOW TALK, Nandee, 15:27:15, 6/12/2000, (#28) socks, v_p, 15:36:51, 6/12/2000, (#29) Mike Bynum's role, guardian, 19:25:50, 6/12/2000, (#31) ................................................................... "My close, personal friend Mike Bynum" Posted by guardian on 09:44:54 6/11/2000 Everyone who has followed this case knows that JR has said that the reason that they hired attorneys in the very beginning is because a friend, one Mike Bynum, suggested they do so. From the January 1, 1997 CNN Interview: CABELL: There has been some question as to why you hired a defense attorney. RAMSEY, J: I know. Well, we were fortunate from almost the moment that we found the note to be surrounded by friends, our minister, our family doctor, a personal friend of mine who is also an attorney, and we relied on their guidance almost from that moment on and my friend suggested that it would be foolish not to have knowledgeable counsel to help both us and with the investigation. And from the May 1, 1997 hand-picked media interview: John Ramsey: I think one of the issues that uh, was distressing to us and perhaps caused some bias of opinion is, why did we bring lawyers into this, uh, process early on? And I can tell you both how that happened and, and why it happened. . . The 'how, is that on the day after the tragedy, we were being consoled by friends and family, and a close friend of mine who is also a practicing attorney took me aside and said, 'John, I see some things developing here that , uh, I would like to ask your permission to do, some things that I think are necessary to be done.' I said, 'Fine, do it.' So he retained counsel for Patsy and I. And in the Ramsey's documentary with Michael Tracy , Bynum himself says, "I showed up as John and Patsy's friend. I wasn't initially thinking of anything I could do for them legally, but . . ." and goes on to use almost the exact words JR used in the May 1 interview. Now that we have established from three sources that JR's close personal friend, Mike Bynum, was responsible for obtaining counsel and other things he deemed "necessary to be done" for JR and PR, let's take a look at JR's deposition in the Stephen Miles civil suit from October 20, 1998: Lee Hill thoroughly establishes who JR considers his circle of close personal friends to be. The entire deposition is highly suggested reading, but for our purposes, pages 38-54 contain the info relative to this thread. The URL is www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/0206deposition.html I don't know how to make a link or I would. JR never mentions Mike Bynum's name. No matter how many times and ways Lee Hill asks who JR and PR's friends are. The Christmas party of 12-23-96 is brought up, as to the guest list. No Mike Bynum. Lee Hill asks specifically about lawyer guests. No Mike Bynum. Yet some how, three days later Mike Bynum becomes a close, personal friend. So close in fact JR puts Patsy's, Burke's, and his own lives in the hands of Mike Bynum. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Try this" Posted by v_p on 09:57:51 6/11/2000 Maybe this will work... http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/0206deposition.html V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "continued" Posted by guardian on 10:07:17 6/11/2000 I feel the more JR can be deposed the better. Whether he is being sued or he is doing the suing. I think this is the most tangible evidence of guilt to date. It's better than Linda Ardnt saying she" knew what happened. She could see it in his eyes." Or Steven Thomas' instinct. This is fact. JR contacted his CLOSE, PERSONAL, FRIEND MIKE BYNUM a lawyer, after his daughter was " kidnapped." Guardian Justice for JonBenet please. Are you listening BPD? I can't do everything. I'm a civilian. There is a limit as to what I can do. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "The deposition" Posted by guardian on 10:10:42 6/11/2000 Thanks Vicki. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Bynum" Posted by Ginja on 10:16:36 6/11/2000 Three sources were cited: January 1, 1997 CNN Interview -- with Ramsey; May 1, 1997 interview -- with Ramsey; and in the '98 Crockumentary -- again with Ramsey. Bynum on several different occasions has given his own versions, very similar to John's. He did a special with Diane Sawyer where he goes into detail. I guess you could call this a stipulated fact that it was Bynum's idea and Bynum who made the initial call to Haddon. As to why JR didn't 'own up' to his good buddy Bynum in the deposition, from what I see here, is that (outside JR's usual manipulation and reason for doing anything) it wasn't responsive. For example, Bynum wasn't on the guest list or at the house the party on the 23rd. Nor was he at the house with others on the 26th. One of the 10 commandments for taking depositions is that you offer absolutely nothing...you just answer the question posed. I'm disappointed with Hill and this deposition. I understand his strategy, but it backfired. I wonder if he realized it, could he have changed tactics midstream depo? His initial strategy was to use this opportunity to 'get friendly' with the deponent, make the deponent comfortable, loosen him up. Then call the deponent back, only in the second run -- now that the deponent's comfortable and his guard is down -- throw down the gauntlet and ask the hard questions. Hill never got the chance. The judge ruled on the merits of the wishy-washy depo and dismissed the charges. Perhaps if he had gone into the depo with guns loaded, the judge would have ruled otherwise and we'd be seeing courtroom action instead of Springerish LKL's. Jmho [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "You're Welcome" Posted by v_p on 10:27:30 6/11/2000 and great catch, by the way. I'd be interested to know how often, if ever, Bynum socialized with the Ramseys. I wonder if the question has been posed to their other EX circle of close friends. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "he could see what was going on" Posted by Edie Pratt on 10:50:06 6/11/2000 LOL. If that isn't a loaded statment, I don't know what is. First of all, since when does Bynum "drop by as a friend"? Drop by the day after xmas when his good buddy is supposed to be on his way to the Big Red Boat? Uh huh. And, secondly, if the lawyer who just dropped by can see the situation calls for attys, then clearly the Ramseys looked guilty as sin to HIM. That comment is as innocent as Ed Gelb's "release me as his atty." about OJ's claim of never meeting Gelb. Please. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Edie Pratt" Posted by socks on 16:19:36 6/12/2000 Since Bynum was an attorney for Access Graphics, could he also be John's attorney? Would that create a conflict of interest.? I think I am beginning to see a method to John's madness. He is hesitant to say Bynum was acting as his attorney, since Bynum was Access Graphic's attorney, I am asking, could Bynum legally act as John's attorney? Look at Dr. Beuf, JonBenet's doctor. He gave John and Patsy valium, does that make him thier physcian? If not, then does he have Dr./Patient priviledge? Remember Beuf and John went for a walk on the night of Dec. 26th. Is that priviledged information, whatever John may have said to Beuf during the walk? Then we have Father Holverson (name and spelling), what did John confide to the good pastor? Seems like John and Patsy surrounded themselves with lots of people who could enact the priviledge. I wonder what made Barbara Fernie change her mind about Patsy's innocense? I sure wish she would give an interview and tell all. socks/midnite [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Pretty clear answer..." Posted by GuyGene on 10:57:13 6/11/2000 Ginja said... >As to why JR didn't 'own up' to his good buddy Bynum in the deposition, from what I see here, is that (outside JR's usual manipulation and reason for doing anything) it wasn't responsive. For example, Bynum wasn't on the guest list or at the house the party on the 23rd. Nor was he at the house with others on the 26th. Check this out from the deposition. He certainly is pretty clear with this answer: Deposition Pages 43-44 Q. Did your circle of friends include any public officials in Boulder, County or Boulder City government? A. No. Q. Any lawyers? A. Not our close circle of friends, no, that I can recall. I don't think any lawyers. Q. What's the first tier where a lawyer turns up? A. Well, we knew people -- Noel Phillips was a lawyer, became a lawyer. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT I CAN THINK OF THAT I KNEW. (My caps). Btw, guardian, to make a link you just have to post the entire URL (including "http://"). Easiest way is just to copy and paste from the location bar. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "guygene" Posted by v_p on 11:02:03 6/11/2000 Your post pretty much sums it up. Another day, another lie rears it's ugly head. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Grand jury" Posted by guardian on 11:21:06 6/11/2000 It's a shame this deposition was sealed while the GJ was convened. GuyGene, I'll try making a link next time. Thank you. Guardian [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Thanks, Guygene" Posted by Ginja on 11:46:30 6/11/2000 >>As to why JR didn't 'own up' >to his good buddy Bynum in >the deposition, from what I see >here, is that (outside JR's usual >manipulation and reason for doing anything) >it wasn't responsive. >Check this out from the deposition. He >certainly is pretty clear with this >answer: >Deposition Pages 43-44 >Q. Did your circle of friends >include any public officials in >Boulder, County or Boulder City government? >A. No. That's truthful. Bynum's a former prosecutor, now in private practice. >Q. Any lawyers? >A. Not our >close circle of friends, no, that >I can recall. I don't think any >lawyers. This is known as "Clintonism" or "Clintonese", aka manipulation, as I noted. Note he offers up "our close circle of friends". He wasn't asked that. So he conditioned the question, thus qualifying his answer. >Q. What's the first tier where a >lawyer turns up? >A. Well, we knew >people -- Noel Phillips was a lawyer, >became a lawyer. THAT'S THE ONLY >ONE THAT I CAN THINK OF >THAT I KNEW. (My caps). This slices two ways. First, as v_p, notes...liar, liar, pants on fire! (my emphasis, not v_p's words, just her idea! lol). But secondly, it can also be more Clinton-speak, or what will probably be recoined Ramseyspeak, or Ramseyism. The question asks at what point does a lawyer enter the picture. Bynum came to the family as a friend..note, not a "close friend", but also note, certainly not in a legal capacity. There's no question that Bynum is a Ramsey friend. Close personal? Not according to the Ramseys. And frankly, I don't think I've heard Bynum admit to their relationship as close and/or personal. They have business dealings together. If close and personal defines relationships of those persons the Rams socialize with (i.e., their Christmas party) or those persons they call (and show up) to be with them in a time of need (i.e., the gathering on the 26th), then clearly Ramsey has qualified his statement in leaving Bynum's name out. Bynum's no dummy, as an ex-prosecutor, seeing what he saw, he made no bones about how the BPD was going to be looking at this...and that's what he told John. Are Bynum's interests as a friend? or business associate? We all know the Ramseys are liars. But they're also very smart, manipulative and controlling people. Nothing is said or done without forethought. They've qualified everything stated in the deposition. All I'm saying is that as liars, you can't point to these statements taken under oath and which can be qualified. That's the suckey truth. What I was hinting at earlier was that if Hill had changed tactics and gone to bone and stripped away those qualifiers, they might have been caught lying under oath (if they still maintained Bynum was a nobody to them). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "I'm confused..." Posted by GuyGene on 12:20:33 6/11/2000 What would be the point in denying that Bynum is a friend? Why wouldn't he just say "Mike Bynum is a friend" (close or whatever)? What would he gain by denying this friendship? Is it possible, therefore, that he lied about the nature of the relationship when relating why he and Patsy got lawyers so quickly? And then forgot that he had referred to Bynum as a "a close friend of mine who is also a practicing attorney?" Did he lie about the relationship in order to take the onus of lawyering up so quickly off of himself? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "GuyGene" Posted by Ginja on 15:00:14 6/11/2000 >What would be the point in denying >that Bynum is a friend? Why >wouldn't he just say"Mike Bynum is >a friend" (close or whatever)?What would >he gain by denying this friendship? > >Is it possible, therefore, that he lied >about the nature of the relationship >when relating why he and Patsy >got lawyers so quickly? And then >forgot that he had referred to >Bynum as a "a close friend >of mine who is also a >practicing attorney?" Did he lie about >the relationship in order to take >the onus of lawyering up so >quickly off of himself? Anything is possible! The keystone here is getting inside the Ramsey psyche. After all, it was that psyche that put together the staging of this crime to effect complete and total confusion that can't be traced. IOW, no one can figure out who did what on the night of the 25th, so how can we think we can figure out why the Ramseys avoided questions as to pinpointing their relationship with Bynum? Another poster brought out something about this deposition being concurrent, yet separate, with the criminal investigation. That's the answer. The deposition was part of a civil matter. The criminal matter is separate and apart. The civil action is based in slander and defamation; the criminal investigation is based in murder. Two separate entities. As Ryder points out, the Ramseys have, and continue to, set forth allegations that the BPD rushed to judgment and looked at no one but them. That doesn't cut it when you look at the facts as Ryder pointed out. There are many other instances where it is pluperfectly apparent that the cops did not rush to judgment and investigated all leads outside the family. Again, the Rams have done their research. They've sat for untolled hours with the criminal attorneys, and now they being coached by a civil attorney. Litigants are prepped, sometimes for hours, before going into a deposition. Make no bones about it, Ramsey is distancing himself from Bynum. That's not to say it's the same type of "distancing" as he's followed with Fleet White. Again, I wouldn't call these statements "lies". It's doublespeak with qualifiers. And there's reasoning behind it for doing such. But again, we're dealing with the Ramsey psyche, here. You ask why they don't own up to their friendship with Bynum. Others are asking why they don't own up to killing their child. Perhaps that psyche was in a civil mindset for that deposition, ergo the 'oversight' of matters that relate to the criminal aspect. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Gee, I guess the close personal friend" Posted by sally denver on 14:06:07 6/11/2000 Knew right up front that the Ramsey's are murders....what could have given them away? Maybe when John "found" the body in the room nobody knew about, had already been looked into by Fleet White and then John "saw" the body in the dark?? That's when I knew and I have never floundered about the collective guilt since then! Grow a brain Alex! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Edie P. #6" Posted by Ryder on 14:32:36 6/11/2000 I think you are 100% right in saying this: "And, secondly, if the lawyer who just dropped by can see the situation calls for attys, then clearly the Ramseys looked guilty as sin to HIM." The Ramsey statements regarding unfair and UNJUSTIFIABLE CONTINUED suspicion as a need for lawyering up and lack of trust of BPD are ridiculous. The timeline of their lawyering up and refusal to answer questions for the police is ample evidence of this. Both the lawyering up and the refusal to answer police questions (which continues as we speak) had nothing to do with the actions of the police. They were the result of what you say: Both Bynum and the Ramseys themselves knew that the circumstances incriminated the Ramseys. These 3 knew that they were and would continue to be the police's prime suspects, not because of any faulty thinking on the part of the BPD but because their dead child had been found in THEIR home while THEY were at home with no guests and no forced entry. Their rationalizations of the lack of trust in BPD and of the need to lawyer up are a bunch of nonsense. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "lies" Posted by Seashell on 15:02:34 6/11/2000 Whenever JR says, "Uh, uh, maybe, but, uh, I don't remember, uh exactly, we know he's lying! He has very selective memory! So if Bynum was snowshoeing (there's that *#% word again - it took me 8 tries to type it) all day, the day that the Rams were supposedly winging their way to MI, when did JR call him or who called him to say JBR was dead? And why call him if he wasn't a close personal friend? Certainly MB had no need to call JR, thinking he was gone. So someone called him in a PROFESSIONAL capacity, either before or after the body was "found! Ergo, it wasn't MB who thought the Rams needed a lawyer, it was JR himself who must have made that call to MB, knowing that he needed help FAST. Of course he's been saying that the lawyers lawyered him up. Uh ah! No way! Now that MB is not considered a close personal friend (according to JR), he was called professionally, which is tantamount to saying that the Rams are guilty. Keep talking, Rams. Could they possibly be more guilty? It walks like a duck, QUACK QUACK! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Ryder, here's another thing" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:31:27 6/11/2000 the most brilliant maneuver, intentional or not, was the impromptu bruncheon. Hmmmm, diabolical really. And, just the thing a sleazy lawyer would dream up. I wonder if the password of that day was "Divide". Divide and conquer. Maybe "Add" followed, by all those lawyers. The next phase was "Subtract", as in press conference? We know they've employed "Multiply",just look at all those lies,lol. I wonder if Bynum is wont to say "you do the math"? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Just some trivia" Posted by Maggie on 20:46:12 6/11/2000 I've always wondered who picked the password SUBTRACT for that 'by invitation only' interview. Anagramed, SuBTraCt becomes 'SBTC u rat' or 'u r at SBTC.' Almost as subtle as the dictionary opened to the word INCEST, eh. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "When did Ramsey call Bynum?" Posted by Ginja on 16:47:03 6/11/2000 Bynum wasn't home to receive the call if Ramsey called him. They've got the phone records so there's no mystery there. Bynum went off with his family and returned home that night. Who's to say he didn't hear something on the radio driving home? He got to the Fernie's later that night. I forgot what led him there, but I don't remember him being summoned. He talked about this with Sawyer. He said something to the effect that he was told, or he heard. IOW, someone else got to him, not Ramsey. Is he lying? The phone records would prove it, one way or another. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Phone records" Posted by v_p on 19:55:09 6/11/2000 Could John have called from his cell phone? Surely Bynum has a cell phone as well. Didn't I read that once the cell phone records were finally retrieved by the BPD there were a lot of gaps in December and January? I think this may have been in ST's book. The phone call could also have been made by Fernie or Fleet White. Fleet took Burke to his house that morning. Has it ever been mentioned whether or not JR had his cell phone, (easily hidden), on him the morning of the 26th? V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Then again..." Posted by Seashell on 00:04:54 6/12/2000 JR may have called Bynum way before the 911 call or from the basement, who knows? I thought the phone records were never obtained. When were they? Did the GJ get them? I'm not aware that anything was released to the public, so how would we know who called or when? We don't even know whose idea it was to throw the impromptu sunrise soiree, altho if I had to guess, I'd say PR. Maybe I need to review the Sawyer/Bynum interview again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Another JR slip of the tongue???" Posted by JR on 07:51:49 6/12/2000 John Ramsey: I think one of the issues that uh, was distressing to us and perhaps caused some bias of opinion is, why did we bring lawyers into this, uh, process early on? And I can tell you both how that happened and, and why it happened. . . The 'how, is that on the day after the tragedy, we were being consoled by friends and family, and a close friend of mine who is also a practicing attorney took me aside and said, 'John, I see some things developing here that , uh, I would like to ask your permission to do, some things that I think are necessary to be done.' I said, 'Fine, do it.' So he retained counsel for Patsy and I. Note John says, "The 'how, is that on the day after the tragedy, we were being consoled by friends and family..." Steve Thomas states on p 38 pp 5 of JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, "Months would pass before we learned that only a few hours after the body of JonBenet was found, an attorney representing the Ramseys was already on the scene making calls." JR says "the day after the tragedy." Is this yet another indication that JonBenet was definately killed on Dec. 25? Steve also clears up another issue mentioned in the above posts on p 39 pp 1, "Fleet and Priscilla White had returned to their home by six o'clock, and after telling thier children that JonBenet had gone to heaven, they received a call from a local laywer named Mike Bynum. He wanted to know if they were OK and had everything they needed. That evening, Bynum joined the family and friends gathered at Tin Cup Circle." Was John already "greasing the skids" as early as 6 p.m. or so on the evening of Dec. 26? Also according to Steve Thomson, the Whites later told the BPD that they were interviewed on Dec. 27 by (3) Ramsey attorney/s and investigator/s. So they were a "done deal" as far as hired and connected to investigator/s by Dec. 27. OK - so WHO called Bynum and WHEN because it appears fairly obvious he was called no later than 6 p.m. on Dec. 26? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "cell phone records" Posted by pinker on 07:39:44 6/12/2000 leave much to be desired. In ST's book the cell phone records for Dec and Jan. were basically blank! The previous billing cycles had close to 100 minutes each on them but the cycle in question was empty, denoto- there were no calls whatsoever. I smell a conspiracy or cover-up. Could John have called his church friend in the DA's office from the start? Who would have been so incriminated that they needed to hide? Who has the authority or ability to delete cell phone records? Could you just pay an employee off to do it? I only read St's info this weekend and am perplexed. The records took over a year just to retrieve, plenty of time to doctor them up. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "two cell phones?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:09:58 6/12/2000 Ginja, you reminded me! My husband carries two cell phones. One is from VoiceStream, and he pays a monthly fee. We get an itemized statment from that one. But, he also carries a phone with a prepaid card, because some places in WA don't have a VoiceStream tower, yet. Of course, the prepaid phone doesn't show up anywhere. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn JR had a prepaid phone, those mountains could block reception for some carriers. Just a thought:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "I really should finish ST's book" Posted by Seashell on 11:41:14 6/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:41:14, 6/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:39:58, 6/12/2000 so I'd know about the phone records! "Who has the authority or ability to delete cell phone records? They may have disappeared during the computer break-ins. Something very momentous happened that weekend in the War Room and at SS. IMO Could you just pay an employee off to do it? I only read St's info this weekend and am perplexed. The records took over a year just to retrieve, plenty of time to doctor them up." By someone in the DA's office perhaps? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "I'd Rather Be Lucky Than Good!" Posted by shadow on 12:07:17 6/12/2000 "RAMSEY, J: I know. Well, we were fortunate from almost the moment that we found the note to be surrounded by friends, our minister, our family doctor, a personal friend of mine who is also an attorney, and we relied on their guidance almost from that moment on and my friend suggested that it would be foolish not to have knowledgeable counsel to help both us and with the investigation." Isn't this simply amazing? The Ramseys were suddendly surrounded by friends, their minister, their family doctor, and a lawyer almost the moment they found the note... you just can't beat that for good luck. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Addition to post #7 " Posted by sebastian on 12:38:11 6/12/2000 Farther down the depo it reads like this..... Page 54 1 hired to assist you. 2 A. Well, my friend, Mike Bynum, basically asked me, 3 would you trust me to do some things that I feel need to 4 be done for your family? And I said yes. 5 Q. When did he ask that? 6 A. That was probably on the 26th or 27th. 7 Q. How long had you known Mr. Bynum? 8 A. I had known him for two or three years, I guess. 9 Q. Was he a professional associate or a social 10 friend? 11 A. He was I guess more of a professional associate. 12 Q. Also something of a friend as well? 13 A. Sure. 14 Q. What strata would he belong in? Would he be 15 roughly in the same category as the Stines? 16 A. Uh-huh. 17 Q. Yes? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Specifically, he offered to arrange for 20 everything that was necessary, in his words, or words to 21 that effect; is that correct? 22 A. He, as I recall, said, I think there is some 23 things that need to be done. Will you trust me to do 24 them? I said yes. 8 Q. I'm just going to ask [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "v_p" Posted by socks on 15:25:20 6/12/2000 I hesitate to post this, but since John keeps calling Bynum a friend, and never mention's him as "his attorney", except that Bynum sat up the JonBenet Ramsey Foundation, then would the conversation's John had with Bynum, before the foundation was sat up, have atorney-client privledge? Couldn't the grand jury have suppeoned Bynum, and questioned him as to his conversation's with John on Dec. 26, 27 and 28th 97? socks/midnite [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "PILLOW TALK" Posted by Nandee on 15:27:15 6/12/2000 Isn't Bynum the one being fingered in the pillow talk rumors? With a friend like that, who needs enemies??? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "socks" Posted by v_p on 15:36:51 6/12/2000 I would think so. Bynum only called and made arrangements for attorneys for the Ramseys, from what I understand. So, yes, I think the conversations prior to the client/attorney relationship would be admissable and not under client attorney privilege. However, you may have meant this post to be answered by guardian, who started this thread and posed the questions about JR and Bynum. Guardian?? V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Mike Bynum's role" Posted by guardian on 19:25:50 6/12/2000 according to Mike Bynum, verbatim from the Ramsey documentary (first airing), "I showed up as John and Patsy's friend. Although I was not initially thinking in terms of what help I should give them legally. Um, I don't know what to say other than a sense of things, (gutteral pause), a sense of things going on around the house, the police around the house. I just had a sense that they ought to have representation, and I just said to John, 'Will you trust me to do the right thing?', and he said, 'Yes, I'll trust you'." In my opinion, I can't see that there should be any attorney/client privelege applicable at that point in time (Dec 26-28, 1996). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]