Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 7
» Latest member: John Andrew
» Forum threads: 1,617
» Forum posts: 5,124

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 21 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 21 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
BPD's Dream Team
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: jameson245
07-05-2020, 05:53 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 49
Espirit News Article
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: jameson245
07-05-2020, 03:06 PM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 918
Teabag question - photo #...
Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White
Last Post: jameson245
07-05-2020, 01:58 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 31
Forum: DNA found in panties
Last Post: jameson245
05-17-2020, 01:02 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 385
May 2020 Boulder Camera a...
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: Dave
05-11-2020, 12:29 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 627
Forum: What is in the news - staying up to date
Last Post: jameson245
05-08-2020, 08:04 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 284
Bobby Brown = friend of L...
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-05-2020, 05:17 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 267
odds and ends people
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-04-2020, 06:42 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 179
James Rapp
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2020, 11:29 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 160
me on Lin Wood
Forum: Some Important quotes
Last Post: jameson245
04-25-2020, 09:45 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 322

  12/4/97 - Koby affidavit - Hunter never asked to file charges
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-01-2017, 03:33 PM - Forum: Darnay Hoffman - No Replies

Civil Action No. 97CV1732

Quote:I, Tom Koby, was appointed as the Chief of the Boulder Police Department in 1991, and I have continuously acted in that capacity since that time. My duties as the Chief of Police involve the management of the Boulder Police Department and, as a result, I am ultimately responsible for the supervision and management of any investigations conducted by the Boulder Police Department. The Boulder Police Department conducts investigations into criminal acts that are committed within the city limits of Boulder, Colorado. Consequently, my department has been conducting an ongoing investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey on December 26, 1996 inside the City of Boulder. I have at no time relinquished my responsibilities as the Chief of the Boulder Police Department during the pendency of this investigation.
In my capacity, as Chief of Police, I have been personally involved with the investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, I am aware of the status of the investigation, I am aware of the evidence and information that has been collected in the investigation, and I am responsible for the decision of whether or not the investigation should be referred to the District Attorney for the filing of charges. The investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey has not been referred to the District Attorney's Office for the filing of charges. At no time, in the past, has this investigation been referred to the District Attorney's Office for the filing of charges against anyone, nor has an arrest warrant been prepared. As a result, Alex Hunter, the District Attorney, has never refused to prosecute any person for this crime. In addition, he has never made any representation to me or anyone in my department, in any way, of what his decision might be if the investigation were to be submitted to his office for the filing of charges. Such a decision cannot be made until the investigation is completed, and this investigation has not progressed to the point where such a referral can be considered. The Boulder Police Department is still in the process of collecting, and testing evidence in this investigation.
Quote:I do hereby swear and affirm that the foregoing is true and accurate, and that I am personally familiar with the subject matter discussed in this affidavit.
Boulder Police Department
Quote:Subscribed, and sworn before me this 4th day of December, 1997 by
My Commission expires:

Print this item

  4/11/98 editorial - 5 myths
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-01-2017, 03:30 PM - Forum: Darnay Hoffman - No Replies

Five myths about the JonBenét Ramsey case

By Darnay Hoffman

Now that the Boulder Police Department has requested that the district attorney convene a grand jury in the JonBenét Ramsey investigation, it is time to dispel some the "myths" and conventional wisdom that have been passing for serious analysis of this case.
Myth #1: The police have hopelessly bungled the evidence in the case, making a solution to JonBenét's murder nearly impossible.
Wrong. Domestic homicides are almost never solved with forensic evidence. The reason is quite simple. The suspects usually live at the scene of the crime and any forensic evidence discovered there invariably has an "innocent" explanation. The public is woefully misinformed with respect to the true value of forensic evidence in identifying suspects in a crime. A recent study in the Journal of Forensic Sciences noted that "crime scene evidence ... has no intrinsic ability to identify an offender who is otherwise unknown." Most crime scenes, moreover, are never as pristine or well-kept as they should be, yet convictions result every day.
Myth #2: There is not enough "hard" evidence to identify the real culprit(s), thereby making it impossible to arrest and charge anyone for the murder of JonBenét.
Wrong again. The ransom note is the only forensic evidence of the true identity of the culprit(s) sufficient to lead to an arrest and conviction in this case. Examining mud prints, knots, masking tape, and nylon cords is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Either the police can identify the ransom note writer or they can't. If they can't, then everyone can go home now. This case can't be solved in a way that can realistically lead to a conviction "beyond reasonable doubt." Most domestic homicides never have a ransom note or nearly as much evidence as the police now possess. The police know who the ransom note writer is, and they can prove it.
Myth #3: The police have asked the district attorney to convene a grand jury because there isn't enough evidence.
Complete nonsense. The source of almost all the friction and ill-will between the police and Alex Hunter is the growing suspicion that the district attorney is not eager to file a case against the politically powerful Haddon and his client John Ramsey. Anyone who doubts this has only to read Fleet White's letter calling for the removal of Alex Hunter. It is clear from White's letter that he believes, based on his personal experiences dealing with both the police and the district attorney, that it is Alex Hunter, and not Tom Koby, who doesn't want a solution to this crime. The reason the police have requested a grand jury is to force Alex Hunter to present the evidence they have gathered before a panel of Boulder citizens who will have no hesitation whatsoever in returning an indictment. Anyone sophisticated enough to know the law will realize that the Ramseys can't be compelled to give testimony and that the evidence of 11 year-old Burke is almost useless. The only practical purpose in convening a grand jury is to remove the decision to charge someone for the murder of JonBenét from the district attorney and put it in the hands of less politically sensitive people.
Myth #4: Identifying the ransom note writer still doesn't mean the district attorney can get a murder conviction.
This is not only wrong, it is the closest thing to a "Big Lie" being perpetrated by the district attorney's office. This "Whopper" goes something like this: Even if we know the ransom note writer, how can a jury convict them of a murder without more evidence of their physically participating in the actual killing of JonBenét? Simple. Colorado's felony murder statute makes anyone participating in such dangerous crimes as kidnapping equally responsible for any murder resulting from such activity. Much like the get-away-driver to a bank robbery where a guard is killed (who is later found guilty of murder despite not even being in the bank during the robbery and murder) the JonBenét ransom note writer can be charged with first-degree murder even if the police can't prove the writer actually killed JonBenét. Yet Alex Hunter persists in naively stating that even if the ransom note writer were identified and arrested and jailed, they would be immediately eligible for bail. This is also not true because felony murder is not a bailable offense in Colorado. The ransom note writer would have to sit in jail until they went to trial or made a deal to reveal JonBenét's murderer to the district attorney.
Myth #5: This case will never be solved.
It already has been. The police know the killer and they can prove it. Until Alex Hunter is removed from the case as Fleet White demanded in his letter to Gov. Romer, there will never be justice for JonBenét Ramsey, or peace for Boulder, Colorado.

Print this item

  12/3/97 - letter to Governor Romer
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-01-2017, 03:28 PM - Forum: Darnay Hoffman - No Replies




NEW YORK, NY 10023

TELEPHONE (212) 496-2936

FAX (212) 496-8676

December 3, 1997
Hon. Roy R. Romer, Governor
Office of the Governor
State Capitol Building
Room 136
Denver, CO 80203
Quote:Re: JonBenét Ramsey
Dear Governor Romer:
You may need to order an investigation into the Colorado Bureau of Investigation's handling of the handwriting evidence in the murder of JonBenét Ramsey.
Sometime last March, Boulder police submitted a search warrant affidavit to a Michigan judge seeking permission to search the vacation home of John and Patsy Ramsey for handwriting exemplars. According to Boulder police, a preliminary report by C.B.I. had determined that Patsy Ramsey was "probably" the ransom note writer, hence the need for more unrehearsed samples of her handwriting.
Three months later, CBI issued a report to the Boulder police that reportedly concluded that their analysis "does not exclude" the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey as the ransom note writer. As Ramsey attorney Patrick Furman was quoted to say in the Rocky Mountain News: "the finding of ‘does not exclude’ is one step away from clearing her of authorship." Defense attorney Hal Haddon remarked that the CBI level of assessment of Patsy Ramsey's handwriting "has no evidentiary value, because a lot of people write similarly."
The question for you, Governor, is how C.B.I. could issue a final report which was so dramatically different from their earlier preliminary report. Patsy Ramsey went from "probably" being the ransom note writer in March to "she didn't write it" in June. What's going on here?
This development is especially disturbing in light of the fact that of all the handwriting experts I have consulted -- and there have been over a dozen -- not one of them could believe that any reputable handwriting or document examiner could reach any other conclusion than that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note. It wasn't even a close call.
Three of the questioned document examiners I consulted have prepared lengthy handwriting reports which clearly show Patsy Ramsey as the ransom note writer. I have enclosed them for your convenience. They were prepared by Thomas C. Miller, a Denver attorney and certified court handwriting expert, David S. Liebman, the president of the National Association of Document Examiners, and Cina L. Wong, the youngest board certified document examiner in NADE history, and considered by many to be the Henry Lee of handwriting examiners.
If after reading these reports you have as many unanswered questions as I have about the disparity between CBI’s conclusions and those of the enclosed experts, you might decide on an investigation. Before the Oklahoma Bombing, no one knew the terrible trouble the FBI crime lab was in. The O.J. Simpson case exposed the L.A. crime lab for the mess it had become. Perhaps the JonBenét Ramsey case will bring some needed light into the dark corners of the CBI forensic handwriting division. According to published reports, Ramsey defense attorneys hired the former teacher and mentor of CBI's handwriting division as an expert "consultant." You can start your investigation right there and keep on going. Who knows what you might find.
Darnay Hoffman
cc.: Gale Norton, A.G.

Print this item

  timeline of window
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-01-2017, 01:03 PM - Forum: Broken window/ Spider web - No Replies

Will be edited as I find information with times.

PW book - BPD Report #5-2473 - - "some time before 1000 hours John Ramsey went down I the basement to the train room and he found the train room window open so he closed it."     According to John, he had been searching the house, the walk-in refrigerator, under beds, anywhere he might think she could have hidden and he went to the basement.  When he saw the open window with the suitcase under it, he thought that is not right and HE says he went upstairs and told the detective he had broken the window months before but the window being open, the suitcase being under it and the scrape mark on the wall was not right.

Print this item

  Details from Paula Woodward's book
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-01-2017, 12:03 PM - Forum: Christmas Day, 1996 - Replies (2)

"The kids ran into he bedroom at 6:30 that morning," John remembered.  "They were thrilled.  I made them wait in our room until I went down and turned on the Christmas tree lights.  I brought in Patsy's bike from the garage. Burke and JonBenét's new bikes were already in front of the tree."

(So much for the theory that Burke killed his sister because she got a bike and  he did not.)

Print this item

  Ramseys barely spoke to each other on Dec. 26th
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-28-2017, 10:20 AM - Forum: Disproving Myths - No Replies

Ann Bardach, in her early Vanity Fair article, wrote the Officer French said the Ramseys "had barely spoken to or looked at each other", that "he did not see them console each other. 

But in French's police report BPD #5-3844, from the transcript of a formal interview done in January, 1997, we find "John Ramsey does do some touching of Patsy at the scene."

And, in Paula Woodward's book we also have the victims' advocate on record.  "Patsy and John had been in the formal dining room together for some time holding each other or talking." "I didn't know they were in there alone together."  BPD #5-2630

Print this item

  quotes found in police reports
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-28-2017, 10:12 AM - Forum: December 26th - Replies (4)

Unfortunately, Paula Woodward did not name the authors of these quotes, but she did cite the police reports that included them.    Maybe one day she will put names to the quotes.  But here, from her book...

BPD #5-433 - "Patsy was literally in shock.  Vomiting, hyperventilating."

BPD #1-640 - "Patsy cries all the time."

BPD #5-230 - "During the initial ransom demand time Patsy was hysterical, just absolutely hysterical."

BPD #5-404 - "She is hyperventilating, She is hallucinating.  She is screaming.  She wa hysterical. John was pacing around.  (Close family friends) were trying to keep Patsy from fainting. She was vomiting a little."

BPD #5-437 - "I thought Patsy was going to have a heart attack and die.  I thought she was going to kill herself."

Print this item

  Peering through splayed fingers
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-28-2017, 09:57 AM - Forum: Disproving Myths - No Replies

Despite Vanity Fair's story that indicated the Officer French thought there was something strange about how the Ramseys were acting that morning, and the story has Patsy "peering at him through splayed fingers", police reports actually say nothing of the sort.

In her book, Paula Woodward quotes a BPD report - #5-3851)  "Officer French thinks the Ramseys are acting appropriately at the scene."   

Paula writes, "nowhere in the initial Boulder Police Department reports or excerpts of officer interviews obtained since 1997 does Officer French refer to Patsy as "peering at" or "watching' him on the morning of December 26, 1996."

Print this item

  info on Wolf suit, later dismissed
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-27-2017, 07:00 PM - Forum: Darnay Hoffman - No Replies

Chris Wolf, a Boulder County journalist represented by his attorney, Darnay Hoffman of New York, filed a $50 million. dollar lawsuit on May 2000 in U.S. District Court in Atlanta claiming libel, slander, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Wolf claims in the Ramsey's book, "Death of Innocence," they libelously portrays him as a suspect in the murder.

From the Boulder Weekly article, "John Ramsey's prime suspect," "Chris Wolf was a former reporter for the Colorado Daily and former editor of the Louisville Times. Although police cleared Wolf, the Ramseys won't give it up.

On Good Morning America, Larry King Live, 20/20 and other recent TV shows, John Ramsey has spoken of Wolf as the man he was almost convinced killed JonBenet."

June 12, 2000
Amended Complaint for Libel and Slander

August 2, 2000
Wolf's Opposition to Ramsey' motion to dismiss

April 3, 2001
Summary of the 17 page formal answer filed

Print this item

  5/1/00 - Darnay and Chris Wolf on O'Reilly
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-27-2017, 06:58 PM - Forum: Darnay Hoffman - No Replies

O'Reilly Factor, Fox News
Host: Bill O'Reilly
Guests: Chris Wolfe and Darnay Hoffman

B.O.: In the Unresolved Problem Segment tonight: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey. The cops can't solve the mystery, so now the case is being played out in books and in unproven accusations. In the Ramseys' book, The Death of Innocence, the couple writes about free-lance Denver journalist, Chris Wolfe: "Whatever the police's intentions, Wolf went on our suspect list. He represented too many unanswered questions." And during a Today Show interview, Katie Couric asked the Ramseys about Mr. Wolfe. Here's what John Ramsey said. ". . . he'd been widely mentioned in the news, and we wanted to clarify the facts that we knew. I can tell you - when we first started looking at - at one particular lead early on, my reaction was . . . this is it. This is the killer. And our investigator said, 'whoa, whoa, whoa,' he'd say 'don't do a Boulder police on me. Don't rush to conclusions.'"
With us now from Denver is Chris Wolfe, and here in the studio is his attorney, Darnay Hoffman, who has been a critic of the Ramseys all along. We must say that Mr. Wolfe is filing a major lawsuit against the Ramseys. Now, you have been cleared by the Boulder police, Mr. Wolfe. You're not a suspect in the case any longer, but you were a suspect in the beginning due to your girlfriend, and how did that happen and what did she say?
CW: I'm not sure exactly what she said, but it must have been something that . . . about me . . . regarding the murder of the little girl, which of course I had nothing to do with. I could never and would never do anything like that. But I think that she was angry with me and for personal reasons, I guess, as far as regarding our relationship, and I think that she wanted to make my life miserable, and I think that she succeeded.
BO: Why didn't you sue her, first of all?
CW: Well, we have a long history, and we were at one time very close friends. At this point I still have a great deal of sympathy for her and I don't have malice toward her, so I didn't want to . . .
BO: All right. So you've never met the Ramseys, never come into contact with the family at all?
CW: Never. Never heard of either of them or their daughter prior to the murder of the little girl.
BO: Were you anywhere near the house, was there any . . .
CW: No.
BO: Nothing.
CW: No.
BO: Now, when the police came to the door to ask you questions, what was your reaction?
CW: Well I was shocked and I was angry and I refused to answer questions initially. They first tried to interrogate me and asked me to give handwriting samples and such maybe like a month after the murder, and I refused. It wasn't until more than a year later that I heard from them again and they asked me - they called me at work and asked me to come to the police station to give handwriting and DNA and hair and palm prints, and of course a lot had happened in that period of time, and I was more inclined to cooperate with them at that point, which I did that afternoon. I went directly to the police station after work and provided them with a lengthy handwriting sample, hair and DNA samples, as well as palm prints. That's all they asked from me.
BO: All right. So the first time, would you chalk up the first refusal to being nervous or being . . .
CW: No, not nervous at all, but just outraged - just shocked that they would be interested in me. I have no criminal record and no history of any of these things, breaking and entering, sex with children, or violent act against any person. I've never committed any of those crimes or ever been accused of those crimes.
BO: All right, and we will tell the audience again that the Boulder police cleared you so that you don't have to worry about any recriminations from this broadcast. Now, counselor, you've filed this lawsuit against the Ramseys. How much is it for again?
DH: It's for fifty million dollars.
BO: Fifty million dollars!
DH: Twenty-five per parent.
BO: In New York instead of Colorado?
DH: Well, to begin with, Colorado really isn't the appropriate venue. Atlanta, Georgia, is the appropriate venue because the federal rules generally require you to file a suit where the defendants are located. However, there's a special problem here. In Atlanta, the legal community is so put off by this case that it's impossible to get an Atlanta lawyer to agree to appear as local counsel along with me on behalf of Chris Wolfe.
BO: Really? You can't get one Georgia lawyer?
DH: Couldn't find one. Now maybe one will come out of the woodwork at this point, but up until today I have not been able to find a single Georgia lawyer. And they all said, "Hey look, we have nothing against you as an attorney." Simply, this case is so ugly, so unpleasant, so vile, that they don't want to touch it in Atlanta.
BO: That's amazing! I mean, lawyers with ethics in Georgia (laughing) . . .you can't . . . I mean, somebody, somebody should be outraged about this guy, Chris. I mean, he's unjustly accused, it seems like, and he has a right to some redress of grievances. But the actual accusation took place in Colorado, and that's where the private investigators were hired to spy on him, right?
DH: Yeah, but a lot of the activity actually occurred in New York, particularly the most recent activity where the tapings for the book promotion were done at studios in New York City.
BO: Katie Couric and all that.
DH: Exactly. So you could certainly make the claim that the most recent activity has been in New York City. However, frequently when you can't go into a venue where you can get a fair trial for a client they move it out of state. They did that with the Oklahoma City bombing. It was moved to Denver.
BO: Yeah, I know, I know. I don't know whether they're going to throw this out or not in New York, but they probably will hear it, don't you think?
DH: Oh, they'll hear it, and there may be a - the most they'll do is transfer it into Atlanta for some attorney to basically . . .
BO: Well, after this broadcast I guarantee you you'll be hearing from an attorney because, you know, it seems to me that Mr. Wolfe has a very legitimate claim here. I wouldn't want that accusation leveled at me. Keep us posted will you, gentlemen, both of you?

Print this item