Foreign Faction
#31
Redacted version of D.A. Mary Lacy's letter sent to author in January 2007

January 25, 2007

Chief James Kolar
Telluride Police Department
P.O. Box 372
Telluride, CO 81435

Dear Chief Kolar:

I have reviewed your presentation on the JonBenet Ramsey Murder
Investigation. It has also been reviewed by First Assistant District
Attorney Peter Maguire, Assistant District Attorney Bill Nagel and
Chief Investigator Tom Bennett. We have spent substantial time examining
your Investigative Report, Summary Report and PowerPoint
Presentation. We have independently arrived at the same conclusions.

I hired you as my Chief Investigator in July 2005. At that time, we
discussed your role regarding the Ramsey case. I was clear in my
direction to you that we would follow-up leads from law enforcement
and other credible sources that had indicia of reliability. That decision
was based upon recent history that involved Chief Investigator Bennett
having to spend an inordinate amount of time responding to leads that
were marginal at best. We made a deliberate decision to put our
investigatory priorities on recent cases. You obviously disregarded my
direction. You proceeded without my approval and without consulting
with me. You were clearly acting outside of your defined role.

When you departed from the employment of the Boulder District
Attorney's Office in March of 2006, your role as an Investigator with
this office terminated. The Ramsey case is still under my control.
You have continued to proceed outside the limits of your jurisdiction.
It appears that you have utilized confidential information that should
legally have remained under the control of my office. This is quite
concerning to me and to my management staff who placed their trust in
your professionalism.

I am going to address your presentation although it galls me to
respond to what I consider to be an abuse of authority. Chief Investigator
Tom Bennett, First Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire, Assistant
Attorney Bill Nagel and myself are in agreement, reached independently,
as to the value of your theory. We are in agreement that the first
portion of your presentation is based on the Boulder Police Department's
Case Summary and facts that have been previously documented and
debated. There is nothing new in terms of evidence in this presentation.
THE LAST QUARTER OF YOUR POWER POINT PRESENTATION WHICH IS THE FINAL SEVENTY PLUS FRAMES ARE NOT BASED ON FACTS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. YOUR THEORY IS BASED ON CONJECTURE, WHICH AT TIMES APPROACHES PURE FLIGHTS OF FANTASY. YOUR CONCLUSIONS ARE BASED UPON SUPPOSITIONS AND INFERENCES WITH ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT IN EVIDENCE OR IN THE RECORD.
Your presentation lacks the fundamental substantive factual basis from
which reasonable minds cannot differ.

I must repeat, there is no substantive basis to your theory.
It is almost pure speculation as to what could have happened rather
than evidence as to what did happen.

You requested in your communication of January 5th that your
presentation be shared with certain entities in Law Enforcement. It will
not be shared with them. We will not be part of this mockery you are
trying to market. We take our jobs and our role with regard to this case
seriously. When and if we have a serious suspect based upon substantial
evidence, we will work closely with all appropriate agencies. This is not
that time.

I am requesting that you return forthwith any and all information
you obtained while under the employment of the Boulder District
Attorney's Office as it applies to the Ramsey investigation. You were not
granted permission to remove any such information from this office.
This includes all reports, documents, photographs, CDÂ’s or other
materials and anything prepared using such documents.
500 Foreign Faction

Finally, I need to remind you that as of the date of your resignation
from the Boulder District Attorney's Office, you are no longer protected
by any immunity from civil litigation based on your conduct as an investigator.
I recommend that you discuss your unauthorized activities with
the City of Telluride's Risk Management Office to determine what if any
liability you current employer might have as a result of your activities.

Mary T. Lacy
District Attorney
Twentieth Judicial District

cc: Attorney General John Suthers
Deputy Attorney General Jeanne Smith
Reply
#32
MY COMMENTS IN CAPS

Book quotes in normal print

Vassar Professor Donald Foster was brought into the case by D.A. Alex Hunter mid-year in 1997. Foster, unlike the other handwriting experts utilized up to that point in time, focused his examination of written materials on the “textual analysis” of the content of the document. This involved more than studying and comparing the mechanics of how a letter of the alphabet was written, but what he described as the “distinctive linguistic fingerprint” that each individual forms over the course of their lifetime.

AFTER NOT BEING HIRED BY THE RAMSEYS WHEN HE WROTE TO THEM, CLAIMING HIS GREAT BELIEF IN THEIR INNOCENCE, FOSTER APPROACHED LE. NOT SURE JUST WHO HE CONTACTED FIRST BUT HE GOT NO FANS UNTIL HE MET STEVE THOMAS. THE FULL STORY OF FOSTER IS AT JAMESON245.COM/FOSTER_PAGE.HTML


Foster’s hypothesis is that we are unable to falsify who we are when we compose our written words. Our sentence structure, use of punctuation and spacing, word usage and a combination of other identifying features create a signature unique to each individual. He has been quoted as saying that, “No two people have the same vocabulary or writing style….a writer’s use of language is as distinctive, as inimitable, as unique as one’s DNA.” Professor Foster first made a name for himself as a graduate student at the University of California in 1984 where he was studying Renaissance literature. He found an anonymous poem eulogizing a murdered actor and after some period of extended research proved it to be a lost 1612 work of William Shakespeare.

THAT WAS LATER PROVEN TO BE A FALSE ATTRIBUTION. FOSTER ADMITTED SAME - OOPS.

Years later, after having further refined his techniques, he discovered the identity of the author who anonymously wrote the highly publicized book, Primary Colors. Foster utilized a computer program to search for similarities of the sentence structure and phrases used in the book and compared them to the known writings of other individuals. Newsweek columnist Joe Klein’s published writings stood out, and Foster identified Klein as the anonymous author of the work. The textual analysis and syntax discovered over the course of the computer search revealed Klein’s favored use of adjectives like “lugubrious” and “puckish.” More specifically, Foster discovered that Klein had used the phrase “tarmac-hopping” in both a column and in Primary Colors.8 It took Klein six months of denial before he finally admitted to authoring the book.

THE PROGRAM WAS "REVEAL IT" AND ANYONE GIVEN THE SUSPECT LIST FOSTER WAS GIVEN WOULD HAVE COME UP WITH THE SAME CONCLUSION. HAD THE AUTHOR NOT BEEN ON THE SUSPECT LIST, FOSTER'S RESULTS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME - HE WAS WORKING WITH A LINMITED NUMBER OF POSSIBILITIES AND THE TRUE AUTHOR JUST HAPPENED TO BE ON THE LIST. NOT SO IMPRESSIVE.

Though Foster was primarily a scholar, his “detective” work regarding textual analysis would eventually lead to his participation in many criminal cases, including the infamous Unabomber investigation. Originally hired by the defense to refute the FBI’s analysis of Theodore Kaczynski’s writings, Foster eventually confirmed their findings. He issued the opinion that he believed Kaczynski had in fact authored the Unabomber’s lengthy manifesto.9

the UNIBOMBER WAS IDENTIFIED BY HIS OWN BROTHER. FOSTER SIMPLE GAVE HIS OPINION AFTER THE CASE WAS SOLVED. AMAZINGLY ENOUGH, HE AGREED WITH THE BROTHER, TED K. WROTE THE MANIFESTO.

Foster was one of the leading authorities on the technique of “textual analysis” and Hunter may have first become aware of his expertise after his office received some correspondence from Susan Bennett, a North Carolina JonBenét Internet junkie who blogged under the alias of “Jameson.” Bennett reportedly sent a package of Internet materials to the D.A.’s office in July 1997 that included some correspondence that took place between “Jameson” and Professor Foster in an Internet chat room. It was during these exchanges with “Jameson” that Foster purportedly had mistakenly identified the writings as belonging to John Andrew Ramsey, JonBenét’s older step brother. He felt that “Jameson’s” writings belonged to John Andrew and that he was responsible for the murder of JonBenét, a belief he later discarded. Foster had also written a letter to Patsy Ramsey in June 1997 suggesting that he thought she was innocent, offering his assistance in the matter.10

I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE HUNTER READ THE FILE AND THEN REACHED OUT TO FOSTER. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT FOSTER WAS TAKEN ON BY THE BOULDER POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE DA'S OFFICE WAS NOT PART OF THAT AT ALL.

Hunter decided to send to Foster the handwriting samples of a couple other key suspects in the case, “Santa” Bill and Janet McReynolds. Foster examined these samples and subsequently advised Hunter that he didn’t believe either of these people were responsible for authoring the ransom note. Hunter reportedly lost interest in the value of the professor’s skills at that juncture and turned him over to Boulder Police investigators, failing to inform them of Foster’s Internet involvement with “Jameson.” Boulder investigators then supplied him with a variety of handwriting exemplars from other possible suspects, including those of Patsy Ramsey. For the first time he now had an opportunity to review handwriting collected from the mother of the murdered child.

YEAH, THE DA'S OFFICE WAS NOT AT ALL IMPRESSED WITH FOSTER - THAT MUCH IS TRUE.

AND UNDERSTOOD THAT A BORG REPORT WOULD BE MOST WELCOME BY BORG STEVE THOMAS AND FRIENDS.

After a couple months of review, Professor Foster was ready to share his findings and travelled to Boulder in March 1998 to give a presentation on the documents. As described by Detective Steve Thomas, Foster conducted a day-long presentation for police and prosecutors on his conclusions: “In my opinion, it is not possible that any individual except Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note” and he proceeded to “build a wall of linguistic evidence before their eyes, brick by brick.” “He [Foster] explained that language is infinitely diverse and that no two people use it in quite the same way. They do not have the same vocabulary, use identical spelling and punctuation, construct sentences in the same manner, read the same books, or express the same beliefs and ideas. Ingrained and unconscious habits are virtually impossible to conceal, even if a writer tries to disguise his identity,” he said. “Individuals are prisoners of their own language. Foster dissected the ransom note, explained that the wording contained intelligent and sometimes clever usage of language, and said the text suggested someone who was trying to deceive. The documents he studied from Patsy Ramsey, in his opinion, form a ‘precise and unequivocal’ match with the ransom note. He read a list of ‘unique matches’ with the note that included such things as her penchant for inventing private acronyms, spelling habits, indentation, alliterative phrasing, metaphors, grammar, vocabulary, frequent use of exclamation points, and even the format of her handwriting on the page….he [Foster] pointed out how the odd usage ‘and hence’ appeared both in the ransom note and in her 1997 Christmas letter.”11 Investigators walked away from the presentation with the impression that a giant step had been taken forward in the case. A nationally renowned linguistics expert, referred to them from the very office of the district attorney, had proclaimed Patsy Ramsey to be the one and only author of the ransom note. It was Foster’s opinion that she had been unassisted in the construction of the wordage of the document. The manner in which Foster became involved in JonBenét’s murder investigation generated a bit of controversy however, and prosecutors left the presentation with an entirely different opinion. While Boulder investigators had no problem with his credibility, members of the district attorney’s office considered him tainted goods. His Internet exchanges with Susan Bennett, prior to his having had the opportunity to personally view the handwriting exemplars collected in the case, had sullied his stellar reputation in the eyes of the district attorney’s office. Professor Foster was a nationally recognized forensic linguistics expert who was willing to render an opinion on the matter of the identity of the author of the ransom note, and the prosecutors in the case chose to ignore his findings.

I WAS TOLD BY PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED THE COORS PRESENTATION THAT THEIR OPINION WAS FOSTER WAS INSANE, MADE VERY ODD CONCLUSIONS AND COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN A WITNESS IN THIS CASE.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)