BORG evidence
#1
first a bit from Steve Thomas' deposition in the Wolf case:

Q. At page 232 of your book -- I apologize, I apparently have gotten the wrong cite in my record.
Oh, 236, I'm sorry, 236 where you say first paragraph under the line right here "With our Dream Team,
we tallied the points supporting probable cause and found more than 50 items."

A. Yes, I'm with you.
Q. When was that tally made? Date that for me.
A. Mr. Wood, I can't date it specifically but they assisted us in our preparation for the VIP
presentation and just a quick reading of this was maybe spring or late spring of '98. But no, it was
before that because later in the paragraph it talks about the Title-3, which was way back before
Christmas '97. So this was, I would guess, late '97, early to spring of '98.
Q. Can I -- I don't have the time today, at least, to ask you to go through and list those 50 items. But
can I be reasonably confident that if I set about myself in your book that I could find reference to those
50 items in this book, that you have included those somewhere in here?
A. No, I can't commit to that because of what was, I remember there was an easel that was used in
which everybody in the room put out evidence, information, that sort of thing that went on to this
50-plus point probable cause board.
Q. So it may have been all of your points, you may have --
A. It certainly wasn't.
Q. You may not agree with all of them?
A. Right.
Reply
#2
Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Was the garrote handle ever tested for fingerprints?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. Do you know what the findings were?
A. I believe that Detective Trujillo told us that it required the unwrapping of the ligature cord and the
-- and it was negative for any latent prints.
Q. Was there any partial palm print found on the ransom note?
A. Mr. Wood, I talk about in the book the prints that were found on the tablet and the note, but
beyond that, I don't have any real evidence beyond that. Early there was believed to have been a
partial or bladed palm which I believed turned out to be nothing.
Q. Do you know whether there was any effort to take that what was believed to be a partial palm
and compare it to the palm print found on the wine cellar door?
A. What I'm saying is I don't know that what was initially believed to be a partial print was even a
print.

Q. It's not uncommon to handle a piece of paper and not leave fingerprints, is it, sir?
A. I don't know that.
Q. You don't want me to go there.
Reply
#3
Q. Look at page 25 of your book for me if you would, please, Mr. Thomas. Right here (indicating)
kind of give you a visual.
MR. DIAMOND: Do you see that, Darnay?
Q. (BY MR. WOOD) "In the sun room Patsy Ramsey examined a second-generation photocopy of
the ransom note, a smeary version that showed little more than the dark printed words. Rather than
commenting on the words and contents, she told one of her friends that the note was written on the
same kind of paper she had in her kitchen." Have I read that correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was the friend that she told that to?
A. This was from Barb Fernie.
Q. And then "Police would wonder how she could tell since they saw no similarities." Have I read
that correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. You're talking about police saw no similarities between the second-generation photocopy and the
actual ransom note itself?
A. No, trying to source a Xerox copy back to a particular note pad in the kitchen.
Q. The police couldn't tell the -- couldn't see the similarity of the Xerox copy and the note pad, right?
A. Right.
Q. They would wonder how Patsy could tell there was a similarity, right?
A. How one would make that suggestion, how a Xerox photocopy of a rather bland, generic piece of
paper on which the ransom note was written may have had its genesis from a tablet in the kitchen.
Q. Not that it had its genesis, but that it was similar, right? It was written on the same kind of
paper?
A. The Xerox copy did not leave me with that impression, that it did not strike me that way.
Q. Did that seem suspicious to you of Patsy Ramsey?
A. A bit.
Q. Did you ever stop and consider that she might have made the comment about the similarity
because she, sir, had seen the original of the ransom note prior in time?
A. But I think in this context she was looking at a photocopy.
Q. So you're telling me that she was trying to say that from the photocopy she thought that it was
similar. You don't think that she might have had the benefit of knowing what the actual note looked like
in terms of the paper? Would you concede that maybe that might be an inaccurate assumption on your
part, sir, you know, what you thought was suspicious wasn't suspicious at all?
A. No, I'm simply stating what struck the detectives in wonder is we thought that Barb Fernie's
statement was unusual, given this context.
Reply
#4
more from Steve Thomas depo - shows how BORG thinks.



"Thomas depo 44 - date of death"
 
  
Q. The 245, 246, you talk about your headlights sweeping across JonBenet's grave and you see the
marble headstone "JonBenet Patricia Ramsey, August 6th, 1990-December 25, 1996. It was a clue
from nowhere." And as I understand it, the clue was that the dates on the grave was a statement by
the parents that JonBenet had died before midnight, right?
A. This is gravesite surveillance number two that we're talking about, right?
Q. I'm talking about -- I'm talking about right here on page 245 and then at the top of 246 "It was a
clue from nowhere." "For some reason the parents were stating that JonBenet had died before
midnight"?
A. Right.
MR. DIAMOND: Take as much time as you need to put that in context.
Q. (BY MR. WOOD) If the parents had placed the date of December 26, 1996 on the tombstone
of their daughter, would you have concluded that it was a clue from nowhere because for some reason
the parents were stating that JonBenet had died after midnight?
A. It was a clue I think in either event given the information immediately subsequent to, it was a
clue from nowhere, I think -- no, it doesn't. But given the questionable time of death and how we were
trying to tie that at times to the digestion of this pineapple certainly made this a clue.
Q. But it would have been a clue of the 26th if they had chosen the 26th, right, if they were saying it
was a clue to you as a detective in a homicide case that they're stating she died after midnight because
they put December 26th, that's the way you would have interpreted it, right?
A. I don't know because knowing what I knew then is different than what I know, but standing in my
shoes in that cemetery on this particular night this was something unknown to us at the time because
the Ramseys, to my knowledge, had never indicated a date of death and this thus became a clue from
nowhere.
Q. Have you ever seen a tombstone where it has alternative dates of death, sir?
A. Never.
Q. Don't you think John and Patsy Ramsey had to make a choice, and they chose December 25th,
that potentially had nothing to do with their trying to make a statement about when she died; did you
ever consider that?
A. Actually, I heard them make just such a statement -- or make such a statement saying -- he was
trying to make a statement putting down December 25.
Q. To remind people of what happened in effect at Christmas to his child?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. But not to state that she died before midnight. As I understand it, the only way under your clue
analysis as a homicide detective that the Ramseys could have avoided being accused one way or the
other would have been had they put on there December 25 or December 26, 1996; is my logic right?
A. No, it's not right. As I just explained knowing what I knew then standing there looking at it, it
appeared to me that here was a clue that she died on December 25.
MR. WOOD: Why don't we take a break. I think I'm down to about 15 minutes, and I would like to
kind of look and see where I am and what we might do to wrap this thing up.
VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 5:45. We're going off the record.
(Recess taken from 5:45 p.m. to 5:55 p.m.)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)