[ACandyRose Logo] A Personal view of the Internet Subculture
Surrounding the JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

This web page is part of a series covering found materials regarding individuals, items or events that apparently became part of what is commonly known as the vortex of the JonBenet Ramsey murder case Christmas night 1996. The webmaster of this site claims no inside official Boulder police information as to who has been interviewed, investigated, the outcome or what information is actually considered official evidence. These pages outline found material which can include but not limited to materials found in books, articles, the Internet, transcripts, depositions, legal documents, Internet discussion forums, graphics or photos, media reports, TV/Radio shows about the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. Found materials are here for historical archive purposes. (www.acandyrose.com - acandyrose@aol.com)
This webpage series is for historical archive and educational purposes on found materials

Diane Hallis
Access Graphics Secretary

Reportedly received telephone call, somebody said:
(“Patsy had caught “HIM” molesting JonBenet”)

Gene Parker: "The probability of truthfulness
was very accurate, in the high 90's" that

JonBenet Ramsey Murder Case
Diane Hallis, Secretary to Access Graphic VP, Laurie Wagner
Individual Date Reference Key ? Gave Prints Gave Blood Gave Hair Handwriting Got DNA Cleared or Alibi
Diane Hallis, Secretary to Access Graphic VP, Laurie Wagner. Hallis received call saying "John was molesting JonBenet and Patsy accidently hit JonBenet trying to hit John." Gene Parker hired by Craig Lewis (Globe) to polygraph Hallis Call Received
January 1997

Parker said the examination took approximately three hours
1997 Globe Interview
+ Peter Boyles
Gene Parker
+ Polygraph
to verify
truth that call was recieved
-- --- --- --- --- --- Gene Parker:
"The probability of truthfulness was very accurate, in the high 90's" that SHE DID RECEIVE THE TELEPHONE CALL.


01. 1997-00-00: Diane Hallis reportedly discussed phone call from unidentified woman?
02. 1997-00-00: Unidentified woman said Patsy hit JonBenet by accident trying to hit John.

03. 1999-02-29: Article mentions Diane Hallis "What I saw at the feeding frenzy" by Frank Coffman

04. 2000-06-09: Gene Parker, guest on Peter Boyles show radio show (transcribed by Puma)
05. 2000-06-09: Gene Parker said he was requested by national newspaper to confirm Hallis' story authenticity.
06. 2000-06-09: Gene Parker said examination took 3 three hours, actual exam 5 min times 3 times
07. 2000-06-09: Gene Parker said he was called re: Ramsey polygraph, quoted fee, required urine exam.
08. 2000-06-09: Gene Parker said urine examination had to be done by medical doctor and registered nurse
09. 2000-06-09: Gene Parker said caller re: Ramsey polygraph declined his offer

10. 2001-11-19: Jameson on WS: Wood only contacted "Jerry Toriella, who accepted, Ed Gelb, who accepted"
11 2001-11-22: Thor on CN2000 posts the December 1997 Globe transcript of Hallis interview

12. 2002-02-03: Jameson posts on WS that Lin Wood denies Parker contacted re: Ramsey polygraph

13. 2004-01-18: Spade FFJ posts Parker was hired 12/97 by Craig Lewis (Globe) to polygraph Diane Hollis
14. 2004-01-18: Spade FFJ posts polygraph only proves Hallis truthfull that "the call was received"
15. 2004-01-18: Spade FFJ posts he interviewed Gene Parker in 1998
16. 2004-01-18: Spade FFJ posts Parker said the “woman” was Pam Paugh
17. 2004-01-18: Spade FFJ posts Hallis told Globe that the “woman” was secretary in Mike Bynum’s office.
18. 2004-01-18: Spade FFJ posts Hollis claimed that Pam told her that Patsy had told “HIM” not name "John."
19. 2004-01-19: Misty FFJ posts "I have that polygraph, part of it. Gene Wallis Parker sent it to me years ago"
20. 2004-01-19: Spade FFJ posts Craig Lewis thought Parker leaked story, he refused to pay Parker's full fee.
21. 2004-01-19: Spade FFJ posts "Here are scanned copies of 2 of the sets of questions


1999-02-29: What I saw at the feeding frenzy by Frank Coffman



What I saw at the feeding frenzy
A between-the-lines look at the Ramsey case
by Frank Coffman
February 29, 1999

"At an employee meeting at the offices of his company, Access Graphics, Ramsey brought up the episode as an example of how to deal with the news media. Diane Hallis, who worked at Access Graphics, recalls that John Ramsey would look out the third floor windows of the offices trying to spot reporters. "He hated them," she says. "His anger was directed toward the media, but never toward the killer. He never mentioned the killer."


[www.cybersleuths.com]2000-06-08: Cybersleuths Forum thread titled,
Topic: Radio Alert: Peter Boyles show on Friday, June 9, 2000

Member posted 06-08-2000 09:45 PM
I was tied up most of today so just got to this. The devil is in the details, so to speak...Did you all catch the sparks with Shep Smith and OJ on Fox this afternoon?

Here's the transcript from Boyles with Gene Parker this am.

PB: This man's name came up in a couple of news articles and news stories when John and Patsy Ramsey first announced to the entire world that they had passed the polygraph test. Please say "Good Morning" to Gene Parker. Mr. Parker has himself a former Police Chief . He also has been well involved in the polygraph business. Mr. Parker, Good Morning.

GP: Why Good Morning, from Meeker, Colorado.

PB: Thanks for coming on the show. There seems to be a number of things. I spoke with Mr. Parker yesterday in a private conversation. There's been an awful lot of talk about your involvement or on-involvement in this case. So let me bring up a couple of the questions that seem to be out there quite a bit. Did you ever do any work for John Ramsey or for his company prior to this?

GP: No, I never did.

PB: OK. Had you ever met the Ramseys?

GP: No, I never had.

PB: Who approached you to do this exam initially?

GP: Back on 11 December, '97 I was requested by a national newspaper to confirm the authenticity of a Diane Hollis, who is a former executive secretary of John Ramsey, as to her statement as to, ahh, what had occurred in, ahh, conversation in the Ramsey office.

PB: For the folks in our audience, what did Ms. Hollis say had occurred in terms of a conversation?

GP: She stated that, ahh, there was conversation going on with, umm, some remorse as to, ahh, what had taken place at the murder scene.

PB: Could you go further, elaborate further from that, Gene, if you would?

GP: Ohhhh, let me see. I'm looking at a deposition that I wrote at the time and, uhhh, regarding, uhh, the accuracy of the examination. But, the gist of it was that, uhhh, "Were you told that John Ramsey was molesting JonBenet? That Patsy saw it, swung at John but hit JonBenet instead?" And there was a 88% probability that Miss Hollis was truthful with her "Yes" response utilizing an instrument of the United States Government polygraph for that purpose.

PB: That's why this is significant. That, there's another very significant part of this as well. Again, if you would, Gene, the best of your knowledge who was Miss Hollis and what was her job working for John Ramsey?

GH: She was an executive secretary
PB: And how did she come across this information?

GH: That, at this point, with due respect to your very fine radio station, I would be unable to provide for you, other than the fact that records show that Miss Hollis was an executive secretary for John Ramsey.

PB: And you tested Miss Hollis?

GH: Yes.

PB: And when Miss Hollis told you what you've just told us that she said, she tested out which way, true or false?

GH: Way to the absolute probability of truthfulness. That same, the same question was formulated three different ways and to each of those three different ways, uhhh, she, uhhh, the results of the examination shows that she was, the probability of truthfulness was very accurate, in the high 90's. The examination took approximately three hours and the actual exam itself about, uhh, 5 minutes times 3 times that was given to her.

PB: Now what's important about this is the Ramseys now tell us that they have total faith and trust in all polygraphs. And yet here comes this. And I don't know how much of this has ever gotten attention before so I wonder what their reaction will be, and I'm not asking for a comment from you. If we could then move on. Were you ever requested or did anyone ever come to you about doing the Ramsey polygraph on John and Patsy?

GH: Yes.

PB: Yep.

GH Some short period of time ago I received a telephone call from some people that identified themselves as attorneys for John Ramsey.

PB: Did they mention names or could you mention their names?

GH: Yes, they mentioned names but I'm not at liberty to give those out, with due respect.

PB: All right. Fair enough.

GH: At which time I said "yes" since I had done the first one that...

PB: By the way Gene, did they know you had done the Hollis exam?

GH: Yes. Yes. In so much that I utilized an instrument perfected by the United States government and I had done the first Hollis polygraph which kind of started the whole thing that, "Yes, I would be more than happy to examine John and Patsy." And I quoted my fee. At which time I stated that because of the high profile of the case that it would require that a urine examination be done with a medical doctor and a registered nurse, for obvious reasons, presence. Uhhhm, the attorney said, who stated that he was an attorney, I had reason to believe that he was, stated, "Fine, they would get back to me." Some three hours later I received a telephone call from that same telephone number on my Caller-ID that I originally had got stating that they had declined my offer, they had found someone that would not require a urine examination, thank you very much.

(Ed -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Team Ramsey had contacted other polygraphers and turned down Gene Parker BECAUSE OF THE UA. More lies out of the Ram spin team, in this case Lin Wood. No wonder Ellis Armistead et al quit. Hope the tabs are reading here and shout this to the hills!)

PB: But that, that other person would be the legendary now Mr. T, the guy in NJ, who finds, after testing Patsy a number of times, he can't get an accurate read which I am told, and I certainly don't have any expertise, that when you keep getting inconclusive results, you've got a liar.

GP: Yes and no. Uhhh, there are---the human mind is a very strange thing, a very complex thing in so much as that a lot of things can cause an inconclusive.

PB: But how many inconclusives can you keep getting?

GP: With this instrument I rarely get one.

PB: Hang on, Gene. Let me bring you back and get a wrap-up.


PB: ...He had an opportunity to do a lie, ahh, polygraph, I say lie detectors and I've been told time again and again and again Don't say that, but polygraph examination on a woman who also plays out in this as well, her name is Hollis, and ahh, Miss Hollis, Diane Hollis was the former executive secretary to John Ramsey. And he did a polygraph on her. You were, I believe it was, if I know anything about this, this took place in Arvada? Or would you rather not say?

GP: In that area.

PB: Fair enough. And what she told you is that she was told, and again this is a former executive secretary, she was told by someone in the organization, or someone, I shouldn't even set it up that way but

GP: I think maybe I can help you. She had a conversation several times with a personal secretary of John Ramsey.

PB: And she also was the executive secretary.

GP: Right, the executive had discussion with the personal secretary of John Ramsey which stated incidents of remorse and of some discussion as to what really took place.

PB: And what she was told, the fact that you say that 88% probability that this woman is telling the truth.

GP: That's correct. I'm looking at my notes here to the second relevant question, uhhhm, "Did you give, did you have the discussion with the personal secretary which lasted over an hour and a half period of time regarding what took place with JonBenet Ramsey?" and there was a 97% probability she was truthful, that she gained the information from the personal secretary.

PB: Wow! And then they, when initially they came to you to do some polygraphing and then you wanted them to take a UA and they would not do it. Why would that be important or significant, Gene, to the uninitiated?

GP: This was again the follow-up, where the media and, uhhh, events of the time had brought it to the head that it has now that I received a phone call to take in, OK, a polygraph examines John and Patsy. And because of the high profile of the case, because of their great monetary abilities and ability of certain drugs that are available that could affect the human body system that is examined by polygraph why I insisted that there be a registered nurse and a MD there to take a urine examination prior to the examination. So there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that anything might have caused reaction to change to whatever from what it really is. At which time, some three hours later, the law office called back and stated "Thanks but no thanks."

PB: So if you wanted to do a UA on whether or not they were doing...

GP: Whether they had used a drug. Which could, which very well could cause for an inconclusive, let alone could even take and show a truthful being deceptive.

PB: What's interesting about this is, even if, because clearly if they were, if they could pass a UA, they'd have come to you. And I'm guessing that.

GP: Sure.

PB: But they couldn't pass the UA so they go to another guy who doesn't require a UA and they still, Patsy still comes out on two occasions inconclusive, apparently--Carol McKinley from Fox News in an interview with the Ramseys, they did tell her they're both taking Prozac and if you watch Patsy Ramsey on TV you know there's more than just Prozac going on there. I don't know if you know that but you can certainly believe it.

GP: Yes, my Masters being in Psychology I have studied the effects of drugs probably as reasons that I polygraph for the Department of Defense. And I have found that there are certain drugs, let alone in that financial-ability category of the Ramseys to take certain drugs that could very easily cause it, which was the reason why I required a medical doctor and an RN which is I think only about the fifth or sixth time in my 20 some odd years of polygraphing that I've needed it.

PB: Gene, if they'd 've given you a hot UA

GP: Umhmm.

PB: That, that kills the whole thing?

GP: That's correct.

PB: Would you like to, I mean, I don't know what further comments...By the way, do you mind if I give your web site a plug or?

GP: Yeah, go ahead. At 64 years of age, anything.

PB: Yeah (chuckling) what are they gonna do to you, right? Actually, I've got a couple of web sites and phone numbers. What would you like to give out to the public?

GP: Oh, I don't know, the one that's www.PolygraphPlace.com/ColoradoPolygraph is one.

PB: Do it again and do it slow.

GP: http://www.PolygraphPlace.com/ColoradoPolygraph

PB: Fair enough.

GP: And then there is the expert pages for the world in different categories. www.ExpertPages.com And when you get to that click into experts in polygraphs and you'll see a map, click into experts of the world, in this case, click on Colorado.

PB: We will say goodbye off air and I know we'll be in touch and I know we'll speak again, Gene. Thank you for being on KHOW this morning. hang on. OK?

Later in the show Peter quoted a couple of the actual questions that were administered to Diane Hollis. One of them I caught was "Were you told John Ramsey was molesting JonBenet AND PATSY SAW IT?"
IP: Logged

Member posted 06-08-2000 10:14 PM
My small part in the search for justice for JonBenet, Candy! Unless I sleep thru the 5am wake-up call, I'll be taping Boyles with Darnay tomorrow. Sounds like it is on LH Pugh. Oh, by the way, Channel 2 9pm news had a short clip on Henry Lee while he was in town. He wouldn't offer anything about the R's recent polygraph but did say the following: he's seen people who later pled guilty and the evidence pointed at them, who had PASSED polygraphs. And he had seen others who were innocent who had failed them. Guess we know what the SCIENTIST thinks of polys!

Good night!
IP: Logged


[Crime News 2000 Forum]2001-11-22: From CrimeNews 2000 Forum thread,
"This is from the Globe tabloid from December of 1997"

11/22/01 07:33 AM
Patsy hit John? [Post#: 20997 ]

This is from the Globe tabloid from December of 1997. My ORIGINAL theory was this exact scenario:

In part: "Diane, who worked at the Boulder, Colo. company for 2 1/2 years before leaving this year on amicable terms, says she received a call from a woman who said John and Patsy Ramsey, in a tearful meeting with their lawyers, had confessed to taking part in JonBenet's death. The woman whose call Diane took claimed her boyfriend was an attorney working in the office of one of Ramsey's defense lawyers. "She told me that her boyfriend told her Patsy had called their attorneys after JonBenet's death and admitted being responsible," says Diane.

"She said Patsy had told her attorney that she got up during the night and found her husband in JonBenet's room. She accused John of sexually molesting JonBenet."

"According to the woman, Patsy told her lawyer that she picked up something to hit John, missed and accidentally struck JonBenet on the head."

"Patsy admitted to her attorney that she and John made up the kidnapping story and he helped her construct the ransom note as a cover."

Diane received the call last January, shortly after the 6 year-old beauty queen's strangled and beaten body was found on Dec. 26 in the basement of her parent's $1.3 million Boulder home.

GLOBE has already reported that sources close to the police investigation say the scenario described by the caller is one lawmen have been looking into. A 51 year-old divorcee with two children, Diane was an assistant to Access Graphics vice president Laurie Wagner, John's right-hand woman. Diane's job was to field the up to 100 letters and 80 calls flooding into the company each day concerning the murder.

"I had grown used to weeding out calls from what we called 'crazies,'" explains Diane. "Something told me that this woman was not like that. Her words had a ring of truth and I believed her."

Diane says she put the caller on hold and went to notify Wagner, who was in her office with another worker. "I gave her a brief synopsis and she was perturbed," adds Diane.

"As I left, she closed the door and I put the call through to her. She spoke for at least 45 minutes to the woman."

When the call ended, Diane says Wagner told her to get Mike Bynum, the first attorney John called after he and Patsy reported JonBenet missing to cops.

"She spoke to him for 10 or 15 minutes, then called me into her office and told me that everything I had heard was confidential and that I should never discuss it with anybody," says Diane. "Bynum later called back to speak to John Ramsey and Laurie. It seemed obvious to me that something important had happened because that was probably only the third time he had ever called Access Graphics while I was there."

Later, the other worker came out of Wagner's office and told Diane "don't pay attention to that caller, she's writing a soap opera."

Says Diane: "I didn't like to be told that because I began believing they were covering up."

Diane says she was so upset she could barely sleep that night and made up her mind to tell the cops about the call.

But the next morning, the page on the message pad on which she'd written the woman caller's name and number had been ripped out," she says.

"I was really upset and worried about what to do," says Diane. "I was concerned about my job and even about my own safety."

Two weeks after that, she says she called a priest at her church - the Spirit of Christ, in Arvada, Colo. - and confessed the situation.

"The priest told me to hold tight to the information and the way would become clear," she says. "He said: "You will know when to release it."

She says she came to GLOBE because she wants to see justice for JonBenet.

Diane also claims there was more covering up at Access Graphics. She says John's cluttered desk top was cleared by his staff just before cops arrived with a search warrant to collect his materials.

And she claims many letters mailed to the company containing tips about the murder were turned over to Bynum's office and Ramsey's investigator Ellis Armistead - instead of to the police.

"This was potential evidence," she says. "It should have gone to the police."

When contacted by GLOBE, Laurie Wagner says material relevant to the case had been turned over to the authorities.

Diane was also shocked by John and Patsy's lighthearted manner weeks after JonBenet's funeral when, according to Diane, Denise Wolf called John at home.

"Denise said Patsy was laughing because John had flipped her the bird and she'd done the same back" recalls Diane. Shortly after, Diane was searching for John at work and found him with a sales director.

"He was laughing and joking and drinking a beer," she says. "I was shocked. He saw that and immediately sobered up."

Also in this article Diane Hallis says that John Ramsey ran Access Graphics like a dictator "who fired people on a whim." And his employees were so afraid of losing their jobs, they sqashed evidence of an alleged confession..."But the attitude within Access Graphics was 100 percent not to solve the crime - but to protect John Ramsey."

11/29/01 04:33 PM
Re: A theory to discuss [Post#: 21794 / re: 21788 ]

I am in touch with a few people by e-mail and we discuss the JonBenét case. I felt I should share the latest e-mail I received today. I found it very interesting and haven't read a theory like this one before, and maybe we could discuss it, seeing we're all over the place with what happened. Yes, there are some similarities to other theories, but not the ending.


From an e-mail friend:

"a brief description of my method of analysis may help in evaluating my conclusions. First and foremost no contradictions are allowed. If a contradiction of any sort shows up in a theory, error is certain and the theory is invalid. Something is wrong and a re-think is in order.

The physical evidence of the scene reveals much about what happened in terms of cause and effect, which includes sequence of events that produced the final scene. The physical evidence has continuing value in that it reveals the psychology of the actor. This is very important. There may be gaps in the physical evidence that leave questions unanswered. There may be several potential answers which appear equally valid. However, if and when the psychology of the actor is established via analysis of the physical evidence, of the potential answers available, the one that fits the psychological profile will be the correct answer. There cannot be a contradiction of the psychology and still be valid anymore than a contradiction within the physical can be valid. To repeat: All elements, both physical and psychological must fit without contradiction.

Subsequent to seeing a Ramsey tv interview in March of 2000, I started internet research beginning with the autopsy report. What I suspected was quickly confirmed: The Ramsey were lying. This means they knew what happened. The next step was to analyze their words, actions, and psychology to observe them unintentionally revealing what really did happen that night. This does not mean that all questions would be answered with absolute certainty, but the framework and central elements would not be in doubt.

The first thing I read after the autopsy report was the alleged ransom note. What stood out with intensity was the deep and abiding anger of the note writer. This anger and hate was not a temporary and transient thing, but a continual psychological part of the note writer, probably from childhood on.

It is not unusual for such persons to supress this anger and hate in a social setting where it would be unacceptable. Ignoring this element has led many astray. They do not grasp the permanent depth and intensity of this anger because it has not been frequently and publicly displayed. However, when this person is out of the restraint of the "public eye", keeping the hate and anger in check is much more difficult, and sometimes the anger is vented away from judging onlookers. ( A common error here is the superimposing of one's own psychology since the public display seems to coincide. This coupled with the emotion that no mother could treat a daughter this way pretty much blocks the route to a factual investigation.) (John does not have this deep and abiding anger.)

The anger of which I speak is everpresent. It was present on that day of Christmas hoopla and joy to the world external appearance. On this day and night, the anger was particularily acute and barely below the surface. This is a constant anger toward the world in general, but often directed as specific targets as well. The note indicates an extreme anger toward John, but does not rule out anger toward JonBenet as well. (With JonBenet being the trigger to release the anger toward John as well.) The precise cause of this extreme anger at this time, I do not know; that it was present, I have no doubt.

John was Patsy's meal ticket not only for food, but to the much-desired social status as well. To vent such anger toward John could have well ended this preferred position with money and social status; thus, the anger was suppressed here by the circumstance as it was by the presence of the "public eye." In the absence of these two suppressing elements, ability to control was at minimun. Unfortunatly, JonBent paid the ultimate price.

The probable scenario I see is this: Shortly after returning from the Christmas party, Burke went to his room where he probably soon fell asleep. John went to prepare for bed, and perhaps did go to bed. Patsy and JonBenet were left alone.

Something happened to arouse a serious hostiity between Patsy and JonBenet. The usual is a failure of the child to obey an order from the parent. What Patsy wanted JonBenet to do, of not do, or why JonBent resisted, I do not know. The confrontation became more heated until it exploded in a rage and Patsy physically attacked JonBenet. Although it is remotely possible that Patsy struck JonBenet with an object, the likelyhood is shoving or throwing resulting in harsh contact with a hard object resulting in the fatal, or near fatal, head trauma.

Although JonBenet may have had a history of wetting the bed, I don't think this was the issue that night. I believe the soiled clothing came about as a consequence of the attack. I think this attack occurred without JonBenet ever going to bed.

The note in speaking of tomorrow indicates the time frame for writing the note was before midnight. This is consistent with the probability that Patsy had not gone to bed, and that there had not been sufficient time lapse for her mind to think in terms of a different day. If this were her frame of mind as she wrote the note, that is, same day frame of mind, then the attack and planning for a cover up had to precede this. The decision and planning takes time. This leads me to believe that the attack took place shortly after they arrived home.

Burke was in his room. John was in another part of the house preparing for bed, or already in bed. John had removed his clothes and set them aside. When he was summomed by Patsy, (confiding) John put on clothes different from what he had been wearing. He never gave it a thought; nor did Patsy. In all of the high tension environment, the same clothes item was not thought about at all. This is why Patsy was wearing the same clothes and John not.

When we combine the wording of the note with this circumstance, it goes a long way toward establishing a time frame for the events. When we note as well the time to decide what to do, time taken with practice note or notes, the time required to set up all the staging, this indicates a lot of time; which again, goes back to the attack happening early.

When I put all the pieces together, both psychological and physical, Patsy's remark about perpetrator and confiding in someone fits the scenario quite well. So far, I have come across nothing that influences me to believe otherwise."

[jameson's Webbsleuths]2001-11-19: From Webbsleuths Forum
Thread, "Urine Analysis for polygraphs?"

RAMSEY - Public Input
Forum Type: Public
Moderator: test
Time Zone: EST
Printer Friendly Format
Original Message

"Urine Analysis for polygraphs?"
Posted by jameson on Nov-19-01 at 03:34 PM (EST)

QUESTION: Did you conduct a drug test, a urinalysis test on John and Patsy Ramsey, prior to these examinations?

GELB: No, I did not, because, one, the drugs that you might be thinking of do not effect the type of examination that was herein conducted. We did what's called a zone comparison examination, this requires reactivity to certain questions and those questions are compared to other questions where you might have less reactivity. No drug that you can name or that I know of can selectively effect that type of examination.

In other words, if this was a guilty knowledge test, that would be a different issue. This is a zone comparison test. I don't know of a drug, and neither do you, that will selectively cause a suppression on certain questions and an elevation on other questions. And the FBI does not do drug screening before they run their polygraph examinations.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) was asked by the Ramsey team to do this polygraph. He insisted on a drug test. Lin Wood said, no.

WOOD: Please, tell me who this individual is.

QUESTION: I don't have his name.

WOOD: Well, let's get our facts right. Let's have the name of the person because I will tell you that I have asked two polygraph examiners to conduct tests on John and Patsy Ramsey: Jerry Toriella, who accepted, Ed Gelb, who accepted. I have never discussed, never discussed anyone else conducting this examination. I have never had anyone asked -- be asked and refused. I've never had anyone discuss with me that they wouldn't do it because of a drug test. That's an absolute, unadulterated falsehood. Let's put it to rest right now.


jameson comment - ò¿ó - I don't know who called Gene Parker - must have been some other attorney - which would have made it LONG before they actuallty did take the test.... and the Ramseys were likely ON medication at that point.


[jameson's Webbsleuths]2002-02-03: From Webbsleuths Forum,
Thread titled, "Question to Jameson"

1 . "Gene"
Posted by jameson on Feb-03-02 at 01:58 PM (EST)

Gene Parker did a polygraph on Diane Hallis. She said she had been told by a co-worker that someone called in with the story that Patsy had hit JBR on the head while swinging at John because he was having sex with the child.

She passed the test so it appears she did hear that gossip.

As for being contacted to test John and Patsy - - he says he was contacted, Lin Wood denies it.


[Forums For Justice]2004-01-18: From Forums for Justice Forum
thread titled, "Gene Wallis Parker"

January 18, 2004, 11:22 am, Sun Jan 18 11:22:32 CST 2004
Member Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 431

Gene Wallis Parker

Gene Parker was one of the more interesting characters in the Ramsey sideshow. In December 1997, Parker was hired by Craig Lewis (then at the Globe) to polygraph Diane Hollis (John Ramsey’s secretary) to determine the truthfulness of a story Hollis wanted to sell the Globe.

Hollis’ story was that in January 1997, she had taken a call from “a woman” who wanted to talk to John Ramsey. The “woman” told Hollis that Patsy Ramsey had personally told her that: “Patsy had caught John molesting JonBenet again, that Patsy swung at John but hit JonBenet instead.”

Hollis passed the polygraph exam with an 88% probability that she told the truth. Please keep in mind that the polygraph only verified that Hollis was telling the truth about the fact that a “woman” called her and told her a story.

I interviewed Parker in early 1998 and he gave me additional details about his examination of Hollis:

1. The “woman” was Pam Paugh. Hollis had originally told the Globe that the “woman” was a secretary in Mike Bynum’s office.

2. Hollis claimed that Pam later corrected her allegation that Patsy had said: “She caught John molesting JonBenet again” to “She caught HIM molesting JonBenet again.

3. Hollis claimed that Pam told her that Patsy had told “him”: “I thought I told you not to do this anymore.” Before she swung and accidentally hit JonBenet.

In 2000, Parker went on Peter Boyles to tell this story and received a nasty letter from LinWad. He contracted Alzheimer’s shortly thereafter and is now unable to communicate.

In cross-checking Parker’s bona fides I found several serious misrepresentations. That is why I have held back posting this. However, the “woman’s” scenario fits the evidence known to the public and IMO deserves additional discussion.

January 19, 2004, 9:24 am, Mon Jan 19 9:24:47 CST 2004
Member Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 28


Well, I have that polygraph -- at least part of it. Gene Wallis Parker sent it to me years ago. The polygraph does show that she was truthful. It doesn't say who the woman caller is and I had never heard it was Pam Paugh.

January 19, 2004, 11:07 am, Mon Jan 19 11:07:18 CST 2004
Member Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 431


Parker and his wife came to Denver several years ago and we met for lunch. Among other things, we discussed his employment by the Globe/Craig Lewis. It seems as though another paper found out about the Hollis polygraph and hired a PI to eavesdrop. The PI did his job well and the other paper scooped the Globe. Craig Lewis thought that Parker had leaked the story so he refused to pay Parker's full fee. That is why Parker talked about this and gave out copies of the exam. However, Parker claimed that the key information (Pam Paugh and "Him") was developed in his interview with Hollis prior to the actual polygraph.

January 20, 2004, 1:35 pm, Tue Jan 20 13:35:17 CST 2004
Member Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 431


Here are scanned copies of 2 of the sets of questions asked of Diane Hollis by Gene Parker:

Computerized Polygraph System (Version 2.14.Copyright 1991-95, SAT Inc.)


1 Label: DI Type : C Answer: Yes
2 Label: SR Type : 0 Answer: Yes
3 Label: Nl Type : N Answer: Yes
4 Label: DL1 Type : C Answer: No
5 Label: Ri Type : R Answer: Yes
6 Label: N2 Type: N Answer: Yes
7 Label: DL2 Type : C Answer: No
8 Label: R2 Type : R Answer: Yes
9 Label: N3 Type : N Answer: Yes
10 Label: DL3 Type : C Answer: No
11 Label: R3 Type : R Answer: Yes

Date: 11-DEC-97 Time: 4:32:20

Do you understand that I will ask you only the questions we have discussed?

Regarding the Ramsey murder case, do you intend to answer all of my relevant questions truthfully?

Do you live in Arvada ?

During the 12 years of marriage to David, did you ever sexually cheat on him?

Did you have conversation with a woman who said she wanted to talk to John Ramsey about his molesting JonBenet/Patsy walking in/Patsy hitting JonBenet by mistake?

Is your first name Diane?

Prior to 1997, did you betray Nick & Ann over Dave

Did a woman ask you to talk to John Ramsey regarding information about John Ramsey molesting JonBenet/and Patsy discovering it?

Are you single with two children?

Before the age of 50, did you ever make a "serious" mistake in judgment?

Were you told by a woman that John Ramsey was molesting JonBenet, Patsy Ramsey saw it, swung at John but hit JonBenet instead?


Date: l1-DEC-97 Time: 3:25:34

1 Label: DI Type: C Answer: Yes
2 Label: SR Type : 0 Answer: Yes
3 Label: N1 Type : N Answer: Yes
4 Label: DL1 Type : C Answer: No
5 Label: R1 Type: R Answer: Yes
6 Label: N2 Type: N Answer: Yes
7 Label: DL2 Type: C Answer: No
8 Label: R2 Type: R Answer: Yes
9 Label: N3 Type: N Answer: Yes
10 Label: DL3 Type : C Answer: No
11 Label: R3 Type : R Answer: Yes

Do you understand that I will ask you only the questions we have discussed?

Regarding the Ramsey murder case, do you intend to answer all of my relevant questions truthfully?

Do you live on Everett Way

During the 12 years of marriage to David, did you ever sexually cheat on him with Oryln?

Did you connect the woman (on the telephone) talking about the Ramsey case, to Laurie Wagner?

Is your first name Diane?

Prior to 1997, did you ever falsify a document?

Did Laurie Wagner on her phone talk to the woman on the Ramsey case for over 30 minutes?

Are you single with two children?

Before the age of 50, did you steal from your Mom & Dad?

Did you give the woman calling about the Ramsey case to Laurie Wagner, and did you observe that they talked for over a half hour?

CLICK HERE: Flight 755 15th Street Main Directory

Home 1998 to 2007 ACandyRose©