Webbsleuths Forum thread titled, “email FROM Ziegler”

http://64.225.95.82/dcf/Public/1265.html

"Letter to Ziegler" Posted by jameson on Jan-21-02 at 02:24 PM (EST)

"email FROM Ziegler" Posted by jameson on Jan-21-02 at 06:29 PM (EST)

"The resignation letter" Posted by NYL on Jan-21-02 at 06:44 PM (EST)

"email FROM Ziegler"

Posted by jameson on Jan-21-02 at 06:29 PM (EST)

I just got the following email from Larry Ziegler. I know it came from his email address so will verify that.

Jameson:

Thank you for coming directly to me for a comment.

You are wrong. I accept your apology. I am not a "liar for hire". Shame on you. The quote in the Enquirer is correct. It was determined and is still determined by myself that Patsy Ramsey is the writer of the ransom note.

To answer your questions. Specifically:

No - I did not decide that I was wrong.

No - Patsy should not be excluded as the writer, because she is the writer of the ransom note.

Note: there is a difference between an author and a writer. One could be the author, but not the writer of notes, letters, books, etc.

No - I did not think that I could not prove it, becasue I can prove it.

No - I did not tell Darnay and the tabloids what they want to hear. The evidence reflected my conclusion; i.e., "It has been determined that Patsy Ramsey is the writer of the ransom note."

No - the Ramsey depositions were not and are not a problem for me.

As for cross-examination, direct, etc., I always look forward to a challenging exchange between myself, plaintiffs, defendants and the court.

As to what happened - why did I quit? A technical "advisor" (this is where the ego part comes in) has been assigned to the case who was going to tell me how to present myself before the court. I'm sorry, but I have been doing this for awhile as your research revealed. It has been said that I have a titanic ego AND KNOW WHO THE KILLER IS. Neither allegation is true. I do not know who the killer is. However, I do know who the writer of the ransom note is. I guess what it came down to is that I felt that I could not be myself in assisting the legal team (however, it was with much regret) that I did quit.

Best regards,

Larry F. Ziegler

Forensic Examiner of Questioned Documents

==================================

"Letter to Ziegler"

Posted by jameson on Jan-21-02 at 02:24 PM (EST)

Mr. Larry Ziegler,

I own a forum on the Internet where we document and discuss everything that happens in the Ramsey case. Obviously you have been discussed before - we have researched who you are and what you have done. Today your resignation was from the case was revealed..

I feel it only fair to go directly to you for a comment.

You were being heralded as the handwriting expert who was going to prove Patsy Ramsey wrote the Ramsey ransom note. You were quoted in the Enquirer as saying, "It has been determined that Patsy Ramsey is the writer of the ransom note." You were considered a "star witness" who would speak against Patsy Ramsey.

The Ramsey depositions must have been a problem for you - - to have positively identified some writing as being that of the person who wrote the ransom note only to have Patsy and John deny that it was her writing. I understand that had to throw a monkey wrench in the works for you. But there was no public statement from you - - perhaps that would have been inappropriate, I don't know. Maybe since you were an employee of Darnay Hoffman you didn't have any right to speak.

Then you were given the exemplars Patsy gave police...

And now - - discovery was about to end, your final detailed reports were expected to be handed in, you were to be scheduled for a deposition... and you quit!

What happened?

I am trying to understand - many of us are.

Did you decide you were wrong? That Patsy should be excluded as the author?

Did you decide that while you think she wrote the ransom note you couldn't prove it?

I want to make you an offer - now that you are no longer working for Darnay Hoffman, I hope you will consider telling the truth on my forum.

Many people read my site every day - investigators, reporters, lawyers. We are talking about what happened - - the murder, the investigation, the lawsuits... and I feel it is only fair that you be given an opportunity to speak on this yourself.

If you respond to this email, I will know it is YOU speaking. I will post whatever statement you wish to make and say it is from you and I know that because it came from YOUR email account.

Please consider speaking out - let us know what your side of the story is.

To me it seems you told Darnay and the tabloids what they would like to hear - - that the Ramseys did this - - but when it came time to prove it, you couldn't.

We have talked before about "expert witnesses" who write reports but are "liars for hire" who don't appear in court. In this case, that appears to be your position.

If I am wrong, I apologize. If I am right, shame on you.

This letter is being sent to you and published on the forum at the same time.

You can respond or not - your choice.

You can go to the forum and read the discussion - Go to www.jameson245.com and click on "the JonBenét forum is open". The thread will be "Letter to Ziegler". If you do respond to me, your letter, unedited, will appear there.

I do hope to hear back from you,

Sincerely,

jameson

I sent this letter to Ziegler just a minute ago. Feel free to write to him here - hopefully he will explain what has happened.

1 . "Via candy"

Posted by tipper on Jan-21-02 at 06:37 PM (EST)

LAST EDITED ON Jan-21-02 AT 09:53 PM (EST)

*Anyone may copy this post to any forum, due to the subject matter*

Larry Ziegler was told by Darnay to give him a timetable as to when he would get his handwriting reports in to Darnay. These reports are required to be in compliance with Rule 26(a)(2)(b) on expert testimony. The letter was very straightforward and not pressuring; a statement of the facts and the necessity of getting these reports in as soon as possible. Ziegler wrote back a nasty email to Darnay and quit. People that have been making inquiries about this man's behavior as an expert witness have found out that he has done this before, very unfortunately. He didn't want to do the work, he didn't have his "term paper" ready, and quit. It is unbelievable to me that a man who in his expert opinion believes Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note would be so lazy and unprofessional, but that is the case.

3 . "The resignation letter"

Posted by NYL on Jan-21-02 at 06:44 PM (EST)

Mr. Hoffman:

I am off of the Ramsey case. Effective immediately, do not contact me in any manner whatsoever.

Rule #1: Never insult or piss off your expert.

You either have no confidence in me, take me for a fool or both. Go with Gideon and Richard. They are the best of the best.

Larry Ziegler

23 . "Jameson"

Posted by candy on Jan-21-02 at 08:31 PM (EST)

Jameson,

Let me clarify that. Mr. Ziegler had to have certain work completed and handed into Darnay, so as to be in compliance with Rule 26 (b). That is the part that he did not turn in yet.

25 . "RULE 26"

Posted by Maikai on Jan-21-02 at 08:44 PM (EST)

I believe this is the rule being referred to--scroll down to b:

Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure

(a) Required Disclosures; Methods to Discover Additional Matter.

(1) Initial Disclosures. Except to the extent otherwise stipulated or directed by order or local rule, a party shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to other parties:

(A) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings, identifying the subjects of the information;

(B) a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings;

(C) a computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party, making available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered; and

(D) for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 any insurance agreement under which any person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment which may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. Unless otherwise stipulated or directed by the court, these disclosures shall be made at or within 10 days after the meeting of the parties under subdivision (f). A party shall make its initial disclosures based on the information then reasonably available to it and is not excused from making its disclosures because it has not fully completed its investigation of the case or because it challenges the sufficiency of another party's disclosures or because another party has not made its disclosures.

(2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony.

(A) In addition to the disclosures required by paragraph (1), a party shall disclose to other parties the identity of any person who may be used at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

(B) Except as otherwise stipulated or directed by the court, this disclosure shall, with respect to a witness who is retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve giving expert testimony, be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the witness. The report shall contain a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor; the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions; the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years; the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony; and a listing of any other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years.

(C) These disclosures shall be made at the times and in the sequence directed by the court. In the absence of other directions from the court or stipulation by the parties, the disclosures shall be made at least 90 days before the trial date or the date the case is to be ready for trial or, if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party under paragraph (2)(B), within 30 days after the disclosure made by the other party. The parties shall supplement these disclosures when required under subdivision (e)(1).

(3) Pretrial Disclosures. In addition to the disclosures required in the preceding paragraphs, a party shall provide to other parties the following information regarding the evidence that it may present at trial other than solely for impeachment purposes:

(A) the name and, if not previously provided, the address and telephone number of each witness, separately identifying those whom the party expects to present and those whom the party may call if the need arises;

(B) the designation of those witnesses whose testimony is expected to be presented by means of a deposition and, if not taken stenographically, a transcript of the pertinent portions of the deposition testimony; and

(C) an appropriate identification of each document or other exhibit, including summaries of other evidence, separately identifying those which the party expects to offer and those which the party may offer if the need arises.

Unless otherwise directed by the court, these disclosures shall be made at least 30 days before trial. Within 14 days thereafter, unless a different time is specified by the court, a party may serve and file a list disclosing (i) any objections to the use under Rule 32(a) of a deposition designated by another party under subparagraph (B) and (ii) any objection, together with the grounds therefor, that may be made to the admissibility of materials identified under subparagraph (C). Objections not so disclosed, other than objections under Rules 402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, shall be deemed waived unless excused by the court for good cause shown.

(4) Form of Disclosures; Filing. Unless otherwise directed by order or local rule, all disclosures under paragraphs (1) through (3) shall be made in writing, signed, served, and promptly filed with the court.

(5) Methods to Discover Additional Matter. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property under Rule 34 or 45(a)(1)(C), for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations; and requests for admission.

(b) Discovery Scope and Limits.

Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:

(1) In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

(2) Limitations. By order or by local rule, the court may alter the limits in these rules on the number of depositions and interrogatories and may also limit the length of depositions under Rule 30 and the number of requests under Rule 36. The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods otherwise permitted under these rules and by any local rule shall be limited by the court if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues. The court may act upon its own initiative after reasonable notice or pursuant to a motion under subdivision (c).

(3) Trial Preparation: Materials. Subject to the provisions of subdivision (b)(4) of this rule, a party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative (including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the party's case and that the party is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation. A party may obtain without the required showing a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that party. Upon request, a person not a party may obtain without the required showing a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that person. If the request is refused, the person may move for a court order. The provisions of Rule 37(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion. For purposes of this paragraph, a statement previously made is (A) a written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it, or (B) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement by the person making it and contemporaneously recorded.

(4) Trial Preparation: Experts.

(A) A party may depose any person who has been identified as an expert whose opinions may be presented at trial. If a report from the expert is required under subdivision (a)(2)(B), the deposition shall not be conducted until after the report is provided.

(B) A party may, through interrogatories or by deposition, discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial, only as provided in Rule 35(b) or upon a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.

(C) Unless manifest injustice would result, (i) the court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under this subdivision; and (ii) with respect to discovery obtained under subdivision (b)(4)(B) of this rule the court shall require the party seeking discovery to pay the other party a fair portion of the fees and expenses reasonably incurred by the latter party in obtaining facts and opinions from the expert.

(5) Claims of Privilege or Protection of Trial Preparation Materials. When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation material, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.

Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending or alternatively, on matters relating to a deposition, the court in the district where the deposition is to be taken may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:

(1) that the disclosure or discovery not be had;

(2) that the disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;

(3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;

(4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters;

(5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court;

(6) that a deposition, after being sealed, be opened only by order of the court;

(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a designated way; and

(8) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court.

If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or other person provide or permit discovery. The provisions of Rule 37(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.

(d) Timing and Sequence of Discovery.

Except when authorized under these rules or by local rule, order, or agreement of the parties, a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have met and conferred as required by subdivision (f). Unless the court upon motion, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice, orders otherwise, methods of discovery may be used in any sequence, and the fact that a party is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or otherwise, shall not operate to delay any other party's discovery.

(e) Supplementation of Disclosures and Responses.

A party who has made a disclosure under subdivision (a) or responded to a request for discovery with a disclosure or response is under a duty to supplement or correct the disclosure or response to include information thereafter acquired if ordered by the court or in the following circumstances:

(1) A party is under a duty to supplement at appropriate intervals its disclosures under subdivision (a) if the party learns that in some material respect the information disclosed is incomplete or incorrect and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing. With respect to testimony of an expert from whom a report is required under subdivision (a)(2)(B) the duty extends both to information contained in the report and to information provided through a deposition of the expert, and any additions or other changes to this information shall be disclosed by the time the party's disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) are due.

(2) A party is under a duty seasonably to amend a prior response to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission if the party learns that the response is in some material respect incomplete or incorrect and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.

(f) Meeting of Parties; Planning for Discovery.

Except in actions exempted by local rule or when otherwise ordered, the parties shall, as soon as practicable and in any event at least 14 days before a scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b), meet to discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case, to make or arrange for the disclosures required by subdivision (a)(1), and to develop a proposed discovery plan. The plan shall indicate the parties' views and proposals concerning:

(1) what changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under subdivision (a) or local rule, including a statement as to when disclosures under subdivision (a)(1) were made or will be made;

(2) the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused upon particular issues;

(3) what changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under these rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be imposed; and

(4) any other orders that should be entered by the court under subdivision (c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c).

The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging and being present or represented at the meeting, for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 10 days after the meeting a written report outlining the plan.

(g) Signing of Disclosures, Discovery Requests, Responses, and Objections.

(1) Every disclosure made pursuant to subdivision (a)(1) or subdivision (a)(3) shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, whose address shall be stated. An unrepresented party shall sign the disclosure and state the party's address. The signature of the attorney or party constitutes a certification that to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry, the disclosure is complete and correct as of the time it is made.

(2) Every discovery request, response, or objection made by a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, whose address shall be stated. An unrepresented party shall sign the request, response, or objection and state the party's address. The signature of the attorney or party constitutes a certification that to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry, the request, response, or objection is:

(A) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;

(B) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; and (C) not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive, given the needs of the case, the discovery already had in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.

If a request, response, or objection is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the party making the request, response, or objection, and a party shall not be obligated to take any action with respect to it until it is signed.

(3) If without substantial justification a certification is made in violation of the rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who made the certification, the party on whose behalf the disclosure, request, response, or objection is made, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the violation, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

30 . "Federal Rule 26(a)(2)(B)"

Posted by candy on Jan-21-02 at 09:02 PM (EST)

This is the correct title: Federal Rule 26 (a)(2)(B):

(2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony.

Additional Links about Larry Zeigler

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/larryzeigler.htm

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03052001hoffmanonboyles.htm

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes21-30.htm