jameson's WebbSleuths

Subject: "Boulder D.A. absolutely not interested i" Archived thread - Read only
 
  Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy    
Conferences Ramsey discussion 2 Topic #255
Reading Topic #255
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-14-05, 05:40 AM (EST)
 
"Boulder D.A. absolutely not interested i"
 
   Why hasn't the JonBenet case been resolved? Because the people in charge do not want it to happen. I know, I know:
"Lighthouse, how can you say that? They want to find that poor girls' killer and put him in jail."
If you were talking about honest people, yes, however, these are politicians! D.A. Keenan promised when she ran the first time to look into the JonBenet case, which she did not do. When it came up a second time in her reelection (and not by the press that she happens to be cozy with, and that's not me saying it, but everyone in that click), she said she would...
and what did the ever political Keenan's office do?
(Now don't forget, it's the politicians' job to cover her cozies, including the Boulder Police Department.)
Remember, the first screwup in the case was ass-igning a narcotics officer to a kidnapping/homicide case.
Well, Keenan's office went one better, they hired a Burglary detective (with all due respect to Detective Tom Bennett). Now I understand if they had more money they would have added a traffic officer as well, but anyhow, that's how it blows over there.

The question for the forum is, how long should one wait before taking action against the Boulder D.A.?

I've waited way too long for them to follow-up on information I gave them THREE years ago! The killer would have been fried by now.

By the way E.P., how's it going? How does one person continue on knowing what horrible acts he committed? Do you know you are not the first killer I've come across. I watched him for a long time too, living his half-life, staring out into space waiting and waiting. Do you know if he had confessed, he would have probably been out now and somewhat free. You, you'll never be free, looking over your shoulder, knowing it's coming. Your half-living now and you'll never be free. Even if you confess, you probably won't be free then either. Not with the Boulder D.A. You'll go in there and say "I did it and here's a videotape of it too" and they'll respond "Sure, sure, just put it on top of the others over there and get out of here". What's remarkable is that the partners you screwed haven't come forward or blurted out what happened when they were high. Or did they?
Maybe you should read "Angel Eyes" by STEVE ELLER, which is such a coincidental name, you know STEVE Thomas was the lead on the case and John ELLER was the police commander at the time. Weird coincidence. If it ticks you off, I really don't care, you can go garotte yourself.

So, like other homicides that were buried by law enforcements, and, of course, they are hoping that it will go away so that the ineptness and the incompetence isn't revealed, they are in no rush. So what if an angelic kid is dead, let's just leave the parents and the rest of the family stay under an ugly cloud of suspicion and without closure, and not worry about a killer who is still out there and may have already murdered (which, I believe he already has, Ms. Keenan). She's dead and it's not going to bring her back, anyway.

If the D.A.'s office thinks I'm being cruel, the fact is that you aren't serious at all. Your actions show the hand that you play, putting the only detective assigned to this case on other cases. What, did you think Kolby was involved? The case was supposedly taken out of the Boulder Police Departments' hands, yet, why do I have a sneaky suspicion that they are still calling the shots? I know it's not Tom Bennett, he's just the lead detective or is he in charge? I'm just curious, that's all.

You better hope that I don't find all the conclusive information before your office does.

It would be, politically, unfortunate.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse.


  Printer-friendly page | Top

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
Boulder D.A. absolutely not interested i [View All] The Lighthouse 02-14-05 TOP
  RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest jamesonadmin 02-14-05 1
     RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest DonBradley 02-14-05 2
         RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest sissi 02-14-05 3
             RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest Tatertot 02-14-05 4
             RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest The Lighthouse 02-14-05 5
         interesting theory. proof? Saluda 02-14-05 6
             RE: interesting theory. sissi 02-15-05 7
                 RE: interesting theory. Inn Keeper 02-15-05 8
                     RE: interesting theory. Shaman 02-16-05 13
                 RE: interesting theory. The Lighthouse 02-16-05 9
                     One check?? DonBradley 02-16-05 10
                         RE: One check?? BlueCrab 02-16-05 11
                             RE: One check?? FrankRidge 02-16-05 12
                                 RE: One check?? The Lighthouse 02-16-05 14
                                     jameson Deleted 02-16-05 15
                                         RE: jameson jamesonadmin 02-16-05 16
                                             RE: jameson Deleted 02-16-05 17
                                         RE: jameson geea7 02-22-05 33
                                     RE: One check?? FrankRidge 02-16-05 18
                                         RE: One check?? Margoo 02-16-05 19
                                             RE: One check?? The Lighthouse 02-17-05 20
                                             RE: One check?? The Lighthouse 02-17-05 21
                                             RE: One check?? Margoo 02-17-05 22
  Lighthouse..... Maikai 02-17-05 23
     RE: Lighthouse..... DonBradley 02-18-05 24
         RE: Lighthouse..... The Lighthouse 02-18-05 25
  RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest CK 02-20-05 26
     RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest The Lighthouse 02-21-05 27
         RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest Jack_Ingle 02-21-05 28
             RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest sissi 02-21-05 29
                 RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest The Lighthouse 02-21-05 30
                     RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest GC 02-21-05 31
                         RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest GC 02-22-05 32
                             RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest The Lighthouse 02-23-05 34
  SBTC Dave 02-23-05 35
     RE: SBTC The Lighthouse 02-23-05 36
         RE: SBTC nope 02-23-05 37
         RE: SBTC C-RIVER RAT 02-23-05 38
         RE: SBTC 70.18.210.47 02-23-05 39
         RE: SBTC Dave 02-24-05 41
             RE: SBTC The Lighthouse 02-24-05 42
                 RE: SBTC BIZ 02-25-05 43
                     RE: SBTC DonBradley 02-25-05 44
                         RE: Not reading posts but commenting on The Lighthouse 02-25-05 45
                 RE: SBTC Dave 02-25-05 46
                     RE: SBTC Margoo 02-25-05 47
                         RE: SBTC BIZ 02-25-05 48
                     RE: SBTC The Lighthouse 02-26-05 52
                 RE: SBTC Shaman 02-26-05 49
                     RE: SBTC Shaman 02-26-05 50
                         RE: SBTC The Lighthouse 02-26-05 51
                             RE: SBTC BIZ 02-26-05 53
                                 RE: EDIT PREVIOUS POST BIZ 02-26-05 54
                                     RE: EDIT PREVIOUS POST Margoo 02-26-05 55
                                         RE: Pot Calling Kettle Black Evening2 02-26-05 56
                                         Socratic Method Dave 02-26-05 57
                                             RE: Socratic Method The Lighthouse 02-28-05 59
                                             RE: Socratic Method Dave 02-28-05 67
                                 RE: SBTC The Lighthouse 02-28-05 58
                                     RE: SBTC FrankRidge 02-28-05 60
                                     RE: SBTC BIZ 02-28-05 61
                                     RE: SBTC BIZ 02-28-05 62
                                         RE: SBTC Margoo 02-28-05 63
                                             RE: SBTC BIZ 02-28-05 64
                                             RE: SBTC FrankRidge 02-28-05 65
                                             RE: SBTC Margoo 02-28-05 66
                                             RE: SBTC The Lighthouse 03-01-05 68
  RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest TrollSpotter 03-02-05 69
     RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest Evening2 03-03-05 70
         RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest TrollSpotter 03-03-05 71
             RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest Evening2 03-03-05 72
                 RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest The Lighthouse 03-04-05 73
                     RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest TrollSpotter 03-05-05 76
                 RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest Nehemiah 03-05-05 74
                     RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest Th e Lighthouse 03-05-05 75

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
jamesonadmin
Member since 5-8-02
02-14-05, 09:55 AM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #0
 
   My faith in the honesty and integrity of Mary Keenan has dwindled, I admit.

The BORG was scared and upset when she said she was taking over. They thought she might actually solve this and prove them wrong. They didn't have a lot to worry about. She said the evidence points to an intruder, but we knew that. Then she.... it appears she just stopped. Maybe she bowed to political pressures. I don't know. I just know actions speak lot louder than words and there isn't any impressive action there.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
DonBradley
unregistered user
02-14-05, 11:10 AM (EST)
 
2. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #1
 
   I have no doubt that DA-Keenan would act if she saw any "light at the end of the tunnel" but its a great big political quaqmire and she knows she had best avoid it. She never felt the parents should be suspects and she generally felt the BPD's obsessive fixation on the parents was poor police work, but she has to work with the BPD every day and she has to run for re-election.

She would love to run as 'the woman who solved the JonBenet Murder Case' but its an awfully long and expensive road to take. She will run for higher office if she does solve the case, but there are simply better investments for her to make for her time and her money.

Having her team plod through the files is a great way to proceed. She is not investing time, money or making false promises to the electorate. If the plodding uncovers something, so be it. If it does not, so be it. Politicians learn to avoid things that can bite them.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
sissi
unregistered user
02-14-05, 01:25 PM (EST)
 
3. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #2
 
   Lighthouse, it seems you believe your suspect is the "ONE", is there, without incriminating yourself, any information you could share to shed some light on how you came to this conclusion?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Tatertot
unregistered user
02-14-05, 01:57 PM (EST)
 
4. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #3
 
   Lighthouse, could you clarify your stance?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-14-05, 08:27 PM (EST)
 
5. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #3
 
   Sure Sissi,

First, I profiled the note, not the psychological type of profiling but the more common sense. Finding phrases and little oddities that indicated WHAT kind of animal I was looking for. Surprisingly, I was able to figure out what the initials stood for by simply analyzing and reasoning for example, why the last dot was left off the initials. I also matched words in the ransom note to the initials in the case that he might have repeated himself (he did, afterall, write 2 and 1/3rd pages of stuff).
He did repeat himself. The combination of these three techniques painted a portrait of what this guy does.

Once I was able to continue confirming what he was, It was a simpler matter to then find this person/animal. To look in the area where this person/animal habitates.

Once I found the areas, I looked for THE area.

I had the WHAT I was looking for and then the WHERE, it then came down to the WHO.

I was able, in my opinion, to find the author of the ransom note, including getting some small sample of his handwriting which had three identifiers/characteristics. Not letters, but characteristics that would occur if he had to place a line downward as in y or d, etc., for example.

After studying the animal it seemed that his modus operandi did not entail the sexual asault of a child, but he certainly was more than capable of a kidnapping.

As the ransom note indicated that there were more people involved, I had to track them down as well as I got tired of the police not moving at all on my leads.

I found the other two and focused on one of them in particular. He had professed to some sick sexual proclivities, had pictures of himself demonstrating how to use a taser and would have been with the ransom note writer at the time. They were headed down to Texas for something in particular which had something to do with the initials, which reinforced everything.

Then I had to piece everything together,... you know, what happened in the basement.

You see, the problem with this case for most people is that they were trying to put all the clues into one crime. That's why nothing made sense, why people had doubts about the ransom note.

The three conspired to kidnap JonBenet. Because of their particular activities, they were able to find out about the Ramseys. Money, private information and even their schedule. They waited for the Ramseys to leave and go to their party. When the Ramseys left, the first guy, the author of the ransom note entered the house. He looked around and set the stage for the kidnapping. He left.

When the Ramseys returned home and went to bed, not the first guy, but then the SECOND guy enters, (alone, probably at his own suggestion). The only problem is that he has a separate agenda. He, naturally, tasers her and takes her into the basement. He has to fashion a garotte as since it was a kidnapping, the group only had the tools for that. (This is the reason he left her in the basement and didn't take her with him. The other two would never let him do what he was going to do. They were only interested in the money as apparent in the ransom note. They don't even mention JonBenet by name).

He does what he does and kills her. There is also the problem with a blow delivered to JonBenet's head after she was already dead from asphyxiation (petechial marks in the eyes).

He does this so that he can tell his partners that she got away from him and he struck her accidentally and killed her. They believed him, at least at that point.

This is as best as I could without compromising the case. I'm in the unfortunate position to have to withhold information to the public because it can serious hamper any conviction.

However, how long can someone wait?

I hope this clarifies a few things.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Saluda
Charter Member
02-14-05, 09:43 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Saluda Click to send private message to Saluda Click to add this user to your buddy list  
6. "interesting theory. proof?"
In response to message #2
 
   "....She never felt the parents should be suspects and she generally felt the BPD's obsessive fixation on the parents was poor police work, but she has to work with the BPD every day and she has to run for re-election.

She would love to run as 'the woman who solved the JonBenet Murder Case' but its an awfully long and expensive road to take. She will run for higher office if she does solve the case, but there are simply better investments for her to make for her time and her money.

Having her team plod through the files is a great way to proceed. She is not investing time, money or making false promises to the electorate. If the plodding uncovers something, so be it. If it does not, so be it. Politicians learn to avoid things that can bite them."

Interesting theories, Don. Any evidence to support some of it?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
sissi
unregistered user
02-15-05, 00:09 AM (EST)
 
7. "RE: interesting theory."
In response to message #6
 
   This is very interesting Lighthouse, I do have one problem, the ransom amount can't be divided equally by three, notwithstanding the amount is small and strange. Would the 118,000 mean something to this trio.
Throughout the years we have considered the members of the family, the friends, the aquaintances, the neighborhood contacts ,and have included a few fringe types in the area, none of these have those initials , so I suspect you have someone in mind that has yet to be named on any forum or news article?
Good luck getting the attention of anyone in Boulder, it would probably serve you better to write a book and out him/them changing the names to "protect yourself".
If I recall, Singular seemed to give up on Boulder,at the end of the book it made one feel he was shaking his head and walking away.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Inn Keeper
unregistered user
02-15-05, 05:24 PM (EST)
 
8. "RE: interesting theory."
In response to message #7
 
  
Is the male suspect part of a hobbitt club? LOL


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Shaman
unregistered user
02-16-05, 01:18 PM (EST)
 
13. "RE: interesting theory."
In response to message #8
 
   Lighthouse, Do you speak/read/write in any other languages besides English?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-16-05, 07:45 AM (EST)
 
9. "RE: interesting theory."
In response to message #7
 
   I have some possible answers to the 118,000.00 question. The first is that I don't think that 118,000.00 being the amount requested and the Previous Christmas Bonus being the same amount, not factoring the change, is a coincidence. They found out about the Christmas bonus, perhaps when the author of the ransom note was rummaging around the house, (or perhaps overheard about it), found the stub and didn't notice the year on the check. Most people never look at the date, much less, pay attention to the year. He/They thought that was probably an easy amount for the Ramseys to get their hands on and probably didn't have a chance to cash the check or spend it at that point. They figured that was an amount they knew he could cough up, readily and weren't concerned about the divisibilty, but about what's the most money they could get. It also goes with the Grinchy side of them, hating fat cats, they can take his Christmas away (in an underlying, subconscious way).
It would also appear as someone who knew them was the kidnapper. This scenario, of course backfired as anyone that close who knew about his Christmas Bonus would have known it was for the year previous.
The second scenario was something the greatly experienced Lou Smit said in the newspaper way back. $118,000.00, at the time, would have converted into a round number in Mexican Pesos. That's why Lou Smit is the person he is. How practical it would be for someone to commit a kidnapping and head off to Mexico. By the way, the trio I have been talking about were planning to cross over the Mexican Border after their thing in Texas. The problem is still, why 118,000.00 exactly and not some greater amount, also roundish in Mexican Pesos.
There is also another two possibilties, but I am disinclined to really entertain them.
My trio consists of two males and one female. In the ransom note, it is indicated that two gentlemen are watching over jonBenet. That would make it three males. However, the ransom note is in a joking style, meant to tease and give digs to the poor parents. The girl's name, shortened, is a male's name. I believe she is the other "gentleman", the author had demonstrated to me how he is always joking about her in that type of style in his other writings.
But let's say there was a fourth person. 118,000.00 would be divisible by 4, but the notion that they wanted that specific amount solely because it's divisible by 4 is silly.
The other possibility is far-fetched. The amount of 118,000.00 because they knew about John Ramseys bonus check, of course, is a small amount. Why didn't they ask for more knowing how wealthy he was? Well, perhaps the money was not the issue. Perhaps it was a red herring. So, if not money, what would be gained.
Revenge I would rule out. It's easy to get revenge without having to go to prison for murder, sexual assault and attempted kidnapping. If you wanted revenge by assaulting and murdering their daughter, why the unnecessary step of a ransom note/mock kidnapping? There is something else, though. If not interested in the money, then the only thing of value in this is, of course, JonBenet.
Sexual predation could be the answer in this scenario.
For example, I wondered why the police refused information and kept hounding the Ramseys, even in the light of the D.N.A. evidence and the obviouse problems of logistics (time references) with the ransom note.
John Eller himself fulfilled a prophecy, if you will, stipulated in the ransom note. "You will be denied your daughters remains" if they contacted the police. John Eller tried to do just that, but the Coroner refused to withhold the body. Why did John Eller place a narcotics officer on this high profile homicide case? Why weren't the F.B.I. called in earlier? Why did Eller cut off the D.A. from the investigation? It's pretty ridiculous to think that the police could have ben involved, especially for 118,000.00, but of course, we're talking about Child Predation.
I believe that there was a child pornography ring that was busted in Boulder some years before the murder. They got alot of people but you never get all of them. What if some fragments of that ring were still around. To be successful, you would need people in the police department or in high places, which has been seen in other pornography busts around the world. It would be a reason why the case has been stalled and stymied. JonBenet would be a real condidate for the predilections of these bottom feeders. The kidnap note would buy them time to take JonBenet far away.
I don't particularly ascribe to this theory as I believe that anyone who screwed up this kidnapping this bad for his own pleasure would probably be dead at this point at the hands of this ring.
Also, I do have a lot of faith in the integrity of policemen and these departments, even Boulder's.
No, the 118,000.00 is obviously tied to the Christmas Bonus, and it's being understood wrongheadedly as of the current year of 1996 indicates people who did not know the Ramsey's. This really adds up to this, that it wasn't anyone familiar with them:

1)Knew about the 118,000.00 check but not the year it was dated.

2)Anyone who knew the Ramsey's would have known how wealthy they were and would have asked for more.

3)Remarked about John's Southern Common Sense, indicating they only knew a little information about him, but not the whole story.

4)Anyone who knew them but was trying to pretend they didn't wouldn't have even given this little amount of information out, so as not to tip anyone off.

The author of the ransom note thought the $118,000.00 would have been a clever idea. What do you think of your cleverness now?

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse


  Printer-friendly page | Top
DonBradley
unregistered user
02-16-05, 09:54 AM (EST)
 
10. "One check??"
In response to message #9
 
   >Knew about the 118,000.00 check but not the year it was dated.
As I understand it, there was no 118,000.00 check. The 'bonus' amount was not paid all at one time.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
BlueCrab
unregistered user
02-16-05, 10:50 AM (EST)
 
11. "RE: One check??"
In response to message #10
 
   >>Knew about the 118,000.00 check but not the year it was dated.
>As I understand it, there was no 118,000.00 check. The
>'bonus' amount was not paid all at one time.


Correct. There was no $118,000 check, and there also was no intruder.

Why would the Ramseys protect these people who murdered their daughter? The Ramseys lied to the police. They refused to fully cooperate with the investigation. They are covering up for someone, and it isn't for the benefit of three weirdos whom they don't even know.

BlueCrab


  Printer-friendly page | Top
FrankRidge
unregistered user
02-16-05, 12:52 PM (EST)
 
12. "RE: One check??"
In response to message #11
 
   The Ramseys know they are innocent. The Ramseys think there must have been an intruder. I agree with the Ramseys. So does Lou Smit.

I have never discovered a single lie the Ramseys have told the police.

Th Ramseys never refused to provide information when properly called upon to do so. It was common sense for the Ramseys to lawyer up. They were in grave peril from incompetent cops.

The Ramseys agreed to be interrogated by the police. There were problems with the dates for these interviews. At least twice these interrogations were canceled by the Boulder police, not by the Ramseys.

Most of the Ramsey police interviews are on the internet. The Ramseys aren't covering up anything.

It's not the job of the Ramseys to detect the killer of JonBenet. This is supposed to be the job of the police.

The Ramseys aren't protecting anybody. They may well suspect Fleet and Priscilla White. It's not the job of John Ramsey to arrest and prosecute Fleet White.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-16-05, 03:48 PM (EST)
 
14. "RE: One check??"
In response to message #12
 
   Bluecrab, who's lying now? The Ramseys cooperated AND had to cover their ass at the same time as they were being targeted. You know, they say crabs, when they're in hot water and the temperature keeps going up, that they don't feel it, just totally oblivious to what's going on.
By the way, did EVERYONE missed that "overheard" part?
It was the total of the Christmas Bonus.
$118,000.00. Not coincidence. So how did they know?
Even Bluecrab admits that someone else could have been there at the house, yet he doesn't want to recognize that that someone may not have been invited. He can't explain the DNA, believes someone was there, yet no way it could be an intruder? If you believe someone else could have been there, why not uninvited? It would lay waste to your years of your "Ramsey" smear efforts? You would have to look at the garbage you heaped on the living victims of this crime and have to look at yourself in the mirror?
Classic.
The world must fit according to your views, Bluecrab? How limited your vision must be. With all that I've said and what almost everyone has said to you, I get the picture of this little crab with it's pinchers trying to snag at everything because it's scared, at the sandy foot of a lighthouse.
You ignore all the points that come up and try desperately to knock over vast information and points with little penny-ante stuff.
You won't agree but everyone else is reading my information.
They will judge.
Until later BC..

The Lighthouse.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Deleted
unregistered user
02-16-05, 04:12 PM (EST)
 
15. "jameson"
In response to message #14
 
   Jams, are you going to delete Lighthouse's attack on bluecrab? You should ban him.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Member since 5-8-02
02-16-05, 04:23 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
16. "RE: jameson"
In response to message #15
 
   no


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Deleted
unregistered user
02-16-05, 04:31 PM (EST)
 
17. "RE: jameson"
In response to message #16
 
   LOLOL Thanks, Jams. I needed that. LOL


  Printer-friendly page | Top
geea7
Charter Member
02-22-05, 10:22 AM (EST)
Click to EMail geea7 Click to send private message to geea7 Click to add this user to your buddy list  
33. "RE: jameson"
In response to message #15
 
   >Jams, are you going to delete Lighthouse's attack on
>bluecrab? You should ban him.


You're kidding, right? You consider THAT an attack on BlueCrab? OK....


  Printer-friendly page | Top
FrankRidge
unregistered user
02-16-05, 04:47 PM (EST)
 
18. "RE: One check??"
In response to message #14
 
   I was interested in the reference by Lighthouse to John Eller refusing to allow the Ramseys JonBenet's body for burial.

I don't know a great deal about John Eller. Has anybody ever done an extensive background check on him? I know Alex Hunter once said that Eller had a screw loose. Others have described Eller as intense and abrasive. Former Assistant DA Bill Wise has said some harsh things about John Eller, who was taken off the JonBenet case on October 10th 1997.

I find it a little strange, and dare I say a little suspicious, that Eller got rid of Larry Mason at the beginning of the JonBenet murder investigation.

Larry Mason was one of the few Boulder cops who had any specialized homicide detection training. Larry Mason had sensibly suggested calling for bloodhounds on the first day. He was overruled. Larry Mason was then falsely accused of leaking confidential police information when it was Steve Thomas doing the leaking.

There is some information about John Eller on the internet on the Court TV's crime library website :

Eller, one of four Boulder police officers whose careers were damaged over the Ramsey case, left Boulder in 1998 to take up a position in the Attorney General's Office in Florida. To this day, he still harbors strong feelings about the case that led to his retirement from the Boulder Police Department after an 18-year career.

Following the release of the film, Eller gave an interview to the Rocky Mountain News during which he shared some of his observations about the case.

His main assertion was that, in his view, Boulder police had enough evidence to support an arrest, but not enough to file a murder charge and win a case at trial.

Although falling short of naming the person(s) he suspected, he told reporter Kevin McCullen: "At the time I left the investigation, no, there wasn't. We felt we had probable cause to make an arrest, but there wasn't enough there to nail a homicide charge."

He further claimed that he could have remained with the investigation if he'd "kept my mouth shut," and followed every request of prosecutors in the Boulder District Attorney's Office but instead clashed with prosecutors throughout much of his command of the investigation into the death of JonBenet.

The media coverage of the case also came under attack with Eller labeling the coverage as "inaccurate" and blaming the books and movies that followed for "contaminating a potential jury pool."


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Margoo
Charter Member
02-16-05, 08:07 PM (EST)
Click to send private message to Margoo Click to add this user to your buddy list  
19. "RE: One check??"
In response to message #18
 
   Lighthouse, there have been many thoughts regarding the $118,000 discussed, and "being overheard" has been amongst them. It has been suggested that Linda HP may have noticed the 401k amount on the subs while working at the Ramseys, perhaps gone home, mentioned this large amount at the dinner table (or the pub) in the presence of someone yet unknown. I think there were some very important questions for investigators to have asked of Linda and Merv. 1. Was Linda aware of the income stubs and the 401k amount? 2. Did either one of them happen to mention that information in idle chit chat with anyone else? 3. Did either one of them happen to mention the safe in the basement floor (that wasn't really there -??) to anyone?

We have surmised that the intruder may have come across those pay stubs while rummaging around the house in the Ramseys' absence and that he thought this amount would be easily accessible. Many of the suspects being tossed around here WOULD KNOW what that amount represented, wouldn't they? I'm thinking FW, for example. Would someone like Linda or Merv understand, though? Would someone like Helgoth, Kenady, Gigax? Since McReynolds was a professor, probably with good EE benefits, I'd surmise he'd understand what the information on the pay stubs meant and would not assume it was so easily accessible - i.e. not money sitting in the bank.

This "financial" information in the RN is either a "joke" (red herring) as Lighthouse is suggesting, or it is an indication of someone who is quite naive about EE benefits and pay stubs reflecting such.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-17-05, 08:04 PM (EST)
 
20. "RE: One check??"
In response to message #19
 
   Hello Margoo,

Simply put, the phone. They heard about "Christmas bonus" & "John's southern Common sense" over the phone, they just didn't know everything about those situations. That's how they knew the Ramseys itinerary.

How else do you think "Santa" talked to JonBenet without the parents being aware of it?

The ransom note tells you everything about those "losers". I've covered this in the past.

As to attacking anyone, I'll protect Burke from being attacked by any bully. By the way BC "The Ramseys are covering up"????!!! Who the h*** would you cover for if they murdered your daughter?! That's right, no one.

Male DNA was found on her person, it did not belong to any Ramsey male. Therefore, someone else (another male) was there.

Now that we know someone else was there, you must allow then for the possibility that the person could have been an intruder. Someone else was there, right? They could have been there without the family knowing. Anyone can sneak into a house without the inhabitants knowing. It happens all the time.

Get it?

If you can't (and it probably is more like you won't) accept the facts, well, drop dead.

This is the chain of reason. It can't be broken. So stop acting like a panting monkey in front of your computer screen every time you put Burkes' name down. It's sick.

Maybe you should one time in your life, put yourself in that childs shoes' (Burke's). No, wait, you can't do that...not without a soul.

I hope this sinks in,
Your Friend,
The Lighthouse.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-17-05, 08:09 PM (EST)
 
21. "RE: One check??"
In response to message #19
 
   Something Else Margoo,

I already stated that these people did not know the Ramsey's as indicated by the few items in the ransom note I mentioned. The 118,000.00 was not a red herring because they knew what amount to ask for. Please reread what I wrote about it and my conclusion.

That would dismiss all those you mentioned.

Also, when they overheard the conversations I'm talking about, they weren't in the house.

Okay, that should do it.

The Lighthouse.



  Printer-friendly page | Top
Margoo
Charter Member
02-17-05, 08:32 PM (EST)
Click to send private message to Margoo Click to add this user to your buddy list  
22. "RE: One check??"
In response to message #21
 
   Hello, Lighthouse. Yes, I read your thoughts on the $118,000 and the problem is that you don't have a few things right ... for example, it was not a Christmas bonus or a check. It was the accumulated 401k for the previous year and apparently appeared on all his pay receipts.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Maikai
unregistered user
02-17-05, 08:40 PM (EST)
 
23. "Lighthouse....."
In response to message #0
 
   I'm intrigued,tell us more.

The three conspired to kidnap JonBenet. Because of their particular activities, they were able to find out about the Ramseys. Money, private information and even their schedule. They waited for the Ramseys to leave and go to their party. When the Ramseys left, the first guy, the author of the ransom note entered the house. He looked around and set the stage for the kidnapping. He left.

How did these people come to your attention? Did you know them before the crime, or come across them afterwards? And why these particular people if afterwards? Why did they target the Ramseys? In other words, why them, and not some other family?

What were their activities? Legal or not legal?

I'm puzzled on who they overheard--Patsy didn't know the bonus amount--who did and how did they overhear this information?

Where are they now and what are they doing?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
DonBradley
unregistered user
02-18-05, 08:39 AM (EST)
 
24. "RE: Lighthouse....."
In response to message #23
 
   >Where are they now and what are they doing?
Probably running around inside the mind of a very imaginative poster.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-18-05, 05:31 PM (EST)
 
25. "RE: Lighthouse....."
In response to message #24
 
   Hey Don,
See you haven't lost your charm...
They are not a family. I found them because of the ransom note. I could let DonBradley explain, he was here when I broke down the note, how I tracked them down and how I arrived at what the initials where. So, if he's so sure that I don't have the answers, I'm sure he can explain why,

Go ahead Don...

Your "Old" Friend,
The Lighthouse.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
CK
unregistered user
02-20-05, 01:10 PM (EST)
 
26. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #0
 
   Lighthouse,
Are we talking about Ken, Debbie and Jack as the trio? If you can solve this then do so. Don't wait any longer.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-21-05, 03:26 AM (EST)
 
27. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #26
 
   Dear KC,
No, those are not the three I'm talking about. By the way, I did solve the case. It's more a matter of proving it. There is a difference, though many detectives don't understand that difference. Now, here's some insight. Do you have any idea what it's like to try proving a case? First, I do not have the resources that Law Enforcement has, and they could prove my case easily. Also, what if I did more damage than help? You see, the D.A. has to prepare a solid case according to their parameters. I can not issue search warrants or warrants for the collection of evidence. I've already told them where to look, and suggested what avenues to pursue.
The hardest obstacle to surmount is the ego of those in charge. Tell them that they have the wrong answers. Tell them that they have no clue on how to pursue a case. Point out their mistakes. See where that gets you.
When you ask them an embarrassing question, they shut their mouths and like little children, don't want to answer the tough questions. Look at some of the people on this forum. For example, a favorite here is DonBradley. He felt that he could open his mouth and give a dig about my theory. When I called him out, he just pretended not to notice. He's not big enough to respond accordingly and explain why he wrote what he wrote.
He's like the rest. DonB, you shouldn't have opened your mouth, because now you have to pretty much avoid your faux pas(?).
I've asked for help, but almost everyone did not want to help.
It's not so easy, but don't fret. Slowly, my information is sinking in. The ideas I've sent are grudgingly being used, ever so slowly. The D.A.'s office has been dragged so far, but they won't embrace everything yet. Eventually they will or I will find the proof in the meantime.
It's just a matter of my doing it alone, or a drastic change in the investigating party. Time will tell.
Your Friend,
The Lighthouse


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Jack_Ingle
unregistered user
02-21-05, 10:18 AM (EST)
 
28. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #27
 
   Howdy Lighthouse,

Tell me, my friend, haven't you expressed, in the past, as part of your theory, that the killer also killed Helgoth and the lady that was killed in Boulder the following year? I can't think of her name at the moment, but I think she was beaten with a ball bat. I may not be remembering clearly, but I seem to remember something about Helgoth and the girl in your theory.

Also, tell us a bit about Lou Smit. You've presented your "case" to Lou, correct? What do you feel is Lou's position concerning your theory?

Good to see you back posting here again.


Jack


  Printer-friendly page | Top
sissi
unregistered user
02-21-05, 12:03 PM (EST)
 
29. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #28
 
   Lighthouse do the names, Jason M, Kim M, Robin H, Paul M, Brian A. mean anything to you?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-21-05, 07:07 PM (EST)
 
30. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #29
 
   Let me say that I am sure of who murdered JonBenet and who else were responsible. I have no doubt as to this. As to Helgoth, my contention is that he was murdered by the same person. I believe that Helgoth had not expressed any reason to commit suicide. It was rather convenient for him to have the same type of shoe, a taser (which I might add has something distinctive that would indicate in a small way of it's being the setup of a taser used in this crime) at his disposal. Was he trying to say he was involved? Why not leave it in a suicide note? Why not leave any suicide note?
I believe a girl was involved, it being February 14th and a guy may be more trusting in a female holding a weapon than the next guy. It was evident that a girl was involved in the Susannah Chase murder. Aside from the fact that she seemed to have been lured, and what young college girl would allow herself to be lured by a male (a creepy looking one at that). My contention is emboldened by the fact that they have found female DNA on the bat that was used. I wondered if any of them remembered my telling them JonBenet's killer and girlfriend was involved.
The police have no motive now as to why (and Chris Wolf was questioned in this case). Detective Jane Harmer, who wouldn't even isten to two words on the subject of JonBenet (and this attitude being the principal reason why the case is still unsolved), she being one of the assigned on the case, and I literally mean two words, is, to my horror, on the Susannah Chase case.
You will never figure out the motive if you don't want to hear or care about anything.
Not two words. I guess they didn't want it solved. She is obviously there to pump up the statistics, you know, a certain quota for female detectives. Even if that's their attitude, they should find a female who wants to solve cases.
By the way, Jane Harmer (what a fitting name). I was the one who sent the E-mail that got the JonBenet case ripped out of your hands (not like she would check the forums but what the hey).
So, in regards to Helgoth and Chase, I believe they're tied together, however, it's only a belief and not enough proof...yet.
I'm sure they've tested the DNA found on Susannah Chase and have compared it to JonBenet and no match(at least I'm guessing they tested it, but I have an interesting take on the situation if it wasn't matched, but that's for later).
Smit has indicated to me that I could possibly be right. However, Smit listens to everyone, has a prodigious amount of information from so many angles, and is a kind person. So, who knows, maybe he is just being kind. He has advised me and corrected me, advice that had shaped my theory to where it is now. To that and his sharing the time, and time that he really doesn't have, I am indebted.

The names you mention are not the ones I'm talking about. Sissi, look at the ransom note and pick out the strange phrases or the particular ones. What kind of person are we talking about? What is his thing?

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse


  Printer-friendly page | Top
GC
unregistered user
02-21-05, 10:16 PM (EST)
 
31. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #30
 
   Hey Lighthouse......


Hate to make you play games like this......but I don't have a choice.

Do these initials ring a bell with you.....T.B. J.R.(not Ramsey)S.B
M.P. B.P. Joe D.

Thanks...............


  Printer-friendly page | Top
GC
unregistered user
02-22-05, 10:07 AM (EST)
 
32. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #31
 
  
bump.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-23-05, 05:14 AM (EST)
 
34. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #32
 
   Hello,
Well, GC, they are not the ones I'm talking about.

By the way, looking at the times of your postings, I'm glad to say you're not one of those things that go "bump" in the night.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Dave
unregistered user
02-23-05, 03:21 PM (EST)
 
35. "SBTC"
In response to message #0
 
   Lighthouse,

Do you agree with the suggestion that the periods in "S.B.T.C" are separators (i.e. "S, B, T, & C") rather than terminators? Thanks.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-23-05, 03:30 PM (EST)
 
36. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #35
 
   No Dave,

I don't agree. It is an acronym.

This name really has nothing to do with this case, and the perpetrators do not work for this company. However, the author thought it would be funny to make them out as the ones responsible, and it has to do with their "thing".

SouthWestern Bell Telephone Company.

Look at the ransom note and tell me what supports this idea.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
nope
unregistered user
02-23-05, 03:54 PM (EST)
 
37. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #36
 
   >No Dave,
>
>I don't agree. It is an acronym.
>

SBTC is not an acronym.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
C-RIVER RAT
unregistered user
02-23-05, 04:05 PM (EST)
 
38. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #36
 
   SBTC
S=Steven (Gigax)
B=Bill (McReynolds)
T-HAVEN'T FIGURED THIS ONE OUT
C=Chris (Wolf)


  Printer-friendly page | Top
70.18.210.47
unregistered user
02-23-05, 04:06 PM (EST)
 
39. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #36
 
   >No Dave,
>
>I don't agree. It is an acronym.
>

acronym

n : a word formed from the initial letters of a multi-word name

And just how would you pronounce the word "sbtc," Lighthouse? Subitic?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Dave
unregistered user
02-24-05, 01:08 PM (EST)
 
41. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #36
 
   Lighthouse,

Thanks for your reply.

> Look at the ransom note and tell me what supports this idea.

Normally it is the responsibility of the claimant to support a claim. Why is this situation different?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-24-05, 08:53 PM (EST)
 
42. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #41
 
   First,
I need to address a few items.

To posters "Nope" and "70.18.210.47" thanks for clarifying the definition of acronym. Believe it or not, I appreciate it.

To "Sewer" Rat, mine makes sense. Many companies use initials to identify themselves. Your garbage was stupid. I am here on a serious endeavor, unlike you. Do you judge without considering what you just read? Maybe you should be working for the Boulder Police. They waste time on B.S., too.

Dave,
I'm sure you've heard of the socratic method. This way when you also find what I'm talking about, you'll know. Anyhow, stop being lazy and try to take a look at the phrases that support this "initial" idea, okay?

It's a way of verification, of validation, Dave.

I'm sure DonBradley remembers what they were, as he was quick to say something discrediting about my stuff. He's just not so quick to respond when he's called out. Don, do I really have to start a new post on this? Where are you hiding?

Now, the question is, by looking at the phrases in the ransom note,
what does the phone company reference have to do with the ransom note?

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse.

P.S. Dear "Shaman" (great name) I just realized you asked me a question and I didn't respond to it. My apologies. I also speak spanish but pretty badly. I also "speak" some other language, not conventional. Was this what you were asking?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
BIZ
unregistered user
02-25-05, 08:26 AM (EST)
 
43. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #42
 
   Lighthouse-
Who are you referencing to below? I didn't see "sewer rat" post but I posted under C-River-Rat...(no relation to RiverRat who has posted on other forums.)I have changed my hat to BIZ so as not to be confused. If you are referring to me, that was quite a venomous response to a possible explantion for SBTC that I wrote. (unwarrented, IMO). A forum is designed to discuss different ideas of thought....no need to persecute someone because they don't CONFORM to your hypothysis. You keep saying you have "solved" this case and taunt us with hints of who you think it is. Why not just come out and say who you think did it? BIZ

Lighthouse's Post:
****To "Sewer" Rat, mine makes sense. Many companies use initials to identify themselves. Your garbage was stupid. I am here on a serious endeavor, unlike you. Do you judge without considering what you just read? Maybe you should be working for the Boulder Police. They waste time on B.S., too.*****


  Printer-friendly page | Top
DonBradley
Charter Member
02-25-05, 08:57 AM (EST)
Click to EMail DonBradley Click to send private message to DonBradley Click to add this user to your buddy list  
44. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #43
 
   >You keep saying you have "solved" this case and taunt us with hints
>of who you think it is. Why not just come out and say who you think did it?
Because that would not entertain him as much. Usually I do not read the poster's names but I recognized the moniker 'Lighthouse'. He has been here before and he mainly generated the same complaints about senseless taunts rather than posts that are atleast intended to be informative.

I've no idea if the author of the 'ransom note' actually rolled a pair of dice so as to choose the letters somewhat randomly or if he selected something that had a particularly distinct meaning to him.

Suggestions have ranged from South Boulder Trash Collectors to the non-existent Subic Bay Training Command. Ain't no acronym, but thats okay: there ain't no 'small foreign faction' either.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-25-05, 04:21 PM (EST)
 
45. "RE: Not reading posts but commenting on"
In response to message #44
 
   I agree with you, DonBradley, "you have no idea".

As to not reading my posts, how do you then adress what I've been calling you out for? How do you say,"they are just running around a creative imagination" when you haven't really read my posts. You are putting the lie to your postings.

So which is it? Are you reading my posts or assuming without reading them?

It's just that you sound confused. It would be easier to be a bigger man and say you made a mistake.

To C-River Rat, I don't believe your solution to SBTC as a genuine attempt and am not taking you seriously. That's it in a nut shell. Also, not even willing to weigh what I said shows you are not interested in S.B.T.C . Do you see? You don't give a sh*t or you would have considered it. Frankly, you're out of whack. If you were genuine, fine, but you're not. Try fooling someone else. McReynolds and Gigax???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your Bosom-Buddy,
The Lighthouse


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Dave
unregistered user
02-25-05, 04:50 PM (EST)
 
46. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #42
 
   Lighthouse,

Contrary to the impression you are trying to create (and unless you are making a confession to the crime), you are in fact wasting many people's time with an inefficient means to propagate your mere opinion about what happened, even if it should happen to be correct.

Out of the hundred or more classes I've taken, only one inexperienced professor used the Socratic method. She finally gave up when she realized that she had covered only about 10% of the material yet used up 90% of the allotted time. That was the most inefficient use of class time that I have ever experienced, bar none. If 10% of the material had been enough to be useful, then perhaps it would have been acceptable; it wasn't. The only thing I learned in that entire class that has stuck with me is that the Socratic method is not a good method of instruction in the real world. Perhaps this is the real reason that Socrates was sentenced to death.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Margoo
Charter Member
02-25-05, 06:59 PM (EST)
Click to send private message to Margoo Click to add this user to your buddy list  
47. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #46
 
   May I extend apologies to BIZ for Lighthouse's behavior. As a new member, I believe you are innocently getting caught in the cross hairs of Lighthouse's frustrations over years of failing to convincingly complete hir theory. Please do not be discouraged.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
BIZ
unregistered user
02-25-05, 08:16 PM (EST)
 
48. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #47
 
   Thanks Margoo. What a nasty individual! Sewer Rat!!!???? Grow Up Lighthouse!!!
Actually I am totally serious about Steven, Bill, and Chris. They are all suspected pedofiles and strange characters. They are all suspects. Maybe they got together on some kiddie porn website or something. Who knows??? I have read much stranger ideas and hadn't seen that one come up yet.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-26-05, 04:38 AM (EST)
 
52. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #46
 
   To Dave,
Something I left out. Did you say you had a teacher who used the socratic method?
I don't know what that teacher was teaching but no one should use the socratic method that way. If you're teaching a subject, you teach it. The socratic method is for stuff you already know, not for a new subject.
I can understand what you're saying and it sounds totally ridiculous. The purpose of the socratic method is for debate. I am not here teaching you or anyone else. I thought we were all on the same level here.
I'm debating.
I truly believe through real debate we can get to the answers. Whether I have the answers or you do, I'm not teaching, I'm debating. In fact, I've been taught here (acronym, for example). I can share horror stories of professors, too. The basis of the socratic method is this, ask questions. If you think you can show why your point is correct, ask the debating person a question that would bring him to the right answer. Let them figure it out.
I'm assuming you're young and don't have children. It will help you in this regard.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Shaman
unregistered user
02-26-05, 01:25 AM (EST)
 
49. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #42
 
   Yes, thank you kindly.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Shaman
unregistered user
02-26-05, 01:31 AM (EST)
 
50. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #49
 
   Whoops,'Lighthouse', I should have placed that in the last note.

Latin?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-26-05, 03:54 AM (EST)
 
51. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #50
 
   Thank you Margoo but don't apologize for me. I am the only one who can do that and have in the past. However, the only nasty person here is the one calling McReynolds a pedophile. McReynolds is not here to defend himself, however, if he can call him that, I certainly can express my views about the original name caller. Rat, I said it once, your stuff does not make any sense and you have not evaluated what I said about the initials. You are not serious about this. You are not fooling me about what kind of person you are.

Margoo, I completed my theory a long time ago with facts and documentation. My frustration is with silly people who do not help but hinder. As much as I appreciate what you were doing, no, I am right about this.
Those who are closed-minded and refuse to even think about what is being said are not genuine. To slander people is a crime. No apology here.
Now, as to the socratic method, I've used it to great effect. When the answers come out of your students' own mouth, he can't deny it. This is how you really win a debate.
There is something here for all of you. I can tell you, but you will refuse to listen. When you figure it out on your own, well, that's different, isn't it.
I am dealing with huge egos all the time.
Socrates died because he pointed out other people's stupidity. Read Plato's coverage of the Apology. See if what Socrates said was not true. He also had the opportunity to escape as his students had bribed the guards. He refused as it would have devalued what he taught his students. A man of honor and integrity.
So, I can see your character more clearly as you disparage another innocent person.

The truth shall set you free.
Your Friend,
The Lighthouse


  Printer-friendly page | Top
BIZ
unregistered user
02-26-05, 09:58 AM (EST)
 
53. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #51
 
   Lighthouse-
I am serious about wanting to see this case solved more than anything. I have been reading this forum for over four years and read almost every book about the case. I am a true crime buff, the mother of two, (one daughter the same age as JonBenet). As a mother, I am tormented by the thoughts of what Jonbenet was put through. I am not trying to "fool" anyone. I did not claim that my explanation for BTK was "THE ANSWER" as you say yours is. It's just put out there for consideration. What if those three suspects DID somehow get together? Santa was known to go to kiddie porn sights. This has been discussed before. I have always thought that Santa or someone that he knew was a very strong suspect possibility.
I don't study the socratic method--sounds stupid to me... but this forum is open to the public. I am just a very normal person who cares about Jonbenet. I am not an expert, but often times it is layperson who puts the clues together. I think it is important to provoke thought and different ideas. I happen to think you are extremely rude, arragant, pompous and belligerent---and there is really no reason for you to attack me the way you did. You seem to get infuriated anytime someone doesn't pat you on the back and say, "you're so smart...you solved the Jonbenet case". My thoughts are "Put Up or Shut UP...but stop taunting!"


  Printer-friendly page | Top
BIZ
unregistered user
02-26-05, 12:38 PM (EST)
 
54. "RE: EDIT PREVIOUS POST"
In response to message #53
 
   Sorry, this all the BTK news, I inadvertantly wrote BTK instead of SBTC. The previous post should have read, "I did not claim that my explanation for STBC was THE ONE, as Lighthouse did."


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Margoo
Charter Member
02-26-05, 04:20 PM (EST)
Click to send private message to Margoo Click to add this user to your buddy list  
55. "RE: EDIT PREVIOUS POST"
In response to message #54
 
   Quite right, BIZ. One never knows what a poster's contribution (thoughts) may lead to. Maikai made the connection to two of BTK's victims (Julie Otero and Bright) having worked at Coleman's and wondered if BTK may have worked there as well. The information today (from a post by Justice Seeker) indicates he DID work for Coleman's at one time.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Evening2
unregistered user
02-26-05, 05:19 PM (EST)
 
56. "RE: Pot Calling Kettle Black"
In response to message #55
 
   Lighthouse,,,when did YOU begin defending the McReynolds? I thought they've been your regular favorite suspects all along.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Dave
unregistered user
02-26-05, 06:06 PM (EST)
 
57. "Socratic Method"
In response to message #55
 
   Lighthouse & Other Interested Parties,

If the Socratic method was good for debate, it would be used in the scientific and technical arena all the time because science and technology is an area of continous debate (but with real data, not fluff as is typical on the Internet). I've never seen it used in attempts to resolve disagreements in scientific/technical subjects out of thousands of incidents.

In my experience, which is a lot more than you (Lighthouse) described (causing me to seriously question your methods!), the Socratic method is useful only in situations where the participants (usually students) are inexperienced in solving problems in that area. It's useful for teaching someone how to think in a new way. It's great for building confidence. "I CAN do this!"

I also don't see any debate going on here, despite your description of it as such. Your claim is something like: I used a method which I won't specify to identify a killer whom I won't name that committed this crime for a reason I'm not going to describe. Can you figure this out?

What's to debate? I'm sticking to my previous claim that you are attempting to propagate a mere opinion by inefficient means.

---------------------------------

As a historical note and according to scholars, in his own time Socrates was primarily known for his physical stamina and his mastery of the dialectic, not the so-called "Socratic method." The dialectic, not the "Socratic method," was regarded by many to be the key to winning debates and therefore obtaining high political office. The Socratic method could be used to present such an argument, but without the strength of the logic behind it, this attempt would fall flat on its face, which is what I think is happening here.

---------------------------------

The Socratic method is also useful for certain types of people, but I'm certainly NOT saying you are one of them. I have no idea.

People who don't really know what they are talking about can use a distorted variation of the Socratic method for instruction or debate. They can shift the burden onto other people's shoulders while claiming: "I'm right unless you can prove me wrong!" This is a very common tactic and a logical fallacy.

People who are afraid of being proved wrong can also make good use of it because they can claim that no one can prove that they were wrong because they never claimed anything. (As I'm sure you are aware, people fiercely debate what Socrates' points of view were on various subjects.)

People who have poor communications skills can also use this method. And so on.

It can be used as a kind of copout by people who essentially don't know what they are doing. Because of this, I am very suspicious of anyone who attempts to use it inappropriately.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-28-05, 03:57 AM (EST)
 
59. "RE: Socratic Method"
In response to message #57
 
   Dave,
You are definitely a lot younger than I am. By the way, it's used in the scientific and technical arena all the time. Almost everyone considers Socrates as the greatest thinker of all time. I don't know why you are "transferring" onto him.

As to what you said:

"I used a method which I won't specify..."

I did specify my methods, you haven't been paying attention...

"to identify a killer whom I won't name..."

I can't name them right now to YOU, but have to the authorities and some others...

"that committed this crime for a reason I'm not going to describe."

I did describe the REASONS and details of what happened because of those reasons...

"Can you figure this out?"

It's apparent that even with my help, you won't. Too bad.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Dave
unregistered user
02-28-05, 05:02 PM (EST)
 
67. "RE: Socratic Method"
In response to message #59
 
   Lighthouse,

You are very much mistaken about your claim that the Socratic method is used all the time in the scientific and technical arena when using your definition of the Socratic method. There simply isn't time to ask questions in the manner that Plato described. Now I'm not saying that this hasn't been done historically; some of the famous debates between Einstein and Bohr, for example, do exhibit some of the characteristics of this method. But I'm not aware of a single instance resembling Plato's description, and as I have already said, I have never personally experienced this before. Please do provide me with a reference of such a dialog --- one such as described by Plato, involving a refutation such as I describe below, preferably 20th century physics (applied or theoretical) or solid state electronics. Thanks. I will keep this extremely rare item as an existence proof.

You also seem to be misunderstanding what it is that Socrates actually did. You yourself merely provide some sort of hint, then say, "Can you figure it out?" That is not at all what Socrates did. What he did was to ask questions to draw the person answering into a logical contradiction. It was fundamentally a method of refutation by use of logic to show an internal inconsistency in the respondent's thinking. You are not refuting what I think happened, for example; you are trying to play some sort of game to see if anyone else is the "genius" that you are in some sort of ego trip. Apparently you feel that if you provide clues to help people along the path you took, and no one else figures it out, then you're smarter than everyone else. QED.

I have already determined the basis of your theory. This basis is very old. I'm surprised you are not aware of this. Years ago, I myself posted many times about "funny business" (my exact words as I recall) with the telephones as regular members should recall (esp. Don Bradley who completely disagreed with me on these points).

------------------------------

I also see that you are changing your definition of "young" to "young compared to ancient" That's what people who are dead wrong often do. They also tell anecdotes such as you did on another thread, but somehow neglect to mention their failures, relating only success stories. What you are doing is very similar to what self-proclaimed psychic detectives do --- not necessarily in method, but in self-promotion.

You claimed to desribe your methods. Hah! It wouldn't pass a technical editor's desk nor a peer review by me, that's for sure. Your other claims are similarly vacant or conveniently interpreted.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
02-28-05, 03:43 AM (EST)
 
58. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #53
 
   First off, your being a mother of two does not impress me. So have been a lot of awful people (NOT saying that you're awful, not in the least), including one of the three people who I said had a hand in this crime. However, I don't believe you're serious as I said before, but like you said, you've been on the forum and read all these books, and yet... Gigax and McReynolds????. I also said you didn't consider what I said. You just interjected with McReynolds and Gigax? It sounds like it's you who wants to be patted on the back. I mention what I believe is what the initials mean, and without thinking at all about it, you are interjecting with something really out there and, by the way, incomplete, having nothing to do with the point that was put forth. It sounds like you are the one looking for attention.
Also, how do I know what you're saying is true. You could be Joe Blow behind that computer hat. All I have to judge is your obfuscation.
Did you even consider what I said about the initials? If you're so serious, look at the ransom note and see if what I said has merit. Like you said, put up or shut up.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse

P.S. You said I'm extremely rude, arragant, pompous and belligerent. That may be true or not, but it was rudeness and arrogance on your part to try to devalue what I said with your hokey incomplete initals analysis. Instead of feedback, your response was "I can come up with initials, too!" (Which you didn't for one of them).
Pomposity if only I am not correct. If I am correct, it's not being pompous, I did find the answers.
Belligerent, if I appear that way to you, then I apologize. I don't really want to fight with you. If I seem to be fighting, and posters are giving me the same treatment, it's only because... we care so much.
We can empathize with a parent's loss of a child, we can understand the terrible last moments of that frightened child, and we are frustrated at the lack of action that should be taken here.
It's that we care so much, so much that naturally, emotions run high, and I believe it's true for both of us.
So let me know if you think I'm being belligerent, but please keep in mind (as I wind up the longest P.S. in the world), that will never be...intentional.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse


  Printer-friendly page | Top
FrankRidge
unregistered user
02-28-05, 07:50 AM (EST)
 
60. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #58
 
   That's an interesting theory by Lighthouse that the SBTC letters mean Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.

Somewhere on the internet Jeff Shapiro says there was a baseball cap with SBTC on it found at Helgoth's death room. I don't know if Shapiro can back this up with photographic evidence.

A poster on Cybersleuths thought it may have come from Santa Barbara Teachers College. That was the previous name of the University of Santa Barbara, when Fleet Sr was a young man.

There are posters on other JonBenet forums who think there are missing Ramsey cell phone records for December 1996 and that this is a giant conspiracy which proves Ramsey guilt.

John Ramsey in a deposition in 2001 said "the police arrived. They asked to use our cell phones because theirs were dead."

My own theory is that there may be sensitive case files, perhaps cals to or from JonBenet, with regard to those phone calls, and they are confidential police information.

I don't know if Lighthouse is suggesting that people from the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company were involved in JonBenet's murder and wiped the December 1996 calls from the phone records?

I think John Ramsey's first instinct and impression was correct when he said it was an inside job. The murderer was familiar with the Ramsey home, JonBenet and her bedroom, and knew John Ramsey well. The murderer may well have had a key to the house and been familiar with complicated garrote knots.

There is an article by Donald Pugh on the internet which makes a lot of sense to me. Like me, Donald Pugh thinks the murderer came in a back door with a key :-

"From the author's personal experiences investigating and interviewing parents of murdered children (daughters), it is apparent that nothing demoralizes and destroys parents more than having a child murdered. Both parents experience what they feel is the ultimate failure and being falsely accused of committing the murder causes incomprehensible pain. The confusing and complex ransom "note" and the carefully constructed garrote were prepared in advance of the murder. In addition, other carefully orchestrated preparation went into the complicated plan. The killer thoroughly enjoyed this preparation as she fantasized and expanded on the plot in the weeks or even months prior to the murder. The involved planning has paid off in the eyes of the killer."


  Printer-friendly page | Top
BIZ
unregistered user
02-28-05, 08:25 AM (EST)
 
61. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #58
 
   Lighthouse and others-
First off---I am not one of those wackos out there that pretends to be someone else. I think the reason for Lighthouse's attack on me is because he thinks I am the River Rat who posted on other forums. I am not!!! I had no idea that name was being used already until I read some of the other forums. Therefore I changed my name to BIZ as soon as I found out.
Secondly, maybe I wasn't completely serious about SBTC being S Gigax, B McReynolds, T (???), and C Wolf. I WAS serious about presenting the possibility that SBTC could be the initials for FOUR individuals involved in this crime (maybe not those particular individuals--but four). I definately believe there is more than one person involved. The thread is called "SBTC". Maybe Lighthouse should have called it "LIGHTHOUSE'S THREAD--ONLY!"--since you seem to be so upset that someone would present another possibility. So sorry I intruded.
I have read the ransom note 100 times and I don't think it stands for Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
BIZ
unregistered user
02-28-05, 09:43 AM (EST)
 
62. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #58
 
   Lighthouse-
I was not trying to impress you by saying that I was the mother of two. I was merely trying to explain why I am interested in this case. I have one daughter who was the same age as JonBenet when she was brutally killed. She is now a freshman in high school.
I am just a normal layperson who wants to see this case solved. I do not desire any credit. I just like to provoke thought and discussion so that this case can be solved....maybe even by you!!!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Margoo
Charter Member
02-28-05, 12:30 PM (EST)
Click to send private message to Margoo Click to add this user to your buddy list  
63. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #62
 
   John Ramsey in a deposition in 2001 said "the police arrived. They asked to use our cell phones because theirs were dead."

Since the land phones in the Ramsey household were being kept open and prepared for a call from the "kidnapper/s", I can understand that no one wanted to use the Ramsey phone line. I seem to recall something about one of the Ramsey's cell phones being missing and unused the month of December. What does "our" mean in "our cell phones"? It seems to me that it could mean the cell phones belonging to the Ramseys or to the Whites or Fernies or even belonging to the victim advocates. Since we know the Ramseys have provided their phone records, I wonder if anyone else has. I doubt it. What would they show?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
BIZ
unregistered user
02-28-05, 02:37 PM (EST)
 
64. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #63
 
   Margoo-
Perhaps the police made that up about their phones being dead. Maybe they just wanted to see the "received and dialed" numbers on their phones. Seems like a logical police tactic.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
FrankRidge
unregistered user
02-28-05, 04:38 PM (EST)
 
65. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #64
 
   The cell phones and phone records are a good mystery to me.

I know BlueCrab has suggested in the past that John Ramsey phoned his lawyer Mike Bynum in the middle of Christmas night 1996. BlueCrab thinks this is the reason for the missing phone records. I just feel this suggestion is a surprise to Mike Bynum.

There was a bad working relationship between the Boulder DA's office and the Boulder Police Department. I don't think they were sharing information with each other. The Boulder police cleared Fleet White at a time when the Boulder DA office suspected Fleet White.

From what I can gather the Boulder DA office obtained the Ramsey phone records and made them available to the grand jury by about October 1998. There is controversy over missing December 1996 Ramsey cell phone records.

Personally, I believe the Boulder DA office may have the Ramsey December 1996 cell phone records but have not shared that information with the Boulder police, for some reason. It could be due to fear by the Boulder DA of leaks to the media by the Boulder police.

There were also people, like somebody called Rapp, who were stealing confidential Ramsey information at the time, and selling that information to the tabloids.

In any case I don't see how the Ramseys can be blamed for this. The Ramseys would have no control over their cell phone records. I know Steve Thomas has been quoted as saying "Search warrants were denied by the Boulder DA for elementary investigative efforts such as attempts to obtain telephone and credit card records."

Alex Hunter has been quoted as saying that Boulder cop John Eller had "a screw loose" and Hunter's assistant Bill Wise has described Eller as an "obstructionist."

There is an article on the internet about the atmosphere in the Boulder Police Department after the murder of JonBenet :

From Court TV US News :

Boulder police keep DA in the dark on Ramsey DNA
June 9, 1997
Web posted at: 11:27 p.m. EDT (0327 GMT)
BOULDER, Colorado (CNN) -- Boulder police have not complied with a request from a county district attorney to hand over DNA test results from the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, according to a spokeswoman for District Attorney Alex Hunter.

The disagreement over who should have access to the DNA results has been difficult to resolve for nearly two weeks, because Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby has been in Texas, "attending a funeral," according to Boulder County spokeswoman Jana Petersen.

There has been "a lot of speculation" that Koby, who used to work for the Houston Police Department, is in Texas looking for a job, Petersen said.

More than a week ago, Koby's police force gave him a "no-confidence" vote after several events: the continuing lack of apparent progress in the investigation of the murder of six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey, whose body was discovered by her father December 26 in the basement of their home.



  Printer-friendly page | Top
Margoo
Charter Member
02-28-05, 04:49 PM (EST)
Click to send private message to Margoo Click to add this user to your buddy list  
66. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #65
 
   Missing cell phone records MAKES NO SENSE to me. All they have to do is contact the cell phone company for a printed record of any month's usage.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
03-01-05, 05:30 AM (EST)
 
68. "RE: SBTC"
In response to message #66
 
   Check out my analysis of the ransom note on the posting "Back to the Ransom note". It may explain the missing data.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse


  Printer-friendly page | Top
TrollSpotter
unregistered user
03-02-05, 10:45 PM (EST)
 
69. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #0
 
   >Maybe you should read "Angel Eyes" by STEVE ELLER, which is
>such a coincidental name, you know STEVE Thomas was the lead
>on the case and John ELLER was the police commander at the
>time. Weird coincidence. If it ticks you off, I really don't
>care, you can go garotte yourself.
>Your Friend,
>The Lighthouse.

Steve Eller is a well-known fantasy fiction writer. Surely you're not claiming he was involved in JBR's murder, are you?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Evening2
unregistered user
03-03-05, 11:25 AM (EST)
 
70. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #69
 
   TS,,,I don't think Steve Eller is all that well known,,,maybe in a very limited circle of readers of his dark stories,,,but he's not particularly well known at all.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
TrollSpotter
unregistered user
03-03-05, 04:59 PM (EST)
 
71. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #70
 
   I think my point is that Steve Eller was writing before JBR was murdered, so the coincidence of his name with Steve Thomas's and John Eller's is nothing but that: a coincidence. Any theory that implies there's a mmore sinister connection is hard to take seriously.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Evening2
unregistered user
03-03-05, 05:45 PM (EST)
 
72. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #71
 
   TS,,,not necessarily,,,maybe his MO is to "create" murder mysteries where certain names exist,,,The name John and Steve are certainly common enough,,,I doubt, if that IS his MO, that Steve Thomas played a role in his thinking at all,,,but the Eller is certainly worth a thought or two. Maybe that's the "John" in the note.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
The Lighthouse
unregistered user
03-04-05, 07:49 PM (EST)
 
73. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #72
 
   Thank you, TrollSpotter,
Of course I'm not. Now, here's something for you:

Find and post a copy of Angel Eyes. Angel Eyes was written AFTER JonBenet's death and is an obvious depiction of the murder.

Though I have a hard copy of it, it's the only work of Steve Eller's that you can't get anymore. It dissappeared right after I made inquiries.

Steve Eller supposedly started writing in 96. Can you find exactly what date and if the Library of Congress can actually give an earlier date to a writing.

There's also the possibility that Eller is related.
It's a possibility that Eller heard from someone else about the matter.

I can show you a connection to the phone hackers, too, especially with the ransom note writer.

I don't know, maybe you're not so good at spotting trolls.

There is also another possibility.

Maybe you can track down Steve Eller for me and I can ask him a few questions.

Barring that, I don't believe he's guilty, it was solely that he wrote something very interesting and it helped my understanding what happened in the basement.

However, since you brought up these points, I wanted to show you that when you assume, (well, you know the rest...)

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse


  Printer-friendly page | Top
TrollSpotter
unregistered user
03-05-05, 11:20 AM (EST)
 
76. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #73
 
   >Thank you, TrollSpotter,
>Of course I'm not. Now, here's something for you:
>
>Find and post a copy of Angel Eyes. Angel Eyes was written
>AFTER JonBenet's death and is an obvious depiction of the
>murder.
The burden of proof is on you, not me. Since you have a hard copy, post just a few passages to support your claim. Moreover, since this book won the 2000 Bram Stoker award, it should be pretty obvious that it's written years after the fact, by which time there was PLENTY of evidence on the Web about JBR murder. So unless you can tie this account to some bit of evidence only the murderer and LE could have known, the connection is MEANINGLESS. Fiction writers are inspired by true-life events all the time. Big deal.

>Steve Eller supposedly started writing in 96. Can you find
>exactly what date and if the Library of Congress can
>actually give an earlier date to a writing.
See Stygian #5, Spring 1996
http://www.locusmag.com/index/t385.html

>
>There's also the possibility that Eller is related.
>It's a possibility that Eller heard from someone else about
>the matter.
That's the problem with your theory. It's a jury-rigged chain of POSSIBILITIES that you somehow have converted through a combination of flawed logic, cherry-picking evidence and conveniently ignoring all contrary evidence into a 100% CERTAINTY!

>
>I can show you a connection to the phone hackers, too,
>especially with the ransom note writer.
Guess what: LogicBox is NOT the equivalent of Brainbox!

>
>I don't know, maybe you're not so good at spotting trolls.
I think I'm rather substantially better at spotting trolls than you are at sleuthing, but readers can judge this for themselves.

>Maybe you can track down Steve Eller for me and I can ask
>him a few questions.
Again, the burden of proof is on you to nail down your whacko theory, not to conscript posters here to do the work you're evidently too lazy or inept to do yourself.
>
>Barring that, I don't believe he's guilty, it was solely
>that he wrote something very interesting and it helped my
>understanding what happened in the basement.
How encouraging: so what's the point of bringing up the connection with Steve Thomas and John Eller? Accepting for argument's sake the premise that Steve Eller was inspired by JBR's death to write Angel Eyes, the fact that your theory is informed by a fiction writer's speculations should tell us a lot about how much credibility to attach to your theory. You concoct a theory, say to yourself "that sounds interesting: it's a possibility" and then go Internet surfing to find confirming evidence. As Dave noted earlier, it's trivial to find confirming evidence for even the aliens did it theory (betcha can't PROVE that they didn't, can you?). The challenge in all sleuthing is to find a theory that survives all the challenges to its being disconfirmed. When you find one, let us know.


>
>However, since you brought up these points, I wanted to show
>you that when you assume, (well, you know the rest...)
>
>Your Friend,
>The Lighthouse


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Nehemiah
unregistered user
03-05-05, 00:00 AM (EST)
 
74. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #72
 
   Hello Lighthouse, good to see you. Are you talking about the perps being employees of a phone company and one's name being Ethan P?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Th e Lighthouse
unregistered user
03-05-05, 02:41 AM (EST)
 
75. "RE: Boulder D.A. absolutely not interest"
In response to message #74
 
   Nope.
I don't believe they ever worked for the phone company. That name is not who I was referring to.

Good to see you're here, too.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse


  Printer-friendly page | Top

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic