jameson's WebbSleuths

Subject: "Jonbenet's killer" Archived thread - Read only
 
  Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy    
Conferences Ramsey discussion 2 Topic #961
Reading Topic #961
enchantress
unregistered user
12-28-05, 05:02 PM (EST)
 
"Jonbenet's killer"
 
   You know, the police did a POOR job when they arrived at the Ramsey's home.

They did not conduct a proper search of the house, the area was not sealed off and friends were allowed to walk in and out at their leisure. No moves were made to protect any forensic evidence. The scale of their mistakes became apparent later that afternoon when a detective asked Fleet White, a friend of the Ramseys, to take John and search the house for "anything unusual."

Her killer could have been caught by now! They allowed people to walk in and out of the house, how dare they permit such thing! I believe the Ramsey's took some part in the murder. But at the same time, Jonbenet was tied up and taped as if she was being tortured. I don't think a parent would have to tie their own child up.

The first "clue" they focused on was the supposed lack of footprints in the snow surrounding the house, which suggested that someone inside was responsible.

Now, had an intruder killed Jonbenet, there certainly would have been footprints!

The next item was also gleaned from a police report. It stated that there were allegedly no signs of forced entry.

So how would an intruder have entered the home? Did Jonbenet answer the door for a stranger?

The police report on December 26 noted that there were a number of open windows and at least one open door, therefore an intruder would not need to break in. One possible point of entry was the basement window. Not only was it easily accessible via a ground level lift-out grille, it had been broken sometime before Christmas and could not be secured.

So the Ramsey's had open doors and windows while they had a stunningly gorgeous little girl in the house? They obviously DIDN'T want her?

John Ramsey flew his family to Atlanta in his private jet.

Ok, his baby was just murdered and he didn't know who killed her but he had the strength to operate and fly a jet? Just doesn't seem like a loving father.

The Ramseys desire to cooperate with the police did not last long. Their attitude towards them changed dramatically when they got back to Boulder and learned from Mike Bynum that the previous week, the police had refused to release JonBenet's body until John and Patsy agreed to be interrogated. Even though Bynum had been successful in having the body released in time for the funeral, the police continued to press for additional interviews. After hearing this, John and Patsy Ramsey finally realized that the police, to use John's words - "Weren't there to help us, they were there to hang us."

Ok but if the Ramsey's had nothing to hide, why didn't they want to do the interviews?? They should have done everything they were asked to do, instead of getting defensive.

If an intruder killed Jonbenet then, it would have to be someone who:

is familiar with the layout of the house.

How come the maid didn't know of the basement and she cleaned the house?

knows the Ramseys personally enough to know that John Ramsey received a bonus of $118,000.

WOW, who could have known such thing?

is small enough to have gained entry via a narrow basement window and possibly exited the same way.

So it must have been a kid as the intruder?

was confident enough to spend the time to not only commit the offence, but have the presence of mind to write a long note in an attempt to draw suspicion away from himself.

It doesn't seem to me like a KILLER would spend soo much time at their murder scene. They would do it and leave! Not stay there. Did the "intruder" know where to find Patsy's personal pad? That note was written by a paper from her pad!

Not only did the Ramseys have hundreds of guests through their home atvarious times, they also had a large number of trades people that worked on an extensive remodeling project on the house. One theory suggested that because the Ramseys had given out a number of house keys to friends, one of them may be responsible.

If that is true, why then would the killer bother to enter via a basement window?

The murder may have been committed by more than one person as part of a conspiracy to possibly kidnap JonBenet-- a plan that was later abandoned when the victim died before she could be removed from the house.

So why would they still leave a “ransom” note?


  Printer-friendly page | Top

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
Jonbenet's killer [View All] enchantress 12-28-05 TOP
  RE: Jonbenet's killer beachbum 12-28-05 1
     RE: Jonbenet's killer Justice_Seekermoderator 12-28-05 2
  RE: Jonbenet's killer Beth 12-28-05 3
     RE: Jonbenet's killer Justice_Seekermoderator 12-28-05 4
         RE: Jonbenet's killer Beth 12-28-05 5
             RE: Jonbenet's killer Justice_Seekermoderator 12-28-05 8
                 RE: Jonbenet's killer Justice_Seekermoderator 12-28-05 10
         RE: Jonbenet's killer Pasha 12-28-05 6
             RE: Jonbenet's killer Justice_Seekermoderator 12-28-05 9
     RE: Jonbenet's killer Dave 12-28-05 19
  RE: Jonbenet's killer DonBradley 12-28-05 7
  Hello enchantress 12-28-05 11
  Responding to first post jamesonadmin 12-28-05 12
     RE: Responding to first post enchantress 12-28-05 13
         RE: Responding to first post jamesonadmin 12-28-05 14
             RE: Responding to first post enchantress 12-28-05 15
                 RE: Responding to first post jameson 12-28-05 16
                     RE: Responding to first post Ashley 12-28-05 17
                 RE: Responding to first post NetMask 12-28-05 18
                     RE: Responding to first post Ashley 12-28-05 20
                         RE: Responding to first post Ashley 12-28-05 21
                             RE: Responding to first post NetMask 12-28-05 22
                                 RE: Responding to first post Ashley 12-28-05 23
                                     RE: Responding to first post NetMask 12-28-05 24
                                         RE: Responding to first post Justice_Seekermoderator 12-28-05 25
                                             RE: Responding to first post NetMask 12-28-05 26
                                             RE: Responding to first post Justice_Seekermoderator 12-28-05 27
                                             RE: Responding to first post NetMask 12-28-05 28
                                             RE: Responding to first post Justice_Seekermoderator 12-28-05 29
                                             RE: Responding to first post Ashley 12-29-05 30
                                             RE: Responding to first post NetMask 12-29-05 31
                                             RE: Responding to first post Ashley 12-29-05 32
                                             RE: Responding to first post Justice_Seekermoderator 12-29-05 33
                                             RE: Responding to first post Ashley 12-29-05 34
                                             RE: Responding to first post Justice_Seekermoderator 12-29-05 35
                                             RE: Responding to first post Ashley 12-29-05 36
                                             RE: Responding to first post Justice_Seekermoderator 12-29-05 37
                                             RE: Responding to first post Ashley 12-29-05 38
                                             RE: Responding to first post Margoo 12-29-05 39
                                             RE: Responding to first post NetMask 12-29-05 40
                                             RE: Responding to first post enchantress 12-29-05 41
  DNA didn't clear the Ramsey's enchantress 12-29-05 42
     RE: DNA didn't clear the Ramsey's Ashley 12-29-05 43
     RE: DNA didn't clear the Ramsey's jamesonadmin 12-29-05 44
         RE: DNA didn't clear the Ramsey's Margoo 12-29-05 45

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
beachbum
unregistered user
12-28-05, 05:14 PM (EST)
 
1. "RE: Jonbenet's killer"
In response to message #0
 
   Educate yourself on the subject.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Justice_Seekermoderator
Charter Member
12-28-05, 05:47 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Justice_Seeker Click to send private message to Justice_Seeker Click to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "RE: Jonbenet's killer"
In response to message #1
 
  
Maybe jameson will take the time to respond to this
person's post. I recommend reading the topic
'The Evidence by Lou Smit,' enchantress.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Beth
unregistered user
12-28-05, 06:24 PM (EST)
 
3. "RE: Jonbenet's killer"
In response to message #0
 
   >John Ramsey flew his family to Atlanta in his private
>jet.

>Ok, his baby was just murdered and he didn't know who killed
>her but he had the strength to operate and fly a jet? Just
>doesn't seem like a loving father.


You are mistaken about a few things. John Ramsey wanted to fly to Atlanta, but they went to stay at a friend's house instead.

If you really want to know what went wrong in this investigation I suggest you read Steve Thomas' book. Even if you don't buy into his "Patsy Did It" theory, the book will enlighten you how politics between the police and District Attorney's office doomed the investigation from the very start.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Justice_Seekermoderator
Charter Member
12-28-05, 06:32 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Justice_Seeker Click to send private message to Justice_Seeker Click to add this user to your buddy list  
4. "RE: Jonbenet's killer"
In response to message #3
 
  
I'd forget about Steve Thomas and read the Powerpoint presentation
Lou Smit presented. Steve Thomas was not an experienced homicide
detective. He had never investigated a murder. Steve Thomas played
the readers.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Beth
unregistered user
12-28-05, 06:45 PM (EST)
 
5. "RE: Jonbenet's killer"
In response to message #4
 
   Lou Smit had a personal agenda from the moment he started work on the Ramsey investigation, and it wasn't to find JonBenet's killer. Smit proclaimed the Ramseys innocent only 72 hours after being hired. At that time there were at least 20,000 pages of case file. Smit wouldn't have had time to learn his way to the men's room in that short of time, much less know anything about the details in the case.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Justice_Seekermoderator
Charter Member
12-28-05, 07:00 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Justice_Seeker Click to send private message to Justice_Seeker Click to add this user to your buddy list  
8. "RE: Jonbenet's killer"
In response to message #5
 
   >Lou Smit had a personal agenda from the moment he started
>work on the Ramsey investigation, and it wasn't to find
>JonBenet's killer. Smit proclaimed the Ramseys innocent
>only 72 hours after being hired. At that time there were at
>least 20,000 pages of case file. Smit wouldn't have had
>time to learn his way to the men's room in that short of
>time, much less know anything about the details in the case.

What? Where did you read that faery tale?
Lou Smit worked on the case for 18 months before he
resigned. He fought hard to present the crime scene evidence
to the grand jury. The grand jury ruled there was not
enough evidence to indict anyone.
So they must have given considerable weight to his
investigation and the evidence he presented to them.



  Printer-friendly page | Top
Justice_Seekermoderator
Charter Member
12-28-05, 07:20 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Justice_Seeker Click to send private message to Justice_Seeker Click to add this user to your buddy list  
10. "RE: Jonbenet's killer"
In response to message #8
 
   >>Lou Smit had a personal agenda from the moment he started
>>work on the Ramsey investigation, and it wasn't to find
>>JonBenet's killer. Smit proclaimed the Ramseys innocent
>>only 72 hours after being hired. At that time there were at
>>least 20,000 pages of case file. Smit wouldn't have had
>>time to learn his way to the men's room in that short of
>>time, much less know anything about the details in the case.
>
>What? Where did you read that faery tale?
>Lou Smit worked on the case for 18 months before he
>resigned. He fought hard to present the crime scene evidence
>to the grand jury. The grand jury ruled there was not
>enough evidence to indict anyone.
>So they must have given considerable weight to his
>investigation and the evidence he presented to them.


FYI: Lou orginally thought the parents were probably the
killers because of what he had been told and had read.
But that changed after he looked at the crime scene evidence
and conducted his own investigation.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Pasha
unregistered user
12-28-05, 06:48 PM (EST)
 
6. "RE: Jonbenet's killer"
In response to message #4
 
   >
>I'd forget about Steve Thomas and read the Powerpoint
>presentation
>Lou Smit presented. Steve Thomas was not an experienced
>homicide
>detective. He had never investigated a murder. Steve Thomas
>played
>the readers.

Steve Thomas should have never had his book published. It's worse than Matt Dalton writing one on his former client: Scott Peterson. I'd never read his book for that reason, alone.
But, even tho Steve Thomas didn't investigate a murder prior to this, it is reasonable to conclude that he was fully capable of investigating a crime scene/homicide. He did have the education to back that up. Give the guy that much credit, he didn't just apply for a job as a detective after working at Burger King. He worked for the force for what- 10 + years before this case?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Justice_Seekermoderator
Charter Member
12-28-05, 07:06 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Justice_Seeker Click to send private message to Justice_Seeker Click to add this user to your buddy list  
9. "RE: Jonbenet's killer"
In response to message #6
 
   >>
>>I'd forget about Steve Thomas and read the Powerpoint
>>presentation
>>Lou Smit presented. Steve Thomas was not an experienced
>>homicide
>>detective. He had never investigated a murder. Steve Thomas
>>played
>>the readers.
>
>>But, even tho Steve Thomas didn't investigate a murder prior
>to this, it is reasonable to conclude that he was fully
>capable of investigating a crime scene/homicide. He did have
>the education to back that up. Give the guy that much
>credit, he didn't just apply for a job as a detective after
>working at Burger King. He worked for the force for what- 10
>+ years before this case?

I disagree, a homicide investigation requires specialized training
that Thomas and company did not have!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Dave
Charter Member
12-28-05, 09:46 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Dave Click to send private message to Dave Click to add this user to your buddy list  
19. "RE: Jonbenet's killer"
In response to message #3
 
   "Beth" posted:

...the book will enlighten you...
(emphasis added).

Where have I heard that before? I sure wish Don Foster was for real...


  Printer-friendly page | Top
DonBradley
unregistered user
12-28-05, 06:50 PM (EST)
 
7. "RE: Jonbenet's killer"
In response to message #0
 
   >I believe the Ramsey's took some part in the murder.
Because the TV shows that night were boring and they needed some entertainment in their lives?

>had an intruder killed Jonbenet, there certainly would have been footprints!
ONLY if he decided to leave the perfectly clear walkways and walk in the snow for some reason. That would be a brave soul. Or perhaps two brave soles.

>They obviously DIDN'T want her?
No. They preferred funerals and legal expenses and the contempt of all of Boulder and most of the nation and permanent unemployment for John Ramsey and loss of health insurance for Patsy Ramsey.

>Ok, his baby was just murdered and he didn't know who killed
>her but he had the strength to operate and fly a jet? Just
>doesn't seem like a loving father.
He don't own no jet and he don't got no airman's certificate that is endorsed for jets and he is not type-rated in any jet at all.


>
>Ok but if the Ramsey's had nothing to hide, why didn't they
>want to do the interviews?? They should have done everything
>they were asked to do, instead of getting defensive.
They followed their lawyers advice but instructed those lawyers to do everything to arrange for interviews despite their lawyers advice to them not to talk to the police and the BPD's stubborness.

>How come the maid didn't know of the basement and she cleaned the house?
She knew of the basement. It was no maze and no mystery.

>WOW, who could have known such thing?
Anyone who found his paystubs in the desk in the home or in the dumpster. Anyone at Access Graphics where he worked.

>So it must have been a kid as the intruder?
Lou Smit ain't no kid and he ain't no midget. He went in and out of the window with no difficulty at all.

>It doesn't seem to me like a KILLER would spend soo much time at
>their murder scene. They would do it and leave! Not stay there.
Unless ofcourse they really enjoyed the note and the hours and hours of terror it would cause the parents the next day. Sweet! Truly sweet!

>Did the "intruder" know where to find Patsy's personal pad?
>That note was written by a paper from her pad!
The note was written on a page from the pad kept by the telephone. This practice of keeping a pad and some pens by the telephone is followed by 25 other families in Boulder and by 118 families across the USA.

>If that is true, why then would the killer bother to enter via a basement window?
I hope someday you can ask him that.

>So why would they still leave a “ransom” note?
I don't think anyone ever planned to kidnap or ransom her.
The note was pure entertainment for the intruder to write and pure hell for the Ramseys to read.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
enchantress
unregistered user
12-28-05, 08:15 PM (EST)
 
11. "Hello"
In response to message #0
 
   I got those statements from crimelibrary.com


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Member since 5-8-02
12-28-05, 08:17 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
12. "Responding to first post"
In response to message #0
 
   >You know, the police did a POOR job when they arrived at the
>Ramsey's home.
>
>I believe the Ramsey's took some part in the
>murder. But at the same time, Jonbenet was tied up and taped
>as if she was being tortured. I don't think a parent would
>have to tie their own child up.

Good thinking there. Add this to it - - if the parents wanted to do anything to their own child - - whether it was to cuddle her, spankher, read a book to her or choke her to death.... why take her to the dirty, moldy, hot and damp basement? Why not do "whatever" in her room?
>
>The first "clue" they focused on was the supposed lack of
>footprints in the snow surrounding the house, which
>suggested that someone inside was responsible.
>
>Now, had an intruder killed Jonbenet, there certainly would
>have been footprints!

Did you look st photos taken that morning? The side of the house where the broken window was - - there was no snow. An intruder certainly could have gone in and out without leaving prints.
>
>The next item was also gleaned from a police report. It
>stated that there were allegedly no signs of forced
>entry.
>
>So how would an intruder have entered the home? Did Jonbenet
>answer the door for a stranger?

There was a broken window, other windows unlocked, and even a door that could have been unlocked that night. Another door ws VERY easy to open - - a reporter did it and bragged to me about it - - very easy.
>
>The police report on December 26 noted that there were a
>number of open windows and at least one open door, therefore
>an intruder would not need to break in. One possible point
>of entry was the basement window. Not only was it easily
>accessible via a ground level lift-out grille, it had been
>broken sometime before Christmas and could not be
>secured.
>
>So the Ramsey's had open doors and windows while they had a
>stunningly gorgeous little girl in the house? They obviously
>DIDN'T want her?

They were not in fear for their lives or the life of their child - - Boulder was supposed to be a very safe place. Carlie Brucis was abducted from a parking lot - - do you blame her parents too?
>
>John Ramsey flew his family to Atlanta in his private
>jet.
>
>Ok, his baby was just murdered and he didn't know who killed
>her but he had the strength to operate and fly a jet? Just
>doesn't seem like a loving father.

Fact is he didnot fly the plane - - that is one of the lies put out there by LE to help the media attackJohn in the early days - - but the reporter who wrote thattook it back - - check out Charlie Brennan's quotes in the documentaries.
>
>The Ramseys desire to cooperate with the police did not
>last long. Their attitude towards them changed dramatically
>when they got back to Boulder and learned from Mike Bynum
>that the previous week, the police had refused to release
>JonBenet's body until John and Patsy agreed to be
>interrogated. Even though Bynum had been successful in
>having the body released in time for the funeral, the police
>continued to press for additional interviews. After hearing
>this, John and Patsy Ramsey finally realized that the
>police, to use John's words - "Weren't there to help us,
>they were there to hang us."
>
>Ok but if the Ramsey's had nothing to hide, why didn't they
>want to do the interviews?? They should have done everything
>they were asked to do, instead of getting defensive.

The Ramseys answered every question put to them. They did, however, say they preferred to work with the DA's office - - the investigators and lawyers who would be prosecuting them in court if they ever were arrested. Doesn't sound to me like they were hiding anything.
>

>
>How come the maid didn't know of the basement and she
>cleaned the house?

She was told the body was found in a secret hidden room. She didn't know about a secret hidden room because there was none. The body was found in a room the housekeeper knew well - - she had been in that room getting out Xmas trees.

>
>>Ramsey received a bonus of $118,000.
>
>WOW, who could have known such thing?

People who dealtwith his payroll records or personal records at work. People at the bank, perhaps.

Butit may be the 118 didn't have a thing to do with the bonus. Could be a date, a time, someone's house number or weight.
>
>is small enough to have gained entry via a narrow
>basement window and possibly exited the same way.
>
>So it must have been a kid as the intruder?

I have personally crawled in and out that window and I am not a kid, not a midget. Cops far bigger than I am also went in and out that window.
>
>
>It doesn't seem to me like a KILLER would spend soo much
>time at their murder scene. They would do it and leave! Not
>stay there. Did the "intruder" know where to find Patsy's
>personal pad? That note was written by a paper from her pad!

But what is he had to wait for the family to get home,goto bed. he may have had plenty oftime then.
>
>Not only did the Ramseys have hundreds of guests through
>their home atvarious times, they also had a large number of
>trades people that worked on an extensive remodeling project
>on the house. One theory suggested that because the Ramseys
>had given out a number of house keys to friends, one of them
>may be responsible.
>
>If that is true, why then would the killer bother to enter
>via a basement window? >person as part of a conspiracy to possibly kidnap JonBenet--
>a plan that was later abandoned when the victim died before
>she could be removed from the house.
>
>So why would they still leave a “ransom” note?

As a cruel taunt, perhaps.

Why would you think a parent would leave such a note with a body??? THAT makes no sense to me.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
enchantress
unregistered user
12-28-05, 08:22 PM (EST)
 
13. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #12
 
   >Why would you think a parent would leave such a note with a
>body??? THAT makes no sense to me.

To make it seem like an intruder did it.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Member since 5-8-02
12-28-05, 08:25 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
14. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #13
 
   What parent would STAGE a kidnapping with a handwritten note left WITH the body!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
enchantress
unregistered user
12-28-05, 08:28 PM (EST)
 
15. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #14
 
   One who is not smart


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
unregistered user
12-28-05, 08:33 PM (EST)
 
16. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #15
 
   Just smart wnough to know how to disguise three pages of writing and to alter their DNA???


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Ashley
Charter Member
12-28-05, 08:58 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Ashley Click to send private message to Ashley Click to add this user to your buddy list  
17. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #16
 
   That wouldn't be the Ramsey's. Very intelligent people. They didn't get to be millionaires by being dumb.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
NetMask
unregistered user
12-28-05, 09:44 PM (EST)
 
18. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #15
 
   >One who is not smart

My guess is the killer was smarter than you
appear to be, IMHO.
Erik


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Ashley
unregistered user
12-28-05, 10:06 PM (EST)
 
20. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #18
 
   No, the killer is not smart, just lucky. He happenend to murder in Boulder, Colorado.

I think his lucky is running out. Just a gut feeling.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Ashley
unregistered user
12-28-05, 10:15 PM (EST)
 
21. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #20
 
   LAST EDITED ON 12-28-05 AT 10:16 PM (EST)
 
Hey Erik, btw, you ain't got nothing going on. Obvioulsy it shows. you can't seem to discuss anything without putting people down. What is it? Low self esteem? Or, do you just not have any come backs cuz you don't know what the HELL you're talking about? I think it's both. DUHHHHH!!!!!

Go away!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
NetMask
unregistered user
12-28-05, 10:18 PM (EST)
 
22. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #21
 
   I know a LOT more than you ever will about this
case. Just ask Lighthouse.
Erik


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Ashley
Charter Member
12-28-05, 10:24 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Ashley Click to send private message to Ashley Click to add this user to your buddy list  
23. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #22
 
   LAST EDITED ON 12-28-05 AT 10:25 PM (EST)
 
Why, are you the Killar who works for Southwestern Bell Telephone Company?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
NetMask
unregistered user
12-28-05, 10:28 PM (EST)
 
24. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #23
 
   We liked to think SBTC worked for us...
E.P.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Justice_Seekermoderator
Charter Member
12-28-05, 11:00 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Justice_Seeker Click to send private message to Justice_Seeker Click to add this user to your buddy list  
25. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #24
 
   >We liked to think SBTC worked for us...
>E.P.

Would you explain what you mean by this post, please?

Thank you,
JS


  Printer-friendly page | Top
NetMask
unregistered user
12-28-05, 11:07 PM (EST)
 
26. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #25
 
   Either Google "redboxing" or ask Lighthouse
and it will become intuitively obvious.
Neither RBCP, Tannest nor I have ever paid
SBTC a single red cent: that's a fact. If we
paid for long distance, we'd be working for
SBTC; when SBTC pays for our long distance,
it seems like the opposite is true. Now that
Skype has arrived, much of the fun has gone out
of phreaking.
Erik


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Justice_Seekermoderator
Charter Member
12-28-05, 11:15 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Justice_Seeker Click to send private message to Justice_Seeker Click to add this user to your buddy list  
27. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #26
 
  
So does this mean you are a hacker of some sort?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
NetMask
unregistered user
12-28-05, 11:22 PM (EST)
 
28. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #27
 
   As a rough approximation, hacking=computers; phreaking=phones.
What we did to SBTC is called phreaking, not hacking, but I
realize there are a lot of airheads who use these terms
interchangeably. Hopefully you are not one of them.
E.P.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Justice_Seekermoderator
Charter Member
12-28-05, 11:31 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Justice_Seeker Click to send private message to Justice_Seeker Click to add this user to your buddy list  
29. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #28
 
  
Thank you for responding, NetMask.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Ashley
unregistered user
12-29-05, 00:19 AM (EST)
 
30. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #29
 
   Well, I'm a little confused. How did LH find you? Is he a Phreaker too? Did he pick you out of a group at a convention or something? I'm lost...how did you become his target?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
NetMask
unregistered user
12-29-05, 00:29 AM (EST)
 
31. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #30
 
   >Well, I'm a little confused. How did LH find you? Is he a
>Phreaker too? Did he pick you out of a group at a
>convention or something? I'm lost...how did you become his
>target?

Are you playing games with me? You show in post #23 that
you are well aware of the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
connection. It basically escalated from there (it's frightening to think what LH might have conjured up had Google been at his disposal 4 years ago). Yeah, I admit it didn't help that we hacked BNF back in 1997. But LH just doesn't seem to get that phreaking and murder aren't exactly two sides of the same coin.
Erik


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Ashley
Charter Member
12-29-05, 00:34 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Ashley Click to send private message to Ashley Click to add this user to your buddy list  
32. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #31
 
   LAST EDITED ON 12-29-05 AT 01:26 AM (EST)
 
I remember LH's post long ago and he told me in e-mail once about the SB telephone connection. I huumored him, but thought his theory was not plausible. That's all I remember about it. The SBTC connection to the phone company. That's it... I don't know the rest of it. I guess I'm finding out now.

Edit to add: LOL! Sorry, this is getting kind of funny. Not to you, I'm sure! I still odn't get why he thinks it's you and how did he find you? Were you a poster or just some guy off the street?

You hacked BNF? What does that mean? Sorry I'm not computer savvy. I have an idea, but is that how he targeted you?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Justice_Seekermoderator
Charter Member
12-29-05, 00:51 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Justice_Seeker Click to send private message to Justice_Seeker Click to add this user to your buddy list  
33. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #32
 
  
Hi Ashley I found this post by Lighthouse.
I think this is about Netmask and his friends.

JS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


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
Ashley
unregistered user
12-29-05, 01:00 AM (EST)
 
34. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #33
 
   Thanks JS. I remember now. He thought they were listening into the Ramsey's phone converstations and that is how they knew personal information.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Justice_Seekermoderator
Charter Member
12-29-05, 01:08 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Justice_Seeker Click to send private message to Justice_Seeker Click to add this user to your buddy list  
35. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #34
 
  
I must have missed that theory.
How would Lighthouse know about it if they
had been listening in on the Ramsey phone calls?



  Printer-friendly page | Top
Ashley
unregistered user
12-29-05, 01:21 AM (EST)
 
36. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #35
 
   If I remember correctly that was my question to Lighthouse. This is really bugging me... I was just about to go to bed but I'm trying to remember what it was all about.

I wish I would have saved the e-mail from Lighthouse but it was in confidence and I never told anyone because he asked me not too. I just forgot all about it. It's been years ago.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Justice_Seekermoderator
Charter Member
12-29-05, 01:24 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Justice_Seeker Click to send private message to Justice_Seeker Click to add this user to your buddy list  
37. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #36
 
  
Thanks for staying up and telling me.
I was going to log off but I kept hoping
you or NetMask would respond.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Ashley
Charter Member
12-29-05, 01:29 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Ashley Click to send private message to Ashley Click to add this user to your buddy list  
38. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #37
 
   Netmask must have logged off for the night. Maybe we'll get some answers later. I have to get up early...so I'll talk to you tomorrow.

Night!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Margoo
Charter Member
12-29-05, 03:01 AM (EST)
Click to send private message to Margoo Click to add this user to your buddy list  
39. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #38
 
   I don't get it, Enchantress. You state you got your information from crimelibrary, but that cannot be ... unless you skim read or jump over things or ... what?

Example:

Chapter 2

The facts surrounding the so-called "evidence" tell a completely different story.

The first point to come under scrutiny is the snow cover. News video footage shot on December 26 clearly shows that large areas surrounding the house had no snow cover at all. In support of this, Julie Hayden, the television reporter states:

"We looked at the videotape once the footprints in the snow started becoming an issue and one of the things that I observed was, there did not seem to be snow going up to all of the doors. So, in my opinion, this thing about footprints in the snow has always been much ado about nothing because it seemed clear to me that people could have gotten in the house, whether they did or not, without traipsing through the snow."


Basement Window (POLICE)
Even with blatant visual evidence that proved that the theory was groundless, the story continued to be told. Even more doubtful was the claim of "no forced entry." The police report on December 26 noted that there were a number of open windows and at least one open door, therefore an intruder would not need to break in. One possible point of entry was the basement window. Not only was it easily accessible via a ground level lift-out grille, it had been broken sometime before Christmas and could not be secured. These facts, although well documented by the police, did not come to public attention until a year after the event.

When questioned regarding the accuracy of the information he received, reporter Charlie Brennan stated that up until March 1997, he and other members of the press did not know that there was a broken window in the basement and believed that his police source had fed him false information.

The reality of this situation is that an intruder could have easily entered the house through the basement window and moved around the house virtually undetected and unheard. JonBenet's bedroom is one floor below her parents' room, a total distance of 55 feet of walkways, covered by thick carpeting, making it ideal for a soundless approach. Furthermore there is no hidden room. A carpeted spiral staircase, a few feet from her room, leads down to the kitchen. From the kitchen, it is only a few steps to the door that leads to the basement stairs. At the bottom of the stairs is a short corridor that leads directly to the room where her body was found.

The end result? - No secret room, no need for forced entry and very little snow, which leads to one of two conclusions - either the press distorted the facts to embellish their story or someone inside the police department leaked false information, intentionally or otherwise. Despite having been proved incorrect, all three bits of misinformation were given continual coverage.

Chapter 3

By Monday, December 30, the Ramseys had returned to Atlanta to bury JonBenet. Again another story was released concerning how they got there. According to the article written by Charlie Brennan, John Ramsey flew his family to Atlanta in his private jet. The story, which had attempted to portray John as an unfeeling elitist, was also false. The jet actually belonged to Lockheed-Martin, the company that had previously purchased Access Graphics, John Ramsey's company. He did not pilot it. The company, hearing of their loss, had offered the services of one of their jets.

... and so on. Do you think it might be a good idea for you to go back and read it again?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
NetMask
unregistered user
12-29-05, 07:26 AM (EST)
 
40. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #38
 
   a) The RN says "Listen. LH took this seriously and deduced someone must have been have listening in on Ramsey phone lines. Google wasn't around then, but eventually LH's sleuthing led him here, where he essentially OD'd on PLA: http://www.phonelosers.org/issue/
b) He has hard evidence 3 of us went to CuervoCon '96
convention in Texas, but because we traveled from various parts of the country, ended up in Colorado (he has ZERO proof we were in Boulder
in December 1996);
c) He has a photo of me playing around with a taser.
d) He has a photo of handwriting on my friend's Website that he is CONVINCED matches the RN.
e) He's convinced the crime is codified in a book by FICTION writer
Steve Eller and has selectively cherry-picked through hundreds of Web pages so that we "fit" his imagined crime scene.
f) He has hard evidence some of us were involved in
hacking BNF.

He put two and two together and reasoned:
1) "anyone who could do a) would have the capability to hack into Ramsey phones."
2) "anyone traveling within 1 hour of Boulder and an interest in tasers and RN-like handwriting "fits" his profile and hence had the means to be JBR's killer
3) "anyone who would do e) is behaving suspiciously; therefore
they MUST be trying to throw sleuthers off the scent by disrupting their discussion."
I won't bore you with the alleged hundreds of pages of "evidence"
assembled by this whacko, but in a nutshell, this is the gist of LH's "theory." It is full of Swiss cheese.

If you were BPD or FBI, would YOU take it seriously? Because LH speaks in code and communicates by private e-mails, there is no way to sue him for libel because you will never find a post where he states blatantly EP, BC and SD did it. However, his conduct is shameful and shouldn't be tolerated. JMO.
Erik


  Printer-friendly page | Top
enchantress
unregistered user
12-29-05, 09:56 AM (EST)
 
41. "RE: Responding to first post"
In response to message #40
 
   Yes Erik--Jonbenet's killer is smarter then me. I couldn't get away with killing a little girl in her home. I would have been caught by now. So you're correct--He/She is smarter.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
enchantress
unregistered user
12-29-05, 12:36 PM (EST)
 
42. "DNA didn't clear the Ramsey's"
In response to message #0
 
   DNA doesn't even come close to clearing the Ramsey's.

The "DNA" is nothing more than a single, microscopic, piece of a skin cell. It was such a small sample they lab couldn't even get a full strand of DNA from it.

It was old and degraded. Not even fresh. They devolped a special test to get a partial strand of DNA from this sample.

If you clipped your fingernails you would find more DNA under your nails then Jonbenet had.

The DNA, the degraded, non-fresh, undated partial strand of DNA could not be matched to any of the Ramsey men.

Imagine if you gently took your fingers and touched someone's cheek.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Ashley
unregistered user
12-29-05, 12:47 PM (EST)
 
43. "RE: DNA didn't clear the Ramsey's"
In response to message #42
 
   Enchantress...it has nothing to do with being smart. It's called luck and the Boulder Police! :)


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Member since 5-8-02
12-29-05, 02:59 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
44. "RE: DNA didn't clear the Ramsey's"
In response to message #42
 
   >DNA doesn't even come close to clearing the Ramsey's.
>
>The "DNA" is nothing more than a single, microscopic, piece
>of a skin cell. It was such a small sample they lab couldn't
>even get a full strand of DNA from it.
>
>It was old and degraded. Not even fresh. They devolped a
>special test to get a partial strand of DNA from this
>sample.
>
>If you clipped your fingernails you would find more DNA
>under your nails then Jonbenet had.
>
>The DNA, the degraded, non-fresh, undated partial strand of
>DNA could not be matched to any of the Ramsey men.
>
>Imagine if you gently took your fingers and touched
>someone's cheek.

The people who run the CODIS operation disagree with you on that. That is true about the first drop of blood taken from her panties - - not the sample taken later.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Margoo
Charter Member
12-29-05, 05:00 PM (EST)
Click to send private message to Margoo Click to add this user to your buddy list  
45. "RE: DNA didn't clear the Ramsey's"
In response to message #44
 
   Imagine if you gently took your fingers and touched
>someone's cheek.

More likely, in the case of a victim, you not-so-gently took your fingers and touched your attacker's cheek (or arm or chest or jammed them in his mouth or ...). For sure, THIS victim did so with a MALE attacker.

It was old and degraded. Not even fresh.

WHO says it was "old"?
The REASON as to why the DNA strand was "incomplete" is not known to us.

They devolped a special test to get a partial strand of DNA from this sample.

NO. They got results from RFLP testing in January 1997 (remember the lab report captured on screen) where it was shown as male. This type of testing was the norm. As DNA testing has improved and evolved (since 1996), they have run further testing (STR) with better results (on a LOT of DNA, not just the Ramsey case). Was it degraded? Maybe, but no one here knows why. It could have been due to collecion or due to handling. When collected, it may have been intact. It may even have been intact when it was tested, but the kit used did not bring up a good result. We don't know. What's important is that NOW it's in the databases and the potential for a hit exists. Further, what is important, is that it is not Ramsey DNA and it is not female DNA, so that "gentle touch on the cheek" was not her mother's nor any Ramsey cheek. I'm hoping we get further testing information that will identify racial mixture and narrow the field even further.


  Printer-friendly page | Top

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic