Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 6
» Latest member: John Andrew
» Forum threads: 1,673
» Forum posts: 5,350

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 28 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 28 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Lou on LKL
Forum: Ramsey cooperation
Last Post: jameson245
Yesterday, 06:32 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 10
Geraldo transcript
Forum: 911 call
Last Post: jameson245
09-13-2020, 10:07 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 1,430
The Hoffman FAX
Forum: Darnay Hoffman
Last Post: jameson245
09-12-2020, 05:37 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 28
So where was the DNA-X?
Forum: DNA-X
Last Post: jameson245
09-12-2020, 12:38 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 2,017
rope
Forum: Rope
Last Post: jameson245
09-12-2020, 11:59 AM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 2,172
Our introduction to DNA-...
Forum: DNA-X
Last Post: jameson245
09-12-2020, 11:29 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 3,135
from Ramsey interviews
Forum: Flashlight
Last Post: jameson245
09-12-2020, 11:20 AM
» Replies: 10
» Views: 779
Look at the flashlight on...
Forum: Flashlight
Last Post: jameson245
09-12-2020, 11:10 AM
» Replies: 17
» Views: 10,212
transcript
Forum: 911 call
Last Post: jameson245
09-12-2020, 10:34 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 39
MT's essay
Forum: Michael Tracey
Last Post: jameson245
09-11-2020, 03:41 PM
» Replies: 37
» Views: 374

 
  Lou on LKL
Posted by: jameson245 - Yesterday, 06:32 PM - Forum: Ramsey cooperation - No Replies

KING: A couple other things with Lou Smit, the charges that the Ramseys didn't cooperate with the police, didn't go down, didn't volunteer. Some have said, if it was my kid, I would be at that door everyday, knocking the door in, saying, find the killer.
SMIT: I know, Larry, that that has been one of the highest criticisms of the Ramseys, but Larry, what happened in this case the Ramseys did talk to the police for the first two days. There was a police officer that was with them 24 hours a day for the next three days. The Ramseys should have been interviewed right away. That was a mistake. One of the biggest mistakes that was made. They should have been brought down to the police station right away. It was not their decision not to do that...
KING: ...why were they asked a week later?
SMIT: The Ramseys a week later were burying their daughter also at the time being advised by lawyers. John Ramsey had talked to Mike, one of their friends. Mike suggested the lawyers. From what I have been able to see, since I have been in this case, even from the outside, is the lawyers advised them not to do anything. The lawyers were trying to keep the Ramseys out of jail. The focus was on the Ramseys right from the beginning.
KING: But if they knew they didn't do it --- you don't have to listen to what your lawyers say.
SMIT: And that's exactly what happened. The Ramseys are the only suspects I have ever been in contact with that has been interrogated as a suspect for six days. John and Patsy Ramsey have been interrogated more than anybody I have ever seen.

Print this item

  The Hoffman FAX
Posted by: jameson245 - 09-12-2020, 05:37 PM - Forum: Darnay Hoffman - No Replies

   

Print this item

  transcript
Posted by: jameson245 - 09-12-2020, 10:34 AM - Forum: 911 call - No Replies

Rivera Live Transcript on August 21, 1998

ENHANCED 911 TAPE REVEALING BURKE RAMSEY SPEAKING IN THE BACKGROUND, WHEN HIS PARENTS SAID HE WAS UPSTAIRS SLEEPING




Page 17 of transcript:

Mr. SHEA: Sure. Thank you.

CLARK: We're gonna take a break here, and when we return, the latest in the JonBenet Ramsey investigation. New reports say that during Patsy Ramsey's hysterical 911 call to the police, John Ramsey is heard telling his young son, "Go Back to Bed." We'll be right back.

MARCIA CLARK, host:

There's news on two fronts in the JonBenet Ramsey case this week. First, there's surprising information about the 911 call that Patsy Ramsey made to police to report her daughter missing. Although the Ramseys told investigators that their son Burke, then 10 years old, was asleep when the call was made, a transcript of the 911 conversation apparently shows otherwise. According to the National Enquirer, which broke the story and other published reports, Burke can be heard speaking in a newly enhanced version of the audiotape.

After Patsy Ramsey screams, 'Help me, Jesus. Help me, Jesus,' Burke reportedly says, 'Please, what do I do?' According to the reports, John Ramsey then says in a supposedly angry voice, 'It's none of your business. Go back to bed. We're not speaking to you,' or words to that effect. Patsy's again heard screaming, 'Help me, Jesus. Help me, Jesus,' after which Burke clearly says, 'But what did you find?' Additionally, the Enquirer reports that, according to a source, Burke Ramsey recently told authorities he heard some kind of noises around the time his little sister was murdered. The paper quotes the source as saying, quote, "Detectives are convinced Burke saw or heard something that could crack this case," end quote.

Meanwhile, former close friends of John Ramsey have written an extraordinary 15-page letter asking that the people of Colorado should demand that the state's attorney general take over the case.

NBC's Leanne Gregg reports on this plea for the removal of the Bouldy--Boulder County district attorney.

LEANNE GREGG reporting:

Fleet White, a former friend of John Ramsey's and one of the pallbearers at JonBenet's funeral, in a scathing letter, accuses Boulder's district attorney, Alex Hunter, of having no intention of ever seeking an indictment. White was with John Ramsey when he found JonBenet's body in the basement of their home 20 months ago. White addressed the letter, acquired by The Denver Post, to the people of Colorado, asking them to demand that the state's governor immediately order the attorney general to take over the investigation.

Governor ROY ROMER (Democrat, Colorado): Let--let me make one last comment before you turn...

GREGG: Earlier this month, Governor Roy Romer, on the advice of four Denver area district attorneys, decided against replacing Hunter with a special prosecutor.

Gov. ROMER: I have concluded that it is not proper to appoint a special prosecutor because it would impair this investigation.

GREGG: Instead, Romer said the case is on track for a grand jury. In his letter, White accused Hunter of using the grand jury and its secrecy in an attempt to protect his career.

Unidentified Woman: (From video) Number 16, JonBenet.

GREGG: Frustrations over the lack of resolution of the case prompted White last December to ask the governor to appoint a special prosecutor. The governor declined. This latest plea is not likely to change his mind.

Within the next few weeks, Hunter is expected to appoint additional experts to help with the case.

He won't say when or where the grand jury will begin its part of the investigation. Leanne Gregg, NBC News, Denver.




Page 18 of transcript:

CLARK: Civil and criminal attorney--trial lawyer Craig Silverman now joins us in Denver. Craig served formerly as a chief deputy district attorney there.

Craig, I--I'm--I'm dying to know what you think is--of--of the current request that's on the table now, for the second time, that Alex Hunter be removed in favor of the attorney general. What do y--do you think it's likely to succeed? Do you think it should?

Mr. CRAIG SILVERMAN (Civil and Criminal Attorney, Former Prosecutor): N--no, it's not going to succeed. In fact, Governor Romer has already turned down Fleet White. But let's remember who Fleet White is. He's a star witness in this case, as is his wife, who also authored that letter. They have turned against this prosecutor. This follows Steve Thomas, lead investigator, putting down Alex Hunter. They're both requesting a special prosecutor and it--it casts a shadow over the case.

CLARK: Well, yeah, I mean, I understand that it does, except that--don't you think that there may be some merit to it? There's been no movement, and even since--it's been a while even since there was an announcement that there would be a grand jury investigation. That hasn't even begun.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Right. It's an interesting situation. And he points at--toward Governor Romer; he says, 'There's sort of a vast left-wing conspiracy here.' I think he overcharges, but he makes good, valid points: Alex Hunter, the Democrat DA in Boulder, being helped by an--a bunch of other established Democrats, and we've seen how people band together on partisan lines. Hopefully, that would not occur in a murder case, but it may be a matter of philosophy as much as politics.

CLARK: You know, but, Craig, I understand that Alex Hunter also hasn't had a whole lot of experience with high-profile cases, let alone with homicides. I understand--I--I've heard that he hasn't even had--tried one in his career. Maybe it is a good thing to get someone else in to run--guide the ship.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, what they're talking about now is bringing in a special deputy, somebody who will actually take charge of the case. Hopefully, it'll be somebody who's insulated from these political accusations...

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Mr. SILVERMAN: ...'cause when you look at Fleet White, you have to ask yourself: What is this man's motivation? And you can't come up with anything other than justice for JonBenet.

CLARK: Yeah, that's really true. That's--his netter--letter was very impressive to me, as was the detective's letter, the one who just retired. And I think that after Fleet White's letter--even though that's been turned down again by Governor Romer, there's probably going to be another and yet another.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Right.

CLARK: So hopefully, that will be resolved. We're gonna go to break here, Craig.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Sure.

CLARK: When we come back, we're--all of us left here, Paul Rothstein and Howard Price, will join us discussing the significance of this newly enhanced 911 tape. Stick around, folks. We'll be right back.

(Announcements)

CLARK: One of the most horrible parts about discussing this case is having to see those clips over and over again. They are so painful. The n--this latest story about the 911 tape that has been enhanced, assuming that it's been properly enhanced and--and there's been no funny business with it, that reveals the son's voice wh--at a time




Page 19 of transcript:

when the parents insist that he had been sleeping, what--what--let's play out the significance. Howard, what do you think? You've had a lot of high-profile murders.

Mr. HOWARD PRICE (Criminal Defense Attorney): Well, one, forgive my inherent skepticism, but this tape has been in their possession since day one. If there was background noise, which is what causes the enhancement, I would think it would've been enhanced a long time ago.

Mr. SILVERMAN: No.

Mr. PRICE: And, if indeed...

Mr. SILVERMAN: No, no, no.

Mr. PRICE: Well, pardon me. Maybe you're right. But indeed, if the words are as the audiologist determines them to be, clearly this is as close to a smoking gun as you're gonna get in this case.

CLARK: Mm-hmm. Maybe makes it fileable. Craig, why are you saying, 'No, no, no'?

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, I'm--I'm saying that right here it is a very significant fact. But let's look at this situation. The DA has known about this for some time, yet he still can't pull the trigger. But we now better understand why the Ramseys are under an umbrella of suspicion.

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Mr. SILVERMAN: As you so well know, Marcia, lies reveal so much about the truth.

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Mr. SILVERMAN: It's the topic earlier.

Professor PAUL ROTHSTEIN (Law Professor, Georgetown University): But I think wor...

Mr. SILVERMAN: People lie--people lie for a reason, and if this is a Ramsey family lie to say that Burke was not there...

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Mr. SILVERMAN: ...and apparently, Burke stuck with that story--that's very revealing...

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Mr. SILVERMAN: ...and it really throws aside any intruder theory. It does not necessarily then bring us to the point where we can say which Ramsey did what. That's the critical determination.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Oh, I think we're overestimating--Marcia...

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: ...I think we're overestimating the importance of this. Yes, it might be significant, but it might just be parents trying to protect their young son from the horrible ordeal of being questioned by the police and having publicity surround him.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Professor Rothstein...




Page 20 of transcript::

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: So they did--they did lie. Now it could--it could also mean that Burke had a role or that he heard or saw something between the parents that showed that they had a role, but--but we're jumping to conclusions here.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Come on. You--you really...

CLARK: Are we really, Paul? Do you have--yeah, go ahead, Craig.

Mr. SILVERMAN: You have to ask yourself this question: Why would the family--the immediate family of this beautiful little girl lie about anything to the police? They're not going to do it.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Well, but it--to protect your son. It's the living son. They've lost a daughter. This is the living son.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Protect him from what? Has he been protected?

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Protect him from the horrible ordeal of being questioned by the police...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, h--he's already been questioned.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: ...about the death of his--about the death--about the death of his sister.

Mr. SILVERMAN: At the time it--at the time this was first said, it was a kidnapping, and maybe the son had some clues. If the parents said, 'No, he didn't witness anything'...

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Well, they thought they'd question him--they thought they'd question him and see if he had some clues.

Mr. SILVERMAN: No, they s...

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Now I do admit the other fact is significant that friends--friends and neighbors are now suspicious.

CLARK: Wait, hang--hang on for a second, Paul. Hang onto the other fact.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Yeah. Yeah.

CLARK: Howard, you're shaking your head. Why?

Mr. PRICE: Well, I--well, I--I--I--Mr. Silverman knows this case 'cause he's monitoring. Maybe he can address the point a little bit further. Why is this just now coming to light?

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, because some things don't leak that fast. But beware of the false clue. According to the story, Patsy Ramsey unintentionally left the phone off the hook. If they shift blame toward Burke, Burke was one month shy of his 10th birthday. That's the age of culpability in Colorado, and he could not be charged with a doggone thing.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Oh, this is bizarre. This is bizarre...

CLARK: Really.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, I'm telling you that...




Page 21 of transcript:

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: ...to--to--that they're planting clues to implicate their own son...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Professor Rothstein--no, no.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: ...planting clues to implicate their own son, that's bizarre.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Professor Rothstein, whoever committed...

CLARK: Not to mention, Craig--let--let me ask you mo...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Whoever committed this crime staged the scene. Gregg McCrary and others have told you that. They are leaving false clues to hide who the killer is.

CLARK: Well, sure, like the ransom note.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Right, exactly.

CLARK: The ransom note, I--I can definitely see that as a false clue that's being left, but nevertheless...

Mr. SILVERMAN: I'm not saying--I'm not saying this is a false clue.

CLARK: Wait a minute. Are you trying to say that a 10-year-old child would've been capable--physically capable of constructing the kind of torqu--torquing device...

Mr. SILVERMAN: No way.

CLARK: ...that was used to kill...

Mr. SILVERMAN: No way am I...

CLARK: ...to strangle JonBenet and is capable of inflicting the kind of damage...

Mr. SILVERMAN: No...

CLARK: ...to her skull the way it was fractured?

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, th--is the--the first...

CLARK: You're telling me that a 10-year-old boy could do that?

Mr. SILVERMAN: I don't think so. I don't think he could do the garroting. He certainly could not write the ransom note. But it--to the extent--we have seen--we have se...

CLARK: Well, no, I mean, theoret--if you--if we accept your theory--if we accept your theory that they're trying to protect their son, then they would've written the ransom note to deflect, I suppose, the blame, but...

Mr. SILVERMAN: I'm saying just--I'm not saying it--I'm not saying...

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: There are things that point--there are things that point to the parents here. There are things that point to the parents, but this ain't one of them. I mean, this is stringing--yeah.

Mr. SILVERMAN: I'm not saying--I'm not saying...




Page 22 of transcript:

CLARK: Oh, you don't think it do--Paul, don't you think it--as--as Howard points out...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Oh, come on.

CLARK: ...don't you think it takes it out of the realm of being an intruder at all? I think it
confines it...

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: No.

CLARK: ...more than likely to the people inside that house.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: Oh, listen. I think if something horrible like that happened in my house and I had a little child, a 10-year-old, I--I might not want to expose them to the full glare of publicity...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well...

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: ...and have--and--and have the police questioning the guy. That's a traumatic experience about death of his sister.

CLARK: Well, Howard, what do you think of that?

Mr. PRICE: Well, I--I--I...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Wouldn't you want the truth to get out?

CLARK: Howard...

Mr. PRICE: Listen, I haven't heard the--I haven't heard the tape, but it seems to me you wouldn't have expressed the professor's sentiments in the way that we're told that these sentiments are being expressed.

CLARK: Mm-hmm.

Mr. PRICE: It just sounds to me to be very incriminating evidence. Seems to me that had they had this evidence, which I assume that they might have--and I have some doubt about this evidence to start with. But putting that aside...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Why?

Mr. PRICE: ...I can't believe--I can't believe that this has not been acted upon by the
authorities a long time ago.

CLARK: Well, at least it--it almost sounds to me like it becomes a fileable case with this if the tone of voice is being accurately depicted.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, who do you f--who do you file against, Marcia? Which Ramsey? Which Ramsey did what?

CLARK: Well, I c--oh, I don't know about--see, I don't know about Denver, I don't know about Colorado...

Mr. SILVERMAN: See, it--it...

CLARK: ...but I know in California you can charge them both and let the jury sort it out.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, let me--in Colorado there's a big difference between being an accomplice and being an accessory. And that's what the prosecution's probably figuring...




Page 23 of transcript:

CLARK: You can't charge them both with both crimes and let the jury sort it out? You can here.

Prof. ROTHSTEIN: It's...

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, if you don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it's a heck of a thing to charge somebody with first-degree murder.

CLARK: Oh, we gotta go, Craig. Sorry to cut you off. Thanks, everybody, for being our guests. Brian Williams up next

Print this item

  Cheryl Meyers Hungry Toad assault
Posted by: jameson245 - 09-11-2020, 02:50 PM - Forum: Michael Tracey - Replies (6)

The Hungry Toad
When CU Professor Michael Tracey isn't lecturing his students on journalism ethics or pounding pints at his off-campus office, he's hunting for JonBenét's killer—turning up the likes of John Mark Karr to feed his obsession.
BY CHERYL MEYERS •  JANUARY 1, 2007

It’s 7 p.m. on a school night and professor Michael Tracey is tipsy again. Leaning over the table, his face red from the alcohol or the conversation, or more likely from both, he launches into a monologue about his favorite topic: JonBenét Ramsey.

It was 10 years ago this December that the 6-year-old beauty queen was brutally murdered inside her family’s Boulder home and the three-ring circus surrounding the tragedy began. And throughout it all, it has been Tracey, a University of Colorado journalism professor, who has served as the controversial ringleader. Stepping into the macabre spotlight, he’s built a career and gained international fame and infamy.

For his contributions to the unsolved homicide, Tracey has been exalted and eviscerated, especially in the last few months—Tracey is the one who cultivated the “confession” of the enigmatic bust of a suspect that was John Mark Karr. Local and national media pundits like Denver radio talk-show host Peter Boyles once again took to calling the professor an opportunist, claiming he has perpetuated the JonBenét mystery for his own benefit. Others, like Paul Voakes, the dean of CU’s journalism school, defended Tracey as an altruistic investigator.


On this late autumn night, I’m with Tracey at the Hungry Toad, north Boulder’s British bar. It’s where the 58-year-old has been drinking for nearly 20 years, since he emigrated with his family from England. Tracey calls the Toad his “downtown office;” he’s famous campuswide for being the professor who holds office hours at a bar. Most Tuesday and Thursday nights you’ll find him here, throwing back pints and solving the world’s problems with a revolving posse of admiring students, armchair scholars, Ramsey aficionados, and drunks.



Tonight, he’s surrounded by the few people he believes he can trust: his 23-year-old son, the eldest of three children from his first marriage; Tracey’s longtime pal Paul Christman, who’s written a play about JonBenét’s murder; and his girlfriend, Jen Davis, who, since Tracey dragged Karr from obscurity, has acted as her boyfriend’s publicist. Tracey asked me to join them at the Toad for what he described as a secret meeting. “I’ve got interesting information about Karr in Thailand,” he had called to tell me. “But we can’t talk about it on the phone. Meet me at the Toad.”



So far, Tracey’s already polished off three pints of Fuller’s and his accent has grown stronger, his voice louder. His son, who until now has been busy text messaging, attempts to lighten the mood: “You’ve probably noticed my dad gets passionate about stuff. You should see him when he can’t get the remote control to work.” The table erupts into laughter. Tracey smiles coyly at me, as if to convey, See what I have to deal with? Then he motions to the waitress for another beer.


A couple of weeks earlier, in his campus office, Tracey’s emotional wheels are spinning from the Karr debacle; the professor is feverishly recounting his career highlights from the past 10 years—sounding like a man desperately trying to justify himself. Around him, the four walls of his office are covered with floor-to-ceiling bookshelves swelling with the papers and books he’s stockpiled during his tenure as a professor. One entire shelf is dedicated to the books and articles he’s written. Lately he’s been working on his ninth book—this one about JonBenét. The manuscript was 50,000 words at last count, only a third finished, yet he says he’s already got an agent trying to sell it.

Print this item

  MT's essay
Posted by: jameson245 - 09-11-2020, 11:53 AM - Forum: Michael Tracey - Replies (37)

Prologue - 

In late 2006 Professor Michael Murray, of the University of Illinois, asked me to contribute a chapter for a book he is editing on crime and the media. It would be an account of a curious, singular event I happened to get caught up in, an event that in a sense began in 1997, but took an unfortunate turn in 2006. Writing it, he suggested, might even be therapeutic. He was correct. But as I started to write it almost inevitably grew, moving in various directions, as the narrative which I initially wrote raised questions that begged explanation.

The account of the “event” is told in narrative form. The essay then shifts direction, to engage what is to this mind’s eye, more substantive issues that not only do I want to raise but which I take be of considerably greater importance than the dark dance that occupied my life for a miserable, harmful year, indeed ten years. Inevitably, then, the style changes, or evolves, from a narrative of unfolding events to an examination of larger social and cultural issues, reflecting my long held belief that the only reason to examine, pick apart, the particular is better to understand the general. Blake put it best in his admonition : “..to see the world in a grain of sand, to hold infinity in the palm of your hand.” In this case the particular was the murder, on Christmas night 1996, of JonBenet Ramsey and the August 2006 arrest of a person claiming to have killed her “accidentally.” The general is the meaning of the national, indeed global, reaction to these two events.


This was not, however, an act of scholarly whimsy, of knowingly using an account of dreadful tragedy as a tool to go where I “really” wanted to go. It was, in truth, a deeply personal experience out of which, by happenstance, I was able to think through other questions which I have long pondered and never quite resolved, issues of the nature of our culture, a condition defined not just by the stuff of its content, or of how it comes to be what it is, but also by what one might call its mood, its psychology and morality, its texture if you will. Perhaps, within all of this, what I really wanted to get to grips with was something I have long detected, and been massively disappointed by, the sense that there is within the public mind and heart, within the societal corpus, an anger that seeks the balm of calm through occasional explosive, emotional fury, a fury which is, by the way, ever so open to manipulation – as we have seen of late.

The need to engage with these questions of the condition of American culture and the role of the media in defining that condition comes naturally. I am at one level simply intellectually curious about the world around me, always have been, and for that I make no apology. There was, however, I understand and will admit, another purpose , another need to know the forces forming and, to my way of thinking, distorting, this society, drawn from the well of my childhood.

Print this item

  details in porn group did it theory
Posted by: jameson245 - 09-10-2020, 10:37 AM - Forum: Absolutely insane posts - mostly by BORG - No Replies

https://strangerinajewishworld.blogspot....-as-i.html

Tuesday, August 18, 2020

Evidence surrounding the JonBenet Ramsey murder:
As I said in a previous post, the JonBenet Ramsey murder happened under one set of circumstances at the Fleet Russell White Sr. Mansion in Boulder CO area and then the dead body was moved to the John and Patsy Ramsey residence and a fake crime scene was staged there as part of a cover up to hide the truth.  With a fake staged crime scene comes fake staged evidence. With a cover up that involves officials of the Boulder CO Police Department and others comes disinformation that is released to the public as fact.  A lot of the so called evidence that people discuss when trying to solve this case are red herrings meant to purposely prevent people from seeing the truth. Some of the clues or evidence in this case are genuine. In this post I want to discuss the evidence surrounding the murder and distinguish truthful evidence from staged evidence and disinformation.
911 call made by Patsy Ramsey on the morning of 12-26-1996: This was not a spontaneous call made by Patsy Ramsey upon the discovery that her daughter was missing as purported.  Instead it was part of the cover up to support a false time line of events.  
The ransom note:  The Ransom note was false evidence meant to deceive as part of the cover up. John Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey and others contributed ideas for the content of the ransom note. It is very likely that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note but she did not write it alone. Other people including John Ramsey helped her write the ransom note. No fingerprints were found on the ransom note meaning someone else besides Patsy handled the ransom note after it was written. The $118,000.00 amount asked for in the ransom note was deception.  This was not a realistic number to ask for in a ransom note and also it was the very same amount as John's bonus.  This was a staged deception to deceive people.  The ransom note and this phony amount used in it were completely false and had nothing at all to do with the murder.  Choosing that amount was a deliberate attempt to point to John Ramsey or someone associated with his job as being the killer and away from the truth.

Evidence of over sized adult panties found on the body:  False evidence meant to deceive and obfuscate the truth. The adult panties were put onto the body as part of the staged crime scene at the Ramsey house. 

Evidence of the body being wiped down:  This was done to conceal the truth.  All evidence that could be removed from her body that would point to the truth was removed as much as possible.  It is very understandable why they would do this.  

Evidence of Double Strangulation:  True.  JonBenet Ramsey was strangled to death once at the Fleet Russell White Sr. Mansion.  She was strangled a second time at the Ramsey home as part of the staged crime scene. 

Evidence of Blood on the pillow case and pink gown:  Regarding the blood on the pillowcase, its possible that JonBenet's already dead body was placed in her bed initially as the conspirators tried to decide what to do.  If that happened then it is very possible that blood leaked from her dead body onto the pillowcase.  Regarding the blood on the pink nightgown, its possible that JonBenet was dressed in the pink nightgown after she was already dead and that blood leaked from her dead body onto the pink nightgown. JonBenet was not wearing a night gown or any other clothing at the time of her murder so if blood got on the gown its because the gown was put on her after her death.

Evidence of the wiped down flashlight placed in plain sight in the kitchen:  A false clue to give the impression to the police of an intruder breaking into the Ramsey home.  It was wiped down because someone outside of the family placed the flashlight there as part of the cover up. Even the batteries inside this flashlight were wiped down indicating that someone outside the family had set up the flashlight as false evidence.

Evidence of Foreign DNA found on the body which did not belong to any member of the family:  True.  One or more people outside of the Ramsey family were involved in her death and this DNA undoubtedly belongs to them.

Stun gun marks found on the corpse of JonBenet:  I believe that a stun gun was being used on JonBenet before her death to control her and to punish her when she disobeyed commands given to her by her father and others.  These stun gun marks were in places on JonBenet's body where they would not be easily seen by others.  As for the big stun gun marks found on her neck, its possible these were made while she was being abused at the sex party.  Its also possible that the big stun gun marks on her neck were made after she was already dead to support a fake crime scene scenario of an unknown intruder using a stun gun on JonBenet. 

Evidence of the Broken glass in the basement window:  False evidence to point to an intruder breaking into the Ramsey home.  John Ramsey or somebody else broke the window after the murder as part of the staged crime scene.  

Evidence of the suitcase found beneath the broken basement window containing a blanket and a Dr. Suess book:  When analyzed the blanket contained semen from JAR.  False planted evidence to conceal the truth and to lead to the notion that JAR was sexually abusing JonBenet and was responsible for the murder.  This was entirely staged evidence.  It was a red herring to point to JAR.  

Evidence of the rope found inside the sack in JAR's bedroom:  False planted evidence or disinformation to point to JAR as being involved in a kidnapping of JBR. Like the semen on the blanket inside the suitcase, this rope in the sack was staged evidence and a red herring to point to JAR.  

Evidence of the Pineapple being found in JonBenet's small intestine:  Could be true or could be false. If true, then JBR ate the pineapple during the Christmas party at the Fleet White Sr. residence. However, as part of the staged crime scene at the Ramsey house a glass bowl full of pineapple was placed on the kitchen table to give the false impression that JBR ate the pineapple inside the Ramsey home. This was to support a false timeline as part of the cover up. 

Evidence of Duct tape over JBR's mouth:  Either staged evidence or disinformation to point to the notion that JBR was being kidnapped by an intruder. Duct tape was never over her mouth while she was alive.  If duct tape was ever placed over her mouth then it happened after she was dead as part of the staging of the body.

Evidence of no footprints in the snow around the Ramsey house on the morning of 12-26: 100% Disinformation to give the impression that everything happened inside the Ramsey home and nobody from outside the home came into the Ramsey home.  In reality MANY people went into the Ramsey home after the murder to stage the false crime scene, etc. 

Print this item

  Family tree
Posted by: jameson245 - 09-10-2020, 10:04 AM - Forum: Nancy Krebs - No Replies

https://web.archive.org/web/20021212174745/holoworld.com/ramseyreports/FamilyTree.jpg
Nancy Jo Krebs, AKA Mystery Woman, the woman who exposed the truth about the JonBenet Ramsey murder. Born April 25, 1962. Residences: Shasta Lake, CA.  Pismo Beach, CA.  Los Osos, CA.  Hereford, AZ. Bisbee, AZ.  Bakersfield, CA. Santa Maria, CA.  Tucson, AZ. Reported in 1991 that she had been raped by Macky Boykin.
Fleet Russell White Sr, AKA White Fleet. Born March 20, 1913. Mother's maiden name Townsend.  Godfather of Nancy Kreb's mother.  Died August 6, 2006.  Wife Nyla M. White Age 97. Residences: Aspen, COCosta Mesa, CA. Irvine, CA Santa Ana, CA, New Orleans, LA.  Indio, CA. Strongly suspected of being a high level Freemason.
Alyce HoltzFleet Russell White Sr's first wife.  Maiden name Baerthlein
Nyla M. White, AKA Myla M. White. AKA Nyla F. White. Born June 8, 1923. Second wife of Fleet Russell White Sr. Mother of Fleet Russell White Jr. Age 97. Residences: Aspen, CO. Glenwood Springs, CO.  Costa Mesa, CA.  Tustin, CA. 
Fleet Russell White Jr., AKA Fleet P. White. AKA Fleet Priscilla B. White. AKA White Fleet Age 71. Born May 19, 1949. Son of Nyla M. White. Lives in Boulder, CO. Children:  David White 49, Daphne White, 30, Lisa White 52   Residences:  Boulder, CO.  Superior CO. Jacksonville, FL.  Newport Beach, CA.  Irvine, CA.
Priscilla B. Brown, Wife of Fleet Russell White Jr.
Gordon W. Christoff, Nancy Krebs' Grandfather, Born Feb 08 1911, Mother Nee Clifford, Died Feb 08, 1966 in L.A. CA, Close friend of Fleet Russell White Sr. from school. According to Nancy Krebs, it was Gordon Christoff and Fleet White Sr. who were the first ones to sexually abuse her together when Nancy Krebs was three years old, which would be 1965 or 1966. She says the two men were together when they sexually abused her. 
Alyce Christoff Sprague, Nancy Krebs' Grandmother and Wife of Gordon Christoff, Born July 13, 1912, Lived in San Luis Obispo, CA, 1st marriage to Gordon Christoff, 2nd marriage to Albert Sprague,  Friend of Fleet Russell White Sr from school.
Gordon and Alyce Christoff lived in Hawaii for a year along with Fleet Russell White Sr and his wife before Gwen was born.
Albert Hedding Sprague, Second husband to Alyce Christoff. Born August 2, 1910. Died 1991 at 80 years.  Led a very Machiavellian existence. He took a job in early 1936 building roads in North Africa and was recruited by the OSS (Office of Strategic Services). Worked in Army Intelligence until the end of WW2, then stayed in North Africa for another year (1946) building roads for the Army Corp of Engineers.  Father of Tal Jones.
Tal Jones, AKA Spade. Fleet Russell White Jr's half brother. Biological son of Fleet Russell White Sr. 
Clifford D. Christoff AKA "Chris", Son of Gordon Christoff, Born August 24, 1947, Brother of Gwen, Kern County, California Sheriff (1986-2007), Wife Betty, Good friend of Fleet Russell White Jr. 
https://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/2012/kern-county-pension/clifford-christoff/
It is of significance that Kern Country where this man was Deputy Sheriff is right next to San Luis Obispo County.  
Gwen Louise Christoff Krebs Boykin, Daughter of Gordon and Alyce. Born May 3, 1942. Nancy Kreb's mother.  Fleet Russell White Sr's God daughter. Married first to Don Krebs.  Married second to Thomas Boykin.

Don H. Krebs, AKA Don Dallas Krebs, father of Nancy Krebs. First husband of Gwen Christoff. Son of Harold Krebs. Residences: Shasta Lake, CA.  Cambridge, MA.  Shasta, CA.  Redding, CA.  Bella Vista, CA. Pismo Beach, CA.  Nipomo, CA. Currently resides in MO.  Currently age 79.

Douglas Lee Krebs, Brother of Don Krebs, Uncle to Nancy Krebs, Currently age 82, Residences: Riverside, CA.  Los Osos, CA.  Moreno Valley, CA.  Cochise, AZ.  Trinidad, CA. Sierra Vista, AZ.

Thomas Alvin Boykin, Born Aug 28, 1938 Second husband of Gwen Christoff, Stepfather of Nancy Krebs.  Died Feb 9, 2002.

Macky Boykin, Brother of Thomas Boykin, Born 1933 in Oklahoma, Mother's maiden name Phillips. Step-Uncle of Nancy Krebs. Alleged to be a former U.S. Navy officer. Residences: Trona, CA. near the China Lake Naval Weapons Center. Convicted of raping Nancy Krebs on 11-9-1995 in Kern County, CA. Died November, 1996. A Deeper Look into Boykin.

Lewis Wayne Boykin Sr., Brother of Thomas and Macky. Born 1936. Died 2003.

Rex Krebs, San Luis Obispo killer/rapist, Born Jan 28, 1966
https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/crime/article229321569.html

[Image: Rex%2BKrebs.jpg]



Posted by No long

Print this item

  Sept 1997 - Michael Tracey's entrance
Posted by: jameson245 - 09-09-2020, 03:01 PM - Forum: 1997 - 1998 - No Replies

The following article was written in September, 1997 for a Sunday Edition of the Daily Camera.  This led to Patsy Ramsey approaching MT.

______________________



The first finger of blame was pointed at the paparazzi. But it didn’t take much reflection to understand that these young men – it is a male sport – scummish and ruthless though they may be, were low down the food chain. There were the agencies that bought their photos, the papers, magazines and TV programmes to whom they were sold. And there was us, the reader, the viewer, the merely curious, the ogler, the voyeur, the fantasist who perhaps compensated for a drab life by borrowing something, God knows what, from the images of the famously glamorous. More than once we have heard that her death is “like a Greek tragedy,” the essence of which is that it speaks to a larger truth, in this case the despoiling of public and private life by media and their consumers obsessed with the flashy and the trivial and the seedy. But we did not need a car crash to tell us this. The truth of what we have become as a media saturated culture was already right before our eyes.

Three days before Diana’s death I had given the latest of a number of interviews about the media coverage of the Ramsey case. This was to MSNBC, but there had been others with local stations, talk radio and local press. It occurred to me that I had never actually put pen to paper about this. Twenty-four hours before she died, here is what I wrote about a child and her murder and the way we have dealt with it.

There is a line in a James Woods movie which keeps sloshing around my mind. Woods is playing the lawyer, Danny Davis, who defended the McMartins, the owners of a day care center in Los Angeles who were accused in 1983 of appalling sexual crimes against children. Davis is toying with the idea of defending the McMartins. His wife is trying to dissuade him along the lines of “how can you even think of defending those scumbags after what they did to those children…” Because they have a Constitutional right to be defended, because that is what the rule of law is all about, he tries on her with growing exasperation. He pauses and finally screams, pointing to a TV picture of a baying mob calling for all kinds of horrors to be visited upon the hapless family, “how come everybody in America knows they’re guilty?” It was a good question, because not only could everyone not ‘know’ of their guilt, we now know, after one of the longest trials in American history that they were innocent. They were abused, wrongfully accused, their lives and careers destroyed but the hysterical mob, the avenging and vengeful prosecutors did not get their way.

I keep asking myself, “how come everybody ‘knows’ that John and Patsy Ramsey are guilty?” It’s a question that puzzles and troubles, hanging there like a gargoyle with a grotesque and taunting grin. I’ve tried it in the office, in my favorite bar, with friends and family.

Almost everyone is so sure. Everybody seems to “know” they’re guilty, rather in the way in which everyone “knew” that the McMartins were guilty and every white jury in Mississippi “knows” that that black boy standing before them is guilty. But on what basis? Surely not from the available evidence, which circumstantially might provide grounds for wondering but not the Salem-like damnation which has been heaped upon them.

I cannot bring myself to be so sure. I remember too well the atmosphere in Britain in the 1970s in the wake of a series of pub bombs by the IRA how many Irish men and women were captured, prosecuted, found guilty and placed in prison for lengthy spells. I remember how we all, in the community, ‘knew’ they were guilty. Problem was they weren’t, they were merely ruined.

We are so ready to judge, to damn, to seek revenge, to leap to judgments that lie well beyond an evidential base. But the Ramsey case throws up so many troubling aspects of the society.

Further evidence of the corruption of journalistic values. Of the fact that where there had once been clear water between mainstream values and those of the tabloids, there was now little or none. Of the voyeuristic, manipulative, trashy, exploitative character of the coverage. Of the fact that an increasing habit of our culture is to salivate at the violent, to take private tragedy and use it as public spectacle for the crude and boorish end of boosting circulation and ratings. Sad that it has come to this.

Further evidence of the corruption of the rule of law, of the undermining of the judicial process as it becomes a department in the gargantuan, all consuming entertainment industry. The pressure to get more and more evidence released, including the autopsy report, may have been rhetorically underpinned by something called “the public’s right to know” but was too often a cynical exercise in keeping the story alive, to feed the public appetite for more morsels from a child’s death. And hardly anywhere did the media allow for the presumption of innocence, rather preferring to suck as much marrow as possible from the presumption of guilt. The Ramsey case, through the way in which it has been covered, and the way in which we have devoured that coverage, is insight to a culture which seems far more willing to attend to the minutiae of shameful murder than it is to issues of greater import to the successful functioning of the society. A society which seems to find in the murder of a child, as a leading local columnist put it, “entertainment,” a curious kind of pleasure in another’s pain. So sad that it has come to this.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the Ramsey case is that it is as if an awful lot of people want them to be guilty. The question is, why? It’s an interesting question and I have only speculations in the way of answer. Perhaps they have been told so often through the media – implicitly and explicitly – that that is where the guilt resides. Perhaps they want closure. There may also be the circumstantial evidence, though that should stimulate a modicum of suspicion, not conclusion. It may have something to do with a sentiment among a good number of American women that all men are sexual predators from whom no female, including their daughters, are safe. That has very much been the gist of the coverage in the tabloids, whose biggest audience is by far women.
Whatever the reason and whoever hopefully is brought to justice what I do know is that when someone squeezed the life from that child they robbed her of all that she might have been. But every time we use JonBenet’s story, flaunt her picture, pick up a tabloid because she is on the cover, gawk at the television as the latest twist or turn in the story is rendered in breathless, shocked tones, dripping with false pity and concern, each and every time we do these things we feed the pockets of an industry that cares for nothing other than its share or its circulation. Each and every time we rob the soul of a small child resting in the warm rich soil of Georgia.

Print this item

  Typical BORG twist
Posted by: jameson245 - 09-06-2020, 12:02 PM - Forum: BORG theories and BORG people of note - No Replies

          PR: I was fussing around with  some clothes and glanced at her door and the door was closed. I always left it ajar a little bit. I just started downstairs -  there were these pieces of paper lying on one  of the rungs of the stairs. So I kind of turned around and  looked at it to see what it was and I started reading the first couple  lines. It just kinda wasn't registering but somewhere it said, 'we have your daughter. It clicked, you know, 'Your Daughter' and I just bounded back up the steps and threw her door open and  she was not in her bed.

BORG sees this as a lie told by Patsy - - the door was closed - - I always left it ajar a bit.    I look at this as Patsy saying the door wasn't wide open, it was close to closed, as she typically left it.  Nothing looked wrong, it was not something "off" or "odd"   But BORG said the door was completely shut and if Patsy wasn't involved in the crime she would have been freaked out then.  

BORG just went after everything the Ramseys did.

Print this item

  The Jaguar was not searched
Posted by: jameson245 - 09-04-2020, 01:37 PM - Forum: Police errors - No Replies

The Ramseys owned a jaguar.  It was in the garage when they left on December 26th and remained there until mid-March of 1997.  At that point, a family friend took it and used it for a matter of months.  At one point, she cleaned it out and was surprised to find a FAX of at least a dozen pages in the glove compartment.  The FAX was from the summer of 1996 and it listed bonuses awarded to CEO's of many companies - - including Access Graphics.
The point is, anyone creeping around the Ramsey property could have seen that FAX - - but it is much more likely the FAX had been sent out to others on that list as well as John.  John's bonus was NOT a well-kept secret.  

Another situation that shows that the search was either incomplete - - or biased.  The BORG would not have wanted to deal with that document.  That would have meant an intruder COULD have found the number....  but I think it would be ignored more because the BPD didn't want the task of following up on everyone who received the information. 

(filed under $118,000)

Print this item