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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 34
» Latest member: Cocobabka
» Forum threads: 773
» Forum posts: 2,087

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 25 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 25 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
NETFLIX DATE
Forum: What is in the news - staying up to date
Last Post: jameson245
5 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 111
The author has a past
Forum: The Coldest Case: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey
Last Post: jameson245
Yesterday, 04:52 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 30
Ollie Gray - RIP
Forum: What is in the news - staying up to date
Last Post: jameson245
04-21-2017, 07:02 PM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 158
The small hidden room
Forum: Disproving Myths
Last Post: Dave
04-20-2017, 12:13 PM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 212
The autopsy
Forum: Autopsy
Last Post: Dave
04-20-2017, 12:10 PM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 371
message from Jan
Forum: GO FUND ME - a way anyone can help
Last Post: jameson245
04-20-2017, 08:59 AM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 532
Other ways to get in or o...
Forum: Broken window/ Spider web
Last Post: Summer Dawn
04-20-2017, 07:43 AM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 280
Burke Ramsey OWN WORDS ! ...
Forum: 911 call
Last Post: Summer Dawn
04-20-2017, 07:34 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 69
Charlie Brennan/ Kevin Va...
Forum: DNA - Touch DNA on long johns
Last Post: Dave
04-19-2017, 12:28 PM
» Replies: 22
» Views: 81
DNA Test from CBS Special
Forum: DNA found in panties
Last Post: jameson245
04-18-2017, 08:46 PM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 209

 
  The author has a past
Posted by: jameson245 - Yesterday, 04:52 PM - Forum: The Coldest Case: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey - No Replies

Kerns resigns from Legislature

Published: February 19, 2004

[Image: a8c46fbad5b869fd8c53213d16b9671b-f4c1838...8571428571]

CONCORD (AP) - A 23-year-old state representative who faced possible expulsion from the Legislature resigned Thursday rather than defend himself against charges he abused his office. Bedford Rep. John Kerns submitted a two-sentence letter that was read on the House floor and was met by applause. "I'm very sad to leave the House. I really feel that I belong there," Kerns said afterward.

Kerns faced three ethics charges against him: passing a bad check with "State of New Hampshire" written on it; using his title to get a parking spot reserved for school officials; and threatening them when told to stop parking there.

He also faced four criminal charges of passing bad checks.

"It was a good resolution to a tough situation for everyone involved," said House Speaker Gene Chandler. "I think it was in his best interest, certainly. It was the first admission he needs to look at his situation."

Kerns claimed he has a medical condition that caused his behavior, but never provided documentation to prove it.

The legislative Ethics Committee voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend that the House expel him. The House scheduled a vote on the recommendation March 13. If the House had agreed, Kerns would have been the first representative to be expelled since 1913.

Committee members said Kerns' refusal to take responsibility for his actions weighed heavily in their decision. They noted in their report to legislative leaders that he had demonstrated no remorse for his inappropriate conduct, failed to acknowledge that his acts reflected negatively on the Legislature and provided no assurance he would refrain from the behavior in the future.


Kerns had asked a judge last week to suspend the proceedings. He repeatedly has said he is undergoing treatment for a serious neurological illness. He also said he would ask the Legislature for an indefinite leave of absence, but did not follow through.

The committee tried to resolve the issue informally with Kerns, but Kerns did not show up at any committee meetings or at last week's hearing into the charges against him. In its report, the committee acknowledged the seriousness of the situation. "Removal from an elected position is a punishment to be administered only in the most egregious circumstances," the committee said. "Indeed, no one has been removed in such a manner from the New Hampshire House since 1913. But, the conduct of Representative Kerns warrants such an action, not simply because he has abused the trust placed in him by the public, but because he apparently believes that he is entitled to engage in such misconduct."

Clifford Snow of Manchester was the last lawmaker expelled from the House. He was charged with taking bribes in exchange for votes. In 1998, the House voted to censure Rep. Roland Hemon, a Democrat from Dover, for repeatedly filing legislation to impeach the judge that handled his mother's probate case.

Kerns, a University of New Hampshire student, also faces criminal charges of passing four bad checks in Dover. If convicted, he faces up to four years in prison.
This article appears in the April 14 2017 issue of New Hampshire Business Review



And from a google listing...  

hampshire state representative John Kerns (r-new Bedford) was accused of ethics violations in 2004 for bouncing bad checks and threatening a business owner if the man complained. the twenty-three-yearold Kerns also bounced a $3,995 .



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

This was brought to my attention and i feel I need to address it here.

I bought the book, told Johnny he had a lot of mistakes and privately helped him with corrections.  Glad another NON-BORG book was out there but was not impressed by his knowledge or research skills.  I think I worded my posts on his thread pretty carefully.  But I did NOT investigate his past and am sorry now I did not.

He wanted me to send him a lot of my files, Lou's stuff, photos, other things.  I did not.  Later he snarked at me and asked who did I think I was denying him, an EXPERT, access to my files.  I laughed and asked what he was an expert in because it sure isn't Ramsey.  He posted misleading information on this site and I did the rest of the research and filled his thread on John San Agustin.  He decided to leave the site and I was glad as I deleted his membership.

I don't care if he is BORG or IDI - I will not pretend to support him or his research or his claims to evidence I know he does not have.

I will also tell you I have yet to receive the second, UPDATED (fixed) book.  That being the case, I wouldn't trust him to send a copy to anyone and I apologize to those who trusted him and now feel ripped off.

Print this item

  Why Hunter did not go forward
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-17-2017, 12:38 PM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - No Replies

"I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time," Hunter told the reporters assembled outside the Boulder County Justice Center on Oct. 13, 1999.



The bottom line is that the grand jury was shown evidence over the course of many months - - more than a year.  (90-99% of what they were shown or told was BORG.    Questions were put to witnesses in any way the BORG persecutors wanted - spinning allowed for sure.  Witnesses bringing in evidence of an intruder (and that would be Lou Smit who FORCED his way in by going to the courts) were treated with clear disrespect.  
There is a saying a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich - - and in this case they proved the saying to be true.  They indicted people who they were  - - - coerced into indicting for SOMETHING!

But the job of the District Attorney is to watch over this proceedings and know "the rest of the story" - - and to follow up ONLY on a case he believes he can win.

For example, the "evidence", theory, opinion, brain fart of one Donald Foster could have been presented as good evidence from a respectable EXPERT.  (He didn't appear in person but his information may have been.)  But the DA knew "the rest of the story".  Hunter knew Foster had written a letter to the Ramseys saying he knew they were innocent - would stake his reputation on it.  Hunter knew that Foster had identified another person as the killer - - he had a file an inch think on the "work" of Donald Foster.

He knew the man touted as the "key witness" was not a good witness, would be discredited immediately had he been brought in to a real trial.

Hunter also knew that the suspects WANTED to be called in to speak to the grand jury - - and were denied.

Hunter was not working in a vacuum - - he had a panel of advisers who gave him a list of the clear problems he would face if there was an arrest made based on what was shared in that grand jury room.  

HUNTER would have looked the fool and there would NOT be any conviction based on those problems.

Hunter made the right decision and refused to move forward with the prosecution of people who were the targets of a witch hunt and not guilty parties based on the evidence.

Print this item

  1/28/2013 - jurors talking
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-17-2017, 12:25 PM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - No Replies

JonBenet Ramsey grand jury voted to indict parents in 1999, but DA refused to prosecute
By Charlie Brennan
Posted: 01/28/13, 12:01 AM EST

On a brilliantly clear autumn day more than 13 years ago, Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter stepped to the podium before an anxious media horde to announce that the grand jury investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey had come to an end.

"I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time," Hunter told the reporters assembled outside the Boulder County Justice Center on Oct. 13, 1999.

Yet multiple sources, including members of the grand jury, have now confirmed to the Daily Camera what Hunter did not say that day: The grand jury voted to indict both John and Patsy Ramsey on charges of child abuse resulting in death in connection with the events of Christmas night 1996 -- but Hunter refused to sign the indictment, believing he could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

One legal expert, however, believes Colorado law may have obligated Hunter to at least sign the indictment, even if he elected not to prosecute the case.

Advertisement

"We didn't know who did what," one juror told the Camera, "but we felt the adults in the house may have done something that they certainly could have prevented, or they could have helped her, and they didn't."

Boulder attorney Bryan Morgan, who represented John Ramsey through the conclusion of the grand jury process, said Saturday, "If what you report actually happened, then there were some very professional and brave people in Alex's office and perhaps elsewhere whose discipline and training prevented a gross miscarriage of justice."

Former Boulder First Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise was among those confirming the jury's vote.

"It names both of them, John and Patsy Ramsey," said Wise, who was Hunter's top assistant for 28 years but did not participate in the grand jury process.

Child abuse resulting in death, when charged as "knowingly or recklessly," is a Class II felony that carries a potential sentence of four to 48 years in prison. The statute of limitations on that charge in Colorado is three years from the date of the crime.

Legal experts are unsure whether Hunter's decision not to sign the indictment agrees with Colorado grand jury law.

In an email, University of Colorado Law School professor Mimi Wesson, who has followed the Ramsey case over the years, wrote, "The Colorado statute governing grand jury practice says ... that '(e)very indictment shall be signed' by the foreman of the grand jury and the prosecuting attorney."

In the event that the grand jury voted to indict on charges that Hunter did not believe he could prove at trial, Wesson said it is her opinion that proper legal procedure would have been to sign the document, file it with the court and then move in open court to dismiss the charges.

"That would be the more transparent and responsible course, in my opinion," Wesson wrote.

Hunter, who left office in 2001 after 28 years as Boulder County's district attorney, declined to discuss the grand jury's actions, but he did issue the following statement last week via email:

"Colorado statutes, the ethical canons which govern the practice of law, and the Boulder District Court's oaths, instructions and orders in the JonBenet Ramsey grand jury proceedings, are well established and absolutely clear with respect to the various participants' legal obligations, duties and responsibilities, including the inviolate secrecy of the proceedings and the differing burdens of proof applicable to jurors and prosecutors.

"As the duly elected district attorney at the time and as an officer of the court then and now, I must respectfully decline further comment."

Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner also would not discuss the Ramsey grand jury.

"I'm sworn in, and I can't say anything about the grand jury," Beckner said. "I would be violating my oath of secrecy and I can't do that."

Denver criminal defense lawyer and legal analyst Dan Recht pointed out that the standard of proof for a grand jury to indict, which is probable cause, is a far lower threshold than what Hunter would have had to meet at trial.

"It couldn't be more different in a jury trial," Recht added. "So what Alex Hunter was thinking about was, 'But can I prove this beyond a reasonable doubt?' Because that's the burden that the prosecution has at a trial. So he seemingly decided, 'I am not going to be able to prove this child abuse resulting in death beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.'"

'Somebody did something pretty horrible'

Jurors confirming the vote to the Camera -- who agreed to talk only on the condition of anonymity -- nevertheless acknowledged continuing uncertainty about what really went on in the middle of the night in the house at what was then known as 755 15th St., and is now 749 15th St.

"It's still unresolved," one juror said. "Somebody did something pretty horrible that wasn't punished.

"I'm not saying that I am at peace. But I had sympathy with his (Hunter's) decision. I could see the problem that he was in. I could understand what he was doing."

The Ramseys and their now-adult son Burke were exonerated in the case in July 2008 by then-District Attorney Mary Lacy, based on updated analysis of DNA samples from JonBenet's clothing -- although numerous prosecutors labeled her doing so as both unusual and questionable.

Former Ramsey attorney Morgan, however, said, "In the intervening years, the techniques for retrieving and testing DNA improved to the point where it conclusively demonstrated the Ramseys' innocence. "

Still, one juror who spoke with the Camera expressed a feeling of still not being completely reconciled with Hunter's decision. But the juror added that, perceiving that it would be a difficult case to try, Hunter's declining to sign the indictment, also known as a true bill, was understandable.

And, the juror said, "I think I did believe that they would get more evidence and figure out who did it."

Another grand juror who confirmed the vote said, "I think I have conquered the feeling of any acute frustration.

"This is what we thought, and that's what you (the prosecutors) asked us for, and that's what we gave you, our opinion," the juror added. "That was our job, and the rest of the legal procedure, they just do with it what has to be done."

Several grand jurors declined to comment on their vote. One, in doing so, said, "Our job was to try to come up with, to help solve, this crime.

"It has not been solved yet, and we are still under oath to keep silent and I would like to honor that. And I still have all the hope that, in the coming years, this crime will be solved properly."

'Not enough evidence to file'

Because under Colorado law grand jury proceedings are secret, and those participating in the process are sworn to uphold that secrecy, few directly involved would discuss the case on the record. Several agreed to talk, although not all did so for attribution.

Wise did not participate directly in the grand jury proceedings. But he learned of the results after its conclusion, and he defends Hunter's decision not to press forward with a prosecution.

"I absolutely do" believe Hunter made the right decision, said Wise, who is now retired. "And I thought it was a pretty courageous decision, because I know about the public pressure that was being put on everybody who was involved -- but particularly the elected district attorney."

Bob Grant at that time was the district attorney for neighboring Adams County. Grant was among a small group of local prosecutors with whom Hunter met monthly. He used those colleagues as advisers throughout the case, which drew rapt attention from an international audience, spawned more than a dozen books and a television movie, and has ultimately proved to be one of the nation's most enduring criminal mysteries.

"It is a case that has stuck with me for decades now because no one has been held accountable for the murder of a young child," Grant said in a recent interview.

Grant would not confirm or deny the grand jury's actions, citing the secrecy rules.

However, Grant said, "Had there been a question of whether to sign a document or not, I would have been among those advising not to indict, because I did not believe there was a winnable case based on the evidence at that time."

Wise said that those advising Hunter were not all of one mind when the decision was made.

"I would say there was not unanimity, or a unanimous decision, by anyone," Wise said. "I know of at least one, and possibly two (prosecutors), who felt it should have been filed, period, end of discussion. And I know of at least two, if not more than two, probably four, that thought there was not enough evidence to file."

Juror: Process was 'traumatic'

The grand jury process is predicated on a veil of secrecy such that Hunter, in his news conference at its conclusion, said, "Under no circumstances will I or any of my advisers, prosecutors, the law enforcement officers working on this case or the grand jurors discuss grand jury proceedings today or ever, unless ordered by the court."

The grand jurors who have nevertheless now spoken about their Ramsey experience take pride in their service to the judicial system.

"I actually believe that I did a good job with being able to pay attention to the actual evidence that was said," one juror said of the grand jury experience. "I didn't go in there with my mind made up, one way or the other."

That juror talked about being bothered by seeing a disparity between what was presented as evidence and what was being reported outside the courthouse by insatiable media.

Jurors even in routine cases are typically cautioned to avoid media coverage, and the juror said that was the case for the Ramsey grand jury -- but only at first.

"At the beginning, they said, 'Don't look at the media.' But this was a year-and-a-half we were doing this, so some time not long after the beginning, they said, 'We really can't ask you not to look at the media. There is too much stuff going on.'"

And so, the juror said, "The instructions sort of changed to, 'What you need to pay attention to is what's said in this room. You've already seen how much out there is not true. Pay attention to what is said inside this room because this is evidence we can back up. And things that are said outside aren't that way.' They expected us to be grownups about it, if you will."

While speculation was rampant outside the Boulder County Justice Center about what might be going on in the grand jury room, for the eight women and four men deciding the case, the work was both sobering and draining.

"It was pretty traumatic," a juror said. "It was a horrible event, and to really have to delve into all of the evidence and know what happened and get details was difficult.

"The reality is it was a horrible thing, and I didn't have the luxury of picking and choosing what I would pay attention to. I needed to know what happened in every detail, so it was difficult. So many people had been traumatized by this, and hurt, and scared."

Another juror commented on fears that family members might "disown" the juror over that juror's refusal to discuss the ongoing work with relatives.

But that juror was honored to be part of the process.

"I thought, and believe, that they were presenting all of the relevant information we needed to make a decision like that, and that's all we did," said the juror.

As for Hunter's decision not to go forward with a prosecution, the juror said, "That's the way it goes. I don't have any thoughts on what should or should not have been done.

"That's why we, the people, put him there. Alex Hunter was, and is, a very, very intelligent person. It was interesting, and rewarding, being part of the legal justice system."

Wise, Hunter's former top assistant, defended the ultimate decision not to press forward, in part because prosecution would have been difficult with two defendants.

"When you have a true bill that says two people were involved, but it doesn't say what the involvement of the people was, all a good defense attorney has to do is to separate their trials ... and, all of a sudden, you've got nothing," Wise said.

"You're operating under the theory that two people might have been responsible for the death ... and when you separate them, you don't know which of the two people was responsible for what. And so I thought it was the right decision."

More recently, Boulder prosecutors were successful in prosecuting a high-profile child abuse resulting in death case; Alex and Molly Midyette, of Louisville, were indicted by a grand jury and tried in the death of their infant son Jason, who died in 2006. Both were convicted, although Alex Midyette was found guilty of the lesser charge of "criminally negligent" child abuse, which is a Class III felony.

Wise acknowledged that in Hunter's time in office, felony trials were not routinely pursued, and rarely did one go forward if the evidence was shaky.

"Absolutely," Wise said. "That is the way we operated in that office for years and years and years.

"We never steamrolled ahead on a case that has less than adequate evidence, to at least have a feeling that you can get a conviction. If that feeling didn't exist, we didn't file the case. We never steamrolled a case."

Ramsey case forever unresolved?

With Lacy's exoneration of the Ramseys and their son, Burke, in 2008, and the news now that a grand jury in 1999 determined that both parents should face charges, plus the false arrest in 2006 of a confessed intruder suspect, John Mark Karr, and death that same year of Patsy Ramsey, a key witness no matter who the defendant, a case that has seemed star-crossed from the first day might appear farther than ever from seeing a firm resolution.

Current Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett, upon taking office for his first term in January 2009, announced he was returning the Ramsey case -- which Lacy had taken over from the police department -- back to the police. And it is with the Boulder Police Department that the Ramsey case now resides.

"The Boulder police are in charge of the investigation, and if the state of the evidence changes to where charges can be filed consistent with Colorado ethical standards for prosecution, I will do so and will say whatever I have to say about this case on the record and in open court," Garnett said recently. "I will have no comment otherwise about the state of the evidence."

Referring to Lacy's exoneration of the Ramseys, Garnett said, "As I have said before, the exoneration speaks for itself. But all that matters to me as district attorney is the evidence, and where it leads. We'll follow the evidence wherever it leads us."

Wise and Grant both question the validity of Lacy's exoneration, and they say Garnett -- and his successors -- are not bound by it.

"It's more inappropriate than anything else," Grant said. "It's not a prosecutorial duty to exonerate people. It's a prosecutorial duty to seek justice and to prosecute the bad guys. If you don't have a bad guy to prosecute, don't exonerate people who are at least peripherally under suspicion. I didn't think it was appropriate at all."

Many observers, taking note of the many problems and conflicts that have plagued the case over the years, have theorized that it could now never successfully be prosecuted, short of a confession backed by corroborating DNA evidence.

But Garnett rules nothing out.

"In my first term, we made cold case prosecution a priority," Garnett said, "and in Ryan Brackley, I have one of the best cold case prosecutors in the United States on my staff. Certainly, the Ramsey case is one of the cold cases we would take great satisfaction in solving and filing and pursuing in court."

A juror, reflecting on the grand jury experience, and Hunter's decision not to prosecute the indictment, emphasized that the entire matter has long been out of the jurors' hands.

"I believe and feel our effort was well executed, the results of which were, as they say, pro bono publico, for the public good," the juror said.

"You say, 'Our job was well done, we gave them an opinion.' What happened after that, we went through all that and you find out that the bottom line was the district attorney felt there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with any further effort in this regard.

"Can he do that? Yes, he most certainly can."

Contact Camera Staff Writer Charlie Brennan at 303-473-1327 or brennanc@dailycamera.com.

Print this item

  20 loci new standard
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-16-2017, 07:42 PM - Forum: DNA -New testing - 2017 - No Replies

Twenty CODIS Core Loci

In early 2015, the FBI announced that the validation project for additional CODIS Core Loci had been completed and that an additional seven loci would be added to the CODIS Core effective January 1, 2017.3 The additional seven loci—D1S1656, D2S441, D2S1338, D10S1248, D12S391, D19S433 and D22S1045—along with the original 13 loci, will comprise the new CODIS Core Loci. Below is a listing of the 20 CODIS Core Loci.

  • CSF1PO
  • D3S1358
  • D5S818
  • D7S820
  • D8S1179
  • D13S317
  • D16S539
  • D18S51
  • D21S11
  • FGA
  • TH01
  • TPOX
  • vWA
  • D1S1656 (effective January 1, 2017)
  • D2S441 (effective January 1, 2017)
  • D2S1338 (effective January 1, 2017)
  • D10S1248 (effective January 1, 2017)
  • D12S391 (effective January 1, 2017)
  • D19S433 (effective January 1, 2017)
  • D22S1045 (effective January 1, 2017)


  • This does NOT mean all earlier DNA profiles will be eliminated from the system.  In many cases, the evidence was destroyed during testing and there is no way to test for more. 
  • The news stories made it clear they plan to test more evidence in the case - and more suspects need to be tested.

  • But it is true the newer tests will include more LOCI and I hope some of the news tests done here will have all 20.

Print this item

  For Sherry Burgett Hilliard
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-16-2017, 06:33 PM - Forum: Answering BORG questions - No Replies

Thanks for submitting the question.  I will be happy to respond.

Your question:   What has SHE done for this case other than benefit financially?

My Answer: Well, let's see what I have done.

1997, not long after the murder, I joined a forum and tried to be a voice of calm and reason.  I asked people to wait for the evidence to be shared before anyone go crazy and lynch the parents.  I tried to find evidence of prior abuse and neglect, history of alcohol or drug use, some motive like insurance payout or custody dispute.  I found nothing.

I posted that JonBenet's name was not in the ransom note and that caught the attention of the police since very few knew that fact to be true.

I got the attention of LE and on the list of things TO DO, locating me was on  the list given to Lou Smit the day he was hired. 

I later told LE that a third weapon was involved - other than the garotte and what was used to hit her in the head.   That turned out to be the stun gun.

I was privately lured into a discussion with a college professor and later found out he had - - as an "EXPERT", decided I was the killer - he let the cops know and he advised NEWSWEEK Magazine to hold the front page for the reveal.  The headline was to be "Paging JonBenét's killer."

I said nothing to anyone about that episode - - - quickly cleared my name.  By then I was leading one of the biggest Ramsey forums going.  I think it was important to have that discussion alive and telling the truth.  Not allowing the garbage I see posted unchallenged on facebook, topix and other sites.

Moving on.  I hosted a very GOOD group, we found a lot of TRUTH and shared with all.

When I got to meet the Ramseys, go into the murder house - - I shared that with ALL.  Acandyrose still has some of my photos taken inside the house on her site.

I acted as a go-between for people who wanted to get information to the investigators.  Some could do it on their own but others found closed doors.  When I felt a suspect really was a GOOD suspect, I could make a phone call and talk to someone immediately.  Sometimes that was LE like Lou Smit, sometimes LE outside Boulder.  And when I felt it was the right thing to do, it was media.  I made a lot of contacts.  Some may have disliked me but most had to admit they respected me because I wasn't telling lies - my information was GOOD.

So when Steve Thomas had his key witness going into the grand jury and I found out it was that college professor - - - I stepped up and went to Boulder to let the DA know the witness was a charlatan, a fraud.  The DA wouldn't leave his office to speak with me and I wouldn't leave the file without seeing him - - - so I went on 48 Hours and - - - according to several books  - Foster was toast.  I am very proud that I stopped that false witness from taking a mother from her child.

So I had a forum and I fought to publish the facts.  I am the one who made deposition transcripts available for everyone.  I got hold of the FAX between Miller and Hoffman and published that.      I published crime scene photos that no one else had.  I got a book removed from the printing presses and saw it replaced with transcripts of the Ramsey interviews.  (Some errors in there but a far better book than was planned.)

I spent HOURS transcribing TV shows so we would have transcripts to discuss on the forums.

I have traveled to several states to review evidence the BORG swore would have me jumping the fence.  They were always wrong.

I have traveled to a few states and met with people here or worked with them online to develop detailed files on suspects.  No, no one was aware of that as - - - only one person killed JonBenet and I don't put names out there at all.  If a name was not in the media or brought out by someone else, I protected the names.   But my efforts have seen probably a half dozen good and reasonable suspects forever CLEARED - - sometimes by DNA.

I have worked as a consultant to many reporters, a few documentary makers.  I have "edited" a few books.  I have kept many confidences - - I am good at keeping confidences.

I have put up my own money for a small reward and to pay for an ad in the Boulder papers to remind people this is not over.

I started a GoFundMe campaign to remind people that this is not over - - - and I know the money can and will help clear more suspects.  I can only hope it will also identify the killer.

I keep reading, making calls, seeking the truth, asking questions and building files that one day make be the seed needed to make a call to LE or media.  I keep trying.  My work is far from over.  And that is why I reactivated WebbSleuths.org.

Can I ask what YOU do to help see this case solved?  I know you flame me a lot, in an area where I don't post.  You don't know much of anything and choose to believe the negative stuff you find on BORG forums - kind of a stupid thing to do - and I really don't care.  But you asked a real question so I decided to answer.


Hope you have a great Easter - Mine was wonderful, surrounded by family and food and good conversation.  I will be talking with Ramsey people-who-matter next week and...... I hope I answered your question and you can go back to flaming knowing - - - I really don't care.  Your lack of information and understanding shows who YOU are.  My past contributions to the case stand witness to who I am.

As for the "evidence" against me online - - are you so naïve you believe that crap?  Really?  You don't know people can and do edit chat logs and reprint them as real?  You don't know people misquote others and simply make stuff up?

According to one BORG myth, I nearly committed suicide once at a big fancy dinner party - jealous because one of the people at the dinner had a girlfriend?     The next morning I went on camera looking (according to some) pretty good in the 48 Hours show.  The poster who reported my bloody attack on myself (I don't remember if I was at the table or on it)  went to Boulder later, according to her posts,  to sleep with all the Ramsey people I had - - I laughed, her trip was going to be boring because I don't cheat on my husband.  Well, I hear she went out there and cheated on HER husband - - but that's her story to tell.

Hope you have a good Easter - mine was great, as usual.  Life is good, my efforts in Ramsey are earnest and I am pleased with seeing the suspect growing shorter. The BORG is like some sewer spill a few towns away, not my problem.

But I got sent your question and thought -- - why not?  So here's your answer.  And I wonder if you are really as proud of your efforts in Ramsey as I am in mine.

Print this item

  Jessica Lunsford
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-15-2017, 08:14 PM - Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds - No Replies

In his confession, Couey said that he entered Lunsford's house through an unlocked door at about three o'clock in the morning, awakened Lunsford, told her "Don't yell or nothing", and told her to follow him out of the house.[3] He occupied a trailer along with two women, some 100 yards (91 m) away, at the time of Lunsford's abduction.[4] He admitted in a videotaped and recorded deposition to raping Lunsford in his bedroom. Lunsford was kept in Couey's bed that evening, where he raped her again in the morning. Couey put her in his closet and ordered her to remain there, which she did as he reported for work at "Billy's Truck Lot".[3] Three days after he abducted her, Couey tricked Jessica into getting into two garbage bags by saying he was going to 'take her home'. He instead buried her alive as he decided he could do nothing else with the girl. He said he 'Didn't want people seeing him and Lunsford across the street.'

Print this item

  Announcing the new tests
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-15-2017, 06:35 PM - Forum: DNA -New testing - 2017 - Replies (2)

http://www.9news.com/news/investigations.../369627640

Print this item

  Why they don't give interviews
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-15-2017, 06:25 PM - Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White - No Replies

This is from the order sealing Fleet White's deposition


"....if Mr . White participated in a televised
interview in which he discussed the issue of culpability for the
death of JonBenet Ramsey, any party could move to unseal the
videotaped deposition."


I guess talking to the city counsel doesn't count as an interview.  But no, he wasn't talking about anyone being responsible for the murder. 

I have not listened to his interviews with Peter Boyles - - but I thought Boyles was spinning something.  I really don't know.  Anyone following that show?

Print this item

  Charlie Brennan/ Kevin Vaughan story
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-15-2017, 12:04 PM - Forum: DNA - Touch DNA on long johns - Replies (22)

New analysis challenges DA’s exoneration of Ramseys in JonBenet case

By Charlie Brennan, The Daily Camera and Kevin Vaughan, 9News

The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case doesn’t support a pivotal and controversial development in Colorado’s most vexing unsolved murder — a former Boulder prosecutor’s decision to clear the girl’s family from all suspicion in her death, a joint Daily Camera/9NEWS investigation has found.

The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case doesn't support a pivotal and controversial development in Colorado's most vexing unsolved murder — a former Boulder prosecutor's decision to clear the girl's family from all suspicion in her death, a joint Daily Camera/9NEWS investigation has found.

Forensic experts who examined the results of DNA tests obtained exclusively by the two news organizations disputed former District Attorney Mary Lacy's conclusion that a DNA profile found in one place on JonBenet's underpants and two locations on her long johns was necessarily the killer's — which Lacy had asserted in clearing JonBenet's family of suspicion.

In fact, those experts said the evidence showed that the DNA samples recovered from the long johns came from at least two people in addition to JonBenet — something Lacy's office was told, according to documents obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS, but that she made no mention of in clearing the Ramseys.

The presence of a third person's genetic markers has never before been publicly revealed.

Additionally, the independent experts raised the possibility that the original DNA sample recovered from JonBenet's underwear — long used to identify or exclude potential suspects — could be a composite and not that of a single individual.

About this story
Charlie Brennan of the Daily Camera and Kevin Vaughan of 9NEWS exclusively obtained laboratory test results and reports from the JonBenet Ramsey case on which then-Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy based her decision to exonerate members of the Ramsey family. The reporters sought a review of that evidence by independent experts. This is the result of their investigation.

More from 9NEWS
See additional coverage of the DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case at 9 and 10 p.m. Thursday and Friday on KUSA-Channel 9, or watch the full report at 9NEWS.com.

Ramsey case archives
Camera's original online archive
Full Ramsey timeline, 1996-2016

"It's a rather obvious point, but I mean, if you're looking for someone that doesn't exist, because actually it's several people, it's a problem," said Troy Eid, a former U.S. Attorney for Colorado.

The documents obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS included results from the actual DNA testing process on the long johns and summary reports sent to Lacy's office in the months leading up her July 9, 2008, letter exonerating the Ramseys.

The experts who examined the laboratory results at the request of the Camera and 9NEWS reached similar conclusions on multiple points:

• Two of the three samples that led Lacy to declare publicly that no one in the Ramsey family could be responsible for the murder actually appear to include genetic material from at least three people: JonBenet, the person whose DNA profile originally was located in JonBenet's underwear during testing in the late 1990s and early 2000s, plus at least one additional as-yet-unidentified person or persons. Consequently, its meaning is far from clear.

• The DNA profile referred to as Unknown Male 1 — first identified during testing on the panties — may not be the DNA of a single person at all, but, rather, a composite of genetic material from multiple individuals. As a result, it may be worthless as evidence.

• The presence of that DNA on JonBenet's underwear and long johns, be it from one or multiple people, may very well be innocent; the profiles were developed from minute samples that could have been the result of inconsequential contact with other people, or transferred from another piece of clothing. If true, it would contradict the assertions that DNA will be key to finding JonBenet's killer.

[Image: 20161027__27DCARAMw%7E3_400.jpg]
A Boulder police officer sits in her cruiser on Jan. 3, 1997, outside the 15th Street home in which 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey was found dead on Dec. 26, 1996. The murder remains unsolved nearly 20 years later. (David Zalubowski / Associated Press)

This represents the first time independent experts have reviewed the DNA evidence on which Lacy based her widely questioned exoneration of the family.

And the findings could cut both ways.

"It's certainly possible that an intruder was responsible for the murder, but I don't think that the DNA evidence proves it," said William C. Thompson, a professor in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of California-Irvine and an internationally respected authority on DNA evidence and its applications in the criminal justice system.

Similarly, the findings don't implicate or exonerate anyone in the family.

Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood, who has not reviewed the documents or the work of the experts consulted by the Camera and 9NEWS, said, however, "I have absolute and total confidence in the integrity of former District Attorney Mary Lacy, and I am also aware of internet comments by former Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner where he, within the last several months, affirmed that the Ramsey case was a DNA case.

"So I know what Chief Beckner has said publicly in recent months, I know what ... former District Attorney Mary Lacy has said, and until someone impugns her integrity, or contradicts former Chief Beckner's statement, I continue to believe, as I have said before, that this is a DNA case and that the best chance for solving the case will be a hit and match on the DNA in the future. I hope that day comes."

 

[Image: 20161027_082805_underwear.jpg]



'The silver bullet misfired'

Lacy was long known as a believer in the Ramseys' innocence, something others noticed as early as June 1998, when Boulder police detectives put on a detailed two-day presentation of the evidence and sought either charges against John and Patsy Ramsey or a grand jury investigation.

"My impression of her response to that was that she was among the very, very skeptical," said former Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant, who attended the police presentation in his role as adviser to then-Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter.

The experts consulted by the Camera and 9NEWS suggested that Lacy may have been guilty of "confirmation bias," a phenomenon in which investigators become so blinded by their own theories that they give extra credence to evidence that supports them, and ignore evidence that does not.

The lab that performed the DNA testing, for example, told Lacy in March 2008 that it was "likely" the two samples found on JonBenet's long johns came from "more than two people" and "should not be considered a single-source profile," according to the documents obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS.

But in exonerating the Ramseys with a three-page letter made public July 9, 2008, Lacy failed to disclose any of that, writing that "the previously identified profile from the crotch of the underwear worn by JonBenet at the time of the murder matched the DNA recovered from the long johns."

The word "match" actually never appears in the reports from Bode Technology, which conducted the testing in March through June of 2008.

Similarly, the Camera and 9NEWS have learned that investigators in Lacy's office suggested no additional testing was needed once they learned male DNA had been located on the long johns that she later labeled as a "match" to the DNA found in JonBenet's panties.

Correspondence from an investigator on Lacy's staff indicated that "my bosses" were "very excited" and "pleased" about the purported match, "and don't see the need for additional testing (unless you strongly recommend otherwise)."

The twin realities pointed to by the experts — that the genetic profile may not be from a single individual and that DNA on the girl's clothing may have landed there innocently — turn on its head Lacy's assertion that investigators had identified the killer's genetic fingerprint and that it was the key critical to solving the case.

Thompson, the UC-Irvine professor, noted that many people have come to see DNA evidence as a foolproof "silver bullet" to solving many crimes.

"Here, the silver bullet misfired," said Thompson, one of the experts who reviewed the evidence at the news organizations' request.

Print this item

  As a suspect?
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-15-2017, 11:51 AM - Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White - Replies (3)

Mind you - - I think Fleet White is absolutely and totally innocent of any involvement in this crime.

But I would like to share this public accusation and theory just so people can see the kind of lynch mobs that are out there and could accuse any person of any crime.  The Ramseys have not been the only victims of such horrendous actions.

The Killer of JonBenet Ramsey - revealed

[Image: knot.jpg]
One of Fleet's knots

Colorado allows the death penalty as an option in the following cases:
first-degree murder
kidnapping resulting in the death of the victim
felony murder

The sentence is death by lethal injection.
Minimum age for death penalty: 18
Colorado forbids the execution of the mentally retarded.
Executions 1930-1976: 47
Executions since 1977: 1

On the Thursday morning of December 26, 1996, Fleet White left his home on 733 15th street, Boulder, carrying a cute Santa Claus teddy bear for the daughter of his neighbor - and friend - John Ramsey. He wore new previously unworn winter clothes - including boots and gloves - that he'd purchased months before. He travelled down the alleyway that runs down 15th Street until he came to 755 - the Ramsey home. Fleet produced a key. It was a key he'd had cut from one of the keys to the Ramsey residence months before. He entered the house and walked straight down the hall to the spiral staircase. JonBenet was expecting a special visit from Santa Claus after Christmas, and Fleet was keeping the promise. Upon reaching the second floor, Fleet hesitated and listened - silence. The Ramseys were sound asleep after a hectic day of visits, parties hyper-excited kids and gift-swapping. John and Patsy had to rise early for the trip to Michigan, so they had to get some shut eye. In fact, the entire year had been quite hectic. Super-entrepreneur John had made a billion dollars for his company Access Graphics, earning him the nickname "Billion Dollar Johnny". That was bad enough for "oilman" Fleet, who had once been the only fat cat in the neighborhood, even though his fortune was not what he made it out to be - but that's another story. Fleet hated John's guts. He despised John's perfect family. Patsy Ramsey summed up all the things that Fleet White detested when she innocently circulated the Ramsey Family's 1996 Christmas Newsletter: "Burke is a busy fourth grader where he really shines in math and spelling. He played flag football this fall and is currently on a basketball binge! His little league team was #1…JonBenet is enjoying her first year in 'real school'. Kindergarten in the Core Knowledge program is fast paced and five full days a week. She has already been moved ahead to first grade math. She continues to enjoy participating in talent and modelling pageants. She was named "America's Royale Tiny Miss" last summer and is Colorado's Little Miss Christmas. Her teacher says she is so outgoing that she will never have trouble delivering an oral book report!"
That newsletter went on to laud John Ramsey: "John is always on the go travelling hither and yon. Access recently celebrated its one billion $$ mark in sales, so he's pretty happy! He and his crew were underway in the Port Huron to Mackinac Island yacht race in July, but had to pull out mid way due to lack of wind. (Can you believe that?) But, his real love is the new 'old looking' boat, Grand Season, which he spent months designing."
Fleet turns the doorhandle of JonBenet's bedroom. He walks over to JonBenet, who is sleeping, and gently rouses her. She wakes and in the half-shadows, she isn't sure if it's her mom or dad at first. Fleet mutters to her, and she recognises his voice, but she is still tired and groggy. Had the man in her bedroom been an unfamiliar intruder, the little girl would have screamed, but she trusts Fleet, the father of her best friend Daphne. She had only been at his house hours before. Fleet shows her the Santa Teddy, and then takes her out the bed and gets her dressing gown. He tells Jonbenet to put it on, and she wearily does. He then takes a blanket and wraps her in it, because he is taking her out of the house. It's cold outside in the glacial December night air. She is not going to the basement yet.
The Santa Teddy is left behind on the bed. Had any of the Ramseys come upon Fleet in the house, he would only have to say that he had brought JonBenet a little Santa Teddy Bear and it would have been seen by the Ramseys as a cute gesture. Fleet takes JonBenet out the house, to return to his home the same way he came. As he carries the girl along, the local branches and bushes skirt against her ankles and achilles tendon area and leave small abrasive marks - marks that are later documented by Dr Meyer during the autopsy of JonBenet.
The next segment of this account of the murder of JonBent has been withheld for the time being, because I do not want to reveal certain important details it contains. Should Subpoena-phobic Fleet White decide to face me in court, I will reveal these key details and deal the ace up my sleeve which will either put him behind bars for life or result in him being sentenced to death.
Fleet killed JonBenet at 733 15th street, and at one point during the slow torture, he hung her up by the nylon cord which bound her wrists - but with enough slack to be hung over two hooks. The unexpected happened when the girl wet herself through sheer fear as she was being garrotted. By then, Fleet had unhooked JonBenet, and the girl clawed at the ever-tightening cord around her neck, leaving the tell-tale crescent fingernail marks on the skin of her neck.
The sudden urination threw a spanner in the works. Fleet's intentions for killing the girl were to make it look as if she had been killed in the basement of her own home. But if she had been killed there, there'd be a pool of urine on the cellar floor there, and of course, her own panties would have been still moist - but the cellar floor was bone dry - and so was JonBenet's bed. Fleet wiped the urine from the girl's thigh area and put on the dry panties marked 'Wednesday' - these were not JonBenet's panties. Had Fleet left on the wet panties and put her in the Ramsey cellar, the forensic experts would have smelled a rat. Wet panties and a bone dry cellar floor without a trace of uric acid.
Fleet re-dresses the child after removing one of the wrist ligature loops so that he can get her arms into the top. It is a hurried affair, and that is why JonBenet was described as being dressed 'oddly' when she was found.
Fleet wraps the girl up in the nightgown and blanket and leaves the house with a number of items. He takes the body back into the Ramsey house and goes down to the train room. The second spanner is thrown in the works. The thing that thwarts his harebrained scheme this time is a suitcase which is smaller than he thought. Fleet tried to put JonBenet's body in the blue suitcase that had been lying in the Ramsey trainroom but it wouldn't close. That is why fibers found in the suitcase match the fibers of JonBenet's clothes.
Fleet takes the body into the wine cellar and lays her down. She is wrapped in a blanket and left with her favorite pink nightgown next to her.
At this point Fleet has made a third mishap. He took one of Patsy Ramsey's paintbrushes days earlier, and snapped it into three pieces. The midsection was used to make the garrotte handle, and the brush end - and splinters - were to be placed in Patsy's paints tray just outside the wine cellar, but the third piece of the paintbrush was mislaid. Fleet probably lost this in his own home, when he was making his garrotte. However, he had brought the brush end of the broken paintbrush back to the Ramsey household, and had diligently placed it in Patsy's paints tray - to make it look as if the killer had created the garrotte on the premises of 755 15th Street.
Fleet leaves the basement area, closing the doors behind him, and he takes four A4 pieces of paper from an envelope held inside of his coat. The three sheets which form the ransom demand are placed on the bottom step of the spiral staircase, and another page - the so-called 'practice note' - is placed in another part of the house. Fleet is known to have borrowed Patsy's legal pad on several occasions. Fleet tore out a number of pages from that pad many days before, and, using samples of Patsy Ramsey's handwriting to guide him, he writes the Ransom demand and practice note, but he made six glaring errors which prove he is the author. I will reveal these errors when I face Fleet in court - if he dares to show of course.
Now we come to the famous four letters "S.B.T.C" - which does not stand for Subic Bay Training Center or Scarred by The Cancer, or Saved By The Cross or Some Body That Cares. It actually stands for Small Business Technology Coalition, a Government body which allocates funds to developing businesses. You will find more about SBTC at Owen Research, 2525 Arapahoe Avenue, E4-262, Boulder CO 80302. Ask Robert Owen about SBTC. Fleet White mistakenly thought that John Ramsey had at one time siphoned off money from the SBTC to fund Access Graphics. To create an atmosphere of suspicion in John's mind, Fleet deliberately asked for $118,000 as the ransom amount to make him think that the note was the work of someone very close to him. John's Christmas bonus had been $118,000, so only an employee at Access Graphics or his own wife would know the significance of that amount of dollars.
Fleet White leaves the Ramsey's home, and, before he travels the relatively short distance home, he adds the finishing touch - and makes another mistake. He kneels by the grid covering the basement window, and he lifts it, then lowers it, just to disturb the dirt and dry leaves. Just to make it look as if some intruder has entered or exited through the basement window. The cobwebs aren't even broken on one side though, and the foliage on one side is undisturbed. It is a classic Fleet White howler. He checks the site of JonBenet's murder when he arrives home and cleans up, then he burns the clothes he wore and burns other certain items.
Fleet goes to bed. If everything goes to plan, John Ramsey should come down the spiral staircase in the morning, and, he should come upon the bogus ransom note. That is why the note is addressed to Mister Ramsey. Using that good southern common sense of his, he should do as the ransom note says - to the letter. Then of course, the kidnapper will never call after a day has gone by, because the kidnapper does state in the note that he will call 'tomorrow' between 8 and 10 am. The kidnapper does not mean today, because he advises John to be rested. John would have sat and waited it out. Imagine what the Boulder Police would have thought then. The pilot arrives at the Ramsey residence and John tells him the trip to Michigan has been postponed. He can't say why, because the kidnapper has stated he has the place under surveillance. The pilot thinks John and Patsy are acting strange. Fleet would be able to call at the house to exhibit his well-rehearsed concern about John still being at the house when he is supposed to be in Michigan. Fleet would say, 'John, where's JonBenet? What's wrong?'
The police would be tipped off, and when the house is ultimately searched, JonBenet's body would be found, stiff with rigor mortis. The Ramseys story would look very dubious indeed, because Fleet has created so many 'clues' to point the finger of suspicion firmly at the Ramseys.
However, Patsy happens to find the ransom notes, and she panics. The Ramseys don't do what the letter says. They call the police. They call Fleet White, and as soon as he hears that phone ring in his bedroom that morning, he knows things haven't gone to plan yet again.
All of the above explains the following mysterious incident, detailed in the Ramsey Book, Death Of Innocence: Patsy Ramsey relates that: "During the party Fleet White used our phone to make a series of calls, trying to get some medicine to his mother in a hospital in Aspen, Colorado. Apparently he dialed wrong and got 911. The Police called back, but after checking with Fleet and the rest of the people at the house, Susan Stine informed them that the call was a mistake."
The telephone number to the Aspen hospital bears no similarity to the most well known number in North America: 911. Fleet made this call to discover the police response time: how long a patrol car would take to arrive at 15th Street during the festive season. This X period of time would give Fleet a rough idea of how long he would have to make his escape should (a) A neighbour spot him skulking down the alleyway and call the police on the murder night, and (b) should John or Patsy call the police after being awakened by Fleet the intruder.
After the discovery of the body of JonBenet, Fleet's behaviour speaks volumes about his guilt.Despite being a pallbearer in JonBenét's funeral, he confronted the Ramseys - in their hour of need - shortly afterwards at the Paugh's home and almost comes to blows with John. He alleges to be concerned about the way he perceives the Ramseys to be reacting to the murder and says they are not co-operating with the investigation. The latter is hypocritical, considering Fleet's recent refusal to appear in court over a minor matter relating to the murder case. Fleet was so terrified of appearing in court, he spent a month in jail for ignoring the subpoena rather than risk putting himself on the stand. In his paranoid mind, he believes that if he were to appear in a court, some lawyer would catch him out.
In early December 1997, the Ramseys took up on a touching idea from their friends; to hold a remembrance service for JonBenet. As JonBenet had attended preschool at the First Presbyterian Church, that congregation was seen as the ideal place to hold the service. The ministers agreed that the remembrance service would be a touching tribute, and everyone who attended the church said the same - except two people. Fleet and Priscilla White - who also attended the First Presbyterian - protested. For reasons that were never made clear, the Whites demanded that the church should pull out of the service. So, the service for the murdered child was held instead at the First United Methodist Church. Fleet obviously couldn't face the prospect of attending a service for the victim of the person he had murdered.
In April 1997, Fleet demanded to be removed from the list of suspects in the JonBenet murder case. Steve Thomas later claimed Fleet White was cleared - but he didn't say why and the fact is that there was no official statement clearing him. Fleet was desperate to be cleared because weeks before on February 13 1997, Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter threatened to seek the death penalty in JonBenét's murder.
Fleet's antics then escalate. In January 1998, Fleet and his wife submit a 2,000-word letter to the Daily Camera, calling upon the then-Governor Roy Romer to remove District Attorney Alex Hunter from the murder investigation. The Fleets claim that Hunter's actions during the past year had "created the strong appearance of impropriety, professional incompetence and a lack of objectivity."
Romer refused the request. This means that Fleet will be the second person in Colorado since 1977 to die by lethal injection should he be named as the murderer.
There were more subsequent moves by White to remove Hunter - but Fleet was unsuccessful.
Now read this extract from The Death of Innocence the Ramseys official book about their experiences before and after the murder of JonBenet:
Quote:Five days later, and just two days after Steve Thomas's resignation, Fleet White - the friend who had been with me when I found JonBenet's body on December 26, 1996 - sent a fourteen-page, rambling letter to "the people of Colorado" and to Governor Roy Romer, asking him to remove District Attorney Alex Hunter from JonBenet's case. White claimed that various relationships between the Boulder County district attorney and the legal community (our attorneys, specifically) may have impaired the objectivity of the DA. He also cited the atmosphere of distrust and noncooperation between the district attorney and the Boulder police. Finally, he said that Hunter had been criticized in the past for not being an aggressive prosecutor of homicide cases.
A few people spoke out about this letter. For instance, in an interview with the Boulder Daily Camera, Colorado University Professor of Legal Ethics Dan Vigil said the relationship between Hunter and our attorneys, mentioned in White's letter, was inconsequential because "in a legal community this size, people are going to interact."
Then, on August 20 Governor Romer's spokesman, Jim Carpenter said that the governor saw nothing in Fleet White's letter that would lead him to change his mind.
Fleet White had tried to get Romer to replace Hunter on December 18, 1997, and when his request was rejected, White had sent an earlier letter to the Boulder Daily Camera, making many of the same allegations as his present letter.
Why was White so adamant about ousting District Attorney Alex Hunter? Chuck Green had given one theory in a Denver Post article back on January 16. "Her death and the year-long investigation had become a daily obsession for the Whites, according to friends," Green said, "and they are determined to follow every twist and turn to its conclusion. It was primarily that preoccupation with the murder case that caused them to ask Governor Roy Romer to personally intervene with the investigation by replacing Boulder District Attorney with a special prosecutor. But there was a lingering animosity toward Hunter's office, sources said, that helped fuel the Whites' anger."
Green went on to explain that in the summer of 1997 the Whites had asked to be "publicly cleared as potential suspects in the case, demanding that Police Chief Tom Koby issue a statement of exoneration." The DA had advised the police "to limit the statement to the current status of their case." White, Green's sources said, resented this.
Still, Fleet White's protests continued. On Monday, August 24, White wrote another letter to "the people of Colorado," this time suggesting that Lt. Governor Gail Schoettler had influenced the governor's decision. White said that Schoettler's husband had made several telephone calls to me [John Ramsey] in the days after JonBenet's murder. Yes, he had, although I never received any of them. As a former fraternity brother at Michigan State University, Don Stevens (Schoettler's husband) had called to offer his condolences and to inquire about funeral arrangements.
Lt. Governor Gail Schoettler replied to this accusation in an interview with the Boulder Daily Camera, "The governor and I have never discussed this case," she said.
The Whites were apparently trying to show that the Democratic "family" had somehow closed ranks to protect us. It was absurd and a bit mad. Plus, I was never an active Democrat.
On August 20, 1998, the Whites commented to a Camera staff reporter, "The district attorney and the Ramsey attorneys have simutaneously rebuked the police for 'focusing' their investigation on the Ramseys in fact the police were simply following evidence."
The innuendo here was obvious. Why had our former friend turned against us?
As Patsy and I thought thought about this, we went back to the days right after the murder. On December 26, 1996, the police had naturally asked me a lot of questions. I learned that the officers had interrogated Fleet for a long time on the twenty-seventh. I had no idea what was said, but after this session, Fleet returned upset and confused. Suddenly this close friend became tense and acted very strange.
As was the case with most of our social friendships, Patsy had met Priscilla and her children first. Their kids were almost the same ages as JonBenet and Burke. Later Fleet and I were introduced into an already blooming friendship. When we first met, they were renting a small house, two doors up the street from us. The Whites told us that they had left California because they felt the fast life around Newport Beach was a poor place to raise children. They had originally thought of moving to Aspen, where Fleet's parents had a home and where Fleet and Priscilla and their children had spent considerable time. But even Aspen didn't suit what they were looking for. Ultimately they settled in Boulder after Fleet drove there one day and decided it was the perfect community for them. Our children became instant friends and enjoyed frequent trips to and from each other's houses, which they could accomplish on their own with complete freedom, via backyards or front sidewalks.
Priscilla was a fun-loving California girl who liked to entertain and had good sense of humor. She and Patsy had quickly hit it off, and they enjoyed each other's company. The moms soon discovered that Fleet and I shared a penchant for sailing, as well. It's rare that dads and moms and both children synchronize so easily. Both sets of parents were older, and that added to the similarities.
The newspapers later would refer to Fleet as an oil magnate.His father, Fleet White Sr., was reported to have had a natural gas drilling company in California. He may have worked for his dad for a period of time before coming to Colorado, but as far as I know, Fleet did not work at a steady job during the time I knew him in Boulder. At one point he was trying to help his dad clean up some environmental issues at a gas station they owned in California, and he spoke of trying to get something started with some Denver businessman.
Fleet was mainly my sailing buddy. He occasionally talked of being an ardent sailor in the Newport Beach area and proudly displayed many models of the sailboats he had raced. He spoke of a silver loving cup, which bears his name and is on permanent display at the Newport Beach Yacht Club. He was a very experienced sailor. I was not. I could learn a great deal from him. Whenever we were together, sailing was our singular topic of conversation. Since he didn't have a nine-to-five job as I did, Fleet was free to be the one coordinator of logistics for our sailing ventures.
After JonBenet's murder, the Whites had arrived in Atlanta for Jonbenet's funeral the day after we did. They were scheduled to stay at Rod Westmoreland's home. Each of our Atlanta friends had graciously adopted a family from Colorado to host during the funeral. As an unspoken courtesy, our closest friends in Atlanta were to host the Whites, our closes friends from Colorado. For some reason, shortly after the Whites arrived at the Westmorelands', Priscilla got into a tiff with Rod's wife, Kimberly, and refused to stay in the Westmoreland's lovely home. The Whites said they would check into a hotel instead.
When I heard what had happened, I attributed the incident to the fact that everyone was distraught, tired and easily upset. I assumed they must have had reason to be on edge, and I mistakenly thought everything would subside.
As is customary in the South, the Westmorelands hosted a brunch in their home immediately following JonBenet's funeral for family, friends, and children. Apparently the Whites interpreted this gracious act as a horrible display of opulence and ostentation. In Whites' view, the Westmorelands were acting totally in bad taste, a view which was not shared by any other friends in attendance.
Eventually, Patsy and I suggested that the Whites stay at my brother's house. We didn't know what had happened at the Westmorelands', but we didn't want them staying in a motel. After all was said and done, they were our good friends and my brother, Jeff, is probably the most calm and under control person I know. Suggesting the Whites stay there was the logical thing to do. Unfortunately, nothing worked out there either.
Following the funeral Jeff remembers giving the Whites a ride to the Westmorelands' for the reception, and afterward, bringing them back to his own home. Fleet began complaining about the Westmorelands' home being in an exclusive area of Atlanta. Priscilla apparently was offended that the family had a maid. They persisted with these demeaning statements and ridiculed the Westmorelands' lifestyle. Fleet and Priscilla left Jeff's for a walk around the neighborhood.
When they returned, Fleet had become even more upset and kept talking about the need to keep "outsiders" from getting in on the investigation. He was rambling on and on, saying things like "We can't hurt the reputation of the people of Boulder...JonBenet is gone, we have to protect Boulder now...One hundred years ago people on farms took care of themselves. They didn't need cops or lawyers." His behavior seemed irrational to Jeff.
In short order, Fleet became more and more animated. He was periodically jabbing Jeff in the chest with his index finger and putting his hands on Jeff's neck. Jeff thought Fleet was on the verge of being out of control.
"How many people have you made really, really mad at you?" Fleet said, very agitated. "Ten or twelve maybe?"
"No, I don't think so," Jeff said, trying to remain calm.
Fleet continued pressing. "How many people have you made mad enough to want to kill you, or a member of your family? Two or three?"
"No," Jeff responded. He didn't know how anyone could think that way.
But the altercation didn't go away. Fleet's behavior seemed so unreasonable and out of place that it was frightening. Even though Jeff, who had been a high school quarterback, was perfectly capable of defending himself, Fleet scared him. Fleet and Priscilla left Jeff's home to talk to me, and Jeff decided that without a doubt he didn't want the Whites staying in his house that night.
Later that day at the Paughs' house, Priscilla sat me down and told me that she had talked to the police for hours. Then she abruptly said that there was semen found on JonBenet's body. I was so shocked. I couldn't speak. I just walked away. That urban legend was later proven untrue.
Before the Whites left for Atlanta, Priscilla called Patsy's father on the phone from the airport and argued with Don that she knew things that nobody else knew, telling him that he must persuade Patsy and me not to get attorneys. With that Priscilla hung up the telephone, and she and Fleet flew back to Boulder.
After we returned to Boulder, we experienced another strange incident involving the Whites. Patsy and I had been meeting with Father Rol Hoverstock in his office at St. John's and were in prayer with him when we heard a commotion outside. Fleet White pushed past both Patsy's father, who was waiting for us in the reception area, and Father Rol's secretary, demanding entrance to his office. Fleet barged in, unannounced, and dropped down on one knee, flashing a reporter's business card in the air.
"Now they're after me John!" Fleet shouted at me. "You know what I have to do, John." He looked crazed and shaken.
Father Rol kept trying to calm him down.
"What is it Fleet?" I reached out for the card. "Let me see it."
He kept waving the card but finally gave it to me. I looked on the back and realized that a reporter had scribbled a question about who had removed the tape from JonBenet's mouth. Was it Fleet or was it John? she had asked. Fleet kept yelling at us, as if Patsy and I had some sort of command over the media. I told him not to pay any attention to the press and offered to take the card and have one of our investigators call the reporter. Fleet said, "No, I'll take care of this in my own way."
What can I say? Fleet and I never had friction in our friendship prior to JonBenet's death. Clearly, something happened to the Whites between the time they were with us on the morning of December 26 in Boulder and when they arrived in Atlanta.
John Ramsey makes a curious comment that seems to hint at Fleet's guilt. When asked about the killer's nylon cord, John allegedly says: "It's not mine. Fleet White knows about cords, lines, and sailing."
So how about the duct tape? John replies: "Fleet had some special tapes, possibly black duct tape."
And it's true what John says. Amateur sailor Fleet White can tie elaborate knots, and he knows all about the handling of cords, and he does have special duct tape.
Fleet now has to answer to me, Keith Andrews. Then he has to answer to God for taking the life of a loveable 6-year-old girl who had so much to live for, and for putting her parents and brother through six years of sheer Hell.

©Keith Andrews 2002

Print this item