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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 21
» Latest member: Newton
» Forum threads: 941
» Forum posts: 2,786

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 15 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 15 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Start here
Forum: Clues in the Case - May 2001
Last Post: jameson245
07-24-2017, 09:15 PM
» Replies: 29
» Views: 208
A couple quotes
Forum: DNA - more technical discussions
Last Post: jameson245
07-19-2017, 10:50 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 35
Early Tests
Forum: DNA found in panties
Last Post: jameson245
07-19-2017, 10:40 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 49
Roscoe
Forum: Misinformation found elsewhere, not BORG but wrong
Last Post: Summer Dawn
07-18-2017, 12:45 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 40
The earlier 911 call
Forum: 911 call
Last Post: jameson245
07-17-2017, 02:01 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 80
A few minor errors
Forum: Forensics Under Fire
Last Post: jameson245
07-17-2017, 02:00 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 82
6 experts who matter
Forum: Handwriting
Last Post: jameson245
07-17-2017, 01:58 PM
» Replies: 10
» Views: 701
Dear Colin
Forum: Colin Connolly
Last Post: Gemini6
07-17-2017, 12:25 AM
» Replies: 11
» Views: 231
BORG media making a diffe...
Forum: Misleading the media
Last Post: jameson245
07-16-2017, 06:39 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 241
55 days - over a year - G...
Forum: Grand Jury Indictments
Last Post: jameson245
07-16-2017, 02:16 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 236

 
  Start here
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-19-2017, 12:29 PM - Forum: Clues in the Case - May 2001 - Replies (29)

In May of 2001, the Rocky Mountain News published a story that they have since removed from the Internet - a great loss to those students of the case who are seeking the truth.   I have a copy of that story and will share it in sections on this thread.

Lou made his case for the papers and while neither the police nor DA would make comments, the article also offered the responses BORG had made earlier.  In this thread I may add more recent observations and I will let you know those are MY comments.

Moving on....

Print this item

  A couple quotes
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-19-2017, 10:50 AM - Forum: DNA - more technical discussions - No Replies

These were found in Paula Woodward's book.

District Attorney Mary Lacy:  "There will be those who will choose to continue to differ with our conclusion.  But DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find, and we rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes."


And from Police Chief Mark Beckner I have three quotes to share.  After llearning of the 2008 testing on the DNA, he said that was a "significant finding".  The he went on.
"The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people."
"Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenét."

And in 2015, the Daily Camera shared this quote:  "I think the only thing I would emphasize is that the unknown DNA is very important. And I'm not involved anymore, but that has got to be the focus of the investigation.  In my opinion, at this moment, that's your suspect."

Print this item

  Early Tests
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-19-2017, 10:16 AM - Forum: DNA found in panties - Replies (1)

I have a huge file now on DNA and want to let you know how some of the earliest tests came back.

The first DNA samples included the Ramsey family (John, Patsy, John Andrew, Melinda, Burke and Uncle Jeff) as well as Priscilla White, John Fernie, Linda Hoffmann and Mervin Pugh.  I have two forms on those samples - - a paper where it lists what was submitted to the lab and then a second paper, the report that said all those people were NOT the source of the DNA found mixed with the blood in JonBenet's panties. 

The police knew there was unidentified DNA left there just days after the murder but continued to push the parents as the #1 suspects.  Shameful, if you ask me.

But, as BORG would point out, there was (in the report) a note that these people could only be cleared if the DNA found was from a single source - - which we now know it was.  (Later advancements brought about more detailed results in the lab and now we have a profile for that DNA which could positively identify the source of the male DNA found mixed with the victim's blood in her panties.)

OK, so today I felt a need to share this paper with you - the result of tests done on samples submitted to the lab on 1/15/1997.  I do not know for sure the dates the samples were taken but this is when they were submitted to the lab.  These blood samples from possible suspects were compared to what we now know as GSLDPD99178617.

Print this item

  Roscoe
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-15-2017, 07:57 PM - Forum: Misinformation found elsewhere, not BORG but wrong - Replies (1)

Roscoe is a poster on Facebook who has taken a lot of online courses and claims to be big CSI with a lab.   I do know he HAS spoken to John Ramsey, that he supports the intruder theory, but I think he is full of himself and hurts the search for justice more than he helps.

How?  By publishing misinformation like it is fact.

I am going to comment on a few of his recent statements - - 

Roscoe in plain print, me in CAPS

Roscoe: JonBenet's body was not hidden in the wine cellar.

PLACED BEHIND A CLOSED DOOR - "HIDDEN"?  SEMANTICS IN PLAY HERE.

Or was this room ever used as a wine cellar by the Ramsey's . It was a cold and damp storage room. No place that a mother would want her child in.

THAT ROOM WAS RIGHT NEXT TO THE BOILER AND WAS VERY, VERY WARM.  HUMID, MOLD  GROWING ON THE FLOOR.  NOT COLD AT ALL.


Right at sun set, a neighbor seen a tall, brown hair, slim white male walk up the the North side yard walking with a purpose. The open and unlock butler door side of the yard.

JOE BARNHILL SAID HE SAW SOMEONE CROSS THE YARD, NOT SURE WHO IT WAS, MAY HAVE BEEN JAR.  NOTHING SAID ABOUT THAT PERSON GOING IN THROUGH THE BUTLER'S DOOR. THE DOOR WAS FOUND OPEN THE NEXT MORNING BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IT WAS UNLOCKED OR OPENED THE NIGHT BEFORE.


The Ranson note would be the voice of the killer because he would be in the house with JonBenet to complete this crime. The instruction note must be long anought to get the point across not to call the police because he would be found in the house and the crime would be over. A Longer note would be required than if the crime was perform from out side the house.

PLEASE, ROSCOE, USE SPELL CHECK AND CHECK YOUR GRAMMAR IF YOU WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
THREE PAGES WERE NOT NECESSARY TO SAY "DON'T CALL POLICE".

AND THEN IT GETS DEEP.

The water meter starting metering the water usage and this was a sound signal that the family was up.

PURE THEORY WITH NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT. THE SOUNDS LUTHER STANTON HEARD WOULD INDICATE THE KILLER LEFT SHORTLY AFTER A SCREAM WAS HEARD.  JONBENET WAS IN FULL RIGOR MORTIS WHEN FOUND, SHE DIED HOURS BEFORE ROSCOE WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE.

He movers JonBenet to the top of the washer and haft of the dryer tops,

NO EVIDENCE OF THAT, JUST HIS IMAGINATION

this was a place to monitor any phone calls from up stairs. There was a basement phone at this location.

TRUE, THERE WAS A PHONE THERE BUT WHY WOULD ANYONE RISK BEING FOUND IN THE HOUSE WITH A MURDER VICTIM WHEN HE HAD HOURS TO LEAVE?  

A 5 inch piece of used matching black tape from his black colored stun gun was place over the hand set leaving a circle impression in the tape.

HUH??

If the 911 operator heard any voices after Patsy hung up the upstairs phone, this would have came from the basement phone, and the voices would sound muffled.

WHY WOULD THE BASEMENT PHONE NOT SEND CLEAR SIGNALS?  AND REMEMBER, WE ALL HEARD THE TAPE, THERE'S NO VOICE/CONVERSATION THERE.

The 911 call for help was place. Printed many time in the ransom note SHE dies if they call for help.
The killer must do as he printed, she dies and the ransom portions of this crime is now over.
He pulls the double loop to JonBenet's head down towards the ground, her head hangs over the dryer top and so does the gold chain around her neck. Both the cord and her chain hangs down as it entwined together supporting this as fact. The washer and dryer tops was the only table like surface big anought that he could place the wrapper up JonBenet inside two white blankets and still mointor the family. Putting her on the ground would be much harder.

SHE WAS DEAD LONG BEFORE THE 911 CALL WAS MADE.
THE ANGLE OF THE CORD AND THE BRUISING ON HER SHOULDER PLACES HER ON THE FLOOR. THE URINE STAINS INDICATE SHE WAS IN THE HALL OUTSIDE THE DOOR TO THE WINDOWLESS ROOM.  WHY ANY SEEKER OF JUSTICE WOULD WANT TO MISREPRESENT THE EVIDENCE IS BEYOND ME AND ONE REASON I THINK ROSCOE DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD IN THIS DISCUSSION.

He now needs to move JonBenet to a place that he can become out of view. He remove the tape from the phone hand set and places the 5 inch tape over JonBenet's lips, this action was to cover over the body fluids coming from her mouth and from getting on himself as he rows her toward himself and carrier's her to the wine cellar. He was not hidding her, she was place in the center of the large 10 ft X 12 ft room.

WHY DOES HE HAVE TO MOVE THE BODY AT ALL?  HE WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO THINK SHE WOULD REMAIN UNSEEN BEHIND A CLOSED DOOR IF ANY SEARCH WAS DONE AT ALL.
THERE WERE NO BODY FLUIDS COMING OUT OF HER MOUTH.
ROWS?  CARRIER'S?   HARD TO TAKE THIS SERIOUS BUT SINCE OTHERS DO, I WILL CONTINUE COMMENT.

He tied the door handle to a log grabber, bracing it to the foundation wall, his feet place against the concrete wall leaving his shoe prints on the salts coating on the wall.

NEITHER BPD NOR LOU SMIT NOR ANYONE ELSE HAS EVER SEEN THIS - PERSONALLY I THINK THISIS JUST INSANE.

Five minutes after the police arrived, they search the basement, walking up to this white door in plane sight, the officer pulls on the door and thinks the the door is painted shut. The killer and JonBenet was on the other side.

THE OFFICER DIDN'T OPEN THE DOOR BECAUSE THE LOCK WAS ON HIS SIDE AND NO ONE COULD HAVE BEEN IN THAT ROOM AND LOCKED IT FROM THE INSIDE.  ROSCOE DOESN'T THINK THINGS THROUGH AND IT IS CLEAR HE IS SO WRONG.

Fifteen minutes later a neighbor open this door and see nothing in the dark. It was not painted shut.
JonBenet lays on the cold, damp, unheated floor for seven more hours intill the police ask John to recheck the house. At 1:05 pm her finds her there wrap up like a papoose.
The killer did not hide JonBenet there , there was many better choices in the basement if he wanted to hide her, it was a quick place to hide them self from the police after the 911 call for help. He wired the door to the room shut. Not to hide JonBenet in the basement. But to Barracuda them from the police, and it work.
Understanding the crime scene
Team JBI

WHAT ELSE CAN I SAY - - ROSCOE'S THEORY DOESN'T FIR WITH THE EVIDENCE.

I AM NOT JUST HERE TO FIGHT THE BORG LIES BUT ALL LIES.  THEY DO NOTHING TO SERVE JUSTICE AND SOLVE THIS CRIME.

Print this item

  A few minor errors
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-15-2017, 07:23 PM - Forum: Forensics Under Fire - Replies (4)

Reading the book, I found a few minor errors in the Ramsey chapters and will mention them here.  Overall, I thought the book was very interesting but wished he had gone further into the false witnesses involved in this case - namely Vassar Professor Don Foster and Seraph's Dale Yeager.

OK, so the minor issues.

Right off he describes the crime and says Linda Arndt asked John Ramsey to search the house - - then she says it was 30 minutes before the body was found.  I don't know exactly how long it took, but hearing John and Fleet describe that search, I would think it was more like 5 to 10 minutes.

Also said that in the early days, the DNA found in her panties was "unsuitable for DNA analysis" - and that is not true.  I have copies of the DNA reports from days after the murder - - and several people were cleared immediately based on the DNA found mixed with the blood of JonBenet - in her panties, left from the sexual assault.

He had a couple things that I can't say I know or do not know to be true.  But for the most part, he had stuff pretty well figured out.

He didn't really bring anything new to my attention but had a few stories that I had not heard before - I was entertained and think most would be by his small anecdotes.

Print this item

  The earlier 911 call
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-15-2017, 07:06 PM - Forum: 911 call - Replies (4)

During the Christmas party on the night of December 23rd, 1996, someone from the Ramsey house dialed 911 and then hung up.

No one publicly claimed responsibility for that call, but it was established early on (and accepted by LE) that the call was made by Fleet White - a mistake, not a call for help.

The police may or may not have gone to the house but they certainly did CALL the house.  The phone was answered by a child who then gave the phone to Susan Stine.  She assured the police that everything was fine, there was no trouble there, and that ended the conversation.   If police had been at the house, why would they call and not just knock on the door?  I think they got the hang up call and just called back.

Some have speculated that the call was made by the killer who wanted to see how quickly police would respond to a 911 call.  

Personally, I really don't see that happening.  The killer, if he intended to leave that ransom note and actually take JonBenet from her house, would have already been far from the house when the note was found - - so what difference would it make if the police responded in 2 minutes, 10 or 20?  

Fleet White's mother was ill in another state and he was on the phone discussing and arranging necessary treatment options.  The phone had several lines out and it may be that he instinctively pressed 9 for an outside line (I really don't know) but accidental 911 calls are not at all rare or evidence of guilt.

I was asked about this call so decided to include the information here.  If anyone has something to add, post it or let me know via email.  jameson245@aol.com

Print this item

  Dear Colin
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-14-2017, 04:57 PM - Forum: Colin Connolly - Replies (11)

First, let me say I am glad you have a Ramsey forum going, sorry I can't participate there but having been falsely accused of misdeeds on FB, I am banned.  So I will respond to a shared message here and hope you will see it.   Not sure if I will see any response made in FB, but you can email me if you want to respond to ME.

You wrote a long post saying you wouldn't have done this or that if YOU had been either John or Patsy that day.  Not knowing you, I won't question  what YOU would do.  And for the purpose of this thread, that doesn't matter.

You wrote, near the end of your post, "An every day working class family would have been fucked good & proper."

That statement touched me.  Unfortunately, you may be right, but not for the reasons you put forth.

The Ramseys were fortunate to have had a good friend in Mike Bynum who understood how dangerous it could be for innocent parents to allow themselves into the back room of an agency who clearly wanted to solve this quickly and were willing to bet the odds.  After all, a child so young has few enemies - - dead in her home, odds are it was a domestic incident.

The Ramseys were fortunate to have had a good friend, Mike Bynum, who understood how dangerous it could be for innocent and naïve (trusting totally in the BPD) people to volunteer to go to police headquarters for biased and aggressive interrogations by an agency HE  (Bynum) could see was already biased BORG.

I agree, without the benefit of a good friend like Mike, the Ramseys may well have been, as you put it, "fucked good and proper".

My question to you would be along these lines.

Does BORG really think the Ramseys did this horrible thing to their child (can they really ignore the evidence of an intruder and the DNA?)     or is the BORG just another chance for some middle class individuals to take a jab at someone who had more money and a nicer home and a private plane and a reprieve from cancer?

In getting to know some BORG, it seemed to me to be clear it was that - - - a chance to hurt someone who seemed to have a better life than the normal Joe and Joan.  

You wrote, "Money, influence, political corruption kept Ramsey's out of jail."

No, it wasn't their money - - the evidence just wasn't there - - and there IS clear and convincing evidence of an intruder.  The money helped, but if the evidence was there, the money would not have kept them out of jail.

Influence?  Again, no.  If influence could do all you think, it would have done a lot more than what we have today.  The cops would have said there was evidence of an intruder and let the case languish until cold.  But you think they used their influence to be constantly accused by different cops?  Nope - influence (which they clearly did not have) didn't help them.

Political corruption - - - there was no arrest because the physical evidence - including a man's DNA mixed with JOnBenet's blood in her panties and that unsourced hand print, the unsourced boot print, the unsourced handwriting......  there were no grounds for an arrest.  As for political corruption - - did everyone involved forget to tell the Governor and Mayor that the politically correct stand was Ramsey = innocence?  

Now, I will tell you there are other suspects, people whose families are old families in Boulder, people holding public positions (intentionally being obscure here) who look like good suspects to some PIs - - and THEY may have been protected by money, influence and political corruption.

Have you ever looked into any suspects not named Ramsey who might fit your description of the guilty parties here?

Print this item

  BORG hate
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-12-2017, 08:40 PM - Forum: just BORG hate - Replies (3)

I decided to share this hateful post from another forum, to start a kind of collection showing how hateful the BORG could become when there was clear evidence of an intruder and the family was actually cleared by a district attorney in charge of the case.  This kind of hate really confuses me.


Blacchippie says:
March 3, 2017 


Honestly speaking I don’t understand why we’re still wasting time with this, the Ramsey family did it….the case would’ve been solved but because Mr and Mrs Ramsey didn’t want it to be solved they failed to cooperate with the police
But Mrs Ramsey got what’s hers tho….cause she’s dead and since Jonbenét knows the truth so she’ll face her daughter (that’s the true justice she’ll be facing)

Print this item

  Charlie Brennan shared this
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-11-2017, 04:19 PM - Forum: The Murder, the Coverup and the Solution - No Replies

   

Print this item

  Fbi analysis
Posted by: Kaligirlsam - 07-11-2017, 10:51 AM - Forum: 911 call - Replies (2)

Conclusion Audio 911

After extensive processing and analysis, we conclude that recordings of the 911 emergency call made by Patsy Ramsey to report the kidnapping of her daughter JonBenét do not contain any audible conversation between any of the Ramseys following Patsy's hanging up the phone. There are too many discrepancies between the expectations of voice characteristics and the characteristics of the noises which some have reported as conversation for the hypothesis of additional conversation on the recording to be accepted. There appear instead to be several different noises with different characteristics, including at least one that has a cadence and is repeated. It is suggested that the combinations of these noises provide merely an appearance of conversation, particularly to wishful thinkers after the idea of conversation has been suggested to them. Unfortunately this noise has not only been falsely portrayed as conversation, but the idea that it is conversation has been boot.

Print this item