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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 14
» Latest member: Jordan
» Forum threads: 1,285
» Forum posts: 3,935

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 54 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 54 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Dale Yeager
Forum: Discredited and discounted witnesses in this case
Last Post: Dave
9 hours ago
» Replies: 9
» Views: 1,430
Vassar Professor Donald F...
Forum: Discredited and discounted witnesses in this case
Last Post: jameson245
10-21-2018, 09:33 PM
» Replies: 19
» Views: 7,726
Delmar England
Forum: Absolutely insane posts - mostly by BORG
Last Post: Dave
10-21-2018, 11:49 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 253
A thread for Candy
Forum: Found on other forums
Last Post: jameson245
10-19-2018, 07:07 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 28
other stories
Forum: Burke sues CBS for 750 million
Last Post: jameson245
10-19-2018, 03:50 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 25
Daphne
Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White
Last Post: jameson245
10-19-2018, 09:50 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 167
conviction integrity unit
Forum: What is in the news - staying up to date
Last Post: jameson245
10-17-2018, 10:18 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 240
moved to Central Prison
Forum: John Brewer Eustace
Last Post: jameson245
10-17-2018, 09:10 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 90
Movies in the ransom note
Forum: Linguistics - Ransom Note
Last Post: jameson245
10-17-2018, 06:50 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 506
old thread
Forum: Stun Gun
Last Post: jameson245
10-15-2018, 04:52 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 38

 
  Eikelenboom on DNA
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-01-2018, 09:30 PM - Forum: DNA -New testing - 2017 - No Replies

A short review of the JonBenet Ramsey case, by Richard Eikelenboom
Independent Forensic Services  Touch DNA  A short review of the JonBenet Ramsey case, by Richard Eikelenboom




Touch DNA
A short review of the JonBenet Ramsey case, by Richard Eikelenboom

Case outline
I was asked to review the JonBenet Ramsey case for A&E. For this review, I received reports, pictures and tables with DNA results. I assume that the DNA profiles provided to me in tables are a correct representation of the raw data. However, I did not receive the raw data of the DNA profiles, meaning that verification of DNA results was not possible.
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did several DNA investigations in 1997 but used non-sensitive, not very informative DNA tests, which was normal for the US at that time. CBI did find some DNA from unknown sources but the evidential value is low. Because of this reason I will not review these results any further in this article.
What is interesting though, is that early in 1997 the parents were obviously suspects. Below one can see part of a report from CBI dated from January 15, 1997. The homicide took place around December 26, 1996.  So, in a couple of weeks the parent became suspects. Knowing a fair deal about miscarriages of justice world-wide, I can state that considering the parents at such an early stage does not help truth finding and keeping an open mind. It could be that in the US this is normal practice but in Europe you need to gather (a lot) evidence first, before one can call someone a suspect in a case. E.g. a confession, DNA evidence, reliable witnesses etc. I don’t believe there was any of that in the first weeks of the case. Making the parents suspect can cause tunnel vision which can lead to overlooking important evidence.  I don’t say that the parents are not of interest when a girl of six is found killed in her own house, but an open mind is extremely important to prevent tunnel vision.


I have talked with several television networks about the JonBenet Ramsey case. I found it interesting that most of them had a certain angle on the case which was leading in the questions and broadcasts. It did not appear that any of the television networks were interested in all evidence and opportunities of investigation to see which ever direction that would lead. For that reason, I will put my ideas in this small article. Hopefully, somebody one day will do something with it.
In 1996, DNA investigations were performed but DNA awareness was not present by most perpetrators. Furthermore, touch DNA was not “invented” yet. Criminals could not anticipate that we would be able to get DNA from objects that they had touched. In this light, it is unlikely that the perpetrator(s) in the JonBenet Ramsey case could prevent leaving DNA on the victim and touched items.
Several important findings can be obtained from the pathology report. Below you find some findings in the pathology report written about the autopsy on JonBenet. Why is this important for a DNA investigation? Some scientists don’t want to know anything about a case before DNA testing because of tunnel vision. We are not supporters of this school of thought, because without information the investigation will be far less efficient and a lot of important evidence will never be found. The scientist can get biased by information but that bias does not influence the outcome of the DNA result. I can think that a suspect must be the perpetrator of a crime but if he/she had never contact with the victim I won’t be able to find his/her DNA. I had this several times when I started coordinating DNA cases. Police and DA’s pushed my thoughts in the direction of a suspect. Soon I learned always to follow the DNA and not my bias against a suspect. If the suspect killed/raped the victim, I would find the evidence.

The conclusions in the autopsy reveal a lot of (forceful) contact between perpetrator(s) and the victim, the clothing and other pieces of evidence. During my career, I have performed a lot of crime scene investigations including scenes which were staged. This would be the first where parent(s) would go to such extreme violence and sexual assault to stage a crime scene. Weird stuff happens during crimes; therefore it is important to follow the evidence and not your gut feeling. We will analyse the pictures and the autopsy report later to give more information about the injuries and time of death and the sequence of events.
DNA investigation
It looks like Denver DA Mitch Morrissey wanted to indict the father and the mother. There is one problem however, in that his own Denver police lab did find DNA of at least one unknown male inside the panties of JonBenet. From the complex DNA mixtures form the panties an DNA profile of an unknown man was deduced. A profile that does not match the parents but that did not stop Morrissey of willing to indict the parents for their daughter’s murder. In my opinion based on thousands of (DNA) cases, DNA of an unknown male donor on the (inside) of a panty of a girl of 6 years old is very important. If you think it is not crime related than there needs to be a very good explanation for that. Some of the biggest miscarriages of justice take place because people don’t find it necessary to find a good explanation for certain DNA findings. BODE technology, a private lab, made things worse for Morrissey because they confirmed the results from the Denver lab. They took two samples from the long-johns which Jon Benet was wearing. These samples were not taken at random but from the sides where a perpetrator could have pulled them down. If you find an indication of the same unknown male on a girl of 6 that has been raped, you want to know who that is, before you starting an indictment of the parents.
The only way for this exculpatory DNA to go away is if huge mistakes were made by either the Denver lab and/or CBI. These mistakes could be a contamination combined with the inability to detect such a mistake. If this is the case, the lab at fault could lose its accreditation.
A deduced DNA profile from the panties was put in the national DNA database (CODIS). Never a matcht was obtained. There is a problem though, if one allele (number) is put wrongly in the DNA database there will never be a match.
Searching non-stringent in the DNA database should be performed but this is not common in the US. With this method one can find close matches to the profile and it will give a list of persons of interest. Furthermore, a search for familial DNA could be performed. The donor may not be in the database but perhaps his father, brother or other family members.
The racial background of the profile of the unknown male, which was deduced from the mixture from the panties, can be investigated.
Further investigations for DNA
From information obtained from reports and documentaries, I made a list evidence which should be investigated on blood, saliva, semen, sweat and touch DNA.Beside a standard autosomal DNA investigation, all samples should be investigated on Y-chromosomal DNA, which is only present in males. The victim’s DNA (female) is than filtered out. This gives a much bigger chance on finding DNA belonging to the perpetrator(s) on different incriminating locations.
Below I put up a list of items of interest. It speaks for itself why most items can be investigated for (touch) DNA.
The list of items of interest:
The garrotte
Rope on garrotte
Fingernails JonBenet
Hair JonBenet
Nek samples JonBenet
Mouth oral vaginal and anal swabs JonBenet
Ligature of wrist JonBenet
Shirt JonBenet was wearing
Long johns JonBenet was wearing
Blanket jr
Ring right hands JonBenet
Panties on touch DNA
Blue rope
Maglite
White blanket
Duct tape on the white blanket (duct tape is difficult to handle with gloves on)
DNA on ransom note
Suitcase placed under window
Window basement
Items in the suitcase (sham, duvet and a Dr. Seuss book)
Probably there is more evidence of interest available, but this list is a good start of the most important items. When a good DNA investigation is performed DNA of the perpetrator(s) should be obtained.
If no DNA results are obtained, which I find very unlikely, as a last resort the body of JonBenet could be exhumed to take new and better samples from bruises and locations where the perpetrators(s) could have touched her.

Print this item

  her lawyer Lee Hill
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-30-2018, 09:51 PM - Forum: Nancy Krebs - No Replies

The Legend of Pine Ridge


Saturday, March 11, 2006
The Activist Lawyers Lee Hill and David Lane
Developing...

Here is a Westword article about the Boulder lawyer and American Indian Movement (AIM) activist Lee Hill. Lee Hill also was an activist and lawyer on behalf of Leonard Peltier, the man convicted of aiding and abetting in the murder the two FBI agents on Pine Ridge on Jun 26, 1975.

This article should be read and studied carefully. The lawyer's goal seems to be not to protect his supposedly "endangered" client but to denigrate the Boulder authorities and to suggest that the authorities are protecting the person/s who murdered the Boulder child JonBenet Ramsey. I call this the "protected pedophiles conspiracy theory" of the JonBenet Ramsey murder.

This conspiracy theory was promoted by the clients of two activist lawyers with ties to Ward Churchill--Lee Hill and David Lane.

Lane is Churchill's current lawyer. These lawyers' clients even got into trouble for trying to influence the secret JonBenet Ramsey grand jury.

David Lane's client Evan Ravitz, who got in trouble for illegally influencing a grand jury, also claims to have been advised at times by Lee Hill: "I sought legal counsel from (Boulder lawyer) Lee Hill, and he said it was his understanding that people could contact a grand jury member," said Ravitz.

Ravitz, strong advocate for the protected pedophile conspiracy theory, writes:

This year I had substantive contact with 2 Grand Jury investigators, 2 District Attorneys, 3 District Judges, several Grand Jurors, the ACLU of both Boulder and Colorado, attorneys and citizens around the country. It has been an extraordinary education in what my pro bono attorney and Grand Jury expert David Lane calls the "Just us" system...what we still want investigated is what we believe DA Hunter most wants to avoid: the possibility that pedophiles- who we name- in very high places in Boulder de-railed the investigation... http://www.vote.org/ramsey/salazar.htm (dead link)

Another post on the internet that features David Lane alleges: "Evidence of Pedophiles in High Places Blocked in Investigation into the Murder of JonBenet."

The protected pedophiles conspiracy theory is a lot like Ward Churchill's allegation that FBI-backed death squads murdered 342 people on Pine Ridge. Churchill has spent his life denigrating American law enforcement. He has promoted claims that alleged FBI-backed killings were not simply murders but part of "a pattern of officially-sponsored terrorism."

It seems to me that what AIM operatives did on Pine Ridge to make the Indians mistrust the FBI, was now being repeated in Boulder. The goal of the propaganda was not to see justice done but to denigrate law enforcement and make people think that law enforcement was protecting and abetting criminals.

The Westword article closes by disparaging the Boulder police:
"The Boulder police haven't managed to arrest anyone for the murder of JonBenét, but they can track down a renegade dog owner -- all while a would-be witness in their town's biggest murder case cowers behind the door."

Lee Hill represented this mentally unstable "witness" (later said to be Nancy Krebs) who claimed that she had been sexually assaulted since childhood by people connected to the murdered Boulder child JonBenet Ramsey:

The Witness...said she was now concerned over the safety of her niece, who she suspected may be suffering the same abuse she had. And she was worried about the case, because now her family would know to destroy or hide evidence. And she was worried about her personal safety. The man she was naming was wealthy and these people, she said, were ruthless. [Westword]

The author of the article, Steve Jackson, writes:

" The Witness claims that she's been the victim of a child-sex ring whose participants included a wealthy friend of the Ramsey family. Yes, that Ramsey family.
If what The Witness has to say is true -- and she does have documentation proving at least her family's connection to the wealthy friend, and she's also sent one man to prison for rape -- then her information may shed some light on the possible circumstances of JonBenét's murder. And that could mean she's in danger. Maybe, Hill worries, he is, too.


For the past few days, the Boulder police have been in California checking the woman's story, though from what Hill can determine, they've mostly been trying to find ways to damage her credibility instead of investigating the possibility that maybe, just maybe, she's telling the truth." [Westword]


Lee Hill claimed that this mystery woman was being hunted by the people who had exploited her, so he hid her with AIM. He also complained that the Boulder police had risked her life by contacting the California police to check this woman's shakey story.

It is odd that Lee Hill is giving media interviews that publicize his client's allegations if he is really trying to protect his client's life:

"She can't go home," Hill yelled [to the Boulder police]. If their leak to the California police was standard procedure, then any stalker in the country could locate his prey by filing a missing-persons report. He was a former law-enforcement officer and he knew that revealing the whereabouts (much less that she was a potential witness in a murder case) of a competent adult who knew where she was didn't wash.

"At considerable risk to herself, she leaves everything and comes forward to try to help you people. Then you needlessly strip her of her only security and tell her pursuers where she is and what she's doing. And all you can give her to shield herself is two fucking business cards. I'll be goddamned if I'm the only one responsible for her safety."


Hunter tried to diffuse the situation, but Hill and The Witness left through the back door. Now Hill was really worried about finding her a safe place to stay. He turned to his friends with the American Indian Movement -- if there was one group of people who weren't afraid of standing up to the government, it was AIM. He called friends, a poor family who didn't have much. Yet without asking any questions about why this woman might be in danger or what risk they might face, they told Hill to bring her over. Suddenly, he felt enormous relief. Leave it to his people to offer what they had to someone in need.

The Witness stayed with them for several days, but Hill knew that they were barely scraping by as it was, so he looked for someplace else to hide her while they waited to hear from the Boulder police.
[Westword]

The woman was determined to be mentally ill. Later, the lawyer Lee Hill was later reportedly arrested a few times by the police. He reportedly assaulted his wife with a gun; he nearly rammed a police car, and he had weapons he was not allowed to have. Hill reportedly jumped bail and didn't show up for his trial. As far as I know, he is still missing.

This is a very complicated story, but I think that this disgusting murder and the cruel, cynical post-murder urban legends were fabricated, like Ward Churchill's Legend of Pine Ridge, to discredit law enforcement.

This murder was mainly terrorist, and the target was the government and the people's confidence in the integrity of their legal institutions.

These lawyer-operatives had a long affiliation with Ward Churchill and AIM, and their actions seemed to be very similar to the political troublemaking, chaos, and distrust that AIM fostered on Pine Ridge. The whole point of that disinformation operation was to depict the FBI as terrorists who protected criminals who murdered Indians.

The fake "witness" Lee Hill represented reminds me a lot of the fake "witness" that AIM promoted after the two FBI agents were murdered at Pine Ridge on the anniversary of "Custer's Last Stand," June 26, 1975. [The Battle of Little Bighorn lasted for two days June 25-26, 1876.]

After Peltier was convicted for aiding and abetting in two murders of the FBI agents, a man called "Mr. X" arranged to meeet a writer named Peter Matthiessen at a secret location. "Mr X" covered his face and claimed to the writer that he (Mr. X) had killed the two FBI agents. This man never confessed to the police and was never interrogated about his claim; he was never questioned in court. The whole point was to make it seem as though an innocent man was wrongly in prison for murder.

Ward Churchill often quotes this book by Matthiessen, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, as authoritative, and Churchill has claimed, variously, that he was on Pine Ridge the day of the shootings or the day after.

I think that David "Free Speech" Lane and Lee Hill promoted a cynical conspiracy theory after JonBenet Ramsey was murdered to discredit the government.

Print this item

  Evan Ravitz and Dr. Robert McFarland
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-30-2018, 09:12 PM - Forum: Names to remember - Replies (16)

Dr. Robert McFarland's and my experience with the JonBenet Ramsey murder case 
and District Attorney Alex Hunter's "grand secrecy"
by Evan Ravitz , evan@vote.org
The Boulder Daily Camera will publish my editorial about the case this Saturday 4/29/00, which will be document 16 below. Note the year 2000 developments below. We tried to tell the Grand Jury about these things!

  1. October 15, 1999: My letter to Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar, with time line summary of events.

  2. September 7, 1999: Dr. McFarland's request to testify to the grand jury

  3. September 20, 1999: My request to testify to the grand jury, to prosecuting attorney Michael Kane.

  4. September 20, 1999: Mr. Kane and Alex Hunter's denial of my request.

  5. September 27, 1999: My appeal of the denial to Judge Roxanne Bailin

  6. September 27, 1999: My motion to vacate Judge Daniel Hale's no-contact (with the grand jury) order, with the support of the Colorado ACLU

  7. October 7, 1999: Judge Bailin's denial of my appeal.
  8. Spring, 1999: Chapters 10 & 20 of Stephen Singular's book [b]Presumed Guilty: An Investigation into the Jon Benet Ramsey Case, the Media, and the Culture of Pornography[Image: ir?t=takthemocouto-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1893224007][b] These were the chapters that we sent to the grand jurors at their homes after the grand jury foreman told us he never received the book we sent him in care of the District Attorney. For this we were threatened with contempt of court, in spite of Colorado law. We were the main sources for the chapters. [/b][/b]
  9. [b][b]February 2, 1999: Transcript of Dr. McFarland's radio interview with Donald Freed, author of Killing Time, (about the OJ Simpson case) and screenwriter for the movie "Executive Action" about the JFK assassination.[/b][/b]

  10. Spring, 1994: Dr. McFarland's article on The Children of God cult, published in The Journal of Psychohistory. A former trainer for the cult recently returned his "Parent of the Year" award when his association was disclosed.

  11. The case of Lauriane, "the JonBenet of France"

  12. FEBRUARY 25, 2000: Boulder Daily Camera: "DA pursues new Ramsey lead: Hunter asks police to investigate woman’s story of sex abuse"

  13. FEBRUARY 26, 2000: Boulder Daily Camera: "Therapist backs sex-ring claim; Bienkowski: Client gave Boulder police names of people who are witnesses in JonBenet’s death."

  14. MARCH 5, 2000: Boulder Daily Camera: "Ramsey Detectives off to California" (to interview the therapist of the woman claiming knowledge of the Ramsey case due to her family’s closeness with Ramsey ex-friend Fleet White)

  15. MARCH 9, 2000: Boulder Daily Camera "Boulder police interview therapist"

  16. April 29, 2000: Boulder Daily Camera guest editorial by Evan Ravitz: "'Nothing what it seems' in Ramsey case." Here's the paragraph the Camera DIDN'T publish (it was to be 3rd to last):
[b]"Det. Tom Wickman made another curious comment to Dr. McFarland and I, and independently to Stephen Singular, author of "Presumed Guilty: An Investigation into the JonBenet Ramsey Case, the Media, and the Culture of Pornography" (on page 217). Tom said that once he was "getting close" to arresting a Boulder City Council member, but had been told to "back off." Since Tom was legally prohibited from giving us any clues about the Ramsey investigation, I feel he was repeatedly drawing an analogy, by way of saying that he'd heard the pedophile-coverup story before and had been told to back off from investigating that."[/b]
[b]We suggest letters to US Attorney General Janet Reno. Ask her to investigate why the FBI never took charge of the Ramsey case -an apparent kidnapping case- as required by the "Lindbergh law." Ask her to review this web site (vote.org) Her address:[/b]
[b]Attorney General Janet Reno, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington DC 20530-0001
email: web@usdoj.gov You can call her at 202-616-2777 or fax: 202-514-5331
[/b]

[b]You can also email Colorado Governor Owens, Attorney General Salazar, and their advisors.[/b]
[b]Grand Juries in Colorado, both State and Federal, are being manipulated in various ways. The Ramsey Grand Jury was kept in the dark about many people’s evidence. Read the leaked 1993 Rocky Flats Grand Jury Uncensored Report. Rocky Flats, between Denver and Boulder, made the A-bomb "triggers" for US H-bombs from 1954 till closed by the FBI in 1989. The Grand Jurors wanted to indict Department of Energy officials and private contractors for continuing crimes, but the prosecutor struck a deal, and silenced the jurors.[/b]
[b]For an alternative to such secrecy and impunity in government, please see the National Initiative for Democracy.. [/b]

Print this item

  Found on Facebook
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-30-2018, 06:31 PM - Forum: Found on other forums - No Replies

[/url]This guy seems pretty smart - and may not last long on the Facebook forums that don't seem to care if lies stand unchallenged.
[url=https://www.facebook.com/tom.gavin.988?fref=gs&dti=1731600583761248&hc_location=group]


Tom Gavin
New Member · July 25 at 11:13 PM


Bob Russell, Former District Attorney in Colorado Springs:
"The evidence was too strong that the Ramseys didn't do this. And so, to see that anybody's trying to really get the Ramsey's indicted, when I had already seen the evidence that showed he Ramseys most certainly didn't do it, it really bothered me...even though I've been a Prosecutor all my life."
After Lou Smit was allowed to keep his evidence, that pointed to an Intruder (The Boulder Special Prosecutoe Michael Kane sought an injunction against Lou Smit and his evidence) the Grand Jury still heard evidence dominated by the Police view of Ramsey guilt.
Former Public Defender Greg Walta in 1998:
"I think the case is in deep trouble. And I think it's in deep trouble because the Boulder Police Dept. has really staked its reputation on the Ramseys being guilty. and once that's happened, that Police Dept. can no longer perform its' chief function. And I think the Boulder PD is virtually incapable of solving this case."
And he was right. Here we are 20 yrs later. Case has been unsolved and virtually frozen. And 20 yrs later, Walta states that JonBenet's killer is one of the "scariest people on earth." Totally convinced of Ramsey innocence.
As is one of the first Detectives on the scene, Robert Whitson. He also believes the family is innocent. He WAS IN THE HOUSE with the family the morning of the 26th.
"I was not part of the ongoing investigation, but Detectives that were working the case told me the Ramseys were the ONLY prime suspects." Imagine that[Image: 1f644.png]?
He is now a Criminologist and says he understands now why the Boulder PD focused on the Ramsey's....which they most certainly did, despite what misinformation you hear on these boards. "The Boulder PD formed a Groupthink mentality. Everybody has to think the same thing and anybody who disagrees with that primary hypothesis is excluded from the group."
But what happened in Boulder happens in many cases. A rush to judgment...to blame the parents. There is leaking of information, a public sentiment that the parents must have had something to do with it.
John Ramsey says it best: "We absolutely felt we were the victim of a lynch mob, led by the Boulder Police and supported by the media." (and further strengthened by an often harsh and judgmental public).

Print this item

  responding to thetalko.com article
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-30-2018, 04:33 PM - Forum: Answering BORG questions - Replies (16)

16 Things The Ramsey's Don't Want You To Know About JonBenet's Murder

In this article, we’ll take you to the fifteen eeriest things the Ramsey’s don’t want you to know about this age old homicide.

The murder of six-year-old blonde beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey has been the fixation of macabre fascination since the case broke in 1996. You can’t write stuff like this, the day after Christmas in a mansion in Boulder, Colorado there lay little JonBenet Ramsey bludgeoned and strangled under a white sheet in her basement. The case was a media frenzy from the day it broke, however, nearly 21 years later the case remains cold with no signs of heating up. The police had several suspects over the years, including a creepy Santa Clause and a teacher named John Mark Carr who confessed he was there when JonBenet died. However salacious these claims may be, the police never found evidence that could link any suspects definitively to the little girl’s untimely death. However, John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey remained under a cloud of suspicion for the alleged involvement in their daughter and sister’s murder. In this article, we’ll take you to the fifteen eeriest things the Ramsey’s don’t want you to know about this age old homicide.


####################  My comments

I will forgive the author not taking the time to correctly print "JonBenét", but she should have been able to correctly spell Santa Claus and John Mark KARR.

I am going to respond to each point  - one at a time.  Eerie?  Not sure that is a proper description of the "things" - - but the Ramseys have never tried to hide any facts related to this murder.  They always hoped for the facts to be known in order to SOLVE this mystery.

Print this item

  Doc Miller link to Pete Peterson
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-29-2018, 11:11 PM - Forum: Judith Phillips - Replies (1)

Thomas C. MILLER and R.W. Peterson, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
James R. COLLIER;  Detective William Phillips;  and the City
and County of Denver, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 92CA2030.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.
June 16, 1994.

Theodore A. Borrillo, Doris A. Waters, Denver, for
plaintiffs-appellants.

Daniel E. Muse, City Atty., James C. Thomas, Asst. City Atty.,
Denver, for defendants-appellees.

David B. Kopel, Golden, Robert Dowlut, Washington, DC, for
amicus curiae The Firearms Civ. Rights Legal Defense Fund.

Opinion by Judge KAPELKE.
In this action against defendants, the City and County of Denver and two of its police officials, to recover damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (1988) and for relief in the nature of
certiorari review and mandamus under C.R.C.P. 106, plaintiffs, Thomas C. Miller and R.W. Peterson, appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their complaint with prejudice.  We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In their complaint, plaintiffs allege that they are private investigators who need to carry concealed weapons in order to protect themselves and others during the course of their work. They further allege that they have applied unsuccessfully to the Denver Police Department and Chief of Police for permits to carry such weapons.
In addition, they allege that Miller applied for a permit in July 1991 and that defendants denied his application in June 1992, on the ground that he had no “compelling need” to carry a concealed weapon.  Defendants informed Miller that he could reapply, but when he requested an application he was advised that the Denver Police Department was no longer providing applications for concealed weapons permits.
Peterson, who had held a concealed weapons permit for approximately eighteen years, applied for a renewal of his permit in March 1992.  Defendants allegedly denied his application without an explanation.

Print this item

  Questions for the authorsListen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-23-2018, 07:33 PM - Forum: Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case - Replies (1)

They have a Facebook page.  I used to be on Facebook but no more due to complaints by BORG who couldn't debate the case but COULD organize a flurry of complaints about me and my posts.  So I am not there but want to address a post by the authors of this book.  Fiest their post, then my questions (which I am sure they will not attempt to answer.

First their post:

Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case


 Thank you for your comment. In regards to a robber theory, there was nothing missing and absolutely no evidence of an intruder. In addition, why would robbers not just leave her where they knocked her out? Why would they have gone to trouble to take JonBenet to a basement they would not have known about and difficult to find? In the event they had found the basement, why would they have not left her in the first room they found there? Why take JonBenet to a room that was at the very back of a maze-like basement? Why then strangle her with a home-made ligature, even if it were just part of the staging to make it look like there was an intruder? Why would robbers wipe down JonBenet's body, change her clothes, wrap her in her favorite blanket "like a papoose" as her father said, tie her wrists together loosely with a cord and put a short piece of reused tape over her already dead mouth? Why stay in the house for an absolute minimum of another 30-45 minutes writing a 2 1/2 page ransom letter, increasing chances of being caught when the original intent was robbery? The only reason the ransom "note" was written was to explain JonBenet's dead body that would be found in the basement. Without that, and without Patsy's 911 call that said before she said anything else "we have a kidnapping" (not "my daughter is missing"), the Ramseys would have been arrested on the spot! They had to sell a kidnapping to be able to get out of the house and behind their wall of lawyers and public relations team who were hired immediately. The Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit of the FBI told the BPD the crime scene was staged, the ransom note was fake and to look at the family. There was no intruder or intruders. However, there was a huge miscarriage of justice because in America, if you are wealthy and well-connected, you can buy your freedom. If John Ramsey had been a truck-driver who lived on the edge of Bouder in a trailer, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We appreciate your interest in this case. Please let us know if we can answer any further questions.

Print this item

  Questions for the authorsListen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-23-2018, 07:12 PM - Forum: Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case - Replies (1)

They have a Facebook page.  I used to be on Facebook but no more due to complaints by BORG who couldn't debate the case but COULD organize a flurry of complaints about me and my posts.  So I am not there but want to address a post by the authors of this book.  Fiest their post, then my questions (which I am sure they will not attempt to answer.

First their post:

Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case


 Thank you for your comment. In regards to a robber theory, there was nothing missing and absolutely no evidence of an intruder. In addition, why would robbers not just leave her where they knocked her out? Why would they have gone to trouble to take JonBenet to a basement they would not have known about and difficult to find? In the event they had found the basement, why would they have not left her in the first room they found there? Why take JonBenet to a room that was at the very back of a maze-like basement? Why then strangle her with a home-made ligature, even if it were just part of the staging to make it look like there was an intruder? Why would robbers wipe down JonBenet's body, change her clothes, wrap her in her favorite blanket "like a papoose" as her father said, tie her wrists together loosely with a cord and put a short piece of reused tape over her already dead mouth? Why stay in the house for an absolute minimum of another 30-45 minutes writing a 2 1/2 page ransom letter, increasing chances of being caught when the original intent was robbery? The only reason the ransom "note" was written was to explain JonBenet's dead body that would be found in the basement. Without that, and without Patsy's 911 call that said before she said anything else "we have a kidnapping" (not "my daughter is missing"), the Ramseys would have been arrested on the spot! They had to sell a kidnapping to be able to get out of the house and behind their wall of lawyers and public relations team who were hired immediately. The Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit of the FBI told the BPD the crime scene was staged, the ransom note was fake and to look at the family. There was no intruder or intruders. However, there was a huge miscarriage of justice because in America, if you are wealthy and well-connected, you can buy your freedom. If John Ramsey had been a truck-driver who lived on the edge of Bouder in a trailer, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We appreciate your interest in this case. Please let us know if we can answer any further questions.

Print this item

  ?? Supposed Ramsey story
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-23-2018, 06:50 PM - Forum: 45 Pounds of Flesh - Replies (2)

45 Pounds of Flesh
Book by Sans Emmert

Amazon
 
Might this coming of age tale of obsessive love reveal the motive behind the Jonbenet Ramsey murder? Damon was born of rape; a bastard whose adoptive father hanged himself after learning he’d been duped. The solace Damon later finds in murder-mystery movies inspires him to write his own, molding anti-heroes into real heroes. When Damon meets aspiring actress Kammy it's true love. Despite his promises to make her a star in his imagined screenplay, she remains aloof: Mature millionaire J.R. has already promised her a simpler path from Shreveport to glamour—once he's left his beauty queen wife. However, an unexpected pregnancy changes everything, and soon Damon and Kammy are ready to live their shared dream: Damon will work construction and write by night, while Kammy fills out acting-school applications. But the dream is shattered when Damon's new family vanishes without a trace, leaving him wracked and suicidal. That is until a blockbuster movie inspires him to write the script of a lifetime... Inspired by actual events, 45 Pounds of Flesh is the whydunit that might finally illuminate the most psychologically complex cold-case mystery of our time.
Author: Sans Emmert

Print this item

  Court dates
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-23-2018, 02:18 PM - Forum: John Ramsey sues CBS - No Replies

Ramsey, John v CBS Corporation , et al.

Register of Actions

Case No. 17-013731-CZ

02/04/2019
Case Evaluation - General Civil

03/20/2019
Settlement Conference (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Groner, David A.)


08/02/2018
Reset by Court to 03/20/2019

Print this item