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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 7
» Latest member: PeterSherri
» Forum threads: 1,716
» Forum posts: 5,451

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 37 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 37 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
DiscoveryPlus (Arrow Pro...
Forum: 2021
Last Post: jameson245
01-07-2021, 01:11 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 87
BODE tested this nightgow...
Forum: Barbie nightgown
Last Post: jameson245
12-29-2020, 01:30 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 162
blueprints
Forum: The House at 755 15th Street, Boulder, CO
Last Post: jameson245
12-21-2020, 05:53 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 171
blueprints
Forum: The House at 755 15th Street, Boulder, CO
Last Post: jameson245
12-21-2020, 05:39 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 89
Paul Hidalgo - artist?
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
12-19-2020, 04:17 PM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 3,289
Police can enter unlocked...
Forum: Boulder crimes
Last Post: jameson245
12-17-2020, 11:48 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 205
Suzanne Savage
Forum: Housekeepers, workers in the house
Last Post: jameson245
12-12-2020, 05:27 PM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 6,816
Fleet White - 12/29/1996
Forum: December 26th
Last Post: jameson245
12-12-2020, 01:48 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 164
later that day
Forum: December 26th
Last Post: jameson245
12-08-2020, 01:18 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 1,317
Pat Brown
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
12-06-2020, 01:32 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 184

 
  Tony Ortega
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-06-2019, 08:52 AM - Forum: Michael Tracey - No Replies

JonBenet Flimsy
As the case against John Mark Karr disintegrates, attention turns to CU prof Michael Tracey, who's fingered false suspects in the past.
By TONY ORTEGA
Article Published Aug 17, 2006

DetailsWhile the case against John Mark Karr disintegrates by the minute, New Times has learned that this isn't the first time Colorado University Professor Michael Tracey has caused a stir by fingering a "prime suspect" in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case only to be proved wrong.

In 2004, Tracey, a British expatriate journalism professor and documentarian, produced a film about the Ramsey murder that aired on British television but not in the United States. By then, however, Tracey was already considered a notorious developer of false leads by a large group of Internet sleuths who congregated at Forums for Justice, a website started by a radio disc jockey named Tricia Griffith.

"If you know the case and you watch Tracey's documentaries, they're filled with blatant lies. It's so easily proven," Griffith says from Park City, Utah, where she does radio and voiceover work. In Tracey's 2004 documentary, Who Killed the Pageant Queen?, the professor claimed to have stunning new evidence that was leading police to a previously unidentified "prime suspect." The documentary claimed that police were trying unsuccessfully to track down the man because he had gone "underground." Tracey's film didn't name the man, but a document was shown onscreen that purported to be a police record of the suspect, with the suspect's name and address blacked out.

Griffith says an alert viewer in Scotland recorded the show and was able to do a screen capture of the police report. The image included a document number, enough information for Griffith to track down her own copy of the document.

Tracey's "prime suspect" turned out to be John Steven Gigax, who was, in fact, an acquaintance of Michael Helgoth's, who, in "intruder" theories about the murder of JonBenet, was long considered a possible suspect.

However, contrary to Tracey's claim that Gigax was underground and untraceable, Griffith found him in ten minutes with a simple Google search. "He was selling jewelry on the Internet," Griffith says.

Griffith says Gigax immediately contacted Boulder police to see if they were really looking for him.

They weren't.

"I talked to [Boulder District Attorney Investigator] Tom Bennett myself, and he said Gigax was never a suspect. Gigax can prove he was in Indiana on the day of the murder."

That sounds familiar. Two years later, Tracey has electrified the world with his fingering of another suspect who, it's looking likely, will turn out to have been in another state when JonBenet Ramsey was killed in the early hours of December 26, 1996. New Times tried to contact Tracey but was unable to do so.

After debunking Tracey's documentary, Griffith put out a news release (you can still find it at forumsforjustice.org), but she says she got no media interest from it.

In fact, when New Times phoned her this morning to ask about the Tracey documentary, she said she was getting no other inquiries from reporters.

As the rest of the media feed on the inconsistencies of John Mark Karr's confessions, they may soon turn their attention to the Colorado professor who has apparently yelled "Fire!" in this case before.



http://www.newtimesbpb.com/Issues/2006-0...nbent.html

Print this item

  Lacy letter to John Ramsey
Posted by: jameson245 - 09-07-2019, 01:23 PM - Forum: DNA - Touch DNA on long johns - No Replies

LACY LETTER TO JOHN RAMSEY
 
July 9, 2008
 
Mr. John Ramsey,
 As you are aware, since December 2002, the Boulder District Attorney's Office has been the agency responsible for the investigation of the homicide of your daughter, JonBenet. I understand that the fact that we have not been able to identify the person who killed her is a great disappointment that is a continuing hardship for you and your family.
 However, significant new evidence has recently been discovered through the application of relatively new methods of DNA analysis. This new scientific evidence convinces us that it is appropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to state that we do not consider your immediate family including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime. I wish we could have done so before Mrs. Ramsey died.
 We became aware last summer that some private laboratories were conducting a new methodology described as "touch DNA." One method of sampling for touch DNA is the "scraping method." This is a process in which forensic scientists scrape places where there are no stains or other signs of the possible presence of DNA to recover for analysis any genetic material that might nonetheless be present. We contracted with the Bode Technology Group, a highly reputable laboratory recommended to us by several law enforcement agencies to use the scraping method for touch DNA on the long johns that JonBenet wore and that were probably handled by the perpetrator during the course of this crime.
 The Bode Technology laboratory was able to develop a profile from DNA recovered from the two sides of the long johns. 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 at Bode.
 Unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime is powerful evidence. The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder.
 Solving this crime remains our goal, and its ultimate resolution will depend on more than just matching DNA. However, given the history of the publicity surrounding this case, I believe it is important and appropriate to provide you with our opinion that your family was not responsible for this crime. Based on the DNA results and our serious consideration of all the other evidence, we are comfortable that the profile now in CODIS is the profile of the perpetrator of this murder.
 To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry: No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law. I have the greatest respect for the way you and your family have handled this adversity.
 I am aware that 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. I am very comfortable that our conclusion that this evidence has vindicated your family is based firmly on all of the evidence, including the reliable forensic DNA evidence that has been developed as a result of advances in that scientific field during this investigation.
 We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. Otherwise, we will continue to refrain from publicly discussing the evidence in this case.
 We hope that we will one day obtain a DNA match from the CODIS data bank that will lead to further evidence and to the solution of this crime. With recent legislative changes throughout the country, the number of profiles available for comparison in the CODIS data bank is growing steadily. Law enforcement agencies are receiving increasing numbers of cold hits on DNA profiles that have been in the system for many years. We hope that one day soon we will get a match to this perpetrator. We will, of course, contact you immediately. Perhaps only then will we begin to understand the psychopathy or motivation for this brutal and senseless crime.
 Respectfully,
 Mary T. Lacy
 District Attorney
 Twentieth Judicial District
 Boulder, Colorado

Print this item

  press release
Posted by: jameson245 - 09-07-2019, 11:13 AM - Forum: DNA - Touch DNA on long johns - No Replies


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, July 09, 2008


Ramsey Press Release


 
 
CONTACT:  CAROLYN FRENCH,  AT 303-441-4869.
 
Boulder District Attorney Mary T. Lacy issues the following announcement with regard to the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.
 
On December 25-26, 1996, JonBenet Ramsey was murdered in the home where she lived with her mother, father and brother.  Despite a long and intensive investigation, the death of JonBenet remains unsolved. 
 
The murder has received unprecedented publicity and has been shrouded in controversy.  That publicity has led to many theories over the years in which suspicion has focused on one family member or another.  However, there has been at least one persistent stumbling block to the possibility of prosecuting any Ramsey family members for the death of JonBenet – DNA. 
 
As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, the Boulder Police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value.  Over time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of advances in the science and methodology.  One of the results of their efforts was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of JonBenet’s blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at the time her body was discovered.  That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family. 
 
The police department diligently compared that profile to a very large number of people associated with the victim, with her family, and with the investigation, and has not identified the source, innocent or otherwise, of this DNA.  The Boulder Police and prosecutors assigned to this investigation in the past also worked conscientiously with laboratory analysts to obtain better results through new approaches and additional tests as they became available.  Those efforts ultimately led to the discovery of sufficient genetic markers from this male profile to enter it into the national DNA data bank.
 
In December of 2002, the Boulder District Attorney’s Office, under Mary T. Lacy, assumed responsibility for the investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide.  Since then, this office has worked with the Boulder Police Department to continue the investigation of this crime.
 
In early August of 2007, District Attorney Lacy attended a Continuing Education Program in West Virginia sponsored by the National Institute of Justice on Forensic Biology and DNA.  The presenters discussed successful outcomes from a new methodology described as “touch DNA.”  One method for sampling for touch DNA is the “scraping method.”  In this process, forensic scientists scrape a surface where there is no observable stain or other indication of possible DNA in an effort to recover for analysis any genetic material that might nonetheless be present.  This methodology was not well known in this country until recently and is still used infrequently.
 
In October of 2007, we decided to pursue the possibility of submitting additional items from the JonBenet Ramsey homicide to be examined using this methodology.  We checked with a number of Colorado sources regarding which private laboratory to use for this work.  Based upon multiple recommendations, including that of the Boulder Police Department, we contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory.  First Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire and Investigator Andy Horita spent a full day with staff members at the Bode facility in early December of 2007.
 
The Bode Technology laboratory applied the “touch DNA” scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered.  These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.
 
On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns.  The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode. 
 
We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed.  Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort.  We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy.  As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources. 
 
I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the efforts of the Boulder Police Department, Bode Technology Group, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Denver Police Department Forensic Laboratory for the great work and assistance they have contributed to this investigation.  
 
The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence.  It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder.  This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful. 
 
It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.
 
DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find during a criminal investigation.  We rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes.  It can likewise be reliable evidence upon which to remove people from suspicion in appropriate cases.
 
The Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case.  We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence.  We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.
 
Local, national, and even international publicity has focused on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.  Many members of the public came to believe that one or more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father or even her brother, were responsible for this brutal homicide.  Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on evidence reported by the media.
 
It is the responsibility of every prosecutor to seek justice.  That responsibility includes seeking justice for people whose reputations and lives can be damaged irreparably by the lingering specter of suspicion.  In a highly publicized case, the detrimental impact of publicity and suspicion on people’s lives can be extreme.  The suspicions about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet. 
 
For reasons including those discussed above, we believe that justice dictates that the Ramseys be treated only as victims of this very serious crime.  We will accord them all the rights guaranteed to the victims of violent crimes under the law in Colorado and all the respect and sympathy due from one human being to another.  To the extent that this office has added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any degree, I offer my deepest apology. 
 
We prefer that any tips related to this ongoing investigation be submitted in writing or via electronic mail to BoulderDA.org, but they can also be submitted to our tip line at 
(303) 441-1636.
 
This office will make no further statements.  To read the text of the letter to John Ramsey click here.
 

Print this item

  letter to Moonves - CBS
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-17-2019, 12:33 PM - Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White - No Replies

[Image: photogrid_1565949743198-jpg.198683]

this is all found

Print this item

  Stephen Diamond's thoughts
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-08-2019, 06:18 PM - Forum: Ransom Note - Replies (22)

My comments under the line


What follows is a breakdown of the ransom note, exactly as it was written on several pages torn from the bedside pad of Patsy Ramsey and printed with a black felt pen (taken from and then interestingly returned to its original place in the home), before reportedly being found and read by Mrs. Ramsey. According to her, the strange note was apparently intentionally left on the stairs leading down from her bedroom to the home's main level. This odd choice on the part of the writer is curious unto itself. What led him or her to leave the letter on the stairs instead of, say, on the kitchen table or in the bedroom of either John and Patsy or JonBenet? If the intent was for the letter be discovered as early in the morning as possible, how could the alleged kidnapper have known of Patsy's habit of rising early and walking down these stairs to the kitchen to make coffee in the morning, unless the writer was intimately familiar with her daily routine? The note could have been left instead in the bathroom, for instance, where it might have been sooner seen, or right on the Ramsey's nightstand or on JonBenet's empty bed, the latter being the more dramatic and perhaps expected placement, stating and starkly demonstrating that we have taken your daughter from her bed and, to prove it, left this ransom note in her stead. But it was supposedly placed instead on the stairs for some unknown reason. This suggests to me that the ransom note may have been written, but was at least left on the stairs, some time after the family had gone to bed that night after returning from a Christmas party, if indeed it was discovered there in the morning as Patsy claimed. Or, in the theoretical case of a coverup, was placed there either by Patsy, in order to deceive John, or by Patsy and John conjointly after JonBenet was accidentally or intentionally killed that morning. But then, in the latter scenario, there would have been no need to stage it sitting on the stairs in the first place, if indeed it ever was left there by someone. So the story of the ransom note, how and where it was found, and by whom and when, is the first major mystery here. Next, there is the question of who actually wrote the so-called ransom note, something fairly extensive handwriting analysis has so far been unable to definitively answer, despite reported marked similarities to Patsy's writing samples submitted to police. Whether a thorough psychological analysis of this ransom note has previously been conducted by a forensic psychologist in this case is unclear to me. But it certainly seems that such an analysis could potentially provide some valuable clues regarding the ransom note's creator(s).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 pages torn from the bedside pad  - -  nope, we all know the pad was from the first floor back hall.


According to her, the strange note was apparently intentionally left on the stairs  - - what a stupid comment.  Someone didn't ACCIDENTLY leave the note there.

Diamond seems to think an intruder would, of course, want to leave the ransom note on the third floor - - take the risk of waking up the adults.  Is Diamond nutz?  The note was placed in a very logical place - - no way would it be missed there.


Diamond wrote, "the ransom note may have been written, but was at least left on the stairs, some time after the family had gone to bed that night after returning from a Christmas party, if indeed it was discovered there in the morning as Patsy claimed."  The BORG has chosen his position - - the rest of his paper will try to convince the reader he is right.  But yes, the note was left on the stirs sometime after the family got home.  When they first got home, if the note was already on those stairs, JOHN would have seen it as he carried JBR up those stairs.    Diamond doesn't think or reason right on this point and many others.


Like this thought - 
"Or, in the theoretical case of a coverup, was placed there either by Patsy, in order to deceive John, or by Patsy and John conjointly after JonBenet was accidentally or intentionally killed that morning. But then, in the latter scenario, there would have been no need to stage it sitting on the stairs in the first place, if indeed it ever was left there by someone. So the story of the ransom note, how and where it was found, and by whom and when, is the first major mystery here."


Lots of words to say nothing, IMO.

Print this item

  John in Miles' lawsuit
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-08-2019, 11:51 AM - Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White - Replies (6)

19 we don't think we've ever been around anybody that could
20 be this evil, period.
21 Q. Do you suspect that Mr. White may have been
22 involved?
23 A. No, no reason to.

Print this item

  from Ramsey interviews
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-29-2019, 08:03 AM - Forum: Flashlight - Replies (10)

22 LOU SMIT: What kind of flashlight do you
23 have?
24 JOHN RAMSEY: Well we've got several, I guess.
25 One that, I believe, came up as an item was this
0145
 1 MAG light flashlight. If it's the one I think it
 2 is, my son gave me that for a Christmas present a
 3 year or two ago. And that was probably in the bar.
 4 The bar drawer was typically where it was kept.
 5 LOU SMIT: You don't remember getting that?
 6 JOHN RAMSEY: No. I know I did not get it.
 7 LOU SMIT: Anyone else get it?
 8 JOHN RAMSEY: Not that I recall. I don't even
 9 know it worked. Typically our flashlights didn't
10 work because we needed new batteries (INAUDIBLE).
11 We might have a few blown flashlights around.

Print this item

  The 5 point scale
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-15-2019, 04:39 PM - Forum: Handwriting - Replies (2)

   

Print this item

  from Brill's Content
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-13-2019, 11:46 AM - Forum: Pam and Kristine Griffin - Replies (1)

"Thomas allowed Shapiro to sit in on a sensitive investigation.  In July, 1997, me to come to the police station to phone Pam Griffin, a friend of Patsy Ramsey, so that he could surreptitiously tape the conversation.  The detective wanted to document a remarkable assertion that Griffin had made to me:  Patsy Ramsey admitted to her that she wrote the so-called "practice note".  However, said Griffin, Patsy claimed it was just the aborted start to an invitation to some event which Patsy couldn't recall.  Thomas allowed Shapiro to monitor my conversation with Griffin.  The session was a bust, though, when Griffin dismissed her previous comments as "speculation" about Patsy's actions."

Print this item

  caret use indicates college grad
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-07-2019, 04:00 PM - Forum: Disproving Myths - No Replies

In the ransom note, the author wrote that the men watching JonBenet  "do particularly like you" - - then decided to add the word "not".  They put the letter "v" between the first two words and over that wrote "not".   

BORG would have us all believe that the use of a caret proves Patsy wrote the note because only she, a journalism major, would know how to use that caret.  BS - - I was taught how to use a caret - - so was every other public school student who was born in the 50's.  including Patsy.

The interesting thing, IMO, is that I was taught to have the point going to the word to be added, not to the place it was to be put.  

The is what I found online.

[/url]Usage of the Caret Symbol in English Language and Punctuation
If you invert the letter[b] ‘v’[/b] you will obtain a figure like this[b] ‘^’ [/b]which is called as the caret symbol. [b]‘Caret’[/b] is a word from Latin and it literally means[i] ‘to lack something; or to be separated.’[/i] The word is pronounced exactly the way we pronounce the word [b]‘carrot’ [/b]regularly. This peculiar [url=http://www.writeawriting.com/grammar/irony-sarcasm-punctuation-english-language/]character
is extensively found on every keyboard in our contemporary world, but, have you wondered what the use of this caret symbol is?
Well, let’s find out today!
How to Use the Caret Symbol in English Language?
For Proofreading
Initially, this mark originated to be a symbol for proofreaders who wanted to point out mistakes in a text by inserting this mark within the space between the words and insert the particular word or punctuation that was felt needed. For instance, The Sentence
[i]“My father holding the camera, when the light suddenly went out”[/i] will be corrected by a proof reader as follows:
[i]“My father ^was holding the camera, when the light suddenly went out.”[/i]
Thus, if you want to [b]insert something in your text[/b], you can easily utilize this figure within your writing.

The ransom note has the caret upside down.  So much for the BORG evidence against Patsy on that count.

Print this item