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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 30
» Latest member: Robbieg82
» Forum threads: 1,090
» Forum posts: 3,394

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 21 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 21 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Announcing the new tests
Forum: DNA -New testing - 2017
Last Post: CA4Now
12-14-2017, 05:43 PM
» Replies: 9
» Views: 1,192
Long John information
Forum: DNA - Touch DNA on long johns
Last Post: Kaligirlsam
12-01-2017, 04:24 PM
» Replies: 10
» Views: 3,022
Q&A
Forum: Answering BORG questions
Last Post: CA4Now
10-28-2017, 12:11 PM
» Replies: 17
» Views: 2,784
partial
Forum: Clues in the Case - May 2001
Last Post: jameson245
10-22-2017, 04:58 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 239
looking for the web
Forum: Broken window/ Spider web
Last Post: Gemini6
10-20-2017, 12:59 PM
» Replies: 13
» Views: 2,416
Important info in "We hav...
Forum: We Have Your Daughter
Last Post: Summer Dawn
10-19-2017, 07:24 PM
» Replies: 12
» Views: 1,619
Kirsten Hatfield
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 06:54 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 83
Jennifer Schuett
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 05:43 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 78
Charles Lindbergh - 1932
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 05:37 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 62
Polly Klaas
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 05:36 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 64

 
  Charlie Brennan/ Kevin Vaughan story
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-15-2017, 12:04 PM - Forum: DNA - Touch DNA on long johns - Replies (23)

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

  westword - investigation derailed article
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-15-2017, 11:44 AM - Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White - Replies (5)

JonBenet Ramsey: How the Investigation Got Derailed -- and Why It Still Matters
Wednesday, December 17, 2014 at 11:43 a.m.
By Alan Prendergast
[Image: coverjonbenet_01.jpg]Brian Stauffer
A A

Bad news often comes in the night. It arrives in a whirl of dread and confusion, like a drunk trying to get into the wrong house, shattering the pre-dawn silence and bursting our dreams.
When Priscilla White answered the phone at her Boulder home at six in the morning on December 26, 1996, she knew that something terrible had happened. Why else would anyone be calling so early, the day after Christmas? But the news was worse than anything she could imagine.
The voice on the line belonged to a frantic Patsy Ramsey. "JonBenét's been kidnapped," she said. "Come over right now. Call the FBI."
She hung up before the stunned Priscilla could say much of anything.
Priscilla and her husband, Fleet White Jr., had been with John and Patsy Ramsey just ten hours earlier. The Ramseys and their two children had come to the Whites' house for Christmas dinner. Nine-year-old Burke Ramsey had played Nintendo games with seven-year-old Fleet III, while best friends JonBenét and Daphne White, both six, had played in Daphne's room. There had been nothing remarkable about the evening, but now the Ramseys were making desperate calls for help.
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads
See also: Westword's JonBenet Ramsey Archive
Fleet and Priscilla hurried to their friends' house. The police were already there, and more friends, summoned by Patsy, were on their way. But Patsy was inconsolable. She sat on the floor, clutching a crucifix and praying to Jesus. "They have my baby," she moaned.
She'd woken up that morning, she told detectives, to find a three-page handwritten note on the spiral staircase leading from the children's bedrooms to the first floor. The garrulous note, claiming to be from a "small foreign faction" and signed "S.B.T.C.," demanded $118,000 for the return of JonBenét, who was missing from her room. Patsy had screamed for her husband, then dialed 911.
Fleet and Priscilla had never seen Patsy so hysterical, flailing and collapsing in sobs. John Ramsey wasn't known for displaying emotion -- Fleet, who'd done a lot of sailing with him in rough weather, had admired his calm in even the worst storms -- but he looked distraught, too.
While arrangements were under way to assemble the cash demanded, the Whites did what they could to be useful. Recalling how his own daughter had once gone missing only to be found hiding under her bed, Fleet took a quick tour of the basement, looking for hiding places. He and John collected Burke Ramsey from his room, and Fleet drove him to the Whites' house, to keep him away from the awful situation.
As the day dragged on with no word from the kidnappers, several of the visitors got a glimpse of a police photocopy of the ransom note. It was a melodramatic epic, full of odd lines from movies ("Don't try to grow a brain") and squiggly, palsied lettering, as if the writer was trying to disguise his handwriting.
Priscilla was struck by the taunting tone of the note, which was addressed to "Mr. Ramsey." She wondered who could hate John Ramsey that much, to put him through this. She believed it had to be someone familiar with the layout of the Ramsey house, a three-story, much-modified Tudor with a labyrinthine basement; Priscilla herself had lost her way more than once the first few times she'd visited.
Around one in the afternoon, Boulder police detective Linda Arndt suggested that Fleet take John Ramsey around the house to see if they'd missed anything -- probably just to give the anxious father something to do. After inspecting several rooms in the basement, Ramsey headed toward a storage room known as the wine cellar. It was a door Fleet had opened on his earlier tour, but he hadn't found a light switch and hadn't gone inside. Moving a few feet and seconds ahead of Fleet, Ramsey opened the door and snapped on the light.
"Oh, my God," he said. "Oh, my God."
Continue to keep reading "JonBenet Ramsey: How the Investigation Got Derailed -- and Why It Still Matters."  
[Image: feature_whites_01.jpg]Fleet and Priscilla White saw their relationship with the Ramseys deteriorate shortly after JonBenét's death.
Anthony Camera
The events in the Ramsey household that day have been the subject of thousands of articles and dozens of books over the past eighteen years. What began as a kidnapping case became a homicide investigation the moment John Ramsey discovered the lifeless body of his daughter wrapped in a blanket in the wine cellar -- and then carried her upstairs, further contaminating an already problematic crime scene.
The girl had been bludgeoned, strangled and sexually abused. Forensic evidence, the peculiar ransom note and other clues pointed in a bewildering variety of directions -- and so did the media circus that soon erupted around the case once reporters learned about JonBenét's brief career in child beauty pageants. Tabloid hustlers, true-crime opportunists and amateur cybersleuths cranked out a wealth of theories and suspects, from the parents to a Santa Claus impersonator to a roving, shadowy gang of pedophiles.
Yet despite a police investigative file that now exceeds 60,000 pages, as well as a grand-jury investigation that stretched on for more than a year, no one has ever been convicted of JonBenét's murder. It remains the most infamous cold case of modern times.
The failure to solve the homicide has often been blamed on police missteps early in the investigation, or then-district attorney Alex Hunter's supposed reluctance to prosecute, or the well-publicized feud that broke out between the cops and the prosecutors. But Fleet and Priscilla White say it's not that simple.
"The death of JonBenét Ramsey was a tragedy," Fleet says today. "But everything that's happened since is horrendous."

Print this item

  Contempt of Court - jail time
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-15-2017, 10:40 AM - Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White - No Replies

Former Ramsey friend sentenced to jail for ignoring subpoena
By Pam Regensberg
Camera staff writer





GOLDEN — A Jefferson County district judge sentenced Fleet White Jr. to 30 days in jail today for ignoring a subpoena in connection with a case related to the JonBenet Ramsey homicide.
White, a former friend of the Ramseys, took off his suit coat and tie and was handcuffed and led away to jail.






[Image: fleet_white.jpg]
Fleet White



The Boulder man pleaded guilty earlier today to indirect contempt of court charges for failing to appear as a witness in the criminal trial of Thomas C. Miller. Miller, also of Boulder, was accused of bribery in connection with an alleged attempt to buy a copy of the ransom note in the JonBenet homicide. He was cleared at trial in June.
Miller's attorney, Gary Lozow, had sent a letter to the court suggesting White be sentenced to five days in jail.
White's attorney, Craig Truman, urged Judge Frank Plaut not to sentence White to any jail time.
But Plaut called both suggestions "woefully inadequate."
Referring to a 6 1/2 page letter White submitted to the court, the judge said it was clear that White had not acknowledged the severity of his actions by ignoring the subpoena in the Miller case.
"You don't get to make the rules, and you thought you did," Plaut told White.
That letter was sealed by the court.
White, however, previously told the court that he ignored the subpoena in the best interest of the JonBenet investigation, the justice system and his family.
The judge said he found White's conduct "offensive to the authority and dignity of the court."
"People are going to respond to subpoenas if this court has anything to say about it," Plaut said.
White was with John Ramsey on Dec. 26, 1996, when Ramsey found his 6-year-old daughter's beaten and strangled body in the basement of the family's Boulder home, hours after she was reported kidnapped.
Please see full story in Friday's edition of the Daily Camera.

Print this item

  Magazine stories of interest
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-15-2017, 10:21 AM - Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White - Replies (1)

Estranged in Boulder
By Richard Woodbury

TIME magazine


It was at the Boulder, Colo., home of Fleet White Jr. and his wife Priscilla that John and Patsy Ramsey had Christmas dinner on the night, now nearly two years ago, that their six-year-old daughter JonBenet was murdered. It was Fleet White whom John Ramsey called when the little girl was discovered missing the next day. And it was White who was close at hand when John Ramsey discovered the body of his daughter in a basement room. Sharing in the tumult, however, did not cement the friendship. By the time JonBenet was buried, the Whites and Ramseys were estranged and, until the Whites wrote an angry open letter two weeks ago to "the people of Colorado" about what they saw as the mishandling of the JonBenet murder investigation, the couple had kept silent for months. Last week, in a rare interview, Fleet White, an oil and gas entrepreneur, described the alienation from the Ramseys to TIME: "Justice hasn't had a chance so far. Anyone who doesn't have this as their prime goal, we'll have a falling out with."
While he refused to go into questions of guilt or details of the murder scene, White made it clear, as he had in his letter, that he and his wife are frustrated with the investigation. "The whole thing has been very puzzling to us," he said. "Nothing seems to make sense... There have been so many powerful and influential players in this case that it's difficult for the prosecution to proceed. And the D.A. and police haven't been able to work together. This is a deadly combination, and it's created friction." He does not believe district attorney Alex Hunter will indict anyone, adding that "there have been so many conflicting interests... Somebody without an ax to grind needs to be running things."
Bob Grant, a district attorney in suburban Denver and consultant to Hunter, scoffs at White's contention of a tacit agreement among authorities to delay the investigation to such an extent that foggy memories and undeveloped leads would result in the case's being derailed by the grand jury, which is expected to begin hearing evidence this month. "He doesn't know anything about prosecution procedures," says Grant. "He's an extremely frustrated guy, and you can understand that because he was there when the body was found. He seems to be going off the deep end."
White, however, finds it mystifying that members of the D.A.'s staff--unlike the police--have done little in terms of questioning him and his wife, yet refuse to say he is fully cleared of involvement in the murder. "If we're important witnesses, it's just common sense that the prosecutor would want to keep in touch with you. But we have no relationship with them." He adds, "We only want to see justice done for JonBenet. Nobody is really working for her."

Print this item

  Who Benefits?
Posted by: Dave - 04-13-2017, 11:55 AM - Forum: THE KILLER - Replies (1)

Similar to Jams's thread about "What kind of person?" another way in which to identify the killer is to answer a question of motive, such as the important question for any homicide in which the perpetrator isn't obvious:

Who benefits?

For most child homicides, there isn't a huge insurance policy, there aren't webs of lovers and former lovers, there isn't valuable property, and so on.  It seems that for most child homicides, there really isn't anyone who benefits in such a measure as to justify homicide, so the question doesn't come up, certainly not in the same obvious manner as for an adult homicide.

However, with the JonBenét Ramsey homicide, precisely because of its notoriety, a large number of people did benefit, and some did greatly benefit.  Amongst these people who did benefit, who could have anticipated such a benefit in advance, that is, before the case actually did become a national and international sensation?

Keep in mind that the Ramsey family had had some publicity in the magazines and newspapers already.  John's business also had some of its own separate publicity in business circles.  JonBenét had been participating in beauty pageants which, although they didn't provide a lot of publicity, surely provided her more of it than most six-year-old children had.  There was existing publicity, but there was still a very large amount of room to grow even more of it.

It's entirely possible that the perpetrator anticipated that this already-existing publicity would be fertile ground to quickly grow a burgeoning bit of positive publicity into astounding notoriety if a sudden reversal of fortune for the family was to take place.  

In addition, the fact that JonBenét was killed in her own home greatly added to the notoriety, as did having been killed on most American children's favorite holiday, in a town that regarded itself as one of the best and safest in the country.  The ransom note was outrageous in almost every aspect.  To extend Schiller's title:

Perfect Murder + Perfect Family + Perfect Child + Perfect Day + Perfect Home + Perfect Town = Notorious.  Is this simply a coincidence?

Who would benefit from the case becoming notorious –- the more notorious the better?

Besides people close to the family who could sell their stories, and in addition to investigators who could benefit immediately as well as from later selling their stories, it seems fair to say that the press in general was the biggest beneficiary.  Individual reporters and photographers flocked to this case to make a name for themselves and to collect big paychecks.  

Did one of these persons of the press put this whole thing into motion?  

Calculating the risk: Would one such individual actually stand out such as to draw suspicion if a large flock of them showed up?  They are all just “regular” guys and gals doing their job, aren't they?  Who would suspect that one of them started it all?

For a number of years I have felt that a primary motivation for this crime was to create a sick, twisted publicity stunt or “shock crime” that may, as a secondary motivation, result in a windfall profit.  Members of the press who were close to the family were well-versed and well-placed to bring this about.  

Perhaps such a person already had rights to something valuable from which to profit, for example something that was to be in short supply after the crime had been committed.  If so, he wouldn't have to be part of the wolf pack.  He could just sit idly by and wait for opportunities to arise, giving an appearance of detachment and therefore of total innocence.

Print this item

  Richard Eikelenboom
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-12-2017, 04:11 PM - Forum: DNA - more technical discussions - Replies (2)

DENVER -- A forensic scientist who has claimed to be a DNA expert in trials in Colorado and across the United States was discredited this week in a Denver trial, according to the Denver District Attorney's Office.
However, Richard Eikelenboom disputes that claim.
"A Denver prosecutor got Eikelenboom to admit that he had no direct DNA extraction or analysis experience, that he operates a lab that has not been accredited, that he personally failed his basic proficiency texts in 2011 and 2012, and admitted that he was a 'self-trained' in running DNA profiles," the DA's office said.
"They're lying when they say I don’t do my own DNA work," Eikelenboom told Denver7.
He said being on the witness stand Monday was a "very hostile environment" and that the "lawyers were not able to explain it [his work]."
Eikelenboom said he's been accredited by the Dutch National Accreditation Council for years and Monday, he received accreditation by the American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD).
"I would not get that if I was not a solid scientist," Eikelenboom told Denver7.
Testimony this week in a 2013 sex assault case in Denver District Court found that Eikelenboom committed "fundamental DNA analysis errors by not following scientific standards in the DNA field," prosecutors said.
"[That's] completely unfounded," Eikelenboom said. "What I think also went wrong, the lawyers we were working for were not well prepared. The District Attorney never let me finish my answer."
"I appreciate Judge Whitney recognizing that Mr. Eikelenboom’s opinions about DNA have no basis in science and that he was not qualified to testify as an expert," said Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey in a statement sent to Denver7.
"[This is a] weird system. As District Attorney, you can say all kinds of things about the expert," Eikelenboom told Denver7. "I don’t think the judge completely understood what happened."
Eikelenboom has been used as an expert witness in high-profile cases, including the trial of Casey Anthony, who was acquitted in 2011 of killing her 3-year-old daughter in Florida.
Eikelenboom testified in the trial of Indiana State Trooper David Camm, who was accused of killing his wife and two children. Camm was convicted twice, but the verdicts were overturned. In the third trial, Eikelenboom testified that he found someone else's DNA on the clothing of two victims and Camm was acquitted.
Eikelenboom's testing and testimony led to a Colorado man being exonerated in a murder case after spending years behind bars.
In 2008, Tim Masters walked away from the Larimer County Justice Center a free man after skin cell DNA tests found Masters did not kill Peggy Hettrick in 1987.
Her body was found in a field near Masters' home. He was convicted without any DNA evidence linking him to the crime.
"In Tim Masters case, I did all the DNA work myself," Eikelenboom told Denver7 Thursday.
In 2008, Eikelenboom testified at Masters hearing about skin cell DNA detection.
"Skin cell investigations are still in their (infancy), …it’'s not performed worldwide very often. People do it on an occasional basis," said Eikelenboom at the time.
He said skin cell DNA is often left behind in violent crimes like Hettrick’'s, where the victim is grabbed and dragged. He said the perpetrator's sweat cells can be found embedded in the victim'’s clothing.
Eikelenboom took credit for Masters getting out of prison.
"It's always very special when you get someone out, especially in this case, a life sentence," said Eikelenboom in 2008.
Eikelenboom's company's website says the lab's work in the Masters case led to the first Touch DNA exoneration in the United States.
-Eikelenboom's lab-
Eikelenboom's wife, Selma, started the private lab in the Netherlands in 2003 called Independent Forensic Services.
Richard joined the company in 2005, he said.
The company's website says Richard Eikelenboom is a forensic scientist specializing in DNA trace recovery and bloodstain pattern analysis. 
It says he studied analytical chemistry and Polytechnic Biochemistry. It said he is studying for his PhD on touch DNA at the University of Denver.
In 2011, the Eikelenboom's built a lab in Jefferson County.

Print this item

  John San Agustin
Posted by: Johnny Kerns - 04-11-2017, 03:50 AM - Forum: Ramsey family FRIENDS - Replies (17)

        Recognize this guy from the show "JonBenet: An American Murder Mystery" ? He's an investigator hired by the Ramseys apparently. Well, now he's going on trial. They have had terrible luck with their "investigators". So many have been discredited...

Print this item

  more
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-09-2017, 09:49 PM - Forum: Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case - Replies (12)

location 654 = Pay attention because this ain't exactly second hand gossip.

According to DG, the author of the book, James Kolar says that Dr. Meyer says - there is evidence of ongoing prior sexual abuse.

Well, Dr. Meyer never said that - I challenge anyone to find an interview or report where he says that.  As for Kolar... Where do I start.

He did a crummy job when he worked on the case for DA Mary Lacy. He never met the Ramseys and didn't do what we would have hoped.

That's the best I can say about him because it seems he got worse as time went by.  His wife took some kind of class where she was infected by BORG and carried the bug home. 

Part of that bug is being able to ignore the truth, the physical evidence, the proven facts - and to accept anything that could possibly convict the family and adopt that as the gospel truth in this case.

And as far as I can see, that is exactly what he did.

So Kolar wrote a BORG book, the DA wrote a letter telling him he was living in some Lala fantasy land, that his facts were wrong - - and he was arrogant enough to include that letter in his book.  And he became a BORG folk hero overnight.  BORG posters loved him!  And certain other people joined his bandwagon and the seeds were planted for the CBS show which is now the subject of a lawsuit by Burke Ramsey who they clearly showed to be the best suspect - in their minds the killer with his parents covering for him.

Evidence to the contrary?  Forget that!  It's the BORG way to survive to hate on the Ramseys because that is what BORG does.

Now DG is saying Kolar (who I consider to be a liar< said Meyer said... something he didn't say.

THAT is what this book is.  A twisted attempt to spread the BORG infection.   Just enough truth to be convincing to the uneducated masses, the new generation of BORG.  But too much misinformation so that those who really want to know the TRUTH can find it by doing the research.   Sadly, for many it is more fun to bash the family that can't fight back.  The BORG grows and feels strong, is strong - - - but is also wrong.  It is really sad to watch.  I can just hope justice prevails and those who would harm innocent people are all exposed for their actions - - and that all suffer some consequences for their actions.

Standing by and letting evil people hurt innocent people is evil.  But for some I see, it's just fun and games.  They are the bullies of the internet, hiding behind wires and monitors.  And they really like people  like Kolar and DG.

So they will still spread the garbage  - and, sadly, even if sued, their poison will have taken hold of too many.  JMO

Print this item

  The oversized panties
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-09-2017, 10:03 AM - Forum: Panties - No Replies

The truth about the panties.

Patsy had been shopping in NYC and bought a package of size 12 panties for her niece, Jenny.  They were not only pretty with flowers on them but also boasted the days of the week in the waistband.  Seven pairs of panties in the package, one for each day of the week.

JonBenét saw the panties and wanted them for herself.  Patsy told her they were for Jenny and were too big for JonBenét, but JonBenét didn't care and begged and pleaded until, and it did not take long, Patsy said she could have them.

In all honesty, I don't know when that conversation took place.

Were the  panties too big for the child?  Yes, but JonBenét was in kindergarten and would have been learning the days of the week and would have been proud to know which panties to wear on what day.  The fact that they were "too big" clearly didn't bother her since she had already worn another of the panties - the Monday pair were out of the pack.  I can't say for sure where they were found, in the bathroom or laundry, but I can say there is NO reason to think  they were missing.  (No police report on that has surfaced.)


Christmas Day, JonBenet had been up all day, opening presents, then playing.  In the afternoon she was told to go wash up and change for dinner at the Whites'.  She slid off the panties and slacks she had been wearing - the panties were found inside the pants.  (These are the panties that had "skid marks" on them, the only feces found in this case - the garbage about smeared feces found in her room is a lie.)  

She was getting ready for a party - and I imagine she was very proud  of her prize panties - Wednesday was the right day and they were pretty and new.

No one checked her panties to see if they were a size 8.  No one would have been bothered if they knew she was wearing those oversized panties.

When Patsy put her to bed she took off the velvet pants and slipped on long johns.  She was in a darkened room and in a hurry to end the day because the morning was coming soon enough and it was going to be a busy day.  She was not paying attention and never did say she noticed which panties her daughter was wearing.

JonBenet was found wearing those panties.  There is no reason to think her killer changed them.

Print this item