From “Death of Innocence” released in March 17, 2000
Written by John and Patsy Ramsey

Doing some studying and cross referencing and came across some old printouts I had saved.  This one is interesting.

The subject was Michael Helgoth - and by then Frank was pretty much convinced it was the family and tried to clear anyone else mentioned.

I don't care about that but this bit did bother me as I read it today.

"The Ramseys weren't well-known in Boulder before the murder of their daughter.  (As a Boulder resident I never heard of them.)  JonBenet wasn't famous.  JonBenet's name and photograph never appeared in the local newspaper while she was alive."

Well, I am not a resident of Boulder but I know the story of her father's business reaching a billion dollars in sales was in the paper, Patsy had been the focus of a magazine article (Colorado Woman??)  and JonBenet had been in the parade sitting in a convertible.  Famous?  No, I would agree she was not famous.  But the family was not totally unknown, either.

AFFIDAVIT of ALEXANDER HUNTER - October 12th, 2000

State of Colorado
County of Colorado

Personally appeared before the undersigned officer duly authorized by law to administer oaths, ALEXANDER M. HUNTER, who being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

1. My name is Alexander M. Hunter. I am over 21 years of age and I am cmpetant to make and give this Affidavit, and do so from personal knowledge.

2. I am an attorney duly licensed in the State of Colorado. Since January 9th, 1973, I have been the elected District Attorney for the 20th Judicial District, County of Boulder, State of Colorado.

3. On or about December 26th, 1996, JonBenét Ramsey, a six year old minor child, was murdered in her home in Boulder, Colorado.

4. Since the date of her death, I have been continuously involved in the investigation of JonBenét's homicide.

5. As part of the investigation into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, questions about any possible involvement by her brother, Burke Ramsey, who was 9 years of age at the time of his sister's murder and who was one of the individuals present in the house at the time of her murder, were raised and investigated as part of standard investigative practices and procedures.

6. From December 26th, 1996, to the date of this affidavit, no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from that of witness to suspect.

7. In May of 1999, I was made aware that tabloid newspapers had indicated that Burke Ramsey was a suspect in the murder of JonBenét Ramsey or was believed to be her killer. As a result of these articles, I was contacted by media representatives and I instructed my office to release a press statement which publicly and officially stated that Burke Ramsey was not a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister and that stated in part, "...almost a year ago (Boulder) Police Chief Mark Beckner stated during a news conference that Burke (Ramsey) was not a suspect and that we are not looking at him as a possible suspect." The information in the May 1999 press release was true and correct.

8. From December 26th, 1996, to the present date, I have never engaged n plea bargain negotiations, talks or discussions with anyone in connection with the investigation into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey based in whole or in part on the premise that Burke Ramsey killed his sister. From December 26th, 1996, to the present date, no member of my office has ever engaged in plea bargain negotiations, talks or discussions with anyone in connection with the investigation into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey based in whole or in part on the premise that Burke Ramsey killed his sister.

9. I am aware that this Affidavit may be used by counsel for Burke ramsey in connection with libel litigation brought on his behalf in various jurisdictions.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT
This 12th day of October, 2000

signed by Alexander M. Hunter
notarized by Susan Ingraham

After this show aired, many BORG posters swore they had heard the actual tape and knew for a fact that Burke's voice was on the tape.  Simply put, that was an example of mass hypnosis.  Geraldo himself later stepped up and said he had not heard the tape, didn't know of anyone in the media who had - - they were talking about tips and gossip, never played the tape.


Rivera Live Transcript on August 21, 1998

ENHANCED 911 TAPE REVEALING BURKE RAMSEY SPEAKING IN THE BACKGROUND, WHEN HIS PARENTS SAID HE WAS UPSTAIRS SLEEPING

Q & A #50 – Stephen and Joyce Singular, “Presumed Guilty”
Posted on 09/27/2016 | Leave a comment
Utter the three syllables out loud—JonBenet—and you’re bound to get a reaction. Everybody has an opinion. If you haven’t studied the case, even in cursory fashion, a brief glance at the murder will hurt your head.
Let’s say the murder didn’t happen but a scriptwriter today pitched the exact same storyline, as fiction, to “CSI.” Nobody would believe it as a story close to credible, possible, or within the realm of possibility. The facts of the murder were plenty bizarre, only to be eclipsed by the strange investigation and wacky decisions by those in charge of finding the killer. Or killers.
It’s almost 20 years since JonBenet’s death. It’s been 17 years since Stephen Singular published Presumed Guilty, An Investigation Into the Jon Benet Ramsey Case, the Media, and the Culture of Pornography. That book took Patsy Ramsey, JonBenet’s mother, off the hook. It made a strong case for looking at the broader context for the murder—specifically the world of child beauty pageants and its connections to pedophiles and child pornographers. The most vocal mouths of the media (talk radio, ahem) didn’t buy it. It’s impossible to forget the certainty with which these blathering microphone hogs carried on. It was a circus.
So much has transpired since the murder that Steve and Joyce Singular have completely updated the original book. It’s entirely worth reading now. A review follows. First, Steve and Joyce (The Spiral Notebook, Shadow on the Mountain, The Wichita Divide, When Men Become Gods and many others) were kind enough to answer a few questions by email.
++
Question: Did you watch the two-part CBS television show that attempted to deconstruct the case and all the theories? If so, what did you think?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  First of all, thanks for asking us to participate. We’ve just put up our 1999 book about the case, Presumed Guilty, on Kindle/Amazon. It’s been updated with about 70 new pages from the original version, bringing the story into the present. Anyone looking for a truly alternative explanation for JonBenet’s murder will find it here.
The CBS program was a mixed bag. The show’s suggestion that scenarios exist other than the Ramsey parents committing the crime (making them totally guilty) or an intruder coming into the house and killing the child (making the Ramseys completely innocent) was good. CBS did a fine job of depicting that a crime scene inside the Ramsey home was staged. They also did good work decoding the 911 call Patsy Ramsey made to the police the day the body was found. But they never addressed the more complicated questions raised in the years since the murder. In 1999, a grand jury concluded that a) the Ramseys did not kill their child, but exposed her to the circumstances that led to her death and b) the parents helped cover up the crime. Instead of exploring what the Ramseys may have exposed the child to, CBS leaped to the conclusion that 9-year-old Burke beat his sister to death with a flashlight because she ate a piece of his pineapple on Christmas night. Think about it for a moment: the program alleges that while covering up the crime, the parents wrote a nearly 400-word ransom note, fashioned a highly-complex garotte for JonBenet’s neck, choked her severely with it, and sexually assaulted her—but somehow forgot to hide the flashlight and left it out on the kitchen counter, in order to make their son look guilty.  This simply doesn’t make any sense and there’s no actual evidence of any kind—DNA or otherwise—to support the idea that Burke killed his sister. CBS walked right up to the edge of going below the surface of the case, and asked some provocative questions, but then stopped and did the predictable.
Question: Same kind of question—did you see JonBenet’s brother Burke’s appearance on “Dr. Phil” and, if so, what did you think?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  Burke came across as rather awkward and odd, but there’s nothing in his behavior or again the evidence to suggest that he killed his sister. One of his first comments to a psychiatrist—in unguarded circumstances following the murder—is that someone must have stabbed her to death with a knife. In other words, he’s clueless. Right after Patsy called 911, the Ramseys sent Burke over to a friend’s home, which was filled with strangers, who were visiting there for the Christmas season. Ask yourself this: If the Ramsey parents knew that their son had just viciously murdered his sister, and they’d covered up the crime for him, would you send him into house full of people he doesn’t know, where one slip of his tongue can put you in prison for many years to come? Or would you try to protect him and keep him away from others because of the inherent risks involved? You can only send him away like this because he doesn’t know anything incriminating—and that’s exactly how he comes off 20 years later with Dr. Phil.
Question: Your points in the book about the nature of Boulder—influence, power, politics, persuasion and how those might have influenced how the case was prosecuted—are compelling. Do you have any reason to believe that things have changed? That favoritism in another high-profile case isn’t a possibility today? Do you think the police and prosecutorial systems in Boulder have changed, been reformed?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  No, Boulder protects Boulder—very much as Aspen protected itself recently in the aftermath of a high-profile murder in that town.  Boulder DA Alex Hunter asked a grand jury to look at the evidence in the Ramsey case for a nearly-unheard-of thirteen months. In legal terms, that’s the equivalent of forever. After all their diligent work, the grand jurors told Hunter to indict the Ramseys on the two counts mentioned above. He refused. Why? Getting a conviction on these charges would have been much easier than getting a

Stephen and Joyce Singular. Photo by Kerry Ransom.
Murder One conviction. Hunter went on to seal the indictment and it stayed that way for the next fourteen years. In 2013, the DA’s office was successfully sued, but it still decided only to release four pages of this 18-page document. Why was the rest concealed from the public? What’s in the remaining 14 pages? Are other people named as suspects? We suggest in Presumed Guilty that Hunter refused to prosecute the Ramseys because it would have opened up a much larger set of problems for Boulder. The grand jurors, after looking at all the evidence, did not say that Burke Ramsey killed his sister. They said that the Ramsey parents exposed JonBenet to events and a person or persons, which led to her death. What events and what person (s)? Whose DNA was left behind in several places on JonBenet? Is it possible that the scandal around her death touched prominent people in the community and no one wanted that to come out?
All these questions would have been explored in a Ramsey trial—and Hunter and the powers that be in Boulder weren’t going to let that happen. On the CBS show, ex-Boulder cop Steve Thomas quotes Hunter as saying that the decision to charge or not charge the Ramseys was going to be “political.” We think that both Hunter and Thomas were telling the truth. But what was the political issue here? What was Boulder trying to protect—or hide?
Question: Can you even count the number of ways this prosecution was fumbled within the first few hours and over the ensuing weeks, months and even years? What do you think is the biggest thing the cops or prosecutors should do today, if you were running the case?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  Go back and interview the pageant mothers around JonBenet at the time of her death. Learn from them about the photographers taking her picture then and how they behaved in the aftermath of the murder. Look for who insisted that he did not kill the child. Look for pictures of JonBenet on the Internet or elsewhere holding potential clues and suspects. Look into the criminal pool of child predators, some of whom operated on the edges of the pageant world…This area is where we began our investigation of the case in early 1997 and we feel that over the past two decade it’s been quite fruitful. We continue probing these areas today and there are a few people who’ve told us more about the case in 2016, when we re-interviewed them, than they did in 1997. They’re older now, they’re children are grown, and they’re less fearful about sharing important information that suggests a wider scandal in Boulder than the murder of one child. We’d tell the authorities to go to these people and start asking questions that go far beyond the Ramsey family as the only suspects. Dig into the issue of child exploitation in the Boulder area…in the years before the crime.
Question: Do you think the grand jury report will ever see the light of day?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  That seems very unlikely.
Question: You’ve managed to get close to some major cases—O.J., Warren Jeffs, JonBenet, the BTK Killer and others. How were you received in Boulder compared to those other cases? It almost seemed as if they were willing to share information and they offered the semblance of an open door even if they didn’t say much. Thoughts?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  Early on, Alex Hunter was quite willing to listen to outsiders and even reporters. A few months later, he stopped doing this. He told Steve face to face that he wanted the Internet/child porn angle investigated, but the Boulder police wouldn’t do this because they were fixated on the Ramsey parents. So the DA suggested that Steve look into this—an outlandish and astounding idea in a high profile murder case. To do what Hunter was asking, Steve would have had to break the law and that wasn’t going to happen. Steve also approached the Boulder police a number of times, but they were a brick wall when it came to receiving or exploring new information.
Question: You two invest so much of your own resources—time and money—into this case. What drove you to keep pursuing leads and making calls? Has it gotten easier or harder to make yourself part of the conversation in cases like these, given the way that journalism has changed?
Steve & Joyce Singular: The case just keeps finding us, as it has throughout 2016. It goes away for a year or two, but then someone contacts us with new information and our work lurches forward. Above all, this homicide remains a world-class murder mystery, so it holds its own level of interest for anyone who likes this sort of thing. It’s the only known murder where a body and a ransom note were found in the same location. There has to be an explanation for this. Neither CBS nor any of the other shows currently being aired on the case has explored this in any depth. That’s what our book is really about—and it gives readers more than two answers in the case. It also raises troubling questions: What keeps everyone involved with the murder quiet for two decades? What shuts down a legal process? What scenario makes everyone in Boulder look bad? What causes a family to spend a fortune protecting itself? What causes important legal documents to remain sealed? If a boy had killed his sister over a piece of pineapple, we believed the murder and its aftermath would have been resolved long ago.
Question: There are apparently over 30 books about the crime; other than yours, what is the best one out there?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  Lawrence Schiller’s Perfect Murder Perfect Town is a good collection of facts about the case from its early days. We believe that clues are buried inside that book, which were never really focused on or investigated enough.
Question: One thing you touch on the book but don’t really get into is the intense media frenzy that this case generated back when it first happened twenty years ago. Even “reporters” took strong, self-assured opinions about what must have happened. You mention one story about how you were treated by fellow reporters, care to share any other stories about how you were treated? Why did you think this case was elevated to this extreme fever pitch?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  There was a vacuum left behind after the OJ case. The general population and the media were hungry for a new murder narrative. The Ramsey case had just about everything: murder, mystery, money, sex, beauty, possible corruption in high places—and cable TV was now fully in motion, eager to fill up its 24-hour news cycle. The case was made for that. And more than a few legal or media commentators were willing to jump in and tell the world they’d solved the murder—when law enforcement was having a very hard time doing exactly that. Careers were made with people accusing the Ramseys of murder on TV and radio and the Internet, just as they’d done with OJ. It was a seismic shift in how these cases are portrayed to the public. Opinion crushed the known facts. Presumed Guilty was thrown into a trashcan on live national television because it dared to suggest another explanation for the crime, beyond the Ramseys as killers. All this has culminated with CBS, formerly the gold standard—the “Tiffany Network” of TV news—accusing a 9-year-old boy of murder when there is nothing at all to substantiate this. This media pattern makes doing any real journalism around the case much more challenging…and leaves the deeper questions behind: Why does a legal system and a city government decide not to prosecute the most visible case in Colorado history when it has an obligation to do so after spending $2 million of the public’s money on an investigation? What’s the real mystery behind the paralysis in this case?
What’s your best estimate for how this case will be resolved—or will it?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  It’s very unlikely it will ever be solved, unless there’s a DNA match with a currently unknown killer who left multiple DNA samples on the child and her clothing.
Question: What’s next for you two?
Steve & Joyce Singular:  We’re writing a fictional screenplay with our son, Eric, about an alternative energy resource. We’re working on a couple of other stories and when they’re more developed, we’ll post them on our website: www.stephensingular.com  Also posted there will be a notice about Steve’s upcoming appearance on the Lifetime Network for a program on the JonBenet Ramsey case, once the date is set.
++
REVIEW:
Follow the facts. Keep asking questions—and keep asking questions. Without a concrete answer to the death of JonBenet Ramsey, obviously, questions remain. As Stephen and Joyce Singular put it in Presumed Guilty, some murders just won’t leave you alone. And as they make painfully clear in this updated version of their 1999 book, there are still questions to be asked—still work that could be done.
I’m no expert on the case. But the Singulars do two things simultaneously—and they do them well. First, they look closely at the human behaviors of those immediately involved. Second, they widen the lens and look at the bigger picture. It’s very hard to read this book and not come to the same general conclusion—that the answer to this case lies in the troubling sublayers and dark underground of child beauty pageants and sick underground tunnels to child pornographers.
The murder alone is puzzling enough. The police work and prosecutorial efforts that followed were worse. As the Singulars write, “the case remains a world-class conundrum. The murder of JonBenet is the only example in the annals of American homicide where a body and a ransom note were found in the same location. Somehow, some way, there is logic behind that, but Boulder’s legal system was never able to explain what it was. Or perhaps it did, a long time ago, but we’ve never fully understood what this means.”
In the years following the murder, the Singulars write, their questions ran head-long into either “pervasive fear” or “absolute silence.”
Looking back, they write: “The most potent aspect of the Ramsey phenomenon was the stillness around it — from the family and its legal team, from Boulder cops and the D.A.’s office, from parts of the media, and in the very uneasy quiet that clung to the crime, even as the authorities tried to put it behind them. Presumed Guilty suggested that there were powerful reasons for this silence and the effort to bury the murder, rather than solve it. The book stood alone in speculating that there were more than the two ironclad scenarios the media and the police had laid out for the child’s death from the very beginning: either the Ramseys did it and were totally guilty or an intruder had come into their home and killed the girl, leaving the Ramseys completely innocent. A huge gap lay in between these poles and Presumed Guilty explored that space.”
As recent television news shows make clear, that space still remains. The Boulder police (in a videotaped message to the community at large, recorded in anticipation of the huge media onslaught coming with the two-decade anniversary) maintain they are actively pursuing leads to this day. I hope so. Perhaps they should start by reading this book; the Singulars lay out some compelling places to start.
It also suggests what we all largely suspect to the case—that deals were struck, that money and wealth got the privileged kid-glove treatment it thinks it deserves. Nothing else explains the actions of Boulder law enforcement in the days, weeks, and months following the murder.
In the updated version (I did not read the original), the Singulars take readers along for the ride. The book takes each thread and unspools it in a very conversational style.
These two get very close to the main players in the case; as independent journalists they brought information forward to Alex Hunter and others, with mixed results. The book becomes a series of interviews and conversations with those around the Ramseys—and a series of reactions by the authorities to what is brought forward. What did they find? See above. Pervasive fear and/or absolute silence. I won’t go blow by blow with each encounter, but the Pam Griffin conversation here certainly suggests there is more work to be done. (Griffin was the seamstress for JonBenet’s pageant attire and knew Patsy Ramsey very well.)
Presumed Guilty is a fascinating book, well worth a read; it’s brisk. The book concedes that it has only identified the what for the case, not the who. Until there is an answer, isn’t it a good idea to be open to all possibilities? And follow the facts—not the noise.

First his CV

Attached Files

Thumbnail(s)
   

A man named Raymond Dale Arnold  6/19/1943 - 11/11/2007 has an interesting gravestone in Medicine Lodge, Kansas.  

                    HERE LIES THE KEY WITNESS IN THE JONBENET MURDER CASE

Apparently he had a theory and no one listened - so he bought his own gravestone and had the words inscribed himself.

Stolen posts from a lawyer on Reddit - - hope that person finds this here and contacts me.

Part 1 of 9

What’s a crime, what's a felony, and how does someone get charged with one?
In most jurisdictions, criminal law is set out by statute (in Colorado, the Colorado Criminal Code). A felony is any offense that is punishable by a year or more in prison. (Misdemeanors, by contrast, are punishable by less than one year in prison.)
Because the potential charges here are felonies (and GJs are not really used for misdemeanors), let's assume going forward that the crimes we're discussing are all felony charges.
So what's the first step in bringing criminal charges? The investigation. The police have the primary job of investigating crimes. To widely varied extents, the police may consult with the prosecutor’s office over the course of their investigation, or they may call upon the prosecutor’s office to assist in the investigation itself. This is to ensure that the facts being developed would be sufficient to meet the elements of the offense charged. On the other side, the prosecutor's office wants to make sure that the police are complying with the law and procedure so that the case cannot be attacked later in court. The prosecutor office also works with the police to obtain things like search and arrest warrants.
By the end of the investigation, the police present their case to the prosecutor’s office. It's the prosecutor's office that has the power to decide whether to move forward with charges.
A prosecutor in Colorado can file charges in one of two ways: (1) by information; or (2) by indictment. An information is somewhat akin to a “complaint” in civil law. It sets out the basic alleged facts and the elements of the offense(s) charged. Charges by information can be instituted in a couple of different courts in Colorado, but we don’t need to get into that. For our purposes, it’s sufficient to say that this is the far easier way of bringing charges, and is used way more often that the grand jury. For most cases, it's pretty simple to lay out a basic description of the facts, plug in the statue being charged under, and file your information.
An indictment is the other way of bringing charges. The prosecutor convenes a grand jury, and they receive a presentation of the facts from the prosecution only. (I'll get into this more later.) The prosecutor then gives the jury pre-selected criminal charges that the prosecutor thinks applies, and the jury votes whether to indict on those charges (a "true bill"), or they vote not to indict (a "no true bill"). Ultimately, however, the decision to actually indict still rests with the prosecutor. I can’t emphasize this enough: ** The grand jury does not issue indictments! ** (The media, so sloppy on this distinction.)
Rather, if the GJ votes to indict (aka issues a "true bill"), the prosecutor can either decide to move forward by filing an indictment (thereby "indicting" the defendant), or he can decline to do so. If the GJ does not vote to indict, the prosecutor either will reconsider whether any options exist to proceed by information, or he will decline to move forward with charges.
In this way, whether proceeding by information or by indictment, the prosecutor has the final say on what chargers are brought.*
(* In rare, rare, cases, if the GJ votes to indict and the prosecutor declines to do so, the Court can get involved and basically force the prosecutor to move forward with the charges. I’ve literally never seen this happen.)
In either the case of an information or an indictment, the charging document must provide sufficient information to notify the defendant of the charges being brought against him. In simple terms, what are the basic who, what, where, when, why’s, and what statutes are charges being brought under?

If I knew you were listening I would wish you a happy birthday and tell you I am sorry you missed out on so many things this life has to offer, the birthday parties, school, friends, hobbies, maybe a marriage and kids.....  but I know your spirit lives on and believe you are now on another adventure.

You were loved here, am missed here and some of us still seek justice for you, someone who should be 27 today but will forever be 6 in our minds and hearts.

jameson

1 - The killer might be a college kid who was home for the holidays.  After spending the day with his family, it would have been easy to tell his parents he was going to go catch up with friends he had not seen since he now lived so far away.    Understandably, a family would not want to offer up a son/brother as suspect when the police were so keen on this being a domestic incident - - but 20 years have passed and if the man has continued a life of crime, the family may now be less willing to protect him.  I would like to see a story run on the evidence pointing to an intruder and specifically suggesting this might be one answer.

2.  The killer may have been a student at CU who did NOT go home for the holidays and was alone, lonely and very angry.  He would have had to have had SOME knowledge of the Ramseys and anger towards them or jealousy for what they had that he did not.   Since the tape found on the body had recently been manufactured in Hickory, NC, I think it might  be interesting to check on students from Catawba and surrounding counties in NC - - someone who may have gone home for Thanksgiving and picked up a roll of tape from a relative who worked at the mill.  Just a thought, but I have not heard they located any other tape from that short run so  - - what could it hurt to check?