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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 13
» Latest member: RobbieG82
» Forum threads: 1,322
» Forum posts: 4,048

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 32 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 32 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Judith Phillips - PDI
Forum: THEORIES
Last Post: jameson245
Yesterday, 08:12 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 6
John want AWOL
Forum: Disproving Myths
Last Post: jameson245
Yesterday, 07:26 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 5
Linda Arndt - JDI
Forum: THEORIES
Last Post: jameson245
Yesterday, 06:34 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 11
Steve Thomas
Forum: THEORIES
Last Post: jameson245
02-14-2019, 08:28 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 7
The decision
Forum: Judge Carnes Decision in Wolf Lawsuit
Last Post: jameson245
02-14-2019, 10:31 AM
» Replies: 9
» Views: 2,316
He was cleared
Forum: Burke Ramsey - bio
Last Post: jameson245
02-11-2019, 06:29 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 95
Interview dates
Forum: Burke Ramsey - bio
Last Post: jameson245
02-11-2019, 06:28 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 53
swiss army knives
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: jameson245
02-10-2019, 05:02 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 100
Shreveport (letter)
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: jameson245
02-10-2019, 04:58 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 235
Schiller's OVERKILL - 12/...
Forum: What is in the news - staying up to date
Last Post: CA4Now
11-30-2018, 06:10 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 309

 
  from Newsweek
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-25-2018, 05:54 PM - Forum: Pam and Kristine Griffin - Replies (1)

FOCUSING ON THE FAMILY ON THURSDAY MORNING, DEC. 26, 1996, THE BOULDER, COLO., Police Department received a 911 call at 5:52 a.m. The caller, Patsy Ramsey, said her daughter, JonBenet, had been kidnapped and there was a ransom note. When the first officer arrived eight minutes later, he searched the house for the child and for any sign of forced entry, but found nothing. It was still dark outside.
By noon everyone was still waiting for the kidnappers to call. An hour later JonBenet's father, John Ramsey, searched the house for something that might have been taken along with his daughter. Moments later he found JonBenet's body--wrapped in a white blanket, her mouth covered with duct tape--in the wine cellar in the basement of the house. It was 1:05 p.m.
At Boulder police headquarters, Det. Sgt. Larry Mason got a page from the Ramsey house: ""We've got a body.''
""Oh, f---,'' Mason said, half aloud. ""Ron,'' he told FBI Special Agent Ron Walker, ""it's a homicide.''
Walker, an experienced FBI profiler, knew that finding JonBenet's body in her own home meant there had probably never been a kidnapping. In the case of a homicide where the dead child is found in the parents' home, the FBI's standard procedure is to investigate the parents and the immediate family first and then move outward in circles. Then would come people who had frequent access to the child--babysitters and domestic help. The next circle would contain friends and business associates. The outermost circle would be strangers. The technique was to avoid leaping over these concentric circles too quickly.
Fifteen minutes later Mason and Walker arrived at the Ramseys' house. First they looked at the body, lying now at the foot of the living-room Christmas tree, a noose around JonBenet's neck. Then they went downstairs to the wine cellar. Mason noticed that there was something about the crime scene--he couldn't put his finger on it--that made it look unnatural. Meanwhile, in the Ramseys' study, another detective overheard John Ramsey talking on the phone to his private pilot. He was making plans to fly somewhere before nightfall. Moments later Ramsey told Mason that he, his wife and his son would be flying to Atlanta that evening. ""You can't leave,'' Mason told him. ""We have to talk to you.''
At 7 p.m., Detectives Fred Patterson and Greg Idler knocked on the door of the Ramseys' housekeeper, Linda Hoffmann-Pugh. That morning Patsy Ramsey had told police her housekeeper had a key to the house and had major money problems. The police told Hoffmann-Pugh that JonBenet had been murdered. She screamed and couldn't stop shaking. After the housekeeper settled down, they asked her to print some words on a sheet of paper--Mr. Ramsey, attachE, beheaded and the number $118,000 (unknown to her, all phrases in the ransom note)--but Linda was too upset to write. She assumed that JonBenet had been beheaded.
The police spent three hours talking to the Pughs that night. Had Linda ever witnessed any signs of sexual abuse in the Ramsey household? Had JonBenet ever wet the bed? Had Linda seen semen, blood or anything unusual on the child's bed? On anyone else's bed? Hoffmann-Pugh would know for sure she was a suspect when the police returned the next day to search her house and fingerprint her. At a local doctor's office, she cried as the police yanked strands of hair from her head and she gave blood samples.
On the afternoon of Dec. 27, Pam Griffin found a telephone message from Patsy's sister Polly. ""Patsy needs you right now.'' Griffin was the seamstress who made JonBenet's pageant costumes and was Patsy's confidante about beauty pageants. At the Boulder home of John and Barbara Fernie, friends of the Ramseys', Pam, a former registered nurse, touched Patsy's skin and realized she was dehydrated. She brought Patsy some water and made her drink it. ""You need to brush your hair,'' Pam told her. ""You need to lie down a little bit.'' But Patsy stood up to greet each new person who arrived to offer condolences, and as she did, tears streamed down her face. Hours later, Patsy finally took Pam's advice and lay down in the bedroom.
Patsy reached up and touched Pam's face. ""Couldn't you fix this for me?'' she asked. Pam thought she was delirious. It was as if Patsy were asking her to fix a ripped seam. ""Patsy said something like, "We didn't mean for that to happen','' Pam would say later. Pam couldn't say why, but she remembered feeling as if Patsy knew who killed JonBenet but was afraid to say.
While Patsy slept, Pam went downstairs. She found John in the living room holding the Ramseys' other child, Burke. To Pam, John Ramsey seemed to be in a trance. His face was blank. His eyes were red. ""I don't get it,'' he said over and over. Then he got up, walked outside, shook his head and asked aloud, ""Why?''

Print this item

  Troy Cowen
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-25-2018, 03:34 PM - Forum: Misinformation found elsewhere, not BORG but wrong - Replies (2)

He is BORG - more than that, he accuses BURKE on his website.  a search here will bring up his theory.

He shared his theory and then some updates that are riddled with errors -   check it out.



May 2001

One year later, detective Lou Smit presented his intruder theory on the Today Show. He stated that the DNA, found in the panties and under JonBenét's fingernails, did not match John or Burke Ramsey and indicated an intruder. He said that the hair found on the blanket was also an indication of an intruder.

It has been stated that the DNA in JonBenét's panties and under her finger nails were several days old and degraded. While Smit believed the hair found on the blanket belonged to an intruder, it has subsequently been identified as belonging to Patsy Ramsey.

Molecular biologist Melissa Weber of Cell Mark Laboratories consulted several detectives after Cell Mark analyzed the DNA. Steve Thomas and Deputy DA DeMuth were at this meeting; Lou Smit was not. Steve Thomas said that Melissa Weber stated that the analysis showed the possibility that there may be DNA of another person mixed in with JonBenét's DNA found in the panties and under her fingernails.

However, this foreign DNA could be the result of a false positive (stutter). Melissa Weber went on to say that if there were two sources of DNA and they were mixed together, then no one could be excluded. This is contrary to Lou Smit's statement that John and Burke had been excluded. Shortly after the meeting with Weber, Deputy DA DeMuth announced that the DNA did not match John Ramsey's DNA. While technically a true statement, a better statement would have been, "No DNA match is possible under present technology".

When Cell Mark Laboratories was given the job of testing the DNA under JonBenét's fingernails and in her panties, there wasn't enough DNA to test, so they had to grow more DNA from the small sample they did have. The process of growing more DNA from a small sample is called PCR amplification. Unfortunately, when you don't have a perfect sample, the DNA is old, degraded or damaged, the imperfect DNA is amplified also. Sometimes, this imperfect DNA, or non-matching DNA, gives a false impression that it is another person’s DNA.

Having additional markers is a common problem with PCR amplification. Scientist call this problem, stuttering or shadow bands. When the DNA under the fingernails and in the panties was tested, there were more markers than there should have been. What caused these extra markers? Amplifying degraded DNA may be responsible for the extra markers, not an intruder.

Smit also said that the shoe print found near the body was also an indication of an intruder. He said that it was his belief that the intruder came into the house through the basement window, leaving a scuff mark on the wall as his shoe slid down the wall. He did not say whether the Hi-Tec brand of shoe that made the print in the basement was capable of making the scuff mark found on the basement wall. The material found in the scuff mark should match the sole of the shoe. They did not test John Ramsey's shoes to see if one of them could have made the scuff mark.

From the beginning, many people believed that the John Ramsey hired private investigators to help find the killer of JonBenét. We remember getting reports that private investigators were on the scene the day after the murder asking question and getting information from Ramsey’s neighbors. To many, it demonstrated that the Ramsey’s were innocent. Why would the guilty hire investigators to collect evidence the prosecutor would use against them?

 On May 31, 2000, John said on Larry King Live "We've had investigators, seasoned investigators collectively with over 500 homicides under their belt who have been working on this case day in and day out. They have questions, they have information." We now learn that there never was a private investigation into the death of JonBenét. On December 12, 2001, during a deposition, John Ramsey said that the "purpose of those investigators was to prepare a defense in the case that the police might bring a charge against me."

Many are saddened to learn that there was no private investigation into the death of JonBenét. Because of the Ramsey and OJ case, many have lost faith in our legal system. A system easily manipulated by the rich and powerful. Even Ramsey's head investigator, Ellis Armistead, has stated that he has lost faith in the system. In an article in the Rocky Mountain News, Armistead said his assignment was not to solve the crime. "It was to keep the Ramseys from being arrested."

Print this item

  sick theory from T Cowen
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-25-2018, 03:04 PM - Forum: just BORG hate - Replies (2)

Part of his BURKE did it theory, this is sick fantasy that speaks more about T Cowen than the evidence in this crime.



Denver, Colorado, 1996

A few days before Christmas there was a large party near Denver. This party was for the entire West Coast mob. The mob had their party just before Christmas so that a large gathering would not attract attention. At this party, the goal was to grant every person their sexual gratification. The party’s organizers provided boys, girls, young men and young women for the pleasure of the attendees.

JonBenét was the daughter of John Ramsey and a six-year-old beauty pageant winner. A small segment of the mob that enjoys playing with small girls knows about JonBenét. The mob wants JonBenét and they give their guarantee to John that they will not harm her. John's first reaction was—not with my daughter! 

A mob boss applied pressure on John until he relented. To John’s dismay, he now understands the high cost of doing business with the mob. The party’s organizers also asked Fleet to contact his father to get help in finding a man that was an expert with a garrote.

Before taking JonBenét to the party, John told her that it won’t take long and she must be quiet and still while the men examine her. At the party, in a private room, JonBenet is naked and lies on a table. A small group of men is watching as one man puts a leather collar around JonBenét’s neck and then the cord that goes over the collar. JonBenét is very troubled by the strange events happening to her, but she obeys her father to be still. The man twist the cord, making it tighter. The man is very gentle with her and the cord is just tight enough to reduce blood flow to her brain. 

The garrote around her neck was not painful and there was very little discomfort.  When JonBenét was ready, the man nodded his head and the men around the table began to fondle her. Even though she was frightened most of the time, she enjoyed the men stroking her and she had an intense orgasm at the end. The men did not harm JonBenét and everyone enjoyed the experience. John picked her up at the party and took her home. That night, JonBenét wets the bed for the first time in over a year.

Print this item

  T. Cowen on NK's childhood
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-25-2018, 02:55 PM - Forum: Nancy Krebs - No Replies

Southern California

Nancy Krebs’ appalling childhood

Fleet White was born in 1913. In High school, Fleet White became friends with a classmate named Gordon Christoff. Soon each boy discovered that his friend was attracted to little girls. 

After high school, Fleet went to college. He was strong, good looking, and athletic. He sang well and had a good personality. After college, he started a business selling lubricants and invested his money in drilling for oil. He became a part owner in a very successful well in Riverside, California. If Fleet lived near you, you would be proud to have him as a member of your community. 

As with most men, Fleet liked girls. However, the problem for many young girls was that their age didn’t matter to Fleet. Fleet met and formed friendships with other men that had a similar interest in little girls. Fleet and his friends sexually abused children on a regular basis. Authorities never arrested them and they were never prosecuted, except for one—Mackey Boykin. He was able to make a plea bargain and served ten months in jail.

Fleet’s high school friend, Gordon Christoff, married Alyce and they had a daughter named Gwen. The Christoff’s asked Fleet White to be Gwen’s godfather. He accepted. Gwen grew up and in 1960; Gwen married Don Krebs. The Krebs had a daughter in 1962 and named her Nancy.

In 1966, Gordon became upset when he found Fleet fondling his granddaughter. A violent argument ensued. During this intense verbal argument, Gordon clutched his hands to his chest and died of a massive heart attack. 

After Gordon’s death, Alyce married Albert Sprague. Fleet became friends with Albert and both men shared an attraction for Nancy.

When Nancy’s father, Don Krebs, discovered that his wife was having extramarital affairs, he divorced Gwen. After the divorce, Gwen married Tom Boykin. Gwen, Nancy, and Nancy’s little sister moved into the Boykin family's trailer. 

The Boykins slept in a bedroom at one end of the trailer and the newlywed couple, Gwen and Tom, slept in a bedroom at the other end of the trailer. Nancy, her sister, and several older Boykin boys slept in the living room in the middle of the trailer. They were living in poverty.

Tom’s brother was Mackey Boykin. Mackey loved little girls and he was good with a garrote. Fleet, Albert, Tom, and Mackey became friends. To a different degree, each one was attracted to Nancy Krebs

Tom and Gwen started receiving financial support from Fleet White. Without protest from Nancy’s mother and stepfather, Fleet, Albert, and Mackey started fondling Nancy. Soon their fondling turned into having intercourse. Sometimes Nancy’s mother, stepfather, and grandmother would watch as the men had sex with her. Fleet's money and the men’s sexual contact with Nancy lasted for over a decade. As Nancy grew older and more rebellious, her mother gave Nancy drugs to gain her cooperation. As long as Nancy was available for sex, the money kept flowing.

Mackey became an expert at using a garrote. He would use the garrote to create a mild state of oxygen deprivation in a victim’s brain. When the brain is mildly oxygen starved, the body becomes very sensitive to sexual stimulation. Sexual stimulation while the brain is oxygen deprived gives an intense orgasm. Erotic asphyxiation is more pleasurable and habit forming than cocaine.

For centuries, people have been using various choking techniques to create a mild state of oxygen starvation. The garrote in the hands of a skilled practitioner can precisely control the amount of blood reaching the brain. Correctly using the garrote along with sexual stimulation can give an intense orgasm. Nancy said, “There was a reason that they did that and that was because they wanted me to be excited in the sexual way”. Nancy was sexually stimulated and aroused. Despite her age, she had an intense orgasm. 

Fleet had an adult son that lived in Boulder, Colorado. John Ramsey and Fleet Jr. were best friends.

In 1990, Nancy sought help to overcome her fear and mistrust of people. After ten years of rape victim counseling, Nancy's therapist saw a program on JonBenét's murder. The therapist was able to determine that the man Nancy had been telling her about and the Fleet in the Ramsey case were father and son. The therapist talked Nancy into going to the Boulder police.


The police interviewed Nancy and she was unable to recall the exact dates or locations of the abuse that occurred in her childhood. She would make an unreliable witness. The police determined that the abuse in California was unrelated to the murder in Colorado. Nancy's story eventually leaked to the newspapers. People called her a publicity hound. Others said she was a diseased drug addict and a liar. The public tossed her away like an old newspaper.

Print this item

  The Burke did it Theory by T. Cowan
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-25-2018, 02:45 PM - Forum: Burke Ramsey - bio - Replies (1)

The Burke did it Theory according to Troy Cowen

This is the story of how a little girl learned to play the choking game and how that knowledge ended her life.

In 1996, news accounts reported that someone assaulted, abused, and strangled six-year-old JonBenét in her home on Christmas night. With no indications that an intruder entered the home, the police focused in on the three people that were in the house that night: the mother, father, and their son. This article presents the theory that nine-year-old Burke Ramsey strangled JonBenét.

This story began years before JonBenét was born.


Southern California

Nancy Krebs’ appalling childhood

Fleet White was born in 1913. In High school, Fleet White became friends with a classmate named Gordon Christoff. Soon each boy discovered that his friend was attracted to little girls. 

After high school, Fleet went to college. He was strong, good looking, and athletic. He sang well and had a good personality. After college, he started a business selling lubricants and invested his money in drilling for oil. He became a part owner in a very successful well in Riverside, California. If Fleet lived near you, you would be proud to have him as a member of your community. 

As with most men, Fleet liked girls. However, the problem for many young girls was that their age didn’t matter to Fleet. Fleet met and formed friendships with other men that had a similar interest in little girls. Fleet and his friends sexually abused children on a regular basis. Authorities never arrested them and they were never prosecuted, except for one—Mackey Boykin. He was able to make a plea bargain and served ten months in jail.

Fleet’s high school friend, Gordon Christoff, married Alyce and they had a daughter named Gwen. The Christoff’s asked Fleet White to be Gwen’s godfather. He accepted. Gwen grew up and in 1960; Gwen married Don Krebs. The Krebs had a daughter in 1962 and named her Nancy.

In 1966, Gordon became upset when he found Fleet fondling his granddaughter. A violent argument ensued. During this intense verbal argument, Gordon clutched his hands to his chest and died of a massive heart attack. 

After Gordon’s death, Alyce married Albert Sprague. Fleet became friends with Albert and both men shared an attraction for Nancy.

When Nancy’s father, Don Krebs, discovered that his wife was having extramarital affairs, he divorced Gwen. After the divorce, Gwen married Tom Boykin. Gwen, Nancy, and Nancy’s little sister moved into the Boykin family's trailer. 

The Boykins slept in a bedroom at one end of the trailer and the newlywed couple, Gwen and Tom, slept in a bedroom at the other end of the trailer. Nancy, her sister, and several older Boykin boys slept in the living room in the middle of the trailer. They were living in poverty.

Tom’s brother was Mackey Boykin. Mackey loved little girls and he was good with a garrote. Fleet, Albert, Tom, and Mackey became friends. To a different degree, each one was attracted to Nancy Krebs

Tom and Gwen started receiving financial support from Fleet White. Without protest from Nancy’s mother and stepfather, Fleet, Albert, and Mackey started fondling Nancy. Soon their fondling turned into having intercourse. Sometimes Nancy’s mother, stepfather, and grandmother would watch as the men had sex with her. Fleet's money and the men’s sexual contact with Nancy lasted for over a decade. As Nancy grew older and more rebellious, her mother gave Nancy drugs to gain her cooperation. As long as Nancy was available for sex, the money kept flowing.

Mackey became an expert at using a garrote. He would use the garrote to create a mild state of oxygen deprivation in a victim’s brain. When the brain is mildly oxygen starved, the body becomes very sensitive to sexual stimulation. Sexual stimulation while the brain is oxygen deprived gives an intense orgasm. Erotic asphyxiation is more pleasurable and habit forming than cocaine.

For centuries, people have been using various choking techniques to create a mild state of oxygen starvation. The garrote in the hands of a skilled practitioner can precisely control the amount of blood reaching the brain. Correctly using the garrote along with sexual stimulation can give an intense orgasm. Nancy said, “There was a reason that they did that and that was because they wanted me to be excited in the sexual way”. Nancy was sexually stimulated and aroused. Despite her age, she had an intense orgasm. 

Fleet had an adult son that lived in Boulder, Colorado. John Ramsey and Fleet Jr. were best friends.

In 1990, Nancy sought help to overcome her fear and mistrust of people. After ten years of rape victim counseling, Nancy's therapist saw a program on JonBenét's murder. The therapist was able to determine that the man Nancy had been telling her about and the Fleet in the Ramsey case were father and son. The therapist talked Nancy into going to the Boulder police.


The police interviewed Nancy and she was unable to recall the exact dates or locations of the abuse that occurred in her childhood. She would make an unreliable witness. The police determined that the abuse in California was unrelated to the murder in Colorado. Nancy's story eventually leaked to the newspapers. People called her a publicity hound. Others said she was a diseased drug addict and a liar. The public tossed her away like an old newspaper.

Atlanta, 1988

John, a small-time crook and money launderer, lives with his wife and son in Atlanta. Through his associations, he learns of a place where the DA never prosecutes criminals. He and his family move to this perfect town— Boulder, Colorado.

Lockheed Martin is a major defense contractor and there is a powerful criminal element attached to this company. These criminals belong to the West Coast mob. The mob will use Lockheed’s business to gain respect for their illegal activities. This mob will help John set up his money laundering business in Boulder.

This criminal element wants to appear as a good and constructive member of the community. One of their goals was to make as many influential friends as they could. This mob supported several charities and offered the well-connected lavish social events throughout the year. In the 1990’s, they provided the politically connected with generous loan opportunities and gave parties for their friend's enjoyment. John Ramsey, Fleet White, and Alex Hunter enjoyed the social life the mob provided.

Denver, Colorado, 1996

A few days before Christmas there was a large party near Denver. This party was for the entire West Coast mob. The mob had their party just before Christmas so that a large gathering would not attract attention. At this party, the goal was to grant every person their sexual gratification. The party’s organizers provided boys, girls, young men and young women for the pleasure of the attendees.

JonBenét was the daughter of John Ramsey and a six-year-old beauty pageant winner. A small segment of the mob that enjoys playing with small girls knows about JonBenét. The mob wants JonBenét and they give their guarantee to John that they will not harm her. John's first reaction was—not with my daughter! 

A mob boss applied pressure on John until he relented. To John’s dismay, he now understands the high cost of doing business with the mob. The party’s organizers also asked Fleet to contact his father to get help in finding a man that was an expert with a garrote.

Before taking JonBenét to the party, John told her that it won’t take long and she must be quiet and still while the men examine her. At the party, in a private room, JonBenet is naked and lies on a table. A small group of men is watching as one man puts a leather collar around JonBenét’s neck and then the cord that goes over the collar. JonBenét is very troubled by the strange events happening to her, but she obeys her father to be still. The man twist the cord, making it tighter. The man is very gentle with her and the cord is just tight enough to reduce blood flow to her brain. 

The garrote around her neck was not painful and there was very little discomfort.  When JonBenét was ready, the man nodded his head and the men around the table began to fondle her. Even though she was frightened most of the time, she enjoyed the men stroking her and she had an intense orgasm at the end. The men did not harm JonBenét and everyone enjoyed the experience. John picked her up at the party and took her home. That night, JonBenét wets the bed for the first time in over a year.


Wednesday, December 25, 1996

The children have opened their Christmas presents and have spent the morning playing. It is now time to get ready to go to the White's for Christmas dinner. The sexual experience at the Mob's Christmas party has caused JonBenét to regress in her toilet training and she has begun to wet herself. She will have to wear pull-ups to the dinner party. In getting JonBenét ready, Patsy helped her put on the pull-ups, the oversized panties that went over the pull-ups and the rest of her clothing. Later, the Ramsey’s arrived at the home of Fleet and Priscilla White. Shortly after arriving, JonBenét had an accident that needed attending.

From the bathroom, JonBenét's call for assistance was soon answered. She needed help in cleaning up. He wiped down JonBenét with a damp cloth leaving trace fibers found during the autopsy. He helped her get dressed but he did not replace the pull-up. JonBenét returned to play with the other children wearing the oversized panties.

Later that evening the Ramsey’s are on their way home from Christmas dinner. They make a few stops to deliver packages. Several people saw JonBenét asleep in the back seat of the car.

The Ramsey’s arrive home after 9 o’clock. John carries JonBenét to her room and puts the sleeping child to bed in the same clothes she wore that day. Patsy will come up and dress JonBenét for bed in a few minutes. John tells Burke to go to his room and get in bed. John is tired and has a long day tomorrow; he goes to bed. John, Burke, and JonBenét are all in bed. 

Shortly, Patsy went to JonBenét's room and removed the sleeping child's black velvet jeans and black vest and put JonBenét in white thermal long-Johns, leaving on her crew neck top and oversized panties. She turns out the bedroom lights as she leaves. Pasty wants a little time to herself and needs to do some last minute house cleaning and finish preparing for tomorrow's trip to their vacation home in Charlevoix, Michigan.

Burke can’t sleep. He is wide-awake and decides to go downstairs to play. Downstairs, in the living room, he finds his mother. She allows him to play until he becomes sleepy. He remains downstairs to assemble a miniature-parking garage he began earlier.

JonBenét, asleep in her bed, awakens. She gets out of bed, grabs her heavy flashlight and begins to go down the hall to Burke's room as she has done many times before. She notices dimmed light emanating up the spiral staircase coming from the living quarters. Hungry, she heads down to the living room where she finds Patsy and asks her for something to eat. Patsy tells her that there is some pineapple in the refrigerator. Burke wants some pineapple too. Patsy helps the children find the pineapple, and JonBenét plays with her lit flashlight as she is eating. When JonBenét is finished eating she goes back into the living room and watches TV with Patsy. Burke returns to his model.

After watching some TV with JonBenét, Patsy decides to go upstairs to check the sheets in JonBenét's bedroom. She tells JonBenét to go potty before she comes up to bed. With Patsy out of the room, as soon as JonBenét emerges from the bathroom, she finds Burke and asks him to take her down to the basement’s playroom.

JonBenét wants another orgasm. She instructs Burke on what to do. Both children have no idea of what they are doing. Burke follows JonBenét's directions and makes a noose. He places it around her neck. He wraps the leash around his right hand and with his left hand; he pushes on the back of her neck and shoulders. Pulling on the cord with one hand and pushing on the back of her neck with the other causes the noose to tighten. The noose is getting tighter and tighter.

A garrote loosens when tension is released, but this is a noose made with a slip-knot that tightens as pressure is applied. JonBenét begins to struggle. Struggling causes her to become oxygen depleted quickly; it doesn't take but a few moments for her to suffocate. Her body goes limp; she falls backward on the floor. She is moments away from death. The knot is tight and the cord is deeply embedded in her neck choking the life out of her. Burke tries to loosen the noose but he can't get his fingers under the cord.

Burke is confused and afraid. JonBenét's eyes bulge from their sockets, her face is blue. She is a frightful sight. JonBenét begins to convulse. These strange movements and horrible appearance terrify him. Burke picks up the flashlight and straddles JonBenét's body. With both hands, he lifts the flashlight high above his head. Standing over her, he begins the long arc downward. His knees bend as his thighs lower his body, his stomach muscles contract as the fast moving flashlight impact JonBenét's head.

The blow leaves an eight-inch fracture in her skull. This wound does not bleed and it does not swell because the cord going around her neck is preventing any blood from reaching her head. JonBenét dies at this moment. There is no visible evidence of a head injury. The forensic examiner at the autopsy will discover the cracked skull.

Burke wants to hide JonBenét. He takes her by the hands and drags her body a short distance to the wine cellar. In the process, he leaves behind a footprint from his HI TEC shoe.

Meanwhile, Patsy goes to JonBenét’s bedroom, checks the bed, and finds that it is dry. She straightens it and makes it ready for JonBenét’s return. She continues to clean house, pack, and do other miscellaneous chores. When she is satisfied with the state the house is in, she decides to check on the children and put them to bed.

Patsy goes down stairs. Not finding the children in the living area, Patsy searches for the children and sees light coming from the basement. There she finds Burke and JonBenét’s lifeless body lying on the cellar floor. She screams and yells at Burke to go get John.

Patsy has removed the noose and is trying to revive JonBenét as John and Burke rush in. Burke sees Patsy trying to revive JonBenét and asks if she will be all right. They tell him that she will be all right and order him to his room, but they are too late, she is dead.

The parents grieve for the loss of their daughter. The Ramsey’s know that they have not given Burke the attention and love that he required. In their deep sorrow, they also feel guilt. Patsy goes to Burke's room to comfort the distraught little boy and she thinks that she can help him through the night by telling him that JonBenét is recovering. Patsy then gives Burke two of her Benadryl's to help him sleep.

Now, faced with the possibility of losing both children and having Burke branded as the boy who murdered his sister, the Ramseys try to regain their composure and begin to reflect on their options. The Ramseys have an additional problem, they let Burke go to sleep thinking JonBenét was alive. What will they tell him in the morning?

After grieving for the loss of their daughter, the Ramsey’s decide to concoct a ransom note and to create, conceal, and manipulated the evidence in an attempt to take attention away from Burke. John and Patsy will do everything they can to convince Burke and others that an intruder killed JonBenét. 

The deep furrow in JonBenét’s neck indicated to Patsy that she would have to put the cord back around JonBenét’s neck. It was the most difficult thing she ever had to do. Patsy broke off the ends of one of her paintbrushes and added the mid-portion to one end of the noose. To the police, it looked like a garrote. The reason Patsy tied the handle to the end of the cord was to make the implement that killed JonBenét look different from the one Burke made. Burke would not recognize the device that killed his sister and he could continue believing kidnappers killed JonBenét.

As Patsy tied the cord to the handle, some of JonBenét’s hair and fibers from Patsy's sweater became entangled in the cord going around the paintbrush handle. Patsy put a piece of duct tape over JonBenét’s mouth and wrapped her ankles. During the investigation, the police found fibers on the sticky side of the duct-tape. It was determined that the fibers came from Patsy’s sweater. Also on the sticky side of the duct-tape, there was a perfect impression of JonBenét’s lips, indicating JonBenét made no movement after the tape was applied.

Before leaving JonBenét alone in the dark cellar, Patsy covered JonBenét's body with a blanket and placed two of JonBenét's favorite dolls with her under the blanket. Upstairs, Patsy writes the ransom note as John helps dictate it. They place the note in the hall on the stairs.

John began to look for a place to stage the break-in. A few months earlier, John forgot his keys and broke a basement window to get into the house. He never had that window repaired. He went to the basement window that had that broken section, opened it, and tried to hoist himself up. His shoe scraped against the basement wall creating a scuff mark. He found that getting out that way to be too difficult. He looked for something to climb on and found a suitcase nearby. He put it under the window, climbed on the suitcase, reached up, grabbed the iron grate, and tried to move it. It was hard to move and made a scraping sound, but he was satisfied that this location would work as the point of entry. He never crawled through the opening, just tested it.

The Ramsey’s planned to place the body along the road where someone can find it. They will dispose of the leftover cord and duct tape at the same time. The decision on when and where to place the body proved to be too painful, so they kept putting it off until circumstances made the decision for them. A light dusting of snow at 2 a.m. made it impossible for them to leave the house without creating tracks. 

This dusting of snow would remain on the ground until the sun hit it in the morning. JonBenét would have to remain in the basement until the snow melted. They still need to dispose of the duct tape. Tomorrow they will call their friends to come to the house. One couple will take the remnants of the duct tape and cord out of the house in their purse or pocket.

The Ramseys did not know of the blow to the head, so there was no need to dispose of the flashlight. Burke did use it in examining his sister and it might have her DNA on it along with Burke's fingerprints. Patsy took the flashlight to the kitchen, washed it clean of all fingerprints, and left on the counter. 

Shortly before 6:00 a.m., Patsy awakened Burke and told him that kidnappers had taken JonBenét. Patsy asked if he had heard anything or knew anything. He did not. Patsy took Burke downstairs and showed him the ransom note. She wanted to prove to Burke that kidnappers took JonBenét. John and Patsy hoped that Burke would believe that JonBenét was alive when kidnapped, and therefore, he could not have killed her. They called 911 in his presence to make a convincing display.

As soon as possible, John's lawyer, Hal Haddon met with his friend Governor Roy Romer to discuss the Ramseys plight. Because Burke was below the age of culpability in Colorado, Haddon reasoned that as far as the law was concerned, no crime was committed. After their discussion, they agreed that it would be in the best interest of Burke, the Ramseys, Boulder and Colorado, that this case remains unsolved.

All believed that with Governor Romer's assistance and after allowing a few weeks for media attention to subside, this case could be quietly put to rest. It was not difficult to get cooperation from others, many people, including Alex Hunter, after discovering the Ramseys predicament, sympathized with them.

Intense public interest has prevented this group of Ramsey sympathizers from shelving the case. People within the police department that want this case solved release information in the form of leaks to keep the case alive. These leaks keep JonBenét in the minds of the public and prevent Hunter from setting the case aside.

The Boulder Police have been made to look clumsy because there are people inside state offices working against a solution. The staging and cover-up were to convince Burke and others that an intruder came into the night and took the sleeping JonBenét from her bed.

Around 10:00 o'clock Thursday morning, three hours before JonBenét's body would be found, John's lawyer sent word to him that Burke was underage and therefore not responsible for the death of JonBenét and that no action could be taken against him. Only John and Patsy know the truth of the cover-up and only John knows the whole truth. Patsy is suspicious of John’s activities but she does not dare ask. John, now visibly shaken, has doubts about continuing the cover-up. John feels that if they acknowledge that Burke did it, the probing into his affairs would not be necessary.

John is reminded of Patsy's warning not to grow a brain. It is her strong conviction to protect Burke. Patsy believes that they can never reveal the truth. The Ramsey’s friends that know or suspect the truth will keep silent for the same reason. They believe that Burke is convinced that someone else kidnapped and killed JonBenét and that this frees Burke of any guilt or shame. They also know that if others believe that someone else killed JonBenét, then people would not look upon Burke with contempt and hatred.

A few days after of the death of JonBenét, the Ramsey’s’ lawyer hired Pat Korten, a public relations professional, to ensure that the Ramseys were portrayed in the media as a positive, loving, family. Others were hired to see to it that support for an "intruder did it" theory was prominent in the news media, TV specials, and on the web.

A Ramsey supporter called Jameson operates a web site dedicated to JonBenét. She maintains a strong position on the web and her purpose is to mislead. Together, along with their lawyers and private investigators, they would create rancor and confusion in order to stall and misdirect the investigation.

In addition to each family member having their own lawyer, the Ramsey’s hired a coach to help them with their responses to any and all questions. Not only were they taught what to say but how to say it. They have been prepared very well and are ready to give a convincing response to all questions.

Burke returned to school on January 24th. Guards were placed at the classroom door. The Ramsey’s called these people, "parent volunteers". No one would be allowed to contact Burke. Burke would be watched at all times.

Copyright 1998 by Troy Cowan.
All rights reserved.



Update

In 1999, a grand jury was impaneled to determine if there was enough evidence to prosecute. They found sufficient evidence and voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey. The grand jury determined there was probable cause to charge the Ramsey’s for child abuse and that their actions resulted in JonBenét's death.

Child abuse has a statute of limitations of three years. The Grand Jury was impaneled in 1999 and the three years was almost up. District Attorney Alex Hunter had to do something to delay any action against the Ramsey’s in order to allow the statute of limitations to take effect. Hunter refused to sign the indictment and prosecute the case. The statute of limitations is now in effect and John Ramsey cannot be prosecuted for the cover-up that occurred at the beginning of the case. However, the cover-up continues to this day and a smart prosecutor could still bring charges against John Ramsey and others.

May 24, 2000

JonBenét Ramsey's parents said at a press conference that they passed a lie detector test given by a private polygraph expert, Ed Gelb. Mr. Gelb stated that the lie detector test indicated the Ramseys did not "attempt to deceive" when they said they did not know who beat and strangled their 6-year-old daughter in 1996. Gelb, a former president of the American Polygraph Association, said Patsy Ramsey also denied writing a ransom note found in the family home. "Neither John nor Patsy were attempting deception when they gave the answers," Gelb said at the press conference with the Ramseys, their six attorneys, and another polygraph expert.

This is not the first time Ed Gelb has been in the spotlight. He was called in after Travis Walton claimed he was abducted by space aliens and kept for five days aboard their spaceship before being returned to Earth. There were five friends with him that claim that they saw Travis as he was being beamed aboard an alien craft.

Ed Gelb gave polygraphs to each of the five witnesses and gave them a clean bill of health. He stated that each of the tests demonstrated that each witness was being conclusively "truthful." Gelb, then declared that the statistical odds of five people "beating the machine" were about one in a million. 

Later, polygraph expert John J. McCarthy gave Travis Walton a polygraph examination and determined that Travis was deceptive with his responses. This is not the only time that Ed Gelb has verified an alien abduction. He had a TV show called "lie detector" with co-host F. Lee Bailey in which he had the opportunity to test Betty Hill.

 Betty and Barney Hill are the famous couple that claimed they were abducted by space aliens. They said that they were given a physical examination by these aliens while aboard the space ship. After Gelb gave her a polygraph examination, Betty Hill was declared to have given truthful responses to Gelb's questions.

May 2001

One year later, detective Lou Smit presented his intruder theory on the Today Show. He stated that the DNA, found in the panties and under JonBenét's fingernails, did not match John or Burke Ramsey and indicated an intruder. He said that the hair found on the blanket was also an indication of an intruder.

It has been stated that the DNA in JonBenét's panties and under her finger nails were several days old and degraded. While Smit believed the hair found on the blanket belonged to an intruder, it has subsequently been identified as belonging to Patsy Ramsey.

Molecular biologist Melissa Weber of Cell Mark Laboratories consulted several detectives after Cell Mark analyzed the DNA. Steve Thomas and Deputy DA DeMuth were at this meeting; Lou Smit was not. Steve Thomas said that Melissa Weber stated that the analysis showed the possibility that there may be DNA of another person mixed in with JonBenét's DNA found in the panties and under her fingernails.

However, this foreign DNA could be the result of a false positive (stutter). Melissa Weber went on to say that if there were two sources of DNA and they were mixed together, then no one could be excluded. This is contrary to Lou Smit's statement that John and Burke had been excluded. Shortly after the meeting with Weber, Deputy DA DeMuth announced that the DNA did not match John Ramsey's DNA. While technically a true statement, a better statement would have been, "No DNA match is possible under present technology".

When Cell Mark Laboratories was given the job of testing the DNA under JonBenét's fingernails and in her panties, there wasn't enough DNA to test, so they had to grow more DNA from the small sample they did have. The process of growing more DNA from a small sample is called PCR amplification. Unfortunately, when you don't have a perfect sample, the DNA is old, degraded or damaged, the imperfect DNA is amplified also. Sometimes, this imperfect DNA, or non-matching DNA, gives a false impression that it is another person’s DNA.

Having additional markers is a common problem with PCR amplification. Scientist call this problem, stuttering or shadow bands. When the DNA under the fingernails and in the panties was tested, there were more markers than there should have been. What caused these extra markers? Amplifying degraded DNA may be responsible for the extra markers, not an intruder.

Smit also said that the shoe print found near the body was also an indication of an intruder. He said that it was his belief that the intruder came into the house through the basement window, leaving a scuff mark on the wall as his shoe slid down the wall. He did not say whether the Hi-Tec brand of shoe that made the print in the basement was capable of making the scuff mark found on the basement wall. The material found in the scuff mark should match the sole of the shoe. They did not test John Ramsey's shoes to see if one of them could have made the scuff mark.

From the beginning, many people believed that the John Ramsey hired private investigators to help find the killer of JonBenét. We remember getting reports that private investigators were on the scene the day after the murder asking question and getting information from Ramsey’s neighbors. To many, it demonstrated that the Ramsey’s were innocent. Why would the guilty hire investigators to collect evidence the prosecutor would use against them?

 On May 31, 2000, John said on Larry King Live "We've had investigators, seasoned investigators collectively with over 500 homicides under their belt who have been working on this case day in and day out. They have questions, they have information." We now learn that there never was a private investigation into the death of JonBenét. On December 12, 2001, during a deposition, John Ramsey said that the "purpose of those investigators was to prepare a defense in the case that the police might bring a charge against me."

Many are saddened to learn that there was no private investigation into the death of JonBenét. Because of the Ramsey and OJ case, many have lost faith in our legal system. A system easily manipulated by the rich and powerful. Even Ramsey's head investigator, Ellis Armistead, has stated that he has lost faith in the system. In an article in the Rocky Mountain News, Armistead said his assignment was not to solve the crime. "It was to keep the Ramseys from being arrested."

May 22, 2001

Adrienne Mand reported that forensic scientist Henry Lee told Connecticut TV station WFSB-TV that he wonders whether the child beauty queen was even murdered. Lee said it's possible JonBenét's death was an accident, which was covered-up to make it look like a homicide, in which case there really isn't a killer. If Lee is thinking that JonBenét's death was an accident. He is not alone. Others have had similar thoughts. When Lou Smit was overheard talking to John Ramsey, he said, "John, look, it was an accident. This could be a lot easier for everybody".

What kind of accident is it when a person dies of strangulation? Is it an accident when a child kills another child? Many say yes. When the killer is too young to understand the meaning of life and death, right or wrong or the consequences of their actions. Burke was 9 years eleven months old.

August 23, 2002

Charlie Brennan, of the Rocky Mountain News, reported on two of the most puzzling question facing the investigators. "BOULDER - Investigators have answered two vexing questions in the JonBenét Ramsey case that have long helped support the theory that an intruder killed her, according to sources close to the case. The answers, which have been known to investigators for some time but never publicly revealed, could be seen to weaken the intruder theory.

The two clues are: A mysterious Hi-Tec boot print in the mold on the floor of the Ramsey’s' wine cellar, near JonBenét's body, has been linked by investigators to Burke. It is believed to have been left there under circumstances unrelated to JonBenét's murder. Burke, now 15, has repeatedly been cleared by authorities of any suspicion in the 1996 Christmas night slaying, and that has not changed. A palm print on the door leading to that same wine cellar, long unidentified, is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenét's adult half-sister. She was in Georgia at the time of the murder." 

July 17, 2003

The intruder theory was discussed on The Abrams Report. The guest list included Michael Kane, Larry Pozner, Wendy Murphy, Lawrence Schiller and Lin Wood. Lin Wood expressed his belief that the tape of Patsy's 911 call did not have Burke's voice on it. Wood, "Thanks, Dan. I want to make clear to your viewers that the tape that I provided to NBC was, in fact, authenticated as being identical to the tape that was tested by the Boulder Police Department. And that authentication came directly from Mary Keenan who provided the tape to me, and I provided NBC with the tape that Mary Keenan provided to me, the entire tape. It wasn't a third or fourth-generation tape. It was a first-generation off of the 911 original call, the same type tape that was tested by the Boulder Police Department and there is no conversation on there."

Schiller, "They did send it to the Secret Service and there were no results, only to discover that really there was more advance technology in a company in El Segundo, California that was in the aerospace business and dealt with these type of sound problems and they took the tape to El Segundo, California and there that company analyzed the tape and came up with what they believe was dialogue that continued a short time later after the phone was supposedly hung up. "

Anyone that has ever copied a tape knows that the copy is not as good as the original. In this case, we are talking about very weak voice impressions on tape that are just at or above the noise level. The additional noise (noise from the original + the noise from the copy) would most likely cover over any weak impressions that could be heard on the original tape. When Schiller asked the important question to Wood, "You don't know whether it's analog or digital" Wood said, "no" A digital tape converts the sound waves into numbers. When you copy a digital tape there is no deterioration because you are copying numbers and any noise on the tape can be discarded.

If Burke's voice can be heard on the tape, it will demonstrate that the Ramseys lied. The panel also discussed the fiber evidence.

MURPHY: "Don't forget for a minute that nobody really disputes Patsy Ramsey's sweater fibers were on the tape" and "wrapped inside the garrote." It was also pointed out that Burke Ramsey has never been looked at as the possible perpetrator.

KANE: "the police investigation never excluded anybody with the exception of Burke Ramsey from the focus of the case".

August 17, 2006

John Mark Karr told investigators from a Thailand detention center that he was with JonBenét when she died. With that confession, he got a free trip to the US. Once inside the US, no evidence could be found that linked him to JonBenét's murder and he was released. (Karr's arrest came with the help of Operation Predator, an arm of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that targets child predators who may be outside of the United States. The agency with information from Michael Tracy contacted the Royal Thai police.)

August 28, 2006

Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy, "You know, no one is really cleared of a homicide until there's a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don't think you will get any prosecutor ... unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime ... to clear someone."

July 2008

Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy wrote in a letter to the little girl's father, John Ramsey. "To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry. No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion." Lacy said new "touch DNA tests on skin cells that were left behind on JonBenét's long underwear point to an 'unexplained third party' and not a member of the family".

Every time you touch something, you leave traces of your DNA. That DNA is now traceable and identifiable. It seems to me that a touch test should be done on the garrote, the paint brush handle, the ransom note, the duct tape, the blanket placed over her body, and the two dolls placed under the blanket. 

We know that fibers from Patsy's sweater were found under the cord that wrapped around the paintbrush handle. Did Patsy wrap the cord around the paintbrush handle? Did Burke touch the cord? Would Mary Lacy withhold such information from the public if the test were done and Burke's and or Patsy's DNA was on the cord?

September 2010

On HLN, Nancy Grace reported that for the last three weeks Boulder police have wanted to interview Burke Ramsey. As of October 1, 2010, Burke has not talked to police.

Lawrence Schiller was a guest on HLN. He said, "JonBenét was not dragged into the wine cellar because there were no drag marks in the dust on the floor".  There were no other marks or footprints on this dust because there was no dust on the floor. 

A partial footprint with the word HI Tec was found in a spot of efflorescence on the concrete. When you build a concrete foundation, a thin sheet of plastic is placed under the concrete to form a moisture barrier. If there is a hole or tear in the plastic, vapor migrating through the slab will bring soluble salts to the surface of the concrete forming a soft crust at that spot. That is where the partial shoe print was found.

10/17/2010

Burke Ramsey has not met with the police and is refusing to meet with the police. He is calming harassment.

September 16, 2016

Twenty years after JonBenét’s death, Burke continues to avoid a police interview but talks about his sister’s death on a TV show. Burke Ramsey appeared on the Dr. Phil Show. During that appearance, Burke said, “I had some toy that I wanted to put together. I remember being downstairs after everyone was in bed”. Amazingly, Dr. Phil gave no follow-up and let Burke’s statement drop.

Presumably, the family arrived home from the White’s Christmas party at nine-thirty and shortly thereafter went to bed. However, we now know that Burke was up late and playing with a toy on the night of the murder. We need to reexamine the time of JonBenét’s death. When did JonBenét Die?

-          On her tombstone, it says she died on December 25. 1996. If that is correct, she died between nine-thirty and midnight.

-          When JonBenét’s body was found, her entire body was in rigor mortis. After death, a body cools until it reaches the temperature of its surroundings. Then, the dead person’s eyelids start to become stiff. Next, their jaw becomes stiff and the stiffness begins to travels down to the body. The arms and legs are the last to reach the stage of rigor mortis. JonBenét’s arms were in full rigor mortis. It is believed that she died sometime after ten o’clock.

-          The ransom note says to have the money ready by ten o’clock tomorrow. That means the ransom note was written before midnight. If the note was written as a part of a cover-up, then JonBenét was already dead.

-          During the autopsy, it was discovered that JonBenét had pineapple in her digestive tract. The forensic examiner was able to determine that JonBenét ate the pineapple at approximately ten-thirty.

The police discovered a bowl of pineapple on the kitchen table. That bowl had both Burke and Patsy’s fingerprints on it. If the forensic examiner’s estimation that JonBenét ate the pineapple at ten-thirty is correct, then it becomes clear that Patsy, Burke, and JonBenét were not in bed, they were up and in the kitchen eating pineapple. JonBenét died between ten-thirty and midnight and at a time Burke admits to being downstairs.



In her book, October Surprise, Barbara Honegger, says that when a theory explains so many acknowledged and otherwise inexplicable facts, it deserves to be classed as a fact itself. The Supreme Court agrees "findings of fact" include " conclusions by way of reasonable inference from the evidence".

The closing on the ransom note was, "Victory SBTC". There is some speculation on what SBTC means. Some believe that it stands for "Subic Bay Training Center", while others believe it stands for "Saved by the Cross". There are people that say Patsy is a true believer in Christ, and for true believers, each time a soul goes to heaven, it is a victory in Christ. Perhaps this is what the author of the ransom note meant: Victory, JonBenét's Soul Belongs to Christ.

The JonBenét Ramsey murder case is at a standstill. Twenty years after the murder, no one has been brought to justice and the possibility exists that no one ever will. Many believe that the statute of limitations is past and no prosecution is possible. However, the cover-up is continuing to this day, so there may be a possibility of an indictment for the cover-up. Also, Burke could be tried as an adult.


Conclusion


A powerful criminal element has attached itself to Lockheed Martin. Shipments to Lockheed Martin arriving from overseas sometimes have illegal drugs included. When the mob sells those drugs, the money they receive must not leave a trail back to them. All criminals that receive a lot of money must find a way to show that the money was earned in a legal manner. This technique is called money laundering.

Lockheed Martin owns a money laundering business called Access Graphics. It is a $1,000,000,000.00 company run by John Ramsey. Immediately after JonBenét’s death, Lockheed Martin swooped down on Boulder and took control of Access Graphics.

All incriminating evidence was removed and Access Graphics was made squeaky-clean. Then, Lockheed Martin sold the company. Access Graphics would never again report a billion dollar income. It slowly went out of business.

JonBenét’s death upset the mob. The manner in which she died could lead investigators to the mobs Christmas party. They were afraid that John Ramsey could be linked to the mob and that may lead to an investigation of Access Graphics. The mob decided that this crime must never be solved and hired lawyers and private investigators to misdirect and confuse the investigation.

In addition, the U.S. government wants Lockheed Martin to be viewed as a respectable company. Government officials do not want it known that organized crime is operating in close proximity to top-secret military weapons. To avoid any disgrace, the U.S. government does not want this crime solved.

Burke Ramsey knows that powerful people are hiding the truth and telling the public that an intruder killed his sister. He knows the truth will never come out and he is safe from discovery. This knowledge gives Burke the freedom to sue for defamation of charter.

Print this item

  just a recap of her interviews
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-25-2018, 12:40 PM - Forum: Nancy Krebs - Replies (1)

OK, so here I am going to go look for a bit of background - bear with me
[b]Nancy was born on April 25, 1962 - [/b]
[b]Nyla White, Fleet's mother, stayed in touch with Nancy's grandmother over the years and sent her photos of Fleet's family. (referred to in NK interviews.)  [/b]
[b]Fleet and his family lived in Long Beach and NKs family was about an hour away in Buena Park.  So they didn't see each other every day or anything like that.  Nancy says only at holidays or special occasions like birthdays - - so we are talking maybe 10 times a year, probably less.[/b]

[b]She says Fleet SR. was molesting her from an early age - at about 3 or 4   and  that sometimes these molestations took place at her grandparents' house, but also at other places.[/b]
[b]On Fleet Jr. who would have been about 15 yr old - "I think that he was made to do things to me."[/b]

[b]2/6/1966 - Nancy would have just turned 4 - she remembers her grandfather was PROTECTING her, in  a screaming fight with Fleet SR - and he had a massive heart attack and died. [/b]
[b]She says she doesn't know what the argument was about but she says that Fleet Sr said  "he was tryin' to tough me or something" [/b]

[b]She never told her grandmother, Alyce, what was happening but her own parents not only knew about the assaults, they were involved.  Her mother, Gwen Boykin, took her to the Whites to be assaulted.[/b]

[b]Fleet SR and JR both raped her vaginally, anally and orally.   The last time Fleet SR raped her was on August 9th, 1990.  That last time, she was at her grandparents, Nyla was there, and she said her grandmother, Alyce Sprague, Albert Sprague (Alyce's husband) and Nyla White all saw Fleet SR take her to a bedroom where he raped her 3 ways.  [/b]
[b]She never told anyone about that episode.[/b]

[b]Last time Fleet JR supposedly raped her was some time between 1976 and 1978.[/b]
[b]Asked why she thinks it stopped:[/b]
A. Okay um ...any reason why Fleet White Jr. stopped the assaults back in '78 I guess (inaudible)
D. We1l..."um I think because it……it had gotten to a point where I was being abused so much that um people were noticing things where I was going to school
A. Uh-huh
D. And they reported that there was some child abuse going on
A. Okay

D. And at that point in time I went to uh sex investigation and then later uh they went to a preliminary hearing and then the person um pleaded no contest to statutory rape and sodomy 

[b]That person was Mackie Boykin, her step-father's brother and he made a plea bargain in June of 1980. He did 10 months in jail.    There was no mention of the White's at that time.  Just Boykin who lived very close to her family at the time.  She admits she didn't tell social services about the Whites at that time - and please remember, at that time she was about 18 years old.  And in part 2 of her interview she says [/b]: [b]D. Yeah I think the very first person to sexually assault me was Mackie Boykin.[/b]

[b]She also says he continued to sexually assault her after he got out of jail.[/b]
[b]She also says her Dad's parents, Harold and Lois Krebs, were involved in the sexual assaults.[/b]
[b]That's a lot of accusations - - but the only one I see brought to LE before the Ramsey murder is Mackie Boykin.[/b]


[b]Fleet and Priscilla visited Nancy's uncle and aunt in Bakersville in the mid-1980's and Nancy was present there.  She didn't speak up then.[/b]

[b]She only spoke about the Whites being involved in her abuse after signing on with Mary Bienkowski.  [/b]

Print this item

  John Douglas mentions GJ testimony
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-24-2018, 06:30 PM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - No Replies

.I interviewed John and Patsy and did sound tests at their home. John and Patsy's bedroom was basically a finished attic. You couldn't even hear anything from the second floor where the children slept. JonBenet as you know was found two floors below that in the basement . Going into the case I also looked at the family as suspects. That's where you always first look. The defense asked me for help but they didn't sway me or pay me to come up with an analysis that would eliminate John and Patsy. They said they didn't know if they were guilty or not but they thought they had nothing to do with the crime. In the back of my mind before I did anything I thought there was a strong possibility that they were culpable.
I've done so many cases in my life that I knew very quickly that the Ramsey's were innocent. If you've ever been to a doctor for an injury or illness they are profiling you and hopefully will come up with what ails you or the extent of your injuries and how you should be treated. I don't know about you but from my experience doctors are like any other profession. Some are exceptional and others not so. I told the the Boulder PD what I thought but they were not happy that I was helping in their minds potential killers. I told them not to take my word for it and to contact my old unit. Apparently they did but according to Lou Smit one of the profilers said he would turn in his FBI credentials if the Ramsey's were innocent. Well he was wrong and this small town PD with 1-2 homicides a year took this agents comments very seriously. I secretly testified before the grand jury and read my notes from the analysis I did. Secretly...I was told to duck down when I was driven into the courthouse garage. They didn't want the media to see me going in. I told the grand jury from my notes that I was told there is DNA evidence. i read that if there was DNA evidence that it would not be semen but rather saliva. Why? Because this was not a sex crime. It was what I call in the Crime Classification Manual (CCM) as a personal cause homicide. It turns out that the DNA was saliva. I was told that they have "evidence" and I said if you have evidence why am I here...go with your evidence.
If I believed the Ramsey's were responsible I would have said that in my analysis. I'm not a hired gun whether working for the prosecution or the defense. Unfortunately the police made several major mistakes and let a theory drive an investigation rather then evidence.

Print this item

  A thread for Candy
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-19-2018, 07:07 PM - Forum: Found on other forums - No Replies

Candy, you wrote, "Opening up the grand jury files would be a disaster. That is what the Scams want. They want to know who had credibility before the grand jury that indicted THEM and dig up whatever dirt they already don't have on them."

 I think all of us would like to see the transcript of the entire proceedings because there has been 20 YEARS of speculation and gossip.

The Whites want to see the documents and interviews that accused them of child abuse - - and I would think you would support their request.  After all, they were living a clean life in Boulder and all of a sudden Nancy Krebs made accusations that ripped their world apart.  (watch the 2014 tape of them addressing Boulder council).

Anyway, the Ramseys don't need to see the transcripts to know the prosecution team orchestrated a witch hunt in there, that they put on "expert opinions" that were fictitious, that Steve Thomas' theory was given credibility.  They know the intruder evidence was NOT welcome and when Lou Smit was on the witness stand he was treated with disrespect, scoffed at by Morrissey and Kane.  They know all that.

What they want is for the false witnesses to be help up for examination, that the truth be told and their reputations be restored.

They also know that even if a movie was released that secret elves took of the murder -- - the BORG would ignore it and stick to their BORG position and still blame the parents.

It's sad but true.

Print this item

  other stories
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-19-2018, 03:50 PM - Forum: Burke sues CBS for 750 million - No Replies

https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/jonb...her-files/

JonBenét Ramsey’s Brother Urges Investigators To Release Files That Prove His Innocence
Oct 18, 2018 11:21 am
By Megan Heintz



Who killed JonBenét Ramsey? That’s the question that’s plagued authorities and family members for nearly 22 years. Now, the former beauty queen’s brother, Burke Ramsey, is determined to prove his innocence once and for all — by pressuring investigators for key documents.
According to Radar Online, the 31-year-old served CBS with a whopping $750 million defamation lawsuit for the 2016 docuseries The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, and his team is pushing for the release of more than 60,000 pages of confidential police and FBI records, DNA evidence, and medical examinations gathered during the investigation.
The Ramsey family attorney, L. Lin Wood, insists: “Burke is innocent.”

Burke’s lawyers say key evidence about the contents of JonBenét’s stomach was deliberately left out of the docuseries in order to frame him. The scenario alleged that a then-nine-year-old Burke was furious at JonBenét for stealing pineapple from his bowl, so he smashed her over the head with a flashlight and killed her.
But Burke’s lawsuit claims the pineapple found in JonBenét’s body was in the intestinal tract below her stomach — meaning it had been eaten two to three hours before she died. Additionally, grapes and cherries were found in her system, which the series failed to disclose.
Experts — who testified in the case — said JonBenét would have died within three minutes of a blow to the head, so she wouldn’t have digested the pineapple. In other words, the docuseries’ theory is impossible.


On Christmas day in 1996, JonBenét was discovered sexually molested and strangled to death in the basement of the family’s Boulder, CO home. Although many people have been associated with her murder, the case is still open.
The Boulder District Attorney’s office supported the theory that JonBenét was killed by an intruder, with a broken window in the basement and the gruesome way she was killed (suffocated by a garrote) listed as potential “evidence.”
However, the alleged intruder/murderer has not been found; in 2006, elementary school teacher John Mark Karr falsely confessed to the pageant star’s murder, but DNA samples provided by him did not match the DNA samples found on the child’s body.
In Summer 2016, In Touch revealed that Michael Vail tipped off police about his high school friend Gary Silva — a pedophile with a strong connection to the case — calling him days after the 1996 murder confessing that he “hurt a little girl.” To this day, though, who truly killed JonBenét remains unsolved.



(Note - Michael Vail turned in a man named Oliva, not Silva)

Print this item

  old thread
Posted by: jameson245 - 10-15-2018, 04:52 PM - Forum: Stun Gun - No Replies

Go back to previous page
Forum URL:
http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi
Forum Name:
more and more JBR
Topic ID:
399
#0, Stun gun evidence
Posted by jameson on Dec-30-02 at 11:06 AM

Quote:Look at the page - - let's discuss it!
http://www.jameson245.com/stungun.htm

#1, RE: Stun gun evidence
Posted by jameson on Dec-30-02 at 11:09 AM
In response to message #0

Quote:From the 2nd documentary:
NARRATOR - The Boulder police rejected Smit evidence about a stun gun. They spoke to Colorado's
leading expert pathologist
Mike Dobersen - and claimed he discounted the possibility.
MIKE DOBERSEN - That's right - and that was something of a mistatement since my real conclusion
was that I couldn't, at that
time, say whether it was a stun gun injury or not because we had to have a weapon to compare it to.
NARRATOR - When Smit brought him the Air Tazer stun gun, Doberson took a different position.
MIKE DOBERSEN - Lou had found a weapon with characteristics which fit as exactly as you could
expect, the injuries on
JonBenét's body.
NARRATOR - Since then Mike Dobersen has conducted experiments on anaesthetized pigs. The Tazer
stun gun exactly
replicated the injuries on JonBenét and the distance, 3.5 centimeters, between those injuries.
MIKE DOBERSEN - My experiments, and the observations that we made and all the work that's been
done, I feel that I can
testify to a reasonably degree of medical certainty that these are stun gun injuries.

It isn't going to get better than that - - and no one has come up with any reasonable alternative source for those marks. Lou Smit on MSNBC clearly states that once you know HOW to identify a stun gun wound, they are easy to identify, not like anything else.

[b]#2, AIR TASER interview
Posted by jameson on Dec-30-02 at 11:11 AM
In response to message #1
[/b]

Quote: "AIR TASER interview"
MSNBC reporter: "... Taser International, the company that manufactured the stun gun Smit believes
was used in this crime. Steven, thanks for being here. In fact, he says it was an AIR TASER 34,000.
You've got one with you, show us how it works.
Steven Tuttle - Taser International: "Well, what you have is the stun gun version of the Air Taser. If
I push back the safety here, (firing stun gun in air)I can activate the actual stun gun and that's what
we... you have to apply to a person to keep them at bay, so to speak.
Reporter: Can you apply it to your arm?
ST: I can, ah, it's not fun, but (applies to arm held in air, the contact is brief and repeating as the
arm jumps away) AH (he grunted) It's very disconcerting and makes you want to stay away from it.
It's somewhat painful. To me that just felt like pins and needles hitting on my arm right now and I
want to get away from that pain.
Reporter: Did it leave a mark?
ST: Not at all. (Showing arm)
Reporter: Let's take a look at a couple of ... we still-framed just a moment ago duting this package
here... the front end of that Air taser, let's take a look at it right now. You can see, there you see,
how far apart are the two sort of electrodes that come out there? Are they roughly 3.5 cm apart?
ST: That's fairly close, yes.
Reporter: And there's another look at it there. OK, the reason I ask that is that Lou Smit took your
product, the 34000 Air Taser, he tested it on an anaestitized pig, hard to say, and produced the
same marks that were discovered on JonBenét Ramsey - not in one place, but in two separate
places. What do you make of that?
ST: Well, actually, we helped supply that Air Taser for the testing. We were as interested in this
case as Lou Smit is. We've worked with him from the very beginning of the case. The one thing that's
interesting is that the marks that the pigs have do look fairly similar to what's on JonBenét Ramsey.
What's unusual is that, if you saw my arm, it was going off in many, many directions. It's extremely
painful, uh, not even painful, just I wanted to get away from it. I don't know how you could leave
this particular device in one solid spot, not once but twice
Reporter: Yeah, but your arm wasn't restricted against a bed. What if a child abut, oh say, 35-40
pounds, age 6, is in a bed, asleep, somebody comes over without her hearing and uses a stun gun,
that taser you've got right there in your hand, and while holding her down uses it on her back and
her neck and face area?
ST: Well, that's an interesting idea because if I do this to a child of say 6 years of age while they're
in the middle of a very deep sleep, they're going to have fairly the same reaction I did. They're going
to want to get instinctually away from the pain. It would be almost be like being hit with a hot iron
while sleeping. It may take an extra second but you are going to wake up, kick, flail and scream....
Reporter: But didn't you tell our producer that if you do this to a hundred people you will get 100
different reactions? Right?
ST: You'll have about a hundred different reactions but most of them will be different screams,
different yelps, different people kicking. You will certainly not see any incapacitation at all. That's the
key to this issue is that you're NOT going to get incapacitation
Reporter: What are you gonna get?
ST: You're gonna get what I did just now and I'm still feeling it... I don't like the fact that I did that
to myself... I would want to get away from that pain...
Reporter: No temporary paralysis?
ST: None whatsoever. There's a lot of places on the internet, if you look up stun guns. It's
completely false as to what these things do as far as incapacitation rates. These are good devices to
keep somebody at bay at best.
Reporter: Is it possible, even though it may not have produced the desired reaction of incapacitation,
is it possible to produce the very same marks? Let's take a look, by the way, on the autopsy photo...
there you see, 3.5 cm apart, is it possible to produce those marks with what you have in your hand
there, Steven?
ST: I can't do it and I've never been able to replicate it on a person in my 7 years with the company.
Neither has anybody in our company been able to replicate those
Reporter: Are you telling me that your taser has never left a mark on any human being or any animal?
ST: It certainly leaves a mark in some cases like a reddish mark. I'm looking at my arm right now and
I've got little red spots here, all over the place - cause the electricity's dancing all over the place.
I'm not able to keep it in one spot. If I were to keep it in one spot, I might be able to get those two
3.5 cm type width spots but what's key here is even if I'm a 30 pound person, I'm going to get
instinctually away from this pain. If you were to have it, especially in two spots to be perfectly still, I
just don't know how....
Reporter: You're not being restrained and you don't have duct tape across your mouth but, Steven,
I'm afraid we're out of time. I want to thank you so much for coming here today and showing us how
it works, we appreciate it. Steven Tuttle of Taser International.
AFTER VIEWING LOU'S PRESENTATION
R: ...heard that story we had on during the break. Do you buy the theory? Does it hold water?
ST:I don't know. It's bewildering to us as a company. We were approached by Lou Smit in the very
beginning of the investigation. We provided a list of people who had the actual AIR TASER in
Colorado. We've also provided them a lot of information...
MISSING SECTION!!!!!!!
R: ...distinctive marks that appear to be the same spread. I think you have an AIR TASER with you
right now and there are in fact - - can you hold it up? - there are two electrodes in the end, right?
ST: There are two electrodes right here what they are talking about is actually leaving marks here
and they are about 3 1/2 cm apart and they're fairly similar in width if you were to measure those
two.
R: Now here's the big question - Can someone hold that to somebody without them flinching or
moving back?
ST: That's the crux of the bewilderment from our company's perspective. I'm going to go ahead and
do this on my arm. I don't like doing this at all but
R: I'm sure you don't
ST: I want to try to hold it there as long as I can. Now this would be simulating anybody's reaction.
(He grimaced and held the stun gun to his arm, he did NOT cry out or make any noise until he pulled
the stun gun away.)
UH! That is exceedingly painful to say the least, it's something instinctually I want to get away from
R: OK, but you're a grown man, Let's take ourselves to the crime scene. This is a little girl who was
asleep, she's 6 years old, what's to say a grown man can't hold her down and just simply hold that to
her?
ST: Well, that could be done, but what we're seeing is a mark that's not moving and as you saw my
arm flailing about... even if someone is heavier,holding that down, that person is going to wake up
immediately and instinctively want to get away from the pain.
R: What about the the notion of incapacitating someone? Is this, obviously when you're being
shocked there, you're out of it for that moment, but when you took it away, you were fine. Will it
knock somebody out?
ST: That is very, very crucial to the issue here, it will not knock someone out, it will not render them
mute. They will kick and scream. I did my best to not scream into the microphone here because it
was very uncomfortable.
R: Once you took it away, though, you were fine?
ST: ... once you stop it. And it's very loud when it's in the air. It does go much more silent as Lou
Smit pointed out with the pillow. It does go more silent when you stick it in the skin. However, the
minute that person breaks contact you do get that loud arcing sound. And again, it just simply would
not cause incapacitation
R: Mr. Tuttle, I can certainly understand why a company would not want their name or product
associated with a crime in this case. Do you see any reasonable possibility that it COULD have been a
TASER and that a child that young COULD have been incapacitated?
ST: It could have been ours and I certainly, we want to work with the investigators, we have from
the very beginning. Um, I don't know. It's bewildering to see if this was ours. The measurements are
close. They're not exact, but I don't know. That's what's stupifying - is you've got two separate
marks that are crystally clear, perfect, without any movement shown on the suspect's, oh, I'm sorry,
on JonBenét. I just don't understand that, how that can be there. (Showing his arm) I don't have the
marks here, they're all over the place. I'm not sure if you can see... from me moving, they've gone
everywhere. Ah,
R: Certainly not as deep as what we saw there. You mentioned... we're quickly running out of time...
you mentioned that you provided list of those who had been sold. Is this something you have to
register to buy?
ST: Yes We do require as a company that if a person purchases an AIR TASER, we are going to know
who that person is. They are registered in a data base and if it's used in the TASER mode, which
would incapacitate somebody, it's going to emit little confetti tags that would match back to the
owner. In this case the taser was not used so we don't have these confetti tags. But we do have
serial numbers. If they find one, we could match that up to who it was sold to.
R: Steven Tuttle, we do appreciate you spending the time with us today.
ST: Thank you


[b]#3, great deposition to study
Posted by jameson on Dec-30-02 at 11:21 AM
In response to message #2
[/b]

Quote:http://www.webbsleuths.com/dcf/jbr_evidence/46.html
I have some serious work to do here - - back in a few hours - - but forthose who really want to know this case - - this stun gun subject can fill your day - - honest - - there is a TON of stuff out here to study on that.


[b]#4, RE: great deposition to study
Posted by jameson on Jan-30-03 at 09:35 PM
In response to message #3
[/b]

Quote:bump


[b]#5, incomplete experiments
Posted by addiewalker on Feb-01-03 at 05:42 AM
In response to message #4
[/b]

Quote:Well, now you've piqued my interest. Were those poor piggies ever tested with a fireplace poker to see what sort of marks it would leave?


[b]#6, RE: incomplete experiments
Posted by jameson on Feb-01-03 at 09:06 AM
In response to message #5
[/b]

Quote:I don't knowof any tests being done using the poker. Maybe now those tests will be done. Who knows what the new team will do? There won't be many leaks.


[b]#7, Opinion re' stun gun
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-02-03 at 11:15 AM
In response to message #6
[/b]

Quote:In my opinion the evidence is compelling that a stun had been used on JonBenet.
However, the evidence that the stun gun had to have been employed by an intruder is weak. No intruder would have stayed in the house long to have committed all of the acts that been attributed to him. The totality of all of the evidence in this case, IMO, points to either a Ramsey family member or a houseguest as having used the stun gun on JonBenet.
Stratbucker's deposition, incidentally, was an interesting read.
BlueCrab


[b]#8, RE: How Long?
Posted by Margoo on Feb-02-03 at 11:32 AM
In response to message #7
[/b]

Quote:No intruder would have stayed in the house long to have committed all of the acts that been attributed to him.

Blue Crab - how long do you think the killer needed to commit "all of the acts"?


[b]#9, RE: How Long?
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-02-03 at 12:10 PM
In response to message #8
[/b]

Quote:Margoo,
The "dining" on pineapple; the sexual assault; the accidental killing; and the naive staging to make it look like an intruder did it (including the writing of the ridiculous ransom note) -- IMO would take 2 to 3 hours minimum.
BlueCrab


[b]#10, RE: How Long?
Posted by Margoo on Feb-02-03 at 01:32 PM
In response to message #9
[/b]

Quote:Blue Crab: Without embellishing, how long? That is to say, no "dining on pineapple", no staging. Just the ransom note and the killing. How long - minimum and maximum.


[b]#11, RE: How Long?
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-02-03 at 03:29 PM
In response to message #10
[/b]

Quote:Margoo,
The fake ransom note was a big part of the staging. It alone would have taken, IMO, a minimum of 1 hour and a maximum of 2 hours to write.
An intruder would have had no reason to even write a ransom note, let alone three pages of childisn nonsense. Only a family member would have had a motive to try to direct suspicion away from the family.
BlueCrab


[b]#12, RE: How Long?
Posted by Margoo on Feb-02-03 at 03:38 PM
In response to message #11
[/b]

Quote:LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-03 AT 03:39 PM (EST)
 
Dodging the answer?Smile
Without embellishing - how long? I'm not asking for your opinion as to who did or did not do it. I'm asking for a time line for the mechanics of this case - write ransom note, get JB, kill JB. Try to set aside your "theory" and guesstimate how long?


[b]#13, RE: How Long?
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-02-03 at 03:57 PM
In response to message #12
[/b]

Quote:Margoo,
Please set aside YOUR theory when you ask a question.
For instance, there was no "getting" of JonBenet. She was already there. I'm not trying to avoid anything. I'm just not a mindreader, so I don't know what the hell you're driving at.
I can't give time estimates of YOUR theory. Only you can do that.
BlueCrab


[b]#14, RE: How Long?
Posted by Margoo on Feb-02-03 at 04:20 PM
In response to message #13
[/b]

Quote:Excuse me - getting JB was a reference to going to her room or whatever location you wish to name and getting her in a position to murder her.
There was no reference in my question to ANY theory (no mention of breaking in, no mention of leaving the scene, just the bare bones of what we ALL KNOW. Someone had to "get" JB, kill her, and write a ransom note.)


[b]#15, I can't estimate your theory
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-02-03 at 08:02 PM
In response to message #14
[/b]

Quote:Margoo,
I can't estimate the timeline for YOUR theory.
In my theory no one had to go "get" JonBenet. She voluntarily came downstairs with Burke, wearing her Barbie nightgown and carrying her white blanket because it was a cold winter night. There were one or two other young people involved in re' to my theory, one of them a teenager.
IMO JonBenet snacked on fresh pineapple that Burke took from the refrigerator (fingerprints on the bowl); they ended up in the basement experimenting with erotic asphyxiation (the AEA device still around her neck); JonBenet was accidentally asphyxiated (the autopsy report: she died by asphxia); the crime scene was staged to appear to be a kidnapping (the fake ransom note) by ruthless foreign terrorists (the extreme tightening of the AEA device around the neck, the bash on the head, and perhaps the use of a stun gun).
In my theory there were one or two others involved in the killing and most of the staging. They were overnight guests of Burke. John and Patsy didn't discover what was going on until about 4:00 A.M. that morning when they got up early to get ready to go to the airport.
I have no idea what your theory consists of. Sorry.
Just my opinion.
BlueCrab


[b]#16, RE: Just answer the question, please
Posted by Margoo on Feb-02-03 at 08:13 PM
In response to message #15
[/b]

Quote:BC stated - No intruder would have stayed in the house long to have committed all of the acts that been attributed to him.
M asked - Blue Crab - how long do you think the killer needed to commit "all of the acts"?

Blue Crab, what's with all the dancing around with regard to my question as copied above? I am not asking for YOUR theory (but you slipped it in anyways) and I am not providing MY theory or asking you to guess what MY theory might be.
You stated "no intruder would have stayed in the house long (enough) to have committed all of the acts that (have) been attributed to him". That implies that you have an idea of how long that would take.
How long do you think the intruder would need - would have to have stayed in the house - to commit all of the acts attributed to him?


[b]#17, RE: Just answer the question, please
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-03-03 at 08:45 AM
In response to message #16
[/b]

Quote:IMO there was no intruder. It was an inside job committed by a family member. Why do I have to estimate a detailed timeline for something I don't believe in? I gave you several rough estimates but you pretend I didn't answer you.
Nevertheless, I'll say it once more:
IMO it would take an intruder about two to three hours to accomplish all of the things that have been attributed to him after somehow breaking into the house and finally exiting the house.
It's totally unrealistic for me to believe that a lone intruder would break in and stay in someone's occupied house for 2 to 3 hours without fear of being discovered to abduct JonBenet from her bed, force her to eat pineapple, manufacture an AEA device using materials from the house, sexually abuse her, kill her and mutilate the body, clean up the body and put oversized panties on her, perform other staging including taking the time to write a childish three-page fake ransom note using materials from the house, but not take the body with him as he exited the house never to be heard from again.
Okay Margoo, now let's hear a synopsis of YOUR theory and how long it would take to commit this crime.
Just my opinion.
BlueCrab


[b]#18, Bluecrab
Posted by MGC on Feb-03-03 at 09:07 AM
In response to message #17
[/b]

Quote:Do you think the Grand Jury considered the Burke theory?


[b]#19, RE: Bluecrab
Posted by jameson on Feb-03-03 at 09:54 AM
In response to message #18
[/b]

Quote:The Grand Jury got to see Burke for themselves.


[b]#20, RE: Bluecrab
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-03-03 at 01:02 PM
In response to message #19
[/b]

Quote:MGC,
Yes, the grand jury not only considered the Burke-did-it theory but, IMO, they solved the crime by using the testimony from over 100 witnesses to finally conclude that Burke and another young boy was involved.
The jury of eight men and three women met for 13 months -- from September 15, 1998 to October 20, 1999. It was a powerful investigative grand jury that had its own team of professional investigators to follow up on whatever the witnesses told the jurors. In a grand jury the witnesses, without legal counsel, are required to tell the truth to the jurors under pain of imprisonment.
I'm convinced the grand jury solved the crime in 1999, it involved children too young to prosecute, a court protection order was placed on everyone who knew the truth, and the active investigation was terminated. In such situations in Colorado the disrict attorney is given the authority to dispose of the case in any way he decides is best.
The case has been a catch 22 situation for the authorities ever since the grand jury adjourned. They can't tell the truth without violating the court's order protecting the identities of the children, in accordance with Colorado law. The authorities are forced to dance all around the issue when it comes up in the media.
Burke testified in front of the grand jury for five hours. After he testified the GJ took a several month break while the investigators dug deep into what he had told the jurors. When the GJ reconvened in October of 1999 it summoned Susan Stine and the two older Ramsey children to testify and then permanently adjourned. No indictment was issued, no written report was made, and the court slapped a gag order on everyone who knew the truth. The active investigation was terminated, and that's the way the case remains to this day.
It's interesting to note that the two most important witnesses in the case -- John and Patsy Ramsey -- were not called to testify infront of the GJ. One doesn't have to wonder much in re' to why their testimony wasn't needed.
In my opinion there were two very young boys involved in the accidental death of JonBenet. However, the staging to make it appear to be the work of foreign terrorists was extremely brutal. Therefore, I believe there could be another perp still out there whom the grand jury failed to identify in 1999. This person, an overnight guest at the house that night, was a teen at the time of the crime. IMO he did much of the staging, including helping to write the bizarre ransom note.
Just my opinion.
BlueCrab


[b]#21, RE: Bluecrab
Posted by Fencesitter on Feb-03-03 at 01:18 PM
In response to message #20
[/b]

Quote:If the Grand Jury 'solved' the murder and decided not to indict - well they couldn't because they were underage - but surely to goodness the DA Mary Keenan would be aware of that? Why is she starting a new investigation and spending all that money if the case is solved and closed?


[b]#22, RE: Bluecrab
Posted by BlueCrab on Feb-03-03 at 02:28 PM
In response to message #21
[/b]

Quote:Please don't hold your breath waiting for something to happen with the new Mary Keenan investigation. Investigations cost money, so if the bucks don't show up earmarked specifically for the Ramsey investigation then nothing much is going to happen.
However, if it's believed to be another perp out there who has slipped between the cracks, along the lines of my BDI/GJ theory involving an older teenager, then you'll probably see a lot of action from the Mary Keenan camp.
Just my opinion.
BlueCrab


[b]#23, The new investigation
Posted by jameson on Feb-21-03 at 01:53 AM
In response to message #22
[/b]

Quote:The DA has investigators - they are already being paid to investigate this case. They can ask for help from other agencies - and some of those will not be charging for that work. Other people will volunteer their time - like Lou Smit. The investigation will move forward - and it will be a lot better than was done before.
The stun gun injuries will surely be part of the investigation. Colorado people who owned those stun guns may well be asked where they were that night. (The people AND their stun guns). Sounds right to me.


[b]#24, Heard from Air Taser
Posted by jameson on Mar-03-03 at 01:52 PM
In response to message #23
[/b]

Quote:Steve from Air Taser wrote me. He said he had noticed "traffic regarding this case" and said he didn't remember being shook up by the MSNBC story. He said the stun gun injury leaves "no marks" and asked me if there was any way he might be of assistance.
What follows is my reply:

I am going to assume that someone is forwarding my posts to you. I recently posted the transcript of the interview that you did - both parts - before you saw Lou Smit's presentation and after.

It was my personal observation that the presentation did unnerve you a bit - I think you hadn't considered the possibility of a child being pressed down on her bed as the stun gun was applied. Under those circumstances she could not have moved away and tests proved that the marks left would be near identical to those on her body.
Here is a question and answer from that interview:
"R: Mr. Tuttle, I can certainly understand why a company would not want their name or product associated with a crime in this case. Do you see any reasonable possibility that it COULD have been a TASER and that a child that young COULD have been incapacitated?
ST: It could have been ours and I certainly, we want to work with the investigators, we have from the very beginning. Um, I don't know. It's bewildering to see if this was ours. The measurements are close. They're not exact, but I don't know. That's what's stupifying - is you've got two separate marks that are crystally clear, perfect, without any movement shown on the suspect's, oh, I'm sorry, on JonBenét. I just don't understand that, how that can be there. (Showing his arm) I don't have the marks here, they're all over the place. I'm not sure if you can see... from me moving, they've gone everywhere. Ah..."
I follow the case closely, I don't know if you remember but we spoke on the phone long ago...
No one has come up with any reasonable explanation for thos marks other than they were from a stun gun. The Air Taser is the weapon that leaves the closest marks when applied to a victim who is unable to move (anaesthetized) and then dies.
I agree the wounds wouldn't match those on a person who was flailing around and then immediately started to heal - but I have been in Denver with Dr. Dobersen and Lou Smit, have been to the animal hospital where the experiments took place and spoke to others who were part of those tests.... and I believe a stun gun was used. Possibly an Air Taser.
Can you assist me in some way? I don't see how. But if you want to set up lab experiments and document the effects of your stun gun in the same way Smit and Dobersen have.... I would be willing to post those results on the Internet. If you convince me it could not have been YOUR product, I will post that.
But for now my opinion is that a stun gun was used, that she was pressed into her mattress and didn't have any chance to escape - and that the stun gun may well have been an Air Taser.
That isn't saying anything bad about you or your company - - people get murdered in all kinds of ways - you can't blame the manufacturer of something that is misused for evil. He could have chosen a gun or knife or poison - - it isn't your fault if our SickPuppy chose a stungun.
I hope you understand this is not a personal assault on you or your company - it is just what I believed happened here - and the evidence I have seen supports that.
You are welcome to disprove it if you care to try. I will always be here if you want to share.
jameson


[b][b]#25, RE: Heard from Air Taser
Posted by jameson on Apr-16-03 at 10:07 AM
In response to message #24
[/b][/b]

Quote:Air Taser isn't interested in talking -
Othe stun gun marks - no two stun gun injuries are alike -- even if the same stun gun is used. Several reasons:
#1 the skin is not a rigid surface, it stretches and contracts, bends...
#2 the prongs of the stun gun can be in contact but at different angles, differing pressures
#3 the length of time the prongs are in contact with the skin would also determine the size and intensity of the injury


[b][b]#26, RE: voltage?
Posted by BraveHeart on Apr-16-03 at 11:01 AM
In response to message #25
[/b][/b]

Quote:I think the voltage would also have something to do with the type of injury or mark left, with higher voltages making a more severe or larger bruise, all other factors remaining constant.
I also think that the longer you hold the device to the skin of the victim the more the muscles are affected and the greater the effect of disabling, up to a point where the muscles are totally fatigued.
And this is redundant but important to consider....the device can be modified to deliver a greater voltage. Information on stun gun "kits" or books that show you how to build one have been on the web for years. A modified or home built device might be more desirable from a criminal's viewpoint as it would probably be harder to trace or less likely to leave traceble marks.
Another point of interest to me, if I understand this correctly, is that you can be touching the person you are stunning and not be shocked. That is to say, you could hold your hand over the victim's mouth, perhaps covering their mouth with some fabric (like a glove) to prevent skin contact with the victim, to prevent them from crying out while stunning them.


[b][b]#27, RE: voltage?
Posted by jameson on Apr-16-03 at 12:22 PM
In response to message #26
[/b][/b]

Quote:tapes of people getting "zapped" are available. Some cry out, others don't.
In this case, I would imagine the killer put a pillow over Jon's face - - that would explain the pillow being toward the foot of the bed the next morning.


[b][b]#28, RE: voltage?
Posted by Margoo on Apr-16-03 at 02:06 PM
In response to message #27
[/b][/b]

Quote:LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-03 AT 02:52 PM (EST)
 
http://www.paktronix.com/lewis95.html
Here is a link to the some very good information on the tests done on stun guns.
edited to note: While yesterday this site was accessible, for some reason it does not seem to be today. Keep trying, it's a good one.


[b][b]#29, RE: voltage?
Posted by Mikie on Apr-16-03 at 02:27 PM
In response to message #28
[/b][/b]

Quote:In the movie "Anger Management" the psychologist, (Jack Nicholson), was using some kind of hair stimulating device that looked like a low voltage stun gun or something. It shot lightning bolts down to his head.


[b][b]#30, RE: voltage?
Posted by jameson on Apr-16-03 at 06:52 PM
In response to message #29
[/b][/b]

Quote:Stratbucker was removed as an expert in the Wolf case - - I don't know howmuch I trust any of his work.


[b][b]#31, RE: voltage?
Posted by Margoo on Apr-16-03 at 09:21 PM
In response to message #30
[/b][/b]

Quote:Don't blame ya. But this study was Stratbucker, Marsh, and Dobersen.


[b][b]#32, RE: voltage?
Posted by jameson on Apr-29-03 at 12:42 PM
In response to message #31
[/b][/b]

Quote:Let's keep the stun gun discussion on this thread and leave the other for the "confession"
moving messages...
why_nut

I remember seeing a demonstration of stun guns or tasers and they had the men line up and hold
hands and the guys at the end got stunned and they all fell down.
You believe everything you see, without question? This is gullibility beyond words. What you saw was
staged for profit, not to demonstrate a viable electrical phenomenon. Ask former poster Dave: he
always had a grip on science and can tell you that the electrical resistance of all that skin alone would
not be able to be overcome by the meager amperage (not voltage, which means nothing, but
amperage, which is what gives electricity its kick) of a 9-volt-powered stun gun.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jameson"

>I remember seeing a demonstration of stun guns or tasers
>and they had the men line up and hold hands and the guys at
>the end got stunned and they all fell down.
>
>You believe everything you see, without question? This is
>gullibility beyond words. What you saw was staged for
>profit, not to demonstrate a viable electrical phenomenon.
>Ask former poster Dave: he always had a grip on science and
>can tell you that the electrical resistance of all that skin
>alone would not be able to be overcome by the meager
>amperage (not voltage, which means nothing, but amperage,
>which is what gives electricity its kick) of a
>9-volt-powered stun gun.
Why_Nut - the video I saw was for law enforcement - to show the power of the taser. I
watched it to look for the sounds - - some made noises and others were quiet. But they
certainly all did fall down.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jayelles

And they were holding hands right? So you have a line of big men holding hands and the one at the
end gets shocked and he collapses in a dead weight (I think the term is 'flops like a fish' - unable to
steady himself) - pulling the guy next to him down. The third guy is pulled down by the weight of the
first two and so on. They don't let go of the hands because the natural reaction of you fall is to cling
on to something.
That doesn't sound very scientific to me LOL!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

why_nut

Why_Nut - the video I saw was for law enforcement - to show the power of the taser.
The point stands, and stands firm. The stun gun seller wanted to sell stun guns to law enforcement,
not to sacrifice sales because their product does not do something particularly impressive. They
mocked up a video which purported to show a phenomenon which does not exist due to various
scientific principles. I have seen videos from manufacturers who claim that you can lose ten pounds
overnight by taking a single pill. Is this true? No, it is not. Neither are the videos which claim to show
how applying a stun gun to one's torso will result in the loss of fat and a six-pack of abdominal muscle.
Are such manufacturers found to be fraudulent? Yes, they are. Does a fraudulent manufacturer go out
of its way to tell you how fraudulent it is being by saying, "See these men? They fell down, but it
cannot happen that way. Still, buy our stun gun"? No, that does not happen. You can try to argue
with science, but you will have to do it with other science, not by saying that you saw a video, so it
must be true (and you dare to criticize the tabloids, which work on the similar principle that if it is in
print, it must be true?). Skin is naturally resistant to electricity. If it were not, your muscles would
paralyze upon getting a shock from a doorknob in winter (10,000 volts!). Gather up your evidence and
come back to us, and maybe you can build a convincing case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
why_nut

And they were holding hands right? So you have a line of big men holding hands and the one at the
end gets shocked and he collapses in a dead weight (I think the term is 'flops like a fish' - unable to
steady himself) - pulling the guy next to him down. The third guy is pulled down by the weight of the
first two and so on. They don't let go of the hands because the natural reaction of you fall is to cling
on to something.
The Rockettes have a similar routine when they perform as toy soldiers during the Christmas show, and
I was never under the impression that the effect was done by stun-gunning the first soldier.


[b][b]#33, Margoo
Posted by Jayelles on Apr-29-03 at 01:05 PM
In response to message #32
[/b][/b]

Quote:>>Don't blame ya. But this study was Stratbucker, Marsh, and Dobersen.
LOL - I guess that discredits Doberson then!


[b][b]#34, interesting
Posted by jameson on Apr-29-03 at 01:19 PM
In response to message #33
[/b][/b]

Quote: Officer injured in stun gun demonstration
Madison - A demonstration of a Taser stun gun at the Dane County Jail left
a sheriff's officer with a head injury.
Sgt. Krist Boldt was taken to a hospital with a gash on his head that required
four staples to close.
Boldt was playing the role of an unruly inmate during a media event to show
the public the two new stun guns that the Sheriff's Department bought for use
at the jail and in court.
Another officer, Sgt. Pat Price, was playing the role of a jail supervisor armed
with a Taser. Price shot the Taser at Boldt, who was supposed to fall forward
onto a protective mat. Instead, Boldt fell backward and smacked his head on
the floor.
He was released from the hospital after a CT scan showed no other head
injury, said sheriff's Capt. Brian Willison.
The stun guns cost $650 each, and the department has no plans to stop using
them, he said.
From Journal Sentinel staff and The Associated Press.


[b][b]#35, Jameson
Posted by why_nut on Apr-29-03 at 01:27 PM
In response to message #34
[/b][/b]

Quote:Another officer, Sgt. Pat Price, was playing the role of a jail supervisor armed with a Taser. Price shot the Taser at Boldt, who was supposed to fall forward onto a protective mat. Instead, Boldt fell backward and smacked his head on the floor.
And why is this interesting? Because he was completely uninjured by the stun gun? Because he was injured by falling on the floor? Because he was injured in the same way that professional stunt men are injured when not playing the role of someone being stunned by a gun, but who aim for a mat and miscalculate, hitting floor where no mat is? Because falling forward requires pushing off with the balls of the feet, whereas falling backwards simply requires the relaxation of one's knees and Boldt relaxed his knees instead of using his feet to push him forward?


[b][b]#36, Why_Nut
Posted by Jayelles on Apr-29-03 at 02:15 PM
In response to message #35
[/b][/b]

Quote:I just thought on something else that is wrong with this stun-gun video for LE.
Supposing two police officers are trying to restrain a violent criminal and one of the officers uses the stun-gun on the criminal. If the stungun shoots through anyone in contact with the person being stungunned, then that would mean that the other restraining officer would collapse too - AND possibly the officer using the stungun if he was still holding on to the criminal. Sounds like something out of Monty Python!
NOT a good advertisement for selling stunguns to LE LOL!!


[b][b]#37, RE: Stun Gun Evidence - Why?
Posted by Terrance on Apr-29-03 at 02:59 PM
In response to message #36
[/b][/b]

Quote:There is evidence of Stun Gun, no question.
I don't understand why the BPD were so against this obvious evidence. Were they just trying to cover up their inability to see the evidence in the first place? Perhaps they suspiciously saw it as a threat to their Ramsey/Accident theory. Perhaps there is even more of a story here. Surely an undercover cop working in the same area might know or be aware of weird transients.
Poor girl. She was probably prodded to do something, like eat pineapple down in the basement. Then he took the bowl back up to the kitchen. Sounds crazy doesn't it? But then, whoever did this is crazy.
One suspect was later found with a stun gun in his pack sack. Why would a weird homeless transient own a Stun Gun? Well, it is a defensive weapon, but it is also an easily concealed weapon and therefore more likely an attack weapon. But a stun gun doesn't kill, so I conclude that a weird transient might own it for manipulation.


[b][b]#38, RE: Stun Gun Evidence - Why?
Posted by BraveHeart on Apr-29-03 at 06:32 PM
In response to message #37
[/b][/b]

Quote:I have read previously that the charge does NOT pass through one person into the next for precisely the reason mention by Jayelles above. In close contact, as in a scuffle, an officer is supposed to be able to stun their opponent without harming themself. Maybe this is the PR they want us to believe? I don't personally know. We need to contact Super Dave for this one.


[b][b]#39, RE: Not hand-to-hand combat
Posted by Margoo on Apr-29-03 at 11:26 PM
In response to message #38
[/b][/b]

Quote:Don't the police departments use the type of stun guns that "throw darts"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1537484.stm
has a photo of the type I'm thinking of.
The stun gun "Air Taser" that Lou Smit has photographed and used in the tests with Dobersen is not the same as the PD issued ones.


[b][b]#40, RE: Not hand-to-hand combat
Posted by Margoo on Apr-30-03 at 01:05 AM
In response to message #39
[/b][/b]

Quote:LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-03 AT 01:06 AM (EST)
 
Don't the police departments use the type of stun guns that "throw darts"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1537484.stm
has a photo of the type I'm thinking of.

Correction - the article has a photo and a diagram of the type I'm referring to.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/816759/posts

scroll down to the bottom and in the photo you can see the electrical connection to the darts used on this suicidal man.


[b][b]#41, RE: Not hand-to-hand combat
Posted by Margoo on Apr-30-03 at 04:37 AM
In response to message #40
[/b][/b]

Quote:>>Don't blame ya. But this study was Stratbucker, Marsh, and Dobersen.
LOL - I guess that discredits Doberson then!
Nope, actually, I don't blame jameson for not trusting Stratbucker because of the lousy job he did for Darnay/Wolf. That it makes her suspicious of Stratbucker's motives in the Wolf/Ramsey suit as one of Darnay's discredited experts and his ties to Taser does not surprise me at all and has no impact on the integrity of Dobersen (or Marsh or Kitchen). They do not have a working relationship with Taser.

Correction, the study was done by Stratbucker, Marsh, Dobersen, and Kitchen.
http://www.paktronix.com/lewis95.html


[b][b]#42, RE: Not hand-to-hand combat
Posted by Margoo on Apr-30-03 at 04:58 AM
In response to message #41
[/b][/b]

Quote:http://www.buffzone.com/opinion/guest/15eguest.html
Dr. Mike Dobersen, the Arapahoe County Medical Examiner, who has worked closely with Smit, particularly on the pig skin experiments, says that "the experiment reveals precisely the same marks and cell changes that were seen on JonBenét." He tells us that "to a degree of medical certainty," a stun gun was used on JonBenét.
This is, to say the least, extremely important, since the Boulder police also approached Dobersen about the marks. They showed him the photos, and then reported — in an obvious attempt to borrow from the authority of his office and his expertise — that he had said it was impossible to tell whether they were stun gun marks or not. As he states in the program, that is not what he said. He asked them for more information, including more photos and a stun gun that matched the marks. He never heard from them again, and it was Smit who brought him the Tazer and the close-up photos of the injuries. One would hope that law enforcement would continue to respect his authority now that he says, with great conviction, the marks were caused by a stun gun.
Now, why would the Boulder police say Dobersen said something different than he actually said? Then, when Dobersen clears up what he actually said, and gets the additional information he asked for, and says "the experiment reveals precisely the same marks and cell changes that were seen on JonBenét", why would the Boulder police - who searched him out as THE expert on stun guns - ignore his expert opinion? Was the BPD looking for "answers" or not?
Perhaps this statement by Steve Thomas was the prevailing attitude:
"It was hard not to stop and read, for we kept finding material we had never seen before, such as potential 'points of entry' for an intruder and diagrams suggesting 'open' doors. I kept wondering why was this sh*t in the official files? Didn't the DA's investigators realize the potential damage?"
Were they afraid (if there was a trial) that if this information regarding stun guns and intruder evidence were in the police files, disclosure to the defense would be required and make itself known, undermining the prosecution of a non-intruder (Ramsey)?


[b][b]#43, RE: Expert Support of Stun Gun
Posted by Margoo on Apr-30-03 at 05:33 PM
In response to message #42
[/b][/b]

Quote:LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-03 AT 05:35 PM (EST)
 
Besides, Dobersen, these "experts" are known to agree that the abrasions on JonBenet's face and back were consistent with a stun gun:
(Who knows, there may be more!)
Dr. Meyer, who did the autopsy,
Sue Kitchen, CBI investigator and
Dr. Robert Deters (pathologist) all agreed the marks were consistent with a stun gun.
Deters concurs with Dobersen: "...but he didn't think the body had to be exhumed. Nothing more would be learned by examining the skin tissue'"
Doberson, Kitchen, and Deters all had EXPERIENCE with stun gun deaths and the corresponding marks.
PMPT pb 349, 431


[b][b]#44, Margoo
Posted by why_nut on Apr-30-03 at 05:51 PM
In response to message #43
[/b][/b]

Quote:Sue Kitchen, CBI investigator
As nearly as I can tell, Kitchen's job at the CBI is as agent in charge of doing background checks, with the bulk of her appearances in public concerning the subject of gun purchases. She does not have any kind of medical training. That does not especially give her experience with identifying anything involving forensic pathology, such as wounds on skin. When she is quoted as saying that it was possible the marks on JonBenet's skin were from a stun gun, she was speaking as any other person with an opinion can.


[b][b]#45, RE: Margoo
Posted by jameson on Apr-30-03 at 05:57 PM
In response to message #44
[/b][/b]

Quote:Stratbucker's deposition said it all - - and he was the best Darnay Hoffman could find to fight Smit and Doberson.


[b][b]#46, RE: Margoo
Posted by why_nut on Apr-30-03 at 06:00 PM
In response to message #44
[/b][/b]

Quote:And to pre-empt any challenge to the premise that she must have appeared in the Paktronix paper because she helped research it, I observe that her name appears last on the list, likely because she had the least to contribute to it. I suspect that her role was to make it possible for the actual researchers (Stratbucker, Marsh and Dobersen) to gain access to what the paper refers to as a "recently adjudicated capital criminal case" which formed the source of the research. I also suspect that she is the person of the group who could verify the facts stated about "During the past decade ubiquitous access, highly restrictive gun control laws, and bargain basement pricing have put several hundred thousand of these LTLW's into the hands of professionals and amateurs alike." In her role as gun-control agent, she would have that knowledge whereas Stratbucker, Marsh and Dobersen would not ordinarily have it.


[b][b]#47, RE: Margoo
Posted by Margoo on Apr-30-03 at 06:43 PM
In response to message #46
[/b][/b]

Quote:LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-03 AT 06:45 PM (EST)
 
Page 349 pb PMPT (approx 269 in hc)
"... on April 16, Lou Smit drove to Lakewood, just outside Denver, to see CBI inspector Pete Mang, who had begun his career at the FBI. Mang suggested that Smit talk to Sue Kitchen, another CBI investigator, who had worked on a murder case in Steamboat Springs in which a stun gun was used. Two days later, Kitchen told the investigators that in her opinion, the small abrasions could have been made by a stun gun. She referred them to Araphoe County coroner Mike Dobersen ...."
Mang seemed to have "faith" in Kitchen's opinion and experience. No reference to a meaningless job description or meaningless contribution to a research study. Just a referral to her for the question regarding stun guns. Sounds like her colleagues respected her opinion - and hardly a "joe" off the street with an opinion.

Page 431 pb PMPT (1st chapter of Part 3)
"When they had gathered suffiecient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wichman met with the coroner, John Meyer. After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenet's face and back were, in fact, consistent with those porduced by a stun gun.
Soon after, Ainsworth learned of a 1988 Laramer County murder in which a stun gun had been used on a thirteen-month-old girl, who had been sexually assaulted and killed. Ainsworth met with Dr. Robert Deters, the pathologiest on the case, and showed him the autopsy photos of JonBenet. Deters agreed that the marks were consistent with a stun-gun injury, but he didn't think the body had to be exhumed. Nothing more would be learned by examining the skin tissue. Ainsworth asked Deters if a child of six would be immobilized by a stun gun's electrical shock. Not only would the child be paralyzed, the coroner said, but she would have been unable to scream. That raised the question of whether JonBenet had screamed before the stun gun was used on her - if one was used."


[b][b]#48, RE: Margoo
Posted by why_nut on Apr-30-03 at 07:32 PM
In response to message #47
[/b][/b]

Quote:Mang seemed to have "faith" in Kitchen's opinion and experience. No reference to a meaningless job description or meaningless contribution to a research study. Just a referral to her for the question regarding stun guns. Sounds like her colleagues respected her opinion - and hardly a "joe" off the street with an opinion.
And what was Peter Mang's own level of expertise in the field of forensic pathology? As deputy director of the CBI, he may wield the power of an impressive title, but on the ground, when one needs to evaluate skin for signs of whether a wound was from a stun gun or whether it was, as defined by the examiner who saw it in person, an abrasion, Mang does not necessarily have the ability to say that the wound is definitely one thing and not another, nor can he convey credibility to those whom he begs off answers to. Donald Trump may be a big name in the field of real estate, but I would not consider him an expert on the circuitry of doorbells, even though he uses them and has personal experience with them every day. He hires people to have that knowledge, just as Mang hires other people to have the actual forensic pathology knowledge that can identify a stun gun mark as being distinct from an ordinary abrasion. Tell me that Smit talked to actual lab technicians who touched samples, put their eyes to microscopes and photographed the results, and I will listen.


[b][b]#49, RE: Margoo
Posted by jameson on Apr-30-03 at 07:47 PM
In response to message #48
[/b][/b]

Quote:"Tell me that Smit talked to actual lab technicians who touched samples, put their eyes to microscopes and photographed the results, and I will listen."
and be more impressed than you were with his work with Doberson?


[b][b]#50, RE: Margoo
Posted by Margoo on Apr-30-03 at 08:46 PM
In response to message #48
[/b][/b]

Quote:LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-03 AT 08:50 PM (EST)
 

Nobody even got an opinion from Mang. Nobody asked Mang for an opinion. Mang provided the referral to Kitchen. His referral to her implies some credibility. What's with all this stuff about Mang? Trump would refer you to the "doorbell circuitry people" as Mang referred Lou Smit to Kitchen - for her expertise. Funny how you start posting about Mang and denigrating Kitchen and ignoring Marsh and Dobersen and Deters.
Dobersen has done extensive tests/research on this question and is THE expert on stun gun marks. Lou Smit more than talked to him. Are you ready to listen?


[b][b]#51, RE: Margoo
Posted by why_nut on May-01-03 at 01:04 AM
In response to message #50
[/b][/b]

Quote:Funny how you start posting about Mang and denigrating Kitchen and ignoring Marsh and Dobersen and Deters.
Next up, Matthew Marsh. What do you think his credentials are in analyzing stun gun injuries? Why, he has none at all. He is a Linux geek, his field of expertise is computer networking systems, not forensic pathology. I begin to see that the article presented on the Paktronix site is not, in fact, at all a scientific, peer-reviewed piece of work but a bit of hobbyist writing that gave all concerned an opportunity to play with stun guns and pigs without being held to any sort of scientific standard by qualified third parties.
Tally so far: a woman who runs background checks to control gun sales, a man who makes a living from networking computers, a doctor who has performed perhaps ten autopsies in thirty years, and another doctor who is considered the premiere expert on stun gun injuries on the basis of having contributing to the analysis of exactly one case where a stun gun was verified as being used.
So, what about that Dobersen? He had to be told that a stun gun was used, I hope you know. Investigators found a stun gun in a suspect's car, went to Dobersen, and essentially told him that they would be very, very pleased if he would confirm for them that Gerald Boggs had been stunned once by the stun gun found, because, even though Boggs had died of a bullet to the head, the actual weapon could not be found and they were most frustrated about not being able to pin the murder on their preferred suspect. Dobersen got lucky, in that when he had Boggs dug up, streaming nuclei were found. I invoke the old saying about a stopped clock being right twice a day. Let me ask: If Steve Thomas had had a hand in solving the Ramsey case, would you have called him Colorado's premiere homicide investigator on the basis of having solved one homicide case?
Robert Deters: He had the singular distinction, in his role as a pathologist, of deciding that sixteen-month-old Salvador Rodriguez had died of complications from an ear infection. It was later found out that the child had died from a deliberate blow to the head by his mother's boyfriend, who was convicted of the murder.


[b][b]#52, Stratbucker
Posted by Jayelles on May-01-03 at 02:06 AM
In response to message #51
[/b][/b]

Quote:Wasn't his deposition disallowed because he had some business dealings with Air Taser and not because he was inept as an expert? and that he hadn't declared the business dealing?
Also, isn't Stratbucker considered more of an expert on stunguns than Doberson?


[b][b]#53, RE: Stratbucker
Posted by jameson on May-01-03 at 08:57 AM
In response to message #52
[/b][/b]

Quote:His deposition is online. He was removed and you can guess for yourself what was going through Darnay's mind at that point.
Doberson is the expert, I believe there are problems with Stratbucker. LP did the research there - I suggest you go to her for that.


[b][b]#54, The Past
Posted by why_nut on May-01-03 at 10:38 AM
In response to message #53
[/b][/b]

Quote:Revisiting past stun gun uses, savor this story from the New York Times, March 30, 1985:
Stun Gun Fails in Action
The first on-the-job use of a gun designed to temporarily knock a suspect unconscious failed last night, when a suspect threw a table at the police and had to be shot a second time and then wrestled to the ground, a spokesman said. The spokesman, Officer Tony Vallelong, said the gun ''was unsuccessful, I'm sorry to say,'' after the suspect, an emotionally disturbed 28- year-old man in an apartment on West 19th Street, was shot with the ''Taser'' stun gun, but pulled out the weapon's electrodes and had to be shot again after he hurled a table at the police.


[b][b]#55, RE: The Past
Posted by Jayelles on May-01-03 at 10:55 AM
In response to message #54
[/b][/b]

Quote:I found these:-
1) That Dr Robert Stratbucker IS an expert
"In a recent medical review conducted by Dr. Robert Stratbucker, Medical Director for TASER International and internationally respected expert in the field of electrical safety"
http://www.airtaser.com/pr/documents/020...lities.doc
2) That JonBenet's marks were considered to be unlike any stungun marks that the people who know them best had seen
"Tuttle conceded that two marks are close to the width of the contacts of an Air Taser, but said that's where the similarities end.
"We have never seen those types of marks when you touch somebody with a stun gun," he said. "We are talking hundreds of people that have been touched with these devices. I can't replicate those marks."
Tuttle said it is uncommon for the stun gun to leave only two marks on the skin. The body moves away from the stun gun, causing multiple, erratic marks.
"How you can keep this thing perfectly still, not once, but twice on a squirming child? It doesn't make any sense," he said. "I hope that doesn't throw water on somebody's investigation." "

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/...lrams.html
3) What Stratbucker thought of the information that Lou Smit was putting out about the stungun
"Nebraska Dr. Robert Stratbucker, who has conducted several experiments on stun guns and is considered a courtroom expert, said he takes "considerable issue" with Smit's stun gun theory.
Stratbucker said it is "pure nonsense" that the stun gun would leave a blue mark in between red marks on the skin as Smit claimed.
"I have not seen ever, ever any blue marks, and I don't know what the cause of any blue mark could be," he said."


http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/...lrams.html


[b][b]#56, Stratbucker anecdotes
Posted by why_nut on May-01-03 at 11:07 AM
In response to message #55
[/b][/b]

[quote]
I found this story from the May 1st, 1993 edition of the Irish Times. I doubt Dobersen would ever have been so bold in his tests!
Let doctors at least take heart from the achievements of one of their number; here is an unsolicited encomium for Dr Robert Stratbucker, both a medical doctor and an electrical engineer who recently was giving evidence at the trial of Charles Bagley, a British professor who is charged with murdering his wife in order to get her life insurance and to have sex with as many of his students as he liked (apparently Professor Bagley was always true to his wife in his fashion; always true to her in his way).
Yvonne Bagley died in the bath and Charles's defence was that the death was accidental. The Bagley house was being renovated and a soldering iron left from work fell into the bath and electrocuted her.
[i]It is at that this point that the hero of the tale, Robert Stratbucker, makes his entrance, his cape flowing in the wind. He testified that it would take a current of hundreds of milliamperes to electrocute an adult; the s

Print this item