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



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 6
» Latest member: John Andrew
» Forum threads: 1,706
» Forum posts: 5,429

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 42 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 42 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Suitcase under broken win...
Forum: Suitcase
Last Post: jameson245
12-01-2020, 04:01 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 402
info from others
Forum: Judith Phillips
Last Post: jameson245
12-01-2020, 12:08 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 2,333
Carol McKinley talking to...
Forum: Cord ligature - Garrote
Last Post: jameson245
12-01-2020, 11:53 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 35
Are They Innocent?
Forum: good primer, perhaps
Last Post: jameson245
12-01-2020, 11:33 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 69
OTHER handwriting samples
Forum: Handwriting
Last Post: jameson245
11-30-2020, 07:19 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 2,363
Forum: December 26th
Last Post: jameson245
11-21-2020, 01:17 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 124
Persecutor Kane talks
Forum: Grand Jury Indictments
Last Post: jameson245
11-21-2020, 12:42 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 972
ST on GJ (deposition)
Forum: Grand Jury Indictments
Last Post: jameson245
11-21-2020, 12:37 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 21
Acandyrose on GJ - timeli...
Forum: Grand Jury Indictments
Last Post: jameson245
11-21-2020, 12:34 PM
» Replies: 10
» Views: 75
on NOT cooperating
Forum: Ramsey cooperation
Last Post: jameson245
11-20-2020, 04:17 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 85

  A few quotes to note
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-11-2018, 11:36 AM - Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White - Replies (6)

From Schiller's book - paperback page 74

On Monday, December 30, before the Whites and Fernies left Boulder for JonBenet's funeral in Atlanta, Linda Arndt interviewed Fleet White again.
White believed that an intruder had gotten into the Ramsey's house.  "Someone got into that house," he told Arndt.  "I don't know how but they got in.  Somebody wanted to hurt that family and obviously hurt their daughter."  White suggested that perhaps some beauty pageant mothers might have resented the Ramseys.  A few hours later, Arndt and Detective Jane Harmer met with Fleet White again.

Print this item

  SuperDave Quotes
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-10-2018, 07:39 AM - Forum: Absolutely insane posts - mostly by BORG - No Replies

"I'm loathe to speak ill of the dead, but someone has to set the record straight: Ollie Gray did not "investigate" this case in any meaningful way. "

Print this item

  brake story by Jeff
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-03-2018, 09:15 PM - Forum: Jeffrey Scott Shapiro - No Replies

A brake on the paparazzi
October 15, 2005|Jeffrey Scott Shapiro

UNDER A NEW California law, victims of assaults by paparazzi can ask for punitive damages and a court order stripping the photographer of any proceeds from pictures taken during the assault.
For ordinary people, it's no doubt difficult to imagine that anyone would risk the life of another human being to get a picture or story, but I'm sorry to tell you, such rituals are common for tabloid journalists.
I know because I used to be one. When I was 23 years old, I was enlisted as the lead investigator on the JonBenet Ramsey case for the Globe tabloid. My job was to dig up dirt to help my editors write about the alleged involvement of John Ramsey in the sexual molestation and murder of his daughter.
Week after week, I sent my editors reports based on my conversations with law enforcement sources in Boulder, Colo., that indicated John Ramsey was not the lead suspect. Nonetheless, the Globe continued to push for stories in that direction. I quickly realized that by paying so-called sources and experts to accept attribution for fabricated quotes and headlines, the tabloid empire had the power to accuse anyone of anything, anytime.

[Image: pixel.gif]

When sources ran dry, I remember people talked about "creating" a story by reporting false information (anonymously, of course) to the police. This way, they could misdirect the investigation in directions that suited their editorial needs.
When they wanted to publish a story reporting that the police were investigating a particular lead, for instance, they phoned it in. And when the police showed up to investigate these leads, paparazzi often would be waiting in their cars to photograph them, shielded behind dark, tinted glass.
In some instances, I remember discussions about different strategies on how to bribe members of law enforcement. Attempts to procure police reports, evidence and even commission members of law enforcement as sources were not uncommon. On one occasion, the Globe bought and published crime scene photographs leaked from the Boulder County coroner's office. The tabloid returned those photos and others it had not published. Boulder County then dropped a lawsuit to block publication of any more of the pictures.
After two years of working as a Globe reporter, I reported my editors to the FBI for conspiring to blackmail a police detective for sealed grand jury evidence. One year later, after quitting, I testified about this incident and other tabloid tactics before a Colorado grand jury.
Although I witnessed high-speed chases and paparazzi assaults that placed people in physical danger, I learned that such practices are only one dimension of the criminal tactics that tabloids engage in.
Opponents of the current California legislation included members of the mainstream media who feared that such a law would chill freedom of speech. But this is not merely a 1st Amendment issue. It is a safety issue.
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Virginia vs. Black that every human being has a right to live their life free from fear and intimidation. Although the case was designed to target cross burnings, the same 1st Amendment principle is applicable to the assault- and intimidation-style tactics of the paparazzi. When a person is harassed and stalked on the street, it is intimidating. When he or she is pursued relentlessly in a moving vehicle at unsafe speeds, it is dangerous.
As Americans, we have a constitutional right to free speech. But that precious gift should not be abused as a shield for criminal conduct or for the exploitation of innocent people.
JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO is a freelance investigative reporter and a former reporter for the Globe tabloid. He can be reached at jshapiro@ufl.edu.

Print this item

  fake emails - Susan posing as Beckner
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-02-2018, 12:48 PM - Forum: Glen and Susan Stine - Replies (1)

Ramsey friend fakes e-mails
Atlanta woman sends letters, claims to be police chief
By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News - June 4, 2003

Boulder police have ordered a Ramsey family friend to stop sending bogus e-mails that claim to be from Chief Mark Beckner.
The authorities sent Susan Stine a letter saying the e-mails had been traced to her computer and pointing out that under Colorado law, criminal impersonation is a felony and impersonating a police officer is a misdemeanor.
Beckner said Tuesday he was "alarmed" by the series of e-mails from the address becknerbpd@hotmail.com to people affiliated with the investigation into the 1996 murder of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey.
Beckner said some of the e-mails were "nonsensical" and clearly not from him but that others could constitute criminal impersonation.
Stine of Atlanta, a close friend of John and Patsy Ramsey, JonBenet's parents, said she sent the "clearly phony" e-mails as a joke that no reasonable person would take seriously.
"The e-mails were sent in an attempt to be humorous and satirical," Stine said in a telephone interview.
"There was never an intent to mislead anyone. In the main, these were private e-mails. I would be shocked if any reasonable person would have thought this was a real e-mail from the real Chief Beckner."
The investigation began April 25, after Rocky Mountain News reporter Charlie Brennan received an e-mail signed "Mark" that praised his stories.
Brennan called Beckner questioning whether he sent the e-mail. Beckner then became concerned that others were receiving phoney e-mail messages.
Investigators executed a search warrant for MSN Hotmail records in California and found that the account was established in 2000 under the name "Chief Beckner."
Police determined that Stine had been accessing the becknerbpd@hotmail.com address through an Internet provider in Georgia.
One e-mail signed "Mark" was purportedly from Beckner to former Detective Steve Thomas: "Steve, I know we've had our differences in the past, but I want you to know I'm behind you all the way in this B.S. lawsuit the Ramseys filed, as are others here. I'm sure (Ramsey attorney Lin) Wood is bluffing. . . . Call me and let me know what I can do to help. Remember: truth is on our side. (Signed) Mark."
Thomas' response: "Thanks for the message, (and nice try), but Beckner doesn't sound anything like that."
"At this point, we've decided not to file charges," Beckner said. "That doesn't preclude us from doing so in the future."
Stine said she had already sent Beckner an apology - by e-mail, of course.
"Sure, I knew they were traceable," she said of the e-mails. "It was just a joke. I'm a very funny person."

Police: Stop e-mails
The Associated Press
BOULDER — Police have warned an Atlanta woman to stop sending e-mails about the JonBenet Ramsey case that purport to be from police Chief Mark Beckner.
The woman said the e-mails were obviously phony and meant as a joke. Police said Tuesday that Susan Stine sent e-mails from becknerbpd@hotmail.com to people affiliated with the investigation into the unsolved 1996 slaying of 6-year-old JonBenet.
Beckner said some of the messages were clearly phony but others could constitute criminal impersonation."

Print this item

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

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

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

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

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

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

Print this item

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

The Legend of Pine Ridge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The author of the article, Steve Jackson, writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Print this item

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Print this item

  Found on Facebook
Posted by: jameson245 - 07-30-2018, 06:31 PM - Forum: Found on other forums - Replies (4)

[/url]This guy seems pretty smart - and may not last long on the Facebook forums that don't seem to care if lies stand unchallenged.

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

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

Print this item

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

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

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

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

####################  My comments

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

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

Print this item

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

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

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

Theodore A. Borrillo, Doris A. Waters, Denver, for

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

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

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

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

Print this item