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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 29
» Latest member: Gildedingold
» Forum threads: 1,090
» Forum posts: 3,390

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 19 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 19 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Q&A
Forum: Answering BORG questions
Last Post: CA4Now
10-28-2017, 12:11 PM
» Replies: 17
» Views: 2,611
partial
Forum: Clues in the Case - May 2001
Last Post: jameson245
10-22-2017, 04:58 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 144
looking for the web
Forum: Broken window/ Spider web
Last Post: Gemini6
10-20-2017, 12:59 PM
» Replies: 13
» Views: 2,283
Important info in "We hav...
Forum: We Have Your Daughter
Last Post: Summer Dawn
10-19-2017, 07:24 PM
» Replies: 12
» Views: 1,499
Kirsten Hatfield
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 06:54 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 58
Jennifer Schuett
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 05:43 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 66
Charles Lindbergh - 1932
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 05:37 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 50
Polly Klaas
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 05:36 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 53
Took her, raped her, AND ...
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 05:27 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 52
2017 - 6 year old escaped
Forum: OTHER children taken from their beds
Last Post: jameson245
10-18-2017, 05:22 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 57

 
  Steve Thomas book revealspage 215 - the cops gave the DA a presentation of the case t
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-14-2017, 10:51 PM - Forum: FBI involvement - No Replies

I wrote a companion book for Steve's book and it is available online, link nearby.  I decided to share this here - shows the FBI was not fully informed but BORG early on.

In his book, page 215 - the cops gave the DA a presentation of the case to prepare for their trip to Quantico - to see the FBI.  Thomas admits not giving them all the information - "withheld the 911 tape and grave-site surveillance".  And he was upset when Hunter wouldn't participate in the trip to Quantico because they case was OBVIOUSLY not there.
page 216 - the FBI agents were painfully aware that there were two "camps" in Boulder - this according to Thomas.
 again, Spitz is mentioned as one who discounted the stun gun evidence, but Thomas doesn't say what was presented to PROVE the opposite.
Smit had photos of the stun gun marks - in March of 2000 they were discussed on 20/20 - and there were experts other than Spitz who had OTHER opinions.  Thomas conveniently doesn't mention any of that.
page 216-219 - VERY interesting part of the book that I don't want to get too far into just now - this is where Thomas says the FBI is BORG - interesting in light of later polygraph issues.  On page 219 the words "under the hammer" were used.  Doesn't sound like anyone I would want putting ME on a polygraph!

Print this item

  LKL 4/14/2000
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-14-2017, 10:38 PM - Forum: JonBenét - Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation - Replies (2)

Larry King Live
Does 'JonBenet: Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation' Reveal the True Killer?
Aired April 14, 2000 - 9:00 p.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: This detective says he knows who killed JonBenet Ramsey. We'll hear from the former lead investigator in the Ramsey murder case, Steve Thomas; and then later, Lin Wood, John and Patsy Ramsey's civil responds to this theory.
It's all next on LARRY KING LIVE.
We welcome to LARRY KING LIVE, Steve Thomas, the author of the new book, "JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation," written with Ron Davis, published by St. Martin's Press -- there you see its cover. Steve is no longer a police officer. He's now a carpenter, right?
Don't you miss being a cop?
STEVE THOMAS, AUTHOR, "JONBENET: INSIDE THE RAMSEY MURDER INVESTIGATION": I miss police work terribly, but I certainly don't miss police work in Boulder, Colorado.
KING: So you left on principle then?
THOMAS: I think so. I left because we were charged to do the right thing in this case, and we, as government, a government of which I was a part, failed miserably.
KING: Do you think you want to be a police officer again?
THOMAS: No, I think I'm done with it.
KING: We'll cover a lot of bases.
One of the things Alex Hunter said when he was on this program concerning you -- there were two things he was angry about with this book. One, that you wrote it, because it's still a pending investigation, and two, you weren't a homicide investigator. How do you respond to both of those?
THOMAS: Well, I will respond. One, I didn't work in a homicide unit. The department pulled me from vacation to come back in from a undercover narcotics assignment to work this case. I didn't ask to be assigned this case. I was put on this case, and they continued to give me more and more assignments in this case. So in hindsight now, I have to question that. And then... KING: Question why they appointed me?
THOMAS: No, not question why they appointed me, why Hunter is now making an issue out of it.
KING: Don't they have homicide detectives in Boulder?
THOMAS: There are very few homicides in Boulder, and what typically happens when there is one, the entire detective bureau, all different types of detectives, will work a case in the initial stages when it's red hot to try to get it solved.
KING: Why write a book about a case that's still open?
THOMAS: Well, that's interesting. This case, despite Hunter's assertions -- you know, on one hand, I hear him on your show saying that he doesn't want the Ramseys to take polygraphs because it might interfere with an intruder prosecution, and then on network television the previous week I hear him talking about being halfway there toward an arrest and prosecution, presumably of a Ramsey. This guy in my experience has just been all over the board in this case and continues to do so.
KING: They apparently now have accepted -- they were on this program, said they would accept the lie detector. Apparently, the Boulder police have now said, OK, take the lie detector. Have they put conditions on it?
THOMAS: Well, I find the whole thing remarkable, because on your show they asserted that they had never been asked to take a polygraph. And I would hearken them back to their own documentary the previous year, in which Mr. Ramsey said he was asked and that he would have been insulted to have done so. And then to come on your show and say they were never asked and then backed into a corner, I think -- and said that they'll now take them, and then they attach some conditions, which the Boulder Police Department accepted -- and now there's more conditions, and it's just more of the same story.
KING: You don't think they want to take it?
THOMAS: I don't think they want to take it. And quite frankly, Larry, three or four years after the crime, I think it's a moot point. It was appropriate when the case was red hot in those days and weeks afterwards.
KING: Even though it can't be used in court.
THOMAS: Right.
KING: So It's an investigative technique.
THOMAS: Right.
KING: Let's go back. When on the investigation -- we'll discuss some individual parts of it -- did you say I think -- in your book, you say this -- that she did it. THOMAS: Well, we've been accused, or the Boulder Police Department was accused, and I've recently been accused of making up my mind on the 26th, the first day. Well, I wasn't brought into the case until the third day, but as the weeks evolved into months and we followed -- and we did chase other suspects. We investigated close to a hundred suspects in this case, so that's an inaccurate representation.
KING: Were they always suspects in your mind?
THOMAS: Anybody in the house was a suspect in a crime such as this, but as the evidence -- as the detectives saw it and as others advising us saw it, did not lead us toward an intruder.
KING: Why her? Why do you think it was her?
THOMAS: Well, I think the most significant evidence in this case was the pen, the pad, the ransom note and the handwriting. And when we finished an investigation after 18 months and presented our case to the district attorney's office, presumably for them to move it forward, one statistic that was cited in that presentation was that out of 73 people whose handwriting was examined in this case, there was only one whose handwriting showed evidence to suggest authorship, who was in the home that night, who couldn't be eliminated as the author, and that was Patsy Ramsey.
KING: And that's what sent you over the line?
THOMAS: Yes, the handwriting was quite remarkable.
KING: Is handwriting accepted? Are graphologists introduced into evidence?
THOMAS: No, but there was also a forensic linguist that we used in this case, a very renowned and recognized expert, so much so that the FBI continues to use him, who did identify her as the author of the note.
KING: He thinks she wrote that note.
THOMAS: No question.
KING: Was the note suspicious to you from the beginning?
THOMAS: Well, initially -- in hindsight now, we can all say it was patently bogus, but initially, those officers and detectives on scene treated it as if it were, in fact, a legitimate kidnapping. In hindsight, we now know otherwise, that it was not, but...
KING: Why would a kidnapper kill the person on the scene?
THOMAS: And leave the collateral on the premises instead of removing it -- and let me make one note: Ransom kidnappers kidnap for ransom, and this what this note was purporting to be.
KING: Do detectives like to put through a theory of the crime as to how it happened, why -- do you like to construct a case?
THOMAS: Certainly. And we've been accused of constructing the case against the parents before looking at the evidence. But I hold the opposite opinion. I think it takes a fairly simple explanation that I believe is consist it with the evidence to explain her involvement.
KING: We'll take a break. And when we come back, we'll ask Steve Thomas to give us his theory as to what happened that day.
Our guest is Steve Thomas. His new book is "Jon Benet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation." Lin Wood -- he is John and Patsy Ramsey's civil attorney -- will be with us as well.
This is LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LARRY KING LIVE," MARCH 28, 2000)
JOHN RAMSEY, FATHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: We think that the killer wrote the note before we came home that night. We think he was in the house while we were out four to five hours. The note was written before the crime.
KING: He intended, then, to kidnap you?
J. RAMSEY: We think it was a kidnapping...
KING: Gone awry?
J. RAMSEY: ... and something went terribly wrong. That's what seasoned investigators have told us.
KING: What do you make of "SBTC?"
J. RAMSEY: I don't know. I have struggled with that. I've tried to understand it. Only the killer knows.
PATSY RAMSEY, MOTHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: This is a clue. SBTC...
KING: Must be.
P. RAMSEY: ... $118,000 -- this is why we wrote this book, because there are definite clues that are going to help us find this person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LARRY KING LIVE," MARCH 27, 2000)
P. RAMSEY: The first thing I remember is waking up, getting dressed hurriedly, going downstairs, and putting a few things together to pack to take on the plane.
KING: this is about what time?
P. RAMSEY: It's early morning, before daylight.
KING: You're up?
J. RAMSEY: Yes.
KING: Then what happens?
P. RAMSEY: Then I go down the spiral staircase, and there on one of the rungs of the stair is the three-page ransom note.
KING: No one has entered the house? The door isn't open? You read the note. What did you do?
P. RAMSEY: I don't know that. Well, I hurriedly read it, you know, and it didn't take long to understand what was happening, and I ran back upstairs and pushed open her bedroom door, and she was gone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: What do you think happened, Steve? What do you think happened? Give me your scenario.
THOMAS: Well, it's hard to lay out. It took us two days, two long days to lay out what is a circumstantial case. Do we wish that there had been a smoking gun, a bloody fingerprint, a proof-positive conclusive piece of DNA evidence? Of course. But there wasn't. So what this has come down to is a circumstantial case in which both sides will argue either intruder or someone inside the house. And I think it takes a very simple explanation that I believe is consistent with the evidence in this case.
KING: Which is?
THOMAS: That Patsy Ramsey was involved that night -- I don't think it's that much of a stretch that that if she can be proved as the author of that note to make the stretch that she was involved in the death of her child.
KING: Now, if you think she authored the note, obviously, she had something to do with it. But what's your -- what did she do? Why did she try to kill her child? You're a detective.
THOMAS: Good point. And people always ask, what kind of motivation is this? And I say in law enforcement circles, this is -- under this hypothesis that I purport, that this was not an intentional killing, that this was accidental, initially, which, by definition, lacks motive, but then what happened, I think, a panicked mother instead of taking that next step, went left and covered this thing up. I don't think that -- this isn't rocket science here.
KING: So you think she was disciplining the child. It got out of hand. Is that your guess?
THOMAS: Well, who knows. The victim certainly knows and the offender certainly knows, but my guess is, yes, there was some sort of explosive encounter between mother and daughter that resulted in this child dead.
KING: What kind of parent would then garrote their own child?
THOMAS: That's the biggest leap, and I can't do justice what I try to lay out in this book but in this hypothesis in five seconds, but cops will tell you people have done more to save their own rear ends when their in a jam than you could ever imagine.
KING: Even their own child?
THOMAS: Well, I don't know. They will make some accusations toward me that I don't...
KING: Now let me tell you what they said. This week in "The Denver Post," the Ramseys, in response to your book, called it a disgrace. They called you an inexperienced moron. And John said about covering for his wife. "He said your love for your spouse is unconditional. You murder my child, I don't love you anymore."
THOMAS: I think the "inexperienced moron" comment I take with a grain of salt and consider the source, because now they have digressed to name calling.
KING: Well, your saying they -- you're saying one of them murdered their kid and the other is covering.
THOMAS: Certainly. And I think there's evidence to support that.
What I find terribly hypocritical on their part is that they can take advantage of every constitutional protection available to them, and then later use the First Amendment to write a book and name three people whom I believe to be clearly innocent in this case as suspects in the murder of their daughter. Yet, Larry, when I turn around, and just as a working stiff, try to use that same First Amendment, here comes team Ramsey, ready to roll.
KING: Why weren't they indicted in your opinion?
THOMAS: Probable cause was never an issue in this case. And as a police officer and a detective for 13 years, I had never been involved in a case in which we didn't arrest on probable cause. But this high-profile case, where there were sufficient facts and circumstances to articulate in an affidavit, an arrest warrant didn't happen, and then it got to a grand jury. which has that same threshold of probable cause, but I think Alex Hunter chose not to move forward with it because this -- in this day and age, this "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is almost unattainable.
KING: In a case like this maybe unattainable, right?
THOMAS: Particularly with wealthy defendants.
KING: So why? Was their clout? THOMAS: Well, yes, look what happened in O.J. You have resources...
KING: O.J. went to trial. He was arrested.
THOMAS: He absolutely was. And they took a shot, and they stepped up to the plate and they tried to do the right thing. Alex Hunter did not.
KING: All right. Do you think the grand jury -- we'll never know I guess. Do you think the grand jury might have voted to indict?
THOMAS: I've heard this week that there was a grand juror in that case -- and I didn't hear this through the grand juror, certainly, but through an intermediary that there's a grand juror that wants to talk, and...
KING: That they wanted to indict and Hunter didn't want then to indict?
THOMAS: I don't know that, and we'll never know because of grand jury secrecy what happened in those four walls, but that's certainly a possibility, that they returned it a true bill.
KING: Don't detectives want to arrest and don't prosecutors hedge because prosecutors want to know they can get convictions? Isn't this a classic clash?
THOMAS: No question. But what was atypical in Boulder was this culture that had been in existence for many, many years prior to the Ramsey case, in which underaged drinkers and bicycle thieves, there was a system in place to deal with them, but this government failed horribly when the big one landed in the collective laps of Boulder.
KING: Did the Boulder Police screw up?
THOMAS: Unquestionably, and I don't pull any punches in the book. I don't try to defend the Boulder Police Department. I show it for what it was, warts and all, not just on the first day, but mistakes were made throughout the continuation of the investigation.
KING: We'll be right back with more of Steve Thomas.
This is LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LARRY KING LIVE," MARCH 28, 2000)
KING: There's a book coming from Steve Thomas, a former detective, who says that you did do it, I think he's saying that in his book. Are you concerned about this book? Have you heard about it?
J. RAMSEY: Well, Steve Thomas, I believe, had that opinion from the very beginning, which is one of the problems in this whole case. Steve was an inexperienced, rookie detective. I think he was a narcotics police officer who was given this case as the lead detective.
No, I'm not concerned.
KING: Not concerned?
P. RAMSEY: Steve Thomas interviewed me, our first interview, and I appreciated his passion for wanting to find the killer of my daughter, and I told him so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Print this item

  The companion for his book
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-14-2017, 10:36 PM - Forum: JonBenét - Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation - No Replies

http://www.jameson245.com/Thomasbook1.htm


2007. S. I. Bennett, AKA Jameson. A Rebuttal to Steve Thomas’ Book “JonBenét - Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation” (Paperback). Lulu.com, June 22, 2007. eBook (pdf) version released 9.30.11 Lulu.com. A companion book intended to be used by anyone reading Steve Thomas' book, “JonBenét - Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation”. This companion corrects much of the misinformation found in Thomas' book.

Print this item

  He has a suspect in mind!
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-14-2017, 04:16 PM - Forum: Closed Eyes: Who’s Killing Our Children? - Replies (2)

In the book, the author examines the murder cases of two Colorado children – Tracy Neef and Alie Berrelez – and discovers striking similarities to the JonBenet Ramsey murder. He discusses a possible suspect and explains the connections.


“It’s very possible that this suspect continues to prowl the neighborhoods. Since 2002, he’s been arrested and convicted of another sexual crime; he’s finally on the Colorado Sexual Offender list. To date, he has only been revealed to be a person of interest or suspect on the Neef case.”

Print this item

  BPD mistakes on December 26th, 1996
Posted by: Summer Dawn - 03-13-2017, 07:00 PM - Forum: December 26th - No Replies

According to the National Institute of Justice, the following mistakes occurred~

*No one was in charge that morning. In order of arrival, first the patrol office, the sergeant and then the detectives should have taken over, removing all non essential people in the house and maintain an accurate entry exit log.

* The first two on call detectives should gave gone to the home immediately. Instead, they arrived anywhere from two hours and ten minutes to two hours and thirty minutes after they were called, having stopped by BPD headquarters first.

*The detectives were not properly equipped. Together, they had one tape recorder between them, so they were unable to record their interviews with the Ramseys.

* If a kidnapping had occurred, as first assumed, yellow crime scene tape should have been used for the entire room, not just JonBenet's bedroom, and the entire home should have been photographed and inspected for fingerprints.

*the one detective who was left by herself in the home after !0 am should have had other law enforcement support. There was still the question as to whether the kidnapper would call, and more interviews with John and Patsy were necessary.

*John should have never been allowed to search the home unless a police officer was with them. As the parents of the victim, the Ramseys had a proprietary interest in the scene and could have changed it. Although there was nothing at the time to suggest they were suspects, there was nothing to support they were not.

Also, since no law enforcement officer was with John when he found his daughters body, his reaction could not noted.


Detective Lou Smit, hired by the Boulder DA officer during the investigation, later shared his concerns: "The lone detective should not have moved JonBenet's body from the main floor hallway to the living room after John brought his daughters body upstairs from the basement, as this served to further contaminate the crime scene.

The Ramsey family should have been taken to the police station immediately after JonBenets body was found for videotaped interviews, collections of clothing, physical forensic examinations of the bodies and immediate test for drug and alcohol. 

John and Patsy should have been interrogated thoroughly and separately after JonBenet's body was found.

*NOTE: They ramseys had said they would have continued to talk with police if they'd been asked***

(We have your daughter, pages 114-116)

Print this item

  Pete Peterson
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-13-2017, 05:08 PM - Forum: Names to remember - Replies (1)

On Sept. 24, 1999, Denver private investigator Robert W. "Sneaky Pete" Peterson (SPP) held a press conference outside the Regent Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills. Representatives from ABC, KABC, KCAL, KCBS, KNBC, FOX, KCOP, CNN, Extra and others attended. Here's a transcript of the press conference...which may explain why Sneaky Pete has not made any further media appearances, despite his promise.

SPP: ...for two years now and we want to announce some of our findings which are somewhat contrary to the official line of Boulder quote-unquote authorities. We think should get on the right track. We realize it's been a myopic investigation there--different approach--Grand Jury for a year and we think we know who did it. In the next couple of days we'll pass out some of our handwriting comparisons--compare them with the ransom note, and other findings. Some of the people we think they should retarget are --or at least have under the umbrella of suspicion-- are one William Irwin McReynolds, and his wife, Doris Janet McReynolds. For those of you familiar with the case, you know that Bill McReynolds is Santa Claus at the Christmas party, just prior to JonBenét's murder. And we think they should be reinvestigated.

REPORTER: They've been cleared.

SPP: Well, who hasn't, besides the parents?

RPTR: Besides the parents.

SPP: Right.

RPTR: But Santa's been cleared, privately, if not publicly. So why are you picking on this man?

SPP: No, he hasn't been cleared.

RPTR: He is not considered a suspect. It's amazing I know your case better than you do.

SPP: You do? What do you know about it? How do you know he's been cleared?

RPTR: Well, if you want to pay me what the Ramseys are paying you, I'll tell you.

SPP: You think he's been cleared on the DNA evidence? You don't know that because I know the case better than you do.

RPTR: Really. Please, don't let me interrupt.

SPP: Let's be civil.

RPTR: Why?

RPTR: Are you saying that he should be reinvestigated or that he did it?

SPP: I'm saying with 99% certainty that he did. We have handwriting comparisons here.

RPTR: But the CBI excluded both McReynolds and his wife from being the authors of that ransom note. How do you--?

SPP: And who have they included?

RPTR: They have excluded the McReynolds.

SPP: No, they haven't.

RPTR: What evidence do you have that leads you to think--?

SPP: I have handwriting samples from when he was a journalism professor. We'll make these public in the next couple days. You know, I think it's been--there are a lot of people who have invested in the parents having done it. I think this thing happened after the O.J. Simpson case, and I think a lot of people didn't like them, didn't like their lifestyle, didn't like the fact that they have attorneys. And they don't want to believe--we could start with the psychological block to believe that old Santa did it.

RPTR: Who are you working for? Who's paying you?

RPTR: Yeah, who's paying you?

SPP: We started out working for a client in Boulder, a Dr. XXXXX XXXXXXXX, whose daughter was molested in their house, and there are a lot of parallels to this case. A lot of parallels overlapped to this case, and--misdirected routes in the process. But we think we're onto the right route.

RPTR: You're saying this same suspect could have been responsible for both?

SPP: No, no. We excluded the first one, who was involved in our client's case. But in the process, through that process, we got into this case with the blessing of the client. And determined--we know what occurred.

RPTR: So this is now paid for by the family, by the Ramseys?

SPP: No.

RPTR: By Hal Haddon. A cut-out.

SPP: No. I'm just gonna ignore you. Hal Haddon is their
attorney--

RPTR: Yeah.

SPP: --and he's an attorney, OK?

RPTR: So who is your client?

SPP: We have no client. We had a client when we got into this case. It was a psychiatrist in Boulder whose daughter was molested in their house, and there are a lot of parallels to the Ramsey case. This person got in the house, hid in the house, after the alarms were set--or before the alarms were set, three hours later attacked the daughter. We thought there were parallels to the Ramsey case, and that's how we got into it.

RPTR: Was the person wrapped in cellophane like Santa would have had to be?

RPTR: Did you call this today because you think the investigation needs to be reopened into the Santa Claus character? Is that why this is called today?

SPP: No, I think--realistically, anybody that's followed this case realizes that quote-unquote authorities in Boulder--I mean, they're the laughingstock of the country. Let's face it. I mean, they have absolutely nothing, zero evidence of the parents. It's dragged on, everybody's frustrated. Everybody knows it's a stressful case, but I think they need to look in another direction.

RPTR: What other evidence do you have besides the handwriting?

SPP: We have a lot that we're gonna disclose to them in about two days.

RPTR: Who's "them"?

RPTR: For example. Humor us.

SPP: We have an entire background on these people, going back to their childhood.

RPTR: Which implicates them as what?

SPP: Which fits all kinds of profiles. That's kind of circumstantial. We think the handwriting is not.

RPTR: Patsy took five handwriting samples and has not been eliminated as the writer of the note.

SPP: She hasn't been included either. Yeah, she's cooperated fully. I mean--

RPTR: So was Santa wearing plastic wrap so he didn't deposit DNA? The man's got a beard down to his--here.

SPP: What DNA is there? You don't know this case. I'm not gonna talk to--

RPTR: Explain why you're holding the press conference at this time, sir.

RPTR: It seems a bit fantastic.

SPP: Well, if we were worried about timing we would have probably held it on the 19th, just before the Grand Jury is disbanded. We're not worried about timing. We're only doing this because of our suspects.

RPTR: Why in Los Angeles?

SPP: Because we were here.

RPTR: Because you were here?

SPP: Yeah, and I won't get in a lotta detail, but it has to do with our suspects.

RPTR: So your suspect is here in town?

SPP: No, they're on the East Coast.

RPTR: But you just came to town today. So why here, why now?

RPTR: Why are you here and not in Denver?

SPP: We happen to be here working, and there's a timing factor that I can't get into. A lotta detail that I won't disclose here but we'll be happy to give it to the quote-unquote powers that be in Boulder.

RPTR: Wasn't McReynolds recovering from open-heart surgery at the time of the murder?

SPP: Spry as can be! He carried his bags on the plane, we all know that. Went to Spain a month later, after the murders [sic].

RPTR: Aren't you afraid he'll sue you for making him a--?

SPP: Sure! Only if I'm wrong.

RPTR: Well, you're wrong.

SPP: Thank you.

RPTR: Is it just the handwriting? Is that the only piece of evidence?

SPP: No, we have other evidence. We're happy to share it with Hunter and the other people there.

RPTR: Why won't you share it with us?

RPTR: When will that be?

SPP: We'll disclose that in about two or three days.

RPTR: So the only reason you're here tonight is to point the finger at Mr. McReynolds?

SPP: That's pretty accurate, right.

RPTR: Will you say that?

SPP: Huh?

RPTR: Will you say that for us?

SPP: No, I won't say that--

RPTR: So that's not why you're here? Tell us why you're here tonight.

SPP: I won't go quite that far. You said--to get the investigation on track?

RPTR: And you believe you're the man to do that?

SPP: That's right. I've worked on it for two years.

RPTR: Have you been paying for this yourself then?

SPP: I could sit down and tell you chapter and verse. I know the ransom note by heart. I know everything about this case that you don't.

RPTR: How do you know?

SPP: I'm insulted by your question.

RPTR: Has the psychiatrist client been paying you for two years?

SPP: No, he paid us for about four months.

RPTR: Who was that person? Can you name him, the psychiatrist?

SPP: Dr. XXXXX XXXXXXXX of Boulder.

RPTR: How do you spell that?

SPP: X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X, probably...X-X-X, possibly.

RPTR: You'd think he'd know.

SPP: (OFF MICROPHONE) ...home, yes. He was out of town. The wife was there and the wife kept on bringing the guy into the house. He went out, went off the balcony. There were a lotta similarities there. This was about three months after the Ramsey murder.

RPTR: But then you said that--Santa Claus was not someone who was--

SPP: No.

RPTR: Well, what was the catalyst?

SPP: Because we got into it after that case. Working in Boulder, you know, ground level, we came across it. We were excluding people, trying to include people.

RPTR: I happen to know that--I was in Denver for the last two years working--and I believe Mr. McReynolds' handwriting was taken, his sample was taken.

RPTR: And his DNA and hair samples.

SPP: His handwriting, from the last three notes--I bet you folks don't have it. The lady questioned whether the McReynolds' handwriting was excluded. I'm here, putting the old reputation on the line. I've been an investigator for 25 years. I'll give you copies of Santa, OK? You think his handwriting has been included? [sic] It hasn't. I don't know who--handwriting is a voodoo science. Handwriting analysis is a voodoo science. There's nobody--trust me--that's totally certified in that. It's an art and not a science.

RPTR: Then how can you base your evidence on that?

SPP: Well, look, I don't want to stand here and be argumentative. We're just here to tell--

RPTR: Lies.

SPP: --the world that Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, the parents, did not do it.

RPTR: How did you get the--

SPP: I studied handwriting for about 22 years. I think this is the 26th [?] year. And the last year-and-a-half I've really devoted a lotta time to it.

RPTR: Is that your background, sir, handwriting analysis?

SPP: No. I have an investigative agency for 25 years [sic].

RPTR: Have you had any discussion with the prosecutors in the case?

SPP: We talked to them way back. We sent them some information. We talked to Lou Smit, who resigned in protest because he didn't believe the case was handled properly. He thought the parents were being targeted unfairly and that they weren't looking at anybody else. He was kind of on the same page. Other than that, except for the event of a--you know, vilify the parents in the press. I think they've been persecuted for two years, and I think it's time. They won't have anything out of this Grand Jury because they didn't do it. So maybe it's time to look at somebody else. Maybe they would sit down and look at handwriting comparisons that we have from the real world--not longhand--against the printed note. Now, all the movie quotes, and we know some other things in the printed ransom note that purportedly Patsy Ramsey sat down and wrote after she garroted her daughter and sexually abused her in the basement of their house, that tie to other people.

RPTR: How did you get this note? How were you able to--?

SPP: The note is on the Internet, by the way.

RPTR: The other handwriting samples?

SPP: This is a second generation copy. We got it from a person who's--back a year-and-a-half ago.

RPTR: Sorry, from who?

RPTR: Michael Tracey?

RPTR: Did you analyze this note yourself or--?

RPTR: Would you give us your name again?

SPP: It's Robert Peterson.

RPTR: o-n.

SPP: P-e-t-e-r-s-o-n.

RPTR: Did you analyze this note yourself, without any other handwriting experts?

SPP: No, I took it to a couple of other experts.

RPTR: Who?

SPP: There's no such thing as a handwriting expert, by the way.

RPTR: Well, then, so how--?

SPP: We took it to two other experts and they both thought it was a match, although they had excluded McReynolds earlier because all they had was cursive writing and they didn't have printed writing.

RPTR: Who are your two experts?

RPTR: I'm not clear: If you don't believe--

SPP: They're in Denver. I'll get them later. I'll ask them if they want to tell you.

RPTR: If you don't believe that handwriting experts have any validity, then how can you say McReynolds wrote the note?

SPP: Well, I'm saying that it's not a science. It's an interpretative thing. If you have six different handwriting experts in a room, they'll give you different opinions at any given time.

RPTR: So how do we get to McReynolds?

SPP: Well, I mean, they could ask the--they could ask the person for printed samples, he could copy the note.

RPTR: He has done that.

SPP: I mean, he's gonna change his writing.

RPTR: Besides you, who are the other people you had analyze the writing?

SPP: I'll have to get--he's in the Denver phone book. But I'll be happy to get that for you.

RPTR: What is his official--what does he do for a living?

SPP: I can get that for you. He's a court qualified expert. He's about 60 years old. He did it for 25 years, something like that.

RPTR: What other evidence do you have besides --?

SPP: We have four other pieces of evidence. We have something to do with their alibi. These two people were in a cabin in Boulder purportedly that night, and--

RPTR: Longmont.

SPP: Not Longmont. That's where the mother lives. It was Rollinsville. He lived in a cabin in Rollinsville. You know the case, right?

RPTR: So Santa did it 'cause he lives in a cabin and not a fancy house?

RPTR: Do you work for Ellis Armistead?

SPP: If you don't know the case, you shouldn't--get on the Internet and learn the case before you come to a press conference. We can't reinvent the wheel.

RPTR: How do you sleep at night?

SPP: Did you ask Barry Scheck that question in the O.J. thing?

RPTR: You said four pieces of evidence. What were the others?

SPP: Actually we had four or five.

RPTR: What are some of the others?

SPP: Well, we're not going to disclose that here.

RPTR: When you say "we," what does that--?

SPP: We have three people working on this case.

RPTR: Who are the other two?

SPP: I don't want to answer that.

RPTR: Ellis Armistead is the real P.I. who couldn't come up with anything.

RPTR: Have you talked to the Boulder police at all?

SPP: Yeah, we have. Probably eight months ago, probably eight.

RPTR: Did you make them aware then of the evidence that you had?

SPP: To some extent, yeah. At that point it was a little formative. We talked to Lou Smit who was at that time resigning from the Boulder Police Department--from the D.A.'s office.

RPTR: Why go to the press instead of the authorities?

SPP: Well, what are the authorities doing?

RPTR: So this is to what, put public pressure on them?

SPP: Yeah.

RPTR: --XXXXX XXXXXXXX family--?

SPP: We paid for them, yeah.

RPTR: What's your motivation for it?

SPP: Well, when I got into it, we were working for the doctor, at his house. Let me put it to you this way, at the risk of sounding maudlin, I have an eight-year-old daughter who was six years old at the time. She likes to play dress up. She also likes to dance and sing. And the idea of portraying JonBenét Ramsey as this lurid little, you know, sex object kind of goes against--kind of galled me at that point.

RPTR: More than bleaching her hair?

SPP: Is bleaching her hair a bad thing?

RPTR: For a four-year-old? That's when it started, when she was four.

SPP: JonBenét was evil, ma'am. What media of the outlet [sic] do you work for, by the way?

RPTR: If you're such a great investigator you should know that.

SPP: Well, why don't you just tell us that? I've never seen a media person carry such a cheap recorder.

RPTR: That's right, I'm just an interested party.

SPP: Then butt out.

RPTR: You said you would share this with Alex Hunter?

SPP: That's right, in the next one or two days.

RPTR: Will you approach him?

SPP: No, been there and done...We're working on another matter here, which is why we did this, and for other reasons I won't detail here we needed to get this out there at some point. It has to do with our suspects. It'll make perfect sense in probably three or four months.

RPTR: But the indictments are coming down next week. Is Patsy ready to be deloused and strip-searched?

SPP: Patsy? You want to delouse her?

RPTR: Someone oughta.

SPP: You're convinced of her guilt?

RPTR: Yeah.

SPP: On what basis?

RPTR: Would you like to go have a drink and I'll set you straight?

SPP: No, I don't want to do talk with you.

RPTR: Too bad. Then I'll just talk to the people who matter.

RPTR: How long have you been doing this?

SPP: Twenty-five years.

RPTR: Are you licensed?

SPP: Are you a licensed journalist? I'm not big on wackos.

RPTR: Authorities in Boulder must be aware that you suspect Santa.

SPP: Oh yeah, we've been working on it a year-and-a-half now.

RPTR: Have you had any feedback?

SPP: I think they're fixated on the--no.

RPTR: Are you going to go to Denver and help out at all?

SPP: I live in Denver.

RPTR: Well, why are you here then?

SPP: I'm working on a case.

RPTR: Do you think they'll do anything with it?

SPP: I think they have to, I think they have to.

RPTR: So you will go in and present it to the D.A.?

SPP: Sure.

RPTR: When?

SPP: I'm not going to go in. They can come to me. We tried. Been there and done that. I mean, they're still totally fixated on the parents. There's just no evidence.

RPTR: Well, there's more evidence toward them than Mr. McReynolds, at this point.

SPP: Are you Bill's wife or something?

RPTR: Her name is Janet. Don't you know that?

SPP: You're the person who kept calling our office, harassing us today.

RPTR: Yes. How do you do?

RPTR: You know the general opinion is, if not them, who?

SPP: Well, how do you come to that conclusion? I wouldn't--they lived in the same house, right? If you're a parent, you live in the same house. It's a cliché to say that, well, statistically the parents or the family is going to be involved. Do you look nowhere else? The house was a sieve. There were seven entrances that were unlocked on the ground level.

RPTR: Right.

RPTR: Not right.

SPP: They were there on the third floor, they could hear nothing. So anybody who wants to has the free will to do anything they want to.

RPTR: Is it your understanding that Mr. McReynolds had a key to the house?

SPP: I don't think he would have needed a key.

RPTR: There was a chimney.

SPP: He toured the house the year before.

RPTR: Just to clarify though, his handwriting was examined in Denver, was it not?

SPP: Well, I've got his handwriting here. I'll let you look at it.

RPTR: Can we see it, maybe shoot it?

RPTR: You think they're just targeting the parents?

RPTR: Four thousand people were questioned.

SPP: Here's the note. Are you aware there's five movie quotes in the note?

RPTR: Yes.

SPP: I'm not real organized. The professional aesthetic of murder doesn't--there's an article by Kate Durbin about the play--actually the book that Kate Millett wrote, "The Basement." An adaptation of a human sacrifice which is what Janet McReynolds based her subsequent play on, that was called "Hey Rube." And it's about the murder of a girl in a basement. Now for those of you who don't know the case, I suggest you get on the Internet and review it so we don't reinvent the wheel. OK, I'll show you some handwriting samples. I know the case. If you'd like to call me within the next couple days, call our office, I'll get back to you. But first get on the Internet, know what the autopsy says, know what the ransom note says, know about the movie quotes.

RPTR: What's Santa's motivation for doing this?

RPTR: What are we looking at?

SPP: (SHOWING TYPED TEXT WITH SOME HANDWRITTEN NOTES) These are classroom corrections. This is from Journalism 1-0-whatever, critiquing movies, whatever.

RPTR: This is Mr. McReynolds' writing?

SPP: Yeah.

RPTR: So this is his handwritten note over the typewritten--?

SPP: Right.

RPTR: And the handwriting matches Mr. McReynolds, or Mrs. McReynolds?

SPP: I'm gonna let someone else be the judge of that since we're so conflicted about whether there's experts or not.

RPTR: Do you have her's too? Do you have Mrs. McReynolds' also?

SPP: Yeah, yeah. She didn't write it.

RPTR: That's a small sampling.

SPP: Yeah, well, right.

RPTR: Do you have any more?

SPP: Uh, yes. So what else can I answer for you?

RPTR: Is Ellis out of it now and you're taking over? John Ramsey promised a world-class--

SPP: Does anybody else have a question?

RPTR: Robert, what is the one thing you want us to learn from what you're talking about this evening?

SPP: Well, I think, first of all, if you're new to this case you don't understand, you don't know anything about it. You can't have an opinion.

RPTR: No, wait a minute. You called for this press conference. I'm asking you a question. What do you want us to report?

SPP: I want you to pressure the Boulder police.

RPTR: Well, you should have had this in Colorado. (LAUGHTER) Your office hung up the phone on me today when I asked what was going to be reported. They weren't very polite, and I'm just asking you a question. What do you want us to report on today?

SPP: They should be looking elsewhere.

RPTR: Where?

SPP: I think I've laid it out.

RPTR: Mr. Peterson, so what you're saying is--there's really nothing new in what you're saying because he has been looked at.

RPTR: He's not a suspect.

SPP: They've excluded his handwriting. That's a mistake. I don't think that's been done. I don't think there's been much forensic evidence gathered. The evidence they gathered that is available at the scene is so limited that they can't--it's almost noncomparable [sic]. They can't analyze it.

RPTR: And do you think you have enough evidence to make a strong case against Mr. McReynolds?

SPP: I think so.

RPTR: You might help our skeptical attitude if you give us a little bit more. You're saying you have other information?

SPP: Yeah, and I won't go into that now.

RPTR: Well, you can see that people are not buying it.

SPP: Well, time will be the judge of that, OK? You tell me six months from now if the Ramseys aren't convicted and where this case had gone, OK? We'll let time be the judge.

RPTR: Without even charging them for murder the Aisenbergs may be facing a 30-year sentence for obstruction of justice and fraud. The parallels to the Ramsey case are significant. No comment, huh? Gee, I can't understand.

RPTR: What besides the handwriting?

SPP: We know the alibi doesn't hold up. We know three or four other things that I won't detail.

RPTR: Can you say that again, about the alibi?

SPP: The alibi does not hold up.

RPTR: That he was supposedly where?

SPP: Up in their cabin in Rollinsville.

RPTR: Home asleep.

SPP: They had a little cabin.

RPTR: It doesn't bother you that you could possibly be slandering this man?

SPP: No.

RPTR: How can you be sure?

RPTR: Why doesn't the alibi hold up?

SPP: Who's been slandering the Ramseys with impunity for the last two-and-a-half years?

RPTR: But that has nothing to do with this guy.

SPP: Let's face it. These people went on Larry King, they went on Good Morning America [sic]. I'd say three different--

RPTR: In lieu of talking to the police.

SPP: No, I'm talking about the McReynolds now. Try to follow along, OK? They went on three different national TV programs and made statements about--talked about what they knew about JonBenét. So they're public figures.

RPTR: Why doesn't their alibi hold up?

SPP: Well, for one thing--I won't get into a lot of detail but they're a husband and wife who were apparently home alone in a little cabin up in the mountains.

RPTR: Mr. Peterson, I have to say your reputation has been questioned in Denver. Is that why you're holding this news conference here?

SPP: Oh, I'm controversial. My competition will tell you that.

RPTR: But you've served jail time, haven't you?

SPP: Jail time? No. Where are you coming from?

RPTR: I'm coming from Los Angeles. Where are you coming from? What about your arrest?

SPP: Oh, I had a DUI once. That doesn't make me a bad person.

RPTR: Can you be reached the next couple of days?

SPP: You have our office number. Apparently you guys found us. 800-366-5860. Go to www--and have a look at it--rwpeterson.com.

RPTR: Who is paying you?

RPTR: So what is your motivation?

RPTR: Somebody put a lump of coal in his Christmas stocking.

END

Print this item

  Patty Limerick
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-13-2017, 04:59 PM - Forum: Neighbors - No Replies

http://www.boulderdailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1996/12/29-1.html
Details still elusive in slaying
By ALLI KRUPSKI
r
December 29, 1996


Patty Limerick, who lives across the street from the Ramseys, said the murder concerns her as well. She learned of the crime when she returned home Thursday night from her parents' 60th wedding anniversary party in California.

"It's very disturbing because something terrible happened to an innocent human being," she said. "The neighborhood has always been very pleasant, safe and convivial."

So who is she? 

Patty Limerick is the Faculty Director and Chair of the Board of the Center of the American West at the University of Colorado, where she is also a Professor of History. Limerick has dedicated her career to bridging the gap between academics and the general public and to demonstrating the benefits of applying historical perspective to contemporary dilemmas and conflicts. In January 2016 Governor Hickenlooper named Limerick as the Colorado State Historian. In addition, in January 2016 she was appointed to the National Endowment for the Humanities advisory board, the National Council on the Humanities. Patty was nominated by President Obama in Spring 2015 and was confirmed by the United States Senate in November 2015.


Print this item

  Barbara Kostanick - Secret Santa Visit
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-13-2017, 04:52 PM - Forum: Names to remember - No Replies

"Barbara Kostanick was the mother of a playmate of JBR's. She asserted: "The day before Christmas, JonBenet was at our house playing with Megan. The kids were talking about Santa, getting all excited. I asked JonBenet if she had visited Santa Claus yet. She said, “Oh, Santa was at our Christmas party the other night.” Megan had seen Santa at the Pearl Street Mall, so we talked about that. Then JonBenet said, “Santa Claus promised that he would make a secret visit after Christmas.” I thought she was confused. “Christmas is tonight,” I told her. “And Santa will be coming tonight.” “No, no” JonBenet insisted. “He said this would be after Christmas. And it’s a secret” (Schiller/Brennan Perfect Murder, Perfect Town).

Print this item

  What John Douglas wrote
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-13-2017, 03:27 PM - Forum: The Cases That Haunt Us: From Jack the Ripper to JonBenét Ramsey - No Replies

"I paid close attention to what he said, concentrating on his inflection, breathing, body language, word choice - matching him up against the experience I'd gained through thousands of interviews with both violent offenders and victims and their families.  I took John through the entire morning and afternoon of December 26, up to when he said he discovered his daughter in the wine cellar.   When he talked about carrying her upstairs, he started blinking, as if revisualizing the scene.  Then he began to sob."

"After I had spent about two hours with Ramsey, he excused himself to go to the rest room.  I turned to Bryan Morgan, who'd been in the room the entire time, and said, simply, 'I believe  him."'

"When Ramsey returned, I told him I had sat across the table from hundreds of criminals.  Some have been so convincing that I went back to the files and looked up the case materials to make sure that the evidence was, indeed, solid against them."

"I then said, 'Mr. Ramsey, you are either one hell of a liar or you're innocent.  I believe what you're telling me." (page 300)

"People do not act in a vacuum.  Every action is tied to every other action.  John Ramsey is not and was not a sex offender and has none of the characteristics.... We have to make very, very clear that he could not have done this to his daughter." Pg 314

Print this item

  What kind of person
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-13-2017, 12:07 PM - Forum: THE KILLER - Replies (12)

In his book, BPD Detective Supervisor Robert Whitson repeatedly asks, "What kind of person kidnapped, tortured, sexually assaulted and murdered JonBenét Ramsey?"

On page 107, he compares the killer to a dog, and I really like the analogy made.

He talked about walking with his dogs in a field and having them go off running after rabbits.  His calling them back didn't bring them back under his control and they clearly paid no attention to the fact that cars on a nearby road might put them in danger.  Whitson pointed out that this was "part if their behavior - their basic instinct - their prey drive..."  snip ... "the way their minds were programmed." 

He goes on to say "the sex drive is an extremely powerful emotion - a basic instinct."  But when a "sadistic psychopath becomes focused on sex and having the opportunity to completely dominate another person, he gets tunnel vision, just like a dog chasing a rabbit. He does not think about anything else.  He does not think about the consequences of his actions.  He knows his behavior is wrong but he does not care."

I honestly can't imagine anyone not understanding that what they were doing to JonBenét the night she died was wrong.  The man who did that to her just didn't care because he was satisfying his own desires, as he likely had before and since.

Print this item