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

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

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

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 20 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 20 Guest(s)

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

 
  Subic Bay Training Center theory
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-27-2017, 03:40 PM - Forum: SBTC - No Replies

John Ramsey was in the Navy and for a while he was stationed in the Philippines.  BORG gossip spoke of a plaque found in the Ramsey basement that commemorated his time there and suggested the sign off found on the note stood for SUBIC BAY TRAINING CENTER.

In truth, that is simply BORG bull.

I have a photo of the plaque - - it does NOT say anything about Subic Bay Training Center - not at all.  Truth be told, there never was any installation going by that name.

In the center of the plaque is some carving and then a ring around that - a ring of words surround the ring.  On the top it says, "U.S. NAVY PUBLIC WORKS CENTER".  And on the bottom, upright so it can be easily read, it says "SUBIC BAY PHILIPPINES"  Stars divide the two notations.

Simply put, SBTC does not stand for Subic Bay Training Center as suggested by BORG.  The plaque they pointto does not exist.

Print this item

  From Lisa Ryckman story
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-20-2017, 01:26 PM - Forum: Pam and Kristine Griffin - Replies (6)

   

For Pam Griffin, a friend of Patsy Ramsey's who designed many of JonBenet's pageant costumes, it has been a year of proving herself a true and loyal friend -- but not without a cost.

This has taken from me a vulnerability I had hoped never to lose,'' said Griffin, who has often found herself as Patsy's lone defender on television talk shows.

A person who always greeted others with a hug, Griffin now tends to keep her distance; trust takes time.

"Now I just don't feel comfortable around a lot of people, and I always felt comfortable around everybody,'' she said. "I resent the tabloid media taking from me the right to be vulnerable if that's what I choose to do. That was something I hoped to keep all my life.''

The endless video loop of JonBenet in pageants, decked out in elaborate costumes designed by Griffin, has brought her some new clients, although she lost more than $30,000 in business from customers who disapproved of her Geraldo appearances. But despite the seemingly universal criticism of kiddie pageantry, the Colorado pageant circuit is booming -- thanks in part to JonBenet.


Print this item

  temp thread - a short search
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-15-2017, 09:47 AM - Forum: odds and ends - Replies (2)

A former teacher with a more-than-45-year history at the Marlboro Central School District is in custody following an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation into distribution of child pornography.
Thomas Albright, 71, of Marlboro, was arrested Jan. 12 on charges involving distributing, receiving and possessing child pornography, according to a statement from U.S. Attorney Richard Hartunian and Special Agent in Charge Andrew Vale of the Albany Division of the FBI.
The following day, Albright appeared in Albany before a U.S. magistrate judge. He was detained pending further court appearances.
Albright worked as a teacher with the Marlboro Central School District from Sept. 1970 to June 2002, according to a press release from the district. Following his retirement, Albright worked "periodically" as a substitute teacher and lifeguard for the district, last serving as a lifeguard in September 2016. The district declined to answer additional questions from the Journal regarding any other specific roles Albright served, and if the district had been contacted as part of the investigation.
Albright also worked as an assistant diving coach at Vassar College for both the men's and women's swim teams from Oct. 1, 2003 to Nov. 30, 2012, according to Amanita Duga-Carroll, director of media relations at Vassar.
Attempts to reach Paul Evangelista, the lead attorney representing Albright, were unsuccessful Tuesday.
Using a peer-to-peer file sharing network, Albright hosted numerous images and videos depicting "minors engaged in sexually explicit activity," according to the criminal complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. These images could be downloaded from Albright by users on the network.
Law enforcement officials searched Albright's computer and found hundreds of images and videos depicting child pornography, all of which Albright admitted to possessing, the complaint said.
During a polygraph test, Albright admitted to a "long-time attraction to young male boys between the ages of 14 and 17," according to the complaint.
If convicted on all charges, Albright faces at least five years in prison, with a maximum sentence up to 20 years. He would also face at least five years, and up to a life term, of post-imprisonment supervised release, and a maximum $250,000 fine. Albright would also have to register as a sex offender.
Abbott Brant: abrant@poughkeepsiejournal.com; 845-437-4809; Twitter: @AbbottBrantPoJo; Geoffrey Wilson: gwilson@poughkeepsiejournal.com, 845-437-4882, Twitter: Geoff_LW

Print this item

  Charlie Brennan's attempts to make all public
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-15-2017, 09:01 AM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - Replies (1)

Charlie Brennan: Why I fought for the Ramsey indictment's release
By Charlie Brennan Camera Staff Writer


The Daily Camera reported Jan. 27 in a front-page exclusive that the JonBenet Ramsey grand jury had voted, more than 13 years before, to indict both John and Patsy Ramsey on a charge of felony child abuse resulting in death.

Before that day, the true actions of those 12 Boulder County citizens had been misreported. The public had long been told that jurors had not taken a vote, or, alternatively, that they had elected not to indict anyone.

The January story, under my byline, was the culmination of literally years' worth of reporting and source development, finally reaching fruition only after I joined the Camera in November 2012. The Camera offered me the full editorial support required to report on the grand jury's conclusions, with sourcing and credibility that would justify its publication.

People have asked me numerous times in recent weeks, given that one target of the 1999 indictment died long ago and that the statute of limitations on child abuse resulting in death expired, why was it important to secure the actual Ramsey indictment -- having already reported on its existence?

I offer a brief anecdote. Several weeks following publication of the Camera's grand jury exclusive, I had lunch with a man who had worked the Ramsey case intensively for a local law enforcement agency in the immediate days, weeks and months following JonBenet's death.

During our meal, he asked me, "Are you saying that this was an informal straw poll of the jury, a show of hands or something, or are you saying that there is really a piece of paper with the box checked off and the signature -- the whole 9 yards?"

It was the latter, I told him. He put down his fork, shaking his head slightly, saying, "Holy (expletive)."

This is when I realized there was yet more work to do. Despite what I'd considered a thorough and well-sourced presentation of the grand jury indictment story weeks earlier, the maybe-it's-true, maybe-it-isn't skepticism that has attached like fungus over the years to the Ramsey saga might reduce this part of the story, too, to urban myth.

Now, one of the most pivotal events in the nearly 17-year Ramsey drama is fully out in the light.

Twelve citizens of this county labored for 13 months, through what jurors told me were often difficult and challenging sessions, and ultimately rendered their best decision. This, the public was never told.

Then-District Attorney Alex Hunter, we now know, exercised the discretion and power of his office by declining to sign and prosecute their indictment. This, the public was also never told.

The legal standard grand jurors were required to meet in order to indict was mere probable cause. That's the same standard a cop on the street needs to slap handcuffs on a suspect and then seek charges in court.



Hunter would have been forced to meet a much higher standard of proof -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- to convert the indictment into a conviction at trial. Although he has never discussed his thinking publicly, it is obvious Hunter did not believe there was adequate evidence to meet that more imposing burden before a jury.

Hunter did not make his historic decision in a vacuum. His thinking evolved in frequent consultation with veteran metro-area prosecutors such as Bob Grant and Bill Ritter, then the district attorneys of Adams and Denver counties, respectively. The day-to-day grand jury process was steered by another veteran prosecutor, Michael Kane, whose counsel Hunter also valued and heeded. Mitch Morrissey, now the Denver district attorney, was also part of Hunter's inner circle.

There is a reason that criminal actions are officially recorded as "The People" versus a named defendant. The courts belong to the people, and transparency of the courts is a central pillar on which our system is based. There was no transparency -- until today -- surrounding the Ramsey grand jury's final days and ultimate decision.

Judge Robert Lowenbach, in considering the suit brought by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and myself, noted, "There is no precedent in Colorado regarding the question of whether an indictment signed by the foreman of the Grand Jury but unsigned by the District Attorney is subject to disclosure to the general public."

But Judge Lowenbach apparently didn't deem this a very close call. It took him only eight working days, from hearing oral arguments, to issue a ruling that the grand jury's actions constituted an "official action," therefore permitting the indictment's release to -- and inspection by -- the public.

I believe the events of recent weeks, culminating in Judge Lowenbach's decision, may shape precedent in Colorado law, for what was, admittedly, a rare occurrence in grand jury proceedings. While grand jury witnesses and their testimony remain shielded for good reason, the ultimate decisions of juries and prosecutors must be public if the people are to retain any faith or trust in the rule of law.

Journalism has been called the rough first draft of history. The first and subsequent drafts relating to the Ramsey grand jury, which I consider one of the most critical chapters of the Ramsey story, had it wrong. Now, the record stands corrected and completed.

Two reporters stood outside JonBenet's home Dec. 26, 1996, at the time the coroner's staff brought the child's body out into the cold night and harsh light of an enduring public obsession. I was one of the two. Never did I suspect that 17 years later, the saga would still be unfolding.

One installment of the drama may now, finally, be at a conclusion.

Time has taught me better than to believe that the larger story is finally at an end.

Contact Camera Staff Writer Charlie Brennan at 303-473-1327 or brennanc@dailycamera.com

Print this item

  Pedophile thread
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-14-2017, 10:04 AM - Forum: THE KILLER - Replies (5)

If you have a difficult time discussing what a pedophile might do to a child, don't read this thread - it is dark and sick - - and shows the kind of mind some people have - - as did the killer of JonBenet.

I found this news story and it turned my stomach - but here are two people who clearly should be branded as UNSAFE AROUND CHILDREN.

Feds Charge Arizona Woman with Receiving Infant Porn, Describe Her Desire to Molest a Toddler
Monday, August 8, 2016 at 6:30 a.m.
By Ray Stern
[Image: sarah-cox-complaint.jpg]
An Arizona woman has been caught up in the federal investigation into an alleged child pornographer in Colorado.
On August 4, authorities charged 39-year-old Sarah Cox of Clarkdale with three counts of knowingly receiving child pornography. The complaint, filed in Arizona U.S. District Court by Homeland Security Investigations, alleges that Cox and Richard Hennis of Colorado Springs exchanged explicit online messages in which Cox described her desire to sexually abuse a friend's 3-year-old daughter.

In late March, federal agents arrested Hennis, 40, and 18-year-old Brandi Leonard, for producing child pornography involving an infant. Over the course of a two-month exchange, authorities allege, Leonard told Hennis that she'd sexually abused a 1-year-old girl. Hennis encouraged her to do it again and send him photos, which she did, according to a March news release by the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Both pleaded not guilty; a trial is scheduled for a December.
Hennis' digital trail led investigators to Cox. According to the complaint filed in Arizona, the two allegedly conversed online in November and December 2015 using the instant-messaging app Kik, Cox under the username "JadeJeckel" and Hennis under "funguy4u2use." Investigators identified Cox via an image file she sent Hennis: a photo of a woman with multiple tattoos on her face and a large skull and spider web tattooed on her upper chest. The distinctive body ink was a match for the driver's-license photo on file with the Arizona Department of Transportation.

A spokesman with the Arizona U.S. Attorney's Office declined to discuss the case for this story.

Federal investigators allege that at about 3:30 a.m. on December 23, 2015, Cox received three images from Hennis. Two showed an adult's fingers manipulating a infant girl's vagina; a third depicted a woman (presumably Leonard) performing oral sex on the same baby.

In earlier exchanges, Hennis and Cox had discussed child sexual abuse in explicit terms, according to transcripts included in the complaint.

On November 29, 2015, funguy4u2use messaged JadeJeckel about a woman who had told him she'd sexually abused a 1-year-old girl.
"Yummy," Cox allegedly replied.
Then: "I thought about getting my friend's 3 yr old girl."
And later: "I'm going to get the 3 yr old."
"When?" Hennis responded.
"ASAP."
"What are you going to do to her?"
"Eat her and touch her."
"I'm so jealous," Hennis typed, and then, "Will you let me watch?"
Cox: "I wish you were doing it with me."
The exchanges do not indicate that Cox actually carried out the scenario she described to Hennis.
New Times unsuccessfully attempted to contact Cox by phone and via various social-media accounts maintained under the username JadeJeckel.

Print this item

  Public Presentation at Castle
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-13-2017, 10:15 PM - Forum: Presumed Guilty: An Investigation into the JonBenét Ramsey Case, the Media, and the Culture of Pornography - No Replies

Steve and his wife gave a public talk in Colorado and a friend attended.  This is the report sent to me on that meeting.


Last week, I attended an event at Cherokee Castle south of Denver where Stephen and Joyce Singular spoke on their updated version of "Presumed Guilty," their book on JonBenét's case.

I think my overall review of Singular's theory of a child pornography theory being the root of this, as well as a connection with a photographer or photographers and a sort of conspiracy to protect powerful people in Boulder, is that he may be on the right track as far as one investigative path--but that it should not be the primary avenue of investigation. He is the first to say that he is given to speculation. I think he does not have hard evidence, necessarily, but he also doesn't really give himself credit for the research he has done and information he has found that does support this theory. Because circumstantially, it is there, as a horrible and dark problem in Boulder. The missing link just seems to be what could connect specifically to this case.

With that said, I find his writing style very enjoyable and his demeanor pleasing. I would say the same of Joyce. 

The Singulars were unequivocal in their belief that the Ramseys had nothing to do with this. They were very clear about that. 

There was only one person during the Q&A after the talk who said she suspected a coverup within the family--I think specifically concerning Burke. She really sounded like someone who just wouldn't be swayed, particularly considering that she was sitting there with two presenters giving her facts to show why that wasn't right.

It also became apparent to me that there is a LOT of misinformation out there, some of which was brought up at the talk. There was someone who thought there was vomit at the crime scene. (No.) Things like that. I am not sure how these rumors get started and take off.

The gathering was very respectful, which was nice. No really hostile vibes, which is almost surprising with a case this controversial.

Stephen's point that he came back to a few times was to emphasize what the grand jury found: that they did not vote to indict for murder. That in addition to strange things that happened, such as why the entire indictment was not released when Charlie Brennan got 4 pages of it released. He spoke a lot about suspected coverup like that, and who is it that is being protected in Boulder by information not being released? Who was protected by the Boulder Police refusing so steadfastly to look anywhere other than the parents for investigation? I believe someone in attendance at the event brought up starting a petition to get the entire indictment released, and Stephen and Joyce received this idea favorably.

So, to sum it up: I don't really think this theory should be tied so closely with the Ramsey case without hard evidence, but it's certainly one theory that should be investigated closely. The connection is possible.

Also, I would recommend reading his updated version of "Presumed Guilty," which is a 70 page supplement, as well as some updated content in the rest of the book. It's available as an e-book from Amazon.

Print this item

  Miller misleads (Foster)
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-13-2017, 09:25 PM - Forum: JonBenet Ramsey: Prostitution of Justice - Replies (1)

Miller mentions Vassar Professor Don Foster in the first chapter of his book.  I post that section here then invite readers to go to the next post to read "the rest of the story" - - Foster was NOT discredited simply because he wrote a letter of condolence - he was discredited because he is a charlatan!

From Miller's book:

Don Foster, a professor in linguistics at Vassar College, is another citizen who voluntarily applied his professional expertise to the Ramsey case’s prime piece of evidence. Professor Foster had received worldwide recognition for his controversial work in identifying the authorship of a previously unknown work by William Shakespeare,[16] Ted Kaczynski as the Unabomber and Joe Kline, the originally anonymous author of Primary Colors. Hunter contacted Professor Foster and interested him in analyzing the ransom note. The linguistics professor came to the same conclusion as various handwriting experts, psycholinguistic and FBI profilers and a legion of other investigators: Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. Professor Foster explained his findings in March, 1998, to police and prosecutors.
While Dr. Hodges studied the ransom note for psychological fingerprints, Professor Foster examined it for stylistic similarities between it and Patsy’s Christmas letters, personal notes and other available writing samples. He analyzed the grammar, syntax, word choice, punctuation, characteristic use of parts of speech, etc.
District Attorney Hunter learned from the Ramsey attorneys that the professor had sent Patsy a note of condolence before doing his analysis of the letter. So had many, many other good citizens, stunned by the savagery of the crime. Rather than acknowledging the change in circumstances now that Professor Foster had studied the actual text of the ransom note, Hunter rejected the expert’s opinion. No matter which expert said to the DA that the note was Patsy’s creation, Hunter rejected their work. If such reports were to be acknowledged as valid, as they surely would have been by a fully informed and attentive grand jury, the arrest of Patsy would become inevitable. For some reason, that result was an anathema to the grand jury.
Professor Foster’s note with his condolences irreparably damaged his credibility for Hunter.[17] Shakespeare’s most extravagant comedy or tragedy couldn’t envision a story with so faithless an ending as Professor Foster’s damnation as a faithless and untruthful expert.

Print this item

  James and Regina Rapp
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-13-2017, 08:02 PM - Forum: Names to remember - Replies (1)

In January, 1997, a man identifying himself as John Ramsey called McGucken Hardware in Boulder and asked for information on charges that were put on Patsy’s charge card. He later sent a letter requesting that information and signed it John Ramsey.

That information reached the police and media and went viral - was John checking on Patsy's purchases to prove she had bought the cord and tape?

Well, the answer is no.  The requests were made by James and Regina Rapp, later described as "information brokers".

Rapp had been convicted for car theft, violated parole and served time for that.  Colorado has no licensing laws for private investigators so Rapp figured he could use his past experiences and lessons to be a private investigator, to research and sell people's personal information.

 The Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct has rules that govern lawyers in Colorado and those rules prohibit a lawyer and his employees or agents, from using theft, fraud, deception or misrepresentation.

But Rapp wasn't a lawyer and he wasn't working for one.

He had a couple different business names -  TouchTone Investigations, Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap, and Phantom Investigations.

Print this item

  Suretape Duck tape from Casey Anthony case
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-13-2017, 06:25 PM - Forum: Duck Tape - Replies (3)


.pdf   shurtapeanalysisCaseyAnthony.pdf (Size: 1.03 MB / Downloads: 6)

Print this item

  Whites 3/18/14 to Boulder City Council
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-13-2017, 05:44 PM - Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White - Replies (1)


.pdf   White's 3-18-14 memo to Boulder City Council.pdf (Size: 911.78 KB / Downloads: 8)

Print this item