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



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 6
» Latest member: PeterSherri
» Forum threads: 1,759
» Forum posts: 5,600

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 23 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 23 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
9 pg notes
Forum: Linda Wickman
Last Post: jameson245
06-18-2021, 05:31 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 493
Professor Matrix v steve ...
Forum: Nancy Krebs
Last Post: jameson245
06-18-2021, 04:50 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 366
Forum: December 26th
Last Post: jameson245
06-15-2021, 10:50 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 2,527
Jane Stobie interview
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
06-02-2021, 07:53 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 513
Jane Stobie interview
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
06-02-2021, 07:53 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 309
MOre on Don Foster
Forum: Discredited and discounted witnesses in this case
Last Post: jameson245
05-19-2021, 07:23 PM
» Replies: 13
» Views: 9,945
Barbara Reffner aka A Can...
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-16-2021, 02:43 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 491
from 2021 blog
Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2021, 05:19 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 749
I met Rol
Forum: Rol Hoverstock
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2021, 05:15 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 2,251
Melody and Luther Stanton...
Forum: Neighbors
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2021, 05:08 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 7,723

  Ollie Gray
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-26-2018, 10:17 PM - Forum: Names to remember - No Replies

Ollie Gray: Mar 30, 1936 – Apr 6, 2017

He started out working for the Boulder Police department but when he told them he couldn't help them make a case against the Ramseys - he saw evidence of an intruder  he as let go.  He later went on to work on the investigation on his own.  He always looked for the intruder.  Never believed the Ramseys did this.

I counted him as a true friend and after he passed, I inherited his files.

RIP, Ollie

Print this item

  RIP Dr. Beuf
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-26-2018, 10:09 PM - Forum: Prior sexual abuse - Replies (1)

Dr. Francesco Beuf: May 13, 1933 – May 11, 2017

Print this item

  Orchid Club
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-23-2018, 08:41 AM - Forum: Colorado crimes - No Replies

Archives | 1996
16 Indicted On Charges Of Internet Pornography
Continue reading the main story Share This Page

  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • More
  • Save
The case began last spring with familiar horror: a 6-year-old girl returning home from a slumber party with a tale of sexual abuse by the father of one of her young friends.
Today, Federal officials said the girl in a small central California town had led them to one of the more distant frontiers of sexual crime.
In an indictment handed up here, a Federal grand jury charged 16 people in the United States and abroad with joining in a pornography ring that was effectively an on-line pedophilia club. Its members shared homemade pictures, recounted their sexual experiences with children and even chatted electronically as two of the men molested a 10-year-old girl, the authorities said.
The case appeared likely to heighten concerns about the spread of child pornography over the Internet. Debate has grown steadily over whether or how the government should impose obscenity standards in cyberspace, and Republican leaders have increasingly attacked the Clinton Administration for being insufficiently vigorous in the prosecution of on-line pornography cases.
Federal officials who investigated what defendants in the San Jose case called the "Orchid Club" said the crimes they came upon had little to do with questions of privacy or free speech.
Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

"The thing that ups the ante in this case is that allegations of distribution of pornography are coupled with serious allegations of child molestation," said Leland B. Altschuler, the head of the United States Attorney's office in San Jose. "It's an issue relating to the protection of children, not to the First Amendment."
All 16 defendants were charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute child pornography, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Six of the men were also charged with joining or abetting in the sexual exploitation of children. The six have already pleaded not guilty to sexual-abuse charges filed against them by local prosecutors.
In addition to 13 men arrested around the United States, officials said the group included members in Finland, Canada and Australia. Although arrest warrants have been issued for those three, officials said they were still only known by their computer aliases.
Investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation said they had been brought into the case by Sheriff's deputies in Monterey County, south of San Francisco.

Responding to a complaint by the mother of the 6-year-old in Greenfield, a farming town that calls itself the "broccoli capital" of California, deputies were led first to the father of the girls who had been hosts to the slumber party, Ronald Riva. They also found computer equipment that one 10-year-old said had been used to record her as she posed for Mr. Riva and a friend of his, Melton L. Myers.
Both men were arrested on April 22.
With help from Customs Service investigators in Silicon Valley, F.B.I. agents eventually uncovered computer files that began to trace the scope of the Orchid Club, one of the thousands of virtual conference rooms of Internet Relay Chat.
Officials said they did not have to conduct wire-tap surveillance or break into encrypted files; two of the accused conspirators collaborated with investigators, going on-line in the presence of law-enforcement agents to help track other members of the club.
The authorities said it was still unclear how Mr. Riva, 38, and Mr. Myers, a 54-year-old truck driver who had been convicted of molesting two children in Orange County in 1971, had found the other participants in the chat room.
Members of the club were received on the recommendations of other members, the officials said. After being given a password to enter the chat room, they were initiated by recounting one of their sexual experiences with a child. At least eight children were molested in connection with the club.
Transcripts from some of the conversations indicate that days before the party held at Mr. Riva's home, he asked other members of the club how they might like him to videotape the 10-year-old girl. While the abuse went on, prosecutors said, Mr. Riva and Mr. Myers continued the queries, describing to others in the chat room what they were doing.
"Some called it a 'virtual molestation,' " said D. Anthony West, the Federal prosecutor in charge of the case. "I think it was a very real molestation."

Print this item

  from 48 Hours
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-19-2018, 10:42 PM - Forum: DNA under fingernails - Replies (2)

"I believe the technology of today makes it extraordinarily difficult for a killer not to leave his calling card," says police forensic specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.
He believes he has the DNA for the man he suspects is the killer of JonBenet Ramsey: "It would be very, very helpful to the investigation to have that DNA matched to an individual."
The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name.
Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails.

Print this item

  His First mention of Ramsey
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-15-2018, 08:51 AM - Forum: Michael Tracey - No Replies

Here is the text of the article Michael Tracey wrote for the Sunday edition of the Daily Camera in September 1997. 

The first finger of blame was pointed at the paparazzi. But it didn’t take much reflection to understand that these young men – it is a male sport – scummish and ruthless though they may be, were low down the food chain. There were the agencies that bought their photos, the papers, magazines and TV programmes to whom they were sold. And there was us, the reader, the viewer, the merely curious, the ogler, the voyeur, the fantasist who perhaps compensated for a drab life by borrowing something, God knows what, from the images of the famously glamorous. More than once we have heard that her death is “like a Greek tragedy,” the essence of which is that it speaks to a larger truth, in this case the despoiling of public and private life by media and their consumers obsessed with the flashy and the trivial and the seedy. But we did not need a car crash to tell us this. The truth of what we have become as a media saturated culture was already right before our eyes.
Three days before Diana’s death I had given the latest of a number of interviews about the media coverage of the Ramsey case. This was to MSNBC, but there had been others with local stations, talk radio and local press. It occurred to me that I had never actually put pen to paper about this. Twenty-four hours before she died, here is what I wrote about a child and her murder and the way we have dealt with it.
There is a line in a James Woods movie which keeps sloshing around my mind. Woods is playing the lawyer, Danny Davis, who defended the McMartins, the owners of a day care center in Los Angeles who were accused in 1983 of appalling sexual crimes against children. Davis is toying with the idea of defending the McMartins. His wife is trying to dissuade him along the lines of “how can you even think of defending those scumbags after what they did to those children…” Because they have a Constitutional right to be defended, because that is what the rule of law is all about, he tries on her with growing exasperation. He pauses and finally screams, pointing to a TV picture of a baying mob calling for all kinds of horrors to be visited upon the hapless family, “how come everybody in America knows they’re guilty?” It was a good question, because not only could everyone not ‘know’ of their guilt, we now know, after one of the longest trials in American history that they were innocent. They were abused, wrongfully accused, their lives and careers destroyed but the hysterical mob, the avenging and vengeful prosecutors did not get their way.
I keep asking myself, “how come everybody ‘knows’ that John and Patsy Ramsey are guilty?” It’s a question that puzzles and troubles, hanging there like a gargoyle with a grotesque and taunting grin. I’ve tried it in the office, in my favorite bar, with friends and family.
Almost everyone is so sure. Everybody seems to “know” they’re guilty, rather in the way in which everyone “knew” that the McMartins were guilty and every white jury in Mississippi “knows” that that black boy standing before them is guilty. But on what basis? Surely not from the available evidence, which circumstantially might provide grounds for wondering but not the Salem-like damnation which has been heaped upon them.
I cannot bring myself to be so sure. I remember too well the atmosphere in Britain in the 1970s in the wake of a series of pub bombs by the IRA how many Irish men and women were captured, prosecuted, found guilty and placed in prison for lengthy spells. I remember how we all, in the community, ‘knew’ they were guilty. Problem was they weren’t, they were merely ruined.
We are so ready to judge, to damn, to seek revenge, to leap to judgments that lie well beyond an evidential base. But the Ramsey case throws up so many troubling aspects of the society.
Further evidence of the corruption of journalistic values. Of the fact that where there had once been clear water between mainstream values and those of the tabloids, there was now little or none. Of the voyeuristic, manipulative, trashy, exploitative character of the coverage. Of the fact that an increasing habit of our culture is to salivate at the violent, to take private tragedy and use it as public spectacle for the crude and boorish end of boosting circulation and ratings. Sad that it has come to this.
Further evidence of the corruption of the rule of law, of the undermining of the judicial process as it becomes a department in the gargantuan, all consuming entertainment industry. The pressure to get more and more evidence released, including the autopsy report, may have been rhetorically underpinned by something called “the public’s right to know” but was too often a cynical exercise in keeping the story alive, to feed the public appetite for more morsels from a child’s death. And hardly anywhere did the media allow for the presumption of innocence, rather preferring to suck as much marrow as possible from the presumption of guilt. The Ramsey case, through the way in which it has been covered, and the way in which we have devoured that coverage, is insight to a culture which seems far more willing to attend to the minutiae of shameful murder than it is to issues of greater import to the successful functioning of the society. A society which seems to find in the murder of a child, as a leading local columnist put it, “entertainment,” a curious kind of pleasure in another’s pain. So sad that it has come to this.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the Ramsey case is that it is as if an awful lot of people want them to be guilty. The question is, why? It’s an interesting question and I have only speculations in the way of answer. Perhaps they have been told so often through the media – implicitly and explicitly – that that is where the guilt resides. Perhaps they want closure. There may also be the circumstantial evidence, though that should stimulate a modicum of suspicion, not conclusion. It may have something to do with a sentiment among a good number of American women that all men are sexual predators from whom no female, including their daughters, are safe. That has very much been the gist of the coverage in the tabloids, whose biggest audience is by far women.
Whatever the reason and whoever hopefully is brought to justice what I do know is that when someone squeezed the life from that child they robbed her of all that she might have been. But every time we use JonBenet’s story, flaunt her picture, pick up a tabloid because she is on the cover, gawk at the television as the latest twist or turn in the story is rendered in breathless, shocked tones, dripping with false pity and concern, each and every time we do these things we feed the pockets of an industry that cares for nothing other than its share or its circulation. Each and every time we rob the soul of a small child resting in the warm rich soil of Georgia.

Print this item

  hidden room?
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-15-2018, 06:00 AM - Forum: odds and ends - No Replies

Wendy Redal wrote

When I first agreed to join the project, I met Dan Glick (then of Newsweek), with whom I would be working, in the kitchen at the Ramseys’ home. I toured the house, including the so-called ‘wine cellar’ where JonBenet’s body was found. It was so interesting later, as I was reviewing the media coverage, to hear a reporter from American Journal stand in front of the house there on 15th Street and refer to “this maze of a house…with its secret room.” It was a large house, yes, but no “maze,” and the “secret room” was easily located with one right turn at the foot of the basement stairs. It struck me as I watched this guy that he had never been in the house, yet he was speaking as if he had. It was thus ludicrous to discover that the reporters interviewing the Ramseys’ housekeeper (Linda-somebody; I can’t remember her last name) were buying her statements that she “never knew of” this hideaway. If not, then she’d simply never opened doors in the basement, as it was no hidden room.

Print this item

  Wendy Redal wrote
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-15-2018, 05:58 AM - Forum: Names to remember - Replies (1)

I actually provided some research assistance on Tracey’s first documentary, which interrogated the role of the media in establishing that ‘of course the parents did it.’ I came to the project assuming they probably were involved, but rather quickly came to recognize the amazing way in which those assumptions were shored up — created for me, even — by the deeply flawed media accounts that Tracey critiques. My role as a researcher was to examine in detail several months’ worth of broadcast coverage (both TV & radio) of the case, immediately after the crime and on into the spring and summer of 1996. What was so fascinating was to engage all this in a compressed timespan (i.e., watching hours and hours of this stuff at once, rather than over time as it actually unfolded). In such a context it was easy to see the presumptions, the leaps of belief, the insistence on the parents’ guilt based not on rationality but on media suggestion and ‘gut feelings.’

Print this item

  Bill Wise
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-15-2018, 05:49 AM - Forum: odds and ends - Replies (1)

From Michael Tracey in Scholars and Rogues

There was one other, telling moment involving the Commissioners. Bill Wise was speaking with them at a meeting and assumed that the microphone in front of him wasn’t live. He was heard to say that the person who killed JonBenet was “wealthy.” John Ramsey was wealthy, though not the billionaire that some claimed and while Wise’s gaff led to his removal from any involvement with the case, it nevertheless was shaving with the grain of prevailing belief about the case, the Ramseys did it.

Print this item

  mitch Morrisey
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-15-2018, 05:46 AM - Forum: Names to remember - No Replies

From Michael Tracey in Rogues and Scholars  

DNA tests led the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to exclude, among others, John and Patsy Ramsey. This was known to the police by January 15th 1997, when the CBI lab completed the analysis of forensic samples provided by the Ramseys, along with a number of other people. This would be confirmed by further analysis in the early fall of 1999. For reasons best known to themselves the police chose not to share the first test results with the DA’s office until July 22, 1997 and, of course, kept the public blissfully unaware.

Mitch Morrissey, an aggressive member of the Denver DA’s office, who was one of a number of advisers to the Boulder DA, Alex Hunter, theorized, it would emerge later, that it belonged to someone in the Taiwanese factory where they had been manufactured, perhaps by sneezing as the panties were being made or wrapped in their packing. They even sought a supplementary budget from the County Commissioners to send a detective to the factory. The Commissioners declined the suggestion.

Print this item

  Story that JR flew the plane to Atlanta
Posted by: jameson245 - 08-15-2018, 05:17 AM - Forum: odds and ends - No Replies

From Michael Tracey in Scholars and Rogues

Another little gem: John Ramsey, it was reported, had flown his private jet back to Atlanta, with his family and JonBenet’s casket on board. So there it is, Ramsey is so calm, so not grieving, so in control, so mentally calm that he could fly a jet. Ergo, he was a sociopath who killed her.

The source was, as we were told by the reporter who first broke the “story,” a member of law enforcement who had always been “reliable.” Problem was, not true. Dan Glick, a stringer for Newsweek who worked with us on the first documentary, did something which we used to teach in Journalism 101, he checked the facts. In particular, he checked the FAA take off and landing log at JeffCo Airport and discovered that in fact the jet had been sent by the Chairman of Lockheed Martin, which had bought Ramsey’s company, Access Graphics, and that the pilot was a Lockheed pilot. When we interviewed the reporter who broke this story, who is as far as I can tell a really nice guy, and I asked him why, he asked me in return “maybe you can tell me it wasn’t his plane and he didn’t fly it.” The script line that followed that soundbite in the documentary was obvious and, to be honest, devastating, “…it wasn’t his plane and he didn’t fly it.”

Print this item