Poll: Books & Articles You Have Read On Ramsey Case

[sunsplashed]

Linda Arndt, who was the ONLY detective in the Ramsey house when the body of JB was found announced in June 2006 that she is writing a memoir about the case.

Arndt says that on January 8, 1997, while Burke was being questioned by a child psychologist, she and Patsy were alone for more than an hour. She says Patsy made her promise to keep searching for JB's killer and Arndt gave Patsy her word that she would.

In May 2005, Arndt renewed contact with Patsy when she learned that she (Patsy) was ill.

Arndt says of Patsy:

"She was imprisoned by secrets. This whole case has been imprisoned by secrets."

Although Arndt says her book won't clear anyone of the crime she did say this about the case:

"I think it's just starting. I thik the real story is just coming out now."

She went on to say that Patsy's death shakes the foundation of what people have been refusing to believe or accept.

Arndt says she does not have all the answers as to who did what on Christmas night 1996, but she has vital information that someone may be able to piece together. She says all the information is out there.

But, she says 90% of the case details have not been disclosed accurately.

(Source, The Rocky Mountain News)

I, for one, certainly hope Arndt does write her book and that it is released soon. She certainly knows things no one else does and her book, if unbiased, would prove to be very, very interesting.

[Athena]

Originally posted by sunsplashed
Linda Arndt, who was the ONLY detective in the Ramsey house when the body of JB was found announced in June 2006 that she is writing a memoir about the case.

Arndt says that on January 8, 1997, while Burke was being questioned by a child psychologist, she and Patsy were alone for more than an hour. She says Patsy made her promise to keep searching for JB's killer and Arndt gave Patsy her word that she would.

In May 2005, Arndt renewed contact with Patsy when she learned that she (Patsy) was ill.

Arndt says of Patsy:

"She was imprisoned by secrets. This whole case has been imprisoned by secrets."

Although Arndt says her book won't clear anyone of the crime she did say this about the case:

"I think it's just starting. I thik the real story is just coming out now."

She went on to say that Patsy's death shakes the foundation of what people have been refusing to believe or accept.

Arndt says she does not have all the answers as to who did what on Christmas night 1996, but she has vital information that someone may be able to piece together. She says all the information is out there.

But, she says 90% of the case details have not been disclosed accurately.

(Source, The Rocky Mountain News)

I, for one, certainly hope Arndt does write her book and that it is released soon. She certainly knows things no one else does and her book, if unbiased, would prove to be very, very interesting.

Linda Arndt needs money. She cannot find a well paying job. I believe she is working for a tree service.

But unbiased?? Within a minute of JBRs body being found she believed JR killed JB "looking into his eyes" and counting bullets in her gun?? She was under alot of stress and anyone that counts bullets in their gun wasn't too mentally balanced at least not under the circumstances.

But I would keep and open mind and read it. jmo

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Athena


Linda Arndt needs money. She cannot find a well paying job. I believe she is working for a tree service.

But unbiased?? Within a minute of JBRs body being found she believed JR killed JB "looking into his eyes" and counting bullets in her gun?? She was under alot of stress and anyone that counts bullets in their gun wasn't too mentally balanced at least not under the circumstances.

But I would keep and open mind and read it. jmo

Aww, Athena! I believe Arndt is mentally balanced. I know she did think John did it, but still...she certainly seems to think Patsy is innocent of any wrongdoing, Athena.

I would read it with great interest, but I always keep an open
mind, even with Schiller's book. There's so much personal opinion in his book. Not from Schiller, himself, but from Boulder residents.

I look forward to Arndt's book, though. She saw little things no one else saw.

I suppose everyone, pro-Ramsey or anti-Ramsey has an agenda. *sigh*

JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


But she certainly seems to think Patsy is innocent of any wrongdoing, Athena.

I would read it with great interest, but I always keep an open mind, even with Schiller's book. There's so much personal opinion in his book. Not from Schiller, himself, but from Boulder residents.

I look forward to Arndt's book, though. She saw little things no one else saw.

JMO

I just read the entire article Sun - so I am withdrawing my opinion posted above. I do want to read this.

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t8854.html

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Athena


I just read the entire article Sun - so I am withdrawing my opinion posted above. I do want to read this.

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t8854.html

That's it, Athena.

I found the link from the paper, itself, in my history:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4807014,00.html

What part would you withdraw? That Arndt is writing it for money or that she has an agenda or that you would read it?

[Athena]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


That's it, Athena.

I found the link from the paper, itself, in my history:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4807014,00.html

What part would you withdraw? That Arndt is writing it for money or that she has an agenda or that you would read it?

After reading the entire article I really believe she IS sincere saying that she made Patsy that promise. Just call it intuition. So I withdraw the comments I made about the money. The agenda I wouldn't throw out -- only because even if not intentionally it sounds like she is bitter about how she was treated by the BPD - so IMO she will kill two birds with one stone. She will keep her promise to Patsy while giving the finger to the early investigators in the BPD and possibly to JR. Have to admit can't wait.

If I'm not mistaken I believe I read she did not turn all of her notes in to the BPD??? Is that correct, if you know? jmo

[harz]

wow 90% of this case details have not been disclosed accurately. No wonder my frustration over many gaps of informations on this case. :) I would be interest in what she had to say. Any idea when her book to be release?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Athena


After reading the entire article I really believe she IS sincere saying that she made Patsy that promise. Just call it intuition. So I withdraw the comments I made about the money. The agenda I wouldn't throw out -- only because even if not intentionally it sounds like she is a bitter about how she was treated by the BPD - so IMO she will kill two birds with one stone. She will keep her promise to Patsy while giving the finger to the early investigators in the BPD and possibly to JR. Have to admit can't wait. jmo

Thanks for the clarification, Athena.

Whatever her reasons, I think her book would be very interesting since she was the only officer present when JB's body was found.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by harz
wow 90% of this case details have not been disclosed accurately. No wonder my frustration over many gaps of informations on this case. :) I would be interest in what she had to say. Any idea when her book to be release?

I'm sorry, harz, I don't have any other information. And I came across that article by accident. Glad I found it, though.

I do hope she writes the book and publishes it.

I would read it with both interest and an open mind. I think most of us would. I would like to know the 90% of the case details that are inaccurate.

JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Thanks for the clarification, Athena.

Whatever her reasons, I think her book would be very interesting since she was the only officer present when JB's body was found.

JMO

You're quick Sun. I edited my post above. Would you read the addition to see if you can answer that question? TIA.

[Ames]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


<snipped>

I, for one, certainly hope Arndt does write her book and that it is released soon. She certainly knows things no one else does and her book, if unbiased, would prove to be very, very interesting.

You and ME both!!! Yes, she does know things that no one else does. I cannot wait for her book..thanks for letting everyone know about it.

[sunsplashed]

Clean out your mailbox, okay? I tried to PM you, but your mailbox is full! LOL

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Athena


After reading the entire article I really believe she IS sincere saying that she made Patsy that promise. Just call it intuition. So I withdraw the comments I made about the money. The agenda I wouldn't throw out -- only because even if not intentionally it sounds like she is bitter about how she was treated by the BPD - so IMO she will kill two birds with one stone. She will keep her promise to Patsy while giving the finger to the early investigators in the BPD and possibly to JR. Have to admit can't wait.

If I'm not mistaken I believe I read she did not turn all of her notes in to the BPD??? Is that correct, if you know? jmo

I think she's bitter about the BPD, too, Athena, and yes, I did read that she never turned over all her notes about the case to them, in particular the notes she made during the time she was alone in the house when JB's body was found.

Really interesting. At least to me.

JMO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Ames


You and ME both!!! Yes, she does know things that no one else does. I cannot wait for her book..thanks for letting everyone know about it.

Me four! I'd love to read her book!

[MissOtisRegrets]

I'd buy this book in a minute!

[bullmoose]

Whenever this book comes out, I will be eager to get my copy. Every book so far I've read has a point of view and an axe to grind, but given the fact that she was first on the scene, alone for hours, without back-up, her take on the whole case will be interesting and perhaps important to read. I'm going to read it. bullmoose

[sunsplashed]

I doubt you'll like it. She believes one of the Ramseys is the killer. She does not subscribe to the intruder theory.

But, I hope you enjoy it and I hope it's published soon.

JMO

[bullmoose]

Actually, sunsplashed, I will probably like it. I may disagree with her conclusions, I won't know until I read her story. But she does have an impeccable viewpoint to consider, as she was there. I read Steve Thomas' book and clearly understood from his story why the investigation was so botched, to my satisfaction. Linda Arndt's version of events will be very interesting to use to compare with Twisting Thomas. I have always thought Linda Arndt to be sincere and honest in her statements, unlike Thomas.So I'm looking foward to her book.

[Ames]

Originally posted by sunsplashed
I doubt you'll like it. She believes one of the Ramseys is the killer. She does not subscribe to the intruder theory.

But, I hope you enjoy it and I hope it's published soon.

JMO

Yes, I believe that she suspected John right off the bat. I cannot wait until its published, either. Wouldn't it be great if something in her book, enables the police to finally make an arrest? I know that just the book cannot do that, but maybe she will shed some light onto some evidence that nobody else knows about. Maybe she has been afraid to come forward with it, for some reason...IMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by bullmoose
Actually, sunsplashed, I will probably like it. I may disagree with her conclusions, I won't know until I read her story. But she does have an impeccable viewpoint to consider, as she was there. I read Steve Thomas' book and clearly understood from his story why the investigation was so botched, to my satisfaction. Linda Arndt's version of events will be very interesting to use to compare with Twisting Thomas. I have always thought Linda Arndt to be sincere and honest in her statements, unlike Thomas.So I'm looking foward to her book.

I'm glad you'll like it, bullmoose, even though she does consider John the guilty party. I think she liked Patsy very much, however.

I don't buy Steve Thomas' bedwetting theory at all, but I do agree with him that the crime scene was hopelessly compromised. I can't lay all the blame on Linda Arndt, though. She had far too much to do managing twelve people alone.

I'll buy her book the day it comes out as well. :)

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Ames


Yes, I believe that she suspected John right off the bat. I cannot wait until its published, either. Wouldn't it be great if something in her book, enables the police to finally make an arrest? I know that just the book cannot do that, but maybe she will shed some light onto some evidence that nobody else knows about. Maybe she has been afraid to come forward with it, for some reason...IMO

Yes, she did suspect John right away. I don't think she thinks her book will ever lead to the case being solved, though. She says that she doesn't have all the answers and she says that she doesn't believe this case will ever see an arrest and subsequent trial. Still, the fact that she has a unique perspective and was alone in the house for quite some time, as well as having private conversations with Patsy, should shed some light on the whole case.

JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I'm glad you'll like it, bullmoose, even though she does consider John the guilty party. I think she liked Patsy very much, however.

I don't buy Steve Thomas' bedwetting theory at all, but I do agree with him that the crime scene was hopelessly compromised. I can't lay all the blame on Linda Arndt, though. She had far too much to do managing twelve people alone.

I'll buy her book the day it comes out as well. :)

Sun -- I also will read it as I said previously and with an open mind. The way I view this -- is that if she has anything in there that could convince me of JR's guilt -- so be it.

It should be interesting reading either way.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Athena


Sun -- I also will read it as I said previously and with an open mind. The way I view this -- is that if she has anything in there that could convince me of JR's guilt -- so be it.

It should be interesting reading either way.

I just hope she does write it, Athena. From the things she's said, it seems that though she suspects John, she doesn't think Patsy had a part in the murder or she thinks John forced her to keep silent some way.

At any rate, her perspective should be very interesting.

[Ames]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Yes, she did suspect John right away. I don't think she thinks her book will ever lead to the case being solved, though. She says that she doesn't have all the answers and she says that she doesn't believe this case will ever see an arrest and subsequent trial. Still, the fact that she has a unique perspective and was alone in the house for quite some time, as well as having private conversations with Patsy, should shed some light on the whole case.

JMO

If only I had of been a fly on the wall that night.....

[Miss Marple]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I'm sorry, harz, I don't have any other information. And I came across that article by accident. Glad I found it, though.

I do hope she writes the book and publishes it.

I would read it with both interest and an open mind. I think most of us would. I would like to know the 90% of the case details that are inaccurate.

JMO

A publication date hasn't been set for Arndt book, but there are other books in preparation to be released soon:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Sources#ForthcomingBooksandMedia
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Miss Marple


A publication date hasn't been set for Arndt book, but there are other books in preparation to be released soon:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Sources#ForthcomingBooksandMedia
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

I saw that, too. I'm not really interested in anything Wendy Hutchens has to say about anything at all, and I'm not interested in Michael Tracey.

Linda Arndt's book, however, would be a new and unique perspective.

[Athena]

Another book to be released Dec. 1st:

Popularly held theories regarding JonBenet’s death that exclude Patsy Ramsey and any intruder as suspects are explored to determine at what point the respective theory is no longer plausible, and implodes under the weight of its own incredulity. An exhaustive psycho-linguistic analysis by the author of the infamous ransom letter serves to support the definitive naming of JonBenet’s killer.


Explanations are provided to questions the public has long sought answers to, including: Who killed JonBenet and why? What were the circumstances surrounding her death? What were the conditions and/or causes that contributed to the killer’s motive(s)? And what logic and psychological factors were at play that directed the actions taken by the killer, including the crime’s elaborately staged cover-up, designed to project the crime onto a sexual predator type suspect?

http://www.laurencelsmith.com/index.html

[Ames]

Originally posted by Athena
Another book to be released Dec. 1st:

Popularly held theories regarding JonBenet’s death that exclude Patsy Ramsey and any intruder as suspects are explored to determine at what point the respective theory is no longer plausible, and implodes under the weight of its own incredulity. An exhaustive psycho-linguistic analysis by the author of the infamous ransom letter serves to support the definitive naming of JonBenet’s killer.


Explanations are provided to questions the public has long sought answers to, including: Who killed JonBenet and why? What were the circumstances surrounding her death? What were the conditions and/or causes that contributed to the killer’s motive(s)? And what logic and psychological factors were at play that directed the actions taken by the killer, including the crime’s elaborately staged cover-up, designed to project the crime onto a sexual predator type suspect?

http://www.laurencelsmith.com/index.html

WOW..I can't wait to read his book, either. Thanks for the link...

[sunsplashed]

I'll read that one as soon as it's released. It sounds very, very interesting.

Thanks for the link! :)

[sunsplashed]

A "sort of" spoiler from the book for those who have not read the FAQ on the Web site. Don't read below if you don't want to know.





After reading his FAQ, it's quite clear that the author believes Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet or Burke Ramsey did and Patsy then proceeded to cover it up. He thinks the details in the ransom note are to let John know Patsy was involved and that she didn't tell John about it so he could act "completely natural" with the police.

http://www.laurencelsmith.com/faq.html

[Athena]

Originally posted by sunsplashed
A "sort of" spoiler from the book for those who have not read the FAQ on the Web site. Don't read below if you don't want to know.





After reading his FAQ, it's quite clear that the author believes Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet or Burke Ramsey did and Patsy then proceeded to cover it up. He thinks the details in the ransom note are to let John know Patsy was involved and that she didn't tell John about it so he could act "completely natural" with the police.

http://www.laurencelsmith.com/faq.html

Yes - I read that as well as "About the Author" where this is addressed as well. Also sent him an email where it says "feedback". If he responds will let you know what I wrote and his response.

[lucky13]

I've always wondered why Arndt had never written a book...hers would be the most interesting to me. Can't wait!!

[thewhitewitch1]

I couldn't copy the link for some reason but here is the article in whole. It's long...sorry.

Donald Freed on JonBenet Ramsey Case Date: Sunday, May 14, 2000 12:32 AM

TRANSCRIPT OF A PUBLIC AFFAIR © 1999, aired 2/15/99 08:35am on KGNU-Boulder.

MCFARLAND: This is Bob McFarland with A Public Affair and my guest this morning is Donald Freed who is an author, screen writer among other things. Donald Freed has written Killing Time, a book about the OJ Simpson trial and the screen play, and Executive Action which was about the JFK assassination. And what other things would the listeners be interested in what you've done?

FREED: I'm a visiting professor at Loyola Marymount University (L.A.) and I'm teaching at USC and I'm working on a film about the murder of Martin Luther King. I've been working for about a year and a half on the Ramsey murder for a two part series for ABC one of which is completed and the other of which will be completed if ABC wishes to complete it. At the moment they have frozen the project and it is not clear whether it will be done elsewhere if at all. And of course the crime that has generated such interest has also GENERATED GREAT FEAR in the media because this taboo is the most fearsome in a way of all the taboos. But in so working on ABC's budget for that time, I was able to go to Europe and elsewhere. And I finally presented some information to the police and the FBI during several meetings in Boulder. I haven't talked about it publicly until now, but I think now that I've waited more then what use to be called a "decent interval." So I'll talk about this a little bit. If you take your mind back to the morning of the crime---I say the morning of the crime because I think its clear what I mean---- and that day after Christmas. The call came into the Boulder police at about 5:52 a.m. And thus began the time-line. The kind of work I do is forensic work on time-lines. That's what I did in the Simpson case in (my book) Killing Time. That's what I would like you to follow me on. After that call comes in, a uniformed policeman comes to the house by about 6:00 am and then more personnel arrive. The morning goes by; in the early afternoon the body is found, and sometime in the evening the coroner arrives---and that's the rough time-line of that day.

For several hours during the morning, a Boulder police detective was alone at the house while family and friends walked about and generally, completely co-opted the crime scene. Since that first day until this hour the lawyers and the pundits and experts and media commentators have never ceased to state that the Boulder police did not maintain the crime scene. In fact, they destroyed the crime scene and they went so far as to create the most awkward move perhaps in the history of a homicide investigation in asking John Ramsey to search the house whereupon he found his daughter, carried her upstairs, and laid her out in front of the Christmas tree. All this has been rehearsed and repeated endlessly in the media and its been stated by the most serious experts that the case will probably never, ever go to trial because of the police mishandling of that day. What is more (it is perceived) that the police didn't take the expert advice that such an amateur police department from such a little town would have needed. And there was the FBI offering to help at every step of the way and finally trying to salvage the case by inviting everyone to Quantico, Virginia; then helping with the presentation. And that is the general idea or story line of the case.

MCFARLAND: Yes, one of the detectives, Linda Arndt filed a lawsuit over her dismissal.

FREED: Now, if I may, Dr. McFarland, ask you a few questions?

MCFARLAND: Sure.

FREED: How did it come to pass that, in your opinion, that the Boulder police were in charge of the crime scene in general for about eight hours with a lone detective there. And how is it that this detective and this police force had never held themselves out as experts on terrorism or kidnapping. Remember we're talking about a note that announces it is from a foreign faction that "hates" your country and has other "bigwigs" in their gun sights. How do you understand it that the Boulder police---the much blamed Boulder police---are in charge of this crime scene?!?

MCFARLAND: Hmmmm? Well, I think they didn't feel the need for another unit because they really didn't believe that ransom note.

FREED: Oh, I quite agree with you, BUT let me say to you this. You're aware, I'm sure, that the historic and famous jurisdiction, in the case of kidnapping, belongs to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

MCFARLAND: The Lindberg Law.

[thewhitewitch1]

FREED: Yes, it is not only their jealously guarded turf, but they base their budget on few traditional areas such as grand theft auto; interstate offense of all kinds; and KIDNAPPING. And in kidnapping, they have written the book. They have special training. They are defined by their handling of kidnapping and they operate in what is called "rebuttable presumption". That means that if someone disappears and the FBI considers it an interesting, challenging, or worthwhile case; they intervene on the theory of "rebuttable presumption": that it could be presumed that federal laws have been broken and that the FBI, until instructed otherwise, WILL TAKE CONTROL. IN THE CASE WHERE THERE IS A RANSOM NOTE---THAT TRIGGERS THE FBI's JURISDICTION.

And this is a well-oiled machine of many decades standing. When it goes into action the local police are pushed into the periphery. When its a wealthy corporate executive; and when the note in fact announces that these are foreign terrorists---now every bell in the "national security system" begins to ring---then the interfacing with the CIA, the NSA, the Pentagon; all this unfolds within a matter of minutes. The Attorney General stands by; the President is awakened ready to go on television; because it is a written and unwritten law that "foreign terrorists" on the soil of the United States should they dare commit a crime; should they dare to contemplate a kidnapping or the murder of an innocent child or American citizen or any visitor to the United States; that unleashes the full might and power of the United States of America, no matter what it takes or how long it takes.

In the case of Orlando Letelier, a visiting Marxist scholar who was organizing against the Pinochet junta in Chile, when his car was exploded on Embassy Row in Washington D.C., foreign terrorists were identified, after various cover stories were brushed aside. The FBI, who hated Letelier; who put out the story that a jealous mistress or husband might have blown-up his car; that same FBI four years later walked into the palace in Santiago, Chile and told General Pinochet that his head of security, Col. Contreras, would have to resign and would have to stand trial. And he did! And this was the beginning of the undoing of our client the Pinochet regime in Chile. This was no Marxist, I will say to you, who was kidnapped or killed in Boulder, Colorado. This was a child of a Lockheed Martin executive of a $18 billion a year firm with Pentagon and top secret clearance across the world. With this huge multi-million dollar security apparatus that exists for that day that any member of a family of a corporate executive; any member, wife, child of corporate executive's family should be kidnapped; they go into overdrive. That's when they earn their money and it is when they face the CEO's in Denver, and that's where they say "here's where Lockheed Martin stands: your children can or cannot go to school; your wives can or cannot go to the market". An entire protocol unfolds. The interface between the head of Lockheed Martin Security and the FBI is elaborate and its interlocking and its complete.

So the two units, in the Boulder Area, are trained to react to an act of terrorism, like kidnapping, are Lockheed Martin Security on one hand and the FBI on the other. Now, NOBODY FROM EITHER TWO OF THESE UNITS CAME NEAR THAT CRIME SCENE and the question is as in the case of Sherlock Holme's dog that didn't bark. What you're looking at here is SOMETHING THAT IS SO IRREGULAR; SO IMPOSSIBLE, because remember, the SOG, the seat of government operates in this regard. Every year the Director of the FBI must go before Congress. Is it conceivable to you, doctor, that the head of the FBI could go before a Congressional committee and be asked why the FBI had not involved itself in terrorists who announce themselves?! If you say now that the note was a hoax, and it doesn't ring true; you'd be quite right. You could have said it a day later or a week later---and everyone has said it. But no one could have said it that morning---minutes count! The FBI's entire profile is based on quick, rapid, decisive action. They take over public relations. They'd have the Boulder police direct traffic at the periphery. No one gets in or out of that house. No one touches the crime scene. Every home in that area of Boulder is secured. In the case of Adobe Graphics three years before, there was an executive kidnapped and hundred's of FBI agents poured into the landscape. When in Michigan where another industrial kidnapping tool place---where a wife was suspected actually-- hundreds of FBI agents poured in.

What I'm telling you now is a composite of my interviews with FBI executives in this country and elsewhere---former agents and Lockheed Martin agents. When a note announces "terrorism" it is the magic word in the United States for both law enforcement and budgetary considerations. So that if you say you didn't believe that note nor believe there were foreign terrorists, then you are dealing with a madman who is signing himself or herself as foreign terrorist and intends to get some "fat cats". So what difference does it make whether these are foreign terrorists or a madman pretending to be foreign terrorists? You still have the most alarming situation. In the FBI bureaucracy this called "a special". Not only was this NOT "a special"; there was no response as if it were terrorism.

Remembering that the FBI never came to the crime scene, they were never able to say to director Freeh in Washington: "Don't worry. This is a hoax. This is a false note. We don't think the Bureau will be embarrassed". The Bureau doesn't take anyone's word about being "embarrassed". The Bureau operates on a principle of redundancy and "Do Not Embarrass the Bureau" is their watchword; it is their motto. For the Director of the FBI in Washington, D.C. to restrain and stand down his own agents in the field; both the local office in Boulder and the bigger one in Denver or Lockheed Martin and their agents, without going to the crime scene, and being able to reassure their CEO's in Denver that they can stand down; their children can go to the park; their wives can go to the bridge club;----for these assurances to be made on which careers and budgets and lifetimes depend, there can only be one answer. They had to know, not only were there no foreign terrorists, but they had to know BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that what happened neither affected the security of the United States of America or the security and profits of Lockheed Martin. That this was a domestic personal aberrational crime of some kind or in any case a crime which, though located inside a home, may have repercussions outside in terms of circles of people who would not want investigations going on about child pornography, child abuse, or child sexuality. I've summed up for you what a year of research has led me to.

[thewhitewitch1]

MCFARLAND: Let me ask you what would be the normal way in which the police would notify the FBI?

FREED: They were notified! The chief of police is on record. They told the FBI immediately. They have to.

MCFARLAND: So the FBI already knew.

FREED: Here you have the clock striking 13, Doctor, calling into question everything that went before. And to the listeners I know they say, "I heard that the police didn't want them or that the FBI offered to help or such and such." Let me tell you what happens. The FBI offers its help to any prosecution or any jurisdiction in the country. They offer their lab; their services. They are the big brother in these matters. BUT WHEN IT IS THEIR JURISDICTION it is not a question of offering to help or being rejected by some small police force. The FBI in Rapid City, S.D., for instance, in the Wounded Knee affair, when the local sheriffs tried to keep jurisdiction, the FBI came in with guns drawn. In Dallas when Dallas authorities attempted to keep President Kennedy's body at Parkland Hospital in accordance with Texas law, the FBI and the Secret Service, with guns drawn, moved the body to Air Force One. When the FBI has its jurisdiction challenged that's their money you're going for and their reputation. That's their identity. That's their vitals. That's their fundament. For those who feel, "Well maybe, gee, it was early in the morning. Maybe the FBI was going to go later". . .

MCFARLAND: The FBI never sleeps...

FREED: So, I know this may sound a little strange. But with the way I work in crime, I can only work on what is public record. I don't have subpoena power. I work on the time-line.

Here the FBI and Lockheed Martin have to go before the Grand Jury to say what they knew and when they knew it; because there is a chain of information that goes from the house to Lockheed Martin to the FBI to Washington D.C. back to the field and the order is to "stand down". "Don't go into the house. Let the Boulder police handle it".

I think perhaps the more innocent explanation is that everybody assumed the Boulder police could make an arrest, because an arrest could have been made. But the Boulder police, don't forget, never held themselves out to be experts. They never said they had any sophistication in matters of terrorism; of kidnapping. These are specialized pursuits. That's the more innocent explanation. The more ominous explanation is what's called the Belgian syndrome. It involves the murder of children that went uninvestigated until people came out into the streets in the thousands in Belgium. It turned out that high ranking members of the system of justice and the corporate structure who had discouraged investigations of the murder and sexual abuse of these children ----not because, and I stress this, not because they were involved in the murders----but they were involved in their own way in pornography; sexuality with children and related elements, some of who are not illegal, but all of which must be the death sentences to anyone's career. When a sex offender comes out of prison, his photograph goes on a lamp post; the neighborhood is alerted. That's when someone comes out of the system and is branded as a sexual criminal.

But when a corporate executive, someone with power, is involved in practices which are tabooed. Then as Mrs. Van Alter said about her father: when that man is discovered---if he is discovered he's no longer a CEO or Republican or Episcopalian or Elk or Rotarian or husband or father or Christian or any thing else. He is nothing and might as well be dead. So that those who have been touched by a sexuality that is tabooed, they will go to ANY LENGTHS to suppress that information. And, if it means covering up sexual crimes with which they had nothing to do, they will do it! So that's about it, in a highly---and I hope not too dense a way---- the fruits of about a year and a half of work. And I ask those who are listening NOT to take my word for it, but to talk to friends or relatives who may be former or present law enforcement officers or district attorneys or anyone working for the city or the state. Ask them in this way, say, "A very wealthy family announces that their daughter has been kidnapped and produces a note that say foreign terrorists are the authors and that a little girl is later found murdered. Who would be in charge of this case?" And I ask you to test that out anywhere you can get an official answer.

And then if you think that you want to be reassured that the Grand Jury is questioning the appropriate executives of Lockheed Martin and the FBI, then you know you can certainly write to the district attorney, because Mr. Michael Kane and others are very serious grand jury attorneys, I'm told. I think that you should and could write to them. I must tell you finally that Norm Early who had been the district attorney of Denver and was the vice-president of Lockheed Martin Security at the time of the murder of JonBenet. I interviewed him at the time. He's a fascinating man---- extremely intelligent. And he said to me finally, "You know I had a six year-old son and we have a security protocol and that letter threatened other executives. Where was the security? Where were the bodyguards? Where was the protocol? Where was the alert; the drill; the routine; the regimen that we so carefully shared and worked on at Lockheed Martin? Not a word. Not a sound. Not a telephone call." So, he began to call executives and lawyers and others and said, "Why wasn't my family alerted? What happened?" And they said to him, "Well, there was no threat" And he said, "How do you know that?" They said, "Well, I don't know. We just knew". And he said, "Well, think about it and I want an answer!" The next day he talked to some of these people and reported to me that they said, "You know we stayed awake all night wrestling with the question --agonizing with it. And you know you're right. How did we know that the (ransom note) was a hoax immediately? We might have known it in a day or two, or a week or two. But how do we know until this day? To this day there has been no arrest. To this day we know that there was a murder and that there was a note left stating that foreign agents were involved.

MCFARLAND: You've just been listening to Donald Freed author and faculty member at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. Maybe we'll get to hear more from Donald Freed later.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Athena]

TWW: I was getting ready to go to bed and thought I'd take one last peek in tonight and you hit me with this totally intriguing article. And you know I have to do research now. LOL Anyway; trying to find a follow-up to this article so just did a search on Donald Freed. I haven't really had time to digest all of this info yet but here's another interesting tidbit in the same vein:

EVAN RAVITZ ATTEMPTS TO TAKE HIS EVIDENCE OF CHILD ABUSE IN HIGH PLACES TO THE GRAND JURY, TO INVESTIGATE WHO KILLED JON BENET, BUT IS BLOCKED BY THE JUDGE AND DA! WHY?

September 20, 1999 Dear Mr. Kane, I wish to talk with the grand jury about the subject of the book Presumed Guilty by Stephen Singular: various ways child pornography and/or abuse could have been the original motive(s) for what became JonBenet's murder. One obvious possible connection with child porn is through JonBenet's pageant life. Pam Griffin, JonBenet's costume maker, says in the book (p.110) "One time Randy [Simons] wanted to shoot Kristine [Pam's daughter] nude, but I said absolutely not." There are other possible connections between the Ramseys and the child porn/sex world that should be investigated. Keeping a lid on this ultimate taboo could mean death for a headstrong child like JonBenet who couldn't otherwise be silenced.

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/JonBenet_pedophiles_in_boulder.htm

Just in case above link doesn't work:

http://tinyurl.com/psprm

[Athena]

I need to take my arse to bed. TWW this is all your fault - just kidding!


"Evil on this scale is impossible to comprehend. To know who murdered JonBenét Ramsey is to know what world we live in, where we are."

James R. Gaines, former managing editor, Time Magazine, January 20, 1997 issue

http://www.konformist.com/jonbenet.htm

[thewhitewitch1]

Sorry to have kept you up, Athena...:D
Pretty interesting article, wasn't it? You do know that the author believes the Ramseys killed JB, don't you? There are some very dark undertones to that article.
I think what really matters is the point that the FBI wasn't on this like they should have been at the mention of terrorists. What did/does Lockheed Martin know about John Ramsey that we don't??

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Sorry to have kept you up, Athena...:D
Pretty interesting article, wasn't it? You do know that the author believes the Ramseys killed JB, don't you? There are some very dark undertones to that article.
I think what really matters is the point that the FBI wasn't on this like they should have been at the mention of terrorists. What did/does Lockheed Martin know about John Ramsey that we don't??

Oh I definitely got that. Like I said I read everything with an open mind and if something comes up that convinces me JR is guilty, hey let the chips fall where they may. At issue here though it doesn't sound like it was just JR thus the coverup. :shrug:

[LadyFisher]

White, with no disrepect to you..isn't his just another one of those conspiracy theories supposedly to cover-up something? :confused: What am I missing here? :confused:

[edna mode]

Arndt's book on the case is one of the few I would want to read...

I look forward to it...

[humanpolygraph]

Yes I too cant wait for her book to come out!!! It will be interesting to see what she says. I thought about the fact that JR could have easily done it all too being that (IMO) Patsy although frazzled and obviously covering something up, may have been in fear. ...on the outside looking in...Patsy seemed to be a good person all around. Im referring to the fact that she was into all the charity organizations and was always showing up at her children's school and donating time and energy for others, it did not seem to me that Patsy was a violent person, that is why I thought she may have done something by accident but the more I think about it, and Ive stayed awake many nights at least three out of every 7 nights a week thinking about this (what is wrong with me!) and Im wondering if he did do something and Patsy covered for him for some odd reason, maybe she feared if she told she would loose custody of Burke if she turned him in for something and he got mad and decided to take Burke from her in court proceedings, (this happens to many mothers all over the country when they cry abuse and the father/abuser goes to court and states that the mother is creating parental alienation syndrome by lying, sometimes, many times the mother looses custody to the rich, overpowering father with the better attorney) this is not a far cry from reality, I know this because Ive been through it and I know the fear of your children living with someone who you are terrified is abusing them, (luckily I have total custody now) Im now wondering after reading that article about Arnt's book if that is exactly what was going on, maybe JR was abusing her or something and Patsy was terrified that if she ratted him out she would suffer the consequences of loosing Burke to him, who knows. Im sorry I went off on a tangent but this could very well be what happened. Sadly this happens every day, anyone who wants to see the truth about this can go to protectiveparents.com and read the stories of the mothers there that are in fear for their children's lives.

[thewhitewitch1]

Check out this forum and pay particular attention to the poster "Dan in Detroit". He claims this guy, Gary McGreen killed JB along with Fleet White. I am sorry if you have heard or read this before but I haven't and just in case you haven't...
Not saying I am believing any of it but it is quite interesting.

http://rss.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TL8S2OMUIE83CPM78

[Athena]

Hi TWW: I actually started a thread on that somewhere on this board a few days ago.

[thewhitewitch1]

Hi Athena. Sorry, I must have missed it. DUH to me! :eek:

[Athena]

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=276359

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Check out this forum and pay particular attention to the poster "Dan in Detroit". He claims this guy, Gary McGreen killed JB along with Fleet White. I am sorry if you have heard or read this before but I haven't and just in case you haven't...
Not saying I am believing any of it but it is quite interesting.

http://rss.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TL8S2OMUIE83CPM78

Well, check this link out...you guys may have already seen this...but it was new to me. I thought it was VERY interesting...especially about the pedophile that was near the Ramsey's home...I am an RDI believer...BUT...the last part of this page, really got me to thinking...please forgive me if this is old news. Oh no...I think that I may be on the fence now ...
:eek:

http://www.jameson245.com/48hours2.htm

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Ames


Well, check this link out...you guys may have already seen this...but it was new to me. I thought it was VERY interesting...especially about the pedophile that was near the Ramsey's home...I am an RDI believer...BUT...the last part of this page, really got me to thinking...please forgive me if this is old news. Oh no...I think that I may be on the fence now ...
:eek:

http://www.jameson245.com/48hours2.htm

Get off that fence Ames and remember why you crossed it in the first place! Pedophiles don't leave ransom notes! JB was not molested in a typical sexual way. It was a staged sexual molestation to cover previous sexual abuse. I read that piece before and it did not sway my belief in the least.
Check out the list of known sex offenders in your own community. I bet you will find dozens. There are at least 5 living not even 2 miles from me. There are more out there than you may think, so it is not real surprising that there was one in the Ramsey neighborhood. It doesn't mean he crossed the line from pedophile to kidnapper/murderer overnight. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Get off that fence Ames and remember why you crossed it in the first place! Pedophiles don't leave ransom notes! JB was not molested in a typical sexual way. It was a staged sexual molestation to cover previous sexual abuse. I read that piece before and it did not sway my belief in the least.
Check out the list of known sex offenders in your own community. I bet you will find dozens. There are at least 5 living not even 2 miles from me. There are more out there than you may think, so it is not real surprising that there was one in the Ramsey neighborhood. It doesn't mean he crossed the line from pedophile to kidnapper/murderer overnight. IMO


Yeah, LOL...I jumped the shark on that one. It was funny...I was all into Patsy's fibers (in the beginning of the piece), and then I saw the pictures of that creepy pedophile...and then I thought...well WHAT IF! But, my feeling 10 years ago, has been that a RDI...and really, that article was not enough evidence to prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that an IDI. It DID give me something to think about for a few minutes, though. LOL You are right, though...why would that dude write that letter to the Ramsey's....from what I read in the article..he didn't even know them. (He had only seen JB and Burke on their bikes, in the alley behind their house), and why would he molest her with a PAINTBRUSH? Okay, I am on the RDI side of the fence again...I don't know what came over me...LOL YES..BTW...I have looked up the sexual predators in our neighborhood, and there is one living the next road over from ours...on the same road that my 15 year old daughter has to walk to, to catch the bus for school :eek: ...(I always make sure that she gets there about two min. before the bus, though....because there are a bunch of kids at that time waiting to get on...and its safer that way). IMO

[harz]

Originally posted by Ames


Well, check this link out...you guys may have already seen this...but it was new to me. I thought it was VERY interesting...especially about the pedophile that was near the Ramsey's home...I am an RDI believer...BUT...the last part of this page, really got me to thinking...please forgive me if this is old news. Oh no...I think that I may be on the fence now ...
:eek:

http://www.jameson245.com/48hours2.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523892.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml
http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID70/38.html

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Ames



Yeah, LOL...I jumped the shark on that one. It was funny...I was all into Patsy's fibers (in the beginning of the piece), and then I saw the pictures of that creepy pedophile...and then I thought...well WHAT IF! But, my feeling 10 years ago, has been that a RDI...and really, that article was not enough evidence to prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that an IDI. It DID give me something to think about for a few minutes, though. LOL You are right, though...why would that dude write that letter to the Ramsey's....from what I read in the article..he didn't even know them. (He had only seen JB and Burke on their bikes, in the alley behind their house), and why would he molest her with a PAINTBRUSH? Okay, I am on the RDI side of the fence again...I don't know what came over me...LOL YES..BTW...I have looked up the sexual predators in our neighborhood, and there is one living the next road over from ours...on the same road that my 15 year old daughter has to walk to, to catch the bus for school :eek: ...(I always make sure that she gets there about two min. before the bus, though....because there are a bunch of kids at that time waiting to get on...and its safer that way). IMO

Whew! Glad you hopped back over the fence but it doesn't hurt to have an open mind, right?

[Ames]

Originally posted by harz


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523892.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml
http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID70/38.html

Thanks for the links...I am back on the "other side"...of the fence. LOL

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Whew! Glad you hopped back over the fence but it doesn't hurt to have an open mind, right?

LOL...yeah, my mind was open for all of about ten minutes...and then I came to my senses.

[Athena]

I was just curious as to how many of us have read books on the Jonbenet Ramsey case.

If multiple books check the one you would say is the most accurate.

"None" if information you have found out about the case are from other than a book such as the internet. media files, message boards, etc.

I've listed what I thought were the most popular but was limited to 4.

[Louisadelmar]

It's hard to say which one is most "accurate" because they each have such a different perspective and cover different aspects of it all. I voted for PMPT because it gives the broadest over-view but I also think Douglas has, by far, the most knowledge and experience to bring to his opinion.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
It's hard to say which one is most "accurate" because they each have such a different perspective and cover different aspects of it all. I voted for PMPT because it gives the broadest over-view but I also think Douglas has, by far, the most knowledge and experience to bring to his opinion.

I agree with you and understand what you mean. I also voted for PMPT for the same reason.

Perhaps my wording could have been a bit better so I am glad you posted first. Thanks. :)

[LindaA]

I voted for Douglas's book, DOI, and PM/PT. I then remembered I also read Steve Thomas's book, so I'll go back and vote again just for those two.

[LindaA]

Waah!

[WallyCleaver]

I've ordered the four you mention, and JonBenet The Police Files, and the book by Cyril Wecht.

Only the Police Files book has been delivered. I'm not very far along in it yet.

[MyrDawn]

I've read PM/PT (a long time ago) and Cases That Haunt Us (very recently). I just bought Police Files the other day, but like Wally, I'm not very far along in it. However, I have read "The Poky Little Puppy" many times in the last few days. :D

[bullmoose]

I've read the four in the poll and I'm currently rereading PM/PT;Iplan to reread the others as I finish it. I particularly liked DOI, but voted for PM-PT because it seems unbiased toward either camp. I will, of course read Twisting Thomas book even though I thought it extremely biased against the Ramsey; because he was there in the thick of the investigation and has a unique perspective on it.

[Athena]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I've ordered the four you mention, and JonBenet The Police Files, and the book by Cyril Wecht.

Only the Police Files book has been delivered. I'm not very far along in it yet.

Wally,

Since you have this book is it really the police files? I was going to order it as well but noticed it was written by the publishers of the National Enquirer. If it really is the police files not leaks from the BPD - I certainly would be interested.

TIA - ~A

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Athena


Wally,

Since you have this book is it really the police files? I was going to order it as well but noticed it was written by the publishers of the National Enquirer. If it really is the police files not leaks from the BPD - I certainly would be interested.

TIA - ~A

I picked that book up the other day, Athena. It was only 30¢ at the used book store, so I figured I wouldn't have much to lose. :)

It does contain the transcripts of the Ramsey's interviews. I haven't read much of it yet and don't have the transcripts I've seen on the internet memorized, so I can't verify they aren't altered in the book, but from the reviews I've read, they are complete.

It contains a lot of other carp, too, and the conclusion at the end is that Patsy's guilty because of her handwriting. :rolleyes:

[sweetcharlotte]

I've read all of the books except Thomas'. I've also read "Cracking More Cases" Dr. Henry Lee and "Presumed Guilty" by Stephen Singular which explores the world of child porn.

My vote - PM/PT.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I've read all of the books except Thomas'. I've also read "Cracking More Cases" Dr. Henry Lee and "Presumed Guilty" by Stephen Singular which explores the world of child porn.

My vote - PM/PT.

My too, because I think it is the most unbiased. IMOO

[LadyFisher]

I've only read DOI and TCTHU...so I voted for JD's book! My SIL read the Thomas book years ago, she assumed from reading it that Patsy was guilty...of course....she doesn't sill have it or I would probably read it...but I believe Thomas was young and inexperienced and only getting his opinion from statistics so he tried to develope the case accordingly....in my humble opinion.....:seeya:

[lucky13]

Obviously this Gary person is not much of a writer(remember the lengthy ransom note) since he corresponds through audio tapes. And this friend, Michael, talks to a man who 'interviews a macaroon cookie'!? Okay. Sounds like they're both looney to me. Lou Smit said in 2002 that he had leads on him (& others). Looks like those leads led to nowhere!! Over 600 people were investigated in this case- not just the Ramseys! And Lou Smit dragging his butt through that window with his hands & fibers going everywhere just kills me. lol
RDI!!!!!!!!!!


(I recently found out that there are 3 sex offenders within 2 miles of my home. Scary- they're everywhere!!!)

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Check out this forum and pay particular attention to the poster "Dan in Detroit". He claims this guy, Gary McGreen killed JB along with Fleet White. I am sorry if you have heard or read this before but I haven't and just in case you haven't...
Not saying I am believing any of it but it is quite interesting.

http://rss.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TL8S2OMUIE83CPM78

If Gary McGreen is one of the voices in his head I might believe it. JMO

[lucky13]

I voted for PM/PT. I also started reading DOI, but only got 1/2 way through & stopped. -It's just too sugary sweet for me. It's such an obvious attempt to paint a picture of the perfect Ramsey family.( Besides the cancer & the murder, of course) everything was always just so perfect, perfect, perfect in every way. Ugh. Not realistic IMO. One day I will try to finish reading it.
The book I want to read is one written by Linda Arndt.

[Athena]

Originally posted by lucky13
Obviously this Gary person is not much of a writer(remember the lengthy ransom note) since he corresponds through audio tapes. And this friend, Michael, talks to a man who 'interviews a macaroon cookie'!? Okay. Sounds like they're both looney to me. Lou Smit said in 2002 that he had leads on him (& others). Looks like those leads led to nowhere!! Over 600 people were investigated in this case- not just the Ramseys! And Lou Smit dragging his butt through that window with his hands & fibers going everywhere just kills me. lol
RDI!!!!!!!!!!


(I recently found out that there are 3 sex offenders within 2 miles of my home. Scary- they're everywhere!!!)

Hate to tell you this but as of March 2006 there were 100,000 registered sex offenders unaccounted for; whereabouts unknown in the US. :eek: (Dang -- just lost the link - closed it by accident)

[harz]

Originally posted by Athena


Hate to tell you this but as of March 2006 there were 100,000 registered sex offenders unaccounted for; whereabouts unknown in the US. :eek: (Dang -- just lost the link - closed it by accident)

Wow, it makes me wonder how many are already accounted for. Indeed, they are everywhere, they are animals and should be treated as such. btw you can check each links under your history of today to find it again. IMO

[Athena]

Has everyone voted?

[sweetcharlotte]

Yes, I voted. Incorrectly I might add. Meant to vote for PM/PT, but I was clicking down the list and inadvertently hit return at "TCTHU." What can I say? Sometimes I suffer from mental pause.

[LadyFisher]

I know this is o/t, but I picked up the book..Mindhunter today by John Douglas....can't wait to read it.....I find this stuff so fascinating! :seeya:

[Athena]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Yes, I voted. Incorrectly I might add. Meant to vote for PM/PT, but I was clicking down the list and inadvertently hit return at "TCTHU." What can I say? Sometimes I suffer from mental pause.

LOL -- the poll is primarily to see where people get their info from. Just curious. I already think I realized it. :)

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I know this is o/t, but I picked up the book..Mindhunter today by John Douglas....can't wait to read it.....I find this stuff so fascinating! :seeya:

Ok - my library has a copy in paperback. See what you made me do?

[Athena]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Ok - my library has a copy in paperback. See what you made me do?

I just ordered it too!!!

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Athena


LOL -- the poll is primarily to see where people get their info from. Just curious. I already think I realized it. :)

Realized what? That I have mental pause? :D

[Athena]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Realized what? That I have mental pause? :D

Yep!!! :biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

I've read DOI and am working my way through PM/PT...making very slow progress and it's due back at the library this week. I already renewed it once!
Other than that, I have read all of the transcripts and interviews and most of the newspaper stories from back then.
I may have read the Cases That Haunt Us already. I may even have it. I have a ton of true crime books.

[sweetcharlotte]

After I couldn't find "Mindhunter" by John Douglas at the library the librarian told me it is "presumed lost" but she ordered a copy from another branch. SO, I came home with "The Anatomy of Motive" by John Douglas & Mark Olshaker which identifies sociopathic behavior - specifically looking at Lee Harvey Oswald, Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh.

Also picked up "Anyone You Want Me To Be" by John Doulas and Stephen Singular - about John Robinson - first "internet serial killer." Stephen Singular is the author of "Presumed Guilty" which is about JonBenet and the underground child porn industry - I didn't particularly enjoy reading that one.

So, I'm set for the week-end.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Ok - my library has a copy in paperback. See what you made me do? I make you read books, I wear make-up and jewelry on a daily basis.....I've gotta be guilty! :chicken:

[thewhitewitch1]

This is not a book but hope you don't mind if I post this link here.
Has anyone read the "Bonita Papers?" Interesting link and reasonably credible source. IMO

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5858

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
This is not a book but hope you don't mind if I post this link here.
Has anyone read the "Bonita Papers?" Interesting link and reasonably credible source. IMO

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5858

Not so sure about that "credible source" opinion. Setting aside the fact she stole information from her lawyer boss to sell to the tabs, she is also clearly biased in her write-up. On the other hand - what would one expect to find at Forums For Just-Us? :-)

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Not so sure about that "credible source" opinion. Setting aside the fact she stole information from her lawyer boss to sell to the tabs, she is also clearly biased in her write-up. On the other hand - what would one expect to find at Forums For Just-Us? :-)

Actually she was going to write a book. Her son sold it to the tabs. :eek:
I did not find it to be as biased as you did. Lou Smit is biased and most of you take his word as gold. Don't see much difference there.
We all tend to take more credence in whoever supports the theory that we believe ourselves.

[Louisadelmar]

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Sources

The Bonita Papers. Acording to Forums For Justice poster Spade, "These are the unedited "notes" of Bonita Sauer, secretary/para-legal to Dan Hoffman. Bonita intended to write a book from the case documents provided to her boss. But Bonita's notes were sold to the tabs by her nephew." It should be strongly emphasized that much of the information in these papers has not been corroborated. An Internet poster claims Bonita has disavowed much of what is in these papers. User beware.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Sources

The Bonita Papers. Acording to Forums For Justice poster Spade, "These are the unedited "notes" of Bonita Sauer, secretary/para-legal to Dan Hoffman. Bonita intended to write a book from the case documents provided to her boss. But Bonita's notes were sold to the tabs by her nephew." It should be strongly emphasized that much of the information in these papers has not been corroborated. An Internet poster claims Bonita has disavowed much of what is in these papers. User beware.

Gotcha and point taken. It was the first I had come across this and I appreciate your pointing these things out to me.

[Ames]

Originally posted by lucky13


<snipped>
The book I want to read is one written by Linda Arndt.

Me TOO...can't wait.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Gotcha and point taken. It was the first I had come across this and I appreciate your pointing these things out to me.

I would love nothing more than to have an in depth unbiased synopsis of all the facts. As I'm sure you would. Unfortunately the Bonita Sauer papers are not it. Instead it perpetuates so many of the myths and errors that are apparently going to float around forever. For example John left the house for an hour and 20 minutes, the Ramseys were cold to each other, John piloted the corporate jet back to Atlants etc etc etc.

I wonder what Ms Sauer is doing now? I hope she isn't in charge of anyone's confidential information.

[Louisadelmar]

The poster Wudge at Webbsleuths wrote this after Patsy died. I thought it was excellent and the mention of Bonita and FFJ reminded me of it. I hope Wudge doesn't mind my bringing it here.


I have posted elsewhere that among other lessons in life, parents teach and raise their children to be kindhearted, thoughtful and considerate of others. They also warn their children not to jump to conclusions.

However, not all such lessons-in-life are accepted, and far too many children grow up knowingly abandoning their parent's teachings and warnings. And, in legal matters, they advance to ignoring our presumption of innocence standard as they forge ahead to unsupportable conclusions of guilt or, even worse, pretend that they know another person's guilt is true and certain, when only the person and God could know that.

While this may seem to be little consequence, we will all answer for our actions after we pass on. And adding to the immense pain that falsely accused people suffer is something that, I believe, God will require those who falsely condemned others to answer for.

It's not like people don't know that it is wrong and hurtful to do so; they do. For we were all brought up and taught to know better. The problem is that many people just don't care if they add to the immense pain some poor soul suffers from cases such as this one. Even worse, there are some people who simply feel good about kicking another person who is lying on the ground and being beaten by a mob.

A truth of life is that no raindrop ever considers itself to be responsible for the flood. However, when people are finally called forth to face their redeemer for willfully partaking in one or more floods, the fact that so many other people did the exact same thing will provide them no shelter, because they knew it is morally wrong, ethically wrong and wrong by the standards of our society. Yet, they did it anyway, often with great relish.

Upon Patsy's passing, I offer the simple reflection that we will all be required to answer for our wrongs.

Wudge
06-25-06

[sweetcharlotte]

Just noticed that "JonBenet: Who Killed The Pageant Queen"
will be on WE tomorrow (Tuesday) at 10:00 p.m. Eastern.

Don't know anything who produced/based on, etc.

[Athena]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Just noticed that "JonBenet: Who Killed The Pageant Queen"
will be on WE tomorrow (Tuesday) at 10:00 p.m. Eastern.

Don't know anything who produced/based on, etc.

More details:

Although police reported that there was no evidence of forced entry into the Ramsey house, two different footprints were reportedly found after the killing. According to "Pageant Queen," one of them matched the same Hi-Tec bootprint as Helgoth's. Furthermore, a stun gun had been used to subdue JonBenet, and the filmmakers say a stun gun was found among Helgoth's belongings, albeit a different type.


Evidence collected reveals that Helgoth collected Barbie dolls and was reportedly obsessed with young girls. He also had reportedly mentioned at one point to Kennedy that he wanted to crack a human skull at one point, and Kennedy felt compelled to contact the Boulder police, who he says did not pursue the lead after upwards of 20 attempts to contact them.


In the documentary, Helgoth's suicide raises more questions than answers. The fatal shot from the right-handed salvage yard employee was fired through a pillow through his left side in the suicide, but why would a suicidal man try to muffle a shot? And why wouldn't he shoot himself in the head? The shot itself is also almost impossible, requiring a right-handed man to twist the gun around for a nearly impossible trajectory, according to experts. Was it murder?


"Pageant Queen" posits that mystery DNA samples found in JonBenet's underwear do not match Helgoth's samples to point him out as the killer, but some private investigators believe he was involved in the crime that night, perhaps in providing the killer with the rope, duct tape, cord and stun gun used in the crime. Was he an accomplice?


The filmmakers also say they believe they have a prime suspect -- an associate of Helgoth's -- but choose to not name him as he has not been charged in the case. The man in question is a convicted pedophile, imprisoned for sexual assault on a child. He also reportedly stalked neighbors in a black ninja outfit; and may have even worked for the Ramseys in their home. In addition, he raised dogs whose hair color exactly match strands found at the Ramsey crime scene. Could this be JonBenet's killer?

http://www.etonline.com/celebrities/news/36796/index.html

[Louisadelmar]

That's Michael Tracey's 2nd documentary. 2002 I think.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
The poster Wudge at Webbsleuths wrote this after Patsy died. I thought it was excellent and the mention of Bonita and FFJ reminded me of it. I hope Wudge doesn't mind my bringing it here.


I have posted elsewhere that among other lessons in life, parents teach and raise their children to be kindhearted, thoughtful and considerate of others. They also warn their children not to jump to conclusions.

However, not all such lessons-in-life are accepted, and far too many children grow up knowingly abandoning their parent's teachings and warnings. And, in legal matters, they advance to ignoring our presumption of innocence standard as they forge ahead to unsupportable conclusions of guilt or, even worse, pretend that they know another person's guilt is true and certain, when only the person and God could know that.

While this may seem to be little consequence, we will all answer for our actions after we pass on. And adding to the immense pain that falsely accused people suffer is something that, I believe, God will require those who falsely condemned others to answer for.

It's not like people don't know that it is wrong and hurtful to do so; they do. For we were all brought up and taught to know better. The problem is that many people just don't care if they add to the immense pain some poor soul suffers from cases such as this one. Even worse, there are some people who simply feel good about kicking another person who is lying on the ground and being beaten by a mob.

A truth of life is that no raindrop ever considers itself to be responsible for the flood. However, when people are finally called forth to face their redeemer for willfully partaking in one or more floods, the fact that so many other people did the exact same thing will provide them no shelter, because they knew it is morally wrong, ethically wrong and wrong by the standards of our society. Yet, they did it anyway, often with great relish.

Upon Patsy's passing, I offer the simple reflection that we will all be required to answer for our wrongs.

Wudge
06-25-06
Thank you so much for posting this Louisa....this is so very true!

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Thank you so much for posting this Louisa....this is so very true!

If true for the Ramseys, then true for the rest of the people you IDIs have pointed a finger at. That said, there must be no purpose for this forum so why are we here?

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
That's Michael Tracey's 2nd documentary. 2002 I think.

According to this, which looks like WE TV's press release, it's titled "JonBenet" Who Killed The Pagent Queen?" and it might be a new show. "The Detective on the Scene Looks Back, after 10 Years of Ongoing Investigation ".

Tracey's documentary was from 2004, 8 years after her murder and didn't have the "JonBenet" in the title, as far as I know.

It looks like Lou Smit is the detctive they're referring to, and he "takes the viewers inside the Ramsey house and reconstructs how this gruesome murder may have taken place."

Was Lou Smit in Tracey's documentary?

http://www.rainbow-media.com/rainbow/media/release_release.jsp?nodeid=5288

I do hope this is a NEW one, and not a repeat of Tracey's!

MOO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


If true for the Ramseys, then true for the rest of the people you IDIs have pointed a finger at. That said, there must be no purpose for this forum so why are we here?

Don't you know why you're here? I know why I'm here.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


If true for the Ramseys, then true for the rest of the people you IDIs have pointed a finger at. That said, there must be no purpose for this forum so why are we here? Since you asked.....I haven't seen IDIs on here post anything terribly hateful concerning any of the suspects in this case....we have asked legitimate ?s There are still MANY suspects, because this case hasn't been solved....Saying someone looks like ..... and must be on some strong drugs imo is not what we've been asking...I would like to know more myself about the McReynolds, the babysitters of the Ramseys (and their families), the housekeeper and her family, etc. The murderer imho is a psychopath, thats not putting him down, imo he would have to be to commit a crime such as this!

[nuisanceposter]

I wonder why this killer has never repeated this crime, don't you? If a psychopath did this, he'd be encouraged by the amount of success he had, and would commit another crime, in much the same manner. That's how killer psychopaths operate - they can't control the need to kill and have to do it, especially when they see they've gotten away with it before. It's an obsession and a compulsion with a psychopath, not a one night thing.

I also wonder why he's never come back and attacked Burke - there have been plenty of opportunities. I wonder why he didn't attack Burke at the same time he attacked JonBenet - if he had a stun gun, it would have been really easy to kill both kids and really stick to JR.

The McReynolds were cleared. There's some really weird coincidences concerning them, but they had nothing to do with JonBenet's murder.

And Helgoth was cleared. He did not kill JonBenet. That's been proven. It doesn't stop IDIs from trotting his name out again and again, thanks to Michael Tracey and his complete lack of morals...using a murdered child for fame and fortune. Same with Gigax, who Tracey was pointing the finger at while emailing Karr for four years. Tsk tsk, how can anyone believe a word Tracey says? How many people does he have to wrongly accuse before he has no more credibility? He ought to be done and over after this last fiasco with Karr, but no...people are still waiting for his next fake exposé.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I wonder why this killer has never repeated this crime, don't you? If a psychopath did this, he'd be encouraged by the amount of success he had, and would commit another crime, in much the same manner. That's how killer psychopaths operate - they can't control the need to kill and have to do it, especially when they see they've gotten away with it before. It's an obsession and a compulsion with a psychopath, not a one night thing.

I also wonder why he's never come back and attacked Burke - there have been plenty of opportunities. I wonder why he didn't attack Burke at the same time he attacked JonBenet - if he had a stun gun, it would have been really easy to kill both kids and really stick to JR.

The McReynolds were cleared. There's some really weird coincidences concerning them, but they had nothing to do with JonBenet's murder.

And Helgoth was cleared. He did not kill JonBenet. That's been proven. It doesn't stop IDIs from trotting his name out again and again, thanks to Michael Tracey and his complete lack of morals...using a murdered child for fame and fortune. Same with Gigax, who Tracey was pointing the finger at while emailing Karr for four years. Tsk tsk, how can anyone believe a word Tracey says? How many people does he have to wrongly accuse before he has no more credibility? He ought to be done and over after this last fiasco with Karr, but no...people are still waiting for his next fake exposé. I personally think the killer had many of the characteristics of a psychopath....I don't think he is necessarily a serial killer, as JD stated he isn't someone who killed for the fulfillment & satisfaction of exerting manipulation, domination, & controll over a victim of opportunity.....this was an inexperienced mission-oriented offender.....I think he hated/resented John Ramsey and the wealth he represented....I think John had crossed him or a family member at some time...I think this perp is/was impulsive, I think he displayed some time of anger the morning before the murder, something triggered him...I think he was young at the time of the murder, he lacked the normal remorse, shame that we would feel...he is an intelligent manipulative person...probably been in trouble with LE at some point in time..I think he knew the Ramseys quite well...I believe he somehow knew about the $118,000, he knew they would be out for quite sometime during that evening....he got his revenge so why would he need to kill again?

[nuisanceposter]

I don't place much stock in what John Douglas has to say about the Ramsey case, considering he was making money off it. His own colleagues and students have disagreed with him over this case, namely Gregg McCrary.

http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mccrary_jbr.html

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I don't place much stock in what John Douglas has to say about the Ramsey case, considering he was making money off it. His own colleagues and students have disagreed with him over this case, namely Gregg McCrary.

http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mccrary_jbr.html

Setting aside that that article was written 35? days after the crime... Which of the parents do you think was a "deviant, psychopathic " sex fiend?

[Coloradokares]

MyrDawn. This is the one your speaking of. Lou is a featured part of this. I have seen it before. I believe its favorite nickname in some circles would be crockumentary. I plan to tune in regardless to confirm this as I am getting my information from another forum that this is indeed the Tracy/Smit one. If it is I saw that once.... once was enough.

Originally posted by MyrDawn


According to this, which looks like WE TV's press release, it's titled "JonBenet" Who Killed The Pagent Queen?" and it might be a new show. "The Detective on the Scene Looks Back, after 10 Years of Ongoing Investigation ".

Tracey's documentary was from 2004, 8 years after her murder and didn't have the "JonBenet" in the title, as far as I know.

It looks like Lou Smit is the detctive they're referring to, and he "takes the viewers inside the Ramsey house and reconstructs how this gruesome murder may have taken place."

Was Lou Smit in Tracey's documentary?

http://www.rainbow-media.com/rainbow/media/release_release.jsp?nodeid=5288

I do hope this is a NEW one, and not a repeat of Tracey's!

MOO

[nuisanceposter]

Neither, Louisa. I was just pointing out that other people, including those who have worked with JD, question his conclusion and objectivity. That doesn't mean I totally agree with everything McCrary says. He made some very good points in that article (regardless of how soon after the crime it was written), such as the need to question the parents separately and not take them at their word. Interesting that he had turned down the opportunity to work with the Rs.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Neither, Louisa. I was just pointing out that other people, including those who have worked with JD, question his conclusion and objectivity. That doesn't mean I totally agree with everything McCrary says. He made some very good points in that article (regardless of how soon after the crime it was written), such as the need to question the parents separately and not take them at their word. Interesting that he had turned down the opportunity to work with the Rs. One thing he got wrong was Patsy wasn't present when JD initially met with John! But...even he states this murderer is probably a psychopath, and I agree with that!

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Since you asked.....I haven't seen IDIs on here post anything terribly hateful concerning any of the suspects in this case....we have asked legitimate ?s There are still MANY suspects, because this case hasn't been solved....Saying someone looks like ..... and must be on some strong drugs imo is not what we've been asking...I would like to know more myself about the McReynolds, the babysitters of the Ramseys (and their families), the housekeeper and her family, etc. The murderer imho is a psychopath, thats not putting him down, imo he would have to be to commit a crime such as this!

I don't see the RDIs posting anything particularly hateful about the Ramseys either. Haven't all of those people you mentioned been cleared?? How does one live with a psychopath and not have a clue? It does NOT have to be a psychopath. IMO

LF...you stated "He got his revenge, what need would have have to kill again?" Well, I would imagine the next time he became jealous or pissed off at someone. Do you think those "psycho" personality traits of his were just going to go away? Even if you are a young person (20's?...even younger), if you don't have a conscience by then or the ability to know right from wrong, you never will. IMO

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I don't see the RDIs posting anything particularly hateful about the Ramseys either. Haven't all of those people you mentioned been cleared?? How does one live with a psychopath and not have a clue? It does NOT have to be a psychopath. IMO

LF...you stated "He got his revenge, what need would have have to kill again?" Well, I would imagine the next time he became jealous or pissed off at someone. Do you think those "psycho" personality traits of his were just going to go away? Even if you are a young person (20's?...even younger), if you don't have a conscience by then or the ability to know right from wrong, you never will. IMO How were these folks cleared, White...if they were cleared by DNA then so are the Ramseys! He had a mission, White...and he fulfilled his mission...there was no need for him to kill again! imho It is my opinion that this killer displayed psycopathic characteristics!

[Athena]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


According to this, which looks like WE TV's press release, it's titled "JonBenet" Who Killed The Pagent Queen?" and it might be a new show. "The Detective on the Scene Looks Back, after 10 Years of Ongoing Investigation ".

Tracey's documentary was from 2004, 8 years after her murder and didn't have the "JonBenet" in the title, as far as I know.

It looks like Lou Smit is the detctive they're referring to, and he "takes the viewers inside the Ramsey house and reconstructs how this gruesome murder may have taken place."

Was Lou Smit in Tracey's documentary?

http://www.rainbow-media.com/rainbow/media/release_release.jsp?nodeid=5288

I do hope this is a NEW one, and not a repeat of Tracey's!

MOO

Helo! What's WE TV?

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I don't see the RDIs posting anything particularly hateful about the Ramseys either. Haven't all of those people you mentioned been cleared?? How does one live with a psychopath and not have a clue? It does NOT have to be a psychopath. IMO

LF...you stated "He got his revenge, what need would have have to kill again?" Well, I would imagine the next time he became jealous or pissed off at someone. Do you think those "psycho" personality traits of his were just going to go away? Even if you are a young person (20's?...even younger), if you don't have a conscience by then or the ability to know right from wrong, you never will. IMO

The Ramseys were cleared except in the court of public opinion. :shrug:

[Athena]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
How were these folks cleared, White...if they were cleared by DNA then so are the Ramseys! He had a mission, White...and he fulfilled his mission...there was no need for him to kill again! imho It is my opinion that this killer displayed psycopathic characteristics!

But how do we know if he did not kill again or if this was even his first murder? We don't know who he is? jmo

[WallyCleaver]

Just finished the Cyril Wecht book. It gave me know reason to entertain IDI notions.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Athena


Helo! What's WE TV?

We = Women's Entertainment.

I watched the program last night which featured Lou Smit. I'm sure it was from some time ago, but updated to include a bit on the death of Patsy.

He demonstrated how someone could get in the window in the basement.

-Mark on wall could have been made by intruder as he entered the window
-Green foliage caught under the grate
-Small piece of glass found on the suitcase
-What appeared to be a footprint on the suitcase
-rope found in room next to JonBenet's - source never determined
-dust ruffle in room next to JonBenet's disturbed (someone could have hidden under bed)
-Caucasian hair found on blanket has never been identified
-pictures/measurements of "stun gun" marks compared to marks on another victim - measurements/marks the same.
-blue line between "stun gun" marks on JonBenet's back consistent with marks left by stun gun
-fibers from inside the suitcase found on JonBenet

-Mentioned that no child has ever been killed by parents using a garotte

-Indicated the police refused to review important evidence in their haste to charge the Ramseys

-Talked about the special prosecutor tried to shut out his testimony before the GJ (Do you know the special prosecutor issued an order that all of Smit's evidence be destroyed? This was overruled and he was allowed to keep what he has gathered.)

-Stated that 5 of 6 experts ruled Patsy out as having written the RN

That's all I remember - coffee hasn't kicked in this a.m.

[sweetcharlotte]

I failed to list that Smit talked about the DNA under JonBenet's fingernails and in her underpants.

[nuisanceposter]

No offense, Charlotte, but just because Smit said it doesn't make it gospel. Many people don't place much stock in what Lou Smit has to say, myself included.

I heard the scuff mark on the wall was actually from water damage.

Foliage from under the grate? The grate with the hose and grill? The grate with the intact spider web? The grate over the window that had no forensic evidence, such as fibers or prints? You saw Smit go through it - how is anyone going through that window without leaving any forensic evidence that he did? I guaurantee you if they tested that window after Smit went through it they'd find some from him.

No one knows when that piece of glass was set there or where the piece came from. Same with footprint. They could have been there for weeks before the murder.

The rope in the bedroom was not the same kind of cord found on JonBenet - did the killer bring rope, leave it, and use something else? Why would an intruder bring rope, not use it, and leave it behind? Are you aware that that rope looks just like rope Patsy used in decorating, and that the Christmas tree in JAR's room where the rope was found was decorated with a cowboy theme?

No one knows how long that dust ruffle had been askew - it's quite possible Burke or JonBenet themselves moved it getting under the bed for some reason, such as a game of hide and seek, or maybe LHP moved it last time she cleaned that room.

Caucasian hair - Patsy said many people had been at the Ramsey house and spent the night - some of them she only knew by first name. Any of them could have left the hair, it's not solid proof of an intruder.

That blue line is NOT evidence of a stun gun, that's Smit not knowing what he's talking about.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-4708
Nebraska Dr. Robert Stratbucker, who has conducted several experiments on stun guns and is considered a courtroom expert, said he takes "considerable issue" with Smit's stun gun theory. Stratbucker said it is "pure nonsense" that the stun gun would leave a blue mark in between red marks on the skin as Smit claimed.
"I have not seen ever, ever any blue marks, and I don't know what the cause of any blue mark could be," he said.

I don't know about the fibers from the suitcase, but that crime scene was obviously staged - anything could have been going on.

Maybe not, but other parents have killed their children in some brutal ways, and I think the Rs already thought JB was dead when they tied the ligature around her neck. It's easier to garotte a dead child to keep your butt out of prison than a live one.

I'll be more than happy to go find the exact numbers of exactly who the police investigated. To say they overlooked evidence to focuse on the Ramseys alone is pure bullsmit.

Who is this special prosecutor? Did Smit testify to the GJ?

Who are these 5 out of 6 experts? The ones I know of cannot exclude Patsy.

That fingernail DNA cannot be conclusively matched to anyone as it was contaminated and has too few markers to make a conclusive match.

[LindaA]

I can't comment on all your conjectures -- and I do notice a lack of links to back most of them up -- but I can say that a scuff mark and water damage do not look very similar, IMO. (Altho if the window had been broken as long as JR says there would no doubt be water damage.) And there have been photos showing the grate with foliage caught under it. It refers to the grate at the broken window under which the suitcase was found. Perhaps someone can supply the link.

[nuisanceposter]

Yes, I don't always supply a link for everything I say, it gets to be a bit too much. I'm sure the others here would agree, as I have yet to see anyone supply a link to everything they say in every post. I'll be more than happy to supply links to anything you'd like one for, though, just let me know.

The picture with the foliage under the grate - was that taken on 12/26? Smit uses some photos of the crime scene that were not taken on 12/26 but later on another day. Can anyone link me to specific picture in question?

Is there any way to gauage how long the foliage had been under the grate, assuming it was a picture from 12/26? Is this the same grate with the undisturbed spider web? Same window where no forensic evidence of anyone going through it was found? Same grate with the hose and grill on top of it?

[Athena]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
No offense, Charlotte, but just because Smit said it doesn't make it gospel. Many people don't place much stock in what Lou Smit has to say, myself included.

I heard the scuff mark on the wall was actually from water damage.

Foliage from under the grate? The grate with the hose and grill? The grate with the intact spider web? The grate over the window that had no forensic evidence, such as fibers or prints? You saw Smit go through it - how is anyone going through that window without leaving any forensic evidence that he did? I guaurantee you if they tested that window after Smit went through it they'd find some from him.

No one knows when that piece of glass was set there or where the piece came from. Same with footprint. They could have been there for weeks before the murder.

The rope in the bedroom was not the same kind of cord found on JonBenet - did the killer bring rope, leave it, and use something else? Why would an intruder bring rope, not use it, and leave it behind? Are you aware that that rope looks just like rope Patsy used in decorating, and that the Christmas tree in JAR's room where the rope was found was decorated with a cowboy theme?

No one knows how long that dust ruffle had been askew - it's quite possible Burke or JonBenet themselves moved it getting under the bed for some reason, such as a game of hide and seek, or maybe LHP moved it last time she cleaned that room.

Caucasian hair - Patsy said many people had been at the Ramsey house and spent the night - some of them she only knew by first name. Any of them could have left the hair, it's not solid proof of an intruder.

That blue line is NOT evidence of a stun gun, that's Smit not knowing what he's talking about.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-4708
Nebraska Dr. Robert Stratbucker, who has conducted several experiments on stun guns and is considered a courtroom expert, said he takes "considerable issue" with Smit's stun gun theory. Stratbucker said it is "pure nonsense" that the stun gun would leave a blue mark in between red marks on the skin as Smit claimed.
"I have not seen ever, ever any blue marks, and I don't know what the cause of any blue mark could be," he said.

I don't know about the fibers from the suitcase, but that crime scene was obviously staged - anything could have been going on.

Maybe not, but other parents have killed their children in some brutal ways, and I think the Rs already thought JB was dead when they tied the ligature around her neck. It's easier to garotte a dead child to keep your butt out of prison than a live one.

I'll be more than happy to go find the exact numbers of exactly who the police investigated. To say they overlooked evidence to focuse on the Ramseys alone is pure bullsmit.

Who is this special prosecutor? Did Smit testify to the GJ?

Who are these 5 out of 6 experts? The ones I know of cannot exclude Patsy.

That fingernail DNA cannot be conclusively matched to anyone as it was contaminated and has too few markers to make a conclusive match.

Hi Nuisance,

Funny that you post Stratbucker's opinions on the stun gun and mention that you don't believe Douglas because he was paid. Do you know that Stratbucker was discredited as an expert witness because he was on Air Taser's payroll?

The Special Pros they are referring to is Kane hired before the Grand Jury convened and yes Lou Smit did testify before the GJ after the court ordered the DA's office to allow him to. They were trying to prevent him from testifying -- wonder why? And why did they want to DESTROY his evidence? One thing I really believe is that no matter who they investigated it was not done thoroughly because they believed on Day 1 that the Ramseys committed this murder and considered the investigation of others a exercise in futility.

Re: DNA evidence under JBRs fingernails -- it was contaminated, true -- and although a conclusive match cannot be made from it, someone can be excluded because of it. I however have no reason to doubt as Lou Smit points out that her blood was under her fingernails. Contamination does not make DNA useless - just cannot be used for inclusion and as stated can be used for exclusion.

Scuff marks are scuff marks -- very different from marks left from water damage.

I'm at work so don't have the link to the other photographs that actually show the windows under the grate side by side but I know I posted a link previously and it definitely shows disturbance near that broken window and is obvious from the pictures. I notice most anti-Ramsey sites only show the one window not all three. JMO

[nuisanceposter]

Point taken about Stratbucker, but he is a courtroom expert (for what that's worth) and his colleagues have not disagreed with him about his conclusion as JD's have. Is there any evidence anywhere that stun guns do, in fact, leave blue lines on the skin between the two points of contact?

This is the first time I have ever heard JonBenet's blood was under her nails, and how very interesting that the person who said it was Smit. I don't want to request a link while you're at work, but I really want to hear more about that.

[LindaA]

Here's a link to the pic of the grate with the foliage. It is marked "crime scene photo" so my assumption as always been that it is one that was taken when the police did their initial investigation. I'm sure someone will correct me if that is wrong.

http://www.lousmit.com/intrudertheory.htm

Obviously, it is from Lou Smit's site, but I've seen it in many other places. That is just the one place I knew I could find it. Google images might supply other sites where it can be found in case you don't trust this one. (I'm at work no, too.)

There are also many threads on this board which contain posts with links to it.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by Athena


But how do we know if he did not kill again or if this was even his first murder? We don't know who he is? jmo I think the perp lived in or near Boulder....I don't think there were many previous murders...that's one reason I think it was his first murder....I can't say he didn't kill again....I was just trying to point out if this murder was fueled by a grudge...he wouldn't have had to kill again...I do think this perp is full of anger...he probably displays anger in his own home and relationships...:seeya:

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
How were these folks cleared, White...if they were cleared by DNA then so are the Ramseys! He had a mission, White...and he fulfilled his mission...there was no need for him to kill again! imho It is my opinion that this killer displayed psycopathic characteristics!

But WHAT exactly was the mission?? If to hurt JR, why not kill Patsy? Why not tamper with the brakes in his car? Why not plant a bomb in his car? Why not start his house on fire? Why not do a lot of things? Personally I believe a person who can coldbloodedly murder a child is of a "special breed". I do not believe someone would take out their anger for an adult on a that persons child. IMO

WERE the Ramseys cleared? If not, the difference would be that even though the DNA didn't match, Patsy still can not be ruled out 100% as the writer of that note, the fibers found were consistant with her clothing and the crime took place in their home using some of their belongings. Then there's the mysterious pineapple.
None of the suspects ruled out due to the DNA not matching had any other evidence placing them at the scene of the crime or of involving them in the crime. This seems to be a very good reason for the Ramseys NOT to be ruled out. IMO

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


But WHAT exactly was the mission?? If to hurt JR, why not kill Patsy? Why not tamper with the brakes in his car? Why not plant a bomb in his car? Why not start his house on fire? Why not do a lot of things? Personally I believe a person who can coldbloodedly murder a child is of a "special breed". I do not believe someone would take out their anger for an adult on a that persons child. IMO

WERE the Ramseys cleared? If not, the difference would be that even though the DNA didn't match, Patsy still can not be ruled out 100% as the writer of that note, the fibers found were consistant with her clothing and the crime took place in their home using some of their belongings. Then there's the mysterious pineapple.
None of the suspects ruled out due to the DNA not matching had any other evidence placing them at the scene of the crime or of involving them in the crime. This seems to be a very good reason for the Ramseys NOT to be ruled out. IMO Good afternoon, White :) IMHO the way to hurt a person the very worst is to harm their child......JB was not a threat to the perp, she was easier to handle than say Patsy or Burke......he imo was also a pervert..had looked into sadistic bondage, etc. probably right on the internet! No matter what you might think there is dna from an unidentified white male that was discovered on JB.....that's pretty powerful evidence of an intruder! imho

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good afternoon, White :) IMHO the way to hurt a person the very worst is to harm their child......JB was not a threat to the perp, she was easier to handle than say Patsy or Burke......he imo was also a pervert..had looked into sadistic bondage, etc. probably right on the internet! No matter what you might think there is dna from an unidentified white male that was discovered on JB.....that's pretty powerful evidence of an intruder! imho

What is your source for saying the DNA is from a white male? (we know it's male)

Has anyone in a position of authority and knowledge said it's been identified as that of a caucasian?

Is it because the stray pubic hair is from a white male? Has the mitochondrial DNA of the hair and that of the panty DNA been matched?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good afternoon, White :) IMHO the way to hurt a person the very worst is to harm their child......JB was not a threat to the perp, she was easier to handle than say Patsy or Burke......he imo was also a pervert..had looked into sadistic bondage, etc. probably right on the internet! No matter what you might think there is dna from an unidentified white male that was discovered on JB.....that's pretty powerful evidence of an intruder! imho

Good evening LF. I agree that that's a pretty good way to hurt a person but man, they'd have to have one heck of a hatred and vendetta against him to hurt that beautiful little girl....to murder her like that.
I can't agree with the pervert or the sadistic bondage, though. I don't see evidence of either. Her hands were not tied tight...that was obviously staged. I don't believe the "garrote" was used for erotic purposes. There in no evidence of that. She was not grossly sexually abused.
I still contend that the DNA could have come from anyone at any time during that day. Call me stubborn but even that does not convince me of an intruder.
With everything this "intruder" did while in their home and feeling mighty comfy the entire time, he could have knocked John out and used his "stun gun" on both Patsy and Burke and did somthing to them as well. If he really wanted to hurt JR that bad, he could have wiped out his entire family. How much would that have hurt John?
I have trouble believing that the Ramseys did this and I have trouble with an intruder doing it but obviously someone did it and the evidence I see falls farther on the Ramseys than an intruder. No matter how bungling the police were, what with all of the investigators that have been on this case for the last 10 years and no other person has been found and convicted...this intruder must be one hell of a lucky guy with the ability to keep his gloating over his "Victory" against John all to himself. I find it hard to believe that someone with that much hatred would not want to brag about how he "got John Ramsey good" to his "homies" or someone. Not much fun in getting away with something if you can't share it. IMO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Good evening LF. I agree that that's a pretty good way to hurt a person but man, they'd have to have one heck of a hatred and vendetta against him to hurt that beautiful little girl....to murder her like that.
I can't agree with the pervert or the sadistic bondage, though. I don't see evidence of either. Her hands were not tied tight...that was obviously staged. I don't believe the "garrote" was used for erotic purposes. There in no evidence of that. She was not grossly sexually abused.
I still contend that the DNA could have come from anyone at any time during that day. Call me stubborn but even that does not convince me of an intruder.
With everything this "intruder" did while in their home and feeling mighty comfy the entire time, he could have knocked John out and used his "stun gun" on both Patsy and Burke and did somthing to them as well. If he really wanted to hurt JR that bad, he could have wiped out his entire family. How much would that have hurt John?
I have trouble believing that the Ramseys did this and I have trouble with an intruder doing it but obviously someone did it and the evidence I see falls farther on the Ramseys than an intruder. No matter how bungling the police were, what with all of the investigators that have been on this case for the last 10 years and no other person has been found and convicted...this intruder must be one hell of a lucky guy with the ability to keep his gloating over his "Victory" against John all to himself. I find it hard to believe that someone with that much hatred would not want to brag about how he "got John Ramsey good" to his "homies" or someone. Not much fun in getting away with something if you can't share it. IMO

I think he had plenty of fun watching the Ramesys being hounded and accused all these years.

MOO

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Good evening LF. I agree that that's a pretty good way to hurt a person but man, they'd have to have one heck of a hatred and vendetta against him to hurt that beautiful little girl....to murder her like that.
I can't agree with the pervert or the sadistic bondage, though. I don't see evidence of either. Her hands were not tied tight...that was obviously staged. I don't believe the "garrote" was used for erotic purposes. There in no evidence of that. She was not grossly sexually abused.
I still contend that the DNA could have come from anyone at any time during that day. Call me stubborn but even that does not convince me of an intruder.
With everything this "intruder" did while in their home and feeling mighty comfy the entire time, he could have knocked John out and used his "stun gun" on both Patsy and Burke and did somthing to them as well. If he really wanted to hurt JR that bad, he could have wiped out his entire family. How much would that have hurt John?
I have trouble believing that the Ramseys did this and I have trouble with an intruder doing it but obviously someone did it and the evidence I see falls farther on the Ramseys than an intruder. No matter how bungling the police were, what with all of the investigators that have been on this case for the last 10 years and no other person has been found and convicted...this intruder must be one hell of a lucky guy with the ability to keep his gloating over his "Victory" against John all to himself. I find it hard to believe that someone with that much hatred would not want to brag about how he "got John Ramsey good" to his "homies" or someone. Not much fun in getting away with something if you can't share it. IMO



I agree with you...AND why would an intruder that hated John THAT much, feel the need to re-clothe JB, AND cover her in a blanket? Why not just leave her sprawled out like a rag doll...or hang her up or something? Why would he "care" enough...to re-clothe her (protecting her dignity in death)...and cover her (to make her "comfortable")? It makes NO sense....IMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


What is your source for saying the DNA is from a white male? (we know it's male)

Has anyone in a position of authority and knowledge said it's been identified as that of a caucasian?

Is it because the stray pubic hair is from a white male? Has the mitochondrial DNA of the hair and that of the panty DNA been matched?

Mitochondrial DNA testing was not done on the pubic hair but could be done once a viable suspect was found however there was testing done on it which excluded the Ramseys. Source: PMPT

Even though mitochondrial DNA testing is definitive, it is an expensive procedure. More importantly, the artifacts themselves -- hair or bone -- are especially susceptible to contamination. This type of testing tends not to be done on hair, since the quantity of mitochondrial DNA one can collect from a strand of hair is extremely small.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bombing/hair2.html

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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

DNA was found beneath the girl's fingernails and on her clothing that came from a Caucasian white male. Authorities have never said whether the DNA matched anyone on an FBI database.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1853668,00.html

After JonBenet's father found her body in the basement of the Ramsey's Boulder home, forensic scientists recovered DNA belonging to an unidentified white male from under her fingernails and in her underwear.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-8-26/45339.html

The DNA found on JonBenet's underwear was identified as belonging to a white male but has never been matched.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/29/wbenet29.xml

Investigators have said DNA from a white male was found in blood spots in JonBenet's underwear,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210674,00.html

Prosecutors decided not to charge John Mark Karr in the slaying of JonBenet Ramsey, after his DNA failed to match unidentified DNA of a white male found on the underwear the 6-year-old was wearing when she died. (ABCNEWS.com)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2372612&page=1

Later developments
In December 2003, forensic investigators extracted enough material from a mixed blood sample found on JonBenét's underwear to establish a DNA profile. The DNA belongs to an unknown caucasian male. The DNA was submitted to the FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a database containing more than 1.6 million DNA profiles, mainly from convicted felons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey

[Athena]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I don't place much stock in what John Douglas has to say about the Ramsey case, considering he was making money off it. His own colleagues and students have disagreed with him over this case, namely Gregg McCrary.

http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mccrary_jbr.html

The attorneys PI hired Douglas, paid him a small fee (doesn't say how much) and put him up in a hotel. I truly believe that Douglas would not deliberately risk his credibility to side with possible child killers for a fee. Do you honestly believe that? jmo

There is always two sides to a story:

The Ramsey attorneys had also contacted Gregg McCrary whom Douglas had brought into the unit and who had distinguished himself on many important cases while he was at Quantico. Morgan told Douglas they never actually got to talk to McCray personally, but Gregg had announced publicly that he did not and would not accept an assignment in this case because such situations usually turn out to be a parent or someone close to the family. McCrary felt that that was the way this one looked to him and that he did not want to risk being in the camp of the killer.

Douglas was disappointed and distressed by the way McCrary had approached this. Douglas goes on to use an analogy and say McCrary had made a prediagnosis of the disease without first examining the patient and became a frequent commentator on the case. He talks about McCrary criticizing him about his conclusions but since McCrary had only information from public sources he kept wondering where his analysis came from.

Douglas said like McCrary he came into the case believing there was a strong possibility that one of the Ramseys could be involved based on the statistics of this sort of crime but reserved judgment until he saw the evidence.

Source: The Cases That Haunt Us ppgs 416-417

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Athena


Mitochondrial DNA testing was not done on the pubic hair but could be done once a viable suspect was found however there was testing done on it which excluded the Ramseys. Source: PMPT

Even though mitochondrial DNA testing is definitive, it is an expensive procedure. More importantly, the artifacts themselves -- hair or bone -- are especially susceptible to contamination. This type of testing tends not to be done on hair, since the quantity of mitochondrial DNA one can collect from a strand of hair is extremely small.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bombing/hair2.html

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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

DNA was found beneath the girl's fingernails and on her clothing that came from a Caucasian white male. Authorities have never said whether the DNA matched anyone on an FBI database.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1853668,00.html

After JonBenet's father found her body in the basement of the Ramsey's Boulder home, forensic scientists recovered DNA belonging to an unidentified white male from under her fingernails and in her underwear.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-8-26/45339.html

The DNA found on JonBenet's underwear was identified as belonging to a white male but has never been matched.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/29/wbenet29.xml

Investigators have said DNA from a white male was found in blood spots in JonBenet's underwear,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210674,00.html

Prosecutors decided not to charge John Mark Karr in the slaying of JonBenet Ramsey, after his DNA failed to match unidentified DNA of a white male found on the underwear the 6-year-old was wearing when she died. (ABCNEWS.com)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2372612&page=1

Later developments
In December 2003, forensic investigators extracted enough material from a mixed blood sample found on JonBenét's underwear to establish a DNA profile. The DNA belongs to an unknown caucasian male. The DNA was submitted to the FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a database containing more than 1.6 million DNA profiles, mainly from convicted felons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey

Athena, I have to go to work in a few minutes so I've only had time for a quick skim of your links. I don't see anywhere in them that someone with scientific knowledge says the DNA is from a caucasian. I see where where reporters have stated that "investigators" have said this, but that's not quite the same thing.

I have to regard wiki entries as suspect. Not just this one, and not just ones about this case.

I look more closely at your sources tomorrow.

[Athena]

You are right about that. That is why I posted so many links to articles and actually meant to preface them with a statement: Unfortunately all of the books that I have read were written prior to the second spot being DNA tested so the news articles are pretty much about it re: the caucasian DNA and seemed to be even more emphasized after Karr was arrested. :shrug:

[WallyCleaver]

Doing an internet search, I see it has been reported dozens of times (that the DNA is from a caucasian) but so far not one source of this claim has cited an authority to establish it as a fact.