Interview with Steven Singular JonBenet Child Porn Connection

[Athena]

Computer Crime Research Center

JonBenet Ramsey - Exclusive Interview With Stephen Singular

Q: Prior to your first meeting with Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter in April 1997, what research had you undertaken on the case?

I had gone online and looked at pictures of little girls, five and six-year-olds, the same age as JonBenet, who were being used for child pornography purposes. They were being tied up by their hands and ankles and being sexually abused, or laid out on tables or hung from ceilings. They were being treated violently, and ropes, scarves, and belts were used to tie them up. These photographic situations looked very similar to the conditions surrounding the death of JonBenet, who was strangled to death with a piece of nylon rope. Before meeting Hunter I'd also talked to computer crime specialists who told me that child porn was now the fastest growing criminal activity in cyberspace.

Q: How did you make the connection between the JonBenet Ramsey case and child pornography?

I didn't make the connection as much as I felt that this area should be investigated by the authorities because of the similarities between what I'd seen online and the child's murder. And because I'd been told by cyber-crime specialists that JonBenet was precisely the kind of child, because of her beauty pageant experience, who could be sucked into the world of child porn. She was a natural candidate to attract attention -- and pedophiles. Once it became apparent, from the cops' investigation, that the Ramseys did not seem to be involved in abusing their child and this was not an obvious case of a parent raping or killing their little girl, then the next place to investigate was the subculture of exploitation and violence that JonBenet was exposed to through her success in the pageant world. If you can determine that her parents had no criminal past or even criminal tendencies, and you can also determine that a child was connected to things that hold criminal behavior, why wouldn't you investigate those things and that behavior?

http://www.crime-research.org/interviews/484/

[Louisadelmar]

I liked Singular's book. It gave me a much better sense of Alex Hunter. My only complaint was at the end it was like he just walked away from the keyboard and said "I don't feel like writing any more."

Thanks for posting the article. That was a good interview.

I hope that this case will get solved and that they will start looking for the killer with a more open mind.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
I liked Singular's book. It gave me a much better sense of Alex Hunter. My only complaint was at the end it was like he just walked away from the keyboard and said "I don't feel like writing any more."

Since you read the book, what do you think about his theory that John Ramsey could have been involved with the murder of JonBenet and Patsy had NO knowledge of it? I believe this is why this article caught my attention.

As much as I think that the Ramseys did not commit this crime, I have to admit that it has crossed my mind that John killed JonBenet or had something to do with her death unbeknownst to Patsy. jmo

Originally posted by Athena


Since you read the book, what do you think about his theory that John Ramsey could have been involved with the murder of JonBenet and Patsy had NO knowledge of it? I believe this is why this article caught my attention.

As much as I think that the Ramseys did not commit this crime, I have to admit that it has crossed my mind that John killed JonBenet or had something to do with her death unbeknownst to Patsy. jmo

I don't see the connection. Just my opinion. The DNA rules out the father. Good enough for me.

His own visits afterwards to porn shops seems to me to be an adult action of escapism....and no connection to his child's death.

John passed a polygragh test, his handwriting does not even remotely resemble the ransom note, and his DNA does not match.

I do not think either Ramsey killed JonBenet, but, a lot of credible law enforcement people think that John, and not Patsey, was responsible. Now, these opinions were formed before the second DNA spot was found in the underwear.

By "credible law enforcement people" I do not mean Steve Thomas. He does not fit into that category.

[Athena]

Originally posted by paperbackreader


I don't see the connection. Just my opinion. The DNA rules out the father. Good enough for me.

His own visits afterwards to porn shops seems to me to be an adult action of escapism....and no connection to his child's death.

I understand what you are saying paperbackreader. I am also of the belief the Ramseys had nothing to do with JonBenet's murder, but I TVO'd some of the interviews that have been airing recently with John and Patsy and I have nothing to base my feelings on -- but something just did not "sit" right with me re: John. I was watching them earlier today and I noticed that John really did not let Patsy talk or he cut her off so I just started doing a search and came across the article -- so it could be just the timing; could be absolutely nothing - just crossed my mind what if ..... jmho

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Athena
Computer Crime Research Center

JonBenet Ramsey - Exclusive Interview With Stephen Singular

Q: Prior to your first meeting with Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter in April 1997, what research had you undertaken on the case?

I had gone online and looked at pictures of little girls, five and six-year-olds, the same age as JonBenet, who were being used for child pornography purposes. They were being tied up by their hands and ankles and being sexually abused, or laid out on tables or hung from ceilings. They were being treated violently, and ropes, scarves, and belts were used to tie them up. These photographic situations looked very similar to the conditions surrounding the death of JonBenet, who was strangled to death with a piece of nylon rope. Before meeting Hunter I'd also talked to computer crime specialists who told me that child porn was now the fastest growing criminal activity in cyberspace.

Q: How did you make the connection between the JonBenet Ramsey case and child pornography?

I didn't make the connection as much as I felt that this area should be investigated by the authorities because of the similarities between what I'd seen online and the child's murder. And because I'd been told by cyber-crime specialists that JonBenet was precisely the kind of child, because of her beauty pageant experience, who could be sucked into the world of child porn. She was a natural candidate to attract attention -- and pedophiles. Once it became apparent, from the cops' investigation, that the Ramseys did not seem to be involved in abusing their child and this was not an obvious case of a parent raping or killing their little girl, then the next place to investigate was the subculture of exploitation and violence that JonBenet was exposed to through her success in the pageant world. If you can determine that her parents had no criminal past or even criminal tendencies, and you can also determine that a child was connected to things that hold criminal behavior, why wouldn't you investigate those things and that behavior?

http://www.crime-research.org/interviews/484/

And yet, NO PICTURES of JB's attack have surfaced on the internet.

If there was a connection to internet child porn, these photographs would be worth a lot of money.

I see no connection to JB. But it IS a subject that is important to address.



I still say there is a possibility that John Karr was pursuing this theory of Singular's in his JB obsession & this foray into the internet might be what tipped him from obsession into madness.

[Athena]

So many questions. I'm glad this board is going to be closed this weekend. I guess I'm looking for answers that may never be addressed. Another article that appears to point to a possibe member of law enforcement - and that's it - no more searching/reading for me - LOL

A Behavioral Case Analysis of the JonBenet Ramsey Murder:
By Donald Pugh


The offender , and human monster, is above all an individual who has a tremendous need for excitement, recognition and attention. It is an organized offender who is skilled, pays close attention to details, and is capable of meticulously carrying out a complex plan. The offender has the need and ability to control others, and is in some position of power or authority. Being of high intelligence, this individual would be employed as a professional, and simply could not tolerate a subservient job. An ability to communicate would be present, with reasonably good social skills, but only in their role as a professional. In everyday personal relationships they would come across as a very cold, distant and insensitive person. It is not likely that they would have a spouse, or many close , personal relationships. They would be totally wrapped up in their profession , and their life would be their job in Law Enforcement. This very knowledgeable offender knows about Police procedures, and as stated in the ransom note/letter, is "familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures, and tactics". This individual has also had extensive training, and probably did some extra studying, on matters involving child abduction and molestation.

http://tinyurl.com/sy5re

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by Athena


I understand what you are saying paperbackreader. I am also of the belief the Ramseys had nothing to do with JonBenet's murder, but I TVO'd some of the interviews that have been airing recently with John and Patsy and I have nothing to base my feelings on -- but something just did not "sit" right with me re: John. I was watching them earlier today and I noticed that John really did not let Patsy talk or he cut her off so I just started doing a search and came across the article -- so it could be just the timing; could be absolutely nothing - just crossed my mind what if ..... jmho

John has never been on my lists of suspects. I find him nothing more than a man who loved his little girl with all his heart and would have died for her if he could have saved her.

IMO

Ocean

[kindeekat]

IF you buy the staging, which I DO NOT.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Athena


A Behavioral Case Analysis of the JonBenet Ramsey Murder:
By Donald Pugh

And here's an interview with former FBI agent Robert Ressler and Pugh:

Excerpt:

D.Pugh: OK thank you, uh, the next question is from "MantisGruP" In you opinion , how should Parents conduct themselves , in dealing with police , FBI , media, in the investigation of a missing / murdered child?

Ressler: how should they cooperate?

D. Pugh: How should they conduct themselves?

Ressler: conduct themselves,,,,well, uh, are they speaking from the standpoint of assisting Law enforcement, or are they talking from the standpoint of being a suspect in the case ,or .

D. Pugh: Well , I think kind of relates to the Ramsey case, the Sabrina Aisenberg case, the Joline Witt case--cases where parents have kind of been victims of what you refer to as the Richard Jewel syndrome--when initially the parents cooperate-- and the a police --seems to try to--a-- screw you against the wall.

Ressler: Well, it think if that's the direction of that question I would say that uh, there have been a number of cases , uh, and two which you just mentioned --Ramsey and Jewel. Where in fact, uh--uh-- people y'know have-- have really been a more or less targeted --uh--without adequate investigation beyond that-- that family. Now in the ---there's two main differences here because in the Richard--in the Ramsey case ,the Ramseys from the very onset have been --uh--have more or less built a wall around themselves with attorneys and experts-- uh-- who y'know , who have really obstructed the Law Enforcement from getting the necessary information that uh-- that Law Enforcement needs to either identify or eliminate the Ramseys --they haven't been cooperative enough they've--they've really been holding back information. Where in the Richard Jewel case on the other hand, Richard Jewel--a--went all out . He gave the --uh --the FBI and the Law enforcement people in Atlanta everything they needed to include consensual search of his apartment--uh--only to find--that uh-- that they then nailed him and targeted him as a suspect. A major suspect in the case. That fact was is that --uh- uh--in--in the focusing on Richard Jewel-- uh-- even when there was no forensic evidence at all to support their investigation. What the FBI and Local authorities ending up doing was missing the opportunity to get to the real killer--uh--real bomber. Uh--they wasted a lot of time with Richard Jewel and I think in that case it's largely a focus that was brought upon the FBI, the Atlanta Police authorities, and the prosecutors by the -uh - political pressure that was being put on them by the Department of Justice and the White House. Uh--in other words they wanted somebody so bad that they were willing -- willing to take short cuts that blew up in their face. And I think it's a stern warning to all people in the prosecutorial field --and the Law Enforcement field --is-- make sure you know what your doing --don't take short cut in serious cases --or any cases for that matter.

D. Pugh: Mm-Hmm, and that's kind of our lead in question into our Ramsey related questions. Uh--Mr. Ressler, Internet and public opinion divides the Rams case into two different theories on what happened on December 26th in the death of JonBenet Ramsey. First, the scenario that the death was accidental and one or both the parents were involved in the murder and cover-up. And the second, the scenario when an intruder entered the Rams home, murdered JonBenet, and staged the crime scene. Please comment on both scenarios.

Ressler: Yeah, I've been to Boulder on two occasions. I've talked to a number of people in the law enforcement field, the medical field, the prosecutor, one of the prosecutors out there, even some of the domestic help of uh, the Ramseys and uh, some media people as well. I do not-- uh, I've been to the location of the house, I've been around the house, I've looked at the neighborhood and I do not ascribe at all to the concept that a stranger broke into the house and, uh, in an attempt to kidnap or abduct JonBenet, killed her and wrote the note, and then left. I believe it was some sort of an internal--- uh-- situation that occurred that-- uh--I believe the Ramseys-- Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, possibly their son-- uh-- Burke, have more information available that they could provide police than they've held back-- uh-- in their non-cooperation they've put themselves in a position of being major suspects. It's very likely they're going to be indited in the Grand Jury here in April-- uh-- and whether or not there's enough to prosecute-- uh-- them to the point of conviction remains to be seen. But I think-- uh-- I've always believed that JonBenet was killed as a result of an accident that was being covered up-- I'm not saying whether or not Ramsey's parents or the brother were involved in the actual killing, but I think--as I say--I think that the entire-- uh-- elaborate staging was done to conceal the true facts of what really happened to that child.

D. Pugh: Okay, thank you. Uh, this next question is from KathyK. In the Ramsey crime scene, there is an unexplained shoe print next to the body, unmatched pubic hair on her blanket, unidentified DNA mixed with her blood stain in her panties, fibers on the genital area, and a palm on the door to the room she was found. Is this evidence proof positive that an intruder was involved?

Ressler: No, I don't think it is, because-- uh-- again, forensic evidence is--is only-- can only be as important as the investigators can link it to a-- a theory that would lead to a suspect. A palm print on the door, a shoe print down in the family room, things of this nature-- uh-- one has to consider the very basic fact that the police--one thing--that is --the policemen criticize for severely in this case--is they did not control the crime scene. Uh, they did not-- uh-- protect the crime scene, that being the entire house--uh--uh-- for many, many hours people were running around that house, neighbors, friends, relatives, a minister-- uh-- attorneys, God knows who else-- a number of police officers, and the palm print and the shoe print could have very well been left by one of these people who contaminated the crime scene. Uh, when we get down to DNA evidence, when we get down to --uh-- pubic hair, stains, things of that nature-- none of this has been collaborated to the extent that its been actually--uh--uh-- y'know, verified, in a-- in a court situation. So, until that information is given to the Grand Jury-- uh-- we really don't know what all that means at this stage.



http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/E...6/ressler.html

[Louisadelmar]

And a more recent one...

Denver Post:
Article Published: Wednesday, December 25, 2002

Former FBI profiler Robert Ressler said he doubts the case will ever be solved unless someone comes forward with new evidence or a "deathbed confession." "This is a situation where the police botched the initial investigation, and years later, they're still trying to sort things out," said Ressler, who helped build the psychological profile of New York's "Son of Sam" killer in the 1970s.
Ressler said he doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet. But he said he also doubts a family member killed her.
"There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family," Ressler said. "I just don't know. We may never know."

(sorry - I don't have a link)

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
And a more recent one...

Denver Post:
Article Published: Wednesday, December 25, 2002

"There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family," Ressler said. "I just don't know. We may never know."

(sorry - I don't have a link)

Well that settles it!

Not to be flip, but nobody knows.

And here we are.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

"There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family," Ressler said. "I just don't know. We may never know."

(sorry - I don't have a link)

So his theory is that it's a friend?

I find it even less likely that a friend would break in and commit this violence against a 6 year old than a family member.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by skye


Please cite a source regarding John Ramsey visiting a porn shop.

Im pretty sure he visited BEFORE the murder, not after.

But it was really just 'innocent' and nothing that would be tied to the case.

if someone was so mad at john ramsey, why would they kill his daughter and not him? Although his daughter died, i know he is grief stricken, his world turned upside down, but he still goes on. If they hated him, i believe they would have killed him. JMO

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
if someone was so mad at john ramsey, why would they kill his daughter and not him? Although his daughter died, i know he is grief stricken, his world turned upside down, but he still goes on. If they hated him, i believe they would have killed him. JMO

Excellent point.

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
if someone was so mad at john ramsey, why would they kill his daughter and not him? Although his daughter died, i know he is grief stricken, his world turned upside down, but he still goes on. If they hated him, i believe they would have killed him. JMO

Because as a parent, to me it would be worse to lose my child and me to live then vice versa.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
if someone was so mad at john ramsey, why would they kill his daughter and not him? Although his daughter died, i know he is grief stricken, his world turned upside down, but he still goes on. If they hated him, i believe they would have killed him. JMO

No, if I wanted someone to suffer badly, I'd want them alive to grieve for a LONG time.

IMO, the theory makes no sense because IF John was the target, the murder was enough.. the ransom note was a waste of time & a completely unnecessary diversion.

I also think a John hater would have killed BOTH his children, why leave Burke unharmed?

You have 2 small kids, rope & tape. Take them both downstairs & REALLY destroy John.

No, this crime took way too many hours to be about hurting John.

Originally posted by Athena
Computer Crime Research Center

JonBenet Ramsey - Exclusive Interview With Stephen Singular

Q: Prior to your first meeting with Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter in April 1997, what research had you undertaken on the case?

I had gone online and looked at pictures of little girls, five and six-year-olds, the same age as JonBenet, who were being used for child pornography purposes. They were being tied up by their hands and ankles and being sexually abused, or laid out on tables or hung from ceilings. They were being treated violently, and ropes, scarves, and belts were used to tie them up. These photographic situations looked very similar to the conditions surrounding the death of JonBenet, who was strangled to death with a piece of nylon rope. Before meeting Hunter I'd also talked to computer crime specialists who told me that child porn was now the fastest growing criminal activity in cyberspace.

Q: How did you make the connection between the JonBenet Ramsey case and child pornography?

I didn't make the connection as much as I felt that this area should be investigated by the authorities because of the similarities between what I'd seen online and the child's murder. And because I'd been told by cyber-crime specialists that JonBenet was precisely the kind of child, because of her beauty pageant experience, who could be sucked into the world of child porn. She was a natural candidate to attract attention -- and pedophiles. Once it became apparent, from the cops' investigation, that the Ramseys did not seem to be involved in abusing their child and this was not an obvious case of a parent raping or killing their little girl, then the next place to investigate was the subculture of exploitation and violence that JonBenet was exposed to through her success in the pageant world. If you can determine that her parents had no criminal past or even criminal tendencies, and you can also determine that a child was connected to things that hold criminal behavior, why wouldn't you investigate those things and that behavior?

http://www.crime-research.org/interviews/484/

I found this LINK so very interesting and also a different LINK on another thread you posted!----The words "the ugly door" really rang out here for me----Maybe this case can be solved---That would be wonderful---I want to read Stephen Singular's book---JMO

Originally posted by LI_Mom


No, if I wanted someone to suffer badly, I'd want them alive to grieve for a LONG time.

IMO, the theory makes no sense because IF John was the target, the murder was enough.. the ransom note was a waste of time & a completely unnecessary diversion.

I also think a John hater would have killed BOTH his children, why leave Burke unharmed?

You have 2 small kids, rope & tape. Take them both downstairs & REALLY destroy John.

No, this crime took way too many hours to be about hurting John.

speaking from experience, killing your child is far worse than being dead yourself..although I don't know how "being dead" is.
There is nothing worse..but as you say it could have been worse had Burke been killed also. I think this was just a matter of convenience..one is easier than two and JonBenet was the youngest, a precious little girl.

Somehow I posted the answer to your post and I did not intend that. Excuse my post.

[Athena]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


No, if I wanted someone to suffer badly, I'd want them alive to grieve for a LONG time.

IMO, the theory makes no sense because IF John was the target, the murder was enough.. the ransom note was a waste of time & a completely unnecessary diversion.

I also think a John hater would have killed BOTH his children, why leave Burke unharmed?

You have 2 small kids, rope & tape. Take them both downstairs & REALLY destroy John.

No, this crime took way too many hours to be about hurting John.

But if someone WANTED John to know that they killed JonBenet because they hated him so much -- the "ransom" note as I've said before was not a "ransom" note but a message and only the killer knows its meaning.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes


John has never been on my lists of suspects. I find him nothing more than a man who loved his little girl with all his heart and would have died for her if he could have saved her.

IMO

Ocean

Hi Ocean,

Was just a fleeting thought -- I do believe that -- but like I said for some reason something about the interviews with John just struck me oddly for some reason this morning and then I found that article -- but I disappeared for a few minutes because I wanted to look at it again -- and wierd - that doubt wasn't there this time. It's just me........ jmho

[Athena]

Does anyone know if any of the early suspects outside of the Ramsey family in law enforcement or some career that was close to it? I just find that behavioral analysis fascinating.

Any thoughts?

Read this about child porn and a missing boy. What if they were going to steal Jon Benet like they did this boy but she was killed by accident or because she did not cooperate.

http://www.solutionassoc.com/TruthFi...osch-jeff.html

This is another link about the missing boy. His mother just got a picture of him. Very interesting. Sure makes you think about this Porn thing and how if what Sinclair thinks is true the Ramseys could fear for their well being and that of their son.
http://www.nbc6.net/news/9778102/det...309012006&ts=H
snips
DES MOINES, Iowa -- The mother of a boy abducted 24 years ago said she's bewildered by two photographs left at her front door, apparently showing her son and two other children bound and gagged.

snip
Gosch believes her son was taken by child pornographers. She told authorities he briefly contacted her in 1997 but feared for his life and declined to give details about where he was. She believes his abductors got him involved in crimes, which is why he is hiding his identity.

[bullmoose]

To Athena: That makes sense to me, a note only the killer really understands; in my mind a sick monster with some twisted agenda. I think whoever it was is enjoying himself as he watches the sad story continue to play out, with all those people who believe the Ramseys guilty convinced of their involvement, no matter what. The monster actually responsible for her death may have had his dreams come true over the years. He destroyed their name, after shattering their family. bullmoose

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I don't ......I think losing a child would be worse than death itself. Most parents I know would give their life for their children. I think whoever killed JonBenet knew that ...... JMO

You are right. Maybe the threat would be against Burke. Like we got one child and we can get the other.

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I don't ......I think losing a child would be worse than death itself. Most parents I know would give their life for their children. I think whoever killed JonBenet knew that ...... JMO

I have to agree..losing a child has to be the worse than death itself! I can't imagine losing my littleone..ever..

[Athena]

Originally posted by bullmoose
To Athena: That makes sense to me, a note only the killer really understands; in my mind a sick monster with some twisted agenda. I think whoever it was is enjoying himself as he watches the sad story continue to play out, with all those people who believe the Ramseys guilty convinced of their involvement, no matter what. The monster actually responsible for her death may have had his dreams come true over the years. He destroyed their name, after shattering their family. bullmoose

What amazes me about this "note" of course is the length of it and I've always believed that if one of the Ramsey's wrote it to create a diversion -- a simple ransom note announcing a kidnapping would have done the same thing. The Ramseys were not stupid people from what I can gather - and why would either of them write such a lengthy note to give authorities to examine? I am sure they would have known someone would do a handwriting analysis. Why give them more than needed if it were just a diversion? That is why I believe that "note" was a sick, perverted message with the intent to specifically hurt John. JMHO

[cantstandnuts]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
if someone was so mad at john ramsey, why would they kill his daughter and not him? Although his daughter died, i know he is grief stricken, his world turned upside down, but he still goes on. If they hated him, i believe they would have killed him. JMO

Ruining someone is a lot more satisfying, I would think, than killing them would be.

If someone who hated John Ramsey did this, it would make sense to me that they would then stage it to look like a sexual crime and that John would be the prime suspect, especially given the fact that everything used was from inside the house and not destroyed, but rather put back in it's place. If the Ramseys had done it, why on earth would they leave the first ransom note in the trash, use Patsy's pad and pen and her paintbrush? And if they did it, where is the duct tape that was used on JB? Where is the rest of the rope? Why get rid of some things and not others? Why use 118K as the amount if you're a Ramsey? If you're not a Ramsey, it makes perfect sense, because you want everyone to believe it was a Ramsey...and isn't that just what happened?

I believe somebody committed the PERFECT crime and accomplished exactly what they set out to do. Hurt John Ramsey and make him a suspect in his own daughter's murder. If John Ramsey is powerful enough to buy silence and whatever else to protect himself against being prosecuted, he's powerful enough to tick someone off enough to want to do him in.

[Louisadelmar]

I think the killer very much enjoyed writing this note. It gave him a sense of power. I also think it was written before the mirder while they were at the White's.

[Athena]

I really wonder why this was not thoroughly investigated? There was another similar incident where the BPD thought the live-in girl friend of Wolf was nuts and did not pursue that one either. I'm looking for a link to that as well.

During an interview Friday with the Daily Camera at a downtown San Luis Obispo coffee shop, Bienkowski blasted the Boulder Police Department for not actively investigating the list of people she said her client believes may have knowledge of who killed JonBenét.

She would not divulge the names of those thought to be involved, saying that information should first be given to law enforcement officials.

The woman said she knew the Ramseys through the Fleet White family. She said the godfather to her mother is Fleet White Sr. Fleet White Jr. of Boulder and John Ramsey were close friends until the death of JonBenét. Police cleared Fleet White Jr. as a suspect in April 1997.

The Whites have not returned phone calls from the Daily Camera. John Ramsey's attorney has declined to comment on the new information.

Boulder police say talking to the therapist is high on their list and that a detective tried to contact her by telephone. The therapist said one of the reasons she is reluctant to cooperate is because she said the Boulder police broke her trust. When police contacted her Friday, she told them she would not release any information until she had a written release from the client.

Although police knew her client expressed fear of retaliation, Bienkowski said Boulder police risked her client's safety when officers told local police here about her interview in the Ramsey case after a family member reported her missing.

"They may have already compromised the evidence by leaking where she was, who she is," Bienkowski said.

Another reason she gave for not returning phone calls to detectives is that police have already indicated they don't believe her client.

"Why would I want to turn this information over to people who have said they don't believe it," she said. "That's not an open mind; that's not objective."

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/...0/26aram1.html

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by skye


Im still asking you where you got that. Whether or not it is tied to the case is not YOUR call. Ive never heard this before and find it suprising.

Again, please cite your source. This is an inflammatory quip at John. Otherwise, its just another baseless rumor.

I didn't make the original post so I'm not responsible for tracking down it's source.

I also read something regarding the porn so I didn't need to question the post. And frankly, I can't remember where or when I saw or read everything regarding this case, nor do I keep handy links to every bit of info on this case.

IF I DO question the validity of something I read, I do a search & see what I can find & then either correct the person or learn that the person was right.

I don't believe JMK had anything to do with the murder of JBR, but I do think he is a child PERV---Since the BPD botched so bad, maybe the CA cops can solve this----The Hutchens clues came from CA---JMO

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Athena


But if someone WANTED John to know that they killed JonBenet because they hated him so much -- the "ransom" note as I've said before was not a "ransom" note but a message and only the killer knows its meaning.

That's just too out there to make sense.

Unless John knew exactly what the note meant & he was so scared that's why he didn't cooperate with the investigation. He was afraid the small foreign faction would activate the next part of plan "destroy John Ramsey."

[Athena]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


So his theory is that it's a friend?

I find it even less likely that a friend would break in and commit this violence against a 6 year old than a family member.

Curious. Why would you think a friend would have been less likely???

[bullmoose]

I would like to add my voice to rosey red robin, I am curious to see that link about John Ramsey and porno shops; oddly, I remember seeing him interviewed and denying ever having been in any porno shops. bullmoose

[Athena]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


That's just too out there to make sense.

Unless John knew exactly what the note meant & he was so scared that's why he didn't cooperate with the investigation. He was afraid the small foreign faction would activate the next part of plan "destroy John Ramsey."

It doesn't matter that John didn't know what the note meant -- it was enough to know that whoever wrote it hated him and had some sense of power play watching this whole thing unfold. jmo

This was a post I made a page back underneath the one you responded to which is what doesn't make sense.

What amazes me about this "note" of course is the length of it and I've always believed that if one of the Ramsey's wrote it to create a diversion -- a simple ransom note announcing a kidnapping would have done the same thing. The Ramseys were not stupid people from what I can gather - and why would either of them write such a lengthy note to give authorities to examine? I am sure they would have known someone would do a handwriting analysis. Why give them more than needed if it were just a diversion? That is why I believe that "note" was a sick, perverted message with the intent to specifically hurt John. JMHO