Poll: Books & Articles You Have Read On Ramsey Case

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

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...php?t8854.html

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...php?t8854.html

That's it, Athena.

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

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...807014,00.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/drm...807014,00.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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.....

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/Sou...gBooksandMedia
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

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/Sou...gBooksandMedia
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...

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

Thanks for the link!

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%2...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...
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...
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.

[LadyFisher]

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