JonBenet: A Closer Look

[Meech]

A new team of investigators takes a closer look at the murder of JonBenet Ramsey resulting in the identification of a key suspect and pointing away from JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey.

Court TV 10pm E/P

[londonPI]

o my gosh, i learned a lot of that show - first of foremost, no one involved in the making of that show believe the ramsey's did it. very slanted viewpoint. i did learn the ramsey's are now impoverished - patsy's cancer has returned and they have no insurance AND john still does not have a job.

[Lili]

o my gosh, i learned a lot of that show - first of foremost, no one involved in the making of that show believe the ramsey's did it. very slanted viewpoint. i did learn the ramsey's are now impoverished - patsy's cancer has returned and they have no insurance AND john still does not have a job.
I will believe that when I see her Medicaid card! They don't know what impoverished is.

[londonPI]

we used to live a stones throw away from charlevoix....let me tell you, there is NO home there we could afford. i find it hard to believe they are broke. someone was talking about the ramsey's being in florida looking for a place. how does one buy another home with no $$?

[Wudge]

I followed the case in great depth until Judge Carnes issued a ninety-two page report in 2003 that basically exonerated the Ramseys.

What I leanred tonight is that Helgoth had Hi-Tec boots, had a stun gun like the one investigators think was used on Jon Benet and dressed in black to stalk people at night; i.e., ninja style, It was mentioned too that Helgoth had buddies who were also into martial arts.

What the investigation did not link up is the fact that not one person in a million can tie a professional garrote knot like the one on the garrote that was used to strangle Jon Benet.

Now, here is the kicker and the link to Jon Benet. One of the favorite weapons of Ninjas is the garrote.

Though Helgoth's DNA does not match that found on Jon Benet, it is pretty clear that the /martial arts/Ninja/garrote link cannot be set aside and that the killer's DNA was decidely left at the crime scene.

For the first time, I am now of the mind that the case is solvable.

[wenchie]

Hello: haven't posted her in a long while, but the Special tonight brought me back.


IMO, if there was an outside perpetrator, there are just way to many unexplained events, actions, attitudes and evidences concerning the Ramsey's that would be unanswered.

In other words: if one of them did the crime, there are really no unanswered questions. There is no evidence at all of someone breaking into their house that night and commiting the crime.

But...if an outsider did it, there are way too many....."but then, what about....and ..... and why.....?

[nellicat]

I followed the case in great depth until Judge Carnes issued a ninety-two page report in 2003 that basically exonerated the Ramseys.

What I leanred tonight is that Helgoth had Hi-Tec boots, had a stun gun like the one investigators think was used on Jon Benet and dressed in black to stalk people at night; i.e., ninja style, It was mentioned too that Helgoth had buddies who were also into martial arts.

What the investigation did not link up is the fact that not one person in a million can tie a professional garrote knot like the one on the garrote that was used to strangle Jon Benet.

Now, here is the kicker and the link to Jon Benet. One of the favorite weapons of Ninjas is the garrote.

Though Helgoth's DNA does not match that found on Jon Benet, it is pretty clear that the /martial arts/Ninja/garrote link cannot be set aside and that the killer's DNA was decidely left at the crime scene.

For the first time, I am now of the mind that the case is solvable.


I thought the show tried to hard. Helgoth's DNA didn't match. Then the show brought in the dance academy assault on another little girl and strongly, strongly implied that they were linked. Entering into a home, hiding there, surprising a young girl in bed, sexual assault, ninja costume . . . Yet that assailant left behind DNA, too, and if it had matched the Jonbenet DNA, the show certainly would have mentioned that. So what, now there are 3 people involvled? Helgoth, the ninja guy, and the Jonbenet DNA guy? It didn't hang together, IMO.

[Wudge]

I thought the show tried to hard. Helgoth's DNA didn't match. Then the show brought in the dance academy assault on another little girl and strongly, strongly implied that they were linked. Entering into a home, hiding there, surprising a young girl in bed, sexual assault, ninja costume . . . Yet that assailant left behind DNA, too, and if it had matched the Jonbenet DNA, the show certainly would have mentioned that. So what, now there are 3 people involvled? Helgoth, the ninja guy, and the Jonbenet DNA guy? It didn't hang together, IMO.



There are not that many people alive who even have the expertise to tie a professional garrote knot.

Garrotes are used by a few groups in South America, and by those who might have received training from or studied a few martial arts groups, such as and particulary Ninjas.

[Tricia]

I followed the case in great depth until Judge Carnes issued a ninety-two page report in 2003 that basically exonerated the Ramseys.

What I leanred tonight is that Helgoth had Hi-Tec boots, had a stun gun like the one investigators think was used on Jon Benet and dressed in black to stalk people at night; i.e., ninja style, It was mentioned too that Helgoth had buddies who were also into martial arts.

What the investigation did not link up is the fact that not one person in a million can tie a professional garrote knot like the one on the garrote that was used to strangle Jon Benet.

Now, here is the kicker and the link to Jon Benet. One of the favorite weapons of Ninjas is the garrote.

Though Helgoth's DNA does not match that found on Jon Benet, it is pretty clear that the /martial arts/Ninja/garrote link cannot be set aside and that the killer's DNA was decidely left at the crime scene.

For the first time, I am now of the mind that the case is solvable.

OMG...OMG. Wudge, this was the worst, most lying, deceptive, false piece of crap there every was.

Your post is going to send me over the edge Wudge.

[azwriter]

I'm not buying this "Closer Look" show.
One piece of so-called evidence that tells me they are not any closer to solving JonBenet's murder was with Helgoth's boots.
They say the sole matches the prints left in the mold on the floor of the Ramsey's basement where JonBenet was found.
A close up photo of the boots showed a substance that was almost the same color of the stuff on the basement floor. So what. If it looks like something from the floor of the Ramsey's basement, why not do a test and find out if the substance on Helgoth's boots matches what's on the basement floor. That would be very positive evidence. Why didn't we hear the results of a test of that kind? Either they didn't test the substance or they did test it and it was not a match. So saying it looked alike was the only way to tie this guy to being in the basement. This does not sound like a very full investigation to me.
JMO

[azwriter]

Oh yes, and that garrott, it doesn't look professional to me. It looks like some kid twisted robe around a stick and tied a loop. Even I can do that messy of a job.
jmo

[Wudge]

OMG...OMG. Wudge, this was the worst, most lying, deceptive, false piece of crap there every was.

Your post is going to send me over the edge Wudge.

What did the program say about Helgoth and/or the other abductions or potential abductions that was false?

[Wudge]

Oh yes, and that garrott, it doesn't look professional to me. It looks like some kid twisted robe around a stick and tied a loop. Even I can do that messy of a job.
jmo


Then take that picture down to a martial arts studio that teaches Ninja techniques and ask them if it looks to be tied by someone who has been trained to tie a garrote knot.

I did that many years ago, and the answer I got back was that whoever tied that knot knew how to tie a garrote knot.

[Lacy Wood]

Wudge: Your claim they said the stun gun in the picture was like one supposedly used on Jon-Benet is flat wrong...they said it was NOT the same...they also forgot to mention that the one they claim WAS used has an electrode distance that has been shown diffrent from the bruises on Jon-Benet.

This show ignored evidence right and left. It seemed designed to pander to those who are unknowing of forensics. I want to know more about this drop of blood that mysteriously shows up on the panties years later after the biggest names in forensics in the country had already examined the evidence...I am now somewhat skeptical since it is presented in a program that is little more than an infomercial.

For example, the "suicide" becomes a "murder" which confirms the ransom note's "two gentlemen". Sorry, the note is not to be accepted as facts of the case. (They also forgot to mention other implications of the "note"). In fact, neither suicide or murder would be likely from a shot to the lower left side. Here's a guy who plays with guns all the time...playing with guns leads to accidents, and THAT is the most likely scenario.

Wish I had more time since this program needs a comprehensive rebuttal.

[Wudge]

Wudge: Your claim they said the stun gun in the picture was like one supposedly used on Jon-Benet is flat wrong...they said it was NOT the same...they also forgot to mention that the one they claim WAS used has an electrode distance that has been shown diffrent from the bruises on Jon-Benet.

This show ignored evidence right and left. It seemed designed to pander to those who are unknowing of forensics. I want to know more about this drop of blood that mysteriously shows up on the panties years later after the biggest names in forensics in the country had already examined the evidence...I am now somewhat skeptical since it is presented in a program that is little more than an infomercial.

For example, the "suicide" becomes a "murder" which confirms the ransom note's "two gentlemen". Sorry, the note is not to be accepted as facts of the case. (They also forgot to mention other implications of the "note"). In fact, neither suicide or murder would be likely from a shot to the lower left side. Here's a guy who plays with guns all the time...playing with guns leads to accidents, and THAT is the most likely scenario.

Wish I had more time since this program needs a comprehensive rebuttal.

My recollection was that they said the stun gun "in the picture" was not the make that they suspected had been used on Jon Benet but I thought they said that he also owned another stun gun from they manufacturer they had suspected, though I could be wrong.

[BlueCrab]

What the investigation did not link up is the fact that not one person in a million can tie a professional garrote knot like the one on the garrote that was used to strangle Jon Benet.



Wudge,

That was NOT a garrote wrapped around JonBenet's neck. Garrotes look nothing like that. Millions of ex-military personnel have been trained to make and use a garrote, including myself. It takes only a minute or two to make a real garrote.

A garrote is simply a length of wire or rope with a handle on each end. ALL garrotes must have two handles, such as a knot or a loop tied at each end, in order to keep the perpetrator's grip from slipping as the struggling victim is is strangled from behind.

The device wrapped around JonBenet's neck was not designed as a garrote. It had just one handle (the stick) on one end and a ligature on the other end and would likely require the cooperation of the subject to even get it properly positioned into place. IMO it was designed to be used in erotic asphyxiation and autoerotic asphyxiation -- extremely dangerous breath contol games used during violent masturbation and other forms of extreme sex.

The device was NOT designed as a garrote, even though it was eventually used to strangle JonBenet. It was too elaborate and wouldn't make a bit of sense if originally intended to be used as a garrote. Garrotes are simple killing devices and can usually be fashioned immediately from almost anything at hand ; even a scarf or belt if no rope or wire is available. Calling the elaborate device wrapped around JonBenet's neck a "garrote" is a misnomer.

It was an erotic asphyxiation device, and even John Ramsey agrees with that assertion.

BlueCrab

[sissi]

hmm...let's do dejavous, April 10

Yawara stick

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19623&highlight=yawara

[Wudge]

Wudge,

That was NOT a garrote wrapped around JonBenet's neck. Garrotes look nothing like that. Millions of ex-military personnel have been trained to make and use a garrote, including myself. It takes only a minute or two to make a real garrote.

A garrote is simply a length of wire or rope with a handle on each end. ALL garrotes must have two handles, such as a knot or a loop tied at each end, in order to keep the perpetrator's grip from slipping as the struggling victim is is strangled from behind.

The device wrapped around JonBenet's neck was not designed as a garrote. It had just one handle (the stick) on one end and a ligature on the other end and would likely require the cooperation of the subject to even get it properly positioned into place. IMO it was designed to be used in erotic asphyxiation and autoerotic asphyxiation -- extremely dangerous breath contol games used during violent masturbation and other forms of extreme sex.

The device was NOT designed as a garrote, even though it was eventually used to strangle JonBenet. It was too elaborate and wouldn't make a bit of sense if originally intended to be used as a garrote. Garrotes are simple killing devices and can usually be fashioned immediately from almost anything at hand ; even a scarf or belt if no rope or wire is available. Calling the elaborate device wrapped around JonBenet's neck a "garrote" is a misnomer.

It was an erotic asphyxiation device, and even John Ramsey agrees with that assertion.

BlueCrab


The knot was obviously not an overhand knot, and the knot was tied by someone with special training, which could include Rangers, Seals, GB, etc.. Nevertheless, the device was meant to strangle someone in the fashion of a garrot -- as Ninjas practice -- though it could have been a sexually related device. If a sexual fruitcake was involved, and that is certainly very possible, you simply cannot tell what they might have going on in their warped minds.

In any event, the knot and "garrot-like" instrument would relate to what this nut by the name of Helgoth was into; i.e., Ninja arts or the like. And like the DNA that findamentally exonerates the parents, it, too, points well away from them.

[BlueCrab]

And like the DNA that findamentally exonerates the parents, it, too, points well away from them.


Wudge,

It's interesting to note that you refer only to "the parents" as being exonerated by the DNA. Why didn't you include Burke in that exoneration statement? After all, it has been unofficially reported that Burke's DNA exonerates him too. Or are you also aware that, in Colorado, it is lawful to lie about any evidence that incriminates a nine-year-old?

[Wudge]

Wudge,

It's interesting to note that you refer only to "the parents" as being exonerated by the DNA. Why didn't you include Burke in that exoneration statement? After all, it has been unofficially reported that Burke's DNA exonerates him too. Or are you also aware that, in Colorado, it is lawful to lie about any evidence that incriminates a nine-year-old?


Make it the family.

[LazyCat08]

I've always been in limbo over this but does the DNA evidence not essentially prove that none of the Ramsey's actually killed Jonbenet? So they are not quilty of the physical act of murdering her, right?
But they knew something and they OBVIOUSLY had a hand in covering up the crime/ evidence, etc.
The BIG questions for me is WHY would the family cover anything up if they knew who killed her or why she was murdered? - they would have HAD to have something to hide or someone to protect - end of story. There just isn't any other reason.
The body being in the basement IMO points toward an intruder or someone hiding - someone who didn't live in the house but was familiar with it OR an obvious attempt to make it look that way.
I always kind of thought that Jonbenet was murdered somewhere else in the house because the body was cleaned and re-dressed. I always thought that the body was moved - but the chocking device was made from materials in the basement - so that doesn't really fit.......

[Wudge]

I've always been in limbo over this but does the DNA evidence not essentially prove that none of the Ramsey's actually killed Jonbenet? So they are not quilty of the physical act of murdering her, right?
But they knew something and they OBVIOUSLY had a hand in covering up the crime/ evidence, etc.
The BIG questions for me is WHY would the family cover anything up if they knew who killed her or why she was murdered? - they would have HAD to have something to hide or someone to protect - end of story. There just isn't any other reason.
The body being in the basement IMO points toward an intruder or someone hiding - someone who didn't live in the house but was familiar with it OR an obvious attempt to make it look that way.
I always kind of thought that Jonbenet was murdered somewhere else in the house because the body was cleaned and re-dressed. I always thought that the body was moved - but the chocking device was made from materials in the basement - so that doesn't really fit.......

Unless someone thought that the BPD had the DNA profile that was twice found on Jon Benet's person, but were not capable of obtainng the families DNA for comparison purposes, then, when mixed with the other exculpatory evidence, the DNA is highly exculpatory to the point of being near perfect exoneration.

[lisafremont]

Did the special explain why Patsy wrote the "ransom" tome for Helgoth??

[Michael Cook]

I knew Mike Helgoth, it was not like we were good friends but we did know each other. I knew alot of the people he hung around with, but was not a real part of the "in" crowd. There were a few things that the show last night embellished, which leads me to believe they may have on other things. The town of Boulder is really nothing like the described we have no Ski resort, people do care about this case and we would love to see it solved. I think the BPD sucks, even though my Sister-in-law is an officer. The show was a real eye opener for me as I had no idea He (Helgoth) was a prime suspect. The show brought back alot of memories from the mid-90's. I was at Mike's funeral, and it was discussed among friends there that He had committed suicide because of a failed relationship with a girlfreind, not the one in the show. He had dated her(from the show) around a year before all this. I did not see any of the sadistic things, CTV said he did, like I said I was not part of the in crowd. Alot of the evidence talked about last night seemed to add up with some of the info I knew of personally about Helgoth. I am very curious about the other perp. I knew another person who had been friends with Helgoth since Elementary school, I knew him better. He had moved away from Boulder in the summer of 97'?

[Jayelles]

Welcome Michael Cook! It's always exciting when someone of interest posts on the forum :-)

Could you be more specific when you say:-

There were a few things that the show last night embellished, which leads me to believe they may have on other things.]

and

[quote]Alot of the evidence talked about last night seemed to add up with some of the info I knew of personally about Helgoth.
Also, do you know John Kenady?

This show was shown in the UK last year. In it, they were specific about their real Prime Suspect (Helgoth was only the accomplice). It was a load of badly speculative garbage which was exposed by some of us on another forum. As a result, the documentary was somewhat edited for the US.

The US people have been badly mislead by this documentary. Some of the things where were claimed as "facts" are not facts at all. The investigators were presented as the "new" investigators on the case and they aren't. They have no access to the official file and are merely Private Investigators hired by the Ramseys.

The DanceWest assault took place months after Michael Helgoth's death and could have had nothing to do with him.

Michael Helgoth's boots were extremely unlikely to still contain mould from the Ramsey basement several moths later (that's just common sense). Besides, film footage of the yard where he worked showed that the soil on the ground was a similar colour to the debris on his boot soles - isn't it more likely it came from there?

I'd be very interested to hear more from you - if you are willing to share.

[CinnamonGirl]

I wonder if they will ever solve this case.

[Michael Cook]

Alright here we go. I think the investigators focused on Mike because He committed suicide right after Hunter made his famous(FBI written) statement. The show "neglected" to say it was on Valentines day! Which blends real well with the assumption from friends, of which I have first hand info, that it was over the broken relationship with the Dancer. He wanted to settle down with her from what I knew. The way the show described him? I never saw anything like that at all, but like I said I only knew him for around 1-2 years up to his suicide. He did work in a junk yard, owned by his uncle Doug. I do not know Joe, I have seen him around town. The interviews with him and the other guy in the junk yard? The junk yard Mike's uncle owned was bought by the City of Boulder not 2 years after Mike's suicide, they have since totally cleaned the site. It has been turned into a Park and has been that way since 2000? They did not do the interviews at the said junkyard, where Mike worked. The show really tried to make it look that way,don't you think? That was one embellishment. I do not think Mike was as wierd as the show said he was. You think you hang around someone for a year or two you would see some reflections of this attitude?! He was a very gentle person, soft spoken. The boots, the infamous boots. Good grief, Boulder is a hikers haven! You could not have traced those boots to one person, I bet in the City of Boulder alone there were 1,000-2,000 people with those boots, rare my rear! Let alone the rest of this state! For the record I have a hard time thinking it was the parents. I live very close to "the house". I could drive there in 2 minutes, the dirt is likely not the same. It was much drier at the Junk yard, but mold on the boot? That was how the show described it, not from the yard would there be any mold, way to dry. And if it was him who was in the house, the dirt could have been tracked from the junk yard. This junk yard was only 15 minutes away fromt he house. You think Crime scene detectives would have taken that debris from where she was found and tried to compare it to dirt from the yard, which would have undoubtedly had grease in the dirt? Will get this posted now, did they name the prime on the show in the UK?

[JBR_Justice]

I wonder if they will ever solve this case. The narrator said funding is minimal so I hope they can keep the case open somehow. The other prep(s) is (are) still at large.

[Michael Cook]

I do not think BPD wants it to be anyone else, and they will not spend Money to make themselves look bad. Boulder is a small town by most standards, alot more is not known about this case then what is I think.

[Michael Cook]

The narrator said funding is minimal so I hope they can keep the case open somehow. The other prep(s) is (are) still at large.
Scary thing for me is I live in Boulder and not far from the house. I have a 12 year old girl, I wnat then to catch whoever did it.

[Holdontoyourhat]

I tend to agree with investigators about the pillow-angle thing and say that the idea it could have been murder can't be ruled out. Most suicides are more direct. An angled shot thru the chest just isn't suicide-like.

Besides, the show presented Holgoth as a person generally hated and feared by many, for his antics with guns, and maybe with kids (he was quoted as saying he can't be trusted with little girls).

The list of enemies he had would be long--and it would have my name on it too if he shot a gun anywhere in my direction, I'll tell you that!!

IMO, no connection to the Ramsey homicide. Every neighborhood has a characater like that one. My neighborhood had 2, and neither was a child-killer. Ramsey killer is a hardened, experienced killer who is not a local, IMO.

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

Meanwhile, the 12 year old's attacker was shooed away by the mother; sounds like a pervert-creep-opportunist-burglar. Let me tell you that the Ramsey killer probably doesn't shoo.

IMO, no connection to the Ramsey homicide. Simple sex offenders, such as the one that snuck into the 12 year old's room at night, happen all too frequently, where nobody gets garroted and headbashed.

It's like saying a successful bank robber was later caught shoplifting. I don't think so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you tell me that any of the Ramsey's or any of their friends suddenly and brutally murdered JonBenet Ramsey, you might as well tell me a pussycat just took the keys and drove off in the car. That's just light-years away from the reality, IMO.

[Michael Cook]

The pillow angle thing was quite conclusive, I tried that on myself and it does not seem I would try to commit suicide that way. He did not have alot of enemies as you say, he did deal some drugs, small stuff. And I suppose he was feared by some, like the guy they interviewed for the show. I have to say if someone did that to me friend or not I am talking to the cops before my pants dry. I am not wholly convinced he was telling the truth about the gun shot around his head. Some people would say anything to get on TV or perhaps some money, especially after that person is dead and cannot defend themselves. One thing is for sure the BPD ?#@!!% this thing up.

[BlueCrab]

The narrator said funding is minimal so I hope they can keep the case open somehow. The other prep(s) is (are) still at large.


JBR_Justice,

Unsolved murders are kept open forever, or until solved.

In regard to the district attorney's funding for the JonBenet case -- it is ZERO; as in "not a penny". Furthermore, there is NO investigation, and Mary Keenan hasn't applied for any money to carry out an investigation. It's nothing but talk, and not as much as a red penny put where their mouth is. The D.A.'s office scraped together a few bucks last year by not filling a position for an attorney -- but that's the only money spent recently on the case.

Keenan hasn't done ANYTHING in regard to an active investigation. The volunteers are simply brousing through the hundreds of boxes of stuff accumulated over the years. There's no new investigation. Mary Keenan, certain other Boulder officials, the courts, and the media are lying through their teeth. Why?

BlueCrab

[Michael Cook]

JBR_Justice,

There's no new investigation. Mary Keenan, certain other Boulder officials, the courts, and the media are lying through their teeth. Why?

BlueCrabCover-up, maybe?!

[Voice of Reason]

Thank you, Michael Cook, for your great insight into Michael Helgoth. People here are "experts" on the Jonbenet case, but noone knows all that much about Michael Helgoth, because all we hear is from the news filter. Your information is greatly appreciated!

The town of Boulder is really nothing like the described we have no Ski resort, people do care about this case and we would love to see it solved.

I have friends in Boulder and have visited their numerous times. Your statement above is dead-on, and I thought the exact same thing when the show first started. All of the big ski resorts in Colorado are at least one hour from Boulder, if not more. Boulder is more of a college town, with a lot of people who love the outdoors. It is no surprise that half the city owns Hi-Tec boots! If you start out a 1-hour special with a completely false statement, it's hard to be believed for the next 59 minutes...

[Michael Cook]

Your welcome voice of reason, ya know it was about when I started to mature and really start to pay attetion to the media that I started not believing nearly everything I heard unless I had first hand info. Like I said though I only knew him in certain social situation's, but I do know alot about the involvement he had with the women, whom said she did not trust him with her daughter. I knew her enough to know she would not lie about something like that, but is that a murderer make? I do not know. Someone knows. And yes you are very right, when I heard the crap in the beginning of the show that really put my hair up on my neck. It was pretty fragmented, the show did not flow. My sister-in-law is an officer with BPD, and they all believe it was the Ramsey's, go figure.

[Voice of Reason]

Michael Helgoth's behavior with women or children is hardly enough to implicate him in the Ramsey murder!! Also, the video they showed of him with the young girl looked like a father playing with his daughter, and I saw nothing unusual in that footage. Finally, the show mentioned something about an order of protection that she filed against him.

I have worked in the courts assisting women filing orders of protection, and it's worth noting that there is a lot more to it than "filing an order of protection", which is all the show said. There can be numerous outcomes to that...first, a woman must file a petition with a court clerk. Then, the judge must grant the order, which is only temporary. (The man gets his day in court.) At a later date, he can either contest the order with the judge or consent to the order. If he consents, he has not admitted to any wrongdoing. So, to say that an order of protection was filed against MH means nothing. Even if an order of protection is consented to by MH, it still means nothing in terms of his guilt legally speaking, except that he must stay away from her in the future. If a TEMPORARY order of protection is granted by a judge, that means the woman's story was believed by the judge for the moment. If a FINAL order of protection was granted by a judge (at a later date), that is another story. The show was vague here, and for those of you unaware of the legal background, there you have it.

I don't mean to sound critical of women victim's of domestic violence, but it is important that people understand these terms. CourtTV throws them around so casually, and it's offensive. I am very sympathetic to these women, otherwise, I wouldn't be assisting them for free in the first place!

Don't believe everything you read/hear...

[Michael Cook]

Yes, I do agree on the whole protection order, another thing the show did not enlighten us to, was Mike did continue to have contact with the little girls mother long after the incident happened. Strange but true. That incident was the only one ever discussed in the group, if there were other incidents with Mike I never heard of them. The little girls mother whom I will refer to as Nancy, had another man she had a relationship as well. THis other man was a very good friend of Mike's, they knew each other for a very long time. I did mention that in another reply earlier on this thread. There is just so much that does not add up concerning Mike

[BlueCrab]

Cover-up, maybe?!


Michael Cook,

Exactly. There's something conspiratorial going on at the highest levels in Boulder, and that is not a hypotheses. It's a plain fact. It started with the "missing" cell phone records for December and encompasses the D.A.'s office, the courts, and certain other Boulder officials. The ludicrous "no cell phone calls made in December" crap unveils the conspiracy. The cops used John's cell phone on December 26. The cell phone records alone would have likely solved the case within the first week of the investigation.

For even the courts to be involved in such an obvious coverup conspiracy tells me one thing -- VERY YOUNG CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED! The courts wouldn't get themselves involved in a criminal conspiracy to protect an adult.

BlueCrab

[Wudge]

Your welcome voice of reason, ya know it was about when I started to mature and really start to pay attetion to the media that I started not believing nearly everything I heard unless I had first hand info. Like I said though I only knew him in certain social situation's, but I do know alot about the involvement he had with the women, whom said she did not trust him with her daughter. I knew her enough to know she would not lie about something like that, but is that a murderer make? I do not know. Someone knows. And yes you are very right, when I heard the crap in the beginning of the show that really put my hair up on my neck. It was pretty fragmented, the show did not flow. My sister-in-law is an officer with BPD, and they all believe it was the Ramsey's, go figure.

One thing you have not heard is anyone accusing the BPD of being maze bright. The Dark Ages were enlightened compared to the BPD.

[Holdontoyourhat]

The Boulder PD and the DA have my admiration and respect. In the face of public opinion and varying POV within, they correctly concluded a lack of evidence against the Ramseys.

They also did not conduct any witch-hunts resulting in charges against a local.

Bottom line: After more than 8 years, no arrests of a local in the Ramsey case, despite DNA and handwriting evidence. That's a strong indication that it was an outsider.

IOW, if you want to know where the investigation is going, don't ask the BPD, ask the FBI.

[Michael Cook]

I am sure you have heard of the suzanna chase murder, that is another example of the ineptitude of BPD, they are to busy busting people for speeding, and smoking dope to solve something as complex as a murder. Heaven forbid!

[Michael Cook]

[QUOTE=Holdontoyourhat]The Boulder PD and the DA have my admiration and respect. In the face of public opinion and varying POV within, they correctly concluded a lack of evidence against the Ramseys.

Alex Hunter, was just about the only one in Boulder at the time this was all BIG news who stood up to say they did not have enough evidence to make an arrest. The police department was still trying to prove it was the parents or their son. The media of course was spreading lie after lie in the news about evidence leaked and such. The people of Boulder were led to believe it was the parents. The BPD still thinks it was the parents

[Holdontoyourhat]

Actions speak louder than words, right? The calculated response of the City of Boulder was to make no arrests of a local. That was the correct response, IMO.

[Michael Cook]

When I say the BPD still think it was the parents, that comes right from police officers mouths. I, in no way, think it was the parents or Burke. I am just telling you first hand info from many officer's mouths that I have heard personally. Believe what you want about the BPD, I think they could have have done a better job if they had tried to find the killer instead of focusing on the parents. And for the record for a newcomer what on earth does IMO mean?

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm a newbie too, so IMO, it means "in my opinion."

[londonPI]

Bluecrab...one question for you

IF the grand jury determined the crime was committed by Burke and/or a friend and they are protected because of their age, isn't it reasonable to think that one person would have leaked this information out after all these years? has anyone ever interviewed a person that sat on that grand jury? what about all the police officers who have left....i just think someone would have "leaked" info out.

[bensmom98]

I am sure you have heard of the suzanna chase murder, that is another example of the ineptitude of BPD, they are to busy busting people for speeding, and smoking dope to solve something as complex as a murder. Heaven forbid!

Mr. Cook -

I was actually wondering about her case. Has any progress been made? Do you think it is related to JBR?

[Sabrina]

Michael Cook,
You asked about the other "accomplice." Tricia has spoken to him. Here is the information:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5293&highlight=gigax

Thank you for helping to set the record straight. People have sold stories and photos to the National Enquirer concerning Helgoth. This could also be a motivation for perpetrating the false accusations. I feel very sorry for Michael's family to have to see their loved one being implicated time and time again, when the police have stated he is not a suspect.

[Miss Daisey]

Bluecrab...one question for you

IF the grand jury determined the crime was committed by Burke and/or a friend and they are protected because of their age, isn't it reasonable to think that one person would have leaked this information out after all these years? has anyone ever interviewed a person that sat on that grand jury? what about all the police officers who have left....i just think someone would have "leaked" info out.
Please excuse me for jumping in here since your post was directed to Blue Crab; but THIS is an excellant point. I don't think this would have gotten so far without a "leak" from one of the kids.

Also the complicated "garrott". This doesn't appear to be the work of kids, IMO

[londonPI]

thank you for jumping in ... i put BC because i follow his post and theories, although i don't always agree, i feel he has really done his research. this is something i don't understand - why no grand jury leaks. please, anyone, if you know of any leaks, inform me!

the garrotte....if i were to go with the BDI theory (which i think Bluecrab has outlined incredibly convincingly) i cannot fathom that this child could tie this complicated knot - appears to be something a person with boating experience might have constructed.

i did appreciate courttv saying there were two sets of footprints, which BlueCrab has stated many times. wonder, will this ever be solved? last night seemed like a television show designed to clear the ramsey's once and for all and lead us to believe the killer (one at least) is dead.

[BlueCrab]

Bluecrab...one question for you

IF the grand jury determined the crime was committed by Burke and/or a friend and they are protected because of their age, isn't it reasonable to think that one person would have leaked this information out after all these years? has anyone ever interviewed a person that sat on that grand jury? what about all the police officers who have left....i just think someone would have "leaked" info out.


londonPI,

There's a gag order on the case. The information we're talking about would be limited to a rather tight-knit group, so if illegally leaked it wouldn't be hard to find out who leaked it. The "leaker" would be arrested for contempt of court, a criminal offense, and in addition to being fined and/or going to jail, he would likely lose his job and any professional licenses. That's a high price to pay for being gossipy.

[Michael Cook]

Mr. Cook -

I was actually wondering about her case. Has any progress been made? Do you think it is related to JBR? I have not heard anything recently. In the past year however I did here that they(BPD) had some new information, but alas nothing since. It will be big news when it does happen around here anyway I wanted to let you know since you asked.

[KatherineQ]

thank you for jumping in ... i put BC because i follow his post and theories, although i don't always agree, i feel he has really done his research. this is something i don't understand - why no grand jury leaks. please, anyone, if you know of any leaks, inform me!

the garrotte....if i were to go with the BDI theory (which i think Bluecrab has outlined incredibly convincingly) i cannot fathom that this child could tie this complicated knot - appears to be something a person with boating experience might have constructed.

i did appreciate courttv saying there were two sets of footprints, which BlueCrab has stated many times. wonder, will this ever be solved? last night seemed like a television show designed to clear the ramsey's once and for all and lead us to believe the killer (one at least) is dead.

LondonPI - the garrotte is not a boating knot. It's a historical sado-masochism knot. And no, a child didn't tie that knot, you're right. Someone who has practiced that knot MANY times tied it.

An adult who is very interested in historical sado masochism.

[Bobbisangel]

My recollection was that they said the stun gun "in the picture" was not the make that they suspected had been used on Jon Benet but I thought they said that he also owned another stun gun from they manufacturer they had suspected, though I could be wrong.



They did say that he owned another stun gun like the one that was used. I thought their investigation made sense and that they did a heck of a better job than the LE did when it happened. There is one investigator that said someone entered the house from the basement through that window. He could show why he believed that...wasn't it Roy someone? LE really blew this case from the beginning. Seems like LE just blew this man off.

It was said on the show that this team aren't sure if they are going to be funded to continue the investigation....why not? They just might be able to prove who did this horrible thing. Sounds like they have accomplished more than LE ever did.

I think the case of the other little girl could be related in some way. There may be more than one guy involved. To similiar to be ignored except by the Boulder police.

[GuruJosh]

Michael Cook,

Exactly. There's something conspiratorial going on at the highest levels in Boulder, and that is not a hypotheses. It's a plain fact. It started with the "missing" cell phone records for December and encompasses the D.A.'s office, the courts, and certain other Boulder officials. The ludicrous "no cell phone calls made in December" crap unveils the conspiracy. The cops used John's cell phone on December 26. The cell phone records alone would have likely solved the case within the first week of the investigation.

For even the courts to be involved in such an obvious coverup conspiracy tells me one thing -- VERY YOUNG CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED! The courts wouldn't get themselves involved in a criminal conspiracy to protect an adult.

BlueCrab
BC, I know you have probably answered this a million times. But according to your theory, another youngster murdered JonBenet in conjunction with Burke.

The theory seems to fit most of the facts.

I have often wondered, though, that surely the Ramseys must have been in communication with the Stines that day and the day after, the keep their stories straight etc.

Are you saying that John Ramsey's cell phone call transcript for December 1996 was "lost"??!?!??!!??!?!

I didn't know about this. Are you sure? If so, that really does point to a cover up doesn't it?

[Bobbisangel]

JBR_Justice,

Unsolved murders are kept open forever, or until solved.

In regard to the district attorney's funding for the JonBenet case -- it is ZERO; as in "not a penny". Furthermore, there is NO investigation, and Mary Keenan hasn't applied for any money to carry out an investigation. It's nothing but talk, and not as much as a red penny put where their mouth is. The D.A.'s office scraped together a few bucks last year by not filling a position for an attorney -- but that's the only money spent recently on the case.

Keenan hasn't done ANYTHING in regard to an active investigation. The volunteers are simply brousing through the hundreds of boxes of stuff accumulated over the years. There's no new investigation. Mary Keenan, certain other Boulder officials, the courts, and the media are lying through their teeth. Why?

BlueCrab


From what I hear on Cold Case Files and what I know about two women that were murdered in my home town...cases aren't kept open forever or until they are solved. They become cold cases shoved in the back of a file drawer.
No matter how old a murder case is...if they somehow discover who did it that person can be charged with murder...that is about it. It is never to late to charge someone with the crime.

What is sad is that the Boulder police messed this case up so bad from the beginning that it may never be solved. Small towns need to set their egos aside when a horrible murder is committed and call in the big guns who know how to investigate a murder. It seems that the FBI will even become involved when a child is murdered. I may be mistaken about the FBI but I know other LE officials are always willing to come and help.

I don't think the Ramsey's murdered her. They couldn't prove that the ransom note was written by Patsey. Yes, the dad found her but he was asked to search the house. He would naturally search the basement after he had searched the rest of the house. I have never been able to find a reason for the Ramseys committing the murder. Doesn't make sense.

[BlueCrab]

I don't think the Ramsey's murdered her. I have never been able to find a reason for the Ramseys committing the murder. Doesn't make sense.


Bobbisangel,

Why then are the Ramseys lying their heads off and covering up? Who are they protecting?

[Holdontoyourhat]

When you start to read about filicide, you find out that there are some commonalities between the case studies. There is usually organic mental issues, that cannot be disguised, like psychosis. There are usually socioeconomic issues, where child-killing is seen by the killing parent as a solution. Sometimes the parents see the children as their property, in the cases of murder-suicide.

There is a common thread running through most all the cases I read about. There is some evidence, either of psychosis, economic hardship, or social withdrawl.

Meet the Ramsey's: No psychosis, no economic hardship, no socal withdrawl.

Meet the ransom note author: violently psychotic

[Wudge]

Bobbisangel,

Why then are the Ramseys lying their heads off and covering up? Who are they protecting?


You are assumming that, as you put it, the Ramsey's are lying their heads off. That premise of yours is speculative, not factual. If you want to develop valid and true inferences via deduction, you will need to substantially improve the veracity of your premises.

Read my tagline.

[narlacat]

You are assumming that, as you put it, the Ramsey's are lying their heads off. That premise of yours is speculative, not factual


Wudge
How can you say the Ramsey's arent lying...have you not read any of Patsy and Johns interviews ?? They constantly contradict themselves in between not remembering anything.
They lied right from the start. Here's just a couple of their lies-
They said Burke was not awake that morning.
They said Burke did not own Hi-Tec boots.

[Wudge]

You are assumming that, as you put it, the Ramsey's are lying their heads off. That premise of yours is speculative, not factual


Wudge
How can you say the Ramsey's arent lying...have you not read any of Patsy and Johns interviews ?? They constantly contradict themselves in between not remembering anything.
They lied right from the start. Here's just a couple of their lies-
They said Burke was not awake that morning.
They said Burke did not own Hi-Tec boots.

Is this your opinion or fact?

Note, before you answer, do not try to represent media reporting or alleged backroom statements from LE as being either true or reliable.

Given that well-honed truth, please post your irrefutable source for the Ramsey's alleged lies, then post the unimpeachable proof that what they were irrefutably proven to have said were, indeed, lies.

After that, please define "lying your head off".

[narlacat]

Are you saying that John Ramsey's cell phone call transcript for December 1996 was "lost"??!?!??!!??!?!

I didn't know about this. Are you sure? If so, that really does point to a cover up doesn't it?

Guru
John Ramsey is on record saying that the police used his cell phone the morning of the 26th. But there are no calls listed for the entire month of December on John's cell phone records.
A cover up of this magnitude makes me think that BC's theory is right on target.

[Wudge]

Are you saying that John Ramsey's cell phone call transcript for December 1996 was "lost"??!?!??!!??!?!

I didn't know about this. Are you sure? If so, that really does point to a cover up doesn't it?

Guru
John Ramsey is on record saying that the police used his cell phone the morning of the 26th. But there are no calls listed for the entire month of December on John's cell phone records.
A cover up of this magnitude makes me think that BC's theory is right on target.

Asking me a question does not prove anything whatsover. Moreover, it is impoosible to deductively infer to a valid and true conclusion using premises that are assumption or belief or opinion based.

[narlacat]

Asking me a question does not prove anything whatsover. Moreover, it is impoosible to deductively infer to a valid and true conclusion using premises that are assumption or belief or opinion based.Wudge
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I did not ask you a question.
I was quoting someone else who had asked a question and was replying to their question. I guess I should have made that clearer but if you had been following the thread properly you would have realised that.

[concernedperson]

Bobbisangel,

Why then are the Ramseys lying their heads off and covering up? Who are they protecting?

Their perceived notions of themselves. Something is terribly wrong with Patsy, IMO! And, John, isn't far behind, IMO!

[Wudge]

Wudge
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I did not ask you a question.
I was quoting someone else who had asked a question and was replying to their question. I guess I should have made that clearer but if you had been following the thread properly you would have realised that.

Your post that responded to mine started out with: "Are you saying that John Ramsey's cell phone call transcript for December 1996 was "lost"??!?!??!!??!?!"

I think it is fair to say that your reponse asked me a question.

More importantly, my initiating post to you, wherein I asked for unimpeachable proof that the Ramseys lied, remains unfulfilled. In other words, you have yet to provide such proof.

[BlueCrab]

You are assumming that, as you put it, the Ramsey's are lying their heads off. That premise of yours is speculative, not factual. If you want to develop valid and true inferences via deduction, you will need to substantially improve the veracity of your premises.

Read my tagline.


Wudge,

This is not a court of law. Websleuths is an OPINION forum. The information posted here is based on published accounts and other credible and/or reasonable sources. From this information it's our constitutional right to voice our individual opinions.

In my opinion the Ramseys ARE lying their heads off and attempting to coverup. This information is from the police interviews, from the published books on the case, and in a million other places. If you want to "develop valid and true inferences via deduction", then please enjoy yourself and go do it. We need only to provide credible sources and that's ALL that's necessary to develop a total theory on the case or on the individual items of evidence, direct or circumstantial, on the case -- such as lies and coverups.

BlueCrab

[narlacat]

Your post that responded to mine started out with: "Are you saying that John Ramsey's cell phone call transcript for December 1996 was "lost"??!?!??!!??!?!"

I think it is fair to say that your reponse asked me a question.

More importantly, my initiating post to you, wherein I asked for unimpeachable proof that the Ramseys lied, remains unfulfilled. In other words, you have yet to provide such proof.
Look Wudge
Scroll up.....look back at the posts....I wasnt asking anyone a question ,I was trying to answer one. Gurujosh asked the question. I quoted his question so he knew i was answering it.
As for you asking for proof, these things dont take 2 minutes Wudge, they take time to go look up.
And right at this moment in time,I dont have time to do that. I came here for a quick look and was just reading all the highlighted threads.
I will respond to your post asap in between trying to have a life.

[Pepper]

I'm going to take the unpopular view here and jump in and say I don't think the Ramseys had anything to do with JBR's death or any so-called "cover-up."

I saw bits and pieces of the TV program between the time I was falling asleep. This program did not convince me of anything new.

I'll accept that Patsy Ramsey is a bit of a kook, and I certainly wouldn't dress up my 5 year old and train her to enter beauty pagents. That whole scene is sick to me. But there is simply no proof that PR wrote the ransom note.

The Boulder PD couldn't have been more inept if they were INTENTIONALLY trying to blow the investigation. Does anyone know if a professional profiler (Pat Brown, Cliff Van Zandt or the blonde woman in Florida) has voiced an opinion on this case? I'd be really interestered in a profiler's opinion.

No parent would ever use a garotte or similar device to kill their child. And I'm sure they didn't have the knowledge to make the knot used. There is just no motive for the Ramsey's to have done this. It doesn't make any sense at all.

I don't think this crime will ever be solved, and may well be argued into the next century (like Lizzie Borden!). Such a shame.

[Wudge]

Wudge,

This is not a court of law. Websleuths is an OPINION forum. The information posted here is based on published accounts and other credible and/or reasonable sources. From this information it's our constitutional right to voice our individual opinions.

In my opinion the Ramseys ARE lying their heads off and attempting to coverup. This information is from the police interviews, from the published books on the case, and in a million other places. If you want to "develop valid and true inferences via deduction", then please enjoy yourself and go do it. We need only to provide credible sources and that's ALL that's necessary to develop a total theory on the case or on the individual items of evidence, direct or circumstantial, on the case -- such as lies and coverups.

BlueCrab

It reflects poorly on you -- and whatever mode of reasoning you think you are using -- to represent opinion or beliefs or speculation or assumption as fact.

This might come as a surprise to you, but deductive logic will always derive valid and true conclusions in the exact manner and under the exact same rules whether you are in the court of public opinion or in a court of law.

[Wudge]

I'm going to take the unpopular view here and jump in and say I don't think the Ramseys had anything to do with JBR's death or any so-called "cover-up."

I saw bits and pieces of the TV program between the time I was falling asleep. This program did not convince me of anything new.

I'll accept that Patsy Ramsey is a bit of a kook, and I certainly wouldn't dress up my 5 year old and train her to enter beauty pagents. That whole scene is sick to me. But there is simply no proof that PR wrote the ransom note.

The Boulder PD couldn't have been more inept if they were INTENTIONALLY trying to blow the investigation. Does anyone know if a professional profiler (Pat Brown, Cliff Van Zandt or the blonde woman in Florida) has voiced an opinion on this case? I'd be really interestered in a profiler's opinion.

No parent would ever use a garotte or similar device to kill their child. And I'm sure they didn't have the knowledge to make the knot used. There is just no motive for the Ramsey's to have done this. It doesn't make any sense at all.

I don't think this crime will ever be solved, and may well be argued into the next century (like Lizzie Borden!). Such a shame.


For every whacky theory and motive that was offered up in the Scott Peterson case, there were far, far more developed in the Jon Benet case. Of course, by the time Judge Carnes issued her report, people had over six years to develop ideas or notions or beliefs that the best fantasyland writer could not have come up with. Fortunately, they only had two years with Peterson's case.

By the way Pepper, at least you got one case right. (chuckle)

[narlacat]

Your post that responded to mine started out with: "Are you saying that John Ramsey's cell phone call transcript for December 1996 was "lost"??!?!??!!??!?!"

I think it is fair to say that your reponse asked me a question.

More importantly, my initiating post to you, wherein I asked for unimpeachable proof that the Ramseys lied, remains unfulfilled. In other words, you have yet to provide such proof.Wudge
Just because the Ramsey's have not been convicted does not mean they did not lie.
I could find you lie after lie but that would be pointless wouldnt it...
Go and read some of the interviews over at ACR and see for yourself.

[Bobbisangel]

I don't know about the lying by the Ramseys but if I had been in their shoes I might not have known if one of my kids was up or not. I think I would have been such a wreck I couldn't have remembered my name. A person becomes numb pretty fast and it can last a long time. I wouldn't expect their memorys to be in perfect working order. They were in the middle of the worst horror a parent can ever be in. That tends to become forgotten at times.

When this first happened I thought the Ramsey's were guilty or at least one of them. The more I heard though the more my opinion changed. I don't see a coverup here. Who would be covering up...not the BPD because they would give their eye teeth to hang the Ramseys. I can't think of any reason that either parent would want to murder that beautiful little girl.

I think it is a shame for mothers to dress their little girls up like little sex pots and to teach them sexy moves. But there are a lot of mothers who do that all over the world. I don't think that makes Patsy a bad mother or a wacko.
I think it fulfilled some kind of a need in Patsy's life.

[GuruJosh]

Thanks Narlacat for your response to my Q about John's mobile ph records...

I think this is really important... how sure are you that the cops used John's phone on Dec 26??

This is technology we're talking about, and big companies don't mess around when it comes to billing people for using their services.

like, when was the last time you were underbilled by a phone company or bank? it doesn't happen.

are you guys reallllllly sure that the police used john's phone?

because quite frankly if that is the case then we have a coverup, because it is just not possible that a big telco company would "lose" a customer's call records fora month. It just doesn't happen like that. Computers control the billing system, the call initiation and completion systems etc. You couldn't make a call without it showing up on your bill, unless Sprint or whoever John was with were using an abacus to run their systems.


EDIT - also who were they supposed to have called? (sorry, i sued to have all these books when i was in the USA but i sold them before i came back to australia so i am very sketchy about many case details!)

because if it was an engaged signal, no call would be initiated and thus no record would exist.

Did the person who used John's phone actually connect to the person he/she was trying to reach?

[Holdontoyourhat]

I think what's missing in a lot of these posts is perspective. Being able to separate the few important facts from guesses, trivial claims and misrepresentations. If it's just a bunch of mudslinging, It's not worth the time it takes to read it.

Fresh perspective means new ideas. Open-ness.

I read today that the vast majority of child murders each year are committed by a parent, and a only very slight minority committed by an intruder. On the other hand, I also read today that "parents who kill" are typically found to be suffering from psychosis, socioeconomic failure, and/or social withdrawl. Domestic abuse is very common in the case studies.

The Ramseys suffer no such disorders, but the ransom note author sure does. Forget the handwriting anaylsis for now, and look at the psychological profile of the author.

There were 2 things found in the Ramsey house on 12-26-96 that are clearly manifestations of psychotic behavior:

The note threatening to behead a child,
and the garroted and headbashed young girl.
From this, you could safely say there was a violent psychotic in the Ramsey house, at least on that night.

So if you were to rate the 2 manifestations separately on a scale of 1-10, 10 being most psychotic, you'd get a similar 9 or 10 for both, right? You could say then that the note and the killing displayed about the same amount and the same type of psychotic behavior. Both were brazen displays of extreme aggression and violence aimed at a small child.

What manifestations of psychotic behavior have taken place at the Ramsey's before the 2 manifestations of 12-26-96, and how would they rate on a 1-10 scale?

What manifestations of psychotic behavior have taken place at the Ramsey's after the 2 manifestations of 12-26-96, and how would they rate on a 1-10 scale?

Nothing over a 1 or 2, right?

:hand:

The fact that there was no violence aimed at children, and no manifestations of psychotic behavior that even approximated the ransom note prior to 12-26-96, leads to the conclusion that the violent psychotic who wrote the note and murdered JonBenet didn't live in the house.

[narlacat]

Thanks Narlacat for your response to my Q about John's mobile ph records...

I think this is really important... how sure are you that the cops used John's phone on Dec 26??

This is technology we're talking about, and big companies don't mess around when it comes to billing people for using their services.

like, when was the last time you were underbilled by a phone company or bank? it doesn't happen.

are you guys reallllllly sure that the police used john's phone?

because quite frankly if that is the case then we have a coverup, because it is just not possible that a big telco company would "lose" a customer's call records fora month. It just doesn't happen like that. Computers control the billing system, the call initiation and completion systems etc. You couldn't make a call without it showing up on your bill, unless Sprint or whoever John was with were using an abacus to run their systems.


EDIT - also who were they supposed to have called? (sorry, i sued to have all these books when i was in the USA but i sold them before i came back to australia so i am very sketchy about many case details!)

because if it was an engaged signal, no call would be initiated and thus no record would exist.

Did the person who used John's phone actually connect to the person he/she was trying to reach?
Hi Guru
I am absolutely sure John said in one of the police interviews that for some reason the police used his cell phone that day,if i remember correctly I think they used it twice. Im not sure which interview that was, I've had a quick look but cant see it right now.
I think the police needed a phone and theirs wasnt working so John offered his. I think they wanted to ring the station re: the case so I would assume they got through ok .
Im not sure where I read about the records going missing, maybe someone else can help with that one.

[bensmom98]

Hi Guru
I am absolutely sure John said in one of the police interviews that for some reason the police used his cell phone that day,if i remember correctly I think they used it twice. Im not sure which interview that was, I've had a quick look but cant see it right now.
I think the police needed a phone and theirs wasnt working so John offered his. I think they wanted to ring the station re: the case so I would assume they got through ok .
Im not sure where I read about the records going missing, maybe someone else can help with that one.

I remember reading something to that effect in PMPT, but can't find it either.

[Wudge]

Okay Wudge, I read your tagline, and it doesn't make any sense. So how come you don't practice what you preach?

YOU WROTE:

"It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool: it's what he does know that ain't so." JOSH BILLINGS

So, Wudge, since what you wrote doesn't make sense, I looked it up to find out what Josh Billings really said. What follows is Billings' accurate quotation, which DOES make sense.

BILLINGS ACTUAL QUOTATION IS:

"The trouble with most folks isn't so much their ignorance. It's know'n so many things that ain't so." JOSH BILLINGS 1818 - 1885

BlueCrab

He is also attributed with being the original source of my tagline. And if you do not understand the profound wisdom that is inherent in my tagline, I am certainly not going to be surprised, for that would help to explain why you represent your speculation/assumptions/opinion to be fact.

P.S. About once a month, I receive a PM from someone who has read my tagline and comments on its weighty insight as to it exposing a key ingredient that is often present when people end-up making fools of themselves. By your saying it does not make any sense, you are now officially the first person to tell me that they could not break my tagline's reflectively simple code.

[Wudge]

BC you know you can slam when u want to brother ;) I was looking at his quote too. Made no sense, knew it must be incorrect. Kind of like the Ramsey's behaviour after 12/25/96


Congratulations on making a very short list, indeed. However, you are not in first place; Blue Crab did you proceed you.

(stunned)

[BlueCrab]

Yes, the Ramsys' cell phone records for the month of December showed NO CALLS MADE, despite evidence the phones were used on December 26 (and common sense tells us they were likely used on all of the other days of December too). The grand jury has the cell phone records, and the authorities replaced them with the NO PHONE CALLS MADE statement. What does this tell us?

It tells me the cell phone records are incriminating evidence and the case was solved by the grand jury, children were involved, and everything has been put under seal by the court -- probably forever.

IMO those cell phone records would have revealed that John Ramsey called Mike Bynum VERY early on the morning of the 26th, likely several hours before the 911 call was made by Patsy at 5:52 AM. Children were involved, so it was easy for Bynum to convince others to go along with the coverup. Bynum had Bryan Morgan hired by late afternoon on the 26th, who in turn had private investigators knocking on the doors of witnesses at daybreak the next morning, the 27th, to lock in their statements. The PI's beat the BPD investigators to the punch.

It's important to remember that Mike Bynum, with about 390 attorneys in his law firm, and the politically powerful firm of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, was a formidable array of local insiders who would have been able to launch a convincing coverup. Hal Haddon was Gary Hart's campaign manager in his aborted bid for the presidency of the United States.

IMO the conspiratorial coverup is still in place and is suppoted by selected Boulder officials, the DA's office, the courts, and certain national media organizations.

BlueCrab

[Voice of Reason]

Well, I've been away from the board for a few days, and this thread has certainly heated up! There are a few things I'd like to respond to, but rather than make multiple posts, I thought I'd try to put it all in one response...

You are assumming that, as you put it, the Ramsey's are lying their heads off. That premise of yours is speculative, not factual. If you want to develop valid and true inferences via deduction, you will need to substantially improve the veracity of your premises.

Wudge, you really need to do some better research before you post such incorrect assumptions. Whether or not you think a Ramsey was involved is your prerogative, but you just can't deny that they lied MANY times after their daughter was killed. I am not going to even attempt to post all the inconsistencies in this response, so you should just start here. (http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5813)

What manifestations of psychotic behavior have taken place at the Ramsey's after the 2 manifestations of 12-26-96, and how would they rate on a 1-10 scale?

Holdontoyourhat, I think that Patsy is clearly psychotic. If your daughter was murdered in your own home, would you deny the police an interview for 3 months and go on Larry King Live before she was buried? To me, that is psychotic!

IMO those cell phone records would have revealed that John Ramsey called Mike Bynum VERY early on the morning of the 26th, likely several hours before the 911 call was made by Patsy at 5:52 AM.

BlueCrab, you may be right, but wouldn't any conversations of John's with Bynum be protected? The attorney-client privilege is very strong. Even if it can be proved that he called Bynum at 4am, that evidence is inadmissible, because the only thing that can be made of it is pure speculation. For Websleuth's sake, it is interesting and, perhaps, significant, but if it came down to it, it would get us no further in a legal investigation.

[Wudge]

Well, I've been away from the board for a few days, and this thread has certainly heated up! There are a few things I'd like to respond to, but rather than make multiple posts, I thought I'd try to put it all in one response...

SNIPPED

Wudge, you really need to do some better research before you post such incorrect assumptions. Whether or not you think a Ramsey was involved is your prerogative, but you just can't deny that they lied MANY times after their daughter was killed. I am not going to even attempt to post all the inconsistencies in this response, so you should just start here. (http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5813)



No one, including you, has posted on this thread unimpeachable proof that the Ramsey's lied, much less that they lied their heads off as has been claimed. If you have unimpeachable proof, post it here.

[Voice of Reason]

No one, including you, has posted on this thread unimpeachable proof that the Ramsey's lied, much less that they lied their heads off as has been claimed. If you have unimpeachable proof, post it here.

Wudge,

There are very good reasons that many people think the Ramseys are involved in the murder of their daughter, and even better proof to show that they have been lying since day one. I gave you a link, which is filled with 10 pages of Ramsey lies.

This board is filled with people both interested in and educated on this case. We come from both sides of the public opinion on this case, and we respect each other. You ask for a source or proof, and I have given it to you. If you aren't going to read it, you should be the one to go away.

So once more, CLICK HERE TO READ PROOF OF RAMSEY LIES!!!!!!! (http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5813)

[UKGuy]

Yes, the Ramsys' cell phone records for the month of December showed NO CALLS MADE, despite evidence the phones were used on December 26 (and common sense tells us they were likely used on all of the other days of December too). The grand jury has the cell phone records, and the authorities replaced them with the NO PHONE CALLS MADE statement. What does this tell us?

It tells me the cell phone records are incriminating evidence and the case was solved by the grand jury, children were involved, and everything has been put under seal by the court -- probably forever.

IMO those cell phone records would have revealed that John Ramsey called Mike Bynum VERY early on the morning of the 26th, likely several hours before the 911 call was made by Patsy at 5:52 AM. Children were involved, so it was easy for Bynum to convince others to go along with the coverup. Bynum had Bryan Morgan hired by late afternoon on the 26th, who in turn had private investigators knocking on the doors of witnesses at daybreak the next morning, the 27th, to lock in their statements. The PI's beat the BPD investigators to the punch.

It's important to remember that Mike Bynum, with about 390 attorneys in his law firm, and the politically powerful firm of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, was a formidable array of local insiders who would have been able to launch a convincing coverup. Hal Haddon was Gary Hart's campaign manager in his aborted bid for the presidency of the United States.

IMO the conspiratorial coverup is still in place and is suppoted by selected Boulder officials, the DA's office, the courts, and certain national media organizations.

BlueCrab
BlueCrab,

I just have to agree with you here. Also there may have been two conspiracies. A legal one to enact the coverup and a criminal one that ended in JonBenet's death!

For those that are skeptical or refuse to countenance that such well educated and privileged citizens would engage in anything conspiratorial or illegal I offer you the following nugget :

Excerpt from The City of Boulder Website

Unlawful e-mails sent under Chief Beckner's name
The Boulder Police Department recently became aware that someone was unlawfully sending e-mails using the name of Chief Beckner. On April 25, 2003, Rocky Mountain News columnist Charlie Brennan received an e-mail titled as being from "Chief Beckner" complementing Mr. Brennan for a recent column he had written on the JonBenet Ramsey case. According to embedded information within the message, the e-mail was sent from a MSN Hotmail account, becknerbpd@hotmail.com. The e-mail was then signed off with "Regards, Mark." Please see below message text:

.
.
.
Being skeptical of the message's authenticity, Mr. Brennan telephoned Chief Beckner to ask him about the message. Chief Beckner confirmed that he did not send the message. The Chief was alarmed that someone was apparently using his title and name without authorization to communicate about the JonBenet Ramsey case with members of the media.

Search warrants were obtained and executed for MSN Hotmail in California. According to MSN Hotmail, the becknerbpd@hotmail.com account was established in 2000. The account creator provided information stating that the owner was "Chief Beckner" from "Boulder, Colorado," and furthermore, provided an accurate birth year for the Chief.

Further investigation led police to the Internet Protocol (IP) numbers from where the suspect had been accessing the becknerbpd@hotmail.com account. Since early March 2003, all access to the becknerbpd@hotmail.com account were from a single Netcom (now owned by Earthlink) dial-up account.

A search warrant was obtained and executed for Earthlink in Georgia. According to Earthlink's records, the account holder that has been accessing the becknerbpd@hotmail.com e-mail account is Susan B. Stine, 5760 Long Grove Drive, Atlanta, Georgia. Susan Stine is known as a close friend of John and Patsy Ramsey and has been interviewed as a witness in reference to the Ramsey investigation.

.
.
.

On June 3, 2003, Chief Beckner did receive an e-mail from Susan Stine in which she apologized for using the hotmail account, describing it as a sophomoric prank and apologizing for any distress she may have caused.

Anyone with additional information is encouraged to call Boulder Police Detective Jim MacPherson at (303) 441-3330
UKGuy
So along with applying makeup we can add E-mail construction to Susan Stines set of improvising skills.

Has Susan Stine's handwriting ever been compared against that of the Ransom Note. It has been alleged that her son Douglas may have been at the Ramsey house that fateful night. Joe Barnhill, who lived directly opposite the Ramsey house, saw a young adult male approach the Ramsey house on the evening of December 25th.

So is there a conspiracy to coverup a liberal lifestyle, the death of JonBenet, and possibly much more. Else why would such powerful people lend support and help organize an ongoing media campaign of pro-ramsey rhetoric?

The full text of the above excerpt can be found here:
http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/comm/pressrelease/RAMSEY/pr030604.html

.

[Wudge]

Wudge,

There are very good reasons that many people think the Ramseys are involved in the murder of their daughter, and even better proof to show that they have been lying since day one. I gave you a link, which is filled with 10 pages of Ramsey lies.

This board is filled with people both interested in and educated on this case. We come from both sides of the public opinion on this case, and we respect each other. You ask for a source or proof, and I have given it to you. If you aren't going to read it, you should be the one to go away.

So once more, CLICK HERE TO READ PROOF OF RAMSEY LIES!!!!!!! (http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5813)

LOL. I sincerely believe that few people in the nation followed this case more closely than I did up to April of 2003.

As for the alleged Ramsey lies, since you will not produce unimpeachable proof of a single lie, I will add you to my ignore list, because I am not interested in you representing your opinion to be fact.

[Voice of Reason]

LOL. I sincerely believe that few people in the nation followed this case more closely than I did up to April of 2003.

As for the alleged Ramsey lies, since you will not produce unimpeachable proof of a single lie, I will add you to my ignore list, because I am not interested in you representing your opinion to be fact.

Is there a problem with the link? It clearly lays out the answer to your request. If you choose not to read it, don't complain that no proof was offered...

[Pepper]

For every whacky theory and motive that was offered up in the Scott Peterson case, there were far, far more developed in the Jon Benet case. Of course, by the time Judge Carnes issued her report, people had over six years to develop ideas or notions or beliefs that the best fantasyland writer could not have come up with. Fortunately, they only had two years with Peterson's case.Wudge, all the wacky theories and movies offered up in the SP case were courtesy of Mark Geragos and his minions as well as a few wacky Scott-Is-Innocent types.


By the way Pepper, at least you got one case right. (chuckle)Back at ya, Wudge. The difference between us is I don't think that every high-profile case should lead to a conviction. The difference between this case and Peterson is that the District Attorney here KNOWS there is not enough evidence to indict and convict the Ramseys. The Stanislaus Co. DA KNEW there was enough evidence to indict, convict and obtain the ultimate verdict in the case of SP. These DAs are pretty savvy people, and they aren't going to waste their limited time and resources chasing windmills.

[Wudge]

Wudge, all the wacky theories and movies offered up in the SP case were courtesy of Mark Geragos and his minions as well as a few wacky Scott-Is-Innocent types.


Back at ya, Wudge. The difference between us is I don't think that every high-profile case should lead to a conviction. The difference between this case and Peterson is that the District Attorney here KNOWS there is not enough evidence to indict and convict the Ramseys. The Stanislaus Co. DA KNEW there was enough evidence to indict, convict and obtain the ultimate verdict in the case of SP. These DAs are pretty savvy people, and they aren't going to waste their limited time and resources chasing windmills.

A huge difference bewtween the cases is that the Ramseys lawyered up immediately and followed their lawyer's advice, Scott did not. As such, the prosecutors handling Jon Benet's case had minimal verbage from the Ramseys to twist and play with. However, another advantage that accrued to the Ramseys was that Hunter emerged as a fairly decent man; I would never say that about Brazelton.

As for you statement that "The difference between us is I don't think that every high-profile case should lead to a conviction", you know that I hold strongly to the presumption of innocence. Given that truth, I have no idea where you are coming from with that statement, whatsover.

[Pepper]

A huge difference bewtween the cases is that the Ramseys lawyered up immediately and followed their lawyer's advice, Scott did not. As such, the prosecutors handling Jon Benet's case had minimal verbage from the Ramseys to twist and play with. However, another advantage that accrued to the Ramseys was that Hunter emerged as a fairly decent man; I would never say that about Brazelton.

As for you statement that "The difference between us is I don't think that every high-profile case should lead to a conviction", you know that I hold strongly to the presumption of innocence. Given that truth, I have no idea where you are coming from with that statement, whatsover.My fault for not proofing my post! It should have said: The difference between us is I don't think that every high-profile case should lead to an acquittal!

Believe it or not, some of the people on trial are actually guilty, and deserve their punishment! That is not the case with the Ramseys and this case.

As I stated earlier, the DAs are professionals and know the value of their case. They aren't going to waste precious resources trying a case they, themselves don't feel they can win. That's why any DA worth his/her salt will have a conviction rate exceeding 90%.

[Wudge]

My fault for not proofing my post! It should have said: The difference between us is I don't think that every high-profile case should lead to an acquittal!

Believe it or not, some of the people on trial are actually guilty, and deserve their punishment! That is not the case with the Ramseys and this case.

As I stated earlier, the DAs are professionals and know the value of their case. They aren't going to waste precious resources trying a case they, themselves don't feel they can win. That's why any DA worth his/her salt will have a conviction rate exceeding 90%.

(salute)

[JBRMod2]

Please empty your inbox.

[little1]

I thought the show tried to hard. Helgoth's DNA didn't match. Then the show brought in the dance academy assault on another little girl and strongly, strongly implied that they were linked. Entering into a home, hiding there, surprising a young girl in bed, sexual assault, ninja costume . . . Yet that assailant left behind DNA, too, and if it had matched the Jonbenet DNA, the show certainly would have mentioned that. So what, now there are 3 people involvled? Helgoth, the ninja guy, and the Jonbenet DNA guy? It didn't hang together, IMO.


The most important connection imo if there was one would be the ransom note. Did this guy leave a 3 page ransom note at the other scene? If not, why?

WHy then leave one @ the Ramsey residence?

[tezi]

OMG...OMG. Wudge, this was the worst, most lying, deceptive, false piece of crap there every was.

Your post is going to send me over the edge Wudge.

You and me both Tricia. Don't forget Scott Peterson is innocent too.

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: