JonBenet: A Closer Look

[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.

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.

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!!!!!!!

 

[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!!!!!!!

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: