Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 186

Thread: About the pineapple

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,717
    Quote Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
    Here's a quote from the online FBI site; Frequently asked questions:



    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs

    I asked myself, who was the director of the FBI at the time of this murder? Here he is, and he was appointed by none other than Bill Clinton--former client of the Ramsey's law firm Haddon, etc.




    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/directors/freeh

    One wonders if Freeh was called upon to get the FBI to stand down? Or could he have been briefed to prepare the FBI to take over the case and bury it, but when informed of what was going on decided he didn't want his agency involved and made the decision himself?

    It's maddening, isn't it? Absolutely no one in LE did anything that they would have done in any other case.
    I was born and raised in Jersey City, graduated college there in 1970. Didn't know this guy, though.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  3. #152
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
    Here's a quote from the online FBI site; Frequently asked questions:



    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs

    I asked myself, who was the director of the FBI at the time of this murder? Here he is, and he was appointed by none other than Bill Clinton--former client of the Ramsey's law firm Haddon, etc.




    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/directors/freeh

    One wonders if Freeh was called upon to get the FBI to stand down? Or could he have been briefed to prepare the FBI to take over the case and bury it, but when informed of what was going on decided he didn't want his agency involved and made the decision himself?

    It's maddening, isn't it? Absolutely no one in LE did anything that they would have done in any other case.
    You couldn't have hit the nail on the head any better than this KoldKase. The connections went all the way to the top.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flatlander For This Useful Post:


  5. #153
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
    You may be right.

    Alex Hunter could have been so incompetent and/or cowardly, he aided two child killers to avoid going to trial against their powerful lawyers by obstructing the investigation. You will concede Haddon's law firm was powerful with lots of influence?

    And Lockheed Martin might not be the least bit worried if they had a CEO arrested and convicted for murdering his molested 6 year old daughter. International companies who get mega-contracts with governments don't worry about such things, of course.

    The "lost cell phone" that no one seemed to find interesting? Coincidence. And those phone records that were not subpoenaed, at least not before the grand jury, if then, with the single month of December on a "missing cell phone" wiped blank in the year it took for the Ramseys to "voluntarily" share copies of selected bills and sign a waiver for LE to get THAT ONE MONTH ONLY--just a coincidence? Of course, there are other criminal cases where a subpoena for a suspect's phone records was quashed because of issues of "national security" when the suspect in question owned the same type of small business as AG, connected to a government contract, but I can see that's stretching it here, of course.

    The DA hiring three detectives for his staff to look for evidence of an intruder--a practice continued into the next DA's term, no less: completely routine in LE nationwide. Especially the part where they signed over copies of case evidence to then private citizen Lou Smit, to use however he chose, and then refused to do so for any other U.S. citizen under the FOIA, despite the fact that Smit used those copies for Ramsey spin and propaganda? Going so far as lying about it, saying Lou Smit OWNED THOSE POWERPOINT CDS, though he created them while EMPLOYED by the DA under contract, as work product?

    The end result being that just about anyone with an average IQ who isn't completely gullible can see the Ramseys were involved in the murder, but the case is buried for all time anyway...because two DAs were totally compromised by their own lack of ethics, professionalism, and their complete power to control the outcome of the case?

    And a detective known for his brilliant career in criminal cases, Lou Smit, the subject or motivator behind several TV programs on the case, completely distorted the facts of the case, even going so far as to present biased and erroneous "evidence" in a civil case under oath, to protect these killer parents, all because he was just that...dumb? Sure, maybe that's exactly how it went. I will definitely concede that Lou Smit appeared to be dumber than I'd have imagined the average person to be before this case.

    So was it all just a series of unfortunate events? Exacerbated by massive human foibles of epic proportion? I agree it is not impossible that we've simply observed 15 years of the worst of our criminal justice system because the Ramseys were wealthy and the rest of the gang were...rubes?

    Unfortunately, we'll never really know.
    Haddon's law firm was obviously very powerful. I agree with ST that the corruption in the DA's office had to do with its friendship to the attorneys in town, and to its "plea bargain" preference and reluctance to bring things to trial.

    Lockheed Martin could easily have survived bouncing JR. Look at all the on-the-record corruption and criminal activity in Blackwater, for example -- it did very little harm to that corporation, there were no grand conspiracies even given Dick Cheney's links to the company etc. I don't think that one bad apple would have made the US gov't and Lockheed Martin spring into coverup mode.

    I think Smit's thinking was clouded by the fact that he was dealing with various traumas in his life and as he dealt with illness he wanted to believe the best about the Ramseys rather than the worst.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sandover For This Useful Post:


  7. #154
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    7,519
    Let's say this case went to trial. Obviously, it would get massive media coverage, but do you think that Lockheed Martin could use their power to make sure the press didn't make a big issue out of John being a CEO of one of their sub-companies?

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to eileenhawkeye For This Useful Post:


  9. #155
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    I took sandover's post to mean that no one was conspiring to protect the Ramseys as individuals. I can see Lockheed protecting their image; I can see the stockholders of Access Graphics protecting their capital; I can see Hunter and associated politicians CYAing. But I can't see anyone protecting John Ramsey because he was indispensable to either business or to the United States Government. He could very well be a covert operative but I seriously doubt it. He just plain ole screwed up and the big-wigs associated with him wanted to break from him and his name as cleanly as possible, as soon as possible. That's my opinion.
    I never meant to imply JOB Ramsey was aided by his parent company because he was indispensible in any way.

    If you google LM, you'll find the company has been caught in a few scandals of its own going back to the last century. From what I read, I think they learned some lessons about errors they made they weren't likely to repeat.

    I meant just what you stated, if there's anything to it at all: LM would simply have wanted to protect its image. Certainly it wouldn't have cost them much in the way of money or influence in the world arms market. But it is messy...very messy.

    LM's head of company security at the time in Denver (Earl Norm, I think?) said more than once in TV interviews he was shocked to learn about the "terrorist" attack on the Ramsey family in the news, like the rest of us, because LM had a protocol laid out in detail about how to handle just such an event. He said the threat to other families of LM executives was implied in the "ransom note"; that he hadn't even been notified meant the security of LM employees was compromised without them even knowing it.

    Let me add that executives with international companies have not only been aware of kidnapping as a near-industry in some third world countries, they have gone so far as routinely to purchase "kidnapping" insurance for travel abroad for decades. Ransoms have financed many a rebel "uprising" and foreign faction. There is a block of housing in Italy alleged to have been built from the ransom paid for a Getty grandson's release--sans ear mailed earlier when Getty balked at the ransom amount. If you are aware of the Mercedes E-class vehicle, it was built for exactly this reason: bullet-proof windows, etc. It's the same model Princess Dianna was riding in the night she died, if memory serves.

    I find it very hard to believe that the reality of the international world Lockheed Martin dominates with powerful weaponry would have escaped any executive who traveled for them in other countries--like John Ramsey.

    If nothing else, I think it's very possibly the basis for the "foreign faction" fantasy written into the ransom note. I don't know what exactly should have happened had the kidnapping been real, but I doubt very seriously it should have included the BPD, the Kidnap Party, the FBI bowing out long before the body was found, and no one at LM having a clue of any of it until they turned on their TVs later that day.

    I'm under the impression that Mike Bynum worked for Lockheed Martin, after all, not John Ramsey. But John Ramsey related in DOI that they had already been warned by "someone inside" LE--the BPD or DA Office, can't remember which--that the Ramseys were being considered suspects. This was some hours before the body was found, as well.
    Last edited by KoldKase; 06-12-2012 at 09:17 PM.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:


  11. #156
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,580
    Quote Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
    I never meant to imply JOB Ramsey was aided by his parent company because he was indispensible in any way.

    If you google LM, you'll find the company has been caught in a few scandals of its own going back to the last century. From what I read, I think they learned some lessons about errors they made they weren't likely to repeat.

    I meant just what you stated, if there's anything to it at all: LM would simply have wanted to protect its image. Certainly it wouldn't have cost them much in the way of money or influence in the world arms market. But it is messy...very messy.

    LM's head of company security at the time in Denver (Earl Norm, I think?) said more than once in TV interviews he was shocked to learn about the "terrorist" attack on the Ramsey family in the news, like the rest of us, because LM had a protocol laid out in detail about how to handle just such an event. He said the threat to other families of LM executives was implied in the "ransom note"; that he hadn't even been notified meant the security of LM employees was compromised without them even knowing it.

    Let me add that executives with international companies have not only been aware of kidnapping as a near-industry in some third world countries, they have gone so far as routinely to purchase "kidnapping" insurance for travel abroad for decades. Ransoms have financed many a rebel "uprising" and foreign faction. There is a block of housing in Italy alleged to have been built from the ransom paid for a Getty grandson's release--sans ear mailed earlier when Getty balked at the ransom amount. If you are aware of the Mercedes E-class vehicle, it was built for exactly this reason: bullet-proof windows, etc. It's the same model Princess Dianna was riding in the night she died, if memory serves.

    I find it very hard to believe that the reality of the international world Lockheed Martin dominates with powerful weaponry would have escaped any executive who traveled for them in other countries--like John Ramsey.

    If nothing else, I think it's very possibly the basis for the "foreign faction" fantasy written into the ransom note. I don't know what exactly should have happened had the kidnapping been real, but I doubt very seriously it should have included the BPD, the Kidnap Party, the FBI bowing out long before the body was found, and no one at LM having a clue of any of it until they turned on their TVs later that day.

    I'm under the impression that Mike Bynum worked for Lockheed Martin, after all, not John Ramsey. But John Ramsey related in DOI that they had already been warned by "someone inside" LE--the BPD or DA Office, can't remember which--that the Ramseys were being considered suspects. This was some hours before the body was found, as well.
    KoldKase,
    Interesting. Kidnapping is an industry in South America, Eastern Europe, parts of Africa, check out Mexico, its open warfare there lol.

    Now the "foreign faction" term has me running another hare on BDI. Agency inaction, for me, is the clue here. I think I'll post a BDI outline for critical comment.






    .

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  13. #157
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I was born and raised in Jersey City, graduated college there in 1970. Didn't know this guy, though.
    Freeh's name is in the news again; this time in conjunction with the Penn State, Sandusky trial. Freeh is apparently involved in discovering some emails and files hidden by the Penn State administrators who deliberately aided a child predator in his awful crimes against children.

    I've thought of the JBR case so many times reading about and listening to discussions on the Sandusky horror show.

    People who can't believe in any conspiracy in the Ramsey case might want to read up on the Sandusky nightmare: for 15 years this pervert was allowed to prey on poor boys, even after he was caught MULTIPLE TIMES in compromising "positions" with them, by NUMEROUS coaches. One young man testified yesterday when he reported what was happening to his school counselor, SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T BELIEVE HIM. Off the top.

    One child, still unidentified, was seen being ANALLY RAPED by Sandusky in the Penn State showers by another coach; the coach reported it to numerous people, INCLUDING JOE-PA, PENN STATE ADMIN, AND THE OVERSEER OF PENN STATE'S POLICE DEPT.: they all conspired to COVER IT UP AND THE SICKO CONTINUED TO WORK ON CAMPUS WITH CHILDREN, CONTINUED TO BRING BOYS INTO THE FOOTBALL LOCKER ROOM AND SHOWERS...FOR 8 MORE YEARS. They went so far as to lie to a grand jury about it, as well, because they knew exactly what they were doing...EXACTLY THAT THEY WERE ENABLING A CHILD MOLESTER TO CONTINUE TO VICTIMIZE CHILDREN WITH IMPUNITY.

    And if you are following this case, you may have noticed that MANY PENN STATE FANS HAVE CONTINUOUSLY AND WITHOUT REMORSE DEFENDED PENN STATE FOR DOING ALL OF THE ABOVE. The victims have been THREATENED, OSTRACIZED, SHAMED, AND GONE INTO HIDING AT TIMES, they've been so viciously stalked FOR BEING VICTIMS WHO TOLD THE TRUTH. All for a stupid game.

    Come on. Who can possibly scoff at a conspiracy of SOME kind in Boulder to aid the killer of JonBenet in escaping responsibility, knowing what we know about all the MANY Boulder LE who went ON THE RECORD doing just that?

    Maybe there was no organized conspiracy; maybe there were just pockets of people being worked by powerful lawyers; maybe once you get in over your head, you have no choice but to keep going.

    Or worse.

    Until we know the truth, the unvarnished, uncensored, un-spun truth about the facts of evidence in this case, I can't rule out that some LE in Boulder egregiously obstructed this investigation, intentionally, knowing they were covering up for a child molester and killer, for whatever excuse they deemed worthy of doing so.

    It's JMO.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:


  15. #158
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    KoldKase,
    Interesting. Kidnapping is an industry in South America, Eastern Europe, parts of Africa, check out Mexico, its open warfare there lol.

    Now the "foreign faction" term has me running another hare on BDI. Agency inaction, for me, is the clue here. I think I'll post a BDI outline for critical comment.

    .
    It's probably one of the reasons BDI is a good theory: believing originally they were simply responding to helping a young boy who committed no crime, as a minor, but who was part of a terrible death, did Hunter et al start out thinking it was the humane thing to do in the People's Republic of Boulder?

    Then you're in for a penny, in for a pound: and all the people who were falsely suspected and investigated, stuck under that umbrella with the actual perpetrators, painted with the brush of person-of-interest in this horrible "death" for all these years...what do you say to them? Sorry? I meant well?

    It would explain a lot if BDI.
    Last edited by KoldKase; 06-13-2012 at 09:19 AM.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:


  17. #159
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
    Freeh's name is in the news again; this time in conjunction with the Penn State, Sandusky trial. Freeh is apparently involved in discovering some emails and files hidden by the Penn State administrators who deliberately aided a child predator in his awful crimes against children.

    I've thought of the JBR case so many times reading about and listening to discussions on the Sandusky horror show.

    People who can't believe in any conspiracy in the Ramsey case might want to read up on the Sandusky nightmare: for 15 years this pervert was allowed to prey on poor boys, even after he was caught MULTIPLE TIMES in compromising "positions" with them, by NUMEROUS coaches. One young man testified yesterday when he reported what was happening to his school counselor, SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T BELIEVE HIM. Off the top.

    One child, still unidentified, was seen being ANALLY RAPED by Sandusky in the Penn State showers by another coach; the coach reported it to numerous people, INCLUDING JOE-PA, PENN STATE ADMIN, AND THE OVERSEER OF PENN STATE'S POLICE DEPT.: they all conspired to COVER IT UP AND THE SICKO CONTINUED TO WORK ON CAMPUS WITH CHILDREN, CONTINUED TO BRING BOYS INTO THE FOOTBALL LOCKER ROOM AND SHOWERS...FOR 8 MORE YEARS. They went so far as to lie to a grand jury about it, as well, because they knew exactly what they were doing...EXACTLY THAT THEY WERE ENABLING A CHILD MOLESTER TO CONTINUE TO VICTIMIZE CHILDREN WITH IMPUNITY.

    And if you are following this case, you may have noticed that MANY PENN STATE FANS HAVE CONTINUOUSLY AND WITHOUT REMORSE DEFENDED PENN STATE FOR DOING ALL OF THE ABOVE. The victims have been THREATENED, OSTRACIZED, SHAMED, AND GONE INTO HIDING AT TIMES, they've been so viciously stalked FOR BEING VICTIMS WHO TOLD THE TRUTH. All for a stupid game.

    Come on. Who can possibly scoff at a conspiracy of SOME kind in Boulder to aid the killer of JonBenet in escaping responsibility, knowing what we know about all the MANY Boulder LE who went ON THE RECORD doing just that?

    Maybe there was no organized conspiracy; maybe there were just pockets of people being worked by powerful lawyers; maybe once you get in over your head, you have no choice but to keep going.

    Or worse.

    Until we know the truth, the unvarnished, uncensored, un-spun truth about the facts of evidence in this case, I can't rule out that some LE in Boulder egregiously obstructed this investigation, intentionally, knowing they were covering up for a child molester and killer, for whatever excuse they deemed worthy of doing so.

    It's JMO.
    Here's the thing: there was no conspiracy at Penn State -- just people making bad decisions. People doing the wrong thing out of ignorance, fear, confusion, etc.

    A conspiracy is when a group of people knowingly predetermine an outcome, coordinate their actions, and successfully keep their shenanigans private forever.

    That did not happen here or else there would BE no evidence, because all the evidence would have been destroyed. As you yourself admit, tons of evidence is now coming out.

    Incompetence does not = conspiracy.

  18. #160
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    Here's the thing: there was no conspiracy at Penn State -- just people making bad decisions. People doing the wrong thing out of ignorance, fear, confusion, etc.

    A conspiracy is when a group of people knowingly predetermine an outcome, coordinate their actions, and successfully keep their shenanigans private forever.

    That did not happen here or else there would BE no evidence, because all the evidence would have been destroyed. As you yourself admit, tons of evidence is now coming out.

    Incompetence does not = conspiracy.
    I brought up the Sandusky case in relation to this case because I believe the men in power at Penn State who buried the information, investigation, and are now even under indictment for lying under oath about it are EXACTLY how a conspiracy works: they CONSPIRED, by their actions and words, to cover up a series of crimes committed by a powerful man working in a powerful system. But this probably is better debated in a Sandusky trial forum here where no doubt it is being discussed.

    Look, if you think there was no conspiracy in the JB case, fine. I have no problem with that; people disagree.

    But I am unclear about your last statement, though: I "admit, tons of evidence is now coming out"? I must have either misspoke or was unclear, because I think a lot of evidence came out through various sources long ago, but not that much recently. Perhaps you could point me to that statement and I'll see what I meant.

    As for evidence being destroyed, maybe you don't know how many people it would take to include in a conspiracy to destroy all the evidence in a case. That's a criminal offense which, if found out, would have ended careers and possibly resulted in criminal charges; because while a good conspiracy includes much power, it would be foolish to expect every crime scene tech, lab assistant, cop, and witness to "forget" the evidence they saw or worked with, not to mention, physically destroy their copies of it.

    Do you know that the BPD detectives were so shocked at the DA handing case evidence reports to the Ramsey attorneys, they actually refused to allow DA Office personnel to see it at one point?

    If the DA wasn't conspiring with the prime suspects by obstructing routine evidence gathering, handing evidence reports to their lawyers, hiring three detectives, no less, to look for a case against an "intruder," and refusing to even call a grand jury for two years when the prime suspects, parents of the victim, no less, refused to cooperate with the BPD, what exactly do you think Hunter was doing? That's a bit beyond incompetence, IMO. It's not like he didn't have the BPD detectives telling him how wrong his decisions were.

    To have a conspiracy, you don't have to be successful at covering it up for all time, either. Remember Watergate?
    Last edited by KoldKase; 06-13-2012 at 01:09 PM.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  19. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:


  20. #161
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    632

    Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    Here's the thing: there was no conspiracy at Penn State -- just people making bad decisions. People doing the wrong thing out of ignorance, fear, confusion, etc.

    A conspiracy is when a group of people knowingly predetermine an outcome, coordinate their actions, and successfully keep their shenanigans private forever.

    That did not happen here or else there would BE no evidence, because all the evidence would have been destroyed. As you yourself admit, tons of evidence is now coming out.

    Incompetence does not = conspiracy.
    Looks like conspiracy to cover up to me:

    "...Now, criminal charges might be filed against both Spanier and Schultz. The reason: sources told NBC News that according to recently-uncovered documents, the two discussed whether to report allegations of an “encounter” between Sandusky and a boy back in 2001. They ultimately decided that not reporting the allegations would be “humane”… to Sandusky...."

    What about what would have been "humane" to the victims?

    If you are calling the above collusion between Spanier and Schultz 'incompetence' then perhaps you need to redefine your definition of incompetence.....

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Whaleshark For This Useful Post:


  22. #162
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by eileenhawkeye View Post
    Let's say this case went to trial. Obviously, it would get massive media coverage, but do you think that Lockheed Martin could use their power to make sure the press didn't make a big issue out of John being a CEO of one of their sub-companies?
    I think LM took care of that long ago. I say that because I happen to be about the only person I can think of who brings this up for discussion. I'm actually surprised that I haven't mysteriously "disappeared" yet....

    Ok, just kidding....

    But few people online have mentioned LM in the context of aiding in any cover up of this murder. No one has shown any actual direct evidence of it, let me say. I'm purely speculating, based on case reports, interviews, statements, and circumstantial considerations, that LM could have used its status as a national defense contractor to quash any subpoena for phone records of the Ramseys, at any rate. It's been done in other cases I've seen discussed, but not with LM specifically in those.

    You know, it could be that because of the hellfire that would be brought down if the Ramseys had gone with some LM protocol and brought in LM, they used the "foreign faction" ruse to confuse the bucolic BPD because they thought of it, and then called 911 instead of calling LM.

    In all fairness, I have to say I don't travel in those kinds of circles of power and influence. I may have seen one too many movies about conspiracy. Maybe I've just spent way too long pondering how on earth this case got so FUBAR.

    What I do know is this: between Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, and Lou Smit & his PI sidekicks, I've never seen a better defense team or public relations campaign on behalf of a set of prime suspects. Since all of those people were hired and paid to work for the People on this case, how did that happen?
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:


  24. #163
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by Whaleshark View Post
    Looks like conspiracy to cover up to me:

    "...Now, criminal charges might be filed against both Spanier and Schultz. The reason: sources told NBC News that according to recently-uncovered documents, the two discussed whether to report allegations of an “encounter” between Sandusky and a boy back in 2001. They ultimately decided that not reporting the allegations would be “humane”… to Sandusky...."

    What about what would have been "humane" to the victims?

    If you are calling the above collusion between Spanier and Schultz 'incompetence' then perhaps you need to redefine your definition of incompetence.....
    If there had been a conspiracy there would not be "recently uncovered documents" nor a debate about what to do. Call it incompetence, call it corruption, but it ain't a conspiracy.

  25. #164
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    7,519
    If you think about it, the media doesn't mention the Lockheed Martin connection much at all. I have a newspaper archive database, and about 24,000 articles come up when I search for JonBenet. But when I edit the search to include articles that mention JonBenet AND Lockheed Martin, only about 200 articles make the cut. However, was that LM's doing that the media didn't focus much on John working for them...or did they just get "lucky" that there was the whole pageant connection?

    But if the case did go to trial, the LM connection might have become more mainstream. Perhaps people who worked for LM would be asked to testify. There might be new information that comes out about LM. The media might've reported more on John's LM connection if he became a defendant in a huge trial. Also, If Patsy and/or John had been indicted in October 1999, it would probably take 2-3 years for the trial to finally start...it would be around late 2001/2002....right after 9/11, near invasion of Afghanistan, and perhaps the LM angle would be very interesting to the media and the public because they are defense contractors. But then again, they couldn't have known about 9/11 in the 90s.
    Last edited by eileenhawkeye; 06-13-2012 at 02:10 PM.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to eileenhawkeye For This Useful Post:


  27. #165
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    632

    fallacy

    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    If there had been a conspiracy there would not be "recently uncovered documents" nor a debate about what to do. Call it incompetence, call it corruption, but it ain't a conspiracy.
    Your assumption that if there is a conspiracy there will never be any evidence of it, is a fallacy.

    Just because there may have been a conspiracy does not mean everyone perfectly got rid of any and all evidence.

    That's how you find out if there ever was a conspiracy or cover up of something anyway....you follow the trail of evidence....or information...or what have you.

    Every conspiracy or cover up that ever occurred was not fool-proof and undiscovered.... that's how you can determine 'evidence of a coverup', or 'evidence of a conspiracy'.

    The definition of conspiracy is "A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful".....

    By that definition, When Spanier and Schultz decided not to report the illegal act of Sandusky assaulting a child, and cover that up, that was a 'secret plan to do something unlawful'.

    The fact that it was initially secret makes it a cover up or conspiracy.... but that doesn't mean a secret or evidence of such is never ever going to be found out....often people keep 'insurance' of something they are a part of just in case something does come out.

    Lots of people knew about Sandusky and made decisions - colluded - to cover up - keep secret -- conspired (by definition) to not have the info get out, if at all possible.

    Once a victim was brave enough to finally come forward, the initial and totality of the cover up starts to show....and its corroborating evidence.

    Just because any and all witnesses and evidence were not destroyed in the cover up or conspiracy does not mean that it negates the actions of some people as coverups or conspiracies.

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Whaleshark For This Useful Post:


  29. #166
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    7,519
    I think the problem is that when people think of conspiracy...they think of JFK...and it's hard to imagine that the murder of an ordinary 6-year-old girl in Colorado could also involve a conspiracy.

    Another thing is with all this wealth and connections John had, plus the massive media interest, shouldn't the intruder have been found?

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to eileenhawkeye For This Useful Post:


  31. #167
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,580
    Quote Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
    Freeh's name is in the news again; this time in conjunction with the Penn State, Sandusky trial. Freeh is apparently involved in discovering some emails and files hidden by the Penn State administrators who deliberately aided a child predator in his awful crimes against children.

    I've thought of the JBR case so many times reading about and listening to discussions on the Sandusky horror show.

    People who can't believe in any conspiracy in the Ramsey case might want to read up on the Sandusky nightmare: for 15 years this pervert was allowed to prey on poor boys, even after he was caught MULTIPLE TIMES in compromising "positions" with them, by NUMEROUS coaches. One young man testified yesterday when he reported what was happening to his school counselor, SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T BELIEVE HIM. Off the top.

    One child, still unidentified, was seen being ANALLY RAPED by Sandusky in the Penn State showers by another coach; the coach reported it to numerous people, INCLUDING JOE-PA, PENN STATE ADMIN, AND THE OVERSEER OF PENN STATE'S POLICE DEPT.: they all conspired to COVER IT UP AND THE SICKO CONTINUED TO WORK ON CAMPUS WITH CHILDREN, CONTINUED TO BRING BOYS INTO THE FOOTBALL LOCKER ROOM AND SHOWERS...FOR 8 MORE YEARS. They went so far as to lie to a grand jury about it, as well, because they knew exactly what they were doing...EXACTLY THAT THEY WERE ENABLING A CHILD MOLESTER TO CONTINUE TO VICTIMIZE CHILDREN WITH IMPUNITY.

    And if you are following this case, you may have noticed that MANY PENN STATE FANS HAVE CONTINUOUSLY AND WITHOUT REMORSE DEFENDED PENN STATE FOR DOING ALL OF THE ABOVE. The victims have been THREATENED, OSTRACIZED, SHAMED, AND GONE INTO HIDING AT TIMES, they've been so viciously stalked FOR BEING VICTIMS WHO TOLD THE TRUTH. All for a stupid game.

    Come on. Who can possibly scoff at a conspiracy of SOME kind in Boulder to aid the killer of JonBenet in escaping responsibility, knowing what we know about all the MANY Boulder LE who went ON THE RECORD doing just that?

    Maybe there was no organized conspiracy; maybe there were just pockets of people being worked by powerful lawyers; maybe once you get in over your head, you have no choice but to keep going.

    Or worse.

    Until we know the truth, the unvarnished, uncensored, un-spun truth about the facts of evidence in this case, I can't rule out that some LE in Boulder egregiously obstructed this investigation, intentionally, knowing they were covering up for a child molester and killer, for whatever excuse they deemed worthy of doing so.

    It's JMO.
    KoldKase,
    I've read the opening trial coverage. The bit the got me was that Sandusky was running some Charity or Foundation, making him the local most trusted person. That he scoped out victims by checking if they were orphans, and buying their trust with gifts etc, eventually they ended up on his victim checklist?

    Their will be others abusing their position with Sandusky's tacit approval, this is obviously one big pedophile conspiracy, lets wait and see if his cohorts mount a one bad apple defense, e.g Sandusky was a lone rogue pedophile, e.g. we all thought we were helping a good guy?


    .

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  33. #168
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,580
    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    Here's the thing: there was no conspiracy at Penn State -- just people making bad decisions. People doing the wrong thing out of ignorance, fear, confusion, etc.

    A conspiracy is when a group of people knowingly predetermine an outcome, coordinate their actions, and successfully keep their shenanigans private forever.

    That did not happen here or else there would BE no evidence, because all the evidence would have been destroyed. As you yourself admit, tons of evidence is now coming out.

    Incompetence does not = conspiracy.
    sandover,
    Overlooking something once is a mistake, twice is incompetence, thrice is a conspiracy.

    Koldkase is 100% correct. The Sandusky case has all the hallmarks of a pedophile ring in action. e.g. a ringleader looking out for victims, a trusted organisation as a front, and insiders willing to look the other way, probably because they were involved too.

    They all usually plead not guilty, or ignorance, or incompetence etc. And blame the person on trial.

    There was a famous record producer/singer Jonathon King from the sixties, where similar charges were made, e.g. he was trusted, he ran an organisation, lots of boys were referred to him, and many around him knew what was taking place. Once he was convicted and sent to prison, they all denied any knowledge, or said they misinterppreted the signs etc, because Jonathon was such nice, respected guy!


    .

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  35. #169
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,580
    Quote Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
    It's probably one of the reasons BDI is a good theory: believing originally they were simply responding to helping a young boy who committed no crime, as a minor, but who was part of a terrible death, did Hunter et al start out thinking it was the humane thing to do in the People's Republic of Boulder?

    Then you're in for a penny, in for a pound: and all the people who were falsely suspected and investigated, stuck under that umbrella with the actual perpetrators, painted with the brush of person-of-interest in this horrible "death" for all these years...what do you say to them? Sorry? I meant well?

    It would explain a lot if BDI.
    KoldKase,
    BDI appears to be the only theory without any major inconsistencies, all the others require tweaking or special pleading.


    .

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  37. #170
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,368
    It is interesting to me that John Ramsey lost his job at Lockheed Martin. Now why would that happen?

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to BOESP For This Useful Post:


  39. #171
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    It is interesting to me that John Ramsey lost his job at Lockheed Martin. Now why would that happen?
    There are some things not often discussed anymore about John Ramsey and his LM job, primarily because they came out early in the investigation, back in 1997, some transpiring within that year, and the articles are no longer online or easily available.

    [Edit for correction] All by way of saying in original news reports John Ramsey wasn't actually "fired" from LM, but was "moved" to a new Atlanta division or some such as a "consultant"; not long after that, JR was with a new company called "Jaleo", though I may be spelling that wrong. JR described himself as "fired," however, in DOI, when his company, Access Graphics (AG, for anyone not saturated with the facts of the case), was sold in 1997 (or 1998?) to General Electric. John said LM was very good to him when he was released, I'm assuming with a golden parachute, which was and is standard practice and included in executive contracts.

    What people may not remember or never saw, however, is that it was reported in a local Colorado publication that John refused to take a polygraph during this change of flagship, and that led to him leaving AG as part of the deal with GE. It's not uncommon for large companies to use polygraphs on employees, of course, so it's arguable whether this was SOP for GE or if it was a deal-breaker because of the "umbrella of suspicion" which no company would want shadowing the CEO of a newly purchased company. I even wonder if GE was doing LM a business favor, helping get rid of JR without a straight out firing, which of course would cause the Ramseys to appear even more guilty, if that were possible.

    So I saw that report once online, but can't find it online anymore. I have no proof if JR was in fact asked to take a polygraph by LM or GE, or if he refused. I read the one article published online, from a Colorado news publication, but I don't remember any source for the story being given, so I'm just saying that FYI.

    What I can believe is that JR was a liability for AG and LM with the international media explosion of the unsolved case of his daughter's murder. His and Patsy's clearly suspicious behavior, the constant replays of the child in pageant costumes, etc., probably did have something to do with the sale of AG and the dumping of JR. I wish I knew what that golden parachute was worth, though. I bet JR got well-compensated for his resignation. He and Patsy took a vacation to a well-known "tax haven" island within a year of the murder, and don't tell me rich people don't have Swiss bank accounts, either.

    The Ramseys and their polygraphs...another investigative LE tool they tried so hard to control. Besides the well known "self-sponsored" polygraphs they took with Lin Wood's guidance, we also have the Ramseys in an earlier media interview inadvertently revealing that they took a polygraph for their defense lawyers. This came out when they were asked if they'd taken polygraphs yet; they stuttered they couldn't answer because of "attorney-client privilege," which they apparently didn't realize WE KNOW THEY WERE THE CLIENTS AND COULD SAY WHAT THEY WANTED. It was clear--to me, at least--they were simply avoiding answering yes or no. Why not say "No" if they hadn't? Obviously the answer was yes and they didn't want to then be asked what the results were--IMO. This is typical Ramsey tap dancing: when it came to the truth, the Ramseys always had a movable line which I call evasion. (Michael Kane saw it that way, as well.)

    [I did go back and edit out a lot of my rambling on here about case history, if you read it and were wondering....]
    Last edited by KoldKase; 06-14-2012 at 01:31 PM.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  40. The Following User Says Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:


  41. #172
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,212
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    It is interesting to me that John Ramsey lost his job at Lockheed Martin. Now why would that happen?
    Exactly! If this were truly a intruder, they would have stood behind him. LM knew it as bogus!

  42. The Following User Says Thank You to 4Jacy For This Useful Post:


  43. #173
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    7,519
    Quote Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
    There are some things not often discussed anymore about John Ramsey and his LM job, primarily because they came out early in the investigation, back in 1997, some transpiring within that year, and the articles are no longer online or easily available.

    [Edit for correction] All by way of saying in original news reports John Ramsey wasn't actually "fired" from LM, but was "moved" to a new Atlanta division or some such as a "consultant"; not long after that, JR was with a new company called "Jaleo", though I may be spelling that wrong. JR described himself as "fired," however, in DOI, when his company, Access Graphics (AG, for anyone not saturated with the facts of the case), was sold in 1997 (or 1998?) to General Electric. John said LM was very good to him when he was released, I'm assuming with a golden parachute, which was and is standard practice and included in executive contracts.

    What people may not remember or never saw, however, is that it was reported in a local Colorado publication that John refused to take a polygraph during this change of flagship, and that led to him leaving AG as part of the deal with GE. It's not uncommon for large companies to use polygraphs on employees, of course, so it's arguable whether this was SOP for GE or if it was a deal-breaker because of the "umbrella of suspicion" which no company would want shadowing the CEO of a newly purchased company. I even wonder if GE was doing LM a business favor, helping get rid of JR without a straight out firing, which of course would cause the Ramseys to appear even more guilty, if that were possible.

    So I saw that report once online, but can't find it online anymore. I have no proof if JR was in fact asked to take a polygraph by LM or GE, or if he refused. I read the one article published online, from a Colorado news publication, but I don't remember any source for the story being given, so I'm just saying that FYI.

    What I can believe is that JR was a liability for AG and LM with the international media explosion of the unsolved case of his daughter's murder. His and Patsy's clearly suspicious behavior, the constant replays of the child in pageant costumes, etc., probably did have something to do with the sale of AG and the dumping of JR. I wish I knew what that golden parachute was worth, though. I bet JR got well-compensated for his resignation. He and Patsy took a vacation to a well-known "tax haven" island within a year of the murder, and don't tell me rich people don't have Swiss bank accounts, either.

    The Ramseys and their polygraphs...another investigative LE tool they tried so hard to control. Besides the well known "self-sponsored" polygraphs they took with Lin Wood's guidance, we also have the Ramseys in an earlier media interview inadvertently revealing that they took a polygraph for their defense lawyers. This came out when they were asked if they'd taken polygraphs yet; they stuttered they couldn't answer because of "attorney-client privilege," which they apparently didn't realize WE KNOW THEY WERE THE CLIENTS AND COULD SAY WHAT THEY WANTED. It was clear--to me, at least--they were simply avoiding answering yes or no. Why not say "No" if they hadn't? Obviously the answer was yes and they didn't want to then be asked what the results were--IMO. This is typical Ramsey tap dancing: when it came to the truth, the Ramseys always had a movable line which I call evasion. (Michael Kane saw it that way, as well.)

    [I did go back and edit out a lot of my rambling on here about case history, if you read it and were wondering....]
    Through my college, I have access to a newspaper archive database that has about 24,000+ articles about this case, including around 5000 from 1997. It doesn't include every article ever written, as the Daily Camera articles aren't available. I'll do a search for "JonBenet + Lockheed Martin" to see what comes up. If anyone has anything they want me to search for, let me know.

  44. The Following User Says Thank You to eileenhawkeye For This Useful Post:


  45. #174
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    7,519
    Here are every piece of information I could find about LM and John. They are in chronological order:

    The Denver Post reported that Ramsey has been temporarily removed from his post as president of Access Graphics, one of Boulder's largest companies and a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin .

    Lockheed spokesman Evan McCollum said the company made the move because it did not want to bother him with business decisions while he grieves.

    "This is a terrible time,'' McCollum said.
    Meanwhile, Ramsey has been temporarily relieved of his post at Access Graphics, which is a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corp.

    Laurie Wagner, an Access marketing vice president, said Gary Mann of Lockheed Martin is temporarily taking over Ramsey's duties.

    "That's really just so if there are any issues that need to be escalated to that level, that there is a person to go to,'' she said. "Actually, he's the person we would have gone to anyway. He's the person John reports to at Lockheed Martin .

    "(He's) not on-site. The executive team here is running the business.''
    At Access Graphics, the Boulder subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corp. where Ramsey has been temporarily relieved as president, a spokesman said he remains in touch with colleagues.

    ''But we are not burdening him with business issues,'' said Laurie Wagner. ''When he's ready (to return), the doors are wide open.''
    Ramsey was temporarily relieved of his post as president of the Lockheed Martin subsidiary several days after his daughter's Christmas night murder. In recent weeks he resumed doing some company work off-site while in seclusion.
    The Rocky Mountain News reported today that Lockheed Martin wants to sell Access Graphics, the Boulder-based computer business that John Ramsey heads. Ramsey has been on leave from his job as president of the Lockheed subsidiary since the killing.
    Ramsey, 54, was briefly relieved of his duties by Lockheed Martin , his company's parent corporation, following the Christmas night murder of his 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet .

    After working limited hours off-site the first part of the year, he returned to his Pearl Street Mall office April 4.
    John Ramsey will leave Access Graphics, the computer distributor he founded, after its sale by parent Lockheed Martin Corp. to a division of General Electric Co., the companies said Monday.

    In exchange for $2.8 billion in Lockheed preferred stock, Lockheed Martin will give GE Boulder-based Access Graphics, an aircraft engine parts manufacturer, a stake in its Globalstar satellite venture and about $1.5 billion cash in the form of a note.

    Access Graphics will remain headquartered in Boulder and its 600 employees will retain their jobs, spokeswoman Julann Andresen said.

    But Ramsey, now president of the company, will leave Access when the sale closes sometime before the end of 1997.

    ``He will stay on with Lockheed as a consultant, based in Atlanta,'' Andresen said
    The father of slain child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey went to Spain recently to investigate a possible business venture, not to scout locations for a new home, a longtime friend said Thursday. John Ramsey, now a consultant for Lockheed Martin Corp. in Atlanta, traveled to Spain with his wife, Patsy, to check out a software company that produces a video software package, Jim Marino said.
    As the grand jury investigating the death of his daughter nears the end of its term, John Ramsey has left his executive position with a computer software firm.

    Jaleo North America, a branch of the Madrid, Spain-based Jaleo International, confirmed Friday that Ramsey, 55, has stepped down as president and chief executive officer.
    Access Graphics, founded and led by John Ramsey for nine years, is shifting its focus and has changed its name to GE Access.
    Allegation: John piloted his own plane to Atlanta after the slaying.

    Response (John): ``It wasn't my plane and I didn't fly it. My employer, Lockheed Martin , graciously provided a corporate jet and pilot to get us to Atlanta.''
    He started a computer products company that eventually was sold to the Lockheed Corp., and he eventually became a vice president of Lockheed-Martin . He's now "vice president for business development" for a Charlevoix-based Web site development and directory advertising business co-owned by his wife.

  46. The Following User Says Thank You to eileenhawkeye For This Useful Post:


  47. #175
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,870
    If the conspiracy went above Hunter, why is there so much public knowledge of the case? If phone calls were made to high up people who advised the Rs, why did they advise them to leave fiber evidence, use their own materials, leave a phoney as a $3 bill RN, etc. ?
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  48. The Following User Says Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:


Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. pineapple to go....
    By JMO8778 in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 09-19-2008, 11:13 PM
  2. The Pineapple
    By englishleigh in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 08-22-2006, 01:22 PM
  3. The Pineapple
    By mjak in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 02-17-2006, 02:25 AM
  4. The PINEAPPLE!
    By Fran Bancroft in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10-30-2004, 04:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •