About the pineapple

VOICE OVER: "Then months after the murder, an investigator examining photographs of the crime scene noticed a bowl on the breakfast room table. The police had always assumed it contained cereal but when they took a closer look at it's contents which had been preserved, they found pineapple."

Tom Haney: and you'd said earlier you'd cleaned off the table after breakfast?
Patsy: I cleaned off the table.
Tom Haney: so that, that wasn't there.
Patsy: hm-mm. No. I've not seen that.
Patsy: I did not feed JonBenet pineapple.
Patsy: So I don't know how it got in her stomach,
Patsy: and I don't know where this bowl of pineapple came from.
Patsy: I can't recall putting that there.

VOICE OVER: "The pineapple only deepened the mystery. No one could pinpoint a motive for the Ramseys to lie about it. And it didn't seem to fit the intruder theory either."

Schiller: "If Jonbenet ate the pineapple after she came back from the the Whites does that mean she was sitting there eating the pineapple with somebody she knew? That she was eating it alone because it's a very chilling feeling to know that she sat eating pineapple with the person who might be responsible for her death. And that chilling feeling is one of the things that has haunted this case."

VOICE OVER: "Kept from the public until now is the fact that a glass containing a tea bag was photographed next to the bowl of pineapple. How did it get there? And was the tea and the pineapple consummed at the same time?"

Patsy: But I did not do this. If she ate that, somebody put that there.
Patsy: I can never recall putting a tea bag like that, in a cup. Okay.
Patsy: So I don't know, what the answer is.

VOICE OVER: "According to police files none of the Ramseys friends or any member of the Ramsey family had any idea who prepared or served the tea. During the investigation, the crime lab found Patsy and her ten year old son, Burke's fingerprints on the bowl and Burke's on the glass of tea, adding to the mystery."

Henry Lee (Forensic Scientist): "Another area I'm always curious is whether DNA on the glass and on the bowl and particular the spoon, not only the eating area but also the handle."

VOICE OVER: "But according to the investigators, no DNA tests have ever been conducted on the spoon , bowl or glass."

Jonbenet, Anatomy of a Cold Case, Lawrence Schiller, July 7, 2006, Court TV

cynic said:

VOICE OVER: "Then months after the murder, an investigator examining photographs of the crime scene noticed a bowl on the breakfast room table. The police had always assumed it contained cereal but when they took a closer look at it's contents which had been preserved, they found pineapple."

Tom Haney: and you'd said earlier you'd cleaned off the table after breakfast?
Patsy: I cleaned off the table.
Tom Haney: so that, that wasn't there.
Patsy: hm-mm. No. I've not seen that.
Patsy: I did not feed JonBenet pineapple.
Patsy: So I don't know how it got in her stomach,
Patsy: and I don't know where this bowl of pineapple came from.
Patsy: I can't recall putting that there.

VOICE OVER: "The pineapple only deepened the mystery. No one could pinpoint a motive for the Ramseys to lie about it. And it didn't seem to fit the intruder theory either."

Schiller: "If Jonbenet ate the pineapple after she came back from the the Whites does that mean she was sitting there eating the pineapple with somebody she knew? That she was eating it alone because it's a very chilling feeling to know that she sat eating pineapple with the person who might be responsible for her death. And that chilling feeling is one of the things that has haunted this case."

VOICE OVER: "Kept from the public until now is the fact that a glass containing a tea bag was photographed next to the bowl of pineapple. How did it get there? And was the tea and the pineapple consummed at the same time?"

Patsy: But I did not do this. If she ate that, somebody put that there.
Patsy: I can never recall putting a tea bag like that, in a cup. Okay.
Patsy: So I don't know, what the answer is.

VOICE OVER: "According to police files none of the Ramseys friends or any member of the Ramsey family had any idea who prepared or served the tea. During the investigation, the crime lab found Patsy and her ten year old son, Burke's fingerprints on the bowl and Burke's on the glass of tea, adding to the mystery."

Henry Lee (Forensic Scientist): "Another area I'm always curious is whether DNA on the glass and on the bowl and particular the spoon, not only the eating area but also the handle."

VOICE OVER: "But according to the investigators, no DNA tests have ever been conducted on the spoon , bowl or glass."

Jonbenet, Anatomy of a Cold Case, Lawrence Schiller, July 7, 2006, Court TV

Click to expand...

Then that is blatantly proof of a cover up according to investigators. I see no other reason for this other than to cover for a child that can not be convicted.

Chrishope said:

As far as I know, only BR's prints are on the spoon.

This would suggest that PR prepared the bowl of pineapple and placed it on the table, and that BR moved the bowl or held on to it while spooning out the pineapple. JB apparently did not touch the bowl, at least not the outside of the bowl.

Is it just me or does anyone else find it odd that a tea bag is a glass, rather than a cup or mug?

Click to expand...

My German friends drink both hot and cold tea in a glass. (It actually stays hotter that way!)
But I would say the Rs adhered to American custom and either the glass held iced tea or was simply used to place a spent tea bag in after brewing hot tea in a mug or cup that was not seen.
And if that bowl, glass and spoon are still in custody (as they SHOULD be) it is not too late to test for DNA. They get DNA from mummies thousands of years old. It they haven't tested that bowl, spoon and glass it is because the don't WANT to. And I think we all know what that implies.

DeeDee249 said:

My German friends drink both hot and cold tea in a glass. (It actually stays hotter that way!)
But I would say the Rs adhered to American custom and either the glass held iced tea or was simply used to place a spent tea bag in after brewing hot tea in a mug or cup that was not seen.
And if that bowl, glass and spoon are still in custody (as they SHOULD be) it is not too late to test for DNA. They get DNA from mummies thousands of years old. It they haven't tested that bowl, spoon and glass it is because the don't WANT to. And I think we all know what that implies.

Click to expand...

So if there is a mug/cup is it simply not in the picture? Or has it been washed up? (Seems unlikely they washed up one item)

Like you, I suspect they'd follow American custom and use a glass for ice tea only. Usually that wouldn't involve a tea bag being in the glass. As you note, the bag would likely have been placed in the cup, not the glass. Ice tea seems an odd thing to drink on a cold winter night. If it was not tea the glass might be hard to handle - but then, cold water could have been added to make the tea only warm rather than hot.

It's just odd. Don't know that it particularly tells us much. Just odd.

The bowl, spoon, and glass are probably in custody, but probably there are cross contamination issues at this point.

Chrishope said:

So if there is a mug/cup is it simply not in the picture? Or has it been washed up? (Seems unlikely they washed up one item)

Like you, I suspect they'd follow American custom and use a glass for ice tea only. Usually that wouldn't involve a tea bag being in the glass. As you note, the bag would likely have been placed in the cup, not the glass. Ice tea seems an odd thing to drink on a cold winter night. If it was not tea the glass might be hard to handle - but then, cold water could have been added to make the tea only warm rather than hot.

It's just odd. Don't know that it particularly tells us much. Just odd.

The bowl, spoon, and glass are probably in custody, but probably there are cross contamination issues at this point.

Click to expand...

As most of us know, the problem with the crime scene evidence like the bowl, glass with the teabag, and spoon is that LE did not clear the crime scene, but allowed not only the Kidnap Party of the Ramseys and their friends and pastor to roam the house, but two victim advocates, as well. The kitchen was actually wiped down and cleaned by these "helpful" guests that morning and food and beverages were served, according to some reports.

So that became the excuse Patsy and John grabbed onto, and they were ready when the questions came: it's not her "set up"; he's never seen that spoon before; etc.

But for the fingerprints of Patsy and Burke found on the bowl and glass, no doubt they'd have claimed someone else prepared and used those items besides themselves. Oh, wait...they did anyway.

If I live to be 100, I will never understand how LE allowed that crime scene to get so FUBAR that morning and afternoon. It's hard to believe they were actually that dumb, not to mention untrained and irresponsible when a child's life was allegedly hanging in the balance.

Almost makes you think LE knew before they arrived there was no kidnapping and they were strictly playing a role for show. It's hard to know what the bottom-of-the-ladder cops were told, but I wonder exactly what their bosses who were pulling the strings knew.

For example: another great mystery in this case is why the FBI stood down immediately when child kidnapping was their jurisdiction, not to mention, a TERRORIST GROUP ALLEGEDLY HAD ATTACKED THE FAMILY OF A CEO OF AN INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE CONTRACTOR CO.

One has to wonder if the ransom note writer in fact meant for the FBI to get jurisdiction. Then they'd have had a direct line to the White House, the Pentagon, who would control the investigation, leaving the BPD out of the loop altogether. Things could have been covered up much more easily, perhaps? Fixed at the national level?

Hm. If that were the intended outcome of the ransom note pretending to be from a Foreign Faction, wonder what went wrong?

I've always felt that the teensy little screw-up of THE BPD OFFICER NOT FINDING THE BODY UPON FIRST SEARCH OF THE HOUSE threw the whole plan into a tizzy.

Let's think it through:

If the body had been found by Officer Franch that morning, within the first hour of the BPD's arrival, what would have happened?

Would the FBI have come in then to investigate the murder of the child by a terrorist group; would the case have still been their jurisdiction because of the threat to Lockheed Martin?

If that was the plan, then not having the body found would still seem to give the FBI jurisdiction. It's a child kidnapping; the objective would have been to immediately get the child back safe, right? Instead, cars everywhere, people roaming around in droves, and finally ONE DETECTIVE left alone with 9 adults to await the "kidnapper's" call.

It does not make sense. Someone, somewhere, was orchestrating the LE response and all LE protocol and SOP was out the window. The body wasn't found; a weak, pretend LE response to a "kidnapping" was put into place, and everyone held their breath. Waiting for the kidnapper to call? Or waiting for the body to be found? Both.

Arndt was left alone in this mess. She couldn't even get backup when she realized she needed help. A child's life in the hands of kidnappers--no matter what you may "believe" when you read the fake ransom note, either way you have the life of a child on the line. So you desert the officer in charge for hours?

It just doesn't wash. Ideas?

Here's a quote from the online FBI site; Frequently asked questions:

FBI Investigations

What are the primary investigative functions of the FBI?

The FBI’s investigative authority is the broadest of all federal law enforcement agencies. The FBI has divided its investigations into a number of programs, such as domestic and international terrorism, foreign counterintelligence, cyber, public corruption, civil rights, organized crime/drugs, white-collar crime, violent crimes and major offenders, and applicant matters. The FBI’s investigative philosophy emphasizes close relations and information sharing with other federal, state, local, and international law enforcement and intelligence agencies. A significant number of FBI investigations are conducted in concert with other law enforcement agencies or as part of joint task forces.

[snip]

If a crime is committed that is a violation of local, state, and federal laws, does the FBI “take over” the investigation?

No. State and local law enforcement agencies are not subordinate to the FBI, and the FBI does not supervise or take over their investigations. Instead, the investigative resources of the FBI and state and local agencies are often pooled in a common effort to investigate and solve the cases. In fact, many task forces composed of FBI agents and state and local officers have been formed to locate fugitives and to address serious threats like terrorism and street violence.

[snip]

If a child is missing and possibly kidnapped, but no interstate transportation is known, will the FBI begin an investigation?

Yes. The FBI will initiate a kidnapping investigation involving a missing child “of tender years,” even though there is no known interstate aspect. “Tender years” is generally defined as a child 12 years or younger. The FBI will monitor other kidnapping situations when there is no evidence of interstate travel, and it offers assistance from various entities including the FBI Laboratory.

Click to expand...

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.

Louis J. Freeh
Director
September 1, 1993 - June 25, 2001

Louis J. Freeh was born in Jersey City, New Jersey. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Rutgers College in 1971. Director Freeh received a J.D. degree from Rutgers Law School in 1974 and an LL.M. degree in criminal law from New York University Law School in 1984. He was a First Lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve.

Director Freeh served as an FBI special agent from 1975 to 1981 in the New York City Field Office and at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. In 1981, he joined the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York as an Assistant United States Attorney. Subsequently, he held positions there as chief of the Organized Crime Unit, Deputy United States Attorney, and Associate United States Attorney.

During this time, Director Freeh was the lead prosecutor in the “Pizza Connection” case, the largest and most complex investigation ever undertaken at the time by the United States government. The case involved an extensive drug-trafficking operation in the United States by Sicilian organized crime members who used pizza parlors as fronts. Following the investigation, Director Freeh served as the federal government’s principal courtroom attorney in the 14-month trial and won the conviction of 16 of 17 co-defendants. In 1990, he was appointed a special prosecutor by the attorney general to oversee the investigation into the mail-bomb murders of Federal Judge Robert Vance of Birmingham, Alabama and civil rights leader Robert Robinson of Savannah, Georgia. This case became known as the VANPAC case. After extensive investigation, a suspect was apprehended, prosecuted, and convicted.

In July 1991, former President George Bush appointed Freeh as United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York. While serving in this position he was nominated to be the Director of the FBI by President Clinton on July 20, 1993. He was confirmed by the Senate on August 6, 1993 and was sworn in as Director on September 1, 1993.

In his career as a civil servant, Freeh had been recognized on several occasions for his exemplary accomplishments. In 1987 and 1991, he received the Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service, the second highest annual honor given by the Department of Justice. Other commendations include the John Marshall Award for Preparation of Litigation, awarded annually by the Attorney General, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association Award.

Click to expand...

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 don't believe there is any conspiracy, cover up, etc.

Access Graphics was a minor company that resold computer parts. Just because it was a division of Lockheed Martin doesn't mean JR could have snapped his fingers and brought a conspiracy to life involving the highest levels of the US gov't.

Boulder, CO is small peanuts. Whatever happened that night, the plan was hatched by the Rs. Incompetent policing and an incompetent DA's office explain the bungled investigation that morning and in the days, weeks, months, and years that followed.

JR was part of the 1%, to use today's terminology, but that and a nickel will get you a few luxuries but not much more. The thought that the R's spent the night on the phone with people is belied by the inept "staging" that resulted.

Occam's Razor says that if JR was on the phone arranging a flight to Atlanta the morning of the 26th that this was not the result of a well thought through conspiracy but the actions of a befuddled, frightened, confused man.

The most painful and simplest explanation is usually the truest: just like a handful of guys with box cutters brought down a tower, two disturbed parents killed their daughter. The end.

sandover said:

I don't believe there is any conspiracy, cover up, etc.

Access Graphics was a minor company that resold computer parts. Just because it was a division of Lockheed Martin doesn't mean JR could have snapped his fingers and brought a conspiracy to life involving the highest levels of the US gov't.

Boulder, CO is small peanuts. Whatever happened that night, the plan was hatched by the Rs. Incompetent policing and an incompetent DA's office explain the bungled investigation that morning and in the days, weeks, months, and years that followed.

JR was part of the 1%, to use today's terminology, but that and a nickel will get you a few luxuries but not much more. The thought that the R's spent the night on the phone with people is belied by the inept "staging" that resulted.

Occam's Razor says that if JR was on the phone arranging a flight to Atlanta the morning of the 26th that this was not the result of a well thought through conspiracy but the actions of a befuddled, frightened, confused man.

The most painful and simplest explanation is usually the truest: just like a handful of guys with box cutters brought down a tower, two disturbed parents killed their daughter. The end.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

KoldKase,
Very nice summary. History usually takes curious turns and twists, so whilst there may never be a conviction, we might yet arrive at an outline of what took place.

Unless its BDI, with the State legally covering stuff up, then for me its a conspiracy, there are far too many inconsistencies for it to be anything else.

Also for all those who believe it was a messup, then just consider all those involved who have been legally silenced, e.g. Steve Thomas, Linda Arndt, and Holly Smith, former head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, and others. Why shut people up if justice is required?


.

KoldKase said:

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.

Click to expand...

I was born and raised in Jersey City, graduated college there in 1970. Didn't know this guy, though.

KoldKase said:

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.

Click to expand...

You couldn't have hit the nail on the head any better than this KoldKase. The connections went all the way to the top. :goodpost:

KoldKase said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

BOESP said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.






.

DeeDee249 said:

I was born and raised in Jersey City, graduated college there in 1970. Didn't know this guy, though.

Click to expand...

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.

UKGuy said:

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.

.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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. :blushing:

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?