Missing Link - What's the compelling motive for government cover-up?...

[UKGuy]

The daughter of John Ramsay is kidnapped, he is a Lockheed Martin executive, employed by a company with an annual turnover in the tens of billions, which has clearance to classified technical information on a world-wide basis.

Normally large corporations have an agreed security procedure with the local police and FBI in the event of kidnapping, terrorist demands and localized threats etc. These elements appeared in the ransom note.

Legal jurisdiction, in the case of kidnapping, belongs to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

So why did the FBI and Lockheed Martin not react as expected to the kidnapping of JonBenet and the terrorist demands? In other cases where corporate executives have been kidnapped or threatened the FBI have responded as expected! I believe the Boulder Police have to notify the FBI of any kidnapping immediately, it is mandatory.

Although the FBI appeared not to be procedurally involved, informally they assisted the BPD. An offender profile and expert opinion on the handwriting contained in the ransom note, was made available via the head of the behavioural science dept at Quantico, Virginia.

So was there a telephone call the morning of the 26th to invoke the Lockheed Martin security protocol. Was a decison taken to enact a coverup, one that would obscure the association of any of John Ramsey's peers and maintain the corporate reputation?

Why would the Stines be willing to impersonate the Chief of Police via email, with the intention of influencing the public perception of the case, particularly when John Ramsey has stated he does not consider them to be friends.

An alternative to a family coverup is a local government and corporate conspiracy, one that seeks to disassociate those involved or related by staging an intruder homicide. The common linkage may have been a liberal lifestyle enjoyed by those taking part.

So a compelling motive for a government cover-up may be the maintainence of public order and corporate reputation, since in the realm of national security, the indulgence of a liberal lifestyle is high risk behaviour!


.

 

[BlueCrab]

In criminal justice, a motive can be described as something that motivated the person to commit the crime, or the coverup, etc.

But most motives, especially in who-done-its, aren't found out for sure until after the crime has been solved. IOW, motives are often mere theories until the perpetrator confesses or the jury pieces the evidence together to uncover why the perpetrator committed the crime.

Grand juries have the power to dig deep and uncover such things as motives, but we as citizens don't.

So, until the JonBenet Ramsey murder is officially solved, we likely won't know the motive. Of course, if my BDI theory is close to being accurate, the crime has been solved for years but not the motive, nor much of anything else, can be publicly announced because of Colorado law and the court gag order. Thus, we may never know for sure who did it, or his motive.

But we do know a lot about the case, and we are free to form our own opinions based on what we know. JonBenet will at least receive that measure of justice.

BlueCrab

 

[EdisonDoyle]

But we do know a lot about the case, and we are free to form our own opinions based on what we know. JonBenet will at least receive that measure of justice.

BlueCrab

Well of course we are, and the lack of motive to cover-up is confusing to me as I try to figure out what's going on. I've always enjoyed bouncing theories off of people in various endeavors, to see if a fresh perspective can find any possible holes.

But most motives, especially in who-done-its, aren't found out for sure until after the crime has been solved. IOW, motives are often mere theories until the perpetrator confesses or the jury pieces the evidence together to uncover why the perpetrator committed the crime.

Well, the state, if it can, will present a motive to the jury- it adds to the strength of its case. (sometimes they avoid it, if the motive weakens its case, such as the motive for why a battered wife murdered her husband). I thought you might have some insight into it, as you, from what I can tell, are confident in your theory about what happened.

Thanks for all of your responses.

 

[EdisonDoyle]

UK - Now that's one heck of an cover-up theory. Maybe so.
Just putting my nit-picking hat on, would "liberal" Boulder assist in a defense-industry cover-up?

To anyone. Not to hijack the thread that I started, but:

1)Just using google, I notice several different "websleuth sites"; this one is run by, I believe, Tricia, another by other people perhaps more. Is websleuth one company and various people rent space?

2)Who is Susan Bennett? Is she simply a Ramsey supporter who runs a website? And who is Donald Foster? (I know he's been out of things for a long time). I ask because I came across websites that deal specifically with these two people (and not very flattering).


Thanks

 

[narlacat]

Add BR to the JAR equation and Patsy's decision on whether or not to coverup becomes more difficult.

It does BC.
Even though JAR has been cleared, he is still on my suspect list. I really cant see the Ramsey's lying for anyone other than a family member.
His strange comment "forgiveness" has always made me wonder,fgs why would he say that? Even if he didnt do it, why would he say that? If he was saying that because he knows his parents are guilty, he must be pretty stupid.
The blanket and book have always made me wonder as well...and where they were found,as well as the paintings that were found in the basement. Maybe there is a connection between them and the references to movies that were in the ransom note.
From my understanding, it was possible for JAR to be in Boulder that night and a neighbour did think they saw him walking across the Ramsey's yard going towards the house.

 

[BlueCrab]

,as well as the paintings that were found in the basement. Maybe there is a connection between them and the references to movies that were in the ransom note.

narlacat,

What paintings are you referring to? Could we have a source please?

 

[Camper]

Coverup by DA - to protect Burke IF IF he did IT.

Coverup by PR - IF JR did it.

Coverup by JR - IF PR did it.

Coverup by JR - IF JAR did it.

Coverup by PR/JR/the Stines - IF both young boys were involved. Stine were pillars of the University of Colorado. CU would not want anyone connected to the university to have such a horrendous crime exposed to public light.

Coverup by Martin - IF BAD public image for the corporation, although JR was gone gone from Access not too long after the murder. Was this part of the floor mopping operation, clean it up it will go away.

Coverup by PR and JR to protect their status/reputation/ IF any of their family did it.

I had a thought this morning, White obviously knows some stuff that has not seen the light of the press. We know HE did not see JonBenet (in the room where she was found later) when he first went to the basement.

Now then the motive may very well have revealed itself IF IF the traditional Ramsey family Christmas movie had NOT disappeared. I do believe the the movie holds much that WE and the BPD NEED to know.

HOW sad when the movers came to pack the Ramsey home, one of the men found a movie BEHIND the movie cabinet, and IT disappeared. I believe this info is found in PMPT. According to the way that I read it, this movie would have to have been tossed over a high accessed top of the cabinet, to land behind the cabinet.

I would love to know what ALL Fleet White knows. HE must know a bunch, and JR knows he knows a bunch, hence, no lasting friendship there, bridges have been burned.

ThesefolksweresocloseflyinggoingplacesbeingtogetherdoingfriendlystuffJonBenetand theirlittlegirlwerelikesisterswhathappenedtothisgreatfriendship? WHATdoesFleetknowthatwould sendsomefolkstothestripedjailcellspa?

 

[narlacat]

narlacat,

What paintings are you referring to? Could we have a source please?

BC
I am referring to the three framed movie posters...Star Trek, Somewhere in Time, and one of Spencer Tracey and Frank Sinatra in The Devil at 4 O'Clock. Also another one was leaning up against the back of the wall, Agatha Christie's Death on the Nile.
These were in the train room, where I understand the suitcase was also found underneath the windows at the back.
This comes from PMPT pg 91.

I figure they are JAR's and thats why they were in the basement to begin with, along with other stuff of his. Not sure why they werent on his bedroom wall though, maybe they clashed with the decor of his room and Patsy made him put them in the basement. We all know Patsy was overly concerned with the way things looked, and maybe she took them down for the open house that they had that time.
Both Patsy and John said they werent avid movie goers and that they didnt realize the RN contained lines from movies. John said he had watched Speed, but on a plane and he didnt have the head phones on....
Well, someone in that house liked movies, hence the paintings.
I doubt either Patsy or John have ever watched an episode of Star Trek, so it makes sense that that picture was JAR's. If one of them was his, you would assume the others were too, thats why they were all together in the one spot in the basement.
Maybe JAR only helped with the RN. If he wasnt there that night, maybe Patsy and John rang him to help them concoct the RN.

 

[narlacat]

>>HOW sad when the movers came to pack the Ramsey home, one of the men found a movie BEHIND the movie cabinet, and IT disappeared. I believe this info is found in PMPT. According to the way that I read it, this movie would have to have been tossed over a high accessed top of the cabinet, to land behind the cabinet.<<

I didnt know about the missing movie. I dont know much about video cams , but after you have shot the movie, dont you need to transfer the little tape onto a big tape...
It was a busy time for everyone, getting everything ready for their trip. There was lots of packing to be done and the plane took time to get ready for the flight.
Maybe they didnt have time to stuff around with the Christmas video and that was just another video that had accidently fallen behind the cabinet.

 

[tipper]

[...]
HOW sad when the movers came to pack the Ramsey home, one of the men found a movie BEHIND the movie cabinet, and IT disappeared. I believe this info is found in PMPT. According to the way that I read it, this movie would have to have been tossed over a high accessed top of the cabinet, to land behind the cabinet.


[...]QUOTE]

I've never heard that and don't recall reading it in PMPT. Though my memory isn't what it once was. Do you have a page #?

 

[EdisonDoyle]

It does BC.
Even though JAR has been cleared, he is still on my suspect list. I really cant see the Ramsey's lying for anyone other than a family member.

Unless Patsy is incredibly weak, I can't see her lying to save him. She would have to be weak to the extent of a battered wife who keeps going back for more, to do such a thing. She doesn't strike me that way.
I guess it could be that he did it and she doesn't know it. But that seems far-fetched.

 

[narlacat]

Edison

Here is a theory that I find makes sense that could explain that it was John and Patsy didnt know.
It is from a poster called docg.

>>What follows is a hypothetical scenario based on my analysis of the Ramsey case posted some time ago at the Webbsleuths Case Files site. It demonstrates how John Ramsey could have murdered his daughter and covered up his actions, essentially on his own, with just a small amount of help from a basically innocent Patsy. The key to the scenario is the ransom note itself, for which it supplies a very thorough (if speculative) explanation. If you can “read” the note, then, in my opinion, this scenario simply pops right out at you. Because the note looks to me like the outline of a plan:

1. John kills his daughter JonBenet, probably in connection with some sort of sexual molestation. It’s possible he does this “accidently” during gentle manual strangulation, concocting the “garotte” to point investigators away from possible fingerprints on her neck. (See the Althusser case, in France, where strangulation was so gentle as to leave no signs at all on the outer part of the neck.) Or it’s possible the garotte was itself a part of the sexual act. It’s difficult to account for the reason behind the head blow, but it would seem to have followed strangulation and been part of a coverup effort.
2. John then devises a plan, a phoney kidnapping, followed by a fatal sexual attack on the part of the “kidnapper.” To make this work he needs two things: a ransom note; a staged break-in.
3. He stores the body temporarily in the windowless room, in a remote corner, covered by blankets, planning later to get it into the trunk of the car and dump it.
4. He writes the ransom note at his computer, then either traces it or copies it, imitating the look of the font he’s chosen. (He dare not print it for fear of waking Patsy or Burke.) It is carefully constructed to accomplish several tasks: discourage Patsy from searching the house for JonBenet; frighten her into not calling the police; setting up a phoney kidnapping scenario; calling for a reasonably small ransom amount, something that won’t make the people at the bank suspicious – he makes it $118,000 rather than, say, $100,000 so that this particular amount will be seen as having primarily symbolic rather than monetary significance – the kidnapper he is creating will be someone “out to get” John; setting up a situation where it is up to him to deal with raising the ransom and getting it to the “kidnapper”; giving him a full day to do what he will have to do (the note says the call will come “tomorrow.”)
5. He then stages a break-in at the basement window, breaking a hole in the window, dumping debris from the window well onto the floor, making a scuff mark on the wall, placing the suitcase under the window and leaving it ajar. He realizes, however, that this is not sufficient, that at some point he must actually crawl through that window and displace the grate. Too risky to do that now. He plans to take care of that the following night when, as he hopes, he will be alone in the house.
6. John’s plan (plan A) involves calling in friends to witness the staged break-in and the note’s contents and then take Patsy and Burke with them, for their safety, leaving John alone to deal with raising the ransom and delivering it.
7. Once everyone is gone, John will be able to safely get the body into the car trunk, along with all the evidence, including the note itself. He’ll dump the body in a remote place and burn the note. Later he will claim the kidnappers contacted him again and gave him instructions as to where to take the ransom. He’ll also claim they demanded the return of the note. And he’ll claim they then told him to pick JonBenet up somewhere, but when he arrived no one was there.
8. The above plan could not be implemented, however, because John was never able to convince Patsy not to call the police. For whatever reason, most likely in all innocence, she makes that 911 call, spoiling his carefully worked out plan. He must now move to plan B. IMO it could well be the shift from plan A to plan B that has made this case so difficult to piece together.
9. As the police are arriving, John is already at work attempting to undo plan A and move to plan B. Since the window break-in had never been completed, this is now his main concern. Because the way things now stand, it will be all too clear to the police that this is a staged break-in. He attempts to undo his earlier staging by secretly closing the window and then claiming it had been broken long ago, by him, when he’d locked himself out of the house. Unknown to him, however, the police had already spotted the window when it was open. This IMO is his most serious mistake, not getting that window closed soon enough. Later, when questioned about this, why he closed the window and why he informed no one, he is unable to explain.
10. When Arndt asks John to search the house, he goes directly to the basement because it is necessary for him to discover the body – so he can claim it was right out in the open rather than carefully hidden in a corner under blankets (which is why Fleet White didn’t see it earlier). This, rather than any attempt at “contaminating the crime scene,” is his real reason for “discovering” the body.
11. After the body is found, John cannot permit the police to interrogate Patsy. Because she might reveal the fact that John was totally against calling the police, and this might well give away his plan. This is the real reason why “the Ramseys” stonewalled the police for so long. Patsy needs to be convinced to tell some white lies about what happened. John lets his lawyers do this, the argument being that to tell the whole truth will tend to make John look bad. Patsy is convinced John is innocent, so she tries to do all she can to help in his defense. Patsy is convinced IMO to this day, which is why they have presented a united front. John depends on Patsy because he’s afraid she’ll tell the whole truth about whose idea the 911 call was. Patsy depends on John because he, with his legal “team,” has become her principal defender.<<

 

[EdisonDoyle]

Narl - thanks for posting that. It's interesting.
Sort of depends on a pretty gullible Patsy, though.

Also based on that, the police caught him in a bold-faced lie, re the window.

I don't know what's more believable: that there is a cover-up (without, to me, a good motive for doing so); or that there isn't (which presumes people are ridiculously gullible and stupid).

 

[narlacat]

UK - Now that's one heck of an cover-up theory. Maybe so.
Just putting my nit-picking hat on, would "liberal" Boulder assist in a defense-industry cover-up?

To anyone. Not to hijack the thread that I started, but:

1)Just using google, I notice several different "websleuth sites"; this one is run by, I believe, Tricia, another by other people perhaps more. Is websleuth one company and various people rent space?

2)Who is Susan Bennett? Is she simply a Ramsey supporter who runs a website? And who is Donald Foster? (I know he's been out of things for a long time). I ask because I came across websites that deal specifically with these two people (and not very flattering).

Edison

2) Susan Bennet is better known as Jameson. She has her own web site and forum. She is just a housewife who had nothing better to do than immerse herself into this case. She is an avid Ramsey supporter and if you say otherwise on her forum, she gets really cranky lol.
She has caused no end of trouble from what I gather and if I were you I wouldnt delve into it that much, as its not worth it and gets very confusing.
Donald Foster is a literature professor and a liguistics expert. He concluded that Patsy Ramsey was the author of the ransom note.
Jameson somehow comes into play here...by studying internet postings from an anonymous Jameson,Foster wrongly concluded that Jameson was a 20 yr old male with homicidal tendencies and was the killer of JonBenet. Apparently he was wrong about other stuff too but I dont know how true that is.
Its hard to figure out what is true and what is not in this case.

Edit to add, I didnt mean to offend anyone by saying Jameson is just a house wife. By that I meant ,she is noone official on this case. Alot of the stuff that I've read about her would make you think she is alot more important than she actually is.

 

[tipper]

Donald Foster is a literature professor and a liguistics expert. He concluded that Patsy Ramsey was the author of the ransom note.
Jameson somehow comes into play here...by studying internet postings from an anonymous Jameson,Foster wrongly concluded that Jameson was a 20 yr old male with homicidal tendencies and was the killer of JonBenet. Apparently he was wrong about other stuff too but I dont know how true that is.
Its hard to figure out what is true and what is not in this case.

I think he may have had to turn in his little experts badge. Other than correctly picking (from a preselected list) the author of Primary Colors and confirming the brother's opinion that Ted Kaczynski was Unabomber, I don't think he's been right in anything. His Shakespeare sonnets turned out to be wrong. He was wrong about Jameson. He wrote Patsy Ramsey declaring he absolutely knew she didn't write the ransom note and then went to work for BPD and declared she did. I think he's a publicity hungry fraud.

His reputation among Shakespearian scholars and linguists is nil.

 

[EdisonDoyle]

Thanks

As I was googling around, I came across websites that were devoted strictly to her (but old). I didn't realize she was just a poster. Just checked out here site - same name (almost) as this one with not much action. I'll take your advice and leave her alone.

It's hard to believe that this case is as old as it is.

 

[narlacat]

I think he may have had to turn in his little experts badge. Other than correctly picking (from a preselected list) the author of Primary Colors and confirming the brother's opinion that Ted Kaczynski was Unabomber, I don't think he's been right in anything. His Shakespeare sonnets turned out to be wrong. He was wrong about Jameson. He wrote Patsy Ramsey declaring he absolutely knew she didn't write the ransom note and then went to work for BPD and declared she did. I think he's a publicity hungry fraud.

His reputation among Shakespearian scholars and linguists is nil.

Thanx Tipper for explaining that better for Edison. I forgot about the letter Foster wrote to Patsy saying he knew she was innocent and then turned around and said the opposite later on when it suited him.

 

[aussiesheila]

White obviously knows some stuff that has not seen the light of the press.

We know HE did not see JonBenet (in the room where she was found later) when he first went to the basement.

Just a minute Camper, we do NOT know this

 

[aussiesheila]

Why invoke the idea of a government coverup anyway?

Isn't the failure to make an arrest in simply the result of a total stuffup by the BPD in the early hours, days and weeks after the murder? When they allowed all manner of people to contaminate the crime scene and then made the Ramseys the sole focus of their investigations. In so doing they must have managed to lose every opportunity of obtaining evidence that might have led to the true perpetrators. They didn't gather enough evidence when it was there to be gathered, and to build a solid case against anyone who actually was guilty, now incriminating evidence is largely all lost and there will never be a court case for that simple reason.

Maybe people might like to consider the following - why did the BPD stuff up? Was it just a plain old ordinary stuffup? Or was it a deliberate stuffup? Now there's a coverup idea worth thinking about IMO. I can even supply a motive.

 

[Camper]

Just a minute Camper, we do NOT know this

WElll, I do think that all of us on the planet know stuff that has not seen the light of press, about all manner of things that we have experienced, and seen in our daily life. So the shoe fits pertaining to Mr. White.

WHY else would he write such an extensive letter to the Governor of the State of Colorado? HE knows that something of substance has or had not been discovered by the Keystone Kops.

Since this is an opinion forum, this is my opinion, and I am sticking to it.



:banghead:


.