The Real Ramseys Shine Through

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Tricia, Apr 14, 2004.

  1. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Thanks again to Jayelles for bringing this to us.

    My girlfriend and I were chatting about this the other night. The Nashville Speakers Bureau listing of the Ramseys.

    She brought up a great point. Look at what the Ramseys list as "having it all."

    The Ramseys had it all … financial security, career success, homes, cars, friends, position, status, and a perfect family life…. until that fateful night caused near fatal rippling effects that would strip away life as they had known it.

    http://www.nashspeakers.com/cgi-bin/speakers/display.pl?speaker=638

    This truly makes me sick. It's all about "ME ME ME ME ME."

    They had it all. I guess they let us know that having it all means RICH RICH RICH and if your riches are taken by God then you are a nobody.

    I didn't read where the Ramseys listed their efforts to actually help find the killer of "that child." Mostly focused on what the death of "that child" had done to THEIR PERFECT LIFE.

    Where are all the things John was going to accomplish with his JonBenet Ramsey Foundation? How about listing those accomplishments.

    I have never read where Marc Klaas or John Walsh listed what they lost financially when their children were killed. In fact the only thing I can find on these to men is what they have done to make sure this nightmare doesn't happen to anyone else.

    Dear God can these two be more disgusting?

    (edited to fix big typo)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 14, 2004
  2. Spade

    Spade Member

    Keep

    in mind that the Ramseys are being supported by the "phoney christian" right wing. Once they got in with that fruitcake publisher of DOI, nelson whatever, they were on the Jesus gravytrain.
     
  3. "J_R"

    "J_R" Shutter Bug Bee

    Is it any wonder that JonBenét is called that child when family life falls at the bottom of the list in the Ramseys hierarchy of having it all? JMH&CPO
     
  4. Sabrina

    Sabrina Member

    It also describes John as being a
    " Viet Nam era veteran".

    Did John serve any time in the navy in Vietnam? I could be wrong but this seems to be the first time IVE heard of this- and it strongly implies to me that John served in Vietnam during the war. Or did he just serve in the navy at the same time the war was going on--- but this is phrased to give the appearance that he's a Vietnam veteran and actually participated in the war.
     
  5. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    John Ramsey's tour of active duty in the Navy was 1966-1969 or a mere 3 years, standard officer enlistment after OCS, very early Viet Nam war years. But by his own admission, JR was never deployed shipboard or served any combat duty. In the following material, Ramsey understates his military experience, yet with political aspirations now on the agenda, this speaking engagement listing is a veiled embellishment, an overstatement of his actual military experience, creating the appearance that he served IN the war. We all know what an issue military service becomes in the political arena, and those without active combat duty ala George W. take it in the shorts.

    Excerpt from Deposition of John Bennett Ramsey
    December 12, 2001

    Q. You say that — and I understand that you were in the Navy; is that correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. All right. When you were in the Navy, would you describe, if you remember, pretty much what area you were responsible for as a serviceman?
    A. Well, I was a Civil Engineer Corps officer. I was stationed in the Philippines for two years. I was the civil engineer for the Naval supply depot in the Philippines. I was transferred to Atlanta where I was the base engineer for the Naval Air Station in AtlantA.
    Q. Would you describe what you were doing as an engineer?
    A. Contract management. We ran all the base utilities, maintenance and repair, road construction, long-term planning, site planning.
    Q. Were you actually involved in any hands-on engineering projects?
    A. I had a staff that did that. I wasin charge of the staff.
    Q. So were you ever involved in any of the actual construction?
    A. Did I help pound nails? No.
    Q. Or do anything like that, any sort of manual labor work.
    A. In the military?
    Q. Yes, in the military.
    A. I did not.

    ***

    http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/24/ramsey.update/

    John Ramsey was assigned to the Navy Public Works Center at Subic Bay during 1968-69, according to the Bureau of Navy Personnel in Washington.

    ***

    http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/0206deposition.html

    Excerpt from John Ramsey deposition, Miles v. Ramsey, 1998:

    Page 9
    16 Q. And you attended Michigan State University?
    17 A. Yes.
    18 Q. As did I.
    19 A. Okay.
    20 Q. I was going to ask you, did you ever live on
    21 campus?
    22 A. I lived in -- I did.
    23 Q. Do you remember the dorms or what they looked
    24 like?
    25 A. I remember the dorm well. Emmons Hall, perhaps.

    Page 10
    1 Q. I lived in Snyder Phillips which was one of the
    2 old Gothic -- one of the original dormitory buildings.
    3 What did you major in?
    4 A. Electrical engineering.
    5 Q. When did you attend?
    6 A. I think I graduated from high school in 1961.
    7 So I started that fall and then went through 1966 and then
    8 went on for graduate studies which were interrupted by
    9 Navy service.
    10 Q. It saddens me to confess that I also share naval
    11 service experience with you. What type of work did you do
    12 with the Navy?
    13 A. I was in the civil engineer corps and went
    14 through OCS, officer candidate school.
    15 Q. At Newport?
    16 A. At Newport.
    17 Q. Were you in NROTC?
    18 A. No.
    19 Q. So you graduated Michigan State with a
    20 undergraduate degree in what year?
    21 A. 1966.
    22 Q. Was that a BS degree?
    23 A. Uh-huh.
    24 Q. Is that when you enrolled at OCS?
    25 A. Yeah.

    Page 11
    1 Q. Were you drafted?
    2 A. No.
    3 Q. Just volunteered?
    4 A. Uh-huh, yes.
    5 Q. After you completed OCS, where did you go next
    6 for training in the Navy?
    7 A. I went to Port Waneenee, California, which is
    8 the civil engineer corps school.
    9 Q. How long were you there?
    10 A. A couple months. I don't remember the duration,
    11 but it was 10 weeks maybe.
    12 Q. What was your next stop in the Navy?
    13 A. Then I was assigned to the Philippines, Subic
    14 Bay.
    15 Q. What unit were you in?
    16 A. I was with the public works center.
    17 Q. Were you an ensign at that time?
    18 A. Yes.
    19 Q. What type of work did you do with the public
    20 works center?
    21 A. I was a facilities engineer and I had
    22 responsibility for the naval supply depot facilities, as I
    23 recall, most of the time I was there.
    24 Q. Do you remember your commanding officer at that
    25 time?

    Page 12
    1 A. When I got there, I believe it was Captain
    2 Laland.
    3 Q. Can we spell that for the court reporter's
    4 convenience?
    5 A. I'd be taking a guess. I think it was
    6 L-a-l-a-n-d. I think.
    7 Q. Thanks. How was he as a CO?
    8 A. A gentleman.
    9 Q. You're lucky. I was an aviation intelligence
    10 officer, so I went through ASCS in Pensacola and ended up
    11 in the 14th Squadron out of Miramar and deployed on
    12 America, did an Indian Ocean cruise via the Med.
    13 Did you ever deploy? Were you ever at sea?
    14 A. No, I wasn't.
    15 Q. That's the only way to be in the Navy. How long
    16 were you at Subic?
    17 A. It was approximately two years. I don't
    18 remember exactly.
    19 Q. During that time, did you ever get to come back
    20 home or was it an uninterrupted stay?
    21 A. It was uninterrupted.
    22 Q. During that time, were you able to travel at all
    23 through the rest of the --
    24 A. We traveled a bit, yeah, on R&R.
    25 Q. Do you remember what countries you visited

    Page 13
    1 during that time?
    2 A. We visited Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand.
    3 I think that was it.
    4 Q. Were you required to maintain a security
    5 clearance?
    6 A. Yes.
    7 Q. What level of security clearance did you have?
    8 A. Top secret.
    9 Q. Was it compartmented also or a standard gen-cert
    10 top secret clearance, if you remember?
    11 A. I don't remember.
    12 Q. If you don't remember, it was probably gen-cert?
    13 A. Yeah.
    14 Q. And that was a result of -- was it a special
    15 background investigation, do you know?
    16 A. As I recall, it was, yeah.
    17 Q. SBI by the defense investigative service?
    18 A. The FBI or somebody. I don't remember who did
    19 it.
    20 Q. How long did you remain in the Navy?
    21 A. I was on active duty a little over three years I
    22 think and then I stayed in the reserves for another --
    23 gosh, I don't know, eight years maybe.
    24 Q. Did you drill at all?
    25 A. I did.

    Page 14
    1 Q. What units did you drill with?
    2 A. I was with the -- this was in Atlanta. I was
    3 with the naval air station, Cecil Field group for a while.
    4 And then I was with the officer in charge of construction
    5 for -- gosh, I don't remember -- the southeast or -- I
    6 forget the unit name. It was a civil engineer corps unit.
    7 Q. This is the one-weekend-a-month situation?
    8 A. Right.
    9 Q. Did you ever do the two weeks active duty
    10 stints?
    11 A. Uh-huh.
    12 Q. Do you remember places?
    13 A. Cecil Field in Florida several times. That's
    14 the only one I remember.
    15 Q. Throughout your reserve duty, did you maintain
    16 your same security clearance?
    17 A. I believe so.
    18 Q. Have you ever had a current clearance revoked?
    19 A. Not that I know of.
    20 Q. Leaping ahead, from the termination of your
    21 naval career to date, at any time during that period have
    22 you received and maintained a government security
    23 clearance?
    24 A. No.
    25 Q. In connection with your work with Access

    Page 15
    1 Graphics, did you receive any clearance?
    2 A. No.
    3 Q. Were you ever briefed or debriefed by any
    4 federal agency with respect to security issues?
    5 A. I don't recall.
    6 Q. Needless to say, if you weren't maintaining a
    7 clearance, no clearance was ever taken away from you
    8 during that period, correct?
    9 A. Not that I know of,
    10 Q. Your departure from the Navy, do you recall what
    11 rank you were at the time?
    12 A. I left active duty I think as lieutenant.
    13 Q. Your discharge was honorable?
    14 A. Yes.
    15 Q. Anything else eventful occur during your naval
    16 service?
    17 A. My first child was born.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    If I just read "Vietnam era veteran" I would assume he was in Vietnam without thinking about it. Of course when you stop and think you realize it's a play on words. But who is going to take the time to think about that phrase to realize it's meant to decieve.

    Yes John did serve in the Vietnam "era" but was never in Vietnam.

    Why wouldn't he just say he was in the Navy and give the dates? Because any chance the Ramseys have to make themselves look bigger and better than they really are they'll take it.
     
  7. Sprocket

    Sprocket Member


    You know, I've heard on the news about this guy, who VERIFIES claims of Vietnam combat exposure. (The actor Brian Denehey sp?, claimed to have been in combat and it was proven that he was no where NEAR any combat, much less in vietnam.) Maybe John Ramsey's name, needs to be passed on to the guy who does the verifications, because he creates a bit of media coverage when he exposes a lie. This certainly falls into the range.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2004
  8. Sabrina

    Sabrina Member

    Funny, it says this:

    "hope in the future that enables them to get out of bed in the morning. "

    But nothing about looking at themselves in a mirror. Or falling asleep at night. Or mention of any of the prescription drugs they took after the murder.
     
  9. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    also

    I like how they say
    " ...caused near fatal rippling effects". Uh...it wasn't near fatal - it was fatal for JBR. It's all about them. :curses:
     
  10. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

    Uncle Johnny, Sailor Boy

    5 Q. After you completed OCS, where did you go next
    6 for training in the Navy?
    7 A. I went to Port Waneenee, California, which is
    8 the civil engineer corps school.
    9 Q. How long were you there?
    10 A. A couple months. I don't remember the duration,
    11 but it was 10 weeks maybe.

    *****

    So, John Ramsey was in California for at least ten weeks in 1966/67. How old was Nancy Krebs at that time? How close is Port Waneenee to SLO or Trona, or wherever Nancy and her mother were at that time?
     
  11. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Lurker,

    You ask the distances and I can take a good guess. BTW the correct spelling of the navy base that Johnny is referring to is spelled .... Pt. Hueneme but pronounced as he had it spelled because that would be a phonetic pronounciation. It is a very famous CB or construction Battalion base that has been highly decorated during WWII. I have friends living there and I also lived close by in the town of Oxnard, CA years ago and far away.

    The distance between San Luis Obispo and Pt. Hueneme would be roughly 120 miles give or take. They are both on the ocean or near it.
     
  12. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    According to JR, he entered OCS in Newport, Rhode Island in 1966. To the best of my knowledge, this training is only 13-15 weeks. Upon graduating, he was then stationed for only 10 weeks-2 months at the civil engineering school in Port Hueneme, CA. Following that training, he was then stationed in the Phillipines for two years according to Ramsey, '68-'69 according to Navy Personnel bureau. John's enlistment expired then in 1969 and he did not re-enlist.

    According to NK, her birthdate is 4/5/62. She would have been approximately 5 years old at the time JR did his short training in Port Hueneme. But she claims her first association with the White family and Uncle Johnny was when she was 3 yrs. old, more than a full year prior to JR's residence in Port Heuneme and during the time he was in OCS in Newport.

    However, NK also claims that her association with JR continued from age 3 to her 7th grade year, which would put her at approximately 11-12 years old. That is at the most a 10-year period. John Ramsey, however, was not in CA for that amount of time. He was there for maybe 2-3 months only when NK would have been about 4 until he shipped out for Subic Bay, where he remained for the next 2 years. When JR left the Navy, NK would have been about 6-7. JR says he returned stateside to reside in the south until sometime in the 80s, when his employment took him back to CA. NK would have been in her twenties by then.

    However, NK claims she lived in Buena Park, CA when she first met Uncle Johnny at age 3. The Civil Engineer Corp Officers School (CECOS) is located at 3502 Goodspeed St., Port Hueneme, CA, approximately 145 Mapquest miles from San Luis Obispo, 152 Mapquest miles from Los Osos.

    While living with her grandmother in Los Osos, she proffered a letter dated 1974 that talks about every Sat. night visits with "Uncle Johnny". He calls her at Sue's house around 11 to talk about how good it would be to see NK and her family again, perhaps at Thanksgiving. NK would have been 12 that year. She wrote a letter, unsent, to Uncle Johnny expressing her anger at how he treated her (sexual allegations). According to her own testimony, these visits were telephonic in nature, so no sexual contact between NK and Uncle Johnny could have occurred, albeit these telephonic discussions could have been sexual in content or context. But the letter she intended to send Uncle Johnny was focused on alleged porno videos Uncle Johnny made of him and her together, not sexually explicit phone conversations. Her last contact with Uncle Johnny was in the 7th grade when she was living in Los Osos.

    Unless JR traveled back to CA from 1966 to 1974 from wherever in the world he was living to participate in sexual video trists with NK of sufficient frequency to generate considerable income from which he felt it necessary to "launder" through multiple phoney businesses, her information could not possibly be correct regarding any sexual activity with John Ramsey. Perhaps there was indeed an "Uncle Johnny" in her life at that time, but it is highly unlikely that that person could have been John Ramsey.
     
  13. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    To:

    Nashville Speakers Bureau
    P.O. Box 110909
    Nashville, TN, 37222-0909

    “ARE THEY REALLY SAYING THOSE THINGS?
    We pride ourselves in what others are saying behind our backs!!!
    If you would like to add your "two cents worth"…feel free to
    email us.†(Nashville Speaker Bureau website)

    Rather than saying it behind your back, I accept your invitation
    and say it to you, and elsewhere.

    “Profitability:
    We are a "for profit" business. We must make money to stay in
    business and to afford our staff a living. We do not overcharge
    for our services or use unethical sales tactics to generate
    greater profit to afford ourselves a luxurious lifestyle. We
    welcome the opportunity to discuss monetary concerns with you
    when booking a speaker.â€
    (http://www.nashspeakers.com/cgi-bin....pl?speaker=638)

    By the foregoing, it is established that the Nashville Speakers
    Bureau is a “for profit†business.

    In your business operation acquiring and providing speakers for
    clients, you recently added John and Patsy Ramsey to your speaker
    roster. With this addition to the roster came a website promo
    advertising the acquisition. Since you do operate as a for profit
    business with profit depending on the purchase of speaker
    services, advertising is critical to the operation. I assume this
    brings the operation under the jurisdiction of state and federal
    laws regarding truth in advertising.

    “Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

    * advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
    * advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
    * advertisements cannot be unfair.

    Advertising Products and Services
    Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act") gives
    the Federal Trade Commission the authority to prevent deceptive
    and unfair acts or practices. Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, a
    representation, omission, or practice is deceptive if it is
    likely to:
    mislead consumers; and
    affect consumers' behavior or decisions about the product or
    service.â€

    The portrayal of the Ramseys as totally innocent victims of law
    enforcement persecution and media bias is the face you put on
    as the central selling point. Is this truth in advertising?

    Is the advertisement in compliance with “advertisers must have
    evidence to back up their claims�

    “On Christmas night, 1996, John and Patsy Ramsey’s daughter,
    JonBenét, was slain by a vicious killer. This tragic murder has
    become one of the most notorious unsolved crimes of the century.â€
    (From the promo)

    By what evidence do you back up the claim of murder as opposed to
    accident?

    “Rumors and false allegations leaked by local authorities and
    fostered by a hungry media fueled speculation that the parents
    were guilty despite their insistence on innocence.†(ibid)

    To exactly what false allegations leaked (to whom) by what
    specific authorities do you refer? What evidence do you have
    supporting this contention?

    When you say, “despite their insistence on innocenceâ€, are you
    saying that the Ramseys’ “insistence on innocence†is sufficient
    with no further investigating required. Be honest. Did you get
    this idea from Lou Smit?

    “ A Boulder, Colorado grand jury refused to indict them for lack
    of evidence, and a Federal judge in Atlanta, Georgia issued a 93
    page report citing unquestionable evidence of the intruder who
    killed their daughter.†(ibid)

    Did you read the 93 page report? If so, exactly what in the
    report do you consider cited “unquestionable evidence of the
    intruder?†I am infinitely familiar with the Judge Carnes’ ruling
    to which you refer and I’m at a loss to find the alleged
    “unquestionable evidence of the intruder.†Perhaps, you would be
    so kind to point it out to me.

    Anyone not at all familiar with the facts of the case and taking
    your promo at face value would necessarily come away with the
    impression that there was and is no evidentiary reason whatsoever
    for law enforcement, media, or anyone else to consider the
    Ramseys suspects. The “poor innocent victims†portrayal may be
    suited to your business agenda, but could be that OMISSION tends
    to “mislead consumers; and
    affect consumers' behavior or decisions about the product or
    service.†(Section 5, FTC Act)

    My agenda? I’m a stickler for facts, all the facts. It
    disturbingly aggravates my sense of order when I hear or read
    something that doesn’t meet this need. This prompts an
    overwhelming impulse to balance the scales. I look forward to
    your response and answers to the questions.


    Delmar England
     
  14. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Well said and written, Delmar! Perhaps this organization should be sent some of the incriminating evidence documentation that leads most LE authorities, including BPD, the FBI and Vidocq Society to believe the Ramseys are "good for it." Perhaps this organization should know that the Ramseys and their RST despise these LE entities, believing they are merely suffering tunnel vision? Perhaps this organization should know that in more than a year of "working" the case, Mary Keenan and her accomplished staff of experienced homicide detectives have not come up with one iota of evidence to support an intruder theory.
     
  15. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

     
  16. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

     
  17. Sprocket

    Sprocket Member

    DITTO!!!! (What Tricia said.... :D )
     
  18. Thor

    Thor Active Member

    I agree Delmar. You are a whiz with letters like this. I am sick to death of one-sized views on this case anymore, along with inaccuracies. Someone needs to step up & challenge this crapola. Thank you for doing so.
     
  19. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Not only do I agree

    with your letter, EasyWriter, the part about being a stickler for fact just jumped out at me. I too am a stickler for fact. I am a stickler for details, right down to the tiniest detail that could change the entire picture but which many gloss over, thus tainting everything that comes after. It is those tiny details that the RST is so good at leaving out of all their equations, only to replace those tiny details with their own versions of what might have been there. It is why I know Lou Smit is a lousy detective. It is why I know Lin Wood is a manipulator of the truth. It is why I know jameson is ignorant. It is how I knew mame lied, along with her thugs.

    Build your house on facts and details, and you will have a solid foundation. That's just the way it is. Anything less is not good enough.
     
  20. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks folks for all your kind words, but as Red Green would say, “I’m pulling for you. We’re all in this together.â€

    I can’t tolerate a contradiction, nor abide a phony. The Ramsey are the epitome of both. Any persons responsible for the death of their child and exploit that death for personal gain as the Ramseys have done and are doing are the lowest of the low; contemptible beyond description by any words in any language.

    The Nashville Speakers Bureau lists a fee range from $2,500 to $30,000. I wonder how much money it would take to book the Ramseys, not for another one-sided, self-serving speech, but for a question and answer session involving the members of this forum and other? Is there enough money in the world to entice them into a real interrogation?
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice