Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 69
  1. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    As for Hunter fearing for his life, maybe White didn't want to end up dead, either. He, more than anyone, knew exactly how bad this business of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey went for anyone not on Team Ramsey. What DA publicly implicates an entire family in a "child sex ring" with no investigation, much less an indictment? That's what Hunter did to the Whites in The Daily Camera. Unfreakingbelievable. Either I woke up in nazi Germany one day and I missed the memo, or this was yet another astonishing red flag waving over this case.

    The thing about Hunter is he had a well-worn record of "doing deals" with criminals, especially killers in infamous murder cases involving the rich and powerful. I don't think anyone had to threaten him; he already knew how it was going to go when he got that first call, I'd guess.
    Without looking it up I seem to remember that the cops on the case had mutilated cats thrown on the lawn, cut garden hoses, gardens torn up, etc. Didn't one have someone shoot at him when he was in his house? I can't remember when these things happened. That might throw some light on who might have been pulling the strings.

    They would've used different tactics against the DA's office probably, but maybe you're right and they didn't even have to do anything.

  2. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Well, if that scared you and you have a strong constitution, here's a real nightmare--all the more because it's probably truer than we even want to imagine: The Lords of War, starring Nicholas Cage in one of his best performances, is about the International business of buying and selling weapons for war. I think it's worth watching in context to this case because Lockheed Martin is in that very business. If there's any truth behind this fiction, it really shines a different light into the world of LM.

    And according to our D.E.A. (Drug Enforcement Admin.) there's more than a little truth in this movie. Here's the real arms dealer it was based upon--allegedly: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/wo.../07dealer.html

    And this article in The Christian Science Monitor asks some interesting questions about the recent U.S. extradition of alleged Russian arms dealer Bout from Thailand to the U.S. under the cover of darkness and protest from the Russian gov't.: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europ...ed-to-America/

    Interesting, to say the least.

    As for Hunter fearing for his life, maybe White didn't want to end up dead, either. He, more than anyone, knew exactly how bad this business of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey went for anyone not on Team Ramsey. What DA publicly implicates an entire family in a "child sex ring" with no investigation, much less an indictment? That's what Hunter did to the Whites in The Daily Camera. Unfreakingbelievable. Either I woke up in nazi Germany one day and I missed the memo, or this was yet another astonishing red flag waving over this case.

    The thing about Hunter is he had a well-worn record of "doing deals" with criminals, especially killers in infamous murder cases involving the rich and powerful. I don't think anyone had to threaten him; he already knew how it was going to go when he got that first call, I'd guess.
    You know, you may have hit upon the truth about this case, kk. If FW goes to his rest without ever revealing his side of the story, I have to believe the powers made it clear to him, in one way or another, that things were better off left unsaid.

    In the world, money is power and big money controls even the best of governments. I don't want to admit it, I'd like to believe that one day the truth will out, but, I think it's a good bet that a "fixer" was running the show and keeping the real truth from coming to light.

    But why, if it were simply a small thing such as sibling attack or a mother who lost her grip...why would the powers be so adamant in covering this thing?

  3. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    You know, you may have hit upon the truth about this case, kk. If FW goes to his rest without ever revealing his side of the story, I have to believe the powers made it clear to him, in one way or another, that things were better off left unsaid.

    In the world, money is power and big money controls even the best of governments. I don't want to admit it, I'd like to believe that one day the truth will out, but, I think it's a good bet that a "fixer" was running the show and keeping the real truth from coming to light.

    But why, if it were simply a small thing such as sibling attack or a mother who lost her grip...why would the powers be so adamant in covering this thing?
    My working theory is that John suspected that Patsy's "Plan B" was to frame him and that was suggested to him by the contents of the ransom note. John would have a strong interest in keeping Patsy from being questioned if he thought she might eventually finger him as the murderer.

    As for the powers that be, how would they know for sure which one did it or why?

  4. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    The more I read about this side of things relating to this case, the more I believe I am reading what truly happened with the Jonbenét case. It's a bit frightening KK.

    I'm not keen on Nicolas Cage as an actor but this I have to see. Thanks for the update on this.

    .
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  5. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LurkerXIV View Post
    Will we ever know the true horrors she went through on that long Christmas night 14 years ago?

    I still hold out hope that her murderer will some day be exposed and prosecuted.
    It could happen, Lurker, but not through the Boulder DA Office, I'm afraid. For practical reasons I've outlined many times, like cost, the time it would take to try the case (remember O.J.'s trial was 5 months), and the uncovering of Hunter's activities in this case through defense discovery, plus Lacy's public statements which would certainly render "reasonable doubt" for any Ramsey, not to mention her arrest of PERV Karr, etc., JonBenet will never see on this earth in a courtroom. As Steve Thomas said, not without a confession, and not a confession from a pervert media whore looking to make a buck, either.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  6. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    Without looking it up I seem to remember that the cops on the case had mutilated cats thrown on the lawn, cut garden hoses, gardens torn up, etc. Didn't one have someone shoot at him when he was in his house? I can't remember when these things happened. That might throw some light on who might have been pulling the strings.

    They would've used different tactics against the DA's office probably, but maybe you're right and they didn't even have to do anything.
    Thomas wrote about the alleged scare tactics that happened, though the details were vague, as I remember, because no one was ever found to be guilty of any of the attacks on LE.

    Speaking from memory, what I remember is that not much was even investigated, and I'm not clear if there was ever proof these things happened to Linda Arndt (dead cat on her doorstep?) and another officer whose house was shot at? Those could be related to some other case, as well. Yeah, right.

    If there was any attack on a BDA lawyer, I have never heard about it.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  7. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    You know, you may have hit upon the truth about this case, kk. If FW goes to his rest without ever revealing his side of the story, I have to believe the powers made it clear to him, in one way or another, that things were better off left unsaid.

    In the world, money is power and big money controls even the best of governments. I don't want to admit it, I'd like to believe that one day the truth will out, but, I think it's a good bet that a "fixer" was running the show and keeping the real truth from coming to light.

    But why, if it were simply a small thing such as sibling attack or a mother who lost her grip...why would the powers be so adamant in covering this thing?
    All I can do is speculate, of course, Learnin, but what I do believe is undeniable is that big companies do not like to have any bad publicity, especially with their CEOs. One with the kind of international business LM has would not look upon having a CEO implicated, much less convicted, in the molestation and murder of his own six year old daughter as acceptable.

    Remember that LM sold Access Graphics within the year, to G.E. I think it was, and part of that sale ended in JR being pushed out with his golden parachute to comfort him.

    Long ago there was a news article in a Colorado paper that stated JR was fired because he refused to take a polygraph for L.M. and/or G.E. It was a short article and it would take a lot to find it now, since I didn't save stuff back then, not having a clue I'd be here 14 years later. How a reporter got that info I don't know, or even if it was true. But looking up some of the later polygraph issues with the Ramseys today, they refused to answer direct questions in an interview about whether they'd ever taken a polygraph prior to the ones in 2000, citing attorney-client privilege--which tells me yes, at least one of them did. Maybe one or both did and one or both didn't pass.

    I figured if JR's company wanted him to take one and he refused and that contributed to him getting fired or "let go" when the company changed hands, that was either their official excuse to use a clause in his contract to dismiss him, or maybe they really wanted to know the truth.

    Let me repeat that I can only SPECULATE. It's all we have ever been able to do, and none of this may even be close to the truth. But in the spirit of theory, who's to say the Ramseys told anyone the truth the night of the murder or the next day? As suspects, what they said will always be suspect, too. If LM got a call that night and actually knew that the Ramseys were involved, even more reason to suspect what the Ramseys said, even to the LM contact, wasn't true. Maybe LM had no idea the child was molested, that night or prior to that night? Maybe they did and didn't care, but once the murder became the huge headline that wasn't going to go away, maybe LM decided it was time to wash their hands of it all because the one thing no one could have predicted was the Internet/World Wide Web break out of exposure in this murder.

    See, news cycles move pretty fast, as you all know. In 1996, the 24/7 news media channels were new and the effect they had on what the public focuses on was profound, but the only prior uber crime drama played out for a considerable length of time was the O.J. case. There was no Nancy Grace. Court TV was practically invented for the O.J. trial, or at least I knew nothing about it prior to that case. One thing we know for a fact is that the O.J. trial scared the bejesus out of ever D.A. in the country. No one wanted to live through that kind of case. Least of all Alex Hunter.

    But the Ramseys were not O.J. We're talking huge football star, Hollywood star...the works. TWO victims, sexy, young, glamorous, and brutally murdered. Then the low speed chase--I can remember where I was and what I was doing when I noticed it playing out on TV. I was spellbound. We'd never seen anything like this.

    So who could have predicted on that night, Dec. 25th/26th, 1996, that this case would end up in the same publicity stratosphere as the Simpson murders? Who outside the circle of family, friends, and schoolmates even knew JonBenet was a pageant queen, with a still astonishingly large portfolio of modeling shots and video footage in costumes that shocked most parents?

    I remember hearing about the murder on one of those 24/7 news channels when it was first reported, seeing the video footage. I remember even speaking of it to family at a Christmas gathering, mostly because a family member died tragically himself in an accident a couple of days later, a death that altered our family forever, so one tends to remember what at the time seemed trivial conversation.

    I don't know when or how Lockheed Martin received this info, but I have no doubt in my mind they knew about it and quickly, BECAUSE OF THE RANSOM NOTE. I can't believe the FBI wouldn't have notified them immediately, even if JR did not. That's not something an international defense contractor would not be apprised of.

    Terrorism was nothing new even then, and then-LM Denver security exec Norm Early asked the same question on TV later, because he never was informed about the potential threat to other LM exec's and their families at any time. That had to subvert safety protocol IF ANYONE IN LE, THE FBI, OR AT LM REALLY BELIEVED THE RANSOM NOTE, and how could ANYONE have proven in a matter of minutes that the ransom note was a red herring and the child was never kidnapped, but murdered in the home BEFORE THE BODY WAS FOUND? Unless THEY ALREADY KNEW IT before the body was "found"....

    Kidnapping is a very real problem in international business, money, and power, going further back than the kidnapping of John Paul Getty's grandson in Italy, whose ear was mailed in when Getty refused to pay. Mercedes doesn't have an E Class for fun and games: bullet proof. Exec's for international companies actually have KIDNAPPING INSURANCE in case their families need to raise a million quickly. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP! This has been true for more than 15 years now, as I read about it in an article in Vanity Fair not long after the murder. Especially in countries where "rebels" are "foreign factions" who use kidnap money to fund their "cause", it's a full blown business where if you pay, you get your loved one back, guaranteed--because it's good business. If you pay and don't get your loved one back, who is going to pay?

    No "foreign faction" was going to leave the body or kill the victim and expect to get paid and keep doing business. But I would bet good money that John and Patsy Ramsey knew all about the danger of kidnapping execs faced who traveled overseas for LM. It would be irresponsible for LM not to have a training program of some kind on that for its execs.

    As Shadow has told us many times, btw, and he surely knows because he works in the field and knows FBI agents, as well.

    So why might LM have gone to the trouble of bringing in a "fixer" to help in a cover up with a little child molested and murdered? It's good business, that's why. Do they really want these headlines splashed across the media?

    COLORADO LOCKHEED MARTIN EXECUTIVE ARRESTED FOR MOLESTING, MURDERING CHILD

    Remember that LM had and still has some rather large production facilities in Colorado, as well. You better believe LM had/has plenty of power and influence in Colorado, all the way to the White House.

    Like I said, it's a conspiracy theory. If I could prove it, I'd probably be dead.
    Last edited by koldkase; December 15, 2010, 3:23 pm at Wed Dec 15 15:23:55 UTC 2010.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  8. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    My working theory is that John suspected that Patsy's "Plan B" was to frame him and that was suggested to him by the contents of the ransom note. John would have a strong interest in keeping Patsy from being questioned if he thought she might eventually finger him as the murderer.

    As for the powers that be, how would they know for sure which one did it or why?
    Prezactly!

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  9. #57

    Default A "fixer"?

    Okay, I said that I would bring some sources here for the term "fixer" as the first time I heard it was in a movie--not a good source. I did do some googling, however, and the screenwriter didn't make it up, though the definition is blurry--of course, it's lawyer talk!

    I have found that some people don't believe there is such a thing, including a law professor in Mississippi, who writes a blog about it in regards tot he movie in question, but nonetheless has an "anonymous" respondent who states he was a "fixer". Then there is a legal case going back to 2001 where a lawyer is called a "fixer" by none other than the American Bar Assoc. Journal and sues. lol I swear...lawyers....

    Here you go:

    http://law-career.blogspot.com/2007/...part-2_12.html

    Monday, November 12, 2007

    Clooney v. Clayton, Part 3

    This post is my third installment about law career issues raised by the movie Michael Clayton. My two previous posts in this series are located here (#1) and here (#2). See #1 for my review of the movie. Today's subject of choice is George Clooney's role as a "fixer" in his law firm. And my point about this fixer role is this:

    I think the law firm "Fixer" is like the Boogeyman: disconcerting and a bit scary, but also not real.

    I practiced in a big law firm for a number of years. I never, ever heard of--let alone met--a law firm "fixer." I don't think they exist. And if they do, then like the Loch Ness Monster they probably want to stay hidden.

    [snip]
    I would like to point out that the character in the movie Michael Clayton was actually "listed" in the imaginary firm's lawyer roster as "special counsel" in something like wills. So I think it's clear the reference to Clayton as a "fixer" implies it's slang for what he actually does behind the scenes for the firm's clients who get into trouble, which bascially seems to be showing up early and getting defense players in place, sort of a pre-emptive strategy. (My, that does sound Ramseyesque.) While the character doesn't seem to be inherently prone to illegal activities--the woman who hires the hit men is employed by the agrichemical company in the story--Clayton in fact does step over the line by breaking the police crime scene seal to search an apt.

    Anyhow, the professor seems to live a sheltered life, as here is the legal proof the term is nothing new and it does have a "connotation" meaning a lawyer who "fixes" difficult client or in-house problems, though it could mean legally or illegally.

    FROM BARBARA WARTELLE WALL: LEGAL WATCH
    LAWYER DESCRIBED AS 'FIXER' HAS VALID DEFAMATION CLAIM
    Reasonable lawyers might find that being called a "fixer" is defamatory even if it was intended as a compliment, a federal court has ruled. (Sprague v. American Bar Association, Nov. 14, 2001.) The court declined to dismiss defamation claims filed by a lawyer who claimed his reputation was sullied by the term.

    In October 2000, the American Bar Association published an article in the ABA Journal describing political tensions that arose between Philadelphia's black community and the district attorney's office after the district attorney failed to prosecute a police officer who shot and killed a young black man. Although the district attorney twice had charged the officer with manslaughter, courts dismissed the charges, concluding that his actions were justified.

    In April 2000, several Pennsylvania state representatives filed a private criminal complaint asking the court to order the district attorney to file charges against the officer. The judge granted their request, ordering the district attorney to file third-degree murder charges.

    The district attorney's office hired former prosecutor and prominent Philadelphia attorney Richard Sprague to appeal the ruling. According to the Journal, the black community was "alarmed" by the city's choice of Sprague, "perhaps the most powerful lawyer-cum-fixer in the state," and hired its own "big guns" to oppose him.

    Sprague sued the Journal for defamation. He argued that the term "fixer" implies that he engages in illegal activity such as bribing judges. Rather than filing an answer to Sprague's complaint, the ABA filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The ABA acknowledged that the term "fixer" sometimes connotes criminal activity. Nevertheless, it argued that what it meant -- and what the context of the article as a whole makes clear -- is that Sprague has a reputation as a politically savvy lawyer who gets favorable results for his clients where less skilled lawyers would fail. The ABA asked the court to hold as a matter of law that the report was not defamatory.

    The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the ABA's motion.

    The court agreed that "fixer" has two different meanings. However, it declined to dismiss the claim precisely because, in this case, the "reference to Sprague as a 'fixer' could have either connotation: either Sprague's opponents could be alarmed because he is a challenging adversary on the political and legal playing fields, or they could be alarmed because they believe that he has a reputation for conducting illegal activities for the benefit of his clients."

    [snip]

    http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/...y/nw0118-8.htm

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  10. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Thomas wrote about the alleged scare tactics that happened, though the details were vague, as I remember, because no one was ever found to be guilty of any of the attacks on LE.

    Speaking from memory, what I remember is that not much was even investigated, and I'm not clear if there was ever proof these things happened to Linda Arndt (dead cat on her doorstep?) and another officer whose house was shot at? Those could be related to some other case, as well. Yeah, right.

    If there was any attack on a BDA lawyer, I have never heard about it.
    From JonBenet:

    "I live in a small neighborhood at the edge of farming country, a place where people are caring and things are quiet, but when I stepped outside my house about eleven o'clock, I tripped over a cat that had been killed, mutilated and thrown onto my lawn. The garden hose was sliced, my wife's flower garden shredded.

    Ten days earlier, Sergeant Bob Whitson, who retrieved the ransom note tablet on December 26, was in his home when two shots from a high-powered rifle shattered his bedroom window and narrowly missed him. A third shot drilled through a wall, then a fourth struck the house as Whitson dove to a closet floor, grabbed his weapon and a phone, and dialed 911. Whoever had fired the shots vanished.

    Detective Linda Arndt, who rarely carried her gun, telephoned me several times during the investigation, plainly frightened. On one occasion blood was splashed on her front door, and another time she was concerned about a prowler.

    There was no follow-up by the police department, which apparently regarded bullets, blood, and dead cats as minor. No stakeouts, no investigation...."

  11. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    From JonBenet:

    "I live in a small neighborhood at the edge of farming country, a place where people are caring and things are quiet, but when I stepped outside my house about eleven o'clock, I tripped over a cat that had been killed, mutilated and thrown onto my lawn. The garden hose was sliced, my wife's flower garden shredded.

    Ten days earlier, Sergeant Bob Whitson, who retrieved the ransom note tablet on December 26, was in his home when two shots from a high-powered rifle shattered his bedroom window and narrowly missed him. A third shot drilled through a wall, then a fourth struck the house as Whitson dove to a closet floor, grabbed his weapon and a phone, and dialed 911. Whoever had fired the shots vanished.

    Detective Linda Arndt, who rarely carried her gun, telephoned me several times during the investigation, plainly frightened. On one occasion blood was splashed on her front door, and another time she was concerned about a prowler.

    There was no follow-up by the police department, which apparently regarded bullets, blood, and dead cats as minor. No stakeouts, no investigation...."
    Thanks for the reread, Fr Brown.

    It's stunning that Boulder LE wouldn't jump hard on attacks on their own detectives and officers, I think. But none of those attacked or in the BPD or BDA Office has ever disputed what Thomas wrote in his book about this, so I think that's strong evidence that what he said was true.

    The problem is without anyone getting caught for those attacks, no way to know who did these things or who was behind it.

    But most police dept's. take threats of violence and shooting at police officers very seriously. Guess not in the Republic of Boulder....

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  12. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    All I can do is speculate, of course, Learnin, but what I do believe is undeniable is that big companies do not like to have any bad publicity, especially with their CEOs. One with the kind of international business LM has would not look upon having a CEO implicated, much less convicted, in the molestation and murder of his own six year old daughter as acceptable.

    Remember that LM sold Access Graphics within the year, to G.E. I think it was, and part of that sale ended in JR being pushed out with his golden parachute to comfort him.

    Long ago there was a news article in a Colorado paper that stated JR was fired because he refused to take a polygraph for L.M. and/or G.E. It was a short article and it would take a lot to find it now, since I didn't save stuff back then, not having a clue I'd be here 14 years later. How a reporter got that info I don't know, or even if it was true. But looking up some of the later polygraph issues with the Ramseys today, they refused to answer direct questions in an interview about whether they'd ever taken a polygraph prior to the ones in 2000, citing attorney-client privilege--which tells me yes, at least one of them did. Maybe one or both did and one or both didn't pass.

    I figured if JR's company wanted him to take one and he refused and that contributed to him getting fired or "let go" when the company changed hands, that was either their official excuse to use a clause in his contract to dismiss him, or maybe they really wanted to know the truth.

    Let me repeat that I can only SPECULATE. It's all we have ever been able to do, and none of this may even be close to the truth. But in the spirit of theory, who's to say the Ramseys told anyone the truth the night of the murder or the next day? As suspects, what they said will always be suspect, too. If LM got a call that night and actually knew that the Ramseys were involved, even more reason to suspect what the Ramseys said, even to the LM contact, wasn't true. Maybe LM had no idea the child was molested, that night or prior to that night? Maybe they did and didn't care, but once the murder became the huge headline that wasn't going to go away, maybe LM decided it was time to wash their hands of it all because the one thing no one could have predicted was the Internet/World Wide Web break out of exposure in this murder.

    See, news cycles move pretty fast, as you all know. In 1996, the 24/7 news media channels were new and the effect they had on what the public focuses on was profound, but the only prior uber crime drama played out for a considerable length of time was the O.J. case. There was no Nancy Grace. Court TV was practically invented for the O.J. trial, or at least I knew nothing about it prior to that case. One thing we know for a fact is that the O.J. trial scared the bejesus out of ever D.A. in the country. No one wanted to live through that kind of case. Least of all Alex Hunter.

    But the Ramseys were not O.J. We're talking huge football star, Hollywood star...the works. TWO victims, sexy, young, glamorous, and brutally murdered. Then the low speed chase--I can remember where I was and what I was doing when I noticed it playing out on TV. I was spellbound. We'd never seen anything like this.

    So who could have predicted on that night, Dec. 25th/26th, 1996, that this case would end up in the same publicity stratosphere as the Simpson murders? Who outside the circle of family, friends, and schoolmates even knew JonBenet was a pageant queen, with a still astonishingly large portfolio of modeling shots and video footage in costumes that shocked most parents?

    I remember hearing about the murder on one of those 24/7 news channels when it was first reported, seeing the video footage. I remember even speaking of it to family at a Christmas gathering, mostly because a family member died tragically himself in an accident a couple of days later, a death that altered our family forever, so one tends to remember what at the time seemed trivial conversation.

    I don't know when or how Lockheed Martin received this info, but I have no doubt in my mind they knew about it and quickly, BECAUSE OF THE RANSOM NOTE. I can't believe the FBI wouldn't have notified them immediately, even if JR did not. That's not something an international defense contractor would not be apprised of.

    Terrorism was nothing new even then, and then-LM Denver security exec Norm Early asked the same question on TV later, because he never was informed about the potential threat to other LM exec's and their families at any time. That had to subvert safety protocol IF ANYONE IN LE, THE FBI, OR AT LM REALLY BELIEVED THE RANSOM NOTE, and how could ANYONE have proven in a matter of minutes that the ransom note was a red herring and the child was never kidnapped, but murdered in the home BEFORE THE BODY WAS FOUND? Unless THEY ALREADY KNEW IT before the body was "found"....

    Kidnapping is a very real problem in international business, money, and power, going further back than the kidnapping of John Paul Getty's grandson in Italy, whose ear was mailed in when Getty refused to pay. Mercedes doesn't have an E Class for fun and games: bullet proof. Exec's for international companies actually have KIDNAPPING INSURANCE in case their families need to raise a million quickly. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP! This has been true for more than 15 years now, as I read about it in an article in Vanity Fair not long after the murder. Especially in countries where "rebels" are "foreign factions" who use kidnap money to fund their "cause", it's a full blown business where if you pay, you get your loved one back, guaranteed--because it's good business. If you pay and don't get your loved one back, who is going to pay?

    No "foreign faction" was going to leave the body or kill the victim and expect to get paid and keep doing business. But I would bet good money that John and Patsy Ramsey knew all about the danger of kidnapping execs faced who traveled overseas for LM. It would be irresponsible for LM not to have a training program of some kind on that for its execs.

    As Shadow has told us many times, btw, and he surely knows because he works in the field and knows FBI agents, as well.

    So why might LM have gone to the trouble of bringing in a "fixer" to help in a cover up with a little child molested and murdered? It's good business, that's why. Do they really want these headlines splashed across the media?

    COLORADO LOCKHEED MARTIN EXECUTIVE ARRESTED FOR MOLESTING, MURDERING CHILD

    Remember that LM had and still has some rather large production facilities in Colorado, as well. You better believe LM had/has plenty of power and influence in Colorado, all the way to the White House.

    Like I said, it's a conspiracy theory. If I could prove it, I'd probably be dead.
    Good read, kk. I always wondered why John was pushed out of the company he built from the ground up. It seemed like a cruel thing to me, especially if John was innocent, that a company would not support a CEO who had suffered such a tragedy. This report, about LM acting after John refused a poly, is very interesting. It does ring with some truth.

    I think it very possible that, given the wide, persistent, publicity surrounding this case, that LM would want John to get his name cleared. It could be that John frustrated LM's attempt to get at the truth as much as he did BPD.

    I think you're right. With that ransom note, LM had to have been contacted immediately and there must have been some seminars on risks toward CEO's of the company....

    Some food for thought.



Similar Threads

  1. JonBenet Ramsey autopsy photos - CAUTION GRAPHIC!
    By koldkase in forum Evidence Files: Ramsey murder case
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: December 23, 2016, 2:07 am, Fri Dec 23 2:07:13 UTC 2016
  2. Arms in rigor 2
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: January 14, 2013, 12:06 pm, Mon Jan 14 12:06:08 UTC 2013
  3. Kolar's PowerPoint comparison photos: GRAPHIC AUTOPSY PICS!!
    By koldkase in forum Evidence Files: Ramsey murder case
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 5, 2012, 9:50 am, Wed Dec 5 9:50:54 UTC 2012
  4. Discussion of Autopsy Photos - The Hairs On JBR's Shirt
    By INSIGHT in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 5, 2006, 2:38 pm, Sun Nov 5 14:38:39 UTC 2006
  5. Peterson jurors shown autopsy photos
    By "J_R" in forum Laci Denise Rocha Peterson
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 16, 2004, 1:07 pm, Thu Sep 16 13:07:08 UTC 2004

Posting Permissions

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