Ramsey Information for Michigan Voters and Media

Discussion in 'Evidence Files: Ramsey murder case' started by Tricia, May 12, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    To members of FFJ. Feel free to add to this thread any documented lies told by the Ramseys as compared to their depositions or interviews.

    Thank you.

    CONTACT:Tricia Griffith

    Forums for Justice.org
    Website www.forumsforjustice.org


    From John Ramsey's campaign for Michigan state legislature speech May 11, 2004.

    "As you know, approximately one year ago, a Federal Judge, and the District
    Attorney stood up and stated strongly that there was no evidence anyone in
    the family was involved and there was a preponderance of evidence making it
    clear that an intruder did enter our home sometime that evening in 1996. We
    of course, knew that. As most of you also know, the case was then put in
    the hands of a very competent investigative team, strong DNA evidence was
    extracted, and we now have strong hope that this most vicious of all
    killers will be identified."

    Why is John Ramsey only telling Michigan voters half of the truth?

    Federal Judge Judy Carnes heard a civil case against the Ramseys brought by
    someone they claimed could be a suspect in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.
    The Ramseys civil attorney was allowed to present a one sided view of the
    case. Judge Carnes did not review the 40,000-page criminal file, only the
    documents and evidence made available by the civil case lawyers. The
    Ramseys showed the judge what they wanted her to see without all the
    evidence from the police files. Therefore the judge could only come to one
    conclusion based on the evidence presented by the Ramseys' civil attorney, that an “intruder†killed JonBenet Ramsey.

    John Ramsey has no problem twisting this bit of information to his benefit. Cont..

    Contrary to what Mr. Ramseys states, no one has said any DNA found belongs
    to the killer, another “fact†twisted by Ramsey. When Boulder D.A. Mary
    Keenan was asked about the DNA belonging to the killer, all she said was,
    "No Comment." We would like to ask John Ramsey how he knows this DNA
    belongs to the killer and how this DNA can be dated.

    Do the good people of Michigan want a representative who does not follow
    through on his promises?

    Take the JonBenet Ramsey Foundation, for instance.

    John Ramsey claimed he would be looking for the killer of his daughter
    JonBenet until the killer was found. Based on the following information, you be the judge of how sincere John Ramsey is in finding the "killer" of his daughter.

    From John and Patsy Ramsey's book, Death of Innocence, hard cover version,
    p 374 published in 2000:

    "If you think you have any information that could help, please call, write,
    or e-mail us...

    We have had a web site and tip line that can be reached at 303-904-****.
    Confidential information can be mailed to P. O. Box 724505, Atlanta, GA
    31139. Our e-mail address is JonBenetinfo@aol.com."

    The "tip line" John Ramsey set up to help find the "killer" of JonBenet
    Ramsey was printed incorrectly in the hardcover of their book. The real
    owner of the phone number printed in Death of Innocence reported the Ramsey
    "tip line" was disconnected over three years ago. The email address is not
    in operation. The email address JonBenetinfo@aol.com bounces back as

    In the updated paperback version of Death of Innocence, which was released
    in 2001, the paragraph was changed to the following:

    If you think you have any information that could help, please call, write,
    or e-mail us. Or if you know anyone who can make a device like the garrote
    or the hand ligature (which had a loop on both ends) pictured on the
    Jameson Web site * please speak up. Contact us by e-mail at
    JonBenetTipLine@aol.com, call your local police or call the Boulder Police. Cont..

    The email address, JonBenetTipline@aol.com bounces back as "unknown." There
    is no updated or corrected tip line phone number, leaving the owner of the
    incorrect number printed in the hardback version to field calls on a
    regular basis explaining there is no "Tip Line" for JonBenet Ramsey. The
    Boulder Police no longer have control of the case. It is now in Boulder D.A
    Mary Keenan's hands.

    The Ramsey website, www.ramseyfamily.com has been non-existent for several
    years. A check of ownership at Network Solutions shows the owner of this
    domain as Haddon, Morgan, and Forman, the Ramseys' former criminal
    attorneys. The domain ownership expired April 19, 2004. To date, no one
    has renewed the domain.

    As of the date of this press release, the back cover of the paperback

    A phone call placed to the I.R.S. confirmed that the JonBenet Ramsey
    Foundation was closed in 2000. The same year the paperback version of Death of Innocence came out.

    Forums for Justice would like to ask John Ramsey where the money received
    from sales of Death of Innocence went, as it appears the money did not go
    to the JonBenet Ramsey Foundation as touted on the cover of the book.

    There is no tip line, no web site provided by the Ramsey family to help
    find the killer of JonBenet Ramsey. There is no information anywhere on the
    Internet about the $100,000 reward. Yet, John Ramsey has the time, the
    money and the desire to put up a very professional website about HIMSELF
    and his run for office.

    The defunct JonBenet Ramsey Foundation accomplished very little if anything
    at all, in spite of John Ramsey's claims to the contrary. He promoted an
    organization called "SHOES" in Death of Innocence, an organization that has
    yet to be formed despite the fact he has had over 4 years to get SHOES up
    and running.

    Michigan voters must ask themselves, is this the type of man you want
    representing you in the state legislature? Cont..

    Here is Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner's testimony from a deposition
    in November 2001.

    Chief Mark Beckner "Internally, John and Patsy are considered suspects,"

    Attorney "Both of them?"

    Beckner "Yes."

    Attorney "Are considered to have probably been involved in the death of
    their daughter?"

    Beckner "Probability, yes."

    Attorney "Has anyone else ever attained that status of probably involved?"

    Beckner "No."

    From the Atlanta 2000 law enforcement interviews of John and Patsy Ramsey

    Here is Bruce Levin questioning Patsy about the fibers in the paint tray:

    21 Q. We have found, and I want you to
    22 help us, maybe you can offer an explanation
    23 for this. We have found fibers in the paint
    24 tray that appear to come off of the coat in
    25 the photograph we showed you.
    1 A. In the paint tray?
    2 Q. Yes.

    A few minutes later, Levin says this to LinWood:

    7 MR. LEVIN: I can state to you,
    8 Mr. Wood, that, given the current state of
    9 the scientific examination of fibers, that,
    10 based on the state of the art technology,
    11 that I believe, based on testing, that fibers
    12 from your client's coat are in the paint
    13 tray.

    AND a few minutes later:

    3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
    4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
    5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
    6 from her jacket were found in the paint
    7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
    8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
    9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
    10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
    11 the question is, can she explain to us how
    12 those fibers appeared in those places that
    13 are associated with her daughter's death.
    Mr. Levin continues in the Atlanta 2000 interviews stating about fibers
    found in JonBenet's underpants.

    MR. LEVIN: I understand your
    9 position.
    10 In addition to those questions,
    11 there are some others that I would like you
    12 to think about whether or not we can have
    13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
    14 understand you are advising her not to today,
    15 and those are there are black fibers that,
    16 according to our testing that was conducted,
    17 that match one of the two shirts that was
    18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
    19 Those are located in the
    20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
    21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
    22 other areas that we have intended to ask
    23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
    24 explaining their presence in those locations.

    The right questions need to be asked of the Ramseys.
    Tricia Griffith


    Last edited by a moderator: May 22, 2012
  2. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member


    EIN: 84-1397683

    Directors: John Ramsey
    Patsy Ramsey

    Officers: President - Patsy Ramsey
    Vice President - John Ramsey
    Treasurer - Gail Heinzman

    Statement of Purpose: "To raise money for children's education and care" and to protect against "the victimization of children."


    Incorporated in April as non-profit corporation in Colorado w/IRS registration as 501(c) charitable tax-exempt organization

    Media articles and Crime Stoppers ad disclose JBR Foundation offer of $100,000 reward for information regarding "well dressed male" approaching children at Christmastime, 1996; no such funds in Foundation account to back up offer

    Per partial 990 PF dtd 08/19/98:
    Contributions received: $12,533
    Donor: John Ramsey
    Charitable contributions made: $769
    Recipient of charitable contribution: Unknown
    Market value of trust assets (including
    interest earned on bank account: $4,354


    Per partial 990 PF dtd 08/18/99:
    Contributions received: $2,703
    Donor: Unknown
    Charitable contributions made: $0
    Recipient of charitable contribution: None
    Purpose of charitable contribution: N/A
    Market value of trust assets (including
    interest earned on bank account: $5,506


    Per 990 PF dtd 08/25/00:
    Contributions received: $3,865
    Donor: Unknown
    Charitable contributions made: $2,000
    Recipient of charitable contribution: St. Johns Episcopal Church, Boulder
    Purpose of charitable contribution: "Assistance to children's programs
    and other unrestricted church use"
    Market value of trust assets (including
    interest earned on bank account: $6,415


    Foundation terminated per IRS

    Per 990 PF dtd 08/29/01:
    Contributions received: $1,405
    Donor: Unknown
    Charitable contributions made: $0
    Recipient of charitable contribution: None
    Purpose of charitable contribution: N/A
    Market value of trust assets (including
    interest earned on bank account: $7,860

    Line 8a: Foundation reports to state of Colorado but CO "does not require any report"

    Part IXA Summary of Direct Charitable Activities: "N/A"

    Part IXB Summary of Program-Related Investments: "N/A"

    Part XVI List any managers of the foundation who have contributed more than 2% of the total contributions received by the foundation before the close of any tax year (but only if they contributed more than $5,000): "NONE"

    Part XV Grants and Contributions Paid During the Year: "NONE"

    Part XVI-B Relationship of Activities to the Accomplishment of Exempt Purposes: "This section is blank because the foundation's revenue was either from gifts or from interest on its account. The foundation generated no income from activities."

    Statement 1/Form 990-PF/Part 1 Line 1/Contributions, Gifts and Grants: "No single contributor gave $5,000 or more during the year."
    Last edited by a moderator: May 12, 2004
  3. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Labs Battle Over 911 Call Evidence in JonBenet Murder

    Did parents lie to cops when they said brother Burke was fast asleep?

    by Don Gentile

    word for word

    Six years after the death of little Jonbenet Ramsey, a tape of the 911 call made by her mother to report the little girl missing has been made public- setting off yet another controversy in the still- unsolved murder case.

    Police say the tape contains a brief conversation between John Ramsey and Jonbenet's brother Burke that was recorded when Patsy Ramsey made the call from the family's Boulder, Colo., home at 5:52 a.m. on Dec. 26, 1996.

    If Burke's voice is actually on the tape, then the recordings may prove the Ramseys lied when they told authorities at first that Burke was asleep during the call.

    Now the Ramseys and their attorney Lin Wood dispute Boulder cops' assertions that the voices are there.

    Two audio firms hired by NBC- which first aired the 911 call on its Today and Dateline shows- agree with the Ramseys. However, the renowned high-tech company that enhanced the tape for the Boulder police says its original findings that Burke's voice is on the tape is correct.

    "We stand by our work," Linda Brill, spokesperson for The Aerospace Corporation of El Segundo, Calif., told the Enquirer.

    The company maintains a division of a Department of Justice - funded institute that offers space-age expertise to police departments nationwide.

    "We are top shelf," said Brill. The NE broke the story about the 911 call in a world exclusive published in our Sept.1, 1998, edition.

    We revealed that in the weeks following Jonbenet's murder, detectives listening to the 911 tape thought they could here background conversation at the end of the call after Patsy failed to hang up the phone properly.

    Boulder Detective Melissa Hickman took the tape to the Aerospace Corporation for enhancement. There, experts enhanced the tape.

    At first they heard Patsy saying "Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus," and Burke saying, "Please, what do I do?" according to a source. After further analysis, they heard three distinct voices, then gave the enhanced recording to Det. Hickman.

    "Hickman heard John Ramsey say, "We're not speaking to you," in what sounded like a very angry voice," the source said. "Patsy then says, "Help me Jesus, help me Jesus," and finally Burke is clearly heard to say "Well what did you find?" with an emphasis on the word "did."

    Wood obtained copies of the call on tape and compact disc from Boulder District Mary Keenan for a civil lawsuit brought against the Ramseys. He shared them with NBC, who then had them enhanced by Legal Audio of New York and Team Audio of Toledo, Ohio. The companies told the NE they couldn't hear any of the controversial dialogue.

    But a technician at Legal Audio, who did not want his name used, admitted, "There is what I perceived to be a male voice that is so buried in noise, you can't tell."

    The NE learned that Detective Hickman returned to Bolder for Aerospace with two tapes: one, the original tape she brought for analysis, and an enchanced version.

    The enhanced version has not been released and is still evidence in the case.

    Lin Wood charged that reports of a conversation between Burke and John Ramsey were "based on a lie," telling NE "If Aerospace Corporation stands behinds its work, it should immediately release all details."
  4. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    From the May 12, 2004 LKL Interview:

  5. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    There are none so blind as he who WILL NOT see!

    According to John Ramsey in the LKL May 12, 2004 Interview, his official campaign speech and other public statements:

    John Ramsey has long believed that this mysterious DNA is that of the killer, despite the fact that it has never been matched or sourced to anyone. Even his own attorney, Lin Wood, has never gone so far as to make as definitive a statement about that DNA sample as John Ramsey!

    Ramsey also contends that the BPD never submitted this DNA sample to FBI labs or CODIS, even though he knew full well that at the time this DNA was in the custody of BPD, there were still insufficient markers identified in it to perform any viable match testing. He also has long known that CBI did test this DNA specimen to conclude that, even though insufficient markers could be identified to derive a specific match to anyone, 9 markers were sufficient to source this DNA to an unknown male donor.

    Allegedly a 10th marker was only identified in this sample after the BDA confiscated the case, thus enabling the DNA sample to be tested for specific matching. BDA did indeed submit the sample to CODIS where NO MATCH WAS IDENTIFIED. It remains in a collection of other samples from around the country for future entry into the CODIS database.

    Ramsey supporters take up this cause with derogatory and unfounded accusations against Michael Kane's statements considering this DNA sample may have been a point-of-origin deposit at the foreign clothing factory where the underwear were manufactured and packaged. These supporters have long posted that this is a "nonsensical" notion, parroting Lin Wood himself, even though the below article clearly reveals that similar underwear distributed from the very same factory that JonBenet's underwear originated were tested and contained numerous DNA samples as well. The "notion" is hardly far-fetched but logical, yet the Ramseys and their supporters ignore this case fact to continue spinning disinformation and defamatory comments about the BPD and their investigation.

    If one were to thoroughly study all the information publicly distributed by the Ramseys and their supporters throughout the years, including this DNA disinformation, it would be easy to identify the horrendous embellishments, misinformation and outright lies being promoted to support a vapid intruder theory and Ramsey innocence. There is an old notion that if you say something often and loud enough, even without any proof, it will eventually take root as truth. My guess is that this is the fundamental strategy of the RST because there is a total lack of evidentiary support for anything they assert. They continue to contradict even themselves over the years in many public statements.


    DNA may not help Ramsey inquiry
    Samples found on JonBenet's clothing may be from factory

    By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
    November 19, 2002

    Investigators in the JonBenet Ramsey case believe that male DNA recovered from the slain child's underwear may not be critical evidence at all, and instead could have been left at the time of the clothing's manufacture.

    In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties.

    If investigators are right about possible production-line contamination - perhaps stemming from something as innocent as a worker's cough - then the genetic markers obtained from JonBenet's underpants are of absolutely no value in potentially excluding any suspects in the unsolved Boulder slaying.

    And, investigators know the DNA found in the underwear - white, with red rose buds and the word "Wednesday" inscribed on the elastic waist band - was not left by seminal fluid.

    "There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old.

    "You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there," Kane said, "whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them."

    Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.

    And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense
    . I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."

    The autopsy report in JonBenet's slaying indicates her pelvic area was swabbed for potential DNA. There has never been any report that those swabs yielded any foreign genetic material. But any significance that might have must be weighed against the fact that the coroner, Dr. John Meyer, observed that the killer may have wiped JonBenet's body with a cloth. JonBenet, 6, was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her parents' upscale Boulder home the afternoon of Dec. 26, 1996.

    Her body was found about seven hours after her mother called police before dawn to say she had discovered a 2 ½-page ransom note demanding $118,000 for the girl's safe return.

    John and Patsy Ramsey left Boulder the following summer for Atlanta and reside there. They have denied any involvement in their daughter's death.

    In the couple's book about JonBenet's slaying, The Death of Innocence, John Ramsey called attention to the fact that the underwear DNA did not match anyone in the Ramsey family.

    "The DNA from the stain found on JonBenet's underwear cannot be identified," he wrote. "The police have these test results, and we can only hope that they are checking all possible suspects against this genetic fingerprint.

    "Our belief is that this DNA belongs to the killer."

    On Monday, the Ramseys' attorney stopped short of making so firm a declaration.

    "It's foreign DNA," said Lin Wood. "It's not the Ramseys' DNA, and I obviously think it's a very, very important piece of evidence."

    Wood also pointed out that unidentified DNA was also recovered from beneath JonBenet's fingernails on both hands. But investigators have long said that contamination problems render those samples of little value.

    The Ramseys' attorney scoffed at the notion that the underwear DNA might be traceable to the garment's production.

    "That sounds like a pretty spectacularly imaginative theory to me," said Wood. Of Kane, he added, "I've never found Michael Kane to be objective."

    Wood said the DNA from the underwear was commingled with a spot of blood, making any theory of point-of-manufacture contamination "nonsensical." He also contended there are as many as a half-dozen genetic markers in common, between the DNA recovered from JonBenet's underwear and her fingernails.

    Kane started a new job Monday as deputy secretary for enforcement in the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue - the same post he held before Boulder District Alex Hunter selected him to guide the Ramsey grand jury probe, which concluded Oct. 13, 1999.

    He declined to comment further on the case, citing rules governing the secrecy of grand jury.


    Lawyer: DNA from JonBenet's clothes submitted to FBI

    Saturday, December 27, 2003 Posted: 7:02 AM EST (1202 GMT)

    ATLANTA (CNN) -- Seven years after the 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey's body was found strangled and beaten in the basement of her parents' home in Boulder, Colorado, DNA found in a blood stain on the beauty queen's underwear has been given to the FBI in a possible step toward identifying her killer, the family lawyer told CNN Friday.

    L. Lyn Wood, an attorney for the family in Atlanta, where the Ramseys now live, said he was told about the development recently by Mary Keenan, the Boulder district attorney, who took control of the case last December from the Boulder Police Department.

    "The DNA was never pursued by the Boulder PD in terms of trying to get it into any state or national databank," Wood said.

    One of the 2 drops of blood that were on the garment was tested early in the investigation, but was not of sufficient quality to be placed in data banks. But the DNA from the second spot is "of sufficient quality" to be added to the agency's Combined DNA Index System, Wood said. "They had to spend some time, probably months, to get that DNA sample up to the qualifications to be submitted to the national databank," Wood said.

    Earlier blood tests showed the sample was from a male who was unrelated to the Ramseys, said Wood, who added that neither he nor the Ramseys planned to suggest that the DNA of anyone in particular be compared with the sample.

    "We don't feel like we have to tell them who to test. We feel like they will take all the necessary steps to thoroughly investigate all possible suspects and credible leads."

    Bill Nagel, who reports to Keenan, said in a telephone interview that he would not comment. "It's been our policy for a good while not to respond to inquiries about the Ramsey case," he said. "That's something we just stick to consistently."

    Wood said the Boulder police had not properly pursued the lead, because they felt a Ramsey household member carried out the crime. "They actually spent money and time trying to come up with an innocent explanation for the presence of that DNA," he said. "Any objective investigation into this child's murder would have focused on DNA."

    A spokeswoman for the Boulder police did not immediately return a call.
  6. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

  7. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

    Did Someone Mention This?

    Patsy's business address:

    106 West Carpenter
    Charlevoix, MI 49720

    Ramsey Website:

    You may also mail your check to:

    Friends to Elect John Ramsey, 106 Carpenter Road, Charlevoix MI 49720

    According to mapquest, there is no 106 Carpenter Road; just a 106 WEST Carpenter Road.

    So, the donations go directly to Patsy's business address. Or are the campaign headquarters in the same suite of offices?
  8. JustinCase

    JustinCase Member

    The Ramseys lied

    This is one of many examples of inconsistencies, paying attention to the moderators question it's obvious that neither John or Patsy are being honest or are unwilling to talk about things completely. In one instance they outright lied, this kind of thing is not what's typically seen in innocent parents, when you add the fact that they STAND accused of their extremely sexualized and sexually assaulted child; it makes things all the more curious, especially since they refute scientific proof that JonBenet had infact been molested.

    Newseum webcast interview on 10/12/2000
    "Newseum Transcript 1: Ramseys re. the Media"
    1)MODERATOR: - Well, Patsy, can I ask you about that, because, in retrospect John's spoke about how you folks basically went into seclusion from the media, or tried to, as best you could. Do you think there's anything that either of you could have done differently that might have helped the media portray you in a more fair, accurate, complete way?

    A)PATSY RAMSEY: You know, we had just lost our child…we weren't concerned with helping portray anything. Um, I get criticized for not having…we both do…for not having "acted right." You know…I (sigh) I spent weeks and weeks and weeks in bed. Immobile. You know: crying. So…you know…no, we weren't out there giving a response…because we were, you know…back there crying our eyes out.So, um…I don't feel obligated, nor did I then, to have to provide information about…you know…to try to get people to…to paint a picture of myself…or something -

    "I spent weeks and weeks and weeks in bed. Immobile. You know: crying. So…you know…no, we weren't out there giving a response…because we were, you know…back there crying our eyes out."

    This is a lie, they did not hole themselves up for weeks and cry their eyes out, I'm not saying no crying happened but I do know that they sure kept their composure on CNN January 1st, 1997, this was the day AFTER JonBenet was buried for goodness sakes; had they been THAT devastated at the loss they would have cooperated with police whether they were suspects or not.

    Let's not forget that the Ramsey's contacted CNN through "a friend" and told them they'd like to tell their story, they couldn't speak to authorities in a private session where few people would be in attendance to participate but they could go on National Television for millions to see and hear?? This was a deliberate attempt to anger authorities following Larry Mason's attempt at witholding the body until the Ramseys submitted to interrogation, this wasn't a great idea on his part but neither was their successful slandering of an entire police force for errors made in a case that wasn't what it seemed.

    we had just lost our child…we weren't concerned with helping portray anything.

    This is also a lie, if they didn't care what anyone thought or saw they NEVER would have suggested going on Larry King Live in the first place, they would have receeded into seclusion from the media; they were definately trying to portray themselves in a certain light.

    A)JOHN RAMSEY: -"You know, people ask us: "Well, how could you…how could you have stood all this attention and accusation in the press. And, what our response is -and, it's…it's…it's very genuine - you know…uh, we lost our child. And, that was the worst thing that could happen to us. What followed was small by comparison. And, and…for a long time, was…was of no consequence to us. Uh…you know, it was hurtful. Uh, but we'd been hurt deeper that anyone could hurt us again."

    This answer needs very little comment InMyOpinion. It's littered with 'filler' words like "you know", "and" and "Uh"; this is something they have done from the beginning, trail off or take pauses in odd spots to recollect something that would be present in the mind of any other parent who's 'lost a child'.

    Common Cues to Detect Deception

    Signs of Unclear Thinking
    Increased grammar errors
    Repeating sentences
    Increased use of fillers (ah, um)
    Not finishing sentences
    Stories that don’t make sense

    Attempts to Sell
    “to be honest with youâ€
    “to tell the truthâ€
    overly polite behavior
    Gestures that seem overly stiff or artificial
    Saying “ it was not me†rather than “it wasn’t meâ€
    Saying “I would never do that. I is not who I am.â€
    www.radford.edu/~maamodt/Psyc 405/ deception%20-%20student%20notes.ppt
  9. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    No body for ransom

    You can add this 'body for ransom' nonsense to the long list of Ramsey lies.

    Larry Mason had nothing to do with this. Eller spoke with Meyer, asking him (Meyer) if there was any reason Meyer could come up with to hold the body a little longer. Mpo is that the cops knew this was a screwy case, that they had no evidence pointing to an intruder. From the evidence, the circumstances surrounding the case (including the parents' actions) and the opinions of the FBI, this looked like an inside job. The body at that point was the biggest and best piece of evidence the BPD had and they didn't want to let go of it if they didn't have to. Eller didn't believe the BPD had any real reason to hold onto the body except to point directly at the parents as the culprits. Koby, otoh, was too close to the DA's people, and he didn't want any kind of "problems", including the BPD accusing the parents of murder. So Eller was caught between a rock and a hard place and was feeling Meyer out to see if he could come up with reasonable cause to hold on to the body. In short, Meyer admitted that he had completed the autopsy, had brought in another pathologist to go over his findings and view the body, and ergo had no "reason" to hold the body. Myer responded to Eller that he would have to release the body to the family unless the cops could come up with something.

    Unfortunately, there was a snitch at the DA's office who learned of this conversation between Eller and Meyer, and he went running to Ramsey friend, Mike Bynum.

    Of course, this took place, naturally, before the body had been released. Bynum called Meyer's office demanding the body be released for the funeral. He was told there was no problem, and the body was released the following day.

    The Ramseys were not aware of any problems whatsoever. Besides, what was the problem? The family rep called for the body's release, and he body was released.

    The family flew to Georgia for the burial services, and the day after the burial, the Ramseys went on national television to claim they were innocent.

    AFTER the Ramseys returned to Boulder, the BPD tried desparately to get John and Patsy down to headquarters to answer questions. It was at that time that Mike Bynum told the Ramseys that the police had tried to hold JonBenet's body for ransom. And it was with that false accusation by Bynum that turned the Ramseys against the BPD. Using that false information, the Ramseys then turned the "body for ransom" into a headline in order to escape any kind of questioning by the BPD. In essence, Bynum's lie and obstruction drew the line in the sand, causing the chasm between the BPD and his buddies at the DA's office.

    Now, as regards Larry Mason, again, it was Bynum who was the obstructionist between police and the Ramseys. With full knowledge of the autopsy results, Mason and Arndt knew the full extent of JonBenet's injuries, including chronic sexual abuse. Following the autopsy, the two detectives went to the Fernies to question the Ramseys. Who opened the door at the Fernies? Why, Mike Bynum! Bynum told the detectives that the Ramseys were in no condition to answer questions and besides, they had retained attorneys and if the cops wanted information, they had to speak to the Ramseys lawyers. And then he slammed the door in Mason's and Arndt's face.
  10. JustinCase

    JustinCase Member

    May 15, 2004
    FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER"105th+district"+crime&hl=en
    Unless Mr. Haggard has also been the prime suspect in one of his childrens sexual assault and murder, the same could be said of him as well. It's a sad thing for John to look back on but he's got to stop using Beth's death as a crutch or for sympathy, this is a case where he can rightfully say he's 'lost' a child but JonBenet is a whole other story.

    There's a question of innocence in reference to both parents after eight years of investigations that in summary state that evidence does exist that indicates the parents probably played a physical role in the death of their daughter, the events leading up to her death and the coverup that followed.

    This is more than enough for anyone with a little common sense to wonder about him as a voice for their district, he's lied and been caught and he's still expecting to be treated as though he's just like everyone else; he's abused his right to presumption of innocence to the limit IMO.

    These are the words of the man who John could be replacing, he is not at all confident that John is right for the job and is even going to support a conservative democrat in Nov.'s election if Ramsey wins the Aug. Primary, this is a huge deal and I really hope the voters of Michigan understand that he's not near as qualified as the other candidates; all he has to offer in terms of experience is a little Navy service, and he was the VP of a corporation that did $1 Billion sales the same year his daughter was murdered.

    He claims to have known very little about the internet before we all came along and started bashing them- then he allowed Susan Spinnit to teach them how to use the internet so they could "fight back." Does this even sound mature for a man who wants to represent the best interests of such a large district? What's more, the corporation that he apparently 'grew' into a Billion dollar company was all about the internet, if he knew nothing about the internet then it would seem he also knew very little about his job; yeah, one of those....
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  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