• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

Henri McPhee said:
The point is that the American media have always portrayed Fleet White as a quite wealthy oil tycoon, rather than him being involved in child prostitution. That is patently untrue like all this crap from CBS that Burke was supposed to have done it, or the ridiculous Fleet White theory without facts that JonBenet could have fallen down the spiral staircase.
Click to expand...

There's a very reasonable explanation for that.
 
Detective Steve Ainsworth, who was a good Boulder County murder investigator involved in the initial investigation, thought Fleet White and Chris Wolf and Santa Bill McReynolds were the prime suspects in the JonBenet murder. He was on the correct murder trail until he was taken off of the case. Now we have Kolar, who has been described as Steve Thomas on steroids, and CBS who are making it up that Burke did it. The trouble is that American judges are always on the side of the government and corporate media and FBI:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93419

Boulder County sheriff's Detective Steve Ainsworth and former Boulder County prosecutor Trip DeMuth also appeared on the NBC program, supporting Smit's thesis.
"I have not seen any evidence that would be compelling to suggest that John and Patsy did kill their daughter at this point," Ainsworth said.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nancy Krebs provided information about Fleet White and his father but she was not believed by the genius detectives in the Boulder police and FBI. They called her a fruitloop. Beckner, the Boulder chief of police, later admitted that the Nancy Krebs case was not properly or thoroughly investigated. The trouble was that, not being a professional detective herself, she somehow got it into her head that her really evil Uncle Johnnie when she was an infant might have been John Ramsey. The Ramsey lawyers would therefore not touch her information with a bargepole. There was never a shred of evidence for that and she was never helped by her relatives to make her mind clear about the matter:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?3971-The-Krebs-Interview


D. But I do remember things with uh Fleet White Jr.

A. Okay um

D. Who woulda been about 15 or 16 years old

A. Okay was Fleet White Jr. the victim of these assaults, or was he a suspect in the assaults, Was he a perpetrator when can you can first remember the assaults when he was present?

D. I think that he was made to do things to me

A. Okay
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There are websites which think the Ramseys and Burke are innocent. Personally, I think the prime suspect is Fleet White, who has never been properly investigated, or never been investigated at all apart from a few cursory background checks:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/r...s/news-story/c921605802d5086911a1a34780225a4d

WHY NOT THE RAMSEYS?
For this picture-perfect family to be behind JonBenet’s murder requires some mental gymnastics. Mrs Ramsey’s stage mother role struck many people as deeply suspicious at the time, but child pageants are now a familiar phenomenon, whatever we may think of them.

The Ramseys appear to have deeply loved their child. They had no history of child abuse or domestic violence, which might be expected if either had really snapped and killed the little girl.

If they covered up for Burke, they would have had to fashion a garotte and tie it so tightly around JonBenet’s neck it left abrasions, then calmly stage a crime scene in the basement. Mrs Ramsey would have had to painstakingly write a two-and-a-half page ransom note in handwriting so different to her own that it has never been definitively matched.

Then they would have had to spend years faking it for the TV cameras and teaching their child to lie, too. All this when the boy was too young to go to prison in the state anyway.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I still think the denials of the so-called taser expert Dr. Stratbucker that a taser was ever used on JonBenet do not ring true. From the Dr. Stratbucker deposition being cross-examined by Lin Wood:

www.acandyrose.com/20020530stratbuckerdepo.txt


24 Q. Why don't you go read the record
25 that was filed in the courthouse in Boulder
00076
1 County?
2 A. Well, I will be happy to.
3 Q. It seems to me, sir, that there is
4 an awful lot you don't know about this case.
5 Could you concede that at least?
6 A. I think there is an awful lot about
7 this that most people don't know, including you.
8 Q. I am not asking you about most
9 people because most people -- excuse me. Most
10 people didn't come into federal court and sign a
11 Rule 26 affidavit. You did.
12 A. All right.
13 Q. And I am asking you, will you
14 concede that there is apparently an awful lot
15 that you do not know about this case and what
16 happened to this little girl?
17 A. No, I won't concede that.
18 Q. So you got it all?
19 A. I have no reason to.
20 Q. You've got it all?
21 A. No, I did not say I have it all.
22 You said I have it all.
23 Q. What efforts have you ever made to
24 try to get the crime scene photographs?
25 A. Well, one of the efforts that I made
00077
1 was to make a special trip to New York City to
2 try to find out whether or not --
3 Q. To go up with NBC for Mr. Tuttle?
4 A. Mr. Tuttle had nothing to do with
5 it.
6 Q. Mr. Tuttle knew where you were. Mr.
7 Tuttle is with Air TASER. And you know that
8 Mr. Tuttle -- you know this, sir.
9 A. Well, you are telling me now for the
10 first time.
11 Q. Excuse me.
12 A. Thanks very much.
13 Q. You know --
14 A. I appreciate that.
15 Q. You know -- if we have time, we
16 will see whether we do or not, I'm going to
17 tell you a lot of things you apparently don't
18 know.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. But I'm going to tell you one thing
21 that I think you do know. Bill Tuttle does
22 not want his Air TASER stun gun associated with
23 the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. It is just not
24 good public relations. And you know that for a
25 fact; don't you, sir?
00078
1 A. No, I don't know that. We have not
2 discussed that. I don't any -- that is your
3 invention, not mine.
4 Q. How do you know it is my invention?
5 A. Well, you just stated it.
6 Q. How do you know where I get it
7 from? I mean, so far I haven't been inventing
8 anything when I come up here and start showing
9 you your sworn testimony, which we will go back
10 to, where you said that there is not a coroner
11 or medical examiner in the country that is
12 capable of identifying a stun gun mark, that you
13 are the only one.
14 A. Oh, well, you show me where I said
15 that.
16 Q. Sit tight.
17 Page 1109 of your sworn testimony,
18 recross-examination by Mr. Belser.
19 Question: Doctor, you are saying
20 that no forensic pathologist anywhere in this
21 country who did the autopsies for the state and
22 the crime labs and the prosecutor, none of these
23 people have enough expertise like you to
24 recognize a stun gun mark?
25 Answer: They didn't.
00079
1 Question: And you are the only
2 expert that can do that, not the doctors who
3 look at the bodies, but you with your
4 transformations on the photograph; is that what
5 you are telling the jury?
6 Answer: I think that's correct,
7 yes.
8 A. Well, in that case it was correct,
9 yeah. The autopsy --
10 Q. Did you testify to that, sir?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 MR. WOOD: We are going to take
13 that recess, Darnay? But I have one question.
14 I want to make this clear, if I could.
15 MR. HOFFMAN: We can make the recess
16 and then when you come back, I'm going to talk
17 on the record.
18 MR. WOOD: Let me just ask this
19 doctor one question.
20 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes.
21 Q. (By Mr. Wood) And I really, Doctor,
22 could care less what you base this on. It can
23 be your trip to NBC. It can be your
24 monitoring of the internet. It can be your
25 monochrome photographs. For all I care, it can
00080
1 be based on the Stratbucker Children's Trust.
2 Are you accusing my client Patsy
3 Ramsey or my client John Ramsey of criminal
4 involvement in the murder of their daughter
5 JonBenet? I want you to answer that question
6 for me under oath.
7 A. Accusing them?
8 Q. Yes, sir.
9 A. No.
10 Q. You don't have the slightest idea
11 how this child died; do you?
12 A. Probably as good an idea as anybody
13 else, which is not very much.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Lou Smit homicide detective deposition in the Ramsey case is still on the internet. He shocked the Boulder Police Department at a meeting once by telling them he didn't believe the Ramseys did it, and that includes Burke. Forums for Justice has always been anti-Ramsey and the deposition starts with some silly remarks about it:

www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?9947-Lou-Smit-Deposition-Wolf-Case-January-9-2002

Q. In terms of -- and I want to come back to the discussion of the crime scene photographs. But, first, you bring up a point that I want to pursue with you, Detective Smit,

Page 28

the idea of a homicide investigator adopting a theory of a case as to the suspect.

There is a difference between the approach taken by a homicide investigator and, say, the approach taken by a narcotics investigator; isn't there?

A. I would say there is.

Q. How would you describe that difference? A. Usually, the narcotics investigator knows who he is looking for. A homicide investigator doesn't. You have to leave your mind open to anybody that could be involved in a case. Narcotics investigators, you are usually targeting a certain specific person, and you go for him. So you know who your suspect is at that time.

Q. From your experience and your involvement in homicide investigations over the course of your 35 plus years in law enforcement, do you believe that it is a proper technique and procedure in homicide investigation to adopt a theory of the case and then investigate the case trying to find evidence to support that

Page 29

theory?

A. No. I don't believe you should let the theory dictate it. You let the evidence dictate it.

Now, you will sometimes have various theories, and you will work on various theories, but you don't pick one out and put all your eggs in that basket and just investigate that one theory. You have to look at all aspects of it, because you never know where your killer is. Sometimes he can be someplace that you never even looked at before.

So you cannot just say, I am going to target you as a suspect in this case, and then devote your time and efforts to just targeting that person.

One of the things that I was taught, and maybe this is what should be passed on to other detectives, your job isn't only to convict somebody. It is also to prove their innocence.

Q. Is that because that approach best ensures that you ultimately get the right person?

A. Yes. You get the right person because your object is to get the bad guy off the street. You don't want him out there.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There is an interesting article on the internet about the Judge Carnes ruling on the JonBenet Ramsey case. How CBS can still think Burke did it I do not know:

www.truthinjustice.org/ramsey.htm

"The Boulder authorities did not take Mr. Hoffman's unsubstantiated theories seriously and considered much of his submissions to be 'off the wall,'" Carnes' order stated.

In mid-1997, Hoffman began soliciting handwriting experts to tie Patsy Ramsey to the ransom note. Carnes rejected one's being an expert because "she is not qualified to provide expert testimony ... has never taken a certification exam, completed an accreditation course in document examination, or been an apprentice to an ABFDE [American Board of Forensic Document Examiners] certified document examiner or worked in a crime lab."

Carnes also discounted testimony of a second handwriting expert recruited by Hoffman, ruling that he offered "no hint of the methodology" he used in determining that the ransom note "with 100 percent certainty" was written by Patsy Ramsey.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
certainty needs to be based on something

In regards to Henri's McPhee's most recent post, any expert who speaks in terms of 100% certainty would need to support this claim with some sort of proficiency exam or other data IMO. Hearing it from a handwriting expert is...interesting.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
In regards to Henri's McPhee's most recent post, any expert who speaks in terms of 100% certainty would need to support this claim with some sort of proficiency exam or other data IMO. Hearing it from a handwriting expert is...interesting.
Click to expand...

The evidence that Patsy or John or Burke wrote the ransom note is hardly conclusive evidence. The matter was discussed at the Steve Thomas deposition with Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood:

www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/sho...Thomas-Deposition-Wolf-Case-September-21-2001

8 Q. You don't know that. You do know
9 that there were other experts that reviewed
10 Patsy Ramsey's handwriting and did not find
11 evidence of authorship, true?
12 A. Who were those?
13 Q. Do you think there were not three
14 other people that looked at this and did not
15 find that there was evidence to find that she
16 wrote the note?
17 A. I don't know who you're referring
18 to.
19 Q. Well, there was a Secret Service
20 examiner, Mr. Dusak?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. Speckin Laboratories?
23 A. Mr. Speckin, yes.
24 Q. Right. And there is one other,
25 help me. I can pull it if you want me to?

212

1 A. Alfred, Alford, Edwin Alford.
2 Q. Did you look at their conclusions
3 and remember them?
4 A. I did.
5 Q. What was Mr. Dusak's conclusion?
6 A. Mr. Dusak, I believe, his official
7 conclusion on his report for courtroom
8 purposes was no evidence to indicate.
9 Q. No evidence to indicate that Patsy
10 Ramsey executed any of the questioned material
11 appearing on the ransom note, was that
12 Mr. Dusak's conclusion?
13 A. Among other things.
14 Q. And he was a document analyst for
15 the United States Secret Service, right?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. Then we have Mr. Edwin F. Alford,
18 Jr., police expert, examination of the
19 questioned handwriting, comparison of the
20 handwriting specimen submitted has failed to
21 provide a basis for identifying Patsy Ramsey
22 as the writer of the letter. Is that his
23 conclusion?
24 A. I remember Mr. Dusak. If you
25 have a document that would help --

213

1 Q. This is Mr. Alford.
2 A. I know. I remember Mr. Dusak.
3 If you have a document that would help me
4 refresh my memory on Mr. Alford, I don't
5 recall --
6 Q. Not beyond what I have just told
7 you, but if that helps you refresh you one
8 way or the other what I've just told you is
9 I believe Mr. Alford concluded?
10 A. Will you repeat his --
11 Q. Sure.
12 A. -- what he concluded.
13 Q. The examination of the questioned
14 handwriting comparison with the handwriting
15 specimen submitted has failed to provide a
16 basis for identifying Patricia Ramsey as the
17 writer of the letter?
18 A. If that's what the report says.
19 I certainly don't disagree with --
20 MR. DIAMOND: He's asking you
21 whether that refreshes your recollection.
22 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Do you recall
23 Mr. Alford coming to that conclusion?
24 A. To a -- yeah, I think that's the
25 conclusion.

214

1 Q. And then Leonard A. Speckin, he
2 said that he found no evidence that Patsy
3 Ramsey disguised her handwriting exemplars.
4 Did you -- were you aware of that conclusion
5 by Mr. Speckin, a police expert?
6 A. Among other conclusions, yes.
7 Q. You understood enough about the
8 handwriting analysis that a legitimate
9 handwriting questioned document examiner
10 analyzes not just similarities, but also has
11 to analyze and account for dissimilarities,
12 right?
13 A. If you say so, Mr. Wood, I'm
14 not --
15 Q. I'm asking you, sir.
16 A. No, I'm not a handwriting expert
17 and don't purport to be.
18 Q. So you can't --
19 A. If you're asking me about my
20 layman's knowledge about handwriting science I
21 would be happy to answer your question.
22 Q. I'm asking you about your
23 understanding of the science when you were
24 the, quote, one of the lead detectives. Did
25 you not listen to what the experts were

215

1 saying and what their bases were and did you
2 not grasp the fundamental idea when you were
3 listening that they were saying we've got to
4 analyze both similarities and dissimilarities?
5 MR. DIAMOND: Objection.
6 Compound. You may answer.
7 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did you understand
8 that to be the case or not?
9 A. That was among many things that I
10 understood them to look at.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Is handwriting analysis objective?

Chris_Halkides said:
In regards to Henri's McPhee's most recent post, any expert who speaks in terms of 100% certainty would need to support this claim with some sort of proficiency exam or other data IMO. Hearing it from a handwriting expert is...interesting.
Click to expand...
"Carnes also discounted testimony of a second handwriting expert recruited by Hoffman, ruling that he offered "no hint of the methodology" he used in determining that the ransom note "with 100 percent certainty" was written by Patsy Ramsey."

I realize that my original comment should have quoted this passage. My original objection to it was that I would not trust someone's saying that they are 100% certain without evidence such as blind proficiency tests. My second objection is that I don't have confidence in handwriting as a forensic discipline, although I have not looked into it as deeply as is possible to do. It is also my understanding that various experts have come to a broad spectrum of conclusions with respect to whether or not Patsy wrote this note.
 
When Fleet White was trying to sue the Boulder Daily Camera over the Nancy Krebs information he admitted to Boulder cop Chuck Hagel that he knew Nancy Krebs. Then in 2015 the journalist Prendergast from Westword reported that Fleet White never knew Nancy Krebs. It's an obvious lie and inconsistency by the 'fake news' and it's deeply suspicious to my mind.
 
Henri McPhee said:
Don't you think this photo of Fleet and Priscilla White makes them look suspicious and gives you a funny feeling, if not a turn?:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?...608046103436397412&selectedIndex=1&ajaxhist=0
Click to expand...

It's certainly a very unflattering photo. If I were running for political office against either one of them I would love for the PAC that was doing my attack ads to use this photo in. If they hired a professional photographer to take this photo and it was the best he took they should have gotten their money back.

Is it in any way, shape or form evidence that either of them was involved in killing Jon Benet Ramsey? No.
 
While I sincerely hope the murderers /assaulters of ANY child will be found out and tried, convicted and heavily punished, I do not at this point see any reason to believe we will ever know absent a deathbed confession. Nothing I have seen in these posts you have made shows any reason to hope this will happen.
 
The track record on child killers would suggest that if Burke is guilty, if he has gotten away clean, that we'll see some bad results out of him as an adult.

It's been an interesting thread. There was staging involved in the crime, no matter whether an inside/outside job.

But the ransom letter suggests the panic involved in what investigators call the "full tilt boogie" - and someone scrambling to cover up, not to obtain money. It is just too bizarre.

If it was the Father and he is some kind of child killer pervert - same thing. That is not a one-shot deal: normal all your life then rape and kill your daughter and then normal again the rest of your life? That seems unlikely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom