s-araphahoe-suspect.htm


	A Personal view of the Internet Subculture Surrounding the JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

This web page is part of a series covering found materials regarding individuals, items or events that apparently became part of what is commonly known as the vortex of the JonBenet Ramsey murder case Christmas night 1996. The webmaster of this site claims no inside official Boulder police information as to who has been interviewed, investigated, the outcome or what information is actually considered official evidence. These pages outline found material which can include but not limited to materials found in books, articles, the Internet, transcripts, depositions, legal documents, Internet discussion forums, graphics or photos, media reports, TV/Radio shows about the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. Found materials are here for historical archive purposes. (www.acandyrose.com - acandyrose@aol.com)

This webpage series is for historical archive and educational purposes on found materials


The Araphahoe Suspects Jameson (aka Susan Bennett) www.webbsleuths.com Sent DNA Samples to BPD August 17, 2001

JonBenet Ramsey Murder Case
Jameson's Araphahoe Suspects

Individual

Date

Reference

Key ?

Gave Prints

Gave Blood

Gave Hair

Handwriting

Got DNA

Cleared or Alibi

Jameson's Suspect
In Arapahoe County CO
Former suspect in an unsolved Arapahoe County murder. Cloth with DNA turned in by Internet tipster Susan Bennett, aka "Jameson" at Ramsey case website www.webbsleuths.org

March 18, 2003 Jameson wrote; "Remember when I got the BPD to check some samples of DNA? One of those samples came from a known pedophile who may have worked in the Ramsey house as a subcontractor"

Bennett said sample is "personal belonging" of a man who lived in Boulder December '96. She said it contains hair, bodily fluids
Sample was mailed to her eight months ago by "someone intimate"
with the man

Apparently Jameson stored the DNA for EIGHT MONTHS !

Rocky
Mountain
News
08-17-2001

Rocky
Mountain
News
12-22-2001

Miscellaneous
Internet
Postings from
webbsleuths.com
CrimeNews2000
Justice Watch
Websleuths
VOY Forum
ACandyRose
Subculture
Forum
And GLOBE
article

---

YES

Arapahoe County
Detective
Rick Fahlstedt
said Jameson sent same TIP
to them and
the suspect in question gave voluntary DNA
and he was
eliminated
RMN 08-17-2001

Boulder PD
Mark Beckner
Tested DNA
No Match
RMN 12-22-2001

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2000

2000-12-10: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"My letter to press and authorities"

"My letter to press and authorities"
Posted by jams on Dec-10-00 at 11:17 AM (EST)

The Ramseys will never be arrested for the murder of JonBenét Ramsey; clearly there is too much exculpatory evidence. The urgency to protect innocent people from being jailed on trumped up charges is gone.

The investigation continues, and I have great respect for the work being done by people like Ollie Gray and Lou Smit - - but until a special investigator is brought on, I think we may as well admit the chances of solving this are between slim and none. The BPD won't do the work -- - and some people are wisely refusing to participate in their mis-investigation any longer.

Evidence has been mishandled and lost by the Boulder authorities. The BPD has turned away people who say they may have information dealing with this open murder investigation. Witnesses have openly stated that they felt the cops didn't want to talk about any suspect ot named Ramsey. Right or wrong, people don't trust the Boulder police anymore, they are unwilling to work with the Boulder Police and when they are told they either work with the Boulder cops or forget it - - people are walking away.

I have informed Alex Hunter that I know of some evidence files that are being withheld from the BPD - - specifically DNA on three very reasonable suspects. I will tell them exactly where those envelopes and files are when and if a special prosecutor is appointed. I FAXed this to the DA some time back and received no response.

For those concerned about the evidence - it is properly stored, I called Henry Lee himself and went over this with him. He said he couldn't accept or test evidence unless it went through the BPD - - I advised him that wasn't an option and, thankfully, the gentleman went over proper storage of evidence with me. I got the feeling I was not the only one who had had that conversation with him.

Since Henry Lee and Alex Hunter are personal friends at this point, I think it is fair to assume Lee has told Hunter about the conversation - and I hope it convinces Hunter that this is not a joke.

As you can see, I have once again gotten involved in a way that might stir some controversy - but I am very serious here - I will not aid any more BPD bungling. I believe the case can be solved, the evidence is there. I am hoping that DA Alex Hunter will request that a special investigation be started - remove the BPD from the equation.

So what have I said?

The exculpatory evidence is there - the Ramseys did not kill their daughter.

People no longer trust the BPD and they are unwilling to carry information or evidence to them because they fear it will be ignored, mishandled or "lost".

There is evidence being withheld - the BPD will NOT be handed that evidence. That evidence is not in one place but all are safe. When a special investigator is brought in, I will tell them exactly where it is. None of it is now in my personal possession.

Will this letter make any difference? I don't know - - probably not. But i carefully thought out the pros and cons of releasing this letter and I can't see the downside.

No matter what side of the fence people are on, I hope they will join me in calling for a special investigation in the Ramsey case. Investigate all the leads, all the evidence - let the truth be exposed and let the chips fall where they may.

Written with all sincerity - let the chips fall where they may,

jameson
December 10th, 2000

2000-12-11: ACandyRose Internet Subculture Forum
"JonBenet Ramsey Folder - Jams is harboring DNA???"

From: WILTONJR_ 12/11/2000 12:21 pm
To: ALL (10 of 143)
285.10 in reply to 285.8

Here's a snippet from this article:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/dnatesting990927.html
"“The need to guard against contamination, improper storage and handling, and chain-of-custody issues are really some of the most important issues in the effective use of DNA as evidence."

She might as well get over herself. With 'chain-of-custody' as a major issue, there's no way in 'ell what she's holding is going to be worth anything. She might as well face up to the fact that she's a NOBODY.

From: MS_CAUTION 12/11/2000 12:59 pm
To: ALL (13 of 143)
285.13 in reply to 285.12

Sigh. You'll get my bill :)

I'm not a criminal lawyer, and want to give my normal disclaimer - i.e., don't trust legal advice over the internet.

That being said, and fishing through my cobweb-filled mind, here's my recollection of the law, at least at the time I was in law school:

1. No one can be compelled to give testimonial evidence against him/herself.

2. "Non-testimonial" evidence CAN be compelled. This includes blood, hair, etc. No need to be a suspect, no need to be charged to get this information. However, it cannot be used if gained illegally. (For example, if the cops broke into a house to get DNA samples from a toothbrush, it would likely be "fruit of the poisonous tree," and therefore not admissible. If, however, cops found a toothbrush on the street, and connected DNA from it to a suspect from a crime, that's ok.

3. If a witness does not agree to submit to producing the non-testimonial evidence voluntarily, a court can compel him/her to do so. However, my guess is that a court would not do so without some justification.

4. The difference between testimonial & non-testimonial evidence is: The state cannot compel a witness to admit to a crime. The state cannot compel a witness to make statements (verbal) that would help convict him/her. Blood, writing, DNA samples, however, are considered neutral, and therefore, non-testimonial.

Hope this helps.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 12/11/00 1:00:02 PM ET by MS_CAUTION

From: "Ma" (MRSBRADY) 12/11/2000 7:35 pm
To: Kattnipp (17 of 143)
285.17 in reply to 285.16

I am imagining hir following strangers on the streets of Boulder armed with open Zip-Lock bags and scooping God-only-knows-what off the sidewalk with Q-tips...

aargh, lost my appetite...

From: JAMSJAMESON 12/16/2000 5:14 pm
To: ALL (19 of 143)
285.19 in reply to 285.13

The fact is, there are several ways to get someone's DNA that are perfectly legal. You can follow the person and pick up anything they abandon - - that could mean something from their garbage that has been put on the side of the road, a cigarette butt they throw down, a cup or can they drop into the trash on a public street or leave behind on a restaurant counter, or even a hair from their jacket that they leave hanging from a chair when they use a restroom. A civilian does not have to get the person's permission to take such items.

I have done nothing illegal.

From: JAMSJAMESON 12/16/2000 5:24 pm
To: ALL (20 of 143)
285.20 in reply to 285.19

And using the evidence in court is not going to be a problem either - I have spoken to people who know - - there are ways to deal with this - - not to worry. The "Chain of Custody" is not going to be an issue at all.

From: JAMSJAMESON 12/28/2000 1:14 pm
To: WHITEHAWK4 (35 of 143)
285.35 in reply to 285.34

The DNA and handwriting samples that are being held - withheld - are not from NC. They are from very logical suspects. An admitted pedophile whose handwriting is a LOT closer than Patsy's... two men suspected in other child abductions - one where similar cord was used... another with an unusual interest in the Ramsey case.... not one has a solid alibi as far as I can tell... all connected to Boulder or nearby...

I have worked on developing these files - other agencies are not as hesitant to work on suspects - - just can't work on "this case".

If these men have histories... if they had opportunity... it couldn't hurt to compare the DNA and handwriting.

I understand it costs the state $30.00 to run a DNA test - - well, a couple of these guys have their DNA on file (someplace)... wouldn't take much to get their DNA samples to compare... and those that need to be tested, (one or two of them) I am willing to pay for those tests...

From: JAMSJAMESON 12/31/2000 8:02 pm
To: BAILEY38 (69 of 143)
285.69 in reply to 285.67

Plain fact is that I didn't offer the DNA evidence I have to Lou Smit or Ollie Gray because they don't have access to the DNA evidence on JonBenét's body. What could they do that I can't? They gave Helgoth's boots to the BPD - - didn't mean the Helgoth lead was properly investigated after that - I don't think it was.

I could have sent four packages of evidence to Mark Beckner... but I don't trust that he would treat it more seriously than he did the boots.

No, this stuff will sit safe until I have someone I can give it to who can not only have the tests done but compare it to the Ramsey evidence.

From: BAILEY38 12/31/2000 8:12 pm
To: JAMSJAMESON (70 of 143)
285.70 in reply to 285.69

I think if Smit cared about this case as we've all been lead to believe...he'd take whatever you had and check it out. I'm sure he has resources and more connections than yourself, that is ofcourse my opinion..(and a damned good one I might add.)

For two years I've heard the praises of smit and his intruder theory, you being one of his loudest advocates...but I gotta say, if you don't trust him with evidence...I can't trust him either concerning this case.

From: JAMSJAMESON 12/31/2000 8:27 pm
To: BAILEY38 (71 of 143)
285.71 in reply to 285.70

I admire Lou Smit greatly - - he is a trusted friend in this journey.

But I wouldn't ask a polygrapher to dust for prints.

While I certainly would tell Lou about the man in Atlanta who owned Hi-tec boots and wrote a diatribe against Lockheed Martin using the words "and hence", I see no reason to give him these DNA samples - - he hasn't got the DNA evidence in the Ramsey case to compare it to.

I think it would be better to keep the samples safe until a special prosecutor takes over - - let him pick the lab to do the testing - - let them compare the results to the evidence in Ramsey - - and if it matches - - then they will be able to get a court order forcing that suspect to give a controlled sample directly to law enforcement officers.

I haven't gone into this blind - - I am doing what I think is best - - and I don't think asking Lou to do what he clearly can not is part of that "best".

From: JAMSJAMESON 12/31/2000 9:32 pm
To: BAILEY38 (74 of 143)
285.74 in reply to 285.72

Lee told me he would not accept the evidence from anyone but the Boulder Police Department or DA's office - - I went over that with him in great detail, at length. Neither would the FBI. Both knew exactly what my position was and both explained to me what my options were. Both advised me how to preserve the evidence I had while I waited for someone to examine it.

Lou does not have the DNA profile - - he is aware of my situation and has not asked me for any of the files. I have not offered them to him. We have not discussed what I have or where I have sent it - - I am not about to put him in a compromising situation. I have done my best to protect all others from decisions I alone have made.

From: JAMSJAMESON 12/31/2000 9:52 pm
To: BAILEY38 (78 of 143)
285.78 in reply to 285.76

I don't know if I have the solution in one of those four packages - - and I want nothing more than to turn it over to the proper authorities who will look at the handwriting and/or DNA of four most reasonable suspects.

I feel the BPD has four years to show us how serious they are about solving this crime - - I think they will not seriously look at any Intruder evidence and I will not cast my pearls before swine.

The evidence is safe and secure and waiting for an honest investigator to call me and make arrangements to take possession of those files (wherever they are).

Actually, as we speak, negotiations are being made for two files to be handled - - there ARE some back doors opening - - slowy.... slowly... maybe...

From: GSQUARED100 12/31/2000 10:19 pm
To: JAMSJAMESON (83 of 143)
285.83 in reply to 285.81

What the hell? Jams, you claim that you have DNA from someone who wrote a diatribe against Lockheed using the words "and hence" and this guy just happened to own Hi Tec boots? How did you get that DNA? Did the Ramseys give it to you or did you get it yourself? Did you ask this guy for it or did you steal it? Who are you waiting to give it too? I am sure the Ramsey legal team can arrange for the DNA you have to be tested against the DNA on JBR. Maybe all they have to do it ask.

From: JAMSJAMESON 1/1/2001 10:22 am
To: BAILEY38 (89 of 143)
285.89 in reply to 285.88

In order to turn in half of the evidence, I would have to regain physical possession of it, then handle it - risk contamination. I don't think either idea is wise.

I knew exactly how to capture the samples, exactly how to put them into safekeeping... they are safe where they are now and no one is going to have any of it until there is someone I trust to take them.

From: JAMSJAMESON 1/1/2001 11:47 am
To: GSQUARED100 (93 of 143)
285.93 in reply to 285.92

Like I said, I have been advised as to the best way to deal with THIS evidence - - if I mishandle it, it can't be replaced. The packages are safe where they are.

Seems to me, the authorities should do whatever is necessary to get the samples to test them - - if it eventually comes out that one of those packages could ID the killer, THEY will have problems explaining why they never cleared the way to have it tested...

From: MS_CAUTION 1/1/2001 11:53 am
To: JAMSJAMESON (94 of 143)
285.94 in reply to 285.93

I'm surprised any legitimate "authority" would suggest you keep evidence. Chain of custody is extremely important in criminal matters, and, given your advocacy role, would make any evidence you provided immediately suspect.

If you're serious about this, I'd turn it over ASAP to a wholly neutral third party, along with its pedigree, and forget about it.

From: JAMSJAMESON 1/1/2001 12:01 pm
To: MS_CAUTION (96 of 143)
285.96 in reply to 285.94

I am very serious about this. I gathered the evidence, legally.

I tried to get it in to the FBI lab or to Henry Lee - - they wouldn't take it - not unless it went through the BPD. That simply is not an option in my mind. I told that to both Lee and the FBI -- they did not seem at all shocked - - I suspect I am not the first person with this dilemna. I spoke to Lee and the FBI lab tech about properly preserving what I have - - I did as I was told - - it is fine and will be fine for years if needs be.

I decided to make sure it is safe - I no longer have physical possession of the stuff - - 4 files in 4 places. All legal and respectable.

Perhaps four years ago it would have been wrong to withhold it - - but with what we know now about the BPD, I feel this is the responsible and right thing to do. I know it is legal.

I still hope to get it in - - there are some interested but concerned about their politics at work.... I say fine - - I can wait..

From: JAMSJAMESON 1/1/2001 5:35 pm
To: GSQUARED100 (99 of 143)
285.99 in reply to 285.98

I want a special investigator brought in - - should have been one called in long ago - - they called in a special prosecutor instead.

If that can't happen, I will compromise - - the authorities will have to negotiate with me on that - - I know already what I would and would not agree to - - and it is not going to be posted.

From: JAMSJAMESON 1/1/2001 6:06 pm
To: MERLCAT (101 of 143)
285.101 in reply to 285.100

ROTFLMAO

I have no intention of proving anything to you - - why would I entertain such a notion?

You said I can be arrested for "obstruction of justice" - - somehow I don't think so - - you see, I am TRYING to get the information in to respectable, responsible, trustworthy investigators.

You said you spent about an hour on the phone today with 2 relatives who are active law enforcement officers. They both, with no knowledge of what the other said, came to the same conclusion.... you are withholding evidence or lying. Either way, you're an idiot.

Well, they are right - I am withholding information. Actually I believe I am just safeguarding it until proper authorities are willing to take custody of it. I am sure they feel it would have been wiser to keep quiet about it - - but that's neither here nor there... I make my own decisions and think I am doing the right thing. I don't care what you or your relatives think.

You obviously don't know much about the law or handling of evidence - - I know what I am doing - - promise.

Flame on, Merlcat... your teeth will wear out before my butt will.

From: PEARLSIM 1/5/2001 10:36 am
To: ALL (137 of 143)
285.137 in reply to 285.136

Well, I think it's incredibly clever and couragous of "The-person-whose-name-I-try-never-to-mention-or-even-think-of" to be storing up DNA. I just tear up at the mere thought of that shy, breadbaking housewife from the hills of North Carolina, going out and diligently hunting up suspects and then managing to steal DNA samples from them. The rest of you lazy supposed justice seekers should be ashamed of yourselves!

In fact, hir leadership has given me an idea. You guys all know the basic premise that murderers often inject themselves into the investigation of their victim's demise, right? Well, that tells me that it could very well be one of us who intruded our way into the Ramsey (mini)mansion to kidnap/molest/strangle/stungun/headbash and otherwise kill poor JonBenet.

Therefore, I am requesting that each of you send me a sample of your DNA, immediately. Those living here in the state of California may drop it off in person but the rest of you are to bag it up and send it to me.

Oh, and please let me know exactly what the source of your DNA is. All I need is a post-it note with the a few words written on it - you know, like "blood", "snot", "sperm" etc. - this will help me decide exactly how I'm going to handle (or not) your sample.

Don't forget to include your full name on the note. Though I tend to be a bit scattered and disorganized, I'm going to try my best to keep those names and samples from getting all mixed up.

I'm still working on storage issues. There's a small space available in our refridgerator and maybe even some room in the kitchen pantry. But then I think, with an active family of five, someone might make a mistake and get into the samples, without knowing what they were. My kids often cook, so I can just picture a few scary scenarios. Just for instance, I'd have to think twice before ever eating any vanilla pudding/tapioca concoctions not personally prepared by me!

I will, of course, trust no one with these precious and valuable samples. Not the BPD, not Hunter, or Keenan or Romer or even GeeDubya. Not Billy Graham and not the Pope. And definitely not that other DNA handler - hir might try to take all the credit for my hard work.

In fact, after much thought, I've decided that the only people I would trust as recipients of my DNA bank would be John and Patsy, in the flesh. That's right. They have to come to my house and pick up the samples, in person. That way I'll know, beyond a shadow of the tiniest doubt, that my contribution to the furtherance of justice is in the hands of the people who most want to see JonBenet's killers be apprehended and punished, to the full extent of the law. I could rest easy then, knowing that upstanding Christian people such as the Ramseys would use the forum DNA samples in only the most upright, moral and aboveboard ways.

Now aren't the rest of you sorry you didn't think of this brilliant idea?

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2001

2001-05-21: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"Smit offers JonBenet *suspect* list"

8 . "suspects"
Posted by jameson on May-21-01 at 09:18 AM (EST)

The BORG wanted to know why they never heard abut suspects developed by the RST... well, they won't be able to say they haven't HEARD any more. I think this article shows that the investigation is on-going and respectable.

(SNIP)

"Boulder police would not respond to the accusation, but in the past have said they have thoroughly pursued every viable lead in the case."

They LIE, LIE, LIE!!! I have received numerous messages from people saying they contacted the police about a suspect and were ignored. It was with great pressure that they FINALLY approached Mike McElroy - - and they have NEVER done work on some others suspects. One, I won't name him, one was SO good a suspect that I personally traveled to Colorado more than once to work on him as a suspect. I won't say how I did it, butafter a full year of working on this one man, I now believe I can PROVE he was innocent - - he was a very good suspect, cleared by PROPER MEANS. And that without a bit of help from the BPD.

There are other suspects who need to be checked.

10 . "AARGHHH - LIARS!"
Posted by jameson on May-21-01 at 09:28 AM (EST)

"In an April press release, the police department said it would not respond to Smit's intruder theory, adding, "the case and development of evidence has changed significantly" since Smit left his role with the District Attorney's Office in the fall of 1998."

"In the release, the police said they had interviewed "more than 600" people in the case. In a June 1998 press release, the department said it had interviewed 590 people, suggesting investigators had talked to 10 or more people since the grand jury disbanded without an indictment in October of 1999."

I had to laugh - - if they bump into someone in the mall and exchange a few words - like - - You didn't do it, right? Hell NO, I was home sleeping with my old lady. Does that count?

When I asked Beckner to meet me in Boulder and take the DNA from me - DNA from a viable suspect that needs to be tested - - did he count THAT as an interview? (He wouldn't promise to take the sample to the lab to be tested and compared to evidence in the Ramsey case so the sample remains safely stored in Colorado - it is with a very respectable person - - and if it IS the DNA of the killer, Beckner will look like a complete idiot for not testing it earlier.)

2001-07-20: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"Leads not followed"

"Leads not followed"
Posted by jameson on Jul-20-01 at 01:15 PM (EST)

The BPD has NOT done everything they could do to solve this crime.

People have brought leads to them and have reported that when they were interviewed they felt the officers didn't want to hear what they were saying, didn't want to ask questions, wantedto get in and out with as little fuss as possible.

I know for a fact that getting one particular suspect looked at - - when he was turned in by a police officer in another state - - took MONTHS! Even then it only happened because a group of people were putting constant pressure on the BPD to do SOMETHING!

We all know how the Helgoth investigation was (not)handled.

And now there is a package of DNA sitting in Colorado - begging to be tested. The DNA is that of a person I KNOW has been on the suspect list.

Chief Beckner will take the sample from me - - but he will NOT assure me that the package will make it to the lab at the CBI, or be tested, or compared to the DNA from the Ramsey case.

I have learned, over time, to distrust the abilities and motivations of the Boulder Police Department.

I have been told by an officer that he KNOWS I am related to the Ramseys - - and I certainly am NOT - - not by blood, not by marriage, not by any stretch of the imagination.

I have watched the BPD do everything they could to prove innocent people guilty - they never did do that. And I have watched them, IMO, hamper justice.

I have the DNA. It is from a good suspect. I will not say who the sample is from. When it is tested and compared, if it is a math, I will tell the authorities the name of the person and any judge, at that point knowing the full story of how the sample came into my possession, would demand the suspect give a sample directly.

There are many needs not followed - - evidence not tested - - witnesses not interviewed.

The case should be taken from Boulder authorities - - it should be given to a special investigator.

OH - - a last word - -
wondering posted on weBsleuths - "...jams has DNA which hir has even admitted...Lou Smit won't touch or have tested"

Not true at all. I never asked Lou to take it or test it. He could do that - - but all we would have is a print out of some results - - and nothing to compare it to since the BPD won't share the DNA evidence from the case.

No - - the sample is just as it was sent to me - - properly handled, protected, sealed and sitting in a safe lace in Colorado.

If it comes out that that DNA belongs to the killer and the cops could have solved this MONTHS AGO by testing the sample... what?

They will look bull-headed or BORG? I guess they don't have a whole lot to lose.

2001-08-17: Tipster provides possible DNA evidence in Ramsey case

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_803375,00.html
Tipster provides possible DNA evidence in Ramsey case
By Owen S. Good, News Staff Writer
August 17, 2001

BOULDER -- Police Chief Mark Beckner has asked a state lab to test possible DNA evidence, given to him by an Internet tipster, with genetic traces found in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation.

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation also will examine DNA evidence from a former suspect in an unsolved Arapahoe County murder for possible links to the Ramsey case.

Beckner, confirming the testing, said so little is known about the source of the DNA that he can't say if it will produce a meaningful lead.

"I don't have enough information on where it came from to even tell you whether it's worth a look," Beckner said Wednesday. "We're doing it just to cover all our bases, and if something pans out, super, great."

It is at least a new lead in a five-year investigation that has focused on the girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, as suspects in her death. The case has appeared to grind down since a grand jury disbanded without an indictment in 1999.

While police figures say more than 100 suspects have been considered, and people continue to be interviewed, DNA testing has "dwindled down" lately, Beckner said. The number of interviews stood at 590 in June 1998 and increased to "roughly 600" in the past three years, according to city press releases.

While the chief is taking evidence of unknown origin and testing it without the name of a possible suspect in mind, he said it is not an endorsement of a so-called "intruder theory." It still examines the possibility that a stranger murdered JonBenet, 6, whose body was found Dec. 26, 1996.

"I wouldn't characterize it as moving in any direction other than investigating the crime and trying to answer unanswered questions," Beckner said. "And wherever it leads us, it leads us."

The tipster, who goes by the Internet name Jameson in maintaining a Ramsey case Web site, said the sample is a "personal belonging" of a man who lived in the Boulder area at the time of the murder. It contains hair and bodily fluid traces, she said, and was mailed to her eight months ago by "someone intimate" with the man, who suspected his involvement.

Jameson wanted written assurances from Beckner that he would test the item before she turned it over, but Beckner had been reluctant to give them, she said. She said he verbally agreed last month.

"I can tell you that the person has been talked about in Boulder as a suspect," she said, although she withheld that name from the police.

Unknown male DNA was found underneath JonBenet's fingernails and in her panties. The Ramseys are not the source.

"I really do think JonBenet got a piece of her killer, and he left something behind," said Lou Smit, whom Beckner has criticized for taking his intruder theory public. "Some day, that is going to catch him."

Smit said he is "really encouraged" Beckner is doing the DNA testing. "I hope that they do more," he said. "It must be worth something or they wouldn't test it."

Beckner characterized the DNA comparison as part of ongoing laboratory tests. "We are still doing DNA tests, and we are doing DNA tests on some things that have been submitted," he said.

Beckner could not say how many other tests have been performed this year. "It's dwindled down significantly," he said. "There aren't many we ask for now."

Sheriffs' detectives in Arapahoe County received a similar DNA tip from Jameson earlier this year, according to Detective Rick Fahlstedt. Testing showed enough of a link that the person was brought in and gave a voluntary sample, which eliminated that person as a suspect, he said.

Jameson said the person also lived in the Boulder area at the time of the Ramsey murder. She also gave the person's name to Beckner. The chief thinks the CBI may have already examined it for Ramsey links.

"Any DNA that's tested by CBI is compared against their entire database," Beckner said. "It's basically an automatic kind of thing."

Atlanta attorney L. Lin Wood, who is representing the Ramseys in three civil lawsuits, said he was "slightly" encouraged by the news.

"I'd be more encouraged if I saw the police taking aggressive actions to solicit new tips and new leads, to take this case off the shelf and genuinely go back and revisit it start to finish," he said.

Contact Owen S. Good at (303) 442-8729 or goodo@RockyMountainNews.com.

2001-08-17: From CrimeNews 2000 Forum thread,
"8/17 CNN re new DNA"

Thor
8/17/01 11:13 AM
Re: DNA [Post#: 12988 / re: 12985 ]

Heard this this a.m. on Fox News. I heard Ramsey and my ears perked up, then heard hir name & felt like I was in the twilight zone. Just got in on the last part of it. This is something hir has had in hir custody for some time. Hir wanted to give it to Beckner before but was afraid he'd throw it away. Bottom line here is chain of command. Two asst. ags in my office said this will not hold water (asked them about it when I first read about it on hir forum a month or so ago). This DNA has to be collected through the proper channels, they said. Nope, this will not fly. Unless, maybe, if the DNA matches something the police have, maybe they could then go through the proper channels? Don't know, I'm not at work today. Will have to ask Monday.

2001-08-17: From CrimeNews 2000 Forum thread,
"New DNA testing !!"

Thor
8/17/01 01:33 PM
Re: New DNA testing !! [Post#: 13013 / re: 13010 ]

Pookiecat, I agree with you. This scares me, too. Does this mean that if someone is mad at you, they can collect saliva from you and turn it in and try to get you connected to a crime somehow, sex crime or not? I feel the same way you do. Whoever started this stuff should have gone to the cops and said they suspected this person and here is the DNA. Do what you need to do. I don't get it.

As far as sharonjay's question, I am under the impression that the DNA collected from JonBenet is either contaminated or too small/degraded to test. So, I wonder too, how they are going to compare this DNA hir supplied with whatever they have. Dr. Lee explained this DNA situation like this. If someone bled on the sidewalk, someone could have come along and spit on the same spot, therefore, DNA is contaminated. This is how he describes this situation. I have always heard that the DNA does not include or exclude the Rams. He says it is a mixture of JonBenet's DNA & someone else. But that does not exclude or include the Rams, any of them. I have heard it is male, that much I think has been made public. But the sample is too small. Good question, sharonjay.

Pookiecat
8/19/01 07:44 PM
Re: New DNA testing !! [Post#: 13173 / re: 13079 ]

What's so sad about this entire matter is even if the DNA DOES match - will the BPD be able to proceed with anything at all? We must remember the 4th amendment:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don't believe that the item(s) tested can fall under the "trash - so it's free to all" law. (Like the Globe and the autopsy photo's)

And there's also something called the chain of custody:

Definition: A process used to maintain and document the chronological history of the evidence. (Documents should include name or initials of the individual collecting the evidence, each person or entity subsequently having custody of it, dates the items were collected or transferred, agency and case number, victim's or suspect's name, and a brief description of the item.)

And my final concern - has anyone thought to secure the safety of the person responsible for obtaining the item to be tested and sending it off to jameson? Did either jameson or Beckner think of this before they went public with the story? No matter how the DNA testing turns out, this person could be in grave danger. And so could jameson herself, considering there's two potential suspects. Just how closely is she watching her own child now?

Thor
8/19/01 08:42 PM
Re: New DNA testing !! [Post#: 13177 / re: 13173 ]

FWIW, Masked Man (reporter from Colorado very familiar with Jameson and this case) is reporting that hir brought this to the attention of the Rocky Mountain News hirself. Hir called them and told them this story, they in turn called Beckner for a quote. No one knew for sure until today, when Masked Man reported this.

2001-08-17: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"DNA at lab - thread 2"

"DNA at lab - thread 2"
Posted by jameson on Aug-17-01 at 08:55 PM (EST)

The DNA is being tested - - the DNA of someone from the "Possible Intruder" suspect list - - not a Ramsey - - and that is encouraging to many of us.

These two suspects may be cleared, but there are plenty more on that list, and the answer may be there - - authorities need to LOOK or they will never find what they seek -- the killer of JonBenét. This is, if not the answer, a damn good start.

9 . "Jameson"
Posted by why_nut on Aug-18-01 at 03:54 AM (EST)

"The DNA isn't going to solve the crime - - it can help cut down the suspect pool but it isn't going to say that only this person could have done it. There will have to be more evidence than that to convict - - but it is one hell of a start."
....................................................................................................
The problem with this "one hell of a start" is that it violates the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights.

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

When you submitted the DNA of a suspect you have yet to identify to authorities, you unlawfully seized evidence of that person's identity. Any practiced defense lawyer will bring up at least two cases as precedent to have the DNA evidence thrown out, and all subsequent DNA evidence declared "the fruit of the poisoned tree." Have Lin Wood or Darnay Hoffman tell you about Weeks v. U.S. ( http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/232/383.html#394 ) and Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. ( http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/251/385.html#392 ). And take a hint from this retelling by Steve Thomas of the credit-card and phone records illegally obtained by the Rapps:

Among the best leads of the month was still another that we could not touch. The Ramsey credit card purchases showed up again, this time through the mail anonymously from a tabloid newspaper to Sergeant Wickman. There were copies of purchase records from marine supply depots, hardware stores, and boating retailers in Charlevoix, Atlanta, and Boulder during 1996. Any of these places could have sold duct tape and cord. An investigator's dream come true--the paper trail.

Sergeant Tom Wickman and I took it in to Bob Keatley for a legal opinion, and he almost had a heart attack. His exact words were most un-Keatley-like--"Shit, shit, shit!"--and he snatched the documents away. "Put it out of your mind," he ordered, imagining how a defense lawyer would do an O.J.-style "Police Planted the Glove" tap dance on us.

26 . "DNA Collection"
Posted by NoNa on Aug-18-01 at 04:31 PM (EST)

Monica's blue dress was legal evidence, wasn't it?
Was it given, stolen or abandoned? (Or all three?)

27 . "Nona"
Posted by Vivian on Aug-18-01 at 04:35 PM (EST)

I believe the blue dress was handed over by Monica's mother.

30 . "Vivian"
Posted by why_nut on Aug-18-01 at 05:10 PM (EST)

"I believe the blue dress was handed over by Monica's mother."
....................................................................................................
That is incorrect. Under oath, Monica testified that she had at one point told Linda Tripp that she had given the dress to her mother, but Monica admitted that she had lied to Linda, and the dress never had left Monica's possession. Monica turned the dress over to prosecutors herself, but only after she had obtained an immunity and cooperation agreement with the Office of the Independent Counsel.

2001-08-18: Justice Watch Forum thread, "Tipster DNA - Thread II"

61. "On this so-called "evidence"
Posted by Ginja on 00:56:34 8/18/2001

Needless to say, this evidence is going to go nowhere fast. Everything about its collection and chain of evidence is illegal and compromised as noted by a number of posters. One poster in the previous thread said something about Dershowitz having a field day with this. He already did in State vs. vonBulow!

For those of you not familiar (or if your memory has faded), Sunny vonBulow's children from her first marriage were the precursors to Jameson (probably where hir got the idea!) They hated their stepfather and set out to frame him for attempting to kill their mother; their mother still in a coma to this day because of her own substance(s) abuses (which induced said coma). She was hypoglycemic and wasn't supposed to consume sweets or alcohol; she also had a drug problem, shooting herself up with "speed balls" taught to her by Truman Capote; her son, Jameson the First, supplied her with the drugs. At Christmas, she overate, overdrank, and overdrugged herself into a coma. She was rushed to the hospital and out for days, but recovered, with stern warnings from her doctors that she had to stop such practices or else the next time she wouldn't wake up.

The following Christmas, she woke at noon and spent the afternoon drinking and doing her drugs. She sat with the family for their holiday meal. She then followed the meal drinking a full pitcher of spiked eggnog, half a pound cake, bowl of ice cream and shot herself up with her favorite shot - a speedball. In a drunken stupor, Jameson the First and his hated stepfather carried the half-conscious Sunny to her room and put her to bed. She never woke up.

Jameson the First and his sister, Missy Jameson, contacted a New York detective, Richard Kuh. They presented him with a little black bag that contained a hypodermic needle and a small jar of insulin. The black bag, they said, belonged to their stepfather. They "found" it inside his "locked" closet. They then handed it over to authorities, claiming it was evidence that vonBulow had injected Sunny with insulin, plunging her into a coma.

The trial court accepted the "evidence" and the jury convicted vonBulow of attempted murder. He hired Dershowitz to appeal the conviction.

There was plenty of "new" evidence discovered after the trial, including the fact that the hypo was never inserted into Sunny and that Jameson the First supplied drugs to his mother. The fact that she had such problems, or that she had had an identical coma, almost to the day, the previous year was never entered into evidence the first time around. Nor could any of this be introduced in the appeal. The appeal has to be based on the evidence and conduct of the trial. Anything new is introduced in the new trial.

So what the appeal attacked was "illegal" evidence brought in by the NY detective, from the black bag to Kuh's notes.

For all the reasons WY and others have pointed out, Jameson the First's and Missy Jameson's illegal evidence was thrown out and a new trial ordered.

Now, as far as Beckner finally taking this DNA evidence is concerned, it's nothing more than turning over one more stone. He's in a catch-22; if he doesn't take it, he'll be criticized for ignoring "evidence"; if he does take it, he can't do a thing with it! (e.g., it can't be used to solve the case or present at trial).

It's also why the BPD have taken DNA samples from everyone. Not because they have anything significant to compare it with, but to make sure every stone is turned. They've got some DNA on the body, so they have to make sure they cover all the bases and see if they can find a match. IOW, they can't ignore it. They have to go where the evidence leads, and if there's DNA evidence, then they have to follow up, only because it would be gross negligence not to. Besides, any defense attorney worth his salt would divert all attention at trial away from the real evidence, and focus only on the fact that the police didn't try to find a match to the evidence found on JBR. It doesn't matter that that evidence can't be dated or linked to the crime, or that it can't definitively identify JonBenet's killer. What that defense attorney would ensure is that it stick in the minds of the jurors that the BPD didn't follow up on evidentiary leads; that they focused in on the Ramseys and only the Ramseys and did whatever they could to make sure the Ramseys were convicted.

Look at what happened in Simpson. They had more than ample blood evidence....a trail!...from Nicole's and Ron's bodies at Gretna Green to OJ's car, the glove on his property and his socks in his bedroom! But what stuck in the minds of the jurors is that the bloodied glove didn't "fit".

All Mark Beckner is doing with all this testing is making sure defense doesn't have a field day diverting attention away from the real evidence.

Finally, let's just suppose Jameson's "evidence" pans out and matches. Then what? Can the cops move in and make an arrest? No. Can the cops get a warrant to get a "legal" dna sample? No.

The evidence would be thrown out of court, therefore, it can't be used as a basis for "going after" a suspect. In order to go after this person, they need probable cause. That probable cause cannot be based on illegally-gotten evidence. The cops have to work as though they have no knowledge that the DNA matches. So they'd be back to square one, especially considering the fact that Beckner has already stated the department has already checked this person out. As a matter of fact, it would be more difficult the second time around because they'd have to have new information, new probable cause to go after the person.

And that, my friends, is mho. J

73. "WY"
Posted by Ginja on 10:12:07 8/18/2001

Reading is how you learn...you don't need to go to law school!

Jameson can argue til she's blue in the face of how illegally seized evidence is good evidence. She talks of BORG lies and myths constantly...she ought to heed her own words! Since she can't, I will.

Hir's wrong!

And Beckner's only covering all the bases so it doesn't get thrown back in his face by defense attorneys!

The vonBulow situation is a perfect example of why such evidence is illegal. Jameson wasn't there...but I was. And as the case unfolded and we learned more about the underworld and Jameson the First's involvement in drug trafficking, things got so involved and scary (you wouldn't believe what crawled out of the woodwork!), that I had to have full time security to make sure I didn't wind up in the obits. It got to a point where security actually sat with me in the office!

The are laws protecting citizens against illegal searches and seizures, for cripes sake! But when you've got a loose nut screwing up an investigation, officials have no choice but to go along with it and follow through.

They have no choice!

2001-08-18: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"BORG attacks/responses 2"

6 . "mame's post"
Posted by jameson on Aug-18-01 at 11:01 PM (EST)

Someone posted that mame had said that she had a producer who knew who my suspects were. That made me laugh. I didn't tell the Chief of Police. I didn't tell the CBI. I didn't tell the reporter. I told the Globe that neither love nor money would get that name from me and I sure didn't know how some producer friend of mame's would know - - but, whatever. BORG tend to lie at times so I was waiting to see who they were going to name.

Then mame herself posted this:
"...my network source did not say the name was known. my network source said she is watching this story. that's it. the name is not known by the media."

THAT, as far as i know, is the truth. If a name leaks out, it won't be from me.

2001-08-20: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"The 4th Amendment"

43 . "well..."
Posted by jameson on Aug-20-01 at 04:27 PM (EST)

The Arapahoe County suspect was approached and told that the police were investigating him for a crime - and they asked him to voluntarily give his DNA. He did - and was cleared. It happens. I think a guilty person might scream that his rights were being violated.

2001-08-22: From River's Websleuths Forum thread titled,
"Jameson's "suspect" is..."

shannon (108 posts)
22-Aug-01, 01:12 PM (CST)
19. "RE: Jameson Names Suspect"
LAST EDITED ON 22-Aug-01 AT 03:52 PM (CST)

Visited truecrime.com today and found a post by Jams from today asking the suspect"sickpuppy" if they are nervous now that dna has been submitted. I remember a while back some posted going by the name of Sickpuppy. Anyone know who this is? Didn't we all know that she would be stupid enough to brag too much so that the DNA's subject person would know his DNA had been submitted. So, Sickpuppy, are you going to sue her as* off? SICKPUPPY was used as a proper noun,(name), and not an adjective describing the murderer as I read it!

MaskedMan (909 posts)
22-Aug-01, 05:05 PM (CST)
23. "Jameson doesn't deny it"

Lovely Pigeon,
Why are you speaking on behalf of Jameson? She hasn't denied that Michael McElroy is her so-called "suspect." So, why are you "doubting" it? Let HER deny it, not you.

No, you didn't name McElroy as a suspect, but you cheered on Jameson for turning in an anonymous "suspect" who is apparently McElory. How can you support her actions if you don't know whether she has a legitimate suspect? Do you think he's a realistic suspect, or not? You can't have it both ways.

Jameson posted here on THIS thread earlier today. (Her post was removed because she is banned from this forum.) In her post, she didn't deny that McElroy is her "suspect." She had the opportunity to deny it here (and on her forum), but she hasn't denied it. Evidently, she can't.

Now, we know WHY Jameson withheld the name of her "suspect" from the police. She knows that the police have already investigated and discounted McElroy as a suspect. She kept his name a secret so she could fool Beckner into doing what she wants.

Jameson manipulated Beckner into an unnecessary DNA test on a bogus "suspect." Then, she called the newspaper with her story about the DNA testing. SHE planted the story. She wanted to get her story into the newspaper so that she could tout her "credibility" as a player in the Ramsey case.

In reality, she is fooling everyone and wasting the police's time with a bogus "suspect." This is another egotistical shell game by Jameson. It's all trickery. She was thrilled to publicized her little "success." And you go along with her charade, even celebrating her phony manipulations.

2001-08-23: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"FOX report transcripts"

"FOX report transcripts"
Posted by jameson on Aug-23-01 at 06:41 PM (EST)

just got time to transcribe them.

Fox's Alicia Acunia reporting

We have to wait for test results before we know exactly how significant it will be. It is possible the supposed new evidence could take the case on a new path.

The tip is a DNA sample that was sent in to the Boulder police by a person who runs a website about the case. Boulder police say the person who sent in the DNA goes by the name jameson. She sent in samples of hair and body fluids she claims came from a man who was living in Boulder at the time JonBenét was killed.

According to police, jameson says these samples were mailed to her 8 months ago by someone close to the owner of the DNA. jameson insists this person should be considered a suspect.

Right now, neither jameson nor police are releasing this person's name.

JonBenét was found strangled in the basement of her parent's home 5 years ago.

Her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey have remained a primary focus of the investigation. The Ramseys have maintained their innocence, insisting that an intruder came into their home on the night of December 25th, 1996, took their daughter to the basement, sexually assaulted her, then killed her.

Unknown male DNA was found underneath JonBenét's fingernails and on her underwear.

The Ramseys' attorney says he is encouraged by this latest bit of information.

Former Ramsey investigator Lou Smit is one person who worked on the case who believes an intruder did, in fact, kill the 6-year-old beauty queen. He says he is also encouraged by this new evidence and feels the Boulder Police must think there's something to it if the Boulder Police are looking into it.

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner says right now he really doesn't know enough about the source of this DNA to decide whether or not it's even valid. Either way, he is sending it to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for analysis.

end of first report - - I managed to capture 2 live reports.

2nd Report -- same reporter:

If this supposed new evidence actually turns into something significant, it could redirect the focus of this investigation away from JonBenét's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey.

It's a DNA sample that was sent to the Boulder Police by an Internet tipster who follows the case. Boulder police say the person who sent the DNA runs a website under the name jameson She sent in samples of hair and body fluids she claims came from a man who was living in Boulder at the time JonBenét was killed.

According to police, jameson says she received the DNA in the mail 8 months ago from someone close to the source of the DNA. jameson insists this person should be considered a suspect.

Right now we don't have the name of the person these samples came from.

Shortly after JonBenét was found dead in her Boulder home, 5 years ago, her parents became became a primary focus for police, John and Patsy say they are innocent and that investigators have spent too much time looking at them. They insist an intruder came into their home on the night of December 25th, 1996, took their daughter to the basement, sexually assaulted her, then killed her.

Unknown male DNA was found underneath JonBenét's fingernails and on her underwear.

The Ramseys' attorney says he is encouraged by this latest bit of information.

Former Ramsey investigator Lou Smit is one person who worked on the case who believes an intruder did, in fact, kill the 6-year-old beauty queen. He says he is also encouraged by this new evidence and feels there must be something to it if the Boulder Police are looking into it.

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner says he is sending these samples to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for analysis and if it turns out there is a match to the DNA that was found on JonBenét, then we have a new case here. But right now, Chief Beckner says he doesn't know enough about the source of this DNA to decide whether or not it's valid so we still right now have to wait for test results.

2001-08-23: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"Globe story on the DNA"

"Globe story on the DNA"
Posted by jameson on Aug-23-01 at 07:03 PM (EST)

No - - I do not have the transcript, but according to what I am hearing, there is a story about me in the Globe - - and it is absolutely full of misinformation. The reporter apparently confused his interview with me with what he read on Justice Watch."

All I can say is that he did get 90% of it wrong, don't believe any of it.

And to answer the BORG question, NO, I was not paid.

4 . "the reporter"
Posted by jameson on Aug-23-01 at 07:43 PM (EST)

He contacted me, I wouldn't tell him the name of the suspect. Guess this is his idea of "payback" - - writing that garbage. It isn't what I told him - - it is the crap they are suggesting on JusticeWatch.

He wrote his stupid incorrect story - and I emailed him that I won't return his calls in the future.

Another page turns....

2001-08-23: JonBENET - SHOCKING NEW TWIST
Cops probe telltale DNA evidence from suspect's underwear

The Globe - August 23, 2001
JonBENET - SHOCKING NEW TWIST
Cops probe telltale DNA evidence from suspect's UNDERWEAR

In a startling new development, forensic scientists investigating the death of 6-year-old JonBenét Ramsey are testing DNA samples from a suspect in another child murder case.

They intend to compare the genetic matter - hair and body fluid from a pair of underwear - with material found under the pageant princess' fingernails and in her panties.

Commander Mark Beckner, police chief in Boulder, Colo., asked scientists at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation laboratory to examine the underwear. "It's part of our ongoing laboratory tests," he says.

Amazingly, the new evidence was handed over to cops by a writer who goes under the name of Jameson and runs a website that has become a clearinghouse for information on the case.

Jameson is a confidante of JonBenét's parents, former computer tycoon John Ramsey and his socialite wife, Patsy, and has campaigned for them to be cleared.

Almost five years after their daughter was found battered and strangled in the basement of their $1.3 million Boulder mansion, they remain under what Beckner has called "an umbrella of suspicion."

Jameson told GLOBE that the underwear, stained by "personal fluids" was passed on to her by a woman who feard that the man she lived with could be a killer. "This man has been mentioned in the past by investigators working for the Ramseys as a possible suspect in JonBenét's death," she says. "He lived in Boulder at the time of the crime and has a violent past."

"My tipster believed the man could be a suspect in another unsolved murder in a neighboring Colorado county because he seemed to have too much knowledge of that crime for somebody not involved."

The underwear and body fluids helped to clear the suspect in that case - but Jameson decided to have it checked against the JonBenét material, too.

"After I received the evidence back, I contacted both the FBI and forensics experts like Henry Lee about how to properly take care of DNA evidence to make sure it would not become tainted while I had it."

She says that she gave the evidence to Boulder police a month ago.

If there is a match between the new material and the DNA from JonBenét's nails and her clothes, the cloud over her parents will be dramatically lifted.

"It will go a long way toward proving that an intruder broke into the Ramsey home and did the murder," says one source.

But insiders believe that it's more likely the new DNA will prove to be another false lead in the case. "This is Jameson desperately trying to clear John and Patsy - and it won't work," says one.

Former Denver District Attorney Norm Early agrees. He tells Globe that the Boulder police are right to check out the DNA clue, but it's probably a dead end.

"We've been down this road before. There have been many other pieces of DNA evidence that came out of nowhere. Unfortunately, none of them has brought us any closer to an answer - and this will probably end the same way."

But L.Lin Wood, attorney for the Ramseys, says that if investigators dismiss such pieces of evidence outright, they're not doing their jobs. "It only confirms the fact that the Boulder police department is unobjective and incompetent and will never solve this child's murder."

JDRobinson - reporter for GLOBE

2001-09-19: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"jameson and the Ramsey case"

1 . "pkc"
Posted by jameson on Sep-19-01 at 08:48 AM (EST)

pkc wwrote, "i'm confused about some things. let me see if i've got at least some things right:

1) in the case of both the DNA and this internet confession, there is a lag of a month or two between the time that jameson comes into possession of the info or the item and the time it is publicized?

Absolutely. Anyone can send in information - and while I pass in a LOT, if tipsters want me to send it in under special cover and ask my contacts to give it particular attention, they must convince me it is worthwhile. That sometimes takes a while. Even after I am convinced it is a good lead, worth special attention, it sometimes takes me a while to figure out which contact to go to - and how to handle it. One problem with the DNA was that I insisted I NOT reveal the source of one DNA sample. I insisted that the CBI tests be done on the samples as a "john doe". I waited and waited until Beckner agreed to that stipulation. I did what I felt was best to get an honest test done.

2) it is possible that jameson promptly sends the info to beckner (in fact, it is possible she is constantly bombarding beckner with fresh "leads"), and that the delay is caused by his apparent lack of response or lack of action.

I don't send Beckner so much - - he seems mostly unwilling to follow up on leads and when he does follow up on some... I sometimes wonder if he really was trying to screw it up.

Yes, there have been times when I sent him something - he has ignored it so I have taken it to others so he really could NOT ignore it any longer. I know that hasn't endeared me to him, but that really isn't the point. People like me send in tips and it is his JOB to follow up on them. In this case, it seems obvious that he followed up on the Jazzy lead because the director of the CBI saw the lead and asked about it. I don't like how that happened, but if it means a lead was checked out - - I am not going to complain. At least people see that there is something happening. The investigation is NOT totally dead (even if they are not following the BEST leads, even if the investigators are doing a job I would call "less than helpful" in this situation. Oh well.... life goes on.

3) who ultimately releases these things to the press? is it done by jameson in order to make beckner look like a do-nothing, while she has to solve the crime all by herself? or is it done by jameson for some other reason (attention, perhaps)? or it is done by a third party, either to discredit beckner or jameson? i don't understand the final link. from newspaper accounts it is clear that jameson is only too happy to be interviewed, but does she initiate the press contact or do they call her after they have learned of the information? who is orchestrating the press thing? that is unclear to me.

Sometimes I contact Beckner or the Ramsey investigators, or OTHER investigators - usually that remains very private. (The Arapahoe County DNA was private - - worked with them well over a year. Once I started dealing with Beckner and the DNA - that was private for weeks before I went to the media with it. (Yes, I had a reason for that and I am not going to explain but I felt it was best to go public witht he DNA samples at that time. I am still waiting for the results - Beckner said he will contact me as soon as the results reach his desk. (Will he be a man of his word? I will let you know.)

One very interesting new suspect file went to the Ramsey investigators this month and I am waiting to hear that interviews have taken place. So the investigation is continuing. Why didn't I give that tip to the BPD? Because the tipster is not anxious to be interviewed by the BPD but is willing to talk to me and others I trust - - and I want the information - - I don't care about the politics. So I studied the tip, spoke tot he tipster and researched some of what was said - - and decided to ask that it be taken very seriously - - and I am waiting to hear just what happens. This is a new suspect - a new name - a very reasonable suspect.

Sometimes I take it on myself to make information public on the forum. Exposing the truth is important - I am very proud of the honesty on the forum.

Sometimes I call a reporter with a tip, (the open duct pipe in the basement) sometimes they call me (they called me with the Jazzy affidavit and warrant.)

So who is "orchestrating" all this? Damned if I know - - everyone does a bit - - it's a dance...

2001-12-04: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"2nd DNA - no match"

"2nd DNA - no match"
Posted by jameson on Dec-04-01 at 02:11 PM (EST)

Subj: DNA Result
Date: 12/4/01 11:55:44 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: (Mark Beckner)
To: Jameson245@aol.com
The DNA from the (personal item) did not match anything.

So now we know.

I am glad - it means the investigators can be sure it wasn't this man who JonBenét scratched that night, wasn't the man who assaulted JonBenét.

(To me, it means this man is innocent. And since it was a BLIND study - - they didn't know whose DNA they were testing - - I think the test is a fair one.)

1 . "What should I do?"
Posted by jameson on Dec-04-01 at 02:15 PM (EST)

Should I release the name of the person?

The first person - - his name was NEVER public so saying that his DNA wasn't a match would do nothing to make his life easier. I would not do that.

But this person was someone we discussed in the past, has been placed under the umbrella by the press and the posters. I don't know if he would want to be publicly cleared as the source of the DNA. I know I would.

Would you?

Then there are the legal ramifications - - do I have the right to do this? I think I might want to talk to a couple attorneys and maybe even this man himself to see what he would want.

What do you think? Should I leave it alone? Or should I try to contact the lawyers and get their opinions?

2 . "Jameson"
Posted by why_nut on Dec-04-01 at 02:39 PM (EST)

"What do you think? Should I leave it alone? Or should I try to contact the lawyers and get their opinions?"
....................................................................................................
By the words you have written already, you have narrowed the DNA-contributor pool to a defineable set. The number of suspects you have named in the course of forum writings has been far more extensive that the press has been willing to discuss, so all we have to do is compare the lists and see where they overlap, with those suspects named in the press as our start. This eliminates suspects you have discussed but the press has ignored such as McElroy, seems to also eliminate suspects never named in either the press or on the forums, such as the homeless man with the backpack, and finally rules out totally Helgoth as the DNA source, as the right to privacy does not survive death and you would not be worrying about such issues if it were him. Your concerns, then, seem to address only the high-profile suspects who have appeared often in press and forum; someone connected with the names McReynolds, Pugh or Wolf.

8 . "Jameson"
Posted by why_nut on Dec-04-01 at 03:50 PM (EST)

On September 19th, on your own forum, you wrote:
"I am very proud of EVERYTHING I have done. I believe I have done a LOT to get the truth out. I will continue to do just that. I want the truth out - - let the chips fall where they may."

If you are not a hypocrite to your own word and your own principles, you will say who the DNA belongs to. You want the truth out. Let the chips fall where they may. If you do not, you have no moral standing to ever protest the decision of Beckner and others to withhold information they have which could incriminate or exonerate. You will be doing the exact same thing.

10 . "Why_Nut"
Posted by jameson on Dec-04-01 at 04:12 PM (EST)

Several others have been put out in newspapers and books as being "suspects" - I think the list is more than just three....

How about Helgoth, Miles, Henderson, McElroy, Merrick, Colfax, White....

11 . "My decision"
Posted by jameson on Dec-04-01 at 04:37 PM (EST)

After getting the opinions of posters, friends and attorneys, I have decided not to publish the name of the man.

I am not altogether with that, but the people I trust tend to think I should just let it lie. It is up to the BPD to deal with it now.

2001-12-09: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"100 items"

"100 items"
Posted by jameson on Dec-09-01 at 08:09 PM (EST)

Colorado police do new DNA test in JonBenet case
By Reuters, 08/17/01

BOULDER, Colo. -- Police investigating the murder of child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey are having DNA tests conducted on an item submitted by an Internet tipster, a new lead in the nearly five-year-old case, officials said Friday.

"We did receive a tip, a piece of information we thought worth testing," said Boulder Police Department spokeswoman Jana Petersen.

She declined to identify the item that has been turned over to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for tests.

The body of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey was found in the basement of the family's home in Boulder, Colorado, in December 1996.

According to the Rocky Mountain News the item is a personal one belonging to a man who lived in the Boulder area at the time of the murder. It was turned over by an Internet site operator who goes by the name "Jameson."

Petersen said DNA on the item will be compared with DNA found at the murder scene. If there is a match police would have to conduct further investigations, she said. However, the tests were expected to take several weeks.

The tipster said the item was delivered by someone who claimed to be intimate with the owner and contains hair and bodily fluids. The newspaper said the item is from a former suspect in an unsolved murder in nearby Arapahoe County.

No arrests have been made, although police have questioned nearly 600 people and tested about 100 items.

Police have said the parents John and Patsy Ramsey remain under an "umbrella of suspicion." The Ramseys who now live in the Atlanta area have denied any involvement in their daughter's death and have criticized police, who they say have botched the case.

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/17/ramsey.htm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test about 100 items - - ONE HUNDRED???
They checked hair and saliva - - so are we talking maybe 50 people?

Ramseys, Boulder and Atlanta - that's at least 10

Whites, Fernies, Stines, Father Hoverstock... let's be conservative and add another 10

The housekeeper, babysitters and AG people - let's add another 10 - again, I think conservative number

neighbors, photographers, gardener, people like Chris Wolf and Randy Simons - - IF they were tested - - another 10?

That means they may have tested 10 people we don't know about? Sorry - - but if it was my child I think I would have expected more. Especially when we know there have been many people who are reasonable suspects.

100 tests is nothing.

comments?

1 . "Jameson"
Posted by why_nut on Dec-09-01 at 08:48 PM (EST)

"Test about 100 items - - ONE HUNDRED???"
....................................................................................................
That probably would refer to, literally, items; objects such as the cigarette butts taken into evidence (there is really no reason to have taken them otherwise). In that context, 100 items seems reasonable.

5 . "Jameson"
Posted by why_nut on Dec-09-01 at 09:36 PM (EST)

Those are only the items that you have found easy to know of. But look at items from the search warrant affidavits, and more of them become logical test sources.

Hair fibers from victim's pillow (44KKY)
Whose hairs? One might assume JonBenet's, but DNA would confirm.

Hair fibers from Mr. & Mrs. Ramsey's bed (52KKY)
If JonBenet's hair was found there, that may have an innocent explanation, but it would support an infidelity theory if 52KKY belonged to neither John, Patsy, JonBenet or Burke; DNA testing would confirm or deny innocent ownership.

Hair found in brush in Mr. Ramsey's bathroom (53KKY)
See above.

Spoon (5PP)
Glass (6PP)
Obvious sources of mouth DNA.

Underwear (9JRB)
Girls underwear (36BAH)
Girls underwear (56BAH)
girls underwear (61BAH)
girls underwear (62BAH)
Five pair girls underwear (76BAH)
Two pair girls underwear (77RAH)
pair of underwear (45BAB)
childs underwear (57BAB)
childs underwear (58BAB)
childs underwear (59BAB)
(1) mens underwear (53BAH)

Do you think these items were examined for fingerprints, and prints only?

2001-12-22: Lawsuits, tips, letters keep Ramsey case active

Lawsuits, tips, letters keep Ramsey case active
Police expend fewer resources, but pursue leads
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1234855,00.html
By Owen S. Good, News Staff Writer
December 22, 2001

It's the case that won't go away.

Five years after 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey's Christmas death, the investigation into her killing continues to produce new developments.

L. Lin Wood, the attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey, said he intends to file an open records request for the police's 43,000-page case file.

Wood expects Chief Mark Beckner to rebuff the demand. In that case, Wood said he will sue for access to the file, arguing the Ramseys are entitled to it to pursue a libel lawsuit against former Detective Steve Thomas, who wrote a book accusing the couple of murder.

Beckner declined to comment on the Ramseys' possible request.

From May to December this year, police have interviewed about 50 people, added 3,000 pages to the case file and received 100 phone tips and about 1,300 letters related to the investigation.

Beckner received two tips in August, a scrap of cloth with DNA material on it and the name of a man investigated but cleared in an Arapahoe County murder.

Information from both was compared with DNA found at the scene and returned no match, according to Beckner.

Investigators obtained a search warrant in Virginia for information on an America Online subscriber who posted a claim that she saw JonBenet murdered. That turned out to be a hoax.

"The question is do we still have unknown answers in this case, and the answer is yes," Beckner said.

While he says that the police investigation continues, it has clearly slowed.

Police salaries related to the investigation dropped from $220,000 in 1999 to $133,000 for each of 2000 and 2001, representing a reduction in staffing. Overtime decreased from $10,000 in 1999 to about $5,000 in 2000 and $3,000 in 2001.

Four officers are assigned to the case, managing it on an as-needed basis, Beckner said. Tom Trujillo remains the lead detective, working with two other detectives. Sgt. Kurt Weiler is the supervisor.

Investigative expenses increased from $3,000 in 1999 to $4,300 in 2000, then dropped to $550 this year.

It is difficult to quantify the level of activity because it goes in spurts, Beckner said. "Occasionally, you get information you need to run down or tests that you need to do."

The Ramseys claim that in depositions related to their lawsuit against Thomas and two others they are discovering the investigation has slowed even more than they had thought.

"I want to know, what have they done out there?" Patsy Ramsey said. "To my knowledge, when we're doing some discovery and inquiry in relation to these lawsuits, we're finding that there's even less done than we heretofore thought. Isn't that frightening?"

Wood concedes that a victory for his open records request would be a long shot. But even partial success would shed light on what he considers a railroading of his clients, he said.

Wood specifically wants the recording of Patsy Ramsey's 911 call the morning JonBenet's body was found. Experts hired by the police say the voice of Burke Ramsey can be heard in the background, contradicting the parents' claim that Burke was asleep.

Wood wants to examine the tape to see if that voice isn't someone else's from an unrelated, over-recorded call, among other possibilities.

The Ramseys say their goal is not to rehabilitate their "irreparably destroyed" reputations.

"Our government has failed," John Ramsey said, "and our intention is to hold them accountable."

Contact Owen S. Good at (303) 442-8729 or goodo@RockyMountainNews.com.

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2002

2002-08-29: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"Hi-Tec boots"

jameson
Charter Member
5731 posts Aug-29-02, 01:19 PM (GMT)

7. "semantics"
In response to message #6

The BPD compared two DNA samples for me. One, they came back and said that based on the comparison, the man was cleared - - it couldn't possibly be a match. That was a good thing. I got to tell the man's closest family that he was innocent and they didn't have to have any doubt.

The second sample, however, they said it wasn't a match. Well, we know the DNA profile in the Ramsey case is not a full profile - - it is partial. There CAN'T be an exact match. I asked, can you exclude him? They refused to answer that question, just said it was not a match. I went back to that tipster and told them what I found out. I certainly couldnt' say that I knew for sure he was cleared - - I don't.

Have to watch for those words.

(Interesting thing - - the cops knew the name of the person giving the first sample - - the second went in as a John Doe and they never asked me after who it was. I found that odd. Maybe they know... maybe that profile was already in their system so they know. But the fact is, they never told me they knew or seemed at all interested in knowing the name.)

CHAIN OF EVENTS 2003

2003-03-18: Webbsleuths Forum (http://www.webbsleuths.org)
"An obvious suspect missed?"

jameson
Charter Member
11883 posts Mar-18-03, 09:22 AM (EST)

2. "RE: An obvious suspect missed?"
In response to message #1

Remember when I got the BPD to check some samples of DNA? One of those samples came from a known pedophile who may have worked in the Ramsey house as a subcontractor. His family had come forward, the BPD ignored them, so they came to me. I went in a bit of a back door to get that sample taKen in and the family protected.

First the family called the BPD and asked if any of that specialty handicraft was in the house - - they were told no. But when the photos of the house started being broadcast, they felt betrayed by the BPD for there it was - clear as day.

So that is one they just ignored.

The DNA was checked, I was told there was no possible way he could have been the donor, so I personally consider him cleared but hope the new team goes back and verifies that those tests really were done.

That was one - - add Oliva, Gardiner, Helgoth, McElroy... all in the area, all with problematic records... they need to start over and look at all the decent suspects - - and they will keep busy.

2003-12-15: VOY Forums (http://www.voy.com/)
"Subject: stuff"

Subject: stuff
Author: jameson
Date Posted: 09:55:06 12/15/03 Mon

An intruder would be anyone not invited to be in the house at the time of the murder - it doesn't mean "stranger" and could have been anyone uninvited. That would include the Whitesor the housekeepeers, anyone but John, Patsy and Burke.

Pedophile workers in and around the Ramsey house - there were more than one. (I got one cleared by DNA - he was actually cleared in 2 cases where he was a reasonable suspect.) The BPD tried to ignore them - - but a few of us wouldn't let that happen. I don't know if all were cleared, I believe one or two are still being checked out.

CLICK HERE: Flight 755 15th Street Main Directory

Home

E-Mail