John Ramsey and Lockheed Martin
Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum
#1 Feb 25, 2012
Another conspiracy theory I wanted to address is this one, which comes up every few years in this case:
"It's my belief that Lockheed Martin helped bury this case, with all their power and influence, because they'd do that for any scandal involving one of their own." http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.p...
When you look at THE FACTS about Ramsey and Lockheed, it's a much different situation. TELLINGLY John Ramsey NEVER asked them for any bodyguards or any protection after JonBenet's murder, even though the ransom note referred to his business, etc. About the only tangible thing they did for him was give him a corporate jet to fly JonBenet's body and the family back to Atlanta for the funeral.
MORE PROOF, in Steve Thomas's book, the BPD hired the dream team of prominent lawyers to advise them. Commander John Eller noted two of the lawyers had worked for Lockheed some time in the past. They BOTH agreed to work for the BPD and one of the noted "Lockheed doesn't tell me what to do."
MORE PROOF, John Ramsey's deposition in 1998, where he is questioned about his contacts with Lockheed Martin. I will post on this depo in the next post:
#2 Feb 25, 2012
From John Ramsey's 1998 depo with Lee Hill regarding Lockheed Martin:
1 you could inform me a little bit about that.
2 MR. CRAVER: To the extent that you don't
3 violate any secrecy or contractual agreements which your
4 company may have with Lockheed Martin, I'll permit you to
5 answer. You're the only one that would know about those
6 agreements, John.
7 A. We provided Sun workstations to Lockheed under a
8 contract that was negotiated between Sun, Lockheed and
9 ourselves. We provided Unix help-desk services to
10 Lockheed. That's really all I remember that we ever did
11 with Lockheed.
12 Q. Did you have any type of non-disclosure
13 agreements or secrecy agreements with Lockheed Martin or
14 any other recipient or client of your services?
15 A. Quite often we would have non-disclosure
16 agreements relating to new products that were disclosed to
17 us before they were released. Those kind of things.
18 Q. But no standard, blanket sort of secret
20 A.(Shakes head.)
21 Q. You're shaking your head negatively?
22 A. No, not that I remember ever --
23 Q. As I asked earlier, no briefings by the U.S.
24 Government at any time?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Regarding government classification or secrecy
3 A. No.
4 Q. So your spaces on the mall, for example, were
5 not hardened against electronic surveillance or otherwise
6 secured with respect to classification concerns?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Nor was your home?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. You were CEO of Access Graphics?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you enjoy any protective services from
13 Lockheed Martin's security?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did you have a security network in place at
16 Access Graphics?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you ever receive any type of -- or were you
19 ever invited to participate in any type of corporate
20 security briefings by Lockheed Martin's security?
21 A. No, I don't believe so.
22 Q. Did you know anyone at Lockheed Martin's
24 A. I don't think so. No.
25 Q. When you say you don't think so, is there
1 someone --
2 A. I knew a lot of people at Lockheed, but I don't
3 know that anyone was associated directly with their
4 security group, if they have -- I don't even know if they
5 have a security group. I assume they do, but --
6 Q. You don't know whether they do or not?
7 A.(Shakes head.)
8 Q. The answer is no?
9 A. The answer is no, yeah.
10 Q. Did you ever travel to any foreign countries
11 during the time that you were CEO --
12 A. Uh-huh.
13 Q.-- of Access Graphics?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Which countries did you travel to?
16 A. Holland, France, England. I think that was it.
17 That's all I can remember going to anyway.
#3 Feb 25, 2012
ST book, p. 229
"Since John Ramsey had no faith in the Boulder police, I thought perhaps he had sought help from the security experts of Access Graphics parent company. "I've never spoken to him," Bernie Lamoreaux, the director of security for Lockheed-Martin told me. "Im not aware of any threats by foreign terrorists of any kind." His elite team of professionals who protected one ofthe world's largest defense contractors, never heard of SBTC either."
Since: Mar 07
#4 Feb 26, 2012
It just goes to show that JR was not such an important man in the company to be the target of any type of corporate or terrorist plot
It barely shows in his interview that he knew anything about his company at all. He talks like he is a new job applicant and certainly not a CEO
#5 Feb 26, 2012
There is a bit about this matter of Lockheed Martin on the Miss Marple website.
I still think it's odd that Lockheed Martin did no investigating at all in the Ramsey case. Then they later made subsequent anti-Ramsey statements about the case, even on TV.
It's almost as if Lockheed Martin know exactly what happened in relation to the JonBenet murder and that they want to cover it up and blame the innocent Ramseys for it.
Don't you think that if the daughter of a senior executive is murdered then Lockheed Martin might be a little curious about it all? I suppose whistleblowing about it is supposed to be unethical and morally wrong, and the media is not much help.
From the Miss Marple website:
"Federal Law Enforcement Cover-up
Evidence for a Federal Law Enforcement Cover-up
•FBI Did Not Act. Internet poster Henrietta McPhee (see post #13) has posted the following. It is provided here verbatim because of its explosive implications.
"Donald Freed has an interesting theory about Lockheed Martin and the Ramsey case. He is a visiting professor at Loyola Marymount University (L.A.) and teaches at U.S.C. This is part, and an edited version by me, of what he has said about the matter:
1."So the two units, in the Boulder Area, are trained to react to an act of terrorism, like kidnapping, are Lockheed Martin Security on one hand and the FBI on the other. Now, NOBODY FROM EITHER TWO OF THESE UNITS CAME NEAR THAT CRIME SCENE and the question is as in the case of Sherlock Holmes' dog that didn't bark. What you're looking at here is SOMETHING THAT IS SO IRREGULAR; SO IMPOSSIBLE, because remember, the SOG, the seat of government operates in this regard."
2."The FBI's entire profile is based on quick, rapid, decisive action. They take over public
3."They'd have the Boulder police direct traffic at the periphery. No one gets in or out of that house. No one touches the crime scene. Every home in that area of Boulder is secured. In the case of Adobe Graphics three years before, there was an executive kidnapped and hundred's of FBI agents poured into the landscape. When in Michigan where another industrial kidnapping tool place---where a wife was suspected actually-- hundreds of FBI agents poured in."
4."What I'm telling you now is a composite of my interviews with FBI executives in this country and elsewhere---former agents and Lockheed Martin agents. When a note announces "terrorism" it is the magic word in the United States for both law enforcement and budgetary considerations. They had to know, not only were there no foreign terrorists, but they had to know BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that what happened neither affected the security of the United States of America or the security and profits of Lockheed Martin."
5."That this, though located inside a home, may have repercussions outside in terms of circles of people who would not want investigations going on about child pornography, child abuse, or child sexuality. I've summed up for you what a year of research has led me to."
#6 Feb 26, 2012
More from the Miss Marple website:
•Lockheed Martin Did Not React.
Internet poster Henrietta McPhee (post #42) has asserted:
1."I must tell you finally that Norm Early who had been the district attorney of Denver and was the vice-president of Lockheed Martin Security at the time of the murder of JonBenet. I interviewed him at the time. He's a fascinating man---- extremely intelligent. And he said to me finally,"You know I had a six year-old son and we have a security protocol and that letter threatened other executives. Where was the security? Where were the bodyguards? Where was the protocol? Where was the alert; the drill; the routine; the regimen that we so carefully shared and worked on at Lockheed Martin? Not a word. Not a sound. Not a telephone call."
2."So, he began to call executives and lawyers and others and said,"Why wasn't my family alerted? What happened?" And they said to him,"Well, there was no threat" And he said,"How do you know that?" They said,"Well, I don't know. We just knew". And he said,"Well, think about it and I want an answer!"
3.The next day he talked to some of these people and reported to me that they said,"You know we stayed awake all night wrestling with the question----agonizing with it. And you know you're right. How did we know that the (ransom note) was a hoax immediately? We might have known it in a day or two, or a week or two. But how do we know until this day?
4.To this day there has been no arrest. To this day we know that there was a murder and that there was a note left stating that foreign agents were involved."
#7 Feb 26, 2012
I don't think Lockheed were involved per se in the conspiracy but they didn't investigate a foreign faction that disliked America in anything but the most cursory way and apparently didn't miss a beat when John totally ignored the company's security protocols for kidnappings...
To that extent, I'd be surprised if they weren't RDI at least at first.
#8 Feb 26, 2012
Interesting Cappy. You certainly have to assume that, together with the CIA, Lockheed would certainly have investigated and eliminated that threat on the first day.
Since: Mar 07
#9 Feb 26, 2012
He not only ignored the security protocols, but in the above interview he claims, and not even embarassed to claim, that he doesn't know for sure that they even had a security dept!
The janitors and mail clerks probably knew about the security protocols, but not the CEO LOL
#10 Feb 26, 2012
LOL. So he is essentially admitting that he was not a competent CEO or he's lying - funny the rocks and hard places between which the felonious find themselves :)
#11 Feb 26, 2012
PS. Actually, when a ransom note tells you not to contact police, you'd think that - even without knowing about security protocols - you'd give a thought to seeing whether the company could do anything to help without the police being visibly involved.
Also, what kind of foreign faction admires a company without knowing what it does and therefore knowing that that it could be of more help to John than the police and that it should caution John against contacting that company as well as the police.
(The syntax of that sentence is world class bad but I hope you know what I mean).
Since: May 11
#12 Feb 26, 2012
It shows consciousness of guilt. I don't care how many times BM asks to see evidence of JR's involvment, if he can't see John's first actions (or lack thereof) ring so false they're laughable, then BM's going to be a student of psychology for a verrrrrrrrrrrrry long time. LOL "counter intuitive" is an understatement when describing JR's behavior that day. Self preservation for JR (if innocent) would have been sitting still like he was told and not attempting to UNTIE someone else's wristcords. Self preservation for an innocent man is letting the chips fall where they may..not tampering with them.
#14 Feb 26, 2012
BTW, cappy, could you give me some advice, please?
I keep complaining about the spammer's silly posts, but they keep letting her post.
Is there anything you might do about this? I for one consider her to be way too funny and insightful to be allowed to rant and rave against you all day, I mean what with all the ridiculous things she says.
How is WV? I miss her terribly. Pammy? Stanky? Heloise?
I'm having chopped liver tonight with fresh onions and escargot.
Since: Sep 11
Boksburg, South Africa
#18 Feb 27, 2012
Thank you for posting this, Henri. I have always found it strange and downright suspicious that neither the FBI nor LM Security visited the crime scene prior to the discovery of the body.
At that point, NO ONE could have known with absolute certainty that the RN was a hoax, NO ONE could have been sure that a terrorist group WASN'T involved and planning to behead the daughter of the president of one of LM's subsidiaries. At that early stage no one had yet had time to make sense of what had happened, so why the apparent lack of interest? It's almost as if they KNEW there was no kidnapping and therefore no risk to national security. Otherwise, would they have been prepared to take that risk?
Something else I find extremely suspicious is that tracker dogs were never brought to the crime scene. SURELY that should have been one of the first things to do in the case of a kidnapped child? Yet, nothing.
These are just two of the things which lead me to believe there was a conspiracy by someone or something very powerful to cover up the TRUTH behind this little child's murder. Nothing else makes sense.
Since: Mar 07
#19 Feb 27, 2012
John would have had to contact them, as per protocol, had he followed it, or even known that LM had a security department
LM has to know about it before they can send anyone, especially BEFORE the body was found, wouldn't you think? Are they supposed to be clairvoyant too?
Oh and if you wouldn't mind, for the sake of the forum, franky is asking a lot of questions about fell**io. If you would be so kind as to answer them, maybe he would stop asking. I'm sure you can provide the answers to this and a good friend should want to do that
Thanks so much
#22 Feb 27, 2012
Quote:."So the two units, in the Boulder Area, are trained to react to an act of terrorism, like kidnapping, are Lockheed Martin Security on one hand and the FBI on the other. Now, NOBODY FROM EITHER TWO OF THESE UNITS CAME NEAR THAT CRIME SCENE."
Of those two units, Ron Walker from the FBI WAS in the BPD situation room the entire day. The FBI and law enforcement felt the kidnapping was a hoax, due to the phony ransom not. And two, John Ramsey didn't ask for Lockheed security to come.
Since: Jul 10
#25 Feb 28, 2012
Rich people are more likely to lie, cheat, and steal.
Jonbenet's death was a white colar crime committed by her parents. Covering up her murder was all about money.
#26 Mar 5, 2012
I still think there is something distinctly odd about all this.
There is a JonBenet video on YouTube interviewing FBI man Ron Walker and it states that Ron Walker was never called about the JonBenet case until 9.30am. That was more than three hours after a ransom note was found with all the hallmarks of a kidnapping of the daughter of a senior defense executive.
John Ramsey says on the same video that the FBI never came.
In his defense Ron Walker says that with all his experience of brilliant investigations, and what with him being so psychic he could tell at once that it was just a homicide by reading the ransom note.
Frankly, it looks like a cover-up by the FBI and Lockheed Martin Security to me. I think they knew exactly waht had happened to JonBenet, and that Fleet White and Santa Bill professionally arranged pedophile parties for Lockheed Martin, and that the FBI didn't want any corruption scandals involving any VIP, like somebody like Jeb Bush, or somebody giving the orders from Israel.
I accept that not everybody in the FBI is incompetent and corrupt. The American media and TV is always very keen to promote FBI propaganda about their so-called brilliant investigations. It's just that the FBI was incompetent and corrupt in the MacDonald case. The FBI could have been just as lazy and incompetent in the Ramsey case and I think they were.
Since: Mar 07
#27 Mar 5, 2012
Henri, you are such a waste of effort but for the sake of misinformation being allowed I will correct you
The FBI was there that morning. Once the body was found, it no longer was the jurisdiction of the FBI and despite their offer to help, the BPD asked them to leave
It's in all the records and everywhere for the looking.
John Ramsey liked (past tense until it was shown that the FBI was in fact there) to say that the FBI didn't respond, but once it was no longer a kidnapping, they could only have stayed if the BPD allowed them to and they didn't
Why not wonder why the BPD didn't want them there instead of your convoluted, wrong way thinking?
#29 Apr 5, 2012
Some telling quotes by John Ramsey about his relationship with Lockheed-Martin, which owned Access Graphics, at the time of the murder from the 2006 interview at New Hope Church in Hawaii:
"Well, at the time we were a subsidiary of Lockheed-Martin corporation, and they were wonderful to me. Absolutely wonderful. Totally dispelled the myth of an impersonal, big corporation. But, within a year, they were divesting themselves of companies that were not in the defense business."
After that, he describes how the deal to sell Access Graphics to General Electric was constructed for them to get the company, but not him. During that time after Access was sold to GE, he says that: "Lockheed took "wonderful" care of him and that "I can't say enough wonderful things about them, the compassion they showed to us as a family."
Add your comments below
|Note-odd detail?||15 min||gotgum||1,219|
|Note attends lectures at Duquesne University||10 hr||Note||22|
|Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08)||19 hr||Bunny||7,488|
|Suspect John Steven Gigax (Apr '11)||Mon||JimmyWells||147|
|Wine cellar door...many questions||Oct 18||Blackstone Again||13|
|Fleet, Priscilla White denied official Ramsey e... (Jan '14)||Oct 17||candy||198|
|Jonbenet's "Secret Santa..."||Oct 17||Legal__Eagle||65|
Find what you want!
Search JonBenet Ramsey Forum Now