What was Alex Hunter REALLY afraid of?

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#85 Feb 18, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Just because the FBI did not have an overbearing presence at the house does not mean they weren’t involved from the get go, and also as the investigation progressed.
***Inside the home was found a handwritten, multi-page ransom note, one of the longest notes ever seen by the FBI in a kidnapping case.
***FBI agent(s) were outside the home
***FBI Agent(s) were at the police station
***During the course of this investigation, Boulder police officers presented case evidence to the FBI’s Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit (know to the media as the Behavioral Science Unit). Here almost two dozen experts reviewed the materials and suggested that this was the only known case in America where so young a victim had been sexually assaulted and strangled to death in her own home with the killer(s) leaving a ransom note behind them. The FBI’s experts also believed the crime scene had been staged and was not suggestive of the act of an unknown intruder.
*** Following the historic Lindbergh kidnapping (the abduction and murder of Charles Lindbergh's toddler son), the United States Congress adopted a federal kidnapping statute—popularly known as the Federal Kidnapping Act 18 U.S.C.§ 1201(a)(1)(also known as the Lindbergh Law, or Little Lindbergh Law)— WHICH WAS INTENDED to let federal authorities step in and pursue kidnappers ONCE THEY HAD CROSSED STATE LINES WITH THEIR VICTIM.(CAPS emphasis is mine)
<quoted text>
Smit testified because he proved to someone what he had to say was directly connected to the crime. Ravitz and McFarland weren’t granted the same because they could not prove the pedophile ring was even remotely connected to the crime. The horse is dead on that one Lynette – stop abusing the corpse.
<quoted text>
The FBI had no presence at the crime scene AT ALL until AFTER the discovery of the body, plus it took them approximately three and a half hours between the time they were informed of the "kidnapping" to the time they arrived in Boulder. There were NO FBI agents outside the home during the kidnapping phase. They went straight to BPD headquarters and stayed there. It doesn't matter how they were involved AFTERWARDS, they did not go near the crime scene BEFORE the discovery of the body, they did not take control of the investigation, they did not question the parents, the did not preserve the crime scene, they did not set up roadblocks. They did none of the things one would expect them to do. And since the body had not yet been discovered, they had no way of knowing for certain that the RN was a hoax. For all they knew, the were playing around with a child's life. An anti-American "foreign faction" was threatening to behead her, yet even that did not jolt them into action. Maybe they were suspicious, maybe they smelt a rat, but at that point they couldn't be sure of anything, yet there was no apparent urgency to find her.

You are wrong in that the FBI will only take control of a kidnapping when state lines have been crossed.

"In 1932, Congress gave the FBI jurisdiction under the "Lindbergh Law" to immediately investigate any reported mysterious disappearance or kidnapping involving a child of "tender age" - usually 12 or younger. There does not have to be a ransom demand and the child does not have to cross state lines or be missing for
twenty four hours."

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_ma ...

They operate on the theory of "rebuttable presumption", meaning that it could be presumed that federal laws have been broken and therefore the FBI, until instructed otherwise, will take control.

Ravitz and McFarland had evidence, including NAMES, which they wanted the grand jury to investigate and they were prevented from contacting the grand jury foreman as was their LEGAL RIGHT. NO ONE had the right to deny them their legal rights, not even DA's and judges, who themselves are not above the law.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#86 Feb 18, 2013
The FBI was notified by Whitson prior to 7:30 am.
The information in my post was from an FBI site.
Eller pushed the FBI out of the case.(PMPT, Pg 101)
FBI in Denver thought the ransom demand was ‘hinky”.(PMPT Pg 16)

Are you aware of a reference somewhere which says the FBI is REQUIRED to take over? If so, please provide it.
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> The FBI had no presence at the crime scene AT ALL until AFTER the discovery of the body, plus it took them approximately three and a half hours between the time they were informed of the "kidnapping" to the time they arrived in Boulder. There were NO FBI agents outside the home during the kidnapping phase. They went straight to BPD headquarters and stayed there. It doesn't matter how they were involved AFTERWARDS, they did not go near the crime scene BEFORE the discovery of the body, they did not take control of the investigation, they did not question the parents, the did not preserve the crime scene, they did not set up roadblocks. They did none of the things one would expect them to do. And since the body had not yet been discovered, they had no way of knowing for certain that the RN was a hoax. For all they knew, the were playing around with a child's life. An anti-American "foreign faction" was threatening to behead her, yet even that did not jolt them into action. Maybe they were suspicious, maybe they smelt a rat, but at that point they couldn't be sure of anything, yet there was no apparent urgency to find her.
You can beat this dead horse all you want to Lynette, but the information has to be deemed relevant before ANYONE is allowed to go in front of the GJ. IT WAS NOT DEEMED RELEVANT. They weren’t denied their legal rights. They wanted to use the Ramsey GJ as a platform for their other agenda, end of story. They were denied an appearance because they could not prove it had anything to do with the crime.
Lynette 22 wrote:
Ravitz and McFarland had evidence, including NAMES, which they wanted the grand jury to investigate and they were prevented from contacting the grand jury foreman as was their LEGAL RIGHT. NO ONE had the right to deny them their legal rights, not even DA's and judges, who themselves are not above the law.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#87 Feb 19, 2013
JR has continues to whine about "poor me" - haven't you read his books? Couldn't get a job, he was unemployable on one hand and he had planes and boats and huge homes and a golden parachute to keep him set for life on the other.

John redefined beg, bum, and scrounge by writing 2 more books, engaging in public speaking telling his story over and over to any group that would listen, hawking Patsy's belongings and pictures of his dead daughter.

Poor baby had to live on 400k a year instead of a million. Maybe that is karma!
Lynette 22 wrote:
It's deplorable for someone to say they can't find a job, ANY job, and then go on to beg, bum and scrounge off others, but John never asked anyone for a cent so if he wasn't prepared to take just ANY job, I guess that was his business. He provided well for his family and although they had to downgrade their lifestyle, they didn't go without.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#88 Feb 19, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
The FBI was notified by Whitson prior to 7:30 am.
The information in my post was from an FBI site.
Eller pushed the FBI out of the case.(PMPT, Pg 101)
FBI in Denver thought the ransom demand was ‘hinky”.(PMPT Pg 16)
Are you aware of a reference somewhere which says the FBI is REQUIRED to take over? If so, please provide it.
<quoted text>
You can beat this dead horse all you want to Lynette, but the information has to be deemed relevant before ANYONE is allowed to go in front of the GJ. IT WAS NOT DEEMED RELEVANT. They weren’t denied their legal rights. They wanted to use the Ramsey GJ as a platform for their other agenda, end of story. They were denied an appearance because they could not prove it had anything to do with the crime.
<quoted text>
If anyone has a "legal right" to anything, they wouldn't have been denied that and certainly would have won on appeal

Obviously, they had no "legal right" to testify any more than you or I have as they had no evidence to relate their agenda to the murder of JBR. Bad things go on everywhere all over the world but it doesn't mean they relate to every case that goes before a Grand Jury

We may have our problems in our court system, but it's the best around and citizens' legal rights are not trampled on, even when there is much to hide.

Just ask the Ramseys. They exercised all their legal rights and got away with murder

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#89 Feb 19, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
JR has continues to whine about "poor me" - haven't you read his books? Couldn't get a job, he was unemployable on one hand and he had planes and boats and huge homes and a golden parachute to keep him set for life on the other.
John redefined beg, bum, and scrounge by writing 2 more books, engaging in public speaking telling his story over and over to any group that would listen, hawking Patsy's belongings and pictures of his dead daughter.
Poor baby had to live on 400k a year instead of a million. Maybe that is karma!
<quoted text>
Yes he did whine. If he didn't like what was out there for him that is his choice, but he whined as if it were everyone else's fault that he was unemployed rather than just shutting up about it.

He has a right to retire and not work, but not to whine and blame everyone else for his "unemployment". It is pretty obvious that he likes his money the easy way and speaking at engagements, writing books and exploiting Patsy and JBR's personal items proves that.

The Ramseys whined about everything that happened to them and refused to take any responsibility for causing their circumstances that they found themselves in

It was always everyone else's fault, decision, idea, etc. It was never theirs and they never owned any action they took

They deserved what they got and still get

Since: May 11

AOL

#90 Feb 19, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes he did whine. If he didn't like what was out there for him that is his choice, but he whined as if it were everyone else's fault that he was unemployed rather than just shutting up about it.
He has a right to retire and not work, but not to whine and blame everyone else for his "unemployment". It is pretty obvious that he likes his money the easy way and speaking at engagements, writing books and exploiting Patsy and JBR's personal items proves that.
The Ramseys whined about everything that happened to them and refused to take any responsibility for causing their circumstances that they found themselves in
It was always everyone else's fault, decision, idea, etc. It was never theirs and they never owned any action they took
They deserved what they got and still get
I agree! When the Ramseys got finished blaming everyone but them, the casual observer would think they surrounded themselves with maniacs. Every acquaintance was capable of murdering their child and any poor or gay person the Ramseys thought didn't matter to society, was tossed under the bus by their wing man Lou.
LOL JRs lucky Lockheed/Martin never released a statement about their canning his lying rearend!

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#91 Feb 20, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
The FBI was notified by Whitson prior to 7:30 am.
The information in my post was from an FBI site.
Eller pushed the FBI out of the case.(PMPT, Pg 101)
FBI in Denver thought the ransom demand was ‘hinky”.(PMPT Pg 16)
Actually, the FBI had been notified before 7:00 am and they only arrived in Boulder at 10.15 am, even though Boulder is only approximately a 30 minute drive from Denver. Everyone thought the ransom demand was hinky, including Patsy, but at that early stage Ron Walker himself felt it was too early to decide whether the ransom note was genuine (PMPT pages 12/13). Yet despite this, they apparently did not feel that this was a situation that demanded immediate, critical action. It was almost as though they KNEW she was not in any danger.
DrSeussMd wrote:
You can beat this dead horse all you want to Lynette, but the information has to be deemed relevant before ANYONE is allowed to go in front of the GJ. IT WAS NOT DEEMED RELEVANT. They weren’t denied their legal rights. They wanted to use the Ramsey GJ as a platform for their other agenda, end of story. They were denied an appearance because they could not prove it had anything to do with the crime.
I'm not beating a dead horse. The only "agenda" Ravitz and McFarland had was in trying to expose something very ugly going on in Boulder which could have relevance to JonBenet's murder. They tried to get the police to investigate and had the door slammed in their faces. They wanted the grand jury to investigate, but had that door slammed in their face as well. Did the authorities in Boulder not feel a need to protect the children of Boulder and keep them safe? Did they not feel a need to eradicate such perverted goings-on in the city they were all so protective of? And may I remind you, JonBenet was sexually assaulted and garroted, so how child pornography and paedophilia be deemed irrelevant?

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#92 Feb 20, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Are you aware of a reference somewhere which says the FBI is REQUIRED to take over? If so, please provide it.
In THIS case, since there was a ransom note, they were definitely required to take over. Donald Freed explains it far better than I can and in a radio interview with Robert McFarland, this is what he had to say:

MCFARLAND: The Lindberg Law

FREED: YES, it's not only their jealously guarded turf, but they base their budget on few traditional areas such as grand theft auto; interstate offense of all kinds; and KIDNAPPING.
And in kidnapping, they have written the book. They have special
training. They are defined by their handling of kidnapping and they
operate in what is called "rebuttable presumption". That means that if someone disappears and the FBI considers it an interesting, challenging, or worthwhile case; they intervene on the theory of "rebuttable presumption": that it could be presumed that federal laws have been broken and that the FBI, until instructed otherwise, WILL TAKE CONTROL.

IN THE CASE WHERE THERE IS A RANSOM NOTE---THAT TRIGGERS THE FBI's
JURISDICTION. And this is a well-oiled machine of many decades standing. When it goes into action the local police are pushed into the periphery. When its a wealthy corporate executive; and when the note in fact announces that these are foreign terrorists---now every bell in the "national security system" begins to ring---then the interfacing with the CIA, the NSA, the Pentagon; all this unfolds within a matter of minutes. The Attorney General stands by; the President is awakened ready to go on television; because it is a written and unwritten law that "foreign terrorists" on the soil of the United States should they dare
commit a crime; should they dare to contemplate a kidnapping or the
murder of an innocent child or American citizen or any visitor to the United States; that unleashes the full might and power of the United States of America, no matter what it takes or how long it takes.

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#93 Feb 20, 2013
I don't understand this hatred some of you RDI feel for the Ramseys. How can you hate anyone this much based purely on YOUR opinion that they're guilty? Have any of you ever contemplated that you may be wrong?

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#94 Feb 20, 2013
For the umpteenth time:

The FBI was more than willing to either assist or take over. Once the body was found, the FBI cannot do anything at all unless INVITED

The authorities in Boulder declined! The Ramseys never requested them either and still haven't to this day

WHY was their offer declined in such a serious case? Why haven't they been asked to assist since?

If you have to really ponder that, you need a new hobby

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#95 Feb 20, 2013
Who hates the Ramseys? No one I know of.

Who hates the senseless murder of a child? Most everyone I know!

Who hates coverups by guilty people? Anyone who wants to see justice served.

You have been told many times that most of us started on the side of Ramsey innocence, until we followed the evidence and until the case unfolded as it has.

How can you blindly (WITHOUT KNOWING THE RAMSEYS) suck up to them and everything they say and do?
Lynette 22 wrote:
I don't understand this hatred some of you RDI feel for the Ramseys. How can you hate anyone this much based purely on YOUR opinion that they're guilty? Have any of you ever contemplated that you may be wrong?

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#96 Feb 20, 2013
Truthfully Seuss it doesn't matter whether people were or weren't RDI in the beginning or not. The fact is that the RDI believe at the very least the Ramseys are responsible for the death/cover up/lying about the murder of a child; and that is at the very least.

People hate actions and behavior; not people they have never personally known; at least most people

When you take the time to argue personal feelings about the bad guys, please keep in mind that you are arguing with "some" who have shown that the badder, meaner, crueler, and all around ugly people are, the more they adore them and were proud to say so on the forum not so long ago and far away :)

Just sayin'

When some "buddy" up with cruel and ugly people and defend them, it is expected that they would defend the Ramseys to the level of "awkward" in this case as well
Steve Eller

United States

#97 Feb 20, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
For the umpteenth time:
The FBI was more than willing to either assist or take over. Once the body was found, the FBI cannot do anything at all unless INVITED
The authorities in Boulder declined! The Ramseys never requested them either and still haven't to this day
WHY was their offer declined in such a serious case? Why haven't they been asked to assist since?
If you have to really ponder that, you need a new hobby
Remember how the Ramseys refused a polygraph administered by the FBI?

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#98 Feb 20, 2013
Lynette 22 wrote:
I don't understand this hatred some of you RDI feel for the Ramseys. How can you hate anyone this much based purely on YOUR opinion that they're guilty? Have any of you ever contemplated that you may be wrong?
I don't care enough about John Ramsey to hate him. He is, in my opinion, smarmy and weaselly. He has also taken advantage of a tragic situation and made money off his daughter and wife's death with books and lawsuits. I've seen no actions indicating he put that much effort into finding his daughter's killer.

FWIW, I don't think he killed JonBenet. He is a whiner and complainer. I could go on but the short version is he isn't someone I'd want to be around because of what I've seen from his actions.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#99 Feb 20, 2013
“Sergeant Whitson summoned detectives Fred Patterson and Linda Arndt, then called other relevant personnel from the sheriff’s department and the FBI…
…At 7:33 a K-9 unit with a tracking dog was put on standby…”
ITRMI, HB, pg 21
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> Actually, the FBI had been notified before 7:00 am and they only arrived in Boulder at 10.15 am, even though Boulder is only approximately a 30 minute drive from Denver.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#100 Feb 20, 2013
Of course you are beating a dead horse because you keep ignoring the fact they didn’t have the slightest idea if it had anything to do with the crime. You can’t just go up to ANY GJ that is convened and ask them to investigate something that isn’t RELEVANT just because they want to expose corruption in Boulder. You admit yourself that “…trying to expose something very ugly going on in Boulder which COULD have relevance to JonBenet's murder.” You need something to tie it in to the case before the GJ before you can present to them.“Could have’s” just don’t cut it. There was NO corroborating evidence the Ramsey’s had anything to do with pedophilia. Apparently the police felt the same as the GJ. If you bring this up again you will just be baiting!

Yes you may remind me she was assaulted in a sexual place on her body – but not that she was sexually assaulted in the manner in which it is defined as having purely sexual connotations. Her assault had nothing to do with sex. Garroting isn’t mutually exclusive to sex crimes. Now that I have been reminded, please remind yourself.
Lynette 22 wrote:
I'm not beating a dead horse. The only "agenda" Ravitz and McFarland had was in trying to expose something very ugly going on in Boulder which could have relevance to JonBenet's murder. They tried to get the police to investigate and had the door slammed in their faces. They wanted the grand jury to investigate, but had that door slammed in their face as well. Did the authorities in Boulder not feel a need to protect the children of Boulder and keep them safe? Did they not feel a need to eradicate such perverted goings-on in the city they were all so protective of? And may I remind you, JonBenet was sexually assaulted and garroted, so how child pornography and paedophilia be deemed irrelevant?

Since: May 11

AOL

#101 Feb 20, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Who hates the Ramseys? No one I know of.
Who hates the senseless murder of a child? Most everyone I know!
Who hates coverups by guilty people? Anyone who wants to see justice served.
You have been told many times that most of us started on the side of Ramsey innocence, until we followed the evidence and until the case unfolded as it has.
How can you blindly (WITHOUT KNOWING THE RAMSEYS) suck up to them and everything they say and do?
<quoted text>
I don't understand why people who believe in the Ramseys are still on the forums. If they really believe they've been exonerated, what's to argue? IDI walk around blind as it is, why aren't they satisfied with Mary Lacy's distortion of the Constitution?
I believed the parents until JR uttered those famous words on CNN; "we're not mad". That did it! WHO wouldn't be mad?!!! JR got a bigger head of steam over the media than he did the killer of his child..what's not to love there, eh?
I can't say I hate the Ramseys. Not all of them, anyway.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#102 Feb 20, 2013
Maybe on a real ransom note they would but not on a fake one! Even the BPD knew the note was fake right away.
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> In THIS case, since there was a ransom note, they were definitely required to take over.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#103 Feb 20, 2013
Some people like to argue JUST to argue.
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't understand why people who believe in the Ramseys are still on the forums. If they really believe they've been exonerated, what's to argue?

Since: May 11

AOL

#104 Feb 20, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Some people like to argue JUST to argue.
<quoted text>
It's got to be hard to argue something you don't really believe in just for the fun of arguing. It would be a chore IMO, like having multiple hats and trying to be different personalities with different IQs. LOL

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
John Ramsey vs. CBS, Critical Content,Experts 58 min robert 7
Patsy Ramsey's Ovarian Cancer (Aug '16) 3 hr Let It Snow 55
Investigation Discovery - Ramsey 3 hr Let It Snow 3
Hour of Power 4 hr Let It Snow 8
Dr. Drew/CNN 9 hr Let It Snow 4
Why do so many RDI's think Burke did it (Sep '10) 12 hr Just Wondering 702
Global child pornography ring bust (Aug '11) 14 hr Let It Snow 14
More from around the web