Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Fleet White : Although never a suspect in JonBenet's murder, White is the only person at the murder scene who has spent time in jail stemming from the case.

Fleet White cares a heck of a lot about every leak of his testimony in this case, and even sued Lacy (then Keenan) over leaks of his grand jury testimony:

White turns his focus to Keenan

By Travis Henry

The Daily Times-Call

BOULDER - Relentless is the word that best describes Boulder businessman and peripheral Ramsey character Fleet White Jr.

The tall, silver-haired former best friend of John Ramsey often can be seen poring over court documents in the Boulder County Clerk's Office as he pursues whatever particular legal action he is working on at the moment.

White's latest crusade is aimed at District Attorney Mary Keenan, who, he claims, has failed to prosecute whoever leaked information from grand jury proceedings in the summer of 1999 that centered around JonBenet Ramsey's murder on Dec. 25, 1996.

Along with his wife, Priscilla, the 54-year-old White filed a motion earlier this month demanding a court hearing at which Keenan would have to explain why she refused to prosecute or cite any person who violated grand jury secrecy laws. On Tuesday, Judge Dan Hale told White that he must serve Keenan with the complaint and that she will have 20 days to respond.

White wouldn't specify the violation out of fear he would be releasing grand jury information himself, he said in an affidavit.

Keenan shook her head Tuesday when hearing about the latest court action filed by White and said she forwards most of his court proceedings to Assistant District Attorney Bill Nagel, who has become the pointman on all things Ramsey.

"If we were convinced there was a violation of grand jury secrecy, we would follow up on it," Keenan said. "That is our job."

Nagel said he would file a response but also would need to be vague in order to not divulge any testimony that came out in the grand jury proceedings.

White has been involved in the Ramsey case since day one. He was with John Ramsey when JonBenet's body was found in the wine cellar of the Ramseys' home, and at first he supported John and Patsy Ramsey's claims of innocence.

At some point, White became convinced of their guilt and started a campaign to have the governor remove former District Attorney Alex Hunter and appoint an independent prosecutor to the case. White also was a big supporter of former Boulder police Detective Steve Thomas, who wrote a book claiming Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter.

In 2000, White's name surfaced again when a California woman came forward with allegations of ritualistic sexual abuse by a group that included people associated with the murder case, including Fleet White.

Since that woman's claims were discredited, White has been on a rampage against the media, seeking criminal libel charges against outlets who told the woman's story.

Two special prosecutors were appointed in the case, but neither filed charges.

In February, El Paso County Deputy District Attorney Robert Harward, who was assigned to look into the allegations, notified Boulder County Chief District Judge Roxanne Bailin that he was declining to file charges.

"The published material, on its face, does not support charges of criminal libel under the Colorado libel statute," Harward's report said.

After White failed to show up for a hearing he had demanded regarding the reasoning behind the special prosecutor's decision, Bailin closed the case.

Last week, White petitioned the Boulder District Court to turn over records of court proceedings in the investigation as he appeals the special prosecutor's decision. The appeal process is the only way he can go, since time has run out for any law enforcement agency to file criminal libel charges.

Keenan was the driving force behind having a special prosecutor appointed after White complained loudly when the first one was dismissed.

"We tried to do what we could to help him within the statute of limitations," Keenan said.
Although never a suspect in JonBenet's murder, White is the only person at the murder scene who has spent time in jail stemming from the case.

In October 2001, White was sentenced to 30 days in jail after he ignored two subpoenas in a Ramsey-related trial.

White was subpoenaed in May and June 2001 to appear as a witness in a criminal bribery trial.

He said he chose not to appear because he didn't think he had any relevant testimony to give.
The case involved lawyer Thomas Miller, who was accused of trying to buy a copy of the ransom note found in the house. Miller was acquitted.

White refuses to talk to reporters.

And several people in law enforcement and the media have wondered aloud why a man obsessed with punishing news outlets for publicizing his name keeps himself in the spotlight.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

JonBenét Ramsey : Steve Thomes Never Had Justice For His Little Girl

What I witnessed for two years of my life was so fundamentally flawed, it reduced me to tears."

"I cannot continue to sanction by silence what has occurred in this case."

From Steve Thomas' resignation letter
August 6, 1998

Murder Of JonBenét Ramsey

JonBenét Ramsey - Case Revisited (August 7th 2011)

JonBenét Ramsey Would Now Be 21 Years Old

JonBenét Ramsey Ransom Note - Statement Analysis (2001)

An analysis by Mark McClish

Posted July 9, 2001 - part one
Updates - part two
A key piece of evidence in solving this murder is the ransom note. The police as well as the Ramseys believe that whoever wrote the note is probably the killer. If the police can match the handwriting in the ransom note to a suspect's handwriting, the case is solved. The problem has been they have not found a match. Even without a positive match, the ransom note is still the key to solving this crime.

Using Statement Analysis we can examine this ransom note and determine if it is a legitimate ransom note. Was it the intention of the writer to extort money from the Ramseys, or was the note written as a ploy after JonBenet was killed? Determining the veracity of the ransom note is important. If the note is legitimate, then we know we have a kidnapping that went bad. This would exclude the Ramseys as possible suspects. Why would they kidnap their own child and demand money from themselves? If the note is fraudulent, then we know this was a murder made to look like a kidnapping. Anyone could be a possible suspect. Let's examine the ransom note left at the Ramsey's residence. I have added the numbers in the left hand column to make it easier to reference while analyzing it. more

Friday, August 12, 2011

#JonBenet #Ramsey : There was NO intruder...

Join us every Sunday for Websleuths Radio.

This show will blow the Ramsey's  "innocence" out of the water. We will go over everything and do what the lazy journalists have not done and that is to tell the truth about the Ramseys.

I don't know who killed JonBenet but the evidence is loud and clear. There was no intruder.

Because of the Ramseys money and connections and the inability of journalists to actually check the facts the Ramseys are now seen as victims. Not even close. Hopefully by the end of the show you will agree.

Jane Velez Mitchell, Aphrodite Jones and other reporters have not done what their job requires and that is to look at the facts and report the facts. Not the facts as they were told to them by the Ramsey's spin machine.

Lazy Reporting at its WORST.

I feel we are on a large mountain top YELLING into the wind while below at the bottom of the mountain the lies are being heard with ease. We are out to change this way of getting information. We will finally tell the truth about the JonBenet Ramsey case.

Based on the wildly popular true crime discussion forum Websleuths Radio takes a look at the true crime cases that capture our hearts and minds from all over the world.

Each week we have interesting guests who will give us the inside scoop. You will get the real story from Websleuths Radio. No hype. Just interesting facts and fascinating conversation.

Websleuths Radio hosted by radio veteran and co-owner Tricia Griffith. Every Sunday 8 PM Eastern/7 PM Central/6PM Mountain/5PM Pacific
Websleuths Radio. True Crime, Current Events, always discussed using common sense.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

#JonBenet :Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy has a penchant for overreaching and she's done it again.

Her announcement Wednesday that DNA scraped from the long johns of JonBenet Ramsey matches the genetic material of an unknown male found previously on the murdered girl's underpants provides stunning support for Lacy's long-held theory that an intruder committed the crime. Yet the district attorney coupled this revelation with an apology to the Ramsey family and a declaration that they have been cleared and vindicated.

Not only was it imprudent to go so far but Lacy herself said as much during a press conference following the memorable John Mark Karr fiasco. As you may recall, Karr was arrested in Thailand and brought back to the United States as a suspect in the case, only to be released in fairly short order.

The relevant segment of that press conference was played Wednesday on KHOW radio's Caplis & Silverman show after it was retrieved by Todd Shepherd of

During that press conference, Lacy was asked if it would be "fair to say that any involvement by John or Patsy Ramsey is completely ruled out by your office. Are you committed to an intruder theory of the crime?"

Her answer: "What we are committed to is solving the crime if we possibly can. You know there are these terms out there - 'umbrella of suspicion' - we don't use that. No one is really cleared of a homicide until there's a conviction in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don't think you will get any prosecutor, unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime, to clear someone, like in this case, [where] the facts are so strange and obviously the family was in the house at the time."

That was just two years ago, in case you're wondering.

Let's be clear: The DA's persistence in pursuing leads and employing the very latest technology is highly commendable. And she is apparently correct in asserting, as she did in her press release, that "the unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence.

It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder.

This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim's underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful."

In other words, the public may be pleasantly surprised someday by the announcement of an arrest for the murder of JonBenet, the result of a DNA match that pops up after the killer commits another crime and is required to provide a genetic sample.

This is a huge development in the case and obviously a heavy blow to those who have so confidently (and recklessly) asserted throughout the years that the killer unquestionably was one of the parents.

Yet let's also not forget Lacy's own words of two years ago: "The facts are so strange and obviously the family was in the house at the time." Not only that, remember how the Ramseys dummied up after the crime, rejecting interviews with law enforcement?

Why, of course they were considered possible suspects.

Lacy needn't apologize because police and prosecutors entertained that thought and failed to clear them earlier. Nor does the apparent existence of a third party absolutely rule out the involvement of others, as remote as it might now appear.

Over the years, we've made no secret of our belief that Lacy is prone to flamboyant excess, from claiming damning knowledge about the University of Colorado athletic program that she clearly didn't possess to engineering the arrest of Karr without having completed the sort of rudimentary probe that would have cleared him and averted the ensuing embarrassment.

Now, at a moment when she can rightly claim a major advance in the most notorious unsolved murder in Boulder in decades, she has sullied the event by showboating once again. It is no coincidence, we might add, that her dubious behavior once again serves the interest not of justice, but of Mary Lacy.

#JonBenet : DA were wrong to clear Ramsey's

There is only one victim in the Ramsey case...

Despite what you may have heard, Patsy and John Ramsey have not been "cleared" of wrongdoing in any genuine sense. They were simply handed a legal pass by a staunch ally who has once again shortchanged the genuine victim in the case: JonBenét.
Mary Lacy, the district attorney of Boulder, has made it her mission to exonerate the Ramseys since her first day on the job. She has disregarded facts and played the media and the public for a bunch of suckers along the way. She is trying to do it again.
Relying on an advanced method of analyzing forensic evidence, Lacy claims an unidentified man was the likely murderer of JonBenét. Lacy stated the Ramsey family should now "be treated only as victims," and apologized to them in writing.
Lacy, as anyone who has followed this case knows, has little credibility to offer, much less any absolution to hand out — at least not until a killer is convicted. And without a confession, that's an exceedingly unlikely scenario.
The Ramseys, let's not forget, brought suspicion upon themselves with bizarre behavior during the investigation of the horrific Christmas night 1996 murder of their daughter.
Suspicious acts are not the equivalent of guilt, but they certainly provide authorities ample reason to be on alert.
Now, according to Lacy, an outside laboratory has found "previously undiscovered genetic material" of a male in three places on JonBenét's clothing. This leads investigators to believe that DNA could not have been left accidentally by an innocent party. It must have been an intruder.
So, once again, the public is supposed to believe a murderer snuck into the house undetected, killed the girl undetected, wrote a ransom note and then snuck out undetected, never to be heard from again.
"It is, therefore, the position of the Boulder district attorney's office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide," Lacy contends.
Now, you may wonder:
How does Lacy know the unidentified male is the one who actually killed JonBenét? How does Lacy know that this person's hands weren't on JonBenét's clothes before or after the murder? How does she know that John Doe wasn't assisting the family in a cover-up of the crime?

And if this nameless individual was indeed the murderer, how does Lacy know that a family member did not assist him in covering up the crime?
She doesn't know.
But Lacy, one of the most incompetent officials working in Colorado law enforcement, has taken us on this ride before. There is neither the space nor the need to discuss Lacy's ham-fisted ineptitude here. She is, after all, an elected official, and Boulder voters get what they deserve.
We must, nonetheless, recall that this is the woman who two years ago conceded she had not a shred of credible evidence tying John Mark Karr to the death of JonBenét Ramsey. Yet, she still hauled this creepy child-sex fetishist back to United States from Thailand (a crime in itself, if you ask me) and let citizens foot the bill.
When Karr was brought back to Colorado, there were immediate calls for the media to ask for forgiveness from the Ramsey family for daring to cast suspicion on them all these years.
But, as is always prudent in this case, a healthy dose of skepticism about the Boulder police department, the DA and everyone involved was entirely justified — for the obvious reasons that no one wants to believe the unthinkable. No one wants to believe parents are capable of some dreadful act.
We should also remember there are plenty of other crimes to be solved. Plenty of other children — most of whom aren't involved in high-profile cases — are in need of justice.
But Lacy is in no position to offer apologies or to dictate how the public should view the Ramseys. Because in this case, there is still only one victim.

Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content:

Friday, April 29, 2011

The Ramseys had seperate lawyers...

Information via twitter...waiting for link and the inference.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

JonBenet Ramsey Murder: Investigator Speaks Out! August 17, 2006 Unathorized to release Investigators name.
I am completely and utterly fed-up with all the 'spin', the lies around the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.
They just never seem to go away thanks to the owned and controlled, cowardly mainstream media whom at best give us dis-information and slanted news, and typically nothing but outright lies and who have completely overlooked the fact that a beautiful, innocent, tourted six year old child was perversely, hideously and ritually murdered, by her parents and possibly another. This, in itself is a crime the media should be tried and executed for. It is time to set the story straight, I can stomach no more. How do you know when a lawyer is lying, their lips are moving.
I was living just a few miles away from the Ramsey's on 12/26/1996, and read all the Newspaper accounts, watched all the TV interviews and specials as well as reading the Medical Examiner's report, Police pads (investigative reports), depositions, visiting the scene and so fourth. I also interviewed people associated with the Ramsey's personally and professionally and had met Patsy Ramsey on several different occasions. The Ramsey's killed their daughter - if they did not do so directly, they know who did and witnessed the crime. Patsy Ramsey has now stood before her Maker - stood before him as a probable murderer, liar and deceiver, having deceived, or attempted to deceive many concerning her 'Christian' beliefs and their role in their child's murder. I, for one, would not have wanted to be in her position. Here are several incontrovertible facts from THAT date as I observed them and as reported by the Boulder and Denver newspapers, CNN and the Denver Television & Radio stations:
(1) There had been a snowfall of app. 2" - 3" the night of JonBenet's murder -  there were NO FOOTPRINTS or tracks of ANY kind in the snow when the Boulder Police arrived. There was NO intruder that night, that individual was already in the house (supported by the discovery of a third set of DNA deposited by a White male in his thirty's in the form of a tiny drop of blood, found on JonBenet's stomach, an unknown pubic hair and a third, male voice on the 911 call), something the Ramsey's were well aware of.
(2) There was no sign of a break in of any type - all doors and windows had been locked and none of the (windows) were cracked or broken out and no door had been forced. This was confirmed by both the Ramsey's and the Police. The alarm system had not been activated ("tripped"). Four people were known to be in the house that night, JonBenet, her nine-year-old brother Burke, and their parents. There has since been speculation, and evidence (the 911 call and a pubic hair found in JonBenet's blanket) indicating the presence of an additional adult, a male who entered the house the previous evening before the snowfall.
    (A) John Ramsey waited seven months to tell the police that he spent time in the basement at sometime around 10:00 a.m. that morning. Why? Ramsey would later tell Det. Arndt that he found a broken window in the basement train room during his morning visit even though initial investigation by the Boulder Police revealed NO SUCH broken window. It is thought that at the time of his 'visit', Ramsey broke, or cracked the window himself. The size of this break, however, was such that it would allow, perhaps, someone the size of JonBenet to gain entrance to the basement, but certainly NOT an adult male.
(3) Melody Stanton, one of the Ramsey's neighbors (living less than 100 feet away), awoke abruptly from a deep sleep - the prior stillness of the Boulder night has been pierced by the harrowing scream of a child (for her brother Burke, now 12, to save her from being killed, experts say. When a child is attacked by a parent, she has to turn to an ally she can trust. And we know JonBenét was close to Burke and trusted him. Patsy has told police that JonBenét had a habit of going into her brother's room during the night, But according to the book Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Burke admitted that he pretended to be asleep that morning about the time his mother called 911). She assumed it was somewhere between midnight and 2:00 a.m., but didn't’t look at the alarm clock. The scream lasted three to five seconds (it was a little girl screaming," recalls Stanton, 52. "It was the longest, most horrible scream I have ever heard in my entire life. It sent shivers down my spine. I could tell the sound was coming from the Ramsey house and I knew instantly it had to be their little girl, JonBenét." The next morning, while police still thought the 6-year-old beauty queen had been kidnapped, Stanton told them about the heart-rending cry that rang through the Ramsey house) and stopped as abruptly as it started. Melody momentarily wondered what to do, but thought that surely the parents would hear and come to the child’s rescue. Although still bothered by the scream and the thought that a child had been injured. She stayed awake and listened for any other noises for five to ten minutes, but heard absolutely nothing after that - no cars, no voices, no footsteps, so she eventually went back to sleep. This time has since been corroborated as the app. time of the skull fracture suffered by JonBenet, a skull fracture so severe that it would have ended the little girl's life had she not been strangled. Three neighbors have gone on-record giving depositions of hearing this scream at app. midnight. The Ramsey's have always claimed they heard no such (scream). How could this possibly be?
(4) Officer Barry Harkopp interviewed next door neighbors and reported that Scott Gibbons saw strange lights and movements coming from the kitchen area around midnight; and neighbor Melody Stanton awoke her husband around midnight after hearing a scream, and he stated he heard “the sound of metal clashing against cement.” The Ramsey's say they heard none of this.....really?
(5) The ransom note was an 82% match to Patsy Ramsey's handwriting. Patsy stated that it was written on the same kind of paper that she had in the kitchen. She also stated, at a later date, that the handwriting did not look like the handwriting of their maid, Linda Hoffmann. Detectives found an entire draft of the ransom note in the home, and the legal pad on which the final ransom had been written, along with Ramsey handwriting samples similar to the style on the note. In fact, an investigator of the ransom note testing states, "Out of the 74 names submitted for testing, Patsy's handwriting was the only one that set off alarm bells".
     (A) In 1997, the Boulder PD contacted Dale Yeager and Denise Knoke at Seraph, Inc. in Berwyn, Pennsylvania a security consulting firm summarized in sales brochures as "an international company [with] extensive sources throughout Europe, South America, the Middle East, Asia, Eastern Europe, Russia and Africa. Our associates are investigative professionals and former intelligence officers" and asked them to submit an analysis of the ransom note. Yeager and Knoke claimed without hesitation that Patsy Ramsey was the author, joining the chorus of police and tabloid reporters who kept at the parents, and reported that Psalm 118:27b, interpreted as the source of the $118,000 ransom demand, "Decorate the festival with leafy boughs and bind the sacrifices to be offered with thick cords to the horns of the altar" is commonly cited by "white supremacists," who "use the redemption and sacrifice ideas to form a justification for killings." Despite the neo-nazi nuance, Yeager and Knoke were positively certain that JonBenet's mother forged the kidnap letter. "Our conclusion," Yeager offered, "is that you are investigating a child's murder with ritualistic overtones. Strangulation and sexual assault are most commonly seen in sadomasochism between heterosexual and homosexual adults. On February 27, 2000, Yeager explained to a CBS 2 News reporter, "What we believe was happening in Patsy's mind was that her daughter was losing control, becoming a wild rebel. She felt (her daughter) was becoming evil." Why, one must ask would a lovely, 6 year old child be deemed as becoming evil? It is because of the Satanic, ritual sexual abuse being perpetrated upon her and that Patsy simply could not stand the competition - on the stage and at home - therefore, she must be eradicated.
(6) The ransom note contained a demand for a (ransom) of $118,000 - the exact amount of John Ramsey's bonus that year. The only people with knowledge of this amount were the Ramsey's and the Payroll department manager of John's Boulder company.
    (A) Why was a ransom note written and left in the house when JonBenet was not kidnapped?
    (B) Not a single fingerprint was discovered on the so-called ransom note Patsy says she found at the murder scene, something that has puzzled all the investigators. By her own account, Patsy said she discovered pages of the chilling note spread out on a staircase and ran screaming upstairs to tell her husband John about it. "For the grand jurors, the too-clean note meant another puzzle -- did Patsy wear gloves if and when she wrote the note?" disclosed a source close to the case.
    (C) A "practice" ransom note was discovered, on the same legal paper as the final note. A practice note would not be carried to the premises, so that means both notes were written there, at the crime scene, meaning that the "kidnapping" tale was a last- minute created fantasy, likely to cover up an "accidental" slaying.
    (D) Nedra, Patsy's mother, stated that the handwriting on the ransom note looked like Patsy's.
    (E) Patsy Ramsey mentioned to the police that the Ransom note was written by a woman.
(7) The crime scene was intentionally (allowed) to be contaminated by the Boulder Police department. Literally a dozen people, including the Ramsey's neighbors were allowed in the house and permitted to go anywhere they choose.
(8) When the Police arrived, John Ramsey went directly to the location of JonBenet's body (without searching in any other location). The only way this is possible is if he already had knowledge of it's (location). He was then allowed to remove the tape from the mouth of the child, untie her hands and move the body (up) to the first floor, again completely contaminating the crime scene. It was later reported by the Police that his crying, while bent over his dead daughter's body, appeared contrived, and there were no tears. The Ramsey's friend, Fleet, diagramed the position of the body in the wine cellar. This positioning was inconsistent with John’s description when he found JonBenet. "What was interesting was when Ramsey brought the body upstairs he never cried. But when he laid her down, he started to moan, while peering around to see who was looking at him." Patsy then collapsed on top of JonBenét and began praying to Jesus. The net affect of their actions was to hinder the investigation by further contaminating the crime scene. John Ramsey then left his beautiful, dead daughter lying alone under a Christmas tree. He didn't even see her safely to the morgue. She would make that trip alone.
(9) Three voices were distinctly heard on the 911 call - John's, Patsy's and a third, and unknown male. This was confirmed by the 911 dispatcher and the Police. The unknown male was heard speaking during the call. When questioned about this, the Ramsey's become extremely evasive and refused to answer anymore questions (audio enhancement of the 911 call revealed the Ramsey's stating "we're not speaking to you" to someone in their house). Evidence has emerged that not only points to this person as a possible murderer of JonBenet, while her parents looked on, but to having made a 'snuff' film of the hideous event, as well. There have always been rumors of this film in the porn 'underground', uncovered during the investigation after the murder, but never fully substantiated.
(10) The ME's examine reveled that there was scaring on JonBenet's uterus that could only have come from ongoing sexual molestation/abuse. Blue FIBERS were found in the VAGINA that did not match anything in the house. There were CELLULOSE Particles in the VAGINA as well, possibly from a paint brush handle. The coroner, Dr. John Meyer, found evidence of sexual assault from the previous night: a small abrasion and small amounts of blood in both her underwear and vagina.  Three medical experts consulting for the police say that the injuries were also consistent with prior sexual abuse. A black light helped reveal that her body had been wiped clean but that a residue of blood was left on her thighs. Dr. Robert Kirschner of the University of Chicago's pathology department went even further, pointing out that her vaginal opening was twice the normal size for six-year-olds. He stated, "The genital injuries indicate penetration,  not only (previously) by a penis, but by another instrument and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation." "If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and doctors had seen the genital evidence, her father would have been arrested." There was also blood and urine stains on JonBenét's underpants, a cleaned-up crime scene and body, and evidence that the child had been "re-dressed" after the murders, with the cords around her neck and wrist loose as though it was staged. Right now, it may be a good time to stand back and state what is rather apparent: either the Ramsey's were the killers or assistants in the murder, or they have been the victims of some rather hi-tech silent midgets with no footprints. John Ramsey's daughter (from his first marriage), Elizabeth, had uncovered several vivid memories of Satanic, ritual sexual abuse after a failed suicide attempt (during the ensuing therapy sessions) in which her Father apparently played a major role in the rituals. Within several months of uncovering the memories and going 'public' with them (talking to friends and family members) she was dead - killed in a 'freak' car accident the manner in which has never been fully resolved to investigators satisfaction.
(11) Beginning app. two weeks before her murder, JonBenet began to talk - talk about scary people in long, black robes who gathered around her and stuck 'things' into her private place - things that hurt her. She also spoke vaguely of darkness around her and the possible use of candles. Several of the Ramsey's friends, friends from their Church, the Whites and the Fernie's as well as others, heard this as well as several of her teachers and questioned her about it. After JonBenet's murder they went to the Police with the information but apparently due to the DA, nothing ever came of it. The friends from the Church abruptly ended their relationship(s) with the Ramsey's and several of them openly stated they thought them guilty of murdering their daughter.
     (A) Patsy Ramsey subsequently attended her 25th high school reunion in West Virginia, and her old schoolmates all shunned her.
     (B) Both Denver and Boulder, Colorado, are major Satanic centers whose activities have, at various times been under investigation by Jefferson and Denver county authorities as well as the FBI and others. A witness of these activities came fourth and gave testimony of two crack babies that were first taken from their parents and given to foster parents. Later they were taken from the foster parents by Denver SOCIAL SERVICES after the husband was murdered in very strange circumstances and were given to a single woman who had turned up out of nowhere after the murder and offered to be a nanny to the children. The witness claims watching the ritual sacrifice of both babies on Halloween and the Ramsey's, DA Hunter, Lt. Governor Gail Shoettler's and several others 'very high up' in Colorado politics, linked to the Governor's office, being present as well. The Satanic ring centered in Denver connects into Boulder, Colorado where the child beauty queen, JonBenet Ramsey, was found murdered in her parents home in very mysterious and unexplained circumstances in December 1996 . The coroner and investigator, Dr Cyril Wecht, says that the evidence proves that her death happened during sexual abuse by her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey. JonBenet was murdered on Christmas Eve and Josef Mengele created a sacrificial ritual for this date called "The Last Bulb of the Christmas Tree". Mengele's pseudonym, Greenbaum, means green tree and relates to the Cabalistic Tree of Life. A Brotherhood term for the devil is JonBet and the coincidence is so amazing that, given the other circumstances, I cannot believe this was NOT the true inspiration for her name. The Witness also claims that she's been the victim of a child-sex ring whose participants included a wealthy friend of the Ramsey family. Yes, that Ramsey family. She had been victimized since early childhood, she said, by a subculture, including members of her own family, that used children for sex. One of the men who had participated in the abuse was a friend of the Ramsey's. The Witness says she is frightened for her life, having been threatened several times via anonymous phone calls. She had recently been beaten and sexually assaulted by members of her extended family, and they'd warned her about keeping her mouth shut. They were trying to pressure her into coming to Colorado with one of the men she said had been her childhood tormentor, who was connected to the Ramsey's. He had been calling her himself, ever since Attorney Hill's television interview regarding the Ramsey deposition, to check on her. Now she is afraid she might be abducted, or murdered. Her testimony was subsequently dis-regarded by authorities despite the depositions by Ramsey family friends and Church-goers regarding JonBenet's statements prior to her murder.
     (C) It is clear from the statements of both Detective Colson and Char Blazer that the Boulder authorities were very interested in a connection between the death of Jonbenet Ramsey and what appears astonishingly to be organized pedophilia on a national level, perhaps with a criminal government license.
(12) Search warrants also turned up recent nude photos of the Ramsey children.
(13) In the two years prior to her death, Jonbenet made 33 trips to the pediatrician, diagnosis was "yeast infections". Yeast infections for a child of four to six years old? I've been told that is not possible.
(14) The supposed 'intruder' shoe print on the floor of the wine cellar in soft, white, dirt like substance turned out to be the delineation of a shoe print with a clear impression of the words "HI TEC". This is known to be a common police footwear product line, and police personnel had been in this room after the discovery of the body and before the crime scene processing and was eventually identified as the shoe print of one of the Boulder Police. A second shoe impression was also found in the white powdery substance. Although not as visible as the “HI-TEC” shoe impression, it was a distinctly different print and eventually was determined to be John Ramsey's.
(15) The Ramsey's ex-housekeeper, Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, testified to the Boulder County Grand Jury that Patsy killed her daughter.
(16) John Ramsey left the house during the very first part of the investigation - presumably to get a paper.
(17) One of John Ramsey’s first acts was to call his lawyer - not the act of an innocent man. Detective Linda Arndt, the only police officer on the scene in the hours prior to the discovery of the body at 1:05 p.m., remembers Mr. Ramsey’s demeanor when he initially greeted her as not distraught nor even upset, but cordial. Arndt says that the Ramsey's did not spend those morning hours in each other’s company, but that Patsy stayed in the sunroom with friends and John stayed mostly in his den, and read his mail in the kitchen. Very, very unusual behavior for a couple who have just experienced the murder of a child. Typically, they cling desperately to each other. The Ramsey's (behavior) exhibited some element of blame, condemnation, as if accusing each other of knowing of the crime beforehand and doing nothing to ultimately stop it. At 1:30 p.m., 37 minutes after finding her body, a detective overheard John Ramsey talking by phone to his pilot and arranging a trip to Atlanta that evening for himself, his wife and son. Det. Sgt. Larry Mason told him, “You can’t leave". He seemed surprised.
(18) There is a considerable amount of trace evidence linking Patsy directly to the murder of JonBenet.
(19) Ainswoth's report noting duct tape in the basement closely matching duct tape used during the strangulation (JonBenet's mouth was taped).
(20) Pam Griffin statements that Patsy admitted writing the practice note" for an innocent purpose. An innocent purpose???? No one does such a thing unless they intend to carry out such a crime.
(21) Round marks, consistent with shape of cigarette, found on JonBenet's neck and jaw appeared to have been caused by a stun gun. The Ramsey's had a stun gun.
(22) The Colorado Bureau of investigation analyzed and confirmed that the wooden stick used with the ligature rope in the garrote, used in the strangulation is, in fact, the paint brush handle from the broken paint brush from the painting supply tray owned by Patsy Ramsey, a critical second piece of weapon evidence that came from within the house. It was also noted that a portion of the paint brush handle, appearing to be from the top, is unaccounted for. No fingerprints were ever found on any portion of the paintbrush.
     (A) Prosecutors in Boulder, Colo., presented to the grand jury shocking evidence that they feel shows the rope used to strangle JonBenét was purchased by her mom Patsy. A sales slip indicates that Patsy bought a thin nylon rope at Boulder's McGuckin hardware store. Patsy paid for this rope with an American Express card. The sales slip doesn't name the items, but it shows a $2.29 purchase rung up in the section of the store that sold nylon ropes. The price of a nylon rope at the time -- $2.29. Realizing they were on to something explosive, authorities bought up all the 100-foot packs of quarter inch Stansport nylon utility rope sold at McGuckin's. They compared the McGuckin ropes with the one used on JoNBenét and it matched. Tests run by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation convinced the police they had the right rope. This was vital evidence since investigators never found the remainder of the murder rope in the Ramsey home.
     (B) JoNBenét had been gagged by duct tape so they asked Patsy's art teacher if Patsy ever used that kind of tape. During a formal police interview months earlier, Patsy had denied ever buying duct tape. And authorities were frustrated because they never found a roll of duct tape at her house. However, during the investigation of Patsy's McGuckin hardware store purchases, probers hit pay dirt. They found she had in fact made a purchase for $1.99 in the section where duct tape was on sale, for that very price. The duct tape used on JoNBenét was a very rare black type -- the same kind on sale at McGuckin's. The manufacturer revealed that type made up a mere 2 percent of all its duct tape. Experts determined it had been manufactured in November 1996 -- only a few weeks before the youngster's grisly death. Four fibers on the duct tape have been linked to the red and black jacket that Patsy wore the night before.  When Patsy greeted officers at 6 a.m. she was wearing the same jacket she had just worn to the Christmas party. Patsy maintains that she dressed that morning prior to finding out that JonBenet was missing. However, Patsy was fully dressed including face make-up when she met the police after the 911 call in the same clothes she wore to the White's Christmas Dinner the night before strongly indicating she never went to bed the previous night. Just why would she do that?
(23) Judith Phillips, took some of the most poignant pictures of JonBenét. She believes the case against the Ramsey's has been delayed by politics and wants the Colorado Governor to appoint an independent prosecutor. Scott Gibbons, neighbor, also heard the horrible scream somewhere around midnight. He says it was an inside job. This was not a random killing. There is no way parents could possibly sleep through a scream such as he heard, and the murder of their child. "Despite all the talk of an intruder in the district, I was never afraid for my own kids."
(24) Early in the investigation, sources say detectives probed the John Ramsey's many visits to Amsterdam, Child Porn capital of the world, suspecting a link between child porn and JonBenét's murder. Child Porn was found on several computers in Ramsey's business. In fact, a large amount of kiddie porn had been downloaded on Access Graphics computers. An article detailing this noted that AG did a lot of work in Amsterdam's red light district. This article pointed to a direct link between Access Graphics and kiddie porn. So far, neither John Ramsey or Lockheed Martin have sued. In fact, they have not even bothered to comment, which is odd, considering the disturbing claims that the article made.
(25) On Dec. 27, 1996 Patsy Ramsey, exhausted and lying down, reached up and touched the face of a friend, Pam Griffin, the woman who had made JonBenet’s pageant costumes.  Griffin thought Patsy was delirious when she asked, “Couldn't’t you fix this for me?” as though a sewing machine could bring back her daughter.  She then remembers Patsy saying, “We didn't’t mean for this to happen” and Griffin got the definite feeling that in her weakened condition, Patsy had revealed that she knew who the killer was.
(26) As a six-year-old beauty queen, JonBenet was publicly sexualized by her parents, dressed provocatively, and coached to saunter like a seductress. This is a blatant indication of sexual abuse, perpetrated upon the child.
(27) At one juncture in the investigation, the Ramsey's were ready to 'cut a deal' and plead guilty to a lesser charge of Manslaughter. Several sources claim that Patsy Ramsey may admit killing her 6-year-old daughter -- but plead temporary insanity. Insiders close to the case told GLOBE, and several local Newspapers that John Ramsey is trying to strike a deal with prosecutors for his testimony, and Ramsey lawyers are planning to have the couple surrender and avoid the embarrassment and media glare of an arrest. "The idea is that the Ramsey's don't want to be seen as 'common criminals' and forced to parade around in handcuffs," reveals a source. "Their attorneys could seek to bring them in at an agreed time and place, formally charge them and allow them to immediately make bail." Sources told reporters that the new Ramsey legal strategy was concocted after the couple's attorneys told the former Miss West Virginia and her computer tycoon hubby that they could be indicted by the Boulder grand jury. The Ramsey's have been "under an umbrella of suspicion" since JonBenét's strangled and beaten body was discovered by her dad in the basement of the Ramseys' $1.3 million Boulder mansion on Dec. 26, 1996. According to these same sources, Patsy may be ready to confess to the killing, but will blame the violent act on temporary insanity triggered by the treatments she received during her battle against ovarian cancer. "Her lawyers might say that because of her cancer a few years ago and all the drugs she'd been taking, her thinking was altered to an insane state," former Denver Chief Prosecutor Craig Silverman told GLOBE. "They could claim she was hallucinating or in a dream state at the time of the attack, and that patsy hit JonBenét while imagining that the child was some kind of threat. "There could even be a scenario where Patsy started seeing her 6-year-old daughter as an adult and a pretty rival for the affections of her husband John. And what was quite clear from both her actions and words is that she could not stand the competition, at home or on the stage". Reporters learned from sources that one of Patsy's top advisers, Colorado law Prof. Patrick Furman, may have threatened to resign but is still part of the team. Sources believe he may have disagreed with the insanity strategy. "There has been speculation that Pat Furman wanted to disassociate himself from an insanity defense," says a source. But that very tactic might allow Patsy to beat a murder rap and let John escape prosecution, insiders confide. He could claim that Patsy, being deranged, never admitted the crime to him -- so he was never part of a cover-up. We also have learned that John is trying to cut a deal of his own. He may offer to testify as to Patsy's state of mind in exchange for a promise from prosecutors that they won't charge him at all, says a source. Are these the actions of INNOCENT people? I hardly think so.
     (A) How big is Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, the law firm representing the Ramseys? As Denver Post columnist Chuck Green put it, "Take a look at their offices here in Denver. Then take a walk over to the Governor's Mansion a few blocks away and tell me which is bigger, and I'll tell you which one is more powerful." Among the firm's clients are Gary Hart, Governor Roy Romer, former Governor Richard Lamm, and, curiously, Hunter S. Thompson. Alex Hunter, Boulder's district attorney, is a political ally of the firm, which may explain why rather than investigating the Ramseys, the D.A.'s office has often seemed more like collaborating with them, sharing evidence with the legal team of the unindicted and uncharged Ramsey's. Thanks to arrangements made by their lawyers, the Ramseys were provided with copies of their original statements and police reports if they would agree to talk with the police, something that is normally never done. The Hunter office has taken as plausible the "lone nut intruder" theory first promoted by the Ramsey's, who have pointed the finger of suspicion at any person close to them that seemed to doubt their ridiculous tale. By April 1997, the Boulder police decided they could no longer trust the D.A.'s office, and decided to stop sharing information. Soon after, their computer system, as well as that of the BCI, was hacked into and evidence 'wiped', or destroyed. Physical evidence has also disappeared from the BCI, as well indicating an obvious cover-up. Evidence should never 'disappear'. There was fluid found on and near JonBenét's body. Rather than be checked immediately for DNA, it was held, and then later sent to Cellmark Laboratories, the wonderful lab whose supposed impeccable DNA testing "proved" that O. J. Simpson was the real killer. There is no disputing that biological material had been recovered from the JonBenét crime scene, yet soon it was reported that no semen had been found at the crime scene, which is completely untrue. You would think that by now, those fabulous sleuths at Cellmark would've uncovered something, semen or not, but so far it has been nil. Cellmark, of course, is located in Maryland, right near the Pentagon and the heart of the Military Industrial Komplex. My, what a coincidence!!!!
      (B) "It is my belief the district attorney's office has effectively crippled this case," Thomas wrote in his letter to Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner. "The time for intervention is now." Thomas asked that an independent prosecutor be appointed to take over the case. Thomas' allegations included the following:
 • The district attorney dismissed evidence collected by detectives, as well as opinions offered by national experts, including the FBI.
 • Search warrants were denied for "elementary investigative efforts," such as attempts to obtain telephone and credit card records.
 • Prosecutors shared physical evidence and reports with lawyers for John and Patsy Ramsey, the parents of the slain girl.
 • Evidence remained in a laboratory untested as detectives and prosecutors grappled with how to proceed in the case.
 • The district attorney's office did not clear innocent people, but pursued them with "shameless tactics."
(28) John Ramsey says that he had carried a sleeping JonBenet from the car straight to her bed that night.  The coroner found something in her stomach “which may represent fragment of pineapple.”  The party she attended that night had served no pineapple, but police found a bowl of pineapple on the Ramsey’s dinning room table. Both John and Patsy deny feeding pineapple to JonBenet that night, claiming to not even recognize the spoon (in the pineapple). Both Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were found on the spoon and bowl.
(29) The murderer draped one of JonBenet’s blankets around her body.  That blanket held a pubic hair not linked to any family member. Unidentifiable DNA material was beneath her fingernails. An unidentifiable palm print of unknown age was on the wine cellar door.  The panties on her body were too large for JonBenet and contained a stain that DNA could not link to any house member.     Upon viewing the body, Patsy exclaimed that she had never before seen the underwear on her daughter’s corpse. Detectives later found out that Patsy had recently purchased that pair of underwear at Bloomingdale's in New York for her 12-year-old niece, but that JonBenet begged to have it kept for her, so Patsy kept it for her. Prior to the murder, even friends of the family knew of this underwear story. If Patsy did recognize the distinctive underwear, and was lying, then she was trying to point the police to the exculpatory evidence, which she knew had been planted.
(30) The Ramseys refused to voluntarily turn over their telephone records.John Ramsey telephoned Attorney Bynum first. The Ramsey's refused lie detector tests months after the murder. John said he was insulted with the request and Patsy agreed and then refused. Patsy Ramsey refused to make her medical records available. Attorneys were provided for the extended family before they could be questioned by authorities. Patsy Ramsey denied the amount of time required for pageant preparation.....? John Ramsey appeared much more angry and upset over the allegation of sexual abuse than the actual murder and loss of his daughter. John Ramsey stated that he was not angry over the murder of his daughter, but he wanted to know "why"? Patsy Ramsey made the public statement that there are two people who know who did this, the one who did it and the person they confided in? Was Bynum the person "they" confided in? The only statement regarding the punishment for the murderer made by John Andrew Ramsey, the one word, "Forgiveness". The only real tears we have seen from Patsy Ramsey to the present was when she spoke of the Death Penalty for the murderer. Pam, Patsy's sister, stated that she knows who murdered JonBenet but has not discussed this with Patsy. Patsy's father left Boulder earlier than planned on a "stand by" airline ticket. Patsy Ramsey requested a psalm Psalm 57, be read at the funeral, a request for protection. Whose protection?..JonBenet's, an innocent six year old, or one whose black veiled gaze pondered a tiny casket draped with white blooms of purity. These are not the actions of innocent people.
(31) Ex-Ramsey Friends Urged the Governor to Appoint a Special Prosecutor. Fleet and Priscilla White, former friends of the Ramseys, released a 14-page letter addressed to the people of Colorado on August 19, 1998, asking that they demand that Governor Romer appoint a special prosecutor in the Ramsey investigation. Fleet accompanied John Ramsey to the basement on December 26, 1996, when Ramsey found JonBenét's body. In December 1997, the Whites asked Romer to appoint a special prosecutor. He declined. In January 1998, the Whites wrote a letter to the Boulder Camera repeating the request. The first two requests received little publicity. The Whites' August 19 letter to the people of Colorado, which was publicized nationally, followed Governor Romer's refusal to appoint a special prosecutor in response to ex-detective Steve Thomas' letter of August 6. The letter accused the district attorney and others associated with the case of purposely delaying the grand jury in the Ramsey investigation in order to dead-end the issue. The letter also focused on what the Whites claimed to be questionable political connections and conflicts of interest between and among many of the players in the Ramsey investigation. The Whites wrote a fourth letter on August 24 which raised questions about Lt. Governor Gail Shoettler's relationship with the Ramsey. Her husband, Donald Stevens, is a long-time friend and fraternity brother of John Ramsey from Michigan State University. Stevens made several phone calls to the Ramseys following the murder. Judith Phillips, a former photographer for the Ramsey family, also wrote a letter to Romer  praising the actions of Thomas and the Whites and asking that the district attorney be removed from the case. Romer repeatedly declined to act.
(32) The profile of JonBenet Ramsey's Killer is as follows;
...A white female
...Age 35-45 years
...Single or divorced
...Average or slightly above average intellectually.
...A loner and acted alone in murder
...Sexually she would most likely be aggressive and willing to try anything ...with many others of like mind.
...Aggressive and controlling with masculine demeanor.
...overconfident with an air of superiority.
...Neatly groomed, slightly overweight with hair short or frequently tied up.
...High birth order with several siblings; highly educated parents.
...History of bi-polar disorder or other mental illness.
...Works as a paralegal, in security field or as a Police Officer.
...Drawn to excitement-oriented or thrill seeker hobbies, including books and  movies.
...Appears cooperative with the Ramsey family or authorities investigating the case
...Has experienced stress or crisis in job or relationship, and may have been seen expressing anger prior to murder.
...Has a well established history of drug abuse, Used alcohol and/or drugs before and during the murder with increased use afterwards (fits Patsy perfectly concerning the drug use).
...Stays in touch with investigation
 (33) Psychological profiles of Patsy Ramsey's mindset before and after the murder of JonBenet have indicated that she was heavily influenced by the charismatic theological subculture that she had embraced during her bout with cancer. Psalm 118 is a biblical chapter that is used quite often in the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement. This subculture of the Christian Religion has many unwritten fundamentals that they adhere to, and quite frankly, is much more about entertainment than true Christianity, true spirituality. One area in which they divert from main stream Christian theology is in the area of biblical interpretation. Because of their extreme emphasis on spiritual gifts, they tend to have a more flexible view of interpretation compared to the more scholarly approach taken by their fellow Christians in main steam denominations. Rather than believing the scriptures to be the general will of God being presented to all believers, they take a more mystical approach by viewing the scriptures as a prophetic tool used by God to speak to individual believers. This flexible attitude leads to extraordinarily diverse views theologically as well as individual interpretation - in other words he or she can do as they choose providing it fits their particular 'interpretation' of scripture. This NOT true Christianity. We believe that Patsy Ramsey took this approach from the Osteen, Hickey and Barnhill books that she was introduced to during her illness. Several words and phrases that appear in the ransom note also appear together and with great frequency in these books and in the Charismatic subculture. The following list explains their importance in this case.
   1. CORDS OR BINDINGS - Binding is a significant word used frequently in the Charismatic subculture. It stems from the belief that Satan/Evil does not operate without Gods permission. This tenant of Charismatic theology requires that individual believers verbally "bind" Satan's power over their lives through prayer, verbal affirmations to other believers during worship and in some cases through the ceremonial tying of physical cords or ropes around themselves or others. It is possible that the tying of JonBenet body with cords was linked to Patsy's view of JonBenet's death, whether accidental or deliberate, as a para-redemptive sacrifice similar to the request by God to Abraham regarding his son.
   2. S.B.T.C. - In the Charismatic subculture, acronyms are quite common and used quite frequently as teaching tools and on banners [In church icons]. S.B.T.C. is a well-used acronym that represents the words "saved by the cross". In our extensive database of terroristic groups, we find no use of this phrase with White Supremacy or International Organizations. The author of the ransom note uses this acronym along with the word "victory". The word "victory" is used in the Charismatic subculture as a verb. It is seen as the result of actions taken by believers to bind and overcome Satan's power primarily in the areas of physical health.
   3. SACRIFICE - The concept of sacrifice is prominent in all Christian theology most clearly in the idea of Jesus being sacrificed on the cross for the remission of the world's sins. In Charismatic theology sacrifice is connected to chastisement. The idea that believers must sacrifice to be truly repentant is emphasized heavily. Charismatic theology holds that true confession involves sacrificial action by the believer. This sacrificial action is usually benign such as asking forgiveness from a person you have offended.
          Patsy Ramsey is a delusional sociopath. Based on our experience with religious sociopaths, we believe that she saw JonBenet's death as a sacrifice for 'sins' she had committed, 'sins' committed because of her (Patsy). Obviously Psalm 118 does not ask for human sacrifice but in her delusional mindset she interpreted verse 27 as a request by God for a para-redemptive act.
   The conclusion is that you are investigating a child's murder with ritualistic overtones. Mrs. Ramsey's motives and post incident actions cannot be understood with rational thought. This crime was committed by a delusional individual who has convinced herself of her own innocence. Sociopaths always view their violent actions as justified. When a divine intervention is added to this justification pathology, you have a highly volatile individual.
  We do not believe as has been theorized that this murder was the result of sexual assault, those having occurred repeatedly previously. The autopsy report concerning the vaginal trauma clearly supports that. There is no evidence in pedophile research of strangulation as a means of sexual gratification for a child molester. Strangulation and sexual assault are most commonly seen in sadomasochism between heterosexual and homosexual adults. Or by late adolescent and young adult males during masturbation.
 (34) Both Patsy and her sister were CIA sex slaves, 'turned over' to the (CIA) by their Father and programmed via a major trauma-based mind-control program known as MKultra. MKultra programmed multiples are often used as assassins, information carriers or 'mules', sex slaves or to perform various other tasks for the Illuminati. Many children are programmed to serve as sex slaves for pedophile politicians and heads of state (Johnny Gosch, Alex Constantine, Cathy O'Brien whose claims include, and many state verified, that George Bush Sr. molested her and her daughter while strung out on heroin - curiously, Bush Sr. was a regular at many of Larry King's parties in Franklin, and that she was gang-banged by the Bennett Brothers, William, finger-wagging Book of Virtues writer and former commander of our phony drug war, Dick Cheny, Hillary Clinton and Robert Bird - Patsy and sister Pam were certainly two of these 'slaves', servicing many politicians and high-ranking industrialists, in constant demand because of their beauty, re-programmed several years after they each won their respective pageants to 'forget the whole thing', something their behavior latter on in life clearly shows they did not - John was known to have had quite a few 'affairs' while married to Patsy, who had many other sexual 'suitors' on the side, both male and female - their marriage was an arraigned one, and a distant one) as the JonBenet Ramsey investigative team was well aware, the case includes aspects of possible mind-control and cult activity. The name "JonBenet" is very similar to an Illuminati term for the Devil - "Jonbet". Both Patsy and her younger sister Pam were crowned Miss West Virginia - 1977 and 1980. Due to Patsy's programmed, controlled manner, famed-sportswriter and 1977 Miss America judge Frank Deford wrote in his notes that Patsy was "a little automaton - on automatic pilot." The same was later said of her sister Pam's performance. JonBenét was particularly noted for her ability to freeze all motion and hold a pose, an incredible feat considering she was only six years old. It is commonplace for the Illuminati/CIA to create mother / daughter mind-controlled teams of sex slaves for the purpose of entrapping public figures. Patsy Ramsey exhibited symptoms of alter/multiple personality switching during media interviews on more than one occasion. It is more than possible that Mrs. Ramsey and her daughter were both mind-controlled sex slaves. If you examine family photographs around 1993 JonBenet is clearly programmed, under mind-control - her eyes are glassy and her body limp. If this is truly so, Mrs. Ramsey's front alter/multiple genuinely would have no knowledge of the crime allowing her to plead her case of innocence. However, the 'back' alter/multiple certainly knows of the hideous murder and the violation of all that is Mother. Something revealed often in her personality switching during press conferences, her weight and general appearance, her cancer, the dis-ingenious and oddity often displayed during interviews and the obvious lies reflected in her eyes. Her statement of "only God knows and he's not telling" was very revealing.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

What does Burke know, was he a scapegoat, did he harm his sister? we shall never know because they will never tell..BUT children do kill children as we know only to well. However, there was another murder commited over 130 years ago, identical to the murder of Jamie Bulger.,,and on reading this story , I cried, the same way I cried on hearing about sweet Jamie...I will never, never understand, how someone can harm a child.

In 1861, two eight-year-old Stockport boys were tried for the murder of a toddler. As well as having uncanny similarities to more recent cases, their trial illustrates the cruelty of Britain's antiquated laws


Sunday, 23 April 1995
JUST OVER a year ago, not long after Gitta Sereny wrote about the murder of James Bulger in this magazine, she received a letter from Mr FR Schofield, the branch historian of the Royal British Legion in Edmonton, north London, which enclosed cuttings from both the Times and the Tottenham & Edmonton Weekly Herald of August 1861.

 Mr Schofield wondered whether she knew that the murder of James Bulger was virtually identical to another murder, committed over 130 years ago, no more than 30 miles from Liverpool.

Then, as now, he wrote, "the taking of the child was witnessed by several people, and then, as now, the murder shocked the whole nation. It is with these witnesses in mind that I write," he continued, thinking it might "ease the minds of the Liverpool witnesses just a little if they knew that almost precisely the same thing had happened to a number of good people like themselves almost a century-and-a-half ago."

The murder he referred to took place in Stockport, Cheshire, on 11 April 1861. Two eight-year-old boys, Peter Barratt and James Bradley, had killed two-year-old George Burgess, a child they had - so far as is known, just as in the Bulger case - never laid eyes upon before. The story that unfolded, with the unstinting help of librarians and researchers in London, Stockport and elsewhere, tells us a great deal about the society of the day and, more surprisingly, about its penal system, which, in this case at least, turns out to have been wiser and more compassionate than our own.

"An Inquisition indented and taken for our Sovereign Lady the Queen, sitting at the house of Thomas Shelmardine known by the sign of The White House Tavern in the Township of Stockport on the thirteenth day of April in the year of our Lord 1861, before William Johnson, Gentleman Coroner... on View of the body of George Burgess then and there lying dead upon the Oath of the jurors . . . to enquire . . . when how and by what means the said George Burgess came to his death do upon their Oath say that Peter Henry Barratt and James Bradley not having the fear of God before their eyes but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil . . . feloniously wilfully and of their malice aforesaid . . . did kill and murder . . ."

IT WAS AT 1pm on Saturday, 13 April 1861, that William Johnson took his place at the head of the long table set up in the main room of the White House Tavern in Hempshaw Lane, Stockport, with its white walls and black beams one of the more beautiful of the cotton and hat manufacturing town's many pubs. It was the custom of the time for the coroner and his jury to sit in the locality of a crime, close to the site and within easy walking distance for potential witnesses. Taverns or hotels were the places of choice. None of the men looked foward to the task ahead. For in an outhouse attached to the tavern, in an open coffin, lay the body of the two-year-old boy who had been found the previous day, suffocated, with his face in the water of a brook, his unclothed body brutally beaten.

Stockport, about five miles outside Manchester, is a prosperous town today, its cotton manufacturing replaced by a variety of hi-tech industries. But in 1861 it was, by contemporary accounts, a grim place. The Victorian writer Fairleigh Owen describes it as "dirty, swarming with squalid and neglected children", a warren of "dark entries... low arches where flakes of drifting cotton hang in foul and dirty masses ..."

 Only the houses of the rich had running water or gas; the rest of the population used standpipes in the streets. Hillgate, the very centre of the town, only a stone's throw from the four cotton mills and four hat manufacturers (including the famous Christy's, still there today) which were the town's principal employers, was the home for the three families involved in this story.

Everything we know about them now comes from records - the census taken every 10 years, the rate books kept up to date every quarter, the voters' lists, the Sunday and church school attendance registers, police files, the "thieves list" meticulously updated by the police, court dossiers, reformatory school reports, Home Office correspondence and - probably the most informative - the excellent newspapers of the time.

But while all this provides us with records of events, births, marriages, changes of address, earnings, crimes, punishments, and deaths - even, when we are lucky, descriptions of the clothes they wore and the work they did - the records cannot show us the faces; they cannot tell us who loved and who hated or abused whom and how. We have to use our imagination to try to understand what happened in their lives.

That Saturday, the 14 men charged with the inquiry into the death of a toddler had arrived at the White House tavern at noon and, as was their duty, had first viewed the body on which the post mortem had just been carried out. Then, before settling down to the difficult task before them, the tavern's owner (and one of the jurors), Thomas Shelmerdine, had invited them into a separate small room at the back of the bar for some refreshments - pies, bread, cheese and cider. Moments later, the witnesses would sit in that small room waiting to be called.

Although coroners' hearings were open to the public, newspapers - Stockport and nearby larger Macclesfield had two good ones - appeared only once a week, on Friday. For the rest of the week the population - few of whom anyway could read - depended for their news on word of mouth.

George Burgess had been found dead on Friday 12 April, and the first day of the inquest was virtually unattended.

Three days later, on the afternoon of the day little George was buried, with over 1,000 mourners lining the 20-minute route to the cemetery, there would be hundreds seeking to attend the second hearing, many of them, after the room was full, remaining standing in silence in the street outside.

 That opening day, however, little was known: children, not only of the labouring classes, were often punished mercilessly for the slightest wrongdoing, whether by their parents, masters, priests and chaplains or employers.

But in an age when children were the property of their parents, violence against the very young was almost entirely restricted to that within the family and the home. Murder of small children by strangers in strange places was so rare as to be virtually unheard-of. Thus it would be from those with responsibility for caring for the dead child that the jury would hear first.

Ralph Burgess, George's father, was 30 years old and a cotton weaver. His wife Hannah, also a cotton weaver, by all accounts was not present at the inquest; the couple had two other children, William, one, and Ralph, three months old. Ralph Burgess was the first witness to be called:

I am a power loom weaver and live at 179 Baguley Street, Higher Hillgate [he stated]. George Burgess was my son. He was two years three months and nine days old. I last saw him alive about ten minutes before two o'clock on Thursday afternoon last. He was then in some waste land near the Star Inn in the Higher Hillgate. He was playing with another little Boy about his own age, Samuel Burton.

Ralph Burgess (the reports say he spoke haltingly and cried throughout his testimony) told the court that little George - a rather unusual circumstance for a small child from a labouring family in those times - had not been living with his parents.

He was placed out at nurse with Sarah Ann Warren who lives in Shawcross Street, Higher Hillgate.

 On Thursday night, as I was returning from work about twenty minutes before seven, and went to the house where he was nursed, I was told he was missing. I employed the bellman and searched for him until three o'clock the next morning, but without success.

About one o'clock yesterday afternoon I heard the dead body of a child had been found in a brook near Love Lane, and that it had been taken to the White House Tavern in Hempshaw Lane. I went there and saw the body, and it was my Son.

We cannot know now why these two working parents had put their two-year- old out to nurse. Usually, an older family member, or a neighbour who was not at work, would look after small children. Babies would be brought to the mother at work, who would breast-feed the baby where she sat or stood, while the work continued around her.

What the record does tell us, and it may make us ponder about the care little George had received in his short life, is that his body showed a number of old scars: his arm had been broken twice; he had once been "severely scalded" and once "burned".

 By whose fault, we cannot know, but it appears that while his father regularly visited him after work, there is no word in the reports about his mother. It is written though that little blond George was "quite a pet in the neighbourhood", and that he was a "lively chatty and playful" boy.

Sarah Ann Warren, the next witness, was a single woman, and her home, aside from being only one street away from the Burgesses' home at Baguley Street, was right opposite the Star Inn.

 The toddler had been placed in her charge to nurse, night and day, she said, about three months before. "Both his parents work at the cotton mill," she explained. She had dressed the little boy about 7am that Thursday in a red flannel waistcoat, calico shirt, linsey petticoat, brown stuff skirt, plaid skirt and plaid frock. The flannel waistcoat was tied up the front, two skirts were buttoned behind, and the frock was fastened with hooks and eyes. "I think it impossible," she stated, "that [he] could have undressed himself."

I last saw him alive on Thursday a little after two o'clock in the afternoon. He was then in a piece of waste land opposite my House. Another little boy was playing with him and they had a wheelbarrow. I missed him in about half an hour afterwards. I searched for him and made enquiry but did not find him. I afterward gave information to the police. I have seen the dead body of the deceased lying here. It is George Burgess.

The father searched for his little boy, even employing the no doubt expensive bellman to announce his disappearance, and one can assume the police did too when they were told he was missing.

 But the 1851 map of Stockport shows a patchwork of fields, brooks and reservoirs beyond Shawcross Street and the Star Inn. What the Stockport police and little George's family most probably feared that Thursday night was that the small boy had got lost or had an accident
But even this small comfort would be denied them, after he had been found just after noon the next day, Friday, by a farm labourer, John Buckley.

 Here is Buckley's deposition of that first hearing, as recorded by the coroner's clerk. (The language of all the statements would, of course, not have been entirely theirs; they would have been asked questions; would have answered them colloquially, sometimes fearfully and certainly falteringly. What has survived almost a century-and-a-half later is the tidied-up version of their stories, indeed of their lives.)

I am a Labourer and reside in No 10, Birch Street, Higher Hill Gate. Yesterday, a little after 12 o'clock, I was working in a field adjoining the brook in Love Lane. I saw the body of a child lying in the brook. It was face downwards. The body was naked with the exception of a pair of clogs. I didn't touch the body but sent information to the police. The head of the child was under water.

William Walker, the Inspector of the Stockport Borough Police, had received the information about 12.30pm that April day, and had gone there immediately, he stated, and found the dead child as Buckley had described:

The back of the head was not underwater, and the buttocks were also a little exposed. The face rested on a large stone in the brook and when I raised the body, the nose appeared as if it had been pressed against the stone. The body was quite naked with the exception of the clogs. The child's back had dark stripes upon it as if it had been lashed.

He had found the little boy's clothes "about seven or eight yards up the brook" with one odd stocking 20 yards further away, all "quite dry".

The inspector did not see how it could have been an accident, for had the child fallen, "it [officials always referred to the boy as "the deceased" or "it"] might have got out": the descent of the bank, he said, was gradual. He had observed footmarks, which corresponded in size to the clogs the child had been wearing, but he had also seen "feetmarks which were larger than those made by the clog of the deceased". He had the body removed from the brook and taken to the White House Tavern, "where it now lies".

Between early that afternoon and noon the next day, Saturday, when the Coroner's Court convened, the police made their inquiries in the few houses and farms near the brook in Love Lane. Three people - two women, Mary Whitehead and Emma Williams, with her 13-year-old son Frank - had seen little George with two boys that Thursday afternoon. All of them would describe the boys and the scene with some care, though both women, it turned out later (in a strange parallel to some witnesses in the James Bulger case), mistook their size for an indication of their age.

Mary Whitehead said she had seen two boys with the little two-and-a-half- year-old "just before 3 o'clock", one about 10, the other "behind and nine years". "The larger," she said, had the small one, who was crying, by the hand.

This "elder boy" she said, was dressed in dark clothes and a cap and "was rather stoutly built. He was dragging the deceased along who seemed unwilling to go with them. The other boy was dressed in a loose tunic but had no belt or cap." She asked the boys where they were going and they said "Down Love Lane."

Emma Williams and her son, giving an identical description of the two boys' clothes, had seen them over an hour later, but now the little boy had been naked.

She too said that "the elder boy [meaning the "larger"] was [holding] the little boy. I called and asked `What are you doing with that Child undressed?' " But they had not answered.

Her son Frank said: "I saw the second Boy pick a twig out of the fence and hit the little boy over the leg. The little boy rubbed his leg immediately afterwards." He didn't think the blow was "a heavy one" but the boys had run off toward Love Lane as soon as his mother had called out to them.

A few hours before the court had convened, the Stockport surgeon, Thomas Massey, had performed the post-mortem examination on the little boy and described his terrible injuries - his back and buttocks lashed bloody, his head, too, covered with blood from blows with a stick. The injuries, he said, would "have required great violence to produce. The blows on the top of the head might have produced concussion of the brain and consequent insensibility. Such a blow upon a live child would probably have stunned it." But all the marks, he said, "were produced while the child was alive". After his face had been pressed down on to a stone in the water of the brook, he concluded, "he will have suffocated from drowning". At 6.30pm, at the conclusion of the surgeon's statement, the inquiry was adjourned until Tuesday 16 April at 3pm, for the production of further evidence.

BY THIS TIME, the police had questioned others who could identify the two boys. And at 7.30pm, PC William Morley went to 79 Middle Hillgate, the home of 38-year-old hairdresser Peter Barratt, his Irish-born wife Mary Ann, and their three children, Peter Henry, eight, Emma, six, and Mary, three. Peter Henry and Emma are described in the 1861 census as "scholars" and were enrolled at a nearby church school.

 Emma, it appears, attended regularly; her older brother rarely. Like many children at that time, school, for those of eight and over, was secondary to adding to the family's earnings. Children would run errands for shopkeepers, supplement farm labour at harvest time in groups or gangs, would "pull potatoes" in the autumn and pick fruit in summer for one penny a week.

Peter Henry, like other shopkeepers' sons, also had to help customers and clean the shop. It was here, where the father was cutting a customer's hair that Saturday evening, that Officer Morley found the boy, sweeping the floor. He told the father that he wished to speak to Peter Henry.

"What about?"

"They say he's one that has taken this child away," the officer said.

"I don't think that can be so, but take the boy into the kitchen and see what he says about it," the father replied, continuing his haircut. (Mr Morley would state three days later to the court of inquiry that he did as suggested and "From the statements the Boy made I asked him to go with me to Barlow Row, Middle Hillgate, the home of John Bradley.")

Higher Barlow Row, where John and Eliza Bradley lived with their four children, Joseph, 10, James, eight, Sarah , four, and Ellis, two, was called "the street of the hatters": everybody who lived there probably rented their flats or houses from their employers, and most of the Bradley family worked at Christy's throughout their lives.

They were known as a tidy family, all Cheshire-born: the records make a point of their regular attendance at the nearby Congregational Tabernacle, the fact that all the adults worked, and that most of their children were good scholars. Thirty-seven-year-old John Bradley was a "Hat Washer" for Christy's, Eliza, 38, a "House Servant" in one of the big houses nearby; Joseph, the oldest, was a good student at a nearby Church School, while his brother James's education (like Peter Henry Barratt's) had so far been restricted to a weekly visit to the Sunday School which they had joined only four weeks earlier.

An incident at the Sunday School 10 days before the murder seems of particular relevance to what followed. It is remarkably similar to the aggressively conspicuous behaviour of Mary and Norma Bell during the days before the two little boys in Newcastle were killed in 1968, and that of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables in the days leading up to the murder of James Bulger in 1993.

At the Stockport Sunday School on 31 March 1861, Peter Henry and James tore into fragments two new bibles, and two boys' caps.

 Confronted by the school's inspectors and teachers, they readily admitted their offence but "seemed unable to comprehend [writes an observer later] the extent of their sin". It was decided that their teachers should inform the parents that their children could not enter the school again unless the parents promised "earnestly to co-operate with the teachers in endeavouring to reclaim them". This promise, it appears was made, without the time, of course, to fulfill it: indeed, the connection of the boys with the school was so brief, that they had not been entered on the register.

In the Barratts' hairdressing shop in Middle Hillgate, a mere four minutes' walk away from the Bradleys' home in Higher Barlow Row, Peter Henry's father had appeared little interested in the police officer's presence. He left the boy alone with him as he was questioned in the kitchen, and continued his work as they left. At the Bradleys, however, where the questioning of the two boys also took place in the kitchen, John Bradley was there to support his boy.

Mr Morley began by asking Peter Henry the same questions he had already put to him at home. "Do you go to school?"

"Sometimes, on a Sunday," Peter replied.

"Who did you play with on last Thursday afternoon?"

"With Jemmy Bradley."

"Where did you go to?"

"We went beside the Star Inn."

"Which way did you go then?"

"Down the narrow lane by the Star Inn, down Hempshaw Lane and up Love Lane."
"Was there anyone else with you?"

Peter Barratt didn't reply, but James Bradley said, "A little Boy as we met beside the Star Inn."

"Did you see anyone in Love Lane?"

"Yes, we saw a woman," James continued.

"Where did you go afterwards?"

"We went on down Love Lane until we got to a hole with some water in."

"What did you do then?"

"Peter said I must undress it," James said.

And Peter said quickly, "Thou undressed it as well as me."

"Then you both undressed it?" asked Mr Morley.

"Yes," said James.

"What did you do then?"

"Peter pushed it into the water and I took my clogs off and went in and took it out again, and Peter then said it must have another."

"Another what?"

"Another dip in the water," Bradley answered. "Peter then got a stick out of the hedge and hit it."

"Well, thou hit it as well as me," Peter said angrily.

"Where did you hit it?"

"Over the back," James said.

"Did you hit it anywhere else besides the back?"

"Yes," said James, "over the head."

"Was it in the water then?"


"How long did you hit it with that stick?"

"Until it was dead," James Bradley said; Barratt was silent.

"Was it quite dead before you left it?"

"Yes," now said Peter Henry Barratt.

Mr Morley asked whether they left "it" in the water when they came away and James answered "Yes".

"What did you do with the stick?"

"We hauled it i'th' field."

NEITHER of the mothers apparently attended the court, either that day, when, following this confession, the two boys were taken to the "lock- up" in the courthouse, or during the hearing three days later, when the witnesses would be heard again in the presence of the two accused, and the boys were subsequently charged.

 But it seemed, at least during those first days of incarceration, that these two eight-year-olds (in exactly the same way as the children accused of murder in Newcastle and Liverpool over a century later) had no real concept of what they had done.

 It is reported that they ate well of the supper they were given that night and slept deeply afterwards. Over the next days they were in high spirits, amusing themselves by playing marbles and throwing half-pennies which kindly police officers had given them, and apparently never mentioning, to each other or anyone else, the event that brought them there.

On Sunday morning, 14 April, PC Morley had gone to the side of the brook where little George's body had been found, and, taking James Bradley's clogs and Peter Barratt's shoes, had compared these with impressions he found in the earth there. "The clogs of Bradley and the shoes of Barratt," he would state three days later to the court, "corresponded exactly with the foot marks by the Brook."

THE ATMOSPHERE at the White House Tavern was very different on 16 April, when the second session convened.

 Hillgate had been quiet as of that morning when the carriage bearing the small coffin had set out for Christ Church cemetery, Heaton Norris, about two miles away, followed by over 1,000 people on foot, among them some of the cotton mill bosses and many of Ralph and Mary Burgess's co-workers who had been given time off.

By now everyone in Stockport knew that the little boy had been murdered, and at least the whole neighbourhood knew the identity of the arrested suspects.

 And so, when the coroner and jurors took their places at 3pm, and the two accused boys were brought in to sit against a wall with their fathers and between two police officers, an angry murmur went through the room bursting with people before the coroner brought the crowd to order.

On this occasion, the eye-witnesses, whose statements had already been heard three days before, and PC Morley, who had questioned the boys that Saturday night, were now re-sworn and re-examined in front of the accused. At the end of her testimony, directed by the coroner to look at the two boys as she said it, Mary Whitehead declared:

The two prisoners, Peter Henry Barratt and James Bradley, are the two Boys I saw pass my House with the deceased on Thursday afternoon. James Bradley had the deceased boy by the hand.

She then swore she had spoken the truth, and made her mark in lieu of a signature on her statement which was then signed by the coroner.

Emma Williams was manifestly troubled when she came into the room on that second occasion, and saw the boys.

She said that James Bradley corresponded in dress and appearance to one of them; he had hold of the child's hand when she spoke to him. But she could not "speak to" (identify) the prisoner Barratt by the tunic now worn by him.

It was explained to the coroner that Barratt's clothes had been changed on Sunday. The coroner told PC Morley to go to Barratt's house and fetch the tunic he had worn on the day of the murder, which was of dark-coloured frieze. When the tunic had been brought and put on the boy, Mrs Williams seemed amazed by what she now saw. Reluctant to conclude her evidence, she buried her face in her handkerchief.

The coroner remined her that, regardless of her feelings, she must speak the truth. She said that the prisoners were indeed the boys whom she saw and spoke to in Ford's field while they were pulling the naked child through the field towards the brook. She had "particularly noticed Bradley's shoulders" (by which, presumably, she meant their size). Indeed, she now said, she had no doubt of their identity. And her son Frank said immediately upon entering the room:

These are the two boys I saw in Ford's field on Thursday last as mentioned in my previous examination. I have no doubt of it.

The coroner then called the two fathers, to identify their sons.

"The prisoner Peter Henry Barratt is my son," said Peter Barratt. "He was eight years of age on the twelfth day of December last."

Then John Bradley said (in the record it is saith): "The Prisoner James Bradley is my son. He was eight years of age on the 20th of February last."

Finally, PC Morley was called and reported exactly the conversation he had had with the two boys on Saturday night.

I then took them into custody. Bradley's father was present, and did not object to the questions I asked. Barratt's father was not present. I used neither threats nor promises to them, as to any statement they might make.

The coroner then turned to James Bradley's father. "Have you any questions to ask the police officer?" he said. "Has he stated correctly the conversation he had with your son in your presence?"

"I have no question to ask, sir," the father answered, crying. "He has stated them very correctly - more's the pity for me."

THE CASE, said the coroner in his summing up, was "very painful, but, unfortunately, easy of solution". There was no doubt that the immediate cause of death was suffocation from drowning, but equally there was nothing to suggest that the death had been accidental.

 Though the boys had no obvious motive for their "horrifyingly brutal" attack, in not disclosing it, and in choosing a "secluded place" to carry it out, they had given unquestionable proof of their "consciousness of guilt".

Because they were so young, he said, it was necessary for him to explain the law as to their "capacity to commit the crime". Before the age of seven, he said (this is now the age of 10 in England and Wales, but still eight under Scottish law) no infant can be guilty of or punished for a capital offence. But between eight and 14, "the presumption. . . that an infant is incapable of judging between good and evil can be rebutted by strong and pregnant evidence of a mischievous discretion." It is such "mischievous discretion" that the two boys were shown to exhibit, and it was their "strength of understanding and judgement," rather than their age, that proved their true "capacity to do evil or contract guilt".

The jury therefore had to be satisfied that the child's death was caused by the two boys; and that they, at the time, were capable of discerning good from evil. If they were satisfied on both these points, he said, their verdict must be one of "wilful murder, for there was nothing in the evidence to reduce it below that offence, and the case would then be dealt with by a higher tribunal."

The jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict of wilful murder against Peter Henry Barratt and James Bradley; and they were fully committed to Chester Assizes for trial, under the coroner's warrant.

THE CHESTER Summer Assizes of 1861 opened on Saturday 3 August at 4pm.

The court records at Chancery Lane tell us that Sir Charles Compton, the presiding High Court judge, informed the jury of the cases they were to try. There were 35 of them, and they would all be heard in four days, from Monday 5 August to Thursday 8 August. Six cases would be for burglary; 12 for forgery, larceny, or intent to deceive; four for bigamy; one for bestiality; one for rape; four for "attempt to have carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of ten" - one was aged five; four for wounding with intent to murder and/or grievous bodily harm. At the end of his opening address, the judge told the jury that during this session they would be called upon to judge only one case of murder. "But as it is a very difficult and distressing case, of a child aged two years," he said,"I will hear it last. It is," he said, "very sad."

In the intervening four months, the prisoners had been detained in the Stockport "lock-up" for five days after their arrest - where they had already, according to reports from the time, begun to quarrel, Peter attacking his younger companion with the buckle of his belt - during which time crowds continuously beseiged the court house, "in the hope", as the Stockport Advertiser put it, of "indulging in a morbid appetite to see the young prisoners".

It was doubtless because of this morbid appetite that on Thursday 18 April, before dawn, the two boys had been taken under police guard in a locked compartment on the 4.25am mail train via Crewe to Chester, 40 miles away. With the change at Crewe, the journey, now 20 minutes, would have taken just under five hours.

Chester Castle served both as the Court for Quarter Sessions and Assizes, and as the county prison, with a male and female wing, and an infirmary.

No remand wing is indicated in the records, nor do they show us where the many child or juvenile prisoners were kept. It is probable, however, that as the boys were to be there until 8 August, and because, as we already know, they were at odds with each other even before the first week was out, they would have been kept apart, either in the infirmary, or in the female wing.

"PRISONERS at the bar," said the judge, and the two boys, nudged by the police officers next to them, jumped to their feet, the tops of their heads now just above the front rail of the dock.

It was 10.10pm on 8 August, 1861: the court had listened to the case since nine that morning. All the evidence that had been presented to the coroner's court in Stockport four months earlier had been heard. Members of the public had been seen drying their tears when Constable Morley repeated his interrogation of the boys, and their admission of the deed; defence counsel, Mr Morgan Lloyd, had pointed out to the jury the extreme youth of the prisoners - "mere babies themselves, who could not have known the crime they committed".

The judge, in his summing up, made it very clear, as judges often do, what he expected from the jury: they must first satisfy themselves that the prisoners were capable of discerning between right and wrong.

If so, they would have to decide whether they knew the effect of the act they were committing; if they did not, then the presumption of malice would be rebutted and the crime reduced from murder to manslaughter. He could not help expressing his opinion, he said, that it seemed straining the case to charge such young children with the crime of wilful murder...

The jury had retired at about 9.45pm and returned after less than 15 minutes with a verdict of manslaughter.

 Sir Charles Compton told them that he entirely agreed with their verdict.

"The prisoners," he said, "will be sent to the Reformatory at Bradwall from whose excellent manager I received a letter stating that although the boys were younger than the generality of those under his care, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he would have great pleasure in taking them and in looking after their future welfare.

 They will therefore be removed from their bad companions in Stockport; they will be taught better things and will have a chance of becoming better boys. If they behave themselves properly there, Government might dismiss them before the full period of the sentence I am about to pass upon them expires."

The boys had been laughing and joking before the jury returned, and while the judge addressed the jury, looked repeatedly at each other, clearly not understanding what the words and sentences meant. As the judge finished, Peter Barratt was seen to wink at his companion who, however, had quite soon begun to cry.

"I am afraid," the judge then said, leaning down from his throned seat as they stood before him, "you have been very wicked, naughty boys, and I have no doubt you have caused the death of this little boy by the brutal way in which you used him.

I am going to send you to a place where you will have an opportunity of becoming good boys, for there you will have a chance of being brought up in a way you should be, and I doubt not but that in time, when you come to understand the nature of the crime you have committed, you will repent of what you have done.

The sentence is," he went on, "that each of you be imprisoned and kept in gaol for one month, and at the expiration of that period you be sent to a Reformatory for five years."

As the boys, now both crying, were removed, there were loud acclamations from the public testifying to their approval of the verdict and the sentence. The noise only stopped when the judge came to his feet, bowed to the jury, and then, after acknowledging the deep bows of the court, slowly walked out. It was 10.20pm.

What was different for the families of both these boys in 1861 (compared to the treatment of the families of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables in 1993), was that after the murder of little George Burgess, and the trial and imprisonment of their boys, they were able to stay on in Stockport, in their homes, and in their jobs.

 It would seem to underline the comparative moral stability of society then - in the sense that good and evil were firmly established in people's minds - that it was believed that if a child had been "evil" ("moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil", as it stated in the coroner's inquisition), then he could be helped, in time, to become "good".

There was hope. And because the blame was put on an outside agent, ie the devil, the children would not be condemned forever, and the parents could be absolved from any responsibility.

The record does not inform us of how the two eight-year-olds passed their month in prison.

 But in 1860, the Home Office, under public pressure, particularly from women's groups who had become aware of the abuse young boys and girls were suffering in common cells with adults, had established a ruling that all child prisoners, of whom there were many, were to be kept in individual cells, throughout their period of incarceration.

 Given this rule, and the anger the two Stockport boys had shown towards each other almost from the start, we can presume that they continued to be kept strictly apart.

 This was confirmed by the discovery among the Home Office records at the Public Record Office in Kew, of the Admission and Register file of the Bradwall Reformatory - renamed some years later the Saltersford Boys School. The register made no mention of Peter Henry Barratt: it had manifestly been decided to separate the boys for good.

However, it records quite clearly that "James Bradley: 8 1/2 years old, height 3ft 91/2 ins, who could neither read or write", was convicted of manslaughter at the Chester Assizes of August 1861 to one month's imprisonment and five years at Reformatory; that he had had no previous conviction; that his parents were John Bradley, Barlow Row, Hillgate, Stockport, Hatter, earning 20 shillings per week, and Elizabeth, Hat Trimmer, contributing 1/6d per week, with two other children, the older earning 2/6 per week; and that he was admitted to Bradwall on 2 September 1861 and discharged "on license, 28 January 1866". "Term expired," the form adds, "2nd September 1866".

In another Home Office volume we found the explanation for his release, six months early, in a reply from the Home Secretary to GW Latham Esq, Bradwall Hall, dated 29 January 1866: "Sir J. Grey [the Home Secretary]," it said, "having considered your application for the release of James Bradley from Bradwall Reformatory School, I am directed to acquaint you that having regard to the serious nature of the offence of which this lad was convicted, he thinks it would not be right to remit any portion of the sentence passed upon him by the court. Signed J.G. Baring."

This letter, given the post of that time, will have arrived in the postal town of Sandbach, Cheshire, two miles from Bradwall, in the first days of February - by which time, James Bradley, now just under 13, had evidently already been released on the authority of George Latham, founder and manager of Bradwall Reformatory.

George William Latham, Lord of the Manor of Bradwall Hall and the 2,104 acres of the village and township of Bradwall (291 inhabitants), was a remarkable man and pioneer in the treatment of difficult boys. In 1855, assisted by subscriptions of the neighbouring nobility, he founded the Bradwall Reformatory School which for many years afterwards, with Latham himself as the manager, was to rank as the most enlightened and successful institution of its kind in the country.

Intended for the accommodation of 60 boys over the age of 11 referred by the courts (James Bradley, at eight, was to be the only exception to the age rule), their acceptance at the Manager's discretion, Bradwall was built at a cost of £255.10/2d and staffed by a superintendent and four qualified teachers. With the approval of the government and under the benevolent surveillance of HM Inspectors of Reformatory Schools, it opened on 10 December 1855.

George Latham's ideas, which must sound increasingly attractive to the educators of difficult children today, were, above all, to create for children who had largely lived in chaos and a degree of violence, a moral framework and a structure of hard physical work and basic academic learning.

Toward this purpose, adequately clothed and well fed, they rose at 6am and were in bed by 9pm. They were housed in large dormitories and all employed in the cultivation of the land. They were taught draining, hedging, ditching, but equally could learn any additional skill they found liking for. They learnt to cook and clean, did physical exercises every evening after work and attended family worship before breakfast, after supper and at the parish church on Sundays. All boys had three hours of secular and religious instruction daily, learning first to read, write, spell and count, with more advanced subjects available to them when and if they desired. A "News and Reading-Room" was also open to the boys.

Beating was forbidden, although "moderate Personal Correction" was allowed.

All punishments had to be entered in a punishment book. If punishment was confinement in a separate room or cell, no boy was to be given less than 1lb of bread a day and in case of cold weather one hot meal.

If a boy's offence merited more than three days' punishment, he had to have exercise every day, be allowed a minimum of 11/2lbs of bread and gruel, milk and water.

If a boy was confined for more than seven days, he had to be visited by the medical officer of the school every day. Parents and relations were allowed to visit the boys at pre-arranged hours any day of the week except Sunday, and boys, if they had proved reliable, were given leave to visit home. Boys received rewards and wages for work well done, the money credited to them and held for them until their discharge, at which point "places" (jobs) were provided for them "if their conduct deserved it".

Even the most enlightened and benevolent penal institution will not succeed in preventing all its inmates from returning to a life of crime, but Home Office statistics from early this century attest to the fact that, in contrast to most reformatories in the country, 60 per cent of boys detained at Bradwall had made good later. There are many letters of thanks on record from former boys to George Latham.

While we thus know how James Bradley spent his five years' sentence (reduced to four and a half), Peter Henry Barratt proved far more difficult to track down.

After a long search through the Home Office files of communications with Inspectors for Institutions, however, under the date 10 December 1861, we found a mention of his name, when a (or the) Senior Inspector, the Reverend Sidney Turner, sent a brief note to the Home Secretary: "Peter Hy. Barratt. Recommend transfer to Warwickshire Reformatory."

Although it doesn't tell us where Peter Henry would be transferred from, nor why, and we could find no descriptions of this institution and only one document from it, it is probable that the "Warwickshire Weston Colony" (as the reformatory was called), like most penal institutions at the time, was larger and very different from the pioneering Bradwall. (It would later become an insane asylum.)

The Warwick Record Office did find an account book for the period, but all it said was that there were "three admissions between December 1861 and the end of 1862"; it gave no names. What the records do tell us is that many boys, upon release from that institution, were "transported" to Australia or Canada.

Is it possible they would have shipped a 13-year-old? I asked Christopher Jeen, the head of the Warwick Record Office. "Judging from these records," he said, "yes, if the parents agreed. They might have sent him to Canada to work."

Certainly Peter Henry Barratt didn't appear on any subsequent Cheshire or Warwickshire census records, Post Office lists or rate books, and we can only speculate on his fate after his release at 13.

IN THE WEEK after the sentencing of the two boys at Chester Assizes, both local and national newspapers carried cogent and enlightened editorials. Written before the advent of psychiatry or child psychology, and at a time when the acceptance of innate evil was deeply engrained, they made perfectly good psychological and sociological arguments

The Chester Standard reminded its readers of deficiences in society which, its editorial writer felt, contributed to such crimes: "We must remember [that these boys] are only in a wild degree what all our boys would be without religion or education . . ."

The Times leader on 10 August argues that children of that age cannot be held legally accountable in the same way as adults. "What is the reason then," the leader writer asks, "why it should have been absurd and monstrous that these two children should have been treated like murderers?... As far as it went [their conscience] was a sound and a genuine a conscience as that of a grown man: it told them that what they were doing was wrong . . . [But] conscience, like other natural faculties, admits of degrees: it is weak, and has not arrived at its proper growth in children, though it has a real existence and a voice within them; it does not speak with that force and seriousness which justifies us in treating the child as a legally responsible being."

What these two writers said in 1861 has been said many times since.

Today, when our education system is failing to reach a huge number of the most vulnerable children; when the waning of religious influence has weakened the moral framework of our lives; and when our children need more discipline, less entertainment and much more time with their parents, we too have to ask ourselves how much deficiencies in our society have contributed to the similar cases we have witnessed. And we, too, are questioning the wisdom of the law.

For nothing has happened in Britain to change the judicial system as it applies to children who kill.

Whereas in Europe and much of the United States, such cases are judged in Family Courts under the guidance of psychologists and with strict provisions protecting the child's anonymity, children in Britain accused of murder, though their names are frequently withheld, are tried in the full panoply of the High Court with all the attendant publicity.

 The final outrage of this system is that their minimum sentence is decided not by the court which heard the case, but by a politician, the Home Secretary of the day.

In the latest of these cases, the murder of James Bulger, some members of the British and American legal community were so outraged by Michael Howard's decision on a minimum sentence of 15 years for Jon Venables and Robert Thompson - which would keep them in prison until they are 26 before they can even be considered for parole - that an appeal was made to the European court.

 It seems a sad day if Britain cannot tasystem without pressure from responsibility for amending an antiquated part of its judicial

By far the majority of children who have been sentenced in Britain to indefinite periods of imprisonment for murder or manslaughter will never understand what they did, nor what was done to them.

In 1861, work and moral rectitude was the available answer to "invasion by the devil". At the end of the 20th century, we know that violence in children is mostly caused by violence to children, and we therefore believe in treatment.

We cannot know what happened within these Stockport families 130 years ago, but we do know today that if children commit violent crime, it is not only they who must receive treatment, but the environment that damaged them.

 Anything else is not only pointless but cruel; for it perpetuates both the circumstances which have caused the damage, and the child's uncomprehending feelings of guilt.

The fact of these cases is that children who kill have to be detained; they have to be treated; and they have to be taught.

Their detention, however (as we see by this example of 1861), needs to be limited in time so that they can retain hope. It has to have the purpose of giving them as much education as they can assimilate, practical skills which will equip them to make a living, and a sense of responsibility for themselves and towards others in their future lives.

THERE IS nothing in the records to indicate that either James Bradley or Peter Henry Barratt ever came back to Stockport.

 The 1864 postal register reports Peter Henry Barratt's father as having expanded his hairdressing establishment: he was now also a newsagent and photographer. And the rate books show him punctiliously paying increasing rates until 1867 (the year after Peter Henry's release?), when he begins to be in arrears. In 1870, he disappeared from all Stockport records and neither he, nor his wife Mary, figures on the 1871 census, although their two daughters, Mary and Emma, do, both as "boarders" - Mary as a 13-year-old cotton weaver and 17-year-old Emma as a general servant.

By 1876, we find James Bradley's oldest brother, Joseph, now 25, married to a Stockport girl called Mary Anne, living in Aveston in Warwickshire, another hatters' town, with their two children. (Could they have taken in Joseph's younger brother for a while upon his release?)

 But by the 1881 census, they are back in Stockport, and Joseph's mother, Eliza, now 58, is recorded as head of the household. Also living with her is Ellis, 20, and a 17-year-old daughter, another Eliza. In 1883, Ellis married 21-year-old Mary Ludlow and by 1891 they had three children, Ellen, five, Arthur, three, and Annie, two. Eliza Bradley died in 1901, and in 1903 we find the record of her estranged husband John's death, aged 78, at the Union Workhouse.

Ellis Bradley, the last of James Bradley's siblings, died on 16 October 1925. Among the list of those who attended, or sent flowers to, his funeral at Stockport Borough Cemetery, are many familiar names from the records. But one stands out: a floral tribute from "Nellie, Jim, Edward, and their families". Not one of these names is traceable in the Stockport records between 1861 and Ellis Bradley's death.

Perhaps it was another Jim, who married a girl called Nellie and had a child called Edward.

 But I would like to think it was James Bradley, now aged 72, and that, as the Judge hoped in 1861, and as we were led to believe by Mr George Latham's request for his early release in January 1866, he became a good boy, and a good man.

! The author wishes to thank Roz Lathbury, David Reed, and particularly Barbara Chadwick, without whose help at the Heritage Library in Stockport this story could not have been written.