Lockheed Martin

Henrietta McPhee wrote:

This is one reason why I have my doubts and very little confidence in Lockheed Martin Security. This is from a FreeRepublic.com website article:
"Lockheed Martin is the "new and improved" version of Lockheed after buying up Martin Marietta, combining two of what were among the nation's (and world's) biggest defense contractors. Lockheed in the 70's, as described by Jonathan Vankin in The Big Book of Scandal, was a "a company that sold billions of dollars in weapons every year, while covertly functioning as one of the world's largest organized crime syndicates." As Tom Jones (chair of smaller rival Northrop Corp, not the Las Vegas lounge singer) admitted, "Sure, we bribed people. We were just following Lockheed's business model." Lockheed chairman Dan Haughton replied, "We prefer to call them 'kickbacks'."
Among the fine agents (or, in Lockheed's code, "locust") for Lockheed was their Middle Eastern representative, Syrian arms merchant and CIA asset Adnan Khashoggi, chum of Ollie North, major player in the Iran-Contra scandal, and cousin of Dodi Fayed, soon-to-be husband of Lady Diana before their little "car accident". Officially, Khashoggi earned $106 million in Lockheed "commissions" for his work, though knowing the arms business, that may be an understatement.
Lockheed's locust for Japan was Yoshio Kodama, a right-wing nationalist with strong ties to the Yakuza. Rather than being tried for war-crimes, the CIA got him off - and back into the corridor's of power.
Allegedly, Khashoggi funneled $1 million of his funds into Trickie Dick's re-election campaign.(As for Lockheed, officially, they were the only major corporation not shaken down for cash by Nixon's CREEP committee.) On September 1, 1972, Nixon met in private with Japan's Prime Minister, Kakuei Tanaka. Three days later, Japan began buying $1 billion in anti-submarine planes, and soon after All-Nippon Airways ordered $400 million in Lockheed Tristar Passenger Jets. Kodama began receiving crates of yen.
In the mid-70's, a congressional committee led by Frank Church began investigating Lockheed's shady practices. When the committee subpoenaed Lockheed Treasurer Robert Waters, he "committed suicide". Kodama, meanwhile, suffered a stroke, and while bedridden, ultra-nationalist Mitsuyasu Maeno commandeered a plane and crashed kamikaze style in his home. Maeno's motivation was alleged outrage that his hero had shamed the nation.(No word if Maeno was clutching Catcher in the Rye.)
Despite even admittance of criminal activity, Lockheed walked. And walked profitably, winning the Stealth Fighter contract, the most expensive plane at the time, in the 80's. And yet, despite evading any punishment for their blatant crimes, we are supposed to chalk this up as history, that Lockheed, shamed by their illegal activities, stopped them all by their lonesome selves.
Uh huh. Sure."

Thats a great article. Which leads me back to the question. Why was LM so interested in a small computer reseller like AG's and its not ready for prime time VP John Ramsey?

I think there's something distinctly odd and highly suspicious in the way Lockheed Martin and the FBI said they just "knew" the Ramsey ransom note was a hoax.

The Ramseys certainly didn't know the ransom note was a hoax. Neither did former Boulder cop Linda Arndt. She coached John Ramsey on the 26th December 1996 as to what he should say if the kidnappers rang the Ramsey home in Boulder.

I also don't like the way the lawyer Norm Early seems so anti-Ramsey at the moment. Norm Early was mentioned in this recent anti-Patsy Ramsey article in the Globe, along with others like Dr Henry Lee, and Dr Steven Pitt. Norm Early almost seems to have a vested interest in blaming the Ramseys for JonBenet's murder.

I think it's absolutlely outrageous if the Ramseys lost their precious daughter just because her horrible murder could be covered up by those responsible for her death, like Lockheed Martin, Norm Early, the FBI, the American government and the American media.

Professor Donald Freed had some words to say about this matter in a radio interview a few years ago:

"And then if you think that you want to be reassured that the Grand Jury is questioning the appropriate executives of Lockheed Martin and the FBI, then you know you can certainly write to the district attorney, because Mr. Michael Kane and others are very serious grand jury attorneys, I'm told. I think that you should and could write to them.

I must tell you finally that Norm Early who had been the district attorney of Denver and was the vice-president of Lockheed Martin Security at the time of the murder of JonBenet. I interviewed him at the time. He's a fascinating man---- extremely intelligent. And he said to me finally, "You know I had a six year-old son and we have a security protocol and that letter threatened other executives. Where was the security? Where were the bodyguards? Where was the protocol? Where was the alert; the drill; the routine; the regimen that we so carefully shared and worked on at Lockheed Martin? Not a word. Not a sound. Not a telephone call."

So, he began to call executives and lawyers and others and said, "Why wasn't my family alerted? What happened?" And they said to him, "Well, there was no threat" And he said, "How do you know that?" They said, "Well, I don't know. We just knew". And he said, "Well, think about it and I want an answer!"

The next day he talked to some of these people and reported to me that they said, "You know we stayed awake all night wrestling with the question----agonizing with it. And you know you're right. How did we know that the (ransom note) was a hoax immediately? We might have known it in a day or two, or a week or two. But how do we know until this day?

To this day there has been no arrest. To this day we know that there was a murder and that there was a note left stating that foreign agents were involved."

I'm sorry to bring up the subject of Lockheed Martin again. I don't suppose there all that many people on this forum who are all that interested in it.

I'm still a bit mystified about why former Lockheed Martin executive lawyer Norm Early is so anti-Ramsey.

I was interested to learn recently that the Denver lawyer Dan Hoffman had represented Lockheed Martin in the past. He was somehow made a consultant to the Boulder police in their attempt to put the innocent Ramseys in prison. I suppose he's no relation to the New York lawyer Darnay Hoffman?

Quite frankly, I suspect Lockheed Martin are mixed up in JonBenet's murder somehow. Lockheed Martin Security did nothing with regard to the JonBenet murder investigation. Why? John Ramsey was still a top executive in the Lockheed Group at the time.

The former poster on this Topix forum, Bricoleur, was a bit of an expert on this Lockheed Martin matter but stopped posting a few months ago. Bricoleur knew a bit about that woman who also posted on this forum who suspected her former husband from Lockheed, now living in England, of being connected to JonBenet's murder, and other murders.

I hope Bricoleur isn't now too badly scared to post on the JonBenet forums.

This is how thoroughly the Boulder police investigated a possible connection between Fleet White and Lockheed Martin and JonBenet's murder. From a Rocky Mountain News article, August 2006:

"Responding Thursday, DeMuth said Beckner doesn't know how the initial investigation went because he wasn't assigned to the case until about nine months had passed. And regardless of how many notebooks are in the evidence room, DeMuth said Beckner told him early on that detectives didn't want to hear any more about an intruder committing the crime.

"I'm only telling the truth about what happened during the course of the investigation," DeMuth said. "I'm not seeking to criticize anybody. I'm just sharing information about what happened."

On Thursday, after the Rocky Mountain News published a lengthy interview detailing DeMuth's allegations that he was hamstrung by the department, three Denver attorneys who helped Boulder police during their investigation issued a written response condemning the claims.

"If Mr. DeMuth truly cares about seeing justice done, he should act responsibly and refrain from making inaccurate statements that could further jeopardize this investigation," said the statement, from Dan Hoffman, Robert Miller and Richard Baer.

But DA investigator Lou Smit said DeMuth is telling the truth.

"Mark Beckner made this statement that the Ramseys were the only ones under the umbrella of suspicion, and we didn't agree with that," Smit said. "I don't criticize any member of Boulder Police Department, but I do criticize the direction they took and the devastation it had on the Ramsey family."

Henrietta McPhee wrote:

The Ramseys certainly didn't know the ransom note was a hoax.

I think it is quite obvious the Ramseys knew the note meant nothing. They had no qualms about calling friends to come over even though they had been warned that their daughter would be beheaded if they did so. No one would have taken that chance if that had been a legitimate ransom note. IMHO

Patricia Fox wrote:

<quoted text> I think it is quite obvious the Ramseys knew the note meant nothing. They had no qualms about calling friends to come over even though they had been warned that their daughter would be beheaded if they did so. No one would have taken that chance if that had been a legitimate ransom note. IMHO

Right Patricia, and that's why they claimed not to have read it in it's entirety. Too busy running around abit in their underwear and making phone calls to actually READ it and 'know' not to call cops, two couples and a preacher.'Oops! She dies! If only we'd read that darn thing!'

Kimberly wrote:

<quoted text>
Right Patricia, and that's why they claimed not to have read it in it's entirety. Too busy running around abit in their underwear and making phone calls to actually READ it and 'know' not to call cops, two couples and a preacher.'Oops! She dies! If only we'd read that darn thing!'

Oops, is right. As the ransom note was addressed to John and he had two daughters, I have always wondered why Patsy upon reading, "As of this time we have your daughter in our possession." has never mentioned at any time that the thought ever crossed her mind that it could have been Melinda that had been kidnapped.

Kimberly wrote:

<quoted text>
Right Patricia, and that's why they claimed not to have read it in it's entirety. Too busy running around abit in their underwear and making phone calls to actually READ it and 'know' not to call cops, two couples and a preacher.'Oops! She dies! If only we'd read that darn thing!'

Kidnappers always write that and don`t expect you to follow directions because most people call the police anyway and 75% of the time if you pay you get your kid back. Follow the directions or she dies. Yah well my new matress tag says removal of this tag is violation of state law. Kidnappers expect you to call the police and the Ramseys did that, but SO WHAT WHY GO ON AND ON ABOUT IT FOR YEARS because THE KID WAS ALREADY DEAD SO WHAT DOES IT MATTER. I think if she had been still alive and if they hadn`t called the police they`d have run more risk of her dying. Even when they pay the ransom 25% of the time they don`t get their kid back alive.

Patricia Fox wrote:

<quoted text> Oops, is right. As the ransom note was addressed to John and he had two daughters, I have always wondered why Patsy upon reading, "As of this time we have your daughter in our possession." has never mentioned at any time that the thought ever crossed her mind that it could have been Melinda that had been kidnapped.

Excellent point! And, nowhere in their retelling do either of them have Patsy questioning John.It's as though she thought it perfectly logical that they should be victims of a kidnapping and she plunked herself in the kitchen and started dialing. Not once did they mention Patsy questioning the insanity of a kidnapping. Nothing about Patsy looking further than JB's doorway!
What woman wouldn't ask their spouse to explain their dealings with people like these? Ask why they only want 118k? What 'bussiness', what country, who who who?!?
What woman would passively sit there and not pour over the note again and again? Patsy! She accepted the idea before she called 911, no questions asked.
Operator..."this is 911. What is your problem?"
Patsy Ramsey..."we have a kidnapping".

that is a very good point PF about 2 daughters...JonBenet's name was never mentioned in that note....

Kimberly wrote:

<quoted text>
Excellent point! And, nowhere in their retelling do either of them have Patsy questioning John.It's as though she thought it perfectly logical that they should be victims of a kidnapping and she plunked herself in the kitchen and started dialing. Not once did they mention Patsy questioning the insanity of a kidnapping. Nothing about Patsy looking further than JB's doorway!
What woman wouldn't ask their spouse to explain their dealings with people like these? Ask why they only want 118k? What 'bussiness', what country, who who who?!?
What woman would passively sit there and not pour over the note again and again? Patsy! She accepted the idea before she called 911, no questions asked.
Operator..."this is 911. What is your problem?"
Patsy Ramsey..."we have a kidnapping".

Those are outstanding observations.. It would be something that you would automatically do...What do you think this could be about? What's going on, do you think? Questions you would definitely ask of your spouse. And certainly by the time of the 911 call, you would know that note backwards and forwards. Good deductions, Sherlock.

Patricia Fox wrote:

<quoted text>Those are outstanding observations.. It would be something that you would automatically do...What do you think this could be about? What's going on, do you think? Questions you would definitely ask of your spouse. And certainly by the time of the 911 call, you would know that note backwards and forwards. Good deductions, Sherlock.

LOL Sherlock! I don't know about that, I just know myself and myself would DEFINITELY ask questions. I'd be mad at my husband for sure, since the letter's addressed to him and about his business. He would HAVE to know who it was with all those specifics (118k, Southern sense, Fat Cat, etc.), or I'd browbeat him til he figured it out.
And *I* sure as HELL wouldn't be the one to call 911! If he's calmer, he's calling.
So, who's scathingly brilliant idea was it to call in the "Russian Army" of guests, do you suppose?

Kimberly wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL Sherlock! I don't know about that, I just know myself and myself would DEFINITELY ask questions. I'd be mad at my husband for sure, since the letter's addressed to him and about his business. He would HAVE to know who it was with all those specifics (118k, Southern sense, Fat Cat, etc.), or I'd browbeat him til he figured it out.
And *I* sure as HELL wouldn't be the one to call 911! If he's calmer, he's calling.
So, who's scathingly brilliant idea was it to call in the "Russian Army" of guests, do you suppose?

I don't actually know whose idea it was to call in friends. I can't remember of all the books I have read on the case if either one, John or Patsy, wants to take credit for that.

I am constantly going back to all of these books I have on the case and researching things my memory is a little shady on.

Patricia Fox wrote:

<quoted text> I don't actually know whose idea it was to call in friends. I can't remember of all the books I have read on the case if either one, John or Patsy, wants to take credit for that.
I am constantly going back to all of these books I have on the case and researching things my memory is a little shady on.

I believe Patsy took credit, but what does that mean? She gave a breathtaking description of being in a state of near collapse, grasping for the reciever..."come quick!"
But, there's no dialogue in any of the books between Patsy and John where John expresses surprise at the guests arrival! Nothing in there that has John asking Fernie, "what are you doing here?!", so it's safe to say John knew what his right hand was doing;)

Kimberly wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe Patsy took credit, but what does that mean? She gave a breathtaking description of being in a state of near collapse, grasping for the reciever..."come quick!"
But, there's no dialogue in any of the books between Patsy and John where John expresses surprise at the guests arrival! Nothing in there that has John asking Fernie, "what are you doing here?!", so it's safe to say John knew what his right hand was doing;)

You're right. I just pulled out my Death of Innocence book and Patsy says she just thinks, "she has to have someone here. I dial the Fernie's number".. Gee, it does seem she would have at least asked John...Isn't it amazing that sometimes when you re-read something, you see it with NEW EYES...LOL..Thanks for calling that to my attention...You know no one would do that without asking the spouse...

Patricia Fox wrote:

<quoted text>You're right. I just pulled out my Death of Innocence book and Patsy says she just thinks, "she has to have someone here. I dial the Fernie's number".. Gee, it does seem she would have at least asked John...Isn't it amazing that sometimes when you re-read something, you see it with NEW EYES...LOL..Thanks for calling that to my attention...You know no one would do that without asking the spouse...

Right. And if Patsy did all that on her own, John's one cool customer to remain 'cordial' as they all filed in. I don't think there's anything out there about his first encounter with the guests.
When would Patsy have time to tell him, anyway? He claims he was upstairs looking under dust ruffles and putting on his Dockers, and the police arrived what? six minutes after the 911? Not much time to regain his composure if Patsy sprung it on him moments before the doorbell rang.(maybe that's why she was in tears when SHE answered the door? Maybe he said "I'll kill you TOO!"? lol)
She worked awful fast on that speed dial...who would think to call the minister? When did she call him? And when did he arrive, do you know?

Patsy says that after calling the Fernies she grabs the phone again from it's cradle, dialing the Whites this time. She does not mention calling Rev. Hoverstock..I have been back and forth tonight coloring with a young family member. Sorry, it is taking me so long to get back to check posts. I will check some of my other books afterwhile on when Hoverstock was called or who called him...I just can't remember at this time.

Patricia Fox wrote:

Patsy says that after calling the Fernies she grabs the phone again from it's cradle, dialing the Whites this time. She does not mention calling Rev. Hoverstock..I have been back and forth tonight coloring with a young family member. Sorry, it is taking me so long to get back to check posts. I will check some of my other books afterwhile on when Hoverstock was called or who called him...I just can't remember at this time.

Thanks PF, I'm back and forth too:D

It seems the FBI knew it was no kidnapping as soon as they saw the ransom note, or someone read it to them over the phone. I would think that LM security would have been in touch with the FBI and also known very soon that it was not a kidnapping for ransom by a small foreign faction.

Oops. Wrong place to post above. Mea culpa.

Oh, come on - does anyone really think that PR was afraid of JR and that is why she wanted friends around? For her own protection? No way.

Who would you call? Family. Well, they had none living there so she called friends. Momma Nedra was still in Atlanta - hours away. She needed some girl friends.

JR is a publically stoic man and the police were coming, he would maintain that reserve while others were present. She needed some emotional support and he was going to be handling matters.

It doesn't sound sinister to me.

Dots wrote:

Oops. Wrong place to post above. Mea culpa.
Oh, come on - does anyone really think that PR was afraid of JR and that is why she wanted friends around? For her own protection? No way.
Who would you call? Family. Well, they had none living there so she called friends. Momma Nedra was still in Atlanta - hours away. She needed some girl friends.
JR is a publically stoic man and the police were coming, he would maintain that reserve while others were present. She needed some emotional support and he was going to be handling matters.
It doesn't sound sinister to me.

Who said she called those people because she was afraid of JR? I didn't, Patricia didn't, and we're the only ones talking about it.
Emotional support? I always thought that's what husbands were for?!
And how pray tell did he handle 'matters'? He had HER call 911, and from there, the cops "handled matters". He handled the corpse and the crime scene, and that's about it.