PRESUMED GUILTY-Stephen Singular

you're free welcome bonus. That's Chumbuck Casino dot com and live the Chumba line nop necessary DVO wherever by lost in terms conditions eighteen plus.

twenty sixteen. Stephen Singulars ninety nine book about the murder of John Benay explored the realm of child exploitation and its connection to the crime. In August twenty sixteen, Singular released an updated edition of Presumed Guilty. Investigation of the John Beiney Ramsey Case, The Media and the Culture of Pornography on Amazon Kindle. It examines why the case still has him been solved and the most important developments over

the past seventeen years. Stephen will be interviewed by Sharp Entertainment for a lifetime documentary on the murder to be aired on Saturday evening, November five, twenty sixteen. This program will immediately follow a lifetime docudrama on the case. The nineteen ninety nine examination of the John Benet Ramsey case was the only book to suggest something other than the two conventional scenarios that one of the Ramseys killed the

child or an intruder did it. Presumed Guilty broaden the discussion to include the involvement of child pornography child exploitation surround the murder. The case remains a world class conundrum. The murder of John Benet is the only example in the annals of American homicide where a body and a ransom note were found in the same location. In the world of true crime, there is absolute truth and there is effective truth.

to this interview. Stephen Singular, thank you very much for having me. Dan. Thank you. This is of course on everyone's mind. It captivated the world back in nineteen ninety six, and it seems to have done it again on the twentieth anniversary, with every television station, network, news magazine, everybody included in this. But you were there back at that time, and you brought us this book, Presumed Guilty, and now

the new edition. I just spoke to you briefly before the program, and I alluded to it in the introduction. Tell us just a little bit again. You had mentioned that it wasn't so good for you, But tell us just a little bit before we get right into Presume Guilty. About that interview that I had mentioned in the introduction.

beyond the Ramsey family and beyond the intruder theory. So from my point of view, there was very little new information in that realm that came out of it, and it didn't. I think there's a bigger story here that hasn't been talked about very much. Almost all of these shows, and we've seen, you know, one rite after the other since early September, has basically focused on this paradigm that everyone knows either Ramseys did it or an intruder came

in the house and did it. And I suggested in the book in nineteen ninety nine that there's a whole lot of space in between those two things, that it doesn't have to be an either or a situation. And I took quite a bit of heat for that when I did it, and in trying to talk about the child pornography sort of the underbelly of the child beauty paget circuit and all of that. The book came out

in nineteen ninety nine. Just so people know, I was on an MSNBC show not long after it came out in the summer of ninety nine and I was at a studio in Denver. There was somebody else in Denver who was at another studio who was a columnist for the Denver Post, and he picked up the book and dropped it into a trash can on live national television.

That I'm not saying that to illicit sympathy. That didn't make any difference to me, But it shows you how difficult back then and to some extent today it has been for people even to consider an alternative idea. And this is an unsolved case, you know, it's not like we have the answers in front of us. So that's just an indication of the difficulty is sort of trying to break through the facade of this case and get underneath the surface.

to do something to penetrate this case. I mean, after all, to repeat myself, it's twenty years later, and in many ways the case, the case itself has never advanced one inch. Now there are developments around it that have advanced or should have advanced it, but it's just built for people to explore and to get involved in and to offer up their theories and to do all those things. We've been contacted by people from Oregon to Florida, to New York to Texas, I mean, and it's there's just and

internationally Australia, Europe. So yeah, there is interest in trying to figure out what happened.

two scenarios. Let's go back right to that December twenty sixth as you do to explain what was going on between with the scenario of the Boulder Police, the Denver Police Department, the FBI, everybody involved here. That created a compromised situation right from the very beginning as you talk about talk about December twenty sixth, but also talk about the reality of the situation with the police department, the FBI, Denver Police, and the DA all at the same time.

there weren't as many people there to work it. And everyone knows that mistakes were made at the very beginning the most outstanding mistake to me is and I felt that again watching the Lifetime show on Saturday, was that the police searched the house initially, which is what you're supposed to do. Why they would not have gone into every room is an absolute mystery to me, because they did not go into the so called wine cellar in the basement where the body was found about six or

seven hours later. So you know, if that had happened, you would have had a much more pristine situation there. In terms of evidence. People are calling it a crime scene. I'm not going to use that for reasons it might become clear later on, but so that was one angle of it. The district Attorney, Alex Hunter was in Hawaii when this happened, on vacation over the holiday season, so he wasn't there to sort of help manage it, which

was another problem. But what to really go back to what you were saying about my involvement and my wife's involvement, is that in the first weeks of January nineteen ninety seven, which is to say, a couple of weeks after the body was found, we were invited to go to a television station in Denver where a reporter had told us that a hacker was going to be doing some things on a computer that evening, and so we went there. And everyone has to remember this is early nineteen ninety seven.

The Internet is quite young. It's very young in terms of law enforcements, sort of understanding how crimes would be committed using the Internet, all kinds of crime. So what we saw that evening was absolutely shocking. This guy took us into child pornography sites, sites where there were video and stills of children who were tied up, children who had things around their wrists, around their necks. As we know when you look at the crime scene with John Manay,

that's exactly what you saw. You saw something around her neck and her wrist. You saw that she had been strangled, and this was by far the most evocative thing visually that connected to the crime. And then you had the realization that all of these people who were engaged in these activities were hooked up with one another via the Internet. So the chances of getting caught doing it and all of that that had been relevant to child pornography investigations

earlier didn't apply in this realm. The band doing the hacking typed in the word John Benet. There was a feeding frenzy of people just pouring in saying, I want pictures of her, I want pictures of her that are nude or riskuay, I want pictures of her when she's dead, I mean. And it was absolutely a revelation to me because I didn't know all of these things that were going on. And these were kids, girls who were five, six,

seven years old, the same age as John Manett. So you sort of file that away and go wealth would there be any connection whatsoever between this death and Boulder and this kind of exploitation through visual images. I just sort of let it ride, you know, right there. But we began talking to pageant mothers at that in this area right after that, and they told us the same

story over and over again. And the story was about John Benet's primary pageant photographer, who they all knew well, they all had long standing relationship with, and they all thought he was a good guy. In the aftermath of the murder, he called them all up in the middle of the night. He was screaming, he was crying, he was saying, I did not kill John Benet. I did not kill John Binet. And nobody could figure out why he was behaving this way, because you know, he wasn't

being looked at as a suspect. So we gathered information from the pageant mothers who told us that these pageants did draw in shady characters. There were judges, there were photographers, there were others who were considered dangerous and they should not be there, and in various cases they were told to leave the premises. I mean, it is sort of a natural magnet for people who are interested in that

sort of thing. So we had gathered quite a lot of information, and one hundred days went by there wasn't arrest in the case. Every week, every day on talk radio, there will be an arrest today, one of the Ramsy'll be arrested. Nothing happened. So I had observed Alex Hunter, the district attorney, through his various television appearances and all that, and I thought he seemed like an interesting man, like thoughtful and not exactly the image of the hard nosed

district attorney. So I decided to call him and we had a conversation and he said, come on into my office and let's discuss all of this. So I told him the story that I've just laid out here, and I think he was very taken with it and realized that the Bolder police, as most everyone knows, were fixated right on the Ramsey family and there was this much broader, potential criminal area around the child that really wasn't being looked at. He didn't know anything about this photographer, he

didn't know what the pageant others were saying. He was unaware of that whole thing, and the Boulder police had not really looked into it either. So that was really the starting place of basically asking the question, is this case about something more than a mother killing her child because she wets the bed.

how you've come to this. If we don't explain this, how you come to this conclusion of this third scenario where it can't it doesn't have to be that the Ramseys were completely guilty, and it doesn't have to be that the intruder was completely guilty without the Ramseys being with the Ramsays being completely innocent. So tell us what exactly was found at that crime scene that also led you alluded to a little bit in that terms of the photos that you saw that were related and connected.

It seemed to the kind the kind of staging that John Benay had been posed under.

very evident. There are pictures of her taken about four o'clock in the afternoon on Christmas Day where she's sitting in her living room and you have a very clear view of that side of her neck. And then if you look at the autopsy photo which was taken the following day, there are two very prominent burn marks that people who know a lot more about this than I do have identified as the result of a stun gun. There's no sourcing of a stun gun in the house.

And then you get to the DNA evidence, which has taken a long time to develop in his historian and of itself. The one piece of information that came out of the Lifetime show in a very clear way for me was that we know that there was DNA left in the child's pants and that and that there are a couple of samples of that. The argument against that is that is that belonging to the perpetrator, is that that could have just come there in the manufacturing of

the underpants. Some worker in Asia just leaves their DNA

in there and then you find it. So that's been kicked around a lot with the development of what they call touch DNA, which is a much more sophisticated form of DNA, which has been developed more in this you know, after two thousand, the articles of clothing were sent to what's called the Bode Laboratory and using touch DNA, they they reason that if you took off the child's long John's not are underpants but are long johns, that there would be something left around the you know, the seam

of the Long Johns on the child. So they look there and they found several examples of the same DNA that DNA matches what's in the underpants. The two things were manufactured in different locations. It's all consistent coming from one unidentified male source. I would suggest that's the extremely strong evidence of the person who was involved with the child that night. And we don't know who it belongs to,

so the perpetrator is unknown. But for me, it was a very clear explanation that you can't simply explain away all of this matching DNA from a manufacturing process, and I thought that was very important. So that's the crime scene that you're looking at. You have a number of things that cannot be tied to anything that's in that house. Then you have, you know, the ransom note. And the question I always had was, well, if an intruder did it, very basic question, why would you leave a body and

a ransom note? It just it doesn't make any sense. I mean, you'd leave the ransom note and take the kid, or you know, if you're going to kill a kid, you probably wouldn't leave a three page note. So on the surface told me is that this is a more complex case than it's generally being looked at. So, I mean, that's the sort of evidentiary part of it that the police and the District Attorney's office were confronted with right from the beginning, and that plays out, you know, as the case goes along.

And again you're not I'm going to ask you if you conclude something from that in that Patsy Ramsey did not know of that one hundred and eighteen thousand dollars bonus. So could you tell us about the content of the ransom note something? I mean, I brought it all kinds of handwriting analysis for.

little bit with the police department. I was suggesting, and I think I'm the only person who was suggesting that there is something in between the Ramseys being totally guilty and or the Ramseys being totally innocent because an intruder did this not a popular opinion at that time in nineteen ninety nine. In nineteen ninety eight, Alex Hunter asked a grand jury to sit down and look at all of the evidence in hear testimony. The grand jury sat

for thirteen months. That is an incredibly long period of time for a grand jury to do this kind of work. It's usually three or four days, you indict somebody and you move on to the next thing. So that alone was extraordinary. After the thirteen months, Alex Hunter came out and said, I'm not going to indict anybody, and I'm going to seal the eighteen page document that the grand jury produced, so we didn't know what was in those eighteen pages going forward. And my assumption, and I was

rather sympathetic to Alex Hunter. I dealt with him quite a lot. But my assumption was he might have or could have made the right decision by doing that. So fourteen years pass, it's twenty thirteen. October twenty thirteen, the Boulder Daily Camera sued the District Attorney's office it's now two district attorneys later, to get that document released. It's a public document, the public funds that public does have

the right to know. A judge ordered that four paragraphs out of the eighteen pages would be made public, just four paragraphs. Those paragraphs state very clearly that the Ramses were to be indicted according to the grand jury for two things. There are two counts counts foreign counts seven. The first one is that they exposed their daughter to the circumstances that led to her death child endangerment. The second one is that they helped cover up a crime,

not for murder. They were not or the grand jury, which had looked at the evidence for thirteen months, did not recommend that they be indicted for murder. So my point is that that is precisely in the middle of

total guilt or total innocence. The people who studied the case more than anybody, the people who had access to all the evidence, the people who heard testimony for thirteen months, effectively came to the same conclusion that I was talking about in nineteen ninety nine, that there's more here than two options. They gave that to the district attorney, Alex Hunter, and he chose not to take their work and indict their amsy parents. Looking back now from twenty thirteen, I

cannot understand why they were not indicted. What it tells me is that Boulder did not want to open up this case and all of the elements that we've been talking about to public scrutiny, and they just wanted to bury it because the thing was sealed. It was supposed to be sealed forever, and it was only a lawsuit that brought that to light. So now you have four paragraphs saying that both parents were indicted on those or were recommended to be indicted on those twoccounts. So here's

the next question. What's in the other fourteen pages? Is somebody else named in there? Are there other people involved in this, Why wasn't the whole document released? Again, if you just think about it from a common sense perspective, why would you ask a grand jury to go to all that trouble and then they come back and did exactly what they're supposed to do, and then you bury what they did. I'm suggesting that this is a bigger story than mom killing a kid for wedding the bed.

And I think if you look at Boulders response since then, or in and around the whole thing, you get exactly the same thing. They don't want to prosecute this. They don't want to go forward.

had won a pageant herself. So tell us about Pam Griffith and the entire exploration where you talk to photographers and find out about this incredible subculture.

the blue dress into the red dress. While that's going on, take a picture, and you have something you can sell. And believe me, going into that room with that hacker, you totally understood that there were people offering money for the photographs. There were people offering money for pictures that or offering pictures of their own children in exchange for photographs.

And it was this marketplace that was flourishing underground. So she was very important in talking about the kinds of characters who came around the pageant world that they had to get rid of. She had confrontations with several people and told them that you know, they just they couldn't be there around the children and kind of opened up that doorway and Patsy was confided in her the day after the body was found. It's a very dramatic scene.

It's December twenty seventh, nineteen ninety six. The body was found the day before. The Ramses were not staying in that house and had to go over and stay with a friend, some friends, and Patsy and Pam were together all day long, and Patsy kept saying, why did they do this to my child? Why did they do it to my child as opposed to anyone else? And it was We interviewed Pam nineteen years after the initial interview with her, and she was even more revealing about some

of the things that were said that day. I'm not at liberty for a variety of reasons to talk about that right now, but there is an ongoing investigation into some of that. So she was a very critical person with Patsy at that time. The important part of that is that she was interviewed by the police and by the grand jury. And I don't know what went on in the grand jury because that secret, but she was interviewed by the police. They never asked her about the

pageant world. They never asked her about pedophiles or photographers or any of that. The only thing they were interested in was if Patsy was an abusive mother and did she know did she abuse her children? And so it was extremely interesting to me that all of this information that we've sort of extracted from her, I think could have been used by the Boulder police to interview a lot of people and to learn a lot more about the culture that John Manay was operating in, and they

never did it. And again, it's the same thing. Let's restrict this to one family, one person and narrow it down to that. That would be fine if the case had been solved, But obviously the case has never been solved and it's never advanced. And I think if you look at the behavior of Alex Hunter, which I just described, and then in two thousand and eight, another district attorney, Mary Lacy, looked at that new DNA evidence that we just talked about, and she publicly cleared the Ramseys of

committing the murder. Why is that strange and unusual? The Ramseys were not to be indicted for murder, That was never the charge that was on the table. It amazes me that you can have one show after another on television, as we've seen CBS, all the big names, and they're not talking about what has actually happened here, that the Ramseys were in fact indicted for something other than murder, or were to be indicted, and the two district attorneys have gone out of their way to bury that to

get rid of it. Why what's the motivation behind that? I would suggest that there were people in Bolder, some of them in fairly high up places, who were involved in these kinds of illicit activities with children. We know of one or two. We know someone in particular who was very high up in the polar power structure who left town after this case, moved abroad. We know of another gentleman who did the same thing. He didn't leave

the country, but he left the state. And there's all kinds of evidence that more was going on around the child and around other children in Bolder involving these kinds of activities. And I think that what happened here is that something went terribly drastically wrong and it had to be covered up. And that's exactly what the grand jury said that the Ramsays participated in the cover.

to see the sexualization of these children. But also that you talk about there being smile coaches and makeup and push up bras or to make these children look like they had cleavage, and John Benay and Patsy whether Patsy was deluded in her quest to get her daughter to be this Miss America that she never became. You also talk about Patty Griffiths talking or pardon me, another woman talking about this particular photographer asking for her daughter to

pose nude. So tell us a little bit more about these.

I mean the children are being sexualized. The children, all the things you talked about died, heir teeth, eyes, push up raws, the whole bit. And guests who would be attracted to that kind of thing, well, people who are illicitly attracted for sexual per This is the children. And again to sort of point out the obvious here, but it hasn't been obvious in this case, is that there was no criminal history of any kind whatsoever within the

Ramsey family. There wasn't one example where somebody came forward and said, I saw Patsy hit John Binney, I saw Patsy yell at John Binney or Burke or anyone in the family. None of it existed. I've written three books about women who've committed murders, and in every case there's a pathology behind the crime that eventually surfaces in one way or another, and you learn that people are either through mental problems or pressures of a different kind, or

whatever it comes out. There's a logic behind why a woman goes and kills somebody. None of it applies in this case. Absolutely none of it, And so the next question becomes, what is the criminal activity surrounding this case? Where's the natural place to look, and that is in the kinds of people who would be attracted to a childlike John Maina in the pageant world, in the world of photography, in the world in Boulder, where people were

doing illicit things with children. There are cases that were prosecuted, there are cases that were not prosecuted. Around this. There's a whole realm there that has effectively been ignored. And when it came right up to the edge of prosecuting this case and figuring out what happened, which the district attorney had not only the right, but the obligation to do, they backed off. They sealed the file and they said the public has no right to know any of this.

The public spent two million dollars on the John Bine Ramsey investigator. That's in the earth years. I don't know what it is since then, but in the first two to three years. I suggest that public has the right to know in this particular case, because I'm suggesting that other children were exposed to the same thing, and maybe some of the same people, And that's the real story to me. At this point, not so much who killed her, I think the DNA would tell you that, But why

can't the case be solved? Why has there been a roadblock every single time someone has tried effectively to penetrate the case and solve it.

seems to look for. And then, like you say, when it seems like there might be a revelation or a breakthrough, their silence rod telling me how you found out about something that I found was the most horrific part of this book. A thing to imagine is mister White, John Ramsay's friend, the Christmas day that they spent over there, and then the rumor that you hear, the story that you hear about Santa Claus and a special meeting with John Benney right.

occurs on Christmas Night. There's a story where John and A and her family are at the White family on Christmas Night, and it's at the very end of the book and John and A tells her mother, I'm going to have a meeting with a secret Santa and Patty starts to question her about this, and John and A runs off and never never questions her about that again

because she's dead within the next few hours. So I believe that if you're looking for the source of the unidentified DNA, that this connection to a secret Santa Claus, and it's and again, I want to clarify for people who are familiar with the case, I'm not talking about the Santa Claus who came to the Ramsey's house on December twenty third of that year. Bill McReynolds. That's someone else. He was cleared by the police, and I think he

should have been. This is something else. She mentioned this to her mother, she mentioned this to the neighbor woman, and she mentioned it to a third person. And I believe that she was either went from that party to some other location where this crime went down, or perhaps she went home, as the official story is, and then she went somewhere else. I do not believe at all that the Ramses knew what was going on at that level.

I do not believe that. I think Patsy all of her behavior around the pageant stuff is innocent, but it's a type of innocence that can be extremely dangerous. And I think she was exposing her daughter to a lot of people and a lot of things that ultimately were dangerous. And so when people say Patsy Ramsey's guilty, that's what I believe she's guilty of. Pam Griffin was not like that. I won't leave my daughter alone with certain people. I will keep an eagle eye on her at all times.

I don't think Patsy operated that way. I think she was naive, she was trusting, and she had been in a pageant world which is probably more innocent when she was involved in it. But this is the nineteen nineties. There's the Internet, there's child exploitation, there's an underground, worldwide marketplace in this kind of photography, these kinds of images.

People are getting involved in this. One of the photographers around John and A subsequently said he was approached by child pornographers who wanted to use pictures of those children, you know, to create product essentially. And by then, one of the things that we heard repeatedly from pageant mothers is that, of course you can take the head of one of the pretty little girls, you can put it on another body, and you can sell that enimies. We were told that point blank by people who were involved

in this world in the late nineties. So all of this stuff was going on, and it was all swirling around John Binney and her family, and I believe that someone was became aware of her through these circumstances, became you know, that she was a pretty little girl. She was a natural target for predators. And I believe that she attended some event that went horribly wrong. I think it probably involved prominent people and it had to be covered up. And again, if you look at what the

grand jury concluded. If you look at the language of their conclusion, they're saying the Ramses exposed their daughter to the circumstances that led to her death and participated in a cover up. And I think that's as close to the truth as we've gotten in the case. As you said at the start of the show, there's absolute truth where we absolutely know what happened, and we don't have that here. And there's effective truth where you can try to,

you know, logically and reasonably extrapolate from the circumstances. How did all the evidence get on her body. If it's not inside that house, where did it come from? It had to come from somewhere, right, I mean, so again, if you break it down logically, it's perfectly possible to suggest that she did not die inside that house, that she was not killed by an intruder, and that she was not killed by her parents.

My imagination runs to taking it far more sinister in it. I see a photo session with this slimy Simons and some prominent person like you say, having some kind of Santa photo fantasy, whereas I think Patsy Ramsey is conveniently naive, and I think something goes much more than horribly wrong. I think this is I don't know how much more evil the scenario you can get than Christmas, Santa and child porn.

into these realms, the case would probably be solved. I believe that if the Ramseys had been indicted on what the grand jury concluded, because there are reasons to believe that the grand jury heard about some of what I'm talking about there are reasons to believe that, which goes back to that question, what's in the other fourteen pages. How did they conclude that the Ramses exposed their daughter to something if they're not telling us what that something was.

I mean, it's a very obvious journalistic question. So this is the road that they absolutely have refused to go down.

What's the end result? The case is unsolved, and I again, I think it touched on people inside the Boulder power structure that were absolutely determined that this was not going to come out, and it hasn't come out, So, you know, except in you know, in examples like this where you really do try to apply investigative journalism to the situation as opposed to just jumping to a conclusion.

disconnect between various police agencies or district attorneys. This is what actually happened when I went to Alex Hunter in the spring of nineteen ninety seven and I laid out the things that we've been talking about here, and they involved the Internet, they involved the images and these things. And he said to me, and I swear this is true, the Bolder police will not investigate any of this, so

I think you should go do that. Now. This is the highest legal official in the most prominent case in the history of the state and region suggesting to a journalist that because the police department will not do their work, that someone like myself should go look into that which would involve breaking the law. Absolutely. I wasn't very Internet savvy back then anyway, but that shows you how entangled

and screwed up this thing actually was. And it was that way because of the fixation essentially of the Boulder Police Department, And that, to me was the biggest sin in the case. Not that they made mistakes early on, because that happens, and not that their investigation, you know, didn't have flaws in it, but there was this sort of fundamental resistance to opening it up into looking into the natural criminal realm that this child was exposed to.

bitcoins and all of that that angle of this. So I think people just need to be aware that, you know, all of this stuff is out there, just like Pam Griffin said, you have to be street smart and aware that children could be exposed to these things and it could be very dangerous. And really that was the sort

of the underlying purpose of writing the book. I didn't know what happened, and I didn't you know, I didn't have many of the answers, and I was involved in a little bit of speculation, but I felt that I was I think it was one of the first books to talk about this this underground criminal realm that was emerging up through the Internet, and I thought that was worth writing about anyway, and that people should be aware of that that images can be used for these purposes.

So that's why, you know, you don't as a true crime writer, you know, no one wants to write a book where you don't have the answers, where you don't really know what happened and you can tell that story to people that wasn't possible. Then it's still not entirely possible now. But I thought the exposing of this other realm was worthwhile.

you can imagine. And so you know this is and again I think part of this story is that this is dark matter. You know, this is dark material. People are uncomfortable with it. That's totally understandable. They want it to be this case to be about a mother who you know, hit her daughter over the head because she wet the bed. There was a scientific explanation on the Lifetime show and said that showed you why that is

not what happened in this case. That the sequence of events was the strangulation because they are defensive wounds on John Benet and there were you know, efforts to get the garage off her neck by her as she was dying. And the whole scientific scenario is laid out that that's that she didn't get whacked over the head, and then the Ramsays created this factual scenario in the basement the sequence of events is the other way around, which implies that you know, she was killed and then this thing

was covered up. So you know, I understand. I think a lot of my experience in writing about this or trying to bring any shed any light on it at all, has been met with resistance because people, you know, this is a tough thing to think about, but it's real and it's out there, and the purpose of writing the book was to say that this is not the only child involved in this kind of stuff. I'm sure this is not the only child in this area that's been involved in this kind of stuff, and we need to

be aware of it. We need to bring awareness to it. And I think if the case were solved. I mean, this is just my opinion, but I think it would it would help illuminate that, it would make people more aware, and that was really the underlying reason for doing this.

But I think it did make a vest Speaking with people like Pam Griffin, I think it sobered up a number of people who were involved in that and they began to rethink a little bit about what they were doing.

But you know, I just remember being told that, you know, if you were in you know, Chicago and I'm in Denver and I wanted to send you an illicted image, I could send it from you know, Denver to Miami to London to Russia to Japan to you and it would be and that would take you know, something you know, under probably a couple of seconds, and that would be extremely difficult to track, you know, to figure out what the origin of it was, and all of those things.

So some really smart people were utilizing the technology in that way. And that's again that's what made it such a difficult thing for law enforcement. And again that's that's one of the major things I wanted to write about.

to have connections to illicit activity with children. And there was a sixth name of somebody who nobody had ever heard. I hadn't heard of, and I didn't know anybody else who had. And this was two thousand and one, and I was very intrigued by that. Five years later, this individual was arrested on charge with forty nine counts a child porn creation and distribution and went into the legal system in Boulder, and you know, it was locked up.

And so when the third District Attorney came in on the case Stangarnett in two thousand and nine, I began communicating with him and I shared this information. And again it's a little bit complicated, but what I'm saying is that somebody wrote a poem in two thousand and one about somebody who would be arrested for crimes in exactly this region. The poems were about child porn and crimes against children, and somebody was arrested for that and put

into the system. So the person who wrote the poem knew that about this individual, and this individual turned out to be a perpetrator. I knew who wrote the poems, and I knew about the perpetrator, and I knew that the people doing this were trying to get some information to the law enforcement about people involved in these kinds of activities in this region, with a suggestion that this had a definite connection to the job and a Ramsey case. And I took it to the police and they wanted

absolutely nothing to do with it. So, in other words, you have a perpetrator of these crimes sitting in the system. In the area. Police's job is to go interview people, learn what they know, learn who they know, learn how they got involved in this. You know, we've all watched the crime shows where you make deals with people based upon the information they give up. They wouldn't do it.

Why wouldn't they do it? This is one example. There are numerous examples that I could give you of people who tried to come forward, who tried to talk about these activities, who tried to talk about people in the region who were involved in them. They were serious individuals, and they were completely rebuffed by the Boulder legal system. I can't explain that. The only explanation that you can have for that is that this was something they didn't

want to investigate. Again, that would be all right if the crime got solved, if you could look at it and say, well, you know, the mother did do it. Finally, so we all know that we don't know anything. The reason we don't know anything is that this has never been properly investigated. And so I can tell you that there are people out there now, millions or people who worked in law enforcement before, who are still conducting an investigation into this, and some of them are very good

so the case is not over. This is not the end of the road. If there's a DNA match from those samples that hits the National data Bank called codis coodis, if you get a hit on that, then you've got a perpetrator. So it's not over. It's a it's a terribly difficult situation, I think because there are people in power who don't want it to be solved. And ask yourself why, I mean, it's a very good question. So

that's where things stand right now. You know, there may be other chapters, and you said you will update so obviously, well that's why the book was brought out as an ebook and self published because now if there are developments, you know, we can update it as it goes along and you know, bring it right into the present. So I'm hoping very much that there will be new development and that you know, we'll do another show sometime where we actually have more information. You know, we need to solve.