Message Board
Register  |   |   |  Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 11     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
dennislkaufman

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 558
Reply with quote  #61 
Nanette is now going to file a civil lawsuit against CNN, this is from her message board.

(It's funny that the hood has come to light, and if Dennis ever said that about the hood then I believe it. He has a way of telling one thing to get you to react then turns it into well it could be, maybe, I am not sure. WTF, you started by saying it was, and now you have downgraded your statement for the possibility of an error. This is just another way that he continues to be dishonest. I saw the article posted by ireport, and I have let them know that I am pursuing a Civil Tort for Libel per se: accusation of a crime involving moral turpitude - unfit for trade or business against Mr. Kaufman, and I have offered to include them unless they immediately remove the article.
Dennis is his only hindering factor in this case over the last 12 years. If he had an ounce of honesty or respect in himself he would have handled this case legitimately from the start.)

My biggest mistake was getting Nanette Barto involved in this case. When I first met with her she appeared to be professional, and honest. At this time I had been working on this case for eight years and I was exhausted. It wouldn't be long until Nanette's controlling attitude would begin to be a deteriorating factor in all this. At first we were meeting with Special Agent Chris Hopkins on a somewhat of a regular basis, and after several meetings Nanette's attitude was beginning to bother Mr. Hopkins. Nanette began claiming that Jack was responsible for the other infamous crimes to Mr. Hopkins. I had already suspected Jack may have been involved in the Black Dahlia murder, and the Lipstick Murders, but I knew the negative impact this would have on this case if it was mentioned. Nanette and I discussed these possibilities amongst ourselves at first, but this was about to change. Nanette began trying to convince me as well as the FBI that Jack was responsible for almost every infamous unsolved crime across the nation, this is when everything began to change. I told her that this needed to stop because it sounded ridiculous. Chris Hopkins flat out told she needed to stop making these claims because she was beginning to look like a nut case. Whether it was true or not didn't matter at this point. Nanette wouldn't listen to his advice and accused him of trying to cover up the truth, began blasting these accusations all over the Internet. At this point there was no stopping her and she was going to let what she thought was the truth be known regardless of the consequences. This is when I decided to hold a press conference, and we all know what happened with that. She took control of this message board and banned anyone that didn't put her on a pedestal. I take part responsibility for this because I allowed it to happen. Recently I found out she signed a contract with someone in the UK about doing a documentary on this case, she told me this herself. I put a stop to this when she put me in contact with the people that she entered into this contract with.

If Nanette thinks she is going to sue CNN, she better get ready to sue a bunch of media outlets.
jbradfield66

Registered:
Posts: 112
Reply with quote  #62 
Catseye is going a manic tweeting rampage right now accusing Nanette of losing custody of her children, accusing her of being under the influence and self-destructing. As well as joining the 'other side' with Tom Voigt. She also told nanette to check this messageboard later for an announcement. Is that one she will be making Dennis? Is she banned from this board or can she still post?
sixtieschick

Registered:
Posts: 246
Reply with quote  #63 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbradfield66
Catseye is going a manic tweeting rampage right now accusing Nanette of losing custody of her children, accusing her of being under the influence and self-destructing. As well as joining the 'other side' with Tom Voigt. She also told nanette to check this messageboard later for an announcement. Is that one she will be making Dennis? Is she banned from this board or can she still post?


Dennis is this announcement some new developments on Jack?
dennislkaufman

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 558
Reply with quote  #64 
Once again another good article written. In answer to your question Sixtieschick I don't know what what announcement Catseye is referring to other than the recent activities of Nanette Barto. Catseye deleted her own account on this message board a while back.

Everyday new information comes to light about Nanette, and I cannot believe I actually trusted her. I just got confirmation that she has been associating with Tom Voigt.

Some of the aliases Nanette has been using on Twitter too bash Catseye and myself are, "Fabian Fan" and "Truth Seeker." Nanette had to use another name to join the hate campaign because she would be going against herself otherwise. This all leads up to one question, why? How long has this been happening? So many questions that I cannot answer. Knowing this makes the possibilities of her forging the Tim Miller letter even greater.

I have made some bad decisions in my life, but trusting Nanette was the biggest mistake I have ever made. I cannot blame anyone but myself for allowing Nanette to get so involved, and not seeing what was taking place right in front of me. It was my brother Charles who stumbled onto Nanette's fraudulent activities. Though I can say the mistakes I have made were truly that "a mistake."

Jcloser, JoAnn Stone, DiamondD, and the rest of you who tried to warn me about Nanette, you were right. My apologies goes out to you all for not listening. My bad choices have brought about this very sad ending.
jbradfield66

Registered:
Posts: 112
Reply with quote  #65 
Dennis, what evidence did Charles discover to lead you to this conclusion? How are you sure that those people are Nanette? You are completely correct though. The big question is why? What does she stand to gain in this? I'm very curious as to her angle, and by now you can appreciate she always has an angle. She has always been shifty. It might be simple spite. She is very petty and spiteful as she demonstrated time and time again on this board. Banning people, being condescending and dismissive to anyone who didn't deify her, place her on a pedestal and tell her she was a genius.
TerryB

Registered:
Posts: 920
Reply with quote  #66 
Dennis how can you be sure that Nanette hasn't been "set up" and "framed"? For one thing; if someone whats to post anonymously it's almost impossible to prove who they are without a court order and some forensic file searches. Having her ISP isn't gonna get it.

I still believe that her handwriting work and results are solid, they confirmed your own exemplars on Jack and the Zodiac documents.

I mean this in all sincerity but I think catseye has and is doing and done a lot more to discredit your case. What led to her quitting this board?

The matter of Tim Miller would have happened a long time ago, why is this only coming up now at this much later date?

I agree that Nanette could be condescending at times and her support of catseye really bugged me, however I have another angle on her take on catseye because mixed into catseye's gibberish have been a few key facts, for example; catseye tipped me to the JT clues in the JBR ransom letter but then why didn't she embellish on the subject like the way she over does it on subjects of nonsense?

__________________
One small bit of info might make all the difference.
TerryB

Registered:
Posts: 920
Reply with quote  #67 
Dennis I also wanna point out something and Nanette is not prompting me to say this but she excluded the exemplars on the JBR ransom letters in her second presentation because at the time you objected, now we have it from you that you agree that you think Jack penned the ransom letter.

These I remind everybody are prime clues: All of the Zodiac holiday post cards have a "Jack" clue like the "Jack O lantern belly on the skeleton", the "one eyed Jack", the "Jackass", the "Jack rabbit". That's easy to see.

To me the JT initial clues are in: Chicago Lipstick killing, Black Dahlia, many of the Zodiac Killer documents and the JonBenet Ramsey ranson note. Of these I am certain, of the other crimes mentioned I haven't studied enough to know for certain just yet.

I'm compiling a group of photos and documents to show the JT initials clues are not my imagination, this kind of evidence is said to be expected in an "organized" serial killers works.

__________________
One small bit of info might make all the difference.
dennislkaufman

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 558
Reply with quote  #68 
TerryB in answer to your question "how do I know that Nanette isn't being set up and framed?" The night Nanette flipped out on me my brother Charles was there, and he couldn't believe what he saw. After we got back to the house Charles did some research into Nanette, and he came up with some user names from Twitter that he believed were all Nanette. So we watched this to see if anything would surface that would link these names to her, and it did. The two user names I mentioned from Twitter "Fabian Fan" and "Truthe Seeker" both mentioned several things that only Nanette knew about. So this confirmed what Charles had figured out. Nanette's handwriting work might be solid, but she cannot be trusted so unfortunately this voids her findings.
TerryB

Registered:
Posts: 920
Reply with quote  #69 
Dennis, as you know, she's brought something up about some ID's, what can you say about that?
__________________
One small bit of info might make all the difference.
jbradfield66

Registered:
Posts: 112
Reply with quote  #70 
Terry, why do you always assume that the most logical answer to something is that it's due to some conspiracy, setup or evil plan?
TerryB

Registered:
Posts: 920
Reply with quote  #71 
Why does jbradfield66 continue with false and loaded questions? And why does he/she have a 66 on the end of his/her handle? And most important is why does he/she continue to lie? Also whom does he/she work for? Also notice the first three letters of his/her handle are JBR for Jon Benet Ramsey maybe??? Will he/she give his/her clients away with his/her repeated acts of deception?

First cateye dominated this message board with her extensive nonsense, now it's jbradfield666's turn.





The devil has no friends..... only victims.

__________________
One small bit of info might make all the difference.
jbradfield66

Registered:
Posts: 112
Reply with quote  #72 
haha holy crap. Oookay. Surely anyone else reading this can appreciate just how insane those accusations are? The explanation couldn't possibly be my first initial and surname with my birthdate? A fairly common naming convention online, right? No! That is an easy explantion. Of course it has to contain some clue to Jon Benet Ramsey. That is the only possible explanation. Terry, you dullard, that is some catseye level nonsense right there. My clients? What?

Now, terry, explain to me how that was a loaded question? I honestly want to know why you think the explanation for everything is that it is the result of a conspiracy or cover-up?

But you didn't answer that very simple direct question. Instead, you hilariously accuse me of...wait for it...being involved in a conspiracy and cover-up! Awesome. Keep it coming pinhead. I'm sincerely laughing at how asinine this is.


jbradfield66

Registered:
Posts: 112
Reply with quote  #73 
Seriously, Dennis 60schick, anyone else reading this board, is it just me or does Terry's conclusions seem a little out there? Does anyone else honestly think my username has anything to do with Jon Benet Ramsey? I don't even understand what he is alluding to with the 66.
TerryB

Registered:
Posts: 920
Reply with quote  #74 
I asked Dennis a simple question. I'm not here to debate or explain things to jbradfield66 and play his or hers chicken shit little games.

Dennis and Nanette had been friends and associates for quite some time, I went back and reviewed what Nanette posted both here and on her own board and from what I can tell she hasn't changed her version of events surrounding Tim Miller and that goes back two years ago or so that she posted that concern. These are trying times and when people get pissed off they say things they probably shouldn't. It does sound like Nanette went off on Dennis and Dennis got fed up with being treated that way. Unlike jbradfield66 I'm not trying to drive a wedge between two people that have been friends, I'd rather they both cool down and think carefully before the go at it again, it isn't doing either one of them any good. I haven't seen any evidence that Nanette is or has been trying to undermine Dennis.

__________________
One small bit of info might make all the difference.
jbradfield66

Registered:
Posts: 112
Reply with quote  #75 
So no answer from terryb. Big fucking surprise. Terry, explain to me the significance of the number 66? Why mention it? Does the explanation of my username make even a modicum of sense to you or do you still think it is a secretly veiled message referring to Jone Benet Ramsey? And please elaborate on who you think my 'clients' are. You brought this up so you can man up and address your accusations or you can continue to be whiny little bitch that just tosses random accusations around on whim. Your call tough guy. You brought it up. Grow some balls and deal with your accusations. These are simple questions. Answer them or shut the fuck up. Is that clear?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!