1232 users online (230 members and 1002 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298

    Henry Lee and the Grand Jury

    I debated going here since most of you don't want to here this and I know you will use your critical eye to dispute it. So here goes, but don't expect me to give responses in this thread to ridiculous comments. Dr. Henry Lee did an interview when the "Touch DNA' information was announced by Mrs. Lacey. I WILL NOT SOURCE IT for you. It is here on this site.

    Also, I will not tell you that Dr. Henry Lee is a man I respect or that you should. Many questions have come up about the Grand Jury and what transpired. In his article in 2008 concerning touch DNA, he mentions the ransom note but maintains the importance of the DNA. He also mentions it doesn't matter cause the GJ cleared the Ramsey's anyhow. He was a Prosecution ally and that is what he said. Keep that in mind when in a couple of weeks he will be attempting to confuse the Casey Anthony jury. He is a paid prostitute.
    The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Defense attorneys are the BEST- paid prostitutes, aren't they? Many times defending people they know are guilty..getting them off on technicalities, getting evidence suppressed, etc. And the Rs lawyer bragged about how much he made from the R case.

    Say what you want about Dr. Lee- he is still a respected man in his field.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    685

    Henry Lee

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    I debated going here since most of you don't want to here this and I know you will use your critical eye to dispute it. So here goes, but don't expect me to give responses in this thread to ridiculous comments. Dr. Henry Lee did an interview when the "Touch DNA' information was announced by Mrs. Lacey. I WILL NOT SOURCE IT for you. It is here on this site.

    Also, I will not tell you that Dr. Henry Lee is a man I respect or that you should. Many questions have come up about the Grand Jury and what transpired. In his article in 2008 concerning touch DNA, he mentions the ransom note but maintains the importance of the DNA. He also mentions it doesn't matter cause the GJ cleared the Ramsey's anyhow. He was a Prosecution ally and that is what he said. Keep that in mind when in a couple of weeks he will be attempting to confuse the Casey Anthony jury. He is a paid prostitute.
    I totally agree with you. Henry Lee has fallen off the pedestal I had him on. At one point he only met with the BPD/DA at the airport---must have been a layover. In one of his books he was wrong on several things about the case....I don't have it handy or I would quote it. Expert for hire? Yes....and I find that deplorable---that he uses his vast knowledge and experience for the side that has the bucks to pay him. I had heard that the ONLY reason the BPD hired him, and why he put forth minimal effort was so the Ramseys couldn't hire him.

    You notice Barry Scheck has said very little about the case. Behind closed doors, I'm sure he said the DNA was a HUGE problem...what with his innocence project regarding DNA. We do know that when the DNA was discussed in the GJ, the BPD went scuttering around getting more DNA from people-----there were several on the GJ educated and with a scientific background.......they weren't buying the factory worker in China argument.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    I don't trust anything Lee has to say,especially after what he did in the Lana/Phil Spector case.Not only that,I already made up my mind when he testified in the Michael Peterson case.
    Barry Scheck on the other hand I like,but he didn't say much about the evidence in the JB case,which tells me that the BPD didn't have much against ANYONE,and I mean forensic evidence.
    The rice is already cooked...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    I debated going here since most of you don't want to here this and I know you will use your critical eye to dispute it. So here goes, but don't expect me to give responses in this thread to ridiculous comments. Dr. Henry Lee did an interview when the "Touch DNA' information was announced by Mrs. Lacey. I WILL NOT SOURCE IT for you. It is here on this site.
    I know. I often revisit it.

    Also, I will not tell you that Dr. Henry Lee is a man I respect or that you should. Many questions have come up about the Grand Jury and what transpired.
    Question is, will they ever be answered?

    In his article in 2008 concerning touch DNA, he mentions the ransom note but maintains the importance of the DNA. He also mentions it doesn't matter cause the GJ cleared the Ramsey's anyhow. He was a Prosecution ally and that is what he said. Keep that in mind when in a couple of weeks he will be attempting to confuse the Casey Anthony jury. He is a paid prostitute.
    Can't really make an argument, pilgrim. Anyone who would describe Mary Lacy as a very competent attorney isn't playing with a full deck.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    I don't trust anything Lee has to say,especially after what he did in the Lana/Phil Spector case.Not only that,I already made up my mind when he testified in the Michael Peterson case.
    Barry Scheck on the other hand I like,but he didn't say much about the evidence in the JB case,which tells me that the BPD didn't have much against ANYONE,and I mean forensic evidence.
    It helps to remember, madeleine--and this is something Scheck knows firsthand--that cases like this are not solved by forensic evidence.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    You notice Barry Scheck has said very little about the case. Behind closed doors, I'm sure he said the DNA was a HUGE problem...what with his innocence project regarding DNA.
    Not that I trust him OR the Innocence Project, either.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    It's not Memorial Day yet, but I figured I'd start the barbecue early!

    Since we're all talking about what Henry Lee said about the Grand Jury, I figure this might help:

    A friend advised me that Dr. Henry Lee told Alex Hunter, "This is a monumental decision. It all comes down to you. If you move forward with this, you have to confess your sins." With that sort of warning hanging in the air, I knew where the grand jury was going. The key was in Lee's comment about "moving forward," which meant an arrest and trial. These were not the strong points of our district attorney. (Emphasis mine) Under law the grand jury has the option of writing a report but is not bound to do so, and the jurors usually follow the wishes of the district attorney.--ITRMI, page 395

    If THAT's not enough for you, here's a quote from Henry Lee himself:

    13 months later, when the deliberations were completed but before the panel had the chance to vote on indicting one or both of the Ramseys, I told the DA that the best course of action would be not to file charges.

    Lee said something else, too:

    It seemed to me that there was enough evidence to establish the level of proof needed to indict Patsy Ramsey of, at least, obstruction of justice. But in the state of Colorado, that lesser option was not possible as long as there was the potential for a homicide charge.

    No less an authority than Michael Kane himself has stated publically that he was just window-dressing for the DA's little farce.

    I think Ben Thompson summed it up best:

    "It's political, the reason that it hasn't been prosecuted. And we have a district attorney's office that is more political than it is a prosecutor's office. I'm sitting here listening to those two talk, or those three talk, and it's strange to me that Alex sounds more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor, and that's part of the problem. Let me say there is a cancer in our DA's office, and whenever anybody points it out, what happens is they attack whoever points it out instead of addressing the issue and trying to solve the problem."

    My bold. Right out of Machiavelli's playbook.

    How much more do you NEED to see what went on here? Because I've got it, man. BUCKETS of it.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,661
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    I don't trust anything Lee has to say,especially after what he did in the Lana/Phil Spector case.Not only that,I already made up my mind when he testified in the Michael Peterson case.
    Barry Scheck on the other hand I like,but he didn't say much about the evidence in the JB case,which tells me that the BPD didn't have much against ANYONE,and I mean forensic evidence.
    I also lost respect for him on the Michael Peterson case....didn't he say there was too much blood for a beating?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    In fairness to Dr Lee, he was pretty anxious to distance himself from this case so I don't think we can attribute his findings to an appetite for notoriety in this case. However, once you start paying for things, the richer party will always win out. There is a French crime drama on the BBC at the moment (subtitles etc) which offered the incredibly depressing opinion that the French legal system is vastly superior to the Anglo-American system because everyone gets the best possible legal representation in France while a person's resources are key in the UK/US systems. I'd hate to think it was generally true but this case is a masterclass is how money can be used to buy results.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Hopefully the French have come a long way since the "trials" of Louis XVII and his wife, Marie Antoinette.

    As for Dr.Lee- he distanced himself, true. He had already concluded that it was hopeless as far as solving it. He said "Rice already cooked". I believe he was referring to the early bunging by LE, allowing the RST to stonewall the weak DA's office. Pretty much sums it up.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Quote Originally Posted by twinkiesmom View Post
    I also lost respect for him on the Michael Peterson case....didn't he say there was too much blood for a beating?
    yes,he did,amazing!
    and his ketchup "experiment" was a joke as well
    this is what disgusts me in high profile cases,especially in ones like the Peterson case where it's obvious IMO who did it and how,that paid experts come up with such stupid ideas and think that only because they are X or Y everybody will buy the BS.amazing.
    The rice is already cooked...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    It helps to remember, madeleine--and this is something Scheck knows firsthand--that cases like this are not solved by forensic evidence.
    I agree,this case won't be solved by forensic evidence,not even IF it was an intruder!
    The rice is already cooked...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    In fairness to Dr Lee, he was pretty anxious to distance himself from this case so I don't think we can attribute his findings to an appetite for notoriety in this case. However, once you start paying for things, the richer party will always win out. There is a French crime drama on the BBC at the moment (subtitles etc) which offered the incredibly depressing opinion that the French legal system is vastly superior to the Anglo-American system because everyone gets the best possible legal representation in France while a person's resources are key in the UK/US systems. I'd hate to think it was generally true but this case is a masterclass is how money can be used to buy results.
    Howdy-do, Sophie! Long-time, no hear.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai View Post
    I totally agree with you. Henry Lee has fallen off the pedestal I had him on. At one point he only met with the BPD/DA at the airport---must have been a layover. In one of his books he was wrong on several things about the case....I don't have it handy or I would quote it. Expert for hire? Yes....and I find that deplorable---that he uses his vast knowledge and experience for the side that has the bucks to pay him. I had heard that the ONLY reason the BPD hired him, and why he put forth minimal effort was so the Ramseys couldn't hire him.

    You notice Barry Scheck has said very little about the case. Behind closed doors, I'm sure he said the DNA was a HUGE problem...what with his innocence project regarding DNA. We do know that when the DNA was discussed in the GJ, the BPD went scuttering around getting more DNA from people-----there were several on the GJ educated and with a scientific background.......they weren't buying the factory worker in China argument.

    You know the factory worker in China was a bizarre but real argument at the time. It was a way to skate around all their screwups. It was proven that this scenario could happen but enough skepticism was made to not indict. The reality was that they had a treasure trove of forensic evidence.

    Dave has his opinions on a conspricy and that is fine. I am even going to try and understand it more. But to me I see a conspiricy of the BPD against the Ramsey's. Enough DNA has subsequently determined that someone else killed that little girl. The BPD had tunnel vision.
    The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The Grand Jury
    By Nehemiah in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 08-30-2012, 06:29 AM
  2. Grand Jury
    By CW in forum Kathleen Savio
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 05-21-2009, 12:16 AM
  3. Grand Jury indictment - Judge apologizes to the Jury
    By frenchvixen in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-24-2008, 01:56 AM