Boulder DA Should Agree to Fox Request

This article appeared in the Rocky Mountain News on October 22, 2004.

"We come, with some trepidation, to the defense of the lawyers at Fox News.

"No, not the hapless gang charged with defending Bill O'Reilly in his dispute with associate producer Andrea Mackris. If the quotes she attributes to him in her sexual harrassment suit are on the tape, they have nowhere to crawl but the settlement table.

"We're talking about the attorneys defending the network against defamation charges filed by the family of JonBenet Ramsey, the Boulder child killed almost eight years ago. The family sued Fox News last year over a 2002 broadcast in which reporter Carol McKinley said there has "never been any evidence to link an intruder to her brutal murder."

"In order to defend the network, lawyers are trying to subpoena records from the Boulder district attorney's office, which is in charge of the investigation. Boulder DA Mary Keenan has moved to quash the subpoenas and a federal judge is mulling the issue.

"Fox has an uphill road. The usual rule, says law professor Christopher Mueller of the University of Colorado, is that prosecutors are entitled to keep their work product secret "to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigations." When the investigation is finished and the case is closed, the justification "diminishes sharply."

"Of course this case isn't closed, but the real question is, just how "ongoing" is it?

"Keenan is on record saying she believes the evidence points to an intruder, not a member of the family. This newspaper has reported that her prime suspect was a man who played Santa Claus at the Ramsey home two nights before the Christmas 1996 slaying. He later moved away and has since died.

"But belief isn't evidence. If Keenan has reached a dead end, she should be happy to turn over at least some of the records to an interested party in hopes of having fresh eyes on the case. True, Fox News is more or less considered the devil by liberals everywhere, especially in Boulder, but sometimes truth comes from the most unexpected places.

"If Keenan won't volunteer the information, we hope the judge will exercise his discretion and find that the investigation is basically moribund. He could then require the DA to explain why each record she wants to withold should be kept secret."

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


I for one agree with the position of the Rocky Mountain News. There really isn't any "ongoing investigation", and the records in the DA's office should be made available. There's not even any money allotted for an active investigation into the murder. There's no good reason remaining for Boulder authorities to carry on the charade.

JMO

BlueCrab said:

There's no good reason remaining for Boulder authorities to carry on the charade.

Click to expand...

But BC, carrying on a charade IS WHAT BOULDER IS ALL ABOUT.

I agree Bluecrab. Ongoing investigation my fat butt. Nothing is going to be done in the case under Keenan's watch. Give it up Mary, let the chips fall where they may.

I can't believe I'm saying this, I agree with Blue Crab!
There is no "ongoing investigation" , turn it over , let it be made public, there is nothing to protect.

Will they be allowed to broadcast this civil suit on TV? I wish Court TV would run it.

Speaking of Keenan, she is up for re-election.

BOULDER - Local defense attorney and Republican Jason Savela said Tuesday he will challenge District Attorney Mary Keenan in the November election.

more...

Anyone have an update? How is Savela doing in the polls? Where does he stand on the JonBenet case?

sissi said:

I can't believe I'm saying this, I agree with Blue Crab!
There is no "ongoing investigation" , turn it over , let it be made public, there is nothing to protect.

Click to expand...

And I am agreeing with both sissi and Blue Crab at the same time.....let it be public. Keenan is doing nothing!

Why should Fox have the files? They sure didnt need those facts before the article came out?

jasmine said:

Why should Fox have the files? They sure didnt need those facts before the article came out?

Click to expand...

Jasmine,

Why SHOULDN'T Fox have the files? The investigation is over, and they are being sued by the Ramseys for saying something that is likely true (there is no credible evidence of an intruder).

The only reason to keep something secret is because you are hiding something, correct?

JMO

jasmine said:

Why should Fox have the files? They sure didnt need those facts before the article came out?

Click to expand...

Why shouldn't Fox have the files?

If the Rams are 'innocent' as you seem to think, then perhaps this will clear them, as they should have nothing to hide.

If the Rams are guilty, which I think, then yeah...of course they'd fight to hide the truth-no evidence of an intruder! And thus lose the lawsuit and possibly find themselves on trial for murder and cover up.

Alas...Keenan's likely to be re elected and will spend her time bailing her adult children out of DUI's again and shaking in fear of Woody and a lawsuit. Boulder DA's do not like to go to court...(it scares them to have to do their job) so I think the Ramsey's will be free as long as Keenans in charge of justice in Boulder.

Even though the case really is dead in the water right now, I don't think it is officially "closed" yet, so I can understand the DA not wanting to release the information, BUT...since they are sitting on their butts and NOT doing a thing about the case, it would probably be a good idea to release this information. If they did I can bet you the freakin' media would find out who did it before the cops would. And, don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for law enforcement, I have a few in my family who are in the field, but these "officials" in Boulder outta be put out of a job! There are so many fine LE officers in this wonderful country of ours, that surely this could be solved right away, with the right people on the case. If they would put it all out there for this lawsuit, then I think at the very least we would have enough insite to see if the Ramsey's were involved or not.

Personally, I don't think I would be suing anybody if I knew that either my child or myself were involved in this in anyway because that is really a very, very risky thing to do, knowing the truth would come out in some way, especially if as some have said- they know that minors did this but cannot do anything about it because of the age statute- there is no way I would risk having anyone find out my son did this if I went to all this trouble to keep it hid in the first place.

It just doesn't make sense to me for them to put this out there after all these years if the truth was that the GJ found Burke and another child involved and just kept it hush-hush all these years. Would YOU want to dig up old skeletons like that by suing someone for saying something that was actually the truth? You can't do that, can you?

Keenan and her office cannot have it both ways. They cannot say on the one hand that the Ramseys are innocent and an intruder committed the crime, and on the other hand claim that handing over documentation to prove what they are saying is true would somehow interfere with an "ongoing investigation." There is NO ongoing investigation. There hasn't been for years. The only thing ongoing is the SPIN.

If the Ramseys are not part of the investigation - which they wouldn't be now would they if, as Keenan claims, the evidence points to "an intruder" - what possible reason would they have to HOLD BACK that exonerating evidence that would be so sure to prove their claim in their lawsuit???
If the Ramseys say Carol McKinley was wrong that there was no evidence of an intruder - then PROVE she is wrong!! Produce that "evidence" of intruder that would then support your lawsuit.

They can't because spin does not hold up in court.
They have no real evidence of an intruder. They have nothing concrete to produce.

This sham is on-going and I wish so much that the Governor would appoint an independent counsel to go in and clean up the mess in Boulder.
It will never happen. Too many heads would fly. Including those IMO at the highest state level. The cover-up is too deep.

~Angel~ (Thank God our time on earth is not the only place where justice is served...Heaven and eternity are the REAL 'no-spin' zones!)

jasmine said:

Why should Fox have the files? They sure didnt need those facts before the article came out?

Click to expand...

This is true Jasmine, my reasons are selfish, eight years and nothing, eight years and the killer has moved on, the family has moved on , the child is still dead and nothing is being done, there are no funds there is no investigation. If this is what it takes to "spark" a memory, unlodge a secret, then it will be worth it in the big picture, the solving of the case.
Let the facts flow and the lies be uncovered. Jonbenet deserves this, hell with what the parents or law enforcement want at this point.
I expect Fox to lose, I expect they will not be happy with this information, I do not expect anyone will be when they see the games ,lies and deceptions used against the Ramseys in an ill willed attempt to blame them in the death of their daughter. IMO

I agree with you. Personally I would love to have it all made public to satisfy my own curiosity. I cant see how it could harm anything. But the point I was making is that Fox is the one that reported there was no evidence of an intruder. Let them defend that statement in court with whatever they had at the time they made the statement. Let them show the facts to back up their statement. Let them show the rumors if that is what they used. Why should they have access to anything they didnt have before they made the statement?

I can not argue that Jasmine, you are right! Why should they?
Let them build the case on the rumors, and dig up their sources, yep that would be fair, and that is likely going to be the case. I was "just wishin'". To have all of the crap exposed would be just wonderful...but we do know that it isn't going to happen. I feel safe in believing it wouldn't help the FOX case and if there were a vote I would vote for releasing it all. There are many items not pursued by the police that pointed to an intruder, I'd like to hear the reasons behind the BPD ignoring and dismissing them. IMO

sissi said:

This is true Jasmine, my reasons are selfish, eight years and nothing, eight years and the killer has moved on, the family has moved on , the child is still dead and nothing is being done, there are no funds there is no investigation. If this is what it takes to "spark" a memory, unlodge a secret, then it will be worth it in the big picture, the solving of the case.
Let the facts flow and the lies be uncovered. Jonbenet deserves this, hell with what the parents or law enforcement want at this point.
I expect Fox to lose, I expect they will not be happy with this information, I do not expect anyone will be when they see the games ,lies and deceptions used against the Ramseys in an ill willed attempt to blame them in the death of their daughter. IMO

Click to expand...

Im all for letting the facts flow and the lies uncovered! Keeping it secret sure hasnt solved the case. They need that spark! I think the Ramseys are totally innocent but if it shows their guilt that is fine. They should be punished just as an intruder should be. Im very interested in seeing what the BPD had that made them ignore anything that pointed away from Ramsey. The Steve Thomas book is just one big laugh. Nothing but entertainment.

jasmine... What specifically did the BPD ignore that pointed away from the Ramseys?

imo

DNA that is not Ramsey. The lack of cord. The lack of tape. The fibers that cant be sourced. Disturbance at the window sill. The handwriting.

Let's start with the DNA. Some of the links may not work but the jest of the article is here.

The DNA

From: www.supportramsey.com

"…It is the current understanding of the family that the investigation team considers this male DNA sample to be the key piece of evidence and was, without a doubt, left behind by the killer of their child."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The very same scientist who conducted the DNA testing in the Denver Police Department’s DNA lab contradicts the above statement.

Rocky Mountain News, May 18, 2004, Charlie Brennan
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...2893675,00.html
text version backup

A claim by John Ramsey's campaign that investigators have the DNA of his daughter's killer goes too far, according to the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample.

"That's one of the possibilities, but that's not the only possibility," said the scientist, who asked that his name not be used. It's impossible to say whether the DNA belonged to an adult or a child, according to the scientist.

"You have DNA that's male, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the killer's," the scientist said. "It could be innocent. It could be from the (undergarment's) manufacturer. It could be a lot of things. Of course it's important. But it's not more important than the rest of the investigation."

"It is only a sample," he said. "You need a match, and that will help you get a name. And then that gives you somebody to talk to. But that person might be alibied-out, or there might be some other explanation for why it's there."

He also said there is no way to "age" the sample, to determine whether it was left in the underwear at the time of JonBenet's murder or at some other point.

…Another state forensics expert, who also asked not to be identified, said the significance of the DNA profile must be weighed conservatively, based on where it was found, and in what substance.

Without knowing if a sample was left by blood, saliva, or some other material, it could be "unknown cellular material sloughed off by somebody's hand," the source said. "You're in an area that is very gray, and it can be very confusing, as to the interpretive value of it."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, the bottom line is, you can’t put the cart before the pony. Before one can say this DNA belongs to the killer of JonBenet Ramsey, there has to be other hard evidence identifying this "killer," a DNA "match" to this person, and evidence placing him in the home at the time of the murder. There is no way to determine when the DNA was deposited on JBR’s underwear. No one can say for certain that it was NOT deposited there during the manufacturing or packing and handling processes or in another innocent, totally unrelated manner.

To say the DNA belongs to JonBenet’s killer is a blatant leap of faith, if not an out and out misrepresentation of the known facts.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: www.supportramsey.com

"On December 11th, 2003, the family was advised by the D.A.’s investigative team that the Denver Police Department DNA lab had successfully identified the 10th DNA marker from the blood samples found on the underwear of JonBenét. Consequently, all of the state and federal DNA data systems now have the entire profile of the unknown deposit thanks to the identification of the 10th marker…"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rocky Mountain News, May 18, 2004, Charlie Brennan
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...2893675,00.html
text version backup

…"It is true that identifying the tenth genetic marker enabled Ramsey investigators to finally enter the unidentified genetic profile into the FBI's Combined DNA Index System, a national database."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Facts

Accurate DNA Testing & Identification Results
http://www.genetic-professionals.com/genetic_accurate.html

The most recent advances in DNA research are based on the 13 CODIS (emphasis added) identifying locators used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). These 13 loci, or locators, have been established as the standard for human identification.

Human Genome Project Information
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml

To identify individuals, forensic scientists scan 13 DNA (emphasis added) regions that vary from person to person and use the data to create a DNA profile of that individual (sometimes called a DNA fingerprint).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One need only do the math to understand that the 10 loci submitted to the CODIS database do not meet the criteria of 13 identifying locators used by CODIS.

Therefore, the DNA is incomplete, not the entire profile, as asserted by John Ramsey on his website. One could say that those 10 loci match 10 loci belonging to someone, but what about the other three loci that are needed for identification? What if the three additional loci for the suspect were A, B, and C, but the missing loci for the sample DNA were X, Y, and Z? It would mean that the wrong person had been identified as a killer based upon incomplete DNA, which is why the CODIS criteria are as strict as they are.

The bottom line is, the DNA sample submitted to the CODIS database by the Denver Police Department DNA lab is not useless, as it can be used for elimination purposes and to possibly match those 10 loci with suspect DNA where there is plenty of other incriminating evidence to identify that suspect. It would, however, face many challenges in court if it were used to try to identify a suspect on the weight of the DNA evidence alone, because the weight of a DNA profile is dependant on the number of loci used. 13 is the FBI standard, not 10.


``````````````````````````````````

In other words Jasmine, the DNA under the fingernails, in the panties, means nothing.

It could be...............
but when in the history of Criminal investigations has dna found in the victim's underwear been so "fought over with ridiculous statements" ,such as "maybe it was from the manufactoring".NEVER ! it is the clue in finding the perp and has always been. To attempt to discount such forensic information is to attempt to derail a valid investigation. IMO

There were several palm prints ,one was identified as Melinda's, this is true ,yet the spin is the "unidentified" print was Melinda's.
The hair has not been identified.
The door lock showed signs of tampering.
There is an unmatched Hi-tek shoe print. Sorry the shoes she bought in 95 for an eight year old are too small. (Burke giving the information that they were hi-teks was "unbelieveably over the top" IMO, I KNOW of NO child that can tell you the brand name of shoes he owned one year ago. If someone said, "hey those compass shoes were really hi tech, a kid would say, "yeah". DONE ! This information needs to be exposed for what it is.