One question regarding Mary Lacy's 'exoneration' of the Ramsey's, was this backed by any LE or other official source? Also I read somewhere this exoneration was overturned, is that true? TIA!
One question regarding Mary Lacy's 'exoneration' of the Ramsey's, was this backed by any LE or other official source? Also I read somewhere this exoneration was overturned, is that true? TIA!
The BPD has NEVER endorsed the reckless exoneration by Mary Lacy. It was strictly a unilateral action by a friend of the Ramseys, no more than an end of term, “presidential pardon.” The current DA has made it plain that he considers the “exoneration” to have no legal merit as far as he is concerned.
Here is a sampling of some of the press at the time:
Yet for reasons known only to herself (she has refused all requests for interviews) Lacy has concluded that, in her words, there "is no innocent explanation" for the presence of this DNA on the child's clothing, and that therefore the DNA belongs to the child's murderer. … To the many questions that have plagued the Ramsey case we can now add another: is Mary Lacy merely incompetent, or is something more disturbing going on? Paul Campos -Law professor, University of Colorado http://www.reporternews.com/news/200...n-ramsey-case/
Despite what you may have heard, Patsy and John Ramsey have not been "cleared" of wrongdoing in any genuine sense. They were simply handed a legal pass by a staunch ally who has once again shortchanged the genuine victim in the case: JonBenét. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_9839651
Retired Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant on Thursday criticized Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's decision to issue a letter to John Ramsey clearing every member of his family in the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey, based on newly developed DNA evidence. "My first reaction is, why? It is unprecedented," said Grant. … Grant said he still sees evidence, and "unanswered questions" that would support either inside or outside involvement in JonBenet's murder - but that Lacy's letter to Ramsey merely represents "one person's opinion" and that the new DNA evidence, from what he has learned of it, does not convince him of anything. "In my mind it doesn't," said Grant. "I know enough about the evidence that existed early on in this case to know that there are many unanswered questions. A lot of those questions would have to be answered before someone could say this DNA is the final straw. http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-former...,2592897.story
When Stan Garnett took over the DA’s office from Mary Lacy, he quickly turned the case back to the Boulder PD, and the BPD in turn announced that a task force would be convened to take a fresh look at the case. (February 2009) During the press conference announcing the return of the case to the BPD, City of Boulder's Chief of Police, Mark Beckner and Boulder’s current District Attorney, Stan Garnett both had the opportunity to endorse the Ramsey exoneration that ML granted, but did not. Reporter: Mary Lacy cleared the Ramseys in this case, are they still cleared? Beckner: Again, in keeping our focus on where we go from here, I don’t want to answer that question for a couple of reasons. One, we are bringing in people on this task force that are going to have a fresh perspective, they are people who have never worked on this case, who are well known in the law enforcement and the district attorney field who can come in and look at this case, lay out the evidence on the table and tell us what they think, challenge us, ask us questions, give us ideas. I think, to say anything, I would have to get into the evidence, and I don’t want to do that. And secondly, I don’t want to set any expectations or biases for people coming into this committee. If the police chief stands here and says, I think this, or, I think that, they may come in with some bias, we don’t want that, we want them to tell us what they think. Boulder press conference, Feb 2, 2009
Stan Garnett un-exonerates the Ramseys. - October 11, 2010 On a Denver radio show, KHOW’s Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman interviewed Boulder DA, Stan Garnett. What makes Stan Garnett’s un-exoneration of the Ramsey’s all that much more compelling is that his interview on KHOW was nearly 2 years after the task force convened, in other words, if the DNA evidence was so compelling, (as Lacy would have us believe,) the task force would have reported as much, and the Ramseys would have remained cleared. Dan Caplis: And Stan, so it would be fair to say then that Mary Lacy’s clearing of the Ramseys is no longer in effect, you’re not bound by that, you’re just going to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Stan Garnett: What I’ve always said about Mary Lacy’s exoneration is that it speaks for itself. I’ve made it clear that any decisions made going forward about the Ramsey case will be made based off of evidence… Dan Caplis: Stan, when you say that the exoneration speaks for itself, are you saying that it’s Mary Lacy taking action, and that action doesn’t have any particular legally binding effect, it may cause complications if there is ever a prosecution of a Ramsey down the road, but it doesn’t have a legally binding effect on you, is that accurate? That is accurate, I think that is what most of the press related about the exoneration at the time that it was issued. [SNIP] Craig Silverman: I’d say the headline out of our show is once again you established out of your questioning of Stan Garnett that that letter (of exoneration) isn’t worth the paper it’s written on as far as Stan Garnett is concerned.
Boulder DA, Stan Garnett interviewed by Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman Part 1 [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQqV9NslMM0"]SG_Part1 - YouTube[/ame]
Part 2 [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h092gdO5Avw"]SG_Part2 - YouTube[/ame]
Part 3 [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Be5LTOLxk"]SG_Part3 - YouTube[/ame]
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
