Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50
  1. #1

    Interview w/ John Ramsey

    http://www.detnews.com/2004/editoria.../a18-90821.htm

    Sunday, March 14, 2004

    John Ramsey leans toward becoming high-profile candidate for Michigan House

    By George Weeks / The Detroit News

    Businessman John Ramsey of Charlevoix undoubtedly will be this year’s highest-profile candidate for the Michigan House of Representatives.


    -Just an opinon-


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Don't mess with Texas
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by candy
    http://www.detnews.com/2004/editoria.../a18-90821.htm

    Sunday, March 14, 2004

    John Ramsey leans toward becoming high-profile candidate for Michigan House

    By George Weeks / The Detroit News

    Businessman John Ramsey of Charlevoix undoubtedly will be this year’s highest-profile candidate for the Michigan House of Representatives.

    Candy ---this just blows my mind. I guess what surprised the most, is that the article named his Wife as the owning a business???

    Socks

    Thanks for the link =)
    Just my opinion


  3. #3
    In spite of the blurb Mr. Weeks quoted from Ramseys own book, here's the truth about John Ramsey's suspect status from Chief Beckner's deposition. (and it also puts lie to the BDI garbage)

    17 Q So from start to today, you have not

    18 classified any individual as a suspect?

    19 A Publicly, correct.

    20 Q Or otherwise?

    21 A That's not accurate.

    22 Q How is it inaccurate?

    23 A Internally John and Patsy are considered

    24 suspects.

    25 Q Both of them?

    64

    1 A Yes.

    2 Q Are considered to have probably been

    3 involved in the death of their daughter?

    4 A Probability, yes.

    5 Q Has anyone else ever attained that status

    6 of probably involved?

    7 A No.


    -Just an opinion


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by candy
    "Internally John and Patsy are considered suspects."
    Somebody please forward this to whomever is running against John Ramsey!
    Murder suspects running for public office....sheeesh, what next.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753
    John Ramsey had nothing to do with the death of his daughter. Let him run, let him prove his worthiness, and may the increase in exposure create a tripwire for Patsy.


  6. #6

    Thanks for info/url...IMHO he's bought/sold "a puppet on a string"

    Quote Originally Posted by candy
    http://www.detnews.com/2004/editoria.../a18-90821.htm

    Sunday, March 14, 2004

    John Ramsey leans toward becoming high-profile candidate for Michigan House

    By George Weeks / The Detroit News

    Businessman John Ramsey of Charlevoix undoubtedly will be this year’s highest-profile candidate for the Michigan House of Representatives.


    -Just an opinon-
    Thanks for info/url...IMHO while reading the article, flashes of "being bought & sold" and "a puppet on a string" entertained my thoughts FWIW...LOL


  7. #7

    Interesting thought...but

    Quote Originally Posted by BrotherMoon
    John Ramsey had nothing to do with the death of his daughter. Let him run, let him prove his worthiness, and may the increase in exposure create a tripwire for Patsy.
    Interesting thought...but when John married Patsy ... did the two not become ONE?


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by candy
    In spite of the blurb Mr. Weeks quoted from Ramseys own book, here's the truth about John Ramsey's suspect status from Chief Beckner's deposition. (and it also puts lie to the BDI garbage)

    17 Q So from start to today, you have not

    18 classified any individual as a suspect?

    19 A Publicly, correct.

    20 Q Or otherwise?

    21 A That's not accurate.

    22 Q How is it inaccurate?

    23 A Internally John and Patsy are considered

    24 suspects.

    25 Q Both of them?

    64

    1 A Yes.

    2 Q Are considered to have probably been

    3 involved in the death of their daughter?

    4 A Probability, yes.

    5 Q Has anyone else ever attained that status

    6 of probably involved?

    7 A No.


    -Just an opinion
    Candy,

    By Colorado law, Burke cannot be referred to as a suspect or probably involved by Beckner, or Keenan, nor anyone else of authority in Boulder, which might be implied that Burke killed JonBenet. Burke is protected by his age at the time of the crime, which was nine. Officially, in Colorado it's as if no crime had occurred if the perp is under 10 years old. Burke made it by four weeks.

    IMO Burke was lucky he lived in Colorado at the time. Twenty seven states have no minimum age for a child to be tried criminally as an adult. The remainder of the states have minimum ages ranging from 15 in Louisiana down to 7 years old in New York.

    JMO


  9. #9
    5 Q Has anyone else ever attained that status

    6 of probably involved?

    7 A No.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    968
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    By Colorado law, Burke cannot be referred to as a suspect or probably involved by Beckner, or Keenan, nor anyone else of authority in Boulder, which might be implied that Burke killed JonBenet.
    He can not be prosecuted or adjudged a juvenile delinquent in need of supervision, but the cops and DA could say in reference to anyone who was then nine years old 'he did it'. They just can't say 'he did it and he is under arrest for it'. If he had been ten, they could have said 'he did it' and when brought to court he will be referred to as 'The Juvenile alleged to be in need of supervision'' in all court papers.

    but all this tiresome Burke Did It stuff is not only nonsense its off topic. What does it have to do with John Ramsey running for public office in Michigan?


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by candy
    5 Q Has anyone else ever attained that status

    6 of probably involved?

    7 A No.

    Candy,

    Beckner had to say "no". If he had said "yes" it would have made Burke an "internal" suspect who was PROBABLY involved in the death of JonBenet. That would violate the law and the court's protective order covering Burke.

    Beckner and Keenan are forced to do a lot of broken field running to try to answer questions about Burke and in the same breath protect his anonymous identity as a child under 10 years old at the time of the crime.

    In such instances it is perfectly legal to lie under oath in order to follow the law and a court order protecting a minor's identity. Beckner had no choice but to say "no".

    JMO


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    968
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    In such instances it is perfectly legal to lie under oath in order to follow the law and a court order protecting a minor's identity.
    Your interpretation of the law regarding perjury is very interesting. I do so hope that if you are ever testifying under oath you gain a better understanding prior to giving your testimony. If you don't you are likely going to have seven years to study the matter.


  13. #13

    Thumbs up

    Right on Toth!


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    East Bay, California
    Posts
    1,233
    I agree with Toth on this one, Blue...sorry. Under no circumstances, EVER...is it permissable to lie under oath...


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Ii
    I agree with Toth on this one, Blue...sorry. Under no circumstances, EVER...is it permissable to lie under oath...
    I agree. But you are looking at the academic interpretation of perjury. In the real world, in such matters as laws protecting the identity of children, national security matters, etc., a lie can be the lesser of two evils and will be forgiven by the court.

    IMO Beckner was caught between a rock and a hard place. If he had said "yes" the next question would have been "who". He would have violated a court protective order because the only other known person in the house that night was Burke, and at least one of those three Ramseys had to have been involved in the murder. So he said "no", John and Patsy were the only two "internal" suspects. Beckner would have violated the law if he answered 'yes" and would have violated the law if he answered "no".

    JMO


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •