Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

What I am planning on doing is sending out a press release. To start the press release we will point out how Jones didn't even bother to find out anything from the new D.A. Stan Garnett. Below is the information but when it comes out in the press release it will be much shorter.

Thanks to Cynic for sending this to me;

In her show on Investigation Discovery Jones talks about former Boulder D.A. Mary Lacy's letter of exoneration of the Ramseys. Basically the letter said the Ramseys were innocent of any involvement in the death of JonBenet. On a side note what kind of D.A. does this while an investigation is going on? Wouldn't the police be part of the exoneration? Why was the Boulder P.D. involved? Because the letter was crap that's why. Anyway . . .

In her show Jones does NOT bring up what the NEW Boulder D.A. said about this ridiculous letter.

Monday Oct. 11th 2010 Boulder District Attorny Stan Garnett ( the person who replaced Mary Lacy) was on the Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman show. Here is the exchange about Lacy's "exoneration"

Dan Caplis: And Stan, so it would be fair to say then that Mary Lacy’s clearing of the Ramseys is no longer in effect, you’re not bound by that, you’re just going to follow the evidence wherever it leads.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?

Stan Garnett: That is accurate, I think that is what most of the press related about the exoneration at the time that it was issued.
…
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.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5701132&postcount=1:.

Excellent!!!!

Tricia said:

Thanks to Cynic for sending this to me;

Click to expand...

My pleasure.

In her show on Investigation Discovery Jones talks about former Boulder D.A. Mary Lacy's letter of exoneration of the Ramseys. Basically the letter said the Ramseys were innocent of any involvement in the death of JonBenet. On a side note what kind of D.A. does this while an investigation is going on? Wouldn't the police be part of the exoneration? Why was the Boulder P.D. involved? Because the letter was crap that's why. Anyway . . .

Click to expand...

For those who are unfamiliar with Lacy's bias:

Fear of a civil lawsuit, coupled with Mary Lacy’s strong belief in the intruder theory cemented the direction of the DA’s office under her leadership. While many in the general public believe that the Ramseys were exonerated in 2008, the record shows that they were essentially exonerated the moment that Mary Lacy took office.

"John and Patsy Ramsey have asked the Boulder County district attorney to find another police agency to investigate fresh leads into their daughter JonBenet's Christmas 1996 slaying."
"If that doesn't happen, the Ramseys may sue to force the Boulder Police Department to turn its case over to another agency, L. Lin Wood, the family's attorney, said Monday."
Daily Camera, Matt Sebastian, October 29, 2002

And

"Wood said he expects to file a civil lawsuit against the Boulder Police Department by the end of the year seeking compensatory damages for the Ramseys, and possibly seeking to transfer the investigation to another law enforcement agency."
Daily Camera,Katherine Vogt (Associated Press) November 20, 2002

One month later…

Based on the above and after consultation with Chief Beckner, I have made a decision to conduct further investigation from within my office, using our investigative resources.
We will work cooperatively with Lou Smit, the Ramseys, and the Boulder Police Department.
Please understand that this decision is being made for one reason only, the fact that a violent child murderer is at large.
Mary Keenan, Letter to Lin Wood, December 20, 2002

Lin Wood: "Well, I think the timing of the decision on Friday may have been affected by my letter. I did write Mary Keenan. I've been trying for over three and a half years as the attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey to get this case out of the hands of the Boulder Police Department
NBC Today Show, Katie Couric interview with Lin Wood, Dec 23, 2002

"Keenan said Monday she agrees with a federal judge (Carnes) in Atlanta that the evidence points to an intruder, not the 6-year-old beauty queen's parents, as the girl's killer."
Denver Post, Marilyn Robinson, Apr 08, 2003

"Ramsey attorney L. Lin Wood of Atlanta said Keenan's statement removes the long-standing "umbrella of suspicion" over the couple."
"This means that the nightmare that John and Patsy Ramsey have lived with, of being falsely accused of the murder of their daughter, is finally over," Wood said. "And, from the lawyer's perspective, the days of anyone accusing my clients of murder are also over."
Rocky Mountain News, Owen S. Good, Apr 08, 2003

"But Carnes' ruling was based only on the facts presented by the Ramseys and their lawyer, L. Lin Wood, and Wolf and his lawyer, Darnay Hoffman - and not on a comprehensive review of investigators' 40,000-plus pages of evidence.”
Rocky Mountain News, Charlie Brennan. Apr 25, 2003

District Attorney Mary Keenan went public April 7 with her belief that evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case points to an intruder as the killer - not Patsy Ramsey.
But sources familiar with Keenan and the case say this isn't a new view for Boulder's top prosecutor. Keenan, in fact, has supported the intruder theory for nearly five years, dating to the summer of 1998, according to the sources.
It's not only law enforcement sources who say Keenan has long been a proponent of the intruder theory.
…
One source involved in those sessions recalls being told by colleagues that Keenan chided Haney for being too tough on Patsy Ramsey.
"Mary really had her nose in it, and thought that the Ramseys were being really pushed around," said another key law enforcement source.
Former Boulder police Detective Steve Thomas, who quit the department in 1998, wrote a book detailing his theory that Patsy Ramsey hit JonBenet in a flash of anger over bed-wetting. He eventually reached an out-of-court settlement after they sued him for his comments.
In one section of his book, he wrote: "Alex Hunter said that he thought Patsy Ramsey was involved. That was more than offset by comments from his staff. Deputy DA Mary Keenan said the body language of John and Patsy wasn't suggestive of deception, and that men were not in a position to judge Patsy Ramsey's demeanor."
Rocky Mountain News, Charlie Brennan, April 25, 2003

For those who may not be aware- Keenan was ML's maiden name. She was Assistant DA under her maiden name in 1996.

If you saw the Aphrodite Jones show can you remember if she commented at any time whether she tried to contact the new Boulder D.A. Stan Garnett??

Thanks,
Tricia

A side note; on our sister forum Forums for Justice.org Sabrina found an interesting article about Aphrodite Jones and her I.D. story on Anna Nichole Smith. Seems Jones got some of that story wrong as well.

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=187358&postcount=89"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Aphrodite Jones[/ame]

eileenhawkeye said:

Are you referring to being paid for interviews? I've always heard that TV shows don't pay for interviews, because of the free publicity the interview provides.

However, I came across this statement from an old article about the Ramseys' interview on 20/20 in 2000:



Now, the 20/20 episode brought in 20 million viewers and it was the highest-rated episode in three years, so I can see why all the networks wanted John and Patsy to come on their show. Now, if they're all competing against each other, was there some kind of under-the-table offer going on? How did Walters "win" over the others?

Click to expand...

Media has a little loophole they use to make the statement they don't pay for interviews: they pay for accompanying photos they air during the interviews.

I don't know that the Ramseys sold ABC the right to air in that show photos to which the Ramseys owned the copyright. It's been a long time since I saw it. But that is one way lots of people are interviewed and make lots of money, even though they aren't "paid" for the interview itself.

Wonder how much the Ramseys have actually made off of photos aired, published in print, etc., through the years? Maybe the Jones program paid well, too.

I didn't see the program, but just a quick note to everyone working on this thread bringing the info: Y'ALL ROCK!! MUAH!

KoldKase said:

Media has a little loophole they use to make the statement they don't pay for interviews: they pay for accompanying photos they air during the interviews.

I don't know that the Ramseys sold ABC the right to air in that show photos to which the Ramseys owned the copyright. It's been a long time since I saw it. But that is one way lots of people are interviewed and make lots of money, even though they aren't "paid" for the interview itself.

Wonder how much the Ramseys have actually made off of photos aired, published in print, etc., through the years? Maybe the Jones program paid well, too.

I didn't see the program, but just a quick note to everyone working on this thread bringing the info: Y'ALL ROCK!! MUAH!

Click to expand...

KK, you bring up a great point. Just how much money have the Ramseys made off photos/videos and such.

It wasn't until the past few years we (as in the general public) became aware of this loophole. So for all we know the Ramseys could have been making a lot of money along the way early on.

John Ramsey is credited for providing the video in the Jones show. You have to wonder if he was paid for that video.

JonBenet's pageant/photoshoot pictures and videos were sold to a photo agency at the very beginning of the case by the photographers who took them. When the media wants to use a pageant/photoshoot picture or video, they pay a licensing fee to the agency. If the Ramseys did make money from JonBenet's videos/pictures, then it had to be from the home videos and normal pictures of her.

eileenhawkeye said:

JonBenet's pageant/photoshoot pictures and videos were sold to a photo agency at the very beginning of the case by the photographers who took them. When the media wants to use a pageant/photoshoot picture or video, they pay a licensing fee to the agency. If the Ramseys did make money from JonBenet's videos/pictures, then it had to be from the home videos and normal pictures of her.

Click to expand...

There are hundreds of photos, both pageant and family, that we all see every day. There is the possibility that the Ramseys have made hundreds of thousands of dollars from JonBenet's death. Sad.

joeskidbeck said:

There are hundreds of photos, both pageant and family, that we all see every day. There is the possibility that the Ramseys have made hundreds of thousands of dollars from JonBenet's death. Sad.

Click to expand...

I can definitely see how the Ramseys made money from JBR's family photos, but how did they make money from her pageant photos? Those pictures were sold to the photo agencies by the photographers who took them. When the media wants to use a pageant picture, they pay the photo agency. Unless John Ramsey is now the CEO of one of those photo agencies, I'm not seeing how he made money from JBR's pageant pictures.

eileenhawkeye said:

I can definitely see how the Ramseys made money from JBR's family photos, but how did they make money from her pageant photos? Those pictures were sold to the photo agencies by the photographers who took them. When the media wants to use a pageant picture, they pay the photo agency. Unless John Ramsey is now the CEO of one of those photo agencies, I'm not seeing how he made money from JBR's pageant pictures.

Click to expand...

Unless the photographers copyrighted the photos before JonBenet's death, the R's would have owned the rights. We have no way of knowing who made the money from her pageant photos. These proceeds could have gone to both the Ramseys and/or the photographers. See link below for info:

http://www.weddingphotographydirect...onal-articles/photo-copyright-protection.aspx

joeskidbeck said:

Unless the photographers copyrighted the photos before JonBenet's death, the R's would have owned the rights. We have no way of knowing who made the money from her pageant photos. These proceeds could have gone to both the Ramseys and/or the photographers. See link below for info:

http://www.weddingphotographydirect...onal-articles/photo-copyright-protection.aspx

Click to expand...

The photographers did sell their pictures of JonBenet:

The month after her death, a photographer named Randy Simons, who had been hired by the Ramseys in June 1996 to take photographs of JonBenet in her pageant clothes, sold his JonBenet portfolio to Sygma Photo Agency for $7,500.

Click to expand...

Mark Fix took pictures of JonBenet at her pageants and he sold them too:

http://www.markfixphotography.com/38413/index.htm?showimage=284539

Copyright: People Magazine/Mark Fix/Zuma Press
Crown Shot of JonBenet Ramsey which signaled the launch of a worldwide media blitz in 1997.

Click to expand...

They sold their pictures to photo agencies, like Zuma:

Since that fateful 1996 Christmas, ZUMA Press has doggedly pursued every lead and avenue to hopefully find the truth and put this sad story to rest, working on assignment for media all over the world on the ongoing saga and supplying images thru there wire service to publications everywhere

For the whole story come to ZUMA for exclusive broadcast quality video footage as well as the largest comprehensive collection of photographs of JonBenét herself.

Click to expand...

Anytime you see a pageant picture of JBR, it will say underneath it (c) Mark Fix or Randy Simons. That means that Mark Fix and Randy Simons owned the copyright to the pictures, until they gave them to Zuma, not the Ramseys.

eileenhawkeye said:

All of JonBenet's pageant and photoshoot pictures were sold to a photo agency by the photographers who took them. The Ramseys didn't own those pictures or videos. When the media wants to use a pageant video of JonBenet, they have to pay the photo agency a licensing fee.

The pictures that the Ramseys provide of JonBenet during interviews/specials are normal non-pageant pictures of her, and that's why whenever you watch a show about the case and see new normal pictures of JBR, it will always thank the Ramseys at the end.

Click to expand...

Eileen,

I am 9 days late.... :bdsong:arty:artyguy::gift::up:

Only personal family photos belong to the Ramseys. I am sure that John got paid for those photos, but not for the interviews from the network channels.

As for the National Enquiror lawsuit, it was settled with the stipulation that the Ramseys give the NE an interview to "clear up" the libelous claims made by the magazine. That is when Patsy made the NE journalists Shamrock Cookies, LOL!

Part Two:

• Can we trust the way the DNA evidence was handled?

"When Meyer (the coroner) clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, pages 45-46

It has been proven that simply speaking near evidence that is later tested for DNA can contaminate the evidence. Masks were not commonly worn by those handling evidence, or near articles of evidence, at the time of JBR’s death.
If the evidence was handled without the appropriate precautions and procedures in place, it could be worthless.

“But the sensitivity of the test also means it detects even the slightest contamination.
In January, the Seattle lab's DNA supervisor, George Chan, was chatting with a forensic scientist who was examining evidence in a child rape case. Although Chan had no other exposure to the case, a subsequent test found Chan's DNA, as well as that of the suspect, in the evidence -- a sample taken from a pair of boxer shorts. The likely culprit: saliva spewed during Chan's conversation.”
http://www.bioforensics.com/news/DNA_testing_problems_7-04.html

Aside from the possibility of contamination, there exists the very real possibility that DNA was transferred to the areas where it found through secondary transfer.
The easiest way to understand this is to realize that many people catch a cold or flu as a result of secondary transfer. When you touch someone’s hand that has a cold (or touch some surface that they have touched) and you then touch your face, you will likely contract a cold. In order to catch a cold as a result of primary transfer, the person with a cold would have to touch your face directly.
Secondary transfer of DNA is a proven fact. It has been observed in lab experiments and in the field.

The presence of DNA with a profile matching that found on an item does not necessarily show that the person ever had direct contact with the item.
http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Continuity and contamination.pdf

In the experiments involving a kiss to the face, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred b a kiss to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all of the experiments fun in this study.
In the experiments involving transfer of DNA via a towel, DNA or cells containing DNA were transferred to a towel, then to an individual’s face and then to a glove in all experiments with one of the towels
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference04/Transfer/Taylor&Johnson Study.pdf

• The following section highlights two cases where DNA was irrelevant or pointed in the wrong direction. These cases were solved despite the DNA evidence.

Janelle Patton

The case of Janelle Patton clearly illustrates that matching DNA in three locations can have an innocent explanation and have no bearing, whatsoever, on the prosecution of the case. The DNA of the man who committed the crime (McNeill) was not found on the body of the victim.
McNeill was arrested in February and charged with murdering Janelle Patton, whose death was the first murder recorded on the self-governing island in 150 years.
The body of the 29-year-old was found wrapped in plastic at a picnic spot on Easter Sunday 2002.
Forensic evidence presented at a hearing into the murder of Janelle Patton on Norfolk Island has shown no DNA link to the New Zealand man accused of killing her.
The court has heard expert testimony from scientists who tested Miss Patton's clothing for DNA traces. Of more than 100 samples, they were unable to find the accused's profile on any of them.
Analysis of Miss Patton's underwear found evidence of a mixed DNA profile from two females.
Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants, coupled with the ferocity of the attack, suggested motives such as "jealousy, rage, anger and revenge" –– emotions that could be felt only by someone who, unlike McNeill, knew Patton, the defense lawyer claimed.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10395220...ectid=10395220
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...od-from-the-sand/story-e6freo8c-1111113128516
McNeill was primarily convicted on the basis of fingerprint evidence and his confession.
A later appeal of the verdict was rejected.
The Janelle Patton case demonstrates that forensic evidence that doesn’t “fit” within the larger context of a case can be dismissed as evidence that must have an innocent explanation.

Alan and Dianne Johnson:

DNA evidence pointed to an unidentified male
Matching DNA was found in three locations, on a pink bathrobe, a latex glove and a leather glove.
The real perpetrator was their daughter, Sarah Marie Johnson
She is in prison for killing her parents in 2003 when she was 16 years old.
On June 26, 2008, a unanimous Idaho Supreme Court affirmed Johnson's convictions, thereby rejecting all issues she had raised on appeal.

They did, however, find a pink bathrobe, a latex glove and a leather glove in the garbage outside the Johnsons' home, which contained blood and other DNA samples from all three Johnson family members and another unknown source.

Forensic scientist Keith Inman testified that, of three possible hypotheses for the shooter -- Alan Johnson, Sarah Johnson or an unknown perpetrator -- the most likely was an unknown shooter.
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-03-07/...-samples-dna-evidence-blood-samples?_s=PM:LAW

End of Part Two
Continued below…

Part Three:

• Lacy’s exoneration of the Ramseys

Aphrodite Jones tells us:
But, new techniques of DNA analysis have produced one significant breakthrough. On July 9, 2008, prosecutors officially cleared the Ramseys of any involvement in the murder of their daughter. Patsy never lived to see the Ramsey name cleared.

Mary Lacy’s longstanding belief in the innocence of the Ramseys clouded her ability to view the DNA in its proper perspective; consequently, the touch DNA finding was all that Mary Lacy needed to make her unprecedented public proclamation of innocence with respect to individuals that were rightly primary suspects for years.
Let’s look at her statement regarding the touch DNA finding:
"The match of the male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us than an unknown male handled these items," Lacy wrote to Ramsey. "Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder."

To suggest that there can be “no innocent explanation” for the DNA in this case indicates either a profound ignorance of DNA, or a profound bias, or perhaps both.

Can there truly be “no innocent explanation” for this type of DNA evidence, as Mary Lacy claims?

The DNA in this case allows for at least the following “innocent,” non-intruder explanations:

· Human error involving data interpretation.
· Contamination.
· Innocent primary transfer.
· Innocent secondary or tertiary transfer.

• Many were openly skeptical about the exoneration of the Ramseys and sought to place the DNA evidence in its proper perspective.

Dr. Michael Baden, Former Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyFpkBGI-6A[/ame]

Dr. Cyril Wecht, Former Medical Examiner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania , former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences:
On July 9, 2008, Cyril Wecht addressed the new findings, “The fact that this other DNA was found at this time matches previous DNA that was thought to be a contaminant does not alter the picture.” Of course not. This did not call for the public exoneration the DA rushed to give; it called for investigation. There was no way to know whether it belonged to the killer
The Murder Business, Mark Fuhrman, page 131

Also

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgt9yMZCvbI[/ame]

Craig Silverman, Former Denver Deputy District Attorney:
The DNA evidence could be significant, or, it could be contamination, there’s a debate about that. -February 3, 2009

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmMzN4U7m_I[/ame]

…whether it’s enough to publicly exonerate the family, Lee said, he can’t say.
“It’s all subject to interpretation,” he said. “That is a legal issue and up to the district attorney.”
…
“And they still have this note problem,” Lee said of the three-page ransom letter recovered at the scene. “Those issues are just like pieces of a puzzle that cannot fit together at this point.”
- Dr. Henry Lee, Chief Emeritus of the Connecticut State Police, Founder and Professor of the Forensic Science Program at the University of New Haven
Daily Camera, Vanessa Miller, July 10, 2008

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

GRACE: To Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor and author of "And Justice for Some." Wendy, are you convinced that the discovery of this DNA, which matches DNA found in JonBenet`s underwear -- that DNA, a male DNA was found within blood of JonBenet Ramsey`s in her underwear. Does this really clear the Ramseys?
WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: No. In my opinion, Mary Lacy has issues in terms of her judgments. She was the one who, after all, charged John Mark Karr, a completely innocent man, with the crime despite the fact that he had never even been in Boulder, Colorado. We all seemed to know that before she did. Let`s just say I`m not having a lot of faith in this woman`s judgment at all. Plus, she`s a lame duck politician. No.
And you know what, Nancy? I can understand people get excited about the presence of DNA. It`s always important to talk about it. But you know something? There is no way that just because they might want to include some other unknown male that that by definition destroys the significance of the mountain of other evidence. And it is that very point that I think makes me crazy when I hear people say this proves that a stranger did it. You`d have to actually abandon the millions of pages of other evidence that points away from the stranger theory.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../09/ng.01.html

"I don't think anybody is an idiot for believing in the intruder theory. But I do think those who do probably don't work in law enforcement"
The Murder Business, Mark Fuhrman, page 108

• A new DA takes office, a task force is convened, a promise of a fresh look at the case. – February 2009

City of Boulder's Chief of Police, Mark Beckner and Boulder’s current District Attorney, Stan Garnett both had the opportunity at a press conference 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.
…
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.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5701132&postcount=1"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - The Ramseys are no longer “cleared” according to Stan Garnett

• When the Ramseys, still in mourning refused to be interrogated, police said they wouldn’t release JonBenet’s body for burial until they changed their minds.

Although it’s presented as a fact in the documentary, it is only one side of the story, here is the other side:

By midafternoon, after studying the autopsy results, Eller still had unanswered questions about the body. What about the massive skull fracture? What and where was the murder weapon? What about the vaginal trauma? A lot of points needed to be covered.
Chief Koby pointed out to him that the body itself had become evidence, and to release it at this point could affect the investigation. Eller and the coroner agreed.
But only a few minutes passed before Deputy District Attorney Pete Hofstrom called to say that the Ramseys were asking about burial. His appearance raised an important question that was not addressed: Why were the Ramseys already communicating through the DA’s people rather than directly to the investigating detectives? That indicated they were talking through a private lawyer, and with the strong links between the DA’s office and the defense attorneys in Boulder, that could only mean trouble for the police.
Eller told Hofstrom that Koby, the coroner, and he had decided to hold the body for further evidentiary tests, and thought no more of it.
His attention at the moment was focused on setting up formal Q-and-A sessions with the Ramseys. The police expected that both the Ramseys would want to cooperate as soon as possible in the hunt for the killer of their child. We had hundreds of questions, questions only they could answer, because the situation had changed so dramatically from the time police first arrived on the scene of what had been thought to be a kidnapping. Eller assigned Detective Arndt to arrange a formal interview.
A short time later an agitated Pete Hofstrom came into Eller’s office.
“Pete, we need to talk to the Ramseys,” the commander told the prosecutor.
“You can’t ransom the body for an interview,” Hofstrom shot back.
“We are not ‘ransoming’ the body. It’s just premature to release it.”
“You can’t ransom the body,” Hofstrom repeated, as if he had not heard Eller’s words.
“I’m not suggesting that,” the commander said, laying out the forensic and evidentiary concerns.
“You can’t ransom the body,” Hofstrom insisted for a third time.
Eller grew irritable. “Pete, they are unrelated issues. Go make your deal with them, that’s what you do. We need an interview.”
We would later learn that Hofstrom went to see Mike Bynum, who was already representing the Ramseys behind the scenes, and announced, “We’ve got a problem.” We was the word that shook us.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, pages 51 - 52

Also

Meyer said the examination of the girl's body was complete, except for toxicology reports, which take up to six weeks for results. He said, however, that his office routinely holds the bodies of homicide victims from 24 to 72 hours after an autopsy is complete, "in case anything comes up."
Police on Wednesday said they were "reluctant to release JonBenet's body because they were not sure all the necessary forensic work had been completed, nor had they had an opportunity to discuss the circumstances of JonBenet's death with the parents."
Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby did not immediately return telephone calls from the Daily Camera on Thursday.
District Attorney Alex Hunter said Thursday there may have been other considerations that led police to ask the body be withheld for additional time.
"For example, was there everything that the CBI (Colorado Bureau of Investigation) needed? Had a pediatrician been involved? A child abuse expert involved?" Hunter said. He said that, all told, the body underwent about 12 hours of examination.
Clay Evans, Daily Camera, April 25, 1997

Craig Silverman>>> It's the War and Peace of ransom notes! Buahahahahahahahahah!!!!!


Cynic, an amazing job!