I'm lost

[madeleine]

IMO, the DNA was simply contamination, probably from some source at the autopsy, where the clothes were pulled off the child and Dr. Meyer even carefully checked the crotch of the panties against the body to align the blood drops, or at the forensic lab, where the underwear and longjohns would have been handled, as well, to examine for and to collect samples, in exactly the places from which the "touch" DNA was eventually extracted.

I am not ruling out planting evidence in this case,another way of explaining how the misterious dna got there.sorry,but these are not the kind of officials I trust .

:seeya: M.Lacy

btw,can they tell whether a touch dna sample comes from a dead or alive person?

 

[LadyBug99]

I think SuperDave would do better at answering your questions than I, but I will say that there was blood on the pillowcase on JB's bed, and it was hers, we learned in the '98 DA interview with Patsy. Patsy was asked if JB had nosebleeds, and she said no, though of course she equivocated saying she picked her nose and it might bleed...ha!

All things considered, this blood on the pillowcase tells me that JonBenet was probably bludgeoned in or near her room that night; if she was in the bed or near the bed and laid upon it after the blow, that would explain the blood on the pillowcase. Otherwise, I don't think she'd have been carried all the way back to her room from another bedroom or another floor of the home, but of course, I'm just speculating based on common sense.

While I can't rule Burke out for delivering the head blow in a childish sibling fight or prior molestation of his sister, I can't imagine him being big enough to carry JonBenet down two flights of stairs to the basement. That's where she was possibly penetrated with the paintbrush to cover up the prior molestation which happened before that night, IMO. She was cleaned up and redressed, I believe the evidence proves.

This would have been when the oversized Bloomies were placed on her body, with the killer not knowing her bladder would release urine when she died, soiling the panties and longjohns. I don't believe he/she/they had the heart to change the clothes again, if he/she/they even noticed once the deed was done.

Then she was turned over onto her stomach and the ligature was tied onto her neck at the back--the hair still attached to her scalp at the back of her neck was caught in the knot, along with fibers from Patsy's clothing. Slivers from the paintbrush found by the tray indicate it was broken there and then tied onto the ligature as a handle. The handle was pulled from behind as she was strangled beside the paint tray. Lou Smit stated her urine was found on the carpet there, so if true, that's where she expired and then her bladder evacuated onto the front of her clothing. She was finally staged onto a blanket, wrapped around her in the cellar room.

I don't believe Burke had the ability, patience, or conscience to do all that at his age. As I said, I don't believe he could have carried her limp body down two flights of stairs, as well, and as little as I think of the Ramseys, I don't believe they'd have taken him down to the basement to witness the devil's tasks of that night.

Just my theory and opinion. Obviously, I've gotten some things wrong, as I wasn't there, but this is the best I can surmise from what we know of the evidence.

Information Overload: I forgot about the blood on the pillow case and the question on nose bleeds. Did JB have any bleeding other than vaginal? Was she bleeding from her head? I agree that the initial attack occurred elsewhere in the house. I believe it was then the R's so conveniently turned off the usual lights that were left on in the house to navigate in the dark (something that would have been impossible for an intruder) and moved JB to the basement for the staging of a crime scene (or crime scene #2) where she was strangled, assaulted with the paintbrush, cleaned and laid to rest in the wine cellar.

 

[Agatha_C]

Why have we never seen these DNA results? It would seem this type of info could go a long way in the publics opinion, if we could but see these results. So again, I have to wonder, why they havent been released like so much of the other information?

Could it be that something is rotten in Denmark? Lies? Lies? And perhaps more lies?

 

[KoldKase]

I couldn't quite figure Lou Smit out. He seemed to lack the ability to make logical leaps in this case, which should not be because he was, apparently, highly regarded as a detective and closed a lot of cases.

Reading the Lockheed Martin stuff now. Just. Wow.

Lou Smit was a legend in his own mind. He got all that hype because he was on Team Ramsey...experts at hyping the people who worked for them.

In reality, he was in way over his head when it came to forensics, and he was too willing to work for the Ramseys for me to believe he was ever unbiased. I'm not even sure he wasn't completely bought and paid for, as he'd have to be really stupid to believe his own spin. He was called the fox, after all. I think he might have been the fox in the hen house. He certainly was instrumental in destroying this case, ensuring forever it would never be prosecuted. And Alex Hunter was the one who hired him and set the task to him to investigate the "intruder." After 18 months and $60K in pay, Smit "quit," which he said in a media interview he did because he was about to be fired, as the governor had stepped in after Thomas' public resignation and ordered Hunter to change strategies or lose the case; this mean calling a grand jury--at long, long last--compelling witnesses to be interviewed who refused to cooperate any other way, etc. That's also when Mary then-Keenan/later Lacy and Trip DeMuth, attorneys who worked for the DA Office, were also taken off the case by the Hunter and Michael Kane was hired to handle the case and run the grand jury.

Smit took this opportunity to steal copies of the crime scene photos, documents, and videotapes, which he'd put into a slide show for the DA, called the PowerPoint we often speak of now. When Kane discovered Smit had absconded with those, as well as he'd shared information about the case with outside contacts, against the contract Smit had signed with Hunter when hired, Hunter asked a judge to force Smit to give them back. Smit wiped the floor with Hunter, answering through Smit's lawyer that either they back off or Smit would tell everyone what he'd observed while working for the DA. Hunter folded fast, not only giving Smit complete rights to share the evidence as he saw fit once the grand jury investigation was over, but allowing Smit to do the one thing that meant the most to Smit: testify before the grand jury, which Kane had denied Smit's original request to do. All Smit had to do was promise he wouldn't tell what he'd heard in the DA Office while working there--meaning what he had on Hunter, which we learned from Thomas' book was Hunter was sharing info with the tabloids himself.

I also believe there was even more damaging stuff Smit had on Hunter, but that we'll never know. What we do know is it was enough to cause Hunter to turn Smit loose on the public to shill for the Ramseys for the rest of his life with sensitive case evidence which should never have been released in an unsolved child murder. Letting stuff like that out can lead to such unpleasant scandals for the DA as John Mark Karr's arrest, after all. heh

So Smit testified before the grand jury, shilling for the Ramseys with his stupid intruder non-evidence; and Hunter gave him copies of the evidence to spin for the media as the Ramseys unofficial propaganda specialist. We've seen what Team Ramsey wanted us to see, for the most part.

The good news is they really are stupid, blinded, or just too greedy to care, because all that they spin invariably ends up just proving there was no intruder, the Ramseys lied to LE, and the evidence always leads back to the Ramsey home.

Well, that's my opinion, anyhow.

But the record of Hunter's and Smit's court battle for copies of the evidence is documented, as there were court documents and a few news reports when this finally surfaced, after the grand jury ended with Hunter declaring he'd never take this case to trial and no one would ever make him--okay, that's not what he actually said, but it's what I heard.

Here are the links to the court documents, which are fairly short, for court documents, but lay out what happened rather well, I think:

Smit's contract with the DA: http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03171997smitcontract.htm

Hunter's appeal to the court for intervention: http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/02011999huntervssmit.htm

The resulting contract with Smit--better known as the DA giving away the Farm: http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03301999huntervssmit.htm

 

[KoldKase]

Here's an old article I have saved, which was the first most of us had ever heard about this deal with the devil between Hunter and Smit:

3/23/2000

Owens not in on deal between Hunter, Smit


by B.J.Plasket
Daily Times-Call


BOULDER — While deciding last fall not to appoint a special prosecutor in the JonBenet Ramsey case, Gov. Bill Owens was apparently unaware of a secret agreement in which prosecutors agreed to give up evidence to a former detective who now works for the Ramsey family.

While Owens and his team interviewed police and prosecutors and were made privy to most of the evidence in the case, a source close to the situation told the Daily Times-Call the governor was never told about an agreement under which former investigator Lou Smit was given total control of photographs, a crime-scene video and other information contained on a compact disc.

The agreement between Smit and District Attorney Alex Hunter was made under seal in March 1999, only months after Smit left the case and only weeks after Hunter filed a motion demanding the return of all material gathered by Smit during his 18 months as a special investigator.

Most of the information given to Smit was contained on the disc, which Smit admitted preparing with the help of a former associate in the El Paso County Sheriff's Department.

Hunter, in the sealed motion, told the court Smit's sharing of the information with an outsider was inappropriate and demanded Smit return the materials and destroy all copies.

Hunter quickly reversed his field, however, and in late March 1999 signed an agreement allowing Smit to share any case information with anyone he chose after Oct. 1, 1999.

That agreement was unsealed early this month.

Owens, through spokesman Dick Wadhams, refused to comment on the Smit information.

"The governor is not answering follow-up questions to his comments earlier this week," Wadhams said.

Owens this week got into a public exchange with John and Patsy Ramsey over the level of their cooperation in the investigation into their daughter's death. Owens also criticized Barbara Walters' interview with the Ramseys , which was broadcast by ABC-TV last Friday.

Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise on Wednesday said although he was not involved in last fall's meetings with Owens and his staff, he assumed the Smit agreement was not conveyed to the governor.

"I'm going to doubt it was brought up," he said. "It was not important within that context."

Hunter, meanwhile, has refused to comment on the agreement, which was reached shortly after Smit's lawyers brought up allegations that Hunter himself had leaked sensitive case information and had attempted to conspire with tabloid reporter Jeff Shapiro and others to discredit former Boulder Detective John Eller.

Wise on Wednesday said he has "no worries" about Smit misusing the information he took with him from the investigation.

"I have a lot of respect for Lou," Wise said.

Hunter arrived back in Boulder early Wednesday after attending a conference in Connecticut along with Henry Lee, the forensic scientist who heads Connecticut's state crime lab and who is also working on the Ramsey case.

Wise said Hunter usually "talks in generalities" with Lee about the Ramsey case at such conferences.

Wise said he has no knowledge of a meeting between Lee, Hunter and Ramsey prosecutor Michael Kane that will reportedly take place in Boulder, perhaps as soon as this week.

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner earlier this week acknowledged the FBI is still conducting tests on crime-scene evidence.

A source inside the investigation this week said the Colorado Bureau of Investigation "screwed up" tests on some evidence and that the evidence is being re-tested. It is unknown if that evidence is the same being examined by the FBI.

Funding for the Ramsey investigation — including money to pay Kane's part-time salary while he practices law in Pennsylvania — could run out as soon as the end of this month.

 

[KoldKase]

Oh, what these people were TRULY thinking, I hope I NEVAH know:

2000-03-15: Rocky Mountain News: DAs tried to block testimony by Smit

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0315smit1.shtml
DAs tried to block testimony by Smit
Grand jury finally did hear intruder theory
By Kevin McCullen
Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOULDER -- Prosecutors last year tried to stop detective Lou Smit from sharing with a grand jury his theory that an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey.

Court documents unsealed Tuesday show Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter obtained a court order in February 1999 prohibiting Smit from testifying before the grand jury investigating the 6-year-old beauty princess's slaying.

Smit fought the court order, which was eventually lifted, and in March detailed for the jury the theories he developed during his 18 months as Hunter's special investigator on the case.

Smit's attorney accused Hunter of not wanting to give the grand jury all of the facts in the case, according to the court documents. Authorities have named only JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, as suspects in the case.

"The prosecution is either intentionally or unintentionally emphasizing and focusing upon evidence which points to involvement of the Ramsey family and is not presenting clear evidence of involvement of an intruder in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey," attorney Greg Walta argued in court documents.

Neither Hunter nor Smit could be reached for comment Tuesday.

A source close to the case said prosecutors were concerned Smit, a former homicide investigator in Colorado Springs, would offer grand jurors only theories in the case and not present any factual evidence.

Smit this week publicly revealed the evidence that he believes shows an intruder killed JonBenet. Smit is now helping the Ramseys investigate their daughter's death.

Smit said an aluminum baseball bat with carpet fibers from inside the Ramsey house was found outside a broken basement window. JonBenet's skull was fractured by a blow to the head before she was strangled Christmas night 1996.

He also said packing material and leaves were found both inside and outside the broken window, which indicates an intruder could have entered or exited the house.

He also said marks on the girl's face match marks that would have been left by a Taser stun gun.

Smit's testimony in March 1999 came just weeks after several alternate jurors were dimissed, fueling speculation that the grand jury's work was near completion.

After Smit and others testified, the jury continued to meet until last October, when it closed its investigation without indicting anyone.

Smit resigned from Hunter's office in September 1998, after Hunter decided to take the investigation to the grand jury.

Smit said he quit, in part, because he believed Boulder police and prosecutors "had developed tunnel vision and were focusing only on the Ramsey family and not on other suspects," according to the court documents.

Smit initially asked Hunter for permission to make a three-hour "intruder theory" presentation, but was rejected, court documents show.

Smit made the request to ensure "all aspects of the evidence are presented before criminal charges are filed," records show.


March 15, 2000

 

[KoldKase]

Ah, took me a while to find it--my files are a mess because when I started keeping them, I had NO IDEA I'd be here so many years later--STILL collecting them, still waiting for justice.

This is my favorite article about the Hunter vs Smit court fight, because it reveals the details about Smit's threats to Hunter, practically blackmail, if you ask me, but the judge was watching and Smit won. All I can say is, ONLY IN BOULDER:

3/16/2000
DA let Smit keep evidence
by B.J.Plasket
Daily Times-Call
BOULDER — Court records unsealed on Tuesday show the district attorney's office switched directions last year in a dispute with former detective Lou Smit — first demanding the return of Ramsey -investigation material and refusing to allow him to address a grand jury and later allowing him to both keep the case material and testify before the grand jury.

Smit, in fact, is now "free to disclose any information to anyone" under an agreement he signed with District Alex Hunter on March 30, 1999.

Photographs similar to those described in the court papers are appearing in this week's edition of "Newsweek" as part of an article about Smit's theory that an intruder was responsible for the 1996 slaying of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey .

Hunter on Wednesday declined comment on the situation. Spokeswoman Suzanne Laurion said he will "let the documents speak for themselves."

The documents — all filed under secrecy and kept under seal until this week — began flying on Feb. 1, 1999, when Hunter filed for a temporary restraining order and injunction requiring Smit to return a crime-scene video, a compact disc containing "investigation photographs" and items copied onto Smit's home computer. Hunter later obtained the temporary order, but it was dropped when the two signed the agreement.

Hunter's motion claimed Smit told him about the items during a January meeting. Smit had quit his contract job as Hunter's special investigator in the Ramsey case in late September 1998.

When he quit after 18 months working for Hunter on the case, Smit said he was disillusioned by law enforcement's focus on John and Patsy Ramsey — the girl's parents — as suspects. He maintained — and still maintains — an intruder entered the Ramsey home and killed JonBenet.

Hunter's motion was filed the same day he claims Smit vowed not to return the materials even if he had to "go to jail."

In his answer to the motion, Smit claimed his contract did not require him to return any information. Court papers filed by Smit also expressed concern that information held by him would be destroyed if he gave it back.

In another brief, Smit lawyers Robert Russel and Gregory Walta listed so-called leaks that had been attributed to Hunter, his office and the Boulder police. Among them were allegations that Hunter leaked confidential information to — and conspired with — tabloid reporter Jeff Shapiro while Detective Steve Thomas set up a "sting" to catch Hunter and Shapiro.

The DA's office, during that same early 1999 time period, made a similar turnaround in its opposition to allowing Smit to testify before the grand jury.

Ramsey prosecutor Michael Kane on Feb. 11 wrote Smit a letter telling him the grand jury had decided not to hear from him. Smit then filed a motion asking District Judge Roxanne Bailin to allow him to address the grand jury.

Although none of the documents indicate that Bailin granted the motion, Kane, in another filing, said Smit addressed the grand jury on March 11.

In that same filing Kane attacked Smit's contention that unmatched finger or palm prints were found on JonBenet's body.

"No such evidence exists," Kane said.

That same grand jury ended its work in October without returning indictments.

The agreement signed by Hunter and Smit allows Smit to "disclose any information to anyone" if no charges are filed by Oct. 1, 1999.

The agreement allows Smit to keep a copy of the CD containing photographs and other information, but also requires that he "not intentionally interfere with the investigation" and precludes him from relaying prior conversations with Ramsey prosecutors.

http://www.timescall.com/ramsey/storyDetail00.asp?ID=33

 

[KoldKase]

Hope I'm not driving some of you crazy, but please, feel free to scroll past because I do not expect anyone to go down the rabbit hole with me; in fact, I beg you, save yourself now! :escape:

I have to run after this, but thought if you're interested in some info on the history of the lovely company Lockheed Martin, or maybe even a flight of movie fantasy I've taken leading me to wonder about many wonderous things in this case, go to post #30 for more of my speculations, or post #35 for straight up articles on some legal troubles Lockheed Martin had in the past, probably before they learned how to effectively evade them so well:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9988&page=3

 

[KoldKase]

Information Overload: I forgot about the blood on the pillow case and the question on nose bleeds. Did JB have any bleeding other than vaginal? Was she bleeding from her head? I agree that the initial attack occurred elsewhere in the house. I believe it was then the R's so conveniently turned off the usual lights that were left on in the house to navigate in the dark (something that would have been impossible for an intruder) and moved JB to the basement for the staging of a crime scene (or crime scene #2) where she was strangled, assaulted with the paintbrush, cleaned and laid to rest in the wine cellar.

There was blood-tinged mucous on JB's face--you can see it in the autopsy photos. It came from her nose, it appears. She also had blood-tinged saliva that dripped on her upper sleeve when her head fell to the side as she lay in the basement--that's how we know she wasn't gagged with the duct tape before she was actually unconscious and probably dead, since the body was found in rigor and that corresponded to the dripping of the saliva on the upper right sleeve of her top. IMO.

 

[KoldKase]

I am not ruling out planting evidence in this case,another way of explaining how the misterious dna got there.sorry,but these are not the kind of officials I trust .

:seeya: M.Lacy

btw,can they tell whether a touch dna sample comes from a dead or alive person?

I've never heard that DNA could be either time-dated or determined to have been deposited before or after death based solely on the DNA sample itself.

 

[KoldKase]

Why have we never seen these DNA results? It would seem this type of info could go a long way in the publics opinion, if we could but see these results. So again, I have to wonder, why they havent been released like so much of the other information?

Could it be that something is rotten in Denmark? Lies? Lies? And perhaps more lies?

Police detectives and prosecutors as a rule do not release case evidence before presenting it at trial. They don't want to compromise the investigation. So we won't be seeing anything released by them...not after Hunter and Lacy screwed the pooch, at any rate.

Whatever Team Ramsey has, they release only that which they feel exculpates the Ramseys. Fortunately for truth and justice, they don't appear to be all that smart in that respect.

We have some TV screen shots of DNA lab reports from video shown in various Tracey crocs, but they were lifted only as people could manage in partial captures, good case followers who want to see the truth, not just the spin. The result is we have limited knowledge of the actual DNA test results and no more.

Will Team Ramsey ever release more of the evidence they have copies of--and believe me, they have plenty more--to the public? Maybe, if they can figure out how to make a buck off of it. I feel like much of it they have probably doesn't help the Ramseys' promotion of the intruder theory, though, so they don't want to deal with egg on their face if they don't have to, I'm thinking. On the other hand, money talks....

With the new DA now in office in Boulder, we won't be seeing any such shenanigans from Team Ramsey like we did with Hunter/Lacy, I don't believe. Stan Garnett seems to be a serious prosecutor and DA; so he won't be helping us with the previous DAs' nonsense, either. He's just trying to put all this behind Boulder, hopefully to restore some level of credibility to LE there. (Good luck with that, Mr. Garnett.)

IMO, Boulder LE will never, ever release these case files. Too much chit would hit the fan if the full truth were known about what Hunter and Lacy pulled in this case, IMO.

 

[DeeDee249]

I've never heard that DNA could be either time-dated or determined to have been deposited before or after death based solely on the DNA sample itself.

It can't. Not from the sample alone. The same with prints. The only way that prints or DNA can be proven to have been deposited at the TIME of the crime is if they are found at the SCENE of the crime and belong to someone who was proven to have been there at the time of the crime and had no other reason to be there. This would include an intruder, who could be implicated by its presence at a crime scene if there was no other reason for them to have been there unless they were involved in the crime. (i.e, someone who had never been in the R home before, or even someone who had been there but had no reason to dress/undress JB or be in her home that day (like a repairman, etc.)
It could not include someone who would have been expected to be there. It wouldn't rule them out, but simply indicating they were THERE would not be enough to link them to the crime. There are some exceptions. The presence of their DNA on items exclusive to the crime itself could link them to the crime. To me, the presence of the parents' fibers from clothing worn the DAY of the crime on items USED IN THE CRIME (tape, cord, panties, paint tote from which the broken brush was taken) indicate they were THERE at the crime scene. It doesn't prove they were the killers, but it proves they know what happened.


For the record, I totally agree with everything KoldKase has ever said about this case.

 

[KoldKase]

It can't. Not from the sample alone. The same with prints. The only way that prints or DNA can be proven to have been deposited at the TIME of the crime is if they are found at the SCENE of the crime and belong to someone who was proven to have been there at the time of the crime and had no other reason to be there. This would include an intruder, who could be implicated by its presence at a crime scene if there was no other reason for them to have been there unless they were involved in the crime. (i.e, someone who had never been in the R home before, or even someone who had been there but had no reason to dress/undress JB or be in her home that day (like a repairman, etc.)
It could not include someone who would have been expected to be there. It wouldn't rule them out, but simply indicating they were THERE would not be enough to link them to the crime. There are some exceptions. The presence of their DNA on items exclusive to the crime itself could link them to the crime. To me, the presence of the parents' fibers from clothing worn the DAY of the crime on items USED IN THE CRIME (tape, cord, panties, paint tote from which the broken brush was taken) indicate they were THERE at the crime scene. It doesn't prove they were the killers, but it proves they know what happened.


For the record, I totally agree with everything KoldKase has ever said about this case.

Really? EVERYTHING? Whew!! No pressure or anything.... :hot:

Then I guess I have arrived, because you have the best memory on record in this case. :blowkiss:

To clarify some issues with the unsourced DNA:

The Bloomies/panties were handled by various people during the manufacturing and packaging process and had never been washed.

Both the Bloomies and the longjohns--where the "touch" DNA was allegedly found 11 years later--were handled during the autopsy and forensic testing at a lab. This could have included the medical examiner and possibly an assistant who took photos and may have helped with undressing the body, another medical pediatric specialist Dr. Meyer brought in the next day to examine the body and consult on the results, particularly of the vaginal injuries; and which Linda Arndt attended, as well. These are the people we know interacted with the body and evidence at autopsy.

Also, the fingernail clippers were questioned as possibly contaminated when used on JonBenet, which means anyone handling them could have contaminated other evidence if gloves weren't changed during processing and examining the body, etc. Notice the gloved handling of the hands and fingers in this autopsy photo:

Next the evidence went to forensic labs to be analyzed, where any number of people could have handled it or contaminated it, as well.

Since the clothing was handled at various OTHER places and since it did not come from blood or semen samples, but from epithelial cells which could have come from touching the cloth or clothing, sneezing or coughing on it, etc., that unsourced DNA is not proof that the donor was at the crime scene.

That's the major flaw in Lacy's "exoneration" of the Ramseys: the DNA alone doesn't prove anything but that someone other than a documented source handled the cloth or clothing at some point or that it was contaminated at some point by an unknown donor or by secondary transfer. Until that person is found, his alibi checked, and some other evidence discovered that incriminates him, the DNA is not proof of any intruder ever having come into direct contact with any Ramsey or having been in the home the night the child was murdered. IMO, of course.

I know you know this, DeeDee, and there is excellent documentation and discussion done by so many others here and elsewhere, by those who get the science far better than I and to whom I owe a great deal of gratitude for patiently explaining this in simple enough terms that even I can grasp it. :tyou:

 

[DeeDee249]

I know I've said this before, but I like to bring it up every once in a while when the topic is the DNA on JB's clothes.

There was a creepy guy who worked transporting bodies to the Morgue. He was a young guy, and apparently tried to sell the morgue log that listed when JB's body was brought in or something to that effect. I think he may even have been arrested for it. Well- far be it for me to impune anyone's livelihood, but sometimes people take those jobs for the wrong reasons- they have a thing for dead bodies. Sick, but it happens. I have always had a sneaking suspicion that that "mystery DNA" may belong to someone who worked at the morgue. Some sick creep who wanted to "take a peek" at this poor murdered little beauty queen.

 

[Unreals]

The Ramseys were treated so unusually by the police and the entire Boulder justice system because they were extremely wealthy. Their case is a textbook example of how the law has one standard for average people and another one entirely for the rich and influential.

No ordinary family would dare act the way the Ramseys did. Defy the police? Earn their wrath and be summarily arrested. Act as suspiciously as the Ramseys did that day? Again, immediate incarceration. Can we possibly picture a poor or middle-class family reporting a kidnapping, with a ransom note like that, and then the body of their child (and alleged kidnap victim) beind discovered in the basement, not being thrown into jail? Or having powerful friends in the media and government devise impossible "intruder" theories to explain what cannot be explained?

Can anyone imagine a Mary Lacy, dishonestly misleading the public, all to restore the reputation of any family that wasn't wealthy and prominent? Would an Aprhodite Jones distort the truth to such an extent, on a television show, for some poor or middle-class family?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

If Patsy and John had been poor or middle class, there would be a post on the "Crimes: Spotlight Against Children" forum about a 6-year-old girl found dead in her basement and then another post about her parents being arrested and that would be the end of it.

 

[Agatha_C]

Hope I'm not driving some of you crazy, but please, feel free to scroll past because I do not expect anyone to go down the rabbit hole with me; in fact, I beg you, save yourself now! :escape:

I have to run after this, but thought if you're interested in some info on the history of the lovely company Lockheed Martin, or maybe even a flight of movie fantasy I've taken leading me to wonder about many wonderous things in this case, go to post #30 for more of my speculations, or post #35 for straight up articles on some legal troubles Lockheed Martin had in the past, probably before they learned how to effectively evade them so well:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9988&page=3

I for one was already crazy when I got here. After six months of posting I now drive straws into my eyes and run naked and screaming into the streets (LOL). So, no, you didnt drive me crazy.

Thank you KoldKase for posting all of this. I found it fascinating and informative. :tyou: