Interview w/ John Ramsey

[Toth]

Strange coverup wherein the parents constantly campaign for more and better investigators to be assigned to the case.

 

[candy]

BlueCrab,

During the Wolf depositions, Darnay had Judge Carnes available by phone should there be any need for a ruling by her during those depos.

 

[BlueCrab]

Strange coverup wherein the parents constantly campaign for more and better investigators to be assigned to the case.

That's part of the dog and pony show. What else would you expect them to say? The parents know the truth, so they also know more and better investigators won't be assigned to the case except for show.

JMO

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,

During the Wolf depositions, Darnay had Judge Carnes available by phone should there be any need for a ruling by her during those depos.

No ruling was necessary. Chief Beckner chose not to violate Colorado law.

Besides, lying under oath occurs in almost every deposition taken, but seldom is anyone charged with perjury. Even Bill Clinton lied under oath, but nothing happened. With the adversarial system in the U.S. there's two sides to every story, so in court one of the two parties is usually lying, but rarely are they charged with perjury.

JMO

 

[nellicat]

No ruling was necessary. Chief Beckner chose not to violate Colorado law.

Besides, lying under oath occurs in almost every deposition taken, but seldom is anyone charged with perjury. Even Bill Clinton lied under oath, but nothing happened. With the adversarial system in the U.S. there's two sides to every story, so in court one of the two parties is usually lying, but rarely are they charged with perjury.

JMO

Actually, he DID choose to violate Colorado law: lying under oath is against the law. There was absolutely NOTHING preventing him from answering, truthfully, that he could not answer the question. The followup question "Why not?" could likewise have been answered truthfully: "Because to do so would violate Colorado law." If necessary, he could have CITED the juvenile protection law.

By saying "I can't answer because it is against the law to name a juvenile as a suspect" he would have complied with this law. He would not have perjured himself, and he would not have named a juvenile as a suspect.

The fact that folks could have then INFERRED that a certain juvenile was a suspect would not be the fault of the chief.

 

[BlueCrab]

Actually, he DID choose to violate Colorado law: lying under oath is against the law. There was absolutely NOTHING preventing him from answering, truthfully, that he could not answer the question. The followup question "Why not?" could likewise have been answered truthfully: "Because to do so would violate Colorado law." If necessary, he could have CITED the juvenile protection law.

By saying "I can't answer because it is against the law to name a juvenile as a suspect" he would have complied with this law. He would not have perjured himself, and he would not have named a juvenile as a suspect.

The fact that folks could have then INFERRED that a certain juvenile was a suspect would not be the fault of the chief.

I respectfully disagree nellicat. Deposition transcripts are available to the public. That kind of response by Chief Beckner would have blown the case wide open by publicly exposing Burke as the likely killer -- just by the process of elimination. In my opinion it would have violated Colorado's Children's Code.

BDI posters and others using the process of elimination to narrow it down to Burke as the likely killer is one thing, but the Boulder Chief of Police doing it would be dynamite and, in effect, solve the murder.

JMO

 

[Toltec]

More than a few beers???

Seems like lil ole Patsy does not want to leave the limelight. It was probably she who talked John into running.

Or else they ran out of people to sue and they need to get real jobs.

BTW...Is that a shotgun behind J&P?

 

[Shylock]

Seems like lil ole Patsy does not want to leave the limelight. It was probably she who talked John into running.

Patsy is from the old school that says even BAD publicity is better then NO publicity. I'm sure she's upset that she doesn't get to see herself on the cover of the tabloids anymore when she goes through the grocery checkout.

 

[cookie]

Toltec,
I think what you are seeing behind them is a chair back.

 

[candy]

Other candidates running against John Ramsey, and there are more coming:

http://www.cheboygannews.com/articles/2004/03/19/news/news5.txt

Attorney eyes House seat

By ERICA KOLASKI

Tribune Staff Writer

GRANT TOWNSHIP - County attorney Kevin Elsenheimer is traveling to Cheboygan County next week in hopes of garnering support for his future run for a seat in the state House of Representatives.

Elsenheimer is expected to be a candidate in the Republican primary for the 105th House District Seat, currently held by Rep. Ken Bradstreet, R-Gaylord. The 105th District covers all of Otsego, Antrim, and Charlevoix counties and most of Cheboygan County.