News 2006

[ellen13]

I don't mean this in a mean way, but Patsy's age (despite the age difference with John) looks like she is catching up in looks with John's age I guess due to her illness and weight gain. I always thought she looked so much younger, but it doesn't look that way anymore. I am so suprised they're still together. They actually look so happy and at ease in that picture. The Christmas tree in the background made me feel kind of sick. Anyone else feel that way?

 

[BlueCrab]

I think you should check the law on this one. While it may be against Colorado law to prosecute those under 10, see if you can find the law that says it's against the law to reveal information that shows that is what happened in a particular case. Those types of laws are entirely different. The state can protect the names of juveniles and try to stop their publication, but I'm not entirely sure that they can criminally prosecute someone who reveals a name. It may be an ethical violation to publish, and a reporter may be legally prohibited from accessing the information, but if they can get the information through lawful means, they can usually publish it. Again, I'm not positive of the law on this, but I think you're suggesting a law that is extremely over-broad...

Voice of Reason,

Contempt of court is a criminal offense if the charge of contempt is to punish the violator for willfully damaging the integrity and dignity of the court.

The Colorado Children's Code would be the basis for the court's protection order.

BlueCrab

 

[trixie]

I think you should check the law on this one. While it may be against Colorado law to prosecute those under 10, see if you can find the law that says it's against the law to reveal information that shows that is what happened in a particular case. Those types of laws are entirely different. The state can protect the names of juveniles and try to stop their publication, but I'm not entirely sure that they can criminally prosecute someone who reveals a name. It may be an ethical violation to publish, and a reporter may be legally prohibited from accessing the information, but if they can get the information through lawful means, they can usually publish it. Again, I'm not positive of the law on this, but I think you're suggesting a law that is extremely over-broad...

Yes, I agree. For years I've been following this case and I've seen things stretched beyond good common sense in order to fit ones theory. That's what I think is happening here. IMO

 

[trixie]

Lin Wood is the media source. This is a PR thing. The Ramseys dropped by Mary Lacey to find out how the invesitgation is going. They didn't drop by Jim Kolar who is actually investigating.

Again - a status thing. The ramseys rub shoulders with the top dogs - not a mere investigator.

So IMO this is the series of events:-

1. Lin Wood contacts CharlieBrennan to give him the press release - that his clients turned up in person to check on the progress of the investigation.

2. Charlie Brennan calls Jim Kolar and asks if they met with him.

3. Kolar says "eh? The Ramseys are in Boulder?"

4. Brennan asks "Has Mary Lacey not told you about this?"

5. Kolar "Ehm.... nope"

6. Charlie brenan writes article 1.

7. Dring dring, dring dring in Kolar's office. mary Lacey on the line. "Do you realise what you've done? Now we look stupid. The Ramseys are furious and Woodyboy has already been on the phone. Hey, I have an idea. Didn't you go to court yesterday? Right, leave it to me". Click.

8. Dring, dring, dring dring in Brennan's office. mary Lacey on the line. "Charlie - I want that article changed. Kolar was in court. I don't care if it can't be edited - pull it and replace it. I want Woodyboy off my back.

8. Article 2 appears.

Re: #8, I don't think Lacy could MAKE Brennan change anything. Not legally, anyway. Freedom of the press and all that. Politicians hate it when things like this happen. However, Brennen could do it as a favor. Come to think of it , something like that wouldn't even be Brennans call, would it? Wouldn't it be the editors? I know, it's not important, but there's nothing else to talk about in this case right now.

 

[narlacat]

I don't mean this in a mean way, but Patsy's age (despite the age difference with John) looks like she is catching up in looks with John's age I guess due to her illness and weight gain. I always thought she looked so much younger, but it doesn't look that way anymore. I am so suprised they're still together. They actually look so happy and at ease in that picture. The Christmas tree in the background made me feel kind of sick. Anyone else feel that way?

Yep.
I found the pic to be insensitive too Ellen.
It's like they have forgotten 'that child' and that Christmas.
Disgraceful.

 

[ellen13]

Yep.
I found the pic to be insensitive too Ellen.
It's like they have forgotten 'that child' and that Christmas.
Disgraceful.

Yeah, whoever brought up the 10 year anniv. thing, with the whole
Christmas tree in the background, etc...they're right!!!
I feel like this is all for show. It's like why'd they have to take their
pic with the Christmas tree in the background and if they were just passing through Boulder now, the tree would be down. Therefore, they took it at home and gave it to the media to remind them of the x-mas tragedy. So, that pic was probably taken in Charlevoix and they knew exactly what they were going to do with it once they got to Boulder. Yuck........sickening!

 

[Camper]

I am not UP on the news story being discussed, but think of this.

Patsy scaring the entire town of Boulder and parents of tiny girls, by saying on CABLE TV, Hold your babies close, there is a KILLER out there. I have forgotten verbatim her 'warning' to the planet and Boulder in particular.

WHY not say, 'Care for your young children, know who they are with and WHAT they are doing and learning from others. What happened to US could happen to you'.

This would NEVER happen, but it would have been truth for all. They have tried to save their family instead of the planet. Hmmm.

Just perhaps there would be fewer 'choking games' happening with children today, and needless deaths of young people, who knows!

 

[narlacat]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/28/lkl.00.html

Well, this isn't new news, sorry to deceive you with the name of the thread but I thought here was as good a place as any to post this interview
'The Ramsey's discuss the Death of Innocence'

These are a couple of things I noticed

Patsy never once calls her daughter by her name.
John says her name in relation to the foundation and then again when saying 'the only people that can forgive the killer are JonBenet and God'

They both use the word 'Victory'.

When talking about how many times JonBenet went to the doctor, John said she had 'asthma' where as Patsy said 'bronchitis, all kinds of things.
John also mentions their great health insurance!

 

[Brefie]

I also noticed how one of the Ramsey's mentions the book first and toward the end I think it's Patsy just about URGES people to buy the book.

For people who were / are 'high society' they strike me as 'unsavory'.

 

[narlacat]

http://www.thecampuspress.com/news/2006/04/jonbenet.php

Michael Tracey, a CU journalism professor and JonBenet Ramsey expert, is delving yet again into the infamous murder case with a new book, promising readers “access to a body of evidence no one else has seen.”

I won't be waiting on this one.

 

[Eagle1]

Well, I guess that's us, folks, but how did he know?