The Petition in the Press

[vicktor]

That is my definition. It is up to the poster to know whether or not they belong to that particular group.

Alright, I confess (sort of). I'm a member of the RSyT, or Ramsey Sympathizer Team. Its kind of like being a member of that nefarious and ignominous group in the fifties known by the sobriquet of "communist sympathizers".

 

[BrotherMoon]

Sympathy for The Devil.

What comes after the dashing of hope? Bitterness, resignation or suspicion of hope? What? We shall see, n'est-ce pas?

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Barbara, where can I read about "the RST" indicating they are so upset about this development?

 

[Barbara]

Barbara, where can I read about "the RST" indicating they are so upset about this development?

For starters, Jameson's forum. You can work around Purgatory, Cybersleuths, etc., but you'll find the most inane comments on Webbsleuths

 

[LovelyPigeon]

At webbsleuths the single thread on the subject has 18 posts on topic and only five 5 posters. One of those showed no upset at all about the petition.

I see one poster "upset" at cybersleuths.

I don't "do" Purgatory.

I fail to see how "the RST" is so upset about the petition.

Gov Owen doesn't appear to be upset, either.

 

[Barbara]

Gov Owen doesn't appear to be upset, either.

Why would he be upset? I'm sure he receives many petitions on many issues on a regular basis.

As far as how many posters are upset about the petition, it really doesn't matter. The posters that ARE upset are the same posters who take their time to pick apart, whine and criticize others' efforts, while they sit back and put all their efforts into criticisms, doing nothing themselves.

I still can't imagine why anyone would be against a special prosecutor/investigator from OUTSIDE BOULDER.

You never answered what makes you so satisfied with the current state of investigation in this case. There is no more money for an investigation in Boulder. Are you one of the people who is totally satisfied with waiting for the DNA to match someone and solve this case? It seems that the Ramseys are also satisfied with the non-investigation. That is really sad as well

 

[Watching you]

That "no new evidence" statement cuts both ways. There was no "new evidence" when Keenan arbitrarily took the case away from the BPD and handed it over to her Ramsey-oriented investigators, either, but she did it. What are THEY investigating? If the RST is satisfied with the present investigation team, what are they basing that satisfaction on? By Owens' statement, we know they have found "no new evidence."

Allegedly, they have been going over the old evidence, even though there have been no progress reports in over a year and a half (how can anyone be satisfied with that?) That is exactly what those of us who want a new investigation team and a new prosecutor would like this team to do - there doesn't need to be new evidence, and Owens should stop using that lame excuse. There needs to be NEW, UNBIASED people looking at the "old evidence." If it was good enough for Keenan to take the case away from the BPD, it's good enough for a completely new and unbiased team to be appointed by the governor. I cannot stress the unbiased requirement enough.

 

[Barbara]

If the RST is satisfied with the present investigation team, what are they basing that satisfaction on? By Owens' statement, we know they have found "no new evidence."

No new evidence in a Ramsey oriented investigative team?

That answers the question as to why the RST is so satisfied.

 

[candy]

The Ramsey case was not "arbitrarily" taken away from the police. The BPD gave it up after threat of a lawsuit from the Ramseys. There is real liability for the police in such issues as leaks, a violation of the Ramseys right to due process, among other things.

 

[Watching you]

The Ramsey case was not "arbitrarily" taken away from the police. The BPD gave it up after threat of a lawsuit from the Ramseys. There is real liability for the police in such issues as leaks, a violation of the Ramseys right to due process, among other things.

Why, hello, Candy, fancy meeting you here after you said you don't post here anymore.

Keenan most certainly did take the case away from the BPD. They did not just one day go to her and say, Mary, big bad Lin Wood is threatening us, would you please take over the JBR case? Keenan didn't want a lawsuit. Period. She took the case away. It's actually pretty funny that you would mention liability for the police in such issues as "leaks," when Alex Hunter was the biggest sieve of all inside the DA's office. Where was the violation of the Ramseys' right to due process? This should be interesting.

 

[candy]

148.
Prior to the publication of the hardback book, Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators expressly or impliedly entered into an agreement to deny Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey their constitutional rights to privacy, due process of law and equal protection of the laws under the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (hereinafter "the Boulder Police conspiracy").

156.
The illegal copying, confiscation, obtaining and misuse of confidential law enforcement information by Defendant Thomas and by the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators deprived Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey of their constitutional right to privacy under the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as it allowed for public disclosure of their private financial information, their private medical information and private facts about their personal lives that were only obtained by Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators through the exclusive state police power to investigate crimes under color of state law.
157.
Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators conspired to unlawfully copy, confiscate and obtain confidential law enforcement information for the purpose of making that information public and thereby making it available to private litigants for use in civil litigation against Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey.


161.
The illegal copying, confiscation, obtaining and misuse of confidential law enforcement information by Defendant Thomas and by the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators deprived Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey of their constitutional rights to due process of law and equal protection of laws under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as it prejudiced them by subjecting them to civil lawsuits and by denying them the ability to fairly and fully defend themselves in said civil litigation.

 

[Watching you]

Candy, here's the thing. Even if I knew what you were talking about, I don't CARE what you are talking about, because you have to start your posts with that garbage. Whatever your problem or my problem with your problems, I'm NOT bringing it to WS to start a war here and disrupt this forum.

I can, however, start a thread at my home forum, if you want. Your choice. I will end the any disruption on this thread right now by posting no further to you.

 

[candy]

I'm talking about these posters deliberately smearing the truth about leaks in this case, just like they did at the public forum until Jameson locked them all out. As Darnay said, it's amazing they didn't get sued for fraud.

I posted evidence about his leaks being a violation of their due process rights, which the other poster implied was a lie.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Barbara, I'm satisfied that there is still an ongoing investigation by retired detective Tom Bennett. I wish there were results to justify an arrest of the male intruder who abused and killed JonBenét but there have not been to date.

I'm also of the opinion that it will take a "hit" on the unidentified male DNA from the case to solve the case.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

candy, I think you are absolutely right about the harm Steve Thomas, singlehandely, did to the Boulder Police Department regarding the Ramsey case. And about the personal constitutional rights issues of the Ramseys due to ST's actions and statements.

 

[Shylock]

I posted evidence about his leaks being a violation of their due process rights, which the other poster implied was a lie.

Candy, please point me to a law that states the "leaking" of ANYTHING is a violation of someone's due process rights. I don't believe that is in any way true unless there is a gag order in place. Without a gag order, the police are free to discuss the case and the evidence with anyone they wish, including the tabloids.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that it wasn't Thomas that gave away all the information about this case, it was the DA' office. They handed every piece of information they could over to Team Ramsey who had NO right to ANY of it since their clients were not charged with a crime.

Therefore, the paragraphs you posted above from the Ramseys civil complaint against Thomas amount to nothing but Mr. Dicky Limp puffing out his feathers and beating his chest for publicity.

 

[Shylock]

Keenan most certainly did take the case away from the BPD. They did not just one day go to her and say, Mary, big bad Lin Wood is threatening us, would you please take over the JBR case? Keenan didn't want a lawsuit. Period. She took the case away.

Where was the violation of the Ramseys' right to due process?

WY, I'm not really sure how Keenan taking over the case really transpired. She certainly didn't "take the case" away from the BPD. She's not that stupid. There's already enough bad blood between the BPD and the BOCO DA. Keenan has been trying to repair the damage between her office and the BPD that Hunter caused, not multiply it. Taking the case away would have thrown so much salt in that wound that it would have amounted to nothing less than political suicide for Keenan.
Whatever the REAL reason, and however the case wound up leaving the BPD for the DA, it was mutually agreed upon by both agencies.

And as I just posted to Candy, you can't violate the due process rights of someone that isn't even in the "process" yet. The Ramseys were never formally charged with anything, therefore they had no "process" rights.
And the leaking of case information and evidence is standard procedure for a police department who many times use it to their advantage in solving a case.
Saying it's illegal for LE to leak information is like saying it's illegal for LE to lie to a suspect.

 

[candy]

If you knew what due process is, you would not even be asking a question like that.

Among other things, it is the RIGHT, not suggestion A RIGHT of a defendant to confront evidence and accusers against them IN COURT, in an orderly process, indictment, arraignment, etc. not in Vanity Fair, The Enquirer, etc. There's more to it, of course, that's just the beginning.

You can also read Chief Beckner's depo in which he said that ST would have been fired if caught and Larry Mason's testimony on CS in which he cites a specific BPD statute on leaking.

 

[Shylock]

If you knew what due process is, you would not even be asking a question like that.

Among other things, it is the RIGHT, not suggestion A RIGHT of a defendant to confront evidence and accusers against them IN COURT, in an orderly process, indictment, arraignment, etc. not in Vanity Fair, The Enquirer, etc. There's more to it, of course, that's just the beginning.

Sorry Candy, but you're wrong. Your confusing civil law, where you can write any stupid thing you want into a complaint, with legal reality and what is really law.

Here's the same paragraph I just wrote to WY which I will now repeat for your benefit. You can try til the cows come home, but you will never prove this wrong:

You can't violate the due process rights of someone that isn't even in the "process" yet. The Ramseys were never formally charged with anything, therefore they had no "process" rights.

And the leaking of case information and evidence is standard procedure for a police department who many times use it to their advantage in solving a case.
Saying it's illegal for LE to leak information is like saying it's illegal for LE to lie to a suspect.

 

[candy]

Have you ever read the complaint against ST? It has an entire section devoted to Deprivation of Constitutional Rights.

COUNT FOUR - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
144.
Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey hereby incorporate, adopt and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Jurisdictional Statement of this Complaint, Paragraphs 29 through 52 of the Factual Statement of this Complaint and Paragraphs 53 through 105 of Count One of this Complaint and Paragraphs 106 through 129 of Count Two of this Complaint, Paragraphs 130 through 143 of Count Three of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
145.
Defendant Thomas and unknown officials of the Boulder Police Department, including, but not limited to, Defendant Officer John Doe 1, Defendant Officer John Doe 2, Defendant Officer John Doe 3 and Defendant Officer Jane Doe (hereinafter "the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators"), are sued in their individual capacities.
146.
At all times referred to herein, the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators were employed by the City of Boulder Police Department as police officers or high-ranking police officials.
147.
At all times referred to herein, Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators acted under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usages of the State of Colorado and the City of Boulder.
148.
Prior to the publication of the hardback book, Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators expressly or impliedly entered into an agreement to deny Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey their constitutional rights to privacy, due process of law and equal protection of the laws under the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (hereinafter "the Boulder Police conspiracy").

149.
In furtherance of the Boulder Police conspiracy, as admitted by Defendant Thomas in the Author's Note to the books, the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators were actively involved in the preparation of Defendant Thomas' book:
To certain members of the Boulder Police Department, cops who still cannot speak out publicly and who know this story all too well, I appreciate your continued support and the confidences you provided me in the preparation of this book.
150.
In furtherance of the Boulder Police conspiracy, prior to resigning from the Boulder Police Department, Defendant Thomas, with the active assistance of the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, unlawfully copied, confiscated and obtained documents and materials from confidential law enforcement files of the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation and unlawfully obtained confidential law enforcement information about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation (hereinafter collectively "confidential law enforcement information").
151.
In furtherance of the Boulder Police conspiracy, after he resigned his position as a City of Boulder police officer, Defendant Thomas continued to receive confidential law enforcement information from the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators.
152.
The information upon which Defendant Thomas relies in his book and in his media interviews as the basis for his false accusations that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of her crime, is almost exclusively the product of, or directly derived from, the confidential law enforcement information.
153.
Much of the information upon which Defendant Thomas relies in his book and in his media interviews to support his false accusations that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenét Ramsey, and wrote the ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996 and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime, is information that could not have been obtained by him or by the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators except for the exercise of the state police power to investigate crimes under color of state law, including obtaining information through search warrants and consent forms.
154.
But for his former position as a Boulder, Colorado Police officer and the efforts of the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, Defendant Thomas would not have had access to confidential law enforcement information that was essential to his ability to write and publish the books.
155.
The Boulder Police Department obtained personal and private information from Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey under color of state law and Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey had a right to expect that Boulder police officers and officials would not unlawfully disclose confidential law enforcement information to the public and members of the media and that the information would not be utilized by Boulder police officers to write and publish a book about the investigation into their daughter's murder during an ongoing murder investigation.
156.
The illegal copying, confiscation, obtaining and misuse of confidential law enforcement information by Defendant Thomas and by the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators deprived Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey of their constitutional right to privacy under the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as it allowed for public disclosure of their private financial information, their private medical information and private facts about their personal lives that were only obtained by Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators through the exclusive state police power to investigate crimes under color of state law.
157.
Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators conspired to unlawfully copy, confiscate and obtain confidential law enforcement information for the purpose of making that information public and thereby making it available to private litigants for use in civil litigation against Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey.
158.
The confidential law enforcement information published by Defendant Thomas, with the active assistance of the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, has been used to support essential elements of two civil lawsuits filed against Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey, Linda Hoffman-Pugh v. Patricia Ramsey and John Ramsey, Civil Action File No. 1:01 CV-0630, U.S.D.C. (N.D Ga) and Robert Christian Wolf v. John Bennett Ramsey and Patricia Paugh Ramsey, Civil Action No. 1:00-CV-1187, U.S.D.C. (N.D Ga), which include accusations that Plaintiff Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter JonBenét Ramsey, and wrote the ransom note found in her home on the morning of December 26, 1996, and that Plaintiff John Ramsey engaged in a criminal cover-up of his wife's crime.
159.
Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey's ability to defend themselves against these civil lawsuits that seek to put them on trial for the murder of their daughter is prejudiced by the fact that the plaintiffs in those actions have the benefit of the confidential law enforcement information published by Defendant Thomas with the active assistance of the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators.
160.
Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey's ability to defend themselves against these civil lawsuits that seek to put them on trial for the murder of their daughter is prejudiced by the fact that they do not have the ability to obtain relevant confidential law enforcement information about the investigation of their daughter's murder that would be strong and compelling evidence establishing their innocence.
161.
The illegal copying, confiscation, obtaining and misuse of confidential law enforcement information by Defendant Thomas and by the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators deprived Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey of their constitutional rights to due process of law and equal protection of laws under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as it prejudiced them by subjecting them to civil lawsuits and by denying them the ability to fairly and fully defend themselves in said civil litigation.

CONTINUED