Henry Lee and the Grand Jury

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Roy23, May 27, 2011.

  1. Roy23

    Roy23 New Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I debated going here since most of you don't want to here this and I know you will use your critical eye to dispute it. So here goes, but don't expect me to give responses in this thread to ridiculous comments. Dr. Henry Lee did an interview when the "Touch DNA' information was announced by Mrs. Lacey. I WILL NOT SOURCE IT for you. It is here on this site.

    Also, I will not tell you that Dr. Henry Lee is a man I respect or that you should. Many questions have come up about the Grand Jury and what transpired. In his article in 2008 concerning touch DNA, he mentions the ransom note but maintains the importance of the DNA. He also mentions it doesn't matter cause the GJ cleared the Ramsey's anyhow. He was a Prosecution ally and that is what he said. Keep that in mind when in a couple of weeks he will be attempting to confuse the Casey Anthony jury. He is a paid prostitute.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Defense attorneys are the BEST- paid prostitutes, aren't they? Many times defending people they know are guilty..getting them off on technicalities, getting evidence suppressed, etc. And the Rs lawyer bragged about how much he made from the R case.

    Say what you want about Dr. Lee- he is still a respected man in his field.
     
  4. Maikai

    Maikai New Member

    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I totally agree with you. Henry Lee has fallen off the pedestal I had him on. At one point he only met with the BPD/DA at the airport---must have been a layover. In one of his books he was wrong on several things about the case....I don't have it handy or I would quote it. Expert for hire? Yes....and I find that deplorable---that he uses his vast knowledge and experience for the side that has the bucks to pay him. I had heard that the ONLY reason the BPD hired him, and why he put forth minimal effort was so the Ramseys couldn't hire him.

    You notice Barry Scheck has said very little about the case. Behind closed doors, I'm sure he said the DNA was a HUGE problem...what with his innocence project regarding DNA. We do know that when the DNA was discussed in the GJ, the BPD went scuttering around getting more DNA from people-----there were several on the GJ educated and with a scientific background.......they weren't buying the factory worker in China argument.
     
  5. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't trust anything Lee has to say,especially after what he did in the Lana/Phil Spector case.Not only that,I already made up my mind when he testified in the Michael Peterson case.
    Barry Scheck on the other hand I like,but he didn't say much about the evidence in the JB case,which tells me that the BPD didn't have much against ANYONE,and I mean forensic evidence.
     
  6. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I know. I often revisit it.

    Question is, will they ever be answered?

    Can't really make an argument, pilgrim. Anyone who would describe Mary Lacy as a very competent attorney isn't playing with a full deck.
     
  7. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It helps to remember, madeleine--and this is something Scheck knows firsthand--that cases like this are not solved by forensic evidence.
     
  8. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Not that I trust him OR the Innocence Project, either.
     
  9. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It's not Memorial Day yet, but I figured I'd start the barbecue early!

    Since we're all talking about what Henry Lee said about the Grand Jury, I figure this might help:

    A friend advised me that Dr. Henry Lee told Alex Hunter, "This is a monumental decision. It all comes down to you. If you move forward with this, you have to confess your sins." With that sort of warning hanging in the air, I knew where the grand jury was going. The key was in Lee's comment about "moving forward," which meant an arrest and trial. These were not the strong points of our district attorney. (Emphasis mine) Under law the grand jury has the option of writing a report but is not bound to do so, and the jurors usually follow the wishes of the district attorney.--ITRMI, page 395

    If THAT's not enough for you, here's a quote from Henry Lee himself:

    13 months later, when the deliberations were completed but before the panel had the chance to vote on indicting one or both of the Ramseys, I told the DA that the best course of action would be not to file charges.

    Lee said something else, too:

    It seemed to me that there was enough evidence to establish the level of proof needed to indict Patsy Ramsey of, at least, obstruction of justice. But in the state of Colorado, that lesser option was not possible as long as there was the potential for a homicide charge.

    No less an authority than Michael Kane himself has stated publically that he was just window-dressing for the DA's little farce.

    I think Ben Thompson summed it up best:

    "It's political, the reason that it hasn't been prosecuted. And we have a district attorney's office that is more political than it is a prosecutor's office. I'm sitting here listening to those two talk, or those three talk, and it's strange to me that Alex sounds more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor, and that's part of the problem. Let me say there is a cancer in our DA's office, and whenever anybody points it out, what happens is they attack whoever points it out instead of addressing the issue and trying to solve the problem."

    My bold. Right out of Machiavelli's playbook.

    How much more do you NEED to see what went on here? Because I've got it, man. BUCKETS of it.
     
  10. twinkiesmom

    twinkiesmom New Member

    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I also lost respect for him on the Michael Peterson case....didn't he say there was too much blood for a beating?
     
  11. Sophie

    Sophie New Member

    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In fairness to Dr Lee, he was pretty anxious to distance himself from this case so I don't think we can attribute his findings to an appetite for notoriety in this case. However, once you start paying for things, the richer party will always win out. There is a French crime drama on the BBC at the moment (subtitles etc) which offered the incredibly depressing opinion that the French legal system is vastly superior to the Anglo-American system because everyone gets the best possible legal representation in France while a person's resources are key in the UK/US systems. I'd hate to think it was generally true but this case is a masterclass is how money can be used to buy results.
     
  12. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hopefully the French have come a long way since the "trials" of Louis XVII and his wife, Marie Antoinette.

    As for Dr.Lee- he distanced himself, true. He had already concluded that it was hopeless as far as solving it. He said "Rice already cooked". I believe he was referring to the early bunging by LE, allowing the RST to stonewall the weak DA's office. Pretty much sums it up.
     
  13. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yes,he did,amazing! :rolleyes:
    and his ketchup "experiment" was a joke as well
    this is what disgusts me in high profile cases,especially in ones like the Peterson case where it's obvious IMO who did it and how,that paid experts come up with such stupid ideas and think that only because they are X or Y everybody will buy the BS.amazing.
     
  14. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree,this case won't be solved by forensic evidence,not even IF it was an intruder!
     
  15. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Howdy-do, Sophie! Long-time, no hear.
     
  16. Roy23

    Roy23 New Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    You know the factory worker in China was a bizarre but real argument at the time. It was a way to skate around all their screwups. It was proven that this scenario could happen but enough skepticism was made to not indict. The reality was that they had a treasure trove of forensic evidence.

    Dave has his opinions on a conspricy and that is fine. I am even going to try and understand it more. But to me I see a conspiricy of the BPD against the Ramsey's. Enough DNA has subsequently determined that someone else killed that little girl. The BPD had tunnel vision.
     
  17. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,165
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Roy23,
    They sure did and it implicated not a ham sandwich but the Ramsey's. To this day they are still suspects, since nobody has been convicted of JonBenet's murder.

    No DNA has determined anything not unless I missed a match or was semen DNA cited?


    There may be an innocent explanation for the DNA being present, also you have not been told if any other Ramsey DNA was present on any of the crime-scene artifacts, curious that!


    .
     
  18. Roy23

    Roy23 New Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    So you are of the theory that until the DNA is sourced then a Ramsey is still guilty. This is America and that ain't how it works in this country. As a matter of fact it is just the opposite. Until it is sourced, a Ramsey is gonna be innocent. You can feel free to disagree but that is the facts and they are and will continue to be undisputed.
     
  19. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,165
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Roy23,
    Not quite what I said, so nice try.

    What I said is nobody has been convicted so the Ramsey's remain prime suspects.

    The DNA might source to a little boy at the White's Christmas party, or an assistant lab technician at the mortuary, so matching the DNA may not provide any closure at all.


    .
     
  20. Roy23

    Roy23 New Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They tested thos people already.

    Let me expound on this more. Beckner has made mention that many people involved at the White party and Lab/Law Enforcement personnel have already been tested. Regardless, at this point this is a problem for the State, Law Enforcement, and any Prosecutor more than it is a problem for the Ramseys. Whether you think the Ramsey's are prime suspects or not doesn't make a hill of beans. They gotta answer for the DNA at this point. 15 years ago was a different story.
     
  21. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Were any of the KIDS tested? Specifically the boys?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice