Jane Valez Mitchell & other Media People Who Know Only Ramsey Spin Let's Educate Them

[DeeDee249]

I haven't dialogued with you much but I can say with what has happened that you make better points than your leader. And that is not to criticize SD. You can believe your post above and I can respect your thoughts. It must kind of suck though because while not too farfetched you have to know that you are committed to a case that you never see a Ramsey indicted again. Unless the DNA donor points a finger as being hired.

I don't have a leader. I march to my own drum. While I agree with SD on many things and admire his vast research and knowledge and commitment to JB and this case, My opinions are my own.
That being said, thank you, I think.
Actually, I don't mind knowing that this case won't see a R indicted. For one, there are still a few Rs alive who were (or may have been) in that house that night. Only Patsy is beyond the hand of the law (though she is not beyond the hand of justice, in whose grasp she may very well be).

 

[cynic]

I’ve received a ton of responses to Thursday’s column which focused on the despicable behavior of Boulder DA Mary Lacy and her dubious “clearing” and apology to the Ramseys. Around 75 percent of the emails and calls I received were supportive.

The focus here is Mary Lacy’s irresponsible, unprofessional and hypocritical behavior. For anyone who still doubts Lacy’s breathtaking incompetence, peruse these quotes from a piece by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, who was an investigative reporter on the case. (Yes, I realize Shapiro has his own bias, but the Lacy quotes speak for themselves.)

“In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: “The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s. But it could be something else.”

And …

“In fact, during the Karr debacle, Lacy also said that “no one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction in court, beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor, unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime, to clear someone.”

What has changed for Lacy? If she didn’t know then that the DNA was the killer’s, how does she know it now? If DNA was there, finding a trace amount in another spot doesn’t change any facts. Nor does it “clear” the Ramseys.

-David Harsanyi, Denver Post, July 11, 2008
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2008/07/11/anger-wont-clear-ramseys/498/

 

[madeleine]

many of the RDI's here believe what they do because of what the BPD said and they believed.

Yep,sadly that was my case.

 

[joeskidbeck]

This RDI does not base her beliefs on what the BPD has said at any time since the killing happened. What would be so wrong with that, anyway? They were there. Are you saying that we can't form an unbiased opinion due to the BPD? I'm sure that IDI holds Mary Lacy probably just one notch below God in the hiarchy, but face it, this woman speaks out of both sides of her mouth as evidenced in the above post by Cynic. From day one if John Ramsey had been the only suspect, you can bet that Mary Lacy would have been quick to prosecute. She didn't care who killed JonBenet, but, she was going to make damn sure Patsy didn't pay for it!

 

[Roy23]

Yep,sadly that was my case.

I am so glad that you have seen the light Madeleine. Sometimes when I do decide to post here it feels like 1997 all over again. It is like this forum gets stuck in a time warp.

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMO This case will never be "solved".

I believe the reason a Ramsey wasn't prosecuted is because they didn't know which one to charge. That fiber from Johns clothes in JonBenet's panties probably saved Pasty from being charged. If only they had separated John & Patsy and interviewed them each alone from the start this case would have been solved and a conviction would have followed. Pasty would have fessed up her role.

The botched investigation and handling of the case from very early on insured justice would never be reached for little Jon Benet.

This case brought to the public everything wrong with the justice system in Boulder. It's been the mother of all black eyes. Mary Lacy simply attempted to apply some cover-up to that black eye and failed miserably.

 

[joeskidbeck]

IF Patsy was involved in the head injury to JonBenet, there is one thing that I can take comfort in. I believe that the last thing she heard before going to sleep each night would have been the sound JonBenet's skull made when it came into contact with whatever it was that inflicted the injury. I know she loved JB without any doubt, therefore I know that if she is responsible, this sound tormented her till the moment of her death. If she wasn't involved as a lot of people believe, then no worries, as Patsy never had to answer for anything.

 

[BBB167893]

I see nothing to indicate that the Boulder BP now considers this an intruder case. I see acknowledgement that the "new" findings on "old" DNA could be significant in this case. It COULD. But it may turn out to add nothing new.

Agreed, 100%. They said flat-out that ALL possibilities would be examined. Given Beckner's history on this case, you have to wonder what he means by that.

 

[BBB167893]

I just can't wrap my brain around the notion I am supposed to give a few specks of degraded dna on long johns so much evidentiary value and at the same time ignore EVERYTHING else.

Fibers from Pasty's sweater IN the rope knot, under the tape that "covered" JonBenet's mouth and in the paint tray?
I am supposed to ignore where and how she was found and what she was wrapped in?
I am supposed to ignore that Pasty was still wearing the same cloths, the tea, the pineapple, the fact that after finding the "ransom note" the first thing Patsy does is break out her rolodex and start making calls and inviting folks over, despite the threat made to behead her daughter?

I could go on and on...but you get the idea.

You BET I do! :clap:

 

[BBB167893]

Well I guess you can do whatever you want.

Roy, you're an extremely smart man. Much too smart to think that you can dismiss Linda's point that easily. Because she has just outlined in very clear terms the exact problem that your side has to contend with. Namely:

DNA (and time-worn DNA at that) vs. everything else.

Now, IF you are in fact saying that the DNA in question trumps every other thing, you're certainly free to make that argument. Arguing the case is what we do here. But I'm not aware of any investigator worth his weight in SPAM who would approach it that way.

I guess what I'm saying is that it goes back to the arguments that you and I have had so often: the smoking-gun approach vs. the big picture approach and which one puts together a more complete puzzle.

Starting with one thing above all others and trying to build around it? Or starting from scratch and trying to put every piece together? Only time will tell which one is the right one, I guess.

The bottom line though is that many of the RDI's here believe what they do because of what the BPD said and they believed.

To an extent, that's certainly true. And I would remind you that the BPD at that time put in far more of an investigative effort than anyone since, wrong path or NOT.

Some RDI's will question whether the case has changed for sure to IDI.

Damn skippy.

I think there is much that has been said over the last four years that suggests that RDI's are living in a world that is no longer relevant to the new discoveries.

That's what I plan to find out.

 

[BBB167893]

Beckner also acknowleges that the DA's office and BPD worked very well together during the GJ investigation. SD is gonna call it hogwash and politics

You bet I will. And I've got darn good reason. Given what I know about it, I don't see how he could make that claim in good faith. I imagine that the BPD worked very well with the specialists who were brought in (Kane, Levin & Morrisey), but the DA and his staff were at odds with them over the whole thing. A lot of the investigators were never even called to testify. How is that "working well?" Sorry, but at this point, I have no reason to believe that the GJ was anything other than a CYA dog-and-pony show.

but it sounds sincere especially when he goes as far to basically admit that the GJ made the right decision.

I don't see where he says that at all. Especially since it's likely that they made no decision.

I haven't dialogued with you much but I can say with what has happened that you make better points than your leader. And that is not to criticize SD.

I'm their "leader?" That's a new one on me! You're right about ability, though.

It must kind of suck though because while not too farfetched you have to know that you are committed to a case that you never see a Ramsey indicted again.

Speaking for myself, you're right on both counts, but for different reasons than you might think. One of them is dead, which means they are beyond prosecution. And the other could simply shift blame onto the dead spouse. That was the main problem to begin with: nobody could decide who did what. But as far as I go, this isn't about retribution and punishment anymore. It's about putting it to rest. And to illustrate that: much as I hate the idea, if JR were to confess today, I'd be willing to just let him go.

 

[BBB167893]

This RDI does not base her beliefs on what the BPD has said at any time since the killing happened. What would be so wrong with that, anyway? They were there.

Excellent questions, Beck.

Are you saying that we can't form an unbiased opinion due to the BPD?

Sure sounds like it.

I'm sure that IDI holds Mary Lacy probably just one notch below God in the hiarchy,

LOL! Yeah, which I can't figure, since she made IDI look bad ever since she took the case over! Mary Lacy could not have done more damage to the IDI cause if she'd been one of us. Only, instead of being angry with her for wasting time and money on cranks like JMK, they keep defending her. I can't figure that to save my life.

From day one if John Ramsey had been the only suspect, you can bet that Mary Lacy would have been quick to prosecute. She didn't care who killed JonBenet, but, she was going to make damn sure Patsy didn't pay for it!

WOW. :applause: Just...WOW!

 

[BBB167893]

I believe the reason a Ramsey wasn't prosecuted is because they didn't know which one to charge.

I'm with you, 110% on that one.

That fiber from Johns clothes in JonBenet's panties probably saved Pasty from being charged.

Ironic, isn't it?

If only they had separated John & Patsy and interviewed them each alone from the start this case would have been solved and a conviction would have followed. Patsy would have fessed up her role.

Linda, I'm darn glad you're on my side!

This case brought to the public everything wrong with the justice system in Boulder.

In the country, you mean!

It's been the mother of all black eyes. Mary Lacy simply attempted to apply some cover-up to that black eye and failed miserably.

She made it worse!

 

[Ames]

I also can read very well, Roy , and read your ENTIRE post. By the new DA's OWN WORDS- he would not answer questions on whether the parents had been cleared (factually cleared, not cleared by Lacy's words).
The DNA is a start, not an end. I am not dismissing it. It MAY be the break we have so longed for. But at this point, with no donor identified, it can neither be used to clear or condemn anyone.
I have LONG said that there are many things that can be tested to try to recover DNA that matches what was found on JB. The garrote cord, the paintbrush handle are just two (though the most important). How about the suitcase handle (since Smit was so SURE the intruder used it to climb on when FW himself said HE was the one who put it there, and the Rs said it was always kept in the basement). How about the spoon- teabag (the little paper tag) and glass? How about saliva tests on the spoon and glass? That tissue box that Patsy said she didn't buy? Test it, if a intruder though ahead to bring a box of tissues (sheesh- he'd have needed a U-Haul for all the stuff the Rs claimed they didn't recall owning). How about testing that chair found outside the room with the broken window? You know- the chair JR claimed an intruder had pulled THROUGH a closed door behind them? Test that for the DNA, and prints. I don't think that was even tested for prints, was it?
Let's test that window frame and grate, too.
Sadly- we won't be testing ANYTHING. The glass, teabag, spoon, pineapple, the tissue box and suitcase should all still be in evidence in an unsolved case. If they wanted to test it they surely could have. But anything else is long gone.

I have posted this many times in the past...on the show "48 Hours" the 10 year anniversary special of JB....at the end of the show...it was stated by the announcer that there was a (and I quote)...a "Warehouse full" of things that haven't even been looked at, yet. What in the world were they waiting on???

 

[DeeDee249]

I have posted this many times in the past...on the show "48 Hours" the 10 year anniversary special of JB....at the end of the show...it was stated by the announcer that there was a (and I quote)...a "Warehouse full" of things that haven't even been looked at, yet. What in the world were they waiting on???

Good to see you back, Ames! I feel like it's been a while.

 

[Roy23]

Well it seems as if we all interpret Chief Beckner quote in different ways. I would like to see some IDI's and RDI's break down the quote on my signature like to explain to me what he is saying. Thanks for participating.

 

[madeleine]

Well it seems as if we all interpret Chief Beckner quote in different ways. I would like to see some IDI's and RDI's break down the quote on my signature like to explain to me what he is saying. Thanks for participating.

I'll give it a shot.

He's either still a lousy PDI and lying and the files are on a dusty shelf.

or

He's telling the truth and there's a tiny chance ,no matter if IDI or RDI,a DNA match could tell us whether it's the killer's(intruder),a Ramsey accomplice or whether it belongs to someone not related to the case like a factory worker.You have no idea how much I would love a DNA match.It would give both camps some answers.

 

[DeeDee249]

Basically, he is saying that the DNA MAY belong to the killer or it MAY NOT, and at this point they have no donor. That's pretty much it.
IMO, almost anyone would feel the DNA is an important finding. BUT it is only going to help SOLVE the case if it can be linked to a donor, and that seems to be what some people aren't understanding. Unless you can link it to the crime by linking it to someone who was there when she was killed, you can't say it was left by the killer.
Let's just say for argument's sake that it was found to belong to a boy who was at the R home that day. Patsy has said BR had friends over. And let's just say that JB helped herself to those ridiculously large panties from her drawer, as Patsy said she did.
Does this mean that boy killed her? Not likely, but possible. Or does it mean he touched her in inappropriate places? Possibly. Or does it mean JB touched something he also touched, like the toilet handle or something.
It seems apparent that the BPD has not found the donor. Criminals are in a database- doesn't mean the perp is. There are still many people who need to be asked (they can't be required) to give samples, including ALL males know to be at the R home Christmas Day (as Patsy said there were boys visiting BR) and all males present at the White's that day, regardless of the age they were in 1996.

 

[Roy23]

Basically, he is saying that the DNA MAY belong to the killer or it MAY NOT, and at this point they have no donor. That's pretty much it.
IMO, almost anyone would feel the DNA is an important finding. BUT it is only going to help SOLVE the case if it can be linked to a donor, and that seems to be what some people aren't understanding. Unless you can link it to the crime by linking it to someone who was there when she was killed, you can't say it was left by the killer.
Let's just say for argument's sake that it was found to belong to a boy who was at the R home that day. Patsy has said BR had friends over. And let's just say that JB helped herself to those ridiculously large panties from her drawer, as Patsy said she did.
Does this mean that boy killed her? Not likely, but possible. Or does it mean he touched her in inappropriate places? Possibly. Or does it mean JB touched something he also touched, like the toilet handle or something.
It seems apparent that the BPD has not found the donor. Criminals are in a database- doesn't mean the perp is. There are still many people who need to be asked (they can't be required) to give samples, including ALL males know to be at the R home Christmas Day (as Patsy said there were boys visiting BR) and all males present at the White's that day, regardless of the age they were in 1996.

Okay, fair enough. Now would you say for certain that he was against the DA in exonerating the Ramsey's? What are your thoughts on that and why would he not be explicit on this? Is it because he thinks that an R could be an accompliss or that they did it? Or could it be that he agrees that this is a significant finding and answers the question of transference?

 

[joeskidbeck]

Basically, he is saying that the DNA MAY belong to the killer or it MAY NOT, and at this point they have no donor. That's pretty much it.
IMO, almost anyone would feel the DNA is an important finding. BUT it is only going to help SOLVE the case if it can be linked to a donor, and that seems to be what some people aren't understanding. Unless you can link it to the crime by linking it to someone who was there when she was killed, you can't say it was left by the killer.
Let's just say for argument's sake that it was found to belong to a boy who was at the R home that day. Patsy has said BR had friends over. And let's just say that JB helped herself to those ridiculously large panties from her drawer, as Patsy said she did.
Does this mean that boy killed her? Not likely, but possible. Or does it mean he touched her in inappropriate places? Possibly. Or does it mean JB touched something he also touched, like the toilet handle or something.
It seems apparent that the BPD has not found the donor. Criminals are in a database- doesn't mean the perp is. There are still many people who need to be asked (they can't be required) to give samples, including ALL males know to be at the R home Christmas Day (as Patsy said there were boys visiting BR) and all males present at the White's that day, regardless of the age they were in 1996.

BBM

Now, with all the emphasis on the dna being able to identify her killer (which it won't, I agree) none of these boys/men will come forward to be tested as they will probably be accused of killing JB. Who could blame them?