Misinformation From Authorities Goes Uncorrected

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by BlueCrab, Jun 29, 2004.

  1. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Boulder authorities and Ramsey supporters continue to mislead the public about the facts in the JonBenet murder by failing to correct even the most obvious mistakes by the half-informed media.

    For instance, the Associated Press' writer John Flesher on June 16, 2004 put out the following release: "JonBenet Ramsey's Father Runs for the Michigan Legislature".

    Here's one of the paragraphs in the release:

    "Ramsey and his wife, Patsy, were never charged in JonBenet's killing, and the district attorney and a federal judge in Colorado have said it is likelier that an intruder was responsible, as the parents insist."

    That paragraph is loaded with mistakes that falsely paint a picture that ALL of the Ramseys are innocent.

    First of all, the "federal judge in Colorado" is really Judge Julie Carnes of Atlanta, Georgia, and not a federal judge from Colorado.

    And Carnes didn't say "it is likelier that an intruder was responsible". The AP account falsely broadens Carnes comment to include all Ramseys, not just Patsy. That is mis-information distributed nation-wide by ill-informed people that goes uncorrected by Boulder authorities and by the Ramsey camp.

    Here's what Carnes actually stated in her opinion, which was included as part of her reasoning for throwing out the civil lawsuit of Wolf v Ramsey (in which Wolf claimed Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet):

    " ... the weight of the evidence is more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with a theory that Mrs. Ramsey did it."

    Judge Carnes' comment is restricted to Patsy Ramsey ONLY, not John, nor Burke, nor to anyone else. JUST PATSY!

    To not correct obvious misinformation shows a lack of character by the Ramseys and their followers. However, since in this case it gives John and Burke an unearned "get out of jail free" card, it's a little bit understandable. But for Boulder authorities, especially D.A. Mary Keenan, to not correct the grossly misleading information is unexcuseable.

    JMO
     
  2. Loading...


  3. vicktor

    vicktor New Member

    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't believe everything that is written for the papers.
     
  4. K777angel

    K777angel New Member

    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Carnes statement SHOULD have said something like, 'The weight of the selective evidence that was presented to me by the suspects civil attorney who had no access to all of the forensic evidence and lab reports, police reports and expert opinions on the facts, therefore making such evidence
    totally biased - of course looks like Mrs. Ramsey is not likely the perp but some intruder. But that's the attorney's job to present a skewed case to me to make it look like his client is innocent." (She may have then added, "And I'm too dumb to realize that I've been snookered.")

    And Keenan should release a statement that says something like, "If it weren't for Lin Wood and his blackmail threat to sue the Boulder authorities for percieved injustices on the Ramsey's behalf, then I wouldn't be forced to come out and make this window-dressing statement to the public that we are re-investigating the Ramsey murder because now we think some intruder did it. This really isn't true. We know who did it, we've known it for years, but we were too afraid to take it to trial for 2 reasons. We are not in the practice of taking cases to trail here - we like to plea bargain! So our attorneys don't have a lot of experience trying cases - espcially ones like this one that have the whole world looking at you going up against these big, powerful attorney who are the best in the state of Colorado! They would rip us to shreds! We bungled so many things and the DA's office stonewalled the police from doing their job so many times, not to mention holding hands with a tabloid reporter throughout the investigation! I mean - who wants THAT to come out in a trial and make you look like a fool and possibly risk getting reprimanded! No way. So instead we insisted we had alot of evidence to make a case against one or more of the Ramseys - but not beyond a reasonable doubt." That should do it. Because the DA is the one to decide when it reaches that threshhold - he could say "I need more" forever and no one can do a darn thing about it. So that's what he did.
    He was one who pretty much never thought a case needed to be taken to trial. And I agree with him. That was part of our deal for him supporting my candidacy. So you see - there is much more to this fake PR investigation we announced than you think. I mean - we had to appease the Ramsey attorney and lie to the public or face a lawsuit!" :banghead:
     
  5. cookie

    cookie New Member

    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO

    :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
     
  6. cookie

    cookie New Member

    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Boulder authorities and Ramsey supporters continue to mislead the public about the facts in the JonBenet murder by failing to correct even the most obvious mistakes by the half-informed media."

    Remember Bluecrab, one must read these stories before one make an attemp to correct any mistakes in them. I really believe that DA Keenan doesn't even look at anything related to the Ramsey case.
     
  7. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Angel,

    PERFECT!!

    Thanks Bluecrab,

    Every now and then we need a refresher and a reminder why there is no justice and the BS that explains why there is no justice.
     
  8. Show Me

    Show Me New Member

    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As I've often said:Where are all the good investigative reporters?
     
  9. VespaElf

    VespaElf Little Miss Showcase(runner-up)

    Messages:
    2,380
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Exactly! This story needs and deserves to be out there and I cant belive no one wants to really dig into this case but I think because The Ramseys sic Lin Wood on anyone who dares say the opposite of their spin most news outlets are scared.
     
  10. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Yes, I agree. Where are all of the nation's good investigative reporters? Why do they treat the JonBenet Ramsey murder case like it's poison ivy? What do they know that we don't know that keeps them away from digging deep and trying to solve one of the world's most famous murders?

    Here's my take on it (just my opinion of course):

    It's already been solved! Burke Ramsey and Doug Stine did it. The grand jury solved it in 1999, and the court's protective order and the Colorado Children's Code prevents the identities of the children to be released. That's why all of the lawsuits end up in settlements, probably with no money changing hands. The courts won't let the lawsuits proceed beyond a certain point because it would reveal who did it.

    For example, the New York Post fully challenged the Ramsey's defamation lawsuit and was prepared to slug it out to the bloody end. During discovery the NYP obtained thousands of documents on Burke from the Boulder D.A.'s files, so they likely know exactly what happened. Nevertheless, the Ramseys and the NYP settled.

    Money for attorneys wasn't the reason the NYP settled. The Post wanted to bring the who-did-it case to conclusion at any cost. That's one of the reasons why the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid newspaper exists. It hasn't made a profit in three decades but continues to print what it perceives needs to be printed.

    So money wasn't the reason the Ramsey v New York Post civil suit settled. Murdoch, a billionaire who owns the Post and almost everything with the name Fox attached to it, has deep pockets and was ready to resolve the JonBenet Ramsey murder once and for all. So why did the Post suddenly settle?

    It had to be pressure from the courts to not violate the Colorado court protective order and Colorado statutes shielding the identity of children.

    The word is out. The nation's investigative reporters apparently run up against the same deterrent, so don't even try.

    JMO
     
  11. VespaElf

    VespaElf Little Miss Showcase(runner-up)

    Messages:
    2,380
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BlueCrab,
    I do now belive Burke was involved but how do you figure Doug Stine was involved? Would you please share w/ me your whole theory ?
     
  12. jubie

    jubie Former Member

    Messages:
    2,252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First-- Isn't there a reporter/writer/journalist named Steve Something that does not buy the into the Ramseys lies and has been quite blunt in the past? Can he be contacted a given a little push to write about this?

    Second) We have some amazing people here who write very well and maybe want to take a shot at putting something together and sending it to a magazine or paper... Cherokee? Ned? Barbara? (Not meaning to exclude anyone)


    Jubie
     
  13. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The Ramseys and the Stines were friends prior to the murder, and Burke and Doug were best friends.

    Doug Stine's involvement is revealed, IMO, by the bizarre behaviors of his parents following the murder of JonBenet. Glen and Susan Stine became the Ramseys staunchest supporters -- and literally sacrificed their livelihoods, their home, and their lives in Colorado in defense of the Ramseys. The assertive Susan Stine became known as "Patsy's pit bull".

    The Ramseys and the Paughs moved into the Stines house in Boulder (five blocks from the Ramseys house) shortly following JonBenet's death -- and lived in that cramped single-family house for 5 months. Nathan Inouye, the Stine's live-in caregiver for Doug, was also living there during that time.

    Glen Stine was vice president of Colorado University, and Susan Stine was director of research. They quit their positions, sold their house, and followed the Ramseys to Georgia.

    The extreme behaviors of the Stines ran up a red flag for me.

    JMO
     
  14. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This would be more believable if there were any other cases that were handled in this manner. Is there any precedent for it? (Yeah, I know, if they are "secret," how would we know? But come on...)

    If this did happen, why didn't the Colorado authorities conclude publicly there was an "unknown intruder," declare the case solved and closed, and quit spending money and time on it? Why did they pursue the Atlanta interviews after the GJ's conclusion? Why put on a charade of an investigation for a town that doesn't even give a chit?
     
  15. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But Stine was acting like Patsy's pit bull before the murder. She threw herself between the Ramseys and the cops on the 23rd when someone from the party called 911. IMO that's why the Ramseys latched on to the Stines after the crime when they really needed that pit bull for protection. The Stine weirdness already existed... the pit bull was already on duty.
     
  16. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    If they said an unknown intruder did it, the case wouldn't be solved.

    There were still questions to resolve in regard to John's and Patsy's involvement with obstruction of justice, which are criminal charges.

    And even though the case was solved by the grand jury with respect to the children's involvement, there was still the possibility of an unknown adult also being involved in the murder. That possibility had to be investigated.

    JMO
     
  17. VespaElf

    VespaElf Little Miss Showcase(runner-up)

    Messages:
    2,380
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What has happened to The Stines since the Ramseys moved to MI?


    I agree there is something "hinky" about the Stine Family..........

    (so many pieces in the puzzle but I cant get them all to fit!!!!!!)
     
  18. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then why didn't they charge them with that?

    If they truly solved the case, i.e. they knew the children did it, to the extent that It had to be pressure from the courts to not violate the Colorado court protective order and Colorado statutes shielding the identity of children (from your post above), then why didn't they charge John and Patsy with obstruction of justice? Those charges wouldn't depend on whether or not another adult were involved. At that point, what was left to investigate? The case was solved (IYO).
     
  19. vicktor

    vicktor New Member

    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BC: The extreme behaviors of the Stines' ran up a red frag for me.

    Vicktor: What transpired with the Ramseys living at the Stines and then them following the Ramseys to Atlanta is admittedly unusual. It seems like a big sacrafice for 5 mo., and then to leave good jobs to go to Atlanta, did not make sense. But there's the other side of the coin. John and Patsy were obviously in emotional difficulty for several months after the crime. If Burke and Doug(a/o Nathan I.) did do it, then all them living together would have been hell@. Everybody would have tipped toed around and the air would have been thick, nobody wanting to mention the 'elephant' in the room. I can't imagine the Ramseys or the Stines enduring that. This kind of coverup is less probable than another explanation,IMO.
     
  20. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    If the parents were charged criminally with obstruction then the ensuing criminal trial proceedings would have revealed who they were covering up for. That would violate Colorado law shielding the identities of children and violate the court's protective order.

    JMO
     
  21. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then why bother to investigate them? Why bother to go to Atlanta to interview them? Why keep putting money and time into an investigation that can't go anywhere without violating Colorado law?
     

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