No governmental support for RDI.

New Posts

Sophie said:
I think there's a semantic problem with this question: for example, you can't call Carnes's judicial decision representative of government any more than you can call the judge who basically told the Ramseys to STFU and stop moaning in the Fox`case representative of government.

Fact is, the last statement made by any official in this case was pointedly neutral - which is the way it should be - and conspicuously excluded no one from the investigation. If we are going to say that anything is representative of government, we have to assume that the new DA's and Beckner's statements are the latest reflection and they were frankly not very supportive of RDI or IDI. They were comfortingly unbiased.

This is all horribly irrelevant, though. If and when the police collect sufficient evidence and the case goes to court, it'll be the view of 12 citizens that prevails.
Click to expand...

There's something else, too, Sophie. JR has said that he wishes the FBI had taken control of the case right off the bat. Trouble is, when the OFFER was made to have them do just that, he was dead-set against the idea. He claimed there was this big LE conspiracy against him. (The EGO on some people, eh?)
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
What were they and when were they (I found Beckner's affirmation of suspicion).
Click to expand...

I was thinking of the FBI specifically.

Regardless if you're IDI or RDI, its interesting to note the statements, affirmations, and affidavits made by government personnel, as opposed to private or hired guns.
Click to expand...

Isn't THAT the truth...
 
Sophie said:
I think there's a semantic problem with this question: for example, you can't call Carnes's judicial decision representative of government any more than you can call the judge who basically told the Ramseys to STFU and stop moaning in the Fox`case representative of government.

Fact is, the last statement made by any official in this case was pointedly neutral - which is the way it should be - and conspicuously excluded no one from the investigation. If we are going to say that anything is representative of government, we have to assume that the new DA's and Beckner's statements are the latest reflection and they were frankly not very supportive of RDI or IDI. They were comfortingly unbiased.

This is all horribly irrelevant, though. If and when the police collect sufficient evidence and the case goes to court, it'll be the view of 12 citizens that prevails.
Click to expand...

I'll respond here by saying that 'STFU' and 'stop moaning' aren't 'governmental endorsement of RDI'. Nice try though.

IDI has several governmental endorsements, RDI has none.

Why is that? When the government knows more than we do, it is a significant imbalance. The only documented governmental affirmations are IDI. Even the grand jury returned IDI.

Off-handed remarks made by FBI agents at the scene before any forensics were even done were ill advised at the time, and are obsolete now. Don't take my word for it, contact one of them and see if they'll stand by their original remarks.

The last governmental statement that wasn't neutral was IDI. There was absolutely no new information that would cause a change from IDI to neutral, it was just a stance taken to appease various antiquated interests. It had nothing to do with case developments. Please note that the R's were not placed back 'under the umbrella' as you seem to be trying to claim.
 
SuperDave said:
There's something else, too, Sophie. JR has said that he wishes the FBI had taken control of the case right off the bat. Trouble is, when the OFFER was made to have them do just that, he was dead-set against the idea. He claimed there was this big LE conspiracy against him. (The EGO on some people, eh?)
Click to expand...

Does this mean if you say 'shoo' the FBI will go away? I didn't know that, its news to me.
 
Boulder District Attorney Stan Garrett says to People he isn't about to make the same mistakes as his two predecessors by opening or closing the umbrella of suspicion on ANY suspects in the unsolved murder of 6-year-old JonBenét Ramsey. Strange he didn't exclude the Ramsey's in this...So neutral he sounds wouldn't you think...
 
In December 2002, newly elected Boulder DA Mary Keenan Lacy took over the investigation from police. Lacy, who believed the evidence was "more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenét....(I really thought the DNA came in 2003...Soon as she was elected she done made up her mind)...Now this according to DA Stan Garrett was a past mistakes....Next was John Mark Karr in 2006 that she dropped 12 days later...The last but for most that stands out in my mind was the letter to John Ramsey July 2008 saying she no longer consider any of the Ramsey members as suspects..And Lacy done this letter six months before leaving office..My thoughts in hyphen's....
 
Lets try to get it right, OK?

Call him Mr. Cautious. Boulder, Colo., District Attorney Stan Garnett isn't about to make the same mistakes as his two predecessors by opening or closing the umbrella of suspicion on any suspects in the unsolved murder of 6-year-old JonBenét Ramsey.

In a recent interview, Garnett tells PEOPLE the Boulder Police Department's task force met for the first time last week, and it's "a very impressive group." He says it was "a worthwhile couple of days," but when it comes to making promises on what comes next, Garnett goes back to what constituents told him back on the campaign trail: "Don't talk about the case unless you solve it."

I think I'm probably the only one here that is confused by this.

He isn't about to open the umbrella of suspicion on any suspects. That means he isn't about to open the umbrella of suspicion on the R's. It also means that an umbrella of suspicion is some special status different than the status of 'suspect' that isn't taught in criminial science.

He accepts the existence of the 'umbrella of suspicion' and how it can be opened and closed on a suspect. This is abstract, as there is no umbrella of suspicion. The umbrella of suspicion is an abstract way to cast public suspicion on a person that is over and above what can be done by simply naming them as suspects..

Garnett won't be adding or subtracting suspects from 'the umbrella'. OK. Garnett won't be talking about the case unless he already has the answer. This begs the question: We know what he WONT do, so what WILL he do?
 
What CAN he do?

Nothing.LE won't be able to do nothing either.It should have been done the first 36 hours.(RDI,IDI,doesn'tatter)

Who wants to bet that the situation will stay the same.
 
Even if IDI,what they got (dna) is not enough .So what next.It's too late IMO.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Lets try to get it right, OK?

Call him Mr. Cautious. Boulder, Colo., District Attorney Stan Garnett isn't about to make the same mistakes as his two predecessors by opening or closing the umbrella of suspicion on any suspects in the unsolved murder of 6-year-old JonBenét Ramsey.

In a recent interview, Garnett tells PEOPLE the Boulder Police Department's task force met for the first time last week, and it's "a very impressive group." He says it was "a worthwhile couple of days," but when it comes to making promises on what comes next, Garnett goes back to what constituents told him back on the campaign trail: "Don't talk about the case unless you solve it."

I think I'm probably the only one here that is confused by this.

He isn't about to open the umbrella of suspicion on any suspects. That means he isn't about to open the umbrella of suspicion on the R's. It also means that an umbrella of suspicion is some special status different than the status of 'suspect' that isn't taught in criminial science.

He accepts the existence of the 'umbrella of suspicion' and how it can be opened and closed on a suspect. This is abstract, as there is no umbrella of suspicion. The umbrella of suspicion is an abstract way to cast public suspicion on a person that is over and above what can be done by simply naming them as suspects..

Garnett won't be adding or subtracting suspects from 'the umbrella'. OK. Garnett won't be talking about the case unless he already has the answer. This begs the question: We know what he WONT do, so what WILL he do?
Click to expand...



Holdon, So why not post about Lacy past mistakes now that was in that too....But he is saying the one that was under umbella hmmm how many did we have in the case that was under the umbella of suspicion....Really just one name comes to my mind....
 
I think there's some truth in it.Politicians say things that people wanna hear.
Of course a DA will say yes,yes we're investigating it....why?Because that's what ppl wanna hear.Doesn't make it so though.
 
SuperDave said:
There's something else, too, Sophie. JR has said that he wishes the FBI had taken control of the case right off the bat. Trouble is, when the OFFER was made to have them do just that, he was dead-set against the idea. He claimed there was this big LE conspiracy against him. (The EGO on some people, eh?)
Click to expand...


LOL. Dave, this is a TGIF moment but that comment puts me in mind of Donagh, a lovely, adorable, very gay Irish friend of mine who would react to someone who couldn't get over themselves by saying 'The head on IT!.' He also, in all fairness, once told me that I could be a Spice Girl - Old Spice* - but we'll draw the veil of charity over that :D


Do you guys get 'Old Spice' after shave?
 
madeleine said:
I think there's some truth in it.Politicians say things that people wanna hear.
Of course a DA will say yes,yes we're investigating it....why?Because that's what ppl wanna hear.Doesn't make it so though.
Click to expand...


MAJOR APPLAUSE. That is so true, Madeleine.

Ty, Madeleine. One thing I have been aware of recently is the Lockerbie decision (Dave has listened to me endlessly on this point, bless his lovely heart) and I don't want to discuss it here other than to say that it's a prime - Five Star - example of governments and politicians spinning things to suit themselves. Just this week, it's been shown that the UK government agreed not to chase justice for a lovely young police woman who was shot by someone in the London Libyan Embassy during a demonstration by anti-fundamentalists a few years ago as long as they keep to their anti-nuclear plans and carry on being kind to us with oil. Daily, evidence emerges of other governments being in on this deal. Frankly, even in apparently open democracies, none of us has the fisrt clue what is going on in our names. Certainly, some of this may be in our own best interests, but it's a terrible thing to know that our approval is being taken for granted. This applies in a heartbreaking way to JBR.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
What did the FBI say and when did they say it? Or is that asking too much?
Click to expand...

No, that's not asking too much. That's right up my alley.

Okay. The when was late 1997. November, if my memory serves. The lead detectives and members of the DA's office met with the FBI at Quantico, VA. Just a few things that were said (my book has a much more comprehensive narrative) were that:

1) the sexual "assault" on JB was more than likely a fake designed to distract

2) The note was "staging within staging," a way to create a criminal to match the created crime and perhaps help the killer undo the deed in their mind

and 3) even people who seem nice can be capable of terrible things.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Does this mean if you say 'shoo' the FBI will go away? I didn't know that, its news to me.
Click to expand...

No, HOTYH, that's not what I'm saying. My point was to show how (as usual) the Rs' claims don't match the reality. Around 2000-2002, JR especially became very vocal about his belief that the police should not be working the case anymore, that they weren't competent or objective. When the suggestion was made that the FBI take over, as JR himself said he wished had happened, he went on a big tirade about how the FBI was part of the "plot" against him and his wife. This prompted ST to make one of his little verbal jabs, asking "who DO you want, the Border Patrol?" It prompted a lot of other things, too, but we'll get to that later.
 
madeleine said:
I think there's some truth in it.Politicians say things that people wanna hear.
Of course a DA will say yes,yes we're investigating it....why?Because that's what ppl wanna hear.Doesn't make it so though.
Click to expand...

Thats right. If they think it'll be gobbled up, they'll say it.

Trouble is, JBR solution is probably NOT what people wanna hear. That is why the solution is probably safe from discovery. People are too busy trying to be popular in their position than being bold or taking risks to solve it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 120 more.
Total: 4,380 (members: 121, guests: 4,259)

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
4,259
Total visitors
4,380
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,404
Messages
17,968,448
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top