The IDI Chickens have come home to roost

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by SuperDave, Jul 14, 2011.

  1. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    For almost two weeks now, I've been agonizing over how best to do this, and now the answer gets dropped right into my lap. They say he who laughs last laughs best. Well, I don't feel much like laughing, but here goes.

    Roy, you listening, pilgrim? I sure hope you are! You and the other IDIs out there, listen up, because there's two big things that need to be said.

    Casey Anthony will walk free in three days, and as far as I'm concerned, IDI shares the blame for it. Not all, of it, certainly. That case and this one have a lot of blame to go around: Supreme Court decisions that give defense attorneys too much power and tie the hands of prosecutors and police; experts who can be hired to say anything you want; and TV shows, movies and books that dumb-down jurors and feed them a distorted view of how the system works.

    But the simple fact cannot be ignored: IDIs' chickens have come home to roost.

    And why do I say that? Because it's true. IDI have preached to hell and back that a circumstantial case can't win in court anymore in the era of modern technology. They've argued that again and again.

    This is the result: child-killers walking free, maybe to kill again. The jury in the Casey Anthony case believed the nonsense IDI gives us on a daily basis: that circumstantial evidence is not real evidence. This is the CSI Effect with a vengeance. This is the LOGICAL, INEVITABLE result of IDI arguments.

    And NOW, some IDI have the unmitigated GALL to get angry because Casey Anthony walked free! They get indignant over what they have unleashed! Observe:

    That would be funny if it weren't so horrible.

    And that leads to the OTHER part of it. Roy, let me take you back in time:

    You told me you'd look into it, Roy. I thought you meant it. But then you admitted what I always suspected: that you were just humoring me, like I was some kind of LUNATIC ranting for your amusement!

    Well, it's not so funny, now, is it? Not after the jury foreman in the Anthony case went on TV this week and said that the jury let Casey go specifically because of Wendy's argument: that the defense cast enough of a guilty shadow on George Anthony to believe that he may have been Caylee's killer.

    Pilgrim, I'm not usually the kind of man who says "I told you so." But in this case, I'm only too damn happy to make an exception!

    I TOLD YOU SO!
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Agatha_C

    Agatha_C New Member

    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dave,

    That was deeply profound...... I wanted to stand up and clap.
     
  4. Evan's Mom

    Evan's Mom Active Member

    Messages:
    1,034
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Holy cow!
    I thought this forum was to discuss Jon Benet Ramsey, not to be used to call out other posters with a differing opinion!
    I knew this forum was a little different than the others, but wow.
     
  5. SunnieRN

    SunnieRN Active Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The outcome of the Anthony circus truly surprised me. Even more highly than OJ, which is saying a lot.

    As for the R's, they should have charged them both with murder and made them fight it out or turn states evidence. I know, just a pipe dream of mine, but if LE truly collected 90% more evidence than what the public has seen, there has to be something there. If the evidence cleared the R's, which I truly doubt, then I believe there would have been a public statement made!
     
  6. eileenhawkeye

    eileenhawkeye Active Member

    Messages:
    8,769
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If Patsy had gone on trial for JonBenet's murder, I could see her defense arguing that JonBenet's murder was premeditated, and there's no proof that a mother like Patsy would ever plan to kill her daughter. Most IDI's believe that the strangulation came first, which is why they don't believe that Patsy or John were involved, because they couldn't see either of them strangulating their daughter. I don't think I've ever met an IDI who thought the intruder had caused JonBenet's head injury, and then strangled her.
     
  7. QueenD

    QueenD Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,300
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Okay don't laugh. What is IDI?
     
  8. SunnieRN

    SunnieRN Active Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    IDI is intruder did it, RDI is a Ramsey did it.
     
  9. SunnieRN

    SunnieRN Active Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Eileen, there are different types of murder charges. It would not have to be a premeditated charge. It could have been manslaughter. I have read enough newspaper articles, seen enough on television and read here enough to know that not all child killers are crazy, abusive, or committed other crimes against children in the past.

    Personally, I think Patsy is guilty of covering up the crime, not causing the head bash or strangulation. I have my theory on that. On the other hand, I wonder how much she truly knew, or if she was lied to regarding the true circumstances of JonBenets death and who killed her.

    I do however think that by not charging both parents, they may have allowed the R's to become so entrenched in their lies and cover up that now, the truth, may never be known.

    I believe one of the R's got away with murder and the rest are guilty of tampering with evidence and impeding an investigation. Done somewhat legally, with the help of their lawyers and the DA's office.
     
  10. Roy23

    Roy23 New Member

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

    You actually are looking like a Lunatic right now Dave. You haven't told me anything. The Grand Jury did not come up with enough evidence to hand out an indictment. There is a big big difference between Casey Anthony and The Ramsey's. Enormous. Why would you blame me for a Grand Jury that I was not part of? They couldn't make a Ham Sandwich much less get a conviction.

    Dave this is wrong on so many different levels. And keep in mind another thing, Pilgrim, making a circumstancial case against the Ramsey's is fine. I got no problem with it. You can't make it stick when DNA from an unknown male is all over the place.

    And is it my fault the BPD had different opinions? Is it my fault they didn't secure the house? Went to the media? Had unknown DNA in their closet?

    Game, Set, Match!
     
  11. Roy23

    Roy23 New Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The opposite happened. They got more corroborating DNA from an unknown male. And that is exactly why no statements have been made other than subtly apologizing to Mr. Ramsey.
     
  12. Roy23

    Roy23 New Member

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

    Please don't worry about this.

    He knows not of what he speaks. Circumstancial cases get prosecuted all the time. They even get convictions. His rantings are frustration for a Grand Jury that deemed not enough evidence to get into a courtroom. I don't support Wendy Murphy's theory in either the Jon Benet or the Anthony case.
     
  13. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    SD

    Over the years I've been reading about JBR here on Websleuths, I've developed an enormous respect for your detailed knowledge of the case.

    So, this is a little hard to say but it must be said - Chill Out. Roy is right, you're off the deep end now.

    The CA trial isn't the first where the jury couldn't feel definite about who did the murder, and it won't be the last. Jurors naturally want to be very certain about such a serious charge.

    You may feel their doubts were unreasonable, but they are the ones who had to decide. We can play this game all day and in the end, the jurors just weren't convinced CA did the deed she was charged with.

    As for circumstantial evidence, when a case is built on nothing else it probably shouldn't succeed.

    Getting to the specifics of the JBR case, there was room for doubt during the indictment, and there is even more room for doubt now. Even those of us who are leaning way way towards RDI have to admit there is a little something to IDI theory.

    Personally, the CA trial has re-affirmed my faith in the justice system. It was more important for the jury to be certain than to make someone pay for the crime. That is the way it should be.
     
  14. SunnieRN

    SunnieRN Active Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I respectfully disagree. Is the person in LE who apologized, that you are referring to ML? She is a total joke. This is the same person who brought a suspect from another country, without first doing a DNA test.

    The DNA is not necessarily that of one person. It could just as easily be a mixed DNA sample. It has been stated that if so, it will never be matched to anyone.

    ChrisHope, you stated that RDI's should 'have to admit' there is a little something to IDI theory. Honestly, the only people PROVEN to be in the house that night were four Ramseys. I say it may be interesting for you to give RDI a little benefit of doubt concerning their theories. They are not all the same, if you haven't noticed.
     
  15. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I not only give RDI a "little benefit of doubt", I'm died in the wool RDI myself. I've been RDI since I found out from TV news reports at the time, that JBR's body was found in the house. I already knew a RN was found in the house. I've been RDI since those two facts came together.

    Yes, I've noticed not all RDI theories are the same. In fact I find BDI theory much less plausible than other RDI theories. I don't find the bed wetting-rage theory all that plausible either.

    I agree, JR/PR were in the house that night. That is a fact even IDI have to admit. Outside the unknown, and probably unknowable DNA on the underwear there isn't one credible bit of evidence of an intruder.

    And yet, we must give IDI their due. Intruders do sometimes come in and leave no trace. There is the DNA on the underwear. There is no known history of child abuse (it's possible there is an unknown history, but that would be speculation, not fact)
     
  16. Roy23

    Roy23 New Member

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

    Sunnie,

    You have the right to believe whatever you want. I have reason to believe it is important the DNA is there and when you have it in many different areas calling it mixed is uninformed. I also have good reason to believe that they had already substantiated it even BEFORE the touch DNA results.

    The bottom line though is that at least over the past couple of years I have tried to behave in a manner that Websleuths was founded on. I have tried to even avoid the fights and attacks. Dave and I are stuck on opposite ends of the spectrum and I have accepted that. I don't attack or try to belittle any RDI besides the ring leader who attacks me on this board anymore.

    I also totally believe that the BPD and Mark Beckner are almost certain of IDI. Is it not my right to believe that?
     
  17. Roy23

    Roy23 New Member

    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I cannot thank you enough for this. Even though we are on opposite ends of the spectrum. And that includes Casey Anthony. I have tried to listen to the opinions of RDI theories and if RDI only the Burke theory makes any sense to me. My mind is not going to change on IDI until LE gives me an explanation otherwise. I don't believe in the Boulder conspiricy theories from the BPD, Alex Hunter, Mary Lacey, and whomever is DA now.

    But I will protect your right to believe whatever you want. Including your theory that the Casey jury did the right thing. I don't believe that but I do understand that maybe that case should have been prosecuted with less first degree murder and more manslaughter. When 12 people come to the same conclusion it becomes hard to criticize the result no matter my feelings.
     
  18. SunnieRN

    SunnieRN Active Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    There is dna on underwear that had JonBenets blood, Patsys touch dna, Johns touch dna and possibly Linda Arndts touch dna. Yet you can for sure determine that the 'unknown sample' was not mixed or contaminated? There are experts who have stated that it may be.

     
  19. SunnieRN

    SunnieRN Active Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I'm not sure where you got the idea that I feel it is not your right to have any or all beliefs that you want. I have a belief, just as you do. One that has not been explained away, considering that there were 4 Ramseys present that night and two Ramseys admitted to touching JonBenets long johns, or whatever your preference of term is for her outer clothing that night, is the touch dna where the unknown dna is on the garments. If they didn't find it, why not? If they did find it, how far was it from the 'unknown sample'.

    As for BPD and Beckner, I am not sure if BPD believes intruder. If they did, I have a feeling the investigation would have gone much differently.

    Again, in sharing my opinion, I am not sure why you think I said you don't have a right to yours. I just disagreed with yours. It was not an attack of your beliefs, but a statement of mine.
     
  20. SunnieRN

    SunnieRN Active Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Not sure if you have seen this. Cynic I give you full credit for this and thank you for the information.

    8. The Mixture Theory:

    “Full siblings born to unrelated parents have identical STR profiles at an average of four of the thirteen CODIS core loci, compared to, on average, identity at less than a single locus among unrelated individuals. My data set included a sibling pair with identity at nine of the thirteen CODIS core loci, and another colleague has informed us of an eleven locus match in a brother and sister.”
    DNA and the criminal justice system: the technology of justice –by David Lazer

    Despite having seen this bit of information before relating to the panty bloodstain, which ultimately was also found to contain a 9 ½ marker “intruder” DNA profile, its full significance never occurred to me.


    Hope this helps. And thanks again Cynic. There is a LOT more GREAT information on the dna thread. Scared the bejesus out of me when I first read it.
     
  21. cynic

    cynic Active Member

    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    With respect to your signature and recent posts relating to Lacy, Beckner, the BPD and their take on the DNA “evidence” and the investigation in general, I believe you are attempting to rewrite history.
    Here are the facts:

    July 9, 2008 - Police chief issues statement regarding JonBenet Ramsey case
    www.boulder-police.com
    Police chief issues statement regarding JonBenet Ramsey case
    The Boulder Police Department is issuing the following statement from Chief Mark Beckner in relation to the JonBenet Ramsey case:
    "The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The Boulder Police Department concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet. We remain committed to bringing JonBenet's killer to justice. That is, and always will be, our goal.
    The investigation of this case has been under the direction of the DA's office for a number of years now and it would be inappropriate for us to discuss the details of this case publicly. We will, of course, continue to assist the DA's office in any way that we can, and we are hopeful that this new development will lead to the identification and successful prosecution of this child's killer.
    We will be issuing no further statements at this time."
    http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9532&Itemid=2934

    A little history helps set the stage for the above comment.
    The Boulder PD was excluded from active investigation of the case, by Lacy, who was afraid of her own shadow and terrified of Lin Wood.

    "John and Patsy Ramsey have asked the Boulder County district attorney to find another police agency to investigate fresh leads into their daughter JonBenet's Christmas 1996 slaying."
    "If that doesn't happen, the Ramseys may sue to force the Boulder Police Department to turn its case over to another agency, L. Lin Wood, the family's attorney, said Monday."
    Daily Camera, Matt Sebastian, October 29, 2002

    And

    "Wood said he expects to file a civil lawsuit against the Boulder Police Department by the end of the year seeking compensatory damages for the Ramseys, and possibly seeking to transfer the investigation to another law enforcement agency."
    Daily Camera,Katherine Vogt (Associated Press) November 20, 2002

    One month later…

    Based on the above and after consultation with Chief Beckner, I have made a decision to conduct further investigation from within my office, using our investigative resources.
    Mary Keenan, Letter to Lin Wood, December 20, 2002

    Lin Wood: There's no doubt in my mind, because I met with Mary Keenan before she took this case over in December. I've met with her since then. I know what she has said. I know the actions she has taken, and it's very clear that the days of the criminal investigation of John and Patsy Ramsey are over.
    Larry King Live, July 11, 2003

    Lin Wood: "Well, I think the timing of the decision on Friday may have been affected by my letter. I did write Mary Keenan. I've been trying for over three and a half years as the attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey to get this case out of the hands of the Boulder Police Department
    NBC Today Show, Katie Couric interview with Lin Wood, Dec 23, 2002

    The fact that the BPD would no longer be involved in the investigation of the JonBenet case is echoed in the following press release from Beckner:

    Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner today announced that the JonBenet Ramsey investigation will be taking a new direction. Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan and Chief Beckner have agreed that the District Attorney will follow-up on new leads and information in the case. This will involve the assignment of DA investigators who have not previously worked on the Ramsey case. This is an investigative strategy that has been discussed in the District Attorney’s Office and the Police Department for several weeks.
    "The primary reason for this change is an attempt to further the investigation in a positive manner," said Chief Beckner. "The interests of the Boulder Police Department have always been to do what is in the best interests of the investigation. This is a strategy to address concerns expressed by the Ramseys and their attorney that the Boulder Police Department is not following up additional leads. This may provide the Ramseys and their attorney greater comfort in forwarding what they believe is new information or leads that need to be investigated."
    http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3623&Itemid=0

    "Keenan didn't tell Boulder residents of her decision to take an active role in the case, but she did tell Ramsey attorney Wood. In a letter to him, she said the Boulder police investigation of the Ramseys had been "exhaustive and thorough," that she would proceed without any further investigation by police, using her department's own investigators, that she would focus on new leads or leads not previously investigated, that she would work "cooperatively" with retired detective Smit who is the prime advocate of the intruder theory, that she would make "every effort to communicate openly with you," and that she would not go to the press to publicize her decision."

    ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS Publish date: June 13, 2003:
    The Boulder district attorney's office is devoting 70 to 100 hours a week to the JonBenet Ramsey case, a commitment that could increase with the recent hiring of an investigator.
    District Attorney Mary Keenan listed five people who have worked on the case to varying degrees since her office took jurisdiction of the investigation from the Boulder Police Department late last year.
    Personnel include a full-time investigator, an assistant district attorney, a computer-savvy investigator just finishing his trip through police academy, retired Colorado Springs homicide detective Lou Smit and Keenan

    John Mark Karr was detained in Bangkok, Thailand, on August 16, 2006 the Boulder County District Attorney's Office announced the charges against Karr were dropped.

    "The DNA could be an artifact," Lacy said in August. "It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else."
    …
    "Where you have DNA, particularly where it's found in this case, prosecuting another (suspect) that doesn't match that DNA is highly problematic," she said. "It's not impossible, but it's highly problematic - and it doesn't make any difference who it is.
    Mary Lacy Press Conference Re: John Mark Karr – August 29, 2006
    (Rocky Mountain News, December 23, 2006)

    The best-case scenario for prosecutors would be slam-dunk DNA evidence linking John Mark Karr to the battered and strangled body of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey.
    Without it, experts say, it's still possible — but much more difficult — to build a strong murder case against the 41-year-old teacher who has said he was there when the girl died 10 years ago but stopped short of an outright confession
    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_467797.html#ixzz1LMaRzKHr

    DNA swiped from John Mark Karr after his arrest last week in connection with the JonBenet Ramsey murder might be irrelevant, in part because "something got screwed up" when samples were taken from the crime scene in 1996, a former investigator on the case said.
    Bill Wise, former first assistant with the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, said that although DNA "absolutely could be one of the biggest things in the case," it could also be nothing.
    Some of the DNA taken from the 6-year-old pageant queen's fingernails and underwear was "degraded," Wise said. He said the tool used to take samples wasn't clean.
    "It had foreign DNA on it," he said.
    Daily Camera, 08/22/2006

    July 9, 2008
    Lacy exonerates the Ramseys:

    Mr. John Ramsey,

    As you are aware, since December 2002, the Boulder District Attorney's Office has been the agency responsible for the investigation of the homicide of your daughter…
    …
    Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence

    Later that same day…
    July 9, 2008 - Police chief issues statement regarding JonBenet Ramsey case
    The Boulder Police Department is issuing the following statement from Chief Mark Beckner in relation to the JonBenet Ramsey case:
    "The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The Boulder Police Department concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet. We remain committed to bringing JonBenet's killer to justice. That is, and always will be, our goal.
    The investigation of this case has been under the direction of the DA's office for a number of years now and it would be inappropriate for us to discuss the details of this case publicly. We will, of course, continue to assist the DA's office in any way that we can, and we are hopeful that this new development will lead to the identification and successful prosecution of this child's killer.

    As Lacy’s term in office drew to a close Alex Hunter had this to say:
    Hunter said the case is most likely to be solved if it's sent back to the Boulder Police Department, which handed over the investigation in 2002 to Hunter's successor, District Attorney Mary Lacy.
    Hunter said he's not sure police Chief Mark Beckner wants the case, but he said that department is better equipped to solve it because there's a better chance of continuity in its leadership. The DA's position is an elected one, and term limits will force Lacy out of office in 2008.
    The police also have a better relationship with the FBI, Hunter said.
    Lacy disagreed with the need for a change and defended the investigation led by her office, which will have a team of six investigators by next year.
    "I think all of law enforcement would say Tom Bennett is top-notch," Lacy said of her lead investigator.
    Beckner couldn't be reached for comment.
    By Vanessa Miller, Daily Camera Staff Writer
    Saturday, December 23, 2006

    More from Alex Hunter…

    At the same time, however, he was critical of several decisions made in the case over the years, including some of those of his successor, Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy.
    It's wrong, Hunter said, for the investigation to remain under her authority, as it has since it was transferred to her office from Boulder police in December 2002.
    "I don't think anything like that has ever happened, such a transfer," said Hunter. "It may have been a highlight in (Boulder Police Chief Mark) Beckner's whole career to be able to say goodbye to this, outside the door. You know, 'Here, Mary, it's yours.' But I think it's unfortunate for a couple of reasons."
    For one, Hunter, said, district attorneys' offices are typically not equipped as fully functioning investigative agencies, with all the contacts, relationships and resources of a police department.
    "Another question is . . . what happens when Mary Lacy leaves" when her last term expires in January 2009?
    "Then, does it stay there? No, it needs to come back to the Boulder Police Department sooner or later, in my opinion," Hunter said.
    Hunter admitted, however, "I'm not sure Beckner wants it back - or whoever his successor might be. But that's where it should be."

    Unlike his predecessor, Mary Lacy, who has made clear her view that an intruder killed JonBenet, Garnett said he doesn’t have any preconceived notions about the case or where any future investigation should lead.
    “District attorneys have to be very thoughtful and very sober and clear-eyed,” Garnett said. “I have very high regard for Mary Lacy, and I’m not a person who second guesses other people’s decisions. But I’ve been elected by the people of Boulder County to use my own judgment.”
    Daily Camera, Heath Urie, December 26, 2008

    7 months later, at a news conference, Beckner had the chance to personally rubber stamp the Ramsey exoneration that ML granted, but did not.

    Reporter: Mary Lacy cleared the Ramseys in this case, are they still cleared?
    Beckner: Again, in keeping our focus on where we go from here, I don’t want to answer that question for a couple of reasons.
    One, we are bringing in people on this task force that are going to have a fresh perspective, they are people who have never worked on this case, who are well known in the law enforcement and the district attorney field who can come in and look at this case, lay out the evidence on the table and tell us what they think, challenge us, ask us questions, give us ideas.
    I think, to say anything, I would have to get into the evidence, and I don’t want to do that.
    And secondly, I don’t want to set any expectations or biases for people coming into this committee.
    If the police chief stands here and says, I think this, or, I think that, they may come in with some bias, we don’t want that, we want them to tell us what they think.

    A little later…

    Reporter: You're not ruling anyone out?"
    Beckner: No.
    Press conference, February 2, 2009

    He did not say, yes, the Ramseys are cleared, and we are bringing in a task force to investigate the intruder theory, did he?
    Why not? The DNA is such compelling evidence, right?

    "Understand there are six years of information that we're not fully aware of when the case has been with the district attorney's office. That's stuff we need to get caught up on," Beckner said during the news conference.
    In response to a question about previous problems between two entities, Beckner said he did not think that would be an issue.
    "We're looking now toward the future and we're focused on: what are the next steps?" said Beckner. "I think we see eye to eye on where this case needs to go, what steps need to take place, so I think you're going to see a strong working team."

    There’s no question, whatsoever, that Beckner was not involved in any meaningful way in Mary Lacy’s 8 year long dog and pony show. To say otherwise is baseless speculation.

    For Immediate Release
    Feb. 2,2009
    Public Information Officer
    Boulder Police Department
    Police reactivate Ramsey case, appoint advisory multi-agency task force
    The Boulder Police Department is reactivating its investigation into the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, effective immediately. This action was taken in consultation and agreement with newly elected Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett.
    This unsolved homicide is going into its 13th year. The department plans to approach it as a cold case and has invited veteran investigators from a variety of state and federal agencies to participate in an advisory task force. The group will meet in the upcoming weeks to assist Boulder investigators to review all the evidence in the case, help to identify any additional testing that might be done and explore all possible theories about what happened the night JonBenet was killed. Detectives with the Boulder Police Department will perform all follow-up investigative work while maintaining their regular caseloads.
    While the list of participants in the advisory task force is still being finalized, the following
    agencies have agreed to send one or more representatives:
    • Colorado Bureau of Investigation
    • Federal Bureau of Investigation
    • Boulder District Attorney's Office
    • Telluride Police Department
    • Boulder County Sheriff s Office
    • Jefferson County Sheriffs Office
    • Attorney General's Office
    • Denver District Attorney's Office
    • Denver Police Department
    Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner and the district attorney are in agreement that a traditional law enforcement/prosecution relationship is appropriate in this and other cold cases. Police resources will be used to investigate the crime. The district attorney's office will prosecute any suspect or suspects, if the evidence is deemed sufficient.
    "After more than 12 years, the bottom line is that we still have an unsolved homicide," Chief
    Beckner said. "This effort will be focused on reviewing the case and evidence from beginning to end in the hope that we will come up with new ideas on efforts that could lead to additional evidence. We are doing this for JonBenet."
    The department does not plan to give regular updates about the work of this task force, unless there is a significant development or a determination is made that releasing information would be helpful to the ongoing investigation.
    http://www.bouldercounty.org/find/library/records/bpdprramseyfeb208.pdf

    And then, finally, Stan Garnett said what Mark Beckner didn’t, the Ramseys are no longer exonerated.
    This statement was made nearly two years after the task force to review the evidence was convened.
    Obviously the DNA evidence is not nearly as impressive as Lacy would have us believe or the task force would have reported as much, and the Ramseys would have remained cleared.

    On a Denver radio show, KHOW’s Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman interviewed Boulder DA, Stan Garnett.

    Dan Caplis: And Stan, so it would be fair to say then that Mary Lacy’s clearing of the Ramseys is no longer in effect, you’re not bound by that, you’re just going to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
    Stan Garnett: What I’ve always said about Mary Lacy’s exoneration is that it speaks for itself.
    I’ve made it clear that any decisions made going forward about the Ramsey case will be made based off of evidence…
    Dan Caplis: Stan, when you say that the exoneration speaks for itself, are you saying that it’s Mary Lacy taking action, and that action doesn’t have any particular legally binding effect, it may cause complications if there is ever a prosecution of a Ramsey down the road, but it doesn’t have a legally binding effect on you, is that accurate?
    That is accurate, I think that is what most of the press related about the exoneration at the time that it was issued.
    …
    Craig Silverman: I’d say the headline out of our show is once again you established out of your questioning of Stan Garnett that that letter (of exoneration) isn’t worth the paper it’s written on as far as Stan Garnett is concerned.
    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5701132&postcount=1"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - The Ramseys are no longer “cleared” according to Stan Garnett[/ame]

    Postscript:
    Here we see Lacy in full bipolar splendor. Although “there can be no innocent explanation” for the DNA, there could foreseeably be a trial in which Boulder prosecutors would seek the death penalty against John Ramsey??? (Keep in mind that this after all the DNA evidence was in play including TDNA.)
    Mary Lacy: "If I found out tomorrow that this has been a big charade, and that John Ramsey was involved in any way with this murder, I wouldn't hesitate to review it for the death penalty," she said.
    December 26, 2008
    http://www.coloradodaily.com/ci_12953394#axzz1OXrl8DES
     

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