The Ramseys are no longer “cleared” according to Stan Garnett

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by cynic, Oct 18, 2010.

  1. cynic

    cynic Active Member

    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Boulder DA, Stan Garnett interviewed by Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman
    Part 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQqV9NslMM0

    Part 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h092gdO5Avw

    Part 3
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Be5LTOLxk


    Dan Caplis: And Stan, so it would be fair to say then that Mary Lacy’s clearing of the Ramseys is no longer in effect, you’re not bound by that, you’re just going to follow the evidence wherever it leads.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.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Bobbarita

    Bobbarita New Member

    Messages:
    490
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Go Stan Garnett! Follow the evidence! As noted, Lacy's exoneration of the Ramsey's is not worth the paper it's printed on... So glad to hear the Boulder police chief who declared the Ramsey's under "an umbrella of suspicion" (as they deserve to be) will now be in charge. After all that's happened, I'm sure he's extremely motivated to bring the murderer's to justice.
     
  4. cynic

    cynic Active Member

    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It’s clear that Lin Wood and the Ramseys no longer have a loyal ally in the DA”s office, and I’m sure they’re longing for the “good old days.”

    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

    "Ramsey attorney L. Lin Wood of Atlanta said Keenan's (Mary Lacy’s) statement removes the long-standing "umbrella of suspicion" over the couple."
    …
    "And, from the lawyer's perspective, the days of anyone accusing my clients of murder are also over."
    Rocky Mountain News, Owen S. Good, Apr 08, 2003
     
  5. VespaElf

    VespaElf Little Miss Showcase(runner-up)

    Messages:
    2,380
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    HHmmm no wonder BR lawyered up.........
     
  6. ScorpRising

    ScorpRising To thine ownself be true

    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As we come up on the 14th anniversary, I hope there is finally some justice...
     
  7. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "can you imagine how hard it is for Burke..."

    well yes Lin,I can..........but who made it so darn complicated every time,not MY parents.

    Btw.....I was thinking..........let's say PR did it.
    WHY isn't JR telling the truth,I mean,why would you prefer to be under the umbrella forever and ruin your son';s life....she's dead,IMO Burke's future is more imprtant than the family's reputation,right?

    Okay,he might shut up because they might charge him with obstruction of justice,even with helping his wife in the cover up.Still.....he has a good laywer,AND I REPEAT....isn't his son the most important now?Doesn't he deserve to be CLEARED FOR GOOD AND FOR REAL??

    And all this makes me wonder.....I still think JDI..... or even BDI.
    AGAIN I don't get their actions.And their LATEST actions tell me it wasn't PR who did it.
     
  8. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Grand Jury returned more than one indictment? :eek:
     
  9. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You think weBBsleuths will open it's gates again now if they are no longer cleared?:D
    You know,weBBsl.closing down after the R's were cleared was a disappointment...and a sign for me.....I mean,now that the R's were cleared it's no longer important to find out who the intruder is?Then what was that all about,only supporting the R's?I thought it was about finding out who the intruder was?
     
  10. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ New Member

    Messages:
    30,906
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I know, right!
     
  11. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I like Stephen Singular and this is interesting even if I personally don't agree with half of what he says this time

    Ramsey Developments -- What You Can't Hear in a Sound Bite

    http://stephensingular.com/Blog/Default.aspx
     
  12. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ New Member

    Messages:
    30,906
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you please pm me the content? The link says I am not authorized to view the content.
     
  13. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "You are not authorized to view this page"

    WTH?I just visited it minutes ago....
    maybe it'll come back
     
  14. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i'll copy from cache



    Blog of Author Stephen Singular and Joyce Jacques Singular

    << JonBenet Ramsey News | Home
    Ramsey Developments -- What You Can't Hear in a Sound Bite
    On January 14, 2009, the day after Stan Garnett became the new Boulder DA, I called him because he&#8217;d publicly said that he wanted to look at the unsolved JonBenet Ramsey murder case with fresh eyes. Surprisingly, he called back the next day, in part because he&#8217;d had some connection to the Alan Berg assassination in Denver in 1984, the subject of my first book. A few weeks later, I made an appointment to drive up to Boulder and speak with him about the Ramsey case. He seemed open-minded about the now twelve- year-old homicide and told me that his office, Boulder Police Department personnel, and other law enforcement were having a powwow about the case at the end of February 2009.

    In just the past two days, the substance of that meeting has become national news, and we&#8217;ve learned that a 20-some member advisory council made up of state and federal officials were at the gathering. We now know that they recommended the BPD go back and interview certain individuals connected to the case. One is Burke Ramsey, nine at the time of his sister&#8217;s death and now 23. What we don&#8217;t know and what seems very strange is that the BPD appears only now to be getting around to talking with these people -- a full nineteen months later. What they&#8217;ve been doing for the past year-and-a-half is about as mysterious as the murder itself. In my February &#8217;09 talks with Garnett, I gave him some very specific information about people connected to child pornography whose names have been associated with JonBenet&#8217;s death. These leads had all been developed long after the murder, when certain people in Boulder had come forward to civilians with new information, in part because they did not want to go to the local police.

    Initially, the Garnett appeared interested in opening up the investigation beyond the Ramsey family, just as the first DA on the case, Alex Hunter, had been when I&#8217;d approached him in April 1997. Back then, Hunter&#8217;s complaint to me was that the BPD did not want to conduct an investigation into child abuse and child pornography that went outside the Ramsey family, and he was clearly frustrated by this. Twelve years later, there was reason to hope that Garnett would follow through with his desire to broaden the investigation. Within a few weeks, however, he&#8217;d turned the case back over to the BPD; some of the very same detectives who&#8217;d narrowed the murder probe earlier were in charge of it once again, the first sign that maybe Garnett&#8217;s eyes were not all that fresh. In my future communications with the DA, he told me to pass along any information I had to the Boulder Police, as he did not have time to deal with it. So I did.

    Let me be clear: we are talking about giving names to the Boulder Police Department of at least one offender convicted of child pornography charges, whose name had been raised by people in Boulder as having connections with the Ramsey homicide. When I attempted to convey this information to the BPD, I was essentially dismissed, as if this could not possibly be useful to them. I&#8217;m hardly the only one who had this experience. Throughout the past couple of years, I saw retired homicide detective Lou Smit on numerous occasions before he died in August 2010. He talked to me at length about the suspect list he&#8217;d put together since officially leaving the Ramsey investigation nearly a decade earlier, and sent along to the BPD. He felt the same kind of dismissive attitude toward him that I had -- despite having had a 90% clearance rate on his murder cases over decades of police work.

    It would be fine to be dismissed if there was reason to believe that the BPD has now broadened its investigation and is willing to look in new directions. But if that isn&#8217;t the case, the public has the right to know what the police have been doing and how their tax dollars have been spent on this case.

    I&#8217;ll have other things to say about information that was conveyed to the Boulder authorities around the time of this February 2009 powwow, but the critical question now is whether the BPD is going to interview more people beyond Burke Ramsey and other well known names in this case.

    More to come.

    Print | posted on Monday, October 04, 2010 9:07 AM
     
  15. joeskidbeck

    joeskidbeck Rest in Peace

    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, if that "umbrella" gets too heavy to bear, one could always say that PR confessed on her deathbed and he had no knowledge of it till then. Just sayin'.....
     
  16. CathyR

    CathyR New Member

    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I feel this move is political as the DA is starting over from square one and following the "evidence".
    A lot has been said about the R"s NOT cooperating but they haven't been charged with obstruction of justice. If they hadn't......, with lawyers present they did cooperate just not with any vein of investigation that pointed to them.
    Garrett has turned it back to BPD and they are starting all over again. Thus the request to interview Burke again. The R's have reached the point that interviewing them again would be harassment as they have asked every question possible of them. Unless they have a new question, never asked I don't think John would be required to give any new statements.

    How long till we find out if the Grand Jury did indict someone or some people? I am sure if the warrants are for the R's they may have to play it under the table and go to the states they reside and extradite them BEFORE they actually get them into custody. Or some legal maneuvering to make sure no flight risk and a long interstate battle doesn't occur.
     
  17. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Garnett ain't stupid but I think it's all propaganda.
    He says in order to bring charges,all dots have to be connected,the RN,the DNA,etc
    Well he probably knows very well though that this is not an evidence case.Cause every lawyer on this planet will argue that the crime scene was contaminated,that the dna was degraded and so on.So this is bla bla bla IMO.They NEED a confession.Badly.IMO.That's why the BPD hopes for interviews as well.
     
  18. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes we have a RN,we have fibers,handwriting,dna,etc
    But just imagine someone like LW in court .....all he needs is 3 sec to dismiss the case based on the BPD's mistakes,first hours on the scene,crime scene contamination and the list is long!

    Do you really think Garnett will ever go to trial with this kind of evidence?IMO NO.
    Henry Lee was right,the scene was destroyed,you gotta be veryyyyyyyyyyy lucky to solve this and bring charges.
     
  19. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MEYER is one of the people responsible for this.This case is not prosecutable.
    The first officers at the scene as well.
    ELLER as well.
     
  20. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They need a confession and LW knows it.And LE's never gonna get it.See what happened re Burke.Now that JR was "cleared" they will never get him to answer questions either.

    UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    It's just a vicious circle.
     
  21. tragco

    tragco Member

    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    To clarify for anyone who has not yet listened to the YouTube audio- beginning at part 2, at 4:10:

    Dan the interviewer:
    Stan, I saw a report recently that reported when they were reviewing the history of the Ramsey case that the grand jury had not returned any indictments in the Ramsey case. I had one good source tell me that that was wrong, that in fact there was at least one, maybe more indictments returned. Can you tell us one way or the other?

    Stan Garnett, Boulder DA:
    You know, Dan, it would be improper for me to make any comment about anything that happened in the grand jury, so I just, I just can't say anything about it.
     

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