Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 13 to 24 of 24
  1. #13

    Default

    Fantastic article by Shapiro. The most important thing about this article, at least for me, is that it confirms all the comments attributed to Shapiro by Schiller in PMPT.

    I'm going to re-read those comments now because I remember there are some very important conversations between Shapiro and Rol and Shapiro and John. I posted a thread, on another forum, once about Shapiro's testimony given in PMPT and how they almost proved PR was involved. Some posters replied that Schiller's book was full of errors and I should not place any trust in those stories. I now know I can.

    What do you all think about Shapiro's indication that the new investigation is again focusing on PR? Is this why Shapiro has now come out with such a straightforward article? Could he know some inside info?

  2. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    Fantastic article by Shapiro. The most important thing about this article, at least for me, is that it confirms all the comments attributed to Shapiro by Schiller in PMPT.

    I'm going to re-read those comments now because I remember there are some very important conversations between Shapiro and Rol and Shapiro and John. I posted a thread, on another forum, once about Shapiro's testimony given in PMPT and how they almost proved PR was involved. Some posters replied that Schiller's book was full of errors and I should not place any trust in those stories. I now know I can.

    What do you all think about Shapiro's indication that the new investigation is again focusing on PR? Is this why Shapiro has now come out with such a straightforward article? Could he know some inside info?
    Good points, as usual, Learnin. I hadn't thought of it that way. But then, the old brain is struggling, these days.

    I guess Shapiro could still have some good inside sources. He was right there in the thick of it, playing his part, however tabloidy that was. One thing I can't deny about Shapiro: the most accurate info we were getting in those days came to us from the tabs. Who knew?!

    So if Shapiro actually knows that LE is again looking at Patsy (post Keenan/Lacy's disasterous deadlock on the investigation), that would be something. Should we trust that his sources are fast and he's not exaggerating to up his caché? (Lord, I have become totally jaded with this case, haven't I?)

    Well, it's a dream, isn't it? Though I have no idea what good could possibly come from it, as LE will never be able to prosecute Patsy, and she gives everyone else reasonable doubt. It would be nice if somehow Boulder LE was able to release the case files to the public, at any rate. JonBenet deserves the truth to be known, no matter what doesn't happen to the person(s) who murdered her.

    Good observations, Learnin. You always make me think.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  3. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Good points, as usual, Learnin. I hadn't thought of it that way. But then, the old brain is struggling, these days.

    I guess Shapiro could still have some good inside sources. He was right there in the thick of it, playing his part, however tabloidy that was. One thing I can't deny about Shapiro: the most accurate info we were getting in those days came to us from the tabs. Who knew?!

    So if Shapiro actually knows that LE is again looking at Patsy (post Keenan/Lacy's disasterous deadlock on the investigation), that would be something. Should we trust that his sources are fast and he's not exaggerating to up his caché? (Lord, I have become totally jaded with this case, haven't I?)

    Well, it's a dream, isn't it? Though I have no idea what good could possibly come from it, as LE will never be able to prosecute Patsy, and she gives everyone else reasonable doubt. It would be nice if somehow Boulder LE was able to release the case files to the public, at any rate. JonBenet deserves the truth to be known, no matter what doesn't happen to the person(s) who murdered her.

    Good observations, Learnin. You always make me think.
    Thanks, kk. I was always very interested in Shapiro's comments contained in PMPT. One very important conversation took place between Shapiro and John. Shapiro managed to get hold of John on the telephone and he started out by saying how bad he felt for John because of all the negative publicity he received in the press, etc. I think John thanked him or something and then Shapiro said something to the effect of: "But, I think Patsy is involved."
    Shapiro says there was nothing but silence on the other end. Now. This conversation wasn't played out in front of the public, and if it had been a public conversation, John would probably have gotten angry or corrected Shapiro. But this was a private conversation and John's silence really screams out, IMO.

    Here's the thing about Shapiro, Thomas and others who were able to witness certain people's behavior, etc. Take, for instance, Shapiro's witnessing of Patsy, Rol and John at Church. He relates an episode whereby Rol comes down to John and is very consoling....apologetic so to speak in regards to what John is putting up with in the press....and Shapiro says that Rol wouldn't even look at Patsy. I've always thought that behavior, and witnessing a person's actions, are more telling than anything when determining guilt. We can't throw the book at anyone upon behavior alone but, by golly, a person's behavior is more telling than a boat load of circumstantial evidence. One of the things that we owe Shapiro is the fact that he was able to infiltrate the DA's office, get close to the Ramseys and Rol and even the Boulder detectives. In this recent article, Shapiro verifies the stories which Schiller related concerning himself.

    I really think it means something that Shapiro says the new investigation is focusing on Patsy. We were told it would be focusing on linguistics and DNA which, no doubt, is true but could the advances in computer technology and linguistics be revealing some new information in regards to the author of the ransom note. I find it quite fascinating that Shapiro mentions the religious overtones in the ransom note and how he noticed similarities way back when by comparing many PR writings...he even indicates he had a lot more to look at than what we have on the internet to look at. At any rate, is he wanting to take a little credit because he is privy to some new linguistical leads???
    Just conjecture.

  4. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    Thanks, kk. I was always very interested in Shapiro's comments contained in PMPT. One very important conversation took place between Shapiro and John. Shapiro managed to get hold of John on the telephone and he started out by saying how bad he felt for John because of all the negative publicity he received in the press, etc. I think John thanked him or something and then Shapiro said something to the effect of: "But, I think Patsy is involved."
    Shapiro says there was nothing but silence on the other end. Now. This conversation wasn't played out in front of the public, and if it had been a public conversation, John would probably have gotten angry or corrected Shapiro. But this was a private conversation and John's silence really screams out, IMO.

    Here's the thing about Shapiro, Thomas and others who were able to witness certain people's behavior, etc. Take, for instance, Shapiro's witnessing of Patsy, Rol and John at Church. He relates an episode whereby Rol comes down to John and is very consoling....apologetic so to speak in regards to what John is putting up with in the press....and Shapiro says that Rol wouldn't even look at Patsy. I've always thought that behavior, and witnessing a person's actions, are more telling than anything when determining guilt. We can't throw the book at anyone upon behavior alone but, by golly, a person's behavior is more telling than a boat load of circumstantial evidence. One of the things that we owe Shapiro is the fact that he was able to infiltrate the DA's office, get close to the Ramseys and Rol and even the Boulder detectives. In this recent article, Shapiro verifies the stories which Schiller related concerning himself.

    I really think it means something that Shapiro says the new investigation is focusing on Patsy. We were told it would be focusing on linguistics and DNA which, no doubt, is true but could the advances in computer technology and linguistics be revealing some new information in regards to the author of the ransom note. I find it quite fascinating that Shapiro mentions the religious overtones in the ransom note and how he noticed similarities way back when by comparing many PR writings...he even indicates he had a lot more to look at than what we have on the internet to look at. At any rate, is he wanting to take a little credit because he is privy to some new linguistical leads???
    Just conjecture.
    Didn't the Rev. Rol refuse to talk to Boulder detectives? Or at least was very hostile and helped very little? Or was that the one in Atlanta? Or both?

    See, I've never been able to understand all the so-called upright, good citizens who treated the detectives like Boulder murdered the child. All the familiy who claimed to so love JonBenet but turned to stone when they could have helped find her killer? It makes me wonder if they already knew who did it but just wanted to protect the killer/s because they didn't know or wouldn't believe the child had been molested before. Or maybe they just didn't care, because incest is a family tradition. Maybe they thought it was all an unfortunate accident, maybe thought Burke was involved, as well.

    Whatever inspired so many "good Christians" to help a child abuser/murderer get away, I wonder if they smugly think about it today, how they fooled everyone, all of them, and how clever they are?

    They are all cursed.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  5. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Didn't the Rev. Rol refuse to talk to Boulder detectives? Or at least was very hostile and helped very little? Or was that the one in Atlanta? Or both?

    See, I've never been able to understand all the so-called upright, good citizens who treated the detectives like Boulder murdered the child. All the familiy who claimed to so love JonBenet but turned to stone when they could have helped find her killer? It makes me wonder if they already knew who did it but just wanted to protect the killer/s because they didn't know or wouldn't believe the child had been molested before. Or maybe they just didn't care, because incest is a family tradition. Maybe they thought it was all an unfortunate accident, maybe thought Burke was involved, as well.

    Whatever inspired so many "good Christians" to help a child abuser/murderer get away, I wonder if they smugly think about it today, how they fooled everyone, all of them, and how clever they are?

    They are all cursed.
    It was just the Atlanta pastor that was uncooperative.
    And, BTW, why were you not on the anniversary show? I’m not sure I can forgive you.
    Ok, I forgive you, but you better be there next time. (Hopefully threatening posters isn’t against TOS.) :runaway:

    The Reverend Rol Hoverstock told police about a phone call made that morning to Patsy’s parents, Nedra and Don Paugh, in Atlanta. Mrs. Paugh, he said, mentioned that Linda Hoffmann-Pugh had commented about how beautiful JonBenét was and expressed the fear that someone might kidnap her. The housekeeper’s name had come up several times in a short period, and police had already been told she had a key. She became the first suspect, and police made plans to contact her immediately.
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 26

    Father Rol Hoverstock came by the police department to give hair and handwriting samples—we were even checking out the family minister—and we asked his opinion about Psalms 35 and 36, without revealing why. That started him thinking about that book of the Bible, and when Detective Gosage and I met him later in the day at his home, Father Rol suggested that we take a look at Psalm 118. He thought it might be the origin of the $118,000 ransom figure. And in his sonorous voice, he read aloud one of the verses, which contained the phrase “bind the sacrifice with cords.”
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, pages 68-69

    Father Rol was trusted by both sides. Perhaps something might come of this. The next day I told him that the police department was willing, and all the Ramseys had to do was choose a time. “If they agree, we’ll be out there on the next thing smoking,” I said.
    I did not mention that Commander Beckner had asked If it could wait fourteen days so we could get a better airfare.
    A week later Father Rol showed up at our headquarters. Beckner joined us in a conference room, and I asked, “Any good news?”
    Rol pursed his lips and shook his head. Team Ramsey lawyer Bryan Morgan had learned of the proposal and insisted on being at any meeting between the Ramseys and the Boulder cops. The pastor said he was “reamed” by the lawyer for becoming involved and had become so annoyed with the whole process, he vented his anger on all of us. “Enough of the bullshit,” Rol said.
    But instead of an interview, all he could now offer was a meeting over coffee in the Ramseys’ living room. “That’s unacceptable,” I said. We weren’t about to fly to Georgia for a coffee klatch with a lawyer. “We’re back to square one.”
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, pages 284-285

    Trujillo and I went over to the Peachtree Presbyterian Church to talk with the Reverend Dr. Frank Harrington the next morning. He knew the family well, had married John and Patsy, buried Beth, baptized JonBenét, and had just buried her, too. If anyone could provide us with some insight, it should be the Reverend Harrington.
    The minister met us with a frosty demeanor and a curt, “I’m not sure I want to talk to you. I will tell you I will share no privileged information.”
    That set me thinking about the rules of privilege, in which information can legally be kept in confidence, such as between doctor and patient or lawyer and client. Also privileged would be a confession by a parishioner to a clergyman. “Is there privileged information?” I asked.
    “I won’t answer that,” Harrington said. “Do I need an attorney?”
    “We’re not here as adversaries, and you’re not a suspect,” I said, hoping to smooth things out. But we had to wait around for ten minutes until both a witness and a lawyer arrived, and our brief exchange yielded little information.
    Why would a man of God reach for a lawyer rather than voluntarily give police everything he could to try to solve the terrible murder of a child, particularly if he wasn’t violating the sanctity of confession? But Harrington wasn’t alone in that peculiar behavior. I would repeatedly run into that same wall of silence, and more lawyers than I can remember, in the coming months. I wanted to scream at these people, “Don’t you even care?”
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, pages 98-99

  6. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zoomama View Post
    Thank you Cynic for once again shedding light on the subject. I admire your ability to pull together these facts. My own knowledge has faded with time. sometimes I can recall a thing or two once it has been mentioned. I did read the book, APM, A P Town, but that quote has surely escaped my attention.

    It is so good of you to go on the radio and ask or explain about the details of this case or any other case.

    In the chat room while the program was going on I read a question from one of the Chatters asking if anyone had visited the graves of JonBenet and Patsy on this anniversary. No one knew the answer and I still wonder.
    Thanks Zoomama, and I enjoyed being on the show with you and Peggy. It's nice to be able to put a voice with the name.

  7. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    It was just the Atlanta pastor that was uncooperative.
    And, BTW, why were you not on the anniversary show? I’m not sure I can forgive you.
    Ok, I forgive you, but you better be there next time. (Hopefully threatening posters isn’t against TOS.) :runaway:
    Thanks for being so understanding.

    In all honesty, Tricia knows she has but to ask. You guests on this show were all superb and there really was no need to add my "passion" (read, CALM DOWN, KOLDKASE!) to the mix. You covered everything I could have and more, as your questions and points were brilliant.

    Not to mention I'm a bit of a...wild card...for a live show. The show I was on, I could visualize Tricia cringing as I careened out of control through our air time. I was so grateful I didn't have a chance to talk with Dr. Wecht, who strikes me as a man who doesn't suffer fools gladly. As you know, I have some issues with his "sex game gone wrong" theory, though I respect him immensely. It wouldn't have been pretty: it's hard to suck up and argue at the same time.

    The Reverend Rol Hoverstock told police about a phone call made that morning to Patsy’s parents, Nedra and Don Paugh, in Atlanta. Mrs. Paugh, he said, mentioned that Linda Hoffmann-Pugh had commented about how beautiful JonBenét was and expressed the fear that someone might kidnap her. The housekeeper’s name had come up several times in a short period, and police had already been told she had a key. She became the first suspect, and police made plans to contact her immediately.
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 26

    Father Rol Hoverstock came by the police department to give hair and handwriting samples—we were even checking out the family minister—and we asked his opinion about Psalms 35 and 36, without revealing why. That started him thinking about that book of the Bible, and when Detective Gosage and I met him later in the day at his home, Father Rol suggested that we take a look at Psalm 118. He thought it might be the origin of the $118,000 ransom figure. And in his sonorous voice, he read aloud one of the verses, which contained the phrase “bind the sacrifice with cords.”
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, pages 68-69

    Father Rol was trusted by both sides. Perhaps something might come of this. The next day I told him that the police department was willing, and all the Ramseys had to do was choose a time. “If they agree, we’ll be out there on the next thing smoking,” I said.
    I did not mention that Commander Beckner had asked If it could wait fourteen days so we could get a better airfare.
    A week later Father Rol showed up at our headquarters. Beckner joined us in a conference room, and I asked, “Any good news?”
    Rol pursed his lips and shook his head. Team Ramsey lawyer Bryan Morgan had learned of the proposal and insisted on being at any meeting between the Ramseys and the Boulder cops. The pastor said he was “reamed” by the lawyer for becoming involved and had become so annoyed with the whole process, he vented his anger on all of us. “Enough of the bullshit,” Rol said.
    But instead of an interview, all he could now offer was a meeting over coffee in the Ramseys’ living room. “That’s unacceptable,” I said. We weren’t about to fly to Georgia for a coffee klatch with a lawyer. “We’re back to square one.”
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, pages 284-285

    Trujillo and I went over to the Peachtree Presbyterian Church to talk with the Reverend Dr. Frank Harrington the next morning. He knew the family well, had married John and Patsy, buried Beth, baptized JonBenét, and had just buried her, too. If anyone could provide us with some insight, it should be the Reverend Harrington.
    The minister met us with a frosty demeanor and a curt, “I’m not sure I want to talk to you. I will tell you I will share no privileged information.”
    That set me thinking about the rules of privilege, in which information can legally be kept in confidence, such as between doctor and patient or lawyer and client. Also privileged would be a confession by a parishioner to a clergyman. “Is there privileged information?” I asked.
    “I won’t answer that,” Harrington said. “Do I need an attorney?”
    “We’re not here as adversaries, and you’re not a suspect,” I said, hoping to smooth things out. But we had to wait around for ten minutes until both a witness and a lawyer arrived, and our brief exchange yielded little information.
    Why would a man of God reach for a lawyer rather than voluntarily give police everything he could to try to solve the terrible murder of a child, particularly if he wasn’t violating the sanctity of confession? But Harrington wasn’t alone in that peculiar behavior. I would repeatedly run into that same wall of silence, and more lawyers than I can remember, in the coming months. I wanted to scream at these people, “Don’t you even care?”
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, pages 98-99
    Bless Steve Thomas, he is one of the few who exposed these people for who they are, pulling no punches.

    Thanks for these quotes. For some reason I thought Rev. Rol at some point hid behind his lawyer, but it's easy to confuse things with this cast of thousands, at this point.

    I will never, ever understand how so many people abandoned JonBenet so quickly and so thoroughly in her hour of greatest need: her blood family; her friends; professionals whose job it was to seek justice for the crimes committed against her and to uphold the law; even her ministers who for some reason felt more allegiance to John and Patsy than to JonBenet when all they had to do was openly tell the truth to LE; and too many more to name.

    Patsy couldn't have been more wrong: JonBenet's legacy is that she exposed the hypocrisy and evil among those who exhalt themselves as followers of Christ. They have NO IDEA what the teachings of Christ really mean, nor those of the Bible. If they do, then they are willfully as wicked as any Devil they ever denied.

    Dang. There I go again, getting all passionate.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  8. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Tricia had it all laid out and I'm completely thrilled with her panel. They went for 2.5+ hrs. as it was! If they'd had my big mouth on there, you'd still be listening.

    Always good to see you, Elle. You're the best supporter on the forum, hands down!

    Cynic, you were awesome on the program. But you knew that.

    Zoomama and Rat, y'all staying out of trouble? Hope not! I'd hate my fellow pyrates to lose their sullied reputations at this point.
    Thank you for this kind thought KK!

    I just heard the recording of the show. I missed the posted information about it. It is good Tricia is determined to find justice for JonBenét. What a girl! It is good there are many younger ones like yourself still plodding away for answers. It feels good to have taken part in trying to help. Now when do we read the good news that's coming?
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  9. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    What is so obvious to me (any many others here) is that the Reverend's reaction (asking for a lawyer, refusing to say whether there was privileged information) is proof that there IS privileged information.
    I feel Patsy confessed to this man, either claiming it was a case of becoming mentally unhinged (the chemo and all) for which she felt she should be forgiven, or claimed it was an accident, but an accident that would destroy the family if it were made known (the head bash). The third option is they told him that BR was to blame, and CO law being what it is, nothing could come of it anyway, so why destroy these "good Christian people"?

    I know one of these "pastors" turned away from the Rs eventually. Which one was it?
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  10. #22

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Thanks for being so understanding.

    In all honesty, Tricia knows she has but to ask. You guests on this show were all superb and there really was no need to add my "passion" (read, CALM DOWN, KOLDKASE!) to the mix. You covered everything I could have and more, as your questions and points were brilliant.

    Not to mention I'm a bit of a...wild card...for a live show. The show I was on, I could visualize Tricia cringing as I careened out of control through our air time. I was so grateful I didn't have a chance to talk with Dr. Wecht, who strikes me as a man who doesn't suffer fools gladly. As you know, I have some issues with his "sex game gone wrong" theory, though I respect him immensely. It wouldn't have been pretty: it's hard to suck up and argue at the same time.



    Bless Steve Thomas, he is one of the few who exposed these people for who they are, pulling no punches.

    Thanks for these quotes. For some reason I thought Rev. Rol at some point hid behind his lawyer, but it's easy to confuse things with this cast of thousands, at this point.

    I will never, ever understand how so many people abandoned JonBenet so quickly and so thoroughly in her hour of greatest need: her blood family; her friends; professionals whose job it was to seek justice for the crimes committed against her and to uphold the law; even her ministers who for some reason felt more allegiance to John and Patsy than to JonBenet when all they had to do was openly tell the truth to LE; and too many more to name.

    Patsy couldn't have been more wrong: JonBenet's legacy is that she exposed the hypocrisy and evil among those who exhalt themselves as followers of Christ. They have NO IDEA what the teachings of Christ really mean, nor those of the Bible. If they do, then they are willfully as wicked as any Devil they ever denied.

    Dang. There I go again, getting all passionate.
    Amen, KK! That is brilliant!

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    What is so obvious to me (any many others here) is that the Reverend's reaction (asking for a lawyer, refusing to say whether there was privileged information) is proof that there IS privileged information.
    I feel Patsy confessed to this man, either claiming it was a case of becoming mentally unhinged (the chemo and all) for which she felt she should be forgiven, or claimed it was an accident, but an accident that would destroy the family if it were made known (the head bash). The third option is they told him that BR was to blame, and CO law being what it is, nothing could come of it anyway, so why destroy these "good Christian people"?

    I know one of these "pastors" turned away from the Rs eventually. Which one was it?
    RBBM: I totally agree DeeDee. I have always thought that she confessed to the Reverend in Atlanta, either before or right after the funeral.

    I honestly think that Rol tried to get John and Patsy to talk to the BPD, Thomas in particular. I think the Ramseys fed Rol a line of bull about wanting to cooperate and then backing down at the last second.

    The above is just my opinion, right or wrong, but please leave it at FFJ.

  11. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    You're all doing an excellent job going over this case.

    No news from Tricia yet on this case? I wonder what it can be(?).
    Have a bad lingering cold. I didn't miss anything, coz you would all be talking about it!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  12. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    You're all doing an excellent job going over this case.

    No news from Tricia yet on this case? I wonder what it can be(?).
    Have a bad lingering cold. I didn't miss anything, coz you would all be talking about it!
    I have no idea, Elle, what Tricia was talking about. Hope I live long enough to find out.

    Sorry to hear you're sick. I hate colds that last like that. Last one I had went on for two weeks with no improvement, so I went to the doctor and got a prescription for antibiotics of some kind. Knocked it out in a few days. Hope you feel much better.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.



Similar Threads

  1. Truth from Lin Wood, Mary Lacy, Alex Hunter and the Ramseys
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: September 26, 2015, 9:45 pm, Sat Sep 26 21:45:50 UTC 2015
  2. Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: DA Wrong to Clear Ramseys
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 14, 2008, 4:20 am, Mon Jul 14 4:20:23 UTC 2008
  3. Fantastic Article! Actions of Hunter/Haddon/Smit/Tracey/Lacy In Ramsey Case
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: September 10, 2006, 12:14 pm, Sun Sep 10 12:14:36 UTC 2006
  4. Take JonBenet Case Out Of Limbo/Jeff Shapiro
    By Elle_1 in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 2, 2006, 12:31 pm, Wed Aug 2 12:31:40 UTC 2006
  5. Jeff Shapiro Reviews Intruder Theories
    By LurkerXIV in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 7, 2002, 4:57 pm, Mon Jan 7 16:57:11 UTC 2002

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •