Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 52
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default The Injustice Continues. The letter from the Whites to Governor Owens

    Finally I think I can say I have seen it all. In this letter to Governor Owens the Whites lay out the iron clad reasons why a special prosecutor should be appointed in the JonBenet Ramsey case.

    Remember Owens appointed a special prosecutor to handle the C.U. scandal. The reasons given for that decision are exactly the same reasons why one should be appointed in the JBR case.

    Once again the Whites tell it like it is.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    tgrif@xmission.com
    FFJ C/O Tricia Griffith
    6300 N Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H #214
    Park City UT
    84098




    I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
    Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default

    Page two of the letter.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    tgrif@xmission.com
    FFJ C/O Tricia Griffith
    6300 N Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H #214
    Park City UT
    84098




    I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
    Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default

    Page three.

    If anybody has a lot of time on their hands and they LOOOVE to type I would appreciate it if someone would re-type this letter so it's easier to read.

    This letter is so important to the case in my opinion. It is just so black and white that we need a special prosecutor. I don't get it.

    Later today I'll post the letter the Whites sent to Keenan.

    Ok final page.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    tgrif@xmission.com
    FFJ C/O Tricia Griffith
    6300 N Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H #214
    Park City UT
    84098




    I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
    Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword

  4. #4

    Default OK, here goes:

    Dear Governor Owens:

    You are probably aware that we met with Cynthia Honssinger and Jonathan Anderson on March23, 2004. At that meeting we discussed your recent order appointing the Attorney General as Special Prosecutor in the University of Colorado matter. We also discussed the significance and implications of that order for the JonBenet Ramsey homicide investigation. At the conclusion of the meeting we requested the appointment of the Attorney General as Special Prosecutor in the Ramsey case.

    As confirmed by Ms. Honssinger, your order and special prosecutor appointment was in direct response to the fact that Boulder District Attorney Mary Keenan may be expected to appear as a witness if sexual assault charges are ever brought against University of Colorado football players or recruits. Your action was necessary and proper since it is well-established Colorado law that a district attorney "must be disqualified in a criminal case where the district attorney or a member of his or her staff will appear as a witness and give testimony of sufficient consequences to prevent a fair trial", Pease v District Court, 708, P.2D800 ?? (Colo.1985) District Attorney Keenan also acted properly by publicily recognizing on February 27, 2004 that her role as witness in a civil suit had jeopardized public confidence in the criminal justice system by creating an appearance of impropriety with respect to her office's involvement in the investigation and prosecution of criminal matters related to "the football program and/or athletics department at the University of Colorado".

    As we discussed in detail with Ms. Honssinger and Mr. Anderson, it is no less necessary and proper that a special prosecutor be appointed in the JonBenet Ramsey homicide investigation and prosecution for precisely the same reason: Members of the Boulder District Attorney's office including former District Attorney Alexander Hunter and former District Attorney investigator Lou Smit have provided sworn deposition and affidavit testimony in civil litigation relating to who may or may not have been responsible for the death of JonBenet. As a direct result of their past public statements and affidavit and deposition testimony in civil litigation, both Mr. Hunter and Mr. Smit may be expected to appear as witnesses at the trial of anyony accused of killing JonBenet.
    Furthermore, District Attorney Keenan has recently been identified in a court document as an "essential witness" in a suit brought be John and Patsy Ramsey and their son, Burke, against Fox News. That suit directly involves the question of who may of may not have been responsible for the death of JonBenet and whether evidence exists that an "intruder" rather than a member of the Ramsey family committed the homicide. The centerpieces of the Ramseys' complaint are public statements by Mr. Smit and District Attorney Keenan in support of the "intruder theory." Other persons that have been identified as witnesses in that suit are Mr. Hunter and other former and current employees and prosecutors of the Boulder District Attorney including former Boulder Deputy District Attorney Michael Kane and Mr. Smit. If this ligitation proceeds, it is likely that several current and former members of the Boulder District Attorney will be subpoenaed for depositions. It is also likely that the Boulder District Attorney will be subpoenaed to produce some if not all of the criminal justice records relating to the ongoing Ramsey homicide investigation.

    As a consequence of their actions and public statements, former and current members of the Boulder District Attorney's office have become hopelessly entangled in civil litigation pertaining to the Ramsey homicide. Those persons, including District Attorney Keenan, may now expect to appear as criticl witnesses in any future criminal prosecution of the person or persons accused of killing JonBenet. It is, therefore, contrary to Colorado law and ethical rules and against the public interest for the Boulder District Attorney to have any further involvement in the investigation and prosecution of the Ramsey homicide.

    On behalf of the citizens of Boulder County, the Twentieth Judicial District and the State of Colorado, we respectfully request that you take this opportunity to reasses the need for a special prosecutor in the Ramsey case and that you issue an order appointing the Attorney General as Special Prosecutor with full authority to investigate and prosecute the JonBenet Ramsey homicide. We request that you take this action for the following reasons:

    1. To bring the Ramsey investigation and prosecutor activities into conformance with Colorado law and ethical rules that prohibit a district attorney from being both advocate and witness in a criminal
    prosecution.
    2. To protect and insulate criminal justice records and police intelligence information pertaining to the
    ongoing JonBenet Ramsey homicide investigation from discovery and disclosure through pending and future
    civil litigation.
    3. To maximize the likelihood of a successful prosecution of the person or persons responsible for the death of JonBenet Ramsey.
    4. To protect and maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system in the Twentieth Judicial
    District and throughout Colorado.

    On October 27,1999 you told the press that the Ramsey case "presents a special threat to the public's respect for our criminal justice system". You were absolutely right. In considering this request, please remember that there is a tremendous difference between the University of Colorado and the Ramsey case. One involves questionable, unsubstantiated or non-prosecutable allegations of sexual assault involvin adults; the other involves the abuse, torture and homicide of a six year-old child. There is absolutely no doubt as to which case represents the greatest threat to the public's respect and confidence in the criminal justice system. That threat is especially grave in consideration of all that has transpired since December 26, 1996.

    We would appreciate a response to this request at your earliest convenience.

    We greatly appreciate being given the opportunity to meet with Ms. Honssinger and Mr. Anderson and we encourage them to contact us any time regarding this extremely important matter.

    Sincerely,

    Fleet Russell White, Jr. Priscilla Brown White

    cc Cynthia Honssinger

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default

    Thanks so much Ayjey. I don't have the best scanner in the world.

    I appreciate your help!
    tgrif@xmission.com
    FFJ C/O Tricia Griffith
    6300 N Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H #214
    Park City UT
    84098




    I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
    Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword

  6. #6

    Default

    Pease v District Court, 708, P.2D800 ?? (Colo.1985)
    Correct cite for anyone wishing to look it up: Pease v. District Court, 708 P.2d 800, 803 (Colo. 1985)

    Excellent letter, thanks Mr. and Mrs. White!!! And thanks, Tricia and Ayjey, for bringing it to the forum!!!

    ***

    Pease v. District Court, 708 P.2d 800 (Colo. 1985)


    Jeffrey Marcus Pease, Petitioner, v. The District Court in and for the

    Ninth Judicial District, State of Colorado, and The Honorable Judson E.

    DeVilbiss, one of the Judges thereof, Respondents.


    No. 84SA415


    Supreme Court


    Decided November 4, 1985. Opinion modified and, as modified. Rehearing

    Denied December 2, 1985.


    Original Proceeding
    Page 801

    Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C., Lee D. Foreman, for Petitioner.

    Milton K. Blakely, District Attorney, Ninth Judicial District, Keith
    Cross, Assistant District Attorney, for Respondents.

    Raymond T. Slaughter, Executive Director, Colorado District Attorney's
    Council, Brooke Wunnicke, Chief Appellate Deputy District Attorney, for
    Amicus Curiae, Colorado District Attorney's Council.

    EN BANC


    JUSTICE ERICKSON delivered the Opinion of the Court.

    [1] In this original proceeding, petitioner, Jeffrey Marcus Pease, seeks a
    new preliminary hearing on charges of possession and use of cocaine and
    sexual assault. Petitioner also seeks to disqualify the the District
    Attorney for the Ninth Judicial District and to appoint a special
    prosecutor.
    We issued a rule to show cause why the petition should
    not be granted. We make the rule absolute to disqualify the district
    attorney.
    The court is equally divided on the issue of a new preliminary
    hearing. Accordingly, the rule to show cause is discharged and the trial
    court's denial of petitioner's motion for a new preliminary hearing is affirmed
    by operation of law. C.A.R. 35(e).

    I.

    [2] Petitioner was charged with a seven-count amended information in
    Pitkin County District Court. Counts one and two charged the possession
    and use of cocaine. Counts three and four alleged that petitioner sexually
    assaulted a minor (victim). Count five alleged that petitioner induced the
    victim to use cocaine. Counts six and seven contained allegations not
    germane to this proceeding.

    [3] The prosecution planned to call the victim as a witness at petitioner's
    preliminary hearing. Prior to the hearing, counsel for the victim advised
    the prosecution that the victim would assert his privilege against
    self-incrimination as to any questions involving drug violations by the
    victim. The prosecution did not advise defense counsel or the district
    court of the fact that the victim would invoke the fifth amendment.

    [4] During the preliminary hearing, the victim testified on direct
    examination that he had "exchanged" cocaine with the petitioner and had
    observed the petitioner using cocaine. On cross-examination, the victim
    invoked the privilege against self-incrimination and refused to answer
    questions of defense counsel relating to his possession and use of cocaine
    in the petitioner's house.[fn1] The district court refused to order the
    victim to answer the questions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court
    found probable cause to bind the defendant over
    Page 802
    for trial on all counts
    except count five, which was dismissed.

    [5] Petitioner filed a motion in the district court seeking a new
    preliminary hearing on counts one through four or, alternatively, dismissal
    of those counts. After a hearing, the motion was denied. Petitioner
    claimed that the victim's refusal to answer the questions propounded by
    defense counsel denied petitioner his right to cross-examine an adverse
    witness. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974). In his motion, petitioner
    cited the prosecution's failure to inform the district court or defense
    counsel that a witness would be called who would assert the privilege
    against self-incrimination if certain questions were asked.

    [6] Petitioner also filed a motion to disqualify the District Attorney for
    the Ninth Judicial District from the prosecution of his case and to appoint
    a special prosecutor. As grounds for the motion, petitioner alleged that
    two attorneys in the district attorney's office would testify as material
    witnesses at petitioner's trial. The district court denied the motion.

    II.

    [7] The petitioner asserts that he is entitled to a new preliminary hearing
    because a witness invoked the privilege against self-incrimination during
    cross-examination. Three members of the court are of the opinion that the
    refusal of the witness to answer certain questions on cross-examination
    does not require a new preliminary hearing. The other three members of the
    court would grant a new preliminary hearing in which the witness would be
    permitted to testify only if he did not invoke his privilege against
    self-incrimination. Since the court is equally divided on this issue in
    the rule to show cause, the trial court's denial of petitioner's motion for
    a new preliminary hearing is affirmed by operation of law. C.A.R. 35(e).

    III.

    [8] Petitioner also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in
    denying petitioner's motion to disqualify the District Attorney for the
    Ninth Judicial District and to appoint a special prosecutor. He claims
    that two attorneys in the district attorney's office, David Marsh and
    Jonathan Toof, will testify as material witnesses at petitioner's trial,
    requiring disqualification of the entire staff of the district attorney's
    office. We agree.


    [9] We have repeatedly held that a district attorney must be disqualified
    in a criminal case where he or a member of his staff will appear as a
    witness and give testimony of sufficient consequence to prevent a fair
    trial. People v. Garcia, 698 P.2d 801 (Colo. 1985); Riboni v. District
    Court, 196 Colo. 272, 586 P.2d 9 (1978); People v. District Court,
    192 Colo. 480, 560 P.2d 463 (1977); People v. Spencer, 182 Colo. 189,
    512 P.2d 260 (1973). The rationale for disqualification is that the
    defendant has a right "to prevent the prosecutor from adding to the weight
    or credibility of the evidence by acting as both witness and officer of the
    court."
    People v. District Court, 192 Colo. at 481, 560 P.2d at 464.
    The
    Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits representation by a
    private law firm when an attorney associated with the firm is required to
    withdraw because of an ethical rule. Code of Professional Responsibility DR
    5-105(D). We recently recognized that the rule of imputed disqualification
    may be considered in determining whether disqualification of the entire
    staff of a district attorney's office is appropriate. People v. Garcia,
    698 P.2d at 806.


    [10] Marsh is endorsed as a witness for the prosecution and will testify as
    to incriminating statements the petitioner made to him. Toof will be called
    by defense counsel to testify concerning the petitioner's exculpatory
    statements and abuses allegedly committed by the prosecution. The
    testimony of Marsh and Toof has become necessary because of Toof's
    extensive personal involvement in the investigation of the case against
    petitioner. In particular, petitioner asserts that his statements to Marsh
    were induced by Toof's promises of assistance
    Page 803
    and leniency during an
    interview with the petitioner.


    [11] The testimony of Marsh and Toof is of sufficient consequence that it
    could prevent a fair trial. The present case is not one in which the
    testimony is directed to a formal matter that has no probative value on the
    issue of guilt. See People v. District Court, 192 Colo. at 480, 560 P.2d
    at 463. Marsh and Toof will testify to contested issues. See Riboni v.
    District Court, 196 Colo. at 272, 586 P.2d at 9. The testimony in issue
    is both relevant and material to the issue of guilt. See People v. Garcia,
    698 P.2d at 807.


    [12] The fact that Marsh and Toof have recently resigned their positions as
    deputy district attorneys does not change our conclusion. Their testimony
    will relate to their investigation and preparation, as deputy district
    attorneys, of the prosecution's case against the petitioner and would add
    credibility to the prosecution's case against petitioner.

    [13] There is no question that Marsh and Toof would be disqualified from
    appearing on behalf of the prosecution because of their role as witnesses.
    Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-101(B) & DR 5-102. Because of the
    appearance of impropriety, the rule of imputed disqualification requires
    disqualification of the District Attorney for the Ninth Judicial District
    and his staff. Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-105(D) & Canon 9.


    [14] Accordingly, the rule to show cause is made absolute as to the
    disqualification of the District Attorney for the Ninth Judicial District
    and is discharged as it relates to the granting of a new preliminary
    hearing.


    [15] JUSTICE LOHR does not participate.

    [fn1] The record of the preliminary hearing reveals the following exchange
    between defense counsel and the victim:
    "Q: And you have discussed some cocaine on the evening of February 28,
    1984?
    "A: Yes.
    "Q: Am I correct, sir, that that was cocaine that you brought into
    Jeffrey Pease's house?
    "A: I refuse to answer that for it might incriminate me.
    "Q: Did you use any cocaine on that evening?
    "A: Again, I refuse to answer that.


    Copyright 2004 Loislaw.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved
    Last edited by DejaNu; April 26, 2004, 9:22 pm at Mon Apr 26 21:22:11 UTC 2004.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    Thanks, Ayjey, for typing this up. It's much easier to read.

    The Whites present undeniable conflict of Keenan's actions in this letter. Exactly what is the difference between the CSU case and the JBR case, seeing as Keenan has made public comments about both cases, may be called as a witness in civil trials in both cases, and has thoroughly compromised herself in both cases, to boot?

    I applaud Fleet and Priscilla White for their ongoing devotion to a little girl who ate her last dinner at their home on Christmas evening. I'd fight like hell for her, too, had she eaten her last dinner at my home. The Ramseys should be the ones fighting for an independent investigation; they should be the ones writing the letters demanding action.

    They seem to be content with the way things are. Little wonder, considering their pit bull has forced a weak DA to capitulate to his demands. They have no interest in seeing the investigation go any further. It's in limbo, right where they want it to stay. Since the DA arbitrarily took the case away from the BPD, Ramseys and Wood have been mysteriously quiet. It's been a year and a half, but there's been not a ripple from anyone from their quarters inquiring about the status of the investigation. Let sleeping dogs lie - don't rock the boat, leave it buried in the DA's office. That works for them.

    Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on whose viewpoint, it doesn't work for the members of FFJ and her sister forum, WS, and it never will.

    We are not going to go away.
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  8. #8

    Default

    ...it is well-established Colorado law that a district attorney "must be disqualified in a criminal case where the district attorney or a member of his or her staff will appear as a witness and give testimony of sufficient consequences to prevent a fair trial", Pease v District Court, 708, P.2d 800, 803 (Colo.1985)
    Clearly, according to Pease, a well-established Colorado law (heck, it's been on the books for 19 years now), the district attorney is barred from continuing any involvement with any criminal case, regardless of its subject matter or potential charges. It doesn't matter whether the Ramsey case is similar to the CU case, or vice versa. This law applies to ALL criminal cases, and is, as we say in legal circles, on all fours in its application to the Ramsey case, just as it is in the CU case. For this reason, and based on this law, the appointment of a special prosecutor in the CU case sets legal precedence for any other cases that compromise the district attorney's objective standing, and that includes the Ramsey case.

    Furthermore, any divestiture of action on the part of the governor in refusing anyone's request to appoint a special prosecutor in the Ramsey case, like he did in the CU case, can be deemed discriminatory and a further obstruction of justice and undermining of the public's trust and confidence in the CO criminal justice system. Doing so would form a legal basis for application to a federal authority to remove the case entirely from the CO jurisdiction. The burden of proof upon any such moving party to demonstrate sufficient reasoning/evidence that a fair trial could not be had due to BDA's testimony in civil proceedings is sufficiently met with Keenan's own public statement supporting her long-time belief in an intruder theory, her failure to appoint dedicated, non-biased investigators, as well as her failure to further question, investigate or in any other form continue the focus of her alleged investigation on Ramsey family members. What little effort, if any, has been made toward an active investigation of this case has been focused EXCLUSIVELY on an intruder likelihood! The thrust of this alleged investigation, coupled with Keenan's belief in the Carnes ruling of an intruder perp clearly displays a preconceived utter bias that would prevent any such further investigations into any Ramsey family member. Such an exclusive bias formed the very basis for Keenan's removal of the case from BPD authority 2 years ago. Claiming in the face of her own exclusive bias that the case should remain in her jurisdiction is another blatant display of the incredible discrimination that has plagued this case for more than 7 years. If BPD's alleged bias toward the Ramseys was sufficient to cost it this case, how could the BDA's well-known bias now not provide the same causation for removal to a special prosecutor?

    The Whites' letter, and FFJ's petition, puts Owens in a very difficult corner. Any argument that the Ramsey case isn't like the CU case is a red herring lame defense for circumventing the standing legal authority to apply that law fairly and evenly in all criminal cases.
    Last edited by DejaNu; April 26, 2004, 6:55 pm at Mon Apr 26 18:55:25 UTC 2004.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default

    DejaNu FANTASTIC. "Pease" is very clear.

    For anyone to say the CU case is different is just trying to spin the truth. It's not. Well I guess it is. The CU case doesn't have nearly the problems the JBR case has making the JBR case more worthy of a special prosecutor.

    DejaNu I can see you are in your element. Thank you so much.
    tgrif@xmission.com
    FFJ C/O Tricia Griffith
    6300 N Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H #214
    Park City UT
    84098




    I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
    Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    Great post, DejaNu. So, how do they continue to get away with these blatant disregard for law and ethical behavior? I guess because they can.
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  11. #11

    Default

    Tricia, the CU case does not have to be factually similar to the Ramsey case. The ONLY similarities between the two cases that matter are (1) potential criminal charges and prosecution, (2) Keenan's involvement, (3) her predictable susceptibility for depo and trial testimony, and (4) her blatant public statements regarding her personal opinions of whodunnit in BOTH cases. Throw in AH's past performance, and other BDA'ers past and current as named in the Whites' letter, and we have profundity of evidentiary support for Pease and obligating Owens to act according to that law, justice and public interest.

    [Just as an aside, but possibly germaine and undoubtedly interesting, have you noticed how MANY CU threads have been running through the Ramsey case all these years? Santa Bill, Chris Wolf, Stein's tenure, Bynum's law office at the campus, the first rental tenants of the Hell Hole, Arndt's subsequent employment as a campus cop, Lee Hill, now Keenan's involvement...at first blush, it would appear that CU has had its fingers deep into Ramsey pie, or vice versa, for many years.]

    WY, they keep getting away with blatant favoritism, discrimination and game playing in this case because, as we have known for many years, the BDA has a long history of it and answers to NO ONE in the state of CO for its actions. BPD and BDA have a long history ala the Sid Wells case from 1982 of adversity and inability to work together, all based on AH's back door dealings. Boulder's concepts of "justice" and "criminal justice system" has long been rival to "Lets Make a Deal" and AH is a perfect replacement for Bob Barker when he's no longer able to host that game show.

    And BPD has paid a hefty price for its insider knowledge, hasn't it? That is why certain constituents in Boulder for many years have been making concerted effort to elect certain officals who will then pass certain laws forcing BPD to answer exclusively to the Boulder City Council. That flow chart of power would be incredibly interesting to draw!

    When a public official has no effective accountability and a long history of self-serving conduct, they come to believe they are invincible. Absolute power corrupts absolutely IOW. BDA's Waterloo is long overdue, just as LW's day of reckoning appears to be dawning.

    Getting justice for a murdered child by bringing the one(s) responsible to prosecution is the job of the officials in custody of the case. BPD did their custodial job and the BDA/Hunter/Smit tanked it. BPD then relinquished custody for the purpose of dodging a civil suit by the Ramseys and further tanking of the case thanks to yet again BDA/Keenan/Smit. It's the same old same old tactic AH put into motion 7 1/2 years ago that is being carried out today. Nothing's new under the Boulder sun.

    If Owens won't act, he will provide options for removal of the case to federal jurisdiction. The pressure's on and Owens, whether he believes it or not, has just as much accountability as the BDA. THAT is exactly why we (and the Whites, God bless them) have stayed on this case all these years--to hold the officials in custody of the case publicly accountable for their conduct AND to obtain justice for JonBenet!
    Last edited by DejaNu; April 26, 2004, 9:24 pm at Mon Apr 26 21:24:19 UTC 2004.

  12. #12

    Default DejaNu

    Thanks for elaborating on the meaning of the "Pease" case.

    This actually might build a big enough fire under Keenan that she will have Tom Bennett interview the Whites. Something that he hasn't found time to do in the year that he has taken taxpayer money to play CYA in Boulder.



Similar Threads

  1. FFJ Ramsey Case Petition - Presented to Governor Owens of Colorado on April 30, 2004
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 22, 2008, 3:41 pm, Tue Jul 22 15:41:40 UTC 2008
  2. Letter from the Whites to Dave Thomas
    By Spade in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: October 24, 2006, 9:55 am, Tue Oct 24 9:55:38 UTC 2006
  3. A letter to Colorado Governor Owens
    By Barbara in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: September 2, 2006, 4:13 pm, Sat Sep 2 16:13:44 UTC 2006
  4. Colorado Governor Owens blasts Boulder prosecutor!
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: August 29, 2006, 3:42 pm, Tue Aug 29 15:42:20 UTC 2006
  5. Whites letter to Beckner
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 14, 2005, 6:31 pm, Mon Mar 14 18:31:09 UTC 2005

Posting Permissions

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