Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 LastLast
Results 109 to 120 of 166
  1. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    The juror in question is Michelle Czopek.
    The documentary was JonBenet: Anatomy Of A Cold Case, Court TV, Director: Lawrence Schiller, Aired: July 7, 2006


    I bumped an old thread with some discussion about this.

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=7019
    Thanks, cynic, always at the ready.

    How did every single reporter and media outlet miss this? Not to mention TWO DAs who keep hawking Grand Jury Secrecy to conceal their own sins, not the sins of a child killer and his/her accomplices.


    "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.

  2. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    I wish this article by Stan Garnett would get as much press as Lacy's "exoneration"! But it won't, unfortunately. So the know-nothing talking heads and idiot media will keep parroting the Ramsey/Lin Wood line that they have been "cleared" by THE DA. Like there's only one DA. And "he" (as according to Nancy Grace) is a GOD and once they have spoken: it is irrefutable, no other evidence needed. We don't even need to see the "touch DNA" report Lacy used for her gift to the Ramseys. No questions allowed, and no questions asked.

    Think about if Lacy's hadn't done this, and the Grand Jury indictment came out. She KNEW the Grand Jury had indicted the Ramseys in 1999, and she KNEW what she was doing when she dragged in John Mark Karr. When that didn't work, she hunted around until she found another way to give the Ramseys cover. Lacy, as the Ramsey's good friend, was determined to save the Ramseys before she left office, so she found a way to use a dodgy report on an unproven technology to "clear" the Ramseys. To add insult to injury, she gave them a letter of apology.

    If Lacy HAD NOT committed this assault on the truth and had it not been swallowed whole by the news media, Friday's release of the Ramsey indictment would have played out a lot differently!
    So true, Cherokee.

    I wrote what I think about Garnett's lame editorial opinion in the DC comments.

    While I appreciate Garnett's smack on the hand of Lacy for that stupid letter which Team Ramsey manufactured to mislead the public, Garnett was doing his own spinning, IMO.

    I will always believe Hunter and Lacy BOTH broke the law by deliberately obstructing this investigation and pandering to the Ramseys. At the very least they stomped all over their Oath of Office, not to mention the oath they took when admitted to the Bar.

    Yet nobody in LE or the Justice System has ever challenged them but Steve Thomas and James Kolar.

    Who fell down on THAT job? Did the Colorado Bar quietly dissolve itself after it decided it was as useless as a witch's tit when it comes to holding its members to any standard of integrity, legal or moral?

    To quote myself:

    This is injustice of a different kind. This is an insidious flaw in the design of our legal system.

    This is no longer about a murdered child. It's not even about what the Grand Jury learned in their investigations, believed, or signed in the True Bill.

    It's about how D.A. Hunter and D.A. Lacy actively destroyed this case and deceived the public.

    Your words ring hollow, Mr. Garnett, because you gutted them of the true issues now on your plate. In so doing, you have officially joined the cover up.

    No escape from the Ghosts of DAs Past.
    Yep, that's me stirring the pot. I know we don't live in a perfect world, and maybe there is no law Garnett can access any longer to hold any of the criminals accountable in this case.

    But that's his burden, and he knew all about it when he took the Office.

    In the face of what we already know, the release of the Grand Jury True Bill once again shoves in our faces that there is NO JUSTICE for a murdered child in Boulder because THERE WAS NO ONE WORKING FOR IT IN THE D.A. OFFICE.

    Indeed, TWO DISTRICT ATTORNEYS worked against the People to subvert justice.

    With Garnett's editorial whitewash, I can see it's just more of the same.

    "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. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    BAM, Mary Lacy!

    Your job was not to "exonerate," and what you did created "false impressions of certainty about uncertain evidence, subject to conflicting inferences, that has never been presented and tested in open court."

    Signed,
    Stan Garnett - current Boulder District Attorney
    Yeah, that was a great shout-out to the faithful, BUT, meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
    The mainstream media doesn’t read between the lines, they need to be taken by the hand and spoken to VEEERY SLOOOWLY and very plainly.
    IF Stan had some cojones, as I’ve said before, he would stop creeping around in the shadows and call a press conference with all the fanfare that Mary Lacy mustered and name names

  4. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carol View Post
    Very disappointed in Ann Coulter and Alan Dershowitz, both lawyers (although Ann hasn't practiced in over a decade). They were guests on Geraldo's show last night and they both seemed to believe that the Ramseys have been exonerated. Especially surprised by Ann's reaction. Geraldo kept asking about the grand jury looking at the evidence and coming to the conclusion that the Ramseys were somehow culpable even though the DA didn't want the Ramseys indicted. Ann said that it was a good thing that the DA didn't indict because we now know that the Ramseys were/are innocent because of the DNA. Very frustrating.
    BBM. Did you notice when Geraldo said (my paraphrasing), "But Ann. When the indictment was handed down the Touch DNA was not in evidence. That happened more than a decade later so the DNA could not play in their decision."

    Old Ann just stammered and stared and looked like she had no comment and "let's move on." She got caught with her pants down, so to speak.

    Her and old whats-his-name were just there to sell their books. They could have cared less about JonBenet.

    These people are not interested in delivering factual news. They are interested in Old Numero Uno.

  5. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otg View Post
    I liked this part of what he said:

    "Finally, it's important to understand the proper role of the DA in the justice system. A DA's job is to file cases where ethical standards are met and to pursue them to justice. District attorneys are not priests; our job is not to forgive, and rarely to "exonerate", and straying from this role can be very confusing to the public and can create false impressions of certainty about uncertain evidence, subject to conflicting inferences, that has never been presented and tested in open court."

    (Notice that both times he used the word exonerate in the piece, he put quotation marks around it.)
    I'll agree Gumby. The article was excellent up until the last two lines of the last paragraph when he said they would be working on other cold cases since there wasn't much, if anything, that could be done about JonBenet's case. Didn't Kolar even say that without a confession or a new piece of critical evidence the case couldn't be prosecuted?

    How can Hunter get by without having to sign off on the true bill in court stating the DA's office would not file an indictment. How can Lacy get off by "exonerating" anyone who has never gone to trial? I did like what Garrett said about (these are my words interpreting what he said) Lacy twisted the meaning of "exoneration" trying to make it sound like the Ramseys were innocent when in reality they were already exonerated because the presumption of innocence until found guilty in a court of law establishes an exoneration.


  6. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    So true, Cherokee.

    I wrote what I think about Garnett's lame editorial opinion in the DC comments.

    While I appreciate Garnett's smack on the hand of Lacy for that stupid letter which Team Ramsey manufactured to mislead the public, Garnett was doing his own spinning, IMO.

    I will always believe Hunter and Lacy BOTH broke the law by deliberately obstructing this investigation and pandering to the Ramseys. At the very least they stomped all over their Oath of Office, not to mention the oath they took when admitted to the Bar.

    Yet nobody in LE or the Justice System has ever challenged them but Steve Thomas and James Kolar.

    Who fell down on THAT job? Did the Colorado Bar quietly dissolve itself after it decided it was as useless as a witch's tit when it comes to holding its members to any standard of integrity, legal or moral?

    To quote myself:

    Yep, that's me stirring the pot. I know we don't live in a perfect world, and maybe there is no law Garnett can access any longer to hold any of the criminals accountable in this case.

    But that's his burden, and he knew all about it when he took the Office.

    In the face of what we already know, the release of the Grand Jury True Bill once again shoves in our faces that there is NO JUSTICE for a murdered child in Boulder because THERE WAS NO ONE WORKING FOR IT IN THE D.A. OFFICE.

    Indeed, TWO DISTRICT ATTORNEYS worked against the People to subvert justice.

    With Garnett's editorial whitewash, I can see it's just more of the same.




  7. #115

    Default Why none of this is really surprising

    Hello! It's been a while

    I don't think I've posted since reading Kolar's book (I don't have sufficient permissions to view my own profile, so I can't easily view all of my posts to check). I think last time you heard from me, I had received my book and was planning to re-read Steve Thomas's book afterwards.

    I did re-read Thomas's book, but life got in the way and I stopped at the end of chapter 28. That page was still marked when I picked the book up again today. By pure coincidence, chapter 29 is where he starts to talk about the Grand Jury, and there are some interesting snippets you may have forgotten (or may never have seen before, if you're just joining us due to recent events - in which case hi! and welcome! and I've been such a lurker lately I'm practically a newbie myself again).

    All quotes are from my paperback copy of Steve Thomas's book JonBenet - Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation.

    DA Alex Hunter apparently saw the GJ as something of a hoop that he needed to jump through:
    p.307
    The process was so seldom used by Alex Hunter's office that the Boulder prosecutors didn't understand it. Still, Hunter was uneasy and asked, "We need to do this, huh?"
    This was six months before the GJ first convened:
    p.308
    A few days later in the SitRoom, I sat through one of the most unbelievable briefings of the case as Commander Beckner explained Hofstrom's grand jury parameters.
    The commander began with the extraordinary revelation that "people in the DA's office" were now saying that John and Patsy Ramsey were the "prime suspects," although he did not mention why they had come to that realization. Then he added that the DA's people also agreed that enough probable cause existed to obtain a grand jury indictment.
    After a brief burst of hope, my heart sank as Beckner outlined their game plan.
    • The grand jury might have the sole mission of helping us secure records, testimony, and evidence.
    • It might not hear the entire case at all.
    • It would not be used to obtain an indictment.
    • And if a "runaway" grand jury somehow returned an indictment on its own, the DA would not be obligated to prosecute.*
    ...and later in the book:

    p.394
    Then, from an anonymous source, I received a copy of a letter containing information on the cold case of one Thayne Smika, who had been arrested in the shotgun slaying of Sid Wells, the boyfriend of actor Robert Redford's daughter. The accused murderer is today, in cop talk, ITW - in the wind - because District Attorney Alex Hunter secretly promised the defense attorney that the 1983 grand jury hearing the case would not indict Smika. The victim's family, the investigating cops, and the grand jurors were not told of the deal. In the letter, an attorney named Dan Hale wrote that based on what he had seen, he reached the preliminary conclusion that "criminal acts were possibly committed during the grand jury investigation" and the stipulation agreed upon between Hunter and the defense lawyer "that certain witnesses would not be called and that no indictment would be returned...may be contempt of court." Dan Hale later became a judge and stopped saying bad things about Alex Hunter. Hunter insisted that the Ramsey grand jury would not be under any stipulation similar to the deal he made in the Smika case.
    p.395
    There was no indictment, no nothing. It was an odd, whimpering way to end this extraordinary case, and it meant that District Attorney Alex Hunter did not have to explain anything to anyone.
    "I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time," said the district attorney.
    Cloaked by the secrecy rules of the grand jury, Hunter can continue to dodge questions about what really happened. But it took fifteen years to learn of the deal that was made that crippled the Thayne Smika grand jury, and no lie can live forever.
    *in his resignation letter, Mr Thomas also refers to "District Attorney Alex Hunter's continued reference to a "runaway" grand jury" - so this appears to be an expression he used on more than one occasion.

    Anyway, I hadn't read this for a while, and in light of Friday's release of documents I felt it would be relevant to share.

    I am not one bit surprised to hear that Alex Hunter kept the documents locked in his safe - they threatened the precious status quo.

  8. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarifier View Post
    Hello! It's been a while

    I don't think I've posted since reading Kolar's book (I don't have sufficient permissions to view my own profile, so I can't easily view all of my posts to check). I think last time you heard from me, I had received my book and was planning to re-read Steve Thomas's book afterwards.

    I did re-read Thomas's book, but life got in the way and I stopped at the end of chapter 28. That page was still marked when I picked the book up again today. By pure coincidence, chapter 29 is where he starts to talk about the Grand Jury, and there are some interesting snippets you may have forgotten (or may never have seen before, if you're just joining us due to recent events - in which case hi! and welcome! and I've been such a lurker lately I'm practically a newbie myself again).

    All quotes are from my paperback copy of Steve Thomas's book JonBenet - Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation.

    DA Alex Hunter apparently saw the GJ as something of a hoop that he needed to jump through:
    p.307


    This was six months before the GJ first convened:
    p.308


    ...and later in the book:

    p.394


    p.395


    *in his resignation letter, Mr Thomas also refers to "District Attorney Alex Hunter's continued reference to a "runaway" grand jury" - so this appears to be an expression he used on more than one occasion.

    Anyway, I hadn't read this for a while, and in light of Friday's release of documents I felt it would be relevant to share.

    I am not one bit surprised to hear that Alex Hunter kept the documents locked in his safe - they threatened the precious status quo.
    Oh, good stuff, Scarifier! And thanks so much for the insights of these quotes. I had forgotten them. It's been too long since I read this book. I honestly had reached the point where I figured there was no need to read it again...before January of this year blew everything up again.

    I'm exhausted right now, but I'll go over it more carefully soon as I can. I have some real life things this week, so don't count me out.

    "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.

  9. #117
    RiverRat's Avatar
    RiverRat is offline FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Left is Patsy Ramsey)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NoneYa Beessness
    Posts
    7,824

    Post Boulder DA Stan Garnett: Another perspective on release of Ramsey indictment

    http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_24389428

    "These documents mean that this grand jury believed there was "probable cause" (a lower threshold standard of proof than "beyond a reasonable doubt" ) based on the evidence they had heard, that the named defendants had committed the crimes listed. That they were not pursued within the statute of limitations means that the DAs with the authority to do so believed that the evidence did not rise to the necessary level to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury trial. I don't know if I would have made the same decision, but I know how difficult these decisions are."
    "Don't play dumb with me, RR! You're no good at it." The Punisher

    "Although no one is anticipating a prompt resolution to this long and much-detoured case, perhaps - just perhaps - might we see one of those moments “when a chance arrow of history scores a perfect bullseye on a deserving target”? Steve Thomas 2009

    "Justice hasn't had a chance so far. Anyone who doesn't have this as their prime goal, we'll have a falling out with." Fleet White - Time Magazine

    "What happens is that evil comes in," Fleet says. "If you don't have truth, all you have are lies, then what comes in is evil. And evil just does its thing. In the Ramsey case, it just did its thing, and it's eaten up so many people."

  10. #118

    Default

    BOESP, I can understand Alan Dershowitz sticking up for the Ramseys. He's a defense attorney. Ann, who stopped practicing law ten years ago, is a law and order type of gal, so I was surprised that she seemed to be on the Ramseys' side. I believe she even said that the touch DNA found on JBR's underwear matched the blood found on her long-johns and it didn't match any of the Ramseys. Is that true?

  11. #119
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carol View Post
    BOESP, I can understand Alan Dershowitz sticking up for the Ramseys. He's a defense attorney. Ann, who stopped practicing law ten years ago, is a law and order type of gal, so I was surprised that she seemed to be on the Ramseys' side. I believe she even said that the touch DNA found on JBR's underwear matched the blood found on her long-johns and it didn't match any of the Ramseys. Is that true?
    The blood in JonBenet's underwear belonged to JonBenet. There was a partial DNA profile found in that blood from what was suspected to be microscopic particles from mucus (salvia, a sneeze, etc.) When the two profiles were separated it is my understanding of what I read that the unknown profile was not from an immediate Ramsey family member (John, Patsy, Burke). However, the sample was degraded.

    My interpretation of what Dr. Henry Lee said, iirc, was there were unlimited possibilities in the manufacturing process about who the unknown partial panty profile could have come from.

    Although the crotch sample came from mucus and the longjohn sample came from skin cells both could still come from the same factory worker. The panties were unlaundered as far as I know and skin cells transfer like blowing dandelion fluff.

    Short version: a factory worker, while cutting fabric, or sewing or folding or inspecting, sneezed and a microscopic mucus particle landed on the panty crotch while Touch DNA was transferred at many places on the panty cloth. Whoever put the panties on JonBenet picked up some of the Touch DNA off the panties and transferred it to JonBenet's long johns. If that person had on gloves during the transfer then only the Touch DNA skin cells would have transferred.
    Last edited by BOESP; October 28, 2013, 5:23 pm at Mon Oct 28 17:23:13 UTC 2013. Reason: spelling

  12. #120

    Default

    Thanks, BOESP.



Similar Threads

  1. Ramsey grand jury voted to indict parents in 1999, DA refused to prosecute!
    By BobC in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: November 7, 2016, 6:48 pm, Mon Nov 7 18:48:57 UTC 2016
  2. Judge has ruled Ramsey Grand Jury indictment must be released
    By wombat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: August 21, 2016, 5:17 am, Sun Aug 21 5:17:22 UTC 2016
  3. Judge Who Dismissed JonBenet Ramsey Grand Jury To Retire
    By Little in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 7, 2009, 2:49 pm, Fri Aug 7 14:49:57 UTC 2009
  4. Grand Jury is NOT looking into anything Ramsey
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 4, 2004, 9:33 pm, Fri Jun 4 21:33:19 UTC 2004

Posting Permissions

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