Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 97 to 108 of 166
  1. #97
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Angry

    heymom.

    I honestly find it difficult to comprehend this whole scenario. Putting myself in Patsy's shoes. Coming home from the White's Christmas party with an early rise in the morning - flying to Charlevois. My first thought is getting my two children into bed and falling into bed myself.
    I do think after putting the two children to bed, they may have wakened up again because it was Christmas night and both children decided to get up and play with their new games etc.

    I do have trouble seeing some sexual play from Burke, but if he was into the habit of doing this, then it was force of habit, and it all backfired on him! (?). I just don't know (?). I also find it hard to believe Burke himself created this garrote. This part I think was part of the cover-up with Patsy and John Ramsey's efforts to create a scene by a supposed intruder - which we all know did not exist. Oh how I wish we could all find out what really happened to this poor little girl who lost her life on Christmas night.

    So sorry we didn't hear anything these last few days to give us all closure.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  2. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Here's what's funny: Larry Schiller had a Grand Juror on his case documentary aired on the night of Patsy's burial in 2006. That woman showed her face, talked right into the camera, and was edited to make it appear the grand jury didn't believe the Ramseys were culpable in any way.
    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

  3. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Well, Stan the Man has spoken:

    http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opi...et-ramsey-case

    Basically, he says he and his office will be pursuing other cases since the Statute of Limitations has run out and no new evidence has turned up that makes this a slam-dunk case (my interpretation).


  4. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tril View Post
    heymom, your ideas make sense too. I doubt we’ll ever know exactly how it happened, but I do believe that the ransom note was written to fit the scene.

    Like you, I’ve never been able to accept the idea that John and Patsy finished her off. It seems clear to me from reading the ransom note (“...we have your daughter in our posession...”) that they’d initially planned to remove the body from the house and put it someplace where it would be quickly found.

    Maybe it wouldn’t fit in the duffel bag, or maybe they were afraid of being seen, but I also think it’s possible that when it came down to it, they couldn’t bear the thought of dumping the body of their beloved daughter out there in the cold night, alone, where animals could find it. I don’t think of John and Patsy as heartless, and I can’t imagine them finishing her off or harming the body to stage the scene.
    Yes, I think you're right, that the scenario Patsy had drawn with her ransom novel, would have required that JonBenet be left somewhere outside the house. But they must have known that if they took the car out, they'd be seen and the motor would be warm, tracks would be there, etc. If we detach from the horror of the crime, they actually did a fine job of subterfuge considering how obvious it should have been. If someone had checked the "wine cellar" earlier, things might have gone in a different direction, however. But they were also anxious to get out of the house and as time went by and the BPD did not find the body, they must have been in a kind of hell, knowing that JonBenet was already decomposing in the basement and that their chances of getting away with the cover-up were dwindling. When Det. Arndt was left there alone, it was John's chance to finally get things finished up and get OUT. Probably what she sensed was his determination to finish what they'd started and not allow anything or anyone to get in his way. Being a woman, she wasn't sure how to interpret his mannerisms so she assumed that he had been the perpetrator.

    Now, I don't know for sure who did what or when, but I don't think it would be hard to misinterpret a fierce determination to get out of the house at all costs with some sort of threat. Or maybe John intended to intimidate her, as a male he probably knew it wouldn't be too difficult.

    Anyway, speculation at this point is rather pointless. We'll just never know, will we?

    RIP JonBenet.
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  5. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    Well, Stan the Man has spoken:

    http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opi...et-ramsey-case

    Basically, he says he and his office will be pursuing other cases since the Statute of Limitations has run out and no new evidence has turned up that makes this a slam-dunk case (my interpretation).

    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.)
    .
    All views expressed in my posts are my opinion and are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as “freedom of speech”.

  6. #102

    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.)
    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

  7. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP 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!

  8. #104

    Default

    Do these people ever go to a bar or a coffee shop to shoot the smit, and tell the truth to each other, including using actual names? Garnett is clearly slamming Mary Lacy, but refrains from using her name. And, in that CNN interview that Jim Kolar did, he very nearly said he that he thinks Burke did it, but held back (Lin Wood probably on his mind).

    I am hoping that Charlie Brennan plans to write an article that lays it all out.

    And why does Mary Lacy still have a law license?
    Last edited by wombat; October 27, 2013, 9:25 am at Sun Oct 27 9:25:37 UTC 2013. Reason: mad at Mary Lacy

  9. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wombat View Post
    Do these people ever go to a bar or a coffee shop to shoot the smit, and tell the truth to each other, including using actual names? Garnett is clearly slamming Mary Lacy, but refrains from using her name. And, in that CNN interview that Jim Kolar did, he very nearly said he that he thinks Burke did it, but held back (Lin Wood probably on his mind).

    I am hoping that Charlie Brennan plans to write an article that lays it all out.

    And why does Mary Lacy still have a law license?
    Well, as a private individual, Chief Kolar stands to lose everything if he gets sued by John Ramsey through Lin Wood. I mean, put yourself in his place, what does he have to gain by speaking out plainly, and what does he have to lose? Nothing, in the first instance, and everything, in the second. I know we *want* him to speak out, but would you, if you were him? I'm sure he's gotten legal advice on the matter.
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  10. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom View Post
    Well, as a private individual, Chief Kolar stands to lose everything if he gets sued by John Ramsey through Lin Wood. I mean, put yourself in his place, what does he have to gain by speaking out plainly, and what does he have to lose? Nothing, in the first instance, and everything, in the second. I know we *want* him to speak out, but would you, if you were him? I'm sure he's gotten legal advice on the matter.
    You are right, heymom, but it's soooo frustrating.

    This case needs a wikileaks-type information dump. In New Jersey this summer, there was a news story about a politician who had had an affair and then, after it ended, had the woman arrested for stalking. He kept denying the affair for years until one day a bundle of printed-out x-rated emails between them showed up in a reporter's driveway. Whoops!

    Absent that, I don't know what else can be done to get the truth out. Sigh.

  11. #107
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wombat View Post
    You are right, heymom, but it's soooo frustrating.

    This case needs a wikileaks-type information dump. In New Jersey this summer, there was a news story about a politician who had had an affair and then, after it ended, had the woman arrested for stalking. He kept denying the affair for years until one day a bundle of printed-out x-rated emails between them showed up in a reporter's driveway. Whoops!

    Absent that, I don't know what else can be done to get the truth out. Sigh.
    Yes, we all want that! I really got frustrated with Kolar's book and how he seemed to hedge at the very end, when we all expected a conclusion...But upon reflection I understood that everything was on the line, and he stood to lose it all if he was sued by the Ramseys. In fact, when you think about it, he was brave to even write and publish the book. So far, he's escaped a lawsuit, as far as I know. And, in retrospect, he came as close as he could to telling us what he believes happened, without specifying the details.

    Perhaps now that the indictments have been made public, one of the grand jurors will anonymously leak some of their proceedings? I'm not even sure I would want that...I mean, on one level yes, and on another level, no. I guess I do feel a sort of closure with just Kolar's book and the GJ indictments.
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  12. #108

    Default

    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.



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
  •