U.S. Judge's Ramsey Ruling Questioned

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1914254,00.html

U.S. Judge's Ramsey Ruling Questioned

Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News

April 25, 2003

BOULDER - The latest developments in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case continue to ripple through the legal community.

On March 31, U.S. District Judge Julie Carnes ruled that evidence supported the theory that an intruder killed the 6-year-old girl. A week later, Boulder district attorney Mary Keenan endorsed the judge's finding....


...Carnes said Wolf and his lawyer didn't prove that JonBenet was killed by her mother.

"As a legal matter, if plaintiff cannot prove, by clear and convincing evidence that defendants committed this crime, he cannot demonstrate that their statement concerning his status as a suspect were (sic) made with the requisite malice," Carnes ruled.

But Carnes' ruling was based only on the facts presented by the Ramseys and their lawyer, L. Lin Wood, and Wolf and his lawyer, Darnay Hoffman - and not on a comprehensive review of investigators' 40,000-plus pages of evidence.

"The facts that were provided to the court were, in many cases, not consistent with the facts that were developed in the criminal investigation because the civil litigants understandably didn't have the resources available to them that the police department did," said a source close to the case who spoke on condition of anonymity.

In fact, two "facts" in the first five pages of Carnes' ruling don't agree with police investigators' findings.

• On the fourth page, the judge writes that on the night of the murder both JonBenet and her older brother fell asleep on the 11-block drive home from a Christmas party at the home of Fleet and Priscilla White. But investigators don't believe JonBenet's brother fell asleep on that short drive.

• On the fifth page, Carnes refers to a scream coming from the Ramsey home purportedly heard by a neighbor across the street, near the presumed time of the murder. But that neighbor, Melody Stanton, has long since recanted her story about the scream.

Critics of the Carnes ruling point more often to the failure of Hoffman, Wolf's lawyer, to effectively challenge or counter Wood's assertions on behalf of the Ramseys.

Carnes' ruling reveals at least 16 occasions in which the judge indicates that a fact alleged by the Ramseys and their lawyer goes virtually unchallenged by Hoffman.

Nearing her conclusion, Carnes wrote, "In short, the plaintiff's evidence that the defendants killed their daughter and covered up their crime is based on little more than the fact that defendants were present in the house during the murder."

Denver attorney and legal analyst Scott Robinson said Wolf and Hoffman didn't counter much of the evidence. He cites, for example, the judge's observation that the garrote used to strangle JonBenet appeared to have been formed by someone with knowledge of "sophisticated" bondage devices.

"Hoffman basically conceded that point," Robinson said. "There are dozens of points that Hoffman has either A, conceded, or B, doesn't understand, or C, has ineptly presented."

Hoffman, who in July 2001 won a federal ruling in Denver that overturned Colorado's grand jury witness secrecy law, defended his performance.

"I don't know if I'm a good lawyer or a bad lawyer, but I know how to get a grand jury witness secrecy law declared unconstitutional," Hoffman said.

Hoffman said he was limited in his ability to argue Wolf's side of the case. "In motions for summary judgment, all you can do is offer affidavits of people who would be accepted as admissible witnesses at trial," he said.

"I can't offer affidavits of someone who doesn't have personal knowledge of the case. You're stuck with the evidence that you can put on in court."

One of Keenan's political opponents says the Atlanta ruling wasn't based on enough evidence to clear the Ramseys.

Boulder lawyer Ben Thompson, who campaigned against Keenan during the 2000 Democratic primary on a platform that included his pledge to make arrests in the Ramsey case, said the judge didn't have all the facts.

"He (Wolf) did not produce sufficient evidence to the judge of the guilt of the Ramseys," Thompson said. "He is not a prosecutor, and he didn't have any cooperation from the district attorney's office. For everybody to say the judge cleared them is just wrong."

Denver lawyer Robinson is more supportive of Keenan.

"If that's what she really thinks, I thought she showed a lot of courage" in issuing her statement, Robinson said.

"It may not be the most politically advantageous thing to say, since there are a lot of folks who think otherwise. But, if that's what she feels, good for her for saying it."

 

Thompson on my mind

So people are starting to talk again, hmmmm? Why doesn't Thompson fear the litigious Wood?

I'm wondering if Thompson is someone who might support our efforts?

 

2 + 2 = Ignorance

Okay, so wait a sec here....it's bad enough Keenan's an intruder theorist. It's bad enough she doesn't bother to base her opinion on evidentiary fact rather than a judge's ruling that had no evidentiary fact considered in the decision.

But now we see she doesn't even bother with case facts at all?

So if Bill Nagel is the point man for all things Ramsey, where is he?

What does he think of Carnes' ruling?

What does he think of his boss' indifference?

Who does Bill think killed JonBenet?

 

Susan Smith had no previous "abuse" in her background. Niether did Scott Peterson. Or David Westerfield. Niether did the creep who killed Samantha R.

Calling Keenan's remarks "courageous" is about on the par with calling Jameson's belief in Peterson's, Westerfield's and the Ramsey's 'innocence" courageous.


Delusional, yeah maybe. Poorly thought out? Yeah, definately. Lazy? Yeah.

 

I'm curious--does Mrs.McSanta have a libel case here?

 

BobC

ah - but he did - he was accused of molesting the two daughters of his former girlfriend - who I believe (don't take my word for this, but) lived at the same complex as Samantha did.

I would think so!! where's Lin????

 

Okay! Bad example! I told you I was senile!