Keenan Contradiction

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Watching You, May 6, 2004.

  1. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    In December 2002, Mary Keenan made several statements, among which were the following two:




    Your quiz for today is, discuss the contradiction contained in these two statements.
     
  2. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Clue:

    She giveth, then she taketh away.
     
  3. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Huh? Not even a guess? :unreal:
     
  4. imon128

    imon128 Banned

    Pretty obvious that Keenan & Kompany placated in the first scenario. Little Lin was sitting on her shoulder. In the second scenario, Little Lin was there, too, completing his second sentence/paragraph of his threat.
    "Give in or get out". Old lover's line to get some and Little Lin got some and we all got the shaft, too. :did:
     
  5. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    That's not the answer I was looking for, Imon, but it's a good answer.

    Here's another clue:

    If the first is true, why the second?
     
  6. imon128

    imon128 Banned

    Defies logic, eh? If A then B. Etc., etc., etc. There is no logic with Keenan, only kissing up to Woody and R's.
     
  7. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Keenan points out that the BPD did an "exhaustive and thorough investigation" ***of the Ramseys as suspects.**** It would have been more honest for her to have left the "of the Ramseys as suspects" off that statement.

    Of course, she neglects to mention the 600 or so other suspects the BPD also investigated during the course of their investigation. If the BPD's investigation was SOOO thorough and exhaustive, why did Keenan have to take it over?

    ****Our efforts will focus on following up leads that had not previously been investigated or that are brought to our attention in the future.*****

    The thing is, those leads WERE previously investigated and the leads proven unfounded, but that's SOP for guilty people - accuse the cops of not following up on other leads. It's also interesting to note that that "exhaustive and thorough" investigation of the Ramseys was done nearly in totality (except for a couple of negotiated "interviews" months and years after the fact) without the cooperation of the Ramseys, who say they are innocent; but the Ramseys are fully cooperating with the investigations against anyone not named Ramsey.

    My question makes no sense, I know, LOL.
     
  8. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Between the lines

    I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I interpreted that as her saying that they were going to follow leads on other potential suspects.

    HOWEVER.... I am very familiar with tactics of saying nothing and everything. I thought Keenan's statement was very carefully worded.
     
  9. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    You force me to admit that when I first read these two statements, I missed the "of the Ramseys as suspects" in the first statement. Sometimes I read too fast and do that.

    Therefore, that meant (to me) that the statement read, "The Boulder Police Department has done an exhaustive and thorough investigation," and therein lies the contradiction to which I referred.

    When I realized that I had done that, I scurried to make up a plausible answer for my own blunders and was caught dead to rights by Jayelles.

    I do not mind admitting my goof ups. You won't catch me in many, but I do make them sometimes, LOL. Good job, Imon and Jayelles. There was no contradiction in the statements, only in the way I interpreted the first statement until it dawned on me that I had not read the entire statement.

    Guess I'll go eat worms.
     
  10. imon128

    imon128 Banned

    Here, WY, I have some leftover catsup from my last worm eating session. I'll feed again at 2, pass it back, okay? LOL
     
  11. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    LOL, Imon, goes along with the egg on my face. My dad always told me to admit when I'm wrong. I don't lie, and I do admit when I'm wrong, even if it half kills me. It also has the added advantage of taking the wind out of the sails of those who would gleefully point out that I screwed up.
     
  12. "J_R"

    "J_R" Shutter Bug Bee

    I do hope the mail handlers wear gloves. This smacks of investigating BVD's and ABC gum sent through the mail. JMH&CPO
     
  13. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Don't you DARE. You just the Golden Poster award for integrity :) When someone can hold their hands up and say "I got it wrong", then it speaks volumes about their trustworthiness and level-headedness.

    A socialist colleague of mine drives people nutz from time to time when he gets on his high-horse over administrative issues. However, he always admits his mistakes and apologises if he is in the wrong. That makes him a giant of a man in my eyes :)
     
  14. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    ;) Credit to my mom and dad, Jayelles. My father had the biggest influence on me all through my life. He had so much integrity and taught us by his example. If he did wrong, he admitted it. He was always big on accepting the consequences for our actions; so am I. Neither he nor my mother ever told a lie to anyone; they were never late to work and in all their working years hardly ever missed a day of work; they paid their bills and lived by the Golden Rule. I probably benefitted both from genetics and from environment. I'm a lucky woman and though I'll probably never be a wealthy woman, I've been blessed with riches beyond compare with my parents and with my children, too. I have been able to pass the integrity gene down to my own kids. My dad would be proud.
     
  15. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Now, WY, you might not be as wrong as you think you are, although I love your humility. Mary Keenan was attempting, in her inimitable way, to publicly declare the scope of her new "fresh eyes" investigation.

    Quote: "The Boulder Police Department has done an exhaustive and thorough investigation of the Ramseys as potential suspects."

    What Mary fails to disclose in this statement is that BPD performed an exhaustive and thorough investigation of the entire case at that time, not just the Ramseys. The City of Boulder's press release from that time period details how many leads were followed and all that was done to investigate EVERY known potential in this case, to the tune of two million dollars plus.

    Lou Smit's intruder theory was very live and active at the time the BPD performed their exhaustive and thorough investigation, and BPD's investigation was not limited to the Ramseys but more than 60 known individuals as well. Smit's intruder theory was also investigated by the BPD and dismissed as unfounded, or they would have continued to investigate it should there have been any credible and viable evidence supporting it. See analysis of some of Smit's "evidence" in support of his theory on Ginja's current thread.

    When Smit presented his intruder theory to the GJ, the GJ could have written a report supporting the intruder theory, not just return a true bill/indictments of the Ramseys. They failed to do either, folks, not just failed to indict! They also failed to provide any written support for Smit and his theory that would lend any credibility to it. So in short, neither the BPD nor the GJ determined that Smit's intruder theory had any credibility or they would have continued to act upon it. Keenan's failure to disclose the entire truth in this public statement is clearly caused by her longtime bias in favor of an intruder perp. This is what forms the basis for her next statement:

    Quote: "Our efforts will focus on following up leads that had not previously been investigated or that are brought to our attention in the future."

    By this public statement immediately following the prior one, Keenan is revealing to the public that she does not believe BPD investigated the intruder theory (sound familiar?) but that she intends to do so. How many hours was BPD supposed to spend on Lou Smit's theory if we the non-LE public have spent years considering it and can so easily refute it? Simple claims by the RST that BPD is allegedly too incompetent to know what they're doing doesn't suffice as any credible proof that they failed to investigate this theory or erred in their determination that the evidence offered up in support of it by Smit is incredible. What proof have the RST, including the BDA, offered at any point in their claims against BPD that BPD didn't investigate the intruder theory, or was somehow negligent in its investigation? None! Simply stating they didn't, again, does not constitute proof that BPD was remiss in any way. But to the contrary, hasn't BPD's investigation of the intruder theory, and their finding of invalidity, been proven through subsequent efforts and documentation? Didn't the FBI, Vidocq, numerous distinguished experts and the majority public agree with BPD? And if the GJ didn't agree with BPD, why didn't they publish a report saying so?

    Keenan is also advising the public that her "fresh eyes" investigation will not consider any further evidence against the Ramsey family, but be limited only to further evidence of an intruder. That is why she added Lou Smit to her "fresh eyes' investigation, no doubt Smit's continued involvement was a Ramsey demand to drop their threat of lawsuit.

    Interestingly, in 1 1/2 years, the ONLY "new" piece of evidence that this crack team of investigators have come up with is a previous DNA sample that has been sent to CODIS and deemed "no match." IOW, no source of this DNA, previously collected and identified by BPD and therefore NOT new, has done nothing further to either exhonerate the Ramsey family OR identify an intruder/support an intruder theory. Yet BPD fell under the Ramsey bus again for it's discretion in not submitting this DNA sample to CODIS. Doesn't the failure to source it lend credibility to BPD's insight and determination of inviability? There has been no other evidence churned up by Keenan's investigation in any way to support an intruder theory but what BPD already determined was useless DNA evidence. Could that also be why Dr. Henry Lee declared this case "not a DNA case?"

    Could this absence of new evidence support the BPD, and GJ's determinations that the intruder theory is as vapid as we believe it is?

    So we have 9 important facts revealed by Keenan's statements and subsequent "investigation" defined in her public statements:

    1. Yet more substantiation for the BDA's bias favoring the Ramsey family;

    2. According to the BDA, not unlike Lin Wood and the Ramseys, no one, not the BPD, the original GJ, the FBI, Vidocq Society, the majority public or Dr. Henry Lee, among others, has NO credibility whatsoever (apparently only those favoring Ramsey innocence possess any credibility in this case);

    3. No thorough investigation has been done in the case since confiscation by the BDA;

    4. No new evidence has been developed to either exhonerate the Ramsey family or identify an intruder;

    5. Old, not new, DNA evidence has been the only offering from this "investigation" and that evidence was collected and identified by BPD, not the BDA;

    6. That old DNA evidence was considered by not only the BPD, the FBI and the GJ in a far more thorough professional investigation of the case, but discounted as credible and relevant in supporting or identifying any intruder or theory of intruder;

    7. No "fresh eyes" have investigated this case since confiscation by the BDA;

    8. No support for any intruder theory has been derived, and

    9. BDA's failure to substantiate Smit's intruder theory by its own investigation thoroughly supports the findings of invalidation of that theory by BPD, the FBI, the first GJ, Vidocq and the majority public.

    Lou Smit's intruder theory, which the BDA has always endorsed, has not changed, neither evidence added or subtracted, in 7 1/2 years. It has now been thoroughly tested by the Boulder Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, limitedly by The Vidocq Society, the initial Boulder Grand Jury, the majority public, and now Mary Keenan, the Boulder District Attorney's Office, Tom Bennett and, once again, Lou Smit. NONE OF THESE INVESTIGATIVE BODIES HAVE FOUND ANY CREDIBILITY OR SUPPORT IN THE INTRUDER THEORY. LOU SMIT HAS NEVER ENHANCED HIS THEORY OR FURTHER DEVELOPED ANY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. Not in 7 1/2 years! Yet, this very intruder theory, unchanged, unproven, unsubstantiated, and invalidated by professional investigative bodies with incredible experience just continues to form a basis for civil lawsuits and mountains of spin by Lin Wood, the Ramseys and Mary Keenan.

    Why?

    The only official support for the intruder theory has come from Judge Carnes. Judge Carnes, in her very own words, acknowledged that she had no other information to contrast and compare in her analysis to Lou Smit's testimony/theory in that suit. The scope of her examination was limited to just what Smit and Lin Wood fed her. Judge Carnes did not have the "exhaustive and thorough investigation" results of BPD, like the GJ, the FBI, Vidocq and the public. This effectively limited her conclusions to just those on hand, i.e., Lou Smit's intruder theory. Had she been provided ALL of the data on this case, I have no doubt, like the GJ, the FBI, Vidocq and the majority public, she would have concluded, like the GJ, the FBI, Vidocq and the majority public, that Lou Smit's intruder theory is bunk.

    The only intent and power the intruder theory has ever had in this case is to create the very necessary reasonable doubt to the Ramseys' defense in initial GJ proceedings, and even that "reasonable doubt" has since evaporated dramatically. Yet despite hearing that reasonable doubt theory (somebody else did it-the oldest defense theory in the world), the GJ failed to write a report supporting it.

    And the initial GJ disbanded prior to the successful sourcing of very power and incriminating evidence in the case that, subsequently, was publicly disclosed AFTERWARD. Mary Keenan's first act upon confiscating the case, had she been the objective prosecutor law and ethics demands, would have been to convene another grand jury to consider this weighty subsequent and conclusive evidence for indictments. She did not for obvious reasons, although at the time she took over the case, benefit of the doubt acquiesed, she may have been considering it. So could we not conclude that BPD's case against the Ramseys was not "insufficient to indict" at that time, but only premature before all evidence collected could be tested and concluded?

    Timing is everything, folks. Consider this: That incredibly condemning evidence became conclusive while BPD still had custody of the investigation. Lin Wood and the Ramseys were made privvy to it during the Atlanta interviews in mid-2000 by the then special prosecutor whom they believed was hell-bent on prosecuting the Ramseys. The weight of this evidence was sufficient to convene a second grand jury to consider ALL evidence developed since the first grand jury disbanded, as well as the original case data. Incredible risk to the Ramseys. However, that did not happen. Why? Alex Hunter was still in office.

    Had an objective and ethical DA been available, I have no doubt it would have happened. However, Hunter left office and was then replaced by Keenan et al, who just continued filling the obstructive shoes of Alex Hunter. With THAT pressure upon her shoulders, Keenan ended up confiscating the case from BPD to ensure absolute control over it when their ongoing efforts to obstruct a second grand jury were probably weakening thanks to Kane.

    Enter Lin Wood with his threats of lawsuit against the BDA. Enter Keenan et al with long time bias favoring the Ramseys and now in absolute possession of incredibly damning evidence collected by BPD against them begging for a second grand jury review. If Keenan had any urge to "do the right thing" with that evidence despite her belief in the intruder theory (what a battle of conscience for this woman), LW's lawsuit threat settled it for her. There was only one thing that could be done at that point to continue saving the Ramseys' asses and LW did it.

    Had Mary Keenan any chutzpah, to say nothing of a sense of professional commitment and duty, she would have risen to LW's challenge, convened a second grand jury and let the chips fall where they may. Unless, of course, some great political pressure was guiding her against this course of action. Instead, she capitulated and carried on the original plan to tank the case, appeasing all the pressure on her, but still obstructing justice. So far, it's succeeded.

    Gov. Owens is correct. No new case evidence has ever been developed by Mary Keenan despite her "promises" of getting justice for JonBenet under her "bothered conscience." That was the entire point of confiscating the case from BPD.

    But new evidence of Keenan's obstructions of justice and continued bias, and Lin Wood/Ramsey control over this case has continued to pile up. Old but very powerful evidence still remains whose testing concluded after the first grand jury, and is substantial enough to merit a second grand jury consideration. As long as that incredible evidence, and the case, remains under the exclusive jurisdiction of Mary Keenan, it will never be available for use in filing charges or prosecuting. And that's where it remains.

    What Gov. Owens is NOT correct about is that the law does not require new evidence development to appoint a special prosecutor in this case. That is only HIS requirement. The law requires substantial conflict of interest and ethics violations on the part of the BDA to render a fair trial impossible for any named defendant. Unless Gov. Owens intends to submit HIS demand for new evidence to the CO legislature in hopes of creating new law to override his duty-bound obligations under existing law (Pease v. District Court), his demand does not override that existing law.

    The BDA has more than sufficiently provided new evidence, as has Gov. Owens, of incredible favoritism, bias and illegal conduct in the minds of any objective, unbiased, non-self-interest-serving person. The BDA, including Lou Smit, has provided many years' worth of publicly disclosed evidence to substantiate it's long time bias in favor of the Ramseys. The intruder theory created and spun to provide reasonable doubt for the benefit of the GJ has never been objectively substantiated by a thorough legal review, has never changed, has never developed credible evidence in support of it, and has been deemed invalid by the BPD, The FBI, the first GJ, Vidocq, the majority public and now by Keenan et al themselves.

    We can only ask in the face of this incredibly profound new evidence, and the law, what is Gov. Owens waiting for while demanding new evidence that the law doesn't require? PASSivity is not ACTivity, Gov. Owens, and your demands for new evidence in order to appoint an objective special prosecutor violate existing Colorado law!

    And while Mary Keenan may not be contradicting herself in the above statements, she is certainly communicating considerable valuable information to support removal of the case from her custody. Thanks, WY, for opening discussion about it!
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2004
  16. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Damn DejaNu.. YOU GO!!!
     
  17. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Thanks, RR!

    This article is so worthy of re-post, germane to the topic of this thread and revelational! If BPD's alleged leaks of case info was so egregious as to constitute removal of the case from them, how can AH's leaks and incredible sharing of vital case evidence with Lou Smit not be grounds for removal of the same case from Keenan? Was the 911 call contained on that CD? Looks like Gov. Owens is doing a little CYA as well. Thanks, RiverRat, for posting it on the Chief Counsel thread! I've added the emphasis....
    ***
    3/23/2000
    Owens not in on deal between Hunter, Smit

    by B.J.Plasket
    Daily Times-Call

    BOULDER — While deciding last fall not to appoint a special prosecutor in the JonBenet Ramsey case, Gov. Bill Owens was apparently unaware of a secret agreement in which prosecutors agreed to give up evidence to a former detective who now works for the Ramsey family.

    While Owens and his team interviewed police and prosecutors and were made privy to most of the evidence in the case, a source close to the situation told the Daily Times-Call the governor was never told about an agreement under which former investigator Lou Smit was given total control of photographs, a crime-scene video and other information contained on a compact disc.

    The agreement between Smit and District Attorney Alex Hunter was made under seal in March 1999, only months after Smit left the case and only weeks after Hunter filed a motion demanding the return of all material gathered by Smit during his 18 months as a special investigator.

    Most of the information given to Smit was contained on the disc, which Smit admitted preparing with the help of a former associate in the El Paso County Sheriff's Department.

    Hunter, in the sealed motion, told the court Smit's sharing of the information with an outsider was inappropriate and demanded Smit return the materials and destroy all copies.

    Hunter quickly reversed his field, however, and in late March 1999 signed an agreement allowing Smit to share any case information with anyone he chose after Oct. 1, 1999.

    That agreement was unsealed early this month.

    Owens, through spokesman Dick Wadhams, refused to comment on the Smit information.

    "The governor is not answering follow-up questions to his comments earlier this week," Wadhams said.

    Owens this week got into a public exchange with John and Patsy Ramsey over the level of their cooperation in the investigation into their daughter's death. Owens also criticized Barbara Walters' interview with the Ramseys , which was broadcast by ABC-TV last Friday.

    Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise on Wednesday said although he was not involved in last fall's meetings with Owens and his staff, he assumed the Smit agreement was not conveyed to the governor.

    "I'm going to doubt it was brought up," he said. "It was not important within that context."

    Hunter, meanwhile, has refused to comment on the agreement, which was reached shortly after Smit's lawyers brought up allegations that Hunter himself had leaked sensitive case information and had attempted to conspire with tabloid reporter Jeff Shapiro and others to discredit former Boulder Detective John Eller.

    Wise on Wednesday said he has "no worries" about Smit misusing the information he took with him from the investigation.

    "I have a lot of respect for Lou," Wise said.

    Hunter arrived back in Boulder early Wednesday after attending a conference in Connecticut along with Henry Lee, the forensic scientist who heads Connecticut's state crime lab and who is also working on the Ramsey case.

    Wise said Hunter usually "talks in generalities" with Lee about the Ramsey case at such conferences.

    Wise said he has no knowledge of a meeting between Lee, Hunter and Ramsey prosecutor Michael Kane that will reportedly take place in Boulder, perhaps as soon as this week.

    Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner earlier this week acknowledged the FBI is still conducting tests on crime-scene evidence.

    A source inside the investigation this week said the Colorado Bureau of Investigation "screwed up" tests on some evidence and that the evidence is being re-tested. It is unknown if that evidence is the same being examined by the FBI.

    Funding for the Ramsey investigation — including money to pay Kane's part-time salary while he practices law in Pennsylvania — could run out as soon as the end of this month.
     
  18. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Hunter, meanwhile, has refused to comment on the agreement, which was reached shortly after Smit's lawyers brought up allegations that Hunter himself had leaked sensitive case information and had attempted to conspire with tabloid reporter Jeff Shapiro and others to discredit former Boulder Detective John Eller.

    This is so outrages. I had forgotten why Hunter backed down in the Smit issue. It's because he was neck high in the leaking game. Smit called him on it and low and behold Smit walks away with the file.


    Wise on Wednesday said he has "no worries" about Smit misusing the information he took with him from the investigation.

    Oh no he didn't misuse it. He prostituted it for his own gain to help the Ramseys. He went on The Today Show and added his own spin. His own version that didn't fit the facts at all.
     
  19. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    DejaVu from DejaNu

    As posted on the 1999 Flashback thread in support of our petition:

    http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/873432/detail.html

    July 16, 2001

    Excerpt: "Gov. Bill Owens, in a meeting with the editorial board of The Gazette, recently speculated that Beckner and investigators can disprove the intruder theory but don't want to show their hand prematurely.

    'Prosecutors can address everything that Smit has raised that points to an outsider. But if they do that publicly, they tell the person who killed JonBenet what the prosecutor knows,' he said. 'My concern is what Lou has done is publicize evidence that should have remained private until the trial.'

    Owens met with prosecutors and reviewed the evidence not long after taking office in 1999."

    Governor Owens, by your own public words, you've acknowledged that the intruder theory is bunk and that Smit, as a DA investigator under Keenan, as well as Keenan and the entire BDA staff, have provided grounds for removal of this case under Pease. Yet you continue to demand "new evidence" in violation of the provisions of Pease mandating removal before you'll even act on your own admissions. What new evidence do you possess that relieves you of these longstanding concerns, refutes your own confidence in BPD's ability to defeat the intruder theory and your duty under Pease to remove the case from the BDA? Why didn't you re-fund Special Prosecutor Michael Kane's involvement that would have led to a second grand jury and possible indictments? Why not bring Michael Kane back into the case and let him do his job? Unless you have some new evidence reversing your longstanding position on the facts of this case, your passivity continues to place you in a dereliction of duty position on it.

    Doesn't Governor Owens himself then support our request to him to comply with Pease and remove the case from Keenan? How much more support can we offer? Doesn't this boil down to a simple matter of integrity and public trust?
     
  20. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Duh!

    Five whole hours after Watching You honourably posted that she was wrong and that there there was NO contradiction in Keenan's statement, jameson bumped up one of her many (many many many) BORG threads to trumpet that WY was wrong about there being a contradiction in Keenan's statements.

    Simply more evidence of jameson either not having the intelligence to keep reading the thread OR of her deliberately misrepresenting the words of others in a desperate effort to discredit anything else they might say.

    If she did things properly (i.e. the professional/academic way), she would provide links to the quotes she uses so that readers can verify for themselves. Of course, she has an (exceedingly unprofessional) policy of NOT linking to other forums and one can only assume that she is afraid of readers going there in case they see that she IS misrepresenting many of the quotes.

    http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID37/166.html#8

    WY 10 jameson Nil
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice