Results 13 to 18 of 18
-
July 18, 2004, 3:10 pm, Sun Jul 18 15:10:44 UTC 2004 #13
FFJ Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Brooklyn, New York
- Posts
- 2,632
Originally Posted by DejaNu
This case will never get what it deserves in Boulder, period.
This is just a joke until somebody in authority steps in and gives the ENTIRE CASE, LOCK STOCK AND BARREL along with all the power to interview, interrogate and test the evidence to the FBI or at least to a competent team of investigators from elsewhere.
In the long run, it would likely prove more economical for the Boulder taxpayers, because they'll get the job done one way or the other, and Boulder residents don't have to keep pouring money into the "investigation" via their taxes for a crime that blatantly, Boulder CANNOT/WILL NOT SOLVE.PATSY RAMSEY WROTE THE RANSOM NOTE
SHE WOULDN'T DO THAT FOR AN INTRUDER.
PLEASE READ CHEROKEE'S ANALYSIS
http://66.98.176.96/~tricia/forums/s...ead.php?t=6404
-
July 18, 2004, 5:38 pm, Sun Jul 18 17:38:47 UTC 2004 #14
Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Location
- Reality
- Posts
- 1,108
Amen, Barbara, but the Ramsey case is solved. The BDA just won't prosecute the suspects. Instead they have flagrantly accused BPD of a narrow, prejudicial and therefore incompetent investigation while conducting one of their own blatantly, rubbing the public's nose it in all the way. Jameson, Candy and their consorts are kept to continue supporting the claims that internet case enthusiasts are ignorant and incredible, all the while ignoring those like FFJ who have done a tremendous job all these years of punching big fat holes in every intruder theory they've run up the flagpole and saluted.
The case, as you say, needs to be placed in the hands of another authority; otherwise, it will just continue to breed Smitchit until he takes his last breath.
-
July 18, 2004, 7:26 pm, Sun Jul 18 19:26:58 UTC 2004 #15
Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Posts
- 2,154
Great post Barbara, thank you.
Elle wrote:
I'm feisty myself, Barbara,
Little
-
July 18, 2004, 8:29 pm, Sun Jul 18 20:29:44 UTC 2004 #16
Superior Cool Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Location
- Texarkana, USA
- Posts
- 4,301
An honest question
If this death were the result of actions by someone under the age of 10, would there ever be any reason by law to disclose this? And in fact, would not at the time it happened, there be reason by law not to disclose this fact, if it were a fact? Yall know my sign. :-)
-
July 19, 2004, 2:04 pm, Mon Jul 19 14:04:46 UTC 2004 #17
Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Location
- Reality
- Posts
- 1,108
JC, in 1996, a juvenile perp under the age of 10, by CO statute, would not have been prosecuted. To protect the identity of any potentially culpable minor, public disclosure would not have occurred. However, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the crimes perpetrated against JonBenet Ramsey were committed by anyone chronologically under the age of 10. Mentally and emotionally is a different story.
-
July 19, 2004, 6:33 pm, Mon Jul 19 18:33:40 UTC 2004 #18
FFJ Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 8,381
Originally Posted by Little
elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
Just my opinion.
Similar Threads
-
The DNA Question
By Ginja in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 53Last Post: March 22, 2008, 8:23 pm, Sat Mar 22 20:23:54 UTC 2008 -
DNA question
By Karen in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 41Last Post: March 7, 2005, 4:07 pm, Mon Mar 7 16:07:30 UTC 2005 -
Another question or two
By Barbara in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 9Last Post: July 16, 2004, 7:18 am, Fri Jul 16 7:18:57 UTC 2004 -
Question of the day...
By "J_R" in forum Laci Denise Rocha PetersonReplies: 1Last Post: July 7, 2004, 10:35 am, Wed Jul 7 10:35:19 UTC 2004 -
A Question..
By ravens_tears in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 23Last Post: September 2, 2003, 6:39 pm, Tue Sep 2 18:39:10 UTC 2003