Here's the question you all should ask

[Barbara]

Hello? The BDA "called Lou back"? The BDA has said all along Loose Mitts was a "consultant" on the case. When was he let go in order to ever be "called back?" And his agenda? To clear the parents. Why would an impartial district attorney purposely do that? Because (1) the BDA is not impartial and (2) the BDA's agenda is to clear the parents. How many more times and in how many more ways does Keenan have to spell it out? Whatever happened to Pease and the FFJ Petition effort? As long as the case remains in the BDA's care, custody and control, the public will continue to be subjected to bogus intruder theories generated by Smit libeling innocent people. This Gigax fiasco, if there ever was one, should be the straw to break the BDA camel's back.

I certainly hope they are looking at Lou with all these "leaks". Is it any wonder Tracey could make a film of misinformation. Just look at the Powerpoint Presentation. Same amount of credibility

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.

[Deja Nu]

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.

[Little]

Great post Barbara, thank you.
Elle wrote:

I'm feisty myself, Barbara,

I can vouch for that statement!

Little

[JC]

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. :-)

[Deja Nu]

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.

[Elle_1]

Great post Barbara, thank you.
Elle wrote:

I can vouch for that statement!

Little

Ha,ha,ha! Luv your little devil angel. Yes, Little, that's me! I'm glad you truly know me!