Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 87
  1. #37

    Default

    <>

    That would only work in Boulder. In my state (IL), the parents are arrested first and investigated later.

  2. #38

    Default Hunter's little secret..locked up forever

    Grand Jury: A jury that chiefly examines accusations of crime made against persons and if the evidence warrants makes formal charges on which the accused persons are later tried.
    and this:

    District Attorney: A public official who prosecutes cases for a state or federal government.

    The Grand Jury is an integral part of our judicial system. The citizens on a grand jury are usually ordinary people, with little or no knowledge of the finer points of law. It is the duty of the District Attorney to persuade them to indict or not to indict, in any particular case.
    It seems obvious to me that AH had a political agenda that led him towards the adamant stance he took against handing down indictments in the Ram case.
    The Grand Jurors are solely dependent upon the information that the D.A. presents or allows others to present. He is the absolute authority in that room, for the duration of their service.
    He elected to show gruesome crime picture photos, for a specific purpose. We are not privy to the comments he made as those photos were being shown. A good guess is that he squirmed and grimaced in a most visible manner. The psychology of that would bespeak volumes as to how the jury responded.
    Sublingually, it flashes into the mind: “No way could a parent do that to a child.”
    I predict that future historians, who study this case, will probably include, somewhere in their manuscript, “No way could a D.A. have acted with such total disregard for justice.”


  3. #39

    Default

    I guess this is what they mean when they talk about people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

  4. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    ST OLAFF
    Posts
    1,957

    Default Unless I missed it

    Is Lacey aware of what Shiller and GJ member did?

    Shouldn't she be notified and ask "what are you gonna do about it"????????

    and ask if anyone can talk now including Paugh..

  5. #41

    Default

    Yeah, either all of it's okay, or none of it is.

  6. #42

    Default

    Thanks to Little and Elle for putting up the Grand Juror picture from the Globe article.

    Anyone want to discuss this article, "JonBenet: Why Mom Was Never Charged"?

    Because I have to tell you, if you haven't read it, it has some things in it so strange, I am quite confused.

    Schiller was obviously "the source," almost quoted word for word. What's he up to? Is someone paying him to shill for the Ramseys?

    And either he's lying, confused, or we've been lied to for almost 10 years about some evidence in this case. There are some very strange things in this article. It doesn't even make sense at times. It starts out saying Patsy took the secrets of that night to her grave. Then it proceeds to Schiller shilling: it was an intruder.

    Not only that, but this time, Schiller/the source out and out states:

    "The grand Jury could not find probable cause to indict Patsy Ramsey," says the insider. "The method of death outweighed everything else. Patsy could not possibly have been the killer, they decided."
    So if this is true, I want to know from someone other than Schiller, who obviously has made so many statements conflicting known evidence now, I need a reliable source, and not just his spin.

    I hope some other reporter is on this. Surely this is big news among those who stood by the Judge's orders for all these years.

    Or not. Maybe reporters are so tired of the RST running the media into the ground and the truth with it, using the justice system to do their personal bidding, they've just all turned their backs but the shills still going for the money.

    So it's come to this. The truth is further than ever from being told, and the chance that it ever will be is now zero.

    This article also repeats the insanely illogical Schiller tripe that JonBenet was FED PINEAPPLE by the killer, WHO DRANK TEA WITH HER. Then the article says that the single fiber in the bed proves Patsy didn't kill JonBenet. Whether JB had a tea party with the killer BEFORE OR AFTER she was tied up in her bed, it doesn't specify. But with neither the glass nor bowl tested for DNA...darn. That old killer could have left his DNA right there, and we'd KNOW he ate and drank with JonBenet before murdering her. OR NOT. But the article neglects to mention PATSY'S AND BURKE'S FINGERPRINTS ON THE GLASS AND BOWL. How thoughtful.

    Says a source, "Jurors felt that Patsy had no reason to lie [about JonBenet being asleep and not having pineapple]--and shuddered when they realized it was likely that an intruder served JonBenet the fruit, then drank tea before killing her."
    So...are we being told the grand jurors ALSO thought that IF the prime suspects SAID IT, it's the gospel truth? Because if that's true, then the jury was a bunch of idiots who shouldn't have been trusted to drive a car. NO REASON TO LIE? How about prison food?

    The article also REPEATS THE CAUCASION MALE DNA IN THE PANTIES story. But NOW the spin is that the killer is the one who "breathed or sneezed" on the panties during the murder.

    You think this is bad? It gets worse. Speaking of the grand jurors' reactions to seeing the brutal autopsy and crime scene pictures of the victim:

    Others sobbed. Especially when they viewed the picture of JonBenet's lifeless body lying facedown on the floor in her pajamas.
    What? When would that picture have been made? By the coroner or his assistant, moving the body to photograph at the home? But if that's the reference, wouldn't it have been worse to see her lying on her back, with her face revealed? OR is someone just getting it ALL WRONG?

    Then the article really commits a terrible error, IMO:

    "The garroting was a slow and horrible death that experts believe took up to two minutes," the source says. "And for the whole time the killer would have had to look in JonBenet's eyes."
    Now that's just a lie. BIG LIE. HUGE LIE. The garrote cord was found to still be knotted at the back, and that means it was tied at the back and pulled from the back. PERIOD. The green paint chip on JonBenet's chin is evidence that JonBenet was on her face during this, because that paint chip matched the green paint in the paint tray.

    Why are they telling all these lies now?

    I'm thinking...the whole article is filled with lies, distortions, and exaggerations, in hopes of convincing the public that Patsy really didn't have anything to do with this murder. It states this time and time again.

    So...just WHAT SECRETS DID PATSY TAKE TO HER GRAVE, THEN? Remember way at the beginning, first paragraph in the article? Patsy took the secrets of that night to her grave? Were these makup tips? How to sleep through the murder of your child? WHAT SECRETS? If she's so innocent, then she has no secrets, as she would have certainly told any related to the murder to LE, right? So...which is it?

    Are these people on drugs?

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  7. #43
    RiverRat's Avatar
    RiverRat is offline FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Left is Patsy Ramsey)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NoneYa Beessness
    Posts
    7,824

    Default Repost....

    The new Globe has six pages devoted to this case. There is a photo of the panties she was found in! Did I miss this one too somehow, or is this another new revelation?!

    It also has the Grand Juror and her photo as well as covering her speaking on the Schiller documentary. So yeah.......I gave money to the tabs so now there is even less to sue me for!

    RR
    _______________
    "Don't play dumb with me, RR! You're no good at it." The Punisher

    "Although no one is anticipating a prompt resolution to this long and much-detoured case, perhaps - just perhaps - might we see one of those moments “when a chance arrow of history scores a perfect bullseye on a deserving target”? Steve Thomas 2009

    "Justice hasn't had a chance so far. Anyone who doesn't have this as their prime goal, we'll have a falling out with." Fleet White - Time Magazine

    "What happens is that evil comes in," Fleet says. "If you don't have truth, all you have are lies, then what comes in is evil. And evil just does its thing. In the Ramsey case, it just did its thing, and it's eaten up so many people."

  8. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default

    I know Keenan-Lacy is aware of all of everything concerning the grand juror. If she does nothing then there is nothing in the way for us to offer money to the grand juror members to get them to talk, which I am prepared to do.

    Lacy has to do something. I know she hates to lift a finger in this case but if she doesn't it will just be worse for her.
    tgrif@xmission.com
    FFJ C/O Tricia Griffith
    6300 N Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H #214
    Park City UT
    84098




    I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
    Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword

  9. #45

    Default

    Oh, yeah, forgot to mention the "stun gun" story is tied in with the "SINGLE CORD FIBER IN THE BED" story. The article states:

    Experts believe the killer used a stun gun to knock JonBenet unconscious in her bed, then tied her and carried her to another part of the sprawling house before sadistically killing her.
    So, STILL no one questions the SPIN that a stun gun would have KNOCKED JONBENET OUT. It's pure BS. She'd have screamed her head off with the pain of it. Not to mention...the BPD has stated, as well as Dr. Spitz, that the marks in question WERE NOT FROM A STUN GUN. Kane also said this. Only Lou Smit and Doberson--who seems to have fallen into the "hire an expert for any opinion" catagory--are the only "experts" I've seen pushing this as fact. If they wanted to find THE TRUTH, the LEAST they'd do is say MAYBE this is the source. They have both lost all objectivity to go on such an extended campaign to clear the Ramseys and sink the case against anyone, since their conflict of opinion with LE who investigated this case for so long would play out in court and raise reasonable doubt FOR ANY INTRUDER. Not that they really care, as finding the "intruder" isn't their goal, obviously. It's getting their faces on TV as Ramsey shills that they love, IMO.

    So...where are we now with the Schiller spin? The intruder had tea and pineapple with JonBenet. After she was carried to bed by her parents fast asleep, so deeply that she never stirred while having her coat, boots, and pants removed, nor while being picked up out of the car and laid on the bed, nor while having pajama bottoms pulled on her. But she woke with no complaints and had tea and pineapple downstairs with...someone so unknown to her that his DNA has never been matched in 9 years of testing everyone LE could think of to test. So the intruder took her out of bed, down to the table, took out his own pineapple in a bowl, which just HAPPENED to have Patsy's fingerprints on it.... Oops. that won't work. But don't tell.

    OK, so he BROUGHT his own pineapple, and found Patsy's bowl with her fingerprints and put his pineapple into the bowl. Then he pulled out HIS OWN TEABAG and put that in a glass that had BURKE'S fingerprints on it, and made tea. Heated the water in the microwave first? So they ate, quite CORDIALLY, this sleepy child in her dark home in the middle of the night with ONE OR TWO INTRUDERS, and THEN she was taken by this faction back up to her bed and tied up and stun gunned.... And all the time she ate the pineapple she never cried out. Nor when he/they stunned her.

    OKOKOKOK.... Just WHY would he/they take her BACK UPSTAIRS, where...you know...her FAMILY WAS...after feeding her IN THE DARK...instead of just heading on down to the basement?

    Or is the RST going with Sissi's newest brilliant theory? The faction tied her up in the bed, stun gunned her to get her to the table...AND TORTURED HER WITH PINEAPPLE! Don't mention that if she could eat, she could scream...and if she'd been stunned already...just maybe she'd have SCREAMED FOR HELP at some point during...oh...eating pineapple while the perp drank TEA!

    Dear god. Is there no low the RST won't go to so they can obstruct justice in this case?

    Apparently not. I'll try to wrap this up, as I'm about to throw my computer out the window:

    The article says one other thing I've never heard before:

    GLOBE reporters have viewed the gruesome crime-scene and autopsy photos in police and FBI files and describe one chilling picture of the child's body after rigor mortis had set in. It shows the cruel imprint of the garrote as it cut into the child's tender skin near the center of her back. The brutal killer had left the child lying on the weapon.
    Had we heard this before? I sure don't remember it.

    OK, I have to go, so I'll have to come back for fixing typos. Please excuse until then.
    Last edited by koldkase; July 11, 2006, 1:55 am at Tue Jul 11 1:55:27 UTC 2006.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  10. #46

    Default

    Quote:
    "The garroting was a slow and horrible death that experts believe took up to two minutes," the source says. "And for the whole time the killer would have had to look in JonBenet's eyes."


    Now that's just a lie. BIG LIE. HUGE LIE. The garrote cord was found to still be knotted at the back, and that means it was tied at the back and pulled from the back. PERIOD. The green paint chip on JonBenet's chin is evidence that JonBenet was on her face during this, because that paint chip matched the green paint in the paint tray.

    Why are they telling all these lies now?

    I'm thinking...the whole article is filled with lies, distortions, and exaggerations, in hopes of convincing the public that Patsy really didn't have anything to do with this murder. It states this time and time again.

    So...just WHAT SECRETS DID PATSY TAKE TO HER GRAVE, THEN? Remember way at the beginning, first paragraph in the article? Patsy took the secrets of that night to her grave? Were these makup tips? How to sleep through the murder of your child? WHAT SECRETS? If she's so innocent, then she has no secrets, as she would have certainly told any related to the murder to LE, right? So...which is it?

    Are these people on drugs?
    Crap, I have to go buy the Globe now.

    What's Schiller up to? In PMPT he listed huge amounts of evidence that point to Patsy, and he KNOWS the ransom note is in her handwriting. Even in the freaking movie of PMPT, directed by Schiller, he makes Patsy look not so good.

    He's obviously working to make money, and has been at this latest effort for a while, because the background in some of the video in the documentary includes orange trees, looks like last fall to me. In the video you can tell that the FBI agents and others have been edited -they may have said some other, more incriminating things.

    Did he cozy up to the Rs and Woody when Patsy got the brain tumor last fall? Is he setting all this up to do a big documentary about how he actually "solves" the case and declares PDI?

    I'm boggled, too, KK. Something is up. As Tricia has said, if that grand juror is not going to get in trouble, can we talk to them too?

  11. #47

    Default

    Oh, good, you have it, too, RR. Because I need for you to tell me I'M NOT MAKING IT UP! Because right now, I'm thinking someone has slipped me a mickey...this just CAN'T be for real.

    Here's one other thing I missed that I want to know if anyone has an explanation, as I've never heard THIS before, regarding the ransom note:

    The note was written on the Ramseys' writing pad with their Sharpie pen and there were signs that the final version was the result of many practice attempts.

    "There are 23 pages missing between the first page on the pad, which is the beginning of the note, and the pages where the note was torn out, says a source.
    WHAT? Now I'm even MORE confused. If that's possible.

    The article goes on to state the intruder had plenty of time, of course, as he wrote the ransom note while the family wasn't home. Then hid...meant to kidnap JonBenet...kidnapping gone wrong...left quickly after the murder.

    Which happened after he had tea and pineapple, ran up and down the stairs with JonBenet repeatedly, tied her up, stunned her, with no duct tape over her mouth while she didn't scream and ate pineapple, molested and garroted her, bashed her head in at some point...AND THEN PANICKED AND RAN OUT LEAVING THE RANSOM NOTE where he'd carefully put it on the stairs while carrying the tied up JonBenet to eat pineapple and/or molest, murder, and clean her up and redress her...wrap her in her blanket...AND THEN PANICKED AND RAN OUT THE DOOR!

    Ok, I'm done. The human race is doomed, if people can actually get this crap published by so many sources without so much as one person in our entire American press standing up and saying STOP WITH THE LIES! A CHILD IS DEAD AND THIS IS NOT RIGHT!
    Last edited by koldkase; July 11, 2006, 1:52 am at Tue Jul 11 1:52:22 UTC 2006.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  12. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wombat
    Crap, I have to go buy the Globe now.

    What's Schiller up to? In PMPT he listed huge amounts of evidence that point to Patsy, and he KNOWS the ransom note is in her handwriting. Even in the freaking movie of PMPT, directed by Schiller, he makes Patsy look not so good.

    He's obviously working to make money, and has been at this latest effort for a while, because the background in some of the video in the documentary includes orange trees, looks like last fall to me. In the video you can tell that the FBI agents and others have been edited -they may have said some other, more incriminating things.

    Did he cozy up to the Rs and Woody when Patsy got the brain tumor last fall? Is he setting all this up to do a big documentary about how he actually "solves" the case and declares PDI?

    I'm boggled, too, KK. Something is up. As Tricia has said, if that grand juror is not going to get in trouble, can we talk to them too?
    Schiller said in an interview with MSNBC that Patsy was "overwhelmingly exonerated" by the DNA.



Similar Threads

  1. Email to Schiller.
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: July 15, 2006, 12:43 pm, Sat Jul 15 12:43:34 UTC 2006
  2. Schiller Plans New Documentary for Court TV
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: November 10, 2005, 5:12 pm, Thu Nov 10 17:12:11 UTC 2005
  3. Dr. Lee's show produced by Lawrence Schiller?
    By JustinCase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 4, 2004, 4:06 pm, Fri Jun 4 16:06:36 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
  •