Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 101617181920
Results 229 to 237 of 237
  1. #229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    Great point, Madeleine. The same goes for the duct tape Why_Nut commented on at Topix. Team Ramsey's claim was that the intruder bought the tape, so why didn't test it for touch DNA?

    If the new task force does not have these items touch DNA tested now at least, we will know what to think of Beckner & Co's efforts to "solve" this crime ...
    Yup.I asked this before but IDI's never bothered to reply.Why on earth would an intruder bring a piece of duct tape with him that was used before(not sticky)?And what is it with this myth that these items can't be sourced to the house,how come,cause a Ramsey says so?Since when do we state as fact something a prime suspect is telling during an interrogation?


    It's going to backfire though......if the Ramsey's say these items don't belong to them and if their touch dna will be found on them.........guess there will be a problem,right?Or will JR suddenly remember that those WERE their items,like it happened with the bowl?Would be veryyyyy interesting!
    M. Lacy: "You know, no-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor… unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime… to clear someone."

  2. #230
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    2,897

    Default Texan...

    I understand that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in a court of law but I don't believe I have ever read anywhere that evidence such as phone records cannot be used as an investigative tool.

    Surely if the BPD or DA had actually wanted to solve this murder, they would have allowed the Boulder dectives to use the phone records to follow an investigative trail to Ramsey friends and contacts who may have be contacted for help in the late hours of Dec. 25th and early hours of Dec. 26th when the Ramseys found themselves in the middle something they could surely not handle themselves.

    Surely they called their contacts for medical and legal help when things went so terribly wrong during those critical hours when they were alone in their home with this crisis on their hands. Surely the BPD detectives could have at the very least used this phone record informatiion to lead them to perspective witnesses who might very likely have broken down under questioning and given information concerning John and/or Patsy's emergency calls in the middle of the night!

    I find this descrepancy very hard to understand....Seems to me, these are two totally different criteria. Using case records for investigative purposes or using case records for prosecuting a case in court. Have I missed something? Has this ever been explained?

    I have Steve Thomas's book around here somewhere and need to look up the paragraphs where he talks about the phone records...I read his book so long ago that I don't remember what he said about the phone records.

    Still, I would like to understand what the law says about this and what is just pure "Boulder Law" concerning this evidence.

    Voyager

  3. #231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
    I understand that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in a court of law but I don't believe I have ever read anywhere that evidence such as phone records cannot be used as an investigative tool.

    Surely if the BPD or DA had actually wanted to solve this murder, they would have allowed the Boulder dectives to use the phone records to follow an investigative trail to Ramsey friends and contacts who may have be contacted for help in the late hours of Dec. 25th and early hours of Dec. 26th when the Ramseys found themselves in the middle something they could surely not handle themselves.
    Surely they called their contacts for medical and legal help when things went so terribly wrong during those critical hours when they were alone in their home with this crisis on their hands. Surely the BPD detectives could have at the very least used this phone record informatiion to lead them to perspective witnesses who might very likely have broken down under questioning and given information concerning John and/or Patsy's emergency calls in the middle of the night!

    I find this descrepancy very hard to understand....Seems to me, these are two totally different criteria. Using case records for investigative purposes or using case records for prosecuting a case in court. Have I missed something? Has this ever been explained?

    I have Steve Thomas's book around here somewhere and need to look up the paragraphs where he talks about the phone records...I read his book so long ago that I don't remember what he said about the phone records.

    Still, I would like to understand what the law says about this and what is just pure "Boulder Law" concerning this evidence.

    Voyager
    @bold
    and maybe THAT would have solved the unknown dna issue.You never know...
    M. Lacy: "You know, no-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor… unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime… to clear someone."

  4. #232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Texan View Post
    I believe in ST book it says that they confiscated the phone records from the Rapps and the records were kept in the evidence room and the LE officers could not even look at them because they were illegally obtained and would be "fruit from a poison tree" so could not be used in any way during an investigation.(anything learned from illegally gained evidence probably could not be used as a basis for a search warrant and certainly couldn't be used in court testimony) I guess a subpoena would do them no good because they already know that the records from December show no calls.
    I'm presuming the records the Rapps had might have had some calls in December because they might have collected the phone records before someone altered them.
    But it was the Rapps who got the records illegally, not LE. Usually, it's LE who gets their evidence thrown out by illegally obtaining it, not the defendant.

    I see your point, though. I'd still like to see some scrappy lawyer go for it.

    Or maybe just someone with balls look at the records and leak the info if the Ramseys TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE.

    Hey, maybe that could be the basis of going after the records: a simple subpoena should clear it up, and there is CERTAINLY probable cause, since LE has John and the officers who were there that morning stating LE used the Ramseys' cell phones. John said it under oath, too, in a depo.

    Hm. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" can be circumvented if a judge rules that the evidence would have been discovered anyhow by LE....

    But the weakness is probably that ALEX HUNTER is the one who REFUSED to get the dang subpoena in the first place! OH, I hope and pray there is a purgatory all set for him where cell phones ring non-stop....

    "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.

  5. #233
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default Sir Alec Jeffreys, calls for database to be cut

    I received this from a friend and thought I should post it.

    The scientist who discovered genetic fingerprinting today called for a drastic reduction in the DNA database on the 25th anniversary of his breakthrough.
    Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, whose discovery revolutionised criminal investigation, said Britain has gone too far in disregarding the rights and privacy of innocent people by collating a huge database of genetic information.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6828771.ece

    Moab, could you please move this to one of the appropriate DNA threads? TIA

    Last edited by Elle_1; September 10, 2009, 8:31 pm at Thu Sep 10 20:31:36 UTC 2009.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  6. #234
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Lacy's silence says a lot. It says everything to me.

    As far as the phone records, I believe anything gotten illegally can't be used, no matter who got it.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  7. #235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Learnin, if the new DA and the "new" BPD investigation were for real, they would have gotten a subpoena for the original Ramsey phone records which SHOULD still be available in their own case evidence storage rooms: a case was prosecuted by the DA against a couple running an illegal info-gathering sting on the Ramseys' personal records to sell to the tabloids way back in '97. Thomas himself wrote of watching those phone records COLLECTED AS EVIDENCE FOR THAT CASE walked right past him and being told by his boss the JBR case detectives would never see them.

    Think about that. We have two sources, LE and JOHN RAMSEY HIMSELF under oath in the Wolf deposition, saying LE used the Ramseys' cell phones that morning. Yet Hunter blocked LE from getting any subpoena for the Ramseys' phones and settled for bits and pieces signed over BY TEAM RAMSEY to the BPD A YEAR LATER. In those carefully chosen phone bills, which the Ramseys either handed over COPIES of, or signed for the BPD to collect, Thomas got to see ONE MONTH, DEC. '96, of a bill for a cell phone that Patsy later told a story so obviously full of lies about "John losing it," any FOOL can see that phone record was CRITICAL to this case. Why? BECAUSE THAT PHONE RECORD WAS BLANK. NADA. NOT ONE CALL ON IT FOR THE WHOLE OF THAT MONTH--DEC. 96. Thomas did ask the cell phone company rep, who told Thomas he wondered when they'd finally show up, if the cell phone had any calls on the record for the months before, though Thomas wasn't allowed to actually SEE those months, and the cell phone company rep said YES, numerous calls. But what about afterwards? Don't know! Patsy was asked about it in '98, June, and said JOHN LOST THE CELL PHONE, BUT SHE BOUGHT HIM A NEW ONE, BUT THEN HE SAW HER CHARGING IT, SO SHE JUST KEPT IT BECAUSE IT WAS A LITTLE ONE BLAHBLAHBLAH. Lying through her teeth, anyone could see. Did LE ever ask, Was this cell phone REPORTED as lost AT ANY TIME? Was it used AFTER THAT MONTH? Thomas couldn't even see the months before and after that Dec.! And Hunter blamed LE?! Blamed Thomas?! And the Ramseys blamed the BPD?!

    Come on! ANY FIFTH GRADER CAN TELL YOU TO GET THE PHONE RECORDS, PARTICULARLY OF A MISSING CELL PHONE! The Ramseys claim to want to catch that killer, but limiting the turning over of records of a MISSING CELL PHONE which could be related to the investigation? Delaying ANY access by LE for A YEAR? AND THE RAMSEYS AND THE DA THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD THING? Balderdash!

    Now think about this, but sit down and take a deep breath first....

    WHAT IF THIS CASE COULD HAVE BEEN SOLVED WITH THOSE PHONE RECORDS IN ONE WEEK? What if in fact the Ramseys were making calls from those phones at times they said they were asleep? What if the "intruder" found it and that was the link to the Ramseys? WHAT IF WHAT IF WHAT IF...?

    What if DA Lacy had acted without bias and done her job, picking up where Hunter obviously buried the case? Instead, she colluded with the only prime suspects ever in this case and told the media she wasn't investigating the Ramseys anymore; she joined alliances with Wood when she and he wrested the case out of the BPD's hands; and then she finally declared the Ramseys "exhonerated" after all her sickening sideshows dedicated to pushing that agenda FROM DAY ONE.

    So is the current NEW DA going there? I'd be shocked and amazed if he did. But if he did, I'd be even more shocked if we ever heard about it. What is he going to do? Let the world see how corrupt the two former DAs were? I don't think so. And what good would it do him? Is he going to be able to arrest John now? Who made the calls that morning, and to whom, if that's what they worked so hard to hide? Is there a doctor or lawyer in the house who is going to tell the truth about this now, with all the patient and client confidentiality laws they can hide behind? And what good would it do, when Patsy clearly wrote the note? She's not going to trial.

    Okay, sorry, I'm ranting again. What a disgusting disgrace of a case, of a town, and of a family.

    What was the question again?
    Thanks, koldkase for providing this info even though it takes some wind out of my sails...I was hoping that there might be a new attitude, in Boulder, but I see it's a very, very long shot.

    You know, I don't see how Thomas survived this ordeal. There has to be a peace of him missing...you can't walk into the face of evil and come out unscathed. Can you imagine the frustration of being stonewalled at every doorway?

  8. #236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    Absolutely, Learnin.

    Lacy had never said one word about the neck and wrist ligatures, those items which we know MUST have been touched by whoever did this to JonBenet.
    The silence regarding the ligature has been deafening.

    And it looks like the DA's office's investigators Horita and Maguire then acted according to the "wishes" of their boss Lacy: "Don't tell the Bode lab to look for anything which might incriminate a Ramsey."
    I'm telling you, the more think about this, the hotter I get. Horita suggesting BODE scrape the longjohns and mention nothing about the murder weapon. They knew Patsy's DNA had a reason for being on the longjohns but, if it were on the cord, then.......that's playing it safe....

  9. #237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine_ws View Post
    @bold
    Exactly.
    IDI's would probably argue that the absence of "his" DNA on the ligature is due to "him" wearing gloves.Ok."He" might have worn gloves when he handled it BUT "he" didn't wear any when he BOUGHT the cord,wasn't he?His touch dna must be there.But there's no HE is it..........
    Exactly!



Similar Threads

  1. Book Proposal for "Prostitution of Justice" by Thomas C. "Doc" Miller
    By Tricia in forum ***Sneek Preview*** - Tom Miller's Book
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 4, 2007, 9:15 pm, Sat Aug 4 21:15:02 UTC 2007
  2. John Ramsey's '98 Interview...Things That Were "Strange" or "Out Of Place"
    By AMES in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: June 19, 2007, 11:51 am, Tue Jun 19 11:51:40 UTC 2007
  3. "South Park," "SNL" & "Mad TV" Ramsey Episodes
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: September 2, 2006, 3:54 pm, Sat Sep 2 15:54:35 UTC 2006
  4. Debunking the Seven Pieces of "Evidence" That "Prove" the Intruder Theory.
    By Dunvegan in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: September 10, 2002, 7:34 pm, Tue Sep 10 19:34:10 UTC 2002

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •