Denver Post, July 11, 2008 - "Anger won't clear Ramseys"

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Little, Jul 11, 2008.

  1. Little

    Little Member

    Anger won't clear Ramseys

    by David Harsanyi on July 11, 2008

    http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2008/07/11/anger-wont-clear-ramseys/

    I’ve received a ton of responses to Thursday’s column which focused on the despicable behavior of Boulder DA Mary Lacy and her dubious “clearing” and apology to the Ramseys. Around 75 percent of the emails and calls I received were supportive.

    In a world crawling with batty conspiracy theorists, I ran across a particularly mind-numbing post by a fringy blowhard named “Dr. Sammy“. It’s a nearly unreadable tirade full of ad hominem attacks and baseless assertions.

    I don’t know Tracey personally, though I may have met him at some point, and he may be the finest professor in Colorado. What I do know, however, is that his actions during the Karr fiasco disqualify him from being the go-to guy on the topic.

    To be frank, the rehashing of the JonBenet case is, for the most part, a worthless endeavor. (One commenter on the DPO claims that I have, like radio talk show host Peter Boyles, been “harping” on this topic for years. I’m not sure what Peter has done; I wasn’t here. But in approximately 400+ columns I’ve written for the Post since 2004, I’ve editorialized on the case twice. Once when Karr was brought in and once on Thursday.)

    The focus here is Mary Lacy’s irresponsible, unprofessional and hypocritical behavior. For anyone who still doubts Lacy’s breathtaking incompetence, peruse these quotes from a piece by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, who was an investigative reporter on the case. (Yes, I realize Shapiro has his own bias, but the Lacy quotes speak for themselves.)

    'In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: “The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s. But it could be something else.'

    And …

    'In fact, during the Karr debacle, Lacy also said that “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.'

    What has changed for Lacy? If she didn’t know then that the DNA was the killer’s, how does she know it now? If DNA was there, finding a trace amount in another spot doesn’t change any facts. Nor does it “clear” the Ramseys.

    The only reason I mention “Dr. Sammy” is that he, like others who are emotionally invested in seeing the Ramseys cleared, have held up the work of Professor Michael Tracey as the exemplar of fairness and professionalism in the Ramsey case. Yes, the same Michael Tracey brought us the mentally unstable John Mark Karr as the fall guy on his never-ending crusade to exonerate the Ramseys. For more on Tracey, read Alan Prendergast and Michael Roberts in Westword.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 11, 2008
  2. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thank you for posting this Little. I have just read Jeff Shapiro's excellent article.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379981,00.html


    FOXNEWS.COM HOME > OPINION
    <FORM id=emailFriend action=/cgi-bin/email.cgi method=post _extended="true">Scott Shapiro: DA Wrong to Clear Ramseys</FORM>Friday, July 11, 2008
    By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
    [​IMG]


    Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy on Wednesday publicly cleared the entire Ramsey family of any involvement in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, a fatal error that only complements the repeated misjudgments she has made in the case since she was elected.

    Her decision was based on the fact that minuscule particles of foreign DNA that were found in JonBenet’s underpants apparently match skin cells discovered on the waistband of JonBenet’s leggings. Although this DNA may match, Lacy’s own words prove this particular DNA may not even be relevant.

    In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: "The DNA could be an artifact. It isn't necessarily the killer’s. There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s. But it could be something else."

    Forensic expert Henry Lee most likely would agree that the foreign DNA in question most likely is "artifact," because he always has said he believes it actually is the result of contamination and that it is completely unrelated to the crime.

    In fact, early on in the case a panel of pediatric experts determined that JonBenet was a victim of long-term sexual abuse, which would mean her killer probably is someone she knew.
    <!-- QUIGO --><!-- QUIGO --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript _extended="true"> /*<![CDATA[*/ var adsonar_placementId="1307847",adsonar_pid="144757",adsonar_ps="-1",adsonar_zw=190;adsonar_zh=200,adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com"; qas_writeAd(); /*]]>*/ </SCRIPT>
    Steve Thomas, the Boulder Police Department’s lead detective who logged more hours on the case than any other officer, publicly endorsed the theory. Thomas believed that Patsy Ramsey, the little girl’s mother, was the real killer.

    Although the Boulder Police Department never officially commented on Thomas’ theory, it is common knowledge in the Boulder law enforcement community that Thomas was echoing the conclusion of the actual investigation.

    At no time did the Boulder Police Department believe JonBenet was killed by an intruder; nonetheless, Lacy persistently has done everything in her power to manipulate public opinion in favor of the intruder theory. Although that theory should continue to be explored until the case is solved, Lacy’s motivation for promoting it with so much passion is suspicious.

    It’s no secret that in 1997, when Lacy was a sex-assault prosecutor under then-DA Alex Hunter, she was furious when he did not appoint her to work on the case. Because Hunter and the police shied away from the intruder theory, many law enforcement officials often wonder if Lacy’s attempts to prove them wrong are driven more by her personal feelings than by the actual pursuit of justice.

    Shortly after taking office, Lacy announced in 2003 that she believed the Ramseys were innocent, an unusual and inappropriate statement for a prosecutor to make during an ongoing investigation.

    In fact, during the Karr debacle, Lacy also said that "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."

    There is no question the Ramsey case has been unusually long, and the Ramsey family has suffered terrible heartbreak and undeserving cruel attacks from the media. Although the family deserves compassion, JonBenet deserves justice and Lacy’s motivation is misguided.

    Almost nothing Lacy has done has been based on the solid, investigative work compiled by the Boulder Police Department or the opinions expressed by the FBI. Lacy, who had no official contact with the Ramsey case under the leadership of Hunter, has disregarded the opinions of every law enforcement agency and forensic expert who worked on the case.
    Her arrogance and incompetence is beyond compare.

    Despite her repeated attempts to convince the public that her belief is grounded in the highly respected science of DNA, it appears that her rationale is flawed. If Lacy were serious about solving the Ramsey case, she would re-invite the original police investigators and FBI agents, who know the case inside and out, to come back and advise her.

    She’ll never do that, however, because for Mary Lacy none of this really is about JonBenet — it’s about her legacy and her ego.
    Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is an investigative reporter who worked on the JonBenet Ramsey case for more than 10 years. He practices law in Washington, D.C., and can be reached at jshapiro@ufl.edu.
     
  3. Elle

    Elle Member

    I think Jeff Shapiro's article is one of the best. I like how he finishes it off with:

     
  4. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks for posting the article, Little. I really like this statement by Mr. Harsanyi, "What has changed for Lacy? If she didn’t know then that the DNA was the killer’s, how does she know it now? If DNA was there, finding a trace amount in another spot doesn’t change any facts. Nor does it “clear” the Ramseys."

    How true. If the DNA could be an artifact, as Mary Lacy said in August of 2006, then it cannot be dated to the crime scene. Therefore, it is worthless as exculpatory or damning evidence.

    Below is the first comment on the article by a Mr. Will Walker, and then my rebuttal comment below it.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    David, I fail to understand how a man with critical reasoning can possibly fail to understand that the Ramsey family has been EXCLUDED FROM ANY CULPABILITY in their daughter’s death and sexual assault. You are off on long tirades on this matter, mindlessly asserting your OPINION that the Ramseys have not been “cleared.” Please explain how they remain guilty in your estimation after law enforcement has said they are innocent. You continue to torture this family with your mindless twaddle. What’s up with that?

    You are certainly making many people very angry. Why do you persist in this? Are you crazy?

    Comment by Will Walker — July 11, 2008 @ 1:23 pm


    ____________


    Will Walker, I fail to understand how a man with critical reasoning can possibly fail to understand that the Ramsey family has NOT been excluded from any culpability in their daughter’s death and sexual assault.

    You obviously don’t know the facts or evidence in the case. Just because Crazy Mary Lacy says something is so, doesn’t make it so. Lacy has had one goal in mind ever since she got to be DA, and that is to exhonerate her friends. She has tried to invent an intruder (John Mark Karr), and now she’s playing fast and loose with experimental DNA technology, grasping at straws to clear the name of her beloved Ramseys. Lacy is choosing to ignore the mountain of evidence against the Ramseys in favor of a partial DNA spec (do you know how degraded DNA has to be in order to be partial?) that cannot be dated to the crime scene.

    There is DNA contaminant on all of us from everywhere. The Ramseys got lucky that some of this DNA was found on the straight-from-the-package, unwashed underwear that was put on JonBenet. Furthermore, you cannot match DNA that is partial. Only nine markers out of 13 are present in the underwear DNA. Even if the so-called “touch DNA” is viable, and there are concerns that it is merely a false-positive reading, you can’t just match a few markers. What about the four that are missing? What if they are different? What was the chain of custody of the evidence? Who handled the clothes?

    Lacy has the most flimsy pretext for clearing the Ramseys, yet she has done it without a shred of shame because it is her obsession. Lacy is playing judge and jury. She said herself that a DA could not clear someone until there was a conviction at trial, and yet she has done that very thing.

    The ransom note is a direct lead to JonBenet’s killer, and yet you never hear the Ramseys or Mary Lacy talk about that. Why? Because as soon as the ransom note was linked to Patsy, the Ramseys immediately quit mentioning it, and started harping on the partial and degraded DNA found in JonBenet’s underwear that could have been contamination. They got lucky that it was there. Even that is not exculpatory evidence for the Ramseys. The FBI says “touch DNA” should not be used as exculpatory evidence, and yet, Mary Lacy (in her role as God) has done it anyway, and given the Ramseys absolution.

    This isn’t about JonBenet. It’s about politics, and the on-going campaign to clear the Ramseys by their well-connected and powerful friends (read Hal Haddon and company) who basically OWN the political system in Colorado. Read here at forumsforjustice.org if you want to know the REAL story about the Ramsey case.

    And for what it’s worth, I don’t believe the Ramseys killed JonBenet on purpose. I think there was a “horrific domestic accident,” to put it in the words of Dr. Henry Lee (the DNA expert), and that there was a cover-up for reasons known to the Ramseys. Perhaps, they feared there would be abuse or negligence charges. There is also the possibility of family molestation that was discovered. Whatever the reason, the ransom note was written by Patsy to explain JonBenet’s dead body in the basement. The FBI and all law enforcement agrees that the crime scene was staged and the ransom note was a fake.

    Intruders don’t stage crime scenes and write fake ransom notes. Kidnappers don’t sexually assault their victims on the premises, and rapers don’t write ransom notes. The Ramseys threw everything they could at the wall, hoping something would stick. It bought them enough time to get out of the house, lawyer up, then refuse to answer questions. They NEVER went to the police station ONCE to help investigators or answer questions. They stated on TV only a week after JonBenet’s death that they weren’t angry with whomever killed JonBenet. Think about that. I’m still angry about it, and I’m not her parents.

    So quit bashing Mr. Harsanyi for writing the truth. He knows what he’s talking about. You don’t.

    Comment by cherokee826 — July 11, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
     
  5. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    AMEN Elle!
     
  6. Little

    Little Member

    Amen from me too Elle.

    Cherokee, no one can say it better than you can. Great reply.

    Little
     
  7. Elle

    Elle Member

    Excellent reply Cherokee! :toast:
     
  8. heymom

    heymom Member

    Oh, man, Cherokee, you handed him his a$$ on a platter! Love it! That response should be posted in every comment section on the internet.
     
  9. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    Bravo Cherokee!
     
  10. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    My response to David's article. I wrote a really lengthy response yesterday too, but for some reason, possibly due to the registration process, it never printed, I didn't save the response and was too aggravated to re-write it so I answered today



     
  11. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Excellent Barbara...kudos to you for writing this!
     
  12. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks Moab

    And then.....I couldn't resist adding this piece in a second comment but only because sadly, it's true!


     
  13. Elle

    Elle Member

    Way to go Barbara! :) Good for you!
     
  14. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks, Barbara, for joining me in supporting reporters and media (like David Harsanyi) who have the courage to tell the truth in the face of the Ramsey spin juggernaut. I also want to thank to those here at FFJ who have expressed their support for my response to ignorance and idiocy.

    Mr. Harsanyi is receiving hate mail for daring to question Lacy's "clearing" of the Ramseys. A hallmark of Ramsey supporters is that their response is based on emotions, not evidence or logic. The poor Ramseys COULDN'T be involved, they just KNOW it. Of course, emotion is all they have to go on because there is no exculpatory evidence that supports the Ramseys EXCEPT emotion.

    I think it's important for us to let Mr. Harsanyi, and others like him, know there are people who are committed to the truth in the Ramsey case; people who see through Lacy's latest idiotic decree from On High that is based neither on solid evidence, nor is procedurally sound.

    It is so frustrating to know what we know about this case, and then watch the rest of the world blindly nod their little bobble-heads at Lacy's proclamation. We have to fight the Ramsey propaganda machine, as best we can, with the truth.
     
  15. 1000 Sparks

    1000 Sparks Active Member

    If only I could write...

    but can't...wish I could join you with a letter...excellent, just excellent.

    Who is Lacey using to back up her claim? and who wrote that letter to John Ramsey...she isn't good at that sort of thing and the letter was well written?????
     
  16. Voyager

    Voyager Active Member

    I wrote a long and supportive response to Mr. Harsanyi's article, then when I tried to post it, I was made to "register" before they accepted my post, meanwhile somehow my post disappeared...Don't have the gumption to rewrite it, but certainly do support every word he expresses...Anyway you could send him this thread?

    Voyager
     
  17. sboyd

    sboyd Member

    Absolutely, positively, categorically, 1000% TRUE.
     
  18. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Cherokee, Barbara and All,

    Great Job. Your critical thinking skills blow this crapola out of the water.

    Barbara wrote:

    YES. This has just given the people who still believe women shouldn't hold high power political jobs a gift.

    Damn Her. DAMN HER.
     
  19. heymom

    heymom Member

    I don't know - Boulder is just a different place. I think we sort of are beyond gender these days, and that is especially true in Colorado. I don't think people see Mary Lacy as a model of what women are, just a model of what incredible stupidity and lack of judgment are.
     
  20. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    The women in Boulder can only hope this is true!
     
  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