Ramseys cry foul on their website

Why to go Delmar! I too am anxiously awaiting the response the reporter gets from Keenan.

She'll probably give a lame...'no comment'.

 

For sure, it will be an evasion of some sort.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see Mary Keenan honest for a change?
One item that quickly comes to mind is her change of position in
regard to the Carnes’ ruling. I would like an honest answer to
the why of this change.

Shortly after the ruling was issued, Keenan jumped on the
bandwagon and heaped high, public praise on the decision calling
it “well reasoned.†She recommend that all read it in its
entirety.

Then a strange thing happened: She did a complete about face. Via
the DailyCamera, May 25, 2003, Keenan recanted her endorsement of
the Carne’s ruling saying that she was not influenced by the
decision, that the judge had made the ruling on “partial
evidence.†(Via a letter, I asked Mary if “partial evidence†is
like partially pregnant or a little bit dead. No answer. So, by
this back door route in the SYA mode, Keenan unintentionally
admits she has no evidence of an intruder.)

Of course, the Ramseys and the RST, exercising their well-
established selective memory, remembered and oft repeated
Keenan’s initial endorsement, but “forgot†about her recant.
The lie of being cleared by Keenan was told by John Ramsey even
after a quote to the contrary from Keenan appeared in a Michigan
newspaper during the campaign.

In any event, some readers got a look at some truth about the
case in contrast with the usual RST propaganda found in the
media. I am most grateful for this as I know all of you are.

 

I think this post should be posted in the Ramsey truth thread, Delmar!


Liked your question: (Via a letter, I asked Mary if “partial evidence†is
like partially pregnant or a little bit dead. No answer

 

I have word (today) "there will a response from the DA's office in next week's
letters page"

Everyone be on the lookout. You don't want to miss this!

 

I shudder at the thought of what she'll have to say (? ). At least you have forced her hand, Delmar. I thank you for that!

 

It's interesting that Keenan was gone for the week but the paper said to look for her reponse next week. What makes them think she will respond? Did they get that promise expressly from her? I thought she was gone. Are others in her office allowed to make promises for her?

I'm a little confused on this one.

 

The word came (email) from Robert Downes, Editor of the Northern Express. What I presented was a direct quote. That's all I can tell you.

 

I'm not doubting you, EW, I'm just wondering if Downes did speak to Keenan or not, and, if not, why is he making promises he may not be able to keep? If he got this from the horse's mouth (Keenan), that means he spoke with her, and if he spoke with her, why didn't she just give him a quote, then?

See why I'm doubting this guy? Maybe he meant he would contact Keenan next week, but that doesn't mean she'll give him anything. I think it's rather cheeky to tell you to look for a response from Keenan next week if he hasn't spoken with Keenan and does in fact know she will respond next week.

 

Well I wouldn't hold my breath awaiting Keenan's reply....she might be tied up with her kid's drunk driving arrests...which makes me think of like mother , like son or daughter.

 

Mr. Downes' exact words are: " "there will a response from the DA's office in next week's letters page"

Note he said "response from the DA's office", which means not necessarily from Keenan herself.

We shall see - as if we didn't already know there will be nothing but more evasion.

 

Voters are watching you Keenan...