Ramsey Case Returned to BPD!

PATSY IS GOOD FOR IT!!!

And always has been!
:did:

 

You are very welcome!
I wonder if a few of us can get together and email her about the "Foundation". I bet that she doesn't know a thing about it.

 

I get exactly the same, Karen. Can anyone help with this url please?

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009...t-ramsey-case/ (posted by KK)

 

Sorry, I can't get that link to work, either. Guess they pulled it or never had it up. I hadn't tried it until you all said it didn't work.

This is the only one I could find, and it's a partial, but still is a good part of the press conference:

http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-ramsey-presser020209,0,3503236.worldnowvideo

[Chero or Moab, could you change my original post with the defunct link, so people won't be trying to use it and getting all frustrated? Thanks in advance...and I feel like I'm about to be put in the guttah stockade here.... :fishslap:]

Hey, I missed some of this news conference, as I said, but in listening to this link...seems Police Chief Mark Beckner just UNCLEARED THE RAMSEYS...with DA Garnett sitting right there beside him. Well, well, well.

 

KK, I just tried the original link you posted, and it worked for me, so I don't know why some people are having problems with it.

However, I did find the same Beckner/Garnett press conference video posted on YouTube. Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8Lis3S1S8Y

 

Thank you for the link. I enjoyed watching it but I was a little disapointed it was chopped up and didn;t have everything that was said. There is nothing here about the linguistics. But thank you anyway because it's the only one I could get and it gave me hope. I agree that Beckner has still got the Ramseys under that umbrella and I think he's going to really try and prove it this time. Garnett sounds like he's going to back off and let the police do their work and not stand in the way as Hunter and Lacy did. I doubt there will be any search warrants or phone records or anything of that nature that will be denied to the police this time. It's all good!!! I just wish Steve Thomas could have hung in there long enough to be there now to work on this. But I totally understand why he couldn't. I'm sure he's keeping in touch still and will be putting in his 2 cents.

 

Karen he just mentions advances in linguistics once--I just got a little overly excited because no one has even mentioned linguistics IE the ransom note in years, so my ears really perked up. That clip is chopped up.

 

disappointed...

I sent $5.00 to the JonBenet Foundation and haven't seen anything for my buck.

ACandyRose has the reply on her site...I also wonder why no one else sent them any money? ?????

 

You're right, Bob, the posted clip on both the Daily Camera website and YouTube is an edited version of the press conference that only has partial excerpts. I noticed the editing (and editing credits) when I watched the video. I wonder why they chose the parts they did, and left out the other sections.

 

I have a theory on that Cherokee. I think they don't want to draw attention to what is really going on behind the scenes. A friend sent me a list of who will be attending this conference, and the Big Dogs are all involved. I am sure they want to have as little a media circus as they possibly can

 

You're in good company, Sparky. Neither has anyone else.

The answer to that is because they can't since the Foundation no longer exists. In fact, the Foundation hasn't filed any mandatory IRS paperwork since 2000 which shows Patsy was lying about the Foundation giving money to a Charlevoix day care in 2004. In addition, the Ramseys claimed in March of 2000 that any profits from their upcoming book would go to the Foundation. Not one thin dime of book money ever made it to the Foundation.

For more details and the truth about the Ramsey's Foundation scam, go to this FFJ thread and begin reading at post #10:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9197

 

On the clip that I watched, he (Beckner) specifically stated when asked by one of the reporters "who will be there?", that he does NOT wish to mention the names due to the "media". I tend to think he was really referring to the Jamesons and Candys who will bombard them with e-mails, calls, etc. I believe that to be the case because that particular question came immediately after he said that he and the DA receive calls and e-mails from those "interested" every single day.

I am getting way too optimistic about this newest turn of events. I know and fear I will get my heart broken once again, but at least it's a crumb after 12+ years. I may even dig out ALL my books and stuff

 

Right, Babs--Beckner is playing this close to the vest as usual. What I don't get, however, is why he kind of complained that he "had to have this press conference" because of the high profile nature of it. I was thinking well you really didn't HAVE to have this press conference. Not a big deal, but both he and the DA kept stressing that this whole matter was just routine--the type of thing that happens "all the time," so why the press conference?

So you have to ask yourself what is to be gained by going public like this...and frankly, I like the conclusion I've come to.

 

Cough it up....LOL

/

Could it be, BobC, that Beckner is putting everybody on notice?

Perhaps this is what he is thinking:
If you know anything, you had best step forward now, before this investagation gets underway. We are going to go over the evidence with a fine tooth comb, and if your name comes up, and it will, we will give you a hard time unless you have already told us the truth.

Just a thought.
gl

 

The only thing that I can think of is that Beckner believed that he MUST make this public due to Lin Wood now being involved. Perhaps BEFORE Lin and the other spin team go public with MISinformation and propoganda, they felt it best to go public with the press conference so that there would be NO mistake about what they were doing and also letting "particular" people know that this will not be only the BPD, but a task force with outside experts as well. I think they are trying to take the wind out of John Ramsey and Lin Wood's sails, as well as the parasites that support them. Also, depending on what is going on behind the scenes, they needed to do this. Let's not forget that Smit is still out there and likely fully prepared to come forward and shill for the Ramseys once again.

I for one, love this new turn of events.

Greenleaf,

I think your theory is right on the money. He may very well be putting EVERYONE on notice that the BPD will not be able to be pushed around anymore and if there is hope, it might just come in the form of Fleet White having confidence in the new developments and now, 12 years later, willing to help in the quest for justice for JonBenet

I can dream can't I?

 

Pleasssssse keep thinking out loud......I like how you think!

 

If I understand it correctly, the wording used in announcing the new-found interest in the Ramsey case is interesting in itself. Aren't they bringing in new investigators to work on this "cold case"? I'm curious as to that terminology, because, according to Lacy, the case never was a cold case. Her "investigators" had never put the JBR case on the shelves.

She lied, you say? Well, yes, there's that, too.

Mary Lacy overstepped her authority when she took the Ramsey case out of the hands of the PD, but nobody ever challenged her on it. Her office TRIES cases (mostly plea deals them away); they aren't there to investigate murder cases except to augment what the police have done in a very specific and narrow manner to benefit the prosecutor's case. The nut case Mary Lacy overstepped her authority when she allowed a nut case civilian to assist a nut case, over the hill detective and a nut case professor, not to mention the nut case arrogant lawyer, to propagate their nut case theories and try the case in the media.

I have long thought that all of them, from the housewife in NC to the nutty professor in Boulder should have been brought up on charges for interferring in an ongoing murder case. Smit should have been brought up on charges for revealing confidential evidence from the murder case and making documentaries shown on prime-time TV in order to influence a jury pool.

Is it possible that the new, hopefully unbiased, investigators will come to that same conclusion and finally something will be done about the biggest fraud ever played out on the American people? Will jameson, Smit, and Professor Bucky Bucktooth be exposed for the stupid liars they really are? If so, wouldn't it be right for investigators to go back on all of Smit's cases to see if he screwed those cases up, too?

A girl can hope...

 

I believe that this was clearly an attempt to say loud and clear that now that certain..uhhhhh..obstacles are out of the way, the heat is back on. I know that many people were mystified, way back in the Grand Jury days, that none of the lesser charges were filed--not the least of which was Obstruction of Justice. Or you know maybe Accessory After the Fact.

 

Thanks, ACR!

Need a Beckner refresher?

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-boulder-clearings.htm

64
1 A Yes.
2 Q Are considered to have probably been
3 involved in the death of their daughter?
4 A Probability, yes.
5 Q Has anyone else ever attained that status
6 of probably involved?
7 A No.

 

Another feel-goodie for me personally......Back to the Beginning HAS to start with the 911 call........every single word that's really on it!!!

ray: