The Grand Jury indictment of John and Patsy Ramsey

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by cynic, Oct 25, 2013.

  1. otg

    otg Member

    I liked this part of what he said:

    "Finally, it's important to understand the proper role of the DA in the justice system. A DA's job is to file cases where ethical standards are met and to pursue them to justice. District attorneys are not priests; our job is not to forgive, and rarely to "exonerate", and straying from this role can be very confusing to the public and can create false impressions of certainty about uncertain evidence, subject to conflicting inferences, that has never been presented and tested in open court."

    (Notice that both times he used the word exonerate in the piece, he put quotation marks around it.)
  2. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    BAM, Mary Lacy!

    Your job was not to "exonerate," and what you did created "false impressions of certainty about uncertain evidence, subject to conflicting inferences, that has never been presented and tested in open court."

    Stan Garnett - current Boulder District Attorney
  3. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    I wish this article by Stan Garnett would get as much press as Lacy's "exoneration"! But it won't, unfortunately. So the know-nothing talking heads and idiot media will keep parroting the Ramsey/Lin Wood line that they have been "cleared" by THE DA. Like there's only one DA. And "he" (as according to Nancy Grace) is a GOD and once they have spoken: it is irrefutable, no other evidence needed. We don't even need to see the "touch DNA" report Lacy used for her gift to the Ramseys. No questions allowed, and no questions asked.

    Think about if Lacy's hadn't done this, and the Grand Jury indictment came out. She KNEW the Grand Jury had indicted the Ramseys in 1999, and she KNEW what she was doing when she dragged in John Mark Karr. When that didn't work, she hunted around until she found another way to give the Ramseys cover. Lacy, as the Ramsey's good friend, was determined to save the Ramseys before she left office, so she found a way to use a dodgy report on an unproven technology to "clear" the Ramseys. To add insult to injury, she gave them a letter of apology.

    If Lacy HAD NOT committed this assault on the truth and had it not been swallowed whole by the news media, Friday's release of the Ramsey indictment would have played out a lot differently!
  4. wombat

    wombat Member

    Do these people ever go to a bar or a coffee shop to shoot the smit, and tell the truth to each other, including using actual names? Garnett is clearly slamming Mary Lacy, but refrains from using her name. And, in that CNN interview that Jim Kolar did, he very nearly said he that he thinks Burke did it, but held back (Lin Wood probably on his mind).

    I am hoping that Charlie Brennan plans to write an article that lays it all out.

    And why does Mary Lacy still have a law license?
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2013
  5. heymom

    heymom Member

    Well, as a private individual, Chief Kolar stands to lose everything if he gets sued by John Ramsey through Lin Wood. I mean, put yourself in his place, what does he have to gain by speaking out plainly, and what does he have to lose? Nothing, in the first instance, and everything, in the second. I know we *want* him to speak out, but would you, if you were him? I'm sure he's gotten legal advice on the matter.
  6. wombat

    wombat Member

    You are right, heymom, but it's soooo frustrating.

    This case needs a wikileaks-type information dump. In New Jersey this summer, there was a news story about a politician who had had an affair and then, after it ended, had the woman arrested for stalking. He kept denying the affair for years until one day a bundle of printed-out x-rated emails between them showed up in a reporter's driveway. Whoops!

    Absent that, I don't know what else can be done to get the truth out. Sigh.
  7. heymom

    heymom Member

    Yes, we all want that! I really got frustrated with Kolar's book and how he seemed to hedge at the very end, when we all expected a conclusion...But upon reflection I understood that everything was on the line, and he stood to lose it all if he was sued by the Ramseys. In fact, when you think about it, he was brave to even write and publish the book. So far, he's escaped a lawsuit, as far as I know. And, in retrospect, he came as close as he could to telling us what he believes happened, without specifying the details.

    Perhaps now that the indictments have been made public, one of the grand jurors will anonymously leak some of their proceedings? I'm not even sure I would want that...I mean, on one level yes, and on another level, no. I guess I do feel a sort of closure with just Kolar's book and the GJ indictments.
  8. Carol

    Carol Member

    Very disappointed in Ann Coulter and Alan Dershowitz, both lawyers (although Ann hasn't practiced in over a decade). They were guests on Geraldo's show last night and they both seemed to believe that the Ramseys have been exonerated. Especially surprised by Ann's reaction. Geraldo kept asking about the grand jury looking at the evidence and coming to the conclusion that the Ramseys were somehow culpable even though the DA didn't want the Ramseys indicted. Ann said that it was a good thing that the DA didn't indict because we now know that the Ramseys were/are innocent because of the DNA. Very frustrating.
  9. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks, cynic, always at the ready. :gavel:

    How did every single reporter and media outlet miss this? Not to mention TWO DAs who keep hawking Grand Jury Secrecy to conceal their own sins, not the sins of a child killer and his/her accomplices.

  10. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    So true, Cherokee.

    I wrote what I think about Garnett's lame editorial opinion in the DC comments.

    While I appreciate Garnett's smack on the hand of Lacy for that stupid letter which Team Ramsey manufactured to mislead the public, Garnett was doing his own spinning, IMO.

    I will always believe Hunter and Lacy BOTH broke the law by deliberately obstructing this investigation and pandering to the Ramseys. At the very least they stomped all over their Oath of Office, not to mention the oath they took when admitted to the Bar.

    Yet nobody in LE or the Justice System has ever challenged them but Steve Thomas and James Kolar.

    Who fell down on THAT job? Did the Colorado Bar quietly dissolve itself after it decided it was as useless as a witch's tit when it comes to holding its members to any standard of integrity, legal or moral?

    To quote myself:

    Yep, that's me stirring the pot. I know we don't live in a perfect world, and maybe there is no law Garnett can access any longer to hold any of the criminals accountable in this case.

    But that's his burden, and he knew all about it when he took the Office.

    In the face of what we already know, the release of the Grand Jury True Bill once again shoves in our faces that there is NO JUSTICE for a murdered child in Boulder because THERE WAS NO ONE WORKING FOR IT IN THE D.A. OFFICE.

    Indeed, TWO DISTRICT ATTORNEYS worked against the People to subvert justice.

    With Garnett's editorial whitewash, I can see it's just more of the same.
  11. cynic

    cynic Member

    Yeah, that was a great shout-out to the faithful, BUT, meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
    The mainstream media doesn’t read between the lines, they need to be taken by the hand and spoken to VEEERY SLOOOWLY and very plainly.
    IF Stan had some cojones, as I’ve said before, he would stop creeping around in the shadows and call a press conference with all the fanfare that Mary Lacy mustered and name names
  12. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    BBM. Did you notice when Geraldo said (my paraphrasing), "But Ann. When the indictment was handed down the Touch DNA was not in evidence. That happened more than a decade later so the DNA could not play in their decision."

    Old Ann just stammered and stared and looked like she had no comment and "let's move on." She got caught with her pants down, so to speak.

    Her and old whats-his-name were just there to sell their books. They could have cared less about JonBenet.

    These people are not interested in delivering factual news. They are interested in Old Numero Uno.
  13. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    I'll agree Gumby. The article was excellent up until the last two lines of the last paragraph when he said they would be working on other cold cases since there wasn't much, if anything, that could be done about JonBenet's case. Didn't Kolar even say that without a confession or a new piece of critical evidence the case couldn't be prosecuted?

    How can Hunter get by without having to sign off on the true bill in court stating the DA's office would not file an indictment. How can Lacy get off by "exonerating" anyone who has never gone to trial? I did like what Garrett said about (these are my words interpreting what he said) Lacy twisted the meaning of "exoneration" trying to make it sound like the Ramseys were innocent when in reality they were already exonerated because the presumption of innocence until found guilty in a court of law establishes an exoneration.

  14. BOESP

    BOESP Member

  15. Scarifier

    Scarifier McHag The Third

    Why none of this is really surprising

    Hello! It's been a while :D

    I don't think I've posted since reading Kolar's book (I don't have sufficient permissions to view my own profile, so I can't easily view all of my posts to check). I think last time you heard from me, I had received my book and was planning to re-read Steve Thomas's book afterwards.

    I did re-read Thomas's book, but life got in the way and I stopped at the end of chapter 28. That page was still marked when I picked the book up again today. By pure coincidence, chapter 29 is where he starts to talk about the Grand Jury, and there are some interesting snippets you may have forgotten (or may never have seen before, if you're just joining us due to recent events - in which case hi! and welcome! and I've been such a lurker lately I'm practically a newbie myself again).

    All quotes are from my paperback copy of Steve Thomas's book JonBenet - Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation.

    DA Alex Hunter apparently saw the GJ as something of a hoop that he needed to jump through:
    This was six months before the GJ first convened:
    ...and later in the book:

    *in his resignation letter, Mr Thomas also refers to "District Attorney Alex Hunter's continued reference to a "runaway" grand jury" - so this appears to be an expression he used on more than one occasion.

    Anyway, I hadn't read this for a while, and in light of Friday's release of documents I felt it would be relevant to share.

    I am not one bit surprised to hear that Alex Hunter kept the documents locked in his safe - they threatened the precious status quo.
  16. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Oh, good stuff, Scarifier! And thanks so much for the insights of these quotes. I had forgotten them. It's been too long since I read this book. I honestly had reached the point where I figured there was no need to read it again...before January of this year blew everything up again.

    I'm exhausted right now, but I'll go over it more carefully soon as I can. I have some real life things this week, so don't count me out.
  17. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Boulder DA Stan Garnett: Another perspective on release of Ramsey indictment

    "These documents mean that this grand jury believed there was "probable cause" (a lower threshold standard of proof than "beyond a reasonable doubt" ) based on the evidence they had heard, that the named defendants had committed the crimes listed. That they were not pursued within the statute of limitations means that the DAs with the authority to do so believed that the evidence did not rise to the necessary level to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury trial. I don't know if I would have made the same decision, but I know how difficult these decisions are."
  18. Carol

    Carol Member

    BOESP, I can understand Alan Dershowitz sticking up for the Ramseys. He's a defense attorney. Ann, who stopped practicing law ten years ago, is a law and order type of gal, so I was surprised that she seemed to be on the Ramseys' side. I believe she even said that the touch DNA found on JBR's underwear matched the blood found on her long-johns and it didn't match any of the Ramseys. Is that true?
  19. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    The blood in JonBenet's underwear belonged to JonBenet. There was a partial DNA profile found in that blood from what was suspected to be microscopic particles from mucus (salvia, a sneeze, etc.) When the two profiles were separated it is my understanding of what I read that the unknown profile was not from an immediate Ramsey family member (John, Patsy, Burke). However, the sample was degraded.

    My interpretation of what Dr. Henry Lee said, iirc, was there were unlimited possibilities in the manufacturing process about who the unknown partial panty profile could have come from.

    Although the crotch sample came from mucus and the longjohn sample came from skin cells both could still come from the same factory worker. The panties were unlaundered as far as I know and skin cells transfer like blowing dandelion fluff.

    Short version: a factory worker, while cutting fabric, or sewing or folding or inspecting, sneezed and a microscopic mucus particle landed on the panty crotch while Touch DNA was transferred at many places on the panty cloth. Whoever put the panties on JonBenet picked up some of the Touch DNA off the panties and transferred it to JonBenet's long johns. If that person had on gloves during the transfer then only the Touch DNA skin cells would have transferred.
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2013
  20. Carol

    Carol Member

    Thanks, BOESP.
  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