CAMPOS: A reckless exoneration
By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published July 16, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
I don't know if any member of the Ramsey family was involved in the killing of JonBenet Ramsey, which puts me in exactly the same position as almost everyone else in the world - a category which most emphatically includes Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy.
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. That at least is one explanation for the letter Lacy sent John Ramsey last week, absolving the Ramsey family of any involvement in the killing of his daughter, and apologizing for contributing "to the public perception that (anyone in the family) might have been involved."
The letter in effect declared the Ramseys innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the circumstances, this is, to put it mildly, a bizarre conclusion.
Those circumstances include a great deal of evidence suggesting some sort of familial involvement in the crime. To believe otherwise requires accepting some version of the following theory:
Sometime between 10 p.m. Christmas night 1996 and the early hours of the next morning, an intruder slipped into the Ramseys' home, and, while the rest of the family slept, took JonBenet from her bedroom, sexually assaulted, bludgeoned and strangled her, hid the body in a wine cellar in the basement, and then took the time to write both a draft and a final version of a three-page letter, demanding $118,000, which happened to be the exact sum of the bonus John Ramsey had received from his company earlier that year.
The killer then went back upstairs and placed the letter on a staircase, before slipping out into the night.
Apparently the only evidence supporting this extraordinary theory is some unidentified male DNA on the dead child's clothes, which doesn't match any of the family members.
Yet for reasons known only to herself (she has refused all requests for interviews) Lacy has concluded that, in her words, there "is no innocent explanation" for the presence of this DNA on the child's clothing, and that therefore the DNA belongs to the child's murderer.
It's difficult to describe the astounding leaps of logic required to come to that conclusion. On the other hand, simple deduction leads to a genuinely unavoidable conclusion: If the killer wrote the letter, the killer is someone who knew the precise amount of John Ramsey's bonus.
In other words, of the approximately 5,700,000,000 human beings alive on Earth on Christmas night 1996, Mary Lacy has constructed a theory that limits the possible suspects in JonBenet Ramsey's killing to those who knew the precise amount of John Ramsey's bonus, and that furthermore assumes the killer's DNA has already been identified.
Given those assumptions it's difficult to understand why an arrest hasn't been made. (None of this even touches on the fact that even if one assumes the killer wasn't a family member, nothing about the available evidence excludes the possibility of familial involvement in the crime.)
Lacy should be required to answer a straightforward question. Why did she write this letter, given that it isn't part of her job description to be handing out public exonerations and apologies in open murder cases to people who any disinterested observer would conclude remain under reasonable suspicion?
Lacy leaves office in less than six months. Her reckless exoneration of the Ramseys has tied the hands of her successor, and made it even more unlikely that anyone will ever be brought to justice in this case.
To the many questions that have plagued the Ramsey case we can now add another: Is Mary Lacy merely incompetent, or is something more disturbing going on?
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at paul.campos@colorado.edu.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
July 16, 2008
4:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
plotz writes:
With all due respect to Mr Campos and his position as professor of Law.
As I understand law, when a grand jury is assembled...only the DA and law enforcement are there to present evidence. Much of the evidence is not known to both the public and press. If after seeing and hearing everything this presented...a grand jury can recommend an indictment if there is evidence enough to bring charges,arrest,trial,etc. In October, 1999, Alex Hunter and law enforcment presented their case. The grand jury looked at the case and determined there was nothing to the case against the Ramsey's. That, in my opinion, should have settle that part of the mystery. The new DNA confirmed what was known then...the Ramsey's had nothing to do with this. To inquire further is being an armchair detective with nothing else better to do.
July 16, 2008
6:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
ItsJustme writes:
By that logic, protz, no one committed the murder since the grand jury found no evidence to support an indictment. That of course is absurd. It is not the DA's job to exhonorate anyone, especially when it's not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt who the responsible person is. PC is simply saying if there is a more logical reason to eliminate a suspect then she should express it. Until then she should not give suspect additional ammunition with which to fight if it's eventually found that they are the primary suspect. As for the "new" DNA evidence, it is a match to that found on the child's underpants, which were in contact with the leggings. Isn't it at least possible that there was some cross contamination? If so, how would that exhonorate anyone? Lacy should tell us exactly why it eliminates the Ramseys or she should have kept her mouth shut.
July 16, 2008
6:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
I disagree with Professor Campos about 80% of the time, but he's right on with this column. How do these people get elected?? Boulder deserves all the late-night jokes about it. Forget it, Jake; it's Chinatown. Mike
July 16, 2008
6:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
plotz writes:
ItsJustme...nonsense. As I mentioned before...the grand jury in 1999 examined all evidence connected to the murder and found there was no evidence to support a case against the Ramsey's. Where you get the silly notion in your first sentence astounds me. When the grand jury gave their statement...the DA etal should have focused their efforts on other avenues to solve the case. This endless and pointless speculation about the Ramsey's invovlment in the murder is nothing more than mental mastrubation.
Insofar as the DA and her recent letter. In my opinion, this was done only to officially drop any idea that the Ramsey's were invovled in the murder. Again, the new DNA evidence confrimed the findings of grand jury in 1999. Lacy did the right thing.
July 16, 2008
7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"the grand jury in 1999 examined all evidence connected to the murder and found there was no evidence to support a case against the Ramsey's"
Wrong on so many levels that it's hard to imagine rational thought went into its production.
First, a simple use of logic reveals that a jury's findings have ZERO to do with what the truth is on a case. A jury exonerated OJ. A jury convicted Tim Masters. Guess what. Both got it dead wrong. So much for your belief that the jury's opinion has ANYTHING to do with what the truth and reality are in a case.
Second, the grand did NOT rule that there was "no evidence" to support a case against the Ramseys. You invented that in your own mind. Grand juries are designed to determine if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. That does NOT mean that when an indictment is returned by a grand jury, that there is A LOT OF evidence, or when an indictment is not returned that there is "no evidence" as you claim. Grand juries merely determine the likelihood of there being sufficient evidence to justify the person being indicted. As many have shown on the Ramsey case, there is far more evidence in this case than the majority of murder cases tried each year. The difference is that SOME of the evidence points to Ramsey involvement, and SOME of the evidence does not. That does NOT mean that there is "no evidence" as you claim.
Third, I challenge you to find any other cases where a DA has produced such a letter to an active suspect, in a case where there has NOT been a credible alternative suspect convicted, charged, or even so much as identified. Name one. Just one, anywhere in the United States since the founding of the country. That is why there are NO reputable people that have served as DAs or law enforcement saying that what Lacey did was correct. She is being universally condemned for this strange, and unprecendented, act of covering her own failures.
July 16, 2008
7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Campos wants the Ramseys convicted of their child's death so badly, he can taste it. Why? Because they forced their daughter into the twisted world of beauty pageants, they are wealthy and above all, they are white. In short, because they exemplify so many things that liberals, like Campos, love to hate. Campos has a visceral hatred of the Ramseys that twists his guts into knots as he sits in his office and stews over the Ramseys' escape from justice. Unfortunately, the Rocky Mountain News gives Campos an outlet to inflict all of us with his twisted contributions to keeping the circus over the murder of JonBenet Ramsey alive.
It's been 12 years. Patricia Ramsey is dead. We'll never know exactly what happened that Christmas in Boulder. Can't we just drop it?
July 16, 2008
8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
plotz writes:
rickg19611...in re your post. Thank you for clearing up an apparent misunderstanding of law, grand juries and the like.
However your quote "Wrong on so many levels that it's hard to imagine rational thought went into its production." is meansprited and nasty. If you will note in my first post...I stated "as I understand law". Instead of just pointing out the fallacy of my argument...you resort to attack and that is just bush league.
July 16, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
plotz.... "that is just bush league".
You can call it what you wish, but making excuses for Lacey for her repeated mistakes is far worse than "bush league". A number of words come to mind for defending Lacey's actions.... actions that are similar to the Duke case when Lacey publicly said that CU students were guilty of felony crimes, despite her complete lack of justification to do so.... her infamous John Mark Karr fiasco, that any rookie law school student could have handled better... her repeated actions in the Ramsey case that make her appear to be a more ardent defender of the Ramsey's than their own defense attorneys.
The words that best describe defending her track record of failure and incompetence..... stupid, ignorant, foolish, deranged.... take your pick as any of them are applicable.
I don't believe I've ever agreed with Campos on any subject, but when he gets one right, he deserves the credit for doing so. And in this story, he's 110% correct.
July 16, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
rickg - You are right on with your assessment of this case. It's incredible to believe that a grand jury would find for someone's innocenence. Where did anyone ever get that idea?
July 16, 2008
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
woodwose- Amazing how well you know Campos's mind.
July 16, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Usually Campos has some good points but this isn't one of them.
The Ramsey family did not murder their daughter. No pattern of abuse existed prior to the murder. The girl was healthy and, by all accounts, happy and well-adjusted. While some people see putting Jon Benet into those beauty contests as strange, I find that it indicates a high level of pride in her poise and beauty.
For the family to murder that girl would have to be the most convoluted unlikely acting and set-up job in the history of crime against children.
Now, I will grant you something: I reckon that Patsy Ramsey probably wrote the ransom note. She probably did that because she was in a state of abject panic over her missing girl and wanted the police to treat the matter as if it was a national emergency. Although that would be a very stupid thing to do, I've seen many people do stupid things when they panic. But she did not murder her girl and neither did any one else in the family, even if she wrote that ransom note.
If this crime had been part of a set-up that I've described above, the Ramseys had the resources to dispose of the body so that it could never be found. They would have made the crime scene fit the ransom note. They did not do that, so logic says that they did not commit the crime. Now DNA evidence agrees with this logic.
The Boulder police made mistakes in the course of this investigation. Some of those police cast undue suspicion on the family to cover up their own deficiencies. So, an apology from the DA is appropriate. Too bad more of them don't do that. The ones who falsely convicted Tim Masters come to mind.
With luck and perseverance, that DNA evidence may eventually lead to the discovery of the murderer.
July 16, 2008
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Holier...
"The Ramsey family did not murder their daughter." Perhaps. But there is a substantial amount of evidence that would indicate they were involved.
"No pattern of abuse existed prior to the murder." Which is meaningless since that a pattern of abuse is not required for a murder to occur.
"The girl was healthy and, by all accounts, happy and well-adjusted." Just like thousands of other murder victims.
"For the family to murder that girl would have to be the most convoluted unlikely acting and set-up job in the history of crime against children." Far stranger crimes have been committed.
"Now, I will grant you something: I reckon that Patsy Ramsey probably wrote the ransom note. She probably did that because she was in a state of abject panic over her missing girl and wanted the police to treat the matter as if it was a national emergency. "
Now that is the most bizarre theory yet. Think about what you are saying. You wake up, find your child missing... and RATHER than call police, you write a fake ransom note, decide that it isn't good enough, so you write another version. And THEN call the police.
Also, if there wasn't a ranson note, then how would they know she was "kidnapped" and would need a fake ransom note written?
"But she did not murder her girl and neither did any one else in the family, even if she wrote that ransom note." Sounds like the Mary Lacey method of investigation.... ignore the evidence and just pronounce your opinion as fact.
"If this crime had been part of a set-up that I've described above, the Ramseys had the resources to dispose of the body so that it could never be found."
Nonsense. How would the Ramsey's have explained their missing daughter to family, friends, neighbors? They knew they couldn't just get rid of her and pretend like she never existed. So they staged the scene.... a common act in murders involving family members where it is obvious that the perpetrator wants to point the investigators onto a different path... i.e. an intruder.
"The Boulder police made mistakes in the course of this investigation. " Welcome to a world with humans. Every investigation will contain some actions that are considered mistakes, dead-ends, wasted time pursuing leads that went nowhere, etc. If every investigation has to be 100% flawless, then no one would every go to prison, and no murders would ever be solved, even in cases where the perp confesses.
"With luck and perseverance, that DNA evidence may eventually lead to the discovery of the murderer."
Perhaps.... but not likely. The problem you face is that the DNA may or MAY NOT be the DNA of the person who killed her. Also, even if a third party was involved, it does NOT indicate whether the Ramsey's were involved or not.
July 16, 2008
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
The DA's office and Boulder police have so messed up this case, that if sufficient evidence is ever found to justify a prosecution, the defendant will never go to jail. No matter who the defendant is. Lacey's latest action really takes the cake. Unless the murderer makes a full detailed confession, brings conclusive physical evidence with him or her, the confession is recorded by multiple machines from authorities other than the Boulder DA's office. and the person voluntarily walks into a Buena Vista prison cell with the intention of staying there for the rest of his or her life. Short of that, there will be no definitive outcome. Thank God Boulder DA Lacey leaves soon.
Meanwhile, a murder took place in Boulder roughly at the same time. I believe the murderer is also still loose. This murder has received almost no attention in the press, exccept for one commentary in Westword. The difference? The child-victim was black, from a much poorer section of Boulder county, her family did not have political connections or wealth, she did not participate in beauty pageants, and she was not ready-for-prime-time photogenic.
I hope both Jon-Benet Ramsey and the other girl rest in peace. It's for certain that the only justice that will be found for either victim rests in God's hands.
July 16, 2008
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
Holier than thou:
>The girl was healthy and, by all accounts, happy and well-adjusted.
Not quite. By the accounts I've read, she was neurotic and a chronic bed-wetter.
>While some people see putting Jon Benet into those beauty contests as strange, I find that it indicates a high level of pride in her poise and beauty.
Presenting your child as a sexual object indicates "pride"????
July 16, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
Pajama: It's quite clear that you have a cultural/ideological predisposition to admire the Ramseys in spite of all the facts. John Ramsey is a shallow, materialistic man and Patsy was a superficial, disturbed woman. All the invective you hurl at Campos belongs to you.
July 16, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
>Presenting your child as a sexual object indicates "pride"????
Sorry, my view of a childs' beauty pageant did not take into account that child molesters view children as sexual objects as opposed to simply being beautiful talented girls. I reckon that the mothers' views of their children in these pageants is that they are beautiful, talented, and confident.
As for my hypothesis that Patsy may have written the ransom note without murdering her daughter, I said it was probable but not certain. It was something that a parent might do in a panic. It was also something that a diabolical stalker and murderer might also do, especially if that murderer was privy to the family finances.
A skilled stalker takes a variety of precautions to prevent detection. They also prepare for their heinous crimes by gathering information about their victims' finances and daily habits. This crime was committed by that kind of criminal.
If the Ramseys had harm on the way for their daughter then the likelihood that they would pick Christmas as the time for a dirty deed is vanishingly remote. But for a stalker, it's the most wonderful time of the year. People are having parties in their offices and homes. New faces are passing in and out of these places. A stalker could hide in the crowd and then hide in the closet. It's one disadvantage of living in such a large house.
You can believe what you want to believe. If nonsense is your thing then that's your problem. From all the limited information that I have about this case, I reckon that the Ramseys are innocent. They did not murder their daughter.
July 16, 2008
2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
LazyR writes:
In Mary Lacy's Boulder it appears that only CU football players are guilty of crimes. Everyone else seems to get a free pass from her.
July 16, 2008
3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
Holier:
Sorry, my view of a childs' beauty pageant did not take into account that child molesters view children as sexual objects as opposed to simply being beautiful talented girls. I reckon that the mothers' views of their children in these pageants is that they are beautiful, talented, and confident.
You really live on your own planet, don't you?
July 16, 2008
3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Holier....
I thought like you did until I actually looked at the available evidence. There are just too many facts and pieces of evidence that one needs to ignore to conclude the Ramsey's are not involved.
"As for my hypothesis that Patsy may have written the ransom note without murdering her daughter, I said it was probable but not certain. It was something that a parent might do in a panic. "
Can you name one case in history where a parent has found their child missing and instead of calling police, decided to write a series of fake ranson notes, correcting and revising them repeatedly, to throw police off the trail of the criminal that took their child?
Also, it would be bizarre behavior for one parent to ever do such a strange thing, but beyond belief to think that TWO people would agree to do such a deranged act.
Also, even if you drop the odd "two people decided to write fake ransom notes to cover up for the criminal that killed their daughter" theory, why would an intruder decide to take more than hour to write fake ransom notes after killing a child and then leave the child in the house to be discovered? What would the purpose of the ransom notes be if you just killed someone? ILLOGICAL to believe that anyone other than Patsy wrote the note.
"A skilled stalker takes a variety of precautions to prevent detection. "
An intruder who takes more than hour to write several ransom notes after killing a child would INCREASE their risk of detection while in the house for an extra hour or more!!
However, a family member that was involved in the death would DECREASE the risk of detection by writing the fake notes in hopes of throwing police off their trail and creating doubt about their involvement. Family members would have a motive for the ransom note. An intruder has the exact opposite motivation.
"If the Ramseys had harm on the way for their daughter then the likelihood that they would pick Christmas as the time for a dirty deed is vanishingly remote. "
Again, logic refutes that idea. When are all family members most likely to be at home? Holidays. So if you are an intruder, would you pick a night when the maximum number of people are likely to be in the home? Or a different time when the minimum number are likely to be there.... like when John is gone to work or on a trip, etc. Christmas time actually points AWAY from it being an intruder.
"But for a stalker, it's the most wonderful time of the year. People are having parties in their offices and homes. New faces are passing in and out of these places. A stalker could hide in the crowd and then hide in the closet. "
Big problem. There wasn't a party there on Christmas night, so there wasn't a party for the "intruder" to use as cover. Also, the idea that a mysterious stranger can blend in your Christmas party and no one notice is bizarre.
July 16, 2008
6:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
jjez writes:
I think Patsy did it in a fit of rage. And John helped her cover it up. I've thought that from the beginning. What parent WOULDN'T call 911 in a panic? I know I would have if my daughter was missing! Or if they didn't actually DO the deed, they know who did and are covering up for that person. And I also think it's sick to dress up a little girl as if she was an adult. It makes me ill to think that people won't let children be children for as long as possible. This world forces kids to grow up too fast as it is. And to make your child wear makeup, dance in a way inappropriate for their age, and prance around on a stage is just beyond me! And we wonder why girls 11 and 12 years old get pregnant!
July 16, 2008
6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
mcaulif4 writes:
I completely agree with Mr. Campos. There is more staging in this one crime than the entire Miss America pageant. Cops can prove the duct tape was only put over JonBenet's mouth after she died, the phony 3 page ransom note, and practice note is staging. The ligatures tied so loosely around her wrists that she could have slipped out of them are staging. This killer is spending an awful lot of time in a house with three people asleep, that could wake up any minute. She hasn't sourced this DNA, so how can she conclusively prove it belongs to "the real killer?" JonBenet was a child with wealthy parents, who went to a lot of places, ate out, went many places, etc. There's many ways not every single person was tested for DNA in this case.
July 16, 2008
6:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
mcaulif4 writes:
No pedophile intruder killer ever tried to collect on the phony ransom note either. He said he would call "tomorrow" at 10:00 a.m., and he never did.
July 16, 2008
7:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
BrotherMoon writes:
The mindset that produced Lacy's bizzare, unrealistic exoneration of the Ramseys is the same mindset of Alex Hunter who most probably never allowed the Grand Jury to come to a vote. That mindset has little to do with money and more to do with the wordhip of image that so infects the community of Boulder. Shame on the Strange Boulder Theosophical Culture.
July 17, 2008
10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cherokee826 writes:
PLOTZ stated, "the grand jury in 1999 examined all evidence connected to the murder and found there was no evidence to support a case against the Ramsey's."
WRONG. That is a Ramsey Spin Team lie. DA Alex Hunter had the final decision whether to indict or not based upon the Grand Jury findings. It doesn't matter WHAT the Grand Jury recommended, Hunter had the last word as to whether he wanted to move forward with prosecution.
Hunter had MANY reasons not to move forward, and none of them were based on Ramsey innocence.
1. Hunter was friends with Hal Haddon (the Ramsey attorneys), and he had continually fed the defense attorneys confidential case information. Not only that, he bent the rules for the Ramseys, allowing them to set the terms for any later questioning (over four months and then a year and a half later), the turning over of clothing associated with night of the crime (over a year later), and basically let the Ramseys and their lawyers control the investigation.
Hunter didn't even subpoena the Ramsey's all-important phone records until a year later, and then, conveniently, the month of December had been "mysteriously" erased!
2. Hunter was hoping for a plea bargain from the Ramseys and never got it. He didn't want to be humiliated in court (even with solid evidence implicating the Ramseys) by the powerful Haddon team, and he didn't want to go up against them and lose. He didn't want a repeat of the OJ case.
3. Hunter knew that even if he were to charge the Ramseys with involvement in the death (accidental or not) and cover-up of what happened to JonBenet, he would have trouble proving who did what since the crime scene was contaminated and the Ramseys were never separated and questioned according to normal investigative procedure.
We need to drive a stake in the heart of this lie that the Grand Jury saw all the evidence and decided the Ramseys weren't guilty.
Furthermore, as another poster said, whatever the Grand Jury decided IS NOT GOSPEL. A regular jury can set a guilty person free. Jury decisions are NOT the final arbiter of guilty or innocence.
To find out the REAL facts of the Ramsey case and not propaganda based on spin and urban myths, please go to forumsforjustice.org
July 17, 2008
4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
AnnieGirl writes:
Inquiring mind want to know why the principles which Mary Lacy embraced in 2006 in are no longer applicable in 2008. It appears that she has done an Obama flip-flop with the clearing of the Ramseys in the events encompassing the death of their daughter.
________
Rocky Mountain News
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
... Although the case against Karr came apart when it was learned Saturday that his DNA didn't match, Lacy said Tuesday the crime scene DNA doesn't necessarily belong to the person who killed JonBenet. "The DNA could be an artifact," she said. "It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else".
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2...
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Aired August 30, 2006 - 21:00 ET
LACY: What we are committed to is solving the crime if we possibly can. You know there's this -- these terms out there, umbrella of suspicion. We don't use that. 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 where like in this case the facts are so strange ...
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPT...
July 17, 2008
4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
AnnieGirl writes:
THE RANSOM NOTE
If you access the following link and ... scroll down to the images that Cherokee has provided ... it does not require a rocket scientist to determine who is the author of the ransom note.
If time permits Cherokee incredible research on this issue is a worthwhile read.
________
Analysis of the Linguistics and Handwriting in the Ramsey Ransom Note
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forum...
Copyright 2007 by Cherokee
Larry King Live
Does 'JonBenet: Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation' Reveal the True Killer?
Aired April 14, 2000 - 9:00 p.m. ET
LARRY KING, HOST: This detective says he knows who killed JonBenet Ramsey. We'll hear from the FORMER LEAD INVESTIGATOR IN THE RAMSEY MURDER CASE, STEVE THOMAS ...
THOMAS: Well, I think the most significant evidence in this case was the pen, the pad, the ransom note and the handwriting. And when we finished an investigation after 18 months and presented our case to the district attorney's office, presumably for them to move it forward, one statistic that was cited in that presentation was that out of 73 people whose handwriting was examined in this case, there was only one whose handwriting showed evidence to suggest authorship, who was in the home that night, who couldn't be eliminated as the author, and that was Patsy Ramsey.
KING: And that's what sent you over the line?
THOMAS: Yes, the handwriting was quite remarkable.
KING: Is handwriting accepted? Are graphologists introduced into evidence?
THOMAS: No, but there was also a forensic linguist that we used in this case, a very renowned and recognized expert, so much so that the FBI continues to use him, who did identify her as the author of the note.
KING: He thinks she wrote that note.
THOMAS: No question.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPT...
July 17, 2008
5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
AnnieGirl writes:
Two very important reads in regards to the politics involved in the investigation!
1. STEVE THOMAS - RESIGNATION LETTER
The Thomas resignation letter
"We were trying to deliver a murder case with hands tied behind our backs."
Aug. 6, 1998
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/rams...
2. STEVE THOMAS - INSIDE THE MURDER INVESTIGATION
JonBenet : Inside the Murder Investigation (Hardcover)
by Steve Thomas (Author), Donald A. Davis (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/JonBenet-Inside...
July 17, 2008
6:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
AnnieGirl writes:
Mary Lacy absolving the Ramseys of involvement in the events encompassing the demise of Jonbenet is such a double standard when it is considered that others were implicated and ruled out as suspects based on polygraphs and handwriting anylysis.
Patsy Ramsey was not cleared on either.
I would assume that Bill McReynolds' widow as well as others who were implicated by the Ramseys receive a letter of apology and exoneration from Mary Lacy.
The reputations of Bill and Janet McReynolds were trashed in the media ... thanks to the public statements of the former prosector ... Trip DeMuth.
________
The Thomas resignation letter
"We were trying to deliver a murder case with hands tied behind our backs."
Aug. 6, 1998
Innocent people were not "cleared", publicly or otherwise, even when it was unmistakably the right thing to do, as reputations and lives were destroyed. Some in the district attorney's office, to this day, pursue weak, defenseless, and innocent people in shameless tactics that one couldn't believe more bizarre if it were made up.
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/rams...
.
.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Did Santa Claus kill JonBenet?
Anderson Cooper (CNN)
Two days before JonBenet Ramsey died, Bill McReynolds played Santa Claus at her home. After her death, investigators instantly became curious about McReynolds and his wife Janet, who had played Mrs. Claus. Back in 1997, McReynolds told a Colorado television station, "I know I didn't do it." But for investigators, there were too many eerie connections between the McReynolds and the Ramseys to just drop it.
Trip DeMuth, one of the original prosecutors on the case, told me that Santa Bill gave JonBenet a card that read: "You will receive a special gift after Christmas."
"Statements like that led me to have some sort of suspicion: What was going on between Santa Bill and JonBenet? Again, he is an individual who was involved with her, had an interest in her, was seen with her, shortly before the murder," DeMuth said.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/ander...
July 18, 2008
7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Abby writes:
Three cheers for Paul Campos for saying things other media outlets have been afraid to. Not only was immunity from prosecution granted because of financial status, a thug attorney threatened several media outlets and filed numerous lawsuits on behalf of the Ramseys. Their puppets such as Michael Tracey and Ollie Gray produced false suspect after false suspect for fake documentaries and tabloid stories, mostly poor and one even deceased. Mary Lacey stated in a press conference one year ago that no one could be exonerated until there was an arrest and conviction, and that the DNA found in the panties could be artifact. Guess she changed her mind. Bet she goes to work for Hal Haddon or one of the Ramsey's high priced lawyers after she retires.
July 18, 2008
5:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
There must be ice skating in Hades tonight... I actualy agree with Campos.
July 21, 2008
10:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
thefastestgun writes:
1:48 p.m.
WestminsterJ writes:
Pajama: It's quite clear that you have a cultural/ideological predisposition to admire the Ramseys in spite of all the facts. John Ramsey is a shallow, materialistic man and Patsy was a superficial, disturbed woman. All the invective you hurl at Campos belongs to you.
you didn't know them, so your opinion is worth zero. we do know campos and he's an idiot, he proves it weekly.