Rod Westmoreland sues internet poster

[Louisadelmar]

NOVEMBER 9--A friend of JonBenet Ramsey's father has filed a lawsuit against an anonymous web surfer who has posted online messages claiming that the man killed the six-year-old beauty queen as well as another person. In a lawsuit filed this week in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, Rod Westmoreland alleges that someone using the handle "undrtheradar" has authored posts this year on two message boards that claim he murdered JonBenet in December 1996 and killed a pizza delivery man in a bizarre August 2003 bombing incident. Westmoreland, a 54-year-old financial consultant who is only identified by his initials in the complaint, is a friend of John Ramsey, JonBenet's father. On the morning the girl was found missing from her room and a kidnap note was discovered in the family's Colorado home, John Ramsey called Westmoreland for help in gathering ransom money. In his complaint, a copy of which you'll find below, Westmoreland contends that he has been maligned by posts on message boards hosted by Topix.net and the Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community. He intends to learn the real identity of "undrtheradar" via discovery in the case, which was filed by attorney Lin Wood, who has previously represented John Ramsey and his late wife Patsy in several libel actions.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archiv...1jonbenet1.html

[sweetcharlotte]

The link didn't work for me???

[Louisadelmar]

Wierd. Try this one.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1109061jonbenet1.html

[sweetcharlotte]

Proof that you need to be careful of what you post. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Proof that you need to be careful of what you post. IMO

Yup. And allow to be posted...

[MissOtisRegrets]

Wow. They start out as normal message board posts but are definitely personal threats in the end. I wonder why the poster wasn't banned.

[Louisadelmar]

Maybe because Westmoreland believed the Ramseys were innocent.

[shill]

That guy was adament about Westmoreland's involvement. He wrote long convincing posts tand he would get angry that nobody was listening to him or doing anything about it. He insisted Westmoreland was the man and the case would end with him.
He had a convincing arguement that I'm sure enough people believed that caused Westmoreland to take action.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
Maybe because Westmoreland believed the Ramseys were innocent.

I don't know that board, Louise. Is it primarily a RDI board?

[Athena]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


I don't know that board, Louise. Is it primarily a RDI board?

Websleuths is. Topix.net is a free for all but you'll find posts from both sides. That is the same board that the guy says Gary McGreen killed JBR (a serial killer) and says he personally knows him and his sister. :eek:

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey

[emmeblu]

I was just reading about this law suit on "the smoking gun". Kind of surprised the sleuth board moderator did not ban this nic if he /she was breaking the rules. TSG link said the nic is from Georgia and he is determined to find out who this person is thru the suit.

Everyone from the housekeeper to the brother, etc. have been blamed at one point in time by some sleuther. I do not get how this guy can file a law suit. May be the times to come with Internet use and opinions. Geesh. Scary :chicken:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1109061jonbenet1.html

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by Athena


Websleuths is. Topix.net is a free for all but you'll find posts from both sides. That is the same board that the guy says Gary McGreen killed JBR (a serial killer) and says he personally knows him and his sister. :eek:

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey

Thanks, Athena!

[edna mode]

The nic is from Georgia? I thought it said they are looking for the info on the nic....


Originally posted by emmeblu
I was just reading about this law suit on "the smoking gun". Kind of surprised the sleuth board moderator did not ban this nic if he /she was breaking the rules. TSG link said the nic is from Georgia and he is determined to find out who this person is thru the suit.

Everyone from the housekeeper to the brother, etc. have been blamed at one point in time by some sleuther. I do not get how this guy can file a law suit. May be the times to come with Internet use and opinions. Geesh. Scary :chicken:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1109061jonbenet1.html

[MissOtisRegrets]

They should have no trouble identifying the poster. If they can prove to the Court that threats were made under that nic, the Court will order the server to release to them the personal information for that IP number. The later posts made by this poster do sound like threats.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Proof that you need to be careful of what you post. IMO

Darn shame that Lin Wood wasn't/isn't the attorney for a few other folks like Fleet & Priscilla White & the McReynolds. I think they have been just as maligned, if not more so, than Westmoreland.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Mimi428


Darn shame that Lin Wood wasn't/isn't the attorney for a few other folks like Fleet & Priscilla White & the McReynolds. I think they have been just as maligned, if not more so, than Westmoreland.

Few other folks? Like the Ramseys?

[edna mode]

Maligned? I totally disagree. There's a BIG difference. Westmoreland wasn't even in the state...did not have opportunity to kill JBR.

On the other hand, anyone who had access or opportunity to that child is still considered a suspect. White, McReynolds and Wolf were all prime suspects in this case with law enforcement. Until the case is solved they are and should stay on the list of suspects open for discussion and debate.

Originally posted by Mimi428


Darn shame that Lin Wood wasn't/isn't the attorney for a few other folks like Fleet & Priscilla White & the McReynolds. I think they have been just as maligned, if not more so, than Westmoreland.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by edna mode
Maligned? I totally disagree. There's a BIG difference. Westmoreland wasn't even in the state...did not have opportunity to kill JBR.

On the other hand, anyone who had access or opportunity to that child is still considered a suspect. White, McReynolds and Wolf were all prime suspects in this case with law enforcement. Until the case is solved they are and should stay on the list of suspects open for discussion and debate.

Edna Mode. I have to disagree with you. When DA Lacey said herself there are no other suspects at this time. I provided the link before to the entire transcipt If requested could provide again. No one else besides them under the umbrella of suspision. That rather leaves out the Whites McReynolds and Wolf. Prime isn't a word I'd of chosen then or now .

You may wish them to remain on the list of suspects open for discussion and debate. We can do that if you wish. Just understand as far as the Prosecutorial Branch of Law is concerned no one remains but the two never removed out from under that famous Parasol. Not even JMK

[andU]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
Edna Mode. I have to disagree with you. When DA Lacey said herself there are no other suspects at this time. I provided the link before to the entire transcipt If requested could provide again. No one else besides them under the umbrella of suspision. That rather leaves out the Whites McReynolds and Wolf. Prime isn't a word I'd of chosen then or now .

You may wish them to remain on the list of suspects open for discussion and debate. We can do that if you wish. Just understand as far as the Prosecutorial Branch of Law is concerned no one remains but the two never removed out from under that famous Parasol. Not even JMK

I don't think anyone has been totally removed from the umbrella of suspicion. And I don't think they will be until or when the case has been solved. If there is a link with an official statement that others have been removed from suspect list, I'd like to see it, this would be a statement from whichever LE agency is in control at this time.

[bullmoose]

When I was reading the deposition of Steve Thomas for the lawsuit the Ramseys had filed after the publication of his book, he admitted under oath that the suspect list that the BPD had on 12/27/96 had only two names on it, John and Patsy Ramsey. As has been said before the BPD had only two suspects, from the beginning. The tunnelvision that the BPD displayed prevented any kind of objective investigation; turning down the offered help of experienced agencies[FBI, DPD, etc.] seems to have been fueled by the desire to claim all the credit for solving the case, instead of actually doing a good investigation.

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
Edna Mode. I have to disagree with you. When DA Lacey said herself there are no other suspects at this time. I provided the link before to the entire transcipt If requested could provide again. No one else besides them under the umbrella of suspision. That rather leaves out the Whites McReynolds and Wolf. Prime isn't a word I'd of chosen then or now .

You may wish them to remain on the list of suspects open for discussion and debate. We can do that if you wish. Just understand as far as the Prosecutorial Branch of Law is concerned no one remains but the two never removed out from under that famous Parasol. Not even JMK If this is true, then they might as well bring John to trial. What would be the point of letting him go untried if he is the only suspect. Even if they don't have a solid case, it's not going to get any better for the prosecution. Let John write a book later, "If I had done it"
IMO If they thought John(or Patsy) was the only suspect, they would bring him to trial.

[shill]

• Calif. court says bloggers can't be sued
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817955/

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by shill
• Calif. court says bloggers can't be sued
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817955/

I'm not clear on this. It sounds like they are saying individual posters can be sued but not forums?

"Nevertheless, the court said, "Until Congress chooses to revise the settled law in this area" people who contend they were defamed on the Internet can seek recovery only from the original source of the statement, not from those who re-post it."

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by andU


I don't think anyone has been totally removed from the umbrella of suspicion. And I don't think they will be until or when the case has been solved. If there is a link with an official statement that others have been removed from suspect list, I'd like to see it, this would be a statement from whichever LE agency is in control at this time.

Then by all means please feel free to write DA Mary Lacy with your rebuttal to her statements that they are at this time, the only remaining suspects.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
If this is true, then they might as well bring John to trial. What would be the point of letting him go untried if he is the only suspect. Even if they don't have a solid case, it's not going to get any better for the prosecution. Let John write a book later, "If I had done it"
IMO If they thought John(or Patsy) was the only suspect, they would bring him to trial.

Please go read the transcript if you feel so led. It does say they will review any new evidence but at this time.... I will say it again. The reason they did not try them is Hunter wanted an airtight case. When neither spouse could legally be compelled to testify one against the other.... air tight wouldn't be possible. DA Lacey is known to be sympathetic to the Ramsey's. However they remained under that umbrella of suspicion. I could not agree with you more. That is why I am so passionate about a office of special presecutor, getting this at least to trial. Then find them guilty or exonerate. But for pitys sake at least have a day in court. I would think IDI's would want that more than anyone . Clear their name instead of leaving them in the muck and mire and mud of it.

[bullmoose]

If what I remember reading at the time of Karr's arrest in Thailand is true, then Lacey treats suspects strangely, indeed.At the time I heard on Greta[Ithink it was] that Lacey had been in touch with John and Patsy to let them know that Karr was being monitered as a possible suspect before Patsy's death. If my memory serves me correctly, that would put them in the victim category, not the suspect category.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by bullmoose
If what I remember reading at the time of Karr's arrest in Thailand is true, then Lacey treats suspects strangely, indeed.At the time I heard on Greta[Ithink it was] that Lacey had been in touch with John and Patsy to let them know that Karr was being monitered as a possible suspect before Patsy's death. If my memory serves me correctly, that would put them in the victim category, not the suspect category.

Yes and Colorado citizens are NOT very pleased or at least the ones I know are not. That and attending Patsy Ramseys funeral too. Hows that for remaining objective. However till charged if there is anything on the case. Lacey has to share it with the parents of the murder victim.

Here is once again the copy of the press conference transcript
with DA Lacey. http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-7715

This is sevarl times now I have posted this transcript. DA Mary Lacy was very concise on following all leads why Ramseys were informed etc.

[bullmoose]

When you say that neither spouse could be compelled to testify against the other--airtight wouldn't be possible; you make me wonder what it is they would have testified to? If Hunter was otherwise certain of their guilt, then why didn't he charge them? If the evidence was so strong, why were they not indicted; Indeed why were they not called by the Grand Jury to testify about the case? The Grand Jury had the power to call them, didn't they?From what you post it seems to me that it is a commonly held belief in Boulder by many that the Ramseys are guilty; right? But the Ramseys; John and Patsy could not be compelled to testify against their spouse; what about the fact that they could not have been compelled, at least in theory, to testify against themselves. But the Grand Jury didn't even call them to ask them if they wanted to confess. There is the other point of view, that they are innocent. Maybe thats why there was no airtight case against them, they didn't do it. Maybe thats why they remain unindicted, unconvicted. If you ever read the Ramsey book you will see that they would have preferred a trial, to clear their name. They have only been tried in the court of public opinion, because of underhanded tactics by Steve Thomas and his tabloid buddies.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by andU


I don't think anyone has been totally removed from the umbrella of suspicion. And I don't think they will be until or when the case has been solved. If there is a link with an official statement that others have been removed from suspect list, I'd like to see it, this would be a statement from whichever LE agency is in control at this time.

This is the latest I know of on this subject. DA Lacy is pretty open about it. http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-7715

This is the transcript from the press conference held to say they would not charge JMK. It is pretty much the last word on suspicion that I know of....

[shill]

Seems like the people of Boulder think the Ramseys are guilty, but the Boulder judicial system thinks they are not guilty.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
Seems like the people of Boulder think the Ramseys are guilty, but the Boulder judicial system thinks they are not guilty.

I don't believe they remained under that parasol of persecution as long as they have because no one thought they were not suspects. You keep saying the Boulder judicial systme thought they were not guilty. That was not necessarily so. But they were hamstrung in you cannot demand one spouse testify against the other .....so airtight wasn't possible. You dismiss totally that Alex Hunter played the grand jury card hoping to compel the grand jury to accomplish in fact finding what he could not for that very reason. That is not the same thing as saying the Boulder judicial systme thought they were not responsible. That is your opinion of the Boulder Judicial system. Not necessarily the facts. If you knew the prosecutorial record of the DA's you could fill in the rest of the blanks.

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


You dismiss totally that Alex Hunter played the grand jury card hoping to compel the grand jury to accomplish in fact finding what he could not for that very reason. That is not the same thing as saying the Boulder judicial system thought they were not responsible. That is your opinion of the Boulder Judicial system. Not necessarily the facts. Alex Hunter played his cards and lost, why? because there was not enough evidence to take them to trial. Isn't that what I said? The judicial system does not think they are guilty.

At this point, if they did it, John could just say Patsy did everything and told him about it later, end of story. Everyone would get what they wanted.
But they didn't do it and that's not going to happen.

[Levi]

Originally posted by emmeblu
I was just reading about this law suit on "the smoking gun". Kind of surprised the sleuth board moderator did not ban this nic if he /she was breaking the rules. TSG link said the nic is from Georgia and he is determined to find out who this person is thru the suit.

Everyone from the housekeeper to the brother, etc. have been blamed at one point in time by some sleuther. I do not get how this guy can file a law suit. May be the times to come with Internet use and opinions. Geesh. Scary :chicken:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1109061jonbenet1.html
I agree with you. If the poster was however posting messages saying he was the killer based on lies or untruths. I can understand a law suite. But if he was giving opinions based on facts, I don't see it holding water.

[Athena]

Originally posted by shill
Alex Hunter played his cards and lost, why? because there was not enough evidence to take them to trial. Isn't that what I said? The judicial system does not think they are guilty.

At this point, if they did it, John could just say Patsy did everything and told him about it later, end of story. Everyone would get what they wanted.
But they didn't do it and that's not going to happen.

Shill if anyone RDI or IDI honestly and strictly looks at JUST the evidence in this case without reading other poster's opinions or conjecture and speculation all over the Internet -- there is NO evidence that would have stood up in a court of law against the Ramseys. They have been convicted in the Court of Public Opinion based on theories (some outrageous), speculation and conjecture. JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by edna mode
Maligned? I totally disagree. There's a BIG difference. Westmoreland wasn't even in the state...did not have opportunity to kill JBR.

On the other hand, anyone who had access or opportunity to that child is still considered a suspect. White, McReynolds and Wolf were all prime suspects in this case with law enforcement. Until the case is solved they are and should stay on the list of suspects open for discussion and debate.



I couldn't agree more. Big difference. Westmoreland's alibi was confirmed and verified. JMO

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by bullmoose
When you say that neither spouse could be compelled to testify against the other--airtight wouldn't be possible; you make me wonder what it is they would have testified to? If Hunter was otherwise certain of their guilt, then why didn't he charge them? If the evidence was so strong, why were they not indicted; Indeed why were they not called by the Grand Jury to testify about the case? The Grand Jury had the power to call them, didn't they?From what you post it seems to me that it is a commonly held belief in Boulder by many that the Ramseys are guilty; right? But the Ramseys; John and Patsy could not be compelled to testify against their spouse; what about the fact that they could not have been compelled, at least in theory, to testify against themselves. But the Grand Jury didn't even call them to ask them if they wanted to confess. There is the other point of view, that they are innocent. Maybe thats why there was no airtight case against them, they didn't do it. Maybe thats why they remain unindicted, unconvicted. If you ever read the Ramsey book you will see that they would have preferred a trial, to clear their name. They have only been tried in the court of public opinion, because of underhanded tactics by Steve Thomas and his tabloid buddies.

Not only have I read the book.....I watched it play out in real life !!! Right in my livingroom and delivered to my doorstep daily!! They were not indicted because one lady on the grand jury even admitted to her belief that they couldn't have done this to their daughter before she even was diposed to sit on the jury. Her belief never changed. It was hung before convened. The same standard for jurors on a Grand Jury is not upheld as on a jury. They didn't even call the Ramseys! That is why for one thing there is such an outcry for a special prosecutor!!

It really amazes me that people hundreds, perhaps even thousands of miles away think they are the end all do all and fountains of knowledge regarding the Ramsey murder. They read a book and some internet websites and they are experts. I can tell you, unless you were here you didn't see how this was handled by the DA's office. Nothing but having been here to see it does justice to how it really was.

You malign Steve Thomas and his tabloid buddies. Are you speaking of Shapiro.....he had open door at the DA's office too!!!!! Hunter confided in Shapiro!! I wish Alex Hunter had to take a polygraph on who he felt the murderer was. That would be interesting cause then the truth would be out in technicolor.

We had a DA that would not prosecute. For political reasons more than any other. That is my humble opinion. It appeared as though our DA wanted Airtight. It is said by those who would know that those were his words he wanted airtight or confession.

According to the Ramseys the DA's office only persecuted. Its a known fact Alex Hunter was on more than friendly terms with Haddon. Shared much of the evidence with the defense attorneys. When that should NOT have been the case till they were charged. The Ramseys say they wanted a trial to clear thier names. Yet they refused to go within a country mile of a police station .....Arranged for their arrests to go down discreetly without cuffs and media. I

I don't even pretend to know if the Ramseys or at least one of them killed their daughter or not. I was not there. What I know is this so far they have not found an intruder or concrete evidence of one. Supposedly at least there is a mountain of evidence that suggests all this staging and fiber evidence everything but firm dna proof. All I am saying. I sound like a broken record at this poin I am sure. Let this go to trial exonerate or convict. Give them what they wanted. Clear their names if it can be done. If the trial can present the facts and clear the Ramseys then wonderful. If it convicts them based on the evidence finally being presented in a court of law.. then I'd say that our system of justice at last prevailed. The way it is ....justice for JonBenet has been the furtherest thing from anything that has happened. Boulder owes JonBenet justice. Colorado owes JonBenet justice. After 10 years its time we not loose sight of the fact she died a horrible death. She deserves justice no matter who screwed up ......lets find out was it the detectives the DA's office ..... or did her parents so contaminate the evidence that would have convicted the murderer. We all know there is no such thing as the perfect crime. Lets at least find out why JonBenet has no justice.

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
I was not there. What I know is this so far they have not found an intruder or concrete evidence of one. Supposedly at least there is a mountain of evidence that suggests all this staging and fiber evidence everything but firm dna proof.
After 10 years its time we not loose sight of the fact she died a horrible death. . or did her parents so contaminate the evidence that would have convicted the murderer. Your so obviously bias against the Ramseys. If it was staged, then JB did not die a horrible death. She would have died from an accidental head blow and it was over.
But if it was an itnruder, she died a frightening horrible death.
IMO what they found is what happened. The garrote and ligature were used for devious purposes. The kidnapping may have been aborted or the ransom note was just a way of buying time to escape.
They want an airtight case or a confession because they feel with out one, they would be convicting an innocent person.
You have been biased by living there and being bombarded with the case info.
You say you know because you have lived it, when in reality you have been brainwashed by it all and can not see the trees from the forest.
You rely more on local gossip then the actual evidence that is available.
The Ramseys contaminated the crime scene? This just shows how biased you have become.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
Your so obviously bias against the Ramseys. If it was staged, then JB did not die a horrible death. She would have died from an accidental head blow and it was over.
But if it was an itnruder, she died a frightening horrible death.
IMO what they found is what happened. The garrote and ligature were used for devious purposes. The kidnapping may have been aborted or the ransom note was just a way of buying time to escape.
They want an airtight case or a confession because they feel with out one, they would be convicting an innocent person.
You have been biased by living there and being bombarded with the case info.
You say you know because you have lived it, when in reality you have been brainwashed by it all and can not see the trees from the forest.
You rely more on local gossip then the actual evidence that is available.
The Ramseys contaminated the crime scene? This just shows how biased you have become.

How can you say that the Ramseys didn't contaminate the crime scene?? That just shows how biased you are toward IDI.

[shill]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


How can you say that the Ramseys didn't contaminate the crime scene?? That just shows how biased you are toward IDI. I didn't say that.

But I did point out, and apparently not very well, that CK only noted the Ramseys as contaminating the crime scene, which is biased. Many people contaminated the crime scene, including the Ramseys.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
Your so obviously bias against the Ramseys. If it was staged, then JB did not die a horrible death. She would have died from an accidental head blow and it was over.
But if it was an itnruder, she died a frightening horrible death.
IMO what they found is what happened. The garrote and ligature were used for devious purposes. The kidnapping may have been aborted or the ransom note was just a way of buying time to escape.
They want an airtight case or a confession because they feel with out one, they would be convicting an innocent person.
You have been biased by living there and being bombarded with the case info.
You say you know because you have lived it, when in reality you have been brainwashed by it all and can not see the trees from the forest.
You rely more on local gossip then the actual evidence that is available.
The Ramseys contaminated the crime scene? This just shows how biased you have become.

Not hardly ..... I have never said if I think they did it and no one has even asked me if that is what I think or not. You read into what I present and formulate my opinion for me? This is not bias on my part. It is how it is was and apparently shall continue to be. You have not seen the actual evidence that is available anymore than I have......How did you acquire your bias.....from reading. At least mine comes from KNOWING those who might be in a postion to sort and fathom.....who did some interviewing along the way .....ever think of that......?

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Not hardly ..... I have never said if I think they did it and no one has even asked me if that is what I think or not. You read into what I present and formulate my opinion for me? This is not bias on my part. It is how it is was and apparently shall continue to be. You have not seen the actual evidence that is available anymore than I have......How did you acquire your bias.....from reading. At least mine comes from KNOWING those who might be in a postion to sort and fathom.....who did some interviewing along the way .....ever think of that......? Your biased.
It doesn't matter if you aren't saying or choosing sides, what your writing is biased. You may be unknowingly doing it, but your post are bias.

[Zoey]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Not hardly ..... I have never said if I think they did it and no one has even asked me if that is what I think or not. You read into what I present and formulate my opinion for me? This is not bias on my part. It is how it is was and apparently shall continue to be. You have not seen the actual evidence that is available anymore than I have......How did you acquire your bias.....from reading. At least mine comes from KNOWING those who might be in a postion to sort and fathom.....who did some interviewing along the way .....ever think of that......?

CK, you have hinted repeatedly that you know someone close to this case. I am not sure anyone picked up on who you claim to know in reference to this case, except for me, but you hinted loud and clear. And to be honest with you, I don't find her anymore a reliable source than I do any other investigative reporter that was on this case. And just because you claim to live in Colorado does not make you any more an expert on this case than anyone that has done years of searching and research on this case. So what, you watched the news and you read the newspapers. So did a lot of other people. The only way you know anymore than anyone else is if you were there, and I don't think that is the case here.

[edna mode]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
Edna Mode. I have to disagree with you. When DA Lacey said herself there are no other suspects at this time. I provided the link before to the entire transcipt If requested could provide again. No one else besides them under the umbrella of suspision. That rather leaves out the Whites McReynolds and Wolf. Prime isn't a word I'd of chosen then or now .

You may wish them to remain on the list of suspects open for discussion and debate. We can do that if you wish. Just understand as far as the Prosecutorial Branch of Law is concerned no one remains but the two never removed out from under that famous Parasol. Not even JMK

CK,
I couldn't disagree more. There is no one who had access to that child who is NOT under the umbrella of suspicion. Well, except Burke.

You may think you know the score here...but, sadly you don't. You might want to work on some new sources.

All best,
Edna

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
When DA Lacey said herself there are no other suspects at this time. I provided the link before to the entire transcipt If requested could provide again. No one else besides them under the umbrella of suspision. Just understand as far as the Prosecutorial Branch of Law is concerned no one remains but the two never removed out from under that famous Parasol. Not even JMK
Mary Lacy: "What we are committed to is solving the crime if we possibly can.. You know, there’s 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 … you know… obviously the family was in the house at the time… the DNA does not match … now … so what we can say is … I think an expert said it’s… you have to look at stranger, male DNA in the underwear of the dead victim."

What umbrella?
So only the Ramseys? Oh, unless another John Karr comes along.
DO you even read what you quote from?
This is from the link you provided.:shrug:

[LindaA]

CK, it is fairly obvious which side of this case you are on from the tone of your posts.

And with all due respect, your knowledge of the case is only as good as the coverage, which we have already determined was tainted by leaks of falsehoods and half truths. Your knowledge is colored by local gossip and innuendo, so no, I don't believe you have more knowledge than people here who have studied all the documents and read all the books. Some of those sources are far less biased than the local news reports there in Boulder.

[Athena]

A couple of posts by poster:

http://tinyurl.com/vukk3


http://tinyurl.com/y9pyt7


http://crimeblog.us/?p=207

[sweetcharlotte]

I hope this doesn't come across as being extremely rude, but I don't have much confidence in the postings of someone who keeps speaking of the "Prosecutorial Branch" and just last week didn't know that Lacy and Keenan are the same person.

JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I hope this doesn't come across as being extremely rude, but I don't have much confidence in the postings of someone who keeps speaking of the "Prosecutorial Branch" and just last week didn't know that Lacy and Keenan are the same person.

JMO

With no malice intended; people who claim to be inside may just be too close to a situation to form unbiased opinions. Let's be honest here; early on the Ramseys were judged and convicted by the court of public opinion way before the actual facts were released. Not to mention the still erroneous info I have seen posted. JMO