Time for FBI to Take Over

[Tober]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238946,00.html IMO, the Boulder DA's office, under both Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy, has refused to proceed forward in the interest of justice for JonBenet. It is high time the FBI took over the case, so that justice can be served on JonBenet's behalf once and for all.

[AmyW]

I agree. It's gone beyond ridiculous and into the land of total chaos and confusion. JonBenet deserves justice and I say give the FBI a chance to give it to her.

[rashomon]

I agree. It's gone beyond ridiculous and into the land of total chaos and confusion. JonBenet deserves justice and I say give the FBI a chance to give it to her.

Question: is it legally possible for the FBI to take over? I've read on another forum that this is no Federal case since there was no kidnapping.

[Athena]

Question: is it legally possible for the FBI to take over? I've read on another forum that this is no Federal case since there was no kidnapping.

I agree. I do not believe the FBI has any jurisdiction in this case other than to assist the BPD if asked.

[nuisanceposter]

But BPD doesn't have the case anymore. Lin Wood threatened to sue Lacy and the city of Boulder to make sure the case left BPD's possession and was put into the hands of the DA's office.

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t6836.html

Lin Wood, the Ramseys' Atlanta attorney, wrote to Keenan Oct. 9 to say he was prepared to file a lawsuit on the Ramseys' behalf to get the case out of the hands of Boulder police. He charged that they had lost all objectivity in the case and had also ignored a Sept. 16 letter from him offering new leads.

The subsequent announcement on Dec. 20 that Keenan would indeed take control of the investigation was applauded by Wood, who no longer plans to sue the Boulder police.



Back when BPD did have the case, they got help from FBI in the form of the CASKU unit, which agreed with Thomas that the murder appeared to have been an accidental death and cover up with parental involvement. Lacy isn't going to be asking FBI for help with the Ramsey case anytime soon, especially when the RST didn't want FBI involved in the past, thanks to Lin Wood. Just look up Wood's past involvement with the FBI in the Richard Jewell case.

Here's some insight on how FBI involvement was shot down by the RST in the past:

http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

Boulder police arranged to have FBI specialists conduct the examination in Atlanta. After consulting with others in law enforcement, the Boulder police selected FBI polygraphers, saying they were chosen specifically for their international reputation in criminal polygraphs and their independence from the Boulder Police Department. Other factors that weighed heavily in selecting the FBI, the Boulder police said, were the specialist training received by FBI examiners, the quality control implemented in their examinations and supervisory oversight that is provided for every exam.

To the Ramseys, the idea of polygraph exams held a distinct allure. Although they didn't want the FBI to administer the tests, they knew that the exams held great potency for establishing their innocence. If each of them could pass an independently administered polygraph exam, they would deliver a knockout punch not only in the court of public opinion but also most likely to any Colorado prosecutor down the road.

During subsequent discussions, Ramsey attorney Wood told Boulder police that the Ramseys were reluctant to take an exam administered by the FBI because they believed the previous involvement of the FBI and the FBI laboratories in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation prevented the FBI from being "independent" examiners.

As a compromise to the Ramseys' concerns, the FBI agreed to assign an examiner who had no prior knowledge or involvement in the Ramsey case, and the Boulder Police Department agreed not to be involved in selecting the specific FBI examiners.

A stalemate ensued when the offered concessions did not satisfy Ramsey concerns with the FBI involvement. The Boulder Police Department was unwilling to compromise further. The polygraphs of the Ramseys were dead in their tracks.

[Sprocket]

Well Jeff Shapiro sure has flip flopped like a fish out of water all over this case. At one point didn't he suck up to the minister of Ramsey's church and/or church group? ????

:confused:

If I'm remembering correctly, the Chief of Police in Boulder at the time of JonBenets death, refused freely offered assistance from detectives in Denver. Even from the beginning, the head of Boulder PD didn't want outside help. (Rashomon, correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

The FBI was on the scene of the crime very early on before JonBenet was found because at that time, it was thought a kidnapping. And, the FBI CASKU has already reviewed the case file (something Michael Tracey has NOT done) and gave their opinion on the extensive amount of staging of the crime scene, and what they believe actually happened.

DA Mary Lacy evidently thinks she can get expert help on this case from a University Professor who has profited from making several crocumentaries. This poor excuse of a DA doesn't even know her own case file.

No need to call in the FBI, because they were already called. When the Boulder PD was presenting the FBI with the case for their opinion, Assistant DA Trip DeMuth was HECKLING the BPD officers in front of CASKU.


(Page 216 of Steve Thomas's book-)
As I presented the overview of our case and Detective Trujillo reviewed the evidence, DeMuth heckled: "Can't hear you!" and "Is that all you have indicating Ramsey involvement?" The FBI agents were openly surprised by his effrontery.

That was so professional of you Trip. Gotta commend you on your professionalism. I think the answer to solving the case is to just get rid of Mary Lacy, and appoint an independent prosecutor. That's something that many internet posters have petitioned the Governor for, for quite some time.

[Coloradokares]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238946,00.html IMO, the Boulder DA's office, under both Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy, has refused to proceed forward in the interest of justice for JonBenet. It is high time the FBI took over the case, so that justice can be served on JonBenet's behalf once and for all.

And that is not even a glassful of all the water under this bridge. Its TIME for Boulder and Colorado and the Nation to say we are NOT going to be passive and accept this flagrant violation of our nations laws any longer. JonBenet deserves better and only we can give it to her by our insistence that we appoint those who will faithfully execute their duties in seeking justice for JonBenet.

[Tober]

I think the answer to solving the case is to just get rid of Mary Lacy, and appoint an independent prosecutor.

That would be the most logical route. As many know, the last thing Team Ramsey wants is someone in control of this case who will objectively examine the evidence and follow it where it leads.

[shill]

That would be the most logical route. As many know, the last thing Team Ramsey wants is someone in control of this case who will objectively examine the evidence and follow it where it leads.

Thanks I didn't know that.

Some how I thought that Team Ramsey wanted someone in control of this case who will finally be objective in examining the evidence and follow it where it leads.

[Louisadelmar]

That would be the most logical route. As many know, the last thing Team Ramsey wants is someone in control of this case who will objectively examine the evidence and follow it where it leads.

Objective eh? You mean like the Boulder "The Ramseys are the killas" PD?

[Coloradokares]

Objective eh? You mean like the Boulder "The Ramseys are the killas" PD?

How about an Office of special prosecutor appointed by the Governor who has absolute authority to turn over the flat irons themselves if necessary in order to throughly review every snippet of evidence and prosecute with absolute authority where there is not left any reasonable doubt. I'd settle for that Deal or no deal.

[Louisadelmar]

How about an Office of special prosecutor appointed by the Governor who has absolute authority to turn over the flat irons themselves if necessary in order to throughly review every snippet of evidence and prosecute with absolute authority where there is not left any reasonable doubt. I'd settle for that Deal or no deal.

I think that would be nice. Especially since I'm not a Colorado tax payer. But at the same time I think people like Susannah Chase's famly might (correctly) feel their daughter's murder deserved equal treatment.

[rashomon]

Well Jeff Shapiro sure has flip flopped like a fish out of water all over this case. At one point didn't he suck up to the minister of Ramsey's church and/or church group? ????

:confused:
Yes he did, because he wanted to extract info about the Ramseys. Shapiro, while no doubt a pretty astute 'sleuth', still was a slimeball using lies and deceit to get at info he would otherwise never have had access to.
A bit like the sleazy private detectives presented in some of the hard-boiled movies of the 1940's, and if he had chosen the profession of PI, he would probably have been quite good at it with all the trickery he was capable of.

Shapiro was only 24 years old in 1996, did not really know what to do with his life and inserted himself as a private person into this case in an incredibly brazen way.
But if we like him or not, he was one of the major JBR case players. DA Hunter divulged info to JS, and SteveThomas later got so furious at Shapiro that he came close to beating him up.

If I'm remembering correctly, the Chief of Police in Boulder at the time of JonBenets death, refused freely offered assistance from detectives in Denver. Even from the beginning, the head of Boulder PD didn't want outside help. (Rashomon, correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

The FBI was on the scene of the crime very early on before JonBenet was found because at that time, it was thought a kidnapping.
You are right, Sprocket.
John Eller, Commander of the BPD detective division, was of the opinion the FBI was no longer needed because he felt the BPD could handle the investigation alone (boy, was he wrong!).
From PMPT, p. 23/24:

"When Larry Mason returned to police headquarters at midafternoon, he found John Eller upset that the FBI was still involved in the case. Eller had spent eleven years with the Dade County police before joining the Boulder PD as an administrator in 1979. He resented guys who hadn't come up from the street; they couldn't possibly know whyt he knew. Eller told Mason that the Bureau was no longer needed.
In case of a homicide where the dead child is found in the parents' home, the FBI's standard procedure is to investigate the parents first and then move outward in circles.

(snip)

[FBI Special Agent] Ron Walker hoped that the Boulder police would do the job progressively and methodically. He also hoped they would ask for help from the FBI or the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, which had both the experience and resources for cases like this.
But John Eller felt differently. He believed the Boulder detctives could handle the investigation alone."


So it seems that personal pride and ambition on Eller's part played a role here. Steve Thomas in his book portrays Eller in a more positive light than the author of PMPT, but if Eller actually told the FBI they were no longer needed, this makes him a very controversial figure imo.
Still, one can't put the blame on Eller alone for this investigation going down the "Rocky Road to Nowhere", like S. Thomas said.
For if DA Alex Hunter had not thrown all those obstacles in the BPD's way, they still might have solved the case, despite all the investigative blunders which happened (like for example allowing Pam Paugh to remove items from the crime scene).

And, the FBI CASKU has already reviewed the case file (something Michael Tracey has NOT done) and gave their opinion on the extensive amount of staging of the crime scene, and what they believe actually happened.

DA Mary Lacy evidently thinks she can get expert help on this case from a University Professor who has profited from making several crocumentaries. This poor excuse of a DA doesn't even know her own case file.

No need to call in the FBI, because they were already called. When the Boulder PD was presenting the FBI with the case for their opinion, Assistant DA Trip DeMuth was HECKLING the BPD officers in front of CASKU.
What an embarrassing performance by DeMuth! I can imagine the top-notch CASKU experts thinking "Who's that idiot over there from the DA's office?"
But what is to be expected from someone like DeMuth, who told Thomas that to him as a father it was unfathomable that parents could have done this to their child.
DeMuth, just like Smit, completely failed to recognize the garrote scene as staged.
Steves Thomas dryly replied to DeMuth to look up murder statistics where the children are listed who die every year at their parents' hands.
No wonder internet posters have called DeMuth "DeMyth".

That was so professional of you Trip. Gotta commend you on your professionalism. I think the answer to solving the case is to just get rid of Mary Lacy, and appoint an independent prosecutor. That's something that many internet posters have petitioned the Governor for, for quite some time.

That is probably the only way out of this mess. The Karr fiasco would have been a unique opportunity to remove Lacy from office, but despite the Colorado governor criticizing her heavily, nothing happened.

[Coloradokares]

I think that would be nice. Especially since I'm not a Colorado tax payer. But at the same time I think people like Susannah Chase's famly might (correctly) feel their daughter's murder deserved equal treatment.

We agree!! Hope springs eternal. I'd certainly like to see Susannah Chase's murder given every hope as well. Regardless of the tax dollars. I am a Colorado taxpayer. :eek: How about Jason Midyette before ten years passes on that.....

[Tober]

Objective eh? You mean like the Boulder "The Ramseys are the killas" PD?

The numerous red flags couldn't be ignored. That told investigators where to look for evidence. They then found that evidence, which didn't rule out the possibility that the prime suspects were involved in the crime, but greatly strengthened the probability that they were involved. BPD simply followed the evidence where it led. Unfortunately, the Boulder DA's office, for reasons unknown, went to great lengths to avoid acting on that evidence.

[Louisadelmar]

The numerous red flags couldn't be ignored. That told investigators where to look for evidence. They then found that evidence, which didn't rule out the possibility that the prime suspects were involved in the crime, but greatly strengthened the probability that they were involved. BPD simply followed the evidence where it led. Unfortunately, the Boulder DA's office, for reasons unknown, went to great lengths to avoid acting on that evidence.

So I ask again. If they were simply following the evidence why was Thomas having kittens because Smit entered evidence of an intruder in the evidence book?

[Tober]

If they were simply following the evidence why was Thomas having kittens because Smit entered evidence of an intruder in the evidence book?

Because what Lou was citing as evidence isn't sound evidence at all. There is no sound evidence which indicates that anyone besides Patsy, John, and Burke was in the home when JonBenet was killed.

[Louisadelmar]

Because what Lou was citing as evidence isn't sound evidence at all. There is no sound evidence which indicates that anyone besides Patsy, John, and Burke was in the home when JonBenet was killed.

I see... it's not evidence if it suggests anyone other than a Ramsey. Any chance your name is Nifong? :-)

[Zoey]

Because what Lou was citing as evidence isn't sound evidence at all. There is no sound evidence which indicates that anyone besides Patsy, John, and Burke was in the home when JonBenet was killed.

IMO, there is no sound evidence that indicates than Patsy, John or Burke are murderers.

[Athena]

IMO, there is no sound evidence that indicates than Patsy, John or Burke are murderers.

Very simply, the problem with this case is there really is NO evidence against the Ramseys and the refusal by the BPD to think an intruder theory is plausible. JMO

[nuisanceposter]

Well, if you choose to dismiss all the evidence against the Rs as lies, then yeah, I can see where you'd think they were innocent. They've contradicted themselves repeatedly and their fibers were found in the crime scene.

Check it out - I think Levin knew for a fact whether there were any R fibers found -

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer2/primer8_gjtl.html

Note: It was reported that the Boulder prosecutors would be conferring with criminologist Henry Lee over the weekend. Indeed, Lee was seen arriving at the Denver airport on Saturday morning. It was later reported that on Saturday, Lee met with Alex Hunter and Michael Kane, just the two prosecutors, and on Sunday he went to the CBI lab, and there he met with Mitch Morrissey, Tom Wickman, Tom Trujillo, Bruce Levin, Mike Kane, and Alex Hunter.


So Levin was at the CBI lab personally.

Now what again is the forensic evidence of an intruder? We know the Rs were home at the time of the murder, where is the forensic proof that anyone other than a Ramsey was in that house that night?

[Athena]

Well, if you choose to dismiss all the evidence against the Rs as lies, then yeah, I can see where you'd think they were innocent. They've contradicted themselves repeatedly and their fibers were found in the crime scene.

Check it out - I think Levin knew for a fact whether there were any R fibers found -

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer2/primer8_gjtl.html

Note: It was reported that the Boulder prosecutors would be conferring with criminologist Henry Lee over the weekend. Indeed, Lee was seen arriving at the Denver airport on Saturday morning. It was later reported that on Saturday, Lee met with Alex Hunter and Michael Kane, just the two prosecutors, and on Sunday he went to the CBI lab, and there he met with Mitch Morrissey, Tom Wickman, Tom Trujillo, Bruce Levin, Mike Kane, and Alex Hunter.


So Levin was at the CBI lab personally.

Now what again is the forensic evidence of an intruder? We know the Rs were home at the time of the murder, where is the forensic proof that anyone other than a Ramsey was in that house that night?

NP: There was much more trace evidence that was unidentified than identified so I don't understand how you can claim there was more evidence against the Ramseys than not. Until I am privy to the CBI Lab Tests there is no conclusive evidence that was presented in the interviews is true as Prosecutors as a fact are known to lie to elicit confessions. Remember the five boys convicted of raping a Central Park jogger -- just who do you think made these boys confess to a crime they did not even commit? Prosectors can be disbarred or sanctioned for lying in a COURT of law not in an interview.

Still haven't figured out how "dark" fibers initially reported as being found in JBRs crotch area with a supposition they occured from wiping her down with a cloth all of a sudden turned black and matched JR's shirt. How about the brown fibers on the duct tape never identified?

[Tober]

I think the answer to solving the case is to just get rid of Mary Lacy, and appoint an independent prosecutor. That's something that many internet posters have petitioned the Governor for, for quite some time.

Maybe when Bill Ritter takes the Governor's seat, the scales will be tipped in favor of justice.

[LindaA]

Tober, that's what Colorado Kares keeps hoping. I hope so, too! I would rather they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that either of the parents did this -- if they did -- than not have the mystery solved -- for a whole lot of reasons.

[nuisanceposter]

NP: There was much more trace evidence that was unidentified than identified so I don't understand how you can claim there was more evidence against the Ramseys than not.

Such as? Random fibers? Where were they found? How would we know if they had been there prior to the night JonBenet was killed? You can account for random fibers through innocent transfer, but fibers found tied into the knot of the ligature are a bit different. Scott Peterson was convicted on less.

Until I am privy to the CBI Lab Tests there is no conclusive evidence that was presented in the interviews is true as Prosecutors as a fact are known to lie to elicit confessions.

That's where it helps to look at the context of the interview and how the interviewer was conducting the interview to see if that supposition can be backed up. There was no reason to believe Levin lied about the fibers. That was hardly a tough interview where he was presenting info in such a way as to garner a false confession. That interview was as accomodating to the Rs as possible. You know very well that that CBI report may NEVER be released to the public. Prosecutors are not allowed to lie in the context of the interview Levin was engaged in.

the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct state: Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."

Remember the five boys convicted of raping a Central Park jogger -- just who do you think made these boys confess to a crime they did not even commit? Prosectors can be disbarred or sanctioned for lying in a COURT of law not in an interview. I don't know enough about that case to comment on it. See above for info on whether a lawyer can lie in an interview. It does not say it has to be in court, so the rules apply to an interview as well. Weren't they under oath?

Still haven't figured out how "dark" fibers initially reported as being found in JBRs crotch area with a supposition they occured from wiping her down with a cloth all of a sudden turned black and matched JR's shirt. How about the brown fibers on the duct tape never identified?

I don't know about that, either. There's some speculation about the fibers relating to JR's shirt, so I'm leaving that alone for the most part until I know more. I do believe fibers chemically and microscopically consistent with Patsy's clothing were found in the crime scene and on the body, as I have heard that in more than one source, both in literature and on the internet. I have no reson to believe Levin was lying, and no reason to believe police lied to Levin, especially now that I know for a fact that he visited the CBI lab personally.

As for the brown fibers, the tape had been previously used before it was applied to JonBenet's face. Those fibers most likely came from wherever it was taken from, and I suspect it came from an American Girl doll, which has a soft body that could have easily been the source of the brown fibers. The manufacturer leaves a cord around the dolls' necks to hold their heads on, and they suggest using tape to hold the string in place. Add to the that the very curious occurrence of John Ramsey ordering an American Girl doll in January 1997, and it becomes possible in my mind that the tape came from one of JB's dolls. We know she had AG dolls, there's a picture of her holding one that she had gotten for her birthday at FFJ.

[andU]

That would be the most logical route. As many know, the last thing Team Ramsey wants is someone in control of this case who will objectively examine the evidence and follow it where it leads.

I think you are wrong, tober ... John Ramsey wants it resolved.

[Tober]

I think you are wrong, tober ... John Ramsey wants it resolved.

If that were true, the prime suspects would not have manipulated the situation (regarding this case) at every turn.

[Athena]

Re: Response to Nuisanceposter's post and prosecutors lying:

Sorry NP I don't have patience you showed above by cutting, pasting and responding but do want to address prosecutors/lawyers under oath:

I have been involved as being a witness and giving sworn depositions. However, I was the one who took an oath. In none of the interviews I had do I recall any of the lawyers having to take an oath to tell the truth -- only me as I am the one answering questions and I did not have my lawyer in the room with me.

You all that believe prosecutors don't lie in interviews can cite that paragraph all you want. It is a known fact that throughout this country prosecutors lie and there have been movements in an effort to get them to tell the truth. I am not saying all prosectors do lie but I do know many do to elicit confessions or just to scare the be-Jesus (sic) out of you. There is not one person on this board or anywhere else that can convince me otherwise. Been there -- have experienced it first-hand. Unfortunately many do lie and with a straight face.

You also mentioned you have heard of the Central Park Jogger's case in NY. I am surprised but will try to find you a link. MOO

[Athena]

Central Park Jogger case:

THE FALSE CONFESSIONS IN THE CENTRAL PARK JOGGER CASE:
How They Happened, and How To Stop Similar Injustices from Happening Again
By ELAINE CASSEL

Fifth, contrary to current Supreme Court standards, law enforcement lies to suspects should be forbidden. As noted above, the "confessions" such lies prompt are often highly unreliable.

Sixth, and finally, prosecutors should be held to their duty to do justice. Because they are immune from suit, they are unaccountable--except to voters--for negligence and fraud. Requiring them to vouch for the evidence produced by their investigators and law enforcement, might make them think twice about putting on any evidence and hoping it sticks.

Defense attorneys can lose their licenses for putting on false and misleading evidence, even though their duty is to defend zealously. Prosecutors, on the other hand, often do so with impunity, even though their duty is to serve justice, not to convict. That needs to stop. Prosecutors should be held as closely accountable for what they do as are defense attorneys.

http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/cassel/20021217.html

Please note this is an earlier version of events and since then the boys have been released from a false conviction. While it has nothing to do with JBR's case -- it is just one of many where Prosecutors have been known to lie and spin their untruths:


A Journey Through the Tangled Case of the Central Park Jogger
When Justice Is a Game
by Sydney H. Schanberg
November 20 - 26, 2002

Probably the most blatant example of the prosecution's contortions under pressure had to do with distorting the meaning of critical evidencethe DNA. To wit, the D.A.'s office all along, right up to the first trial in 1990, had told the press, and therefore the public, that the DNA results were "inconclusive" because they showed only a "weak" or "faint" patternleaving the impression that, while there was no match, the samples likely did belong to one or more of the indicted five, but were merely of poor quality. In fact, the semen samples taken from the victim were absolutely conclusive in ways important to the defense.

The prosecution never did reveal the true DNA results and analysis. The FBI did at the first trial, more than a year after the crime. The disclosure was made by the witness from the FBI laboratory, Special Agent Dwight Adams. And it didn't come in his direct testimony as a witness for the prosecution, because Assistant D.A. Elizabeth Lederer avoided any question to him that might lead to the whole truth. However, Adams told the story openly, with no reluctance, in his cross-examination by defense attorney Mickey Joseph.

Adams's testimony was a major departure from the line the prosecution had spun.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0247,schanberg,39999,1.html

[shill]

I was interviewed by the State police once about the murder of a young lady at a place I had worked.
They told me some of the employees had said she was dating me. It was a lie.
After they finished with their line of questions, the one officer asked the other if they should let me go, keeping a straight face. They hesitated so they could watch me panic. I thought I was going to be falsely accused for a crime and thrown in jail, and then they started to laugh out loud and said I was free to go.
They thought they were funny. It was one of the most terrifying experiences in my life. I had debated getting a lawyer before I went for the interview, but I knew I had nothing to hide, or fear I thought. They pretty much treated me as guilty until proven innocent, and then they f-cked with me for their own amusement.
They caught the guy, but not with smart detective work. The guy had been imprisoned for something else and was bragging about his crime to an inmate who turned him in.

[sweetcharlotte]

Shill, I'm sorry for the way you were treated but unfortunately there are police officers who do not always conduct themselves in a professional manner.

I think if Eller had been successful in withholding JonBenet's body for burial to force the Ramseys into interviews they would have been treated in much the same manner.

JMO

[Tober]

I think you are wrong, tober ... John Ramsey wants it resolved.

If that were true, he'd be furious with Mary Lacy, Michael Tracey, and John Karr for the mess the three of them caused.

[bullmoose]

Tober: you are a RDI, you think he did it or had something to do with it, thats fine by me, but where do you get off saying John Ramsey would be furious with Lacy,etc. if he was innocent? How can you claim to know how he should react to the events as they happen, if he wants the case solved? As far as I know, there is no manual on proper reactions that a person should display when innocent-----is there?:no:

[Louisadelmar]

If that were true, he'd be furious with Mary Lacy, Michael Tracey, and John Karr for the mess the three of them caused.

And how do you know he wasn't? The fact that he didn't put on a public spectacle for your benefit tells us nothing about how he felt in private.

[Tober]

And how do you know he wasn't?

He said he felt sorry for Karr, and that's with him knowing all the terrible things Karr said about JonBenet. We already know how Team Ramsey feels about Tracey and Lacy.

[Athena]

He said he felt sorry for Karr, and that's with him knowing all the terrible things Karr said about JonBenet. We already know how Team Ramsey feels about Tracey and Lacy.

Don't you think you're stretching the truth a bit here? In context, JR IMO meant he felt sorry for the rush to judgement and the hounding of the media that Karr went through before they knew if he was guilty of the crime. He said it more with empathy than with sympathy because of his first-hand experience. The man was a corporate leader and was in the military. More often than not they know how to control their emotions and not put on a public exhibition or make themselves a spectacle. JMO

As far as Lacy goes she was damned that she did and damned if she didn't. She could NOT ignore someone confessing to a crime, in writing, over a three-four year period. To think otherwise is not just. IMO she did what she had to do and given the circumstances any DA should have/would have done the same.

[Tober]

As far as Lacy goes she was damned that she did and damned if she didn't. She could NOT ignore someone confessing to a crime, in writing, over a three-four year period.

Within a very short time after Karr's arrest, some TV commentators were able to establish that he was with his family when JonBenet was killed. If one listens to the phone calls and reads the emails between Karr and Tracy, they can see that Karr's claims don't match the evidence. There are some instances in which Karr didn't know certain details of the crime, and Tracey had to fill him in, guiding him along. Lacy failed to corroborate or invalidate Karr's claims based on the evidence. This would have taken only a few minutes. Once it was established that his claims didn't match the evidence and that he couldn't be placed at or near the crime scene at the appropriate time, his DNA could have been tested without arresting him and without alerting the media. Then, after it was established that his DNA didn't match, Lacy could have held a brief press conference detailing what had happened. But instead of doing that, Lacy (and the team) desperately wanted an intruder, thus the resultant mess. It's also very suspicious that the whole thing took place shortly prior to the 10th anniversary of the crime.

[Zoey]

Within a very short time after Karr's arrest, some TV commentators were able to establish that he was with his family when JonBenet was killed. If one listens to the phone calls and reads the emails between Karr and Tracy, they can see that Karr's claims don't match the evidence. There are some instances in which Karr didn't know certain details of the crime, and Tracey had to fill him in, guiding him along. Lacy failed to corroborate or invalidate Karr's claims based on the evidence. This would have taken only a few minutes. Once it was established that his claims didn't match the evidence and that he couldn't be placed at or near the crime scene at the appropriate time, his DNA could have been tested without arresting him and without alerting the media. Then, after it was established that his DNA didn't match, Lacy could have held a brief press conference detailing what had happened. But instead of doing that, Lacy (and the team) desperately wanted an intruder, thus the resultant mess. It's also very suspicious that the whole thing took place shortly prior to the 10th anniversary of the crime.

What TV commentaries? From all that I have read on this, his family was only able to produce a picture of his three boys at Christmas time at the family home. His family stated that if the boys were there, then he must have been there, but IMO, this does not prove anything.

IIRC, he refused to give DNA samples in Thailand, and that is why he was brought back to the states. I could very well be wrong on this, please correct me if I am.

It is not suspicious that this took place shortly before the 10th anniversary, it is because, IMO, he became increasingly disturbing in his emails to Tracey, and hence the reason Tracey went to the authorities. I think Karr made it coincide with the 10th anniversary, not Lacy or Tracey or anyone else but Karr. He is a very disturbed man IMO.

[Tober]

IIRC, he refused to give DNA samples in Thailand, and that is why he was brought back to the states. I could very well be wrong on this, please correct me if I am.

http://www.denverpost.com/jonbenet/ci_4253409 When Karr did consent, investigators "did not have the necessary kit available." IMO, the Boulder DA's office went unprepared because they wanted Karr in Boulder, even though there was no evidence-based reason to have him there.

[LindaA]

Thanks for posting that link, Tober. It just serves to bolster my belief that the DNA evidence must be valid or it would not have been the issue it was in the JMK fiasco.

[shill]

Thanks for posting that link, Tober. It just serves to bolster my belief that the DNA evidence must be valid or it would not have been the issue it was in the JMK fiasco.

If they have been able to determine race from the DNA, it's a safe bet it is from a Caucasian or they wouldn't have bothered Karr.

[Tober]

Thanks for posting that link, Tober. It just serves to bolster my belief that the DNA evidence must be valid or it would not have been the issue it was in the JMK fiasco.

That doesn't mean the DNA is the killer's. Since the DNA was found, it can't be ignored, it has to be tested against potential suspects. The majority of experts are of the opinion that the DNA is artifact and wasn't deposited by the killer. Even Mary Lacy has stated that the DNA may be artifact and isn't necessarily the killer's.