BPD investigation confidence vote

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

What is your belief and will BPD solve the case?

  • RDI - Yes BPD will probably solve the case.

    Votes: 3 8.6%

  • RDI - No BPD will probably not solve the case.

    Votes: 25 71.4%

  • ? DI - Yes BPD will probably solve the case.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • ? DI - No BPD will probably not solve the case.

    Votes: 5 14.3%

  • IDI - Yes BPD will probably solve the case.

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • IDI - No BPD will probably not solve the case.

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Total voters
    35

New Posts

Peepers said:
Are you kidding???? we do KNOW the R's were NOT INDICTED! THEY WERE NOT INDICTED by the grand jury..
I never said who I was talking to .................did I, but if the shoe fits.
Click to expand...

Right. They were NOT indicted. We all DO know that. But we DON'T know WHY. We shouldn't think that they did not return an indictment because there wasn't enough evidence. There ARE other reasons for that. Or it may have been that the evidence pointed to a direction that could not be prosecuted by Colorado law. Or the GJ may not have seen all the evidence. (Like Judge Carnes, who did not see all the evidence yet issued a ruling).
Certain questioning was not done in person, (BR for example) but by videotape and it wasn't live, I believe, so anyone who thinks BR breezed through his interrogation is wrong. In front of a GJ, a witness gives other kinds of cues- eye contact, body language (is he squirming, looking away, etc.) Lawyers are forbidden to be present at GJ questioning, but when someone is testifying by videotape and is not actually in front of them, we can't be sure exactly who is present. In front if the GJ, you can't have your lawyer speaking for you, saying you won't answer the question. The only way to refuse to answer is to invoke your 5th Amendment right to remain silent, and you must state that it is because your reply might incriminate you. And that in itself implies you have knowledge of the crime, either as the perp or that you know who the perp was or what happened. It isn't the same as invoking your Miranda Rights to remain silent. You need not offer any explanation for that. But GJ testimony is different.
There may have been other reasons, and the GJ is under no obligation to explain.
It rested with the DA at the end of the day, and he was NEVER going to prosecute this case.
 
DeeDee249 said:
Certain questioning was not done in person, (BR for example) but by videotape and it wasn't live, I believe, so anyone who thinks BR breezed through his interrogation is wrong. In front of a GJ, a witness gives other kinds of cues- eye contact, body language (is he squirming, looking away, etc.) Lawyers are forbidden to be present at GJ questioning, but when someone is testifying by videotape and is not actually in front of them, we can't be sure exactly who is present. In front if the GJ, you can't have your lawyer speaking for you, saying you won't answer the question. The only way to refuse to answer is to invoke your 5th Amendment right to remain silent, and you must state that it is because your reply might incriminate you. And that in itself implies you have knowledge of the crime, either as the perp or that you know who the perp was or what happened. It isn't the same as invoking your Miranda Rights to remain silent. You need not offer any explanation for that. But GJ testimony is different.
There may have been other reasons, and the GJ is under no obligation to explain.
It rested with the DA at the end of the day, and he was NEVER going to prosecute this case.
Click to expand...

I knew that the BR interview was videotaped, but what I wonder now is who asked the questions, was he (and his parents and the lawyers) told ahead of time what the questions would be, and who submitted the questions (was it questions posed by the GJ or by prosecutors).

Also, just to point out, on the final days of the GJ, Dr. Lee (who suggested the death might have been an accident) flew in to meet with prosecutors. I don't think he actually addressed the GJ, but his thoughts were assumedly presented to the GJ, and shortly thereafter, the GJ was dismissed without any indictment -- and without any report.
.
 
otg said:
I knew that the BR interview was videotaped, but what I wonder now is who asked the questions, was he (and his parents and the lawyers) told ahead of time what the questions would be, and who submitted the questions (was it questions posed by the GJ or by prosecutors).

Also, just to point out, on the final days of the GJ, Dr. Lee (who suggested the death might have been an accident) flew in to meet with prosecutors. I don't think he actually addressed the GJ, but his thoughts were assumedly presented to the GJ, and shortly thereafter, the GJ was dismissed without any indictment -- and without any report.
.
Click to expand...

It is the lack of a report that makes me suspicious, and that is one rule I'd like to see changed. Indict or no, but you must issue a report explaining your actions.
I seem to recall that BR was given written questions in advance, and I'd bet the rent that his lawyers vetted them.
 
Peepers said:
Are you kidding???? we do KNOW the R's were NOT INDICTED! THEY WERE NOT INDICTED by the grand jury..
Click to expand...

Mm. Perhaps I should rephrase that. I wasn't saying that the GJ indicted them. I'm saying that whether or not they would have indicted them, the evidence is very strong that they were not given a chance.

DD pretty much summed it up.
 
UKGuy said:
For me the mystery is not who did it, but how they got away with it, despite a landslide of evidence.
Click to expand...

Sadly, UKG, it's no mystery to me, at all. I even put it right in the subtitle of my book: money and politics.
 
http://stephensingular.com/Blog/Default.aspx

Despite all the publicity about the case, virtually none of this information became public during the first few years of the Ramsey investigation. There’s been little reason to believe that the Boulder Police Department had ever looked deeply into these leads.

I’ve always felt that one reason the homicide was never solved is that Boulder’s power structure did not want these underground elements to surface -- unless the local DA could make a successful case against one or two individuals and limit the damage to the city’s reputation. Since 1996, JonBenet’s murder itself has almost fallen into the background; what’s become as prominent and disturbing is why the case wasn’t broadly investigated and why so many leads were never seriously pursued. Numerous other young victims of sexual abuse remain in the area, but were ignored following the murder. They’ve spoken with civilian investigators about their experience and provide an unsettling backdrop to Boulder in the years before the Ramsey case erupted. In recent years, several people have come forward and told me about other neglected leads. Since early 2009, some hard information has been passed along to the BPD -- and now, eighteen months later, there’s news out of Boulder that the police have been keeping the case alive and conducting new interviews. Let’s hope they’ve started looking at things, and at people, dismissed in the past. When authorities fail to act, only civilians are left to try to move cold cases forward. That isn’t how the system is supposed to work, but has it ever come close to working in Boulder regarding this homicide? From the beginning, the Boulder police seemed determined to nail Patsy Ramsey or nobody. Since 1996, they’ve gotten exactly nobody.

:clap:
 
Yeah well its not like there aren't any clues!

You know, like the foreign faction ransom note/revolutionary anti-capitalist diatribe.

None so blind...
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Yeah well its not like there aren't any clues!

You know, like the foreign faction ransom note/revolutionary anti-capitalist diatribe.

None so blind...
Click to expand...

HOTYH, I sometimes get the feeling that you either know who wrote the note, or maybe have more information than the rest of us. Is this true?
Do you know who wrote it? Was it you?
 
I get that feeling too Beck. Kudos to you for asking....
 
joeskidbeck said:
HOTYH, I sometimes get the feeling that you either know who wrote the note, or maybe have more information than the rest of us. Is this true?
Do you know who wrote it? Was it you?
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO is this your idea of websleuthing? Go online and ask somebody?:laugh:
 
madeleine said:
http://stephensingular.com/Blog/Default.aspx

Despite all the publicity about the case, virtually none of this information became public during the first few years of the Ramsey investigation. There’s been little reason to believe that the Boulder Police Department had ever looked deeply into these leads.

I’ve always felt that one reason the homicide was never solved is that Boulder’s power structure did not want these underground elements to surface -- unless the local DA could make a successful case against one or two individuals and limit the damage to the city’s reputation. Since 1996, JonBenet’s murder itself has almost fallen into the background; what’s become as prominent and disturbing is why the case wasn’t broadly investigated and why so many leads were never seriously pursued. Numerous other young victims of sexual abuse remain in the area, but were ignored following the murder. They’ve spoken with civilian investigators about their experience and provide an unsettling backdrop to Boulder in the years before the Ramsey case erupted. In recent years, several people have come forward and told me about other neglected leads. Since early 2009, some hard information has been passed along to the BPD -- and now, eighteen months later, there’s news out of Boulder that the police have been keeping the case alive and conducting new interviews. Let’s hope they’ve started looking at things, and at people, dismissed in the past. When authorities fail to act, only civilians are left to try to move cold cases forward. That isn’t how the system is supposed to work, but has it ever come close to working in Boulder regarding this homicide? From the beginning, the Boulder police seemed determined to nail Patsy Ramsey or nobody. Since 1996, they’ve gotten exactly nobody.

:clap:
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link maddy. The later entry dated 4 October 2010 is extremely interesting also. I post it in it's entirety here.

"Monday, October 04, 2010 #
Ramsey Developments -- What You Can't Hear in a Sound Bite
On January 14, 2009, the day after Stan Garnett became the new Boulder DA, I called him because he’d publicly said that he wanted to look at the unsolved JonBenet Ramsey murder case with fresh eyes. Surprisingly, he called back the next day, in part because he’d had some connection to the Alan Berg assassination in Denver in 1984, the subject of my first book. A few weeks later, I made an appointment to drive up to Boulder and speak with him about the Ramsey case. He seemed open-minded about the now twelve- year-old homicide and told me that his office, Boulder Police Department personnel, and other law enforcement were having a powwow about the case at the end of February 2009.
In just the past two days, the substance of that meeting has become national news, and we’ve learned that a 20-some member advisory council made up of state and federal officials were at the gathering. We now know that they recommended the BPD go back and interview certain individuals connected to the case. One is Burke Ramsey, nine at the time of his sister’s death and now 23. What we don’t know and what seems very strange is that the BPD appears only now to be getting around to talking with these people -- a full nineteen months later. What they’ve been doing for the past year-and-a-half is about as mysterious as the murder itself. In my February ’09 talks with Garnett, I gave him some very specific information about people connected to child *advertiser censored* whose names have been associated with JonBenet’s death. These leads had all been developed long after the murder, when certain people in Boulder had come forward to civilians with new information, in part because they did not want to go to the local police.
Initially, the Garnett appeared interested in opening up the investigation beyond the Ramsey family, just as the first DA on the case, Alex Hunter, had been when I’d approached him in April 1997. Back then, Hunter’s complaint to me was that the BPD did not want to conduct an investigation into child abuse and child *advertiser censored* that went outside the Ramsey family, and he was clearly frustrated by this. Twelve years later, there was reason to hope that Garnett would follow through with his desire to broaden the investigation. Within a few weeks, however, he’d turned the case back over to the BPD; some of the very same detectives who’d narrowed the murder probe earlier were in charge of it once again, the first sign that maybe Garnett’s eyes were not all that fresh. In my future communications with the DA, he told me to pass along any information I had to the Boulder Police, as he did not have time to deal with it. So I did.
Let me be clear: we are talking about giving names to the Boulder Police Department of at least one offender convicted of child *advertiser censored* charges, whose name had been raised by people in Boulder as having connections with the Ramsey homicide. When I attempted to convey this information to the BPD, I was essentially dismissed, as if this could not possibly be useful to them. I’m hardly the only one who had this experience. Throughout the past couple of years, I saw retired homicide detective Lou Smit on numerous occasions before he died in August 2010. He talked to me at length about the suspect list he’d put together since officially leaving the Ramsey investigation nearly a decade earlier, and sent along to the BPD. He felt the same kind of dismissive attitude toward him that I had -- despite having had a 90% clearance rate on his murder cases over decades of police work.
It would be fine to be dismissed if there was reason to believe that the BPD has now broadened its investigation and is willing to look in new directions. But if that isn’t the case, the public has the right to know what the police have been doing and how their tax dollars have been spent on this case.
I’ll have other things to say about information that was conveyed to the Boulder authorities around the time of this February 2009 powwow, but the critical question now is whether the BPD is going to interview more people beyond Burke Ramsey and other well known names in this case.
More to come.

"
 
madeleine said:
what’s become as prominent and disturbing is why the case wasn’t broadly investigated and why so many leads were never seriously pursued..
Click to expand...

Holdontoyourhat said:
Yeah well its not like there aren't any clues!

You know, like the foreign faction ransom note/revolutionary anti-capitalist diatribe.

None so blind...
Click to expand...

But seriously:

The ransom note provides a lot of info that would otherwise not be available. It was probably a mistake for whoever wrote it, if they wanted to get away with it.
 
joeskidbeck said:
HOTYH, I sometimes get the feeling that you either know who wrote the note, or maybe have more information than the rest of us. Is this true?
Do you know who wrote it? Was it you?
Click to expand...
Wow, Beck. You played that with the best poker face evah!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 74 more.
Total: 2,405 (members: 75, guests: 2,330)

Online statistics

Members online
75
Guests online
2,330
Total visitors
2,405
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,853
Messages
18,130,706
Members
231,162
Latest member
Kaffro
Back
Top