BREAKING NEWS: New DNA Analysis Suggests Family Should NOT Have Been Cleared

[Disgusted]

Wondering what you guys make of this new news article claiming that DA Stan Garnett says he knows who killed Jonbenet:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...m/news-story/fb6c45c21eb9b7dff72b4bdae030ea6a

 

[Userid]

Wondering what you guys make of this new news article claiming that DA Stan Garnett says he knows who killed Jonbenet:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...m/news-story/fb6c45c21eb9b7dff72b4bdae030ea6a

Thank you for this. It's just so frustrating when people (like the DA, like the GJ member, etc.) say they know who killed JBR, but they won't say. I get it -- especially in the DA's case, considering he doesn't want to compromise the ongoing investigation -- but nonetheless, it's very irritating.

I just hope the DNA testing can finally solve this case and give the DA enough to file.

The one thing I glean from the article is that, it seems like the DA is close -- they know who did it; they feel confident about it -- but they just don't have enough evidence right now to feel confident in a conviction. It does inspire hope that they are close.

For whatever reason, I also glean that the DA believes someone in the family is responsible.

 

[singularity]

Yeah looks like they may finally take a crack at it but its understandable to wait for one more round of tests on that DNA even though its not a DNA case.

They need to shake some speed on it though because John is not going to live forever. I hope all those who stayed silent and played a role in keeping things beneath the surface and did the proverbial dance on Jonbenet's grave are all shaking in their boots. I'd like to see many people go to prison besides John and since Patsy is dead, might be a tad on the warm side where she resides.

I love that first pic of Patsy in that article. One of her best.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

^ Thanks Zen. Hmm, plot thickens. You'd think they would't want that released. Reminds me of how JR/PR wanted the telephone call to be made public -- we all saw what happened when it was (i.e. certainly didn't help his cause any).

Lin Wood was "trying" to get the grand jury findings released pretty much as soon as they came in. He went on Larry King Live with the prosecutor Mike Kane after it disbanded and tried to goad Kane into saying publicly that the Ramseys weren't indicted which of course he couldn't because of GJ secrecy and, you know, the fact that they were indeed indicted. Hilariously Kane was like, OK, let's go down to the courthouse, I'd love to have the record released! But LW never took him up on it obviously.

I can't prove LW knew at the time he said it that they were indicted but I deeply suspect he did. When the news broke Craig Silverman or Dan Caplis said on Peter Boyles that it was an open secret in the Colorado legal community and he knew for years but could only hint at it on his show. Surely LW was clued in at some point but he kept talking about releasing the gj testimony for years. But you'll notice he wasn't in court with Charlie Brennen trying to get then released in 2013!

It's all show with him, he didn't and doesn't expect anything to come of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zencompass]

Brilliant post!

 

[zencompass]

Wondering what you guys make of this new news article claiming that DA Stan Garnett says he knows who killed Jonbenet:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...m/news-story/fb6c45c21eb9b7dff72b4bdae030ea6a

Unfortunately word on the street (and in journalism circles) in Australia is that news.com.au grabs stories from Reddit and BuzzFeed because they feel that if something has gone "viral" on Reddit then it must be true!

Thus, I do not believe that is a quote from Stanley Garnett.

Thank you so much for the link. I just think that some of the material in it is fabricated. Just my opinion. Gosh I wish so much that it was true though! You have no idea how much I wish it were true!

 

[chlban]

Thank you for this. It's just so frustrating when people (like the DA, like the GJ member, etc.) say they know who killed JBR, but they won't say. I get it -- especially in the DA's case, considering he doesn't want to compromise the ongoing investigation -- but nonetheless, it's very irritating.

I just hope the DNA testing can finally solve this case and give the DA enough to file.

The one thing I glean from the article is that, it seems like the DA is close -- they know who did it; they feel confident about it -- but they just don't have enough evidence right now to feel confident in a conviction. It does inspire hope that they are close.

For whatever reason, I also glean that the DA believes someone in the family is responsible.

I got that too. It would be pretty simple to say yes, he believes he knows who the murderer is and "it's not a family member". That leaves millions of other options.

I did note though that he seemed to suggest there could be a prosecution. Not sure I get that. They cannot prosecute Burke due to his age at the time of crime and obviously cannot go after Patsy.

Wondering if anyone has considered the possibility that, if this new focus continues on the case and Burke starts to really feel the public opinion on his guilt, is it possible that John would finally tell a whole new truth. He could save Burke's reputation by throwing Patsy under the bus.

Of course, I still lean to PDI, but even if it was not, it's not like she can actually be hurt any more. Weighing your child's reputation against your dead wife's?

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

Unfortunately word on the street (and in journalism circles) in Australia is that news.com.au grabs stories from Reddit and BuzzFeed because they feel that if something has gone "viral" on Reddit then it must be true!

Thus, I do not believe that is a quote from Stanley Garnett.

Thank you so much for the link. I just think that some of the material in it is fabricated. Just my opinion. Gosh I wish so much that it was true though! You have no idea how much I wish it were true!

Yeah, I'm skeptical too. Those are very strong words to be sharing with some random Australian news source and he's been pretty tight-lipped so far. I googled the quote “If we can ever file a case in open court, I’ll tell the world.” and all that comes up are reprints of the article on other Australian news sites. Same with his line "to review the evidence and decide if evidence can be brought, and if it can, to go to court." He's quoted extensively so it's hard to believe that a journalist would make up so much out of thin air but I also find these quotes out of character for Garnett. But I too would love to be proved wrong!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Wondering what you guys make of this new news article claiming that DA Stan Garnett says he knows who killed Jonbenet:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...m/news-story/fb6c45c21eb9b7dff72b4bdae030ea6a

Disgusted,

Asked if he knew who killed JonBenet, Mr Garnett replied, “I do.” He added: “If we can ever file a case in open court, I’ll tell the world.” News.com.au asked him to reveal who he thought was responsible for the death, but he declined to say.

BBM: You bet he would!

The DA last week announced he was retesting DNA evidence from the 20-year-old crime scene using the latest techniques, but warned he would need “several different pieces of evidence to come together” to prosecute.

BBM: Its not a DNA case!

“We’d love to solve the Ramsey case.”

He said whether he could file a case would depend on “what the evidence turns into.”

BBM: Reiteration, its not a DNA case, file a case must mean the person referenced in the true bills is still alive?

A trial is not inconceivable. Mr Garnett has already solved a number of cold cases that his predecessors failed to prosecute, and his team regularly receives tip-offs.

This is the opinion of news.com.au, not that of Stan Garnett.

.

 

[HarmonyE.]

If this is true that John Ramsey and Lin Wood want the Grand Jury record public - this would provide answers and justice for
JonBenet (in my opinion). That's if that is true that they want the Grand Jury record public. I have my doubts.

From the article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/


"On Friday, an attorney for John Ramsey and his family urged the district attorney to publicly open "the entire grand jury record and not just 4 pages from an 18-month investigation that produced volumes of testimony and exhibits."

"The released indictments "are nonsensical," said attorney L. Lin Wood. "They reveal nothing about the evidence reviewed by the grand jury and are clearly the result of a confused and compromised process. The Ramsey Family and the public are entitled to the benefit of the full and complete record, not just a historical footnote. Fairness dictates that result."

Of course they don't everything released (just like they didn't want the four indictments to be released in the first place.) So why say this? They're posturing. Maybe because they know that the complete record, including the other indictments can never be released. For some reason.

 

[BBB167893]

As a Forensic Handwriting Expert who was consulted on this issue; the most over-looked clue to this tragedy is the hand printed note. I have yet to review a properly "profiled" report on the author of this important piece of physical evidence. So far this is the only real clue as to the type of person capable of committing such a crime. Amazing how so many alleged officials have literally screwed this investigation up from the very beginning. Maybe it would be interesting to begin a Forensic Handwriting discussion on this site.

Welcome. You sound like you have much to say.

 

[chlban]

What would be the point of a Grand Jury. Patsy is dead and Burke cannot be prosecuted. If John was the killer, it would make sense but I don't think he is and any crimes he committed by lying would be past the statute of limitations. I realize he is still lying today, but not under oath, which would be required for perjury.

Edited to add, that I don't mean to sound harsh, I would love to see justice but, at this point, I don't see it happening. Most people believe it was either Patsy or Burke, or some combination of the two and neither of them can be held legally responsible.

I would settle for the truth at this point. I don't expect it ,but would love to see it.

 

[Miz Adventure]

I know at the time of the murder Burke was too young to be named by the GJ, or prosecuted, but now he is 29.

If the GJ knew - beyond reasonable doubt (from evidence provided to them that we, the public know nothing about) - that BR killed his sister, then surely that evidence should now be released and the truth, at last, be told? If only to put this matter - and JBR - to rest?

 

[chlban]

I know at the time of the murder Burke was too young to be named by the GJ, or prosecuted, but now he is 29.

If the GJ knew - beyond reasonable doubt (from evidence provided to them that we, the public know nothing about) - that BR killed his sister, then surely that evidence should now be released and the truth, at last, be told? If only to put this matter - and JBR - to rest?

Burke cannot be prosecuted when he's 50. It's based on his age at the time of the crime.

As for the GJ, they do not make a determination based on the "beyond a reasonable doubt" premise. That is for an actual jury. They are only determining that there is enough evidence to justify a trial. Vastly different parameters.

Thus, the old saying that you can indict a ham sandwich.

I do not think this case can ever be solved, unless the lawsuit against CBS goes to trial and we have a Perry Mason moment where Burke breaks down and confesses on the stand.

I am not holding my breath on that one. He has grown up with so many lies told by his parents, I wouldn't even bet that he remembers the actual truth.

 

[kanzz]

I've submitted a new thread. Fingers crossed that it works!

As a Forensic Handwriting Expert who was consulted on this issue; the most over-looked clue to this tragedy is the hand printed note. I have yet to review a properly "profiled" report on the author of this important piece of physical evidence. So far this is the only real clue as to the type of person capable of committing such a crime. Amazing how so many alleged officials have literally screwed this investigation up from the very beginning. Maybe it would be interesting to begin a Forensic Handwriting discussion on this site.

 

[andreww]

I know at the time of the murder Burke was too young to be named by the GJ, or prosecuted, but now he is 29.

If the GJ knew - beyond reasonable doubt (from evidence provided to them that we, the public know nothing about) - that BR killed his sister, then surely that evidence should now be released and the truth, at last, be told? If only to put this matter - and JBR - to rest?

Obviously Burke was too young to be charged, but I highly doubt that LE would have simply ignored him because of his age. If the GJ had suspected Burke I'm sure LE would have been happy to nail the parents for obstruction, then get Burke the help he needed.

I find it very hard to believe that there would be nothing LE could do to a 9 year old murderer. What if he killed again? Would they say "nothing we can do till he's 10"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Miz Adventure]

Obviously Burke was too young to be charged, but I highly doubt that LE would have simply ignored him because of his age. If the GJ had suspected Burke I'm sure LE would have been happy to nail the parents for obstruction, then get Burke the help he needed.

I find it very hard to believe that there would be nothing LE could do to a 9 year old murderer. What if he killed again? Would they say "nothing we can do till he's 10"?

He may have received the help he needed. That could have been part of the deal between the DA and the Ramseys lawyers. The plea bargain could have been that BR be released in the custody of his parents with the strict proviso that he receives intensive counselling, anger management and therapy, until such time as he is deemed fit to integrate with other children.

BR seems to have been off the radar for a long time with some hinting at 'home schooling'

I believe that the only way justice can be obtained for JBR is if somebody (with a vested interest) instigates civil proceedings against the perpetrator.

And who is going to do that? Her family and the peripherals will not be doing this because it would mean putting a member of their own family on trial.

 

[andreww]

He may have received the help he needed. That could have been part of the deal between the DA and the Ramseys lawyers. The plea bargain could have been that BR be released in the custody of his parents with the strict proviso that he receives intensive counselling, anger management and therapy, until such time as he is deemed fit to integrate with other children.

BR seems to have been off the radar for a long time with some hinting at 'home schooling'

I believe that the only way justice can be obtained for JBR is if somebody (with a vested interest) instigates civil proceedings against the perpetrator.

And who is going to do that? Her family and the peripherals will not be doing this because it would mean putting a member of their own family on trial.

I get what you are saying but I don't understand why the DA would not close the case if what you say happened. Why would they okay further DNA testing? Why would Steve Thomas still be convinced that Patsy had done it? If in fact the DA was aware that Burke had done it, that he was being treated, and that he was not prosecutable, why wouldn't they relate that to the police department and to the media? Several DAs have taken a ton of criticism over this case and their legacies have been defined by it. I just highly doubt that so many people would be taking a proverbial bullet for a family that continues to trash them in the media to this very day.

 

[andreww]

I believe that the only way justice can be obtained for JBR is if somebody (with a vested interest) instigates civil proceedings against the perpetrator.

And who is going to do that? Her family and the peripherals will not be doing this because it would mean putting a member of their own family on trial.

I honestly think that what happened is Alex Hunter got word from an important somebody early on that the Ramsey's were good, wealthy, important people and that it would be in his best interests to not pursue them. I think he may have initially believed that the family did not seem like likely suspects so he thwarted the investigation. By the time he realized that he was wrong and that the killer likely came from inside the house, it was too late. The Ramsey's by that point had avoided questioning, had time to coordinate their stories, hired the best lawyers in the country, and likely had disposed of key evidence. He had appointed a detective that had no homicide experience, he had left LA alone in the house to utterly destroy the crime scene, he released the body before all tests were done thoroughly, and he denied warrants for phone records and wire taps. We have never heard Hunter's side of the story and I suppose we never will, but I guarantee you that he did not derail this investigation as a personal favour to John Ramsey. This came from way higher up.

 

[kanzz]

He may have received the help he needed. That could have been part of the deal between the DA and the Ramseys lawyers. The plea bargain could have been that BR be released in the custody of his parents with the strict proviso that he receives intensive counselling, anger management and therapy, until such time as he is deemed fit to integrate with other children.

BR seems to have been off the radar for a long time with some hinting at 'home schooling'

I believe that the only way justice can be obtained for JBR is if somebody (with a vested interest) instigates civil proceedings against the perpetrator.

And who is going to do that? Her family and the peripherals will not be doing this because it would mean putting a member of their own family on trial.

BBM

If there had been a plea bargain, I would think that would be a part of public record. No?

Yes, some have hinted at home schooling. But so far, I don't think we've seen any real evidence of that.

What "civil proceedings"? If what you mean is a wrongful death suit, that is something that can only be brought by survivors.