JR's profile

[BBB167893]

And keep in mind: ST only describes what he saw during his time with the investigation while Alex Hunter was there. Mary Lacy was even WORSE. I think ST said it best in 2006 when he said, and I quote, "she makes her predecessor look like Rudy Giuliani."
I'm don't think anyone could have said it better!

You stick with me a while, smurf. I'll give you numerous examples of why the DA's office in this case can't be trusted.

Some of our "friends" talk like Mary Lacy was some kind of modern day Galileo. But if there's anyone of Renaissance Italy that they SHOULD be likened to, it's the Borgia family!

Just in case anyone is interested, this is the actual article where ST gives the quote I spoke of:

Case setback ends detective's silence
By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
August 28, 2006

Former Boulder Police Detective Steve Thomas broke a five-year silence on the JonBenet Ramsey case this afternoon to blast District Attorney Mary Lacy for arresting John Mark Karr, a man she has decided not to charge.

"This was not a faux pas. This was not a misstep," said Thomas, 44, and now living in Florida. "This was just a blunder of beyond anything I could ever imagine in this case."

"If anybody questioned why I resigned in protest from this criminal justice system in 1998, I think this latest series of events just adds an exclamation point to that."

Thomas quit the Boulder department with a lengthy and passionate resignation letter dated Aug. 6, 1998 — it would have been JonBenet's eighth birthday — blasting the district attorney's office for its handling of the case and alleging the justice system in Boulder was the detectives' greatest obstacle in bringing JonBenet's killer or killers to justice.

"In hindsight, I have tempered my criticism of former D.A. Alex Hunter," said Thomas. "At least I can say he was trying, diligently. At least he was in the same ballpark, the same zip code, as the detectives working the case.

"Mary Lacy makes Alex Hunter look like Rudy Giuliani in comparison," Thomas added. "She now has to stand up at the podium, and she has got to take a bullet or two on this. She has lost all credibility in the police community, and that poses a real and immediate problem that anybody can understand."

Asked if he believed, as others are expressing, that Lacy should step down, Thomas said, "I think that's an understatement." He said Lacy has been "myopic, let’s say, in her view of the depth and breadth of where she wants the investigation to go."

Thomas was sued by JonBenet's parents, for stating in an interview on CNN's Larry King Live, that he thought Patsy Ramsey, the child's mother, was "good for" the murder of 6-year-old JonBenet. That suit was settled out of court, and Thomas said terms of the settlement preclude parties to it from commenting on the terms.

"I always want to hold on to some inherent belief there may be some resolution" to the star-crossed investigation, Thomas said, "but I am also a realist. This may go down as another unresolved homicide, in which God will mete out whatever appropriate justice is required, in the end.

"But I’m not holding my breath that this case is now going to see any resolution in a Boulder County courtroom."

I underlined and bolded those parts because, as I see it, that's exactly what it comes down to: Mary Lacy stepping down. It would have been the RIGHT thing to do, and if she refused to walk out, the state should have FORCED her out. The best analogy I can think of is Watergate. Nixon knew he'd screwed up beyond repair, and rather than have his name and the office of US president dragged through the mud of an impeachment, he decided to walk out on his own and preserve what dignity he had left and maintain SOME respect for the office of President.

John Mark Karr was Mary Lacy's Watergate, the crowning screw-up in a series of screw-ups on her part. Or at least, it SHOULD have been her Watergate. This is what I wrote about it in my (soon-to-be-released) book:

Mary Lacy was on the defensive. She shouldn't have been, because this should not have happened. Her conduct violated the most basic elements of procedure that a first-year law student would know. It was clear to many that she was a pro-Ramsey partisan and was trying to give them a gift. There should have been a recall election. She should have been forced to resign. The case should have been taken over by capable professionals. But none of that happened, because after ten years nobody gave a damn.

And that's the worst part, you know? Nobody CARED. Over on his blog, which I encourage others to read, seamus o'riley said it best, and I'm paraphrasing: the Touch DNA to-do was nothing more than an ego-trip for Mary Lacy, a way to get herself back on TV, to rehabilitate her public image with the limited time she had in office, to give that gift to Patsy she so desperately wanted to give (to paraphrase Craig Silverman), and go out on a high note.

It doesn't speak very highly of Mary Lacy that, as far as she was concerned, sticking a thumb in the eye of the LE professionals who spurned her was more important than getting justice for a little angel. As the Duke might have said, I guess some folks is just built that way. Unfortunately, in this case, it was like an epidemic. That "everybody's-wrong-but-me" viewpoint dominated the pro-Ramsey faction. They weren't alone; there were some on the anti-Ramsey side, too. Not nearly as many, but that's no excuse.

You said it best, smurf: it's like there's something in the water in Boulder. Well, you're right. I've spoken about the political atmosphere in Boulder many times: how they've never gotten out of the Swingin' Sixties, when wrong was right, the "Man" was responsible for all the world's problems and cops were "pigs," more dangerous to free society than all the criminals combined. Alex Hunter was one of the people who believed that. He was a product of the Sixties and drank deep from the well of anti-establishment, anti-police radicalism. Mary Lacy was no different, save that she added an element of man-hating feminism to the equation. You'll see examples of that as you get towards the end of ST's book, but he's not alone, not by a damn sight.

Now, I'm running out of breath.

 

[BBB167893]

To be honest I thought that Casey Anthony was a slam dunk I was convinced she was going to jail,

I know what you mean, smurf. I figured the only thing left was to dig a grave and push her into it. It would have been a perfect counterpoint to the Alex Hunters and Mary Lacys of the world, wouldn't it? The perfect illustration of the difference between REAL prosecutors and those snake-tongued bas****s in the Boulder DA's office who only care about their pensions and their public image and their political agendas. (Please pardon my language.)

In the Caylee Anthony case, the prosecution went ahead with a capital (death-penalty) charge against a suspect who didn't have NEARLY the amount of evidence against her that the Ramseys do! Jeff Ashton and the Florida prosecutors were not afraid to bring a case against Casey Anthony, even though they had only the barest circumstantial evidence. They had no DNA, no confession, no eyewitnesses, no murder weapon, no exact time of death; they didn't even have a CAUSE of death with any certainty! But they had common sense, that increasingly elusive treasure I'm always talking about. And it sure seemed like that was enough. The newspapers were practically printing Casey's obituary.

But I forgot one important thing: that, at the end of the day, no matter how good a prosecutor is, and no matter how tight a rein the judge keeps on the goings-on in his courtroom, justice is still decided by 12 people too STUPID to get out of jury duty!

(Boy, the dragon is breathing fire today!)

I know book are meant to invoke emotions but the more I read the more infuriated I get. I feel so sorry for ST and others who tried to steer the investigation in the right direction there must be something in the water in Boulder.:maddening:

I think you'll find a LOT of people here who would agree with you!

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks! And thanks also DeeDee249 for the link to ACR. That site definitley has TONS of information. Truthfully it was a little overwhelming, it's going to take me forever to go thorugh it. I guess that will be yet more hours spent on my computer. lol

Well, my question does pertain to John Ramsey. I do believe that JonBenet was indeed molested over a period of time, just from what I have seen in regards to the autopsy report(though I know there are different interpretations of it), toileting issues, and Patsy taking her to the dr. so often for different issues.

I personally feel that it was JR who was the perpetrator of this. Not really sure why, I just do. I think he accidentally killed JonBenet during one of these times, and patsy helped him stage the whole kidnapping thing. Just my opinion.

But what I am wondering is, is there ANY indication that JR had molested or done anything inappropriate with any other children. Namely I guess I am thinking of his other daughters. I feel kind of like a heel asking this, but was this aspect at all investigated by anyone? Any rumors or indications? I just can't see him "becoming" a pedophile in middle age, I don't think that happens.

Hi, melissamom! I welcome you.

I don't know exactly who investigated it, but it was. Melinda Ramsey said that JR was never abusive toward her in any way, and so far, nothing has surfaced to contradict her. As for Beth, who knows? She didn't live long enough to tell anyone either way.

Now, if you listen to some people, they'll tell you that same thing: that no one just up and becomes a pedophile in middle age, and that the fact that neither of the other daughters were molested means that he couldn't have molested JB, either.

Both of these assertions are easily challenged.

Firstly, I agree with the idea that no one simply "becomes" a pedophile in middle age, especially when they've had a healthy sex life up to that point. BUT, what many laypeople often forget is that the terms "pedophile" and "child molester" are NOT the same thing. "Pedophile" is a psychological term. "Child molester" is a legal one, and one does not have to be a pedophile to be a child molester.

Let's get literal here, melissamom. A pedophile is a person who has recurring sexual attractions and urges toward children. No one really knows why they have these attractions. Possibly, their brains are crosswired.

That differs from a situational, or surrogate molester. These people are not attracted to children because they are children, as a pedophile is. Rather, these people are attracted to a very specific child because, a) the child is seen as a substitute, or surrogate, for an adult object of desire; or b) because the child is the only available sexual outlet. Sometimes, both. A good example would a father who molests his daughter because the daughter reminds him of his wife, who is now unreachable.

And someone CAN become a situational molester at any age. It happens more often than we might think.

Secondly, in families where child molestation occurs, regardless of motivation, it is not uncommon for the molester to choose ONE child as their target and leave the others alone. While it is true that pedophiles often do have a pattern of such behavior, it helps to remember that all molesters, like most criminals, are like predatory animals: they tend to go after who they judge to be the weakest members of the herd. If they have to settle for ONE child out of the ones they have, they will. And shockingly, sometimes the other siblings don't know a THING about it!

Back in March, I chanced to catch an interview with a woman named Stacey Lannert. She had just written a book about her experiences as a victim of child molestation at the hands of her own father. According to her, her father had not shown the SLIGHTEST hints of pedophilia and had been, in her words, a "lovely man," until two things happened: 1) his wife, Stacey's mother, cut him off sexually; and 2) he had a talk with his father-in-law, Stacey's mother's father, who ALSO had resorted to child molestation of Stacey's mother when HIS wife closed up shop, as it were. Stacey's grandfather suggested that, if Stacey's mother wouldn't give him any, to take it from one of his daughters. Stacey also said that her younger sister was spared their father's advances and did not even know that Stacey was being molested until Stacey left home.

So, if one wanted to go down that path with this case, (I'm going to Hell for this) there are certain things that might lead to JR becoming a situational molester. It helps to remember that Patsy Ramsey survived ovarian cancer, but that survival came with a price tag: it rendered her all but incapable of engaging in sexual activity. It was soon after that when Patsy really kicked JB's pageant life into high gear. JR once said about his daughter, "she was 100% Patsy." Maybe THAT was the key right there: JB had all the qualities that JR loved about Patsy, with none of the dangers. She wasn't old enough to get herself killed driving a car like Beth did, and she was in good health. But perhaps more than anything, JB would have been very easy to manipulate and control.

Remember what I said about molesters picking the weakest members of the herd? See, it helps to remember that there's a reason why children make such good victims: they are not able to defend themselves. I don't mean just physically, but mentally. They don't always know it's wrong, and even if they do, they are very easy to control through fear or bribery. JB would have actually been a BETTER target than most children her age. Point of fact, JB would have been the IDEAL victim for a molester: she was beautiful, charming, friendly, and most of all, as part of her pageant training, she had been taught to offer her body to adults to admire AND she was specifically trained to be obediant. Patsy and her mother Nedra saw to that!

Now, if you folks will excuse me, I feel in DESPERATE need of a shower! Not that it matters. I don't think there's enough soap in the WORLD that would make me feel clean again!

Because I was kind of thinking maybe HE was the one who gave JBR the pineapple that night. Like maybe it was part of a little ritual. Maybe she woke up, and he was awake and said something like "Hey honey, lets go down to the kitchen, Daddy will get you a snack" kind of as a preclude to whatever he was planning on doing. I know I read something about the spoon being odd, like a huge serving spoon or something. But maybe as he was getting the pineapple out of the fridge, JonBenet said, "oh, I'll get a spoon", and that is what she grabbed and he just let her go with it.

Please don't laugh at me if this is completely off the wall and doesnt fit in with the facts of the case. I don't know nearly as much as everyone here. I was just kind of wondering. Thanks!

At this point, melissamom, you could tell me the Ramseys were possessed by evil spirits that night and I'd have a good chance of believing it.

 

[melissasmom]

Thanks SuperDave! I really had no idea there was such a being as a "situational molester". I always just figured pedophile/child molester were the same thing. Thanks for explaining it so succintly.

I can understand why people become so obsessed with this particular case. So much known, yet so much unknown. Botched from the beginning.

To me, the main thing that stood out from the beginning was the ransom note. Why would you kidnap a child, ask for ransom, then assault and murder that child and leave her in the house?! Sorry, that just makes no sense, and screams out "inside job". (and I kinda hate using that phrase in regards to the horrible murder of a child, but yeah, this was not done by an intruder, no way)

Thanks again for the info

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks SuperDave! I really had no idea there was such a being as a "situational molester". I always just figured pedophile/child molester were the same thing.

That's what a lot of people think, melissamom. That's one reason why there's so much confusion over the issue.

Thanks for explaining it so succintly.

Thank you for saying so. (Personally, I thought I went a bit long.)

I can understand why people become so obsessed with this particular case. So much known, yet so much unknown. Botched from the beginning.

In more ways than one.

To me, the main thing that stood out from the beginning was the ransom note. Why would you kidnap a child, ask for ransom, then assault and murder that child and leave her in the house?! Sorry, that just makes no sense, and screams out "inside job". (and I kinda hate using that phrase in regards to the horrible murder of a child, but yeah, this was not done by an intruder, no way)

I know what you mean. I wish I could believe that an intruder was responsible, if for no other reason than I wouldn't have to understand WHY JB was killed.

Thanks again for the info

Only too glad to help.