- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 32,702
- Reaction score
- 169,858
In the second half of my livestream from Tuesday, I get just a titch, itty-bitty, smidgen, a tad, bit angry, about Ashleigh Banfield's little speech to people concerning "research." That produced the response below, which was under our YouTube Video. CLICK HERE if you want to watch the Banfield segment and start at 2:01:22
It is this type of misinformation that makes me, as this person says, "cray cray". This is long, but it is worth it.
From @debbie5876
Wow Tricia, I know why I don't watch your channel. It appears you have lost it. First, I am a retired 30 year law enforcement detective who has read everything and researched the Ramsey case thoroughly, and I have presented hundreds of cases to the grand jury over the years. The grand jury is a not an adversary hearing. There are no defense attorneys and no rebuttals. Only one side is given to the grand jury, and that is the prosecution's side. Have you ever heard the saying, "you can indict a ham sandwich through the grand jury"? So just because the grand jury believed there was probable case does not mean there was probable cause. Just ask all those innocent people who were found not guilty by a jury after being indicted. Second, handwriting is not an absolute, just like bite marks are not absolute. I do find the letter suspicious as to whether Patsy wrote the letter, but suspicion is not probable cause. Thirdly, the DA and police did clear the Ramseys. Does that mean they are not guilty or guilty? No. The reason we will never know the answer as to who committed the crime is because law enforcement did such a neglectful job in collecting evidence and just plain ole terrible investigative work. I am not going to stake my reputation on declaring who committed the crime because there are too many facts for and against the Ramseys. I am just surprised you are so passionate about this to the point you are acting cra cra!
Here is my response;
@debbie5876 You claim to be a retired investigator who “reads everything,” yet you somehow missed one of the most extraordinary facts of the case: the Ramsey grand jury heard from the defense. Lou Smit presented his full-on "intruder theory" PowerPoint presentation. Also, John Douglas testified on behalf of the Ramseys. That is virtually unheard of. And even then, the grand jury returned true bills for child abuse resulting in death and for covering up the crime. Dismissing that as meaningless tells me more about your bias than your experience.
You say you don’t watch my channel—yet you clearly did. You also argue against claims I never made. I have never said I know exactly who killed JonBenét. What I have said, repeatedly and with evidence, is that there was no intruder and that the ransom note was written by Patsy Ramsey. The facts, expert analysis, and the physical evidence in the case support those conclusions. You state the Ramseys were “cleared.” That is false. The Boulder Police Department has NEVER CLEARED THE RAMSEYS. That talking point came from one crazy DA and was dismissed by the next DA, who won the office, forcing Mary Lacey to retire. If you truly researched this case, you would know that.
Calling me “cra cra” doesn’t strengthen your argument—it weakens it. It’s what people do when they can’t rebut the evidence. Passion for a murdered child isn’t irrational; pretending the evidence doesn’t exist is. Join us tonight @debbie5876 and we will show you how to research a case. We will show you Mary Lacey's hypocrisy. We will show you why there was no intruder and why I believe Patsy wrote the note. Oh, I forgot. You don't watch my channel...except when you do.
It is this type of misinformation that makes me, as this person says, "cray cray". This is long, but it is worth it.
From @debbie5876
Wow Tricia, I know why I don't watch your channel. It appears you have lost it. First, I am a retired 30 year law enforcement detective who has read everything and researched the Ramsey case thoroughly, and I have presented hundreds of cases to the grand jury over the years. The grand jury is a not an adversary hearing. There are no defense attorneys and no rebuttals. Only one side is given to the grand jury, and that is the prosecution's side. Have you ever heard the saying, "you can indict a ham sandwich through the grand jury"? So just because the grand jury believed there was probable case does not mean there was probable cause. Just ask all those innocent people who were found not guilty by a jury after being indicted. Second, handwriting is not an absolute, just like bite marks are not absolute. I do find the letter suspicious as to whether Patsy wrote the letter, but suspicion is not probable cause. Thirdly, the DA and police did clear the Ramseys. Does that mean they are not guilty or guilty? No. The reason we will never know the answer as to who committed the crime is because law enforcement did such a neglectful job in collecting evidence and just plain ole terrible investigative work. I am not going to stake my reputation on declaring who committed the crime because there are too many facts for and against the Ramseys. I am just surprised you are so passionate about this to the point you are acting cra cra!
Here is my response;
@debbie5876 You claim to be a retired investigator who “reads everything,” yet you somehow missed one of the most extraordinary facts of the case: the Ramsey grand jury heard from the defense. Lou Smit presented his full-on "intruder theory" PowerPoint presentation. Also, John Douglas testified on behalf of the Ramseys. That is virtually unheard of. And even then, the grand jury returned true bills for child abuse resulting in death and for covering up the crime. Dismissing that as meaningless tells me more about your bias than your experience.
You say you don’t watch my channel—yet you clearly did. You also argue against claims I never made. I have never said I know exactly who killed JonBenét. What I have said, repeatedly and with evidence, is that there was no intruder and that the ransom note was written by Patsy Ramsey. The facts, expert analysis, and the physical evidence in the case support those conclusions. You state the Ramseys were “cleared.” That is false. The Boulder Police Department has NEVER CLEARED THE RAMSEYS. That talking point came from one crazy DA and was dismissed by the next DA, who won the office, forcing Mary Lacey to retire. If you truly researched this case, you would know that.
Calling me “cra cra” doesn’t strengthen your argument—it weakens it. It’s what people do when they can’t rebut the evidence. Passion for a murdered child isn’t irrational; pretending the evidence doesn’t exist is. Join us tonight @debbie5876 and we will show you how to research a case. We will show you Mary Lacey's hypocrisy. We will show you why there was no intruder and why I believe Patsy wrote the note. Oh, I forgot. You don't watch my channel...except when you do.
Last edited:
