Boulder DA Should Agree to Fox Request
- Thread starter BlueCrab
- Start date
Tricia said:
Tricia,
I respectfully disagree. The 10 markers identified in the male DNA have the potential to identify the contributor and to solve the case. True, 13 is better than 10. That's because a one BILLION to one probability is a thousand times better than a one MILLION to one probability (my estimated ratio of probabilities, but I'm in the ballpark). But if you think a jury is going to IGNORE a one million to one scientific probability that the DNA belongs to the suspect on trial, then I'm afraid you're mistaken.
JMO
I agree with John Ramsey, Judge Julie Carnes and DA Mary Keenan that Patsy didn't do it, and therefore it was likely a Ramsey other than Patsy who did it. Here's why I say that:
The link that Tricia gave us to the Ramsey political website included the following John Ramsey comment made on May 4, 2004:
"In March of 2003, United States District Judge Julie E. Carnes issued a lengthy report which stated among other things:
o "The weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet, than it is with the theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so."
"In May 2003, Boulder District Attorney Mary Keenan issued a letter stating that:
o "I agree with the court's (Judge Carnes) conclusion."
Judge Carnes said only that it was more likely that an intruder did it than it was likely that PATSY RAMSEY did it. I agree, because she left out Burke. She later said there's no evidence the parents did it. I agree, because she left out Burke.
But there were THREE people in the house that night to excuse, due to a lack of evidence, as the killer of JonBenet -- John, Patsy, AND Burke. So that leaves Burke Ramsey swinging in the breeze all by himself; with no free pass from the court. I wonder why Judge Carnes left out Burke (as if I didn't know)?
JMO
The link that Tricia gave us to the Ramsey political website included the following John Ramsey comment made on May 4, 2004:
"In March of 2003, United States District Judge Julie E. Carnes issued a lengthy report which stated among other things:
o "The weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet, than it is with the theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so."
"In May 2003, Boulder District Attorney Mary Keenan issued a letter stating that:
o "I agree with the court's (Judge Carnes) conclusion."
Judge Carnes said only that it was more likely that an intruder did it than it was likely that PATSY RAMSEY did it. I agree, because she left out Burke. She later said there's no evidence the parents did it. I agree, because she left out Burke.
But there were THREE people in the house that night to excuse, due to a lack of evidence, as the killer of JonBenet -- John, Patsy, AND Burke. So that leaves Burke Ramsey swinging in the breeze all by himself; with no free pass from the court. I wonder why Judge Carnes left out Burke (as if I didn't know)?
JMO
twizzler333
Inactive
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2004
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 9
I see your point BlueCrab, but could it be they made the statements and didn't mention Burke because he was not a suspect? I have heard so many different things- he has not been cleared, he has been cleared, he is not a suspect, he is a suspect- so IF they didn't consider him even to be in the equation, especially since in the eye of the public, the Ramsey's were the key suspects, would they have mentioned him at all?
You may well be correct in making that assumption, but I still think it could have been stated the way it was simply because he was not considered in the investigation any longer. I don't see why they would word it as being more consistent with an intruder IF they felt like Burke were involved in any way because he could not possibly be an intruder in his own home.
You may well be correct in making that assumption, but I still think it could have been stated the way it was simply because he was not considered in the investigation any longer. I don't see why they would word it as being more consistent with an intruder IF they felt like Burke were involved in any way because he could not possibly be an intruder in his own home.
twizzler333 said:
Twizzler,
NONE of the Ramseys were ever officially listed as suspects, including John, Patsy, and Burke. That's why the BPD said the Ramseys were under that famous (or infamous) "umbrella of suspicion". Burke Ramsey has never been cleared in the death of JonBenet, and every Boulder official, as is Atlanta's Judge Carnes, is well aware of that. Do the research. NO ONE of authority will say Burke has been cleared, including Chief Beckner, DA Keenan, and all of the judges. Doesn't that say something clear and convincing?
IMO Burke either killed JonBenet or knows who killed her. I also believe, based solidly on the evidence, that the grand jury solved the crime in 1999 but, because of the ages of the perpetrators, they were too young to prosecute and Colorado law prohibits the release of their names. The Colorado Children's Code, if violated, would send the violator to jail and end his or her career. As a result, the lid has been kept on tight.
This is why Judge Carnes left out Burke when she was dispensing "get out of jail free" cards. She had to keep quiet or publicly lie by giving him a get out of jail free card. She kept quiet.
JMO
TressaRing28
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Messages
- 226
- Reaction score
- 4
Ivy said:
Welcome Back Ivy
Where you been girl?Tressa
twizzler333
Inactive
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2004
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 9
I know that no one in that house has been cleared, and that no one is officially a suspect either.....I guess my real question is about the ability to file a lawsuit. Let me put a hypothetical here:
Say my child and a friend are playing on the playground, the friend gets killed, no one sees what happens, I am told that my child did it, I cover it up because I don't want anyone to know it, so I make it look like the child died by someone else's hand. Eventually, LE finds out about my lie, and that my child did do this but since my child is too young they cannot publically say anything. Years later someone makes reference of my child doing it on TV. NOW, knowing that my child did do this and that I did cover up the crime even though the authorities now know what happened, CAN I STILL SUE THIS PERSON FOR MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS, ETC. EVEN THOUGH I KNOW IT IS REALLY TRUE? That is my point. Can you do that? This is a question, as I really do not know. I am not trying to be a smart-A, I really want to know if you can sue for someone stating a truth on TV just because you don't want the truth to be known?
Say my child and a friend are playing on the playground, the friend gets killed, no one sees what happens, I am told that my child did it, I cover it up because I don't want anyone to know it, so I make it look like the child died by someone else's hand. Eventually, LE finds out about my lie, and that my child did do this but since my child is too young they cannot publically say anything. Years later someone makes reference of my child doing it on TV. NOW, knowing that my child did do this and that I did cover up the crime even though the authorities now know what happened, CAN I STILL SUE THIS PERSON FOR MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS, ETC. EVEN THOUGH I KNOW IT IS REALLY TRUE? That is my point. Can you do that? This is a question, as I really do not know. I am not trying to be a smart-A, I really want to know if you can sue for someone stating a truth on TV just because you don't want the truth to be known?
twizzler333 said:
Twizzler,
In the U.S. you can sue anybody you want, including the President of the United States. The court, based on what evidence is put in front of it, will decide if the lawsuit can go forward or will be dismissed.
In defamation cases, in general, the TRUTH is a total defense. If you can prove what you said is true, then the plaintiff's defamation lawsuit against you is dismissed.
In the Ramsey v Fox lawsuit, Fox News has to prove to the court there was no credible evidence of an intruder, because that is what Fox news reporter Carol McKinley said on TV, and now they have to prove it.
In all civil cases the two opposing parties can agree to settle at any time, which is often done to stop the financial bleeding due to legal expenses.
However, to curtail frivolous and mean-spirited lawsuits, the defendant, after winning, is allowed to turn around and sue the plaintiff for damages due to malicious civil prosecution. IMO the Ramseys, with their current lawsuit, are courting a Fox malicious prosecution lawsuit for damages if Fox can prove there was no credible evidence of an intruder.
Burke isn't directly involved in this lawsuit, so the court won't lkely be jawboning the litigants into a settlement because of the Colorado Children's Code which, IMO, forced all of the previous settlements involving Burke so that Colorado law protecting the identity of minors wouldn't be violated.
JMO
Similar threads
