Boulder police chief exonerates Fleet and Priscilla White in death of JonBenet Ramsey

[tezi]

Just because you explained it in a way that makes sense to you, does not mean that is the truth or fact. Just your opinion on the subject. We all have opinions on the subject.

It just makes no sense. In the article it is also described as oddly timed and questions the purpose it serves as there is no real reason for it. You are cleared or not. They were cleared. 2 times before now. There is no reason to bring it up again.

Should anyone question it, You just pull up the quote from the chief and print it with a pr statement.. The end.

That they went so far to request to be cleared again, there has to be a motive, a reason for it.

I too believe that it would be awesome if FW came forth and did an in depth interview. I think it may help shed light on things.

And I state my opinions as just that, opinions. Where is your disclaimer?

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

RBBM: They are also "before the fact" witnesses. Did you forget that JBR ate her last meal (not including the pineapple because it was eaten at home, IMO) at their house?

JMO

Ignoring the pineapple opinion ( since White could not remember if anything had pineapple or not that night), She was there at their house before the crime, so yes they could speak to the hours before.

I think the most important info he has comes after he shows up at the house that day.

 

[tezi]

Ignoring the pineapple opinion ( since White could not remember if anything had pineapple or not that night), She was there at their house before the crime, so yes they could speak to the hours before.

I think the most important info he has comes after he shows up at the house that day.

I think the information of before and after is equally important.

JMO

 

[madeleine]

I think the information of before and after is equally important.

JMO

yep cause they were one of the few people to last have seen her alive

 

[madeleine]

speaking of which...another scenario....maybe JR carrying JB in his arms from the car into the house...maybe she wasn't asleep...maybe something happened in the car (head bash?) while they were dropping gifts?I never quite got the timeline re dropping the gifts off...who stayed in the car,who went,etc...I would like to know more about it and what the witnesses said (the ones who got the gifts )...did they see JB alive?asleep in the car?when exactly did she fall asleep if true?etc,etc

 

[Arnie M]

speaking of which...another scenario....maybe JR carrying JB in his arms from the car into the house...maybe she wasn't asleep...maybe something happened in the car (head bash?) while they were dropping gifts?I never quite got the timeline re dropping the gifts off...who stayed in the car,who went,etc...I would like to know more about it and what the witnesses said (the ones who got the gifts )...did they see JB alive?asleep in the car?when exactly did she fall asleep if true?etc,etc

I had considered the same thing .... JB falls asleep in the car (not unusual) .... slouches over on the seat ..... maybe BR gets out at home .... slams the car door ... and it accidentally hit her head.

The problem is it would require an old fashioned solid metal type of door handle or window crank to crack her skull .... most modern cars have padded door trim without any protruding hardware.

And if that was the case (some type of accident) the parents would have simply seen it as unconsciousness and immediately taken her to a doctor .... there would be absolutely no reason or advantage to cover anything up..

The head bash will always be the puzzling aspect of this whole case .... if it was done by a family member in a moment of rage it could still be reported as an accident at the hospital .... most of us could understand a "fib" like that ....

Simply being knocked unconscious is not all that unusual for children and they usually recover no problem ...... did the perp know it was a deadly blow ?? .... and how ?? ... was it the force of the blow .... or did they run their hand over the skull and feel the indentation in the skull and know it was serious.??

 

[Tugela]

If they have no involvement, they should absolutely be cleared.

The ones who should NOT be cleared before a conviction are people who were indicted by a GJ!

But they were cleared after the indictment. An indictment does not mean guilt, and after analysis of the evidence the DA reached the conclusion that the grand jury was wrong. Probably what happened is that the grand jury could not find definite evidence but reasoned in the absence of all else that the Ramseys must have been aware of something. That is all well and good for an indictment since it is not necessary to prove anything, but it will not fly in court, where evidence to the fact is required, not suspicion.

The fact that the DA did not file charges based on the indictment and that the Ramseys were subsequently cleared makes it clear that the grand jury acted inappropriately in reaching the conclusion they did and that it was not supported by evidence.

 

[DeeDee249]

But they were cleared after the indictment. An indictment does not mean guilt, and after analysis of the evidence the DA reached the conclusion that the grand jury was wrong. Probably what happened is that the grand jury could not find definite evidence but reasoned in the absence of all else that the Ramseys must have been aware of something. That is all well and good for an indictment since it is not necessary to prove anything, but it will not fly in court, where evidence to the fact is required, not suspicion.

The fact that the DA did not file charges based on the indictment and that the Ramseys were subsequently cleared makes it clear that the grand jury acted inappropriately in reaching the conclusion they did and that it was not supported by evidence.

Been said MANY times but here goes. NO ONE who was present at the time of a murder is EVER cleared until the killer(s) is found and named and convicted. ML's "clearing" has no legal standing. And the present DA knows it.
AH never tried a case in all his years in Boulder. And he wasn't about to start now.

 

[Tawny]

AH never tried a case in all his years in Boulder. And he wasn't about to start now.

RSBM That alone stands out to me.

I'd be curious to know how many DA's in an area the size of Boulder manage to go years and years without trying a single case.

 

[DeeDee249]

RSBM That alone stands out to me.

I'd be curious to know how many DA's in an area the size of Boulder manage to go years and years without trying a single case.

He was known as the king of plea bargains. That's all he did.

 

[Mama2JML]

I do believe you're the one who said "You think they'd sue" so you would have to tell me the answer to that.

I would sue the person that brought the allegations against me. Those involving child pornography, sexual assault, child abuse, etc; this damaged FW's reputation, and it wasn't the Ramseys' doing...

 

[Tawny]

I would sue the person that brought the allegations against me. Those involving child pornography, sexual assault, child abuse, etc; this damaged FW's reputation, and it wasn't the Ramseys' doing...

I guess that answers the question you asked me then :floorlaugh:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

But they were cleared after the indictment. An indictment does not mean guilt, and after analysis of the evidence the DA reached the conclusion that the grand jury was wrong. Probably what happened is that the grand jury could not find definite evidence but reasoned in the absence of all else that the Ramseys must have been aware of something. That is all well and good for an indictment since it is not necessary to prove anything, but it will not fly in court, where evidence to the fact is required, not suspicion.

The fact that the DA did not file charges based on the indictment and that the Ramseys were subsequently cleared makes it clear that the grand jury acted inappropriately in reaching the conclusion they did and that it was not supported by evidence.

I agree. The Grand jury also did not have the DNA they have now.

 

[madeleine]

I agree. The Grand jury also did not have the DNA they have now.

I don't think their vote would have been different.The DNA doesn't make all the RDI evidence go away.It could only mean that there was someone else present.The DNA DOESN'T prove WHO killed JB.It only proves that her clothes were touched by another person.When?You can't know that either,it could have happened AFTER the crime,during the staging.I hate to repeat myself but how do you know that the DNA owner isn't a Ramsey accomplice but a killer intruder?You CAN'T know.One thing's for sure though,the GJ saw/heard enough in order to vote like they did.DNA,no DNA,it doesn't make that evidence go away.

 

[Venom]

I don't think their vote would have been different.The DNA doesn't make all the RDI evidence go away.It could only mean that there was someone else present.The DNA DOESN'T prove WHO killed JB.It only proves that her clothes were touched by another person.When?You can't know that either,it could have happened AFTER the crime,during the staging.I hate to repeat myself but how do you know that the DNA owner isn't a Ramsey accomplice but a killer intruder?You CAN'T know.One thing's for sure though,the GJ saw/heard enough in order to vote like they did.DNA,no DNA,it doesn't make that evidence go away.

:goodpost:

 

[madeleine]

no,really,can someone please explain to me how exactly does this DNA change /would have influenced the fact that the GJ thought the Ramseys could have prevented JB's death but didn't and/or were part of the cover-up??
cause I don't get it

 

[Anti-K]

It’s pretty hard to say what sort of effect the DNA evidence would have had on the jurors without knowing what the jurors based their decision on. I can see them still voting to indict, but we’d still end up right here as we are now.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

Kind of makes you wonder why they don't??

I wouldn't. I prefer a good, old-fashioned duel. It's much less wasteful of taxpayer money.

 

[BBB167893]

That's suspicious? Maybe they knew they couldn't win against JR's extremely effective attorneys?

I think it's absolutely shameful and absurd to question why the White's chose NOT to sue the all-powerful Ramsey team.

I agree completely. Leaving aside the dirty tricks we KNOW the Ramseys and their lawyers use against people who might threaten them, even if the Rs didn't have a leg to stand on, they'd drag out the process so long that the Whites would go broke from paying attorney fees. Lawsuits aren't about who's right or wrong; they're about which liar has more firepower.

 

[BBB167893]

BTW, another book is supposed to be coming out "soon". It was originally announced as being released way back in 2005, but now the author is saying "early spring of 2014." (I won't be holding my breath.) If anyone cares to look into it (or his FAQ's) it's here:

http://www.laurencelsmith.com/index.html

(What is that, three books now scheduled for 2014?)

YUP! (SD smiles knowingly)