If Judge Julie Carnes Is Right ...

[Cherokee]

Cherokee,

You are looking at Carnes' opinion from a legalistic viewpoint, and in that regard I agree with your viewpoint.

But you are NOT looking at Carnes' opinion from a public relations viewpoint, and in that regard the Ramseys are winning the day. The public doesn't know the case like most of us on WS. The public is being fed information from a judge, with that information being verified by a district attorney, that implies an intruder killed JonBenet. That's all the public understands.

From a public relations standpoint Carnes and Keenan are conspiring to convince the public that an intruder killed JonBenet, and thus put the unsolved Ramsey case to bed forever -- and they are succeeding. The Ramseys will walk even though at least one of them is directly involved in the death of JonBenet.

JMO

You are changing the parameters of the discussion, BlueCrab.

We weren't talking about the "public relations viewpoint." Don't tell me I didn't "look" at something when we weren't even discussing it.

You tried to make a case for BDI from Judge Carnes' ruling. I disagreed by saying you can't make a case for ANYONE using Judge Carnes' ruling as it is worthless. You started the thread with "What if Judge Julie Carnes Is Right," and I responded with how Carnes' decision is not "right" from any angle as it is based on incomplete knowledge of the case. We weren't talking about "public relations," we were talking about validity.

The "public relations" factor was not mentioned until NOW in your above post.

Of course, the Carnes ruling is just Ramsey PR. What else would it be? That is self-evident, and I don't need a lecture from you to see it, realize it, or look at it. I've known that from Day One. Anyone with eyes and a brain in their head can see that from a mile away.


IMO

 

[Shylock]

Judge Carnes was not given access to all of the available case evidence. Therefore, any conclusions drawn by her regarding the identity of the perp are meaningless and void. Her uniformed opinion, disguised as a legal ruling, does not exonerate Patsy, nor incriminate Patsy. It does not prove PDI, BDI, JDI, IDI or M-O-U-S-E. It is worthless.

You sure hit the nail squarely on the head, Cherokee! Too bad the Ramsey supporters don't have the brains to figure out what you just said. And that includes Mary (SDI) Keenan.

 

[BlueCrab]

Not that BlueCrab is RST... hardly... but I am a little worried that he's one BlueCrab step away from declaring that Judge Carnes thinks Burke did it.

IMO Judge Carnes KNOWS Burke did it.

The court knows Burke did it; the D.A.'s office knows Burke did it; the BPD knows Burke did it; the grand jury knows Burke did it (because they are the ones who solved the crime); and sundry others involved in the case know Burke did it.

The Colorado Childrens Code and the court's confidentiality order protects Burke's name from being disclosed. Since Burke was under 10 years old at the time of the crime, by law this is the way the status of the case will remain forever.

IMO Boulder authorities are trying to get the case put to bed without violating the Colorado Childrens Code and the court's protective order. Carne's unsolicited comments boosting the intruder theory, in an opinion from a related civil case, was designed to help Boulder authorities bring down the curtain. That's why D.A. Mary Keenan, who was supposed to be carrying out a fresh and impartial investigation, immediately jumped on board Carnes' opinion, saying "I agree with the court's conclusion".

But more importantly, there's evidence of a fifth (and maybe even a sixth) person in the house that night, and if that person is of culpable age then someone is getting away with murder.

JMO

 

[Shylock]

IMO Judge Carnes KNOWS Burke did it.

Carnes didn't get enough information to make an informed decision either way. She certainly didn't see any BDI information which would have been presented by Hoffman (who we know couldn't even properly present HIMSELF to the court, much less anything else).

 

[BlueCrab]

Carnes didn't get enough information to make an informed decision either way. She certainly didn't see any BDI information which would have been presented by Hoffman (who we know couldn't even properly present HIMSELF to the court, much less anything else).

Come on Shylock. You aren't naive enough to believe that judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys don't talk among themselves about certain cases. IMO Judge Carnes, in Georgia, slanted her opinion to help the court in Colorado get the Ramsey case put to bed. The murder likely involved very young children who, under Colordo law, cannot be prosecuted and cannot even be publicly identified. The case can never go to trial unless there's probable cause that a person of culpable age was also directly involved in the killing (not just the coverup). Carnes knows that.

JMO

 

[Britt]

IMO Judge Carnes, in Georgia, slanted her opinion to help the court in Colorado get the Ramsey case put to bed.

Good grief. And the conspiracy grows. Who knew the Ramseys were so important (outside their own minds)?

The murder likely involved very young children who, under Colordo law, cannot be prosecuted and cannot even be publicly identified. The case can never go to trial unless there's probable cause that a person of culpable age was also directly involved in the killing (not just the coverup). Carnes knows that.

If Judge Carnes "knows that," then she also "knows" the Ramseys lied, libeled and slandered Wolf, that he therefore had a viable case and she wouldn't have dismissed it.

 

[dcountmontecristo]

Okay, let's say you have a bowl of M&M's. Lin Wood and Darnay Hoffman have removed all the blue ones. You say, "As far as I can tell from this bowl, there's no such thing as blue M&M's." Are you right?

Nice one!