Judge Carnes did not find the Ramseys not guilty.

[David Rogers]

41 Inaccuracies from the "Carnes Ruling" (The … - JonBenetRamsey - Reddit



I never saw this till recently. Some of you may not have either. Judge Carnes did not use any police reports and did not profess to determine who the killers were. She stated this in a 2014 Senate questionnaire. Also, the reason why Lin Wood was able to steamroll the judge and get the Intruder narrative in the order and to establish Statement of Material Facts(SMF), was because mysteriously, Wolf’s lawyer-Darnay Hoffman, did not show up to argue the case on his day to so. So, the Judge sided with the Rams.

 

[10ofRods]

Thank you for posting this. So much erroneous information has come from the unusually long (90+ pages) declaration prepared by Wood and attached to Carnes's order. It's typical for the winning side to write a brief summary of why the decision was made, but the plaintiff's lawyer could have objected to this digressive, error-ridden document being included (Carnes, IMO, never read it or only skimmed it). Since the Plaintiff's attorney was mysteriously absent, that document got attached, uncontested.

It is the source of a lot of disinformation in this case and since it was part of an "order" (the order itself had nothing to do with who killed JBR), it is quoted as if it was somehow verified in court.

 

[reedus23]

41 Inaccuracies from the "Carnes Ruling" (The … - JonBenetRamsey - Reddit



I never saw this till recently. Some of you may not have either. Judge Carnes did not use any police reports and did not profess to determine who the killers were. She stated this in a 2014 Senate questionnaire. Also, the reason why Lin Wood was able to steamroll the judge and get the Intruder narrative in the order and to establish Statement of Material Facts(SMF), was because mysteriously, Wolf’s lawyer-Darnay Hoffman, did not show up to argue the case on his day to so. So, the Judge sided with the Rams.

Times have changed since I've been on here quite some time ago. Never knew we could link to Reddit. Is that something that we can now do? I thought it was MSM only because of the danger of injecting inaccurate facts and theories, of which I imagine Reddit has more of than most places. Just curious for any future posts I make. Thank you.

Having said that. I think the Reddit poster misunderstands the role of the ruling. It wasn't a criminal trial to adjudge one's guilt or innocence. It was a civil suit, to which she ruled on a motion for summary judgment. It is quite meaningless when it comes to saying who did or did not kill JonBenet. All it means is that the plaintiff could not articulate any facts that would allow a reasonable jury to find in his favor that he was defamed.

 

[10ofRods]

The reddit poster doesn't misunderstand (I know him, he's extremely well-versed in this case). He is saying that many others have misunderstood it. That Ramsey attorney-written declaration that's part of the Judge's order has been used as "fact" when it was never ruled on by the Judge (the Judge ought not to have signed it of course, but IME, judges routinely sign orders based on the court proceedings and expect the winning side to fill in the "facts" of the case in the accompanying declaration of facts - which is usually brief and limits itself to what was presented in court.

I'd love to know if Carnes actually read that document. At any rate, it is the public that misunderstands both that lawsuit and the document.

The plaintiff's lawyer did not appear at the hearing, the judgment was default and the plaintiff forfeited all ability to include their side in the subsequent ruling.

 

[MyBelle]

Times have changed since I've been on here quite some time ago. Never knew we could link to Reddit. Is that something that we can now do? I thought it was MSM only because of the danger of injecting inaccurate facts and theories, of which I imagine Reddit has more of than most places. Just curious for any future posts I make. Thank you.

Having said that. I think the Reddit poster misunderstands the role of the ruling. It wasn't a criminal trial to adjudge one's guilt or innocence. It was a civil suit, to which she ruled on a motion for summary judgment. It is quite meaningless when it comes to saying who did or did not kill JonBenet. All it means is that the plaintiff could not articulate any facts that would allow a reasonable jury to find in his favor that he was defamed.

I agree. I don't know how the judge could make it any clearer that the plaintiff didn't prove to her satisfaction that PR wrote the ransom note. iirc, multiple handwriting analysis experts could never definitively conclude PR wrote the ransom note.

After watching the most recent analysis by LE and DNA experts, the case will be solved by DNA.

JMO

 

[UKGuy]

I agree. I don't know how the judge could make it any clearer that the plaintiff didn't prove to her satisfaction that PR wrote the ransom note. iirc, multiple handwriting analysis experts could never definitively conclude PR wrote the ransom note.

After watching the most recent analysis by LE and DNA experts, the case will be solved by DNA.

JMO

MyBelle,
We are still waiting for the outcome from the recently submitted dna samples. Maybe they are too controversial to publish?

The Ransom Note is just staging, i.e. the RN did not kill JonBenet. Patsy's fibers are all over the wine-cellar crime-scene, particularly embedded into the knotting on the ligature/paintbrush device.

This links Patsy directly to the wine-cellar crime-scene along with Burke with his touch-dna on the barbie nightgown and tangentially John and fibers from his Israeli manufactured shirt found on JonBenet's genital region!

There are no plural foreign faction dna deposits, fingerprints, fiber samples,etc, as far as I know?

.

 

[MyBelle]

MyBelle,
We are still waiting for the outcome from the recently submitted dna samples. Maybe they are too controversial to publish?

The Ransom Note is just staging, i.e. the RN did not kill JonBenet. Patsy's fibers are all over the wine-cellar crime-scene, particularly embedded into the knotting on the ligature/paintbrush device.

This links Patsy directly to the wine-cellar crime-scene along with Burke with his touch-dna on the barbie nightgown and tangentially John and fibers from his Israeli manufactured shirt found on JonBenet's genital region!

There are no plural foreign faction dna deposits, fingerprints, fiber samples,etc, as far as I know?

.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information but the A&E series earlier this year by Elizabeth Vargas featured multiple LE and medical experts who have concluded the recent DNA analysis exonerates ALL of the Ramsey family. I have no reason not to believe these experts.

There were several theories presented but they involved outsiders, not the Ramseys. The "foreign faction" and other oddities about the ransom note were carefully investigated after tips from an incarcerated inmate with possible ties to a cult. And DNA samples are still being collected from potential suspects. The DNA has been entered into CODIS and LE does believe the case will be solved.

JMO

 

[dcountmontecristo]

The reddit poster doesn't misunderstand (I know him, he's extremely well-versed in this case). He is saying that many others have misunderstood it. That Ramsey attorney-written declaration that's part of the Judge's order has been used as "fact" when it was never ruled on by the Judge (the Judge ought not to have signed it of course, but IME, judges routinely sign orders based on the court proceedings and expect the winning side to fill in the "facts" of the case in the accompanying declaration of facts - which is usually brief and limits itself to what was presented in court.

I'd love to know if Carnes actually read that document. At any rate, it is the public that misunderstands both that lawsuit and the document.

The plaintiff's lawyer did not appear at the hearing, the judgment was default and the plaintiff forfeited all ability to include their side in the subsequent ruling.

true.. i believe that's FACT INVESTIGATION... in a murder case like this, people need to learn how to separate fact from fiction... i m not saying all his posts were mostly accurate and indisputable but at least he is open to review new info as long as the said info is based only on LE records.

 

[10ofRods]

Yes, I agree that he is using the rules that we'd use here - insofar as he's relying on LE and MSM (including books from major publishing houses). It is indeed fact investigation and so refreshing.

He's also got an excellent post about Patsy's jacket, very worth reading.

 

[MyBelle]

true.. i believe that's FACT INVESTIGATION... in a murder case like this, people need to learn how to separate fact from fiction... i m not saying all his posts were mostly accurate and indisputable but at least he is open to review new info as long as the said info is based only on LE records.

The Judge seemed to have no trouble whatsoever separating fact from fiction. She's not a Reddit poster, she is a real, live judge.
Wolf v. Ramsey, 253 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (N.D. Ga. 2003)

 

[dcountmontecristo]

The Judge seemed to have no trouble whatsoever separating fact from fiction. She's not a Reddit poster, she is a real, live judge.
Wolf v. Ramsey, 253 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (N.D. Ga. 2003)

likely... but how much of the evidence did she actually saw and reviewed about this case as basis for the said ruling? the reality is only those presented by the Ramsey team.

Look here

"I granted the summary judgement for the Ramseys as the material evidence PRESENTED BY THEM....

My decision was based only on the civil record before me, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE POLICE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS.

....my Order DID NOT PROFESS TO ANSWER DEFINITIVELY THE QUESTION OF WHO HAD MURDERED THE CHILD."

Source: US Senate Committee on the Judiciary Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees (2014)

 

[MyBelle]

The Judge did not address the question of who had murdered the child because it was a civil lawsuit about defamation, not a criminal case. The police reports were irrelevant. The Judge very clearly states she considered the Plaintiff's Response.
JMO

The Judge's ruling: The Court draws the undisputed facts from "Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" ("SMF") [67] and "Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts" ("PSMF"), in which plaintiff does not dispute the overwhelming majority of defendants' factual allegations.

Wolf v. Ramsey, 253 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (N.D. Ga. 2003)

 

[Waterdog]

I'm not sure where you are getting your information but the A&E series earlier this year by Elizabeth Vargas featured multiple LE and medical experts who have concluded the recent DNA analysis exonerates ALL of the Ramsey family. I have no reason not to believe these experts.

There were several theories presented but they involved outsiders, not the Ramseys. The "foreign faction" and other oddities about the ransom note were carefully investigated after tips from an incarcerated inmate with possible ties to a cult. And DNA samples are still being collected from potential suspects. The DNA has been entered into CODIS and LE does believe the case will be solved.

JMO

This is all new info?

 

[MyBelle]

This is all new info?

I'm not sure how new it is. One of the "theories" they investigated came from a tip provided by an incarcerated woman. The A&E series was earlier this year with a former FBI special agent, several doctors analyzing evidence. As I have stated in previous posts, I have no reason not to believe their conclusions.

JMO