Let me hear from you if you think the R's are innocent

[BOESP]

OK, just the Ramsey case. I see and can go with that. I totally disagree with your last sentence because the defense doesn't have any evidence like the State does now. And they were hurt by JMK because much info was all over the net.

We are never going to agree but websleuths alone has numerous threads and videos showing the DA's office belief that the Ramseys were involved. Somewhere after failing to indict, I think the case changed. They already had DNA but even the DA's office had questions concerning it. It changed before JMK to a DNA case and I would bet the Boulder PD now realizes it too. They just won't tell you yet.

Do you mean when Hunter was in office or Lacy or both?

I don't blame either side for keeping current events under wraps. Someone should have advised the Ramseys to stay off television as well. To many, that tact didn't help them appear innocent.

Thanks!

 

[Roy23]

Do you mean when Hunter was in office or Lacy or both?

I don't blame either side for keeping current events under wraps. Someone should have advised the Ramseys to stay off television as well. To many, that tact didn't help them appear innocent.

Thanks!

Yeah, there is plenty of blame to go around. Most of the info here was when Hunter was in office but it makes mention of Lacy.

You could watch how Eliz Smart father handled interrogation and use that as a model but the PD was really unprofessional dealing with the Ramsey's. And it was because they didn't secure a crime scene.

 

[BBB167893]

I have read numerous articles where Mary Lacy was one who was at one time certain that the Ramsey's were guilty. Take that for what it is worth.

You'd have to show me those articles, because I've never heard anything about her being anything but a die-hard intruder. Several people have mentioned how she wanted to focus on Bill McReynolds long after he had been eliminated as any kind of suspect. So I really can't tell you what it's worth until I see it for myself.

I understand your mindset because of how you feel about the politics in Boulder.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

I am also aware of the Duke Lacrosse case more than you know.

I think you have me wrong, Roy. I wasn't saying that you weren't. In fact, I was hoping you were.

I just don't believe that Mary Lacy is at fault considering the evidence.

You just said the magic words, Roy. That's my whole point: she should try considering the evidence sometime. It's not just me. Several people who had the misfortune of having to work alongside of her have described her as being like the Boxer from Paul Simon's song: hears what she wants to hear and disregards the rest. Mike Kane has stated publically on several occasions that Lacy acted as if she hadn't read the case file. I don't know what you might make of that.

Crime scene professionals determined "intruder" not Mary Lacy.

I'd have to know who you're talking about before I respond. Because I'm aware of what plenty of crime scene professionals told the cops.

And it won't mean anything to you guys but we only got a small pebble of the actual evidence. Just enough for Mary to be able to make her statement.

I have my reasons.

I see it different than you guys because I feel that the DA's office felt like the Ramsey's were involved but knew they did not have enough to convict.

That's an issue in and of itself, Roy. Whether or not the DA's office felt the Rs were involved is, at best, questionable. Most of the people who were there deny that. Kane himself said that he very quickly realized that the DA's office was comprised solely of true believers in an intruder.

But as for them knowing they didn't have enough to convict, that's another point I'm trying to make: how would they know? They hadn't TAKEN a case to trial in ten years. They were notorious for their impossible standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

A small part of me still hopes you guys pressure the hell out of Boulder with your opinions. That is my selfish hope just because I want to know more.

I can't speak for other people, Roy. But I FULLY intend to do exactly that. And it looks like I may soon be in a position to do it.

Maybe one day they will drop more information. Cause I am certain they know a Ramsey did not perform an act of killing.

I'm sure you are, Roy. But my post was about credibility. And from where I stand, they've got none.

 

[BBB167893]

I haven't read any articles that state Mary Lacy one time thought the Ramseys were guilty.

Me neither. Quite the opposite.

 

[BBB167893]

Do you mean when Hunter was in office or Lacy or both?

Yeah, that would be my question, too. Because with Hunter, it seemed more like he was trying to be all things to all people. Those who worked the case have said that he would talk tough with the Rs in front of the cameras, but in private he was jumping through hoops for them. I can think of a few.

 

[BBB167893]

the PD was really unprofessional dealing with the Ramsey's.

How so?

 

[DeeDee249]

Let's not forget that Mary Lacy was Hunter's assistant DA under her maiden name. They had the same ideas about this case- NOT to prosecute the Rs. Hunter because he was intimated by the defense lawyers and its ties to the Governor's office and Lacy because Patsy was a woman, and that was all she needed.

 

[BBB167893]

Yeah, that would be my question, too. Because with Hunter, it seemed more like he was trying to be all things to all people. Those who worked the case have said that he would talk tough with the Rs in front of the cameras, but in private he was jumping through hoops for them. I can think of a few.

Before anyone responds to that, let me follow up:

Where I'm from we have a saying: "actions speak louder than words." What that means is that, even if the DA's office did make statements to that effect, their ACTIONS make it extremely difficult for them to be taken at face value. Just how much faith am I supposed to put in those statements when they either don't know, can't be bothered or flat-out refuse to take the most elemental investigative steps that a first-year law student would know?

 

[madeleine]

Mary Lacy&being objective





CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Interview With Lin Wood

Aired July 11, 2003 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.



KING: And you mentioned that the new D.A., Mary Keenan, has taken a whole new look. Has she postulated anything?

WOOD: Again, in fact, in April of this year, issued a press statement where she indicated that she agreed with the ruling of a federal judge in Atlanta, Judge Julie Corns (ph), who had issued a 93- page ruling in a case that we were handling in Atlanta, stating that the analysis of the evidence done by her, in that case reviewed by her in detail, for all purposes and conclusions, that the weight of the evidence established that this was a case where an intruder killed this child and not a parent.

Within a few days thereafter, District Attorney Keenan reviewed that order and issued a public statement where she made clear that she agreed with the conclusion of Judge Corns (ph). That she agreed that the weight of the evidence in this case indicates that an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey.

And she said in that public statement that she presumed the Ramseys to be innocent and she intended to treat them as such.

There's no doubt in my mind, because I met with Mary Keenan before she took this case over in December. I've met with her since then. I know what she has said. I know the actions she has taken, and it's very clear that the days of the criminal investigation of John and Patsy Ramsey are over. They are not the focus of this investigation, and Mary Keenan is looking for the killer of this child. She's looking for the intruder.

KING: Did she express sympathy to the Ramseys?

WOOD: I was actually there with the Ramseys in February of this year, when they went out with me to Colorado and met with Mary Keenan and her first assistant, Bill Nagel (ph). And I stayed for a few minutes, and they met alone for three or four hours without me.
And I have to tell you that the first thing Mary Keenan did was she extended her hand to John and to Patsy and then she extended her sympathies to them for the loss of their daughter. And she noted that she thought she was probably the first Boulder public official to ever say that to them, and she was right. She was the first.

And I remember watching Patsy's expression and how it touched them that finally someone was treating them like victims, parents who had lost a child, and not like criminals, and that's the way they had been unfairly treated for six years before.






http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html



To me it sounds more like kissing #$% rather than treating them as victims.
They must have been very impressed and touched by Lacy's behaviour,you would think that suspects meet the DA with their lawyers present.Sounds more like a tea party like LW put it.

 

[PaulR]

I agree that motive doesn't really enter into it... motive doesn't even have to make logical sense. What was Manson's motive?

 

[BBB167893]

I'm waiting.

 

[DeeDee249]

I agree that motive doesn't really enter into it... motive doesn't even have to make logical sense. What was Manson's motive?

Manson was actually targeting Terry Melcher, son of actress Doris Day. Manson thought that Melcher had snubbed him on a recording deal. The house where the murders were committed had belonged to Terry Melcher, but he was no longer living there. So Manson had a motive in a way. When they arrived at the house, they decided to slaughter those they found in the house, even though they had no connection to Manson's original target.