GreenRoom
- Hot Air Survey Results: CPAC Edition
- ‘Playboy’ bunny who cabby thought was vampire sues NYPD for abuse
- Embalmer penalized for speaking ill of dead sues to get license back
- Obama attempting to ‘get his groove back’ with young voters
- NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hit
- 9pm “Whitney Houston DEAD, latest developments, CPAC, Maine Caucuses”
- Why isn’t Sarah running?
- Contraception mandate: MSM stuck in “narrative capture”?
- ObamaCare architect: Health insurance premiums will rise, not fall, under law
- Rick Santorum and the two playbooks
Hot Links
|
|
Feeds
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
God rest their souls.
normsrevenge on July 9, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Way too late.
I wonder if Greta, Geraldo and Nancy Grace will be issuing an apology as well.
BacaDog on July 9, 2008 at 9:07 PM
It’s a pity Patsy Ramsey didn’t live to hear this. She died of cancer several years ago.
Wethal on July 9, 2008 at 9:08 PM
Yea. . .um. . .you see. . .uh. . .we’re. . .um. . .pretty sure. . . uh. . .that. . .uh. . . the Ramsey family. . .well. . .you see. . “sigh”. . .We were wrong. The Ramsey Family is innocent. . .
Troy Rasmussen on July 9, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Is that all they can offer a “Whoops! Sorry to destroy your family.”?
Troy Rasmussen on July 9, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Whenever the police can’t find a killer they just blame it on the family. Sad.
aengus on July 9, 2008 at 9:15 PM
I don’t know. When handwriting experts say that they believe that the ransom note was written by Patsy Ramsey, that has to give you some doubt.
SoulGlo on July 9, 2008 at 9:17 PM
I’ll take a different track (no I don’t believe the Ramsey’s were guilty)…..it is about DAs in general. We have several lawyers on this board so I’ll ask them my question:
How the hell do all these high profile cases end up in the round file? Is it the education system, the hiring system, or what? I don’t like stereotyping any profession but I gotta tell ya that it seems congress works better then the DAs office. Everything seems to go along dandy for putting away the common crooks but once the media gets involved everything goes to hell in a handbasket.
Limerick on July 9, 2008 at 9:19 PM
It would seem that is the way things are done now days. Slash and burn for the story, apologize later. In this case the extra stress couldn’t have helped in Patsy’s fight against cancer. It is a shame she died without being vindicated.
R D on July 9, 2008 at 9:21 PM
I’m not a lawyer yet, hopefully in about two months, but one problem is that high profile cases are generally not any easier to prove than other cases, and media involvement makes cases look much more open and shut than they actually are. Plus, finding evidence that can be admitted into court is a tough thing. Prosecutors have limited budgets and can’t focus all resources on one case and leave everything else to wilt, so there is a balancing act that goes on. Here is where I would plug legalization of marijuana, but that’s a different story. . .
Troy Rasmussen on July 9, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Well,I’ll admit,I thought the Ramseys had some part,
and I’m wrong,I apolize to the Ramsey’s!
It’s also a shame that Mrs.Ramsey wasn’t cleared
before she departed,this was such a bizarre,and
sad case!
canopfor on July 9, 2008 at 9:30 PM
As a poster above noted, it’s hard to reconcile, among other things, that bizarre ransom note with the Ramsey’s innocence. Imagine an intruder calmly sitting down at a table writing a three page note (twice starting over) in the home while the family slept?
Possible; but not normal behavior, as I understand it, of captors. Not to mention the wording in the note.
Lots of very strange behavior on the part of the family.
Sorry, I know we don’t want to start up talking about this terrible tragedy again.
SteveMG on July 9, 2008 at 9:33 PM
12 years later the DNA evidence rules out the Ramseys.
Were the DNA tests performed by a room full of monkeys?
fogw on July 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Ooops,that should be apologize,not apolize,sorry!
canopfor on July 9, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Thanks Troy. I’m just a layman. One of those bible clinging, farmer’s tan kinda guy. It seems all these cases that end up on ET or Inside Edition go south. I say to hell with the politico DAs on that, but have no idea how to stop them from being politico in the first place. Just frustrated. It seems every DA wants to be Perry Mason and every reporter wants to be Bob Woodward. In the meantime the victim gets colder while the perps go party.
Limerick on July 9, 2008 at 9:35 PM
I’m still not convinced they had nothing to do with it or knew nothing of what actually happened. The first thing they did was hire a defense attorney, even before they were considered suspects. Their behavior just screamed “guilty”.
Hollowpoint on July 9, 2008 at 9:37 PM
New type of DNA test called a ‘touch’ test. Can pick up as little as 12 human cells and provide a profile. Her ‘longjohns’ were re-examined and the new DNA profile says it cannot be a Ramsey family member.
Limerick on July 9, 2008 at 9:37 PM
That’s not true. No hand writing expert, at any time, said that Patsy was the author of the ransom note. Hand writing analysis doesn’t work that way. The most any of them said, officially, was that Patsy could not be excluded.
Nobody can take what any of them said for money seriously. Unfortunately, too many people do.
Jaynie59 on July 9, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Based on how often family members are considered “persons of interest” I would hire an attorney as soon as possible too.
Troy Rasmussen on July 9, 2008 at 9:40 PM
timely
DaveC on July 9, 2008 at 9:42 PM
This is kind of the unholy trinity of newscasting. Greta, the queen of the inane question. Geraldo – spitter. And of course Nancy grace who in my opinion was directly responsible for the death of Melinda Duckett.
In 2006, Nancy Grace deployed her usual style of ambush “journalism” on 21-year-old Melinda Duckett. Duckett didn’t expect the attack and was ruthlessly accused before a live audience of being responsible for the disappearance of Duckett’s 2-year-old son. Duckett was so disturbed by the brutal accusations and the fact of her missing son, that she committed suicide shortly following the interview. Grace never apologized or claimed any responsibly.
Nancy grace was also heavily on the wrong side of the Duke Lacrosse Scandal. Prior to Duke suspending its men’s lacrosse team’s season, she sarcastically noted on the air, “I’m so glad they didn’t miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!” and “Why would you go to a cop in an alleged gang rape case, say, and lie and give misleading information?
During the Elizabeth Smart case, when suspect Richard Ricci was arrested by police on the basis that he had a criminal record and had worked on the Smarts’ home, Grace immediately and repeatedly proclaimed on CourtTV and CNN’s Larry King that Ricci “was guilty,” although there was little evidence to support this claim. She also suggested publicly that Ricci’s girlfriend was involved in the cover-up of his alleged crime. Grace continued to accuse Ricci, though he had died after being released from custody.
It was later revealed that Smart was kidnapped by Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee, two individuals with whom Richard Ricci had no connection.
Nancy Grace was also on the wrong side of the recent FLDS case. She called the sect a “cult”, and opposed court rulings that the children should be returned to their families. She asked an attorney for an FLDS girl if “they should have just left all the kids on that compound … and let them continue to get broken bones naturally, like you did … and get molested.
I doubt there has ever been a more despicable TV personality than Nancy Grace.
But don’t hold your breath for an apology from any of them.
Maxx on July 9, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Sad…………….. Incompetent……… and JonBenet’s killer still walks among us.
Worth a look….. (content warning)
Seven Percent Solution on July 9, 2008 at 9:45 PM
This DNA test does not prove the Ramseys were not involved. This is ridiculous logic.
faraway on July 9, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Their behavior just screamed “guilty”.
Hollowpoint,
Actually it just screamed they were rich.
Rightwingsparkle on July 9, 2008 at 9:57 PM
I can honestly say that I haven’t watched more than 5 minutes of Nancy Grace. Looks like I haven’t been missing anything of substance.
Troy Rasmussen on July 9, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln…….
Seriously though, how arrogant a statement to talk about “extent of distress” from the source that kept alive the idea that the Ramsey family was involved for years! Yes, I know that forensics have improved since the murder… blah blah blah…. the family is always at the top of the suspect list… blah blah blah…. etc.
Fact of the matter is that the authorities failed when they turned a crime into a media circus. I fault them most for the way they conducted the investigation from the very beginning more than the science.
highhopes on July 9, 2008 at 9:58 PM
GEEEZ. Content warning was most needed.
The knot on the garrote wasn’t made by someone in a hurry (that’s my take anyway). Not something I’d seen before and pretty distrubing in the care it appears was taken to fashion to the stick/handle.
Limerick on July 9, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Nope, five minutes about sums up Grace’s entire show (any show). Some sexual crime as a topic so Grace can screech her moral outrage at guests who completely agree with her. The only new wrinkle seems to be showing pictures of her ugly children just before commerical breaks.
highhopes on July 9, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Your reading skills are lacking. The prosecutor says they are cleared. What evidence do you have that he doesn’t?
I bet you are a big fan of Nancy Grace.
Maxx on July 9, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Isnt this the same DA who issued an arrest warrant for that whacko Carr? And now she clears the Ramseys? I’m sorry, I don’t believe it. Not after all this. Which means nothing. I’m just saying, the DA statement isn’t credible to me.
Paul-Cincy on July 9, 2008 at 10:04 PM
I’ve never watch a single minute of her, but I’ve seen the news stories of how she accuses and destroys without evidence. I guess she does it for the entertainment value and of course to fill her pockets.
Maxx on July 9, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Yep, add to that a three page ransom note and it’s clear that whoever was involved wasn’t in a hurry.
Or apparently concerned about being discovered.
Imagine breaking into a home to abduct/abuse a child. While the family slept.
Seems to me that you’d want to grab the child and leave. Take it to a safe place. Not do the unspeakable there.
Who knows? Sicks minds do sick things, I suppose.
SteveMG on July 9, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Why would a killer write a ransom note after killing the victim?
For what purpose? Especially since the victim was left in the home.
Once the body is discovered, the ransom note is useless. You’re not going to get any money. You left the body to be discovered.
If the perpetrator wrote the ransom note before killing her, why wouldn’t he leave the note and then take the girl to a safe spot?
Why write a ransom note, take the victim downstairs and kill the victim?
Once you killed her, the note is useless as well.
It doesn’t make any sense unless the evil doer was sick.
Or knew the victim.
SteveMG on July 9, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Yup ! ! Geraldo probably ties her in that category,
I’m no fan of Greta either. But think she’s much fairer
in her reporting than the two mutts.
Texyank on July 9, 2008 at 10:20 PM
That’s because far too often someone in the family is responsible. Law enforcement officials are no different than anyone else. They will take the path of least resistance and be right the vast majority of the time.
NotCoach on July 9, 2008 at 10:25 PM
All I can think of is he was scared off from taking the body. It’s all so sick and twisted up, but that is what we hire the cops for, to try to figure this stuff out. I’m not saying they can solve every crime. Just frustrated that the whole public circus seems to have twisted up the DA too.
Limerick on July 9, 2008 at 10:25 PM
I’d be a bit more interested in finding her. Your daughter goes missing and the first thing you do is CYA, hire a defense attorney, fail to fully cooperate with investigators, etc?
Of course police are going to look at the family- they wouldn’t be doing their jobs if they didn’t. However it was their own bizarre, defensive behavior that shifted the investigation onto themselves. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
Not to get all tinfoil hat, but I suspect the local authorities were looking for a way out of a high profile investigation that had little or no chance of bearing fruit. It doesn’t take years to get DNA evidence examined.
Or maybe they’re completely innocent and really don’t know anything about what happened, but just behaved like someone with something to hide; I don’t know and don’t much care.
Hollowpoint on July 9, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Yeah, but why leave a ransom note if you’re going to kill the victim?
The ransom note is useless if you kill the victim and leave her in the home.
So, assuming he wrote the note first, why not run with the victim? Take her to a safe spot.
I guess we’re thinking rationally when we’re obviously dealing – if the parents weren’t involved – in a cruel and disgustingly sick person.
SteveMG on July 9, 2008 at 10:31 PM
What more do you want? The Ramseys were never arrested or charged. I think the media had a lot more to do with creating the “umbrella of suspicion” than the District Attorney’s office. I’m glad the District Attorney issued an apology, even if it was insufficient. What more should she do?
bigbeas on July 9, 2008 at 10:35 PM
There is a disconnect in your logic. Family was exonerated so this is the case of a quacking duck that wasn’t! Of course the police are going to look at the most obvious pool of suspects (the family) but it seems that in the absence of any other leads they simply kept looking at the family. Much like the skepticism when Elizabeth Smart’s family when they told their story of a girl disappering in the middle of the night.
That being said, I agree with the concept of hiring an attorney soon after one of these situations. Not BEFORE you call 911 but soon thereafter. Look at the way the police and media hounded the Ramsey family. You hire somebody in this situation simply to protect your rights and privacy- not to obstruct efforts to reach justice. Fending off gossip about hiring an attorney is less problematic than letting the police go on fishing expeditions into the family and subsequently leaking bits and pieces of these random intrusions to the media which, in this case, took the ball and connected dots that were not there.
highhopes on July 9, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Yeah, that and a number of other things really disturbed me. This was NO random act of violence against an innocent child….. someone thought about this, someone stalked her, someone fascinated, someone masturbated, then someone acted…. Forensic Science 101.
….. I hate to be too cynical, but were those entrusted in solving this crime and find some justice for JonBonet given their positions by some sort of social engineering, like affirmative action????????
You don’t always get the best qualified, but you filled a racial/gender quota……
…….. Maybe someone can apologize for that.
Anyway, I hope JonBonet gets some extra ice cream in heaven tonight….. and God reads her and her Mother a bed time story that takes the pain away from their souls for eternity….
Seven Percent Solution on July 9, 2008 at 10:55 PM
I don’t think there is much more she can do. But your point of never arrested or charged is the point. Leave it alone and drop it. They couldn’t even convict OJ with blood and DNA evidence.
R D on July 9, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Yeah, but you’d think they’d leave their DNA all over her and the place. Someone in a “frenzy” would leave evidence.
Not some small fragments found within her clothes.
SteveMG on July 9, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Nearly 12 years later they come to this conclusion? I don’t remember all the specifics but the DA spent the first few years exclusively focusing on the Ramsey family and their activities. They should have made this statement years ago.
I compare this to the Elizabeth Smart case where an implausible story about child abduction turned out to be absolutely true but not until an innocent party was mercilessly hounded just before his death. Or any of the other high-profile cases in the past few years. The media and internet is going to “investigate” along with the authorities and, without the restrictions placed on the actual investigation will endlessly speculate from the outside as individuals with the thinnest of connection to the principles will be given air time to gossip. The Lacy Peterson case was another instance where the media engaged in all sorts of speculation. Likewise the Sandra Levy disappearance. Authorities need to keep a lid on thier investigations before innocent people get hurt.
P.S. Remember what the big story was on Monday 9/10/01? Gary Condit going on TV with Connie Chung to defend himself as nothing more than a adulterer. These kinds of stories is voyeuristic filler for the constant news cycle. It keeps people tuned in between the real news stories.
highhopes on July 9, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Yeah, they were ready to crucify that family also.
R D on July 9, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Don’t forget the MacCan (sp?) family in England. They got accused too.
Limerick: DAs are often elected or are political appointments. This doesn’t mean the best qualified lawyers hold the job. In fact, most really good lawyers cannot afford the pay cut to be a (State) government lawyer. Feds get paid pretty well and are generally extremely competent. Some government attorneys are “true believers” they see crime everywhere and want to smack everyone with a big stick, even those who may have made innocent mistakes. Some goverment lawyers take the job because they want regular hours to maximize their time with their families and are not willing to put in the overtime necessary. Others are public-service minded and are damn fine attorneys, but generally they don’t seek publicity and so don’t get noticed.
Hope this helped.
HawaiiLwyr on July 9, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Ed’s the man for covering for Allah on obvious dentist day.
awake on July 9, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Note to the police…..
Find the killer………………
What a F’ed up case this is.
Note to police………….
When you figure that out,,,,,,,,,,bring them to me.
Cheapest justice you ever had.
Talon on July 9, 2008 at 11:35 PM
a whole lot late…….duke anyone??? are ;you starting to understand how corrupt our legal system is getting???? http://www.innocenceproject.com (berry chek)
allrsn on July 9, 2008 at 11:37 PM
HawaiiLwyr, Madeline McCann’s blood was found in the trunk of her parent’s rental car. A car they rented after Madeline went missing. So I think any suspicion on the parents is warranted.
SoulGlo on July 9, 2008 at 11:41 PM
And then went out after the help they hired instead of taking seriously the facts-at-hand.
P.S. Thanks for the cleaning up of my careless editing.
highhopes on July 9, 2008 at 11:42 PM
TWEEEEEEEEETTTTTTT!
Slow down there sport. Corrupt is a loaded word which doesn’t make sense in this context. The legal system is deficient but calling it corrupt suggests that there is personal gain involved. That was true in the Duke case where Nifong did it to pander for black votes but you can’t make a universal application to that situation.
highhopes on July 9, 2008 at 11:46 PM
I feel so sorry for the Mom she went to her grave under this scrutiny that was not warranted. Truly a shame.
pjf626 on July 10, 2008 at 12:20 AM
O yes it IS justified, our legal system is very corrupt. Time to fix it befor itis too late.
allrsn on July 10, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Brutal, sick and horrendous. And the prosecutor’s conduct was appalling. And now, 12 years to test DNA? What the hell…
Jaibones on July 10, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Gotta explain how the system is corrupt and expound on your ideas for the fix. Otherwise you are just a whiner.
highhopes on July 10, 2008 at 12:32 AM
I agree 12 years? why? somthing personal to lose maybe?
allrsn on July 10, 2008 at 12:32 AM
as I already stated http://www.inocenceproject.com
allrsn on July 10, 2008 at 12:33 AM
And now, 12 years to test DNA? What the hell…
Jaibones on July 10, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Be fair here. DNA testing has evolved over those 12 years.
highhopes on July 10, 2008 at 12:34 AM
if you are a corrupt cop and want me too I will rip you to hell. otherwise do a study starting with http://www.inocenceproject.com
allrsn on July 10, 2008 at 12:35 AM
dna testing has been 99% accurate since 1990
allrsn on July 10, 2008 at 12:36 AM
what did we gain a extra .03% big wow
allrsn on July 10, 2008 at 12:37 AM
How can you be sure he didn’t write the ransom note before even coming to the home?
It goes like this: killer goes to the home with the intent of kidnapping her, things get out of hand, and he decides to just kill her. He just forgot to pick up the note on his way out.
otcconan on July 10, 2008 at 12:39 AM
And I still believe that the dingo was innocent!
OldEnglish on July 10, 2008 at 12:40 AM
there are many possabilities I just think of (and have for a long time)what the the family must have gone thru emotionaly. think of that you lose a loved daughter and you are accused of incidious things and face prision, o m g.
allrsn on July 10, 2008 at 12:42 AM
The parents might not be guilty of killing her but they are still guilty of making her look like a little slut, which might have led to her death. We might never know. That picture up front, and any picture of the little one creep me out.
Entelechy on July 10, 2008 at 12:45 AM
it is time our legal system start to think about justice, innocence, guilt, and yes, the american way. Our legal system IS corrupt as are our public schools and the democrat party. We must MUST reconize this, WE MUST understand what is going on! Yes we must understand the personal gain of the corrupt people!!!!!!!
If we remain ignorant, freedom dies.
allrsn on July 10, 2008 at 12:48 AM
I agree, but does that justify what they were forced to go thru for no reason? Remember experts have testified that they were innocent for 12 years.
allrsn on July 10, 2008 at 12:49 AM
I wish highhopes on July 10, 2008 at 12:32 AM had challanged. So much info would have come forth if he had, I hope he started a study just a start of a study, at http://www.innocencproject.com
allrsn on July 10, 2008 at 1:00 AM
allrsn on July 10, 2008 at 12:49 AM
I never said that it did.
Entelechy on July 10, 2008 at 1:03 AM
nor did I think you did,I was just commenting
allrsn on July 10, 2008 at 1:10 AM
I thought I was supporting you, sorry if I was not plain.
allrsn on July 10, 2008 at 1:11 AM
No worries allrsn. We’re good :)
Entelechy on July 10, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Please don’t include me in your propoganda campaign.
highhopes on July 10, 2008 at 1:47 AM
What the hell is that all about?
hillbillyjim on July 10, 2008 at 1:48 AM
Sorry, I’m a big believer in DNA, the “Abscence of evidence, is NOT evidence of Abscence!”
This family, their actions, and the whole scenario was just too strange, and bizzare, from the beginning.
To begin with the whole dressing your six year old up as a little beauty queen, and exploiting the hell out of her, is all wrong to being with.
Second, as another reader posted, the handwriting experts were not convinced of Patsy Ramsey’s innocence; and having seen her and her husband on TV, in an interview, they just did NOT act like a family who had been falsely accused; and the other reader pointed out, the way they “lawyered up” right away; very strange.
Finally, for anyone who remembers, two FACTS that clinch it for me:
a) NO ONE, and I repeat NO ONE sits down, and writes a ramson note, and says give me $118,000 dollars, which is what it said!
People think in ROUND numbers. They’ll ask for 100, 150, 250, etc. maybe even 125K, but NOT $118K; which just so happened, to be the amount of Mr. Ramsey’s Christmas bonus that year; now who the hell knew that, EXCEPT the family.
b) when the police went to the house, and searched, they couldn’t find the little girl; not at all.
Finally, when the Police were leaving, and it looked as if she was going to be reported as kidnapped; the Father, all of a sudden, says, wait, there’s one place we didn’t look, and leads detectives straight down into the basement, to a pile of mattresses in a back store room, and picks up the mattresses and viola, there is the poor little girl, dead!
Sorry people, that’s why he was a suspect as far as the Police were concerned, he should be, and will always be as far as I’m concerned.!
Dale in Atlanta on July 10, 2008 at 2:18 AM
I sure hope the guilty s.o.b. is either beaten to death with the unpleasant end of a claw hammer or eaten alive by rats.
One of the most loathesome crimes in memory.
On Christmas Day.
profitsbeard on July 10, 2008 at 2:19 AM
According to the “Wiki”, the story about JonBennet’s body being discovered, as I related above, is incorrect; though I clearly remember reading that version of events.
Anyway, regardless, according to the Wiki at least, this is the correct version:
“In the afternoon of the same day, Boulder Police Detective Linda Arndt asked Fleet White, a friend of the Ramseys, to take John Ramsey and search the house for “anything unusual.”[2] John Ramsey and two of his friends started their search in the basement first. After first searching the bathroom and “train room,” the two went to a “wine cellar” room where John found his daughter’s body covered in a white blanket.[2]”
Very strange anyhow; but the $118K ransom note will always be the clincher for me.
Dale in Atlanta on July 10, 2008 at 2:31 AM
A little girl was too much for him to handle? Did she pull a switchblade or something?
Hollowpoint on July 10, 2008 at 4:48 AM
I agree with some posters above….how can the Ramseys be absolved of any and all suspicion?
Dear gawd, these parents dolled up their little girl as if she were 25 years old, and paraded her on stage. And that ransom note hasn’t been explained.
JetBoy on July 10, 2008 at 6:05 AM
Yeah, the ransom demanded being the amount of his bonus…that would seem to narrow down the suspect pool greatly.
sloopy on July 10, 2008 at 6:40 AM
I am glad they are cleared, but I still think she’d still be alive had her mom not dressed her up as a common beauty pageant whore and paraded her around like a show dog.
TheSitRep on July 10, 2008 at 7:05 AM
What is sad is there are still parents who dress their children like show dogs or little lolitas and see nothing wrong with it.
Parents need to encourage children to get an education, study hard and that their looks dont matter..its their brain that does!
becki51758 on July 10, 2008 at 7:16 AM
And the innocent are the accused and have to face trial and conviction in the media. Remember Richard Jewell?
abcurtis on July 10, 2008 at 8:01 AM
Quite the opposite. Last night on Nancy Grace, they were discussing the opinion that the District Attorney in Boulder
is an imcompetent lame duck who was just looking for an excuse to get her mishandling of the case off her back. That being the case, I am wondering why the Attorney General of Colorado isn’t looking into getting this goof disbarred and press charges against her. I mean, they nailed Mike “Ding-Dong” Nifong for doing pretty much the same thing, so why aren’t they going after this lamebrain?
pilamaye on July 10, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Nancy Grace is an absolute disgrace both to the journalism and the legal professions. I’ve tried to watch her show a couple of times but I cant stomach the breathless sensationalism. And she does like to convict the accused before they have their day in court.
Another one is the prosecutor (cant think of her name) who is on Fox quite a bit. She had the Duke Lacrosse Team tried and convicted before they went to court the first time. She made several statements to the effect that she just knew, knew the boys were guilty. She never issued an apology when they had the charges dropped. I dont like her nor do I trust anything she says.
abcurtis on July 10, 2008 at 8:41 AM
I haven’t thought about that case in a long time, but watching that video (Seven Percent) above just made me sick to think about the horror that little girl suffered her last few hours of life.
Think about that…
Redhead Infidel on July 10, 2008 at 9:01 AM
There are 3 tragedies here:
*the little girl died and her killer was never captured;
**the mother died knowing her daughter’s killer would never be captured because the police and DA had targeted her as suspect #1; and
***the totally incompetent DA (Mary Lacey), who botched the whole thing, is still in office in Boulder. Amazing!! ‘Splain that one to me, someone from Boulder. My beagle would be a more effective DA.
Sure hope the JonBenet’s dad sues Boulder for mega millions, which the voters of that idiot town deserve for re-electing Mary Lacey.
james23 on July 10, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Entelechy on July 10, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Indeed!
bridgetown on July 10, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Yes, but what’s sad is that experience tells them that that is how it usually ends up. Especially with child abductions.
Exactly right. If anything ever happened to my Immortal Beloved, you can bet the farm that, as soon as I can think clearly, one of the first things I do is find a lawyer. *Sigh* Too many cop shows, I guess.
artlover on July 10, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Because the paper the note was on was from a pad on the desk of the Ramsey’s. Along with the pen.
It came from the home.
Either the killer wrote the note in the home or he (she?) had somehow taken the pad and pen from the home previously.
So, someone broke into the home while the family was sleeping (convenient that the family dog was put in a kennel the day before since the family was leaving that day), knew where JonBenet was sleeping, went to her room, grabbed her (she never yelled or screamed?), took her down to the basement, killed her, then went back upstairs and sat down and wrote a three page ransom note – twice starting over and left the note.
After killing her?
A note?
Possible I guess.
SteveMG on July 10, 2008 at 9:28 AM
How exactly does proving that there is someone else’s DNA on the child’s clothes exonerate the Ramseys completely? That DNA could have gotten there in so many ways… before, during or after the murder. And it doesn’t rule out fould play by mom and dad….
max1 on July 10, 2008 at 9:46 AM
It doesn’t; at least to me.
But many people – rightly – just can’t or don’t want to consider the possibilities that the family was involved.
The Boulder police and DA, contrary to the claims made above, bent over backwards for the Ramseys during the investigation. They allowed them to do things that compromised the investigation.
Most parents, of course, never abuse their children. But when a child is abused, in most cases, according to the evidence, it’s the parents who do it.
SteveMG on July 10, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Right. Because any time a ransom note isn’t a rounded-off amount, you know the parents committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
You’re an idiot on so many levels I wouldn’t even know where to start.
Get your head out of your ass, quit gleaning your information from blogs and Access Hollywood, and get a frickin’ life.
Jesus wept. You define stupid. Now go read the Constitution. Have someone explain the big words.
Professor Blather on July 10, 2008 at 10:08 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/09/jonbenet.dna/index.html
A bit more info from CNN…
Skip down about half way to the DNA examination.
Limerick on July 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Right. Because any time a ransom note isn’t a rounded-off amount, you know the parents committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
You’re an idiot on so many levels I wouldn’t even know where to start.
The level of your reply, indicates WAY more about YOU, than me!
Congrats, you’ve exposed yourself as a Clown in front of the world!
Dale in Atlanta on July 10, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Don’t know what is going on but I’ve tried four times to link to the CNN DNA evidence article from today…
so I’ll try it in english instead…
www cnn com 2008 CRIME 07 09 jonbenet(dot)dna index(dot)html
add front-slashes where the spaces are. Sorry, don’t know why my posts are getting eaten.
Limerick on July 10, 2008 at 11:03 AM
ooops…
www cnn(dot)com
Limerick on July 10, 2008 at 11:04 AM
New DNA evidence, or new DNA technology??
labrat on July 10, 2008 at 11:11 AM
According to the article at CNN it is both.
Limerick on July 10, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »