Stan Garnett on the Peter Boyles show next week

The thread I made yesterday on this is gone, so I'm posting again that District Attorney Stan Garnett will be on The Peter Boyles Show sometime next week, so posters will be reminded to tune into this program. You can listen live @ www.khow.com , and they have podcasts available later in the day for each hour of the show.

I don't know why it got deleted, maybe the link thing. There will be a thread for the interview.

I'll be listening ro see if he can get any answers to the questions I've been posting about.

'Hi Peter, I heard you were to have the Boulder DA on next week. Please ask him about the American Girl Dolls Pam Paugh removed them from the crime scene. They have tan cotton bodies and one comes dressed in a navy wool skirt; similar sounding to very specific fibers found on the duct tape and wiped on JonBenet's body.

When I sold these dolls I was told to tell customers they could put duct tape on the dolls if a girl had problems brushing the hair. I saw a computer order for a doll ordered and shipped anonymously to Access Graphics right after the death, as though it were to be a replacement - if you do put tape on the doll it leaves residue, a stain of adhesive. It’s too much of a coincidence to be insignificant.

I've been trying to make sense of this for over a decade and have written or emailed hundreds of times to everyone from the DA to the governor to newspapers and never heard anything back, not a peep. It appears the doll information was never evaluated. They would have come to verify the information about putting tape on the doll, the trainer involved, they never did. They also would have had to compare the tan fibers to at least a dozen shades, as the fabrics used for the skin tones are different.

Pam Paugh should never have been allowed to remove anything. It’s been reported she was given a jacket and badge to wear while she was in the home. They said it was to protect her from the media but the media didn’t know who she was. She impersonated law enforcement, a crime in itself. Who provided the jacket and badge? Who was in on this little conspiracy to defraud the investigation? Thanks.'

I don't have high hopes for anything meaningful coming from the broadcast.

He is not going to comment on an open investigation and I think it will be a lot of fluff about how they are still working on it, but I don't expect anything detailed or any new "news", etc. He can't

I might have thought that John or any member of the Ramsey family would have put out some sort of statement during the anniversary, but NOPE

It's all good for them just the way it is. No pleas to the public, no public acknowledgment of the anniversary, no thoughtful or sentimental statement or dedications to JBR, NOTHING at all

Capricorn wrote:

I don't have high hopes for anything meaningful coming from the broadcast.
He is not going to comment on an open investigation and I think it will be a lot of fluff about how they are still working on it, but I don't expect anything detailed or any new "news", etc. He can't
I might have thought that John or any member of the Ramsey family would have put out some sort of statement during the anniversary, but NOPE
It's all good for them just the way it is. No pleas to the public, no public acknowledgment of the anniversary, no thoughtful or sentimental statement or dedications to JBR, NOTHING at all

And surely no visit to Marietta, GA.

At least Peter can ask the questions. It can't hurt. Even a stutter by Garnett can be telling.

The Ramseys are like the family of Sabrina Aisenberg who have no active part in any investigation looking for their missing child. The Aisenbergs know their child is dead so why look? The Ramseys know what happened so why look?

These guilty parents can't even pretend to look, their every actions and words would project what happened, be too 'truthful'.

Capricorn wrote:

I don't have high hopes for anything meaningful coming from the broadcast.
He is not going to comment on an open investigation and I think it will be a lot of fluff about how they are still working on it, but I don't expect anything detailed or any new "news", etc. He can't
I might have thought that John or any member of the Ramsey family would have put out some sort of statement during the anniversary, but NOPE
It's all good for them just the way it is. No pleas to the public, no public acknowledgment of the anniversary, no thoughtful or sentimental statement or dedications to JBR, NOTHING at all

I e-mailed Boyles, which he read on air, not to take any wooden nickels from Garnett. I for one think that is what he will be trying to sell by the bucket load next week.

People really have to have REASONABLE expectations as to what a sitting DA in an OPEN (not indicted) case is able say. Which is very little. Go back and listen to Garnett on the Caplis and Silverman show from last year. When Caplis tried to press him if the grand jury even voted or not, the DA said he could not LEGALLY talk about that subject.

Stan Garnett is BY FAR the best DA this case ever had. However, LEGALLY, this case can't proceed against ANYONE unless or until that DNA has been identified (and that is one great questions for Boyles to ask him, if this DNA is still unsourced) and then they have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to who made the head wound, and was it the same person that twisted the garotte. What I would like to know is if it is a true story about a THIRD source of the SAME unsourced DNA being found on the bloodspot on the Barbie nightgown found at the crime scene. BUT, it's something he can't answer, I understand that.

candy wrote:

person that twisted the garotte.

Explain that.

How alone
All alone
and empty
Waiting
Waiting for a thought
Waiting for a mind to pass by
to rob

BrotherMoon wrote:

<quoted text>
Explain that.

If you saw the TV movie of "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town", the "Dream Team" lawyers hired by the BPD asked this very same question. Specifically, one of them said "I'd like to know if the person that hit her over the head, strangled her." And then Trip DeMuth chimes in in agreement that there is no evidence as to which one did which, or both. Because these are all SEPERATE acts that happened to the child you HAVE to be able to prove WHO committed them.

candy wrote:

<quoted text>
If you saw the TV movie of "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town", the "Dream Team" lawyers hired by the BPD asked this very same question. Specifically, one of them said "I'd like to know if the person that hit her over the head, strangled her." And then Trip DeMuth chimes in in agreement that there is no evidence as to which one did which, or both. Because these are all SEPERATE acts that happened to the child you HAVE to be able to prove WHO committed them.

Exactly what the RDI have been saying, as you already know Candy, since day 1 as to why the case has not been prosecuted. Un prosecuted does not equal innocent - not with only one shot at prosecution because of double jeopardy.

I'd like to post a transcript of the Trip DeMuth character asking these questions from "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town", but I believe my short transcript of what just one caller said is what got my whole thread pulled the other day. Go back and look at that part of PMPT, because it's critical as to what the state must prove. He also adds who carried the child from her room, because that act alone is a seperate crime KIDNAPPING.

candy wrote:

<quoted text>
If you saw the TV movie of "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town", the "Dream Team" lawyers hired by the BPD asked this very same question. Specifically, one of them said "I'd like to know if the person that hit her over the head, strangled her." And then Trip DeMuth chimes in in agreement that there is no evidence as to which one did which, or both. Because these are all SEPERATE acts that happened to the child you HAVE to be able to prove WHO committed them.

My question was about the 'twisting' not the person.

Explain how that neck ligature was twisted or supposed to be twited to strangle.

Also, look at what the State charged Karr with in their indictment to see what all has to be proved in this case. Since he confessed, they could charge him, and him alone with all of the things, all of the seperate acts that happened to her.

No, the neck ligature was not twisted, that's correct. "Twisting" would mean TURNING the garotte to choke her to death.

In PMPT the movie, you have one of the "Dream Team" lawyers telling Alex Hunter that they believe there is a triable case of felony murder here, and to take it straight to a grand jury. Then Hofstrom asks that to prove felony murder, you have to prove a murder was committed while a felony was taking place, and what felony was that? And the dream team lawyer answers "Sexual assault". Then the Trip DeMuth character says, what DAY did the sexual assault occur, and WHO committed the sexual assault, who took her out of her room, and said they couldn't prove any of that, therefore, there wasn't enough for a grand jury, or even an indictment against anyone.

The handle or stick was long enough for both Patsy and John to hold at the same time... like a gun with two triggers.

That's an interesting point pinker. You would have thought "he" would have brought his own, instead of fashioning it out of materials by the crime scene, i.e., Patsy's paintbrush.

I don't know anything about how a garotte kills except someone is yanking on the stick, and the noose gets tighter and tighter around the victim's neck.