|
candy
East Lansing, MI
|
Stan's been very circumspect about why they would want to interview Burke, as he should be. Nothing to tip off the Scams as to why that would be, and that's a GOOD thing. They don't have any right to know that.
|
|
Henri McPhee
Towcester, UK
|
Mame wrote: <quoted text>
I don't think they sent it back because they had incriminating evidence. Garnett wanted to build bridges and heal wounds with the BPD. AND it's not shocking that in this election he got the nod and endorsement of a statewide police group...
I do think with Trujillo in charge they will do everything they can to go after the Ramseys. But that darn DNA is standing in their path... That's terrible if Trujillo is in charge. He's a total idiot who caused significant unnecessary damages to Nancy Krebs and her lawyer, Lee Hill.
|
|
learnin
Sabetha, KS
|
BrotherMoon wrote: <quoted text>
The DNA is not legit. Lacy and Bode could actually be prosecuted. Their out card is an oral report of personal opinion done without legal channels. Lacy is gone and the Bode rep resigns, end of story.
Garnett's actions most probably are not driven by new info or insights. Too bad. I think this is all about political heat. Insights, or no; politics, or no; I have to believe they would be insane to stir the pot without knowing there was no intruder. And when one considers that this new task force looked at the evidence, this is significant.
|
|
candy
East Lansing, MI
|
I agree learnin, but Wood and Haddon have treated the last 2 DA's offices as their servants. DO what I say. I predict he will be very nasty on Caplis today.
|
|
“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”
Since: Jan 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
learnin wrote: <quoted text>
Insights, or no; politics, or no; I have to believe they would be insane to stir the pot without knowing there was no intruder. And when one considers that this new task force looked at the evidence, this is significant. From this we can conclude the DNA is a load of crap.
|
|
Old South
AOL
|
Henri McPhee wrote: <quoted text>
Garnett doesn't seem to be up to speed about this Grand Jury indictment matter. It was discussed with Lin Wood at the Steve Thomas deposition in 2001:
24 Q. But what you did know and you had
25 actual knowledge of was that a grand jury had
203
1 met for some 13 months and had not issued an
2 indictment against John and Patsy Ramsey,
3 right?
4 A. I don't know that. Do you know
5 that?
6 Q. Sir, was an indictment issued? Do
7 you have information there was an indictment
8 of my clients that nobody has bothered
9 telling them or me about?
10 MR. HOFFMAN: Actually, Lin,
11 Patrick Burke has information that he should
12 have told you about which he announced to the
13 media that according to him the grand jury
14 actually took a straw poll. Why don't you
15 ask Patrick Burke.
16 MR. WOOD: Let me tell you,
17 Darnay, that won't count against my time.
18 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
19 MR. WOOD: But you're right, it
20 was a straw poll; it was a vote not to
21 indict. Thank you for bringing something to
22 my attention that I already knew.
23 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
24 Q.(BY MR. WOOD) Would you answer
25 my question, sir? It's pretty simple. You
204
1 know that no indictment was issued by the
2 grand jury, true?
3 A. I don't know what the grand jury
4 did.
5 Q. I'm not asking you what they did
6 in terms of whether they voted or not, sir.
7 MR. DIAMOND: I think he's asking
8 you --
9 Q.(BY MR. WOOD) I'm asking you
10 whether they issued an indictment to indict
11 John and/or Patsy Ramsey?
12 MR. DIAMOND:-- are you aware of
13 any public report of such an indictment.
14 A. No. Henri, I don't believe what you posted here PROVES there was NO indictment issued. In fact, if anything, it can possibly prove just the opposite. Notice the final part of your post: 9 Q.(BY MR. WOOD) I'm asking you 10 whether they issued an indictment to indict 11 John and/or Patsy Ramsey? 12 MR. DIAMOND:-- are you aware of 13 any public report of such an indictment. 14 A. No. So, in this last question, they are speaking of a PUBLIC REPORT (of such an indictment). So, isn't it correct to say there was an indictment that has NOT been made public? I'd be interested in seeing more of this transcript since this leaves me to wonder if the subject of any indictments having been issued seems from this to have been dropped. Dropped, that is, with the impression there was an indictment that was not made public.
|
|
learnin
Sabetha, KS
|
BrotherMoon wrote: <quoted text>
From this we can conclude the DNA is a load of crap. I would think so, BrotherM.
|
|
candy
East Lansing, MI
|
I'm listening to Lin Wood and Silverman for the last 10 minutes. Lin Wood's as bad as I told you he would be. WHERE'S CAPLIS, THOMAS'S LAWYER?
|
|
|
|
candy
East Lansing, MI
|
From this show, the last interview and most current interview Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett gave on this case, he NEVER worked with Afro Jones on that pro-Ramsey crock:
Craig Silverman: "I’d say the headline out of our show, is once again you established out of your questioning of Stan Garnett that that letter (of Lacy's exonerating the Ramseys) ISN'T WORTH THE PAPER IT'S WRITTEN ON AS FAR AS STAN GARNETT IS CONCERNED."
|
|
candy
East Lansing, MI
|
bump, to see what Stan Garnett COULD talk about last year.
|
|
“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”
Since: Jan 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
And Caplis said "I like what you are doing with the case."
What the Hell was he doing that Caplis liked?
Going group think with the committee of fresh eyes?
|
|
candy
East Lansing, MI
|
Judged:
1
He liked that Stan Garnett was UN-CLEARING the Ramseys for HIS investigation, which was only a year old at the time of this interview.
|
|
“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”
Since: Jan 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
candy wrote: He liked that Stan Garnett was UN-CLEARING the Ramseys for HIS investigation, which was only a year old at the time of this interview. If that is what he did then why didn't he announce that?
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Aries
