Lawsuit seeks release of 1999 JonBenet murder indictment
FoxNews.com
BOULDER, Colo. – A press advocacy group and a Boulder Daily Camera reporter are suing Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett seeking the release of an indictment that was secretly voted on by the JonBenet Ramsey grand jury in 1999 but never prosecuted.
Reporter Charlie Brennan and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed the lawsuit in Boulder District Court on Wednesday, citing the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act in an effort to compel Garnett to release the indictment.
The newspaper is not participating in the lawsuit.
Six-year-old JonBenet was found dead Dec. 26, 1996, in the basement of her family's home, hours after her mother told police her daughter was missing. Her killer hasn't been identified.
26 comments:
John Douglas covers this case in his book Law and Disorder. He made me see things I didn't before.
I'm reposting this here since I commented on the Ayla post before I saw this one about the lawsuit.
Dr Cyril Wecht just slayed the Ramsey's and DA Alex Hunter (plus Jane Velez Mitchell) on HLN's report about the newly filed lawsuit. JVM was spouting nonsense (in defense of the Ramsey's) about the 'newly discovered' male DNA, (guess she wants to rewrite history since it is anything but new) and the pathetic face-saving apology offered by the prosecutor. Wecht called in to put her to shame, as he walked thru the evidence and how absurd the idea of an outside intruder really is. JVM started yelling over him..'then why did the prosecution APOLOGIZE to the Ramsey's'? Wecht's answer was flawless and left me cheering like I was watching my Steelers score a TD!
Wecht said: "Well, Alex Hunter would have been a great public defender, Alex Hunter had a 98% plea bargain rate that indicated clearly that he WAS NOT into prosecution...and I myself am not a very prosecution biased individual, but Alex Hunter's record was ABYSMAL...there was only one murder that had taken place that entire year in Bolder county, and one the year before. They were totally inexperienced, totally inept, and when somebody talks about...number 1 the DNA evidence, and I have also discussed this with Dr Henry Lee...that was definitely a contaminant, you can get that on any packed material that you buy. Number 2, just think..you've got somebody who comes Into the house, he gets the little girl, he takes her downstairs, has his way with her, with his perverse sexual pleasure, and then he decides to wack her on the head. But then he decides you know what...I'm going to make it a profitable evening too...I'm gonna spin a ransom note, but oh gee I forgot pen and paper..but I'll find it in these people's house"..(he gets interrupted and trails off).
Question is asked: So Dr Wecht, what do you think we will learn if this indictment is unsealed, what kind of bombshell info do you think is in there?
Wecht: "All of these things will be in there, No evidence of an outside intruder, a phony ransom note.. 'We represent a small foreign faction' demanding 118,000 dollars...there's a nice round number right? And then a practice note, because when the guy started to write it he thought gee its not very good, and one day it's gonna be discussed..I'll start again and leave the note and oh by the way he forgot to take the body".
Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself
Since the Grand Jury signed an indictement against the ramseys, is it still active and the current prosecutor can sign off on it?
Anon @ 12:59, these people don't want to hear about a John Douglas book, "Law & Disorder", nor will they bother to google proof of the ensuing evidence that does NOT support the guilt of either John or Patsy.
They've blindly made up their minds, no questions asked. They prefer to listen to the words of a little 22 yr old girl rookie who had been on the job less than two mos and with no prior experience or training, who led the investigation than what several professional investigators reported later who had researched and investigated for months before making their reports.
These people care not that they just MIGHT be wrong and just MIGHT be falsely accusing an innocent party(ies); they all have little JonBenets' murder tied up in a neat and tidy package with a bow on top and they aren't about to change their mind or listen to reason or any of the evidence;
or, that there WAS evidence of an outside intruder or that the ransom letter could NOT have been written by Patsy; or that JonBenet could have ever been molested anywhere else other than at home, regardless to the fact that JonBenet was dropped off frequently alone at her dance, music and modeling sessions while Patsy went on her way to other functions or errands.
They just will NOT listen to anything that speaks volumes to the innocence of either Patsy or John, and will fight against it. I hope someday they are proven wrong.
What they will learn from the unsealed indictment is that it was performed BEFORE further investigative research was done and while it was still coming in. Duh. That was in 1999, this is 1013!
As for Dr. Cyril Wecht, he has been sued a few times (and lost) for giving baseless opinions and for malpractice. Don't believe that either? Then google it.
Type. That is: 2013.
anon lol..we made it to the 11th century!!
I have been mistyping all day (sigh)
:P
I have always thought the parents may not have been directly responsible, but involved. I beleive however that dad did molest JonBenet. Lets remember, this is a website for Statement Analysis and that has been made clear. If you dont believe in SA then I am not sure why you are here if only to argue against it.
BUT if you are, then go get proof it is wrong. Find proof of someone that was charged and then later the real killer was found and show us where in those statements SA failed to show truth.
SA showed clear deception in this case. Their money got them off.
And honestly, SA aside, no loving parent just a few days after their child is found basically tortured and killed do you go on national television to thank people for their support.
A normal parent who had no involvement would be besides themselves. Over come with greif. Not trying to put on a good show. And I sure as hell would NEVER say"i am not angry". But John said that. Why would a father not be angry. That should go against every instinct. Espeically this soon.
Those words alone should speak volumes about that man.
And lets not forget, the parents refused to take polygraphs and only did finally when it was someone they technically hired.
Please!
Innocent people who just found their innocent baby girl brutalized do not try to hinder investigations, refuse polygraphs, lawyer up and begin their Public Relations show. Hello Gerry and Kate Mccann.
It is just not normal.
But seriously all you out there that feel the contstant need to bash Statement analysis, go get proof. Dont just come on here and ramble or insult the analysis.
If it is wrong PROVE IT. Since it would be easy today with computer access to transripts and articles, have at it.
Or seriously get off this site!
Those of us on here love the analysis and love Peter.
Thank you Shelley. I agree.
If only we could all be as open minded on the topic as you clearly are, lol!
Screw Wecht and his forensic expertise (he DID write a book on the Ramsey case btw). HLN should have called YOU to get your opinion (which you apparently feel is more valid than anyone else's). All of the knowledge you gained from Google surely renders you more qualified than the rest of us 'blind' morons to decide the Ramsey's guilt or innocence.
The case is considered unsolved, SA has shed some light on the Ramsey's deceptions, and the fake ransom note. But still nobody can say x, y and z happened in that house, that night. We are ALL nothing more than armchair detectives with opinions....you DO know what they say about opinions right?
Like I said earlier, Anon @ 12:59; you/me or anyone else is wasting their time offering these thick heads (not that this is what I said at the time), any other thoughts or possibilities than their own mule headed with-blinders-on preconceived notions. Best to just let'em have at it.
Hi Shelley,
I'm sure you noticed that despite the insults and condesending tone, the Anon poster who fancies themselves an enlightened expert on everything failed to provide any examples of SA being proven wrong.
As passionate as they are about the topic, you would think they would jump at the chance to rub it in our 'thick, mule-headed, with blinders on' faces if they could provide any solid examples. That says a lot about the strength of their argument.
I have to ask, why are you wasting your time reading and participating in this Statement Analysis blog if you feel it is not reliable? You must feel it has some merit, or do you literally just like to argue and post insulting, self righteous and RUDE comments?
Envision yourselves as what you are, Shelly. Schoolyard bullies.
You want proof that SA has been wrong? Very well, since you asked, I'll tell. Breann Rodrigeuz is one example of when both SA and Mr. Hyatt were wrong.
"The word “well” is used to make time to think of an answer. Note that “we” now changes to “I”. The use of the word “we” is appropriate if he is speaking for her, but this is via telephone and it should be considered weak and sensitive. Note some additional wording: “my daughter” instead of using her name; note “I got upset” and that he uses the word “told” to a 3 year old. This is the 3 year old that he said must get up, brush teeth, get herself breakfast before she can go out, as if she is much older. The word “told” is stronger than “said” and taken with “I got upset” is an indication that Edgar Rodriquez lost his temper."
Did Edgar Rodriguez have anything to do with his daugher's disappearance? No. Has an apology ever been granted? No. An admittance that Mr. Hyatt was wrong, perhaps? No.
I'd link readers to the original article but wouldn't you know it? I tried to go to http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2011/08/analysis-edgar-rodriguez-on-nancy-grace.html and all I saw was "Private opinion. No portion of this may be used without the express written consent of the author.. Simple template. Powered by Blogger."
You see, I'd love to show you otherwise, Shelley. It's hard when people delete and erase what was though. I managed to recover the quote above from a comment on scaredmonkeys - thanks to the poster. I can't show you the real article - that you'll have to ask your lord and master, Mr. Hyatt, about.
Bravo to your post above Blitz! As I'm sure you are aware, there are more than the Rodriguez case where Mr. Hyatt and Statement Analysis and its' followers have falsely accused and led others to falsely accuse innocent parties.
High school student Sierra and her falsely accused mother and mothers' boyfriend quickly comes to mind; but can this statement analysis be found? Nah, it has been conveniently deleted or otherwise so comingled under dates that one would never find all those posts that slandered this woman. Oh how words and actions were twisted to make this woman appear guilty.
Was an apology ever made to this tragic mother? Not on your life! Mr. Hyatt is going to find himself facing God's judgment one day for the false accusations he has made against others, right along with his followers who cast their hat into the ring in falsely accusing others who have fallen under his 'catchy word' spell. They will be reminded, 'judge not lest you be so judged' but it will be too late then for them to repent of all the hurt they've caused others.
Ha.. So funny; just in reading the new article posted this morning, Mr. Hyatt gives the impression that all these prosecutors, witnesses and anyone else connected with this case should contact him and his bloated ego FIRST and run their statements by HIM, and get his permission as to how they should speak, what to say, what not to say and how to say it, before making any statement of their own free will. Pathetic.
Bravo Jen, great posts Jen, I agree with what you wrote and then some!
Sorry, I just wanted to see how it felt to write a post to myself, agreeing with myself about one of my other posts. It is such a popular phenomenon on this site that I figured it must be super fun!
SA is an excellent tool, if used in Conjunction with other evidence.
I should not stand alone as the End-all-Be-all cause for judgement.
Where are all the open-minded skeptics?
Hi just the facts
I haven't noticed anyone saying SA is the end-all method for judgement. It is not meant to be used to decide guilt, or innocence. As you said, it is a tool. SA can be used to identify 'sensitivity', and with enough available statements we can develop an opinion on whether 'deception is indicated'. Sensitivity doesn't always equal deception, and deception doesn't always equal guilt.
The most valuable way that I have used SA in my life is by listening closer and not interpreting, which at first was hard for me. I feel like we are conditioned to want to anticipate what a person is going to say next, and kind of fill in the blanks, which a deceptive person can easily leverage to mislead others.
Jen~
I was referring to all the posters who were ranting about Peter not admitting he was wrong - they all seem to think SA is the sole factor for determining guilt.
Like you, I think it is a single, but important factor to determine deception.
Umm, Dani Kekoa -
WTF?
and, again, WTF?
Thank you - just the facts at 1:10 AM!
It takes a bit of intelligence to understand that "deception indicated" does not automatically equate to "guilty". And of course only those who can't think for themselves read SA that way and then blame their narrow-minded thinking on the statement analyst! It would be comical if it weren't so annoying.
Ah, Jen? I am not Anonymous, I am Ballroom Blitz/Blitz, named for the song - my preference is Tia Carrere's cover in Wayne's World. I have never posted as an 'Anonymous', you are incorrect in your beliefs that I had a conversation with myself above.
I'd wait for an apology or even a admittance that you were wrong - that will never happen here though. It hasn't for the last few years I've been lurking around.
You are free to be the first and start tipping the balance. Maybe I'd even gain some respect for the posters here if they showed a bit of common decency toward their fellow humans.
Rolling Stones said it best: "So if you meet me, have some courtesy, have some sympathy, have some taste. Use all your well-learned politesse or I'll lay your soul to waste."
If one of my children were murdered I, too, would lawyer up and refuse a polygraph. I do not believe polygraphs help exonerate innocent people. I don't think my taking a polygraph would help find the real killer. My priority would shift to my remaining child and doing everything within my power to ensure that I am able to take care of him\her. That means getting a lawyer to make sure I am not railroaded. Innocent people need a lawyer more than guilty people.
You guys are certainly sensitive (and determined to exonerate yourselves) about this silly topic, lol!
I simply found it interesting that these posts repeatedly refer to Peter as 'Mr Hyatt', and contain the same writing style (meaning accusatory sarcastic questions posed, followed by an answer). Whether written by the same person or not, it was a silly comment to make on my part. I'm happy to admit that, and offer apologies all around. I'm sorry, truce, ok!
**************
PART 1 of 1
**************
Oh dear Anonymous 9/21 at 8:10am who said... “Envision yourselves as what you are, Shelly. Schoolyard bullies”.
“Schoolyard bullies” Plural. Were you only speaking of me? Or others?
I do have to admit however, I find your only response quite funny. I mean, a bully? REALLY? LOL.
I am debating in support of statement analysis ON A BLOG.
Yes, I am frustrated by people coming on the site only to bash the analysis without having a single solid fact to back up why they are stating that this analysis has no validity at all. And your only response is that I am a bully. A “schoolyard bully” no less. GIVE ME YOUR LUNCH MONEY OR ELSE!!!
But seriously, why are you on this blog? It makes no sense. And it is safe to say you must come here frequently. If you are familiar enough with my name to feel I warrant the title “bully”, me, a mere infrequent commenter, not even the poster, then you must be here A LOT.
But… I love this blog! I come here to learn more about statement analysis. I don’t get the point of someone bashing it just to bash it. And honestly, I am not about to follow a blog that I am against.
I support Statement Analysis as a great “tool” in investigations
AND
I do have strong opinions on parenting and I do feel that any parent who would get over the anger of their daughters brutal murder in a couple days is hiding something and a parent who would leave 2 and 3 year old BABIES alone in a hotel room is should at least face serious child endangerment charges…. But, those opinions do not make me a bully. That is simply a strong opinion.
Next……
Then, to Blitz who felt the need to call me out with a statement that they did have proof with the Breeann Rodriguez case……
I have not read Peters analysis on that case. I have only started to follow his blog about a year ago. And I do know that many posts from hi former site are no longer available as I have tried to refer back to several. Including cases that are unsolved and got the same message I did with Breeann “Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist”. Sure it is possible Peter follows the hundreds of cases and removes any that go against his analysis but I doubt he did that. But maybe….
I will say this much, I am always open to see both sides.
BUT….. I will say this much, I think Peter has made it clear that deception in a murder case does not always mean the person was actually the murderer. In fact, some quotes from his blog are to follow on just that point:
“There may be other issues, as sensitivity indicators may show guilt of neglect, or of other crimes, but not homicide”
AND
“sensitivity indicators are to be used IN the interview/interrogation process”.
So, basically how I take what he has said is that least is not that he said if there is sensitivity, they killed them…. but he is more saying where sensitivity/deception may be noted, the reason why is not always known and needs to be followed up with additional questions to clarify.
Yes, in some cases the deception is clear. That statement was a lie. But in most of what I read, he does not solve the crimes even if he may have a theory based on his experience and knowledge of analysis. BUT what he does is show deception and sensitive areas. And then states that additional questions need to be asked.
**************
PART 2 of 2
**************So then back on your Breaan case proof that analysis is in fact wrong!
So since the post where Peter analyzed that case is no longer available, I am assuming since you are stating for a fact that Peter was wrong. Then you had to have previously read it. If not, then well, we can just toss this out all together.
But, since you must have read it and have more to go on that just that small section you copied and pasted above, what else did he say about daddy? I don’t expect exact quotes. But did he actually say “Breeanns father Edgar killed her” or anything indicating that he was in fact responsible, or did he simply note sensitivity and possible other concerns?
Because the section you shared does not show where he was flat out wrong. What you have posted was where he noted that the statement made by Edgar was “weak and sensitive” and some other statements were an “indication that Edgar Rodriquez lost his temper."
But those did not show where Peter said Edgar killed his child or was responsible for his murder.
So if you do recall the case which I would expect since you are clearly stating Peter was wrong and you are now trying to PROVE YOUR CASE with that small portion of his statement….. that well, really only says something is off with dad since a 3 year old does not typically hold that level of responsibility…
So…. Please….provide more details. Because as it stands now, nothing you provided was proof he was wrong.
Peter has analyzed many cases where he notes sensitivity in the parents statements and comments that it may be due to feelings of guilt due to neglect, abuse etc. But that they were not necessaryl responsible.
SOOOOOO, Unless you are telling me that Peter said “Statement analysis proved that Edgar killed his daughter” then I am not sure how you have proved SA wrong.
But please, enlighten me?
And last but not least, ANON September 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Again, with these blatent comments that Peter is wrong. Again, we have someone else picking and choosing what they choose to use to support their case. Which in fact, there was nothing proven at all.
You did note the Sierra case and I do recall that case. While I do not recall his exact comments, (and as a note a lot of the posts that are gone are on a blog he no longer has – I think if I recall correctly he moved due to spam). But most of what he said with the mother was that she was deceptive about the time frames that morning and if I recall correctly, he noted sensitivity that he felt could be due to fight or argument that may have occurred that morning between Marleen and Sierra.
But NOT ONCE did Peter ever state “Marlene Lamar killed Sierra” or “Marlene Lamar was responsible for the disappearance of Sierra.
Peter however did address a possible fight between mother and daughter and some tension in their relationship.
So, do you have proof that DID not happen? Proof they did NOT fight that morning and proof that she was 100% accurate on her timelines and proof that Marlene and Sierra had a wonderful relationship?
If you do, then you have a partial case against Peter. That would be a valid point in your efforts to prove Peter and SA wrong.
But at this point, the attempts to prove him wrong have done nothing more than show
A: You are not familiar with the case
B. You are not using his analysis correctly
C. You need to learn more about statement analysis
Someone also noted that I didn’t provide proof. But I did.
Roger Clemens
Lance Armstrong
Read the cases. Read what they said. What Peters analysis was and well, how the real truth came out.
But in all honesty, it will be hard to prove a lot of cases he analyzed.
Why? Well first off, most of the cases he analyzes are those that are cases that he sees deception in and uses them for analysis. There is no value in using the case of the killer who admitted he killed as there is not deception.
So, we have unsolved crimes. We have cases where even if convicted, does not prove guilt (innocent people are convicted). We have abusers that will forever deny abuse.
So proof is hard when you are faced with so many unsolved cases and so many people that take their lies to their graves.
But, I have lied and I can say that I have used the phrases he states show deception. I think most everyone has lied. Think about the words you have used.
I have seen it play out at work. I will know something to be a fact. Watch a co-worker in a meeting lie to our boss and their words, they show deception based on the analysis.
So those are things that I can not prove to you, but have proved it to myself.
Listen to peoples words. It’s so easy to hear what they want you to hear. And lets be honest, many people out there are really good and talking. Just think about the car salesman.
Or better yet, the carfax report commercials. The customer asks for the carfax report on the car. The car salesman who is trying to avoid providing that, trys to steer them away by re-directing their attention on other aspects of the car.
That is classic statement analysis.
Where is the carfax report?
If there is nothing wrong, just provide it.
But if they don’t, and try to keep focusing on other things. There is sensitivity. Does not mean the car is a piece of junk, but it should lead you to demand that report to get to why there was sensitivity with that carfax report.
Post a Comment