Stan Garnett: We will NEVER give up on Justice for JonBenet

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
candy

East Lansing, MI

#1 Aug 5, 2011
I just LOVE this wonderful man. Unlike Steve Thomas, he means what he says, and his word is GOOD. Keep stonewalling the cops Scams, keep hiding, the DA is NOT forgetting about Justice for JonBenet:

Garnett says his office will continue to pursue every lead until JonBenet’s killer is finally brought to justice.

“We will never give up...absolutely never give up."

http://www.kwgn.com/news/kdvr-jonbenet-ramsey...
Natasha Gray

United States

#3 Aug 6, 2011
candy wrote:
I just LOVE this wonderful man. Unlike Steve Thomas, he means what he says, and his word is GOOD. Keep stonewalling the cops Scams, keep hiding, the DA is NOT forgetting about Justice for JonBenet:
Garnett says his office will continue to pursue every lead until JonBenet’s killer is finally brought to justice.
“We will never give up...absolutely never give up."
http://www.kwgn.com/news/kdvr-jonbenet-ramsey...
I wonder why they don't seem to be advancing, though. There should be enough evidence to draw a conclusion either way.
Natasha Gray

United States

#5 Aug 6, 2011
Moonie, your questions are too unfocused to attend to. Gather your idea's, post your evidence, for once, and you might eventually get someone to take you seriously. Until then, you are nothing but a Stalker, a Twister, a Disrupter. The board STD..
yyt67i

Miami, FL

#6 Aug 6, 2011
Cappie, your questions are too unfocused to attend to. Gather your idea's, post your evidence, for once, and you might eventually get someone to take you seriously. Until then, you are nothing but a Stalker, a Twister, a Disrupter. The board STD..

Plus, oh no seuss. remember rose/rita? i was rose and you were rita. we almost got caught!

i am a pilot. rb211-535. put that in your pipe, baby, and yes i do know what it is. do u?

do u have some midol?
Natasha Gray

United States

#8 Aug 6, 2011
yyt67i wrote:
Cappie, your questions are too unfocused to attend to. Gather your idea's, post your evidence, for once, and you might eventually get someone to take you seriously. Until then, you are nothing but a Stalker, a Twister, a Disrupter. The board STD..
Plus, oh no seuss. remember rose/rita? i was rose and you were rita. we almost got caught!
i am a pilot. rb211-535. put that in your pipe, baby, and yes i do know what it is. do u?
do u have some midol?
there it is again. Not an original thought in its head. Its a mimic, that is all. An ebola monkey.

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#10 Aug 6, 2011
Natasha Gray wrote:
<quoted text>there it is again. Not an original thought in its head. Its a mimic, that is all. An ebola monkey.
ditto you
Natasha Gray

United States

#11 Aug 7, 2011
Moon Jack wrote:
Gray, don't twist my question...
All posters know that I gather evidence by questions...
Then I put them under the microscope,
and like BM,try and connect the two atoms together...
to give you your own advice, moonie, go back, find history. Its all on these threads.
Natasha Gray

United States

#12 Aug 7, 2011
Gray, don't twist my question....

Moonie, it was twisted before it even squirmed its way out of your head.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#16 Oct 15, 2011
Stan Garnett is asking for the least amount of money I have ever heard of asked for by a Boulder DA for operating expenses for his office since this case began 15 years ago. This tells me the Ramsey case is stalled:

On Thursday, Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett told the commissioners that "we're not asking for a lot this year."

"We have continued to work hard to be efficient in our operations," he said, "and we have consolidated a lot of positions" as part of that budget-efficiency effort.

One of the district attorney's 2012 budget requests would total about $8,400 to furnish a second-floor conference room being created out of space that opened when the Sheriff's Office moved its administrative headquarters out of the County Justice Center earlier this year.

Garnett has asked for $3,188 for 100 padded folding chairs,$2,557 for 34 lightweight folding tables, and $2,643 for two lecterns equipped for electronic presentations. His staff has said the conference room will accommodate 100 people for training, staff meetings, community meetings and other large-group gatherings.

The District Attorney's Office will share the Justice Center conference room with the courts and pretrial and probation services, Garnett said, adding that once it's completed, "I think we can even do a mock trial in it, as well."

Pelle and Garnett, meanwhile, are among the law enforcement and public safety officials who have endorsed Coroner Emma Hall's 2012 budget request for $207,000 to plan for a 9,000 square-foot facility that would house Hall's staff, a morgue, storage space -- and that could combine the coroner's administrative, medical investigation, autopsy and office operations -- in a single location.

http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-...

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#17 Oct 17, 2011
candy wrote:
Stan Garnett is asking for the least amount of money I have ever heard of asked for by a Boulder DA for operating expenses for his office since this case began 15 years ago. This tells me the Ramsey case is stalled:
Stan Garnett seemed enthusiastic initially, but I hope it wasn't just a case of "new brooms sweep clean", or worse, that he used this high-profile cold case as a means of political advancement for himself and now that he's lost his bid for Colorado Attorney General, he's lost interest in the case.

IMO it was a huge mistake to hand the case back to the BPD. I don't believe old attitudes change. Larry Pozner summed it up perfectly when he said:

"The Boulder police were neither fair, nor accurate, in their initial investigation, and there's no reason to think they should be trusted again," said Pozner, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers."

I 100% agree with him.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#18 Oct 17, 2011
There is no loss of interest in this case. Like thousands of other cases around the world, a case can be solved, but unprosecutable due to lack of evidence.

In this case, all they can know for sure is that there was no intruder. Beyond that, they have only speculation as to what happened that night inside that house

The case can't be prosecuted and no matter how much money they get, it won't change that
deb

Minneapolis, MN

#19 Oct 17, 2011
Capricorn wrote:
There is no loss of interest in this case. Like thousands of other cases around the world, a case can be solved, but unprosecutable due to lack of evidence.
In this case, all they can know for sure is that there was no intruder. Beyond that, they have only speculation as to what happened that night inside that house
The case can't be prosecuted and no matter how much money they get, it won't change that
How can any case be solved with lack of evidence??? Someone's opinion does not solve a case.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#20 Oct 17, 2011
deb wrote:
<quoted text>
How can any case be solved with lack of evidence??? Someone's opinion does not solve a case.
I thought you said you watched all the forensic shows. If you do, you are aware that the police in many cases believe the case is solved, but just don't have the evidence that will stand up in court. Those cases remain unsolved "officially", but it doesn't mean that they are truly unsolved "hypothetically".

There are way too many cases that the police have the answers but can't prove it in court until some evidence somehow gets to them that can hold up in a courtroom.
Henri McPhee

UK

#21 Oct 17, 2011
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you said you watched all the forensic shows. If you do, you are aware that the police in many cases believe the case is solved, but just don't have the evidence that will stand up in court. Those cases remain unsolved "officially", but it doesn't mean that they are truly unsolved "hypothetically".
There are way too many cases that the police have the answers but can't prove it in court until some evidence somehow gets to them that can hold up in a courtroom.
You go by the evidence, not by emotion or by jumping to conclusions, or by manufactured and fabricated evidence. If there is not enough evidence, or insufficient evidence, then you don't prosecute. That's why Alex Hunter refused to prosecute in the Ramsey case.

It's what is known as the law. I appreciate that can be frustrating for the police, as well as when there are absurdly lenient sentences by judges. The police sometimes make mistakes as proven in the Riley Fox case.

In some of these corrupt banker cases the people who have discovered the frauds have then found thmselves fired from the banks, or from the Justice Department. That's why a lot of these sort of corruption scandals are never prosecuted.

Do you think somebody should be convicted on just your opinion of an accused person, or on what the media frenzy or Fox News thinks of that person?

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#22 Oct 17, 2011
That was not the topic Henri.
Nobody was talking about bringing a case to court without tangible evidence
The topic was whether or not the police really believe the case to be unsolved or not.
It is my opinion that the case will never be prosecutable without a confession, but that doesn't mean that the police don't surmise what happened.
That was the topic. As you can see, nobody has been brought to trial, nor will anyone. There is no evidence against anyone at this point that can stand up in court

But that doesn't mean that it is technically UNsolved, just officially unsolved
Henri McPhee

UK

#24 Oct 17, 2011
Capricorn wrote:
That was not the topic Henri.
Nobody was talking about bringing a case to court without tangible evidence
The topic was whether or not the police really believe the case to be unsolved or not.
It is my opinion that the case will never be prosecutable without a confession, but that doesn't mean that the police don't surmise what happened.
That was the topic. As you can see, nobody has been brought to trial, nor will anyone. There is no evidence against anyone at this point that can stand up in court
But that doesn't mean that it is technically UNsolved, just officially unsolved
Anybody can surmise anything in a murder case, but that isn't evidence. That's what Steve Thomas did in the Ramsey case with his hypothetical scenario about a Patsy rage over bedwetting.

There was a lot of conjecture by the Army CID in the MacDonald case. The Ramsey case is an unsolved case because it's unsolved. There is nothing new about unsolved murder cases.

If you don't investigate, and you disregard leads and suspects, then you don't get any tangible evidence.
deb

Minneapolis, MN

#25 Oct 17, 2011
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you said you watched all the forensic shows. If you do, you are aware that the police in many cases believe the case is solved, but just don't have the evidence that will stand up in court. Those cases remain unsolved "officially", but it doesn't mean that they are truly unsolved "hypothetically".
There are way too many cases that the police have the answers but can't prove it in court until some evidence somehow gets to them that can hold up in a courtroom.
Well, thank God! That is how innocent people end up on death row.
deb

Minneapolis, MN

#26 Oct 17, 2011
I think somone explained tha narcs find a suspect then try to find the evidence to make a case, but with homocides, one has to look at the evidence and build a case around what the evidence shows- as an explanation as to ST's theory.

IMO, no one should be accused of murder unless the evidence/witnesses can prove it.
Henri McPhee

UK

#27 Oct 18, 2011
deb wrote:
I think somone explained tha narcs find a suspect then try to find the evidence to make a case, but with homocides, one has to look at the evidence and build a case around what the evidence shows- as an explanation as to ST's theory.
IMO, no one should be accused of murder unless the evidence/witnesses can prove it.
I think deb is quite correct.

There was a horrified response by Boulder police chief Mark Beckner when Detective Steve Ainsworth, who believes in the Ramsey case intruder theory, and he is a homicide detective who has worked on the Ramsey case for the DA's office. Detective Ainsworth appeared on TV once.

The Boulder cops are stupid cops and they are idiots. Does anybody know exactly what homicide experience and qualifications these Boulder cops have had to be investigating a difficult and high profile murder case like the Ramsey case?:

Monday

"The reasons why we weren't allowed to investigate any of the other things that came up I, I don't have the answer for that."

I'm not sure where this comes from. As stated above, he was not working for the BPD and his role was defined by the District Attorney. Did he not understand his role or position in the investigation?

"I have not seen any evidence that would be compelling to suggest that John and Patsy did kill their daughter at this point. And the evidence to me certainly suggests that someone committed the murder other than them."

It is astounding that he could make this statement on an active investigation. Again, this is a clear violation of stated Sheriff's Office policy and one that may someday be detrimental to a prosecution. This also has nothing to do with Lou Smit or his character.

On possible family involvement...

"You can look at it that way, but having been inside the case for the time I was and seeing the information that was there, it doesn't suggest that to me."

Tuesday

Commenting on Steve Thomas...

"The work that he had done before this was all in narcotics and that is a unique position in that your suspect is already identified, then you go about getting the evidence to prove whatever violation you suspect him of. And, in a homicide investigation or almost any other criminal investigation, it's kind of putting the cart before the horse, you need to follow the evidence and then develop the suspect, rather than the other way around."

"I think that he became not necessarily overzealous, but he had difficulty in shaking that way of investigation because if you do it for awhile, it's very difficult to make that transition."

These two statements have nothing to do with Lou Smit, but instead are simply critical of a former investigator and through association, all the investigators who have worked on this case, with the exception of course Lou Smit, Trip DeMuth, and himself. Regardless of Steve's approach, there were many experienced investigators working this investigation who were and have been analyzing all the evidence."

Shoot Yourself Please

Farmington, MI

#28 Oct 18, 2011
deb wrote:
I think somone explained tha narcs find a suspect then try to find the evidence to make a case, but with homocides, one has to look at the evidence and build a case around what the evidence shows- as an explanation as to ST's theory.
IMO, no one should be accused of murder unless the evidence/witnesses can prove it.
Only an IDIot would say such an ignorant hypocritical thing.

How many people have YOU accused of murdering JB? Don't try to twist your way out of it. When you bring up those peoples names, you are ACCUSING them.

WTF is a "homocide?" The murder of a gay person?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
YES this DNA could have been transferred (Jul '08) 2 hr Legal__Eagle 378
JonBenet Investigation (Nov '11) 4 hr JBI 1,629
Good riddance Paula Woodward (Apr '09) 5 hr robert 22
Upcoming National Enquirer story - JonBenet Ram... (Oct '10) 8 hr candy 49
ICU2 's Child Trafficking 16 hr ICU2 9
housekeeper a possible suspect (May '12) 19 hr Bakatari 89
Fleet and Priscilla White on Peter Boyles show ... 23 hr berrytea333 6
More from around the web