Justice Watch Support JW "I've always wanted to ask..." [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... I've always wanted to ask..., Chris, 05:17:27, 9/21/2000 I'm wondering, 1000Sparks, 05:24:58, 9/21/2000, (#1) Just thinking the same , MJenn, 05:56:02, 9/21/2000, (#2) i've wondered, ayelean, 06:56:56, 9/21/2000, (#3) Too much work, Ayelean, MJenn, 07:43:27, 9/21/2000, (#4) Lurkers' questions, tenacious, 08:20:03, 9/21/2000, (#5) I'd Like To Know, ToppCat, 11:28:15, 9/21/2000, (#6) Chris, Sylvia, 12:01:28, 9/21/2000, (#7) Why?, Mort, 12:38:53, 9/21/2000, (#8) The Atlanta interviews, pinker, 13:13:50, 9/21/2000, (#9) It's Time, Paralegal, 16:23:08, 9/21/2000, (#10) Federal Jurisdiction, Tedleg, 22:15:15, 9/21/2000, (#11) Except, Tedleg, Paralegal, 22:47:43, 9/21/2000, (#12) Heads up legal eagles, Tricia, 23:48:35, 9/21/2000, (#13) ................................................................... "I've always wanted to ask..." Posted by Chris on 05:17:27 9/21/2000 Often when the case news is slow we start a thread for new members, lurkers and even the veterans to ask those questions that lurk in the back of your mind. News is slow right now so it seems like a good time to do that. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "I'm wondering" Posted by 1000Sparks on 05:24:58 9/21/2000 behind the scene... is ANYTHING going on? What is taking so long? I'm assuming they have all the evidence they will ever have and after nearly 4 years, what's the holdup of whatever is gonna happen????? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Just thinking the same " Posted by MJenn on 05:56:02 9/21/2000 this morning. I was thinking, has this been shelved? Is it officially a cold case? A couple of other things could be happening. Since it's election time, and Alex is leaving (at least something good is happening), maybe they're waiting for the elections to settle things down before making a move, if they are in fact even considering moving on this case. Or maybe they're taking their time with whatever they did get out of the interviews in Atanta, since once they file an indictment and arrest, they lose a certain amount of control over what follows, like how fast it goes to trial, and they lose exclusivity of the evidence the Ramseys don't already have. So maybe they're taking their time preparing a case first (yeah, sure, right, un hnh, that's the ticket....) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "i've wondered" Posted by ayelean on 06:56:56 9/21/2000 I have heard that officials that work on the case read here, but I have wondered if the stuff that great minds on this forum contribute ever are picked up by them? It seems like having all these minds collecting every iota of conflicting statements, similarity of speech, obscure clues etc. would be a bonaza of help, but is it used? Or is it ignored because it is just 'internet' stuff? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Too much work, Ayelean" Posted by MJenn on 07:43:27 9/21/2000 I doubt anyone in the DA's office is taking time out from their golf and plea bargains to work this hard. Besides, you're assuming they WANT to solve this case. Sorry to be so cynical so early, but part of what I was thinking this morning was that this is turning into a carbon copy of every other "fat cat" vs. "little people" experience I've ever seen. I won't believe the citizens of Boulder and their elected officials want JonBenet's killers held accountable until I see them slap the handcuffs on. Again, to prosecute this case is WORK. I don't think they are up to it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Lurkers' questions" Posted by tenacious on 08:20:03 9/21/2000 I would like to know if there exists enough evidence pertaining to the ransom note to prosecute Patsy on any federal statutes that might have been violated by staging a kidnapping? I know that the FBI doesn't release any information about ongoing investigations, but does anyone know whether there are federal statutes in place upon which a case could be investigated? If so, couldn't the FBI obtain the phone records from the night of the 25th and morning of the 26th? If those records were obtained and contained potential evidence about the murder, could the FBI turn them over to the BPD without having to go through any legal channels? Thanks for opening up this thread, Chris, and hello to all you JW sleuths. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "I'd Like To Know" Posted by ToppCat on 11:28:15 9/21/2000 . . . why the BPD and DA's office cannot give updates to the case on a monthly basis. Nothing elaborate -- just a simple media release or statement. TC (Frank) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Chris" Posted by Sylvia on 12:01:28 9/21/2000 Trying to do my best on treaths, but my connection to the internet is rather bad lately. So I do not get much chance to post. And am working on still on some projects concerning the case. And thanks again for your nice comment on my ransom note story Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Why?" Posted by Mort on 12:38:53 9/21/2000 Since we're asking ,...I have been wondering why there has not been a new request for a special prosecutor in this caseand if there has why it has'nt happened after all we do have a new governor in Colorado and he apparently finds the Ramseys actions suspicious at best. Just curious. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Mort ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "The Atlanta interviews" Posted by pinker on 13:13:50 9/21/2000 and counter productivity of them showed Michael Kane's inability to simply interview these two scoundrels let alone prosecute them. It's not going to be a another GJ or a coat tail riding DA but only a special prosecuter who could handle the case. It's time for Owens to put his reading glasses back on, do the review, and APPOINT. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "It's Time" Posted by Paralegal on 16:23:08 9/21/2000 for the FBI to assume jurisdiction over the case and get on with it. It's clearly obvious that Colorado, including their cherry-picked special prosecutors, are too inept to get the job done. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Federal Jurisdiction" Posted by Tedleg on 22:15:15 9/21/2000 There is no bases for the Feds to exercise jurisdiction in this case. Generally, for the feds to exercise jurisdiction, there must be an "interstate nexus". That's lawyer talk that means the crime was committed over the boundaries of more than one state. For example--there are state laws and federal laws against kidnapping. Before the feds will prosecute a kidnapping, however, the victim must be taken from one state to another. The feds will investigate a kidnapping when a kidnappee is missing, but once it becomes apparent that the victim has not crossed a state line, they will bow out. Patsy couldn't be prosecuted for kidnapping, in any event, because it is legally impossible for a custodial parent to kidnap their own child. Finally, with regard to a phone records subpoena. . .the Boulder grand jury could have, and should have, subpoened those records. It might also be possible for the litigants in the various civil suits involving the Ramseys to obtain those records. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Except, Tedleg" Posted by Paralegal on 22:47:43 9/21/2000 the feds can step in in absence of a competent law enforcement entity, like in L.A. That's what I'm getting at.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Heads up legal eagles" Posted by Tricia on 23:48:35 9/21/2000 Here is what I have been wondering: Why can't John and Patsy be charged with obstruction? 1-They lied about Burke being asleep 2-They have given false leads 3-Patsy wrote the note. Although I guess this would be a "battle of the experts". Finally can't the Ramsey's be arrested because they make me NUTS? Ok well it was worth a try. Alright JW. You have yet to fail me with your wisdom and insight. Tell me why the can't or won't be arrested for obstruction. Thanks Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]