Fanatics over at forumsforjustice sourcing

Go down

Fanatics over at forumsforjustice sourcing

Post by redpill on Fri Dec 19, 2014 5:49 pm

cynic wrote
cynic wrote:

From Alan Prendergast's article:

Garnett says he has "tried to distance myself from the Ramsey nightmare" over the past six years. One of his first moves was to turn the investigation back over to the police. He insists that he isn't bound by Lacy's exoneration letter -- which he's described as "weird" and "a stretch" -- and that he would be prepared to prosecute the case if he's ever presented with sufficient evidence to convict. And he's troubled by the long-term credibility issues his office has faced as a result of its treatment of what is now a cold, cold case.
Once again Garnett sidesteps an actual constructive critique of Lacy's baseless "exoneration" and addresses it obliquely. As I've commented in the past, he essentially speaks in whispers from the shadows.
Lacy's pronouncement was made with fanfare in the mainstream media, and only a similarly made CLEAR pronouncement, by Garnett, rescinding the "exoneration" will do.
Until that happens, the mainstream media will continue to dismiss any criticism of the Ramseys with the much parroted refrain that we all heard after EVERY mention that the Ramseys were indicted ... but the Ramseys were cleared in 2008 by former Boulder DA, Mary Lacy based on new DNA evidence.
It's sad that Lacy is more of a man than Garnett.

cynic, when Alan Prendergast' claims what Stan Garnett said, that is hearsay.

This is what Stan Garnett said
stan garnett wrote:

Garnett in the Daily Camera (BBM): “Which brings me to the "true bills" from the Ramsey grand jury. I became aware of the existence of these documents when I took office in 2009. I asked my appellate department to review them and was told that they related to charges for which the statute of limitations had run years ago. My staff evaluated the Ramsey case to determine if there was any charge for which the statute of limitations had not run and for which there was conclusive evidence. Because there was none, we focused on other matters (including four murders we tried in 2009, two of which were cold cases). .”

Garnett has no evidence with which to reverse Mary Lacy's exoneration letter.

If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side

Posts : 2443
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum