(I take full responsibility for the ideas and thoughts of this post and it does not necessarily reflect upon the thoughts and/or ideas of other members of FFJ.
Have you given any thought to how THEY felt when you issued such a “flaky” statement, from the bench, exonerating (in effect) the entire Ram clan?
There, too, you can meditate upon all the innocent folks’ the Ram’s threw under the bus ruining reputations and causing too much disruption and misery in too many families to enumerate here. “Get thee to a nunnery!” There, you can read Shakespeare all day long, and do penance for your whopping judicial indiscretions, which had a domino effect upon the entire Ramsey case, resulting in the guilty (one buried, unscathed) and the other, still walking around upright, breathing, eating and enjoying all the freedoms he (and she) took away from the abused, murdered little girl. You are just one of many who will be forever enshrined in the “Ramsey Criminal Hall of Shame.” Yes, Madam, your lazy, expedient conclusions, “based on selective evidence,” is most assuredly “a very dangerous thing.” But, now, what to do what to do?
Perhaps it would have been better had you pursued your studies in another discipline, and became an English Professor, as was in your original plans. " What it teaches is that drawing broad inferences based on very limited and selective evidence is a very dangerous thing to do." I think this is an unconscious got-ya moment! Yes, indeed, Judge Carnes, you finally admit to your awful judicial error, which resulted in giving aid and comfort to the guilty parties, while turning the public's attention away from the true evidence in this case. But, alas, it’s probably too little too late. "What it teaches is that drawing broad inferences based on very limited and selective evidence is a very dangerous thing to do."ĭoes this mean that Carnes regrets her conclusions, as to the probability of an intruder? It sure sounds like it. There are lessons to be drawn from the Ramsey case, she said. Reflecting on the opinion, which she issued in 2003, Carnes said she treated it as she would have any other summary judgment motion, noting that "the plaintiff made very little effort to offer any facts" to support his allegations that the Ramseys were killers.īut she said she was surprised at the dearth of evidence against the Ramseys given that the media "had played the story very differently." 25, 1996, and killed their daughter.Ĭarnes' opinion helped to turn the tide of public opinion that had condemned the Ramseys and breathed life into a fresh reconsideration of the case by Boulder authorities. In her 93-page order, which dismissed the case against the Ramseys brought by a Boulder man who claimed they had told police he was a possible suspect, Carnes found "abundant evidence" to support assertions that an intruder entered into their home at some point during the night of Dec. Through the prism of that defamation suit, Carnes examined the 1996 murder case and became the first official associated with the justice system to determine that there was "virtually no evidence" to support theories, including those held by the Boulder, Colo., Police Department, that the little girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, had killed her. One case that made Carnes' name one that now is nationally recognized was her order in an Atlanta defamation case naming as defendants the parents of 6-year-old slain beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey.