Happenings of December 26

DeeDee249 said:

I am the mom of a lawyer (not a criminal lawyer). The main reason why a defense attorney might not WANT to know is because then they may be in the position of defending a guilty client as if they were innocent. If they don't know (even if they suspect) they can approach it honestly. Like it or not, some lawyers do engage in unethical practices, in both defending and prosecuting a defendant, and in some cases they even lie in court. I don't know how this stands from a legal aspect, but if a defense attorney knows a client has committed the crime for which he is accused, how can they possibly maintain he is innocent? Then it becomes a sick game- if they can place enough doubt in the minds of jurors, or if they find some technicality to void the charges, their guilty client goes free. In some cases this "doubt" might take the form of throwing blame at someone else- someone they KNOW is innocent. I feel that is exactly what would have happened if this case had gone to trial. The DA is sometimes complicit in these games- stonewalling the police and refusing warrants for basic and necessary things.

Click to expand...

BBM. This is essentially what I've been told.

DeeDee249 said:

I am the mom of a lawyer (not a criminal lawyer).

Click to expand...

You should ask a criminal defense lawyer.

The main reason why a defense attorney might not WANT to know is because then they may be in the position of defending a guilty client as if they were innocent.

Click to expand...

That is not a problem because the plea is guilty or not guilty. If the client pleads not guilty the prosecution then has to prove guilt.

If they don't know (even if they suspect) they can approach it honestly.

Click to expand...

The lawyer can approach the case honestly, even if the client tells him that he (the client) is guilty. It is not the job of the defense lawyer to share with the prosecutor what the client said. The prosecution can either prove guilt, or not. It's entirely the prosecutor's burden. It's not a shared burden.

Like it or not, some lawyers do engage in unethical practices, in both defending and prosecuting a defendant, and in some cases they even lie in court.

Click to expand...

It's rare that the defense attorney would be testifying, so how could he or she by lying?

I don't know how this stands from a legal aspect, but if a defense attorney knows a client has committed the crime for which he is accused, how can they possibly maintain he is innocent?

Click to expand...

Simple. The lawyer does not maintain "innocence" he maintains "Not Guilty". The difference is very important. The lawyer isn't lying to the court, he's just not sharing info which is protected by the attorney client privilege.

Then it becomes a sick game- if they can place enough doubt in the minds of jurors, or if they find some technicality to void the charges, their guilty client goes free. In some cases this "doubt" might take the form of throwing blame at someone else- someone they KNOW is innocent.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what a defense lawyer is for, to keep his client from being convicted. If doubt can be created, so much the better. Usually if doubt can be created there is reason for doubt.

I feel that is exactly what would have happened if this case had gone to trial. The DA is sometimes complicit in these games- stonewalling the police and refusing warrants for basic and necessary things.

Click to expand...

There was prosecutor misconduct in this case, that's clear enough.


Your child should stay away from criminal law or get some refresher training.

There is absolutely no reason that a lawyer cannot defend someone who has admitted (to the defense lawyer) that he did the crime. None. No prohibition on it at all.

In defense of DeeDee249, I think her kid was just speculating, not saying that all defense lawyers wouldn't want to know guilt. JMO

Chrishope said:

You should ask a criminal defense lawyer.



That is not a problem because the plea is guilty or not guilty. If the client pleads not guilty the prosecution then has to prove guilt.





The lawyer can approach the case honestly, even if the client tells him that he (the client) is guilty. It is not the job of the defense lawyer to share with the prosecutor what the client said. The prosecution can either prove guilt, or not. It's entirely the prosecutor's burden. It's not a shared burden.

It's rare that the defense attorney would be testifying, so how could he or she by lying?



Simple. The lawyer does not maintain "innocence" he maintains "Not Guilty". The difference is very important. The lawyer isn't lying to the court, he's just not sharing info which is protected by the attorney client privilege.




Yes, that's what a defense lawyer is for, to keep his client from being convicted. If doubt can be created, so much the better. Usually if doubt can be created there is reason for doubt.



There was prosecutor misconduct in this case, that's clear enough.


Your child should stay away from criminal law or get some refresher training.

There is absolutely no reason that a lawyer cannot defend someone who has admitted (to the defense lawyer) that he did the crime. None. No prohibition on it at all.

Click to expand...

How dare you say that about my child. I never said a lawyer can't defend a guilty person. BTW, she was valedictorian of her class.
Now- I'm outta here.

DeeDee249 said:

How dare you say that about my child. I never said a lawyer can't defend a guilty person. BTW, she was valedictorian of her class.
Now- I'm outta here.

Click to expand...

I apologize. I was out of line.

DeeDee249 said:

How dare you say that about my child. I never said a lawyer can't defend a guilty person. BTW, she was valedictorian of her class.
Now- I'm outta here.

Click to expand...

DeeDee249, I can’t say enough about all the information, insight and knowledge you have shared on Forumsforjustice and websleuths. Immeasurable and deeply appreciated. And, if your child is any reflection of your gifts, I imagine she is truly brilliant and will do the legal profession proud.
__________________________________
I wanted to bring a little snippet from PMPT into this lawyer discussion. BM, attorney for JR, went over the results of the autopsy with JR. During the review of the autopsy, JR became despondent and broke down. It was then that BM decided JR was innocent. Interestingly, as Madeleine pointed out JD, the ex-FBI profiler, interviewed JR and claimed JR could not have done the crime. Finally, LS prayed with the family and decided that the R’s were innocent.

My point to mentioning this is, that if BM deduced JR’s innocence from JR’s reaction to an autopsy report, it does not sound as though all details were revealed to BM. JR’s reaction reinforces the IDI conclusion of the attorney—it sounds like to me.

All these people praying, interviewing JR and witnessing his sincerity – it really is something which makes me wonder. Is he so believable because he was not involved in the homicide or is he so believable because he has a talent which most people do not understand. (The cynic in me says a third choice is JR paid his people pretty well.)

Having known a “con” artist once who took advantage of many people by his sincerity, I was curious about a trait coined by Dr. Stephen Diamond, a forensic psychologist. He called it pathological narcissism. (“Deceitfulness and pathological lying is typical in antisocial personality disorder, but is also commonly seen in narcissistic personality disorder, especially in the form of interpersonal manipulation. They can both be superficially attractive, charming and even charismatic characters.”) Diamond uses Casey Anthony as an example and quotes the prosecutor Jeff Ashton as claiming that Anthony was the best liar he had ever met. Moo.

I make no pretense of any professional ability in this regard, but it seems like sometimes the lies people tell morph into some kind of delusion or grand denial. If that happens to be the case with JR, doubtful he would have had the “capacity” to reveal what happened to his attorney.

Thank you for your kind words of support. I was too quick to be offended- the printed word is impersonal and can be easily misunderstood. Chrishope is as committed to this case and justice for JB as I am, and I value his opinions and careful research. We are all united here, in our desire to move forward and solve this case!

Statute of Limitations - Change in Colorado Law http://cdn.colorado.gov/cs/Satellit...goBlobs&blobwhere=1251619438103&ssbinary=true

This was an interesting change to the law in Colorado pertaining to sexual abuse of a child. The legislature made this law retroactive to July 1, 1996.
Definition includes the following:
Changes made in the 2006 legislative
session. The criminal statute of limitations was
amended by House Bill 06-1088. The bill adds
felony sex offenses against a child to the list of
2 Section 16-5-401 (1) (a), C.R.S.
Room 029, State Capitol, Denver, CO 80203-1784 • 303-866-3521 • FAX: 303-866-3855 • TDD 303-866-3472
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcs.htm
crimes for which there is no time limit for
commencing prosecution, along with the attempt,
conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any felony
sex offense against a child. The bill defines a sex
offense against a child as any of the following
felony offenses:
• enticement of a child;
• sexual assault when the victim is less than
15 years of age;
• felony unlawful sexual contact when the
victim is less than 15 years of age;
• sexual assault on a child;
• sexual assault on a child by one in a
position of trust;
• aggravated incest;
• trafficking in children;
• sexual exploitation of a child;
• felony indecent exposure;
• soliciting for child prostitution;
• pandering of a child;
• procurement of a child;
• keeping a place of child prostitution;
• pimping of a child;
• inducement of a child;
• patronizing a prostituted child;
• class 4 felony internet luring of a child;
and
• internet sexual exploitation of a child.
The bill takes effect on July 1, 2006, and
applies to offenses that were committed on or
after July 1, 1996.

questfortrue said:

Statute of Limitations - Change in Colorado Law http://cdn.colorado.gov/cs/Satellit...goBlobs&blobwhere=1251619438103&ssbinary=true

This was an interesting change to the law in Colorado pertaining to sexual abuse of a child. The legislature made this law retroactive to July 1, 1996.
Definition includes the following:
Changes made in the 2006 legislative
session. The criminal statute of limitations was
amended by House Bill 06-1088. The bill adds
felony sex offenses against a child to the list of
2 Section 16-5-401 (1) (a), C.R.S.
Room 029, State Capitol, Denver, CO 80203-1784 • 303-866-3521 • FAX: 303-866-3855 • TDD 303-866-3472
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcs.htm
crimes for which there is no time limit for
commencing prosecution, along with the attempt,
conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any felony
sex offense against a child. The bill defines a sex
offense against a child as any of the following
felony offenses:
• enticement of a child;
• sexual assault when the victim is less than
15 years of age;
• felony unlawful sexual contact when the
victim is less than 15 years of age;
• sexual assault on a child;
• sexual assault on a child by one in a
position of trust;
• aggravated incest;
• trafficking in children;
• sexual exploitation of a child;
• felony indecent exposure;
• soliciting for child prostitution;
• pandering of a child;
• procurement of a child;
• keeping a place of child prostitution;
• pimping of a child;
• inducement of a child;
• patronizing a prostituted child;
• class 4 felony internet luring of a child;
and
• internet sexual exploitation of a child.
The bill takes effect on July 1, 2006, and
applies to offenses that were committed on or
after July 1, 1996.

Click to expand...

questfortrue,
Excellent catch. Now who voted this through, you might be forgiven for thinking, in todays modern world no such behaviour could ever beyond limit?

What a give away?

.

UKGuy said:

I reckon where [the gifts] were located is suspicious, and that they have been partially opened, allegedly by the Lady of Gift Wrapping herself PR!

Click to expand...

What do you think happened with the gifts?

CircuitGuy said:

What do you think happened with the gifts?

Click to expand...

CircuitGuy,
I used to think they were part of the primary crime-scene. Others think PR opened them up looking for the size-12's?

Since James Kolar stated that the Christmas Gifts had been opened earlier that day, I'm not certain about their role anymore.

Unless being placed into the wine-cellar is part of the staging then I assume the gifts played some role in the lead up to JonBenet's death.

With the Barbie Doll being located in the wine-cellar has me thinking was it used to induce JonBenet to behave in some manner?


.

UKGuy said:

CircuitGuy,
I used to think they were part of the primary crime-scene. Others think PR opened them up looking for the size-12's?

Since James Kolar stated that the Christmas Gifts had been opened earlier that day, I'm not certain about their role anymore.

Unless being placed into the wine-cellar is part of the staging then I assume the gifts played some role in the lead up to JonBenet's death.

With the Barbie Doll being located in the wine-cellar has me thinking was it used to induce JonBenet to behave in some manner?


.

Click to expand...

Sorry....But I need another memory refresher, if you will. Were both a Barbie Doll AND the Barbie nighty found in the dump site....I mean WC.... with JBR's body?

Chelly said:

Sorry....But I need another memory refresher, if you will. Were both a Barbie Doll AND the Barbie nighty found in the dump site....I mean WC.... with JBR's body?

Click to expand...

No doll, just Barbie nightgown


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chelly said:

Sorry....But I need another memory refresher, if you will. Were both a Barbie Doll AND the Barbie nighty found in the dump site....I mean WC.... with JBR's body?

Click to expand...

Hi, Chelly. Two threads to check:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116359"]What's in this cellar room photo? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9958&page=5

If BDI I think:

PR was the cold blooded one,she did the garrote staging and wrote the note
JR was the one who redressed JB (too large panties) and tucked her in the blanket
that's why she was the one dialing 911,she was the calm,collected one,not him,he probably was a mess but took comfort in the fact that "JB is now with Beth"

just a scenario

Chelly said:

Sorry....But I need another memory refresher, if you will. Were both a Barbie Doll AND the Barbie nighty found in the dump site....I mean WC.... with JBR's body?

Click to expand...

Chelly,
Oh yes all found in the WC. Here is a snippet of the relevant interview for those who require a refresher.

1998 BPD Patsy Interview

19 TOM HANEY: Okay. You know, it appears --

20 PATSY RAMSEY: That is a Barbie doll under

21 there.

22 TOM HANEY: It appears from the waist down

23 you can see that much, but from the waist up, because

24 of the plastic, there is a flash and the reflection

25 that is washed out.

Click to expand...

When JR was asked his thoughts on the Pink Nightgown by Lou Smit he replied perverted!

Not sure if he was playing into LS's IDI theory here?

The links provided by otg will repay careful reading.



.

UKGuy said:

When JR was asked his thoughts on the Pink Nightgown by Lou Smit he replied perverted!

Click to expand...

In other words: Investigator Lou Smit asked JR for his thoughts on the pink nightgown. JR replied "perverted".

What does that mean? I know what perverted means, but I always think of practices, not individual objects, as being perverted. Even if someone showed me a bizarre sex toy and asked what I thought of it, I wouldn't say perverted b/c only practices can be perverted.

Is the Pink Nightgown the same as the Barbie Nightgown? Sorry I'm not up on this basic fact, but was she found wearing this nightgown?

I think you're saying JR was just pushing the idea of perversion in a ham-handed way b/c he wanted the police to think "some pervert", i.e. an unknown intruder, was responsible. I agree.

UKGuy said:

Chelly,
Oh yes all found in the WC. Here is a snippet of the relevant interview for those who require a refresher.

1998 BPD Patsy Interview



When JR was asked his thoughts on the Pink Nightgown by Lou Smit he replied perverted!

Not sure if he was playing into LS's IDI theory here?

The links provided by otg will repay careful reading.



.

Click to expand...

There was no doll according to Kolar in his radio interview on the most recent radio show. Trish's. He was specifically asked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Linda7NJ said:

There was no doll according to Kolar in his radio interview on the most recent radio show. Trish's. He was specifically asked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

finally!
IMO they are talking about the barbie doll on the nightgown (design)
and they say "under there" because the item was photographed after being put in the plastic evidence bag

CircuitGuy said:

In other words: Investigator Lou Smit asked JR for his thoughts on the pink nightgown. JR replied "perverted".

What does that mean? I know what perverted means, but I always think of practices, not individual objects, as being perverted. Even if someone showed me a bizarre sex toy and asked what I thought of it, I wouldn't say perverted b/c only practices can be perverted.

Is the Pink Nightgown the same as the Barbie Nightgown? Sorry I'm not up on this basic fact, but was she found wearing this nightgown?

I think you're saying JR was just pushing the idea of perversion in a ham-handed way b/c he wanted the police to think "some pervert", i.e. an unknown intruder, was responsible. I agree.

Click to expand...

It is a known fact that there is a connection to pedophilia and kiddie *advertiser censored* with the Barbie symbol. I have no idea about the usage, but even the FBI has put out warnings about pedophiles possibly using Barbie in engaging with children. Even in 1996 Barbie might have been on the radar as a pedophile tool, and it would not surprise me at all that JR would have known about the connection, since he had many business dealings and military service in leading cities openly noted for those activities.