I doubt John or Patsy knew the law concerning juvenile offenders but it's hard to believe that once they parlayed with their lawyers they could claim a lack of knowledge. I'd wager John Ramsey knew the score within 24 hours or less after arising on the morning of the 26th.
An "Expert" Reassessment
- Thread starter BBB167893
- Start date
New Posts
-
VERDICT WATCH Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #215- Latest: photographer4
-
I doubt John or Patsy knew the law concerning juvenile offenders but it's hard to believe that once they parlayed with their lawyers they could claim a lack of knowledge. I'd wager John Ramsey knew the score within 24 hours or less after arising on the morning of the 26th.
gramcracker
Indentured Cat Servant
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,693
- Reaction score
- 99
surely by no later than 3:30 - 4pm on the 26th. about an hour after leaving their house. or, just as/maybe more likely, during the 90 minutes JR was "missing" that morning (10:30 - noon, IIRC?)
Judging by what I've read in the published books (including "Death of Innocence"), seen during their tv appearances and in reading interview transcripts, I'd also wager John had figured out or nearly figured out what happened and who did it by the time they left their home on the 26th.
Again, ITA. However, here's where I think it gets a bit complicated for a couple of very good reasons.
1. At the time they discover this, presumably through the lawyers, there has already been significant staging. Kind of hard to undo all that after the fact.
2. Particularly if, as many of us believe, if Burke is involved he only struck the head blow and someone else, my vote is for Patsy, finished her off. Most Definitely impossible to undo that after the fact.
For all we know the lawyers may have been the ones to advise them to keep quiet until after the autopsy realizing that it may have been the staging that killed her, or maybe there was no "may have been" about it. Maybe Patsy came totally clean with them. Now it's no longer a 9 year old that cannot be charged.
Same basic scenario works for those who believe the John did the final deed.
DeDee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 7,344
- Reaction score
- 42,149
Did either Ramsey inform their attorneys that they committed any part of the crime?
Defense lawyers have a moral and ethical obligation to vigorously defend the innocence of their client. Almost all conversations between the attorney and the accused are held strictly confidential by law. The exception being if the attorney has knowledge of a future crime planned by their client that would harm another.
As a general rule, defense attorneys will not ask their client if they are guilty of the crime because, then, their attorney cannot allow their client to testify if they know their client will be untruthful or lie while under oath in court. A criminal defense attorney has the best chance of having his client acquitted if the attorney uses the facts of the case to defend the client.
If an attorney knows their client is guilty, the attorney cannot tell the judge and jury, "My client did not do this." Although, the attorney could say to the judge and jury, "The prosecutor did not prove that my client committed this crime."
OMO
gramcracker
Indentured Cat Servant
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,693
- Reaction score
- 99
Should I admit guilt to my criminal defense attorney?
... attorneys cannot present evidence or arguments that they know to be false. (American Bar Association, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.1, 3.3.) Does this mean that if a client admits guilt to his or her attorney, the attorney cannot enter a not guilty plea or zealously represent the client? No. In such cases, the attorney can focus on the holes in the prosecutors evidence, or on other legal issues (such as whether a search was appropriate under the Fourth Amendment, or whether scientific tests were performed according to the appropriate standards) that do not relate to whether the client committed the crime or not.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...se/should-i-admit-guilt-my-criminal-defense-a
... the defense lawyer may not lie to the judge or jury by specifically stating that the defendant did not do something the lawyer knows the defendant did do. Rather, the lawyers trial tactics and arguments must focus on the governments failure to prove all the elements of the crime.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/representing-client-whom-the-lawyer-thinks-is-guilty.html
... attorneys cannot present evidence or arguments that they know to be false. (American Bar Association, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.1, 3.3.) Does this mean that if a client admits guilt to his or her attorney, the attorney cannot enter a not guilty plea or zealously represent the client? No. In such cases, the attorney can focus on the holes in the prosecutors evidence, or on other legal issues (such as whether a search was appropriate under the Fourth Amendment, or whether scientific tests were performed according to the appropriate standards) that do not relate to whether the client committed the crime or not.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...se/should-i-admit-guilt-my-criminal-defense-a
... the defense lawyer may not lie to the judge or jury by specifically stating that the defendant did not do something the lawyer knows the defendant did do. Rather, the lawyers trial tactics and arguments must focus on the governments failure to prove all the elements of the crime.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/representing-client-whom-the-lawyer-thinks-is-guilty.html
I believe the defense knew the Rs were involved. It is obvious by the questions they do not allow their clients to answer (or even be asked in come cases). They knew what they wanted to NOT be answered.
However, if what the defense knows is that the parent COVERED UP for their underage child, they would be telling the truth if they stated their clients did not do this (meaning kill their daughter).
However, if what the defense knows is that the parent COVERED UP for their underage child, they would be telling the truth if they stated their clients did not do this (meaning kill their daughter).
bettybaby00
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 11
Interesting. Although if PR &/or JR applied the ligature then he/she is actually the murderer of JRB.
Another interesting thing I had been thinking about and your reference about "approved" questions reminded me. In an earlier thread there was a convo centered on why LE always went easy on the Rs in their interviews. I know if has been documented that early in the investigation LE was informed that all questions had to be submitted in writing, through the DA, and what I wonder is whether or not that "procedure" continued throughout the investigation? If so it explains why those interviews prove so futile.
Mama2JML
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,233
- Reaction score
- 7
BBM
I saw the same post, but the first I'd ever heard of this was here @ WS. Do you recall the source?
We know what the defense asked for- questions submitted in writing in advance, parents must be questioned together. These are the demands of someone defending guilty clients. There is simply no other reason for it. When you tell the truth, it is the same every time and you don't have to remember what you said. But when you have concocted an elaborate coverup, you have got to make sure your lie is the same every time you tell it. The Rs always had to "get their story straight". I don't know if the DA caved to these demands every time, but the fact the DA would even consider allowing it even some of the time puts the DA on the defense "team". That DA knew exactly what had to be kept covered up. So did ML, the next DA. And so does the present DA.
bettybaby00
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 11
this is actually funny, b/c in this particular instance the Rs prove it for you....
i hope you have an appreciation for the date... and then days later, their newly hired public relations firm issued he following:
Kolar, A. James (2012-06-14). Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Locations 967-976). Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition.
so funny to me that they describe the Rs actions as cooperation from the very beginning....really? like that on the night of the 26th, LE was told that they wouldn't be answering questions right now, and oh by the way, it was "suggested we get legal representation." and that the first round of questions submitted to them, via the DA no less, took weeks to get responses to.
if it wasn't such a serious situation it would actually be funny. but the murder of their daughter is serious, and their behavior isn't funny in the least.