Perhaps it's different in my country, founded on ship loads of 'convicts', but we believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Isn't that what I said?
Getting a lawyer does not prove guilt.
I didn't say it did. I said a lawyer will defend you like you're guilty.
It's probably true that only rich people can afford good lawyers and many of them do not get convicted. The ones that have lawyers appointed by the court to represent them are more likely to get convicted. I think this is quite aside from whether they are guilty or innocent, it's more a criticism of the legal system.
If you want a criticism of the legal system, MurriFlower, I can give you plenty of them. This case alone is a perfect storm of legal neuroses, many of which were long in the making.
"12-27-96 Arndt Interviewed Ramseys. The Ramseys were interviewed by Linda Arndt
12-28-96 Ramseys Provided Forensic Samples. Ramsey family goes to Boulder police station to answer questions and give samples of hair, blood and handwriting
Date? Police interview Burke Ramsey
3-3-97 Patsy Ramsey gives third handwriting sample
4-11-97 Patsy Ramsey agrees to provide 4th handwriting sample
4-19-97 Boulder DA Alex Hunter for the first time publicly reveals Ramseys are suspects
4-30-97 Ramsey First Formal Police Interviews. John and Patsy Ramsey have first formal interviews with police at Boulder County Justice Cente
5-20-97 Patsy Ramsey provides fifth handwriting sample
6-10-98 to 6-12-98 Police question Burke Ramsey for 6 hours.
6-23-98 Police interview Patsy Ramsey.
6-26-98 Burke Ramsey Questioned. An investigator in Boulder DA office questions Burke Ramsey for 6 hour"
Hmm, doesn't seem they were uncooperative to me.
The Rs themselves tried to use those examples. Trouble is, it doesn't work. For one thing, providing forensic samples isn't a voluntary proceedure. The giving of "non-testimonial" evidence is mandated. If the person does not give them up willingly, warrants will be drawn up to force them to give. So that's out. And then, there's the matter of the interviews. They refused to be interviewed until April 1997, then were not interviewed again until June 1998. And in each case, they negotiated the terms of their agreements, including being given written copies of their previous statements before they went in.
That sure doesn't sound like cooperation to me.
No, I wouldn't wonder they thought the police were out to get them.
Quite frankly, I'm amazed that anyone believes this "police out to get them" stuff. Indeed, many people, including police officers from other departments, I might add, have remarked on the kid-glove treatment that the Rs were given. Kid-glove treatment that was mandated from the top, by the way. So you'll have to forgive me if I get upset whenever I'm subjected to this "out to get us" pity routine. I didn't buy it with OJ Simpson, and I regret that I ever believed it here.
I take it you're referring to contradictory statements that the Rs made? Be glad to. As an opener, let's go with my personal favorite: PR's attempt to explain her fibers in the garrote knots. Now, a little context is in order here. In 2000, a prosecuting attorney named Bruce Levin informed PR that fibers from her red sweater (the one she wore to the party and that morning) were found tied into the knots of the garrote. At the time she had no answer. In October of 2002, she told a CBS reporter that the fibers probably transferred when she laid down on top of JB's body after it was brought up from the basement. "I had my whole body on her body," were her exact words.
Problem is, JR wrote in their book
Death of Innocence that JB's body had already been covered up by a second blanket and a sweatshirt before PR even came into the same room. So PR never even made contact with JB's body, let alone the cord around her neck.
Something like that?
