If your child was murdered

[ScarlettScarpetta]

In my opinion, it wasn't a stiff upper lip while in the public eye that was the problem. It was the publicity hounds (the Ramseys) seeking the public eye and when their plan to garner sympathy from the masses failed they decided to whine and say how cruelly and unfairly they had been treated. Had they been innocent and cooperated from the beginning they would not be suspect now.

At this point they are guilty of nothing so in my book, so far innocent.. But that is just not true. I can probably within 5 mins find people that cooperated with the police and did interviews and were coersed into confessions or said things that led to them being convicted only to be exonerated later or if you want to be more specific were let out of jail when it was found there was no evidence linking them to the crime.

There is a reason people have a right not to talk in this country.

 

[BOESP]

At this point they are guilty of nothing so in my book, so far innocent.. But that is just not true. I can probably within 5 mins find people that cooperated with the police and did interviews and were coersed into confessions or said things that led to them being convicted only to be exonerated later or if you want to be more specific were let out of jail when it was found there was no evidence linking them to the crime.

There is a reason people have a right not to talk in this country.

The right not to talk is not an issue with me. The Ramseys failure to cooperate and then requiring special dispensations is not compatible with innocent parents who want to find the killer of their child. It is compatible with stalling and CYA.

Was this a Freudian slip:

At this point they are guilty of nothing so in my book, so far innocent.. But that is just not true.

Regardless, your findings would have no bearing on whether or not the Ramseys are innocent. I am not trying to persuade you or anyone else what to believe or think. I'm stating my opinion. Take it or leave it. We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Nom de plume]

Overturned convictions that are never again taken to trial because they know they have the wrong person. That is what we have here. It is personal opinion if you agree or not but the courts set these people free because they were found not guilty. Semantics again on the innocence/ not guilty.

It is obvious that the police were trying to use any means to get the Ramseys to talk even if it was their right not to. Trying to figure out how to hold the body of their daughter is dirty pool. If it was me I would have known right away these were not police I could trust.

BBM So what?!?! BPD wanted to find the murderer of an innocent 6 yr old little girl! They shouldn't have to beg and plead to get her parents to cooperate with the investigation! PERIOD!! It is a fact that innocent parents don't put their own well being ahead of finding the murderer of their child.

Scarlett, the next comment I will make is just my opinion. I'm not stating it as fact, but I will say that I do know for a fact many other poster here agree with me, right or wrong. It's also not meant as an attack, just an observation. No offense intended.

You have some personal issue with LE. You just don't trust them, and have the attitude that they're "always out to get innocent people." (Ironic since you don't believe in conspiracy theories, but yet you sure believe in this one.) I have yet to see you post on any thread, on any case, where you believe the parents are guilty. IMO, it's just not in your mental or emotional make up to comprehend the fact that many parents do rape, torture, starve, beat, neglect, and kill their own children. I think you'd rather believe that it's just the boogie man that gets to kids, and the mean old police just want to pin it on the parents because they're too incompetent or lazy to do their jobs.

I say this because I personally believe it affects your ability to objectively look at evidence (pictures, transcripts, search warrants, ARs, etc) and come to a logical conclusion. IOW, you always see the parents through rose colored glasses. JMO, :moo: & my :twocents: :seeya:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sorry, It is not a fact. People have a right to counsel and not to talk to police. If you think they are out to get you it is smart not to.

I don't have issues with LE at all. I believe that most of them are awesome amazing hard working people that are here to protect us. But I don't believe that about this PD. I just don't. It is just my opinion but I see something different here. Something akin to the Aisenberg LE that tried to frame them.

I do believe that people hurt their kids. I do believe that people do horrible things to their children. But yet we know that the boogeyman does exist and he does hurt babies and take them from their homes and kill them.

I think maybe asking is better than presuming. I know it is hard to understand all there is to know about people in a forum. WE get snippets of what people think here or there.

I do give parents the benefit of the doubt but I have no problem jumping that ship if I see something clear and precise that shows me they killed their child or hurt their child.

There are plenty of parents I have no problem calling guilty.

But to me, This case with all the mistakes, and LE that quit and wrote books, But seem to have the answer, And fingers being pointed at crazy scenarios, I don't see murder at the hands of this family.

I see very probably someone who is not a member of the family, who had an opportunity and took it that night.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The right not to talk is not an issue with me. The Ramseys failure to cooperate and then requiring special dispensations is not compatible with innocent parents who want to find the killer of their child. It is compatible with stalling and CYA.

Was this a Freudian slip:


Regardless, your findings would have no bearing on whether or not the Ramseys are innocent. I am not trying to persuade you or anyone else what to believe or think. I'm stating my opinion. Take it or leave it. We will just have to agree to disagree.

No, If you look I bolded something. I meant to reply right there and guess I missed it.. one you quoted as a freudian slip goes to the last line in your first paragraph that I bolded.

Sorry, I was making dinner and should have read it more carefully before hitting send

 

[BOESP]

For anyone interested in "if your child was murdered" statistics, here's a report put out by the DOJ and downloadable in .pdf:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=d7iE0FCtcLyPieFXsmhotg&bvm=bv.51495398,d.aWc

 

[otg]

For anyone interested in "if your child was murdered" statistics, here's a report put out by the DOJ and downloadable in .pdf:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=d7iE0FCtcLyPieFXsmhotg&bvm=bv.51495398,d.aWc

Excellent document, BOESP. Thank you.

 

[Venom]

For anyone interested in "if your child was murdered" statistics, here's a report put out by the DOJ and downloadable in .pdf:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=d7iE0FCtcLyPieFXsmhotg&bvm=bv.51495398,d.aWc

Thanks for the link. Interesting to read.

 

[Nom de plume]

:blushing: My apologies to the group for my last post. Mods, thanks for removing it. :blushing:

 

[midwest mama]

Respectfully clipped........
Trying to figure out how to hold the body of their daughter is dirty pool. If it was me I would have known right away these were not police I could trust.

Tripe. Those cops were doing all they could do to try to move forward expediently in looking for JB's killer/killers. IMO, an innocent parent would have offered to have their child's body scrutinized by forensics experts for as long as it took to look for evidence connected to her killer IFthey knew they were innocent. They might schedule a memorial service relatively soon, to host mourners and received comfort and support at a time they would need it most. But as that went on, underneath they would be praying for every opportunity to glean information that would lead to finding the killer of their child. You know it and I know it.

Consider this statistic from the report BOESP posted:

• In murders of persons under age 12, the
victims' parents accounted for 57% of the
murderers

The Ramseys needed to be on the defense, strictly from statistics. There is an old tried and true saying, "The best defense is a strong offense". So they went on the offense immediately (probably knowing the cops would find incriminating evidence against them, IMO) and under the auspices of having a "proper burial" got the body of Dodge, since they weren't successful in getting themselves out of Dodge on the 26th. Strongly offensive, indeed, when most people with half a brain know the more forensics that can be gathered, the stronger the evidence can get.

Refute if you must, but I'll bet if there was a poll started......hint, hint......most people would vote to willingly let police hold and examine the body of their murdered child in order to find the rightful killer if they knew they (or another close family member) were innocent. :moo:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Tripe. Those cops were doing all they could do to try to move forward expediently in looking for JB's killer/killers. IMO, an innocent parent would have offered to have their child's body scrutinized by forensics experts for as long as it took to look for evidence connected to her killer IFthey knew they were innocent. They might schedule a memorial service relatively soon, to host mourners and received comfort and support at a time they would need it most. But as that went on, underneath they would be praying for every opportunity to glean information that would lead to finding the killer of their child. You know it and I know it.

Consider this statistic from the report BOESP posted:

• In murders of persons under age 12, the
victims' parents accounted for 57% of the
murderers

The Ramseys needed to be on the defense, strictly from statistics. There is an old tried and true saying, "The best defense is a strong offense". So they went on the offense immediately (probably knowing the cops would find incriminating evidence against them, IMO) and under the auspices of having a "proper burial" got the body of Dodge, since they weren't successful in getting themselves out of Dodge on the 26th. Strongly offensive, indeed, when most people with half a brain know the more forensics that can be gathered, the stronger the evidence can get.

Refute if you must, but I'll bet if there was a poll started......hint, hint......most people would vote to willingly let police hold and examine the body of their murdered child in order to find the rightful killer if they knew they (or another close family member) were innocent. :moo:

Again because they would not speak to the police does not make them less innocent. Just smart. If the police will go so far as to try and hold the body of your dead baby to get you to talk, Who would go talk to them? I wouldn't.

Making a judgment call onsomeone is using their rights as laid out by law is saying that while they have the right, using it is what makes them guilty? Balderdash. It only means they were well within their rights. It says nothing about guilt. It may be your opinion that it seem to make them more guilty to you, but that is just opinion.

 

[2 percent]

Sorry, It is not a fact. People have a right to counsel and not to talk to police. If you think they are out to get you it is smart not to.

The Ramseys clammed up immediately, they had no reason to think the police were "out to get" them. We have no reason to assume it either.
Again, I don't see anyone saying the Ramsey's couldn't invoke their rights. However, I see many saying they shouldn't have invoked their rights if (and that is a gargantuan "if") they wanted the investigation into their murdered child to continue. Conclude.

I don't have issues with LE at all. I believe that most of them are awesome amazing hard working people that are here to protect us. But I don't believe that about this PD. I just don't. It is just my opinion but I see something different here. Something akin to the Aisenberg LE that tried to frame them.

This is my take. Purely my opinion and not a personal attack.
I don't think you dislike police. I think you have an inability to have an opinion about the Ramseys. You want facts, constant facts, even knowing this case doesn't have many. Which makes me wonder why you have come here to pretty much not argue the case. But there is a clear bias, where you criticize the police for their actions but never the Ramseys.

I do believe that people hurt their kids. I do believe that people do horrible things to their children. But yet we know that the boogeyman does exist and he does hurt babies and take them from their homes and kill them.

Here we go again.
Fact is, since the late 80s the movement to bring attention to child abductions has succeeded. The rate of strangers involved in the violence upon a child has dropped 50%. The overwhelmingly obvious cause of violence against children now is from family, friends or other close associates of those children.

I know what your opinion is....if there is no evidence against the Ramseys, then it must be an intruder. Let's turn that around, though, and say in the absence of evidence of an intruder by logic, statistics and common sense the parents are the more likely suspects.

I do give parents the benefit of the doubt but I have no problem jumping that ship if I see something clear and precise that shows me they killed their child or hurt their child.

Again, why don't you hold that same standard for an intruder? Why are the Ramseys getting a pass and not an intruder?

Think about it...you suspicion of an intruder seems to hinge upon what you think is the lack of evidence against the Ramseys.
But let's examine your theory.
You are suspecting a person who is unidentified, yet ask for clarity and precision of evidence with the Ramseys.
You are suspecting a person with no apparent motive, too. And still ask for clear and precise evidence of the Ramseys (remember, you've stated you believe the sexual assault evidence on JB is not actually a sexual assault)

 

[2 percent]

Overturned convictions that are never again taken to trial because they know they have the wrong person.

Absolutely not true. A good portion of them don't go back to trial because witnesses have died or been compromised or evidence has been lost or compromised. Evidence, specifically, has changed enormously in just the last 30 years.

But most often the reason the case isn't retried is because the technicality that got it overturned is insurmountable. Again, take Sonny Jacobs. She and two men were involved in the murder of two men. The police caught them and started to question them. The shooter made the first deal - and the prosecutor hadn't talked to witnesses or anything! So the prosecutor violated the rights of both Sonny and her boyfriend Jesse Tafero (yes, the man whose head caught on fire during his execution).

Does the prosecutor's stupidity mean Sonny and Jesse were any less guilty? No. Yet the conviction was overturned. (for those curious she entered an Alford plea which pretty much means she plead guilty to two counts of 2nd degree murder in return for time served and release - she'd already served 16 years)

The Appeals Courts only serve to look for legal and Constitutional violations during arrest, trial and sentencing. There are two types of appeals, Direct and Habeas. The Direct appeal deals with the mechanics of the trial - rulings, instructions, transcripts, etc. The Habeas appeal deals with new evidence and Constitutional violations. The appeals operate independent of each other and go through the state appeals court, federal/US District Courts and can go to the SCOTUS based on strict guidelines.

The courts can rule two different ways, complete overturn of the case which is what usually happens if DNA has exonerated. Despite what you hear, exoneration by DNA is very rare among the overturned cases.
Or, the more common, the court remands the case to a lower court. If appeals intrigue you, look for those phrases. They are usually in the last section of the written decision.

[That is what we have here. It is personal opinion if you agree or not but the courts set these people free because they were found not guilty. Semantics again on the innocence/ not guilty.

Not to be nitpicky but that is not what we have here.
This case never went to trial, thus the Ramseys could not be found anything by any appeals court, much less set free.

And the difference between innocence and not guilty most certainly is not a semantic. OJ was found responsible for the deaths of two people but in the eyes of the law he is not guilty.
There is nowhere he is said to be innocent of anything.
The legal system in the US does not have a ruling of innocence...even in the appellate process.

It is obvious that the police were trying to use any means to get the Ramseys to talk even if it was their right not to. Trying to figure out how to hold the body of their daughter is dirty pool. If it was me I would have known right away these were not police I could trust.

The Ramseys were stonewalling before the release of the body was even in question. It's wrong to say the police were doing anything to affect the Ramseys attitude at first, and given that they held the attitude before the police even started leaning on them, it's more accurate to say the Ramsey's attitude affected the police and not vice versa.

 

[questfortrue]

Absolutely not true. A good portion of them don't go back to trial because witnesses have died or been compromised or evidence has been lost or compromised. Evidence, specifically, has changed enormously in just the last 30 years.

But most often the reason the case isn't retried is because the technicality that got it overturned is insurmountable. Again, take Sonny Jacobs. She and two men were involved in the murder of two men. The police caught them and started to question them. The shooter made the first deal - and the prosecutor hadn't talked to witnesses or anything! So the prosecutor violated the rights of both Sonny and her boyfriend Jesse Tafero (yes, the man whose head caught on fire during his execution).

Does the prosecutor's stupidity mean Sonny and Jesse were any less guilty? No. Yet the conviction was overturned. (for those curious she entered an Alford plea which pretty much means she plead guilty to two counts of 2nd degree murder in return for time served and release - she'd already served 16 years)

The Appeals Courts only serve to look for legal and Constitutional violations during arrest, trial and sentencing. There are two types of appeals, Direct and Habeas. The Direct appeal deals with the mechanics of the trial - rulings, instructions, transcripts, etc. The Habeas appeal deals with new evidence and Constitutional violations. The appeals operate independent of each other and go through the state appeals court, federal/US District Courts and can go to the SCOTUS based on strict guidelines.

The courts can rule two different ways, complete overturn of the case which is what usually happens if DNA has exonerated. Despite what you hear, exoneration by DNA is very rare among the overturned cases.
Or, the more common, the court remands the case to a lower court. If appeals intrigue you, look for those phrases. They are usually in the last section of the written decision.



Not to be nitpicky but that is not what we have here.
This case never went to trial, thus the Ramseys could not be found anything by any appeals court, much less set free.

And the difference between innocence and not guilty most certainly is not a semantic. OJ was found responsible for the deaths of two people but in the eyes of the law he is not guilty.
There is nowhere he is said to be innocent of anything.
The legal system in the US does not have a ruling of innocence...even in the appellate process.



The Ramseys were stonewalling before the release of the body was even in question. It's wrong to say the police were doing anything to affect the Ramseys attitude at first, and given that they held the attitude before the police even started leaning on them, it's more accurate to say the Ramsey's attitude affected the police and not vice versa.

Appreciate your posts here. One item in regards to the R's which astounded me was that someone (JR or MB I suspect) phoned the H law firm to obtain legal help on the afternoon of the 26th, after JB's body was discovered. This is documented in Kolar's book, as the H law firm was on the phone to FW to get his interview on the afternoon of the 26th. Pretty fast lawyering up, I'd say. moo

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The Ramseys clammed up immediately, they had no reason to think the police were "out to get" them. We have no reason to assume it either.
Again, I don't see anyone saying the Ramsey's couldn't invoke their rights. However, I see many saying they shouldn't have invoked their rights if (and that is a gargantuan "if") they wanted the investigation into their murdered child to continue. Conclude.

I think that if I had just found my dd murdered in my home, I would be incapable of talking and if my lawyer advised against it I take that advice.

This is my take. Purely my opinion and not a personal attack.
I don't think you dislike police. I think you have an inability to have an opinion about the Ramseys. You want facts, constant facts, even knowing this case doesn't have many. Which makes me wonder why you have come here to pretty much not argue the case. But there is a clear bias, where you criticize the police for their actions but never the Ramseys.

I do have an opinion about the case, As for the Ramsey's I don't like them or not like them. They are just part of the equation and one that I am still sorting out. I have no bais for the Ramsey's or against the police. Just not there.

Here we go again.
Fact is, since the late 80s the movement to bring attention to child abductions has succeeded. The rate of strangers involved in the violence upon a child has dropped 50%. The overwhelmingly obvious cause of violence against children now is from family, friends or other close associates of those children.

I know what your opinion is....if there is no evidence against the Ramseys, then it must be an intruder. Let's turn that around, though, and say in the absence of evidence of an intruder by logic, statistics and common sense the parents are the more likely suspects.

That is just not how it works. It makes no difference what the statistics are. Because every killer, or pedophile can have their own MO, their own method of stalking and killing their prey, That it may be less likely does not mean it did not or does not happen. It happens a lot. Criminals go into houses and steal or murder people every day.
[quote/]

Again, why don't you hold that same standard for an intruder? Why are the Ramseys getting a pass and not an intruder?

Think about it...you suspicion of an intruder seems to hinge upon what you think is the lack of evidence against the Ramseys.
But let's examine your theory.
You are suspecting a person who is unidentified, yet ask for clarity and precision of evidence with the Ramseys.
You are suspecting a person with no apparent motive, too. And still ask for clear and precise evidence of the Ramseys (remember, you've stated you believe the sexual assault evidence on JB is not actually a sexual assault)

I should give a pass to an intruder who broke in the house and assaulted and murdered a child? I should try and figure out what moved them to do this? Well I could speculate but that would just be a story not the truth.

I do not remember saying that JBR was not sexually assaulted. Maybe early on but have since posted many times that I do believe she may have been assaulted, I just do not see any proof that it was someone in her family.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Absolutely not true. A good portion of them don't go back to trial because witnesses have died or been compromised or evidence has been lost or compromised. Evidence, specifically, has changed enormously in just the last 30 years.

But most often the reason the case isn't retried is because the technicality that got it overturned is insurmountable. Again, take Sonny Jacobs. She and two men were involved in the murder of two men. The police caught them and started to question them. The shooter made the first deal - and the prosecutor hadn't talked to witnesses or anything! So the prosecutor violated the rights of both Sonny and her boyfriend Jesse Tafero (yes, the man whose head caught on fire during his execution).

Does the prosecutor's stupidity mean Sonny and Jesse were any less guilty? No. Yet the conviction was overturned. (for those curious she entered an Alford plea which pretty much means she plead guilty to two counts of 2nd degree murder in return for time served and release - she'd already served 16 years)

The Appeals Courts only serve to look for legal and Constitutional violations during arrest, trial and sentencing. There are two types of appeals, Direct and Habeas. The Direct appeal deals with the mechanics of the trial - rulings, instructions, transcripts, etc. The Habeas appeal deals with new evidence and Constitutional violations. The appeals operate independent of each other and go through the state appeals court, federal/US District Courts and can go to the SCOTUS based on strict guidelines.

The courts can rule two different ways, complete overturn of the case which is what usually happens if DNA has exonerated. Despite what you hear, exoneration by DNA is very rare among the overturned cases.
Or, the more common, the court remands the case to a lower court. If appeals intrigue you, look for those phrases. They are usually in the last section of the written decision.



Not to be nitpicky but that is not what we have here.
This case never went to trial, thus the Ramseys could not be found anything by any appeals court, much less set free.

And the difference between innocence and not guilty most certainly is not a semantic. OJ was found responsible for the deaths of two people but in the eyes of the law he is not guilty.
There is nowhere he is said to be innocent of anything.
The legal system in the US does not have a ruling of innocence...even in the appellate process.



The Ramseys were stonewalling before the release of the body was even in question. It's wrong to say the police were doing anything to affect the Ramseys attitude at first, and given that they held the attitude before the police even started leaning on them, it's more accurate to say the Ramsey's attitude affected the police and not vice versa.

Some times there is no retrial because of lost witnesses but most times it is because the case falls apart. Because there is no case against these people.

There are cases that are brought 30 years later and prosecuted so time is not the main reason they are not retried. IT is obvious in the cases that either a jury found the person innocent, or that the appeals court released them because of a miscarriage of justice.

But that is just all opinion. It has to be case by case. There are I am sure people that are set free on appeal and immediately tried again. There are people that are never tried again.

I don't think it is possible for anyone to know exactly what made the Ramseys hesitant about talking to the police but I would suspect from the beginning it was on advice of counsel. And there is nothing wrong with that and it does not make a check in the guilty column.

 

[BBB167893]

Again because they would not speak to the police does not make them less innocent. Just smart.

If that were all it was, Scarlett, I'd agree with you. But, as Wendy Murphy said it so well, in America you have the right not to talk to police. You have NO right to lie. It's one thing for them to not talk to the cops. That's fine. But don't turn around and claim that you cooperated the best you could.

If the police will go so far as to try and hold the body of your dead baby to get you to talk, Who would go talk to them? I wouldn't.

That's the claim by the Rs and their reps. I means nothing to me.

Making a judgment call on someone is using their rights as laid out by law is saying that while they have the right, using it is what makes them guilty? Balderdash. It only means they were well within their rights. It says nothing about guilt. It may be your opinion that it seem to make them more guilty to you, but that is just opinion.

If they want to use their rights, they should not be judged. If they lie, they SHOULD be judged.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If that were all it was, Scarlett, I'd agree with you. But, as Wendy Murphy said it so well, in America you have the right not to talk to police. You have NO right to lie. It's one thing for them to not talk to the cops. That's fine. But don't turn around and claim that you cooperated the best you could.



That's the claim by the Rs and their reps. I means nothing to me.



If they want to use their rights, they should not be judged. If they lie, they SHOULD be judged.

Not spin. Actual fact that the Coroner was asked to hold the body as per The CORONER. Nobody's book, Just him.

 

[BBB167893]

Not spin. Actual fact that the Coroner was asked to hold the body as per The CORONER. Nobody's book, Just him.

Being asked to hold the body for further forensic testing is a lot different from what you say.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Being asked to hold the body for further forensic testing is a lot different from what you say.

That is not what the coroner said. He said the body was ready for release. HE would know I think what needs to be done and when..