MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
The RN and the fibers are all they have as hard evidence. The rest is speculation and imagination.
Members' Theories
- Thread starter JBRMod2
- Start date
New Posts
-
Japan - Miyazawa family of 4 murdered, Setagaya, Tokyo, 30 Dec 2000 #3- Latest: FlowersInBloom
-
- Status
I think LW wanted them to be specific because that was his job. The interrogators didn't have the facts of the case mastered. That's for sure, and if they could get her to speculate and later manipulate her words to mean something other than she intended, that could help their case.
May I assure you that getting to the truth counts for zero? In fact, the truth might interfere. Winning is the name of the game. How one wins is insignificant, as long as the cheaters don't get caught.
As a devout member and founder of the original Three Stooges Fan Club, you are hereby awarded a lifetime honorary membership. Banging their heads together sounds great.
A question for you. Do you have any sense how else you might have responded to their circus, the cops, that is?
"Why" has been the key word throughout this debate. It is a little too late to say it doesn't count now. And in this context it is the question. So, pretend, if you must, but do the best you can to make sense of this mystery. Why would P risk prison by sending authorities her jacket when she could have avoided doing so quite easily.
I loved the 3 Stooges. Didn't you feel bad for Shemp? I did. Curly Joe, too. He was like the "Fifth Beatle". Stu Sutcliff, the one Ringo replaced.
Anyway....The Keystone Cops dilemma. I am sure you realize that from the very first moments, with the very first officer on the scene (French) this case was compromised. Then along came Det. Arndt. Eller played a part in the fiasco too. He downplayed Arndt's need for back up help with so many people in the house that didn't belong there. As has been mentioned many times, the first thing they needed to was clear the house except all but the Rs. (all three of them). Keep the family in separate rooms, except BR who legally would need a parent with him to be questioned. Put up that yellow crime scene tape. Bring in the search dogs. And that would have eliminated SO much of the speculation we have today.
As to how I would deal with them? If it were in my power to do so, I'd have fired the three of them (French, Eller, Arndt) on the spot and brought back the FBI.
While some IDI see the FBI as focusing on the parents right away, I feel the FBI was totally unbiased. Many feel the BPD zeroed in on the parents right away, too, but the FBI had no local politics to deal with, no weak DA. They looked at the crime scene evidence (at this point the RN and taking note of the parents' behavior) and they'd seen it all before. Many times kids are accidentally killed and the parents say they are "missing". There is a new case out now- little boy last seen by his stepmother in the hallway at school- we wasn't on the bus home, stepmother calls police to say he is "missing"- guess what? Now they are focusing in on her as the suspect. It's the little things- the clues. She was the last person to known to be with him. If she was there to pick him up, why would be be on the bus? Then she calls and says he wasn't on the bus...I was suspicious right away. They haven't as yet- but I have a feeling they'll be finding his body too.
I should have been clearer. What I wanted to ask is this. How would you have responded to the cops' treatment if you were in the R's shoes?
Well- that day itself I am not so sure there was anything for the Rs to complain about. They were not treated as suspects by French or Arndt, and had no knowledge of what the FBI thought at that time. Neither officer attempted to clear the home of all the extra people, and they were not separated or questioned at that time. Some of the BPD wanted to do that, or even bring them to the station to do this, but Hunter refused to allow it.
As far as subsequent treatment- they were treated as I would assume you would expect- because JB was found in her own home and there had obviously not been a kidnapping, BPD was suspicious right from the start. So as the days and months went by without a formal interview, their suspicions grew even more. They were kind of at an impasse- with the Rs and their lawyers angered because there didn't seem to be a focus on anything BUT the parents, and the BPD viewing their lack of cooperation (and other things) as evidence they were guilty.
Don't dismiss the weight given to finding her body in her home. In most cases, the parents are involved what that has happened. Police look at this stuff pretty closely.
As to your question- hard to answer because I wouldn't have responded to the police the way they did. I'd have talked to them till I dropped.
If you found your child murdered in your basement ten minutes ago, and you could feel the cops knew you were guilty, how would you feel about them?
I wonder whether or not she knew that. And even if she did, maybe her lawyers told her to, figuring they could obfuscate the fiber issue as many of the folks here have tried to do. Too bad she made it hard for them with her inconsistent statements.
I don't know where you get some of your ideas, MurriFlower.
"Monumentally unimpressed?" I take it then, you have not seen her videotaped reaction? There are a lot of words to describe it. Monumentally unimpressed ain't in the running! Moreover, why did it take her two full years to come up with an explanation? An explanation which her own book contradicts, btw.
Wait just a minute. Why obfuscate? They were post Warren Court defense lawyers. They didn't have to do anything.
Beats the superstar strangulation concoction. Holy cow.
Where do you get your ideas?
Cause she was enormously unimpressed.
Perhaps, she wasn't sure how they got there.
She didn't mean to kill her.
She really was swell.
I don't condemn her.
But, watch this
Funny guy. If my answers scare you, don't ask scary questions.
Not one of your better efforts, Fang.
From what my eyes see and my ears hear.
Oh, really? Is that why her face contorted and she wavered like she was about to faint? I can't not see what I see, Fang.
Don't pretend you know anything about me.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
Well, not so sure that they didn't have anything to complain about. Let's see. First a 911 call. Our daughter has been kidnapped!! Police car turns up in the driveway and Cop knocks on the door. Sounds kind of OK, but wouldn't ya think someone might just give them a quick call and get some more details. Like - should we come in plain clothes in our own car in case the kidnapper really can see what's going on and carry out their threat to behead JBR? Anyway, they search the house (for what I wonder, kidnappers having breakfast in the basement?), cause the search, as it turns out, wasn't any too thorough. Then Det Arndt turns up and a couple of techs for recording the calls. When the call doesn't come, the others lose interest and go home leaving Arndt alone. She decides to send the people in the house on a search, seeing as she doesn't have any Cops to do the job. The Daddy then finds his dead little girl and in doing so, potentially destroys evidence of her killer. All this is down to the Cops. Try as they might RDI can't blame the parents for this.
You'll have to explain to me again how this works. What was Hunter doing directing the investigation at this stage? Isn't there a BPD hierarchy within their own department and wouldn't their Chief be the one to make decisions about interviewing suspects or if he needs to liaise with the DA?
No, that sounds fair but it wasn't really the way it was. BPD WAS suspicious as you say RIGHT FROM THE START. Not the next day or the week after or next year, but immediately! Ok, well, yes the body was found in the home and there was no kidnapping and statistics say the parents are the most likely. BUT, as we've established here, the only thing they have is the RN and the fibers. HOWEVER these weren't available until quite some time after the murder. So, we are left with just the 'gut feelings' of the BPD, and in fact, even after the RN and fibers, that's still all there ever really was to cause them to suspect the parents. We've been through the 'getting a lawyer meant they were guilty' nonsense, and it still doesn't wash. The lawyers protected them from the overzealousness of the BPD. Don't dismiss the Rs reaction to being instantly treated as a suspect by the BPD. Can you imagine how frustrating it would be (knowing you were askeep upstairs when all this happened) when the Cops weren't even looking for anyone else but were concentrating all their efforts to find evidence to implicate you? Can you imagine how you would feel to know that their lack of 'interest' initially led to evidence not being investigated until too late? The Three Stooges meets the Keystone Cops!!
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
ITA.
Some might think I fell in love with the Ramsey family over night and that's why I went back on the fence.NO.What happened is I got more angry with the cops and how they handled this and I can't base my opinions on what they SAY is evidence anymore.What the cops did didn't help ANYONE and if the Ramsey's are guilty it's even worse.Cause it doesn't matter what you know but what you can prove in court.
Let's say there will be a DNA match someday and it's the killers.Do you think it will be easy for a DA to prosecute him?No,he will still have to deal with all the mistakes that were made so far.
The FBI was suspicious within minutes. With the BPD, a bit later but still that first day. When French arrived that morning minutes after the call, he did not suspect the parents, neither did Arndt when she first arrived. But both officers were closely watching the behavior of the parents (Patsy peeking out behind her fingers to see if they were watching her for one, the apparent distance between JR and Patsy etc.)
But at that point it was still a kidnapping. But when JR found her, that's when Arndt began to suspect the parents (specifically JR).
As to how the parents would be expected to react on finding that they were the suspects- well, of course, they'd be upset whether they were guilty or not. That question really doesn't add much to the investigation. If they were innocent, they'd be upset and horrified. If they were guilty they'd be upset that whatever they were trying to portray wasn't working.
Either way, the relationship between the family and LE was bound to become adversarial as soon as defense lawyers were hired and the body was found in the home.
As far as Hunter driving the investigation- not sure if it is the same in every district, but here, if the parents wouldn't go willingly to the station (they were under no obligation to do this, and by that time they already had lawyers who may have told them not to go) then an arrest warrant is needed and the DA issues that. If that hadn't been the case, the BPD would have arrested them. But they still wouldn't have to talk to police. But I'd think if they were innocent they'd want to, even if they felt police thought they were guilty. I'd be doing everything I could to change their minds.
Whenever parents of a murdered (or missing) child won't talk to police, it would be viewed as suspicious behavior. When such interviews have to be brokered by defense attorneys, it seems suspicious as well. The R lawyers were hired to keep them out of jail- this by the Rs admission as well as the lawyers. That's what defense lawyers do- they really don't care about solving the crime, they don't care WHO gets found guilty as long as it isn't their clients. Not just this case, ANY case. And in cases where the client's guilt is obvious, they'll plea bargain or try an insanity defense.
But at that point it was still a kidnapping. But when JR found her, that's when Arndt began to suspect the parents (specifically JR).
As to how the parents would be expected to react on finding that they were the suspects- well, of course, they'd be upset whether they were guilty or not. That question really doesn't add much to the investigation. If they were innocent, they'd be upset and horrified. If they were guilty they'd be upset that whatever they were trying to portray wasn't working.
Either way, the relationship between the family and LE was bound to become adversarial as soon as defense lawyers were hired and the body was found in the home.
As far as Hunter driving the investigation- not sure if it is the same in every district, but here, if the parents wouldn't go willingly to the station (they were under no obligation to do this, and by that time they already had lawyers who may have told them not to go) then an arrest warrant is needed and the DA issues that. If that hadn't been the case, the BPD would have arrested them. But they still wouldn't have to talk to police. But I'd think if they were innocent they'd want to, even if they felt police thought they were guilty. I'd be doing everything I could to change their minds.
Whenever parents of a murdered (or missing) child won't talk to police, it would be viewed as suspicious behavior. When such interviews have to be brokered by defense attorneys, it seems suspicious as well. The R lawyers were hired to keep them out of jail- this by the Rs admission as well as the lawyers. That's what defense lawyers do- they really don't care about solving the crime, they don't care WHO gets found guilty as long as it isn't their clients. Not just this case, ANY case. And in cases where the client's guilt is obvious, they'll plea bargain or try an insanity defense.
Confirming she was missing, the BBBBBB's should have searched every square inch of the house and property for clues. They should have scoured the place, which was mistake number one, a major one, from which the chronicle of inconceivable, moronic errors followed.
You mean like the Ramsey's? Like this?
•Handwriting samples were given by John (December 26, 28, January 5, 1997); Patsy (December 28, January 4, 1997, February 28, April 12, May 20), and Burke (December 28).
* Police questioned them both on December 27 and John again on December 28. Officers were with the Ramseys 24 hours a day from 6 a.m. December 26, the day JonBenet's body was found, through 2 p.m. December 29, when the Ramseys left for the funeral in Atlanta.
* Police questioned Burke Ramsey on December 26. The conversation was tape-recorded without either parent present and without parental consent. A police psychologist interviewed Burke on January 6. Burke was interviewed again, over three days, in May 1998.
* After the Ramseys returned from JonBenet's funeral in Atlanta, their attorneys offered to make them available for a joint interview January 18, 1997. The police declined this offer and stated in writing that such an interview would not "be helpful" because "the time for interviewing John and Patsy as witnesses who could provide critical information that would be helpful in the initial stages of our investigation has passed."
* The police countered with an offer that the Ramseys come to the police station at 6 p.m. on a Friday night and subject themselves to an open-ended interrogation. That suggestion was rejected, in part because of the written statement above.
* Patsy and John gave hair and blood samples, as well as fingerprints, immediately when the police requested them; so did all other members of the family. In February 1997, both Patsy and John voluntarily gave pubic hair samples.
* Early in the investigation, the Ramseys offered to let the police search both of their houses, John's office, their cars and his airplane hangar, without a search warrant.
* On April 11, 1997, John and Patsy Ramsey, with their attorneys, met with Peter Hofstrom of the DA's office and Tom Wickman of the Boulder Police Department. This meeting was held at Mr. Hofstrom's and Detective Wickman's request. An apology was given for the way the family had been treated. The Ramseys were asked to give additional interviews and continue their previous cooperation. John accepted their apology and agreed to move forward. No conditions were placed on the manner in which the interviews would be conducted.
* On April 12, 1997, the Ramseys agreed to let authorities search their house again without a warrant; agreed to destructive testing of walls located at their home; agreed to identify Patsy Ramsey's prior writings; and agreed to make themselves available for separate interviews on April 23. The Ramseys also agreed to answer any questions put to them. On April 22, the Boulder police canceled the interviews.
* The Ramseys agreed to be interrogated by the Boulder police and district attorney's office on April 30, 1997. These interviews lasted two hours (John) and six hours (Patsy).
* They were interrogated by the district attorney's office for three full days each in June 1998. No additional interviews were requested.
* They signed more than 100 releases for information requested by the police, ranging from medical records to credit card records and even videotape rental records. The Ramseys provided all evidence and information requested by the police.
* Burke Ramsey, John Andrew Ramsey and Melinda Ramsey Long all were subpoenaed and testified before the grand jury.
* John and Patsy Ramsey offered to testify before the grand jury, but were never subpoenaed. The Ramseys asked to meet with the governor and his advisory council. The request went unanswered.
The preceding are examples of their lack of cooperation and unwillingness to talk to them?
- Status