Parents On This Forum: Answer Me This!

[Details]

This link was posted by SleuthingSleuth on another thread just a little while ago. I don't think this has ever been posted before----needless to say, I am a little shocked. This link describes the other sexual assault against a child in Boulder in 1997, some 2 miles from JonBenets house, an intruder did it, and he laid in wait in the house for 4 hours before assaulting the girl.

Excellent find, SleuthingSleuth!!!! Hope you don't mind me bringing it over here---this is a major find!!!

http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/14.htm

Just to ring my own bell - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml - read the whole article, and I believe the same story is in there. It's a shame the police didn't look at this. I've posted it here a few times, but the article is long, and that's just one of the items in it.

 

[Jolynna]

I wouldn't give anyone jack *advertiser censored* without a court order because if LE can't get a court order then they have nothing and they are in a fishing expedition without probable cause which is against the search and seizure clause, 4th amendment of the

You are right Pedro, we ARE protected from handing over anything we do not want the authorities to have.

However in a normal murder investigation, for the police get phone records would be standard operating procedure. That no subpoenas were issued for these basic but vital-to-do-an-investigation records doesn't make sense...unless, as some of the posters have said, John Ramsey had Hunter in his back pocket.

It was a piece of cake to subpeona my ex-husband's bank records and tax records for the time after our separation before the final property settlement.

But the DA wouldn't do it to investigate a murder?

In most cases, there would be no need for a subpeona because most families willingly give police anything they need. Why withhold vital information?????

Especially information that in most cases can be and IS gotten if it isn't made available.

I just saw the Goldman's on T.V. announcing that they were suing OJ and am trying to imagine Ron Goldman's father or sister NOT giving the police ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they could get their hands on to bring their son's killer to justice.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

In most cases, there would be no need for a subpeona because most families willingly give police anything they need. Why withhold vital information????

I've asked this same question, Jolynna. The Ramseys HAD to know that police wanted those phone records - if they're innocent and can prove it, why didn't they hand the phone records over without even needing to be subpoenaed?

They must have something to hide.

 

[lily]

as a mother - i would have co-operated with police, given them phone records whatever they needed to find the killer. I would have driven my son to school and picked him up - may have even wanted to sit outside the school for the first few weeks just from paranoia, I would have had an alarm system put in on the bottom floor etc etc. I would have moved my bedroom to be on the same floor as my kids.

I also would probably feel like i had to do something positive about the whole thing. Contribute to some kind of charity or push for better laws to protect children, longer sentances for child abusers/killers etc.

I may have gone and hidden from the world for a year or two - just to recover.

I would probably have therapy - cause it can't be healthy to obsess over this stuff, life has to go on but i image it would be hard.

IMO Patsy behaved like a guilty, sorry and remorseful killer.

 

[Details]

The way I see it as being possible (not saying this is it, but it fits well enough to be possible) is that the Ramsey's picked up right away (not hard to do) on the police belief that they killed their daughter, and before long realized that the police were investigating looking for anything they could get the Ramseys on. So, they chose not to help the police with that goal, or to prevent the police from harassing everyone they talked to during Christmas.

 

[Jolynna]

The Ramseys HAD to know that police wanted those phone records

They knew. The police were asking for them.

 

[Pedro]

You are right Pedro, we ARE protected from handing over anything we do not want the authorities to have.

Agreed.

However in a normal murder investigation, for the police get phone records would be standard operating procedure. That no subpoenas were issued for these basic but vital-to-do-an-investigation records doesn't make sense...unless, as some of the posters have said, John Ramsey had Hunter in his back pocket.

First I been blasting AH since 96, second the BPD should have provided probable cause, third AH failed to find probable cause, fourth the grand jury didn't indict. So tell me, how are you going to obtain those records?

It was a piece of cake to subpeona my ex-husband's bank records and tax records for the time after our separation before the final property settlement.

That was civil litigation, there is not crime hence there is no self incrimination thus you must answer and provide anything the other part ask for.

But the DA wouldn't do it to investigate a murder?

Again the DA can't do it without probable cause.

In most cases, there would be no need for a subpeona because most families willingly give police anything they need. Why withhold vital information?????

That is highly debatable: can an individual surrender his/her constitutional rights? Can do so only knowingly and willingly? Should the petitioner warn the individual of her/his right to deny the request? A very old debate/

Especially information that in most cases can be and IS gotten if it isn't made available.

Sure, but you can't use in court.

I just saw the Goldman's on T.V. announcing that they were suing OJ and am trying to imagine Ron Goldman's father or sister NOT giving the police ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they could get their hands on to bring their son's killer to justice.

Sure, I believe the Ramsey will provide information if they were suing someone for the death of JBR. But they are not. Also the case you mention is, again, civil litigation, a whole different ball game.

The Ramsey were exercising their rights, you know, the old "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights among..."

Civil rights are a , thank God!

 

[Pedro]

I've asked this same question, Jolynna. The Ramseys HAD to know that police wanted those phone records - if they're innocent and can prove it, why didn't they hand the phone records over without even needing to be subpoenaed?

They must have something to hide.

Several reasons:

1. - In this country you don't have to prove your innocence, you are.

2. - The State must prove that you are guilty, you have no obligation to make their case for the police or prosecutor.

3. - You don't have to provide anything you don't want to.

4. - Why would you cooperate with the police if they are investigating you?

 

[JBean]

I've read those interviews many times over the last 9 years and far from having anything to do with who the perp is I always supported the Ramseys in two things:

1. - Talk to a lawyer before you talk to the cops: if they want to talk to you and you are close to the victim of any crime most likely they are after you.

2. - The BPD and the DA were not only completely inept in their handling of the situation, they indeed created the perception that JBR's body was up for a bargain.

In those circumstances most people will still talk to the cops, I wouldn't and the R's didn't.

Did the Ramseys over-reacted to the BPD and the DA? Could be but as a general rule talking to the cops is something you only do with your lawyer present and in your own terms because more often than not, you've told the cops everything already several times so if they want to talk to you again is not for your own good...is because they don't believe you and want to catch you in a contradiction, so don't do it.

And for the record, my post doesn't define my position in this case: who did it.

I have posted this sentiment in the past and I agree with you 100% Pedro.

 

[Jolynna]

The way I see it as being possible (not saying this is it, but it fits well enough to be possible) is that the Ramsey's picked up right away (not hard to do) on the police belief that they killed their daughter, and before long realized that the police were investigating looking for anything they could get the Ramseys on. So, they chose not to help the police with that goal, or to prevent the police from harassing everyone they talked to during Christmas.

So.

The police (to say nothing of the press and tabloids) were harassing everyone the Ramseys had any connection with anyway.

Phone records are as essential to an investigation as forensics.

The Ramseys were never especially protective of people they knew or that worked for them. They didn't hesitate to name names on national television or in documentaries to throw guilt in other directions.

But, they couldn't let the police know who they talked to or who called their house??? For their daughter???

Why not?

 

[Mary456]

J
And on top of that, the Rs sent Burke out to go over to the Whites, supposedly believing the kidnapper(s) were watching the house, ready to cut their daughter's head off...If one of your children has been kidnapped and her life is being threatened, you absolutely do not allow your other child to leave your presence to go anywhere else, not knowing where the kidnapper is or what he might do.

Yep, this is strange enough, but what really astounds me is that the parents didn't wake Burke up immediately after finding the RN. His bedroom was on the 2nd floor, as JB's was...he might have heard or seen something during the night.

Instead, the Ramseys decide to let him sleep in. I find this incredible. If your daughter was missing, and her brother (almost 10 years old) was right down the hall from her bedroom, wouldn't you wake that child up and question him right away? Burke, did you hear any strange voices, a door slam, footsteps, did you see or hear JB during the night, anything!

The Ramseys didn't forget to wake Burke; by their own admission, they chose not to wake him. How many of you parents would do that?

 

[Pedro]

JBean, as I stated before, the protection of our rights is more important, to me, than the resolution of any case.

I remember some people getting upset with me in JW when I stated this position years ago.

It has nothing to do with who is guilty and who is not.

 

[JBean]

JBean, as I stated before, the protection of our rights is more important, to me, than the resolution of any case.

I remember some people getting upset with me in JW when I stated this position years ago.

It has nothing to do with who is guilty and who is not.

Agreed. many equate this with guilt. IMO, it is exercising our rights, that are there for a reason.
Great posts Pedro, really articulate and on the money.

 

[Pedro]

Phone records are as essential to an investigation as forensics.

Sure, but the government can not search and seizure at its pleasure.

 

[Jolynna]

4. - Why would you cooperate with the police if they are investigating you?

So they could find the real killer.

 

[Pedro]

Agreed. many equate this with guilt. IMO, it is exercising our rights, that are there for a reason.
Great posts Pedro, really articulate and on the money.

Thank you.

 

[Details]

Yep, this is strange enough, but what really astounds me is that the parents didn't wake Burke up immediately after finding the RN. His bedroom was on the 2nd floor, as JB's was...he might have heard or seen something during the night.

Instead, the Ramseys decide to let him sleep in. I find this incredible. If your daughter was missing, and her brother (almost 10 years old) was right down the hall from her bedroom, wouldn't you wake that child up and question him right away? Burke, did you hear any strange voices, a door slam, footsteps, did you see or hear JB during the night, anything!

The Ramseys didn't forget to wake Burke; by their own admission, they chose not to wake him. How many of you parents would do that?

Depends. If I felt that he'd be a hinderance to getting the search started, or I just didn't know what to say to him, and wanted a little time to figure it out, or maybe just hoped that before he woke up, JBR would have been found, and I wouldn't have to give him that traumatic memory - it's another thing that can go either way, but I can see their choice as being reasonable, depending on everyone's personalities.

 

[Details]

So they could find the real killer.

There I agree - I'm not that much on civil rights when they obstruct justice - but sometimes, in some few cases, the police have already decided what the truth is, and will not look for anything else (such as their complete disinterest in the similar case with the girl from the same dancing school). In that case, there's no point to releasing the phone records, unless you want every well wisher and family member who called you around Christmas to be pulled in and questioned.

 

[Pedro]

I'm not that much on civil rights when they obstruct justice

Sorry, I don't understand. How the preservation of civil and constitutional rights or its exercise obstruct justice? By definition ARE justice.

 

[Jolynna]

Sure, but the government can not search and seizure at its pleasure.

In a normal investigation, you would no more be allowed to keep the police from the phone records of where the body was found, than from the forensics.

S U B P O E N A

This is a murder investigation.

You can't not give investigators evidence because you don't want to or because you think you are a suspect. (At least not most of the time.)

The whole scenario seems hinkier and hinkier...