Parents On This Forum: Answer Me This!

[Pedro]

"Probable cause" in Boulder isn't the same as "probable cause" in the rest of the US.

That is correct, the probable cause is different in different states where different jurisprudence was set.

I would think most Americans know by now that the judicial system and the laws are different in each state for crimes under state jurisdiction.

 

[Pedro]

It's a capital crime, after all. The whole house itself became a crime scene

The phone records are not in the house, are held by the phone company which is not subject to the crime scene conditions, inevitable discovery nor plain view.

That is why we have judges: to decide if there is probable cause, the problem is not with the judges, is with LE who is unaware of the fact that is not their job to administrate justice.

 

[Pedro]

<speculating...>

A call to your lawyer before you dialed 911?

It would not be evidence of guilt, but it would not look good either.

I would call 911 from one phone and the lawyers from the other phone.

 

[Pedro]

?? As far as I know, a judge didn't decide that, and didn't declare anything. BPD asked BDA to subpoena the records, and they refused.

BPD asked the DA to subpoena the records and he refused because he knew he had no probable cause.

In this case the police didn't only manage the whole scenario badly but they forgot isn't their place to prosecute or indict.

 

[BBB167893]

Pedro, may I say something?

Yes, you have a right not to talk to police. You don't have a right to LIE. If the Ramseys don't want to talk to the cops, that's one thing. It's when they lie that we get upset.

 

[Pedro]

Pedro, may I say something?

Yes, you have a right not to talk to police. You don't have a right to LIE. If the Ramseys don't want to talk to the cops, that's one thing. It's when they lie that we get upset.

This all comes from the setting of their interviews and the format, conditions and terms of those interviews.

I haven't said a word about any lie, that is a complete different issue. Why do you reply to me pretending the issue, lies, is or was, included in any of my posts? It was not.

You can't lie to the police, that is a crime itself.

So now, the next thing to do will be to evaluate their responses in those interviews. I did that many years ago and other than the "re-discovered" DNA, I have no reason to believe there was ever any intruder in that house. That DNA could be explained in very different ways.

 

[BBB167893]

You misunderstand. I didn't mean to suggest you said anything of the sort. Merely explaining why a lot of us feel the way we do.

 

[SleuthingSleuth]

The phone records are not in the house, are held by the phone company which is not subject to the crime scene conditions, inevitable discovery nor plain view.

That is why we have judges: to decide if there is probable cause, the problem is not with the judges, is with LE who is unaware of the fact that is not their job to administrate justice.

Well, naturally the records are not in the house...but still, phone records tend to be checked in a murder case.

If a judge decided there was no probabl cause...shall we assume then that the judge examined the phone records...or had them examined, and found nothing unusual about them...or at least nothing he felt LE should be going through.

It just seems to me in another case with another family, the phone records would be a given.

 

[Pedro]

You misunderstand. I didn't mean to suggest you said anything of the sort. Merely explaining why a lot of us feel the way we do.

Thank you and my apologies, I feel that way also ref; inconsistencies.

 

[Pedro]

Well, naturally the records are not in the house...but still, phone records tend to be checked in a murder case.

If there is probable cause or consent to search and seize.

If a judge decided there was no probabl cause...shall we assume then that the judge examined the phone records...or had them examined, and found nothing unusual about them...or at least nothing he felt LE should be going through.

Sometimes that is the case, the judge evaluates the evidence itself, but more often than that the petitioner has to provide an affidavit of probable cause to the judge with the particulars of the investigation and the judge decides if there is probable cause or not.

It just seems to me in another case with another family, the phone records would be a given.

This is not a perfect world, many families can't afford medical care, prescription drugs, proper education, adequate housing, life insurance, live without heat, phone or sewer and have no hope to ever achieve a better life.

I think they call it "free" market, I call it "less is more but only for the poor"

In my opinion we should work to ensure rights for all, not to deprive all of their rights.

 

[azwriter]

Has anyone else noticed that Patsy was very much involved with the details of her daughter's murder whenever she was on the Larry King Show?
In fact she and John made themselves available to CNN within days of JonBenet's death.
Patsy's attitude and answers in her depositions with LE is a good example of how attorneys prepare clients for questioning. Short answers and don't volunteer or expound on any information. The less the client says, the less officials have to question.
jmo

 

[IrishMist]

BPD asked the DA to subpoena the records and he refused because he knew he had no probable cause.

In this case the police didn't only manage the whole scenario badly but they forgot isn't their place to prosecute or indict.

And you know that... how?

Because you were there? You were part of it? You are him? The BPD had more than enough probable cause to get those records, and they were refused. It's that simple. IMO, you are making probable cause out to be a difficult threshold to meet. And I don't think it's that hard of a thing.

It sounds to me like you are more interested in a debate over legal concepts and civil rights than you are about this case.

The Ramsey's have sworn up and down, hell, they even wrote a book telling the world how they co-operated with the police. That's what they want us to believe. For some of us, we see the lack of phone records as suspicious.

 

[BBB167893]

"Patsy's attitude and answers in her depositions with LE is a good example of how attorneys prepare clients for questioning. Short answers and don't volunteer or expound on any information. The less the client says, the less officials have to question."

But sometimes we still give ourselves away. In her depo, when asked if she killed her daughter, she says no...after nodding her head yes!

 

[IrishMist]

"Patsy's attitude and answers in her depositions with LE is a good example of how attorneys prepare clients for questioning. Short answers and don't volunteer or expound on any information. The less the client says, the less officials have to question."

But sometimes we still give ourselves away. In her depo, when asked if she killed her daughter, she says no...after nodding her head yes!

To me, it's the same reasoning behind the "we were asleep." Went home, went to bed. We were asleep.

 

[Pedro]

And you know that... how?

Because you were there? You were part of it? You are him? The BPD had more than enough probable cause to get those records, and they were refused. It's that simple. IMO, you are making probable cause out to be a difficult threshold to meet. And I don't think it's that hard of a thing.

It sounds to me like you are more interested in a debate over legal concepts and civil rights than you are about this case.

The Ramsey's have sworn up and down, hell, they even wrote a book telling the world how they co-operated with the police. That's what they want us to believe. For some of us, we see the lack of phone records as suspicious.

1. - How long have you been following this case?

2. - You don't know what I know and what I don't.

3. - All the public records available indicate that early in the investigation there was NOT probable cause against the R's.

4. - I been a "BORG" for almost 10 years now.

5. - The R's cooperated, everything they did without a court order is cooperation and more than they had to do.

6. - Depriving people of their civil rights or finding them guilty because they exercise those civil rights is unacceptable.

 

[IrishMist]

1. - How long have you been following this case?

10 years, well, just shy of, if you want to get fussy. Why do you ask?

2. - You don't know what I know and what I don't.

Which would be why I asked you, and I quote myself:

And you know that... how?

3. - All the public records available indicate that early in the investigation there was NOT probable cause against the R's.

You forgot to add "IMO", because that is YOUR opinion. Not mine.

4. - I been a "BORG" for almost 10 years now.

That's fine. I've been a "fence-sitter." What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

5. - The R's cooperated, everything they did without a court order is cooperation and more than they had to do.

Which is exactly my point. They want to make a big fat hairy deal about how they've co-operated. The IDI's and RST wants to yell it from the mountaintops. So why don't they hand over the phone records if they are so co-operative?

6. - Depriving people of their civil rights or finding them guilty because they exercise those civil rights is unacceptable.

I wasn't aware that they were found guilty. I'll let Tricia know so that she can close the forum.

 

[Pedro]

10 years, well, just shy of, if you want to get fussy. Why do you ask?

For the same reason you did, I use the same name, yours is new, thus didn't knew who you were.

You forgot to add "IMO", because that is YOUR opinion. Not mine.

I did not, it is an unnecessary redundancy adding "IMO" because this is an opinion forum and what I post is my opinion.

That's fine. I've been a "fence-sitter." What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I know, she's fine, thank you.

Which is exactly my point. They want to make a big fat hairy deal about how they've co-operated. The IDI's and RST wants to yell it from the mountaintops. So why don't they hand over the phone records if they are so co-operative?

Because their lawyer advised them to the contrary?

I wasn't aware that they were found guilty. I'll let Tricia know so that she can close the forum.

First these forums are barely related to JBR anymore, there are many other cases. Second the people who post here does it for many reasons not directly related to their interest on this case, a very important experiment on human relations is what all this is.

Second: I know people who find the R's guilty mostly because the R's exercise their constitutional rights.

P.-

 

[Toltec]

Let's get the facts straight. The Ramsey phone records were confiscated by the police but they were not allowed to go through them. Steve Thomas talks about the missing December calls so he did have a chance to glance over them.

As I recall the story was that some shady character requested the Ramsey phone records and LE got wind of it. So LE went to the phone company and retrieved the records. According to Steve, the DA's office would not let LE peruse the phone records because they were obtained only because someone else had tried to obtain them illegally. This phone debacle was being investigated separately from the Ramsey case.

LE has a right to the phone records because it is part of the crime...reason being this: What if the intruder used the phone while in the Ramsey home? That is the best probable cause there is.

 

[Eagle1]

Let's get the facts straight. The Ramsey phone records were confiscated by the police but they were not allowed to go through them. Steve Thomas talks about the missing December calls so he did have a chance to glance over them.

As I recall the story was that some shady character requested the Ramsey phone records and LE got wind of it. So LE went to the phone company and retrieved the records. According to Steve, the DA's office would not let LE peruse the phone records because they were obtained only because someone else had tried to obtain them illegally. This phone debacle was being investigated separately from the Ramsey case.

LE has a right to the phone records because it is part of the crime...reason being this: What if the intruder used the phone while in the Ramsey home? That is the best probable cause there is.

This is the first I've heard of this, Toltec. Very interesting!

Can anyone tell us any more about that? Did they investigate the shady character?

 

[Pedro]

LE has a right to the phone records because it is part of the crime...reason being this: What if the intruder used the phone while in the Ramsey home? That is the best probable cause there is.

The DA has the right to subpoena phone records, a court has the power to grant that request if the subpoena is opposed, the police has no said on this all.

I don't understand the probable cause as you do, I don't see it.