Questions you'd like answers to...

[Ambitioned]

Oh I agree definitely. The way she keeps using Twitter to hawk her book gives me the willies. You don't see Kolar behaving in such a fashion.

I would rather flip burgers than profit off JB's death using misleading images such as BR and JB together in an Easter basket all smiles.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Oh I agree definitely. The way she keeps using Twitter to hawk her book gives me the willies. You don't see Kolar behaving in such a fashion.

I would rather flip burgers than profit off JB's death using misleading images such as BR and JB together in an Easter basket all smiles.

I agree. I think PW believes she's "proving" the Rs weren't capable of this since the pictures show a nice, happy family. I mean, there are plenty of pictures of O.J. and Nicole, Casey and Caylee Anthony, Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander, etc. in pictures together looking as if they're having the time of their lives! Happy photos don't prove much, IMO.

 

[Miz Adventure]

If you were involved in a murder it would be wonderful to be rich enough to pay top lawyers and buy people off - and have lots of friends in high places.

And then there are the peripherals - the second rate authors and bungling police officers who no longer have jobs, adding to your bank balance by jumping on the money wagon by writing biased, grovellingly sucky books about your innocence and telling the world what a wonderful person you are..

It's just as well that Ted Bundy wasn't rich with powerful friends.

 

[kanzz]

Which officer is she referring to? I haven't read the book. I figured Thomas or Wickman?

Also I thought it was interesting. "I'll never tell John....." This family sure kept a lot of secrets.

My first guess was ST. But when I googled the quote, the only result was for Woodward. So, imo, it's irresponsible for her to use that quote. And this is very peculiar - "Former Police Office Order" - (the word "order").

 

[Miz Adventure]

PW was in the pocket of JR - a personal friend.

I would imagine that when she was writing her book she was sending JR chapters for his approval.


I can imagine the phone conversation between them..

PW: "Hi John, I'm putting in my book that Patsy said.......blah blah" - What do you think?"

JR - "Yeah, sounds good. Ham it up a little. maybe you could add something...."wait, I've just had an idea......say that, in her dying breath, Patsy begged me "Please John.....find the killer of our daughter"

 

[AB1]

Enjoying today's posts! (if enjoy is the right word).

Some of the questions I still have rattling around my head are:

1) JBR's coat in car and the failure to drop off the last gift.
PR (methinks) said JR removed the coat and boots then she changed JBR into longjohns. Yet photos show the coat in a car. PR is also vague about the car used that night. (Nobel nomination to whoever came up with "Ramnesiac/Ramnesia".)
The Rs played the role of Lord and Lady Boulder and invested a lot of time and money in acquiring status. To not drop off the present when they were going to be away so long doesn't sit right with PR's southern belle self-fantasy.
Did trouble start brewing in the car that night? Was the car forensically examined?

2)What evidence makes Kolar believe the first "assault" happened in the kitchen?
Apart from the wiped-clean torch on the counter.

3) The red turtleneck
PR doesn't cry when told evidence suggests JBR suffered previous sexual abuse, yet she cries for the only time in police interviews when shown a photo of the red turtleneck. Being (reluctantly) generous, it could be suggested PR is upset that they argued about wearing it, but that was much earlier in the day so they had time to make up and have a lovely evening. Perhaps I am also becoming obsessed with clothing, but the red turtleneck does appear to have significance for PR.

4) Why are JBR's arms outstretched?
Apart from staging...

5) Mark on wine cellar floor
Photos appear to show a square mark (not the safe) on the wine cellar floor as if something stood in that place for a long time, and I can make out what appears to be a freezer in the background. There is reference to a freezer being cleaned up when the safe was discovered. When/was this freezer moved. (Neighbour heard metallic sounds on the night of the murder.)

6) Birefringent material
There are references to a "splinter" and "cellulose" (both ST?) but are we SURE this refers to the paintbrush/coating?
Could it be a cigar? They are often wrapped in cellophane (which is birefringent) as it allows cigars to breathe. In addition to the cigar boxes, was a cigar found near the body? (Thinking of the screenshot someone posted from CBS.)

7) Fingerprint taken during autopsy
If JBR's lower body was cleaned up, then a fingerprint on her thigh is very important evidence. Is there any other mention of this fingerprint?

8) Do any of you believe that something has been made public/emerged which could be one of the original items of redacted evidence? If so, which item/s?

Apologies for listing so many questions at once - I'm playing catch up and I'll try and find the relevant thread for each question. Meantime, I'm sure you supersleuths can come up with the answers!

 

[Ambitioned]

5) Mark on wine cellar floor
Photos appear to show a square mark (not the safe) on the wine cellar floor as if something stood in that place for a long time, and I can make out what appears to be a freezer in the background. There is reference to a freezer being cleaned up when the safe was discovered. When/was this freezer moved. (Neighbour heard metallic sounds on the night of the murder.)

Oh good grief! Now I'm wondering if they were going to put her body in the freezer like Miranda Gaddis. How horrible.

Excellent questions, especially the birefringent material!

As for the car, I don't know. You can bet Kenda would have examined it though. Nothing adds up about that last visit between Stine saying they were all happy and John saying JB was asleep. Stine says her husband waved goodbye with her. Where was DS? Argh!

 

[AB1]

Oh good grief! Now I'm wondering if they were going to put her body in the freezer like Miranda Gaddis. How horrible.

Excellent questions, especially the birefringent material!

As for the car, I don't know. You can bet Kenda would have examined it though. Nothing adds up about that last visit between Stine saying they were all happy and John saying JB was asleep. Stine says her husband waved goodbye with her. Where was DS? Argh!

Argh it is!
All of the questions, holes, confusion... all seem to come back to one central point - the Ramseys' failure to engage with the police.
Lawyering up and silence equals a no comment interview.
Parents who have "no comment" to make to police about the murder of their child must be considered as suspects before, during or after the fact.
If there was enough for a Grand Jury there was enough for a trial jury.
Better to try and fail than never try.

But DAs have come and gone - all these ambitious people wanting to make their mark - and no-one has. Not one.
Which makes me conclude that a deal must have been done and I can see only one logical reason for that - the "main" perpetrator was a minor and trying others for accessory would make that obvious.

 

[Tortoise]

Argh it is!
All of the questions, holes, confusion... all seem to come back to one central point - the Ramseys' failure to engage with the police.
Lawyering up and silence equals a no comment interview.
Parents who have "no comment" to make to police about the murder of their child must be considered as suspects before, during or after the fact.
If there was enough for a Grand Jury there was enough for a trial jury.
Better to try and fail than never try.

But DAs have come and gone - all these ambitious people wanting to make their mark - and no-one has. Not one.
Which makes me conclude that a deal must have been done and I can see only one logical reason for that - the "main" perpetrator was a minor and trying others for accessory would make that obvious.

BIB Not strictly true. A grand jury only needs to find probable cause, not cause beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Miz Adventure]

ABI - you've made some excellent points and given me a few things to consider.


There is something that I've been wondering about - the timeline.

The R's arrived home around 10pm. It seems to be commonly felt that JBR died at around midnight or just thereafter. That would be from the strangulation.

The strangulation happened approximately an hour after the head trauma, which must have happened at around 11.00pm-11.30pm

When Patsy and John found JBR's body it must have been so obvious that she was completely dead and beyond resusitation, (because I like to think that if there had been any sign of life I suspect they WOULD have called for help, and borne the consequences). How long would that have taken after she was strangled?

I know that in suicide cases in the UK, paramedics - by law - have to work on the body for at least half an hour (even though the person looks completely dead) just to ensure they cannot be revived.

So assuming JBR had been dead for an hour by the time the parents found her that would take us up to around 1.30am. Patsy made that 911 call at around 5.20am (can't quite remember off-hand the exact time). So that would have given the couple around 4 hours to plan what they should do and stage the crime to look as though their daughter had been kidnapped.

There must have been total panic going on - no wonder they made blunders. Those few hours must have flown by.


Typing this post has reminded me of something else - on JBR's headstone it states she died December 25th, not on the 26th as is commonly believed.

I guess the parents knew better than anyone what time she died.

 

[observation]

BIB Not strictly true. A grand jury only needs to find probable cause, not cause beyond reasonable doubt.

Yeah but the 12 jury members listened through 13-18 months of interviews and evidence and handed down the 2 true bills. If AH did the right thing he would have arrested them and had the trial. Reasonable doubt should not have been decided by AH. I see where JR picked up JBR's lifeless body placed in the threshold of a door (contamination) and then it was moved a second time to in front of the Christmas tree. The defense can argue contaminated evidence but I do believe over the years- the state had a very good case but AH blew it. This is why after 20 years we are all still here. The wrong decisions were made and more importantly, for the wrong reasons. JMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AB1]

BIB Not strictly true. A grand jury only needs to find probable cause, not cause beyond reasonable doubt.

I agree with Observation
"Reasonable doubt should not have been decided by AH."
and Tortoise - it is for a JURY to decide beyond reasonable doubt.
The Ramseys' peers have never been given the opportunity.

I believe that's because the Rs have never been properly questioned about the events of that night. For me, that's the biggest ??? of the whole case.
No amount of media interviews or TV reconstructions can replace law enforcement asking the questions and following through on the subjects' responses.
I am cynical about the relationship between money and justice. Nevertheless, wealthy important people with clever lawyers do get questioned all the time, including serving presidents, prime ministers and presidential candidates! Not just asked to comment, but questioned, and inconsistencies in their answers are examined and further questioned.
Some get tried, some even go to prison. We all know some of cases. Some times it takes a while.

This was the murder of a child. Twenty years ago. Yet everyone either backed off or was forced to do so. Most stayed there. Why?

 

[Tortoise]

Yeah but the 12 jury members listened through 13-18 months of interviews and evidence and handed down the 2 true bills. If AH did the right thing he would have arrested them and had the trial. Reasonable doubt should not have been decided by AH. I see where JR picked up JBR's lifeless body placed in the threshold of a door (contamination) and then it was moved a second time to in front of the Christmas tree. The defense can argue contaminated evidence but I do believe over the years- the state had a very good case but AH blew it. This is why after 20 years we are all still here. The wrong decisions were made and more importantly, for the wrong reasons. JMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's say, just for arguments sake, I'm not expecting you to agree, but say evidence came to light now, 20 years down the line, that shows JDI or PDI or J&PDI. And Burke was not involved.

Would you still think Alex Hunter made the wrong decision?

 

[Tortoise]

I agree with Observation
"Reasonable doubt should not have been decided by AH."
and Tortoise - it is for a JURY to decide beyond reasonable doubt.
The Ramseys' peers have never been given the opportunity.

I believe that's because the Rs have never been properly questioned about the events of that night. For me, that's the biggest ??? of the whole case.
No amount of media interviews or TV reconstructions can replace law enforcement asking the questions and following through on the subjects' responses.
I am cynical about the relationship between money and justice. Nevertheless, wealthy important people with clever lawyers do get questioned all the time, including serving presidents, prime ministers and presidential candidates! Not just asked to comment, but questioned, and inconsistencies in their answers are examined and further questioned.
Some get tried, some even go to prison. We all know some of cases. Some times it takes a while.

This was the murder of a child. Twenty years ago. Yet everyone either backed off or was forced to do so. Most stayed there. Why?

Of course, and it is for the DA to decide if the prospects of a jury coming to that conclusion are reasonable, based on the evidence available, of which he is fully aware at that time.

 

[AB1]

Of course, and it is for the DA to decide if the prospects of a jury coming to that conclusion are reasonable, based on the evidence available, of which he is fully aware at that time.

As you will know, in the UK the Crown Prosecution Service decide if the evidential threshold has been reached - the points to prove for an offence - and make a charging decision.
The CPS are also tasked to consider if pursuing a case is in the public interest.

Is "public interest" also a factor for DAs?

 

[Tortoise]

As you will know, in the UK the Crown Prosecution Service decide if the evidential threshold has been reached - the points to prove for an offence - and make a charging decision.
The CPS are also tasked to consider if pursuing a case is in the public interest.

Is "public interest" also a factor for DAs?

You might find your answer in here, but I have no idea what the date of this document is

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/NDAA NPS 3rd Ed. w Revised Commentary.pdf

 

[AB1]

ABI - you've made some excellent points and given me a few things to consider.


There is something that I've been wondering about - the timeline.

The R's arrived home around 10pm. It seems to be commonly felt that JBR died at around midnight or just thereafter. That would be from the strangulation.

The strangulation happened approximately an hour after the head trauma, which must have happened at around 11.00pm-11.30pm

When Patsy and John found JBR's body it must have been so obvious that she was completely dead and beyond resusitation, (because I like to think that if there had been any sign of life I suspect they WOULD have called for help, and borne the consequences). How long would that have taken after she was strangled?

I know that in suicide cases in the UK, paramedics - by law - have to work on the body for at least half an hour (even though the person looks completely dead) just to ensure they cannot be revived.

So assuming JBR had been dead for an hour by the time the parents found her that would take us up to around 1.30am. Patsy made that 911 call at around 5.20am (can't quite remember off-hand the exact time). So that would have given the couple around 4 hours to plan what they should do and stage the crime to look as though their daughter had been kidnapped.

There must have been total panic going on - no wonder they made blunders. Those few hours must have flown by.


Typing this post has reminded me of something else - on JBR's headstone it states she died December 25th, not on the 26th as is commonly believed.

I guess the parents knew better than anyone what time she died.

BBM

I played around with the idea of the torch being in the car.
Winter's night, snow around, getting in and out of the vehicle to visit friends and drop of gifts - a torch would have been handy.
Tired children arguing on the back seat...

But anything that happened in the car could not have been life threatening otherwise when does JBR consume the pineapple? However, I wonder if snatched pieces of pineapple, as demonstrated in the CBS reconstruction, match the digested quantity found on autopsy?

If they drove straight into the garage then walked into the house, there would be no need for the torch, although someone could have brought it in from the car. And hence (as some say) it could have been lying around, easily available, leading to a spontaneous terrible use.

Yes to the panic. It must have been terrible. It doesn't excuse what followed, and the last 20 years. But it must have been truly horrible.

 

[AB1]

You might find your answer in here, but I have no idea what the date of this document is

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/NDAA NPS 3rd Ed. w Revised Commentary.pdf

Thank you - I'll wade through it! (Though not quite the late night reading I had planned...)

 

[AB1]

Let's say, just for arguments sake, I'm not expecting you to agree, but say evidence came to light now, 20 years down the line, that shows JDI or PDI or J&PDI. And Burke was not involved.

Would you still think Alex Hunter made the wrong decision?

Which decision?
To NOT charge PR and JR for accessory after the fact? Twenty years ago he made the wrong decision.
If he had charged, a jury would have reached the best verdict they could with the evidence presented to them.

If 20 years down the line, evidence came to light that either PR or JR or both had murdered JBR, then I would expect legal arguments as to whether or not they could be tried to for murder, having been tried (and perhaps convicted) as accessories to that murder. And if time had been served, it would count towards any resulting sentence for murder.
And yes, the lawyers would be laughing all the way to the bank.

But if BR was guilty 20 years ago, the law is clear - he could not be charged.
He was a child in a dysfunctional family and he would have needed help not punishment.

If more evidence came to light today that BR was guilty, the legal position remains the same - he cannot be charged.
My view would be the same - he was a child. Help not punishment, especially not for decisions others (adults) made when he was a child.
Put simply, I would have and do "forgive" him.
But I would urge him to stay away from TV studios and litigation. It does him no favours. And all the money in the world will not buy him peace.

 

[AB1]

Goodnight from Sussex England.

I'm off to read Tortoise's link to:
National District Attorneys Association National Prosecution Standards
1> The prosecutor's Responsibilities