Read this and tell me the Ramseys aren't hiding something ...

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
David Dowaliby was convicted in 1990 of the murder of his adopted daughter, 7-year-old Jaclyn Dowaliby, solely on the basis of testimony by a man with a history of mental illness who claimed to have seen someone with a nose structure resembling Dowaliby’s on the night the victim disappeared near where her body was found five days later.

The witness, Everett Mann, who previously had been diagnosed as suffering from a bipolar disorder, made the purported identification from a distance of 75 yards in an unlighted parking lot on a moonless night.

Dowaliby and his wife, Cynthia, biological mother of the victim by a prior marriage, both had been charged with the crime, based not only on Mann’s testimony but also on what proved to be an erroneous assumption about the forensic evidence: Police and prosecutors incorrectly assumed that a window through which the Dowalibys contended an intruder had entered their home in Midlothian, Illinois, to abduct Jaclyn had been broken from the inside. That was not an irrational assumption because there was more glass outside than inside the home, but forensic analysis ultimately established positively that the window had been broken from the outside.

Illinois State Police and the FBI also failed to investigate the principal alternative suspect in the case, a mentally ill relative, who offered a dubious alibi that witnesses who eventually came forward disputed.

At the Dowalibys’ 1990 jury trial, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Neville granted a directed verdict of not guilty in Cynthia Dowaliby’s case because there was no credible evidence against her. Neville allowed her husband’s case to go to the jury, even though the only difference between the evidence against the two was the so-called “nose witness” testimony.

In 1991, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed David Dowaliby’s conviction outright, holding that the evidence against him had been no more probative than that against his wife. The appellate court also held that Assistant State’s Attorneys Patrick O’Brien and George Velcich had committed reversible error during closing argument and that Neville had erred in allowing jurors to see gory crime scene and autopsy photographs.

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office asked the Illinois Supreme Court to review the case, but the high court declined, thus ending the case in 1992.

Return to the Center on Wrongful Convictions Home

Last Modified: January 21, 2003


 
Tipper,
The only thing not mentioned in that story:

1. Dowaliby, like the Ramseys didn't fully cooperate with the police.

2. The relative mentioned in the story, who people want to point the finger at, wouldn't have know the remote location of the parking lot where her body was dumped if his life depended on it. He lived about 50 miles away from the Dowalibys and the parking lot.

3. The case is closed. Just like the O.J. case, the police know they had the right guy. He got away with murder and that's the end of the story.

4. Dowaliby changed his name, moved out of state, and got a nose job. Neither he or his wife have ever pressed any law enforcement agency to keep trying to find "the real killer". They keep their mouths shut, because unlike O.J. they can be arrested and tried again if new evidence is discovered.
 
Toth: Patsy couldn't get to the bathroom without assistance and they wanted her to come down to police headquarters. how foolish is that?


Ned: How foolish is that? How foolish is that? Patsy should have been drug down to the police department the afternoon they found her daughter. She was and still is a MURDER SUSPECT. You say how foolish that is, yet it doesn't appear odd to you that both the Ramsey's gave interviews to CNN 3 days after the murder? Patsy didn't have any problems going to the bathroom then did she Toth?
 
Toth: Perhaps it would be less difficult for you if consider that after reading the first few lines and realizing their import, nothing further of the note was read by Patsy Ramsey until the operator asked who 'does it say who took her' and Patsy read the end of the note "SBTC,,,Victory."

Ned: LOL, right, so do you think John just sat next to Patsy and stared aimlessly out the window wondering where his daughter was? Did common sense elude this man, and are you actually telling me that neither Ramsey read the ransom note in the 6 minutes it took officer French to arrive at the home? Did neither one of them think of calling that 911 operator back to tell her, wait it says here in the note NOT to call police otherwise their daughter would be be-headed?

Officer French describes John Ramsey as calm cool and collected when he arrived.
 
Oh, God. You have your daugther missing, you have a note that will give you information about her whereabouts and fate, your only link with her, now, and you just read the "first lines". That's even weirdest.
 
Perhaps the Ramsey's legal team believed them to be guilty also. Maybe that is the sole purpose of them keeping the family away from the police like they did. Gee, why would anyone not at least give it a passing thought that they MIGHT be guilty? After all, four of them went to bed in their home one night, the next morning there were only three of them alive. Add to that, there wasn't so much as a broken window or any obvious sign of a breakin at the home. I believe that their attorneys were convinced that someone in that home was the culprit, and it was their job to keep them out of jail. No matter what their legal team told them to do, they still could do anything they wanted. I'm sure the lawyers didn't exactly hog-tie them and keep them away.
 
Another big thing that makes me scratch my head and wonder is, why did John hire legal representation for the rest of his family in Georgia right away? After all, they were many many miles away from the scene of the crime, and they were all supposed to have airtight stories to prove they couldn't have committed this murder. I believe that it was on the advice of their own legal team to do this, and again, I believe it was because their own lawyers believed them to be guilty so they didn't want the rest of the family to slip up and say anthing that wasn't flattering about John and Patsy. Notice how Patsy's family never seemed to have legal representation, and they were around all the time.
 
tipper said:
And I would guess the lawyers told her (or perhaps just John) that that sort of compliance in this situation could result in them being railroaded for a crime they didn't commit.

Did you know that because of Innocence Projects around the country a wrongfully convicted person is released from jail every 18 days? And that figure would be higher except the evidence that would free them is discarded or destroyed on a regular basis. How many innocent people have we locked up or killed because of overly enthusiastic police and/or prosecutors or overcommitted and/or incompetent defense attorneys?

You would guess that they put the lawyers in place within hours so that they could fully cooperate with LE to find the killer/s of their daughter in order NOT to be railroaded. See how that works? You get high powered attornies who do not allow railroading. If you're not going to talk to the police, why lawyers at all? So that doesn't fly. They were hiding, plain and simple.

As far as the Innocence Project, I am a huge supporter both emotionally and yes, it is one of my charities. There is nothing worse than an innocent person sent to prison. That has nothing to do with this case. The Ramseys are by law, innocent until proven guilty. They took it upon themselves to try to prove their innocence. Polygraph, TV appearances, interviews, lectures, etc. Nobody made them do this. They CHOSE to try to exonerate themselves and now that it didn't work and most don't believe their lies, they will blame the media and us beer can collectors.

They never own anything they do. They never take responsibility for any of their actions. Them, them, them and them. Meanwhile, there is a little girl rotting in a grave in Atlanta that they chose to put second to themselves.

Why_Nutt,

Excellent points. When things are good for them, they make the sacrifices without complaint. When it's for JBR, things become inconvenient.
 
Imon128 said:
Good point, cookie, I think the Atlanta lawyering up was to protect John Andrew.
His interests need protecting. Consider how he was still under that darn umbrella according to the BPD even though they admitted he was over 1,500 miles away at the time the crime was committed. When a reporter asked about this, the grinning Boulder PR guy ignored the question.

Note: The criminal lawyers were trying to keep their clients from being railroaded, they were not interested in the public relations aspects of the case. A publicly tarnished client can deal with the public relations aspects later, but if the criminal lawyers pay attention to public relations then the client will be likely to suffer.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with seeing that the family members who were about to have authorities and media personnel descend on them in droves being represented by counsel.
 
Cherokee said:
Name ONE innocent parent of a missing or murdered child WHO SET CONDITIONS ON THEIR COOPERATION WITH POLICE. Just one. Did Marc Klass? John Walsh? Samantha Runnion's parents? (If you remember, her biological father was a suspect until he cooperated and was cleared by police.)

Name ONE innocent parent of a murdered child who tried to leave the state LESS THAN ONE HOUR after their child's body was found.

Name ONE innocent parent who could not be bothered to answer police questions but could go on CNN less than a week later, and say THEY WEREN'T ANGRY AT WHOMEVER KILLED THEIR CHILD, and they just wanted to get on with their lives.

I'm still waiting ... name ONE innocent parent. Heck, I'll even take a GUILTY parent. I'll take ANY parent who would act this way after their child was allegedly killed by an murderous intruder.

The Ramseys lied and evaded LE, and they're STILL lying and evading seven years later.



IMO
 
Nehemiah said:
In a more comfortable atmosphere? It was an investigation into a brutal murder, not a beauty salon appointment.

That doesn't fly, Toth. You know that is not how things are done in an investigation. Bottom line is that the BPD was attempting to investigate that child's murder. The parents of that child were not doing all they could to assist in that investigation.

I think you just like to play devil's advocate, Toth. I know that you can see this side of this situation, even though you are a staunch R defender.

I totally agree :woohoo:
 
I really do not think that I am a "Ramsey Defender".
I merely support truth and reason and common-sense and I oppose the lynch-mob. I've never met the Ramseys and have no particular reason to defend them. I acknowledge that they have their faults and have probably displayed those faults from time to time in their dealings with the obsessed and stubborn BPD.
 
Cherokee said:
I'm still waiting ... name ONE innocent parent. Heck, I'll even take a GUILTY parent. I'll take ANY parent who would acted this way after their child was allegedly killed by an murderous intruder.

IMO
If you can't find ANY parent, guilty or innocent who behaved this way then you can't draw any conclusions about how the behavior relates to guilt or innocence.
 
Toth said:
I really do not think that I am a "Ramsey Defender".
I merely support truth and reason and common-sense and I oppose the lynch-mob. I've never met the Ramseys and have no particular reason to defend them. I acknowledge that they have their faults and have probably displayed those faults from time to time in their dealings with the obsessed and stubborn BPD.

I've never read where you have acknowledged any of their faults. Of course, I've only been here since January 2000, so perhaps you did it before then, or are doing it now?

I don't necessarily think the Rs are completley innocent, but I don't consider myself a lyncher. Many others who staunchly believe in their guilt are not of a lynch mob mentality. They just fully believe that is where the evidence takes its course. The lynch mob mentality is given credence by your friend, MissInformation, who likes to lump anyone and everyone who dares question the Rs, as being such. Create a diversion. I've had lots of experience with people who create diversions.

I respectfully disagree that you are a Ramsey Defender, but that is okay that you are; we can agree to disagree. And we can be friends even if we never shared recipes, saw one another, or know one another's hobbies. :croc:
 
Nehemiah said:
I've never read where you have acknowledged any of their faults. Of course, I've only been here since January 2000, so perhaps you did it before then, or are doing it now?

Here is how easy it is to be psychic. I predict Toth will respond with "Of course the Ramseys have faults. Every juror in the country would convict them of sleeping through the night in the first degree."
 
The advice given to them by their lawyer,may have put them in a worse light than if they had no one to represent them,but could it be that he,given the footprint crap,etal,wasn't too certain his clients were innocent?
Could this be why their actions seemed to indicate guilt,because they were presumed to be so ,even by their own attorney,and he handled them as such.
JMO
 
The infamous CNN interview in which Patsy mentions Susan Smith and OJ...tee hee!

There is no doubt in my mind that the Ramseys are guilty. Patsy wrote the note...Patsy covered up out of a need of self-preservation.

Patsy killed JonBenet to protect her...or to protect herself.

This is my opinion and cannot be quoted or moved to another forum.
 
sissi said:
The advice given to them by their lawyer,may have put them in a worse light
Light? If you can turn off the light whenever you want to, its good. If the guards are the ones who control the lights, its bad.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
2,333
Total visitors
2,493

Forum statistics

Threads
601,946
Messages
18,132,360
Members
231,191
Latest member
TCSouthtrust
Back
Top