RIP Common Sense

[indicat]

Polly's abduction was witnessed by her two friends, so it was obvious from the beginning that Marc wasn't the one who had kidnapped her. So when he says, "I never thought about hiring a lawyer" all I can think is: Other people don't have the benefit of an eyewitness account to a crime, who can say that you weren't involved. I definitely think that Marc was in a different position with LE, from the start, compared to someone like Kevin Fox, whose daughter was kidnapped from his home in the night, and found murdered.

I do agree with him that parents of missing and murdered children should cooperate with LE from the start, so LE can clear them and start looking at other suspects.

No matter the difference's in the case, simply stating hiring and obtaining a lawyer at the outset of the case does not mean the Ramsey's are guilty, IMO, dicards all their actions along with hiring a lawyer. Everytime I hear how they cooperated fully with LE I want to pull my hair out, I guess full cooperation is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Roy23]

Polly's abduction was witnessed by her two friends, so it was obvious from the beginning that Marc wasn't the one who had kidnapped her. So when he says, "I never thought about hiring a lawyer" all I can think is: Other people don't have the benefit of an eyewitness account to a crime, who can say that you weren't involved. I definitely think that Marc was in a different position with LE, from the start, compared to someone like Kevin Fox, whose daughter was kidnapped from his home in the night, and found murdered.

I do agree with him that parents of missing and murdered children should cooperate with LE from the start, so LE can clear them and start looking at other suspects.

I think that is the ideal scenario as well. This case is just hard to compare to some others because LE messed up so bad. I can imagine how much the Ramsey's were pissed because they never found the body. And from there it just spiraled out of control. I wish the Ramsey lawyers would have encouraged more cooperation. It had to be hard with the media blitz going on. And whose fault was that.

Anyhow, I imagine all the parties involved won't think things were handled perfectly.

 

[BBB167893]

Excuse me? Lou "Swear to God you didn't do it" Smit? "Blue arc of electricity" Smit? "Packing Peanut" Lou? "Oops, the paper bags belonged to LE" Lou?

Are you kidding me?

Yeah, you're pulling my leg now. Ha ha! Good one. :floorlaugh:

Yeah, I was gonna say! That matchup in court WOULD be a crusher, all right, but not the way HE thinks! I can see it now: Young, handsome, dedicated hero cop vs... everything you just mentioned!

 

[BBB167893]

In your same breath you criticize the Ramsey's for getting attorneys. But LE already had desecrated the crime scene. They had to be idiots for not listenening to their attorney's. The witch hunt was on.

"Witch hunt" my Irish patoot, boyo. I'm amazed anyone can claim that with a straight face. If this had been a working-class family, the outcome would have been much different.

And for the record, the problem is not that they go lawyers. The PROBLEM is how they and their lawyers GAMED the system.

I may not be a legal expert, but I am a thinker. And I have a little advice myself:

Guilty or innocent, DO get a lawyer.

DON'T refuse to cooperate and say you did;

DON'T refuse a lie detector test then pay for some hack to give you one that you can wave around as if it meant something;

DON'T try to move out of the state;

DON'T let your lawyers pull myriad dirty tricks against potential witnesses;

and DON'T go on TV instead of to the cops.

Bottom line: the Constitution allows the right to a lawyer and to keep silent. It does NOT allow the right to LIE. If you refuse to talk to police, you shouldn't be judged. If you try to "game" the system, you SHOULD be judged.

 

[BBB167893]

"JonBenet's parents could have stopped ALL of this by simply going to the BPD and cooperating FROM DAY ONE.

And why wouldn't they?"

Yeah, that would be MY question, too. For the same reason. And I fear we all know the answer.

Cooperating with Authorities running to the media, making book deals, and threatening them because they and they only had egg on their face.

I figured by now you'd know better than to try and rewrite history so blatantly around here, pilgrim. You know DAMN well that's not how it went. The Ramseys went to the media FIRST, rather than cooperating when they could have. All those other things you CLAIM happened (and some of them are true) happened a LONG time afterward.

It's funny you mention eggs, because in this instance, it's pretty easy to figure out if the egg or the chicken came first.

The Ramsey's are victims

"Victims!" The idea of comparing the Ramseys to REAL victims (like JonBenet, for instance--remember her??) turns my stomach.

and RDI's like most of you are now part of the lynch mob.

Listening to that "lynch mob" garbage is apt to make a killer out of ME!

I expected so much better.

 

[BBB167893]

I can admit that you are making somewhat of a point here.

Glad to hear it.

But i am telling you i know the DNA blows anything you got out of the water.

Sorry, but I've learned that when an IDI tells me something, I should be wary. Fool me once, and all that, you know.

But for a moment, let's say that you're right. Even if I were to admit that (and I'm not, mind you), whether it SHOULD do so is a different matter all together. And that's the point I've been trying to make here with these threads about the death of common sense, roosting chickens and the "CSI effect:" that people are too blinded by technological wizardry that doesn't deliver in real life the way it does on TV.

i actually try and listen to SOME RDI arguments based on inconsistant issues based on the Ramseys.

You could have fooled me, buster!

It seems some RDI's want some discussion around here. You guys ask me to bring it.

To bring your A-game. And you usually do. Which is why I'm sad at the way it's going now. Ever since you fell in with the Wrecking Crew, it seems that you've taken more to parroting Ramsey propaganda.

Either way I know you are gonna be humbled.

If you say so.

If you are game, consider what it is gonna be like if RDI were right and you can't rub some noses because the forum has banned the enemy.

A few things. Number one, I expect better than the usual IDI "poor us" routine, how you're all oppressed by the big bad RDI forum bosses. I confess it amuses me to hear that, because it's a fundamentally flawed argument. If we really WERE out to "ban the enemy," you'd have been gone a LONG time ago, with the rest of them. I was conflicted about them being booted, but I'm over it. Good riddance, I say!

Number two, just what is it that makes you think I WANT to rub anyone's nose in it? What makes you think I WANT to be RIGHT?

I am all in and I am right.

I appreciate confidence, pilgrim. Don't confuse it with hubris.

And on judgement day I will probably be banned for being right and I won't be able to enjoy that you wasted a good part of your life listening to turds such as Spitz, Wecht, and whomever else.

Knowing you, pilgrim, you might not have to wait that long. :grin:

 

[BBB167893]

I can't speak for KK, but I can speak for myself - I have also been either researching or following this case since the news broke in 1996. When my phone rang and my mother (who believes and IDI), says, "I told you so - have you seen the news? They arrested JonBenet Ramsey's killer!". I quickly replied, "omg, they've arrested Patsy??"...."No", she said, smugly, "they arrested a pedophile who ADMITTED he did it!".

vlpate, that story cracked me up! Priceless!

Even in that moment, I knew there was something wrong, because I knew no one outside of the Ramsey family would ever be found guilty in the death of JBR. I knew it then and I know it now.

I hung up the phone and turned on the news to watch the fiasco. Not for a moment, not even a tiny baby second, did I EVER think this news could hold water. Never. I simply waited for the other shoe to fall for the DA in Boulder. The rest is history.

There's no crow anywhere near me, so I think I'll go ahead and eat my steak

Well, I'm glad that YOU were so confident, vlpate. My first thought was that they were gonna hang this guy whether he did it or not. He was like manna from heaven for them. But it turns out I need not have worried. ML was too stupid to FRAME the guy who said he did it!

 

[Roy23]

vlpate, that story cracked me up! Priceless!



Well, I'm glad that YOU were so confident, vlpate. My first thought was that they were gonna hang this guy whether he did it or not. He was like manna from heaven for them. But it turns out I need not have worried. ML was too stupid to FRAME the guy who said he did it!

FWIW, I knew the guy was most likely innocent too. He came off as a nutcase right off. And when I knew who tipped off the DA, that cemented it.

 

[BBB167893]

And usually if you can understand why Ramsey's lawyered up it IDI becomes simple. If not, RDI becomes simple.

You've got that just the other way around, cowboy! And I ought to know!

 

[BBB167893]

I think that is the ideal scenario as well. This case is just hard to compare to some others because LE messed up so bad. I can imagine how much the Ramsey's were pissed because they never found the body. And from there it just spiraled out of control. I wish the Ramsey lawyers would have encouraged more cooperation. It had to be hard with the media blitz going on. And whose fault was that.

That's just it, pilgrim: we KNOW whose fault it was! The Ramseys went on TV first THEY made it a big media deal. As ST put it, "they can't talk to us, but they can go on CNN?"

 

[BBB167893]

FWIW, I knew the guy was most likely innocent too. He came off as a nutcase right off. And when I knew who tipped off the DA, that cemented it.

Well, I'll be damned! I thought you IDIs trusted Bucky.

 

[vlpate]

Polly's abduction was witnessed by her two friends, so it was obvious from the beginning that Marc wasn't the one who had kidnapped her. So when he says, "I never thought about hiring a lawyer" all I can think is: Other people don't have the benefit of an eyewitness account to a crime, who can say that you weren't involved. I definitely think that Marc was in a different position with LE, from the start, compared to someone like Kevin Fox, whose daughter was kidnapped from his home in the night, and found murdered.

I do agree with him that parents of missing and murdered children should cooperate with LE from the start, so LE can clear them and start looking at other suspects.

$100 bucks will get a kid out of a house by a criminal. Hand the kid over to the dad and the "eyewitness" testimony is out the window. In fact, eyewitness testimony is unreliable and definitely not the best case scenario in any case.

 

[Roy23]

Well, I'll be damned! I thought you IDIs trusted Bucky.

Shhhhhiiiii Not me bro.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

$100 bucks will get a kid out of a house by a criminal. Hand the kid over to the dad and the "eyewitness" testimony is out the window. In fact, eyewitness testimony is unreliable and definitely not the best case scenario in any case.

How many cases are there where a parent pays a criminal $100 to kidnap their own child for them? Very few, if any. If Marc had been home when Polly was taken, and her friends didn't witness anything, it may have been a much different situation with him and LE.

 

[vlpate]

How many cases are there where a parent pays a criminal $100 to kidnap their own child for them? Very few, if any. If Marc had been home when Polly was taken, and her friends didn't witness anything, it may have been a much different situation with him and LE.

There are cases, on the Internet (if that is your primary source of information), and off, books and articles.

Regardless, police don't rule out a scenario because it is rare. If that were the case, we wouldn't still be talking about the Ramsey's, whose case was unprecedented in 1996. Had Marc lawyered up and refused to be interviewed for four months, he'd have looked mighty suspicious.

 

[cynic]

I will get to Beckner in a minute but all you RDI's keep in mind that he was apart of this whole process.

Define “part of this whole process.” Are you saying that Lacy and Beckner were working closely together throughout the time that Lacy was in office as DA?

 

[cynic]

From Mark Beckner's lips.

"The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The Boulder Police Department concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet. We remain committed to bringing JonBenet's killer to justice. That is, and always will be, our goal.

"New Task Force
On Feb. 2, Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner held a press conference to announce the formation of a cold case task force made up of veteran law enforcement members from a variety of agencies including the FBI to review evidence and explore theories. Beckner said at the time that he believed the murder could be solved because of the advances in both DNA and linguistics technology.

You are placing two statements in sequence that deserve context in order to be understood correctly.
BTW, only one is an actual verbatim statement from Mark Beckner, the other is sourced to People.com and a print journalist’s (Vickie Bane) paraphrasing of what Beckner said at his joint press conference with Stan Garnett.
Other sources paraphrase what he said differently, for example:
He (Beckner) said since JonBenet's murder there had been significant advances in DNA and linguistics technology that would greatly aid his department.
"We always have hope that cases can be solved, and I think there are examples out there all the time."
Howard Pankratz, February 4, 2009
The Denver Post

The first statement came at a time when Beckner and the BPD were not actively involved with the case, but rather when Lacy was in charge.
This means that his statement may have come as result of receiving Lacy’s conclusions regarding the significance of the TDNA findings, rather than reviewing the actual lab reports and drawing a conclusion from those. As I’ve said, people have played fast and loose with DNA results in the Ramsey case in the past, (most notably with fingernail samples,) referring to a match when that claim was proven to be ridiculous.
Given Lacy’s open bias, and desperation to clear the Ramseys before leaving office, a presidential pardon if you will, it would not surprise me if she took “liberties” with the results. Let’s see the lab reports, how many markers are actually “matching?”
It’s very telling, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not, that Beckner did not make any reference to those TDNA findings after the case was returned to their jurisdiction, and of course, no rubber stamp on the exoneration of the Ramseys.
As I’ve said repeatedly, if the DNA evidence was as solid as Lacy would have us believe, the Ramseys would remain cleared, rather than being un-cleared, it’s as simple as that.

 

[cynic]

I don't know anything about Marc Klaas or his daughter , the first I heard of him was when I read Cynic's post. I was just pointing out that he consulted a friend of his who was an attorney. I think it's a dangerous and unfair assumption to make that just because someone retains a lawyer they must have something to hide!

As you can see in the preface to my post, I presented Klaas by way of giving an alternative viewpoint to the “get all the lawyers you can afford” situation that we saw in the Ramsey case.
It is a fact that many people have sat down with police and agreed to be interviewed without an attorney present and I acknowledge that, while there is an element of risk in doing so, it unquestionably at least gives the appearance that they have nothing to hide.
I will admit that I have enormous respect for Marc Klaas and his work.
While he consulted an attorney, he did not hire one, nor did he use a lawyer, a public relations consultant or a spokesperson to hide behind as the Ramseys did with respect to their dealings with the police.
Klaas, in numerous appearances and interviews over the years, has also repeatedly underscored the need to cooperate quickly and fully with police.
Once again, the mind boggling and unprecedented action of stalling police for 4 months stands in stark contrast to not only the advice of Marc Klaas, but what would be the normal behavior of any parent interested in aiding in an investigation, (with the exception of Casey Anthony and the Ramseys.)

While there are considerable differences between the disappearance of Polly Klaas and the death of JonBenet, it is still a fact that as a parent Klaas could have been involved.

ERNIE ALLEN, PRES., NATIONAL CTR FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN: It is surprising. And certainly, in this country, one of the first things that law enforcement would do is question the parents, question those who are around the children.
SNOW: Take the case of Polly Klaas, who was abducted from her home in 1993 and was found dead months later. Her father, Marc, says he and other family members were questioned by police and cleared within a week of Polly`s disappearance.
MARC KLAAS, KLAAS KIDS FOUNDATION: We took polygraph exams, we answered all their questions until they were satisfied that we had nothing to do with it, and then they moved on.
http://truthofthelie.com/2007/10/mystery-of-madeleine-mccann-disappearance-still-unsolved/

Pat Brown: One of the things, I think Marc Klaas says it all of the time on Nancy Grace when he’s on there. He says, a parent, and he should know because he was a suspect right up front with his missing daughter, Polly, He says you do everything you can to get the focus off of you to clear your name so they can go look for the person because the family is always looked at first because we all know that that’s most likely the people that do in their children and have the proximity to them. So you want to make sure you clear yourself in every way possible so the police go okay it’s definitely nothing to do with you. You’re showing no signs of trying to obstruct the investigation, you’re showing no signs of defense initiatives, showing no signs that you’re not telling the truth. So, you know, we, we’re comfortable with you.
http://regretsandramblings.com/2011/08/04/pat-brown-on-websleuths-radio-transcript/

With approximately 77 abductions by family members for every kidnapping by a non-family member law enforcement will inevitably follow the statistics and concentrate on the child’s known universe. They will launch parallel investigations with a focus on the family and move outward. Like concentric ripples in a pond, they will look at family, friends and acquaintances, peripheral contacts, sex offenders registered in the community and finally the most frightening and daunting scenario of all: strangers.
As intrusive as it may become and as irrelevant as it may seem, fully cooperate with law enforcement and eliminate yourself as a suspect. They will ask questions that seem irrelevant and may even ask you to take a polygraph examination. It is not fair, but it is necessary. Remember, like you, law enforcement doesn’t know where your child is and the sooner they are able to gather and assimilate information and evidence, the sooner they are going to be able to direct their investigation toward the solution.
http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-mc-lawenforcement.htm

Although the following deals with a general missing child scenario, I thought it was relevant:
To give your child the best chance of being found, you and law enforcement must treat one another as partners. —Don Ryce
Few parents have had experience working with law enforcement agencies. Perhaps you have had contact previously with law enforcement as a result of a traffic ticket or an accident. If so, you probably saw law enforcement as the enforcer of rules that had been broken—not as a lifeline.
But when your child is missing, you and law enforcement become partners pursuing a common goal—finding your lost or abducted child. As partners, you need to establish a relationship that is based on mutual respect, trust, and honesty. As partners, however, you do not have to agree on every detail. This chapter provides insight into the relationship you are entering into with law enforcement—what you can expect from the investigation, what types of questions you are likely to be asked, and what situations you and your family are likely to encounter in the process.

Your Partnership With Law Enforcement
When asked if it bothered me to take a lie detector test, I told the reporter, “They can electrocute me if it will bring my son back.”
—Claudine Ryce

Most people do not believe that they will be victims of crime—or that their children will be victimized. But if a young member of your family becomes a victim, you will likely wonder what law enforcement expects of you and what you can expect of law enforcement. Understanding these expectations will deepen your knowledge of law enforcement’s role, establish a sound basis for your relationship with the agencies and organizations that are there to help, and assist you in handling this all-too-sudden change in circumstances.
Make sure law enforcement understands that your child is in danger and that his or her absence is likely to be involuntary. If your child is 10 years old or younger, it will not be hard to show that your child is in danger. However, if your child is older than 10, it is important to let law enforcement know that your child’s absence is not normal behavior and that you would be surprised if your child had disappeared voluntarily.
...
Be prepared for hard, repetitious questions from investigators. As difficult as it may be, try not to respond in a hostile manner to questions that seem personal or offensive. The fact is that investigators must ask difficult and sensitive questions if they are to do their jobs effectively.
...
Do everything possible to get you and your family removed from the suspect list. As painful as it may be, accept the fact that a large number of children are harmed by members of their own families, and therefore you and your family will be considered suspects until you are cleared. To help law enforcement move on to other suspects, volunteer early to take a polygraph test. Insist that both parents be tested at the same time by different interviewers, or one after another. This will help to deflect media speculation that one of you was involved in the disappearance.
Insist that everyone close to your child be interviewed. Encourage everyone—including family members, friends, neighbors, teachers, and coaches—to cooperate in the investigatory process. Although polygraph testing is voluntary, refusal to take a polygraph can cause law enforcement to spend time trying to eliminate an individual from the suspect list through other means and, as a result, take valuable time away from finding the real suspect.
...
Talk regularly with your primary law enforcement contact.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/204958/ch2.html

Let’s look at how the Ramseys used their resources:

On the night of December 27, the day after the debacle on Fifteenth Street, Detective Arndt and Sergeant Larry Mason arrived at Tin Cup Circle at 9:30 P.M. to schedule the formal interviews. But instead of stepping forward to cooperate, the Ramseys seemed to be fast fading from view.
John Ramsey was there but would not talk to them alone. Also present were his brother, Jeff Ramsey; Dr. Beuf, the pediatrician; Rod Westmoreland, Ramsey’s financial adviser from Atlanta, who introduced himself as an attorney; and the influential local lawyer Mike Bynum, who had once worked in the DA’s office. Bynum made his role official when he said he would be providing John Ramsey with legal advice.
It was the first time police had had a chance to speak with Ramsey since he had left his house the previous afternoon, yet he sat there with two lawyers.
The session lasted only forty minutes, during which time the detectives learned little. Ramsey asked no questions about the murder, the autopsy, or how JonBenét was killed. I later considered this very peculiar behavior. Parents usually want to provide information as soon as possible to help police find who harmed their child before the trail goes cold.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 53

As the second full day of the investigation came to a close, the parents still would not give interviews to police and had hired lawyers and private investigators who were tying down the testimony of witnesses before police got to them.
“Why won’t they help us?” I wondered. “What are they afraid of?”
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 65

Detective Arndt made one final try at persuading the lawyers to grant interviews but was told that the family would be out of state for an unknown time. She responded that she had a single page of questions the police would like to have answered, and the attorney said, “Fax them.”
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 67

Certainly everyone has the right to hire a lawyer and the right to remain silent, and I could not blame someone with a lot of money for hiring an attorney with impeccable credentials. But Ramsey had gone far beyond protecting his interests. What he had done would be unheard of in most big cities, even in the largest police investigations, and he simply overwhelmed a little town like Boulder.
Starting only a few hours after he found the body of his daughter, he retreated into a legal stronghold that could not be cracked. At least, not by us.
Hal Haddon of Denver had been the chief trial deputy in the state public defender’s office before going into partnership with two other attorneys, Bryan Morgan (the friend and occasional breakfast partner of Pete Hofstrom in the DA’s office) and Lee Foreman, in 1976. Eight years later, when Colorado Senator Gary Hart failed spectacularly in his presidential bid, Haddon was his campaign manager. His candidate crashed, but Haddon was left plugged into the Democratic Party political network, particularly in Colorado. In the nineties, as the attorney for Rockwell International, he engineered a plea bargain as a grand jury investigated the company for alleged environmental crimes at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant just outside Boulder. The deal so enraged the grand jurors that they leaked their secret report to the press. Ramsey hired Haddon.
Bryan Morgan of Boulder was no stranger to law enforcement, partially from his representation of a woman named Lee Lindsley in a case several years before. Police responding to her early morning 911 call had found the snow around the house undisturbed and her physician husband shot to death. She was charged with murder, but Morgan successfully argued that two intruders did it, and Lindsley was acquitted. She moved to Atlanta and taught at the elementary school attended by the older children of John Ramsey. The Lindsley and Ramsey cases had a lot of similarities, including a claim of an intruder and the same defense attorney, but Deputy DA Trip DeMuth, in an extraordinary decision, forbade my pursuing that line. “The case is sealed,” he said. We had never intended to razor-blade open the file but thought to interview some of the major participants. “Don’t go near it.” Ramsey hired Morgan.
John Ramsey hired Patrick Burke of Denver to represent Patsy. Burke had once worked with Pat Furman, a professor of law at the University of Colorado, to gain acquittal for a man allegedly involved in the white supremacist slaying of Denver talk-show host Alan Berg. Ramsey hired Furman, too. The police found it particularly interesting that John and Patsy would be represented by separate attorneys, a move that can indicate a possible conflict of interest between the parties.
A lawyer was needed in Atlanta for the family members back there, and someone suggested Jim Jenkins, one of the top lawyers in Georgia. Ramsey hired Jenkins.
The private investigative firm of Ellis Armistead in Denver was brought aboard. Pat Korten, a public relations specialist in Washington, D.C., was hired to deal with the press. Handwriting experts were hired. And John Douglas, a former FBI profiler who had spent a career getting into the minds of killers, was hired.
We referred to the whole pack as Team Ramsey, and although the attorneys resented being called “defense lawyers,” that’s precisely what they were, as one would later openly declare.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, pages 110 - 111

Although still too distraught to meet with us, John and Patsy Ramsey spoke for several hours with their newest trophy hire, John Douglas, formerly with the FBI’s behavioral sciences unit.
John Ramsey’s lawyer Bryan Morgan was at the profiler’s side and permitted no direct questions about the Ramseys during a long interview.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 136

Two months would pass before we finally got to interview Lucinda Ramsey Johnson. In the meantime, we learned that John Ramsey was paying both for his first wife’s lawyer and for the mortgage on her house. There was no doubt about her loyalty.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 150

Fleet told us that Ramsey lawyer Mike Bynum had called them shortly after the body was discovered. Surely he was talking about December 27, the night John Ramsey talked with Bynum at the Fernie house. White found his notes and said, “No, it was the day before, on the afternoon of December 26.” You sure of that date? I asked. White checked his notes again. Yes.
The minds of two detectives went into overdrive. The body of JonBenét was found at 1:05 P.M., and John and Patsy left the house at about 2:30 P.M. NOW White was saying that an attorney was already in play, calling witnesses, only a few hours later. WOW!
Fleet added that he was also interviewed by three people associated with Team Ramsey the following day, December 27, when he didn’t know any better than to speak with them. The private investigators weren’t out canvassing the neighborhood for an intruder but were pinpointing the Ramseys’ best friends while the police were being stalled.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, pages 287 - 288


“Team Ramsey:”

John Ramsey’s lawyers:
Lee Foreman (criminal defense attorney)
Hal Haddon (criminal defense attorney)
Bryan Morgan (criminal defense attorney)

Mike Bynum (civil defense attorney)
William Gray (civil defense attorney)
Lin Wood (civil defense attorney)

Patsy Ramsey’s lawyers:
Patrick Furman
Patrick Burke

Lawyer for Lucinda Johnson, Melinda, John Andrew, and Burke Ramsey:
James Jenkins

Private Investigators:
Ellis Armistead
Jon Foster
David Williams
Ollie Gray
John San Agustin
What were these investigators doing?
Q. Then what was, basically, your association with the private investigation of the potential suspects in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?
A. The investigators were retained by our attorneys, and they stated to me that the principal purpose of those investigators was to prepare a defense in the case that the police might bring a charge against me. I hoped that they would also follow up on leads that came to us, but I was frequently reminded by our attorneys that their principal role was to prepare a defense should that be necessary.
Deposition of John Ramsey, December 12, 2001

Handwriting analysts:
Lloyd Cunningham
Howard C. Rile, Jr.

Other:
Patrick Korten - Media consultant
Charlie Russell – Public relations consultant

Rachelle Zimmer - Spokeswoman for the Ramsey family

John Douglas - Criminal profiler (consultant)

Ed Gelb - Polygrapher

Lou Smit – Friend

Mary Lacy - Friend

 

[vlpate]

As you can see in the preface to my post, I presented Klaas by way of giving an alternative viewpoint to the “get all the lawyers you can afford” situation that we saw in the Ramsey case.
It is a fact that many people have sat down with police and agreed to be interviewed without an attorney present and I acknowledge that, while there is an element of risk in doing so, it unquestionably at least gives the appearance that they have nothing to hide.
I will admit that I have enormous respect for Marc Klaas and his work.
While he consulted an attorney, he did not hire one, nor did he use a lawyer, a public relations consultant or a spokesperson to hide behind as the Ramseys did with respect to their dealings with the police.
Klaas, in numerous appearances and interviews over the years, has also repeatedly underscored the need to cooperate quickly and fully with police.
Once again, the mind boggling and unprecedented action of stalling police for 4 months stands in stark contrast to not only the advice of Marc Klaas, but what would be the normal behavior of any parent interested in aiding in an investigation, (with the exception of Casey Anthony and the Ramseys.)

While there are considerable differences between the disappearance of Polly Klaas and the death of JonBenet, it is still a fact that as a parent Klaas could have been involved.

ERNIE ALLEN, PRES., NATIONAL CTR FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN: It is surprising. And certainly, in this country, one of the first things that law enforcement would do is question the parents, question those who are around the children.
SNOW: Take the case of Polly Klaas, who was abducted from her home in 1993 and was found dead months later. Her father, Marc, says he and other family members were questioned by police and cleared within a week of Polly`s disappearance.
MARC KLAAS, KLAAS KIDS FOUNDATION: We took polygraph exams, we answered all their questions until they were satisfied that we had nothing to do with it, and then they moved on.
http://truthofthelie.com/2007/10/mystery-of-madeleine-mccann-disappearance-still-unsolved/

Pat Brown: One of the things, I think Marc Klaas says it all of the time on Nancy Grace when he’s on there. He says, a parent, and he should know because he was a suspect right up front with his missing daughter, Polly, He says you do everything you can to get the focus off of you to clear your name so they can go look for the person because the family is always looked at first because we all know that that’s most likely the people that do in their children and have the proximity to them. So you want to make sure you clear yourself in every way possible so the police go okay it’s definitely nothing to do with you. You’re showing no signs of trying to obstruct the investigation, you’re showing no signs of defense initiatives, showing no signs that you’re not telling the truth. So, you know, we, we’re comfortable with you.
http://regretsandramblings.com/2011/08/04/pat-brown-on-websleuths-radio-transcript/

With approximately 77 abductions by family members for every kidnapping by a non-family member law enforcement will inevitably follow the statistics and concentrate on the child’s known universe. They will launch parallel investigations with a focus on the family and move outward. Like concentric ripples in a pond, they will look at family, friends and acquaintances, peripheral contacts, sex offenders registered in the community and finally the most frightening and daunting scenario of all: strangers.
As intrusive as it may become and as irrelevant as it may seem, fully cooperate with law enforcement and eliminate yourself as a suspect. They will ask questions that seem irrelevant and may even ask you to take a polygraph examination. It is not fair, but it is necessary. Remember, like you, law enforcement doesn’t know where your child is and the sooner they are able to gather and assimilate information and evidence, the sooner they are going to be able to direct their investigation toward the solution.
http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-mc-lawenforcement.htm

Although the following deals with a general missing child scenario, I thought it was relevant:
To give your child the best chance of being found, you and law enforcement must treat one another as partners. —Don Ryce
Few parents have had experience working with law enforcement agencies. Perhaps you have had contact previously with law enforcement as a result of a traffic ticket or an accident. If so, you probably saw law enforcement as the enforcer of rules that had been broken—not as a lifeline.
But when your child is missing, you and law enforcement become partners pursuing a common goal—finding your lost or abducted child. As partners, you need to establish a relationship that is based on mutual respect, trust, and honesty. As partners, however, you do not have to agree on every detail. This chapter provides insight into the relationship you are entering into with law enforcement—what you can expect from the investigation, what types of questions you are likely to be asked, and what situations you and your family are likely to encounter in the process.

Your Partnership With Law Enforcement
When asked if it bothered me to take a lie detector test, I told the reporter, “They can electrocute me if it will bring my son back.”
—Claudine Ryce

Most people do not believe that they will be victims of crime—or that their children will be victimized. But if a young member of your family becomes a victim, you will likely wonder what law enforcement expects of you and what you can expect of law enforcement. Understanding these expectations will deepen your knowledge of law enforcement’s role, establish a sound basis for your relationship with the agencies and organizations that are there to help, and assist you in handling this all-too-sudden change in circumstances.
Make sure law enforcement understands that your child is in danger and that his or her absence is likely to be involuntary. If your child is 10 years old or younger, it will not be hard to show that your child is in danger. However, if your child is older than 10, it is important to let law enforcement know that your child’s absence is not normal behavior and that you would be surprised if your child had disappeared voluntarily.
...
Be prepared for hard, repetitious questions from investigators. As difficult as it may be, try not to respond in a hostile manner to questions that seem personal or offensive. The fact is that investigators must ask difficult and sensitive questions if they are to do their jobs effectively.
...
Do everything possible to get you and your family removed from the suspect list. As painful as it may be, accept the fact that a large number of children are harmed by members of their own families, and therefore you and your family will be considered suspects until you are cleared. To help law enforcement move on to other suspects, volunteer early to take a polygraph test. Insist that both parents be tested at the same time by different interviewers, or one after another. This will help to deflect media speculation that one of you was involved in the disappearance.
Insist that everyone close to your child be interviewed. Encourage everyone—including family members, friends, neighbors, teachers, and coaches—to cooperate in the investigatory process. Although polygraph testing is voluntary, refusal to take a polygraph can cause law enforcement to spend time trying to eliminate an individual from the suspect list through other means and, as a result, take valuable time away from finding the real suspect.
...
Talk regularly with your primary law enforcement contact.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/204958/ch2.html

Let’s look at how the Ramseys used their resources:

On the night of December 27, the day after the debacle on Fifteenth Street, Detective Arndt and Sergeant Larry Mason arrived at Tin Cup Circle at 9:30 P.M. to schedule the formal interviews. But instead of stepping forward to cooperate, the Ramseys seemed to be fast fading from view.
John Ramsey was there but would not talk to them alone. Also present were his brother, Jeff Ramsey; Dr. Beuf, the pediatrician; Rod Westmoreland, Ramsey’s financial adviser from Atlanta, who introduced himself as an attorney; and the influential local lawyer Mike Bynum, who had once worked in the DA’s office. Bynum made his role official when he said he would be providing John Ramsey with legal advice.
It was the first time police had had a chance to speak with Ramsey since he had left his house the previous afternoon, yet he sat there with two lawyers.
The session lasted only forty minutes, during which time the detectives learned little. Ramsey asked no questions about the murder, the autopsy, or how JonBenét was killed. I later considered this very peculiar behavior. Parents usually want to provide information as soon as possible to help police find who harmed their child before the trail goes cold.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 53

As the second full day of the investigation came to a close, the parents still would not give interviews to police and had hired lawyers and private investigators who were tying down the testimony of witnesses before police got to them.
“Why won’t they help us?” I wondered. “What are they afraid of?”
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 65

Detective Arndt made one final try at persuading the lawyers to grant interviews but was told that the family would be out of state for an unknown time. She responded that she had a single page of questions the police would like to have answered, and the attorney said, “Fax them.”
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 67

Certainly everyone has the right to hire a lawyer and the right to remain silent, and I could not blame someone with a lot of money for hiring an attorney with impeccable credentials. But Ramsey had gone far beyond protecting his interests. What he had done would be unheard of in most big cities, even in the largest police investigations, and he simply overwhelmed a little town like Boulder.
Starting only a few hours after he found the body of his daughter, he retreated into a legal stronghold that could not be cracked. At least, not by us.
Hal Haddon of Denver had been the chief trial deputy in the state public defender’s office before going into partnership with two other attorneys, Bryan Morgan (the friend and occasional breakfast partner of Pete Hofstrom in the DA’s office) and Lee Foreman, in 1976. Eight years later, when Colorado Senator Gary Hart failed spectacularly in his presidential bid, Haddon was his campaign manager. His candidate crashed, but Haddon was left plugged into the Democratic Party political network, particularly in Colorado. In the nineties, as the attorney for Rockwell International, he engineered a plea bargain as a grand jury investigated the company for alleged environmental crimes at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant just outside Boulder. The deal so enraged the grand jurors that they leaked their secret report to the press. Ramsey hired Haddon.
Bryan Morgan of Boulder was no stranger to law enforcement, partially from his representation of a woman named Lee Lindsley in a case several years before. Police responding to her early morning 911 call had found the snow around the house undisturbed and her physician husband shot to death. She was charged with murder, but Morgan successfully argued that two intruders did it, and Lindsley was acquitted. She moved to Atlanta and taught at the elementary school attended by the older children of John Ramsey. The Lindsley and Ramsey cases had a lot of similarities, including a claim of an intruder and the same defense attorney, but Deputy DA Trip DeMuth, in an extraordinary decision, forbade my pursuing that line. “The case is sealed,” he said. We had never intended to razor-blade open the file but thought to interview some of the major participants. “Don’t go near it.” Ramsey hired Morgan.
John Ramsey hired Patrick Burke of Denver to represent Patsy. Burke had once worked with Pat Furman, a professor of law at the University of Colorado, to gain acquittal for a man allegedly involved in the white supremacist slaying of Denver talk-show host Alan Berg. Ramsey hired Furman, too. The police found it particularly interesting that John and Patsy would be represented by separate attorneys, a move that can indicate a possible conflict of interest between the parties.
A lawyer was needed in Atlanta for the family members back there, and someone suggested Jim Jenkins, one of the top lawyers in Georgia. Ramsey hired Jenkins.
The private investigative firm of Ellis Armistead in Denver was brought aboard. Pat Korten, a public relations specialist in Washington, D.C., was hired to deal with the press. Handwriting experts were hired. And John Douglas, a former FBI profiler who had spent a career getting into the minds of killers, was hired.
We referred to the whole pack as Team Ramsey, and although the attorneys resented being called “defense lawyers,” that’s precisely what they were, as one would later openly declare.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, pages 110 - 111

Although still too distraught to meet with us, John and Patsy Ramsey spoke for several hours with their newest trophy hire, John Douglas, formerly with the FBI’s behavioral sciences unit.
John Ramsey’s lawyer Bryan Morgan was at the profiler’s side and permitted no direct questions about the Ramseys during a long interview.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 136

Two months would pass before we finally got to interview Lucinda Ramsey Johnson. In the meantime, we learned that John Ramsey was paying both for his first wife’s lawyer and for the mortgage on her house. There was no doubt about her loyalty.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 150

Fleet told us that Ramsey lawyer Mike Bynum had called them shortly after the body was discovered. Surely he was talking about December 27, the night John Ramsey talked with Bynum at the Fernie house. White found his notes and said, “No, it was the day before, on the afternoon of December 26.” You sure of that date? I asked. White checked his notes again. Yes.
The minds of two detectives went into overdrive. The body of JonBenét was found at 1:05 P.M., and John and Patsy left the house at about 2:30 P.M. NOW White was saying that an attorney was already in play, calling witnesses, only a few hours later. WOW!
Fleet added that he was also interviewed by three people associated with Team Ramsey the following day, December 27, when he didn’t know any better than to speak with them. The private investigators weren’t out canvassing the neighborhood for an intruder but were pinpointing the Ramseys’ best friends while the police were being stalled.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, pages 287 - 288


“Team Ramsey:”

John Ramsey’s lawyers:
Lee Foreman (criminal defense attorney)
Hal Haddon (criminal defense attorney)
Bryan Morgan (criminal defense attorney)

Mike Bynum (civil defense attorney)
William Gray (civil defense attorney)
Lin Wood (civil defense attorney)

Patsy Ramsey’s lawyers:
Patrick Furman
Patrick Burke

Lawyer for Lucinda Johnson, Melinda, John Andrew, and Burke Ramsey:
James Jenkins

Private Investigators:
Ellis Armistead
Jon Foster
David Williams
Ollie Gray
John San Agustin
What were these investigators doing?
Q. Then what was, basically, your association with the private investigation of the potential suspects in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?
A. The investigators were retained by our attorneys, and they stated to me that the principal purpose of those investigators was to prepare a defense in the case that the police might bring a charge against me. I hoped that they would also follow up on leads that came to us, but I was frequently reminded by our attorneys that their principal role was to prepare a defense should that be necessary.
Deposition of John Ramsey, December 12, 2001

Handwriting analysts:
Lloyd Cunningham
Howard C. Rile, Jr.

Other:
Patrick Korten - Media consultant
Charlie Russell – Public relations consultant

Rachelle Zimmer - Spokeswoman for the Ramsey family

John Douglas - Criminal profiler (consultant)

Ed Gelb - Polygrapher

Lou Smit – Friend

Mary Lacy - Friend

Thank you for this and the work that went into it! I researched Lou Smit many years ago because I just couldn't figure out how a man with his crazy ideas was so revered in some law enforcement circles. I think the straw that broke the camel's back was when he and ....was it Doberson? ... stun gunned a pig. We kept hearing how he had solved a famous cold case that had been given up on years earlier. How did he solve the case? I'm not saying he didn't solve cold cases, because he did (no one is sure which ones), but, the one he touted, the one certain swamp dwellers crammed down our throats anytime his intruder theory was questioned, was the cold case of Heather Dawn Church. Technically, Smit did not solve this case at all, Tom Carney, a crime laboratory technician who worked for Colorado Springs figured the best evidence they had were fingerprints, so he took photos of the fingerprints and sent them to about 100 agencies to enter into their fingerprint databases. Voila, they got a hit in Louisiana. Case solved. By a crime lab technician, not, technically, Lou Smit.

Well, and then there's this:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AG7ZSEBNdVwJ:www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php%3Ft%3D9703+lou+smit+was+a+fraud&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
By Whynut:

was going through one of the documentaries to see if I could examine some of the names for myself and research the circumstances of the victims's deaths. Just now, I came across, on Smit's plaque, one Lloyd Samuelson, killed in 1971. So, since his name appears on the plaque, the solution to his case is supposed to be to Smit's credit, yes?

Not so fast. Look at this article:

http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:14431

As you will see, Lloyd Samuelson is listed as a COLD case, not a solved one. As I looked further, I found more names. Jean Begin. McKinley Collins. Linda Thompson. Mary Byrd. Brenda Pierce. Frank Conroy. Virgil Gambles. These names are on Smit's plaques of accomplishment, but as of 2005, they were not accomplishments AT ALL.

What sort of misleading process is going on here? Did Tracey perpetrate a fraud, making Smit appear to be a man of great detective skill, when he turns out to have merely been given acknowledgement that he worked on cases which he then failed to solve?

So, the one and only detective the Ramsey's hired to find the ever illusive intruder was the late, great, Lou Smit. Unless you count his sidekicks whose names escape me - something like Laurel and Hardy....

 

[cynic]

...a man with his crazy ideas...

This has pretty much explained Lou Smit IMO.

Detective Smit joined the Colorado Springs Police Department in 1966. At the time, he fell a half-inch short of meeting the 5-foot-9 height requirement. He persuaded his cousin, who was on the force, to hammer him on the head with his nightstick, The New York Times Magazine reported in 2007. The resulting welt allowed him to meet the requirement when he was re-measured.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/us/14smit.html