IF everything would have been done by the book the Ramseys would never have laid their eyes on the questions LE was preparing for them,right?
If people in the DA office wouldn't have been friends with the suspects the interviews would have had a different format,no?
No. The Ramseys were under no obligation to talk to the police, ever. They could set limits and conditions on any interviews, and the police could take it or leave it. The Ramseys were well advised by their legal team, and exercised their rights very intelligently.
The police are used to having their way, but the Ramseys weren't going to go along with anything that didn't suit them, and they didn't have to.
It didn't hurt that they had a friendly DA's office, but even with a hostile DA's office the Rs could have done exactly the same thing.
Standard police procedure, I believe, is to ask delicately to come down to police station for separate interviews immediately after the body is found. This not only disallows parents from getting their story straightened out if guilty but also allows parents to record their thoughts while the happenings are still fresh in their memory. If they refused to do this it is a definite red flag. Unfortunately LE did not ask them to do this.
It certainly could have helped this case get solved even if they were just asked and they refused. You think things look suspicious now, imagine their dead daughter at their feet just discovered, and they refuse to help police. They couldn't use the 'LE bad treatment' excuse at that point.
Standard police procedure, I believe, is to ask delicately to come down to police station for separate interviews immediately after the body is found. This not only disallows parents from getting their story straightened out if guilty but also allows parents to record their thoughts while the happenings are still fresh in their memory. If they refused to do this it is a definite red flag. Unfortunately LE did not ask them to do this.
It certainly could have helped this case get solved even if they were just asked and they refused. You think things look suspicious now, imagine their dead daughter at their feet just discovered, and they refuse to help police. They couldn't use the 'LE bad treatment' excuse at that point.
For a long time I felt that PR would have cracked if pushed....I think I changed my mind...it's JR that always got aggressive when he felt "insulted" by key questions...it's risky when you lose your temper,especially when you're a narcissist and a control freak
I think that PR could be quite a "drama queen" herself. My opinion is still that both parents staged the scene and covered for BR.
Darlene733510,
And I might think you are correct, JDI alone, does not explain away all the evidence.
.
Specifically, what does it not explain?
John was excluded from having written the note but Patsy was not excluded.
Patsy stated she was usually the one to get JonBenet ready for bed and that she usually checked on her around midnight to make sure she went to "potty."
Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl holding pineapple physically and chemically consistent with pineapple found in JonBenet's upper digestive tract during the autopsy. Iirc, Burke's prints were found on the bowl as well but not John's.
According to Linda Hoffman-Pugh only she and Patsy knew where the Swiss Army knife was hidden that subsequently was found at the site and possibly used in the staging or re-staging of JonBenet's death.
It doesn't explain Patsy's behavior the morning JonBenet was found and thereafter. If psychological profiling and behavioral analysis is good enough for the FBI it's good enough for me. Patsy acted suspicious and she lied ... more than once.
Specifically, what does it not explain?
This is true, but it is only a matter of opinion, not science that excluded him.
"Usually" being the key word here. JR said he carried her up to bed that night. Either way it doesn't make one or the other innocent or guilty, except of lying.
So? I fail to see how this clears JR of the murder, and finds PR guilty. Yes, she lied about the pineapple. Why it would be something to lie about is still a mystery to me.
Yes, that is what she said. It's possible PR could have told JR where it was though. I will agree that it makes PR look suspicious, if not guilty.
No it doesn't. That's the one thing that keeps me from being totally JDI alone. Her behavior was totally bizarre that morning. And her lies just kept stacking up, but then again, so did JR's.
Above is your original question in response to:
"Originally Posted by UKGuy
Darlene733510,
And I might think you are correct, JDI alone, does not explain away all the evidence.. "
You didn't ask what evidence proves John was the killer but your responses below seem to say you are looking for evidence that proves John did it. If I am wrong in this assumption please correct me. Investigative procedure looks for all evidence then evaluates it after the fact instead of looking for evidence that proves or disproves what the investigator already believes.
Please, we are talking about highly trained people who specialize in handwriting analysis coming to the conclusion John could be eliminated but Patsy could not. The bias factor, imo, leans more toward QDEs working for the Ramseys than those working for the prosecution.
Patsy giving statements that indicate she was the last person to see JonBenet alive are extremely important. John may have carried JonBenet upstairs to bed (or not) but Patsy and/or John both stated Patsy was the one who prepared JonBenet for bed and who usually checked on her around midnight, which implies both adults believed Patsy was the last known person to have seen JonBenet alive. Note: Patsy was indirect about answering whether or not she checked on JonBenet at midnight the night JonBenet died. This statement in itself could be discussed and cussed in a separate thread.
Again, your original question didn't ask for information that cleared John and found Patsy guilty. My opinion of why she lied is because she didn't want to be linked to an event that implicated her being in contact with JonBenet after saying she'd already prepared the sleeping JonBenet for bed upstairs in JonBenet's bedroom. Lou Smit called the pineapple a "bugaboo." In other words, Smit was saying the pineapple was incriminating.
It's possible little green men are watching me type this ... prove me wrong (sorry ... the devil makes me be snarky on occasion :blushing.
I agree with the above. I'd say the police know who did it and presented their evidence to the DA's office, who did nothing. In addition, the Grand Jury returned an indictment against both adult Ramseys. Again, the DA's office did nothing. :stormingmad: