The Case of JonBenet Ramsey-CBS Sept. 18

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Man up, margarita25! Just do it. You're (like) a neighbor. He'd prolly appreciate just knowing you enjoyed the show. Who knows where it might go from there.

(Alright. You convinced me. I'll man up. :biggrin: First chance I get I'll do my best to initiate a conversation respectfully re last night's show, and see where it goes. I don't think I would've been able to NOT mention it anyway even if I tried, lol. Like I said, I don't think he likes us bc the dogs are loud, but we'll see, haha...I'll ask if he will sign my book.

(What are the chances? Sooooo weird....)
 
Just listened to the podcast via the itunes link. It was excellent background on the CBS series! Thank you for posting the links!
 
If your child is found dead in your own home and you don't immediately see that you have become a prime suspect of murder and should have a lawyer you should have your head examined. .
Absolutely. And having a lawyer with you when you are questioned by the police is what your attorney would advise. But refusing requests for interviews, demanding that police submit their questions in writing and demanding copies of the police investigation reports before you'll submit to questioning is not the behavior of most grieving parents.
 
Having legal representation doesn't mean someone cannot talk to police -- it means your lawyer makes sure your rights are protected.

And, if your child was killed wouldn't you want police to solve the murder? Wouldn't you want to do anything and everything you can to help? So what if they suspect you?

- Mark Klaas was suspect #1 in his daughter's murder and you know what he did? He took a polygraph, he cooperated with police, he did everything he could to help and he allowed police to do what they needed to do so he could be cleared. That's the way a parent handles a killing when it was *someone outside the family.*

- Ditto the father of little Jessica Lunsford. He too had to be cleared.

It's SOP that police start with those closest to the victim and work their way out after clearing those closest. Common sense, investigation 101.
 
Having legal representation doesn't mean someone cannot talk to police -- it means your lawyer makes sure your rights are protected.

And, if your child was killed wouldn't you want police to solve the murder? Wouldn't you want to do anything and everything you can to help? So what if they suspect you?

Anything said in a police interview limits the ability of your lawyer to defend you later in the event of a trial. Being convicted of murder isn't a "so what?," I don't care how bad you're grieving.
 
If your child is found dead in your own home and you don't immediately see that you have become the prime suspect in a murder investigation and should have a lawyer then you should have your head examined. Also, JR was financially successful. He almost certainly had a lawyer who represented him in personal business matters already. It's not so out in left field for someone who is used to consulting lawyers on other matters to pick up the phone and ask for legal advice.

It's out in left field to refuse to speak to the police separately, to coerce and threaten your friends not to do so and then to show up on a freaking talk show to discuss the case that you are too distraught to discuss with the people trying to catch your daughter's killer.

My Brother in law is an attorney, 2 of my close friends are as well, and if any of them told me not to cooperate fully with the police, I would tell them to butt the hell out. But then, I know I would never kill my child and cover it up, so I would want that out of the way as quickly as possible so they could find out who really did it.

They didn't just insist on having an attorney present, they refused to be questioned separately. Only one reason to do that.
 
How neat! Didn't he do a Reddit AMA? Maybe he'd be willing to do a WS interview, too!
Kolar has done several (3, I think) podcast interviews with Tricia. Heck, even I got to ask him a couple of questions by phone. Unfortunately, he was still a little tight-lipped about some things for fear or apprehension about a possible lawsuit. He was very careful in his book to avoid any direct accusations.

I think the podcasts can still be found online. If someone else doesn't offer the links, I'll look for them later. :smile:

Then again, maybe Tricia (hint, hint) will see if she can get him on again to discuss his involvement with the CBS documentary.
 
Continued from my last post...
Observations and quotes as the show plays for those who can't watch it right now.

Jim and Laura are driving in vehicle and Jim is speaking.
Jim: "Although the statistics say if a child of that age is killed within their own home, it is most likely a family member that did it. The fact is, the brutality of particular attack says the exact opposite. This is a very bizarre dichotomy. It bites (or fights?) itself right from the beginning."
Jim: "Another critically important part of any murder investigation is understanding how a person was killed."
Jim and Laura walk into a library (can't make out the name very well)
They both are looking through a accordion type file package and pull out JBR's autopsy folder.
Jim: "Cause of death of this 6 year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with cranio-cerebral trauma."
Jim explains that at first the medical examiner thought her death was caused by strangulation due to the rope being tied around her neck.
While discussing with Laura he states that this is something he wants to speak with Spitz about because the "associated with" is very general. Is it before or after ...
Laura: "were they both fatal?

Back to the round table of experts in the war room.

Introduction of Dr. Werner Spitz Forensic Pathologist
Reviewed the JFK Autopsy April, 1975,
Was also brought in in the initial investigation by BPD
Spitz "I've seen some 60,000 cases.. I don't know everything, but this case, it made an impression on me. The Boulder Police Department called my office and asked would I agree to come to Boulder. You know, as a forensic pathologist, I want to have first hand information of where is what in the house.
Jim states they are the same way and totally agree.
Spitz: "Exactly, but we did not get permission to get in."
Jim: "Who wouldn't let you in?"Spitz: "I believe the family. The police had to get permission from them. They told the police 'no dice! He's not coming to this house. They did not want me in the house MAYBE, MAY JUST BE that I would figure something out that nobody else knows."
Jim "But then you reviewed the autopsy findings and the injuries and sequencing. Can you tell us a little bit about that?"
Spitz: "Well she had a blow to the head on the right side. The bone underneath that area showed a perfectly rectangular defect. I didn't know at the time what caused this. But then I looked at the photographs and saw a 3mag flashlight sitting on the kitchen counter and uhh... I said well I have to check whether that may have been the cause.
Jim asks Spitz if he did experiments on this.
Spitz says yes and pulls out what he had an artist draw for him. It is a drawing of the head wound with the flashlight embedded. Spitz said the flashlight fit to perfection approximately half an inch through the bone.

Laura, Jim and Dr Spitz begin to walk through the ramsey home reconstruction site. This is the first time Spitz gets to see what it looked like in the house.
Spitz says the reconstruction is "uncanny".
Jim standing in the "kitchen" speaks to Spitz
Jim: " You've been thinking about this case for 20 years right? What does that make you feel?"
Spitz: " Well it makes me feel eery. I relive this you know, because this.. this answers questions that I had at one time and they never materialized."
Laura: "That must feel frustrating for you as well. Not being allowed in."
Spitz :" Oh yeah they made me wonder what is being put away what is being hidden. And why?"

Back at the round table
Laura speaking to Spitz, "Do you believe she was alive when she was struck on the head?"
Spitz: "Oh yes."
Laura: "and she was also alive when she was choked, strangled?"
Spitz: "Please understand this, when a very severe injury to the brain occurs, because the heart has it's own ability to produce contractions to cause a false impression of life existing."
Jim: "So she was virtually dead when the garrote was applied. So asphyxiation is not the way she actually passed away."
Spitz: "Yes. That is my advantage as a forensic pathologist. THEY did not know that. So they applied a mechanism of death that at face value you'd say 'oh she was strangled' and then of course she has a blow to the head. So which is it? Well it's very simple when I explain to you that Yes she was strangled to make believe that was the cause of death. She already was brain dead."

Jim states there's a few more injuries that they need to talk about. The neck injuries and the ligatures. Jim thinks these are also very important.
discusses how her hands were tied with slip knots. 15 1/2 inches between the slip knots.
they discuss how the rope is over her sweater sleeves and its not on her wrists.
Also she doesn't have any marks from the slip knots.
Jim does a reenactment of the ropes around his wrists with his hands above his head.
Stating if shes not unconscious, why doesn't she just do this? and slips out of the ropes.
Laura also points out she had duct tape over her mouth.
Spitz: "Yeah but if she's dead."
Jim: "So what does that tell you? This was staged."
Spitz: "You are totally correct."
Spitz: referring to the garrote as he holds it and examines it, "Why does anybody need this contraption? Why do you need the stick? You can just put that around your hand and do the same thing with the other hand. Totally unnecessary. When you break into a house, isn't time of the essence? You want to come in, do your killing, and then leave. So why do you need this?"
Laura: "It just complicates things, you spend more time there and it leaves evidence. And the knot is interesting because, it does look to me like its quite complicated."
Spitz: "It is or it's somebody who knows how to make knots. So this is a common knot (unintelligible) The way I looked upon it is this by its self without anything else, would have told me this is a make believe type of scene. Why do you need any garrote, when a hand of an adult can squeeze a child like that."
Jim: "Right. Ok so the ultimate conclusion then is, the garrote isn't what actually caused the death. The blow to the head did."
Spitz: "Correct."
Henry Lee speaks up: "I just want to play a devil's advocate. We should find tissue and blood on the flashlight. And also should have broken hairs. This area..we should have trace evidence... blood, hair, tissue. That's why I suggested for them to do some DNA and try to find tissue and blood. Apparently they did not find anything."
Spitz:" The skin is extremely elastic so it would go with the impact and not hold on to the impact."
Jim: " So the blow to her head was strong enough to break your skull but not strong enough to break the skin."
Spitz: "The skull may break but the skin may not. I've seen that so many times. "
Jim: "So that can explain why this wasn't a bloody crime scene."
Spitz: "There would not have been any blood, not from that anyway."
Henry Lee: "It could be the flashlight. I'm not saying it's not the flashlight. But, anything similar to that shape...that width...with force....can cause that so...I agree with you totally. The cause of the death is brain injury by blunt object."

Now they need to decide if the flashlight was the object used to make the injury to the head.
Also how much force it would take to cause it.

Henry Lee: "We don't have the complete picture."
 
Kolar has done several (3, I think) podcast interviews with Tricia. Heck, even I got to ask him a couple of questions by phone. Unfortunately, he was still a little tight-lipped about some things for fear or apprehension about a possible lawsuit. He was very careful in his book to avoid any direct accusations.

I think the podcasts can still be found online. If someone else doesn't offer the links, I'll look for them later. :smile:

Then again, maybe Tricia (hint, hint) will see if she can get him on again to discuss his involvement with the CBS documentary.

Thanks otg! I can't tell you how much I appreciate your presence on these boards. You are a wealth of knowledge, have amazing recall, and are always willing to politely correct inaccuracies. We owe you somehow!
 
Now I understand why Kolar has always believed Burke did the garroting and that it was the prime motivation behind it all. If he did, the parents' actions are explained in this huge cover up. If all BR had done was hit her in the head, it could have been passed off as an accident. You cannot pass of a garrotte as an accident. Neither can you explain the paintbrush in the vagina or evidence of previous vaginal trauma. To save BR, the ransom note had to be written and the cover up begun. No, he wouldn't have gone to prison, but he would have borne the label of sexual deviant and murderer for the rest of his life. Plus there's the parental guilt for not seeing this coming and not stopping it. Feeling responsible for all this dysfunction, John and Patst took control of the situation in a way they thought would save Burke.

I agree. This explains it all, in my opinion anyway.
 
Anything said in a police interview limits the ability of your lawyer to defend you later in the event of a trial. Being convicted of murder isn't a "so what?," I don't care how bad you're grieving.
Your lawyer is trained well to know what is ok to answer and what is not, so that's their job, to protect you from being falsely accused. However, if the evidence points to you as the suspect, a lawyer can only do so much. The Ramsey family made themselves look guilty by refusing to talk to police for FOUR months and then only with very specific conditions.

"Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing."
 
If your child is found dead in your own home and you don't immediately see that you have become the prime suspect in a murder investigation and should have a lawyer then you should have your head examined. Also, JR was financially successful. He almost certainly had a lawyer who represented him in personal business matters already. It's not so out in left field for someone who is used to consulting lawyers on other matters to pick up the phone and ask for legal advice.

Every parent in this kind of situation is a suspect. To a man I have seen every one of them cooperate with police and be cleared very quickly. Show me one parent (that didn't do it) that refused to talk to police for four months!
 
Kolar has done several (3, I think) podcast interviews with Tricia. Heck, even I got to ask him a couple of questions by phone. Unfortunately, he was still a little tight-lipped about some things for fear or apprehension about a possible lawsuit. He was very careful in his book to avoid any direct accusations.

I think the podcasts can still be found online. If someone else doesn't offer the links, I'll look for them later. :smile:

Then again, maybe Tricia (hint, hint) will see if she can get him on again to discuss his involvement with the CBS documentary.

What a world when a police chief has to be afraid of the criminals. Only in America.
 
Anything said in a police interview limits the ability of your lawyer to defend you later in the event of a trial. Being convicted of murder isn't a "so what?," I don't care how bad you're grieving.

Being suspected is a "so what." Everyone is a suspect to police; that's just how they are. A conviction can't happen if there isn't evidence to tie you to a crime and a DA would want to ensure they have that evidence since they only get 1 bite of the apple.

No attorney is going to forbid a client to ever talk to police -- their advice is "don't talk to police without me there." That's quite different.
 
It's out in left field to refuse to speak to the police separately, to coerce and threaten your friends not to do so and then to show up on a freaking talk show to discuss the case that you are too distraught to discuss with the people trying to catch your daughter's killer.

My Brother in law is an attorney, 2 of my close friends are as well, and if any of them told me not to cooperate fully with the police, I would tell them to butt the hell out. But then, I know I would never kill my child and cover it up, so I would want that out of the way as quickly as possible so they could find out who really did it.

They didn't just insist on having an attorney present, they refused to be questioned separately. Only one reason to do that.

The entire goal of separate questioning is it is to convince one party to flip on the other, and they have no compunction about the use of lies and manufactured evidence to do it. I don't find it hard to understand their aversion.
 
The entire goal of separate questioning is it is to convince one party to flip on the other, and they have no compunction about the use of lies and manufactured evidence to do it. I don't find it hard to understand their aversion.

I think you feel the police are out to get the wrong people. If the Ramseys where innocent and had immediately sat down separately with police, their stories would be exactly the same. Their time lines would coincide and their waking hours could be accounted for. There is absolutely nothing to be afraid of if you are innocent. Nothing!
 
I disagree- a big reason for separate interviews is to get witness accounts individually (so they aren't unduly influenced by someone elses memories) and to compare them. Perps want to make sure their lies line up- when you are telling the truth there is no reason to get your stories straight.
 
Your lawyer is trained well to know what is ok to answer and what is not, so that's their job, to protect you from being falsely accused. However, if the evidence points to you as the suspect, a lawyer can only do so much. The Ramsey family made themselves look guilty by refusing to talk to police for FOUR months and then only with very specific conditions.

"Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing."

In every single case of wrongful conviction there was evidence that pointed to the defendant. Just being innocent isn't always enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
1,643
Total visitors
1,721

Forum statistics

Threads
605,927
Messages
18,195,058
Members
233,648
Latest member
Snoopysnoop
Back
Top