The complicity of Patsy in coverup.

[otg]

BR wasn't ruled out because they couldn't see past Patsy- he was ruled out because in Colorado, a person under 10 cannot be accused, arrested, indicted, or implicated in a crime, even if they are known to be guilty. They cannot even MENTION his name in relation to the crime. He HAD to be ruled out because he could never be "ruled IN". Even if they knew he did it, even if he confessed.
AND if he had an accomplice who WAS over 10, that person also cannot be accused or arrested IF it would expose the involvement of the person under 10.
BR was only a few weeks shy of his 10th birthday....
In Colorado, ruling someone out doesn't mean they aren't known to be involved when that "someone" is under 10.

(my bold)

DD, you know my thoughts on the possibility of "juvenile involvement". I also think it's difficult for anyone to look at some of the things done during the early investigation and not see that possibility. I could (but I won't here) make a huge post about things that were said and done that indicate there were things left unsaid or even completely avoided in the investigation that point in that direction.

But I'm not so sure about the statement above that I bolded. Were that true, all an adult would need to do to avoid prosecution for any crime is have a juvenile accomplice. Rob a bank, have your 9-yo hold the money bag and carry it out. Police couldn't explain how the adult robbed a bank if they couldn't account for how the money got out, and hence:giggle:, you walk free.
.

 

[SunnieRN]

Otg, I never thought about the law in that light. The BPD, or any CO law agency could have easily brought any parent up on charges of child endangerment and child abuse in that situation imho. Interesting though as I tend to agree on the bank robbery charges. Totally bizarre, except that maybe the only time someone else over 10 can't be charged is if they are a minor also? Even if they are in the 10-17 age range?

 

[DeeDee249]

Otg, I never thought about the law in that light. The BPD, or any CO law agency could have easily brought any parent up on charges of child endangerment and child abuse in that situation imho. Interesting though as I tend to agree on the bank robbery charges. Totally bizarre, except that maybe the only time someone else over 10 can't be charged is if they are a minor also? Even if they are in the 10-17 age range?

I think that must be the case- the 10-17 range. But it wouldn't surprise me if in Colorado, it means ANYONE. However, my comment concerned a child under 10 COMMITTING the crime with an accomplice. Not being brought along for the "ride". A person bring a child along while they commit a crime doesn't really meant the child also committed the crime.

 

[Agatha_C]

25 TOM HANEY: Okay. So no independent
0329
1 recollection of --
2 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
3 TOM HANEY:-- that?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Huh-uh.
5 TOM HANEY: Okay. One other thing, this
6 morning you mentioned that the doctors, Dr. Brown in
7 Atlanta, had diagnosed this post traumatic stress
8 disorder, and I wondered what the symptoms, what
9 symptoms you experience as a result of that.
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, just very sad and
11 very -- crying a lot, fatigue easily.
12 TOM HANEY: Okay. Do your symptoms include
13 anything like nightmares?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: I had those.
15 TOM HANEY: About?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh, I have flashbacks of
17 seeing my daughter lying down on the floor in our
18 living room, and I have flashbacks of hearing JonBenet
19 scream. I have nightmares where I am, you know,
20 searching, searching, searching trying to find
21 somebody, and trying to find who did this.


How is she having flashbacks of a scream she supposedly did not hear???? And folks wonder why LE zeroed in on the Rs....

 

[precious]

I thought a flashback was a memory recall !

 

[Agatha_C]

I didnt know where to post this, so I picked here... This is the back of an American Girl doll, just in case Im not the only one too have never seen this before....

You should read the thread where I found the photo..... FFJ

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5782&pp=12&highlight=American=Girl=doll

 

[Toltec]

3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is

4 probably fair. Based on the state of the

5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers

6 from her jacket were found in the paint

7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found

8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket

9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the

10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and

11 the question is, can she explain to us how

12 those fibers appeared in those places that

13 are associated with her daughter's death.

14 And I understand you are not going to answer

15 those.

 

[DeeDee249]

BOY, those last three lines pretty much speak to the whole investigation, don't they? "And I understand she is not going to answer those".

And we wonder why the case is unsolved? Not because of some unnamed and unfound "intruder". It is because the investigation was controlled by the defense team.

 

[MurriFlower]

BOY, those last three lines pretty much speak to the whole investigation, don't they? "And I understand she is not going to answer those".

And we wonder why the case is unsolved? Not because of some unnamed and unfound "intruder". It is because the investigation was controlled by the defense team.

Who were protecting their client from an investigator's unsubstantiated claims.

 

[DeeDee249]

Who were protecting their client from an investigator's unsubstantiated claims.

Not unsubstantiated.

And that was their job, guilty or not. But I think they knew they were guilty. How else could they know which questions not to let them answer if they didn't know what the answer would be?
In that particular interview, LW would not allow Patsy to answer any questions she had been previously asked. Why? Because as she was lying, there was always the danger that her story would be different every time she told it, whereas if she was telling the truth, her story would be the same every time.

 

[Agatha_C]

Not unsubstantiated.

And that was their job, guilty or not. But I think they knew they were guilty. How else could they know which questions not to let them answer if they didn't know what the answer would be?
In that particular interview, LW would not allow Patsy to answer any questions she had been previously asked. Why? Because as she was lying, there was always the danger that her story would be different every time she told it, whereas if she was telling the truth, her story would be the same every time.

You wonder what was going through LWs head as he sat there and listened to lie after lie come out of her mouth....

 

[MurriFlower]

Not unsubstantiated.

And that was their job, guilty or not. But I think they knew they were guilty. How else could they know which questions not to let them answer if they didn't know what the answer would be?
In that particular interview, LW would not allow Patsy to answer any questions she had been previously asked. Why? Because as she was lying, there was always the danger that her story would be different every time she told it, whereas if she was telling the truth, her story would be the same every time.

Hmm, funny. He didn't allow them to speculate on evidence that had not been substantiated, just as he should. Why should he allow her to continue to answer the same question over and over. It's called badgering. That's what lawyers are there for, to protect their clients from overzealous investigators.

 

[DeeDee249]

Hmm, funny. He didn't allow them to speculate on evidence that had not been substantiated, just as he should. Why should he allow her to continue to answer the same question over and over. It's called badgering. That's what lawyers are there for, to protect their clients from overzealous investigators.

If it were my child who was murdered, they couldn't be zealous ENOUGH.

And it certainly isn't badgering when the questions are months or years apart.

 

[BBB167893]

BOY, those last three lines pretty much speak to the whole investigation, don't they? "And I understand she is not going to answer those".

And we wonder why the case is unsolved? Not because of some unnamed and unfound "intruder". It is because the investigation was controlled by the defense team.

Damn right! In more ways than one.

 

[BBB167893]

Who were protecting their client from an investigator's unsubstantiated claims.

Protecting her from herself, more likely.

 

[BBB167893]

You wonder what was going through LWs head as he sat there and listened to lie after lie come out of her mouth....

Knowing him, probably, "Jeez, what an amateur!"

 

[Agatha_C]

Why do I feel she was talking about the staging here... Its just to earily the way I picture it. This from the 1998 interview found on acandyrose.

(my bold)


(IBID, p. 213; shown a picture of the Barbie nightgown found next to JonBenet's body, Patsy is questioned about it)

TH: When would she have worn that last, do you know?

PR: Well, she didn't wear it that night, because she had her--she had the long underwear pants and her little white shirt. And the night before on Christmas Eve night she wore the pink little...that was under her pillow. And before that I don't remember. But neither of those two nights she wore that.

TH: Patsy, why the long underwear?

PR: Well, I remember I was digging around for something. I was trying to find the pink ones she wore the night before. I couldn't put my hand on them right quick. And so I went to these drawers looking for the pajamas, and she was just laying there, so I didn't want to raise her up and get everything off of her to put a long nightgown, so looking for pajamas bottoms to put on her. I couldn't find any, and the long underwear pants were in their drawer, so I got those.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Why do I feel she was talking about the staging here... Its just to earily the way I picture it. This from the 1998 interview found on acandyrose.

(my bold)


(IBID, p. 213; shown a picture of the Barbie nightgown found next to JonBenet's body, Patsy is questioned about it)

TH: When would she have worn that last, do you know?

PR: Well, she didn't wear it that night, because she had her--she had the long underwear pants and her little white shirt. And the night before on Christmas Eve night she wore the pink little...that was under her pillow. And before that I don't remember. But neither of those two nights she wore that.

TH: Patsy, why the long underwear?

PR: Well, I remember I was digging around for something. I was trying to find the pink ones she wore the night before. I couldn't put my hand on them right quick. And so I went to these drawers looking for the pajamas, and she was just laying there, so I didn't want to raise her up and get everything off of her to put a long nightgown, so looking for pajamas bottoms to put on her. I couldn't find any, and the long underwear pants were in their drawer, so I got those.

So we know what panties were/were not in the drawers. Do we also know that there were in fact no PJ bottoms in the drawers?

 

[SunnieRN]

So we know what panties were/were not in the drawers. Do we also know that there were in fact no PJ bottoms in the drawers?

I am not sure that has ever been discussed. Would be interesting.

 

[Agatha_C]

So we know what panties were/were not in the drawers. Do we also know that there were in fact no PJ bottoms in the drawers?

My_Tee.... When TH asked> "Patsy, why the long underwear?" I wanted to know why he asked that question and in just that way. What did they know about the pj pants? Did they find them? Or did they find the matching shirt to the long johns in the dirty cloths near the WC? Is there more here? Perhaps a secret that was actually kept?