Abuse and JonBenet

[BBB167893]

No we can't automatically assume it was JR and I personally don't but I wonder why the ones who so strongly thought RDI (LE) didn't check THIS further.I mean if true it would have been their golden goose,right?Why were they still fixated on PR after finding THIS out?Isn't it weird?
IF true I guess it would have been logical to start with the men in her family,family friends and the rest of the men who had access to her,gardener,photographer,etc.
What I don;t get is....this finding didn't change their views nor the line of investigation.Doesn't make sense to me.That's why I am thinking that MAYBE it was another try to crack the R's.Dunno.

The way I heard it was that there was some division in the ranks about that. You know, madeleine, maybe you're right; maybe some officers DID have too much influence.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi madeline

Yes, I thought about the supposed prior assault too. I've decided either it is very 'iffy' as to whether it actually is the result of sexual assault, or it isn't relevant to the killing.

Maybe it's related in an indirect way. Just spitballing.

 

[BBB167893]

Hold it riht thar, youngin.
I sae,
I say, who don said dat?

I done said that, suh!

 

[BBB167893]

They disagreed?

Who disagreed about what?

 

[BBB167893]

Of course not. Putrefaction wouldn't occur that day. They hoped LE would find her that day, before they left. But it looked like that wasn't going to happen, because after Officer French left and the FBI left, Det. Arndt was the only one there, and she was supposedly keeping an eye on them all, she wasn't searching the house. But if JR hadn't found her, and the Rs had left for the Fernie's, within a few days it would have come to that. He had no choice but to find her.
I can't see them dumping her body. Anywhere. I can't see them allowing her body to be destroyed by insects and vermin (sure to happen if she was dumped outside). Keeping her in the house was their only option, IMO. Dumping her and leaving her behind in Boulder presents the problem of what to tell BR and others about where she was. So to call from Atlanta and report her missing, where was she missing from? Boulder? Then why did you travel to Atlanta? Missing from Atlanta? Bringing her body on the plane to Atlanta has the same problems that bringing her to Charlevoix, plus the added complication of what reason to give to the older kids who are meeting them to go to Charlevoix.
The dumping of her body fits in NO theory, as far as I am concerned.

Aw, damn! You beat me to it!

 

[madeleine]

The way I heard it was that there was some division in the ranks about that. You know, madeleine, maybe you're right; maybe some officers DID have too much influence.

Here's another example:

PMPT,pg 384-385

"It became clear to them that Patsy didn't want to revisit the unpleasant events of December 25-26,1996,and couldn't be shaken from her picture-perfect view of her life and family.John Ramsey seemed more realistic in his attitude toward the tragedy.The detectives felt confirmed in their belief that Ramsey was probably not involved in the actual murder of his daughter.But Patsy was-the officers were sure of it.
Like all investigators-Thomas and Trujillo would like to have found a motive-or at least a reason-for Jonbenet's murder.Maybe the child's bed-wetting had gotten to her mother."

:banghead:

You read those interviews.I did.Everybody has.
Why PR again?And what in those interviews made it clear to them that JR had nothing to do with it?I just DON'T GET THESE people!!!(ST,TT)

If there's no motive,let's make one up?Did they turn to shrinks over night?
Sorry but this is how it sounds to me.There is nothing there that can clearly show me it was PR and NOT JR.What was wrong with these detectives.If RDI,these cops actually helped the R's get away with it.Not to mention,if IDI,then yeah ,Boulder WAS indeed the perfect town for a murder.

 

[madeleine]

And there was me blaming LE for not checking IDI leads properly.
FGS,they didn't even check whether JDI.

 

[madeleine]

You know what,there IS one thing that still makes me wonder whether RDI.

Why on earth didn't the R's SUE the BPD?????

 

[Sophie]

You know what,there IS one thing that still makes me wonder whether RDI.

Why on earth didn't the R's SUE the BPD?????

They threatened to do just that unless the case was moved to the DA's office but I'm guessing they didn't go to court because the case wouldn't be actionable - after all, they contributed themselves to the failure of the investigation and that would certainly be used by the BPD to defend itself. Probably successfully. Let's face it, most of LE around America, including the FBI, was agreeing with Thomas's and Trujillo's approach so they'd actually have a hard time proving malfeasance and they'd risk a fair bit of legal light being cast on their own actions, criminal or otherwise.

Same thing for the libel suits, which were settled before the Ramseys had to go to court despite their protestations that they were only suing to clear their names, not for the money.

Regarding the detectives wanting a motive, that's a side issue in familial murders where motives are famously opaque so, had there been an evidential slam dunk, it wouldn't have mattered a whit that there was no obvious motive. AH's obsession with a mtive was legally unsound and infected the whole investigation.

 

[madeleine]

they contributed themselves to the failure of the investigation and that would certainly be used by the BPD to defend itself. .

I disagree.What their lawyers advised them was legal.Even re not taking polygraphs and answering some questions.So I don't think this could ever be used by the BPD as defense.IMO

Hi Sophie,long time no see.

 

[madeleine]

You can't really blame (legally) the R's for how the investigation went.It wasn't their job to solve the crime and get the killer.The BPD can't blame it on the R's and their actions,it's legal to get a lawyer and it's legal for the lawyer to advise you not to answer LE questions if that's what he thinks it's best.
How many times did LE bait them and said well,answer this,it might help us when we get the intruder?Their only goal was to trap the R's they were never interested in the R's help re catching an intruder.
So if the R's are innocent how do you think they felt,KNOWING that LE did this?

And there's FW,the great hero,who according to Schiller did the very same thing.After LE refused to give him his prior statements,he stopped co-operating.

 

[BBB167893]

If there's no motive,let's make one up?Did they turn to shrinks over night?

No idea. The only one I know of close to this was Steven Pitt.

If RDI,these cops actually helped the R's get away with it

They had plenty of help.

 

[DeeDee249]

You can't really blame (legally) the R's for how the investigation went.It wasn't their job to solve the crime and get the killer.The BPD can't blame it on the R's and their actions,it's legal to get a lawyer and it's legal for the lawyer to advise you not to answer LE questions if that's what he thinks it's best.
How many times did LE bait them and said well,answer this,it might help us when we get the intruder?Their only goal was to trap the R's they were never interested in the R's help re catching an intruder.
So if the R's are innocent how do you think they felt,KNOWING that LE did this?

And there's FW,the great hero,who according to Schiller did the very same thing.After LE refused to give him his prior statements,he stopped co-operating.

You are right- it IS legal to get a lawyer and exercise your right NOT to speak to police. But these actions (not the lawyer, so much- anyone in that position should have a defense lawyer) but in not speaking to police (it was MONTHS, and actually, some of the interviews took place years after the murder) this was seen as an indication that they had something to hide. Parents in this situation should WANT to speak to police. And keep on speaking until every possible suspect has been ruled out, including themselves. They clammed up right away. While I grant that defense lawyers would very likely advise their clients not to talk to police, IMO this is something a defense lawyer does when he knows the client is guilty. I saw more in what Patsy was NOT allowed to answer than anything she said in her interviews. It was a constant stream of posturing, faux indignation, interruptions and anything LW could do to not allow Patsy to answer questions. That tells me a lot.

 

[cynic]

You can't really blame (legally) the R's for how the investigation went.It wasn't their job to solve the crime and get the killer.The BPD can't blame it on the R's and their actions,it's legal to get a lawyer and it's legal for the lawyer to advise you not to answer LE questions if that's what he thinks it's best.
How many times did LE bait them and said well,answer this,it might help us when we get the intruder?Their only goal was to trap the R's they were never interested in the R's help re catching an intruder.
So if the R's are innocent how do you think they felt,KNOWING that LE did this?

And there's FW,the great hero,who according to Schiller did the very same thing.After LE refused to give him his prior statements,he stopped co-operating.

I've said it before, there are other ways to deal with the police.
Klass (class) versus Ramsey (something that rhymes with class.)
"I never considered not cooperating and I never considered hiring a lawyer. We bring these children into this world and its our duty then to do whatever we can to protect them and that includes totally cooperating with law enforcement right down the line"
"It is only when you hire a lawyer that it becomes apparent, if not obvious that you are hiding something"
"I don't believe there was an intruder inside the Ramsey house that evening I believe the evidence as we know it is pretty clear-cut. The only logical explanation for that ransom note is if it came from within the household itself."
-Mark Klaas
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kuu_IfYOX7U[/ame]

 

[MurriFlower]

I've said it before, there are other ways to deal with the police.
Klass (class) versus Ramsey (something that rhymes with class.)
"I never considered not cooperating and I never considered hiring a lawyer. We bring these children into this world and its our duty then to do whatever we can to protect them and that includes totally cooperating with law enforcement right down the line"
"It is only when you hire a lawyer that it becomes apparent, if not obvious that you are hiding something"
"I don't believe there was an intruder inside the Ramsey house that evening I believe the evidence as we know it is pretty clear-cut. The only logical explanation for that ransom note is if it came from within the household itself."
-Mark Klaas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kuu_IfYOX7U

Of course, that's his "opinion" and it is shared by a lot of RDI on this forum. Not sure it holds any more weight than the opinion of any other person. I'm not familiar with this case, but I think from the video it differ's from the JBR case in that it occurred at the home of someone she was visiting rather than her own home? And did it also involve the threat of 'kidnapping for ransom' with a note that had the effect of confusing the Police and casting suspicion on the father? Did the Police immediately suspect him? Was there also some suggestion that she had been previously sexually abused and was her father suspected of this also? I do agree with Madeline, the investigation was not being run by the parents but by the Police. If it's contended that their failure to solve crimes could be blamed on the 'suspects' being 'uncooperative', then I expect they would solve very few. Unless I'm misinformed, employing lawyers to advise 'suspects' is not admissible in court as evidence of guilt in the USA?

 

[DeeDee249]

Of course, that's his "opinion" and it is shared by a lot of RDI on this forum. Not sure it holds any more weight than the opinion of any other person. I'm not familiar with this case, but I think from the video it differ's from the JBR case in that it occurred at the home of someone she was visiting rather than her own home? And did it also involve the threat of 'kidnapping for ransom' with a note that had the effect of confusing the Police and casting suspicion on the father? Did the Police immediately suspect him? Was there also some suggestion that she had been previously sexually abused and was her father suspected of this also? I do agree with Madeline, the investigation was not being run by the parents but by the Police. If it's contended that their failure to solve crimes could be blamed on the 'suspects' being 'uncooperative', then I expect they would solve very few. Unless I'm misinformed, employing lawyers to advise 'suspects' is not admissible in court as evidence of guilt in the USA?

As we've stated, in the US we grant all who are arrested or suspected of a crime the right to remain silent. People accused or suspected of a crime, especially one as serious as murder, SHOULD hire a lawyer. That in itself is not something that is being questioned. Again, when reading the interviews, I look at what LW does not allow Patsy to answer more than what she actually answers. That is a classic defense lawyer tactic used when a client is guilty. The lawyer's job is to steer the client away from making any statement that could indicate their guilt. Only if a suspect testifies to a Grand Jury are defense lawyers not allowed to be present and one must either answer all questions or invoke the Fifth Amendment (to refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate them). Invoking the Fifth is usually seen as pretty certain there has been some involvement in the crime, as alluding to being incriminated by your answer would pretty much mean the same thing.

 

[MurriFlower]

As we've stated, in the US we grant all who are arrested or suspected of a crime the right to remain silent. People accused or suspected of a crime, especially one as serious as murder, SHOULD hire a lawyer. That in itself is not something that is being questioned. Again, when reading the interviews, I look at what LW does not allow Patsy to answer more than what she actually answers. That is a classic defense lawyer tactic used when a client is guilty. The lawyer's job is to steer the client away from making any statement that could indicate their guilt. Only if a suspect testifies to a Grand Jury are defense lawyers not allowed to be present and one must either answer all questions or invoke the Fifth Amendment (to refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate them). Invoking the Fifth is usually seen as pretty certain there has been some involvement in the crime, as alluding to being incriminated by your answer would pretty much mean the same thing.

An interesting conclusion you make there DD. People who are arrested or suspected can stay silent, but if they get a lawyer who advises them not to answer then this indicates guilt?? Hmm, drawing a bit of a long bow there I think.

 

[DeeDee249]

An interesting conclusion you make there DD. People who are arrested or suspected can stay silent, but if they get a lawyer who advises them not to answer then this indicates guilt?? Hmm, drawing a bit of a long bow there I think.

Not really. If there is nothing to hide, if you are innocent, then you can (and should) answer every question put to you, assuming you know the answer. This can be the case whether you have a lawyer next to you or not. If you are telling the truth, you don't have to "remember" what you said last time you were asked.
One red flag for me was LW's attempts to allow the Rs access to their previous testimony. This is not something that is done in criminal investigations, because when people are lying about their involvement, they don't always tell the same story consistently, especially when a lot of time has gone by. Investigators know this very well, it's why they don't allow suspects access to previous testimony. But a defense lawyer will want to review what his client has said, to make sure they say it the same way.

 

[MurriFlower]

Not really. If there is nothing to hide, if you are innocent, then you can (and should) answer every question put to you, assuming you know the answer. This can be the case whether you have a lawyer next to you or not. If you are telling the truth, you don't have to "remember" what you said last time you were asked.
One red flag for me was LW's attempts to allow the Rs access to their previous testimony. This is not something that is done in criminal investigations, because when people are lying about their involvement, they don't always tell the same story consistently, especially when a lot of time has gone by. Investigators know this very well, it's why they don't allow suspects access to previous testimony. But a defense lawyer will want to review what his client has said, to make sure they say it the same way.

Well, I suppose this sounds logical to you DD, but it is like the old question "Do you still beat your wife?" Doesn't matter how you answer that, you still sound guilty.

When they say 'we have evidence of this or that, how do you explain it', it exactly the same type of question. You cannot explain something that you know nothing about. You would say, 'show me this evidence' and the Cop says, 'oh we can't do that, you just explain how this evidence got there'. You yourself even backed up this, saying they don't reveal evidence until they charge the clients or go to Court. I say they can't charge them until they have some evidence, so they try to concoct some story that implicates the suspect and get them to explain it and hopefully incriminate themselves in the attempt. No DD if the cops were just asking them what they knew about the murder of their daughter that would be quite different, but when they are asking them to explain some 'theory' they have, only an idiot would answer. Especially as the R's were well aware that they were being target as 'prime suspects' and there was no other 'theory'.

 

[madeleine]

I've said it before, there are other ways to deal with the police.
Klass (class) versus Ramsey (something that rhymes with class.)
"I never considered not cooperating and I never considered hiring a lawyer. We bring these children into this world and its our duty then to do whatever we can to protect them and that includes totally cooperating with law enforcement right down the line"
"It is only when you hire a lawyer that it becomes apparent, if not obvious that you are hiding something"
"I don't believe there was an intruder inside the Ramsey house that evening I believe the evidence as we know it is pretty clear-cut. The only logical explanation for that ransom note is if it came from within the household itself."
-Mark Klaas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kuu_IfYOX7U

You know I love M.Klaas and I posted this video many times.He should be an example for all the parents in this world.I don't like the way the R's behaved either but that doesn't mean they are guilty.Maybe they just behaved different than we would have.I don't agree with how they chose to act but I also understand SOMEHOW why they did it IF they are innocent.It was obvious that the cops were fixated on them so I understand their lack of co-operation.It was like talking to the walls.