Abuse and JonBenet

[BBB167893]

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.

:clap: :clap:

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.

:clap:

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.

Sophie, I'm so glad you're back!

 

[BBB167893]

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.

True. But those weren't the only actions they took, or at least were taken for them. Where does it say that your private investigators can intimidate potential witnesses and try to sabotage them? Is that legal? Because if it is, it shouldn't be!

How many times did LE bait them and said well,answer this,it might help us when we get the intruder?

Plenty of times, and it might HAVE helped them if the Rs had bothered.

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.

True. But maybe he just felt that what was good for the goose was good for the gander.

 

[BBB167893]

Parents in this situation should WANT to speak to police. And keep on speaking until every possible suspect has been ruled out, including themselves.

Most DO.

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.

Isn't that what I keep saying? "Even if you're not guilty, a lawyer will defend you like you are.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

The problem is, that's what happened! After two years, PR went on national TV and just dug herself deeper. I hope she asked her lawyer for her money back if she gave him any!

Especially as the R's were well aware that they were being target as 'prime suspects' and there was no other 'theory'.

That's nonsense, as I've often said. The Rs had unqualified praise for the DA's office because it entertained every other theory EXCEPT this one! Henry Lee agrees, saying that every scenario was examined.

 

[cynic]

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?

Yes, Marc is merely offering his opinion; however, he is offering that opinion based on being a suspect in a murder - abduction investigation.
His rational is simple, the sooner you are cleared as a suspect, the sooner police can bring more resources to bear on other potential suspects.
The Ramseys, of course, went far beyond just hiring lawyers, delaying formal interviews for 4 months, that is both outrageous and suspicious.

Ramsey talks the talk, but Klaas walks the walk.

Klaas said when his own daughter, Polly, was abducted in 1993, police viewed him, too as a possible suspect.
“Statistically, parents or relatives are involved in most Child abductions,” Klaas said. “That’s why parents are suspects.”
Klaas said he cooperated completely with investigators on his daughter’s case and recalled telling them, “I’ll dance on the table naked for you if you want,” to speed the investigation.

As was standard in such cases, both Eve Nichol and her ex-husband, Polly's father, Marc Klaas, took polygraph tests. Both were ruled out as suspects.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/klaas/3b.html

REPORTER: What do you want to say to the killer of your daughter?
JOHN RAMSEY: We'll find you. We will find you. I have that as a sole mission for the rest of my life.
REPORTER: Mrs. Ramsey?
PATSY RAMSEY: Likewise.
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/05011997ramseymediainterview.htm

More lip service:

"We hope to start an organization called SHOES as an outreach of the JonBenet Ramsey Children's Foundation, which will advocate legislation, offer resources and rewards, and establish computer databases-all focused as effective tools to both prevent violent crimes against children and to assist in the capture of child murderers.
We will use computerized tools to track pedophiles and sex offenders and also use experienced, retired detectives and top experts as resources to aid, and in some cases challenge, local police departments. We will put funds in place to offer significant rewards for information, when appropriate, to apprehend child killers.
SHOES will advocate legislation to elevate the murder of a child under the age of thirteen to a federal offense. After all, a bank robbery is a federal offense, and by law our nation treats this as a most serious crime. Do we as a country care more about our money than our children?"
"The Death of Innocence" page 390

And more lip service:

Mr. RAMSEY: We want the foundation to focus on protecting America's children against predators. I would like the murder of a child to be treated in this country as a federal offense. But there's been over a thousand children murdered in their homes since JonBenet was murdered, yet we don't know about it. We should, as a country, respond to that the best that we can. We don't today.

Results?
SHOES never happened, and the JonBenét Ramsey Children's Foundation, was essentially a sham designed to spin a little positive public relations.

Ramseys writing book on daughter's death
By Christopher Anderson, Camera Staff Writer
November 6, 1999

Proceeds from the Ramseys' book will go towards the Ramseys' legal expenses and the JonBenét Ramsey Children's Foundation.
The foundation was formed Feb. 3, 1997, with the goal of benefiting "children who are in a variety of needs," a Ramsey family spokeswoman said at the time.
By March of this year, the only known significant contributions made to the foundation came from the family itself and one of the family's attorneys
IRS records showed the foundation's "charitable activities" amounted to $769 given to Crime Stoppers "to assist their effort to obtain crime leads" and $596 for "advertising soliciting information into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey."
http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenet-foundations.htm

Now, let’s compare that to someone who is driven by a zeal for child advocacy, rather than self preservation. (Granted, I’m sure that John Ramsey’s golf commitments leave him precious little time to pursue justice.)

There are two organizations bearing the name of Klaas and dedicated to helping children. One is the Polly Klaas Foundation. It continues to work with law enforcement and the public to protect America's youngsters. Its mission statement says the organization is "dedicated to educating the public on the prevention of child abduction, aiding in the search for missing children, and acting as a means to bring the issue of missing children to the forefront." Jenni Thompson is the Director of Communications for the Polly Klaas Foundation. "We've assisted over 4,900 families to date," she related, "and have about an 85% success rate. Success is defined as kids coming home safely. Over 800,000 children in the U.S. are either missing or abducted each year. These include runaway children, children that are lost, children missing under suspicious circumstances where it is not known if they were abducted or not, and family as well as non-family abductions. Everyone in the field of missing children, not just the Polly Klaas Foundation, now use the term 'non-family abductions' because rarely is it a complete stranger."
Marc Klaas began the Polly Klaas Foundation. Since it is a non-profit group, it cannot engage in political lobbying. Marc Klaas wanted to change laws so he left the foundation to start the Marc Klaas Foundation for Children, now known as the KlaasKids Foundation. Like the Polly Klaas Foundation, KlaasKids seeks to increase knowledge of child safety issues; unlike it, KlaasKids also works for "stronger sentencing for violent criminals."
The life of pretty and talented Polly Klaas was cut short in a horrible way. However, she did not die in vain. Her loss has inspired many people to work on behalf of America's children, and that inspiration has contributed to the rescuing of other children. Quite a legacy for a child who did not live to see her 13th birthday.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/klaas/8b.html

Klaas uses his unsought notoriety to help other parents find their missing children, to lobby for tougher state and federal laws against kidnappers, and to promote better security against abductions.
Klaas _ who has quit his job running a car-rental agency to devote all his time to children's causes _ also has emerged as an outspoken advocate for the kinds of get-tough-on-criminals measures being debated in Congress and many state legislatures. Indeed, it was Polly Klaas' high-profile case that provided the impetus for California's ``three-strikes-you're-out'' statute, which has spawned similar efforts around the country.
- Boston Globe

In the aftermath of the Oct 1, 1993 kidnap and murder of his twelve-year-old daughter Polly, Marc Klaas gave up his lucrative rental car franchise to pursue an aggressive child safety mission. Mr. Klaas co-founded BeyondMissing, Inc., a federally funded California public benefit non-profit corporation to give meaning to Polly’s death and to create a legacy in her name that will protect children for generations to come. BeyondMissing provides America’s law enforcement community with a free and secure Website to easily and swiftly create and distribute missing child flyers via broadcast fax, email, and SMS technology.
Through federal and state legislative efforts Mr. Klaas promotes prevention programs for at-risk youth, stronger sentencing for violent criminals and governmental accountability and responsibility. Often times this advocacy takes the form of legislative testimony.
Besides his duties as volunteer president of the KlaasKids Foundation and president of BeyondMissing, Inc. Mr. Klaas sits on the advisory boards of the Center for the Community Interest; Fight Crime Invest in Kids and the National Children’s Advocacy Center.
http://childrenseducationalnetwork.com/contact/boardofadvisors.asp

http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-prog.htm

To summarize, if John Ramsey and Marc Klaas were in the same room, John should leave because he is not worthy to share the same oxygen with Marc.

 

[cynic]

You know I love M.Klaas and I posted this video many times.

Me too.

He should be an example for all the parents in this world.
I don't like the way the R's behaved either

ITA

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.

I can see that point of view, however, it is a bit of a self fulfilling prophesy. The more evasive the R's are, the more suspicious the BPD becomes, the more suspicious the BPD becomes, the more evasive the R's become, and so on.
With or without lawyers, they should have had the interviews in the first 24 - 48 hours.

 

[OneLove]

Me too.
ITA

I can see that point of view, however, it is a bit of a self fulfilling prophesy. The more evasive the R's are, the more suspicious the BPD becomes, the more suspicious the BPD becomes, the more evasive the R's become, and so on.
With or without lawyers, they should have had the interviews in the first 24 -48 hours.

If they really were focused on finding their child's killer, you would think they would have INSISTED on quick interviews! As in screaming from the rooftops for them, trying to think of every conceivable detail about everyone and everything that could lead to solving this heinous crime committed against their precious baby. - - But, no, not them. There were other more pressing things going on for them. :waitasec:

 

[DeeDee249]

Not to mention they should have wanted to do this RIGHT AWAY-while every detail was still fresh. Instead, MONTHS and YEARS went by- and I wish I had a dollar for every time they said "I don't remember".

Of course, this was by design. Their lawyers wanted them to be able to say that they didn't remember and have enough time elapsed to be a plausible reason why.

 

[madeleine]

If they really were focused on finding their child's killer, you would think they would have INSISTED on quick interviews!

But maybe they suspected who it was and had reasons not to tell?I still think that if so,that person left clues in the RN which only JR decoded(and it happened right away).
Btw,do we know if the elder son ever asked them for money and they said no?