Coincidences

[MurriFlower]

do you mean one person entered the house to kidnap her and another person entered to kill her.
or do you mean 2 people went in together and one decided to kill her when the plan was to kidnap?

No, what I was thinking was what if this was two crimes.

The one mentioned in the RN is the daughter of Mr Ramsey (John), (but her name is not specified). She was supposedly kidnapped and if he did not follow instructions to the letter she would be executed by beheading and he would be denied her remains for burial.

JBR was not kidnapped as everyone has observed, but instead taken from her bed, tortured, bashed and garotted and her body left in the basement of her own home.

The RN bears no resemblence to that crime. These are two entirely separate things.

Remember the so called 'practice' note that started Mr and Mrs? It was abandoned and the Mr Ramsey note begun. Perhaps it was a 'practice note' or perhaps it really was written by PR in response to an invitation. What if the writing actually is PRs? And what if I'm also right that it was a spoken threat?

It goes like this. Phone rings after they arrive home, JR is in bed, PR answers and is instructed to get paper and pen and write this down. They know JBR is safely tucked in bed as they've just left her, so it is obvious that the kidnapped daughter is MR.

What would have happened then?? JR would have immediately tried to contact MR. If he could not, then what? Was it a 'ruse' to divert their attention from JBR?

At 6am they find that JBR is missing from her bed.

How did JBR then get taken and murdered, by whom, and why??

 

[claudicici]

....then why would they have not told LE about that?

 

[slug]

right thankyou i see what you mean now.

it's definatly an intreasting theroy, something that phone records whould help to establish.

it would explain crossings out and shakey handwriting aswell as someone would speak alot quicker than you could write it down unless using shorthand.

but if they recived a call like that i would imagine they would have ended up stayig up much later to try and check that all the kids were safe, which would then give them a small window to actually get to JBR.

 

[MurriFlower]

....then why would they have not told LE about that?

Why indeed?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

No, what I was thinking was what if this was two crimes.

The one mentioned in the RN is the daughter of Mr Ramsey (John), (but her name is not specified). She was supposedly kidnapped and if he did not follow instructions to the letter she would be executed by beheading and he would be denied her remains for burial.

JBR was not kidnapped as everyone has observed, but instead taken from her bed, tortured, bashed and garotted and her body left in the basement of her own home.

The RN bears no resemblence to that crime. These are two entirely separate things.

Remember the so called 'practice' note that started Mr and Mrs? It was abandoned and the Mr Ramsey note begun. Perhaps it was a 'practice note' or perhaps it really was written by PR in response to an invitation. What if the writing actually is PRs? And what if I'm also right that it was a spoken threat?

It goes like this. Phone rings after they arrive home, JR is in bed, PR answers and is instructed to get paper and pen and write this down. They know JBR is safely tucked in bed as they've just left her, so it is obvious that the kidnapped daughter is MR.

What would have happened then?? JR would have immediately tried to contact MR. If he could not, then what? Was it a 'ruse' to divert their attention from JBR?

At 6am they find that JBR is missing from her bed.

How did JBR then get taken and murdered, by whom, and why??

Okay I'm confused here. Was there a phone in the Ramsey's master bedroom? Where was it located? Was it closer to Patsy or John? How would Patsy answer the phone without John waking up? I'm asking because you say that Patsy answers the phone when John is sleeping. For this to happen, Patsy had to hear the phone first and had to wake up to answer it. Or was she already up? If the phone was on John's side of the room, I don't know how likely it would be for Patsy to get out of bed and walk over to the phone. It would seem more plausible that she would nudge John to wake up and answer it.

Why would they assume that the caller meant MR instead of JBR? Even if JBR was tucked into her bed, couldn't that change as soon as the threatening caller didn't get what he or she wanted?

So do you think that the call was for Melinda but someone else killed JonBenet? Or that the call really was for JonBenet and an unrelated individual killed JBR? Because I would find it really hard to believe that the family came in contact with a unrelated kidnapper and murderer in one night.

Did the Ramseys try to withdraw money from their bank accounts that night/early morning for the supposed ransom note of Melinda? Did the BPD check that?

And if this is true, why haven't they told BPD? Even if they did think it was for Melinda but it turned out that it was for JBR, they didn't commit a crime, they just committed a horrible mistake.

 

[MurriFlower]

Okay I'm confused here. Was there a phone in the Ramsey's master bedroom? Where was it located? Was it closer to Patsy or John? How would Patsy answer the phone without John waking up? I'm asking because you say that Patsy answers the phone when John is sleeping. For this to happen, Patsy had to hear the phone first and had to wake up to answer it. Or was she already up? If the phone was on John's side of the room, I don't know how likely it would be for Patsy to get out of bed and walk over to the phone. It would seem more plausible that she would nudge John to wake up and answer it.

I'm thinking PR was still up preparing for the next day and JR was in bed. She would have answered the phone in the little room off the kitchen because that's where the paper and pens were. JR probably wasn't asleep or even if he was and woke up that's not important, he was two floors up.

Why would they assume that the caller meant MR instead of JBR? Even if JBR was tucked into her bed, couldn't that change as soon as the threatening caller didn't get what he or she wanted?

The caller said 'at this time we have your daughter in our possession'. If you had put your daughter (JBR) to bed in your own home only an hour or so ago and there was another daughter (MR) a long way off (in Atlanta?) you are going to immediately think it was her, no?

So do you think that the call was for Melinda but someone else killed JonBenet? Or that the call really was for JonBenet and an unrelated individual killed JBR? Because I would find it really hard to believe that the family came in contact with a unrelated kidnapper and murderer in one night.

Not sure about this. Was MR really in danger and JR called on some 'favours' to have her released (remember he had friends in high places), or was it a tactic to throw them into a state of confused panic, so that the intended target (JBR) was left vulnerable?

Did the Ramseys try to withdraw money from their bank accounts that night/early morning for the supposed ransom note of Melinda? Did the BPD check that?

Perhaps, but I think they would rather have been working furiously to find out who had her and where she was. The money was small change for the Rs, so I don't think it's an issue.

And if this is true, why haven't they told BPD? Even if they did think it was for Melinda but it turned out that it was for JBR, they didn't commit a crime, they just committed a horrible mistake.

If this is true, then this is a whole other ball game! The BPD's mishandling of the case and their reluctance to follow up any leads and the DA's protection of the Rs is all part of the cover up of what actually happened. What I'm talking about here is an issue of national security. And don't anyone say, 'why would they pick on a little old businessman from Boulder' LOL. Little old businessmen from Boulder don't have the connections he has as well as 'top secret' security clearance!

See HOTYH, I do take you seriously!

 

[eileenhawkeye]

If this is true, then this is a whole other ball game! The BPD's mishandling of the case and their reluctance to follow up any leads and the DA's protection of the Rs is all part of the cover up of what actually happened. What I'm talking about here is an issue of national security. And don't anyone say, 'why would they pick on a little old businessman from Boulder' LOL. Little old businessmen from Boulder don't have the connections he has as well as 'top secret' security clearance!

See HOTYH, I do take you seriously!

So you're implying that the BPD botched the investigation on purpose? If that's true, then why did they make it known that the Ramseys were their #1 suspects? If they were on the Ramsey's side, wouldn't they insist that an intruder killed JBR since obviously the mass media was going to go after who ever did this horrible crime? It would seem that would be agreement of any "contract" that might have occurred. What does national security have to do with JonBenet's murder? Are you talking about the "foreign faction" part of the RN? I have heard about John's connections but how "deep" do they go? Did he have connections to the Clinton White House or perhaps a senator or governor?

What's HOTYH?

 

[Zak]

Respectfully snipped by me.

If this is true, then this is a whole other ball game! The BPD's mishandling of the case and their reluctance to follow up any leads and the DA's protection of the Rs is all part of the cover up of what actually happened. What I'm talking about here is an issue of national security. And don't anyone say, 'why would they pick on a little old businessman from Boulder' LOL. Little old businessmen from Boulder don't have the connections he has as well as 'top secret' security clearance!

JR's top secret security clearance was when he was in the service. A very long time ago. That is not uncommon and ends when you are discharged. Feel free to correct me on this, but this is what I have been told.

IMO you are over-estimating JR's connections. Certainly, I know that he had many business connections but anything more than that is reaching. If he had any government or other connections then he would not have been under that old umbrella of suspicion at all.

 

[MurriFlower]

Respectfully snipped by me.



JR's top secret security clearance was when he was in the service. A very long time ago. That is not uncommon and ends when you are discharged. Feel free to correct me on this, but this is what I have been told.

IMO you are over-estimating JR's connections. Certainly, I know that he had many business connections but anything more than that is reaching. If he had any government or other connections then he would not have been under that old umbrella of suspician at all.

Lockheed Martin.

 

[Ames]

Respectfully snipped by me.



JR's top secret security clearance was when he was in the service. A very long time ago. That is not uncommon and ends when you are discharged. Feel free to correct me on this, but this is what I have been told.

IMO you are over-estimating JR's connections. Certainly, I know that he had many business connections but anything more than that is reaching. If he had any government or other connections then he would not have been under that old umbrella of suspicion at all.

My husband was in the Air Force, and National Guard...and had a Secret Security Clearance, they go inactive when you stop using them, but can be renewed.

Clearances must be updated at specific intervals, even if they are active clearances.

Top Secret - every 5 years
Secret - every 10 years
Confidential - every 15 years.

"If a military person has a Top Secret Clearance, and gets out of the military, and applies to work for a civilian contractor, the military member's clearance can be reactivated within 24 months of getting out of the military, as long as his last Top Secret Background investigation is less than five years old."

 

[BBB167893]

Yes - in police interviews and interrogations the officers can lie about the evidence they have. It's a completely legal tactic. It tends to throw off the balance of the evidence that is actually relevant to the case in the public arena.

Key words there: police interviews. The interviewer was not a policeman; he was a lawyer for the state and is expressly forbidden from making false statements under penalty of disbarrment.

 

[BBB167893]

Aside from the fibers, which is what we are questioning, and the handwriting on the RN which is also under question, what other 'evidence' do you have

How much time have you got, MF? Well, just to give an overview (which is in no way comprehensive), you have the pineapple in JB's stomach and on the counter, the total number of inconsistencies from the Rs, the nature of the ligature around her neck, the functional uselessness of the duct tape and wrist ties. Then there's whole prior sexual abuse thing that IDI doesn't like to talk about (I certainly don't blame them!)

(and don't say they look guilty LOL)

Wouldn't think of it!

Now that I've had a chance to really consider your post, while I still maintain that the comparison is a faulty one, let's say for the sake of argument that the police had no solid evidence for an arrest. All they'd need is probable cause for an arrest. A refusal to come to the police station to be interviewed can be construed as probable cause. Like I said, police do it all the time and it WORKS.

 

[MurriFlower]

Key words there: police interviews. The interviewer was not a policeman; he was a lawyer for the state and is expressly forbidden from making false statements under penalty of disbarrment.

SD, kindly post a source for this.

This is what I've found.

“Attempting to reconcile such rulings, state courts and lower federal courts have come to draw a distinction between two kinds of lying to suspects: intrinsic misrepresentations, or those lies that relate to a suspect's connection to the crime; and extrinsic misrepresentations, or those that have nothing to do with the suspect's connection to the crime but attempt to distort his ability to make a rational choice about confessing. One of the leading cases recognizing this distinction is Holland v. McGinnis, decided in 1992 by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

That case affirmed the admission of a confession obtained after investigators falsely told the defendant, Holland, that they "had received a Chicago police report indicating that a witness had seen Holland's vehicle in the alley where the victim had been raped, and that Holland would have to explain why his vehicle was there."

The Court reasoned:
Such misrepresentations, of course, may cause a suspect to confess, but causation alone does not constitute coercion; if it did, all confessions following interrogations would be involuntary because "it can almost always be said that the interrogation caused the confession."

Miller v. Fenton, 796 F.2d 598, 605 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989 (1986).
Thus, the issue is not causation, but the degree of improper coercion, and in this instance the degree was slight. Inflating evidence of Holland's guilt interfered little, if at all, with his "free and deliberate choice" of whether to confess, Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421, 89 L. Ed. 2d 410, 106 S. Ct. 1135 (1986), for it did not lead him to consider anything beyond his own beliefs regarding his actual guilt or innocence, his moral sense of right and wrong, and his judgment regarding the likelihood that the police had garnered enough valid evidence linking him to the crime.

In other words, the deception did not interject the type of extrinsic considerations that would overcome Holland's will by distorting an otherwise rational choice of whether to confess or remain silent.

In a 1993 ruling, the Hawaii Supreme Court collected some examples of intrinsic and extrinsic misrepresentations:

Intrinsic misrepresentations (usually not coercive)
1. Placement of the defendant's vehicle at the crime scene.
2. Physical evidence linked to the victim found in the defendant's car.
3. Discovery of the murder weapon.
4. A claim that the murder victim is still alive.
5. Presence of the defendant's fingerprints on the getaway car or at the crime scene.
6. Positive identification of the defendant by reliable witnesses.
7. Discovery of a nonexistent witness.

Extrinsic misrepresentations (more likely to be coercive)
1. Assurances of divine salvation upon confession.
2. Promises of mental health treatment in exchange for a confession.
3. Assurances of treatment in a "nice hospital" (in which the defendant could have his personal belongings and be visited by his girlfriend) in lieu of incarceration, in exchange for a confession.
4. Promises of more favorable treatment in the event of a confession.
5. Misrepresentations of legal principles, such as (a) suggesting that the defendant would have the burden of convincing a judge and jury at trial that he was "perfectly innocent" and had nothing to do with the offense, (b) misrepresenting the consequences of a "habitual offender" conviction, and (c) holding out that the defendant's confession cannot be used against him at trial.
6. Misrepresentations by an interrogating police officer, who is a close friend of the defendant, that the defendant's failure to confess will get the officer into trouble with his superiors and jeopardize the well-being of the officer's pregnant wife and children.”


and


"Lies and Deception

Deception is not inherently coercive. As long as the lie is not the type of statement
“reasonable likely to procure an untrue statement”, it’s not coercive (People v. Farnam [2002] 28 Cal.4th 107). Telling the suspect, falsely, that the police have physical evidence against him in the form of tire tracks, fingerprints, or positive eyewitness identification have all been found to be not coercive (People v. Thompson [1990] 50 Cal.3d 134, People v. Musselwhite [1998] 17 Cal.4th 1216, People v. Parrison [1982] 137 Cal.App.3d
529).

 

[BBB167893]

SD, kindly post a source for this.

Your wish is my command!

Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct : Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."

 

[MurriFlower]

Your wish is my command!

Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct : Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. COMMENT Misrepresentation A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act."

I think you will find these apply to lawyer and client relationships, not to the District Attorneys.

 

[MurriFlower]

How much time have you got, MF? Well, just to give an overview (which is in no way comprehensive), you have the pineapple in JB's stomach and on the counter, the total number of inconsistencies from the Rs, the nature of the ligature around her neck, the functional uselessness of the duct tape and wrist ties. Then there's whole prior sexual abuse thing that IDI doesn't like to talk about (I certainly don't blame them!)
/QUOTE]

Ok, lets start with the pineapple. How is this incriminating of the Rs? In fact, unless it was used by an IDI to disguise a drug administered to JBR (and I'm thinking that you don't think the Rs gave her a drug), then what might it have to do with her death?

 

[BBB167893]

I think you will find these apply to lawyer and client relationships, not to the District Attorneys.

I had a feeling you'd say something like that. Well, I'll remind you of two things: 1) Prosecutors have a client as well, the most important one there is--the people. 2) More to the point, prosecutors are under much tighter constraints than defense attorneys. A defense lawyer's duty is to their client, not the truth. They have to give their client the best possible defense, even if they have knowledge that the client is guilty.

Ok, lets start with the pineapple.

Best place to start I can think of.

How is this incriminating of the Rs?

How? It's crucial, is what it is. That pineapple directly contradicts the story that they have always maintained: that JB fell asleep in the car on the way home and never woke up. Pineapple takes around 2 hours to digest. The Rs say they got home around 10:00 PM. That, combined with the ETD (estimated time of death) of around midnight, gives it just enough time to have been eaten by JB right after they got home. It all goes down to credibility. Why would they lie about such a simple thing? And what ELSE might they be lying about?

In fact, unless it was used by an IDI to disguise a drug administered to JBR (and I'm thinking that you don't think the Rs gave her a drug),

Quite right. I do not believe that.

then what might it have to do with her death?

Nothing to do with her death DIRECTLY. It's one very large piece of the overall puzzle. Like I always say, one brick is nothing. 1,000 bricks makes a wall. Any one piece of evidence against the Rs can be argued back and forth until the cows come home. But when you take everything all together, you have the wall, and it falls on them.

 

[DeeDee249]

How much time have you got, MF? Well, just to give an overview (which is in no way comprehensive), you have the pineapple in JB's stomach and on the counter, the total number of inconsistencies from the Rs, the nature of the ligature around her neck, the functional uselessness of the duct tape and wrist ties. Then there's whole prior sexual abuse thing that IDI doesn't like to talk about (I certainly don't blame them!)
/QUOTE]

Ok, lets start with the pineapple. How is this incriminating of the Rs? In fact, unless it was used by an IDI to disguise a drug administered to JBR (and I'm thinking that you don't think the Rs gave her a drug), then what might it have to do with her death?

Why do we have to keep repeating these things= the toxicology tests on JB were negative. NO drugs or alcohol found in her system.
The pineapple is suspicious for the simple reason that her parents lied about feeding it to her. There was no reason to lie except that they wanted it to appear that she was not awake when they got home. But their own son told police she was, and walked into the house.

 

[MurriFlower]

I had a feeling you'd say something like that. Well, I'll remind you of two things: 1) Prosecutors have a client as well, the most important one there is--the people. 2) More to the point, prosecutors are under much tighter constraints than defense attorneys. A defense lawyer's duty is to their client, not the truth. They have to give their client the best possible defense, even if they have knowledge that the client is guilty.

Kindly post your opinion backed up by a source that directly relates to staff of the District Attorney's office and their interrogation of suspects. Relate it, if you will, to what I posted as guidelines for intrinsic and extrinsic misrepresentations and how these do not apply to the DA. Ta.

Best place to start I can think of.
How? It's crucial, is what it is. That pineapple directly contradicts the story that they have always maintained: that JB fell asleep in the car on the way home and never woke up. Pineapple takes around 2 hours to digest. The Rs say they got home around 10:00 PM. That, combined with the ETD (estimated time of death) of around midnight, gives it just enough time to have been eaten by JB right after they got home. It all goes down to credibility. Why would they lie about such a simple thing? And what ELSE might they be lying about?

Quite right. I do not believe that.

You have absolutely no PROOF they are lying about this. You're rhetorical question 'who else would have fed it to her' or 'why would an IDI feed her pineapple' and 'why would she eat pineapple from a stranger' are based your own assumption that the parents were her killers. Who, when, why are questions we don't know the answers to, all we know is that she ate pineapple before she died. So while a mystery to us, it has no bearing at all on her death. It would be a different story if she died from eating poisoned pineapple, but she didn't.

Nothing to do with her death DIRECTLY. It's one very large piece of the overall puzzle. Like I always say, one brick is nothing. 1,000 bricks makes a wall. Any one piece of evidence against the Rs can be argued back and forth until the cows come home. But when you take everything all together, you have the wall, and it falls on them.

And remove one of your bricks and whole wall comes crumbling down, because they have no substance, only what you have imagined they have. The pineapple, the fibers, the handwriting, the panties, the 911 call, etc, etc. Not evidence, all just illusion!!

 

[DeeDee249]

Those "illusions" are being kept in an evidence locker because they are evidence, not illusions.