If you look at it logically it's very clear who did it!

[CloudedTruth]

Yes, and that's what their counsel guided them to do.

They hid behind the layer of protection the attorneys offered. Everyone knows that the early days in an investigation are critical. After months go by, memories fade. They could've submitted to interviews with counsel present to advise. They did not until they had favorable terms and access to the investigative files, which again is unprecedented. I have often referenced the Polly Klaas case and the marked differences in how the parents chose to respond. That was also a high profile case. The parents allowed themselves to be interviewed and investigated right up front so that the investigation could then focus on finding the perpetrator. Mark Klaas used the media effectively to put focus on the investigation and his daughter. He did not allow it to become a media circus. Huge difference.

It's standard practice to offer heavy medications to a mother who has just suffered the loss of a beloved child. "Drugged out of her mind" might be accurate, but it's not flattering.

It may not be flattering, but that's how many people described PR. She was so heavily medicated that she could barely function. She needed help bathing and dressing. When Pam Griffin and her daughter saw PR on the 27th at the Fernies, they thought she was 1 step away from overdosing. Dr. Beuf was a pediatrician and not PR's doctor. One can argue the ethics of him giving her high doses of Valium to begin with and then continuing on well after her own doctor should have been consulted. I'm not sure it would be considered standard practice to heavily medicate a mother in this case. That implies it's done all the time. Are there statistics that show this? In particular for the amount of time PR was medicated to the point where she could not function? I can recall interviews with Sharon Tate's mother after the murder of her daughter. She was nowhere near as dosed as PR was, if at all. Of course she spoke to LE first way before she spoke with the press.

And, I think everyone agrees no interview should be conducted when someone is in such a state.

The point is, she did not need to be that heavily sedated. It was OTT. I think most people would agree speaking to LE about the murder of your daughter should be a priority. As soon as you are able so valuable information and memories are fresh.

Again, when someone is foisted into celebrity status, they often seek to pacify the press/tabloids by offering to make an appearance rather than be hunted daily.

Again, who went to the press first? The Ramseys. At that time there was no huge presence of tabloids, etc. hounding them. The story went hugely national when the Ramseys chose to do a prime time national broadcast and it took off from there. They weren't pacifying the press at that point, they were getting ahead of the story to put out their narrative and they used the press to do so.

For the most part, the media was the bad guy. They published all manner of lies.

Let's not forget how DA Hunter used the press and in particular a specific reporter for a tabloid to put "all manner of lies" in the public's ears and eyes.

I agree, it became a circus. One the Ramseys did not deserve.


Long before Fernie saw anything published, LE was pitting friend against friend. LE got the finger-pointing started. After that, it was a snowball gathering bulk and speed.

Only those involved with the investigation would know the specifics. Barb Fernie called police with her concerns, not the other way around. Until then the Fernies were staunchly supporting their friends. They like the other friends, cooperated with police immediately. It was only the Ramseys who did not cooperate. Where is the evidence that police were pitting them against the Ramseys? I have heard no such claim from any of the friends. Barb Fernie saw what she knew to be an obvious lie by the Ramseys, how was that a result of police pitting her against them? She came forward because she knew it was a lie. She came forward because she had justice for JonBenet at heart.

 

[Fldrew]

The Ramseys found a ransom note around 5.30 am in the stairs inside their house......logically after reading the note any normal individual would have looked around the house for the child and also to see if the person who wrote that note is still in the house and/or from where that person may have entered the house to make sure the house is now secure because they have another child in the house with them to protect.

I would have personally searched the house relentlessly from top to bottom looking for my precious child before or while my wife would be calling 911. If they would have done that they would have found Jonbenet in the house right then. The fact that Jonbenet was in the house all this time and they failed to locate her is illogical. They never looked for her because if they would have they would have found her...even if it was a big house SHE WAS IN THE HOUSE!! She could have been easily found....they never looked for her because they knew where she was all along. All this case was about her been kidnapped which was not true to later been found in the house.....

At this point to know exactly what happened and who did it is not as important as to simply figure out if it's an inside job or if it's something done by someone from outside. We all know that if Burke was responsible for what happened to Jonbenet either by accident or done intentionally it was impossible for Burke to write that ransom note by himself he was too young to write that and trying to cover it up by himself unbeknownst to the parents is impossible....the parents would have to be involved in this either way.

On the 911 call Patsy sounded/acted out of breath desperate her daughter was kidnapped but she was surely not out of breath searching desperately for Jonbenet in the house because she would have found her....she was in the house.

I will spare you Ramseys strange behavior following the 911 call and the manner in which John Ramsey found Jonbenet later in the house full of guests up to not wanting to speak with the authorities to interviews on TV....illogical again.

To me 1 minute into this case my logic tells me the Ramseys are the ones responsible for Jonbenet's death.

I agree.

 

[spivey]

.....The Rs have always claimed LE incompetence. On the other hand, they did nothing to help in the investigation for months. They asserted that BPD did not know what they were doing; and yet they did nothing to lead LE in a productive direction. Polygraphs are inadmissible. Although the Rs could not be harmed in court by them, they refused to take the tests. No doubt the lawyers reasonably advised this. In doing so, John & Patsy chose to live under a cloud of suspicion, which persists until today. Instead they chose CNN in order to establish their status as self-proclaimed 'victims'. Drugging Patsy was clever, as anything she might reveal could be attributed to her being out of it......

I have always had a problem with the Ramsey's constant reminders that the investigation was botched. Did LE make mistakes in the days following her murder? Yes. Did the Ramsey's immediately invite their friends over for a crime scene contamination party? You bet they did. Not once will you hear a Ramsey acknowledge that calling all their friends over contributed to contamination of the crime scene.

Far worse than contributing to the contamination, was the fact that the ransom novel stated that if they talked to a stray dog, JBR would be killed. And yet, they immediately invite everyone over and contact police without even mentioning the threat to JBR's life. If the ransom novel was real, the Ramsey's actions very likely caused the death of their daughter. In all the years since the murder, have you ever heard a Ramsey express remorse for causing the death of their daughter by not following the kidnapper's instructions "to the letter"?

 

[GRT]

They hid behind the layer of protection the attorneys offered.

Yes, that's what attorneys do. In fact, they get rather irate if their clients don't abide by their guidelines.

The point is, she did not need to be that heavily sedated. It was OTT. I think most people would agree speaking to LE about the murder of your daughter should be a priority. As soon as you are able so valuable information and memories are fresh.

RSBM

I always prefer to let a person's doctor make those choices, as I am in no position to judge how much medication is *appropriate* for a mother whose beloved child was brutally slain.

Again, who went to the press first? The Ramseys. At that time there was no huge presence of tabloids, etc. hounding them.

The Press was there the next day. They were at the funeral. They haunted everyone who had anything to do with the case.

The Press was there first. The Ramseys' agreement to talk to them was a response to the Press's smothering of them.

Barb Fernie saw what she knew to be an obvious lie by the Ramseys, how was that a result of police pitting her against them? She came forward because she knew it was a lie. She came forward because she had justice for JonBenet at heart.

I have nothing against Fernie. If she felt the Ramseys were lying, she had every right to speak out.

The Ramseys had that right, too, when others lied about them.

Potato -- Po-tah-to

 

[GRT]

Not once will you hear a Ramsey acknowledge that calling all their friends over contributed to contamination of the crime scene.

RSBM.

Oh yes, that was a dumb thing to do. But it was not nearly as dumb as Arndt ordering FW to guard the basement door and then FW running down to mess with the blanket and tape.

Far worse than contributing to the contamination, was the fact that the ransom novel stated that if they talked to a stray dog, JBR would be killed. And yet, they immediately invite everyone over and contact police without even mentioning the threat to JBR's life. If the ransom novel was real, the Ramsey's actions very likely caused the death of their daughter. In all the years since the murder, have you ever heard a Ramsey express remorse for causing the death of their daughter by not following the kidnapper's instructions "to the letter"?

I have no doubt the ransom note was written by someone else, but I don't think it was anything more than an attempt to throw the Ramseys and LE off.

 

[FMB]

Yes, that's what attorneys do. In fact, they get rather irate if their clients don't abide by their guidelines.

They didnt have to have attorneys representing them. How did hiding behind the layer of protection offered by their attorneys advance the cause of finding their daughter's killer??

RSBM

I always prefer to let a person's doctor make those choices, as I am in no position to judge how much medication is *appropriate* for a mother whose beloved child was brutally slain.

You previously stated it was "standard procedure" for Mothers to be heavily medicated if their daughter had been slain. I think it was a choice Patsy made but certainly not all parents of slain children make the same decision.....How does being heavily drugged up advance the cause of finding their daughters killer? I would think most parents would want to be lucid, awake and on overdrive if nothing more to be able to protect their other children.......

The Press was there the next day. They were at the funeral. They haunted everyone who had anything to do with the case.

This is revisionist history.....nobody forced the Ramseys to go on CNN, Barbara Walters, Larry King, Katie Couric etc etc etc.....

The Press was there first. The Ramseys' agreement to talk to them was a response to the Press's smothering of them.



I have nothing against Fernie. If she felt the Ramseys were lying, she had every right to speak out.

The Ramseys had that right, too, when others lied about them.

Potato -- Po-tah-to

 

[CloudedTruth]

Yes, that's what attorneys do. In fact, they get rather irate if their clients don't abide by their guidelines.

RSBM

I always prefer to let a person's doctor make those choices, as I am in no position to judge how much medication is *appropriate* for a mother whose beloved child was brutally slain.


The Press was there the next day. They were at the funeral. They haunted everyone who had anything to do with the case.

The Press was there first. The Ramseys' agreement to talk to them was a response to the Press's smothering of them.



I have nothing against Fernie. If she felt the Ramseys were lying, she had every right to speak out.

The Ramseys had that right, too, when others lied about them.

Potato -- Po-tah-to

Hmmmm......let's see.....

Dr. Beuf was JonBenet's pediatrician, not PR's doctor. It's ok to prescribe medication if it's an emergency and one's regular doctor cannot be reached, but the regular doctor should be contacted asap for further prescribed medication, especially in the case of a controlled substance. PR was a cancer patient. Was Dr. Beuf privy in his role as JB's pediatrician to PR's medication and treatment protocol? If he pulled this stunt today, he'd be called in front of the medical review board. Yet your previous statement was that "it's standard practice to offer heavy medications to a mother who just suffered the loss of a beloved child". Now you are offering up that it should be the person's doctor's choice to judge how much medication is appropriate because you're not in a position to judge. Dr. Beuf was not PR's doctor, and as a pediatrician I wonder how often he had to medicate his patients with controlled substances for emotional distress?

On 12/27 the Ramseys were in good enough shape to welcome guests to visit them at the Fernies home, but not to talk to police.

On 12/29, they held a memorial at their church in Boulder, to which the PR team invited several media outlets to cover. The congregants were outraged that Team Ramsey pulled this media stunt for attention and reported feeling used.

On 12/31, JonBenet's funeral was held in Georgia, which the Ramseys thought fit to film in its entirety.

On 1/1, the Ramseys appear on CNN and give a nationally televised interview bringing the story to the attention of the entire country.

Local press was on this at first, which is to be expected. It was a big story in Boulder. They weren't smothering the Ramseys, the few local outlets reported it. It went national and became a big deal when the Ramseys made it so.

 

[proust20]

It cannot be disputed that the Rs hiring legal representation was wise. When did they first contact an attorney? If it were before the 911, it throws off their official timeline. Did they dream up the idea of the invitees on their own; or was this the advice of a lawyer?

The social circle began to break apart at the GA funeral. The Rs threw FW and anyone else that they could conjur up under the bus almost immediately. Only the Stines remained loyal. SS's role regarding the 911 call on the 23rd gave them a leg up. They'd be rewarded for this by John.

Pageantry was a prominent aspect of Patsy's life. CNN offered a grand opportunity to emote for a national audience. ("I'm ready for my close-up.") Being over sedated emphasized her piteous state. If she had required medication, a doctor was not among the invitees of the 26th. I shall refrain from the use of the term 'Drama Queen". Although, to be fair, Patsy is a tragic figure, as JonBenet was also. Did PR know that the cancer would assail her once more?

I think that the fabled DNA on the panties was touch DNA, which is of limited value. There was no semen nor saliva. Given the brutality of the crime, the small amount of blood is rather startling. If the head blow had bled visibly, the case should have a different forensic character. It must have surprised the attacker. Did (s)he grasp its severity?

JonBenet possibly evoked jealousy/ envy among the other 3 Rs. Patsy wished that she had won the Miss America crown that might go to JB one day. John and Burke easily could have felt relegated to the background.

When a murdered child is found in their own home while the parents were in residence, LE is of course going to rate them high as suspects. The Rs seem to have thought this to be unwarranted. Being resistant and accusatory of LE only adds to suspicion. "Go back to the drawing board!"

 

[Ponytale]

It's standard practice to offer heavy medications to a mother who has just suffered the loss of a beloved child. "Drugged out of her mind" might be accurate, but it's not flattering.

And, I think everyone agrees no interview should be conducted when someone is in such a state.

Yes, the shock and despair are expected emotions in traumatic situations and often require attendance, usually involving medications. There is nothing wrong with that.

But what is wrong is that a parent who's child has just been found murdered in their home would choose his/hers emotional state over cooperation and providing help to find the murderer of their child. IMO, that is rather unusual.

In situations where there has been a traumatic event and the parent is heavily medicated, they would usually still do anything that they can to help, cooperate and provide information. Medicated or not, an innocent parent would be desperate to find answers and justice for their child. The authorities are (and should be) the ones who then make notes of that parents emotional state. The authorities are the ones who should conclude if the parent is too sedated or under heavy medical influence that would/could alter the memories or statements, and make notes that they should not be interviewed in that time and state. A new appointment for an interview would be scheduled then by the LE and that would not take 4 months to happen.

The difference in this case is obvious. The police (or any other authority in that matter) did not have a chance to conclude that the Ramsey's both were actually for 4 months in such state that they were not able to answer any questions or be interviewed. It was a decision made not by the LE - it was made by the lawyers of the Ramsey's who gave that info to the LE, stating, that they were grieving parents who needed time to compose themselves and weren't in any state to be interviewed. It was not stated and confirmed by the BP, or any other party that had interest in solving the case at that time. We will never know if it actually was true that they were under such medical influence for a long period of time, or were they just taking time for themselves. IMO, it was the latter. Nevertheless, there is no reason why it should have taken 4 months.

We have seen many situations where a child has been kidnapped or killed. All the parents are initially shocked and in despair. None of them have hidden for months or even for weeks to cooperate - you see many of them on the news even the same day it happened, pleading out to the public to help them, regardless of their own emotional state.

 

[GRT]

But what is wrong is that a parent who's child has just been found murdered in their home would choose his/hers emotional state over cooperation and providing help to find the murderer of their child.

In situations where there has been a traumatic event and the parent is heavily medicated, they would usually still do anything that they can to help, cooperate and provide information. Medicated or not, an innocent parent would be desperate to find answers and justice. The authorities are the ones who then make notes that the parent is too sedated or under heavy medical influence that would/could alter the memories or statements, and make notes that they should not be interviewed in that state. A new appointment for an interview would be scheduled then by the LE and that would not take 4 months to happen.

From what I've read, it wasn't Patsy who refused to talk to LE but rather the Fernies and family members who turned them away.

But, I have to disagree about a grieving parent's response in that situation. Patsy had just lost her beloved daughter who meant everything to her. Finding the killer was probably the last thing on her mind. She was in deep grief. She wanted her child back.

From Thomas' book--this is right after JR gets back from picking up family at the airport:

"John Ramsey returned at midnight. He and Patsy took more Valium and fell asleep on the floor. Family members stayed close, praying. Patsy would awaken occasionally and ask for more Valium, declaring she just wanted “to stay asleep.” She said she no longer had a reason to live."

Hollywood has convinced us that the first thing we should think about is justice/revenge/payback. But that's not really what most people experience, MOO. The first stage is an intense sense of loss. That's what Patsy and John were experiencing that day.

Right after that, the attorneys were involved, and they knew the BPD was on a witch hunt for their clients, so they did their job as they were supposed to.

None of that reflects negatively on the Ramseys.

The difference in this case is obvious. The police (or any other authority in that matter) did not have a chance to conclude that the Ramsey's both were actually for 4 months in such state that they were not able to answer any questions or be interviewed. It was a decision made not by the LE - it was made by the lawyers of the Ramsey's who gave that info to the LE, stating, that they were grieving parents who needed time to compose themselves and weren't in any state to be interviewed. We will never know if it actually was true that they were under such medical influence for a long period of time, or were they just taking time for themselves. IMO, it was the latter. Nevertheless, there is no reason why it should have taken 4 months.

Maybe the attorneys should have hurried it up. But they didn't and the fact they didn't does not indicate guilt on the part of the Ramseys.

We have seen many situations where a child has been kidnapped or killed. All the parents are initially shocked and in despair. None of them have hidden for months or even for weeks to cooperate - you see many of them on the news even the same day it happened, pleading out to the public to help them, regardless of their own emotional state.

Again, they were just following their attorney's advice, and that's what smart people do. Why hire an attorney if you go against what they tell you to do?

All MOO

 

[Ponytale]

But, I have to disagree about a grieving parent's response in that situation. Patsy had just lost her beloved daughter who meant everything to her. Finding the killer was probably the last thing on her mind.

So you believe that when a child is murdered, finding the killer is probably the last thing on a parents mind then?

Or you just believe that Patsy is just some kind of weird exception.
Sorry, I strongly disagree here.

She was in deep grief. She wanted her child back.

And how are the other parents who have lost their child any different? They too are in deep grief. They too want their child back. But yet they appear on national television hours after with the police to plead for help and assistance.
I guess they are the parents that actually think about finding the killer.... not like Patsy.

From Thomas' book--this is right after JR gets back from picking up family at the airport:

"John Ramsey returned at midnight. He and Patsy took more Valium and fell asleep on the floor. Family members stayed close, praying. Patsy would awaken occasionally and ask for more Valium, declaring she just wanted “to stay asleep.” She said she no longer had a reason to live."

That quote refers to the time close to the murder. I am writing about the 4 months that they chose not to cooperate and hid behind their "fragile emotional states". I doubt they actually behaved like described in that quote for more than a week or two after the murder.

Hollywood has convinced us that the first thing we should think about is justice/revenge/payback. But that's not really what most people experience, MOO. The first stage is an intense sense of loss. That's what Patsy and John were experiencing that day.

I'm not talking about Hollywood. I presented an example from real life that we all have witnessed from national television when a child has been kidnapped or murdered.

Maybe the attorneys should have hurried it up. But they didn't and the fact they didn't does not indicate guilt on the part of the Ramseys.

It indicates that finding the actual monstrous murderer who invaded their house in the middle of the Christmas night to murder their beloved little girl did not matter to them.

 

[GRT]

So you believe that when a child is murdered, finding the killer is probably the last thing on a parents mind then?

Or you just believe that Patsy is just some kind of weird exception.
Sorry, I strongly disagree here.

In the hours immediately after a child has been slaughtered--I don't think most parents will fixate on finding the killer. At that point, they're still struggling with denial.

And how are the other parents who have lost their child any different? They too are in deep grief. They too want their child back. But yet they appear on national television hours after with the police to plead for help and assistance.
I guess they are the parents that actually think about finding the killer.... not like Patsy.

Well, actually, reports that they would not answer questions is completely wrong. Arndt and another detective questioned JR for about 40 minutes when he was at the Fernie home. It's only that PR was not presented for questioning at that time as she was heavily medicated.

And, as noted, after that--the attorneys took over.

But, even before that, the R's were cooperative--willingly giving Arndt handwriting samples while at their own home.

That quote refers to the time close to the murder. I am writing about the 4 months that they chose not to cooperate and hid behind their "fragile emotional states". I doubt they actually behaved like described in that quote for more than a week or two after the murder.

I don't think that is a true and fair assessment of what happened.

MOO

 

[GRT]

But what is wrong is that a parent who's child has just been found murdered in their home would choose his/hers emotional state over cooperation and providing help to find the murderer of their child. IMO, that is rather unusual.

From Arndt's report -- how is this not cooperation? This was 9:30 pm at Fernie's house the day JBR died.

 

[Ponytale]

In the hours immediately after a child has been slaughtered--I don't think most parents will fixate on finding the killer. At that point, they're still struggling with denial.

Again, I have not posted about "the hours immediately after". My post was regarding the overall 4 months of not cooperating and choosing to hide behind their fragile emotional states.
What I actually posted was that it is an expected and normal reaction immediately after a traumatic event. But it is not normal weeks and months later for parents to still not care about finding the murderer.

Well, actually, reports that they would not answer questions is completely wrong. Arndt and another detective questioned JR for about 40 minutes when he was at the Fernie home. It's only that PR was not presented for questioning at that time as she was heavily medicated.

That was not a formal police interview that was expected from them. Not actually a sign of willful cooperation, but rather something that they had no choice but to do. Just imagine what it would have looked like if they would not have answered any questions on that day.

But, even before that, the R's were cooperative--willingly giving Arndt handwriting samples while at their own home.

Because they had no choice. They knew back then even without their lawyers help that if they would not provide what was asked that they it would not serve them any good. Quite logical to anyone.

 

[Ponytale]

From Arndt's report -- how is this not cooperation? This was 9:30 pm at Fernie's house the day JBR died.

View attachment 563421

Again, did they have any actual choice?

 

[GRT]

Again, did they have any actual choice?

John chose to answer questions for 40 minutes that night.

After that, they did what their attorneys advised, as anyone would do.

 

[Ponytale]

John chose to answer questions for 40 minutes that night.

I do not think that he actually had a choice. They did not have any attorneys at that time and did what was asked by the LE. Wouldn't call it an actual choice. If John would have chosen not to be questioned or not to answer the questions asked by the detective at that time, that sure wouldn't have made him look good, right. Now who would actually choose that. Hence, he had to cooperate. He had no other choice.

 

[GRT]

Again, I have not posted about "the hours immediately after". My post was regarding the overall 4 months of not cooperating and choosing to hide behind their fragile emotional states.
What I actually posted was that it is an expected and normal reaction immediately after a traumatic event. But it is not normal weeks and months later for parents to still not care about finding the murderer.

It's apparent that the Ramsey's did cooperate -- answered Arndt's questions, gave writing samples, and even in the days and weeks that followed, they cooperated through their attorneys.

I'm not sure why pulling out only the in-person interview four months later negates the rest of their cooperation. It just seems highly selective.

That was not a formal police interview that was expected from them. Not actually a sign of willful cooperation, but rather something that they had no choice but to do. Just imagine what it would have looked like if they would not have answered any questions on that day.


Because they had no choice. They knew back then even without their lawyers help that if they would not provide what was asked that they it would not serve them any good. Quite logical to anyone.

Formal or not, they cooperated.

It was only when their attorney stepped in that they allowed him to make the decisions.

BPD was out of control -- they'd already interrogated BR at Fernie's house earlier that day. That wasn't supposed to happen without the parents' permission, but it did.

The attorney was wise to take control of the situation because it was apparent early on that it was descending into a witch hunt.

JR and PR were parents of a murdered child, but they were never afforded the respect from LE that they should have received.

 

[Ponytale]

I'm not sure why pulling out only the in-person interview four months later negates the rest of their cooperation. It just seems highly selective.

Because that is the standard procedure.

The detectives need to have a chance to ask the questions that they need to be answered to proceed with the investigation in a correct manner. They need answers to build a case. This is one of the most crucial reason why there are so many things left for interpretation and opinions - there were no clear answers provided, and for the statements that they did get there was no chance for follow up questions that were needed to clarify those statements.

The statements made at an in-person interview that would have been done separately with both of them and without the dictations of their lawyers could have solved the case right then. Lengthy statements from all three of them, without the time to prepare the answers, know the questions beforehand or align their stories of events, would have drawn a much clearer picture of what actually happened.

Now why would an innocent parent not want to do that.

Formal or not, they cooperated.

It was only when their attorney stepped in that they allowed him to make the decisions.

BPD was out of control -- they'd already interrogated BR at Fernie's house earlier that day. That wasn't supposed to happen without the parents' permission, but it did.

The attorney was wise to take control of the situation because it was apparent early on that it was descending into a witch hunt.

IMO, they only cooperated as long as they had no other actual choice that would not have incriminated them otherwise.

And I'm glad that the BPD had a chance and guts to act the way they acted with them in those first 24 hours.

JR and PR were parents of a murdered child, but they were never afforded the respect from LE that they should have received.

And that is only because they never acted accordingly. IMO

 

[CrimeTheorist]

I think their extreme actions (or inactions) after hiring attorneys was because their lawyers most likely felt, or possibly even knew, that their clients were guilty. If that wasn't the case they would have both talked to police separately in an official interview with an attorney present, shortly after the death of Jonbenet. They would not need access to certain information that they shouldn't have been privy to or made certain demands for them to even talk to police in a sit down interview. It's possible that the family was innocent but I think if the attorneys truly believed that they wouldn't have gone to the extremes we saw in this case, by doing so they made their clients look guilty. It's possible the lawyers were wrong and the Ramsey's were completely innocent and could have (and probably should have) talked to police in an official interview with them present soon after her death. I know some might say that the attorney's were just doing their job but most attorney's don't go to these extremes. JMO