If your child was murdered

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So they were right with having their high beams on the R's right away, as the police were right to be looking inside? The R's hid behind their lawyers within, what a day or two, because the police were looking inside? That confuses me- you can't have it both ways. Either they accept that they are going to be investigated along with others and cooperate, or not cooperate.
You will not even think that the R's could have anything to do with it. Nothing that they have done doesn't seem the bit odd to you. Yet you offer no attempt to show anything that points to an intruder. Everything that a RDI posts, you dismiss. I know people grieve and deal with things differently, but wanting to fly out of town an hour or so after your daughter is murdered for a business meeting, not giving an interview the next day, and all the I don't know's.....I'll keep to my opinion that it puts flags up. If you read the transcripts of the R's statements to police, there are a lot of "I think's" in them.
And again, I cannot think of anyone else who was allowed to know the questions from police beforehand, have a say in where the interview was going to take place, and not have phone records and medical records subpoenaed.
:banghead:

When I think about the case I don't throw away options but look into them piece by piece, I don't ignore things but try to place them in a way they fit. Like a huge jigsaw and I see more not fitting with the RDI than fitting. What I see is conjecture and opinions that everyone is entitled to but I don't see the path laid out clearly. I see big pits in the road that take one down a rabbit hole to pure storyland.

To me all it says is they had great lawyers, Lawyers that could see the landscape and wanted to protect their clients. I am still reading transcripts.

But I see things in there that I think show they needed attys to help them along.

 

[madeleine]

But I see things in there that I think show they needed attys to help them along.

There is a reasonable explanation as to why they needed lawyers.But what reasonable explanation is there for a parent not wanting his daughters killer found/identified?Is there one?
He needed an atty for himself but didn't need to find out who did it and why?
Jr's own words....oh yeah,would have been nice if my investigators looked for the intruder but they were too busy preparing my defence.Innocent parents don't behave like this,period.

 

[Venom]

It was meant to be emphasis on HIM.. Maybe you would have liked Italics better.. I don't have any concerns about JR. At this point all I see is a grieving father who lost his dd in the most horrific way. There is no proof that he did anything to JonBenet. No proof of anything whatsoever. There is a little girl that was most likely molested but it does not mean it was anyone in her immediate family.

The problem is that it is spoken as fact in this forum that Jr molested JBR and that is simply not a fact just more opinion.


I see here is a lot of strings of things that have been woven into an accepted blanket of blame and fact when all it is really is a cloak of opinions.

You are correct that a courtroom is the best place to see the proof that the state would bring, however the fact that they have not brought it to a courtroom, says IMO that there is no case there. They do not have any proof of anything or it would have indeed seen the courtroom by now.

A grand jury did vote to indict both of the R"s, the DA wouldn't sign the indictment. Would you say there was proof of something for a grand jury to vote to indict? I already know the answer will be no.

 

[Nom de plume]

Why wouldn't the BPD want to hold the body until they interviewed the parents? What if the parents gave them information--say, as to HOW the child had gotten chronic vaginal injuries that were days or weeks old?--and they needed to follow up with more tests?

I'm not a M.E. so that's just a "for example" idea. In fact, some bodies are exhumed later to test for new evidence. Bruises show up days after death in some cases and if the body is already in the ground, too late.

Team Ramsey, most importantly from D.A. Hunter's Office, floated the "ransoming the body for interviews" nonsense to the media. This is documented in several books. Leaks were common and they didn't all come from the BPD. John Ramsey wrote in his own book "someone" inside the LE investigation called the Ramsey's lawyer and told him the Ramseys were suspects already. That mole was likely an attorney, as well: why would a cop be calling the Ramsey's lawyer? Hunter released a copy of the "ransom note" to the Ramsey's lawyers in the first month. What DA gives evidence to the prime suspects before they've even had a formal interview with LE after their dead child was found in their basement?

And what parents are so hell bent on questioning the investigation from Day One they decide to obstruct it instead of helping? Your daughter is murdered in your home by "a small foreign faction" right under your nose and the best you can come up with is TALK TO OUR LAWYERS?

People believe what they want because they want to believe it. There is plenty of evidence in spite of the Ramseys and Hunter and it ALL leads back to the Ramseys--AND NO ONE ELSE.

If Hunter hadn't been protecting the Ramseys all along, none of us probably would even be here today. We might never have heard of this case because it's possible it could have been solved in a week with subpoenas for phone records and the family's clothing worn on the 25th/26th.

But not the Ramseys...poor, put upon, mistreated by LE, Patsy and John to this day have NEVER graced the BPD with their presence...except when their buddy Pasta Jay was arrested a few months later for chasing men he suspected were media with a bat. Patsy got herself down to that police station faster than you can say La de dah.

Patsy and John were exclusively handled by the DA: handwriting samples were taken at personal offices and residences. Interviews were given at a "neutral" location after much stonewalling, conditions, and demands were met, "negotiated" by none other than the DA.

As their own attorney Lin Wood said himself, the Ramsey's attorneys protected them from being arrested and tried in this murder, but in so doing, made them look guilty as can be to the public.

And THAT is not our fault.

A grand jury did vote to indict both of the R"s, the DA wouldn't sign the indictment. Would you say there was proof of something for a grand jury to vote to indict? I already know the answer will be no.

The answer will be the same old tired "You can indict a ham samich." Blah blah blah....

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

A grand jury did vote to indict both of the R"s, the DA wouldn't sign the indictment. Would you say there was proof of something for a grand jury to vote to indict? I already know the answer will be no.

I believe that he may have known something was not right, and so did bring charges. Again, We all know that GJ indict more often than they don't. They have indicted and later those people are proven innocent in subsequent court proceedings. The Grand Jury in itself means little to me.

The fact that the DA did not bring charges matters more to me. If it was such a great case he would have.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The answer will be the same old tired "You can indict a ham samich." Blah blah blah....

The problem with that is that it is TRUE. That is the measure most go by. Indictments are a dime a dozen so they in themselves mean little.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There is a reasonable explanation as to why they needed lawyers.But what reasonable explanation is there for a parent not wanting his daughters killer found/identified?Is there one?
He needed an atty for himself but didn't need to find out who did it and why?
Jr's own words....oh yeah,would have been nice if my investigators looked for the intruder but they were too busy preparing my defence.Innocent parents don't behave like this,period.

They are entitled to have them. We have protections under the law. Lawyers help us navigate the law. They are there to protect us and to help us deal with the police.

As long as they are entitled to counsel and protection it can not be held against anyone.

 

[madeleine]

They are entitled to have them. We have protections under the law. Lawyers help us navigate the law. They are there to protect us and to help us deal with the police.

As long as they are entitled to counsel and protection it can not be held against anyone.

that wasn't the point.yawn

 

[madeleine]

the problem ISN'T them lawyering up,it's legal,it's their right,blah blah blah,I've said it hundred times,I don't think they did it because they lawyered up,I am okay with that

the problem is them not co-operating with police
the problem is them hindering the investigation,lying
the problem is they didn't care who killed their daughter and why and wanted escape town and move on just a few days after she died
and the list goes on and on and on

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

the problem ISN'T them lawyering up,it's legal,it's their right,blah blah blah,I've said it hundred times,I don't think they did it because they lawyered up,I am okay with that

the problem is them not co-operating with police
the problem is them hindering the investigation,lying
the problem is they didn't care who killed their daughter and why and wanted escape town and move on just a few days after she died
and the list goes on and on and on

That is all an assumption you put on them.
You don't know why they did not immediately run to be interviewed. It was most likely because their Lawyers told them not to. That is what we pay them for and then we take their advice.

You don't know they had any intention to hinder anything. They again were most likely counseled against it.

You do not know what they cared about or what their intentions were. That is just speculation and people trying to read their minds.

The list goes on and on because it is not fact based but just how people FEEL about the way they acted and FEEL they should have acted differently.

That is bias. Trying to put things on people based on how you feel about them.

None of those things you posted point to guilt, it just points to how you feel about what they did or did not do.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

that wasn't the point.yawn

It is very much the point and one people want to overlook. If you are overlooking the basics, then what else is skewed when you look at it through that same vision.

 

[carbuff]

This discussion seems to have wandered rather far from the topic of the poll.

 

[2 percent]

I know that if something so horrific had happened to my child in my house I would most likely not want to talk to anyone.

I'm asking you seriously...if, God forbid, your child were murdered you would be more concerned about your personal feelings, ie "not wanting to talk about it", than catching the monster than murdered your child?

I'm sorry, I find that an unlikely reaction by a parent who is not involved in the murder of that child.

I'm not going to speculate on why two people who just experienced the worst loss ever in the most brutal fashion may not have wanted to talk to police but I'm wondering if it was on lawyer counsel? We pay lawyers to take care of things and look out for us.

It may have been on the advice of counsel. But that makes it worse! That means their lawyer knew they were guilty of something and were protecting them from possible self incrimination. There really is no other explanation for a lawyer advising parents from cooperating with law enforcement when a child has been murdered.
In her house.
With only the parents and a young boy in residence.

 

[Charterhouse]

I don't post often. But I feel I need to say this.

Please if someone disagrees with another poster. Come up with a theory of your own and let someone disagree or agree with that theory. I enjoy hearing new theories. Also, it is always good to ask questions.

There are people that have been on here and other threads regarding JB for a VERY long time. Maybe it would be best to do some research and come up with something, anything on your own and then express that rather than tell everyone they may be wrong or it just isn't known.

Personally I am getting sick of this on every thread that is being discussed. JMO

If there is something concrete to discuss, we will do it. God only knows it has been done to death. But, I think everyone here is willing to discuss something anything concrete. But to argue or disagree (whatever you want to call it) just to do so is a waste. IMO only

This is just my opinion. If mods do not like my post, please remove.

 

[2 percent]

Well here we are not talking about being found guilty but being treated badly or backed into a corner by the police.. That would be different.. But

How about David Dowalliby?

Convicted of the murder of his step daughter. He and his wife were railroaded. The appeals court reversed his conviction outright.

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1991/C...-Daughter/id-29a6bd910af5450789a86abaa7815209

Lynn De Jac
http://www.examiner.com/article/lynn-dejac-case

Julia Rea Harper

http://www.examiner.com/article/julia-rea-harper-case
Convicted of stabbing her son to death..

Turns out it was Tommy Lynn Sells

I have more if you need them..

Things eventually wander around the things like convictions being overturned and usually clarification of the legal world is required.

First, just because someone's conviction was overturned does NOT automatically mean they have been exonerated or are not guilty. It merely means the review of the court case was legally flawed.

For example, Sonny Jacobs. There is a play that pretty much makes her sound like she was an innocent in the murder of a cop but in actuality, she got out on a technicality because a prosecutor crossed the line.
Doesn't make her innocent and she certainly never was exonerated.

Dowaliby was not exonerated. The appellate court found the evidence to be insufficient for conviction.

Lyn DeJac is also a technicality. Her conviction was based on her supposed confession to a neighbor (later recanted), but there was no physical evidence in the case. Knowing that, how in the world was her conviction overturned on the basis of DNA? Suspicious on the face of it.
Interestingly enough...the DNA was linked to DeJac's boyfriend who was given immunity in this case. So why didn't he confess? He couldn't be touched and his girlfriend would be exonerated. Like I said, interesting.
Also, the prosecutor is looking into charging her with manslaughter. The obvious being that just because her DNA didn't show up doesn't mean she isn't involved.

Harper...wow!
No, her conviction was overturned on a technicality not innocence.
She was rearrested and retried. However, the key witness against her, the responding officer, was not available for the trial.
As for Sells, if you didn't know that man confesses and recants all the time. Not only was he too vague to place himself at the crime scene, the few specifics he gave like mask v. hoodie were completely wrong.
And last, the court wouldn't allow Sells confession to be included in Harper's retrial for the very reason that it wasn't provable or reliable as evidence of Harper's innocence.
Again...not guilty only means not guilty. It doesn't mean innocent.

I don't ever fault police with doing their job. I fault them for not doing their job with integrity and trying to end run the rules to get what they wanted.
There is no reason for that. If you have the proof and evidence then you start a case. They botched this from the beginning by not running a protected crime scene making a mess of evidence and then hanging the R's out to dry in the public forum.

Whoa whoa...exactly what end run did the cops in the JBR case do?
Specifically.

And who hung out the Ramseys? They hung themselves out to dry. They took a gamble that standing on their rights and obstructing justice would endear them to the public. It didn't. Added to that, they tried to play this game in the public forum too, so they can't gripe when it doesn't go their way.

 

[questfortrue]

I don't post often. But I feel I need to say this.

Please if someone disagrees with another poster. Come up with a theory of your own and let someone disagree or agree with that theory. I enjoy hearing new theories. Also, it is always good to ask questions.

There are people that have been on here and other threads regarding JB for a VERY long time. Maybe it would be best to do some research and come up with something, anything on your own and then express that rather than tell everyone they may be wrong or it just isn't known.

Personally I am getting sick of this on every thread that is being discussed. JMO

If there is something concrete to discuss, we will do it. God only knows it has been done to death. But, I think everyone here is willing to discuss something anything concrete. But to argue or disagree (whatever you want to call it) just to do so is a waste. IMO only

This is just my opinion. If mods do not like my post, please remove.

First, I’ve no idea about anyone on the JB ws forum, so this post applies to no one in particular. But as I’m interested in my society, I thought it was of interest. The term “trolls” was coined in the 1980s to denote someone who intentionally applied some tactics to disrupt web discussion. At that time early trolling was relatively innocuous, taking place inside of small, single-topic Usenet groups. Judith Donath, an M.I.T. professor and expert internet expert describes this kind of trolling, “as a pseudo-naïve” tactic, asking stupid questions and seeing who would rise to the bait. The game was to find out who would see through this stereotypical newbie behavior, and who would fall for it. Donath called the behaviour a “game about identity deception”. She went on to explain that sometimes people are just out to see who takes the bait. Sometimes it creates mayhem (at worst), but many times (at best) it drowns out quiet and reasonable voices. Just always trying to educate myself.

Simply info from the web. If this post is not appropriate, mods, please delete.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't post often. But I feel I need to say this.

Please if someone disagrees with another poster. Come up with a theory of your own and let someone disagree or agree with that theory. I enjoy hearing new theories. Also, it is always good to ask questions.

There are people that have been on here and other threads regarding JB for a VERY long time. Maybe it would be best to do some research and come up with something, anything on your own and then express that rather than tell everyone they may be wrong or it just isn't known.

Personally I am getting sick of this on every thread that is being discussed. JMO

If there is something concrete to discuss, we will do it. God only knows it has been done to death. But, I think everyone here is willing to discuss something anything concrete. But to argue or disagree (whatever you want to call it) just to do so is a waste. IMO only

This is just my opinion. If mods do not like my post, please remove.

Why Should anyone have to put forth everything they are thinking for a right to post? Just because people have been discussing it for years does not make their opinion more right or more valid. It is still just opinion.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Things eventually wander around the things like convictions being overturned and usually clarification of the legal world is required.

First, just because someone's conviction was overturned does NOT automatically mean they have been exonerated or are not guilty. It merely means the review of the court case was legally flawed.

For example, Sonny Jacobs. There is a play that pretty much makes her sound like she was an innocent in the murder of a cop but in actuality, she got out on a technicality because a prosecutor crossed the line.
Doesn't make her innocent and she certainly never was exonerated.

Dowaliby was not exonerated. The appellate court found the evidence to be insufficient for conviction.

Semantics to me. They found that he should not be in prison and that he should not have been convicted.
Lyn DeJac is also a technicality. Her conviction was based on her supposed confession to a neighbor (later recanted), but there was no physical evidence in the case. Knowing that, how in the world was her conviction overturned on the basis of DNA? Suspicious on the face of it.
Interestingly enough...the DNA was linked to DeJac's boyfriend who was given immunity in this case. So why didn't he confess? He couldn't be touched and his girlfriend would be exonerated. Like I said, interesting.
Also, the prosecutor is looking into charging her with manslaughter. The obvious being that just because her DNA didn't show up doesn't mean she isn't involved.

Harper...wow!
No, her conviction was overturned on a technicality not innocence.
She was rearrested and retried. However, the key witness against her, the responding officer, was not available for the trial.
As for Sells, if you didn't know that man confesses and recants all the time. Not only was he too vague to place himself at the crime scene, the few specifics he gave like mask v. hoodie were completely wrong.
And last, the court wouldn't allow Sells confession to be included in Harper's retrial for the very reason that it wasn't provable or reliable as evidence of Harper's innocence.
Again...not guilty only means not guilty. It doesn't mean innocent.



Whoa whoa...exactly what end run did the cops in the JBR case do?
Specifically.

And who hung out the Ramseys? They hung themselves out to dry. They took a gamble that standing on their rights and obstructing justice would endear them to the public. It didn't. Added to that, they tried to play this game in the public forum too, so they can't gripe when it doesn't go their way.

Overturned convictions that are never again taken to trial because they know they have the wrong person. That is what we have here. It is personal opinion if you agree or not but the courts set these people free because they were found not guilty. Semantics again on the innocence/ not guilty.

It is obvious that the police were trying to use any means to get the Ramseys to talk even if it was their right not to. Trying to figure out how to hold the body of their daughter is dirty pool. If it was me I would have known right away these were not police I could trust.

 

[ziggy]

From my perspective, it is not uncommon for some people to just keep a stiff upper lip in the face of tragedy while in public. I have two types of females in my family - especially emotional (my sister who threw herself on her 3 yo's casket screaming don't put my baby in the ground), and emotionally in check.

My oldest sister and I are emotionally in check - totally opposite of my middle sister and mother. When tragedy strikes and it has stricken our family with untimely deaths more than I wish, we tend to take the strong approach. I would totally be concerned about how I looked in part out of respect for the deceased (mother would be proud of me for being so brave and strong, she always counted on me) and partly because it's just who I am.

I've always been concerned about being presentable. Is that the sin of vanity? Am I a terrible person who is shallow beyond all hope? Not at all.

The emotionally in check females in my family just go ion auto pilot - we do exactly what we would do on any normal day in order to deal with the situation by staying in control. In private, we break down - bad - gut wrenching sobs that practically stop the ability to breathe.

Everyone is different and we all grieve differently. I think what the R's did was minor in comparison to Casey A, who did not grieve at all!

Prescription drugs also play a role. If you are on a strong anti-anxiety med. you can function rather normally and seem apathetic.

 

[BOESP]

In my opinion, it wasn't a stiff upper lip while in the public eye that was the problem. It was the publicity hounds (the Ramseys) seeking the public eye and when their plan to garner sympathy from the masses failed they decided to whine and say how cruelly and unfairly they had been treated. Had they been innocent and cooperated from the beginning they would not be suspect now.