I do know of one person that agrees with you completely, Jose Baez. Speaking about Casey Anthony and her month of “grieving” after killing her daughter…
“I think what we do in our society is, we judge people pretty harshly. And we judge them as if we know how we would react if we were in their shoes, but the fact is, we’re not in their shoes. And we haven’t lived the life they’ve lived. So I think when people start judging people that way, I think it’s a bit unfair. People grieve in many different ways. And people respond to trauma in various ways.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/a-mother-lies-and-the-world-cries-casey-anthony-defies-the-7-stages-of-grief
We need to ask whether behavior fits better within a context of innocence or guilt.
The concept of circumstantial evidence is relatively well laid out in Steve Thomas’ statement that …
”Taken alone each piece of evidence might be argued, but together, enough pebbles become a block of evidentiary granite.”
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 242
A number of people who had the opportunity, first hand, to witness the behavior of the Ramsey’s were left with the impression that it was atypical.
Similarly the American public judged the behavior of the Ramseys and just as the poll here would suggest, they also by a substantial majority felt there was something wrong.
Without further evidence to back up that suspicion it amounts to nothing, but there is significant evidence and therefore the behavioral evidence simply dovetails in with the rest of the evidence.
My intention is not to argue the evidence which bolsters the suspicion raised by the Ramseys behavior within this post. That has been laid out and argued many times.
And make no mistake, the behavior of suspects is evidence and can be brought up at trial.
It also alerts investigators as to whom the potential suspects are, as in the case below:
Downs claimed she was carjacked on a rural road near Springfield, Oregon by a strange man who shot her and her three children. Investigators, however, became suspicious when they decided her manner was too calm for that of a person who had experienced such a traumatic event.
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Diane_Downs
Alex Hunter comments on the behavior of the Ramseys below and I find the bolded statement to be especially valid:
During a three hour interview with me in June, Alex Hunter, an affable man of 61, acknowledged that most of the post murder behavior of the Ramseys was unusual. "No question about it. They lawyered up early on," he said. "Normally it is true, such victims throw themselves at the police and district attorney, offering and begging for information. “
Vanity Fair,Who Killed JonBenet? September 16, 1997 by Ann Louise Bardach
All the Ramseys ever wanted to do from day one is to move on with life. I’m sorry, but that is only consistent with the behavior of suspects, not victims, not parents who have lost their daughter to some murdering pedophile.
The words of Marc Klass will forever be an indictment to the shameful and suspicious behavior of the Ramseys:
We bring these children into this world and it’s our duty then to do whatever we can to protect them and that includes totally cooperating with law enforcement right down the line"
…
"I don't believe there was an intruder inside the Ramsey house that evening I believe the evidence as we know it is pretty clear-cut. The only logical explanation for that ransom note is if it came from within the household itself."
-Mark Klaas
While there are considerable differences between the disappearance of Marc Klaas’ daughter, Polly Klaas, and the death of JonBenet, it is still a fact that as a parent Klaas could have been involved.
ERNIE ALLEN, PRES., NATIONAL CTR FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN: It is surprising. And certainly, in this country, one of the first things that law enforcement would do is question the parents, question those who are around the children.
SNOW: Take the case of Polly Klaas, who was abducted from her home in 1993 and was found dead months later. Her father, Marc, says he and other family members were questioned by police and cleared within a week of Polly`s disappearance.
MARC KLAAS, KLAAS KIDS FOUNDATION: We took polygraph exams, we answered all their questions until they were satisfied that we had nothing to do with it, and then they moved on.
http://truthofthelie.com/2007/10/mystery-of-madeleine-mccann-disappearance-still-unsolved/
Pat Brown: One of the things, I think Marc Klaas says it all of the time on Nancy Grace when he’s on there. He says, a parent, and he should know because he was a suspect right up front with his missing daughter, Polly, He says you do everything you can to get the focus off of you to clear your name so they can go look for the person because the family is always looked at first because we all know that that’s most likely the people that do in their children and have the proximity to them. So you want to make sure you clear yourself in every way possible so the police go okay it’s definitely nothing to do with you. You’re showing no signs of trying to obstruct the investigation, you’re showing no signs of defense initiatives, showing no signs that you’re not telling the truth. So, you know, we, we’re comfortable with you.
http://regretsandramblings.com/2011/08/04/pat-brown-on-websleuths-radio-transcript/
With approximately 77 abductions by family members for every kidnapping by a non-family member law enforcement will inevitably follow the statistics and concentrate on the child’s known universe. They will launch parallel investigations with a focus on the family and move outward. Like concentric ripples in a pond, they will look at family, friends and acquaintances, peripheral contacts, sex offenders registered in the community and finally the most frightening and daunting scenario of all: strangers.
As intrusive as it may become and as irrelevant as it may seem, fully cooperate with law enforcement and eliminate yourself as a suspect. They will ask questions that seem irrelevant and may even ask you to take a polygraph examination. It is not fair, but it is necessary. Remember, like you, law enforcement doesn’t know where your child is and the sooner they are able to gather and assimilate information and evidence, the sooner they are going to be able to direct their investigation toward the solution.
http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-mc-lawenforcement.htm
Although the following deals with a general missing child scenario, I thought it was relevant:
To give your child the best chance of being found, you and law enforcement must treat one another as partners. —Don Ryce
Few parents have had experience working with law enforcement agencies. Perhaps you have had contact previously with law enforcement as a result of a traffic ticket or an accident. If so, you probably saw law enforcement as the enforcer of rules that had been broken—not as a lifeline.
But when your child is missing, you and law enforcement become partners pursuing a common goal—finding your lost or abducted child. As partners, you need to establish a relationship that is based on mutual respect, trust, and honesty. As partners, however, you do not have to agree on every detail. This chapter provides insight into the relationship you are entering into with law enforcement—what you can expect from the investigation, what types of questions you are likely to be asked, and what situations you and your family are likely to encounter in the process.
Your Partnership With Law Enforcement
When asked if it bothered me to take a lie detector test, I told the reporter, “They can electrocute me if it will bring my son back.”
—Claudine Ryce
Most people do not believe that they will be victims of crime—or that their children will be victimized. But if a young member of your family becomes a victim, you will likely wonder what law enforcement expects of you and what you can expect of law enforcement. Understanding these expectations will deepen your knowledge of law enforcement’s role, establish a sound basis for your relationship with the agencies and organizations that are there to help, and assist you in handling this all-too-sudden change in circumstances.
Make sure law enforcement understands that your child is in danger and that his or her absence is likely to be involuntary. If your child is 10 years old or younger, it will not be hard to show that your child is in danger. However, if your child is older than 10, it is important to let law enforcement know that your child’s absence is not normal behavior and that you would be surprised if your child had disappeared voluntarily.
...
Be prepared for hard, repetitious questions from investigators. As difficult as it may be, try not to respond in a hostile manner to questions that seem personal or offensive. The fact is that investigators must ask difficult and sensitive questions if they are to do their jobs effectively.
...
Do everything possible to get you and your family removed from the suspect list. As painful as it may be, accept the fact that a large number of children are harmed by members of their own families, and therefore you and your family will be considered suspects until you are cleared. To help law enforcement move on to other suspects, volunteer early to take a polygraph test. Insist that both parents be tested at the same time by different interviewers, or one after another. This will help to deflect media speculation that one of you was involved in the disappearance.
Insist that everyone close to your child be interviewed. Encourage everyone—including family members, friends, neighbors, teachers, and coaches—to cooperate in the investigatory process. Although polygraph testing is voluntary, refusal to take a polygraph can cause law enforcement to spend time trying to eliminate an individual from the suspect list through other means and, as a result, take valuable time away from finding the real suspect.
...
Talk regularly with your primary law enforcement contact.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/204958/ch2.html
Let’s look at how the Ramseys used their resources:
On the night of December 27, the day after the debacle on Fifteenth Street, Detective Arndt and Sergeant Larry Mason arrived at Tin Cup Circle at 9:30 P.M. to schedule the formal interviews. But instead of stepping forward to cooperate, the Ramseys seemed to be fast fading from view.
John Ramsey was there but would not talk to them alone. Also present were his brother, Jeff Ramsey; Dr. Beuf, the pediatrician; Rod Westmoreland, Ramsey’s financial adviser from Atlanta, who introduced himself as an attorney; and the influential local lawyer Mike Bynum, who had once worked in the DA’s office. Bynum made his role official when he said he would be providing John Ramsey with legal advice.
It was the first time police had had a chance to speak with Ramsey since he had left his house the previous afternoon, yet he sat there with two lawyers.
The session lasted only forty minutes, during which time the detectives learned little. Ramsey asked no questions about the murder, the autopsy, or how JonBenét was killed. I later considered this very peculiar behavior. Parents usually want to provide information as soon as possible to help police find who harmed their child before the trail goes cold.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 53
As the second full day of the investigation came to a close, the parents still would not give interviews to police and had hired lawyers and private investigators who were tying down the testimony of witnesses before police got to them.
“Why won’t they help us?” I wondered. “What are they afraid of?”
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 65
Detective Arndt made one final try at persuading the lawyers to grant interviews but was told that the family would be out of state for an unknown time. She responded that she had a single page of questions the police would like to have answered, and the attorney said, “Fax them.”
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 67
Certainly everyone has the right to hire a lawyer and the right to remain silent, and I could not blame someone with a lot of money for hiring an attorney with impeccable credentials. But Ramsey had gone far beyond protecting his interests. What he had done would be unheard of in most big cities, even in the largest police investigations, and he simply overwhelmed a little town like Boulder.
Starting only a few hours after he found the body of his daughter, he retreated into a legal stronghold that could not be cracked. At least, not by us.
Hal Haddon of Denver had been the chief trial deputy in the state public defender’s office before going into partnership with two other attorneys, Bryan Morgan (the friend and occasional breakfast partner of Pete Hofstrom in the DA’s office) and Lee Foreman, in 1976. Eight years later, when Colorado Senator Gary Hart failed spectacularly in his presidential bid, Haddon was his campaign manager. His candidate crashed, but Haddon was left plugged into the Democratic Party political network, particularly in Colorado. In the nineties, as the attorney for Rockwell International, he engineered a plea bargain as a grand jury investigated the company for alleged environmental crimes at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant just outside Boulder. The deal so enraged the grand jurors that they leaked their secret report to the press. Ramsey hired Haddon.
Bryan Morgan of Boulder was no stranger to law enforcement, partially from his representation of a woman named Lee Lindsley in a case several years before. Police responding to her early morning 911 call had found the snow around the house undisturbed and her physician husband shot to death. She was charged with murder, but Morgan successfully argued that two intruders did it, and Lindsley was acquitted. She moved to Atlanta and taught at the elementary school attended by the older children of John Ramsey. The Lindsley and Ramsey cases had a lot of similarities, including a claim of an intruder and the same defense attorney, but Deputy DA Trip DeMuth, in an extraordinary decision, forbade my pursuing that line. “The case is sealed,” he said. We had never intended to razor-blade open the file but thought to interview some of the major participants. “Don’t go near it.” Ramsey hired Morgan.
John Ramsey hired Patrick Burke of Denver to represent Patsy. Burke had once worked with Pat Furman, a professor of law at the University of Colorado, to gain acquittal for a man allegedly involved in the white supremacist slaying of Denver talk-show host Alan Berg. Ramsey hired Furman, too. The police found it particularly interesting that John and Patsy would be represented by separate attorneys, a move that can indicate a possible conflict of interest between the parties.
A lawyer was needed in Atlanta for the family members back there, and someone suggested Jim Jenkins, one of the top lawyers in Georgia. Ramsey hired Jenkins.
The private investigative firm of Ellis Armistead in Denver was brought aboard. Pat Korten, a public relations specialist in Washington, D.C., was hired to deal with the press. Handwriting experts were hired. And John Douglas, a former FBI profiler who had spent a career getting into the minds of killers, was hired.
We referred to the whole pack as Team Ramsey, and although the attorneys resented being called “defense lawyers,” that’s precisely what they were, as one would later openly declare.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, pages 110 - 111
Although still too distraught to meet with us, John and Patsy Ramsey spoke for several hours with their newest trophy hire, John Douglas, formerly with the FBI’s behavioral sciences unit.
John Ramsey’s lawyer Bryan Morgan was at the profiler’s side and permitted no direct questions about the Ramseys during a long interview.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 136
Two months would pass before we finally got to interview Lucinda Ramsey Johnson. In the meantime, we learned that John Ramsey was paying both for his first wife’s lawyer and for the mortgage on her house. There was no doubt about her loyalty.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 150
Fleet told us that Ramsey lawyer Mike Bynum had called them shortly after the body was discovered. Surely he was talking about December 27, the night John Ramsey talked with Bynum at the Fernie house. White found his notes and said, “No, it was the day before, on the afternoon of December 26.” You sure of that date? I asked. White checked his notes again. Yes.
The minds of two detectives went into overdrive. The body of JonBenét was found at 1:05 P.M., and John and Patsy left the house at about 2:30 P.M. NOW White was saying that an attorney was already in play, calling witnesses, only a few hours later. WOW!
Fleet added that he was also interviewed by three people associated with Team Ramsey the following day, December 27, when he didn’t know any better than to speak with them. The private investigators weren’t out canvassing the neighborhood for an intruder but were pinpointing the Ramseys’ best friends while the police were being stalled.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, pages 287 - 288
“Team Ramsey:”
John Ramsey’s lawyers:
Lee Foreman (criminal defense attorney)
Hal Haddon (criminal defense attorney)
Bryan Morgan (criminal defense attorney)
Mike Bynum (civil defense attorney)
William Gray (civil defense attorney)
Lin Wood (civil defense attorney)
Patsy Ramsey’s lawyers:
Patrick Furman
Patrick Burke
Lawyer for Lucinda Johnson, Melinda, John Andrew, and Burke Ramsey:
James Jenkins
Private Investigators:
Ellis Armistead
Jon Foster
David Williams
Ollie Gray
John San Agustin
What were these investigators doing?
Q. Then what was, basically, your association with the private investigation of the potential suspects in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?
A. The investigators were retained by our attorneys, and they stated to me that the principal purpose of those investigators was to prepare a defense in the case that the police might bring a charge against me. I hoped that they would also follow up on leads that came to us, but I was frequently reminded by our attorneys that their principal role was to prepare a defense should that be necessary.
Deposition of John Ramsey, December 12, 2001
Handwriting analysts:
Lloyd Cunningham
Howard C. Rile, Jr.
Other:
Patrick Korten - Media consultant
Charlie Russell – Public relations consultant
Rachelle Zimmer - Spokeswoman for the Ramsey family
John Douglas - Criminal profiler (consultant)
Ed Gelb - Polygrapher
Lou Smit – Friend
Mary Lacy - Friend
