Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[SapphireSteel]

I don't think lawyering up is a sign of anything, at all.

I do find the timing of the lawyering up to be significant, however.

A grieving parent will do absolutely anything for their child, including answering questions until the cows come home. They will stop people on street corners, engage strangers, knock on doors and search everywhere and talk to everyone they can possibly think of. And then they do it again.

We know of some poor parents who virtually stalk LE for the rest of their lives, trying to force them to reinvestigate their case, take it off the cold case list, folks getting in trouble running their own investigations, etc.

This sort of desperation for help is typical of grieving parents.

Calling the lawyers, in fact calling anyone at all not immediately affected by the death, within hours of finding your daughter deceased on your basement floor, is not typical behaviour, nor consistent with grief being the primary emotion.

I am always suspicious when "grieving" parties call attention to themselves, rather than their child.

In Jonbenet's case, LE had not even managed to interview the Ramseys to make them feel uncomfortable or victimised. They attempted to the next evening but their lawyer stopped them.

The only reason any lawyer would advise innocent clients to not cooperate from the get-go with the only agency looking for the murderer of their child would be....??????

:sick:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't think lawyering up is a sign of anything, at all.

I do find the timing of the lawyering up to be significant, however.

A grieving parent will do absolutely anything for their child, including answering questions until the cows come home. They will stop people on street corners, engage strangers, knock on doors and search everywhere and talk to everyone they can possibly think of. And then they do it again.

We know of some poor parents who virtually stalk LE for the rest of their lives, trying to force them to reinvestigate their case, take it off the cold case list, folks getting in trouble running their own investigations, etc.

This sort of desperation for help is typical of grieving parents.

Calling the lawyers, in fact calling anyone at all not immediately affected by the death, within hours of finding your daughter deceased on your basement floor, is not typical behaviour, nor consistent with grief being the primary emotion.

I am always suspicious when "grieving" parties call attention to themselves, rather than their child.

In Jonbenet's case, LE had not even managed to interview the Ramseys to make them feel uncomfortable or victimised. They attempted to the next evening but their lawyer stopped them.

The only reason any lawyer would advise innocent clients to not cooperate from the get-go with the only agency looking for the murderer of their child would be....??????

:sick:

That only works if you trust the police. Remember that it was advice from a friend early that they get a lawyer. After that they are trusting the lawyer to help them. They think they have it handled and it will all work out. AT some point they start feeling that the police are not interested in finding the killer but going after them, I would then be silent too. The police can lie to elicit information. They can trick you. If you feel you are in their sights, how stupid would it be to talk without lawyer consent?

They did talk to police. It is not like they never did.

 

[BOESP]

Yes, aren't people told not to answer so they don't self incriminate?

They can even plead the Fifth after they've been subpoenaed. :facepalm:

 

[EastCoast]

That only works if you trust the police. Remember that it was advice from a friend early that they get a lawyer. After that they are trusting the lawyer to help them. They think they have it handled and it will all work out. AT some point they start feeling that the police are not interested in finding the killer but going after them, I would then be silent too. The police can lie to elicit information. They can trick you. If you feel you are in their sights, how stupid would it be to talk without lawyer consent?

They did talk to police. It is not like they never did.

They never did talk for months later, that does not equate to parents trying to find the truth.

 

[BOESP]

A little OT (perhaps, perhaps not)....

I liked how the mother of Natalie Halloway kept searching for years for her daughter and fought so hard for justice.
She went down to Aruba many times, hired a P.I., she was on tv.....she did whatever she could to keep her daughter's name out there and to catch the perp.

Natalie Halloway's mother did not say that she forgave whoever took her daughter. She did not grant them grace or understanding. She was always mad and I don't blame her one bit.

.....and therein lies my point--> the contrast. The contrast.

I agree. It is never about Beth Halloway. It is about her daughter and the children missing since Natalie's disappearance. Ms. Halloway's demeanor is 180 degrees from how the Ramseys came across. She is actually doing something pro-active instead of whining.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

They never did talk for months later, that does not equate to parents trying to find the truth.

Sure it does. They did not have to talk at all. They were being crucified but this insane LE and DA office. Who goes on TV putting them under suspicion.

I would not have talked either.. Being smart does not mean you are guilty.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I agree. It is never about Beth Halloway. It is about her daughter and the children missing since Natalie's disappearance. Ms. Halloway's demeanor is 180 degrees from how the Ramseys came across. She is actually doing something pro-active instead of whining.

However had her DD died in her house you have no idea how she would have acted. Her dd was taken from her by a stranger and killed far from home. So it is not equatable.

She would not have gone near John had she thought he had anything at all to do with this. Never. She knew him better than any of us.

I think sometimes no matter how you try to make something fit sometimes there is something completely sensible that won't let you.

 

[SapphireSteel]

However had her DD died in her house you have no idea how she would have acted. Her dd was taken from her by a stranger and killed far from home. So it is not equatable.

She would not have gone near John had she thought he had anything at all to do with this. Never. She knew him better than any of us.

I think sometimes no matter how you try to make something fit sometimes there is something completely sensible that won't let you.

What is the "completely sensible" explanation for the Ramsey non-cooperation?

Don't forget, JB was clearly assaulted. Innocent parents and LE both would assume the perp had left evidence as to who he was, so why the immediate refusal to be interviewed?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What is the "completely sensible" explanation for the Ramsey non-cooperation?

Don't forget, JB was clearly assaulted. Innocent parents and LE both would assume the perp had left evidence as to who he was, so why the immediate refusal to be interviewed?

Sure but there is no proof by whom. Because their lawyer told them not to. Simple as that. They had an atty and that is what they were told. Whether you feel it was right or wrong it does not point to guilt. Just the way the system works.

 

[BBB167893]

Wait, The questions she was TOLD not to answer.. That is what lead you to believe in her involvement? So she gets a lawyer which is her right, Then she follows his advice and that means she was involved?

???

Like the old saying goes, Scarlett: even if you're innocent, a lawyer will defend you like you're guilty, because they know there's a good chance you are.

 

[BBB167893]

Sure it does. They did not have to talk at all. They were being crucified but this insane LE and DA office. Who goes on TV putting them under suspicion.

I would not have talked either.. Being smart does not mean you are guilty.

But they had NO problem talking to the media, now did they?

And PLEASE do not waste my time with that "crucifying" BS.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

But they had NO problem talking to the media, now did they?

And PLEASE do not waste my time with that "crucifying" BS.

Is this against the law? Talking to the media? They were getting crucified by the police in the media, I would probably have started talking too. I think they felt like no one was really trying to find who was doing this.
TO me if you are guilty of anything, you just shut up and stay away. You don't start looking for people looking into the case.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Like the old saying goes, Scarlett: even if you're innocent, a lawyer will defend you like you're guilty, because they know there's a good chance you are.

Not sure how this is relevant to anything. Lawyers are there to make sure we have all the rights we are entitled to and navigate the system for us.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

FWIW, 'just a little thought from a women's (and mother's) perspective:

If someone broke into my home, and attempted to kidnap my child but instead assaulted and brutally and through very odd methods killed my child...

....I would never, never sleep in that house again. Never.

First of all, the memories, sorrow, and nightmares would be unbearable.

Second, the thought of that crazy person possibly coming back in to get my other child(ren) or anyone else for that matter in the household would put me into a constant state of panic. Bear in mind, the killer was/is still on the loose.

Third, the method of entry into the house was never solidified so I would feel that everyone in the house were "sitting ducks" for future mis-dealings; at risk because the "kidnapper" did not succeed in getting any money.

I base these thoughts on simply having my home robbed once. It is a horrible feeling but nothing like what I would have felt if I lost a loved one and in particular, my child.

Think about it for a second......the horror!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

FWIW, 'just a little thought from a women's (and mother's) perspective:

If someone broke into my home, and attempted to kidnap my child but instead assaulted and brutally and through very odd methods killed my child...

....I would never, never sleep in that house again. Never.

First of all, the memories, sorrow, and nightmares would be unbearable.

Second, the thought of that crazy person possibly coming back in to get my other child(ren) or anyone else for that matter in the household would put me into a constant state of panic. Bear in mind, the killer was/is still on the loose.

Third, the method of entry into the house was never solidified so I would feel that everyone in the house were "sitting ducks" for future mis-dealings; at risk because the "kidnapper" did not succeed in getting any money.

I base these thoughts on simply having my home robbed once. It is a horrible feeling but nothing like what I would have felt if I lost a loved one and in particular, my child.

Think about it for a second......the horror!

Our house was broken into when I was child while we were all sleeping. It is a horrible feeling knowing someone was there. We changed the locks, and and secured the house.

I don't know if any of us can really imagine without going through it what we would do or feel, But I understand what you are saying.

I just don't know.

 

[BBB167893]

Is this against the law? Talking to the media?

Against the law? No. But it's damned odd, to say the least. They can't be bothered to talk to the police, but they can go before the cameras?

They were getting crucified by the police in the media, I would probably have started talking too. I think they felt like no one was really trying to find who was doing this.

I think it goes back to the whole "Orwell" thing I told you about.

TO me if you are guilty of anything, you just shut up and stay away. You don't start looking for people looking into the case.

You mean looking for people to keep you out of prison, don't you? Not my words, BTW. JR's words.

 

[BBB167893]

Not sure how this is relevant to anything. Lawyers are there to make sure we have all the rights we are entitled to and navigate the system for us.

They went a LOT further than that in this case, Scarlett! Including some actions which I STILL maintain should have landed them in serious trouble. Far as I'm concerned, Haddon & Company should have been disbarred for what they did.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

So, in regards to my post #1834 about never staying in that house again after such a horrific, odd, murder/kidnapping gone wrong, I have a question to ask my more knowlegeable WS-ers:

1. Did the R's continue to sleep and live in that house after this crime with the supposed perp still on the loose?

2. Did the R's ever receive another note from the perp since he/she did not succeed the first time in getting any money?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Against the law? No. But it's damned odd, to say the least. They can't be bothered to talk to the police, but they can go before the cameras?



I think it goes back to the whole "Orwell" thing I told you about.



You mean looking for people to keep you out of prison, don't you? Not my words, BTW. JR's words.

They were told not to talk to police by their attys. Nothing odd about that.

Why they went before the media is not a hard thing for me to figure out. I think they knew the police were looking at them, They wanted someone to look for JBR's killer, they felt the police were not doing that.

This is not the only case where the police were focused only on the family and trying to make them look guilty to the public.. Lest we forget the Aisenbergs were the police bugged their house and released to the media that they were talking about drugs and killing the baby and yet when analyzed for the court there was NOTHING On those tapes.

I believe that his PD focused in the wrong place way too soon, But I also believe if they had focused outside better, Preserved the evidence better, Secured the scene, and not cornered the R's they may have indeed found the killer and they would be in prison now.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

They went a LOT further than that in this case, Scarlett! Including some actions which I STILL maintain should have landed them in serious trouble. Far as I'm concerned, Haddon & Company should have been disbarred for what they did.

Everything they did on behalf of their client is their job. It did not land them in trouble and they were not brought before the bar so that is just opinion.