Parents On This Forum: Answer Me This!

[sandraladeda]

You seem to be talking about a regular landline,so don't the phone records of their house phone just show who called out?Mine don't show who called me and definitely not who called me and hung up. If they were collect or third party they would show I suppose.
So I would guess they would want to see who the R's are calling, not who is calling them.
That's where the R's have rights.

eta; or are we talking about records that maybe the phone co has but not the ramseys?

Well, I would think LE would want both land lines as well as cell phones. I'm not a cop, but on TV (teehee) the cops always seem able to get the records from the phone company of land lines. In this case, LE was not allowed to do so. The Rs would have been able to access their own cell records, I believe, but chose not to.

I am actually sick of hearing that the R's have rights as though they had no option but to stand on these rights. Sometimes people waive their rights to be helpful to advancing an investigation! Yes, they have a right to not incriminate themselves. imo, when people want to avoid things that may incriminate them, that makes me think there is something there that might incriminate them. I don't personally believe they were simply standing on constitutional principles when they did not hand over phone records, I think they were stonewalling legitimate efforts by LE to cover basic investigative avenues. Don't you wonder if they were hiding something?

What if something came to light that solved this back in 1997? What if PR and JR were completely exonerated and PR at least died knowing the killer had been punished and the world knew the truth. Wouldn't that be worth giving up her right to withhold her phone records?

She already lost her daughter. What's the big deal, releasing her phone records to LE?

 

[Maybe So]

Depends on the person - I can see a mother, or myself reacting that way. Partly because one of my coping techniques is denial, partly because another coping technique when I am at max-stress is to avoid taking on anything new. So, I've got cancer, my daughter is dead, and the world thinks I am a murdering, torturing pedophile who killed her own daughter. Well - that's enough for me - I just don't need to keep hearing more about the case, I want to remember my daughter as she was in life, not think more, hear more about the horrible things she went through during her death. The less I know, the better I can keep my sanity. And the investigation won't be helped by me driving myself nuts keeping up with it - my husband can tell me when there are real results, but beyond that - it's not going to bring her back, nothing can fix this even a little, and I'm maybe a little scared of having to go through the trial and publicity and attacks from the defense if the culprit is found - not that I wouldn't want them to be caught, but I don't want to think about that right now.


I've had a max-stress time recently - and that's how I reacted - with far less stress than the Ramsey's had.

I don't know who done it - I lean IDI, but either is possible - but I just don't see the condemning details in how the Ramsey's reacted that morning and since.

Hey, that sounds just like me! Not that I wouldn't want the murderer caught but I could not think about it all day every day for years without being way too stressed out..not on top of cancer and being under the umbrella of suspicion anyway. I get overloaded if too many things come at me at one time...being suspected as the killer myself would be the most mind blowing circumstance and would probably make me a basket case who could barely function. Who knows how they would have reacted differently if the media and the public had ralleyed behind them as it did for Sharon Rocha and others.....???

 

[Pedro]

I beg to differ. Getting phone records is as routine as getting hair samples. And just as necessary.

The routine of a process does not provide probable cause.

 

[Pedro]

worry most about an honorable man sure he is doing the right thing.

Yes, that is what I called "idiocy".

 

[Pedro]

Probable cause? Let's think "reasonable". let's think about wanting to do everything we can to solve the crime.

imho

I agree with you, it would have been reasonable to provide telephone records to assist in the investigation of the murder of your child.

Still "probable cause" defines what they can force the R's to do, without probable cause, the R's decide and they decided not to provide those records.

But sure, it would have been reasonable.

I still would have not provided anything unless told by my attorney to provide.

 

[Pedro]

Sometimes people waive their rights to be helpful to advancing an investigation!

Yes, but the question here is "How often people waive their rights to be helpful advancing an investigation if they are the main suspects?"

 

[BBB167893]

Pedro, I have to admit, you stir the blood of the patriot in me.

BUT

Yes, we have rights. But we also have duties. They had a duty to their daughter, and they shirked it. That I do not forgive.

 

[Pedro]

Pedro, I have to admit, you stir the blood of the patriot in me.

BUT

Yes, we have rights. But we also have duties. They had a duty to their daughter, and they shirked it. That I do not forgive.

Yes I see your point. Still they made a choice, we can agree or disagree with their choice but still they exercised their constitutional rights and that should not ever be considered as a sign of guilt because by doing so we nullify those rights for all of us.

 

[s_finch]

I agree with you, it would have been reasonable to provide telephone records to assist in the investigation of the murder of your child.

Still "probable cause" defines what they can force the R's to do, without probable cause, the R's decide and they decided not to provide those records.

But sure, it would have been reasonable.

I still would have not provided anything unless told by my attorney to provide.

So by your own admission, you would not independently act in a reasonable manner.

 

[JBean]

So by your own admission, you would not independently act in a reasonable manner.

They are not mutually exclusive. It would also be reasonable to not turn in the records, as it is within one's rights.

It would be reasonable to call my friend..
It would also be reasonable to not call my friend.

 

[JBean]

Well, I would think LE would want both land lines as well as cell phones. I'm not a cop, but on TV (teehee) the cops always seem able to get the records from the phone company of land lines. In this case, LE was not allowed to do so. The Rs would have been able to access their own cell records, I believe, but chose not to.

I am actually sick of hearing that the R's have rights as though they had no option but to stand on these rights. Sometimes people waive their rights to be helpful to advancing an investigation! Yes, they have a right to not incriminate themselves. imo, when people want to avoid things that may incriminate them, that makes me think there is something there that might incriminate them. I don't personally believe they were simply standing on constitutional principles when they did not hand over phone records, I think they were stonewalling legitimate efforts by LE to cover basic investigative avenues. Don't you wonder if they were hiding something?

What if something came to light that solved this back in 1997? What if PR and JR were completely exonerated and PR at least died knowing the killer had been punished and the world knew the truth. Wouldn't that be worth giving up her right to withhold her phone records?

She already lost her daughter. What's the big deal, releasing her phone records to LE?

I have a handful of children, most of them driving age.
Very often the police hassle the teens around here. They pull them over for no reason and then ask if they can search their cars. On the one hand my kids have nothing to hide, so to let LE search their cars would prove to be nothing but an inconvenience. but since they are innocent should they submit to this examination? I used to advise them to comply and say yes sir search my car, I have nothing to hide. The police would come up empty handed and then insult the boys and send them on their way. It gets old.
My advice to them now is to say no. LE has no right to search their vehicles and they only do it because they are kids. They now refuse the "search" because they do not have to submit to it. More power to them I say.

The point is, just because one is innocent doesn't mean they have to allow their rights to be violated to prove they are innocent.

 

[sandraladeda]

I have a handful of children, most of them driving age.
Very often the police hassle the teens around here. They pull them over for no reason and then ask if they can search their cars. On the one hand my kids have nothing to hide, so to let LE search their cars would prove to be nothing but an inconvenience. but since they are innocent should they submit to this examination? I used to advise them to comply and say yes sir search my car, I have nothing to hide. The police would come up empty handed and then insult the boys and send them on their way. It gets old.
My advice to them now is to say no. LE has no right to search their vehicles and they only do it because they are kids. They now refuse the "search" because they do not have to submit to it. More power to them I say.

The point is, just because one is innocent doesn't mean they have to allow their rights to be violated to prove they are innocent.

So if your child was murdered and the police wanted to see your phone records to investigate any unusual/unexplained calls from people you cannot readily identify, which is a normal and routine avenue of investigation, you would not cooperate with them to help find the killer of your child because your rights say you don't have to?

I personally love my kids enough that I would not have a battle of wills with law enforcement over my rights. Especially if I had nothing to hide....

imho

 

[s_finch]

They are not mutually exclusive. It would also be reasonable to not turn in the records, as it is within one's rights.

It would be reasonable to call my friend..
It would also be reasonable to not call my friend.

Pedro said it would have been reasonable for the R's to voluntarily turn over their records. However, Pedro said if he were they, he would not voluntarily turn over the records. Therefore, Pedro would not voluntarily act in a reasonable manner.

 

[JBean]

Pedro said it would have been reasonable for the R's to voluntarily turn over their records. However, Pedro said if he were they, he would not voluntarily turn over the records. Therefore, Pedro would not voluntarily act in a reasonable manner.

Your logic doesn't hold up, because both options are reasonable. JMHO of course.

 

[JBean]

So if your child was murdered and the police wanted to see your phone records to investigate any unusual/unexplained calls from people you cannot readily identify, which is a normal and routine avenue of investigation, you would not cooperate with them to help find the killer of your child because your rights say you don't have to?

I personally love my kids enough that I would not have a battle of wills with law enforcement over my rights. Especially if I had nothing to hide....

imho

If they were targeting me as the suspect, I would cooperate through an attorney.

 

[Jolynna]

I used to advise them to comply and say yes sir search my car, I have nothing to hide. The police would come up empty handed and then insult the boys and send them on their way. It gets old.
My advice to them now is to say no. LE has no right to search their vehicles and they only do it because they are kids. They now refuse the "search" because they do not have to submit to it. More power to them I say.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

A murder investigation isn't the same as a teenage car search.

Why would the Ramseys deliberately keep evidence that might lead to finding their daughter's killer from the police? If you had nothing to hide wouldn't you want the police to find the real killer A.S.A.P.

John Walsh said he would stand in the street naked if that was what it would take to get justice.

 

[s_finch]

I have a handful of children, most of them driving age.
Very often the police hassle the teens around here. They pull them over for no reason and then ask if they can search their cars. On the one hand my kids have nothing to hide, so to let LE search their cars would prove to be nothing but an inconvenience. but since they are innocent should they submit to this examination? I used to advise them to comply and say yes sir search my car, I have nothing to hide. The police would come up empty handed and then insult the boys and send them on their way. It gets old.
My advice to them now is to say no. LE has no right to search their vehicles and they only do it because they are kids. They now refuse the "search" because they do not have to submit to it. More power to them I say.

The point is, just because one is innocent doesn't mean they have to allow their rights to be violated to prove they are innocent.

I agree with you in that there's no sense in letting LE search just for the heck of it. But in the JBR case, there was/is a dead child.

However, say if a local kid has been kidnapped by someone driving a red car and your kid just happens to drive a red car and the cops pull your kid over and ask if they may check to see if they have the kidnapped kid,(an in this scenario your child is totally innocent) would you advise your kid to refuse?? That's basically what R's did ---they claimed innocence and yet refused to cooperate.

 

[JBean]

You're comparing apples to oranges.

A murder investigation isn't the same as a teenage car search.

Why would the Ramseys deliberately keep evidence that might lead to finding their daughter's killer from the police? If you had nothing to hide wouldn't you want the police to find the real killer A.S.A.P.

John Walsh said he would stand in the street naked if that was what it would take to get justice.

I absolutely agree that it is apples and oranges. I was only trying to make a simpified point that one refusing to cooperate does not always imply guilt.
If the police were targeting ME as the perp, i would only advance with the advice of an attorney.
I personally don't think if I were to stand in the street naked it would bring anyone justice.

 

[JBean]

I agree with you in that there's no sense in letting LE search just for the heck of it. But in the JBR case, there was/is a dead child.

However, say if a local kid has been kidnapped by someone driving a red car and your kid just happens to drive a red car and the cops pull your kid over and ask if they may check to see if they have the kidnapped kid,(an in this scenario your child is totally innocent) would you advise your kid to refuse?? That's basically what R's did ---they claimed innocence and yet refused to cooperate.

Was LE successful in showing probable cause to obtain the records? If so and the R's refused, I agree and I think they shoudl be held in contempt.
If LE was not successful, the ther was a reason for that.
Regarding the red car, I think if my sons were driving in the vicinity of the kidnapping and eye witnesses ID'd a red car, yes they should consent to a search.

 

[julianne]

John Walsh said he would stand in the street naked if that was what it would take to get justice.

Uh, okay....how standing in a street naked gets justice is beyond me.