R's, defense attorneys, post-crime behavior

[ziggy]

Lawyers DO advise their clients not to subject themselves to police interviews IF they are the suspect or POI. One good reason is that the police are allowed to lie about evidence they may have to try and nudge confessions. These tactics have been known to drive innocent people who are out of their minds with grief or lack of sleep to submit a few, "well maybe.."s.

There is a good reason you should stop a police interview when the topic turns to you as the POI. You never know what innocent remark you may make that can be turned into something you never imagined.

I don't blame the police one bit for suspecting family. It is the way they conducted the investigation going forward that bothers me. Instead of admitting there may be exculpatory evidence, they proceeded with the idea that they knew who did it, so now they would make the evidence fit their theory.

 

[ziggy]

Why would they do this given that Burke couldn't be held criminally responsible on account of his age? Do you think LE wanted a resolution even if it meant pinning the crime on the wrong person and even if it meant no conviction? Or do you mean that they could have extracted false information about the Ramseys' involvement?

It is impossible to predict what judges may do to any degree of certainty. Children have been held criminally responsible and treated as adults when the crime is heinous and this one was.

Other police departments have been blinded by their own false certainty - they may not necessarily want the wrong person to go down for it, but they target the wrong person and have a certain amount of power to distort the investigation as in Michael Crowe's case.

I am very pro LE, but I also understand that they are human, not perfect, and subject to the same flaws as the rest of us.

When you really believe something that may not be true, you can project those false beliefs into just about every little thing someone says or what they don't say and apply that to your version of the truth.

One example in my life comes to mind where a friend was convinced her husband was having an affair. Talk about over-analyzing everything and reading something bad into it. Turned out she was wrong, and her reality at the time was not, in fact, real.

 

[Ames]

Exactly. Some people are a little more saavy and when in the midst of a crisis their equally saavy friends and business associates might have enough insight to fear this type of behavior from a small town PD who have already shown a bit of bumbling.

Had the Crowes retained counsel, they would have spared their son this second tragedy. It's not always good to trust the police. Just sayin.

Mark Klaas is a good guy and trying to do the right thing, but his case was quite different so I don't think he can put himself up as a worthy comparison. I bet you 50 bucks that had Polly been in the two parent Klaas home and found dead in her room or another room in the home, he would have been suspect #1 and he doesn't seem like the kiind of guy who would follow the leader if even one hair on his head sensed the police were trying to pin it on him.

He WAS suspect #1, and that is exactly WHY he cooperated with police and immediately took a polygraph. To rule himself out...so that police could start searching for the REAL killer. He did what John and Patsy SHOULD have done.

 

[Sophie]

It is impossible to predict what judges may do to any degree of certainty. Children have been held criminally responsible and treated as adults when the crime is heinous and this one was.

Other police departments have been blinded by their own false certainty - they may not necessarily want the wrong person to go down for it, but they target the wrong person and have a certain amount of power to distort the investigation as in Michael Crowe's case.

I am very pro LE, but I also understand that they are human, not perfect, and subject to the same flaws as the rest of us.

When you really believe something that may not be true, you can project those false beliefs into just about every little thing someone says or what they don't say and apply that to your version of the truth.


One example in my life comes to mind where a friend was convinced her husband was having an affair. Talk about over-analyzing everything and reading something bad into it. Turned out she was wrong, and her reality at the time was not, in fact, real.

I know what you mean about judges but surely if something is statutory, judges don't have that much latitude on the point, and, if it is a statutory point, DA's won't even entertain prosecuting? In other words, if Colorado has a statute on the age of criminal responsibility, would a case against Burke even get to court? I am not 100% sure that Colorado has a statute on this point. I'm sure others will know for sure, though.


I agree that LE sometimes goes wrong and, in cases where there is public pressure to solve a case, they may cut corners and make mistakes. I imagine there are police departments which would be less than honest in all their work, too. This is possibly just personal perception but given Boulder's apparent liberal criminal justice system, I'm not sure why the Ramseys would fear the latter (ie. dishonest, neanderthal cops) or, given the low crime rate in Boulder, police incompetence... Again, though, this is just my impression.

 

[ziggy]

Ames, I'm not sure you have your facts in order.

Polly's two friends were there when the strange man came in and took her. They had interactions with him - he tied them up. They gave descriptions of Richard Allen Davis that most definitely did not fit Mark. Neighbors remembered seeing him loitering. By 9:00 the next morning the police had a palm print they could identify as belonging to Richard Allen Davis and within two days it was on America's Most Wanted. Mark was not suspect #1.

The police always believed it was an intruder but they followed standard procedures and Eve, Polly's mother was given a polygraph too. It is standard protocol because they really do need to clear family members. The police are suposed to first look at the family. Regardless of their belief that it was indeed an intruder it did not stop them from doing their job A-Z.

I think you may agree that he was not the number one suspect.

 

[voynich]

Why would they do this given that Burke couldn't be held criminally responsible on account of his age? Do you think LE wanted a resolution even if it meant pinning the crime on the wrong person and even if it meant no conviction? Or do you mean that they could have extracted false information about the Ramseys' involvement?

I want to make it clear I think OJ did it and I am not a racist.

But many blacks at the time clearly thought the LAPD were racist and framed OJ for being a black man with a white woman.

Havard Law Professor ALlan Dershowitz in Reasonable Doubts says, with a straight face, that LE frames innocents all the time.

Detective Mark Furhman and his N-word didn't help.

Not that I believe in the above.


But if R's were black, I bet "racism-LE frameup" theory would be very credible among some. I've gotten into arguments on other forums over OJ's guilt. Other posters seriously believed in the racist bad-cop frame up theory.

OJ defenders go even so far as to point to this case, stating if OJ were white, and R's were black, R's would be in jail and OJ never charged.

In light of OJ all honesty when I hear this sort of thing I think the opposite. If some were saying the R's were framed by anti-black white supremacist racist cops b/c they were black, or if JR were black and PR white that fiber evidence shows how LE would plant evidence to get a black man with a white woman, I'd suspect RDI.

 

[Sophie]

Lawyers DO advise their clients not to subject themselves to police interviews IF they are the suspect or POI. One good reason is that the police are allowed to lie about evidence they may have to try and nudge confessions. These tactics have been known to drive innocent people who are out of their minds with grief or lack of sleep to submit a few, "well maybe.."s.

There is a good reason you should stop a police interview when the topic turns to you as the POI. You never know what innocent remark you may make that can be turned into something you never imagined.

I don't blame the police one bit for suspecting family. It is the way they conducted the investigation going forward that bothers me. Instead of admitting there may be exculpatory evidence, they proceeded with the idea that they knew who did it, so now they would make the evidence fit their theory.

I am honestly amazed that police can actually outright lie about evidence. I knew that in some jurisdictions they could massage a bit (eg. Say 'what would you say if we said that we had found your fingerprints?') but I am staggered to learn that they can actually lie and say that they did have fingerprint evidence if, in fact, they didn't. You learn something new every day

In terms of not accepting exculpatory evidence, one issue was that the police were denied access to evidence that might just have been exculpatory (eg. bank records and phone bills etc). Equally, though,the Ramseys and DA had investigators looking at the crime, too, and while they could put together some pieces of evidence that might suggest an intruder, they couldn't, in twelve years, pin it on anyone specific, or exclude the parents other than on the basis of DNA (which also excluded everyone who had been looked at by LE, the Ramseys and Lou Smit although you will find people on other forums who accept the DNA evidence for the Ramseys but not, say, for Santa Bill). There were people who were also unjustly pursued - like the Whites and the Hoffman-Pughs, the Helgoths and (up to a point) Gigax people outside of the BPD. Any over-focus on the Ramseys has - at least to me - been more than balanced by the unfair pursuit by others of innocent people.

One thing, I've been meaning to ask generally, is there actually any remaining evidence that isn't in the public domain?

 

[ziggy]

I doubt there is any evidence that hasn't been picked over! There may be some yet undiscovered, hard to believe but it's possible.

Oh yeah, haven't you seen those interrogations where they tell the guy his friend just implicated him so they get him to crack? They are not obligated to tell the truth about what they know and don't know.

If you feel there was an unjust pursuit of others by the BPD, I may be able to agree with some but not all of the peeps you mentioned. I do chalk that up to, again, the original muffing of the whole thing which then led to bad police tactics to try and rectify it. Of course it didn't work, but the police were victims too of the initial twist that led them on a course they probably wished they didn't have to follow.

 

[BBB167893]

isn't this what the R''s were trying to prevent?

Maybe LE would railroad Burke into a false confession?

Except they weren't after Burke.

 

[Ames]

Ames, I'm not sure you have your facts in order.

Polly's two friends were there when the strange man came in and took her. They had interactions with him - he tied them up. They gave descriptions of Richard Allen Davis that most definitely did not fit Mark. Neighbors remembered seeing him loitering. By 9:00 the next morning the police had a palm print they could identify as belonging to Richard Allen Davis and within two days it was on America's Most Wanted. Mark was not suspect #1.

The police always believed it was an intruder but they followed standard procedures and Eve, Polly's mother was given a polygraph too. It is standard protocol because they really do need to clear family members. The police are suposed to first look at the family. Regardless of their belief that it was indeed an intruder it did not stop them from doing their job A-Z.

I think you may agree that he was not the number one suspect.

I was just repeating what he said on Nancy Grace. And I do want to add...that I have chatted with him before, and I asked him if he believed that an intruder had killed JB. He said..."No intruder...it was a family member, inside the home". He knows that their actions after JB's death, was not that of INNOCENT parents.

 

[Ames]

I doubt there is any evidence that hasn't been picked over! There may be some yet undiscovered, hard to believe but it's possible.

Oh yeah, haven't you seen those interrogations where they tell the guy his friend just implicated him so they get him to crack? They are not obligated to tell the truth about what they know and don't know.

If you feel there was an unjust pursuit of others by the BPD, I may be able to agree with some but not all of the peeps you mentioned. I do chalk that up to, again, the original muffing of the whole thing which then led to bad police tactics to try and rectify it. Of course it didn't work, but the police were victims too of the initial twist that led them on a course they probably wished they didn't have to follow.

On the show 48 Hours...on the 10th anniversary of JB's death, it was stated that there was still a WAREHOUSE full of evidence that hadn't been looked at, gone through or tested. Maybe with the fresh look that they are taking with this case, someone with half a brain, may decide to finally take a look at ALL of it, this time.

 

[ziggy]

On the show 48 Hours...on the 10th anniversary of JB's death, it was stated that there was still a WAREHOUSE full of evidence that hadn't been looked at, gone through or tested. Maybe with the fresh look that they are taking with this case, someone with half a brain, may decide to finally take a look at ALL of it, this time.

If that is the case I could not agree more. AMAZING isn't it with all the ridicule the BPD has taken and all the controversy this case has caused that all of the evidence has not been sifted through in all these years??

That in and of itself is criminal.

That's why I have a hard time believing it. Stated in an entertainment piece still leaves me wondering.

 

[Ames]

If that is the case I could not agree more. AMAZING isn't it with all the ridicule the BPD has taken and all the controversy this case has caused that all of the evidence has not been sifted through in all these years??

That in and of itself is criminal.

That's why I have a hard time believing it. Stated in an entertainment piece still leaves me wondering.

Well, I believe it. I will have to Google and see who it was that said it. It was during an interview with JR, and HE didn't deny it.

 

[ziggy]

If you believe it, which I don't find any fault with at all, doesn't it show how badly the investigation is still being handled?

If true, then they continue to let down JB and the public.

How much of it has been witheld because of egos? Just wondering.

 

[Ames]

If you believe it, which I don't find any fault with at all, doesn't it show how badly the investigation is still being handled?

If true, then they continue to let down JB and the public.

How much of it has been witheld because of egos? Just wondering.

I totally agree with your whole post! And to your question at the end...it's a good one. I wonder that myself.

 

[Sophie]

I want to make it clear I think OJ did it and I am not a racist.

But many blacks at the time clearly thought the LAPD were racist and framed OJ for being a black man with a white woman.

Havard Law Professor ALlan Dershowitz in Reasonable Doubts says, with a straight face, that LE frames innocents all the time.

Detective Mark Furhman and his N-word didn't help.

Not that I believe in the above.


But if R's were black, I bet "racism-LE frameup" theory would be very credible among some. I've gotten into arguments on other forums over OJ's guilt. Other posters seriously believed in the racist bad-cop frame up theory.

OJ defenders go even so far as to point to this case, stating if OJ were white, and R's were black, R's would be in jail and OJ never charged.

In light of OJ all honesty when I hear this sort of thing I think the opposite. If some were saying the R's were framed by anti-black white supremacist racist cops b/c they were black, or if JR were black and PR white that fiber evidence shows how LE would plant evidence to get a black man with a white woman, I'd suspect RDI.

Hi Voynich,

Thank you for your reply. I feel I should learn more about the OJ case since I only know the barest facts and it is such a point of reference in true crime discussions. Can you recommend a couple of good books on the case to add to my summer reading pile? Thank you.

I know what you mean about police having been known to coerce confessions, fabricate evidence and just make plain old human mistakes. I do wonder, though, whether the Ramseys had any reason to fear any of this. Even in liberal, politically correct places, white middle class people who are also major local employers and well-connected with local notables* surely don't have to fear police brutality/coercion. Even if they did fear this, they retained the best criminal defence lawyers in the State and, thus armoured, had no know that they were well-protected against any police malfeasance and could co-operate without fear.

In all truth, though, I think that AH is the person who, possibly with the best of intentions, really compromised the Ramseys. Had he - as he has noisily claimed - presumed that they were innocent, I can't think of why he wouldn't have issued the subpoeanas etc that were necessary to get phone and bank records. To me, the presumption of guilt is written all over his dragging his feet on that issue. Ramsey apologists really should look at AH's contribution to the position in which they find themselves.


* 'Notables' isn't the word I'm looking for but the right one is eluding me just now

 

[BBB167893]

If that is the case I could not agree more. AMAZING isn't it with all the ridicule the BPD has taken and all the controversy this case has caused that all of the evidence has not been sifted through in all these years??

That in and of itself is criminal.

That's why I have a hard time believing it. Stated in an entertainment piece still leaves me wondering.

Given WHO stated it, I find it even harder to believe.

 

[claudicici]

...who stated it...i find it hard to believe also...why in the world would there be a wharehouse of evidence that they still havn't looked at...how would that make sense....

 

[Maikai]

...who stated it...i find it hard to believe also...why in the world would there be a wharehouse of evidence that they still havn't looked at...how would that make sense....

Well, a warehouse full might be an exageration, but it wouldn't surprise me with the new technology on touch DNA, that there might be more testing that could be done.

Things that come to my mind, that are listed in the search warrant are:

*cigaratte butts taken from outside the house, scooped up with leaves. Were these tested? They have the dna from people at the recent party to rule these people out.

*Santa suit---why was that particular santa suit taken? Was there something about it that looked out of order?

*Garrotte and duct tape. Anything missed on these items?

It was years after the murder when they tested another spot on the longjohns and found a complete profile of the DNA.

 

[DeeDee249]

...who stated it...i find it hard to believe also...why in the world would there be a wharehouse of evidence that they still havn't looked at...how would that make sense....

Detective ST said it. When the DA's office obstructed justice, refused to grant warrants, etc., and was intimidated by defense lawyers that the DA had personal and business relationships with, there wasn't much that could be done with that warehouse of evidence. The case simply died. From failure to prosecute.