Sophie, I don't know what an epi is but if you decide to throw one, I'll help. :woohoo:
Simple question...
- Thread starter madeleine
- Start date
Sophie, I don't know what an epi is but if you decide to throw one, I'll help. :woohoo:
SuperDave, don't know if you watched the latest JonBenet program that aired a few months back on the Biography channel. Alex Hunter gave a short segment at the end and was asked why, in his opinion, no charges had been brought (or words to that effect) after the Grand Jury. My synopsis of his reply was that no charges were brought because after weighing all the facts, he considered that doing so would serve no purpose in providing justice; the circumstances of her death were not intentionally criminal and bringing charges would have hurt JonBenet had she known because those charges would have hurt her family.
I'm VERY glad you brought this to my attention, BOESP. I don't get that channel.
Several people have theorized that AH figured society wouldn't be served by incarcerating a pretty, wealthy socialite who obviously didn't mean to do it. In other words, having lost JB and having to live with the guilt was, in their minds, punishment enough.
This may surprise a lot of you, but I can truly sympathize with that mindset. Very much so, in fact.
That is my exact sentiment. I don't see much point in incarcerating a non-criminal who was already serving the ultimate penalty.
I hope you can watch that documentary some time. Your take on Hunter's comments might be different than mine.
It's tough. At what point do you distinguish between a person who has committed a crime and a legit criminal?
Maybe I'll get lucky.
I don't know about Colorado, but where I live, and based on information that is publically available, a charge of involuntary manslaughter with probation would be my guess as to the outcome if the person indicted was Patsy.
It is hard to make a judgment or discuss this case since we (or at least I) don't have access to the evidence.
It's kind of ironic, really. AH got (and gets) a lot of heat for prefering plea-bargains to trials. And yet, I'm of the mind that a plea-bargain is exactly how the case would have ended.
I expect you are right. I expect she also would never have served time in prison. Your idea makes more sense than a trial.
On the other hand, the autopsy is pretty explicit in stating that the ligature strangulation in association with the head injury was the cause of death. To me, the strangulation is a gray area (or a grey area for you Sophie :angel
.I seriously doubt whoever tied that ligature did it with the intention of asphixiating JonBenet. My guess is whoever did it thought she was already dead. Here is where I don't have an opinion -- who put that ligature around her neck? I can't decide but I think, based on information in Steve Thomas's book, that the head injury came from an altercation with Patsy.
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
Excellent exchange BOESP and SuperDave!
As you say, this is a grey area (ty, BOESPXXX
). In all honesty, I think the collateral damage to innocent people is what makes this slightly different from other accidental homicides. So many people had their lives changed by accusations and innuendoes uttered by people who wanted to clear the Ramseys - Bill and Janet McReynolds, Linda and Mervyn Hoffman-Pugh, Fleet and Priscilla White. Others (who were admittedly no angels) were cast as being greater sinners than they were - Gigax, Helgoth, Chris Wolff. Others who wanted nothing but the truth were pursued almost to the point of destruction - Steve Thomas, for example. Others had their lives ruined by the internet wars waged by people who inserted themselves into the investigation.
So much damaged has been done that the hunger for clear, unequivocal justice is undiminished. Personally, I have faith in the capacities of judges and juries to think these issues through and be merciful where appropriate and that therefore a court of law was where this case should have been tried: it wasn't for AH to define society's best interests or how justice should best be served.
Thank you for the heads up on the documentary, BOESP. I get the Biography Channel (I assume ours gets a lot of the same content as yours so hopefully it will show up over here eventually). I'll keep my eyes peeled.
ETA: There's a CSI marathon on here this evening, including the 'Ramsey' episode! Must say, their scenario always seemed to me to be only reasonable BDI possibility. I do love Grissom being so dismissive of the spider's web, though
As you say, this is a grey area (ty, BOESPXXX
). In all honesty, I think the collateral damage to innocent people is what makes this slightly different from other accidental homicides. So many people had their lives changed by accusations and innuendoes uttered by people who wanted to clear the Ramseys - Bill and Janet McReynolds, Linda and Mervyn Hoffman-Pugh, Fleet and Priscilla White. Others (who were admittedly no angels) were cast as being greater sinners than they were - Gigax, Helgoth, Chris Wolff. Others who wanted nothing but the truth were pursued almost to the point of destruction - Steve Thomas, for example. Others had their lives ruined by the internet wars waged by people who inserted themselves into the investigation. So much damaged has been done that the hunger for clear, unequivocal justice is undiminished. Personally, I have faith in the capacities of judges and juries to think these issues through and be merciful where appropriate and that therefore a court of law was where this case should have been tried: it wasn't for AH to define society's best interests or how justice should best be served.
Thank you for the heads up on the documentary, BOESP. I get the Biography Channel (I assume ours gets a lot of the same content as yours so hopefully it will show up over here eventually). I'll keep my eyes peeled.
ETA: There's a CSI marathon on here this evening, including the 'Ramsey' episode! Must say, their scenario always seemed to me to be only reasonable BDI possibility. I do love Grissom being so dismissive of the spider's web, though
I have to admit, Sophie. That's the part I have a lot more trouble with.
I wish I had seen that. A question...the last sentence you write- beginning with "The circumstances of her death..." was that what Hunter said or was that part your opinion? Because if Hunter actually said that, that would certainly mean that he knew, as did the GJ, that Patsy had killed her daughter accidentally and the parents staged the accident to look like a murder. However, as far as I am aware, staging an accidental death to look like a murder, accusing innocent people of the crime, tampering with a body, calling 911 with a phony kidnapping note...ALL these carry criminal charges on their own.
That is my opinion or interpretation of what he said, not a direct quote. What he said was somewhat convoluted and, of course, my interpretation could be way off.
As SuperDave said, the finger-pointing defense was, in my opinion, the stumbling block in this case.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 97
Old article but says it all,love it and I agree.
SNIP
The most intriguing possibility for the failure to file cover-up charges against the Ramseys is that prosecutors figured out — or were told by the Ramsey lawyers — soon after the killing that what had happened was the result of an accident, and that there was therefore no public interest to be served in prosecuting anyone. The Ramseys certainly don't represent a threat to anyone else, and what would be the point of punishing them for the cover-up when they'd lost a child they loved in an accident? If they covered up the circumstances of their daughter's death, their motive was selfish but hardly venal. If JonBenet did, in fact, die as the result of an accident, as lead prosecutor Kane says he believes, maybe, despite the widespread hand wringing about the lack of criminal charges, the interests of justice have been served after all. Maybe John and Patsy Ramsey have been punished enough already.
Certainly there were times when prosecutors acted as though they felt that way. Hunter and his team bent over backwards to accommodate the interests and concerns of the Ramseys and their lawyers, according to numerous published accounts. They didn't quickly insist on in-depth interviews with the parents. They shared information from the police investigation with the Ramsey legal team. They hand-carried letters from Ramsey lawyers to investigators. They refused to convene a grand jury to compel testimony under penalty of perjury until 18 months after the killing, and then did so only under political pressure from then Colorado Gov. Roy Romer. And they didn't act on the requests of police investigators to obtain court-authorized subpoenas for the Ramsey's telephone and credit card records.
"The D.A.'s office stonewalled us," Det. Thomas complains.
The problem with the approach taken by prosecutors, even if motivated by the belief that JonBenet died as the result of an accident and that there was no point in prosecuting her parents for the cover-up, is that it has left police devoting extraordinary resources to chasing a phantom murderer, and the public grappling with the consequences of a mystery, still under the impression JonBenet was murdered, still nowhere near the truth, and not likely to get it — ever.
http://www.crimemagazine.com/solving-jonbenet-case-0
SNIP
The most intriguing possibility for the failure to file cover-up charges against the Ramseys is that prosecutors figured out — or were told by the Ramsey lawyers — soon after the killing that what had happened was the result of an accident, and that there was therefore no public interest to be served in prosecuting anyone. The Ramseys certainly don't represent a threat to anyone else, and what would be the point of punishing them for the cover-up when they'd lost a child they loved in an accident? If they covered up the circumstances of their daughter's death, their motive was selfish but hardly venal. If JonBenet did, in fact, die as the result of an accident, as lead prosecutor Kane says he believes, maybe, despite the widespread hand wringing about the lack of criminal charges, the interests of justice have been served after all. Maybe John and Patsy Ramsey have been punished enough already.
Certainly there were times when prosecutors acted as though they felt that way. Hunter and his team bent over backwards to accommodate the interests and concerns of the Ramseys and their lawyers, according to numerous published accounts. They didn't quickly insist on in-depth interviews with the parents. They shared information from the police investigation with the Ramsey legal team. They hand-carried letters from Ramsey lawyers to investigators. They refused to convene a grand jury to compel testimony under penalty of perjury until 18 months after the killing, and then did so only under political pressure from then Colorado Gov. Roy Romer. And they didn't act on the requests of police investigators to obtain court-authorized subpoenas for the Ramsey's telephone and credit card records.
"The D.A.'s office stonewalled us," Det. Thomas complains.
The problem with the approach taken by prosecutors, even if motivated by the belief that JonBenet died as the result of an accident and that there was no point in prosecuting her parents for the cover-up, is that it has left police devoting extraordinary resources to chasing a phantom murderer, and the public grappling with the consequences of a mystery, still under the impression JonBenet was murdered, still nowhere near the truth, and not likely to get it — ever.
http://www.crimemagazine.com/solving-jonbenet-case-0
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 97
Kane saw right through Lin's tactics.......
here's the perfect example............
13 Q. And I can't recall if you've
14 ever, and forgive me if you have answered
15 this before, but did she have a bath that
16 day, Christmas Day?
17 MR. WOOD: You have asked that
18 before, several times.
19 Q. (By Mr. Kane) What was the
20 answer? Can you refresh my memory?
21 MR. WOOD: You know that I'm sure
22 better than I do.
23 MR. KANE: Oh, come on, Lin, I
24 was just asking a question so that I can
25 follow up on the thing. If you are going
0096
1 to start getting into you asked that one
2 time, I just don't have a recollection of
3 it.
4 MR. WOOD: Sure I am. Calm
5 down.
6 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Did she have a
7 bath that day?
8 MR. WOOD: Excuse me one second,
9 Patsy. Calm down, Michael. I am not trying
10 to create a problem for you.
11 MR. KANE: You certainly are.
12 MR. WOOD: No, I am not.
13 MR. KANE: You certainly are.
14 MR. WOOD: Let me finish. I am
15 not going to interrupt you. Please don't
16 interrupt me.
17 The fact that you know it has
18 been asked --
19 MR. KANE: I don't know that it
20 has been asked.
21 MR. WOOD: Are you going to let
22 me finish?
23 MR. KANE: No, because I did not
24 say that --
25 MR. WOOD: Then let's take a
0097
1 break, and when you can let me speak without
2 being interrupted, we'll start again.
3 MR. KANE: You mischaracterized
4 what I said. I said I don't remember if it
5 has been asked. Forgive me if it was.
6 MR. WOOD: Let me go back and
7 let's look at it.
8 It is not clear. Why don't we
9 take a break and look and see if it has
10 been asked.
11 MR. KANE: We don't need to take
12 a break. It is just a simple question.
13 MR. WOOD: Listen. All of the
14 questions should be simple.
15 MR. KANE: It is a very simple
16 question. Did she have a bath that day?
17 MR. WOOD: Right. But please
18 remember that I have to make sure that we
19 abide by what you requested.
20 MR. KANE: Well.
21 MR. WOOD: I really am going to
22 take a break.
23 MR. KANE: Go ahead. Make your
24 speech.
25 MR. WOOD: I am not making a
0098
1 speech.
2 MR. KANE: That is exactly what
3 you are doing, Lin.
4 MR. WOOD: I am not making a
5 speech. Chief Beckner asked us to come down
6 here, you all to come out here to ask new
7 questions about developments that have
8 occurred since June of 1998 and information
9 that has been obtained since June of 1998.
10 And I am confident that the
11 question about JonBenet taking a bath or a
12 shower has been asked before, and I would
13 simply say let's don't start, even when it
14 seems like it is not important at the
15 moment, let's don't start going down the road
16 of asking questions that have been asked
17 before because that is specifically what you
18 and Chief Beckner told me you weren't going
19 to do. because she might not recall what she lied BEFORE right?
20 And so I will be glad at a break
21 to look that up and see if we can find the
22 answer for you. And then we can come back,
23 give her a chance to look and see what she
24 said before, put that in the context of your
25 question and she will answer the question if
0099
1 it is a new one.
2 MR. KANE: Okay, so in other
3 words what you are doing is, and just to
4 make this clear, you're directing your client
5 not to answer that until she's had a chance
6 to go back and look to see whether she's
7 asked and answered that before.
8 MR. WOOD: No. It's really more
9 of a chance for you and I to look and see
10 if she's answered it. LOL LIN
11 MR. KANE: You are directing her
12 not to answer the question?
13 MR. WOOD: I am asking you to --
14 MR. KANE: No. Are you directing
15 her not to answer the question?
16 MR. WOOD: I am asking you to,
17 in the spirit of why you all wanted to come
18 here and we agreed for you to come here
19 about new questions on information developed
20 or obtained since June of 1998, I am asking
21 you, on what appears even to you to be a
22 situation where it probably was asked in June
23 or, if not, April of '97, to let's take a
24 time at a break. You're well prepared here.
25 You've looked at this.
0100
1 MR. KANE: All right.
2 MR. WOOD: If she has been asked
3 that, then you will have your answer. And
4 if she hasn't been asked that, then she will
5 give you that answer today; although, I don't
6 know why you wouldn't have asked her that
7 before.
8 MR. KANE: So you are directing
9 her not to answer that question?
10 MR. WOOD: I am asking you to
11 defer it.
12 MR. KANE: Yes or no, are you
13 directing her not to answer the question?
14 MR. WOOD: I am asking you to
15 defer it, Michael. That's all.
16 MR. KANE: Let me, let me just
17 say something. We are down here to solve a
18 murder. Are you telling me that you are
19 going to tell her not to answer that
20 question, whether it has anything to do with
21 this murder, you are directing her not to
22 answer that question?
23 MR. WOOD: I have not direct --
24 MR. KANE: Because of some,
25 because of some rule that has been
0101
1 established for this?
2 MR. WOOD: Are you through?
3 MR. KANE: Yeah.
4 MR. WOOD: I understand that you
5 are investigating a murder. Do you
6 understand that I understand that?
7 MR. KANE: I hope you do.
8 MR. WOOD: I understand it, Mr.
9 Kane. Now listen to me.
10 I was asked, and my clients
11 agreed to answer new questions about
12 information that has been obtained since June
13 of 1998 after three full days of interviews
14 which had been followed by April of 1997 in
15 almost a full day of an interview by Patsy
16 Ramsey, new questions about new information
17 since June of 1998 or developments that have
18 come up since June of 1998.
19 That was the request made by
20 Chief Beckner. That was what we agreed to
21 do because that is what we were asked to do.
22 Now, if you want to change the
23 format, then let's consider that after we
24 finish this format. But I didn't ask Patsy
25 Ramsey or John Ramsey to go back and study
0102
1 what they had said before to try to memorize
2 it or refresh their recollections,
period,3 because it was represented to me that you
4 weren't going to do that.
5 So if you do it, I am not really
6 directing her not to answer it. I am
7 directing you that you are outside of the
8 scope of your request and, therefore, your
9 question is not fair and appropriate. It is
10 as simple as that. I am not trying to be
11 difficult.
12 MR. KANE: If that is your
13 definition of what is fair, then that is
14 fine. All right. You've made your record.
15 I withdraw that question.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 97
Why on earth would you NEED to go back and STUDY (study?????) what you have said before to try to MEMORIZE it if it's the TRUTH???????????????????GEEEEEEEEEEEEZ
I am sorry,if it weren't for a sweet girl who has been murdered this would be f@@@@@@ hilarious!!!
I am sorry,if it weren't for a sweet girl who has been murdered this would be f@@@@@@ hilarious!!!
If you are telling the truth, then you don't have to "remember" anything. The truth will be the same every time you are asked. If my child had been murdered, I assure you I will remember every single thing she/we did that day.
It is truly painful to read, that dance that all defense lawyers do. The babble and blather and endless attempts to hide what we all know, and what they KNOW we all know. That their clients did commit the offense they are being asked about, regardless of whether it was intentional or not. They did their jobs well, LW and his minions. They kept their clients out of jail.
It is plain for anyone to see that LW did not want Patsy to be asked anything that she had previously answered. Since she had lied, she may not have lied in exactly the same way the next time. Many guilty people actually are caught in that way, when LE is able to show that they have given many different versions of their story. Of course, THOSE guilty people don't have defense attorneys like Patsy did.
You'd think if your child was murdered, you'd be willing to answer ANY question asked as many times as needed. But then again, that applies to people innocent of that murder.
It is truly painful to read, that dance that all defense lawyers do. The babble and blather and endless attempts to hide what we all know, and what they KNOW we all know. That their clients did commit the offense they are being asked about, regardless of whether it was intentional or not. They did their jobs well, LW and his minions. They kept their clients out of jail.
It is plain for anyone to see that LW did not want Patsy to be asked anything that she had previously answered. Since she had lied, she may not have lied in exactly the same way the next time. Many guilty people actually are caught in that way, when LE is able to show that they have given many different versions of their story. Of course, THOSE guilty people don't have defense attorneys like Patsy did.
You'd think if your child was murdered, you'd be willing to answer ANY question asked as many times as needed. But then again, that applies to people innocent of that murder.
With PR, what was her physical health at this point? Was she on pain medication due to her cancer? Was she on mood stabilizers or mood elevators? I am just curious if that is why she was allowed to look at and memorize previous testimony. Not that I in any way agree with that.
I hate thinking that a murder, accidental or intentional, went unpunished. If PR had been an average citizen, would the opinions be the same, that it was better for the victim to leave the family intact, as they had already suffered enough?
As for the orig. question of the thread, they look remarkably the same, in my very non expert opinion.
Thank you for presenting the information.
Patsy was, like many cancer survivors, on a variety of drugs which were found in the home, I believe. I recall reading she was on an anti-anxiety drug, as well as other drugs. She was very obviously sedated when they appeared on CNN, and JB's pediatrician came to the Fernie's (where the Rs were staying after the murder) and administered more drugs. Though this was after the murder, Patsy had been on drugs before. Cancer and chemo (which Patsy had) change a body's physiology- medications can have effects that differ from what would be expected.
Interesting fact- this is 14 years later, but most of us have probably seen the commercials that run on TV for Ambien, a sleep aid and Chantix, a drug to aid quitting smoking. The ad states that unusual violent or suicidal thoughts or actions may occur. There are whole classes of drugs that can have unintended side effects that are very serious. I am not suggesting that chemo makes one violent, only that seeming innocuous drugs can have side effects that are surprising.
I feel Patsy's rage tantrums (she was said to fly off into a rage quite suddenly and for unexpected reasons) were behind what happened that night and had the family did the right thing, Patsy may have had the world's sympathy instead of its suspicion. Instead, they chose the cowardly way out, and had the money and connections to do it.
Similar threads
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 147
- Guests online
- 441
- Total visitors
- 588