The Boarder Across the Street

[Voice of Reason]

I understand why Steve Thomas proposed these questions. What is apparent is they had no bearing on finding the killer of JonBenet unless Thomas believed that killer was Patsy Ramsey.

Two things here...first of all, you are backpeddling from your earlier statements..."What does stand out in Patsy's initial interview is Steve Thomas' deception." Why does that stand out if you understand this line of questioning? Second, assuming you understand this tactic (do you?), of course he is assuming the killer was Patsy Ramsey. That is why this is a police TACTIC and not a fishing expedition.

I wanted to post a few other comments of various posts (not just Rainsong's). As to this debate on memory, I think that the point which Lacy Wood puts forth, is that oftentimes when a tragic event occurs, even the most minute details can be recalled. Of course this is not universal, as Rainsong has stated that he/she cannot remember any details of his/her mother's funeral. Personally, I think it tends to fall somewhere in the middle. When big events occur, I often remember some of the most random details that are meaningless, yet I wouldn't recall them in everyday life. However, this is why the shower comparison doesn't really work. It is a regular everyday activity.

As for the lawyering up and waiting months, I have this to say. While I have no problem with the Ramsey's lawyering up, I think that waiting is unexcusable. If they are innocent, they should have no problem going to the police with their lawyers sooner than 3 months after the "unexplained" murder of their daughter. If they are innocent, what do they have to fear? Overzealous prosecution? Now add the lawyers and what do they have to fear? Nothing. But yet they waited three months. Why? Their lawyers wanted to get all the evidence to the Ramseys before they were interviewed, which is completely ridiculous for a suspect in a case. Perhaps the lawyers involved thought the Ramseys were guilty and saw it in their best interest to wait for the evidence. Personally, if my daughter were killed, I'd be in that police station 24-7 until the killer was caught and I'd bring my lawyer for protection, but I'd never wait three months if I was innocent.

 

[tipper]

Regarding memory there is a very interesting chapter in Barry Scheck’s book Actual Innocence on how bad our memories are during stressful events. Study after study has shown that although people think they are remembering accurately, they aren’t.

Also, when people say that they can recall the most minute detail of some crisis or other I wonder how often they are actually questioned on the accuracy of those details they remember. As Sheck says "What happens in front of the eyes is transformed inside the head and is refined, revisited and restored, and embellished in a process as perpetual as life itself. Over the decades, elegant experiments have shown again and again the fungibility of memory." (p. 55)

Not really on memory but there was a fascinating article in Time magazine (the one with the new pope on the cover) about how humans behave in a crisis situation. Usually not intelligently, is the short answer.

 

[Rainsong]

Two things here...first of all, you are backpeddling from your earlier statements..."What does stand out in Patsy's initial interview is Steve Thomas' deception." Why does that stand out if you understand this line of questioning? Second, assuming you understand this tactic (do you?), of course he is assuming the killer was Patsy Ramsey. That is why this is a police TACTIC and not a fishing expedition.

I wanted to post a few other comments of various posts (not just Rainsong's). As to this debate on memory, I think that the point which Lacy Wood puts forth, is that oftentimes when a tragic event occurs, even the most minute details can be recalled. Of course this is not universal, as Rainsong has stated that he/she cannot remember any details of his/her mother's funeral. Personally, I think it tends to fall somewhere in the middle. When big events occur, I often remember some of the most random details that are meaningless, yet I wouldn't recall them in everyday life. However, this is why the shower comparison doesn't really work. It is a regular everyday activity.

As for the lawyering up and waiting months, I have this to say. While I have no problem with the Ramsey's lawyering up, I think that waiting is unexcusable. If they are innocent, they should have no problem going to the police with their lawyers sooner than 3 months after the "unexplained" murder of their daughter. If they are innocent, what do they have to fear? Overzealous prosecution? Now add the lawyers and what do they have to fear? Nothing. But yet they waited three months. Why? Their lawyers wanted to get all the evidence to the Ramseys before they were interviewed, which is completely ridiculous for a suspect in a case. Perhaps the lawyers involved thought the Ramseys were guilty and saw it in their best interest to wait for the evidence. Personally, if my daughter were killed, I'd be in that police station 24-7 until the killer was caught and I'd bring my lawyer for protection, but I'd never wait three months if I was innocent.

Please, if you are going to cite my statements about my mother's funeral, be accurate. I said I could not remember my husband in attendance, not that I couldn't remember details. Some I remember quite well, others are not clear.

This is not a phenomenon peculiar to me. It is the natural condition of the human mind, with the emphasis on human.

No, I am not backpedaling on any of my statements in reference to the interview questions as posed by Steve Thomas. I stand by my statements. Steve Thomas and the BPD targeted the Ramseys from the very beginning. At no time were they ever attempting to actually do anything toward finding the actual killer, thus nearly all questions posed to the Ramseys target the Ramseys as the guilty party(ies).

Yes, VOC. I do understand the line of questioning. Fully.

As for my shower analogy, yes, it works in the context of the questions asked of Patsy on whether or not she bathed JonBenet. Because bathing children falls into the normal routine, no one is going to remember specific baths. I, on the other hand, can state categorically I never bathed my children on Christmas day. As hostess of the family Christmas dinner, bathing children was the last thing on my agenda. Instead, they were bathed on Christmas eve at which time they received new, special pajamas.

Waiting? I don't believe they "waited." I believe there was a power struggle between the Ramsey attorneys in their zeal to protect their clients and the BPD attempting to be law enforcement officers.

One can say they would do such-and-such in any given situation but until that situtation arises, one cannot truly know how one will react.

Rainsong

 

[Jayelles]

Two things here...first of all, you are backpeddling from your earlier statements..."What does stand out in Patsy's initial interview is Steve Thomas' deception." Why does that stand out if you understand this line of questioning? Second, assuming you understand this tactic (do you?), of course he is assuming the killer was Patsy Ramsey. That is why this is a police TACTIC and not a fishing expedition.

I wanted to post a few other comments of various posts (not just Rainsong's). As to this debate on memory, I think that the point which Lacy Wood puts forth, is that oftentimes when a tragic event occurs, even the most minute details can be recalled. Of course this is not universal, as Rainsong has stated that he/she cannot remember any details of his/her mother's funeral. Personally, I think it tends to fall somewhere in the middle. When big events occur, I often remember some of the most random details that are meaningless, yet I wouldn't recall them in everyday life. However, this is why the shower comparison doesn't really work. It is a regular everyday activity.

As for the lawyering up and waiting months, I have this to say. While I have no problem with the Ramsey's lawyering up, I think that waiting is unexcusable. If they are innocent, they should have no problem going to the police with their lawyers sooner than 3 months after the "unexplained" murder of their daughter. If they are innocent, what do they have to fear? Overzealous prosecution? Now add the lawyers and what do they have to fear? Nothing. But yet they waited three months. Why? Their lawyers wanted to get all the evidence to the Ramseys before they were interviewed, which is completely ridiculous for a suspect in a case. Perhaps the lawyers involved thought the Ramseys were guilty and saw it in their best interest to wait for the evidence. Personally, if my daughter were killed, I'd be in that police station 24-7 until the killer was caught and I'd bring my lawyer for protection, but I'd never wait three months if I was innocent.

VOR, I couldn't agree with you more. I don't think anyone grudged the Ramseys their right to legal advice and support and it is an outright shame that they didn't feel inclined to help with the investigation until 4 months had elapsed.

The Ramseys were key witnesses to the events which surrounded the murder and they were also the people who knew Jonbenet best. I cannot understand how they could NOT want to do everything in their power to nail the monster who did this to their precious, defenceless child. I cannot begin to imagine what her final moments were like. Was she terrified for example? I'd want to find the monster so that I could kill him myself! Instead, all the Ramseys could think about was that they were insulted at being considered suspects! - they wanted an automatic pass based on the "kind of people we are" rather than letting the police get on with their routine procedures. They were insulted at being questioned about their daughter's death.

Some people just don't understand why they didn't put JonBenet first.

The Ramseys might have done many great things in their lives but they'll be remembered best for being the parents who refused to help with the investigation into their 6 year old daughter's brutal murder.

 

[Camper]

:clap: :clap: :clap: to Voice of Reason and Jayelles.

Partial quote from Voice of Reason,

Personally, if my daughter were killed, I'd be in that police station 24-7 until the killer was caught and I'd bring my lawyer for protection, but I'd never wait three months if I was innocent.Personally, if my daughter were killed, I'd be in that police station 24-7 until the killer was caught and I'd bring my lawyer for protection, but I'd never wait three months if I was innocent.

Campers reasoning in red, on WHY they did not station themselves in the BPD:

JonBenet was already dead, BUT Burke was not, AND they ALL had guilty knowledge of the WHO and the WHY of the death of JonBenet.

PLUS, John had provided lawyers for EVERYONE individually, in Boulder and in the state of Georgia. The Ramsey 'firewall' was fully constructed, and memory failure (Ramnesia) was in full bloom.

Partial quote from Jayelles,

VOR, I couldn't agree with you more. I don't think anyone grudged the Ramseys their right to legal advice and support and it is an outright shame that they didn't feel inclined to help with the investigation until 4 months had elapsed.

Some people just don't understand why they didn't put JonBenet first.

The Ramseys might have done many great things in their lives but they'll be remembered best for being the parents who refused to help with the investigation into their 6 year old daughter's brutal murder.

My reasoning for Jayelles quote, can be read above in blue.

Something else that always bothered me, and does to this day, is WHY lawyer up in GA?



"Ramnesia", is Campers invention.



.

 

[BlueCrab]

The Ramseys might have done many great things in their lives but they'll be remembered best for being the parents who refused to help with the investigation into their 6 year old daughter's brutal murder.

Correct, and the refusals to cooperate with the investigation translate to GUILT. It can be interpreted no other way.

The Ramseys and others conveniently blame the cops, but there's not a police department on the face of this earth that could be effective when the parents of a murdered six-year-old girl refuse to cooperate. But despite the monkey wrench the Ramseys tossed into the investigation machinery, the cops have the Ramseys locked into numerous bare-faced lies and contradictions -- so the Ramseys will be forced to carry around their umbrella of suspicion forever.

BlueCrab

 

[tipper]

But the police weren't looking for help with the investigation. They'd already solved it. What they wanted was help in gaining a conviction.

 

[IrishMist]

Correct, and the refusals to cooperate with the investigation translate to GUILT. It can be interpreted no other way.

I don't agree, BC. I can see where they were coming from. (I don't agree with their decision to do so.)

People accustomed to power and privilege ARE different. I think it tends to make them look guilty, yes. But there is another way to interprete it. I really can see how folks would answer questions differently based on whether they are suspects or witnesses.

 

[BlueCrab]

I don't agree, BC. I can see where they were coming from. (I don't agree with their decision to do so.)

People accustomed to power and privilege ARE different. I think it tends to make them look guilty, yes. But there is another way to interprete it. I really can see how folks would answer questions differently based on whether they are suspects or witnesses.

IrishMist,

Lying to police officers is a little more than being "different". It is criminal whether they are suspects or witnesses, or are rich or poor.

 

[Voice of Reason]

But the police weren't looking for help with the investigation. They'd already solved it. What they wanted was help in gaining a conviction.

To some extent, this may be true, but if you assume the Ramseys are innocent (just for a minute, if you please), there are good things which can/will/should come out of their cooperation...

1 - if they convince the police of their innocence (assume this is possible), the police will stop barking up the wrong tree and start looking in the right spots.

2 - they are the last people to see her alive aside from the perp, so their information is crucial to an investigation, guilty or not.

3 - if they're so concerned with public image, isn't a failure to cooperate going to tarnish that?

I think it is such a load of bull that they were afraid of a wrongful conviction due to the police ineptitude or overzealous prosecution. This doesn't happen to people like the Ramseys. In fact, it's just the opposite. People like the Ramseys who are guilty have a good chance of getting off. (See OJ, Robert Blake, etc.) Unfortunately, wrongful conviction usually happens to people with no money, no representation, and no media spotlight. If anyone in their right mind thinks that with all the money, lawyers, and media behind this case that the Ramseys could end up in jail for a crime committed by a stranger, they're crazy. Waiting for months SPEAKS VOLUMES!!!

 

[tipper]

To some extent, this may be true, but if you assume the Ramseys are innocent (just for a minute, if you please), there are good things which can/will/should come out of their cooperation...

1 - if they convince the police of their innocence (assume this is possible), the police will stop barking up the wrong tree and start looking in the right spots.

2 - they are the last people to see her alive aside from the perp, so their information is crucial to an investigation, guilty or not.

3 - if they're so concerned with public image, isn't a failure to cooperate going to tarnish that?

I think it is such a load of bull that they were afraid of a wrongful conviction due to the police ineptitude or overzealous prosecution. This doesn't happen to people like the Ramseys. In fact, it's just the opposite. People like the Ramseys who are guilty have a good chance of getting off. (See OJ, Robert Blake, etc.) Unfortunately, wrongful conviction usually happens to people with no money, no representation, and no media spotlight. If anyone in their right mind thinks that with all the money, lawyers, and media behind this case that the Ramseys could end up in jail for a crime committed by a stranger, they're crazy. Waiting for months SPEAKS VOLUMES!!!

1. I don’t think it was possible for the police to have their minds changed. Especially since they had decided so quickly AND made that decision public. Look at how LE in the runaway bride case started a campaign of insinuation against the fiance. Wendy Murphy said "I had the guy drawn and quartered."

2. I agree and if the BPD had been interested in pursuing that information it might have been useful. But they weren’t.

3. I think they were more concerned with being put on trial for a crime they didn’t commit.

According to Barry Sheck - "In more than half the cases where old evidence could be found, the Innocence Project clients were exonerated." Clearly that’s a self-selecting group but it’s pretty frightening. Money isn’t a guarantee against conviction. Look at Menendez, rhe Moxley case, Jeffrey MacDonald was the toast of the glitterati but it didn’t save him. (And if even part of what is written in Fatal Justice about prosecutorial misconduct is true he deserves another trial.) BPD had an organized PR campaign against the Ramseys. The media was against the Ramseys and even offered to help get them convicted. Conversely, OJ and Robert Blake both had large followings. OJ played the race card very successfully. Blake played Bonnie B’s grifter personality against her. The Ramsey’s had strangers shouting "Murderer!" at them in the streets. I think a conviction was a distinct possibility at one time. Although, based on what’s public knowledge I don’t think the burden of proof would have been actually met and the fact that the DA didn’t feel they had a viable case suggests to me there is no bombshell evidence hidden away.

Given the circumstances I’m not sure I would have behaved differently. Hindsight is something else and I’m sure there are things they wish they had done differently.

 

[BlueCrab]

BPD had an organized PR campaign against the Ramseys.

tipper,

That's true, and deservedly so. The Ramseys brought it fully upon themselves. By lawyering up the whole family and openly refusing to cooperate, in effect they are sticking up their middle finger at the public and saying, "Yeah, we did it. Now let's see you bozo's try to prove it." So the BPD had no choice but to take them on, as did the public.

And please always remember tipper, the Ramsey's solid actions of guilt speak a lot louder than their hollow words of innocence -- and the cops can see this, and we in the public can see it.

BlueCrab

 

[sissi]

The boarder across the street, Barnhill, mc santa, did the BPD feel these three weren't "worthy" of further investigation. Did we not hear the excuses for them, "he had palsy", "he was too weak", he "had the flu", were these reasons good enough to limit a real investigation into these people? If their dna was taken was it tested against the dna on Jonbenet?

 

[BlueCrab]

The boarder across the street, Barnhill, mc santa, did the BPD feel these three weren't "worthy" of further investigation. Did we not hear the excuses for them, "he had palsy", "he was too weak", he "had the flu", were these reasons good enough to limit a real investigation into these people? If their dna was taken was it tested against the dna on Jonbenet?

sissi,

Investigations must start from the inside and work their way out. The Ramseys had to be cleared first. But the Ramseys, by refusing to cooperate, wouldn't allow the cops to clear them, and these kinds of behaviors also drew additional suspicion toward them.

Therefore, the boarder, the Barnhills, the McSanta's and all the rest of the potential suspects were put on semi-hold until the Ramseys were cleared. The cops had no other choice. The lack of cooperation has continued to this day and the Ramseys remain uncleared. They brought it upon themselves. The big question is WHY did the Ramseys deliberately bring it upon themselves? Of course, most of us have already figured out why.

BlueCrab

 

[Morag]

tipper, Voice of Reason, BlueCrab, sissi--I am loving your articulate and logical posts this morning.

 

[Lacy Wood]

(Agreeing with BC) I see comments from time to time that seem to characterize the JBR family's cooperation (or lack) as typical and acceptable for individuals who could be accused of being involved in a crime. But there is a big difference between those who are intimately involved in the unfolding of a criminal event, innocent or guilty, and those who simply come under suspicion. Any direct witness to circumstances of a criminal scenario who refuses interviews or cooperation does keep information relevant to the event from investigators and justifiably brings suspicion on himself. Sure it's legal and constitutionally protected, but there is no right to immunity from suspicion or adverse inferences from those who are either required or merely free to draw conclusions from the conduct of those close to a crime.

Imagine, for example, if the recent runaway bride's fiance had refused to speak to police the next day and left town...The shreiking on the NG (rhymes with race) show for what to do with Mr Mason would have been shocking and deafening. I suspect that some of thse who would denounce Mr Mason in the hypothetical might even include some who attempt to justify that very same conduct in the JBR case!

The fact the BPD concentrated on the Ramseys (at least initally) was not an error. When the family declined interviews and left town they seemed to confirm what the BPD was hearing from all of law enforcement...fake note, look at the family. Whether innocent or not, the family had a causal role in the focus of the BPD.

 

[Voice of Reason]

(Agreeing with BC) I see comments from time to time that seem to characterize the JBR family's cooperation (or lack) as typical and acceptable for individuals who could be accused of being involved in a crime. But there is a big difference between those who are intimately involved in the unfolding of a criminal event, innocent or guilty, and those who simply come under suspicion. Any direct witness to circumstances of a criminal scenario who refuses interviews or cooperation does keep information relevant to the event from investigators and justifiably brings suspicion on himself. Sure it's legal and constitutionally protected, but there is no right to immunity from suspicion or adverse inferences from those who are either required or merely free to draw conclusions from the conduct of those close to a crime.

Imagine, for example, if the recent runaway bride's fiance had refused to speak to police the next day and left town...The shreiking on the NG (rhymes with race) show for what to do with Mr Mason would have been shocking and deafening. I suspect that some of thse who would denounce Mr Mason in the hypothetical might even include some who attempt to justify that very same conduct in the JBR case!

The fact the BPD concentrated on the Ramseys (at least initally) was not an error. When the family declined interviews and left town they seemed to confirm what the BPD was hearing from all of law enforcement...fake note, look at the family. Whether innocent or not, the family had a causal role in the focus of the BPD.

:clap: :clap: :clap:
Right on! The Ramseys will remain under the umbrella of suspicion until they are officially cleared (and please don't say that they have been cleared, cause it just ain't so). And the longer they dodge authorities, the longer they remain under the umbrella, while at the same time increasing suspicions...

 

[tipper]

What authorities are they dodging? As I recall they met with Keenan for as long as she wanted when she took over the case. They've met with Smit, Douglas, who else are they supposed to meet with.

 

[BlueCrab]

What authorities are they dodging? As I recall they met with Keenan for as long as she wanted when she took over the case. They've met with Smit, Douglas, who else are they supposed to meet with.

tipper,

If the Ramseys were interested in finding the killer of their daughter they should have truthfully answered every question the BPD wanted to ask them within the first several days of the killing. Instead, the Ramseys delayed interviews for FOUR MONTHS after the murder. This tells me the Ramseys already knew who the killer was and they didn't want the cops and the public to know because a Ramsey was involved. How else could abominable behavior like that be honestly interpreted?

edited to get rid of word "sleazy" (the Ramseys aren't sleazy) and replace it with "abominable".

 

[tipper]

I understand that. But VOR's statement was:

"The Ramseys will remain under the umbrella of suspicion until they are officially cleared (and please don't say that they have been cleared, cause it just ain't so). And the longer they dodge authorities, the longer they remain under the umbrella, while at the same time increasing suspicions..."

All present tense. So I wondered what authorities they are dodging.