Something that has been bugging me... (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT)

[BBB167893]

The following is part of a synopsis of a Malcolm in the Middle episode: Reese, who broke Dewey's future birthday present and was psyched to hide the evidence in Aunt Helen's casket,http://malcolminthemiddle.tktv.net/Episodes1/ (#11: Funeral)

In DOI Patsy said that John tucked a scarf around JonBenet (pp 39-40). This would be an ingenious way to hide evidence so no one could ever gain any access to it. Have the items rolled up in one end of the scarf, tuck it under the body, and tuck the other end on the other side.

Yeah, that idea has occurred to me several times. Might also explain their reluctance to exhume her.

 

[Anti-K]

Nice to know it's not just me!



Look again, Anti-K. You've got it just the other way around!

I did have another look, and, guess what? I DON’T have things the wrong way around. A few excerpts from my source demonstrating this (BBM):

ETHICAL DECEPTION BY PROSECUTORS
All states have a rule of ethics that prohibits
attorneys from engaging in "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation."
The interpretation of this rule, especially as applied to
prosecutors, is unclear and controversial.
…
Part III concludes that when
prosecutorial deceit does not involve the formal legal process, deceit
may be justified if the moral costs are significantly exceeded by
the moral benefits.5

….
"although there is a substantial
body of law that allows law enforcement personnel to use artifice
and deceit in the exercise of their professional duties," Pautler
was not acting in his role as a peace officer, but rather as a lawyer.
63 Therefore, the court reasoned that his conduct should be
tested against the rules of conduct applicable to lawyers.'
The defense of "justification" was also rejected as inapplicable
….
Authorities, however, have not tended to question prosecutors'
use of out-of-court misrepresentations during investigations. 138
Disciplinary authorities have allowed prosecutors to supervise and
direct investigations involving deceit. 39 Law enforcement officers
regularly deceive suspects; it is considered an accepted investigative
technique. 4 Disciplining an attorney for supervising these investigatory
practices would encumber meaningful investigations, so
courts have determined that public policy favors deception over
unchecked lawlessness and have given prosecutors discretion in directing
investigations
When prosecutors are directly involved in investigations, the ethical
standards that apply are not so clear. Up until 2001, few ethics
opinions or rules had ever directly addressed this question. 42 The
two states that recently took on this issue have decided that prosecutors
may use deceit during the investigatory stages of a case. In
2001, Oregon amended its disciplinary rules to allow criminal attorneys
to misrepresent their identity or purpose in investigating believed
unlawful activity. 143 In 2002, a Utah ethics opinion stated
that "as long as a prosecutor's. . .conduct employing dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation is part of an otherwise lawful
government operation, the prosecutor... does not violate [the ethics]
Rule.' 14 The Committee further stated that there should be
no distinction between supervising an activity and directly taking
part in it.145
.

It is very clear, and cannot be reasonably argued otherwise: Levin, acting in an investigatory role would have been permitted to pull anything out of his, uh – thin air, if he thought it could further the investigation.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

I agree that the three handwriting experts hired by the Ramseys could be described as hired guns. This should not make them less credible or less honest; etc.

No, coming to their conclusions after only 3 hours work did that nicely.

 

[BBB167893]

The only thing that the unsourced trace evidence doesn’t fit is RDI. Maybe, there’s something wrong with RDI?

By that logic, we'd better let everyone who didn't confess out of prison!

 

[BBB167893]

I don’t see where people are disagreeing; it seems clear from the 2000 interview that it was a jacket. “Like a peacoat,” Mrs Ramsey says. “Right, like a peacoat.” Says Levin. Hey! Look! Agreement – it was like a peacoat.

Fair enough. It just struck me odd that she would say "sweater" in her 2002 explanation.

If RDI, it would have been easy. If IDI, it would have not been easy. And, you’re saying it wasn’t easy? Okay.

That's a nice twist, Anti-K. Either you missed my meaning, or you deflected it. So I'll speak plainly. The above assertion is your opinion only. I certainly was not agreeing with it.

Look, she had her chance to explain it in 2000. Not only could she not do it, she darn near fainted. Now, skip ahead two years--TWO FULL YEARS--suddenly she's got an explanation, which is in conflict with what JR had already written in DOI (I'm guessing she knew about it!). I already explained all of this DAYS ago.

You'll have to explain to me just how and why you think it would be so easy, Anti-K. Meanwhile, I'll say this: there is a right not to talk to police. There is NO right to lie.

I asked because I thought you might have had something substantial to show me.

What I gave you's not good enough?

 

[BBB167893]

I did have another look, and, guess what? I DON’T have things the wrong way around. A few excerpts from my source demonstrating this (BBM):

ETHICAL DECEPTION BY PROSECUTORS
All states have a rule of ethics that prohibits
attorneys from engaging in "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation."
The interpretation of this rule, especially as applied to
prosecutors, is unclear and controversial.
…
Part III concludes that when
prosecutorial deceit does not involve the formal legal process, deceit
may be justified if the moral costs are significantly exceeded by
the moral benefits.5

….
"although there is a substantial
body of law that allows law enforcement personnel to use artifice
and deceit in the exercise of their professional duties," Pautler
was not acting in his role as a peace officer, but rather as a lawyer.
63 Therefore, the court reasoned that his conduct should be
tested against the rules of conduct applicable to lawyers.'
The defense of "justification" was also rejected as inapplicable
….
Authorities, however, have not tended to question prosecutors'
use of out-of-court misrepresentations during investigations. 138
Disciplinary authorities have allowed prosecutors to supervise and
direct investigations involving deceit. 39 Law enforcement officers
regularly deceive suspects; it is considered an accepted investigative
technique. 4 Disciplining an attorney for supervising these investigatory
practices would encumber meaningful investigations, so
courts have determined that public policy favors deception over
unchecked lawlessness and have given prosecutors discretion in directing
investigations
When prosecutors are directly involved in investigations, the ethical
standards that apply are not so clear. Up until 2001, few ethics
opinions or rules had ever directly addressed this question. 42 The
two states that recently took on this issue have decided that prosecutors
may use deceit during the investigatory stages of a case. In
2001, Oregon amended its disciplinary rules to allow criminal attorneys
to misrepresent their identity or purpose in investigating believed
unlawful activity. 143 In 2002, a Utah ethics opinion stated
that "as long as a prosecutor's. . .conduct employing dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation is part of an otherwise lawful
government operation, the prosecutor... does not violate [the ethics]
Rule.' 14 The Committee further stated that there should be
no distinction between supervising an activity and directly taking
part in it.145
.

It is very clear, and cannot be reasonably argued otherwise: Levin, acting in an investigatory role would have been permitted to pull anything out of his, uh – thin air, if he thought it could further the investigation.
...

AK

I'm still looking for the part that refers to attorneys in a civil suit. You posted the article to show, and I quote, that the interviewers are not permitted to lie or intentionally mislead or misrepresent evidence in the depositions. Since when is Lin Wood a prosecutor?

 

[Anti-K]

I'm still looking for the part that refers to attorneys in a civil suit. You posted the article to show, and I quote, that the interviewers are not permitted to lie or intentionally mislead or misrepresent evidence in the depositions. Since when is Lin Wood a prosecutor?

Actually, the fact that I used the name Levin and that all I bolded was in reference to prosecutors, it should be obvious that I posted the link and quote to support this claim: &#8220;This is in contrast to the interviews where in the interviewers (yes, Levin included as during the interviews he was acting in an investigative role <1>) are permitted to do these things.&#8221;

I didn&#8217;t think I had to post anything to support that claim that interviewers are not permitted to deceive during Depositions as this should be an uncontested given that everyone understands. Anyway, go back to what I quoted and read the very first sentence. I&#8217;ll repost it here (BBM):
All states have a rule of ethics that prohibits
attorneys from engaging in "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation."
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Actually, the fact that I used the name Levin and that all I bolded was in reference to prosecutors, it should be obvious that I posted the link and quote to support this claim: “This is in contrast to the interviews where in the interviewers (yes, Levin included as during the interviews he was acting in an investigative role <1>) are permitted to do these things.”

I didn’t think I had to post anything to support that claim that interviewers are not permitted to deceive during Depositions as this should be an uncontested given that everyone understands. Anyway, go back to what I quoted and read the very first sentence. I’ll repost it here (BBM):
All states have a rule of ethics that prohibits
attorneys from engaging in "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation."
...

AK

It's one thing to say rules are in place, it's whether the are followed that is important. Having sat through a year of OJ Simpson trial at about that same period of time, I'd say that dishonesty and deceit were not the biggest things on some of those attorneys minds .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Look, she had her chance to explain it in 2000. Not only could she not do it, she darn near fainted. Now, skip ahead two years--TWO FULL YEARS--suddenly she's got an explanation, which is in conflict with what JR had already written in DOI (I'm guessing she knew about it!). I already explained all of this DAYS ago.

Dave, can you expand on this a little? I'd like to know exactly what she said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

Maybe someone could help us out. I distinctly remember the issue being raised in the August 2000 interviews and finding out they had them then.

RE: Clothing Worn on 12.25.96

According to Beckner and Trujillo, respectively, the request was made in December of 1997, then fulfilled in January of 1998.

BPD & Patsy Ramsey @ ATL, 2000:

"6 Q. (By Mr. Levin) What I am, what
7 I am interested in is, I am certainly not
8 going to debate concentration of colors. It
9 is irrelevant. What I am interested in, is
10 it something that you wore exclusively during
11 the Christmas season or is this a coat that
12 you wore anytime it was appropriate for the
13 weather?
14 A. Anytime it was appropriate.
15 Q. So it is not like a special
16 Christmassy type, type of Christmas sweater,
17 I know you talked about Christmas?
18 A. (Witness shook head negatively).
19 MR. WOOD: Your answer is not,
20 because you are nodding your head.
21 THE WITNESS: No, it is not.
22 MR. WOOD: So the record is
23 clear.
24 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) We were
25 provided that coat by, I believe, Ellis

157
1 Armistead.
2 MR. TRUJILLO: Correct.
3 Q. (By Mr. Levin) What I would like
4 you to help us with is to understand how the
5 coat got from you to Ellis, if you know.
6 A. The -- I think you all requested
7 it.
8 Q. That is correct.
9 A. So I went to my closet, dug it
10 out, put it in a box, and sent it to Ellis.
11 Q. Was that coat something that was
12 taken -- you didn't wear that coat out of
13 the house when the police took you out of
14 the house the afternoon of the 26th. Do you
15 recall?
16 A. No, I don't think I did.
17 Q. Do you know how you came into
18 possession? Was that something that came
19 through Pam when she picked up some clothes
20 for you or was that something that was boxed
21 up and shipped when the house was packed?
22 MR. WOOD: Just so I am clear,
23 when was the request made?
24 MR. TRUJILLO: It was received
25 January of '98. So it was --

158
1 MR. WOOD: Are we talking about
2 sometime between December of '96, and then
3 you all asked for it when, a year later?
4 MR. TRUJILLO: I don't have the
5 exact date.
6 THE WITNESS: It was a long time
7 later. We were in the house in Atlanta when
8 the request was made.
9 CHIEF BECKNER: December of '97.
10 MR. WOOD: So a year later you
11 all asked for the clothes, and they produced
12 it in January of '98?
13 MR. TRUJILLO: Yes.
14 MR. WOOD: Okay. Does that help
15 just put it in the time context of when it
16 might have been?
17 MR. LEVIN: And because everyone
18 needs a computer whiz, we have Mr. Kane.
19 We're talking about that coat.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 CHIEF BECKNER: Is that a, just
22 for clarification, is that a coat or a
23 sweater?
24 THE WITNESS: It is kind of a
25 little jacket, coat.

159
1 CHIEF BECKNER: We called it a
2 sweater in the past.
3 THE WITNESS: It is a jacket.
4 CHIEF BECKNER: Ellis Armistead
5 called it a sweater in his letter to us.
6 So I just want to clarify we are talking
7 about the right piece of clothing.
8 THE WITNESS: Well, we are
9 talking about that. You can call it
10 whatever you want. It is kind of a jacket
11 more."​

​

 

[inspector rex]

Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
Maybe someone could help us out. I distinctly remember the issue being raised in the August 2000 interviews and finding out they had them then.

Yes, the panties were discussed extensively in the 2000 interview.
There was no request made to Patsy for the remaining panties that I can see.

More than likely they did get them after that interview, eventhough the other clothes they had on that night were given previously.

 

[Mama2JML]

Yes, the panties were discussed extensively in the 2000 interview.
There was no request made to Patsy for the remaining panties that I can see.

More than likely they did get them after that interview, eventhough the other clothes they had on that night were given previously.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood Your exchange with Dave.

RE: The Bloomies

You're right, Rex, the panties were discussed extensively in 2000, but when did the BPD request, & obtain, the remainder of the set? IDK...

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682505/Second Floor

 

[inspector rex]

I'm sorry. I misunderstood Your exchange with Dave.

RE: The Bloomies

You're right, Rex, the panties were discussed extensively in 2000, but when did the BPD request, & obtain, the remainder of the set? IDK...

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682505/Second Floor

Yes, it's hard to keep track of the conversation sometimes, when things get strung out over a few pages.

I think that quote I posted, suggesting it was after the DA took over the investigation, is most likely correct.

 

[Anti-K]

By that logic, we'd better let everyone who didn't confess out of prison!

The conclusion you draw from my “logic” does not follow from what I said.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Fair enough. It just struck me odd that she would say "sweater" in her 2002 explanation.



That's a nice twist, Anti-K. Either you missed my meaning, or you deflected it. So I'll speak plainly. The above assertion is your opinion only. I certainly was not agreeing with it.

Look, she had her chance to explain it in 2000. Not only could she not do it, she darn near fainted. Now, skip ahead two years--TWO FULL YEARS--suddenly she's got an explanation, which is in conflict with what JR had already written in DOI (I'm guessing she knew about it!). I already explained all of this DAYS ago.

You'll have to explain to me just how and why you think it would be so easy, Anti-K. Meanwhile, I'll say this: there is a right not to talk to police. There is NO right to lie.



What I gave you's not good enough?

It’s easy, when they ask if you’ve ever did this or did that with your jacket on, you say, yes.

Anyway, I think your expectations are too high. Do you know where all your fibers are? Or, how they got there? Those unsourced fibers (hairs, and dna) presumably came from someone. Do you think that that someone knows how they got to where they were found?
.

What you gave me wasn’t good enough.
...

AK

 

[InstantProof]

Sometimes it's hard to see things when you look too close at every detail- take a look at the whole picture and it's a little more clear what took place.

 

[BBB167893]

Actually, the fact that I used the name Levin and that all I bolded was in reference to prosecutors, it should be obvious that I posted the link and quote to support this claim: “This is in contrast to the interviews where in the interviewers (yes, Levin included as during the interviews he was acting in an investigative role <1>) are permitted to do these things.”

Okay, so one had nothing to do with the other. Why didn't you just say so?

Moreover, as my friend questfortrue was kind enough to point out, and I quote:

The paper [Anti-K] draws his conclusion from - that lawyers in Colorado can lie during an investigation to a suspect - does not state that.

The Fordham Law School paper was written by a 4th year law student Rebecca Cross when she was obtaining her degree. It’s pretty well researched, but it is simply Ms. Cross advocating that lawyers should be able to deceive a suspect during an investigation when it is for the public good. The problem with using the paper to back-up one’s argument that lawyers are permitted to lie during an investigation is that it is not case law in Colorado. This was confirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1991. "People vs. Reichman". "It is the conduct of the lawyer which dictates when there is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, not the effect of that conduct." The ruling was not predicated on prosecutorial fraud, but was based on professional rule DR 102A, which sanctions conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and actions which violate disciplinary rules.

I didn’t think I had to post anything to support that claim that interviewers are not permitted to deceive during Depositions as this should be an uncontested given that everyone understands. Anyway, go back to what I quoted and read the very first sentence. I’ll repost it here (BBM):
All states have a rule of ethics that prohibits
attorneys from engaging in "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

The depositions in the Carnes trial weren't IN Colorado, Anti-K. Not that it matters. I have no doubt that Lin Wood (also NOT from Colorado!) would do it if he thought he could get away with it. He did with the Kobe Bryant case. Of course, that wouldn't even be necessary. If what Jann Scott said is correct, Wood knows so little about the actual case that he could say anything and it wouldn't be lying.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave, can you expand on this a little? I'd like to know exactly what she said.

You're wish is my command, andreww.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/searching-the-interrogation-tapes/

But she did go on the record with 48 Hours Investigates.

What does she think about these fibers? Says Patsy: "When I - after John discovering the body, and she was brought to the living room, when I laid eyes on her, I knelt down and hugged her. But I was, had my whole body on her body. My sweater fibers, or whatever I had on that morning, are going to transfer to her clothing, OK?"

Now, here's what John had already written in DOI:

I run to the living room and lay JonBenet on the floor in front of the Christmas tree. Patsy will be coming in the room. She must not see JonBenet like this. I get a blanket to cover JonBenet. I lay the blanket on her.

This is NOTY the same blanket from the basement. So Patsy couldn't have transferred the fibers like that, because she never came into contact with JB's body when she did her "Lazarus" performance.

Boston prosecutor Wendy Murphy summed it up thusly: Patsy's story would require "flat-out magic" to be true.

 

[BBB167893]

The conclusion you draw from my &#8220;logic&#8221; does not follow from what I said.

Sure seems like it!

 

[BBB167893]

It&#8217;s easy, when they ask if you&#8217;ve ever did this or did that with your jacket on, you say, yes.

That's really easy for any of us to say now.

Anyway, I think your expectations are too high. Do you know where all your fibers are? Or, how they got there? Those unsourced fibers (hairs, and dna) presumably came from someone. Do you think that that someone knows how they got to where they were found?

Pot, meet kettle. That's the argument I've BEEN making, just the other way.

Bottom line: PR would have done well just keeping her mouth shut.

What you gave me wasn&#8217;t good enough.

Somehow, I didn't THINK it would be.