Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Carbon Copy Case... interesting parallels to the Ramsey case

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver CO
    Posts
    804

    Carbon Copy Case... interesting parallels to the Ramsey case

    The show Unsolved Mysteries that aired on Oct. 21st featured an interesting case that parallels the Ramsey case. The time line in this case went from Sept. 1988 till sometime in 1992. I assume the segment was made between 1992 and 1996, while the show was being produced by one of the major networks.

    In Sept. 1988 David and Cynthia Dowaliby got up and later discovered that their 7 yr. old daughter, Jackie, was missing from her bed on the first floor of their apt. They found the front door of the apt. open. They searched the neighborhood and called police but Jackie wasn't found until 4 days later when she was discovered in a field dead with a length of rope wrapped around her neck. Cause of death was listed as undetermined. A basement window of their apt. was broken out.

    The parents were intensely questioned and re-questioned by the police.
    David took a polygraph and was told by the police examiner he passed, the 2nd day.
    The police first said the window was broken from the inside and that a towel rack and vanity table with asst. items located below the window would have been disturbed if someone had come in.
    Later, forensics would conclude the window was broken from the outside and a videotape done by the Dowalibys would show a neighbor able to enter through the window without disturbing the table and items below.

    A witness claimed to see someone with a large nose near the field in a car from 75 yds. away that night. He was given a photo line-up sheet with 5 pictures, with David's being 30% bigger than the others. He thought David had a big nose and picked him.

    2 witnesses claimed to see Cynthia's car near the field that night, yet apparently more reliable testimony showed the car remained in front of the apt.

    No fingerprint, hair, DNA, or fiber evidence was ever mentioned as being found in the apt. or on Jackie's body, nor was the rope's source mentioned, if known.

    David D. was given a 2nd polygraph by the Indiana State Police but a problem developed when he was told to answer Yes to questions that would normally be No during preliminaries. The test, on day 3, was inconclusive.

    The case escalated, with multiple police jurisdictions being involved, media coverage, and public sentiment against the parents.

    Based on the above, murder charges were brought against D. and C. Dowaliby in FEb. 1990. Cynthia's were dismissed but David stood trial and was convicted by a jury after 3 days of deliberations. After 18 mo. A grassroots effort by C. D. and 2 lawyers resulted in a ruling by the Appellate Court releasing David from prison on grounds of insufficient evidence for conviction.

    Of 2 other suspects in the case, one was David D.'s brother, a schizophrenic, who had alibis that he was working at his restaurant job that night and that he was also with a woman. When the show originally aired 2 people called to refute the alibi he claimed to have--one being the woman. Five regulars at the restaurant said he had not worked the night in question. Lacking any evidence, the police were not able to build any further case against him.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When interviewed, D. and C. Dowaliby seemed to be straightforward working class people. When asked if he regretted spending 18 mo. in prison, he said the important thing was his daughter was gone and they missed her.
    This is my opinion, and change is good.

  2. #2
    There's an interesting book on the case called "Gone in the Night" Can't remember the author.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    686
    The author is a professor from one of the Chicago Colleges....David Protess(?) or something like that. I think the book is out of print, but you can get it at a used bookstore--or possibly through used books on amazon.com. It was only through the professors efforts and a local newscaster's, that the case was reopened. The schizophrenic brother-in-law revealed "visions" he had of the night Jacqueline was abducted and murdered--details that Protess and the reporter felt revealed an intimate knowledge of the crime.

    The case started out being very political. Daley Jr. was running for mayor---he wanted the case solved and he wanted credit for it. The prosecutors were against it, except for one. The Dowaliby's were totally railroaded, and they initially cooperated with the police. The police even got a doctor at Rush to say the son had been abused, because the doctor was told the police had evidence the parent's were involved. Luckily, there were photos of the boy, and no marks---the doctor's report was made up. The Dowaliby's felt sure the police would go after the brother-in-law. Protess said they wouldn't---it wouldn't make the police look good. The killer is still out there.

    A legal seminar was held in I believe Denver, a couple years after JBR was found dead, specifically on the Dowaliby case. It could have been a blueprint on how not to conduct an investigation----a blueprint St followed, IMO. The Ramsey case had all of the same ingredients.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver CO
    Posts
    804

    Parallels....

    If the Dowalibys' had had high-powered lawyers and D. was found innocent would there have been public outcry that a guilty man had escaped justice?

    The examiner at the 2nd polygraph appeared to be jerking D. Dowaliby around with his strategy. Was he trying to soften him up and draw incriminating information from him? Apparently the 1st did not provide much/any incriminating evidence, or he wouldn't have been asked to do another.

    Although his brother must have been a suspect for some reason, LE decided to prosecute D. based only on circumstantial evidence, and the fact he was a family member and was in the house at the time.

    I found it strange that although his wife was asleep in the same bed or the same room, she wasn't charged as being an accessory. How could someone sleep through their spouse getting up, dressing some, breaking a window, leaving with their daughter in a car, coming home and returning to bed?
    This is my opinion, and change is good.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    686
    The schizophrenic brother-in-law was not David Dowaliby's brother. He was the brother of Mrs. Dowaliby's first husband. Her ex-husband was in prison at the time. Jacqueline would occasionally visit the uncle and his mother.

    If you look at other similar-type crimes, paranoid schizos (off there medication and substance abusers) have come up repeatedly. They are the most likely of all mental illnessses to commit violent crimes; and it is the most common mental illness of criminals in prison that do violent crimes.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    The Dowaliby case is NOT a carbon copy of the JBR case.

    The child was removed from the house
    There was no ransom note

    Just because things were screwed up in this case and the family subsequently out of prison, does not mean this is a duplicate of JBR's murder.

    Police departments all over the world make mistakes in murder cases. This being no different.

    I would also say that this is not a duplicate case in that the family spoke with investigators when asked to.

    Make no mistake: Having attorneys has never been an issue for me with the Ramseys, high powered or not. My issue is that they had teams of lawyeres and continued to refuse to interview with the police departments and LE. They had no reason to believe they could be railroaded with their lawyers present. Why not cooperate? Why not interview? There is no rational reason.

    There is no carbon copy of the JBR case. It is one of a kind, and I venture to predict that there will never be another like it. Try as we may to make comparisons with other cases, JBR's case is truly unique and can't be compared to any other.
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    972
    Originally posted by Barbara
    The Dowaliby case is NOT a carbon copy of the JBR case.
    Police departments all over the world make mistakes in murder cases. This being no different.

    I would also say that this is not a duplicate case in that the family spoke with investigators when asked to.
    The cases are different: in one the name is Dowaliby in the other Ramsey. See a difference!!

    You are correct in your 'this being no different' but it is not in respect to 'mistakes' it is in respect to 'railroading innocent suspects'.

    Yes, they spoke to investigators and look where it got them!

    The Ramsey lawyers repeatedly advised their clients not to speak to the police but it was the Ramseys that insisted a meeting take place.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver CO
    Posts
    804

    carbon copy case

    Originally posted by Barbara:
    " The Dowaliby case is NOT a carbon copy of the JBR case."
    "The child was removed from the house"
    "There was no ransom note"
    If the 2 statements above represent trees, then they remind me of the aphorism One can't see the forest for the trees. It's in police assumptions and conduct and how the justice system operated where parallels can be noted. And also in media scrutiny and frenzy, and the arising of public indignation and comdemnation that followed both cases.
    This is my opinion, and change is good.

  9. #9
    Maxi Guest
    It shouldn't surprise anyone that innocent people get accused and convicted all the time. That's doesn't make the two cases carbon copies. You could just as easily say that one of the many cases in which parents fake a kidnapping to cover up the fact that they killed their child is a carbon copy.

    The most unusual feature of the JBR case is the ransom note and the body in the same house. It's not just some small side point. No one has been able to find another crime in which that happened. And I haven't been able to find any cases in the U.S. in which a child was sexually assaulted and killed because someone outside the family was mad at her father.

  10. #10

    IMHO...this is a First/1st case (JBR) ever like it...because Patsy choose that!

    Originally posted by Maxi
    It shouldn't surprise anyone that innocent people get accused and convicted all the time. That's doesn't make the two cases carbon copies. You could just as easily say that one of the many cases in which parents fake a kidnapping to cover up the fact that they killed their child is a carbon copy.

    The most unusual feature of the JBR case is the ransom note and the body in the same house. It's not just some small side point. No one has been able to find another crime in which that happened. And I haven't been able to find any cases in the U.S. in which a child was sexually assaulted and killed because someone outside the family was mad at her father.
    Ditto; IMHO...this is a First/1st case (JBR) ever like it...because Patsy choose that for reasons unknown to most but probably to some (?)LOL!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    686
    Finding a ransom note and a body could mean it was a kidnapping gone bad.......by an amateur. I really think they need to profile all the cases with some common characteristics, where they did get the perp, to see what kind of common characteristics there may be in the perp. Most of the profilers sure got it wrong in the Elizabeth Smart case.

    There was a 3 year old boy abducted in California a while back, with a ransom note left. He was never found...no demands made for ransom--I believe it's unsolved.

    When all is said and done, I don't think the motive will be all that unusual....the perp just got lucky that he wasn't on the radar screen for many years.

  12. #12
    Toth said"The Ramsey lawyers repeatedly advised their clients not to speak to the police but it was the Ramseys that insisted a meeting take place."

    Toth, you are misstating facts.

    The official notice from the BPD says it all. I believe because of the information in this release the interviews were finally agreed upon.


    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    April 23, 1997
    Contact: Leslie Aaholm, Media Relations, 441-3090

    Boulder Police Department Response
    To Ramsey Attorney’s Letter of 4/23/97

    (Ramsey Update #41)

    The Boulder Police Department has been interested in conducting interviews with John and Patricia Ramsey since the murder of their daughter, JonBenet Ramsey. To date, there have been three specific attempts to schedule interviews with the Ramseys.

    The first attempt was immediately following the murder. It was the Boulder Police Department’s expectation that John and Patricia Ramsey would provide interviews prior to leaving Boulder to attend their daughter’s funeral in Atlanta. However, Police were advised by the`` Ramseys that they had no intention of talking to Police prior to taking the body to Atlanta to be buried.

    Police were reluctant to release JonBenet’s body because they were not sure all the necessary forensic work had been completed nor had they had an opportunity to discuss the circumstances of JonBenet’s death with the parents. The body was released to the Ramseys within 24 hours of their request.

    The second attempt to obtain an interview was in January. Police had identified the terms of a productive interview and the response from the Ramsey attorney’s, on less than a one-day’s notice, was that they would be willing to present John and Patricia Ramsey only under the following conditions:

    That the interviews be done together.
    That the interviews be conducted at the Ramsey’s attorney’s office.
    That Patricia Ramsey’s doctor be present during the interview.
    That the attorney’s would specify which Boulder Police Department Officers would conduct the interview.
    That the interview with Patricia Ramsey would not be more than one hour.
    These conditions were totally unacceptable to the Boulder Police Department.

    The third effort to obtain interviews with the Ramseys has occurred over the last few weeks. In an effort to move the interview process forward, the Boulder Police agreed to consider deviating from their normal interview procedures. The last offer of conditions received by the Boulder Police Department from the Ramseys was reviewed with the FBI’s Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit and based on their advice Police concluded that the conditions were unacceptable. As a result of this review, the times that had been scheduled for an interview were canceled because it was felt the interviews would not be productive.

    The Boulder Police continue to request interviews with John and Patricia Ramsey, and their reluctance to provide witness information continues to hinder the Police investigation into the murder of their daughter.

    Boulder Police remain willing to discuss conditions for a productive interview.

    -CITY-

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    972
    Originally posted by Sabrina
    Toth said"The Ramsey lawyers repeatedly advised their clients not to speak to the police but it was the Ramseys that insisted a meeting take place."
    **This is true.

    April 23, 1997
    (Ramsey Update #41)

    The Boulder Police Department has been interested in conducting interviews with John and Patricia Ramsey since the murder of their daughter, JonBenet Ramsey.
    ***But only on terms that the BPD want.
    ***The BPD will pick up their marbles and go home if they don't get their way.

    Police were reluctant to release JonBenet’s body because they were not sure all the necessary forensic work had been completed
    ***not so. Work was completed and police were aware of that.
    >nor had they had an opportunity to discuss the circumstances of JonBenet’s death with the parents.
    ***which has nothing to do with the forensic work.

    That the interviews be done together.
    That the interviews be conducted at the Ramsey’s attorney’s office.
    That Patricia Ramsey’s doctor be present during the interview.
    That the attorney’s would specify which Boulder Police Department Officers would conduct the interview.
    That the interview with Patricia Ramsey would not be more than one hour.
    ****seems perfectly reasonable.

    These conditions were totally unacceptable to the Boulder Police Department.
    *****WHY? Did the BPD want to be able to yell and scream at Patsy Ramsey for hours and hours? Did they want to keep her from receiving medical attention? Didn't they think they could get valuable information in that first hour?

  14. #14
    Why do you think it's reasonable that they be interviewed together?

  15. #15
    The BPD did not invent the concept of interviewing suspects separately. It's the way it's done everywhere. You know it and so did the Rams.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    I have survived all the slings and arrows and live in a house filled with Love.
    Posts
    15,122
    Toth wrote:
    "The Boulder Police Department has been interested in conducting interviews with John and Patricia Ramsey since the murder of their daughter, JonBenet Ramsey.
    ***But only on terms that the BPD want.
    ***The BPD will pick up their marbles and go home if they don't get their way."

    HELLO??? ? Yes the BPD has every right to conduct the interviews their way. Not the main suspects way.

    If John and Patsy had no money and their names were Jose and Juanita their butts would have been in jail in less that 24 hours.

    The terms the Ramseys wanted to set for the interviews were laughable although consistant with someone who is guilty and looking to hide something.
    `````````````````

    JOIN US EVERY THURSDAY NIGHT FOR TRUE CRIME RADIO ON IHEART. CLICK HERE THURSDAYS 8 PM EASTERN FOR THE LINK TO THE SHOW AND TO JOIN OUR NEW CHATROOM.

    FOR PAST IHEART SHOWS CLICK HERE



    Join Websleuths on Twitter

    Follow websleuths on Twitter

    And Face Book of course
     | 





    ************************************************** **************************************

    Tricia Griffith
    tgrif@xmission.com
    6300 N. Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H # 214
    Park City UT
    84098

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Tricia originally posted....HELLO??? ? Yes the BPD has every right to conduct the interviews their way. Not the main suspects way.


    BINGO! They were victims and should have been treated as such!
    IMO JMO

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    "BINGO! They were victims and should have been treated as such!"

    NOBODY is a victim until they have been cleared as a suspect. Now I can't imagine that anyone would argue that they HAD TO be looked at first by the police or else for sure LE wouldn't have been doing their jobs.
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  19. #19
    Originally posted by sissi
    BINGO! They were victims and should have been treated as such!
    NO. There was only ONE VICTIM - her name was JonBenet. Her parents were (and still are, and will always be) the prime suspects.

  20. #20
    Maxi Guest
    The BPD had every right to insist on seperate interviews. That's what cops normally do.

    The Ramseys had every right to insist on doing the interviews their own way. But that is not at all typical of the parents of murder victims.

    Anything atypical behavior is going to raise cops' antennae.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    Originally posted by Maxi
    The Ramseys had every right to insist on doing the interviews their own way. But that is not at all typical of the parents of murder victims.
    The situation can be summarized this way. The Ramseys had the right to ask for their conditions, but they had the responsibility to abandon those conditions immediately when investigators did not want to comply. The Ramseys, supposedly good Christians, are supposed to have been steeped in the Bible knowledge that you will never get everything you ask for, not from God and not from the BPD, and when you are refused, you do not sulk for months.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    350
    At one point - weren't questions written and submitted to their attorneys for answers?

    What a joke.

    Only one victim - JonBenet!

    I notice that Dowily immediately took a lie detector test. Guess he wasn't "insulted."
    IMO -

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    "I notice that Dowily immediately took a lie detector test. Guess he wasn't "insulted."

    For most parents, personal ego takes a back seat when you want to find the murderer of your child. Most parents, but evidently not all
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    972
    Maybe he wasn't insulted...but he should have been.
    He also should have been more sensible.

  25. #25
    Originally posted by sissi
    Tricia originally posted....HELLO??? ? Yes the BPD has every right to conduct the interviews their way. Not the main suspects way.

    BINGO! They were victims and should have been treated as such!
    IMO JMO
    Sissi, it does not work that way. Even victims are required to be interviewed immediately. A friend of mine's husband committed suicide in his house while she and her 6 year old were asleep, the gun shots woke them up, he blew his brains out. Can you imagine what she was going through-- the cops immediately brought her to the station for an interview and gunpowder residue test-- SO SHE COULD BE CLEARED and they could declare it a suicide.

    I posted on another thread. So many of you people do not have a clue as to how the system works. Please call your police department and ask them if parents of murdered children who may be suspects are allowed to set conditions on interviews, and specify they have to be interviewed tgether and only for 1 hour and not at the police station-- and see what your friendly homicide detective will tell you. Mine laughed their fannies off.
    You might want to look up some books on police interview procedure as well.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Sabrina For This Useful Post:


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •