820 users online (79 members and 741 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    The Polygraph

    I just came across an interesting thing on the BBC website. An apparent acknowledgement by the Ramseys that they had REFUSED to take polygraphs (- this is something that they have since denied, claiming instead that they'd never been asked.)

    According to the BBC, the Ramseys gave an interview to Newsweek and said:-

    John and Pat Ramsey told have Newsweek Magazine that they were prepared to take the polygraph test having refused to do so in 1997.
    ...
    Mr Ramsey had, early in the investigation been asked to take a lie detector test by investigators. He says that he refused because the request offended him as a grieving parent.
    Now, Newsweek is not a publication that I am familiar with so I did some checking and this is what I found out:-

    The Ramseys have managed to find sympathetic media ears. Dan Glick at Newsweek became a virtual apologist for the couple, all the while claiming that he was "agnostic" about their guilt or innocence.
    So it wasn't a "BORG" publication. Lou SMit apparently chose to give an inerview to Newsweek. Sherry Keene-Osborne worked there and jameson has a tribute to her on her website. Alas, I cannot fnd the article in question. Can anyone help? It would have been in 2000.


    Sources:-

    http://thehistoryvault.tripod.com/02...gfrenzy-bw.htm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/683706.stm
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355

    polygraph

    [QUOTE=Jayelles]Alas, I cannot fnd the article in question. Can anyone help? It would have been in 2000.[QUOTE]

    Jayelles,

    Don't know about Newsweek, but there is mention of this subject in Thomas' book: During the '97 interview with Thomas et al, John said, "...I will do whatever these guys [indicating his attorneys] recommend me to do, but we are not the kind of people you're trying to make us out to be. It's a tragic misdirection I think that you're on, and the sooner we get off that, the sooner we'll find who killed JonBenet."

    Just prior to that, Thomas says, he asked John point-blank if he would take one. "He grew angry", Thomas says, "a remarkable attitude change in just one question." John continued, "I would be insulted if you asked me to take a polygraph test. Frankly, I mean if you haven't talked to enough people to tell you what kind of people we are....[see above]".

    The Ramseys, whether guilty or innocent, didn't handle this matter very well; certainly not in a manner that would deflect attention away from them.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    More

    Why did the Ramseys refuse to have a polygraph administered by the FBI? Do they think the FBI are corrupt? The FBI have a very fine reputation in this part of the world so this is something I cannot fathom.

    Why would they only agree to an independent polygrapher?

    Would an independent be given access to police files?

    What questions did they fear the FBI would ask?

    I think both the BPD and the Ramseys were playing games. The RST argue that Beckner insisted on an FBI polygraph knowing full well that this was unacceptable to the Ramseys and knowing that they would refuse and receive bad press. The same could be said for the Ramseys. I think they insisted on an independent knowing that the BPD would not accept it but that they could say they were agreeing to "a" polygraph.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Mid-West
    Posts
    3,868
    And the Ramseys, though 'innocent', refused to take a police polygraph, an FBI polygraph.....instead they went shopping. Finding a controversial polygrapher they took his test until the Rams passed.

    Amazing how John went from insulted and we don't have time to take a poly, to here let me buy a polygrapher and show you I'm innocent. Oh yeah, trust me BPD...seeeeeeeeee we are innocent.
    -
    My opinion and nothing but my opinion.

    Tor:Con Index link below. Will show you the probability of a tornado happening in your area.
    http://www.weather.com/news/tornado-torcon-index

    FEMA's link for Emergency Supplies list below or what you need to survive for three days in case help is not immediately available to you.
    http://www.ready.gov/document/family-supply-list

    You can also purchase a weather radio which will inform you of severe weather even if your electricity goes out. Runs on batteries of course.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355

    circumstantial evidence; tipping the scale

    Quote Originally Posted by Show Me
    And the Ramseys, though 'innocent', refused to take a police polygraph, an FBI polygraph.....instead they went shopping. Finding a controversial polygrapher they took his test until the Rams passed.

    Amazing how John went from insulted and we don't have time to take a poly, to here let me buy a polygrapher and show you I'm innocent. Oh yeah, trust me BPD...seeeeeeeeee we are innocent.
    I would that someone would explain to me the rationale for NOT putting this question to John: "Did you write the ransom note?" or "Were you consulted regarding the writing of the ransom note?" or "Did you author the ransom note?", etc. What does it mean--to write? That's an ambiguous question. That's the sort of ambiguous question that Patsy was allowed to answer in support of her innocence. These polygraph results were unconvincing.

    It's seems to me that John's rationale was: Well, OBVIOUSLY, I didn't write the note; the analysts concur on that, so why put myself in jeopardy with that silly question? That's the sort of questionable judgement they've applied throughout this fiasco.

    Look at this question: "Did you administer the injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death?" Wouldn't a better question have been, "Did you have anything to do with your daughter's death?" or "Did you inflict ANY of the injuries that resulted in your daughter's death?" or "Did you hit JonBenet that night?" It seems to me that, whereas this question was, purportedly, carefully designed, by the polygrapher, to eliminate ambiguity, he failed utterly. There were TWO injuries, either of which, alone, would have resulted in her death. If it were the case that one of the injuries were NOT inflicted by the interrogee, but the other were, the interrogee could HONESTLY answer in the negative. The same could be said of the question regarding knowledge of who "administered" the injuries. The question should have been posed, "Do you have knowledge of the manner in which JonBenet came to be injured on the event of her death?"

    If they'd sincerely wished to clear this up once and for all, and at long last, via the polygraph; put an end to suspicion of any involvement of John, Patsy, or Burke in the death of their loved one, why did they leave so many questions unasked? There were numerous ways they could have been involved and numerous scenarios where they could have had knowledge of events leading to the child's death. One question they should have been asked is, "Do you know if Burke was in any way involved in her death?" or "Do you know if anyone other than Burke was involved in her death?" or "Are you convinced that some person unknown to you caused your daughter's death?"

    The more all-encompassing the question, the more ambiguous it becomes and the more likely the interrogee will be able to find fault with it, in terms of whether it accurately portrays his knowledge. All he has to do is find something about the question that will enable him to quibble--a loophole if you will.

    Why didn't the Ramseys sit down with LE right off the bat? Well, the circumstantial evidence pointing to them as the perpetrators was pretty strong, wasn't it? So, who knows whether they've been playing this little game to avoid prosecution for a crime they didn't commit, or to avoid spending time in the pokey for something they're guilty of?

    Would you be more likely to spend your life savings (millions and millions) to defend your innocence or to hide your guilt? Would you be willing to place yourself at the mercy of the criminal justice system (such as it is); or, being convinced of it's gross imperfection, the circumstances of the death being what they were, joust with it at every turn?

    Do you think the Ramseys have been getting poor legal advice?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Good Question

    Would I spend my millions defending my innocence or guilt?

    I don't know! I tend to think of my savings and possessions as my kids' inheritance. My husband doesn't. He wants them to make their own way in the world and he wants us to spend our retirement cruising around the world.

    I wonder how the Ramseys view things. I think it would make a difference. What I do criticise them for is Burke. Many folk think they are protecting Burke. I think my surviving children would be my first priority and I were innocent, I would want to do everything in my power to clear my name for the sake of them. I don't think the Ramseys have put Burke first at all.

    If I thought there was a chance that proof of a stungun would go a long way to exonerating me, I would demand an exhumation to get the tests done. I'd want to be seen to have nothing to hide. By being evasive, the Ramseys have appeared in the opposite light. Some people think that they wouldn't cover for each other - but that they'd both cover for Burke.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    If I thought there was a chance that proof of a stungun would go a long way to exonerating me, I would demand an exhumation to get the tests done. I'd want to be seen to have nothing to hide. By being evasive, the Ramseys have appeared in the opposite light. Some people think that they wouldn't cover for each other - but that they'd both cover for Burke.
    Yes, their lack of interest in exhumation puzzles me too. I'm surprised they haven't gone out to the cemetery and dug her up themselves; oh, I forgot, grave robbery is a crime in Georgia. Do you suppose one day they'll move the body to Michigan; could lay her to rest next to Lake Jonbenet? Great tourist attraction, as if Michigan needed more of those! Might take a peek at it then. Of course there is the parallel question, why haven't the LE authorities ordered exhumation? Is that because they don't wish to be embarrassed by the facts? I don't believe the Ramseys can force LE to take another look, can they? Some say that you can't be certain even by examining the tissue of a cadaver. Whom can we believe? Also, if there were incontrovertible proof of stunning, how would you interpret that? Wouldn't a stun gun be just about the most exciting thing a little boy could lay his hands on?

    The thing about Burke: you can speculate that he was involved or had knowledge, but how do you explain that he returned to school soon after? Do you really think a 10-yr-old (closer to ten than nine) could remain mum about the incident? Burke has always been a big question mark with me; didn't seem to be very upset about his sister's death (maybe she was a pain in the wazoo); didn't seem to fear for his own safety as most kids that age would. And, the Ramseys have been protecting him big time. It's the darndest thing.

    In your world travels, will you be touring the Rocky Mountain West and paying a visit to the "hell hole"? What is more important, do you plan to spend gobs of money here? We could use a new interpretive center.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by RedChief
    Yes, their lack of interest in exhumation puzzles me too. I'm surprised they haven't gone out to the cemetery and dug her up themselves; oh, I forgot, grave robbery is a crime in Georgia.

    Exhumation is out of the question now. Putrefaction is usually compete after 10 years for an adult and after 5 years for a child.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Exhumation is out of the question now. Putrefaction is usually compete after 10 years for an adult and after 5 years for a child.
    Exhumation may or may not be out of the question now, but it certainly wasn't out of the question when the matter of stunning first came up.

    What is your source for this information?

    Wasn't the body embalmed?

    Isn't it interesting that cause of death can be determined in a 5,000-yr-old mummy.

    What does an 8-yr-old embalmed and entombed corpse look like? Nothing but bones?
    Last edited by RedChief; 02-22-2005 at 06:58 PM. Reason: replace encrypted with entombed

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by RedChief
    Exhumation may or may not be out of the question now, but it certainly wasn't out of the question when the matter of stunning first came up.

    What is your source for this information?

    Wasn't the body embalmed?

    Isn't it interesting that cause of death can be determined in a 5,000-yr-old mummy.

    What does an 8-yr-old embalmed and encrypted corpse look like? Nothing but bones?

    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedi.../timedeath.htm

    It's a long article. Scroll down to #4, Postmortem Decomposition (Putrefaction);

    'Buried in well drained soil, an adult body is reduced to a skeleton in about 10 years, and a child's body in about 5 years."


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Minnesota-land of loons
    Posts
    3,212
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedi.../timedeath.htm

    It's a long article. Scroll down to #4, Postmortem Decomposition (Putrefaction);

    'Buried in well drained soil, an adult body is reduced to a skeleton in about 10 years, and a child's body in about 5 years."

    Embalmed and inside a casket?

    Eve

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355

    the piper o' dundee

    Hey, BlueCrab,

    That's a great website; that dundee site; thanks for that.

    There's an explanation for bruised temporal lobes also (the tips) at that site. Could JonBenet's have been caused by contre coup? One tip (the right side) was more badly bruised than the other; neither was very badly bruised. This bruising is sometimes seen in shaken babies and when drunks fall off their barstools backward. The brain moves suddenly within the cranium and the suction wreaks havoc. For this reason, the site of the brain injury is at a spot on the brain opposite to the site of impact on the skull in many cases. Also, the skull interior is rough where the temporal lobe (TL) sits, which exacerbates the injury.

    It appears that JBR's TL injury could have been caused by a blow to the head while she lay with her head on a pillow; possibly with her head turned to the right while she lay on her belly. For the TL injury to occur, some allowance for movement of the head would be necessary to cause the brain to displace within the skull. This posture when struck could also account for the pattern of urination in/on her underwear.

    Another explanation might be that she fell from a height backward and had managed to turn her head and shoulder just a bit before striking whatever surface intrrupted her fall.

    Stop me before I speculate more....

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599
    The polygraph situation has been something that made many people go hmmmm.... John initially said that he was appalled to be asked; Patsy said she'd take ten of 'em. (paraphrasing here) I found it odd that they hired their own polygrapher, but even more odd were the ambiguous questions that were asked. I don't recall them right off, but would someone post the questions so that newcomers can read just what the Rs were asked when they announced to the world that they had passed the polygraphs?

    Red Chief, that's a great theory about the temporal bruising. I've read that debated before, and if we could ever know which came first, the chicken or the egg (strangulation or head bash), it would be easier to settle on a perp in my mind.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355

    it seems to me that the experts...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nehemiah
    The polygraph situation has been something that made many people go hmmmm.... John initially said that he was appalled to be asked; Patsy said she'd take ten of 'em. (paraphrasing here) I found it odd that they hired their own polygrapher, but even more odd were the ambiguous questions that were asked. I don't recall them right off, but would someone post the questions so that newcomers can read just what the Rs were asked when they announced to the world that they had passed the polygraphs?

    Red Chief, that's a great theory about the temporal bruising. I've read that debated before, and if we could ever know which came first, the chicken or the egg (strangulation or head bash), it would be easier to settle on a perp in my mind.
    ...ought to be able to come to some more definite conclusions regarding the sequence of events and the causes of the injuries, etc. Just think, here we are, all these years later, still wondering: was she strangled first or blugeoned first? Did she pee before she died or afterward? Was she lying on her belly, or had her longjohns been reversed? Had she been sexually abused in the past or was this the first incident? Was the sexual injury evidence of a desire for sexual gratification, or was it inflicted fiendishly or as staging? Was it done with a finger or a paintbrush? Had she been strangled unintentionally? Had she been wiped and redressed? Was she killed in her bedroom or in the basement? Had she been struck with a bat or a flashlight? Had it begun as an accident or was it premeditated? Was it done by a family member or friend or a stranger/intruder? Was there a Christmas connection? Had there been a cover-up? Was the note genuine or fake? Who wrote it? Was it written beforehand or afterward? Was kidnapping the original intention, or an afterthought? Was there a conspiracy to kill the girl? Was there a pageantry connection? Was a pedophile involved? Was it the work of a sexual sadist? How much time in the house was required? Had the perp entered the house while the Ramseys were away? Was he intimately familiar with the layout of the house? Why did he select $118,000? Did he enter/exit through the basement window? Was she stunned? Was the body hidden? Why was she wearing oversized undies? Did the perp put those on her? Why weren't there any subsurface injuries in the neck area? Would she have been able to breathe with that cord around her neck? Did she scream as Stanton reported? Why didn't any of the occupants hear her? Were the knots slip knots? Had the wrists been tightly bound together? Had the cords been installed in the bedroom? Had the tape been applied over blood mucous on the mouth? Why hadn't the eyes been similarly taped? Why wasn't she wearing her nightie? Had she eaten pineapple; where, when? When was she killed; did she die? And on and on an on.

    Yes, knowing which came first would go a long way toward suggesting what happened. As for the chicken and the egg: Did you know that a chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg?

    Aren't santa suits mostly red?