Show Me said:
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?
