1209 users online (245 members and 964 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,607

    Lawyering Up and Away

    We know that JR lawyered up everyone in his family, including his ex-wife in Georgia.

    I hope that someone here with legal training/expertise will answer this.

    Aside from definite guilt of the parties involved, what is the reason for lawyering up family who were far away, and who had alibis, and were not perceived as being involved in the crime?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    I'm guessing - display of power? Show of weapons kind of thing?
    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,795
    Perhaps to make sure they weren't treated the way Melinda and JAR were.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    TO KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT!

    By law, all police questions have to be addressed to their respective attorneys, and you know their attorneys aren't going to answer anything.

    The Ramseys' know who killed JonBenet and their disgusting behaviors prove it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    TO KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT!

    By law, all police questions have to be addressed to their respective attorneys, and you know their attorneys aren't going to answer anything.

    The Ramseys' know who killed JonBenet and their disgusting behaviors prove it.
    Absolutely to keep them QUIET. What was the number one benefit for John, Patsy and Burke in hiring big lawyers right away? Right. Keeping the police at bay. It accomplished the SAME thing the note did. Kept the police from looking at them too closely. At first. When the gig was up (and the note was no longer of use to the Ramseys) after the dead child was found - they had to find another way to keep the police from getting to close to them (and the truth). So they lawyered them all up. From Georgia to Colorado.
    And it worked.
    This post is my opinion.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by K777angel
    Absolutely to keep them QUIET. What was the number one benefit for John, Patsy and Burke in hiring big lawyers right away? Right. Keeping the police at bay. It accomplished the SAME thing the note did. Kept the police from looking at them too closely. At first. When the gig was up (and the note was no longer of use to the Ramseys) after the dead child was found - they had to find another way to keep the police from getting to close to them (and the truth). So they lawyered them all up. From Georgia to Colorado.
    And it worked.
    Tonight I was reading an article from 1999 about Amy Bradley who disappeared from a Royal Carribbean Cruise ship in '98. That is of interest again with the recent disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Anyway, it was noted in the newspaper article, that once Amy's family got back to the US, her mom, her dad, and her brother were all separated and extensively questioned by the FBI (w/out attorneys), and they all took polygraphs administered by the FBI (which they passed, btw). The article said that once the family was cleared in this way, then the FBI proceeded with the investigation. That brought up an interesting point....then the FBI proceeded with the investigation. I wonder if the Bradley family had lawyered up to the degree that the Ramseys did, refused FBI sponsored polygraphs, hired a public relations guy, bought their own polygrapher, refused LE interviews for four months after returning to the US, finally conducted interviews with a myriad of attorneys present and under their own terms...if the investigation would have been mostly focused on them?

    Regardless if the Ramseys had something to do with the murder or cover up of the murder of JB, their actions dug their own graves. Their actions are not reconcilable with the events, in my opinion.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    I agree with you 100% Nehemiah.

    Many of us with children can empathise with the Ramseys. Losing a child is a parent's worst nightmare. Having someone come into your home during the night and take your child from their bed is unbearable. I never knew JonBenet, yet I cannot bear to think of her last terror filled moments. That must be even more frightful for those who knew her.

    One feels that in that situation, a parent would want to avenge their child - to seek out the perp and see justice done, yet the ramseys appear only to have considered themselves and their reputations.

    One cannot understand a parent being "insulted" at being routinely asked to assist police with their enquiries.
    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,486
    There is a chilling element in Nehemiah's post in the words suggesting the family of Amy Bradley passed lie detector tests, and "then" the FBI proceeded with the investigation. Despite my criticism of the Ramseys for refusing interviews, I do not feel that way about avoiding polygraphs. No valid underlying medical basis has ever been established for the polygraph and the claims of accuracy are both inaccurate and self serving... and they tend to fail in ways that make innocent people look guilty and a confident criminal look innocent.

    One example (sorry, there's math): Assume the polygraph is really 95% accurate as they claim. There's a thief in your company of a thousand employees. A guy you know is tested and fails. What is the probabiliy he is the thief? Answer: The probability is 1 in 50, not 95%. (The actual equation gives a slightly different result.) If the accuracy of the lie detector is in reality closer to 70%, the probability is 1 in 300. (There are similar calculations using Bayes' Theorem which show some shocking results for implications of false positives in hypothetical medical tests. There are "99% accurate" tests in which a positive result is virtually meaningless depending on how the 1% inaccuracy occurs.)

    There are admittedly ways the polygraph can help solve a crime as a subjective tool but usually when the testee is guilty. The innocent person is at a statistical disadvantage when subjected.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Lacy Wood
    There is a chilling element in Nehemiah's post in the words suggesting the family of Amy Bradley passed lie detector tests, and "then" the FBI proceeded with the investigation. Despite my criticism of the Ramseys for refusing interviews, I do not feel that way about avoiding polygraphs. No valid underlying medical basis has ever been established for the polygraph and the claims of accuracy are both inaccurate and self serving... and they tend to fail in ways that make innocent people look guilty and a confident criminal look innocent.

    One example (sorry, there's math): Assume the polygraph is really 95% accurate as they claim. There's a thief in your company of a thousand employees. A guy you know is tested and fails. What is the probabiliy he is the thief? Answer: The probability is 1 in 50, not 95%. (The actual equation gives a slightly different result.) If the accuracy of the lie detector is in reality closer to 70%, the probability is 1 in 300. (There are similar calculations using Bayes' Theorem which show some shocking results for implications of false positives in hypothetical medical tests. There are "99% accurate" tests in which a positive result is virtually meaningless depending on how the 1% inaccuracy occurs.)

    There are admittedly ways the polygraph can help solve a crime as a subjective tool but usually when the testee is guilty. The innocent person is at a statistical disadvantage when subjected.
    Lacy Wood,

    I agree with your post!

    I also do not have a lot of confidence in polygraphs,I believe they can easily be manipulated.

    I have heard they are used more for a police "tactic",then any thing else. Police like to suggest polygraphs,to see how the person "reacts" to having take the test,then the actual results of the test.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    Maybe I don't know the law as well as I should,and maybe this is a dumb question,but here goes ....

    I understand that it was Ramsey's using their right to having a lawyer,and it is also their right to have their lawyer present when being questioned. But did their lawyer have the right to say the Ramsey's wlll not answer questions,(for four months!).

    And when they did agree to questioning,the plan was for the Ramsey's to see all questions before hand,and the questions would be in writing ... by the advice of their lawyers.

    As far as I can tell ... this is obstruction of justice. Can't the lawyers be charged with obstruction,by the polce,for advising their clients to not be questioned,even though the Ramsey's were key witnesses to a murder? How can they solve the crime,if they can't talk to witnesses?

    I heard of lawyers being present during questioning,but never heard that a lawyer can say you cannot question my client.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,795
    The FBI said BPD also contributed to the 4 month delay in questioning. So it wasn't just the Ramseys that caused the delay although they are usually the only ones blamed for it.

    A client can over-ride the lawyers advice but if one is going to do that why pay the lawyer to begin with. Also a lawyer, understandably, won't continue with a client that doesn't follow his/her advice.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    Quote Originally Posted by tipper
    The FBI said BPD also contributed to the 4 month delay in questioning. So it wasn't just the Ramseys that caused the delay although they are usually the only ones blamed for it.

    A client can over-ride the lawyers advice but if one is going to do that why pay the lawyer to begin with. Also a lawyer, understandably, won't continue with a client that doesn't follow his/her advice.
    Thanks for the info Tipper,

    I am not blaming the Ramsey's for the delayed questioning,I thought they received bad advice from their lawyers,and put too much trust in them ... I also blame the BDP for not being tough enough...and that is why the case is where it is today. The Ramsey's being evasive once they were questioned,didn't help either.So,it is a mixture of all parties ... the Ramsey's,lawyers, and BPD that messed up this case so bad ... that poor JonBenet will never have her killer pay for what he did.

    I hope they're happy now.

  13. #13
    The reason LE delayed their interviews with the Ramseys is because the Ramsey lawyers made rediculous demands. They demanded that the Ramseys have access to their former statments and copies of the ransom letter!

    As pointed out earlier...why would John be "insulted" when asked to take a polygraph? It was he who stalled the investigation by not clearing himself. The Van Damms cooperated so that LE could move ahead and look for their precious Danielle.

    I have never heard of innocent parents lawyer up as fast as the Ramseys did. They had high-powered DEFENSE attorneys working the morning of the 27th. Mark Klaas and the Van Damms did not hire attornies...they wanted to move ahead as quickly as possible so they cooperated with LE!

    Perhaps the "bussiness" John wanted to attend to after finding JonBenet was hiring lawyers for his ex-wife Lucinda and Melinda and JAR.
    ...We have said to ourselves, look, there is never going to be a victory in this, there is no victory...John Ramsey: 6/24/98

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    red bluff, ca.
    Posts
    315
    I have said this in a couple of different places but this is the appropriate place.

    I would never fault the ramsey's for retaining a lawyer for purposes of advice and instruction with law enforcement. No problem, nothing wrong with that.

    To hide behind an attorney to avoid questioning by law enforcement should be criminal and is highly suspicious.

    John Walsh and Marc Klaas have both said their actions were highly suspicious and questionable.

    j.r. said he would have done the AMW but p.r. refused. How many parents of the missing children on this board alone would give their left arm to be featured on AMW? I realize JonBenet was not missing but you understand my point.

    I too always felt there was some sort of obstruction of justice charge which could have been lodged.
    http://groups.msn.com/CTVChatPeople/...hergaggle.msnw

    When you've got a hammer in your hand everything looks like a nail!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,795
    I know Marc Klaas said that but my recollection is that John Walsh did not agree. I think it was when they were on Larry King together but I can't find a transcript.

    As I posted a few days ago - Jonbenet was featured on AMW and there were several errors. Perhaps Patsy doesn't think it will be of any help and she has no confidence in the show's accuracy. It would be interesting to know what her reasons were.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. "Lawyering Up"
    By Pattymarie in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 01-29-2009, 05:22 PM