If You Were LE What Would You Have Done Differently?

The first thing that comes to my mind is separating everyone in the house that morning and questioning them. All of them,including Burke,Fernie's,and the Reverant.

Second of all,I would have everyone contained in one area,where everyone was visible to me.Then I would have waited,I don't care how long it took,to get police back up,and then searched the house,every nook and cranny,by the police only.

Thirdly,I would not have been as patient with the Ramsey's with their "I don't remember" answers,regardless if their lawyer was there or not ... especially with the simple questions,like did your daughter have a bath on the 25th.

Of course it's easy in hind sight ... but some things are just common sense.

Can anyone think of anything else?

I would never allowed the influx of people in the house. It would have been cordoned off immediately and the family sent elsewhere. Then I would send in the crime scene personnel. Just allowing the contamination was the worst thing for JonBenet and the best thing for the Ramsey's.

I would have brought in dogs, if nothing else they would have quickly found the body, and perhaps trailed the scent of the perp. Remember this...

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...h.teenager/+dogs+in+kidnapping&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Yes the family was under scrutiny, their lie detector tests were "inconclusive", they were suspects! Had Elizabeth not been found, they likely would be under some "umbrella".

capps said:

The first thing that comes to my mind is separating everyone in the house that morning and questioning them. All of them,including Burke,Fernie's,and the Reverant.

Second of all,I would have everyone contained in one area,where everyone was visible to me.Then I would have waited,I don't care how long it took,to get police back up,and then searched the house,every nook and cranny,by the police only.

Thirdly,I would not have been as patient with the Ramsey's with their "I don't remember" answers,regardless if their lawyer was there or not ... especially with the simple questions,like did your daughter have a bath on the 25th.

Of course it's easy in hind sight ... but some things are just common sense.

Can anyone think of anything else?

Click to expand...

Everything they did was "different" than prescribed standard operating procedures. They did the Ramseys a disservice and themselves by not calling in the FBI right away. Once they lost the golden opportunities, there was no going back.

They shouldn't have gone to the house in a marked squad. Since they did, the house should have become a crime scene and secured--gotten everyone out, and searched the house completely, and when they found JBR, called in the State Crime Lab to gather the evidence, and brought the Ramseys in to be questioned separately. The stun gun marks should have been caught during autopsy.

That's for starters........

Maikai said:

Everything they did was "different" than prescribed standard operating procedures. They did the Ramseys a disservice and themselves by not calling in the FBI right away. Once they lost the golden opportunities, there was no going back.

Click to expand...

I will never fault anyone for the lack of intense FBI involvement from six a.m. on that day of the 26th, because really, the FBI is only meant to be involved in crimes which cross state boundaries, truly federal crimes, and as much as there is a temptation to call on them as Big Guns, they have no business being involved in crimes confined to one house, one city, and even one state.

Maikai said:

They shouldn't have gone to the house in a marked squad.

Click to expand...

And who is at fault for that? Why, Patsy Ramsey, who thought it was more important to tell the 911 dispatcher that her daughter had blonde hair than that she would die if her kidnapper knew police had been contacted.

Maikai said:

Since they did, the house should have become a crime scene and secured--gotten everyone out, and searched the house completely, and when they found JBR, called in the State Crime Lab to gather the evidence, and brought the Ramseys in to be questioned separately. The stun gun marks should have been caught during autopsy.

That's for starters........

Click to expand...

Agreed on those matters, except that I tend to think the fact that the marks you attribute to a stun gun were not excised, by its very nature says that they were not considered anything other than what they were said to be, superficial abrasions. A suspicious birthmark on her genitalia was cut into, to make sure it was not made of blood but instead was just some skin coloration. If there was any reason, at the time of autopsy and with high magnification tools available, to think that the single prominent abrasion on her right jaw and the two marks on her right side were deep electrical burns, there was no reason for them to not raise the same red flags. Meyer had every right and responsibility to examine those marks as much as they needed to be, he declared them abrasions, and if they are not abrasions, then his examination was incompetent and the entirety of the autopsy report should be called into question, including whether the ligature was tightened enough to cause hypoxia all by itself.

Stun gun marks have been referred to as abrasions.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...ol=1+stun+gun+causes+abrasions&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Medical Examiner's Testimony
At trial, the medical examiner testified that David Loucks died around 9:30
or 10 p.m. on March 7, 1995. His death was caused by strangulation and
probable suffocation. David Loucks suffered a blunt force injury to the
head and numerous abrasions on his head, face, shoulder, elbow, and knees.
The abrasions could have been caused by a stun gun, which would cause
general incapacitation and some pain.

why_nutt said:

I will never fault anyone for the lack of intense FBI involvement from six a.m. on that day of the 26th, because really, the FBI is only meant to be involved in crimes which cross state boundaries, truly federal crimes, and as much as there is a temptation to call on them as Big Guns, they have no business being involved in crimes confined to one house, one city, and even one state.



And who is at fault for that? Why, Patsy Ramsey, who thought it was more important to tell the 911 dispatcher that her daughter had blonde hair than that she would die if her kidnapper knew police had been contacted.



Agreed on those matters, except that I tend to think the fact that the marks you attribute to a stun gun were not excised, by its very nature says that they were not considered anything other than what they were said to be, superficial abrasions. A suspicious birthmark on her genitalia was cut into, to make sure it was not made of blood but instead was just some skin coloration. If there was any reason, at the time of autopsy and with high magnification tools available, to think that the single prominent abrasion on her right jaw and the two marks on her right side were deep electrical burns, there was no reason for them to not raise the same red flags. Meyer had every right and responsibility to examine those marks as much as they needed to be, he declared them abrasions, and if they are not abrasions, then his examination was incompetent and the entirety of the autopsy report should be called into question, including whether the ligature was tightened enough to cause hypoxia all by itself.

Click to expand...

Why_nutt,

Your points are well taken!
But the question is not to critize what has been done,but rather,what you as the LE would have done differently.

Any ideas?

I would have closed down the house and made it a crime scene immediately. I would not have allowed anyone access to the house. I would have taken the Ramsey's to the police station and separated them for questioning (This while under the assumption this was a kidnapping). I would have had the house searched immediately, by LE, not family or friends. Traps would have been placed on all the phones that the Ramsey's could access.

I'm thinking of others.

why_nutt said:

I will never fault anyone for the lack of intense FBI involvement from six a.m. on that day of the 26th, because really, the FBI is only meant to be involved in crimes which cross state boundaries, truly federal crimes, and as much as there is a temptation to call on them as Big Guns, they have no business being involved in crimes confined to one house, one city, and even one state.

Click to expand...

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/kidnap.htm

The FBI's National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), part of the FBI's Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG), is located at the FBI's Training Academy in Quantico, Virginia. NCAVC combines investigative/operational support functions, research, and training to provide free assistance to federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies. Members of NCAVC teach and give presentations at training courses for CAC Coordinators. In addition, more than 150 FBI Agents nationwide are designated as NCAVC Coordinators and provide a necessary and effective link between the NCAVC, FBI Field Offices, and local law enforcement.

The Morgan P. Hardiman Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center (CASMIRC) was established through legislation in 1998 under the NCAVC. According to the legislation, CASMIRC is "to provide investigative support through the coordination and provision of federal law enforcement resources, training, and application of other multidisciplinary expertise, to assist federal, state, and local authorities in matters involving child abductions, mysterious disappearances of children, child homicide, and serial murder across the country." CASMIRC is the operational entity of the FBI that addresses Crimes Against Children.

The NCAVC has a rapid response element that:

applies the most current expertise available in matters involving missing and exploited children;
provides immediate operational assistance to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies involved in violent crime investigations; and
provides onsite investigative support through technical and forensic resource coordination.
Upon being notified that a child has been abducted, FBI Field Offices and the NCAVC coordinate an immediate response to the abduction situation. The National Child Search Assistance Act of 1990 states that law enforcement agencies may not observe a waiting period before accepting a missing child report and that each missing child that is reported to law enforcement must be entered immediately into the state law enforcement system and National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Established in 1967, NCIC is a nationwide computerized system that provides law enforcement officers with ready data regarding wanted persons, stolen property, and other information.

Vital to the resolution of these cases, Special Agents join local law enforcement in coordinating and conducting comprehensive investigations. FBI Evidence Response Team personnel may conduct the forensic investigation of the abduction site, while a Rapid Start Team may immediately be deployed to coordinate and track investigative leads, which often number in the thousands.

FBI: The FBI has had jurisdiction in all kidnapping cases since shortly after the Lindberg baby kidnapping. Up until 1:05 PM on the 26th, the Ramsey case was considered to be a kidnapping.

STUN GUN: Meyer admits the "abrasions" on JonBenet were also consistent with stun gun injuries. There's a chance the marks are both abrasions AND stun gun burns. When the tiny twin rectangular metal prongs of a hand-held Taser brand stun gun are jammed hard against the skin, it can simultaneously cause an abrasion and a burn injury at the same spot.

BlueCrab said:

FBI: The FBI has had jurisdiction in all kidnapping cases since shortly after the Lindberg baby kidnapping. Up until 1:05 PM on the 26th, the Ramsey case was considered to be a kidnapping.

Click to expand...

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569691_3/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation.html

In response to the kidnapping of the infant son of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh, Congress in 1932 passed the so-called Lindbergh Act, which made kidnapping a federal crime if the victim was transported across state lines.

Click to expand...

The law was amended in 1998, but obviously federal law defined in 1998 could not be used in 1996. For the state of the kidnapping law in 1996, we have to turn to the United States Code as it was defined in 1994:

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 55--KIDNAPPING

Sec. 1201. Kidnapping

(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when--

(1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce;

(2) any such act against the person is done within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

(3) any such act against the person is done within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States as defined in section 46501 of title 49;

(4) the person is a foreign official, an internationally protected person, or an official guest as those terms are defined in section 1116(b) of this title; or

(5) the person is among those officers and employees designated in section 1114 of this title and any such act against the person is done while the person is engaged in, or on account of, the performance of official duties,

shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.

(b) With respect to subsection (a)(1), above, the failure to release the victim within twenty-four hours after he shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, or carried away shall create a rebuttable presumption that such person has been transported to interstate or foreign commerce.

Click to expand...

Yes, advances have been made in law to protect children and adults even further from crimes, but always, always, the case has to be viewed from the perspective of what was possible at the time, not from the perspective of what would eventually become possible to do. And in that context, I reiterate: I do not fault anyone in the case for having not been able to bring the full force of federal authorities to bear from minute one, because the law at the time did not encourage or permit full federal involvement from minute one.

I think another thing I would have done differently ...

Didn't the Denver police department offer their services,because they had more experience and people to help out.

I would have let go of my ego,and get to the crux of the matter ... trying to find this killer.

Unfortunately,I don't think this ego trip of allowing other jurisdictions to step in,is exclusive to Colorado.

capps said:

I think another thing I would have done differently ...

Didn't the Denver police department offer their services,because they had more experience and people to help out.

I would have let go of my ego,and get to the crux of the matter ... trying to find this killer.

Unfortunately,I don't think this ego trip of allowing other jurisdictions to step in,is exclusive to Colorado.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, ego has no place in an investigation, and that includes the egos of the witnesses. I guess the primary sentence out of my mouth, and the driving philosophy behind all further actions if I were leading an investigation into the Ramsey crime, would be, "Your feelings do not matter. JonBenet's rescue was never possible through emotional reactions. If/when JonBenet is found dead, her kidnapper/killer will not be convicted by your emotions. The ransom note represents the intent to commit an unlawful act. Every person, whether related or unrelated to JonBenet, has a duty to her to put their personal desires aside and find out who behaved outside the law, and bring that person back under the law." From there, maybe there would have been a chance of getting everyone on board with sacrificing personal wants in favor of objective, useful needs serving JonBenet.

Well said why_nutt,and I agree.

why_nutt said:

Absolutely, ego has no place in an investigation, and that includes the egos of the witnesses. I guess the primary sentence out of my mouth, and the driving philosophy behind all further actions if I were leading an investigation into the Ramsey crime, would be, "Your feelings do not matter. JonBenet's rescue was never possible through emotional reactions. If/when JonBenet is found dead, her kidnapper/killer will not be convicted by your emotions. The ransom note represents the intent to commit an unlawful act. Every person, whether related or unrelated to JonBenet, has a duty to her to put their personal desires aside and find out who behaved outside the law, and bring that person back under the law." From there, maybe there would have been a chance of getting everyone on board with sacrificing personal wants in favor of objective, useful needs serving JonBenet.

Click to expand...

Personally, I think it's too much testesterone, since it's a male dominated profession. There's always been friction between local, state and federal law enforcement. One good thing about the Amber Alert is, egos are put aside--a missing child is broadcast immediately, and all law enforcement works together to find him/her....and they sort out jurisdictional issues later.