1075 users online (219 members and 856 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 18 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 266
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970

    Learn Something New Every Day

    I didn't realize that once Patsy passed all her statements are not admissable if the case should ever go to trial. I never knew this until I read the link that I provided.

    So for instance,if Patsy on her death bed gave some information that could possibly put some one in jail,or help further the investigation,her statement could not be used if it went to trial?

    http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?O...7-c589c01ca7bf

    I don't think Patsy admitted anything before she died,but it seems that it would be awful if someone,just before they died felt compelled to "let it all out" with damning evidence,and it could never be used.

    I learn something new every day.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    24,159

    Angry

    I'll bet John is breathing a sigh of relief with this news!
    This is the year to locate Mark Dribin http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ht=Mark+Dribin NamUs MP#876 and Ilene Misheloff http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...lene+Misheloff NamUs MP#6410 and bring them home to their families!

    Parents watch your children. Free-range parenting leads to more child victims.

    Cruelty to humans begins with cruelty to animals.

    I believe in closure, not forgiveness. I'm also unapologetically judgemental.

    JeSuisJuif
    JeSuisCharlie


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,652
    Quote Originally Posted by capps
    I didn't realize that once Patsy passed all her statements are not admissable if the case should ever go to trial. I never knew this until I read the link that I provided.

    So for instance,if Patsy on her death bed gave some information that could possibly put some one in jail,or help further the investigation,her statement could not be used if it went to trial?

    http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?O...7-c589c01ca7bf

    I don't think Patsy admitted anything before she died,but it seems that it would be awful if someone,just before they died felt compelled to "let it all out" with damning evidence,and it could never be used.

    I learn something new every day.
    I don't think it is an absolute. The defense has a right to cross examine their accuser and if the accuser is dead that can't be done, but I have heard of death bed statements being admissable under certain restricted conditions. The state would have to have much more than that to convict though, I would think. At least I hope so.

    "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
    __________________
    This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,647
    Quote Originally Posted by LinasK
    I'll bet John is breathing a sigh of relief with this news!
    Well said LinasK

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    2,195
    I'm fairly sure that with the pain Patsy must have been, she was probably put in an induced coma. Most DRs don't want their dying patients to have to go through excruciating pain. So, I'm sure she wasn't aware of anything or anyone in the end.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343
    a quick legal lesson...

    this all has to do with hearsay and the confrontation clause. hearsay refers to statements made outside of the courtroom that are sought to be used in the courtroom. (e.g., patsy's taped interviews are a good example if there was ever a trial) these are generally not admissible, but there are many exceptions.

    one exception is called "dying declarations." if someone says something immediately preceding his or her imminent death, it meets this exception. this is most commonly used if someone is shot and says who shot him to a police officer and then dies on the way to the hospital. it is not applicable to statements made by someone who is terminally ill and says something months before their death, even though that death is imminent.

    as to the confrontation clause, that is the 6th amendment of the constitution, which gives an accused the right to confront his/her witnesses. therefore, even if a statement is admissible, falling under a hearsay exception, it still might run afoul of the 6th amendment. the case law here is very confusing, and, in fact, a case just came out a few weeks ago clarifying some of the confusion. but that aside, dying declarations are one exception to the hearsay rule which the court has found does not create a confrontation clause problem.

    there's obviously a lot more to this, but in a nutshell, patsy's statements will probably not be admissible in any trial, save for certain statements in certain instances. had she made a deathbed confession, it would be admissible.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,521
    EVERYONE has been so convinced for years..... that Patsy did it. WHERE IS DEFINITIVE PROOF???? goodness people. MAYBE she has truly been railroaded???? Not making the best of decisions at all but geesh. IF MEDIA intensity had turned you early? don't you owe it to JONBENET to truly rethink everything else? OR are you a puppet to the media?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    The Law might just be different, but I am pretty sure that deathbed statements carry a lot of weight here.
    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    24,159

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by blueclouds
    EVERYONE has been so convinced for years..... that Patsy did it. WHERE IS DEFINITIVE PROOF???? goodness people. MAYBE she has truly been railroaded???? Not making the best of decisions at all but geesh. IF MEDIA intensity had turned you early? don't you owe it to JONBENET to truly rethink everything else? OR are you a puppet to the media?
    No, blueclouds, I don't think Patsy killed her, I think John did and Patsy wrote the ransom note and helped cover it up.

    Besides, innocent people don't lawyer up within an hour of "discovering" their dead child and impede LE for 4 months and refuse to be interviewed.
    This is the year to locate Mark Dribin http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ht=Mark+Dribin NamUs MP#876 and Ilene Misheloff http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...lene+Misheloff NamUs MP#6410 and bring them home to their families!

    Parents watch your children. Free-range parenting leads to more child victims.

    Cruelty to humans begins with cruelty to animals.

    I believe in closure, not forgiveness. I'm also unapologetically judgemental.

    JeSuisJuif
    JeSuisCharlie


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    Thanks Goody and Voice of Reason for yor information.

    I did not intend for this thread to be a go around about what Patsy may or may not have said on her death bed. I think that is ridiculous.I was just surprised that any statement she had made in the last 9 yrs. could not be used if there was a trial. I guess I should have used a more general statement,and not used Patsy as a for instance.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    Quote by Voice of Reason:

    "this all has to do with hearsay and the confrontation clause. hearsay refers to statements made outside of the courtroom that are sought to be used in the courtroom. (e.g., patsy's taped interviews are a good example if there was ever a trial) these are generally not admissible .."

    VOR,

    This is the part I don't understand. If it is taped interviews,than it wouldn't be hearsay.Hearsay is more like second hand information. If the person is on a taped interview,that is not second hand information ...why could it not be used in a trial,after one's death?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by blueclouds
    EVERYONE has been so convinced for years..... that Patsy did it. WHERE IS DEFINITIVE PROOF???? goodness people. MAYBE she has truly been railroaded???? Not making the best of decisions at all but geesh. IF MEDIA intensity had turned you early? don't you owe it to JONBENET to truly rethink everything else? OR are you a puppet to the media?
    The ransom note was written on a tablet belonging to Patsy with a pen from a cup right next to the pad. The author recapped the pen and placed it back when it came from. Intruder or resident? I'm thinking resident - a kidnapper (who calls himself a foreign faction, has "gentlemen" watching over JB?) would have brought his own note, and he would taken the child, even dead, because he could have ransomed the body. In fact, Patsy even gave an explanation to a friend of hers (Pam Griffin?) about innocuously writing the draft of the ransom note. And Patsy changed her handwriting style after the murder.

    Out of 73 people, Patsy alone was never excluded as the author of the note. Patsy herself said that she thought whoever wote that RN was also the killer - she also said she thought it could have been a woman (they threw all their friends under the bus, and guess what? They all check out okay). The RN used phrases and acronyms that were Patsy's standard style of speaking. What intruder is going to sit there in the Rs kitchen and ramble on for three pages, sounding just like Patsy, using writing that looks like hers, and making references to things only the Rs would know? What kidnapper asks for $118,000???

    The garotte - the end of one of Patsy's paintbrushes was used as the handle. The killer found Patsy's paint tray, broke the brush to the size she needed, and replaced the broken end in the tray. IMO, this indicates that the killer was used to using her own tools, did so, and just like with the Sharpie the RN was written with, replaced it after she was done. ODD behavior for an intruder, hmmm? What kidnapper/killer comes in without being prepared? What kidnapper stops to molest the victim before getting her out of there? Doesn't take the child? Isn't afraid of being caught by the residents? One of the residents themselves!

    The 911 call - Patsy never mentions once to the operator that just calling the police will have their daughter's head cut off. Never once says that the kidnapper claims to be watching the house. On top of that, they send their other child off to someone else's house, when the supposed kidnapper is supposed to be watching! Either they don't care that JB's head will be cut and Burke might get attacked too, or they know there is no intruder and never was a kidnapping. I'm voting for "they knew it". They also send Burke back to school within a few months of this attack with little concern that he will targeted. Burke tells police that he isn't afraid of this kidnapper/killer. WHY NOT???

    Patsy told two different stories for the events of the morning of the 26th. First she said she went to JB's room and found the bed empty then saw the note, then she changed it to she went downstairs and then saw the note and checked JB's room.

    John Ramsey has two different stories for the events Christmas night. He said first that he read to JB and put her to bed, then he changed it to he put her to bed and then he read a book. Three indendent police officers noted this story change.

    Burke Ramsey said JB was awake when they arrived home Christmas night and walked up the stairs behind Patsy. He told this to police who documented that his story differed from his parents' stories.

    It appears Patsy never went to bed Christmas night. When police arrived the morning of the 26th, Patsy was all made up and dressed in the same clothes she had worn the night before. She claims her shower was broken (but are four others in the house) and she just dressed and applied make up before going down to make coffee. What? A former beauty pageant winner, to whom appearances are very important, didn't shower and put on the same clothes she had worn the evening before, knowing they were going to meet the older kids for continued Christmas celebration? And who puts on make up before going down to make coffee?

    Patsy (and John) have selective amnesia. Patsy can tell you what decorations were put up in their home for the Parade of Homes Tour Dec 6, right down to where certain ornaments came from, but she cannot remember if JB had a bath Christmas Day. She can tell you what her exact routine was for the Miss West Virginia pageant in 1978, but she can't remember what JB had to eat the last day she was alive.

    And the pineapple...there was a bowl of pineapple on the table the morning of the 26th, bearing Patsy's fingerprints. The autopsy showed that JB had eaten pineapple sometime during Christmas evening, pineapple consistent right down to the rind with what was in the bowl on the Ramsey's table, and still the Rs insist JB was asleep when they got home - despite Burke saying she wasn't.

    There was no evidence of an intruder in the Ramsey home. No one broke in through that basement window, and friends of the Rs say they were serious about locking up (but Christmas Day is the only day they forgot to lock? Come ON!) DNA found in JB's undies was degraded, and indicates it came from a source other than someone breaking in and killing her and then leaving a 3 page ransom letter - and then not taking the child, which is what the RN claims is the whole reason they were there in the first place. And why didn't they target Burke also or instead? A foreign faction would target the SON, not the daughter.

    John Ramsey was on the phone arranging to leave Boulder less than 45 minutes after his daughter's body was found, and their lawyers were already closing in around them to block the police out. FOUR MONTHS before the Rs would talk to police.

    Patsy Ramsey was lying really hard to cover up for one of the Ramseys, I believe it was herself.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
    It appears Patsy never went to bed Christmas night. When police arrived the morning of the 26th, Patsy was all made up and dressed in the same clothes she had worn the night before. She claims her shower was broken (but are four others in the house) and she just dressed and applied make up before going down to make coffee. What? A former beauty pageant winner, to whom appearances are very important, didn't shower and put on the same clothes she had worn the evening before, knowing they were going to meet the older kids for comtinued Christmas celebration? And who puts on make up before going down to make coffee?
    Nuisanceposter,

    Thats a nice list of why its a domestic case.

    There are some aspects to cases that make you look twice for me it was the barbie-gown in the wine-cellar, this made me review the forensic evidence, and decide it was mostly staged.

    Similarly with Patsy wearing the same clothes two days running.

    If you tease out the circumstances then whichever position you start from you are still left with the uncomfortable thought she was directly involved.

    One scenario could be Patsy was dressed to dump JonBenet's corpse, but that this was vetoed by John.

    .

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by blueclouds
    EVERYONE has been so convinced for years..... that Patsy did it. WHERE IS DEFINITIVE PROOF???? goodness people. MAYBE she has truly been railroaded???? Not making the best of decisions at all but geesh. IF MEDIA intensity had turned you early? don't you owe it to JONBENET to truly rethink everything else? OR are you a puppet to the media?
    We owe it to JonBenet to keep our minds open about everyone who has not been absolutely exonerated with a water-tight alibi.
    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

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,061

    Hmmm

    Nuisance poster, great list.

    Let us not forget that John and Treva Walsh - many years ago, agreed QUICKLY to take a lie detector test, WHEN they were being looked at as possible suspects. Mr. Klaas when he realized that HE was being zeroed in on as a suspect in his daughter Polly''s 'actual' kidnapping, TOOK a lie detector test to get the CASE off dead center.

    Yet JR supplies 'later' that he would be offended to even be asked to take a lie detector test. The National Enquirer EARLY on, offered one million dollars to the Ramseys IF IF they would take an official lie detector test.

    They did practice the process, and take one years later, why, the answer to me was that their 'own umbrella' did not go away.

    I just hope I am around long enough to know the 'real' truth.

    It was never proven that anyone had animosity toward Access Graphics who would have known the bonus amount to include it in the ransom note.

    As a general fact, most crimes are crimes of passion, or to achieve monetary gain, while the perpetrator is under the influence of alcohol/drugs or just crazed over some emotional disfunction of 'stinkin' thinkin' and the proverbial 'last straw' over relationships or their own real life going cockeyed.

    My opinions are 'created' from a life of learning and studying about crimes since the age of 14, making it soon to be 60 years of observations.

    VOR, IF someone were already in prison for a crime they did not commit, wouldn't a death bed confession allow at the very least an appeal? Would the number of people who witnessed the death bed confession, create a governors pardon or what is the process for that?

    Great thread Capps.

    .
    .
    Opinions expressed by me, are mine, based on life experience, and known facts of any given case.





    """I am just a pixel in the universal plan."""

Page 1 of 18 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast