I believe the Ramseys are innocent.

[BlueCrab]

No, just an odd light in the kitchen area.

IMO

The house lights that night may be indicative of what really happened. An intruder would not have turned lights on and off in the house during the middle of the night. For instance:

o The neighbor directly to the south, Diane Brumfit, noticed the Ramsey outside security light at the southeast corner of the sunroom, which in the past had been kept on every night for years, was not on that night. The light is controlled by a switch on the inside of the house.

o The next door neighbor to the north, Scott Gibbons, reported the late-night movement of people in the kitchen area. He said they appeared to be creeping around so as not to awaken anyone in the house and the lighting was strange and diminished (perhaps the refrigerator light or a flashlight).

o Gibbons also said the light in the butler kitchen was on around midnight, the first time he had ever seen that light burning. Gibbons could view these late-night activities from the window of his own kitchen.

The house lights point to a Ramsey family member because an intruder would not have brazenly turned lights on and off in an occupied house he had just broken into.

JMO

 

[Honeybee]

"I don't know, can't remember, not sure...." are all standard answers. "

If one "Conveniently forgets" and says the above under oath when, in fact, they do remember, they do know, and they are sure, isn't that a lie? The mere fact that you refer to it as "Convenient" denotes deception. After all, the Oath taken says that you swear to "Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Claiming that you've forgotten when you havn't, isn't the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The mere fact that a lie can't be proven to be a lie, doesn't make it less of a lie. The person who lies knows that they have lied. That would be important to me.

IMO

 

[Jayelles]

"I don't know, can't remember, not sure...." are all standard answers. "

If one "Conveniently forgets" and says the above under oath when, in fact, they do remember, they do know, and they are sure, isn't that a lie? The mere fact that you refer to it as "Convenient" denotes deception. After all, the Oath taken says that you swear to "Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Claiming that you have forgotten when you have not, is not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Sure it would be telling a lie to say that you cannot recall when in fact you can. However, I think it would be extremely difficult to prove. How often have you forgotten someone's name only to remember it later the same day? How often have you forgotten an event or incident only to remember it clearly when someone else jogged your memory? I know this happens to me.

 

[Honeybee]

Sure it would be telling a lie to say that you cannot recall when in fact you can. However, I think it would be extremely difficult to prove. How often have you forgotten someone's name only to remember it later the same day? How often have you forgotten an event or incident only to remember it clearly when someone else jogged your memory? I know this happens to me.

Sure, Jayelles. That has happened to me, but never "Conveniently" which to me denotes deliberatly "Forgetting" which was referred to as being "Smart." If I am under oath and asked a question, I must answer truthfully, but not give more information than I am asked. For instance, if I am asked what kind of car I drive, I must say Subaru because I would remember that. I don't need to say four-wheel drive or red. Only Subaru. I can't say I don't remember what kind of car I drive though. That wouldn't be smart, that would be lying under oath.

 

[Jayelles]

Sure, Jayelles. That has happened to me, but never "Conveniently" which to me denotes deliberatly "Forgetting" which was referred to as being "Smart." If I am under oath and asked a question, I must answer truthfully, but not give more information than I am asked. For instance, if I am asked what kind of car I drive, I must say Subaru because I would remember that. I don't need to say four-wheel drive or red. Only Subaru. I can't say I don't remember what kind of car I drive though. That wouldn't be smart, that would be lying under oath.

I agree that if I said I couldn't recall what car I am currently driving then it would be unconvincing and smacking of deceit. However, I think if I were asked details of my life from five years ago then I would genuinely struggle to furnish them. However, that is not to say that I might recall them later after discussions with other family members or perhaps by looking at my diary from five years ago.

I don't think the two are comparable. The Ramseys weren't asked what kind of cars they were currently driving. They were asked details of their lives from months/years previously and tho' many of us can doubt that the amnesia was genuine, the fact is that it would be very difficult to prove that was the case.

 

[vicktor]

If one "Conveniently forgets" and says the above under oath when, in fact, they do remember, they do know, and they are sure, isn't that a lie? The mere fact that you refer to it as "Convenient" denotes deception. After all, the Oath taken says that you swear to "Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Claiming that you've forgotten when you havn't, isn't the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.



IMO[/QUOTE]

I used to think the same thing until I was on a jury in a felony case. The judge started out by telling us that each side would present their case and call witnesses. He said that some people would lie and some would be more believable and that our job was to evaluate their testimony. IMO an innocent man was convicted because those who accused the man lied to make him look guilty.

 

[Jayelles]

I'm not disagreeing that it is a lie to say you forget something when you haven't forgotten. What I am saying is that it would be very hard to prove. I forget names and telephone numbers. I don't even KNOW my own cellphone number that I've had for 4/5 years. Couldn't even tell you what it begins with - and I use it daily. I have the number stored in my address book and if I need to give it to anyone, I look it up!

Memories come and go. When my husband had a bad accident 4 years ago, I had to phone the emergency services for an ambulance and I completely blanked out when they asked my address. Now I keep a note of our address beside the phone in case it should ever happen again. I felt soooo stupid but apparently it's very common. The detective who interviewed Patsy Ramsey told her that it was unusual that she had given her address off pat straight away because people often have trouble giving their address in an emergency.

Frequently on quiz shows, people blank out on questions that they know and they often remember the answer shortly afterwards or are kicking themselves when they are told the answer.

I just don't know how anyone would "prove" deception if someone said they couldn't recall something. But it certainly is deceptive to say you don't recall when you simply don't want to say.

 

[ICU]

I have only one question. If all the Sleuths on this site are correct about the guilt of the Ramsey Family. Considering all the convincing evidence I have read here, then why don’t they arrest them now? The evidence is outstanding in their guilt, what are they waiting for? I’ll tell you why, because the evidence against them is weak, no matter how much you say they are guilty, no matter how much you think you can prove it, you have nothing or they would have been arrested long ago.


____________________________________________________
”He who angers you, controls you!” (Unknown author)
IMO

 

[Britt]

Considering all the convincing evidence I have read here, then why don’t they arrest them now?

If you've truly researched this case thoroughly, you know why:

Boulder
District
Attorney

 

[Cherokee]

If you've truly researched this case thoroughly, you know why:

Boulder
District
Attorney

Exactly, Britt. Boulder DA Alex Hunter wouldn't prosecute.

Hunter didn't want to prosecute a wealthy family like the Ramseys with ties to the Colorado elite. He also gave away much of the case evidence to his buds on the Ramsey legal team in hopes of a plea bargain. When that didn't happen, it was too late for Hunter to undo the damage. So in addition to Hunter's "yellow streak," the case was already far too compromised to take to court.



IMO

 

[Barbara]

I have only one question. If all the Sleuths on this site are correct about the guilt of the Ramsey Family. Considering all the convincing evidence I have read here, then why don’t they arrest them now? The evidence is outstanding in their guilt, what are they waiting for? I’ll tell you why, because the evidence against them is weak, no matter how much you say they are guilty, no matter how much you think you can prove it, you have nothing or they would have been arrested long ago.


Wrong! They were not arrested because they don't know WHO did WHAT! Plain and simple!

They know by the evidence and by the NON intruder evidence that it was someone in the Ramsey family or someone the Ramsey family allowed in that night. What they DON"T know is who, what, when and why.

Without specifics, they can't charge anybody.

 

[allan]

They know by the evidence and by the NON intruder evidence that it was someone in the Ramsey family or someone the Ramsey family allowed in that night. What they DON"T know is who, what, when and why.

Without specifics, they can't charge anybody.

Why is that, Barbara? I'm not disagreeing with you -- I'm not an American and don't know American law. But aren't people who conspire to commit murder, either as accessories before or after the fact, deemed to be as guilty as the murderer? So if the Ramseys were charged as co-consirators to the murder, couldn't both be found equally guilty of murder without the prosecution explicitly stating who committed the murder?

 

[Barbara]

Why is that, Barbara? I'm not disagreeing with you -- I'm not an American and don't know American law. But aren't people who conspire to commit murder, either as accessories before or after the fact, deemed to be as guilty as the murderer? So if the Ramseys were charged as co-consirators to the murder, couldn't both be found equally guilty of murder without the prosecution explicitly stating who committed the murder?

Okay, now remember, I am NOT a lawyer, but I'll take my chances in trying to explain. If there is a legal head out there...HELP!

The police cannot charge a "family" for conspiracy, murder, etc. They have to have all the details. They have to be able to put all the pieces together before they can charge anyone at all, so if they don't know WHO actually committed the murder, they don't know WHO conspired, obstructed justice, and/or covered up a crime scene.

I know this sounds simple and I'm hoping that someone with REAL legalese knowledge can explain it better for you.

 

[Britt]

Okay, now remember, I am NOT a lawyer, but I'll take my chances in trying to explain. If there is a legal head out there...HELP!

The police cannot charge a "family" for conspiracy, murder, etc. They have to have all the details. They have to be able to put all the pieces together before they can charge anyone at all, so if they don't know WHO actually committed the murder, they don't know WHO conspired, obstructed justice, and/or covered up a crime scene.

I disagree with this reasoning. It sounds good from a BDA-rationalization perspective, but IMO it's not factual. Of course it makes the prosecutor's job easier to have a neatly wrapped crime package to present, but it's not necessary. Check out this recent case:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/c...saturday/local_news_04c9258d371df0a70006.html

That means the debate will continue over who pulled the trigger that night, as Johnson blamed Leighty, Leighty blamed Johnson, and prosecutors were not always clear whom they thought did it.
That debate no longer matters in court, however, because a person who helped plan or carry out a murder is as guilty as the person who did the killing. But while the verdicts will ensure that both Johnson and Leighty get at least life in prison without the possibility of parole, both men may have been saved from a death sentence.

IMO the Boulder DA's office just wasn't/isn't up to handling this type of complex case against John and Patsy Ramsey, especially against the Big Dog defense attorneys.

 

[ICU]

You said “Okay, now remember, I am NOT a lawyer, but I'll take my chances in trying to explain. If there is a legal head out there...HELP!”

Gee Barbara by the way you were bent on condemning the Ramsey family I thought you were a lawyer. So with all the convincing evidence that you believe to be true, then why haven’t the Ramsey Couple been arrested???????????


____________________________________________________
”He who angers you, controls you!” (Unknown author)
IMO

 

[ICU]

You said “Wrong! They were not arrested because they don't know WHO did WHAT! Plain and simple!”

You seem to know who did it, now you are not a lawyer and you are not an investigator, officially of course. Then with all that evidence that you have, again why are they not arrested? You already have them frying in the chair.


____________________________________________________
”He who angers you, controls you!” (Unknown author)
IMO

 

[ICU]

Jayelles You said, “Memories come and go”
You are absolutely correct about that. How easy is it for people to sit back in there chair and never having been accused of murder, and past judgment on people. Until they have the horror of a loved one murdered, I wonder if they could answer questions with the ease that they expect of the accused, and remember exactly in minute detail about what happened the night before. Yeah hind site is 20-20. With the armchair detectives.


____________________________________________________
”He who angers you, controls you!” (Unknown author)
IMO

 

[ICU]

The house lights that night may be indicative of what really happened. An intruder would not have turned lights on and off in the house during the middle of the night. For instance:

o The neighbor directly to the south, Diane Brumfit, noticed the Ramsey outside security light at the southeast corner of the sunroom, which in the past had been kept on every night for years, was not on that night. The light is controlled by a switch on the inside of the house.

o The next door neighbor to the north, Scott Gibbons, reported the late-night movement of people in the kitchen area. He said they appeared to be creeping around so as not to awaken anyone in the house and the lighting was strange and diminished (perhaps the refrigerator light or a flashlight).

o Gibbons also said the light in the butler kitchen was on around midnight, the first time he had ever seen that light burning. Gibbons could view these late-night activities from the window of his own kitchen.

The house lights point to a Ramsey family member because an intruder would not have brazenly turned lights on and off in an occupied house he had just broken into.

JMO

Lights on Lights off, what difference does it make, the intruder knew that the Ramsey Family was upstairs in there bedroom completely out of rang of the lights on or off in the kitchen. Do you suppose that the intruder would be identified by a person across the street if he were the have the lights on in the kitchen. Give me a break.


____________________________________________________
”He who angers you, controls you!” (Unknown author)
IMO

 

[Ivy]

ICU, here's why the Ramseys were never arrested...

Excerpt from 4/14/2000 Larry King Live Interview with Steve Thomas:

KING: Why weren't they (the Ramseys) indicted in your opinion?

THOMAS: Probable cause was never an issue in this case. And as a police officer and a detective for 13 years, I had never been involved in a case in which we didn't arrest on probable cause. But this high-profile case, where there were sufficient facts and circumstances to articulate in an affidavit, an arrest warrant didn't happen, and then it got to a grand jury. which has that same threshold of probable cause, but I think Alex Hunter chose not to move forward with it because this -- in this day and age, this "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is almost unattainable.

KING: In a case like this maybe unattainable, right?

THOMAS: Particularly with wealthy defendants.

KING: So why? Was their clout?

MAS: Well, yes, look what happened in O.J. You have resources...

KING: O.J. went to trial. He was arrested.

THOMAS: He absolutely was. And they took a shot, and they stepped up to the plate and they tried to do the right thing. Alex Hunter did not.

KING: All right. Do you think the grand jury -- we'll never know I guess. Do you think the grand jury might have voted to indict?

THOMAS: I've heard this week that there was a grand juror in that case -- and I didn't hear this through the grand juror, certainly, but through an intermediary that there's a grand juror that wants to talk, and...

KING: That they wanted to indict and Hunter didn't want then to indict?

THOMAS: I don't know that, and we'll never know because of grand jury secrecy what happened in those four walls, but that's certainly a possibility, that they returned it a true bill.

KING: Don't detectives want to arrest and don't prosecutors hedge because prosecutors want to know they can get convictions? Isn't this a classic clash?

THOMAS: No question. But what was atypical in Boulder was this culture that had been in existence for many, many years prior to the Ramsey case, in which underaged drinkers and bicycle thieves, there was a system in place to deal with them, but this government failed horribly when the big one landed in the collective laps of Boulder.

http://www.acandyrose.com/04142000larrykinglive.htm

imo

 

[ICU]

I think it all comes down to the Ramsey's reactions. If this happened to my child, I would turn the world upsidedown to get the murderer. I would not hide behind a lawyer and refuse to give an interview to the police.

Isn’t it funny how we say what we do if it happened to us. Do you really know what you would do in that situation? The first thing you might do is protect yourself from the police and the media if you were smart, or end up as a suspect with no protection, remember the cops always suspects the parents first and the media will crucify you. And if you do not believe that, you are a sitting duck.


____________________________________________________
”He who angers you, controls you!” (Unknown author)
IMO