Would you pull a cord

Would you tighten a noose around the neck of your child

  • Yes, but only to stay out of jail

    Votes: 3 2.0%
  • Yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, only if I knew she was already dead.

    Votes: 4 2.7%
  • Are you out of your mind? No way.

    Votes: 143 95.3%

  • Total voters
    150
Using private investigators is an extremely smart thing to do, and unfortunately something you can only do if you have lots of money. They will dig up a lot of (often exculpatory) evidence that the police either don't find, or choose to ignore...

Except that JR admitted the PI's were there only to keep him and PR out of jail. Did I "misunderstand" it when one of the Haddon PIs testified in court that he had been ordered to dig up dirt on a handwriting expert so that man couldn't testify against PR if she was ever brought to trial?

Edit... Owns half the state and had business ties with the DA's office? Where are you getting this?

A LOT of different places. It's mentioned in PMPT and ST's book and in several articles by Chuck Green. Have a look:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/6d/6deg.html

Statements like "owns half the state" and "business ties to the DA" are unsubstantiated and foolish.

Neither nor.
 
This is what HOTYH has been saying. You can't quote a statistic for this particular murder as it doesn't fit into any 'pigeon hole' that there is a statistic for. To demonstrate, perhaps you can give me your estimate of the likelihood (statistically) for the following.

Statistically:
the chances of a parent being involved in their childs murders is?
the chances of two parents being involved in their childs murder is?
the chances of two parents being involved, one of whom caused (accidentally) a life threatening head injury and the other who (deliberately) garotted the child to cover up for the first injury and for previous sexual abuse?
the chances of two parents being involved, one of whom caused (accidentally) a life threatening head injury and the other who (deliberately) garotted the child to cover up for the first injury and for previous sexual abuse and one parent then writing a two and a half page ransom note to cover up their crime?

I could go on, but I think you're probably getting the idea. With every layer added, the chances of this occurring reduces statistically.

You've made your point, MF. But it can still cut the other way.

So while it might sound impressive to state a flat statistic for parents murdering their children, this fails to take into account the other factors in the murder of JBR.

Oh, I have taken them into account, believe me. In fact, it's the other factors I want to talk about. Give me just a minute here.
 
In my admittedly cursory look at that page, I didn't see any business ties between the DA and Hal Haddon. It looked like there were some that involved the Ramsey's, but that looked like it. Can you point out exactly what you are talking about, and provide proof that it's true?

Oh, and I'm also curious what you believe the conflict of interest would be? Or rather... why the two sides would be in collusion together. This was a huge case, doesn't make sense why the DA would help, either directly or indirectly, the Ramsey's. That being said, I have't spent a ton of time looking into this, and I'm open to hear what the reasoning/evidence is.

By the way, the fact that people with a lot of influence run together in the same general circles mean absolutely nothing. You could draw a chart like that of any cities (or nations) relationships between influential people and it would look the same way.
 
You've made your point, MF. But it can still cut the other way.

Well, no not really. I'm not suggesting there is a statistic for this murder. I don't care if it's the only one of its type ever committed anywhere in the world. It is RDI that insists on relying on statistics.

Oh, I have taken them into account, believe me. In fact, it's the other factors I want to talk about. Give me just a minute here.

Breathless with anticipation!
 
Except that JR admitted the PI's were there only to keep him and PR out of jail. Did I "misunderstand" it when one of the Haddon PIs testified in court that he had been ordered to dig up dirt on a handwriting expert so that man couldn't testify against PR if she was ever brought to trial?

If you don't source your arguments, you'll might as well not say them at all. Do you have reputable links to substantiate the above statements?
 
We seem to have gotten off the topic here. So I'm going to try to bring it back on.

WHITEFANG started this thread by asking the question:

"Would you pull a cord deeply into your daughter's neck, believing she might be dead, to cover-up evidence you just killed your her, accidentally?"

And therein lies the reason why I was so reluctant to cast my vote: because it provides no context. It gives people an easy out. It's a question that appeals to our emotions rather than our intellect.
 
In my admittedly cursory look at that page, I didn't see any business ties between the DA and Hal Haddon. It looked like there were some that involved the Ramsey's, but that looked like it. Can you point out exactly what you are talking about, and provide proof that it's true?

Here you go:

Bill Wise, Assistant Boulder DA. Has been a general partner since 1969 in a commercial complex in Boulder in which Gray (4) and Hunter (23) are limited partners.

William Gray, John and Patsy's civil attorney. Gray and Hunter (23) have been limited partners in a commercial complex in Boulder since 1969. Wise (6) is a general partner in the same endeavor.

Lee Foreman, one of John Ramsey's defense attorneys and partner in the Denver firm of Haddon (16), Morgan (21) & Foreman. He was seen giving DeMuth (28) a back rub during a meeting between Ramsey defense attorneys, the Boulder Police Department, and DA's team, which was held in Bynum's (8) law office.

Trip DeMuth (real name Lawrence), Assistant to Hofstrom (9) in the DA's Office. Said to be chummy with Burke (19). Foreman (5) was seen rubbing his back during a meeting between Ramsey defense attorneys, the BPD, and the DA's team, which was held in Bynum's (8) law office.

Patrick Burke, Boulder defense attorney representing Patsy Ramsey.Said by to be chummy with Hofstrom (9) and DeMuth (28).

Pete Hofstrom, Chief Trial Deputy DA and former San Quentin prison guard. Hunter admits that he depends on Peter Hofstrom for his information. "He's the one that's keeping me advised...He's what I consider to be the lead guy." His family attends the same Episcopal church as Patsy and John Ramsey (1, 2), Morgan (21), Dr. Beuf (15)., and Barbara and John Fernie. Hofstrom allowed Patsy to do a handwriting sample in his own home, a session described in Vanity Fair as an "afternoon tea." He has been close friends with Morgan (21) for over 20 years, and they eat breakfast together frequently. Said to be chummy with Burke (19).

Alex Hunter, Boulder County DA since 1972. Very active in state and local Democratic Party politics, Hunter is known to many as the "Monty Hall" of prosecutors for his failure to try cases and propensity for plea bargaining. His office came under attack by ex-BPD Detective Steve Thomas' resignation letter, which detailed ways in which Hunter and his Office have handled the Ramsey case. Hunter has political ties to Haddon (16) and Romer (3). Romer recently refused to appoint an independent prosecutor to replace Hunter in the Ramsey case, but will provide Hunter with assistance. Bynum (8) used to work for him as an assistant prosecutor. He has business ties to William Gray (5), Patsy and John Ramsey's (1, 2) civil attorney. Both have been limited partners in a commercial complex in Boulder since 1969. Wise (6) is a general partner in the same endeavor.

Something like that?

Oh, and I'm also curious what you believe the conflict of interest would be?

Are you kidding? A big part of his finances were due to that partnership. Just how zealously would he pursue a case where his partner is the opposition? Moreover, that's not even considering the level of access the defense could have had. Also, a DA cannot afford even the APPEARANCE of impropriety. DD is right. Hunter should have recused himself immediately. And failing that, the Gov. should have taken him off and appointed a special prosecutor.

This was a huge case, doesn't make sense why the DA would help, either directly or indirectly, the Ramsey's.

Which makes you wonder why they were willing to turn over every rock that did NOT involve the Rs. ST and Mark Fuhrman both talk about that.

That being said, I have't spent a ton of time looking into this

I understand.

If you don't source your arguments, you'll might as well not say them at all. Do you have reputable links to substantiate the above statements?

I have the actual trial transcript! Before I get to that, the assertion about the PIs being there to run interference is well-established. Ellis Armistead, the lead PI, quit in 2000 because he didn't like what he was being asked to do. Armistead said his assignment, working for the Ramseys' lawyers, was not to solve the crime. It was to keep the Ramseys from being arrested. I quote:

"I was alert to the fact that there's no getting around the fact that many children who are killed are killed by their parents," he said. "It was not like I was naive. It wouldn't have changed how I did anything. It didn't really matter to me whether they did it or didn't do it.

"I saw my mandate as being to protect the Ramseys. At some point in time, there was some pressure to 'find the killer.' But I was not in a position to do that. I didn't have access to the evidence."


John Ramsey even admitted that in his deposition:

3 Q. Then what was, basically, your

4 association with the private investigation of the

5 potential suspects in the murder of JonBenet

6 Ramsey?

7 A. The investigators were retained by our

8 attorneys, and they stated to me that the

9 principal purpose of those investigators was to

10 prepare a defense in the case that the police

11 might bring a charge against me.

12 I hoped that they would also follow

13 up on leads that came to us, but I was

14 frequently reminded by our attorneys that their

15 principal role was to prepare a defense should

16 that be necessary.


Now onto the meat and potatoes. In his deposition, JR mentions an investigator named David Williams. He was the investigator who testified in the case in question, Jefferson County v Thomas C. Miller. Miller, a lawyer and handwriting expert, concluded that PR wrote the ransom letter. He claims that he was targeted by the Haddon law firm to dig up some dirt on him that could be used in court if he were ever called to testify against PR. He wound up going to trial for a crime he didn't commit. During the trial's second day, David Williams was called to the witness stand. He confirmed the story:

Q: Did there come a time when you were asked by Lee Foreman of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman to do work concerning the background of Thomas Miller?

A: It wasn't Foreman.

Q: Who was it?

A: Hal Haddon

Q: Do you have a recollection of Mr. Haddon saying, "who is this Tom Miller? Go check him out."?

A: No, it's more a recollection of "we need to develop impeachment information."

Q: So you were looking to develop impeachment information on Tom Miller?

A: Yes.


I admit, I don't know Pamela Mackey. I'll bet she's a nice lady. But I do not hold her colleagues in high regard. How can I when they're pulling stunts like this?
 
No.

This is semi off-topic... and everyone can take this for what it's worth... which given my post count and history here is perhaps nothing... but I live in Colorado and have met and spoken with Pamela Mackey a few times. I don't remember the exact details as this was a few years ago... but in a conversation that had nothing to do with the JonBenet case (i.e. I didn't ask), we were just discussing public perception and it's importance in cases and whatnot, and she was talking about how frustrating the JonBenet case was because the Ramsey's absolutely had nothing to do with what happened to her. She said it with complete confidence and sincerity, and as I said before, I didn't ask about it at all. That conversation was enough for me to completely throw out the idea that they were involved.

I'm telling you with complete confidence and sincerity that Pamela Mackey was not WITH the Ramseys the night JonBenet was killed and therefore could not possibly know if they had anything to do with it or not.

This 'conversation' should be enough for you to completely throw out the idea that they were not involved.

Egads, I hope you have vigilant people looking out for your best interests. :eek:
 
Here you go:

Bill Wise, Assistant Boulder DA. Has been a general partner since 1969 in a commercial complex in Boulder in which Gray (4) and Hunter (23) are limited partners.

William Gray, John and Patsy's civil attorney. Gray and Hunter (23) have been limited partners in a commercial complex in Boulder since 1969. Wise (6) is a general partner in the same endeavor.

Lee Foreman, one of John Ramsey's defense attorneys and partner in the Denver firm of Haddon (16), Morgan (21) & Foreman. He was seen giving DeMuth (28) a back rub during a meeting between Ramsey defense attorneys, the Boulder Police Department, and DA's team, which was held in Bynum's (8) law office.

Trip DeMuth (real name Lawrence), Assistant to Hofstrom (9) in the DA's Office. Said to be chummy with Burke (19). Foreman (5) was seen rubbing his back during a meeting between Ramsey defense attorneys, the BPD, and the DA's team, which was held in Bynum's (8) law office.

Patrick Burke, Boulder defense attorney representing Patsy Ramsey.Said by to be chummy with Hofstrom (9) and DeMuth (28).

Pete Hofstrom, Chief Trial Deputy DA and former San Quentin prison guard. Hunter admits that he depends on Peter Hofstrom for his information. "He's the one that's keeping me advised...He's what I consider to be the lead guy." His family attends the same Episcopal church as Patsy and John Ramsey (1, 2), Morgan (21), Dr. Beuf (15)., and Barbara and John Fernie. Hofstrom allowed Patsy to do a handwriting sample in his own home, a session described in Vanity Fair as an "afternoon tea." He has been close friends with Morgan (21) for over 20 years, and they eat breakfast together frequently. Said to be chummy with Burke (19).

Alex Hunter, Boulder County DA since 1972. Very active in state and local Democratic Party politics, Hunter is known to many as the "Monty Hall" of prosecutors for his failure to try cases and propensity for plea bargaining. His office came under attack by ex-BPD Detective Steve Thomas' resignation letter, which detailed ways in which Hunter and his Office have handled the Ramsey case. Hunter has political ties to Haddon (16) and Romer (3). Romer recently refused to appoint an independent prosecutor to replace Hunter in the Ramsey case, but will provide Hunter with assistance. Bynum (8) used to work for him as an assistant prosecutor. He has business ties to William Gray (5), Patsy and John Ramsey's (1, 2) civil attorney. Both have been limited partners in a commercial complex in Boulder since 1969. Wise (6) is a general partner in the same endeavor.

Something like that?



Are you kidding? A big part of his finances were due to that partnership. Just how zealously would he pursue a case where his partner is the opposition? Moreover, that's not even considering the level of access the defense could have had. Also, a DA cannot afford even the APPEARANCE of impropriety. DD is right. Hunter should have recused himself immediately. And failing that, the Gov. should have taken him off and appointed a special prosecutor.



Which makes you wonder why they were willing to turn over every rock that did NOT involve the Rs. ST and Mark Fuhrman both talk about that.



I understand.



I have the actual trial transcript! Before I get to that, the assertion about the PIs being there to run interference is well-established. Ellis Armistead, the lead PI, quit in 2000 because he didn't like what he was being asked to do. Armistead said his assignment, working for the Ramseys' lawyers, was not to solve the crime. It was to keep the Ramseys from being arrested. I quote:

"I was alert to the fact that there's no getting around the fact that many children who are killed are killed by their parents," he said. "It was not like I was naive. It wouldn't have changed how I did anything. It didn't really matter to me whether they did it or didn't do it.

"I saw my mandate as being to protect the Ramseys. At some point in time, there was some pressure to 'find the killer.' But I was not in a position to do that. I didn't have access to the evidence."

John Ramsey even admitted that in his deposition:

3 Q. Then what was, basically, your

4 association with the private investigation of the

5 potential suspects in the murder of JonBenet

6 Ramsey?

7 A. The investigators were retained by our

8 attorneys, and they stated to me that the

9 principal purpose of those investigators was to

10 prepare a defense in the case that the police

11 might bring a charge against me.

12 I hoped that they would also follow

13 up on leads that came to us, but I was

14 frequently reminded by our attorneys that their

15 principal role was to prepare a defense should

16 that be necessary.

Now onto the meat and potatoes. In his deposition, JR mentions an investigator named David Williams. He was the investigator who testified in the case in question, Jefferson County v Thomas C. Miller. Miller, a lawyer and handwriting expert, concluded that PR wrote the ransom letter. He claims that he was targeted by the Haddon law firm to dig up some dirt on him that could be used in court if he were ever called to testify against PR. He wound up going to trial for a crime he didn't commit. During the trial's second day, David Williams was called to the witness stand. He confirmed the story:

Q: Did there come a time when you were asked by Lee Foreman of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman to do work concerning the background of Thomas Miller?

A: It wasn't Foreman.

Q: Who was it?

A: Hal Haddon

Q: Do you have a recollection of Mr. Haddon saying, "who is this Tom Miller? Go check him out."?

A: No, it's more a recollection of "we need to develop impeachment information."

Q: So you were looking to develop impeachment information on Tom Miller?

A: Yes.

I admit, I don't know Pamela Mackey. I'll bet she's a nice lady. But I do not hold her colleagues in high regard. How can I when they're pulling stunts like this?

:bow::bow::bow::bow::bow:

SD, You are amazing!
 
Here you go:

Bill Wise, Assistant Boulder DA. Has been a general partner since 1969 in a commercial complex in Boulder in which Gray (4) and Hunter (23) are limited partners.

William Gray, John and Patsy's civil attorney. Gray and Hunter (23) have been limited partners in a commercial complex in Boulder since 1969. Wise (6) is a general partner in the same endeavor.

Lee Foreman, one of John Ramsey's defense attorneys and partner in the Denver firm of Haddon (16), Morgan (21) & Foreman. He was seen giving DeMuth (28) a back rub during a meeting between Ramsey defense attorneys, the Boulder Police Department, and DA's team, which was held in Bynum's (8) law office.

Trip DeMuth (real name Lawrence), Assistant to Hofstrom (9) in the DA's Office. Said to be chummy with Burke (19). Foreman (5) was seen rubbing his back during a meeting between Ramsey defense attorneys, the BPD, and the DA's team, which was held in Bynum's (8) law office.

Patrick Burke, Boulder defense attorney representing Patsy Ramsey.Said by to be chummy with Hofstrom (9) and DeMuth (28).

Pete Hofstrom, Chief Trial Deputy DA and former San Quentin prison guard. Hunter admits that he depends on Peter Hofstrom for his information. "He's the one that's keeping me advised...He's what I consider to be the lead guy." His family attends the same Episcopal church as Patsy and John Ramsey (1, 2), Morgan (21), Dr. Beuf (15)., and Barbara and John Fernie. Hofstrom allowed Patsy to do a handwriting sample in his own home, a session described in Vanity Fair as an "afternoon tea." He has been close friends with Morgan (21) for over 20 years, and they eat breakfast together frequently. Said to be chummy with Burke (19).

Alex Hunter, Boulder County DA since 1972. Very active in state and local Democratic Party politics, Hunter is known to many as the "Monty Hall" of prosecutors for his failure to try cases and propensity for plea bargaining. His office came under attack by ex-BPD Detective Steve Thomas' resignation letter, which detailed ways in which Hunter and his Office have handled the Ramsey case. Hunter has political ties to Haddon (16) and Romer (3). Romer recently refused to appoint an independent prosecutor to replace Hunter in the Ramsey case, but will provide Hunter with assistance. Bynum (8) used to work for him as an assistant prosecutor. He has business ties to William Gray (5), Patsy and John Ramsey's (1, 2) civil attorney. Both have been limited partners in a commercial complex in Boulder since 1969. Wise (6) is a general partner in the same endeavor.

Something like that?



Are you kidding? A big part of his finances were due to that partnership. Just how zealously would he pursue a case where his partner is the opposition? Moreover, that's not even considering the level of access the defense could have had. Also, a DA cannot afford even the APPEARANCE of impropriety. DD is right. Hunter should have recused himself immediately. And failing that, the Gov. should have taken him off and appointed a special prosecutor.



Which makes you wonder why they were willing to turn over every rock that did NOT involve the Rs. ST and Mark Fuhrman both talk about that.



I understand.



I have the actual trial transcript! Before I get to that, the assertion about the PIs being there to run interference is well-established. Ellis Armistead, the lead PI, quit in 2000 because he didn't like what he was being asked to do. Armistead said his assignment, working for the Ramseys' lawyers, was not to solve the crime. It was to keep the Ramseys from being arrested. I quote:

"I was alert to the fact that there's no getting around the fact that many children who are killed are killed by their parents," he said. "It was not like I was naive. It wouldn't have changed how I did anything. It didn't really matter to me whether they did it or didn't do it.

"I saw my mandate as being to protect the Ramseys. At some point in time, there was some pressure to 'find the killer.' But I was not in a position to do that. I didn't have access to the evidence."


John Ramsey even admitted that in his deposition:

3 Q. Then what was, basically, your

4 association with the private investigation of the

5 potential suspects in the murder of JonBenet

6 Ramsey?

7 A. The investigators were retained by our

8 attorneys, and they stated to me that the

9 principal purpose of those investigators was to

10 prepare a defense in the case that the police

11 might bring a charge against me.

12 I hoped that they would also follow

13 up on leads that came to us, but I was

14 frequently reminded by our attorneys that their

15 principal role was to prepare a defense should

16 that be necessary.


Now onto the meat and potatoes. In his deposition, JR mentions an investigator named David Williams. He was the investigator who testified in the case in question, Jefferson County v Thomas C. Miller. Miller, a lawyer and handwriting expert, concluded that PR wrote the ransom letter. He claims that he was targeted by the Haddon law firm to dig up some dirt on him that could be used in court if he were ever called to testify against PR. He wound up going to trial for a crime he didn't commit. During the trial's second day, David Williams was called to the witness stand. He confirmed the story:

Q: Did there come a time when you were asked by Lee Foreman of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman to do work concerning the background of Thomas Miller?

A: It wasn't Foreman.

Q: Who was it?

A: Hal Haddon

Q: Do you have a recollection of Mr. Haddon saying, "who is this Tom Miller? Go check him out."?

A: No, it's more a recollection of "we need to develop impeachment information."

Q: So you were looking to develop impeachment information on Tom Miller?

A: Yes.


I admit, I don't know Pamela Mackey. I'll bet she's a nice lady. But I do not hold her colleagues in high regard. How can I when they're pulling stunts like this?

You didn't cite sources, you just copy and pasted the text from that website, which itself wasn't sourced as far as I could tell.

And both of those transcripts you just included have absolutely nothing wrong in them. The fact that you see problems with them shows how biased you are, and reading way too much into things.

Quite frankly, it's clear you've never sat in a room/courtroom with attorney's discussing a case of this nature.

It's hardly shocking that he admits his main purpose was to prepare a defense for the Ramsey's... I'm a little miffed... what else would they be hired for?

And that impeachment statement is something that would have occurred in any case, with any lawyer. You have to go head to head with other party's experts. You try and ruin their credibility and show that you are more credible.

I can understand how those statements can be taken that way, but neither of what those describe is anywhere near illegal... and is actually very common. The Boulder detectives were having similar conversations. Court transcripts are very deceiving. What actually happens in the courtroom can look very different when written out on paper, and no indication as to how things were said, the emotion, facial expressions, pauses, etc.

Where did you get those transcripts from by the way? And would you mind posting them in full somewhere? I want to see the context and the rest of what happened, including the cross examination, etc.
 
I'm telling you with complete confidence and sincerity that Pamela Mackey was not WITH the Ramseys the night JonBenet was killed and therefore could not possibly know if they had anything to do with it or not.

So, apparently there were a bunch of people conspiring to make sure the Ramsey's didn't get in trouble... but at the same time, the people covering up did not know they were guilty?

By the way... only an idiot lies to their lawyer. If you don't tell your lawyers the truth, they can't do their job. The first thing that a lawyer would do once you retain their services is ask you to tell them everything. You are hurting yourself if you lie to your attorney's... literally no reason to do it.
 
You didn't cite sources, you just copy and pasted the text from that website, which itself wasn't sourced as far as I could tell.

That was just a starter.

And both of those transcripts you just included have absolutely nothing wrong in them. The fact that you see problems with them shows how biased you are, and reading way too much into things.

Excuse me? There's nothing wrong with a law firm trying to sabotage a witness by trying to put him in jail, even though he's innocent?

It's hardly shocking that he admits his main purpose was to prepare a defense for the Ramsey's... I'm a little miffed... what else would they be hired for?

Well, it's funny you ask that, because for a long time, we were told by the Rs that those investigators were doing the work the BPD couldn't be bothered to do. It's clear JR knew from the start that they were not there to do that, yet for years he claimed that they were. That's one of the problems here. The other problem is that their methods, if Williams is any indication, leave much to be desired.

And that impeachment statement is something that would have occurred in any case, with any lawyer. You have to go head to head with other party's experts. You try and ruin their credibility and show that you are more credible.

By calling in political favors to have him prosecuted when there's no case? I'm not sure they teach that in law school.

I can understand how those statements can be taken that way,

Darn right.

but neither of what those describe is anywhere near illegal...

I didn't say it was illegal (whether or not it should be is a different issue). It just doesn't seem very ethical.

and is actually very common.

As if my faith in the justice system weren't shaky enough already!

So, apparently there were a bunch of people conspiring to make sure the Ramsey's didn't get in trouble... but at the same time, the people covering up did not know they were guilty?

I think you're half right. They did their darnedest to make sure the Rs didn't go to jail. But as for "covering up," I think it has more to do with the lawyers mentality, which I've often heard as, "even if you're innocent, a lawyer will defend you like you're guilty."

Where did you get those transcripts from by the way?

Well, JR's deposition I got here:

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/12122001Depo-JohnRamsey.htm

As for the Miller trial transcript, that's on a CD-ROM called "Salute to American Justice."

And would you mind posting them in full somewhere? I want to see the context and the rest of what happened, including the cross examination, etc.

Well, the link I just gave you has the full thing on it. As for the Miller trial transcript, I'm afraid that's impossible. The format does not allow me to copy and paste them. I'd have to type the whole thing out by hand, and it's 721 pages long. Your best bet would be the way I found it: through ebay.
 
Excuse me? There's nothing wrong with a law firm trying to sabotage a witness by trying to put him in jail, even though he's innocent?

Really? You've proved your legal naivety with what you are saying here.

There are two definitions for the word impeachment. You've assumed that there is only one.

Let me give you the definition that you are basing your wild conclusions on:

"Impeachment is a formal process in which an elected official is accused of unlawful activity, and which may or may not lead to the removal of that official from office."

Now, notice the bolded words. Elected official. I could be wrong, but handwriting analysts are not elected officials.

Here is the other definition:

"A technique used during cross-examination to discredit a witness's testimony. Impeachment can be accomplished in a number of ways: by demonstrating and emphasizing the difference between the witness's testimony at trial and a prior statement, showing bias, showing erroneous assumptions made by the witness in drawing conclusions, etc. The intent of impeachment is to show the jury that the witness cannot be believed."

Impeachment literally happens at EVERY criminal trial, and most other trials too.


Well, it's funny you ask that, because for a long time, we were told by the Rs that those investigators were doing the work the BPD couldn't be bothered to do. It's clear JR knew from the start that they were not there to do that, yet for years he claimed that they were. That's one of the problems here. The other problem is that their methods, if Williams is any indication, leave much to be desired.

Your bias is literally twisting words and actions into what you want them to mean.

It would be EXTREMELY unrealistic for anyone to think that private detectives would be charged with trying to find the killers. They were never hired for that purpose, because that notion is just ridiculous.

Again, what he said was completely reasonable. He was hired to find information to help with the defense. Nobody thought they were trying to find the killers.

By calling in political favors to have him prosecuted when there's no case? I'm not sure they teach that in law school.

I've already gone over this. Your lack of familiarity with legal terminology has lead you down a very flawed understanding of what happened.
 
NO.Not even if it's meant to keep another child of mine out of jail or mental institution.I would find OTHER ways I guess.
 
This IS the problem IMO.Not the staging,not someone wanting to stay out of jail.But the way it was done.IMO
 
Would you write a RN note if that keeps you out of jail?Probably
Would you mess with the evidence?Probably
Would you lie to LE?Probably

But put a CORD around your childs neck and pull and then sexually assault her?N E V E R,no matter what.
 
Really? You've proved your legal naivety with what you are saying here.

There are two definitions for the word impeachment. You've assumed that there is only one.

Let me give you the definition that you are basing your wild conclusions on:

Hold it right there. I don't need someone to tell me what I think. I KNOW what I think. There's a lot of assuming going on, all right.

"A technique used during cross-examination to discredit a witness's testimony. Impeachment can be accomplished in a number of ways: by demonstrating and emphasizing the difference between the witness's testimony at trial and a prior statement, showing bias, showing erroneous assumptions made by the witness in drawing conclusions, etc. The intent of impeachment is to show the jury that the witness cannot be believed."

Impeachment literally happens at EVERY criminal trial, and most other trials too.

I know THAT. I've been at this a long time, you know. My beef is that they couldn't FIND any dirt, so they had to dirty him up themselves.

Your bias is literally twisting words and actions into what you want them to mean.

I've been around way too long to get slapped with that one.

It would be EXTREMELY unrealistic for anyone to think that private detectives would be charged with trying to find the killers. They were never hired for that purpose, because that notion is just ridiculous. Again, what he said was completely reasonable. He was hired to find information to help with the defense. Nobody thought they were trying to find the killers.

That's my point! For years, the Ramseys told us that their private investigators were trying to find the killer specifically because the police weren't looking; were "out to get them," as it were. If what you say is true, then it just reinforces what I'm saying. You're basically saying that the Ramseys knowingly lied about it. Why would they? Moreover, what does that do for their credibility?

I've already gone over this. Your lack of familiarity with legal terminology has lead you down a very flawed understanding of what happened.

I don't need a law degree to know BS when I see it.
 
Hold it right there. I don't need someone to tell me what I think. I KNOW what I think. There's a lot of assuming going on, all right.

It's very clear what you thought. You stated that they were trying to call in political favors to put him on trial, and put him in jail.

They were talking about an extremely normal process that happens at every trial. I.e. Jail is not involved.

Wild accusations, very faulty information used to make them. You are sensationalizing something that didn't happen.

I know THAT. I've been at this a long time, you know. My beef is that they couldn't FIND any dirt, so they had to dirty him up themselves.

It doesn't matter how long you've been at this. So now you've taken them talking about a technique taught in every law school anywhere, and used in thousands of courts everyday by virtually all lawyers... and transformed it into them "dirtying him up" themselves? I suppose you mean by finding dirt on him?

Let me take this and put it into context:

Q: Do you have a recollection of Mr. Haddon saying, "who is this Tom Miller? Go check him out."?

Whoever is asking the question here, is accusing him of what you are accusing him of. When he says "Go check him out," he's talking about personally, to find "dirt".

A: No, it's more a recollection of "we need to develop impeachment information."

The PI corrects him. He essentially says "No, that was not the purpose. The purpose was to develop information to be used in impeachment."

I.e. information that was relevant to the case and that could be used to impeach him during cross examination. Not information on him personally or to ruin his personal credibility.

I've been around way too long to get slapped with that one.

I don't care about your post count or how long you've been here. You've made huge mistakes in your interpretation and perception of what happened.


That's my point! For years, the Ramseys told us that their private investigators were trying to find the killer specifically because the police weren't looking; were "out to get them," as it were. If what you say is true, then it just reinforces what I'm saying. You're basically saying that the Ramseys knowingly lied about it. Why would they? Moreover, what does that do for their credibility?

What are you making a big deal about? Nobody with any reasonable amount of knowledge of how criminal cases work would ever believe that private investigators would find the killers.

Not only that, but without having seen the statements you are talking about, I can only assume you've made wild conclusions on faulty assumptions like you did previously.


I don't need a law degree to know BS when I see it.

You do need some experience with the law to look at documents that use legal terminology that you don't understand and draw conclusions from them.
 
This IS the problem IMO.Not the staging,not someone wanting to stay out of jail.But the way it was done.IMO

I don't see how they had a lot of options. That's where I'm coming from.

Would you write a RN if that keeps you out of jail?Probably
Would you mess with the evidence?Probably
Would you lie to LE?Probably

I'm with you so far.

But put a CORD around your childs neck and pull and then sexually assault her?N E V E R,no matter what.

As I've learned, "never" and "no matter what" are just words. Like I said, it's all about the context. But I didn't specify, so I will now.

You need something that provides an obvious means of death, but your options are limited. Shooting her would make noise, stabbing her would make a mess; strangulation is quiet and neat. But you don't want to touch her dead flesh yourself--for a couple of reasons-- so a cord is the only way to do it. As for the sexual assault, again, they had to provide a reason not only for what kind of criminal supposedly did this but for why she was messed with down there to begin with.

Can I say something else? I don't understand the point of this thread. To me, it doesn't make much sense to ask US what WE would do, since we've never had to deal with a situation like this.
 
It's so easy to say well you are good,you wouldn't do that,I am good,I wouldn't do that but there are people who would.It's not that simple.
This is very unpleasant but why not bash her head one more time and get it over it.
It's not only the MO that botheres me (strangulation) but the one who did it obviously took her/his time with it.Broke the paintbrush in pieces,made the knots.Sounds more like something that person enjoyed doing.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
140
Guests online
2,829
Total visitors
2,969

Forum statistics

Threads
592,566
Messages
17,971,089
Members
228,816
Latest member
shyanne
Back
Top