Parents On This Forum: Answer Me This!

[Jolynna]

And How the DA does that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena

 

[Pedro]

Well, we're 10 years down the road, PR and JR still are under that umbrella, the perp hasn't been caught and justice has not been served.

Better than been in prison.

Mark Klass, however, took the approach I believe I would take, and look how much better it worked. He immediately went to LE and said "give me a polygraph, look at me closely, because I'm innocent and the sooner you realize I'm not the one you're looking for, the sooner you/we can move on to finding the perp" and that is exactly what happened.

I like Mark, a nice guy, bit eccentric sometimes but I always liked him. He did very well, a lot more brave than me.

Maybe since I've known the LE here personally all my life and because many of them are personal friends and because myself and my family have always had a clean slate, I'm not afraid of being falsely accused. Could I be framed? Sure, anyone could and maybe JR was framed. However, IF I were innocent, I would have to find myself in an extreme predicament before I'd withhold evidence that I thought might could lead to the capture of the perp. Oh, and protecting a spouse, preserving a lifestyle and protecting another child of mine from the truth, do not qualify for "extreme predicament".

Is not about framing and is not about dishonesty, it is about idiocy. I don't care if the guy who deliver my paper is an idiot but I care very much if the people investigating the murder of my child "see in my eyes that I am guilty"

So what is the relevance of how many people any of us know in law enforcement? Some are good and some are not good.

 

[Jolynna]

Mark Klass was never a suspect, as indicated by LE

He most definitely WAS a suspect.

He was THE suspect. And, every bit as much under the "umbrella of suspicion" as the Ramseys.

 

[paperhanger44z]

I'd rather give LE what they need and work with them 1000% to help find the perp, than worry that they might accidentally finger me incorrectly.

Suppose JR and PR are/were innocent, but they took your approach (as you've already explained your stance on "justice", "rights", etc...) because they could and because that's "justice". Well, we're 10 years down the road, PR and JR still are under that umbrella, the perp hasn't been caught and justice has not been served.


Mark Klass, however, took the approach I believe I would take, and look how much better it worked. He immediately went to LE and said "give me a polygraph, look at me closely, because I'm innocent and the sooner you realize I'm not the one you're looking for, the sooner you/we can move on to finding the perp" and that is exactly what happened.

Maybe since I've known the LE here personally all my life and because many of them are personal friends and because myself and my family have always had a clean slate, I'm not afraid of being falsely accused. Could I be framed? Sure, anyone could and maybe JR was framed. However, IF I were innocent, I would have to find myself in an extreme predicament before I'd withhold evidence that I thought might could lead to the capture of the perp. Oh, and protecting a spouse, preserving a lifestyle and protecting another child of mine from the truth, do not qualify for "extreme predicament".

Respectfully,If you read the book "Actual Innocence" by Barry Scheck,Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer,you might change your mind about that.

 

[Pedro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena

Ok, so they order the Ramseys to appear in court with the phone records or the phone company, and the R's attorney files a request for a hearing where the DA must show he has probable cause for that search. So if there is no probable cause, a subpoena is worthless.

 

[Jolynna]

Look, essential evidence is essential evidence. Whether it is fiber, hair, blood or PHONE RECORDS. All have been used to snag perps.

If the Ramseys had lived in a trailer park, the police would have gotten the phone records.

Respectfully,If you read the book "Actual Innocence" by Barry Scheck,Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer,you might change your mind about that

I love Barry Scheck. He worked with the DA on this case. From what he has said, I do not think he is an IDI. Do you know that, Henry Lee, who was also part of the DA's investigation, flat out said the murder was an inside job.

 

[julianne]

He most definitely WAS a suspect.

He was THE suspect. And, every bit as much under the "umbrella of suspicion" as the Ramseys.

WRONG!! He was never a suspect. There were 2 12 year old girls who were witnesses. Davis spent a half an hour in that room with them, at least. They were able to provide a very detailed description to LE. They were shown photos of Mark Klaas and they were adamant that he was not the perp.

LE had identified Davis's prints the very next day.

Even Mark Klaas doesn't ever say he was a suspect. You can read up on the case here:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/klaas/1.html

But let's get back to the subject at hand....

 

[Jolynna]

Ok, so they order the Ramseys to appear in court with the phone records or the phone company, and the R's attorney files a request for a hearing where the DA must show he has probable cause for that search. So if there is no probable cause, a subpoena is worthless.

The high probability of an INTRUDER having called the Ramseys before the murder is probable cause.

 

[s_finch]

Mark Klass was never a suspect, as indicated by LE.

Also, it was clear from the very beginning that Boulder LE were in waaaay over their heads. Keystone Cops at their finest, bumbling everything up, interfering with evidence, picking up and moving a murder victim.....

The difference between the Petaluma LE and the Boulder LE is like the difference between the Top Cop in the country and Barney Fife.

Upon seeing how they did their jobs and how unprofessional they were, AND with advice from my attorney, I would be limited in giving them anything they asked for. Any LE who closes their circle of suspects and just concentrates on one person simply because they are preserving their rights only reiterates that it was a good idea to preserve those rights in the first place, IMO.

True, Marc Klass wasn't ever a suspect and one reason is most probably because he made a bee line for the LE department and said "check me out, here I am, clear me so we can fine the perp" and he did this so LE wouldn't waste time suspecting him. Anytime a child disappears or is murdered, parents are closely examined by LE. Klass knew that and he knew he was innocent and didn't want to waste time, he wanted to find the perp.

Any LE who closes their circle of suspects and just concentrates on one person simply because they are preserving their rights only reiterates that it was a good idea to preserve those rights in the first place, IMO

But Lou Smit didn't close his circle of suspects. He thought and still believes the R's are innocent. Why didn't they cooperate with him?? Hunter never treated them like true suspects either, why didn't they cooperate with him??

 

[Pedro]

Look, essential evidence is essential evidence. Whether it is fiber, hair, blood or PHONE RECORDS. All have been used to snag perps.

Sure, things that are in plain view or given willingly.

If the Ramseys had lived in a trailer park, the police would have gotten the phone records.

You are correct and that should not happen. Both the R's and the people living in a trailer park should be able to exercise their common rights. So instead of depriving the R's of their rights, we should work to ensure those same rights for all.

 

[s_finch]

Better than been in prison.




I like Mark, a nice guy, bit eccentric sometimes but I always liked him. He did very well, a lot more brave than me.



Is not about framing and is not about dishonesty, it is about idiocy. I don't care if the guy who deliver my paper is an idiot but I care very much if the people investigating the murder of my child "see in my eyes that I am guilty"

So what is the relevance of how many people any of us know in law enforcement? Some are good and some are not good.[/QUOTE]

Very true, I was only pointing out that maybe I look at LE through glasses that have been colored by my personal relationships. Maybe I'm totally naive or maybe I am fortunate to live in an area where that has pretty good LE. I dunno. I'm quite aware that there are good and bad people in all professions. And it is disconcerting when you realize the number of innocents that are locked up every year due to ignorance, prejudice and error. However, I believe I'd take that chance if it'd help find the perp. Course, I'm not in that position, so I can't really say, can I. I only have my belief about how I'd act.

 

[Pedro]

The high probability of an INTRUDER having called the Ramseys before the murder is probable cause.

If it was an intruder: why would an intruder call before the crime?

If it were the R's: why would they call themselves before the crime? And even if they do, how many of us call our own home from our job or cell every day?

That is not probable cause.

 

[Pedro]

Very true, I was only pointing out that maybe I look at LE through glasses that have been colored by my personal relationships. Maybe I'm totally naive or maybe I am fortunate to live in an area where that has pretty good LE. I dunno. I'm quite aware that there are good and bad people in all professions. And it is disconcerting when you realize the number of innocents that are locked up every year due to ignorance, prejudice and error. However, I believe I'd take that chance if it'd help find the perp. Course, I'm not in that position, so I can't really say, can I. I only have my belief about how I'd act.

I understand and it makes sense. The problem is we never know what LE is thinking and they are not going to tell us. So this is a personal choice and we should not criticize anyone for taken one or the other option. It is our right to cooperate and it is our right not to.

Anyway, thank you all for the debate, I enjoy it.

Time for bed.

 

[Omega]

Patsy knew all the details of the beauty pageants, was involved in the kid's school, the family business they started, and her cancer treatment. Patsy even became friends with, helped, and kept up with other cancer patients that she met. On her death bed, she was working to finish that painting so I'd say that she knew how to get very involved in things before and after the murder of JonBenet.

According to the 2000 interviews (which I've nearly finished reading), it was not only details about the case that Patsy did know.... she barely knews ANYTHING. She did not know all the details of JBR's beauty pageants; she didn't even remember the santa bear that JBR won as Little Miss Christmas on the 14th of December, 11 days before the murder. She doesn't remember what John wore to the Christmas party, she doesn't remember what John does with his clothes every night after she's finished wearing them, she doesn't remember her routine for drycleaning. She doesn't remember anything about her kid's school, she doesn't even remember that after the murder, all of a sudden she started typing Burke's "friday files" or whatever they were called, even though she had handwritten them every time before the murder. Almost every question that she is asked in that interview (that LW will allow her to answer), she answers "I don't remember", "I might have, but I can't remember the particulars".

I can kind of understand that she wouldn't know every little detail about the investigation into finding the mythical intruder, she may have just been a passive person. BUT I find it soooo hard to believe that, when her investigators found Helgoth, who, according to Patsy in the interviews sounded like a promising suspect (Hi-Tec shoes, girlfriend dobbed him in, killed himself shortly after death, talked about bashing in people's skulls), PATSY COULDN'T REMEMBER HIS NAME.

The family would have spent, probably millions of dollars, on this investigation, so presumably they are INTERESTED in finding the culprit. If they were genuinely interested in finding the intruder, surely John would give Patsy updates about the important stuff and she'd at least know the general progress of the investigation and the name of a very promising prime suspect.

Before I read the transcripts I was undecided, but now I'm convinced that either Patsy was the stupidist woman in the world, or she did it.

 

[Mama-cita]

Before I read the transcripts I was undecided, but now I'm convinced that either Patsy was the stupidist woman in the world, or she did it.

LMAO! But ditto your sentiments exactly!

 

[Jolynna]

If it was an intruder: why would an intruder call before the crime?

To stalk. To find out when the family was home. To hear JonBenet's voice. To hear Patsy's voice. There are endless, probable reasons.

If it were the R's: why would they call themselves before the crime? And even if they do, how many of us call our own home from our job or cell every day?

Exactly. There is NO reason to withhold phone evidence.

That is not probable cause.

I beg to differ. Getting phone records is as routine as getting hair samples. And just as necessary.

 

[Details]

... Maybe I'm totally naive or maybe I am fortunate to live in an area where that has pretty good LE. I dunno. I'm quite aware that there are good and bad people in all professions. And it is disconcerting when you realize the number of innocents that are locked up every year due to ignorance, prejudice and error. However, I believe I'd take that chance if it'd help find the perp. Course, I'm not in that position, so I can't really say, can I. I only have my belief about how I'd act.

And it's sometimes the good LE that do this. It's not like they're dishonest or purposely doing this - they honestly think they're right about who did it, and that this awful of a criminal needs to be locked up - and if they're sure, obviously any other leads, any info that leads elsewhere is just a red herring, and not to distract them from the noble and right cause of putting a horrible murderer behind bars. They're sure they are doing the right thing - always be afraid of that - it's not the bad guys, dishonest ones to worry most about, worry most about an honorable man sure he is doing the right thing.

 

[JMO8778]

To stalk. To find out when the family was home. To hear JonBenet's voice. To hear Patsy's voice. There are endless, probable reasons.


Exactly. There is NO reason to withhold phone evidence.


I beg to differ. Getting phone records is as routine as getting hair samples. And just as necessary.

Could they have been withheld to protect Burke,since he was a minor at the time?That is not to say I think he did it.But like someone else said,maybe he was the first one to get thrown under the bus.

 

[sandraladeda]

If it was an intruder: why would an intruder call before the crime?

If it were the R's: why would they call themselves before the crime? And even if they do, how many of us call our own home from our job or cell every day?

That is not probable cause.

Are you telling us you really think it would be unreasonable for LE to look into who has called the Rs? Perhaps look into an unusual number of wrong numbers or hang up calls? If the R's had been working with LE, it would be reasonable to go through the calls, and say "that's the White's number, that's our housekeeper's number, oh, here's one I don't recognize, oh that's right, a telemarketer called that night, etc."

What if the so-called intruder phoned out while the Rs were out on Christmas night? Sometimes criminals do dumb things!

It would also be reasonable for LE to ask who the Rs have been calling. For example, what if P had been carrying on a secret affair, or J has been gambling a little too much, and is too scared to tell LE - the facts are there for LE to see, P calling her tennis pro 6 times a day while J is at work, or J calling his bookie from his cell phone, for example. It could open up other avenues of investigation that LE should know if they are to eliminate all the possibilities.

Probable cause? Let's think "reasonable". let's think about wanting to do everything we can to solve the crime.

imho

 

[JBean]

Are you telling us you really think it would be unreasonable for LE to look into who has called the Rs? Perhaps look into an unusual number of wrong numbers or hang up calls? If the R's had been working with LE, it would be reasonable to go through the calls, and say "that's the White's number, that's our housekeeper's number, oh, here's one I don't recognize, oh that's right, a telemarketer called that night, etc."

What if the so-called intruder phoned out while the Rs were out on Christmas night? Sometimes criminals do dumb things!

It would also be reasonable for LE to ask who the Rs have been calling. For example, what if P had been carrying on a secret affair, or J has been gambling a little too much, and is too scared to tell LE - the facts are there for LE to see, P calling her tennis pro 6 times a day while J is at work, or J calling his bookie from his cell phone, for example. It could open up other avenues of investigation that LE should know if they are to eliminate all the possibilities.

Probable cause? Let's think "reasonable". let's think about wanting to do everything we can to solve the crime.

imho

You seem to be talking about a regular landline,so don't the phone records of their house phone just show who called out?Mine don't show who called me and definitely not who called me and hung up. If they were collect or third party they would show I suppose.
So I would guess they would want to see who the R's are calling, not who is calling them.
That's where the R's have rights.

eta; or are we talking about records that maybe the phone co has but not the ramseys?