playing devil's advocate

[midwest mama]

Madeleine,

The Ramseys were, in effect, treated as 'Defendants' from the very beginning by their attorneys. So from that perspective this is how/why their ship was steered in the direction that it was.

I'm NOT condoning this and I certainly disagreed with the manner in which the Ramseys were given SO many 'passes' when it came to treatment (such as being allowed to see prior statements and given other pieces of evidence by the DA's office), other than what the average American citizen would have been given under similar circumstances.

You are correct; the Ramseys were BEING PREPARED (emotionally and otherwise) - as Defendants - by their own attorneys.

Obviously, this strategy worked...for the Ramseys, that is.

Really? For the Ramseys? It's 16 years plus, and the family is still considered under the umbrella of suspicion. How does not being cleared of your daughter's murder become a strategy that worked?

I'd say the only ones this worked for was the legal team. They have been on a fat paycheck for 16 years. Let's see, there's an expression, tried and true that says "the best defense is a good offense". I'd think if I was an innocent Ramsey, and I had the best legal experience money could hire at my disposal, I'd be at the helm saying, OK, let's do what we have to do to put the question of my innocence or guilt to rest right out of the box, so our law enforcement agencies lose no time or spend no unnecessary public funds doing the job of bringing in the criminal(s) that killed my daughter.

For instance, here is how I might have expected JR, powerful, enterprising, important, business commander that he was, to instruct his employees (Wood and the rest of his legal team) regarding his legal protection, as an INNOCENT man, who was certain a pedophile intruder had invaded his life:

"My wife, none of my children, or I, are in no way involved with the death of JonBenet. Within 48 hours, I expect you to make any arrangements that are necessary to co-operate fully with law enforcement to do whatever they request to establish our innocence. If that includes interviews, set them up. If that includes lie detectors, set them up. If they request any records that they feel will help them in their investigation, secure them and forward them. Give them any access they need to our home or anything in it to help them obtain evidence. My family will remain in the local area, and be available to someone from your staff around the clock.

I want my daughter's remains thoroughly examined for any and all evidence of who committed this crime, as well as to possible motives. When BPD is satisfied that they have collected any physical evidence that is needed, then I request that my family be adequately provided a period of privacy and respect while we make arrangements for a burial of our daughter, and for any travel that will be necessary. However, assure the law enforcement agencies that we are never more than a phone call away should there be an immediate or urgent need to contact us for any reason if there are questions about ANYTHING that might help them in an apprehension of a suspect."

If I had seen that in print somewhere just after JonBenet was killed, and knew that the RST was in place and ready to go, THEN, and only then would I have thought everything was being prudently done by JR and his attorneys, "in the best interest of their clients".

As it is, if JR and his family were innocent, I think they got suckered into believing they would become "defendants" so they could provide a payroll. And not only to their attorneys, but to plenty others who just might have wanted a slice of that payroll pie. :moo:

 

[madeleine]

BBM Isn't that interesting. He lawyered up all of HIS family, even his ex wife, but not Patsy's family.

That's what I knew too but now I read in Kolar's book that he lawyered up the Paughs as well.

 

[dodie20]

They distanced themselves from the CRIME. You have to look at it that way.

I remember reading that PR's friends had to beg her to release pictures of JB that weren't pageant related. Nobody will ever convince me that PR didn't want that image out there. It was shocking, it was sexualized, and it was how the Rs presented her. Starting with them giving a pageant magazine permission to run her photo after her death, on to the show girl pictures and videos, and then publicizing JB being buried with a tiara, and then on to PR comparing her to Princess D. To this day, JB in those pageant clothes, is how most people remember her, and imo, that's because that's exactly how the Rs wanted it. I just don't understand why they did all of this. For attention, I guess? PR was a journalism major and a Miss America contestant, so it looks like she had visions of fame. Well, through her murdered daughter, she got it. What's ironic, is the only 'journalism' she'll be remembered for, is the ransom note...and although its writing isn't something to brag about, it's such an oddity, that it will probably be forever remembered and studied. moo

 

[madeleine]

I remember reading that PR's friends had to beg her to release pictures of JB that weren't pageant related. Nobody will ever convince me that PR didn't want that image out there. It was shocking, it was sexualized, and it was how the Rs presented her. Starting with them giving a pageant magazine permission to run her photo after her death, on to the show girl pictures and videos, and then publicizing JB being buried with a tiara, and then on to PR comparing her to Princess D. To this day, JB in those pageant clothes, is how most people remember her, and imo, that's because that's exactly how the Rs wanted it. I just don't understand why they did all of this. For attention, I guess? PR was a journalism major and a Miss America contestant, so it looks like she had visions of fame. Well, through her murdered daughter, she got it. What's ironic, is the only 'journalism' she'll be remembered for, is the ransom note...and although its writing isn't something to brag about, it's such an oddity, that it will probably be forever remembered and studied. moo

maybe there was something about Jonbenet they (not conscious) didn't like?
why HIDE her under all the make-up and those kind of clothes?
why try to transform her into something ELSE?(all the beauty pageant stuff)

 

[Nom de plume]

I don't see how you can say it hasn't always been that way. I doubt a Rockefeller was going to jail in the 1800's for murder. Or an influential/rich person in 1400's Europe. And I'm sure there are plenty of examples from centuries ago where poor people went to jail for crimes they didn't commit.

I was referring to the US justice system, not the history of the world. Leopold & Loeb would be a good example. They were both very wealthy and even had Clarence Darrow as defense attorney, but they both went to prison.

 

[madeleine]

IDI's always claim that there is no history of domestic abuse/sexual abuse when it comes to the Ramsey's and when it comes to mental history people are mostly focused on PR....
What about JR though....I have watched every possible interview out there...she's always acting the same...he on the other hand seems to have multiple personalities....sometimes he seems very angry (but NOT with the situation),sometimes he's like a drugged puppy,full of love forgiveness for everybody,sometimes he's the cold blooded calculated business man....and I can't forget that interview on that religious channel (have the link somewhere but can't find it now) ....he's SO creepy there,he seems in a trance,delusional....

we know that he lost one daughter and that affected him DEEPLY.but we don't know much about that period of time and IMO it's important.

MAYBE he even lied about the medication he was taken at the time JB died....

If you watch Jeffrey MacDonalds,Michael Peterson and John Ramsey....they all have such similar personalities....the first is a convicted child/wife killer,the second killed a friend and his wife....but BOTH still claim in a very arrogant fashion that they didn't do it knowing how to manipulate and thinking they're the best of the best....they just love to hear themselves talk (hence all the TV appearances)....it's their own ego's (gonna get away with it cause I outsmart everybody) that but them where they belong...it's one of the reasons why I believe the R's would have been caught in a lie if LE pushed harder ....

I've always considered Kane a very smart prosecutor who doesn't waste time and I find this part VERY interesting


17 MIKE KANE: Okay. I notice I am

18 really taking a long time here but it's really

19 important for us to get to know you, and I do

20 appreciate the fact that you have been real

21 patient. You have -- have you ever thought

22 about suicide?

23 JOHN RAMSEY: Uh-hum.

24 MIKE KANE: Before JonBenet's

25 death?

0639

1 JOHN RAMSEY: No.

2 MIKE KANE: About how Beth?

3 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't recall -- I

4 have -- when I was going through a divorce,

5 suicide's an easy way out, kind of the

6 rationalize I come to. You know, it's not fair

7 to people that love you and are around you, but

8 boy, when you're down big time that's boy, you

9 think just check out of here. And I remember

10 one night thinking about that when I was -- not

11 that I did anything about it, but I was at that

12 point in despair when he was going through my

13 divorce.

14 I don't remember with Beth. I mean

15 I was -- it was -- that was a huge loss for

16 me. And (INAUDIBLE) on medication, and it took

17 me years to get through that. I couldn't drive

18 home from work without crying for a long time,

19 because I was by myself, and I had time to think

20 and it was very difficult to take a long trip,

21 look at the back of an empty seat. So it took a

22 long time to get me -- to get past that where I

23 could think of Beth and smile. And think of

24 happy things. But.

25 MIKE KANE: Have you recently been

0640

1 thinking these thoughts?

2 JOHN RAMSEY: No, no. Certainly

3 something you think when you're so far down

4 after something like this, it looks like the

5 only relief, but then -- the reason that Patsy

6 and I come through this and have come through is

7 because we have Burke, Melinda and John Andrew.

8 If we didn't have other children, we probably

9 would have checked out a long time ago. What's

10 the point.

11 MIKE KANE: Okay. Has Mrs. Ramsey

12 ever come through this, been on Prozac

13 (INAUDIBLE) I mean which states of depression

14 trigger or was it just to cope?

15 JOHN RAMSEY: You mean since

16 JonBenet's death? No, she never -- we talked

17 about that. I mean we never talked about it

18 with each other but, it wouldn't surprise me if,

19 you know, deep down in her thoughts that -- (Mr.

20 Ramsey is banging on the table as he speaks,

21 making it difficult to understand).

22 MIKE KANE: A lot of these

23 questions I have already asked. Oh, have you

24 ever had any history of anxiety disorders or

25 panic attacks or things like that?

0641

1 JOHN RAMSEY: Not that I know of.

2 I mean I have always felt like I am kind of a

3 worrier and anxious about the future but --

4 MIKE KANE: But not abnormal?

5 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I don't think.

6 MIKE KANE: No history of obsessive

7 type behavior or dwelling on things obsessively?

8 JOHN RAMSEY: No.

9 MIKE KANE: You don't recall any

10 events of anything like that?

11 JOHN RAMSEY: I feel like my

12 memory is a lot worse now than it used to be,

13 but no.

14 MIKE KANE: All right. Have you

15 ever had any disorder anything like that?

16 JOHN RAMSEY: No.

17 MIKE KANE: Mrs. Ramsey, to your

18 knowledge?

19 JOHN RAMSEY: No.

20 MIKE KANE: Do you have any

21 recurrent nightmares about all this?

22 JOHN RAMSEY: Oh, I had nightmares

23 for a while. Of course, I can't remember, yeah

24 I did for a while. But I haven't recently.

25 MIKE KANE: You don't have any

0642

1 recollection of what they might have been?

2 JOHN RAMSEY: No.

3 MIKE KANE: All I can remember one

4 dream where I was holding JonBenet and we were

5 playing and everything was okay, and then I

6 couldn't figure out if I was dreaming or not.

7 You know, it just -- I mean of course when you

8 wake up, it's a pretty big downer.

9 MIKE KANE: Have you ever had an

10 incident of sleepwalking?

11 JOHN RAMSEY: No.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I remember reading that PR's friends had to beg her to release pictures of JB that weren't pageant related. Nobody will ever convince me that PR didn't want that image out there. It was shocking, it was sexualized, and it was how the Rs presented her. Starting with them giving a pageant magazine permission to run her photo after her death, on to the show girl pictures and videos, and then publicizing JB being buried with a tiara, and then on to PR comparing her to Princess D. To this day, JB in those pageant clothes, is how most people remember her, and imo, that's because that's exactly how the Rs wanted it. I just don't understand why they did all of this. For attention, I guess? PR was a journalism major and a Miss America contestant, so it looks like she had visions of fame. Well, through her murdered daughter, she got it. What's ironic, is the only 'journalism' she'll be remembered for, is the ransom note...and although its writing isn't something to brag about, it's such an oddity, that it will probably be forever remembered and studied. moo

I don't think Patsy minded that JonBenet was known as a "child beauty queen" in the media. However, there is no way that the media was going to stop showing those videos. Those videos made the case. There would have to be a Supreme Court order to get them to stop.

Let's not make the media into being innocent, though. Everyone who has been in the media (celebrities) has an image that the media presents to the public. That image might be based on how the celebrity presents herself/himself, but it is always an exaggeration of who they truly are. The media is just as much to blame for JBR's "beauty queen" image.

 

[dodie20]

I don't think Patsy minded that JonBenet was known as a "child beauty queen" in the media. However, there is no way that the media was going to stop showing those videos. Those videos made the case. There would have to be a Supreme Court order to get them to stop.

Let's not make the media into being innocent, though. Everyone who has been in the media (celebrities) has an image that the media presents to the public. That image might be based on how the celebrity presents herself/himself, but it is always an exaggeration of who they truly are. The media is just as much to blame for JBR's "beauty queen" image.

I'm not giving the media a pass, but I never once heard the Rs ask them to not show those pics and videos. They did interviews where this stuff was used. If they had asked, I do believe some of the stations would have relented. Or if they had refused to interview unless the footage wasn't used, they would have gotten their way. But when a station has this kind of footage and the parents obviously don't mind, why not use it? PR didn't have a problem with her own pageant video being shown either. Yes, it was something to be proud of, but IMO, she was tooting her own horn and hungry for attention. IMO, their whole family image was shallow and materialistic...JB's pageants, PR's Miss America days, JR's billion dollar business. IMO, this is all we saw because this is all the Rs wanted us to see. Because what was left, was too ugly. moo

 

[madeleine]

this is why he changed his story and says he thinks it was a pedo...cause if it's someone who killed your child to get back at YOU it would BUG you for the rest of your life and you would always ask yourself who it was and why,you wouldn't be able to go on until you know,it would hunt you forever.....but if it was "just" a pedo (probably a nice looking one like JMK,right? ) you don't have to waste time and bang your pretty little head anymore,no?

 

[madeleine]

he's acting like it wouldn't matter...pedo,angry employee,family friend (doesn't matter as long as it's not them)....it MATTERS...cause knowing who would mean knowing WHY....isn't that important?wouldn't you wanna know why her life was taken in such a horrible way?wth?oh but wait.....of course it doesn't matter...whoever it was sent her to a better place and she won't suffer from cancer or death of a child,how thoughtful of the killer to spare her!

my God is this disgusting

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I'm not giving the media a pass, but I never once heard the Rs ask them to not show those pics and videos. They did interviews where this stuff was used. If they had asked, I do believe some of the stations would have relented. Or if they had refused to interview unless the footage wasn't used, they would have gotten their way. But when a station has this kind of footage and the parents obviously don't mind, why not use it? PR didn't have a problem with her own pageant video being shown either. Yes, it was something to be proud of, but IMO, she was tooting her own horn and hungry for attention. IMO, their whole family image was shallow and materialistic...JB's pageants, PR's Miss America days, JR's billion dollar business. IMO, this is all we saw because this is all the Rs wanted us to see. Because what was left, was too ugly. moo

If the R's had asked the media to not use the footage during an interview, the media might have agreed. Especially if they wanted the R's on their program. But in just a normal segment about the case, in which the family is not being interviewed? No way. There is no way that the media was going to stop using the footage just because the parents requested them to stop. This case would be out of the news in January 1997 if it weren't for that pageant footage. That footage brought in viewers which meant more ad revenue, and the media's decision to use it had nothing to do with the R's feelings.

I'll play devil's advocate with you. If we all thought the R's were innocent, would we give them a pass for "letting" a program using pageant footage of their daughter? If media coverage would be beneficial to finding JonBenet's killer, would we find it okay that the R's didn't have a problem with the footage because that footage meant more coverage? 'Cause I have noticed on WS that people are very critical when families (even ones viewed as completely innocent) do anything to hinder the media coverage their child's case can receive.

 

[dodie20]

If the R's had asked the media to not use the footage during an interview, the media might have agreed. Especially if they wanted the R's on their program. But in just a normal segment about the case, in which the family is not being interviewed? No way. There is no way that the media was going to stop using the footage just because the parents requested them to stop. This case would be out of the news in January 1997 if it weren't for that pageant footage. That footage brought in viewers which meant more ad revenue, and the media's decision to use it had nothing to do with the R's feelings.

I'll play devil's advocate with you. If we all thought the R's were innocent, would we give them a pass for "letting" a program using pageant footage of their daughter? If media coverage would be beneficial to finding JonBenet's killer, would we find it okay that the R's didn't have a problem with the footage because that footage meant more coverage? 'Cause I have noticed on WS that people are very critical when families (even ones viewed as completely innocent) do anything to hinder the media coverage their child's case can receive.

Even if they were innocent, I wouldn't give them a pass and I would still wonder what in God's name was wrong with these people. Also, I would be really angry at these parents for basically displaying their daughter on a silver platter, for a pedophile. When I first started seeing the videos and pictures, I really was appalled and figured some stalker from the pageant system had murdered JB.

 

[dodie20]

If the R's had asked the media to not use the footage during an interview, the media might have agreed. Especially if they wanted the R's on their program. But in just a normal segment about the case, in which the family is not being interviewed? No way. There is no way that the media was going to stop using the footage just because the parents requested them to stop. This case would be out of the news in January 1997 if it weren't for that pageant footage. That footage brought in viewers which meant more ad revenue, and the media's decision to use it had nothing to do with the R's feelings.

I'll play devil's advocate with you. If we all thought the R's were innocent, would we give them a pass for "letting" a program using pageant footage of their daughter? If media coverage would be beneficial to finding JonBenet's killer, would we find it okay that the R's didn't have a problem with the footage because that footage meant more coverage? 'Cause I have noticed on WS that people are very critical when families (even ones viewed as completely innocent) do anything to hinder the media coverage their child's case can receive.

You're right about the media and ratings, but I still would have expected the Rs to make the effort to keep those pictures off the air and out of magazines. If they were innocent, one of their main concerns should have been that a pageant pedophile did this, so looking at those pictures should have made them sick. They could have explained to the public that they had made a mistake with the pageants and clothes and pictures and they regretted these decisions, because they may have led to their daughter's murder. I guess what I'm trying to say, is I don't blame the media, I blame the Rs for putting their daughter in this position in the 1st place. If there had been no showgirl costume, for instance, there would have been no showgirl pics or videos. And I know the media can be exploitive, but when this story 1st broke, I think a lot of the pageant coverage was because it was so bizarre... a little sub-culture that people didn't realize was so weird and sexualized. moo

 

[madeleine]

If the R's had asked the media to not use the footage during an interview, the media might have agreed. Especially if they wanted the R's on their program. But in just a normal segment about the case, in which the family is not being interviewed? No way. There is no way that the media was going to stop using the footage just because the parents requested them to stop. This case would be out of the news in January 1997 if it weren't for that pageant footage. That footage brought in viewers which meant more ad revenue, and the media's decision to use it had nothing to do with the R's feelings.

I'll play devil's advocate with you. If we all thought the R's were innocent, would we give them a pass for "letting" a program using pageant footage of their daughter? If media coverage would be beneficial to finding JonBenet's killer, would we find it okay that the R's didn't have a problem with the footage because that footage meant more coverage? 'Cause I have noticed on WS that people are very critical when families (even ones viewed as completely innocent) do anything to hinder the media coverage their child's case can receive.

I would give them a pass for making such a mistake,using a pageant video ...I wonder why their lawyers never stopped them though,wasn't such a good idea after all....the problem is they released way too many pageant photos and videos,that wasn't real JB....but maybe it was a strategy. and not just a simple mistake ..trying to convince the public that this is how the "sick puppy" targeted her

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I would give them a pass for making such a mistake,using a pageant video ...I wonder why their lawyers never stopped them though,wasn't such a good idea after all....the problem is they released way too many pageant photos and videos,that wasn't real JB....but maybe it was a strategy. and not just a simple mistake ..trying to convince the public that this is how the "sick puppy" targeted her

Where did you hear that it was the Ramseys that released that pageant pictures/videos? Because I have read many old articles from January 1997 that say that it was the photographers and the pageants themselves that sold/released them. That is why all pageant photos of JonBenet say "(C) Mark Fix" or (C) Randy Simmons" on them because those were the photographers.

January 9, 1997:

A photographer hired to take "cover girl" shots of JonBenet Ramsey in makeup and curls has sold the entire portfolio to a New York City agency for $7,500 after stashing the negatives in a rural bank vault.

I find it hard to believe that the R's could have sold the pictures to the media, and that would never, ever be made publicly known. (I have access to an online database of 30,000 newspaper articles about the case...Nada about that). (Unfortunately, it's down right now).

 

[madeleine]

if it wasn't them why did they never sue all those magazines?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

if it wasn't them why did they never sue all those magazines?

Sue the magazines...for what? Any lawsuit would open them up to a barrage of even more criticism. I am not saying that they minded the image of JBR put out there; They might have seen how much publicity it was getting them. Just that I have never read a source that says the R's released/sold that footage.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Here is information about JonBenet's photos. These are the words of the founder of Zuma Images, who owns the pictures:

http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/76899/story-behind-the-picture-who-owns-jonbenet-photos/

ZUMA is exclusive representative to all pageant pictures. Every event she competed at, we represent every known event and photographer and video photographer of those events. Our photographers own the copyright and we represent them, exclusively. Due to the way pageants are organized, no one except the official photographer was allowed to shoot any pictures or video of any kind at any of the events JonBenet competed in.

ZUMA reps all but two of the studio photographers. One photographer is represented by another agency and the other as far as I know did not wish to have his images run in magazines out of respect for the victim. We work hard to protect his rights too, despite the lack of ability to market his images.

ZUMA also reps two photographers who made images of JonBenet in parades.

Other than that, the only other images I know of are snap shots by John (her father), which he included in his book.

All told we rep over 20 people on this story.

All photographers since these images were made in 1993 and after are automatically owners of the copyright, unless they assigned it over. Which none have done.

So unless he is lying, it looks like it was the pageant photographers and videographers who released/sold the pictures to the image agency. And then when the media wants to use an image, they have to license it. And am I reading it right, or does it sound like the copyright holders still make money off of the picture/videos every time it is used?

 

[otg]

IIRC, it seems like I remember reading at one time that the R's "selectively shared" some unpublished photos/videos when they did interviews with some "news sources" (Probably did this when LW's billing records showed up on their doorstep.). The idea is that these so-called "news sources" don't pay for interviews, but they will pay for the use of privately owned material during a broadcast. This is a wink-wink/nudge-nudge way of their being able to say they don't "pay" for interviews.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I only started hearing the whole "They don't pay for interviews--They pay for pictures!" after the Casey Anthony case. Why couldn't the media just put bids for an interview and the highest one wins? I believe it was much different 10+ years ago. I'm sure the Ramseys got paid for interviews, but it was never brought up in the media. Nowadays, a child goes missing and someone always accuses the parents of trying to "get rich" from it. I believe that nowadays, they have to use the whole "picture excuse" but back in the 90s, the issue of parents making $$ from their child's case was not as prominent.

The parents of murdered 6-year-old JonBenet chose Walters over such heavy hitters as ABC's Diane Sawyer, CBS's Dan Rather and NBC's Katie Couric and Ann Curry for their first in-depth interview since JonBenet 's death in December 1996.

When networks are offering their most famous reporters to interview someone, for someone's first in-depth interview, you can bet yourself that a lot of money is being offered.

Less persuasive with Nelson publisher Rolf Zettersten were Dan Rather and Diane Sawyer, associates said - despite cajoling tokens both sent from Tiffany.

Dan Rather and Diane Sawyer both tried to get interviews but lost out - despite sending the publishing house gifts from Tiffany.

One little sentence in an article about their media blitz, and that's it. Nowadays, people would go crazy if they heard that the media was sending $$ or gifts to parents of missing/murdered children. And if the publishers were getting something from Tiffany--what do you think the R's were getting?

I honestly doubt that the media paid them for pictures. They paid them for an interview--period. It was not like today when a parent opens their mouth, and people already start speculating how much money they've made off the case. It was just not a controversial issue back then, for whatever reason. The media was not hiding behind any "We don't pay for interviews---We pay for pictures!" back then.