Read this and tell me the Ramseys aren't hiding something ...

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Cherokee, Jan 28, 2004.

  1. Cherokee

    Cherokee Member

    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    This is cooperation from parents who wanted justice for their murdered daughter? Oh yeah. I forgot. They said they weren't angry at whomever killed "that child." They only got angry when they were asked to cooperate with the investigation.


    http://abcnews.go.com/onair/GoodMorningAmerica/gma000411Jonbenet_trans2.html

    NEW YORK, April 11 - What follows is a transcript of Thomas' interview with ABCNEWS' Elizabeth Vargas.

    ABCNEWS' Elizabeth Vargas: In the Ramseys' own book, which came out a couple of weeks ago, they have a chapter in there called "A Chronicle of Cooperation", where they say, 'We talked to the police the 26th, the 27th, the 28th. We gave them long interviews, we gave them handwriting samples, DNA samples, pubic hair samples. We gave them everything they wanted.'

    Steven Thomas: Their assertion now that they cooperated fully with this investigation, I find absurd. We had to wait four months before we could interview these people surrounding-and ask questions face to face surrounding the death of their daughter.

    Vargas: What do they mean then when they say, 'We talked to police on the 26th, and on the 27th, and on the 28th?'

    Thomas: On the 26th they certainly did talk to us during the kidnapping phase of this thing. On the night of the 27th, there was this limited brief exchange, which I guess they're characterizing as an interview, when in fact the detectives were there to arrange an interview.

    Vargas: (VO) as for that physical evidence, what they call non-testimonial evidence, by Colorado law, the police can easily demand samples of handwriting, blood, DNA.

    Thomas: They had no choice but to cooperate with the non-testimonial evidence, because in a snap we could have gotten that through a simple affidavit. But what we couldn't make them do was answer questions. Yeah, they gave us blood, gave us handwriting, gave us hair, but when the case was red hot, when we needed the parents the most in those early critical days, we had to wait four months to be able to ask them the most elementary of questions.

    Vargas: You say in the book as well that when the Ramseys did agree to sit down and talk to you, there were several conditions attached. What were they?

    Thomas: We did have these conditions that were just not acceptable. Which detective would do the interviewing, who would be in the room, a doctor, the attorneys, the forum and time that the questioning would continue, and Patsy's I think was not to exceed an hour. And the FBI, said 'This is absurd. You cannot interview people under these conditions.' So, again, when they say, 'We offered to come in', it was with this incredible set of parameters that were just not acceptable to a police department.

    Vargas: (VO) The Ramsey legal team wanted a deal. They asked for materials rarely given to suspects in a crime & including John and Patsy's prior statements, copies of the autopsy report and the ransom note, and police reports. Thomas says the Ramseys made it clear that if, and only if, they got what they wanted would the Ramseys sit down for a formal interview.

    Vargas: But if you really wanted the information, what's wrong with agreeing to some of those conditions? Does that compromise you in some way? Does that give them too much of an advantage?

    Thomas: Well, I'll tell you, advantage, what do you mean advantage? When the DA's Office was shoveling by the wheelbarrow full, our case file to Team Ramsey. Yeah, you talk about an advantage. somebody that the police wanted to question, I think I would be hard pressed to say, "Hey, detective, I'll answer your questions, but let me take a look at your case file there, before I answer". Believe me, a poor kid killed in the projects, a blue-collar working stiff, you know, a guy who's a carpenter or a welder out there, are not afforded these concessions that kept being made to the Ramseys, that's not what I would characterize as their chronicle of cooperation.

    Vargas: (VO) The district attorney made a deal. The police were forced to turn over the documents.

    Thomas: The Ramsey experts got to come into the police department and review evidence. They got to look at the ligature and the garrote. They came in and did studies of the ransom note. We were handing over photographs of evidence, including sensitive ransom note information. And at one point I told the police department, I told my supervisor. I said, 'I am not going to participate in this.' I said, 'I want my refusal duly noted.'

    Vargas: (VO) We contacted several experts in general police and investigative procedures-they say these concessions made to the Ramseys were highly unusual. Finally, on April 30th, 1997, Steve Thomas sat down in a conference room at the district attorney's office. With Patsy were her attorney and the Ramsey's own private investigator. Thomas claims the entire interview was undermined. He says the police would now question intelligent, well-coached suspects who could study for their interviews as if preparing for a high school test.

    (Thanks to Peggy Lakin, author of "Journey Beyond Reason" for bringing this interview to the public's attention once again.)


    IMO
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Toth

    Toth Inactive

    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They were indeed cooperating and even during the non-testimonial stuff answered all questions put to them. They wanted to meet with the BPD, it was the BPD that refused. Patsy couldn't get to the bathroom without assistance and they wanted her to come down to police headquarters. how foolish is that?
    meanwhile the Ramseys were talking to other investigators who were not the overly fanaticized BPD. They talked to DA investigators too, during this period I believe.
     
  4. Shylock

    Shylock Former Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So Patsy didn't go to the bathroom for FOUR MONTHS??? Gee, no wonder she's so fat now!...LOL

    Sorry Toth, but only GUILTY parents of a murdered child act like the Ramseys. Innocent parents, like the Van Damms, are relentless in doing anything they can to find the guilty person. They don't stick their head in the sand and make conditional demands before they will talk to the police.
     
  5. K777angel

    K777angel New Member

    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's right Shylock. The Ramseys are liars if they claim the police "didn't want to talk to them." Baloney. The police desperately wanted to talk with them - the Ramseys wouldn't do it. They listed all kinds of "conditions" before they'd agree to meet with the police - and when the FBI heard about it they told the Boulder Police to absolutely NOT agree to those kinds of ridiculous conditions. And mind you - this was still FOUR MONTHS after JonBenet was murdered. FOUR MONTHS.
    The parents had every opportunity to walk right up to the police station and talk with the police. It is what all innocent parents with nothing to hide of murdered children do. They HOUND the police. They beg to know what they've found out. They do not care one iota that the police might suspect them - (Ask John and Reeve Walsh and Mark Klass....) Because they know they are innocent and have nothing to hide - they are EAGER to cooperate with the police.
    The Ramseys called lawyers from day one - and very possibly before they ever even placed that 911 call.
    They tried to flee the state only a half an hour after finding their daughter dead and cold body.
    They NEVER asked questions of the police or other authorities: "How did she die?" "What happened?" "What do you know?"

    It is inexcusable how they conducted themselves in the days (and then months and then years) after JonBenet was killed.
    They can't speak with the police because they are "too distraught" - but by golly they can go on national television (CNN) the DAY AFTER they bury JonBenet and talk.
    And they wonder why people don't believe them.... :liar:
     
  6. gretchen

    gretchen Former Member

    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Very good points! K777Angel! Oh yeah, Patsy couldn't even go to the bathroom without help, but she could give a CNN interview without assistance, couldn't she?
    It really amazed me that John was making arrangements to fly to Atlanta while his brutally murdered daughter was lying in their living room by the Christmas tree. What was he going to do? Leave her there alone? An innocent parent would do that? Sorry Ram's, your money isn't good enough for me.
     
  7. cookie

    cookie New Member

    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It didn't seem to bother Patsy to go storming into the Boulder police station to take up for their buddy Pasta Joe on February 9th. And she didn't ever seem to be unable to join in the fun of their trick playing on the media. Guess we all pick and choose when we are "unable to cope" with things.
     
  8. tipper

    tipper Former Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    PMPT ppbk. p. 499:

    The police then mentioned the Ramseys' behavior immediately after the body was found: the fact that John Ramsey was ready to fly to Atlanta with his wife and son and leave his daughter's body - and the investigation into her murder - behind; the refusal to cooperate with the police; and the hiring of criminal attorneys. In reply, the FBI pointed out that no two people respond to trauma and grief the same way, and that the police should not overanalyze what they had observed. Most of the time, the parents of a victim are all over the police. "Why the hell haven't you caught my child's killer?" "What's going on? I want to know everything." In this case, the police had to acknowledge that it was their own commander's actions that led to the long postponement of the parents' interviews.
     
  9. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree it was Commander John Eller who set the tone for the mistakes that soon followed on that first day. Eller wanted his detectives to cut the Ramseys some slack because of the Ramseys prominence in the community. As a consequence the cops on the scene violated some cardinal rules, such as not immediately separating John and Patsy and getting detailed indepenent statements from each of them, locking them into what they each perceived happened. The contradictions that would have likely gushed out between the two of them might have solved the case all by itself on that first day.

    JMO
     
  10. why_nutt

    why_nutt New Member

    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The "no two people react the same" sword cuts both ways. As separate individuals with separate lawyers, at any point John could have gone to police while Patsy refused, or Patsy could have gone to police while John refused. Yet, while no two people react the same, we are expected to accomodate the identical reactions of two different people, both of whom just coincidentally have the same reaction as each other of not wanting to be interviewed?

    Let us acknowledge this fact: there was never any, ANY, reason for John to have put off being interviewed formally, on tape, by the Boulder police investigators. He was healthy, he was in control of his mental facilities, he had his own legal representation to protect his interests, he was signing sophisticated and complex legal documents whose validity would have been compromised if he was not capable of understanding them.

    In my constitutionally-protected opinion, it is true that, even if Patsy is to be given a pass, there is no defense for the fact that John Ramsey refused to cooperate with police at points when he was fully physically, mentally, and legally capable of doing so.
     
  11. Cherokee

    Cherokee Member

    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Shylock and K777Angel have already stated it well.

    The Ramseys set CONDITIONS and dictated WHEN they would condescend to even speak with police regarding what they knew.

    What innocent loving parents would care about terms and conditions and wait FOUR MONTHS until being interviewed by LE? And even then, the meeting was only held under terms DICTATED by the Ramseys.

    And don't give me that line of bull that the poor Ramseys were suspects so they had every right to act as they did.

    The Van Dams were initially suspects until they cooperated with police and helped the investigation move on. They certainly didn't set terms and conditions on when they would speak with police.

    Name ONE innocent parent of a missing or murdered child WHO SET CONDITIONS ON THEIR COOPERATION WITH POLICE. Just one. Did Marc Klass? John Walsh? Samantha Runnion's parents? (If you remember, her biological father was a suspect until he cooperated and was cleared by police.)

    Name ONE innocent parent of a murdered child who tried to leave the state LESS THAN ONE HOUR after their child's body was found.

    Name ONE innocent parent who could not be bothered to answer police questions but could go on CNN less than a week later, and say THEY WEREN'T ANGRY AT WHOMEVER KILLED THEIR CHILD, and they just wanted to get on with their lives.

    The Ramseys only agreed to questioning AFTER they knew the questions and had rehearsed their lines. The Ramseys only agreed to cooperate AFTER their lawyers had seen most of the evidence and coached their answers.

    Here is the cold hard truth. Liars evade questioning. Liars have selective memory. Liars blame everyone but themselves when they are caught in the lie.

    The Ramseys are lying about what happened Christmas night.


    IMO
     
  12. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Excellent K777angel! You have said it all. The Ramseys are the only parents in history to deal with the police the way they did. The ONLY ones. So far, nobody has been able to give us any other parents of a victim who have made demands on the investigative forces working to solve their child's murder, despite the numerous requests.

    Don't believe for one minute that anyone "wonders" why people don't believe them. They know damn well why people don't believe them. They have said it themselves several times that they have "made mistakes" and "we would have done some things differently", blah, blah, so when people say they can't understand why people are suspicious, they are blatantly lying
     
  13. Toth

    Toth Inactive

    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I doubt that. I can't understand why anyone ever suspected the parents. I surely can't understand why anyone suspects them now.
    As to talking to the police, it was the Ramsey attorneys who advised against it, but the Ramseys insisted that their attorneys arrange a meeting.
    And if you want to go read PMPT turn to p.499, and then see who it was who refused to allow any meetings to take place for four months!!
     
  14. why_nutt

    why_nutt New Member

    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was true then and it is true now; more than 99% of children murdered in their own homes have been killed by the people who live in that home. You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of children who have been killed by intruders in the child's own home while everyone else in the house has been left alive, and in all of those extremely rare cases, the intruder entered through a bedroom window, moved no more than a few feet to the child, killed it and left the child in the bedroom while leaving again through the same window. It would be stupidity in the extreme for anyone to have approached the Ramsey crime scene while ignoring the whole of history in the process.
     
  15. Angelica

    Angelica Inactive

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are entitled to your opinion, as are the rest of us. It is assumed that you are somehow connected to the Ramseys, given your refusal to grasp why others view their behavior as "hinky". For some of us, many actually, self-preservation takes a back seat to our love for our children. I would question this behavior following the death of a child if it were my very best friend or a family member. I don't hate the Ramseys because they were wealthy but I do resent the fact that they were given concessions that a less wealthy, connected family would have been given in the same situation. Why would parents of a murdered child need to view their previous statements before being interviewed by the police?? What could possibly be gained by that except making sure their stories didn't change? If they knew nothing of what happened to their daughter, this would not have been considered necessary. It's true that we all behave differently in times of crisis but there really is no good explanation for their reluctance to be interviewed.
     
  16. Cherokee

    Cherokee Member

    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16

    Like I said before ... "Liars blame everyone but themselves when they are caught in the lie."

    So the Ramseys and (the RST) blame their attorneys for making them look bad. Oh poor Ramseys. What a bunch of bull.

    Oh yeah the Ramseys insisted their attorneys arrange a meeting ... DICTATED UNDER THEIR OWN TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT THEY KNEW WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE TO COMPETENT LAW ENFORCEMENT.

    No amount of spin can change the facts. No attorney could have kept the Ramseys from cooperating with the investigation IF THE RAMSEYS HAD WANTED TO COOPERATE.

    The Ramseys refused to answer questions for over one third of a year. Think about it. Their child is allegedly murdered by an intruder, and they held out THAT LONG before they would meet with LE. Then, when they were finally interviewed (under their own terms) the Ramseys hedged, and conveniently "forgot" or "didn't know," and got indignant that they were asked to cooperate.

    Their own lies convict them.




    IMO
     
  17. Toth

    Toth Inactive

    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you are drawing a very narrowly prescribed scene. Do you want to limit it to females killed in December?

    As to ''murdered in their own homes'' you would have to adjust the statistics to reflect those that could have been murdered in their own home by an intruder because it was a large enough home for an intruder to take the kid to a place of seeming safety and yet still be inside the home.

    Most such child murders are going to be in poor families with alcohol and drug problems... they rarely live in large homes.
     
  18. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The police were the ones who refused to allow any meetings for four months. We all know that. What you and others refuse to view as questionable is the reason for that.

    Please let me know what police department bows to demands for an interview with the prime suspects of a murder case. Even the Ramseys claim that they understand that they were legitimately the prime suspects and needed to be cleared before the police went elsewhere, so all their verbiage is all lies as is evidenced by their behavior to cooperate and clear the way for the police to look elsewhere.

    Sorry, but I do not believe anyone cannot understand why the Ramseys behavior is not questionable. Nonsense! They understand but there is no proper defense of their behavior so they claim ignorance. That's my opinion, and I think in this instance, a damn accurate one. Even the Ramseys themselves state that they understand why people are suspicious of them. It's all that bad advice they got
     
  19. Imon128

    Imon128 Former Member

    Messages:
    2,064
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Murders know no boundary of social status, large homes, etc., unless you can give us the stats on that. Also, rich people can certainly have drinking and drug problems. Large homes are not limited to the rich, either. The odds are 12 to 1 that JB was killed by a family member/caretaker. It only makes sense to look at the R family first. So far, they can't be eliminated or pulled out from under the umbrella. Also, an intruder wouldn't NEED a large home to go in do what he did to JB.
     
  20. Toth

    Toth Inactive

    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    >It is assumed that you are somehow connected to the Ramseys
    No. My contact with John Ramsey was limited to a very few emails that were limited to factual matters dealing with one particular aspect of the investigation. Certain fundamental facts had to be established before a line of investigation was to be followed.
    My contact with AuntPam took place much later and involved several chats on a variety of occasions and topics. But I am in no way connected to the Ramseys nor ever expect to meet them.

    >I would question this behavior following the death of a child
    I see absolutely nothing to be questioned. Surely, in hindsight, some things might have been done differently. Officer Donut probably wishes he had opened that darned door. John Ramsey probably wishes he had said to the cops: No, we are not going to a hotel as you suggested, we want to be taken to a video camera equipped room. I am very shaken but will try to talk, my wife is utterly unable to talk but you can videotape her lack of composure.
    >but I do resent the fact that they were given concessions that a less
    >wealthy, connected family would have been given in the same situation.
    The Ramseys were not 'connected' and their wealth did not give them anything but the ability to hire lawyers that prevented their being railroaded.
    >Why would parents of a murdered child need to view their previous
    >statements before being interviewed by the police??
    Have you tried to find a single lawyer in Colorado who would not have wanted the prior statement also?

    >there really is no good explanation for their reluctance to be interviewed.
    They were not reluctant to be interviewed. Patsy was not in great shape, initially she had to be helped to the bathroom, she was tanked up on drugs. All the BPD had to do was say 'sure, we will go to the lawyer's conference room, we will remain seated, we will keep our voices down, we will keep it brief and if her doctor says 'stop' we will stop.
     
  21. Imon128

    Imon128 Former Member

    Messages:
    2,064
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you then explain how Patsy was able to ride in a jalopy to CNN to go on TV so quickly?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice