Solved or not?

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by madeleine, Jun 21, 2013.

?

If police would have interviewed the Ramsey's separately one day one/case solved ?

  1. Yes,they would have solved it pretty quickly

    48 vote(s)
    70.6%
  2. No

    20 vote(s)
    29.4%
  1. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I started this poll outta frustration (even if I kinda guess what the result will be....)
    I am pretty sure that this would have been a pretty easy case to solve if done by the book
     
  2. Loading...


  3. eileenhawkeye

    eileenhawkeye Active Member

    Messages:
    8,769
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Couldn't they have both still used their lawyers to not talk to LE?
     
  4. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They probably would have and they did refuse (even if they put a different spin on it)...I guess I was thinking of "act like a real innocent person and sit down with LE" ...lots of guilty people take the chance,makes them look better...my feeling is one of them would have cracked if taken by surprise by some smart good questions (and I mean those first days,not after having the chance to rehearse with the lawyers)
     
  5. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    IF everything would have been done by the book the Ramseys would never have laid their eyes on the questions LE was preparing for them,right?
    If people in the DA office wouldn't have been friends with the suspects the interviews would have had a different format,no?
     
  6. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :banghead:

    8 MR. WOOD: I understand it, Mr.

    9 Kane. Now listen to me.

    10 I was asked, and my clients

    11 agreed to answer new questions about

    12 information that has been obtained since June

    13 of 1998 after three full days of interviews

    14 which had been followed by April of 1997 in

    15 almost a full day of an interview by Patsy

    16 Ramsey, new questions about new information

    17 since June of 1998 or developments that have

    18 come up since June of 1998.

    19 That was the request made by

    20 Chief Beckner. That was what we agreed to

    21 do because that is what we were asked to do.

    22 Now, if you want to change the

    23 format, then let's consider that after we

    24 finish this format. But I didn't ask Patsy

    25 Ramsey or John Ramsey to go back and study

    0102

    1 what they had said before to try to memorize

    2 it or refresh their recollections,
    period,

    3 because it was represented to me that you

    4 weren't going to do that.

    5 So if you do it, I am not really

    6 directing her not to answer it. I am

    7 directing you that you are outside of the

    8 scope of your request and, therefore, your

    9 question is not fair and appropriate. It is

    10 as simple as that. I am not trying to be

    11 difficult.



    why do you need to go back and study/memorize statements if you are telling the truth?it's done only when you're lying DUH
     
  7. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0


    No. The Ramseys were under no obligation to talk to the police, ever. They could set limits and conditions on any interviews, and the police could take it or leave it. The Ramseys were well advised by their legal team, and exercised their rights very intelligently.

    The police are used to having their way, but the Ramseys weren't going to go along with anything that didn't suit them, and they didn't have to.

    It didn't hurt that they had a friendly DA's office, but even with a hostile DA's office the Rs could have done exactly the same thing.
     
  8. douce40

    douce40 New Member

    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Standard police procedure, I believe, is to ask delicately to come down to police station for separate interviews immediately after the body is found. This not only disallows parents from getting their story straightened out if guilty but also allows parents to record their thoughts while the happenings are still fresh in their memory. If they refused to do this it is a definite red flag. Unfortunately LE did not ask them to do this.

    It certainly could have helped this case get solved even if they were just asked and they refused. You think things look suspicious now, imagine their dead daughter at their feet just discovered, and they refuse to help police. They couldn't use the 'LE bad treatment' excuse at that point.
     
  9. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Just to elaborate on that: Chrishope is quite correct. The US Constitution clearly states that a suspect can refuse to cooperate with police for any reason. And that's where the problem begins in this case, I think, in this way: if you don't want to talk to the cops, that's fine. No one can force you to do so. But don't refuse, then turn right around and publicly claim that you cooperated fully.

    As Wendy Murphy said so eloquently, you have a right to keep silent. You DON'T have a right to lie.
     
  10. fruity

    fruity Active Member

    Messages:
    3,296
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Well said.
     
  11. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is this thing about JR that p!@#$ me off....he suggests that it was Bynum who told him straight away that they need a lawyer because the cops are targeting them....and he (conveniently) accepted (excuse) because he was such a mess and so confused and it was better to let someone else take care of it....

    but
    did Bynum smell that something's not right when he said that or did he just know that usually parents are investigated first( just being cautious) ?

    anyway,there is a chapter in Kolar's book in which he outlines all JR's contradicting statements re lawyering up...thanks for that

    it's their priorities that bother me....which were trying to get out of town and refusing to cooperate...not the fact that they hired lawyers....it's how it was done,when and all the rest
     
  12. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For a long time I felt that PR would have cracked if pushed....I think I changed my mind...it's JR that always got aggressive when he felt "insulted" by key questions...it's risky when you lose your temper,especially when you're a narcissist and a control freak
     
  13. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,193
    Likes Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    63
    madeleine,
    I think this is what ST thought also. Yet she never, and she had some answers, but not for the size-12's, and everyone and their dog, including the DocG theorists know that if there is one person who should know what underwear JonBenet was wearing it should be PR, after all she made the very public point of telling everyone that Nedra Paugh chaperoned JonBenet when she was absent, i.e. problem, what problem?

    So if DocG is correct just why is PR backing JR up, and not telling us what she underwear she dressed JonBenet in prior to the White's Christmas party.

    Simples is it not?

    .
     
  14. Darlene733510

    Darlene733510 Active Member

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I think that PR could be quite a "drama queen" herself. My opinion is still that both parents staged the scene and covered for BR.
     
  15. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,193
    Likes Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Darlene733510,
    And I might think you are correct, JDI alone, does not explain away all the evidence.

    .
     
  16. Nom de plume

    Nom de plume New Member

    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Specifically, what does it not explain?
     
  17. BOESP

    BOESP Active Member

    Messages:
    2,746
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    For starters:

    John was excluded from having written the note but Patsy was not excluded.

    Patsy stated she was usually the one to get JonBenet ready for bed and that she usually checked on her around midnight to make sure she went to "potty."

    Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl holding pineapple physically and chemically consistent with pineapple found in JonBenet's upper digestive tract during the autopsy. Iirc, Burke's prints were found on the bowl as well but not John's.

    According to Linda Hoffman-Pugh only she and Patsy knew where the Swiss Army knife was hidden that subsequently was found at the site and possibly used in the staging or re-staging of JonBenet's death.

    It doesn't explain Patsy's behavior the morning JonBenet was found and thereafter. If psychological profiling and behavioral analysis is good enough for the FBI it's good enough for me. Patsy acted suspicious and she lied ... more than once.

    Hope this short list helps get a discussion started on why Patsy couldn't be eliminated.
     
  18. questfortrue

    questfortrue Member

    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Hi, Boesp,
    OK, I’ll bite. Disclaimer: As a recent poster, I don’t have all the background of longtime posters and don’t have a fully formulated theory.

    From what I’ve read, there are an assortment of reasons for non-elimination of PR - as well as the other members of the household. And multiple reasons for a cover up.

    Stating the obvious, the 2 critical aspects of this crime to consider:
    1) Who harmed JB first
    2) Then, who covered up the homicide and why


    If one looks backward from the motives for the cover-up, one might be able to ascertain who harmed JB first. The theory that has risen to the top in the Websleuths and Forumsforjustice forums seems to be BDI. As I’ve understood Kolar, he seems to indicate that a BDI is the only motive that good loving parents like JR and PR could have to execute this amateur but convoluted cover-up. And in Kolar’s view PR and JR never would have harmed JB. PR said several times that “they had no history of violence in their family.”

    Again motives in cover up - I don’t know how many times I’ve read that PR would never cover for JR, so she must not initially have known what he’d done. Or JR would have thrown PR to the wolves if she’d been the first to harm JB, unless she just sprung the whole thing on him when he awoke and his response was reactive to circle the wagons and protect his family.

    So here’s my limited but further expanded thoughts on cover-up motives:
    1) Parents cover up for BR in order to rescue him and salvage their reputations and lives. Simple and succinct. Occams razor, etc.
    2) But, if PDI, PR has something on JR, something big, like a molestation issue or an affair and she convinces him to help her in order to rescue their lives, and BR. She also knows BR will need his father (and JR’s money) in the event her cancer returns. She makes a deal.
    3) Or, if JDI, JR threatens PR with losing BR, if she turns him in. (BR would be removed from an unsafe home environment and raised in foster care?) JR may have come up with scary enough threats, that she is willing to do whatever, in order to save BR. JR makes a deal.
    Simply ideas. We don’t know definitively who molested JB and that’s critical to all of this. MHO.
     
  19. Nom de plume

    Nom de plume New Member

    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is true, but it is only a matter of opinion, not science that excluded him.

    "Usually" being the key word here. JR said he carried her up to bed that night. Either way it doesn't make one or the other innocent or guilty, except of lying.

    So? I fail to see how this clears JR of the murder, and finds PR guilty. Yes, she lied about the pineapple. Why it would be something to lie about is still a mystery to me.


    Yes, that is what she said. It's possible PR could have told JR where it was though. I will agree that it makes PR look suspicious, if not guilty.

    No it doesn't. That's the one thing that keeps me from being totally JDI alone. Her behavior was totally bizarre that morning. And her lies just kept stacking up, but then again, so did JR's.
     
  20. BOESP

    BOESP Active Member

    Messages:
    2,746
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Above is your original question in response to:

    "Originally Posted by UKGuy[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9590476#post9590476"][​IMG][/ame]

    Darlene733510,
    And I might think you are correct, JDI alone, does not explain away all the evidence.. "


    You didn't ask what evidence proves John was the killer but your responses below seem to say you are looking for evidence that proves John did it. If I am wrong in this assumption please correct me. Investigative procedure looks for all evidence then evaluates it after the fact instead of looking for evidence that proves or disproves what the investigator already believes.

    Please, we are talking about highly trained people who specialize in handwriting analysis coming to the conclusion John could be eliminated but Patsy could not. The bias factor, imo, leans more toward QDEs working for the Ramseys than those working for the prosecution.

    Patsy giving statements that indicate she was the last person to see JonBenet alive are extremely important. John may have carried JonBenet upstairs to bed (or not) but Patsy and/or John both stated Patsy was the one who prepared JonBenet for bed and who usually checked on her around midnight, which implies both adults believed Patsy was the last known person to have seen JonBenet alive. Note: Patsy was indirect about answering whether or not she checked on JonBenet at midnight the night JonBenet died. This statement in itself could be discussed and cussed in a separate thread.

    Again, your original question didn't ask for information that cleared John and found Patsy guilty. My opinion of why she lied is because she didn't want to be linked to an event that implicated her being in contact with JonBenet after saying she'd already prepared the sleeping JonBenet for bed upstairs in JonBenet's bedroom. Lou Smit called the pineapple a "bugaboo." In other words, Smit was saying the pineapple was incriminating.

    It's possible little green men are watching me type this ... prove me wrong (sorry ... the devil makes me be snarky on occasion :blushing:).

    I agree with the above. I'd say the police know who did it and presented their evidence to the DA's office, who did nothing. In addition, the Grand Jury returned an indictment against both adult Ramseys. Again, the DA's office did nothing. :stormingmad:
     
  21. Nom de plume

    Nom de plume New Member

    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :kimsterwink: or :ufo: ?? LOL

    I guess we misunderstood each other. ITA the evidence has to lead to the suspect and not the other way around. I've spent many years studying this evidence without having a firm belief about it, except RDI. I was just trying to look at all of it and see which one has the most evidence against them.

    For the last few months, I was leaning towards JDI alone, but wasn't 100% convinced. I've recently changed my mind to JR & PR both being guilty. I read something that some may, and some may not, consider evidence, I do. I tried to bump a thread about it, but it disappeared, so I'm guessing :kimsterwink: or :ufo: are to blame, so I'll just leave it at that.
     

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