PARENTS KILLED AMBER ALERT ISSUED FOR 13-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER
---
POLICE NEED PUBLIC'S HELP IN FINDING MISSING AND PREGNANT KIERRA COLES

The Depos - Oh, The Depos

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Theonly1, Jun 18, 2014.

  1. Theonly1

    Theonly1 New Member

    Messages:
    2,431
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Websleuthers,

    I have been re-reading all the depositions and interviews posted on FFJ. What an eye-opener. They are really worth discussing in depth so I started a thread for them all.

    Some opening thoughts. Wow. The 2000 PR interview was crazy or cray-cray. The Chief apparently agreed that only certain avenues would be gone into regarding issues that had come up since the previous interview (years prior). The attorney for PR, in my opinion, took the letter / the opening salvo / prelude to talk as word for word. In my opinion, PRs attorney WANTED the questions asked but also did not want her to answer most of them, for each of his lengthy solliloquies each objection. At first, as I recall they were discussing new suspects or new info so that went reasonably okay. But the minute anything that COULD have been asked before was asked it was like two pitbulls were put in a ring. I have been a paralegal. I have been to law school and used to reading depos. Those interviews were off the chain. At least two attorneys would be engaged in god knows how long p*ssing contests at each objection. Especially over inane things like what PATSY wrote in their book. Like, why does she have to see each page before she can respond? Did she not write the book? The amnesia! It was like unless Patsy could have her memory refreshed by her counsel making the questioner show her anything she was usually not allowed to answer. Some of it was pure piffle! Let her answer the G-darn question. So...that was a real eye-opener about what all they were freaking out about. You can read between the lines.

    Yes, police are allowed to lie to witnesses to get them to confess, etc. BUT in this case, they would say "the pineapple matched the rind on the counter" (for example - not exact) Can you explain why or when she may have eaten it? Instead of the standard, "I do not know" her attorney, in my opinion, would have a fit, parse words and demand to see the report. Each.and.every.time.

    They were salivating for reports, clearly to me. The DA and whoever were in the room with the Chief (because by this time the Ramseys were getting it their way) would get so frustrated. They had to "take 5" I do not know how many times? 7? After a battle. And PRs attorney wanted the questions asked, in my opinion, so he could ferret out what they knew. For instance, the police kept asking PR if she painted while wearing the coat. One could draw the inference that paint flecks were later found on the coat. They slap out told her atty at one point that her coat fibers were on JBR, on the duct tape, in the paint tray, in the garrote etc. The attorney, without seeing fiber reports would not let her answer at all. AND he said even IF they gave reports over she still may not answer. The interview was halte because they were like, you are objecting to everything. Instead of saying, "okay, we are done," her attorney was BEGGING for the other questions. I mean, read it.

    On the Arndt depo, my eyes got as big as hers. Man, I think she did get screwed but the chances of her proving it seemed slim. She flat out said JR molested JBR. Flat out. She also talked about "incest" and it be a family affair! Seemingly, she had no bone to pick with the Ramseys, her bone was against her bosses and them not sticking up for her, clearing her name, and doing all kinds of marginalizing of her. Her case did not seem provable by the depo alone but she did a lot of bean-spilling. She said so much bs had been put out there. That she was NOT close to Patsy, fyi. She also said she believed JR killed JBR.

    The John Ramsey depos were no less interesting. Both Ramseys act in the beginning as they can think of no one in the world who woukd hurt JBR but once the screws get out to them then they throw out names like crazy, in my opinion. It is sick.

    Oh yeah, and allegedly according to the GJ testimony as recounted in the depos, BR said he owned the Hi-techs. The were boots with compasses on them. Patsy vehemently denied knowing anyyyyyyyyything about it. Also, back to Patsy's later depo, she did not know shite about shite about their own investigations or anything. Anything that seemed like it logically should be known she would throw on John or her attorneys. Apparently, their gang wanted to do a presentation like an intruder thing and since they could not then she never bothered to hear what was going to be said. Huh? I mean, reading those depos is just like SHE MOVED ON. No curiousity about the case, what you are paying people allegedly a lot of money to investigate? I mean, LOL.


    Anyway, early take aways:
    Arndt says JR molest and killed.
    Burke allegedly said the Hi-tecs were his.
    There may have also been paint traces on PRs jacket.
    Oh, and PR got a big case of amnesia about the Bloomies. Said the pack was in JBRs drawer. Tried to act like she could fit into them and as long as panties "not around her ankles" it was okay!
     
  2. Frigga

    Frigga New Member

    Messages:
    5,229
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks- I will now go and read!
     
  3. bettybaby00

    bettybaby00 New Member

    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can someone link the page?? I never seem to be able to navigate that site :(

    TIA
     
  4. gramcracker

    gramcracker Indentured Cat Servant

    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    36
  5. bettybaby00

    bettybaby00 New Member

    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
  6. Theonly1

    Theonly1 New Member

    Messages:
    2,431
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You will love it, if you do not mind the legalese.
     
  7. Anti-K

    Anti-K New Member

    Messages:
    1,874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Depositions and interviews are two different things. The police, even prosecutors - anyone - can lie in the interviews, but they cannot lie in the depositions.
    ...

    AK
     
  8. BOESP

    BOESP Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,746
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Even defense lawyers can lie. Just didn't want any hurt feelings by leaving out anyone by name. Some folks even lie under oath (as in a sworn deposition). :loveyou:
     
  9. WhereAreTheyNow

    WhereAreTheyNow Member

    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Repeating my take on the Ramsey legal team - particularly L. Wood during the questioning and depositions in Atlanta - from a similar thread many moons ago......

    .......and fully prepared for a similar backlash,

    Whether innocent or guilty, as the prime suspects, what is most important during police questioning: (A) Try to help find the killer or (B) Stay out of jail? Of course the defense lawyers objected to every question and tried to frustrate LE.

    Preemptively: Yes, the first formal interview was 4 months after the murder - I got it.

    IMO Morgan and Wood represented the Ramseys masterfully. They were simply focused on (B).
     
  10. Anti-K

    Anti-K New Member

    Messages:
    1,874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They cannot legally/ethically lie in the depositions.
    ...

    AK
     
  11. BOESP

    BOESP Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,746
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If they get caught, sure, they are legally liable. Ethics are another matter and I see several unethical situations from both sides of the Ramsey investigation fence.

    The Ramseys certainly lied about several things. Bill Clinton lied (as in committed perjury) in the highest court in the land and he came out smelling like a rose. Mark Fuhrman lied in the OJ trial.

    I find it naive to believe people don't lie under oath.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree.
     
  12. Theonly1

    Theonly1 New Member

    Messages:
    2,431
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Chief and the state attorneys agreed in the follow-up interviews there would be no lying. Just fyi. That would have been unethical from attorney to attorney.
     
  13. Anti-K

    Anti-K New Member

    Messages:
    1,874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You’re citing witnesses who lied. We’re not talking about witnesses and we’re not talking about people lying under oath. And, no one was questioned under oath for the depos and/or interviews that we are talking about.

    Persons conducting interviews for the depositions are not permitted to lie. That’s what I’m talking about – the interviewers, NOT the interviewees!
    Of course, such persons conducting interviews for the depositions might lie anyway, but it is not permitted. And the risk is incredibly high.
    ...

    AK
     
  14. Anti-K

    Anti-K New Member

    Messages:
    1,874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh? I missed that one.
    ...

    AK
     
  15. DeDee

    DeDee Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,663
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    63
    C&P of the following priceless posts that are found on the PR Interview thread.

    The Ransom Note

    The Red Heart on JonBenét's Hand


    The Prior Sexual Abuse

    The Bible

    The Flashbacks

    The Lampoon

    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48250&page=5
     
  16. DeDee

    DeDee Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,663
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I am not with understanding this remark. The Police Interviews were actually Police Interrogations. Urban Legend changed the term to infer the interrogators went too easy on the witnesses. The deponents were under oath during their interview/depositions. What would be the point of deposing anyone if they weren't held to the standard of truth?

    If LE ever misled the Rs, it might have been once, when they asked about JRs shirt fibers conveniently planted in the crotch of JonBenét's panties. It's the only evidence that forensically ties JR intimately to the crime scene. But ST gave JR a pass on the abuse....

    Lou Smit likes to talk. Even though we interpret the evidence differently, he revealed quite a bit of information in his depo.
     
  17. Anti-K

    Anti-K New Member

    Messages:
    1,874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your confusion is understandable – I misspoke (I was wrong). As you point out, the testimony for the depositions would have been under oath.
    However, the testimony given during the interviews, or interrogations, or whatever you want to call them – as opposed to the depositions – to my knowledge would not have been given under oath.

    It doesn’t really matter, because I was talking about the interrogators, not the witnesses. The interrogators are permitted to lie during the interviews, but not during the depositions.

    This is an important distinction. Assuming that interrogators act as permitted than we can presume – for example – that information gleaned from Wood’s questioning of Thomas is factually true, but, information gleaned from Smit’s questioning of Ramsey during the ’98 interviews might not be factually true; etc.
    ...

    AK
     
  18. THE BUNK

    THE BUNK New Member

    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even if your being misled in the box, that's still no reason for you not to tell the truth. The purpose of a detective trying to misled a suspect is for them to make a mistake in their deception and lie.

    If you are telling the truth, you just tell the truth. You don't make up the truth on the fly.

    If I tell you in an interrogation that the sky is green. A truthful person says "What!" or tell you no the sky is blue" or he simply skips over the question.

    A liar will start to tell a story saying "well some people have told me the sky is green. At times yesterday I noticed it was kind of greenish.." The liar spins a story and doesn't realize that what the interrogator is saying is wrong.
     

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