Would you pull a cord

[Holdontoyourhat]

MurriFlower, just about every cop will tell you that it is absolutely VITAL to separate the parents and question them IMMEDIATELY after something like this happens before they have a chance to lawyer up. And if they won't go willingly, then arrest them and take them in just the way I say. The reasons being: A) Their minds will be fresher; B) less time to rehearse a story; C) if they are guilty, their emotions will still be all kicked up and will be more likely to talk.

OK what do YOU think should've happened, should've been done and when.

 

[BBB167893]

Hey SD, thanks for the answer. I know that some think you are the foremost expert on this case, but I was actually looking for some input from another source.

I understand that, MurriFlower. Look, I'm the first to admit that I'm a little quick on the trigger sometimes. But you mentioned my name, so you have to expect that I'm going to jump in. If you're say, "this is what SD has said," then I don't think I'm asking too much for you to know what I said.

Please show me where Crangel said:

She's talking about people who had their day in court and were given actual prison sentences whose causes were then taken up by special lawyers. I'm talking about something much different.
[/QUOTE]

Okay. Here you go:

Quote crangel: we have all heard and seen cases where parents who had absolutly nothing to do with their kids death or disapearence get taken to trial and locked up until they had someone fight for them. I'll even name a few cases. David and Cindi Dowaliby, all those parents that were accused of being in a santanic cult.

In all of those cases crangel mentioned, the accused were arrested, brought to trial, convicted by a jury of their peers, and were eventually released when a BETTER lawyer decided to take up their causes.

 

[DeeDee249]

OK what do YOU think should've happened, should've been done and when.

Hope you don't mind if I jump in here. What should have happened was this:
Upon the first LE arriving at the scene, the parents should have been ushered into separate rooms and prevented from speaking to each other. Then, any persons who were NOT residents of the house (or present when the crime occurred) should have been forced to leave immediately, including clergy and friends. At that point, only lawyers would have been allowed to be present if the family had them at that point. The family should have been Mirandized before being questioned to protect any statements they may have made from being excluded as evidence.
BR should not have been allowed to leave, as he may have been a material witness and at the very least, should have been questioned as to what he may have seen and heard. Innocent parents should have WANTED this, as he may have heard or seen something as his sister was abducted.
Officer French should not have searched the house if he was the only one there, until backup arrived to prevent the parents from speaking to each other. Then, when other LE had arrived, the house could be searched. At no time should the parents had been allowed to walk around the house without LE present. I realize this is "Monday morning quarterback" stuff, but it's all we can do, really.

 

[BBB167893]

OK what do YOU think should've happened, should've been done and when.

Glad you asked.

I would have cleared out the house and called in search dogs. The very INSTANT the body was found, I would have brought the Rs into the police station, separated the two of them and gotten full statements. And if they wouldn't go, I'd arrest them and toss them into holding cells until they agreed to talk.

And that's just what I would have done the first day.

 

[crangel]

Glad you asked.

I would have cleared out the house and called in search dogs. The very INSTANT the body was found, I would have brought the Rs into the police station, separated the two of them and gotten full statements. And if they wouldn't go, I'd arrest them and toss them into holding cells until they agreed to talk.

And that's just what I would have done the first day.

This I agree with 100%. Now let me see if I can explain a little better about my earlier post. The reason I would hire a lawyer is so that my rights were protected and seeing as how I believe I wouldn't be thinking clearly if my child was missing or dead I would have a lawyer present so that words of mine didn't get jumbled and turned around and I would insist on a poly so they could clear me as soon as possable and not waste any more time on me instead of looking for my child or her killer. I hope this helps a little. My meds were kicking in when I wrote the first one. sorry:truce:

 

[BBB167893]

This I agree with 100%. Now let me see if I can explain a little better about my earlier post. The reason I would hire a lawyer is so that my rights were protected and seeing as how I believe I wouldn't be thinking clearly if my child was missing or dead I would have a lawyer present so that words of mine didn't get jumbled and turned around and I would insist on a poly so they could clear me as soon as possible and not waste any more time on me instead of looking for my child or her killer. I hope this helps a little. My meds were kicking in when I wrote the first one. sorry:truce:

It's all cool, crangel.

 

[MurriFlower]

This I agree with 100%. Now let me see if I can explain a little better about my earlier post. The reason I would hire a lawyer is so that my rights were protected and seeing as how I believe I wouldn't be thinking clearly if my child was missing or dead I would have a lawyer present so that words of mine didn't get jumbled and turned around and I would insist on a poly so they could clear me as soon as possable and not waste any more time on me instead of looking for my child or her killer. I hope this helps a little. My meds were kicking in when I wrote the first one. sorry:truce:

Hi Crangel

I'll ask you directly the questions answered by someone else LOL. TIA for your response

Quote:
Originally Posted by crangel View Post
If something horriable ever happened to my child I would get lawyer first thing. The reason being is because LE is always always going to look at the parents first and we have all heard and seen cases where parents who had absolutly nothing to do with their kids death or disapearence get taken to trial and locked up until they had someone fight for them. I'll even name a few cases. David and Cindi Dowaliby, all those parents that were accused of being in a santanic cult. so, I would hire a lawyer and take a poly first thing.

What you are talking is EXACTLY what XX proposes that the BPD should have done in this case. Throw them in jail till one confesses. When the cops didn't do it, he says the DA should have.

So, what you are saying is that having a lawyer to represent you is a way to stop this from happening? Why is this please (I'm not from USA)? I'm thinking the reason may be that if a lawyer can prevent this then perhaps it is neither legal nor ethical?

It certainly sounds like something that would happen in a third world country, not where rule of law,as we understand it (that is innocent until proven guilty) exists.

 

[DeeDee249]

Hi Crangel

I'll ask you directly the questions answered by someone else LOL. TIA for your response




What you are talking is EXACTLY what XX proposes that the BPD should have done in this case. Throw them in jail till one confesses. When the cops didn't do it, he says the DA should have.

So, what you are saying is that having a lawyer to represent you is a way to stop this from happening? Why is this please (I'm not from USA)? I'm thinking the reason may be that if a lawyer can prevent this then perhaps it is neither legal nor ethical?

It certainly sounds like something that would happen in a third world country, not where rule of law,as we understand it (that is innocent until proven guilty) exists.

A lawyer can't stop you from being arrested or put in jail. But our laws allow you NOT to talk to police, whether your lawyer is present or not. Having a lawyer represent you ensures that LE have to deal with the lawyer and not with you. A lawyer can't stop you from being questioned, but he can stop you from answering (and in the R case, that is exactly what happened for many of the questions).
It is both legal and ethical to arrest a suspect for a crime, as it should be in any country, provided there is sufficient evidence. I can think of several countries where no evidence is needed at all- the US is not one of them. In some countries like France, it is "guilty until proven innocent. Not sure if that is still true today. In the US, "innocent until proven guilty" is the norm.
But because we are a free society (at this point anyway) people can THINK whatever they want about a suspect, regardless of the evidence or lack of it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

A lawyer can't stop you from being arrested or put in jail. But our laws allow you NOT to talk to police, whether your lawyer is present or not. Having a lawyer represent you ensures that LE have to deal with the lawyer and not with you. A lawyer can't stop you from being questioned, but he can stop you from answering (and in the R case, that is exactly what happened for many of the questions).
It is both legal and ethical to arrest a suspect for a crime, as it should be in any country, provided there is sufficient evidence. I can think of several countries where no evidence is needed at all- the US is not one of them. In some countries like France, it is "guilty until proven innocent. Not sure if that is still true today. In the US, "innocent until proven guilty" is the norm.
But because we are a free society (at this point anyway) people can THINK whatever they want about a suspect, regardless of the evidence or lack of it.

I don't think arresting the R's would've done anything except embarrass and humiliate the BPD. Perhaps here in the US that policy of 'innocent until proven guilty' would curb some of the lynch mob circular mentality that tends to prevail in these sorts of cases.

I believe there was some similar heinous crime in Italy where the public was so distraught and impatient for closure, police were under great pressure. They arrested several suspects, tried some of them, and in each case they were convinced they had it right. The case is today unsolved.

 

[crangel]

Hi Crangel

I'll ask you directly the questions answered by someone else LOL. TIA for your response




What you are talking is EXACTLY what XX proposes that the BPD should have done in this case. Throw them in jail till one confesses. When the cops didn't do it, he says the DA should have.

So, what you are saying is that having a lawyer to represent you is a way to stop this from happening? Why is this please (I'm not from USA)? I'm thinking the reason may be that if a lawyer can prevent this then perhaps it is neither legal nor ethical?

It certainly sounds like something that would happen in a third world country, not where rule of law,as we understand it (that is innocent until proven guilty) exists.

Ok let me try again. No they should NOT have thrown themin jail to get a confession. NO having a lawyer will NOT stop you from getting arrested. All I'm saying was my opinion on what I think I would do. I would have a lawyer with me if it were me because me being a mother and the I believe my mental state would be if something like that had happened to my child I would want a lawyer present so my words were not twisted. I suspect that a mother in shock would probably say anything because of the shock. I am purly talking as if it were me not the Ramseys.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Glad you asked.

I would have cleared out the house and called in search dogs. The very INSTANT the body was found, I would have brought the Rs into the police station, separated the two of them and gotten full statements. And if they wouldn't go, I'd arrest them and toss them into holding cells until they agreed to talk.

And that's just what I would have done the first day.

Don't get me wrong, I like your response, but...Does it put JBR's needs first?

Did the BPD put JBR first? Did the R's put JBR first?

I think the R's put JBR first by calling 911. This is because JBR could've been with a retarded person that would be obvious to everyone in the neighborhood (on foot walking) and every second could count. This is probably what I would've thought having read the ridiculous and bizarre note.

I think BPD put JBR second by not even appearing to comply with the ransom note. They arrived shortly thereafter in marked cars and allowed guests to come over. Since they didn't have JBR, it was assuming the RN was an empty threat. Odd, since I think JR had made some attempts at getting money. I guess the strategy was to partially comply with the ransom note.

IOW the police probably should've held the 911 call longer, should've given the appearance of fully complying with the ransom note while assessing the neighborhood with a few unmarked cars.

JR should've left for money. Since the RN didn't specify which bank, that gave the FBI opportunity to swap in marked money and even a fake JR. JR or FBI agent should've got home with marked money and put it in the brown bag, and waited for the phone call.

From the perspective of BPD and FBI it should've been delicate hostage negotiations not dogs. This puts JBR first, given the information they had at that time.

 

[BBB167893]

Don't get me wrong, I like your response, but...Does it put JBR's needs first?

The way I see it, yes.

Did the BPD put JBR first? Did the R's put JBR first?

In what sense?

I think the R's put JBR first by calling 911. This is because JBR could've been with a retarded person that would be obvious to everyone in the neighborhood (on foot walking) and every second could count. This is probably what I would've thought having read the ridiculous and bizarre note.

Let's say you're right, HOTYH. It's not the calling 911 I mind so much. It was calling over the rest of the neighborhood.

I think BPD put JBR second by not even appearing to comply with the ransom note. They arrived shortly thereafter in marked cars and allowed guests to come over.

You make a good point.

Since they didn't have JBR, it was assuming the RN was an empty threat. Odd, since I think JBR had made some attempts at getting money. I guess the strategy was to partially comply with the ransom note.

Hard to say.

IOW the police probably should've held the 911 call longer, should've given the appearance of fully complying with the ransom note while assessing the neighborhood with a few unmarked cars.

Agreed.

JR should've left for money. Since the RN didn't specify which bank, that gave the FBI opportunity to swap in marked money and even a fake JR. JR or FBI agent should've got home with marked money and put it in the brown bag, and waited for the phone call.

From the perspective of BPD and FBI it should've been delicate hostage negotiations not dogs. This puts JBR first, given the information they had at that time.

All good points, HOTYH...IF we were dealing with a real kidnapping. If it had been me, and this is about what I would have done, once Ron Walker told me that the RN was not legit, I would have kicked into high gear and done everything I spoke about. I notice the police take some heat around here for listening to Walker, but I have YET to see any explanation as to why they should NOT have listened to him, since he had the far greater experience and special training. But I digress.

I will make one concession here. Even after listening to what Agent Walker told me, I probably wouldn't be 100 percent at that point, so I'd play it safe. I'd still clear everyone out of the house, including Patsy and Burke. But I would have a police guard on them at all times, if for no other reason than someone might try something against them. That would leave JR alone in the house with me and the other cops. That would achieve two things:

1) It would take away his zone of comfort, making him more likely to mess up if he were guilty;

2) He would be there to answer the phone IF a call DID come in, upon which I would dispatch him to get the money, but he would have a plain-clothes police escort with him.

And I DAMN SURE wouldn't have let John and Fleet White wander around the house alone!

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that everything went exactly the way it went up to the point where JB's body was found. At that point, it was a horse of a different color, and I STILL would have done exactly as I said.

HOTYH, I like talking to you.

 

[madeleine]

RDI and IDI,
I really would like to know why you think they went on CNN just a few days after the murder.It doesn't make sense.To warn people that a killer is on the loose?Don't buy it.For the image?Maybe,still risky.I AM amazed though that after 5 days only they said they were not angry.JR's strange.Once he says he's not angry but only wants to know why,then he says he would have the killer hanged ,then he says we should understand JMK,then they both say that forgiveness is the key,then JR's angry AGAIN.

 

[madeleine]

Okay,maybe religion already kicked in,still.......not angry?Healing?Or were they just in denial,shock?Weird anyway.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/01011997ramseysoncnn.htm

January 1, 1997

OHN B. RAMSEY, JONBENET'S FATHER: Well we have been pretty isolated -- totally isolated -- for the last five days, but we've sensed from our friends that this tragedy has touched not just ourselves and our friends but many people. And we know that there's many people that are praying for us, that are grieving with us. And we want to thank them, to let them know that we are healing, and that we know in our hearts that JonBenet is safe and with God and that the grieving that we all have to do is for ourselves and for our loss, but we want to thank those people that care about us.

PATRICIA RAMSEY, JONBENET'S MOTHER: We have just been overwhelmed by the cards and letters and visits and people we haven't seen for years have come to call and be supportive in their -- many of them are parents, and they know and can feel our grief.

RAMSEY, J: But the other -- the other reason is that -- for our grief to resolve itself we now have to find out why this happened.

CABELL: There has been some question as to why you hired a defense attorney.

RAMSEY, J: I know. Well, we were fortunate from almost the moment that we found the note to be surrounded by friends, our minister, our family doctor, a personal friend of mine who is also an attorney, and we relied on their guidance almost from that moment on and my friend suggested that it would be foolish not to have knowledgeable counsel to help both us and with the investigation.

RAMSEY, P: And if anyone knows anything, please, please help us. For the safety of all of the children, we have to find out who did this.

RAMSEY, J: Not because we're angry, but because we have got to go on. :waitasec::waitasec::waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:



RAMSEY, P: We can't -- we can't --

RAMSEY, J: This -- we cannot go on until we know why. There's no answer as to why our daughter died.

 

[madeleine]

CABELL: Do you take some comfort in believing that JonBenet Ramsey is in a better place.

RAMSEY, J: Yes. That's the one thing we want people dealing with us to know, to believe that, we know that in our heart.

RAMSEY, P: She'll never have to know the loss of a child . She will never have to know cancer or death of a child.

RAMSEY, J: We learned when we lost our first child that people would come forward to us, that sooner or later everyone carries a very heavy burden in this life. And JonBenet didn't carry any burdens.

-----------------

This sounds like.... relief.
She's safe now.Wasn't she safe before it happened or what.
I don't understand this.

 

[madeleine]

Did the BPD put JBR first? Did the R's put JBR first?

NO ONE put her first.
That's what makes me think that if IDI the R's at least suspect who it was. That's maybe why they say they're not angry but wanna know WHY.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I have questions too:

In my view, JR has done more to characterize the killer, and done so with more accuracy, than BPD or FBI. Why is that?

The RN was a de facto statement of foreign involvement AND the case was not able to be solved locally. Why then is this not an FBI case? BPD/DA has the case but what makes them think they can solve it?

More than 13 years later, with the case near stone-cold, why won't BPD publish more data. Like the actual DNA profile? Why conceal other DNA test results? Why not overtly perform more DNA testing? Do they want public help or not?

 

[BBB167893]

I have questions too:

In my view, JR has done more to characterize the killer, and done so with more accuracy, than BPD or FBI. Why is that?

He's not bound by the same rules? Best I can figure.

The RN was a de facto statement of foreign involvement AND the case was not able to be solved locally. Why then is this not an FBI case? BPD/DA has the case but what makes them think they can solve it?

I've often asked those questions!

More than 13 years later, with the case near stone-cold, why won't BPD publish more data. Like the actual DNA profile? Why conceal other DNA test results? Why not overtly perform more DNA testing? Do they want public help or not?

Wow, HOTYH! You're on fire, man!

 

[Tadpole12]

RDI and IDI,
I really would like to know why you think they went on CNN just a few days after the murder.It doesn't make sense.To warn people that a killer is on the loose?Don't buy it.For the image?Maybe,still risky.I AM amazed though that after 5 days only they said they were not angry.JR's strange.Once he says he's not angry but only wants to know why,then he says he would have the killer hanged ,then he says we should understand JMK,then they both say that forgiveness is the key,then JR's angry AGAIN.

Hi madeleine.

Yes!
I had read that FW was the persuading factor for the Rs LKL interview.
May not be so.
Ah, so many FW theoies but .... the details are lacking.
What happened between the tine FW was the supportive friend to believing that FW would be armed.



Years later, the Ramseys appeared on Christian TV for one of their last interviews. JR was still searching for meaning of the event, JNR`s death, searching within scripture for consolation.

 

[BBB167893]

CABELL: Do you take some comfort in believing that JonBenet Ramsey is in a better place.

RAMSEY, J: Yes. That's the one thing we want people dealing with us to know, to believe that, we know that in our heart.

RAMSEY, P: She'll never have to know the loss of a child . She will never have to know cancer or death of a child.

RAMSEY, J: We learned when we lost our first child that people would come forward to us, that sooner or later everyone carries a very heavy burden in this life. And JonBenet didn't carry any burdens.

-----------------

This sounds like.... relief.

Yeah, it does. Not what you'd expect.

She's safe now.Wasn't she safe before it happened or what.

Darn good question.

I don't understand this.

It opens up a lot of possible avenues, doesn't it?