The Four Stumbling Blocks to Truth

[Louisadelmar]

My step mother just sent me this and I was struck by how apt it was in this case.

The Four Stumbling Blocks to Truth

1. THE INFLUENCE OF FRAGILE OR
UNWORTHY AUTHORITY

2. CUSTOM

3. THE IMPERFECTION OF
UNDISCIPLINED SENSES

4. CONCEALMENT OF IGNORANCE
BY OSTENTATION OF SEEMING
WISDOM
- DON TORQUINIO
BARON CORVO

[rashomon]

My step mother just sent me this and I was struck by how apt it was in this case.

The Four Stumbling Blocks to Truth

1. THE INFLUENCE OF FRAGILE OR
UNWORTHY AUTHORITY

2. CUSTOM

3. THE IMPERFECTION OF
UNDISCIPLINED SENSES

4. CONCEALMENT OF IGNORANCE
BY OSTENTATION OF SEEMING
WISDOM
- DON TORQUINIO
BARON CORVO

I just googled "Don Tarquinio Baron Corvo", and would encourage every poster here to do the same, and then decide for themselves if this person's personal agenda is in any way connected with the Ramsey case. (??)

But maybe I' missing something, Louisadelmar. Therefore would you elaborate on those four alleged 'stumbling blocks' by giving examples related to the JBR case?
For example, why do you think "the imperfection of undisciplined senses" is a stumbling block to truth and is apt in the case we are discussing here?

[Louisadelmar]

I just googled "Don Tarquinio Baron Corvo", and would encourage every poster here to do the same, and then decide for themselves if this person's personal agenda is in any way connected with the Ramsey case. (??)

But maybe I' missing something, Louisadelmar. Therefore would you elaborate on those four alleged 'stumbling blocks' by giving examples related to the JBR case?
For example, why do you think "the imperfection of undisciplined senses" is a stumbling block to truth and is apt in the case we are discussing here?

I didn't bother to google the authors before I posted. I thought the 4 points stood on their own. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm not sure what the big deal is about who he (they) are (is).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Rolfe

I think the 4 rules are true for many disparate situations i.e. Vietnam, Iraq, JonBenet and the young cardiologist who erroneourly gave me a pacemaker because I had good insurance and he wanted to do the surgery.

Since you did Google this guy you should know he had no 'personal agenda' re JBR since he died around 1912.

If you are unable to see the relevance (whether one is RDI or IDI) I am sorry. Perhaps when it is not New Year's Eve I will elaborate. But it seems fairly obvious to me. (From both sides.)

[Louisadelmar]

I just googled "Don Tarquinio Baron Corvo", and would encourage every poster here to do the same, and then decide for themselves if this person's personal agenda is in any way connected with the Ramsey case. (??)

But maybe I' missing something, Louisadelmar. Therefore would you elaborate on those four alleged 'stumbling blocks' by giving examples related to the JBR case?
For example, why do you think "the imperfection of undisciplined senses" is a stumbling block to truth and is apt in the case we are discussing here?
Missed the window...

As to your specific quote
"the imperfection of undisciplined senses"
I think if the BPD had allowed access to a greater breadth of experience they would have acknowledged the possibility of parental murder but have also been more genuinely open to alternative possibilities.

From an RDI viewpoint I think the Ramsey lawyers could have had a less knee-jerk reaction about how to handle their client.

[Eagle1]

January 1, 2007, Happy New Year All

Missed the window...As to your specific quote
"the imperfection of undisciplined senses"

"The imperfection of undisciplined senses" evidently means misleading statements, but I don't quite get "missed the window". Because it was New Year's Eve? Just kidding and I'll read it again.

[LindaA]

I think Louisa was referring to the 5 minute window for editing. She missed answering one of the questions, but had to post it separately because more than 5 minutes had passed when she realized it.

Happy 2007, all.

[rashomon]

Since you did Google this guy you should know he had no 'personal agenda' re JBR since he died around 1912.

If you are unable to see the relevance (whether one is RDI or IDI) I am sorry. Perhaps when it is not New Year's Eve I will elaborate. But it seems fairly obvious to me. (From both sides.)
I didn't mean that this guy had a personal agenda connected with the JBR case - of course this couldn't have been the case ), but that I don't understand how his personally established categories can be applied to the JBR case.
To me, these sentences sound merely like empty shells and also too cryptic to be understandable, esp. the "imperfection of undisciplined senses".
But maybe it is because English is not my first language, which is why I'd like to ask the native speakers here:
Did you at once understand what was meant by "the imperfection of undisciplined senses"? For I had a completely different association re that ;) than what was written below:


"the imperfection of undisciplined senses"
I think if the BPD had allowed access to a greater breadth of experience they would have acknowledged the possibility of parental murder but have also been more genuinely open to alternative possibilities.
From an RDI viewpoint I think the Ramsey lawyers could have had a less knee-jerk reaction about how to handle their client.

It is one of those myths strewn about by the Team Ramsey that the BPD never really followed other leads.

[bullmoose]

Rashoman, I don't mind that you think that "Team Ramsey" has strewn about the myth, as you put it, that the BPD never followed other leads. That is your opinion, but be certain that many others, including myself do not share your thoughts on the case in that regard. In my opinion, in the eyes of the BPD, from the early afternoon on 12/26/96, there were no other suspects in the case, other than the Ramseys. My own experience with cops makes me confident of my opinion; in this country, when cops think they have a case figured out, they act out in odd little ways. I n this case, the really obvious giveaway for the BPD was the illegal attempt by the BPD to hold onto Jonbenet's body; the BPD thought they could pressure the obviously guilty[to them] parents into a quick confession if they refused to allow them to bury her. I do not believe that the BPD ever seriously pursued other leads; when the DA brought in Smit and he followed the evidence and thought that there was evidence pointing to an intruder, how did the BPD respond? Certainly not like they were following those other leads. IMO the BPD got caught in their own little pet theory from the start and blew whatever chance they might have had of solving the case by the end of those first few days.

[Louisadelmar]

[...]

It is one of those myths strewn about by the Team Ramsey that the BPD never really followed other leads.


Actually, the first place I read that gave me that impression was PMPT
The assorted interviewees who said they were surprised when the police didn't pursue lines of questioning or followups etc.

[LindaA]

Let me give you an example of what Bullmoose is talking about when he says LE gets so focused on thier own theories that they fail to consider anything else. I live in the area that was involved in the DC Sniper events a few years ago. Two of the shootings took place near my home. The morning of the first of these two a local man spotted two men in the parking lot of a local convenience store. They were staring at thim as he drove through a fast food place next door and it gave him the creeps. Later that day, a non-fatal shooting was reported in the parking lot of the craft store on the other side of the convenience store. The local man called in to the police a description of the two men and the car they were driving; he was sure he had seen the snipers However, police were so focused on white panel vans they did not even take this man seriously.

Coincidentally, the man drove such a van and was stopped by police a couple of days later. He asked if they had ever followed up on the tip he had called it, and they told him they had not been told to look for the car he saw, as the white panel van was what the suspects were driving. A couple of weeks later, when the snipers were caught and the description of the car was published, the man realized he had, indeed, spotted the snipers just before one of their shootings. LE had ignored his tip.

[Results]

This is a quote from FW and the reason I am using her quote it shows you where the forum for Roxanne is, "The aunt of Roxanne Paltauf an Austin teenager missing since July is posting as aperry58 on the "Missing/Found" forum in the Missing Children's section. Renee's family has been helping them and I am certain they could use whatever support is possible for all of you."

Roxanne's Mother has informed us that Roxanne's Birthday is January 3rd and she would be turning 19 years old. If at all possible please go to the thread and wish Roxanne a Happy Birthday. Roxanne's Mothers post was heart breaking to read. Lets show her what the Crime Library Family is all about please post Happy Birthday January 3rd! Thanks! Please pass the word around. Thank you and sorry to get off topic here. Sincerely, Results

[rashomon]

Rashoman, I don't mind that you think that "Team Ramsey" has strewn about the myth, as you put it, that the BPD never followed other leads. That is your opinion, but be certain that many others, including myself do not share your thoughts on the case in that regard. In my opinion, in the eyes of the BPD, from the early afternoon on 12/26/96, there were no other suspects in the case, other than the Ramseys. My own experience with cops makes me confident of my opinion; in this country, when cops think they have a case figured out, they act out in odd little ways. I n this case, the really obvious giveaway for the BPD was the illegal attempt by the BPD to hold onto Jonbenet's body; the BPD thought they could pressure the obviously guilty[to them] parents into a quick confession if they refused to allow them to bury her. I do not believe that the BPD ever seriously pursued other leads; when the DA brought in Smit and he followed the evidence and thought that there was evidence pointing to an intruder, how did the BPD respond? Certainly not like they were following those other leads. IMO the BPD got caught in their own little pet theory from the start and blew whatever chance they might have had of solving the case by the end of those first few days.
The BPD thought it premature to release the body because there were still so many unaswered questions (e.g. about the vaginal trauma, the origin of the skull fracture). Since when can suspects in a murder dictate to the police when to release the body?
Of course the Ramseys were the first suspects to be considered on that early morning as soon as the scenario had abruptly changed from kidnapping to homicide. And the biggest (and really unforgivable!) mistake made by the police was that they didn't arrest them on the spot.)

For a child who had died a violent death in her parents' home, with both parents being present in the home at the time of death would have justified an immediate arrest of the parents.

And I'm convinced that if this had happened, we would not be discussing this case today. If both Ramseys had been questioned separately and then been locked into the contradictions of their respective statements, I bet that at least Patsy would have broken down and confessed.
Of course the Ramseys could have chosen not to talk at all, but needless to say which inference the police would have drawn from that.

And the Boulder dectectives did follow many other leads too. Just think of their interview with that disgusting pedophile John E. Brewer, to name just one example.

[nuisanceposter]

Let me give you an example of what Bullmoose is talking about when he says LE gets so focused on thier own theories that they fail to consider anything else. I live in the area that was involved in the DC Sniper events a few years ago. Two of the shootings took place near my home. The morning of the first of these two a local man spotted two men in the parking lot of a local convenience store. They were staring at thim as he drove through a fast food place next door and it gave him the creeps. Later that day, a non-fatal shooting was reported in the parking lot of the craft store on the other side of the convenience store. The local man called in to the police a description of the two men and the car they were driving; he was sure he had seen the snipers However, police were so focused on white panel vans they did not even take this man seriously.

Coincidentally, the man drove such a van and was stopped by police a couple of days later. He asked if they had ever followed up on the tip he had called it, and they told him they had not been told to look for the car he saw, as the white panel van was what the suspects were driving. A couple of weeks later, when the snipers were caught and the description of the car was published, the man realized he had, indeed, spotted the snipers just before one of their shootings. LE had ignored his tip.


Right. I live in the DC area, too, and I remember the police setting up roadblocks and checking every car or truck that went through, not just giving the pass to anyone who wasn't in a white panel truck. It was on the news, long lines of cars with police personally talking to the people in them. My own spouse works in DC, and went through check points more than once.

Police Chief Moose was clear on saying that anyone was a suspect on his countless television appearances, and was purposely vague about who exactly they were looking for, because police didn't want people discounting the suspect because he wasn't what people thought he should be. The media is the source of the rampant white panel truck rumors, not MCPD. I think you need to give Moose and his men more credit than that - who caught the sniper, if the police weren't even looking for a vehicle other than a white panel truck? The trucker at the Myersville rest area who called in the tip that the snipers were there was going on the tip that had been given out by MCPD - we're looking for a red car (New Yorker?) with this tag number - that info came out right when police announced a man from Washington State was a possible suspect. If they were focused on a white panel truck and nothing else, then they wouldn't have been able to trace down John Allen Muhammed and his accomplice, because they weren't in a white panel truck.

I remember the shooting at the Michael's craft store. People weren't even sure at the time that the sniper and not a copycat had been responsible. Unless you have a source that proves the police purposely disregarded this man's tip, then I'm going to assume the police checked it out because they were still trying to ascertain if it was a serial killer or some person imitating him.

Is there a link for this man whose tip was discounted by police? Do you remember his name at all? Even if police didn't give his tip the attention he thought it deserved, that's nowhere close to being able to make the accusation that police focus on one theory and don't bother to investigate to figure out where the truth lies. I can't believe people here are so determined to believe police are incompetent and lazy in investigation all across the country.

[nuisanceposter]

The BPD thought it premature to release the body because there were still so many unaswered questions (e.g. about the vaginal trauma, the origin of the skull fracture). Since when can suspects in a murder dictate to the police when to release the body?
Of course the Ramseys were the first suspects to be considered on that early morning as soon as the scenario had abruptly changed from kidnapping to homicide. And the biggest (and really unforgivable!) mistake made by the police was that they didn't arrest them on the spot.)

For a child who had died a violent death in her parents' home, with both parents being present in the home at the time of death would have justified an immediate arrest of the parents.

And I'm convinced that if this had happened, we would not be discussing this case today. If both Ramseys had been questioned separately and then been locked into the contradictions of their respective statements, I bet that at least Patsy would have broken down and confessed.
Of course the Ramseys could have chosen not to talk at all, but needless to say which inference the police would have drawn from that.

And the Boulder dectectives did follow many other leads too. Just think of their interview with that disgusting pedophile John E. Brewer, to name just one example.

I agree totally, Rashomon. If only the police hadn't been told to treat the Ramseys different than any other suspect, then they would have treated them the same way any other parents who have a dead child in their house would be, and this case would be completely different than the mess we know today.

For an accounting of all police work done, please turn to page 367 of the hardback edition of PMPT.

"Indeed, in the span of seven months, Thomas had conducted 164 interviews and had traveled to Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, and West Virginia. Thomas and a partner had interviewed every member of the Ramsey family, their friends, neighbors, ministers, and business associates, possible suspects, and prostitutes. Thomas had tracked down the sources of evidence, followed people and information on the Internet, looked into the world of beauty pageants, dealt directly with the Ramseys' investigators, and verified the alibis of over four dozen people. Eller had given him a free hand. There were few police officers who could match Thomas's encyclopedic knowledge of the case. He was determined to bring JonBenet's killer to justice."

NOW try to tell me police focused on the Ramseys and nowhere else. That's just wrong, and apparently people on this board would rather believe wrong information and repeat it to further their beliefs than to admit the truth - police did their job, and the evidence kept bringing them right back to the Ramseys, indicating their involvement more strongly than anyone else. The corruption of the DA's office in connection with the RST kept police from getting anywhere in this investigation...it wasn't because police didn't look anywhere else.

[Louisadelmar]

The BPD thought it premature to release the body because there were still so many unaswered questions (e.g. about the vaginal trauma, the origin of the skull fracture). Since when can suspects in a murder dictate to the police when to release the body?
Of course the Ramseys were the first suspects to be considered on that early morning as soon as the scenario had abruptly changed from kidnapping to homicide. And the biggest (and really unforgivable!) mistake made by the police was that they didn't arrest them on the spot.)

For a child who had died a violent death in her parents' home, with both parents being present in the home at the time of death would have justified an immediate arrest of the parents.

And I'm convinced that if this had happened, we would not be discussing this case today. If both Ramseys had been questioned separately and then been locked into the contradictions of their respective statements, I bet that at least Patsy would have broken down and confessed.
Of course the Ramseys could have chosen not to talk at all, but needless to say which inference the police would have drawn from that.

And the Boulder dectectives did follow many other leads too. Just think of their interview with that disgusting pedophile John E. Brewer, to name just one example.

The Ramseys knew nothing about Eller's plan to withhold the body until after they returned to Boulder. The idea that the police had evidentiary reasons to not release the body is not borne out by PMPT.

PMPT ppbk pp64-5.
Eller told Hofstrom that he would withhold the child's body until he got his interviews with the parents. [...] Hofstrom told Eller bluntly. "you may not use this method to get your statements now. It's just not legal to withhold the body."
[...]
When Eller hung up after this unpleasant conversation with Hofstrom, he told Larry Mason he was going to withhold the body. "John, you can't do that." Mason protested. You're violating their rights."

"I don't give a goddamn." Eller snapped. "You either get on board or get out."
[...]
When the police asked the coroner to hold JonBenet's body until they had interviewd the Ramseys, he refused. There was no reason for his office to maintain custody of the body, John Meyer said. The police department's legal adviser, Bob Keatley agreed with Hofstrom and said so.

In this country you need evidence to arrest someone for murder. Proximity isn't evidence.

[LindaA]

No, Nuisance, I don't have a link. I read it in the local paper at the time it happened. You can choose to believe me or not I really don't give a rat's ___. I do believe it happened and that the man asked the police when they questioned him if they had checked out his tip and they told him they had not given the tip any credibility. (they were checking out his white panel van at the time.) I remember the roadblocks. I was caught in one one evening. So what?

Who caught the snipers? A private citizen who phoned in a tip when he spotted them at the rest stop deserved the credit. Obviously, LE arrested them, but they hadn't found them by themselves. I do remember their stopping white panel vans. Who knows maybe they believed the media hype themselves.

[shill]

Eventually, after the trail had gone cold, the LE tracked down other leads.
How intensely did they interrogate those people? McSanta's alibi and FW's were they were home sleeping, same as the Ramseys. There is no absolute proof this is true. How many other suspects were looked at lightly? Seems the Ramseys weren't the only ones handled with kid gloves.

[nuisanceposter]

No, Nuisance, I don't have a link. I read it in the local paper at the time it happened. You can choose to believe me or not I really don't give a rat's ___. I do believe it happened and that the man asked the police when they questioned him if they had checked out his tip and they told him they had not given the tip any credibility. (they were checking out his white panel van at the time.) I remember the roadblocks. I was caught in one one evening. So what?

Who caught the snipers? A private citizen who phoned in a tip when he spotted them at the rest stop deserved the credit. Obviously, LE arrested them, but they hadn't found them by themselves. I do remember their stopping white panel vans. Who knows maybe they believed the media hype themselves.


Which local paper was that? I'm surprised with all the shooting and people talking about what to do and how to protect yourself and what to watch for that a paper diverted from important information like that to covering the story of some guy who thought the police ignored him - and then went back and followed up his story claiming he had seen the snipers after all. Groundbreaking journalism. Sounds like the Frederick News-Post.

So what about the roadblocks? You just got done saying police were looking for the white panel truck - if that's what they were focused on, then why did they stop every car and check every car? Obviously they weren't just focused on a white panel truck.

Right, a private citizen sitting in his truck at a rest area outside of Myersville, MD, saw the suspected sniper car and phoned in the tip to Mont Co Police - but where did he get the information about what make and model and color of car, and what tag number to be looking for? He got it from the very same Mont Co police you're saying was focused on searching for a white panel truck and dismissed other tips.

Incidentally, I heard this on DC101's Elliot in the Morning Show - there was a man going down westbound 70 in a white panel truck at the same time the police were rolling up with bubble lights blaring to apprehend the snipers. He said there were at least 10-12 police cars behind him all of a sudden, and here he sat freaking out thinking they were going to pull over his white panel truck, because that's the kind of vehicle he had heard from the media the police were looking for. Good thing for him the police had been doing their work and knew that the snipers weren't in a white panel truck.

[LindaA]

Np,
You can believe this or not. As I said I really don't care. And I don't care to divert this thread away from the topic any further. Are you implying I am lying? The article appeared in our local paper after the snipers were caught. Since there were so many LE agencies involved it is quite possible that not all of them were giving the same attention to the white panel truck. Enough said.

[rashomon]

The Ramseys knew nothing about Eller's plan to withhold the body until after they returned to Boulder. The idea that the police had evidentiary reasons to not release the body is not borne out by PMPT.

PMPT ppbk pp64-5.
Eller told Hofstrom that he would withhold the child's body until he got his interviews with the parents. [...] Hofstrom told Eller bluntly. "you may not use this method to get your statements now. It's just not legal to withhold the body."
[...]
When Eller hung up after this unpleasant conversation with Hofstrom, he told Larry Mason he was going to withhold the body. "John, you can't do that." Mason protested. You're violating their rights."

"I don't give a goddamn." Eller snapped. "You either get on board or get out."
[...]
When the police asked the coroner to hold JonBenet's body until they had interviewd the Ramseys, he refused. There was no reason for his office to maintain custody of the body, John Meyer said. The police department's legal adviser, Bob Keatley agreed with Hofstrom and said so.

In this country you need evidence to arrest someone for murder. Proximity isn't evidence.
That Eller allegedly told Hofstrom that he would withhold the body is mereley the view of the author of PMPT, who imo swallowed Hofstrom's "you can't ransom the body" nonsense hook, line and sinker.
And if memory serves, ST in his book makes no mention of Sgt. Mason allegedly chiming in too.
BTW, is it true that Schiller co-authored a book with OJ Simpson? If so, this wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Hofstrom sounds like a wimp who at that early stage, had already let himself be intimidated by the Ramseys and their lawyers.

And wouldn't the fact that a child who died a violent death in her own home with both parents being present in the home at the time of death have justified an immediate arrest of the parents?
What do you think would have happened if the same scenario had taken place in a poor housing area? Believe me, those parents would have been arrested faster that sugar melts in water.

[Louisadelmar]

[...]
And wouldn't the fact that a child who died a violent death in her own home with both parents being present in the home at the time of death have justified an immediate arrest of the parents?
What do you think would have happened if the same scenario had taken place in a poor housing area? Believe me, those parents would have been arrested faster that sugar melts in water.

Absolutely not. Your lack of knowledge of the American judicial system is showing. The court needs to sign off on an arrest warrant. To get an arrest warrant one needs to demonstrate probable cause. In addition, once an arrest is made the clock starts ticking down to (depending on the state) a probable cause (or preliminary) hearing, an arraignment, and perhaps also a grand jury. I would have to check but my recollection is they usually have about 48 hours. If the burden isn't met the case is dismissed. Something no prosecutor wants to later be saddled with if he subsequently develops real evidence and re-arrests the suspects.

As I have said before the question isn't that the Ramseys got special treatment outside of the law but why are the poor so often denied their constitutional rights?

[Coloradokares]

No, Nuisance, I don't have a link. I read it in the local paper at the time it happened. You can choose to believe me or not I really don't give a rat's ___. I do believe it happened and that the man asked the police when they questioned him if they had checked out his tip and they told him they had not given the tip any credibility. (they were checking out his white panel van at the time.) I remember the roadblocks. I was caught in one one evening. So what?

Who caught the snipers? A private citizen who phoned in a tip when he spotted them at the rest stop deserved the credit. Obviously, LE arrested them, but they hadn't found them by themselves. I do remember their stopping white panel vans. Who knows maybe they believed the media hype themselves.

Ok ...at last....Linda A. You just got a glimpse of how I feel. You know what happened and what you read or heard on tv. Why because you lived it. You can go back and recall how the air smelled and everything about it. Why because it was your experience. Your reading your viewing your being in the roadblock. You have a unique perspective of it all because why......you were there. I had friends only a mere few blocks who knew the Ramseys and lived in their neighborhood calling full of grief. Each time we drove to their home we drove by the Ramseys. We knew of them and had seen them out and about and the kids playing or whatever....I knew about the paegents etc. JonBenet made the local news. So did her Dad long before the murder. I knew of Access Graphics its location etc..... You may finally now grasp what it is I have said all along. To live in Boulder and to have that 6 degree thing apply.....it changes things.

[Coloradokares]

That Eller allegedly told Hofstrom that he would withhold the body is mereley the view of the author of PMPT, who imo swallowed Hofstrom's "you can't ransom the body" nonsense hook, line and sinker.
And if memory serves, ST in his book makes no mention of Sgt. Mason allegedly chiming in too.
BTW, is it true that Schiller co-authored a book with OJ Simpson? If so, this wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Hofstrom sounds like a wimp who at that early stage, had already let himself be intimidated by the Ramseys and their lawyers.

And wouldn't the fact that a child who died a violent death in her own home with both parents being present in the home at the time of death have justified an immediate arrest of the parents?
What do you think would have happened if the same scenario had taken place in a poor housing area? Believe me, those parents would have been arrested faster that sugar melts in water.

Many various LE and DA etc from Denver said had that crime occured in Denver things would have been a LOT differnet. The Ramseys for one thing would have been interviewed at the Police station separately and immediately like it of not. Boulder is different.....how many times can it be said regardless if your IDI or RDI or sitting on that fence mug on one side wump on the other. Boulder is DIFFERENT must be the granola......:shrug:

[LindaA]

Ok ...at last....Linda A. You just got a glimpse of how I feel. You know what happened and what you read or heard on tv. Why because you lived it. You can go back and recall how the air smelled and everything about it. Why because it was your experience. Your reading your viewing your being in the roadblock. You have a unique perspective of it all because why......you were there. I had friends only a mere few blocks who knew the Ramseys and lived in their neighborhood calling full of grief. Each time we drove to their home we drove by the Ramseys. We knew of them and had seen them out and about and the kids playing or whatever....I knew about the paegents etc. JonBenet made the local news. So did her Dad long before the murder. I knew of Access Graphics its location etc..... You may finally now grasp what it is I have said all along. To live in Boulder and to have that 6 degree thing apply.....it changes things.


Yes, CK, I thought about you when I posted that answer. How did you fare in the snow?

[rashomon]

Absolutely not. Your lack of knowledge of the American judicial system is showing. The court needs to sign off on an arrest warrant. To get an arrest warrant one needs to demonstrate probable cause. In addition, once an arrest is made the clock starts ticking down to (depending on the state) a probable cause (or preliminary) hearing, an arraignment, and perhaps also a grand jury. I would have to check but my recollection is they usually have about 48 hours. If the burden isn't met the case is dismissed. Something no prosecutor wants to later be saddled with if he subsequently develops real evidence and re-arrests the suspects.


But this has been my point all along: wouldn't a situation like that have constituted 'probable cause'? I'm not pulling this out of thin air, for I'm posting on other JBR forums too and this has often been brought up by American posters who are well-informed about the the US judicial system.

And I think that this was indeed an unforgivable blunder by the BPD: that they, as soon as the situation had abruptly changed from a kidnapping to homicide, failed to get that signed arrest warrant.

[Louisadelmar]

But this has been my point all along: wouldn't a situation like that have constituted 'probable cause'? I'm not pulling this out of thin air, for I'm posting on other JBR forums too and this has often been brought up by American posters who are well-informed about the the US judicial system.

And I think that this was indeed an unforgivable blunder by the BPD: that they, as soon as the situation had abruptly changed from a kidnapping to homicide, failed to get that signed arrest warrant.

No. Proximity alone doesn't constitute probable cause. Otherwise one would have seen Stephanie Crowe's parents arrested, Linda Ann Healy's roomates arrested, Dorthy Moxley arrested as well as anyone else who was unfortunate enough to be in a home when someone was murdered. As you will recall Henry Lee said he didn't think Kane and Hunter had a case when the Grand Jury was finished. I doubt he'd have thought they were any closer to one in the first hours after the murder. There was also disagreement as to whether probable cause had been met at the 'VIP presentation' and that was put together months and months after the case.

I read the posts at other forums. I think some of those posters would have found probable cause in the fact that Patsy died her hair Christmas afternoon.

[Coloradokares]

Yes, CK, I thought about you when I posted that answer. How did you fare in the snow?

We have certainly had more than our fair share of snow. Snow for sale. Snowmen free to good home. HA. Its still here too. I'd say only about 1/3 of its melted away. Its everywhere. Although they did a fantastic job in the 2nd storm to keep up with the addition accumulation on the roadways.

Now we just agonize over our Bronco's cornerback Darrent Williams....
its always something

[Coloradokares]

I'm sorry (in advance...) but I Must respond:
CK, so do you think, then, that none of the rest of us has any feelings about this case? Do you think that people who live near or in Boulder should be granted some kind of award or something just because they do live there? Let me tell you something, I have sincere feelings about this case, just as sincere as yours are. It doesn't where you are located geographically, a child's life has been taken. I am thankful to live in the beautiful hills of Indiana, I have no desire to live in Colorado. If living there gives you some kind of leg up about this case, why isn't it solved?
There, I had to do it... I am just tired of hearing about who you know and what you have seen and who you might have spoken with, the case still isn't solved.


No, and I have never indicated otherwise. But what it does as Linda A just demonstrated is give you a unique take on what took place . Now I am going to do you a favor today and every day from here on in, If I can find the ignore feature here I plan to use it. I am going to simply ignore you your very personal and a blatant attack on me. . That is right after I refer this to the moderators of the forum for their decision

[sweetcharlotte]

CK, I hope you report this to the moderators, and please be sure to tell them that you can't provide links to what you post because your notes are boxed up..........but that's ok (in your opinion) and the rest of us should just "trust you" regardless of the rules.

JMO

[Coloradokares]

CK, I hope you report this to the moderators, and please be sure to tell them that you can't provide links to what you post because your notes are boxed up..........but that's ok (in your opinion) and the rest of us should just "trust you" regardless of the rules.

JMO


My notes are and will remain boxed up. Taking them to storage as a matter of fact. That is because I am going to retire the forum. This one at least. I have provided many links to this forum. But because you are an IDI and perceive me to be an RDI you rudely say whatever you please. Goodbye forum. Your on your own RDI's.... Oh and I did report it they said it would be addressed by Freshwater. And books don't have links they have pages. They are not always any more accurate than their authors and Schiller admits his is not perfect. None are. Mostly DOI.

[sweetcharlotte]

I'm not quite sure what it was that caused andU to get banned but it looks like she should have just done what Ames did and told whoever to go to hell and everything would have been ok. (or is that "whomever?")

JMO

[rashomon]

No. Proximity alone doesn't constitute probable cause. Otherwise one would have seen Stephanie Crowe's parents arrested, Linda Ann Healy's roomates arrested, Dorthy Moxley arrested as well as anyone else who was unfortunate enough to be in a home when someone was murdered. As you will recall Henry Lee said he didn't think Kane and Hunter had a case when the Grand Jury was finished. I doubt he'd have thought they were any closer to one in the first hours after the murder. There was also disagreement as to whether probable cause had been met at the 'VIP presentation' and that was put together months and months after the case.

I read the posts at other forums. I think some of those posters would have found probable cause in the fact that Patsy died her hair Christmas afternoon.
I don't know the closer circumstances of these cases, but did e. g. Stephanie Crowe's parents simply leave the crime scene and then demand that they would only answer questions jointly, not separately?
Or did the police the allow Linda Ann Healy's roommates to simply walk away without questioning them?
When a family member has been killed in your own home, with you being present in the home at the time of death, this automatically makes you a suspect in the crime. The Ramseys should have been taken to the police station and have been questioned separately, at least as 'witnesses'.

And remember all those high-profile lawyers the BPD had hired later, whose unanimous opinion about how to proceed with the Ramseys was "arrest them"?

In terms of the Grand Jury: Patsy and John, the main suspects, did not even testify there. What's the value of such a grand jury?
The Ramseys also profited from the fact that it was impossible to prove conclusively which of them had delivered the fatal head blow. Not even the object which caused the head wound has been identified.
Forensic evidence links both Ramseys to the staging of the scene.
But technically speaking, the stager of the garrote scene needn't automatically have been also the killer. The ransom note writer needn't have been the killer either.
Who was the killer and who the abettor? Impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
And I believe it is not legally allowed to proceed like that: "we have two suspects and one of them must have done it, so let's indict them both."
Or do there exist cases in the US where this has been done?

[Louisadelmar]

I don't know the closer circumstances of these cases, but did e. g. Stephanie Crowe's parents simply leave the crime scene and then demand that they would only answer questions jointly, not separately?
Or did the police the allow Linda Ann Healy's roommates to simply walk away without questioning them?
When a family member has been killed in your own home, with you being present in the home at the time of death, this automatically makes you a suspect in the crime. The Ramseys should have been taken to the police station and have been questioned separately, at least as 'witnesses'.

And remember all those high-profile lawyers the BPD had hired later, whose unanimous opinion about how to proceed with the Ramseys was "arrest them"?

In terms of the Grand Jury: Patsy and John, the main suspects, did not even testify there. What's the value of such a grand jury?
The Ramseys also profited from the fact that it was impossible to prove conclusively which of them had delivered the fatal head blow. Not even the object which caused the head wound has been identified.
Forensic evidence links both Ramseys to the staging of the scene.
But technically speaking, the stager of the garrote scene needn't automatically have been also the killer. The ransom note writer needn't have been the killer either.
Who was the killer and who the abettor? Impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
And I believe it is not legally allowed to proceed like that: "we have two suspects and one of them must have done it, so let's indict them both."
Or do there exist cases in the US where this has been done?
This was your original premise: (emphasis mine)

For a child who had died a violent death in her parents' home, with both parents being present in the home at the time of death would have justified an immediate arrest of the parents.

You weren't talking about subsequent behavior.

As far as your last question - a family friend was the prosecutor in such a case. It was the subject of a book called, oddly enough, "Death of Innocence" by Peter Meyer. But again, the law varies from state to state.

[cami]

No. Proximity alone doesn't constitute probable cause. Otherwise one would have seen Stephanie Crowe's parents arrested, Linda Ann Healy's roomates arrested, Dorthy Moxley arrested as well as anyone else who was unfortunate enough to be in a home when someone was murdered. As you will recall Henry Lee said he didn't think Kane and Hunter had a case when the Grand Jury was finished. I doubt he'd have thought they were any closer to one in the first hours after the murder. There was also disagreement as to whether probable cause had been met at the 'VIP presentation' and that was put together months and months after the case.

I read the posts at other forums. I think some of those posters would have found probable cause in the fact that Patsy died her hair Christmas afternoon.

Not very good comparisons except for the Crowe case. Healy was removed from the home and Moxley was murdered outside the home...big difference from a tiny child found dead in the basement. I don't think they should have been arrested immediately, but they should have been escorted straight to the pd for questioning -- I think everyone agrees with that. Separated and questioned...your daughter's dead in your home by violent means...you have some explaining to do.

[Louisadelmar]

Not very good comparisons except for the Crowe case. Healy was removed from the home and Moxley was murdered outside the home...big difference from a tiny child found dead in the basement. I don't think they should have been arrested immediately, but they should have been escorted straight to the pd for questioning -- I think everyone agrees with that. Separated and questioned...your daughter's dead in your home by violent means...you have some explaining to do.

I agree they should have been questioned. When John Ramsey said 'Give us a day" a competent LE officer would have said something like "I wish we could sir. But it is imperative blah blah..." His request wasn't crazy but their response was.

However, Rashomon wasn't advocating bringing them down for questioning. She wanted them arrested immediately.

[rashomon]

I agree they should have been questioned. When John Ramsey said 'Give us a day" a competent LE officer would have said something like "I wish we could sir. But it is imperative blah blah..." His request wasn't crazy but their response was.

However, Rashomon wasn't advocating bringing them down for questioning. She wanted them arrested immediately.
but don't you think that there do exist criminal cases where this happened, i. e. where the court signed off on an an arrest warrant in such a situation?
I hear what you are saying about an arrest warrant being necessary, but would it have been impossible to obtain one, given the circumstances?
For the time line in the Ramsey case places both parents in the home at the time their daughter died a violent death.
I'll put this up for discussion on the forum FFJ, where there are quite few lawyers posting.
But I think we all agree that the Ramseys should have been questioned immediately and separately. This should have been the SOP in such a case.

[Louisadelmar]

but don't you think that there do exist criminal cases where this happened, i. e. where the court signed off on an an arrest warrant in such a situation?
I hear what you are saying about an arrest warrant being necessary, but would it have been impossible to obtain one, given the circumstances?
For the time line in the Ramsey case places both parents in the home at the time their daughter died a violent death.
I'll put this up for discussion on the forum FFJ, where there are quite few lawyers posting.
But I think we all agree that the Ramseys should have been questioned immediately and separately. This should have been the SOP in such a case.

I'm sure there are cases where an arrest can be made on the spot. The one that leaps to mind is the father who recently killed his twin daughters? probably as a result of medication. Andrea Yates is another. But in those cases probable cause is so evident that the police can act on their own. But again when they do that the clock starts ticking.

But we are all in agreement that the questioning should have been SOP.

[LindaA]

I believe in the Yates case she actually called 911 and confessed over the phone.

However, I am in agreement with most others who say they should have both been questioned immediately and separately.

[Louisadelmar]

I believe in the Yates case she actually called 911 and confessed over the phone.

However, I am in agreement with most others who say they should have both been questioned immediately and separately.

I can't remember if it was in the 911 call or after they arrived but that's the kind of thing that gave grounds for an on the spot arrest.

[LindaA]

Louisadelmar, I'm not sure either. I seem to remember hearing the 911 call from Yates and she did confess. I believe she also called her husband and told him what she had done, but the details are fuzzy now. I suspect she also admitted to police when they arrived what she had done.

[bullmoose]

Rashoman: In the Ramsey case, which started as a reported kidnapping, all or most of the cops you might reasonably assume would be on-scene from the start, were on vacation or holiday leave. It is a fact that Linda Arndt was calling for help and was pretty much alone for several hours at the house as the whole situation spiraled out of any police control. Consider that she told John and Fleet to do another sweep of the house, I believe mainly to keep them occupied. When they came screaming upstairs with her body, I don't think Arndt had any substantial back-up yet, and the situation escalated into a frenzy{IMO]. The BPD never had any control of the situation, and no SOP was in place to follow, and there was no one there to follow a SOP,even if they had one. Patsy, because of her hysteria and shock, was given medication that rendered her unable to face questioning. By the time the BPD wanted to question the parents, she was under a doctor's care. The family friend and lawyer Bynum told the BPD 'no' because of that fact; and he could clearly see that the BPD had zeroed in on the parents as the only real suspects. I do not kow how things are done in the part of Germany that you live in, but in Colorado they couldn't arrest the Ramseys simply because they were Jonbenet's parents and Jonbenet was dead in the house they lived in. Perhaps if the BPD had not been understaffed that morning, which is nobodies fault, things would have done more professionally. But it didn't happen, and the BPD refused the help offered, wanting all the glory for solving the case themselves, ultimately resulting in the ensuing mess.IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Rashoman: In the Ramsey case, which started as a reported kidnapping, all or most of the cops you might reasonably assume would be on-scene from the start, were on vacation or holiday leave. It is a fact that Linda Arndt was calling for help and was pretty much alone for several hours at the house as the whole situation spiraled out of any police control. Consider that she told John and Fleet to do another sweep of the house, I believe mainly to keep them occupied. When they came screaming upstairs with her body, I don't think Arndt had any substantial back-up yet, and the situation escalated into a frenzy{IMO]. The BPD never had any control of the situation, and no SOP was in place to follow, and there was no one there to follow a SOP,even if they had one. Patsy, because of her hysteria and shock, was given medication that rendered her unable to face questioning. By the time the BPD wanted to question the parents, she was under a doctor's care. The family friend and lawyer Bynum told the BPD 'no' because of that fact; and he could clearly see that the BPD had zeroed in on the parents as the only real suspects. I do not kow how things are done in the part of Germany that you live in, but in Colorado they couldn't arrest the Ramseys simply because they were Jonbenet's parents and Jonbenet was dead in the house they lived in. Perhaps if the BPD had not been understaffed that morning, which is nobodies fault, things would have done more professionally. But it didn't happen, and the BPD refused the help offered, wanting all the glory for solving the case themselves, ultimately resulting in the ensuing mess.IMO


As a lawyer, Bynum should have known that in cases such as this, the parents are usually the first suspects. He did them no favors by denying the police in questioning them. It only served to make them look more like suspects.

[shill]

As a lawyer, Bynum should have known that in cases such as this, the parents are usually the first suspects. He did them no favors by denying the police in questioning them. It only served to make them look more like suspects.
I was under the impression that he was well aware that the parents become the first suspects and he could see that it was mindlessly going in that direction.

[LindaA]

As a lawyer, Bynum should have known that in cases such as this, the parents are usually the first suspects. He did them no favors by denying the police in questioning them. It only served to make them look more like suspects.

I absolutely agree.

[rashomon]

I'm sure there are cases where an arrest can be made on the spot. The one that leaps to mind is the father who recently killed his twin daughters? probably as a result of medication. Andrea Yates is another. But in those cases probable cause is so evident that the police can act on their own. But again when they do that the clock starts ticking.

But we are all in agreement that the questioning should have been SOP.
Absolutely. In the Stephanie Crowe murder case, the police did follow that SOP. From a newspaper article, bold type mine):

"At the police station, the Crowes were not allowed to see or talk with one another. Each of the five family members was taken into a room and ordered to undress, one piece of clothing at a time, until they were naked. They were photographed at each stage.

This is standard procedure. Detectives were looking for scratches, cuts, marks of any kind that could have been caused by either a knife or a struggling victim. They found none.

Police confiscated the family's clothes for further testing and took blood, hair and fingernail samples.

Steve Crowe resisted but was told he could either allow himself to be photographed then and there or wait, perhaps for days, in a cell while a court order was obtained. He submitted to the camera."


It doesn't matter at that stage if the parents are guilty or innocent. For if a child has died a violet death in the parents' home, the parents automatically become suspects until cleared.
And compare that to the Ramsey case: how long did it take the police to finally obtain clothing samples from them!

[Louisadelmar]

[...]
It doesn't matter at that stage if the parents are guilty or innocent. For if a child has died a violet death in the parents' home, the parents automatically become suspects until cleared.
And compare that to the Ramsey case: how long did it take the police to finally obtain clothing samples from them!

Nobody has questioned whether they should have been considered suspects. You wanted them arrested.

As to the clothing - It took a year for the police to ASK for the clothing. The Ramseys sent them in quite promptly when asked.

[nuisanceposter]

I wonder why it took that long for police to ask? ST hints it was beyond BPD control.

ST, hb, page 252-253

"The clothes that might been worn by the Ramseys at the Whites' Christmas party finally trickled in for testing a year after the murder, a time delay that seriously damaged the investigation. The polite "ask the Ramseys" approach was deadly slow in getting results.

Had the original investigators bagged the clothing on the morniong of December 26th, we would have had instant possession of what John and Patsy Ramsey had worn the night before. Beyond that, we could have taken the clothing with a search warrant. Instead we waited more than a year.

Beginning in January of 1998, packages of clothing arrived, most of it of questionable value. For instance, we received two grocery sacks containing Patsy's clothing. The first contained a High Sierra red turtleneck. It smelled brand-new, straight off the rack. The other was a short-sleeved sweater top that was much too small for her, unless she was going for a really tight fit. She had worn neither on Christmas Day. "Gimme a break," a detective snorted."

* I think it should be noted that ST has remarked repeatedly prior to this passage in his book that the DA's office would not give them the search warrants they needed, instead telling detectives to build a rapport with the RST and politely request any evidence they may need - such as phone records.

Here's Schiller's account, PMPT, hb, page 471

"When the police inspected the clothes they had received - and there were more items than were reported in the press - they noticed that a red blouse of Patsy's looked brand-new, as if it had just come off the rack. The detectives were also interested in Patsy's red-and-black checkerboard-design jacket. Four fibers had been found attached to the duct tape, and they were red and black. The police lost no time in sending the clothing to the CBI for fiber analysis."

*The fibers were red and black, according to Schiller.

Now let's proceed to ST, hb, page 254

"Back in February of 1997, several fibers were taken from the sticky side of the tape that had been against JonBenet's face.

When Team Ramsey finally gave us the clothing purported to be what John and Patsy were wearing on December 25th and 26th, one of the bagged items was Patsy's red-and-black checked jacket.

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation labs ran comparison tests and reported that four fibers that had been discovered on the tape were chemically and microscopically consistent with the fibers of Patsy's jacket."

*And according to ST,hb, page 302, the fibers are acrylic.

[Louisadelmar]

I wonder why it took that long for police to ask? ST hints it was beyond BPD control.

ST, hb, page 252-253

"The clothes that might been worn by the Ramseys at the Whites' Christmas party finally trickled in for testing a year after the murder, a time delay that seriously damaged the investigation. The polite "ask the Ramseys" approach was deadly slow in getting results.

Had the original investigators bagged the clothing on the morniong of December 26th, we would have had instant possession of what John and Patsy Ramsey had worn the night before. Beyond that, we could have taken the clothing with a search warrant. Instead we waited more than a year.

Beginning in January of 1998, packages of clothing arrived, most of it of questionable value. For instance, we received two grocery sacks containing Patsy's clothing. The first contained a High Sierra red turtleneck. It smelled brand-new, straight off the rack. The other was a short-sleeved sweater top that was much too small for her, unless she was going for a really tight fit. She had worn neither on Christmas Day. "Gimme a break," a detective snorted."

* I think it should be noted that ST has remarked repeatedly prior to this passage in his book that the DA's office would not give them the search warrants they needed, instead telling detectives to build a rapport with the RST and politely request any evidence they may need - such as phone records.

[...]

Now let's proceed to ST, hb, page 254

"Back in February of 1997, several fibers were taken from the sticky side of the tape that had been against JonBenet's face.

When Team Ramsey finally gave us the clothing purported to be what John and Patsy were wearing on December 25th and 26th, one of the bagged items was Patsy's red-and-black checked jacket.

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation labs ran comparison tests and reported that four fibers that had been discovered on the tape were chemically and microscopically consistent with the fibers of Patsy's jacket."

*And according to ST,hb, page 302, the fibers are acrylic.

The above is a good example of what I find wrong with ST. The impression he tries to convey is it was the Ramseys who stalled about sending in their clothes. "The polite "ask the Ramseys" approach" had nothing to do with the delay. And there was no "When Team Ramsey finally gave" the clothes. They were turned over in a timely manner as soon as asked. If you read his depo: (emphasis mine)

[...]
10 Q. Did it strike you as odd that the
11 Boulder Police Department never made a request
12 to the Ramsey family to obtain the articles
13 of clothing that they wore on the 25th of
14 December for almost a year?
15 MR. DIAMOND: Are you representing
16 that is the case?
17 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I think Mr. Thomas
18 knows that is absolutely the case, don't you?
19 A. Which question?
20 Q. That the one that I -- well, the
21 Boulder Police Department didn't ask John and
22 Patsy Ramsey for the articles of clothing
23 they had worn on the 25th of December, 1996
24 until almost a year later, true?
25 A. For a long time, that was a
314
1 mistake, yes.
2 Q. Didn't that strike you as odd?
3 A. That the police did that?
4 Q. You and the police, you were part
5 of the case?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Why did you do it?
8 A. Why did I do what?
9 Q. Why didn't you ask the Ramseys to
10 give you the articles of clothing they wore?
11 A. In hindsight, that was important.
12 Q. You had already concluded that
13 Patsy Ramsey committed the crime before you
14 even asked for the clothes that she had worn,
15 true?
16 A. Those should have been collected
17 the first day and they weren't.
[...]

Somewhere LKL? I read BPD didn't ask until Dec, 1997 and received them in Jan 1998.

[nuisanceposter]

Right, it's all Thomas's fault...of course.

ST shouldn't have had to ask anyone for anything - he should have been given a search warrant for what he needed. If you really want to get to the source of the problem, the police should have been able to get the clothes the same exact day the body was found in the basement, which is exactly what ST pointed out.

I'm more intersted in the fact that the jacket was one of the items, and that the fibers found were not just red but red and black, the fibers were acrylic, and that CBI found them to be chemically and microscopically consistent with Patsy's jacket.

[Louisadelmar]

[QUOTE=nuisanceposter;8796635]Right, it's all Thomas's fault...of course.

ST shouldn't have had to ask anyone for anything - he should have been given a search warrant for what he needed. If you really want to get to the source of the problem, the police should have been able to get the clothes the same exact day the body was found in the basement, which is exactly what ST pointed out.
[...]QUOTE]

So why didn't they ask for them that day?

[nuisanceposter]

I don't know. I wasn't there that day, and neither was Steve Thomas. If I had to guess, I'd say it was for the same reason the responding police allowed friends over and didn't evacuate the house right off and take the Rs to the police station - they'd been told this was a wealthy and affluent couple that needed special treatment.

[Sprocket]

So why didn't they ask for them that day?

The BPD didn't do a LOT of things right that first day. The photographs that were taken of the house were not dated. (Source: ST recent television interviews.) Pam was allowed to remove a car load of items from the house. The Ramseys called friends over to further contaminate the house. The officer on the scene sent John Ramsey on a search of the house. There are a ton of things that went wrong that first day. Steve was not there at the scene the first day, (from my understanding) and can't be blamed for all of the errors that occurred.

[nuisanceposter]

That's right, Sprocket, Thomas says in his book pages 50 - 51 that he wasn't brought in until December 28th, and at the same time he was being briefed on the case at BPD HQ, Pam Paugh was at the Ramsey house wearing a BPD jacket and loading a police cruiser with items from inside the house.

[Louisadelmar]

The BPD didn't do a LOT of things right that first day. The photographs that were taken of the house were not dated. (Source: ST recent television interviews.) Pam was allowed to remove a car load of items from the house. The Ramseys called friends over to further contaminate the house. The officer on the scene sent John Ramsey on a search of the house. There are a ton of things that went wrong that first day. Steve was not there at the scene the first day, (from my understanding) and can't be blamed for all of the errors that occurred.
No but he can be 100% blamed for writing it up in his book as though the Ramseys dragged their feet for a year about sending in their clothes.

If he had genuinely had a case to present(seting aside whether or not it was appropriate to write the book) he would not have had to resort to all the verbal sleights of hand. Just the facts would have sufficed.

[nuisanceposter]

No but he can be 100% blamed for writing it up in his book as though the Ramseys dragged their feet for a year about sending in their clothes.

If he had genuinely had a case to present(seting aside whether or not it was appropriate to write the book) he would not have had to resort to all the verbal sleights of hand. Just the facts would have sufficed.

But that's not what he said - he said,

"The polite "ask the Ramseys" approach was deadly slow in getting results.

Had the original investigators bagged the clothing on the morning of December 26th, we would have had instant possession of what John and Patsy Ramsey had worn the night before. Beyond that, we could have taken the clothing with a search warrant. Instead we waited more than a year."

That's not blaming the Ramseys at all for the length of time it took to get the clothes...it's saying it's the fault of the police for not getting the clothes right away and the DA's office for not giving search warrants.

That's the facts in this case - the police didn't follow SOP the first day, and Hunter didn't give Thomas the search warrants he requested for many things.

[Sprocket]

No but he can be 100% blamed for writing it up in his book as though the Ramseys dragged their feet for a year about sending in their clothes.

If he had genuinely had a case to present(seting aside whether or not it was appropriate to write the book) he would not have had to resort to all the verbal sleights of hand. Just the facts would have sufficed.

I think there were many more things the Boulder DA "asked" the Ramsey's for and they never got. Phone records come to mind.

"All the verbal seights of hand?"

If ST did not write his book, we would not know of all the BS the Boulder DA did to ruin this case. And, I personally think that's the responsibility of the DA's office. NOT ST or the Boulder PD. I think the DA's office did WAY more to screw things up that ST or the BPD. I think ST did a corageous thing writing his book; He exposed the poor excuse for a DA's office Boulder had, and the weak spined, morally corupt Alex Hunter.

Setting this aside, you can't get around the fact that the Ramsey's did not willingly sit down to be interviewed until four months later. There is no way in my mind that this is the behaviior of innocent parents. This behavior in no way shape or form is going to be considered "non-involved" in my mind. Show me one other case of stranger/non-parental involvement in the death of a child in the home where the "innocent" parents fled the scene as fast as the Ramsey's did, and refused to be interviewed for four months, and/or placed CONDITIONS on being interviewed. The van Dams did not place conditions on being interviewed. Marc Klass or his wife did not place conditions on being interviewed. That's the action of an individual with "conciousness of guilt"
written all over their behaivor.
It just continues to boggle my mind that people think this behavior (and keep in mind, that behavior IS evidence!) shows anything besides guilty knowledge of the crime.

[bullmoose]

NP: You say I never replyed to your requests concerning why I have such a low opinion of Steve Thomas; here it is: his book twists the facts to his advantage, he takes liberty with the facts, he ignores the facts: for instance why the BPD and Steve Thomas took a year to request the clothes.? Read the preceding posts on this page, that's why I call him the Twister. I believe his actions by his boo-hoo resignation letter and then his book have hindered the investigation more than anything else thats occurred in this case. Of course, that's JMHO.

[Louisadelmar]

I think there were many more things the Boulder DA "asked" the Ramsey's for and they never got. Phone records come to mind.

"All the verbal seights of hand?"

If ST did not write his book, we would not know of all the BS the Boulder DA did to ruin this case. And, I personally think that's the responsibility of the DA's office. NOT ST or the Boulder PD. I think the DA's office did WAY more to screw things up that ST or the BPD. I think ST did a corageous thing writing his book; He exposed the poor excuse for a DA's office Boulder had, and the weak spined, morally corupt Alex Hunter.

Setting this aside, you can't get around the fact that the Ramsey's did not willingly sit down to be interviewed until four months later. There is no way in my mind that this is the behaviior of innocent parents. This behavior in no way shape or form is going to be considered "non-involved" in my mind. Show me one other case of stranger/non-parental involvement in the death of a child in the home where the "innocent" parents fled the scene as fast as the Ramsey's did, and refused to be interviewed for four months, and/or placed CONDITIONS on being interviewed. The van Dams did not place conditions on being interviewed. Marc Klass or his wife did not place conditions on being interviewed. That's the action of an individual with "conciousness of guilt"
written all over their behaivor.
It just continues to boggle my mind that people think this behavior (and keep in mind, that behavior IS evidence!) shows anything besides guilty knowledge of the crime.

The answer to your Van Dam and Klaas question has been answered multiple times on multiple forums.

Why do you suppose John Walsh, who has worked with more victim's families and seen their behaviors than all the posters on these forums combined, believes the Ramseys are innocent?

[KingCoyote]

I have always wanted to ask this question about the clothes not being "asked for" or seized for over a year. Lou Smit was on the case in late February or early March of 1997, just 2-3 months after the crime. If Lou Smit was such an experienced homicide investigator and allegedly following the evidence as it has been so touted that he did, why didn't he immediately push hard for a search warrant for the clothes as well as a search warrant for telephone, financial and medical records? Wouldn't such search warrants be absolutely standard in this situation. Just a few questions I would like answered. (But then again, I have a good idea the answers I am going to get.)

KingCoyote

[shill]

I have always wanted to ask this question about the clothes not being "asked for" or seized for over a year. Lou Smit was on the case in late February or early March of 1997, just 2-3 months after the crime. If Lou Smit was such an experienced homicide investigator and allegedly following the evidence as it has been so touted that he did, why didn't he immediately push hard for a search warrant for the clothes as well as a search warrant for telephone, financial and medical records? Wouldn't such search warrants be absolutely standard in this situation. Just a few questions I would like answered. (But then again, I have a good idea the answers I am going to get.)

KingCoyoteHow long did it take them to find and sort fiber evidence? If they knew about those four red fibers on the duct tape, how did they expect to match them to anything with out collecting materials to match to. You would think you would want to see if they don't match Ramseys clothing so you could conclude they came from another source.

But the answer to why they waited might be that the fibers from the Ramseys were going to be everywhere, so what's the point. The question should be, is there anywhere the Ramsey fibers shouldn't be? Even now, with the alleged match of these fibers (excluding the crotch fibers said to match John's shirt) to Ramseys clothing, it is not proof that they did it. Just as people will say the Ramseys are guilty because they were the only people in the house, you can say the fiber evidence does not prove they are guilty because they are in the house already.

[aussiesheila]

Rashoman: In the Ramsey case, which started as a reported kidnapping, all or most of the cops you might reasonably assume would be on-scene from the start, were on vacation or holiday leave. It is a fact that Linda Arndt was calling for help and was pretty much alone for several hours at the house as the whole situation spiraled out of any police control. Consider that she told John and Fleet to do another sweep of the house, I believe mainly to keep them occupied. When they came screaming upstairs with her body, I don't think Arndt had any substantial back-up yet, and the situation escalated into a frenzy{IMO]. The BPD never had any control of the situation, and no SOP was in place to follow, and there was no one there to follow a SOP,even if they had one. Patsy, because of her hysteria and shock, was given medication that rendered her unable to face questioning. By the time the BPD wanted to question the parents, she was under a doctor's care. The family friend and lawyer Bynum told the BPD 'no' because of that fact; and he could clearly see that the BPD had zeroed in on the parents as the only real suspects. I do not kow how things are done in the part of Germany that you live in, but in Colorado they couldn't arrest the Ramseys simply because they were Jonbenet's parents and Jonbenet was dead in the house they lived in. Perhaps if the BPD had not been understaffed that morning, which is nobodies fault, things would have done more professionally. But it didn't happen, and the BPD refused the help offered, wanting all the glory for solving the case themselves, ultimately resulting in the ensuing mess.IMOHi bullmoose, what do you think about the idea that BPD the case was messed up, not because BPD was understaffed but because Eller might have been actively keeping investigators away from the Ramsey house in the first few hours after the 911 call right up until just after the body was found?

[aussiesheila]

But that's not what he said - he said,

"The polite "ask the Ramseys" approach was deadly slow in getting results.

Had the original investigators bagged the clothing on the morning of December 26th, we would have had instant possession of what John and Patsy Ramsey had worn the night before. Beyond that, we could have taken the clothing with a search warrant. Instead we waited more than a year."

That's not blaming the Ramseys at all for the length of time it took to get the clothes...it's saying it's the fault of the police for not getting the clothes right away and the DA's office for not giving search warrants.

That's the facts in this case - the police didn't follow SOP the first day, and Hunter didn't give Thomas the search warrants he requested for many things.

So what do you think 'The polite "ask the Ramseys" approach was deadly slow in getting results.' comment ST made in book meant, nuisanceposter?

I can't see that it means anything else other than 'We asked the Ramseys politely for something and they were deadly slow in complying with our request'

Sounds very much to me like he was blaming the Ramseys.

[KingCoyote]

Shill:

Again you make an excellent point. The Ramseys lived there. Their fibers are naturally going to be in the house and can be anywhere...Heck...I can put Patsy in the basement on 12/24 and even in the wine cellar conducting absolutely innocent activities based on her own statements corroborated by John. I can't tell you what she was wearing though. I guess it becomes a case of probability and reasonably excluding all other possibilities and probabilities.

KC

[aussiesheila]

Shill:

Again you make an excellent point. The Ramseys lived there. Their fibers are naturally going to be in the house and can be anywhere...Heck...I can put Patsy in the basement on 12/24 and even in the wine cellar conducting absolutely innocent activities based on her own statements corroborated by John. I can't tell you what she was wearing though. I guess it becomes a case of probability and reasonably excluding all other possibilities and probabilities.

KCAnd why couldn't the red and black fibres found on the duct tape have come from Patsy's jacket when she unpacked a parcel that the duct tape might have been originally stuck onto?

Why couldn't an intruder have stuck the tape over JonBenet's mouth after picking it up from the floor or bench where Patsy had dropped it after opening the parcel in the basement days, weeks or even months earlier?

[Tober]

The problem though, is that the fibers were found in direct association with the crime. Locard's Exchange Principle in action. The fiber evidence needs to be considered in light of the totality of evidence. JonBenet was killed while in the care of her parents. She was killed in her own home. Her body wasn't removed from the home and was lovingly wrapped in a blanket. The killer used items from within the home to perpetrate the crime. The crime scene was staged. A ransom note was written and left to explain her dead body and point to someone outside the home as the killer (an intruder did this). Why would an intruder need to point outside the home, being that an intruder would already be from outside the home? Factor in the Ramseys lies and contradictions, their inconsistencies, their failure to fully cooperate with the police, etc. and it becomes very highly unlikely that an intruder was responsible for this crime.

[shill]

And why couldn't the red and black fibres found on the duct tape have come from Patsy's jacket when she unpacked a parcel that the duct tape might have been originally stuck onto?

Why couldn't an intruder have stuck the tape over JonBenet's mouth after picking it up from the floor or bench where Patsy had dropped it after opening the parcel in the basement days, weeks or even months earlier?

They don't know, and that could be why they had no urgency on getting clothes from the Ramseys. It could only prove what fibers found on JB were not from the Ramseys, which there are many.

[shill]

A ransom note was written and left to explain her dead body and point to someone outside the home as the killer (an intruder did this). Why would an intruder need to point outside the home, being that an intruder would already be from outside the home?
Let me try to get a clue here to what you are saying.
Are you saying an intruder should leave a ransom note that points to someone inside the house as the writer?

[sweetcharlotte]

Hi bullmoose, what do you think about the idea that BPD the case was messed up, not because BPD was understaffed but because Eller might have been actively keeping investigators away from the Ramsey house in the first few hours after the 911 call right up until just after the body was found?

I'm not bullmoose, but this was my reaction when I read your post.

Could Eller - knowing they were understaffed - have taken advantage of the situation? Who did Arndt call for help? Was it Eller? Also, made me think back to the HiTec bootprint that was found in the wine cellar by JBR. Didn't someone (Thomas?) say a lot of police officers wear HiTec and speculate that the print might have been left by a "sight-seeing" officer?

But, then wouldn't he have shown up at the Ramseys that morning to see what was going on? (As many criminals do.)

Just speculating. JMO

[rashomon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tober:
A ransom note was written and left to explain her dead body and point to someone outside the home as the killer (an intruder did this). Why would an intruder need to point outside the home, being that an intruder would already be from outside the home?

Let me try to get a clue here to what you are saying.
Are you saying an intruder should leave a ransom note that points to someone inside the house as the writer?
Shill, are you serious about not understanding Tober's post?
Tober meant that the ransom note was written by the parents to explain the child's violent death. To make it appear as if an outsider (=intruder) had murdered JB.

But suppose a 'real' intruder had killed JB in her own home, there is no need to leave a ransom note behind to 'explain' anything - quite the contrary: with such a note, a real intruder would only leave additional incriminating forensic evidence behind.
Do the IDIs seriously believe that a sexual predator who had killed JB in her own home did not try to get out of the house as fast as he could, but sat down in the Ramsey kitchen instead to write a 3-page bogus ransom note?? Totally absurd, don't you think so?

[nuisanceposter]

Well, you know, Rashomon, this intruder just absolutely HAD to taunt JR with the RN, which was written in the most pleasant and conversational tone I've ever heard a taunting revenge letter written in...complete with concern for how rested JR is. Why would a kidnapper or psycho seeking revenge even care a single bit about whther JR is rested or not? You'd think they'd want him as haggard and as worn out as possible.

Personally, I think it completely defies logic that a person bent on revenge would break in and then take great care with the object of revenge (JonBenet) and then leave this HUGE piece of evidence behind.

The only person who had any reason to write that note were the parents who had to direct suspicion ANYWHERE else but at them - think about it...this RN author can't even decide what this crime is about, assaulting the child, killing her, and leaving behind the very person he'd come to get in the first place. Plus Patsy cannot be excluded...and just what about that RN indicates the person who wrote it was Muslim? Nothing at all that I can see - a Muslim intruder would have targeted the SON, not the daughter.

[createthis]

Well, you know, Rashomon, this intruder just absolutely HAD to taunt JR with the RN, which was written in the most pleasant and conversational tone I've ever heard a taunting revenge letter written in...complete with concern for how rested JR is. Why would a kidnapper or psycho seeking revenge even care a single bit about whther JR is rested or not? You'd think they'd want him as haggard and as worn out as possible.

Personally, I think it completely defies logic that a person bent on revenge would break in and then take great care with the object of revenge (JonBenet) and then leave this HUGE piece of evidence behind.

The only person who had any reason to write that note were the parents who had to direct suspicion ANYWHERE else but at them - think about it...this RN author can't even decide what this crime is about, assaulting the child, killing her, and leaving behind the very person he'd come to get in the first place. Plus Patsy cannot be excluded...and just what about that RN indicates the person who wrote it was Muslim? Nothing at all that I can see - a Muslim intruder would have targeted the SON, not the daughter.

So you think maybe that Patsy woke John up or vice versa said "Hey, I accidentally killed Jonbenet. Let's stage a scene. And while your at it put a garrotte around her neck and pull it tight so it will look like she was choked to death. Oh and while you're at it...give the impression she was sexually molested. I'll write a note and and hope for the best. I just can't even see how this could have went down if it was an accident? Surely they could have found a less cruel way to stage if that is what they did. How could they bring themselves to do it so brutally. Supposedly that is the assumpton (accident) from RDI's or am I wrong on that? And how does one write that note "after" a brutal killing and staging and not have tears totally messing or smearing up the pages.

[sweetcharlotte]

<snip>

and the DA's office for not giving search warrants.

That's the facts in this case - the police didn't follow SOP the first day, and Hunter didn't give Thomas the search warrants he requested for many things.


Isn't it normal procedure to get a search warrant from a judge? Why do you keep saying Hunter wouldn't give the search warrants Thomas requested? Why did Thomas ask Hunter for the warrants in the first place?

[Tober]

I just can't even see how this could have went down if it was an accident? Surely they could have found a less cruel way to stage if that is what they did.

IMO, the key to why the crime was staged and the manner in which it was staged lies in the previous sexual abuse. The offender didn't just have a dead body to explain, but had to account for the previous sexual abuse. And so, the fake bondage-type staging and the last sexual assault were done in an attempt to cover or mask the previous sexual abuse.

[Louisadelmar]

Doesn't it say in PMPT that the FBI didn't think there was prior sexual abuse?

[createthis]

IMO, the key to why the crime was staged and the manner in which it was staged lies in the previous sexual abuse. The offender didn't just have a dead body to explain, but had to account for the previous sexual abuse. And so, the fake bondage-type staging and the last sexual assault were done in an attempt to cover or mask the previous sexual abuse.

Ok I really don't want to be strictly RDI or IDI. If people believe one or both of the R's did this than that would mean they wrote the note after the murder. Which is hard to believe, but possible. I did read on another case where a black teen murdered four or five of his family members, put them in the basement after, and covered them all in blankets. Then the article says that family members who kill tend to cover or wrap up their victims with blankets.

[bullmoose]

Are you suggesting that perhaps Eller knew Jonbenet's body was going to be found in the house? And kept more officers from being there on purpose, because he he already knew her body was there? If that is your idea, it would involve a large conspiracy to carry off, which is hard to swallow, although not impossible. I think I'll stick to the idea, until convinced otherwise, that the lack of cops on duty that morning was the reason there were no more there. I think it was just a small police department with everybody on holiday that got very flustered with the events that it got caught up in; I mean, they forgot to call the detective on call, because they forgot he was on call. They were badly out of their depth and compounded matters when they turned down the offered help from those who knew what they doing; Eller apparently trying to grab the glory of solving the case for himself. IMO

[Tober]

Are you saying an intruder should leave a ransom note that points to someone inside the house as the writer?

A ransom note not about ransom. A kidnapper not about taking a kid. A bondage-type wrist ligature not about binding. Duct tape placed over the child's mouth after she was killed. A "garrote-type" neck ligature not about functioning as a garrote. The staging is very obvious in this crime. Only someone associated with the crime scene (living there) would have the need to point away from it to an outsider. An intruder would have no such need.

[shill]

Fires have been started by Fireman for the thrill of fighting the fire, some are set by those who just like to watch the action.
JB could have been killed by someone who likes crime mysteries and wanted to live one out and watch all the action of the aftermath. There may be photos of JB, taken by the killer of her tied up in her room. There may be things he had planned that never occurred because she was not suppose to die.
I think the death of JB at her house was not part of the plan.
That's why everything else appears to some as staged, when in reality, the tying up, strangling, and penetrating came first and was the accidental cause of death that would change the game plan.

[KingCoyote]

Shill:

There were discussions about pictures and photographs of JBR in the basement in both JR and PR 1998 interviews. I wasn't 100% sure if they were talking about pictures that were taken in the basement or pictures of JBR that were stored in the basement. Patsy did say at one point that she had some photocopies of JBR that she cut using a paper cutter in the basement.

See PR 1998 Interview 185 and JR 1998 Interview 268 if you want to do some reading on it for more clarity.

KC

[shill]

Shill:

There were discussions about pictures and photographs of JBR in the basement in both JR and PR 1998 interviews. I wasn't 100% sure if they were talking about pictures that were taken in the basement or pictures of JBR that were stored in the basement. Patsy did say at one point that she had some photocopies of JBR that she cut using a paper cutter in the basement.

See PR 1998 Interview 185 and JR 1998 Interview 268 if you want to do some reading on it for more clarity.

KCSorry, I meant the intruder might have had his own little private photo session of JB tied up.

[aussiesheila]

The problem though, is that the fibers were found in direct association with the crime. Locard's Exchange Principle in action. The fiber evidence needs to be considered in light of the totality of evidence. JonBenet was killed while in the care of her parents. She was killed in her own home. Her body wasn't removed from the home and was lovingly wrapped in a blanket. The killer used items from within the home to perpetrate the crime. The crime scene was staged. A ransom note was written and left to explain her dead body and point to someone outside the home as the killer (an intruder did this). Why would an intruder need to point outside the home, being that an intruder would already be from outside the home? Factor in the Ramseys lies and contradictions, their inconsistencies, their failure to fully cooperate with the police, etc. and it becomes very highly unlikely that an intruder was responsible for this crime.With the exception of your comments about wrapping of the body and the ransom note I don't think any of the points you make are seriously indicative of the parent's being guilty.

My IDI theory has an explanation for both. I believe that in the hours prior to her death JonBenet was subjected to a session of sexual abuse organised by Santa and which involved maybe three others. I don't think most of them and least of all Santa had any intention of killing her. I think that Santa was distraught after her death and that he was the one who lovingly wrapped her body in the little white blanket because he did 'love' her in his own sick way. I think the purpose of the ransom note and the whole kidnap scenario was to deflect the investigation away from pedophiles and towards a disgruntled employee of Access Graphics. IMO this was not the first time JonBenet had been sexually abused, I think she had been abused on numerous occasions over the preceding years, not just by the group above, but also by others very close to the family. It was for this reason, I think, that the murder had to be made to look as though it was perpetrated by someone else, and not pedophiles, because if it was not, all those pedophiles who were so close to the family and who had abused JonBenet in the past would be exposed.

[aussiesheila]

I'm not bullmoose, but this was my reaction when I read your post.

Could Eller - knowing they were understaffed - have taken advantage of the situation? Who did Arndt call for help? Was it Eller? Also, made me think back to the HiTec bootprint that was found in the wine cellar by JBR. Didn't someone (Thomas?) say a lot of police officers wear HiTec and speculate that the print might have been left by a "sight-seeing" officer?

But, then wouldn't he have shown up at the Ramseys that morning to see what was going on? (As many criminals do.)

Just speculating. JMOI'm not sure what your view is sweetcharlotte, you say "Could Eller - knowing they were understaffed - have taken advantage of the situation?" Do you mean by this that you are also suspicious of Eller?

There are great gaps in our knowledge of what went on that moring at BPD. Schiller stated that Eller was home on leave. I don't know at what time he was contacted, i would very much like to know. I also don't know what time he arrived at the depot, I would love to know that as well.

Aparently one of the officers on duty had already called in the FBI and I got the impression from reading Schiller that Eller was angry when he found out about this. I also got the impression that the FBI detectives did not get anywhere near the Ramsey house until AFTER the body was found. It is my opinion that Eller was responsible for this.

I have a theory that the mastermind behind the kidnap coverup had something on Eller and was able to get his collaboration with the coverup. I think the mastermind phoned Eller VERY early that morning, long before the 911 call, instructing him that should he get a call from someone by the name of Ramsey about a suspected kidnapping he was not to investigate it too closely. Which as far as I can tell Eller made every effort to comply with.

[aussiesheila]

Are you suggesting that perhaps Eller knew Jonbenet's body was going to be found in the house? And kept more officers from being there on purpose, because he he already knew her body was there? If that is your idea, it would involve a large conspiracy to carry off, which is hard to swallow, although not impossible. I think I'll stick to the idea, until convinced otherwise, that the lack of cops on duty that morning was the reason there were no more there. I think it was just a small police department with everybody on holiday that got very flustered with the events that it got caught up in; I mean, they forgot to call the detective on call, because they forgot he was on call. They were badly out of their depth and compounded matters when they turned down the offered help from those who knew what they doing; Eller apparently trying to grab the glory of solving the case for himself. IMONo I'm not suggesting exactly that bullmoose. What I'm suggesting is that Eller was told by the coverup mastermind, that if he was to receive a call from the Ramsey house about an apparent kidnapping, that he was not to give it serious attention, but rather send only as few experienced officers and detectives as possible without it looking too suspicious, that there was a body in the house which they did not want found until it was removed to some distant location in the mountains.

I am gratified that, although you find this idea hard to swallow you acknowledge it is not impossible, thanks for keeping an open mind. It would be interesting I think, if there was some sort of investigation into Eller; this is not the only murder of a female that occurred on his watch and has remained unsolved is it?

[sweetcharlotte]

I'm not sure what your view is sweetcharlotte, you say "Could Eller - knowing they were understaffed - have taken advantage of the situation?" Do you mean by this that you are also suspicious of Eller?

There are great gaps in our knowledge of what went on that moring at BPD. Schiller stated that Eller was home on leave. I don't know at what time he was contacted, i would very much like to know. I also don't know what time he arrived at the depot, I would love to know that as well.

Aparently one of the officers on duty had already called in the FBI and I got the impression from reading Schiller that Eller was angry when he found out about this. I also got the impression that the FBI detectives did not get anywhere near the Ramsey house until AFTER the body was found. It is my opinion that Eller was responsible for this.

I have a theory that the mastermind behind the kidnap coverup had something on Eller and was able to get his collaboration with the coverup. I think the mastermind phoned Eller VERY early that morning, long before the 911 call, instructing him that should he get a call from someone by the name of Ramsey about a suspected kidnapping he was not to investigate it too closely. Which as far as I can tell Eller made every effort to comply with.

To over-simplify, I don't think anyone (who doesn't have a rock solid alibi) has been ruled out. Am I especially suspicious of Eller? Only from the standpoint of the "anger" he seemed to project from day 1. According to PMPT he was upset that the FBI was called and agents were in Boudler (from Denver) and did "dismiss" them shortly after JB was found. With regard to the FBI being at the Ramseys' home - their first appearance was after JonBenet was found and they were out of the house by mid-afternoon. Again, per PMPT.

Your theory is very interesting. JMO

[rashomon]

I have always wanted to ask this question about the clothes not being "asked for" or seized for over a year. Lou Smit was on the case in late February or early March of 1997, just 2-3 months after the crime. If Lou Smit was such an experienced homicide investigator and allegedly following the evidence as it has been so touted that he did, why didn't he immediately push hard for a search warrant for the clothes as well as a search warrant for telephone, financial and medical records? Wouldn't such search warrants be absolutely standard in this situation. Just a few questions I would like answered. (But then again, I have a good idea the answers I am going to get.)

KingCoyote
Good point, KC. This is just another illustrative example of how pro-Ramsey biased Lou Smit was.

[Louisadelmar]

I have always wanted to ask this question about the clothes not being "asked for" or seized for over a year. Lou Smit was on the case in late February or early March of 1997, just 2-3 months after the crime. If Lou Smit was such an experienced homicide investigator and allegedly following the evidence as it has been so touted that he did, why didn't he immediately push hard for a search warrant for the clothes as well as a search warrant for telephone, financial and medical records? Wouldn't such search warrants be absolutely standard in this situation. Just a few questions I would like answered. (But then again, I have a good idea the answers I am going to get.)

KingCoyote

Good question. His regular mail address is somewhere online (don’t know about email). If you want to write him and ask I’ll see if I can find it.

As far as medical, financial and telephone records – I believe the Ramseys signed over permissions to look at those. I have a recollection of John (somewhere) saying the only telephone records he wasn’t willing to voluntarily release were Access’ which is understandable given questions of security etc. We know JonBenet’s medical history was released and I believe the others were too. Thomas stated in his book what the Ramseys assets and debts were (net worth ~$6M) so I assume he saw financial statements.




Good point, KC. This is just another illustrative example of how pro-Ramsey biased Lou Smit was.

Does that mean BPD was also pro-Ramsey?

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

Thanks...you are correct as to what you say....my point should have been made a little clearer. Consents to search are subject to much more scrutiny by the courts than search warrants. The BPD didn't really want to obtain certain records that may be incriminating only to have them excluded in court proceedings. As to what the Ramsey's turned over, I don't know whether they got to pick and choose what they turned over or not. At one point I remember that the only consent to phone records were for the month of December. Another memory was that some of JR's cell phone records were missing. Yet another memory was that not all of PR's medical records were turned over. The point I am trying to make is that immediate search warrants would have ended all this discussion of what was and what wasn't turned over and what was and what wasn't incriminating or exculpatory evidence. This "battle" between the BPD, the DA, the Ramsey attorneys ad nauseum could have quickly ended as to these points, and more true evidence would have been immediately available to search for the true killer. Instead of a search for the true killer, there were more procedural arguments caused by all (and I am not taking sides) parties than there was substantive investigation of a murder. As to JR's net worth, that seems to be fodder for addressing the upper income class, rather than the crime. I would like to have seen credit card records, broker statements, checking and saving transactions, ATM transactions, and a trail of activity immediately prior to the death etc. etc.

I don't contest anything you said; I just wish it had all been done a lot more quickly and with people collaberating for solving a murder rather that digging in with your position and obfuscating. I guess it is all just water under the bridge though. [sigh]

KingCoyote

[rashomon]

I was under the impression that he was well aware that the parents become the first suspects and he could see that it was mindlessly going in that direction.
Nothing was going in any direction at that early stage. The police had treated the Ramseys with respect all through these hours and then simply let them walk away.
But within hours after JB's body had been found, lawyer Mike Bynum was already at the scene.
This also made the FBI CASKU experts suspicious. They wondered, since the police had not ben offensive or contfrontational to the Ramseys, why the parents had lawyered up so fast.

[Bullmoose]
NP: You say I never replyed to your requests concerning why I have such a low opinion of Steve Thomas; here it is: his book twists the facts to his advantage, he takes liberty with the facts, he ignores the facts: for instance why the BPD and Steve Thomas took a year to request the clothes.? Read the preceding posts on this page, that's why I call him the Twister. I believe his actions by his boo-hoo resignation letter and then his book have hindered the investigation more than anything else thats occurred in this case. Of course, that's JMHO.

Bullmoose, Steve Thomas' pointing out that the DA's office tactic "to ask the Ramseys if they would like to ..." was a major stumbling block in the investigation has nothing to do with twisting facts. It is the truth.
Remember the scene in Thomas' book (p. 218) where he describes the meeting with the FBI CASKU experts, who asked why the Ramseys' phone records hadn't been gathered, and Pete Hofstrom chimed in "Let's just ask the Ramseys for permission", a response which left the FBI agents staring at Hofstrom incredulously.
ST: "Many months would pass before we discoverd that the DA's office had not overidden the Ramsey attorneys' request to maintain an "island of privacy."

And if you call Thomas' resignation letter "boo-hoo", you and I must have read different letters. Thomas is no wimpy boo-hoo type of person, but one of the investigators who truly wanted to find justice for this little girl.

The wimp in this case was Alex Hunter, who, despite thinking that Ramseys were involved, from day one shunned confrontation with the wealthy and infuential couple and their lawyers.

There is a wealth of info in Thomas' book. I just reread his account of the FBI's CASKU expert's analysis of the crime and their conclusions. (p. 215-219 hardcover ed.). A must-read. The CASKU guys said it all.

[Louisadelmar]

Louisa:

[...]I don't contest anything you said; I just wish it had all been done a lot more quickly and with people collaberating for solving a murder rather that digging in with your position and obfuscating. I guess it is all just water under the bridge though. [sigh]

KingCoyote

I agree the whole thing about warrants is odd. They could have gotten the consents for expediency's sake and followed up with a warrant to be sure anything found was allowed in court should there ever be a trial.

Just general 'not ready for prime time' behavior all around :-(

[bullmoose]

Nothing was going in any direction at that early stage. The police had treated the Ramseys with respect all through these hours and then simply let them walk away.
But within hours after JB's body had been found, lawyer Mike Bynum was already at the scene.
This also made the FBI CASKU experts suspicious. They wondered, since the police had not ben offensive or contfrontational to the Ramseys, why the parents had lawyered up so fast.


Bullmoose, Steve Thomas' pointing out that the DA's office tactic "to ask the Ramseys if they would like to ..." was a major stumbling block in the investigation has nothing to do with twisting facts. It is the truth.
Remember the scene in Thomas' book (p. 218) where he describes the meeting with the FBI CASKU experts, who asked why the Ramseys' phone records hadn't been gathered, and Pete Hofstrom chimed in "Let's just ask the Ramseys for permission", a response which left the FBI agents staring at Hofstrom incredulously.
ST: "Many months would pass before we discoverd that the DA's office had not overidden the Ramsey attorneys' request to maintain an "island of privacy."

And if you call Thomas' resignation letter "boo-hoo", you and I must have read different letters. Thomas is no wimpy boo-hoo type of person, but one of the investigators who truly wanted to find justice for this little girl.

The wimp in this case was Alex Hunter, who, despite thinking that Ramseys were involved, from day one shunned confrontation with the wealthy and infuential couple and their lawyers.

There is a wealth of info in Thomas' book. I just reread his account of the FBI's CASKU expert's analysis of the crime and their conclusions. (p. 215-219 hardcover ed.). A must-read. The CASKU guys said it all.Rashoman: The diffference between you and me is that you believe he is speaking the gospel truth in his book; I also have his book, have read it and have come to the conclusion that much, if not most of what he wrote was fabrication, exaggeration and outright lies. Yes , I think he wanted justice for Jonbenet, we all do; but his lack of experience as a murder investigater is painfully obvious in his book. IMO, his veracity is so low that when I read a quote, a statement from his book, unless I can verify it with a similar quote from another source, I just consider it a lie or exaggeration. Remember, this is the cop who was cavorting, by his own admission, with a Globe reporter, to get his point of view printed. And this was while knowing he would be fired immediately for breaking BPD rules for doing so. Maybe we have indeed read different letters of resignation, the one that I read was so filled with self- pity and rage at not being listened to that I had to wipe away my tears of sympathy while reading it. When he came to the part about his thyroid, I broke down and wept for him . It was so touching. Remember, this is the guy who stole hundreds of pages of his notes on the investigation so that he could write his book to prove to the world that he alone had figured it out. Of course, if you want to believe Steve Thomas, anonymous sources shipped him the hundreds of pages of his notes, so that he could write his book. Rashoman, believe the Twister if you want, but there are a great many who do not, including me.