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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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]

Originally Posted by rashomon

[...]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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]

Originally Posted by rashomon

[...]
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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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......

[LindaA]

Originally Posted by Coloradokares

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]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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]

Originally Posted by LindaA

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]

Originally Posted by andU

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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]

Originally Posted by cami

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]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.