The "Touch DNA" is worthless.

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

Comments (Page 32)

Showing posts 621 - 640 of779
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#676
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
When does wealth and sophistication trump a parent's natural desire to cooperate with authorities in an effort to find the "monster" who killed their child?
I hope that is a rhetorical question LOL

If it isn't, let me answer that for you:

When you have something to hide and can afford to hide it!!!!!!

“Nothing is foolproof to a”

Since: Jul 10

sufficiently talented fool

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#677
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

That is such a Pollyanna response, LOL!!!
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> One can't help but wonder how respectful the police would have been during those interviews had the Ramseys' attorneys not been present? But that's not the point. The first and foremost duty of the police was not to be "nice" to the family, but to show respect and concern for the VICTIM by taking control of the situation and behaving in the professional and competent manner every citizen has the right to expect of them, thereby automatically showing consideration for the family by inspiring their trust and confidence which in turn would have ensured their full cooperation. One of the most foolish things the BPD ever did was to alienate their main suspects, who therefore naturally didn't trust them but placed their trust in their attorneys instead.
The "mistakes" of the police went way beyond merely not sealing off the house to friends. Their first mess-up was in sending a patrol car to the house in full view of the neighbourhood when they should have known a kidnapper always warns the family not to inform the authorities. They should have brought tracker dogs in and sent everyone else away. Upon discovery of the body, they should have immediately taken both Ramseys down to the police station to be questioned separately. Had they done this from the outset, none of what followed would ever have happened and the Ramseys would have been either arrested or cleared instead of remaining forever under suspicion. If I were in their shoes, I'd feel so bitter towards the police, I, too, would have no interest in speaking with them years later. It's quite evident they don't have what it takes to solve this crime anyway nor do they appear to care.
I don't believe for a moment that Patsy's intention in phoning their friends was to "muddy up" the crime scene. Had that been the case, she'd have phoned them BEFORE calling the police, thereby ensuring the crime scene was well and truly contaminated before the police arrived.

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#678
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DrSeussMd wrote:
That is such a Pollyanna response, LOL!!!
<quoted text>
LOL Seuss

Pollyanna was fictional too
Just Wondering

Beckley, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#679
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with several aspects of Douglas’ assessment of this crime, too; ‘though, probably not in the same way as you. However, I think that what he says about the Ramseys being “used to working through attorneys and other professionals” rings true. I thought you might agree because this is consistent with your belief that the Ramseys called their attorneys before they called 911 that morning.
I can’t disagree with you on this,“If you are not a guilty party, you do whatever it takes to clear your name...” But,“whatever it takes” means just that “whatever it takes” and if it takes “sidestepping BPD” and working with the DA’s office, Smit, private investigators, etc then that’s what it takes. IOWs,“whatever it takes” does not necessarily mean working with BPD as BPD, or you, or I, or anyone else might expect or wish.
I think the Ramseys could have handled things differently, and I think they might have except instead they chose to, for the most part, do as their lawyers asked.
...
AK
But why alienate the BPD? Why not cooperate with both the police officers and private investigators, if you are fortunate enough to have that option? Two forces are better than one.
Just Wondering

Beckley, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#680
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DrSeussMd wrote:
Not only do I disagree about the wealthy and sophisticated label you have placed on them, but they were so newly "rich" that the ink wasn't dry on the money yet.
There is such a difference with people who have newly acquired money, and how they act, and the Ramseys flaunted that difference. Whereas "old money" people probably do use their attorneys for everything, the Ramseys weren't "used" to working through attorneys. If they had been they wouldn't have had to go out and "HIRE" attorneys, nor would they "HIRE" attorneys for everyone in their family including John's ex-wife. The representation of every member of the Ramsey clan would have been seamless if they were "used" to working through attorneys. We never would have heard that "John" hired all these people - they would have just merely been represented by counsel.
<quoted text>
Exactly. The Ramseys were not born to money or position.
Just Wondering

Beckley, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#681
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> One can't help but wonder how respectful the police would have been during those interviews had the Ramseys' attorneys not been present? But that's not the point. The first and foremost duty of the police was not to be "nice" to the family, but to show respect and concern for the VICTIM by taking control of the situation and behaving in the professional and competent manner every citizen has the right to expect of them, thereby automatically showing consideration for the family by inspiring their trust and confidence which in turn would have ensured their full cooperation. One of the most foolish things the BPD ever did was to alienate their main suspects, who therefore naturally didn't trust them but placed their trust in their attorneys instead.
The "mistakes" of the police went way beyond merely not sealing off the house to friends. Their first mess-up was in sending a patrol car to the house in full view of the neighbourhood when they should have known a kidnapper always warns the family not to inform the authorities. They should have brought tracker dogs in and sent everyone else away. Upon discovery of the body, they should have immediately taken both Ramseys down to the police station to be questioned separately. Had they done this from the outset, none of what followed would ever have happened and the Ramseys would have been either arrested or cleared instead of remaining forever under suspicion. If I were in their shoes, I'd feel so bitter towards the police, I, too, would have no interest in speaking with them years later. It's quite evident they don't have what it takes to solve this crime anyway nor do they appear to care.
I don't believe for a moment that Patsy's intention in phoning their friends was to "muddy up" the crime scene. Had that been the case, she'd have phoned them BEFORE calling the police, thereby ensuring the crime scene was well and truly contaminated before the police arrived.
As parents of a murdered child, it was in their best interest to fully cooperate with the police investigators. They were the ones complaining and whining about the inconsiderate police officers who felt they had murdered their child--simply because she was found in their house, Patsy's paintbrush was used as an implement of murder, Patsy's notepad/pen was used to write the novice ransom note, there was no obvious break-in of the premises, etc. If I had that much suspicious evidence pointing to me, I would want to talk to the police and clear up the misconceptions. Of course, I am looking through the eyes of an innocent person and I am not trying to cover for anyone I love. Easy in that respect.
Just Wondering

Beckley, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#682
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Lynette 22 wrote:
Here's an interesting article which explains why the Ramseys lawyered up in the first place:
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09101997bynumabc...
I would expect the Ramseys to be totally devastated. I am a BDI, they were innocent of the murder, but not the cover-up.

I am sure they were no more traumatized by the death of their child than any or all other parents have been that have faced this horrible event. That does not excuse them from talking with authorities. Apparently, they couldn't pull themselves together to speak to authorities but they could appear on CNN?

Again, The body was not being held as a ransom for testimony. The authorities wanted to hold it in case they needed to look for further evidence. Judging from the way the case played out, I think they were wise in their initial decision. But that was viewed as cruel and vindictive. Even more cruel is no justice for the child.

And, unless I am mistaken, there was inside info leaked that the police were looking at the Ramseys as suspects--relayed to Bynum that first evening. That is when he advised them to get legal protection. Apparently, he must have seen how damning the evidence was, as well.

There is no excuse for not cooperating with the BPD. Period. We can suggest this and that, but the most important thing to the Ramseys was staying out of jail.(I read Death of Innocence.) They couldn't rest until the Grand Jury brought out its verdict. Luckily for them, the DA felt there was not enough evidence to convict because, as we know, the Grand Jury thought they should be charged.

“Nothing is foolproof to a”

Since: Jul 10

sufficiently talented fool

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#683
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

BRAVO JW, what an excellent post!
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I would expect the Ramseys to be totally devastated. I am a BDI, they were innocent of the murder, but not the cover-up.
I am sure they were no more traumatized by the death of their child than any or all other parents have been that have faced this horrible event. That does not excuse them from talking with authorities. Apparently, they couldn't pull themselves together to speak to authorities but they could appear on CNN?
Again, The body was not being held as a ransom for testimony. The authorities wanted to hold it in case they needed to look for further evidence. Judging from the way the case played out, I think they were wise in their initial decision. But that was viewed as cruel and vindictive. Even more cruel is no justice for the child.
And, unless I am mistaken, there was inside info leaked that the police were looking at the Ramseys as suspects--relayed to Bynum that first evening. That is when he advised them to get legal protection. Apparently, he must have seen how damning the evidence was, as well.
There is no excuse for not cooperating with the BPD. Period. We can suggest this and that, but the most important thing to the Ramseys was staying out of jail.(I read Death of Innocence.) They couldn't rest until the Grand Jury brought out its verdict. Luckily for them, the DA felt there was not enough evidence to convict because, as we know, the Grand Jury thought they should be charged.

Since: May 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#685
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

4

2

2

body 'held for ransom' is pure comedy. In case anyone forgot, the Ramseys were ready to leave the body where it lay when JR called his pilot 30 MINUTES after plunking it under the tree! They were ready to FLEE, so saying the body was held for ransom "again", is nothing but a guilty man's offense. The body was NEVER "held for ransom", by police or a kidnapper.

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#686
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

4

2

2

realTopaz wrote:
body 'held for ransom' is pure comedy. In case anyone forgot, the Ramseys were ready to leave the body where it lay when JR called his pilot 30 MINUTES after plunking it under the tree! They were ready to FLEE, so saying the body was held for ransom "again", is nothing but a guilty man's offense. The body was NEVER "held for ransom", by police or a kidnapper.
Exactly RT

They were ready and packed to go the minute the body was found!!!!

The body was never held for ransom and that got so blown out of proportion, it is almost an embarrassment to still say that.

The Ramseys were prepared to RUN way before they even heard about the authorities wanting to "hold" the body

What people should be concerned with was WHY the authorities felt the need to even consider it!!!!

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#687
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

If you will read any of the books, they all have an excerpt regarding the MYTH about holding the body for ransom and what a "cluster" misrepresentation of what was really attempting to be accomplished it was. If that is all ya have IDI, y'all are back at square 1, not passing GO and NOT collecting $200!

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#688
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ITRMI, pg 47
"Eller told Hofstrom that Koby, the coroner and he had decided to hold the body for further evidentiary tests..."

There is more, dust the book off and red it!

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#689
Sep 6, 2013
 
correction:
red = read
Just Wondering

Beckley, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#690
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Spice Pond wrote:
<quoted text>
From PMPT, hb, P49-50:
Meanwhile, as Pete Hofstrom was talking to attorney Michael Bynum about the schedule for taking the Ramsey family's blood, hair, and handwriting samples, he received a call from the police. Eller wanted the Ramseys to give the police formal interviews before they left to bury JonBenet in Atlanta, which he had learned was their intention. Eller told Hofstrom that he would WITHHOLD THE CHILD'S BODY UNTIL HE GOT HIS INTERVIEWS WITH THE PARENTS.
"You didn't get your statements in the first three days," Hofstrom told Eller bluntly. "You may not use this method to get your statements now. It's just not legal to withhold the body." It was obvious to everyone that the commander wanted to rectify the mistakes made in the first hours of the case. But holding the child's body hostage was unacceptable. "It's illegal. It's another mistake," Hofstrom said. Eller said nothing.
...
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."
.
.
.
JW, you said, "The body was not being held as a ransom for testimony."
Source?
Actually, without typing more quotes from PMPT, I believe the issue was finally resolved with The D.A.'s office ordering the BPD to release JonBenet's body.
Read Steve Thomas' book and James Kolar's--two of the detectives very familiar with the case.
Biz

Port Richey, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#692
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Legal__Eagle wrote:
If you will read any of the books, they all have an excerpt regarding the MYTH about holding the body for ransom and what a "cluster" misrepresentation of what was really attempting to be accomplished it was. If that is all ya have IDI, y'all are back at square 1, not passing GO and NOT collecting $200!
It was not a myth. john Ramsey said it happened and those from the Boulder PD said it happened. And that was the beginning of the end. That along with John's human resources manager at Access Graphics confidentially calling him and telling him to get the best lawyer he could get because Boulder PD was out to get him at all costs. And of course the manager believed he was completely innocent. I would think this would scare the bejesus out of anyone and convince them not to cooperation with the "enemy".

Since: Jan 12

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#693
Sep 6, 2013
 
"Coroner: police tried to keep body to force interview
Tests on JonBenet were complete
By CLAY EVANS Camera Staff Writer

Friday, April 25, 1997

Boulder police investigators asked the Boulder County coroner's office if it could withhold the body of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey from her family - even though forensic work was complete - to pressure them into submitting to a police interview, Coroner John Meyer confirmed Thursday."

Source: http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/...

Since: May 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#694
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

pathetic that the Ramseys would have to be pressured to speak to police who vowed to solve THEIR kid's murder. Imagine the nerve of the police wanting to interview the two people with a corpse in their basement! What colossal balls! If the Ramseys were satisfied with a dead child and no answers, well ding dang, the cops should have been too, huh? LOL
WHO the hell are the Ramseys to think they could just flee the scene without so much as a 'what?' when their baby laid there stiff from rigor? How can you IDI respect those parents???

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#696
Sep 7, 2013
 
DrSeussMd wrote:
Not only do I disagree about the wealthy and sophisticated label you have placed on them, but they were so newly "rich" that the ink wasn't dry on the money yet.
There is such a difference with people who have newly acquired money, and how they act, and the Ramseys flaunted that difference. Whereas "old money" people probably do use their attorneys for everything, the Ramseys weren't "used" to working through attorneys. If they had been they wouldn't have had to go out and "HIRE" attorneys, nor would they "HIRE" attorneys for everyone in their family including John's ex-wife. The representation of every member of the Ramsey clan would have been seamless if they were "used" to working through attorneys. We never would have heard that "John" hired all these people - they would have just merely been represented by counsel.
<quoted text>
I didn’t place the ‘wealthy sophisticated” label on them. I was quoting John Douglas. I did state that I don’t agree with the sophisticated part of his description.

I can’t argue with what you say as far as old vs new money, and I don’t find your reasons for rejecting the claim that they were used to working through attorneys as being persuasive.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#697
Sep 7, 2013
 
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> One can't help but wonder how respectful the police would have been during those interviews had the Ramseys' attorneys not been present? But that's not the point. The first and foremost duty of the police was not to be "nice" to the family, but to show respect and concern for the VICTIM by taking control of the situation and behaving in the professional and competent manner every citizen has the right to expect of them, thereby automatically showing consideration for the family by inspiring their trust and confidence which in turn would have ensured their full cooperation. One of the most foolish things the BPD ever did was to alienate their main suspects, who therefore naturally didn't trust them but placed their trust in their attorneys instead.
The "mistakes" of the police went way beyond merely not sealing off the house to friends. Their first mess-up was in sending a patrol car to the house in full view of the neighbourhood when they should have known a kidnapper always warns the family not to inform the authorities. They should have brought tracker dogs in and sent everyone else away. Upon discovery of the body, they should have immediately taken both Ramseys down to the police station to be questioned separately. Had they done this from the outset, none of what followed would ever have happened and the Ramseys would have been either arrested or cleared instead of remaining forever under suspicion. If I were in their shoes, I'd feel so bitter towards the police, I, too, would have no interest in speaking with them years later. It's quite evident they don't have what it takes to solve this crime anyway nor do they appear to care.
I don't believe for a moment that Patsy's intention in phoning their friends was to "muddy up" the crime scene. Had that been the case, she'd have phoned them BEFORE calling the police, thereby ensuring the crime scene was well and truly contaminated before the police arrived.
I tend to think that BPD did a much better job than most people give them credit for. Yes, they made some crime scene mistakes, but I think that this has been overstated and that even if they had done everything perfectly we’d still be more or less where we are today.

I also think that BPD is as much to blame for the fractured relationship between them and the Ramseys.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#698
Sep 7, 2013
 
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't "work" with anyone at all, and let the lawyers handle EVERYTHING. That's just not normal IMO and people can once again blame everything on the decisions the LAWYERS, etc. made but when it is convenient, the Ramseys were their "own people"
They wrote a book and went to the media several times against their attorneys' advice so to say that they listened to their attorneys for the important part of the crime; the MOST important part of the crime, it doesn't wash.
Self admittedly, their lawyers weren't hired to give them advice and speak for them to HELP the investigation. Their lawyers were hired specifically to keep them out of prison, which they did
When your child dies in such a horrific fashion, and murdered under your own nose, in your own home, while you are there you DO WHATEVER IT TAKES. They CHOSE not to and they CHOSE not to. I'm sure the attorneys agreed with that decision but didn't make it FOR them
You seem to be contradicting yourself. You write that they let their lawyers handle EVERYTHING and then you write that they did things against their attorney’s advice.

I think that the Ramseys did everything that they reasonably could do, except that they did a lot of it in a fashion not palatable to the public. They did it in a way that made them look, if not guilty, then at least like they had something to hide. Ultimately, the responsibility for that is theirs.
...

AK

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 621 - 640 of779
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

17 Users are viewing the JonBenet Ramsey Forum right now

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) 3 hr JTF 7,391
Boulder in the 70s 12 hr gotgum 7
Been kinda quiet lately 16 hr Steve Eller 24
Similarities between the Ramseys and Jeffrey Da... 20 hr smashmk 1
JonBenet Investigation (Nov '11) Tue updates 1,595
Hair Apr 12 JimmyWells 5
Undisclosed crime scene images. Apr 11 candy 5
•••
•••
•••
•••