Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Boulder Police Department had detectives at their home from early Thursday, 12/26, just after PR made the 911 call, until JB's body was found in the basement in the afternoon, when the parents were asked to leave immediately because it was then declared a crime scene.
They went to their friends' home, where the BPD was there the entire day and night of 12/27 and 12/28, observing them. The department wanted both of them to go to the police station for a formal interview on the 27th, but PR could not get out of bed; she was hysterical, sobbing, and moaning. JR asked for the BPD to send a detective to their friends' home to interview him. No one came.
Sat 12/28 was when their friend Mike Bynum told them that they needed lawyers because it was apparent that they were considered suspects.
"Police had interviewed Patsy and John multiple time since the murder. Yet on Monday, December 30, four days after her murder, the Daily Camera and the Rockey Mountain News published inaccurate stories based on false information provided by a Boulder Police Department spokeswoman."
-We Have Your Daughter, Woodward
(she included police reports in her appendix)
All of this info is contained in this thread. Read it.
The first formal interviews where John and Patsy were questioned separately (with their lawyers) was 4 months after the murder. The police DID cancel previous interviews because the terms demanded by the Ramsey's were not acceptable.
Saying they were interviewed the day of the murder and the days after means...NOTHING.
The police at that time were preparing for a ransom call, they were not conducting a murder investigation.
When the police did start to piece together a scenario and needed more information Team Ramsey refused to meet with them unless certain conditions were met.
SO, saying they met with police is not the whole truth, it is a partial truth.
BTW -constantly saying 'scroll back, scroll up, read it' also means...NOTHING. Just because something was written does not mean it is true and others have to agree. I didn't agree that the DNA samples from the underwear and pajama bottoms were a match, (they are not). Yet scrolling up I would see someone who posted it as factual.
I truly believe you could write a definitive book about this case, if you'd do it fairly.
As in, here's the information in support of an intruder (and then list all that information).
And here's the information in support of an "inside job". (and then list all that information).
I never went through the information "in support" of anything. When I first started reading about this crime, I thought that the Ramseys had covered something up. The lack of evidence is what convinced me that it had to be someone else.
Saying they were interviewed the day of the murder and the days after means...NOTHING.
The police at that time were preparing for a ransom call, they were not conducting a murder investigation.
It means plenty. The ransom call time came and went the morning of 12/26 and her body was found around 1 pm. The BPD had the rest of that day and night, and the following day and night to interview the Ramseys. They were stationed at the home of the Ramseys' friends the ENTIRE time, around the clock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuartGotts
When the police did start to piece together a scenario and needed more information Team Ramsey refused to meet with them unless certain conditions were met.
Sorry; "scroll back" means do your own reading instead of requesting that someone research links to transcripts, DNA lab reports, police reports, etc. Especially when that information is all over these threads.
It means plenty. The ransom call time came and went the morning of 12/26 and her body was found around 1 pm. The BPD had the rest of that day and night, and the following day and night to interview the Ramseys. They were stationed at the home of the Ramseys' friends the ENTIRE time, around the clock.
Credible links to this? Or your opinion?
Sorry; "scroll back" means do your own reading instead of requesting that someone research links to transcripts, DNA lab reports, police reports, etc. Especially when that information is all over these threads.
Yes, the police were at the Ramsey's home. It was still considered a kidnapping until the body was found.
I don't follow the logic here. So the police are supposed to get all the info they need in that time?
Any investigation is going to lead to questions, holes that need to be filled in, names, dates etc. All things police would have to follow up on days and weeks after the murder.
As far as credible links, of the four books I've read on this, they all agree that Team Ramsey did not come in for questioning without conditions.
Is there a credible link that they DID appear for questioning prior to the 4 months?
Is there a credible link that they DID appear for questioning prior to the 4 months?
There were attempts by investigators to interview Patsy and John in the home of neighbors they had stayed with. John declined; at that point he felt Patsy wasnt in a condition conducive to answering questions.
Watch their Larry King interview with detective Steve Thomas from Boulder PD. According to the Ramseys they went in to interview, but Thomas was unavailable.
Edit:
Is it credible? Well, I'm not a team Ramsey advocate; judge for yourself.
As far as credible links, of the four books I've read on this, they all agree that Team Ramsey did not come in for questioning without conditions.
When two of your four books were by Lawrence Schiller--who changed his mind about the crime (do you read anything on this thread?) and Steve Thomas, who was sued for libel and lost.......then you're fairly limited to one viewpoint.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 1 day ago)
35,582 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50618
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
When two of your four books were by Lawrence Schiller--who changed his mind about the crime (do you read anything on this thread?) and Steve Thomas, who was sued for libel and lost.......then you're fairly limited to one viewpoint.
See? You're doing it again. Steve Thomas and his publisher did NOT "lose" a libel case in court. He settled out of court, for an undisclosed sum. I myself have been sued twice, and settled out of court (actually, my auto insurance settled out of court, but it would go down on my legal record). We have no idea how much the settlement was for, it was undisclosed. Who in their right mind wants to go up against a very wealthy family with a beautiful dead child in court? Not Steve Thomas and his publisher, I'll give you that. So you twisted that. I also have never lost a lawsuit, although my insurance has settled for a small token amount just to avoid the horror of a jury run amuck.
It appears that Lawrence Schiller didn't change his mind - in fact, in his book his mind was clearly not made up. He makes the case that the intruder theory is implausible, but admits it's very hard to believe the Ramseys would harm her. Even in his epilogue in that very book, he admits there are loose ends that can't be accounted for.
BTW, I also checked this information out on Websleuths, where the intruder theorists were claiming Schiller changed his mind, but were proven wrong.
Schiller's book is a huge tome of facts with no real conclusion:
CA, you do this every time. You present something as fact, and I have to go research it, and you've again twisted your statement to the point where it's actually wrong. Again.
There were attempts by investigators to interview Patsy and John in the home of neighbors they had stayed with. John declined; at that point he felt Patsy wasnt in a condition conducive to answering questions.
Watch their Larry King interview with detective Steve Thomas from Boulder PD. According to the Ramseys they went in to interview, but Thomas was unavailable.
Edit:
Is it credible? Well, I'm not a team Ramsey advocate; judge for yourself.
I remember watching the Larry King episode and thinking it was a let down. I expected something more to come from it. At the time it was on I was still under the impression Patsy struck a fatal blow. Now that Burke's name has been thrown out there the interview reads a little differently.
I just read the transcript and I cannot imagine anyone from Team Ramsey meeting with the police and Steve Thomas NOT knowing about it. I'll stick with the scenario that has NOT been disproven... The Ramseys did NOT meet with police for interviews until 4 months later (this doesn't count the day of and day after the murder).
Thomas persevered in his attempt to nail the Ramseys down to meeting with the police and undergoing FBI polygraphs.
When he brought up bedwetting as the trigger it reminded me of the Jeffrey MacDonald case. Prosecutors then thought he was triggered by his daughter wetting his side of the bed.
See? You're doing it again. Steve Thomas and his publisher did NOT "lose" a libel case in court. He settled out of court, for an undisclosed sum.
Of course Steve Thomas--a narcotics detective with no criminal experience, who leaked misinformation to the media, and who had to resign from the investigation--settled out of court.
Did you read your own link? “They sued this case as a matter of principle," Lin Wood said. "A man wrote a book accusing Patsy of murder, and John of covering it up, and profited off a child's death. And win, lose or draw, they were not going to tolerate it."
From Webbsleuths:
"Steve Thomas lost his suit - - The Ramseys won. His book remains out there - but anyone paying attention will understand he libeled people in it - - and paid for that.
(Yes, the insurance company paid the Ramseys directly, but Thomas himself says he lost his house and life savings fighting the battle.)"
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
I myself have been sued twice, and settled out of court (actually, my auto insurance settled out of court, but it would go down on my legal record)....
Your anecdotal experience doesn't really have any bearing on this crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
Schiller's book is a huge tome of facts
You have got to be kidding. It’s full of errors. And in the 19 years since he wrote it, the errors he made have become even more apparent.
"Not surprisingly, very little in the book regarding our family and our role in the investigation is true," wrote the Whites.
"Unfortunately it wasn't accurate at all," Merrick (a one time suspect) said of Schiller's account of his role in the Ramsey case....Merrick said he was asked to verify passages about himself. "I corrected it — all of it — and they didn't use any of my corrections," Merrick said, pointing out one 12-sentence section he says contains 17 factual errors...."
you do this every time. You present something as fact, and I have to go research it, and you've again twisted your statement to the point where it's actually wrong.
Realize that every time you disagree with someone, it doesn't mean they're twisting something. It simply doesn't align with your belief.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 1 day ago)
35,582 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50618
My "anecdotal" evidence does matter - if you've never been sued for something you are not responsible for, but decided to just pay the money grubber so it's done with, you wouldn't know that Thomas did not lose a lawsuit. His insurance company settled to keep from going to court.
Schiller didn't recant. Regardless of what you think of his book, he didn't change his mind after publication, as you stated he did, because his book doesn't definitively take a side either way. It doesn't matter that you think his book is a pack of lies. What you stated, is that he changed his mind after publication. It's not true.
Even if an anonymous poster on Websleuths said it, and was then proven wrong.
You purposely twisted the information in both of those statements, CA. To make it seem like what you were saying was true.
If you honestly don't know the difference between settling out of court, and having a jury find you responsible for something, this may be the time for you to learn it. It's not the same thing, at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
