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.
#5 kind of makes me roll my eyes. One could insert “Lin Wood” in place of “Defendant Spitz” and the rest of it would fit perfectly.
Except that Lin Wood was never found liable for malicious prosecution due to false claims in a previous case, ignoring evidence in a case of a four month old infant being raped, etc, etc, as Spitz has been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The grand jury apparently felt the parents were accessories after the fact, and they wanted to indict, which speaks volumes.
The two indictments were a result of hearing the prosecution's side only. They indicted from evidence such as: the notepad belonged to the Ramseys, the Sharpie pen was the Ramseys, the body was found in the Ramseys' home, statistics state that most children who are found murdered in their homes have been killed by a parent, she was put in harm's way by being allowed to participate in beauty contests, etc.
And they didn't chose to indict on the other five, whatever those were, despite hearing only the prosecution's side.
Quote:
After that he was interviewed by the psychologist/psychiatrist, but only after BPD had met the Ramseys’ stipulation that BPD publicly say that BR was not a suspect.
Burke underwent a mandatory Colorado Department of Social Services Boulder Child Protection Team interview on 1/8/97. The location of the interview had been chosen by BPD Cmdr Eller. The child psychologist was chosen by the Boulder County Dept of Social Services/Human Services. (PR was not allowed to even watch the interview from behind the one-way mirror.)
Quote:
Glad to see you think that the DNA is not direct evidence that Wood would like the public to perceive it to be.
Forensic evidence such as DNA is nearly always circumstantial.
Quote:
Well, they felt like they had to get him out of there before the BPD had time to question him at their house. They feared what he might slip up and tell them because they hadn’t had time to fully coach him on the party line yet.
All the more reason to keep an eye on him. And do you really think a 9 year old could keep up a story like that? If the Ramseys had done this, no way in heck would they have let that kid out of their sight.
Quote:
Turns out though, the Whites might not have been so willing to go along with the illegal cover up as the Ramseys thought they would be — whoosh, under the bus they went.
Do you actually believe that the Whites would not have revealed that the Ramseys were the killers if they thought they had any evidence that they were?
Quote:
I feel BR was involved in the wrong-doing
What type of wrong-doing do you think he was involved in?
Agreed. Nine months after JBR's murder, an intruder (whom the Boulder Police Department ALSO never caught) who assaulted the 14 year old from JBR’s dance studio inside her own home also apparently waited inside the home for the victim and her mother to return.
"There's a Dance West school where the victim of the assault in our case, the one that we investigated, and the Ramsey girl, both attended," says Peterson, who now believes Jon Benet was first targeted at that dance studio because of what happened to his client, just nine months after JonBenet was murdered.
Like JonBenet, she took lessons at Dance West. And like JonBenet, another girl, who is identified as "Amy," was attacked and sexually assaulted at night in her own bedroom on Sept. 14, 1997.
That night, Amy's father was out of town. After catching a movie, Amy and her mother returned home late. What they didn't know when they entered the house was that there was already an intruder inside.
Amy's father, who asked that his identity be obscured, agreed to talk about what happened that night: "My feeling is he got into the house while they were out and hid inside the house, so he would have been in there for perhaps four to six hours, hiding."
The two indictments were a result of hearing the prosecution's side only. They indicted from evidence such as: the notepad belonged to the Ramseys, the Sharpie pen was the Ramseys, the body was found in the Ramseys' home, statistics state that most children who are found murdered in their homes have been killed by a parent, she was put in harm's way by being allowed to participate in beauty contests, etc.
And they didn't chose to indict on the other five, whatever those were, despite hearing only the prosecution's side.
I was under the impression that Lou Smit testified, so it sounds like they heard the intruder theory but dismissed it.
They also heard from Linda Hoffman Pugh for about 8 hours, so it sounds like the GJ also heard about the fecal smearing, JBR's bedwetting, PR's mood swings, etc. I know some people will come back with LHP having a grudge after the loan stuff and feeling that she was thrown under the bus. But, you have to keep in mind that she was the Ramseys' long-time housekeeper, a person who I have to assume the Ramseys trusted to be around their kids and have free access to their home. She must have proven trustworty to the Ramseys because she was never fired but was in their employ right up until shortly after JBR's death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
Burke underwent a mandatory Colorado Department of Social Services Boulder Child Protection Team interview on 1/8/97. The location of the interview had been chosen by BPD Cmdr Eller. The child psychologist was chosen by the Boulder County Dept of Social Services/Human Services. (PR was not allowed to even watch the interview from behind the one-way mirror.) ?
Maybe I wasn't clear. We were discussing Wood pointing out in the defamation suit that BPD and DA publicly said that BR wasn't a suspect and had been exonerated.
My point was this: The Ramseys said that they would not give permission for BR to be interviewed until BPD clearly stated that BR was not a suspect, so BPD/DA publicly stated that BR wasn't a suspect simply because they wanted the Ramseys' permission to interview BR, and they wanted further cooperation from the Ramseys. That was their only reason for the Hear Ye, Hear Ye, declarations of BR's no longer being a suspect. After that happened, the R's gave permission for the interview referred to in your post and my post, which you quoted.
In the long run, the R's would have probably given permission anyway because they were not about to run the risk of having Burke removed from their home by the Child Protective Services if they didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
Do you actually believe that the Whites would not have revealed that the Ramseys were the killers if they thought they had any evidence that they were??
I was under the impression that Lou Smit testified, so it sounds like they heard the intruder theory but dismissed it.
The DA’s office tried to block Smit’s testimony to the GJ. Smit had a 3 hour presentation. He went to court and won, and ended up testifying with a modified version.
Quote:
They also heard from Linda Hoffman Pugh for about 8 hours, so it sounds like the GJ also heard about the fecal smearing, JBR's bedwetting, PR's mood swings, etc. I know some people will come back with LHP having a grudge after the loan stuff and feeling that she was thrown under the bus. But, you have to keep in mind that she was the Ramseys' long-time housekeeper...
She was also probably not happy that she was considered a suspect. It looks as if she worked for the Ramseys for a little over a year.
"I have my ladies, the women I work for. I have a doctor's wife in Greeley, and a lawyer. I was working for a bonded agency called Merry Maids when I met Patsy. I started with her one day a week. I was dumbfounded, the place was so huge. It was too much for one person. Soon we had four people, once a week.
Patsy was warm and kind. Just a sweet person. But she had a hard time keeping up the laundry. She was doing lots of charity work and was involved with her children's schooling.
Then I went to work for her three days a week, $72 a day. Monday, Wednesday, Friday. I'd get there at 9:00 in the morning and be gone by 3:00. That's when my daughter Ariana gets out of school. Sometimes I worked for Patsy on Saturdays and holidays. She gave me a $300 bonus at the end of my first year. That was October 27, 1996."
-Schiller, PMPT (acandyrose)
Quote:
My point was this: The Ramseys said that they would not give permission for BR to be interviewed until BPD clearly stated that BR was not a suspect, so BPD/DA publicly stated that BR wasn't a suspect simply because they wanted the Ramseys' permission to interview BR, and they wanted further cooperation from the Ramseys. That was their only reason for the Hear Ye, Hear Ye, declarations of BR's no longer being a suspect. After that happened, the R's gave permission for the interview referred to in your post and my post, which you quoted.
Do you have a link to this information? I've never read that. BR underwent four different interviews within four years.
Quote:
In the long run, the R's would have probably given permission anyway because they were not about to run the risk of having Burke removed from their home by the Child Protective Services if they didn't.
The interview with Child Protective Services was mandatory; the Ramseys had no control over Burke being interviewed then. And no one ever determined that he be removed from the home.
Also, if BR committed this crime, or even knew anything about it, why on earth would the parents have let him go to the Whites' home that morning? Wouldn't they have known that a 9 year old would probably spill the beans to the police about whatever happened the night before? He was crying when he was accompanied out of the house, and was probably very vulnerable.
Just my 2 cents and then you can go back to arguing about legal matters.
They would have sent him to the Whites because the Whites were the only people they trusted. They knew the Whites would tactfully do something to take his mind off whatever happened that night, probably let him play with toys. They knew the Whites would have the compassion to not ask him about last night.
The only other alternative was to keep him at home where he would be questioned and where he might have accidentally spoken to some of the other people who were at the house. A terrible alternative.
Actually, that in itself is suspect. How did the cop know there wasn't an outside entry on the other side of that door? Had he been in the house on a regular basis? Did he have a floorplan of the house? I just find it strange that he didn't open EVERY door.
Good point.
Found this in Woodward's book. "Detective French wrote in his report, "In the basement I attempted to open the door leading to the area where JonBenet was ultimately found, but it was secured by a wooden latch above the door. The door opened inward and I was looking for access out of the house. Since the door could not have been used for that purpose, and it was latched closed, I did not open it." (date of report 12/26/96)
Turns out that the door opened outward only, not inward.
"French could not have known if there was an exit out of the room unless he opened the door and looked into the room to find out where it led," Woodward writes.
In later interviews (1/10/97), he or other members of LE must have been confused, since those LE officers wrote in their reports, "Officer French finds the wine cellar locked," and, in another, "Officer French think the wine cellar door is nailed shut."
Although, even if French had found her body at 6:15 a.m., it would have been too late....at least the crime scene would not have been contaminated.
The two indictments were a result of hearing the prosecution's side only.
And they didn't chose to indict on the other five, whatever those were, despite hearing only the prosecution's side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
The DA’s office tried to block Smit’s testimony to the GJ. Smit had a 3 hour presentation. He went to court and won,
Confusing... which is it?
Prosecution wasnt the only side GJ heard.
I posted names of everyone who were called / supoenaed, including Lou Smits name 100 pages ago after you posted prosecution was the only side presented??
Please post links for sealed and supposedly unreleased evidence grand jury used for indictment as well as information about Smits denial by BPD presenting 3hr testimony. Thanks.
Case asks: Can a 6-year-old commit sexual assault?
Grant County authorities have accused a 6-year-old boy of first-degree sexual assault of a child for allegedly playing “doctor” with a 5-year-old girl in September.
Burke underwent a mandatory Colorado Department of Social Services Boulder Child Protection Team interview on 1/8/97. The location of the interview had been chosen by BPD Cmdr Eller. The child psychologist was chosen by the Boulder County Dept of Social Services/Human Services. (PR was not allowed to even watch the interview from behind the one-way mirror.)
Do you have any idea how many kids lie and cover during questioning by Social Service Workers?
I wonder if Social Services were made aware of Burkes scatolia ( finger painting with fecal matter)?
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.
