Justice Watch Support JW "Am I Gonna Have to Prosecute this Case Myself?" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Am I Gonna Have to Prosecute this Case Myself?, Ginja, 14:52:38, 3/24/2001 More on Evidence, Ginja, 14:53:42, 3/24/2001, (#1) Legal Precedents, Ginja, 14:54:38, 3/24/2001, (#2) Dolvin Conclusion, Ginja, 14:59:47, 3/24/2001, (#3) My Conclusion (i.e., The End!), Ginja, 15:00:31, 3/24/2001, (#4) Ginja, New York Lawyer, 15:17:51, 3/24/2001, (#5) WOW NYL...., Ginja, 15:29:04, 3/24/2001, (#6) wow, starry, 15:56:53, 3/24/2001, (#7) Ginja..., Country Girl, 22:13:34, 3/24/2001, (#9) Wow....., rose, 21:43:05, 3/24/2001, (#8) CG, Ginja, 08:46:39, 3/25/2001, (#10) JonBenet's only hope may be..., Country Girl, 09:07:38, 3/25/2001, (#11) CG....., rose, 10:38:26, 3/25/2001, (#13) Ginja..., shadow, 10:32:00, 3/25/2001, (#12) Question..., Country Girl, 10:54:35, 3/25/2001, (#14) Douglas...., rose, 11:07:52, 3/25/2001, (#15) Country Girl, mary99, 11:38:15, 3/25/2001, (#17) CG..., shadow, 11:27:11, 3/25/2001, (#16) CG, Ginja, 16:45:31, 3/25/2001, (#18) A smart ass comment here, starry, 16:59:49, 3/25/2001, (#19) I just wonder, janphi, 17:28:59, 3/25/2001, (#20) I dearly hope that NYL..., Dunvegan, 18:29:12, 3/25/2001, (#21) Janphi, mary99, 19:35:45, 3/25/2001, (#22) Dunvegan, Anton, 20:40:11, 3/25/2001, (#23) 'Evidence', sarah, 09:29:17, 3/26/2001, (#24) Yet, Sarah,, gaiabetsy, 10:09:36, 3/26/2001, (#25) Shadow and Janphi, Ginja, 14:01:13, 3/26/2001, (#26) Ginja..., shadow, 14:37:35, 3/26/2001, (#27) Shadow, sarah, 15:26:09, 3/26/2001, (#29) You're on, Shadow!, Ginja, 14:49:20, 3/26/2001, (#28) What if though,, ayelean, 16:42:47, 3/26/2001, (#30) lmao, Edie Pratt, 16:52:22, 3/26/2001, (#31) Well, ayelean, 17:00:30, 3/26/2001, (#32) Here's How I'd Prosecute this Case, Ginja, 18:06:49, 3/26/2001, (#33) Conclusion, Ginja, 18:08:37, 3/26/2001, (#34) I disagree with you, Ayelean, Ginja, 18:17:24, 3/26/2001, (#35) Ginja, ayelean, 18:47:19, 3/26/2001, (#37) unless..., Edie Pratt, 18:43:22, 3/26/2001, (#36) Oh Edie, ayelean, 18:50:18, 3/26/2001, (#38) what do you mean, Ayelean?, Edie Pratt, 18:53:59, 3/26/2001, (#39) Edie, ayelean, 19:18:34, 3/26/2001, (#43) Yes, Friends, Ayelean:-), Edie Pratt, 19:29:20, 3/26/2001, (#45) Edie, ayelean, 19:47:30, 3/26/2001, (#46) hmmm, Edie Pratt, 19:59:59, 3/26/2001, (#47) Puzzling, ayelean, 20:15:42, 3/26/2001, (#48) two people in one, Edie Pratt, 20:28:37, 3/26/2001, (#49) LOL, ayelean, 20:55:25, 3/26/2001, (#50) AMEN!, Edie Pratt, 21:11:04, 3/26/2001, (#51) Friends?, Ginja, 19:04:35, 3/26/2001, (#40) Perhap the problem..., Ginja, 19:14:02, 3/26/2001, (#41) Duh, Ginja, 19:15:43, 3/26/2001, (#42) Ginja..., shadow, 19:19:04, 3/26/2001, (#44) About Grandpa Paugh,, gaiabetsy, 07:19:48, 3/27/2001, (#52) Ginja on Don Paugh, Ginja, 08:01:32, 3/27/2001, (#53) Ginga,, gaiabetsy, 08:13:16, 3/27/2001, (#54) gaiabetsy, Ginja, 08:47:33, 3/27/2001, (#55) Yes, Ginja,, gaiabetsy, 09:26:30, 3/27/2001, (#56) Shock of Shock, Ginja, 09:28:29, 3/27/2001, (#57) ................................................................... "Am I Gonna Have to Prosecute this Case Myself?" Posted by Ginja on 14:52:38 3/24/2001 (Because of the length of my latest dissertation (8 pgs) :-), I've broken it down into several posts) In reading through the six or more threads dedicated to the National Enquirer interview, I see the same ol' same ol' written by a number of posters in response not only to the interview, but their general feelings as regards this case. I have to admit, it BUGS the hell out of me to see such naiveté; then again, that naiveté is no different than the idiocy overcoming Boulder officials, most especially, resident in the DA's office. Why has there been no prosecution in this case? Because there's no conclusive evidence? I gotta tell ya, that's BS! Because there's no proof the parents did it, or at the very least, involved? Again, BS! Because there's no motive? Ditto the BS! Because there's random evidence that should be seriously considered to inculpate the prime suspects? Now THAT's BS, and by now, you can see I'm buried in a chitload of disbelief and incredulity (not to mention chit!). Do you honestly believe that a jury could sit in on such a trial and not come to a reasonable conclusion? That is, to find the parties guilty? Why? Because the case can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt? So not only are we (and Boulder) stuck in a mire of not understanding evidence, but in order to believe a jury couldn't convict beyond a reasonable doubt, then we have to admit we also don't understand the meaning of "reasonable". All of the above is WHY this case sits on detectives' desks with nowhere to go. This is known as a travesty of justice. Evidence is a legal term meaning the information that a jury is permitted to consider in resolving disputed questions of fact. Evidence includes the oral statements of witnesses produced by the parties to the litigation (including enhanced 911 calls!); documents such as deeds and written contracts (and bogus ransom notes!); objects such as an axe (or cord or maglite!) allegedly used in a slaying; and data gathered from scientific tests (including but not limited to DNA tests and handwriting analyses!), if such has been authenticated to the court's satisfaction. Since lie detectors have not been so authenticated, the results of lie detector tests are usually not admissible. Scientific tests inevitably involve experts, but expert testimony is not limited to tests and appliances (consider content, grammar, word usage, etc., as found in the ransom note). As a general rule, the opinions and conclusions of a witness judged to be an expert would be allowed in evidence whenever the expert is better qualified than the jury to assess the facts of a particular situation. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence. Evidence is either direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence, if true, immediately establishes the fact that was to be proved (i.e., autopsy findings, police observations), while circumstantial evidence, even if true, still requires that the fact be inferred (i.e., the victim suffered BOTH chronic and acute sexual abuse, ergo, the molester can only be one who had access and opportunity - that is, it wouldn't be someone who walked off the street!). This is not to say that direct evidence is more reliable or always more persuasive. Its persuasiveness derives not from its directness but from its ring of truth and accuracy. If it does not ring true, direct evidence is often outweighed by evidence that is wholly circumstantial. The principle requirement of evidence is that it be relevant. That is to say, the information offered must have some tendency to prove or disprove some disputed question of fact. Direct evidence is always relevant. (Thus, the autopsy findings of both chronic and acute sexual abuse are relevant and must be considered/included in determining the sequence of that night's actions.) The offer of circumstantial evidence, otoh, forces a court to examine its probative quality. In some instances, the decision to admit circumstantial evidence will turn altogether on precedent. In prosecutions of murder, for example, courts long ago determined that evidence of flight has some tendency to prove a consciousness of guilt and that consciousness of guilt in turn has some tendency to prove guilt itself. (Consider John Ramsey's phone call to Mike Archuleta less than 30 minutes after finding the body of his daughter.) Accordingly, a judge will admit such evidence without freshly examining its relevance. Where precedent is lacking, a judge must rely on logic, experience, and common sense. (To be continued) [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "More on Evidence" Posted by Ginja on 14:53:42 3/24/2001 Rules Excluding Evidence. The requirement of relevance has obvious advantages. It concentrates the jury's attention on the problem at hand, saves valuable time, and most importantly, minimizes the possibility that the jury's verdict will be influenced by prejudice or bias. But relevance is not the only criterion applied to determine if evidence may be admitted. Most of the law of evidence has to do with exclusionary rules that keep a jury from hearing admittedly relevant evidence. The reasons for these rules vary. The three principal ones involve hearsay, privilege and evidence obtained illegally. (Note that the rules of evidence aren't exclusive only to the prosecution; that is, defendants, too, must abide. For example, does the statement, "there's nothing in the Ramseys history to indicate that (a) John molested his daughter, or (b) neither parent would ever hurt "that child"" sound familiar? How would the Rams "prove" such a point? By bringing in character witnesses? Read on.) Hearsay. The best known and perhaps least understood of the exclusionary rules is that dealing with hearsay. The Federal Rules of Evidence define hearsay as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." First then, hearsay is a statement not made at a trial or hearing but merely reported there. But the second requirement of hearsay is even more important: the reported statement will be hearsay only if it is offered in an attempt to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Thus, in a prosecution of B assaulting A, an investigating officer might testify that A said that B assaulted him. If this report is offered for the purpose of showing that B did in fact assault A, it is plainly hearsay. But if it's offered merely to establish A's physical condition at the time in question (for example, that he was able to speak) the evidence is not hearsay; it does not matter that the reported remark was made outside the courtroom, because the accuracy of the remark is of no consequence. The principal reason why hearsay is frequently inadmissible is that the party against whom it is offered has no opportunity to cross-examine the person who reportedly made the remark. In the example given, if the only purpose is to show that A was able to speak, the law will permit a jury to conclude, on this evidence, that A could speak. The officer so testifying is present and can be cross-examined. His opportunity for observation can be tested, and any possible bias can be exposed. But the law will not permit a jury to conclude from this evidence that B did assault A. A is not on the witness stand and the jury has no chance to judge his truthfulness in the light that cross-examination would shed. Hearsay is not always rejected. The law recognizes a number of situations in which evidence may be considered sufficiently trustworthy even though it is plainly hearsay. For example, business records are likely to be maintained with care, since there is no point in keeping them unless they are reasonably accurate. Accordingly, they are admissible to show, for example, that a purchase was made, or that a certain treatment was given in a hospital. (So here's an open window - excuse the pun! - where purchases (for cord and duct tape???) can be introduced, not to mention JBR's visits to Beuf.) Spontaneous exclamations are thought to have the ring of truth, and a report of them is allowed. Indeed, whenever there is a special reason for considering hearsay trustworthy, it will be admitted, especially if the declarant him/herself is not available to testify. (Thus, "we didn't mean for this to happen" can be introduced, even though the declarant is available to testify to the comment. (I'm sure her excuse would be she was in shock and never said (or remembered saying) such a thing!) Privilege. Much relevant evidence is not allowed because it would violate the various rules involving privilege. Privilege may arise from a particular relationship, such as that between husband and wife or attorney and client. However, in the case of Ramsey where both husband and wife are suspected of multiple crimes, this privilege does not apply. Privilege is increasingly coming to be looked on with disfavor. An exception is the very important privilege against self-incrimination that is constitutionally guaranteed by the 5th amendment. This privilege, which extends to nonjudicial proceedings such as legislative investigations, is most often invoked in court by a criminal defendant who chooses not to testify. This is his privilege, and a jury is not allowed to draw adverse inferences from the defendant's mere failure to testify. But the privilege has its limits. The Supreme Court has ruled that the privilege protects against compelled "communication," but that it "offers no protection against compulsion to submit for identification, to appear in court, to stand, to assume a stance, to walk, or to make a particular gesture. Evidence Obtained Illegally. The third especially important group of rules excluding clearly relevant evidence of obvious probative value has to do with evidence obtained illegally. Since the '60's, the overall prohibition against illegally obtained evidence has commonly been called the exclusionary rule. For the most part, this group of rules is thought to be required by the 4th and 5th amendments or, if not actually required, highly desirable to enforce the guarantees of those amendments. The 4th amendment requires "probable cause" for search warrants and prohibits "unreasonable searches." To enforce these provisions, the Supreme Court has ruled that evidence obtained by their violation is inadmissible. Similarly, the due process and self-incrimination clauses of the 5th amendment prohibit the use of illegally obtained confessions. So note, in his cagey way of trying to say he cooperated, John told police to go ahead and search his offices, search the airport, and search the hangar. Police refused. Suppose the police had searched and found something. It would have been thrown out of court as inadmissible (the exclusionary rule!). Likewise, your hero Steve Thomas tried to force the DA into allowing searches, which were not in his power to allow (only the courts can find probable cause and issue subpoenas). So again, if Hunter had allowed such searches, any evidence found would likewise have been inadmissible! (I disagree with a lot that Hunter's office did, but there was a method to his madness in dealing with Mr. Thomas). Likewise, Miranda set forth the rules that police must follow whenever a suspect is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom. Evidence obtained in violation of Miranda is summarily rejected. The improper admission of evidence in a trial is often grounds for an appeal, and persons convicted of crimes have not infrequently been released because illegally obtained evidence was wrongfully permitted to be presented to a jury. So again, it was a fine line to be crossed if Thomas had gotten his way in locking up Patsy in the hopes she'd break. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Legal Precedents" Posted by Ginja on 14:58:55 3/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:58:55, 3/24/2001 This is a case of murder. Most, if not all, murder cases brought before the court are based primarily in circumstantial evidence. That is, if there was material and direct proof that the accused committed the crime, it is more likely than not the accused will plead down to a charge of second degree or manslaughter, bypassing a trial and probable conviction to either life in prison, or death by execution. So for a DA to proclaim there is inconclusive evidence to try a case only goes to his inexperience and inability to pull together a cohesive case. Likewise, this particular DA has committed a grievous miscarriage in justice by determining, on his own, that this case lacks probative value. This is the responsibility of the jury. The purpose of a grand jury is to determine whether or not there is probable cause. If the grand jury determines such probable cause exists, then it is the responsibility of that DA to present the facts before a petit jury. The special grand jury convened to investigate the murder of JonBenet Ramsey found sufficient probable cause and were ready to indict in April, 1999. Alternate jurors were dismissed and the grand jury proceedings were put on hold until the Fall, at which time the DA determined, not the grand jury, that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. In Kimmons v. State, 343 So.2d 542 (Ala.Cr.App.1977), the Court stated the rule as follows: Circumstantial evidence alone is enough to support a guilty verdict of the most heinous crime, provided the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty." Lowe v. State, 90 Fla. 255, 105 So. 829 (1925). Circumstantial evidence is said to be the inference of a fact in issue which follows as a natural consequence according to reason and common experience from known collateral facts. Lowe, supra. In Dolvin v. State, 391 So.2d 133, the Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the conviction citing Kimmons in stating that "the mere presence of a person at the time and place of a crime is not sufficient to justify his conviction for the commission of the crime." (Note, we've heard this one before, haven't we? Something the Boulder DA has noted numerous times. Well, folks, here's how that little ditty played out in the higher courts!) That court (the Court of Criminal Appeals in Dolvin) omitted, however, to state that if presence at the time and place a crime is committed, in conjunction with other facts and circumstances, tend to connect the accused with the commission of the crime, then the jury may find the accused guilty. In Kimmons, the court said: A more proper and correct statement of the rule is that the fact that at or about the time of the commission of the offense with which the accused is charged, he and the accomplice were together, in or near the place where the crime was committed, may, in conjunction with other facts and circumstances, sufficiently tend to connect the accused with the commission of the crime to furnish the necessary corroboration of the accomplice. The Supreme Court of Alabama overturned the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision: In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we think the Court of Criminal Appeals did not correctly apply the test set out in Cumbo v. State, 368 So.2d 871, 874 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), although we note that the court cited that case. In Cumbo, the court said: In reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, this court must view that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The test to be applied is whether the jury might reasonably find that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; not whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but guilt, but whether a jury might reasonably so conclude. United States v. Black, 497 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. McGlamory, 441 F.2d 130 (5th Cir. 1971); Clark v. United States, 293 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1961). (W)e must keep in mind that the test to be applied is not simply whether in the opinion of the trial judge or the appellate court the evidence fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt; but rather whether the jury might so conclude. Harper v. United States, 405 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1969); Roberts v. United States, 416 F.2d 1216 (5th Cir. 1969). The procedure for appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence has been aptly set out in Odom v. United States, 377 F.2d 853, 855 (5th Cir. 1967): Our obligation, therefore, is to examine the record to determine whether there is any theory of the evidence from which the jury might have excluded every hypothesis except guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Rua v. United States, 5 Cir. 1963, 321 F.2d 140; Riggs v. United States, 5 Cir. 1960, 280 F.2d 949. In Judge Thornberry's words: "...the standard utilized by this Court is not whether in our opinion the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom failed to exclude every hypothesis other than guilt, but rather whether there was evidence from which the jury might reasonably so conclude." Williamson v. United States, 5th Cir., 1966, 365 F.2d 12, 14. The sanctity of the jury function demands that this court never substitute its decision for that of the jury. Our obligation is to examine the welter of evidence to determine if there exists any reasonable theory from which the jury might have concluded that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged. McGlamory, 441 F.2d at 135 and 136. See also, Blair v. State, 18 Ala.App. 615, 93 So. 45 (1922). Whether circumstantial evidence tending to connect the defendant with the crime excludes, to a moral certainty, every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the defendant's guilt is a question for the jury and not the court. Cannon v. State, 17 Ala.App. 82, 81 So. 860 (1919); see also Evans v. State, 39 Ala.App. 404, 408, 103 So.2d 40, cert. Denied, 267 Ala. 695, 103 So.2d 44 (1958). Circumstantial evidence may afford satisfactory proof of the corpus delicti in a murder prosecution, and, if facts are presented from which the jury may reasonably infer that the crime has been committed, the question must be submitted to the jury. Hobson v. State, 352 So.2d 500, 502 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed, 352 So.2d 506 (Ala. 1976). However, circumstantial evidence justifies a conviction only when it is inconsistent with any reasonable theory of innocence. The humane provisions of the law are, that a prisoner, charged with a felony, should not be convicted on circumstantial evidence, unless it shows by a full measure of proof that the defendant is guilty. Such proof is always insufficient, unless it excludes, to a moral certainty, every other reasonable hypothesis, but that of the guilt of the accused. No matter how strong the circumstances, if they can be reconciled with the theory that some other person may have done the act, then the defendant is not shown to be guilty, by that full measure of proof, which the law requires. Ex parte Acree, 63 Ala. 234 (1879). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Dolvin Conclusion" Posted by Ginja on 14:59:47 3/24/2001 Guilt is not established by circumstantial evidence unless the facts relied on are such that it is the only conclusion fairly to be drawn from them. Fuquay v. State, 22 Ala.App. 243, 114 So. 892 (1927). If all the material circumstances in evidence point to guilt and exclude any reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt a conviction is warranted. Pruett v. State, 33 Ala.App. 491, 495, 35 So.2d 115 (1948). We have examined the facts presented by the State, as outlined in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and we have compared those facts with the wife's case. See Dolvin v. State, 391 So.2d 666 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979) aff'd 391 So.2d 677 (Ala. 1980). The Court of Criminal Appeals justifies its holding that the evidence was insufficient. * * * We need not list again all the evidence produced by the State to connect the accused with the crime, but we are convinced that the evidence, viewed "in a light most favorable to the prosecution," was sufficient to allow the jury to reasonably conclude that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt, the standard stated in Cumbo v. State, 368 So.2d 871, 874 (Ala.Cr.App.1978). No person should be convicted, whether on circumstantial evidence or direct evidence, unless it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty; on the other hand, if the State meets its burden of proof, then a jury may find the defendant guilty. The Court has said that the determination of whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the conviction is within the province of the jury as the finder of fact. In McDowell v. State, 238 Ala. 101, 189 So. 183 (1939), the Court opined: The corpus delicti is a fact, proof of which may be made by circumstantial evidence. If there is a reasonable inference deducible from the evidence of its existence, the court must submit the question of the sufficiency and weight of the evidence tending to support that inference to the jury. Martin v. State, (125 Ala. 64, 28 So. 92) supra; Lewis v. State, 220 Ala. 461, 125 So. 802; Wilson v. State, 191 Ala. 7, 67 So. 1010; Newell v. State, 115 Ala. 54, 22 So. 572. Upon consideration of the facts set out in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and applying the correct legal principles to that evidence, we conclude that the decision of the jury that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to justify a conviction should not have been overturned by the Court of Criminal Appeals in this case. The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is, therefore, due to be reversed and the cause remanded to that court. Reversed and remanded. ***** [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "My Conclusion (i.e., The End!)" Posted by Ginja on 15:00:31 3/24/2001 IOW, it is up to the jury to review the evidence and make the determination of whether or not there is sufficient evidence and that evidence is conclusive....not the DA! Likewise, note, too, (and as you can see, there's a chitload of precedent for this!) that determinations of guilt or innocence, based on circumstantial evidence, MUST be made by jurors, not DA's or judges. It is the jury's responsibility to make such determinations. And it is also a rule of court that such evidence (circumstantial) must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution!! Also note, too, that "reasonable" goes to the most reasonable conclusion that can be made. IOW, all the circumstances must be considered. So in Ramsey, where all the circumstances point toward parent guilt, it is not reasonable for a jury to throw out that evidence in light of the possibility that someone else "might" have committed the crime based solely on minutiae found in the panties. Nothing else supports those minutiae. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to conclude the parents innocent based solely on such evidence. As to motive, it's not a requisite of any trial. In a Supreme Court ruling, a murder case based on the direct evidence cannot and does not become weak for want of establishing motive. "We are unable to concur with the legal proposition adumbrated in the high court judgment that motive may not be very much material in cases depending on direct evidence whereas motive is material only when the case depends upon circumstantial evidence. A lower court acquitted a defendant on the grounds that "prosecution has failed to properly establish the motive behind the crime." The Supreme Court held that "there is no legal warrant for making such a hiatus in criminal cases as for the motive for committing the crime," adding that if the prosecution proved the motive it would be well and good for it, particularly in a case depending on circumstantial evidence, for such motive could then be counted as one of the circumstances. However, it cannot be forgotten that it is generally a difficult area for any prosecution to bring on record what was in the mind of the accused, the court added. Even if the investigating officer succeeded in knowing the motive through interrogation that could not be put in evidence due to ban imposed by law. Thus, motive is not necessary. However, it could be used in a circumstantial case as a supporting circumstance. I respectful submit, therefore, that sexual abuse would serve not only as motive, but a supporting circumstance in the case against John and Patsy Ramsey. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Ginja" Posted by New York Lawyer on 15:17:51 3/24/2001 This is pretty good. I take back 80% of the negative things I've said about you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "WOW NYL...." Posted by Ginja on 15:29:04 3/24/2001 ...You've made my day (seriously!). Your comment means a lot to me, thank you! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "wow" Posted by starry on 15:56:53 3/24/2001 and I take back all the negative things I've thought about the length of Ned's posts!!! (only kidding, only kidding!!!!..) You know I love you. I just don't have the time to read right now. I spent my day off doing laundry, grocery shopping, cooking, running errands and catching up with phone calls to the grandkids.) BTW, I got your e-mail today and thanks so much. I'm so glad you were able to use that information I sent you. Now, what I want to know is, now that NYL and Ginja have finally achieved a most deservedly degree of respect for each other, does that mean NYL will be at the spring fling? I haven't confirmed as yet, but I'm hoping to make it. Depends on whether or not I go to another outage after this one or not. Would love to go, though. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Ginja..." Posted by Country Girl on 22:13:34 3/24/2001 Is there a reason you used Alabama law and not Colorado? I have a new link for Colorado Law that might interest you. http://216.250.5.221/cgi-dos/stattocp.exe?T Section 16 is Criminal proceedings; Section 18 is Criminal Code. BTW, if Steve Thomas wanted a no-knock search warrant, he would have to have Hunter sign it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Wow....." Posted by rose on 21:43:05 3/24/2001 This is what I have been waiting for!!!! \ Ginja and NYL being agreeable. Two great minds working for one solution to a problem. Ginja, in any other state but Colo. this case would have already been put to a jury by the DA. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "CG" Posted by Ginja on 08:58:40 3/25/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:58:40, 3/25/2001 Precedent is precedent, regardless of where it originates. You and I have both been through the Colorado Criminal Code (which is where we found the exception to the exclusionary rule re married couples). Hunter, et al have continually had excuses as to why they can't prosecute, including: (1) They can't just arrest/indict the Ramseys because they were both in the house that night (with no evidence of any third-parties or intruders!); (2) They can't bring this to trial because all they have is circumstantial evidence, ergo it's inconclusive and they can't prove the case. Hunter, et al have also made the egregious error of taking this matter out of the hands of the grand jurors while at the same time refusing to present it to petit jurors (where the ultimate responsibility rests in making judgements as to probative value and guilt and/or innocence). Clearly, these excuses are unfounded as the precedents point out! The cases cited specifically address each of these excuses/errors, more specifically Kimmons and Cumbo. In Dolvin, the jury was allowed to carry out their responsibilities. Yet, their conviction was overturned by the criminal appeals court. Hunter, et al could always look to such a case and say, "see! told you it can't be done, the verdict was overturned!" Not so, says the Supreme Court. They found the jury was correct in its actions and decisions. More importantly, they noted that the appeals court misread/misinterpreted both Kimmons and Cumbo. This is no new law! Many of the cases go back to the turn of the last century, with the Supreme Court ruling itself turning on a case overturned in 1980. Hunter, et al have no excuses! Likewise, there are posters who agree with Hunter, et al that there is inconclusive evidence to prosecute. But they also don't understand, from their postings, the meaning of "reasonable". It also appears there's a misunderstanding as regards random evidence. Our friends Nedthan, et al are convinced that the panty and fingernail minutiae (not to mention random evidence such as old tekboot print, partial palmprint, and underbelly hair) are more than enough "evidence" to "support" a "reasonable hypothesis of innocence"! Again, all the cases cited, including the Supreme Court ruling, clearly point out that this is erroneous. The rules of evidence clearly indicate that circumstantial evidence are building blocks upon which a case is built. The rules specifically point out that direct evidence is not more reliable or always more persuasive. Its persuasiveness derives not from its directness, but from its ring of truth or accuracy. Therefore, if it doesn't ring true, direct evidence is often ouweighed by evidence that is wholly circumstantial. IOW, again, when the bulk of the evidence points in one direction, it is not reasonable to dismiss it all because of unsupportable minutiae that can't be identifed or linked to any person/perp. That a different perp was present and left less than a drop of 'evidence' does not ring true in this case. It does not carry the weight of proof; ergo, its overridden by the bulk of circumstantial evidence which does support the criminal acts being perpetrated by the parents. BTW, perhaps there is no Colorado precedents seeing as how Colorado officials aren't too keen in bringing murderers to trial!!! ;-) Ooops! Edited to add that there were posters, i.e., Nedthan, et al, who also believe that because there is no motive, a case can't be made. I pointed out several things: (1) this thinking is erroneous as motive is not a requisite, where courts have even ruled that it would be difficult for a prosecutor to try to get into the head of the perp; however, (2) in a circumstantial case, if one can identify a possible motive, that motive can then be counted as one of the circumstances supporting the case; and (3) I pointed out that sexual abuse not only could be a possible motive, but it could also be used as one of the 'building blocks' supporting the case. One should note that there truly is a 'ring of truth and accuracy" to such a claim. Perhaps some posters just can't see it because they refuse to consider the direct evidence of sexual 'contact' presented in the autopsy findings. They may not think this "reasonable"....but they aren't on the jury! And I truly believe that if such was presented to a jury, that jury would have no problems recognizing a ring of truth and accuracy to such a 'claim'. Motive can and does exist in this case -- there are just those who can't see the forest for the trees in this particlar regard. Bummer, because of the edit I've lost all my html! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "JonBenet's only hope may be..." Posted by Country Girl on 09:07:38 3/25/2001 A special prosecutor. Colorado law states: 16-5-209 - Judge may require prosecution. The judge of a court having jurisdiction of the alleged offense, upon affidavit filed with the judge alleging the commission of a crime and the unjustified refusal of the prosecuting attorney to prosecute any person for the crime, may require the prosecuting attorney to appear before the judge and explain the refusal. If after that proceeding, based on the competent evidence in the affidavit, the explanation of the prosecuting attorney, and any argument of the parties, the judge finds that the refusal of the prosecuting attorney to prosecute was arbitrary or capricious and without reasonable excuse, the judge may order the prosecuting attorney to file an information and prosecute the case or may appoint a special prosecutor to do so. The judge shall appoint the special prosecutor from among the full-time district attorneys, assistant district attorneys, or deputy district attorneys who serve in judicial districts other than where the appointment is made; except that, upon the written approval of the chief justice of the supreme court, the judge may appoint any disinterested private attorney who is licensed to practice law in the state of Colorado to serve as the special prosecutor. Any special prosecutor appointed pursuant to this section shall be compensated as provided in section 20-1-308, C.R.S. http://216.250.5.221/cgi-dos/statdspp.exe?LNP&doc=16-5-209 I truly think NYL's lawsuit in Colorado for LHP might just be a catalyst to investigating Hunter's actions. He let Kane take his best shot, IMO, with the intention of not bringing an indictment from the beginning. He bent over (backwards) in favor of the Ramsey's from the beginning by giving them evidence that they were not entitled to as non-charged defendents and has kept the grand jury proceedings sealed. The only hope is a special prosecutor. Who will bring this action before a judge? How will the evidence of Hunter's behavior be brought to light? Perhaps through the efforts of a housekeeper. Wouldn't that be ironic? If ever a house needed cleaning, it would be this one! BTW Ginja, I think this link I provided in my earlier post is much easier than what we were dealing with before if you want to check it out. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "CG....." Posted by rose on 10:38:26 3/25/2001 What you said is reasonable and true, but can you really see any Judge in Colo. going against the mind set of the Colo. Justice System? I am going to be suprised if LHP gets a favorable ruling when she goes before Judge Balin or whom ever. They have supported Hunter for years and can we really expect them to start now. Hope I'm wrong, but their track record is not good. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Ginja..." Posted by shadow on 10:32:00 3/25/2001 Very well researched and very interesting - but, if you were the DA, who would you charge and what would the charge be? Also, you convinced me concerning circumstantial evidence and "reasonableness," but doesn't there have to be AT LEAST SOME SOLID EVIDENCE - what is it? I'm not defending the Ramseys, I'm just looking for what you would present to the jury as "real evidence" - where the jury doesn't have to "reason" that if A is true and B is true, then C, D, and E must be true. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Question..." Posted by Country Girl on 10:54:35 3/25/2001 I wonder if the FBI/CBI have done any dna tests on the rope(s)to see if skin cells were sloughed off/embedded when the perp tied all those knots! shadow, the note, notepad, pen, paintbrush handle, fibers from Patsy's jacket, flashlight, are all direct evidence of the crime and staging the coverup, IMO. Yes, I realize the defense will try and explain away all of that; however in it's totality (is that a word?), it is very compelling. Bring in a profiler to explain to the jury what a staged domestic homicide is and cross examine Douglas when he testifies for the defense about his own (pre-Ramsey) writings on the subject and the fact that he did not examine case files as he has stated, etc. and I believe a jury can put 2 and 2 together. The prosecution can explain all the "intruder" evidence just as easily as the defense can try and cast doubt on the direct evidence. In the end, it will be up to 12 people to decide if someone other than the parents was able to come into their home on Christmas night and, without fear of discovery, accomplish all that was done in this crime. Anything is possible. A jury will have to decide if it's probable. IF it ever gets to a jury. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Douglas...." Posted by rose on 11:07:52 3/25/2001 His book would be evidence enough to impeach John Douglas's testimony. I would pay to see a prosecutor question Douglas in a court setting about his complete about face in the Ramsey case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Country Girl" Posted by mary99 on 11:38:15 3/25/2001 I may be wrong, don't want to spread 'factoids', but in regards to testing of the cord, I recall a very puzzling comment made by Hunter, I believe, about a non-JB hair or other evidence on the rope implying it may have been re-used or even from another victim. If anyone recalls a similar quote, please clarify. This may have been in the Hunter/Plasket interview with Mame, which unfortunately is no longer on my computer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "CG..." Posted by shadow on 11:27:11 3/25/2001 "shadow, the note, notepad, pen, paintbrush handle, fibers from Patsy's jacket, flashlight, are all direct evidence of the crime and staging the coverup, IMO." Every bit of that "evidence" belonged to the Ramseys and was in their house. Nothing unusual in that! If the crime was committed in someone else's house and the Ramsey "stuff" was there, it would be good, circumstantial evidence. Like I said - I'd like to see just a little HARD evidence that does not rely on A+B must = C,D & E... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "CG" Posted by Ginja on 16:45:31 3/25/2001 Very interesting statute you'd found there, girlfriend! :-) But who's going to file the affidavit with the Court to get the judge to call Hunter before him? And what of this Keenan? (is that her name?) Apparently, she's not doing anything on this case, either. She should be filing the affidavit! Likewise, so should Kane! Another interesting point you brought out about testing the cord. If you watch CSI, that's exactly what they did when investigating a strangulation. They scraped the cord and pulled the perp's dna (skin cells)...he didn't wear gloves! :-) My guess is that no such test was done here or else we'd have heard about it...not to mention the DA would have "evidence" to identify the killer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "A smart ass comment here" Posted by starry on 16:59:49 3/25/2001 not to you, though Ginja. It's about the rope. If either of the R's handled that rope and knew the CBI was about to run DNA tests on it, they'd probably call the National Enquirer and suddenly recall that it was theirs. Knowing you guys, I know this thread is chock full of reasonable evidence with which they could charge and prosecute the Ramsey's with. Yeah, Ginja, I guess you're gonna have to try it yourself. huggs, starry [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "I just wonder" Posted by janphi on 17:28:59 3/25/2001 SThomas said "we" (the public) know about 95% of the available evidence. LSchiller said he only used 10% of his investigative results in PMPT. Evidently, none of the GJ witnesses revealed any smoking guns. What puzzle piece is missing that would bring this closer to the "sure thing" that Keenan would want, if she is truly an AH clone? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "I dearly hope that NYL..." Posted by Dunvegan on 18:29:12 3/25/2001 ...has Patsy and John subjected to psychiatric testing. NYL: You might as well have your experts check for the following: PATSY Narcissisic Personality Munchausen's MBP-Munchausen's By Proxy MPD-Multiple Personality Disorder Borderling Personality Childhood Sexual Abuse Sadism JOHN Pedophilia Incest BOTH Sociopathic Personality BTW...any one have any other pathology that should be inquired into? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Janphi" Posted by mary99 on 19:37:50 3/25/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:37:50, 3/25/2001 I wonder too about the cord/rope. Did you listen to the Hunter inerview with Plasket and Mame? Seems to me something was mentioned there--and that's the beauty of a spontanteous interview, we get a quote off the cuff Hunter might not give to a newspaper... Dunvegan, add this to your list: Patsy: Excessive Primping Syndrome! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Dunvegan" Posted by Anton on 20:40:11 3/25/2001 There's always the highly precise diagnosis for both of these folks: PFN Plain Freaking Nuts [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "'Evidence'" Posted by sarah on 09:29:17 3/26/2001 The Ramsom note is one of the greatest pieces of evidence in this case. That and Evidence Of Prior Sexual Abuse and The Ramsom's own telling and or conflicting statements found in their interviews and DOI. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Yet, Sarah," Posted by gaiabetsy on 10:09:36 3/26/2001 I think none of those things you brought up will ever put those two in jail. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Shadow and Janphi" Posted by Ginja on 14:01:13 3/26/2001 Shadow, I tried to answer your question last night and had most of the response completed when good ol' AOL knocked me off and pouf! went the post. Disgusted, I logged off. I'll reconstruct the answer within the next couple of hours (might even get to finish it here in the office). Janphi, some pretty interesting numbers. We've known for a couple of years now that 95% of the information/evidence on this case has been exposed to the public. That is, we know it. Schiller, himself, has admitted that 95% of this case has been laid out on the public table. The most notable of that has been published in his book, which only amounts to 10% of the 95% available! I've pointed out numerous times that nothing new can be developed in this case unless someone confesses. That's never going to happen. So Colorado better wake up and smell the coffee if this case is ever to get prosecuted. They've got everything they need, so I'm with you....what's it going to take for them to get off their butts and do their jobs!!!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Ginja..." Posted by shadow on 14:37:35 3/26/2001 I eagerly look forward to your answer. Do not misunderstand... I'm not giving you or anyone else here a hard-time. I'm no lawyer, and readily admit that I don't know much about criminal law. However, I haven't seen one thing that would sway me, as an inexperienced juror (which most will be), from "reasonable doubt" - that must be given the accused, not the DA. BTW, one example of what I mean when I say "hard evidence" is: If JR sexually abusing JBR is going to be part of the "circumstantial" evidence presented, I would like to see some solid example or prior sexual abuse by JR. I most certainly wouldn't be impressed by the DA simply saying that since JBR was sexually abused, it must have been JR. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Shadow" Posted by sarah on 15:29:58 3/26/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:29:58, 3/26/2001 You said: "I would like to see some solid example or prior sexual abuse by JR." FWIW, this is a situation where text-book and experts always say that child sexual abuse and incest is a 'hidden crime', meaning that by it's very nature even families, even spouses, don't discuss it amongst one another. Usually the only way it is ever discovered is if the victim comes across with it..That, I assume is how a prosecutor would argue it, because that's the truth.:) You also said: "I most certainly wouldn't be impressed by the DA simply saying that since JBR was sexually abused, it must have been JR." Here Shadow, is where the Ramsey's conflicting statements come in. It's too long to explain in it's entirity, but I know you'll get the general picture: We have several instances of the Ramseys stating JonBenet "was never abused", and acting all huffed about it. On the other hand, we have evidence of prior sexual abuse...found during her autopsy...meaning she was dead. Let's assume you have a daughter in kindergarden. You of course are a normal parent, and you love your daughter with all your heart, and as a parent,your daughter is also your responsibility. One day while at school she complained of say, severe abdominal pains and she was taken to a hospital emergency room and subsequently examined. What if the examining doctor found evidence of sexual trauma, and penetration. The doctor presents you with his findings. As a normal reaction to such news you'ed be shocked, and you'ed want to get to the bottom of this. Your mind would be racing- who could have done such a thing, and you'ed be thinking back on everything and everyone who has contact with your child. After the shock wore off you'ed be damned mad too, at least I would. Somebody out there would have hell to pay for ruining my baby! Now, as a juror, if you knew that prior abuse was found, and if you read the Ramsey statements denying abuse but NOT being surprised, NOT taking it on their own and researching and/or offering names of people who might have done this (since there prob. were none) in other words, wanting to know the truth and getting to the bottom of it.. well..what have you there. No, it's not 'proof', but sometimes actions do speak loud and clear. The Ramseys, by denying abuse, (and nothing else) have, by their own words, pointed to themselves as the perpetrators. They NEVER asked, 'Who could have done this!' Why did they NOT believe the autopsy findings? The doctor doing the autopsy had no bone to pick with them, so why would they not only play dumb and IGNORE the findings, but DENY THEM? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "You're on, Shadow!" Posted by Ginja on 14:49:20 3/26/2001 :-) And I know you're not trying to give anyone a hard time....knew that last night before I got pouffed. I'll catch up with you in a bit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "What if though," Posted by ayelean on 16:42:47 3/26/2001 What if the Ramseys know she was abused but, know who the abuser is, and it isn't John, but because it would be very embarrassing to reveal who it is they choose to do what they have done. To further complicate matters, her death is to silence her from telling who the abuser was. What if, revealing the abuser would destroy their life style as they knew it and it wasn't John, and instead made the decision to keep JB from ever telling anyone. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "lmao" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:52:22 3/26/2001 ruin their lifestyle as they knew it, Ayelean? Oh, and it hasn't ruined their lifestyle these four yrs to protect someone else? Nobody would stand by while uncle, grandpappy, brother, cousin, neighbor, whomever, MOLESTED THEIR CHILD! And keep protecting this monster in hopes of maintaining a lifestyle. People still think JR molested her, so what was the advantage in protecting Guy X? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Well" Posted by ayelean on 17:00:30 3/26/2001 Maybe because Neeedra was still alive. Maybe because the good Paugh sisters don't know about it. Besides revealing who did the molesting doesn't exonerate who killed her to keep it quiet. The more serious of the two crimes is murder! Protecting the murderer requires protecting the abuser and the reverse. That's why this isn't a simple murder to solve. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Here's How I'd Prosecute this Case" Posted by Ginja on 18:06:49 3/26/2001 (Splitting this up into a couple of posts) Because this is a circumstantial case, the objective is to take 'hard' evidence, what little there is, and then build a case that supports that evidence. Key word is circumstantial. We don't know what happened that night, or why. The only hard facts we have are that a 6-year-old child was murdered in her home on Christmas night. Her body was found in the basement and from the autopsy findings, death was due to asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma. Further findings show both chronic and acute sexual abuse. There were no signs of forced entry. Only four people in the house that night: the parents and two minor children. There is no evidence of any other person being in the house that night or evidence anything was brought in or taken out, that is, nothing was removed as in a robbery or burglary. Again, we don't know what happened. What needs to be done is to take the evidence and then fill in all the blanks with circumstances that would explain what happened and why. The reason why I keep repeating this is because when a prosecutor pulls all the evidence and circumstances together into a cohesive whole, it may not be what happened. But as long as the relevant pieces fit together, and the prosecutor can show that the crime can't be explained any other way, then it's up to the jurors to decide whether the scenario rings true and proves to them, not the court, that defendants are guilty of the crimes. Motive's not required. But as the Court has pointed out, if you can show motive, then you can use that motive as one of the circumstances in building the circumstantial case. Think of it as the glue that holds the case together. The glue in this case is sexual abuse. The acute injuries are obvious. And for a 6-year-old child, the chronic injuries are highly suspect of abuse. The partial hymen, the stretched vaginal opening...these are injuries that some might try to explain away innocently, but a number of medical papers have been cited on this forum that say unequivocally that such injuries cannot be anything but sexual abuse. But the most damaging evidence in proving prior sexual abuse is the interstitial inflammation. Couple that with the stretched vaginal opening and partial hymen and it's clear that this was a crime that revolved around that abuse. For any such crime, the perp has to have access and opportunity. Clearly, these vaginal injuries did not happen overnight, nor were they effected by simply inserting a paintbrush stick into the vagina. The lynchpin here is that these injuries took time. So we're looking at a perp who was close to the victim; that is, someone who had ample opportunity and access both prior to and on the night of the murder. This, basically, is why the intruder theory is laughable. In that regard, as well as the fact that no one else was present in the house that night, the parents are at the top of the list as suspects. So we look at them closely and we see that both have acted and continue to act as a unit. Neither questions the possibility that the other could be involved. Neither confesses. Rather than go into each and every detail as to what the two have done or how each has acted, suffice it to say, the two are joined at the hip. IOW, they're in on this together. So one has to ask, "Why?" If one acted alone, why would the other cover for their mate? There's got to be some serious "glue" that keeps these two joined at the hip. One could argue Patsy's sick and John is covering up that sickness; or John's a pervert and Patsy's not about to give up her flamboyant lifestyle. Personally, I don't consider these reasons are convincing enough to cover their child's brutal slaying. Nor do I believe such reasoning could be successfully argued before a jury. We need glue; we need access; we need opportunity; we need justification for the two of them acting together. Sexual abuse. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Conclusion" Posted by Ginja on 18:08:37 3/26/2001 Shadow, you asked that there be proof that John molested his daughter. There is none. But the circumstances surrounding the hard evidence of this case point directly to him as perp. He had access and opportunity to abuse her repeatedly prior to her death and he had access and opportunity the night she was murdered. Evidence which points to the truth of a crucial fact, a factum probandum, may in itself appear entirely innocuous and neutral: in that sense, it may not appear to be incriminatory; but it may acquire its incriminating character when it is placed in context. So, in that sense, evidence can properly be said to be of a corroborative character even though it does not appear of itself to point to guilt. But it cannot be corroborative in character unless it points positively towards the truth of one of the essential facts, which constitute the crime. Different considerations apply where the case is wholly circumstantial (as in Ramsey). In such cases, the circumstances may, when looked at together, acquire aptitude and coherence as incriminatory circumstances. Thus, in looking at the circumstances here, the combination of all these pieces of 'evidence' (the fact the victim was repeatedly abused by someone who had access and opportunity coupled with the fact that the victim's father had access and opportunity and was present at the crime scene where and when the crimes were committed) may point towards the commission of the crime libeled and it is this combination which may be sufficient corroboration of the prosecution's case. The victim, however, did not die from vaginal trauma. So how do you pull it all together? If I were the prosecutor, I'd go at it this way: Point 1: John is abusing his daughter. This is a criminal act and punishable by imprisonment. Point 2: Patsy goes to the victim's room to sleepwalk her to the potty as the victim is a known bedwetter. The only light source in the dark room is a light between the twin beds, so Patsy carries a flashlight with her. (Posters have asked why she couldn't go by the light in the hallway. She could, but she prefers to use the flashlight, pointing it on the floor from the bed to the bath and back; likewise, it's a dim light to see while in the bathroom, rather than putting that light on and perhaps waking (wide awake) the victim.) This puts a dangerous weapon in Patsy's hands. And with that 'weapon', she walks into the room and finds her husband abusing her daughter. Point 3: Enraged, Patsy strikes out at her husband. She misses, hitting the victim, cracking her skull in half and knocking her unconscious. It makes no difference that Patsy was aiming at someone else; the fact that she connected with the victim using a dangerous weapon is a criminal act, punishable by imprisonment. Point 4: The victim is unconscious. Neither parent can call a rescue because they're both guilty of imprisonable criminal acts. Point 5: The victim is mortally wounded. Even if they were able to revive her, she wouldn't be their "JonnieB", so the two conspire to stage a sex crime (to cover John's criminal acts) and falsely report a kidnapping (to cover Patsy's criminal acts). Point 6: In staging that crime, Patsy and John work together in gathering materials, setting the stage and writing the note. In staging the body to appear as though it was sexually attacked, John fashions a garrote and ties it around the victim's throat. Key here is criminal acts - explaining why the parents refused medical attention for their daughter, staged a crime scene, falsely reported a crime, and to this day cover for each other. Also key is motive - although Patsy 'accidentally' struck JonBenet (explaining her comment, "We didn't mean for this to happen"), the reason why she struck out was the sexual abuse being committed by her husband. Bottom line is that I believe that a solid circumstantial case could be built around this scenario, and that these circumstances corroborate the "hard" evidence noted in the first paragraph. Shadow, in responding to CG's post that the items used in the commission of these crimes were solid evidence, you said you found nothing unusual in that because those items belonged in the house as they belonged to family members. What you haven't taken into consideration is the negative evidence. You were correct in saying that if the crime had taken place elsewhere, and those same items were found at that scene, then it would be incriminating evidence against the parents. But likewise, Shadow, you also have to consider that if a third person came into that house that night, they would have brought their own items. They would have written a short note with their own pen on paper they had in their house. If the real plan were to kidnap, then the perp would have brought whatever he needed, such as duct tape. IOW, the negative evidence is that there is no other evidence anywhere in this crime scene except for items already in and belonging in the house. As noted in the rules of evidence, direct evidence isn't always more reliable or always more persuasive. It's persuasiveness derives not from its directness but from its ring of truth and accuracy. If it does not ring true, direct evidence is often outweighed by evidence that is wholly circumstantial. As Kimmons notes (and Kimmons sets out the rule/precedent for this): Circumstantial evidence alone is enough to support a guilty verdict of the most heinous crime, provided the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. * * * A more proper and correct statement of the rule is that the fact that at or about the time of the commission of the offense with which the accused is charged, he and the accomplice were together, in or near the place where the crime was committed, may, in conjunction with other facts and circumstances, sufficiently tend to connect the accused with the commission of the crime to furnish the necessary corroboration of the accomplice. Finally, in going back to Cumbo, it states: The test to be applied is whether the jury might reasonably find that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; not whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but guilt, but whether a jury might reasonably so conclude. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "I disagree with you, Ayelean" Posted by Ginja on 18:17:24 3/26/2001 But that in no way means we still can't be friends! :-) This is not a complex crime; it's very simple. So simple, it's why no one's come up with an answer (except maybe me! lololol) I think they figure that there's so much involved, that it just has to be complex; that it has to be more than what meets the eye. I do not agree with anyone that this crime was committed by only one parent, or that someone other than a parent was abusing this child. As Edie points out, what life have these two have now? And as I'll point out, no man...I don't care who he is, would put up with a father-in-law sexually molesting his small daughter. Father-in-law or anyone else! And what parent, what father, would not only put up with a f-i-l abusing his daughter, but then go along and cover not only for the f-i-l, but his wife as well for murdering their daughter to cover up that abuse? and/or protect the daughter from further abuse? and/or just get rid of the daughter because now she's "dirty". Patsy said it herself: Two people know. I say: she was talking about herself and her husband. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Ginja" Posted by ayelean on 18:47:19 3/26/2001 If you can get a guilty verdict on John, I would fully support you. He is just as guilty in my book as if he wielded the weapon. He is guilty of protecting the murderer even if he didn't know JBR was dead at the time of the 911 call. I wouldn't shed a tear on him being unjustly accused. However, I think one person would go scot free of any blame regarding the sexual abuse part. The way these people act, I can think of a hundred reasons why he is covering for Patsy and if he knows about Grandpa, whe he would cover for him. A normal father, man, son-in-law, husband probably would not, but these people are not normal. When I said it was not a simple crime, I meant that the motive is convoluted. The crime itself is simple. Lord knows the parents are simple. If my theory is true, putting it in the mix is damn near impossible to prove without a confession. Your scenario is plausible so I fully support it if it means getting it to fruition. If these two can be convicted then the whole story may come out anyway, or upon a deathbed confession. I still think Patsy was abused as a child and because they made JB an extension of Patsy, when the opportunity presented during her CA, JB became Patsy surrogate. Friends :-)? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "unless..." Posted by Edie Pratt on 18:43:22 3/26/2001 (trying to see it your way, Ayelean:-) ) unless the molestor was the money for everyone, and they desperatly needed him. I don't think they stilled owed GPaughpaugh... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Oh Edie" Posted by ayelean on 18:50:18 3/26/2001 Yes, they owe him big time, and they know it now more than ever. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "what do you mean, Ayelean?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 18:53:59 3/26/2001 owe him how? What? I hope you consider me a friend too, you know:-) I love your posts and they all make sense, only I need to toss in my two bits when I see JR getting "a pass". I really think he's crazier than his wife, if that's possible, lol! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Edie" Posted by ayelean on 19:18:34 3/26/2001 John knows he is nothing, can do nothing, without Don. Don has been more than privy to his entire career. He knows and has probably coached John on all his shady dealings that got him to his short lived pinnacle. John saw that Don always had a position. That position wasn't pay back, it was so Don could advise him. They probably never actually paid back the front money in dollars, he just took care of the Paughs. Don adopted John in ways his father never did. For John to expose Don would be worse than a son exposing his own father. To say nothing of what Don could tell about John. That exposé wouldn't come short of John going to the electric chair for Don. That is the reason for the references to 'fat cat' and 'grow a brain, John'. Little reminders of just what side the bread is buttered. Friends, :-)! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Yes, Friends, Ayelean:-)" Posted by Edie Pratt on 19:29:20 3/26/2001 you are very insightful, and that is more than reasonable, but, what kind of father would let his daughter suffer this public humiliation? JR AND her father are betraying her! If I were Patsy, I'd never speak to either again, if that's true. Now, how or where did you learn of such a bond between fil and sob, er sil? I've read so little about Don, but what I have read, was basically DP was a big mouthed fellow, a glad hander, drinks on me, office holder with basically nothing to do. I thought that was the payback, letting the old guy have his own key to the washroom, in lieu of cash. Boy, I need to read more... Friends forever, Ayelean, and that goes for every other friend I've met here. We are a family:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Edie" Posted by ayelean on 19:47:30 3/26/2001 I always suspected this was the relationship between Don and John, but even I was blown away by some threads back awhile ago. Janphi or Anton or maybe someone I am not giving credit to, posted a hugh amount of data regarding the companies John worked for, their name changes, buyouts etc. That is where it became quite evident that Don was far more than a nice fil to John. It was only when Don took John's career by the throat that John started to have some successes. Don learned a lot about advancing in the corporate world (it ain't purty). He recognized John's steely demeanor and made the right connections. John's career was Don's apple of his eye. He molded and encouraged him. Patsy was his favorite, to the disappointment of her sisters and Nedra, he wanted her to live well. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "hmmm" Posted by Edie Pratt on 19:59:59 3/26/2001 did he want Pam and Polly to live well, too? Do they? I remember all that you mentioned, now that I think about it! JR was a poor loser living in a rundown apt., shy/reserved, and diddling with his computer. He saw Patsy and asked his neighbor, who worked with him?, to introduce them. She must have looked like an angel sent from heaven when she was nice to John, huh? OK, now what do you make of this long standing relationship with Lucinda and Patsy and JR's dad marrying Lucinda's mother? Huh, it sounds like a soap parody. I think Lucinda looks something like Patsy, or I did the first time I saw her. Like Patsy's puritan cousin, or something. Why'd JR marry a woman so completely opposite of a woman he still thinks enough of to pay off her mortgage? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Puzzling" Posted by ayelean on 20:15:42 3/26/2001 That Lucinda thing, but I think Honor was drilled into John in his regimented upbringing. I don't find the marriage of his father and her mother too strange. When they lost their spouses there was a connection in their lives and if either was shy or reserved about going out into the world alone, I can see they could become attached. I've heard of the same thing happening before, I just can't think of an example right now. This double bond with Lucinda coupled with HONOR is probably his connection. He undoubtedly erred in their marriage and his 'honor' cut deep into his guilt. If Patsy hadn't happened (his stars must have collided, mercury was in retrograde or whatevah) that unlucky day, he and Lucinda probably would have patched things up. Maybe Lucinda wouldn't have him back, we don't know. I think that 'honor' thing still cuts the mustard with Patsy and she knows it and is using it to the hilt. I think he is just a mess. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "two people in one" Posted by Edie Pratt on 20:28:37 3/26/2001 interesting about his honor, because he continued to lose it by cheating on Patsy! Could this be a problem with once his "girl" becomes a mother, he goes a cheatin'? It is also clear that his outward appearance is very important to him. He comes off so square, but is he really? If his problems with his father have anything to do with it, could it be a son forced to act one way, tho the son is not at all who he portrays? Two people? Was he devastated when his own father died? Wasn't it around the same time Beth did? And, what do you know about his brother? He reminded me of a Roger Clinton type, lol. Maybe not so uncommon about the inlaws getting hitched, but man! What an awkward situation at holiday time. If the divorce was a nasty one, or at least angry, how'd these two manage to hook up? You know what I mean? Were they eyeing one another when their spouses were living, or did they get together to cry about the divorce of their children? How do senior singles do it, eh? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "LOL" Posted by ayelean on 20:55:25 3/26/2001 It never would have happened in my family. It is safe to say here, because they are all deceased, but my mom and dad only ever looked askance at the other in laws. I have to check with my sister, but I think it was a family in my home town that sisters married brothers and when each lost a respective spouse one widow married the other widower! The kids were all older so no progeny from the second union in that case, but it could happen. LOL. They were all one big happy family. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "AMEN!" Posted by Edie Pratt on 21:11:04 3/26/2001 my mother would have had my fil for lunch, lol. And, they were both drunks, only different classes:-)the very thought of inlaws forever is enough to throw me over the edge. I wonder if Patsy got along with her fil? Too weird, to say the least. The only incidence of marrying inlaws, etc. that I ever heard, was a guy I know who's wife took up with his brother in their home. He lived with them, and she would go bedroom to bedroom, claiming nothing's going on. Lower slobovian, that girl. Also knew a woman who married the same guy 5 times! Seriously, divorced him four times, then turned around and did it all over again. Not exactly incest, but pretty odd mindset, nonetheless:-) The R's could write a sitcom, or a horror flick, there's definitely some material there, lol. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Friends?" Posted by Ginja on 19:04:35 3/26/2001 When I said it was not a simple crime, I meant that the motive is convoluted. The crime itself is simple. Lord knows the parents are simple. Hell yeah, we're still friends! As regards your "simple" remark, where's Greenie when you need her? This one should make her "book". Had me ROTFLMAO on that one. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Perhap the problem..." Posted by Ginja on 19:14:02 3/26/2001 ...in going after these people is the death penalty? Of course, the bar is a little higher for those cases. But I don't think the state could go for murder one on this. Which is fine by me. Besides, that's too easy an out for this couple. They need to spend their lives suffering. Some would say they're suffering already, but noooooo....no, they aren't. They certainly haven't done any 'suffering' on camera or in public. Privately, they've talked themselves into believing it's not their fault. God has forgiven them and that's all that counts. Otherwise, they're quite smug. No, what these two need is to be stripped in public and exposed. Exposed for their crimes, exposed as perverts, exposed as pathological liars. And then sent up the river for a very long time. Thaaaaaaat's what I'd like to see. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Duh" Posted by Ginja on 19:15:43 3/26/2001 That should be Perhaps the problem... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Ginja..." Posted by shadow on 19:19:04 3/26/2001 I printed your three pages (on my new printer), and will read as soon as I can... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "About Grandpa Paugh," Posted by gaiabetsy on 07:19:48 3/27/2001 After reading the above posts, my intuitive/empath meter perked up. John was kinda a zero as a big-time businessman until after he and Gramps teamed up. Perhaps Patsy is her father's fav. I don't know about that, but I think he might very likely sacrifice her to a guy to help produce the positive outcome he's working toward with John/chump. As I recall, didn't John actually lose a job with some big company and then old man Paugh began to collaborate with him? I also agree John wants to come off as Mr. Conservative/perfect businessman, husband, father, pillar of the community. If I know anything, I know everyone has a shadow side. When that side is repressed, it pushes even harder to come out. The more a person leans towards what they want to be and want people to imagine them to be, the more likely he is to one day reveal the other side in a big way. Sorta shades of Jimmy Swaggert. I think that accounts for his philandering. If he is involved with porn, that fits the bill too. So does his reported drinking. And I can extrapolate one step further to include possible molestation - maybe even murder of his daughter. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Ginja on Don Paugh" Posted by Ginja on 08:01:32 3/27/2001 I'm going to disagree, but hey! what else is new? LOL John Ramsey was a nerd and basically a loser. He couldn't hold a job down, and he couldn't keep his marriage together. He cheated on his wife and she gave him the boot. I'd look into that a little more. Woman don't usually give the husband the boot the first time they're caught cheating. Especially when there are three small children involved. Enter Patsy; John still couldn't hold down a job. I bet John is one of those people who can scam pretty well. Don't forget, he was driving around in a flashy sports car and wore business suits, which is exactly why Patsy thought she had caught the "fat cat". She soon learned that that was nothing more than a facade, and I think ol' Don there realized it too. And I'm sure he didn't want his daughter stuck with a loser, which is probably why he bankrolled the basement business. Patsy worked by her man's side, but they worked out of their basement. John was no bright light. Exactly what was this basement business? Distribution. It was back in the early '80's when Silicon Valley was at its height and Apple and Microsoft hit the scene. IOW, John just happened to be in the right place at the right time. So from his basement, he wheeled and dealed to get the deals on computer hardware to ship to clients. He was the middle man. Businesses weren't too sure yet what the internet scene was all about, except that they had to go with the flow or be left behind. And so they went to third parties to pull together these systems. IOW, businesses didn't yet have MIS departments and whatnot. Back then, everyone was going to a third party/consultant to set them up and tell them what their needs were. And then that consultant/third party would contact manufacturers and order the equipment. John wasn't working with his money, he was working with the money put up by the businesses that hired him. So where Don comes in for 'bankrolling' this business I don't know. I think what probably happened, as does in most families, is that he helped support the family (helped with bills, put food on the table) while John was just starting and had no 'real' income until the business got on its feet. Which it did. And as soon as it did, John merged with with another. You see, John's a follower...he's not a leader. And he doesn't do well at all as an independent. Perhaps a better word is parasite....he feeds off others. And when that business was going well, they merged it again and that's when the family moved out to Colorado. His lack of leadership skills was obviated when he brought Don into the business and gave him an office. Don didn't do much except make everyone else's life miserable. John didn't fire people, Don did, because John didn't have the courage. He sic'd his f-i-l on people he wanted run out of the business or fired. So no, I don't see any great "bond" between John and Don. I think Don helped the family when they didn't have a pot to piss in and once the business took off, felt John "owed" him. And that's why the Paughs went to Colorado. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Ginga," Posted by gaiabetsy on 08:13:16 3/27/2001 I agree with what you posted. Ole Gramps seems to stay in the background now. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out what he really knows and how he feels about his son-in-law? I guess that might happen if some of these lawsuits ever go to trial. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "gaiabetsy" Posted by Ginja on 08:47:33 3/27/2001 I think both John and Don were henpecked by the Paugh women. I have a feeling Don has his suspicions about John, but because his daughter's married to the guy, Don doesn't want to 'rock the boat'. Or at least he wasn't allowed to while his wife was alive. And as time's gone on, I have a sneaking suspicion he's come to figure that John's not the only bad guy here, but his daughter's not such a good little girl either! And that bothers the hell out of him (as I'm sure it bothered the hell out of Nedra). But...it's their daughter. Their granddaughter is gone so I think they just kept mum and whatnot to protect their daughter and keep her out of prison. I think that's the bottom line with the Paughs. For 20 years they've lived in this surreal world of their 'famous' Miss West Virginia. To be exposed like this, to have their names in the headlines as the parents of the Miss WV who brutally killed her daughter would be far too much for them to bear. I don't think he really knows anything. I think he just has his suspicions. And as a parent, I think many will agree, you just don't want to go there with your child (regardless of how old they are!) It's like defense attorneys, or even the military's 'no ask' rule. It's best that he doesn't know too much else he could blow it for his daughter. I think it all has to do with exposure. JonBenet is dead and as far as everyone sees it, it was an accident. So there's no way they want to be exposed...either as murderers or the parents of murderers. They can't bring JonBenet back, but they can keep Patsy (and John) out of prison. These people are arrogant, too. Prison is no place for a former Miss West Virginia. It's too much to bear for any of them! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Yes, Ginja," Posted by gaiabetsy on 09:26:30 3/27/2001 we share the same point of view about this. My parents were kinda like the elder Paughs, but I gotta say if either my husband or myself had ever even been suspected of harming one of our children, my parents would have gone ballistic - and might very probably have tried to legally take the other child away from us. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Shock of Shock" Posted by Ginja on 09:28:29 3/27/2001 Hmmmmmm....where's that Nedthan Johns? (or Jones or whatever). I know he's posting...he's just not posting here. Now I wonder why that is? :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]