Conference back40::soapbox

    
    feel free to impugn my good name. i don't mind, really.

    Comma chameleon?  

    
    	Apparently there are a few of you who don't recognize the para-
    	phrase in .308.
    
    	Then again, not everyone can be as musically knowledgeable as I
    	am, and I do realize that.
    

 Perhaps we recognized it and chose (wisely) to ignore it.

    
    	Yeah, perhaps.  But I doubt it.
    

	We are not shocked when we hear that this tiny woman-child
	was sexually molested before she was killed.  She was
	sexually exploited every time she was mde to strut her
	stuff for those pageant "judges".

				-- Eileen McNamara, Boston Globe Columnist

				(in an article which begins by applauding
				 the fact that Vermont this year has no one
				 willing to run a statewide Miss Vermont
				 pageant for the Miss America Organization.)

Another oxygen thief ...

    Yes, but with luck this particular oxygen thief will be caught and
    nailed for murdering a six-year-old child.

I was talking about the columnist ...

    I know.  JonBenet Ramsay was systematically abused and exploited
    sexually.  The columnist was right on target.  Unless, of course, her
    remarks are viewed through the eyes of a seriously anachronistic sexist
    pig.

    As a matter of fact, her murder was actually euthanasia. We should be
    congratulating her killer on ending her years of suffering and misery.

    i applaud the state of vermont.

    Aren't you the witty one.  (Well, that epithet is at least half right.)

I heard that part of her "act" was a faux striptease, with her removing a
skirt.  If so, that's sick!  Any truth to this?

    Apparently you can buy a video of the young lady at some pageants.

Child porn.

    B.S. 

	did you expect anything else from him?

>I heard that part of her "act" was a faux striptease, with her removing a
>skirt.  If so, that's sick!  Any truth to this?

 Will this rumor affect your judgement on the issue?

  >  i applaud the state of vermont.

  For not being able to find 10 contestants for the competition?

If the video of which Andy Leslie speaks has this young girl performing
a faux strip tease, then that most certainly is child porn.

And that's no B.S.

/john

  Um, is there any news on the investigation ?  Why do I get the feeling
 that it wouldn't matter what activity the kid was engaged in, the Box
 would condemn the parents ?  "Oh, they sent her to karate lessons...what
 do you expect ?"  "Oh, they subscribed to America on Line...a ticking
 time bomb !!"  etc...

  bb

in what way? and it is nice to know you changed how you put things.... the
word, 'if' was added.....

    Faux strip tease?  Child Porn?  B.S. 

    >Why do I get the feeling that it wouldn't matter what activity the kid
    >was engaged in, the Box would condemn the parents ?  "Oh, they sent her
    >to karate lessons...what do you expect ?"  "Oh, they subscribed to
    >America on Line...a ticking time bomb !!"  etc...
    
     Lotsa holier-than-thou types. Everybody needs someone to look down
    upon, apparently.

    But not to categorize, apparently.

    
    I haven't followed this case closely.
    
    Did she die as a result of the cracked skull, or from strangulation?
    Or has that information even been released?
    
    

    She died from the strangulation; a cord tightened with a stick.
    
    Word out of Colorado is that DNA testing of the body fluid found on the
    body has not commenced due to a Colorado law that mandates that
    defendants be given a chance to perform such tests with their own
    experts. Since the sample is so small, they apparently cannot satisfy
    the requirement that they set aside 1/2 the sample for the defendant.

>If the video of which Andy Leslie speaks has this young girl performing
>a faux strip tease, then that most certainly is child porn.
>
>And that's no B.S.
>
>/john

I'd better hide all those photos of my children in the nude! Better
warn America's funniest videos too!



Doug.

    .329
    
      >>  i applaud the state of vermont.  
    
      >For not being able to find 10 contestants for the competition?
    
      no, for dropping a stupid endeavor.

    Is everything that you don't value "stupid"?

    i wasn't talking about everything; i was talking
    about beauty pageants.  

  .341  thanks for pointing up that subtle distinction, Opherini.

    >i wasn't talking about everything; i was talking
    >about beauty pageants.  
    
     I didn't ask about beauty pageants. I asked if everything you didn't
    value was likewise classified as "stupid". That's how my erstwhile
    teenagers referred to thinks they didn't like or care about, and I was
    wondering if that was the way you did things or if you had a specific
    reason for branding this particular endeavor stupid.

    
    i sense a whole lotta love going on in here today.

    
    	I think it's about time for a group fondle or something.
    

             <<< Note 831.330 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>If the video of which Andy Leslie speaks has this young girl performing
>a faux strip tease, then that most certainly is child porn.

	From the stills that I've seen, it appears to part of a dance number.
	Start with a floor length breakaway skirt and ending with leotards. 
	I believe that the removal of the skirt is just one sweeping motion,
	not a "striptease".

Jim

    .338
    
    Photos of children that are taken with sexual intent are child porn. 
    Showing a child stripping in the context of a beauty pageant qualifies.
    
    No BS.  B ut you really don't care, your mind is made up and you don't
    want to be confused with facts.

    
    	So, if a young dancer STARTS a routine in [a] leotard[s] it's
    	not child porn, but taking off a skirt and ending a routine in
    	the same manner IS child porn.
    
    	I really should start writing this stuff down.
    

    Where was the sexual intent?  Where are your facts to provide 
    confusion?  All photos of young gymnasts doing a saucy dance routine
    are now child porn, correct?  Every time a young gymnast give a
    flirtatious look or struts around on a mat and a picture is taken is
    child porn, right?  
    
    An assertion was made, I thought is was and still is b.s. 

    .343
    
         >I didn't ask about beauty pageants. I asked if everything you
         >didn't value was likewise classified as "stupid". 
    
          i'd have to say no.  like, take organized religion.  i don't
          value it, but i don't think it's stupid.  it serves a purpose
          for many people.  
    
          >That's how my erstwhile teenagers referred to thinks they 
          >didn't like or care about...
    
          i think this is a veiled slur, but i'm not sure.  oh wait,
          yes i am.
    
          >...wondering if that was the way you did things or if you had a
          >specific reason for branding this particular endeavor stupid.
    
          i don't like the falseness and prissiness and superficiality 
          of beauty pageants.  therefore, i think they're stupid.  
    	  
    

  |    >>  i applaud the state of vermont.  
  |  
  |    >For not being able to find 10 contestants for the competition?
  |  
  |    no, for dropping a stupid endeavor.


  Does the reason they dropped (out of) the 'stupid endeavor' have any
  impact on your applause?

  Doug.

    >Photos of children that are taken with sexual intent are child porn. 
    >Showing a child stripping in the context of a beauty pageant qualifies.


    So now little girls acting basically as models, are being filmed by
    the pageant supports and the childrens parents because of sexual
    intent ....

    Child burlesque shows!  Ya, that's it !!!!

    Now, of course, we're gonna need laws on child beauty pageants  (NOT!)

    Doug.

    .351
    
    /For not being able to find 10 contestants for the competition?
    
    you mean, this was the _real_ reason for vermont dropping out?
    oh, this _is_ good news.

:-) 


I guess the real reason isn't important then ....

    i applaud the _people_ of the state of vermont!  

Why?

    
    	For being too ugly to qualify, apparently.
    

-1 :-)

    John Ramsey's return to work has been delayed by a bomb threat at his
    office. A "raspy voiced" caller delivered the threat to a receptionist,
    claiming that people would be harmed in a profanity laced call.
    
    Interesting. Tends to lend credence to the thought that a disgruntled 
    ex or current employee is behind this crime. Although it seems almost
    too consistent with the rest of the evidence, like it's an attempt to
    divert attention from the real killer. But maybe the killer's just
    stupid.

    Interesting little factoid from the ramsey saga.
    
    The investigators and lawyers for the Ramsey family are demanding to
    monitor all DNA tests done in the interests of finding a suspect. 
    Current Colorado law reads that suspects are allowed to monitor or have
    independent tests done on DNA.  Currently there are no suspects.
    
    

    I'm pretty sure we're not going to like the final chapter on this.

    I don't see how it can be any worse than the first chapter.

    
  >  Interesting. Tends to lend credence to the thought that a disgruntled 
  >  ex or current employee is behind this crime. Although it seems
  >  almost too consistent with the rest of the evidence, like it's an attempt
  >  to divert attention from the real killer. But maybe the killer's just
    
    I believe from the beginning that this is a revenge.  Ramsey must
    have done something really bad and don't want to disclose it.  The
    cops are too nice to them, just because they are rich.

    According to one "profiler" (new profession, I guess) this doesn't fit
    classic revenge killing.  Usually in that case the body is laid out "on
    display" in a conspicuous location, such as just outside the parent's
    bedroom.  There is no ransom note.

    "The Profiler" is a cool show...

    
    
    >The cops are too nice to them, just because they are rich.
    
    
    So what your saying is that cops are mean to anyone without money?
    
    Doug.

    
   > So what your saying is that cops are mean to anyone without money?
    
    That is right.  One of my neighbor's son was shot by cop when
    he had a knife in hand.  If he is rich, cop won't open fire.
    Don't you see the Cosby boy died, so many government agencis offer
    reward for the murderer.   When there are so many other people died
    in street -- nothing happens.  

    
    	Jason, I sort of agree with you, but not in the all-encompassing
    	manner that you appear to be using.
    
    	More often than not, yes, that is the case ... but not all the
    	time.
    

    To put it simply,
    
    If these people had been in a trailer in Nederland and had the same
    thing happen, they would have been in the cops car being interviewed
    and the whole place taped off as soon as the first cop showed up.  
    
    Being in a very tony neighborhood in Boulder, they have not given the
    cops an interview yet and it has been 37 days and counting.

                        <<< Note 831.367 by LABC::RU >>>

    
   > So what your saying is that cops are mean to anyone without money?
    
  >  That is right.  One of my neighbor's son was shot by cop when
  >  he had a knife in hand.  If he is rich, cop won't open fire.
    
    What do they do, ask to see a stock portfolio before pulling 
    the trigger?

    daryll

    daryll, one is screaming their daddy will pay them anything they want if
they don't shoot.... while the others get shot.

Get serious.

    
    idiot holds a knife, most likely in a threatening manner, and he gets
    shot. What the hell did you think would happen? rich or not, i would
    have done the same thing. get real.

    you would have held a knife and got shot?

    
    <-- not exactly

    You would have used abusive language as well?

    With the cops in this town, I don't let go of the wheel to get my
    papers until given permission.  A friend was almost shot when they
    asked her to get out of the car and she reached down to unfasten her
    seatbelt without telling them what she was doing and making sure they
    understood.

    
    	RE: Glenn/Battis
    
    	I guess there's "hurts", and then there's "not exactly", eh?
    

    
    I guess I'll have to start dressing in Polo shirts and
    those shoes that Simpson never owned so the police will
    know not to shoot ....
    
    
    Doug

    
    According the police, the murderer wiped it clean on the 
    girl, so there is really (almost)nothing left for DNA sample.

    Police ask author of letter in Ramsey slaying to come forward
    
    Associated Press, 02/07/97; 07:08 
    
    BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - An anonymous letter from Shreveport, La.,
    contained what police call "potentially significant information" about
    the slaying of 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey. 
    
    Boulder police are pleading with the author to come forward, saying
    that the letter might help them crack the case. 
                        
    ``We're not discussing what the letter contains,'' Boulder police
    spokesman Kelvin McNeill said Thursday. 
    
    JonBenet was found strangled in her family's home on Dec. 26. The
    handwritten letter was postmarked Jan. 27 from Shreveport. 
    
    ``Please come forward and contact (police),'' Boulder authorities
    pleaded in a message faxed to Shreveport police and distributed to
    local media. 
    
    Police said they want to hear only from the letter's writer and not
    from others with ``unsolicited or psychic information.'' 
    
    McNeill said Boulder police have received more than 600 letters and
    1,300 phone calls about the slaying, and investigators are trying to
    follow up on leads. 

    I wonder if they have The Millennium Group working on this one yet.

    Simpson's defenders hired by other side in Boulder's JonBenet case
    
    By Deborah Mendez, Associated Press, 02/13/97 
    
    BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - Two key members of O.J. Simpson's defense have
    been enlisted to help prosecutors in the JonBenet Ramsey murder
    mystery, officials said today. 
    
    Henry Lee, a forensic scientist who heads the Connecticut State
    Police's crime laboratory, and DNA expert Barry Scheck will help
    Boulder investigators on DNA, crime scene analysis and other matters,
    District Attorney Alex Hunter said. 
    
    ``We know where we're headed. We know this case is going to be
    solved,'' the prosecutor said at a rare news conference on the case.
    ``I can think of cases in the past where I didn't have that feeling.
    We're going to solve this case, but we're going to our way.'' 
    
    The 6-year-old beauty queen was found strangled in the basement of her
    family's home Dec. 26, and authorities have released few details about
    the investigation. 
    
    Hunter would not elaborate on the list of suspects, but he offered a
    warning to the girl's murderer. 
    
    ``The list of suspect narrows,'' he said. ``Soon there will be no one
    on the list but you.'' 
    
    ``You have stripped of us any mercy that we might have had in the
    beginning of this investigation. We will see that justice is served in
    this case and that you pay.'' 
    
    Police Chief Tom Koby said no one would be charged until all DNA and
    other tests are completed, which could take several months. 
    
    Lee gained fame during the Simpson criminal trial by declaring that
    there was ``something wrong'' with the way the crime scene was handled
    by Los Angeles police. He also was a key defense figure at the William
    Kennedy Smith rape trial. Scheck led the attack on the state's DNA
    evidence against Simpson, who was acquitted of murder. 
    
    On Wednesday, Boulder County authorities asked a judge to seal the
    report on JonBenet's autopsy, saying disclosure would jeopardize an
    ongoing investigation. 
    
    Boulder County District Judge Carol Glowinsky said saying she would
    issue a written ruling by the end of the week. 
    
    Media attorneys objected to the request, arguing that the report is a
    public record and the public deserves to know its conclusions. They
    also said it could jar people's memories and thus help the
    investigation. 
    
    ``The public has a right to know if there is a serial murderer out
    there, attorney Thomas Kelley said. ``It's got to be frustrating for
    people who want to live in a community where you can't get away with
    this kind of thing.'' 
    
    Police have not identified suspects and say no arrests are pending in
    the slaying of the golden-haired girl, a former Little Miss Colorado. 
    
    The only official information released from her autopsy is that the
    girl was strangled, Coroner John Meyer testified in court. Media
    reports, citing unidentified sources, have said she was sexually
    assaulted and her skull was fractured. 
    
    Colorado law states that autopsy reports are public documents, but it
    provides for keeping them secret to protect the public interest. 

I'm probably repeating someone here.

I don't believe that her performance in that little show, or her being a
beauty queen explains why this case is getting so much attention.  I figure
any precious child who's kidnapped is going to get this sort of attention.

It's just that I can't think of any more vacuous way to remember a child
than that insipid pageant footage that's been rolling over and over. 
Children have a lot more to offer than to wear a ton of makeup and imitate
the most superficial adults possible.

Just my NSHO.

I wish we could know the real JonBenet.

    
    
    	This was the big announcement?  On the way in to work this
    	morning, more than one radio station mentioned that the DA
    	would be holding a press conference to make an announcement
    	of a break in the case.
    
    	The break is that they've hired guys from the Simpson trial?
    
    	

so will anyone who worked with any of the oj teams be referred to as former oj
people? maybe the guy should copywrite his name so he can collect everytime
someone uses it. :-)

I believe I heard the other day that the police had proposed ground
rules for interviewing the parents (such as it would be done
separately and not together) and the parents rejected them.

Excuse me, but how do the parents get off telling the police under
what conditions they'll submit to interrogation? I'm not suspicious,
but in the case of a murder in one's home, and no evidence of forced
entry, wouldn't the family be prime?

Pete

>Excuse me, but how do the parents get off telling the police under
>what conditions they'll submit to interrogation? I'm not suspicious,
>but in the case of a murder in one's home, and no evidence of forced
>entry, wouldn't the family be prime?

You are free to remain silent. I would do exactly as they are doing ....

It is amazing how honest mistakes can be used against you, essecially
in a high profile case ...

Doug.

  Nobody must answer any police questions.  You have the right to remain
 silent.  And they have to tell you that you have that right before you
 talk, or whatever you say will not be admissible in a US court.

  bb

I guess I'm naive or old-fashioned, but if my child had been killed,
and I was innocent, I'd want to cooperate, to help, to try to exert
effort in the direction of the non-innocent.

Pete

    RE: .390

    Obviously you didn't see what happened to Richard Jewel.

    -- Dave

           <<< Note 831.387 by SHRCTR::PJOHNSON "Vaya con huevos." >>>

>Excuse me, but how do the parents get off telling the police under
>what conditions they'll submit to interrogation?

	Because they can (you can too if you want). Unless the police are
	willing to arrest them, they can not be compelled to submit to
	an interrogation.

Jim

re: HIGHD::FLATMAN "Obviously you didn't see what happened to Richard
Jewel."

Obviously? Sorry, but yes, I did, and I still believe in cooperating
with those interested in finding out what really happened.

>	Because they can (you can too if you want). Unless the police are
>	willing to arrest them, they can not be compelled to submit to
>	an interrogation.

Since when does an arrest compel someone to submit to an interrogation?

/john

    >Obviously? Sorry, but yes, I did, and I still believe in cooperating
    >with those interested in finding out what really happened.
    
    
    That's easy to say when you're not in the spotlight and have
    nothing to loose if mistakes are made ...
    
    Doug.

             <<< Note 831.394 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>Since when does an arrest compel someone to submit to an interrogation?

	Since always (even since Miranda). The police can question you (with
	your attorney present if you ask). You are under no obligation to 
	answer.

Jim

    
    his case is getting stranger by the day.

  .397  whose?

    <-- on first

    
    sorry. meant this not his.

    whose?

                          <-- Whose what?

Seriously, now I heard that someone studying the autopsy results says
that there's evidence of long-term sexual abuse.

    AHA!
    
    This is all a smoke screen. I knew it!

    >Seriously, now I heard that someone studying the autopsy results says
    >that there's evidence of long-term sexual abuse.
    
     Which is one interpretation of the "chronic inflammation of the
    vagina" referred to in the autopsy. This also happens to be consistent
    with other things besides ongoing sexual abuse, according to experts.
    
     The child's pediatrician said there was "no evidence of ongoing sexual
    abuse.," FWIW.

    
    well, i hope they solve this case soon.

    whose?

    
    "The child's pediatrician said there was "no evidence of ongoing sexual
     abuse."
    
    Did he say how he determines this? Seems the only way this would be
    noticed is if he examined her, and how many pediatricians do pelvic
    examinations on a 6-year old child unless there is a complaint of
    some sort?
    
    Mary
    

 .408  perhaps the physician would expect to see some scarring or
       other evidence of past wounds?

    
    RE: 408
    
    This would certainly be detectable if the physician was doing an
    examination of the vaginal area, but this certainly seems uncommon on a
    6-year old, unless the child was complaining of symptoms that would
    cause a physican to do a vaginal exam.
    
    M
    

  .410  But he was doing an exam on her because she was killed.  I'm
	saying that during that exam, he should have expected to
	see scarring or whatnot, if she had been abused in the past.
	Perhaps.

             <<< Note 831.411 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


>  .410  But he was doing an exam on her because she was killed. 

	??
	It seems the discussion jumped from the pediatrician to the pathologist
	without the use of a clutch.

	The pathologist that performed the autopsy reported vaginal scarring 
	which he interpreted as evidence of previous sexual abuse.

	The pediatrician, who did not perform the autopsy, said there
	was no indication of sexual abuse, which is unwise if he had
	not performed an internal pelvic exam in the fairly recent past.

Jim

    
    I was just thinking that, a pediatrician would not be doing an autopsy
    and would not be doing a pelvic exam on a 6-year old unless he was
    under the impression there was abuse of some kind, from either comments
    the child has said or if the child complained of unusual symptoms.
    
    Mary
    

	Oh, I see now.  I thought we were talking about the doctor
	who examined her after her death.  Sorry for the confusion.

    >	The pathologist that performed the autopsy reported vaginal scarring 
    >	which he interpreted as evidence of previous sexual abuse.
    
    This is not what I read. I haven't heard any interpretation, official
    or not, from the coroner himself. The RMN hired a "nationally renowned
    forensic pathologist who specializes in child abuse and has been an
    expert witness in hundreds of cases," Dr. Robert Kirschner, who
    interpreted the portions of the autopsy which were released. He made no
    note whatsoever of any "vaginal scarring" in the released portion of
    the report. What was noted was "chronic inflammation of vaginal
    tissues" and "an abrasion of the vaginal membrane." The abrasion
    itself is evidence of sexual assault. The chronic inflammation could be
    interpreted in several different ways, depending on factors not
    released. Besides sexual abuse, other explanations include "an
    infection or a collection of white blood cells."

Was that the idiot parading himself on national TV this morning?
What a self important blowhard ...

How he can definitively speak on the case without ever seeing
the body is beyond me.

Doug.

    I finally saw the film clip with JBR doing her dance routine.  
    Nothing suggestive or improper IMO.  The assertions of child
    pornography are still a bunch of b.s.

               <<< Note 831.415 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

>He made no
>    note whatsoever of any "vaginal scarring" in the released portion of
>    the report. What was noted was "chronic inflammation of vaginal
>    tissues"

	I think that the "chronic inflammation of vaginal tissues" is what
	is being referred to as "vaginal scarring". The speculation regarding
	previous sexual abuse was reported in the local (Denver) media 3
	or 4 weeks ago. The "official" release of the (edited) autopsy
	seems to as least support, if not confirm, such speculation.

Jim

 > The "official" release of the (edited) autopsy
 >	seems to as least support, if not confirm, such speculation.

  Or the kid had a chronic itch ...

  Doug.

	I've got an itch to scratch,
	And I need assistance...

    >	I think that the "chronic inflammation of vaginal tissues" is what
    >	is being referred to as "vaginal scarring". 
    
     They are not, however, the same thing and further use of the latter to
    describe the former are misinformation. From someone who's typically
    such a stickler about accuracy, your unabashedly inaccurate dialogue is
    disquieting.

    his jabbering?

    why not try using that where it applies?

   .423  in WOMANNOTES?

               <<< Note 831.421 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

>     They are not, however, the same thing and further use of the latter to
>    describe the former are misinformation.

	I made the mistake of simply using the term that someone else
	was using. However, it may not be "unabashedly inaccurate".
	Chronic inflammation can certainly cause scarring.

Jim

    >	I made the mistake of simply using the term that someone else	was
    >using. 
    
     Don't foist responsibility for your inaccuracies on someone else; you
    don't tolerate it when others do that, so you shouldn't do it yourself.
    
    >However, it may not be "unabashedly inaccurate".
    >Chronic inflammation can certainly cause scarring.
    
     Regardless of whether this is true or not, the simple fact is that
    they are not the same thing. Quit weaseling and accept your correction
    gracefully.
    

               <<< Note 831.426 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

>     Don't foist responsibility for your inaccuracies on someone else; you
>    don't tolerate it when others do that, so you shouldn't do it yourself.
 
	What part of "I made the mistake" is too difficult to understand?

>     Regardless of whether this is true or not, the simple fact is that
>    they are not the same thing.

	I did not claim that they were. I did, however, object to your
	charachterization.

> Quit weaseling and accept your correction
>    gracefully.
 
	Quite grumpy this morning, aren't we? We shall try to cheer you up.

	Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Jim   

>mea maxima culpa

If you'd stop buying Japanese cars, you wouldn't have that problem.

/john

             <<< Note 831.428 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>If you'd stop buying Japanese cars, you wouldn't have that problem.

	Oldsmobiles are built in Japan??????

Jim

    
    So now Geraldo is going to be doing his show from Colorado. Guess the
    mileage on OJ is wearing off, so he has to go for something else.
    
    He was on some show the other day saying he has to go out and see, and
    felt it himself and talk to people in person, so he is moving his show
    to Colorado for awhile.
    
    And what is all this stuff that certain "conditions" have to be met for
    the police to talk to the parents?? Like one I  heard was that the
    interview could not be done at the police station?? Why should
    conditions be set to talk to these people?
    
    Mary
    

  whoosh?

             <<< Note 831.431 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


>  whoosh?

	No it didn't. ;-)

Jim

   .432  oh, okay, good.  you just made it seem that way.

                     <<< Note 831.430 by NETCAD::PERARO >>>

>    And what is all this stuff that certain "conditions" have to be met for
>    the police to talk to the parents?? Like one I  heard was that the
>    interview could not be done at the police station?? Why should
>    conditions be set to talk to these people?
 
	The parents have said that they will submit to a police interview
	only under certain conditions. The parents are not under arrest.
	The police can not compel people to do anything unless they are
	under arrest.

	I expect that the lawyers hired by the parents are giving them
	this advice.

Jim

    
    Oh...my.
    

In a request asking that search warrants be sealed, the Bouder DA's office
stated yesterday that her parents "have not been eliminated from suspicion."

Boulder police also want to seal the autopsy of John Ramsey's 22-year-old
daughter, who died in an auto accident in 1992 (her boyfriend was at the
wheel).

/john

    
    i don't get the deal with the daughter's death. The boyfriend was
    driving, unless their was evidence of sexual abuse, perhaps?

    bingo.

    
    Darn, and I had almost finished this row.
    

    >i don't get the deal with the daughter's death. The boyfriend was
    >driving, unless their was evidence of sexual abuse, perhaps?
    
     How can you tell whether she was "abused" or simply sexually active?

    
    i can't, but the pathologist probably can tell the difference. why
    else would they seal the records?

    An interesting question. It sounds like they are focusing on John
    Ramsey. I wonder what the actual evidence is.

    doesn't it strike you as a little weird that
    she was raped and murdered _at home_?  and that
    the father was the one who "discovered" her 
    body?

    
    Her entire life (& death) history strike me as weird -- and more
    than a little.
    

	He's not cooperating?

             <<< Note 831.446 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


>	He's not cooperating?

	Not much. Both he and his wife have declined to be interviewed
	by police. Both have submitted blood, hair and handwriting
	samples.

Jim

         <<< Note 831.448 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "ready to begin again" >>>

>    if someone was intent on committing that sort
>    of evil it seems that the first priority would
>    be to _get off the premises_ after finding and
>    subduing the child. 
 
	The girl had been dead for some time before her father found the 
	body.

	The house had been searched by the police, but they elected
	not to look in the room where the body was ultimately found
	because the door was stuck. They asked the father to take
	another look around the house (this was later in the evening,
	after the police had been there since early morning). He did
	look in that room (reportedly a wine cellar), found the girl's
	body and rushed upstairs with her in his arms.

	Most reports here in Colorado have started to refer to the
	Boulder City Police as the Keystone Cops. The crime scene
	was not protected, the fact that the father carried the
	body upstairs ruins nearly all DNA evidence possibilities,
	and the fact that the crime took place in the home eliminates
	the usefullness of fingerprint, hair and fiber evidence.

	The kid glove treatment that the family has been receiving is
	also the subject of much commentary. Many speculate that the 
	cops are walking on eggs because of Ramsey's political influence
	in the Boulder community.

Jim

>    <<< Note 831.447 by BIGHOG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Not much. Both he and his wife have declined to be interviewed
>	by police. 

	But isn't that likely on advice from lawyers?

>    <<< Note 831.448 by BIGHOG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

	Most reports here in Colorado have started to refer to the
	Boulder City Police as the Keystone Cops. The crime scene
	was not protected, the fact that the father carried the
	body upstairs ruins nearly all DNA evidence possibilities,
>	and the fact that the crime took place in the home eliminates
>	the usefullness of fingerprint, hair and fiber evidence.

	What does this part have to do with how competent or incompetent
	the cops are?

I think the defense lawyers are just working on a police conspiracy
defense.

Hey, if it worked for Homer...

    /They asked the father to take another look around the house
    /(this was later in the evening, after the police had been there
    /since early morning).
    
    this also strikes me as surreal.  what, the police are just
    so exhausted or something that they send the father, unescorted,
    to do another search of the house?  and on this search, he
    comes up with the girl's body?  i'd love to know whose idea
    that was - the father's or the cop in charge.

    >doesn't it strike you as a little weird that
    >she was raped and murdered _at home_?  
    
     Yep.
    
    >and that the father was the one who "discovered" her  body?
    
    It seems strange to me that the cops would send him off without a
    policeman present in a search for evidence. What were they thinking?
    They could have prevented him from touching the body so easily...
    

             <<< Note 831.449 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


>>	Not much. Both he and his wife have declined to be interviewed
>>	by police. 

>	But isn't that likely on advice from lawyers?

	Definately.

jim

             <<< Note 831.450 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>

>	What does this part have to do with how competent or incompetent
>	the cops are?

	Mostly it has to do with not finding the body initially. They could
	have at least had an intact crime scene.

Jim

>    <<< Note 831.454 by BIGHOG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Definately.
	
	Definitely.  So... how does that indicate that they're not
	cooperating?

  .448 BIGHOG::PERCIVAL 

>	and the fact that the crime took place in the home eliminates
>	the usefullness of fingerprint, hair and fiber evidence.

  .455 BIGHOG::PERCIVAL 

>	Mostly it has to do with not finding the body initially. They could
>	have at least had an intact crime scene.

	But the fact that the crime took place in the home and that that
	might limit the usefulness of those types of evidence doesn't have
	anything to do with the competence of the police.

             <<< Note 831.456 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>

>So... how does that indicate that they're not
>	cooperating?

	Huh?

	They are not cooperating. The REASON they are not cooperating
	is because their lawyers have told them not to. But that does
	not change the fact that they are not cooperating.

Jim

    The house was a crime scene  as soon as the missing child was reported
    to police.  As such it should have been secured.  Instead Family and
    friends were all over the house, and likely disturbed/contaminated any
    evidence.  On finding her, the father picked up the body and tore off a
    duct tape gag while running up the stairs with her, again contaminating
    and/or destroying more evidence.  The police have given the impression,
    rightly or wrongly, that they are more interested in chasing down leaks
    than actually persuing the murderer.  After reading a Boulder weekly
    that a friend brought down, it appears that the cops have a pattern of
    worrying more about the towns reputation than actually going after
    criminals, and not just in this case.  
    
    Now I know murder, kidnapping, and other serious crime is less likely
    to happen in boulder, than in a larger city, but less than 40 miles
    away there is a very experienced homocide investigation team who
    probably should have been brought in right from the first.  
    
    meg

             <<< Note 831.457 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>

>	But the fact that the crime took place in the home and that that
>	might limit the usefulness of those types of evidence doesn't have
>	anything to do with the competence of the police.

	True. My fault for not making the distinction.

Jim

>    <<< Note 831.458 by BIGHOG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

	I guess we have different definitions of "cooperating" then.
	To me, declining an interview if my lawyer advised against it
	would just be a standard response - just part of the machinations
	of any investigation where counsel has been retained, and it
	shouldn't betoken anything about my guilt nor indicate that I
	was being "uncooperative".

             <<< Note 831.461 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>

>	I guess we have different definitions of "cooperating" then.

	Yep. 

>	To me, declining an interview if my lawyer advised against it
>	would just be a standard response - just part of the machinations
>	of any investigation where counsel has been retained, and it
>	shouldn't betoken anything about my guilt

	Agreed. I have said nothing concerning the guilt or innocence
	of the parents.

> nor indicate that I
>	was being "uncooperative".

	Here's where the different definition kicks in again, rationalizations
	as to why they are no cooperating aside.

Jim

Two things:

the 'crime' scene:

   The cops didn't expect to find the child in the house because the crime
   being investigated was kidnapping. While they looked around the house for
   any clues the kidnappers may had left behind, they were not scouring the 
   house looking for the kid or investigating a murder scene. The parents 
   were asked to look around and point out anything that might be out of 
   the ordinary, something the cops would not know. All of this seems 
   perfectly reasonable. Murder scene corruption was not a consideration yet
   because a murder had not yet been discovered.
   Only after the expected phone call didn't materialize did they start 
   searching the house more intently. At this point the parents were not
   suspects, and the police were all over the house already.

   If I found my daughter with tape over her mouth the first thing I'd do
   is rip it off and see if she is alive or dead.

Cooperation:

   The parents have not declined an interview, they have set conditions on
   an interview, as advised by their lawyer. The police have, for whatever
   reason, declined to meet those conditions.

   I beleive the conditions are that the parents be interviewed together,
   with their lawyer present, outside of the police station.

   Doug.

Were I an investigating officer, there's just no effing way that I'd allow
two witnesses to be interviewed in a forum that allowed them to keep a
story straight.

Not that I know enough about any of this to say there's even a story to
keep straight, but that demand does strike me as one that's guaranteed to
eliminate the possibility of being interviewed.

    Given what I saw much poorer parents go through when their daughter was
    kidnapped (and killed although it was about a year before anyone knew
    that) by Colorado Springs and ElPaso county's finest, I take issue with
    the police not treating the house as a crime scene and working to
    control evidence,  as well as escorting people when they moved through
    the house.  
    
    S&R was called out, and the dogs used to track starting at the house,
    (this was apparently not done in Boulder, or they most likely would
    have found the little girl early on)  The parents were both repeatedly
    grilled by the police and sherriff's office, as parents or relatives
    are usually the people involved in child snatchings, especially when
    there has been a divorce.  The house was gone through with a
    fine-toothed comb, as was the father's house, all relatives of both
    sides were interviewed by their local police, once it was clear that
    she had been taken by car (dogs kept coming back to the same place) 
    And, until the crime was actually solved, the parents were under a
    continual suspicion, particularly when her skull showed up on Rampart
    Range Road.  Thankfully this crime was solved, and by a stray
    fingerprint left on a window.  
    
    In the Ramsey case the house was not searched thouroughly, they didn't
    bother to call in any of the people tracking dogs in the area, and sat
    around waiting for a phone call with lots of people moving in and out
    of the house?  The Boulder Police Dept gets credit for being
    compassionate to a fault, but none for police work in the early hours
    of this investigation.
    
    meg
    
    

>Were I an investigating officer, there's just no effing way that I'd allow
>two witnesses to be interviewed in a forum that allowed them to keep a
>story straight.

As an investigating officer, I would hope that you would respect the
rights of the individuals while going about your duties.

    
    	Are the parents suspects individually, or is the "parental pair" a
    	subject together?
    
    	IE, if they're both considered subjects individually, they each
    	have the right to have an attorney present during their interviews.
    	But I don't see what gives them the right to dictate the rules of
    	the interview as "both being interviewed together".
    

  >  	IE, if they're both considered subjects individually, they each
  >  	have the right to have an attorney present during their interviews.
  >  	But I don't see what gives them the right to dictate the rules of
  >  	the interview as "both being interviewed together".
  
  The right to remain silent gives them considerable leverage in determining
  in what environment they will answer questions in.

    Yes, right to counsel, right to not speak if they don't want to speak. 
    They just don't have the right to dictate the terms of the
    investigation.
    
    If they want to say "No, we refuse to be interviewed," that's perfectly
    within their rights, and I have no problem with that.  It just strikes
    me as a tad disingenuous for them to create a set of unreasonable
    conditions for the interview, then play innocent, saying "Well, they
    just won't go along with what we'd like."  If they want no interview,
    it's just a matter of refusing the interview.  I just don't buy their
    excuse.
    
    If the police don't want to interview them under these terms, it seems
    perfectly reasonable to me, because *IF* there is a story to be found,
    interviewing them as a couple, together, offers little chance for real
    discovery of information.

>    They just don't have the right to dictate the terms of the
>    investigation.

Have they done this?

    I don't know, talking to the cops individually would seem sfer than the
    next possible step, which is a Grand Jury.  GJ;s have massive amounts
    of rights that the cop on the beat could never hope to have.  
    
    

    Certainly not successfully.

    
    	If I'm ever arrested [or under suspicion for some sort of crime],
    	I want the police department to buy me lunch at an expensive rest-
    	aurant and then interview me at a $1000/day golf course later on.
    
    	Or else I'll exercise my right to remain silent and they won't
    	hear 1 word from me.  That'll learn them.
    

Re: Grand Jury

Good point there.  Then again, I still don't understand how Grand Juries
ever came to pass constitutional muster, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

    Perhaps it's because Grand Juries are specified in the constitution
    that they pass constitutional muster.

IDNKT.  TYVM.

>>>    They just don't have the right to dictate the terms of the
>>>    investigation.

>>Have they done this?

> Certainly not successfully.

Translation: No, they havent.

No, they haven't, but they tried.

    
    the smurf returns. humor shortly to follow.

    I doubt it.  I am in ZKO with the other miserable bastards, y'know.

>No, they haven't, but they tried.

 They call the police, invite them in, allow them access throughout the house
 for an entire day, and call their attorney after the child is found that
 evening, and you call that an attempt to manipulate the investigation?

 color me disappointed ....
 

Hey, I'd apologize for that ZKO comment, but I do feel compelled to make at
least one inconsequentially obnoxious and offensive comment per day.  SOme
would say that it comes to me naturally...

    I insist that you don't apologize.

.481:

That part I don't call trying to manipulate the investigation.

Telling the police how to conduct the interview I do call trying to
manipulate the investigation.

The statement made here was something like  "They aren't cooperating" or
"they're refusing to be interviewed."  For the most part, they are
cooperating.  But, setting up terms that most any thinking person would
know the police wouldn't accept does sound like a refusal.  I can't believe
these people would seriously believe that the police would have agreed to
their terms of interview (after all, you don't get a nice house in Boulder
by being stupid), so yes, I do feel that they are refusing to be
interviewed.

I imagine you'd see such logic coming from your children to be a refusal: 
"No, dad, I'm not refusing to go to bed.  It's just that you haven't agreed
to my terms to double my allowance before I do."

As for the rest of their actions, it does sound like cooperation to me.

>Telling the police how to conduct the interview I do call trying to
>manipulate the investigation.

So, exercising you right to keep silent to protect yourself is not
manipulation but requesting a lawyer and an environment to protect
yourself is manipulation.

These folks  didn't get where they are today by being stupid. We
have people criticising the police for a bungled job and criticising the
parents because they feel the need to protect themselve from the same
police.

And some call it manipulation.

Interesting ....

  .485   -< I'd call it prudent .... >-

	exactly, herr fyfe.  we have the rights, why not exercise
	them?

      <<< Note 831.464 by BULEAN::BANKS "Orthogonality is your friend" >>>

	The problem is that the house WAS the crime scene since the
	ransom note was found inside the house.

	No way that they should have allowed the crowd in the house
	before a forensic team had been over the palce from top 
	to bottom.

Jim

    Ya know, thinking about what Meg? said about the Boulder Bozo's, maybe
    they are doing what is really smart. I agree it sounds fishy, but if
    they are that incompetent...

    Looks like we've found a new case to micromanage, having already
    finished with OJ.

                <<< Note 831.488 by APACHE::KEITH "Dr. Deuce" >>>

>    Ya know, thinking about what Meg? said about the Boulder Bozo's, maybe
>    they are doing what is really smart. I agree it sounds fishy, but if
>    they are that incompetent...

	Well, judge for yourself.

	Back in early November the body of a woman was found in a Boulder field.
	She was in a hole, with a slab of concrete weighing several hundred
	pounds laid over the top of the hole. She died of exposure.

	The ruling by Boulder authorities? Suicide. 

	The family of the woman has been fighting since November to get
	a REAL investigation started, either by the State or the Federal
	authorities.

	Of course, if this death had been ruled as murder IT would have
	been the first for 1996, not the Jon Benet death.

Jim

               <<< Note 831.489 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

>    Looks like we've found a new case to micromanage, having already
>    finished with OJ.

	Closer than you think. ;-)

	Henry Lee has been enlisted by the Boulder police and Barry
	Scheck was asked, but declined.

Jim

    >	Henry Lee has been enlisted by the Boulder police and Barry
    >	Scheck was asked, but declined.
    
     Sheck has agreed to be a consultant.

               <<< Note 831.492 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

>     Sheck has agreed to be a consultant.

	Oopps. Missed that report. As of Monday he was quoted as saying
	he wouldn't do it.

Jim

  call JC...call geraldo...the boulder cops planted the body...it's a frame

  bb

  

    >	Oopps. Missed that report. As of Monday he was quoted as saying
    >	he wouldn't do it.
    
     Last week, an ADA (I think) from Boulder said he'd contracted the
    services of Lee and Scheck.
    
     Someone else opined that it was good that they got them on "the other
    team" this time.
    
     Scheck said he wasn't on "the other team". He said he'd agreed to be a
    consultant for the prosecution to provide information relative to the
    right way to collect DNA evidence and conduct DNA testing so the
    mistakes made by police in the Simpson case would not be repeated.

    
    Jim, you've been making a lot of boo boo's lately. I'm starting to
    get concerned.

       <<< Note 831.496 by ACISS1::BATTIS "Chicago - My Kind of Town" >>>

>    Jim, you've been making a lot of boo boo's lately. I'm starting to
>    get concerned.

	The Monday radio interview was with a local defense attorney
	that had talked to Scheck at some sort of covention they both
	attended last week. Sheck told him that he was not working
	for the Boulder PD, but that he would certainly answer questions
	as to how to best collect and preserve DNA evidence.

	I guess the question is now whether Sheck has changed his mind
	and decided to actually accept money to be a paid consultant.

Jim

    
    jim, i mean overall lately. you've regressed even further i'm afraid.

    >	I guess the question is now whether Sheck has changed his mind
    >	and decided to actually accept money to be a paid consultant.
    
     I believe that he's offering his services for either nothing or a
    small fee.

       <<< Note 831.498 by ACISS1::BATTIS "Chicago - My Kind of Town" >>>

>    jim, i mean overall lately. you've regressed even further i'm afraid.

	Contrary to commonly held beliefs (including my own) I am not
	an infallible superman.

	I know this may cause some (including you) great personal distress,
	but take heart, you still have \john.

	;-)

Jim

 Mr. Ramsey apparently has access to several private planes. All are under
 observation by the police.

 Autopsy of Jonbenets older sisters autopsy report (she died in a car
 wreck awhile back) gave investigators no clues into this current 
 investigation.

 The Ramseys are under constant supervision.

 The police have no authority at this time to restrict the Ramseys travel.

 Doug.

    
    	Autopsy of the autopsy report?
    
    	What were they hoping to find?  Traces of hemp?
    

See what lack of proof reading can result in!!!

Of course, it should have read:

 Contents of Jonbenets older sisters autopsy report (she died in a car
 wreck awhile back) gave investigators no clues into this current 
 investigation.


 Gee, what could they be looking for ....

    Can you Batti's that reply?

    
    	RE: .503/.501
    
    	Sorry, Doug, but I did have to point that out even if I knew what
    	you meant.  8^)
    

 reports are now that the police found no footprints outside the Ramsey home
 after they found the body of JonBenet.



Jim

    uh-huh.
    
    When is daddy getting tested?

he has been very testy all along!

    tested for what?

    dna

    And yes, I'm sure he will test positive for dna.

    Blood and hair samples were submitted early on.  Just no formal
    interviews with the policehave been granted, until they are done with
    both Ramsey parents together (violation of police investigation stuff),
    must have a Dr on site (apparently Mrs Ramsey has developed more
    problems or problems requiring major medical 

    should there be footprints? this, in and of itself means nothing unless
    the perp was a dinosaur or someone with Bruno Magli shoes.
    
    of course, not ever having been to the Ramsey home i'm only assuming 
    that the there is pavement/cement on the driveways and walkways.
    
    was there new fallen snow at the time of the murder?

    The lack of footprints referred to the snow surrounding the house. It
    had apparently last snowed on Dec 23, with occasional light flurries
    occurring after that. The investigators noticed the lack of footprints
    right away and thought it pointed to the family or someone close to the
    family.

    ahhhh, thanks.

    the walks were shoveled.  It tells me whoever did this didn't go
    skulking around the outside of the hose, but walked in and/or out by
    the doors and sidwalks.  
    
    

    Anyone who skulks around hoses is, particularly the outside part, is
    simply not to be trusted.

  the police planted the body

  my fee is less than johnny cochrane's

  bb

Depending on how much money the final suspect who gets taken to trial has,

You might just have an answer to save us taxpayers a lot of bux there.

    The parents' actions stink to high heaven. What parent would not want
    to cooperate fully in the investigation of the rape and murder of their
    six year-old child?
    
    Parents that have something to hide, IMHO.
    
    -john

    i couldn't agree with you more, John. we know time and resources are
    being invested in the parents by the local constabulary. 
    
    you would think the parents would want to end this investment and free
    those resources to focus in a productive direction, but noooooooo...

    The "local constabulary" seems predisposed to suspect the parents. It
    sounds like they've already decided the father is involved, and they
    are merely looking for supporting evidence (as opposed to following the
    evidence wherever it leads.) I don't blame the parents for refusing to
    abandon their rights as citizens. What I don't understand is the
    lengthy delay in getting the DNA results back from CellMark. In fact,
    the police held onto the samples for more than a monthy before even
    sending them out to be tested. If they were actually interested in
    solving the case in real time, they'd not have delayed. The results
    could prove to be exculpatory (or not) to the father. Considering the
    effort they are expending in trying to build a case against him, you'd
    think getting the DNA results would be of utmost importance.

    Re .520:
    
    > The parents' actions stink to high heaven. What parent would not want
    > to cooperate fully in the investigation of the rape and murder of their
    > six year-old child?
    > 
    > Parents that have something to hide, IMHO.
    
    Is that the limit of your imagination?  Consider this:  Most parents
    would want to cooperate with the police because they expect the police
    would find the killer.
    
    But the police really aren't very smart.  Most crimes are solved
    because criminals are stupid, most crimes fall into a pattern, and
    solving them is easy.  One pattern for murders is that the murderer
    knew the victim.
    
    If the parents know they are NOT guilty but they see the police ARE
    pursuing the standard pattern of investigation, they may correctly lose
    confidence in the police.
    
    In this situation, smart parents will NOT cooperate with police (who
    are only trying to hurt the parents and not to find the killer) and
    WILL hire their own investigators.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    "One pattern" understates it somewhat.  In most murder cases the victim
    knows the killer.  In over half of all cases it's a relative.

    >Is that the limit of your imagination?
    
    My thoughts exactly ....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 1997 Nando.net
Copyright � 1997 The Associated Press

DENVER (Mar 12, 1997 10:49 p.m. EST) -- An art student combined the image
of JonBenet Ramsey with the words "Daddy's Little Hooker" in a display at
the University of Colorado, angering some people enough for it to be torn
down twice.

Paul Hidalgo, an undergraduate, said he hoped his two-panel work in the
main hallway of the Fine Arts building would "raise issues about child
pageantry."

"The ethics and morality behind them must be questioned. Exposing young and
impressionable children to this very adult and superficial institution is a
terrible thing," Hidalgo said in a telephone interview from the Boulder
campus.

A spokesman for the Ramsey family was outraged.

"Trying to sully the good name of a wonderful 6-year-old child who lost her
life in a horrible way is not merely tasteless, it is disgusting and
vulgar," Patrick Korten said.

The first panel has the word "Look" and an arrow pointing to a second
panel, where Hidalgo mounted three 11-inch-by-17-inch color photocopies of
a Newsweek magazine photo of the girl. The words "Daddy's Little Hooker"
are above the photographs in large blue letters.

Hidalgo said the project, which cost him $100 in supplies, had been torn
down twice since it went up Monday. He said he has consulted with an
attorney because of all the attention the display is getting.

Because of copyright concerns, Hidalgo would not comment on his use of the
photograph, which does not show the Newsweek logo. It shows JonBenet in a
white dress, full makeup and with a crown of white flowers in her hair.

Messages left by The Associated Press for a spokeswoman with Newsweek in
New York were not immediately answered.

Fine Arts interim chair Merrill Lessley said he too finds the work
"hurtful," but he supported the student's right to use the space.

"The temporary display, as disturbing as it may be to many, falls under the
constitutional protection of the First Amendment," Lessley said. "For
centuries, artists have taken on provocative subjects. This work is no
different."

A crush of reporters and photographers watched the 21-year-old Hidalgo, of
Littleton, as he remounted the display on Wednesday.

The body of JonBenet Ramsey was found Dec. 26 in the basement of her
family's upscale Tudor-style Boulder home, not far from the CU campus.

The 6-year-old beauty queen was strangled and may have been sexually
assaulted, authorities have said.

An investigation into her death continues. No suspects have been named and
no arrests have been made.

    
    Un <r.o.> believable ....

Makes one wonder what one's definition of 'artist' includes.
Civilization is falling to pieces, slowly.

Pete

     A naked attempt at self-aggrandizement over the dead body of a child.
    I'm surprised he didn't use autopsy photos to make his "point".

    The art student who honestly exposes the use of children in sexual
    roles is doing a deed that is, even if hurtful to a few, ultimately for
    the good because of the criticism it brings on the subject.
    
    The parents and others who dishonestly use the children in sexual roles
    are doing bad deeds.  They deserve to be criticized, and any hurt they
    receive is their own punishment and should teach them a lesson.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Well then, I'm glad that I haven't been tasked with that job.

As far as I'm concerned, the 'art student' exposed only his utter lack
of taste and sense of decency and nothing else.

I suppose that, in my opinion, one of art's purposes is to entertain
and please. Although I didn't actually see the 'art', I suspect it did
neither.

Next.

Pete

	You should see the art. It isn't anything exciting, but it does make a
point. 

    
    	RE: .532
    
    	If you ask an artist, you'll find that the purpose of art is to
    	make a statement.  If it also happens to entertain then that's
    	OK too.
    
    	It's like poetry.  On the surface, it's a bunch of [possibly]
    	rhyming words.  Deep down, it's about something depressing that
    	happened to the author during childhood.
    

  i don't know anything about "child beauty pageants".  seems silly
 since they lack thingies...

  as to the student, his work must have full first amendment protection

  it's less vile than mapplethorpe

  bb

  as to the student, his work must have full first amendment protection

maybe so, but at the same time despise it, hate it, ignore it.

  it's less vile than mapplethorpe

oh, well, *that* makes all the difference, doesn't it!

    Of course it has first amendment protection. He has every right to
    shamelessly use a murdered child's image to purchase his full fifteen
    minutes. The beauty of the first amendment is that we have every right
    to revile him for doing so. His was a selfish, repusive and anti-social
    act. 
    
    Gee, I wonder if defacing putrid "art" is itself a form of
    self-expression fully protected by the first amendment...

    What this "artist" did is indeed (IMNSHO) disgusting, although I am
    still having a hard time seeing it as any different than entering her
    into that stupid "mini-sex object" contest that her parents had her
    participate in.

    Perhaps a trip to the opthamologist is in order, then.

Ophthalmologist.  NNTTM.

    Art that clobbers you over the head with its message is likely to be
    bad art.
    
    There's a lot of it out there.

    
    	RE: .537
    
    	No, Doc, I don't think property damage is protected under the
    	First Amendment.
    

    
    	Is libel truly protected by the first amendment?
    
    	Calling Jon Benet "Daddy's little hooker" certainly
    	smacks of libel to me.
    
    

    
    er, can you libel a dead person?

    
    	Who killed her pimp/father?
    

>    Art that clobbers you over the head with its message is likely to be
>    bad art.

Like Guernica?

    
    Likely.  Not always.

    re .523
    
    >Is that the limit of your imagination?
    
    No.
    
    >				One pattern for murders is that the
    > murderer knew the victim.
    
    all the more reason for the parents to fully cooperate with the police,
    who otherwise will need to consume valuable time and effort to discover
    who those people might be. 
    
    > If the parents know they are NOT guilty but they see the police ARE
    > pursuing the standard pattern of investigation, they may correctly
    > lose confidence in the police.
    
    So the police are pursuing standard practices and the parents will
    fault them for it? Doesn't make sense. The police are NOT there to gain
    the confidence of the parents; they are there to find the killer(s).
    The police cannot be faulted for following SOP. They CAN however be
    faulted for NOT following SOP.
    
    > In this situation, smart parents will NOT cooperate with police (who
    > are only trying tohurt the parents and not to find the killer) and
    > WILL hire their own investigators.
    
    Wrong. Smart parents would do both. And there is absolutely no basis
    for your allegation that the police are only trying to hurt the parents
    and not to find the killer.
    
    Previous replies have stated that the parents didn't get to where they
    are today by being stupid. That doesn't mean that they necessarily got
    to where they are by being smart. One reply stated that the parents are
    politically connected, or influential. What that has to do with this, I
    have no idea. Is someone implying that a politician would pull strings
    to help hinder the investigation on the parent's behalf? I can't
    imagine someone doing that if they were not sure of the innocence of
    the parents - yeah, THERE'S the limit of my imagination. 'Course, I'm
    not as smart or imaginative as you, EDP.
    
    I personally would not take the advice of a lawyer that counselled me
    not to go to the police station to help the police in every imaginative
    way that I could (limited though that might be ;) ) to help them to
    find the person that raped and murdered my daughter.
    
    But then, I have nothing to hide.
    
    -john

Boulder Police have recruited local Colorado Springs super-sleuth out of 
retirement to help solve the case.  The fellow has retired three times, 
once after 20+ years with the CS Police Department, again after a few years 
with the Sheriff's department and again after a few with the local DA's 
office.

His most recent major success was in solving the mystery of the Heather 
Dawn Church case, a young girl about 11 years.  After disappearing from her 
home while babysitting for her parents, her case remained unsolved for 
several years.  When the newly elected sheriff took office he asked the 
detective to come out of retirement and take a look at the case.  He was 
able to match fingerprints taken from a windowsill of the home with some on 
file with a remote police dept. (Louisianna, I think), which traced back to 
a guy now living in Colorado in the vicinity of the Church's.

-- Jim

    Re .548:
    
    > all the more reason for the parents to fully cooperate with the police,
    > who otherwise will need to consume valuable time and effort to discover
    > who those people might be.
    
    Help the police go down the wrong path?  That's really clever.
    
    > So the police are pursuing standard practices and the parents will
    > fault them for it? Doesn't make sense.
    
    It makes sense when standard practices suck.
    
    > The police are NOT there to gain the confidence of the parents; they
    > are there to find the killer(s).
    
    Police are often more concerned with finding somebody to indict than
    find somebody culpable.
    
    > The police cannot be faulted for followable time and effort to discover
    > who those people might be. 
    
    The police can be faulted for doing it wrong.  The police can be
    faulted for continuing simple-minded techniques when more perceptive
    investigation is necessary.
    
    > Wrong. Smart parents would do both. And there is absolutely no basis
    > for your allegation that the police are only trying to hurt the parents
    > and not to find the killer.
    
    Perhaps when you find the police are trying to prove you committed
    murder, you will have a different opinion about whether that is trying
    to hurt you.
    
    > But then, I have nothing to hide.
    
    Do you really have nothing to hide?  Tell me, do you close the curtain
    on the voting booth?  Most people hide their vote.  Is that because
    voting is bad or unethical?  What about your business plans?  Would you
    invite a competitor to sit in on a planning meeting, or would you
    prefer to hide your plans?  Is that because business plans are bad?
    
    Honest people have plenty to hide:  their votes, their business plans,
    their personal lives, their private relationships, and more.  It is
    perfectly ethical and healthy to have things to hide.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>    I personally would not take the advice of a lawyer that counselled me
>    not to go to the police station to help the police in every imaginative
>    way that I could (limited though that might be ;) ) to help them to
>    find the person that raped and murdered my daughter.

   Not that it hasn't been stated before this but ...

   The parents are NOT refusing to talk to police. They have provided 
   EVERYTHING the police have requested EXCEPT separate interviews.
   
   In a world where one mispoken word can be used against you in a court
   of law, and the emotional heights an interview about your murdered
   child is likely to bring, I can easily understand why the parents
   would insist on mutual support in an interview.

   Now, for those who think it may be one or both of the parents who did
   the deed, a wife and husbands testimony can not unwillingly be used 
   against each other anyway. 

   So get off this diversion already ....

   Doug.

    Detective, psychiatrist join investigation of Ramsey case 
    
    By Charlie Brennan 
    
    Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer
    
    
    BOULDER -- A legendary Colorado homicide detective and a forensic
    psychiatrist have been added to a team investigating JonBenet Ramsey's
    murder.
    
    The selection of retired El Paso County sheriff's Capt. Andrew "Lou''
    Smit, veteran of more than 150 murder cases, and the unidentified
    scientist complete a special task force set up to investigate the child
    beauty queen's slaying, authorities said.
    
    Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter began assembling the team last
    month. It includes four other metro area district attorneys, forensics
    scientist Henry Lee and attorney Barry Scheck. Lee and Scheck served on
    O.J. Simpson's criminal defense team.
    
    The forensic psychiatrist has worked on the Christmas night slaying of
    the 6-year-old for several weeks, sources said Thursday.
    
    Smit, a 61-year-old Colorado Springs resident who retired in June, is
    known as a master sleuth with a deep spiritual faith and an unwavering
    allegiance to victims.
    
    "He's not out for the glory,'' said El Paso County sheriff's Capt. T.J.
    Shull. "He wants to do this for JonBenet Ramsey, and he wants to do
    this for his God.''
    
    Smit could not be reached for comment.
    
    Boulder Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise said Smit would begin
    work Monday on a contract paying him $5,000 monthly in salary and
    expenses.
    
    "It is not that the Boulder Police Department has not done a good job,
    because they have,'' Wise said. "It's a fresh set of eyes, a guy who's
    a nose-to-the-grindstone type.''
    
    Smit once sifted through 100 bags of a family's garbage looking for the
    clue that nailed a killer. He's been known to carry pictures of victims
    from unsolved cases in his billfold.
    
    One of Smit's most notable successes was solving the 1991 abduction and
    murder of Heather Dawn Church northeast of Colorado Springs. Smit
    re-examined the troubling case in January 1995.
    
    A little more than two months later, Smit and his colleagues broke the
    case with the arrest of Robert Charles Browne, who lived near Heather
    Church's home.
    
    Meanwhile, ABC World News Tonight reported Thursday that lab analysis
    on a spot of fluid recovered from JonBenet's body, which some
    investigators thought could be semen, has failed to yield any DNA.
    Analysis of handwriting on a ransom note connected to the case shows it
    wasn't written by the girl's father, and ABC reported it also has not
    been linked to her mother.

    So, we have reports that the ransom note was not written by either of
    the parents and that the spot of fluid may not have been semen after
    all. Interesting developments.

    Smit has a 90% solving rate on cold murders.  
    
    He does do this to see ustice for the victim, but burns out on a fairly
    regular basis these days.  
    
    Latest on the tube last night is that the bodey was so well "cleaned"
    by the murderer that there may be no usable dna to be found.  
    
    meg

    
    If she was sexually assaulted, maybe the reason there is no semen
    evidence is that the killer worn a condemn.
    
    Mary
    

 condom..



 hth

    Talk about Freudian.

    I liked it better the first way.

    
    Yes, condom. :.)
    
    

I wouldn't put too much stock in the sexually abused bucket.
I just don't trust the media to get the details correct.

Doug.

Too true, too true.

How does one sexually abuse a bucket, dear Henry?

    It makes for fascinating speculation though.  

    watch out for slivers.

 >   It makes for fascinating speculation though.  

Perhaps for some .... but definitely not for others ....

> How does one sexually abuse a bucket, dear Henry?

Very carefully   ...

        Pail Rider

    "Not just another drop in the bucket"

    Coming soon to a theater near you.

    
    8^o
    
    

    >I wouldn't put too much stock in the sexually abused bucket.
    
    From the beginning the police have said "possible sexual assault" and
    the media has dutifully reported it in the body of the text as
    "possible sexual assault" while using headlines that seem to treat the
    alleged sexual assault as fact. It has a psychological effect.

    Report: Aspects of Patsy Ramsey's handwriting resemble ransom note
    
    Associated Press, 03/19/97 10:10 
    
    BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - Some features of the handwriting samples JonBenet
    Ramsey's mother gave police resemble the writing in a ransom note she
    found hours before her dead daughter was discovered, the Rocky Mountain
    News reported today. 
    
    ``Features on some characters'' in the samples resemble the ransom
    note, the newspaper said, citing unidentified sources. The sources
    declined to elaborate on the similarities. 
    
    Police continue to analyze her handwriting and have not concluded that
    she wrote the ransom note. 
    
    ``We don't intend to discuss any material that has been analyzed except
    in a court of law,'' Boulder city spokesman Kelvin McNeill said today. 
    
    He said any stories that purport to divulge information about the
    investigation ``are pure speculation.'' 
    
    Patsy Ramsey found the 2-page note on a back staircase in the family's
    expensive Tudor mansion on the morning of Dec. 26. The note demanded
    $118,000 in exchange for the safe return of the 6-year-old beauty
    queen. Her body was found in the basement about eight hours later. 
    
    An autopsy showed she had suffered a skull fracture and may have been
    sexually assaulted. Police later found an apparent practice ransom note
    in the house. 
    
    Mrs. Ramsey did not write the note, family spokesman Patrick Korten
    said. 
    
    ``There may be a few similarities, but our handwriting experts have
    concluded that there are many dramatic differences between her
    handwriting and that on the note,'' he told the News. ``That has
    enabled our handwriting analysts to conclude that neither John nor
    Patsy wrote the note.'' 
    
    Mrs. Ramsey submitted two handwriting samples to investigators in the
    days after JonBenet's body was found. Police collected a third sample
    from her in late February, saying medication she was taking made the
    earlier samples difficult to analyze. 

    Well, that's completely useless.  It might be her handwriting, then
    again, it might not.
    
    Why do they even bother printing stories like this?  It only makes it
    worse for everyone involved.

    >Why do they even bother printing stories like this?  
    
     Slow news day/ the OJ effect.

>>> citing unidentified sources.

"citing unidentified sources"

Translation:  It was a slow news day, so we found someone on the
schizophrenic ward to dream up a few factoids for us.

Goes hand in hand with

"One possible explanation"

Translation: "Also the least likely to be true"

    
    It could be useful - there is a lot of work that shows that you can't
    suppress certain elements of cursive handwriting.  Always print
    a ransome note.                                

It sells papers.

    and for pete's sake round off the ransome figure.

    and for pete's sake leave the "e" off "ransom".

    My Doc prescribed extra vowels.

    Hey, you winsome, you ransome.
    
    As for the media, (everybody sing):
    
    		*Every* day's a slow news day,
    		Since there's been no O.J.!
    
    Chris

	Chris is a poet, too! Cool!

    Just don't become one of his fans.
    

    
    Don't you think the amount asked for is a bit off, $118K? I mean, these
    folks are suppose to be pretty well to do, if you are going to do a
    kidnapping, why wouldn't you ask for a lot of money?
    
    Mary
    

    It just so happens to be the amount of a bonus John Ramsey received in
    1995.

    Slain girl's family given access to DNA testing
    
    Associated Press, 03/20/97 13:27 
    
    BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - The parents of JonBenet Ramsey have been given
    access to DNA testing on evidence taken in the 6-year-old beauty
    queen's slaying, officials said today. 
    
    Such testing began earlier this month at Cellmark Diagnostics in
    Germantown, Md., one of the laboratories involved in the O.J. Simpson
    case. The tests will take four to six weeks to complete. 
    
    ``The prosecution believes the family may have legal standing to be
    present (during DNA testing),'' city spokesman Kelvin McNeill said at a
    weekly news conference in the case. 
    
    Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter said the offer to allow
    representatives of John and Patsy Ramsey to be present during the
    testing is ``not so much law as protocol.'' 
    
    Attorneys for the Ramseys have given authorities the name of a
    scientist they would like to be present, Hunter said. 
    
    Under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, defendants in criminal cases have
    the right to have representatives present during destructive testing if
    the evidence amount is small and there would be no additional evidence
    left over for additional testing. 
    
    Investigators in the Ramsey case have said the family had no right to
    be present for testing by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation because
    they have not been named as defendants. 
    
    JonBenet was found strangled Dec. 26 in the basement of the family's
    Boulder home. Her body was found by her father about eight hours after
    her mother reported she had found a ransom note on a back stairway. 
    
    Meanwhile, the Rocky Mountain News reported today that employees at
    John Ramsey's company, Access Graphics, are being asked to provide
    additional handwriting samples. 
    
    The newspaper quoted unidentified sources as saying at least two
    employees at the Boulder computer company who had provided handwriting
    samples early in the investigation were summoned by police this week to
    do so again. 

    Sheesh.
    
    I mean, it was their kid.  Why not allow them to be present?

    re .551
    
    >So get off this diversion already ....
    
    
    Yeah, sure, Fyfe, whatever you say.
    
    It's true that the parents have the constitutional right not to talk to
    the police. But IMHO, any parent that puts their constitutional right
    ahead of efforts to find the person that raped and murdered their baby
    have something to hide.
    
    Their refusal to fully cooperate with police is hindering the
    investigation.
    
    NOTHING that they could possibly say to the police could indict them IF
    they tell the truth AND they are absolutley innocent of these crimes.
    Refusal to fully cooperate with the police HAS hampered the
    investigation. They are more interested in exercising their 'rights'
    than solving these crimes. Certainly doesn't fit the definition of
    loving parents.
    
    -john

  Ya, sure SOBECKY, what ever your say. 

  For someone who doesn't have one inkling about the personal makeup
  of this family you are pretty judgemental, if not naive.

  Nothing tha parents do will bring back their daughter.
  What they do from this point forward could protect them from further
  unnecessary hardship.

  If either one of them is guilty, the police will find out with or without
  independant interviews.
  
  Having policemen in the family, knowing how they bend/break the rules to
  find what they are looking for (these are key words here), and how
  often they make mistakes, along with having had members of my family being
  wrongly chased by crocked cops, I can tell you that the competancy of
  any policeman should always be suspect. 

  To give them anything that might lead them in the wrong direction
  can be perilous.

  One mispoken word in an interview is all it takes. 

  Doug.

    
    >NOTHING that they could possibly say to the police could indict them IF
    >they tell the truth AND they are absolutley innocent of these crimes.
    
    With all due respect, I think that this is not even close to being true
    8^/.
    

    >NOTHING that they could possibly say to the police could indict them IF
    >they tell the truth AND they are absolutley innocent of these crimes.
    
     How charmingly naive. You've obviously never been falsely accused. You
    might be surprised by how much such an experience will clue you into
    the difference between theory and practice.

 <<< Note 831.588 by NEMAIL::SOBECKY "Facts,tho interesting,are irrelevant" >>>

>    NOTHING that they could possibly say to the police could indict them IF
>    they tell the truth AND they are absolutley innocent of these crimes.

	I just finished reading a case study regarding a self-defense shooting.

	The shooter made the mistake of talking to the police immediately
	after the shooting occurred. By misinterpreting one question asked
	by the investigating officer the shooter set himself up for an
	indictment and trial.

	He was ultimately acquitted of any wrongdoing, but his life is
	ruined anyway.

	We have the right not to talk to the police. Many would be well
	advised to excersize this right, ESPECIALLY if they are innocent.

Jim

    
    	RE: .592
    
    	Yeah, didn't you all see "My Cousin Vinny"?
    

This is from an ACLU site. We're all going to need to know this sooner or
later as the police state continues to grow at our expense...

      What you say to the police is important. It can be used against you,
      and it can give the police and excuse to arrest you, especially if you
      speak disrespectfully to a police officer.
                  
      You do not have to answer a police officer's questions. If you are
      stopped while driving a car, you must show your driver's license,
      registration, and proof of insurance. In other situations, you cannot
      be legally arrested for refusing to identify yourself.
                              
      You do not have to give your consent to any search of your person, your
      car, or your house; if you do consent to a search, it can affect your
      rights later in court. If the police claim they have a warrant, ask to
      see it. Whether or not the police
                        
      have a warrant to search you or your property, you can protect your
      rights by making it clear that you do not agree to any search.
                  
      Do not interfere with, physically resist, or obstruct the police in a
      search, even if you are sure the search is illegal -- you will be
      arrested for it. File a complaint afterwards if you feel your rights
      have been violated.
                        
      If confronted by a police officer, you may remain silent. You do not
      have to answer any questions, give your name, age, or address, or show
      any ID unless you are operating a car or are in a place where liquor is
      served. However, it is advisable to provide basic information such as
      name, age, and address.
                              
      Ask if you are under arrest. If so, ask why. If you are not under
      arrest, you should be free to leave. Insist on that right. Never run
      from a police officer.
                  
      Never physically resist. The police may frisk you for weapons by
      patting the outside of your clothing, but nothing more. Make it clear
      that you do not agree to any search. If you are search, do not resist.
      File a complaint afterwards.

      If you are stopped in your car, show your driver's license,
      registration, and proof of insurance upon request. Your car can be
      searched without a warrant so long as the officer has probable cause.
      To protect yourself, make it clean that you do not consent to a search.
      If given a ticket, sign it; you can be arrested for failing to do so.
      The proper place to fight a ticket is in court. Your license can be
      suspended if you refuse to take a breath test if you are stopped for
      suspected drunk driving.
                                                      
      If you are arrested, go with the officer. Do not resist. Do not answer
      the officer's questions. Whether or not you are guilty, do not resist
      arrest. You can make your defense in court.  You have the right to
      remain silent; use it. Tell the police nothing except your name, age,
      and address.  Don't give explanations or stories or try to excuse your
      conduct.
                                    
      Ask to talk to a lawyer at once. You can do so by phone immediately
      after being taken into custody. If you are arrested for a jailable
      offense and you cannot afford a lawyer, you have the right to a public
      defender. Do not talk to the police until a lawyer is present.

      If during a search or an arrest the police take anything from you, they
      must give you a receipt for every item sezied, including your wallet
      and its contents, clothes, and any packages you were carrying when
      arrested.
                        
      You may be released with or without bail following the booking.  If
      not, you have the right to go into court and see a judge the next court
      day after your arrest. Demand this right. When you appear before the
      judge, ask for an attorney.
                        
      Never make any decisions in your case until you have spoken with a
      lawyer.
            
      This is not complete advice. Be sure to consult a legal professional.

>      Ask if you are under arrest. If so, ask why. If you are not under
>      arrest, you should be free to leave. Insist on that right. Never run
>      from a police officer.

Believe the police can "detain" you.  (They do, anyway)  That is, you are not
free to just leave but are not under arrest.  This is when they come across
a suspicious character/crime scene and are trying to figure out what happened.

YMMV, IANAL.

    >IANAL.
    
     Ooh, boy. A troll for his Glen-ness.

    
    	Mark, stop encouraging him.
    
    

    
    	Glen's 'search "anal"' .COM file would have found it anyways, Karen.
    

    >	Mark, stop encouraging him.
    
     This is one who considers criticism to be encouragement. And ignoring
    him doesn't work either.

re .596:

Err, NO!

Well, if he goes to Connecticut, just be sure he stays away from Mianus.

/john

    
    	RE: .601
    
    	It's not MY turn to watch it.
    

                      <<< Note 831.595 by EVMS::MORONEY >>>

>Believe the police can "detain" you. 

	I pretty sure that there is a SCOTUS case ruling that the police
	can not keep you from leaving unless you are under arrest.

Jim

    
    Theory: Mommy flipped out, killed baby, and Hubby's quarterbacking the
    defense.
    
    

    I'm reasonably sure that you can be "held as a material witness" by
    Police, or Federal law enforcement.
    
    Mark

I think you can be held for a two or three days without being charged.
Is this what habeas corpus is all about (protection against illegal 
imprisonment)?

Jim

re .603:

I don't know.  I've seen "Cops" shows where some lady is arguing with a cop
"Am I under arrest?" "No." "Can I leave" "No, I am detaining you" "But I am
not under arrest?" "That's right." "So, why can't I leave?" etc. until the cop
finds a reason to arrest her.  Could be the cop abusing authority to keep her
around until he finds a (legitimate) reason to arrest her, or is he acting
within his authority to "detain" her (following some prescribed rules what the
cop can and can't do when "detaining" someone)

  Nope, in Terry v. Ohio (1968), SCOTUS said the cops can stop and frisk
 for weapons without any arrest, and if you resist, they then have
 probable cause.  They can also stop and search your automobile, without
 arrest or warrant, if they have probable cause.  In Michigan v. Long (1983),
 the court ruled that if evidence of crime came to light during a lawful
 stop-and-frisk for weapons, it is admissible even if not a weapon.

  By the way, they CANNOT enter your dwelling in this way, without warrant,
 unless "in hot pursuit".

  bb

    .608
    
    /Nope, in Terry v. Ohio (1968), SCOTUS said the cops can stop and
    /frisk for weapons without any arrest, and if you resist, they then have
    /probable cause.
    
    No one resisted in this case.  And the cop claimed he had probable cause
    _before_ the frisk.  The probable cause was suspicious behavior.
    

    
    	RE: .608
    
    	Did anyone see the movie "The Star Chamber", starring Michael
    	Douglas?
    
    	"I smelled marijuana ...".
    

    Yes, Ilikeditalot.

                      <<< Note 831.607 by EVMS::MORONEY >>>

>I don't know.  I've seen "Cops" shows where some lady is arguing with a cop
>"Am I under arrest?" "No." "Can I leave" "No, I am detaining you"

	A beat cop is generally not the best person to ask about Constitutional
	interpretations.

Jim

    
    	That probably depends on who beat him, doesn't it?
    

    
    some of you in here seem to think that all cops are incompetent, 
    power abusing, chowderheads. 

>   some of you in here seem to think that all cops are incompetent, 
>    power abusing, chowderheads. 


   All?  Not likely. Some? Definitely. Many? Absolutely.


   Doug.> 

   Some of you in here seem to think that all cops are competent, 
   well trained, infallable, law abiding father figures. 

  Even if the cop IS a chowderhead, and is operating outside the law,
 there isn't any benefit to resisting him.  Argument is for court.

  Do what they tell you, say little or nothing, ask for a lawyer.

  Unless, of course, you WANT to tell them something, to co-operate, as
 your civic duty.  Personally, if I were guilty, I'd confess and plead
 guilty.  And if the police asked me which way you ran, I'd tell them.

  bb

><<< Note 831.615 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>

	Yeah, right, if you question the constant attacks on cops,
	then that must mean you think they're all infallible.  
	Typical Soapbox logic (or the lack thereof).

    .617
    
    there she goes again.  butting into a topic.

    
    I'll follow the advice I got from a former cop you is now a lawyer!!!
    
     Nothing GOOD comes from talking to a police officer, ALWAYS have your
    lawyer present when talking to a police officer.
    
    
     He had come to a self defense/hand gun safty course and was talking
    during the legal portion when we got into using a firearm for
    self-defense.
    
     He also said if you use a firearm for self-defense you will be
    arrested. This is in Colorado so your milage may vary!
    
     Dave

re: PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B"                        7 lines  24-MAR-1997 16:23
!><<< Note 831.615 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>
!
!	Yeah, right, if you question the constant attacks on cops,
!	then that must mean you think they're all infallible.  
    
    Er, um, I think you misunderstand me ...
    Note the similarities between the two statements ....

    >    some of you in here seem to think that all cops are incompetent, 
    >    power abusing, chowderheads. 

    >   Some of you in here seem to think that all cops are competent, 
    >   well trained, infallible, law abiding father figures. 

    I was trying to illustrate the absurdity of the first with
    similar absurdity ...

!	Typical Soapbox logic (or the lack thereof).
    
    Yup! But I'll forgive you this time :-)
    
    
>    there she goes again.  butting into a topic.

    She's always welcomed :-)

><<< Note 831.620 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>

>    Note the similarities between the two statements ....

	Yes, I noted the similarities, of course, but had no way of
	knowing you weren't serious.  Glad to hear you weren't.  Sorry
	for misunderstanding you.


	

    <<< Note 831.614 by ACISS1::BATTIS "Kansas Jayhawks-Toto's favorite" >>>

    
>    some of you in here seem to think that all cops are incompetent, 
>    power abusing, chowderheads. 

	No, but they are not experts in Constitutional law either. It's 
	not their job.

Jim

>    some of you in here seem to think that all cops are incompetent, 
>    power abusing, chowderheads. 

Hey, when's the last time you saw one that WASN'T doing 90 MPH on the
interstate? Driving to endanger? Not if you're a cop.

    When was the last time I saw a cop who wasn't doing 90 MPH on the
    interstate?
    
    Just this morning, when I saw one parked behind another vehicle,
    presumably writing him up for doing 60 on the interstate (CT).

>              <<< Note 831.623 by ASIC::RANDOLPH "Tom R. N1OOQ" >>>

>Hey, when's the last time you saw one that WASN'T doing 90 MPH on the
>interstate? 

	Sunday.

    RE: .615

>    Note the similarities between the two statements ....

    She's had problems with that type of sarcasm in the past.

    -- Dave

  We all make mistakes ...  :-)

    .627
    
    when it's a prevailing attitude, it's hard sometimes
    to separate the sarcastic ones from the ones who really
    mean it.

    I'm not worried about traffic stops by the police, it's just another
    way to provide a hidden tax to support our court systems.
    
    What worries me is the pseudo-police agencies that kick in doors
    in the middle of the night kill the occupants in their sleep and
    then realize they have the wrong house...
    
    Happened 84 times last year according to some anti-BATF webpage...
    
    What worries me is when the secret service kicks in doors
    serving a search warrent on a BBS system and checking mail 
    for all the users for evidence of a crime. 
    (kind of like serving a warrent on your house then searching
    every house on the block for weapons or drugs...)
    
    What worries me isn't Police as Stormtroopers, but REAL Stormtroopers
    being deployed from outside the local community with impunity...
    
    JMHO
    
    JOhn W.

  >  when it's a prevailing attitude, it's hard sometimes
  >  to separate the sarcastic ones from the ones who really
  >  mean it.

   I THINK I understand what you are saying, but I can't be sure ....


   I contemplated  making a comment about the sarcasm hitting to close
   to home but thought better of it :-)

>    <<< Note 831.628 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "gonna have to eventually anyway" >>>
    
>    when it's a prevailing attitude, it's hard sometimes
>    to separate the sarcastic ones from the ones who really
>    mean it.

	Not for Dave, apparently.  He must be wickit smaht.


  

    TTWA:
    
     If only men can be "wickit smaht." We never hear women accused of
    this...

>               <<< Note 831.632 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

	Why - is it supposed to be an adjective evenly applied because
	of some PC quota in your head or something?

    Oh, goodness me, what was I jabbering about?

    
    	Ooh, it's Stalin vs. Mussolini here in 'BOXland.
    

  .634  You tell me and we'll both know.



	Time for a cigarette, Shawn?

    "Why can't we all just get along?"

    
    	Sure, I've got time.  Where do you want to meet?
    

  speaking of which, Mass. Congressman Marty Meehan (D) is introducing
 legislation to make cigarette pack warning labels larger and more
 blunt, like "Cigarettes Kill" in large block print on all 6 sides.

  bb

    
    	The warning, to be truthful, should say, "Cigarettes
    	can kill".  I smoked 'em for nine years, and I ain't
    	dead yet.
    

    
    	That doesn't fit bb's agenda, though.
    

    I'm surprised that Meehan doesn't want to put
    
     ----------------------------------------------
    |********|  THIS MAY BE THE ONE THAT KILLS YOU |
     ----------------------------------------------
    
    in big block letters on each ciggie itself.
    
    Anyone who doesn't know the dangers of smoking has been living in
    a cave, and therefore, doesn't have access to tobacco products, so
    it's moot.
    
    This whole pols vs. tobacco thing is a nice, safe way for politicians
    to beat their chests over an issue that few would disagree with,
    instead of playing King Kong on tough, controversial, and/or divisive
    issues.
    
    Chris

 It is rather fascinating the way they jump on the bandwagon..

JonBenet Ramsey, people, JonBenet Ramsey!

    RE: .628

>    Not for Dave, apparently.  He must be wickit smaht.

    I never claimed to catch all sarcasm in here.  I was just pointing out
    that you have a history of missing sarcasm of a certain type.

    -- Dave

    it's like Dennis Leary says. you could market a brand of cigarettes
    called Tumors in a black pack with a skull and cross bone logo and
    people would still line up to buy them.
    
    personally, i think they're beginning to get to the line of
    ridiculousness with the cigarette issue.

>    This whole pols vs. tobacco thing is a nice, safe way for politicians
>    to beat their chests over an issue that few would disagree with,
>    instead of playing King Kong on tough, controversial, and/or divisive
>    issues.

Yah, gee, they sure have been finding a lot of these things lately. You don't
suppose they could be useless, spineless weasels, do you?

>       <<< Note 831.645 by HIGHD::FLATMAN "[email protected]" >>>

>    I was just pointing out
>    that you have a history of missing sarcasm of a certain type.

	See?  See how wickit smaht you are?  So astute.

    And, back to the subject...
    
    Ramsey slaying may not be linked to sex 
    
    Investigators examine scenario under which violent death didn't include
    sexual abuse
    
    By Charlie Brennan 
    
    Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer
    
    
    BOULDER -- JonBenet Ramsey's killing may not have been a sex crime.
    
    The Rocky Mountain News has learned that investigators are closely
    examining an alternative theory -- that the blond 6-year-old was the
    victim of a deadly physical attack, but that it wasn't motivated by sex
    and didn't include sexual abuse.
    
    Investigators, meanwhile, have not ruled out the possiblity that the
    little beauty princess was sexually assaulted by the person who killed
    her sometime after she went to bed Christmas night.
    
    But they're now looking at a different scenario as well.
    
    "There is certainly a possible theory that her injuries were not
    sexually motivated, but were physical abuse,'' a source, who requested
    anonymity, said Tuesday.
    
    JonBenet's scraped and bruised body was found Dec. 26 by her father in
    the basement of the Boulder family's home. She had been strangled and
    her skull fractured.
    
    A nationally known child abuse expert, who recently read the complete
    autopsy report, has told investigators her death may not have included
    sexual abuse.
    
    The expert who shared his opinion with investigators declined to
    comment publicly.
    
    But Dr. Wilbur Richie, the Jefferson County coroner who has
    participated in about 2,250 autopsies during his 15 years in office, on
    Tuesday read the portions of the autopsy that are public. He reached
    the same conclusion.
    
    "I've read it three times, and to me, it's inconsistent'' with sexual
    assault, Richie said.
    
    Asked if the report reflected the possibility of non-sexual physical
    abuse, Richie said, "Much more than sexual assault, yes. The way it
    reads, it in no way suggests sexual assault.''
    
    Richie based his opinion on reading the portions of the autopsy report
    released Feb. 14. Boulder District Judge Carol Glowinsky ruled that
    certain sections should remain under seal for fear their release could
    jeopardize the investigation into the slaying.
    
    Ramsey family spokesman Patrick Korten said that he has never heard
    conclusively that JonBenet was sexually assaulted.
    
    "Bear in mind, though, that they haven't shared a lot with us from the
    beginning,'' Korten said.
    
    Sources early in the case said a small amount of what might have been
    semen was recovered from the body of the girl, who was found strangled
    in her family's basement.
    
    They also said it appeared she may have been digitally penetrated.
    
    But investigators now say no semen was found, and medical experts say
    there could be non-sexual explanations for "chronic inflammation'' and
    an abrasion found in her vaginal region.
    
    If JonBenet was sexually assaulted, Richie said, the autopsy report
    "should have said something about vaginal distension, or vaginal
    penetration, and I didn't see that anywhere.''
    
    Meanwhile, the Ramsey family is still considering an offer by Boulder
    District Attorney Alex Hunter to have their own expert present at DNA
    testing to be conducted at Cellmark Diagnostics in Germantown, Md.
    
    Dr. Moses Schanfield, a private Denver-based genetic analyst who has
    been consulted by the Ramseys' lawyers, said he needs more information
    about the nature of the evidence awaiting testing before the family
    decides.
    
    Fawn Germer contributed to this report

 >   "I've read it three times, and to me, it's inconsistent'' with sexual
 >   assault, Richie said.
 

 How could this be?  We've already had 'experts' on TV claim exactly the
 opposite! 

 

    C. Wecht will not be happy.

    The comments earlier about not making statements to the police 
    without a lawyer are very, very good advice.

    When I was the driver in a car accident where someone in the other
    car was killed (after hitting my car side-on), I said one thing to
    a police officer that could have hurt me badly (but luckily, it
    came before they read my rights to me.) I was a teenager at the time.

    The policeman asked me what happened, and I gave the wrong name of
    the highway I was on when I'd made a left turn on green arrows. 
    (There were two highways side by side, and I had a habit of calling
    them both by the same name since I only knew one of the names and
    it didn't matter which one I used.)  

    The highway name I chose made my description sound like an illegal
    left turn (since only one of the highways allowed a turn at this
    intersection.)  Luckily, the eye witness at the scene corrected
    this for me with the police officer - he saw me on the right highway
    with the legal turn.

    I was completely innocent of wrongdoing, but it would have been very
    hard to correct myself later (with the explanation of how I called
    both highways by the same name.)

    When they read me my rights at the hospital, I had just watched the
    passenger from the other car dying in the emergency room and I was
    completely distraught - I was ready to blame myself when the cops
    asked me to give a statement.  Luckily, I looked at my father and
    then said that maybe I should talk to the insurance company lawyers
    before giving a statement.

    The eyewitness cleared me completely, but I think a confession of
    wrongdoing to the police right after hearing my rights would have
    been a tough thing to overcome (even though I was under a lot of
    duress at that moment.)  Later that day, I remembered clearly what
    happened during the accident and I knew I'd done nothing wrong,
    but the sight of someone dying was enough of a shock to get me to
    believe that I MUST have done something bad (and I wanted to tell 
    this to the police.)

    I was extremely lucky that day - lucky to survive, lucky that someone
    else saw what happened, and lucky that I didn't make a formal statement
    to the police.

    Be very careful in situations like this.

    Writing Sample in Ramsey Case Urged 
    
    Three days after she submitted a fourth handwriting sample, the mother
    of slain 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey was asked to provide a
    fifth one. Boulder, Colo., Dist. Atty. Alex Hunter would not elaborate
    on why a fifth sample was requested. Police spokeswoman Leslie Aaholm
    said the reasons for the additional sample from Patsy Ramsey were
    outlined in their request to the Ramsey lawyers. Authorities are
    studying the writing samples to try to determine who wrote the note.
    Handwriting experts reportedly have concluded that JonBenet's father,
    John Ramsey, did not write it. 
                                   

    
    looking like the main suspects are the parents. i'm betting the mother
    did it.

   imo, the reported amount of the ransom request is the most
   baffling aspect of this whole case.  it's like something out of
   a bad whodunit.

    
    	RE: .654
    
    	In the kitchen, with the rope?