>They answered all questions in 1997 and 1998 - look where it
>got them?

First of all, it took months to get them to agree to be questioned. By that time many of the answers were simply "I don't recall." So the months of delay became a perfect excuse to NOT answer all questions.

And where has it got them? They were never arrested, never even taken to the police station for questioning. There was no indictment. No accusations. Kid glove treatment by the BPD for months. Kid glove treatment by the DA's office forever. The only ones who've given them a really hard time are certain media people -- and some of us nutty folk on the 'net.

>Now, if the cops were asking the right questions, it might
>have been useful - - but look at the questions they asked!
>This group - any forum - could have come up with a better
>list of questions - - and you know it.

As I read the 2000 interviews it looks like the interrogators are trying to determine whether or not the Ramseys and their lawyer are going to participate in good faith. If Patsy had said, "yes it's true we kind of stonewalled there for a while, because that's what our lawyers felt was best -- but at this point we are willing to answer all questions fully in the hope that you guys can get beyond us and on to other suspects," that would have gone a LONG way toward moving the process forward. By preventing her from responding at all, trying to maintain the impression that the Ramseys cooperated fully from the very beginning, Wood makes it clear the questioning will NOT be carried out in good faith and the question in my mind is: WHY? If he really wanted the police to move on to other suspects, all that was necessary was to allow Patsy and John to answer these very simple and straightforward questions, get all that out of the way and then move on. Instead there was just more sarcasm, grandstanding, delay and, yes, suspicion.