Overkill - Overkill in a homicide refers to the use of excessive force or brutality beyond what is necessary to cause death.

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I should say I am open to all theories despite how it strikes me from the outset. Better than risking tunnel vision like what happened at the Boulder PD. But certain other theories seem to make more sense to prioritize. This is the first I've taken a deeper look at the case so I'm appreciative of learning new details as I go while continuing to research it.
Does the BDI (I take it this means Burke Did It) scenario square up with the facts or evidence? Her whole family was cleared through the DNA found from the underwear and her fingernails. If they're not stun marks then what are they? Another expert did an exeriment on a pig and says it points to this. It can't be bruising.
Another child 9 months later was sexually assaulted in her home 5 mins from the Ramsey house. She also performed in local shows like JB. But there was no one looking into if it may be connected. That case went unsolved too.
John Ramsey at 80 still wants it solved and had been seeking outside help for however many years. Why if he was involved? I'm only a casual true crime observer yet I'm flabbergasted at the Boulder PD - not telling JR to not touch the evidence - he picked up JB from the basement and moved her after finding her. They should have handed it over to investigators with the appropriate expertise.

Nobody was cleared. You need to do more research to see how that played out and who was the person clearing them. How exactly can DNA clear someone who lives with the victim. My sons DNA is all over me and mine on him. All we had to do was share a toilet, a hand towel, a blanket throw. What does that tell you? Nothing for either argument . Ramseys fibers were found on the body where it should not have been found had an intruder taped her mouth or bound her ect but it can't be proven or disproven which means LE keeps looking at them and rightfully so.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I should say I am open to all theories despite how it strikes me from the outset. Better than risking tunnel vision like what happened at the Boulder PD. But certain other theories seem to make more sense to prioritize. This is the first I've taken a deeper look at the case so I'm appreciative of learning new details as I go while continuing to research it.
Does the BDI (I take it this means Burke Did It) scenario square up with the facts or evidence? Her whole family was cleared through the DNA found from the underwear and her fingernails. If they're not stun marks then what are they? Another expert did an exeriment on a pig and says it points to this. It can't be bruising.
Another child 9 months later was sexually assaulted in her home 5 mins from the Ramsey house. She also performed in local shows like JB. But there was no one looking into if it may be connected. That case went unsolved too.
John Ramsey at 80 still wants it solved and had been seeking outside help for however many years. Why if he was involved? I'm only a casual true crime observer yet I'm flabbergasted at the Boulder PD - not telling JR to not touch the evidence - he picked up JB from the basement and moved her after finding her. They should have handed it over to investigators with the appropriate expertise.

I’m open to all theories too, despite what some might think. But we have to follow the evidence.

It was the R Pr team that put out the narrative of Boulder PD tunnel vision. They came to this decision on 12/26 and started broadcasting it immediately thereafter. Again, the family members who were present in the house that night are always going to be needed to be looked at first. As the R’s did not cooperate for weeks and months, they remained by their own non-cooperation under the umbrella of suspicion.

The DNA evidence does not clear the family. The marks on JBR’s body were in fact described by the coroner, a medical professional in forensics and determined to be bruises. Just as what some claim to be scratch marks from JBR clawing at the cord around her neck were actually determined to be petechia. Lou Smit was advised to find a stun gun that would make the marks found that measured exactly to the distance of those found on JBR. He came close, but even he had to admit he could not find one that matched. Stun gun experts and manufacturers have said the marks do not match that of a stun gun.

The other sexual assault has many questions surrounding it, including that the mother was entertaining a man other than her husband in the home when he was away. It wasn’t ignored, that was more PR spin.

Some of the questions I have are why the R’s immediately ignored the RN instructions, why they not only called the police but also filled their house with friends who cleaned and compromised the scene. And why JR chose to ignore the specific protocol in place by LM for circumstances precisely as this was supposed to be. Why were the R’s phone records for the days preceding the 26th wiped? Why did JR suddenly claim he had a meeting the next morning in Atlanta that required them all to fly out for? Why when Det. Arndt ask JR and FW to look for anything of JBR’s that might be missing or out of place did JR go directly to the Wine cellar? She was afraid of the basement. Why so many different and conflicting stories about the night before?

 

[Choices]

Well, I could certainly be wrong, but that at least has a motive--there's virtually no motive for a family member to have killed JBR.

One of the best books I've ever read on the case is called Lou and Jonbenet. Boulder LE brought in homicide detective Lou Smit, and he quickly became disenfranchised with some of the LE who became fixated on the Ramsey's and ignored the strong evidence that an intruder killed JBR. In the book, there's even a photo of the early DNA that cleared the Ramseys--before they were once again cleared more than a decade later.

Your point about the housekeeper refusing a polygraph is also very interesting. The detective, Smit, has since died, but he was convinced the Ramseys were unfairly judged and he was passionate about finding who really killed JBR. From what I understand, his daughters have taken up his quest to obtain justice for the Ramsey family.

At any rate, it's an excellent book and I doubt that anyone who reads it would ever consider the Ramseys as suspects after that. The author (a good friend of Smit') lays out all the evidence in a way that's enlightening.

This is just MOO, but I think the real issue here is egotistical LE that refused to back down even after they're proven wrong.

My theory about the parent of a competitor could be way off base--I readily admit that--but there's simply no evidence that indicates a family member, especially a little boy was responsible.

Real life can be what we least expect so I'm willing to consider the possibilities. I don't think I'd have believed a woman could go cut a baby out of a pregnant mother to steal it if not learning that it has happened.
I did search for material at my local library and only 1 item, a DVD ( different to the title you mention) came up I'm yet to borrow.
I did take the housekeeper polygraph claim with a grain of salt because I've seen it explained like Clouded said, that she was co-operative. I believe the polygraph claim came from a Reddit user. It might be unfounded rumour as far as we know.
The ransom note baffles me in an intruder scenario. Was it was to protect themselves from being implicated. But the odd amount matching JR's bonus - intended to divert? but did the opposite. I think it was a LE guy (current or ex, not sure) who believes JB was hit first then strangled 45mins - 2hrs later. I see why suspicions of the family persist.





 l

 

[Choices]

The DNA evidence does not clear the family. The marks on JBR’s body were in fact described by the coroner, a medical professional in forensics and determined to be bruises.

The other sexual assault has many questions surrounding it, including that the mother was entertaining a man other than her husband in the home when he was away. It wasn’t ignored, that was more PR spin.

Some of the questions I have are why the R’s immediately ignored the RN instructions, why they not only called the police but also filled their house with friends who cleaned and compromised the scene. And why JR chose to ignore the specific protocol in place by LM for circumstances precisely as this was supposed to be. Why were the R’s phone records for the days preceding the 26th wiped? Why did JR suddenly claim he had a meeting the next morning in Atlanta that required them all to fly out for? Why when Det. Arndt ask JR and FW to look for anything of JBR’s that might be missing or out of place did JR go directly to the Wine cellar? She was afraid of the basement. Why so many different and conflicting stories about the night before?

Those distinctive circular dark brown/black marks look  nothing like any bruises I've ever seen before. Have you seen the autopsy photos? If it's something peculiar to dead bodies, I haven't seen it mentioned. I just don't get it.
I'm not sure that entertaining a man is relevant unless he was accused (the other case).
Detective John San Agostin (called by the PD on the case) and Dr Michael Doberson (20 year Colorado forensics expert) - guessing on the spelling - are two people I watched on a 60mins video (YT) discussing the DNA and marks respectively, but have been ignored in the case apparently.
I don't know who/what LM and FW are. Calling others in spite of a RN doesn't seem that unusual when desperate for help and support. I thought the next day was supposed to be a planned family trip to Michigan? Hard to tell what information is correct. As I've indicated, I'm only just delving into the case. I can't add much more except to say there are a lot of unusual aspects.

 

[Gunther Toody]

I get tired of hearing people parrot the Ramseys complaint that LE zeroed in on them and had tunnel vision. The amount of time and manpower put into this case was immense. How many murdered children have had this much exposure, scrutiny, and professional assistance from the FBI Cryril Wechct, Henry Lee ect.
If you want to examine motive of LE, I think a case with this much exposure would be a big Ole feather in someone's cap to solve, prosecute, and put away the person responsible. That would be a career changing accomplishment. Why hasn't any other LE, FBI, private detective closed this case in 30 years? For the same reason the records are sealed. Another anomaly is the case. Why the secrecy?

LE is not obligated to make suspects happy or better yet give them an opportunity to destroy evidence or flee the country. Had this case been reported as a missing child, I wonder how many supporters the Ramseys would have had. That 6th grade creative writing assignment RN sure served its purpose. Reading it now, it comes off as comical. Had there not been a dead child in another room, I'm thinking LE thought so too. The only thing I fault them for is not scrutinizing BRs homework assignments better because that note was just about on a creative 10 year old level. Not that I think he did, just the validity of it screams " nawww, that be BS"
You hit all the pertinent details as to why the Ramseys made it difficult for LE except one. The blatant and purposeful misdirection that can't be refuted due to the child secrecy shield around BR.

There are reasons that LE zeroed in on the family.
The biggest reason is that there is no evidence that supports the intruder theory...none.
Yet people out here continually parrot the intruder theory as if it has merit.

In any murder case, LE first looks at those closest to the victim and works their way out. In this case, the evidence points to those who were in the house that night and no one else.

This whole idea of intruder DNA and the intruder left the ransom note has no basis in fact. Because...there is no evidence of an intruder!

It's unfortunate and a complete waste of time creating intruder theories without first proving there was an intruder. This fallacy is known as the "fallacy of affirmative conclusion from a negative premise," or more commonly referred to as the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.

This occurs when someone argues that something must be true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa - that something must be false because it has not been proven true.

At this stage of the game obtaining further evidence is impossible. The only chance would be if an eyewitness were to come forward, but even then it would be iffy.

 

[GRT]

I think ego plays far less in a person's mind after they have seen a dead child. Are you saying that all the men and women involved in this case were more interested in being right than seeing justice served?
I may be biased but my father was in LE, he has 3 daughters , if he took a call to someone's home and found a dead little girl, there would be no fiber in his being that wouldn't want to see the correct person punished. The pain of the suspect reoffending would be more than any cop could bare if they screwed up. Are there bad cops? Yes. Every single one involved on this case?
I don't buy that. Have you every seen a deceased child either by murder or accident?
It is the worst thing LE deal with in their career except maybe burn victims.

I volunteered on an ambulance--yes, I've seen more than one dead child. But that's irrelevant.

And, no, obviously, not all the LE involved in the JBR case were egotistical; several publicly didn't follow the Ramsey persecution after evidence clearing the family came out. Smit was only one of many.

While we still don't know who killed JBR, we do know her family members have been exonerated via DNA. And the amount of DNA doesn't really matter--just the fact that it exists and belongs to someone other than the family is all that matters.

What surprises me is how many people are still deadset on accusing the family--going so far as to concoct wild theories about whether BR has Aspergers and then creating fantastical symptoms that don't mesh with what medical science holds to be true--all to suggest a 9-year-old child committed the crime.

It's just beyond the pale. It's a massive shark leap. MOO

I have one question I'd like a sincere answer to. Why is it important to pin the crime on a family member? I'd really like to know that because I don't see a lot of common sense going into these theories, so something must be driving them.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Those distinctive circular dark brown/black marks look  nothing like any bruises I've ever seen before. Have you seen the autopsy photos? If it's something peculiar to dead bodies, I haven't seen it mentioned. I just don't get it.
I'm not sure that entertaining a man is relevant unless he was accused (the other case).
Detective John San Agostin (called by the PD on the case) and Dr Michael Doberson (20 year Colorado forensics expert) - guessing on the spelling - are two people I watched on a 60mins video (YT) discussing the DNA and marks respectively, but have been ignored in the case apparently.
I don't know who/what LM and FW are. Calling others in spite of a RN doesn't seem that unusual when desperate for help and support. I thought the next day was supposed to be a planned family trip to Michigan? Hard to tell what information is correct. As I've indicated, I'm only just delving into the case. I can't add much more except to say there are a lot of unusual aspects.

Yes, I’ve seen the autopsy photos. Remember they were taken many hours after the death occurred. Her body was not even removed from the house until after 10pm. I’m not well versed at all in how bodily changes after death affect things seen on the body, so have to rely on those that do. The coroner identified bruises and abrasions. Stun gun experts agreed they did not look like marks a stun gun would make. Lou Smit wanted to exhume the body and reexamine the marks. The R's withheld their permission, understandably so even though Barbara Walters pointed out in an interview that it might have led to them being exonerated.

The relevance of the potential of another man being in the home of the other case is in the possibility that the mother might not have been truthful about the circumstances of what happened, if she had something to hide from her husband who was out of town at the time. Her daughter was 14, over twice the age of JBR. They did investigate and did not find any evidence that they felt connected the two cases.

FW is Fleet White, a very good friend of the R’s at the time. That’s whose house they were at for Christmas dinner. LM is Lockheed Martin, JR’s company was a subsidiary. As a major global defense company, they had very specific protocols in place that employees were required to agree to, that covered incidents such as kidnapping. Very serious stuff. JR in his capacity as a CEO was also an officer of LM. He would have been bound to follow the protocol which was to call LM security who would have immediately put into action necessary steps to deal with a kidnapping. It would have been much more discreet than having police and friends all over the scene, in direct conflict to what the RN ordered.

The next day was supposed to be the trip to Charlevoix, however very shortly after the body was found JR was overheard on the phone speaking to his pilot and asking him to prepare the plane to fly to Atlanta asap instead. Police who were still in the house overheard this, and told him that he could not leave. That's when the story suddenly changed to him having to go to Atlanta because he had a meeting the next morning. He was told no and as we know they did not leave but instead were driven to one of the friends' homes (I believe the Whites) where they spent the night.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Yes, I’ve seen the autopsy photos. Remember they were taken many hours after the death occurred. Her body was not even removed from the house until after 10pm. I’m not well versed at all in how bodily changes after death affect things seen on the body, so have to rely on those that do. The coroner identified bruises and abrasions. Stun gun experts agreed they did not look like marks a stun gun would make. Lou Smit wanted to exhume the body and reexamine the marks. The R's withheld their permission, understandably so even though Barbara Walters pointed out in an interview that it might have led to them being exonerated.

The relevance of the potential of another man being in the home of the other case is in the possibility that the mother might not have been truthful about the circumstances of what happened, if she had something to hide from her husband who was out of town at the time. Her daughter was 14, over twice the age of JBR. They did investigate and did not find any evidence that they felt connected the two cases.

FW is Fleet White, a very good friend of the R’s at the time. That’s whose house they were at for Christmas dinner. LM is Lockheed Martin, JR’s company was a subsidiary. As a major global defense company, they had very specific protocols in place that employees were required to agree to, that covered incidents such as kidnapping. Very serious stuff. JR in his capacity as a CEO was also an officer of LM. He would have been bound to follow the protocol which was to call LM security who would have immediately put into action necessary steps to deal with a kidnapping. It would have been much more discreet than having police and friends all over the scene, in direct conflict to what the RN ordered.

The next day was supposed to be the trip to Charlevoix, however very shortly after the body was found JR was overheard on the phone speaking to his pilot and asking him to prepare the plane to fly to Atlanta asap instead. Police who were still in the house overheard this, and told him that he could not leave. That's when the story suddenly changed to him having to go to Atlanta because he had a meeting the next morning. He was told no and as we know they did not leave but instead were driven to one of the friends' homes (I believe the Whites) where they spent the night.

Imaging your son, if innocent, has suffered his whole life because he has been under an umbrella of suspicion for murder and you have an opportunity to help him clear his name by proving the stun gun theory. The reason you give is you want to leave her be. But what about the child who hasn't been " let be" his whole life. Or the beloved wife that went to her grave branded a child murderer? Now put that in context of your own family.
Now, what would you do as a parent?
Poor BR, even after JB is gone his needs come second.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Imaging your son, if innocent, has suffered his whole life because he has been under an umbrella of suspicion for murder and you have an opportunity to help him clear his name by proving the stun gun theory. The reason you give is you want to leave her be. But what about the child who hasn't been " let be" his whole life. Or the beloved wife that went to her grave branded a child murderer? Now put that in context of your own family.
Now, what would you do as a parent?
Poor BR, even after JB is gone his needs come second.

Yes, absolutely.

Exhumation is not a pleasant thing to contemplate for sure. But when you look at what the outcome of doing so could have meant, you do have to wonder why JR was so adamantly against it. If I was confident of my innocence and that of the other members of my family, it would have been a no brainer. The child is gone and in a better place, her suffering over. Not only to clear everyone's names and take the cloud of suspicion off BR who has had to live with it for the majority of his life, but also to bring justice for JBR.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I volunteered on an ambulance--yes, I've seen more than one dead child. But that's irrelevant.

And, no, obviously, not all the LE involved in the JBR case were egotistical; several publicly didn't follow the Ramsey persecution after evidence clearing the family came out. Smit was only one of many.

While we still don't know who killed JBR, we do know her family members have been exonerated via DNA. And the amount of DNA doesn't really matter--just the fact that it exists and belongs to someone other than the family is all that matters.

What surprises me is how many people are still deadset on accusing the family--going so far as to concoct wild theories about whether BR has Aspergers and then creating fantastical symptoms that don't mesh with what medical science holds to be true--all to suggest a 9-year-old child committed the crime.

It's just beyond the pale. It's a massive shark leap. MOO

I have one question I'd like a sincere answer to. Why is it important to pin the crime on a family member? I'd really like to know that because I don't see a lot of common sense going into these theories, so something must be driving them.

What you are saying is the family gets to be exonerated because their DNA is expected but say The Whites whose home they we at and the child was probably at one time sitting on the floor collecting DNA like Pog collectables, doesn't get the same pass. If you don't see the issue here, I don't think anyone on this forum can make you understand. The women that exonerated the Ramseys was chastised for doing so. She had no more authority given the GJ decision to make that call than you do. There is something in LE and in the court system called protocol.
It standardizes a norm in which those who operate under it are to follow. If you are going to chastise LE, please include Mary Lacy in your summory of screw ups.

 

[GRT]

What you are saying is the family gets to be exonerated because their DNA is expected but say The Whites whose home they we at and the child was probably at one time sitting on the floor collecting DNA like Pog collectables, doesn't get the same pass. If you don't see the issue here, I don't think anyone on this forum can make you understand. The women that exonerated the Ramseys was chastised for doing so. She had no more authority given the GJ decision to make that call than you do. There is something in LE and in the court system called protocol.
It standardizes a norm in which those who operate under it are to follow. If you are going to chastise LE, please include Mary Lacy in your summory of screw ups.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I didn't mention the Whites, and that's not relevant to this case. In 2009, the Ramsey's were officially exonerated based on the DNA evidence. That's just an unfortunate fact.

I'm not sure where you're going with "protocol." In Colorado, now and then, the prosecuting attorney retains "prosecutorial discretion," meaning he or she makes the final decision about whether to bring charges, whether or not a grand jury indicts.

Grand juries are made up of lay people after all and a prosecuting attorney is better-suited to know whether or not a case stands a chance of getting a conviction. Often, a prosecutor will follow the GJ's decision, but not always.

Plus, there have been moves to eliminate GJs based on their secrecy aspect. NYC eliminated GJs from convening in cases of police shootings/brutality.

For whatever reason, the DA in the Ramsey case felt the GJ got it wrong, and since they were later exonerated, it seems as though the DA made the correct call.

 

[CloudedTruth]

DI volunteered on an ambulance--yes, I've seen more than one dead child. But that's irrelevant.

And, no, obviously, not all the LE involved in the JBR case were egotistical; several publicly didn't follow the Ramsey persecution after evidence clearing the family came out. Smit was only one of many.

While we still don't know who killed JBR, we do know her family members have been exonerated via DNA. And the amount of DNA doesn't really matter--just the fact that it exists and belongs to someone other than the family is all that matters.

What surprises me is how many people are still deadset on accusing the family--going so far as to concoct wild theories about whether BR has Aspergers and then creating fantastical symptoms that don't mesh with what medical science holds to be true--all to suggest a 9-year-old child committed the crime.

It's just beyond the pale. It's a massive shark leap. MOO

I have one question I'd like a sincere answer to. Why is it important to pin the crime on a family member? I'd really like to know that because I don't see a lot of common sense going into these theories, so something must be driving them.

You have made several comments broadly condemning LE in this case, I think Ispye's question about your condemnation was completely justified. It would also appear, that you have bought into some of the PR that was put in place to discredit the LE and some who worked on this case. It is a known fact that DA Hunter participated in some of this himself, leaking things to the tabloids personally and then pointing the finger at LE. Were there some missteps by certain members of the LE team? Yes. I think persecution is a very inappropriate accusation to make. And it must be again reiterated that the R's are very much responsible for remaining under suspicion to this day by their own actions and failure to fully cooperate. Precious time and recollections were lost in the weeks and months that they threw up consistent road blocks to avoid sitting for interviews.

I think asking the question "why is it important to pin the crime on a family member" misses the mark and makes the implication that people want the R's to be guilty. The point is discussion of the evidence and factors in this case that point one way or another as to whom may or may not be guilty. There is no conspiracy to place blame on a family member, but most of us see that's where the evidence leads.

You continue to insist that the R's have been exonerated by the DNA, and someone else keeps referring to a "mountain of evidence" of an intruder. We have yet to see this mountain for that argument and instead see much more that does point to the family.

The DNA evidence that was found not to belong to the family is trace. Trace or touch DNA has advanced LE's ability to identify the possible presence of someone at a crime scene, but it is still controversial, and rightly so. There is a high variability in the amount left by one person as well as from person to person. It has been described as a pseudoscience because of some of the issues that are inherent in trace DNA. It takes samples that are a mixture of DNA from surfaces touched by an unknown number of persons and makes a guess as to the probability that a criminal suspect's DNA is among the group of unknowns that may have touched that surface. Touch DNA includes skin cells which humans shed skin cells at the rate of approximately 30,000 to 40,000 per hour, or almost a million in a 24 hour period. The trace DNA found on JonBenet's underwear could have come from anyone at anytime, or even have been transferred to someone who then transferred the DNA to the underwear by simply touching them. Same for the DNA found under her fingernails, it could have come from anyone, anywhere at any time. We know she was playing on the floor of the White's home in the midst of a party with several people present. We also know from PR and the housekeeper that neither JBR or BR had the best of hygiene habits. The DNA report said that they found male DNA that was combined with JBR's and at least one other person. Henry Lee said it could be from an intruder, or could not be. It's entirely inconclusive. Most agree with this assessment, as it's accurate. To assume that a part of a DNA profile that can be determined from DNA left on a surface that may have been touched by many individuals is that of a criminal simply because it doesn't match a family member is irresponsible. DNA is only reliable evidence if it is interpreted properly.There is no way DA Lacy should have pronounced exoneration of anyone based upon what is very likely to be transferred DNA.

And where is this "foreign" DNA in other obvious places where one would expect it to be found? On the RN, on the blanket, on the sticky side of the duct tape, for example. That all belonged to family, as well as fibers from the clothes that PR was known to have worn that night.

You also seem to be dead set on this as a crime and not allowing for the possibility that it was a terrible accident. In this scenario, BR is still on the table. People here noting that he had some well documented habits and speculating as to the potential cause is normal. I have not seen wild theories personally. He has a history of showing aggression, flashes of anger and tantrums. I do not think it's inappropriate that these things are part of the picture as we look at it, as they are known facts.

It is neither "beyond the pale" or "a massive shark leap" when you look at the big picture, the actions of the R's, the instantaneous lawyering up and hiring of a PR team, giving interviews to the press before sitting for interviews with LE, the many conflicting statements they have made that simply do not add up......a myriad of things that when added together should not be ignored. I agree that we also cannot completely discount the intruder theory, but I have yet to see anything convincing enough on that front. JR's broken window story, which he has changed more than once when questioned, I find to be as concocted and ridiculous as you commented you have found theories about BR.

At the end of the day everyone here has an opinion based upon what they have observed about this case. We all don't agree, but everyone has a right to their opinion. The case remains unsolved. No one has been unequivocally exonerated as DNA is only one part of many moving parts that must come together to make a decision as to guilt. We can only hope that those who are still working on this case do so without bias and with the ultimate objective of looking at all the available evidence in order to identify the responsible party.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I didn't mention the Whites, and that's not relevant to this case. In 2009, the Ramsey's were officially exonerated based on the DNA evidence. That's just an unfortunate fact.

I'm not sure where you're going with "protocol." In Colorado, now and then, the prosecuting attorney retains "prosecutorial discretion," meaning he or she makes the final decision about whether to bring charges, whether or not a grand jury indicts.

Grand juries are made up of lay people after all and a prosecuting attorney is better-suited to know whether or not a case stands a chance of getting a conviction. Often, a prosecutor will follow the GJ's decision, but not always.

Plus, there have been moves to eliminate GJs based on their secrecy aspect. NYC eliminated GJs from convening in cases of police shootings/brutality.

For whatever reason, the DA in the Ramsey case felt the GJ got it wrong, and since they were later exonerated, it seems as though the DA made the correct call.

The current prosecutor in the JonBenét Ramsey murder case tells PEOPLE that as the 20th anniversary of her death approaches, he has not wavered from his belief that his predecessor was wrong to publicly clear from suspicion parents John and Patsy Ramsey as well as brother Burke.
“John, Burke, the Ramsey family are totally covered by the presumption of innocence and are entitled to that,” Boulder, Colorado, District Attorney Stan Garnett tells PEOPLE. “If we ever change our opinion about that with regard to the Ramseys or anyone else, we will file charges and say what we have to say about the case in open court.”

But “to issue an exoneration is, I think, misleading,” he says.
In another interview, he calls the exoneration " legally insignificant".
That exoneration was good for the newspaper only. It had zero legal merit. Colorado Govenor Bill Owen's stated her exonerated made no sense to him and was misleading. How many people higher up on the food chain need to state publicly that her bum was hanging out her underwear ?

 

[CloudedTruth]

Ispy you beat me to the “officially exonerated” claim. Nothing official or legally binding about Lacy’s grandstanding announcement.

One other point, the DA never said he thought the GJ got it wrong. He said he and his prosecutorial team felt they wouldn’t be able to get a conviction.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I didn't mention the Whites, and that's not relevant to this case. In 2009, the Ramsey's were officially exonerated based on the DNA evidence. That's just an unfortunate fact.

I'm not sure where you're going with "protocol." In Colorado, now and then, the prosecuting attorney retains "prosecutorial discretion," meaning he or she makes the final decision about whether to bring charges, whether or not a grand jury indicts.

Grand juries are made up of lay people after all and a prosecuting attorney is better-suited to know whether or not a case stands a chance of getting a conviction. Often, a prosecutor will follow the GJ's decision, but not always.

Plus, there have been moves to eliminate GJs based on their secrecy aspect. NYC eliminated GJs from convening in cases of police shootings/brutality.

For whatever reason, the DA in the Ramsey case felt the GJ got it wrong, and since they were later exonerated, it seems as though the DA made the correct call.

You didn't mention the Whites specifically but what if it is Mrs. Whites DNA on the waistband? Or anyone else at the party the day before. What does that prove? And whose long John's was she even wearing? BRs , a pair left at the house by a friend? Borrowed because she wet herself?
Please add to the discussion.
I'm asking if the DNA belongs to a known friend or fellow party goer, what does that tell you, and how does it advance the case? Are we going to tarnish yet another person's reputation because DNA alone will solve this case? This is the very aspect of this case that has made the Ramseys very unjust in their "look at him, no look at her. Wait , I'm sure it's him but don't look at me!"
They lawyered up, built a legal shield around themselves and then hosed other innocent people damaging peoples reputations and livelihoods.

 

[Meara]

No it doesnt seem like the kids problems were being addressed in a meaningful way.
For some reason it bothers me that BR was left to his own devices in the basement. That house was big. I have a hard time thinking if I was upstairs in the Ramsey BR and my kid was 3 floors away unobserved with all the things they could get into down there that I'd be comfortable with that. I wonder at what age BR was relegated to the basement. Wasn't there a playroom upstairs?
One of my boys would have never gotten into mischief if given the opportunity but the other may have . Kids need watchful eyes in my opinion. BR had his own downstairs apartment before he was 10

Kids need watchful eyes.

I agree! Some parents may be more sanguine, but with my own children (or any I was looking after) I always wanted them in sight or within earshot.

Although the house is big, case followers who've actually been there report that it is smaller in real life than it appears in photos and videos. Also, it's old - the original structure dates from 1927 - and has two stairwells, so it creaks a lot when people are moving around, and sounds do carry. If PR were on the first floor, she would have been able to hear the children on the second floor as long as they didn't go behind closed doors.

The basement is something else altogether, being insulated from the upper floors by a door and eccentric architecture, as well as the stairs. I wouldn't have let children play down there unsupervised for any length of time or without checking on them. I'm not sure BR was relegated there, though. Reportedly, JBR could be a nuisance to him, interrupting when he had friends over, and annoying him when he played alone upstairs. She is said to have hated the basement, so it may have been BR's sanctuary, a place where he could play without her intrusions. If he is on the autism spectrum, mitigating intrusions and interruptions would have been especially desirable. I'm not arguing hard for this, just putting together some observations gathered over the years.

 

[Meara]

And even though he was seeing a psychiatrist, it doesn't feel like he was really getting much support for his issues from the ones he needed it most, his mother and father. I would also throw out that given we know how concerned with appearances both PR and JR were, they just seemed to go about life as if there were no issues with either of their children. They ensured help from medical professionals, but how much of themselves did they invest in helping to resolve the issues? I think they ignored a lot of signs being thrown out that other people did see.

I think you're spot on. They were very concerned with appearances - the impression they made on others, what others thought of them (provided those "others" had sufficient standing). But I'd take it a step further: They were primarily, and deeply, invested in how they saw themselves.

People who had known and worked with them in Atlanta told investigators about the ways the Rams had changed as their business grew and the money rolled in; and what they described was IMO not simply a change in circumstances but a change in identity. Before, they were smart, ambitious, hardworking, and sometimes had to bend the rules (because they had the right because they were smart, ambitious, and hardworking). Recall, for example, how a non-pregnant PR threatened her parents that, if they didn't give her the help she asked for, they'd never see the grandchild she was carrying. But now they began to see themselves as specially favored. And, as usually happens when people fall into that trap, they had the illusion of being blameless. Prosperity was a reward. It meant they were good and nice. Whatever they were doing, it must be okay. Anything that didn't go well or implied otherwise (incontinent children in therapy, the chaotic house, e.g.) was ignored, minimized, or given to someone else to deal with since since they saw themselves as having no moral responsibility in it. PR said as much to Pam Griffin on December 27th: "Couldn't you fix this for me?.....We didn't mean for this to happen." - as though JBR's murder could be fixed and intentions made everything okay. Imagining their devastation that day and the shock to their psyches, I'm always tempted to feel sorry for them until I remember that indulging in this fantasy of "all good here" is what got JBR killed.

 

[GRT]

You didn't mention the Whites specifically but what if it is Mrs. Whites DNA on the waistband? Or anyone else at the party the day before. What does that prove? And whose long John's was she even wearing? BRs , a pair left at the house by a friend? Borrowed because she wet herself?
Please add to the discussion.
I'm asking if the DNA belongs to a known friend or fellow party goer, what does that tell you, and how does it advance the case? Are we going to tarnish yet another person's reputation because DNA alone will solve this case? This is the very aspect of this case that has made the Ramseys very unjust in their "look at him, no look at her. Wait , I'm sure it's him but don't look at me!"
They lawyered up, built a legal shield around themselves and then hosed other innocent people damaging peoples reputations and livelihoods.

The current prosecutor in the JonBenét Ramsey murder case tells PEOPLE that as the 20th anniversary of her death approaches, he has not wavered from his belief that his predecessor was wrong to publicly clear from suspicion parents John and Patsy Ramsey as well as brother Burke.
“John, Burke, the Ramsey family are totally covered by the presumption of innocence and are entitled to that,” Boulder, Colorado, District Attorney Stan Garnett tells PEOPLE. “If we ever change our opinion about that with regard to the Ramseys or anyone else, we will file charges and say what we have to say about the case in open court.”

But “to issue an exoneration is, I think, misleading,” he says.
In another interview, he calls the exoneration " legally insignificant".
That exoneration was good for the newspaper only. It had zero legal merit. Colorado Govenor Bill Owen's stated her exonerated made no sense to him and was misleading. How many people higher up on the food chain need to state publicly that her bum was hanging out her underwear ?

I had to track down the quotes you used because they were not in the link you cited. But the one from Garnett proves my point.

DA Garnett is being fair in his statement when he says, “If we ever change our opinion about that with regard to the Ramseys or anyone else, we will file charges and say what we have to say about the case in open court.”

That's pretty clear--the current DA's "opinion" coincides with Lacy's opinion. The only thing Garnett opposed was the fact that Lacy issued a formal exoneration. She could have said they are no longer persons of interest, and it would have had the same meaning.

As Garnett says -- the Ramsey's are covered by the assumption of innocence. Garnett does not dispute that the Ramseys are not persons of interest, he just disagreed with issuing the formal exoneration.

I'm not sure what you meant about "...her bum hanging out her underwear..." That seems quite crude.

But, read those quotes carefully because none of them insinuate that anyone in the Ramsey family is guilty of killing JBR. They only disagree with the way Lacy went about telling the public that the Ramseys were exonerated.

Words matter.

 

[Meara]

The problem with this theory is that BR hasn't been diagnosed with Aspergers, so it's all a bit of armchair psychiatry.

Plus, the DSM-5 doesn't list violence as a tendency of Asperger sufferers.

Statistically speaking, Asperger sufferers are more likely to be victims of violence rather than perpetrators.

It's not abnormal for someone who's been unfairly maligned to want to get on with their life. People who lose a loved one go through an immense amount of pain and grief. While finding and convicting a perp may help psychologically, even when that doesn't happen, most express a desire to want to get on with their lives. Gabby Petito's parents just expressed the same sentiment, and I don't think that's abnormal.

Over the years, I've heard so many off-the-wall theories; granted, my theory is off-the-wall as well, but we know that DNA evidence has cleared JBR's family members.

The only thing that attracted me to this specific thread was the term "overkill" in the title. Regardless of who killed JBR, the term overkill simply does not apply. There are many, many murders that are considered overkill, but not hers.

from my comment at #21 :
.....This article in Psychology Today Asperger's Disorder vs. Psychopathy suggests that people with AS tend not to be destructively or calculatedly violent. However, this article Psychiatric comorbidities in asperger syndrome and high functioning autism: diagnostic challenges - Annals of General Psychiatry and this one Comorbid Autism Spectrum Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder in Forensic Settings from The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law both confirm that there is such a thing as Autistic Psychopathy; i.e., that AS and psychopathy can be comorbid (but aren't necessarily). In simple terms, the difficulty lies in sorting out whether the lack of empathy in an offender is one symptom among many others (as in AS) or a defining characteristic (as in psychopathy). It's a puzzle and a hot topic. With respect to BR, research shows the two disorders are likelier to overlap if there has been parental neglect and/or childhood trauma.



Plus, the DSM-5 doesn't list violence as a tendency of Asperger sufferers.

GRT, the references to professional articles were included to acknowledge violence in AS and document the diagnostic difficulties of possible overlap between ASD and psychopathy (as well as to provide more information for anyone interested). Both include consideration of the symptoms of AS. The DSM is a marvelous resource that does not always spell out what might be encompassed by a term like "impaired social functioning." By contrast, the ICD entry does include Autistic Psychopathy. Both describe disorders. Clinical practice and clinical studies are where one sees actual people with a disorder in all its variations and gets the feel of it. In other words, the map is not the terrain.

While it's true that no one has gone on record with a diagnosis of AS for BR, it's more than armchair psychiatry when the person looking at the behaviors has studied Abnormal Psychology, Diagnosis and Assessment, and has presented case studies at the graduate level.

What you say about people recovering from the loss of a murdered loved one makes sense and is touching. However, BR wasn't being unfairly maligned when he was interviewed by the child psychologist.

 

[Meara]

What I find interesting is interviews of young BR vs adult BR.
I noticed when he was interviewed as a child he was skirmy , maybe precocious, a little bit of a wise guy and a little bit literal but the Dr. Phil interview screamed social awkwardness. WTH happened?...sometimes with asd the social demands as kids get older can make it more obvious than when they are young but what was that?
If he indeed was responsible for all the atrocities done to her, well I think psycopath would be apropos.
If there was a accident with inappropriate touching on his part, I feel bad for him because his parents made him a pariah for life. If I did that to my child, I too may spend my whole life trying to point in another direction.

Might as well drink, this case is dizzying

So....Cheers!!

You've mentioned the Dr. Phil interview twice; I didn't mean to ignore you. All I can say is, No kidding, WTH? I just remember watching and thinking all the way through, What am I seeing? Who am I seeing? The behavior and affect weren't normal yet didn't match any diagnostic entity I'm aware of. What was authentic/not authentic? Usually I get a gut connection to the other person's presence, but it felt like he wasn't there, I couldn't locate him. I notice it's hard finding language for this comment. Maybe that's the way in, mirroring the difficulty with self-expression? It's been a while. I should watch the interview again. Maybe something I've learned since the first time will be useful. Not holding my breath.....