By Accident Or On Purpose Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?

[juli99]

That's interesting. I was doing some reading about how they can now generate a facial reconstruction using DNA. I came here hoping to find discussions about the DNA evidence, but everyone thinks it was the family! Oh well. I just can't imagine any scenario where two parents would try to cover that up, even one where it was the act of another child.

 

[Heymom]

That's interesting. I was doing some reading about how they can now generate a facial reconstruction using DNA. I came here hoping to find discussions about the DNA evidence, but everyone thinks it was the family! Oh well. I just can't imagine any scenario where two parents would try to cover that up, even one where it was the act of another child.

Whether you can imagine it or not, the grand jury indicted both John and Patsy for failing to protect JonBenet and for assisting another person to cover up her murder in the 1st degree. They spent 13 mos. evaluating the evidence and taking testimony from witnesses, including Burke. There was no intruder and only 3 other people were in the house that night.

The touch DNA is not evidence.

 

[Razz]

Whether you can imagine it or not, the grand jury indicted both John and Patsy for failing to protect JonBenet and for assisting another person to cover up her murder in the 1st degree. They spent 13 mos. evaluating the evidence and taking testimony from witnesses, including Burke. There was no intruder and only 3 other people were in the house that night.

The touch DNA is not evidence.

If is was BR and I believe it is:
who were they charging in the murder of JBR in the 1st degree?
Can they charge a 9 year with that?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[johnjay]

If is was BR and I believe it is:
who were they charging in the murder of JBR in the 1st degree?
Can they charge a 9 year with that?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Nope, they couldn't charge a 10 - a bit year old in Colorado with murder. And I think that was at the heart of the problem.

 

[Razz]

Nope, they couldn't charge a 10 - a bit year old in Colorado with murder. And I think that was at the heart of the problem.

I'm still not getting it. Did the GJ think that either Patsy or John did it and one was covering up
for the other, because if they did think Burke did it, wouldn't it be endangering a child and cover up for an accident? The GJ obviously did not think what happened to JBR was an accident.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Heymom]

I'm still not getting it. Did the GJ think that either Patsy or John did it and one was covering up
for the other, because if they did think Burke did it, wouldn't it be endangering a child and cover up for an accident? The GJ obviously did not think what happened to JBR was an accident.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Correct, they did not believe that it was an accident. Each parent was indicted with 1) not protecting JonBenet and 2) assisting in the coverup of a murder in the 1st degree. Neither parent was indicted for murder. That leaves 1 other person in the household who could have committed the murder in the 1st degree. It sure wasn't Jacques the Bichon Frise!

 

[juli99]

Correct, they did not believe that it was an accident. Each parent was indicted with 1) not protecting JonBenet and 2) assisting in the coverup of a murder in the 1st degree. Neither parent was indicted for murder. That leaves 1 other person in the household who could have committed the murder in the 1st degree. It sure wasn't Jacques the Bichon Frise!

Okay, well I will bow out of this discussion. I am so surprised that WS is allowing discussion of BR when he has never been officially named a suspect.

 

[kanzz]

I'm still not getting it. Did the GJ think that either Patsy or John did it and one was covering up
for the other, because if they did think Burke did it, wouldn't it be endangering a child and cover up for an accident? The GJ obviously did not think what happened to JBR was an accident.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

The way I interpret it is:
1) child endangerment
2) accessory to murder after the fact

In my mind, certain words in that document point to their understanding of an ongoing, prior problem with BR:
"knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child’s life or health"

The Grand Jury questioned BR (I read it was for 5 hours) and possibly viewed the interview videos - that part I don't know for sure.

You're right.. The GJ obviously didn't think it was an accident.

 

[Razz]

Correct, they did not believe that it was an accident. Each parent was indicted with 1) not protecting JonBenet and 2) assisting in the coverup of a murder in the 1st degree. Neither parent was indicted for murder. That leaves 1 other person in the household who could have committed the murder in the 1st degree. It sure wasn't Jacques the Bichon Frise!

Ok, got it. So the GJ thinks it
was premeditated murder 1
by BR. Premeditated murder is quite a leap from CBS 's the head wound by BR was an accident, the noose was staging, and don't know about any sexual abuse.

It strikes me that there are more cowards in this whole mess than those seeking real answers and justice. Except for the GJ.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Duchess518]

Okay, well I will bow out of this discussion. I am so surprised that WS is allowing discussion of BR when he has never been officially named a suspect.

This is a theory website. Why wouldn't WS allow us to discuss the theory that Burke did this? Have you watched the CBS special? They came to the same conclusion. The reason I Think Burke was never formally named a suspect is because... 1: At the time the crime occurred Burke was 9 years old. In the state of Colorado you no one under the age of ten cause be charged and prosecuted with a crime. Its called the infancy law. 2: The crime scene and whole case was so horridly mishandled and bungled. 3: At that time alot of the evidence we know about know was overlooked or missed. 4: All the red herrings clearly pointed to a cover up, but whose first assumption is that a 9 year old killed his sister...even if it was an accident. Everything is coming to light now..

 

[PositiveLight]

Correct, they did not believe that it was an accident. Each parent was indicted with 1) not protecting JonBenet and 2) assisting in the coverup of a murder in the 1st degree. Neither parent was indicted for murder. That leaves 1 other person in the household who could have committed the murder in the 1st degree. It sure wasn't Jacques the Bichon Frise!

Jacques 1 or 2? :thinking:
The Grand Jury felt that the parents let JBR live in a dangerous environment knowingly from what I gather. The Grand Jury felt that they assisted someone in the 1st degree murder by covering up the crime.
I think they felt that BR did the murder with intent. Maybe although they couldn't charge him with the crime, they could charge the parents with those two crimes. Neither JR or PR would cover for a friend of the family or family member. They wouldn't BOTH cover for a step child. (I doubt PR would cover and risk her life for her step child). They wouldn't cover for each other unless both had serious dirt on the other one. Even then I think that they would eventually sing like a canary.
They BOTH however would protect their one remaining living child. This in my own opinion.
This is the only thing that makes sense.
There's no way that their stories would change so much so often. That all 3 of them have such amnesia about simple things.
They have never been truly cooperative with the police.
They have never did lie detector tests by the police. Both did a few for their own attorney's but never for the police.
One thing that always griped at me too. The ransom note asked for $118,000. John Ramsey's bonus that Christmas. Only insiders could know this. Yet they only offered $100,000 for information to solve her case.... Um.... they are millionaires... offer more! Unless you knew that the money would never be claimed why bother?

JR says on Dr. Phil that he would no longer do interviews..... why in the hell would you not go to your grave begging for the name of the killer and welcoming all interviews if your child's killer could be finally revealed?
IIRC, Linda Arndt and Patsy became close towards the end of Patsy's life. Maybe she confessed to her and LA will release the confession after John's death. One can hope at least.
The cobweb in the window of the basement was old and filled with debris. Any movement through that window would have torn that web to pieces. JR states 2 times the morning of the crime to Linda Arndt and then to Fleet White moments before discovering body that the window was open and he had broken that window months earlier when he locked himself out. The scuff mark on the wall was more than likely from his dress shoes as he climbed in the window during that incident. IMHO after he found the body on his first trip downstairs to the basement and discovered the body he staged the scene and opened the window and placed the suitcase under it to "provide an exit route" too. Glass was on top of the suitcase. If the suitcase wasn't originally down there, how the heck did it get there? Unless it was staging. Patsy said IIRC that after John broke the window, they vacummed very good to make sure no glass was left down there. Why the hell did they never replace the window? It's winter and cold and Colorado and the kids played down there. They couldn't "remember" if they got the window fixed or not. As another poster stated.... the famous Ramnesia.
They couldn't remember ANYTHING. How in the heck did John become a millionaire with that forgetful mind? How did Patsy get a degree in Journalism with that forgetfulness? Hell, how did they remember they had kids?
It kinda makes me sick that people do not see the obvious in this case. I guess because they had a lot of money and because they were Christians, they couldn't be responsible?
In most every homicide, the people closest to the victim is questioned and ruled out. In this case though, they were allowed "an island of privacy" and handled with "kid gloves" and hid behind lawyers and actually gave their first interview to CNN instead of the police.
Where is the outcry for JonBenet's justice? I am tired of hearing how the Ramsey's have been insulted and blamed for JonBenet's death.
What insults me is that if this had happened to anyone else, lower class or middle class, we would have been under the jail. But these people have never truly answered for their
behavior and actions from that morning until now. They pretend to give no holds barred interviews where there is obviously a lawyer present, and can't even hide the smiles.
It's disgusting. I honestly don't care exactly which item caused the injury at this point. We will never know. Mainly because they walked. Evidence wasn't handled properly. They lied about their lies. I mean... if someone asked John or Burke today if they have actually slept in the past 20 years... I think your answer would be "I don't know."
JMOO
Its so sad that the only ones who seem to care anymore is the public. Not the family. They just want to continue making money off this poor little girls death by suing anyone who dares to question them.
Justice for JonBenet

 

[Ambitioned]

There's no way that their stories would change so much so often. That all 3 of them have such amnesia about simple things.

Ah yes that dreaded Ramnesia!

I want to add that after the indictments came out, that foundation with the reward money was dissolved. :scared:
I agree with everything you said. BDI is the only thing that makes sense. :needdrink:

 

[PositiveLight]

Ah yes that dreaded Ramnesia!

I want to add that after the indictments came out, that foundation with the rewardmoney was dissolved. :scared:
I agree with everything you said. BDI is the only thing that makes sense. :needdrink:

RBBM
Exactly! Wouldn't that still be in play if there was a killer still on the loose?:toastred:

 

[juli99]

This is a theory website. Why wouldn't WS allow us to discuss the theory that Burke did this? Have you watched the CBS special? They came to the same conclusion. The reason I Think Burke was never formally named a suspect is because... 1: At the time the crime occurred Burke was 9 years old. In the state of Colorado you no one under the age of ten cause be charged and prosecuted with a crime. Its called the infancy law. 2: The crime scene and whole case was so horridly mishandled and bungled. 3: At that time alot of the evidence we know about know was overlooked or missed. 4: All the red herrings clearly pointed to a cover up, but whose first assumption is that a 9 year old killed his sister...even if it was an accident. Everything is coming to light now..

Because in the past when I participated in other threads it was made very clear that this is a victim friendly website. There was no discussion allowed of persons who were not named as suspects, regardless of the amount of suspicion. Maybe that has changed.

 

[Sunshine4Me]

Because in the past when I participated in other threads it was made very clear that this is a victim friendly website. There was no discussion allowed of persons who were not named as suspects, regardless of the amount of suspicion. Maybe that has changed.

I understand what you're saying and ordinarily you'd be right. In this case though the victim is Jonbenet, and the suspects are the people in the house, all of them. They are all heard on the 911 tape even though they deny they are all 3 on it. On the show "Dateline," I believe, they got hold of some grand jury document showing Burke admitted that it sounded like his voice on the 911 tape. That's enough to question his involvement in the mornings activities. Remember he and his parents say he was asleep the entire night and morning. But on Dr Phil Burke said he snuck downstairs after his parents went to bed that night, and we heard a different version of events. So now not only has he called into question his parents statements, but his own. If he wasn't an official suspect before I believe it was because of his age and the legality of it, or because they weren't aware of the things that have come to light since. Either way I think the grand jury figured it out and was unable to charge him because of his age and it was sealed then swept under the rug by the DA for political reasons as Steve Thomas told CBS, which is why the indictments against his parents were never prosecuted for covering up their daughters murder.

 

[PositiveLight]

JonBenet is the victim in this crime.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Duchess518]

This was posted in another thread

"Dear Websleuths Members,

Our rules at Websleuths are rarely black and white. Many time we have to adjust rules for certain forums.

One rule we do our best to follow is who is allowed to be discussed when it comes to the particular crime committed.

We discuss possible perpetrators based on the mainstream media and police reports.

We do not allow posters to drag innocent people into a discussion and accuse them of a crime.

Because of this rule, we only discuss John, Patsy, and Burke Ramsey in this forum.

Those three people have not been cleared by the police and the current District Attorney.

There is nothing to suggest an intruder. The DNA is a red herring. Look at the note, the pineapple, all the evidence in the house, the behavior of the three people in the house, look at all these things. Until all of these things can be explained and logical evidence is offered to show an intruder we will not allow innocent people to be discussed as the possible killer. Just like any other forum on Websleuths.

Thank you,
Tricia Griffith
Owner/Websleuths.com"

 

[juli99]

JonBenet is the victim in this crime.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Okay. I am thinking of a previous case in which we were not allowed to discuss the wife or daughter, because they were also considered victims. But - the wife was participating in the thread, so maybe that was the difference.

 

[Karinna]

Okay, well I will bow out of this discussion. I am so surprised that WS is allowing discussion of BR when he has never been officially named a suspect.

The R's were never officially indicted because they felt there was not enough evidence to prosecute. I guess it would of been very difficult in this case to prove exactly who did what in the death of JBR, seeing as there was DNA from all the other three people living in the household. I don't think the CBS special named exactly any one person that was responsible, but showed what was and what wasn't possible or probable in the case. And now we have Spitz being sued for naming BR as the culprit on a radio interview, and i didn't hear that interview, but the consequence of that interview is that he is being sued by BR.
I also doubt that anyone will ever be charged with JBR's death, because if that was the case it would of already of happened IMO.

 

[BBB167893]

Okay, so I am coming into this terribly late, but I see that everyone thinks BDI. I remember this case from 20 years ago, but just understanding the details from watching the shows now. I am confused - exactly what physical evidence is there to claim that her brother is responsible and the parents covered it up?

I don't know if I'm the best person to answer that first question. As to the coverup, you've got fibers from Mom's top on several crime scene items which they claim they never owned, namely the duct tape and cord knots. You've got fibers from Dad's shirt in her underwear. You've got a sexual "assault" that was a mere scratch. You've got a cord that was put on after she was already close to death and applied from behind so the person didn't have to look her in the face. You've got duct tape that was placed on after she was dead (and wasn't really sticky, IIRC). You've got wrist ligatures tied OVER her clothes so loosely you could fit your fingers between them and her wrists with 1-1/2 feet between them. You've got tenderness and care shown to her body after death. You've got a ransom letter with inside information written with an inside implement using the mother's writing style. Listing the lies and story changes would use up all the site's bandwidth.

That's just for starters.

And how is the unknown male DNA to be explained? Sorry, I know this is counter, but until that DNA is explained I don't think the family should be blamed.

Looks like others beat me to it.