Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramsey’s death

[midwest mama]

The only time John Ramsey ever displayed anything remotely resembling paranoia was when media got too close to him to take pictures after the crime. He attempted to assault one near Pasta Jays restaurant, after slinging profanity at him. And there was something reported about him "jokingly" pointing a shotgun at photographers/reporters from his balcony in Charlevoix just before a photo was snapped of him and Patsy enjoying a glass of wine with the Stines not long after the crime.

Oh, and then there's the reports of being with Burke on the beaches of Hawaii during Christmas holidays after Patsy died, and just before John entered himself into a missionary training school for three solid months before he took off for India where he did missionary field work at a child prostitute housing/training facility.

Does this sound like a parent who would remain vigilantly paranoid about a killer still on the loose who might one day come after his young son? :scream:

 

[MyBelle]

Another thing to add, is that for the Ramsey's this is not over.
There is no guarantee that the killer will not come back to harmagain and maybe kill his other child. A person who may be very close to his inner circle. I do not know if I would even trust my lawyers...maybe they were the ones that killed my daughter. How could you know. I would be more paranoid of my own associates than the cops, if I were in John Ramsey's position.

It's not over? John Ramsey ran for public office several years ago. People who fear their families remain in grave danger aren't hankering for an ego-boosting political career, imo

 

[Linda7NJ]

What I also find perplexing...not even in retrospect can he see he could have handled things better, been more cooperative. He doesn't seem to understand why they would remain under that umbrella of suspicion.
It's either a glaring lack of insight or a deliberate stonewalling.
My vote has always been stonewalling with purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bettybaby00]

What I also find perplexing...not even in retrospect can he see he could have handled things better, been more cooperative. He doesn't seem to understand why they would remain under that umbrella of suspicion.
It's either a glaring lack of insight or a deliberate stonewalling.
My vote has always been stonewalling with purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And thanks to ML he is free to proclaim his innocence. His lawyer has certainly done it enough!

He's a graduate of the "if I say it enough it must be true" school of BS.

 

[lawstudent]

What I also find perplexing...not even in retrospect can he see he could have handled things better, been more cooperative. He doesn't seem to understand why they would remain under that umbrella of suspicion.
It's either a glaring lack of insight or a deliberate stonewalling.
My vote has always been stonewalling with purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think he understands - talking to the police wasn't going to get him anywhere, guilty or not. If he didn't have any useful leads for the police, cooperating accomplished nothing. People already had their suspicions and talking was only going to make things worse. If he isn't guilty and doesn't know who did it, I can't see what he'd have to add. The situation got out of control so quickly that I don't think I'd talk to police either. Of course, deliberate stonewalling also makes sense.

While I do think the killer was likely someone close to them, I don't think I'd live in constant fear for Burke. If the motive was sexual, it's unlikely the person would go after Burke, and if it had more to do with money or fear, the person had already screwed up the plot and wouldn't be able to try again without almost certainly getting caught this time. In the initial period following the crime, yes, I'd be worried, but not after a while.

I guess I'm affected by the fact that I find it hard to believe this was some random nut like some people think. Most criminals are not as hard to understand as some people seem to think - I don't believe some guy was randomly attacking people. There was a point to what happened if this was an outsider, but it's unclear what it was.

 

[bettybaby00]

I think he understands - talking to the police wasn't going to get him anywhere, guilty or not. If he didn't have any useful leads for the police, cooperating accomplished nothing. People already had their suspicions and talking was only going to make things worse. If he isn't guilty and doesn't know who did it, I can't see what he'd have to add. The situation got out of control so quickly that I don't think I'd talk to police either. Of course, deliberate stonewalling also makes sense.

While I do think the killer was likely someone close to them, I don't think I'd live in constant fear for Burke. If the motive was sexual, it's unlikely the person would go after Burke, and if it had more to do with money or fear, the person had already screwed up the plot and wouldn't be able to try again without almost certainly getting caught this time. In the initial period following the crime, yes, I'd be worried, but not after a while.

I guess I'm affected by the fact that I find it hard to believe this was some random nut like some people think. Most criminals are not as hard to understand as some people seem to think - I don't believe some guy was randomly attacking people. There was a point to what happened if this was an outsider, but it's unclear what it was.

BUT, he never cooperated!!!! If he had, and if innocent, then his cooperation would have gotten him/them out from under that darn umbrella. Instead, he/they lawyered up within hours. On the night of the 26th he wouldn't agree to any formal interview, and just 2 days later....

On Saturday, December 28, 1996, Assistant District Attorney Pete Hoffstrom informed detectives that the family had retained legal counsel and were not willing to meet with police investigators. He suggested that any questions they had be reduced to writing, and he would forward these to Ramsey defense counsel.

Days later they had their PR firm release the following...

Rowan and Blewitt Incorporated Memorandum
To: The News Media
From: Pat Korten

John and Patsy Ramsey have cooperated extensively with police and other law enforcement authorities since the very beginning of their investigation, and this cooperation will continue. Written answers to all the written questions submitted by the Boulder Police Department have been delivered to them this afternoon.
—Press release provided by Ramsey publicist Pat Korten in January, 1997

Who does this???? And "cooperated extensively?" Are they kidding? They weren't even back from Atlanta yet. They didn't have time for investigators, yet they had time to do an interview on CNN?


if an "intruder" it had to be someone fairly close to them. The Rs threw everyone they knew under the bus...these people were all fully vetted.

investigators assigned to the case had already interviewed nearly 400 people. The list included those who were thought to be witnesses who could provide background information, as well as those whom police considered to be potential suspects. By that time, investigators had also collected sixty-three (63) sets of handwriting exemplars, sixty-four (64) sets of fingerprints, forty-five (45) DNA / blood samples and fifty (50) sets of hair samples. One (1) polygraph examination had been administered to a non-familial suspect. In spite of their assurances of wanting to continue to cooperate with authorities, John and Patsy Ramsey wouldn’t participate in another law enforcement interview for another fourteen months.

The problem with supplying police with so many potential perpetrators is that when all was said and done, they were the only ones left standing.

 

[lawstudent]

BUT, he never cooperated!!!! If he had, and if innocent, then his cooperation would have gotten him/them out from under that darn umbrella. Instead, he/they lawyered up within hours. On the night of the 26th he wouldn't agree to any formal interview, and just 2 days later....

I consider calling the police right away cooperating, but obviously that changed quickly. However, if the police were already trying to pin it on them at that point, I don't consider it that strange. If it's this mysterious crime, there is only so much information they can give that could actually help find the perpetrator before it just turns into an interrogation aimed at them. I don't think it would have gotten him out of the umbrella - it would have sucked him in, and he may well have deserved to be sucked in if he was guilty. Many families who are known to have been very cooperative probably were not under much suspicion to begin with, so there wasn't much to agree to. If you've explained what you know and it's the type of crime that involves an alleged outsider, the police are either going to be giving you progress updates to the extent they can disclose the information or interrogating you from then on. I agree by naming all those people they kind of pointed the finger at themselves, and that's where my train of thought goes....but if they weren't guilty, then they really couldn't offer much help. People always get mad if parents don't "help" the police in these situations, but when police say "help" or "cooperate" it usually means "help us point the finger at you." Most people aren't going to respond well to that if police are really exploring that option. Either they are guilty and want to shut up, or they aren't and are furious the police are barking up the wrong tree. I realize it's helpful to rule the parents out, but talking to the police really isn't going to clear you - it's only going to incriminate you.

 

[gramcracker]

and in their book(s) they had the unmitigated gall to lie about cooperating. why am I surprised? claiming that PR was interviewed by BPD on the 27th and 28th! LW foamed at the mouth over that topic (among many). I swear, does that man work piece-rate? is he paid by the word? what an obstructionist! (he highjacks every verbal thread!)

 

[bettybaby00]

and in their book(s) they had the unmitigated gall to lie about cooperating. why am I surprised? claiming that PR was interviewed by BPD on the 27th and 28th! LW foamed at the mouth over that topic (among many). I swear, does that man work piece-rate? is he paid by the word? what an obstructionist! (he highjacks every verbal thread!)

Cooperation = stonewalling LE for 4 months.....

At least in Ramsey-world

 

[Charterhouse]

I have to tell you I love this thread. It has everything in it. From the Colorado Children's Code, Kidnapping, the True Bill, Holly Smiths book, other books etc.

After rereading the posts, I have come to the conclusion that in every scenario that is mentioned regarding the person who committed this crime, the name can not be or isn't mentioned.

Those who rendered assistance are mentioned.
It always comes back to "Don't go there, Pal."

Doesn't that really say who was involved in JBR death?

As far as I can tell, questfortrue is right. There is not even a criminal citation that could be expunged for the nameless person.

What we have in the end is the small part of the true bill that was released that I feel says J&PR assisted someone in a crime. Who would they cover up for?

Just some thoughts and of course IMO only.

 

[gramcracker]

:goodpost:

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

The Grand Jury was wrong.

 

[elannia]

I wonder what the GJ thought when they issued an indictment and AH decided not to proceed? I would be like WTH!!!!!!

 

[DeeDee249]

I wonder what the GJ thought when they issued an indictment and AH decided not to proceed? I would be like WTH!!!!!!

I bet they weren't surprised. If they knew what I THINK they know, then they'd have known he really couldn't prosecute the case without revealing what couldn't be revealed.

 

[elannia]

I just have a questio(no mean answers please) I just have no idea... So since PR and JR were indicted can JR still be prosecuted? I know ML exonerated them but can he still?

 

[Linda7NJ]

I just have a questio(no mean answers please) I just have no idea... So since PR and JR were indicted can JR still be prosecuted? I know ML exonerated them but can he still?

On the charge in the indictment? No
Statute of limitations has run out.

On murder, sure if they ever come up with enough evidence to charge him with murder. No statute of limitation on murder.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elannia]

On the charge in the indictment? No
Statute of limitations has run out.

On murder, sure if they ever come up with enough evidence to charge him with murder. No statute of limitation on murder.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks. He should have been charged 18 years ago. And he will never be charged with murder.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Thanks. He should have been charged 18 years ago. And he will never be charged with murder.

Thud!
18 years? Can't believe it's been that long ...

I can't believe I've been obsessed with this case for 18 years....it doesn't seem like that long ago....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jujubee13]

Murderers dont care who gets in trouble as long as they can point the blame at everyone else even family an spouses. You would think if they are that brazen to kill why not confess?

 

[midwest mama]

Murderers dont care who gets in trouble as long as they can point the blame at everyone else even family an spouses. You would think if they are that brazen to kill why not confess?

Confessions require repentance. Those who cannot repent are the most brazen, locked into a state of true narcissism. Their reality does not allow them to bear imperfection, blame, or the need for correction due to a real conscience. Acceptance of truth is only if it can be considered their own, which usually has very little to do with actual truth.