Grand Jury True Bills John & Patsy Discussion thread

[UdbCrzy2]

I'm not that familiar with this case, but I did read the grand jury indictment and I am left wondering if they had someone else in their home that was not a relative. Such as a caretaker or possibly a nanny? This was a wealthy family and it would not be unheard of for them to have hired help living in their home.

When Patsy was away with JonBenet doing pageants wouldn't there have been someone taking care of the brother?

 

[FrayedKnot]

Agreed. I think only Guilty people lawyer up. Why lawyer up if you have nothing to hide??? I wouldn't! And my brother is a lawyer.

IDK. In this day and age, I not only think I would seek legal help asap, but would totally understand if the police were looking my way if my child went "missing" or dead.

I just think it is prudent to seek counsel immediately. Which does not mean refusing to cooperate with LE.....

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Is Perdue considered Ivy League? :waitasec:

Purdue University is not considered Ivy League but imo it is considered "toney" and competitive. It has a highly respectable reputation and was ranked #68 National University by one study.

 

[lawstudent]

Agreed. I think only Guilty people lawyer up. Why lawyer up if you have nothing to hide??? I wouldn't! And my brother is a lawyer.

It's ridiculous to say that there's no reason to lawyer up if you aren't guilty. We have plenty of cases to prove that. That being said, people do generally wait longer than the Ramseys did, and I don't know why that was seemingly one of their first thoughts if they had nothing to hide - however, they said they did it on the advice of someone. If someone reminded me to do it, maybe I would. Their behavior is still highly suspicious, of course, but I don't think it's fair to attack them for getting a lawyer. And if John had worked with a lot of lawyers before, it may not have been a big deal to him. High profile people probably think nothing of consulting their lawyer friends - someone inexperienced with the legal system probably not as much.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

You can still "lawyer up" and still be cooperative. And that would be a prudent thing to do if your daughter was murdered and it's an open investigation.

Of course, the R's were not exactly cooperative....

 

[LinasK]

It's ridiculous to say that there's no reason to lawyer up if you aren't guilty. We have plenty of cases to prove that. That being said, people do generally wait longer than the Ramseys did, and I don't know why that was seemingly one of their first thoughts if they had nothing to hide - however, they said they did it on the advice of someone. If someone reminded me to do it, maybe I would. Their behavior is still highly suspicious, of course, but I don't think it's fair to attack them for getting a lawyer. And if John had worked with a lot of lawyers before, it may not have been a big deal to him. High profile people probably think nothing of consulting their lawyer friends - someone inexperienced with the legal system probably not as much.

Like I said, my brother is a lawyer, and I know several others, and I still wouldn't lawyer up in a situation like this.

 

[ElleElle]

IDK. In this day and age, I not only think I would seek legal help asap, but would totally understand if the police were looking my way if my child went "missing" or dead.

I just think it is prudent to seek counsel immediately. Which does not mean refusing to cooperate with LE.....

I'm certain JR has his "lawyer buddies" who he contacted knowing his family would come under suspicion.

As JR said: "Must be an inside job". Yes, inside job alright, no pun intended.

Also, is it correct the R's had a clean house except for drawers and cupboards.

The old sayings: "Bury it underneath the rug", and "skeletons in the closet" seem to ring true if that's the case.

 

[ElleElle]

Like I said, my brother is a lawyer, and I know several others, and I still wouldn't lawyer up in a situation like this.

Personally, the only reason why in this case the R's lawyered up so fast, was they had $$$ to do it with; and had "friends" in the industry.

I'm sure if their "ransom note" Plan A. went through, someone would of benefitted from the $118,000.

And, I don't think for a second the powerful community of Boulder does not have connections between lawyers and politicians.

 

[dodie20]

I don't see how B did the strangling because fibers matching Patsy's clothes were in the garrotte, and she was in the same clothes from the night before. JonBenet was strangled and jabbed with something at the point of or just before death, after lying there about 90 minutes. There's no way to know that anyone really thought she was dead. Working backwards and using some of Linda Pugh's statements: blanket, knife, and panties with only Patsy knowing where they'd be
Patsy's art supply box handy and she knew all the location of stuff in the basement
Ransom note sounds like her and someone all pilled up or drinking
Linda Pugh speaking of delusions and personality changes
JonBenet or someone having poop on bed, in panties, on pants
JonBenet screaming when Patsy took her in bathroom
Patsy stripping the bed but never doing other chores
JonBenet starts wetting after Patsy gets better and grandparents leave
The strangling killed JonBenet

If somebody's child commits an act like this, you expect a certain amount of protection, because this is their child too and they love him...but, how much would be normal and how far would parents go? This just seems above and beyond, IMO, unless something else factored in that we haven't heard. Something similar happened here a few years ago with the main difference being that the little girl survived. Her older brother raped her, (she was about 9, I think, and he was about 16), then cut her throat and left her for dead. He then took off but was later caught. He was sentenced to a juvenile center and was later, (about 2 years), released. During this whole ordeal, his parents fought for leniency and when he got out, he went back home and the little girl moved out of state with a relative. There was another case around here of a teenaged boy who was drag racing and he killed several girls including his own sister. His parents didn't turn their back on him either. Both of these situations were really, really bad with the brothers at obvious fault, but their parents just kept on protecting them. I used to think I'd be the 1st one to call the cops and turn one of mine in, but I'm not so sure anymore... I sat down and really tried to picture what I'd do and I think I would get my kid a lawyer and tell him to work out a bargain. Tell the truth in exchange for a deal. I wouldn't lie for my kid. I just googled around and came across a very good Texas Monthly about the drag racing deaths, that does a good job delving into the emotions. http://www.texasmonthly.com/content/wrecked

 

[lawstudent]

I can understand covering up a lot of things, but if you thought you were living with a violent sexual predator, I cannot. Or even just a violent person in general. If they really thought Burke just was playing rough and whacked her in the head without thinking, or swung her around and she hit her head on the wall, that's one thing I guess. If they actually believed it was intentional and/or sexual though, that would freak me the hell out. Even if it was my kid and I still loved them, I don't think I could live around them anymore. I've seen situations where families allow violent kids to live there because they don't have many options - I constantly have to make excuses not to go over there. It's a terrible situation. I couldn't cover for my kid if I had other kids in the house, and I don't think even I could handle it. It's not that easy to institutionalize a kid either, and I'd have trouble putting my mentally ill 9 year old in jail. Awful situation.

 

[Simply Caustic]

Like I said, my brother is a lawyer, and I know several others, and I still wouldn't lawyer up in a situation like this.

Agreed. I know firsthand that legal representation ratchets up the constraints on communication between law enforcement and the represented party...that, in and of itself, would necessarily preclude my retaining counsel...AT FIRST.

should months go by,I would review my options. But to do so in the first days of my slain child's murder investigation...well, I wouldn't hamper law enforcement in that fashion..I wouldn't constrain their hands from delving into each and every facet of my existence.

That's just my opinion.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[dodie20]

Agreed. I know firsthand that legal representation ratchets up the constraints on communication between law enforcement and the represented party...that, in and of itself, would necessarily preclude my retaining counsel...AT FIRST.

should months go by,I would review my options. But to do so in the first days of my slain child's murder investigation...well, I wouldn't hamper law enforcement in that fashion..I wouldn't constrain their hands from delving into each and every facet of my existence.

That's just my opinion.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I wouldn't lawyer up immediately, because odds are, whoever did this would be somebody I knew, kwim? and I'd want to go over everything I could think of with detectives. But, my brother is an attorney and his main mantra when it comes to any kind of legal issue is, "the cops are not your friends". And he means it. Don't talk to them or provide them with a thing unless you have a lawyer present and anything that you need to say, can be said with your attorney in the room. His main reason for thinking like this, is because cops can legally lie. And they do. So, there's no use in taking a chance of getting lied to or tricked. Not saying cops would lie in a situation like this, but say for instance LE got a couple in separate rooms and a detective told the husband that the wife had blamed him for everything and 'you're in big trouble, Mister' . What a nightmare! Anyway, I would cooperate immediately but I'd also get a lawyer real quick...but I darn sure wouldn't wait months to be interviewed. all moo

 

[bettybaby00]

You can still "lawyer up" and still be cooperative. And that would be a prudent thing to do if your daughter was murdered and it's an open investigation.

Of course, the R's were not exactly cooperative....

Lawering up isnt damning in and of itself. Put it together with all the other evidence & it definitely a cause for raising an eyebrow.

 

[AnaTeresa]

I wouldn't lawyer up immediately, because odds are, whoever did this would be somebody I knew, kwim? and I'd want to go over everything I could think of with detectives. But, my brother is an attorney and his main mantra when it comes to any kind of legal issue is, "the cops are not your friends". And he means it. Don't talk to them or provide them with a thing unless you have a lawyer present and anything that you need to say, can be said with your attorney in the room. His main reason for thinking like this, is because cops can legally lie. And they do. So, there's no use in taking a chance of getting lied to or tricked. Not saying cops would lie in a situation like this, but say for instance LE got a couple in separate rooms and a detective told the husband that the wife had blamed him for everything and 'you're in big trouble, Mister' . What a nightmare! Anyway, I would cooperate immediately but I'd also get a lawyer real quick...but I darn sure wouldn't wait months to be interviewed. all moo

Yes, this. The cops are definitely not your friends. While it's easy to say that you would be an open book, no lawyer, so that you can be cleared, that doesn't always happen. What if the cops are convinced that you are the guilty party? There won't be any clearing and moving on - instead, many of those statements you made in an attempt to clear yourself can come back to haunt you. Innocent people can and are convicted. Innocent people sometimes end up confessing. You want a lawyer with you not to stonewall the cops, but to make sure that you don't unwittingly get yourself into further trouble, and to make sure the cops do not cross lines with you.

I don't think most cops are dirty - most do a great job. But they are not your friend, and it's not always so easy to be cleared quickly sans lawyer. Engaging a lawyer in this circumstance is not a bad idea, but again, it's the Ramsey's speed and stonewalling that make it suspect.

 

[pearl]

Just my own thoughts and opinions for whatever they are worth.

I have followed this case from the beginning, at times closely and at times from afar. Early in the case, I felt the focus was obviously turned away from the dead child and onto what I consider to be a histrionic and narcissistic personality. I don't mean turned away by LE but by the actions of this person. To me, it seemed to be me, me. me. and not JonBenet. To me, it all comes down to the fact that I would not wait 4 months, 120 long days, to talk to LE about my dead child.

 

[Tadpole12]

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/10/jonbenet_ramsey_indictment_parents_exoneration.php

JonBenet's parents: How an indictment became an "exoneration"

Oct. 30 2013

Ramsey attorney Lin Wood called the unsigned indictments a "historical footnote" with "absolutely zero" impact on the moribund murder investigation. He has a point; the statute of limitations on the charges has run its course, and it's not exactly news that the Ramseys were under Hunter's expansive "umbrella of suspicion" until he left office in 2001.
Yet if nothing else, the grand jury's inclination to indict John and Patsy Ramsey should bring under closer scrutiny the unprecedented "exoneration" of the parents offered by Hunter's successor, Mary Lacy.

 

[Tadpole12]

http://blogs.westword.com/latestwor...sey_indictment_parents_exoneration.php?page=2

p2

The DA's office certainly felt it didn't have enough unequivocal evidence to convict in 1999, but the indictments suggest that there was a critical threshold of forensic material -- not just speculations, suspicious behavior and probabilities of handwriting analysis, but actual stuff, arguably sufficient to merit a trial. So why was that recommendation ignored, then buried, then countermanded by Lacy's bizarre declaration in 2008, absolving the parents of any involvement in JonBenet's death?


Lacy's decision was based on new developments in what's known as "touch DNA," which allows investigators to recover DNA markers from just a few skin cells, rather than the much larger specimens required for DNA testing in the 1990s. Lacy contended that touch DNA results from JonBenet's underwear that didn't match any of the known suspects in the case bolstered the theory that the girl was killed by an intruder and effectively "cleared" family members of any involvement.

 

[Tadpole12]

duplicate post

 

[Tadpole12]

http://blogs.westword.com/latestwor...sey_indictment_parents_exoneration.php?page=2

more from p2

In effect, Lacy "cleared" the Ramseys based on the absence of touch DNA from them -- a detail the media coverage of the topic tends to get wrong most of the time. That's a problem for the Patsy-Did-It crowd, yet also suspicious in its own right. Since Patsy recalled changing JonBenet's clothes just hours before she died, one would expect a few skin cells to surface that didn't. Is that proof of innocence, or, as Kolar suggests, of mishandled evidence?

If the absence of microscopic amounts of DNA doesn't erase what the grand jury found, it doesn't make anyone guilty, either. But Lacy's eagerness to exonerate the Ramseys -- even before she became DA, she reportedly maintained "that the body language of John and Patsy Ramsey wasn't suggestive of deception" -- illustrates what's been wrong with this homicide investigation from the beginning. The Boulder cops were savaged for being too focused on the parents, but Lacy and other key players (RIP, Lou Smit) have displayed a predisposition to overlook them entirely.

 

[shefner]

There had only been 16 homicides in that Boulder area in the preceding 10 years. None of them children. I think its obvious that one - likely more than one - of the Ramseys committed this crime. Its hard to wrap my heart around it....but it stands to reason on statistics alone.