Grand Jury True Bills John & Patsy Discussion thread

[Frigga]

Does anyone know if a Forensic Psychologist has ever done a psychological profile on the Ramsey family? I sure would like to read one from a seasoned professional.

 

[tezi]

Does anyone know if a Forensic Psychologist has ever done a psychological profile on the Ramsey family? I sure would like to read one from a seasoned professional.

That would be most interesting.

JMO

 

[ElleElle]

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.

Agreed, but if it is the case here, the Ramsey's could not risk this, because then Burke would talk and spill the beans on the rest of the family dynamics?

 

[ElleElle]

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

Correct, hence why someone who something to hide, tries to hide for as long as they can. MOO

 

[ElleElle]

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.

BBM~ :seeya: Well put AnaTeresa!

 

[Frigga]

Closest thing I could find:

http://cached41.livejournal.com/42159.html

Interesting though, and worth the read, I think.

This is in regards to the ligature as staging:

Thus, the offender can be expected to be:
• Adult Female
• Personality disordered
• Known to victim and family
• Familiar with the Ramsey house

... and, well unfortunately... this ship has sailed:

• Patsy Ramsey should undergo a psychological evaluation, concentrating on determining if she is suffering from a personality disorder.

And last:

This profile suggests:
• An adult female offender, although males should not be removed from the investigation on the basis of this.
• A personality disorder is likely to be present in the offender.
• A staged crime-scene and ransom note.
• A familiarity with the Ramsey house, including the basement level.
• A strong familiarity with the family routine, down to who used which stairs and when.
• The immediate family appears to be the strongest subjects in this case, although motivation is unknown.

 

[chlban]

UdbCrzy2;9935904

'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

?

I really cannot imagine anyone, no matter how twisted, would cover for a Nanny killing their child. For what possible reason?

For the record, there was no nanny. There were 4 people in that house that night and 3 lived until morning.

 

[chlban]

lawstudent;9936126I

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.

Do you have children? Because I think it's easier to be "objective" about such things when you don't.

I can totally see them protecting Burke, he is the only child they have left at that point. Parents have an amazing ability to rationalize truths to protect their children.

Parents, even when grieving for one child, can instantly go into protection mode for the other one. Cindy Anthony anyone? Not a sibling, true, but very similar dynamic. Cindy was virtually raising that baby and I don't think anyone doubts she loved her. But she knows as well as the rest of us that her precious daughter murdered that innocent baby. Yet she was willing to commit perjury to protect her.

I have no trouble believing they would cover for Burke.

 

[StrayKat]

I read that the DNA was found on the panties and from her fingernails. And that they both matched.

 

[chlban]

Simply Caustic;9936142 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.

I agree. For people like the Ramsey's to retain legal counsel at some point, would not surprise me or really influence my opinion. After all, it became apparent early on that they were Persons of Interest.

What I cannot and never will understand is their refusal to cooperate immediately after the murder. What innocent person does that? I would be too hysterical to think of my own position at that point. And if I thought they were considering me instead of an intruder (if there really was an intruder) I would be demanding a polygraph. They may not be admissable in court, but they are routinely used by LE to rule out suspects.

 

[LinasK]

Correct, hence why someone who something to hide, tries to hide for as long as they can. MOO

Exactly, when one has nothing to hide, there's nothing the cops can trip them up on. (I'm aware that cops are allowed to lie)

 

[Frigga]

I read that the DNA was found on the panties and from her fingernails. And that they both matched.

They DIDN'T match.

 

[shefner]

I agree. For people like the Ramsey's to retain legal counsel at some point, would not surprise me or really influence my opinion. After all, it became apparent early on that they were Persons of Interest.

What I cannot and never will understand is their refusal to cooperate immediately after the murder. What innocent person does that? I would be too hysterical to think of my own position at that point. And if I thought they were considering me instead of an intruder (if there really was an intruder) I would be demanding a polygraph. They may not be admissable in court, but they are routinely used by LE to rule out suspects.

They lawyered up before their dead child could be removed from the home. Then refused interviews. And following the chain of comments concerning the JonBenet Foundation and all the things they never followed-thru on is very alerting. Its glaring that John Ramsey was not angry, which would be the second response I would expect after grief. The Ramseys were much more angry at the media than the perpetrator.

 

[bettybaby00]

Does anyone know if a Forensic Psychologist has ever done a psychological profile on the Ramsey family? I sure would like to read one from a seasoned professional.

Kolar speaks with Doc. Who had session(s) with BR after JRBs death. Several of his actions during those interviews are alarming to the Doc.

Does anyone know if the kindle version of the book can be converted thru calibre? I have a nook color.... Sorry if OT

 

[dodie20]

"knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death". 'has committed'...this doesn't sound like the jury suspected BR, IMO. It reads like they suspected one of the parents, but for whatever reason, chose not to name which one. (has committed murder in the 1st degree), doesn't get any worse than that. moo

 

[Rougelatete]

"knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death". 'has committed'...this doesn't sound like the jury suspected BR, IMO. It reads like they suspected one of the parents, but for whatever reason, chose not to name which one. (has committed murder in the 1st degree), doesn't get any worse than that. moo

Trying to read between the lines, it's possible the Grand Jury thought BR hit JBR in the head and/or sexually assaulted her but that PR and JR knew JBR was still alive (even if unconscious with crashing vitals) when they decided to engage in a cover-up of BR's crimes. That would make them guilty of first degree murder if they knowingly 'finished her off' (excuse my language) -- JBR was likely already headed for death but whomever engaged in the ligature strangulation finished that process. And they did so with forethought and malice.

Plus, the other stipulations for first degree murder in Colorado do not necessarily mean it had to be premeditated or even that you had to have a direct hand in the murder so there are a number of different scenarios in which BR could have done all the crimes and staging and JR and PR could STILL be charged with first degree murder for ignoring the warning signs that their son showed sociopathic tendencies and they did nothing to get him help or protect their vulnerable daughter from him.

This is all speculation. My personal opinion is that BR caused the head wound and some of the sexual injuries but that PR was the mastermind behind the staging and performed most of the staging duties while JR helped with a minimal amount, just based on the forensic evidence. IMO, JMO, etc.

 

[midwest mama]

Does anyone know if a Forensic Psychologist has ever done a psychological profile on the Ramsey family? I sure would like to read one from a seasoned professional.

Dr. Andrew Hodges, working closely with Dr. Patrick Callahan and Dr. D. Jess Groesbeck, in his book, "Who Will Speak for JonBenet" carefully and with a great deal of validated support from respected field specialists, lays out a clear description of the personality who he thinks wrote the Ransom Note. There is a good deal of profiling in the book. And he goes on to demonstrate much, much more about what/why he believes in the involvement of both parents in the death of JonBenet.

Dr. Hodges also wrote: A Mother Gone Bad, which I will be reading next.

Hodges is a forensic psychologist, having top accolades for his work developed with regard to "thoughtprints". He also produced information which he provided and shared with Michael Kane, Mark Beckner and Alex Hunter regarding the Ramsey case. When he wrote his two books, he did not know the GJ had voted to indict.

 

[dodie20]

Trying to read between the lines, it's possible the Grand Jury thought BR hit JBR in the head and/or sexually assaulted her but that PR and JR knew JBR was still alive (even if unconscious with crashing vitals) when they decided to engage in a cover-up of BR's crimes. That would make them guilty of first degree murder if they knowingly 'finished her off' (excuse my language) -- JBR was likely already headed for death but whomever engaged in the ligature strangulation finished that process. And they did so with forethought and malice.

Plus, the other stipulations for first degree murder in Colorado do not necessarily mean it had to be premeditated or even that you had to have a direct hand in the murder so there are a number of different scenarios in which BR could have done all the crimes and staging and JR and PR could STILL be charged with first degree murder for ignoring the warning signs that their son showed sociopathic tendencies and they did nothing to get him help or protect their vulnerable daughter from him.

This is all speculation. My personal opinion is that BR caused the head wound and some of the sexual injuries but that PR was the mastermind behind the staging and performed most of the staging duties while JR helped with a minimal amount, just based on the forensic evidence. IMO, JMO, etc.

True maybe, but if they suspected BR of something, especially murder, wouldn't they have been clearer? And would it be legally accurate to allude to BR committing 1st degree murder? IMO, if he did this, because of his legal age, I'm not sure it could be labeled 1st degree murder. I would think if the jury was blaming the Rs for what BR did, they would have also charged them with endangerment of some kind. Child abuse resulting in death and accessory charges don't cover the endangerment aspect...and if it was BR, I'd think endangerment would be the 1st charge, then move on to the others. IDK, I'm just trying to make some sense out of the confusing wording...because it isn't clear. moo

 

[DeeDee249]

The LIE about the matching DNA in the panties and fingernails has been around for many years. Like all incorrect info on he internet, it is impossible to get rid of. People who have read and studied the case know the truth about it. There was NO usable DNA under her fingernails. What was there was degraded, not fresh, so it couldn't have come from that day. The coroner used unsterile clippers on her nails that he also used on other dead bodies. Anything under nails could have come from another autopsy.

 

[Nova]

Is Perdue considered Ivy League? :waitasec:

Purdue is a good state school, but, no, it is not Ivy League. There is certainly no shame in going there. (My niece is a junior there at the moment.)

Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, Penn, Cornell, Dartmouth and Brown are the official Ivy League; but there are other schools such as Smith, Swarthmore, Williams and the like that are considered roughly equivalent. (Also Duke, Rice and Stanford, but not Purdue.)