Grand Jury True Bills John & Patsy Discussion thread

[Rougelatete]

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

I don't think they had to 'go there' with BR at all -- because he wasn't viable for any charges due to his age. They didn't have to charge BR with anything (because they couldn't) and also because they didn't have to in order to charge his parents with covering up the first degree murder of JBR because Colorado statutes allow for a wide interpretation of the definition. I believe the Grand Jury went for the 'grand slam,' essentially accusing the parents of covering up each other's first degree murder of JBR (even though they suspected BR started the ball rolling that night). They didn't have to charge the Ramseys with endangerment because the first degree murder definition encompasses that and I believe the jurors were going for the highest they could net. Even if the Grand Jury knew BR was involved somehow, they could still charge the parents without ever implicating BR.

Here's the language again for Colorado's first degree murder:

A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if:
(a) After deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, he causes the death of that person or of another person; or
(b) Acting either alone or with one or more persons, he or she commits or attempts to commit arson, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, sexual assault as prohibited by section 18-3-402, sexual assault in the first or second degree as prohibited by section 18-3-402 or 18-3-403 as those sections existed prior to July 1, 2000, or a class 3 felony for sexual assault on a child as provided in section 18-3-405 (2), or the crime of escape as provided in section 18-8-208, and, in the course of or in furtherance of the crime that he or she is committing or attempting to commit, or of immediate flight therefrom, the death of a person, other than one of the participants, is caused by anyone; or
(c) By perjury or subornation of perjury he procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person; or
(d) Under circumstances evidencing an attitude of universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally, he knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person, or persons, other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another; or
(e) He or she commits unlawful distribution, dispensation, or sale of a controlled substance to a person under the age of eighteen years on school grounds as provided in section 18-18-407 (2), and the death of such person is caused by the use of such controlled substance; or
(f) The person knowingly causes the death of a child who has not yet attained twelve years of age and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the victim.

If PR and JR strangled JBR with a ligature knowing she was still technically breathing after the head blow from BR, that counts as action (a) above. Even if it was mostly for the purposes of staging.

If PR and JR sexually assaulted JBR (even as part of the staging/cover-up for BR's crimes), that counts as action (b) above.

If PR and JR stood by while BR assaulted JBR (physically, sexually) and did nothing to stop it, that would count as actions (d) and (f) -- they caused the death of JBR by failing to get help for BR and stop his actions in that moment.

If PR and JR knew JBR was dying from a head injury and stood by for 90 minutes without calling 911, that would count as action (d) at a minimum.

So, there are a number of ways that PR and JR could be guilty of the crimes they were indicted for -- and could THEMSELVES be guilty of first degree murder -- irregardless of whether or not BR hit JBR on the head and/or sexually assaulted her.

The problem is, the Grand Jury didn't know which parent did what part of the staging/cover-up so all they knew is that one was covering for the other's first degree murder of JBR but they couldn't tell which. And, that's why the DA declined to prosecute.

JMO and my POV from reading the Colorado statutes, which are open to interpretation -- as we know from any jury proceeding.

 

[Nova]

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.

It is certainly competitive relative to some other state schools but "tony"?

I don't think so. West Lafayette (where Purdue is located) is in the middle of farm country, halfway between Indianapolis and Chicago. Purdue's science departments are very well respected, but otherwise, wealthy kids in Indiana are more likely to go to Indiana University in Bloomington.

(My sister managed the Macy's in West Lafayette for several years. She said her customers were very nice, but "tony" is not a word she would use to describe them or their purchases. Not that she's a snob about such things--I'm just saying there's no reason to imagine BR hanging out with the Vanderbilts and Asters.)

 

[dodie20]

I don't think they had to 'go there' with BR at all -- because he wasn't viable for any charges due to his age. They didn't have to charge BR with anything (because they couldn't) and also because they didn't have to in order to charge his parents with covering up the first degree murder of JBR because Colorado statutes allow for a wide interpretation of the definition. I believe the Grand Jury went for the 'grand slam,' essentially accusing the parents of covering up each other's first degree murder of JBR (even though they suspected BR started the ball rolling that night). They didn't have to charge the Ramseys with endangerment because the first degree murder definition encompasses that and I believe the jurors were going for the highest they could net. Even if the Grand Jury knew BR was involved somehow, they could still charge the parents without ever implicating BR.

Here's the language again for Colorado's first degree murder:



If PR and JR strangled JBR with a ligature knowing she was still technically breathing after the head blow from BR, that counts as action (a) above. Even if it was mostly for the purposes of staging.

If PR and JR sexually assaulted JBR (even as part of the staging/cover-up for BR's crimes), that counts as action (b) above.

If PR and JR stood by while BR assaulted JBR (physically, sexually) and did nothing to stop it, that would count as actions (d) and (f) -- they caused the death of JBR by failing to get help for BR and stop his actions in that moment.

If PR and JR knew JBR was dying from a head injury and stood by for 90 minutes without calling 911, that would count as action (d) at a minimum.

So, there are a number of ways that PR and JR could be guilty of the crimes they were indicted for -- and could THEMSELVES be guilty of first degree murder -- irregardless of whether or not BR hit JBR on the head and/or sexually assaulted her.

The problem is, the Grand Jury didn't know which parent did what part of the staging/cover-up so all they knew is that one was covering for the other's first degree murder of JBR but they couldn't tell which. And, that's why the DA declined to prosecute.

JMO and my POV from reading the Colorado statutes, which are open to interpretation -- as we know from any jury proceeding.

I've read where quite a few legal analysts think the exact opposite...that instead of going for the highest possible charge, the jury came to some kind of compromise. And from the way I read the indictment, I agree, but I can't be sure, because the wording is confusing. moo I guess I'll wait until it's cleared up.

 

[Rougelatete]

I've read where quite a few legal analysts think the exact opposite...that instead of going for the highest possible charge, the jury came to some kind of compromise. And from the way I read the indictment, I agree, but I can't be sure, because the wording is confusing. moo I guess I'll wait until it's cleared up.

I agree -- it's definitely a compromise. I've read many of those legal analyses as well. They couldn't charge either parent with first degree murder (or any kind of murder) because they didn't know who did what. But they could agree that both engaged in child abuse (that could be active abuse or neglect) and a cover-up of a crime and that's where the indictments came in. It's a shame the DA didn't pursue charges. JBR deserves some kind of justice. I guess the only solace is that JR is still, technically, open to being charged with some kind of crime. One can hope at least. :seeya:

 

[BOESP]

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.

There's evidence Patsy wore plastic gloves used for hair coloring -- if she did, her DNA should not be on the panties. But her touch DNA should be on the long johns since we've been told she put the long johns on JonBenet right after they got home from delivering Christmas gifts and John carried her to her bedroom for Patsy to get ready.

It's already been cussed and discussed about cross-contamination of touch DNA if a garment factory worker is involved in the pristine panties, just taken from a package by a gloved person in the Ramsey household who then handles the long johns with gloved hands.

If John or someone else is involved it's more complicated but the DNA that I've read about so far still doesn't clear Patsy.

 

[Nova]

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

"Constraints on communication?"

Based on every interrogation tape I've ever seen (and I watch a lot of DATELINE and 48 HOURS), "communication" is not the goal of a police interrogation of parties close to the victim, "confession" is.

All too often, police make a snap judgment as to guilt and then conduct interrogations so as to collect "inconsistencies" to use against the subject.

"Don't even bother to tell me you're innocent. I know you did it, I just want to know how."

"Well, IF you had done it, how would you have gone about it?"

"How do you explain why we found your DNA on the door jamb to the solarium?"

The interrogations I've seen are more badgering and trick questions than communication. You should have your lawyer there as your witness, even if you answer every question the police ask.

And then, of course, we have the numerous cases (WM3, Amanda Knox) where the most important part of the interrogation was mysteriously left unrecorded.

In this age of cheap recording devices, how is that even possible?

 

[Nova]

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)

Have you actually discussed this with your brother? If he agrees, he's a terrible attorney.

Almost no one has a truly photographic memory. There are always details one has forgotten and the cops will be happy to fill those blanks with details that make you look guilty. (I'm not saying cops are bad people. I'm saying that just like posters at WS, they tend to form opinions and then defend fiercely against all objections.)

 

[Nova]

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

That was exactly my first thought: that if the GJ thought BR had killed his sister they would not have called it "first degree murder" because they would have been told that under CO law it was not.

I think it's much more likely the GJ couldn't decide which parent had done the actual killing, a problem that Alex Hunter knew he couldn't overcome.

 

[dodie20]

"Constraints on communication?"

Based on every interrogation tape I've ever seen (and I watch a lot of DATELINE and 48 HOURS), "communication" is not the goal of a police interrogation of parties close to the victim, "confession" is.

All too often, police make a snap judgment as to guilt and then conduct interrogations so as to collect "inconsistencies" to use against the subject.

"Don't even bother to tell me you're innocent. I know you did it, I just want to know how."

"Well, IF you had done it, how would you have gone about it?"

"How do you explain why we found your DNA on the door jamb to the solarium?"

The interrogations I've seen are more badgering and trick questions than communication. You should have your lawyer there as your witness, even if you answer every question the police ask.

And then, of course, we have the numerous cases (WM3, Amanda Knox) where the most important part of the interrogation was mysteriously left unrecorded.

In this age of cheap recording devices, how is that even possible?

You're right. My daughter got involved in some trouble and a cop told me that on general principle, they think everybody is lying and 'tell it to the judge'. So why waste your breath trying to convince them? And we caught these particular cops in so many contradictions and lies, all 'legal' of course...it was the lying that finally made us throw up our hands and hire a lawyer. They even went so far as to tell my daughter that she could say she never hit the girl and they wouldn't pull the security video from where it happened. We were like, 'riiight, see ya'. Now this trouble wasn't real serious, (my daughter was accused of assault), but it was a big deal to us, because we knew the truth. I'm not saying all cops act like this, especially in murder cases, but these particular officers left a sour taste in my mouth, and to tell the truth, I don't trust them anymore. They played so many head games with my daughter that we have an agreement...if she's ever pulled over, she's to call me before they get to the car so I can hear word for word, what's being said. God forbid, if we ever get caught up in something serious, I'm getting a lawyer lickety split. If my child was missing, I'd immediately cooperate, but if I started hearing the lying or head games, they'd have to start going through my lawyer. moo, but once you've been burned, you start being more cautious. So, I don't blame the Rs for hiring lawyers, but them not being more cooperative, seems shady. If they thought LE was out to frame them, their lawyers would have put a stop to any funny stuff...just said, 'interview over'. moo

 

[Rougelatete]

I agree -- it's definitely a compromise. I've read many of those legal analyses as well. They couldn't charge either parent with first degree murder (or any kind of murder) because they didn't know who did what. But they could agree that both engaged in child abuse (that could be active abuse or neglect) and a cover-up of a crime and that's where the indictments came in. It's a shame the DA didn't pursue charges. JBR deserves some kind of justice. I guess the only solace is that JR is still, technically, open to being charged with some kind of crime. One can hope at least. :seeya:

Btw, quoting myself here (lol) but I believe there was enough evidence to charge PR with first degree murder under Colorado statute even if BR caused the initial fatal blow and I also believe JR was part of the cover-up/staging but primarily under the direction of PR, who also did most of the physical labor of the staging while JR nervously doodled on a magazine and newspaper.

Just some of that evidence being PR being the only one savvy enough with the household routine to know which staircase to leave the ransom note on so the first person awake would immediately find it, her fibers on the tape and in the garrote, the fact that she knew where the size 12 undies were stored and wouldn't want her 'perfect' daughter found in fecal-stained undies even if they were the right size, the fact that only she knew where the knife and blanket were kept and that it was her paintbrush used in the crime....I could go on and on. Still, I think JR is guilty of participating to some extent in the cover-up as 3 people checked the basement on 3 separate occasions and no one found JBRs body until he went to the basement and because his fibers were found on her panties and there's no innocent explanation for that, given that she was redressed. I think it was rather clear who did what and who should be charged with what. And if BR were only a few months older at the time, well, I think we'd have 3 people facing charges.

 

[dodie20]

That was exactly my first thought: that if the GJ thought BR had killed his sister they would not have called it "first degree murder" because they would have been told that under CO law it was not.

I think it's much more likely the GJ couldn't decide which parent had done the actual killing, a problem that Alex Hunter knew he couldn't overcome.

Exactly. If they suspected BR, IMO, they couldn't have called this murder in the first. If they suspected the parents of coming in and finishing JB off, BR would still be beside the point, because the 'finishing' is what killed her. IMO, 'finishing her off', is worse than any rage attack . Premeditated murder. And really, it's almost impossible to believe. Kill your daughter to protect your son? or call 911? sit around and wait to see if she dies on her own but when she doesn't, hurry it along? or call for help? And if BR hit JB in the head, the parents had no way of knowing the extent of the damage...as far as they could tell, she might have simply been knocked unconscious...and by 'simply', I don't mean being knocked unconscious is trivial, but surely being unconscious doesn't warrant a 'finishing off'? Now, if they knew about the hole in her head, that's a different story...but if BR bashed JB, there's no way they could have known. And I don't believe they thought she was already dead and the garrote was for staging only. I think it was used exactly what it was made for -to kill JB. Sometimes, it is what it is. moo

 

[bsk]

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.

Maybe this is the only way lawyers will do it, but didn't they originally lawyer up with separate lawyers? That's how I recall it. That made me think either both were involved or at least one suspected the other was involved, and there was a chance they would turn on each other.

 

[AnaTeresa]

Maybe this is the only way lawyers will do it, but didn't they originally lawyer up with separate lawyers? That's how I recall it. That made me think either both were involved or at least one suspected the other was involved, and there was a chance they would turn on each other.

Can't tell you how all lawyers do it, but the lawyers I work for would represent the parents together until such time that a conflict arose. In a case such as this, a conflict would be something like, both of them being charged and a viable defense would be blaming the other party. At an early outset, retaining separate lawyers is a bit odd, and maybe could point to suspecting the other person did it. Who knows. Every thing the Ramseys did after JonBenet's murder was odd!

 

[UKGuy]

Maybe this is the only way lawyers will do it, but didn't they originally lawyer up with separate lawyers? That's how I recall it. That made me think either both were involved or at least one suspected the other was involved, and there was a chance they would turn on each other.

bsk,
Everything points to the R's knowing who did what. Possibly not when, but where and how yes.

The wine-cellar crime-scene represents the movement of forensic evidence from upstairs to downstairs, and along with the ranson note is an attempt to sanitise the original crime-scene as much as possible.

The R's expected JonBenet to be discovered quickly and they probably expected to be facing some serious questioning, in this event, lawyering up seems to be a clever move particularly if you know who killed JonBenet?

One of the resident R's killed JonBenet, this was a deliberate decision, call it a mercy killing or one to permanently silence JonBenet, either way both JR and BR know who killed JonBenet!


.

 

[lawstudent]

Maybe this is the only way lawyers will do it, but didn't they originally lawyer up with separate lawyers? That's how I recall it. That made me think either both were involved or at least one suspected the other was involved, and there was a chance they would turn on each other.

As a law student studying the ethics rules, it becomes a judgment call unless the parties are actually on opposing sides in which case it is banned, but I'd think in a situation like this an attorney would definitely say get different ones for each. Too much risk one could point the finger at another, or that interests would conflict, etc. It doesn't surprise me. It's even a risk if 2 passengers are injured in a car accident together - one could jeopardize the other's settlement if they have disparate injuries and one gets a lot more money. You are basically required to share all important info with both clients, so in a case like the Ramseys, early on, it could just be a mess. Even unrelated to the actual incident, any suspicious personal circumstances like affairs could come out to the other.

 

[bettybaby00]

bsk,
Everything points to the R's knowing who did what. Possibly not when, but where and how yes.

The wine-cellar crime-scene represents the movement of forensic evidence from upstairs to downstairs, and along with the ranson note is an attempt to sanitise the original crime-scene as much as possible.

The R's expected JonBenet to be discovered quickly and they probably expected to be facing some serious questioning, in this event, lawyering up seems to be a clever move particularly if you know who killed JonBenet?

One of the resident R's killed JonBenet, this was a deliberate decision, call it a mercy killing or one to permanently silence JonBenet, either way both JR and BR know who killed JonBenet!


.

I think a fair amount of this plan was not well thought out...and events unfolded in a way that was easily manipulated in the Rs favor. IE., cops showing up and just waiting as the timing on the note is taken one way, while it's original intent was likely different.

Many events I feel played out this way.

 

[UKGuy]

I think a fair amount of this plan was not well thought out...and events unfolded in a way that was easily manipulated in the Rs favor. IE., cops showing up and just waiting as the timing on the note is taken one way, while it's original intent was likely different.

Many events I feel played out this way.

bettybaby00,
It appears the R's decided to kill JonBenet and bury as much evidence as possible.

The wine-cellar might be a last minute refinement to a prior staging, or JR simply moved JonBenet early that morning, realizing he was going nowhere and that she would eventually be discovered?

The R's rolled the dice on an Abduction Scenario complete with fake ransom note, and grotesque garrote.

The planning aspect is curious since it seems they had all morning to enact some plan, yet stuff was missed, i.e. pineapple snack.

This might suggest PDI with her killing JonBenet, for whatever reason, then later once John is aware of the situation it is all amended.


.

 

[BOESP]

Maybe this is the only way lawyers will do it, but didn't they originally lawyer up with separate lawyers? That's how I recall it. That made me think either both were involved or at least one suspected the other was involved, and there was a chance they would turn on each other.

John Ramsey originally said his lawyers were hired to keep him out of jail. By that statement it follows that he would have wanted Patsy to have her own lawyers so each had their rights and interests protected.

So, yes, they originally lawyered up with separate lawyers. Interestingly, two of Patsy's were Patrick Burke and Patrick Furman.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Chelly, Do you think that PR or JR knew of ongoing sexual molestation by BR? Or that this was discovered the night of JBR's death?
I just can't grasp it all. I mean....even though I accept these kind of these happen it simply throughs my mind and heart into a tizzy.

There was a dictionary open with a bent page pointing to the word incest. Someone was looking it up. Pasty's frantic after hours calls to Dr. Beauf and JonBenet growing more clingy to Pasty before Christmas says someone had a pretty good that something had happened to JonBenet.

 

[LinasK]

There was a dictionary open with a bent page pointing to the word incest. Someone was looking it up. Pasty's frantic after hours calls to Dr. Beauf and JonBenet growing more clingy to Pasty before Christmas says someone had a pretty good that something had happened to JonBenet.

True, but it doesn't prove ongoing molestation by Burke. I think John was the abuser and Patsy was the one who opened the dictionary. Her own mother Nedra hinted that Patsy was abused as a girl.