Grand Jury True Bills John & Patsy Discussion thread

[eileenhawkeye]

In retrospect, I think it's pretty telling that when Colorado Bureau of Investigation set up their Cold Cases website, they "forgot" to include JonBenet's murder on it. Then when they finally put it up on the website, all it says is "JonBent Ramsey was found in the basement of her house. Cause of death was asphyxia." (Yes, they spelled her first name wrong.) If authorities thought that someone who couldn't be prosecuted committed this homicide, that might explain why they initially didn't put it on their website. The CBI could be in a potentially difficult position if they feel like a non-prosecutable minor committed this crime, because it's not like they can just come out and say "We think such-and-such 9 year old did this", but on the other hand it looks strange to be still investigating a crime you think you solved. (but you can't tell the public you solved it) You know what I mean?

It was odd that the website didn't mention her case, until the Camera brought it up. However, there are many cases on that website that I highly doubt are still being investigated by anyone. I think it's just a database of all cold cases on Colorado. But yeah, I do think her case was "forgotten" on purpose, but why?

 

[HMSHood]

I know the DNA was not John or Patsy Ramsey's. I wonder whose DNA. It is also reported that JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted.

I wonder if there was some Christmas party the day before as it was Christmas and JonBenet was found the next day.

 

[dodie20]

Can someone explain why this is so illuminating? The grand jury's versions of events are not necessarily the true ones - it's fairly easy to get indicted. Not saying that I don't believe the Ramseys are involved, but the jury's opinion of how it happened doesn't seem particularly dispositive to me.

And as for putting her in the zone of danger, that would definitely not be an abusive older brother, broken window, or pageants. That means that either John/Patsy either did something that had a great risk of injury or knew she was injured and didn't seek medical help. It has to be a very direct relationship between their actions and the harm - not just failing to make good parenting decisions, which would be more neglect. The first degree murder thing is interesting.

This is what I was thinking. It would be pretty rough to indict parents with these charges, if what they did was cover for their 9 year old child. Covering for the child wouldn't be right, but at the same time, would they want to see the parents go through a trial and then go to prison if this was their only role? And I don't think a trial jury would send parents to prison for this. I hear about negligent parents all the time who don't even get a slap on the wrist, much less prison time...at most a plea and probation, and they retain custody of their remaining kids. I wonder if the Rs were ever offered a plea deal? I'm very confused by all of this and don't see that it clears anything up, as far as who the killer was. moo

 

[Snowball58]

And didn't both PR and JR bring up Fleet White as the potential murderer at one point? Maybe they did that "in case" BR slipped and said something incriminating to him......just a thought.

And it could also be that BR's behavior that day (and perhaps even things BR might have said), while in FW's care, is what started him on a path to finding out what really happened to JBR.

 

[SeaEclipse]

If I recall correctly the underwear was new and unwashed and the dna could have been touch dna from packaging and handling.
So I don't think that rules out BR alltogether.
His parents made sure that she was redressed and cleaned.

I suppose it's possible that the DNA is a complete red herring; we'd need to know more about the quantity/type of sample. However, I still don't think the GJ indictment implicates BR specifically and, in fact, I think it points away from that conclusion. The "someone" who did it could just as easily be PR, JR, a friend of the family or a random intruder based on the indictment (the random intruder hypothesis being the least likely, because it doesn't explain *why* the parents would mess with the evidence). In fact, that the "someone" was an unknown someone (i.e., an unknown one of PR or JR or a third party) makes *way* more sense when you consider the indictment numbering and the decision not to bring charges.

Put it this way, proving PR and JR covered up for someone beyond a reasonable doubt is MUCH more difficult (likely impossible) if there's no "someone" you can name. It makes it seem like the prosecutor doesn't know exactly what happened, because -- if they did -- why wouldn't they charge the "someone" and tell the jury. If they tell the jury it's PR or JR, the jury will naturally ask "then why didn't you charge them?" If the answer is, we couldn't because the GJ didn't indict (i.e., there wasn't even probable cause to support that theory, let alone evidence beyond a reasonable doubt)... you're not going to get a guilty verdict in the cover up.

If, on the other hand, the prosecutors thought it was BR, they easily could have presented that theory to the jury in the PR/JR cover-up prosecution *even if* they didn't try him due to his age.

 

[shefner]

Remember in Kolar's book where it was said that JR asked specifically for his golf clubs in the basement the day after JonBenet's body was found. Perhaps one of those clubs was indeed used to hit JBR.

You will never convince me that PR and JR are completely innocent and that this was an intruder murder.....no way.

 

[madeleine]

Just a thought...I think FW would have been forgiving if BDI...the fact that he was so vocal makes me think he thought a parent was the guilty party?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Okay, if I heard correctly, they just said on CNN that Garnett plans on writing an Op-Ed about this case in the Sunday edition of The Daily Camera.

 

[madeleine]

Okay, if I heard correctly, they just said on CNN that Garnett plans on writing an Op-Ed about this case in the Sunday edition of The Daily Camera.

what's an op-ed?:blushing:

 

[dodie20]

Oh well, even though I don't feel any more enlightened than I did yesterday, at least this will officially put a stop to JR using the grand jury voting not to indict as proof of innocence... and saying there was no evidence against them. If nothing else, this proves the jury didn't buy the story of them sleeping peacefully and waking up to a dead daughter in the basement.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

what's an op-ed?:blushing:

Basically, an article by someone who is not a reporter, of their opinion on an issue.

 

[SeaEclipse]

does it mean open editorial

The abbreviation actually comes from "opposite the editorial page," but it's basically a newspaper opinion piece (which is what many people think the abbreviation comes from).

 

[SyraKelly]

The abbreviation actually comes from "opposite the editorial page," but it's basically a newspaper opinion piece (which is what many people think the abbreviation comes from).

OH OK-I will delete my post then-Thanks

 

[Chelly]

Just a thought...I think FW would have been forgiving if BDI...the fact that he was so vocal makes me think he thought a parent was the guilty party?

I can understand FW forgiving BR's accidental involvement, i.e. head blow. However, PR and JR staging and strangling JBR, instead of getting her help must have sickened FW.

 

[dodie20]

Remember in Kolar's book where it was said that JR asked specifically for his golf clubs in the basement the day after JonBenet's body was found. Perhaps one of those clubs was indeed used to hit JBR.

You will never convince me that PR and JR are completely innocent and that this was an intruder murder.....no way.

The picture of the skull sure looks like the damage could have been caused by a golf club or baseball bat, IMO. I have a hard time thinking a flashlight of any kind could cause that hole and long crack...especially if a 9 year old was doing the swinging. moo

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Well, this new development has caused Garnett to feel the need to write an entire article. That's different than just releasing some statement. It will be interesting to read, although it probably won't mean much.

 

[Snowball58]

Just a thought...I think FW would have been forgiving if BDI...the fact that he was so vocal makes me think he thought a parent was the guilty party?

I think that he was sympathetic at first, until the R's threw FW under the bus. Sometime after the murder he put 2 and 2 together and realized that this was no accident, and that the R's may well have been molesting their children, and that they failed to get help for JBR when she was still alive (before the asphyxiation). He likely realized that BR was a disturbed child, and perhaps that this was due to abuse he suffered at the hands of the R's. He eventually realized that the R's would do anything to anyone in order to protect themselves, and that poor JBR had nobody to protect her or advocate for her, in life or in death.

 

[Snowball58]

I have believed for some time that BR killed JB and the parents covered it up. I believe that the children were being sexually abused - perhaps BR more than JB. I think that BR had some serious rage issues towards his sister, likely due to the extra attention she received, and perhaps because BR was bearing the bulk of the sexual molestation at the time. This manifested itself in the prior golf club head bash, the contaminated chocolates found in JB's room, and who knows what other things that we don't even know about (if there were books about dealing with a sexually aggressive child, what the heck else was going on in that house before the murder?!) It's also possible that only BR was being molested at the time, and that he was mimicking the behavior with his little sister.

I believe BR and JB snuck downstairs for a snack after everyone went to bed (pineapple), using the flashlight in the dark house. I believe something happened and BR bashed JB in the head with the flashlight (or alternately with a golf club, and the flashlight being wiped of prints was part of the staging, to point to an intruder lurking around the house for hours on end). Perhaps the kids went down into the train room to play (unexplained "stun gun" mark on JB's body from a train track) and BR was mimicking the sexual abuse going on in the home (for the first time, or maybe this had happened in the past) and JB resisted or screamed and he bashed her with the flashlight.

When the Ramsey's discovered what had happened, they staged the coverup not only to protect BR but to cover up the sexual abuse that had been going on in the home. I believe that they had known for a long time that BR was a danger to JB, and did nothing to protect her from him, or to protect BR from the abuse he was enduring. But I don't believe their staging was purely to protect their other child - I believe they were protecting their own secrets too.

That's is what I think happened.

Obviously we will likely never know the exact details of how it all went down, and who did what. But I believe that JR is the one who dressed JB (oversized underpants is not something that Patsy would have been careless about) and that PR wrote the ransom note. I have no theory as to who applied the garotte or bound her or used the paintbrush on her. Those were the most callous acts, and I go back and forth wondering if it was part of the R's staging, or part of the abuse that BR inflicted on JB. I lean towards a combination of both - paintbrush done by BR and garotte done by one of the R's. But I spin myself in circles about this part.

The above is just my speculation about what could have happened.

MOO.

 

[tezi]

I can understand FW forgiving BR's accidental involvement, i.e. head blow. However, PR and JR staging and strangling JBR, instead of getting her help must have sickened FW.

Exactly...

 

[SeekingJana]

I see nothing in the true bills which indicate that Burke was involved. I do not believe he was.
Each true bill is basically saying that the parent named in that bill failed to protect JBR from the OTHER parent. The GJ was not charged to figure out who did what- that was not their purpose.

I do not think it is prudent to claim that Burke Ramsey killed his sister on this or any other message board. There is no evidence to support his involvement. Only fibers from the parent's clothing were found on the body and in the garrote.

I believe an adult choked her and I believe an adult caused the head wound. This is my opinion only, but I think it is legally dangerous to say that Burke did anything other than sleep without any evidence that he was involved.