Boulder Grand Jury Voted To Indict-Boulder Dailey Camera

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Have you LOOKED at the comparisons and exemplars of Patsy and the note? There is NO doubt that she wrote it,

I have seen the exemplars and there is CONSIDERABLE doubt that she wrote it.

And to state the experts have not determined the same thing is simply not true. She was the ONLY one who could not be ruled out as the author.

Do we really need to get into this as if it were actually a fresh point of contention, and not a long dead issue?


"No BPD-Hired Experts Identified Patsy as RN Author. "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) [Emphasis added.]"

"Carnes Decision. "Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF P 196; PSMF P 196.) On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF P 203; PSMF P 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF P 204; PSMF P 204.) (Carnes 2003:26)."

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682496/Patsy Ramsey as RN Author

And then there is the Pennebaker analysis, etc.


The bottom line is that the weight of the evidence favors PR as NOT being the author of the RN.

Just so you know, I have no interest in revisiting this hackneyed topic so please refrain from bringing it up again unless you can provide something new and convincing.

As the evidence now stands, if you are absolutely convinced that PR wrote the RN then you are so through deliberate prejudicial will and not through sound objective reasoning. Indeed, common sense alone should inform you that the sheer length of the RN excludes both JR and PR for obvious reasons.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Hi Ed, thank you for responding. I do want to continue this conversation, but I have a birthday party tonight I am baking & cleaning & prepping for, so I can't give this the attention it deserves at the moment. Once things chill a bit here at my house, I'll be back. Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. Catch ya later!

Thanks. I look forward to hearing from you.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Multiple requests by the Camera for comment from John Ramsey in the wake of Sunday's report, placed through his legal representatives, were not successful.

how many legal representatives does he have?

People's article did not make clear whether Ramsey previously had been aware of the grand jury's vote to indict.

Umm...why wouldn't an interviewer ask this question?

 

[OpenMind4U]

..... bla bla bla.....

Indeed, common sense alone should inform you that the sheer length of the RN excludes both JR and PR for obvious reasons.

Are you still here?!!!!! :what:...OK, you've got my full attention with above sentense.

Are you trying to INFORM us that Mrs Patsy Ramsey doesn't like to write long letters and too shy to talk alot??....because Patsy we know couldn't keep her mouth shot!!!! ...like in her ransom note, she doesn't know when to stop...

....kind of like YOU!!!!!!

 

[Anyhoo]

So then why write a bogus ransom note at all?

Why not write a note claiming to be a "small foreign faction" of Islamic terrorists claiming to have killed JonBenet in retaliation for some insidious American foreign policy?

It simply does not make any sense whatsoever to write a bogus ransom note if you are not going to get rid of the body. Did either of the Ramseys strike you as being irretrievably stupid?

Not that I am one of the many people here on the RDI bandwagon, but let me play devil's advocate and answer your question in an attempt to be logical.

First of all, finding the body in the house without a ransom note makes the Ramsey's appear much more guilty than if a ransom note had not been found. Do we agree on that? Without a ransom note, there are no other suspects for the police to even consider than the Ramseys. So, for the question of whether to write a ransom note or not, a devious mind that was trying to deflect guilt would think of something just like this.

Now, as to why the body was left in the house, that can be explained by two parents in panic late at night who were in a crisis and making a choice of what to do. Assume JBR was already dead at the time the ransom note was written. Also assume the parents have the plan, at the time the ransom note was written, of removing the body from the house. They plan to but for some reason do not. Maybe they are afraid of being seen doing it. Maybe they dread even touching her dead body. Whatever the case, they don't do it and decide to call the police in the morning.

You are correct that it does not make sense and is not logical, but emotional people who are frightened and in a panic and don't know what to do in a very unusual situation do not always behave logically. So they could have done it.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

If the count of your brain cells are higher than two and your knowledge of this case is an average (at the minimum!) then you should know:

- they don't have TIME to get rid of the body. The pilot was waiting to fly them out of city; oldest children were waiting to join them on vacation; friends have knowledge of their plans and any delays would raised suspicions.

Actually, they would have had plenty of time to dump the body miles away and been home in time for breakfast.

- they would never let the body to rot. The 'proper burial' was very important to Patsy (read ransom note!);

Actually, if they could crush their daughter's skull with a tire iron and strangle her with a garrote, they obviously did not give a whit about her in life. Therefore, they would not likely give a whit about her body in death, regardless of what the RN says.

- Ramsey were not the first and not the last people who used 'kidnapping' misdirection in homicide cases. See Smith case, see Anthony case, see S.Peterson case....dozens of them around the world...Last month, husband of famous Russian journalist had claimed that she was kidnapped for political reasons. Week later, LE found her dead mutilated body in the trunk of the car. Eventually, husband admitted that he killed her for personal reasons.

Now, I want you to think real hard about what is wrong with your analogy to this case and the examples you have cited. What critically important elements are missing in these examples which make them irrelevant to the present case?

So, please stop 'pushing' your hidden agenda or GO AWAY!!!!!

"Stop pushing my hidden agenda?" What hidden agenda would that be? And why do you want me to go away? Are you so insecure and unconfident of your position on this case that you cannot bear it being challenged? Is it really so important to you that the Ramseys Did It that you cannot withstand the slightest possibility that they did not? What would become of you if it turned out in the end that the Ramseys were indeed absolutely innocent? Has this case evolved into some sort of bizarre religion for you?

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Somewhere, a bunch of goats are running unchecked over a bridge.

:moo:

 

[dodie20]

John Ramsey on news of grand jury's vote to indict: 'Just more drama'

JonBenet's father tells People magazine parents were prepared to be arrested

In his first public remarks since the Daily Camera reported that a grand jury voted in 1999 to indict him and his wife for child abuse resulting in the death of his daughter JonBenet, John Ramsey was dismissive of the news in an interview with People magazine.

"It's just more drama," said Ramsey, 69, in the Feb. 11 edition, which appears on newsstands Friday.

The article is continued here.

If this is just more drama, ( how tiresome, right?), why didn't JR mention it in even one of his paid interviews? Maybe he'll mention it in his next book? or maybe it's so trivial, he'll forget all about it. Riiiight....

 

[Tadpole12]

Billy Goat's Gruff.
smile.

Hey Y'all.

I'm unable to watch the Levi Page show, was there anything of note?
http://www.spreecast.com/events/jonbenet-ramsey-case

 

[OpenMind4U]

"Stop pushing my hidden agenda?" What hidden agenda would that be? And why do you want me to go away? Are you so insecure and unconfident of your position on this case that you cannot bear it being challenged? Is it really so important to you that the Ramseys Did It that you cannot withstand the slightest possibility that they did not? What would become of you if it turned out in the end that the Ramseys were indeed absolutely innocent? Has this case evolved into some sort of bizarre religion for you?

Very simple. Because when you start posting on this forum, I thought you're intellegent (knowledgable about this case) individual. I like when apponent is challanging me. I even like when apponent proofs me wrong because it gives me the chance to learn something new, regardless RDI or IDI! But when you posted your burglary theory - it becomes clear to me that you DO NOT know this case at all!!! You are here to simply challange anyone who's remotely RDI. And it could means three things:
- you have a 'hidden' agenda or
- you're not intellegent (knowledgable about this case) or
- you're BOTH.

I believe you're BOTH!

In addition, you are rude and have no sense of humor....yuck...not my type at all!!!!!:great:

 

[ozazure]

A day late and a dollar short, catching up after listening to tricia's podcast and wow!

Must admit to enjoying the troll logic. The reality is whomever wrote that unkidnapping letter (cough*patsy*cough) had a purpose. If it was to gather ransom money as stated it failed. If it was to deflect blame for what would be discovered, well here we are, 16 years later with no official fingers pointed. I loved the analysis further back in the thread regarding the amount of the note dedicated to the kidnapping versus the never going to happen exchange. To me the note is a slam dunk that Patsy at a minimum was involved. John finding her body pushes his involvement/knowledge up past the 50/50 mark for me.

Does anyone else think that perhaps the Ramsey influence is running out? People get old, retire, John is 70 this year. How deep do loyalties run? He was at his peak 16 years ago. If he dragged peers into this, they are now at a similar life point. Their subordinates are taking the reigns.

 

[OpenMind4U]

Not that I am one of the many people here on the RDI bandwagon, but let me play devil's advocate and answer your question in an attempt to be logical.

First of all, finding the body in the house without a ransom note makes the Ramsey's appear much more guilty than if a ransom note had not been found. Do we agree on that? Without a ransom note, there are no other suspects for the police to even consider than the Ramseys. So, for the question of whether to write a ransom note or not, a devious mind that was trying to deflect guilt would think of something just like this.

Now, as to why the body was left in the house, that can be explained by two parents in panic late at night who were in a crisis and making a choice of what to do. Assume JBR was already dead at the time the ransom note was written. Also assume the parents have the plan, at the time the ransom note was written, of removing the body from the house. They plan to but for some reason do not. Maybe they are afraid of being seen doing it. Maybe they dread even touching her dead body. Whatever the case, they don't do it and decide to call the police in the morning.

You are correct that it does not make sense and is not logical, but emotional people who are frightened and in a panic and don't know what to do in a very unusual situation do not always behave logically. So they could have done it.

Anyhoo, I really-really like your logic and above explanation. I know that you're not on 'RDI bandwagon' which makes the above post even more valuable. It displays open minded, honest analysis. Thank you!!!

 

[eileenhawkeye]

A day late and a dollar short, catching up after listening to tricia's podcast and wow!

Must admit to enjoying the troll logic. The reality is whomever wrote that unkidnapping letter (cough*patsy*cough) had a purpose. If it was to gather ransom money as stated it failed. If it was to deflect blame for what would be discovered, well here we are, 16 years later with no official fingers pointed. I loved the analysis further back in the thread regarding the amount of the note dedicated to the kidnapping versus the never going to happen exchange. To me the note is a slam dunk that Patsy at a minimum was involved. John finding her body pushes his involvement/knowledge up past the 50/50 mark for me.

Does anyone else think that perhaps the Ramsey influence is running out? People get old, retire, John is 70 this year. How deep do loyalties run? He was at his peak 16 years ago. If he dragged peers into this, they are now at a similar life point. Their subordinates are taking the reigns.

IDK. I feel like those connections never die. For example, the person who will "replace" Hal Haddon is probably someone who has been working for Haddon for years, and therefore, someone John is very familiar with.

 

[OpenMind4U]

I agree with everything you wrote. I also think JR brought her up because little JB's body already smelled of decomposition. Maybe he felt it would make him seem less guilty to find her. My opinion only.

It's interesting discussion: why JR needs to 'find' JB and why he needs to bring her UPSTAIRS???

IMO, the plan was for LE to find the body INFRONT of all their friends so they can eyewitness their 'tragic-victim' situation. The ransom note wasn't written to buy time to get rid of the body. The ransom note was written to provide explanation to why it happens and to blame someone else - INTRUDER for their unfortunate loss. It's like a play in theater which needs the audence. Image and acceptance are very important for Ramsey! Remember Patsy's tone of voice when she said: Burke Ramsey didn't kill his sister!

Well, time is going on, LE is not in the house, no one is searching house properly to find the HIDDEN body. 7 long hours are passing by, their friends are tired, Patsy is waiting for culmination (she has rough night!).

....therefore, while Ramsey's friends/pastor/doctor are still here, John decides to finish this 'charade' (like someone said earlier on this forum). And he needs to do it INFRONT of everyone!

You would think that loving husband would hides such a 'finding' from the heart-broken histerical wife by not exposing her to such a mental crash....yes, the true loving husband woud never bring the dead body of a child for the mother to see without any kind of preparation ahead. At the minimum, he would hold her next to him for phisical and moral support.

Nothing like this happens. John brought JB upstairs for everyone to see. John and Patsy can finally grief. In their separate way. The plan is completed.

jmo

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Not that I am one of the many people here on the RDI bandwagon, but let me play devil's advocate and answer your question in an attempt to be logical.

First of all, finding the body in the house without a ransom note makes the Ramsey's appear much more guilty than if a ransom note had not been found. Do we agree on that?

No. Finding the body in the house, with or without a ransom note, makes the Ramsey's appear damningly suspicious. This should be more than obvious to you considering the fanatical devotion the RDI bandwagon has toward believing the Ramseys guilty.

What should also be obvious is the fact that putting JonBenet's body in the trunk of the car, driving to a wooded area, and dumping the body, would have been the most obvious way of avoiding accusation, with or without a ransom note, compared to leaving the body in the house.

Without a ransom note, there are no other suspects for the police to even consider than the Ramseys. So, for the question of whether to write a ransom note or not, a devious mind that was trying to deflect guilt would think of something just like this.

A devious mind trying to deflect guilt would have dumped the body miles away from the home, not in the wine cellar.

Do we agree on that?

Now, as to why the body was left in the house, that can be explained by two parents in panic late at night who were in a crisis and making a choice of what to do. Assume JBR was already dead at the time the ransom note was written. Also assume the parents have the plan, at the time the ransom note was written, of removing the body from the house. They plan to but for some reason do not. Maybe they are afraid of being seen doing it. Maybe they dread even touching her dead body. Whatever the case, they don't do it and decide to call the police in the morning.

Sorry, but what you are suggesting here sounds a whole lot like special pleading, and not sound objective analysis.

You are correct that it does not make sense and is not logical, but emotional people who are frightened and in a panic and don't know what to do in a very unusual situation do not always behave logically. So they could have done it.

Whoever killed JonBenet did so with extreme prejudice. The evidence of methodical overkill is undeniable and glaringly obvious. Therefore, the suggestion that the murderer was too "frightened and in panic" to think clearly enough to consider dumping the body miles away from the home strains credulity to say the very least.

Yes, they could have done it. The annals of crime history are rife with tales of murder and mayhem wherein just about any incredibly absurd crime imaginable is described. However, the fact that incredibly absurd murders do happen is not, and definitely should not, be the basis for criminal indictment, particularly against the bereaved parents of a brutally murdered child.

 

[Nom de plume]

From the horse mouth...who would know better about DRAMA than Ramsey themself??:great:

Horse's "mouth"? My you are generous. :floorlaugh:

 

[Nom de plume]

I've picked up on the anti-Ramsey bias here that you seem to be eluding to. I just want to state that the GJ voting to indict means nothing in and of itself. The motivation for that indictment could have been frustration or trying to use it improperly to try to wring more information out of the Ramseys. The bottom line is that the AG made the call not to indict and I believe he had a good reason for it. After examining all of the evidence, i believe he believed there was insufficient grounds for a conviction.

Anyhoo, what you refer to as "anti-Ramsey bias", the rest of us call common sense. If you list all the things that point to Ramsey guilt, and on another list all the things that point to an intruder, you will find a very long list pointing to Ramsey guilt, and the other list, well....it's just empty.

 

[Nom de plume]

I have seen the exemplars and there is CONSIDERABLE doubt that she wrote it.



Do we really need to get into this as if it were actually a fresh point of contention, and not a long dead issue?


"No BPD-Hired Experts Identified Patsy as RN Author. "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) [Emphasis added.]"

"Carnes Decision. "Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF P 196; PSMF P 196.) On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF P 203; PSMF P 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF P 204; PSMF P 204.) (Carnes 2003:26)."

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682496/Patsy Ramsey as RN Author

And then there is the Pennebaker analysis, etc.


The bottom line is that the weight of the evidence favors PR as NOT being the author of the RN.

Just so you know, I have no interest in revisiting this hackneyed topic so please refrain from bringing it up again unless you can provide something new and convincing.

As the evidence now stands, if you are absolutely convinced that PR wrote the RN then you are so through deliberate prejudicial will and not through sound objective reasoning. Indeed, common sense alone should inform you that the sheer length of the RN excludes both JR and PR for obvious reasons.

BBM A term you are obviously not familiar with.

 

[Landonsmom02]

So then why write a bogus ransom note at all?

Why not write a note claiming to be a "small foreign faction" of Islamic terrorists claiming to have killed JonBenet in retaliation for some insidious American foreign policy?

It simply does not make any sense whatsoever to write a bogus ransom note if you are not going to get rid of the body. Did either of the Ramseys strike you as being irretrievably stupid?

I haven't had time to read the entire thread so far, so sorry if this has been mentioned. IMO they panicked. The note was written as a distraction to LE. I don't think they ever intended on so many police to show up at their house. IMO their plan was to point the evidence away from them, fake a kidnapping and when the ransom call never came they thought the police would leave and keep a monitor on the phones then they could get rid of the body. When they knew this was going in a different direction then they had origanlly planned, JR decided he needed to "find" JBR. All IMO only

 

[Whaleshark]

Why a Ransom Note, despite there still being a body?

Well, let's just ask the Ramseys, shall we?:

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-ransomnote.htm

Michael Kane: "...Do you think or have you thought in the last year and a half that someone was trying to frame you for this?"

John Ramsey: "No. The thought crossed my mind, but I think that's the - I didn't give him credit for being that clever."

Michael Kane: "Why not?"

John Ramsey: "Because I think they have left too many clues. They left a ransom note...."

Michael Kane: "No, but I mean in the context of somebody trying to frame you?"

John Ramsey: "I think it's too much of a stretch. If I were going to do that, I wouldn't have handwritten the note, I would have typed it out...I would have done it on a word processor or on a - maybe I wouldn't have left a note at all."

Michael Kane: "Do you feel like if there was no note, the finger would point more to you or less to you? When I say you, I mean your family"

John Ramsey: Well...that was Patsy's reaction. She said 'Thank God they left a note,'

I said, 'What do you mean by that?' She said, 'Well, they left some evidence'...

So yeah, I mean I think if somebody was really trying to frame us, it could have been a lot more obvious... but the fact that, okay, maybe there is a few similarities in (Patsy's) writing, that's about it. I mean if somebody is trying to frame you, that's just too - that's too lucky."

Michael Kane: "....Were you surprised when there were similarities?"

John Ramsey: "Well, the way it was explained to us was that there were certain things that we all learned, when we learned how to write, that are kind of common and that's the kind of things that were there, apparently, in Patsy's samples that they just couldn't say totally exclude it."
___

Ed, in the Ramseys' own words: a ransom note pointed more AWAY from them, rather than to them.

End of discussion.