Father says DNA could solve one of country’s biggest murder mysteries: Who killed JonBenét Ramsey

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Very different levels of evidence. Even the interviewed Grand Juror agreed that the case didn't have the evidence to win at trial - and that is from a prosecution controlled Grand Jury.

As prosecutor Morrissey said, probable cause is not enough to go to trial.



They only signed off on four, two for each parents. There are no unreleased signed charges, the remaining 14 didn't reach probable cause.



If this case goes to trial, the Ramseys will be acquitted. And then double jeopardy guarantees they can never be tried again.

Evidence first, trial later.

I don’t necessarily disagree here @FergusMcDuck …. sadly….. But in the next to last paragraph, mention was made that ‘the Ramseys will be acquitted.’

Not necessarily disagreeing with that statement either, unfortunately IMO. Except that, IIUC, there is essentially only one Ramsey that could or remains that could be tried? One has since passed. And as discussed at length up one of the many JBR threads, because of age, the son could not be tried in a court IIRC for any events that might have occurred? MOO

 

[GRT]

"On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly, and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, 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," Count VII states.

That only states the Ramsey's "assisted" the person who murdered JBR.

That person was Fleet White.

MOO

 

[FergusMcDuck]

As a RDI yourself, do you actually believe that? Why?

Not your fault, but I do detest those cutest acronyms. It really makes it seem like some team sport. But I don't believe a member of the family killed JonBenet. I believe someone entered the house and killed her.

They haven't cooperated since the day it happened, not since 2003. They had every chance to cooperate and let the BPD prove their guilt, but simply just chose not to.

Untrue. They cooperated a lot in the early days, giving blood and hair samples, multiple writing samples, etc. it was the interviews that dragged out, but that was largely due to their position as unofficial suspects, which was clear to everyone. Their family and friends were never stopped by the Ramseys or themselves from being interviewed.

Are you saying that we should not let police prove the guilt?

I'm saying that getting legal representation and being mindful of one's rights does not mean one doesn't want the murder of one's daughter solved. If the Ramseys are innocent and go to prison due to being railroaded by an unchecked one-track-minded police force, the killer goes free, likely forever. That's not justice for JonBenet.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

I don’t necessarily disagree here @FergusMcDuck …. sadly….. But in the next to last paragraph, mention was made that ‘the Ramseys will be acquitted.’

Not necessarily disagreeing with that statement either, unfortunately IMO. Except that, IIUC, there is essentially only one Ramsey that could or remains that could be tried? One has since passed. And as discussed at length up one of the many JBR threads, because of age, the son could not be tried in a court IIRC for any events that might have occurred? MOO

Sure, put John in there and it still checks out. They don't have a string case against the Ramseys and even a Grand Jury's member - who has seen "all the evidence" as we're so often told - said the case wouldn't prevail at trial.

 

[SweetDreamsAreMadeOfCheez]

That only states the Ramsey's "assisted" the person who murdered JBR.

That person was Fleet White.

MOO

What leads you to believe FW killed JBR over say Stine, Fernie, or even the housekeeper and her husband?

 

[SweetDreamsAreMadeOfCheez]

Not your fault, but I do detest those cutest acronyms. It really makes it seem like some team sport. But I don't believe a member of the family killed JonBenet. I believe someone entered the house and killed her.



Untrue. They cooperated a lot in the early days, giving blood and hair samples, multiple writing samples, etc. it was the interviews that dragged out, but that was largely due to their position as unofficial suspects, which was clear to everyone. Their family and friends were never stopped by the Ramseys or themselves from being interviewed.



I'm saying that getting legal representation and being mindful of one's rights does not mean one doesn't want the murder of one's daughter solved. If the Ramseys are innocent and go to prison due to being railroaded by an unchecked one-track-minded police force, the killer goes free, likely forever. That's not justice for JonBenet.

Do you believe it was someone the family knew? Or do you think total stranger? I don't think I've seen you say either way, but I have seen some assume you mean stranger.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Do you believe it was someone the family knew? Or do you think total stranger? I don't think I've seen you say either way, but I have seen some assume you mean stranger.

I think it was a stranger to them. It might be someone they could remember having seen around, or even spoken to at some point, but I don't think they knew him. On the other hand, I suspect he had a parasocial relationship with them, with his focus on JonBenet and seeing John as his main obstacle.

 

[FMB]

Sure, put John in there and it still checks out. They don't have a string case against the Ramseys and even a Grand Jury's member - who has seen "all the evidence" as we're so often told - said the case wouldn't prevail at trial.

The "anonymous" grand juror does not speak for all the grand jurors and again its speculation as to whether or not the Ramsey"s would have been convicted had charges been brought against them . More evidence could have been put forth during a trial, someone could crack and confess etc etc

This " anonymous " grand juror voted to indict as did his fellow grand jurors. Again if the GJ thought there was no probable cause and that they had a weak case they simply would have returned a No Bill.

Listening to the interview this Grand Juror states that had the case gone to trial there would have been no conviction and would have been a waste of taxpayers money which seems suspicious to me ....why if you are pursuing justice for a murdered little girl would you be worried about taxpayer money?

I cant imagine how the 12 jurors and 4 alternates felt after dedicating 13 months of their lives reviewing evidence and hearing testimony, touring the residence and returning a True Bill to indict the Ramsey's only to see the DA fold and not bring charges.

 

[Tower]

The "anonymous" grand juror does not speak for all the grand jurors and again its speculation as to whether or not the Ramsey"s would have been convicted had charges been brought against them . More evidence could have been put forth during a trial, someone could crack and confess etc etc

This " anonymous " grand juror voted to indict as did his fellow grand jurors. Again if the GJ thought there was no probable cause and that they had a weak case they simply would have returned a No Bill.

Listening to the interview this Grand Juror states that had the case gone to trial there would have been no conviction and would have been a waste of taxpayers money which seems suspicious to me ....why if you are pursuing justice for a murdered little girl would you be worried about taxpayer money?

I cant imagine how the 12 jurors and 4 alternates felt after dedicating 13 months of their lives reviewing evidence and hearing testimony, touring the residence and returning a True Bill to indict the Ramsey's only to see the DA fold and not bring charges.

If the case had gone to trial, there would be no murder conviction because the Ramseys were not charged with murder. I will not believe justice is served for JonBenét until we have proof of who murdered her, and a conviction if they are still alive. I believe that’s impossible at this stage, but I do wish all possible DNA would be tested.

 

[CloudedTruth]

That only states the Ramsey's "assisted" the person who murdered JBR.

That person was Fleet White.

MOO

I quoted because the GJ did in fact link to murder. It's there in B&W.

You're entitled to your opinion as to the perpetrator.

 

[ShadyLady]

I really hope that they have not found a legal (or not legal) way to override it and have their way again, like so many times before...
But I do see that this is the card that John is playing while going around and talking about testing the DNA again. It would be absolutely why he would do it - get the DNA, test it, "prove" (falsly, by my opinion) that the match is found and dead and get the case closed. Ramsey's, in their opinion, are "cleared" and walk free.
Or if BPD will not hand over the DNA, John can just go on saying publicly that the BPD refuses to cooperate with them and do additional testing that they have asked for.
I just hope that BPD acts smart here.

So now JR gets to travel around the country like a celebrity signing his book and making money off the death of his child? We live in a crazy world.
Why not just live a quiet life?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

The "anonymous" grand juror does not speak for all the grand jurors and again its speculation as to whether or not the Ramsey"s would have been convicted had charges been brought against them . More evidence could have been put forth during a trial, someone could crack and confess etc etc

No one has said otherwise. I don't believe it's a coincidence that those who speak - grand jurors, prosecutors - agree with Hunter's decision or at the very least understand it. Bringing a case where you don't have evidence beyond reasonable doubt to trial in the vain hope that something might shake loose is a certain path to double jeopardy town. By not indicating, Hunter preserved the case so that it could be prosecuted if new evidence was found. That it hasn't isn't Hunter's fault, but (in my opinion) the obvious consequence of the Ramseys being innocent.

This " anonymous " grand juror voted to indict as did his fellow grand jurors. Again if the GJ thought there was no probable cause and that they had a weak case they simply would have returned a No Bill.

Indict on four out of eighteen charges, and not on any murder charge IS a weak case. And as everyone involved repeatedly point out, the burden of evidence is much lower for a Grand Jury.

Listening to the interview this Grand Juror states that had the case gone to trial there would have been no conviction and would have been a waste of taxpayers money which seems suspicious to me ....why if you are pursuing justice for a murdered little girl would you be worried about taxpayer money?

Because if you prosecute a case you can't win just to satisfy public opinion, you absolutely are wasting taxpayers' money, not to mention the victim's chance for justice.

I cant imagine how the 12 jurors and 4 alternates felt after dedicating 13 months of their lives reviewing evidence and hearing testimony, touring the residence and returning a True Bill to indict the Ramsey's only to see the DA fold and not bring charges.

Probably like the one we've heard from. That they understand why he did so.

 

[GRT]

I quoted because the GJ did in fact link to murder. It's there in B&W.

You're entitled to your opinion as to the perpetrator.

The GJ does mention "murder in the first degree," but only indicts the Ramseys on "accessory." Not murder.

 

[GRT]

So now JR gets to travel around the country like a celebrity signing his book and making money off the death of his child? We live in a crazy world.
Why not just live a quiet life?

If he were guilty -- that's very likely what he would do -- live a very quiet life.

 

[Ponytale]

Not your fault, but I do detest those cutest acronyms. It really makes it seem like some team sport. But I don't believe a member of the family killed JonBenet. I believe someone entered the house and killed her.

Sorry, my mistake then. I somehow thought that you did think it was someone in the family.
I agree and I'm not a fan of those acronyms either, but I understand why people use them. Now that I started commenting here, I, somehow quite unnoticeably, just started using them.

 

[GRT]

What leads you to believe FW killed JBR over say Stine, Fernie, or even the housekeeper and her husband?

A few reasons.

• FW had the keys to the Ramsey's home, so there would be no sign of a break-in.
• FW changed JBR's panties and (according to some here, I didn't read it) even wiped her after she used the bathroom.
• FW was in the basement room where she was found before JR found her body--FW was all throughout the basement. Yet he says the body was not there when he looked.
• FW ran up the stairs and hollered "Call 911" but he knew law enforcement was already up there. That was odd to yell.
• FW went back downstairs after JR carried her body up, and he picked up the duct tape that had been on her mouth and put it on the blanket that was left on the basement floor. Then, he picked up glass shards from the broken window and put them on the sill. He did those things after the officer upstairs told him to guard the door to the basement so no one would go there. Did he know that his fingerprints might be on the tape/glass shards, so he said he touched them after the fact?
• Then, there's his freaky behavior toward his house hosts in Georgia. That was beyond the pale and signifies he was nearing a breakdown. MOO
• Yes, the BPD did say he wasn't a suspect (they didn't actually "clear" him), but that was in response to his weird letter to the editor and his threats to sue the police department.
• Then there's the ransom note. Fleet would likely know JR's bonus amount because they were best friends and (until the murder) shared virtually everything. Additionally, the flailing syntax in the ransom note isn't a whole lot different from the syntax in Fleet's letter to the editor.
• And why did he sue to have his own GJ testimony released? Did he think just because he told his story under oath that it was proof of honesty?

John Ramsey has indicated that he thinks his child's killer was among his "inner circle" of friends.

When you have friends like FW -- who needs enemies?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Sorry, my mistake then. I somehow thought that you did think it was someone in the family.
I agree and I'm not a fan of those acronyms either, but I understand why people use them. Now that I started commenting here, I, somehow quite unnoticeably, just started using them.

Yeah, I don't hold it against anyone using them (unless they actually do act like they're team supporters). It's just a major pet peeve of mine.

 

[AddieBoo]

Before JR made his statement, the situation was a stalemate, but a balanced one.

JR was living with his latest wife, BR had a job, maybe a family or not (the internet is mute on this topic), but it has been tacitly admitted, it seems, that the case has been messed up beyond any imagination, and the public would never know the truth and has to accept this fact.

No one would start a case against a person who was a nine-year-old kid with a disability when his sister was killed. JR hImself is an 81-year-old man who, after many tribulations, is living comfortably. Years have shown that he is able to deal with whatever complex emotions the death of JBR might have evoked.

No one is threatening him, in other words.

Why does he need to open the case? He is a logical person - why even drag attention to it? It is not going to make his remaining years any calmer.

I am bouncing between the following:

- there will be nothing truly new to be found, but with all the hoopla, articles, maybe another book or even a lawsuit, money can be made. JR is old, retired and few doubt that were it not for this case, he'd be a much more financially successful. So, it could be that simple. Some financial considerations.

- it could be so that he truly cares about Burke and his future. Whatever we feel about JR, he is not a man who lets "his own" down. Could he, with all his cold logic, care about BR? Especially if it is not "BDI" case, for example? And JR should know?

What else could be his motive?

John Bennet Ramsey.
Just keep in mind that here is a man who publicly stated the real crime was how he was being prosecuted (paraphrased)
Here is a man who authored a book about the murder of his six year old child titled it:”Death of Innocence” but that title referred to him not the death of his innocent six year old daughter.
John Ramsey is a world class narcissist. IMO. World class.

 

[AddieBoo]

Sure, put John in there and it still checks out. They don't have a string case against the Ramseys and even a Grand Jury's member - who has seen "all the evidence" as we're so often told - said the case wouldn't prevail at trial.

The Grand Jury could have issued “no true bill”
They did not. Instead they issued the most serious of charges in connection with murder in the first degree to John and Patsy Ramsey.
That is public record,

 

[AddieBoo]

The indictments are irrelevant. Guilt or innocence is not determined by a Grand Jury and thus the Ramseys are innocent - as they have not been proven guilty.

A statement
“The indictments are irrelevant”
Is a rather large statement that says much more than the weight of its words.
That is saying those jurors who spent 13 months combing over testimony and evidence are “irrelevant” The witnesses were “irrelevant” The pursuit of justice is “irrelevant”
That Grand Jury could have issued “no true bills”
But they didn’t. They issued four damming indictments, two each, to John and Patsy Ramsey holding them responsible for the murder of their six year old child. That is public record.
MOO