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

[4Wren6]

Patsy had gone through stage 4 ovarian cancer and chemo for years. That in itself could cause some psychological issues with the kids. Feelings of confusion, fear, their mother being sick and their father working a lot. They had Nannie’s and house keepers to help. Seems like it would be normal for the kids to have some sleeping issues or toileting issues or any kind of issues for that matter. There would have been times where patsy was sick in bed for days on end. I think the bed wetting and toileting issues possibly stem from the traumas of seeing their mother go through cancer at their young ages. Patsy had cancer for most of jonbenets life.

Absolutely as I said earlier when kids feel they don’t have control of other areas in their life they will often seek to control one of two areas: what goes in and what comes out. I’ve seen this many times.
But one example that comes to mind is a brother and sister I had in school (preschool age). He had major issues with food and she with toileting. Their mom was going thru treatment for brain cancer.

 

[GRT]

Yes they were unethical too but one could forgive them because they were the ones being hunted and slandered by the media, the police and the general public. They still are to this day even though they’ve never been charged and were given a public apology snd exoneration.

JR stated that he and Patsy expected to have tons of funds roll in once they announced the foundation, and I think they were surprised when the donations didn't roll in.

And then I think they became angry because they were not afforded the respect other parents receive when a child is murdered. I think it took a huge emotional toll -- even perhaps contributing to the return of Patsy's cancer. How can a person have a positive outlook when they're overwhelmed with grief?

When they set up the foundation -- they publicly said the the money would be used for their legal fees and for child safety initiatives.

So, I don't think paying their own fees was unethical--they said they would do that.

But I think the optics are questionable. Then again, I think the Ramseys really didn't have a good grasp on optics in general. I don't think they even considered that others might look down on child beauty pageants and on allowing adult male acquaintances to attend to the toileting tasks of a six-year-old little girl.

 

[GRT]

Patsy had gone through stage 4 ovarian cancer and chemo for years. That in itself could cause some psychological issues with the kids. Feelings of confusion, fear, their mother being sick and their father working a lot. They had Nannie’s and house keepers to help. Seems like it would be normal for the kids to have some sleeping issues or toileting issues or any kind of issues for that matter. There would have been times where patsy was sick in bed for days on end. I think the bed wetting and toileting issues possibly stem from the traumas of seeing their mother go through cancer at their young ages. Patsy had cancer for most of jonbenets life.

I agree. This is a very likely scenario.

 

[OneLove]

If the coroner got it right, yes, that does indicate (MOO) that the murder might very likely have been pre-planned.

In other words, no one staged the strangulation to divert attention away from a family member if the events happened almost at the same time.

Once again, I circle back to FDI. Of course, it still could be IDI, but we know breaking in and out of the house—and being able to navigate the rooms and all the layout—would be challenging.

So, I'm right back to looking for someone with keys, prior knowledge of the house, and the Ramsey's personal information ($118,000 bonus).

To be fair, FW wasn't the only one with keys to Ramsey's house, but his intimate interaction with JBR's toileting raises a red flag for me.

All MOO

I agree that FW's business with JBR's toileting was, uhm, odd. (But i also think JBR's toileting difficulties *at that age* were odd too) But the Ramseys and the others in their social set seemed to think it was legit. She spent the night there often and apparently no one batted an eye about this (unfortunately imo) Let's just postulate that FW's business with JBR's private parts was indeed funny business, it seems pretty far fetched that he would break into their house and do to JBR what we know was done to her. Graduating from private bathroom moments of "just a little bit" of abuse ((sorry, I just can't get over that was actually said about PR's sexual abuse)) straight to breaking in, using a paint brush to diddle her heehaw, then brutally murder her seems like a gargantuan leap for him to make.

Could you paint us a more complete plausible picture of how this could have played out and why? I struggle with seeing this. (In any event, I do tend toward believing JR used FW by casting suspicion his way, yes.)

 

[SteveS]

Source: 20/20, The List: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey? (January 15, 2021)
Grand juror Jonathan Webb
Jonathan Webb: My name is Jonathan Webb. I was a grand juror on the JonBenet Ramsey case.
Jami Floyd: Webb told us that the grand jury spent most of their time focused on two main issues. First, who wrote that ransom note.
Jonathan Webb: We heard from three handwriting experts, and even though the handwriting experts couldn't definitively say that she wrote it, they all three came to the same conclusion that it could have been Patsy Ramsey. And the grand jury believed that she wrote it.
Jami Floyd: The second focus for this grand jury, according to Jonathan Webb, was the viability of the intruder theory.
Amy Robach: Smit actually presented his intruder theory to the grand jury. [clip of Smit] But the grand jury wasn't buying the intruder theory because of those cobwebs in the window.
Jonathan Webb: The intruder theory didn't make sense to the grand jury. The Boulder Police had photographed cobwebs, so for someone to get through a small opening like that and not disturbing a cobweb would be remarkable.

Thank you. None of that is in the 20/20 show afaik. I think one of these emerged in 2021, the other is new recently, and it references podcasts (so based on info) from the year 2020? That's what the sites seem to indicate.

FWIW yes, I did look for other videos myself before ever asking you. If either of these was posted here previously, I missed it and had no idea to think it was here somewhere. But now you finally have provided a source, so thanks.

While the majority of those videos are comments by other people and not the juror, he does speak on camera in one of them (and his voice is in another). That's what I wanted to see. Although it's a sparse amount of direct source info, it's helpful to know a bit of what the GJ thought.

 

[Ponytale]

Thank you. None of that is in the 20/20 show afaik. I think one of these emerged in 2021, the other is new recently, and it references podcasts (so based on info) from the year 2020? That's what the sites seem to indicate.

FWIW yes, I did look for other videos myself before ever asking you. If either of these was posted here previously, I missed it and had no idea to think it was here somewhere. But now you finally have provided a source, so thanks.

While the majority of those videos are comments by other people and not the juror, he does speak on camera in one of them (and his voice is in another). That's what I wanted to see. Although it's a sparse amount of direct source info, it's helpful to know a bit of what the GJ thought.

I also looked and found the correct video that I was referring to in my initial post. In there are more snippets from the interview with the Grand Juror found on more parts of the video.

 

[Slebby]

I just googled “JonBenét Ramsey grand jury member YouTube” and presto! Several versions of basically the same interview, 20/20, from 2016.

(Edit to add: at least I think the same clip from 20/20 appeared across different clips I skimmed, didn’t have time to vet them and I’m not speaking to their truth or quality, just that they exist!)

SteveS - this is my comment from yesterday.
It was an easy google search.
What I linked is the 20/20. The same search yielded a bunch of other YouTube clips, some had footage from the 20/20 interview.
I decided not to post them because knowing the propensity for people to get attacked here, I did not want there to be any hint that I was supportive of the somewhat junky/hokey YouTube presentations (True Crime Rocket Scientist??)

There is indeed video of a GJ named Webb who initially appears blurred out, with voice altered. Later, for reasons I don’t know, his name and face are revealed.
Respectfully, in the time it takes to repeatedly demand a link, a google search yields easy results.
Bowing out….

 

[Ponytale]

I decided not to post them because knowing the propensity for people to get attacked here, I did not want there to be any hint that I was supportive of the somewhat junky/hokey YouTube presentations (True Crime Rocket Scientist??)

Yes, and that is exactly why I never wrote in my post that I found a new video that everyone should watch, but only wrote about the part regarding the Grand Juror and what he had said in that video. If there would have been an separate video of only the Grand Juror himself seen and spoken, I would have posted the link with my post. I have not yet found one. Edited: There appears to be one in the opened link of my previous post that refers to the transcript of the video.

There are many of us here with different views and opinions. I respect that. But purposely posting material that stirs up different emotions and results in confrontations is not needed, and I like to stay away from that. IMO

 

[SteveS]

SLEBBY Yes I found the 20/20 show fairly easily and reviewed it carefully. I didn't find the others, despite running multiple google searches, and they had additional juror comments provided at a later date or two. In that context, isn't it fair to ask for "where did you get that" and expect that they would be able to offer an easy reply? And to wonder why you don't get a reply to multiple requests? Now I'm being dogpiled for asking? Sheesh.

Let's move on.

Yes the TCRS guy has lots of content but it's mostly his personal "Ramsey-did-it" spin with a sentence or two by a juror as clickbait.

Having now seen all that the grand juror apparently said, as sparse as it is, it seems to me we have his (and perhaps their) overview of the case.

Most telling to me is their view of the handwriting, in which the experts (supported by multiple other sources) are saying "It probably isn't Patsy, but we can't completely say it isn't, it could have been perhaps" - landing at 4.5 of 5 on ruling her out for sure, with 5 being a definite no. So they were almost sure she WASN'T the writer. And then the jury decided they were better experts than the experts, and decided yes it's definitely Patsy who wrote it. The clear fallacy is that handwriting analysis is wayyyyyyyy harder than it looks, and the non-experts decided they knew better than those who had the training to figure out.

That tells me a lot about the grand jury.

As to the bigger picture and the GJ, I think the DNA evidence we have now would have made a difference in how the GJ saw things, but they had little to nothing of what has come to light in that area. It's insightful that they say they didn't see any relevance in what little they had (and we don't know how much was really presented). But now there's a lot of DNA that fits together pointing to outsiders -- it's probably giving 2 people (though it could be more, possibly), neither of the 2 apparent persons' DNA is in a single isolated spot, and it's hard to rule out an outsider in light of that because we know it's definitely NOT from anyone on the inside.

The DNA gives me hope. It can be a solution since it is possible they will be able to isolate and find a match on one or both, and see how that person could have happened to leave that DNA. Databases of offenders and of familial DNA grow every day. The most likely answer is that if they find the DNA, it will be the killers.

 

[AddieBoo]

Exactly! Plus add a powerful team of lawyers who would stop at nothing.

Agree. Ramsey was CEO of Lockheed Martin affiliate. Lockheed was in 200 million. That deal had just happened. Just a few years prior Lockheed paid JR 8 million for AG.
Lockheed was trying to sell the whole lot with the worst possible PR problem. IMO no way they were going under. And the resources of LM? The kind of power you never will hear about….
IMO LM was calling the shots. They are far more sophisticated. And .., one of the largest employers in the state of Colorado. Their lawyers are into all areas of Ramsey case…

 

[AddieBoo]

What we know is that Dr. Meyer alerted DPS of the circumstances of the murder of JonBenet. They then sought the interview with Burke. The Ramseys made some demands, namely that police not be involved, but there was the possibility of Burke being removed from the home if they did not comply. Dr. Suzanne Bernhard conducted the interview, with police and I think a Ramsey attorney watching from behind a one way mirror. Dr. Bernhard had some concerns and wanted another interview. That was apparently denied. It’s anyone’s guess as to why no further interviews happened. Despite their loud and constant claims of mistreatment, the Ramseys were treated with kid gloves.

Thanks for the timeline.
Just… unbelievable…
I had read Dr Bernhard’s concern for additional sessions-
Then after the scathing indictments -
IMO this needs further research - if that even exists.
Another reason for Alex Hunter to keep the indictments sealed…

 

[AddieBoo]

SLEBBY Yes I found the 20/20 show fairly easily and reviewed it carefully. I didn't find the others, despite running multiple google searches, and they had additional juror comments provided at a later date or two. In that context, isn't it fair to ask for "where did you get that" and expect that they would be able to offer an easy reply? And to wonder why you don't get a reply to multiple requests? Now I'm being dogpiled for asking? Sheesh.

Let's move on.

Yes the TCRS guy has lots of content but it's mostly his personal "Ramsey-did-it" spin with a sentence or two by a juror as clickbait.

Having now seen all that the grand juror apparently said, as sparse as it is, it seems to me we have his (and perhaps their) overview of the case.

Most telling to me is their view of the handwriting, in which the experts (supported by multiple other sources) are saying "It probably isn't Patsy, but we can't completely say it isn't, it could have been perhaps" - landing at 4.5 of 5 on ruling her out for sure, with 5 being a definite no. So they were almost sure she WASN'T the writer. And then the jury decided they were better experts than the experts, and decided yes it's definitely Patsy who wrote it. The clear fallacy is that handwriting analysis is wayyyyyyyy harder than it looks, and the non-experts decided they knew better than those who had the training to figure out.

That tells me a lot about the grand jury.

As to the bigger picture and the GJ, I think the DNA evidence we have now would have made a difference in how the GJ saw things, but they had little to nothing of what has come to light in that area. It's insightful that they say they didn't see any relevance in what little they had (and we don't know how much was really presented). But now there's a lot of DNA that fits together pointing to outsiders -- it's probably giving 2 people (though it could be more, possibly), neither of the 2 apparent persons' DNA is in a single isolated spot, and it's hard to rule out an outsider in light of that because we know it's definitely NOT from anyone on the inside.

The DNA gives me hope. It can be a solution since it is possible they will be able to isolate and find a match on one or both, and see how that person could have happened to leave that DNA. Databases of offenders and of familial DNA grow every day. The most likely answer is that if they find the DNA, it will be the killers.

Regarding that RN -
I just read it imagining Patsy screaming at John..,instead of a directive to John from the “kidnappers”
Different perspective entirely.
MOO

 

[GRT]

Yes, and that is exactly why I never wrote in my post that I found a new video that everyone should watch, but only wrote about the part regarding the Grand Juror and what he had said in that video. If there would have been an separate video of only the Grand Juror himself seen and spoken, I would have posted the link with my post. I have not yet found one.

RSBM

There are a few other quotes from jurors, but they're hard to find. Maybe because the jurors aren't supposed to discuss their time on a grand jury until charges are filed, although who would go after them?

I understand it -- this is from the Globe in 2006, but I can't find that link. Now, it's on Imgur:

 

[CloudedTruth]

Agree. Ramsey was CEO of Lockheed Martin affiliate. Lockheed was in 200 million. That deal had just happened. Just a few years prior Lockheed paid JR 8 million for AG.
Lockheed was trying to sell the whole lot with the worst possible PR problem. IMO no way they were going under. And the resources of LM? The kind of power you never will hear about….
IMO LM was calling the shots. They are far more sophisticated. And .., one of the largest employers in the state of Colorado. Their lawyers are into all areas of Ramsey case…

It may have been a combination of LM executives and their lawyers along with the assembled Ramsey team of powerhouse lawyers and the PR team that was hired almost immediately.

The Ramseys seemed to be much more interested in controlling the narrative than they were in solving the case. They harped on the incompetence of the police department, which admittedly was an issue. That said, it also felt from moment one that the police were handling the Ramseys with kid gloves. They extended for whatever reason, a shocking amount of grace and latitude towards the Ramseys which was the exact opposite of the accusations against them, which is that they were targeting the Ramseys. They should have been marched straight down to the police station, separated and interviewed. Instead they were allowed to grieve on their own terms, immediately lawyered up and hired a PR team and refused to sit down with police for 4 months, which cost the investigation precious time. During this time the PR team was busy casting aspersions on the police and putting out the narrative that the family was being unfairly treated, unfairly targeted. The DA's office did its own number in leaking negatives about the police department, refusing to act on requested subpoenas, allowing Ramsey attorneys unprecedented access to investigative materials and previous statements that had been made.

One can argue who it was that was really running the show here, but it wasn't the DA / prosecution. He was taking orders from someone and doing his best to ensure the Ramseys were protected at every turn.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I agree that FW's business with JBR's toileting was, uhm, odd. (But i also think JBR's toileting difficulties *at that age* were odd too) But the Ramseys and the others in their social set seemed to think it was legit. She spent the night there often and apparently no one batted an eye about this (unfortunately imo) Let's just postulate that FW's business with JBR's private parts was indeed funny business, it seems pretty far fetched that he would break into their house and do to JBR what we know was done to her. Graduating from private bathroom moments of "just a little bit" of abuse ((sorry, I just can't get over that was actually said about PR's sexual abuse)) straight to breaking in, using a paint brush to diddle her heehaw, then brutally murder her seems like a gargantuan leap for him to make.

Could you paint us a more complete plausible picture of how this could have played out and why? I struggle with seeing this. (In any event, I do tend toward believing JR used FW by casting suspicion his way, yes.)

JB did not spend the night at the White's often. I'm not even sure that she ever did. It was one of things noted, that Burke had a much larger circle of friends than JB ever did, and that there were plenty of sleepovers with those friends.

IIRC, Daphne White had slept over at the Ramseys with JB a few times, but that was never reciprocated. I am not aware that JB ever had a sleepover at anyone's house. Perhaps that was because of the bedwetting issues, we don't know that for a fact.

I'm not in any way condoning the fact that FW assisted JB with toileting, nor do I think it was normal. But the Ramseys seemed to not think it was abnormal at all. They did nothing to discourage it. The appearance is that they found it easier to let others do some of their parenting duties for them, especially when they were partying and in social situations. The fact that her toileting and bedwetting issues had gotten to the point that they had, and that they had gone on for such an extended period of time is a giant red flag to me. Why was it not being taken more seriously? Nedra said that they did have concerns, but what actions were being taken? Between them and Dr. Beuf it feels like it was all just being swept under the rug.

I think the Ramseys were lazy when it came to parenting. And they put Fleet White in an uncomfortable position. And they apparently took no action with discussing with JB the inappropriateness of hollering for anyone to come wipe her bum.

 

[CloudedTruth]

JR stated that he and Patsy expected to have tons of funds roll in once they announced the foundation, and I think they were surprised when the donations didn't roll in.

And then I think they became angry because they were not afforded the respect other parents receive when a child is murdered. I think it took a huge emotional toll -- even perhaps contributing to the return of Patsy's cancer. How can a person have a positive outlook when they're overwhelmed with grief?

When they set up the foundation -- they publicly said the the money would be used for their legal fees and for child safety initiatives.

So, I don't think paying their own fees was unethical--they said they would do that.

But I think the optics are questionable. Then again, I think the Ramseys really didn't have a good grasp on optics in general. I don't think they even considered that others might look down on child beauty pageants and on allowing adult male acquaintances to attend to the toileting tasks of a six-year-old little girl.

John also stated that the main source of funding for the foundation was going to come from lawsuits filed against tabloids and the media. There were no plans for traditional fundraising. Huh? How do you expect to raise funds without actively fundraising? Wishful thinking? And your stated mission for generating money is to sue people?

The optics were definitely questionable. And you're right, this was an issue from day one that the Ramseys did not seem to grasp......the optics that they generated themselves. They were completely tone deaf to how they were perceived, how their interviews came across. And it wasn't limited to the child beauty pageants, it was their demeanor overall with regard to everything. Arrogant, above it all, privileged and defensive about everything.

John was / is an experienced businessman and entrepreneur. He knew to surround himself with accomplished experts and people who helped him grow his business and protect his interests. Why didn't he do that with the foundation?

It's in stark contrast with for example, the foundation set up by Mark Klaas and his ex-wife in honor of their daughter Polly. These were people who did not have resources the Ramseys did, and yet they established a foundation that operated for years and managed to do a lot of good with regard to preventing crimes agains children, assisting with the recovery of missing children and lobbying for legislation and legislative assistance.

The JonBenet Ramsey Children's Foundation could have done a lot of good if they had even tried to implement the goals that were stated when they founded it. They squandered a wonderful opportunity to help other at risk children and make a difference in the name of their daughter. The one contribution that was made in the name of the foundation that got publicity was when they were asked about what contributions had been made, what initiatives had been implemented, etc. Patsy spoke about in on camera having been pointedly asked. Turns out the contribution was only made after they were forced to speak on camera about what the foundation was doing. Not long after they very quietly closed it down.

 

[CloudedTruth]

The coroner knew what really happened. It’s in his autopsy report. There was no brain swelling. He said the strangulation and blow to the head happened simultaneously.

Actually, Dr. Meyer was uncertain about the strangulation and head blow. After consulting several experts to examine the autopsy findings, most agreed that the blow to the head came first, followed by the strangulation which could have occurred 45 minutes (or even longer) later. Dr. Henry Lee's estimate was at least 15 minutes after the head blow.

 

[Zodiac_Speaking]

I've read through the past several pages and felt the urge to chime in. One thing that has struck me is what more than one "police person" (IE: Police, Detective, Ex FBI) has said..... and it has stuck with me. One of those people is Jim Clemente on a podcast somewhere that I'll never find again but when pressed on "Who" - he would not even comment as the Ramseys have sued him once already.

The best the interviewer could get out of him was this: (Paraphrased) "It's the only crime before or since like this. Not another case in the world is like this."

I've heard that before and it was NOT Jim Clemente who said it - thus - "more than one" police person has said it. I can't cite that either. Sorry, but I'm not lying.

So..... I think that in itself is a big clue - without being a clue. It was said with a hint of "glee" - like "You've got to be kidding me..." type thing..... Never before or since.

Now, as I have stated elsewhere and someone else stated here: NOTHING MAKES SENSE!!! You go round and round in circles with the evidence. If you believe John did it - there is circumstantial evidence to point you in that direction.
If you think Patsy did it - there is circumstantial evidence to point you in that direction.
If you think Burke did it - there is circumstantial evidence to point you in that direction.
If you think an intruder did it it - you know the drill by now....

My firm belief is that while the Ramseys may not have actually killed her - they ABSOLUTELY WERE INVOLVED - the crime scene was ABSOLUTELY STAGED - and the fact that the "evidence" takes you wherever your mind wants to take you is ABSOLUTELY BY DESIGN..... exactly!! NOTHING MAKES SENSE - *THAT* is the clue.....

Now you can start asking yourself questions like: "How do you get away with the perfect murder from day 1" - "How do you have the perfect answer for every question from day 1 to avoid the words 'you're under arrest'...?"

How??? I believe the 911 call was NOT the first call made - and that, in fact, John called at least one, perhaps several extremely powerful people who all had a stake in seeing the Ramseys walk free.... Financial? Sure. Political? Almost certainly. (image)

As I stated elsewhere - the police must have eventually come to this same conclusion: They had help - who did they call before 911? Phone records were requested - The Ramseys fought it. Months and months later when the records were finally produced, Johns cell phone records for the month of December were completely blank. Not 1 call.

And that is why more than one police person has said "This is the only case like this in the world. Hasn't happened before or since." - And they say it with such a "wink , wink" voice that you are lead to believe - "Yeah, sure." I'm not buying it at all -- (the police) -- but at the same time, they have no case. Truly astonishing in a murder case. You can't pull that off without extremely powerful help from the outside. My opinion only - that's exactly what happened.

Gut feeling???? JonBenet was being paraded around in front of a bunch of pedos, the parents knew it, maybe even participated in SA but they absolutely "knew" who was doing what .... and someone wanted a "Christmas gift" so to speak and things got way out of hand. As sick and twisted as this will sound - I kinda secretly wonder if the oversized "size 12" panties was actually meant for Burke. Very sick. But the whole crime is.

 

[Lautreamont]

But not if the law enforcement (lawyers and why not even the DA himself) are telling you to stop investigating that child. It all comes down to power in this case, and CPS has no power over that.

Yes, in a normal case it wouldn't be shrugged off, but this case has been proven to be nothing like a normal murder case of a random 6-year-old.

Laws vary from state to state but based on my 28 years of experience in the field I can tell you CPS works hand in hand with law enforcement. Law enforcement takes the lead when investigating dual jurisdiction cases and will request that CPS not interview someone until they are able to interview them, but after that CPS can proceed. They don't have the authority to tell CPS to stop their investigation. If during their investigation law enorcement finds evidence that someone in the home committed a violent crime, or that a parent is not protecting the children from a violent perpetrator they are required by law to report that information to CPS themselves and don't have the authority to tell CPS that children are not to be removed from parents.

 

[Lautreamont]

I'm glad to hear in your state there is better oversight than state where I was a social service worker in the 1980s. I think most have seen certain stories of certain cps failures that ended in terrible tragedies. I can tell you that one 13 year old child I had was returned to her alcoholic daddy mentally ill mother home where she continued to be routinely sexually abused by her uncle every weekend until she was pregnant at 14. Another 5th grade boy sleeping in partial car bodies in his home's junkyard full of garbage bags and whiskey bottles because he couldn't stand the screams of his 11 year old sister being raped by drunk daddy trying to build an income stream via baby mill. When she became pregnant and *only* after a dna test proved daddy to be the father did they remove HER from the home (temporarily) but not him. I still remember their names, I still remember their faces, some 35 years later. True that Colorado probably has much better child protective services, even back then, than the poorest deep southern states. I can say with great assurance that in my state even today, were a child murder to happen wherein it was thought an intruder did it and the parents were well off and the kids well taken care of and NO CHARGES WERE FILED against the parents, no, cps would most assuredly NOT be intrusive and thorough in its involvement in the placement of the children. I imagine even cps in Boulder backed off after that one interview after which the Ramseys blatantly refused another.

Things have changed a lot since the 1980s. How CPS operated 40 years ago is a lot different than modern day CPS in many respects. A big part of that is American society has become a lot more litigious over these past decades which has required an improvement in the quality of the investigations and documentation to avoid lawsuits. CPS can only take action to remove children in a case like this when there is evidence that the person that committed the crime has access to the remaining children because they live in the home or that the parents are not protective.