If you look at it logically it's very clear who did it!

[Ponytale]

I think their extreme actions (or inactions) after hiring attorneys was because their lawyers most likely felt, or possibly even knew, that their clients were guilty. If that wasn't the case they would have both talked to police separately in an official interview with an attorney present, shortly after the death of Jonbenet. They would not need access to certain information that they shouldn't have been privy to or made certain demands for them to even talk to police in a sit down interview. It's possible that the family was innocent but I think if the attorneys truly believed that they wouldn't have gone to the extremes we saw in this case, by doing so they made their clients look guilty. It's possible the lawyers were wrong and the Ramsey's were completely innocent and could have (and probably should have) talked to police in an official interview with them present soon after her death. I know some might say that the attorney's were just doing their job but most attorney's don't go to these extremes. JMO

Yes. It would seem like the lawyers only job was to protect the Ramsey's from the LE. But why would the lawyers need to protect their clients from the LE? Advise them, yes. Consult, yes. Represent, yes. But protect, and to such an extent?

And to protect them from the LE who's goal is to find the intruder who invaded their home and murdered their daughter?

Wouldn't an attorney instead be needed to give their clients legal advice and guidance while cooperating, not prevent them from cooperating? Because the lawyers were preventing and stalling in this case, which are both counteractive measures. It sure does make me think too, that perhaps the Team Ramsey knew that they had no other way with this case then to go all in... IMO

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Yes, the shock and despair are expected emotions in traumatic situations and often require attendance, usually involving medications. There is nothing wrong with that.

But what is wrong is that a parent who's child has just been found murdered in their home would choose his/hers emotional state over cooperation and providing help to find the murderer of their child. IMO, that is rather unusual.

In situations where there has been a traumatic event and the parent is heavily medicated, they would usually still do anything that they can to help, cooperate and provide information. Medicated or not, an innocent parent would be desperate to find answers and justice for their child. The authorities are (and should be) the ones who then make notes of that parents emotional state. The authorities are the ones who should conclude if the parent is too sedated or under heavy medical influence that would/could alter the memories or statements, and make notes that they should not be interviewed in that time and state. A new appointment for an interview would be scheduled then by the LE and that would not take 4 months to happen.

The difference in this case is obvious. The police (or any other authority in that matter) did not have a chance to conclude that the Ramsey's both were actually for 4 months in such state that they were not able to answer any questions or be interviewed. It was a decision made not by the LE - it was made by the lawyers of the Ramsey's who gave that info to the LE, stating, that they were grieving parents who needed time to compose themselves and weren't in any state to be interviewed. It was not stated and confirmed by the BP, or any other party that had interest in solving the case at that time. We will never know if it actually was true that they were under such medical influence for a long period of time, or were they just taking time for themselves. IMO, it was the latter. Nevertheless, there is no reason why it should have taken 4 months.

We have seen many situations where a child has been kidnapped or killed. All the parents are initially shocked and in despair. None of them have hidden for months or even for weeks to cooperate - you see many of them on the news even the same day it happened, pleading out to the public to help them, regardless of their own emotional state.

I am still dumbfounded by the privilege that they were given in a murder case. How their attorneys were able to call the shots when they were suspects can only make one question who was insulating them from that which anyone else in the same situation would be pulled in and questioned including all the people they threw under the bus.
Think about that. How F'd up it was that every one they named got questioned but the Ramseys who had direct access to her, whose behavior was suspect, and who statistically was first in line to be looked at, didn't have to be questioned . How?

 

[CloudedTruth]

It's apparent that the Ramsey's did cooperate -- answered Arndt's questions, gave writing samples, and even in the days and weeks that followed, they cooperated through their attorneys.

I'm not sure why pulling out only the in-person interview four months later negates the rest of their cooperation. It just seems highly selective.


Formal or not, they cooperated.

It was only when their attorney stepped in that they allowed him to make the decisions.

BPD was out of control -- they'd already interrogated BR at Fernie's house earlier that day. That wasn't supposed to happen without the parents' permission, but it did.

The attorney was wise to take control of the situation because it was apparent early on that it was descending into a witch hunt.

JR and PR were parents of a murdered child, but they were never afforded the respect from LE that they should have received.

It is not apparent, not at all. The Ramseys claims of cooperation were greatly exaggerated. They said they were interviewed for 8 hours on the 26th. Police were in the house with them for many hours that day, much of which was spent looking for JBR. They are implying that they sat for interviews for that amount of time which is patently false. Why lie about it?

Interviewing a minor does not always require parental permission, unless that minor is under arrest. As a witness or victim of a crime, police may question a minor without parental permission. Priscilla White's sister (he was at the White's home, not the Fernie's) told Det. Patterson she was BR's grandmother. That's not "out of control" police, he accepted what he was told and thought he had the appropriate permission to ask some questions. And BR was not under arrest or a suspect of any crime at that point. So under Colorado law, there was nothing "out of control".

Mike Bynum had Haddon & Morgan in place by EOD on 12/26. Of course the parents were being looked at on the first day. It happened in their home while they were present. There were no obvious signs of an intruder, the investigation was in its infancy at that point. For police to immediately be able to conclude that the parents were not involved would not be good police work. That the Ramseys immediately started throwing around the accusation of being targeted was their excuse for lawyering up so quickly. Obtaining counsel at any point in a murder investigation is wise. But as with everything Ramsey, they made sure they made a big deal out of it to deflect away from themselves. The investigation needed to follow its course.

The Ramseys were treated like victims from moment one. Most people in their position would've been treated much differently by police who had orders from on high to treat them like victims instead of suspects. They should've been separated and interviewed on day one, but they were allowed to leave and go to a friend's home instead of being interrogated. The concessions given to the Ramseys were unprecedented. The horrible treatment was a narrative they pushed which in reality was not the case at all.

 

[GRT]

It is not apparent, not at all. The Ramseys claims of cooperation were greatly exaggerated. They said they were interviewed for 8 hours on the 26th. Police were in the house with them for many hours that day, much of which was spent looking for JBR. They are implying that they sat for interviews for that amount of time which is patently false. Why lie about it?

Interviewing a minor does not always require parental permission, unless that minor is under arrest. As a witness or victim of a crime, police may question a minor without parental permission. Priscilla White's sister (he was at the White's home, not the Fernie's) told Det. Patterson she was BR's grandmother. That's not "out of control" police, he accepted what he was told and thought he had the appropriate permission to ask some questions. And BR was not under arrest or a suspect of any crime at that point. So under Colorado law, there was nothing "out of control".

Mike Bynum had Haddon & Morgan in place by EOD on 12/26. Of course the parents were being looked at on the first day. It happened in their home while they were present. There were no obvious signs of an intruder, the investigation was in its infancy at that point. For police to immediately be able to conclude that the parents were not involved would not be good police work. That the Ramseys immediately started throwing around the accusation of being targeted was their excuse for lawyering up so quickly. Obtaining counsel at any point in a murder investigation is wise. But as with everything Ramsey, they made sure they made a big deal out of it to deflect away from themselves. The investigation needed to follow its course.

The Ramseys were treated like victims from moment one. Most people in their position would've been treated much differently by police who had orders from on high to treat them like victims instead of suspects. They should've been separated and interviewed on day one, but they were allowed to leave and go to a friend's home instead of being interrogated. The concessions given to the Ramseys were unprecedented. The horrible treatment was a narrative they pushed which in reality was not the case at all.

If the accusations about the Ramseys not cooperating were actually indicative of their guilt--they would have taken that stance from the moment they called 911.

But, they didn't. They answered the detective's questions, they handed over the notepad the RN had been written on, they produced handwriting samples on the spot and JR made several calls to raise the cash for the ransom. They were both fully invested in the idea that their daughter had been kidnapped.

I keep hearing the Ramseys started accusing their acquaintances, but that was also in response to LE. Patsy was asked point-blank if she could think of anyone who might kidnap JBR. She mentioned LHP, because her maid had made comments that JBR was so pretty, wasn't Patsy afraid she would be kidnapped? And LHP had just asked PR for money.

For the Ramseys, it's been a "dammed if they do, damned if they don't" scenario since day one. When they answer LE's questions about who might have been involved--they're horrible people trying to divert attention away from themselves and cast aspersions. But, when they don't answer LE's question -- they're not cooperating.

In reality, they did cooperate. Between the death and the April interview, they handed over many items, and they even met with Arndt and other detectives to write more handwriting samples in person so LE could watch them as they wrote. LE even made Patsy rewrite the ransom note, word for word until she broke down. Their attorneys were in constant contact with both parties.

Yet, that's the only thing some folks come up with -- they seem to forget all that happened between those two points in the case timeline.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

It is not apparent, not at all. The Ramseys claims of cooperation were greatly exaggerated. They said they were interviewed for 8 hours on the 26th. Police were in the house with them for many hours that day, much of which was spent looking for JBR. They are implying that they sat for interviews for that amount of time which is patently false. Why lie about it?

Interviewing a minor does not always require parental permission, unless that minor is under arrest. As a witness or victim of a crime, police may question a minor without parental permission. Priscilla White's sister (he was at the White's home, not the Fernie's) told Det. Patterson she was BR's grandmother. That's not "out of control" police, he accepted what he was told and thought he had the appropriate permission to ask some questions. And BR was not under arrest or a suspect of any crime at that point. So under Colorado law, there was nothing "out of control".

Mike Bynum had Haddon & Morgan in place by EOD on 12/26. Of course the parents were being looked at on the first day. It happened in their home while they were present. There were no obvious signs of an intruder, the investigation was in its infancy at that point. For police to immediately be able to conclude that the parents were not involved would not be good police work. That the Ramseys immediately started throwing around the accusation of being targeted was their excuse for lawyering up so quickly. Obtaining counsel at any point in a murder investigation is wise. But as with everything Ramsey, they made sure they made a big deal out of it to deflect away from themselves. The investigation needed to follow its course.

The Ramseys were treated like victims from moment one. Most people in their position would've been treated much differently by police who had orders from on high to treat them like victims instead of suspects. They should've been separated and interviewed on day one, but they were allowed to leave and go to a friend's home instead of being interrogated. The concessions given to the Ramseys were unprecedented. The horrible treatment was a narrative they pushed which in reality was not the case at all.

It's really mind boggling.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

If the accusations about the Ramseys not cooperating were actually indicative of their guilt--they would have taken that stance from the moment they called 911.

But, they didn't. They answered the detective's questions, they handed over the notepad the RN had been written on, they produced handwriting samples on the spot and JR made several calls to raise the cash for the ransom. They were both fully invested in the idea that their daughter had been kidnapped.

I keep hearing the Ramseys started accusing their acquaintances, but that was also in response to LE. Patsy was asked point-blank if she could think of anyone who might kidnap JBR. She mentioned LHP, because her maid had made comments that JBR was so pretty, wasn't Patsy afraid she would be kidnapped? And LHP had just asked PR for money.

For the Ramseys, it's been a "dammed if they do, damned if they don't" scenario since day one. When they answer LE's questions about who might have been involved--they're horrible people trying to divert attention away from themselves and cast aspersions. But, when they don't answer LE's question -- they're not cooperating.

In reality, they did cooperate. Between the death and the April interview, they handed over many items, and they even met with Arndt and other detectives to write more handwriting samples in person so LE could watch them as they wrote. LE even made Patsy rewrite the ransom note, word for word until she broke down. Their attorneys were in constant contact with both parties.

Yet, that's the only thing some folks come up with -- they seem to forget all that happened between those two points in the case timeline.

They weren't answering questions in as much as they were building a narrative. That started with the RN, then the 911 call. Throwing out info that helps build your story is NOT the same as going down to the station and being deposed.
So PR cried while writing the ransom note for LE. What part made her cry? The part that said she will be beheaded if you call all your friends and neighbors over to the home?
Whether guilty or innocent would you expect her not to cry? Should we feel sorry for aiding in the investigation of her bludgeoned, strangled, and SAd little child that happened in her home?
The Ramseys were educated people who read crime novels for entertainment. They were aware of the need to eliminate themselves and to not slow down the investigation if they really wanted answers. They were intelligent educated people when it served them and and lacked common basic knowledge when they found it more helpful in shielding themselves.

 

[GRT]

They weren't answering questions in as much as they were building a narrative. That started with the RN, then the 911 call. Throwing out info that helps build your story is NOT the same as going down to the station and being deposed.

That's only if you believe they wrote the ransom note.

I don't.

So PR cried while writing the ransom note for LE. What part made her cry? The part that said she will be beheaded if you call all your friends and neighbors over to the home?

I find it heartbreaking to think any mother would not be emotionally destroyed by having to rewrite that note. Five times.

Whether guilty or innocent would you expect her not to cry? Should we feel sorry for aiding in the investigation of her bludgeoned, strangled, and SAd little child that happened in her home?
The Ramseys were educated people who read crime novels for entertainment.

And here we all are -- posting on true crime forums for entertainment. That doesn't make us killers. And reading crime novels doesn't make someone a killer either.

They were aware of the need to eliminate themselves and to not slow down the investigation if they really wanted answers. They were intelligent educated people when it served them and and lacked common basic knowledge when they found it more helpful in shielding themselves.

There's literally no evidence to back up this conspiracy theory.

 

[Gigiky]

I do believe they wrote the RN. JMO.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I do believe they wrote the RN. JMO.

PR's personality, tendency towards drama, etc. is all over the ransom note. The personal references, the movie quotes. It literally screams that PR was the author IMO.

 

[CloudedTruth]

They weren't answering questions in as much as they were building a narrative. That started with the RN, then the 911 call. Throwing out info that helps build your story is NOT the same as going down to the station and being deposed.
So PR cried while writing the ransom note for LE. What part made her cry? The part that said she will be beheaded if you call all your friends and neighbors over to the home?
Whether guilty or innocent would you expect her not to cry? Should we feel sorry for aiding in the investigation of her bludgeoned, strangled, and SAd little child that happened in her home?
The Ramseys were educated people who read crime novels for entertainment. They were aware of the need to eliminate themselves and to not slow down the investigation if they really wanted answers. They were intelligent educated people when it served them and and lacked common basic knowledge when they found it more helpful in shielding themselves.

Yep.

They had hired a PR team within two days of the murder who then orchestrated the media circus at the memorial service in Boulder. Hiring lawyers I understand. But a public relations team?? Who does that at all, let alone almost immediately. That's a clear indication of building a narrative.

 

[CrimeTheorist]

Patsy said herself that they weren't suspects.

March 27 2000

KING: Before we get into the story, to be a suspect and live with the death of a child as a suspect as well, you -- how do you get through that?

P. RAMSEY: Well, first of all, we have never been deemed suspects.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I am still dumbfounded by the privilege that they were given in a murder case. How their attorneys were able to call the shots when they were suspects can only make one question who was insulating them from that which anyone else in the same situation would be pulled in and questioned including all the people they threw under the bus.
Think about that. How F'd up it was that every one they named got questioned but the Ramseys who had direct access to her, whose behavior was suspect, and who statistically was first in line to be looked at, didn't have to be questioned . How?

Exactly. To continue to put forth that they were unfairly targeted and treated badly is ignoring the truth. And the truth is they were given unprecedented concessions and special treatment. It's plainly evident and obvious that the DA's office was being led by the defense attorneys. They turned over investigative files and evidence to the defense which they had no business doing. Why? The DA's office was complicit in ensuring that the Ramseys were protected and would never be charged. Everything was rigged in the Ramsey's favor.

 

[Bekind89]

That's only if you believe they wrote the ransom note.

I don't.


I find it heartbreaking to think any mother would not be emotionally destroyed by having to rewrite that note. Five times.



And here we all are -- posting on true crime forums for entertainment. That doesn't make us killers. And reading crime novels doesn't make someone a killer either.



There's literally no evidence to back up this conspiracy theory.

Are you JR? Seriously.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

That's only if you believe they wrote the ransom note.

I don't.


I find it heartbreaking to think any mother would not be emotionally destroyed by having to rewrite that note. Five times.



And here we all are -- posting on true crime forums for entertainment. That doesn't make us killers. And reading crime novels doesn't make someone a killer either.



There's literally no evidence to back up this conspiracy theory.

Quoting me out of context when my comment is available for all to read is just the type of maneuver that made the Ramseys lack credibility. You took half of what I wrote and spun it into something else. Feels familiar.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Are you JR? Seriously.

They must not participate in any of the online polls... That ransom note reads like a parody of a ransom note. My son could have written a more convincing RN at 13.

 

[Bekind89]

They must not participate in any of the online polls... That ransom note reads like a parody of a ransom note. My son could have written a more convincing RN at 13.

That RN seemed to be all about John. Pretty narcissistic imo. Jmo.
Does anyone else often wonder how many Ramsey supporters may actually be paid to do this?
JR certainly isn't above doing this.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Quoting me out of context when my comment is available for all to read is just the type of maneuver that made the Ramseys lack credibility. You took half of what I wrote and spun it into something else. Feels familiar.

Well said. Thank you.

This poster did the same to me earlier. Posting partial quotes changes the context so that it can be manipulated. And that is exactly why the Ramseys lack credibility. It’s deceptive.

 

[Bekind89]

Well said. Thank you.

This poster did the same to me earlier. Posting partial quotes changes the context so that it can be manipulated. And that is exactly why the Ramseys lack credibility. It’s deceptive.

I agree and I saw that.

 

[Ponytale]

Well said. Thank you.

This poster did the same to me earlier. Posting partial quotes changes the context so that it can be manipulated. And that is exactly why the Ramseys lack credibility. It’s deceptive.

Thank you for pointing that out!
I have done that too, unknowingly that it is not allowed or may be taken offensively by fellow posters. I really did not know that. I would like to point out that I only did that because I saw that it is sometimes better to answer to smaller portions of text (quote a smaller portion of the text and reply directly to that portion only), than to quote the whole post and answer underneath it.
But I will not do it anymore now that I know that things can be misunderstood or misread by that action.

 

[Zodiac_Speaking]

Thank you for pointing that out!
I have done that too, unknowingly that it is not allowed or may be taken offensively by fellow posters. I really did not know that. I would like to point out that I only did that because I saw that it is sometimes better to answer to smaller portions of text (quote a smaller portion of the text and reply directly to that portion only), than to quote the whole post and answer underneath it.
But I will not do it anymore now that I know that things can be misunderstood or misread by that action.

Just my opinion but I don't think using the smaller portion of a post to directly address what anyone might want to address is a big deal. I think the key thing is to be sincere in a response and not deliberately try to "twist" the words into something that was never meant in the first place. To be clear, YOU do not do that, Ponytale. I've never seen you do that.

I enjoy reading your posts because even when you might disagree on something - your sincerity comes through crystal clear.