Is Patsy Ramsey losing her battle with ovarian cancer

[capps]

Thanks for your insight VOR.

What you say makes sense ... but I still don't like it. I guess I'm just waiting for a Perry Mason type of ending to this case ... but that just ain't gonna happen!

 

[BlueCrab]

Don't forget, what if the grand jury concluded that they thought Patsy did it, but there wasn't enough evidence to charge? Shouldn't they keep this under a gag order? Would we want the whole country saying "Patsy did it, but there isn't enough evidence to charge her?"

Voice of Reason,

The Ramsey grand jury had almost unlimited power to investigate the JonBenet Ramsey murder. They had their own hand-picked staff of professional investigators; they could ask any kind of questions they wanted and the witnesses (about 100 of them) had to answer truthfully or go to jail; and they investigated for 13 months. If that grand jury didn't solve this case then it will never be solved. I'm convinced they solved it.

When the grand jury adjourned permanently in October of 1999 it had three choices: indict someone; or not indict someone but provide a written report; or not indict someone and provide no report. The jurors did the latter -- no report.

When no report is issued by the grand jury the details are sealed by the court. IMO, the only reason they would do that in this case is because children too young to even be charged in juvenile court (under 10 years old) were involved in the crime. The jurors had no other choice. The nation had already strung up Patsy as the killer, so if the jurors had issued a written report it would have helped her, not made her look more suspicious. There was no evidence against Patsy; and if there was would someone please state what it was. I could never find any.

If the jurors had concluded that an intruder had killed JonBenet, then they would have definitely provided a written report.

IMO the grand jury solved it, but no indictment, plus no written report = children.

BlueCrab

 

[calus_3]

Well, I guess that I can be the bad guy here.....

I have no sympathy for Patsy. I firmly believe that if she didn't personally kill JonBenet, she covered up for whoever did. I can see wanting to protect whoever killed JB, but at the end of the day, you have to gain justice for little JB. Patsy didn't.

My feeling is that if Patsy goes to meet her maker's nemesis without a deathbed confession, this case will never be officially solved.

While it is certainly plausible that an intruder broke in and killed JB, it is completely insane to believe that he/she took the time to write such a cryptic and long ransom note for a child that was dead in the basement. Add the highly staged crime scene with hints that whoever staged it cared for her somewhat....aka the favorite night gown with her but not on her....and it is clear that someone in that house was responsible. IMHO Patsy may have not done it but certainly covered it up. Logic would dictate that it was either Burke or John. She covered for Burke because she thought it was an accident or John to avoid loosing her lavish lifestyle.

DRIP Patsy because you know what you did.

Cal

 

[lawman]

i`m a relative newbie to this case, however my opinion at the moment is the grand jury had almost no evidence involving patsy john or burke ramsey.almost all the evidence (that we know of for sure)appears to be that there was an intruder.why they did not write a report of their findings i have no idea, would of given a lot of people some peace of mind.

lawman

 

[GuruJosh]

My feeling is that if Patsy goes to meet her maker's nemesis without a deathbed confession, this case will never be officially solved.
Cal

Personally, no matter what happened, i cant see how anyone could NOT feel some real, profound sympathy for the Ramseys. Things arent black and white. I dont know what happened in this case but i bet it wasnt black and white.

 

[BlueCrab]

almost all the evidence (that we know of for sure)appears to be that there was an intruder.

lawman,

IMO there is no credible evidence of an intruder. Please be specific and state at least one item of credible evidence of an intruder and we'll discuss it. Thanks.

 

[Voice of Reason]

The Ramsey grand jury had almost unlimited power to investigate the JonBenet Ramsey murder. They had their own hand-picked staff of professional investigators; they could ask any kind of questions they wanted and the witnesses (about 100 of them) had to answer truthfully or go to jail; and they investigated for 13 months. If that grand jury didn't solve this case then it will never be solved. I'm convinced they solved it.

I agree that if the GJ couldn't indict, this case will probably never be solved. However, the GJ is not there to "solve" the crime. They are there to determine if charges can be filed.

When the grand jury adjourned permanently in October of 1999 it had three choices: indict someone; or not indict someone but provide a written report; or not indict someone and provide no report. The jurors did the latter -- no report.

When no report is issued by the grand jury the details are sealed by the court. IMO, the only reason they would do that in this case is because children too young to even be charged in juvenile court (under 10 years old) were involved in the crime.

This is far from unusual. Not every grand jury results in an indictment, and EVERY grand jury is secretive. Details are always sealed by the court, EVEN WITH AN INDICTMENT. Also, the report they COULD have issued would not go to you or me but to the DA's office. Where do you get the idea that they could not indict and issue a public report? I am well aware of your take on the GJ, and of course, it is your opinion, but don't make more than what is there. This is GJ 101...secret proceedings, files under seal...no big deal! I would think that if they concluded ANYTHING, they would have issued a report to the DA, but you think that a lack of a report shows a conclusion?

However, there is some evidence to point towards your conclusion, that you may or may not be aware of. The Supreme Court has offered a handful of reasons why GJ proceedings are to be kept secret, and most of them expire at the conclusion of the proceedings. Those have to do with protecting witness's from outside influence, insuring full disclosure, etc. However, the final reason, and perhaps, most significant in this case, is the idea that if no indictment is brought, innocent people should stay out of public scorn. BUT...and here's the kicker...oftentimes, the media can stand before the court at the conclusion of the proceedings and request that the transcript be released by the court. The argument the media must present is that the public has a good reason to see the proceedings. The best way to achieve this is when there has been wrongful prosecution or misconduct by police or elected officials. Well, the Ramseys have been screaming about the police and DA missteps since day one, so I would think that the Ramseys themselves might even want the transcript released. The public should have an interest as to what the police and DA did wrong, no? Is anyone aware of any attempts to unseal the record? But if that is not what was contained in the proceedings, and there was more damaging information, then you may be on to something, BlueCrab.

 

[calus_3]

Personally, no matter what happened, i cant see how anyone could NOT feel some real, profound sympathy for the Ramseys. Things arent black and white. I dont know what happened in this case but i bet it wasnt black and white.

Patsy wrote the note to cover up the murder of her daughter....NOT BLACK AND WHITE.

Cal

 

[Nikki]

Is there a period of time in the US that after a certain amount of years information can get released to the public? Such as Grand Jury information?
Nikki

 

[BlueCrab]

Is there a period of time in the US that after a certain amount of years information can get released to the public? Such as Grand Jury information?
Nikki

Nikki,

Grand jury information can be sealed forever, or at least as long as necessary to ensure that confidential information can't be used without authorization by the court.

Non-grand jury information, such as evidence, can be made public through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) so long as the crime is still not under investigation.

IMO the D.A.'s office is preventing information about the Ramsey case from being made public by falsely claiming the case is still under investigation. It isn't still under investigation because there's no money in Keenan-Lacy's budget for a Ramsey investigation and it's been over eight years since the crime occurred. I think a FOIA challenge, based on the public's right to know, would be successful.

BlueCrab

 

[Nehemiah]

Have there been any attempts to unseal the record, per Voice of Reason's post? I can't remember.

 

[BlueCrab]

Have there been any attempts to unseal the record, per Voice of Reason's post? I can't remember.

Nehemiah,

None that I know of. Any person, even if not a resident of Colorado, can apply to have a government record made public. In Colorado I think FOIA is called the Open Public Records Law.

Of course, there have been successful discovery attempts to obtain specific information from the D.A.'s files on the case -- such as The New York Post's obtaining of the records on Burke during the Ramsey v New York Post libel suit, but the info obtained couldn't be made public.

IMO it's about time to get most of the Ramsey case info made public. The investigation is OVER.

BlueCrab

 

[lawman]

bluecrab i was just looking at some of the evidence that came to light in the wolf/ramsey action, assuming that the ramsey side only released part of evidence of an intruder e.g fibres were found in jbr`s room ,on jbr, on the masking tape, material from the broken window area were found in the wine cellar. the original six handwriting experts had access to the original ransom note and original writings,their consensus was "patsy probably didn`t write the note" .also apparently there were a number of windows found open, plus at least one door,thats just some of the evidence.
so my belief is the gj would of thought this crime was perpetrated by an intruder.

lawman

 

[BlueCrab]

bluecrab i was just looking at some of the evidence that came to light in the wolf/ramsey action, assuming that the ramsey side only released part of evidence of an intruder e.g fibres were found in jbr`s room ,on jbr, on the masking tape, material from the broken window area were found in the wine cellar. the original six handwriting experts had access to the original ransom note and original writings,their consensus was "patsy probably didn`t write the note" .also apparently there were a number of windows found open, plus at least one door,thats just some of the evidence.
so my belief is the gj would of thought this crime was perpetrated by an intruder.

lawman

lawman,

If you're referring to the "evidence" that Judge Julie Carnes used in her opinion to order the Wolf v Ramsey case dismissed, please remember that Carnes used Lou Smit as the resource person for her "evidence". Smit is highly prejudicial in favor of the Ramseys. Also:

o The fiber evidence you note did not indicate the presence of an intruder any more than the presence of anyone else. In fact, there were fibers from Patsy's jacket entwined into the knot on the ligature around JonBenet's neck; and on the sticky side of the duct tape on JonBenet's mouth.

o The debris from the broken window could have been tracked into the wine cellar by anyone. The window had been broken for months.

o I too agree Patsy likely didn't write the RN, but a Ramsey was involved in the writing of the note because there was no need for an intruder to write a fake ransom note, trying to coverup what he had just done. Why would an intruder do that? It wouldn't make any sense. And why would an intruder spend hours writing a RN and staging the crime scene, and then not take the body out of the house when he left? That doesn't make any sense either.

o There were no open or unlocked windows or doors. That's a rumor. Please show a credible source for this information -- it doesn't exist. Patrol Sgt. Reichenbach inspected the exterior of the house at 6 AM that morning and everything was secure and in place, and there were no footprints in the fresh dusting of snow (which melted even before sun-up at 7:20 AM but which was still on the ground at 6 AM).

There's no credible evidence of an intruder.

BlueCrab

 

[Toltec]

Well John Ramsey said it best.....

"Perhaps Burke will talk about this case when he's 40."

JOHN AND PATSY WOULD BE DEAD BY THAT TIME.

HMMMMMM

 

[Voice of Reason]

There were no open or unlocked windows or doors. That's a rumor. Please show a credible source for this information -- it doesn't exist. Patrol Sgt. Reichenbach inspected the exterior of the house at 6 AM that morning and everything was secure and in place, and there were no footprints in the fresh dusting of snow (which melted even before sun-up at 7:20 AM but which was still on the ground at 6 AM).

"The Court draws the undisputed facts from "Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" ("SMF") and "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts" ("PSMF"), in which plaintiff does not dispute the overwhelming majority of defendants' factual allegations."

"In addition, at least seven windows and one door were found "open" n31 on the morning of December 26, 1997. (SMF P 126; PSMF P 126.)"

"n31 The term "open" was not defined. It is, therefore, not clear if the entrances were ajar or unlocked."

Those are two quotes from the opinion and a footnote. Interpret as you wish, but I'd say that's not a rumor. A lot of people leave windows unlocked, and the door may be the one INSIDE the garage, which is sort of irrelevant since the garage is closed. I'm not a proponent of the intruder theory myself, but I don't think it hurts to say that an intruder COULD have entered the Ramsey home.

 

[lawman]

thanks everyone

the point i was trying to make was that all this evidence plus very likely alot more ,the GJ would of known of.all that would be required is some reasonable probability that there was indeed an intruder to not be able to indict anybody.
this i believe is what happened.

lawman

 

[BlueCrab]

"The Court draws the undisputed facts from "Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" ("SMF") and "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts" ("PSMF"), in which plaintiff does not dispute the overwhelming majority of defendants' factual allegations."

"In addition, at least seven windows and one door were found "open" n31 on the morning of December 26, 1997. (SMF P 126; PSMF P 126.)"

"n31 The term "open" was not defined. It is, therefore, not clear if the entrances were ajar or unlocked."

Those are two quotes from the opinion and a footnote. Interpret as you wish, but I'd say that's not a rumor. A lot of people leave windows unlocked, and the door may be the one INSIDE the garage, which is sort of irrelevant since the garage is closed. I'm not a proponent of the intruder theory myself, but I don't think it hurts to say that an intruder COULD have entered the Ramsey home.

Voice of Reason,

Darnay Hoffman, Wolf's attorney in Wolf v Ramsey, was no match for Lin Wood and he gave up early on. The fact that Hoffman failed to even object to Wood's lies about open doors and windows does not make the lies true facts. Judge Carnes seized on these "undisputed material facts" and made it a part of her order dismissing the case, and that's what you are referring to.

John Ramsey himself admits he checked the inside of the house and there were no open or unlocked doors or windows. Sgt. Reichenbach checked the outside of the house and there was no evidence of forced entry nor any open doors or windows, and there were no footprints in the snow -- all of which Reichenbach testified to under oath in his affidavit.

BlueCrab

 

[Rainsong]

"Detectives believed John Ramsey when he said he thought all the windows and doors to the home were locked the night of Dec. 25, but an officer who subsequently checked the home found six windows and a door unlocked."
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/1221prob2.html

Rainsong

 

[Voice of Reason]

Voice of Reason,

Darnay Hoffman, Wolf's attorney in Wolf v Ramsey, was no match for Lin Wood and he gave up early on. The fact that Hoffman failed to even object to Wood's lies about open doors and windows does not make the lies true facts. Judge Carnes seized on these "undisputed material facts" and made it a part of her order dismissing the case, and that's what you are referring to.

John Ramsey himself admits he checked the inside of the house and there were no open or unlocked doors or windows. Sgt. Reichenbach checked the outside of the house and there was no evidence of forced entry nor any open doors or windows, and there were no footprints in the snow -- all of which Reichenbach testified to under oath in his affidavit.

BlueCrab

If that's the way you want to look at it, it's your prerogative. However, it's not good practice to continue wearing those colored glasses when analyzing this crime. Just because the windows were unlocked does not suggest an intruder. If this crime is ever going to be solved, ALL facts will have to be looked at. Not just the ones that work one way or the other, which seems to be the problem with BPD on the one hand, and Lou Smit on the other...