Judith Phillips wasn't present when the incident occurred.
What reason would she have to lie? There is no benefit to her to lie about Burke's temper, however, the Ramseys all have a benefit in portraying the incident as a innocent accident. It's the legal and psychological principle of "
Cui bono," or "Who benefits?" There's no benefit for Ms. Phillips to make a statement that would possibly incriminate a child if it weren't true. If you think it would be for money then she could get money merely by selling the photos and wouldn't have to become involved with the investigation, itself.
The charge was for covering up first degree murder. Burke was a minor who could not have been charged with first degree murder. The charges were against the parents. The evidence (fibers) recovered from the crime scene belonged to the parents.
As far as fiber evidence goes, the Supreme Court and many state courts have found the evidence to be flawed. The FBI, themselves, conducted a review of hair and fiber cases from before 2000 and found that 90% of the conclusions about the evidence were flawed. Now, on modern evidence collection forms, an important question is asked around trace evidence which reads: "Have the suspect(s) and victim(s) lived at the same residence or shared a common environment?" If the answer is yes, the evidence is given more scrutiny.
Source:
Flawed FBI hair, fiber analysis taint Wisconsin convictions
COUNT VII On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (alternately, Patricia Paugh 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.
Patsy rendered assistance to John and John rendered assistance to Patsy.
Here is the direct transcript between Jim Clemente, Laura Richards, and Colorado legal expert Lisa Polansky:
RICHARDS: So on or between December 25 and December 26, 1996, John Bennet Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously commit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child’s life or health which resulted in the death of JonBenét Ramsey. The other count was John Bennet 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 a person 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.
CLEMENTE: Does that mean that they’re charging John with assisting Patsy if she did it and they’re charging Patsy with assisting John if he did it?
LISA POLANSKY (“LISA”): It’s legally possible in the state of Colorado for John to be assisting Patsy, Patsy to be assisting John.
CLEMENTE: Wouldn’t they both then also be charged with the underlying crime, as opposed to just—
LISA: Yes. Normally, if they do an accessory charge which here is generally after the fact, it’s usually somebody else. My opinion would be that there’s a third person.
CLEMENTE: The only third person that’s left is Burke Ramsey.
Source:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w...CBS-Complaint-with-Exhibits-reduced-size.pdf; also, "The Case of JonBenet Ramsey" Hour Two
Page 12 of 108
82. On December 26, 1996, outside the presence of his parents and unknown to them, Burke was interviewed by Boulder PD Detective Fred Patterson who concluded that Burke did not have any idea or knowledge about what had happened to his sister.
Other members of law enforcement, including Jim Clemente, Laura Richards, and James Molar have interpreted Burke's interviews quite differently. The Boulder Police Department admitted at the first anniversary of JonBenet's death that investigators previously spoke with Burke only during a 'preliminary interview' on the day JonBenet's body was found." There was not a full and comprehensive interview that day, therefore, a detective really couldn't conclude that Burke didn't know what happened to his sister. (There's many reasons why the case was transferred to different investigators and it wasn't because the original detectives were doing a great job.) A later videotaped interview shows he did know and when he said she was stabbed, he actually made a motion that would be more common with a bludgeoning. This was noted by Clemente and Richards.
In '98 Patsy goes on and on about how weird it is to put a tea bag in a cup (or a glass) and how she can't remember ever doing such a thing. She also denies drinking hot tea, but thanks to Tom Trujillo pointing out that she was drinking tea in her '97 interview, we know that wasn't true.
It is weird to put a tea bag in a glass and regardless of whether or not Patsy drank tea, she wouldn't prepare tea like that. We have to remember who Patsy Ramsey was at her core: she was a pageant queen from the South that was still very much identifying herself that way despite being decades removed from that era. As a Miss West Virginia winner, she wasn't just expected to know how to wear a sash and crown. There were a number of etiquette classes taught to contestants that include proper table setting. If this were a random mother, sure, maybe in a hurry she put hot tea in a glass. But a former Miss West Virginia? Nope, that's not how she's made.
The housekeeper stated during an interview that Burke's fecal smearing occurred 3 years prior to the homicide when his mother was first diagnosed with cancer. The report of contents itemized taken from the Ramsey home on the night of the homicide does not mention smeared feces.
The itemized contents do not mention it, however, there are investigative reports which are not currently public that have been seen by law enforcement officers. James Kolar mentions it in his book,
"I had reviewed an investigator’s report that documented a 1997 interview with former Ramsey nanny – housekeeper Geraldine Vodicka, who stated that Burke had smeared feces on the walls of a bathroom during his mother’s first bout with cancer. She told investigators that Nedra Paugh, who was visiting the Ramsey home at the time, had directed her to clean up the mess.
"There were other police reports in the files that documented what I thought could be viewed as related behavior. CSIs had written about finding a pair of pajama bottoms in JonBenét’s bedroom that contained fecal material. They were too big for her and were thought to belong to Burke.
"Additionally, a box of candy located in her bedroom had also been observed to be smeared with feces. Both of these discoveries had been made during the processing of the crime scene during the execution of search warrants following the discovery of JonBenét’s body."
Other members of law enforcement that back up that report are Jim Clemente, Laura Richards, Steve Beckner, and Steve Thomas.
The homicide occurred in 1996.
I'm fully aware of when the homicide occurred. I'm also fully aware that there's a reason James Kolar was brought into the investigation in 2005 and 2006: simply put, the team who were immediately on the case had allowed the scene to become compromised, they were running into investigative road blocks, and they lacked experience working homicide cases. Their errors have been well reported.
Source:
A Look Inside the Mistakes in JonBenet Ramsey Investigation
In a radio interview, Kolar revealed that he thought John slept through the night. That left Patsy and Burke. Though there is physical evidence implicating Patsy, Kolar did not consider her capable of striking the head blow: "I just couldn't reconcile the fact that Patsy was, by all accounts, a loving and doting mother, and I had difficulty envisioning her ever brutalizing either of her children." So that left Burke who must now be implicated because he's the only one left.
CBS hyped it as them solving the case with some fine print at the end that it was just a theory and Spitz didn't actually say it was just an opinion. Like CBS, he presented it as if he had cracked the case. They made a ton of money doing this.
Sure, CBS made a lot of money. However, every other JonBenet Ramsey special that aired in 2016 around the anniversary made a lot of money and had record audience levels, including NBC, A&E, and ID's specials. The other specials didn't make the same assertions and they still made money. CBS and the experts didn't have to say that Burke was responsible to make money. However, CBS wasn't so convinced they would make a ton of money off of the special, evidenced by the special being scaled back to two episodes from the original three. CBS was also completely aware of how litigious the Ramseys have historically been and factored in the possibility of a lawsuit. Their attorneys are not dumb. They clearly felt the evidence provided was enough to make it worth airing. If it was mere speculation that couldn't be legally backed-up, they wouldn't have aired it.
Source:
Welcome | TheWrap
Statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/193411.pdf (page 3) in 1997, there were less than ten homicides by children 10 and under. Sibling killings are the least common type of domestic homicide (FBI stats) : Expanded Homicide Data. Parents kill their children all the time.
Using statistics to determine who in a residence definitely committed a crime is extremely problematic for obvious reasons. Men are also far more likely to kill than women, however, it would be faulty to entirely rule out Patsy Ramsey based on that statistic. That logic has been problematic in recent history in the case of Anthony Michael Sanders. The father was found guilty of killing his two-year-old daughter. However, his seven-year-old son, who was five at the time of the homicide, admitted to smothering the girl. Statistics would say that the father was guilty, but reality says differently. We also know that children are most likely to be killed by someone they have a relationship with, however, we also know that strangers do kill children, as well, such as in the case of Jessica Ridgeway. Can statistics be a guide? Sure, but only to the extent that they help police prioritize interviews and where to gather evidence. It should never be used as a basis for conviction or acquittal. It's simply not enough. The FBI has said, itself, that their data can lead to crimes and suspects being overlooked due to their statistical unlikelihood and that while a type of crime may happen less, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Source:
A father was cleared of killing his toddler — after his 7-year-old son confessed https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/aboutucrmain.pdf
Patsy's sweater-jacket fibers were found in direct association with elements of the crime. John's shirt was identified as the source of fibers inside the panty crotch of the panties JonBenet was wearing. Zero evidence from BR was recovered from JBR.
See my reply above regarding fiber evidence. Given that FBI has said that 90% of cases with trace evidence analyzed from this era were faulty and the Ramseys all lived in the same home, I don't give it much merit. Neither would the Supreme Court.
John staged a basement while his six year old daughter's broken body was feet away and another child was in the house. I think he should be brought to justice.
I agree, however, the Colorado statute of limitations for the crimes he was indicted for have long run out. Obviously, Patsy is dead and the counts she was indicted on also had the same time limitations for prosecution. There's no legal remedy to this crime left. There is seemingly no one still alive that can be charged with JonBenet's murder.
