The Grand Jury

[JMO8778]

rashomon,

You may be correct, particularly if it can be shown that the size-12's were not stained by osmosis?

Given Patsy's explanation regarding JonBenet and the size-12's I suspect it was her that placed them upon her?

Remember that stuff about the blood stains not matching to her underwear?

Was a prior sexual assault being cleaned up here?

.

UK,why would you think that? It was JR's shirt fibers found in that area,and he would be more likely to have put the oversized underwear on her.But perhaps those fibers got there as her carried her to the basement,if she was not fully dressed at that time?? I kind of doubt that though..I think the most important factors here are that 1- JR's fibers are found in that region and 2-she was WIPED down (to remove dna evidence,IMO) and 3-CLEAN underwear replaced her MISSING size 6's,saying Wed. at that.That further removes any dna evidence of his.But IMO,that does not mean that JR killed her,but it implies a sexual assault on her by him sometime prior to her death that night.It could have been bf he went to bed,then he goes on up to bed,and Patsy comes in sometime later and something occurs then.Later he wipes her down and changes her underwear, to remove any trace of his prior assault.

 

[JMO8778]

I agree. She could have still been alive, but unconscious when she was wiped down and the clean undies were put on her. At that point, all they had on their minds, was removing evidence. I believe that she was obviously still alive, although I don't believe that her parents thought so, when the paintbrush was inserted. She bled, they had second thoughts, so the cleaned her up and placed the clean undies on her. AFTER that, IMO...came the garotting, which finished her off..so to speak. And THAT is when the postmortem release happened. That's why the long johns were overlooked...there was no urine on them at the time of the wiping down. I believe that they were so concerned with removing evidence that would point to them, fingerprints..etc...that they forgot the soiled pants in JB's bedroom. They probably didn't even go back into her room, after taking her down to the basement....they were too concerned with wiping her down, and wiping the flashlight down, and writing a RN. They probably didn't give those pants on the floor of her room, a second thought, because actually even though it had to do with soiling....it had nothing to do with Steve Thomas' theory. Bedwetting, and soiling the pants during the day, are two different things. Patsy got angry because she was tired, had to get up early the next morning, and JB WET THE BED....AGAIN. That wouldn't have anything to do with soiled pants on the bedroom floor...IMO..and thats why they weren't even given a second thought. And they could have been soiled not because she pooped in them, but..because she just didn't know how to wipe very well. And besides, they thought that they had their tracks covered, so why would would anyone have even suspected a bedwetting incident causing Patsy's rage that killed JB....when they had a RN, saying that an intruder did it?

I think they didn't give her room a second thought either.They said it was a bedtime abduction,yet her bed was not arranged as if she'd been sleeping in it.her pillow was at the other end of her bed.it doesn't appear she even made it to bed,although maybe she did and her sheets were washed and changed later.I think beyond that,her room wasn't given a second thought.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

seems they were in one of the 1/2 wrapped packages and Patsy lied bc she didn't want anyone to know that...so she said they were for someone else,but JB wanted them,so she kept them aside for her till she got older.

I agree 100%. I think those bigger undies were wrapped, and Patsy (or JR) fished them out to dress JB in and then lied, lied, lied when questioned about it. It's easy to lie when the person who would know you're lying is dead and can't contradict you.

 

[JMO8778]

Ames,

Yes it is one of those subtle aspects of the case, that until you accept that the parents accounts were inconsistent and at times contradictory, that does all that rhetoric about not being able to find her pajama bottoms, which were under her pillow all the time, make sense.

One implication is was JonBenet wearing her black velvet pants when killed, and were these then removed?

Is it possible that matters are actually reversed, that JonBenet dressed in her barbie-gown, size-6 underwear and no socks, was the victim of a sexual assault?

So what's the big deal regarding her size-6's that they have to vanish? It cannot be a toilet incident since her longjohns and size-12's are urine-stained, and there is those soiled pants lying on her bathroom floor, items you may wish to also be excluded so to hide any consideration of a toilet incident, also why highlight this as an issue by redressing her in longjohns, why not simply redress her in her barbie-gown or pajamas from the outset?

This whole Toilet Incident theory is I reckon, a red herring, its like the intruder theory, sounds good, and seems to explain much, but on closer examination, it really does not match up with the forensic evidence.

It looks to me as if JonBenet was being sexually assaulted, then semi-asphyxiated, then whacked on the head, then cleaned up, then redressed.

imo the longjohns, the size-12's, and the white blankets were deliberately added to hide the fact that she had been sexually assaulted, otherwise just what is the rationale for redressing her in longjohns?


.

good points UK,and I think it was Dee who also made a good point...they were CLEAN.that was the key to it...perhaps even all of these items had been washed that night,prior to placing them on her so that no R dna would be found on her.Now,while they are waiting on them to get washed and dried,JB goes into rigor and her arms are unable to be placed anywhere other than where they were when death occured,so they had to be tied above her,just where they were when JR 'found' her at 1pm.

 

[JMO8778]

OMG, I didn't realize that the pj bottoms were under her pillow!!!!!!! I thought that it was just a gown or something. HMMM...now that IS strange. She said that she couldn't find any to put on her...duhhhh..and you know that she probably had more than one pair.

I think the longjohn's were clean,straight from the dryer(along with the blanket and barbie gown, which stuck to the blanket,and all were likely washed at the same time),and were placed on her instead of the pj bottoms so as to hide any R's dna evidence that might be on them.

You know, I have often wondered that myself. And what doesn't make sense...I mean...ANOTHER thing that doesn't make sense, is....IF Patsy actually DID change her into long johns, then why didn't she change her shirt too? They both acted like they just didn't want to wake her up, well...then...why change anything at all? Just let her sleep in the clothes that she wore to the Whites. Why put on those skin tight long johns, and not change the shirt too? (I mean IF she ever went to bed that night)..

this is where I have to agree w/ UK in that there was a sexual assault...her top was ignored,but her bottom area was wiped down and redressed only in CLEAN (and NEW) items,so as to rid of any R DNA.perhaps since she wore the top to the White's,that was left on her in order to point to anyone whom she may have came into contact with there,even if it was innocent contact?

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

mmm, this is the Patsy is confused and panicking defense. If the toileting incident is over the discovery of the soiled size-6's, then why bother cleaning JonBenet up, and redressing her in those outrageous size-12's, both draw attention immediately to the toileting aspect?

UKGuy,

I don't see your point. If JonBenet was cleaned up after the soiling incident and put in clean underwear, then this directs attention away from a toileting incident. And if JonBenet was lying on the floor or bed when the oversized Bloomies were put on her, Patsy may not have realized how large they were since JonBenet was not standing.

e.g. so JonBenet is clean but her soiled underwear is left lying on the bathroom floor, why do that, why leave direct evidence lying about?

I don't think what was found on the bathroom floor was the underwear fromm the soiling incident on that fatal night.
It was underwear in a pair of jeans turned inside out, so JB probably left them on the floor before getting dressed to the Whites' party. The underwear was also not fully soiled, only showed some signs of JonBenet not having done a god job after wiping herself.

There were no size-12's recovered from the bathroom drawer.

And that's pretty significant, isn't it? Where was the rest of the size 12-14 set? The police could not find it in their house search. Imo Patsy hid it. I think she clandestinely wanted to exchange the soiled size 4-6 Wednesday panties with this other Wednesday pair.

In two separate independent examples, but both critical to a toileting incident, urine and soiled underwear were simply ignored, not so the blood and semen/blood stained size-6's, or her blood smeared crotch and thighs?

This suggests it is a sexual assault that is being hidden not a toilet incident?

It has been brought up countless times here that the urine both on the underwear and on the longjohns was probably from post-mortem release.
I believe that Patsy originally did want to stage a sexual scene but could not bring herself to inflict more than one small wound. She also could not bring herself to display the body like in a realistic sexual predator scenario, which is why JB was later redressed.

jmo

 

[Albert18]

I don't see any need to remove JonBenet's original underwear from the house. The only things that would be on the underwear are urine, feces, and/or JonBenet's blood. Urine and blood are on the next pair so they sure weren't a problem. And JonBenet's urine and blood on her underwear aren't a problem, just like the stager thought. I assume feces were a problem though. I assume the cleaning of JonBenet was done because of the "undoing" Solace posted about. Patsy didn't want her beauty queen found in a soiled condition.

What baffles me is the oversized replacement underwear. Patsy did that for some reason. I think we have trouble rationalizing her decision because she made a mistake. The mistake was so big, we can't follow her thought process.

She could have used the large underwear because she thought if an intruder put clean underwear on JonBenet, it would look odd if the intruder used underwear knowingly belonging to JonBenet. The large underwear was the only new underwear in the house. Maybe she was trying to imply the intruder brought new underwear to the crime(This happens a lot???). Is that why the rest of the package disappeared? But an intruder puts on a Wednesday pair? Maybe this is the third item of the staging that they tried to undo(the basement window, the hand ties, and the oversized underwear).

 

[Albert18]

Before anybody mentions semen might have been on the underwear, that possibility has a big problem. You need a male present to have semen. That would mean an intruder or John.

I hope nobody is suggesting an intruder and Patsy worked together.

As for John, I don't care if half of his wardrobe was found in JonBenet's crotch, look at the rest of the crime.

If this started before John went to bed and he was still wearing THAT shirt then that means he had 6 plus hours and Patsy had 6 plus hours to do the staging. Look at the results. This possibility is just as implausible as the intruder.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

<snip>

She could have used the large underwear because she thought if an intruder put clean underwear on JonBenet, it would look odd if the intruder used underwear knowingly belonging to JonBenet. The large underwear was the only new underwear in the house. Maybe she was trying to imply the intruder brought new underwear to the crime(This happens a lot???). Is that why the rest of the package disappeared? But an intruder puts on a Wednesday pair? Maybe this is the third item of the staging that they tried to undo(the basement window, the hand ties, and the oversized underwear).

If I may add to your thinking...

I think Patsy and not John put the huge undies on JonBenet because A.) Patsy would have known where they were and exactly which ones they were, B.) Patsy handled that aspect of their style of parenting - the dressing/grooming of the children, and C.) they said Wednesday, and Christmas was a Wednesday. I think that last one would only have been important to Patsy, and wonder why they chose the 25th as the date on JB's stone.

I don't think they intended to indicate an intruder brought the undies in with them because their original target for blame seems to have been someone who knew them personally, and they didn't fully get on board the Intruder Train until Smit guided them to it. I also don't think they'd have turned over the rest of the package if they meant for it to have been brought by an intruder.

I think the huge undies were chosen because they were brand new, with no forensic evidence of any Ramseys on them, they were most likely already in the basement where it appears the staging took place, and because Patsy didn't realize that they were going to be as obviously out of place as they were. She messed up.

I have no idea why there was even a need to replace JonBenet's undies at all, unless they were wet/soiled with any of four body secretions - urine, blood, semen, or feces. I subscribe to the "undies/long johns were wet from unnoticed post-mortem release" theory, so that sounds most plausible to me. JMO.

 

[Albert18]

If I may add to your thinking...

I think Patsy and not John put the huge undies on JonBenet because A.) Patsy would have known where they were and exactly which ones they were, B.) Patsy handled that aspect of their style of parenting - the dressing/grooming of the children, and C.) they said Wednesday, and Christmas was a Wednesday. I think that last one would only have been important to Patsy, and wonder why they chose the 25th as the date on JB's stone.

I don't think they intended to indicate an intruder brought the undies in with them because their original target for blame seems to have been someone who knew them personally, and they didn't fully get on board the Intruder Train until Smit guided them to it. I also don't think they'd have turned over the rest of the package if they meant for it to have been brought by an intruder.

I think the huge undies were chosen because they were brand new, with no forensic evidence of any Ramseys on them, they were most likely already in the basement where it appears the staging took place, and because Patsy didn't realize that they were going to be as obviously out of place as they were. She messed up.

I have no idea why there was even a need to replace JonBenet's undies at all, unless they were wet/soiled with any of four body secretions - urine, blood, semen, or feces. I subscribe to the "undies/long johns were wet from unnoticed post-mortem release" theory, so that sounds most plausible to me. JMO.

I'm with you to the bank on this.

I can see why Patsy would not want JonBenet to be found not wearing anything on the bottom, but she had the long underwear so I don't understand why that wasn't enough.

I'm not sure Patsy was originally trying to point to an insider. John may have started that later in the day. My thought was that they realized in the months that followed how unusual it would be for an intruder to bring Wednesday underwear with him to a crime. Does this qualify as an understatement? It was then necessary to find the rest of the package in a crate. Of course they couldn't and didn't touch the question of how or why those oversized underwear were on JonBenet.

Yesterday, I was reading the questioning of Patsy about the oversized underwear and you can tell she is caught with her own underwear down and she knows it.

I wonder how they discussed the questioning with their lawyers? Wouldn't it have been impossible for them to express to the lawyers how vulnerable they were without telling the lawyers what really happened?

 

[Albert18]

Since we are talking about rinsing out things.

One of my favorite Bugs Bunny episodes is where he is being chased around by a witch who wants to boil him in her stew. Finally he stops running and asks her if she doesn't have anything else she could be doing. The witch thinks for a minute and then says, "Well, I could be rinsing out some things."

 

[DeeDee249]

I also believe the larger panties were wrapped as a gift, and unwrapped that night by PR or JR at her instruction. Let's be realistic- the only reason the panties were changed is because they had blood on them. Urine and feces on the panties/pants of a child well-known to both wet and soil them would not be suspicious, per se. But blood...in the vaginal area of a 6-year old is suspicious by any standards. It is public knowlege the autopsy showed blood in the vaginal vault and on the forchette. There was also blood discovered in the flourescence test on her thighs. While semen was originally suspected, there turned out ot be no semen present. For this reason, I doubt there was semen on the size-6 panties. If she had been ejaculated IN, semen would have been found at the autopsy in the vagina. If she had been ejaculated ON, there would have been semen on her thigh and/or the external pubic area. We know this was not the case. While there was definitely sexual molestation, I don't think ejaculation took place, at least not in contact with JBR. Now...there WAS semen belonging to JAR on the blanket that was stuffed in the suitcase. Could it have been quickly stuffed in there to hide it? With a washer and dryer right there in the basement, why not wash away the evidence? Or, as I have seen posted here long ago, did someone originally try to hide JBR IN the suitcase? It is not unusual to find semen on a blanket belonging to a college boy, but in a suitcase with a children's book is suspect to me, whether he had anything to do with this night or not. Unfortunately, semen, like fingerprints or fiber and hairs, cannot be "dated" to indicate exactly when they were left at the crime scene.
Now, those pink pajamas that JBR is seen wearing Christmas morning...there is a photo showing something on her bed that looks like those pajamas. I recall an interview where PR is asked about that photo, and she says that it looked like the pink TOP. She also said in that same interview that she could not find the pink bottoms when they came in from the White's, so she grabbed the long johns and put those on a "sleeping" JBR. Now, it could be that it was the pink bottoms that JBR soiled, maybe as soon as she was dressed in them, provoking the rage. Or possibly they also had blood on them from the sexual assault, and that's why they weren't there. Has anyone ever seen those bottoms mentioned again? Or did they "walk out" the door that night with the unsearched Rs or later with Aunt P? They seemed to have disappeared. If I were LE, I'd have wanted those to be tested as well. Unfortunately, along with the clothes the Rs wore that day, which took over a YEAR to be turned over to LE, there was ample time to wash/clean/replace them before being turned over. LE reported that some of the clothing the Rs turned over seemed brand new and never worn.

 

[JMO8778]

right,I'm not saying it was semen,we know that it wasn't,perhaps dna from digital penetration,or saliva,was wiped away?whatever it was,it appears to me that it was important for her to be not only wiped down,but redressed in NEW underwear.why must it be new underwear? I think it was b/c the person who did it didn't want any of their dna to show up in that area.
why bother with new underwear if the only reason the others disappeared was b/c they had blood or urine or feces on them? the person who dressed her in them could have just went and gotten another pair of her old ones,correct size at that.but considering she was wiped down and redressed in a brand new pair (and I bet the barbie gown,sheets from her bed,and longjohns were all washed after her head injury/death,with the longjohns/large underwear placed on her after death,of course).the underwear was NEW,and the longjohns were CLEAN...no R dna on them.that's why she wasn't dressed in the pj's.they'd been worn.and perhaps she wasn't even dressed in the barbie gown b/c of the underwear being so large...if they say JB dressed herself in those huge underwear,then the longjohns would have been tight enough to hold them up.not so w the barbie gown.

In DOI,JR made a reference to JB not being able to read yet.I guess he was implying JB couldn't read the package and therefore dressed herself in the too large underwear? (like she wouldn't have noticed they were too big(?),but I digress.the R's give some weird answers sometimes.and they expect everyone to believe them).

 

[UKGuy]

UK,why would you think that? It was JR's shirt fibers found in that area,and he would be more likely to have put the oversized underwear on her.But perhaps those fibers got there as her carried her to the basement,if she was not fully dressed at that time?? I kind of doubt that though..I think the most important factors here are that 1- JR's fibers are found in that region and 2-she was WIPED down (to remove dna evidence,IMO) and 3-CLEAN underwear replaced her MISSING size 6's,saying Wed. at that.That further removes any dna evidence of his.But IMO,that does not mean that JR killed her,but it implies a sexual assault on her by him sometime prior to her death that night.It could have been bf he went to bed,then he goes on up to bed,and Patsy comes in sometime later and something occurs then.Later he wipes her down and changes her underwear, to remove any trace of his prior assault.

JMO8778,

Because Patsy spends so much time fabricating excuses for the size-12's, and it is herself she is attempting to extricate from being linked to the size-12's on JonBenet.

It was JR's shirt fibers found in that area,and he would be more likely to have put the oversized underwear on her.But perhaps those fibers got there as her carried her to the basement,if she was not fully dressed at that time??

Sure, but that is a separate issue from the size-12's, and if you can link Patsy directly to the wine-cellar staging, and its possible that her size-12's were put on her down there?

It may be helpful to split JonBenet's homicide into two minimal phases, e.g. non-staged, and staged. During the non-staged phase there might be a degree of panic, non-rational thinking etc, so its here for example JonBenet may have suffered her head blow, or that John would have wiped JonBenet down whether to remove blood or semen?

Later a plan was devised that incorporated the wine-cellar and a redressing which becomes the staged phase.

You seem to be suggesting that John covertly sexually assaulted JonBenet, then Patsy killed JonBenet, then again John covertly cleans up JonBenet, then somehow assists Patsy in her staging, all without Patsy's knowledge?

Whilst not impossible, this seems improbable to me, kiss, and occam principles always help.

If Patsy was the only person to deal with JonBenet's toileting and hygiene issues, then she could not miss the signs of prior abuse, and of course JonBenet would have told her. In other words, Patsy either by negelect and ommission, allowed JonBenet to be molested, or it occurred with her full knowledge?

Just think Patsy allowing a 6-year to wear makeup like a teenager, never mind an adult woman, paying for her to learn all those sexualised pageant dances and routines, encouraging her to wear revealing clothes, whats all that about?

.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't see any need to remove JonBenet's original underwear from the house. The only things that would be on the underwear are urine, feces, and/or JonBenet's blood. Urine and blood are on the next pair so they sure weren't a problem. And JonBenet's urine and blood on her underwear aren't a problem, just like the stager thought. I assume feces were a problem though. I assume the cleaning of JonBenet was done because of the "undoing" Solace posted about. Patsy didn't want her beauty queen found in a soiled condition.

What baffles me is the oversized replacement underwear. Patsy did that for some reason. I think we have trouble rationalizing her decision because she made a mistake. The mistake was so big, we can't follow her thought process.

She could have used the large underwear because she thought if an intruder put clean underwear on JonBenet, it would look odd if the intruder used underwear knowingly belonging to JonBenet. The large underwear was the only new underwear in the house. Maybe she was trying to imply the intruder brought new underwear to the crime(This happens a lot???). Is that why the rest of the package disappeared? But an intruder puts on a Wednesday pair? Maybe this is the third item of the staging that they tried to undo(the basement window, the hand ties, and the oversized underwear).

Albert18,
Essentially only Patsy knew about the size-12 underwear, it was her that purchased them from Bloomingdales along with a pack of size-6's for JonBenet.

It is likely that there was blood on the size-6's, or dna in the form of skin debri, or saliva, the size-6's were quite simply incriminating evidence, a smoking gun!

Does this mean JonBenet was wearing those size-6's when she was sexually assaulted, or were they used to clean her up? She was certainly not wearing the black velvet pants since there is no record of any evidence being itemised.

Also JonBenet was left wearing urine-stained, longjohns and underwear which was also blood stained, some of these stains did not match any part of her genitals, so patently the urine-stains were not an issue.

I reckon the person who placed those size-12's onto JonBenet simply wanted a clean pair of pants to cover her crotch area, but a Wednesday pair were available so these were chosen.

When interviewed about placing JonBenet sleeping into bed, neither John or Patsy could recollect if JonBenet was wearing any underwear, only that they would have noticed its absence, So they both knew that this was an issue, and the big question is why would an intruder redress JonBenet in size-12 underwear, particularly when the intruder never purchased it, or knew where it was stored?

The latter point tells you that this was a staging mistake, they eventually recognized that this was so serious that they discovered some size-12's in a packing crate.

The size-12's are like the pineapple residue, they contradict the Ramsey version of events.


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Because Patsy spends so much time fabricating excuses for the size-12's, and it is herself she is attempting to extricate from being linked to the size-12's on JonBenet.

but that doesn't mean she's the one who put them on her...

Sure, but that is a separate issue from the size-12's, and if you can link Patsy directly to the wine-cellar staging, and its possible that her size-12's were put on her down there?

I'm not sure it matters where or when they were put on her,but don't forget that JR is also linked to the WC staging.

It may be helpful to split JonBenet's homicide into two minimal phases, e.g. non-staged, and staged. During the non-staged phase there might be a degree of panic, non-rational thinking etc, so its here for example JonBenet may have suffered her head blow, or that John would have wiped JonBenet down whether to remove blood or semen?

yes,of course.I think some pretty irrational things were done under pressure,and staged and restaged,that's why it's hard to sort out who did what,where did it occur,and why.

Later a plan was devised that incorporated the wine-cellar and a redressing which becomes the staged phase.

makes sense to me.

You seem to be suggesting that John covertly sexually assaulted JonBenet, then Patsy killed JonBenet, then again John covertly cleans up JonBenet, then somehow assists Patsy in her staging, all without Patsy's knowledge?

no,I think Patsy most likely knew that JB was being molested.I'm saying that she might have been molested bf she went to bed,and later something happens between JB and Patsy,and JB is killed during that time.JR helps w/ the staging,being sure to remove his dna evidence from her.

Whilst not impossible, this seems improbable to me, kiss, and occam principles always help.

I know,I thought about that,too.So most likely he was THERE when she was killed.

If Patsy was the only person to deal with JonBenet's toileting and hygiene issues, then she could not miss the signs of prior abuse, and of course JonBenet would have told her. In other words, Patsy either by negelect and ommission, allowed JonBenet to be molested, or it occurred with her full knowledge?

sounds that way,doesn't it.

Just think Patsy allowing a 6-year to wear makeup like a teenager, never mind an adult woman, paying for her to learn all those sexualised pageant dances and routines, encouraging her to wear revealing clothes, whats all that about?

.

maybe she was trying to keep JR 'at home',so to speak,and away from the blond B**** down the street,if she herself had no interest in him anymore,due to cancer,her hysterectomy,etc.

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't see any need to remove JonBenet's original underwear from the house. The only things that would be on the underwear are urine, feces, and/or JonBenet's blood. Urine and blood are on the next pair so they sure weren't a problem. And JonBenet's urine and blood on her underwear aren't a problem, just like the stager thought. I assume feces were a problem though. I assume the cleaning of JonBenet was done because of the "undoing" Solace posted about. Patsy didn't want her beauty queen found in a soiled condition.

What baffles me is the oversized replacement underwear. Patsy did that for some reason. I think we have trouble rationalizing her decision because she made a mistake. The mistake was so big, we can't follow her thought process.

She could have used the large underwear because she thought if an intruder put clean underwear on JonBenet, it would look odd if the intruder used underwear knowingly belonging to JonBenet. The large underwear was the only new underwear in the house. Maybe she was trying to imply the intruder brought new underwear to the crime(This happens a lot???). Is that why the rest of the package disappeared? But an intruder puts on a Wednesday pair? Maybe this is the third item of the staging that they tried to undo(the basement window, the hand ties, and the oversized underwear).

But the blood on the original panties WAS a problem. For one thing, there was a lot of it, enough for her thighs to have had to be wiped down.
The replacement panties had only drops of blood, and there was NO blood on the long johns, so whoever redressed the body would not have known the blood was there. That's why those original panties had to be removed from the house.

The urine was less of a problem. JBR wet the bed all the time and everybody knew it. Whether it was truly from bedwetting, or a fear release, or post-mortem release, the Rs never though it would be an issue (like the pineapple- they had no idea that it would show up as identifiable matter in the digestive system).

 

[madeleine]

This is an old article but interesting.
As far as I am concerned M.Kane is one of the few people on the LE/BPD /DA side I respect,trust and like.


http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramsey-grand-jury.htm


2001-12-18: Case haunts DA's aide who led grand jury

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_912183,00.html
Case haunts DA's aide who led grand jury

Kane says he never felt that Ramseys gave him the straight story during his interviews

By Charlie Brennan, News Staff Writer

Michael Kane says he still thinks about the JonBenet Ramsey murder every day.

"And at least once a week, when I'm out running or something, this case will be running through my head," he said, "and I'll think, 'What if we did this now?' or 'What if that happened?' "

Kane, 49, joined former District Attorney Alex Hunter's team in June 1998, about 18 months after JonBenet was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her Boulder home.

He led the 13-month-long grand jury probe that concluded Oct. 13, 1999, with no indictments issued in the case.

JonBenet's parents remain under an "umbrella of suspicion" in the death.

Kane spent many hours questioning John and Patsy Ramsey about their daughter's murder. He said he believes they have yet to give him the straight story.

"When I met with them, I never felt that they were genuine," Kane said. "I always felt like I was talking to a press secretary who was giving responses with a spin.

"I always felt like their answers were very careful and, in some cases, scripted. And that caused me a lot of concern."

Kane said one of the biggest mistakes in the case was that officials didn't take it to a grand jury in the early going.

"I think the major problem with this case was the hard-core evidence gathering," Kane said.

He believes a grand jury should have been impaneled promptly -- not necessarily to secure a rapid indictment, but in order to use a grand jury's broad powers to subpoena witnesses and, equally important, personal records.

"I had this argument with them until the day (former Boulder prosecutors) Pete Hofstrom and Trip DeMuth were off the case" in August 1998, Kane said.

"That's what a grand jury is for, because a grand jury can order someone to produce documents. It's up to the DA's office to say, 'There's an awful lot of things we need to know about, and the only way we're going to know about it is by getting these records.'

"Instead, it was almost two years later when we started issuing subpoenas for information, and the trail sometimes grows cold. A lot of businesses don't keep records that long," Kane said.

Many people connected to the case claimed they tuned out the constant chatter it sparked in the media. Not Kane.

"There were lots of times, sitting in the (Boulder justice center) war room at night, I'd flip on the TV and they'd be doing a program about this case, and somebody would say something, and I'd say 'Darn, I wish I'd thought of that,' " Kane said. "And then, I'd follow up on it."

On occasion, such brainstorms still lead Kane to call and share ideas with Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner. And, periodically, he'll get a call from Beckner seeking Kane's thoughts on any new wrinkle in the case that might have arisen.

Kane has had virtually no contact, however, with Boulder District Attorney Mary Keenan. She inherited the case from Hunter after his retirement in January.

"I don't feel slighted" by Keenan, Kane said. "I worked that case intensely. I had my shot. I did everything with the information that I had at the time to try to come up with an answer. And it didn't happen.

"Maybe what this case needs now is someone coming to the case for the first time, who may have a light bulb come on."

Kane moved back to his native Pennsylvania and spent the time since November 1999 in private practice doing primarily civil litigation.

He returned Dec. 10 to the Pennsylvania State Department of Revenue, as deputy director for taxation. He had been working at that Pennsylvania state agency when Hunter picked him to pilot the Ramsey grand jury.

Kane, a divorced father of two girls -- Kathleen, 17, and Madeline, 13 -- makes his home in Mechanicsburg, Pa., less than a mile from where his daughters live with their mother.

Asked if he's frustrated that no one has been charged in JonBenet's slaying, he didn't hesitate: "Lots. In a word, lots. I didn't sign on there to not come up with a conclusion that was not prosecutable."

Kane participated in two interviews with the Ramseys after joining the case. In the first, he was teamed with former homicide investigator Lou Smit for an interrogation of John Ramsey that spanned three days -- June 22 to 24, 1998.

More recently, he traveled with Beckner to Atlanta for interviews with John and Patsy Ramsey, conducted Aug. 28 and 29, 2000, in the office of their lawyer, L. Lin Wood. Those contentious sessions ended with the Ramseys and the Boulder officials calling the interviews a waste of time. :clap:

Reflecting now on his interviews with the Ramseys, Kane said, "I never felt like I was getting a spontaneous response

"John Ramsey always left me with the impression that he was a very smart man, and he is very careful at answering questions," Kane said. "Whereas, Patsy struck me as somebody that just had an answer in advance of the question, and just kind of resorted to an 'I don't know' if she didn't have an answer in advance."

Kane said that with more than half a dozen books published and two movies made about the case, people could assume they know everything there is to know about the murder -- other than who did it, of course.

But, he said, such an assumption would be wrong.

There remain "dozens" of secrets, he said. "Absolutely. Dozens. And a lot of what the public thinks is fact is simply not fact."

He wouldn't disclose any of the former or correct any of the latter.

The legacy of the Ramsey case for Kane, personally, is that it left him in bad need of a vacation from criminal law.

"I got burned out on the cat-and-mouse aspects of it, after spending a year and a half focused on nothing else but that case," Kane said. "The process of going from small point to small point to small point, trying to find the truth, can be very intense and frustrating.

"Sometimes it's rewarding, but after doing it for a year and a half on this one case, I was just glad to get a break from it."

 

[joeskidbeck]

I have a whole new respect for Michael Kane. I respected him from the beginning, but to me, this shows how much he cared and how frustrated he was with the way the case was handled. He certainly had the Ramseys pegged, that's for sure.

 

[BBB167893]

I have a whole new respect for Michael Kane. I respected him from the beginning, but to me, this shows how much he cared and how frustrated he was with the way the case was handled. He certainly had the Ramseys pegged, that's for sure.

Agreed. And they hate him for it.