New JonBenet Report: Grand Jury Voted To Indict Ramseys In 1999 But DA Shelved It

[RivkahChaya]

Yes Patsy was a religious person, but we know from criminal history that these people are as bad as anyone else who wants to commit a crime (or cover it up). Patsy may have made a deathbed confession, but the Reverend would never be able to reveal what she said. The Reverend was a close personal friend of the Ramseys, who regularly gave donations to the church.

I feel that Patsy would also have sworn John to total secrecy and I honestly believe that he will uphold her wishes until the end.

I didn't necessarily mean that she made a deathbed confession to a priest. She was not Catholic. The family attended an Episcopal church at the time, but Mrs. Ramsey had been raised something else. If it wasn't the "sacrament of confession," then the seal doesn't apply, legally.

Whatever promise Mrs. Ramsey may have extracted from her husband, if he could do so without implicating himself or his son, I doubt he would not have said something when another person was actually arrested for the crime.

So, maybe it's a question of not being able not to implicate himself, but he could go to a lawyer, who could go to the DA, and ask for immunity. If Mr. Ramsey was guilty only of concealment, and aiding after the fact, he probably would get immunity in exchange for disclosing what he knew, at the time that Karr was in custody.

I don't care how much money the Ramseys gave to the church; I don't think that will influence what a minister goes to the police with.

I also think it is possible for Mr. Ramsey, through a lawyer, to let the Boulder police know they can close the investigation. Or, maybe when John Ramsey dies, that in fact, will happen. He's about 60 now, isn't he?

The police explored every avenue concerning the 'intruder' theory. The crime scene had been staged from the beginning but police still investigated other theories.

If I remember correctly, they did not, not at first, and later, when more experienced homicide detectives came in to help, they tried to sort of restage the murder scene, and reinvestigate the intruder theory, but by them, to much evidence had been contaminated or destroyed.

[/quote]The Ramseys got 'lawyered up' the same day that their daughter died. Separate lawyers for each of them too, which gives rise to speculation. Maybe John could foresee a forthcoming diversity of interests between himself and Patsy?[/QUOTE]It became pretty clear early on that they were suspects, and when you are a suspect, you need a lawyer. People jointly accused of a crime are much better served by separate lawyers. They had not been arrested, but they were being questioned like suspects, and the media were treating them like suspects. They could afford lawyers, so it was probably a smart thing to do. It made them look guilty to the general public, but so what? The police understand why they have lawyers, and if it came to it, 12 jury members would understand (or would have been out of the country Christmas, 1998, and didn't even know about it.

[jason_c]

[QUOTE=RivkahChaya;252529]I didn't necessarily mean that she made a deathbed confession to a priest. She was not Catholic. The family attended an Episcopal church at the time, but Mrs. Ramsey had been raised something else. If it wasn't the "sacrament of confession," then the seal doesn't apply, legally.

Whatever promise Mrs. Ramsey may have extracted from her husband, if he could do so without implicating himself or his son, I doubt he would not have said something when another person was actually arrested for the crime.

So, maybe it's a question of not being able not to implicate himself, but he could go to a lawyer, who could go to the DA, and ask for immunity. If Mr. Ramsey was guilty only of concealment, and aiding after the fact, he probably would get immunity in exchange for disclosing what he knew, at the time that Karr was in custody.

I don't care how much money the Ramseys gave to the church; I don't think that will influence what a minister goes to the police with.

I also think it is possible for Mr. Ramsey, through a lawyer, to let the Boulder police know they can close the investigation. Or, maybe when John Ramsey dies, that in fact, will happen. He's about 60 now, isn't he?

If I remember correctly, they did not, not at first, and later, when more experienced homicide detectives came in to help, they tried to sort of restage the murder scene, and reinvestigate the intruder theory, but by them, to much evidence had been contaminated or destroyed.




This is the kind of thing that none of us outsiders know for sure. Im willing to believe the investigation will not be remembered as an example of the utmost professionalism. Quite how serious the police took the intruder theory I have no idea. I would not discount the possibility that some of the criticism of the investigation came from "leaks" within the Ramsey team themselves. You can interpret this as warranted criticism, or merely the Ramsey team trying to blacken the reputation of investigators. Add to this the local politics of the case and you have a whole load of competing narratives, most of them from people with an agenda.

[louisa]

I have about five books about this murder now so I feel I know the facts surrounding it quite well.

The police treated the crime as a kidnapping at first, and then a homicide. The intruder theory was taken very seriously right from the start, although some officers had a gut feeling that things were not right with the Ramsey's story. The police were to eventually investigate 146 separate leads but none of them panned out.

Statistics show that something like 80% of killings in the home are carried out by people close to the victim.

Ask yourselves this question......why would an intruder sneak into a home on Christmas night, and then sit down to write a two and a half page rambling ransom note when he knew that he had already killed the child?

The note was proved to be written on the Ramsey's notepad using a pen from the Ramsey's jar. The pen had been replaced neatly. The killer had made some practice notes on the preceding pages of the notepad, so he was obviously taking his time with it.

Then he escapes from the house without leaving a trace, not even a footprint in the snow. The grate over the window well had even been replaced.

The Ramseys refused to be interviewed by the police, even on Day One.

Personally if my child had been murdered by a stranger I would be telling the police everything I knew, anything that might be of help. I would be camped out at the police station until this person was caught.

Right from the start the Ramseys behaved strangely (Patsy peeping between her fingers, checking on what was going on), the couple not speaking to eachother or touching eachother (strange behaviour for a couple who have just read a note telling them that their child has been abducted). When JonBenet's body was brought up from the basement Patsy didn't even move from her seat or ask "Is she alive?" She already knew she was dead, that's why.

One of the vilest parts of the case is the way the Ramseys pointed the finger of suspicion at every person they knew - including their very best friends. In TV interviews Patsy tearfully accused the Boulder police of not doing enough but the Ramseys themselves refused to co-operate with police.

The DA and the Defense lawyers were in the same pocket.....'Team Ramsey' - they were privy to every single thing that the police discovered. They were given samples of the ransom note BEFORE they were asked for samples of their own handwriting, that kind of thing. The fiasco went on and on.....

John Ramsey will never tell what he knows and that's for certain.

[Barnaby]

I just don't see this as an accidental death. I feel the same way about Casey Anthony. If Caley had drowned in a pool, the last thing you want to do is compound the problem by creating a situation in which it can be inferred that something more nefarious occurred. Likewise, if Jon Benet died because Patsy pushed her resulting in a fall and head injury, it is hard for me to envision any well-intentioned mother on the planet then carrying out a fake involving garrotting her daughter's lifeless body. To me, it seems that either the parents are innocent (unlikely) or something much darker was going on in that house.

[louisa]

Yes, it does seem strange that a parent would stage a garrotting on a beloved child. However, abhorrent as it is, this is on the only explanation that is remotely plausible.

My theory is that Patsy, in her panic (after JonBenet's head injury, however caused) wrote the note (and there isn't much discrepancy on the fact that she wrote it) then hid the body, hoping it might look like a genuine kidnapping. Then, after realizing that the police would find the body before she had time to take it from the house, decided to make it look like a murder by strangulation (remember, at this time there were no visible signs that JonBenet's skull had been crushed). She also made a half-hearted attempt at sexual abuse with the end of her paintbrush.

Her biggest mistake was writing the ransom note and leaving it in place. Maybe she intended to go back upstairs and dispose of it, but John got to it first and read it?

I have just read the Police Files, another excellent book on the case. This one contains the complete transcripts of the Ramseys interviews, complete with all the 'ums' and 'ers', It's fascinating stuff and it's full of contradictions.

The fact that it took a year before the Ramseys agreed to be interviewed by police allows them to keep saying "I don't remember" or "maybe".

The police had to work on the most likely theory. It doesn't make sense to go to the outside edge of a case and work inwards, especially when so many clues pointed directly to the Ramseys.


I think that everyone would agree that the person who wrote the note killed the child.

[RivkahChaya]

I just don't see this as an accidental death. I feel the same way about Casey Anthony. If Caley had drowned in a pool, the last thing you want to do is compound the problem by creating a situation in which it can be inferred that something more nefarious occurred.

Yes, if you are calm and cool, which is the opposite of what you are after your child died.

Patsy always looked doped up in the interviews, and I read some place that she had been prescribed tranquilizers, but she had survived ovarian cancer, so it's also remotely possible she was taking something else, anything from an experimental drug, to laetrile, to black market morphine, which either could have been the root cause of her hurting her daughter, if that's what happened, or the cause of a disturbingly non-typical reaction to finding the body.

I wouldn't bring it up, except for personal experience, one with a friend's mother who was taking laetrile (yes, I know it's a sham treatment, but she'd been taking it for years when I met her, and I figured it wasn't my business), one with a friend in an experimental cancer drug trial, and several others with friends on underground AIDS drugs in the late 1980s. The would seem to be normal most of the time, but would react bizarrely to stressful situations, or other situations where quick thinking and action were called for.

[louisa]

Barnaby - Possibly Patsy wanted to 'create a situation in which it can be inferred that something more nefarious occurred' because it would make people think that she couldn't possibly be responsible?

The same with the half hearted attempt at a sexual assault (with the handle of the paintbrush), which (in the mind of the perpetrator) would divert suspicion away from a woman being responsible.

Regarding Patsy's state of mind I tend to think she was a fairly neurotic individual. She referred to herself as 'normal' but surely it's not normal for a mother to dress her six year old daughter up like a five dollar hooker?

On the night in question Patsy was tired and probably overwrought. She still had plenty to do, preparing for the next day. She was still packing bags for both the forthcoming trips because they had to be out of house by 6am. I suspect the kids were playing up. Yes, I think that both children were awake.

In the couple of hours before her death JonBenet most certainly ate pineapple from the bowl on the counter. That is a definite fact. Patsy and John both say they did not feed her pineapple, maybe because they wanted to stick to their story about JonBenet being asleep from the time they brought her in from the car to the time she went to bed. Throughout the questioning the Ramseys both stuck to the ridiculous story that the 'intruder' must have fed JonBenet pineapple before he killed her!

The more I find out about this crime the more fascinating it becomes.

It's interesting to find out what other people think.

[Errata]

I was a peripheral part of a case here a few years ago. Child abduction, found dead in the woods behind the house. But the parents of the child reacted in a very similar way as the Ramseys did. Changing their stories, stuff not adding up, getting lawyers immediately. And I was in the same room with them for a good portion of time, and what I saw was kind of amazing in a bad way. These parents were clearly in shock. Literally. Dilated pupils, flat affect, echolalia... classic shock. And all of these people were asking them questions and trying to help. "Are you sure you made breakfast before going in to wake him up?" "You mean you called the police AFTER you called your sister, right?". And the parents were pretty much agreeing with everything suggested to them that didn't pierce the fog of shock. The mother's brother in law had them agree to summon their attorney within about five minutes of his showing up. It was a train wreck, evidence-wise. And they didn't do it. It was some guy who lived down the street took the kid out the window and killed him when he started crying.

But ever since then, I haven't been all that suspicious of the Ramsey's behavior. And I have been a big supporter of changing the way parents of kidnapped children are initially treated. There cannot be a crowd of people around trying to get information. My theory is, as soon as cops show up, everyone gets thrown out of the house except immediate family and maybe two adults to help the parents. And the cops immediately send for a counselor. It seems kind of dumb, but it prevents confusion of events, and the counselor can be there for the parents, help them if they are in shock, but otherwise alleviate fears and guilt that have nothing to do with the kidnapping, but can dramatically affect the facts. Parents need to tell cops if they were drunk, or if they punished the child, or if there was any conflict that may have caused the child to run away, etc. And they won't tell cops these things if they are consumed with guilt. And if they are consumed with guilt over an unrelated incident, it looks to cops like they feel guilt over the missing child. A counselor can reassure them that conflict is normal, and no one expects perfect parents, etc. And throwing everyone out prevents interference. No brothers in law more concerned with image that with finding the child insisting on lawyers, no solicitous relatives trying to alter the order of events to prevent the parents becoming suspects. No crowd tramping through the house potentially destroying evidence.

I don't know that it would have changed anything in Ramsey household, but my bet is that it would have.

[louisa]

Two counsellers were called (I assume by the police) to the Ramsey home on the morning that Patsy made her 911 call.

Unfortunately they probably just added to the melee and helped contaminate the crime scene. However something interesting emerged from it. They told investigators that they assumed the Ramseys were either separated or divorced, judging from the way they behaved towards eachother.

When you rule out the implausible intruder theory (and it really is implausible), only one avenue of investigation is left - it had to be one of the three people inside the home that night.

[RivkahChaya]

Regarding Patsy's state of mind I tend to think she was a fairly neurotic individual. She referred to herself as 'normal' but surely it's not normal for a mother to dress her six year old daughter up like a five dollar hooker?

Hey, that's really unfair.

She dressed her like a five hundred dollar hooker.