JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Wickerman]

Louisa:
And I have already told YOU (twice already) that I would not expect any classified information that was heard by the Grand Jury to be shared with the public.

My complaint is that the Boulder DA, Alex Hunter, withheld the fact that the Grand Jury voted to Indict the Ramseys over the death of their daughter. The DECISION should have been made public.

To be honest, I don't know why I bother.

He did not do what he was supposed to do.

The Grand Jury found the Ramseys were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and voted to send them to trial.

And you are saying that the DA was quite right in refusing to sign the Indictment?

Wrong again, the findings of a grand jury are not "beyond a reasonable doubt", you've been reading too much fiction.

A conclusion by a grand jury is to find that there is, "probable cause" in response to the question asked.

https://www.ohiobar.org/forpublic/resources/lawyoucanuse/pages/lawyoucanuse-86.aspx

Read this, it concerns the Ramsey G.J....
“In a sense, they seem to be classic compromise grand jury decision,” Recht said. “They can’t decide whether to indict on murder. They can’t decide not to indict at all. So they compromise in between.”

Curiously, the charges in each parent’s unsigned indictment are listed as Count IV(a) and Count VII. Recht said that shows the district attorney presented multiple possible charges to the grand jury — likely including murder — and that these two were the only ones the grand jury could agree upon. And that, Recht said, shows why Hunter was reluctant to go forward with any of the charges.

“In part, this vindicates Alex Hunter,” Recht said. “He probably saw this as a classic compromise, and he believed, if he couldn’t prove murder, he couldn’t prove either of these beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Standards are lower for obtaining a grand jury indictment — probable cause — than they are at trial — beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.denverpost.com/2013/10/25/jonbent-ramsey-grand-jury-indictment-accused-parents-of-child-abuse-resulting-in-death/

Detective Jane Harmer, attached to the case said on camera that Alex Hunter was correct to not pursue an indictment - they didn't have sufficient evidence to go to trial.
Commander John Eller said the same thing, in fact that is the reason a grand jury was convened - BECAUSE the B.P.D. did not have enough evidence.

You only need to look on line to learn about this stuff Louisa. You could save yourself the aggravation of arguing if you only did a bit of research.

[louisa]

To be honest, I don't know why I bother.

Wrong again, the findings of a grand jury are not "beyond a reasonable doubt", you've been reading too much fiction.

A conclusion by a grand jury is to find that there is, "probable cause" in response to the question asked.

You only need to look on line to learn about this stuff Louisa. You could save yourself the aggravation of arguing if you only did a bit of research.

I tend to prefer to read facts that are unbiased. Recht is a Defense lawyer.

Actually Recht also stated the following:

“In part, this vindicates Alex Hunter,” Recht said. “He probably saw this as a classic compromise, and he believed, if he couldn’t prove murder, he couldn’t prove either of these beyond a reasonable doubt.”

---------------------------------------------

At least 7 out of 12 Jurors would have needed to be in agreement.

Alex Hunter ignored the jury's verdict because there was NO WAY he was going to allow the Ramseys to ever take the stand.

"Count four of the indictment said the Ramseys “did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit 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, a child under the age of sixteen.”

Count seven of the indictment said the Ramseys 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.

Neither Hunter nor John Ramsey returned calls seeking comment on Friday".
.
.

[louisa]

Detective Jane Harmer, attached to the case said on camera that Alex Hunter was correct to not pursue an indictment - they didn't have sufficient evidence to go to trial.

You only need to look on line to learn about this stuff Louisa. You could save yourself the aggravation of arguing if you only did a bit of research.

You too Wicksy old boy.

NEW YORK (NBC) – In her first-ever television interview, former Boulder, Colorado police department detective Jane Harmer tells “Dateline NBC” correspondent Josh Mankiewicz that she agreed with the grand jury recommendation to indict JonBenét Ramsey’s parents, saying: “I think that the grand jurors heard the evidence and came up with that conclusion and I would agree with their conclusion"
.
.

[louisa]

Now can we get back to the more interesting stuff - my original queries (see my post # 960) - the ones you've been avoiding....?


Why no fingerprints on the ransom note, not even the Ramseys?

I reckon they were so over zealous in avoiding leaving their fingerprints on certain items that they forgot that their fingerprints were meant to be on the ransom note.

And then there is the fact that John told police he first went down to the basement between 7 and 9am (in itself strange because the so-called kidnapper was supposed to be calling between 8am and 10am) and yet he was evidently down there before 6am.
.

[Wickerman]

Louisa posted:

I see you haven't addressed the more interesting and pertinent queries that I raised a couple of days ago - how come there were NO fingerprints on the 'ransom note'? Not even the Ramseys?

Bob Whitson's fingerprints were on the ransom note.

I don't know that the Ramsey's prints were not on the note. What I already explained to you is the police will often say no latent prints were found, which often gets translated to mean no prints at all, of any kind, were found. Which is not what "no latent prints" means.

So which is it, "no latent prints", or no prints of any kind, partial, unidentifiable or otherwise?
Given the fact Bob Whitson's were found on the note, I know where my money would lie.

[Wickerman]

Bob Whitson's fingerprints were on the ransom note.

I don't know that the Ramsey's prints were not on the note. What I already explained to you is the police will often say no latent prints were found, which often gets translated to mean no prints at all, of any kind, were found. Which is not what "no latent prints" means.

So which is it, "no latent prints", or no prints of any kind, partial, unidentifiable or otherwise?
Given the fact Bob Whitson's were found on the note, I know where my money would lie.

Ok, here we go Louisa...
Every time you make an assertion I need to look it up to get the true story. Here is the true situation, from James Kolar.

"Seven (7) latent fingerprints were able to be developed on the notepad, and CBI technicians identified one print as belonging to BPD Sergeant Robert Whitson, the person who had collected the pad from John Ramsey on the morning of the kidnapping. A print belonging to CBI Technician Chet Ubowski was identified, and the remaining five (5) latent prints were identified as belonging to Patsy Ramsey."
Foreign Faction, p.94.

What Kolar writes concerning the note, specifically is this:

"One thing is certain however. The only latent fingerprints found on the note belonged to Colorado Bureau of Investigation forensic handwriting examiner Chet Ubowski. No other latent fingerprints were located, either for Patsy or John Ramsey, or for the "kidnapper" who had left the note behind to clarify their alleged motive for the commission of the crime".
Foreign Faction, p.92.

So here in these two quotes the police referred to invisible (latent) fingerprints. Typically the product of skin oils left on a surface - not visible to the naked eye.
If the police find a partial print with no identifiable 'loop', 'whorl' or 'arch', then the partial print is of no value.
This is not the same as saying there were no fingerprints on the note, or the pad.

Now, it is indisputable that John Ramsey handed the pad to Bob Whitson, yet.....John Ramsey's fingerprints were not on the pad.
How can that be?

It can be simply that John's fingers moved on the points of contact as he handed the pad to Sgt. Whitson. Thereby, distorting the prints left on the paper.
What remained as 'readable' under scientific analysis did not contain a 'loop', a 'whorl' or an 'arch'. So the partial print(s) could not be identified uniquely to John Ramsey.

Certainly, John Ramsey handed the pad to Whitson, with his bare hands, so no conspiracy theory can provide an alternate solution to that fact.

It's simply a matter of understanding the science, and not jumping to conclusions.

You are trying too hard to force your theory, and when scrutinized your arguments fall apart.

[Pcdunn]

Lifetime Mysteries premiered a new docudrama titled "Who Killed JonBenet?" tonight. They use actors, but the timeline and evidence seem to be based on facts in the case. I plan to try and catch it later from On Demand. I hope it will present an unbiased account of the investigation... but who knows? As the current Boulder police chief
said recently on a local news program, "There is no shortage of
theories about this case-- what we need is evidence!"

[louisa]

Lifetime Mysteries premiered a new docudrama titled "Who Killed JonBenet?" tonight. They use actors, but the timeline and evidence seem to be based on facts in the case. I plan to try and catch it later from On Demand. I hope it will present an unbiased account of the investigation... but who knows? As the current Boulder police chief
said recently on a local news program, "There is no shortage of
theories about this case-- what we need is evidence!"

Pat - I don't think this case will ever end. Probably for the rest of our lifetimes we can expect new theories to pop up, new "evidence" which will sell someone's book for a while, before being forgotten.

It's the kind of case journalists love.

For me, the case has been solved. There is no doubt that one of the family committed this crime. It is the only theory that makes sense. The more facts I discover, the more convinced that I become.

We just have to look at the odd behaviour of the couple, the hiding behind the lawyers, the refusal to give formal interviews to the police, the idiotic ransom note - And most incriminating of all - the lies.

You would think that the couple would be camped out on the doorstep of the police headquarters, trying to give every bit of help they could possibly give instead of going into hiding almost immediately. The police couldn't find them!

Naturally the police suspected them. Why were they so surprised at that?

There is a saying "If you hear hooves, expect to see horses, not zebras".




.
.

[louisa]

Bob Whitson's fingerprints were on the ransom note.

I don't know that the Ramsey's prints were not on the note. What I already explained to you is the police will often say no latent prints were found, which often gets translated to mean no prints at all, of any kind, were found. Which is not what "no latent prints" means.

So which is it, "no latent prints", or no prints of any kind, partial, unidentifiable or otherwise?
Given the fact Bob Whitson's were found on the note, I know where my money would lie.

NO FINGERPRINTS WERE FOUND ON THE RANSOM NOTE

I am talking about when it was discovered. Later a CBI investigator left a print on the note. Chet Ubowski (the top handwriting analyst) analysed the note and confirmed that (in his opinion) it was written by Patsy.

It can be simply that John's fingers moved on the points of contact as he handed the pad to Sgt. Whitson. Thereby, distorting the prints left on the paper.

Nice try Wicksy!


No Ramsey prints were found on the ransom note.

(Yes, prints were found on the notepad - at least one made by that bungling cop Bob Whitson).


.
.

[louisa]

And Wicksy, I'm not going to let you slide off the hook again.

I keep asking if you can explain this....

John stated to the police, and to the investigators, that he first visited the basement room "between 7am and 9am" on the morning of the 26th (in his very first search for his daughter). Which in itself is strange because the kidnapper was supposed to call between 8 and 10am!

However, John must have visited the basement before either Fleet White or Officer French since he told police he found a chair in front of the train room door and there's no good reason to believe White or French would have re-blocked the door with the chair after they entered the train room (which both did according to their own accounts). If so, John's first trip would have been before 6:00 AM.
.
.

[Harry D]

So the Ramseys were meticulous enough to avoid leaving prints on the ransom note, but they weren't savvy enough to dispose of the ransom letter drafts or the notepad?

[Wickerman]

... I also believe that Burke would've cracked if he was part of a cover-up. Burke was questioned by police and the grand jury, and he was back to school not long after the murders. I can't imagine a nine year-old boy being involved in a traumatic event like that without blabbing to someone or without exhibiting that kind of behaviour again.

I see you and I have made the same point more than once. Coincidentally Lawrence Schiller (Perfect Murder/Perfect Town) arrived at the same conclusion.

"After Burke was interviewed on January 8, the police wondered if he had held back any information about JonBenet's death. Burke's return to school sent a strong message to the police and the FBI. They were certain that parents who knew their child had relevant but concealed information would not allow him to get involved in a situation where he could talk freely to others. If he had secrets, Burke could easily share them with classmates he trusted. Burke's return to school seemed to close the door on the possibility that he knew something he hadn't told investigators." (p.148).

Given that when Burke did make comments among friends about the death of his sister he didn't appear to know what truly happened. And, the fact that Burke had been in bed when Fleet White arrived and it was he who suggested he takes Burke out of the house to spend time with his son Fleet Jnr.
We know of no objection by the parents to keep Burke away from anyone outside the family just in case he say's something he shouldn't?

If, as seems to be the case, Burke was truly not involved then the entire drama from the blow to the head to the suggested 'staging' of the murder scene must fall to Patsy, if no intruder is considered.

That being the case, the two pairs of abrasions, one pair on JB's right cheek, and the other on her back, suggested to be either puncture marks from being hit with a section of train track or wounds from the application of an electronic device need to be explained.

Clearly we cannot entertain Patsy hitting JB with a piece of track. So if Burke is ruled out then that pretty much lends credence to the use of a tazer/cattle probe as the cause of those abrasions.
Not forgetting the small piece of melted adhesive (from duct tape) found covering one of the abrasion marks on her cheek.

On the face of it, if Burke is 'out', as seems to be the case, the intruder is 'in'.
Which is more consistent with the DNA findings.

[louisa]

I see you and I have made the same point more than once. Coincidentally Lawrence Schiller (Perfect Murder/Perfect Town) arrived at the same conclusion.

"After Burke was interviewed on January 8, the police wondered if he had held back any information about JonBenet's death. Burke's return to school sent a strong message to the police and the FBI. They were certain that parents who knew their child had relevant but concealed information would not allow him to get involved in a situation where he could talk freely to others. If he had secrets, Burke could easily share them with classmates he trusted. Burke's return to school seemed to close the door on the possibility that he knew something he hadn't told investigators." (p.148).

Given that when Burke did make comments among friends about the death of his sister he didn't appear to know what truly happened. And, the fact that Burke had been in bed when Fleet White arrived and it was he who suggested he takes Burke out of the house to spend time with his son Fleet Jnr.
We know of no objection by the parents to keep Burke away from anyone outside the family just in case he say's something he shouldn't?

If, as seems to be the case, Burke was truly not involved then the entire drama from the blow to the head to the suggested 'staging' of the murder scene must fall to Patsy, if no intruder is considered.

That being the case, the two pairs of abrasions, one pair on JB's right cheek, and the other on her back, suggested to be either puncture marks from being hit with a section of train track or wounds from the application of an electronic device need to be explained.

Clearly we cannot entertain Patsy hitting JB with a piece of track. So if Burke is ruled out then that pretty much lends credence to the use of a tazer/cattle probe as the cause of those abrasions.
Not forgetting the small piece of melted adhesive (from duct tape) found covering one of the abrasion marks on her cheek.

On the face of it, if Burke is 'out', as seems to be the case, the intruder is 'in'.
Which is more consistent with the DNA findings.

Hold on Wicksy, you're making some statements that seem very unfounded.

What school did Burke attend? I can nothing on the internet about it. Is there anything in your above post regarding Burke that did not come from John Ramsey himself?

As for Burke talking to schoolmates - you said previously that "he was overheard talking to a schoolfriend" - well that is a lot of baloney heresay which we can discount immediately if we want to deal with facts.

"Fleet White suggested..." I think it was probably John who gave the police that bit of info.

I honestly believe that Burke was kept away from others. If, as I suspect he was the perpetrator, then he would have been totally and absolutely TOLD in no uncertain terms NEVER to talk about that night to ANYONE. He would have been supervised around other children.

And I would definitely say that he knew something he hadn't told investigators.

I cannot understand why you want to rule the most likely suspect out.

There was no intruder! That was a fabrication of his parents to cast suspicion away from their son and themselves.

No matter which way you look at it, the intruder theory holds no water and is actually laughable that people believe it.

The Ramseys must have thought people were nuts to have actually believed it, especially when they had the time to realise their mistakes (ransom note) and how preposterous it was.
.
.

[louisa]

So the Ramseys were meticulous enough to avoid leaving prints on the ransom note, but they weren't savvy enough to dispose of the ransom letter drafts or the notepad?

You've got it, Harry. That is exactly what happened.

We can only imagine the kind of panic there must have been in that household when Patsy discovered her child dead. That, I think, is when the scream occurred (if indeed there was a scream).

In the pandemonium the couple didn't know what to do. They ruled out calling for an ambulance because they may have thought JB was already dead.

And the reason? How would it look - their 6 year old daughter DEAD in their locked house on Christmas night? With only the family present? They knew they would be the first suspects.

They had to invent an intruder in order to save themselves. They didn't want Burke to be taken away (which is probably what would have happened). So think! think! - what to do? They didn't know whether to make it look like a murder gone wrong or a kidnapping gone wrong. In the end they tried to leave evidence of both. In hindsight they must have realised their mistake but by then it was too late, the police were at the door.

I'm wondering if they intended to take JB's body from the house (it may be why she was wrapped in the blanket) but, after discussion, decided it would be too risky, John might be seen leaving the house and forensics may discover the car had been used after the time they said they arrived home. And there was the problem of where to leave her. They didn't want to leave her outside anywhere.

In the end they decided to leave her where she was. In that far back room.

They were a smug couple, you can see that from their interviews. Patsy loud and brash, John, a man with supressed emotion. No sign of grief however.

Their lawyers told them they were safe from prosecution. They thought they were cleverer than the police and the investigators put together, and either didn't think to remove the notepad or thought, that by beginning the ransom note in the centre of the pad, that nobody would look all the way through it. Why should anyone do that? They would have seen no point in removing the notepad - just leave it where it is. Big mistake!

The flashlight - that had been wiped clean of fingerprints - even the batteries had been wiped! They thought they were home free.

.

[Wickerman]

Hold on Wicksy, you're making some statements that seem very unfounded.

What school did Burke attend?

High Peaks Elementary School, the same as JonBenet. The Principal was Charles Elbot.

As for Burke talking to schoolmates - you said previously that "he was overheard talking to a schoolfriend" - well that is a lot of baloney heresay which we can discount immediately if we want to deal with facts.

I thought you were well-read on this subject?
I think it was in Kolar's book, but it could be in Schillers.
I don't mind finding the quotes but you don't seem to be prepared to accept the argument anyway. So why should I take the time?
When a poster kicks up a fuss over every issue they are not familiar with there's a lack of incentive to do the search.
I'll look, but I know you are still going to reject it.

"Fleet White suggested..." I think it was probably John who gave the police that bit of info.

I honestly believe that Burke was kept away from others. If, as I suspect he was the perpetrator, then he would have been totally and absolutely TOLD in no uncertain terms NEVER to talk about that night to ANYONE. He would have been supervised around other children.

He wasn't supervised though, thats the point.
Who's going to do the supervising???
It would have to be someone who knew the truth. So outside of Patsy & John, who on earth are you now including in this conspiracy???

And I would definitely say that he knew something he hadn't told investigators.

I cannot understand why you want to rule the most likely suspect out.

For the reason's I gave.

There was no intruder! That was a fabrication of his parents to cast suspicion away from their son and themselves.

No matter which way you look at it, the intruder theory holds no water and is actually laughable that people believe it.

You don't 'know' that though, it's only your belief.
And, as several very experienced detectives arrived at that conclusion based on the evidence, then it might be wise of you to take that into account.