Why GJ Likely Solved Case In 1999

[BlueCrab]

Did the Ramsey grand jury, after investigating the JonBenet Ramsey murder for 13 months and interviewing an estimated 100 witnesses, solve the crime back in 1999? It appears this could be so.

But if so, why hasn't the name of the killer been released to the public? The only answer that could fit this question is that it would be against the Colorado Children's Code to release the name of a juvenile too young to even be charged with a serious crime.

IOW, if the JonBenet murder was solved by the grand jury in October of 1999, it has been a legal coverup ever since.

By following the money, this scenario makes sense. Boulder had spent over a million dollars to investigate the case through 1999. Since then the Boulder budget to actively investigate the crime has been cut back to nothing.

Mary Keenan was elected to the office of district attorney and assumed her duties in January of 2001 with a promise to pursue the investigation -- but she hasn't requested as much as a penny to continue the investigation. Keenan took over the case from the Boulder Police Department on December 20, 2002 with the conveient comment that she "will not discuss the case".

Keenan hired retired detective Tom Bennett on June 12, 2003, at $25 an hour, to head up the investigation with Lou Smit. The money for Bennett's position is being paid from the funds previously budgeted to hire an attorney for the DA's office. But Bennett and Smit, both working part-time, have produced virtually nothing new.

It's also interesting that Keenan has not asked for any assistance from other LE agencies in Boulder, such as the BPD; the Sheriff's Department; or the CBI. Keenan's two investigators, Linda Wickman and Joe DeAngelo, work on other cases.

Mary Keenan's so-called "new investigation" into JonBenet's murder is obviously a sham. There is no new investigation -- there seems to be nothing but lies and a coverup that appears to be legal. Legal because, under the Colorado Children's Code, it is lawful to lie to protect the identity of children involved in a serious crime, such as murder.

In my opinion, it is highly likely the grand jury solved the JonBenet murder in 1999.

BlueCrab

[UKGuy]

In my opinion, it is highly likely the grand jury solved the JonBenet murder in 1999.
BlueCrab
Minors simply by being participants in the legal process may be protected by default under the Colorado Children's Code.

Obviously Jonbenet's death was not considered or ruled as an ACCIDENT therefore whatever they decided it was on the basis that it was a homicide.

The Grand Jury may simply have lacked the evidence to pursue a prosecution!

[BlueCrab]

The Grand Jury may simply have lacked the evidence to pursue a prosecution!


UKGuy,

If children under 10 years of age are involved in a serious crime, such as murder, then by Colorado law the state cannot prosecute them and, in fact, must not reveal their names and, from a legal standpoint, LE must pretend the children don't exist and no crime had occurred. The case goes to the district attorney who has total jurisdiction to confidentially dispose of the matter as he sees fit.

This appears to be what has happened in regard to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. All of the pieces fit.

BlueCrab

[gaia]

Your arguments are persuasive. It's hard to try to reason against them. Just wish there was some way to know for sure. It's so frustrating.

[Nova]

"All the pieces fit" except human nature: given the media pressure and the number of Boulder careers derailed by the case, it is simply unbelievable that the g.j. concluded such a thing and it was never leaked.

(Edited to add: my view here says nothing as to the truth of BDI. I just don't believe the g.j. came to that formal conclusion.)

[mmi]

How old is he now?

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

If children under 10 years of age are involved in a serious crime, such as murder, then by Colorado law the state cannot prosecute them and, in fact, must not reveal their names and, from a legal standpoint, LE must pretend the children don't exist and no crime had occurred. The case goes to the district attorney who has total jurisdiction to confidentially dispose of the matter as he sees fit.

This appears to be what has happened in regard to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. All of the pieces fit.

BlueCrab
BlueCrab,
Your general point may well be correct.

Would Colorado Children's Code not apply to all children or minors who fell within its legal scope, Innocent or Guilty?

[less0305]

It's hard to believe it hasn't leaked by now.....but it does sound plausible.

[BlueCrab]

It's hard to believe it hasn't leaked by now.....but it does sound plausible.


It hasn't been leaked because the "leaker" would immediately be arrested, criminally convicted per se, be sent to jail and heavily fined, and lose his job and professional license to make a living.

The court gag order slapped on the case when the grand jury permanently adjourned in October of 1999 tells the whole story.

The story can also be told by studying the name index in PMPT pb. (There are about 500 names listed in PMPT's name index.) Publication of PMPT pb was being held up pending the adjournment of the grand jury. When the powerful GJ finally adjourned in October of 1999, after 13 months of investigation, PMPT rushed to publication. It's pages were edited to conform with the GJ's findings and to obey the court's gag order. As a result, there were names removed from the text but, because of the rush, at least one name, although listed multiple times in the name index in the back of the book, appears just once in the text. Another prominent name does not appear at all.

BlueCrab

[golfmom]

It hasn't been leaked because the "leaker" would immediately be arrested, criminally convicted per se, be sent to jail and heavily fined, and lose his job and professional license to make a living.

The court gag order slapped on the case when the grand jury permanently adjourned in October of 1999 tells the whole story.

The story can also be told by studying the name index in PMPT pb. (There are about 500 names listed in PMPT's name index.) Publication of PMPT pb was being held up pending the adjournment of the grand jury. When the powerful GJ finally adjourned in October of 1999, after 13 months of investigation, PMPT rushed to publication. It's pages were edited to conform with the GJ's findings and to obey the court's gag order. As a result, there were names removed from the text but, because of the rush, at least one name, although listed multiple times in the name index in the back of the book, appears just once in the text. Another prominent name does not appear at all.

BlueCrab

:clap: Bravo to some serious sleuthing!

[LazyCat08]

What other young children were known to be directly involved besides Burke?

What if an adult and a child were involved? How would they protect the child and prosecute the adult?

[BlueCrab]

What other young children were known to be directly involved besides Burke?

What if an adult and a child were involved? How would they protect the child and prosecute the adult?


Brie,

I am no longer allowed to provide the names on this forum. But you can figure it out yourself.

Good question about an adult's involvement because, IMO, this is exactly what I believe took place. Under Colorado law it is legal to lie to protect the identity of the children, and an apparent high-level coverup was needed to prevent the children being dragged into any criminal proceedings against an adult, and thus revealing the names of the children.

IMO the legal coverup extends from the DA's office upward and was approved by the court. Judge Roxanne Bailin oversaw the grand jury's investigation.

BlueCrab

[RedChief]

The Grand Jury may simply have lacked the evidence to pursue a prosecution!


If we can believe Hunter--and some of us obviously don't--there is no question that the Grand Jury lacked sufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution:


>October 13, 1999
Web posted at: 10:04 p.m. EDT (0204 GMT)

BOULDER, Colorado (CNN) -- The grand jury that has been examining the JonBenet Ramsey murder case for 13 months will not issue any indictments, Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter announced Wednesday evening. He said the panel has been discharged.

"We do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time," Hunter told reporters in a brief statement......

Hunter did not mention the girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, whom he earlier had said were "under an umbrella of suspicion."

He did praise the members of the panel.

"The grand jurors have done their work extraordinarily well, bringing to bear all of their legal powers, life experiences and shrewdness," said Hunter.

The prosecutor said that under Colorado law all proceedings of the grand jury are secret. A court order was distributed to journalists, telling them to stay away from the grand jurors or risk being in contempt of court.

"Under no circumstances will I, or any of my advisers, prosecutors, the law enforcement officers working on this case or the grand jurors discuss grand jury proceedings -- today or ever -- unless ordered by the court," Hunter said.

But he announced he would answer questions from the media on Thursday.

Colorado Gov. Bill Owens said he will review the case and decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor.

"While I am not presently in a position to comment on the work of this grand jury, I do know one fact: A little girl was brutally murdered in Boulder, Colorado, and the killer or killers remain free today," he said.

"STUMPED" was the boldface, full-spread banner headline in an "Extra" edition printed by the local newspaper, the Boulder Daily Camera. "Grand jury takes no action in JonBenet Ramsey case," the sub-headline said.


Ramseys: 'Find the real killer'

About an hour after the announcement, a family friend from West Virginia, Linda McLean, told CNN she had spoken with Patsy Ramsey, a former Miss West Virginia.

"We were on our knees holding hands when the statement came out," she quoted Patsy Ramsey as saying. "We are relieved and thankful to God. Now we can proceed with trying to find the real killer."

Pam Paugh, Patsy Ramsey's sister, said she was glad the Ramseys weren't indicted. But she said on CNN's "Larry King Live" that she was disappointed the jurors could not solve the case.

There is no statute of limitations on murder in Colorado. The investigation is >expected to stay open and active.


Gag order? What gag order?

[BlueCrab]

Gag order? What gag order?



RedChief,

News release from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, October 14, 1999 (one day after the Ramsey GJ permanently adjourned):

"The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press announced today that it protests the expansive gag order signed by the Chief Judge of the Boulder District Court on October 13, 1999, which threatens any member of the public with prosecution for contempt of court if he or she contacts a member of the discharged Boulder County Grand Jury that investigated the JonBenet Ramsey murder."

"Courts will always make grand jurors swear oaths of secrecy forbidding them to talk to anyone about their investigations, but an order criminalizing the simplest steps in the newsgathering process in such a high-profile case is fundamentally offensive to the First Amendment. A sweeping prohibition of indefinite duration, without any attempt by the court to demonstrate a need or any indication of improper behavior, should not stand."

Police Chief Koby and others had separate gag orders placed on their personnel.

Does not these extraordinary gag orders tell us something? I think so.

They tell me the Colorado Children's Code has been placed into effect.

BlueCrab

[Voice of Reason]

RedChief,

Does not these extraordinary gag orders tell us something? I think so.

BlueCrab

fact of the matter is, all grand jury testimony is protected. it is a federal offense to discuss any of this with the press. regardless of the gag order by the judge, had the media contacted anyone, they would be acting criminally in speaking with them...on any case!

granted, this stuff happens. see baseball steroids controversy. most of that broke out by a grand jury leak in the balco testimony. oddly enough, nobody seems to care about the SF chronicle reporter who received illegally obtained information, and then printed it...

another legal aspect to this case, that i think is worth mentioning, is that we are in the state of colorado. i don't know how many of you are aware, but the legislators of colorado were under the spotlight back in 1996, when they passed amendment 2. under amendment 2, all laws protecting homosexuals were to be repealed, and no new ones were to be made. the supreme court, in romer v. evans struck down this law as a violation of equal protection. now, i don't know what all of your personal beliefs are, and i don't want to get too political here, but i think this law is certainly a violation of our constitution, regardless of your beliefs. i find it very telling of the types of laws that may come from the state of colorado. this doesn't seem like your average law-making state...

[Voice of Reason]

sorry for the double post, but something else that came to mind regarding the legal procedures surrounding this case. prosecutors cannot ethically prosecute on a hunch or circumstantial evidence. they cannot prosecute because they think that they can convince a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...they must convince themselves first. a prosecution should only be sought after the DA is sure beyond a reasonable doubt, and only then, can the question be presented to the jury.

for those that think that charges should have been brought, you are wrong. i hope i don't sound redundant, but a DA cannot say, "it looks like so-and-so is guilty. let's bring them to trial, and see what the jury thinks." that would be a horrible way to run our legal system and it violates a lawyer's legally mandated code of ethics...

[RedChief]

RedChief,


...."The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press announced today that it protests the expansive gag order signed by the Chief Judge of the Boulder District Court on October 13, 1999, which threatens any member of the public with prosecution for contempt of court if he or she contacts a member of the discharged Boulder County Grand Jury that investigated the JonBenet Ramsey murder."....

BlueCrab


OK, BlueCrab,

Thanks for that verification of the existence of the gag order reinforcing the law which requires Grand Jury secrecy and prohibits contact with jurors on the part of the media and the public.

I assume you can obtain this expansive gag order and wouldn't mind posting it for our edification? I, for one, would really appreciate it. You've convinced me that it exists.

I hope this gag order didn't enlarge upon the extant law, as it is not in the power of judges to make law, but rather to interpret it.

Off hand, I'd say the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press must have been protesting something other than Grand Jury secrecy; perhaps the Koby gag and the gag of others with official capacity in the case.

Yes, this is worth looking into.

[RedChief]

sorry for the double post, but something else that came to mind regarding the legal procedures surrounding this case. prosecutors cannot ethically prosecute on a hunch or circumstantial evidence. they cannot prosecute because they think that they can convince a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...they must convince themselves first. a prosecution should only be sought after the DA is sure beyond a reasonable doubt, and only then, can the question be presented to the jury.

for those that think that charges should have been brought, you are wrong. i hope i don't sound redundant, but a DA cannot say, "it looks like so-and-so is guilty. let's bring them to trial, and see what the jury thinks." that would be a horrible way to run our legal system and it violates a lawyer's legally mandated code of ethics...


Voice of Reason,

Yep, prosecutors, themselves, should be convinced of the suspect's guilt before they launch their prosecution. However, it is all too often the case that prosecutors don't convince themselves first; they do try cases with less than incontrovertible evidence, in order to let the jurors decide. This is an unfortunate fact. Sometimes the lynch mob pressure is overwhelming.

It always troubles me when I hear prosecutors say they are building a case against so-and-so. It seems to me they should already have built their case long before going to trial. To me, the phrase, "building a case", smacks of putting the cart before the horse--having a gut feeling that so-and-so is guilty; having him arrested (if he isn't already) and declaring charges against him that, once they've been declared, make it hard to turn back, so the case-building process goes into full swing and may continue throughout the trial.

Whereas, as the saw goes, a DA, with the help of a Grand Jury, can indict a ham sandwich, it is probably true in many instances that a clever prosecutor with unlimited funds and robust public backing can convict a plate of potato salad.

And, how about those circumstantial cases where there is lots of "evidence" but it's all, or nearly all, circumstantial. Do you, as DA, refuse to prosecute? Where do you draw the line?

I agree that no one should be prosecuted unless the "evidence" convinces the DA that the person is guilty and he thinks he can bring a strong case before the jury. Of course, it is the jurors' responsibility to evaluate the DA's case, and in so doing, decide whether his case is strong enough for conviction. Unfortunately, too many jurors are influenced by the very fact that so-and-so has been charged. "Well, he's been charged, so he musta' dunnit." "Who else coulda dunnit?"

The DA ought to think the guy is guilty before he commences his prosecution; the Jury ought to assume he's innocent until they hear the evidence against him. Piece of cake.

You apparently don't think there was/is enough evidence against anyone in the Ramsey case, that was/is convincing enough to bring him/her to trial. I can't say that I disagree with you. But, what if snow had begun falling at the rate of 3 inches an hour at the time the Ramseys left for the Whites' and had continued throughout the night, and there was no sign that anyone had entered or exited the house after the Ramseys returned? What then? Just a hypothetical. Might be convinced a Ramsey did it, but which one? Arrest them all?

[Voice of Reason]

i completely agree with you Red Chief, and these are big questions that are difficult to answer. the system is never perfect, but we can only try by setting the rules that make sense, at least, in theory.

unfortunately, if you look at the effect the media can have on a case, it is tremendous. without offering personal opinions on the following cases, let's just look at two of the biggest "media trials" of the past 10 years or so. we have OJ Simpson, a case involving, perhaps, more hard evidence than a prosecutor could ever dream of, and we had an acquittal. then, we have Scott Peterson, a case with mostly circumstantial evidence, albeit, quite strong, but hardly the amount of evidence you'd expect to have the jury come back with a guilty verdict AND a death sentence. regardless of who was or was not guilty in those cases, we can use them to see how powerful public opinion can be on a case.

as to your hypothetical (3in. of snow), i think that even without the snow, the prosecutor's office essentially went down the same road. they, along with many americans, were convinced that this had to have been done by a ramsey. with enough questioning and pressure, they figured they'd get answers, or at least have someone roll over on one of the others. this did not happen. whether or not that speaks to a ramsey's guilt is a question of opinion, but i think had the snow fallen, the case would've been handled the exact same way, with, perhaps, the exact same results. even if we narrow it down to 3, if there is no stronger evidence to any one of the three, you just can't prosecute...

[BlueCrab]

fact of the matter is, all grand jury testimony is protected. it is a federal offense to discuss any of this with the press. regardless of the gag order by the judge, had the media contacted anyone, they would be acting criminally in speaking with them...on any case!



Voice of Reason,

It's not a federal offense. It was a Boulder County, Colorado grand jury. It wasn't a federal grand jury.

It's universally known that state grand jury information is confidential and grand jurors cannot be approached until after either an indictment is issued or a written report is issued by the grand jury. But the Ramsey grand jury suspiciously did neither, thereby sealing forever the information they obtained after 13 months of investigations.

Moreover, on top of that the court issued an "expansive order" (over and above what is normally ordered) on the day the GJ permanently adjourned, blocking the public, under threat of imprisonment, from even inquiring about what the GJ uncovered. This extraordinary gag order by the court is why the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is objecting.

All of this tells me the Colorado Children's Code, by law shielding the identity of children who are involved in a major crime, had been placed into effect that 13th day of October, 1999.

BlueCrab

[Voice of Reason]

Voice of Reason,

It's not a federal offense. It was a Boulder County, Colorado grand jury. It wasn't a federal grand jury.

It's universally known that state grand jury information is confidential and grand jurors cannot be approached until after either an indictment is issued or a written report is issued by the grand jury. But the Ramsey grand jury suspiciously did neither, thereby sealing forever the information they obtained after 13 months of investigations.

Moreover, on top of that the court issued an "expansive order" (over and above what is normally ordered) on the day the GJ permanently adjourned, blocking the public, under threat of imprisonment, from even inquiring about what the GJ uncovered. This extraordinary gag order by the court is why the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is objecting.

All of this tells me the Colorado Children's Code, by law shielding the identity of children who are involved in a major crime, had been placed into effect that 13th day of October, 1999.

BlueCrab

i think you are jumping to a massive conclusion as to the implications of the "expansive order". point taken on the federal offense. regardless, the grand jury testimony cannot be legally leaked. take a step back for a moment, and think about what you are saying. here is a family who has lost a 6 year old daughter on xmas day, and just about the whole country thinks they killed her!

in america, you are innocent until proven guilty. nobody has ever suggested (although you seem to come close) that the grand jury did not do a complete job. were there charges to be filed, they would have filed them. but you are using the lack of filing charges and the expansive order as a means to imply guilt!!! don't you think that is exactly what the judge sought to deter? if you let so much as one shred of testimony go public, the media will run wild with it and concoct their own theories. i think that people here have all too much mistrust of the law enforcement and justice system in this country.

and by the way, do you have any knowledge of past cases involving such "expansive orders", because you seem to blindly state that this was over and above what is normally ordered. gag orders are issued all the time, especially in high profile cases. this was perhaps one of the most largely covered cases in the news. it's 2005, and we're still discussing it!! do you know how many crimes go unsolved? why does this one continue to generate discussion almost 10 years later? this seems like a text-book case for an expansive order on the grand jury testimony...

[BlueCrab]

Were there charges to be filed, they would have filed them.





Voice of Reason,

The grand jury in Colorado could NOT indict if the perpetrators were under 10 years old.

The case would go automatically and secretly to the district attorney, who would dispose of it without violating the Colorado Children's Code (without disclosing the identities of the children). In such instances the DA would normally assign the perpetrator(s) to psychiatric treatment and counselling and have the court seal the case forever -- as if it never happened.

IMO this is what happened.

[Voice of Reason]

Voice of Reason,

The grand jury in Colorado could NOT indict if the perpetrators were under 10 years old.

The case would go automatically and secretly to the district attorney, who would dispose of it without violating the Colorado Children's Code (without disclosing the identities of the children). In such instances the DA would normally assign the perpetrator(s) to psychiatric treatment and counselling and have the court seal the case forever -- as if it never happened.

IMO this is what happened.

burke was called into to testify in front of the grand jury in may 1999. the next day, authorities finally issued a statement declaring burke a witness, not a suspect. now of course, they could be covering for him, but the grand jury met until october 1999. if burke really was a suspect and the GJ concluded that he was their man, but they couldn't indict, what went on in the following 5 months to suggest that? if that's what they concluded, don't you think that he would've returned to the GJ at least once before october?

does anyone have the exact provision of the colorado children's code that speaks to this? i'd like to look up the relevant case law and see how similar cases (if there are any) have been handled?

[K777angel]

To this day I believe the NY Post article published back in 1999 or 2000 (forget which at this moment) - claiming inside information that Burke Ramsey was the one who killed his sister and his parents helped cover it up was on target. No other article or story published on any of the Ramseys brought as much action or anger from camp Ramsey than that one did. IMO
(I still find it extremely curious that while a number of slander lawsuits have been filed on behalf of both Patsy and Burke - NONE to date have ever been filed on behalf of John Ramsey. And it wasn't like there were no stories published fingering HIM. There were plenty....)

It should be noted that in Colorado, no one can be charged with accessory to a crime (like John and Patsy who helped stage this crime) - unless someone is charged WITH the crime itself.
So if Burke Ramsey was indeed determined to be the perp (which I think he probably was) - and he was too young under Colorado law at the time of the crime to be charged with anything - then his "accessors" are off the hook too.

Lin Wood was hired to try and salvage the Ramsey's reputations after the grand jury disbanded.
One of his sleazy tactics IMO was to blackmail the city of Boulder through Mary Keenan and threaten to SUE them (and Lord knows he'd probably have a case whatwith the despicable behavior of Alex Hunter during the investigation consorting with tabloid reporters etc....) - if Keenan did not go along with his smoke & mirrors game plan. You know - tell the public you are re-investigating the murder and are no longer looking at the Ramseys....
LOL!!
The public is not that stupid.
Nor was Michigan when they said "HELL NO!" to a John Ramsey vote.

IMO
~ Angel ~

[Voice of Reason]

nice work angel on bringing forth some legal background in colorado! i was just going to say that if you support the theory that burke did the deed and john and/or patsy helped with the staging/coverup, then john and/or patsy could still be charged as an accomplice, but you provided that nice tidbit of info that colorado does not allow such charges if the initial perp is not charged.

another thought, though, is that if this is the case, i believe that john and/or patsy could be charged with other crimes, no? interfering with an investigation and/or some other crime related to their own actions (i'm sure a prosecutor could figure out some sort of culpability that is indictable).

for those who do not know, when you are charged as an accomplice, you are actually charged with the crime that you helped someone commit. it is not a different charge. in other words, if A is guilty of murder, and B is an accomplice. B is charged with murder as an accomplice, and can be sentenced equally. however, if A is charged with murder, and B did other things acting as an accomplice, he could be charged with different crimes. this is the scenario i'm suggesting here. since this did not happen, i'm guessing that either this burke theory is not on point, or it is on point, but details were so hazy that they had nothing on patsy and john except that they helped in some way.

[BlueCrab]

If Burke killed JonBenet, and the grand jury solved the crime but can't indict because Burke was only 9 at the time, then that ends it under Colorado law.

If you charge the parents with anything criminally then Burke's name would be dragged into the discovery and trial aspects of the case as the defense and the prosecution go at it. That would violate Colorado law protecting the identities of children.

The court wouldn't even allow any of Burke's civil cases to go beyond a certain point because, IMO, it would have violated Colorado law protecting the identities of juveniles involved in serious crimes. I think all of the cases were settled because the court leaned on the litigants to settle out of court or the court would be forced to dismiss the case.

I doubt if any serious money changed hands in those settlements.

[K777angel]

We have to remember that if Burke were deemed to be the actual perp in this case and he was protected under Colorado law at the time of the crime due to his age being under 10 yrs old - then there was NO CRIME for anyone else to be connected to. Not as an accessory, not for obstructing justice - nothing. There must be a CRIME to obstruct justice of or to have been an accomplice to.
This is of course just LEGALLY speaking. Of course a crime was committed. MANY crimes were committed in this case.

I still think it is a tradgedy that no one will ever be brought to justice for it - in this life anyway.

[Nova]

Says who?! Much internet mythology has arisen with regards to Colorado juvenile law. Okay, so we understand a child under a certain age cannot be charged and his/her name is to be kept confidential.

But what authority says other, "surrounding" crimes concerning the same event cannot be prosecuted? Lots of states have laws protecting juveniles, but they don't give free tickets to everyone else participating in the kids' crimes. A child's name can be withheld from the record and the press without halting all judicial proceedings.

Now as for the g.j. decision...

Alex Hunter will forever be known as the DA who never found justice for Jon-Benet. His obituary will open with a paragraph to that effect! His political career was essentially ended, or at least damaged, by this case.

And we know Alex Hunter is the master of the semantic sidestep, as he or his office coined "umbrella of suspicion" to avoid calling the Rs "suspects" and giving them additional rights under Colorado law. And we know he was privy to the g.j. proceedings.

But this same Hunter never went on Larry King to say, "You know, Larry, sometimes we know who did the crime and we can even prove it, but we are prevented from prosecuting by legal technicalities." Nor words to that effect. The resulting talking-head analysis would have found its way to Burke without Hunter violating secrecy laws.

And we know Lou Smit and Steve Thomas maintain various contacts within the Boulder LE. But no inside friend of theirs ever stopped them from making fools of themselves with books fingering other, known-to-be-wrong, suspects.

And nobody ever tipped off the media who have been sued by the Rs?! Truth is a defense to libel. Major media outlets usually fight attempts to limit freedom of press to the highest possible court. But in this case, huge media corporations simply rolled over and played dead for the state of Colorado?!

And nobody ever tipped off Darnay Hoffmann?! After all, proof of BDI and knowledge thereof on the part of the Rs would have made his client's case. And we're to believe Darnay never heard about the g.j.'s conclusion?

Juvenile confidentiality isn't sacrosanct (even if it should be). There are various ways - legal and illegal - it can be pierced. To believe the g.j. reached a conclusion (and a shocking one, given the prior statements of LE), that was never leaked by any of the numerous participants to any of the multitude obsessed with the case, simply defies common sense.

[BlueCrab]

Juvenile confidentiality isn't sacrosanct (even if it should be). There are various ways - legal and illegal - it can be pierced. To believe the g.j. reached a conclusion (and a shocking one, given the prior statements of LE), that was never leaked by any of the numerous participants to any of the multitude obsessed with the case, simply defies common sense.


Nova,

What makes you think the GJ's conclusion HASN'T been leaked? IMO the GJ's conclusion has been leaked a multitude of times -- but who's willing to go public with it and be sent directly to jail without even passing GO to collect $200?

[GuruJosh]

But surely if the conclusion of the GJ were known to various people... i.e. if the members of the GJ had indeed blabbed (or others associated with the inquest) - what would stop a non-US resident from revealing the truth?

For instance I am in Australia. Colorado is a brand of hiking boot. If i had the info, i could publish the findings with impunity. There is no way - no international extradition agreement, nothing - that i could be "dealt with" by Colorado law.

Why hasn't such a scenario taken place?

If you doubt my claim that nothing would happen to me from Aussie authorities (even though obviously the Americans could do nothing to me), then consider a more extreme example.

Let's say i was from China.

I am sure the Chinese would laugh in the face of anyone trying to prosecute me from the USA.

I think the question of why no one has revealed the GJ's suspicion, if Burke did it, is a good one... I mean, why no one has given evidence for this decision (despite CO law)

[Nova]

What makes you think the GJ's conclusion HASN'T been leaked? IMO the GJ's conclusion has been leaked a multitude of times -- but who's willing to go public with it and be sent directly to jail without even passing GO to collect $200?

As Josh points out, folks outside the USA wouldn't necessarily be subject to Colorado law. But even Americans outside Colorado could make a good, long fight of it.

At the moment, there are two journalists who may go to jail rather than reveal their source in outing a CIA agent. Note that these are not in trouble for printing the agent's name, but for refusing to reveal their source for the name. It is the source who is deemed to be in violation of the law prohibiting the outing of CIA agents, not the writers. Why would a reporter revealing BDI be any different? Are we to believe none of the papers who covered JBR had reporters and/or editors at least as defiant, at least as willing to test the law?

The Ramsey investigation was plagued by leaks, some of which, if not illegal, were at least in violation of deparment policies. I know you draw conclusions based on some statements concerning the g.j., but none of these are leaks as direct as what we are used to in this case.

It is much more likely the g.j. - on its own or at Hunter's direction - simply decided it couldn't know for sure who did what.

[BlueCrab]

It is much more likely the g.j. - on its own or at Hunter's direction - simply decided it couldn't know for sure who did what.


Nova,

If that grand jury, with its almost unlimited powers to investigate and interrogate, couldn't solve the crime, then it's not likely it will ever be solved. We might just as well fold up our tents and go home.

But I'm convinced the crime was solved. The parents didn't do it. The evidence points to children. Why else would the Ramseys lie and refuse to fully cooperate with the investigation beginning on day one and continuing to this day, if not children were involved?

The Ramseys would behave like that ONLY if children were involved. And so would the court and Boulder authorities behave the way they do -- none of whom have cleared Burke and have eliminated all funding to actively pursue a perpetrator.

BlueCrab

[Nova]

Nova,

If that grand jury, with its almost unlimited powers to investigate and interrogate, couldn't solve the crime, then it's not likely it will ever be solved. We might just as well fold up our tents and go home....

BlueCrab

Maybe so, Blue, but people are still exploring Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac killer and the assassination of JFK. And where's the harm?

The rest of your post is a more general defense of your BDI theory. That's a different issue, IMHO. Your theory does not depend on g.j. verification to be accurate.

I don't, by the way, agree that parents would ONLY cover for a child. Spouses often cover for each other, whether or not you and I find it advisable or even rational. Some people simply think "family" comes before even the rule of law. Some people feel they are defined by their choice of spouse and must defend that choice no matter what. Some people simply refuse to believe a loved one is guilty of a crime.

I've seen all of these reactions in my own family. As I mentioned years ago, my father was - at least until the statute of limitations ran out - wanted by the Feds and the State of Florida for various forms of fraud. His girlfriend not only covered for him, but went on the lam with him for more than 10 years. His brother went to jail for him. His parents refused to believe he had done anything wrong, even though their grandchildren (my siblings and I) were among his victims. Even I - who certainly had no illusions about my father's deeds or character - never turned him in when I learned where he was "hiding out." All of we abettors are otherwise decent, law-abiding people, but family is family and we kept our silence.

In fairness, my father didn't commit violent crimes (and I'd like to think I would have behaved differently if he had). But even in cases of murder, friends and family often refuse to incriminate a loved one.

So the Rs' cover-up doesn't really tell us who they are covering for.

But, as I said, that's a different issue than whether the g.j. came to a BDI conclusion. I'm not trying to refute your basic theory here. I don't know which R did what. But I don't think it's helpful to insist the g.j. decided BDI.

[Cain]

Grand Jury solves the case, closes it and don't say a public word... letting scores of people (from Santa, to Helgoth etc etc etc) (and Ramsey's included) in the wild, coping with a public status of "suspects" in an horrible crime??

Please, BC, explain me how it's legally possible (not say say "ethic")

[BlueCrab]

Grand Jury solves the case, closes it and don't say a public word... letting scores of people (from Santa, to Helgoth etc etc etc) (and Ramsey's included) in the wild, coping with a public status of "suspects" in an horrible crime??

Please, BC, explain me how it's legally possible (not say say "ethic")



Cain,

If Boulder authorities publicly announced the Ramsey murder was solved, the first question would be, "Who did it?"

To answer the question would violate Colorado law protecting the identities of children.

[BlueCrab]

To better provide a basis for this discussion, here's an excerpt from TITLE 18, Colorado Statutes:

18-1-801. Insufficient age.

"The responsibility of a person for his conduct is the same for persons between the ages of ten and eighteen as it is for persons over eighteen except to the extent that responsibility is modified by the provisions of the Colorado Children's Code, title 19, C.R.S. No child under ten years of age shall be found guilty of any offense."

And here's some case law:

"An infant is presumed incapable of committing crime because he is presumed not to possess criminal intent." Calkins v Albi (1967)

"An infant under the age of 10 years shall not be found guilty of any offense." Gallegos v Tinsley (1970)

"Although a child under the age of ten cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts." People v Miller (1991)

And from the Colorado Children's Code, which covers all juveniles under age of 18, in regard to the court sealing their records:

"Person who have had their juvenile records sealed may lawfully and properly reply that no such record exists. However, the record is still available to the district attorney, law enforcement, the courts, and the department of human services. Government agencies cannot show the records to anyone without an order from the court."

BlueCrab

[Voice of Reason]

To this day I believe the NY Post article published back in 1999 or 2000 (forget which at this moment) - claiming inside information that Burke Ramsey was the one who killed his sister and his parents helped cover it up was on target.

<snip>

It should be noted that in Colorado, no one can be charged with accessory to a crime (like John and Patsy who helped stage this crime) - unless someone is charged WITH the crime itself.
So if Burke Ramsey was indeed determined to be the perp (which I think he probably was) - and he was too young under Colorado law at the time of the crime to be charged with anything - then his "accessors" are off the hook too.

IMO
~ Angel ~

Angel, i'm not so sure about some of this information. where did you get it from? i have looked up all articles pertaining to the ramsey investigation that were published by the post in 1999 and 2000. i read them all. there were 2 or 3 that seemed to fit the bill of what you described, but they were all based on a report in Star magazine. i'd give the credibility factor on a NY Post article citing a Star article as its source about a 1.5 out of 10, and i think i'm being generous. the article they referred to mainly discussed "secret negotiations" that were apparently going on between the DA and the ramsey's attorney discussing a plea bargain for burke. we all know that cannot possibly be true, since a 9 year old cannot be charged with a crime in colorado. what would they be bargaining for?

as for your second point, another article i read, quoted a few colorado lawyers regarding these laws. i am not sure your analysis is correct. i guess this is a question of whose info is better, the NY Post, or a stranger from a messageboard. if you can refute this article with some sources, i'd love to see it. i'll put some of the article i refer to here...

Title of Article: JONBENET'S FOLKS FACE PRISON IF THEY COVERED UP FOR SON
Publication: NY Post
Date: May 14, 1999

"There is absolutely nothing the criminal-justice system can do if Burke was involved in the homicide," said Craig Silverman, former Denver chief deputy district attorney.

"A child under 10 is considered to lack the mental capacity to commit a crime."

His parents, however, would not be off the hook if they admit they engaged in a coverup.

"They would be an accessory after the fact - not viewed as guilty of the primary crime, but subject to possible jail time," Denver defense lawyer Scott Robinson said.

Accessory to murder is a Class 4 felony that carries two to six years in prison in Colorado, the lawyers said.

[Voice of Reason]

To better provide a basis for this discussion, here's an excerpt from TITLE 18, Colorado Statutes:

"Although a child under the age of ten cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts." People v Miller (1991)

BlueCrab

nice work on the caselaw, but i believe you pulled miller a bit out of context. allow me to share the next sentence from the opinion...

"We therefore conclude that even though Miller's son was only eight years old at the time of her offense, Miller could be found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor."

hence, if the GJ found burke was the perp, and the parents covered for him, charges could be pressed against them. with all the media scrutiny and public pressure surrounding this case, i highly doubt that the DA would pass up this opportunity, just to protect burke's identity. while the law seeks to keep the juvenile's name under wraps, it does not require crimes by adults to go unpunished in an effort to hide a child's identity.

[BlueCrab]

Angel, i'm not so sure about some of this information. where did you get it from? i have looked up all articles pertaining to the ramsey investigation that were published by the post in 1999 and 2000. i read them all. there were 2 or 3 that seemed to fit the bill of what you described, but they were all based on a report in Star magazine. i'd give the credibility factor on a NY Post article citing a Star article as its source about a 1.5 out of 10, and i think i'm being generous. the article they referred to mainly discussed "secret negotiations" that were apparently going on between the DA and the ramsey's attorney discussing a plea bargain for burke. we all know that cannot possibly be true, since a 9 year old cannot be charged with a crime in colorado. what would they be bargaining for?

as for your second point, another article i read, quoted a few colorado lawyers regarding these laws. i am not sure your analysis is correct. i guess this is a question of whose info is better, the NY Post, or a stranger from a messageboard. if you can refute this article with some sources, i'd love to see it. i'll put some of the article i refer to here...

Title of Article: JONBENET'S FOLKS FACE PRISON IF THEY COVERED UP FOR SON
Publication: NY Post
Date: May 14, 1999

"There is absolutely nothing the criminal-justice system can do if Burke was involved in the homicide," said Craig Silverman, former Denver chief deputy district attorney.

"A child under 10 is considered to lack the mental capacity to commit a crime."

His parents, however, would not be off the hook if they admit they engaged in a coverup.

"They would be an accessory after the fact - not viewed as guilty of the primary crime, but subject to possible jail time," Denver defense lawyer Scott Robinson said.

Accessory to murder is a Class 4 felony that carries two to six years in prison in Colorado, the lawyers said.



Voice of Reason,

I agree with your above post. It was 5/10/99 when Hunter's office denied that John and Patsy were trying to negotiate a plea bargain with the D.A., offering Burke up as the sacrificial lamb. But like you said, if it was true, then the negotiations would have benefited only John and Patsy since Burke, age 9 at the time of the death, was too young to be prosecuted.

It appears Burke is home free no matter what.

Which brings us to possible criminal charges against the parents, such as obstruction of justice or being an accessory. With the exception of murder, kidnapping, treason, and forgery, there is a three year statute of limitations on felonies in Colorado, and that time has expired.

It appears John and Patsy are home free no matter what.

BlueCrab

[Nova]

It appears John and Patsy are home free no matter what.

Probably so, Blue, unless - and maybe even if - one of them killed JBR. But these are people who care about appearances. (Note to all: we really don't need to debate whether they care more or less than the average person.) And most of us agree they seemed to deeply love JBR. (Again, we don't have to debate whether they loved more or less than anyone else.)

I can't think their life has been easy since their daughter died and they fell under the "umbrella of suspicion." That may not be perfect justice, but they've hardly been home free in life.

[Nova]

nice work on the caselaw, but i believe you pulled miller a bit out of context. allow me to share the next sentence from the opinion...

Thanks, VofR, for doing our homework for us. You certainly earned your hat in this thread.

(Thanks also, as always, to Blue and others for their hard work and exhaustive knowledge of this case.)

[RedChief]

Probably so, Blue, unless - and maybe even if - one of them killed JBR. But these are people who care about appearances. (Note to all: we really don't need to debate whether they care more or less than the average person.) And most of us agree they seemed to deeply love JBR. (Again, we don't have to debate whether they loved more or less than anyone else.)

I can't think their life has been easy since their daughter died and they fell under the "umbrella of suspicion." That may not be perfect justice, but they've hardly been home free in life.


Nova, I assume it's your opinion that we don't need to debate whether they care more or less than the average person.

Personally, I'll debate whatever I feel needs debating. I hope there's not a rule against that.

[Nova]

Personally, I'll debate whatever I feel needs debating. I hope there's not a rule against that.

Of course, Red. I wasn't trying to control the board. I only meant to indicate I wasn't trying to pick a fight on those subjects in this thread.

Personally, I think the Rs DO care about appearances (more than some of us, though I don't know what is "average"). I believe they DID love their daughter (and for the record, I also think one of them killed her.) If you want to debate either of these assertions, I'll try to add my .02.

[RedChief]

Of course, Red. I wasn't trying to control the board. I only meant to indicate I wasn't trying to pick a fight on those subjects in this thread.

Personally, I think the Rs DO care about appearances (more than some of us, though I don't know what is "average"). I believe they DID love their daughter (and for the record, I also think one of them killed her.) If you want to debate either of these assertions, I'll try to add my .02.


You had me worried. I don't like to pick fights. I guess I misunderstood you.

Shall we all pack up and go home?

Wait, I think I'll hang around until I see you and the others post your theories in the moderator's theory thread. How long will I have to wait?

BTW, in the 2000 interview, Levin mentioned HAIRS in JonBenet's underpants (assume he meant panties) that may have come from John's black collared shirt. He didn't say fibers. What's that all about? Hairs? He also didn't say crotch, nor did he say pubic area. To set the record straight.

[BlueCrab]

BTW, in the 2000 interview, Levin mentioned HAIRS in JonBenet's underpants (assume he meant panties) that may have come from John's black collared shirt. He didn't say fibers. What's that all about? Hairs? He also didn't say crotch, nor did he say pubic area. To set the record straight.


RedChief,

Attorney Levin meant fibers, not hairs. You are right about no one saying specifically WHERE the black fibers from John's shirt were located in JonBenet's panties. Of course, since the fibers were IN the panties and not just ON the panties, one might assume the crotch area.

JOHN RAMSEY: "If the question is how did fibers of your shirt get into your daughter's underwear, I say that is not possible. I don't believe it. That is ridiculous."

Just thinking out loud: If there were fibers from John's black shirt IN the size 12/14 panties, how did they get there? Does this mean JonBenet wasn't re-dressed in clean panties following the murder after all? Or does it mean the clean size 12/14 panties, while inside out, somehow touched John's shirt before she was re-dressed? Or while she was being re-dressed? Or does it mean something else?

BlueCrab

[RedChief]

RedChief,

Attorney Levin meant fibers, not hairs. You are right about no one saying specifically WHERE the black fibers from John's shirt were located in JonBenet's panties. Of course, since the fibers were IN the panties and not just ON the panties, one might assume the crotch area.

JOHN RAMSEY: "If the question is how did fibers of your shirt get into your daughter's underwear, I say that is not possible. I don't believe it. That is ridiculous."

Just thinking out loud: If there were fibers from John's black shirt IN the size 12/14 panties, how did they get there? Does this mean JonBenet wasn't re-dressed in clean panties following the murder after all? Or does it mean the clean size 12/14 panties, while inside out, somehow touched John's shirt before she was re-dressed? Or while she was being re-dressed? Or does it mean something else?

BlueCrab


Yes, BlueCrab, but it's these assumptions that I'm trying to avoid. Just the facts.

How do you know Levin meant fibers? He said hairs? Have you discussed this with him? Or, is this just your assumption, too? It was a black collared shirt.

You are free to assume whatever you want, sir. I prefer facts.

As for what the hairs in the "panties" mean, that I'm not sure of. It's possible that LE was baiting John, eh. They never did state that as a fact....the hairs/"fibers".

How long was it after the murder before LE requested those clothing items? If you were John, and you were guilty and you could furnish a substitute, wouldn't you do it?

There could be an innocent explanation for the hairs/"fibers", but Wood wouldn't allow the conversation to continue.

We also don't know whether Levin was referring to the panties or the longjohns; both are underpants, eh.

But, we can ASSUME.....

[BlueCrab]

RedChief,

Re-read my post. John corrected Levin's use of the word hairs instead of fibers.

[Nova]

You had me worried. I don't like to pick fights. I guess I misunderstood you.

Shall we all pack up and go home?

Wait, I think I'll hang around until I see you and the others post your theories in the moderator's theory thread. How long will I have to wait?

No problem, Red. I could have been clearer.

As for my "theory," years ago I posted detailed breakdowns of my thinking more than once, long posts that were lost in various board catastrophes. These posts can be summed up simply as follows: there were three people - and only three - in the house that night (other than the victim) and one of them killed JBR. I don't think we have enough information to know with any certainty who did exactly what. (My gut says Patsy killed JBR, but that may be because I know a lot more about histrionic Southern mothers than I do about fathers who molest daughters or brothers who abuse sisters.)

So if I seem to merely snipe at people who have the courage to post detailed theories, I'm sorry. (I'm guessing that is the implied message in your baiting me. No offense taken, I assure you.)

I very much appreciate those of you who are able to construct what you believe to be definitive accounts of the killing, but I can't in good conscience join your ranks.

[RedChief]

No problem, Red. I could have been clearer.

As for my "theory," years ago I posted detailed breakdowns of my thinking more than once, long posts that were lost in various board catastrophes. These posts can be summed up simply as follows: there were three people - and only three - in the house that night (other than the victim) and one of them killed JBR. I don't think we have enough information to know with any certainty who did exactly what. (My gut says Patsy killed JBR, but that may be because I know a lot more about histrionic Southern mothers than I do about fathers who molest daughters or brothers who abuse sisters.)

So if I seem to merely snipe at people who have the courage to post detailed theories, I'm sorry. (I'm guessing that is the implied message in your baiting me. No offense taken, I assure you.)

I very much appreciate those of you who are able to construct what you believe to be definitive accounts of the killing, but I can't in good conscience join your ranks.


Yes, Nova, I watch your show on public television. First rate!

I'm thankful for the opportunity to learn more about histrionic Southern mothers. I absolutely defer to your expertise on this topic. I know I won't be telling you anything you don't already know; in fact, I'm hoping you'll share with me what you know and I don't. I came to the forum to find out who killed JBR. Though I haven't yet, I'm still hopeful; one of those optimistic fools.

Patsy was raised in West Virginia? That's pretty far north. Does she qualify as a Southerner nontheless? I guess what makes her a Southerner is the culture which molded her? Where is the invisible line that forms the boundary between Southern culture and Northern culture? We could include Eastern and Western too, but those are slightly irrelevant.....well, maybe not. West Virginia is pretty far east relative to Boulder, Colorado. On top of all those cultures (psychosocial influences) we have the American culture? Damn, it's getting chaotic in here.

I'm a Westerner by birth and immersion. It's a sad fact. More specifically, I grew up and live in the Rocky Mountain West. I'm a John Denver fan; God rest his soul, that poor naive idealist. It has it's pros and cons. The trout fishing is excellent. The "motor heads" can be a pain. I think I'd be like a duck out of water in Parkersburg; boy, have you looked at the map of WV and noticed all those burgs? People are sure copy-cats, aren't they. Thisburg, thatburg, theotherburg. Well, what have we got here? Thisville, thatville, theotherville. We don't like "outsiders", except if they come and spend a lot of money and go home and come again next year. It's called xenophobia in association with tourism. If they decide to stay--there's no law against it--we call 'em "imports". Who says we're not prejudiced. A Southerner who decided to come here to live, would be given the cold shoulder at first, but eventually acculturated and embraced. Slowly, the old culture gives way to a new one, and a newer one, and a newer one yet. And so it goes. Child beauty pageants? Forgetaboutit!

So, Southern gals absorb their histrionics from their culture? If that's so, then can I safey surmise that these gals are genetically predisposed to histrionics, and the culture which surrounds them and washes over them nourishes this behavior? If the personality (a stable set of psychosocial characteristics) which forms by virtue of this cultural bombardment, is described in the diagnostic manual, I guess it's pathological, right? And, if it's pathological, the South, itself, is mentally and/or emotionally pathogenic? Maybe it's the mint julips.

I confess, I knew next to nothing about so-called child beauty pageants until this homicide occurred. I probably still don't know nearly as much as I think I do; but, I'm learning. I will want to give my daughter a leg up in life and this pageant thing just might be the ticket.....nah!

Tell me, leaving all prejudice aside, and knowing what you know about the pageants and JonBenet's participation in them (see, I didn't say excessive), is that any way to raise a daughter; is that any way to treat an innocent little girl? Is that any kind of healthy childhood? I really would like to have your opinion on this. I promise that I'll reciprocate, once you've revealed your innermost thoughts.

Finally (almost), if I were to read all your posts on this forum, would I be rewarded with some definite reasons as to why you think the Ramseys must have done it? Seriously, if that is so, I'll not hesitate to study them.

I hunger for a convincing hypothesis concerning the events of Dec. 25/26, 1996, at 755 15th Street, in Boulder Colorado, which culminated in the death of Little Miss Christmas.

I wasn't aware that you'd been sniping; I'll be sure to be on the lookout for that.

[Nehemiah]

I know you were directing your post toward Nova, so forgive me if my interjection here is premature. Being a Southerner, a woman, a mother, having a mother, a knowledge of pageants, and even having been a pageant judge before made me want to jump right in. Only, I am not histrionic nor is my mother; however, I recently had a narcissistic histrionic Southern woman boss, and I do feel very qualified to speak to that, also.

[Nova]

Just to be clear, guys, I am by no means claiming Southern women are more predisposed to commit homicide than anyone else. I'm only saying I recognize a general type in PR - a type of woman I personally love, by the way - and I understand the rage and steely strength that often lies beneath the moonlight and magnolias. (A magnolia, by the way, is a tough if beautiful, prehistoric flower that has survived millions of years of evolutionary competition.)

Being "Southern" is relative. Someone from Mississippi might well think of West Virginians as "Yankees." Historically, of course, the counties that now comprise West Virginia attempted to secede from the Commonwealth of Virginia and remain in the Union during the Civil War. But I think there's ample evidence that PR thinks of herself as Southern and that's good enough for me. (It's a cultural condition, not a genetic one, Red. I might even argue that any parent who enrolls her daughter in a beauty pageant is at least an honorary Southerner.) Nobody in Vermont would go on television and say, "Keep your babies close to you."

I am most influenced by the ransom note, which serves no purpose other than to suggest the presence of someone outside the family in the house that night. I think the ransom note reeks of PR and her love of colorful phrases. Its very length sets it apart from most Americans (and all younger Americans) who simply aren't so verbose.

But even if PR wrote the note, of course, we don't know for which R she was covering. And I don't doubt she is capable of staging a cover-up to protect herself, her husband or her son.

Maybe BDI, but I'm bothered by the fact that his parents sent him out of their sight (and control) on the day of the murder. That just seems counter-intuitive for two people who were trying to control an entire investigation and must have feared what Burke might say when he was away from them.

If I could be sure JR had been molesting his daughter, I might feel differently; but what little, authoritative forensic explanation we have seems unclear on this point.

So I'm left with an explosion of violence, an unintended killing and a theatrical cover-up. Sounds like Patsy to me. But there are all sorts of reasonable doubts here.

(Sorry, Red. My original posts on this subject were much longer, much more detailed and logical. Those were lost (more than once) and can't be retrieved.)

[RedChief]

I am most influenced by the ransom note, which serves no purpose other than to suggest the presence of someone outside the family in the house that night. I think the ransom note reeks of PR and her love of colorful phrases. Its very length sets it apart from most Americans (and all younger Americans) who simply aren't so verbose.

But even if PR wrote the note, of course, we don't know for which R she was covering. And I don't doubt she is capable of staging a cover-up to protect herself, her husband or her son.

Maybe BDI, but I'm bothered by the fact that his parents sent him out of their sight (and control) on the day of the murder. That just seems counter-intuitive for two people who were trying to control an entire investigation and must have feared what Burke might say when he was away from them.



Thank goodness Patsy isn't a flowering plant. You'd have a convincing argument. You must know Patsy pretty well, to be recognizing her as a general type. I've seen her several times on the tube, and I've read her book, and don't feel I recognize her as any type, general or otherwise. I will say this, she seems awfully composed and by no means a histrionic personality. Chalk that up to tranquilzers? O'course, I'm not a shrink nor a linguist.

How can one become Southern just by thinking of oneself as such? One's Southernness (to coin a word) comes from one's culture, not one's powers of imagination. I'm not so sure we can separate culture from genetics. Genetics seems to play a role in just about everything. But we're getting pretty far afield and way out of my bailiwick.

I respect your opinions and am giving them some thought and thank you for posting them; but, I confess, it puzzles me that people who think PDI, or covered, seem to think they know her so well, when I know her hardly at all. You're saying that you know that Patsy loves colorful phrases. How do you know this? Do you have correspondence from her or has she written a book, other than DOI, which contains hardly any colorful phrases within all its 427 pages?

The ransom note has multiple plausible interpretations. It did ask for $118,000, no? Everyone is saying Patsy must have written it because it's so long. Huh? Did she write it after JonBenet was murdered? Wow! Steel magnolia for sure; maybe even psychopath? Criminy! BTW, when I read the raw ransom note (not the typed version), I get a much different impression of the writer and the note itself. Do you? I know some young Americans who are mighty verbose, and very good dramatic writers.

This is it in a nutshell for me, as regards suspecting Patsy because we feel we know her well enough to arrive at that probability. Some people probably know her pretty well and are not posting on this forum. Others probably don't know her very well, but imagine they do, and do post on this forum.

Which comes first--the horse or the cart? To say that Patsy probably did this because she's a self-made southern magnolia, is maybe grasping a bit?

With all due respect...and that certainly wouldn't hold up in court.

Ahhh, saved by the glitches...

[Nova]

Of course my ideas wouldn't hold up in court, Red. I believe I've stated about 10 times in this thread alone that I don't think anyone can be convicted of this crime - given what we in the general public know. (Of course there is much we don't know.)

And I didn't say PR's character proves she committed the crime, I said I can imagine her capable of the crime and cover-up, based upon what little we know of her character.

No, I don't know any of the Rs and I'm rather careful not to assume I do.

But we have numerous examples, however brief, of PR's speech and writing. We've heard her speak and can recognize the accent.

You seem rather hung up on the location of West Virginia. Lots of people there consider themselves and are Southerners. I grew up (in Florida) with a number of people from the area and they very much thought of themselves as Southern, even stereotypically so.

As for "histrionic," it goes with the type to some extent. And we know of PR's love of homemade talent shows. (And good for her! Again, I'm not saying this makes her a killer. She's probably a charming hostess.) And we have the account of her miracle cure and her pleas to God to take her instead of her dead child. None of these are a fault, much less a crime, but it does suggest a certain type.

Now would any of this be evidence in court? Of course not! But I'm not a prosecutor, judge or juror. I'm a private citizen participating in an opinion forum. The rules of evidence do not apply here.

And when people here say, "Oh, poor little Patsy couldn't have pulled it off. She couldn't have possibly composed 'the War and Peace of ransom notes' with her daughter dead on the floor; she couldn't have put rope around her daughter's neck to suggest a sadistic crime.", then I say, "You don't know Southern women."

[Nova]

If you have a plausible explanation for the ransom note, I'd like to hear it. I've never heard one other than my - admittedly general - explanation.

As for "saved by the glitches," your condescension is wasted on me. I'm not that thin-skinned. And I've already told you my detailed account of the evidence concluded that we could NOT know for certain who killed JBR. So I agree with you that far. From what do I need saving?

[RedChief]

If you have a plausible explanation for the ransom note, I'd like to hear it. I've never heard one other than my - admittedly general - explanation.

As for "saved by the glitches," your condescension is wasted on me. I'm not that thin-skinned. And I've already told you my detailed account of the evidence concluded that we could NOT know for certain who killed JBR. So I agree with you that far. From what do I need saving?


Gee, Nova, I didn't mean to be condescending, just argumentative; I don't think I could even be that if I tried real hard; not even sure what it means. About the glitches, I meant as follows: you say you posted a detailed theory but it evaporated, and I took that to mean you don't intend to repeat the process, and that's fine, really. Of all the people in the forum, I'm sure you deem me the least necessary for you to please. It's just that I like to peruse folks' theories, just in case I might find one that makes good sense. So, you haven't been saved; I have.

I note that you express yourself well; I admire that. And you seem to have the courage of your convictions; I admire that too, for what it's worth.

I take it you don't find any of my explanations for the ransom note plausible.

OK, I'll take your evaluation under advisement, and thank you for it, and hope others will be as frank.

Here's something that bothers me about PDI because no one else could have written that note--and it's not a criticism of your assessment; that's what lots of people think: PDI has been around for several years and Patsy hasn't been indicted. They even supposedly have fiber evidence that points to her and she hasn't been indicted. They have false statements and inconsistent statements and she hasn't been indicted. Also, there's that problematic foreign male DNA in the underpants. Seems to me that's a trump card for the defense unless it can be convincingly explained away by the prosecutor. How likely is that, in your estimation?

If it weren't for the DNA, would one or more of the Ramseys have been indicted, do you think?

Just wonderin'......

[Nova]

Sorry, Red, apparently I misunderstood this time. I thought you were accusing me of inventing a detailed explanation that was conveniently lost and therefore couldn't be criticized. What I was trying to say with my reference to lost posts was that I was recounting something I wrote long ago (six or seven years) and acknowledging that my memory is sketchy at best. (I haven't read anything on the case and have only rarely visited this room since the 1990s.)

Again, there was no lost "theory." Rather I reviewed the evidence (as I understood it at the time) against each R and concluded that evidence was inconclusive in each case. Likewise, my reference to PR as a "histrionic, Southern female" was not offered as proof of her guilt, but as an admission of my own bias. (Not that I'm against such women. I love 'em. But I'm not blind to their strength in emergencies.)

That's not to say I don't believe in Ramsey guilt of some sort. I do (in my private capacity, not as a juror). But as long as they ain't talking and we have no conclusive forensics, I don't know exactly what happened.

(Speaking of histrionics, by the way, the woman invited a mob of friends to her house even after she had been told the kidnappers of her daughter would be watching and her daughter would be executed. Either she knew the RN was phony and the friends were invited to muddy the crime scene, or they were there to witness PR's Hour of Crisis. Either way (and the truth may be both), it's a rather theatrical course of action under the circumstances.)

I don't know why there has been no indictment. I suspect the inaction results from some combination of (i) the botched investigation; (ii) the fact that almost all forensics taken from the house could be both "innocent" and incriminating with regards to any and all of the Rs; (iii) the prosecutors' fear of going up against a high-powered defense team in the post-OJ era; and (iv) the g.j. hearing strong arguments for and against (Smit) Ramsey guilt and being unable to sort them out.

(Edited to respond to your specific question about the DNA: I think it may just be accidental contamination, but I can understand if the prosecution has concluded a jury won't believe it. Jurors - just like Websleuthers - don't like coincidences.)

I haven't read your explanations for the RN. I'll look for them and comment if I can (though it may be a few days as I have company arriving within the hour).

[skybluepink]

Isn't double jeopardy (and why do I keep feeding RedChief these straight lines?) another reason for not indicting with minimal evidence? If you prosecute & lose, there's no take 2, whereas there's no statute of limitations on murder, so waiting for a break makes sense.

Also, as to Nova's analysis of PR: I second that emotion.

And now for something completely different--Because of the brick walls that impose themselves in every trail we've been trying to follow, I hereby give expression to an idle but new observation: JBR (may she RIP) seemed to be a most untalented little thing, based on the videos that circulated. And she was not ESPECIALLY pretty. I see prettier & more talented little girls every day. Without the pageant makeup, she looked cute & sweet--and WITH it, she looked too horendous for words, if you ask moi--but it's not as if her natural beauty would have prompted her entrance into beauty pageants; rather, it was her mother's desire & experience that led to her participation. Also, she didn't seem to be enjoying herself whatsoever. I suppose what I'm getting at is: How long could PR have stayed in the dark about where JBR truly rates on that circuit? Not that there's a direct correlation between trying to groom a tone-deaf, unenthusiastic child for the big time and ending the child's life--it just is what it is. Another defeat, or discouragement, or failure?

[RedChief]

Yes'm, I couldn't have characterized it more accurately.

I rest my case.

[Nehemiah]

Also, she didn't seem to be enjoying herself whatsoever. I suppose what I'm getting at is: How long could PR have stayed in the dark about where JBR truly rates on that circuit? Not that there's a direct correlation between trying to groom a tone-deaf, unenthusiastic child for the big time and ending the child's life--it just is what it is. Another defeat, or discouragement, or failure?

On what are you basing the statement that she didn't seem to be enjoying herself--the videos, or something you have read?

JB did win several pageants, so we can assume that some of the judges found her to be whatever they were looking for in a winner. That in itself most likely fueled Patsy to continue entering her. I know little girls who have been in many pageants and never won one, yet they and their moms plod along, hoping...

[tipper]

http://www.geocities.com/jonbenet_1990/jbbio.html

"Suesan Rajabi, Miss Colorado USA 1996, judged one of the last pageants JonBenet competed in, she remembers JonBenet as 'sweet and funloving', she also says, "I've seen little girls who seemed to be in pageants against their will, but that wasn't true of JonBenet. She loved to perform, she loved the costumes." (http://www.pageant.net/iran/)

[skybluepink]

Sayin' it don't make it so, though, does it?

[RedChief]

Sayin' it don't make it so, though, does it?


Why can't we all just be honest? Life'd be a lot simpler. Many fewer lawyers for one thing.

[skybluepink]

Gentle Reader: Miss Manners has pointed out that society would crumble if we were all honest. BTW, thank you for your earlier reading recommendations; I'm enchanted by the titles alone. I reciprocate w/Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior.

I also regret any offense that my harsh observation about this poor darling child's lack of real talent engendered. (But the competition usually gets stiffer as one progresses in any such endeavor.) I think we can at least agree that we're all on her side and that her killer needs to confront this crime.

Desperate Soul: Mercy awaits you, whoever you are.

[RedChief]

Gentle Reader: Miss Manners has pointed out that society would crumble if we were all honest. BTW, thank you for your earlier reading recommendations; I'm enchanted by the titles alone. I reciprocate w/Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior.

I also regret any offense that my harsh observation about this poor darling child's lack of real talent engendered. (But the competition usually gets stiffer as one progresses in any such endeavor.) I think we can at least agree that we're all on her side and that her killer needs to confront this crime.

Desperate Soul: Mercy awaits you, whoever you are.


Lordy, Sky, who ya callin' Miss Manners????? Now don't be too obtuse with your rejoinders; you'll lose half your audience, including especially moi.

Just in case you were referring to my post concerning being honest; it was tongue in cheek. Hope you're not a lawyer, but something tells me you might be....nah!

I happen to agree with your comment--sayin' it doesn't make it so. What would you expect a pageant bigwig to say--that little snot doesn't have an ounce of talent and is uglier than a mud fence? She knows which wheels to grease, eh?

Just in case you were referring to the books I mentioned (recommended?); they are old books, I think, but I learned a lot from them. Of course, being the baby that I am, I have a whole lot o' learnin' to do. heh heh

Sock it to me....Miss Manners?...well, I never!

[Nova]

I'm sure you're right about the DA not wanting double jeopardy to attach. If I remember correctly, Hunter himself mentioned such a concern more than once (and specifically in response to Steve Thomas' charge that the lack of prosecution was cowardly).

As for JBR in pageants, I'm not sure how to judge. I'm not an expert on children that age, but in my experience in church and in the theater, it's a rare five or six-year-old who CAN sing consistently on key, particularly when being asked to sing age-inappropriate material. There are some kids, of course, who seem to sing in tune from birth, but they are a rarity. Despite the occasional prodigy, matching pitches is an acquired skill.

JBR seemed pretty to me, but I don't claim to be an expert. (And I agree that any child that age who is heavily made up looks horrible. But apparently pageant people think otherwise.)

But anyone who's seen the documentary on kid pageants (I can't recall the title) and Bravo's "Stage Moms and Dads" knows that when it comes to pageant parents, beauty and musicality are in the eye and ear of the beholder.

[Goody]

Did the Ramsey grand jury, after investigating the JonBenet Ramsey murder for 13 months and interviewing an estimated 100 witnesses, solve the crime back in 1999? It appears this could be so.

But if so, why hasn't the name of the killer been released to the public? The only answer that could fit this question is that it would be against the Colorado Children's Code to release the name of a juvenile too young to even be charged with a serious crime.


BlueCrab
Do you really think the boy was strong enough to inflict the kind of injuries JB suffered? He was not much bigger in stature than she.

[BlueCrab]

Do you really think the boy was strong enough to inflict the kind of injuries JB suffered? He was not much bigger in stature than she.

Goody,

Yes, Burke definitely was physically capable of inflicting the injuries on JonBenet. Burke was twice the size and weight of JonBenet.

We know from the autopsy that 6-year-old JonBenet weighed 45 pounds. We don't have any measurements on 9-year-old (he would be 10 in 4 weeks) Burke, but he appears to weigh at least 90 pounds.

By way of comparison, my average-built 10-year-old grandson lives with me, weighs 110 pounds, and is strong as a bull.

[RedChief]

Goody,

Yes, Burke definitely was physically capable of inflicting the injuries on JonBenet. Burke was twice the size and weight of JonBenet.

We know from the autopsy that 6-year-old JonBenet weighed 45 pounds. We don't have any measurements on 9-year-old (he would be 10 in 4 weeks) Burke, but he appears to weigh at least 90 pounds.

By way of comparison, my average-built 10-year-old grandson lives with me, weighs 110 pounds, and is strong as a bull.


BC, first you declare that Burke was twice the size and weight of JonBenet. Then you go on to say, "We don't have any measurement on the 9-yr-old boy..." Do you see a problem here?

Then you go on to say he appears [to BC] to weigh at least 90 lb; [therefore he was physically capable of inflicting the injuries on JonBenet.]

Which injuries--the head injury, the neck injuries, the vaginal injury, all the injuries?

I think what makes a boy (or anyone for that matter) capable of inflicting an injury (in terms of his strength) is the extent of development of his muscles. If Burke were an avid softball player (baseball player) and had recently swung many bats and was therefore in shape for swinging bats, then he MIGHT have been capable of inflicting the head injury [this assumes the head injury was inflicted with a bat]. I doubt that he could have inflicted it with the flashlight, but that's JMO.

What is needed is (1.) the muscular strength and (2.) the proper instrument. I would guess that most of us have swung bats and know how much hitting force they can generate. I doubt that many of us have swung flashlights.

Maybe Burke hit her with a basketball.

[bensmom98]

Goody,

Yes, Burke definitely was physically capable of inflicting the injuries on JonBenet. Burke was twice the size and weight of JonBenet.

We know from the autopsy that 6-year-old JonBenet weighed 45 pounds. We don't have any measurements on 9-year-old (he would be 10 in 4 weeks) Burke, but he appears to weigh at least 90 pounds.

By way of comparison, my average-built 10-year-old grandson lives with me, weighs 110 pounds, and is strong as a bull.


From the following website http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/:

The average (50th percentile) sized 10 year old boy is 54"-55" tall and weighs ~70 lbs. Therefore, Burke would have been bigger than the "average" boy if he were 90 lbs at the time of JB's murder.

[BlueCrab]

From the following website http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/:

The average (50th percentile) sized 10 year old boy is 54"-55" tall and weighs ~70 lbs. Therefore, Burke would have been bigger than the "average" boy if he were 90 lbs at the time of JB's murder.



That link didn't work for me. I googled it and the chart I'm looking at says the average 10-year-old boy weighs 74 1/2 pounds. I weigh the kids every time we go to the market, just for the hell of it because the scale is there, and my 10-year-old weighs 110 pounds. He looks normal size to me, maybe an inch or two taller than average, but he's solid as a rock and they say muscle is heavier than fat.

Of course, build also has something to do with it. I'm 5' 10" and weigh 185, but people often guess my weight as around 165, probably because I have no beer belly.

Burke Ramsey also seemed taller than average because he towered over JonBenet in some of the later photos and seemed as tall as his mom in at least one. I'm gonna keep my guess of Burke's weight at around 90 pounds, twice that of JonBenet.

[Voice of Reason]

for whatever it's worth, when i was about 10, give or take a year, a friend of mine hit me in the head with a baseball bat. he was hands-down the best baseball player amongst my friends, and certainly one of the strongest our age. we were smasing matchbox cars with a wooden bat, and he didn't see me standing behind him. (ok, we were young!) he hit me with the tail end of his swing. it hurt, and there was some blood, but i didn't have a concussion or stitches or anything.

i'm not sure if this story tells us much, except, i guess, that if a really strong 10 year old takes a good swing at the head of another 10 year old with a wooden bat, the damage isn't THAT bad. but i guess, you switch that wooden bat with an aluminum one, and switch the victim from a 10 year old boy to a 6 year old girl, and perhaps we're talking a different outcome...

[RedChief]

This is something I've tried to track down: Is the skull of a 6-yr-old more resilient than the skull of a 16-yr-old? Is more force required to crack a 6-yr-old's skull than a 16-yr-old's skull?

I've encountered differing opinions even on this. The older skull is thicker, but also less elastic and therefore more frangible? Not necessarily?

The skull of a really old person is more brittle than that of a middle-aged person, and therefore more frangible. The two skulls are of about equal thickness. The skull stops growing at around what age?

I've heard it opined that skulls tend to crack along suture lines, yet JonBenet's apparently didn't. What's the explanation for that?

Can we even agree where, approximately, the blow to the head landed? My guess is at the site of the displaced fragment. I once thought the skull and brain and scalp injury could have been caused by her falling or being shoved against a hard surface. Now, after seeing the CS photo, I think someone struck her with a powerful blow.

Thoughts?

[sissi]

I have a nine year old right here! Size 4 shoes, size 12 slim pants, 95% for height, 7th for weight, takes a picture similar to Burke, looking lanky and thin, and he weighs 60lbs. Now he isn't almost ten, and being familiar with his rate of growth, I will expect him to gain five pounds this year (if I feed him hourly).
Could he deliver that blow to the head, god I hope not, but I suppose it's possible. Could he write the note, no...could he overpower his four year old brother.....definitely NO......if he was going to fashion a garotte I suspect he would use something already made, could he break that paintbrush with his bare hands..not likely..would he come out of this clean? Hell no, scratches, kicks, pulled muscles, six year olds don't go down that easy. Would he be visibly upset ..yes..would he be calm through an interview, no no.

Oh btw,have you seen Kondro the killer on cold cases? He ,in interview, said, first I hit her on the head, then I strangled her, then I bashed her head in with a rock. Then he said, I can wait ten years ,and then I kill again. Yes he kills little girls..hmm..and I believe his last KNOWN case was november '96. He claims if ever free, he will kill again, another little girl.

a snippet..
KONDRO, Joseph
" ....total lack of remorse for murdering two little girls.

The burly former Longview millworker ...father of six saved himself from the death penalty in 1999 by pleading guilty to the murder of a 12-year-old and admitting to the older unsolved killing of an 8-year-old. They were the daughters of Kondro's closest friends. Police questioned Kondro, who had a prior child-rape conviction, about more than 70 other killings and disappearances. He remains a suspect in some cases. ...the self-described psychopath is serving a 55-year prison term for the murders. It's outrageous, he says, that someone as cold-blooded as him could cut a deal."
Source: http://seatlepi.nwsource.com/local/33915_kondro07.shtml

...Born Don Lee Durant, both his parents, whom he never got to meet, and his adopters, are deceased; he requests contact from other biological relatives. Source: Kondro's 2/18/05 letter to Lori Carangelo/AmFOR (re his parents & adopters)


source..adopted killers site..
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:LSr-DRXETRwJ:www.abolishadoption.com/AdoptedKillers.html+kondro+child+murder&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8

[skybluepink]

Sissi:
Yes, I also am struck by the similarities between the case you cite and this case. It's that gosh-darn RN with its focus on Mr. Ramsey that always tends to point me away from this type of perp.

I'd also like more insight on how much time a murderous pedophile tends to spend with his victims, in that it doesn't seem as if the JBR perp got to stay long or DO much of a sexual nature in the time sequence, but maybe it's enough for a thrill.

(And if he left his flashlight in the kitchen, how'd he find his way out the basement window?)

I'm starting to think one of us should weave a new thread in which we use our powers of persuasion to encourage the person responsible to confess. We can explain that WE are a group of individuals that represent a large domestic and foreign community of imperfect people who also make mistakes that we regret and for which we ask and deserve forgiveness. We promise to support the person in any way we can--since our job here will be over. We could try to get Oprah or John Walsh or whoever to publicize the appeal. Or not.

[UKGuy]

This is something I've tried to track down: Is the skull of a 6-yr-old more resilient than the skull of a 16-yr-old? Is more force required to crack a 6-yr-old's skull than a 16-yr-old's skull?

I've encountered differing opinions even on this. The older skull is thicker, but also less elastic and therefore more frangible? Not necessarily?

The skull of a really old person is more brittle than that of a middle-aged person, and therefore more frangible. The two skulls are of about equal thickness. The skull stops growing at around what age?

I've heard it opined that skulls tend to crack along suture lines, yet JonBenet's apparently didn't. What's the explanation for that?

Can we even agree where, approximately, the blow to the head landed? My guess is at the site of the displaced fragment. I once thought the skull and brain and scalp injury could have been caused by her falling or being shoved against a hard surface. Now, after seeing the CS photo, I think someone struck her with a powerful blow.

Thoughts?
The younger skull should be the more fragile and easily fractured. Babies have especially fragile skulls, and the plates sometimes do not knit until 1-yr or more.

This phenomenon is what lies behind the static language theory e.g. the neural pathways are programmed during this knitting together of the plates, resulting in the baby acquiring a dominant language.

JonBenet's skull will not have been fully formed, she will still have been laying down calcium deposits, this is the reason for encouraging children to drink milk.

In elderly people the brittle bone effect in the skull tends to be caused by natural hormone depletion during the menopause. And this can occur prematurely.

It appears that JonBenet was whacked on the head with violent intent, whether a homicide was intended is debatable, the sexual assault and noose is open to speculation, but on the surface it dont look like an accident !

[UKGuy]

Here is a Q for all the Burkephiles and Ramsay Watchers.

What does the Colorado Childrens Code say about innocent children who are drawn into the Grand Jury Process?

What does the Colorado Childrens Code say about children who are drawn into the Grand Jury Process, and then found to have been involved in an accident?

Is the state of colorado unable to inform its citizens and taxpayers that a child is innocent after due process, or that unfortunately, an act of god, or accident occured and there is no case to answer?

[sissi]

UK..No it "don't"! This was no accident. However it appeared as such to Lee, give that man a vial of something and a swab, he really has no place deducing such things from old crime scene photos. Why he was so easily influenced by ST ,I have no idea? ..baffled in Baltimore...
Those babies have some resilent heads don't they! I would suggest however that crushing blow to the head would have taken anyone down.
hmm RedChief, I would think the opposite, I would think there is some elasticity in a young child at suture lines , and yep an older person, I guess the skull is completely formed around 18ish?..would be more likely to have the force released at those lines.

BTW..I discourage my kids from drinking milk and their heads look okay to me, my motive is to avoid OD'in on bovine growth hormones.

[UKGuy]

sissi,

Sure I agree, this is why I ask if the GJ had decided it was an accident then surely we would all have been informed regardless of whether a child had been involved or not?

So if we can rule out an accident it sure looks like it could either be an intruder or a family friend come associate.

I cannot see any of the Ramsey's having a pressing need to kill JonBenet.


Just wonder if those bovine growth hormones were around when I was a kid we were all told to drink plenty milk.

[RedChief]

There are some websites that discuss skull elasticity but I don't have acrobat and can't access the PDF information. Help! Don't make me download acrobat.

I just looked at two sites that essentially say that young childrens' skulls are more elastic than those of older children and adults and are less likely to fracture. If this is true, then JonBenet's fracture was probably caused by one HE Double Toothpicks of a blow.

From one site which discusses Extradural Hematomas (EDH):

"EDHs without fractures are especially common in children because of the greater elasticity of the pediatric skull. The greater flexibility of the skull in children allows sufficient inbending and plastic distortion to produce meningeal artery injury without necessarily causing a fracture."

We can't just look at the fracture, however; we must also look at the brain damage underlying it. Would you say JonBenet suffered considerable brain damage or not? An elastic skull doesn't protect the brain as well as an inelastic one, but the inelastic one is more likely to fracture. With JonBenet we have both elasticity of skull AND severe fracture. I gotta believe this ain't no accident.

[UKGuy]

RedChief,

Surely we dont need pdf exegesis to tell us JonBenet's skull would be less than fully formed than say a teenager?

Now its entirely possible that Burke whacked JonBenet, and the rest is staging, along with Ramsey dissembling and lawyering up, this is a BDI which appears credible.

But how likely was it?

There is such violent intent implied in her head trauma it appears to transcend an accident.

From memory the area directly beneath the site of the head trauma , ie those brain structures would be damaged, how extensively it would manifest itself would depend precisely on which structures were damaged.

I guess she may have been paralysed and appeared lifeless after the blow to the head.

[emmcee]

. . . .
Now its entirely possible that Burke whacked JonBenet, and the rest is staging . . . . .

This sounds plausible. This whole discussion is most interesting.

Does anyone know where Burke is these days?

[UKGuy]

This sounds plausible. This whole discussion is most interesting.

Does anyone know where Burke is these days?
I think he is at University these days or soon will be, BlueCrab might expand more on this topic?

Most of the theories are plausible, IMO, due to the crime scene staging, this allows people to cherry pick the evidence to suit their favorite whodunnit.

So in some respects following the evidence may mean reading the runes of staging.

[BlueCrab]

Does anyone know where Burke is these days?



emmcee,

Eighteen-year-old Burke Ramsey lives with his parents at their home in Charlevoix County, Michigan. However, Burke seems to have a connection to another nearby state that I may report back on at a later date.

[sissi]

In our town we have a "shock trauma" center, where miracles have been accomplished through modern methods, given this I can not say this would have been a mortal wound, unless death ocurred at the instant of impact. Upon finding a child in a coma, no obvious signs of head injury, a parent would call an ambulance or rush the child to an emergency room. If anyone is bent on a staging theme ,better to go with someone strangled her and mom hit her on the head to put her out of her misery. However, again, with any signs of life, I'd expect an emergency room visit. Then of course let's think about the staging, why would John Ramsey undo it, first with closing the window, followed by removing tape from her mouth and restraints from her hands.
The note, for some eliminates a "Kondro" kinda guy. Why? He murdered children that trusted him, one called him "uncle", he knew the little code word of one ,"unicorn", to gain confidence. He did "DRY" runs!! Why not consider a type ,similar to him, could create a note to throw off the child who couldn't read the contents, and the parents who could and would think a kidnapping. Did it buy time? Expecting to buy a few hours, however getting lucky with buying eight years, the note worked for him.

[emmcee]

emmcee,

Eighteen-year-old Burke Ramsey lives with his parents at their home in Charlevoix County, Michigan. However, Burke seems to have a connection to another nearby state that I may report back on at a later date.

Thank you so much for responding. I can't help but wonder when he gets out on his own if more light will be shed on this whole situation.

[RedChief]

RedChief,

Surely we dont need pdf exegesis to tell us JonBenet's skull would be less than fully formed than say a teenager?

Now its entirely possible that Burke whacked JonBenet, and the rest is staging, along with Ramsey dissembling and lawyering up, this is a BDI which appears credible.

But how likely was it?

There is such violent intent implied in her head trauma it appears to transcend an accident.

From memory the area directly beneath the site of the head trauma , ie those brain structures would be damaged, how extensively it would manifest itself would depend precisely on which structures were damaged.

I guess she may have been paralysed and appeared lifeless after the blow to the head.


The PDF files that I wanted to examine concerned experiments with skull elasticity and fracture force; so, I was real interested in them. Guess I'm going to have to download acrobat after all.

The quest is not to determine whether the skull of a 6-yr-old is less fully formed than that of a teenager, but to determine how much force/impact/engery would be required to produce the fracture that JonBenet suffered. I don't think we suffer from too much information; I think we suffer from too much speculation.

As for her being paralyzed, some experts opined that she might have had no more than a headache and have been fully conscious. Others have opined that she might have been knocked unconscious by the blow. Others have opined that she may have convulsed or seized. Too much diverse opining. It's not helpful.

What we need here are true experts who can settle all these conundrums.

I thought that the brain contusion underlying the fracture along it's entire length might be indicative of something important for us to know; just what, if anything, I can't be certain. Maybe brain contusion ALWAYS accompanies fractures, but I doubt it.

It appears to me that not only did the skull separate, it underwent considerable deformation along the entire length of the fracture, during the process.

Thoughts?

[sissi]

If you find them I would love the link, RedChief.
Someone took a flashlight and cracked a styrofoam ball and called it a day. Often I have wondered if there isn't some law of physics, Gforce, mass..equation that would give up pounds of pressure..then what? How do we apply that (if we find it) to a six year olds skull? Didn't we all look at coup , coutercoup ..something about opposite side of impact damage?
To sum it up, I don't think "we" can resolve this . We could call in a physics whizz..or a neurosurgeon..but likely they couldn't meld their info to create a good explanation .
My guess, and yeah, I love to guess, is she was lying on the floor when kicked in the head with a steel toed boot. Her neck wasn't broken, which I consider when thinking of a fall with impact hard enough to cause that fracture, the same for sitting or standing erect when hit.

[BlueCrab]

From the following website http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/:

The average (50th percentile) sized 10 year old boy is 54"-55" tall and weighs ~70 lbs. Therefore, Burke would have been bigger than the "average" boy if he were 90 lbs at the time of JB's murder.


bensmom98,

Yesterday I re-weighed my 10-year-old grandson and measured him. He weighs 105 pounds and is 61 inches in height. He appears about the same weight and height as the other 10-year-olds he plays with. I think these government height and weight charts are way off -- unless the kids here in Florida just grow bigger than kids in the rest of the country.

IMO Burke Ramsey, when 10, would have weighed at least 90 pounds -- twice the size of JonBenet.

[RedChief]

If you find them I would love the link, RedChief.
Someone took a flashlight and cracked a styrofoam ball and called it a day. Often I have wondered if there isn't some law of physics, Gforce, mass..equation that would give up pounds of pressure..then what? How do we apply that (if we find it) to a six year olds skull? Didn't we all look at coup , coutercoup ..something about opposite side of impact damage?
To sum it up, I don't think "we" can resolve this . We could call in a physics whizz..or a neurosurgeon..but likely they couldn't meld their info to create a good explanation .
My guess, and yeah, I love to guess, is she was lying on the floor when kicked in the head with a steel toed boot. Her neck wasn't broken, which I consider when thinking of a fall with impact hard enough to cause that fracture, the same for sitting or standing erect when hit.


Take that!

What works best for me, disregarding all the other evidence, is that she was lying on her tummy (prone) with her head (1.) on a pillow, or mattress, or other relatively soft surface (couch?), and (2.) turned to her right; and struck by someone standing to either the left or right of her, but probably to the right of her, and about even with her shoulders. There was a minor bruise on her right shoulder that could have been produced in the same swing that fractured the skull, the skull having absorbed the lion's share of the blow.

This posture and head cushioning could account for the nature and extent of the temporal lobe bruising; the right pole bruising being more extensive than the left and being primarily coup bruising, and the relatively minor left pole bruising being contre coup, and resulting from movement of the head (and brain) during, and as a result of, impact. There was enough movement of the head to allow the contre coup injury, but not enough to allow neck injury.

It's interesting (to me) to note that she evidently urinated while on her tummy. There could be two alternative explanations for this: (1.) she urinated immediately following the blow to the head, or (2.) she had already wet herself prior to receiving the blow. She may have been in bed when all this happened. Pssst--We may be hit with an asteroid within the next hour and a half.

Her neck wasn't broken: dontcha think kicking her in the head hard enough to produce that awesome head injury, while she lay on the floor, would very likely have injured the neck? What would have prevented the head from moving sufficiently under that enormous impact to cause injurious strain to the neck? I doubt she was kicked as you have proposed, for the simple reason that there was no imprint in the flesh of the scalp to suggest that.

It has always fascinated me that the bulk of her injuries were right-side injuries; the only exceptions were the mystery marks on her left lower back and left leg. I don't consider the petechiae in the left delto-pectoral groove an injury; rather what resulted when she was strangled.

I'm guessing she was struck with a bat, but as for the possibility of receiving the head injury in a fall, whether the neck would have been injured would depend on exactly how she fell--her trajectory and how she landed. If she fell backwards, consistent with her wound, she could have struck her head toward the back without hurting her neck.

Note that she has no frontal torso injuries; just the neck abrasions probably attributable in whole or in part to the ligature.

Added: pressure is expressed as force per unit area. Example: pounds per square inch. For a given force, say, 100 lb, the smaller the area of application of the force, the greater the pressure. A 100 lb force acting over 100 square inches produces 1 pound per square inch. The same 100 pound force acting over 1 square inch produces 100 pounds per square inch. In both cases the applied force is the same. The higher the pressure, the greater the tendency to penetrate.

Momentum and impact: Let's use the swinging bat as an example and stay away from esoteric terms. When the bat is swung, energy is imparted to it. The greater the duration of the swing and the greater the force applied to the handle during the swing, the greater the amount of energy flowing out of the muscles that produce the swing and into the bat. Energy is conserved. The energy which leaves the muscles shows up in the bat and in the air around the bat (friction) and in other tissues in the arms as they swing. The arms aren't 100% efficient as energy transmitters. The muscles do work on the arms and the body as well as on the bat. Work is energy in transition at a boundary; IOW energy can be expressed as foot-pounds; the action of a force through a distance. The heavier the bat, the more the energy that can be imparted to it during the swing, but the more powerful the muscles that are necessary to swing it. No one can swing a 1,000 lb bat. Conversely, no one can crack a skull with a 1 ounce bat. Whereas the 1,000 lb bat can't be swung at all, the 1 ounce bat can't absorb enough energy during the swing to do appreciable damage on impact. Finally, as regards impact and momentum. They are equivalent except that momentum refers to the energy of a moving object, whereas impact refers to the transfer of that energy when the object ceases to move--is brought to a halt. The quicker the object (in this discussion, the bat) is brought to a halt by whatever it strikes, the greater the force of the impact. Math and physics allows that the force could be INFINITE, but practical situations aren't such that infinite force ever developes.

What this all boils down to is that if the swinger is powerful enough and the bat is heavy enough and the skull is frangible enough, a fracture will develop, the extent of which will be directly proportional to the force of impact. Also, the damage to the brain will be proportional to this force; but, remember, it's possible to do more damage (diffuse axonal damage) to the brain by cushioning the head during impact than by striking the uncushioned head; so, it's possible to do severe damage to the brain and have NO fracture. Conversely, it's possible to have a fracture without any accompanying brain damage.

I rest my case and request my two cents....

[sissi]

Do I understand this as, if she was seated (right now , I'm not accounting for her being prone on a mattress), and a person raised a "bat"or flashlight, and whacked her in the head, the most efficient momentum and force would be applied. However if she was lying on the floor, the impact would be lessened by the time the arms got the bat to the bottom of it's arc.? Maybe that's not the right term, but I'm picturing it as a 180* with the most force applied around 90*? Anything higher, less force..lower less ,as well?

[RedChief]

Do I understand this as, if she was seated (right now , I'm not accounting for her being prone on a mattress), and a person raised a "bat"or flashlight, and whacked her in the head, the most efficient momentum and force would be applied. However if she was lying on the floor, the impact would be lessened by the time the arms got the bat to the bottom of it's arc.? Maybe that's not the right term, but I'm picturing it as a 180* with the most force applied around 90*? Anything higher, less force..lower less ,as well?


sissi,

Well, if she were seated on a barstool, she'd be pretty high off the floor. If she were seated on an ottoman, she'd be pretty low to the floor. If she were seated (even lying) on her bed, she'd be somewhere in between those two extremes. If she were seated at the dining table, the height of her head above the floor, would depend on the height of the seat with respect to the floor. So, it all depends. All things are relative.

Let's assume we're envisioning the use of a bat. If her head were about ball high (mid-chest?), that'd probably be close to ideal for a horizontal swing. That might even be close to ideal for a vertical swing. I'm not a ball player.

I'm proposing that the swing was more or less vertical and the head was "bed high". All this would also depend on the height of the batter and the length of his arms. Lots of variables. Also, you'd have to consider the possibility that the batter was on his knees. If he were on his knees, he'd probably hit a floor target harder than if he were standing. Use your common sense; your good Northern common sense.

If you're making a vertical swing with a bat at a target that's waist high, you'll automatically try to pump all your energy into the swing by the time the bat hits the target. If you're making a similar swing at a target that's chest high, the same applies. If you were to truncate your swing at shoulder level, while striking vertically at a floor target, you'd not hit it as hard as if you had adjusted your swing to match the requirement.

Moreover, when swinging a bat vertically at a "low altitude" target, you could raise the bat handle (where you're gripping it) high overhead (stretch), and lower your body, even bending your knees, as the swing progresses and get more energy into the swing that way. Lots of possibilities.

However it was done, the club missed the ear. Might be able to deduce something from that.

Ask Wecht; he'd know. Do you think you could do more damage with a bat, or with a 3-cell maglite? Would there be any evidence on the interior of the flashlight to suggest that it had been used as a bludgeon? Why would a Ramsey leave the flashlight in plain sight after using it thus? Which costs more, the maglite or the stun gun?

[sissi]

Gee, my northern sense, is it failing me? I would think if one were on their knees it would kinda' cut back on the force? I would think a horizontal hit wouldn't be likely to hit her in the spot where the bones was shattered. A direct hit to the back of her head "maybe"with someone standing above her.
Best guess for me, is going to remain, "steel toed boot" kick in the head as he was leaving, good measure ,angry comment.

[RedChief]

Gee, my northern sense, is it failing me? I would think if one were on their knees it would kinda' cut back on the force? I would think a horizontal hit wouldn't be likely to hit her in the spot where the bones was shattered. A direct hit to the back of her head "maybe"with someone standing above her.
Best guess for me, is going to remain, "steel toed boot" kick in the head as he was leaving, good measure ,angry comment.


There comes a time in every man's/woman's life when he/she sticks to his/her opinion no matter what evidence to the contrary.

It's obvious that if you were on your knees while striking a target on the floor with a bat or a flashlight you could hit it harder than if you were standing. Try it, and see for yourself. It's a no-brainer.

Also, you have to take into consideration the point of impact on the skull; any theory you come up with has to permit that; also your theory has to allow avoidance of the ear. Anybody can make a scientific wild-assed guess, but what good is it?

No to the steel-toed boot; no evidence of it and it would likely have broken her neck, and not fractured her skull.

I can see we're at loggerheads on this one. You want her to be kicked in the head while lying on the floor (or the ground?), and I want her to be whacked on the head while lying in her bed. heh heh

[bensmom98]

...unless the kids here in Florida just grow bigger than kids in the rest of the country.




You know Blue, that may be true. It could be all that sunshine in FLA that makes the kids grow bigger :waitasec: . Here in Northern Vermont (where it is not so sunny) I have a neighbor who has a 10 year old who weighs ~100 lbs, and she is always talking about how huge he is. That is why I was confused by your original post.

[K777angel]

emmcee,

Eighteen-year-old Burke Ramsey lives with his parents at their home in Charlevoix County, Michigan. However, Burke seems to have a connection to another nearby state that I may report back on at a later date.

Hmm Bluecrab - might this "connection" be a young lady?? :blushing:

[Jayelles]

Hmm Bluecrab - might this "connection" be a young lady?? :blushing:
Or a university place? I know he was rumoured to be considering university in Michigan, but perhaps the Ramseys have reconsidered?

BC? Will you share?

[CinnamonGirl]

bensmom98,

Yesterday I re-weighed my 10-year-old grandson and measured him. He weighs 105 pounds and is 61 inches in height. He appears about the same weight and height as the other 10-year-olds he plays with. I think these government height and weight charts are way off -- unless the kids here in Florida just grow bigger than kids in the rest of the country.

IMO Burke Ramsey, when 10, would have weighed at least 90 pounds -- twice the size of JonBenet.

We just moved here to Florida in August and my daughter is 5 and weighed 48 pounds when we moved here from the north,she now weighs 59 pounds.It has to be something here making them big and she has grown a few inches too.

[Jayelles]

We just moved here to Florida in August and my daughter is 5 and weighed 48 pounds when we moved here from the north,she now weighs 59 pounds.It has to be something here making them big and she has grown a few inches too.
That's a big growth spurt! My daughter is also 5 and she weighs 39lbs. She's 42 inches tall.

[BlueCrab]

BC? Will you share?


Jayelles,

Sorry, it's too preliminary. And I could be barking up the wrong tree.

[GuruJosh]

Hmm Bluecrab - might this "connection" be a young lady?? :blushing:
LOL a young lady who's in for a wild ride!