A thought occurs...

What if it had been another child instead of JB killed that night?

Imagine: What if a friend of JB's had spent the night and ended up dead instead?

Do you think the case would've been prosecuted differently? The other family would have surely put some more pressure on the BPD for answers/a suspect.

Do you think that in the end the DA/BPD didn't go for the jugular because the suspected perps were also relatives/'victims' and presented a low/no risk of re-offending?

I remember reading about a case once where a mother left her baby in a car to go into a store for a moment and the baby accidentally got strangled by the automatic window. Technically, the police could have charged her with child negligence or manslaughter or whatever, but they didn't do so because of the emotional damage already done to the mother by virtue of losing her child.

Think something like that could have played a part?

horatio said:

What if it had been another child instead of JB killed that night?

Imagine: What if a friend of JB's had spent the night and ended up dead instead?

Do you think the case would've been prosecuted differently? The other family would have surely put some more pressure on the BPD for answers/a suspect.

Do you think that in the end the DA/BPD didn't go for the jugular because the suspected perps were also relatives/'victims' and presented a low/no risk of re-offending?

I remember reading about a case once where a mother left her baby in a car to go into a store for a moment and the baby accidentally got strangled by the automatic window. Technically, the police could have charged her with child negligence or manslaughter or whatever, but they didn't do so because of the emotional damage already done to the mother by virtue of losing her child.

Think something like that could have played a part?

Click to expand...

horatio,
It has been proposed as a theory that indeed one of Burke's friends was staying overnight, and that they killed JonBenet with the friend secretly returning home in the dead of the night, after he and Burke placed JonBenet into the wine-cellar, with Burke finally retiring to bed.

Do you think that in the end the DA/BPD didn't go for the jugular because the suspected perps were also relatives/'victims' and presented a low/no risk of re-offending?

Click to expand...

No, there was a conspiracy to fix things so that it appeared as if a lone intruder killed JonBenet. This is why Lou Smit was hired, he lent gravitas to the psychotic pedophile theory. He was also used to characterize the Ramsey's as a family with strong Christian values. Then there are the Tracy documentaries full of add on spin, and misquoting, any compotent journalist would recognize all of this as a PR job!

Some people think the initial BPD response was They Let It Happen, others think, They Made It Happen. Personally I reckon, allowing Auntie Pam into the Ramsey house to do her supermarket shopping spree, makes me plumb for the latter.

I consider the death of JonBenet to be a sexually motivated homicide. Another theory proposed including the one above implicating Burke is that of EA (Erotic Asphyxiation). Now this has usually been employed with JonBenet as the recipient via the garrote.

A case here in the UK has allowed me to reconsider this, since as a fetish it patently exists. That is the strangulation of women for erotic pleasure, apparently there are websites dedicated to this subject.

Here is the case in point:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053178/Joanna-Yeates-trial-verdict-Vincent-Tabak-guilty-murder.html

Vincent Tabak's profile is interesting since he just like the Ramsey's appeared perfectly normal, and educated to PhD level, part of his thesis related to behavioural psychology. Yet he manifested a personality disorder that took the form of Erotic Asphyxiation. He viewed the *advertiser censored*, indulged himself with prostitutes, stateside, all whilst keeping his activities and his fetish a secret from his girlfriend, friends and family.

So I reckon the theory that someone sexually molested JonBenet whilst concurrently strangling her thus giving the perpetrator erotic pleasure is credible.


.

I think that in that scenario, it would have just come down to whoever had more money/power. If LHP's child had been spending the night, she wouldn't be getting justice. But if it had been the child of a couple with just as much money/connections as the Ramseys, that would've been an interesting battle.

I think that Boulder knew that Patsy had a low risk of reoffending, so they weren't too worried about what it would do for their PR if she killed again.

eileenhawkeye said:

I think that in that scenario, it would have just come down to whoever had more money/power. If LHP's child had been spending the night, she wouldn't be getting justice. But if it had been the child of a couple with just as much money/connections as the Ramseys, that would've been an interesting battle.

I think that Boulder knew that Patsy had a low risk of reoffending, so they weren't too worried about what it would do for their PR if she killed again.

Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree. I honestly believe that if it was another wealthy family's child that died that night at a sleepover or something, someone would be in jail for the crime right now.

It was a bizarre scenario for the BPD and I'm sure there was a conversation between the higher ups at some point that went something like this:

Look, we're 99% sure JR/PR did this, but they've got tons of money/high priced lawyers, etc. and if we lay charges there's gonna be a *****storm and we're gonna end up taking a lot of flak. The vic is their child and the chances of them re-offending is minimal. It might be best for everyone to not pursue this one too aggressively.

I believe as far as the BPD is concerned, they know who the killer/killers are, but simply can't prove anything. They can't officially close the case, so they try to give the appearance that they are looking for other suspects. However, IMO, any movement on the case is just an act. This one will probably forever remain a solved-but-officially-unsolved cold case.

horatio said:

I'm inclined to agree. I honestly believe that if it was another wealthy family's child that died that night at a sleepover or something, someone would be in jail for the crime right now.

It was a bizarre scenario for the BPD and I'm sure there was a conversation between the higher ups at some point that went something like this:

Look, we're 99% sure JR/PR did this, but they've got tons of money/high priced lawyers, etc. and if we lay charges there's gonna be a *****storm and we're gonna end up taking a lot of flak. The vic is their child and the chances of them re-offending is minimal. It might be best for everyone to not pursue this one too aggressively.

I believe as far as the BPD is concerned, they know who the killer/killers are, but simply can't prove anything. They can't officially close the case, so they try to give the appearance that they are looking for other suspects. However, IMO, any movement on the case is just an act. This one will probably forever remain a solved-but-officially-unsolved cold case.

Click to expand...

horatio,
The R's do not want the case closed. This is why it has cold case status. If it was closed all the evidence would become available in the public domain!


.

But wasn't the case closed back in the early 2000s? I remember that they reopened the case in late 2008/early 2009 so that would imply that the case had been closed for a few years.

eileenhawkeye said:

But wasn't the case closed back in the early 2000s? I remember that they reopened the case in late 2008/early 2009 so that would imply that the case had been closed for a few years.

Click to expand...

eileenhawkeye,
All unsolved homicide cases are never closed. But in reality most go into the freezer or the back of the filing cabinet, never to return.

Team Ramsey attempted to suggest the case had closure through the discovery of foreign touch-dna on JonBenet and the debacle over JM Karr.


.

horatio said:

Do you think that in the end the DA/BPD didn't go for the jugular because the suspected perps were also relatives/'victims' and presented a low/no risk of re-offending?

Click to expand...

I have OFTEN thought that. Like I said earlier, Alex Hunter came close to admitting that.

I remember reading about a case once where a mother left her baby in a car to go into a store for a moment and the baby accidentally got strangled by the automatic window. Technically, the police could have charged her with child negligence or manslaughter or whatever, but they didn't do so because of the emotional damage already done to the mother by virtue of losing her child.

Think something like that could have played a part?

Click to expand...

I do indeed, at least as far as Alex Hunter was concerned. Far as ML goes, I think it was more a case of working a political agenda and the simple fact that live "victims" give better campaign sound-bites than dead ones.

UKGuy said:

No, there was a conspiracy to fix things so that it appeared as if a lone intruder killed JonBenet. This is why Lou Smit was hired, he lent gravitas to the psychotic pedophile theory. He was also used to characterize the Ramsey's as a family with strong Christian values.

Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but I've sometimes thought that. Given his behavior, and that of members of the DA's office I would not be one BIT surprised if someone like Trip DeMuth got in his ear from the very start, and that was that.

Then there are the Tracy documentaries full of add on spin, and misquoting, any competent journalist would recognize all of this as a PR job!

Click to expand...

True enough! Unfortunately, when it comes to this case, trying to find a competent journalist is like trying to raise the Titanic with tweezers. (Carol McKinley is the only one I can think of!)

horatio said:

It was a bizarre scenario for the BPD and I'm sure there was a conversation between the higher ups at some point that went something like this:

Look, we're 99% sure JR/PR did this, but they've got tons of money/high priced lawyers, etc. and if we lay charges there's gonna be a *****storm and we're gonna end up taking a lot of flak. The vic is their child and the chances of them re-offending is minimal. It might be best for everyone to not pursue this one too aggressively.

Click to expand...

Truth be told, horatio, I can imagine the Rs' lawyers telling the DA that, Mafia-style. So allow me a slight rewriting:

Look, do you really want to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on a trial you can't possibly win? You haven't got a chance. We're personal friends of the president, and you guys don't even take cases to trial. And just what good would it do you to put Patsy in prison, anyway? Every expert you get, we'll get ten more. Etc., etc.

UKGuy said:

horatio,
The R's do not want the case closed. This is why it has cold case status. If it was closed all the evidence would become available in the public domain!

Click to expand...

UKGuy, you just nailed it! I've been asked many times: if LE is not actively pursuing this case, why bother acting like they are? And I keep telling them the same answer: because that's the only way the evidence stays secret!

I'm not just talking out my nether regions, either. Imagine how much differently things might have gone in the Chris Wolf suit if Hoffman had access to the police file. (Having a judge with an IQ higher than 60 would have helped too, but I'll get to THAT later!)

Indeed, that almost happened. When the Rs sued FOX News, those guys knew the score, and they TRIED to get the police file. They filed motions in court for the DA to release it to them. Nothing ever came of it, because the judge in that case threw the suit out before anyone got up to bat. Not that I disagree with his decision--it was a ridiculous suit to begin with, and I'm personally sickened by how Lin Wood uses this dead girl's body as his own personal ATM machine--but I almost wish it HAD gone forward, because it would have been very interesting to see what legal excuse ML would have used to justify not releasing it.

Personally, I don't think it's just the EVIDENCE that they don't want becoming public. I think it's also all of the dirty little secrets the DA's office wants to remain hush-hush. I had this conversation with someone a few years ago on another forum. This person, an IDI all full of p*** and vinegar, proudly crowed that a Grand Jury should be called to investigate the Boulder police department for misconduct in this case. My response?

"Hey, that's a GREAT idea! But I'd go even further: let's have them investigate the DA's office, the Haddon law firm and Lou Smit while they're at it!"

The conversation was VERY quickly dropped.

eileenhawkeye said:

But wasn't the case closed back in the early 2000s? I remember that they reopened the case in late 2008/early 2009 so that would imply that the case had been closed for a few years.

Click to expand...

Not quite, eileen. As usual, the media couldn't be bothered to get the facts right. This case was never closed, thus it could not be re-opened. You're thinking of when the case was taken away from the police department, under circumstances I'm still not sure were legal, and when the police got it back.

No UNSOLVED murder case can ever be closed. There is no Statute of Limitations in murder cases.

SuperDave said:

I hate to say it, but I've sometimes thought that. Given his behavior, and that of members of the DA's office I would not be one BIT surprised if someone like Trip DeMuth got in his ear from the very start, and that was that.



True enough! Unfortunately, when it comes to this case, trying to find a competent journalist is like trying to raise the Titanic with tweezers. (Carol McKinley is the only one I can think of!)

Click to expand...

SuperDave,
With hindsight I reckon something like this occurred. Remember how quickly John was legally represented, well parallel to this I'll bet you someone suggested you need a PI, someone with a good record. Then we can actively tell the media its was an IDI and we have a PI on the case. [/i]This is your optimal PR strategy John[/i]


.

SuperDave said:

Truth be told, horatio, I can imagine the Rs' lawyers telling the DA that, Mafia-style. So allow me a slight rewriting:

Look, do you really want to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on a trial you can't possibly win? You haven't got a chance. We're personal friends of the president, and you guys don't even take cases to trial. And just what good would it do you to put Patsy in prison, anyway? Every expert you get, we'll get ten more. Etc., etc.

Click to expand...

Sounds about right to me.

The DNA was a problem........several on the Grand Jury had scientific backgrounds. If the Ramseys had been tried, double jeopardy would have come into play, and if new evidence was found, they couldn't be tried again. Most of the police case, when they did their dry run was circumstantial. Not enough to convict the Ramseys.

Maikai said:

The DNA was a problem........several on the Grand Jury had scientific backgrounds. If the Ramseys had been tried, double jeopardy would have come into play, and if new evidence was found, they couldn't be tried again.

Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the point, Maikai. It doesn't seem like there was any intention of going forward with a case.

We've had this conversation before.

Most of the police case, when they did their dry run was circumstantial.

Click to expand...

What's your point? In case you haven't noticed, the great majority of cases are circumstantial. And up until recently, that was enough.

Not enough to convict the Ramseys.

Click to expand...

We'll have to differ on that, Maikai. I'd convict, as I imagine a lot of other people would. And it wouldn't be the evidence that did it. The minute the Ramseys got on the stand, that would have been that.

But that's not what we're talking about.

This is exactly why the case was never going to go to trial. Not only the Rs (who may not have actually had to be on the Witness Stand), but the coroner, the R friends and clergy, the guests at the White's party as well as the guests from the R Christmas party on the 23rd. The housekeeper LHP, Patsy's friends (who might be called to testify about the "mega-JonBenet thing" they wanted to stage their "intervention" with Patsy. BR may have been asked to testify, though he may have been allowed to do it on videotape, as he did with the GJ.). JR's pilot, the neighbors who hears the scream and "metal scraping concrete", Joe Barnhill, who claimed he saw JAR going up the walk in the daytime.
There was quite a list of people to put on the witness stand, NONE of whom the defense and DA wanted to see there.

The case would have gone forward if there was evidence. This wasn't a case where circumstantial evidence would be enough. Alex Hunter told the police bring me a case. The dry run the police put on was laughable. Scheck was one of the police depts. expert witnesses---no way he would support the police with unknown DNA. And then there's Lou Smit. The Grand Jury was a dry run, and the DNA was a problem with them....the police were running around collecting more DNA when the Grand Jury met....and these weren't blue collar jurors the prosecution could manipulate---many had a scientific background. Alex Hunter was correct in not going forward, and even the Grand Jury was a waste of time and money--they only called them because of Steve Thomas's resignation and the pressure put on the governor in the media.

Maikai said:

The case would have gone forward if there was evidence. This wasn't a case where circumstantial evidence would be enough. Alex Hunter told the police bring me a case. The dry run the police put on was laughable. Scheck was one of the police depts. expert witnesses---no way he would support the police with unknown DNA. And then there's Lou Smit. The Grand Jury was a dry run, and the DNA was a problem with them....the police were running around collecting more DNA when the Grand Jury met....and these weren't blue collar jurors the prosecution could manipulate---many had a scientific background. Alex Hunter was correct in not going forward, and even the Grand Jury was a waste of time and money--they only called them because of Steve Thomas's resignation and the pressure put on the governor in the media.

Click to expand...

What makes you say that? I would say there was an extremely high possibility that there would be a change of venue from Boulder County if the case ever went to trial. My guess would be either to a county in the Fort Collins metro area or the Colorado Springs metro area, as I think there would be too much coverage in the Denver metro area. The Ramsey lawyers were powerful enough, that they could probably dictate where the trial would be. I've never heard of a trial being held outside the state the crime took place in, but Colorado is a huge state, and there are pro's and con's (in a defense attorney's mind) to each metro area/county in the state.