JonBenet Ramsey Documentary

As far as I know BR has done one interview with Dr Phil which he got paid for so he is not frequently offering to talk to people. He waited for years and then probably chose the highest paying offer for his story...
Abusive people often end up killing their victims. It happens a lot.
 
I have to chime in again, I think it is smart to go with the professional detectives and the polices’ version of events.
They get paid to do what they do. And they are good at it.
They can look at a person or two in a room and without a word being spoken, (or even after listening to misleading words spoken by scamming, conning, blackmailing, scum used to being able to deceive everyone in the room); they can figure out what is going on.
Being able to read people, and having to be congnizant of the most depraved depths a human soul will stoop to -for money, power, or self-gratification are what make them admirable for me.
 
W
Abusive people often end up killing their victims. It happens a lot.
Wait until he gets married and has kids of his own. Then we’ll know for certain.
The dysfunction will carry through generations.
The only way to break it, would be if he never marries, and never has kids.
 
awillis0513,
Nicee post, should help some to decide one way or the other. Even without both parents having Murder1 Counts leveled at them, the True Bills still come down to BDI or JR and/or PR abusing and killing JonBenet?

Meaning the True Bills say the case is really RDI, since the R's assisted the Person and placed JonBenet in a position of threat or danger.

I cannot see any other interpretation, other than legal types doing some logic chopping on the interpretation of the alleged counts?

.
It’s always money. I don’t know about power.
But the Stine relationship was important to them.
The Stines were part of the establishment. The Old Money, lineaged and tenured. The Ramseys had a good name and they were respected, but they were trying to break into the inner circle of educated professionals, and respected wealth in Boulder. The Ramseys were new money.
And PRs’ taste was horrific and tacky.
 
The CBS 'documentary' was a total sham that was not a "complete re-investigation", but a a pre-determined 'investigation' based on Kolar's book and everything that followed was twisting, stretching, ignoring, explaining away and even inventing 'evidence' to point in that direction.

The 'climax' of this theory is that Burke bashed JBR's head in because she took a piece of his pineapple* meal.
Utter nonsense.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Burke Ramsey killed JBR. None.

*According to Paula Woodward (who had access to the "Murder Book Index," a 3,000-page summary of files and reports on the case and an unpublished 1,000-page Boulder Police Department file of its officers' involvement in the case) in We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey Twenty Years Later, the pineapple was probably part of a fruit cocktail that JBR ate:

According to previously unreleased BPD reports, laboratory testing revealed that JonBenét also ate cherries and grapes as well as pineapple. Remnants of cherries were found in the stomach/ proximal area of her small intestine. “Another item besides pineapple was cherries.” (BPD Report #1-1348.) In that same report: “Another item besides pineapple was grapes.” (BPD Report #1-1348.) Another report expands on the grapes, saying “grapes including skin and pulp.” (BPD Report #1-349.) The food described resembles what is included in most cans of fruit cocktail.
Exactly. I read the autopsy report. And the commentaries by the M.E.’s.
They were pretty decisive and quite clear.
 
awillis0513,
Nicee post, should help some to decide one way or the other. Even without both parents having Murder1 Counts leveled at them, the True Bills still come down to BDI or JR and/or PR abusing and killing JonBenet?

Meaning the True Bills say the case is really RDI, since the R's assisted the Person and placed JonBenet in a position of threat or danger.

I cannot see any other interpretation, other than legal types doing some logic chopping on the interpretation of the alleged counts?

.
I think count seven is worded very interestingly:

"[The Ramseys] unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.”

It's easy to read that and think the Ramseys, themselves, had abused JonBenet. However, it reads that they assisted someone that they knew had committed child abuse resulting in death. I can't think of another person in the world that the Ramseys would "render assistance to" other than one of their children.

Also, count four reads:

“[The Ramseys] did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child’s life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenét Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.”

I think the keyword there is knowingly. This would mean that the Ramseys had been aware that JonBenet was "placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury" and that a reasonable person should have understand that. So, what is it that led the Grand Jury to believe that they should have known she was in the position to be injured or, in her case, ultimately killed?

There is something in the evidence that the jurors saw that made them believe the Ramseys had enough information prior to JonBenet's death to have a reasonable conclusion that she was unsafe and should be removed from that situation. I have seen this charge before, typically, in child abuse cases that involve a parent not protecting a child from their partner's abuse. However, neither parent is charged with outright abuse.

So, who abused JonBenet? What made the Grand Jury believe that John and Patsy should have known that she could be injured or even killed? I'm not sure that I've seen enough evidence about any suspect that would lead me to that conclusion. So, what could be so dramatic as to lead to that count?
 
Yes

Yes. Fruit cocktail. Because of grape skins they found in the autopsy.
Not BRs’ bowl of pineapple. With mom and BRs’ fingerprints on it. Drunk mom had no clean spoons so she gave him the bowl and a big spoon.
They had been partying all night.
They cleaned up the house in the morning. All the women probably hit the dishes and the laundry.
How many people did PR call?
To help muddy up the crime scene and set up the staging and alibi?
Could the sound of dragging metal on concrete have been the freezer being pulled away from the wall? Where JBRS’ body was hid?
The smell of decomposition could be smelled a good distance away from the body, it says. Could she have been wrapped in blankets and stored in the freezer?

I have never read or heard of Patsy being drunk that evening. Have you read this?

Also, the house was definitely not cleaned and the Ramseys definitely weren't a clean bunch. Patsy was wearing the same clothes from Christmas evening the next day when the police and their friends arrived to the home.

If I recall correctly, Patsy called two couples and 911.

As far as decomposition, I don't think the body was left for so long that the smell of decomposition would be smelled upstairs. This was a rather large home and she was found in a room that even their housekeeper wasn't aware existed. I don't think there's ever been evidence to show that her body was put in a freezer.
 
I have to chime in again, I think it is smart to go with the professional detectives and the polices’ version of events.
They get paid to do what they do. And they are good at it.
They can look at a person or two in a room and without a word being spoken, (or even after listening to misleading words spoken by scamming, conning, blackmailing, scum used to being able to deceive everyone in the room); they can figure out what is going on.
Being able to read people, and having to be congnizant of the most depraved depths a human soul will stoop to -for money, power, or self-gratification are what make them admirable for me.
I agree. That's why I tend to give more merit to Jim Clemente, Jim Kolar, Steve Thomas, Laura Richards, Steve Thomas, and the rest of law enforcement who have commented on this case.

The District Attorney's office, however, I struggle with. The investigators don't have to worry about reelection while the district attorney does. I'm not sure why the DA's office has chosen to seemingly be more of a hurdle in this case than a solution, but they have chosen to take positions that would seem contrary to solving this case or at least letting the public know who committed this crime. Alex Hunter purposefully misled the public regarding the indictments. Mary Lacy made a public pronouncement of innocence regarding the Ramseys based on extremely limited DNA evidence, which the current prosecutor says was misguided.

I don't believe in the grand conspiracy theories many seem to have regarding the Ramseys and local politicians. However, I think the DA's office knows what happened in this case and chose to hide the details from the public purposefully. They may believe that the Ramseys are good people. They may believe that there's no good in releasing the details of what happened in this case. But there's a reason that a rift formed between investigators and the DA regarding how the Ramseys were investigated.

Note: I just recalled this. Steve Thomas has stated in interviews that Alex Hunter stated that investigating the Ramseys was a "political decision." So, what exactly does that mean? The Ramseys are broke now and have lost most of their influential friends. What remains so political?
 
I was what happened in the 23rd. It was why Fleet White called 911. It was his testimony about what he saw on the 23rd that convinced them the Ramsey’s “knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation”
I think count seven is worded very interestingly:

"[The Ramseys] unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.”

It's easy to read that and think the Ramseys, themselves, had abused JonBenet. However, it reads that they assisted someone that they knew had committed child abuse resulting in death. I can't think of another person in the world that the Ramseys would "render assistance to" other than one of their children.

Also, count four reads:

“[The Ramseys] did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child’s life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenét Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.”

I think the keyword there is knowingly. This would mean that the Ramseys had been aware that JonBenet was "placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury" and that a reasonable person should have understand that. So, what is it that led the Grand Jury to believe that they should have known she was in the position to be injured or, in her case, ultimately killed?

There is something in the evidence that the jurors saw that made them believe the Ramseys had enough information prior to JonBenet's death to have a reasonable conclusion that she was unsafe and should be removed from that situation. I have seen this charge before, typically, in child abuse cases that involve a parent not protecting a child from their partner's abuse. However, neither parent is charged with outright abuse.

So, who abused JonBenet? What made the Grand Jury believe that John and Patsy should have known that she could be injured or even killed? I'm not sure that I've seen enough evidence about any suspect that would lead me to that conclusion. So, what could be so dramatic as to lead to that count?
Because of what happened on the 23rd. It was why Fleet White called 911 but was talked out of it. It was his testimony of what happened the 23rd that made it knowingly placed her in danger.
I think count seven is worded very interestingly:

"[The Ramseys] unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.”

It's easy to read that and think the Ramseys, themselves, had abused JonBenet. However, it reads that they assisted someone that they knew had committed child abuse resulting in death. I can't think of another person in the world that the Ramseys would "render assistance to" other than one of their children.

Also, count four reads:

“[The Ramseys] did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child’s life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenét Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.”

I think the keyword there is knowingly. This would mean that the Ramseys had been aware that JonBenet was "placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury" and that a reasonable person should have understand that. So, what is it that led the Grand Jury to believe that they should have known she was in the position to be injured or, in her case, ultimately killed?

There is something in the evidence that the jurors saw that made them believe the Ramseys had enough information prior to JonBenet's death to have a reasonable conclusion that she was unsafe and should be removed from that situation. I have seen this charge before, typically, in child abuse cases that involve a parent not protecting a child from their partner's abuse. However, neither parent is charged with outright abuse.

So, who abused JonBenet? What made the Grand Jury believe that John and Patsy should have known that she could be injured or even killed? I'm not sure that I've seen enough evidence about any suspect that would lead me to that conclusion. So, what could be so dramatic as to lead to that count?
 
I think count seven is worded very interestingly:

"[The Ramseys] unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.”

It's easy to read that and think the Ramseys, themselves, had abused JonBenet. However, it reads that they assisted someone that they knew had committed child abuse resulting in death. I can't think of another person in the world that the Ramseys would "render assistance to" other than one of their children.

Also, count four reads:

“[The Ramseys] did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child’s life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenét Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.”

I think the keyword there is knowingly. This would mean that the Ramseys had been aware that JonBenet was "placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury" and that a reasonable person should have understand that. So, what is it that led the Grand Jury to believe that they should have known she was in the position to be injured or, in her case, ultimately killed?

There is something in the evidence that the jurors saw that made them believe the Ramseys had enough information prior to JonBenet's death to have a reasonable conclusion that she was unsafe and should be removed from that situation. I have seen this charge before, typically, in child abuse cases that involve a parent not protecting a child from their partner's abuse. However, neither parent is charged with outright abuse.

So, who abused JonBenet? What made the Grand Jury believe that John and Patsy should have known that she could be injured or even killed? I'm not sure that I've seen enough evidence about any suspect that would lead me to that conclusion. So, what could be so dramatic as to lead to that count?

awillis0513,
JonBenet was regularly attending a therapist in the weeks leading up to her death. The reason for this the parents obviously knew, so this might be a factor in the parents knowingly leaving JonBenet in position of danger or threat, how many six-year olds do you know need a therapist?

wrt Fleet White and what he might know, did you ever listen to this:
The Peter Boyles Show the White's are Interviewed, MP3 Podcast
Fleet and Priscilla White along with Alan Prendergast of Westword on the JonBenet Ramsey case - why the investigation got derailed and why it still matters
Peter Boyles Show - Dec 18, 2014 - Hr 4
In the podcast, towards the end, the White's suggest reading Kolar's book to find out who killed JonBenet, e.g. avoiding litigation and hinting bigtime that the case is RDI

Also:
https://www.westword.com/news/jonb...got-derailed-and-why-it-still-matters-6053856

Some interviews of Tricia interviewing Kolar were available on True Crime Radio

Here is one from the archives: James Kolar Radio Archive Jan. 2014 - True Crime Radio

A SPECIAL EDITION OF TRICIA'S TRUE CRIME RADIO WITH POLICE CHIEF JAMES KOLAR THIS MONDAY FEB 4TH 9 PM EASTERN
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleuths/2013/02/05/tricias-true-crime-radiojonbenet-ramsey-special

The Kolar interviews are probably up on YouTube too?
 
awillis0513,
JonBenet was regularly attending a therapist in the weeks leading up to her death. The reason for this the parents obviously knew, so this might be a factor in the parents knowingly leaving JonBenet in position of danger or threat, how many six-year olds do you know need a therapist?

wrt Fleet White and what he might know, did you ever listen to this:
The Peter Boyles Show the White's are Interviewed, MP3 Podcast

Peter Boyles Show - Dec 18, 2014 - Hr 4


Also:
https://www.westword.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey-how-the-investigation-got-derailed-and-why-it-still-matters-6053856

Some interviews of Tricia interviewing Kolar were available on True Crime Radio

Here is one from the archives: James Kolar Radio Archive Jan. 2014 - True Crime Radio

A SPECIAL EDITION OF TRICIA'S TRUE CRIME RADIO WITH POLICE CHIEF JAMES KOLAR THIS MONDAY FEB 4TH 9 PM EASTERN
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleuths/2013/02/05/tricias-true-crime-radiojonbenet-ramsey-special

The Kolar interviews are probably up on YouTube too?

I know what I'm going to be listening to tonight! I've never heard of that interview. There are so many details to this crime that it feels like I'm always learning something new.

It's interesting that White said to read Kolar's book. That would lead me to believe that he leans towards the BDI theory. If that's the case, then any crime John could have been charged with is past the statute of limitations. White may also fear the wrath of Lin Wood and being the subject of one of his Ramsey lawsuits.

Thanks! I'm excited to give it a listen.
 
"In the summer of 1994 JonBenet was accidentally hit on the left cheek by a golf club, swung by her brother Burke, and her mother rushed the child to see a plastic surgeon, who thought Patsy was overreacting."

This is not factually correct. After Patsy returned home in the summer of 94’, she told one of her best friends -Judith Phillips, that Burke lost his temper and hit JBR with a golf club. This was a year and a half pre-murder, so this is the authentic story of what happened.
 
Yes but it was a while ago and I don't remember a lot of it.



From Det. Steve Thomas book:

"In the summer of 1994 JonBenet was accidentally hit on the left cheek by a golf club, swung by her brother Burke, and her mother rushed the child to see a plastic surgeon, who thought Patsy was overreacting."



They could have done it dozens of times to get it right. Plus, the skull isn't real bone and a pig skin is not human skin. Dead skin does not respond and move the same way as living, pliable skin on a living human skull. I'm not convinced he could have hit her hard enough to open her skull that way with such a heavy object and not lacerated the skin on a real, live human.



If BDI, this means a nine year old child is asking rhetorical questions at the crack of dawn.



The picture of the pineapple was in black and white. He struggled to recognize what it was.
The photo wasn’t black and white. That is a myth that someone on Topix started last year. Even if it was however, who cares. Pineapple is pineapple. BR wasn’t stumped at what was in the photo(he identified nearly everything else in the photo), the behavorial and body language evidence says BR was avoiding the question and doing somersaults in his chair as his anxiety and nervousness spiked. Even if not BDI, BR knew the importance of the pineapple in his 98’ interview.
 

The documents that were released around the indictments were merely the specific counts that the Grand Jury concluded would receive the true bill. Typically, an indictment document would include a description of all of the counts along with a general theory of the crime.

It's entirely possible that the Grand Jury mentioned a third party, however, we have not been made privy to those pages of this document. The only requirement from the court regarding the Freedom of Information Act on the indictments was around the specific ones that received the true bill. The state chose to give the public the least amount of information possible while still complying with the ruling. One has to ask why the state, who was the party pursuing the charges in the first place, would not disclose all of the facts around them to the public. The vast majority of prosecutors are more than happy to reveal indictments they've secured. So, why not in this case?
 
John and Patsy each had nine counts against them. The only counts made public were IV (a) and VII. So, whatever count I was, it's going to be more serious than child abuse and accessory to first degree murder.

Yes, but there were only two charges of the nine that became true bills. There is a reason for that. It doesn’t matter that we don’t know what the rest of the charges are, because the GJ did not find evidence of John or Patsy committing murder.
 
There is no mention in the indictment of a 3rd party.

From the reinvestigation on CBS:

JC: Does that mean that they’re charging John with assisting Patsy if she did it, and they’re charging Patsy with assisting John if he did it?


Polansky: It’s legally possible in the state of Colorado for John to be assisting Patsy, Patsy to be assisting John.


Clemente: Wouldn’t they both then also be charged with the underlying crime, as opposed to just?


Polansky: Yes. Normally, if they do an accessory charge, which here is generally after the fact, it’s usually somebody else. My opinion would be that there is a third person.
 
"In the end, we can say the Grand Jury saw far beyond probable cause. Rather than one indictment they issued four, and two of those indictments included a reference to knowing a third person had committed murder, as well as knowing that that third person was also a child abuser. Even though they acknowledged a murder had occurred, and appeared to suspect who it was, the Grand Jury nevertheless [correctly in my view] didn’t accuse the parents of First Degree murder, but as accessories after the fact." from "sequin star: 2000 - 2006 (The JonBenét Ramsey Story Book 1)" by Nick van der Leek, Lisa Wilson
 
Patsy's sweater-jacket fibers were found in direct association with elements of the crime.

John's shirt was identified as the source of fibers inside the panty crotch of the panties JonBenet was wearing.

Zero evidence from BR was recovered from JBR.

There were over 4,000 fibers collected from the crime scene. We know about a few from Patsy and JR. All of their fiber evidence can be explained away by them staging after the fact. That is what the evidence says.

Most of all the circumstantial evidence in this case belongs to BR. BR is all over the crime scene. JBR pink barbie nightgown which has splatter or drops of blood on it is at the crime scene next to the victim. BR DNA is all over the nightgown.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
2,507
Total visitors
2,673

Forum statistics

Threads
590,033
Messages
17,929,207
Members
228,043
Latest member
Biff
Back
Top