Why doesn't anyone think it could've been John.

[proust20]

UKGuy

What I meant in my previous post is that when it comes to the days-of-the-week Bloomis, I didn't think that there were both a size 12 of them and another set for JB. PR was, of course, vague about the purchase of them, as she referred to how much JB liked them, which convinced PR to buy them. Then, PR switches over to these being her niece's gift. More ambiguity on purpose.

However, as I am writing this, I may be changing my mind. After all, if JB had her own set of them, that could explain why she was redressed in the size 12s. Her own pair could have been tainted with some body fluids, etc. which necessitated the change. Picking the correct Wednesday pair in the wrong size could have been an ill-guided attempt at cover up, maybe by BR? That many of JB's panties were taken by LE indicates that they were of forensic interest.

No size that would fit JB were found; but then, no size 12s were found in the house either. So that is the same outcome, even if there were sets in different sizes.

I believe that it is likely that BR initiated the staging, which the Rs began to revise? This involvement of many hands seems to account for much of the confusion, that ultimately proved to be beneficial for the family. If BR did in fact say "What DID you find?", he could be inquiring as to how his parents rearranged things after his departure from the staging activity. He wouldn't know what his parents had been up to after he was sent to his room. BTW I am not confident about what is being said on the 911 call after the mistaken hang up by PR.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy

What I meant in my previous post is that when it comes to the days-of-the-week Bloomis, I didn't think that there were both a size 12 of them and another set for JB. PR was, of course, vague about the purchase of them, as she referred to how much JB liked them, which convinced PR to buy them. Then, PR switches over to these being her niece's gift. More ambiguity on purpose.

However, as I am writing this, I may be changing my mind. After all, if JB had her own set of them, that could explain why she was redressed in the size 12s. Her own pair could have been tainted with some body fluids, etc. which necessitated the change. Picking the correct Wednesday pair in the wrong size could have been an ill-guided attempt at cover up, maybe by BR? That many of JB's panties were taken by LE indicates that they were of forensic interest.

No size that would fit JB were found; but then, no size 12s were found in the house either. So that is the same outcome, even if there were sets in different sizes.

I believe that it is likely that BR initiated the staging, which the Rs began to revise? This involvement of many hands seems to account for much of the confusion, that ultimately proved to be beneficial for the family. If BR did in fact say "What DID you find?", he could be inquiring as to how his parents rearranged things after his departure from the staging activity. He wouldn't know what his parents had been up to after he was sent to his room. BTW I am not confident about what is being said on the 911 call after the mistaken hang up by PR.

proust20,

What I meant in my previous post is that when it comes to the days-of-the-week Bloomis, I didn't think that there were both a size 12 of them and another set for JB. PR was, of course, vague about the purchase of them, as she referred to how much JB liked them, which convinced PR to buy them. Then, PR switches over to these being her niece's gift. More ambiguity on purpose.

Yes, Patsy is attempting to avoid any reference to the size of the underwear. Patsy does not declare what size she purchased for JonBenet, she was hoping to avoid the issue by implying they were size-12!

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy

What I meant in my previous post is that when it comes to the days-of-the-week Bloomis, I didn't think that there were both a size 12 of them and another set for JB. PR was, of course, vague about the purchase of them, as she referred to how much JB liked them, which convinced PR to buy them. Then, PR switches over to these being her niece's gift. More ambiguity on purpose.

However, as I am writing this, I may be changing my mind. After all, if JB had her own set of them, that could explain why she was redressed in the size 12s. Her own pair could have been tainted with some body fluids, etc. which necessitated the change. Picking the correct Wednesday pair in the wrong size could have been an ill-guided attempt at cover up, maybe by BR? That many of JB's panties were taken by LE indicates that they were of forensic interest.

No size that would fit JB were found; but then, no size 12s were found in the house either. So that is the same outcome, even if there were sets in different sizes.

I believe that it is likely that BR initiated the staging, which the Rs began to revise? This involvement of many hands seems to account for much of the confusion, that ultimately proved to be beneficial for the family. If BR did in fact say "What DID you find?", he could be inquiring as to how his parents rearranged things after his departure from the staging activity. He wouldn't know what his parents had been up to after he was sent to his room. BTW I am not confident about what is being said on the 911 call after the mistaken hang up by PR.

proust20,

However, as I am writing this, I may be changing my mind. After all, if JB had her own set of them, that could explain why she was redressed in the size 12s. Her own pair could have been tainted with some body fluids, etc. which necessitated the change. Picking the correct Wednesday pair in the wrong size could have been an ill-guided attempt at cover up, maybe by BR? That many of JB's panties were taken by LE indicates that they were of forensic interest.

No size that would fit JB were found; but then, no size 12s were found in the house either. So that is the same outcome, even if there were sets in different sizes.

Parsing The Underwear Sizes
Atlanta 2000 BPD Patsy Interview Excerpt
So Patsy states:

1 Q. The underwear that she was
2 wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you
3 know where they come from as far as what
4 store?
5 A. Bloomingdales in New York.
6 Q. Who purchased those?
7 A. I did.

Patsy says unequivocally that she purchased the size-12 Bloomingdale's.

2 Q. Which of those two trips did you
3 purchase the Bloomi's?
4 A. The first trip.
5 Q. Was it something that was selected
6 by JonBenet?
7 A. I believe so.

Patsy can say yes here as the size is not specified only the brand.

25 I think I bought a package to give to my
1 niece.
2 Q. Which niece was that?
3 A. Jenny Davis.
4 Q. They came in, if you recall, do
5 you remember that they come in kind of a
6 plastic see-through plastic container.
7 A. Right.
8 Q. They are rolled up?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So if I understand you correctly,
11 you bought one package for Jenny Davis, your
12 niece, and one for JonBenet?
13 A. I am not sure if I bought one or
14 two.
15 Q. Do you remember what size they
16 were?
17 A. Not exactly.

Bottom Line is Patsy purchased a set of Bloomingdale underwear for her niece, i.e. size-12, and a set of Bloomingdale underwear for JonBenet, i.e. size-6.

Patsy cannot remember the sizes, but if she had purchased Bloomingdale underwear size-12 for JonBenet, then not only would JonBenet not need to request Jenny Davis' gift, but there should be two sets of Bloomingdale size-12 underwear in JonBenet's underwear drawer.

1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you
2 aware that these were the size of panties
3 that she was wearing, and this has been
4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they
5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of
6 that?
7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.
8 Q. And how did you become aware of
9 that?
10 A. Something I read, I am sure.
11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q. -- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?

So the intruder went into JonBenet's underwear drawer and removed only her size-12 underwear and proceeded to redress JonBenet in a pair of size-12 Bloomingdale's, then left the house with the remaining 15 pairs?

Note: there are 15 pairs in both instances.

So with no size-12's found in the house and if you assume there was no intruder, then 6 pairs of the underwear taken by BPD will be Bloomingdale's size-6, the rest can be any combination of size-6 or size-4 underwear in any brand.

That is the remainder of the Bloomingdale's size-6 purchased by Patsy in New York were left in her underwear drawer.

.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy

What I meant in my previous post is that when it comes to the days-of-the-week Bloomis, I didn't think that there were both a size 12 of them and another set for JB. PR was, of course, vague about the purchase of them, as she referred to how much JB liked them, which convinced PR to buy them. Then, PR switches over to these being her niece's gift. More ambiguity on purpose.

However, as I am writing this, I may be changing my mind. After all, if JB had her own set of them, that could explain why she was redressed in the size 12s. Her own pair could have been tainted with some body fluids, etc. which necessitated the change. Picking the correct Wednesday pair in the wrong size could have been an ill-guided attempt at cover up, maybe by BR? That many of JB's panties were taken by LE indicates that they were of forensic interest.

No size that would fit JB were found; but then, no size 12s were found in the house either. So that is the same outcome, even if there were sets in different sizes.

I believe that it is likely that BR initiated the staging, which the Rs began to revise? This involvement of many hands seems to account for much of the confusion, that ultimately proved to be beneficial for the family. If BR did in fact say "What DID you find?", he could be inquiring as to how his parents rearranged things after his departure from the staging activity. He wouldn't know what his parents had been up to after he was sent to his room. BTW I am not confident about what is being said on the 911 call after the mistaken hang up by PR.

proust20,

That many of JB's panties were taken by LE indicates that they were of forensic interest.

Some forensic details in this account:

Fox 31 News, Nov 13, 2006

Holly Smith remembers walking up the steps to the Ramsey home: the big candy canes more jarring than festive considering the circumstances. The house was lavishly decorated. Smith recalls, "It was big and it was meandering and it was schmanzy fancy." It was the third day of the investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Smith was head of the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team and has been called into the investigation, as she says, "to consult about some of the dynamics and some of the things people suspected might be going on with this case."

She started, as always, with a visit to the child’s bedroom. "That's a really important piece of getting a real feel for a family," Smith explains. With portfolio pictures galore and closets full of JonBenet’s elaborate pageant outfits, Smith says she had a hard time getting a feel for who the little girl really was, even in her bedroom. She recalls, "I just had a sense the type of decor in her bedroom was not really a child's decor." One poignant find that she does recall was a red satin box with what looked like JonBenet’s secret stash of candy.

She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material. "There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith. JonBenet also had a history of bedwetting. While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions. "It's very different for every child, but when you have a child that's had this problem and it's pretty chronic for that child, and in addition you know some sort of physical evidence or trauma or an allegation, you put all those little pieces together and it just goes in your head," she says.

Smith adds, "There was an indication of trauma in the vaginal area." The coroner's autopsy discovered evidence investigators say indicates JonBenet suffered vaginal trauma the night she was murdered. However the autopsy report also describes evidence of possible prior vaginal trauma. Experts disagree about the significance of that. It could indicate previous injury or infection, a sign of abuse, or nothing at all. Arapahoe County Coroner Dr. Michael Doberson says you would need more information before you could come to any conclusion. That was part of Smith's job. But then she was abruptly pulled off the investigation and told police were handling everything. "There was a lot of territoriality around the case,” she says.

Smith says she also saw things in the Ramsey investigation that she's seen in other cases, like the factor that money played in it. "No one is exempt but people with money are able to keep themselves more cushioned,” she says. She says she also saw a reluctance to even consider the issue of child sex abuse. Says Smith, "It’s just not a place where you know it's so abhorrent to people that they can't even do it, they can't even wrap their heads around it but it's more common than we think. The sexual violation of children has been around for a long time." Smith believes all of them involved with the case lost their way. She concludes, "In all the hyper-personalization around this case, everybody wanting a piece of it, everybody wanting to be the hero understandably and wanting to find out what happened to this little girl, our purpose really got lost. We lost sight of this child." In her writing, Smith describes seeing a picture of a smiling JonBenet, taken Christmas morning and tells how distressing it was to realize the child would die what she called a hideous death that very day.

Not only was Holly Smith removed from the case, but she had all the material relating to the Ramsey's redacted from her autobiography. What does that tell you?

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy

What I meant in my previous post is that when it comes to the days-of-the-week Bloomis, I didn't think that there were both a size 12 of them and another set for JB. PR was, of course, vague about the purchase of them, as she referred to how much JB liked them, which convinced PR to buy them. Then, PR switches over to these being her niece's gift. More ambiguity on purpose.

However, as I am writing this, I may be changing my mind. After all, if JB had her own set of them, that could explain why she was redressed in the size 12s. Her own pair could have been tainted with some body fluids, etc. which necessitated the change. Picking the correct Wednesday pair in the wrong size could have been an ill-guided attempt at cover up, maybe by BR? That many of JB's panties were taken by LE indicates that they were of forensic interest.

No size that would fit JB were found; but then, no size 12s were found in the house either. So that is the same outcome, even if there were sets in different sizes.

I believe that it is likely that BR initiated the staging, which the Rs began to revise? This involvement of many hands seems to account for much of the confusion, that ultimately proved to be beneficial for the family. If BR did in fact say "What DID you find?", he could be inquiring as to how his parents rearranged things after his departure from the staging activity. He wouldn't know what his parents had been up to after he was sent to his room. BTW I am not confident about what is being said on the 911 call after the mistaken hang up by PR.

proust20,

I believe that it is likely that BR initiated the staging, which the Rs began to revise? This involvement of many hands seems to account for much of the confusion, that ultimately proved to be beneficial for the family. If BR did in fact say "What DID you find?", he could be inquiring as to how his parents rearranged things after his departure from the staging activity. He wouldn't know what his parents had been up to after he was sent to his room. BTW I am not confident about what is being said on the 911 call after the mistaken hang up by PR.

Yes, I reckon you are on the right track here. Yet note how Burke does not ask Did you find JonBenet?

He is acting dumb, e.g. uninformed, even casual like You find anything interesting? whilst the latter is not accurate, its safe to assume he knows JonBenet's disposition.

So it might be Burke is thinking he has fooled his parents and subsequently that he has got away with it?

What else might explain his casual attitude from here on in the case, even during the Dr. Phil interview where he describes JonBenet as flaunting herself at pageants, along with his trademark smirking.

Obviously not much has changed?

.

 

[proust20]

UKGuy

My question that still remains is WHY was JB left to be found wearing the size 12s. With all the staging that took place that night, it seems absurd that such an obvious error was overlooked, particularly so as the panties had to be pulled down, so that she could be wiped. There is the possibility that the size 12s were intentional?

The entire crime seems so bound up with celebrating Christmas. PR and JB go to NY to shop for the Holidays. It is there that the size 12s are bought for PR's niece as a Christmas gift. Yet, if this is true, the size 12s were never sent to Jenny. PR said that this was because JB had opened the package with them. If this is not the case, why did PR not send them out? Then, somehow, JB winds up wearing the size 12s on Christmas. Are they meant to be a bizarre present for JB?
Of course, there is the matter of the secret Santa. Also, the Santa bear. Plus, the Rs listed the man who dressed up as Santa to amuse JB as a suspect. Finally, JB's body is laid beneath the Christmas tree, which is something that one would expect in a work of fiction.

When people discuss the case, most theories tend to accidental death followed with a cover up by the Rs. However, it ought not to be disregarded that the murder could have been premeditated, and planned to happen on Christmas? Although, it is most likely that JB died in the early hours of the morning of the 26th, her headstone gives the date of death as the 25th of December. IMO this is rather macabre. It's as if the Rs wanted her to have died on Christmas, which has a quasi-Victorian sentimentality to it, at the very least. There are elements which could be interpreted as ritualistic? In this vein, bringing JB to NY to buy the panties could have been the first step in this ritual? I know this is far out; but, I just want to point out that her accidental death is only theoretical. I was intrigued by a recent post here that suggested that JB's death was sacrificial in nature.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy

My question that still remains is WHY was JB left to be found wearing the size 12s. With all the staging that took place that night, it seems absurd that such an obvious error was overlooked, particularly so as the panties had to be pulled down, so that she could be wiped. There is the possibility that the size 12s were intentional?

The entire crime seems so bound up with celebrating Christmas. PR and JB go to NY to shop for the Holidays. It is there that the size 12s are bought for PR's niece as a Christmas gift. Yet, if this is true, the size 12s were never sent to Jenny. PR said that this was because JB had opened the package with them. If this is not the case, why did PR not send them out? Then, somehow, JB winds up wearing the size 12s on Christmas. Are they meant to be a bizarre present for JB?
Of course, there is the matter of the secret Santa. Also, the Santa bear. Plus, the Rs listed the man who dressed up as Santa to amuse JB as a suspect. Finally, JB's body is laid beneath the Christmas tree, which is something that one would expect in a work of fiction.

When people discuss the case, most theories tend to accidental death followed with a cover up by the Rs. However, it ought not to be disregarded that the murder could have been premeditated, and planned to happen on Christmas? Although, it is most likely that JB died in the early hours of the morning of the 26th, her headstone gives the date of death as the 25th of December. IMO this is rather macabre. It's as if the Rs wanted her to have died on Christmas, which has a quasi-Victorian sentimentality to it, at the very least. There are elements which could be interpreted as ritualistic? In this vein, bringing JB to NY to buy the panties could have been the first step in this ritual? I know this is far out; but, I just want to point out that her accidental death is only theoretical. I was intrigued by a recent post here that suggested that JB's death was sacrificial in nature.

proust20,

The entire crime seems so bound up with celebrating Christmas. PR and JB go to NY to shop for the Holidays. It is there that the size 12s are bought for PR's niece as a Christmas gift. Yet, if this is true, the size 12s were never sent to Jenny. PR said that this was because JB had opened the package with them. If this is not the case, why did PR not send them out? Then, somehow, JB winds up wearing the size 12s on Christmas. Are they meant to be a bizarre present for JB?
Of course, there is the matter of the secret Santa. Also, the Santa bear. Plus, the Rs listed the man who dressed up as Santa to amuse JB as a suspect. Finally, JB's body is laid beneath the Christmas tree, which is something that one would expect in a work of fiction.

It was Christmas so it will be a factor real or imagined.

If you accept neither parent dressed JonBenet in the size-12's, i.e. Patsy knows they are a red flag, and John neither knows nor cares about their existence, then this leaves Burke as the remaining candidate for dressing JonBenet in the size-12's which aligns with JonBenet also wearing Burke's long johns, again not something either parent would wish to dress JonBenet in for the purpose of staging.

Patsy must be lying about the size-12's, anyone surprised? Gift for Jenny, whatever, they are unlikely to have been intended as part of a crime-scene staging.

What Patsy and John say about the basement and the wine-cellar is mostly fabricated to match their imaginary version of events, so deciding what Patsy's intentions or plans might have been is a guessing game.

The Secret Santa might have been another Christmas celebration intended for their vacation? It might be the reason they celebrated Christmas in Boulder, i.e. there might have been an ulterior motive in play?

My question that still remains is WHY was JB left to be found wearing the size 12s. With all the staging that took place that night, it seems absurd that such an obvious error was overlooked, particularly so as the panties had to be pulled down, so that she could be wiped. There is the possibility that the size 12s were intentional?

It's likely that John made the mistake of overlooking the size-12's, all needed to do was pull down Burke's long johns and the size-12's, clean JonBenet and pull them backup?

John never noticed the obvious error whilst Patsy would have, so JonBenet was left wearing them?

I'm assuming the parents were late to find JonBenet, probably long after she had been assaulted then staged in her bedroom, consider the blood stain on her pillow, or Burke's pajama bottoms found on her bedroom floor.

This will be the reason she was moved along with a Samsonite suitcase of incriminating items down to the basement, then blamed on a fictional Intruder?

The size-12's are intentional, just not for the purpose of staging a crime-scene, the motivation was something else.

If they are intended as part of a staged crime-scene, then so presumably must be Burke's long johns, suggesting that he was to be the original prime suspect?

When people discuss the case, most theories tend to accidental death followed with a cover up by the Rs. However, it ought not to be disregarded that the murder could have been premeditated, and planned to happen on Christmas?

If it had been premeditated by either parent then the crime-scene staging would be more sophisticated and whilst signs that it was staged might be discernible, it would not resemble the disorganized crime-scene left both in the bedroom, basement and breakfast bar, all the little details would have been taken care of, i.e. no ponytails!

I was intrigued by a recent post here that suggested that JB's death was sacrificial in nature.

Well sacrificial rites incorporating a sexual element have long been known to exist in the middle east, so an interpretation along these lines could be made, although given the actual forensic evidence it appears tenuous.


.

 

[JimL2020]

I firmly believe that both parents played a role in this. One did the killing and the other knew or found out about it and both covered it up. Too many things make no sense in this case for it to be an intruder.
1) no random intruder would write such a long ransom note inside house, then kill the victim. They would have wrote note, kidnapped child and left quickly as possible. To kill the child and yet leave a ransom note is just not how that works and stinks of cover up.
2) everyone of any intellegience knows that when you are the victim of a crime you dont call all your freinds over and let them clean up the house while there is an ongoing crime at your house.
3) everyone also knows that if you find a body inside your house you dont pick the said body up and carry it upstairs. You leave everything as is and notify the police of what you found and where. This is common sense and everyone knows this.
4) the ransom note was too long, had details in it only known to a few people, and wrote inside the house with items from the house. No intruder would spend that kind of time inside the house doing writing that note and then killing the kidnapping victim, would be pointless and increase your odds of getting caught
5) The dna found while does not point to anyone in the immediate family, i am not sure plays any role in this as it could have came from anywhere and anyone, from investigators, freinds, transfer at morgue, transfer during testing or many other ways.
6) if they dna was from the killer, which i dont think it is, as anyone who kills in such the fashion that JBR was killed, has done it before and done it since. How many killers kill using this method, sexual and with a garrote have not and havent done it since. I dont believe this DNA is particular to the actually killer, it is in the data base and not returned any results in this long of time. No random child killer who kills in this manner only done this type of crime once.
7) The parents really did not cooperate in a way that would tell me they are innocent. Face it if it was my child i would give statements, dna, anything they needed to get my child back and to help rule me out asap, this was not the case with them.
8) someone knew the layout of the house. While the house was not huge the layout was odd..and to be able to get in, take JBR out her room, kill her, hide her in basement and no one wakes up is far fetched to believe.

Sadly this is only a few reasons I think the parents were involved. At any rate i dont see this case ever being solved as first the BPD botched this case from the start by allowing people in the crime scene, letting the JR search the house instead of them, not collecting all the evidence and so on.

 

[UKGuy]

I firmly believe that both parents played a role in this. One did the killing and the other knew or found out about it and both covered it up. Too many things make no sense in this case for it to be an intruder.
1) no random intruder would write such a long ransom note inside house, then kill the victim. They would have wrote note, kidnapped child and left quickly as possible. To kill the child and yet leave a ransom note is just not how that works and stinks of cover up.
2) everyone of any intellegience knows that when you are the victim of a crime you dont call all your freinds over and let them clean up the house while there is an ongoing crime at your house.
3) everyone also knows that if you find a body inside your house you dont pick the said body up and carry it upstairs. You leave everything as is and notify the police of what you found and where. This is common sense and everyone knows this.
4) the ransom note was too long, had details in it only known to a few people, and wrote inside the house with items from the house. No intruder would spend that kind of time inside the house doing writing that note and then killing the kidnapping victim, would be pointless and increase your odds of getting caught
5) The dna found while does not point to anyone in the immediate family, i am not sure plays any role in this as it could have came from anywhere and anyone, from investigators, freinds, transfer at morgue, transfer during testing or many other ways.
6) if they dna was from the killer, which i dont think it is, as anyone who kills in such the fashion that JBR was killed, has done it before and done it since. How many killers kill using this method, sexual and with a garrote have not and havent done it since. I dont believe this DNA is particular to the actually killer, it is in the data base and not returned any results in this long of time. No random child killer who kills in this manner only done this type of crime once.
7) The parents really did not cooperate in a way that would tell me they are innocent. Face it if it was my child i would give statements, dna, anything they needed to get my child back and to help rule me out asap, this was not the case with them.
8) someone knew the layout of the house. While the house was not huge the layout was odd..and to be able to get in, take JBR out her room, kill her, hide her in basement and no one wakes up is far fetched to believe.

Sadly this is only a few reasons I think the parents were involved. At any rate i dont see this case ever being solved as first the BPD botched this case from the start by allowing people in the crime scene, letting the JR search the house instead of them, not collecting all the evidence and so on.

JimL2020,
Assuming there was no intruder, then there are only three suspects left.

1. PDI: Patsy Did It.

2. JDI: John Did It.

3. BDI: Burke Did It.

With the Grand Jury hitting both parents with assisting an offender and child abuse True Counts, but not homicide counts this suggests the case is BDI with the parents staging for Burke Ramsey.

Also the use of the Grand Jury underpins the above as there was enough forensic evidence to simply charge both parents with First Degree Homicide and let the jury decide?

i.e. no BDI means you do not need a Grand Jury and its accompanying secrecy also mandated by Colorado State statute in relation to underage children.

Could be the Grand Jury never turned out as expected for Hunter so he never filed the True Bills as a bureaucratic move to avoid scrutiny?

Again it helps to keep in mind, that alike Coroner Meyer and Dr. Andy Sirontak, the Grand Jury had access to evidence that has been sealed ever since, including questioning Burke Ramsey.

.

 

[fr brown]

Michael Kane doesn't think that Burke did it so why would he be presenting evidence to the grand jury that implicated Burke? Dan Abrams said that the grand jury evidence was against Patsy and John. (Lou Smit and one(?) Ramsey handwriting expert presented an "intruder did it" scenario--against Kane's objections, as I understand it.)

If Burke were a target or a subject of the grand jury, his lawyer would have told him to take the fifth. He didn't.

The grand jury indictment is probably a compromise verdict. The grand juror who appeared on 20/20 is quoted as follows: ”There is no way that I would have been able to say, ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt, this is the person,’” the juror said. And if you are the district attorney, if you know that going in, it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars to do it.” That sounds like he's talking about Patsy and John.

 

[UKGuy]

Michael Kane doesn't think that Burke did it so why would he be presenting evidence to the grand jury that implicated Burke? Dan Abrams said that the grand jury evidence was against Patsy and John. (Lou Smit and one(?) Ramsey handwriting expert presented an "intruder did it" scenario--against Kane's objections, as I understand it.)

If Burke were a target or a subject of the grand jury, his lawyer would have told him to take the fifth. He didn't.

The grand jury indictment is probably a compromise verdict. The grand juror who appeared on 20/20 is quoted as follows: ”There is no way that I would have been able to say, ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt, this is the person,’” the juror said. And if you are the district attorney, if you know that going in, it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars to do it.” That sounds like he's talking about Patsy and John.

fr brown,

If Burke were a target or a subject of the grand jury, his lawyer would have told him to take the fifth. He didn't.

Which is of no substance to the question, as Burke Ramsey is appearing before a Grand Jury, i.e. Secret Meeting, and Burke being underage at the time of JonBenet's homicide, as per Colorado Statute, will never appear in any criminal court nor shall his name be listed as being linked or appearing in the commission of JonBenet's homicide.

You reckon if the case is BDI that Burke is going to admit to Jonbenet's homicide so requiring The Fifth if he were above the age of criminal responsibility?

The grand jury indictment is probably a compromise verdict.

Could be, depends if its the one Hunter was hoping to engineer? Which I doubt hence the no file maneuver.

That sounds like he's talking about Patsy and John.

Sure and that is a legalese style opinion.

Hunter never filed because he did not want the case to go public which would mean the discovery phase of any trial would reveal all the Ramsey backdoor moves, e.g. Island of privacy, etc along with damning forensic evidence, i.e. CSI photographs of JonBenet, her bedroom, the clothing etc.

Why did the parents not have First Degree Homicide counts leveled against them?

They both colluded as per the other True Counts according to the Grand Jury, so if any one was guilty of First Degree Homicide then the other was also similarly implicated to a lesser degree but still a Homicide count.

As far as the Homicide Count goes its a binary option, either its the parents or it's Burke Ramsey?

The cost of a trial is a valid argument against proceeding, but this does not explain why the Grand Jury never leveled any First Degree Murder Counts?

Unless they did and due to Colorado Statutes they cannot make them public?

.

 

[icedtea4me]

<snip>Why did the parents not have First Degree Homicide counts leveled against them?

They both colluded as per the other True Counts according to the Grand Jury, so if any one was guilty of First Degree Homicide then the other was also similarly implicated to a lesser degree but still a Homicide count.

As far as the Homicide Count goes its a binary option, either its the parents or it's Burke Ramsey?

The cost of a trial is a valid argument against proceeding, but this does not explain why the Grand Jury never leveled any First Degree Murder Counts?

Unless they did and due to Colorado Statutes they cannot make them public?

.

Do we know that Murder in the First Degree wasn't on any of the following counts: I, II, III, IV-b, V, or VI, yes or no?

Released indictment names John and Patsy Ramsey on two charges in JonBenet death – Boulder Daily Camera

According to the court order, the documents submitted to the court by Garnett consisted of 18 pages, nine relating to each of JonBenet’s parents. Lowenbach ruled that only pages signed by the foreman of the grand jury would be considered “official actions” of the grand jury and would thus be releasable. In the end, a total of four pages — two pages for each parent — were released.

 

[David Rogers]

fr brown,


Which is of no substance to the question, as Burke Ramsey is appearing before a Grand Jury, i.e. Secret Meeting, and Burke being underage at the time of JonBenet's homicide, as per Colorado Statute, will never appear in any criminal court nor shall his name be listed as being linked or appearing in the commission of JonBenet's homicide.

You reckon if the case is BDI that Burke is going to admit to Jonbenet's homicide so requiring The Fifth if he were above the age of criminal responsibility?


Could be, depends if its the one Hunter was hoping to engineer? Which I doubt hence the no file maneuver.



Sure and that is a legalese style opinion.

Hunter never filed because he did not want the case to go public which would mean the discovery phase of any trial would reveal all the Ramsey backdoor moves, e.g. Island of privacy, etc along with damning forensic evidence, i.e. CSI photographs of JonBenet, her bedroom, the clothing etc.

Why did the parents not have First Degree Homicide counts leveled against them?

They both colluded as per the other True Counts according to the Grand Jury, so if any one was guilty of First Degree Homicide then the other was also similarly implicated to a lesser degree but still a Homicide count.

As far as the Homicide Count goes its a binary option, either its the parents or it's Burke Ramsey?

The cost of a trial is a valid argument against proceeding, but this does not explain why the Grand Jury never leveled any First Degree Murder Counts?

Unless they did and due to Colorado Statutes they cannot make them public?

.

How do you think this plays into the scenario that she was attacked in her room but released her urine (died?) in the basement? How did she get to the basement? Drug down two flights of stairs?

 

[fr brown]

So John and Patsy are targets of the grand jury and they don't appear. Their minor son is subpoenaed and, following websleuth logic, they know he's guilty of murder, but they don't even fight his subpoena. They just let him toddle along and give testimony that they know will incriminate them (and him). Doesn't make much sense.

 

[UKGuy]

How do you think this plays into the scenario that she was attacked in her room but released her urine (died?) in the basement? How did she get to the basement? Drug down two flights of stairs?

David Rogers,
Your own reasoning tells you why?

JonBenet was still alive when she was moved from her bedroom to the basement, patently with a bladder containing urine.

As you suggest, once asphyxiated, probably by Patsy, she evacuates her bladder!

Who moved JonBenet to the basement is an open question. It might have been Burke, or one of the parents.

It all depends on your favorite scenario so it could go something like this:

1. Burke whacks JonBenet, putting her into a coma, then he moves her down to the basement where he amateurishly stages her.

2. Early next morning Patsy discovers JonBenet in the basement, (Burke: What did you find), she then changes the crime-scene, possibly redressing JonBenet, consider the pink barbie nightgown.

3. John after wiping JonBenet down and leaving fibers from his Israeli shirt on JonBenet's genital region, then decides to tweak the crime-scene further, changing it from an intruder scenario to that of a kidnapper, hence the RN?

This is just a general outline, you could come up with additional variations.

.

 

[UKGuy]

So John and Patsy are targets of the grand jury and they don't appear. Their minor son is subpoenaed and, following websleuth logic, they know he's guilty of murder, but they don't even fight his subpoena. They just let him toddle along and give testimony that they know will incriminate them (and him). Doesn't make much sense.

fr brown,
Yeah, Kinda, see we all know one of the Ramsey's did it.

The Grand Jury knew one of the Ramsey's did it.

Hunter knew one of the Ramsey's did it.

BPD knew one of the Ramsey's did it.

Each one of the Ramsey's know one of them did it.

The parents may have been advised that a Grand Jury would be the best move for the family as it would protect Burke on two levels, e.g. no publicity, no prosecution.

The Grand Jury was a bureaucratic device, the money spent on it could easily have funded a few weeks in court where the parents would have faced First Degree Homicide charges.

.

 

[dgfred]

I mostly fall under the #2 scenario.

The who did what problem was going to always be there... so no prosecution.

 

[UKGuy]

Do we know that Murder in the First Degree wasn't on any of the following counts: I, II, III, IV-b, V, or VI, yes or no?

Released indictment names John and Patsy Ramsey on two charges in JonBenet death – Boulder Daily Camera

According to the court order, the documents submitted to the court by Garnett consisted of 18 pages, nine relating to each of JonBenet’s parents. Lowenbach ruled that only pages signed by the foreman of the grand jury would be considered “official actions” of the grand jury and would thus be releasable. In the end, a total of four pages — two pages for each parent — were released.

icedtea4me,

Do we know that Murder in the First Degree wasn't on any of the following counts: I, II, III, IV-b, V, or VI, yes or no?

We do not know, but the GJ do so it will be leaked eventually.

The release of the True Bills is surrounded by legalese, e.g. official actions then there is the consideration that only specific True Bills were considered, i.e. not everything was put in front of the judge.

All of which underpins the assumption that Hunter was just using the Grand Jury as a legal vehicle to arrive at a particular decision.

Whether he got what he wanted I'm not certain, this is what might have prompted the No File move?

Or it was always the end game as far as Hunter was concerned, i.e. the legal procedures would be followed as required, then regardless of the result Hunter would opt for No File?

If the case is not BDI then why were the parents not hit with First Degree Homicide True Bills?

They were charged with assisting JonBenet's killer, so who is the Third Party mentioned in the True Bills, e.g. the person?

.

 

[UKGuy]

I mostly fall under the #2 scenario.

The who did what problem was going to always be there... so no prosecution.

dgfred,

Sure, but not knowing who did what is not the same as no prosecution.

This is why we have prosecuters and juries.


The not knowing aspect is only implicit in the True Bills, i.e. person or third party, e.g. did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, 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.

With Patsy's fibers embedded into the knotting of the ligature she could easily have been indicted for Murder In The First Degree with John participating in some other degree, etc.

It's a binary choice, it's not a three way bet, as the evidence implicates both parents and the Grand Jury do indict them for assisting an offender and child abuse, so either both parents should have been indicted on First Degree Homicide or the case is BDI and the prosecuter is under a legal obligation to let the case slip out of sight, by any means whatever?

The case can be BDI with everyone involved happy with an indeterminate outcome that points to the parents?

.

 

[dgfred]

What I meant was no jury was likely to convict one of the parents 'if' they could not decide which person did what regarding - blow to head, actual murder

From the outside it looks like the GJ decided BDI... and the parents let it happen.

IMO