Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Laura Mountford, Oct 7, 2018.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. I read the autopsy report. And the commentaries by the M.E.’s.
They were pretty decisive and quite clear.
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 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 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”
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 don't understand what your comment has to do with the quote I said?
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.