Was Burke Involved? # 4

[BBB167893]

Couldn't that indictment be read as the grand jury did not know which of the parents had committed the murder so thus referred to it in that way otherwise why not name Burke if they really thought the evidence pointed to him.

That's a fair point, FairM1. Jim Clemente and Laura Richards asked a Boulder attorney that, and she didn't think so. She hinted strongly that it would have to be Burke they were covering for, but I'm not sold. I still think it could be exactly as you say.

Where is the source for BR saying John had that flash light upstairs? Again I've not heard that before

That's from the Dr. Phil show.

 

[BBB167893]

That isn't exactly correct. None of the Rameys have ever been charged no matter who the DA happened to be including the current DA.

When I was on a grand jury none of us had access to the case evidence files. All we had to go by whether to true bill a case or no bill it was the testimony from the state's witnesses. There was no one there to produce evidence to the contrary that may have supported another outcome.

There was in THIS one. Lou Smit and John Douglas were both called. The GJ didn't fall for their bag of tricks, either.

There is nothing preventing the current DA from bringing charges against John Ramsey if he feels he has the evidence to prove the case BARD.

Only that the statute of limitations has run out.

Since no DA has ever charged any of the Ramseys it shows AH was right not to pursue the case the GJ true billed.

Begging your pardon, but what kind of reasoning is that?

 

[BBB167893]

Speaking of skin crawling, what is Woody talking about??

Nothing good. That's for certain. What a fascist pig. I hope you rot, Woody.

 

[PositiveLight]

Thanks for posting those Droll. Looks like I have some reading to do tonight.

I haven't read that yet obviously but if people think his answers were coached, it devalues his statements. Cant say it was coached and then use those coached words against him in the face of the evidence. Cant have it both ways.


Not much at all which is why the doc had to skip over much of the case.

I respectfully disagree. The pineapple was important. This directly puts him with JonBenet during the time frame of her death.
They did have inappropriate touching. His tDNA was on the night gown found with her and it had came from the dryer IIRC with the blanket she was wrapped in. Plus they can't even charge Burke with anything. So why release all the info and evidence.

I certainly agree that those photographs are key. However, I doubt that a 9 year old is going to be infatuated to the extent of taking and/or collecting photographs of a girl. That is something that older boys/guys would do. If Burke was infatuated with her, he doesn't need a stack of photographs. He has easy access to her on a daily and possibly continuous basis. He "plays doctor" and even sleeps with her so why on earth would he need photographs?
Again disagree. I'm still researching the photos myself. But offenders do like to keep trophies. Maybe they were threw in the basement when the parents found out what he did. I think the REASON they were down there is very significant.


Interesting question indeed and its one of many questions that causes BDI to fall apart from the get go.

I don't think Burke cleaned her up imho.

TeaTime....

This could be chalked up to the Ramseys not wanting him to get involved. Yeah he did admit to listening to everything that was going on, which is something he didn't have to do and wouldn't have done if he killed her.


Obviously we don't know when she died or ate that pineapple. No one can possibly pinpoint the exact time he went down there. If this is some smoking gun, he never would have admitted doing it in the first place. Burke actually filled in a couple blanks and he was merely crucified for doing so. Unfortunately we wont be getting any more blanks filled in now.
So let's say they arrived home at 10pm. They probably spent an hour working on Burke's toy maybe less. later. We are now at 11pm. Supposedly JonBenet was in bed per JR and PR asleep. John takes BR to bed with flashlight. Weird.so maybe we are at 11:30 pm- 12:00 am. Burke sneaks downstairs to play with a toy and ate some pineapple. Head injury occurs possibly by 12:20am.
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/basics/transit.htm (how long does it take for food to reach the duodenum. Shorter time for children) She was alive but clinically brain dead for 45min- 2 hours.After laying there possibly an hour to be fair, that puts us at 1:20 am. BR attempts to strangle her but doesn't finish the job.She's still bleeding when parents find her.possiblyy 30 min later. Now we are at 1:50am. she's cleaned up possibly by 2:30. PR wrote the ransom note from hell. maybe took an hour or more meanwhile JR is cleaning up the scene running around with a flashlight and disposing of evidence. after finally finishing her off with the ligature and placed her in the wine cellar. So that leaves us possibly at 3:30 am. http://study.com/academy/lesson/rigor-mortis-definition-timeline-stages.html

This means nothing. These two played together and slept together. Obviously tDNA is to be expected.


I've watched it and I don't see it as some smoking gun.

A 9 year old boy talked to his friend about his sister's murder. There's nothing surprising about that. Had he NOT talked to anyone about it, it would be much more alarming.
The mom of the boy asked him to repeat what he said after over hearing the convo and he refused to say it again.

I agree the flashlight thing is interesting but this puts John in more hot water than Burke. Why is a grown man using a flashlight to go room to room in a house full of lights? Its another layer of their dysfunction.
((((i call it deceit personally. )))))
This household's issue with poop is another layer of dysfunction. As we've been over before, none of this poop was ever tested and cant be sourced to him.
+welcome back! Glad to see you!+
Murderer Servant....



Its a bit more believable than bashing her head over a pineapple snack. That doesn't come close to passing a smell test.



OceanBlueEyes...

Funny to say this to someone with 20k posts but you should post more. I definitely don't believe in IDI but the rest of that was solid and is needed in this section.

 

[Sillybilly]

To accommodate all the new people coming to Websleuths because of the docuseries we are moving to a much bigger and faster server.

This is just a reminder that the Websleuths forum will be down starting Wednesday (tomorrow) at 6 PM Eastern. We hope to be back up by Thursday morning.

Members can check for updates on Twitter and Facebook.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi Heymom!

I know that posters are passionate about the RDI and I respect that but I set aside my emotions when looking at any case. I use to do that myself many years ago and realized it clouded my judgment. That's just how I do it though, and really do respect others who believes the Ramseys are somehow involved. That is the main reason I rarely come to JonBenet's thread because I know differing opinions aren't well tolerated

Respectfully the viewpoint of worried about bad publicity doesn't make logical sense to me. Perhaps the truth really is none of the DAs involved had or have the evidence needed to prove their case. GJs also can become emotional especially when it concerns a child and that too can cloud their judgment at times Bad publicity for Boulder? Boulder was already made to look bumbling fools like they had Keystone cops on duty in this case. Bad publicity is all they were getting. I think it is more logical for the DAs who has all of the evidence to know they don't have a case. Do you really believe AH thought it would be less bad publicity for Boulder for the case to go unsolved all of these years? Prosecutors go through ugly trials all the time with many of the defendants being from the rich upper class like the Ramseys. Trials are held to produce evidence of the offender/s guilt. How ugly they get or don't is irrelevant.

There is nothing stopping the current DA from going to a GJ again to get a true bill against John Ramsey. The current DA has already said that NO ONE knows all of the evidence they have amassed to date in this case. I really don't think the current DA would say this case remains unsolved and ongoing if he had evidence Burke was the killer.

Juries come to their decision of guilt based on the evidence presented by the DA from the witness stand to prove their case BARD. How rich or poor they happen to be isn't evidence of anything. If any of these DAs had the actual evidence to prove any of the Ramseys guilty of course they would love to be THE ONE to bring the Ramseys down. The current DA says this is still an open unsolved case and they are still investigating this case and running down all tips they get. I have never heard of any DA too afraid to take anyone to trial if they had the concrete evidence needed to do so. Well except maybe the DOJ/FBI when it came to HC but that is an anomaly. Doctors, lawyers, high influential politicians, and millionaires have all been taken to trial before.

Yes, every DA since then who has all that was presented to the GJ has come to the same conclusion as AH. I have no reason to believe that any of the DAs over the years were spineless. It take courage to admit they don't have the evidence to prove their case. DAs are elected so they want to win all cases they take to trial. It is much more logical to me that all DAs over this case at different times knew/know they didn't/don't have the evidence to prove any case against any of the Ramseys. Getting a true bill from a GJ is far different than having the evidence needed to take it to trial to prove it in a court of law. The threshold for a GJ to true bill any case is a much lower standard. GJs do not have any power to charge anyone since that is left up solely to all DAs all across this country who have the sole burden to present facts and evidence that must meet the high standard of BARD. AH isn't the only DA who didn't take the GJs recommendation.

You're speaking very generally, OBE. You can't compare other DA's with the ones in Boulder. Even the current DA said that the fact that Alex Hunter kept getting elected was because the Boulder voters were not paying attention and said Mary Lacy lacked leadership. He can't do anything now because of how bad the previous two *advertiser censored**ed this case up.

It wasn't the first time Alex Hunter tanked a case because he thought he might lose or because the city of Boulder might end up looking bad.

I believe the entrance into the Ramsey home by the intruder will remain a mystery. Just like it remains a mystery to this day how David Westerfield was able to access the two story Van Dam home in the middle of the night and being able to go up the flight of stairs in the dark to Danielle's bedroom and take her out without anyone hearing or seeing anything. He had never been inside of the Van Dam home before that night when he crept in as they were all asleep and kidnapped little Danielle from her bed. Everyone knows he was there but he didn't even leave one trace of himself behind that he had ever been there. What proved he was inside the home and kidnapped her was they found her handprint inside of his camper.

That's a lousy comparison. Westerfield didn't hang out inside the house for hours. Some of the cops don't even think he went inside: if they left the door open, he could have lured Danielle out.

Look, they've had 20 years to find an intruder. They haven't.

 

[singularity]

Maybe they were threw in the basement when the parents found out what he did. I think the REASON they were down there is very significant.

It is significant. I have always thought those "cutesy" photographs were a huge piece of the puzzle. They were placed down there because it was the only place for them to go. They weren't leaving the house so where could they try to bury a secret? The basement. The basement wound up being a catch all for this family's horrors.

Its an outrage that BPD didn't take this more seriously and make a more thorough attempt to source these photographs. Yeah we can narrow down the owner of those photographs to two adults(John and JAR) and a child(Burke). That's not good enough. Someone in that house was infatuated with her and she winds up dead. It's possible that one has nothing to do with the other but that doesn't wipe away their existence and someone had some splainin' to do and unfortunately they never had to cop to owning these photographs or why they were taken(and saved) in the first place.

I have always thought it more likely that these photos were taken from JAR's room. The family knew they were in there, cleared out his room of anything that could even be perceived as inappropriate, and to the basement it went. His area of the house looks like Yucca Flats after the blast and that's not because there was nothing to worry about going on in there.

The mom of the boy asked him to repeat what he said after over hearing the convo and he refused to say it again.

His mom was snooping around. Burke isn't the only kid who wouldn't repeat his convo with a friend to a friend's mother.

 

[PositiveLight]

Do you remember during Patsy's interview with police they showed her pictures and a few she had a strong reaction to. Like it was an inappropriate. I wonder if someone took pics of JonBenet that wasn't proper on their camera. It had to be bad because that is one of the few times she got nervous or angry.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[debbiegarcia36]

Failing to use an alarm or putting a child in beauty pageants aren't criminal acts. At most, one could argue that were negligent acts or omissions on the part of the parents, but never criminal.

There is no doubt the grand jury thought Burke did it and his parents played a role in keeping her in a knowingly dangerous situation that ultimately led to her murder and that they helped cover up the crime.



While it can be true that grand jury indictments aren't difficult for prosecutors to get, these are very, very specific allegations. The GJ did not just randomly yank them out of a hat. They almost certainly were based on factual information. Information we probably haven't seen the tip of.

Thanks! The indictment says it all ...
...very clearly. I'm don't know why the IDI camp chooses to ignore it. It is very specific. I am wondering if the GJ heard testimony or read copies of Burke's medical or psychiatric history to come to the conclusions it did.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[singularity]

There is no doubt the grand jury thought Burke did it.

Yeah there is or it wouldn't be open to debate.

 

[singularity]

Do you remember during Patsy's interview with police they showed her pictures and a few she had a strong reaction to. Like it was an inappropriate. I wonder if someone took pics of JonBenet that wasn't proper on their camera. It had to be bad because that is one of the few times she got nervous or angry.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Yeah I'd like to see the actual video of the parts of the transcripts where they bring up these photographs and also when they ask her about Jonbenet being abused and if Patsy had ever been abused. If there was ever a point in the interviews when the mask may have started to slip, it's during that.

 

[PositiveLight]

Yeah I'd like to see the actual video of the parts of the transcripts where they bring up these photographs and also when they ask her about Jonbenet being abused and if Patsy had ever been abused. If there was ever a point in the interviews when the mask may have started to slip, it's during that.

Yes me too!
I am studying a candy rose site and hopefully will come across it.
In this interview with the National Enquire, John admits Burke was awake and admits he changed his story. This interview was dated April 3, 2001
It's pretty interesting if you haven't read it. They said, "[FONT=&quot]Burke has been strangely quiet about his sister's murder, the Ramseys reveal. They say it wasn't until Burke's 1999 grand jury testimony that they found out he was awake before police arrived -- but was pretending to be asleep."[/FONT]
http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm

There's some good little tidbits in the article. 

 

[singularity]

Yes me too!
I am studying a candy rose site and hopefully will come across it.
In this interview with the National Enquire, John admits Burke was awake and admits he changed his story. This interview was dated April 3, 2001
It's pretty interesting if you haven't read it. They said, "[FONT=&amp]Burke has been strangely quiet about his sister's murder, the Ramseys reveal. They say it wasn't until Burke's 1999 grand jury testimony that they found out he was awake before police arrived -- but was pretending to be asleep."[/FONT]
http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm

There's some good little tidbits in the article. 

Yeah I've read that. It's certainly interesting how they pretty much flip flop on this issue over the years.

I also ready candyrose, the encyclopedia, etc. My memory isn't up to snuff so I review certain aspects of the case every so often.

One more thing about the photographs...

If those could somehow be sourced to Burke I might take the Burke angle a little more seriously. At least then there would be something resembling a motive that isn't a piece of fruit. While highly unlikely, its possible during the pageant/photography sessions that he developed some sort of fetish with it and started to indulge in it himself. He wouldn't be able to develop the film himself so his parents would be aware of his unusual interest in her and that it isn't normal for someone his age regardless of any other issues he may have had. I suppose its possible they were aware of such an interest, laughed it off, and threw it into the "boys will be boys" category. They were certainly aware of them sleeping together. Would they consider an interest in photographing her to be a step over the line?

I still think an adult was likely taking those photographs but either way we slice it, this was a strange family.

 

[Meara]

Well I'm not a psychiatrist by any means. But I don't think we can completely say this was his last assault if he is guilty. We have no proof he hasn't re-offended. He hasn't been caught that is really all we know. He does live an isolated life and maybe does so to protect others from himself. JMOO but we can only guess at theories and guess at whether he's not repeated the behavior. It could be the right button hasn't been pushed or triggered. It's a good case study for sure. He came off as slick in the DP interview. Some of his answers made my hair stand on end. I'd be truly shocked if he hasn't re-offended in some form. JMOO

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

If BR is a psychopath, then the whole set of related antisocial behaviors specified in the DSM would be present. ASPDs violate the rights of others as a way of life. Even if BR did committ an assault as an adult, that alone wouldn't make a case for ASPD. This much is not speculation; it's the nature of the disorder. I will speculate, though, that if he has an adult history of assault, we'd have heard something. Repeated violent behavior is hard to cover up for any length of time and the tabloids keep files on and regularly watch people like BR. Even rumors are worth a lot of money.

BR is disordered; there's no doubt about it. For what it's worth, DP denies autism or Asperger's and says BR is a personable fellow, which, if true, rules out a number of other diagnoses; and there's no known case for ASPD. It's quite a puzzle. From the information we have, I think he may be a schizoid personality. At a glance -- SPDs live in a world of their own even when they appear to belong or interact with others, get absorbed/fixated in exclusive activity (like whittling all over the house), typically have flattened or inappropriate affect, and may have a history of conduct disorder. It's an anxiety based type. Remember BR's nervous hands and looking away in the DP interview? It's curious to me that you and quite a few others found him slick. I would describe him as immature, inarticulate, unable to feel/express normal emotions, and lacking awareness of his eccentric behavior. Having a lively, expressive, sensitive sibling like JBR could have felt like torment.

 

[PositiveLight]

If BR is a psychopath, then the whole set of related antisocial behaviors specified in the DSM would be present. ASPDs violate the rights of others as a way of life. Even if BR did committ an assault as an adult, that alone wouldn't make a case for ASPD. This much is not speculation; it's the nature of the disorder. I will speculate, though, that if he has an adult history of assault, we'd have heard something. Repeated violent behavior is hard to cover up for any length of time and the tabloids keep files on and regularly watch people like BR. Even rumors are worth a lot of money.

BR is disordered; there's no doubt about it. For what it's worth, DP denies autism or Asperger's and says BR is a personable fellow, which, if true, rules out a number of other diagnoses; and there's no known case for ASPD. It's quite a puzzle. From the information we have, I think he may be a schizoid personality. At a glance -- SPDs live in a world of their own even when they appear to belong or interact with others, get absorbed/fixated in exclusive activity (like whittling all over the house), typically have flattened or inappropriate affect, and may have a history of conduct disorder. It's an anxiety based type. Remember BR's nervous hands and looking away in the DP interview? It's curious to me that you and quite a few others found him slick. I would describe him as immature, inarticulate, unable to feel/express normal emotions, and lacking awareness of his eccentric behavior. Having a lively, expressive, sensitive sibling like JBR could have felt like torment.

I agree he has some kind of disorder. It's like he has no moral compass and doesn't know what proper behavior is. Or probably never knew and hence the playing doctor with JonBenet. No one stopped them and told them it was naughty so they thought it was ok. Plus I think he has an underlying psych issue. Not sure what it is but something is very abnormal with him.i think was showing some duping delight with most of his answers. That is slick to me. Make sense? Might not be the perfect word for him. I think his is triggered by jealousy and rage. My biggest fear is that he does have some disorder and a girlfriend triggers him and he hurt her too.
Even when DP asked him about seeing his sister in the coffin, he pointed out her droopy eye and said it was weird. I would expect that to be possibly said as a 7 yr old, but a 29 year old? He has to know how his answers effected people. That's one sign to me that he's not mentally and socially growing as he should. If you watch DPs interviews again you will notice he acts like a child still in his mannerisms and his thoughts.
Who in the world would make a comment on a dead sibling and not say she looked beautiful but instead mentions her droopy eye. Even 20 years later he's still jealous of her.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Thanks for posting those Droll. Looks like I have some reading to do tonight.

I haven't read that yet obviously but if people think his answers were coached, it devalues his statements. Cant say it was coached and then use those coached words against him in the face of the evidence. Cant have it both ways.


Not much at all which is why the doc had to skip over much of the case.

I respectfully disagree. The pineapple was important. This directly puts him with JonBenet during the time frame of her death.
They did have inappropriate touching. His tDNA was on the night gown found with her and it had came from the dryer IIRC with the blanket she was wrapped in. Plus they can't even charge Burke with anything. So why release all the info and evidence.

I certainly agree that those photographs are key. However, I doubt that a 9 year old is going to be infatuated to the extent of taking and/or collecting photographs of a girl. That is something that older boys/guys would do. If Burke was infatuated with her, he doesn't need a stack of photographs. He has easy access to her on a daily and possibly continuous basis. He "plays doctor" and even sleeps with her so why on earth would he need photographs?
Again disagree. I'm still researching the photos myself. But offenders do like to keep trophies. Maybe they were threw in the basement when the parents found out what he did. I think the REASON they were down there is very significant.


Interesting question indeed and its one of many questions that causes BDI to fall apart from the get go.

I don't think Burke cleaned her up imho.

TeaTime....

This could be chalked up to the Ramseys not wanting him to get involved. Yeah he did admit to listening to everything that was going on, which is something he didn't have to do and wouldn't have done if he killed her.


Obviously we don't know when she died or ate that pineapple. No one can possibly pinpoint the exact time he went down there. If this is some smoking gun, he never would have admitted doing it in the first place. Burke actually filled in a couple blanks and he was merely crucified for doing so. Unfortunately we wont be getting any more blanks filled in now.
So let's say they arrived home at 10pm. They probably spent an hour working on Burke's toy maybe less. later. We are now at 11pm. Supposedly JonBenet was in bed per JR and PR asleep. John takes BR to bed with flashlight. Weird.so maybe we are at 11:30 pm- 12:00 am. Burke sneaks downstairs to play with a toy and ate some pineapple. Head injury occurs possibly by 12:20am.
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/basics/transit.htm (how long does it take for food to reach the duodenum. Shorter time for children) She was alive but clinically brain dead for 45min- 2 hours.After laying there possibly an hour to be fair, that puts us at 1:20 am. BR attempts to strangle her but doesn't finish the job.She's still bleeding when parents find her.possiblyy 30 min later. Now we are at 1:50am. she's cleaned up possibly by 2:30. PR wrote the ransom note from hell. maybe took an hour or more meanwhile JR is cleaning up the scene running around with a flashlight and disposing of evidence. after finally finishing her off with the ligature and placed her in the wine cellar. So that leaves us possibly at 3:30 am. http://study.com/academy/lesson/rigor-mortis-definition-timeline-stages.html

This means nothing. These two played together and slept together. Obviously tDNA is to be expected.


I've watched it and I don't see it as some smoking gun.

A 9 year old boy talked to his friend about his sister's murder. There's nothing surprising about that. Had he NOT talked to anyone about it, it would be much more alarming.
The mom of the boy asked him to repeat what he said after over hearing the convo and he refused to say it again.

I agree the flashlight thing is interesting but this puts John in more hot water than Burke. Why is a grown man using a flashlight to go room to room in a house full of lights? Its another layer of their dysfunction.
((((i call it deceit personally. )))))
This household's issue with poop is another layer of dysfunction. As we've been over before, none of this poop was ever tested and cant be sourced to him.
+welcome back! Glad to see you!+
Murderer Servant....



Its a bit more believable than bashing her head over a pineapple snack. That doesn't come close to passing a smell test.



OceanBlueEyes...

Funny to say this to someone with 20k posts but you should post more. I definitely don't believe in IDI but the rest of that was solid and is needed in this section.

Don't know who ever said she was killed over a piece of pineapple, that is simply a piece of fiction. Yet you keep saying it. The fact that Burke smeared *advertiser censored* all over her candy is far more revealing as to how he felt about her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I think I might need a quick refresher course on the basement photos. All I recall is detectives asking PR about them. To best of my recollection, we were never made aware of the content of those photos ( apart from JB being the subject), or why LE was so interested in them. Did I miss something?

 

[CorallaroC]

If BR is a psychopath, then the whole set of related antisocial behaviors specified in the DSM would be present. ASPDs violate the rights of others as a way of life. Even if BR did committ an assault as an adult, that alone wouldn't make a case for ASPD. This much is not speculation; it's the nature of the disorder. I will speculate, though, that if he has an adult history of assault, we'd have heard something. Repeated violent behavior is hard to cover up for any length of time and the tabloids keep files on and regularly watch people like BR. Even rumors are worth a lot of money.

BR is disordered; there's no doubt about it. For what it's worth, DP denies autism or Asperger's and says BR is a personable fellow, which, if true, rules out a number of other diagnoses; and there's no known case for ASPD. It's quite a puzzle. From the information we have, I think he may be a schizoid personality. At a glance -- SPDs live in a world of their own even when they appear to belong or interact with others, get absorbed/fixated in exclusive activity (like whittling all over the house), typically have flattened or inappropriate affect, and may have a history of conduct disorder. It's an anxiety based type. Remember BR's nervous hands and looking away in the DP interview? It's curious to me that you and quite a few others found him slick. I would describe him as immature, inarticulate, unable to feel/express normal emotions, and lacking awareness of his eccentric behavior. Having a lively, expressive, sensitive sibling like JBR could have felt like torment.

Your post reminded me of something... remember how PR reacted in interrogation about the "funny little clue" of hearts drawn and "no No NO" scribbled on the AG pamphlet? She just could not imagine who did that, right? Well, maybe this evidence of basement photos is another thing we should pay attn. to it.

 

[Heymom]

Your post reminded me of something... remember how PR reacted in interrogation about the "funny little clue" of hearts drawn and "no No NO" scribbled on the AG pamphlet? She just could not imagine who did that, right? Well, maybe this evidence of basement photos is another thing we should pay attn. to it.

That is not a heart on JonBenet's palm. In fact it looks more like something a 9 year old boy would draw.

 

[UKGuy]

I think I might need a quick refresher course on the basement photos. All I recall is detectives asking PR about them. To best of my recollection, we were never made aware of the content of those photos ( apart from JB being the subject), or why LE was so interested in them. Did I miss something?

Mountain_Kat,

Basement Photos Refresher
Patsy's 1998 BPD Interview, excerpt

21 THOMAS HANEY: Did you take some

22 photographs of JonBenet in the basement laundry

23 room?

24 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

25 TRIP DeMUTH: You had presents in

0186

1 the basement laundry room, right?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

3 TRIP DeMUTH: So you wrapped

4 presents in the basement laundry room, right?

5 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

6 TRIP DeMUTH: So you were down in

7 the basement laundry room pretty often?

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Depending on what

9 time of year it was, yeah, uh-hum.

10 TRIP DeMUTH: And do you remember

11 photographs being -- photographs of JonBenet

12 being in there?

13 PATSY RAMSEY: Taken of her in the

14 laundry room?

15 TRIP DeMUTH: No, no. Photographs

16 of her located in the laundry room?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, in the laundry

18 room, oh. I don't know, there was a bunch of

19 stuff, I mean wrapping stuff and everything. I

20 don't remember any photographs.

21 TRIP DeMUTH: Is there any reason

22 why there would be photographs of JonBenet

23 located in the laundry room?

24 PATSY RAMSEY: No. Were there --

25 I mean, did somebody find them there?

0187

1 TRIP DeMUTH: If there were, would

2 that be out of place for you?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: It would seem to be

4 out of place. I kept wrapping materials and

5 sometimes I worked, wrapping station, Christmas

6 paper and --

7 TRIP DeMUTH: Would -- who else had

8 access to the laundry room, who else would go in

9 there? I know everybody would have access, but

10 who else would use it? Would the boys play in

11 there? Would John go down there?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: I mean anybody

13 could, but I mean the boys could come down and

14 go in the train room, we had the train set up.

15 In the far back in through there, you know. Not

16 in the laundry, really, area.

17 TRIP DeMUTH: Did anybody besides

18 you use that laundry room?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: Sometimes Linda

20 would wash, if we were washing comforters or

21 something, because those were big heavy-duty

22 laundry machines, she'd take the things in

23 there, rugs and things, and wash them down

24 there.

25 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.

0188

1 THOMAS HANEY: So you don't recall

2 taking a photo of her down there?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: (Shaking head.)

4 THOMAS HANEY: If she was doing

5 something really cutesy or something, would you

6 maybe run and get the camera, take one of her?

7 PATSY RAMSEY: Of her in the

8 laundry room?

9 THOMAS HANEY: Uh-hum.

10 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

Photos were found and it was more than say five, since Trip DeMuth is comparing them with other JonBenet photo sessions, their nature well that's cutesy according to Trip DeMuth. Later BPD executed a search warrant at the Ramsey house in Charlevoix, Michigan, where allegedly they were looking for inappropriate pictures of JonBenet? The results of the search warrant were sealed.

.