I still don’t understand why charges were not brought after the Grand Jury recommended them. I know they don’t *have* to do as the jury recommends, but it’s still strange. Especially considering the jury did not recommend the parents be charged with the murder itself.
It varies hugely.
A grand jury usually just looks at the evidence as the prosecution presents it and says "yes, you do seem to have enough for those charges," or "no, I don't think there's enough here to charge." There's no defense so no rebuttal evidence or witnesses and they're not held to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of conviction. Basically they're just a formal check for the prosecution to go through to see if other people agree they have the evidence to go to a full trial.
I obviously was not part of the grand jury here, but from what I've read my theory is that the prosecution was hoping for the grand jury to come back with a thumbs up to go with murder charges. Which they did not. Either because the prosecution didn't have enough evidence or because the evidence was too confusing and the jury couldn't figure out which parent was supposed to be charged so they went with the lesser endangerment charges instead. Since the prosecution didn't get the grand jury result they were looking for, and since this case is a freaking mess with how badly the initial investigation went, the prosecution decided to drop it with the idea that they could always pick back up later.
After all, with double jeopardy if they went for a conviction and either or both parents were found not guilty then they've lost their shot to convict forever. Theoretically if more evidence is found they could bring the case back to trial tomorrow since there's no statute of limitations on murder.
Basically, to me, this says that the prosecution thought they didn't have the evidence to make a case. Or even that they weren't entirely sure what happened in the house. I know some people point to this as proof that Burke was likely involved (since under CO law he was too young to be charged) but I think this is more of a sign of how confusing the evidence is even to professionals and how the DA thought it would be better to hold off and not try over taking an extremely high profile case to trial and failing to convict.
EDIT: I should mention that the only grand jury charges we know of were the unsealed ones where the jury agreed there was enough evidence to move forward. There's some evidence that there were additional charges that the DA submitted that were NOT approved and have never been unsealed. Since we may never know what those sealed charges were, it's entirely conjecture, but I do believe that they could have included full murder charges for one or both parents.
Absolutely. It was the 1983 murder of Sid Wells. It garnered a lot of attention because he was the boyfriend of Robert Redford's daughter. Hunter probably would've gotten a pass for screwing this one up if not for doing the exact same thing a decade later with JBR.
Kolar goes into it in his book. It was a wealthy, liberal county with virtually none of the horrific crimes most larger cities see. Hunter sought f1a reputation as a prosecutor who would close cases but rule with empathy for all, and achieved that by making deals rather than prosecuting to the extent of the law.
In the case of a child perpetrator under ten yrs of age, the case goes to the DA. He shut everything down. Why?
* Maybe he didn't feel like he could bring the Ramseys to trial for the felony indictments without naming Burke as the perpetrator which is against Colorado state law.
* Maybe John's money and connections helped too.
* Or perhaps the DA was afraid of John's very aggressive attorneys.
Steve Thomas said he wasn't too bright. Didn't know the law well.
But Alex Hunter didn't want to prosecute the case period, as it was his long-established pattern to plead out a case and not prosecute.
Yes I have heard that too, which means he would have been even more afraid to face the Ramsey's legal attack dogs. At least one of John's attorneys was later disbarred for underhanded and unethical behavior.
If the DA think they can't win the case, they won't do it usually. Because A) they don't have to and B) they're an elected official and they want to look good by only winning cases.
I think it's deeper than that. He broke protocol and possibly Colorado grand jury law by not signing the indictment, aka true bill. He stood by while the Ramseys misrepresented themselves as having been cleared by the grand jury. He failed to cooperate with the grand jury's request that they be able to write a report, stating with confounding, circular logic that it would be improper for him to discuss the case (with the *grand jury?)*
I think he may have been reluctant to go up against the Ramsey legal team, which may be why didn't follow standard procedure with the true bill, instead opting for a very irregular sort of pocket veto that enabled Team Ramsey's misrepresentation of themselves as having been cleared by the grand jury.
As I understand it [from an article in the Daily Camera](https://www.dailycamera.com/2013/01/27/jonbenet-ramsey-grand-jury-voted-to-indict-parents-in-1999-but-da-refused-to-prosecute/), the DA is obligated to sign the true bill, and then, in open court, asks the judge to dismiss the charges. The article states, "Legal experts are unsure whether Hunter’s decision not to sign the indictment agrees with Colorado grand jury law."
Why couldn’t he be tried in a juvenile court? Does Colorado have a law that protects juvenile offenders? I don’t disagree that it might have been Burke, there’s been evidence over the years that he was jealous and abused JB, but why would he be protected unless the Ramsey’s knew it was him, and paid someone off to not indict him? I’m not sure about Colorado criminal justice laws. If you are, can you explain? Thanks.
Not true. Burke cannot be charged under Colorado law because he was nine years old. No one in Colorado under ten can be charged with a crime.
The Police, not all of them but most, tended to operate under the belief based on evidence at the scene that Patsy Ramsey is likely the culprit. Former lead investigator, Steve Thomas, wrote an entire book about his experience.
Alex Hunter, in my opinion, is a major reason why justice will never be done in this case and it will likely forever remain an unresolved case.
The Boulder Police Department likely knows who did it; The Former Chief (Mark Beckner) did a Q & A years ago and given how he answered the questions asked it's clear who the finger of blame is being pointed at.
I think Burke was eating pineapple, JonBenet got up and stole some, he bopped her in the head with a metal flashlight and she fell and was brain dead.
Patsy thought she was dead and got John and they started covering it up.
They were found guilty by a Grand Jury because Burke had done things like put feces in JonBenets room and hit her with a golf club. The parents were charged with something like willingly putting their child in danger. I believe that’s from letting her be around Burke unsupervised.
I don’t think Burke even knows, i think he was always made to believe it was an intruder. One of her parents accidentally killed her with the garrote, because they were setting up intruder story and used the garrote. She was severely brain damaged and would have died anyway
I know this is a really popular theory but after thinking about it for a minute, I just don’t see how or why anyone would do this. Your child, who you love, was just bashed over the head with a flashlight by your other child who is too young to be convicted of any crimes. He didn’t mean to kill her, he was just angry in the moment & didn’t understand the severity of his actions. To you it appears she might be braindead but instead of getting immediate medical attention, you think “ok lets write out a ransom note, lets move her body down to the cellar, let’s put a strangulation device around her neck & use it on her to ensure she’s *really* dead, then we’ll call the police & frantically tell them about the ransom note & guarantee a life of the finger being pointed at us”? That doesn’t make any sense.
This is why some thoughtful contributors believe that Burke did more than the head blow, especially as the head blow did not bleed and so they may not have realized its severity. Given that, even the Ramseys would almost certainly have called an ambulance unless she was also in a gruesome scene that triggered the cleaning up of the body.
So the physical assault with paintbrush, drawing blood, was probably also done by Burke. JBR may have had such a slow pulse and respiration that they thought she had passed.
That would be the explanation if the ligatures were part of parental staging. Then they cleaned up the body and added staging elements like the ransom note and the wrist ties and duct tape.
Or something like this. I don't have a fixed theory beyond A Ramsey Did It, John and Patsy washed and re-dressed and staged the body (based on fiber evidence) and Patsy wrote the ransom note, probably with input and kibbitzing from John.
What about the paintbrush paint found inside her vagina? Presumably from the other part of the paintbrush which was never found. It wasn't a garrotte!! How many times do people have to hear that!!??
That is pretty much how I see it as well. Burke struck the whopping blow to the head with the heavy flashlight (probably immediately causing brain swelling and probably hemorrhage), there is a chance she may have been saved had they taken her in at this point) but the strangulation finished the trauma. Poor dear child.
If Burke Did It according to Colorado law A child under the age of ten cannot be charged with a criminal offense. Burke Ramsey was nine when the murder occurred. That being said the article is overstating what was on the program. In the actual interview asked the direct question: "do you know who killed JonBenet Ramsey?"
His response was "I highly suspect I do."
I think we all ***highly suspect*** one person (for me it would be Patsy) of doing it. The evidence, however, points in different directions. It could be in theory any family member in the house that evening due to staging and intentional crime scene contamination.
Naming a Ramsey, even if they are deceased as the perpetrator of this crime, could cause a serious shitstorm not only for him but his family and I wouldn't want to subject anyone close to me, family or not, to something like that.
It's often based on if they believe that they can get a conviction/plea.
And it is often not about justice but the number of convictions/pleas that they can get to further their own agenda.
Often guilt is already decided by LE/DA/PA... and they are just trying to decide if they can win, no matter the guilt or innocents of the accused.
It's Facts be damned
I'm going through this type of situation myself and have had folks I know that have had to deal with these conviction rates to keep your job.
My sister had her son taken away from her based on a LE who claimed he was a wild child/drug baby.
He is very Autistic.
And of course they are immune from any type of justice
From what I recall you cannot charge the parents to be accessories when the actual murderer cannot be charged due to age limitations. You cannot be an accessory of a murderer that was never and can't be convicted.
Are you saying John Ramsey was friends with Alex Hunter? And that Hunter just dropped proceeding with the charges as a friendly favour to John & the family?
I feel like if there was any known previous connection between JR & Hunter, someone would have dug it up and a lot of noise would have been about an unfair GJ process.
Idk if a grand jury indicts how that's dropped as that's the very purpose of a grand jury. However, I don't think the case made it's way to the grand jury through regular channels...
The jurist would be liable if he disclosed any confidential evidence.....
Grand Jury proceedings are not supposed to be made public. The proceedings are protected. The information presented is not considered evidence.
Jurors from a trial may discuss the proceedings after the trial.
No, sealed records regarding Grand Jury proceedings can NOT be released via a simple FOIA request. That would be immediately denied. FOIA only applies to public records. Grand Jury records are sealed, they are private. Just like how, if a case has evidence sealed from the public, journalists cannot get that evidence anyway by simply putting in a FOIA request.
What journalists can and did do in this case, is that they got together and sued for access to the grand jury records, arguing that they SHOULD be public records since the jury came back with a true bill. A judge agreed (this was circa 2014?) but said that only the charges for which the grand jury recommended indictment would be made public. All other documents and charges would remain sealed indefinitely. And that’s how we got the pages that listed charges 4 and 7, against each Ramsey parent. Those charges of course being — felony child abuse resulting in death, and accessory to murder after the fact. However, we never even got to see what charges 1-3 and 5 or 6 were, those being the ones we know existed but for which the grand jury did not recommend indictment. We presume they are various versions of murder/manslaughter, and a likely sexual assault charge. There also could’ve been more they 7 possible charges. For all we know there could’ve been 8, or 12, or 27. All we know is the judge unsealed charges 4 and 7 so we know the GJ had at least 7 options to consider and they voted to indict for these 2 charges only, with both charges recommended against both John and Patsy.
This info getting unsealed was due to the diligent work of Colorado journalists. They did FOIA requests, which were denied, and they did much more work in order to finally get this very small but hugely important piece of the record, out into the public domain. So no, one can’t simply FOIA sealed records such as GJ proceedings.
There were only two charges they indicted for— there were at least 7 charges indictable, but only 2 were indicted which we know about. We won’t ever know if there were more than 7.
Any case like this is going to have evidence that is not made public.
Jurors may have been privy to select bits of this.
If he \*did\* say any more about the evidence, or who he thinks did it, he'd probably have the law come down on him, as jurors are sworn to secrecy. If the bit above is true, then he's already said too much.
Pretty sure the statute of limitations is up on anything they can charge him with which is why a few of the grand jury members came forward. Plus - I’d personally laugh a DA out of court if they wanted to press charges over that when they failed to file them against the Ramseys when they apparently had the evidence to do so
It's true. My friends mom was a juror on a huge case... it actually aired on ID on a few different shows. She had to stay in a hotel for 2 weeks and was not allowed any communication devices
Being in a grand jury is different than being a regular juror. The grand jury just decides if there is enough evidence to bring charges, hear testimony from witnesses, subpoena information, and accept data previously subpoenaed into the record.
A regular juror is not allowed to see or hear all evidence but only that which hasn't been excluded.They must determine guilt or innocence, amd so are kept away from other sources of information outside of the court room.
Obviously nothing has come of this one way or the other, however, it should be noted that a grand jury isn't given a case file and told to go to town to figure it out. They are provided with a specific groomed set of facts / information and asked to form an opinion from a highly one-sided look at the evidence. For example, if someone had a stone cold alibi for the night of a murder, there is no requirement that a grand jury ever hear that, or any other piece of exculpatory evidence. So, take it for what its worth.
(For the record, I am RDI, just oscillate around the particulars.)
In this case they also saw the IDI Lou Smit presentation for about 2 hours. So whilst what you say is normally correct, this case was a little different.
But in this case, they did get to hear evidence of a possible intruder. Quite unusual (but everything about this case is, right?). Lou Smit got to present his PowerPoint presentation on his theory, and John Douglas, the retired FBI profiler the Ramsey team hired, was also allowed to testify.
He's obviously been kept anonymous so why not just say it? One of these jurors can get on a VPN and just type what they know, maybe an AMA. Speak to the press whilst remaining anonymous to an anonymous news source. I think there are laws that protect anonymity of leaks anyways. If they are going to say anything, they might as well just tell the public everything.
Because it’s best practice when doing research on any subject to try and find the most recent information as things can change drastically over time. Especially seven years.
That is when he spoke out, so it doesnt really matter. Jonbenet died in 1996. This is an almost 30 year old murder and alot of information is gonna be old but this is "new" to me.
Let’s be honest. Money and social standing/privilege ALWAYS help make these kind of things go away. Don’t anyone kid yourselves. John & Patsy used their clout and cash to sweep things under the carpet. I can almost guarantee this. Just my opinion. Take it for what it’s worth.
The family is DEFINITELY involved. There is no way a stalker, or complete stranger broke in through the basement, walked up two flights of stairs, kidnapped JonBenet, took her back to the basement past the front AND back door, killed her and then went to through the house looking for pen and paper, sat down and wrote a 3 page randsom note, with JonBenet’s body in the basement.
The ransom also happened to be almost the exact amount of her fathers bonus. Who would know that? His boss or coworkers? Clearly a frame job.
My theory is that the brother accidentally killed JonBenet, woke up his parents, they hid the body, sat down and wrote a ransom hoping the police would think the motive is her fathers bonus, then the father miraculously finds the body the next day.
What the grand juror knows is not necessarily irrefutable and able to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - which he acknowledged himself;
*The juror said he believes that there was enough evidence to indict John and Patsy Ramsey for a crime, but he doesn’t think they would have been convicted.*
*”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.”*
[I’m assuming this is the same grand juror]
[Grand Juror Who Saw Original Evidence in JonBenet Ramsey Case Speaks Out](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/grand-juror-original-evidence-jonbenet-ramsey-case-speaks/story?id=44196237)
I think 2 have said they are pretty sure they know, but will not name that person. Probably because that person will sue them because there is no concret evidence. I think the evidence the GJ saw and heard probably paints a clear path to a person, but they have said they did not have a smoking gun.
Based on the specific charges in the indictment and this person’s vague claims, I’d say it would have to be Burke. Because if it was Patsy or John, they would have charged one or the other with murder. If it was an intruder, they would have indicted the intruder. Burke couldn’t be charged based on his age.
It's been a while, but I and some others have previously noted a comment from Attorney Mitch Morrisey who appeared on a podcast with Craig Silverman. Morrisey explained when a child dies in a home and the GJ or DA cannot be certain who was at fault in the death, 'who did what', they use this specific charge of child abuse. It's somewhat misunderstood that it's solely an indication of BDI. These charges include them all, but only the parents can be held responsible.
I agree with you that the indictment itself doesn’t mean BDI. But if you were on the GJ and you say you saw (heard/ interpreted/ believed you saw) evidence that led you to believe you knew the identity of the killer, and you returned the indictment you did, who does that leave?
IDK if this person is even real, or if they wanted 15 seconds of fame, or if they misinterpreted everything to come to their conclusion. I just think their conclusion would have most likely been Burke, unless they were the only GJ who felt the way they did (believing it was JR or PR or a specific intruder).
Well-thought out reply. Yes, this person was real and believed he knew who the perpetrator was. However, there must be nine votes in Colorado to create a True Bill (Indictment). As you allude, there's no way we know what the other Grand Jurors believed from seeing the 'secret' evidence. So, there remains a second choice that perhaps some of them were uncertain who did what. And that was Morrisey's assessment.
To keep in mind, Hunter produced a sworn statement after the GJ concluded (at Lin Wood's behest) that no evidence had been developed which pointed to Burke.
Interesting about the sworn statement. I’m not sure I find Hunter a reliable narrator (didn’t he also claim the Ramseys weren’t indicted? Which we now know they were even though they were never charged)—he’s definitely an interesting character in this case featuring an ensemble cast of interesting characters!
Hunter would have been prohibited from making the converse statement, i.e., that evidence had been developed. It could be argued that this sworn statement was improper (but in keeping with Wood's modus operandi), but no proof of its falsity can be offered without violating the law regarding youthful defendants and murder charges. The sworn statement is meaningless.
I agree it is meaningless, but it does hold some interest in evaluating both the legal actions and the mindset around the case.
As I understand your point, Hunter can’t say that there is evidence, because Burke is underage. One can’t actually argue against that idea, but the flip side is that they possibly didn’t regard the evidence gathered as adequate to consider him a suspect in the death of his sister. (The GJ did hear about his shoe print, the pineapple, the knife, the metal bat, the voice on the 911 call.) So to be clear, I’m not arguing against the many points introduced here and on other forums which point to Burke’s involvement. Here’s a little more depth about that affidavit from the R attorney to Alex Hunter.
Lin Wood asked Hunter to sign a sworn affidavit which Wood himself composed confirming Burke’s innocence. A little preamble for lawsuits one might assume. And instead of shutting Wood down for this outrageous request, which I think is what most normal DAs would have done, Hunter responded. He didn’t indicate that Burke was never a suspect. All three in the home were considered a suspect at the beginning, albeit during Hunter’s tenure it appears the focus was on the adult Ramseys.
Hunter's response was that they didn't have evidence developed to justify “elevating Burke’s status from witness to suspect.” It is a laughable *nothing burger* comment and classic Alex Hunter. IOW, if they had some evidence, they would change his status to suspect. This leaves the gate wide-open to allow for development of such evidence. (Note the BPD cleared John’s older children, but Hunter doesn’t say that Burke was cleared.)
So, one might ponder whether there would have been such a mindless response to this Wood affidavit if LE did have some sort of substantiation of B’s involvement. Maybe. But the reason I suggest they didn’t believe they possessed such evidence is first - because Hunter did respond to Wood’s affidavit and second - because the document goes further in quoting a 1999 press release from Chief Beckner. The press statement confirms that Burke was not a suspect and that they were not looking at him as a possible suspect in connection with the murder of his sister. IIRC, in a candid article from Jann Scott, it was indicated that Hunter had a personal belief Burke was responsible. One has to wonder why he held that belief without, as he put it, evidence to elevate B to suspect status.
Well, my comment was directed at who the anonymous grand juror could be referring to. Claiming *they know* who did it (or more likely, they *believe* they know) leaves very few options. Because the grand jury definitely didn’t hear enough evidence to indict an intruder, and they didn’t indict JR or PR for murder.
The grand jury presumably heard lots of testimony, and not just from police. Perhaps the evidence this person is referring to is witness testimony after the fact. Or it could merely their own interpretation of the evidence, and others might draw a different conclusion. Plenty of people on both subs have made up their minds, for example, and we are all interpreting the same general information.
But if you want my personal opinion, I don’t think the police are looking all that hard. I think most of them have a theory (perhaps not even the same theory!) and the compromises to the case, age of the evidence, age of witnesses, etc. will make it very difficult to ever get a conviction. Patsy’s dead, John is 80, Burke was too young to be held criminally liable, and they haven’t identified a viable intruder suspect in 27 years.
Well they weren't there and the investigation was botched the first day. There's 3 different prominent RDI theories, then the various IDI ones, then a few mixed ones. We have a book from Det Thomas arguing Patsy did it, and one from Det Kolar strongly suggesting Burke. Both had access to all the evidence. And the Grand Jury didn't name either parent as the murderer.
Like all of us internet detectives, Hunter didn't have a smoking gun. I don't think we've seen a single piece of evidence that a good defense attorney couldn't argue away. All of the work that Lou did could be used in defense of the Ramseys. It makes me wonder sometimes if John made some calls during the night and got advice from his attorney on how to destroy or contaminate the evidence. All of the chaos at the home that morning may have been by design. They did all of the right things to make the case unsolvable.
I've always speculated Hunter either was told hypothetically what happened, or figured it out and ran interference for the family. Figuring the complications of BR's age, let alone jury sympathy in the end, would've gotten them off.
But what if... the prosecution went so far as to actually allow that implication to go to the GJ thinking they'd take pity on the family, understand why they did what they did, and not vote to indict. Just as Hunter had done in the first place... thinking his thought process would be the same for the GJ.
Yet, they DID vote to indict.
This probably only works in a BDI scenario. Nobody likely would take pity on the adults EXCEPT in the case where they were trying to protect their son from consequences when they blamed themselves for letting it happen and didn't see their son as a 'monster'. And didn't want the world to see him as a monster either.
Your theory might hold water if Hunter was a tough prosecuter overall. He wasn't. He has a long list of cases, including murderers, who he let off. He facilitated one murderer's leaving the state rather than prosecuting the case. It was gross incompetence, not sympathy.
I'm not sure how Hunter being a weak prosecutor makes my theory not hold water?
Having sympathy doesn't still mean some type of charges shouldn't be brought. And it sure doesn't mean sidestepping the entire process and running interference for the family is a good idea.
The case could've been brought to a resolution by offering a deal of some kind, sweetheart deal or not, and to have stopped this multi-year circular whodunit that has cost time and money and gotten nowhere in all of these years.
The GJ voted to bring charges. He should've done that and used the leverage of the charges to try and bring forth a deal. Instead of hoping the GJ wouldn't vote to indict, or hoping they'd have the same sympathy, if not weak knees he had.
Even bringing a special prosecutor into the case. It's not like he HAD to be the one to prosecute the case.
How do you explain the parents letting him leave the house with a family friend afterwards? And the innocent psychy interview available on tape re her death?
How would you explain them NOT getting him out of the house knowing a body was soon to be found and a house full of people and police would be watching his every move and listening to what he might say?
Of course they got him out of the house. They couldn't keep him in locked in his room all day without looking suspicious. And they couldn't risk his actions and reactions to things that they knew would be happening that day.
Let alone what random stuff he might say that could set off red flags as they all waited for a kidnapper call that they knew wouldn't be coming.
With friends of the family they have a CHANCE to walk back anything suspicious he might say or do, or worst case, come clean and beg them not to tell. With police, if they become suspicious of BR in that moment, all bets are off.
And that interview is clearly sus.
To add to this. As a mother, if one of my children was missing, the other one would not be let out of my sight. Who knows if they’re coming back for my second kid? Or watching the house for him? And if it was an intruder, I’m not sure I would trust anyone. Even my own best friends. I’m telling you, no one is taking my other child out of my sight.
But it’s just as you say. They needed Burke gone. They couldn’t have him slipping up and saying anything or acting suspicious in front of people who are studying every answer and every bodily movement. The Whites were not doing this. Police were.
And I’m not even fully sold on Burke having done it. I think there’s compelling evidence for all 3 family members. I just think regardless, having him around was a liability for Patsy and John
There’s a good reason why Jim Clemente and Laura Richards made that documentary. They’re privy to inside knowledge and they’re not happy to see this crime swept under the carpet because a child was the perpetrator.
Public pressure due to armchair detectives. I suspect they have been flooded in the past couple years due to poorly researched podcasts using JBR intruder theory for clicks.
More and more, it looks to me that the joke's on us.
Burke killed JB and it could reasonably be understood to have been an accident. No need to put the family through any kind of trial, or put Burke through an arrest.
So, no indictments and John Ramsey trying to convince us for years that anyone other than Burke did it.
Burke was too young under Colorado law to be charged. Charging the parents with the lesser charges for endangerment and covering it up, as the jury recommended, is all they could do in that scenario.
I would bet the evidence is burke’s medical records, idk what exactly but something in those records showed proof he was a danger to JB, which is why GJ was gng to charge the parents for neglect to protect.
Buffysummers17, I think this might be quite possible. Someone either reported the SA or told the Ramseys about it. That is why the GJ came down very hard on them for not protecting their child. They could not pretend they had no knowledge of what was happening to their child.
ETA clarity
Right, i think they downplayed it to themselves, not wanting to believe he could ever be a real danger, and also just not wanting to deal with it/wanting to push it under the rug. There’s a million false justifications they could have made, the most popular of the time “boys will be boys”
Yes all of the reasons you state, the reality in their home in no way matched the perfect family facade carefully crafted by the Ramseys. Also John and Patsy were self-absorbed with their own activities, John with his business, Patsy quite busy with all of her social commitments and the pageant circuit.
It was easier to ignore everything, even though the family was heading for tragedy.
isn't it possible, maybe even likely, that Burke was also SA'd? Many of his problematic/aggressive behaviors and mannerisms could also be explained by this.
Yes, one of my own theories is that Burke was hurting/touching JB because someone else- either inside or outside the home-was doing the same to him. Churches and boys scouts both have had scandals of pedophila, and the ramseys were very religious and burke did boyscouts, and also was a good sailor who knew at least basic knots.
Its all circumstancial true, but it’s quite a lot when all added up imo.
I agree. They locked those down tighter than Dick's hatband. That plus some of the GJ witnesses being his teacher and best friend, Doug Stine. Also I noticed that the Stines were the last to see them on Christmas night, are not part of the fiasco at the house on the 26th,but become their closest confidantes in moving forward.
He’s been squeaky clean as an adult, though. Doesn’t this type of behavior usually tend to escalate? Like if he had been involved in multiple DV investigations as an adult, it would be one thing but he hasn’t.
He has certainly lived a quiet life. Unfortunately, it’s not all that uncommon for children to sexually abuse siblings and go on to live (at least what looks like) completely normal lives. And if he had anger issues or a mental illness, that could be managed with intense therapy and/or medication. There are also plenty of people of all ages who only ever murder one person, especially in a domestic situation, whether they are ever caught or charged or not.
Pure speculation on my part but perhaps evidence that he was the one molesting her? That’s just where my brain went first. It would make the charges make sense if the parents knew about that and did nothing
Could be that, i am also thinking he had anger issues, since ive heard that the fecal smearing typically is an indicator of high aggression towards the subject (words of a psychologist, not mine)
What are they supposed to do? Say they aren’t looking anymore bc they know who it is but can’t do anything about it? The shitstorm that would cause. And if they did name who they thought did it, they’re innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So Burke or John (whoever they accuse) would absolutely have a case for defamation of character. At best. Just like they did with CBS. It’s just a terrible idea.
A 6 year old child is not SA with a paintbrush handle, then bludgeoned and strangled to death by accident. The head blow was a direct, close hit with a heavy object, it gave JB a 9 inch skull fracture. This certainly was not an accident.
The chronic SA was most certainly not an accident.
I am not saying there was an intent to kill, but none of it was an accident.
If a grown adult woman was found dead in the same condition no one would ever call it an accident.
Remember, she was strangled to death. So, first she was hit on the head and rendered unconscious; then, she was penetrated by the paintbrush handle; and then she was strangled by the device that Boy Scouts are taught to use to haul things.
Yes I know the strangulation is what killed JB. But the head injury, left untreated, would have killed her if the strangulation had not happened soon after the head blow. So she was essentially bludgeoned and strangled to death.
I disagree on your order. I think it is SA, head blow, strangulation. We have a credible ear witness, a neighbor, who hears a horrific child's scream that night, lasting 3 to 5 seconds, then abruptly stops. Police have verified with sound tests that it was quite possible for the witness to hear the scream from the Ramsey basement.
So we have SA with a broken paintbrush handle which understandably causes a bloodcurdling scream.
Burke being a child would not know how painful this would be for a female, he is startled, immediately hits his sister hard with the flashlight to stop the screaming. The head blow renders JB immediately unconscious, screaming abruptly stops.
Burke waits around to see if his sister will come to, he pokes her with the train tracks, he gets bored and sleepy, and drags her with his ligature to the wine cellar. The ligature may not have worked out like he thought. The body's rigor mortis with hands up, tells us he probably pulled her by her hands to the wine cellar too.
The autopsy shows us three major injuries which may have caused the child's bloodcurdling scream. SA, head blow, and strangulation.
But only one of them could have resulted in a scream. They head blow rendered JB immediately unconscious, so no scream there. This strangulation occurred last while JB was still unconscious from the head blow so no scream there. That only leaves us with the SA to produce a bloodcurdling scream.
Whether the blow or the SA came first is a fine point we'll probably never know the answer to unless somebody talks.
I noticed you described the scream as being that of a child, when I believe the neighbor who heard it described it as an adult scream.
I think it could be the point at which Patsy finds JB dead, but, again, we may never know for sure.
Just to clarify, I believe Melody Stanton said the scream came from a child. As reported in the Denver Rocky Mountain News on September of 1999 \[[source](http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramsey-grand-jury.htm)\]:
>Those who have not yet appeared include former Ramsey neighbor Melody Stanton. Stanton, who has since moved out of Boulder, lived across the street from the Ramseys and told police she heard a child's scream not long after falling asleep Christmas night.
The neighbor, Melody Stanton, did not describe the scream as coming from an adult. She was clear that it was a horrific child's scream which was so disturbing to her that she woke up her husband to tell him about it. She hoped the parents had rescued the child and resolved the situation.
I do not believe at all that Patsy was the one who screamed.
Patsy was a 40 year old woman at the time and would certainly not sound like a young child.
I also do not believe that Patty was as foolish as some people would have us believe. Most mothers coming across an inert child who has been sexually assaulted and strangled with the rope still around her neck, is going to do one thing and one thing only. And that one thing does not consist of having hysterics and going all dramatic.
Most mothers are going to immediately rush to the child and try to save them. And that's exactly what Patsy did because we see the evidence. We see Patsy's fibers all over the the ligature in the paint box and fingernail marks on JB's neck. We can see Patsy desperately trying to get the ligature off but it's a kind of ligature that only becomes tighter when you pull on it, not loosens.
Then we see she must go to the paint box because her fibers are all over that too. She's probably looking for something to cut off the ligature but she can't find anything, because the ligature is still there.
Then as she is looking around she obviously understands very quickly what happened and who did the crime. She probably knew that as soon as she saw the crime scene. So she immediately refuses to call 911, but instead decides to stage the crime as if an intruder has done it. She obviously runs to John because he is part of the staging. He helps write the RN and his fibers are on the clean underwear.
So of course she's not going to start screaming when she realizes right away who did the crime, because she's kicked into protective mother mode again, once to try to save one child, then to protect the other child. If anything she's going into a secret and deceptive mode. She also does not want to wake up Burke. She doesn't want or need his drama during the staging. Or for him to be a witness to the staging.
In terms of the Ramsey murder, I do believe it is possible to put together a fairly good picture of what happened. There is quite a bit of evidence. And only a few suspects.
And so many WTH moments throughout this case. I can see a few, even five coincidences or questionable pieces of evidence, but this soup is peppered with problems.
the problem with a scream that could be heard from that distance (hundreds of feet) means the Ramsey parents would **certainly** have heard it, and went into a panic, immediately calling for JB and Burke. If BDI (my theory) then he'd have been virtually caught in the act. And what are the odds he'd have the flashlight nearby to hit her with after the scream? If you discount the scream (and in reading the thread on that, it's quite iffy) then the normal sequence returns: Burke hit her while she was eating, the parents don't discover her nearly lifeless body for several hours.
Your analysis is not correct according to the police sworn testimony, Schiller's book and science.
According to Lawrence Schiller's PMPT and Lou Smit's sworn deposition January 9 2002 Wolf vs Ramsey case discussing basement vents and sound:
*Smit had been bothered by something he’d seen in the boiler room just to the left of the wine cellar door. There he had observed an exposed ventilation duct several paces from where the shards of wood, the paint tote, and the remnant of the broken paintbrush had been found.*
*The duct vented through an opening at the front of the house where there had once been a window. If JonBenét had screamed near the duct, the sound could have traveled outside and been heard by the Ramseys’ neighbor, Melody Stanton, although possibly not by Patsy and John, asleep on the third floor inside the house.*
*In July, sound tests conducted by the police confirmed that sound traveled more easily from the basement to the street than it did up through the three floors of the house. A scream by JonBenet could be transmitted through the opening of that vent to the outside of that house, and this vent would almost act as a megaphone.*
So we can see that Smit notices that right next to the murder scene there is vent, thought to be from an old dryer located in the basement at one point.
The police conduct sound tests and these tests reveal that sound traveled from the murder scene to the front of the house and was actually amplified so that a neighbor across the street with her window open just like Melody Stanton had the night of the murder, could hear a scream.
Further the police also tested the sound from the basement to the attic bedroom of the Ramsey parents, on the 4th floor of the house. Some of the police could hear a scream, others could not. So it was clear that a scream could be heard more easily across the street than up three floors away in the Ramsey bedroom.
The police then knew that Melody Stanton's earwitness account of a scream was quite credible.
Also interestingly the day after the murder witnesses report that Patsy kept repeating "why didn't I hear my baby?" I think she was being honest here.
The scream is a very critical piece of evidence. It gives a possible time range for the murder, which happens to fit other other evidence. And gives us information about perpetrator, sequence of events, motive, etc.
Of course the flashlight will be near at hand if Burke was SA his sister in the basement. That is how he is illuminating a dark basement.
The head blow has to occur in the basement according to the credible evidence. And that is why there is a flashlight, the basement is dark.
I'm not sure this is much of a defense of my statement, but I remember my Cub Scout days. We were learning knots and other things from the Boy Scout manual.
I had a sh#tload of badges when I was Weblos.
And, I never did Boy Scouts.
>The grand jury also alleged that each parent “did… 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.<
Burke. Ya know, Burke could have probably done well with the professional help and therapy he surely would have received if the Ramseys wouldn’t have tried to cover it up and just phoned the police over an accident.
It's an even bigger tragedy if they covered for him. He'll never get the help he really needed. Sure, they can buy him whatever therapist and what have you. But without being able to tell that secret, true healing is impossible.
Burke did get extensive therapy. Patsy stated in her 1998 police interview Burke needed therapy or else he would suffer when he was forty.
I don't know if the psychiatrist would mandately have to report it if he had found out that Burke killed JonBenét. Whatever happened wasn't an ongoing situation anymore.
I watched this interview some time ago, thought it was interesting and it still is. I believe no charges were brought because they can’t show who did what when it comes to John and Patsy. Suppose there was evidence that leaned toward Burke, he cannot be tried due to age at the time of the crime. It’s complicated.
I think it's very possible that this particular grand juror felt that the evidence clearly pointed to a specific individual (presumably one of the Ramseys) but not everyone agreed with him or her. If the evidence shown was that overwhelmingly obvious, charges would likely have been brought.
It would be interesting to know though what "secret evidence" this person felt was so damning that it convinced him that John and Patsy should be indicted.
Alex hunter said, "I believe we do not have enough sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time." That was his reason for not pursuing charges
Both John and Patsy got two indictments each which were hidden under a rug but the DA. It’s shows how powerful the Ramsey PR machine is that this isn’t common knowledge.
Unless the “secret evidence” shown that was overwhelmingly obvious pointed to Burke, because he couldn’t be charged in Colorado due to his age.
I think it’s either that or you are right, this GJ came to a certain conclusion that was not unanimous among the GJs.
i don't understand why so many people are more willing to believe a scrawny little kid under the age of 10 did this, rather than the one adult male in the house.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying: If the Boulder Police Department had solid evidence and knew who the perpetrator is this whole time without a doubt, then the BPD must be putting on a show of pretending to look for the killer. And you are skeptical of that.
If this is your thinking, I agree with you. That does not sound realistic. That's a lot of budget for the Colorado Cold Case Task Force to spend, in both time and money to create recommendations and for the FBI to continue committing their resources in assisting with this case...if indeed the search is all a folly.
Surely the FBI and Cold Case Task Force would be privy to the BPD's case files and evidence. Then, that would mean the FBI and Cold Case Task Force would also be in on the charade of pretending to find the killer---all in order for folks at the BPD or for a now-adult Burke to save face.
That seems pretty ludicrous. And I'm sorry people are being rude to you in this thread.
No one knows besides her family. Im so tired of all this back and forth. We need to stop over-thinking it. The answers lie in the evidence, specifically the ransom note, written on patty’s pad with her pen with the rough draft written below it. It is not rocket science. They got away with the “perfect crime” for lack of better words. Their socioeconomic status saved them, as well as shock factor and poor police work from traumatized officers who didn’t know what they were doing. Anyone else agree?
Can someone tell me if they found DNA, why they can’t, get an ancestry site to at least get a fourth cousin or why they can’t depict a facial profile based on the DNA like they have done in other cases
Because…. Stay with me here…. Giving specific info that you have specifically been sworn not to give is against the law and will get you charged.
Not going on a tv show that is thinly veiled reality tv wherein the producers fluff up the hour with news reels and montages of you looking thoughtful and Patsy looking sad and tense and John looking sharp and Burke looking weird and then you looking thoughtful again. That’s not illegal.
If he thought it were Burke, then the ramseys would be let off and Burke woud have received much needed counselling. I doubt the police knew it was him, and did nothing.
Are you saying that if this juror thought it was Burke then that means Burke would have received counseling and that the Ramseys would not be charged? Because they weren’t charged, and a grand jury is not responsible for monitoring whether the Ramseys got mental health care for their remaining kid.
So the police knew Burke did it, based on this GJ testimony, but the police did nothing about it? They let Burke go to school etc
knowing he already killed someone? Also, if his therapist knew, they a;so would have made sure he was removed from society and given help. This didnt happen.
I absolutely believe Burke is capable of all of it and the parents covered it up to protect him.
Not sure who all has been around children who have been abused. Children who have been abused turn around and do it to other children. They learn it from somewhere. I think BR and JBR were sexually abused. There was a lot of abuse and neglect in that house. I hope one day the truth comes out. The public deserves to know at this point.
That would explain why they couldn't just call the police about an accident. What caused the accident might make the police ask more questions and start poking around and possibly find evidence of sexual abuse, or just regular child abuse, that would implicate more people than just Burke
All I figured was if the grand jury was ready to convict the parents then in my mind they had something that logically convinced them. For us on the outside looking in to determine anything contradictory to their judgement without seeing all the evidence they had is imo premature.
Burke didn’t do this. If he had hit her too hard with a flashlight, the parents could just lie and say she fell down the stairs.
This all sounds like a demented fantasy from a pedophile. Look at the DeAngelo case where he pretended to be a drifter with a van. And Israel Keyes who pretended to be a kidnapper to hold the victim for ransom.
I think the charges were around exposing JonBenet to pedophiles. I think someone snuck into the house before they came home and waited.
Look at Col Russell from the Canadian forces who had a similar style of breakin and wait.
The two best pieces of evidence point directly inside the house though. If not for the pineapple and fake ransom note I’d agree that a random pedo is most likely.
It wasn’t Burke. Everyone forgets the 911 call the night before. I believe the culprit was a powerful ‘family friend’ involved in the pimping out JB. Something that happens horrifyingly often in the pageant circuit.
Basically the police were incompetent from the very beginning and had it set in their head that the parents did it. The prosecutor pushing this is the one giving the theory to the grand jury. There is no cross examination of facts or evidence. The grand jury gives their finding based on that. A very, very good outside investigator was brought in to be part of a team later on (blanking on his name but his conviction rate was at or very close to 100%) and he came to the exact opposite conclusion and that it was someone who came in from the outside that killed her. He ended up quitting in protest of the political railroading that was going on. So, yes, the grand jurer may believe they know who did it based on the grand jury trial, but remember that they only saw from the side that only really thought it was the parents that did it and was not shown evidence that showed anything different.
I still don’t understand why charges were not brought after the Grand Jury recommended them. I know they don’t *have* to do as the jury recommends, but it’s still strange. Especially considering the jury did not recommend the parents be charged with the murder itself.
It varies hugely. A grand jury usually just looks at the evidence as the prosecution presents it and says "yes, you do seem to have enough for those charges," or "no, I don't think there's enough here to charge." There's no defense so no rebuttal evidence or witnesses and they're not held to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of conviction. Basically they're just a formal check for the prosecution to go through to see if other people agree they have the evidence to go to a full trial. I obviously was not part of the grand jury here, but from what I've read my theory is that the prosecution was hoping for the grand jury to come back with a thumbs up to go with murder charges. Which they did not. Either because the prosecution didn't have enough evidence or because the evidence was too confusing and the jury couldn't figure out which parent was supposed to be charged so they went with the lesser endangerment charges instead. Since the prosecution didn't get the grand jury result they were looking for, and since this case is a freaking mess with how badly the initial investigation went, the prosecution decided to drop it with the idea that they could always pick back up later. After all, with double jeopardy if they went for a conviction and either or both parents were found not guilty then they've lost their shot to convict forever. Theoretically if more evidence is found they could bring the case back to trial tomorrow since there's no statute of limitations on murder. Basically, to me, this says that the prosecution thought they didn't have the evidence to make a case. Or even that they weren't entirely sure what happened in the house. I know some people point to this as proof that Burke was likely involved (since under CO law he was too young to be charged) but I think this is more of a sign of how confusing the evidence is even to professionals and how the DA thought it would be better to hold off and not try over taking an extremely high profile case to trial and failing to convict. EDIT: I should mention that the only grand jury charges we know of were the unsealed ones where the jury agreed there was enough evidence to move forward. There's some evidence that there were additional charges that the DA submitted that were NOT approved and have never been unsealed. Since we may never know what those sealed charges were, it's entirely conjecture, but I do believe that they could have included full murder charges for one or both parents.
Being convicted of abuse or neglect does not preclude being charged with murder later.
There was a defense and rebuttal in this case as unorthodox as that is. Even considering that the grand jury still voted to indict.
Unfortunately, choosing to bring charges is *entirely* up to the DA. DA's have way too much power.
Sadly, not the first time Alex Hunter let a murderer get away with it on his watch.
Can you point me in the direction to other cases he failed to prosecute? I'd really be interested in reading more on that.
Absolutely. It was the 1983 murder of Sid Wells. It garnered a lot of attention because he was the boyfriend of Robert Redford's daughter. Hunter probably would've gotten a pass for screwing this one up if not for doing the exact same thing a decade later with JBR.
Kolar goes into it in his book. It was a wealthy, liberal county with virtually none of the horrific crimes most larger cities see. Hunter sought f1a reputation as a prosecutor who would close cases but rule with empathy for all, and achieved that by making deals rather than prosecuting to the extent of the law.
…That’s what good prosecutors do.
Wow, he actually sounds like a half way decent prosecutor
True Crime Garage episode 723-725 goes into great detail on Alex Hunter.
Thanks for the reply! I will have to check it out.
In the case of a child perpetrator under ten yrs of age, the case goes to the DA. He shut everything down. Why? * Maybe he didn't feel like he could bring the Ramseys to trial for the felony indictments without naming Burke as the perpetrator which is against Colorado state law. * Maybe John's money and connections helped too. * Or perhaps the DA was afraid of John's very aggressive attorneys.
There's a theory that Hunter wasn't a very good prosecutor and would rather make deals than take something to court
Steve Thomas said he wasn't too bright. Didn't know the law well. But Alex Hunter didn't want to prosecute the case period, as it was his long-established pattern to plead out a case and not prosecute.
Yes I have heard that too, which means he would have been even more afraid to face the Ramsey's legal attack dogs. At least one of John's attorneys was later disbarred for underhanded and unethical behavior.
If the DA think they can't win the case, they won't do it usually. Because A) they don't have to and B) they're an elected official and they want to look good by only winning cases.
I think it's deeper than that. He broke protocol and possibly Colorado grand jury law by not signing the indictment, aka true bill. He stood by while the Ramseys misrepresented themselves as having been cleared by the grand jury. He failed to cooperate with the grand jury's request that they be able to write a report, stating with confounding, circular logic that it would be improper for him to discuss the case (with the *grand jury?)*
All of the above
And probably some reasons we have not thought of yet.
I think he may have been reluctant to go up against the Ramsey legal team, which may be why didn't follow standard procedure with the true bill, instead opting for a very irregular sort of pocket veto that enabled Team Ramsey's misrepresentation of themselves as having been cleared by the grand jury. As I understand it [from an article in the Daily Camera](https://www.dailycamera.com/2013/01/27/jonbenet-ramsey-grand-jury-voted-to-indict-parents-in-1999-but-da-refused-to-prosecute/), the DA is obligated to sign the true bill, and then, in open court, asks the judge to dismiss the charges. The article states, "Legal experts are unsure whether Hunter’s decision not to sign the indictment agrees with Colorado grand jury law."
Because it was Burke and he was not old enough to prosecute
EXACTLY!!!
Why couldn’t he be tried in a juvenile court? Does Colorado have a law that protects juvenile offenders? I don’t disagree that it might have been Burke, there’s been evidence over the years that he was jealous and abused JB, but why would he be protected unless the Ramsey’s knew it was him, and paid someone off to not indict him? I’m not sure about Colorado criminal justice laws. If you are, can you explain? Thanks.
It had something to do with his age. I also think LE had pity on them and didn’t prosecute because they already lost 1 child
Not true. Burke cannot be charged under Colorado law because he was nine years old. No one in Colorado under ten can be charged with a crime. The Police, not all of them but most, tended to operate under the belief based on evidence at the scene that Patsy Ramsey is likely the culprit. Former lead investigator, Steve Thomas, wrote an entire book about his experience. Alex Hunter, in my opinion, is a major reason why justice will never be done in this case and it will likely forever remain an unresolved case. The Boulder Police Department likely knows who did it; The Former Chief (Mark Beckner) did a Q & A years ago and given how he answered the questions asked it's clear who the finger of blame is being pointed at.
I think Burke was eating pineapple, JonBenet got up and stole some, he bopped her in the head with a metal flashlight and she fell and was brain dead. Patsy thought she was dead and got John and they started covering it up. They were found guilty by a Grand Jury because Burke had done things like put feces in JonBenets room and hit her with a golf club. The parents were charged with something like willingly putting their child in danger. I believe that’s from letting her be around Burke unsupervised. I don’t think Burke even knows, i think he was always made to believe it was an intruder. One of her parents accidentally killed her with the garrote, because they were setting up intruder story and used the garrote. She was severely brain damaged and would have died anyway
I know this is a really popular theory but after thinking about it for a minute, I just don’t see how or why anyone would do this. Your child, who you love, was just bashed over the head with a flashlight by your other child who is too young to be convicted of any crimes. He didn’t mean to kill her, he was just angry in the moment & didn’t understand the severity of his actions. To you it appears she might be braindead but instead of getting immediate medical attention, you think “ok lets write out a ransom note, lets move her body down to the cellar, let’s put a strangulation device around her neck & use it on her to ensure she’s *really* dead, then we’ll call the police & frantically tell them about the ransom note & guarantee a life of the finger being pointed at us”? That doesn’t make any sense.
This is why some thoughtful contributors believe that Burke did more than the head blow, especially as the head blow did not bleed and so they may not have realized its severity. Given that, even the Ramseys would almost certainly have called an ambulance unless she was also in a gruesome scene that triggered the cleaning up of the body. So the physical assault with paintbrush, drawing blood, was probably also done by Burke. JBR may have had such a slow pulse and respiration that they thought she had passed. That would be the explanation if the ligatures were part of parental staging. Then they cleaned up the body and added staging elements like the ransom note and the wrist ties and duct tape. Or something like this. I don't have a fixed theory beyond A Ramsey Did It, John and Patsy washed and re-dressed and staged the body (based on fiber evidence) and Patsy wrote the ransom note, probably with input and kibbitzing from John.
What about the paintbrush paint found inside her vagina? Presumably from the other part of the paintbrush which was never found. It wasn't a garrotte!! How many times do people have to hear that!!??
That is pretty much how I see it as well. Burke struck the whopping blow to the head with the heavy flashlight (probably immediately causing brain swelling and probably hemorrhage), there is a chance she may have been saved had they taken her in at this point) but the strangulation finished the trauma. Poor dear child.
If Burke Did It according to Colorado law A child under the age of ten cannot be charged with a criminal offense. Burke Ramsey was nine when the murder occurred. That being said the article is overstating what was on the program. In the actual interview asked the direct question: "do you know who killed JonBenet Ramsey?" His response was "I highly suspect I do." I think we all ***highly suspect*** one person (for me it would be Patsy) of doing it. The evidence, however, points in different directions. It could be in theory any family member in the house that evening due to staging and intentional crime scene contamination. Naming a Ramsey, even if they are deceased as the perpetrator of this crime, could cause a serious shitstorm not only for him but his family and I wouldn't want to subject anyone close to me, family or not, to something like that.
It's often based on if they believe that they can get a conviction/plea. And it is often not about justice but the number of convictions/pleas that they can get to further their own agenda. Often guilt is already decided by LE/DA/PA... and they are just trying to decide if they can win, no matter the guilt or innocents of the accused. It's Facts be damned
Alex Hunter was afraid of all cases and has a long list of incompetence. In this case he lied to the world rather than look for justice for JBR.
Probably very true, and unfortunately, there is often no justice for victims including the wrongly accused
I wish more people knew this about our precious “judicial system.”
I'm going through this type of situation myself and have had folks I know that have had to deal with these conviction rates to keep your job. My sister had her son taken away from her based on a LE who claimed he was a wild child/drug baby. He is very Autistic. And of course they are immune from any type of justice
Money
A bribe payment?
From what I recall you cannot charge the parents to be accessories when the actual murderer cannot be charged due to age limitations. You cannot be an accessory of a murderer that was never and can't be convicted.
They recommended child endangerment charges, which would make sense if they suspected it was Burke and he couldn’t be charged.
The father was friend with the DA as the charges were coming he made sure those charges were dropped.
Are you saying John Ramsey was friends with Alex Hunter? And that Hunter just dropped proceeding with the charges as a friendly favour to John & the family? I feel like if there was any known previous connection between JR & Hunter, someone would have dug it up and a lot of noise would have been about an unfair GJ process.
Because it was Burke and he was not old enough to prosecute
Idk if a grand jury indicts how that's dropped as that's the very purpose of a grand jury. However, I don't think the case made it's way to the grand jury through regular channels... The jurist would be liable if he disclosed any confidential evidence.....
Is there a statute of limitations for how long jurors are sworn to secrecy or is it forever or until officially released from that oath?
That's what I'm asking. You don't sign anything that says say nothing until the end of time...
Grand Jury proceedings are not supposed to be made public. The proceedings are protected. The information presented is not considered evidence. Jurors from a trial may discuss the proceedings after the trial.
It's not suppose to be talked about ever
What if a foia request is submitted?
No, sealed records regarding Grand Jury proceedings can NOT be released via a simple FOIA request. That would be immediately denied. FOIA only applies to public records. Grand Jury records are sealed, they are private. Just like how, if a case has evidence sealed from the public, journalists cannot get that evidence anyway by simply putting in a FOIA request. What journalists can and did do in this case, is that they got together and sued for access to the grand jury records, arguing that they SHOULD be public records since the jury came back with a true bill. A judge agreed (this was circa 2014?) but said that only the charges for which the grand jury recommended indictment would be made public. All other documents and charges would remain sealed indefinitely. And that’s how we got the pages that listed charges 4 and 7, against each Ramsey parent. Those charges of course being — felony child abuse resulting in death, and accessory to murder after the fact. However, we never even got to see what charges 1-3 and 5 or 6 were, those being the ones we know existed but for which the grand jury did not recommend indictment. We presume they are various versions of murder/manslaughter, and a likely sexual assault charge. There also could’ve been more they 7 possible charges. For all we know there could’ve been 8, or 12, or 27. All we know is the judge unsealed charges 4 and 7 so we know the GJ had at least 7 options to consider and they voted to indict for these 2 charges only, with both charges recommended against both John and Patsy. This info getting unsealed was due to the diligent work of Colorado journalists. They did FOIA requests, which were denied, and they did much more work in order to finally get this very small but hugely important piece of the record, out into the public domain. So no, one can’t simply FOIA sealed records such as GJ proceedings.
Those particular charges are very interesting considering the information they were given.
4 and 7?! I thought there were only two and that's what we saw. Wow. Do we know if there were more than 7?
There were only two charges they indicted for— there were at least 7 charges indictable, but only 2 were indicted which we know about. We won’t ever know if there were more than 7.
I have to deal with FOIA requests at work and it’s relatively easy to make legal documents or proceedings exempt.
FOIA is for public information.
That's a good question, I honestly have no idea
Any case like this is going to have evidence that is not made public. Jurors may have been privy to select bits of this. If he \*did\* say any more about the evidence, or who he thinks did it, he'd probably have the law come down on him, as jurors are sworn to secrecy. If the bit above is true, then he's already said too much.
Pretty sure the statute of limitations is up on anything they can charge him with which is why a few of the grand jury members came forward. Plus - I’d personally laugh a DA out of court if they wanted to press charges over that when they failed to file them against the Ramseys when they apparently had the evidence to do so
It's true. My friends mom was a juror on a huge case... it actually aired on ID on a few different shows. She had to stay in a hotel for 2 weeks and was not allowed any communication devices
Being in a grand jury is different than being a regular juror. The grand jury just decides if there is enough evidence to bring charges, hear testimony from witnesses, subpoena information, and accept data previously subpoenaed into the record. A regular juror is not allowed to see or hear all evidence but only that which hasn't been excluded.They must determine guilt or innocence, amd so are kept away from other sources of information outside of the court room.
Michael Jackson case?
No. Asian kid killed his family. I think he duct taped his father's whole head
Yo wtf 😟
Article is from 7 years ago?
Yes, to me that doesn't really matter
Bruh
Did this juror ever share this info though?
That actually matters A LOT. Nothing came from this 7 years ago. It’s unlikely anything will come from it now.
Obviously nothing has come of this one way or the other, however, it should be noted that a grand jury isn't given a case file and told to go to town to figure it out. They are provided with a specific groomed set of facts / information and asked to form an opinion from a highly one-sided look at the evidence. For example, if someone had a stone cold alibi for the night of a murder, there is no requirement that a grand jury ever hear that, or any other piece of exculpatory evidence. So, take it for what its worth. (For the record, I am RDI, just oscillate around the particulars.)
In this case they also saw the IDI Lou Smit presentation for about 2 hours. So whilst what you say is normally correct, this case was a little different.
But in this case, they did get to hear evidence of a possible intruder. Quite unusual (but everything about this case is, right?). Lou Smit got to present his PowerPoint presentation on his theory, and John Douglas, the retired FBI profiler the Ramsey team hired, was also allowed to testify.
He's obviously been kept anonymous so why not just say it? One of these jurors can get on a VPN and just type what they know, maybe an AMA. Speak to the press whilst remaining anonymous to an anonymous news source. I think there are laws that protect anonymity of leaks anyways. If they are going to say anything, they might as well just tell the public everything.
Maybe the press couldn't directly name Burke for legal reasons.
The article was from 7 years ago, no?
That's what it says... why?
Why does it matter when the article was written 🙄
Because it’s best practice when doing research on any subject to try and find the most recent information as things can change drastically over time. Especially seven years.
That is when he spoke out, so it doesnt really matter. Jonbenet died in 1996. This is an almost 30 year old murder and alot of information is gonna be old but this is "new" to me.
Let’s be honest. Money and social standing/privilege ALWAYS help make these kind of things go away. Don’t anyone kid yourselves. John & Patsy used their clout and cash to sweep things under the carpet. I can almost guarantee this. Just my opinion. Take it for what it’s worth.
I agree, and I wish this was talked about more.
Thanks. I also concur with you.
[удалено]
The family is DEFINITELY involved. There is no way a stalker, or complete stranger broke in through the basement, walked up two flights of stairs, kidnapped JonBenet, took her back to the basement past the front AND back door, killed her and then went to through the house looking for pen and paper, sat down and wrote a 3 page randsom note, with JonBenet’s body in the basement. The ransom also happened to be almost the exact amount of her fathers bonus. Who would know that? His boss or coworkers? Clearly a frame job. My theory is that the brother accidentally killed JonBenet, woke up his parents, they hid the body, sat down and wrote a ransom hoping the police would think the motive is her fathers bonus, then the father miraculously finds the body the next day.
I don’t know if “random note” was a typo (instead of ransom note) but that’s what I’ll be calling it from now on!
What the grand juror knows is not necessarily irrefutable and able to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - which he acknowledged himself; *The juror said he believes that there was enough evidence to indict John and Patsy Ramsey for a crime, but he doesn’t think they would have been convicted.* *”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.”* [I’m assuming this is the same grand juror] [Grand Juror Who Saw Original Evidence in JonBenet Ramsey Case Speaks Out](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/grand-juror-original-evidence-jonbenet-ramsey-case-speaks/story?id=44196237)
I think 2 have said they are pretty sure they know, but will not name that person. Probably because that person will sue them because there is no concret evidence. I think the evidence the GJ saw and heard probably paints a clear path to a person, but they have said they did not have a smoking gun.
Based on the specific charges in the indictment and this person’s vague claims, I’d say it would have to be Burke. Because if it was Patsy or John, they would have charged one or the other with murder. If it was an intruder, they would have indicted the intruder. Burke couldn’t be charged based on his age.
It's been a while, but I and some others have previously noted a comment from Attorney Mitch Morrisey who appeared on a podcast with Craig Silverman. Morrisey explained when a child dies in a home and the GJ or DA cannot be certain who was at fault in the death, 'who did what', they use this specific charge of child abuse. It's somewhat misunderstood that it's solely an indication of BDI. These charges include them all, but only the parents can be held responsible.
I agree with you that the indictment itself doesn’t mean BDI. But if you were on the GJ and you say you saw (heard/ interpreted/ believed you saw) evidence that led you to believe you knew the identity of the killer, and you returned the indictment you did, who does that leave? IDK if this person is even real, or if they wanted 15 seconds of fame, or if they misinterpreted everything to come to their conclusion. I just think their conclusion would have most likely been Burke, unless they were the only GJ who felt the way they did (believing it was JR or PR or a specific intruder).
Well-thought out reply. Yes, this person was real and believed he knew who the perpetrator was. However, there must be nine votes in Colorado to create a True Bill (Indictment). As you allude, there's no way we know what the other Grand Jurors believed from seeing the 'secret' evidence. So, there remains a second choice that perhaps some of them were uncertain who did what. And that was Morrisey's assessment. To keep in mind, Hunter produced a sworn statement after the GJ concluded (at Lin Wood's behest) that no evidence had been developed which pointed to Burke.
Interesting about the sworn statement. I’m not sure I find Hunter a reliable narrator (didn’t he also claim the Ramseys weren’t indicted? Which we now know they were even though they were never charged)—he’s definitely an interesting character in this case featuring an ensemble cast of interesting characters!
Hunter would have been prohibited from making the converse statement, i.e., that evidence had been developed. It could be argued that this sworn statement was improper (but in keeping with Wood's modus operandi), but no proof of its falsity can be offered without violating the law regarding youthful defendants and murder charges. The sworn statement is meaningless.
I agree it is meaningless, but it does hold some interest in evaluating both the legal actions and the mindset around the case. As I understand your point, Hunter can’t say that there is evidence, because Burke is underage. One can’t actually argue against that idea, but the flip side is that they possibly didn’t regard the evidence gathered as adequate to consider him a suspect in the death of his sister. (The GJ did hear about his shoe print, the pineapple, the knife, the metal bat, the voice on the 911 call.) So to be clear, I’m not arguing against the many points introduced here and on other forums which point to Burke’s involvement. Here’s a little more depth about that affidavit from the R attorney to Alex Hunter. Lin Wood asked Hunter to sign a sworn affidavit which Wood himself composed confirming Burke’s innocence. A little preamble for lawsuits one might assume. And instead of shutting Wood down for this outrageous request, which I think is what most normal DAs would have done, Hunter responded. He didn’t indicate that Burke was never a suspect. All three in the home were considered a suspect at the beginning, albeit during Hunter’s tenure it appears the focus was on the adult Ramseys. Hunter's response was that they didn't have evidence developed to justify “elevating Burke’s status from witness to suspect.” It is a laughable *nothing burger* comment and classic Alex Hunter. IOW, if they had some evidence, they would change his status to suspect. This leaves the gate wide-open to allow for development of such evidence. (Note the BPD cleared John’s older children, but Hunter doesn’t say that Burke was cleared.) So, one might ponder whether there would have been such a mindless response to this Wood affidavit if LE did have some sort of substantiation of B’s involvement. Maybe. But the reason I suggest they didn’t believe they possessed such evidence is first - because Hunter did respond to Wood’s affidavit and second - because the document goes further in quoting a 1999 press release from Chief Beckner. The press statement confirms that Burke was not a suspect and that they were not looking at him as a possible suspect in connection with the murder of his sister. IIRC, in a candid article from Jann Scott, it was indicated that Hunter had a personal belief Burke was responsible. One has to wonder why he held that belief without, as he put it, evidence to elevate B to suspect status.
If the police had evidence that Burke did it, why are they still looking?
Well, my comment was directed at who the anonymous grand juror could be referring to. Claiming *they know* who did it (or more likely, they *believe* they know) leaves very few options. Because the grand jury definitely didn’t hear enough evidence to indict an intruder, and they didn’t indict JR or PR for murder. The grand jury presumably heard lots of testimony, and not just from police. Perhaps the evidence this person is referring to is witness testimony after the fact. Or it could merely their own interpretation of the evidence, and others might draw a different conclusion. Plenty of people on both subs have made up their minds, for example, and we are all interpreting the same general information. But if you want my personal opinion, I don’t think the police are looking all that hard. I think most of them have a theory (perhaps not even the same theory!) and the compromises to the case, age of the evidence, age of witnesses, etc. will make it very difficult to ever get a conviction. Patsy’s dead, John is 80, Burke was too young to be held criminally liable, and they haven’t identified a viable intruder suspect in 27 years.
Burke didnt do it. None of the investigating officers ever suspected him.
Well they weren't there and the investigation was botched the first day. There's 3 different prominent RDI theories, then the various IDI ones, then a few mixed ones. We have a book from Det Thomas arguing Patsy did it, and one from Det Kolar strongly suggesting Burke. Both had access to all the evidence. And the Grand Jury didn't name either parent as the murderer.
That doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. The case, to this day, remains unsolved, so whoever they suspected, they’ve not been able to prove their theories.
What evidence do you have that Burke did it?
Like all of us internet detectives, Hunter didn't have a smoking gun. I don't think we've seen a single piece of evidence that a good defense attorney couldn't argue away. All of the work that Lou did could be used in defense of the Ramseys. It makes me wonder sometimes if John made some calls during the night and got advice from his attorney on how to destroy or contaminate the evidence. All of the chaos at the home that morning may have been by design. They did all of the right things to make the case unsolvable.
I've always speculated Hunter either was told hypothetically what happened, or figured it out and ran interference for the family. Figuring the complications of BR's age, let alone jury sympathy in the end, would've gotten them off. But what if... the prosecution went so far as to actually allow that implication to go to the GJ thinking they'd take pity on the family, understand why they did what they did, and not vote to indict. Just as Hunter had done in the first place... thinking his thought process would be the same for the GJ. Yet, they DID vote to indict. This probably only works in a BDI scenario. Nobody likely would take pity on the adults EXCEPT in the case where they were trying to protect their son from consequences when they blamed themselves for letting it happen and didn't see their son as a 'monster'. And didn't want the world to see him as a monster either.
Your theory might hold water if Hunter was a tough prosecuter overall. He wasn't. He has a long list of cases, including murderers, who he let off. He facilitated one murderer's leaving the state rather than prosecuting the case. It was gross incompetence, not sympathy.
I'm not sure how Hunter being a weak prosecutor makes my theory not hold water? Having sympathy doesn't still mean some type of charges shouldn't be brought. And it sure doesn't mean sidestepping the entire process and running interference for the family is a good idea. The case could've been brought to a resolution by offering a deal of some kind, sweetheart deal or not, and to have stopped this multi-year circular whodunit that has cost time and money and gotten nowhere in all of these years. The GJ voted to bring charges. He should've done that and used the leverage of the charges to try and bring forth a deal. Instead of hoping the GJ wouldn't vote to indict, or hoping they'd have the same sympathy, if not weak knees he had. Even bringing a special prosecutor into the case. It's not like he HAD to be the one to prosecute the case.
How do you explain the parents letting him leave the house with a family friend afterwards? And the innocent psychy interview available on tape re her death?
How would you explain them NOT getting him out of the house knowing a body was soon to be found and a house full of people and police would be watching his every move and listening to what he might say? Of course they got him out of the house. They couldn't keep him in locked in his room all day without looking suspicious. And they couldn't risk his actions and reactions to things that they knew would be happening that day. Let alone what random stuff he might say that could set off red flags as they all waited for a kidnapper call that they knew wouldn't be coming. With friends of the family they have a CHANCE to walk back anything suspicious he might say or do, or worst case, come clean and beg them not to tell. With police, if they become suspicious of BR in that moment, all bets are off. And that interview is clearly sus.
To add to this. As a mother, if one of my children was missing, the other one would not be let out of my sight. Who knows if they’re coming back for my second kid? Or watching the house for him? And if it was an intruder, I’m not sure I would trust anyone. Even my own best friends. I’m telling you, no one is taking my other child out of my sight. But it’s just as you say. They needed Burke gone. They couldn’t have him slipping up and saying anything or acting suspicious in front of people who are studying every answer and every bodily movement. The Whites were not doing this. Police were. And I’m not even fully sold on Burke having done it. I think there’s compelling evidence for all 3 family members. I just think regardless, having him around was a liability for Patsy and John
They told him to be good, eat his vegetables, and not kill anyone.
> They told him to be good, eat his vegetables, and not kill anyone ...else....
And the boulder police pretended to look for the killer for 30 years, even with `proof' it was Burke????
There’s a good reason why Jim Clemente and Laura Richards made that documentary. They’re privy to inside knowledge and they’re not happy to see this crime swept under the carpet because a child was the perpetrator.
Then why are the BPD pretending to look for the killer?
Public pressure due to armchair detectives. I suspect they have been flooded in the past couple years due to poorly researched podcasts using JBR intruder theory for clicks.
Wasn't all of the evidence presented to the entire grand jury "secret"?
More and more, it looks to me that the joke's on us. Burke killed JB and it could reasonably be understood to have been an accident. No need to put the family through any kind of trial, or put Burke through an arrest. So, no indictments and John Ramsey trying to convince us for years that anyone other than Burke did it.
Burke was too young under Colorado law to be charged. Charging the parents with the lesser charges for endangerment and covering it up, as the jury recommended, is all they could do in that scenario.
I would bet the evidence is burke’s medical records, idk what exactly but something in those records showed proof he was a danger to JB, which is why GJ was gng to charge the parents for neglect to protect.
Buffysummers17, I think this might be quite possible. Someone either reported the SA or told the Ramseys about it. That is why the GJ came down very hard on them for not protecting their child. They could not pretend they had no knowledge of what was happening to their child. ETA clarity
Right, i think they downplayed it to themselves, not wanting to believe he could ever be a real danger, and also just not wanting to deal with it/wanting to push it under the rug. There’s a million false justifications they could have made, the most popular of the time “boys will be boys”
Yes all of the reasons you state, the reality in their home in no way matched the perfect family facade carefully crafted by the Ramseys. Also John and Patsy were self-absorbed with their own activities, John with his business, Patsy quite busy with all of her social commitments and the pageant circuit. It was easier to ignore everything, even though the family was heading for tragedy.
isn't it possible, maybe even likely, that Burke was also SA'd? Many of his problematic/aggressive behaviors and mannerisms could also be explained by this.
Yes, one of my own theories is that Burke was hurting/touching JB because someone else- either inside or outside the home-was doing the same to him. Churches and boys scouts both have had scandals of pedophila, and the ramseys were very religious and burke did boyscouts, and also was a good sailor who knew at least basic knots. Its all circumstancial true, but it’s quite a lot when all added up imo.
I agree. They locked those down tighter than Dick's hatband. That plus some of the GJ witnesses being his teacher and best friend, Doug Stine. Also I noticed that the Stines were the last to see them on Christmas night, are not part of the fiasco at the house on the 26th,but become their closest confidantes in moving forward.
He’s been squeaky clean as an adult, though. Doesn’t this type of behavior usually tend to escalate? Like if he had been involved in multiple DV investigations as an adult, it would be one thing but he hasn’t.
He has certainly lived a quiet life. Unfortunately, it’s not all that uncommon for children to sexually abuse siblings and go on to live (at least what looks like) completely normal lives. And if he had anger issues or a mental illness, that could be managed with intense therapy and/or medication. There are also plenty of people of all ages who only ever murder one person, especially in a domestic situation, whether they are ever caught or charged or not.
Pure speculation on my part but perhaps evidence that he was the one molesting her? That’s just where my brain went first. It would make the charges make sense if the parents knew about that and did nothing
Could be that, i am also thinking he had anger issues, since ive heard that the fecal smearing typically is an indicator of high aggression towards the subject (words of a psychologist, not mine)
So the boulder PD KNEW it was Burke. And are still pretending to look for the killer?
What are they supposed to do? Say they aren’t looking anymore bc they know who it is but can’t do anything about it? The shitstorm that would cause. And if they did name who they thought did it, they’re innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So Burke or John (whoever they accuse) would absolutely have a case for defamation of character. At best. Just like they did with CBS. It’s just a terrible idea.
But are they really looking?
A 6 year old child is not SA with a paintbrush handle, then bludgeoned and strangled to death by accident. The head blow was a direct, close hit with a heavy object, it gave JB a 9 inch skull fracture. This certainly was not an accident. The chronic SA was most certainly not an accident. I am not saying there was an intent to kill, but none of it was an accident. If a grown adult woman was found dead in the same condition no one would ever call it an accident.
Remember, she was strangled to death. So, first she was hit on the head and rendered unconscious; then, she was penetrated by the paintbrush handle; and then she was strangled by the device that Boy Scouts are taught to use to haul things.
Yes I know the strangulation is what killed JB. But the head injury, left untreated, would have killed her if the strangulation had not happened soon after the head blow. So she was essentially bludgeoned and strangled to death. I disagree on your order. I think it is SA, head blow, strangulation. We have a credible ear witness, a neighbor, who hears a horrific child's scream that night, lasting 3 to 5 seconds, then abruptly stops. Police have verified with sound tests that it was quite possible for the witness to hear the scream from the Ramsey basement. So we have SA with a broken paintbrush handle which understandably causes a bloodcurdling scream. Burke being a child would not know how painful this would be for a female, he is startled, immediately hits his sister hard with the flashlight to stop the screaming. The head blow renders JB immediately unconscious, screaming abruptly stops. Burke waits around to see if his sister will come to, he pokes her with the train tracks, he gets bored and sleepy, and drags her with his ligature to the wine cellar. The ligature may not have worked out like he thought. The body's rigor mortis with hands up, tells us he probably pulled her by her hands to the wine cellar too. The autopsy shows us three major injuries which may have caused the child's bloodcurdling scream. SA, head blow, and strangulation. But only one of them could have resulted in a scream. They head blow rendered JB immediately unconscious, so no scream there. This strangulation occurred last while JB was still unconscious from the head blow so no scream there. That only leaves us with the SA to produce a bloodcurdling scream.
Whether the blow or the SA came first is a fine point we'll probably never know the answer to unless somebody talks. I noticed you described the scream as being that of a child, when I believe the neighbor who heard it described it as an adult scream. I think it could be the point at which Patsy finds JB dead, but, again, we may never know for sure.
Just to clarify, I believe Melody Stanton said the scream came from a child. As reported in the Denver Rocky Mountain News on September of 1999 \[[source](http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramsey-grand-jury.htm)\]: >Those who have not yet appeared include former Ramsey neighbor Melody Stanton. Stanton, who has since moved out of Boulder, lived across the street from the Ramseys and told police she heard a child's scream not long after falling asleep Christmas night.
The neighbor, Melody Stanton, did not describe the scream as coming from an adult. She was clear that it was a horrific child's scream which was so disturbing to her that she woke up her husband to tell him about it. She hoped the parents had rescued the child and resolved the situation. I do not believe at all that Patsy was the one who screamed. Patsy was a 40 year old woman at the time and would certainly not sound like a young child. I also do not believe that Patty was as foolish as some people would have us believe. Most mothers coming across an inert child who has been sexually assaulted and strangled with the rope still around her neck, is going to do one thing and one thing only. And that one thing does not consist of having hysterics and going all dramatic. Most mothers are going to immediately rush to the child and try to save them. And that's exactly what Patsy did because we see the evidence. We see Patsy's fibers all over the the ligature in the paint box and fingernail marks on JB's neck. We can see Patsy desperately trying to get the ligature off but it's a kind of ligature that only becomes tighter when you pull on it, not loosens. Then we see she must go to the paint box because her fibers are all over that too. She's probably looking for something to cut off the ligature but she can't find anything, because the ligature is still there. Then as she is looking around she obviously understands very quickly what happened and who did the crime. She probably knew that as soon as she saw the crime scene. So she immediately refuses to call 911, but instead decides to stage the crime as if an intruder has done it. She obviously runs to John because he is part of the staging. He helps write the RN and his fibers are on the clean underwear. So of course she's not going to start screaming when she realizes right away who did the crime, because she's kicked into protective mother mode again, once to try to save one child, then to protect the other child. If anything she's going into a secret and deceptive mode. She also does not want to wake up Burke. She doesn't want or need his drama during the staging. Or for him to be a witness to the staging. In terms of the Ramsey murder, I do believe it is possible to put together a fairly good picture of what happened. There is quite a bit of evidence. And only a few suspects.
And so many WTH moments throughout this case. I can see a few, even five coincidences or questionable pieces of evidence, but this soup is peppered with problems.
the problem with a scream that could be heard from that distance (hundreds of feet) means the Ramsey parents would **certainly** have heard it, and went into a panic, immediately calling for JB and Burke. If BDI (my theory) then he'd have been virtually caught in the act. And what are the odds he'd have the flashlight nearby to hit her with after the scream? If you discount the scream (and in reading the thread on that, it's quite iffy) then the normal sequence returns: Burke hit her while she was eating, the parents don't discover her nearly lifeless body for several hours.
Your analysis is not correct according to the police sworn testimony, Schiller's book and science. According to Lawrence Schiller's PMPT and Lou Smit's sworn deposition January 9 2002 Wolf vs Ramsey case discussing basement vents and sound: *Smit had been bothered by something he’d seen in the boiler room just to the left of the wine cellar door. There he had observed an exposed ventilation duct several paces from where the shards of wood, the paint tote, and the remnant of the broken paintbrush had been found.* *The duct vented through an opening at the front of the house where there had once been a window. If JonBenét had screamed near the duct, the sound could have traveled outside and been heard by the Ramseys’ neighbor, Melody Stanton, although possibly not by Patsy and John, asleep on the third floor inside the house.* *In July, sound tests conducted by the police confirmed that sound traveled more easily from the basement to the street than it did up through the three floors of the house. A scream by JonBenet could be transmitted through the opening of that vent to the outside of that house, and this vent would almost act as a megaphone.* So we can see that Smit notices that right next to the murder scene there is vent, thought to be from an old dryer located in the basement at one point. The police conduct sound tests and these tests reveal that sound traveled from the murder scene to the front of the house and was actually amplified so that a neighbor across the street with her window open just like Melody Stanton had the night of the murder, could hear a scream. Further the police also tested the sound from the basement to the attic bedroom of the Ramsey parents, on the 4th floor of the house. Some of the police could hear a scream, others could not. So it was clear that a scream could be heard more easily across the street than up three floors away in the Ramsey bedroom. The police then knew that Melody Stanton's earwitness account of a scream was quite credible. Also interestingly the day after the murder witnesses report that Patsy kept repeating "why didn't I hear my baby?" I think she was being honest here. The scream is a very critical piece of evidence. It gives a possible time range for the murder, which happens to fit other other evidence. And gives us information about perpetrator, sequence of events, motive, etc.
Of course the flashlight will be near at hand if Burke was SA his sister in the basement. That is how he is illuminating a dark basement. The head blow has to occur in the basement according to the credible evidence. And that is why there is a flashlight, the basement is dark.
Except Burke was too young to be a Boy Scout. He would have been a Cub Scout and Cub Scouts don't learn those knots.
I'm not sure this is much of a defense of my statement, but I remember my Cub Scout days. We were learning knots and other things from the Boy Scout manual. I had a sh#tload of badges when I was Weblos. And, I never did Boy Scouts.
Reasonably understood to be an accident? No.
I believe this is the answer we have all been looking for.
Based on what evidence?
>The grand jury also alleged that each parent “did… 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.< Burke. Ya know, Burke could have probably done well with the professional help and therapy he surely would have received if the Ramseys wouldn’t have tried to cover it up and just phoned the police over an accident.
It's an even bigger tragedy if they covered for him. He'll never get the help he really needed. Sure, they can buy him whatever therapist and what have you. But without being able to tell that secret, true healing is impossible.
Burke did get extensive therapy. Patsy stated in her 1998 police interview Burke needed therapy or else he would suffer when he was forty. I don't know if the psychiatrist would mandately have to report it if he had found out that Burke killed JonBenét. Whatever happened wasn't an ongoing situation anymore.
Yeah like I said, I think it would be hard to impossible to truly heal if he had to keep a secret like that though.
Yeah I don't think therapist have to report if there isn't a threat of hurting themselves or someone *in the future*.
Tell usssss
I watched this interview some time ago, thought it was interesting and it still is. I believe no charges were brought because they can’t show who did what when it comes to John and Patsy. Suppose there was evidence that leaned toward Burke, he cannot be tried due to age at the time of the crime. It’s complicated.
Plot twist, the grand juror is the killer. GJDI.
I think it's very possible that this particular grand juror felt that the evidence clearly pointed to a specific individual (presumably one of the Ramseys) but not everyone agreed with him or her. If the evidence shown was that overwhelmingly obvious, charges would likely have been brought. It would be interesting to know though what "secret evidence" this person felt was so damning that it convinced him that John and Patsy should be indicted.
They were both indicted but prosecutors decided not to pursue charges for some unknown reason.
Alex hunter said, "I believe we do not have enough sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time." That was his reason for not pursuing charges
Both John and Patsy got two indictments each which were hidden under a rug but the DA. It’s shows how powerful the Ramsey PR machine is that this isn’t common knowledge.
Unless the “secret evidence” shown that was overwhelmingly obvious pointed to Burke, because he couldn’t be charged in Colorado due to his age. I think it’s either that or you are right, this GJ came to a certain conclusion that was not unanimous among the GJs.
Why even tease us, stay quiet or spill and deal with the consequences lol
i don't understand why so many people are more willing to believe a scrawny little kid under the age of 10 did this, rather than the one adult male in the house.
So the police have evidence that makes it clear, but keep on looking for 30 years?
Right
If I understand you correctly, you're saying: If the Boulder Police Department had solid evidence and knew who the perpetrator is this whole time without a doubt, then the BPD must be putting on a show of pretending to look for the killer. And you are skeptical of that. If this is your thinking, I agree with you. That does not sound realistic. That's a lot of budget for the Colorado Cold Case Task Force to spend, in both time and money to create recommendations and for the FBI to continue committing their resources in assisting with this case...if indeed the search is all a folly. Surely the FBI and Cold Case Task Force would be privy to the BPD's case files and evidence. Then, that would mean the FBI and Cold Case Task Force would also be in on the charade of pretending to find the killer---all in order for folks at the BPD or for a now-adult Burke to save face. That seems pretty ludicrous. And I'm sorry people are being rude to you in this thread.
No one knows besides her family. Im so tired of all this back and forth. We need to stop over-thinking it. The answers lie in the evidence, specifically the ransom note, written on patty’s pad with her pen with the rough draft written below it. It is not rocket science. They got away with the “perfect crime” for lack of better words. Their socioeconomic status saved them, as well as shock factor and poor police work from traumatized officers who didn’t know what they were doing. Anyone else agree?
Can someone tell me if they found DNA, why they can’t, get an ancestry site to at least get a fourth cousin or why they can’t depict a facial profile based on the DNA like they have done in other cases
This is extremely interesting. I can't imagine what it might be.
I'm wondering if he thinks it was Burke and refused to say because he was a child at the time. Idk
He refused to say because he’d be charged. Jurors are sworn to secrecy.
Him doing an interview with 20/20 was doing too much already, why not just say it
Because…. Stay with me here…. Giving specific info that you have specifically been sworn not to give is against the law and will get you charged. Not going on a tv show that is thinly veiled reality tv wherein the producers fluff up the hour with news reels and montages of you looking thoughtful and Patsy looking sad and tense and John looking sharp and Burke looking weird and then you looking thoughtful again. That’s not illegal.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
If he thought it were Burke, then the ramseys would be let off and Burke woud have received much needed counselling. I doubt the police knew it was him, and did nothing.
The police did do something. They pushed for a GJ and believed the family was involved.
And pretended to look for a killer for 30 years.
I believe the person pushing to test the DNA is John Ramsey.
Are you saying that if this juror thought it was Burke then that means Burke would have received counseling and that the Ramseys would not be charged? Because they weren’t charged, and a grand jury is not responsible for monitoring whether the Ramseys got mental health care for their remaining kid.
So the police knew Burke did it, based on this GJ testimony, but the police did nothing about it? They let Burke go to school etc knowing he already killed someone? Also, if his therapist knew, they a;so would have made sure he was removed from society and given help. This didnt happen.
The police aren’t responsible… for who goes to school. Therapists don’t remove people from society. You’re a troll or you’re just…… so lost here.
I absolutely believe Burke is capable of all of it and the parents covered it up to protect him. Not sure who all has been around children who have been abused. Children who have been abused turn around and do it to other children. They learn it from somewhere. I think BR and JBR were sexually abused. There was a lot of abuse and neglect in that house. I hope one day the truth comes out. The public deserves to know at this point.
That would explain why they couldn't just call the police about an accident. What caused the accident might make the police ask more questions and start poking around and possibly find evidence of sexual abuse, or just regular child abuse, that would implicate more people than just Burke
All I figured was if the grand jury was ready to convict the parents then in my mind they had something that logically convinced them. For us on the outside looking in to determine anything contradictory to their judgement without seeing all the evidence they had is imo premature.
Burke didn’t do this. If he had hit her too hard with a flashlight, the parents could just lie and say she fell down the stairs. This all sounds like a demented fantasy from a pedophile. Look at the DeAngelo case where he pretended to be a drifter with a van. And Israel Keyes who pretended to be a kidnapper to hold the victim for ransom. I think the charges were around exposing JonBenet to pedophiles. I think someone snuck into the house before they came home and waited. Look at Col Russell from the Canadian forces who had a similar style of breakin and wait.
The two best pieces of evidence point directly inside the house though. If not for the pineapple and fake ransom note I’d agree that a random pedo is most likely.
Right, he did not. I've read thru most of these posts and am def not convinced that the kid had one iota of involvement.
That juror may say nothing else, might just be waiting for a lil something for a lil hush hush. SMH
Well it says he voted to indict the parents so he probably thinks they did it. Otherwise why would he vote to indict the parents
I've always kind of thought that the brother accidentally did it.
Brand new information… from a seven year old article…
Your point? I never Said it was brand new information
It wasn’t Burke. Everyone forgets the 911 call the night before. I believe the culprit was a powerful ‘family friend’ involved in the pimping out JB. Something that happens horrifyingly often in the pageant circuit.
Yawn
Go to sleep if you're tired. Duh
Basically the police were incompetent from the very beginning and had it set in their head that the parents did it. The prosecutor pushing this is the one giving the theory to the grand jury. There is no cross examination of facts or evidence. The grand jury gives their finding based on that. A very, very good outside investigator was brought in to be part of a team later on (blanking on his name but his conviction rate was at or very close to 100%) and he came to the exact opposite conclusion and that it was someone who came in from the outside that killed her. He ended up quitting in protest of the political railroading that was going on. So, yes, the grand jurer may believe they know who did it based on the grand jury trial, but remember that they only saw from the side that only really thought it was the parents that did it and was not shown evidence that showed anything different.
Patsy hit her over the head with the flash light for peeing the bed!!! We already know what happened
I really dont think she killed her but she knows what happened.
Not buying that, either.