Will there ever be JUSTICE?

I know that most of you if not all of you believe that either John or Patsy Ramsey (or both) killed JonBenet. My question is what if they didn't. Are we so full of ourselves that we would rather a killer run free and unpunished just so that we don't have to admit that we are wrong? What ever happened to remaining neutral and following the evidence?

I realize that there are a lot of questions... Why did the Ramsey's refuse to talk to the police? Why would any sane intruder risk staying the Ramsey's home and writing a LONG ransom note? If the intention was to kidnap her why would they kill her in the basement instead of taking her out the house? Why only ask for a 118,000 dollars, when in they could have easly asked for millions? These are all big questions that don't look kindly upon the Ramseys.

The biggest question is if this is such a gun smoking case than why aren't the Ramseys in jail already? They aren't jail because of the following:

-DNA found in a spot of JonBenet's blood in her panties is not a match to anyone in the Ramsey family or anyone who offered samples to the police. I repeat inside/mixed with JonBenet's blood, meaning that it is impossible that the DNA came from somebody in the manufacturing plant as some of you have suggested. Matching DNA was also found under JonBenet's fingernails, so once again there is no way that the DNA in her panties came from somebody in the manufacturing plant, that is unless the same person who made her panties happened to kill her. Wow wouldn't that be a story for the globe?

-Footprints found next to JonBenet's body do not match any shoes worn or owned by the Ramseys or any of the Ramsey's friends. One of the foot prints even had a piece of glass matching the broken basement window in it.

-A pubic hair found on JonBenet's bed didn't match anyone in the Ramsey family. And it couldn't have been there long because JonBenet wet the bed and her sheets were washed very often.

-Over 30 convicted sex offenders, some only blocks away from the Ramsey's former home.

-Rope used to strangle JonBenet is not consistent with any kinds of rope found in the Ramsey's house.

-The role of duck tape used on JonBenet's mouth was never recovered.

-The grate containing the basement window had been disturbed.

-Another child was assaulted in the same manor of JonBenet... This child attended the same dance studio as JonBenet and didn't live far from the Ramsey's former home. This intruder was wearing black... Black fibers were found all over JonBenet's body and in her hands....



Anybody see any RED FLAGS? I do. Does it mean that the Ramseys are innocent. No, not necessarily, but I do believe it means that we need to take a serious time out to make sure that we are blazing down the right trail.

I know how much some of you guys want the Ramseys to be charged with JonBenet's murder. But if you are wrong? What if an intruder really did kill JonBenet? If one did than he is still out there! Doesn't that bother you enough for you to want to make sure? Does anyone on this forum want true justice in this case? The best detectives in the world are detectives that don't take sides, instead they follow the evidence and let the evidence choose sides.... I have a feeling that I will get a lot of negative feedback on this post, and that my ideas will be largely ignored.... I just want to see this case solved with the right killer behind bars, and I believe that there is enough evidence on both sides and that we should give both sides equal weight.

I also ask for you to bare in mind that the Ramsey's were placed under a microscope... That close nobody looks good. I don't care who you are, everyone has their secrets and their sins... But that doesn't make everyone a killer!

Who is going to speak for JonBenet?

 

Let me see if I can help:

DNA found in a spot of JonBenet's blood in her panties is not a match to anyone in the Ramsey family or anyone who offered samples to the police.

Mixed WITH, not "inside." Nice try though, if you were speaking to the Fleetwood Mac forum

-Footprints found next to JonBenet's body do not match any shoes worn or owned by the Ramseys or any of the Ramsey's friends. One of the foot prints even had a piece of glass matching the broken basement window in it.

Burke admitted to owning High Tek boots during his GJ testimony. These prints may or may not be connected, no way to tell.

-A pubic hair found on JonBenet's bed didn't match anyone in the Ramsey family. And it couldn't have been there long because JonBenet wet the bed and her sheets were washed very often.

Don't let Jameson catch you talking about JonBenet wetting the bed often. The hair was matched to Patsy Ramsey.

-Over 30 convicted sex offenders, some only blocks away from the Ramsey's former home.

And probably the same or more are located in your own neighborhood....look it up.

-Rope used to strangle JonBenet is not consistent with any kinds of rope found in the Ramsey's house.

The rope used could have been all the rope there was of its kind in the house. It was Christmas, the rope could have been around a tree, a box, a crate, presents, canvas, etc.

-The role of duck tape used on JonBenet's mouth was never recovered.

Someone should have at least looked inside Patsy's purse, John's pockets, or Burke's backpack before they were all allowed to leave that day.

-The grate containing the basement window had been disturbed.

When??

-Another child was assaulted in the same manor of JonBenet... This child attended the same dance studio as JonBenet and didn't live far from the Ramsey's former home. This intruder was wearing black... Black fibers were found all over JonBenet's body and in her hands....

The "child" was 14 and rumor has it she knew her assailant. An unidentified palm print was tested from the girl's home and it did not match Melinda Ramsey.

Now let me ask you to address some evidence:

~ A flashlight found in the Ramsey kitchen that could have been the weapon used to smash JonBenet's head was wiped completely clean - even the batteries. Why do you think that was?

~ Burke never asked anyone what was going on when he was brought downstairs the morning JonBenet was reported missing. Why? Was he just an unexcitable child, or did he already know what was going on

~ Why, when the ransom note clearly warned of JonBenet's death if the parents contacted anyone, did they contact EVERYONE first thing? (I personally think it was because they knew she was dead and were going to use their stupidity later as the reason the small faction must have killed her)

~ Who fed JonBenet the pineapple she had shortly befoe she died?

~ Why didn't Patsy check on JonBenet that night the way she usually did to see if she needed to go potty? I mean, they put JonBenet into bed asleep from the car and never took her to potty? And she didn't wet the bed?

Much more to come - I'm so excited to see your input!

 

Mixed WITH, not "inside." Nice try though, if you were speaking to the Fleetwood Mac forum

Then I suppose you can explain how the same DNA found in her panties was also found under her fingernails....

 

Ooops

One more question

~ Was Burke's DNA ever tested? I know, I know, if they tested John's DNA you would assume Burke's would clear as well. I hate to be the doubting Thomas (no pun intended), but just what if there's an outside chance that Burke is not John's son? You know, what if there was a milkman or a wig salesman? In that case, Burke's DNA would not be the same as John Ramsey's, right?

Thanks again.

 

Please post an official link as to the glass being found in the footprint. This is the first I've heard of this.

The pubic hair was found on a blanket that was inside the suitcase under the window. It is not part of the crime scene and it was not on her bed.

The DNA has been addressed by Mr. Tom Bennett. If the DNA was deposited on her panties, and then she bled on the panties, it would mix with the blood.

The grate was only disturbed according to Lou Smit who viewed photos after the fact. There also was a spider web growing over the grate and it would be highly unusual, although not impossible, that a spider would choose to spin a web right there in the last 5 or so hours before the police were called.

The "child" was a 14 year old. Jon Benet was 6. Anyone in law enforcement who knows what they are talking about will tell you this is NOT a similar attack. AND where is the ranson note in the second attack?

No duct tape or rope? That proves an intruder? This is NOT even good circumstantial evidence. Were the Ramsey's pockets checked? Were ALL the dumpsters and trash checked? Was Patsy's handbag checked?

38 registered sex offenders does not blow my mind. I checked my pin map and I have more than I can count, far more than 38 in LESS than 2 square miles. Although I live in a neighborhood which is far more urban than Boulder, I do NOT live in a crime ridden low income neighborhood, quite the opposite.

You have been listening to the spin team, but even then, you do not have your facts straight.

VP, to answer your question, I am sure Burke's DNA was tested.

 

I'm sorry Lora

I don't see anything unusal in finding the same dna under her nails and in her underwear - there are dozens of scenarios. It was a party with food that the Ramseys attended. Jonbenet may have used a napkin to wipe her mouth that someone else had wiped their mouth and hands with - JonBenet could have then scratched an irritated private part and thus a transfer....I could go on, but you get the idea.

 

~ A flashlight found in the Ramsey kitchen that could have been the weapon used to smash JonBenet's head was wiped completely clean - even the batteries. Why do you think that was?

I don't know why it was wiped clean.. If it was found on the kitchen counter top then it is possible food or something got on it and that it was cleaned off. The batteries being clean is rather strange. Where is your source for this information?

~ Burke never asked anyone what was going on when he was brought downstairs the morning JonBenet was reported missing. Why? Was he just an unexcitable child, or did he already know what was going on

He just knew something was bad wrong... The fact that JonBenet wasn't also going over the the White's house with him told him that it had something do with JonBenet... Patsy was histerical... Burke wasn't stupid he knew it had something to do with his sister and he probably pick up on the fact that it wasn't the best time to go and ask mom and dad what was going on.

~ Why, when the ransom note clearly warned of JonBenet's death if the parents contacted anyone, did they contact EVERYONE first thing? (I personally think it was because they knew she was dead and were going to use their stupidity later as the reason the small faction must have killed her)

Well anyone knows that when it says not to call the police you still call the police. I would be calling my neighbors to... Maybe they heard something or saw something...

~ Who fed JonBenet the pineapple she had shortly befoe she died?

A very good and complicated question... Some elements digest faster than other depending on what is stomach... The Ramseys don't remember what all JonBenet ate at the Whites house. So it is possible that she ate some before she left for the whites and whatever she ate there slowed down the digestion of the pineapple. Other than that I really don't have anything to add. It's a complicated question and a very good one.

~ Why didn't Patsy check on JonBenet that night the way she usually did to see if she needed to go potty? I mean, they put JonBenet into bed asleep from the car and never took her to potty? And she didn't wet the bed?

Patsy could have forgotten to set her alarm to go check on JonBenet... Or perhaps she was just to tired to get up... I don't think that she got up every night to check on JonBenet, just sometimes.

 

I am being absolutely sincere Lora

I am being absolutely sincere Lora when I say, read more reliable sources on this case - the evidence, what's happened since the murder...there are countless articles and documents, some fact based, some loosely based on facts, for you to study. It is obvious you have not done so and you are wanting quick, pat answers from this forum - there are none to the questions you pose.

For eight years the questions have been generally the same - it's the answers that change over and over again, depending upon whom you ask or where you read.

The facts, however, never change - and one thing is for certain, we still do not have all of them.

 

The Ramseys are not in jail because of John Ramsey's ability to dominate Sergeant Larry Mason of the Boulder Police on 26 December, 1996, into allowing him and his wife Patsy, an extra day to appear at the Boulder Police Station for questioning. This consideration allowed John Ramsey extra time to surround both himself and Patsy with a barricade of lawyers. This special time should never have been given to the Ramseys at all. It was a fatal mistake.


Several posters here have replied with their reasons for believing why both Ramseys are both involved with this case, Lora. I don't think you're giving them enough consideration. Tricia is right, you have so many things wrong, it's difficult to know where to start.

Not consistent? For starters, Lora, it was not a proper rope that was used. It was white flat cord which is used for trimming lapels. Both Patsy and JonBenét have photos on Ruthee's site wearing these jackets on the ACandyrose.com site. This is the same flat white cord used for the garotte. Repeat, it is not a proper rope.

This same flat white cord may have been used by Patsy to make an art sling, and Patsy's sister Pam removed one of her art pictures. Why would she want one of her art pictures at the same time as funeral clothes? Pam Paugh was removing many articles from the Ramsey home as Detective Steve Thomas was being primed about the case.

The duct tape may have been taken from anything in the basement. Maybe sealing a cardboard box, who knows? It is used for many purposes; especially in a basement.

 

Lora:
“Anybody see any RED FLAGS? I do. Does it mean that the Ramseys
are innocent. No, not necessarily, but I do believe it means that
we need to take a serious time out to make sure that we are
blazing down the right trail.â€

I see just one red flag and it has RST written all over it. Lora,
the join date is Nov. 2004, but have you been a Forum reader for
a very long time? One does get impression from the content of
your post. Do you recall numerous posts pointing out that
“unknownâ€, “may beâ€, “could beâ€, and “possible’ is not evidence?
Do you think it is? If so, please explain the rationale.

Also, one might get the impression from your post that we have
simply jumped to a conclusion without long and serious thought.
Along with others, I have posted many arguments of alleged
evidence of Ramsey guilt. I don’t recall you challenging any, yet
you see fit to caution us. Why?

I am certainly open to criticism; indeed welcome it. If you
think there is something in error with what I allege to be
evidence of Ramsey guilt, by all means challenge it. Telling me
to take “serious time out†in lieu of challenge is a more than a
bit evasive is it not?

As surely as “unknownâ€, “maybe†and “could be†is not evidence, a
challenge is not repeating what has already been alleged to be
evidence of an intruder with ALL refuted. Challenge is not
ignoring, nor just disagreement, but the why of the disagreement.
A challenge is to first specifically identify by quoting an
alleged fact with which you disagree. Disagreement presuppose a
fact in opposition, therefore, present the fact alleged to refute
the alleged fact challenged.

I don’t see anything like this in your posts, so you provide no
reason why you think I am mistaken, or might be mistaken. You
write as if nothing had gone before. If you simply dismiss out of
hand without examination and challenge what I have already
offered as evidence of Ramsey guilt, can you give me a good
reason for repeating, or offering more?

Your post bears a strong resemblance to the Complaint against Fox
in the items expressed or implied to be evidence of an intruder.
My response may be found in my analysis of said Complaint as well
as my letter to Mary Keenan.

One more thing: The experience of reading your post with all the
repeats of “could beâ€, etc, and pretense that it all hasn’t been
refuted before has a very familiar ring. To be blunt, it smells
like the swamp.

 

"It smells like the swamp"

Whew, I thought it was the broccoli I had for dinner :lamb:

 

Lora, aren't you the same new member who accused us of overreacting to the child beauty pageants because you were also involved in them? Before you warn anyone here about going down the wrong trails, I would suggest you take the time to educate yourself on the amount of research we've all done and preserved in the archives into all the areas, and more, you address in your post. The germane issue here is not what we believe but why we believe it. The answer can be found in our archives.

"The biggest question is if this is such a gun smoking case than why aren't the Ramseys in jail already?"

There's only one answer, Lora, and John Ramsey himself provided it in sworn testimony. The Ramsey Team was hired and paid not to find "the killer" or investigate the facts and evidence. It was and still is retained for just one purpose only according to JR-to prepare a defense for the Ramseys in case they are charged. I'll leave you with the following facts:

The Ramsey team
Parents of slain girl have at least 9 professionals working on case
By Charlie Brennan
%%byline%%By Charlie Brennan
Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer

January 19, 1997
________________________________________

Experts say John and Patsy Ramsey already have spent well over $100,000 on their investigation into the murder of their daughter, JonBenet.

And the figure is expected to soar.

The investigative team had been at work only a few weeks when Denver attorney Scott Robinson estimated the tab had reached six figures.

The Ramseys have hired at least nine professionals, including three high-powered lawyers, a Washington, D.C., publicist, a former FBI criminal profiler, two Denver private investigators and two handwriting analysts.

The investigators, handwriting analysts and other specialists are likely being subcontracted by the Ramsey lawyers.

Under that arrangement, the specialists' findings would be protected under the same pledge of confidentiality that rules an attorney-client relationship. That means the findings cannot be exploited by an adversary in a court proceeding.

The Ramseys began assembling the team shortly after their 6-year-old daughter was found slain in an obscure basement room in the family's luxurious home in Boulder the day after Christmas.

The little beauty queen had been sexually assaulted and strangled, and her skull was fractured.

Police have not identified any suspects. They have interviewed a number of the Ramseys' family and friends in Boulder, Michigan and Atlanta.

John Ramsey is a self-made millionaire and the company he helped start, Access Graphics, grossed more than $1 billion last year. Patsy Ramsey, Miss West Virginia 1977, spent thousands on photo sessions, costumes and modeling lessons for JonBenet's beauty pageants.

Here is the Ramsey team's lineup and their prices, based on experts who know them, have worked with them in the past or work in their fields:

The lawyers

Patrick J. Burke is the attorney for Patsy Ramsey. Burke is a former federal public defender who has also worked in the Colorado attorney general's office. He successfully defended Richard Scutari in the Alan Berg murder case.

Bryan Morgan is the attorney for John Ramsey. Morgan was a nominee for the Colorado Supreme Court and an unsuccessful candidate for a seat on the state Board of Regents. He is a partner in the law firm of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman.

Lee Foreman, another partner in the firm, is also on the case. Foreman defended former KCNC-TV reporter Wendy Bergen, who received probation after she was found guilty of three counts of dogfighting, conspiracy and being an accessory to a crime. She was acquitted of six dogfighting charges, perjury and conspiracy in connection with a story on pit bulls.

Foreman and Morgan won the 1980 acquittal of Lee Bibb Lindsley, who was tried in Arapahoe County for the 1978 shooting death of her pediatrician husband, Warren Felix B. Lindsley.

Experts say the lawyers are charging between $250 and $400 per hour -- and that doesn't include a sizable retainer paid up front.

Morgan and Burke by now could have billed their clients 112 hours, the experts say. At a rate of $300 an hour that's $33,600 worth of legal work -- per lawyer.

Morgan, Burke and Foreman are not discussing the case publicly. The involvement of Morgan, 59, surprised some colleagues who say he had scaled back his practice.

The publicist

Patrick Korten is the public spokesman hired from Washington, D.C.'s Rowan & Blewitt. The firm specializes in "crisis management'' and is typically hired by large corporations or governments. Korten is a former spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice.

His presence on the team perplexes attorney Robinson.

"I don't understand why you need a media guy, unless you're marketing something,'' Robinson said. "Whatever they're paying him, it's too much. There is hardly anything you can do less favorable than hiring a media consultant.

"It's fine for Ivory Soap to hire a firm to help market the image of the soap. But unless you are a product, you've got no business hiring a media consultant.''

Korten, who has established a Web site for Ramsey case updates, refuses to discuss his fees.

A Denver publicist knowledgeable about crisis management estimates Korten may be charging $10,000 to $15,000 per month, plus expenses such as travel and other out-of-pocket costs.

Another local public issues consultant, who has also worked in Washington, calls the $10,000 to $15,000 estimate "conservative.''

Korten's firm typically charges $250 an hour or $1,000 per day, the consultant said. His bill could be costing the Ramseys $30,000 per month.

The criminal profiler

John Douglas, a former FBI profiler, is assembling a portrait of what kind of person might have killed JonBenet. Douglas is the author of two books and co-author of three more.

A criminal profiler in private practice, who once worked with Douglas at the FBI, said typical fees for the service run $200 per hour. He said that Douglas's work for the Ramseys might take anywhere from eight to 40 hours.

"Douglas is probably expensive,'' said Denver private investigator Ed O'Conor, a former Boulder police officer who is now president of O'Conor Private Investigation in Denver.

"The man has a good reputation, and I think that he would report the facts as he saw them,'' said O'Conor. "If he winds up prostituting himself, he's not going to be worth much.''

The private investigators

Ellis Armistead's investigation firm is best known for working on behalf of death row inmate Nathan Dunlap, who was convicted of murder in the Chuck E Cheese slayings.

"I know Ellis, and Ellis is not cheap,'' O'Conor said. He estimated the retainer fee to be in the "tens of thousands'' of dollars.

"It depends on how much he's been asked to do,'' O'Conor said. "I think he's about $85 an hour.''

H. David L. Williams' investigation firm works out of the same address as lawyers Morgan and Foreman.

Experts in private investigation say hourly rates can go as high as $200 an hour or more for investigators hired to work for clients whose cases are so demanding that the investigators must cut back on work for other clients.

The handwriting analysts

Two unidentified handwriting analysts are examining the three-page ransom note the Ramseys received before the body of their daughter was found.
One local document examiner, Andrew Bradley, said the standard rate is $95 an hour, but some experts charge more.

Bradley said the Ramseys' analysts cannot deliver an opinion with 100% accuracy because they probably are working with copies of the ransom note, not the original.

"The original is always the best, although there are occasions when you can get a good examination from a copy,'' said Bradley, who last testified in the highly publicized probate battle over the will of Spicer Breeden. Breeden, whose car was involved in the hit-and-run death of Rocky Mountain News columnist Greg Lopez, committed suicide.

Robinson said it is unlikely that those outside the Ramsey family will ever know the total cost of the bill for the couple's investigative team.

"We do decide how to charge clients based on factors other than just some standardized fee schedule,'' he said.

"It would include assessing their potential wealth, the lawyers' desire to be involved in this case and whether you have a personal affinity with a client. Some people take on work because it's intellectually challenging.''

Staff writer Lynn Bartels contributed to this report.

 

Perhaps, Lora, instead of meandering in the "may be's" and the "could be's," you could address these tested, sourced and matched pieces of evidence in the case. And please don't tell us that "the police" were just making all this up because cops can lie when questioning suspects.

Barry Levin is not a cop. He is a lawyer, just like Michael Kane, and a sworn officer of the court. Therefore, professional ethics imposed by the Bar that licensed Mr. Levin prohibit him from lying during questioning:

***
[Colorado State Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct

The Rules of Professional Conduct govern the actions of all attorneys in Colorado and have been adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court.

The Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct have also been adopted by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado for the conduct of attorneys D.C. Colo. L.R. 83.6.

The full text of the Rules of Professional Conduct also appear in the October 1992 issue of The Colorado Lawyer, p. 2125; Cross-Reference Tables at p. 2173. Amendments appear in 1997 issues dated February (p. 102); April (p. 103); July (p. 124); and August (pp. 115, et. seq.).
Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

COMMENT

Misrepresentation

A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act.

Statements of Fact

This Rule refers to statements of fact. Whether a particular statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances. Under generally accepted conventions in negotiations, certain types of statements ordinarily are not taken as statements of fact. Estimates of price or value placed on the subject of a transaction and a party's intentions as to an acceptable settlement of a claim are in this category, and so is the existence of an undisclosed principal except where nondisclosure of the principal would constitute fraud.

Fraud by Client
Paragraph (b) recognizes that substantive law may require a lawyer to disclose certain information to avoid being deemed to have assisted the client's crime or fraud. The requirement of disclosure created by this paragraph is, however, subject to the obligations created by Rule 1.6.

Committee Comment

The deletions the Committee made in subparagraph (a) are those adopted by Minnesota to: not limit the prohibition to material statements, and to eliminate the argument over whether or not a statement concerned a "material" fact. This provision is substantially the same as DR 7-102(A)(3) and (5) of the Code.]
***

Kane and Levin are also smart enough to know that their own testimony in any deposition can and would be challenged in any prosecution and therefore, supporting that testimony through forensic test results would be absolutely mandatory if the evidence is to be used and ethics charges avoided.

John Ramsey 2000 Atlanta Police Interview:
21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is
22 our belief based on forensic evidence that
23 there are hairs that are associated, that the
24 source is the collared black shirt that you
25 sent us that are found in your daughter's
0058
1 underpants, and I wondered if you --
2 A. ********. I don't believe that.
3 I don't buy it. If you are trying to
4 disgrace my relationship with my daughter --
. . .
8 THE WITNESS: If the question is
9 how did fibers of your shirt get into your
10 daughter's underwear, I say that is not
11 possible. I don't believe it. That is
12 ridiculous.


Patsy Ramsey 2000 Atlanta Police Interview:
7 MR. LEVIN: I can state to you,
8 Mr. Wood, that, given the current state of
9 the scientific examination of fibers, that,
10 based on the state of the art technology,
11 that I believe, based on testing, that fibers
12 from your client's coat are in the paint
13 tray.
14 MR. WOOD: Are you stating as a
15 fact that they are from the coat or is it
16 consistent with? What is the test result
17 terminology? Is it conclusive? I mean, I
18 think she is entitled to know that when you
19 ask her to explain something.
20 MR. KANE: It is identical in all
21 scientific respects.
22 MR. WOOD: What does that mean?
23 Are you telling me it is conclusive?
24 MR. KANE: It is identical.