Trials upon trials Patsy Ramsey unfairly judged by public, police June 27, 2006 In the mid-1990s, the Daily Camera published a weekly story and photograph recognizing people in the community for their volunteer work, based on the nominations of Camera readers. On Dec. 5, 1994, the "Monday Morning Rose" profiled Patricia "Patsy" Ramsey, a Boulder mother of two who continued to offer time helping out at Flatirons Elementary School, despite living with ovarian cancer. Even after her cancer treatments left her immune-compromised, and unable to work directly with kids, she supervised stage decoration for a choir concert and organized a garage sale that raised $4,500 for the school. As her nominator noted, Patsy Ramsey deserved kudos for "her tireless efforts and unending energy that she puts into many different projects ... and fighting cancer at the same time." Two years later, Patsy Ramsey would become internationally known as the mother of JonBenet Ramsey, who was murdered at the family home in Boulder on Dec. 26, 1996. On Saturday, Patsy Ramsey died at age 49 from the cancer first diagnosed in 1994. Living with cancer is a tremendous challenge. Imagine the additional trauma of losing a child in a brutal slaying, then enduring a trial in the court of public opinion, whose "verdict" for many years was that Patsy, or her husband John, had killed their daughter. The murder of JonBenet remains stubbornly unsolved. But as the years have passed, it's become uncomfortably clear that the Ramseys were victimized both by investigators who jumped to premature conclusions and by the international media frenzy surrounding the case. Whatever one's favorite theory — remember, every proffered solution to this tragic puzzle, from the outlandish to the more plausible, is missing at least one crucial piece — this family, particularly early on, was not treated as if "innocent until proven guilty." Police zeroed in on the Ramseys from the first hours of the case. Given what investigators know generally about child murder, the fact that JonBenet was found in her own home, and troubling evidence and witness accounts, it's easy to understand why. But some investigators went too far, too fast. About a week after the murder, for example, one still-prominent Boulder law-enforcement officer told the Daily Camera that police "knew the dad did it," and were simply putting their "ducks in a row." The media — including, at times, this newspaper — often tossed fuel on the "Ramseys did it" bonfire, printing leaked information from anonymous, biased investigators that portrayed the family in the worst possible light. And in the then-young Internet age, the murder of a blond, angelic-looking girl who had competed in beauty pageants ignited furious passion, both for and against the family. But subsequent investigations, including one by a grand jury, have not resulted in the arrest or charging of anyone in JonBenet's death. And today we know that an analysis of DNA from a still-unidentified male, collected from JonBenet's panties, demonstrates that that there is plenty of doubt — at least — that her parents killed her. We don't know who killed JonBenet; perhaps only her killer does. Yet, for much of the past 10 years, the Ramseys had to live in a world that had judged them guilty. Patsy Ramsey was, in 1994, just a loving mother who gave of herself for her children, and those of other people, even while living with cancer. Nobody, as yet, has proven otherwise. That makes Patsy Ramsey's death especially tragic. JonBenet's case has never come to trial. But her parents have endured trials more agonizing and unfair than many of us could bear. And for that rush to judgment, society must bear some guilt. http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/editorials/article/0,1713,BDC_2489_4803225,00.html
Perhaps some photos of JonBenet lying on a cold basement floor having endured a horrible ending to her way too short existence will remind some people out there that Patsy got to live a lot longer than JonBenet and died at the hands of cancer, rather than at the hands of someone who was supposed to love her. No, I bear no guilt. My judgement wasn't rushed nor will it change just because Patsy is dead.
Strangely, the presumption of innocence tends to take some hits when you have a dead kid in your house with a staged crime scene.
No surprise. This is what I've been noticing since Patsy passed away. All of a sudden it is politically correct to say Patsy had nothing to do with JonBenet's death. Carnes screwed things up royally by wording things like she did and now people think both John and Patsy are innocent. I can't read over at Court TV anymore, it is amazing how many people have things wrong over there. They are talking about Melinda's fingerprint and the boot print and boy, is that inturder still out there. Even bringing up Helgoth. As I've said before, just because Patsy has passed away (and I AM sorry for that), it doesn't change my opinion on this case. At the very LEAST, the woman (IMO) had knowledge of what happened. This is just my opinion from what I've seen in this case for 10 long years. Tricia, my response to this is above, and I can't say anything else because it will be bleeped out. You know me.
The response is...Innocent until proven guilty only applies to court, not to a police investigation. The police investigation proceeds in a direction moving from those closest to the victim outward. Because those closest to the victim lawyered up, shut up, and forgot, they put themselves (rightly or wrongly) in the crosshairs of the police investigation.
YOU can't take this crap anymore? How do you think I feel!? It's just like when Nixon died. The media didn't lay a finger on him.
I didn't think it was possible to sugar-coat the Ramsey tragedy to the point of vomiting but I just gagged. Just because she's dead doesn't make her innocent. And just because she's dead doesn't change a single fact. The lack of common sense is astounding. Plus it es me off.
Uh...excuse me...but this IS The Daily Crapper y'all are getting so upset about. Remember The Daily Crapper? The paper with the editor who BOLDLY went where no other DECENT, TRAINED, AND CONSCIENTIOUS journalist would go? Publishing a very long article about a woman with a long-documented mental condition who accused three generations of an EXTENDED family of sex crimes against children? Said editor who did so HIMSELF, without any consideration of the fact that LE found her stories NOT TO BE CREDIBLE, NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HER CLAIMS, AND HER MENTAL AND PHYSICAL CONDITION VERY COMPROMISED? AND BLITHELY LEFT OUT OF THE ARTICLE THE NAME AND ACCUSATIONS THE WOMAN LEVELED AGAINST THE ONE PERSON WHO WAS A PRIME SUSPECT IN AN ACTUAL VIOLENT SEX CRIME AGAINST A CHILD? THAT Daily Crapper. I don't care what Team Ramsey spin is being blasted from the highest towers. You hire the most vicious and ungodly law firm I've ever seen because you can afford them, and you get what you pay for. Some persons might get a judge and his office to repeatedly act with total "oops" incompetence, which de facto allowed the release to the public the name of an accuser of rape against a famous ball player. The same "oops" factor resulted in a mass emailing FROM THE JUDGE'S OFFICE to news organizations around the country of a SEALED transcript of a closed court proceeding--A PRE-TRIAL MOTION--featuring the defendant's lawyers skewering the accuser under questioning AND WITH NO REBUTTAL BY THE PROSECUTION. Or maybe some PRIVILEGED person UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF SUSPICION would be SO LUCKY as to have someone in the DA's Office "accidently" send the accuser's hospital medical history to the defendant's law firm. And should you be the accuser and ALL THE ABOVE WAS AGAINST THE LAW IN COLORADO--you might find in your beer can collecting world that not one person was even sanctioned, much less arrested. Or...some rich suspects might have gotten...this kind of special treatment, having case files handed over to them to prepare for future LE interviews, which they avoided until they had that evidence in hand and could be drilled by their lawyers to assure there would be no slip ups. Or maybe their personal phone records would never have been collected with a subpoena, as well as the clothes they wore that day, and so much more, until they were able to make sure nothing on those records or clothes was left to tell the truth about the crime. Maybe those clients would never have to experience the humiliation of being arrested and brought to the BPD for questionling that first day when they refused, like Smit said he would have done if only he had been there day one. Lin Wood said himself on LKL that the Ramseys' lawyers kept them out of jail, but that doing so made them look guilty in the court of public opinion. So why should we feel bad because we simply see the same thing Lin Wood sees?
