Questions for the Ramseys

Thanks Tricia...

I have been following this the forum just not posting. Sometimes you see something that just needs to be mentioned...*grins*

If you recall.... I am an original BORG and called to Patsy by her real name.... "MURDERER" while in Charlevoix a few years back. They are good for it....and I for one...won't give up hope that someday....someone will talk. There have been instances of cold case files being solved 30 years later. There was a case in my hometown of a girl that was murdered in the early 70's and her killer was found and sent to life in prison....but not until 2001 ! The family was estatic that they could finally put closure to their daughter's death. That case was the first to haunt me as I worked at the place where the girl was abducted and was just a kid ...myself. So... it can happen....and there is no statue of limitations on murder! Ramsey's still have that big black cloud hanging over their heads and it won't go away ...until this case has closure of some kind. Never give up hope....the truth will prevail~

 

Statute of Limitations

There is no statute of limitations on murder; however, the statute of limitations does run out on all the other lesser charges, both felonies and misdemeanors, that the Ramseys could be charged with...they run out in June.

As Ryan notes in his article, JonBenet needs a prosecutor with balls who's willing to bring charges against the Ramseys for their various actions of staging, covering up, making false reports to the police, etc.

Mary Keenan won't do this. Especially if she's still clinging to a dead "Santa" as the intruder/killer!

The Ramseys MUST be charged with these lesser charges NOW before the statutes run out. It locks them in. Once charged, an intelligent DA/prosecutor could then go after the Ramseys using the ol' carrot and stick method of getting them to talk. If they're found guilty of these lesser charges, as Ryan notes, they could be locked up for a few years.

Time is running out. Keenan needs to get off her and charge the Ramseys with these lesser charges. If she refuses, as I think she is, then a special prosecutor needs to be assigned post-haste.

Jmho.

 

Ginja

Who has to appoint a special prosecutor? Can anyone do that? Govenor? Ryan?

Why do YOU think no one wants to prosecute?

 

There's only ONE person who can prosecute this case, Sparky, and that's the DA. Not only that, the DA has to "approve" the charges first. IOW, the cops can't even make an arrest. They wanted to, several times over, throughout this investigation. But the DA always told them they had to hand him over a case he could prosecute.

Hunter had no balls. He wanted the cops to do his job. The cops responsibility was simply to collect the evidence. It's the DA's responsibility to take that evidence and work it into a prosecution. Hunter wanted the cops to hand him over on silver platter the case. He didn't want to think or make determinations. He wanted a smoking gun. He wanted a confession. Otherwise, he didn't want the case.

Keenan's worse. She'll never prosecute because she doesn't think the Ramseys are guilty of anything.

Bottom line, neither prosecutor is qualified. They have no experience in homicide cases; hell, they don't have any trial experience to talk about! They're more concerned about their careers than they are about fighting crime. They're terrified that they can't pull off a trial against the Ramseys and would rather let these killers walk that to take a black mark on their record for losing a case.

 

You summed that up nicely...Ginja.

This kids justice has been thwarted too many times. Too bad every that every one that stands in the way ...of the truth.... and this botched case doesn't do a little bit of jail time ...as well. What a travesty of justice it has become and by so many including Hunter ...who swore the noose was tightening only have have it go limp in his hands. Money and power have trumped over a little girls life. How can anyone justify that?.

 

Welcome back, Aurora

nice to see more of the old gang is coming back to the fold.

In the going-on seven years since JBR was murdered (has it really been that long?), I have never dreamed about anything to do with the case. That changed last night.

Unfortunately, I can't remember all of the dream, just that I was in that gaudy house in Boulder with John and Patsy Ramsey, and I was asking them questions. I remember John was quiet, and Patsy was evasive. Both of them were rather haughty and were quite appalled that anyone would suspect or accuse them of being involved in JB's death. The dream seemed to last for quite a while, but in real time it probably didn't. I wish I could remember all of it, but I can't, so... I do remember that gawd-awful wallpaper - I felt like I was being assaulted by tacky. Beep beep.

 

Watching You~

Geez....the Ramsey's are so embedded into your subconscience that they haunt you in your sleep. *LOL* Actually I have had a few dreams about the case myself. In both.... Patsy told me she did do it...but didn't mean to and was sincere. I guess that is what my subconscience ....wanted to hear. Pssst.... Don't eat pineapple before bed.... or you may dream she is coming after YOU....*LOL*

 

Trading Spaces?

Not me, not with them.

You all told me before what malachite was. I forgot.

 

Libel threats by Lin Wood

In order to prove libel in an American court of law you need to show that:

1. The defendant posted an inaccuracy
2. The defendant did so KNOWING it was an inaccuracy
3. The defendant represented the inaccuracy as if it were *fact*
4. The inaccuracy presented as fact was slanderous or damaging to the plaintiff.

Where Lin Wood is bound to slip gears is in proving point #1 to some extent, and absolutely point #2. If one simply reposts questions from Crime Magazine about points regarding the case, point #3 is out the window and there is no libel. If one includes "in my opinion" in any statement where a theory or allegation or scenario is presented here or elsewhere, point #3 disqualifies any libel prosecution. If something is posted AS FACT, and it refers to a third party publication (in the news media or quoting something somebody else said who is reasonably credible as an authority on the case), then point #2 is out the window.

Where Chris Wolf shot himself in the foot with his lawsuit against the Ramseys, was that he required himself to prove the Ramseys of murder in order to make his point #2. He could simply have presented evidence of his own innocence of the murder in a way which would show that the Ramseys knew of it, and then that point would have been satisfied.

Additionally, there is some precedent already out there in Internet-related cases, where judges have ruled that a public discussion forum is of its very nature in a nexus of opinion-sharing, and that no disclaimer of "in my opinion" is really necessary to shield a person from libel prosecution.

Any threat of a libel suit by Lin Wood, regarding any posts I have seen here so far, would be just that--a threat. It does his clients absolutely no good to be that energetic in stifling public debate, and only serves to make them look more guilty.

 

Libel threats by Lin Wood

This is a duplicate post that I've been unable to delete. I'll try just editing it here to see if the change "sticks".

 

Welcome, Adrian Monk

to FFJ. It's good to have you aboard and even better to read your articulate and knowledgeable post.

 

Special Prosecutor

The Govenor of Colorado can appoint a special prosecutor. Letters should be sent to him, imploring him to do so. I'm going to start composing one, today.

What prosecutor is up to the job? (Like a good poster told me on another site) none other than, Mike Kane, who knows this case inside and out, and has the cajones to fight for justice, for little JonBenet.

I've not followed all the specific "in's and out's" of this case, since reading Steve Thomas' book. I felt I didn't need to read or research any more. The circumstantial evidence he presented up to that point, was an overwhelming (in my mind) conclusion, that Patsy, staged the crime scene, wrote the note....

Web Pages you may not have seen....

And, when the top linguist in the nation says, (with a perfect track record, I might add) she wrote the note alone, and without any help, well, I don't see Patsy, writing a ransom note, to cover up for an intruder. Only someone involved, would do that.

And besides, I always look to, as Bugliosi says, "post-crime behavior" (Sorry FedoraX! I just love some of the things he ~or is it his ghost writers~ have said) for the clues. Post-crime behavior can be shown to be that of an INNOCENT person, or the behavior will clearly show it is of a guilty person. And when you're tryin' to buy a poly.... like the Ram's, well, ... what does that say?

I'm off to start composing my letter to the Gov.

As always, this is,

 

Thanks for posting this Tricia. I understand why Delmar has respectfully declined to join here (from past conversations) and wish he would accept the invite for posting here. But, I respect his wishes. Delmar, if you are reading here, please know that I don't want you to give up on this (altho I was afraid you had as of last week). Don't quit yet. You are another voice of reason and I admire & respect your opinions. You make a lot of sense. As I told you before, I will be happy to proofread & help you in any way I can. Just let me know.

 

i read the article and emailed ryan

and i am happy to say i got a fast response and email from him.

i wanted him to know the other bit of evidence........that the
jonbenet foundation tax document handwriting.......
matches the handwriting on the ransom note.

ryan, what a guy!!!
i support him completely!!!

praying for justice,
purr

 

Those questions

I liked Ross's article. But his questions are lame. WHY is it that so many have the impression that all they need to do is ask the Ramseys certain questions and they'll fold. Ross's questions are relevant and valid, but they are also naive. As we know, the Ramseys have no problem with certain types of question. And the really tough questions never get asked.

Anyhow, here is my idea of how easily John or Patsy could get round Ross's questions:

1). Prosecutors disclosed in the interrogations you submitted to in 2000 that Burke told the grand jury he owned a Hi-Tec boot at the time his sister was killed. Did Burke testify accurately? If so, what is your explanation for the print from that type of boot that was found on the floor of the basement room in your Boulder home in which you found your daughter’s body?

"Burke never owned any such boot."

2). (For John) Did you wear the same black wool shirt made in Israel the day after Christmas in 1996 that photographs show you wore Christmas Day that year? If so, why?

"No. I didn't." This is an especially uninformed question. Since John allegedly took a shower that AM, the question of whether he was wearing the same clothing or not is meaningless.

3). What is your comment on or explanation for the claim by prosecutors that tests indicate fibers consistent with fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was wearing the day you discovered your daughter’s body are consistent with fibers found in the paint tray?

"It was Patsy's tray. Why wouldn't her fibers be on it?"

4). What is your comment on or explanation for prosecutor claims that tests show similar fibers on the brush used to make the ligature, and "tied into" the ligature?

"Same as above."

5). What is your comment on or explanation for prosecutor claims that tests show fibers similar to those in the black shirt John was wearing Christmas Day were found in JonBenet’s underpants and in her "crotch area."

"********." (John was already asked that question. That was his response then. Why would it be different now?)

6). In 1998 Patsy told investigators you had no explanation for the discovery of your daughter’s fingerprints on a bowl in your kitchen or pantry from which she apparently ate pineapple in the hours before her death. Have either of you since then developed an explanation or theory for those fingerprints and the pineapple in her system? If so, what is the explanation or theory?

"No. We still have no explanation for it." (Duh!)

7). Please comment on statements by Det. Thomas and author Lawrence Schiller that enhancements of the tape of the call Patsy made to 911 on the morning you discovered your daughter missing reflect John speaking to Burke. Your have had that tape for some time now. Are John’s and Burke’s voices on the tape?

"Burke was upstairs in his room at that time."

8). (For Patsy) What did you say to your father that prompted him to give you the book Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong? If you didn’t say anything that you know of, what do you know of or surmise about what prompted him to give you the book?

"I have no idea what prompted him to give me that book."

9). Since the time you learned in 1998 that police say medical examination of your daughter’s body indicates she had been sexually abused well prior to the night she was killed, have you developed a theory or explanation accounting for that?

"She was never abused before that night."

10). Did you have any indication, from personal observation or the accounts of others, that your son was inappropriately "playing doctor" with his sister? Had you ever discussed with him when, where and how it was inappropriate for him to touch his sister?

"Burke never did anything inappropriate with JonBenet. Period."

11). Det. Thomas says in his book that a police photograph taken the morning you called 911 shows a dictionary in your home turned to the page that defined the word "incest," and that the page was creased to point to that word. Did either of you consult the dictionary for that definition? If so, when did you do so and why? If not, did anyone indicate to you that they had done so? If so, who, and what did they tell you about why they had done so?

"We know nothing about that. Maybe the intruder did it."

12). Prosecutor Michael Kane is among those who have concluded that JonBenet was not murdered, but died as a result of an accident. He has been quoted as saying, "I think it (JonBenet’s death) was something (that came about) through an accident, and then everything else was staged – and the staging was overdone. Patsy is a very theatrical person and it was a very theatrical production." What is your response?

"Patsy didn't kill JonBenet. There was no accident." (Duh)

13). Given that Boulder DA Mary Keenan has only two investigators on her staff, neither of whom (according to the Rocky Mountain News, quoting former Boulder assistant DA Bill Wise) is trained in homicide investigations, wouldn’t you have more confidence in the investigation in Colorado if it were led by a prosecutor with the staff resources and expertise necessary to pursue an investigation into your daughter’s death?

"We believe she has the resources to do the job and are confident the killer will be found."

WHY would anyone think these are tough questions?

The problem with this case reminds me of the problems the US is having with Al Qaeda. In order to beat them you have to be smarter than them, NOT dumber.

 

Tricia

If you were in possession of a good quality copy of that tape and it clearly and unequivocally had Burke's voice on it, you wouldn't NEED to ask the Ramseys anything at all. You could take that tape straight to the DA's office and if she woudn't listen, then take it to the FBI. They've already gone on record as insisting Burke wasn't present. If you could prove he WAS, then you'd have caught them in a lie. No need to ask them about it. On the other hand, if the tape were garbled or unclear, then they'd simply deny there was anything meaningful on it.

As for MY questions, they'd be pretty tough. They've never been asked these questions before. And I feel sure they'd never ever be willing to address them. Here are some samples:

1. John, you've claimed it was you who told Patsy to call 911, but in the Tracey documentary she says SHE was the one who told YOU, that SHE was going to make the call. Can you explain this discrepancy?

2. John, you said Patsy was right next to the phone and you weren't, which is the reason you asked HER to make the call instead of making it yourself. Yet, Patsy said, in the Tracey documentary, that she told you she was going to call 911 and then "went downstairs" to make the call. Who is telling the truth here, you or her? Was there some other reason you didn't want to make that call?

3. John, you said Burke testified that he heard his father tell his mother to call the police. Does this mean the two of you were in his room when you said that? If so, then why did you say, in your book, that you were at the bottom of the spiral staircase when you told Patsy to make the call? Or if that's where you in fact were, then how could Burke have heard that? His room is in a completely different part of the house?

4. John, you said you saw the basement window open and then closed it. You testified that you THINK you informed Lieutenant Arndt about what you found. There is nothing in her story that confirms this. Did you ever make any effort to check with her, to confirm in your own mind at least, whether she WAS in fact so informed by you? Can you explain why, after having apparently found the killer's entry or exit point, there was no further effort on your part to get the police to examine that window more closely, take prints, etc.? If you did tell Arndt, and she ignored you, why wouldn't you have INSISTED the window be checked?

5. John, you claim you had broken the basement window months earlier. Patsy, you claim you yourself cleaned up the glass, with the help of the housekeeper, Linda Pugh. Are you aware she's denied any knowledge of that window being broken (according to PMPT)? You claim Pugh's husband had been scheduled to repair the window, but told the police you weren't sure whether that work had been done or not. Did it ever occur to you to check with him on this, either on your own or via your investigators? And if not, why not? Wasn't it important to you to know whether the window had been repaired prior to the crime? Wouldn't it make a huge difference if the window had been broken the night of the murder? Is there some reason why this didn't matter to you?

6. John, why was it that you decided to hire handwriting experts of your own? Was there some reason you didn't trust the CBI or FBI experts? Were you afraid they might accuse YOU or Patsy of having written the note? And if not, then why hire your own people? Did your experts ever work any further on the case? Did they ever do a comparison of anyone elses exemplars other than yours and Patsy's? Or were they hired as a hedge, just in case the experts decided to point the finger at you and/or Patsy? And if so, why might you fear that?

7. John, you said you were down in the basement from about 7 AM on. According to Arndt, you were also out of touch with her for possibly 45 minutes after 10 PM. Can you try to give me a detailed account of exactly what you did during those times? Here is some paper and a pen. Take your time, write it all down, in detail.

I'm sure I can think of some more. That's it for now.

DocG

 

Re: Those questions

And to a certain extent, also richer.

Alex Hunter was out of his league, and Ms. Keenan is as well. They have always known this. Hal Holbrook and his Weapons of Mass Obstruction were brought to bear on a town that was used to plea-dealing with shoplifters caught on tape. When you drill into your trial deputies that a breathalizer is insufficient evidence to prove DUI, you're nowhere near capable of even considering litigating against a team which would essentially make Johnnie Cochran look like Forrest Gump.

What is needed most at this point, though, is for studious, rigorous, thorough, painstaking, tedious, and backbreaking work to be done in forensics labs, at the CBI, and for the governor to apply as much funding and human resources as would be needed to go against the Ramseys' $750/hour pit bulls. Exhume the body. Treat it however it needs to be treated: cold case, archaeological case, public interest case, or whatever. And if the governor needs help, it may take every last penny that all of us can muster, for a legal operations fund, to see to it that justice will not be bribed away with the proceeds of Access Graphics, or the sale of Ramsey books, or whatever sum they extorted from Steve Thomas.