Questions

Yes. Only Smit didn't interview Patsy, at least, not that we know of, and not on the record. He interviewed John. A Detective Haney, whom Hunter brought in to do the job, interviewed Patsy in '98.

Here's a portion of that interview I found some time after our discussion of John's bathrobe. She indeed does speak of John's "study" being upstairs:

So you can see they were going over pictures of the Ramsey suite upstairs.

 

yea

When your wife screams, should you throw the bathrobe you are about to cover your tighty whities with and go running OR should you run and put your arms through the robe as you go in case you must go out the door for some reason. Mr. Texan would try to pull some pants on and then run. But my eyes remain naked.

 

Legal question

Dr. Lee, Cracking More Cases, p. 209:

So even if Patsy Ramsey had been identified with 100 per cent certainty as the writer of the note, the person covering up for a crime by writing a bogus kidnapping note needn't automatically have been the killer too if there are other suspects to consider also, which was the case here.
So theoretically, John could have killed JonBenet and Patsy have covered up for him. But if there was not enough evidence to link John to the homicide itself, he could not be charged and the person covering up for him could not have been arrested either, at least that's what it says in Dr. Lee's book.

On the other hand, the top lawyers hired by the BPD all said the Ramseys should be arrested. What would have legally justified an arrest in such a case, considering the Colorado laws?

jmo

 

You know, in most of the PR interviews I've read, there are a lot of times when she is being "fed" an answer- like in this one with Trip asking her "does that look like a bathrobe?" Let HER say what it is, don't put the word in her mouth. Especially if LE knew from taking the photos that it actually was a bathrobe. If PR knew that it was a bathrobe and that bathrobe was worn by JR as he helped stage the murder and fibers that could have been from that bathrobe were found on the body- of course she will say "that looks like a sweater".
It's stuff like this, as well as the fact that there were SO many times when LE dropped the ball when questioning the Rs, that we are where were today- with no one accountable after 11 years.
I suppose it's too much to have actually TESTED that bathrobe to see of the fibers are a match. I recall the robe was dark blue terry. I also recall that there were dark blue cotton fibers found on the body.

 

DeeDee, you're absolutely right. Those LE interviews in '98 are MADDENIING to watch on video, or even read, as REPEATEDLY Haney asks a question, provides the answer, or just keeps INTERRUPTING PATSY as she TRIES to answer!! Either he's a DOLT like Smit, or he was aware of what he was doing, pre-planned, questions provided beforehand, etc. Remember, the Ramsey lawyers originally asked for questions to the Ramseys be put in writing and that's how they answered them in the first months after the murder.

What a SCREWED UP way to investigate a murder case. And that was all on Hunter's watch. He is the one I believe was working with the Ramsey team to destroy this case. Whether that came from Lockheed Martin's power and influence--remember LM has many operations in Colorado employing a lot of people--or from being fellow toads with Haddon's law firm, I don't know. But the BDA lawyers destroyed this case within weeks, IMO, and have continued that path ever since. They'll never go back now, because they'd expose too many illegal activities in their own office, IMO.

 

Rashomon, the evidence must reach the level of "probable cause" for an arrest warrant. That standard is not as high as "beyond a reasonable doubt", needed for a conviction, as you know.

There certainly was enough evidence to reach the "probable cause" standard. But after Hunter finished sandbagging warrants and handing out evidentiary reports to the Ramseys' law team, he well knew he'd never make the case in a trial. That's exactly what he was after, IMO. It worked.

But the purpose of arresting on probable cause is to get the suspects into an interrogation room and on the record. Since that didn't happen for four months, it should have been done at the very LEAST after the funeral when the Ramseys still refused to come in for questioning, since THEY CERTAINLY GOT THEMSELVES TO A TV STUDIO FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS OF QUESTIONS THE DAY AFTER THEY BURIED JONBENET!

Of course the Ramseys would never have answered a question, and their lawyers would have made sure of that. But it should have been done and they should have been put on the record as refusing to answer questions. Lou Smit is on the record stating HE WOULD HAVE ARRESTED THEM IMMEDIATELY IF THEY'D REFUSED TO BE QUESTIONED AFTER THE BODY WAS FOUND. That's the most honest thing Smit has ever said about this case and the Ramseys, in fact. It should have been done. Hunter stopped it from being done. Ever.

You see, you have to go through the tried and true procedures: there is always a chance the stress of going through the perp walk, fingerprinting, mug shot, etc., might lead to someone talking. Remember Patsy had a hard time keeping her mouth shut. If nothing shook out, the DA could always have dropped the charges. But we'll never know now.

As you know, any person here in the same circumstances would have been handcuffed and led to the BPD pronto if we refused to cooperate with LE.

 

The whole neighborhood was used to seeing John in his BVD's after losing his keys!

 

Truer words were never spoken. Isn't there ANY way to hold Hunter accountable for sabotaging this case? I also believe he was working with the RST. Especially the defense team.
We all know Hunter should have stepped down from this case and a special prosecutor should have been appointed right at the beginning. As soon as the Haddon firm came on board as the defense team, that should have been the end of Hunter's involvement. What I want to know...is it ALLOWED for DAs that have personal/business relationships with defense lawyers to continue as a prosecutor? Because it shouldn't be.

 

My guess is that Hunter had his hand in this from the get go? Wasn't he on vacation somewhere initially? Or am I wrong about this?.....
He sure seemed nonchalant to me. And to talk to Jeff Shapiro the way he did...if this is the truth??? Is beyond me.
Where is Hunter now? Is he dead?

 

Hunter is not dead. He isn't in the pubic eye anymore; his assistant Mary Lacy is now the DA in Boulder. Hunter had his hand in this right from the first, I don't know how he lives with himself. I think the matter with Jeff Shapiro was the truth- I never saw where Hunter denied it; it was portrayed in both the book and move PMPT, and if it wasn't true, he would have challenged that portrayal. HUnter also never dened Shapiro's version of events that I am aware of.

 

Thanks DeeDee....I just wasn't sure where he was now. Surely he isn't in the pubic eye now....(I'm just being funny) I guess I knew in some way that Mary Lazy was....
But the only way they were all "in" with each other is that is has been passed down. And I believe that. But why? Why was protection of the Ramsey family so important? I believe, if folks can not think about it, then it can go away. Do they pay later? Yes, I have to believe they do. But a Ramsey is guilty. This is obvious. What was the reason it was not made public? I am not so sure it was Burke. He was young. Does he have a clue? Maybe. I don't remember much at that age. But I do remember those that died that were close to me. Surely he remembers some. But surely, other family members do to. What about Fat Pam?

 

It isn't so much a matter of protection of the Rs being so important- it was a case of the Rs high-powered defense attorneys squashing the case. This law firm had connections to the governor. I have read of phone calls logged from the asst. governor's office to the R home after the murder. These same defense attorneys were also in business and real estate relationships with Hunter- they also were members of the same country club. Hunter had a long history of never bringing a case to trial- he preferred to plea-bargain. He just wanted to coast until his retirement- the JBR case was the last thing he wanted to deal with. I believe the defense and the governor's office pressured the DAs office to squash the case against the Rs. There is simply no other explanation for Hunter's refusal to prosecute this case and for his refusal to issue supoenas for the most basic things (phone records).
As for BR, he is 21 years old now- with his sister, mother and grandparents dead, JR is his only family. Whatever he may remember or THINK he remembers, it must be clouded by what he has been told about it by his parent(s). Most if us don't remember things from our childhood, but at age 9-10, you can bet we'd ALL remember details about when a sibling died, especially if she was murdered. He remembers, believe me. As for what he remembers- that is subject to what he has been told about that night, and how much he actually does remember. Keep in mind that he may not know everything about that night- he admitted he was not really asleep (as his parents have said he was) but that he heard "noises" around midnight and also admitted to hearing yelling and scurrying about in the early morning hours. I bet anything that NO Rs went to sleep that night AT ALL after returning from the White's.

 

thanks DeeDee....

 

Thanks KK for your informative post.
I believe Patsy would have caved in had she been arrested immmediately, with everything she had done still fresh on her mind - she would not have stood up to the pressure.

Maybe the Ramseys would have been arrested if officer French had opened the wine cellar door immediately after arriving at the Ramsey home in the those early morning hours, discovering the body at once. Imo their staging farce would have been exposed far more glaringly then without all those hours of waiting for the alleged kidnappers to call ...

 

I agree with both of those statements. Timing is everything. Of all the flaws in the handling of this case, the most fatal happened in the first hours- Officer French not looking UP and seeing that the door to the wineceller wasn't "stuck", but rather latched with a simple piece of wood, easily moved. That happened within 20 minutes of that 911 call. AND LA allowing the Rs and their entourage free access through the home. I know she was alone- but she had a gun. She could have corralled them all in one room and said "Nobody move" till more LE arrived.

 

"You can't ransom the body" spin

One of the RST's claims is that BPD attorney Bob Keatley, Hofstrom, Mason and Bynum all let Eller know it was ILLEGAL to withhold JBR's body for burial and that it was violating the Ramseys' rights. They say that after Meyer had completed the autopsy, there was NO reason for him to retain custody of the body and that witholding it would have been illegal.
L. Schiller sings from the same hymn sheet in PMPT.

Whereas Steve Thomas in his book gives a different account of the issue.

If LE feels it necessary to have additional testing done, can't they retain custody of the body until those questions are cleared up?
All that "holding the body hostage" stuff sounds like mere RST spin, with Hofstrom acting as a Ramsey advocate right from the start.

 

But LE in Boulder were not trained in those kinds of situations. They WERE trained in community sensitivity, how NOT to offend anyone with your symbol of patriarchal violence and dominance, the GUN. They would have been encouraged to give sympathy and kind treatment to the VICTIM of the crime which in this case, was the Ramseys. They were more victim's advocates than true cops, except for Steve Thomas, who wasn't there on 12/26.

 

Suppose it was Burke who had caused the head injury and the Ramseys had confessed to having covered it up - what would they have been charged with ?

Burke could not be held responsible since he was under age.
A parent covering up a homicide for which the offender cannot be held responsible - would this be 'obstruction of justice'?

 

I imagine every state would have differing statutes for this kind of thing. In Colorado, the way I understand it, if a child under 10 commits a crime, or is involved in a crime, even a serious one like murder, they cannot be charged, and neither can anyone else involved with the crime, even if they are over 10 because in so doing, the identity of the 10 year old would be known.
Now, I am not an expert on Colorado law- so I may not be accurate in my understanding, but people here probably know.
In New Jersey (or Sopranoland, as I like to call it) kids kill people all the time. Even little kids. Sometimes they are prosecuted as adults, especially if the crime is rape, but when they aren't, the crime is tried in Juvenile Court. They still do time, but in Juvenile detention centers. Depending on the circumstances, the record is usually expunged when time is served.
If BR was the perp here, and his parents covered it up, I don't think they could be charged with anything the way I understand Colorado law.