The Grand Jury indictment of John and Patsy Ramsey

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by cynic, Oct 25, 2013.

  1. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    BOESP you have struck a long standing thought for me in your statement as to why parents wouldn't call 911 if their child was injured. That really sticks in my mind as so simple. EXCEPT for the simple reason as to what and why was the injury that caused the need for the emergency call. An accident is just an Finding your child Hearing that another in the household can't wake up your Those are easy to decide. So something wasn't so easy that morning. Secrets were to be kept hidden. All these years later those same secrets are still hidden. It could have been so easy. Just call and get help for your child who was injured. But then think of what happened next. She was killed to cover up molestation, anger, incest and what else. But life goes on for the family. How dare them all these dare them. Shame.
  2. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    Her parents' TDNA SHOULD have been on those long johns, guilty or not. Patsy claimed to put them on her when they got home and JR was seen carrying her body with his hands around her waist(band). I believe I read that the TDNA was also on the panty waistband as well as on the legs of the long johns. This perfectly coincides with where someone would touch them when pulling them on or off. I am sure the only reason why the DA never mentioned finding the parents' tDNA is that it placed them even more in the shadow of guilt.
  3. Elle

    Elle Member

    Hi DeeDee! So nice to see you here again!

    I feel John Ramsey panicked when the police never managed to find Jonbenét in the room where little JonBenét was hidden. I feel John and Patsy Ramsey were well rehearsed for their cover-up, but were stymied when her body wasn't discovered!

    I haven't changed my mind in the number of years I was involved posting here. I still think it was Patsy Ramsey who threw her daughter against the toilet or tub in a rage when finding her little girl in soiled clothes/bed. Her nerves must have been on edge with all that had taken place over the holidays, plus an early rise for flying to Charlevoix.

    If she had found out Burke was interfering with JonBenét sexually before this, she didn't separate them when sleeping (?). This does sound a bit strange! However, I think she probably planned to deal with this all in good time.

    Knowing what type of background she had, nothing phased her having been brought up with a mother like Nedra Paugh. However, she
    must have been in a panic with her daughter's death, and her idiotic plan was carried out. Who in their right mind would write a practise ransom note first?

    No! I cannot see anyone else being the culprit in the death of little JonBenét Ramsey. I have from day one felt it was Patsy Ramsey, and I'm not changing my mind.
  4. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    Elle, I agree with you. I've not decided what precipitated the event that killed JonBenet. It could have had something to do with Burke or some other male in the family, but I think the digital penetration came from Patsy and her corporal cleansing, as did the ligature which Patsy used as restraints. I guess you and I are odd men out (I would say odd women but I don't want to open us up for jokes :cheerful: ).

    I think that Patsy's cleansing methods were why she was surprised to hear that JonBenet had been sexually molested. I don't think Patsy had considered that her cleansing methods were actually molestation. I think it was a "leader" question.

    I think both children had problems but imo it was JonBenet who was far too advanced for her age than was Burke.
  5. Elle

    Elle Member

    I can understand your feelings here, zoomama! I'm wondering if the medical examiners could quickly tell the difference between internal cleansing as BOESP suggests may have happened, or molestation in the genital area (?). Such a delicate subject to discuss!
  6. Elle

    Elle Member

    Yes! We are the odd men out! :)


    I can actually see Patsy Ramsey being a domineering mother where
    little JonBenét was concerned; making sure she was sparkling clean for
    her time on stage, but I can also see Patsy being rough because of JonBenét soiling her jammies or her bed and having a vile temper with having to clean up so early that fatal morning, when they were leaving for Charlevoix.

    Yes, I think JonBenét was too far advanced as you state, and she also enjoyed being the favoured one over Burke!

    Having problems with my pc! Might not post properly! (?).
  7. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    Nice to "see" you too. I always think of you around this time of year. I'll PM you.
  8. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thank you DeeDee! Have replied. Maybe we can get back on track again! [​IMG]
  9. heymom

    heymom Member

    In my mind, Patsy and perhaps John *did* have some knowledge of Burke's problems...but didn't quite know what to do. Somewhere, it was stated that he was seeing a psychiatrist BEFORE the murder of this sister - why??? That's not normal for a 9 year old boy. Maybe he was already being treated for a personality disorder. Maybe they knew about the prior molestation but believed it to be a thing of the past. It's easy for anyone to look at a situation from outside and say, "Well, why didn't they do X or Y?" but while you are living it, it's NOT easy, especially with children. I know when one of our sons was going through a very difficult patch, we had no idea what to do to help him. We were out of our depth, so to speak, and just tried one thing and then another, and none of it seemed to work. Eventually, he pushed us to the point where we had to take drastic action to affect his behavior, and even that wasn't guaranteed to work. We were fortunate that our choice *did* have at least some of the desired effect, and over time, other events conspired to change his heart and mind and turn him around.

    How would you deal with a child who had a personality disorder? Let's say molestation of another of your children *wasn't* involved, but you could see that your son or daughter just wasn't "normal" in many ways. Would you seek treatment and try to keep him in your home, have him institutionalized, or some other choice?

    I am certainly NOT excusing John and Patsy Ramsey. I think perhaps John would have done things differently, but Patsy had a plan. I'm just saying that under the circumstances, I can understand how the choices were made, and why they were made. I also believe that they got advice from a few people that night, and then made decisions based on that advice.
  10. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    This would also explain the fibers from John's black wool shirt (which he had been wearing to the Whites' Christmas party) that were found in the victim's underwear.
  11. Tawny

    Tawny Member

    Hi there BOESP!

    I had a discussion at length with my DH and my father regarding the potential murder weapon, and I fully believe that the flashlight is the culprit. If you hold a Maglite of that size by the end and swing it, it takes very little force to cause massive damage. We ruined a few watermelons experimenting with one! JMO :kilroy:
  12. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    I totally agree! I have always believed the flashlight was the weapon.:thumbsup:
  13. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    Thanks for the response. I did my tests years ago on eggs, raw and boiled, and a spike nail held mid-way point of the nail and a ten-penny nail. I'm not sure an egg or a melon produces similar results since the mass is very different than a human brain and the skull is, well, bonier (is that a word?) than an eggshell or melon rind.
  14. cynic

    cynic Member

    I came across this, which appears only in the paperback edition of DOI:

    So much has happened in the past year since the grand jury concluded and yet so little progress has been made. After thirteen long months of looking at all the evidence presented by the special prosecutors and police, the Boulder grand jury said no to an indictment. It takes a mountain of evidence to convict, but only a paltry amount of evidence to indict. Yet in the eyes of the grand jurors, even that did not exist. Nor was there anything in our backgrounds that would indicate even the slightest potential for such a horrendous crime. The police were devastated.

    Of course, in the months that followed the grand jury’s secret decision, there was much speculation by the media on what the grand jury really did conclude. To suggest that it voted to indict and that the D.A. refused to go along, as some of the media speculated, is pure folly. If that had been the case, the police would certainly have leaked it to the media before the grand jurors even arrived home.

    "Death of Innocence", John & Patsy Ramsey, paperback, p. 378​
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2014
  15. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Lies, lies and more lies!

    The Ramseys knew from their lawyers, and from their partner-in-crime, Boulder DA Alex Hunter, they had been indicted by the Grand Jury.

    Ha ha ha ... "to suggest that it [the GJ] voted to indict and that the D.A. refused to go along, as some of the media speculated, is pure folly." :floor: Folly? Is that what the Ramseys call THE TRUTH?

    That's EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED!!! The GJ voted to indict and the DA refused "to go along." Bwwahaahaa! Oh, Patsy! Oh, John! You're killing me here. :rolling:

    :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
  16. otg

    otg Member

    It's interesting how, after learning something new, things you didn't notice previously stand out. Patsy was questioned by Darnay Hoffman about the very passage you quoted, cynic, in one of her depositions. Notice how she carefully avoids answering the actual question about her "personal knowledge" by substituting her answers with public information:

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Now I am just going to go into -- I am going to ask for some clarification of things that are in the book, things that I didn't understand. I am going to turn your attention to page 378. It is chapter -- in fact, I can let you look at that. There are two statements there. In fact, Mrs. Ramsey, if you will just give me your book, I will just quickly highlight it. I am sorry about not having done this beforehand. All right. I would like you to read the highlighted portions on page 378 in your book "the Death of Innocence." That is the paperback edition.

    A. "The Boulder grand jury said no to an indictment."

    Q. And then the next statement that I highlighted.

    A. "The grand jury's secret decision."

    Q. Do you have any personal knowledge as to whether or not the grand jury did, in fact, make a decision based on that statement?

    A. Well, the district attorney, I believe, made a public statement that said there would not be an indictment.

    Q. There is a reference here to the grand jury's secret decision. Do you have any knowledge of a secret decision by the grand jury, any personal knowledge? Are you referring to that?

    A. Well, I think all of the grand jury information is under wraps or under seal or something.

    Q. But do you know whether or not the grand jury, in fact, made a decision in your case?

    A. Just going from what the district attorney said, that there was no indictment.

    Q. Okay. But this doesn't indicate -- the reason I am asking you this question is -- withdraw. Is Patrick -- is it Patrick Furman, was he an attorney of yours at one point?

    A. Yes, he was.

    Q. Were you aware that Mr. Furman made a statement that was published in the Boulder papers to the effect that there was a rumor that the grand jury had taken a straw poll and had decided not to indict?

    MR. WOOD: Object to the form of the question in that I think you have inadvertently, perhaps, made reference to the wrong lawyer; but if you have a statement to show her, that might be helpful.

    MR. HOFFMAN: I don't have that statement. I am just asking her if she has heard that.

    THE WITNESS: I am not aware of a statement by Mr. Furman in the paper.

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Then I will ask you, by any of your attorneys --

    A. No, I am not.

    Q. -- to the effect that the grand jury -- that there was a rumor that the grand jury had taken a secret straw poll and had decided or voted not to indict?

    MR. WOOD: You are talking about public statements, not anything attorneys may have said to her?

    Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) No. No attorney. I don't want you to reveal anything that is an attorney/client.

    A. No, I am not aware of any such statement.

    Q. So the statement "The grand jury's secret decision" is not referring to any personal knowledge that you have about what went on in the grand jury room with respect to any decision to indict or not indict; is that correct?

    A. I think that adjective was used just referring to grand jury as a whole does everything behind closed doors.

    Q. So it is just a figure of speech; is that correct?

    A. Actually, I did not write this section. John wrote this. So you might want to ask him that question.

    Q. Okay. Thank you.​

    I've believed for a long time that the GJ's decision was an "open secret" within the legal community in Boulder. I think it was whispered to other lawyers at the country clubs, shared with confidants, and hinted at to associates. The Ramseys knew how the GJ decided, and they knew a deal was struck with Hunter not to indict because of his intimidation in the face of actually pursuing a case in court. They knew, and they perpetuated the falsehood that the GJ did not find enough evidence to indict. And then with Hunter's carefully amended and signed statement that Burke was not a suspect, they were able to sue and settle with every publication that ever wrote about his possible participation. The only thing that could have made things any better for them would be a public "exoneration" from a DA.

  17. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Great post, OTG!

    Oh, that Patsy could dance ... with the help of her attorney partner, answerus interruptus Lin Wood, of course!

    Then, when pinned in a corner about the book passage, Patsy says "John wrote it!" Ha ha, that Patsy. So faithful to the end.

    Deflect, deny, lie. Over and over again, it's the Ramsey modus operandi. Deflect, deny, lie; deflect, deny, lie ... it's a waltz! The Ramsey Waltz. Kind of like the Tennessee Waltz, only more deadly.
  18. otg

    otg Member

    :yes: :rst: :yes:

    One, two, three... One, two, three... One, two, three...
  19. cynic

    cynic Member

    This is one of my favorite dances…
    (From Patsy’s 1997 interview with Thomas and Trujillo.)

    PR: . . .from my bathroom. Um, I started down the spiral stairs and when I got nearly to the bottom I saw these three pieces of paper, like notebook size paper, on, on the run of the stairs and uh, I went on down and turned around and started reading, reading it.
    And I uh, screamed for John. He was up in our bedroom still and he came running down and uh, I told him that there was a note that said she had been kidnapped. And uh, uh, I think he, he said, I said, ‘What should I do. What should I do,’ or something and he said, ‘Call the police,’ and I think somewhere, I remember I said something about, you know, check Burke or something and I think he ran back and checked burke and I ran back down the stairs and then he came downstairs. He was just in his underwear and he uh, took the note and I remember him being down hunched on the floor read, with all three pages out like that reading it and uh, and he said, ‘Call 911’ or ‘Call the police,’ or something and then I did.

    TT: Okay. You pick up the note and start to read it, um, go back upstairs to JonBenet’s room? Is that correct?

    PR: Well, I don’t remember if I picked it or, or just leaned over and read it. I can’t remember. I don’t think I picked it up cause I remember just then bounding up the stairs toward her room.

    TT: Okay. Patsy, do you recall who moved the note from the bottom of the stairs down to where John could read it with the good lighting.

    PR: I think he did. I, I (inaudible)
    . . .
    ST: Okay. When you came down the stairs the first time did you touch the note that time?

    PR: I don’t recall dong that but…

    ST: Okay.

    PR: …I may have.

    ST: Do you recall uh, did the note go back upstairs with you when you went up to check JonBenet’s room?

    PR: I don’t remember exactly, but I don’t think so. I think I just, you know, pounced up the stairs as fast as I could. I don’t, I don’t think I took it with me.

    ST: Do you recall moving the note from the stairs to it’s eventual position where John read it on the floor?

    PR: I, I don’t recall moving it. No.

    ST: Do you ever recall touching the note?

    PR: Um, not specifically, but I may have. I mean there, later on that morning there were, the note was on the coffee table and I remember, in the TV room, and we were talking about did anybody recognize the handwriting, so I may have touched it then…

    ST: Okay.

    PR: …but I just can’t remember.

    ST: So certainly your fingerprints may very well be on the note and, and, and explained that way?

    PR: Right. I, I, mean I may have touched it you know.

    TT: Okay. And the note was on, the note was on the floor and John was reading it when you called the police. Is that right?

    PR: When I was calling the police. Yeah, he, it was on the floor there in that back hall.

    TT: Okay. And you don’t recall who laid the note down there.

    PR: Right.

    ST: Patsy, did you write the note?

    PR: No, I did not write the note.

    ST: Is there any reason, Patsy, that your blatted print of your hand will be on that paper when it tests?

    PR: I did not write the note and I don’t, what’s blatted?

    ST: This portion of your hand.

    PR: I don’t know. I mean, if I picked it up or touched it, it may be on there, but I did not write the note.​
  20. cynic

    cynic Member

    Thanks OTG. I’ll add that although it would follow logically that prosecutors would have asked John about it, they did not.
    Below is the article that showcases the comments by Patrick Burke referred to in your post.

    A former attorney for Patsy Ramsey says he has heard that a majority on Boulder County's 1999 grand jury agreed not to indict anyone in the death of JonBenét Ramsey.
    "The rumors that I have heard, and they are just rumors, were that they took a straw poll of the grand jurors and said there was not going to be an indictment, and the case then was closed in terms of grand jury," Boulder attorney Patrick Burke told a group of attorneys gathered for a seminar Friday at the Adams Mark Hotel. Whether the grand jurors voted on the Ramsey case and what they concluded has been a tightly guarded secret, mandated by Colorado law and a court order.
    The only official statement on the grand jury was made Oct. 13, 1999, when District Attorney Alex Hunter announced that "no charges have been filed" and that prosecutors "do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at the present time."
    His office then put out a statement saying that no one connected to the case would ever discuss grand jury proceedings, unless ordered by the court, regardless of "how much that might help in the public's understanding."
    Burke's statements, if true, would dispel some speculation that the grand jury voted to indict a suspect and that prosecutors refused to sign an indictment out of fear the case could not be proven at trial.
    It could also mean that prosecutors avoided asking for a formal vote of the grand jury. Prosecutors avoided a formal grand jury vote in a Boulder County investigation of a 1983 slaying. A vote not to indict might be used by the defense if a target of the grand jury investigation were later prosecuted.
    Lin Wood, the current attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey, has included each member of the grand jury as a potential witness in the Ramseys' civil lawsuit against former Boulder police Detective Steve Thomas.
    "There are a number of very interesting legal issues regarding the grand jurors," Wood said. "Needless to say, I intend to fully explore these issues in an effort to establish publicly the truth that the grand jury voted and voted against an indictment."

    In the investigation of University of Colorado student Sid Wells' gunshot death in 1983, the Boulder County District Attorney's Office asked a grand jury to "make no decision in this case on the issue of whether or not the suspect had murdered Sid Wells," according to court records of the grand jury proceeding later released under court order.
    Denver Post, May 19, 2001
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice