JonBenét Ramsey Case: Judge Orders DA To Show Why Secret Indictment Of Parents Should Remain Secret
The Huffington Post | by Matt Ferner
10/17/13


In 1999, a grand jury in the brutal murder case of 6-year-old JonBenét Ramsey voted to indict her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey. But then-Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter refused to sign it, citing that he could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The indictment's existence was not known until earlier this year. Now a judge has ruled that the current Boulder DA Stan Garnett must show why the un-prosecuted indictment must remain secret.



"The court concludes that the secrecy required in the grand jury process is not compromised through a process that requires the presentment of the indictment in open court," Weld County Judge Robert Lowenbach wrote, The Boulder Daily Camera first reported.

"Under this procedure, there is no breach of the secrecy and confidentiality expected in grand jury proceedings," Lowenbach continued. "It is ordered therefore that the defendant (Garnett) show cause why he should not be required to disclose the requested documents."









Daily Camera Reporter Charlie Brennan and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed the lawsuit in Boulder District Court in September.

"The plaintiffs believe... that the indictment is a criminal justice record that reflects official action by the grand jury, and accordingly that it is subject to mandatory disclosure upon request," the complaint reads. Brennan and the RCFP also argue that the indictment should be made public in the interest of government transparency.

But Boulder DA's office said releasing the document would be a "breach of promise" to the jury, citing the importance of maintaining the integrity of grand jury secrecy.









In a statement about the decision to keep the documents involved in the indictment secret obtained by HuffPost, Chief Trial Deputy Sean Finn wrote:


The plaintiffs interest in the documents they have requested is understandable; few cases have captured the interest of Coloradans, and people throughout the world, like the death of 6-year-old JonBenét Ramsey. The resultant, 17 year media fascination with this case makes perfect sense; every time a story appears in the media about this tragic case, the public takes notice.

But the issues raised by Plaintiffs' request and lawsuit are more important than any one case. Every grand juror, and every witness who appears before a grand jury, takes an oath of secrecy, and every witness and grand juror is promised that those involved in the process will honor that oath. For this defendant to accede to Plaintiffs' request and hand over documents from this grand jury would be a breach of promise to the hundreds of citizens serving on grand juries across Colorado, and would undermine the assurances given to grand jurors and witnesses who will be promised secrecy in the future.











On Dec. 26, 1996, 6-year-old JonBenét was found bludgeoned and strangled to death in the basement of her family home. A ransom note from an anonymous group of individuals "that represent a foreign faction" asking for $118,000 in exchange for the safe return of JonBenet was found just hours before, but no call ever came from a kidnapper and it was never linked to a murderer.

The entire Ramsey family was cleared of any involvement in the murder of JonBenét back in 2008, thanks to then newly discovered DNA evidence, according to 9News. Patsy Ramsey, JonBenet's mother, died 2 years earlier in 2006 of ovarian cancer. Tragically, she was still considered a possible suspect when she died.





Investigators reopened the case in 2010 and launched a fresh round of interviews with witnesses that could provide more insight into the murder, according to ABC News, but nothing fruitful came of those interviews.

The DNA evidence still points to an "unexplained third party" that serves as a vague lead for authorities still pursuing the case, TIME magazine reported.

Boulder police have tested more than 150 DNA samples and investigated nearly the same amount of potential suspects in their ongoing investigation, but none have ever been linked to the crime.





After all these years, Boulder police have received thousands of tips about her murder and still receive several monthly. DA Garnett said in 2011 that he personally gets two or three tips a week from all over the world. The ones that have potential are passed along to Boulder police's Major Case Unit.

There have been plenty of false leads as well, including most famously John Mark Karr -- who bizarrely admitted to being with JonBenét the night of her death, but DNA evidence later cleared him of any wrongdoing in this case.





It remains one of the most notorious murders in U.S. history -- and, a decade and a half later, there is still no justice for JonBenét. If she were alive today, JonBenét would be 23.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/17/jonbenet-ramsey-case-indictment-judge-parents-_n_4117676.html?

Extremely intriguing.

John Ramsey Opposes Release of Secret Indictment in JonBenét Murder Case
The Huffington Post | by Matt Ferner
10/21/13


In 1999, then-Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter refused to sign a grand jury indictment of John and Patsy Ramsey, the parents of slain 6-year-old JonBenét Ramsey, citing that he could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The indictment remained secret until earlier this year, when The Boulder Daily Camera confirmed its existence. Now, a lawsuit seeks to release the un-prosecuted indictment -- but John Ramsey, father of JonBenét, opposes the release of the document unless the entire grand jury record is also opened for the public.





The Daily Camera obtained a new letter from Harold Haddon and Bryan Morgan, attorneys who represent John Ramsey, stating their objection:

"Public release of the allegations of an un-prosecuted indictment only serves to further defame (John Ramsey) and his late wife Patricia," the attorneys write in the letter.

"Mr. Ramsey will have no access to whatever evidence the prosecutors presented to the grand jury and will have no ability to disprove those allegations in a court of law. Nor will the public have any ability to evaluate the propriety of the indictment unless the entire grand jury record is unsealed and opened to public view."

The Boulder DA's office said unsealing the indictment would be a "breach of promise" to the jury, citing the importance of maintaining the integrity of grand jury secrecy.





Last week, Weld County Judge Robert Lowenbach ruled that Garnett must show why the indictment must remain secret.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/21/john-ramsey-indictment_n_4138617.html?

It's gonna be released Friday.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57608961-504083/jonbenet-ramsey-update-judge-orders-release-of-indictment-in-unsolved-murder-of-6-year-old-colo-girl/

Grand Jury Had Indicted Ramseys in JonBenét's Death
Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY
October 25, 2013


A Colorado grand jury in 1999 indicted John and Patsy Ramsey on two counts each of child abuse resulting in the death of their 6-year-old daughter, JonBenét, according to grand jury documents released Friday, but did not directly accuse the couple of killing her.

The grand jury also charged that the couple helped whoever killed their daughter, but did not name any suspect for the slaying.

The prosecutor in the case refused to sign the grand jury or prosecute the couple, saying that prosecutors did not have sufficient evidence to file charges in the cases.







The four pages of documents were released Friday by a Colorado judge in response to a lawsuit by Daily Camera reporter Charlie Brennan and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The Ramsey consistently maintained their innocence in the 1996 death of JonBenét, whose body was found in the basement of their Boulder, Colo., home.

No suspect has ever been arrested or tried in the case. Patsy Ramsey died in 2006. John Ramsey remarried in 2011.







Only two counts -- a total of four pages -- from the grand jury documents were released. The documents named John and Patsy Ramsey separately, but the wording was identical.

Count four said the Ramseys "did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenét Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen."

Count seven of the indictment said the Ramseys did "unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

The documents however did not name any individual as being suspected of the first-degree murder mentioned in the counts.







Former Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter, who had convened the grand jury in 1999, refused to sign the indictment after months of presenting evidence in the case.

"I and my prosecutorial team believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time," Hunter said at the time.

In addition to maintaining their innocence, the Ramseys offered a $100,000 reward for the killer and mounting a newspaper campaign seeking evidence.





In 2008, then-District Attorney Mary Lacy said that DNA evidence suggested that the killer was a stranger, not a family member, adding that "justice dictates that the Ramseys be treated only as victims of this very serious crime."

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said the case remains open but it's not an active investigation. He predicted the indictment's release wouldn't change anything.

"Given the publicity that's been out there, many people have formed their opinions one way or another," he said.





The body of JonBenét, who was strangled and bludgeoned to death, was discovered in the basement several hours after the Ramseys had called police to report her missing.

A ransom note was also recovered.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/25/jonbenet-investigation-evidence/3186361/

Has anyone ever heard a name released of the man (presuming it's a man) that the Ramsey's supposedly helped cover up in JonBenet's murder?

I wish they would leave the Ramseys alone. They clearly weren't involved in this. They've had to live with this crap for nearly 20 years now.

I wish they would leave the Ramseys alone. They clearly weren't involved in this. They've had to live with this crap for nearly 20 years now.


Amen!!!

Btw, wiseguy, that's a great avatar. I loved Match Game!

I wish they would leave the Ramseys alone. They clearly weren't involved in this. They've had to live with this crap for nearly 20 years now.

I disagree. And many other people do, too. That's OK though. I respect any informed opinion on this case. I've literally spent hundreds of hours pouring over the publicly-available info. and I think the Ramseys know way more than they have ever let on. Something doesn't add up on their end. Of course, Patsy is dead now, so we may never know what happened.

I disagree. And many other people do, too. That's OK though. I respect any informed opinion on this case. I've literally spent hundreds of hours pouring over the publicly-available info. and I think the Ramseys know way more than they have ever let on. Something doesn't add up on their end. Of course, Patsy is dead now, so we may never know what happened.

I'm with you. I've never been able to shake the feeling that they have something to hide. Maybe no one in the house did it, but I feel like they made some attempt to deflect attention.

Let's say no one in the house did it and that it actually was an intruder. Maybe the Ramsey's suspected that their son had accidentally killed her through rough play. They looked around and saw no apparent sign of an intruder and feared that the police would see it this way too, so the Ramsey's staged the "ransom".

Covering something up doesn't always mean you are guilty. It could mean that you understand that the situation makes you look guilty even though you aren't, but everyone else will see you as guilty, so you cover things up.

Amen!!!

Btw, wiseguy, that's a great avatar. I loved Match Game!

thank you. It's in tribute to Marcia Wallace, who died the other day.

I disagree. And many other people do, too. That's OK though. I respect any informed opinion on this case. I've literally spent hundreds of hours pouring over the publicly-available info. and I think the Ramseys know way more than they have ever let on. Something doesn't add up on their end. Of course, Patsy is dead now, so we may never know what happened.

I've always defended the Ramseys, even though, as I said elsewhere on this forum, they probably weren't people I would have associated with IRL. Personally, I thought they came across as too country club and aloof on several occasions. Their book was also a hard read, mostly because John and Patsy kept alternating back and forth on the writing, and you could never tell who was saying what.

For me, and before even getting down to the nitty-gritty details of the case, there are 3 major road blocks that prevent me from thinking they are guilty.

1.) The people who think the Ramseys are guilty haven't unified in any one suspect. There is way too much uncertainty. At first, people thought John did it. Then people thought Patsy did it. Then, people thought it was a combination of John and Patsy and/or that one was covering for the other. Then, people thought it was Burke. Nowadays, opinions are all over the place. In order to come off as credible, they would have needed to settle on a suspect(s) and convincingly tie them to a motive. That hasn't, and still hasn't, happened 17 years after the fact.

2.) No motive. The only motive I have ever heard is the bedwetting scenario, which is weak to the point of being laughable.

3.) The sheer brutality of the crime(s). Yes, there have been cases of parents killing their children. But this was extremely violent. There was no history of any violence in that household, nor was their ever any accounts that the Ramseys were anything but loving parents towards JonBenet.

those are the three, 800 pound gorillas in the room. For me, it was bothersome that many hadn't even considered the possibility of an intruder (and there were several good suspects, they had a party in their house earlier in the day, and their house was ENORMOUS, with plenty of places for someone to hide without being detected).

As for this indictment business, I don't know they are making an issue of it now. The Ramseys were already extensively investigated (scruitinized might be a better word) and were cleared by the police department. They weren't involved. Period.

I've always defended the Ramseys, even though, as I said elsewhere on this forum, they probably weren't people I would have associated with IRL. Personally, I thought they came across as too country club and aloof on several occasions. Their book was also a hard read, mostly because John and Patsy kept alternating back and forth on the writing, and you could never tell who was saying what.

For me, and before even getting down to the nitty-gritty details of the case, there are 3 major road blocks that prevent me from thinking they are guilty.

1.) The people who think the Ramseys are guilty haven't unified in any one suspect. There is way too much uncertainty. At first, people thought John did it. Then people thought Patsy did it. Then, people thought it was a combination of John and Patsy and/or that one was covering for the other. Then, people thought it was Burke. Nowadays, opinions are all over the place. In order to come off as credible, they would have needed to settle on a suspect(s) and convincingly tie them to a motive. That hasn't, and still hasn't, happened 17 years after the fact.

2.) No motive. The only motive I have ever heard is the bedwetting scenario, which is weak to the point of being laughable.

3.) The sheer brutality of the crime(s). Yes, there have been cases of parents killing their children. But this was extremely violent. There was no history of any violence in that household, nor was their ever any accounts that the Ramseys were anything but loving parents towards JonBenet.

those are the three, 800 pound gorillas in the room. For me, it was bothersome that many hadn't even considered the possibility of an intruder (and there were several good suspects, they had a party in their house earlier in the day, and their house was ENORMOUS, with plenty of places for someone to hide without being detected).

As for this indictment business, I don't know they are making an issue of it now. The Ramseys were already extensively investigated (scruitinized might be a better word) and were cleared by the police department. They weren't involved. Period.They've got nothing else. They never considered the possibility of an intruder and now it's probably way too late to find the culprit. That they still cling to this kind of material for any kind of break is very telling in how much they're actually trying.

This case will probably never be solved short of a (real) confession.

They've got nothing else. They never considered the possibility of an intruder and now it's probably way too late to find the culprit. That they still cling to this kind of material for any kind of break is very telling in how much they're actually trying.

This case will probably never be solved short of a (real) confession.

Sorry but I will never believe an intruder done this.

Sorry but I will never believe an intruder done this.

What if somebody confessed tomorrow, somebody other than the Ramseys, and there was convincing evidence that they did it? Would you still believe the Ramseys were guilty?

I don't know why some people can't even entertain the possibility of an intruder. As I said, this was a HUGE house with many possible hiding places. The Ramseys had a giant party right beforehand. It would have been immensely easy for someone to attend the party, nail down a hiding spot, entertain themselves in the huge house until the Ramseys got back, and do their crime after they returned and settled into bed. That may have actually been cunning on the intruders part because it means that there will be no signs of forced entry into the house, thus casting suspicious on the other occupants of the house.

My theory was always that Burke did it, and the parents covered for him. I couldn't quite by the intruder theory, and I don't think the parents would have covered for each other.

That being said, I found it a tough case to really get into because objective information seemed scarce. The case was so polarizing that it seemed tough to discuss or debate.

I don't entirely discount the intruder theory. When that loon confessed, I initially took him at his word. We have all been surprised by how things have played out in certain instances.

I think this is a tough one because some evidence clearly supports intruder, while some evidence (ransom note imo) supports the family as culprits.

I don't know why some people can't even entertain the possibility of an intruder.

I don't think the issue is that people can't entertain the idea. I've entertained the idea as I previously stated in an earlier post. I think the problem is that we can't shake the idea that the Ramsey's aren't telling us everything. Maybe it was a robber, a rapist, a pedophile, maybe it was Bigfoot, who knows. But I feel the Ramsey's made some attempt to cover this up. Either because they killed her accidentally and obviously wanted to cover it up. Or it was an intruder, but they didn't know for sure before calling 911. They may have suspected someone in the house, most likely the brother, and tried to protect him by inventing this ransom scenario.

The fact is, there's not overwhelming evidence of a home invasion. There's no busted down door or window, no bloody foot prints leading out of the house, no witnesses recalling a screeching car speeding away in the middle of the night. Now I'm not disregarding the possibility that someone could have entered the house earlier from a party, and hid there. It's certainly possible, but how do you prove this? Sure this could be how it happened, but it also could have been one of the Ramsey's since they obviously have access to the house. Its ambiguous, and this is the reason why we have 2 opposing theories.

The 800 pound gorilla in my opinon, is the ransom note. Do you think the purpose of this was for ransom?

A ransom is no longer valid once the body is discovered. As long as the victim appears to be alive, the ransom is still legit. How many other home invaders, kidnappers, rapists, pedophiles, etc, left ransom notes in the same house where the dead body is? It looks as if the killer wanted the note to be found.

If this was a ransom attempt, what was the ransomer planning on doing with her?

1) If he lived down the street, he could have walked her to his house. If she died, he could have carried the body in the middle of the night to his house. Dead or alive, it shouldn't have mattered.
2) If he lived an hour's walk away. Was he planning on walking with a 6 year old in the middle of the night to his house. Not likely. And if she was dead, would he have carried her for an hour's walk? Not likely. Again, dead or alive, it wouldn't have mattered.
3) If he had a car down the street, dead or alive, it wouldn't have affected his getaway. Get her alive or dead in the car, and drive away.

Regardless of where he lived, the transportation he had, dead or alive it shouldn't have changed the outcome. A six year old doesn't weigh that much.

So the ransom attempt fails, then why leave the note? The intruder was so bold, that he hid in the house all evening, wrote the ransom notes on paper from inside the house, using their marker, and somehow knows the exact amount John got as a bonus that year. He then gets Jon Benet, takes her away from her room, kills her, but he's afraid to go back to the steps to get the note? I have trouble believing that. The note is another thing that points to you. Go back and get it, then get out of there.

And what happened to the intruder's money issues after that? Did he win the lottery the next day? Why wasn't there any more attempts on children's live's for ransom? I don't think just because someone fails at a crime, that they just give up and live a law abiding life after that. I don't care if you think the Ramsey's did it, or an intruder did it. Most would have to agree that this was not for ransom.

If any of the Ramsey's killed her, I don't think that it was done on purpose. It feels more like a hit and run car accident. A good honest person accidentally causes the death of someone, panics and attempts to cover it up, but the cover up makes you look like a guilty, horrible monster.

Please explain how you think a little boy caused the violent, gruesome death of his sister.

If the intruder spent all day in the house taking his time, then he probably isn't going to bolt out of the house in a fast fashion, screeching his car. There *was* an eyewitness account from a neighbor, stating that she saw a very seldom used light bulb on the night JonBenet was killed. I reckon the reason there weren't more eyewitness accounts was because the murder happened when most people are asleep.

The ransom note, I feel, is the most interesting piece of evidence in this case and it points to an intruder. Because if one of the Ramseys wrote it, then they would certainly know that the letter can be scrutinized, it can be compared to their handwriting, it can have all sorts of tests done on it (which, in fact, is what happened). I don't think money was the real motive here, I think it was revenge. The ransom letter, when dissected carefully, reeks of someone who was trying to get revenge on John. I think the money was probably a decoy for the real motive.

I think there's a chance the intruder didn't plan on killing JonBenet, at least not at first. There was some evidence he tried to stuff her in a suitcase and carry her out of the house, IIRC, which probably means his original intent all along was to abduct JonBenet. When the plan failed and he couldn't get himself and JonBenet out of the window, he felt he had to kill her so as not to leave an eyewitness around.

Why did the killer not go back for the ransom note? There was a neighbor who reported a piercing scream around 1:00. She screamed, he feared someone in the house heard it and went to investigate, and he had to get the heck out of dodge ASAP.

So I think that answers all of your questions.

I was wondering if anyone here had read former lead investigator James Kolar's book where he explained why he now rejects the intruder theory?

In addition to the ransom note, I've always thought the late discovery of the body was a bit hinky. I have a big rambling house - lots of nooks and crannies. If one of the kids are missing and I search the house, I search the house.

I have no idea how the brother may have killed her - some sort of accident gone wrong.

As for the ransom note, I agree that thinking rationally the Ramsays would know it could be scrutinized. Of course, people do highly irrational things in the shadow of a crime. My gut instinct, which is admittedly not infallible, is that some sort of accident occurred, and the family went into cover-up mode. I think many people would react the same way. I always got the feeling the father plotted that course of action for the family.

I lean away from intruder, but I wouldn't be stunned by it. Like I say, this is one of those cases where you can make a case either way, and also make a reasonable counter-argument.

Good discussion here!

A few additional thoughts I have:

- This may not actually be a "homicide". It could be an accident (or something else that happened and got out of hand) made to look like a homicide.

- Back in 2010 (I think) it was leaked in the media that investigators wanted to talk again with JonBenet's brother, Burke, about his sister's death. As far as I know, Burke didn't talk to them, and didn't want to talk to them. The bigger issue for me was the leak to the media. I think the investigators may have been trying to tell the public something by leaking their desire to speak with him.

- When Colorado set up their "cold case" crimes website - amazingly - they plum "forgot" to put JonBenet's murder on there. It was added only after the omission had been pointed out to them. Really? You forgot to add your most famous unsolved crime, Colorado?

- Really curious that there was a 911 call from the Ramsey house two days before JonBenet's death, isn't it? It was explained away as one of their friends accidentally dialing 911 during a party the Ramseys were hosting, but that's not for certain.

- Patsy may have had mental issues. Burke, too.

- If an intruder unknown to the Ramseys did this, JonBenet's father doesn't seem to be trying very hard to find this person and bring them to justice. His focus seems to be all about moving on and forgiveness. If I was in his shoes, I would move heaven and earth to see this intruder made to pay for what they did.

- Odd to me that a suitcase in the basement was found to contain a sham and duvet with a semen stain from JonBenet's older brother, John Andrew Ramsey, as well as a Dr. Seuss book. Not sure what that's all about.

- The ransom note (and not the kiddie beauty pageants) is what makes this case so intriguing. How many cases have a ransom note........but no corresponding kidnapping? Only one that I know of. So what was the purpose of the note? Extremely odd.

- Whatever the true solution to this case is....I have a feeling that the answer is very, very, very, very weird. And that's why it hasn't been solved yet, and probably never will be. I don't think people would be able to wrap their heads around the truth. And I say this as someone who doesn't exactly know what this truth is.

Good discussion here!

A few additional thoughts I have:

- This may not actually be a "homicide". It could be an accident (or something else that happened and got out of hand) made to look like a homicide.

- Back in 2010 (I think) it was leaked in the media that investigators wanted to talk again with JonBenet's brother, Burke, about his sister's death. As far as I know, Burke didn't talk to them, and didn't want to talk to them. The bigger issue for me was the leak to the media. I think the investigators may have been trying to tell the public something by leaking their desire to speak with him.

- When Colorado set up their "cold case" crimes website - amazingly - they plum "forgot" to put JonBenet's murder on there. It was added only after the omission had been pointed out to them. Really? You forgot to add your most famous unsolved crime, Colorado?

- Really curious that there was a 911 call from the Ramsey house two days before JonBenet's death, isn't it? It was explained away as one of their friends accidentally dialing 911 during a party the Ramseys were hosting, but that's not for certain.

- Patsy may have had mental issues. Burke, too.

- If an intruder unknown to the Ramseys did this, JonBenet's father doesn't seem to be trying very hard to find this person and bring them to justice. His focus seems to be all about moving on and forgiveness. If I was in his shoes, I would move heaven and earth to see this intruder made to pay for what they did.

- Odd to me that a suitcase in the basement was found to contain a sham and duvet with a semen stain from JonBenet's older brother, John Andrew Ramsey, as well as a Dr. Seuss book. Not sure what that's all about.

- The ransom note (and not the kiddie beauty pageants) is what makes this case so intriguing. How many cases have a ransom note........but no corresponding kidnapping? Only one that I know of. So what was the purpose of the note? Extremely odd.

- Whatever the true solution to this case is....I have a feeling that the answer is very, very, very, very weird. And that's why it hasn't been solved yet, and probably never will be. I don't think people would be able to wrap their heads around the truth. And I say this as someone who doesn't exactly know what this truth is.

-They talked to Burke shortly after JonBenet's murder. He was very quickly cleared. The fact that the investigators wanted to talk to him again and made their request public is a lot like this whole indictment business that was the original point of this thread. They still want us to believe the Ramseys are guilty. They're opening old wounds.

-I work in a hotel. You would be amazed at how many people accidentally call 911. A lot. I think part of it has to do with you have to dial 9 to get an outside line, then 1 for long distance, so people already have the first 2 digits of 911 dialed. Press a 1 after that, and you've dialed 911.

-JonBenet's father hasn't been moving very hard to find the killer? I don't think he can make the case more publicized than it already has. The Ramseys were heavily scrutinized early on in the investigation. John made it very clear he wanted the real killer to be found.

-Patsy may not have had mental issues. Burke may not have mental issues either.

I was wondering if anyone here had read former lead investigator James Kolar's book where he explained why he now rejects the intruder theory?

I haven't but intend to get it. Looks very interesting.

I haven't but intend to get it. Looks very interesting.

I just ordered a copy. The customer reviews are interesting.

- The ransom note (and not the kiddie beauty pageants) is what makes this case so intriguing. How many cases have a ransom note........but no corresponding kidnapping? Only one that I know of. So what was the purpose of the note? Extremely odd.

See: Greenlease, Bobby. I am sure there are others.

See: Greenlease, Bobby. I am sure there are others.

I looked into the Greenlease case, per your suggestion (because I wasn't familiar with it) and it said that he was kidnapped from his school and then murdered. Then there was a ransom note after his murder. But he WAS kidnapped. As far as I can tell, JonBenet never left her house that night. To me, she was not kidnapped. (Unless we're going to count someone taking her from one room in the house to another room in the house as a "kidnapping") Hence, my point about how strange it was to have a case of a ransom note existing without a corresponding kidnapping.

-They talked to Burke shortly after JonBenet's murder. He was very quickly cleared. The fact that the investigators wanted to talk to him again and made their request public is a lot like this whole indictment business that was the original point of this thread. They still want us to believe the Ramseys are guilty. They're opening old wounds.

-I work in a hotel. You would be amazed at how many people accidentally call 911. A lot. I think part of it has to do with you have to dial 9 to get an outside line, then 1 for long distance, so people already have the first 2 digits of 911 dialed. Press a 1 after that, and you've dialed 911.

-JonBenet's father hasn't been moving very hard to find the killer? I don't think he can make the case more publicized than it already has. The Ramseys were heavily scrutinized early on in the investigation. John made it very clear he wanted the real killer to be found.

-Patsy may not have had mental issues. Burke may not have mental issues either.

I don't doubt that someone can accidentally dial 911. But as far as I know, there were two 911 calls made from the Ramsey house in the entire time the Ramseys lived there - and they were both made within a 2-3 day window around JonBenet's death. Coincidence? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Didn't anyone ever see the special that was on TV about this case? They had a team of investigators who came up with some guys who broke into a house in JonBenet's neighborhood just weeks before her murder and tried to take another little girl off out of her bed and her father walked in on them and scared the guys off. They said the two worked together in construction and one told the other he knew how to get the exact amount of money Mr. Ramsey got in his raise . Which I'm not surprised since the paper made a grand announcement of it. And that is just asking for trouble. Anyway they claimed the shoe print found at the scene matched one guys shoes. And the one guy was found in his apartment dead , he committed suicide. And his partner disappeared. They never did say anything about DNA matching. I kept wondering did they find his partner and do A DNA test on these people?

Didn't anyone ever see the special that was on TV about this case? They had a team of investigators who came up with some guys who broke into a house in JonBenet's neighborhood just weeks before her murder and tried to take another little girl off out of her bed and her father walked in on them and scared the guys off. They said the two worked together in construction and one told the other he knew how to get the exact amount of money Mr. Ramsey got in his raise . Which I'm not surprised since the paper made a grand announcement of it. And that is just asking for trouble. Anyway they claimed the shoe print found at the scene matched one guys shoes. And the one guy was found in his apartment dead , he committed suicide. And his partner disappeared. They never did say anything about DNA matching. I kept wondering did they find his partner and do A DNA test on these people?They never found his partner, unfortunately.

It's strange how little this pair is brought up in discussion of this case, though. As far as I know, nothing was revealed about them except the one who killed himself was not a DNA match (neither was anyone in the house, but that's usually skipped when discussing the family for some reason) but that doesn't clear his partner. The fact that they were never investigated at the time says a lot about the police.

They could have found this person back when the murder occurred if the police ever actually properly investigated the scene. At the very least, they could have been ruled out.

As of now nobody knows.

They never found his partner, unfortunately.

It's strange how little this pair is brought up in discussion of this case, though. As far as I know, nothing was revealed about them except the one who killed himself was not a DNA match (neither was anyone in the house, but that's usually skipped when discussing the family for some reason) but that doesn't clear his partner. The fact that they were never investigated at the time says a lot about the police.

They could have found this person back when the murder occurred if the police ever actually properly investigated the scene. At the very least, they could have been ruled out.

As of now nobody knows.

Yeah. The media pretty much glossed over anything that didn't fall into the "Ramseys did it" theory. There are other suspects, but anyone would be hard-pressed to name one off the top of their head because the media was so focused on informing us that the "Ramseys did it".

This is an excellent website for anyone who wants a list of evidence, witness accounts, layout of the Ramsey house, etc. http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682515/The%20House

One nugget that stands out is a Danish book left in the house by the intruder (nobody in the Ramsey house spoke, wrote or understood Danish). This would tie in to the "small foreign faction"

i just watched a documentary on this case. i think it was the parents. they did it or know who did. the thing that stood out first to me was how did they not find her body sooner?? the FIRST thing any parent would do is search every inch of that house. including the basement. i think the majority of parents would search every inch twice before calling police.
their demeanour and actions in interviews are incredibley bizarre
they seem more concerned about how they are being portrayed then actually finding the killer
i have no doubt they did it, the only other option i see is they are covering for the son

i also dont understand why they are saying the footprints arent theirs coz it doesnt match their shoes....the first thing a guilty person would do is get rid of the evidence. they would have destroyed anything they were wearing that night, including their shoes

also how CONVENIANT they had that many people wandering through their house two days before and the length of the note, it seems premeditated

i just watched a documentary on this case. i think it was the parents. they did it or know who did. the thing that stood out first to me was how did they not find her body sooner?? the FIRST thing any parent would do is search every inch of that house. including the basement. i think the majority of parents would search every inch twice before calling police.
their demeanour and actions in interviews are incredibley bizarre
they seem more concerned about how they are being portrayed then actually finding the killer
i have no doubt they did it, the only other option i see is they are covering for the son

i also dont understand why they are saying the footprints arent theirs coz it doesnt match their shoes....the first thing a guilty person would do is get rid of the evidence. they would have destroyed anything they were wearing that night, including their shoes

also how CONVENIANT they had that many people wandering through their house two days before and the length of the note, it seems premeditated

I agree with you 100%.

I do not believe an intruder would come in kill the young girl and then demand a ransom note and still leave the girl's body there, what about fingerprints?

You also made a good point about not finding the body sooner. Any parent would look in every single nook and cranny if their child went missing, and do you think a killer would take the body and leave, only to return her body to the basement, that does not make any sense.

Scenario#1 - I believe they could very well be covering up for their son- The son may have hit her on the head and in a panic the family thought they could make it as if she was murdered and told the son to keep quiet. Someone mentioned that the son was either autistic or had some sort of mental disorder correct me if i'm wrong.

Scenario #2 - Patsy killed her - People don't know what their life was behind the closed doors of the house, the mother could have been abusive to her daughter, putting the pressure on her to be a pageant queen, Mom may have gotten mad, hit her, or pushed her too hard killing her. maybe even pushed her downstairs anything could have happened. The family then make up an elaborate hoax to cover up, Most disturbing of all however is if they purposely hit her head repeatedly to make it seem as if she was murdered.

Patsy has since passed and the case is still unsolved, but seeing as Wendy Camp's killer is being brought to justice, i have hope one day it will be solved, whether it's her father or brother who killed her.

Yeah. The media pretty much glossed over anything that didn't fall into the "Ramseys did it" theory. There are other suspects, but anyone would be hard-pressed to name one off the top of their head because the media was so focused on informing us that the "Ramseys did it".

This is an excellent website for anyone who wants a list of evidence, witness accounts, layout of the Ramsey house, etc. http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682515/The%20House

One nugget that stands out is a Danish book left in the house by the intruder (nobody in the Ramsey house spoke, wrote or understood Danish). This would tie in to the "small foreign faction"
Whether you believe the Ramseys or not, it is pretty much universally agreed that the ransom note is BS. Whoever wrote it was obviously trying to throw people off their track.

I agree with you 100%.

I do not believe an intruder would come in kill the young girl and then demand a ransom note and still leave the girl's body there, what about fingerprints?

You also made a good point about not finding the body sooner. Any parent would look in every single nook and cranny if their child went missing, and do you think a killer would take the body and leave, only to return her body to the basement, that does not make any sense.

Scenario#1 - I believe they could very well be covering up for their son- The son may have hit her on the head and in a panic the family thought they could make it as if she was murdered and told the son to keep quiet. Someone mentioned that the son was either autistic or had some sort of mental disorder correct me if i'm wrong.

Scenario #2 - Patsy killed her - People don't know what their life was behind the closed doors of the house, the mother could have been abusive to her daughter, putting the pressure on her to be a pageant queen, Mom may have gotten mad, hit her, or pushed her too hard killing her. maybe even pushed her downstairs anything could have happened. The family then make up an elaborate hoax to cover up, Most disturbing of all however is if they purposely hit her head repeatedly to make it seem as if she was murdered.

.

totally agree

i didnt even know patsy was dead til i watched that documentary
sad she never told the truth before she went, but guess she wouldnt want the husband and son to be held accountable.

if i cant find my cat i tear the house apart, let alone a kid. and not to search such a obvious space too. ''oh my child has been taken for ransom, i dont think i will bother searching the house, ill just call the cops and they can do it'' ''maybe we should check downstairs where that broken window is...nah she wouldnt be there dont bother''

the 'intruder' obviously would be going in specifically to kidnap the kid according to them. so why not write the note before breaking in? instead of using thier paper on the spot. and why leave it on the stairs. and why still leave it there once she died to leave potential clues. and why 18,000?? such a random number, without knowing that was his exact xmas bonus

if they had a broken window they knew people could fit through as if people that rich would let something like that slide for over a year

how was the girl down in the basement, why would she go down there, and if she was taken out her room how did noone hear anything??

literally nothing adds up

Yikes, I think I'll be getting into some unpleasant territory here....

But with my somewhat limited knowledge of the case:

THAT RANSOM NOTE STINKS!!!!!!

Whoever it was that wrote it, (I believe it was Patsy) it's ridiculous. We are a "Foreign Faction". Who talks like that? Not kidnappers, that's for sure.

Also, I don't think the brother in responsible.

Unless there is info I've missed that refutes this, I believe the mom was stressed out and flipped because Jonbenet wet the bed and in her frustration, beat her and is responsible for her death.

I think that John was only involved in the cover up, to protect his company, his job, his reputation, the family's image, etc, but I do understand there are folks out there who are much more knowledgeable on this case than I.

I never believed the "sex game with daddy gone wrong" theory.

For people outside the Pageant World in 1996, a 6 year old girl with bleached blonde hair, hair extensions, make up, fancy costumes, etc, would seem like sexualizing the child for the father's benefit, but we know now that a lot of this stuff is common in pageants and doesn't really factor in specifically to Jonbenet's family dynamic.

no offense, but this case has a WEALTH on information. Some time ago, I posted a link to a site that detailed the evidence in this case. Suspects, layout of the Ramseys house, evidence, etc. I would strongly encourage everyone on this page to check it out. I believe that anyone who studies this case long enough will realize the Ramseys did not do this:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682490/Key%20Pieces%20of%20Evidence

To answer some of your points:

the police allowed many people to come in and out of the Ramsey household in the immediate time period after JonBenet's murder without protecting the scene. that was not the Ramsey's fault, it was the police department's job to do that and they failed.

The Ramseys house was very large and JonBenet was found in a rarely used room. IIRC, it was at a far end of the house and the person who built the house said it can be easily overlooked.

Among other things, the Ramseys held a Christmas party at their house shortly before the murder. Which is not unusual for that time of year. It was theorized the killer was at the party, hid out in the house while the Ramseys attended another Christmas get-together (which wouldn't have been that hard to do) and made his move after they got home. He would have had plenty of time to write the note on their stationery, case the house, and plan for the attack.

The Ramseys cared very much for finding out who killed JonBenet. The only time I can recall the Ramseys caring about how they were perceived was when Patsy and Burke were a supermarket and Patsy saw a tabloid magazine (you can imagine what it said) and she was worried that Burke would see it.

There was evidence the killer tried to abduct JonBenet by stuffing her in a suitcase, but was unable to make it out of the house with her. Thus, he likely had to alter his plans.

The suggestion that 9 year old Burke was cruel or capable enough to molest and kill JonBenet makes me want to hurl. He is not autistic or have a mental disorder. If he does, I'd like to see proof of that. Link?

I don't know about Patsy or Burke, but John regularly took sleeping pills that knocked him out, so that is why he didn't hear anything. They had a long day, were undoubtedly tired, and had to be up early next day to get on a plane. And again, this is a BIG house. I can't stress that enough.

the "Foreign Faction" is very believable. Among the evidence, a book written in Dutch was found in the house afterwards. NONE of the Ramseys speak Dutch.

Admittedly, the broken window going unrepaired does bother me a bit. But...John said he broke it one day after accidentally locking himself out of the house and forgot about it. Again, it was in an area of the house that wasn't commonly used. Exclusive communities, like the one they lived in, don't have a high crime rate, so he wasn't doing wind sprints down to the glass company to have it repaired.

There was no history of violence in the Ramsey household. No child abuse, no sexual abuse, no spousal abuse, none. None of the older Ramseys children ever said they were abused (John had been married before). the Ramseys were in high spirits that day, they had spent the whole day celebrating the holidays with loved ones, they were going on a vacation in the morning to do the same with other relatives. They were also very tired. On the flip side of the coin, as much as I hate to say it, JonBenet competed in the pageants and would have been a target for pedophiles. There was also a high number of sex offenders in the area in which they lived.

One of the suspects also killed himself just before he could be questioned by police and his partner in crime has never been found. I'm not quite sure why that always gets overlooked to point fingers at the parents. That's far more suspicious, IMO.

Was JonBenét on Unsolved Mysteries? I missed the story. I, personally, have no theories on who killed her. I'm not sure if it was her parents, a " family friend," or a stranger. I don't think her brother did anything, though.

Was JonBenét on Unsolved Mysteries? I missed the story. I, personally, have no theories on who killed her. I'm not sure if it was her parents, a " family friend," or a stranger. I don't think her brother did anything, though.

Yes, on the episode from 1/31/97.

I always thought the parents did it. The ransom note being for the same amount as the dad's bonus pretty much guaranteed it.

"He would have had plenty of time to write the note on their stationery, case the house, and plan for the attack."


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was proven that the "ransom note" was actually Patsy Ramsey's handwriting. That makes the Christmas party visitor hiding out in the house theory seem less likely to me because that would mean that he would have forced Patsy Ramsey to write the ransom note, which seems unlikely because they could have told authorities that if it did happen.

"He would have had plenty of time to write the note on their stationery, case the house, and plan for the attack."


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was proven that the "ransom note" was actually Patsy Ramsey's handwriting. That makes the Christmas party visitor hiding out in the house theory seem less likely to me because that would mean that he would have forced Patsy Ramsey to write the ransom note, which seems unlikely because they could have told authorities that if it did happen.

You're wrong, it was never proven to be Pasty's handwriting.

You're wrong, it was never proven to be Pasty's handwriting.


It might not have been proven, but most people familiar with the case believe that she is the most likely person to have written it. They bring about many reasons for believing that, from the style used to write each individual letter in the ransom note compared to other handwritten items from Patsy Ramsey, to the use of words such as "attache" in the ransom note (could have used the word suitcase instead, plus it was known that Mrs. Ramsey had an affinity for French-related things).

To put it simply, I believe Mrs. Ramsey accidentally killed JonBenet (suffocated her or caused blunt-force trauma in some way) in a fit of rage and then she and her husband staged her body to make it look like an intruder molested and killed her before calling the police.

It might not have been proven, but most people familiar with the case believe that she is the most likely person to have written it. They bring about many reasons for believing that, from the style used to write each individual letter in the ransom note compared to other handwritten items from Patsy Ramsey, to the use of words such as "attache" in the ransom note (could have used the word suitcase instead, plus it was known that Mrs. Ramsey had an affinity for French-related things).

To put it simply, I believe Mrs. Ramsey accidentally killed JonBenet (suffocated her or caused blunt-force trauma in some way) in a fit of rage and then she and her husband staged her body to make it look like an intruder molested and killed her before calling the police.

Yes. I'm familiar with the "many reasons" (scrutinized to the nth degree would be a more appropriate term). The suggestion that Patsy is the writer and guilty because she can properly spell attaché (and put the mark over the appropriate letter) is exactly the kind of far-reaching theory that are very prevalent in this case. It's interesting you brought up 'French-related things' -- that ties in perfectly with "small foreign faction".

There's been some debate on whether or not JonBenet was being molested on a regular basis prior to her death. I wonder how much the adults at the pageants were investigated. I cannot and will not believe her parents tried to make it seem like an intruder molested her.

I'm inclined to agree with the intruder theory. Although I will say that the killer had to have intimate knowledge of the house prior to entering it. I remember watching a nightline special where the correspondent and detective took a path that led from the basement to JonBenét's room. It was also mentioned in the segment that when law enforcement showed up there were indeed fresh snow tracks leading from the driveway to the window and from the window to the sidewalk. Unfortunately sheriff and local police walked through them before taking pictures. My personal belief is that it was someone who had knowledge of the houses layout and didn't like the Ramsey family. The ransom note in my opinion I think is a diversion from the killer to keep authorities from searching the house or search in general. As for the amount of the ransom. Again it's either a coincidence or the person who had prior knowledge of the houses layout was also a confidant of John Ramsey. As for Patsy writing the ransom note, I remember hearing somewhere that she submitted at least 5 different types and the results were always inconclusive. I think sometimes we want to believe so much that someone did something we overlook small things that can give us the right answers.