JonBenét Ramsey Update: Parents' Indictment Released

[JamesG]

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/2013/1..._4117676.html?

[SeekDaGreat]

Extremely intriguing.

[JamesG]

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/2013/1..._4138617.html?

[peachysquirt21]

It's gonna be released Friday.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...old-colo-girl/

[JamesG]

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/n...dence/3186361/

[Steve W.]

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?

[wiseguy182]

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.

[asmitty]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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!

[freshwater]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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.

[ScaryFog]

Originally Posted by freshwater

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.

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by asmitty

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.

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by freshwater

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.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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.

[peachysquirt21]

Originally Posted by Spark Of Spirit

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.

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by peachysquirt21

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.