Patsy Ramsey, JonBenet's mother, dies

[King of New York]

hxxp://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/24/ramsey.death/index.html

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Patsy Ramsey, mother of slain 6-year-old JonBenet, died Saturday of ovarian cancer, her lawyer told CNN. She was 49.


She died about 3:30 a.m. at her father's house with her husband by her side, lawyer Lin Wood said. She was diagnosed with cancer in 1993 but was cancer-free for nine years until a relapse three years ago.
The unsolved killing of JonBenet in December 1996 put Patsy and John Ramsey, the girl's parents, in the spotlight.
(javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/us/2006/06/24/wood.patsy.ramsey.dies.cnn','2006/07/01');)


A grand jury investigation into the death of the child beauty pageant winner ended without charges in 1999.


JonBenet's beaten and strangled body was found in the basement of the family home in Boulder, Colorado, the day after Christmas.


The Ramseys said an intruder committed the crime, but they remained the subject of suspicion and speculation.


"I think people realize now that this family was very much victims of that murder and have suffered greatly because of it in terms of the false accusations made against them," Wood said.


"But again, they have shown great dignity and courage to deal with the situation, a very difficult situation," he added.


"I think people will remember Patsy as being someone who was falsely accused in connection with the death of her daughter, when she should be remembered for being an incredibly loving mother, a wonderful wife, and a person who showed great courage in fighting a vicious disease over the last many years," Woodtold CNN.


"She should be an example to others who face cancer, that there can be a win, a victory, because she lived for over 10 years with the disease, and, I think, was able to accomplish a lot in her life and spend valuable time with her family and friends."


The Ramseys left Colorado and had a house in Charlevoix, Michigan, where John Ramsey unsuccessfully ran for office in 2004, and in Atlanta, Georgia.


-----

You know, the Ramsey Case was one of the few cases where I never could get a sense of who was telling the truth and who was lying. Usually in these high-profile cases, after the smoke clears you can get a pretty good sense of who is guilty or innocent, but I never could figure out whether the Ramseys were telling the truth or not.

If they were lying, I would guess that it is now even less likely that we'll ever know the truth. And if they were telling the truth, well, this just compounds the tragedy.

[MrBug708]

Interesting. I've always disliked parents who live vicariously through their kids and always thought she knew way more then was every made known

[oliegirl]

Interesting. I've always disliked parents who live vicariously through their kids and always thought she knew way more then was every made known


I agree...I don't necessarily think she killed her, but I think she knew who did or witnessed something that she never admitted to. I feel the same way about the father...

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

That whole situation was odd, especially the "killer" knowing the exact of amount of the father's new bonus.

[stevew]

I didn't really follow the case too much, but I always thought someone in/close to the family did it.

[molson]

I doubt the family killed her, but I'm sure the beauty pageant crap made her a target for some pervert (who may have been a family friend).

[cthomer5000]

I doubt the family killed her, but I'm sure the beauty pageant crap made her a target for some pervert (who may have been a family friend).

but then why the bizzarre "ransom" note?

[Crapshoot]

I think the whole case, the sagas, and the legions of people-watchers following them was more than a little sad.

[molson]

but then why the bizzarre "ransom" note?

That's actually one of the reasons why I lean towards them not being involved. The ranson note, demanding the exact amount of the guy's bonus, leaving the body in the basement - if they parents were THAT sloppy trying to cover this up, surely there would have been physical evidence, etc. It seems like more the work of someone seriously mentally unstable who had some knowledge of the house and the bonus - like a handyman or a crazy uncle/cousin. Just a guess of course.

[st.cronin]

I forget all the details, but I believe the body of evidence pretty much exonerates the family, and points to a pair of (unkown) guys who are more or less career low-life criminals. I haven't read anything on this case in several years, though.

[cthomer5000]

very detailed look at the case, if anyone is interested...

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/index_1.html

[sachmo71]

I think the whole case, the sagas, and the legions of people-watchers following them was more than a little sad.


i agree with this. take the michael jackson case and that lady, with her daughter, releasing doves as the verdicts were read. just incredible.

[TroyF]

I forget all the details, but I believe the body of evidence pretty much exonerates the family, and points to a pair of (unkown) guys who are more or less career low-life criminals. I haven't read anything on this case in several years, though.


No, those were people the family pegged and there have never been anything on them.

Fact is, the Boulder police destroyed the crime scene so badly that it made a case against the Ramsey's impossible.

Virtually ever "expert" I've heard who is willing to discuss the case believes that one of the two parents did it, with the most likely parent being the mother.

[Edward64]

I'm like King, I don't have a good feel for who did it but I lean against the parents doing this.

Its hard for me to believe that both parents could have done this together.

One of the alternatives is that one parent killed the daughter. If this was the case, I believe the other spouse would get a sense/feel of this.

Being a parent, I can't believe if a spouse got the 'bad vibes' with the other spouse, they would stay married. One way or another, I figure the marriage would have broken up.

Hence, I tend to lean against either parent. But there was the theory of their son ...

If she truly was incorrectly vilified all this time, I wish her the best with her daughter in the afterlife.

[st.cronin]

The problem with the parents as a suspect has always been, what is the motive. Well, two problems, a complete lack of evidence, but also a total absence of motive. I think in this case suspicion falls on the parents because there are no other visible suspects.

[GrantDawg]

No, those were people the family pegged and there have never been anything on them.

Fact is, the Boulder police destroyed the crime scene so badly that it made a case against the Ramsey's impossible.

Virtually ever "expert" I've heard who is willing to discuss the case believes that one of the two parents did it, with the most likely parent being the mother.


Hmmmm.....
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/07/09/jonbenet_ramsey_dna.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

Prosecutor: DNA clears JonBenet Ramsey's family

Associated Press
Published on: 07/09/08
Boulder, Colo. -- Prosecutors say new DNA tests have cleared JonBenet Ramsey's family in the 1996 killing of the 6-year-old beauty queen.
Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy said Wednesday the tests point to an "unexplained third party."
<!--endtext--><!--endclickprintinclude--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=175 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=caption> </TD></TR><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=caption>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!--startclickprintinclude--><!--begintext-->
She says prosecutors don't consider any member of the Ramsey family to be a suspect.
JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, were long said to be under an "umbrella of suspicion" in the girl's slaying.
Lacy apologized to the family on Wednesday, saying, "To the extent that this office has added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any degree, I offer my deepest apology."
John Ramsey, a software entrepreneur, has said in interviews he believes the case will be solved.
Patsy Ramsey died June 24, 2006 of ovarian cancer at the age of 49 in Atlanta, where the family moved after JonBenet's death.
Patsy Ramsey and JonBenet Ramsey are buried in Marietta.

[RomaGoth]

Anytime a child is harmed it is a tragedy, regardless of who is at fault IMO.

[molson]

I don't see how presence of a 3rd party's DNA necessarily exonerates anyone, but perhaps they wanted to close this thing out.

[GrantDawg]

I don't see how presence of a 3rd party's DNA necessarily exonerates anyone, but perhaps they wanted to close this thing out.


Because it was on the murder weapon and under her fingernails. Pretty much guarentees it was not a family member that killed her. There was always a host of other evidence that pointed to a third party, much of it was over-looked and even destroyed early on by the police who where rabid to get the parents from the very begining.

[molson]

Because it was on the murder weapon and under her fingernails. Pretty much guarentees it was not a family member that killed her. There was always a host of other evidence that pointed to a third party, much of it was over-looked and even destroyed early on by the police who where rabid to get the parents from the very begining.

HYPOTHETICALLY she could have been prostituted out or molested before the murder by a third party.

The different DNA is nothing new (remember John Mark Karr not being a match after he confessed?) Maybe the PD wants to pull all remaining resources away from this.

[TroyF]

Because it was on the murder weapon and under her fingernails. Pretty much guarentees it was not a family member that killed her. There was always a host of other evidence that pointed to a third party, much of it was over-looked and even destroyed early on by the police who where rabid to get the parents from the very begining.

Say what?

The family was given far more protections early on than any normal family. Hell, the father found the girl in the basement AFTER the police had conducted a search on the property. They were so scared of offending the Ramsey's they did everything in their power to avoid charging them with the crime.

In fact, the only reason it ever got to a grand jury was because of the negative PR the police had from people saying the police had treated them with kid gloves. Hell, they didn't even go to court to demand a handwriting test for Mrs. Ramsey until months after the murder.

I never said the family did it, I repeated what the experts I had heard said. If the DNA clears the family, I'm still not convinced they didn't know more than what they said. Little girls come up missing all the time. They get killed often. But it's pretty damn rare when a killer writes out a psychotic ransom note that includes not openly released information (such as, oh, I dunno, the fathers EXACT bonus figure), takes the kid to the basement, kills her there, then leaves no trace of anything, anywhere on the property.

Nobody will ever convince me that the Ramsey's don't know far more than what they ever let on.

I'm even skeptical of this DNA test. DNA testing existed when this case happened. The police took a ton of flak during the time this was going on, with most people begging them to charge the Ramsey's. I'm supposed to believe they didn't test the blood back then and release the results, which would have cleared the Ramsey's AND helped ease the media pressure on them?

Sorry. . .you'll have to excuse me if I'm just a tad bit skeptical of it being released now.

[digamma]

I played golf with Patsy Ramsey's father (JonBenet's grandfather) once. That's all.

[BrianD]

I played golf with Patsy Ramsey's father (JonBenet's grandfather) once. That's all.

I don't suppose he mentioned to you what his son-in-law's bonus was....

[molson]

(such as, oh, I dunno, the fathers EXACT bonus figure)

I never understood what the bonus thing was supposed to implicate or imply. If the father had anything to do with the ransom note - why would he use his exact bonus amount as a ransom? That sounds more like something that some crackpot would do to implicte the father. It certainly wouldn't be impossible for someone to come across that information, just like someone can get your social security number or otherwise steal your identity.

[RomaGoth]

I played golf with Patsy Ramsey's father (JonBenet's grandfather) once. That's all.

I suppose that is a step above playing golf with OJ.

[TroyF]

I never understood what the bonus thing was supposed to implicate or imply. If the father had anything to do with the ransom note - why would he use his exact bonus amount as a ransom? That sounds more like something that some crackpot would do to implicte the father. It certainly wouldn't be impossible for someone to come across that information, just like someone can get your social security number or otherwise steal your identity.

OK Molson, you get a bonus from work. Tell me who you give that information to.

Your spouse? No question
Your kids? Maybe, but I doubt Jon Bonet would really understand
Your friends? I don't, but let's say you told one or two

Who else? Your boss and the payroll clerk know.

Kind of a limited group of potential killers, don't ya think? Unless he was walking around downtown Boulder screaming "I got a bonus from work and THIS is the exact amount!!!!!"

That information in the note screams to me that it was a VERY close family member or VERY close friend who did it. If the Ramsey's didn't know it, they'd damned well be telling the police everyone who knew what the bonus was and make sure they were checked out.

Or am I off base here. Do you guys who get bonuses tell everyone in the free world what it is? (in my case, my own co workers don't know my bonus. It's me, my father, my fiance and that's it)

The note is the single biggest thing that's always bothered me about this case. A typical crackpot doesn't leave a ransom note and then slaughter the girl in the basement. He doesn't have access to the family's personal informaion (including exactly when they'd have a shot at the kid, what the bonus was, the oulay of the house which would allow them to get away without leaving a trail, etc.

Now I find out they had DNA and didn't bother testing it until now? I know I'm not in law enforcement, but if you have that, is it all that hard to ask all of the close friends of the Ramsey's to come in for voluntary blood tests? And maybe see which ones don't.

Of course, this is all moot, because the Ramsey's refused to even talk to the police for months after it had happened, and then didn't give full infromation.

I don't fault them for getting a lawyer right away. In this day and age, it's not an unwise thing to do. I do fault them for not giving the police as much information as possible early on.

We'll never know who killed Jon Bonet, but I'd bet all of my will (you guys can fight over the $10 that'll bring in) that the parent knew/know exactly who murdered Jon Bonet.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Who goes around telling people the amount of his estate in his will?

:p

[molson]

OK Molson, you get a bonus from work. Tell me who you give that information to.

Your spouse? No question
Your kids? Maybe, but I doubt Jon Bonet would really understand
Your friends? I don't, but let's say you told one or two

Who else? Your boss and the payroll clerk know.

Kind of a limited group of potential killers, don't ya think? Unless he was walking around downtown Boulder screaming "I got a bonus from work and THIS is the exact amount!!!!!"

.

It's a limited group, but I can think of a few more.

-Someone going through the family trash looking for credit card numbers
-A repairman who came across a letter informing the father of the raise that was left on the kitchen table.
-Anyone at the law firm, including support staff, could concievably come across that paperwork left on a desk or on a hard drive.

It's definitely most likely that whatever happened, it was someone close to the family. That's just basic crime statistics. But I don't think that, or the bonus, implicates the father personally. Can you picture him scrawling a ransom note and then thinking, "what number should I use...how about the exact number of my bonus!", or suggesting that number to a 3rd party writing the note?

[BrianD]

-Someone going through the family trash looking for credit card numbers


Just so we aren't always at odds...this was the first thing I thought of. It would seem like a lot of effort to go through the trash often enough to notice a bonus if it was a random crazy person, but someone close to the family could have heard about a bonus and then went looking for it. Using the exact bonus amount for a ransom seems like a particularly stupid idea both for the father to do, and for someone framing the father to do. I suppose it is so sufficiently stupid that you can't really pin it on anyone.

Edit: I take that back, a bonus would be a one-time amount probably indicated on a check...I was thinking of a general wage raise.

[digamma]

I don't suppose he mentioned to you what his son-in-law's bonus was....

Yes, he gave me the EXACT figure.

[TroyF]

It's a limited group, but I can think of a few more.

-Someone going through the family trash looking for credit card numbers
-A repairman who came across a letter informing the father of the raise that was left on the kitchen table.
-Anyone at the law firm, including support staff, could concievably come across that paperwork left on a desk or on a hard drive.

It's definitely most likely that whatever happened, it was someone close to the family. That's just basic crime statistics. But I don't think that, or the bonus, implicates the father personally. Can you picture him scrawling a ransom note and then thinking, "what number should I use...how about the exact number of my bonus!", or suggesting that number to a 3rd party writing the note?

1) why would someone go through the family trash looking for crap? For what purpose? If the goal was to hold the girl for ransom and this was a planned thing, why would you look through the garbage for that info?

2) Finding all repairman who walked into the house on Christmas week isn't a real hard thing to do. It could have been narrowed down even further as most people don't leave that information lying around the house for multiple days.

3) If the support staff at the law firm knew his bonus, it was horribly run. That said, it's still not a huge group of people to investigate.

I can't explain why Ramsey would have wrote the exact bonus. But I also know that the group of people with access to that information would have been sparse. And I know that were I the father of a murdered girl, I'd damned well track down ANYONE who knew that number and found out what they knew. (and yes, this does include going to the police right away and letting them know everyone who might have had the information as opposed to refusing to talk to the police for months after the murder occured)

That note has never added up to me. To me, it rules out the random crackpot. This was a close, close friend in the inner circle of the Ramsey's. I fully believe they know exactly who killed their daughter.

[digamma]

I suppose that is a step above playing golf with OJ.

That guy is always too busy searching for the real killer.

[Greyroofoo]

That guy is always too busy searching for the real killer.

Of course that's when he's not writing books on what would happen if he hypothetically did the crime.

[Surtt]

I never understood what the bonus thing was supposed to implicate or imply. If the father had anything to do with the ransom note - why would he use his exact bonus amount as a ransom?

People do stupid things when they are under a lot of stress.

[st.cronin]

My opinion is that the ransom demand equalling a bonus does not prove anything either way. If you assume the father was involved, it would be evidence - if you assume somebody close to the family is involved, it would be evidence - but making no assumptions, it doesn't point me any particular direction. It could mean a lot of different things, or it could mean nothing at all.

[TroyF]

My opinion is that the ransom demand equalling a bonus does not prove anything either way. If you assume the father was involved, it would be evidence - if you assume somebody close to the family is involved, it would be evidence - but making no assumptions, it doesn't point me any particular direction. It could mean a lot of different things, or it could mean nothing at all.

How can it possibly mean nothing at all? The number was118,000 dollars. The ransom note was three pages long, not something a killer rushed for time would be writing.

How can it not be important to this case? It greatly reduces the chance this was a random act. Look, I don't knowwho did it. I fully believe the Ramsey's knew more than they let on. For a pretty balanced look at the case, go to this link:

http://www.justicejunction.com/innocence_lost_jonbenet_ramsey_look_at_the_crime.htm

some bits:

The Ramsey’s took many, one of them in the comfortable, plush living room of a high-ranking member of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office. It has made me wonder: if I was a suspect in the murder of my daughter, would my handwriting sample be taken on a soft couch with a cup of coffee and a plate of cookies in front of me? Somehow, I doubt that would be the case. The bottom line is that the Ramsey’s were given preferential treatment because of their wealth and the lawyers that their money was bought with.


Detective Linda Arndt was at the Ramsey home at about 1:00 that afternoon. The time for the kidnappers to call was long past and Arndt was very suspicious that the Ramsey’s were not outwardly upset by the fact that the kidnapper hadn't’t called. At that moment in time, she had tried several times to get another officer over to help her control the situation. She then made one of the most crucial errors in this case. She suggested to John and Fleet White that they take a top to bottom tour of the home, to see if anything was amiss. Both men agreed to do so.
John jumped out of his chair and instead of going to the third floor, John and Patsy’s lavish bedroom suite, at the top of the house he ran down the stairs to the basement, Fleet right behind him. John had to have felt a frigid fear, but he did not show it. There was a broken basement window, that he told Fleet he had broken. There was a suitcase underneath the window that turned out to have a blanket and a child’s book inside. They turned the corner and John reached to open the door to a small room off the basement that the family referred to as the Wine Cellar. No wine was stored there; it had a few shelves and a bare bulb for light. John switched on the light and began screaming, ”Oh my God, oh my God!” He had found the lifeless body of his daughter wrapped in a blanket with her hands and neck attached loosely by a string with a stick made into a crude garrote that was deeply furrowed into the skin of her neck. Stray hair was found in the stick. There was a Barbie nightgown on the floor next to her. Fleet touched JonBenet’s bare foot and instinctively knew she was dead. Both men ran upstairs, yelling, ”She’s here! Call 911,please! She’s here!” John put his daughter on the hard floor of the foyer, and Patsy’s friends were helping her off the floor, where she had been weeping for several hours. Detective Arndt didn’t have a two way police radio and she was clearly in need of assistance. Arndt picked up JonBenet’s lifeless body and moved it near the Christmas tree.
When Patsy and her friends saw the lifeless JonBenet, Patsy threw herself over JonBenet’s body screaming hysterically, “Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead, please raise my baby!”

--------------------------------------------------------

No matter what your opinion is, there is no doubt the ineptitude of the Boulder Police Department, some of which was caused by the fear of the Ramsey's bank statement.

[bhlloy]

This is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but has anyone thought of investigating somebody within the police department?

The constant leaks whenever there was a useful fact or break in the case, unhelpful comments to the media, the refusal to turn evidence over or analyze it properly, the refusal to have independent authorities help etc... To me that goes beyond incompetence... looks like somebody with an agenda.

I agree with Troy, whatever your opinion on the parents, the PD made it completely impossible to ever get a verdict in this case.

[TroyF]

Just an FYI for the people here who don't live in CO. The way it's being reported here by the pundits is that Mary Lacy, the Boulder DA, is simply trying to save her legacy here. She's in a term limit position which ends this year and she's trying to save herself and those close to her by clearing the Ramsey's. They've had these DNA tests for quite sometime and thought the tests were pretty useless until recently.

She knows with this news being released, along with Patsy dead, this pretty much ends this case and saves what legacy she has left. (which isn't much, her term has been laced with scandals and ineptitude. Remember the CU football team rapists? Mary Lacy was the one in charge of that. She caught a university employee making an improper call with a cell phone. To date that's the only criminal conviction for anybody associated with the CU program at the time. This is despite multiple rape accusations and plenty of DNA evidence)

The real killer(s) of Jon Bonet will never be known. The case is over. I still firmly believe the family was involved in some way. So do most of the people who have spent time investigating the case. No matter, it's now up to your higher power to judge if you're religious, or will go unsolved if you're not.

[GrantDawg]

So do most of the people who have spent time investigating the case.


I keep seeing you say this, yet I have numerous experienced investagors who have studied this case extensively that have said the exact opposite, not to mention a federal judge who poured over the evidence and said that it was more consistant with an intruder.

[TroyF]

I keep seeing you say this, yet I have numerous experienced investagors who have studied this case extensively that have said the exact opposite, not to mention a federal judge who poured over the evidence and said that it was more consistant with an intruder.

Countless FBI profilers have been on shows in Colorado saying the most likely culprit with all of the evidence pointing to the family, specifically Patsy.

[molson]

Countless FBI profilers have been on shows in Colorado saying the most likely culprit with all of the evidence pointing to the family, specifically Patsy.

I haven't read as much about this as you have so I'm curious, what's your best guess of EXACTLY what happened. Let's say if you were exactly right, you'd win a million dollars or something. What do you think the best theory is? (I'm not offering you a million dollars).

[TroyF]

Just a quick link here: Peter Boyles with Caplas and Silverman, three Denver radio hosts. Boyles is the guy who has kept the Ramsey case alive for a long time and he's an unabashed person who believes the Ramsey's are involved. Caplas and Silverman are both lawyers (Silverman a former DA) Caplas is conservative, Silverman is a liberal.

It's an interesting listen to thier thoughts.

http://www.khow.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=275127&article=3747424

[Huckleberry]

Troy -

You're one of my favorite posters but if you type Ramsey's when it should say Ramseys or Ramseys' one more time I'm going to have to virtual-pimp-slap your ass.

That is all.

[TroyF]

I haven't read as much about this as you have so I'm curious, what's your best guess of EXACTLY what happened. Let's say if you were exactly right, you'd win a million dollars or something. What do you think the best theory is? (I'm not offering you a million dollars).

It's tough to speculate. I firmly believe the family was involved or know what happened. The parents, specifically Patsy were living their lives through the kid. There are many, many things that have always bothered me about the case.

1) The ransom note. Already went over. How in the hell does the "killer" know the exact amount of his bonus. Furthermore, why do you take the time to write a three page ransom note and then take the girl to the basement and kill her. How does that make sense in any meaningful way? The killer would have had to have had JonBonet under perfect control through this whole process. She was changed in an upstairs bathroom. The killer and her would have had to go to the basement without disturbing the sleeping parents. Why waste the time to write the ransom note, then go into a room in the basement and kill the child? Why even "play" with the child at that time if you were interested in cash?

2) The Ramseys actions. They were unbelievably calm during the early investigation. (when everyone thought it was a kidnapping) Patsy had her hair done up and her makeup on when the investigators arrived. They didn't seem to be bothered when the time for the supposed phone call came and went with nothing. They HAD NOT DID A COMPLETE SEARCH OF THE HOUSE until they were instructed by police to do so. And then when instructed, the father went right to the body. Think about that for a second. Forget all of the other psychology of how people should act in a case like this. Just tell me how if you as a parent woke up and couldn't find your kid, wouldn't turn the house upside down looking for the kid before you even bothered with the police. Ransom note or not, my house would be torn to the ground searching for my girl. The Ramsey's simply sat on the sofa and waited for the police.

3) The Ramseys spent a lot of time hiding behind a legal team. Patsy had a lawyer. John has a lawyer. Burke, JonBonet's brother, who was NINE YEARS old at the time had HIS OWN LAWYER. I understand giving yourself some protection, but a lawyer for each family member in the house within a couple of days of the murder? And not cooperating with the police to the point the governor of Colorado had to ask them to stop hiding behind their attorneys? Why do all of that if you have nothing to hide? Please don't give me the "they were worried about going to jail bit" because their first concern should have been finding out who in the hell killed their little girl.

So, I have 1 million dollars if I get it right? I'll leave the money to someone else. I don't know exactly what happened. I fully believe it was someone within the family, but we'll never know. The Boulder PD botched the investigation from the beginning. The Ramseys fought the PD and waited months to give police a full interview. (and the police, who someone said above was after the Ramseys from the start simply allowed that to happen without getting warrents to make them talk) By the time they gave the interview, crucial information could have been lost or forgotten. For that alone they deserve blame.

There has been DNA there from the start of the case. It's gets checked weekly against all the sex offender DNA on file. And with a database over 1.5 million, it still hasn't gotten a hit and likely never will.

I don't know exactly how it happened. . . but I do not believe for even a half second that a killer walked into the house, was so clinical that he wrote a 3 page ransom note, was calm enough to snatch a child and change her clothes in an upstairs bathroom while her parents were sleeping two doors away (while not leaving fingerprints or a loose hair anywhere either) and then was irrational enough to decide to take the girl into the wine cellar and kill her before leaving out the window again.

It doesn't add up. Never has for me and never will.

[TroyF]

Troy -

You're one of my favorite posters but if you type Ramsey's when it should say Ramseys or Ramseys' one more time I'm going to have to virtual-pimp-slap your ass.

That is all.


All I can do is hang my head in shame. :( Some journalism major I am.

[sabotai]

All I can do is hang my head in shame. :( Some journalism major I am.

Considering the quality of writing in your average newspaper article, I think it would be more accurate to blame your major than to believe you failed to live up to it. ;)

[molson]

When the father dies, and his inheritance is secure, maybe the son will write a tell-all book. He's what, 21 now?

[sabotai]

When the father dies, and his inheritance is secure, maybe the son will write a tell-all book. He's what, 21 now?

Maybe he'll write an "If I Did It" book, too,

[sterlingice]

Maybe he'll write an "If I Did It" book, too,

That just reminds me of one of my favorite SNL sketches :D

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/95/95bnflonnbc.phtml

SI

[JeeberD]

Maybe he'll write an "If I Did It" book, too,

My dad has always been completely convinced that it was the brother who did it...

[TroyF]

One last thing and I'll drop this. This is the an amazing listen. Here are some amazing facts.

You have to get through the first five minutes or so and then an interview starts that starts talking about the case. Listen to this and tell me what you think.

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KHOW-AM/0710PETE5A.mp3

[GrantDawg]

I don't know why I am doing this but....


1) The ransom note. Already went over. How in the hell does the "killer" know the exact amount of his bonus. Furthermore, why do you take the time to write a three page ransom note and then take the girl to the basement and kill her. How does that make sense in any meaningful way? The killer would have had to have had JonBonet under perfect control through this whole process. She was changed in an upstairs bathroom. The killer and her would have had to go to the basement without disturbing the sleeping parents. Why waste the time to write the ransom note, then go into a room in the basement and kill the child? Why even "play" with the child at that time if you were interested in cash?

The family was out of the home an extended amount of time that night. The belief is that the person was in the house and wrote the note while waiting for the family to return

2) The Ramseys actions. They were unbelievably calm during the early investigation. (when everyone thought it was a kidnapping) Patsy had her hair done up and her makeup on when the investigators arrived. They didn't seem to be bothered when the time for the supposed phone call came and went with nothing. They HAD NOT DID A COMPLETE SEARCH OF THE HOUSE until they were instructed by police to do so. And then when instructed, the father went right to the body. Think about that for a second. Forget all of the other psychology of how people should act in a case like this. Just tell me how if you as a parent woke up and couldn't find your kid, wouldn't turn the house upside down looking for the kid before you even bothered with the police. Ransom note or not, my house would be torn to the ground searching for my girl. The Ramsey's simply sat on the sofa and waited for the police.

There are a number of very contradictory acounts of the reactions of the family that night. Several describe Ptasy as quite erradict and far from calm. They describe John as robotic, in a state of shock. The person describing their mntal condition varies from who the person is and, quite honestly, from whether that person believed they did it or not.

3) The Ramseys spent a lot of time hiding behind a legal team. Patsy had a lawyer. John has a lawyer. Burke, JonBonet's brother, who was NINE YEARS old at the time had HIS OWN LAWYER. I understand giving yourself some protection, but a lawyer for each family member in the house within a couple of days of the murder? And not cooperating with the police to the point the governor of Colorado had to ask them to stop hiding behind their attorneys? Why do all of that if you have nothing to hide? Please don't give me the "they were worried about going to jail bit" because their first concern should have been finding out who in the hell killed their little girl.
One of the first people on the scene that night was John's best friend who hapened to be a civil lawyer. It was under his advice that the family get lawyers immediately. It is what any lawyer would advice and what any sane person would do. As a parent, you are always going to be the first and primary suspects in any investigation. The police that morning switch almost immediately after the body was found on the family. Their friend sensed this immediately and adviced them to allow the statements they had given ealry in the investigation to stand until the police collected more evidence. He didn't expect the police to overlook and totally ignore most of the crime scene in there eagerness to convict the Ramsey's.

The Boulder PD botched the investigation from the beginning. This they definitely did, and all agree The Ramseys fought the PD and waited months to give police a full interview. (and the police, who someone said above was after the Ramseys from the start simply allowed that to happen without getting warrents to make them talk. That was not the police but the DA's office. From the very begining the police looked at this as an open and shut case. They believed Patsy did it and spent their time working on that theory. The DA's office repeatedly try to turn more of the investigation beyond just the family. That was the little infighting that hampered this investigation even further.) By the time they gave the interview, crucial information could have been lost or forgotten. For that alone they deserve blame. The family actually gave a good bit of information to the police early on. It wasn't until the police seemed to focus on them that they stopped talking on the advice of their attorneys. The police plain and simple where only interested in that point to build a case against them, and they were wisely guarding against that.

There has been DNA there from the start of the case. It's gets checked weekly against all the sex offender DNA on file. And with a database over 1.5 million, it still hasn't gotten a hit and likely never will. Actually the early DNA sample was of very poor quality, especially with earlier DNA technology. They have since been able to get a more definitive samples that could match against the DNA database.

I don't know exactly how it happened. . . but I do not believe for even a half second that a killer walked into the house, was so clinical that he wrote a 3 page ransom note, was calm enough to snatch a child and change her clothes in an upstairs bathroom while her parents were sleeping two doors away (while not leaving fingerprints or a loose hair anywhere either) and then was irrational enough to decide to take the girl into the wine cellar and kill her before leaving out the window again. The sad thing is, we'll never know much of what evidence the killer left behind. The police (who were very inexperienced n dealing with murder investigations) did a horrible job collecting evidence. There might have been much that could have been found at the begining with a more experienced group. It wasn't until months after the murder that the DA's office hired an outside investigator with lots of homocide experience that the numerous mistakes made early on came to light. Totally ignored were things like footprints leading to the broken window in the room next to where the body was found. The suitcase set under the window allowing easy access out of the room. etc. etc. etc.

It doesn't add up. Never has for me and never will. Nor I, the other way. You posted two profilers who said they believe Patsy did this, but John Douglas from the very begining did not buy that and gave good reason:
“This didn’t have the look of it,” he said, explaining that he had seldom, if ever, seen such post-mortem violation of a victim, as occurred in the Ramsey case, if the killer was a relative."

[TroyF]

You continue to assert the PD stopped investigating and went right to the Ramseys when nothing could be further from the truth. The PD did EVERYTHING they could to point the finger away from the family, only turning back to them for answers after intense media pressure forced them to do so. This is a family that had a dinner with the DA at his house. You also know very little about the overall case.

How about the ransom note for one? It had NO fingerprints. Not even Jon or Patsy. Explain how they read the note. Explain how at 5:30 AM Patsy was in the clothes she wore the previous night with fully done up makeup. Explain how the Ramseys were all set to go on a trip they were supposed to leave on early that morning (which is why they got up so early) and didn't havea single bag packed. Explain why when the ransom note says:

1) the house is being watched.
2) if they call the cops Jonbonet will be BEHEADED
3) The amount in the ransom note is peanuts to John

With all those factors,the first thing the family does is call the police without telling them that little bit of information in the letter. Explain to me why they needed THREE lawyers. Look, most of us can get by with one for the family. We don't need to get a lawyer for the 8 year old. (an 8 year old, who by the way never had any police protection and went outside to play with friends away from the house that very day. Strikes me as a family terrified a killer was out there, don't you think?)

As for Douglas, he's been heavily criticized in this. By his collegues and by anyone with knowledge of the case. Why? Because of something you fail to point out and have everytime you've made a write up of this. He was paid by the family to clear their name. He was hired by them to do a job and do the job he did.

Listen to the link from Boyles above. He's studied the case more than anyone and he has always layed out a damned good case.

I have trouble listening to anything you have to say on the subject because of your continued insistence the Ramseys' were targeted early on. They weren't. Of all the mistakes the Boulder PD made, that was the worst. They coddled the family. They were so scared of pissing them off, they went out of their way to clear their names from the start. Only with media pressure and with the governor threatening to call in his own team of investigators did they even start to interview the Ramseys'. They had multiple dinners at the DA's home. Yet you continue to insist the PD targeted them.

Pardon my french here, but Bullshit. Get that fact straight and I might listen to some of the others.

[st.cronin]

I would buy the brother before the parents. The gigantic hole in any theory implicating the parents is "WHAT IS THE MOTIVE?" Parents, to my knowledge, almost never kill their children absent some serious mental illness - and nobody, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that the Ramseys are crazy.

[molson]

I wasn't very convinced by that podcast or anything in this thread that the parents had anything to do with that (though I agree with St. Cronin that the brother is a possibility).

Here's all I'm hearing - a list of "strange facts", and then a vague assertion that "this doesn't add up". That's not a criminal case.

[TroyF]

I would buy the brother before the parents. The gigantic hole in any theory implicating the parents is "WHAT IS THE MOTIVE?" Parents, to my knowledge, almost never kill their children absent some serious mental illness - and nobody, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that the Ramseys are crazy.

Patsy took medication for depression.

Never said there was a criminal case. (in truth, any hope of a real criminal case was destroyed on the first day by the Boulder PD) A ton of circumstansial evidence puts the family in the crosshairs.


In the end, it doesn't matter what any of us believe. FWIW, as long as a case is open, you should never publicly announce anyone is "in the clear" Especially with DNA evidence that isn't proven. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[gstelmack]

I'm with Troy on this. The early actions just stink to high heaven of a prominent family being protected by the police and DA despite lots of suspicious activity, to the point that all evidence was destroyed / contaminated and no one will ever know the real answers.

[molson]

I'm with Troy on this. The early actions just stink to high heaven of a prominent family being protected by the police and DA despite lots of suspicious activity, to the point that all evidence was destroyed / contaminated and no one will ever know the real answers.

You think evidence was destroyed just because the family was rich? What do they have to gain by that? And what evidence was destroyed, or are you just speculating?

Any DA's eyes would light up at a case like this as a chance to make a career.

All anyone's done is point to facts outside of the ordinary as some kind of implication of guilt. A little girl being murdered is out of the ordinary.

When someone starts talking about "if they're not guilty, why do they need a lawyer?", and "this doesn't add up", its a big red flag that someone's already decided what to think about something and the evidence doesn't really matter. I mean of course it doesn't add up, if it did, somebody would have been charged.

[molson]

I'll never believe that the mother wrote the note and used the exact bonus. Why would she do that? It's much, much, more likely (to me), that this is someone else who came across that number. The fact that it's the exact number pretty much rules out the family to me. All I'm hearing is "it's the exact number - how would anyone know that!", which nobody ever being able to explain exactly how that implicates the parents, or why they would use that number.

There's also plenty of explanations for the note + murder. An intruder could have wrote the note, but then had some trouble with JonBonet resisting, or making noise, so he just killed her and ran out. The ransom note could have been written earlier, while the family was away.

The police were obviously determined to pin a case on the Ramseys. Damn straight they were right to hire lawyers and not talk to anyone. As for the police, you've criticized them for not "getting warrents to make them talk" - no such warrant exists, the Ramseys have every right not to talk to anybody, and it was a pretty smart right to exercise when the police have already decided that you're guilty.

There's just about ZERO admissable evidence against parents. It's not that it's just "circumstantial", circumstantial evidence is often admissable, can be quite devastating, and can win cases all on its own. But there's nothing here that would even get close to the level of probable cause.

[st.cronin]

This is just my opinion, but it seems to me that if you want to accuse anybody in this crime (parents, brother, friends of family, random weirdo, OJ Simpson, etc.), you have to, at the very least, construct a plausible story that covers all known evidence and includes a motive. I don't think this can be done with the parents - I think it can be done with almost anybody OTHER than the parents that has been touted as a possible suspect. If somebody thinks it can be done with the parents, I challenge them to show me.

[TroyF]

This is just my opinion, but it seems to me that if you want to accuse anybody in this crime (parents, brother, friends of family, random weirdo, OJ Simpson, etc.), you have to, at the very least, construct a plausible story that covers all known evidence and includes a motive. I don't think this can be done with the parents - I think it can be done with almost anybody OTHER than the parents that has been touted as a possible suspect. If somebody thinks it can be done with the parents, I challenge them to show me.

No, actually if it's the family, you don't have to. A stressed out parent kills their kid in a fit of rage is all you need. All of their actions afterward aren't motive related, they are done to avoid punishment.

Does a parent who shakes their kid to death have a motive?

Besides, WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE MOTIVE FOR ANYONE TO DO THIS?

Was it about money as the ransom note suggests? (if so, why kill the little girl and leave her in the basement?)

Was it about a sexual predator taking the little girl? (OK, than why leave a ransom note with more evidence to lead a trail back to you? Why not abduct the girl, get out and use her for your needs where nobody can catch you while you play out sick fantasies?)

So no St. Cronin, no motive can really be put to this without a killer because none of it makes any sense at all. All I have to go on are a ton of inconsistencies in the way the Ramsey family behaved. (and in the way they were treated by the Boulder PD)

People have been convicted with far less circumstansial evidence than the Ramsey family had against them. Their money and their connections kept them out of ever having to go to court.

I

[st.cronin]

No, actually if it's the family, you don't have to. A stressed out parent kills their kid in a fit of rage is all you need. All of their actions afterward aren't motive related, they are done to avoid punishment.

Does a parent who shakes their kid to death have a motive?

She wasn't shaken to death, she was garroted, and sexually assaulted. A rage killing or accidental killing seems implausible based on my reading of the evidence.

WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE MOTIVE FOR ANYONE TO DO THIS?

Deranged sexuality, hatred of the Ramseys for whatever reason, jealousy, etc.

[molson]

Was it about money as the ransom note suggests? (if so, why kill the little girl and leave her in the basement?)

Was it about a sexual predator taking the little girl? (OK, than why leave a ransom note with more evidence to lead a trail back to you? Why not abduct the girl, get out and use her for your needs where nobody can catch you while you play out sick fantasies?)

So no St. Cronin, no motive can really be put to this without a killer because none of it makes any sense at all. All I have to go on are a ton of inconsistencies in the way the Ramsey family behaved. (and in the way they were treated by the Boulder PD)

People have been convicted with far less circumstansial evidence than the Ramsey family had against them. Their money and their connections kept them out of ever having to go to court.

I

You can ask the same kinds of questions the other way, against the theory that she was beaten to death in a rage by her mother.

-Why write a ransom note at all that could be traced back to you? Why use as the ransom amount the exact number of the bonus?
-Why leave the daughter in the house?? Why not get rid of the body so nobody finds it?
-Who belongs to the 3rd party DNA that was found on the victim and murder weapon? Why is someone else involved if this is just a "fit of rage gone bad".
-If this is some big conspiracy by the PD to clear the family, why did they immediately (and unprofessionally) play up the parents as suspects the media? Why did the police tell the media there were "no signs of forced entry" (and not tell anyone for over a year that there was a broken basement window and unlocked doors).\

[st.cronin]

Dola, I'm also pretty sure that there is zero evidence of any parental or spousal abuse prior to the murder, which you would certainly expect to find in the case that the parents were guilty.

[TredWel]

Parents, to my knowledge, almost never kill their children absent some serious mental illness - and nobody, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that the Ramseys are crazy.

Patsy took medication for depression.

I highly doubt that depression, or even medication for depression, would cause one to garotte one's own child out of the blue.

Besides, most people suffering from depression are liable to harm themselves rather than others.

[GrantDawg]

You continue to assert the PD stopped investigating and went right to the Ramseys when nothing could be further from the truth. The PD did EVERYTHING they could to point the finger away from the family, only turning back to them for answers after intense media pressure forced them to do so. This is a family that had a dinner with the DA at his house. You also know very little about the overall case.

How about the ransom note for one? It had NO fingerprints. Not even Jon or Patsy. Explain how they read the note. Explain how at 5:30 AM Patsy was in the clothes she wore the previous night with fully done up makeup. Explain how the Ramseys were all set to go on a trip they were supposed to leave on early that morning (which is why they got up so early) and didn't havea single bag packed. Explain why when the ransom note says:

1) the house is being watched.
2) if they call the cops Jonbonet will be BEHEADED
3) The amount in the ransom note is peanuts to John

With all those factors,the first thing the family does is call the police without telling them that little bit of information in the letter. Explain to me why they needed THREE lawyers. Look, most of us can get by with one for the family. We don't need to get a lawyer for the 8 year old. (an 8 year old, who by the way never had any police protection and went outside to play with friends away from the house that very day. Strikes me as a family terrified a killer was out there, don't you think?)

As for Douglas, he's been heavily criticized in this. By his collegues and by anyone with knowledge of the case. Why? Because of something you fail to point out and have everytime you've made a write up of this. He was paid by the family to clear their name. He was hired by them to do a job and do the job he did.

Listen to the link from Boyles above. He's studied the case more than anyone and he has always layed out a damned good case.

I have trouble listening to anything you have to say on the subject because of your continued insistence the Ramseys' were targeted early on. They weren't. Of all the mistakes the Boulder PD made, that was the worst. They coddled the family. They were so scared of pissing them off, they went out of their way to clear their names from the start. Only with media pressure and with the governor threatening to call in his own team of investigators did they even start to interview the Ramseys'. They had multiple dinners at the DA's home. Yet you continue to insist the PD targeted them.

Pardon my french here, but Bullshit. Get that fact straight and I might listen to some of the others.


I'll just stop and here and say read a few books on the case because there are about a thousand mistakes within it.

[GrantDawg]

No, actually if it's the family, you don't have to. A stressed out parent kills their kid in a fit of rage is all you need. All of their actions afterward aren't motive related, they are done to avoid punishment.

Does a parent who shakes their kid to death have a motive?

Besides, WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE MOTIVE FOR ANYONE TO DO THIS?

Was it about money as the ransom note suggests? (if so, why kill the little girl and leave her in the basement?)

Was it about a sexual predator taking the little girl? (OK, than why leave a ransom note with more evidence to lead a trail back to you? Why not abduct the girl, get out and use her for your needs where nobody can catch you while you play out sick fantasies?)

So no St. Cronin, no motive can really be put to this without a killer because none of it makes any sense at all. All I have to go on are a ton of inconsistencies in the way the Ramsey family behaved. (and in the way they were treated by the Boulder PD)

People have been convicted with far less circumstansial evidence than the Ramsey family had against them. Their money and their connections kept them out of ever having to go to court.

I

All of these points are from the Judge's ruling in federal court, not from any other source. Her findings in looking over all of the evidence found that the evidence more consistantly fits an intruder and that the police mishandled the case in their myopic attempt to convict the Ramsey's. Her findings:

Carnes also criticized Boulder police, saying that "a series of events compromised the crime scene" and that its officers, including Thomas, had little or no experience in homicide investigation.

In addition, police adopted a suggestion by the FBI "to publicly name [the Ramseys'] as suspects and apply intense media pressure to them so that they would confess to the crime." The police department's attempt to "smoke out" the Ramseys as their daughter's killers utilized the media as a tool, according to Carnes' order. "In addition to this intentional use of the press, a number of leaks of confidential information, at various stages of the murder investigation, served to hamper the ability of the Boulder Police Department to conduct an effective investigation into the crime."

Carnes' order also lists a series of largely uncontested facts that suggest an intruder entered the Ramsey home and murdered JonBenét. Among them:

• At least seven windows and a door in the Ramsey home were found open or unlocked after JonBenét disappeared. The alarm was off and windows were accessible from the ground level, including three that opened into the basement.

• Evidence suggested that an intruder climbed through a basement window and walked through the room where JonBenét was found.

• JonBenét's body was bound with complicated rope slipknots and a garrote that the order described as "sophisticated bondage devices" by someone "with an expertise in bondage." No evidence suggests the Ramseys knew how to tie such knots.

• Black duct tape found on JonBenét's mouth was never found in the Ramsey home, although evidence suggested "it came from a roll of tape that had been used before."

• Nothing in the Ramsey home matched dark animal hairs found on the duct tape and JonBenét's hands.

• Newly made, unidentified shoeprints, including one with a HI-TEC brand mark, were found on the basement floor. None of the Ramseys' shoes matched those prints.

• A palm print on the wine-cellar door where JonBenét's body was found does not match the Ramseys' palm prints and has never been identified.

• A baseball bat found outside the house with fibers consistent with fibers found on the carpet in the basement where JonBenét's body was found did not belong to the Ramseys.

• Brown cotton fibers found on JonBenét's body, the paintbrush used as a garrote, the duct tape and the ligature around her neck did not match anything in the Ramsey home.

• Male DNA found under JonBenét's fingernails and in her underwear does not match that of any Ramsey and has not been identified yet.

• A pubic hair found on the blanket covering JonBenét's body did not match that of any Ramsey.

• Injuries found on the child's body are consistent with the use of a stun gun, according to a forensic pathologist. The Ramseys swore they had never owned or operated a stun gun and none was found in their home. Carnes cited testimony by A. Louis "Lou" Smit, a homicide detective originally hired by the Boulder Police Department to investigate JonBenét's death but who later began working for the Ramseys. Smit has said he believes JonBenét was subdued by a stun gun.

Carnes reserved special criticism for Thomas, the former Boulder detective upon whose theories the Wolf complaint was based. "Whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas' theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support," she wrote.

"Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case. In short, the plaintiff's evidence that the [Ramseys] killed their daughter and covered up their crime is based on little more than the fact that defendants were present in the house during the murder," Carnes wrote.

I was covinced very early as well that it was the parents, but the main reason I as well as most did, was because of a wealth of information about the case leaked to the press by the police department in an attempt to try the family in the media. Much of that information was debunked later. Every outside source that has looked at how this case was handled universally said the police did a horrible job with the investegation and overlooked important evidence because they were running on one theory alone.

If the family did it, where is the stun gun that was used, and why would a parent use a stun gun on a child? Whose pubic hair was on the blanket? How did another male touch the inside of her panties? Where did the animal hair come from on the inside of the tape?

I've looked at some of theories that people have to try to explain this stuff away, but they far from work. Some people have just determined that the family was guilt and refuse to look at any other explaination. When I started looking at this stuff (because of interest in an open murder case with some much publicity), I decided early to open my mind. It was hard because everything I heard from the media pointed to the family. But after reading several books from both sides of the case and several neutral parties, I have a hard time believing this was not done by an intruder. It was someone who either knew the family or was obessed with Jonbenet in some way.

I still think there is a chance the murder will be solved, but at this point is going to take that indiviual (or even at a slim chance, indiviuals) to do something stupid or just confess. My opinion this person is in prison on other charges in another state, or dead already.

[GrantDawg]

Just as a dola, and as an example of how silly some of these explainations are: I read one explaination of how the male DNA got in to her panties that was actually given by a DNA expert that looked at the evidence early on. He said "it might have come from the plant the underwear was made in." Of course that would have meant Jonbenet went to the plant directly to purchase them, and scratch the guy that made them as thanks, and then he put her longjohns on her before she left.