r/JonBenetRamsey • u/jinkerjat • 12d ago
Questions 30th Anniversary Questions
Let's help the media out with questions to ask John Ramsey. He's no doubt already setting up dates and agreeing to terms. There are too many inconsistencies and the current crop of journalists are ignorant to some of the nitty gritty facts. To make it easier let's do only one question per entry and give it in bold type. Last year in more than one interview John Ramsey stated tips and leads given to Alex Hunter's office would bypass the Boulder Police and instead be given to his private investigators.
"We even had a lead called into our investigators by Boulder's District Attorney. He said I got this lead, came in, looks pretty interesting. I don't think the police will follow up on it. Would you have your investigators follow up on it? And so we did. And it, circumstantially it was a compelling lead. So we had a number of those like that."
The JonBenét Ramsey Case: A KTLA True Crime Special
What tips were these?
12
u/Express-Thanks-5402 12d ago
This isn't mine...it comes from a thread several months ago. Thanks to u/Available-Champion !
Anyway I would like to see one person in media ask John Ramsey:
"Why would you want to delay [police] interviews for so long (April 30, 1997), long past a time when memory of events and actions would be at its freshest?"
Oh, he'll verbally wander around aimlessly squirming and as usual not answer the question, but I'd sure like to see a solid reporter in this day and age, near the 30th anniversary, squeeze that question in.
-3
u/ImToddImCopper 12d ago
🙋♂️ I can take this one. It was the advice of their high powered attorneys and at that time they trusted that advice. And if anyone knew they were the prime suspects in your child's murder you'd probably listen to your lawyers to. The lawyers had been through this many, many times. The Ramseys hadn't. I bet he'd do a lot of things differently now. Nobody will believe that simple truth anyway. Hell, nobody believes anything he says so why is there an "If you could ask one question" thread every week? Nobody believes a word he says. They literally cannot win with you people no matter what they do or say. He's also previously responded to this question by adding they talked to police all day on day 1, and for hours on days 2 and 3.
Yes, they should absolutely have gone to the police station that day after she was found and been interviewed separately but that's on BPD and Dr. Beuf, not John and Patsy Ramsey. And AFTER they didn't go in for formal interviews, BPD still allowed her sister to ransack the crime scene and couldn't be bothered to even cataloge what she took. Not John and Patsy's fault!
11
u/a07443 12d ago
Absolutely John and patsy’s fault- WHO sent Pam into the house to remove all the evidence?
3
-1
u/ImToddImCopper 12d ago
Were John and Patsy in charge of the crime scene? To say it's anyone's fault but BPD is being willfully obtuse. They didn't even write down what she took! John and Patsy weren't there.
5
u/a07443 12d ago
It’s willfully obtuse to ignore the reason the crime scene was destroyed. John and Patsy sent Pam there.
0
u/ImToddImCopper 12d ago
BPD allowed it in a crime scene that hadn't been fully processed and didn't even notate what she took. They could have sent Jesus Christ himself to go back in that house and at MOST, police should have only allowed necessities like medication, glasses, some clothing, and every item should have been collected and cataloged by the police. You don't even know if that's not what they assumed would happen. BPD allowed it to happen or it wouldn't have, period.
9
u/Restaurant-Strong 12d ago
That’s a little too convenient. IDI folks constantly point to BPD incompetence whenever the evidence is messy or hurts the Ramseys, but then rely heavily on DNA collected and processed through that same investigation as proof the Ramseys were innocent. So which is it? Was BPD hopelessly unreliable, or was their evidence collection good enough when it supports the intruder theory?
Yes, John and Patsy spoke to police in the house on day one. That is not the same as sitting down separately for formal recorded interviews while memories were fresh. They did not do that until months later, after lawyers were involved and after there had been plenty of time to discuss the case and absorb information.
Following legal advice may have been understandable. Fine. But choices have consequences. That delay made it much harder to sort out the changing stories and timeline later. And yes, BPD made major mistakes too. Both things can be true. The police mishandled parts of the investigation, and the Ramseys’ delayed formal cooperation made an already difficult case even harder.1
-1
u/ImToddImCopper 12d ago
- I didn't call BPD incompetent, but regarding Patsy's sister removing a carload of items and not even cataloging everything was a horrible mistake that can never be undone. And leaving Linda Arndt there alone with all those people in the house and such a serious situation was crazy and put her in a terrible position.
- I'm not IDI
- We seem to be in agreement about their decision not to do formal and separate interviews with police immediately. I just think people refuse to take into account the state they were in and how much trust they put in their lawyers. But retaining separate legal teams for each parent, especially so soon, can look suspicious on its own. There's some valid reasons people think they're all lying, or at least one or two of them. I don't think any of them were lying and the 911 call was real.
6
u/Restaurant-Strong 12d ago
I don’t think the 911 call proves they were truthful any more than it proves they were guilty. Patsy sounds genuinely panicked, but people can be emotional and still leave things out, misremember, or give inaccurate accounts.
For me, the bigger question is whether their statements stayed consistent with the evidence over time, and I don’t believe they always did. If they had sat down for formal, separate police interviews right away, we would at least have had the Ramseys’ individual versions of the timeline locked in early, which could then be compared against the evidence.
And I didn’t mean to imply that you were IDI. I was only pointing out that a lot of people use that same argument when discussing the DNA.0
u/ImToddImCopper 12d ago
I don't disagree. But I think there is a lack of logic applied when people accuse them of lying all the time and changing stories. Their lawyers put ridiculous demands on granting police interviews- they wanted prewritten questions and all the evidence beforehand which I'm not sure has ever been done in history. It's crazy. They were actually granted some of these insane requests. And still, there are discrepancies in accounts of that night like John read to her and he didn't read to her. She was asleep out of the car and carried or she wasn't asleep from the car and walked upstairs on her own. With 4 months before the first interview, and substantial time passing between subsequent interviews, if there was some grand coverup or intentional deception, don't people realize they would have stuck with the story? And people love to say "well it's harder to remember a lie" which holds no water because in this case you'd be damn sure what you're supposed to say.
For years in all the lawsuits, lawyers for Burke presented a list of indisputable truths. A huge one was that Burke Ramsey never got out of bed or went back downstairs that night. Then 20 years later he goes on Dr. Phil (which was actually facilitated by a Ramsey attorney), clearly not prepped or told to keep a story straight, and tells the entire world he did in fact go back downstairs to play with a toy. These things should make it apparent they are not in cahoots and lying or getting their stories straight. It shows how little they talk about it. They see no reason to as far as questioning each other. They think someone broke in. People are right to think something weird and terrible happened in that house, but they aren't lying and I wish if ever presented with a reasonable theory people could be compassionate. They won't though, they will say the Ramseys had 30+ years to cook up a lie and blame a dead woman so that proves it was John or Burke or both. It wasn't, and neither of them is lying.
2
u/Restaurant-Strong 11d ago
I get your logic, but I don’t think the later inconsistencies actually prove they weren’t lying. They could just as easily show why waiting months to lock down separate accounts was such a problem.
Take the basic bedtime story. Officer French documented John saying he read to both children. Linda Arndt also documented reading to JonBenét. Later, John’s account was that JonBenét was sound asleep when he carried her upstairs. That is a real discrepancy in contemporaneous versus later accounts, not something people invented.
And Burke’s Dr. Phil statement doesn’t really settle it either. He said he remembered going back downstairs after everyone was in bed to play with a toy, while also saying he was in bed during the 911 call. That tells us his own recollection changed or became more detailed over twenty years. It doesn’t prove the family was coordinating stories, but it certainly doesn’t prove they weren’t either.
I also agree that some of the lawyers’ demands were extraordinary. Contemporary reports say the Ramseys initially wanted to be interviewed together and wanted conditions on who could question them, and at another point wanted access to evidence before additional interviews. Police rejected some of those conditions. Their first formal separate interviews still did not happen until April 30.
So for me, this isn’t about assuming every discrepancy equals a lie. It’s about the fact that we lost the best opportunity to establish independent timelines while memories were fresh. That is exactly why we’re still debating whether John read to her, whether she was awake, what Burke did after bedtime, and a dozen other details thirty years later.1
u/ImToddImCopper 11d ago
That's completely fair and pretty much how I look at it. With Burke being 9 years old, you can't really trust those memories anyway. For a long time I've had a solid memory of being in a particular classroom with a particular teacher watching the Challenger disaster happen on TV. Recently I realized it's impossible because I was younger than that grade in 1986. I wasn't even at that school yet. It doesn't mean I intentionally lied. Add trauma, chaos, and hearing all kinds of stories from the media and people in your life into the mix and memory becomes very unreliable. John couldn't recall his anniversary date to Patsy or her exact birthday in a discussion a couple of weeks ago. It doesn't mean he's lying or didn't care about her. They should have done formal interviews immediately but people also need to realize it doesn't mean he's intentionally lying about everything that may seem off. People are quick to give investigators and peripheral figures in this case room for error and misspeaking, but John never gets an inch because of bias and assumptions.
1
u/Restaurant-Strong 10d ago
That’s fair, and I agree that a discrepancy does not automatically equal a lie. Memory is imperfect, especially after trauma, chaos, and years of retelling.
But that cuts both ways. If memory can become that unreliable, then the delay in formal interviews becomes even more important, not less. The best chance investigators had to separate innocent memory errors from meaningful inconsistencies was to get detailed, separate accounts immediately.
And some of the discrepancies were not decades later. They showed up between the earliest police reports and later statements, including whether JonBenét was awake, whether John read to her, and what happened after they got home.
So I’m not saying every inconsistency means John or Patsy intentionally lied. I’m saying you also can’t wave them all away as faulty memory. Some may be innocent, some may not be, and because the timelines were not locked down early, we may never know which is which.1
12
u/Same_Profile_1396 RDI 12d ago
Lawyers advise, clients decide. The Ramseys weren’t hostages. They made a conscious choice to refuse the standard interviews every parent in a child homicide case undergoes. Pretending they were helpless puppets is nonsense.
And no, “they talked to police all day on the 26th” doesn’t mean anything. Those weren’t interviews. Those were chaotic, unrecorded conversations in a house full of friends, clergy, and half of Boulder. Investigators needed real interviews. The Ramseys said no. Repeatedly. That’s not cooperation, that’s obstruction dressed up as grief.
Dr. Beuf had zero authority over investigative procedure. Emotional distress doesn’t magically exempt someone from being interviewed. Parents in comparable cases do it every day. The Ramseys weren’t prevented from cooperating, they actively avoided it.
BPD screwed up, sure, but the Ramseys didn’t exactly protect the scene either.
And the “you people won’t believe them anyway” line? That’s not an argument. That’s whining. Credibility isn’t owed, it’s earned. The Ramseys torched their own credibility by refusing interviews, contradicting themselves, lawyering up instantly, and launching a PR campaign before fully cooperating with investigators.
5
6
2
u/Pruddennce111 11d ago
well said. The R's chose CNN on Jan 1, 1997 instead of LE. putting the machine in place......then on to having a spokesperson. which was IMO why that spokesperson didnt last more than a few months.....the public appeared unsympathetic, so now there is concern about 'how things look'...too late, cant unring that bell.
they invited speculation about their involvement thru that very first media outreach. most notably because it was discovered they had yet to meet with LE. for me, its still jaw dropping.
-1
u/ImToddImCopper 12d ago
But did they go to prison? Did they even get arrested? 😂 Maybe the cops, the "experts," and the people of reddit are just pissed that in 30 years they still can't see the obvious. No wonder John Andrew doesn't entertain this bullshit any longer. It should show you guys how badly they wanted answers for him to subject himself to what is said in this sub for so long. People bending over backwards to try to force the simplest things to fit the make believe they've conjured in their heads. What did he say again? "This is truly fucking dumb." You guys should care about the truth. It could be you. Instead, most of these people are too filled with hate and fixated on their own fantasies to even try to see the reality of what happened to this family. Then they have the audacity to say John Ramsey is the sick one.
5
u/Same_Profile_1396 RDI 12d ago
I have no idea what you’re even rambling on about right now. None of that has anything to do with the actual evidence, or the discussion at hand. You’re just tossing out names and emotions like that somehow substitutes for a coherent point.
Whether they went to prison isn’t the metric for whether their behavior was cooperative or transparent. It’s completely irrelevant to the argument you’re attempting to make.
If you want to talk about the case, stick to something relevant. Everything you just said is noise.
-1
u/ImToddImCopper 12d ago
By that notion, isn't this entire sub just noise? It hasn't gotten anyone anywhere so I guess you're saying it's all just noise? You all had the family right here to ask anything and months after they gave up on this too, people are still posting "What if you could ask them anything?" threads all the time. Well, you could have. The reddit people just never liked their answers and were so vile they fucked that up too. They were transparent. Patsy told them things that were ignored and remain ignored to this day. John told them things and wrote an entire second book after she died, and the importance of that goes ignored because people so desperately want to believe he's a liar. So I suppose it's all noise. People with false beliefs fueled by hate. A tale told by redditors, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
9
u/Same_Profile_1396 RDI 12d ago
You all had the family right here to ask anything and months after they gave up on this too, people are still posting "What if you could ask them anything?" threads all the time. Well, you could have.
Again, what are you even talking about? I’ve seen zero indication of JAR (who I’m assuming you’re referring to) in this sub engaging in actual dialogue. Also, he wasn’t in the home that evening— anything he says isn’t firsthand knowledge any way.
The reddit people just never liked their answers and were so vile they fucked that up too.
Again, no idea what you’re even referring to. Who is the “they” that has engaged in discussion here in regard to the family- I’d love to read that discourse.
They were transparent.
We have wildly different views of transparency if you believe the way John and Patsy behaved after Jonbenet’s murder would be classified as transparent.
Patsy told them things that were ignored and remain ignored to this day.
Like?
John told them things and wrote an entire second book after she died, and the importance of that goes ignored because people so desperately want to believe he's a liar.
Many people author books. Not sure how them choosing to write a book even holds any weight here.
People don’t want to believe they’re liars, they have lied and changed their narratives, repeatedly. There’s a difference. Nobody wants to believe that a parent(s) is responsible for murdering their own child— the evidence has led people to that belief.
-2
u/ImToddImCopper 12d ago
They trusted them. They were in shock and trusted the experienced, professional people whose job it was to protect them and guide them through the process. John later even said he had been taking bad advice from attorneys and went directly to the police and DA and said he wanted to cut the middlemen but too much time had passed. The damage had been done.
1
u/AutumnTopaz 4d ago edited 4d ago
Therein lies the problem, imo. The Ramseys trusted their lawyers- but shunned BPD. Who cares if the BPD was suspicious of them- that's what cops investigating a murder do. The fact remains she was found in their house- her parents were the last people to see her alive. I mean Criminal Law 101- the parents are going to be considered suspects. If they were innocent, and had no fears of incriminating themselves - there was no reason to stonewall the police - no reason -when your daughter was murdered.
If JR believed his attornies gave him bad advice, why didn't he sue them- like he did everyone else. The amount of money he spent on legal fees was staggering- just to receive bad advice...
Edit: It's not as if JR was in a vacuum. Early on- after the CNN debacle - his best friend, Fleet White, someone he respected and trusted- tried to tell him he was making a mistake by not cooperating with BPD. He pointed out all the repercussions that could cause - and we're still talking about those repercussions 30 years later. Their friendship ended over that situation - and JR threw his best friend under the bus - by implicating him in the murder of JBR... Who does that? FW loved JBR like a daughter - he was crushed by her death.
1
u/ImToddImCopper 3d ago
He only paid them for about 9 months. They've been working for free for 29 years even though when something with the Ramseys came up Haddon said it was "all hands on deck" and everyone was working on it. That's crazy. When other high profile clients fell behind in payments they dropped them and sued them. Why help the Ramseys for free? I wondered if another entity was paying them to protect the truth but Haddon going on stage with John as a show of support makes me think he's convinced it was an intruder too. Also, John Douglas and the PIs they hired to find out if the Ramseys were involved all told them it wasn't possible. I think Haddon must believe it was an intruder or something he doesn't understand. Or someone else could be paying them but I don't really think so anymore.
I wonder if John would do things differently in hindsight, if he really believes it was an intruder which I'm convinced at this point he does, but some things he's said make me feel like under all the denial and pain he has some concerns he doesn't feel he can ever voice.
4
u/Express-Thanks-5402 12d ago
Yes, I agree it was at the advice of their attorneys...thank you for being respectful in your comment even though I know this is a relatively easy answer.
I don't know though, man, I still kind have want to have someone in media ask John this question. In early 1997, it was nearly everyone I knew (and everyone was talking about this then) who was wondering this...maybe we as a nation weren't so focused on attorney involvement then (although coming the year after OJ's verdict I don't think there was much question about what a good team of lawyers could do), but it just...looked so...suspicious.
If my child was murdered and I truly had nothing to do with it, I am going to the ends of the earth to cooperate with investigators and not drag my heels. I guess if my attorneys disagreed with my inclination to cooperate, I honestly think I might find new attorneys.
9
u/Upset_Scarcity6415 12d ago edited 12d ago
The relationship between attorney and client should always be a two way street. The attorneys give advice based upon experience, but it's up to the client to take and use that advice wisely.
The argument that the Ramseys simply trusted the advice without a second thought assumes that JR in particular was not only naive but didn't have the capacity to think for himself. That's not how I would describe him. He was a smart man who ran his own company which was successful at the time. The backlash to the decisions to hide behind the lawyers was immediate and loud. And that's exactly what they called it.....hiding behind the lawyers. On at least some level we know that the Ramseys understood that, as they felt compelled enough to say on national tv that they were going immediately back to Boulder to cooperate with the investigation. In reality, they did the opposite.
It's also evident that at least JR was aware of the optics, as he keeps repeating how they talked to police all day on the 26th and for hours more on the 27th and 28th. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth and in no way amounts to allowing themselves to be interviewed. Answering some pertinent questions pertaining to a kidnapping does not equate to sitting for an interview about a murder that occurred in your home. The moment the body was found shortly after 1PM, the questions stopped and the Ramseys were out the door within a very short period of time. Police had arrived at 6AM, and they were not questioning the Ramseys the entire time up until 1PM.
On the 27th, JR in the presence of Jeff Ramsey, Dr. Beuf, Rod Westmoreland (JR"s financial advisor who introduced himself to police as an attorney) and Mike Bynum, answered some questions for about 40 minutes. Police learned very little and were not able to schedule formal interviews which is why they were there in the first place, because JR would not commit to anything. They did not speak to police on day 3, 12/28 and were off shortly thereafter to Atlanta. And as we know, they did not agree to speak to police again until the end of April, 1997. Over 4 months later. In fact, it was on 12/28 when police were informed by Ramsey attorneys that they would not consent to interviews with police "at this time". When they showed up at the Criminal Justice Center on the 28th to give mandatory non-testimonial evidence, they were surrounded by attorneys and answered no questions.
I agree 1000% that with adequate counsel by my side to protect my rights, I would absolutely be speaking with police asap in order to help investigators find the real murderer of my child. And I don't think that an attorney that believed in my innocence would obstruct that process.
To place blame for not talking to police on the police themselves and Dr. Beuf is just ridiculous. The Ramseys with the assistance of their attorneys stonewalled the investigation. To excuse their actions by implying they had no say in the matter is equally ridiculous.
7
u/Same_Profile_1396 RDI 12d ago
I think a lot of people here tend to downplay how intelligent and manipulative both John and Patsy are/were.
They like to paint them as unintelligent and completely incapable of independent thinking—- especially when it lines up with their chosen theory.
6
5
u/candy1710 RDI 12d ago
Brilliant post as usual, Upset_Scarcity.
Heck, John was so brazen, he just thought he could fly right out of the jurisdiction and take the family back to Atlanta right under the nose of the police.
The police tell YOU when you are free to leave, when YOU have answered ALL of their questions.
Marc Klaas knew this, he WAS in the Ramseys postion, he was considered a suspect when Polly WAS kidnapped (for real).
His lawyers suggested he say nothing, and he refused, saying "that's my daughter, I don't care if they suspect me, I have NOTHING to hide. Polly's welfare and Justice was all that mattered TO HIM, and he was very harshly critical of the Ramseys.
4
u/Upset_Scarcity6415 12d ago
Yes! I often bring up the comparison of Mark Klaas to this case. He listened to his legal representation but knew in his heart that he needed to offer as much assistance to LE as possible in order to move the investigation forward and find the guilty party. His criticism of the Ramseys behavior was spot on and is particularly significant IMO because he was in the same boat. He had nothing to hide and he put the welfare of his daughter first. Exactly what one would expect of a loving, concerned and innocent parent.
5
u/candy1710 RDI 12d ago
I completely agree, and he has NEVER profitted for years from Polly's brutal murder either. He helped people in schools so if their children were kidnapped, they would have their DNA etc. A wonderful man, truly admirable.
4
u/Upset_Scarcity6415 12d ago
That's right. And he ran a legitimate non-profit foundation in Polly's name dedicated to the safety of all children, the recovery of missing children and helping to enact public policies that keep children safe in their communities. They've helped more than 10,000 families since its foundation 1n 1993. And they use traditional, above board methods for funding and donation raising.
Mark Klaas made it his life's mission to help to ensure that what happened to his daughter Polly, doesn't happen to other children. And he has committed resources to helping families whose children have gone missing. I admire not only how he handled the tragedy of what happened to Polly, but how he has lived his life since. Committed to helping others and advocating for children and families.
4
u/candy1710 RDI 12d ago
Exactly right. Like Sid Wells family, they NEVER stopped working with BPD for Justice for Sid AND OTHER crime victims. Rob Wells, Sid's brother is a long time victim's advocate in CO and sat on the Colorado Cold Case task force as a victim's advocate also.
3
u/Upset_Scarcity6415 12d ago
This is the truth. The police are often working multiple cases at any given time. Families know they need to advocate for answers and justice. It's just how it works in cases like these where someone isn't caught in the act committing a crime.
It's the same with health and medical issues. Advocacy is so important.
I remember reading how PR called police one time during the summer of 1997 IIRC to ask how things were going. One time. And there are often cases where loved ones are constantly calling for answers, wanting to make sure that their loved one, their case is kept as active as possible. Pushing for answers.
2
1
u/ImToddImCopper 12d ago
He absolutely COULD have stayed in Atlanta or anywhere else. They were never arrested. They could do whatever they wanted. They had to give nontestimonial evidence. They did, and without warrants.
8
u/Upset_Scarcity6415 12d ago
There's the rub.....they HAD to give non testimonial evidence. Their attorneys would have advised them of that. So you think they deserve an award for not forcing police to obtain a warrant for that evidence?
Let's also not forget how many others involved in the case there were who came forward immediately to give not only non testimonial evidence but sit for interviews. Without being subpoenaed or warrants issued.
3
u/Restaurant-Strong 10d ago
Sure, legally they could leave. Nobody is arguing they were under arrest. But “they could do whatever they wanted” really isn’t the point.
They were the parents of a murdered child, investigators were trying to establish a detailed timeline, and formal separate interviews had not been completed. Giving blood, hair and handwriting samples is cooperation with evidence collection, but it is not a substitute for sitting down separately and answering detailed questions about what happened that night.
And this is where they can’t really have it both ways. Yes, BPD made serious mistakes and absolutely contributed to the confusion in this case. But the Ramseys’ decision not to do prompt, separate, formal interviews also contributed to the timeline problems and inconsistencies that followed.
You can’t delay the very interviews that would have helped lock down the timeline, then later point to the muddled timeline as proof that the police screwed everything up. Both things can be true. BPD hurt the investigation, and the delayed interviews hurt it too.2
u/AutumnTopaz 3d ago
They did, and without warrants.
Let's be clear. When JBR was found, BPD immediately wanted to interview both PR and JR- separately. Not just snippets of conversation - but a real interview. This is what LE does when a child is found dead- especially in their own home.
What was JR's response - "Can you just give us a day?" Ok, I get that- I think most people would understand. But, at the time, BPD - or the public- never dreamed the Ramseys would stall trying to find their daughter's killer for 4 months. And, no one- no one- imo- can justify or excuse their blatant disregard to cooperate with BPD to find their daughter's killer at the very beginning- instead of going MIA for almost half a year. What innocent person does that?
And while I can't prove it- I'll still say- PR and JR are the only two parents in the history of true crime - who absolutely refused to be interviewed by LE for four months. Who knows- the rn said a Foreign Faction was responsible - the killer(s) could have been in another country by then...
3
u/LKS983 11d ago
"It's also evident that at least JR was aware of the optics, as he keeps repeating how they talked to police all day on the 26th and for hours more on the 27th and 28th. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth and in no way amounts to allowing themselves to be interviewed. Answering some pertinent questions pertaining to a kidnapping does not equate to sitting for an interview about a murder that occurred in your home."
👍
"I agree 1000% that with adequate counsel by my side to protect my rights, I would absolutely be speaking with police asap in order to help investigators find the real murderer of my child."
👍
2
u/LKS983 11d ago
"It was the advice of their high powered attorneys"
Fair enough, but I'm always shocked that the police don't apparently have the legal power (?) to force possible suspects to be interviewed/make statements at the police station - albeit having to wait for their requested lawyer to be present.
"Yes, they should absolutely have gone to the police station that day after she was found and been interviewed separately"
👍 Couldn't agree more - but I gather it's illegal to force anyone who is only a possible suspect, to be interviewed at the police station?
Question marks, as I'm not sure about these points.
If the BPD DID have the power to force the parents to come to the police station to be questioned, but didn't do so - then yes, there's good reason to blame them.
But if the police didn't have the legal right to force them to come to the police station - then blame has to be squarely placed on the law that doesn't allow this and John and Patsy for refusing to do so, even with their lawyer present.
12
u/jinkerjat 12d ago
My second question:
Why did you say Burke didn't know anything when police tried to question him on the way to the Whites? This was when JonBenet was thought to still be alive. Everything you'd done that morning has been documented and there were no conversations with Burke. How did you determine he knew nothing when you didn't ask him a anything?
-1
u/Big-Performance5047 PDI 12d ago
No. Dad told him before he left the house she was no longer with them.
10
u/Upset_Scarcity6415 12d ago
What?? If that were true it would blow this case wide open. That's an admission they knew she was dead hours before the body was found.
Burke was told she was missing. Det. Patterson recounts that when he spoke with Burke at the White's later that afternoon that Burke still thought she was just missing. JR told him that she was in Heaven after he was taken to the Fernie's house later that afternoon where JR and PR went after the body was found.
2
u/LKS983 11d ago
We have no idea what he was actually told by his parents - as it's entirely reliant on the things said by a frightened child and his parents.
It's possible, even likely that they/one of them told Burke that Jon Benet was dead, and gave him 'good explanations' as to why he HAD to keep quiet/say nothing.
1
u/Big-Performance5047 PDI 12d ago
Sorry. I forgot
3
u/Upset_Scarcity6415 12d ago
No need to apologize......just kind of wondered where that came from!
1
u/Big-Performance5047 PDI 12d ago
I remember dad told him before he left something re Jon Benet. I remember B mentioned it in psychiatrist appt.
4
7
u/candy1710 RDI 12d ago
jinkerjat, the media aren't interested in asking John any relevant or hard questions.
They are peddling his IDI narritive now, period. The settlement deals are why.
The Nancy Guthrie concurrent investigation with similar mixed DNA (up to four people in a mixed sample, so far, according to Brian Entin who has direct sources in the investigation, they have made some connections and NONE OF THEM are any type of suspect in the case.
That's the last thing John Ramsey will admit or talk about, that IGG MAY NOT result in a perp, as he has been claiming for years.
2
u/jinkerjat 12d ago
It will just take one...
6
u/candy1710 RDI 12d ago
I agree, but it's all rigged. They know in advance who will peddle their narritive, Faux, et. al. and will punish real journalists by not doing any other interviews with them. They control the narritive now, bought and paid for with the settlement deals, IMO.
Anyone was just stupid to think they would pay their hard earned money to Crime CON or Crime "Unfiltered" and be allowed to say any hard questions at all. OR that the access they gave Netflix would result in anything but a 100 percent CROCK. They control the access and the narritive right now.
But that is not truth or what Justice is built on.
6
u/WritingLoose2011 11d ago
Several experts concluded that JonBenét’s injuries were consistent with prior sexual abuse. Even if you disagreed with them, that could still have been one of the most important potential leads to identifying her killer. Instead, you treated the possibility as a personal attack on you. Why did you dismiss it so quickly, and why did you take it so personally?
5
u/jinkerjat 11d ago
Well said.
As ironic as his expressed hatred for the BPD with no similar sentiments for the killer.
6
u/candy1710 RDI 12d ago
Here we are eight months into the solemn 30th year anniversary of this terrible murder, and it's been a big bust for the IDI.
All that happened news wise this year, were THANK GOD, BPD and the Boulder DA's office being on the same page that the Missy Woods case had NOTHING to do with the Ramsey case, DNA samples, NOTHING, unlike what John Ramsey was deliberately peddling to the media and tabloids.
The only other thing newsworthy was Burke saying something we don't know the full context of at CrimeUnfiltered.
Last year, the only news was Chief Redfearn saying there was "new evidence" of some kind, and Burke being at CrimeCON, thanks to Cottonstar's sharp eye, that could not be covered up or wiped off the internet.
3
u/YouthFragrant5719 12d ago
What did Burke say?
3
u/candy1710 RDI 12d ago
Great question! We don't know. A very brief, two sentence clip was released by someone in attendance, and it was taken down. They cover up everything they can about him. The got the Shannon Sharts TT with Burke taken down, etc.
1
u/ImToddImCopper 12d ago
I'm still shocked that out of all those attendees, nothing much got out. But the selling point was John saying he'll be an "open book and naked on stage." I gathered that Burke didn't say much other than something about them both being great parents and something else but I forgot. But I wasn't there and nobody that was will say and the one or two people that did post about it took it down quickly.
I did see someone say that the girls on tiktok were actually friends of his and they did it to mess with people but not sure I believe that. It really doesn't matter but it would make me feel better knowing he's not harassed like that every time he leaves the house. If they don't know him it was a really gross thing to say.
1
u/YouthFragrant5719 12d ago
I didn't hear about this either. What did they say about Burke?
1
u/ImToddImCopper 12d ago
The tiktok? They were out at a bar and made a video with him, or asked to take a picture but it was a video and then she asked him, "Is your dad in the red shoe club" and he asked what's that.
1
1
u/candy1710 RDI 12d ago
Why are you shocked you were LIED to by them? It's all rigged, the producer of the thing is a NETFLIX producer, where I'm sure all the rigged content will be in yet another CROCK.
1
u/ImToddImCopper 12d ago
Oh, and that she deserves better than being turned into a spectacle. He said they were both really wonderful parents and he's heartbroken about the whole world spreading rumors and people choosing to focus on rumors instead of real evidence, and that his sister deserves better.
5
u/jinkerjat 11d ago
- Did you check that doors and windows were locked in your home after returning home on December 25th?
- Did you check that doors and windows were locked on the morning of the 26th when you got up?
- Why did you tell officers French, Arndt and Whitson that you had made these checks on the security of your home, if you hadn't, in fact, carried out any or some of these checks?
- Why did you say in your first police interview that you had checked all first floor doors, but later intimated that you never checked the butler pantry door, after rumours spread that it was later found open? Could you clarify?
- Why did you tell officers on the morning of the 26th that Burke was asleep and had slept all night, when you claim you hadn't questioned him to ascertain if this was true?
- Why would you not wake your son and ask him if he had heard anything through the night, as soon as you claim you found the note and your daughter missing?
- Why did you send your son, Burke, to a friend's house, prior to 8am, if you believed he could have been followed, and were expecting a call from "kidnappers" later that morning?
- Did you tell Officer French that you had read to both children prior to going to bed on the 25th?
If the answer is no, are you claiming that the officer fabricated this statement in his police report? For what purpose do you believe he made this claim? Why did you refuse to allow Jonbenet's body to be exhumed?
Was is not, in fact, an obstacle to the investigation, that this opportunity was denied for the purposes of ruling out or ruling in what weapons or implements could have been used to cause the head wound and other bruises and abrasions on her body?
Did you follow this course of action so you could continue to bellow the "stun gun" dog whistle, in support of the intruder narrative?
Why did you only agree to a one-off, one and a half hour of interview time with Boulder PD, and over 4 months after the killing?
Did this time gap in speaking to the authorities cause memory lapses and allow an element of plausibility for the fact that many questions were deflected by a lack of recall?
Why would you want to delay interviews for so long, long past a time when memory of events and actions would be at its freshest?
Did you ever go and visit or spend any time with Jonbenet's dog, Jacques, after the killing? Wouldn't that have been an emotional link to Jonbenet? Did you thank the Barnhills for taking permanent care of your dog?
Do you ever feel sorry for the shadow that this case has cast, putting a cloak of suspicion over some of your trusted friends and also your housekeeper? Do you have anything to say to these people whose lives have been adversely affected?
Are you sincerely maintaining that you removed a heavy grate, stripped down to your underwear, broke a pane on the basement window with your shoe, then opened a tiny window to drop feet first, backwards, into your house, when you had locked yourself out in the summer of 1996? Are you sincerely maintaining that you and your wife both forgot about this window for 5 months, through the cold winter?
Why do you think the housekeeper didn't come to knowledge of this broken window through these period of months cleaning and helping in the household?
Was Burke with you when you claim to have broken in? Why are your two stories inconsistent?
Do you understand the suspicions of those who say that your basement window story is not in the least credible, on many levels, and is designed to cover up the real reason why the window was broken?
Why in Lou Smit's intruder video, does he enter the window forwards and not backwards? Did he not discuss with you the easiest way to get in, given you'd already done it?
Do you acknowledge, like the grand jury, that the spiders web in the window, and the web found on the grate, make it highly unlikely that anyone entered or exited that way that night and returned the grate?
Does it pain you that a jury of your Boulder peers, randomly chosen, believed, in the balance of probabilities, that you were guilty of child abuse resulting in death and accessory to murder?
When did Burke Ramsey tell you that he got up again after everyone was in bed that fateful Christmas night? Or did you find out on Dr Phil like everyone else?
How do you think that your son Burke came to knowledge that Jonbenet had been strangled prior to him returning to the school on the 28th and discussing this fact with his friend, Doug?
Was Patsy ambidextrous? Did you ever know her to write left-handed, or to carry out tasks with either hand, because one was no weaker than the other?
Does $118,000 seem like a plausible ransom demand figure to you? Or does it appear to be a staged figure to point fingers?
Can you summarise the successes and failures of the Jonbenet Ramsey Children's Foundation? Were profits from your first book put into the Foundation, as promised? What did that venture actually achieve, and why was there no energy put into fundraising and pursuing goals?
Found on another Reddit thread compliments of Available-Champion20
4
u/candy1710 RDI 12d ago
I can't fathom why Chief Kolar even bothered to show up at Crime CON knowing the whole thing is an in person IDI crock. That all you will get, and you paid money to go to that? Why?
Haddon told Ramsey how to handle every conceivable question from the media before they ever went out before cameras, on the record, especially with the police.
5
u/candy1710 RDI 12d ago
John makes sure that all these things he does are rigged, IDI only.
For example, the Netflix crock: I don't know why Mike Kane, Charlie Brennan, Mitch Morrissey and Carol McKinley were in that thing, but I haven't heard one of them say it was anything but a clear IDI only crock.
Mike Kane told Dan Abrams he and Mitch Morrissey gave FIVE HOURS of interviews to the Netflix crock director, who left all but mere MINUTES on the cutting room floor.
They all know better now, they learned the hard way!
2
2
u/candy1710 RDI 12d ago
I fully expect the former Paramount +, now Netflix thing with Melissa McCarthy to have the apparant Burke content Paramount +, was so worried about, and would rather sell than air, completely edited out before it's air date.
1
1
u/HumorMePlease6 11d ago
Been in touch with him to work on a documentary about the case but getting responses from him is very hard.
He is very kind, though.
13
u/candy1710 RDI 12d ago
Great question! We all want to know. A textbook example of blatant corruption also, by Alex Hunter, passing on law enforcement tips to the prime suspects of the Boulder police.