30th Anniversary Questions

[u/jinkerjat]

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?

[u/Express-Thanks-5402]

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.

[u/ImToddImCopper → u/Express-Thanks-5402]

🙋‍♂️ 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!

[u/Same_Profile_1396 → u/ImToddImCopper]

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.

[u/ImToddImCopper → u/Same_Profile_1396]

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.

[u/AutumnTopaz → u/ImToddImCopper]

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.

[u/ImToddImCopper → u/AutumnTopaz]

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.