Twist in JonBenet Ramsey Case Tortures Her Family All Over Again

This Just In 211

JonBenet Ramsey JonBenet Ramsey has been dead nearly 17 years now. The 6-year-old pageant queen was found in her Colorado home way back in 1996. So why the heck are reporters making a big deal about a grand jury indictment in the child's case now? Suing to get their hands on it? Haven't this girl's parents had enough?

The lawsuit filed against Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett comes from a press advocacy group and a Boulder Daily Camera reporter. It alleges at least two members of the grand jury voted to indict Patsy and John Ramsey, JonBenet's parents, and that the public has a right to know

But as we all do know, the Ramseys were never indicted. They were never taken to trial. So why now?

The reporter in me wants to side with the plaintiffs in this case. This case clearly has a public interest, and opening a sealed indictment would seem fitting in terms of governmental transparency.

But then there's the human in me that wonders, when is enough enough? When do we let private matters stay private? When is it not enough that we're "interested" to justify a free press?

Patsy Ramsey is dead; she died nearly 10 years after her daughter, felled by ovarian cancer. Opening up an indictment, proving that then-DA Alex Hunter refused to sign off on it, won't suddenly get her arrested.

As for John Ramsey, let's face it, it's been 17 years, and the man seems miserable. He pops up in the media every few years, and he's clearly haunted by his daughter's death. 

Wouldn't you be?

Let's say he did it. This is purely conjecture -- I'm not accusing anyone here. But let's just say he did. He doesn't act like a man who is pleased as punch to have gotten away with it. He's had his own punishment of sorts, whether he deserved it or not.

Not to mention outing the indictment won't change a thing. We've already heard the DA refused to move forward because there wasn't enough evidence in the case. And, news flash y'all, you actually need evidence to get a court of law to convict someone. Getting this indictment out in the open won't magically make that evidence appear.

So I ask again: what's the point?

Why are these parents, well, this parent, being subjected to this torture all over again? Just to meet our country's insatiable appetite for salacious gossip?

What do you think? Should the indictment be forced out into the open or be left alone?

 

Image via Barry Williams/Getty Images

child abuse, crime

211 Comments

To add a comment, please log in with

Use Your CafeMom Profile

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Comment As a Guest

Guest comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

Green... Greenmomma1018

I think if the jury was going to indict them then they should have had a trial! PERIOD!

Kate Cooley

They should have, but the whole thing was botched from the word go. The prosecutor either sensed that it was a big, unmanageable mess of a case he couldn't win or he was part of the incomeptence and cover-up-ery that will guarantee that we NEVER know what really happened to that poor kid.

One of the major problems is the whole "this could NEVER happen here" attitude that pervaded everything about the case. No one wanted to admit that something that horrible could happen, so out came the finger-pointing and the stonewalling and the uncooperative behavior on EVERYONE'S part. Who knows who did it, because everyone from the top down was acting shady.

Jaghd810 Jaghd810

if we had your attitude no cold case would ever get solved.

nonmember avatar phoenix

Jaghd810...this isn't re-opening the case, it's airing previously unknown information that might make someone look bad. Which everyone who would actually, ya know, solve the case knows. Or do you think no cop suspected the parents until now?



If we all had your attitude, the entire world would be one giant high school...which is pretty much where we're headed anyway.



Wanting to know does not equal right to know, or needing to know.

nonmember avatar blue

I've never fully believe they didn't know something. Not that they murdered her, but that they had more information then they would share. I still believe they knew more. If this stuff falls under the free of information (I do not know what does or does no,) yes the information should be allowed to the public. I won't look at it.

PRIMA487 PRIMA487

The Ramsey's ran that whole cluster fuck of an investigation and the cops let them. I have no idea who did it, but those were two very arrogant, entitled people who thought they didn't have to play by the same rules everyone else has to when there has been a murder. I don't know what the big deal is with the indictment.At this point it's a cold case, and you always go back to see what could have been missed,there's no statute of limitations on murder .If Mr. Ramsey doesn't like it, that would be strange to me. A grieving parent would want their child's killer brought to justice no matter how long it took... wouldn't they?

Austi... Austinsmommy12

^^ yup. I was 10, and very clearly remember this case. The child was found in a basement closet. Honestly, the parents either did it or had it done. Specifically the mother. She was suspect numero uno from the beginning. Bless that little girl's heart. She deserves some real justice even if it's her own father who has to pay for it.

handy... handy0318

As for a cold case, I wish more could be done with the unidentified DNA found on the little girl's underwear. Common sense tells us that the DNA most likely is the murderer's. It didn't match any of the Ramsey's and I don't believe they had anything to do with their daughter's death. The unknown DNA is just one of the reasons why the DA let the case against the Ramseys drop. There were also some unidentifiable footprints and a window casing that had been forced.


But, the media decided to try the Ramseys in the court of public opinion, resulting in everyone believing they murdered their own daughter, even as they were grieving for her. Nice.


And, even now with the blood evidence that exonerated the Ramseys being clearly reported, as is obvious here, people don't want to be bothered by little facts like that...they want to continue to believe that either the mother or father killed the little girl. Sad.

MamaH... MamaHasWings

I have always believed that JonBenet's brother killed her and the parents covered it up to save their son. It's horrible but can you fault them for that if that is the truth?

kjbug... kjbugsmom1517

I didn't even known Patsy died lol. Dam. Such an old case.

1-10 of 211 comments 12345 Last