AMY: Do you feel you know who killed JonBenet Ramsey?
JUROR: I highly suspect I do.
AMY: And who do you think that is?
JUROR: I wish not to answer.
Did ABC really think viewers would be OK with that? That they could name a show “JonBenet: Grand Juror Speaks,” have a logo with those exact words emblazoned at the bottom of the screen for most of the hour…. Then have the juror say, nah, not gonna answer the one thing everyone wants to know. WTF!
I should have known better than to get my hopes up with the juror when I saw that Lawrence Kobilinsky was being dragged out of his crypt to [yet again] comment on the misleading DNA. Here’s what he said on A&E back in September:
“I think the inescapable conclusion is that an unidentified male committed this crime. This person committed that sexual assault and murdered JonBenet.” – Lawrence Kobilinsky, A&E
Inescapable? Well whoever it was, they’ve escaped detection for 20 years. Clearly that evidence isn’t exactly rock solid. But for a moment 20/20 dangles a carrot and makes the viewer think that perhaps Kobilinsky has had a change of heart. They declare that they’ve obtained the DNA reports – guess what, so have a lot of other people. After he pores over them in a bit of a drumroll moment, and admits the two spots of Touch DNA on JonBenet’s clothing are ‘not perfect’ nor would he say the spots are a ‘match,’ Kobilinsky says Mary Lacy was right to exonerate the Ramseys. Dr. Baden doesn’t agree. Neither do several other experts. Neither does the current DA, Stan Garnett. Nor do we.
“What I am confident about is that the Ramsey case is more than a DNA case, and to ever have a prosecutable case, we have to have several different parts of it come together. DNA would be a part of it. We need a number of other things as well.” – Stan Garnett, Daily Camera
As for the mysterious grand juror, are there any insights we can glean from him at all?
AMY: Before you became a grand juror, what did you know about the JonBenet Ramsey case?
JUROR: Very little. I saw that there was a little girl dressed up with, in my opinion, a sexual persona and it disgusted me and I turned off the TV.
Interesting that he was so turned off by the pageants. I wonder if his opinion of that changed during the proceedings or if they played any part in the indictments. We wouldn’t know, because unfortunately Amy Robach only asked him three questions, at least that we got to see.
He next shares what it was like to be in that basement when the jurors were taken on a field trip to see the house. His response seems to support the same thing both housekeepers, Linda Hoffman Pugh and Linda Wilcox, said about the unlikeliness of an intruder committing this crime.
JUROR: In the basement where she was found it was actually kind of an obscure layout. And you had to, to go into, you come down the stairwell, and you had to go into another room to find a door that was closed. It was a very eerie feeling. It was like, somebody had been killed here.
The next question I found a bit ridiculous. We’ve all known since 2013 that the grand jury voted to indict on two charges, so what’s the point of asking this?
AMY: Was there enough evidence to indict John and Patsy Ramsey of a crime?
JUROR: Based upon the evidence that was presented I believe that’s correct.
This for me was probably the most interesting answer of the entire [brief] exchange. The way he says ‘based upon the evidence that was presented’ you get the sense that he feels he voted accordingly but perhaps not as he would have liked had there been other information given or factors met. And if that’s the case, what was missing for him?
AMY: (voiceover) But did he believe the Ramseys would be convicted?
JUROR: No. There is no way that I would be able to say ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ this is the person.
He doesn’t hesitate at all on this answer. But what’s frustrating is Robach has asked him a pretty vague question. One would assume, when she asked him if the Ramseys would be convicted, she meant for the charges the grand jury voted to indict them on. But she doesn’t exactly clarify that. And his answer seems to suggest he was referring to which of them [John or Patsy] committed the actual murder.
Hasn’t that always been the problem with this case though… trying to pin “murder” on only one of the three? In our narratives we explain precisely why this doesn’t work.
AMY: There was no smoking gun?
JUROR: Not to the point of knowing exactly what happened, or exactly who was involved, no. And you are the district attorney, if you know, if you know that going in, it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars to do it.
It’s a pretty cryptic and also contradictory interview, isn’t it? He agrees there was evidence to indict, so he clearly feels there were crimes committed that were provable. But he also feels strongly there wasn’t enough for a conviction, but a conviction of what and of who? Murder, accessory, neglect? We just don’t know.
He does seem to think he knows who the killer is. So why would it be a total waste for a jury to hear this case? Isn’t that where justice is supposed to play out – in a courtroom? There was obviously enough of something presented for him to positively think that he knows who did it. But maybe that’s where the clue lies, in all of this silence.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume he believes the killer is one of the family members. Even though we don’t know exactly what evidence was presented, we do know who [most] of the witnesses were and they were all Ramsey-centric. So, which one of the three is it? Does his hesitation stem from the very same reason the records remain so tightly sealed after all these years?
The Craven Silence and The Day After Christmas trilogies
are available on Amazon.
shakedowntitle.com
At first, the window was no big deal to John. He didn’t seem to want to draw attention to it. If you want to make the case that someone came in from the outside of the house and broke in, wouldn’t you be cheerleading a broken window as prima facie, bona fide whoopdedoo evidence? So why does John not even mention it to the cops that morning? As a concerned parent he should be waving a great big flag at it. So why doesn’t he?
window well to this window was not secured. John had been locked out of the house. John told us he removed the grate, kicked in the basement window, and gained entrance to the house from this window. John told us he had not re-secured the window nor had he fixed the window which he had broken.
the interrogation via the psychology of the children. It’s underestimated how much damage the sibling rivalry and parental short-sightedness does to the child’s personality (and the adults who go with the flow!) It’s so clear, in this telling of yours, that there were always two “only child” offspring in the house: first a son who is the only child until a sister comes along. He becomes the “other” child while she is given the turn at being the “only.” If only the father had adopted his own boy as fiercely as she sank her teeth into her girl. There’d still have been damaged young people growing up – but they’d at least have grown up physically together and possibly lived equally long lives.
went to bed to get it to put it under the tree. And Joe went down to the garage and went down to get it and brought it up. I offered to go get it and he said no, he’d go get it himself. I don’t know where it specifically was, whether it was actually in his garage or his basement.
Their book goes on to describe how Patsy doted over JonBenet that morning. They made a big deal about how they presented the doll to JonBenet.
the relationship continued after the families moved to Boulder. Not only was Judith a family friend, she was also a photographer who frequently took photos of JonBenet and Patsy. Over the years, Judith got to know the Ramsey kids fairly well.
people, so completely different, remain united? The investigators on the scene on the morning of December 26, said they thought the Ramseys were either separated or divorced because they basically ignored each other the entire time JonBenet was “missing.” They didn’t comfort each other during the crisis.
What’s intriguing is that John and Patsy stayed together after JonBenet’s death. A large percentage of marriages break up after the loss of a child because of guilt and resentment, and an inability to move on. The individuals are so swallowed up by their grief, they have no energy left to focus on a partner. But not John and Patsy. They seemed to get closer after JonBenet’s death. What was the driving force that suddenly brought them back together and kept them devoted during the worst time of their lives?
Where do we start with Burke? Was he just a shy, awkward kid? Is it really that simple? Or, was his loner personality, the video games, the laughing and totally care free attitude about the murder of his sister, a symptom of something far worse?
“When Burke was 4 he was the apple of his parents’ eyes. He could do no wrong. He got the full treatment of gifts, clothes and trips and you name it. But then when JonBenet came along, especially as she got older and her destiny was to be in the pageant system, that attention that Burke had switched from him to JonBenet.”
television show called Connection Point. The couple were 
Cordeiro seemed to think having “the most hated parents in America” talk about their faith might inspire and uplift his flock. Perhaps the church is no different from the news – no news is worse than bad news? But by speaking to the Ramseys, Cordeiro was certainly assured of getting a lion’s share of attention for his efforts. Christians and heathens alike were likely to tune into his interview. Perhaps he could gain a few converts among the burgeoning true crime community?
#SHAKEDOWN 
