Blog / Legal Options

Revisiting the JonBenet Ramsey Case Almost Two Decades Later

The case of JonBenet Ramsey is receiving much attention recently in the wake of its 20th anniversary approaching in December. Many networks have conducted interviews including Dr. Phil who had Burke, JonBenet's brother, as a guest on his show (Part 1 airs today). There have been Dateline shows (September 9), and networks such as A&E and Investigation Discovery have aired recent documentaries. There is a new Lifetime movie set to air in November (there was an older Lifetime Movie made previously). Two decades later, this case is still getting major media attention. And its details, although so horrendous and heartbreaking, fascinate me. Mostly because I am haunted by the fact that this murder is still unsolved. I was a young child when the December 26, 1996 murder occurred and only vaguely remember it. I remember a lot of media coverage and tabloid photos at the grocery store checkout line. I was not privy to most of the details as I was only a young teenager. In recent weeks, I have researched a lot about the case, watched all the new and old informative shows, read books and articles. And I have begun to wish that I could actually solve this case myself! Background: JonBenet was a 6 year old beauty pageant winner. Her mom, Patsy, was a former Miss West Virginia who attended WVU. Her father, John, was a well-known businessman worth millions of dollars in 1996. The couple owned several homes. While residing in their Colorado home, on the evening of Christmas, they returned home from their friends' house and went to bed. Just before 6 am when Patsy awoke, she found a ransom note at the top of the steps. The note explained that the perpetrator(s) had JonBenet in their possession and stated that they wanted a sum of money before they would return her to the Ramseys. The note had specific instructions as to what the Ramseys could and could not do and it set forth a two hour window in which the kidnappers would call the Ramsey house. However, no call was ever made and hours after that time window passed, John Ramsey found his daughter dead in the cellar of their basement. She was covered in a white blanket. Her arms were bound over her head and her mouth was duct taped shut. She appeared to have been strangled. The autopsy later revealed that she had been the victim of blunt trauma to her head (no exterior signs present but her skull was fractured) that would have rendered her unconscious and eventually that alone would have killed her; although, the cause of death was stated as affixation from the strangulation. Theories: There are two schools of thought regarding what happened that night. No evidence has been strong enough one way or the other to indict someone for the murder. But those involved most heavily with the research of the case have come up with two main theories. Theory 1- An intruder did it: This theory is based on the premise that an intruder came into the house sometime either when the Ramseys were gone at their friends' house on Christmas Day or after the Ramseys went to bed the night of December 25. The intruder abducted the little girl from her room and murdered her. Flaws with this theory/unanswered questions:  The ransom note: There is a ransom note that suggests that this was a kidnapping. So at what point did the kidnapping go wrong and this become a murder? The ransom note was unusual as ransom notes go. It was long and it requested an odd amount of money (odd because the amount was so low compared with other ransom notes and in light of John Ramsey’s financial success.) It was written on Patsy Ramsey’s notepad, and with her pen. There was another draft that had been started and not finished. This meant that the intruder took significant time to write this note without fear of being caught in the act. This supports the idea that the intruder may have entered the house while the Ramseys were at their friends’ house and wrote the note while he was alone and had more time; however, if this were true, why leave the ransom note to be found at all, once the kidnapping became a murder? No evidence of forced entry: There was no sign that a person broke into the home which meant that if someone did in fact enter the house, it had to be someone who had a key or they entered through an unlocked door or window (again luck that someone would find an unlocked point of entry, or planned by someone in the house, or someone who had been in the house before?) It is unlikely that the average person would have walked around the whole house looking for unlocked doors or windows as the house was very large and there would be more of a chance of being seen by a witness. Why leave the body in the house?: If this was supposed to be a kidnapping and the kidnappers wanted money, then why didn’t they take the body from the house? Once the body was found, and the Ramseys knew their daughter was dead, the alleged kidnappers had no chance to recover their requested money. No ransom call was ever made: There was never a call during the hours the ransom note alleged a call would be made. Critics believe this is because the ransom note was staged by someone inside the house who could not make that purported call, or because it was not a kidnapping, but in fact a murder. Theory 2 – A Ramsey did it (John, Patsy or Burke): Other theorists suggest that someone inside the house that night killed JonBenet and staged the whole thing as a cover-up. Those that think John killed his daughter believe that he had been sexual molesting her (autopsy suggested repeated vaginal trauma) and then murdered her. Those that think Patsy murdered her daughter think that she got angry with JonBenet for wetting the bed (something that she did frequently) and struck her over the head with an object knocking her unconscious. She then staged the rest of the crime to make it look like a murder by strangulation and wrote a fake ransom note. Still there are those that think the older brother, Burke (who was 9 at the time) was playing with JonBenet and got angry and hit her in the head and the parents staged the whole thing to protect him.*Theorists suggest that the December 25th death date that the Ramsey’s chose for JonBenet’s tombstone corroborates this theory because it insinuates that the Ramseys knew their daughter was dead before midnight and spent the whole night staging the cover-up. Which is also why Patsy was still wearing the same clothes as the night before.* Flaws with this theory/unanswered questions: Killer profile: There was no sign of abuse of JonBenet at any point prior to that night and the family did not fit the typical FBI profile of someone who would kill their child. Ransom note and murder weapons: Although the note had been written on Patsy’s pad and her handwriting could not be ruled out as a match to the ransom note’s handwriting, the other pages ripped out have never been recovered. Moreover, the use of Patsy’s paintbrush to make the garrote is undisputed, but the rest of the rope used to tie JonBenet’s hands or the rest of the duct tape roll was never recovered. Why a cover up at all: Had an accident happened, the parents could have just called for help like any other accident with the hopes that JonBenet would be ok, unless there was an intent to kill from the beginning. And there would be no need to stage a cover up for their son as he was only 9. Why make it look like a kidnapping after a murder took place? Why not just dispose of the body elsewhere? Why leave it in your house and then suggest a kidnapping? Although we don't have answers to a lot of the plaguing questions as to what happened to the beautiful little girl, there are a few things we do know: 1- The crime scene was handled poorly which has led to the extreme difficulty in indicting and convicting anyone for this crime. The crime scene was entirely understaffed: Most of the day only one police officer was stationed at the house. This is mostly attributed to the fact that it was Christmas. The crime scene was never blocked off: When the officer arrived, this was a kidnapping, so the house was never secured from entry and exit. People came in freely and moved about the house and touched things. The Ramseys called their friends over who came and even cleaned up the kitchen (which was later found to be detrimental because pineapple was found in JonBenet’s small intestine and there was a bowl of pineapple on the kitchen table. The Ramseys could not account for how the pineapple got on the table or in JonBenet’s stomach). This also meant that there would be several more sets of fingerprints inside the home that could not have been proven to have gotten there during the commission of the murder. Disrupted DNA: John Ramsey moved the body when he found it. This contaminated the murder scene because once the body was moved, all the evidence left on JonBenet’s body was disturbed. Now John’s DNA would be on his daughter, as was Patsy’s as she supposedly hugged and cried on JonBenet’s dead body. So authorities couldn’t be sure that such evidence got there from commission of the crime or by moving and weeping over the body. 2- The likelihood of this crime ever being solved is low. Without a direct match to the DNA found (there was a small amount of DNA found on JonBenet’s leg later revealed to be the DNA of an unidentified male) or an explanation of its existence (someone explaining how it got there/was planted there), or without a confession, the world may never know who killed JonBenet Ramsey. Patsy, one of the people in the house that fateful night, and a person one theory points to as the murderer, has already passed away. Patsy died in 2006 of ovarian cancer, which leaves only John, JonBenet's father and Burke, JonBenet's brother and/or the alleged unknown killer left to come forth with a confession. 3- This crime and case would play out much differently in 2016 with the advances in technology and forensics. With computer generated handwriting analysis, the ransom note studies could be done much more thoroughly and objectively. The advances in DNA analysis are enormous and too many to mention. Authorities have recently used a new advancement called “touch DNA” that can now help widen their search by not just including suspects, but also those related to suspects when analyzing DNA samples. The ability to track a person’s movements based on GPS in their cell phone or car, could have possibly explained what happened to the duct tape and extra rope, had someone in the house gotten rid of them. Alibis could have been discredited or supported. The District Attorney in this case felt strongly that there was not enough evidence to indict the Ramseys for murder. He is quoted as saying that he didn’t want to be the reason that an innocent person was behind bars. Could it be that he is now the reason that a murderer walks free? A case, a murder, that has broken our hearts, has made us think the unthinkable about parents and what they could do to their child, has made us worry that this could happen to us, has made us endure agonizing photos of horrific things done to a beautiful little girl, has plagued our minds with theories and autopsy findings, has haunted Americans for almost two decades, and may never be solved. JonBenet’s death may never be avenged. Eventually the anniversaries won’t be celebrated. Documentaries won’t be made. But that little girl will still be dead. JonBenet would be 26 years old today, but we will always remember her as the blonde little girl whose life was ended way too soon. Was this murder a cover-up? Was it “the perfect murder?" Was this murderer “too good to ever get caught?" Or has our very own justice system failed us?
Posted in:

Related Posts

Person in a business suit resting folded arms on a table beside a tipped glass bottle with colorful capsules and pills scattered around.

What to Look for in a Dangerous Drug Lawyer

What to Look for in a Dangerous Drug Lawyer If you or a loved one suffered injuries, illnesses, or death caused by defective medications, you need the help of a Bordas & Bordas dangerous drug lawyer. We could hold pharmaceutical companies accountable and help victims like you secure compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Navigating complex liability issues between manufacturers and doctors is not an easy task. Only a few dangerous drug lawyers have the skills and experience to maximize your settlement. Read on to learn what to look for in a dangerous drug lawyer and contact our team for help protecting your rights. What Makes a Drug Dangerous? Even big pharma makes mistakes, and while medications are designed to help, dangerous outcomes like severe side effects, drug-drug interactions, and overdoses are a significant public health issue. Pharmaceuticals may cause harm even when you use them as intended. This can happen due to improper FDA approval, a manufacturing defect, contamination, dangerous interactions with other drugs, undisclosed side effects, improper labeling, or inadequate warnings. Taking these dangerous drugs comes with risks that far outweigh their prescribed benefits and could lead to very serious side effects. From severe allergic reactions and organ failure to neurological damage and birth defects, taking these medications could be life-threatening. What Should You Look for in a Dangerous Drug Lawyer? When you look for a dangerous drug lawyer, prioritize attorneys with specific, proven experience in product liability. It is essential to ensure they have handled cases involving the exact or similar medications and understand the complex scientific and medical data involved. This professional legal advocate should have a strong track record of settlements against Big Pharma, as well as ample resources for complex investigations. Dangerous drug cases are long and costly, and a reputable firm should have the financial stability to handle extensive litigation, hire expert witnesses, and manage massive documentation. Does the Dangerous Drug Lawyer You Hire Really Matter? Yes. The lawyer you hire makes all the difference in achieving the very best outcome in your dangerous drug claim. They should keep you informed and make you feel supported, and not like just another case file number. Poor communication or difficulty reaching the attorney is a red flag that could delay your case or even risk your compensation altogether. If a fair settlement cannot be reached, you need an attorney who is not afraid to go to court and litigate on your behalf. Warning signs may not be easy to spot at first. So, be wary of a dangerous drug lawyer who makes vague promises about the outcome of your case or one who lacks the specialized experience that is essential in these types of matters. Learn What Our Dangerous Drug Lawyers Deliver and Reach Out The dangerous drug lawyers at Bordas & Bordas have won many multimillion-dollar settlements for our clients, and we stand ready to offer you the same quality legal services. With our contingency payment structure, let us take on your claim’s risk while you recover. Schedule an appointment for your free consultation to learn more about what to look for in a dangerous drug lawyer.

Costs of Litigation- What Is a Legitimate Cost?

According to 26 U.S.C.A. § 7430(c)(1) and I.R.C. § 7430(c)(1), the term “reasonable litigation costs” are defined as follows: (A) reasonable court costs, and (B) based upon prevailing market rates for the kind or quality of services furnished— (i) the reasonable expenses of expert witnesses in connection with a court proceeding, except that no expert witness shall be compensated at a rate in excess of the highest rate of compensation for expert witnesses paid by the United States, (ii) the reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, or project which is found by the court to be necessary for the preparation of the party's case, and (iii) reasonable fees paid or incurred for the services of attorneys in connection with the court proceeding, except that such fees shall not be in excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines that a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for such proceeding, the difficulty of the issues presented in the case, or the local availability of tax expertise, justifies a higher rate. In the case of any calendar year beginning after 1996, the dollar amount referred to in clause (iii) shall be increased by an amount equal to such dollar amount multiplied by the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year, by substituting “calendar year 1995” for “calendar year 2016” in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof. If any dollar amount after being increased under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $10, such dollar amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. Corson v. C.I.R., 123 T.C. 202 (2004) addressed what is a reasonable litigation cost and specifically discusses section 7430. The opinion states that section 7430 defines reasonable litigation costs as reasonable court costs and reasonable fees paid or incurred for the services of attorneys in connection with the proceeding. Corson, 123 T.C. at *212 (citing Sec. 7430(c)(1)). Corson involved the review of determining what the fair litigation costs of the prevailing party are in a tax claim. Furthermore, attorney’s fees, which may be considered litigation costs in a claim, are limited by statute and are adjusted for living costs. Id. (citing Sec. 7430(c)(1)(B)(iii)). According to the National Center for State Courts’ Civil Litigation Cost Model, the median costs of litigation broken down by case type are as follows: Automobile $43k, Premises Liability $54k, Real Property $66k, Employment $88k, Contract $91k, and Malpractice $122k. More on this can be found here. As you can see, the cost of litigating a legal claim can be very expensive. A contingency lawyer will generally agree to forgo all attorney fees and litigation costs if there is no verdict or settlement in the client’s favor. It is this factor that will likely benefit a client in various ways. Examples of the same are that the attorney bears all the economic risks associated with the litigation, and the contingency fee substantially ensures the attorney will be diligent and assertive in the handling of the claim, because the attorney will not get paid, if at all, until a successful resolution of the case. A person may want to keep all of this in mind when assessing the legitimacy of the lawyer’s share of the recovery in a successful claim.

BB_BeyondTheShild_Header.

Behind the Shield Newsletter – March 2025

Happy St. Patrick’s Day! May your day be filled with good fortune, laughter, and maybe even a little bit of that Irish luck! We recently had a leprechaun, who was convinced his pot of gold was under threat, visit Bordas & Bordas for some legal advice on the best way to protect his pot of gold. Want to see how our attorneys handled this tricky situation? Click here to watch the video. Have a lucky day! Fighting for Justice for 40 Years In 2025, Bordas & Bordas is proudly celebrating 40 years, a testament to our unwavering commitment to serving our community and fighting for justice. Since our founding in 1985 by Jim and Linda Bordas, we’ve grown from a small practice into one of the region’s premier personal injury law firms with offices in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Wheeling and Moundsville, West Virginia, and St. Clairsville, Ohio. The story of Bordas & Bordas Attorneys PLLC began with a unique partnership. Linda, a former hospital pharmacist turned lawyer, and Jim, who has been described by many as a giant in the legal profession, combined their expertise and passion for justice to open the doors of Bordas & Bordas upon Linda’s graduation from law school in 1985. Their remarkable record, including never losing a trial together, fueled the firm’s early success. Linda’s medical background proved invaluable, particularly in medical malpractice cases, where she became a leading force, securing landmark verdicts and expanding patient rights. Jim spent his career fighting battles for his clients that others couldn’t or wouldn’t fight. For over four decades, he built a reputation of success through landmark jury verdicts and settlements. In 2000, the Bordas legacy continued with the addition of Jim and Linda’s oldest son, Jamie, who became the firm’s managing partner in 2005. Jim cherished working alongside Jamie, creating a strong bond, and ensuring the firm’s values would endure. Linda remains a partner at Bordas & Bordas and continues to provide guidance and advice as we continue to fight for justice. Our C ore Values: The Shield of Bordas & Bordas Our logo, a shield with four quadrants and a central cross, symbolizes what we hold dear: Experience: Four decades of dedicated legal service. Family: A firm built on strong family values and lasting relationships. Community: A commitment to serving and giving back to our community. Results: A proven track record of securing substantial recoveries for our clients. Christian Values: The Cross in the center represents the moral compass that guides our work. Our Commitment to You A lot has changed in 40 years, but one thing remains the same: Our reputation for taking on any opponent in the courtroom. This is backed by years of success and record-breaking results, including numerous multi-million-dollar verdicts and settlements across a wide range of personal injury practice areas. We understand the challenges clients face, which is why our cases are handled on a contingency fee basis. This means clients pay no fee unless we secure a recovery for them. We offer: Free initial consultations. No retainer required. We advance all case expenses. Our work has garnered national attention, with features on programs like 60 Minutes, Inside Edition, and CNN, showcasing our dedication to seeking justice for our clients. Learn more about our results by clicking here. As we celebrate 40 years, we reaffirm our commitment to providing exceptional legal representation and upholding the values that have guided us since 1985. We are grateful for the trust our clients have placed in us and look forward to serving our community for many years to come. Building Strong Co-Counsel Partnerships at Bordas & Bordas At Bordas & Bordas, we deeply value collaborative relationships with fellow members of the trial bar. Our firm’s history is marked by significant successes achieved through strategic co-counsel partnerships. We recognize the strength that comes from combining our resources and expertise with that of other firms. Our firm’s size and diverse team of attorneys, specializing in various practice areas, enable us to effectively handle complex cases. We are particularly well-equipped to collaborate on matters involving: Personal Injury Wrongful Death Insurance Bad Faith Trucking and Auto Accidents Product Liability Medical Malpractice / Nursing Home Injuries Premises Liability We understand the importance of a strong co-counsel relationship and are committed to open communication, shared strategy, and a unified approach to achieving the best possible outcome for our clients. Our law firm’s proven track record against major corporations, including Walmart, Quicken Loans, AEP, American Home Patient/Lincare, and ManorCare, demonstrates our ability to handle high-stakes litigation. We believe that a collaborative approach allows us to maximize recoveries and provide exceptional legal representation. You can learn more about our firm’s capabilities and results at bordaslaw.com. Whether we’ve partnered in the past or are exploring a new co-counsel opportunity, we are eager to discuss how we can work together. Please feel free to reach out to managing partner Jamie Bordas directly at 304-242-8410. We consider it a privilege to collaborate with fellow trial lawyers. What Our Clients Say About Us Hear directly from Tom and Michele McFadden about their experience working with Bordas & Bordas and how we helped them achieve a successful outcome. Click To Watch Video It’s common for people to be shaken up after a car accident, and that can lead to mistakes. Learn the Dos and Don’ts after a car accident: Colin, a West Virginia University College of Law graduate, focuses his practice on personal injury litigation and works out of the firm’s Pittsburgh office. During his time at WVU College of Law, he served as an environmental law research assistant, where he helped draft and edit two published law review articles on coal mining and the opioid epidemic.  As a clinical student at the United States Supreme Court Clinic, his clinic successfully appealed two cases in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior to joining the firm, Colin gained valuable experience through internships at World Green Growth Organization, The Mills McDermott Criminal Law Center, and Bordas & Bordas itself. With a strong foundation in law and a passion for justice, he is committed to advocating for the rights of injured individuals. A Pittsburgh native, Colin is passionate about environmental conservation and environmental law. Outside of the office he enjoys skiing, hiking and camping. Quotes to Live By: