Boulder Grand Jury Voted To Indict-Boulder Dailey Camera

[Nom de plume]

:banghead:

Ergo, the evidence of JBR being sexually abused by an adult is scant. You have just admitted this much yourself. Enough said.



Now, which scenario do you think more likel

1) Patsy Ramsey, a well respected woman and decent wife and mother of whom no evidence exists of her abusing her children, discovers her husband, John Ramsey, a well respected man and decent husband and father of whom no evidence exists of him molesting his children, suddenly sexually abusing his daughter, six year-old JonBenet. Patsy then goes into a rage and crushes--not her husband's skull--but her beloved daughter's skull, with a heavy metal object.

2) JonBenet is murdered by intruders who broke into the Ramsey home under the assumption that the family had left for vacation in Michigan, one of the burglars having molested and murdered JonBenet after she discovered them in the house.


This is not a rhetorical question. I expect a sound and defensible answer.

All phsical evidence points to option #1. Period.
Again, how did IDI get in & out without leaving tracks in the snow for starters? Can you even provide one shred of evidence to back up your theory?

 

[Magdalyn]

Ergo, the evidence of JBR being sexually abused by an adult is scant. You have just admitted this much yourself. Enough said.



Now, which scenario do you think more likely:

1) Patsy Ramsey, a well respected woman and decent wife and mother of whom no evidence exists of her abusing her children, discovers her husband, John Ramsey, a well respected man and decent husband and father of whom no evidence exists of him molesting his children, suddenly sexually abusing his daughter, six year-old JonBenet. Patsy then goes into a rage, grabs a heavy metal object and crushes--not her husband's skull--but her beloved daughter's skull.

2) JonBenet is murdered by intruders who broke into the Ramsey home under the mistaken assumption that the family had left for vacation in Michigan, one of the burglars having molested and murdered JonBenet after she discovered them in the house.


This is not a rhetorical question. I expect a sound and defensible answer.

That bolded statement was once said about Jerry Sandusky.

There are plenty of people who present to the world like good, decent, God fearing people who sexual molest children, including their own children. And sadly there are plenty of women/mothers who will cover, turn the other cheek, stand in defense of 'their man' over their own child. Especially when a reputation is on the line.


Not all RDI ascribe to identical theories about exactly what happened/why and in what order. But there is no physical evidence that supports IDI. The RL is a piece of paper that orginated from the house and has no intruder prints on it. It can not be used as evidence of an intruder. It's simply evidence of a letter that multiple handwriting experts testified appear to be PR's handwriting.

Can you please outline your complete theory for us?

Do you believe an intruder, who decided to burglarize a vacant house (for what purpose--steal jewelry/computers. etc?) suddenly figured out the family was there, decided, nah, I think I'd rather molest and murder a little girl, screw the jewelry and computers.... then went up in the dark in an occupied house, grabbed a little girl and her blanket, took her down to the basement, (crowbar in hand)....molested her (before or after fashioning a garrote out of found items--Patsy's broken paintbrush from yet another room--and why make a garrote if he was going to kill with a crowbar anyway?)...this burglar, who wanted to break into a house when no one was home to find him is wandering all over the house...he kills the girl, and instead of just taking off, goes BACK upstairs, writes a practice ransom note, then another LOOOONG note, still not worried about mom or dad or Burke coming upon him, he's got all the time in the world, .... then, he leaves the very girl he wants to use to extort money behind in the basement....and sneaks away from the house in the snow leaving no footprints.

Why, in your theory, did he spend time fashioning a long ransom note if he was never going to take her with him?

 

[Magdalyn]

We shall see. I'm going to respond to your posting in segments since there is a lot of ground to cover.



I have yet to to find a single RDI theory that does not eventually break down into special pleading. If you know of one, I would like to hear it.



I'm sorry, but knowing a thing or two about cults and cult behavior myself, I have to say that there is clear evidence of an RDI cult on the JBR boards here. It is one thing to suspect the Ramseys did it; it is quite another to defend the idea as if it were the main tenet of one's religion. Surely, you have noticed the way in which some RDI advocates react as though have been personally insulted when the mere suggestion is made that someone other than John, or Patsy, or Burke could have killed JonBenet.

Then again, perhaps you have not. You describe me as being "condescending" and "defensive" and yet it is I who has been demonized as a "troll" who should be shunned, and I have only been posting on these boards for a week or so! You need only go back a few pages on this very thread to observe numerous urgings of "Don't feed the troll!"

This, in case you do not recognize it, is cult-like behavior. Yes, it is childish and pathetic, but it is also the sort of behavior one routinely sees in cults (and religions) where differing with of a core belief is treated as heresy. This is not a religion. This is the unsolved murder of a little girl. There are real lives at stake, namely, those of the remaining members of the Ramsey family and the legacy of those who have passed. This is not the sort of thing that sane and decent people build a religion around. The fact of the matter is that there are RDI theorists, and then there are RDI dogmatists. Unfortunately, there appears to be more RDI dogmatists than theorists with the dogmatists actively trying to suppress, indeed, repress, IDI theorists as much as possible, as if they had a personal stake in the matter of who killed JonBenet Ramsey. It is downright bizarre, neurotic, and sick. Of course, there is one other glaring symptom of cult-like behavior here; however, I do not presently feel confident that I can address it without being banned.

Again, no one is interested in getting people with differing opinions banned. Differing opinions make the boards interesting. It is my understanding, though, that one path to getting banned might be name calling, attacking posters, and consistantly taking threads off point to argue and inflame other posters.

Trying to help you out here: If you end up getting banned, it will assuredly not be for a conflicting theory. It will be for repeated making inflammatory statements like the one I bolded here, and the one I bolded in your other post where you inferred a lack of intelligence in some RDI theorists.

 

[SyraKelly]

guys and girls,

highly recommend to read this thread on ffj. Our talented cynic has opened the 'iron curtain'!!!!!! thank you cynic!

we can now request the ramsey grand jury files! - forums for justice

WOW-This is BIG!!

 

[dodie20]

I'm wondering something about grand jury secrecy laws. If AH Had signed the paper, but then refused to indict, would this have been made public? And if this Had become public, would LHP, for example, been able to write her book?

 

[OpenMind4U]

WOW-This is BIG!!

Yeap!!!! Tricia's Monday radio show with this development and Mr. Kolar will be HOT!!!!!:great:

 

[BOESP]

Happy
Happy
Happy

 

[OpenMind4U]

I'm wondering something about grand jury secrecy laws. If AH Had signed the paper, but then refused to indict, would this have been made public? And if this Had become public, would LHP, for example, been able to write her book?

Dodie, according to the law (see Cynic's post), LHP can TALK and write her book now!!! Based on my understanding, we have couple issues here:

- we need to find out if FRAUD has been commited during the Circuit Court procedure in August 2003 (4 years after GJ indictment!) by ML when she stated on the record that ' "No indictment or grand jury report concerning that murder has been issued.";

- according to the LAW of constitutionality of a Colorado statute governing the secrecy of grand jury investigations, 'Colorado requires a grand jury witness to take an oath not to disclose her testimony, except to discuss it with her attorney or with the prosecutor, until and unless an indictment or report is issued.. Means, indictment has been made therefore LHP was/is free to talk and write the book since 1999!!!!;

- if above two statements are correct than:
a) LHP can sue ML for false pretent and time lost for publishing her book;
b) other GJ witnesses can talk without penalty of anykind.

- still not clear if PUBLIC can request GJ transcript. Indicted party (JR) could request for GJ transcript which is not good news...but we need to find out through legal channels which GJ documents can be available to public. For example, LS Power Point presentation to GJ should be available to public. We need to find out what else can we see/read.

...like I said before, hope 'GJ leak' becomes the snowball...lease:
jmo

 

[OpenMind4U]

<modsnip>

Agree! I'll support you. I'm inviting all IDI to make the list of evidences (FACTS only!!!) which supports Intruder Did It theory. I promise to be polite and objective in rebuttal. But rule must be made: FACTS only!!!! OK?

If needed, the separate thread is welcome!

jmo

 

[dodie20]

Dodie, according to the law (see Cynic's post), LHP can TALK and write her book now!!! Based on my understanding, we have couple issues here:

- we need to find out if FRAUD has been commited during the Circuit Court procedure in August 2003 (4 years after GJ indictment!) by ML when she stated on the record that ' "No indictment or grand jury report concerning that murder has been issued.";

- according to the LAW of constitutionality of a Colorado statute governing the secrecy of grand jury investigations, 'Colorado requires a grand jury witness to take an oath not to disclose her testimony, except to discuss it with her attorney or with the prosecutor, until and unless an indictment or report is issued.. Means, indictment has been made therefore LHP was/is free to talk and write the book since 1999!!!!;

- if above two statements are correct than:
a) LHP can sue ML for false pretent and time lost for publishing her book;
b) other GJ witnesses can talk without penalty of anykind.

- still not clear if PUBLIC can request GJ transcript. Indicted party (JR) could request for GJ transcript which is not good news...but we need to find out through legal channels which GJ documents can be available to public. For example, LS Power Point presentation to GJ should be available to public. We need to find out what else can we see/read.

...like I said before, hope 'GJ leak' becomes the snowball...lease:
jmo

Thanks. Actually, the reason I was wondering was this: was the reason AH did Not sign the document, because He did not want grand jury information being made public. In other words, after the public saw the information and was outraged, he didn't want to be questioned on why he refused to indict. I was wondering if Not signing the document protected him in any way. moo

 

[OpenMind4U]

Thanks. Actually, the reason I was wondering was this: was the reason AH did Not sign the document, because He did not want grand jury information being made public. In other words, after the public saw the information and was outraged, he didn't want to be questioned on why he refused to indict. I was wondering if Not signing the document protected him in any way. moo

This an excellent question for legal eagles. Hope, we'll find the answer very soon. Maybe Monday, at 9 pm?lease:

 

[dodie20]

Agree! I'll support you. I'm inviting all IDI to make the list of evidences (FACTS only!!!) which supports Intruder Did It theory. I promise to be polite and objective in rebuttal. But rule must be made: FACTS only!!!! OK?

If needed, the separate thread is welcome!

jmo

I would like to see this, because it will give us an idea on why some people agree with AH' not signing the indictment, and also a glimpse into what JR's defense might be. He has never really said anything to refute actual evidence, just acted arrogant. But, I'm not a close minded person and I've gone back and forth on theories. If I see a logical explanation, backed up by evidence, on how the Rs couldn't have done this, I'll believe it. But, it's going to take more than a gut feeling, or the Rs were good people, or PR wouldn't have done this because JB was winning pageants. (and yes, I actually read that one). moo

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

But there is no physical evidence that supports IDI.

Actually, there is the glaring physical evidence of a brutally murdered child and a ransom note which clearly did not write itself.

And no matter how many times and how many ways you try to construe these hard facts about the case as not being evidence of an intruder, they remain the most obvious evidence of such.

Can you please outline your complete theory for us?

Go to the "Theories" thread. You will find it there.

 

[Magdalyn]

Actually, there is the glaring physical evidence of a brutally murdered child and a ransom note which clearly did not write itself.

And no matter how many times and how many ways you try to construe these hard facts about the case as not being evidence of an intruder, they remain the most obvious evidence of such.

Go to the "Theories" thread. You will find it there.

Did you follow the Susan Powell case at all? Josh Powell tried to kill his boys with a hatchet before blowing them up.

That's a pretty brutal thing for a parent to do to a young child they, by all acccounts, loved.

And now that I think of it, in that case, Josh, a once very religious man, was under great anxiety because the court had ordered psychological/sexual testing on Josh in order to determine if he had pedophilic proclivities. He had pedophilic images on his computer. Even *advertiser censored* cartoon, presumably to show his boys.

And you're right. The ransom note didn't write itself. But that doesn't exclude the distinct possibility Patsy wrote it. She had all night to write it. I'm sure she could pull it together long enough to write it considering prison for herself, her husband or both, or the possibility of the loss of custody of Burke being on the line. Also, the shame and humiliation of family secrets (think incest) being uncovered.

An intruder COULD have written the note. But so could Patsy. So it's not hard 'obvious' evidence.

Parents can and have very brutally murdered their own children. So that isn't exclusive to an intruder either, nor is it hard, 'obvious' evidence.

In your IDI theory (which, as I have an open mind, I have never discounted completely, though I find evidence for it very weak compared to RDI), can you name any evidence that ONLY an intruder could be responsible for?

I'll check out your full theory on the other thread, thanks for your response to my post. :seeya:

 

[Magdalyn]

Too damn bad?... Did you really say that, "Too damn bad?" Have you no empathy? This family suffered one of the worst sort of tragedies a family can suffer, and were then demonized in the press and persecuted by a bunch of incompetent, Keystone Kops and your reaction is "Too damn bad?"

This section of your response brings to mind one other parallel to the Susan Powell case. This arguement was most common as to why Josh didn't cooperate with police/acted the way he did toward police, media, Susan's family--though he was, according to him, allegedly innocent of his wife's disappearance.

But it was this 'witch hunt' which compelled him to brutally murder his babies with a hatchet, gasoline and flame. At least, according to his family it was.

You'll find most of us have tremendous empathy for the victims, especially the youngest ones. We respect the fact that parents are also victims in many cases. In others, the parents become suspects, and for good reason. When the suspects refuse to speak with cops and refuse the police given lie detector, our sympathy often wanes. Because it appears they are actually obstructing justice, not finding justice for their child.

You'll also find most of us follow many cases and are not excusive to the JBR case. Many of us have taken opposing theories on these other cases, and the same theory on others. We all come to our conclussions based on review of the case and case evidence, interviews, etc. Group think is not at play here. :twocents:

 

[Chrishope]

The GJ believed JR and/or PR killed JB, in conjunction with the sexual abuse. This puts an end to BDI theories. (As if they weren't already silly enough to dismiss)

Under a BDI theory, if the parents found JB already dead (e.g. Burke applied the garrotte) then there would be nothing they could do, thus no negligence in not seeking aid. The most they'd be charged with is evidence tampering and obstruction of justice. For reasons we've been over ad nauseum it's extremely unlikely the Rs implicated themselves in murder to "save" Burke or "save" the family name.

If they found her alive, and applied the garrotte, that would be murder.

If they knew Burke had a propensity to molest and strike his sister with deadly force and did nothing, they'd be guilty of child abuse resulting in death, but the facts of the case don't support this. Burke hit her once before, in the head, but it's not enough to establish a pattern of behavior. They may have known about Burke playing doctor, but there is no evidence they knew of an ongoing series of penetrations that go beyond childish curiosity.

The charge does not make sense in the context of a BDI scenario.

The problem for Hunter is that the the GJ didn't know who did what. If he prosecuted, same problem would arise at trail, the jury wouldn't be sure who did what, thus they would not convict either parent. Or, worst case, they'd convict both and Hunter probably had figured out that PR wasn't involved.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

This section of your response brings to mind one other parallel to the Susan Powell case. This arguement was most common as to why Josh didn't cooperate with police/acted the way he did toward police, media, Susan's family--though he was, according to him, allegedly innocent of his wife's disappearance.

But it was this 'witch hunt' which compelled him to brutally murder his babies with a hatchet, gasoline and flame. At least, according to his family it was.

You'll find most of us have tremendous empathy for the victims, especially the youngest ones. We respect the fact that parents are also victims in many cases. In others, the parents become suspects, and for good reason. When the suspects refuse to speak with cops and refuse the police given lie detector, our sympathy often wanes. Because it appears they are actually obstructing justice, not finding justice for their child.

You'll also find most of us follow many cases and are not excusive to the JBR case. Many of us have taken opposing theories on these other cases, and the same theory on others. We all come to our conclussions based on review of the case and case evidence, interviews, etc. Group think is not at play here. :twocents:

Police and neighbors labeled Susan's disappearance "suspicious" and authorities began investigating.[18] Authorities searched the Powell home on December 9, removing some items.[16] Among the findings during the investigation were traces of Susan's blood on the floor of the home, life insurance policies on Susan for US$1.5 million, and a handwritten letter from Susan describing a turbulent marriage and expressing that she feared for her life.[19]

Police interviewed Josh Powell and their 4-year-old son, Charlie.[20] The child confirmed that the camping trip Josh described took place;[21] however, unlike his father he stated that Susan had gone with them and she did not return.[19] Weeks after her disappearance, a teacher reported that Charlie said his mother was dead.[19] The parents of Susan Powell said that while at daycare several months after Susan's disappearance, Braden drew a picture of a van with three people in it, and told caregivers that "Mommy was in the trunk."[22]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Susan_Powell"]Disappearance of Susan Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The Powell case is clearly not analogous to the Ramsey case. In the Powell case, the person who killed his children had likely already murdered his own wife, the evidence against him being considerably compelling to a degree not demonstrated by anything presented in the Ramsey case. No one in the Ramsey residence was already suspected of murdering anyone. Therefore it is morally reprehensible, crass, and rude for someone to say "too damn bad" about the witch hunt allayed against Patsy Ramsey, as if they could be absolutely certain of her guilt when the evidence does not nearly allow for such certainty.

I am not going to argue that there exists a groupthink mentality among many of the RDI here. It is blatant. It is obvious. If you do not see it, it is because you refuse to see it.

 

[wengr]

The GJ believed JR and/or PR killed JB, in conjunction with the sexual abuse. This puts an end to BDI theories. (As if they weren't already silly enough to dismiss)

Under a BDI theory, if the parents found JB already dead (e.g. Burke applied the garrotte) then there would be nothing they could do, thus no negligence in not seeking aid. The most they'd be charged with is evidence tampering and obstruction of justice. For reasons we've been over ad nauseum it's extremely unlikely the Rs implicated themselves in murder to "save" Burke or "save" the family name.

If they found her alive, and applied the garrotte, that would be murder.

If they knew Burke had a propensity to molest and strike his sister with deadly force and did nothing, they'd be guilty of child abuse resulting in death, but the facts of the case don't support this. Burke hit her once before, in the head, but it's not enough to establish a pattern of behavior. They may have known about Burke playing doctor, but there is no evidence they knew of an ongoing series of penetrations that go beyond childish curiosity.

Agreed, there is no evidence of a pattern of behavior. The question then becomes - would there be possibly evidence of a pattern of behavior had the medical records of both children be made available? And who is responsible and why for the records being unavailable?

The charge does not make sense in the context of a BDI scenario.

The problem for Hunter is that the the GJ didn't know who did what. If he prosecuted, same problem would arise at trail, the jury wouldn't be sure who did what, thus they would not convict either parent. Or, worst case, they'd convict both and Hunter probably had figured out that PR wasn't involved.

Agreed. It's like a number of drunken teenagers in a car when they kill someone. As long as each of them deny being the driver, little can be done. However while teenagers lack the maturity and sophistication to remain silent, the R's and the RST do not lack it. They would be well aware that mutual silence renders Hunter powerless, so the question then becomes - what would be the best reason for mutual cooperation? which imo until we learn the truth, will always keep some form of BDI in play.

 

[Magdalyn]

Police and neighbors labeled Susan's disappearance "suspicious" and authorities began investigating.[18] Authorities searched the Powell home on December 9, removing some items.[16] Among the findings during the investigation were traces of Susan's blood on the floor of the home, life insurance policies on Susan for US$1.5 million, and a handwritten letter from Susan describing a turbulent marriage and expressing that she feared for her life.[19]

Police interviewed Josh Powell and their 4-year-old son, Charlie.[20] The child confirmed that the camping trip Josh described took place;[21] however, unlike his father he stated that Susan had gone with them and she did not return.[19] Weeks after her disappearance, a teacher reported that Charlie said his mother was dead.[19] The parents of Susan Powell said that while at daycare several months after Susan's disappearance, Braden drew a picture of a van with three people in it, and told caregivers that "Mommy was in the trunk."[22]

Disappearance of Susan Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Powell case is clearly not analogous to the Ramsey case. In the Powell case, the person who killed his children had likely already murdered his own wife, the evidence against him being considerably compelling to a degree not demonstrated by anything presented in the Ramsey case. No one in the Ramsey residence was already suspected of murdering anyone. Therefore it is morally reprehensible, crass, and rude for someone to say "too damn bad" about the witch hunt allayed against Patsy Ramsey, as if they could be absolutely certain of her guilt when the evidence does not nearly allow for such certainty.

I am not going to argue that there exists a groupthink mentality among many of the RDI here. It is blatant. It is obvious. If you do not see it, it is because you refuse to see it.

Yet not so compelling that a grand jury would indict him. He was walking around a free man long after her disappearance, having supervised visits with his children.

But the grand jury did vote to indict the Ramseys. So it seems the Ramsey evidence was actually more compelling than Josh Powell's.

Also, you missed the main point, which was brutality in murder is not 'hard evidence' of an intruder and extreme brutality does not exclude fillicide.

 

[wengr]

Excuse me, but the murdered body of a little girl can certainly be construed as hard evidence of an intruder when little or no evidence of her being murdered by anyone present in the household at the time of the murder exists.

If there was little to no evidence of parental involvement, then what you say might be true. But that is not the case here, making what you say untrue.