Boulder Grand Jury Voted To Indict-Boulder Dailey Camera

[madeleine]

If its not BDI then JR could still be charged, there could be a new GJ hearing?


.

maybe after Beckner and Garnett retire and there will be other people in charge who will not be afraid to open the :worms:

 

[UKGuy]

maybe after Beckner and Garnett retire and there will be other people in charge who will not be afraid to open the :worms:

madeleine,
It might happen sooner, Kolar has outlined a procedure for action. A FOI request might reveal something that leads to a court case.

 

[madeleine]

madeleine,
It might happen sooner, Kolar has outlined a procedure for action. A FOI request might reveal something that leads to a court case.

didn't know that,haven't read his book yet
A request by whom?

 

[madeleine]

I am afraid that without a confession or more direct evidence JR will be very hard to prosecute (and if you add the kind of lawyers+experts he will hire.....)
they will always easily blame it on an intruder (they will beat the dna horse to death ) or PR (dead people can't defend themselves)

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

madeleine,
It might happen sooner, Kolar has outlined a procedure for action. A FOI request might reveal something that leads to a court case.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Kolar is not an attorney; therefore, his legal acumen is highly suspect. Indeed, he does not even seem to be too sharp of a homicide detective, imo.

There is no case now, just as there was no case then.

The only reason Hunter ever presented this case to a grand jury was because of the enormous pressure being put on his office to take some sort of action.

 

[wengr]

The only reason Hunter ever presented this case to a grand jury was because of the enormous pressure being put on his office to take some sort of action.

I have no problem agreeing with this. And he also banned Thomas, but Smit manages to testify. He also failed to call the R's. And in spite of all his resitance, the GJ still sees to indict.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

I have no problem agreeing with this. And he also banned Thomas, but Smit manages to testify. He also failed to call the R's. And in spite of all his resitance, the GJ still sees to indict.

There is really nothing magical about the grand jury indictment. Any prosecutor with his pants on backwards could have obtained an indictment with this case.

That being said, indictments are easy. Trials are not, especially when the case is a media sensation. Had he taken this case to trial, Hunter would have been made a laughing stock by the Ramsey defense team and every media legal pundit from London to Hong Kong.

There is no case here, at least not one nearly strong enough to take to trial.

 

[wengr]

There is really nothing magical about the grand jury indictment. Any prosecutor with his pants on backwards could have obtained an indictment with this case.

That being said, indictments are easy. Trials are not, especially when the case is a media sensation. Had he taken this case to trial, Hunter would have been made a laughing stock by the Ramsey defense team and every media legal pundit from London to Hong Kong.

Again Edmond I would agree. I have no doubt that Hunter would have lost. However, I feel that Hunter was made a laughing stock by the Ramsey defense team just the same.

 

[BOESP]

I wouldn't hold my breath. Kolar is not an attorney; therefore, his legal acumen is highly suspect. Indeed, he does not even seem to be too sharp of a homicide detective, imo.

There is no case now, just as there was no case then.

The only reason Hunter ever presented this case to a grand jury was because of the enormous pressure being put on his office to take some sort of action.

And Hunter should have been pressured. In most states, calling a Grand Jury is protocol under the circumstances of a child homicide. The fact that the Grand Jury handed down an indictment makes it plain to most people who don't have a personal interest in this case that there were good reasons the Ramseys were under the umbrella of suspicion.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

And Hunter should have been pressured. In most states, calling a Grand Jury is protocol under the circumstances of a child homicide. The fact that the Grand Jury handed down an indictment makes it plain to most people who don't have a personal interest in this case that there were good reasons the Ramseys were under the umbrella of suspicion.

On the other hand, it is not tactically very sound to call a grand jury for a child homicide when the evidence against the accused is weak, for if the jury indicts and the case goes to trial before stronger evidence is obtained, then an acquittal may be unavoidable. And if the accused is, in fact, guilty, then a profane injustice occurs with the acquittal.

 

[dodie20]

And Hunter should have been pressured. In most states, calling a Grand Jury is protocol under the circumstances of a child homicide. The fact that the Grand Jury handed down an indictment makes it plain to most people who don't have a personal interest in this case that there were good reasons the Ramseys were under the umbrella of suspicion.

Also, if AH did Not have a case, the grand jury would not have voted to indict either R, much less both of them. I'm sure they saw and heard evidence that we haven't seen, so IMO, they had good reason to vote as they did. I do remember reading where the ex housekeeper said that the process, ( from what she personally saw), focused so much on PR, that she expected her to be indicted and was surprised when she wasn't. Also, we need to think about this...the grand jury voted to indict based on 'child abuse resulting in death'. They didn't find that negligence, or an accident, or an intruder, resulted in death, they found child abuse. IMO, there is NO way those jurors would have voted this way, if they didn't see and hear proof of child abuse. moo

 

[BOESP]

On the other hand, it is not tactically very sound to call a grand jury for a child homicide when the evidence against the accused is weak, for if the jury indicts and the case goes to trial before stronger evidence is obtained, then an acquittal may be unavoidable. And if the accused is, in fact, guilty, then a profane injustice occurs with the acquittal.

BBM. I understand that but I don't see that in this case.

As to your last sentence, I understand that as well and that appears to be exactly what happened in this case. The Ramseys appear to have received an acquittal behind closed doors rather than before a jury of their peers.

 

[OpenMind4U]

bbm. I understand that but i don't see that in this case.

As to your last sentence, i understand that as well and that appears to be exactly what happened in this case. the ramseys appear to have received an acquittal behind closed doors rather than before a jury of their peers.

bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[UKGuy]

On the other hand, it is not tactically very sound to call a grand jury for a child homicide when the evidence against the accused is weak, for if the jury indicts and the case goes to trial before stronger evidence is obtained, then an acquittal may be unavoidable. And if the accused is, in fact, guilty, then a profane injustice occurs with the acquittal.

Edmond.DantesIII,
There is absolutely no forensic evidence that links to any person outside of the Ramsey Household, i.e. no intruder. All three Ramseys are linked to forensic evidence found in the wine-cellar.


.

 

[madeleine]

http://www.reporterherald.com/news/...john-ramsey-news-grand-jurys-vote-indict-just

"Our attorneys had us totally prepared to go to jail," Ramsey told the magazine.

And, said Ramsey, "We had bail money set up."



this is new to me....it's not only what they felt/were scared of,that's normal in such a situation,fear of going to jail,etc,happens to guilty AND innocent ppl as well....but the fact that their own lawyers who are professionals were ALSO so sure that there will be an arrest makes you wonder.....I don't think we have seen ALL the evidence that is out there...

 

[wallflower67]

This did not surprise me at all. I thought we already knew it. I even told my husband (who puts up with my obsessions with JB, Caylee, and others) so when he excitedly told me there was new news. That I was probably right about the parents. I just said, it's not new news to me. I've known it for years. Wasn't it in Steve Thomas's book?

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Edmond.DantesIII,
There is absolutely no forensic evidence that links to any person outside of the Ramsey Household, i.e. no intruder. All three Ramseys are linked to forensic evidence found in the wine-cellar.

Once more, and please, no evasion this time:

Does it necessarily follow that because no evidence of an intruder was discovered that there was no intruder?



* Locard's principle does not apply to the specific question asked.

 

[pearl]

Once more, and please, no evasion this time:

Does it necessarily follow that because no evidence of an intruder was discovered that there was no intruder?



* Locard's principle does not apply to the specific question asked.[/quote]

BBM
This is the first time I have posted on JonBenet's forum but have loosely followed the case since the crime was committed and read several of the books about it.
My opinion is this question cannot solicit an answer that is logical. I think to exclude Locard's Principle when determining the presence or absence of an intruder in the Ramsey household the night JonBenet was murdered renders the question hypothetical. How can one determine the actual presence of something if there is no evidence to support its presence. Answers to questions are based on evidence or the lack thereof. In a court of law, the physical presence of this intruder would have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. One cannot scientifically claim as fact that something is there without proof to show it is there. I think this case, if it ever goes to trial, will be based on provable evidence. If it is entered into court record that an intruder(s) were in the house, his/her/their presence will have to be substantiated by physical evidence. Therefore, Locard's Principle must be applied to the question.
As always, just my opinion.

 

[BOESP]

Pearl (of wisdom),

Hope to see you posting in JonBenet's thread more often. :cheers:

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Answers to questions are based on evidence or the lack thereof. In a court of law, the physical presence of this intruder would have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. One cannot scientifically claim as fact that something is there without proof to show it is there.

You seem to have it backwards. The defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

It is only necessary for the defense to demonstrate that something could have been there that was not discovered. The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is impossible for there to have been an intruder at the Ramsey household that evening. Short of recorded video surveillance in the basement of the home at the approximate time of the murder, this isn't happening, particularly with a crime scene that was notoriously corrupted.

Is it possible that exculpatory evidence of an intruder could have been present at the crime scene but ended up on the soles of the many shoes which had trampled all over the crime scene, and then this evidence was inadvertently carried away from the scene and lost before the CSI team showed up?