Boulder Grand Jury Voted To Indict-Boulder Dailey Camera

[OpenMind4U]

WELCOME Pearl!!!! Logic based on Facts is the most admirable quality in discussion!!! Nice to have you here!

 

[pearl]

Pearl (of wisdom),

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

Thanks. I, like most of the posters on this forum, want to see the killer(s) of this wonderful child brought to justice. I do not posses the case knowledge that the posters on this forum have. I know and remember the big issues but not the details of them. I have read on the forum for years and do so daily since the news of the grand jury indictment came out. The post to which I replied, in my opinion, was an unanswerable question without including Locard's Principle. A murder took place because there is a victim. When there is a murdered victim, there has to be a killer. The murder took place in a closed environment which is the house. The events that occurred that night did not happen in an instant; the crime, etc took quite a bit of time. More than one location in the house was involved in JonBenet's death. She was reported asleep in her bed on the return from the party, she ate a snack, and she was found dead in the wine cellar. In my opinion, there has to be evidence of an intruder in at least one of those locations. The "intruder" at this point is just a theory that has no substantiation in fact.
My own opinion as always.

 

[pearl]

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?

Whose defense are we considering here? I can debate this if I know the person(s) who would be acccused of this crime.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Whose defense are we considering here? I can debate this if I know the person(s) who would be acccused of this crime.

That would be any member of the Ramsey household: John, Patsy, or Burke.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

I'm sure they saw and heard evidence that we haven't seen, so IMO, they had good reason to vote as they did.

Let me get this straight, you are forming an opinion based upon what you don't know about the case?

 

[pearl]

That would be any member of the Ramsey household: John, Patsy, or Burke.

My last response to this discussion is to follow the evidence not the lack thereof. I will not discuss what ifs, possibles, or a trial that is far from happening. I formed my opinion as to who killed JonBenet many years ago. Since I am not a player in this case, I actually "know" nothing.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

My last response to this discussion is to follow the evidence not the lack thereof. I will not discuss what ifs, possibles, or a trial that is far from happening. I formed my opinion as to who killed JonBenet many years ago. Since I am not a player in this case, I actually "know" nothing.

Part of the evidence is the well-established fact that the crime scene was badly compromised. Like it or not, "what-ifs" and "possibles" are unavoidable in forming an opinion as to who killed JonBenet.

 

[dodie20]

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?

1st of all, regardless of what the law states about being innocent until proven guilty, there's another side to this equation. Saying that someone is innocent UNTIL proven guilty is a lot different than saying someone is innocent UNLESS proven guilty.The word 'until' is a leading word, a prejudicial word, a word that insinuates, (in a sly way), that a person is guilty and it's just a matter of time until it's proven. If a person was really presumed innocent, something like ' a person is presumed not guilty, unless proven otherwise', would be a little less prejudicial, don't you think? So, when a person is sitting in court charged with some crime, it's MOO that he starts the process with a strike already against him. Anyway, this is just an observation and moo, but I don't really believe that anybody is presumed innocent, once he walks into a courtroom. It's an uphill battle, no matter who it is. moo

 

[midwest mama]

Let me get this straight, you are forming an opinion based upon what you don't know about the case?

OMG, E.DIII - I can't even believe you are going there with your statement.
Point of reference: the tire iron.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

OMG, E.DIII - I can't even believe you are going there with your statement.
Point of reference: the tire iron.

I was referring to the silliness of the logic in saying: "I don't know what evidence the grand jury heard. Therefore, I think they had good reason to indict."

That is a whole lot different than saying "The devastation to JBR's cranium exhibited in the autopsy photo looks like it might have been caused by a tire iron or crowbar. I think testing should be done."

Now, if I had said, "I don't know what type of instrument caused the devastation to JBR's cranium. Therefore, it must have been a tire iron or crowbar" you might have cause to say "OMG..."

 

[midwest mama]

I was referring to the silliness of the logic in saying: "I don't know what evidence the grand jury heard. Therefore, I think they had good reason to indict."

That is a whole lot different than saying "The devastation to JBR's cranium exhibited in the autopsy photo looks like it might have been caused by a tire iron or crowbar. I think testing should be done."

Now, if I had said, "I don't know what type of instrument caused the devastation to JBR's cranium. Therefore, it must have been a tire iron or crowbar" you might have cause to say "OMG..."

I respect your opinion. I'll add that you deserve credit for suggesting a testing of the various types of items that are publicly suspected to be weapons, especially those that were taken into custody with search warrants. A maglite has already been tested, and matches very convincingly, so should not have to be retested. I do not know if other tests have already been done by BPD using other items.

Another suggestion, and you might have made this earlier, in addition to a tire iron or crowbar, would be a climber's ax. If JAR had stored some of his gear in a bag of some sort under the bed in his room, as has been alleged, particularly with regard to a rope, it is possible there may have been other climber's gear with it - which would have been available as a weapon to anyone who would know to get it out from under the bed.

If a bash weapon could be suggested by a matching indentation made during testing, it might point more convincingly to the killer. Or, going in the other direction, it might help to rule out some of the current theories.

 

[wonderllama]

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?

Isn't it the job of the Defence Team to be bringing up the Intruder scenario, not the Prosecution to then try and rule it out.

If the Defence wishes to muddy the water by introducing the Intruder into the equation, it would be relatively simple I'd have thought for the Prosecution to swat it away as the garbage that it is.

 

[DeeDee249]

I am not wedded to the idea of the flashlight as weapon, though it is my first choice. But a climber's axe would certainly have broken her skin AND cut into the brain as well.
The coroner noted "BLUNT force trauma- an axe is not blunt. And an axe chop to the head would have killed her instantly. She was alive when she was strangled. It was the strangulation that killed her- we know that because there were petechial hemorrhages in her eyelids (as elsewhere). Common in strangulation victims and ONLY occurring while the victim is still alive. The red ligature furrows also point to her being alive when she was strangled. Postmortem furrows would be white.

 

[Nom de plume]

I was watching Dateline last night and saw something that might relate to the JB case. In Nashville, 1994, there was a rapist they called the "wooded rapist" because he was targeting women in affluent neighborhoods with heavily wooded areas around the houses. He would appear out of the woods, and disappear back into them after committing the rapes.

In 2006 they had a DNA profile, but no suspects. The DA brought a case before a GJ under the name of "John Doe" for five counts of rape, before the statute of limitations ran out. The grand jury indicted John Doe. That same GJ indictment was later used to charge the suspect when he was finally caught years later. They were still able to charge him with rapes committed in the early years because of the GJ indictment, even though the SOL had run out.

I realize all state laws are different, and I don't know how TN & CO differ, but if an old GJ indictment was used against this guy, could the GJ indictment against JR & PR still be used against JR, even though the SOL has run out on the child abuse charge? Anyone familiar enough with CO law to answer that question?

 

[dodie20]

I don't understand the reasoning behind SOLs, in the 1st place? It just leaves too much room for corruption. But, considering the controversy on how AH treated the grand jury vote, I think there's an 'in' somewhere. From how I interpret the whole thing, it has been in limbo since the vote...as if it only happened yesterday. AH not signing the indictment, IMO, should void the time lapse since the vote. I mean, WHY didn't he sign the thing before refusing to indict? Did him not signing guarantee the jury's silence? because that seems like trickery, underhanded and illegal. moo

 

[Darlene733510]

What gets me so enraged is that, when ML exonerated the R's all those on the GJ did not come forward and say something. They knew the R's should have been charged, when they gave their verdict. Could they have thought that because AH decided not to charge the R's that they had to keep their mouth shut?

 

[Nom de plume]

I don't understand the reasoning behind SOLs, in the 1st place? It just leaves too much room for corruption. But, considering the controversy on how AH treated the grand jury vote, I think there's an 'in' somewhere. From how I interpret the whole thing, it has been in limbo since the vote...as if it only happened yesterday. AH not signing the indictment, IMO, should void the time lapse since the vote. I mean, WHY didn't he sign the thing before refusing to indict? Did him not signing guarantee the jury's silence? because that seems like trickery, underhanded and illegal. moo

If I understand it correctly, had he signed it, he would have had to take it to a judge to have the case dismissed. That of course would have made the news. He didn't want anyone to know that the GJ had come back with an indictment. Also, I think the way he did it means the jurors have to stay silent.

I'm hoping that because there was an idictment, like the TN case, it will over ride the SOL.

I agree that SOLs are bogus. It just tells criminals that if you can get away with it long enough, you're free and clear, with the exception of murder.

 

[DeeDee249]

If I understand it correctly, had he signed it, he would have had to take it to a judge to have the case dismissed. That of course would have made the news. He didn't want anyone to know that the GJ had come back with an indictment. Also, I think the way he did it means the jurors have to stay silent.

I'm hoping that because there was an idictment, like the TN case, it will over ride the SOL.

I agree that SOLs are bogus. It just tells criminals that if you can get away with it long enough, you're free and clear, with the exception of murder.

And of course, INCLUDING murder in Boulder. There, you can get away with that, too. If you are "friends" with the DA.

 

[CanManEh]

It;s still prety amazing to me that all the years after the GJ voted that way . It remaind silent surely you would think someone somewhere would have talked about how they all voted..

 

[eileenhawkeye]

It;s still prety amazing to me that all the years after the GJ voted that way . It remaind silent surely you would think someone somewhere would have talked about how they all voted..

The GJ is supposed to be secret, under the law. Any of them would have been taking a huge risk if they had gone to the media. Probably would have been prosecuted. What would be the point? Just to make some quick cash? The revelation finally came out because the Boulder Daily Camera found out about the real vote on their own, and then called up members of the GJ to confirm that they had really voted to indict. Anyway, the GJ might have finally confirmed how they voted, but they haven't really revealed anything else. I'm sure the media called up every member asking them about the vote, but you will see that only a few bothered to confirm/talk about their experience.

But if you think about it there are probably a lot of people who know more about this case than has been released in the media yet they keep their mouth shut.