OpenMind4U
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2008
- Messages
- 733
- Reaction score
- 12
WELCOME Pearl!!!! Logic based on Facts is the most admirable quality in discussion!!! Nice to have you here!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.Pearl (of wisdom),
Hope to see you posting in JonBenet's thread more often. :cheers:
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.
I'm sure they saw and heard evidence that we haven't seen, so IMO, they had good reason to vote as they did.
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.
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. mooYou 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?
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.
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..."
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?
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.
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..