Boulder Grand Jury Voted To Indict-Boulder Dailey Camera

[OpenMind4U]

LA Times offers survey today: 'Should the prosecutor have pursued charges against JonBenet Ramsey’s parents?'. As of now, 73% said YES.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...amsey-indictment-1999-20130129,0,569848.story

 

[midwestphd]

I agree that if AH had inside knowledge that BDI (perhaps as a result of his buddy-buddy relationship with Ramsey lawyers), that may at least partially explain (not excuse, the guy is a obviously crooked) AH's decision not to prosecute. How would a case like that even proceed? The person responsible for the blow to the head is not prosecutable and cannot be named, with two adults on trial for murder/felony murder/child abuse leading to death, whatever the charge may have been. How does the DA present evidence without implicating BR? If he knows BR inflicted the blow to the head, he can't in good faith try to pin that on JR and PR during the trial. If BDI, there are parts of the crime that seemingly can't even be touched during trial.

Just thinking out loud here. I am not married to the BDI theory, but if that is what happened, it would actually seem to explain some of the mess with the DA's position. Not that I am defending AH.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I believe the new development was on CNN's Starting Point this morning with Lin Wood being interviewed.

HLN: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/01/29/ramsey-grand-jury-indictment

 

[Nom de plume]

SunnieRN,
If BR whacked JonBenet on the head, then as per the Autopsy Report, he would be responsible for one part of the oxygen depletion, and whoever asphyxiated JonBenet for the other part.

BR would never have seen the inside of a Court, he would never have been publicly implicated.

I do think AH decision not to indict was probably based on information related to who could actually be prosecuted and who had legal immunity?
That is, if AH knew the case to be BDI then he would need a way to deal with the fallout.

It could be AH is the case fall guy, setup to take the heat, in terms of allowing the adult R's to escape justice?

I still reckon BR will have to make some public statement, if anymore people come forward, and they will, because the damn is breaking, the media will be phoning BR off the hook demanding quotes, rebuttal statements etc.


.

BBM Sorry UKG, gotta disagree completely with this statement. AH based his decisison on making sure NO Ramsey ever saw the inside of a courtroom.

Whether BR caused the head injury or not, the person(s) that strangled her is the one ultimately responsible for her death. She was alive when she was strangled, thus the red mark as opposed to a white one. Really, for this discussion, it's irrelevant who bashed her in the head. The one(s) that strangled her could have, and should have, been prosecuted for her death. IMO the person that caused the head injury, assuming it was not the person(s) that strangled her, is only guilty of assualt due to the fact that she was strangled. Had she not been strangled, then whomever caused the head injury would have eventually been responsible for her death, and guilty of murder.

 

[Nom de plume]

I agree that if AH had inside knowledge that BDI (perhaps as a result of his buddy-buddy relationship with Ramsey lawyers), that may at least partially explain (not excuse, the guy is a obviously crooked) AH's decision not to prosecute. How would a case like that even proceed? The person responsible for the blow to the head is not prosecutable and cannot be named, with two adults on trial for murder/felony murder/child abuse leading to death, whatever the charge may have been. How does the DA present evidence without implicating BR? If he knows BR inflicted the blow to the head, he can't in good faith try to pin that on JR and PR during the trial. If BDI, there are parts of the crime that seemingly can't even be touched during trial.

Just thinking out loud here. I am not married to the BDI theory, but if that is what happened, it would actually seem to explain some of the mess with the DA's position. Not that I am defending AH.

If AH had knowledge that BR did the head injury, then he also had knowledge that PR and/or JR strangled her and staged the cover up. No way could they say that BR caused the head injury and then some stranger came in and covered for him. I just don't understand how they can ethically, or even legally, allow two adults get away with murder just because an unprosecutable child may have caused a nonfatal (nonfatal only due to strangulation) head injury.

I don't know how a case like that would be tried. I know BR cannot be prosecuted, or PUBLICLY named, but couldn't a judge make the trial off limits to reporters and the public? They can put gag orders on all involved easily enough. There has to be a way. :banghead:

 

[midwest mama]

I agree that if AH had inside knowledge that BDI (perhaps as a result of his buddy-buddy relationship with Ramsey lawyers), that may at least partially explain (not excuse, the guy is a obviously crooked) AH's decision not to prosecute. How would a case like that even proceed? The person responsible for the blow to the head is not prosecutable and cannot be named, with two adults on trial for murder/felony murder/child abuse leading to death, whatever the charge may have been. How does the DA present evidence without implicating BR? If he knows BR inflicted the blow to the head, he can't in good faith try to pin that on JR and PR during the trial. If BDI, there are parts of the crime that seemingly can't even be touched during trial.

Just thinking out loud here. I am not married to the BDI theory, but if that is what happened, it would actually seem to explain some of the mess with the DA's position. Not that I am defending AH.

:Welcome1: Midwestphd - From a compadre midwesterner.

The forum is so revved up right now with this latest development, that I myself am having a hard time taking time out for sleep. To those who are tired of seeing my moniker pop up, be glad there is no current "Justice for JonBenet" citizen's action group forming. You might have to see my old granny face looking pretty skewed up on the steps of the Boulder county courthouse!

In response to conducting a trial without naming BR, there have been numerous comments over the years about the blow to JB's head being from a fall, or some type of other accident, as well as dealt to her by someone other than BR. A good prosecutor should have no problem circling around the blow, leaving it open to speculation from the jury as to how it actually happened.
How the head wound happened becomes less important, when the evidence can be validated very thoroughly that the actual cause of death was asphyxiation by ligature strangulation. There is physical evidence that Jon Benet still had life in her when she was strangled. Any charge of murder now would have to hinge on that.

I would think the prosecution might have focused on that aspect of the crime solely, with the former charge of child abuse resulting in death tied directly to the fact that in not seeking medical attention for JB, and instead letting her remain in a non-conscious state for up to 90 minutes after the head wound, the parents perpetrated even more abuse and absolute neglect.

AH was not worrying about how to get around implicating Burke. He was worried about his capability in handling such a high profile case, and whether or not he would go down in flames at the end of his career, leaving him to slink out of a very prominent position. He made a choice to further his own ambitions based upon what that choice could assure him of in his older age:
ambiguous respect and probable, :moo: financial security.

 

[Nom de plume]

LA Times offers survey today: 'Should the prosecutor have pursued charges against JonBenet Ramsey’s parents?'. As of now, 73% said YES.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...amsey-indictment-1999-20130129,0,569848.story

Up to 78% now! Woohoo! :great:

You hear that John? Over 3/4 of the country thinks you should have answered for your crimes!!

 

[wengr]

In response to conducting a trial without naming BR, there have been numerous comments over the years about the blow to JB's head being from a fall, or some type of other accident, as well as dealt to her by someone other than BR. A good prosecutor should have no problem circling around the blow, leaving it open to speculation from the jury as to how it actually happened.
How the head wound happened becomes less important, when the evidence can be validated very thoroughly that the actual cause of death was asphyxiation by ligature strangulation. There is physical evidence that Jon Benet still had life in her when she was strangled. Any charge of murder now would have to hinge on that.

Yes, yes, yes. Hunter could have lined up experts claiming that the strangulation killed JB. The bash provided the motive, but Hunter is not required to show motive. He could have let the jury speculate on motive and drive home the facts. PR wrote the rediculous note. PR is all over the staging. PR is entwined in the GARROTE. Moo.

 

[SunnieRN]

BBM Sorry UKG, gotta disagree completely with this statement. AH based his decisison on making sure NO Ramsey ever saw the inside of a courtroom.

Whether BR caused the head injury or not, the person(s) that strangled her is the one ultimately responsible for her death. She was alive when she was strangled, thus the red mark as opposed to a white one. Really, for this discussion, it's irrelevant who bashed her in the head. The one(s) that strangled her could have, and should have, been prosecuted for her death. IMO the person that caused the head injury, assuming it was not the person(s) that strangled her, is only guilty of assualt due to the fact that she was strangled. Had she not been strangled, then whomever caused the head injury would have eventually been responsible for her death, and guilty of murder.

Thank you for stating it better than I did above. I truly believe BR was up to his eyeballs in guilt, therefore being responsible for Jon Benet's death, even though he did not use the garote to strangle her.

I just really wonder if BR is the reason the people defending AH were afraid they couldn't win against the R's, because of BR's involvement.

:Welcome1: Midwestphd - From a compadre midwesterner.

The forum is so revved up right now with this latest development, that I myself am having a hard time taking time out for sleep. To those who are tired of seeing my moniker pop up, be glad there is no current "Justice for JonBenet" citizen's action group forming. You might have to see my old granny face looking pretty skewed up on the steps of the Boulder county courthouse!

In response to conducting a trial without naming BR, there have been numerous comments over the years about the blow to JB's head being from a fall, or some type of other accident, as well as dealt to her by someone other than BR. A good prosecutor should have no problem circling around the blow, leaving it open to speculation from the jury as to how it actually happened.
How the head wound happened becomes less important, when the evidence can be validated very thoroughly that the actual cause of death was asphyxiation by ligature strangulation. There is physical evidence that Jon Benet still had life in her when she was strangled. Any charge of murder now would have to hinge on that.

I would think the prosecution might have focused on that aspect of the crime solely, with the former charge of child abuse resulting in death tied directly to the fact that in not seeking medical attention for JB, and instead letting her remain in a non-conscious state for up to 90 minutes after the head wound, the parents perpetrated even more abuse and absolute neglect.

AH was not worrying about how to get around implicating Burke. He was worried about his capability in handling such a high profile case, and whether or not he would go down in flames at the end of his career, leaving him to slink out of a very prominent position. He made a choice to further his own ambitions based upon what that choice could assure him of in his older age:
ambiguous respect and probable, :moo: financial security.

I have no doubt the prosecution could have focused on the child abuse, leading to murder charges. I do not however trust the R's team of lawyers to be ethical, or fight fairly. Look at their various smear campaigns. I truly think that JR would authorize anything that would keep him out of prison. Even and including implicating his son.

AH most definitely got something out of his decisions and actions in not to prosecute the R's and it certainly isn't being remembered in a respectful way. ;-)

 

[Nom de plume]

:Welcome1: Midwestphd - From a compadre midwesterner.

The forum is so revved up right now with this latest development, that I myself am having a hard time taking time out for sleep. To those who are tired of seeing my moniker pop up, be glad there is no current "Justice for JonBenet" citizen's action group forming. You might have to see my old granny face looking pretty skewed up on the steps of the Boulder county courthouse!

Sniped & BBM

I nominate you MM to get one going!

I'm sure no one is as tired of seeing you here as they are me! LOL :floorlaugh:

 

[midwest mama]

Yes, yes, yes. Hunter could have lined up experts claiming that the strangulation killed JB. The bash provided the motive, but Hunter is not required to show motive. He could have let the jury speculate on motive and drive home the facts. PR wrote the rediculous note. PR is all over the staging. PR is entwined in the GARROTE.

Yes to you also - and JR's fibers were in JB's underwear, and his bathrobe was found in the den (odd place), and he went the opposite direction that Arndt recommended when she asked him and FW to check over the house, and just moments later "found" his daughter. Then he commented within the group - "this has to be an inside job".

Oh, yes, let's remember that he cordially greeted police officers freshly showered and was wearing a completely different set of clothing than he had worn at the party the night before - washing away any signs of physical activity of any sort that might have occurred in the previous 8 hours?

I say this: I am so glad there is an option to prosecute based on Felony Murder in Colorado.

DO YOU GET IT CHIEF BECKNER AND MR. GARNETT?? :tantrum:

 

[UKGuy]

BBM Sorry UKG, gotta disagree completely with this statement. AH based his decisison on making sure NO Ramsey ever saw the inside of a courtroom.

Whether BR caused the head injury or not, the person(s) that strangled her is the one ultimately responsible for her death. She was alive when she was strangled, thus the red mark as opposed to a white one. Really, for this discussion, it's irrelevant who bashed her in the head. The one(s) that strangled her could have, and should have, been prosecuted for her death. IMO the person that caused the head injury, assuming it was not the person(s) that strangled her, is only guilty of assualt due to the fact that she was strangled. Had she not been strangled, then whomever caused the head injury would have eventually been responsible for her death, and guilty of murder.

Nom de plume,
I agree, But that only outlines part of the story. if Burke whacked JonBenet, then he is partially culpable for her death, that he might have legal immunity, and someone else asphyxiated JonBenet, does not detract from his culpability.

What many are missing about this latest announcement is there is no reference to Burke Ramsey.

Its just AH failed to indict the parents!


Burke Ramsey was always going to get a pass, due to his age.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes to you also - and JR's fibers were in JB's underwear, and his bathrobe was found in the den (odd place), and he went the opposite direction that Arndt recommended when she asked him and FW to check over the house, and just moments later "found" his daughter. Then he commented within the group - "this has to be an inside job".

Oh, yes, let's remember that he cordially greeted police officers freshly showered and was wearing a completely different set of clothing than he had worn at the party the night before - washing away any signs of physical activity of any sort that might have occurred in the previous 8 hours?

I say this: I am so glad there is an option to prosecute based on Felony Murder in Colorado.

DO YOU GET IT CHIEF BECKNER AND MR. GARNETT?? :tantrum:

midwest mama,
Well there is only JR to go after. Can he call BR as a defense witness? Even without a conviction, I'll bet the country and media would like a public airing of the evidence?

.

 

[Nom de plume]

Nom de plume,
I agree, But that only outlines part of the story. if Burke whacked JonBenet, then he is partially culpable for her death, that he might have legal immunity, and someone else asphyxiated JonBenet, does not detract from his culpability.

What many are missing about this latest announcement is there is no reference to Burke Ramsey.

Its just AH failed to indict the parents!


Burke Ramsey was always going to get a pass, due to his age.


.

BBM Not might have, does have. But that is not the point. Regarless of whether BR dealt the head blow or not, JR & PR could have & should have been prosecuted.

As to his culpability, I agree to a certain point. For the sake of argument, let's say (and I'm still not convinced) the BR DID cause the head injury. He's only culpable to the extent that if he hadn't dealt the head blow, then PR and/or JR would not have strangled her. So ultimately, but not actually, technically or legally, he would be responsible for her death.

That we know of BR was not named in the indictment. Even if he was, that info could not legally be made public. On the other hand, none of it was supposed to be made public. If they thought he was involved, and were willing to admit that they came back with an indictment, and state what the charge was, then why wouldn't they have included him if they thought he was involved? They were all speaking anonymously anyway. IMO I believe the indictment the GJ handed down speaks volumes about exactly who they believed was responsible, and who they believed was solely responsible.

:moo: just my :twocents: and all that other jazz

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Predicting a not-guilty verdict is a 50/50 proposition. With a Grand Jury voting to indict both adult Ramseys based on selected testimony that excluded many primary sources, well, in my opinion, I think a jury of the Ramsey's peers would have found them guilty had it gone to trial and the jury heard all the evidence. I'd up the probability of guilty-as-charged to about 90% had it gone to trial. After all, the GJ thought there was enough to indict both.

As the cliche goes, any prosecutor worth his salt can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Hunter would have been massacred at trial and he knew it.

Why?

Not only because the Ramseys would have brought in a team of ace defense attorneys but because the real evidence in this case points towards the Ramseys NOT being guilty.

If you do not think so then I challenge you to answer the first question which the Ramseys defense team would have asked at trial:

"Why in the world would either or both of the Ramseys have written a bogus ransom note then left the body in the basement?"

 

[tangelo]

As the cliche goes, any prosecutor worth his salt can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Hunter would have been massacred at trial and he knew it.

Why?

Not only because the Ramseys would have brought in a team of ace defense attorneys but because the real evidence in this case points towards the Ramseys NOT being guilty.

If you do not think so then I challenge you to answer the first question which the Ramseys defense team would have asked at trial:

"Why in the world would either or both of the Ramseys have written a bogus ransom note then left the body in the basement?"

hahaha.

"indict a ham sandwich"....heard that one before somewhere...

say, ed, you're not a medium by any chance are you?

 

[BOESP]

As the cliche goes, any prosecutor worth his salt can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Hunter would have been massacred at trial and he knew it.

Why?

Not only because the Ramseys would have brought in a team of ace defense attorneys but because the real evidence in this case points towards the Ramseys NOT being guilty.

If you do not think so then I challenge you to answer the first question which the Ramseys defense team would have asked at trial:

"Why in the world would either or both of the Ramseys have written a bogus ransom note then left the body in the basement?"

The answer is, you are speculating. Over-ruled.

 

[UKGuy]

BBM Not might have, does have. But that is not the point. Regarless of whether BR dealt the head blow or not, JR & PR could have & should have been prosecuted.

As to his culpability, I agree to a certain point. For the sake of argument, let's say (and I'm still not convinced) the BR DID cause the head injury. He's only culpable to the extent that if he hadn't dealt the head blow, then PR and/or JR would not have strangled her. So ultimately, but not actually, technically or legally, he would be responsible for her death.

That we know of BR was not named in the indictment. Even if he was, that info could not legally be made public. On the other hand, none of it was supposed to be made public. If they thought he was involved, and were willing to admit that they came back with an indictment, and state what the charge was, then why wouldn't they have included him if they thought he was involved? They were all speaking anonymously anyway. IMO I believe the indictment the GJ handed down speaks volumes about exactly who they believed was responsible, and who they believed was solely responsible.

:moo: just my :twocents: and all that other jazz

Nom de plume,
It could all be very simple, like JDI, and all my speculation is but hot air?

Years ago most people thought it was either JDI or PDI. BDI was a minority sport.

I reckon the GJ thought the same way, each one would have a preference, weighted by opinion, e.g. Ransom Note, or JR's fibers in JonBenet's underwear, etc.

One position I've not heard anyone propose, is that it is BDI, but that the parents pulled off a coverup with all the staging and removal of artifacts.

It could be nobody has factored BR into the case, simply because he was shipped out of the house, so early that day, leaving everyone to focus on the parents?

This would square with your position regarding AH not indicting the parents. BR always gets a free pass, regardless of what AH thinks or even knows!

Personally I seriously doubt that JR said to AH well BR started it all off and me and PR finished it all, then cleaned up. Without prima facie evidence of BR's involvement, he seems to be an accidental passenger in a homicide case, so without any further information, I tend to agree with your view that AH did not want any R indicted.

Its only with the publication of Kolar's book that we can link BR to the contents of the wine-cellar.


.

 

[BOESP]

Anyone who has worked with juries should know that most decisions are made on evidence and not interpretive analyses presented by attorneys from either side. The other fault is instructions given to juries. Many juries feel that the ethical thing to do is follow the instructions. Instead, they can conclude guilt or innocence based on what they think and not the instructions. It is hard to pull the wool over a jury's eyes even though there are exceptions. (Like Casey Anthony. The jury followed the instructions but some stated later they thought she was guilty but didn't vote guilty because of the instructions. The could have voted guilty had they so chosen to do so.)

I find fault with defense attorneys who feel it is their job to get a "not guilty" verdict served rather than seeing justice served.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

The answer is, you are speculating. Over-ruled.

Sorry, pal, but you are on the stand.

Once again: Why would the Ramseys write a bogus ransom note then leave the body in the basement?

Please answer or you will be held in contempt.