Boulder Grand Jury Voted To Indict-Boulder Dailey Camera

[SyraKelly]

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.


.

Hi UKguy-this may be a dumb question-but if he did not want a R indicted,why did he bring them in?
I wish I could have seen AH face when he saw they wanted to indict both of them!!
Priceless

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

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

And what if a "not guilty" verdict is justice served, as it would be in this case?

 

[UKGuy]

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?"

Edmond.DantesIII,
That is prosecutable gold, since the question as put is patently rhetorical.

The general answer is so to stage a crime-scene and hide the primary crime-scene which was likely upstairs. The ransom note offers a rationale for the Ramsey's to behave in the manner they did.

Of course if it is all a figment of the prosecutions imagination, then the Ramsey's would have to offer credible explanations as to why forensic evidence relating to each one, was found either on JonBenet or artifacts lying next to JonBenet?

If its IDI then why is there no IDI touch-dna distributed in the house, particularly JonBenet's bedroom?

Its RDI all the way!


.

 

[SunnieRN]

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:

Also, his statement to his son that he found JonBenet at 11 am, which happens to be the time he couldn't be accounted for by LA.

 

[tangelo]

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.

"pal" PAL??

don't go there, ham sandwich.

 

[UKGuy]

Hi UKguy-this may be a dumb question-but if he did not want a R indicted,why did he bring them in?
I wish I could have seen AH face when he saw they wanted to indict both of them!!
Priceless

SyraKelly,
Due process, he went through the motions, and either knew, because its BDI, or considered the parents pointing the fingers at each other, that a prosecution was not viable, so rather than have the media circus a court case would ensue, he declined to indict?

Thats me being charitable, some people think there were financial considerations, along with the R's status to weigh up.


.

 

[midwestphd]

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.


.

I agree that it is unthinkable for JR to just tell AH or even his (JR's) own attorney that he and PR covered for BR. But, I do think it's *possible* that, either through a hint from a Ramsey attorney or due to evidence that we do not have access to, that AH knew or strongly suspected that BR inflicted the blow to the head and that the strangulation and everything else was part of JR and PR covering for BR. AH's comments to Steve Thomas that "This is not a prosecutable case" may be telling in this regard.

Having said this, I fully believe that AH was crooked and motivated by self-preservation.

I know BR could not be named or prosecuted, but do we know of other consequences the Ramseys may have wanted to protect him from? Could he have been removed from the home or institutionalized? Hypothetically, what would have happened had the Ramseys called the police/ambulance right away and told the truth, assuming BR was responsible for initiating sexual experimentation gone wrong which led to bashing JBR in the head? I know he could not have been held responsible in a legal sense, but would social services have gotten involved?

 

[time]

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.

Oh, come on now. The answer is quite simple as you must see. Taking the body out and trying to dispose of it without leaving forensics, witnesses, and holes in an alibi would be very difficult. They would probably have gotten tripped up, but as it were, they got away with a goofy story and bogus ransom note that is too weird to even think is authentic. No one can arrest you for writing a less than plausible ranson note unless they can prove you wrote it - see what I mean, Jelly Bean? :floorlaugh:

 

[SweetT]

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 obvious answer would be that they did not have the time..nor means without being noticed to take their daughter out of the house at such a late hour. Neighbors might notice them coming and going etc. It would also put DNA evidence in their vehicle. Keep it at home, write a note and hope for the best. JMO

 

[SunnieRN]

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?"

Just who would be the recipient of this question? There are many answers, based on factual evidence, that can be used to answer the question.

Why?? Fear, anger, stupidity, damage control, a need to control the situation and protect their social standing..

As for leaving the body in the house? Easily found, she wouldn't be exposed to winter elements, she would still be close to her family.

Now a question for you. Why would an IDI, that took the time to write the novel length ransom note, kill Jon Benet and leave her behind?

 

[SweetT]

Forgot to add to Edmond? "Why in the world would a kidnapper kill the kidnapped/then proceed to write a ransom note quite a long one at that..inside the home on their own paper etc with the parents there and then not take the child?"

 

[BOESP]

And what if a "not guilty" m verdict is justice served, as it would be in this case?

It is up to the claimant to prove what they postulate. Your statement attempts to provoke me to "prove the negative." That violates the rules of logic since you've asked me to disprove your statement; the burden of proof lies on your shoulders, not mine.

Stating that one knows the outcome in advance of the outcome implies a lack of understanding of inference and deductive thinking. That type statement violates several rules of logic.

Any chance you know someone who used to post here whose handle was "Chris"?

 

[UKGuy]

I agree that it is unthinkable for JR to just tell AH or even his (JR's) own attorney that he and PR covered for BR. But, I do think it's *possible* that, either through a hint from a Ramsey attorney or due to evidence that we do not have access to, that AH knew or strongly suspected that BR inflicted the blow to the head and that the strangulation and everything else was part of JR and PR covering for BR. AH's comments to Steve Thomas that "This is not a prosecutable case" may be telling in this regard.

Having said this, I fully believe that AH was crooked and motivated by self-preservation.

I know BR could not be named or prosecuted, but do we know of other consequences the Ramseys may have wanted to protect him from? Could he have been removed from the home or institutionalized? Hypothetically, what would have happened had the Ramseys called the police/ambulance right away and told the truth, assuming BR was responsible for initiating sexual experimentation gone wrong which led to bashing JBR in the head? I know he could not have been held responsible in a legal sense, but would social services have gotten involved?

midwestphd,
Of course, given JonBenet had been abused why was BR not given a medical?

We know the R's wanted no outside involvement, because they staged the crime-scene and denied JonBenet medical assistance.

I guess the BPD and the DA knew that the R's were involved, but they had no real proof, simply their experience.

I'll probably have to read Kolars book, in case there are any missing nuggets of evidence, BR's touch-dna on the Pink Barbie Nighgown is significant.

AH's comments to Steve Thomas that "This is not a prosecutable case" may be telling in this regard.

Does ST know this too, how about Kolar? Who seems to suggest it might be BDI?

i.e. if AH knew it was BDI, surely ST and Kolar would know too, and would Kolar write such a book just to make money?

I wonder if what Kolar is suggesting is that it is a BDI case, but the R's pulled it off, they faked a crime-scene, and shipped BR out of the house, then had some serious forensic evidence removed when Pam did her raid.

For those who have read Kolars book does he anywhere address the issue of legal immunity that BR would have, regardless of any culpability?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Forgot to add to Edmond? "Why in the world would a kidnapper kill the kidnapped/then proceed to write a ransom note quite a long one at that..inside the home on their own paper etc with the parents there and then not take the child?"

SweetT,
LOL and thats why its a rhetorical question.



.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Oh, come on now. The answer is quite simple as you must see. Taking the body out and trying to dispose of it without leaving forensics, witnesses, and holes in an alibi would be very difficult. They would probably have gotten tripped up, but as it were, they got away with a goofy story and bogus ransom note that is too weird to even think is authentic. No one can arrest you for writing a less than plausible ranson note unless they can prove you wrote it - see what I mean, Jelly Bean? :floorlaugh:

So, what you are saying is that would have been too risky to dump the body in the woods somewhere, as in the Caylee Anthony case?

Is that right?

 

[wengr]

Now a question for you. Why would an IDI, that took the time to write the novel length ransom note, kill Jon Benet and leave her behind?

Yep, very good question. Maybe it should be posed to the experts at the FBI? Oh wait - the FBI can't say because they are not aware of such a thing ever happening before.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

It it up to the claimant to prove what they postulate. Your statement attempts to "prove the negative." That violates the rules of logic since you've asked me to disprove your statement; the burden of proof lies on your shoulders, not mine.

Stating that one knows the outcome in advance of the outcome implies a lack of understanding of inference and deductive thinking. That type statement violates several rules of logic.

Any chance you know someone who used to post here whose handle was "Chris"?

Never mind all that. Kindly answer the question put to you:

"Why would the Ramseys write a bogus ransom note then leave the body in the basement?"

BTW: I do not know this "Chris" of whom you speak.

 

[SunnieRN]

EDIII, Why would IDI do the same deed? Novel length ransom note, kill JonBenet and leave her behind? So much for obtaining a whole whopping 180K.

 

[SyraKelly]

Yep, very good question. Maybe it should be posed to the experts at the FBI? Oh wait - the FBI can't say because they are not aware of such a thing ever happening before.

excellent

 

[JaimeInLA]

Could Patsy be tried in absentium (?? whatever it is called), even though she is dead?

What is the statute of limitation on murder in CO? How long do they have to charge JR?

Why can't a 10 year old be charged with murder? (In juvenile court, of course) Is that universal or only in CO? I seem to remember several stories in which 10 year olds were charged in Florida and NJ. Could they change the law, make the law retroactive, and still charge him?