By Accident Or On Purpose Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?

[Userid]

Userid,

When did Iever accuse you of spinning? I thought Iwas defending my nonbelief in statistics in general. You did call me out on it after all.Lol!

The grand Jury seemed to think abuse played a part in JBR’s death.

Count four said the Ramsey’s "did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenét Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.

"Count seven of the indictment said the Ramsey’s did "unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

That’s not spin my friend.

Look, I understand that stats are important to you and your theory. I just don’t happen to agree.

Personal story here…

I am raising my 7 years old grandson. He’s been with me for 4 years now. As much as it pains me to admit, his mother was very neglectful amongst other things. He developed some emotional issues that resulted in dangerous acts of violence and rage (he was 3) he hit his 6 years old cousin in the head with a metal pipe, knocking her out and causing her to need 6 stitches on her forehead. He also pushed his 2 years old cousin down a flight of stairs breaking her arm. With hard work and intensive therapy, I now have a little boy who is sensitive,kind, loving and an honor roll student (GPA 4.0) I have greyer hair now LOL. 2 of my grandchildren could have died at the hands of a toddler. Gone unchecked what could he have been capable of at 9?

You brought up the cop analogy, and your point was, stats can be spun and don't necessarily illustrate the truth of the matter. I responded.

As far as the GJ indictments, I've mentioned before that, the GJ had to word it as such. People automatically assume that because it's worded this way, it automatically proves that a third person was involved, when in reality, a third person is not at all mentioned in any of the indictments. The reason why the indictments are worded the same exact way for both JR and PR, can just as easily be because the GJ couldn't prove which parent committed which particular act (the staging, compared to the actual murder, etc.), and such wording covers the GJ's bases for both parents. They knew both parents were involved, but they couldn't determine which parent committed which act; hence, the wording that was used for each parent. There is zero mention of a third party; there is only mention of a murderer being assisted (one party) and the assistant (second party). The two parties here are JR and PR -- which party was the murderer and the assistant is left open-ended, purposefully, by the GJ (because they didn't specifically know).

Also, that doesn't justify your point of bringing up abuse stats. These indictments mention absolutely nothing about prolonged abuse, be it sexual or physical (which your stats addressed). They specifically say "in a situation," which is singular -- the situation being, her murder.

 

[icedtea4me]

You brought up the cop analogy, and your point was, stats can be spun and don't necessarily illustrate the truth of the matter. I responded.

As far as the GJ indictments, I've mentioned before that, the GJ had to word it as such. People automatically assume that because it's worded this way, it automatically proves that a third person was involved, when in reality, a third person is not at all mentioned in any of the indictments. The reason why the indictments are worded the same exact way for both JR and PR, can just as easily be because the GJ couldn't prove which parent committed which particular act (the staging, compared to the actual murder, etc.), and such wording covers the GJ's bases for both parents. They knew both parents were involved, but they couldn't determine which parent committed which act; hence, the wording that was used for each parent. There is zero mention of a third party; there is only mention of a murderer being assisted (one party) and the assistant (second party). The two parties here are JR and PR -- which party was the murderer and the assistant is left open-ended, purposefully, by the GJ (because they didn't specifically know).

Also, that doesn't justify your point of bringing up abuse stats. These indictments mention absolutely nothing about prolonged abuse, be it sexual or physical (which your stats addressed). They specifically say "in a situation," which is singular -- the situation being, her murder.

Precisely. None of these four pages states "John Bennett Ramsey and Patricia Paugh Ramsey ...".

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li...025_092257_John & Patsy Ramsey indictment.pdf

 

[UKGuy]

Userid,

When did Iever accuse you of spinning? I thought Iwas defending my nonbelief in statistics in general. You did call me out on it after all.Lol!

The grand Jury seemed to think abuse played a part in JBR’s death.

Count four said the Ramsey’s "did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenét Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.

"Count seven of the indictment said the Ramsey’s did "unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

That’s not spin my friend.

Look, I understand that stats are important to you and your theory. I just don’t happen to agree.

Personal story here…

I am raising my 7 years old grandson. He’s been with me for 4 years now. As much as it pains me to admit, his mother was very neglectful amongst other things. He developed some emotional issues that resulted in dangerous acts of violence and rage (he was 3) he hit his 6 years old cousin in the head with a metal pipe, knocking her out and causing her to need 6 stitches on her forehead. He also pushed his 2 years old cousin down a flight of stairs breaking her arm. With hard work and intensive therapy, I now have a little boy who is sensitive,kind, loving and an honor roll student (GPA 4.0) I have greyer hair now LOL. 2 of my grandchildren could have died at the hands of a toddler. Gone unchecked what could he have been capable of at 9?

s(he) be(lie)ve(d),

Your summary of BDI seems reasonable to me, you could also substitute BR with PR and it would look equally understandable, particularly to those who consider the case to obviously be PDI.

Parsing the GJ 'counts' appears to identify both parents as being jointly responsible.

So both parents are charged with

Count IV (a) Child Abuse Resulting in Death

Count VII, Accessory To a Crime

i.e. in Count IV both parents are cited as being responsible for JonBenet's death.

Count VII ends with the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.

i.e both parents have been suspected of child abuse resulting in Jonenet's death and so charged, see Count IV, but neither parent has been charged wih Homicide in the First Degree, how so?

Patently because neither parent was adjudged to be the Person being assisted, otherwise they would have charges or counts levelled claiming Murder in the First Degree, just as both parents are considered culpable for Count IV (a) Child Abuse Resulting in Death

e.g. if the GJ did not know which parent killed JonBenet then similar to Count IV, they could simply charge both parents with Murder in the First Degree.

So one interpretation is that both the GJ and the prosecution were inconsistent in how they laid out the True Bill, by not stating either parent was suspected of Homicide in the First Degree as the Person was. Thereby allowing the case to be either JDI or PDI or some combination.

Another interpretation is that the Person is Burke Ramsey who according to Count IV is suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree AND child abuse resulting in death..

Again both parents were charged with child abuse resulting in death., but neither parent was charged with murder in the first degree.

I'm assuming Colorado's Child Protection Statutes apply to the Ramsey case hence the ambiguous levelling of charges in the True Bill, so to mask the Person's identity.


It is truly heart warming to hear that your story about your 7 years old grandson had a happy ending, testimony to your care and fortitude and is a nice counter-example to those who think children cannot be violent.

.

 

[Userid]

s(he) be(lie)ve(d),

i.e both parents have been suspected of child abuse resulting in Jonenet's death and so charged, see Count IV, but neither parent has been charged wih Homicide in the First Degree, how so?

Patently because neither parent was adjudged to be the Person being assisted, otherwise they would have charges or counts levelled claiming Murder in the First Degree, just as both parents are considered culpable for Count IV (a) Child Abuse Resulting in Death

e.g. if the GJ did not know which parent killed JonBenet then similar to Count IV, they could simply charge both parents with Murder in the First Degree.

.

This is simply wrong, particularly the last sentence. The GJ could never "simply charge both parent with murder in the first degree" if they weren't certain which parent committed which particular act. Do you know the point of a GJ in this country? I'm honestly asking.

 

[UKGuy]

This is simply wrong, particularly the last sentence. The GJ could never "simply charge both parent with murder in the first degree" if they weren't certain which parent committed which particular act. Do you know the point of a GJ in this country? I'm honestly asking.

Userid,
Any deficit in my knowledge regarding Grand Jury procedures is neither here nor there, nothing my favorite Search Engine would not remedy.

What is important is that the True Bills, or those that have been released, admits of more than one interpretation, e.g. JDI, PDI, a combination of PDI and JDI, or BDI. since these guys are the main actors.

As you know I favor BDI, you may elect to choose PDI, whatever?

.

 

[icedtea4me]

Is it known what is in Count I, yes or no?
Is it known what is in Count II, yes or no?
Is it known what is in Count III, yes or no?
Is it known what is in Count IV, yes or no?
Is it known what is in Count IVb, yes or no?
Is it known what is in Count V, yes or no?
Is it known what is in Count VI, yes or no?

 

[Userid]

Userid,
Any deficit in my knowledge regarding Grand Jury procedures is neither here nor there, nothing my favorite Search Engine would not remedy.

What is important is that the True Bills, or those that have been released, admits of more than one interpretation, e.g. JDI, PDI, a combination of PDI and JDI, or BDI. since these guys are the main actors.

As you know I favor BDI, you may elect to choose PDI, whatever?

.

I'm electing to interpret the indictments accurately and based on logic, whereas you are electing to interpret them in a way that supports your theory.

The simple fact of the matter is that, a GJ isn't going to simply charge people with Murder 1 on a whim (if you realized how difficult it is to convict someone on a murder one charge in this country, you would know this), as you are suggesting. In all reality, that's preposterous, as well as unethical, for a grand jury. That would pretty much defeat the whole purpose of a grand jury in the first place.

 

[UKGuy]

Is it known what is in Count I, yes or no?
Is it known what is in Count II, yes or no?
Is it known what is in Count III, yes or no?
Is it known what is in Count IV, yes or no?
Is it known what is in Count IVb, yes or no?
Is it known what is in Count V, yes or no?
Is it known what is in Count VI, yes or no?

icedtea4me,
Its not an absence of knowledge that matters but whether the case is one of JDI, PDI, or BDI, i.e. a plurality? The case has not been solved there is no smoking gun so all RDI theories are up for discussion.

.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm electing to interpret the indictments accurately and based on logic, whereas you are electing to interpret them in a way that supports your theory.

The simple fact of the matter is that, a GJ isn't going to simply charge people with Murder 1 on a whim (if you realized how difficult it is to convict someone on a murder one charge in this country, you would know this), as you are suggesting. In all reality, that's preposterous, as well as unethical, for a grand jury. That would pretty much defeat the whole purpose of a grand jury in the first place.

Userid,

I'm electing to interpret the indictments accurately and based on logic

That is fine and dandy you should sleep better tonite.

whereas you are electing to interpret them in a way that supports your theory.

This is what posters generally do.

The True Bills admit of more than one interpretation, you should allow other members to decide who has called it correctly?

If my reasoning is invalid and yours is sound and consistent then in the long run you will be vindicated, you should not concern yourself with bad reasoning in RDI theories you reckon are wrong, since they will just explode eventually, as did IDI.

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,

That is fine and dandy you should sleep better tonite.


This is what posters generally do.

The True Bills admit of more than one interpretation, you should allow other members to decide who has called it correctly?

If my reasoning is invalid and yours is sound and consistent then in the long run you will be vindicated, you should not concern yourself with bad reasoning in RDI theories you reckon are wrong, since they will just explode eventually, as did IDI.

.

(To the bolded) Even if that's true (which it isn't; I and many other are proof of that), they shouldn't.

I concern myself because, respectfully, you're spreading inaccuracies/misinformation and I feel it my right (which is allowed) to clarify for not only you and others, but particularly those new to the case.

I'll state my previous paragraph again addressing the particular argument: The simple fact of the matter is that, a GJ isn't going to simply charge people with Murder 1 on a whim (if you realized how difficult it is to convict someone on a murder one charge in this country, you would know this), as you are suggesting. In all reality, that's preposterous, as well as unethical, for a grand jury. That would pretty much defeat the whole purpose of a grand jury in the first place.

 

[UKGuy]

(To the bolded) Even if that's true (which it isn't; I and many other are proof of that), they shouldn't.

I concern myself because, respectfully, you're spreading inaccuracies/misinformation and I feel it my right (which is allowed) to clarify for not only you and others, but particularly those new to the case.

I'll state my previous paragraph again addressing the particular argument: The simple fact of the matter is that, a GJ isn't going to simply charge people with Murder 1 on a whim (if you realized how difficult it is to convict someone on a murder one charge in this country, you would know this), as you are suggesting. In all reality, that's preposterous, as well as unethical, for a grand jury. That would pretty much defeat the whole purpose of a grand jury in the first place.

Userid,

I feel it my right (which is allowed) to clarify for not only you and others, but particularly those new to the case.

Well the referenced members will be happy to know someone is fine-tuning what they should think,.

Personally I do not think it relevant if someones opinion is more righteous than some others, motes and beams spring to mind here. The case has not been solved there is no smoking gun so all opinions should be aired and heard.

This is how we make progress.

.

 

[Userid]

^ It's not "fine tuning what they think." You see, when something is factually wrong and/or misrepresented, it's beneficial for people to know/realize it. This has nothing to do with "righteous opinions." You're simply wrong: a grand jury isn't going to just indict anyone for the most serious of charges willy-nilly; that's not how it works in this country. If anyone is trying to "fine tune what people think," I'd say it's the guy who is distorting/suspending logical reasoning to make his wobbly argument more convincing.

 

[Cottonstar]

"So why in Count VII which is about being an accessory to a murderer, why after we've established Child Abuse as a charge earlier, in IVa, why does the Bill go to the trouble to describe the murdering suspect as: "the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death." Our MURDERER is accused of murder but also of a second charge: "and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

"To be plain, three people including the Ramsey parents are accused of child abuse not two."
Shakedowntitle.com

From the Daily Camera:

A reporter's subsequent lawsuit resulted in an October 2013 decision by a judge to unseal those indictments, which not only confirmed the indictments' existence, but also revealed that both parents also had been indicted on a second charge, that of accessory to an unidentified third person in the crime of first-degree murder.

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey/ci_30666467/jonbenet-ramsey-grand-juror-interview


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

"So why in Count VII which is about being an accessory to a murderer, why after we've established Child Abuse as a charge earlier, in IVa, why does the Bill go to the trouble to describe the murdering suspect as: "the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death." Our MURDERER is accused of murder but also of a second charge: "and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

"To be plain, three people including the Ramsey parents are accused of child abuse not two."
Shakedowntitle.com

From the Daily Camera:

A reporter's subsequent lawsuit resulted in an October 2013 decision by a judge to unseal those indictments, which not only confirmed the indictments' existence, but also revealed that both parents also had been indicted on a second charge, that of accessory to an unidentified third person in the crime of first-degree murder.

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey/ci_30666467/jonbenet-ramsey-grand-juror-interview


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cottonstar,
That's it in a nutshell the Person is a suspect in a Child Abuse Resulting in Death allegation, whereas both parents have actually had these counts levelled against them, i.e. Count IV (a) Child Abuse Resulting in Death. This is why I upper-cased the AND when I mentioned i before.

Obviously some people have a limited capacity to apply logical analysis which manifests itself as pedantry and righteousness.

Seen it all before, they come and go, why because their case explodes ...

.

 

[Userid]

"So why in Count VII which is about being an accessory to a murderer, why after we've established Child Abuse as a charge earlier, in IVa, why does the Bill go to the trouble to describe the murdering suspect as: "the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death." Our MURDERER is accused of murder but also of a second charge: "and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

"To be plain, three people including the Ramsey parents are accused of child abuse not two."
Shakedowntitle.com

From the Daily Camera:

A reporter's subsequent lawsuit resulted in an October 2013 decision by a judge to unseal those indictments, which not only confirmed the indictments' existence, but also revealed that both parents also had been indicted on a second charge, that of accessory to an unidentified third person in the crime of first-degree murder.

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey/ci_30666467/jonbenet-ramsey-grand-juror-interview


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I already answered this question.

I'll state it again: absolutely nowhere in any of the indictments does it mention a 3rd party. The only 2 parties mentioned, are the murderer and the assistant.

 

[Userid]

Cottonstar,
That's it in a nutshell the Person is a suspect in a Child Abuse Resulting in Death allegation, whereas both parents have actually had these counts levelled against them, i.e. Count IV (a) Child Abuse Resulting in Death. This is why I upper-cased the AND when I mentioned i before.

Obviously some people have a limited capacity to apply logical analysis which manifests itself as pedantry and righteousness.

Seen it all before, they come and go, why because their case explodes ...

.

You can't counter the argument with any real substance, so you label people as self-righteous. Cute (as are your usual antics), but ineffective.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,
Its not an absence of knowledge that matters but whether the case is one of JDI, PDI, or BDI, i.e. a plurality? The case has not been solved there is no smoking gun so all RDI theories are up for discussion.

.

That doesn't answer my questions.

 

[icedtea4me]

If Count IVa and Count VII were the only counts against each John and Patsy, then they would have been listed as Count I and Count II.

 

[s(he) be(lie)ve(d)]

Userid,

My first post is #1000 of this thread. Your response #1003 “Completely disagree. That's a convenient way for people to dismiss facts and statistics”. From there I went down the statistical rabbit hole with you.

The low statistical numbers are like the tail wagging the dog. They only prove that its rare, they don’t prove that BR wasn’t one of the rare and your opinion doesn’t change that FACT.

Your opinion of the true bills, is that based on legal fact? Like say, a lawyer explained them to you or is it simply your interpretation? Because there seem to be a bunch of media outlets that understand them the same way that I do. Being that they have not retracted them nor are they being sued, leads me to believe, I’m interpreting them accurately.I imagine they consulted with legal counsel. There are even legal talking heads that understand them the same way as I do. What about LW, he hasn’t used your argument in defending the R’s indictment, he simply said the jury was confused and contradictory, then he went into the DNA monologue, yada… yada…yada. What he didn’t say was “the jury had to word it that way”.

I don’t remember using the indictment as proof of a third person ( although I think there was..lol). I used it to show abuse existed. You’re very good at putting words in my mouth.

Who said prolonged abuse? I said it was my OPINION (not fact) that JBR was being abused in every way. I never said for how long.

I will reiterate… Your opinion, like mine, does not equate too fact. It’s nothing more than opinion based upon our own interpretations. Last time I checked, that was welcome here.

For the new people here, improbable does not mean impossible. Be free and critical thinkers.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/02/news_pf/Hillsborough/What_to_do_if_7_year_.shtml

What to do if 7-year-old boy killed half sister?

The New York Times, in a story about the NewYork murder, quoted a Boston college professor who said that since 1976, onaverage, about six children under the age of 10 have committed murder or nonnegligent homicide each year in the United States.

http://www.cnn.http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/03/31/alaska-first-grade-plot-to-poison-classmate-pkg.ktuucom/videos/us/2016/03/31/alaska-first-grade-plot-to-poison-classmate-pkg.ktuu

http://www.news5cleveland.com/news/national/pcso-boy-brutally-kills-his-infant-sister-mother-arrested

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/11/boy_8_charged_with_murder_in_t.html

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/year-old-charged-with-murder-in-st-clair-county/article_3337c6d0-f3ae-11e1-aa65-0019bb30f31a.html

http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/18528-boy-10-charged-in-beating-death-of-2-year-old-cousin

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/05/13/10-year-old-to-be-charged-with-dog-beating-dog-death/

http://wgntv.com/2014/10/14/10-year-old-boy-charged-with-beating-90-year-old-woman-to-death/comment-page-1/

 

[s(he) be(lie)ve(d)]

Thank you for the assist and kind words. Tell me, do you wear a bullet proof vest when you post here? Thanks again.