By Accident Or On Purpose Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?

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

Whims and willy-nilly oh my. Are you kidding me? The grand jury had 13 months and over 30,000 pieces of evidence at their disposal, nothing willy-nilly about that. Am I understanding you right? Are you saying that grand juries don't indict on first degree murder? And what constitutes willy-nilly and whim to you?

 

[k-mac]

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?

gosh aren't these the burning questions to our souls!
somebody must have the accessibility to leek the unreleased proposed counts.
why the damn hell doesn't it happen?????????????????

 

[UKGuy]

gosh aren't these the burning questions to our souls!
somebody must have the accessibility to leek the unreleased proposed counts.
why the damn hell doesn't it happen?????????????????

k-mac,
Short answer , they have something to hide, and it cannot be something to do with Patsy, e.g PDI.

Might be linked to JR or BR, a long shot is BPD emabarrassment, my money is on BR being accussed of something. Not sure if he can have counts levelled then discounted as he is underage, I'm not certain how the GJ deals administratively with minors?

.

 

[Cottonstar]

Lisa Polansky is a criminal law attorney in Colorado.

Clemente: Does that mean that they’re charging John with assisting Patsy if she did it, and they’re charging Patsy with assisting John if he did it?

Polansky: It’s legally possible in the state of Colorado for John to be assisting Patsy, Patsy to be assisting John.

Clemente: Wouldn’t they both then also be charged with the underlying crime, as opposed to just?

Polansky: Yes. Normally, if they do an accessory charge, which here is generally after the fact, it’s usually somebody else. My opinion would be that there is a third person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[k-mac]

k-mac,
Short answer , they have something to hide, and it cannot be something to do with Patsy, e.g PDI.

Might be linked to JR or BR, a long shot is BPD emabarrassment, my money is on BR being accussed of something. Not sure if he can have counts levelled then discounted as he is underage, I'm not certain how the GJ deals administratively with minors?

.

that's not what I'm asking uk.
we know obviously ramseys have something to hide.
but the rest of the world??? come on now.
the general consensus around here is because burke is a protected species.
well so be it.
that doesnt explain why the information hasn't been leeked .
especially when there has been no justice for jonbenet.
there has to be a way to break the paper trail.
why hasn't powers that be made it happen.
everyone cant be on the pay role.
somebody knows what those counts are and could get them out.


there has to be somebody out there connected to all of this

 

[icedtea4me]

Lisa Polansky is a criminal law attorney in Colorado.

Clemente: Does that mean that they’re charging John with assisting Patsy if she did it, and they’re charging Patsy with assisting John if he did it?

Polansky: It’s legally possible in the state of Colorado for John to be assisting Patsy, Patsy to be assisting John.

Clemente: Wouldn’t they both then also be charged with the underlying crime, as opposed to just?

Polansky: Yes. Normally, if they do an accessory charge, which here is generally after the fact, it’s usually somebody else. My opinion would be that there is a third person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You didn't provide a source for this because....?

 

[UKGuy]

that's not what I'm asking uk.
we know obviously ramseys have something to hide.
but the rest of the world??? come on now.
the general consensus around here is because burke is a protected species.
well so be it.
that doesnt explain why the information hasn't been leeked .
especially when there has been no justice for jonbenet.
there has to be a way to break the paper trail.
why hasn't powers that be made it happen.
everyone cant be on the pay role.
somebody knows what those counts are and could get them out.


there has to be somebody out there connected to all of this

k-mac,

there has to be somebody out there connected to all of this

Sure, my money is on Alex Hunter, he that has no comment as he is bound by the GJ rules, etc. So either JR becomes deceased and all is revealed or Alex Hunter becomes deceased and the legalese unwinds as stuff appears in public?

I reckon if the case were PDI we would have heard by now, especially via whispers off the record by ex GJ members. With the partial release of the True Bills everyone knows PR and JR were allegedly involved, also if the case were JDI, somebody would have said something. Although there is no smoking gun, comments offered by ex BDP Officers or GJ Members would patently be enough to rule out specific theories, even if it might not lead to a trial?

Although there is no actual proof, it looks like its BR that is being protcted by the non-release of all the True Bills. It cannot be Patsy, she is deceased, once JR leaves us, if the status quo remains then the only public reputation left is BR's?

Another explanation could be that the case is really PDI, with everyone including BR, Alex Hunter, Lou Smit, et al, all piling in to stage manage an Intruder Homicide. Therefore disclosure is not on the cards!

So on the surface PDI along with a conpiracy looks more realistic than BDI and the parents staging him out?

.

 

[Tadpole12]

CBS The Case of JonBenet Ramsey:


Episode 1
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Ramsey-CBS-Sept-18-2&p=12843392#post12843392


Episode 2
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Ramsey-CBS-Sept-18-2&p=12829093#post12829093

Lisa Polansky is a criminal law attorney in Colorado.
Clemente: Does that mean that they’re charging John with assisting Patsy if she did it, and they’re charging Patsy with assisting John if he did it?
Polansky: It’s legally possible in the state of Colorado for John to be assisting Patsy, Patsy to be assisting John.
Clemente: Wouldn’t they both then also be charged with the underlying crime, as opposed to just?
Polansky: Yes. Normally, if they do an accessory
charge, which here is generally after the fact, it’s usually somebody else. My opinion would be that there is a third person.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?317457-The-Case-of-JonBenet-Ramsey-CBS-Sept-18-2&p=12829117#post12829117

CBS The Case of JonBenet Ramsey:
Episode 1


"(8)
Press conference snippet-
Alex Hunter "Under no circumstances will I or any of my advisers discuss Grand Jury proceedings today or ever. Unless
ordered by the court."


Clemente and Laura speak to a Boulder Colorado attorney to discuss how these laws are applied.
Lisa Polansky- Colorado Defense Attorney

Laura reads the Grand Jury statement
"So on or bend tween December 25th and December 26th, 1996, John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, recklessly, knowingly and
feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably be placed in a situation in which posed a threat of injury to the child's life
or health which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey.
The other count was..
"John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person with intent to hinder,
delay, prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such a person, knowing
the person being assisted has committed and suspected of the crime of Murder in The First Degree and Child Abuse
Resulting in Death."

Clemente- " Does that mean they are charging John with assisting Patsy if she did it, and they're charging Patsy with assisting
John if he did it?"
Polansky- "It's legally possible in the state of Colorado for John to be assisting Patsy, or Patsy to be assisting John."
Clemente- "Wouldn't they both then also charged with the underlying crime as proposed to just..."
Polansky- "Yes. Normally if they do an accessory charge which here is generally after the fact, it's usually somebody else.
My opinion would be that there is a third person."
Clemente- "The only third person that's left is Burke Ramsey."
Polansky- "And it's a complicated area. Colorado's minimum age for prosecution is 10 years old. The science behind it of
course would be that the child under 10 is not psychologically able to commit a crime and they use the old common law
term which is infancy which is to say that they can not form the intent. If you look at the brain science, um as we
know the frontal lobe is not fully developed and that's where the executive function occurs. And so it's difficult to
say well a kid clearly made a "decision" to do X,Y,Z. With regard to Burke, he was nine at the time of the crime I don't
know how they would prosecute him because of that floor, that minimum age of 10. Let's just say, you could say, "negligent
Homicide" even if he was, you know prosecuted now, you can't even prosecute him for that because he was not yet 10.""

 

[Tadpole12]

Silverman considers possibility of 3rd party
wrt True Bill

[video=youtube;tHvoptkhZ_M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHvoptkhZ_M[/video]

?:...They're charged each with child abuse resulting
in death and accessory.
That's ... Not charged, but the Grand Jury voted that.
Doesn't really say which one,
allegedly according to the Grand Jury,
killed JonBenet, does it?

CS: No, it's fascinating.
They were both charged with
child abuse resulting in death
Kind of the equivalent of second degree murder.
And it was under two theories,
that they permitted it
and they rendered assistance.
Now, it raises the possibility, was there a third person.
We do know from the crime scene experts that this scene
appears to have been staged.
We also know about the ransom note.
Was this some sort of staged kidnapping
that went terribly wrong?
I don't know, but what this Grand Jury conclusion,
it's really something.
I mean Boulder citizens deciding to accuse
JonBenet's parents for being responsible
for her death.

?: So they, the Grand Jury votes to indict.
But that's not mandatory.
It's up to the district attorney
who has to have, Craig, a good faith
belief that he can prove a case beyond a reasonable
doubt and one would assume, would you,
that Alex Hunter, the DA at the time, just
didn't feel that he had sufficient evidence

CS: You've got it exactly right, ....
I mean probable cause is all you need to
indict and we don't know
cause we can't talk to the Grand Jurors yet.
Alex hunter had a right to not sign that
indictment.
He had a right not to prosecute.
But what the Judge said in his ruling recently
Alex Hunter had no right to keep this
hidden away from the public
and he not only did that
but he actively let us to believe
that the Grand Jury
either exonerated the Ramseys
or were never allowed to take a vote.
And you have to ask,
Why let the grand jury vote if you're not
going to do anything about it?

 

[Tadpole12]

[video=youtube;GuK9vlBHgFo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuK9vlBHgFo[/video]

Mark Furman comments:


MF: ....The Grand Jury seems to agree in these two indictments
That John and Patsy Ramsey both knew
the person that actually caused the death of Jonbenet
and they were the ones that placed JonBenet
in that situation to be killed.
Death of a child where there's abuse
First degree
And then they aided
and covered up and staged a crime scene,
wrote a ransom note,
And I think those are the tidbits of evidence,
that they're referring to in this indictment,
because those are the issues
that actually made John ans Patsy
appear to be suspects in this case.

?: What is it, what does this mean?
I mean what motive would they have to cover up
the murderer of their child or facilitate it?

 

[Tadpole12]

Doesn't the terminology within the true bill
dictate the 3rd person inclusion?
or is it a matter of interpretation?

 

[UKGuy]

Silverman considers possibility of 3rd party
wrt True Bill

[video=youtube;tHvoptkhZ_M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHvoptkhZ_M[/video]

?:...They're charged each with child abuse resulting
in death and accessory.
That's ... Not charged, but the Grand Jury voted that.
Doesn't really say which one,
allegedly according to the Grand Jury,
killed JonBenet, does it?

CS: No, it's fascinating.
They were both charged with
child abuse resulting in death
Kind of the equivalent of second degree murder.
And it was under two theories,
that they permitted it
and they rendered assistance.
Now, it raises the possibility, was there a third person.
We do know from the crime scene experts that this scene
appears to have been staged.
We also know about the ransom note.
Was this some sort of staged kidnapping
that went terribly wrong?
I don't know, but what this Grand Jury conclusion,
it's really something.
I mean Boulder citizens deciding to accuse
JonBenet's parents for being responsible
for her death.

?: So they, the Grand Jury votes to indict.
But that's not mandatory.
It's up to the district attorney
who has to have, Craig, a good faith
belief that he can prove a case beyond a reasonable
doubt and one would assume, would you,
that Alex Hunter, the DA at the time, just
didn't feel that he had sufficient evidence

CS: You've got it exactly right, ....
I mean probable cause is all you need to
indict and we don't know
cause we can't talk to the Grand Jurors yet.
Alex hunter had a right to not sign that
indictment.
He had a right not to prosecute.
But what the Judge said in his ruling recently
Alex Hunter had no right to keep this
hidden away from the public
and he not only did that
but he actively let us to believe
that the Grand Jury
either exonerated the Ramseys
or were never allowed to take a vote.
And you have to ask,
Why let the grand jury vote if you're not
going to do anything about it?

Tadpole12,

CS: No, it's fascinating.
They were both charged with
child abuse resulting in death
Kind of the equivalent of second degree murder.

IMO, this is the important point, since both parents were True Billed for Child Abuse Resulting in Death, [Count IV (a)], then there was nothing to prevent both parents being True Billed on Murder in the First Degree, since at a minimum one parent is directly responsible for JonBenet's death and the other guilty of [Count IV (a)], this could all be thrashed out in court, as it normally is?


As CS implies the Parents were True Billed for JonBenet's death, so why not on Murder in the First Degree? Could they have been True billed as Joint Conspirators to Murder in the First Degree?, I think they do this with Organized Crime Gangs and Terrorists.

Mark Furman comments:

?: What is it, what does this mean?
I mean what motive would they have to cover up
the murderer of their child or facilitate it?

Only if both or one parent killed JonBenet and the other assisted in the cover up?

Yet the GJ only True Billed the parents with Child Abuse Resulting in Death and Accessory To a Crime

So it appears as if the GJ assumed one parent killed JonBenet with the other parent helping with the cover up, except they never had enough evidence to suggest which parent killed JonBenet?

 

[UKGuy]

Doesn't the terminology within the true bill
dictate the 3rd person inclusion?
or is it a matter of interpretation?

Tadpole12,
Its a matter of interpretation. I reckon it has been deliberately worded as such. I think you can strongly interpret 3rd Person inclusion if no reasonable explanation is forthcoming as to why Murder in the First Degree was not levelled at both parents, since Child Abuse Resulting in Death was, and the same questions regarding evidence would arise from both counts?

.

 

[Tadpole12]

I'll have to mull it over.

 

[icedtea4me]

Tadpole12,

IMO, this is the important point, since both parents were True Billed for Child Abuse Resulting in Death, [Count IV (a)], then there was nothing to prevent both parents being True Billed on Murder in the First Degree, since at a minimum one parent is directly responsible for JonBenet's death and the other guilty of [Count IV (a)], this could all be thrashed out in court, as it normally is?


As CS implies the Parents were True Billed for JonBenet's death, so why not on Murder in the First Degree? Could they have been True billed as Joint Conspirators to Murder in the First Degree?, I think they do this with Organized Crime Gangs and Terrorists.

Mark Furman comments:

Only if both or one parent killed JonBenet and the other assisted in the cover up?

Yet the GJ only True Billed the parents with Child Abuse Resulting in Death and Accessory To a Crime

So it appears as if the GJ assumed one parent killed JonBenet with the other parent helping with the cover up, except they never had enough evidence to suggest which parent killed JonBenet?

Counts I, II, III, IV, IVb, V, and VI for John and for Patsy simply didn't receive the minimum number of votes required like Counts IVa and VII did.

 

[Userid]

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/

Your stats were based on prolonged abuse.

I will be honest here: I didn't read your entire post here. In a way, I don't really have to, because multiple people (in this thread) have posted multiple stats on the subject that clearly illustrate that a nine year old murdering anyone in general, let alone his sibling, is incredibly rare -- much rarer, compared to a parent murdering a child. That's really it. You can try and muddle/skirt around this simple fact all you want, but in the end, this is the simple reality.

So you have 6 examples of a child committing murder (not against a sibling, just murder in general) in the past 40 years per year (240 -- quite low) and literally one example of a child committing murder against a sibling -- this doesn't sway me. Still very, very rare. Shall I post links to every random local story about a parent committing murder against a child? I could, but I don't have to -- we all know that occurs much more so.

 

[Userid]

Whims and willy-nilly oh my. Are you kidding me? The grand jury had 13 months and over 30,000 pieces of evidence at their disposal, nothing willy-nilly about that. Am I understanding you right? Are you saying that grand juries don't indict on first degree murder? And what constitutes willy-nilly and whim to you?

Ah, my favorite technique: taking one term I used and completely twisting it around.

I said "willy nilly" not to you, dear lady -- I used that term while addressing UK Guy, and I used it in response to his belief that the grand jury would simply charge both parents with Murder One, even if they didn't know exactly which parent committed which act. They wouldn't, and they couldn't. This isn't "People's Court" here.

Congrats: you just lost all your credibility with this post, at least with me. Never once had I ever said that a grand jury doesn't ever charge for murder one, so don't put words in my mouth: I said, this particular grand jury wouldn't do so, because they simply couldn't -- this is obvious in the indictments, and any ethical jury wouldn't just charge one person, let alone two, for murder one without sufficient evidence. The whole point of a grand jury is to be objective and to determine the exact grounds why a trial should move forward. To expect this grand jury to charge both parents with murder one when the evidence they had at their disposal didn't clarify which parent was responsible for which act is utterly ludicrous. You are assuming (I don't need to use the old adage here) that the "30,000 pieces of evidence" would clearly show which parent committed which particular, specific act, even though you have zero idea of what any or all of that evidence was. You weren't in that jury; and neither was I, but based on what the jury did charge the parents with, one can rationally assume that said evidence didn't illustrate which parent committed which act.

 

[Userid]

Tadpole12,
Its a matter of interpretation. I reckon it has been deliberately worded as such. I think you can strongly interpret 3rd Person inclusion if no reasonable explanation is forthcoming as to why Murder in the First Degree was not levelled at both parents, since Child Abuse Resulting in Death was, and the same questions regarding evidence would arise from both counts?

.

It wasn't leveled because there wasn't sufficient evidence as to which parent committed it, and the GJ knew Hunter wouldn't sign it without that specific evidence, so they generalized it with the hope it had a better chance to be signed. Obviously, since he wouldn't even sign this one, he most definitely wouldn't have signed a murder-one for both.

"CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the indictments merely show that a majority of the grand jurors felt there was probable cause to charge the parents -- a lower standard than proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/index.html

 

[Userid]

Doesn't the terminology within the true bill
dictate the 3rd person inclusion?
or is it a matter of interpretation?

Interpretation. That's why even lawyers can't agree on the subject: some think it does dictate a 3rd person; some think it doesn't.

 

[Userid]

"The juror said he believes that there was enough evidence to indict John and Patsy Ramsey for a crime, but he doesn’t think they would have been convicted.

“There is no way that I would have been able to say, ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt, this is the person,’” the juror said. “And if you are the district attorney, if you know that going in, it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars to do it.”"

http://abcnews.go.com/US/grand-juror-original-evidence-jonbenet-ramsey-case-speaks/story?id=44196237

This pretty much says it all and proves my point.