By Accident Or On Purpose Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?

[Tadpole12]

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

Ty, userid

I was stuck in a
'It can't be so,
so It isn't'
loop.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/

from the October 25, 2013 article

"Why would a D.A. have a grand jury deliberate and vote
if he is not going to pursue the charges that they bring back?"
Silverman said. "And did the grand jury come up with those charges
on their own? No way.
One of the D.A.s had to provide that verbiage."

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.

"It doesn't precisely say that the grand jury thought they killed JonBenet,
" Toobin said. "It's not precisely clear what they thought they did."

 

[Userid]

Sure thing Tadpole. It's ambiguous, because it needed to be, in an ethical, legal, and procedural sense.

 

[UKGuy]

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.

icedtea4me.
There is not much we can derive from the unpublished Counts. I suppose its possible that one might have been Murder in the First Degree levelled at Patsy with John recieving an Accessory charge?

With the GJ not sure who did what, the GJ declined the Murder One charge against a parent? Presumably the unpublished Counts state who allegedly did what to JonBenet?

.

 

[UKGuy]

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,
I'm not certain which Oracle you consult but nobody knows if the GJ had the option of charging both parents with Murder One? Never mind charging just one parent with Murder One and the other with an Accessory charge?

You nor I know what is in those unpublished True Bills, they might contain Murder One Counts, I reckon they will, after all it was a homicide.


You have to ask why Patsy was not charged with Murder One her fibers are embedded into the ligature knotting, and on the sticky side of the tape found on JonBenet's lips?

If thats not good enough evidence, what do the GJ want a movie to replay how JonBenet was killed?

Alex Hunter knew in advance what the outcome should be, he can always claim there was not enough evidence to determine who did what, so he declined to sign off the paperwork.

Without knowing what the GJ saw and what they could have seen, we will never know if Alex Hunter, et al, engineered the outcome?

.

 

[Userid]

No oracle -- just common sense and the grand jury members' own words, which I quoted above. They didn't know which person was responsible -- those are his words. So for you to desperately grasp at this notion that the unpublished true bills contain a murder one charge -- when the juror even said he didn't know which person it was -- goes against common sense.

Again, a murder one charge is harder to push through. NO jury would ever charge a person with murder one without being "beyond a reasonable doubt"; or at the very least, without solid and direct (not circumstantial) evidence.

Fibers don't clarify whether she herself killed JBR or whether she was simply the stager.

 

[UKGuy]

No oracle -- just common sense and the grand jury members' own words, which I quoted above. They didn't know which person was responsible -- those are his words. So for you to desperately grasp at this notion that the unpublished true bills contain a murder one charge -- when the juror even said he didn't know which person it was -- goes against common sense.

Again, a murder one charge is harder to push through. NO jury would ever charge a person with murder one without being "beyond a reasonable doubt"; or at the very least, without solid and direct (not circumstantial) evidence.

Fibers don't clarify whether she herself killed JBR or whether she was simply the stager.

Userid,
What you cited and what you posted are two different things.

You cited:

“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.”"

So this is one guy's opinion !

From this you arrived at:

They didn't know which person was responsible -- those are his words.

Not quite, nearly but not inclusive as you suggest.

I'm assuming the GJ thought the suspects were JR, PR and BR exclusively. i.e. one of those three killed JonBenet?

So the GJ had to consider:

1. JDI with PR as Accessory

2. PDI with JR as Accessory

3. BDI with both parents as Accessories.

4 PDI and JDI with both parents as Accessories.

So what True Bills did the other GJ members not vote through, surely it has to be some variation of 1, 2, 3, or 4 above?

Thinking there is not enough evidence is not the same as testing the case against the evidence in an open court, which begs the question as to why Alec Hunter never presented the True Bills as a public record in court?

Rather than assume they never knew who did it, its equally possible they knew who did it, but only levelled True Bills at those they legally could, i.e. the case is option 3.
.

 

[Userid]

One guy who happened to be on the actual jury!

Go ahead and conveniently try to dismiss the one guy's opinion that has the most relevance to the argument if you absolutely must!

The juror clearly said, he "couldn't say 'this is the person'". If he couldn't say "this is the person," then he couldn't charge one of those people with murder one, obviously!

 

[Userid]

If you didn't already know, BR is considered a person, even at nine.

“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.”"

This quote was from an interview, not a jury room.

 

[UKGuy]

One guy who happened to be on the actual jury!

Go ahead and conveniently try to dismiss the one guy's opinion that has the most relevance to the argument if you absolutely must!

The juror clearly said, he "couldn't say 'this is the person'". If he couldn't say "this is the person," then he couldn't charge one of those people with murder one, obviously!

Userid,
I am not dismissing the guy's opinion, I'm pointing out this is just one guy's opinion, which does not tell us which True Bills were rejected.

The juror clearly said, he "couldn't say 'this is the person'". If he couldn't say "this is the person," then he couldn't charge one of those people with murder one, obviously!

Which is always true, AKA as a tautology.

Why do you not accept my interpretation, i.e. the case could be BDI with parents acting as Accessories? This would allow the GJ members to charge the parents as Accessories and with either a no vote or abstention on any of BR's counts. How does this work in the USofA?

The case can be one of four variations, but most consider PDI and BDI to be the front runners. How come we have heard no whispers regarding PDI, despite PR being deceased?

Note: I'm not saying your interpreation is incorrect just that there are other interpretations that are consistent with what your GJ member said, e.g. JDI with PR as Accessory, but is rejected and JR's True Bills become Child Abuse and Accessory.

.

 

[Userid]

^ Because your "BDI with parents as accessories" theory is based on a house of cards. It's based on "might," like other elements of your BDI. Such as, the GJ "might" have charged a parent with murder one (this doesn't make sense for your BDI theory, so I'm not sure why you'd suggest this at all; if the grand jury "knew" BR did it, they wouldn't charge one or both parents with murder one, but I digress). Same argument with the evidence: the police "might" have evidence that suggests BR; it's just that, they haven't released it like they did the fibers for the parents, etc.......There's a pattern here.

I elect not to build my theory on "might's," but rather, from what we already, definitively know; and deduce from that, rather than deducing from "might's" and "maybe's."

 

[UKGuy]

^ Because your "BDI with parents as accessories" theory is based on a house of cards. It's based on "might," like other elements of your BDI. Such as, the GJ "might" have charged a parent with murder one (this doesn't make sense for your BDI theory, so I'm not sure why you'd suggest this at all; if the grand jury "knew" BR did it, they wouldn't charge one or both parents with murder one, but I digress). Same argument with the evidence: the police "might" have evidence that suggests BR; it's just that, they haven't released it like they did the fibers for the parents, etc.......There's a pattern here.

I elect not to build my theory on "might's," but rather, from what we already, definitively know; and deduce from that, rather than deducing from "might's" and "maybe's."

Userid,
Your rhetoric is florid with mights and maybe's tossed in but you offer no rational explanation why BDI cannot be considered.

BDI is one of the possibilities in this case, and there is nothing the GJ said or did that has ruled this out. Maybe one day another GJ Member might pop up to say the case is definitely not BDI, for this reason ... Then I'll abandon BDI as an option,

.

 

[CorallaroC]

Yikes, I hope no one really worries that Boulder GJ members, or residents ever worried about the JonBenet Ramsey case causing financial problems for the City of Boulder. Ok maybe the DA had to take that into consideration, but he-double-l for the last twenty years this case has actually BROUGHT income to Boulder, has it not? Even to this day? Count the beans...

Another thing, do we know whether or not JR was told to get out of Dodge and stay out of Dodge? Pr said openly she did not want to ever go back to Boulder. Ok fine. Understandable, sorta. Of course she would never want to go back to the house or formally meet with BPD.

ONe tv special indicated that BR went back to Boulder and near the house...... was that real?

Was there ever an edict that JR hould never come back to Colorado, Boulder in particular?

IDK. Anyone who knows plz let me know

By

 

[Cottonstar]

Yikes, I hope no one really worries that Boulder GJ members, or residents ever worried about the JonBenet Ramsey case causing financial problems for the City of Boulder. Ok maybe the DA had to take that into consideration, but he-double-l for the last twenty years this case has actually BROUGHT income to Boulder, has it not? Even to this day? Count the beans...

Another thing, do we know whether or not JR was told to get out of Dodge and stay out of Dodge? Pr said openly she did not want to ever go back to Boulder. Ok fine. Understandable, sorta. Of course she would never want to go back to the house or formally meet with BPD.

ONe tv special indicated that BR went back to Boulder and near the house...... was that real?

Was there ever an edict that JR hould never come back to Colorado, Boulder in particular?

IDK. Anyone who knows plz let me know

By

He’s been back multiple times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cottonstar]

Ironically, in relation to Kolar’s mention of the Boulder cops(under Mark Beckner) working the touch DNA lead, Kolar mentions, subsequent to the 2009 cold case task force meeting(and 10 years after the GJ voted)and in lieu of the Boulder cops pursuing a match to the DNA in JonBenét’s underwear, they had been trying to round up DNA samples from JonBenét's and Burke’s classmates.

It’s pretty amazing that in spite of the craven silence enveloping this case, more than a decade after JonBenét’s murder, police were sniffing around schoolchildren in search of a DNA bingo.
But what about Garnett? What did he know?
From westword.com:
Current DA Stan Garnett also knew about the grand jury’s vote. But he steered clear of the matter until Brennan went to court to get the “true bill” documents released. Judge Robert Lowenbach ruled that Brennan and the public are entitled to view only four pages of the eighteen pages submitted by the DA’s office for the judge’s inspection, consisting of the general language regarding the charges being sought (and no specifics about the actions prompting those charges).
In other words, Garnett was, and is still, in a position to reveal or act on the contents of the remainder of the document. Well, has he? Or, will he?

Westwood and Sequin Star



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David Rogers]

It’s possible that Jonbenet was killed the first time she was strangled and Patsy staged the crime with the second strangulation. Some have said it looks like there where two marks on her neck. May be some involuntary movement when she was first strangled? That cord taken off then the staging?

 

[Userid]

Userid,
Your rhetoric is florid with mights and maybe's tossed in but you offer no rational explanation why BDI cannot be considered.

BDI is one of the possibilities in this case, and there is nothing the GJ said or did that has ruled this out. Maybe one day another GJ Member might pop up to say the case is definitely not BDI, for this reason ... Then I'll abandon BDI as an option,

.

No, it isn't. My "rhetoric" goes off of what we know. Good try though.

We know both parents were charged with the same thing. We know one of the jurors himself even admitted he didn't know which particular person committed the murder. We know the only fiber evidence found on JBR was from the two parents. The end.

 

[Userid]

Ironically, in relation to Kolar’s mention of the Boulder cops(under Mark Beckner) working the touch DNA lead, Kolar mentions, subsequent to the 2009 cold case task force meeting(and 10 years after the GJ voted)and in lieu of the Boulder cops pursuing a match to the DNA in JonBenét’s underwear, they had been trying to round up DNA samples from JonBenét's and Burke’s classmates.

It’s pretty amazing that in spite of the craven silence enveloping this case, more than a decade after JonBenét’s murder, police were sniffing around schoolchildren in search of a DNA bingo.
But what about Garnett? What did he know?
From westword.com:
Current DA Stan Garnett also knew about the grand jury’s vote. But he steered clear of the matter until Brennan went to court to get the “true bill” documents released. Judge Robert Lowenbach ruled that Brennan and the public are entitled to view only four pages of the eighteen pages submitted by the DA’s office for the judge’s inspection, consisting of the general language regarding the charges being sought (and no specifics about the actions prompting those charges).
In other words, Garnett was, and is still, in a position to reveal or act on the contents of the remainder of the document. Well, has he? Or, will he?

Westwood and Sequin Star



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This isn't all that odd, in reality. They needed to rule out everyone....i.e. anyone who may have had contact (remember, this was touch DNA) to the garment. Quite standard police protocol, honestly.

I hope the entirety of the document gets released -- what is somewhat ironic, is so does JR and his lawyer.

 

[UKGuy]

No, it isn't. My "rhetoric" goes off of what we know. Good try though.

We know both parents were charged with the same thing. We know one of the jurors himself even admitted he didn't know which particular person committed the murder. We know the only fiber evidence found on JBR was from the two parents. The end.

Userid,

We know one of the jurors himself even admitted he didn't know which particular person committed the murder.

So that particular person could be BR, any reason why not?

We know the only fiber evidence found on JBR was from the two parents. The end.

I agree, resulting from them attempting to stage BR out of the case, hence the Child Abuse and Accessory charges.

Like I say unless you offer evidence that rules BDI out, with the parents acting as accessories, then BDI is on the table !

.

 

[Userid]

Because there's no evidence to support it's BR.

The charges are against the parents.

The evidence (fibers) recovered belonged to the parents.

Zero evidence from BR recovered from JBR.

Once again, you're relying on "maybe." House of cards.

 

[UKGuy]

Because there's no evidence to support it's BR.

The charges are against the parents.

The evidence (fibers) recovered belonged to the parents.

Zero evidence from BR recovered from JBR.

Once again, you're relying on "maybe." House of cards.

Userid,

Because there's no evidence to support it's BR.

Absence of evidence does not denote absence of guilt.

The charges are against the parents.

The evidence (fibers) recovered belonged to the parents.

Thats because they helped stage BR out of the case.

Zero evidence from BR recovered from JBR.

How do you know that? You have a citation for that?

AFAIK only IDI evidence has been released?

Like I say BDI is on the table, so far you have offered nothing that suggests otherwise !

.