Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramsey’s death

[Mama2JML]

How it was committed, why it was committed, and even exactly when it was committed do not have to be proven. Neither does exactly who did what have to be proven when more than one person is accused of participating in the crime. Granted, any prosecutor would admit that it is more difficult to get a conviction if they can't prove exactly what happened, but it isn't a requirement for conviction. All that is needed is that the prosecutor provide a plausible explanation of what happened to a jury.

Look at Aaron Thompson. He reported his daughter, Aarone, missing two years after she had last been seen. Investigators believe that either he or his common-law wife (Shely Lowe) caused her death, and that they probably buried the body. It was never found. Lowe died before the case could be brought to trial. Prosecutors didn't know how Aarone died or which adult was responsible. Without a body, they couldn't really even provide proof that Aarone was dead. Without Lowe to account for her actions, Thompson's defense attorney tried to implicate Lowe as the one responsible. But the jury didn't buy it. He was convicted on 31 of 57 charges, including child abuse resulting in death. He was sentenced to 114 years in prison.

There are lots of parallels and connections between the Thompson case and JonBenet's, including reporters filing suit to have the sealed GJ indictment released publicly. The decision to release the Thompson GJ indictment was cited in Charlie Brennan's filing for release of GJ True Bills.

Here is the Thompson GJ Indictment that was released in its entirety after the judge's decision:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...mpson/07CR1483ThompsonGrandJuryIndictment.pdf

This is just one more item that pegs the hinky meter (IMO). Why, after that precedent, did Judge Lowenbach decide to only release a portion of the Ramsey True Bills instead of releasing them in their entirety as was the precedent (stare decisis) in Thompson's case?

Thompson was indicted on 60 counts, and the court determined all 60 counts should be available for public inspection.

The Ramseys were indicted on 2 counts. Both counts were released.

 

[BOESP]

<snip>

The Ramseys were indicted on 2 counts. Both counts were released.

BBM:

Excerpt from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/jonbenet-ramsey-indictment_n_4163140.html

"Lowenbach said Wednesday that only pages signed by the grand jury foreman would be releasable as official actions of the jury. His order mentioned 18 pages in all &#8212; nine relating to each of JonBenet's parents. Four pages &#8212; two each relating to the parents &#8212; were released Friday."

 

[Mama2JML]

BBM:

Excerpt from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/jonbenet-ramsey-indictment_n_4163140.html

"Lowenbach said Wednesday that only pages signed by the grand jury foreman would be releasable as official actions of the jury. His order mentioned 18 pages in all — nine relating to each of JonBenet's parents. Four pages — two each relating to the parents — were released Friday."

The true bills, the official actions of the GJ, were released; in both (Thompson & Ramsey) cases.

 

[BOESP]

The true bills, the official actions of the GJ, were released; in both (Thompson & Ramsey) cases.

I believe that is exactly what I quoted and posted, Thompson case excluded. We are supposed to supply MSM links, which your post did not contain.

 

[otg]

Thompson was indicted on 60 counts, and the court determined all 60 counts should be available for public inspection.

The Ramseys were indicted on 2 counts. Both counts were released.

Look at the Thompson indictment that I linked above. It is the entire indictment including each of the 60 individual “counts”. Of those 60, three were dropped from prosecution (Thompson was tried on 57 of the counts), but all counts that were considered were released along with each page of the indictment. IOW, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the entire document was an “official action” of the GJ. The lower court had argued that releasing anything other than portions of the True Bills would make public the details of the crimes committed that might prejudice the public. The CSC ruled that the public had a right to that information because of the intent of the state’s statutes. The only thing the CSC ruled that should be redacted from the entire indictment was the names of any minors or sexual assault victims. I really recommend anyone read the entire CSC decision. It addresses many things that relate to the circumstances that apply here with JonBenet’s case. That decision can be found here:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...7CR1483_Thompson/07SA339 Opinion 4-7-2008.pdf

Here are portions of that decision (emphasis mine):

We issued a rule to show cause to determine whether the trial court erred in redacting portions of Aaron Thompson’s grand jury indictment, which contained extensive factual allegations, prior to making the indictment open for public inspection. We hold that the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act (“the CCJRA”), sections 24-72-301 to -309, C.R.S. (2007), requires the indictment to be released for public inspection in its entirety, subject only to the deletion of identifying information of any alleged sexual assault victims. Therefore, we make the rule absolute.
​

In great detail, the factual allegations described various events that occurred in the Thompson home, including a possible sexual assault by an unindicted person, going far beyond the “essential facts” that must be included in a grand jury indictment.
​

Here, the allegations contained in the indictment presented facts and circumstances supporting the charges against Thompson. While the allegations were based on the evidence presented to the grand jury, the allegations themselves are not grand jury evidence and therefore are not protected by grand jury secrecy.
​

Because of its leaning toward transparency and the public’s right to information, I believe that if Charlie Brennan had chosen to take his suit to the CSC, it would have ruled that the entire indictment should be released. But Brennan was only interested in proving that a true bill had been returned by the RGJ, and so chose to accept that decision by the lower court.

I had asked my lawyer friend about the discrepancies between the two indictments and what was ruled to be included in the “official actions” of the GJ. I couldn’t see how Judge Lowenbach could hold back portions of the indictment which is signed at the end by the GJ Foreman making it an “official action”. Here is his response:

I do not know why Judge Lowenbach chose to release only those portions of the indictment that he did. There is really not much law in Colorado about the status of grand jury materials when the GJ votes to indict but the DA chooses not to prosecute. He may have felt that the partial release was a reasonable compromise between the competing arguments for total secrecy and total disclosure. But only he knows why he ruled precisely the way he did.
​

More:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/colo-high-court-orders-indictment-unsealed-in-missing-girl-case

 

[Mama2JML]

Look at the Thompson indictment that I linked above. It is the entire indictment including each of the 60 individual “counts”. Of those 60, three were dropped from prosecution (Thompson was tried on 57 of the counts), but all counts that were considered were released along with each page of the indictment. IOW, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the entire document was an “official action” of the GJ. The lower court had argued that releasing anything other than portions of the True Bills would make public the details of the crimes committed that might prejudice the public. The CSC ruled that the public had a right to that information because of the intent of the state’s statutes. The only thing the CSC ruled that should be redacted from the entire indictment was the names of any minors or sexual assault victims. I really recommend anyone read the entire CSC decision. It addresses many things that relate to the circumstances that apply here with JonBenet’s case. That decision can be found here:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...7CR1483_Thompson/07SA339 Opinion 4-7-2008.pdf

Here are portions of that decision (emphasis mine):

We issued a rule to show cause to determine whether the trial court erred in redacting portions of Aaron Thompson’s grand jury indictment, which contained extensive factual allegations, prior to making the indictment open for public inspection. We hold that the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act (“the CCJRA”), sections 24-72-301 to -309, C.R.S. (2007), requires the indictment to be released for public inspection in its entirety, subject only to the deletion of identifying information of any alleged sexual assault victims. Therefore, we make the rule absolute.
​

In great detail, the factual allegations described various events that occurred in the Thompson home, including a possible sexual assault by an unindicted person, going far beyond the “essential facts” that must be included in a grand jury indictment.
​

Here, the allegations contained in the indictment presented facts and circumstances supporting the charges against Thompson. While the allegations were based on the evidence presented to the grand jury, the allegations themselves are not grand jury evidence and therefore are not protected by grand jury secrecy.
​

Because of its leaning toward transparency and the public’s right to information, I believe that if Charlie Brennan had chosen to take his suit to the CSC, it would have ruled that the entire indictment should be released. But Brennan was only interested in proving that a true bill had been returned by the RGJ, and so chose to accept that decision by the lower court.

I had asked my lawyer friend about the discrepancies between the two indictments and what was ruled to be included in the “official actions” of the GJ. I couldn’t see how Judge Lowenbach could hold back portions of the indictment which is signed at the end by the GJ Foreman making it an “official action”. Here is his response:

I do not know why Judge Lowenbach chose to release only those portions of the indictment that he did. There is really not much law in Colorado about the status of grand jury materials when the GJ votes to indict but the DA chooses not to prosecute. He may have felt that the partial release was a reasonable compromise between the competing arguments for total secrecy and total disclosure. But only he knows why he ruled precisely the way he did.
​

More:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/colo-high-court-orders-indictment-unsealed-in-missing-girl-case

otg, in the Thompson case, the "entire indictment" consisted of 60 counts. These charges weren't just considered, these charges were voted upon by the GJ and the result was 60 true bills. Were other charges considered & discarded? Perhaps...

Have you read the judge's ruling in the White's suit against Garnett? In the Ramsey case, the indictments/true bills were released in full.

ETA, a MSM link (?): http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/father-indicted-in-aarone-thompson-case-60-counts

 

[questfortrue]

Here is the footnote from the Colorado Supreme Court ruling in the Aaron Thompson Case pertaining to the release of what is termed ‘factual allegations.’ These allegations underlie the charged offenses.

“The allegations contained exhaustive narratives based on witnesses’ statements and police reports describing events surrounding Aaroné’s disappearance, the subsequent police investigation, Thompson’s family circumstances, and the treatment of Aaroné and other children in the Thompson home.”

-The CSC reaffirmed deletion of identifying information of any alleged sexual assault victims in allowing the allegations to be released.
-GJ witness testimony was and is still protected by the GJ secrecy law.

Repeating the following from otg's post:
The CSC ruled that factual allegations are not protected by GJ secrecy law. The CSC stated . . . “While the allegations were based on the evidence presented to the grand jury, the allegations themselves are not grand jury evidence and therefore are not protected by grand jury secrecy. Consequently, however excessive the factual allegations in Thompson’s indictment are, we reject the argument that they are covered by grand jury secrecy and therefore excepted from the mandatory disclosure of records of official actions.”

The CSC ruled factual allegations are part of the entire indictment when they ruled in the Thompson case and overturned a lower court’s ruling.

My understanding of what was released in the R case is that these factual allegations underlying the True Bills were redacted by a lower court.

 

[otg]

otg, in the Thompson case, the "entire indictment" consisted of 60 counts. These charges weren't just considered, these charges were voted upon by the GJ and the result was 60 true bills. Were other charges considered & discarded? Perhaps...

No one knows the answer to that but those who were involved in the Thompson GJ process. But of the 60 True Bills in the Thompson indictment, only 57 were prosecuted. I haven’t taken the time to compare the two documents, so I don’t know which three charges were dropped from prosecution. Thompson was convicted of 31 of the 57 charges. He was sentenced to 114 years.

My understanding of the process is this: During the GJ proceedings, the members might consider charges that the DA’s representative (DA appointed “Special Prosecutor” Mike Kane in the Ramsey GJ) will present to be considered. If he feels he hasn’t met the burden of proof required for probable cause on a specific charge, he may choose not to submit that charge for an official vote. The DA’s rep should know from the GJ’s investigation what crimes may have been committed, and (s)he will be the one who has the indictment charges (counts) prepared. Once the charges (s)he decides to include in the indictment are written up and submitted for a vote, they and the GJ vote on them become a part of the “official action” of the GJ. By CO statutes, that “official action” should be made public. At that point, the GJ has fulfilled its function of determining probable cause, and the DA’s office presents the signed indictment in open court.

According to CO Law Professor Marianne Wesson, DA Alex Hunter should have done this and then asked the presiding judge to dismiss the charges he felt he couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt. This is what happens when a policeman arrests a person for suspicion of a crime. The policeman has “probable cause” to arrest the suspect. If the DA doesn’t feel he has enough evidence to meet his burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt), he asks the court to dismiss the charges against the arrested defendant. Since Hunter refused to sign the Ramsey indictment, he created a gray area that isn’t really covered specifically in the CO statutes because they state that after an indictment is signed by the GJ Foreman and the DA, the case should proceed to court. But the statutes don’t say what happens if the DA fails (or refuses) to sign the indictment.

Have you read the judge's ruling in the White's suit against Garnett? In the Ramsey case, the indictments/true bills were released in full.

It’s been a while since I read it, but I’ll go back and read it again. The Ramsey True Bills were released, but the entire indictment was not. Maybe it’s a matter of semantics, but look again at the Thompson indictment which was released in full. It has all the information about the case at the beginning which is not part of the individual charges (counts) that become True Bills when they receive a majority vote and are signed by the GJ Foreman. Here is what I’m referring to:


Where is the same heading from the Ramsey indictment, if it was released in full?

Notice also the wording my lawyer friend used in the excerpt I included above:

“I do not know why Judge Lowenbach chose to release only those portions of the indictment that he did.”
​

“Only those portions of the indictment” would be the four True Bills that were made public.

Colorado has a weird (IMO) system of GJ voting. I thought that like most states, the GJ voted on a single charge and by majority vote found it to be a True Bill. If there was no majority vote “for” a True Bill, it would be a “No Bill” (or “No True Bill”). But when I made reference to this some time in the past, Cynic corrected me. (And BTW, Cynic, I got preoccupied with something else when you corrected me and never got back to responding and thanking you for your insight.) Colorado is one of a few states whose GJs vote not only for a True Bill, but they also have to have a majority vote for a No True Bill. So either way (as I understand it), the GJ’s vote is an “official action”. The problem is that if no one challenges Judge Lowenbach’s ruling, it will stand as it is, and the rest of the Ramsey indictment will never be made public even though that is what the statutes require as they are written. Supreme Court Justices can only overrule lower court rulings that are challenged by someone with “standing” (locus standi).

ETA, a MSM link (?): http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/father-indicted-in-aarone-thompson-case-60-counts

 

[inspector rex]

Here is some information I've found in similar form on a few law websites:

"Lack of Probable Cause

In the author’s experience, lack of probable cause supporting an indictment is the most common challenge to a Colorado grand jury indictment. On a motion by the defense, the court must dismiss the indictment if, after reviewing the record of the grand jury proceedings, the court determines that the indictment is not supported by probable cause that the offenses charged were committed by the defendant.

In conducting the probable cause review, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. If the testimony conflicts, the court must draw an inference for the prosecution. Only where the trial court failed to follow the rules applicable to preliminary hearings is the probable cause ruling subject to appellate review. It is customary that the judge to whom the criminal case is assigned conducts the probable cause review, not the judge who presided over the grand jury."

In the case of the Ramseys, even if Hunter had signed the True Bill to Indict the Ramsey(s), they would have still had the right to appeal the Indictment on the basis of 'probable cause'.
Even though "In conducting the probable cause review, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution", it seems Hunter was not confident it was supported by evidence.
So, RDI can cry foul, but an indictment not supported by evidence even for 'probable cause', could not be tried successfully 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
And without a murderer being named, I could not see it getting even that far.

 

[BOESP]

No one knows what the outcome would have been, but at least two detectives and a Grand Jury believed one or more Ramseys were involved in the death of JonBenet.

 

[inspector rex]

The point being, that even if a GJ indicts a suspect, and even if the DA signs off on the indictment, that doesn't make the person(s) guilty or more guilty than they would have been if the true bill was not signed.
There still has to be a basis to their 'probable cause'.
Evidence to back it up.
That's what this case was lacking in.
Hunches and hinky meters and suspicion and putting lots of things together and calling it totallity of evidence and believing in a conspiracy to protect them, just doesn't cut it.

 

[OliviaG1996]

No one knows what the outcome would have been, but at least two detectives and a Grand Jury believed one or more Ramseys were involved in the death of JonBenet.

Don't forget about at least twenty F.B.I. agents from C.A.S.K.U. (the Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit)! I know some posters here do not hold anything Detective Steve Thomas has to say in high regard (some even insinuate he's a liar), but here's a portion of an article I've found stating what the agents likely thought happened that night:

<SNIPPED>

FBI Knocks Down Intruder Theory

As part of the Boulder police's investigation, they accepted an invitation from the FBI to put on a full presentation of the case to the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit based at Quantico, Va. As [Steve] Thomas recounts in his book, over 20 CASKU team members, including hair and fiber experts, attended the August 1997 briefing. Police investigators reviewed the autopsy results, and crime scene photos. In turn, CASKU agents reported that of the more than 1,700 murdered children they had studied since the 1960s, there was only one case in which the victim was a female under the age of 12, who had been murdered in her home by strangulation, with sexual assault and a ransom note present: JonBenet Ramsey. The agents told the Boulder investigators that while it might be possible that someone broke into the house that day, it was not very probable. The staging of the crime, the evidence presented to them by the Boulder police, and the totality of the case pointed in one direction: This was not the act of an intruder.

<SNIPPED>

Article:
http://www.crimemagazine.com/murder-jonben%C3%A9t-ramsey

 

[WhereAreTheyNow]

How it was committed, why it was committed, and even exactly when it was committed do not have to be proven. Neither does exactly who did what have to be proven when more than one person is accused of participating in the crime. Granted, any prosecutor would admit that it is more difficult to get a conviction if they can't prove exactly what happened, but it isn't a requirement for conviction. All that is needed is that the prosecutor provide a plausible explanation of what happened to a jury.

Look at Aaron Thompson. He reported his daughter, Aarone, missing two years after she had last been seen. Investigators believe that either he or his common-law wife (Shely Lowe) caused her death, and that they probably buried the body. It was never found. Lowe died before the case could be brought to trial. Prosecutors didn't know how Aarone died or which adult was responsible. Without a body, they couldn't really even provide proof that Aarone was dead. Without Lowe to account for her actions, Thompson's defense attorney tried to implicate Lowe as the one responsible. But the jury didn't buy it. He was convicted on 31 of 57 charges, including child abuse resulting in death. He was sentenced to 114 years in prison.

There are lots of parallels and connections between the Thompson case and JonBenet's, including reporters filing suit to have the sealed GJ indictment released publicly. The decision to release the Thompson GJ indictment was cited in Charlie Brennan's filing for release of GJ True Bills.

Here is the Thompson GJ Indictment that was released in its entirety after the judge's decision:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...mpson/07CR1483ThompsonGrandJuryIndictment.pdf

This is just one more item that pegs the hinky meter (IMO). Why, after that precedent, did Judge Lowenbach decide to only release a portion of the Ramsey True Bills instead of releasing them in their entirety as was the precedent (stare decisis) in Thompson's case?

Thanks for the link, otg. I agree with your argument, in premise. Further I am convinced that RDI. But I can't see prosecuting the true bills without foundation, i.e. proving how the murder was committed.

 

[UKGuy]

The point being, that even if a GJ indicts a suspect, and even if the DA signs off on the indictment, that doesn't make the person(s) guilty or more guilty than they would have been if the true bill was not signed.
There still has to be a basis to their 'probable cause'.
Evidence to back it up.
That's what this case was lacking in.
Hunches and hinky meters and suspicion and putting lots of things together and calling it totallity of evidence and believing in a conspiracy to protect them, just doesn't cut it.

inspector rex,
I'll tell you what does cut it is people like you citing no probable cause because there is no evidence to back it up, then proceeding to draw conclusions on the absence of evidence.

This tells me you are simply making stuff up, you are wasting time and space on this forum, including all your IDI fellow travellors, even if I cannot prove it, the case is 100% RDI!

Why because there is absolutely no, I repeat zero forensic evidence linking anyone outside of the Ramsey family to the death of JonBenet.

This is why IDI resort to critiquing RDI theories, i.e. they do not have a coherent IDI theory to present.

Does any IDI theory explain why 6 different touch-dna samples were found on JonBenet's body?

.

 

[inspector rex]

inspector rex,
I'll tell you what does cut it is people like you citing no probable cause because there is no evidence to back it up, then proceeding to draw conclusions on the absence of evidence.

This tells me you are simply making stuff up, you are wasting time and space on this forum, including all your IDI fellow travellors, even if I cannot prove it, the case is 100% RDI!

Why because there is absolutely no, I repeat zero forensic evidence linking anyone outside of the Ramsey family to the death of JonBenet.

This is why IDI resort to critiquing RDI theories, i.e. they do not have a coherent IDI theory to present.

Does any IDI theory explain why 6 different touch-dna samples were found on JonBenet's body?

.

Ha ha, UK so funny when you try to blame others for a lack of evidence against your suspects.

No Evidence.

No probable cause.

No indictment.

No arrest.

No making any stuff up.

No new evidence for 19 years.

Oh, except that nasty old DNA in two separate places, found years apart, analysed by two laboratories, WHICH IS 100% NOT RAMSEY.

 

[CorallaroC]

Don't forget about at least twenty F.B.I. agents from C.A.S.K.U. (the Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit)! I know some posters here do not hold anything Detective Steve Thomas has to say in high regard (some even insinuate he's a liar), but here's a portion of an article I've found stating what the agents likely thought happened that night:



Article:
http://www.crimemagazine.com/murder-jonben%C3%A9t-ramsey

Thank you Olivia - there is much to think about - even at this late date. Many seemingly small details have been lost and overlooked by modern day case theorists, commentators.

click on the linke provided by Olivia, and pun intended: READ IT CAREFULLY! I hope this link doesnt disappear into archive-land. There are gems in there. Gems of info that even longtime case followers might have forgotten - and certainly gems info that relatively new case followers might not be aware of.

Judge for yourself. all imo

 

[BOESP]

Don't forget about at least twenty F.B.I. agents from C.A.S.K.U. (the Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit)! I know some posters here do not hold anything Detective Steve Thomas has to say in high regard (some even insinuate he's a liar), but here's a portion of an article I've found stating what the agents likely thought happened that night:



Article:
http://www.crimemagazine.com/murder-jonbenét-ramsey

Good point Oliviag.

I don't put much stock in statements made about Steve Thomas being a liar. It's just a desperate ad hominem attempt to discredit someone who knew the score, as does Chief Kolar.

Remarks about the Grand Jury sound like desperation and arrogance. Most readers here, imo, can see what is going.

 

[UKGuy]

Ha ha, UK so funny when you try to blame others for a lack of evidence against your suspects.

No Evidence.

No probable cause.

No indictment.

No arrest.

No making any stuff up.

No new evidence for 19 years.

Oh, except that nasty old DNA in two separate places, found years apart, analysed by two laboratories, WHICH IS 100% NOT RAMSEY.

inspector rex,
And the five other foreign touch-dna samples, presumably these originate from the Foreign Faction?

There is no credible IDI theory available to date, so why bother commenting on RDI theories, go and make an IDI theory up that makes sense.

.

 

[BOESP]

Ha ha, UK so funny when you try to blame others for a lack of evidence against your suspects.

No Evidence.

No probable cause.

No indictment.

No arrest.

No making any stuff up.

No new evidence for 19 years.

Oh, except that nasty old DNA in two separate places, found years apart, analysed by two laboratories, WHICH IS 100% NOT RAMSEY.

And how do you know some of the above statements are factual? The "No making any stuff up" is, well, to be kind, a real joke on behalf of your premise inspector rex.

Based on reading the transcripts, watching the adult Ramseys in their televised performances, studying the ransom note, and reading statements made by detectives and FBI agents, and even statements and actions by Alex Hunter, convince me beyond reasonable doubt that at least Patsy was involved and John after the fact. I'm undecided on the son's involvement, if any, but it appears that based on Kolar's statements Burke was either involved directly or indirectly as a precipitating factor.

Unless you were directly involved in the gathering of evidence or the investigation or the prosecution, you have no way of knowing what evidence exists or has been discovered in the last 19 years. Not everything was made public as, I presume, you well know.

 

[questfortrue]

Thanks for the link, otg. I agree with your argument, in premise. Further I am convinced that RDI. But I can't see prosecuting the true bills without foundation, i.e. proving how the murder was committed.

There was not a charge of murder in the first degree in the two charges. These were lesser charges.
In Colorado it isn’t necessary that the principal (the one who is believed to have the principal role in the homicide) be charged before the accessory after the fact. The situation of charging the accessories first has occurred in Colorado on several occasions, and not just because the principal has died.

~RSBM~
In the case of the Ramseys, even if Hunter had signed the True Bill to Indict the Ramsey(s), they would have still had the right to appeal the Indictment on the basis of 'probable cause'.
Even though "In conducting the probable cause review, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution", it seems Hunter was not confident it was supported by evidence.
So, RDI can cry foul, but an indictment not supported by evidence even for 'probable cause', could not be tried successfully 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
And without a murderer being named, I could not see it getting even that far.

Just a few points regarding the True Bills -
• According to a book referenced by AK the GJ heard from two handwriting experts that Patsy was probably not the author of the RN, and yet the GJ voted to indict. Ubowski must have been convincing.
• The GJ heard the evidence in the autopsy to explain what caused JonBenet’s death. They were also introduced to experts’ opinions that JB had been sexually abused prior to her death. A point reiterated by both Kolar and Beckner in their respective AMAs.
• The GJ believed each of them were covering for someone. (I note that even Beckner and Kolar who were privy to evidence and what was introduced to the GJ do not agree in their theories.)
But there was no evidence introduced by both Douglas’ and Smit’s presentations which convinced them of an intruder.

Anyone can speculate as to the strength of the evidence and whether it could have been proven in a court of law. We’ll never know. However, the fact that AH did not reveal the existence of the Indictment in open court, placing it in a safe instead, does not invalidate the GJ’s findings of probable cause. It’s also not a foregone conclusion that AH did not proceed because of the weakness of the evidence. That is only what he said pertaining to proving the “murderer”. But the GJ did not give him an indictment which would have charged someone for murder in the first. One should keep in mind AH’s prior years of handling cases by plea bargaining and not prosecuting in court. So what could AH do, if the Rs refused to cooperate and denied all responsibility; he could not plea bargain with them. Well, guess he could hide the True Bills and lead the public to believe there wasn’t evidence to proceed to prosecute someone for responsibility for her homicide.

What these True Bills revealed is the BIG deception. First, the True Bills very existence confirmed probable cause of family involvement. Second, these were not charges for proving who committed the homicide. They were for lesser charges, and AH wasn’t willing to go to court even for those charges. IMO, when AH chose that course of action, he opened the doors wide to further speculation about the case, as well as finger-pointing towards folks whose careers and reputations were damaged by baseless accusations.