Grand Jury True Bills John & Patsy Discussion thread

[Snowball58]

I see nothing in the true bills which indicate that Burke was involved. I do not believe he was.
Each true bill is basically saying that the parent named in that bill failed to protect JBR from the OTHER parent. The GJ was not charged to figure out who did what- that was not their purpose.

I do not think it is prudent to claim that Burke Ramsey killed his sister on this or any other message board. There is no evidence to support his involvement. Only fibers from the parent's clothing were found on the body and in the garrote.

I believe an adult choked her and I believe an adult caused the head wound. This is my opinion only, but I think it is legally dangerous to say that Burke did anything other than sleep without any evidence that he was involved.

Speculating as to BR's involvement is no different than speculating about the R's involvement, the housekeeper's involvement, or anything else that has been tossed around over the years. BR is no longer a minor, and he was the only other person known to be in the house that night.

And we know that the Ramsey's lied about him being asleep because his voice can be heard on the 911 call, yet when police arrived he was "sleeping", which was a lie.

I don't believe that speculating about his possible involvement is legally dangerous.

 

[otg]

I don't usually post an entire article, but in this case, I think it's worthwhile:

_____________________________________________________________________
​

Charlie Brennan: Why I fought for the Ramsey indictment's release

By Charlie Brennan Camera Staff Writer
Posted: 10/25/2013 08:11:37 AM MDT

The Daily Camera reported Jan. 27 in a front-page exclusive that the JonBenet Ramsey grand jury had voted, more than 13 years before, to indict both John and Patsy Ramsey on a charge of felony child abuse resulting in death.


<modsnip>

Two reporters stood outside JonBenet's home Dec. 26, 1996, at the time the coroner's staff brought the child's body out into the cold night and harsh light of an enduring public obsession. I was one of the two. Never did I suspect that 17 years later, the saga would still be unfolding.

One installment of the drama may now, finally, be at a conclusion.
Time has taught me better than to believe that the larger story is finally at an end.

Contact Camera Staff Writer Charlie Brennan at 303-473-1327 or brennanc@dailycamera.com.

 

[bessie]

With all respect, in my opinion it is premature at this point to CONCLUDE that Burke did anything. One might have some questions, or wonder, but that's all that is reasonable at this point.

The facts are these: There is NO physical evidence tying Burke to any crime at all. This cannot be said for mom and dad. Further, there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that Burke did not do it -- specifically, the parents sending him out of the house, and out of there control, that morning. Unless they were convinced that Burke was anb emotionless monster and psychopath, they would never confidently unleash a nine-year-old and trust that he wouldn't confess and bury them all. No parent would easily believe that about their own son, and if they DID believe that they couldn't trust him not to blurt the truth (or some malicious fiction) just to watch the world burn.

And that, my friends, is the glaring chasm in the BDI theory.

When they turned him loose that morning, they did so knowing that he had no actual facts to disclose. More, they likely expected to be arrested, and they wanted him out of the home when that happened.

This release tells us nothing, other than that the Grand Jury did not have a clear picture of which one of the two parents actually murdered the girl.

IN MY OPINION.

Respectfully, one could argue that the parents' confidence was based on their knowledge of the boy's preconditioning arising from prior acts of abuse, and subsequent measures taken by the parents to cover up and conceal the truth. In other words, he'd been trained to keep the family's "dirty little secret".

Also, faced with the decision to keep the boy at home where the heavy police presence and inquisitive whondunit atmosphere would lead to mounting tension, and a possible meltdown (especially if one or both parents were arrested); or to send him away with friends who could be trusted to not ask questions, the latter option was the safest.

Just tossing out another opinion, and not necessarily one I hold.

 

[DeDee]

I don't usually post an entire article, but in this case, I think it's worthwhile:

_____________________________________________________________________
​

Charlie Brennan: Why I fought for the Ramsey indictment's release

By Charlie Brennan Camera Staff Writer
Posted: 10/25/2013 08:11:37 AM MDT

The Daily Camera reported Jan. 27 in a front-page exclusive that the JonBenet Ramsey grand jury had voted, more than 13 years before, to indict both John and Patsy Ramsey on a charge of felony child abuse resulting in death.


<modsnip>

Two reporters stood outside JonBenet's home Dec. 26, 1996, at the time the coroner's staff brought the child's body out into the cold night and harsh light of an enduring public obsession. I was one of the two. Never did I suspect that 17 years later, the saga would still be unfolding.

One installment of the drama may now, finally, be at a conclusion.
Time has taught me better than to believe that the larger story is finally at an end.

Contact Camera Staff Writer Charlie Brennan at 303-473-1327 or brennanc@dailycamera.com.

If AH could not decide which parent "did it", why didn't Alex Hunter issue subpoenas compelling Patsy and John to testify before the GJ?

 

[rachael123]

Really? I feel like it's getting a lot of coverage. We can't expect wall-to-wall coverage. According to this website interceder.net, it's been picked up by 698 media outlets so far. From what I've seen, no matter what media outlet you get your news from (well national ones), you will probably hear about this.

Look at this way...If a child went missing today, and his/her disappearance was getting the same amount of coverage this news was getting, we would all be ecstatic.

Let me reword it.I was looking for deeper coverage.Seems this website is the only one on top of this.

 

[tezi]

If AH could not decide which parent "did it", why didn't Alex Hunter issue subpoenas compelling Patsy and John to testify before the GJ?

I believe that this is referring to after the indictment was handed down.

But, I think the questioning of the parents before the GJ convened, was a deal that was brokered so the Ramsey wouldn't have to appear.

You have to know about Hunter and "his deals," to understand why this case went off the rails...

JMO

 

[kalekona]

If AH could not decide which parent "did it", why didn't Alex Hunter issue subpoenas compelling Patsy and John to testify before the GJ?

Could that have been due to spousal privilege and the right to not incriminate yourself?

 

[vlpate]

The statute of limitations on both child abuse resulting in death, a Class 2 felony, and accessory to a crime, a Class 4 felony, carry a statute of limitations of three years from the time of the crime. [Link]

Someone commented or asked about JR and PR testifying and the spousal privilege:

The second evidentiary rule relating to sexual offenses is that spousal privilege is not available for excluding or refusing testimony in any prosecution for any sexual offense.

That would have been on heck of a pi$$ng match to watch! :jail:

 

[vlpate]

I see nothing in the true bills which indicate that Burke was involved. I do not believe he was.
Each true bill is basically saying that the parent named in that bill failed to protect JBR from the OTHER parent. The GJ was not charged to figure out who did what- that was not their purpose.

I do not think it is prudent to claim that Burke Ramsey killed his sister on this or any other message board. There is no evidence to support his involvement. Only fibers from the parent's clothing were found on the body and in the garrote.

I believe an adult choked her and I believe an adult caused the head wound. This is my opinion only, but I think it is legally dangerous to say that Burke did anything other than sleep without any evidence that he was involved.

There's plenty of evidence that points to Burke's possible involvement, it's just been buried so deep or kept so mum, it's almost impossible to find.

I'm not going to list them here b/c then I'd have to find the sources and that would set off my ADD and I'd never come back. A Candy Rose is a great place to find all things related to JBR.

Statements made by PR to the effect that she and JR never spoke of JonBenet to Burke. She said they avoided the magazine racks in stores and didn't allow him to watch the news - they didn't want to upset him. One need not have a degree in rocket psychiatry to analyze that. Why hasn't Burke ever spoken about the death of his little sister? Why hasn't he ever started a campaign to find her killer? I guess maybe he still doesn't know?

 

[DeDee]

Could that have been due to spousal privilege and the right to not incriminate yourself?

My apologies for not clarifying in my vague post that it is really the members of this forum whose opinion I sought for the reason(s) AH did not subpoena PR & JR since there are documented excuses readily available online.



http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1999/04crams.html

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1999/22crams.html

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramsey-grand-jury.htm

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon185.htm

"The grand jury has powers that police and district attorneys do not. It can subpoena reluctant witnesses - such as John and Patsy Ramsey - and others who have refused to talk with investigators. It can subpoena documents that have been withheld."

 

[BOESP]

Ppfffttt.....

What a joke; a bad joke. What was the point? Why even bother? It was public knowledge over 10 months ago what the charges were.

Figures. :banghead:

Nom, I see it as an official statement that suggests there was enough evidence to believe both Ramseys were involved in one way or another in the events leading up to and causing JonBenet's death. It can no longer be argued that the Ramseys were not indicted. That's big in my book.

As to who did what, that is still ambiguous but I'm not giving up hope yet.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Oh well, even though I don't feel any more enlightened than I did yesterday, at least this will officially put a stop to JR using the grand jury voting not to indict as proof of innocence... and saying there was no evidence against them. If nothing else, this proves the jury didn't buy the story of them sleeping peacefully and waking up to a dead daughter in the basement.

BBM: Exactly ... and they didn't buy the War and Peace Ransom Note either ...

:seeya:

 

[SapphireSteel]

Um didn't it say they were indicted for "first degree murder"?

That is not a charge you get for "covering up".

It is the charge you get for intentionally causing the death of someone by your own actions.

Burke isn't mentioned because he wasn't involved. :cow:

I cant really see how this information is being used as "proof" he was.

The charges would have been "accessory" not "FIRST DEGREE MURDER".

:seeya:

 

[SassyBenton]

If Burke killed JonBenet I can see the parents freaking out and not knowing what to do BUT staging the scene and telling the public there is a monster out there? Who could do that and live with themselves? I don&#8217;t think I could.

 

[BOESP]

That's my question and the news is barely covering this.

I agree. The First Degree Murder charge is new to my way of thinking.

Here is a link defining First Degree Murder in Colorado:

http://www.lawinfoboulder.com/colorado_statutes/murder_first_degree.html

 

[CherCher]

Is there a source link for a list of those who testified at the GJ proceedings? I've looked all over and can't find one.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I agree. The First Degree Murder charge is new to my way of thinking.

Here is a link defining First Degree Murder in Colorado:

http://www.lawinfoboulder.com/colorado_statutes/murder_first_degree.html

Ugly.

If they wanted to charge them for covering up, they wouldn't have gone for First Degree.

First Degree is clearly defined as the act of intentionally murdering someone.

First Degree against J and P means that J and P intentionally and personally caused the death of JB, themselves.

Which is what I've always believed...no innocent parent would cover up a dying child, ever, for any reason.

A parent who wished to cover up what happened would claim the crime themselves, to save their remaining child, (it was an accident!) not invent "a group of individuals".

:sick:

 

[tezi]

Um didn't it say they were indicted for "first degree murder"?

That is not a charge you get for "covering up".

It is the charge you get for intentionally causing the death of someone by your own actions.

Burke isn't mentioned because he wasn't involved. :cow:

I cant really see how this information is being used as "proof" he was.

The charges would have been "accessory" not "FIRST DEGREE MURDER".

:seeya:

No, the charge is ACCESSORY TO A CRIME. Not to Murder.

Here is the link to the indictments. http://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinions.cfm

Read both, Count VII. It says ACCESSORY.

TIA.

 

[vlpate]

Um didn't it say they were indicted for "first degree murder"?

That is not a charge you get for "covering up".

It is the charge you get for intentionally causing the death of someone by your own actions.

Burke isn't mentioned because he wasn't involved. :cow:

I cant really see how this information is being used as "proof" he was.

The charges would have been "accessory" not "FIRST DEGREE MURDER".

:seeya:

Both were charged with accessory - am I misunderstanding you?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Accessory could easily mean the covering for each other.


:twocents: