Grand Jury True Bills John & Patsy Discussion thread

[redheadedgal]

But why would BR kill her? What did he have to gain? He was a small child himself. So who tied the knots on her wrists, and the fancy tying on the paintbrush handle?

...

I just don't understand a 9 yr old as killing her, with intent. What known problems did he have? Has he ever been in trouble before that time, or since? Someone with enough anger, rage, whatever to kill a 6yr old child, would/should have shown signs before and it would only get worse as he got older. But I don't remember anything about him as a teen or adult.

there was no "fancy" tying anywhere. many here think PR "staged" the "garrote".

intent... jealousy?

BR hit her in the face with a golf club once before.

no anger/rage as a teen or adult? the target of his rage was now gone...

 

[deca]

Weren't both the Ramsey children going to therapy prior to JBR's death? TIA

 

[Simply Caustic]

The thing is, if it was indeed Burke, how did law enforcement decide it was "first degree murder"? I mean, maybe they were just covering their bases, but it seems like even if they suspected he did it, it would be hard to say it was premeditated. If they had evidence of a long term plan from somebody, it seems like that would have come out at this point, and charges would have been pursued. Even if there were a few minutes or hours of premeditation, with a young child, I'd think it would be considered second degree - a kid losing control. That would make it a lot easier to get a conviction, given the circumstances.

Prosecutors decline to press charges that are presented to them by cops or even grand juries regularly - I know there were questionable actions by law enforcement in this case, but it's not an outrage that charges weren't brought after an indictment. There can be enough evidence to charge but not enough to convict. That's why there is discretion. It's entirely possible they just couldn't figure out who did what. This whole thing is so weird - so we know for sure the grand jury had a lot of info we don't have? It seems like it somehow would have come out by now. This case is so weird.

ETA: I know a lot of people think the Ramseys would turn on each other if it wasn't Burke they were trying to protect, but that's just not necessarily true. There are plenty of cases of people covering for someone who was not a child - fear of being alone, or of what will happen, or of the press, or losing financial support, or just being under the spell of the parent/spouse/whoever. Most people wouldn't stick with a spouse who did that, but plenty of women stay with predatory men, and plenty of men can't stand up to crazy women. It's not shocking to me. There would have to be a lot of complicated dynamics leading up to it, obviously.

Respectfully bolded by me.

Actually, in my experience as a paralegal in Chicago - no, they don't 'regularly' decline to follow the findings of the Grand Jury.

In fact, it's incredibly uncommon.

Citation: For a district attorney not to endorse a grand jury's charge is "exceptionally rare," said analyst Craig Silverman, who was chief deputy district attorney in Denver for 16 years.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

But why would BR kill her? What did he have to gain? He was a small child himself. So who tied the knots on her wrists, and the fancy tying on the paintbrush handle?

Could someone else have been in the home with the Rs knowledge? Perhaps a pagent judge, or someone they knew or should have known was molesting JBR? If so, they would need to protect themselves, because if it came out they were allowing things to happen to JBR and not doing anything about it, then yes, they would be in trouble.

I just don't understand a 9 yr old as killing her, with intent. What known problems did he have? Has he ever been in trouble before that time, or since? Someone with enough anger, rage, whatever to kill a 6yr old child, would/should have shown signs before and it would only get worse as he got older. But I don't remember anything about him as a teen or adult.

The fancy writing was the brand name and/or what kind it is.

No one said Burke planned anything. This was an unintentional act to an abused little girl, and then she was murdered, the ultimate abuse.

 

[fedfan4life]

Listen folks....for those saying they can understand the Ramsey's staging this crime to protect BR, are you for real? One of your children kills another of your children and you don't freak out and immediately call 911?!
That is absolutely-freaking crazy! I will never understand something like that. I have 4 children and if one murdered another, I would be the first in line to say, "Sorry, son, but we have to get you some help by calling the police and reporting this. You will be punished for this....but we will try to support you to get the medical and psychological help you need."
To think the parents would write ransom notes (chapters) and tie a garrote around their little girl's neck just to protect their son? No way. If they did something like that, they are insane. Maybe that's the problem.

It does not matter in the slightest what you would or would not do (or me). It what the people involved would do. In order to look @ this objectively, we must remove personal preconceptions and biases.

 

[Linda7NJ]

The fancy writing was the brand name and/or what kind it is.

No one said Burke planned anything. This was an unintentional act to an abused little girl, and then she was murdered, the ultimate abuse.

If he lured her to the basement and delivered the head blow, it for sure, was premeditated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[fedfan4life]

Listen folks....for those saying they can understand the Ramsey's staging this crime to protect BR, are you for real? One of your children kills another of your children and you don't freak out and immediately call 911?!
That is absolutely-freaking crazy! I will never understand something like that. I have 4 children and if one murdered another, I would be the first in line to say, "Sorry, son, but we have to get you some help by calling the police and reporting this. You will be punished for this....but we will try to support you to get the medical and psychological help you need."
To think the parents would write ransom notes (chapters) and tie a garrote around their little girl's neck just to protect their son? No way. If they did something like that, they are insane. Maybe that's the problem.

It does not matter in the slightest what you would or would not do (or me). It's what the people involved would or would not do. In order to look @ this objectively, we must remove personal preconceptions and biaes.

 

[Chelly]

James Kolar was interviewed by CNN this morning. Near the end of the interview he mentioned Burke after being asked if the case could ever be solved. He said another GJ could be convened and Burke should be interviewed. I believe Kolar says Burke's name two or three times and describes his as Ramsey's son.
I started another thread with link to interview.

 

[Chelly]

Listen folks....for those saying they can understand the Ramsey's staging this crime to protect BR, are you for real? One of your children kills another of your children and you don't freak out and immediately call 911?!
That is absolutely-freaking crazy! I will never understand something like that. I have 4 children and if one murdered another, I would be the first in line to say, "Sorry, son, but we have to get you some help by calling the police and reporting this. You will be punished for this....but we will try to support you to get the medical and psychological help you need."
To think the parents would write ransom notes (chapters) and tie a garrote around their little girl's neck just to protect their son? No way. If they did something like that, they are insane. Maybe that's the problem.

The Ramseys were not like you or me. They considered themselves special. They lived in an alternate reality. People following this case since 1996 and reading nearly everything written about the R's and this case have gotten a sense of what makes the Ramsey's tick. They were not a normal family.

 

[madeleine]

I didn't wanna say anything until reading Garnett's editorial....but....if before the release of the indictment I felt this might be a new beginning now I feel that this is the end....there is nothing that can be done for Jonbenet.....:rose:

 

[BOESP]

I didn't wanna say anything until reading Garnett's editorial....but....if before the release of the indictment I felt this might be a new beginning now I feel that this is the end....there is nothing that can be done for Jonbenet.....:rose:

That's the way I interpreted it too, madeleine. Makes me think the responsibles are Patsy and/or Burke.

 

[madeleine]

That's the way I interpreted it too, madeleine. Makes me think the responsibles are Patsy and/or Burke.

Guess we'll never know....

 

[madeleine]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24395398/boulder-das-jonben-eacute-t-ramsey-case-lessons

Prosecutors should not issue public exonerations to people involved in criminal cases, Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett writes in a commentary in the wake of new revelations about the JonBenét Ramsey case.

His opinion piece — published Sunday in the Boulder Daily Camera — comes after a judge released documents showing that a grand jury voted in 1999 to indict JonBenét's parents in connection with her death. And Garnett's comments contradict what his predecessor, Mary Lacy, did in 2008, when she wrote a letter to John and Patsy Ramsey stating, "Your family was not responsible for this crime."

"District attorneys are not priests," Garnett writes. "Our job is not to forgive, and rarely to 'exonerate,' and straying from this role can be very confusing to the public and can create false impressions of certainty about uncertain evidence."





http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_24381455/jonbenet-ramsey-indictment-released-john-patsy

"I think a lot of people think (Lacy) stepped over the line by exonerating the family," Kolar said. "She was relying heavily on the DNA, and I don't know that it was appropriate."

Added Wise, "I never would have done it. I'm not in the business of exonerating people until you have a conviction of somebody, and they don't have a conviction."

Wise did say that future prosecutors are not bound by the exoneration.

"When one DA exonerates, the next DA may say, 'No dice,'" he said.

But Bob Grant, who at that time was the district attorney for neighboring Adams County and was among a small group of prosecutors with whom Hunter met monthly, said the exoneration could still "torpedo" any future trial.

"Mary Lacy would become a witness for the defense, and that's a position a prosecutor never wants to be in," he said.


------------------

Mary Lacy Press Conference About John Mark Karr - 8/29/06

M. Lacy: "You know, no-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor… unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime… to clear someone."


--------------------------------


nuff said

 

[shefner]

It does not matter in the slightest what you would or would not do (or me). It what the people involved would do. In order to look @ this objectively, we must remove personal preconceptions and biases.

I find your premise faulty....after all, what most people would do is how investigators operate. This is how detectives determine who is lying and who is truthful. This was the whole of Kolar's book--how detectives weigh what most people would do against what a criminal would do.

We are beyond preconceptions. We have a crime that is 17 years old. I have read everything I can get my hands on about this case and came to my conceptions after that.

Objective viewing? Yes, that is good. I'm sure that's what the grand jury did during their 13 months of dedication to JonBenet's case. But at the end, they delivered what they felt was a true and reasonable finding. I'm with them.

 

[shefner]

The Ramseys were not like you or me. They considered themselves special. They lived in an alternate reality. People following this case since 1996 and reading nearly everything written about the R's and this case have gotten a sense of what makes the Ramsey's tick. They were not a normal family.

Oh yes, I agree completely. They are not like most of us. And that was the point I was making. What most of us would do and what they did are two different things....

 

[SyraKelly]

Here is Stan Garnett's piece

http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-op...oulder-district-attorney-jonbenet-ramsey-case

This not not favorable to AH or ML IMO

Notice the comments..KK

 

[arielilane]

The partial release of the Grand Jury indictment goes against our First Amendment.

I have always believed it came down to who did what between JR and PR. I have a hard time believing that a 9 year old kid planned/committed the crime against JonBenet. I'm not convinced by the evidence that it was BR. Perhaps I have missed something?

1. I keep going back to the R's letting BR freely go with the Whites that morning.

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/jurors-wanted-child-abuse-charges-against-ramseys

The district attorney at the time, Alex Hunter, who presented the evidence to the grand jury, declined to pursue charges saying: "I and my prosecutorial team believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time."

AH was not a strong DA and follow the money...

 

[fedfan4life]

I find your premise faulty....after all, what most people would do is how investigators operate. This is how detectives determine who is lying and who is truthful. This was the whole of Kolar's book--how detectives weigh what most people would do against what a criminal would do.

We are beyond preconceptions. We have a crime that is 17 years old. I have read everything I can get my hands on about this case and came to my conceptions after that.

Objective viewing? Yes, that is good. I'm sure that's what the grand jury did during their 13 months of dedication to JonBenet's case. But at the end, they delivered what they felt was a true and reasonable finding. I'm with them.

And yet you contradicted yourself in the very next post.

Again, it matters naught what you or I would do. The question is would the Ramseys perpetuate an elaborate cover-up to 'protect' their remaining living offspring?

Sooooooooooo... if your conclusions are based upon years of evidential review, why would there be a need to even mention that Burke is not the responsible party because YOU would never perpetuate a cover-up?

 

[coco puff]

The Ramseys were not like you or me. They considered themselves special. They lived in an alternate reality. People following this case since 1996 and reading nearly everything written about the R's and this case have gotten a sense of what makes the Ramsey's tick. They were not a normal family.

THANK YOU. I lived in ft Collins CO. During that time. These people are the Wikipedia of entitlement.

Honestly. The fake ransom note and staging was something they thought the simple minded public would buy to throw off suspicion from them. If you knew the reputation of the high and mighty John Ramsey you would know that if it really was an intruder he would have moved heaven and earth to find that killer. NOT book a trip that day. They thought they were so smart.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

THANK YOU. I lived in ft Collins CO. During that time. These people are the Wikipedia of entitlement.

Honestly. The fake ransom note and staging was something they thought the simple minded public would buy to throw off suspicion from them. If you knew the reputation of the high and mighty John Ramsey you would know that if it really was an intruder he would have moved heaven and earth to find that killer. NOT book a trip that day. They thought they were so smart.

YUP. I even made a post about this issue a few weeks back. If JonBenet was killed by an intruder, the "campaign" to find her killer would be like nothing we have ever seen. Just think about how much effort and resources the Ramseys put into defending themselves, and consider if they put that into finding into their daughter's killer. Patsy would have definitely started a foundation, which would still be prominent today, maybe she would have served on the board of another one. John would be speaking at Congress to pass "JonBenet's Law" and would be a TV correspondent for true crime cases in 2013. Just think about all the connections and money they had, and imagine if the used them to actually find the intruder.

Considering what we know about the Ramseys, the fact that they have never gotten involved with the missing/murdered/abused children cause should be a big red flag. I'm actually surprised they didn't join one as a front...but if they did, it would cause a lot of controversy between members.