Grand Jury True Bills John & Patsy Discussion thread

[questfortrue]

I'm going to reply to your post more fully later...just wanted to quickly say...

If the GJ came to the conclusion Burke did it and the parents covered it up... They are nothing at all like me. I would have blabbed it ALL over!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Linda7NJ - :loveyou:


Replying to Lawstudent:
Specifically to this case (not talking abstractly about other cases involving children under 10) ---
If I understand, of course it was not impossible for information about BR’s role to have been leaked. IIRC, I believe there has been at some time in the past, within Colorado, a news story about a child under 10 accidentally shooting someone.

But the JBR case is a criminal one. And a very high profile one at that. Given Colorado’s GJ secrecy laws, imo, a revelation would have been truly unlikely. This case never reached beyond the level of the GJ. Throw in the bevy of attorneys and the real prospect of a lawsuit from the Rs - anyone bringing such testimony from BR to light could have been sued by the Rs as well as charged by the DA for revealing GJ information. Just my thoughts on it. I can't speculate on what would have occurred, if the case had gone to trial.

moo

 

[Theonly1]

Linda7NJ - :loveyou:


Replying to Lawstudent:
Specifically to this case (not talking abstractly about other cases involving children under 10) ---
If I understand, of course it was not impossible for information about BR’s role to have been leaked. IIRC, I believe there has been at some time in the past, within Colorado, a news story about a child under 10 accidentally shooting someone.

But the JBR case is a criminal one. And a very high profile one at that. Given Colorado’s GJ secrecy laws, imo, a revelation would have been truly unlikely. This case never reached beyond the level of the GJ. Throw in the bevy of attorneys and the real prospect of a lawsuit from the Rs - anyone bringing such testimony from BR to light could have been sued by the Rs as well as charged by the DA for revealing GJ information. Just my thoughts on it. I can't speculate on what would have occurred, if the case had gone to trial.

moo

And the Ramsey penchant for suing anyone who looked at them cross-eyed, in my opinion.

 

[DeDee]

The Rs really didn't have any other choice but to file slander lawsuits. Weren't all of their 5 or 6 lawsuits settled out of court? It has never been revealed how much the Rs benefitted financially from the lawsuits but I would guess not much at all. Settlements were likely just a promise not to reprint the stories and desist from printing more of the same about BR.

The Rs had to claim slander when their young son was being accused of his sister's death. They couldn't just let that ride even if it were true. Especially, if it were true, then, they must denounce it straight away.

This, for me, this is interesting. From everything ST and JK revealed in their books, what other direct evidence was the GJ provided that cannot be discussed due to GJ secrecy?

 

[Linda7NJ]

The Rs really didn't have any other choice but to file slander lawsuits. Weren't all of their 5 or 6 lawsuits settled out of court? It has never been revealed how much the Rs benefitted financially from the lawsuits but I would guess not much at all. Settlements were likely just a promise not to reprint the stories and desist from printing more of the same about BR.



The Rs had to claim slander when their young son was being accused of his sister's death. They couldn't just let that ride even if it were true. Especially, if it were true, then, they must denounce it straight away.



This, for me, this is interesting. From everything ST and JK revealed in their books, what other direct evidence was the GJ provided that cannot be discussed due to GJ secrecy?

What's the penalty for a Grand Juror that breaks silence?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lawstudent]

Linda7NJ - :loveyou:


Replying to Lawstudent:
Specifically to this case (not talking abstractly about other cases involving children under 10) ---
If I understand, of course it was not impossible for information about BR’s role to have been leaked. IIRC, I believe there has been at some time in the past, within Colorado, a news story about a child under 10 accidentally shooting someone.

But the JBR case is a criminal one. And a very high profile one at that. Given Colorado’s GJ secrecy laws, imo, a revelation would have been truly unlikely. This case never reached beyond the level of the GJ. Throw in the bevy of attorneys and the real prospect of a lawsuit from the Rs - anyone bringing such testimony from BR to light could have been sued by the Rs as well as charged by the DA for revealing GJ information. Just my thoughts on it. I can't speculate on what would have occurred, if the case had gone to trial.

moo

I agree the circumstances in this case made the reveal unlikely, although not because of the underage aspect - they simply didn't seem to want to fully investigate anything. They could well have proceeded with a prosecution of the parents without ever naming the child. Everyone would know who that child was, but that's not the point. The child would never have to be a suspect. Everything could be focused on what the parents did after the death, and what they thought happened when they found JB, and why they reacted as they did. If they did believe this is what happened, I can understand why they backed off - why ruin the kid's life by prosecuting the parents for panicking? I mean, there are obvious reasons why they should be prosecuted, particularly if they didn't get her medical help. But I could see why a DA would think the case was just too messy to deal with.

The grand jury would never have investigated Burke for a crime, so it wasn't a criminal case as to him. He would be there as a witness, a player, someone who explained the crimes of the Ramseys that were alleged, but not someone with criminal responsibility. When a kid accidentally shoots another, it is a criminal case for the parents quite frequently, but not for the children. I know the GJ can't reveal what went on, but others certainly could have if they knew anything, just like when one child shoots another. They can say that is what happened, they just can't refer to a child as a murderer or begin such an investigation.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

If Burke did it, even if the case never hit the media, everyone who knew the family would know he did it. How would they be able to cover it up? Pay off the media to never report the case, and just tell people it was an accident? Is it better to have strangers suspect you killed your sister, or for everyone who knows you and your family to know you killed your sister?

 

[lawstudent]

If Burke did it, even if the case never hit the media, everyone who knew the family would know he did it. How would they be able to cover it up? Pay off the media to never report the case, and just tell people it was an accident? Is it better to have strangers suspect you killed your sister, or for everyone who knows you and your family to know you killed your sister?

Yeah, the problem I have is that if this did come out at the GJ, I believe locals would have gotten wind of it, and it just could not have stayed as quiet as it has. While it is possible the GJ suspected this may have happened, I'm not convinced they had any strong evidence in that regard. It was just an indictment, and one that doesn't make sense really.

It explains why the Ramseys might stage, and given how things went down, it's possible those around them would never have known how it happened. They stuck to the kidnapping story. If they hadn't staged and had been honest with the police/medical staff, even without prosecution, people would know if a child had done it.

 

[Tadpole12]

This, for me, this is interesting. From everything ST and JK revealed in their books, what other direct evidence was the GJ provided that cannot be discussed due to GJ secrecy?

Heyya DeDee,

if the witnesses recounted incidents of aggressive behaviour would that be considered direct evidence?

 

[bettybaby00]

BR didn't t necessarily have to give testimony that incriminated himself. All He had to do was show his parents' tale was a lie. His story already differed from his parents; i.e., JRB wasn't asleep when they got home and walked into the house. He also could have offered information about the pineapple snack.

I don't believe it would have leaked by now if BR had given damaging testimony-be it about himself, or about his parents. Look at how long it took for the existence of the true bills to come out. Hunter successfully hid that, and their existence would have still been hidden if not for the court order.

This is how his peers viewed his actions:

Legal experts are unsure whether Hunter's decision not to sign the indictment agrees with Colorado grand jury law.

In an email, University of Colorado Law School professor Mimi Wesson, who has followed the Ramsey case over the years, wrote, "The Colorado statute governing grand jury practice says ... that '(e)very indictment shall be signed' by the foreman of the grand jury and the prosecuting attorney."

In the event that the grand jury voted to indict on charges that Hunter did not believe he could prove at trial, Wesson said it is her opinion that proper legal procedure would have been to sign the document, file it with the court and then move in open court to dismiss the charges.

"That would be the more transparent and responsible course, in my opinion," Wesson wrote.

We have no idea what the other documents contained. Perhaps they were damaging to BR directly, and that's why the judge kept them sealed. We'll never know.

One of the reasons that I find Kolar's conclusions so believable is b/c he knew the true bills existed.

 

[lawstudent]

The thing is, people probably didn't go home at night and mention to their family/friends that they had been preparing true bills with charges X Y and Z - most people don't get what that means, and these were only indictments - it doesn't mean they were convinced of anything. Even if they weren't supposed to reveal anything, I'm sure some stuff got mentioned. I think it would be far more likely that they would mention that "it looks like the kid did it" or "the kid was really off I heard some weird stuff about his behavior" or something like that, thinking it was vague enough. That stuff would get whispered around pretty quickly, whereas I don't think most people would be quietly mentioning they heard a juror talking about signing an indictment - too technical. They would be more focused on any juicy details that leaked out as to why they would have signed it. That's why the news media regularly misses the point of significant court rulings by only picking out a few juicy lines to focus on - many of the interesting legal twists and turns are just not understood.

ETA: Prior violent behavior is not direct evidence, but that's not the standard - it's just whether there's probable cause to move forward with the prosecution. If that had come out, I still don't think they would indict without some other facts that led them to believe he was involved, because it wasn't the natural conclusion that he had done it, even if they believed someone in the house had done so. I would think someone would have had to indicate his involvement for them to actually indict - it couldn't be mere suspicion. I mean, it could be, but I doubt it.

 

[Tadpole12]

http://gazette.com/editorial-democrats-concoct-charges-create-condemnation-in-a-can/article/1535798

EDITORIAL: Democrats concoct charges, create condemnation in a can
August 19, 2014

"The adage says a prosecutor can convince any grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. That's because grand juries are for show. Jurors hear only what a prosecutor tells them. They operate outside the court system, devoid of judicial constraint, cross examinations or burdensome bits of exculpatory evidence. As grand jurors bear no responsibility for determining guilt, there's little reluctance to grant a prosecutor's request for the jury's imprimatur.
The phrase "issued an indictment" sounds as if a legitimate fact-finding process, composed of jurors who are "grand," determined culpability. It's condemnation in a can.
A prosecutor who needs cover for not pursuing charges can show a grand jury how the evidence won't hold up. The prosecutor hopes for a headline such as this, from Charlotte, N.C.: "Grand jury refused to indict officer charged in man's fatal shooting." Got that? Jurors refused to bring charges, tying the prosecutor's hands.
A prosecutor can take or leave a grand jury's decision, as seen when then-Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter ignored a jury's recommendation to indict John and Patricia Ramsey in the infamous murder of JonBenét."

 

[2 percent]

If Burke did it, even if the case never hit the media, everyone who knew the family would know he did it. How would they be able to cover it up? Pay off the media to never report the case, and just tell people it was an accident? Is it better to have strangers suspect you killed your sister, or for everyone who knows you and your family to know you killed your sister?

I agree. If the general consensus among people "in the know" was that Burke did it, wouldn't there have been a figurative sigh of relief when Kolar embraced the theory?

My impression is that the reveal of BDI hasn't registered with anyone but forum people. I could be wrong. I don't keep my finger on the pulse of the CO justice system. MOO

 

[DeeDee249]

I agree. If the general consensus among people "in the know" was that Burke did it, wouldn't there have been a figurative sigh of relief when Kolar embraced the theory?

My impression is that the reveal of BDI hasn't registered with anyone but forum people. I could be wrong. I don't keep my finger on the pulse of the CO justice system. MOO

Oh, I think it registered. I just don't think anyone will comment publicly. BR is forever barred from public implication in the death of his sister.

 

[2 percent]

Oh, I think it registered. I just don't think anyone will comment publicly. BR is forever barred from public implication in the death of his sister.

Why? Why is Burke special? Other child offenders are named without, at least, media fallout.
This solution would be the answer to so many prayers...but it hasn't really been embraced outside the forums as far as I've seen.
Weird~

 

[Tawny]

It likely has to do with his age at the time of the crime. I'm not sure though. JMO

 

[Mama2JML]

There doesn't seem to be a general consensus among "people in the know", at all. ...least of all a shared belief that BDI. JMO.

 

[UKGuy]

I agree. If the general consensus among people "in the know" was that Burke did it, wouldn't there have been a figurative sigh of relief when Kolar embraced the theory?

My impression is that the reveal of BDI hasn't registered with anyone but forum people. I could be wrong. I don't keep my finger on the pulse of the CO justice system. MOO

2 percent,
Bearing in mind that BDI could be a screen for either PDI or JDI, then I doubt the general public view JonBenet's homicide as attributed to a BDI. They probably continue to think along the lines of Lou Smit. i.e. an Intruder Did It. Simply because intellectually its the obvious answer, except as we know it the wrong one.

BDI is not a done deal simply because Kolar embraced the theory. BDI was always there, q.v. BlueCrab, it is the forensic evidence that Kolar brings to the table which is interesting.

If you suscribe to BDI, then in a sense its not BDI as one of the parents tightened the ligature around JonBenet's neck and killed her.

This is the irony or insight unavailable to the general public and allows them to think a nine year old boy: no way!

I reckon we will learn more, particularly once JR passes on, prior girlfriends of BR will report particular behaviour etc, it will all be open season on the R's, dead people cannot defamed!

.

 

[elannia]

Im just curious. If BDI he couldnt be charged. So if calls were made in the early hours to maybe an attorney he would know that a child under 10 couldnt be charged so if this is the case then who did what with the cover up? Who came up with the idea to make it look like an intruder did it. Did the attorney help with the plans? Why wouldnt the attorney let on that he couldnt be charged with anything. Or was everything already done when they called him and he(they) gave them the intruder idea?

 

[chlban]

Im just curious. If BDI he couldnt be charged. So if calls were made in the early hours to maybe an attorney he would know that a child under 10 couldnt be charged so if this is the case then who did what with the cover up? Who came up with the idea to make it look like an intruder did it. Did the attorney help with the plans? Why wouldnt the attorney let on that he couldnt be charged with anything. Or was everything already done when they called him and he(they) gave them the intruder idea?

IF BDI and IF an attorney was contacted, they might know. They mght not. My BIL is an attorney, but his specialty is corporate law. He does not, off the top of his head, know every single law pertaining to Criminal Law. He studied it years ago and doesn't refer to it daily.

That said, even if the Ramsey's knew that Burke could not be charged, they may not have wanted him known as the kid that killed his sister. That is all a big "if" though, IMO. While I believe it's plausable that Burke inflicted the head injury, I don't for one second believe that he fashioned the garrote and strangled her. So, in my version of BDI, he still did not kill her. He severly, and possibly mortally wounded, her. An adult, or adults did the rest.

 

[elannia]

IF BDI and IF an attorney was contacted, they might know. They mght not. My BIL is an attorney, but his specialty is corporate law. He does not, off the top of his head, know every single law pertaining to Criminal Law. He studied it years ago and doesn't refer to it daily.

That said, even if the Ramsey's knew that Burke could not be charged, they may not have wanted him known as the kid that killed his sister. That is all a big "if" though, IMO. While I believe it's plausable that Burke inflicted the head injury, I don't for one second believe that he fashioned the garrote and strangled her. So, in my version of BDI, he still did not kill her. He severly, and possibly mortally wounded, her. An adult, or adults did the rest.

Thanks. So im wondering who did what. I think he was sent to his room after he delivered the head blow and they took over from there. The 911 call for example patsy starts to say theres a ransom note here but quickly says a note, then Burke asking what did you find(I wonder if he means the RN or JB?) And john says were not speaking to you. So he was probably sent to his room then stayed there maybe slept or was awake the whole time while all the covering up was goin on. I believe this is why they got him out of the house so fast that morning. And also when JR brought her up from the basement Rol was heating water?in the microwave and john says I dont think he meant to kill her, shes wrapped in a blanket(not his exact words but similar to them). Who exactly would he be talking about? He wouldnt think an "intruder" didnt mean to kill her.