In Memory of JonBenet Ramsey

[CorallaroC]

Well, if the GJ or the DA had filed the gigantic charges of M1 M2 or such for the wrong party, then the possibility of double jeopardy would have come into play. All these years later, we see these things and there's not a darn thing we can do about it

 

[CorallaroC]

While we are on the subject, I distinctly remember a presser given by DA Alex Hunter where he mentions Damocles Sword, with reference to the killer. Better minds can probably give more insight into the actual statement Hunter made, but a threat such as that would have no affect whatsoever on a pathological narcissist, now would it?

 

[BOESP]

Here's a quote from a "Vanity Fair" article:

“Whether we prosecute or not,” Hunter told me in June, “there is no statute of limitations on murder. . . . It’s a very big Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/1997/10/jonbenet-ramsey-murder-missing-innocence

 

[UKGuy]

When you look at it, both of them are definitely guilty of this charge; but it's impossible to know which one of them, specifically, committed the actual act of murder. There's no doubt however, that they both knew.

Userid,
IMO there is enough forensic evidence to charge Patsy with First Degree Murder, i.e. Patsy's fibers are embedded in the ligature knotting, no accident via innocent transfer. JR's fibers link to JonBenet's thighs, etc.

Not to mention Patsy's fibers elsewhere in the wine-cellar. I reckon there was a case that could be put before a jury, not doing so leaves me thinking its because it was really BDI?

.

 

[Cottonstar]

Clear the smoke and the mirror/
And it becomes quite clear/
a third person is standing there/

A reporter's subsequent lawsuit resulted in an October 2013 decision by a judge to unseal those indictments, which not only confirmed the indictments' existence, but also revealed that both parents also had been indicted on a second charge, that of accessory to an unidentified third person in the crime of first-degree murder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BOESP]

I'm probably in the minority, but I just can not conclude that the wording in the released true bill states there had to be a "third person" who was assisted. Patsy and John are also candidates for needing assistance.

 

[Cottonstar]

I'm probably in the minority, but I just can not conclude that the wording in the released true bill states there had to be a "third person" who was assisted. Patsy and John are also candidates for needing assistance.

"So why in Count VII which is about being an accessory to a murderer, why after we’ve established Child Abuse as a charge earlier, in IVa, why does the Bill go to the trouble to describe the murderer as: “… the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.” Our murderer is accused of murder but also of a second charge: “… and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.” To be plain, three people including the Ramsey parents are accused of child abuse not two." TDAC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[questfortrue]

I'm probably in the minority, but I just can not conclude that the wording in the released true bill states there had to be a "third person" who was assisted. Patsy and John are also candidates for needing assistance.

Nice to see you, Boesp. In December last year:
-We have Garnett claiming to know who killed JonBenét and if he can ever try the case, will tell the world who he thinks killed her.
-We have a Grand Juror saying he believes he knows who killed JB, but since there was no smoking gun, it would have been a waste to take it to court. (OT but relevant, for a number of years I’ve heard there is a purported secret piece of evidence which would make one person uneasy to know the BPD possessed it. I’ve read this from two sources. Probably not a smoking gun though.)

Next time I run into Kolar at the ice cream parlor, I’m gonna ask a few things.

 

[BOESP]

"So why in Count VII which is about being an accessory to a murderer, why after we’ve established Child Abuse as a charge earlier, in IVa, why does the Bill go to the trouble to describe the murderer as: “… the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.” Our murderer is accused of murder but also of a second charge: “… and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.” To be plain, three people including the Ramsey parents are accused of child abuse not two." TDAC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand what you are saying and certainly it is possible they could be covering for Burke. However, John or Patsy also could be covering one adult for the other (Patsy and John) and there was not enough evidence to conclude who did what therefore the true bill was left open-ended. Also, my understanding is that if a child under ten years old (iirc), can not even be mentioned in any way whatsoever when it comes to charging them with a murder then how could an underage child be mentioned, even if anonymously, if they are in no way to be mentioned? (Rhetorical question because it seems they shouldn't be mentioned at all in Colorado.)

I see other possibilities but I'm still a "Patsy Did It" person with John assisting later in the cover-up.

 

[BOESP]

Nice to see you, Boesp. In December last year:
-We have Garnett claiming to know who killed JonBenét and if he can ever try the case, will tell the world who he thinks killed her.
-We have a Grand Juror saying he believes he knows who killed JB, but since there was no smoking gun, it would have been a waste to take it to court. (OT but relevant, for a number of years I’ve heard there is a purported secret piece of evidence which would make one person uneasy to know the BPD possessed it. I’ve read this from two sources. Probably not a smoking gun though.)

Next time I run into Kolar at the ice cream parlor, I’m gonna ask a few things.

Nice to see you too qft. Thanks for this additional information. The above suggests, at least to me, that someone could yet still be chargeable but unless Colorado Code is rewritten it still couldn't be Burke, imo.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
IMO there is enough forensic evidence to charge Patsy with First Degree Murder, i.e. Patsy's fibers are embedded in the ligature knotting, no accident via innocent transfer. JR's fibers link to JonBenet's thighs, etc.

Not to mention Patsy's fibers elsewhere in the wine-cellar. I reckon there was a case that could be put before a jury, not doing so leaves me thinking its because it was really BDI?

.

I am a PDI (as you are well aware, I'm sure), but even I have to admit, fiber evidence is circumstantial at best. So I can see why the GJ would go with the lesser charge, as it would be easier to prove for the prosecution.

 

[Userid]

I'm probably in the minority, but I just can not conclude that the wording in the released true bill states there had to be a "third person" who was assisted. Patsy and John are also candidates for needing assistance.

Exactly. I completely agree. Nothing in the GJ charges is indicative that there was a definitive "third person." The charge doesn't strictly need to be based on there being a third person; it could also be based on the "one or the other" (JR or PR; PR or JR) mindset.

 

[Cottonstar]

One may speculate that the grand jury was prevented from issuing a report because only one of the three persons in the Ramsey household on December 26, 1996, Burke, was called to testify. The information provided by police interviews with virtually every other potential witness was provided to the defense lawyers and leaked to the press. Burke’s was not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SecretaryGal]

Exactly. I completely agree. Nothing in the GJ charges is indicative that there was a definitive "third person." The charge doesn't strictly need to be based on there being a third person; it could also be based on the "one or the other" (JR or PR; PR or JR) mindset.

Userid, don't you think that if the GJ charges were based on "one or the other," then PR and JR would have each been 'true billed' for felony murder as well, since the other true bills are worded as such. It just seems like if they had "assisted" in covering for child abuse and felony murder interchangeably, they should have been charged with the felony murder interchangeably as well. Am I missing something here? Just my opinion, anyway.

 

[Userid]

Userid, don't you think that if the GJ charges were based on "one or the other," then PR and JR would have each been 'true billed' for felony murder as well, since the other true bills are worded as such. It just seems like if they had "assisted" in covering for child abuse and felony murder interchangeably, they should have been charged with the felony murder interchangeably as well. Am I missing something here? Just my opinion, anyway.

But wouldn't that essentially be saying that both of them were involved in the actual murder if they were both "true billed"? That is unlikely and I believe the GJ knew that. It would be akin to both parents simultaneously participating in the actual murder. I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation.

 

[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 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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SecretaryGal]

But wouldn't that essentially be saying that both of them were involved in the actual murder if they were both "true billed"? That is unlikely and I believe the GJ knew that. It would be akin to both parents simultaneously participating in the actual murder. I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation.

I guess I understand what you are sayng, Userid.

I am tryng to figure out these true bills.


Count IVa; Child Abuse Resulting in Death
Count VII; Accessory to a Crime

GJ opined that both JR and PR were involved with both counts.

IOW, from the evidence presented. The GJ opined that both PR and JR “unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey" and “rendered assistance to a person knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

Count IVa: JR and PR would have to have:

1. ALLOWED someone living in the home who they KNEW was potentially dangerous to be ALONE with JBR; OR
2. ALLOWED Someone who they KNEW into the home who they KNEW was potentially dangerous and allowed that person to be ALONE with JBR; OR
3. ALLOWED an UNKNOWN person into the home and allowed that person to be ALONE with JBR?

Count VII: After this person murdered JBR, PR and JR helped cover up a murder, which they KNOW this person committed.

So, for Count VII to work, I think we can rule out 3 right off the bat, right? Who is going to let someone into the house that they don’t know in the middle of the night when they are scheduled to go out of town the next morning?

Let’s look at 2. The only scenarios that work here IMO are (a) It was a close family member or friend; (b) It was someone who had some kind of power/threat over them; or (c) PR and/or JR were a party to the murder.

Let’s look at 1. There were only three other people in the house that lived there; since PR and JR did not receive true bills for murder, that leaves only BR, who cannot be charged due to his age.

I guess I just want to see if I have interpreted this correctly.

 

[Userid]

^ I don't interpret the charge that way. As you can see, there is nothing about a "person." It simply says "situation." Again, this is on purpose, and convenient. It says the parents let JBR be placed "in a situation that resulted in her death." It says nothing about the parents letting JBR be placed in the presence of a particular person, let alone a "person" in general, let alone a "third" person. Just a situation. This is because, again, the GJ didn't know exactly which one of the parents killed JBR or exactly how JBR died.

 

[SecretaryGal]

^ I don't interpret the charge that way. As you can see, there is nothing about a "person." It simply says "situation." Again, this is on purpose, and convenient. It says the parents let JBR be placed "in a situation that resulted in her death." It says nothing about the parents letting JBR be placed in the presence of a particular person, let alone a "person" in general, let alone a "third" person. Just a situation. This is because, again, the GJ didn't know exactly which one of the parents killed JBR or exactly how JBR died.

Can you elaborate on what you think the situation(s) could be if they aren't associated with a person?

 

[Userid]

Can you elaborate on what you think the situation(s) could be if they aren't associated with a person?

The child's demise in and of itself is the situation.