Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[BBB167893]

That has no basis in fact. Just your opinion of him.. Nothing more..

<modsnip> But I will leave you with this, in case you get the notion to discuss it:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9859227&postcount=527"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Has the case fizzled a bit?[/ame]

It's too bad you guys limit your ideas to this thread. They'd make good discussion material.

So long, farewell, auf wiedesehn, adieu!

 

[CircuitGuy]

I think they may know the person who killed JBR but I don't think they knew WHO that may be then or even now although they may have suspects in their mind..

Do you think they're creeped out beyond belief? They say someone crept into their house, murdered someone, wrote a RN from a pad in the house, and left without anyone hearing anything. (The RN and entry could have happened before they got home.) I think I would do a security check of the house every time I got home.

Do you think Burke was freaked out at the time? Do you think the parents were concerned the kidnappers might still be around?

 

[CircuitGuy]

Just MY opinion, huh? You know what, Scarlett? This thread is your little picnic, and that's fine with me. But I will leave you with this, in case you get the notion to discuss it:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Has the case fizzled a bit?

It's too bad you guys limit your ideas to this thread. They'd make good discussion material.

There is a lot of poisoning the well in that post. "He was a product of the 60s." There's a lot about left/right politics. In the dialogue quoted the first thing Thomas does is point out is Dershowitz is notorious for defending OJ. It's all about attacking the person, and not really the person but his supposed politics. Half the people have some leftwing or rightwing politics, so you could dismiss anyone with this claim.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Do you think they're creeped out beyond belief? They say someone crept into their house, murdered someone, wrote a RN from a pad in the house, and left without anyone hearing anything. (The RN and entry could have happened before they got home.) I think I would do a security check of the house every time I got home.

Do you think Burke was freaked out at the time? Do you think the parents were concerned the kidnappers might still be around?

I would have been scared and creeped out. We once had someone break in our house when we were not home. When you wake up in the am know someone was there, That is creepy enough.. But to know they killed your child, I can not imagine that. I think someone had to have been there a long time in that house and knew they would be out.

Also I don't think they ever spent another night there after that. I am not sure but I think they left and stayed with friends and then ended up back in Atlanta.

I can not speak for them but I would have been questioning everything and everyone I knew.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Just MY opinion, huh? You know what, Scarlett? This thread is your little picnic, and that's fine with me. But I will leave you with this, in case you get the notion to discuss it:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Has the case fizzled a bit?

It's too bad you guys limit your ideas to this thread. They'd make good discussion material.

So long, farewell, auf wiedesehn, adieu!

Dave, This thread is actually just about talking about other theories on the case. It is no ones picnic to talk about the murder of a little girl. There are many threads to discuss the infinite RDI theories.
This is just here to let other people express themselves about other theories. Seems simple.

 

[dodie20]

That has no basis in fact. Just your opinion of him.. Nothing more..

Now that I see the indictment findings, I know why he did not sign it. The verdict was a joke.

If the indictment findings were a joke, then who gave the jurors the joke options they settled on in the indictment? They didn't just pull these indictment ideas out of thin air, did they? These people weren't joking around here. They didn't mean it as a joke, and like I said before, I doubt very seriously AH saw it as a joke. IMO, he didn't have the confidence in his abilities to proceed without having somebody spell it out for him. moo

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If the indictment findings were a joke, then who gave the jurors the joke options they settled on in the indictment? They didn't just pull these indictment ideas out of thin air, did they? These people weren't joking around here. They didn't mean it as a joke, and like I said before, I doubt very seriously AH saw it as a joke. IMO, he didn't have the confidence in his abilities to proceed without having somebody spell it out for him. moo

They were there to see if there was enough evidence to bring Patsy and/or John to trial for the Murder of Jonbenet. After seeing it all, Everything, They did not find that. They could not find enough to even put it to even consider bringing it to trial. That says something big. GrandJuries notoriously usually vote yes when asked this question. It is just about being able to take it to trial and see if another jury could find them guilty of murder. And the answer her was NO. There was not enough to find them guilty, or even attempt a trial to find them guilty.

This they stood around and let it happen option?? I don't know where it came from, It sounds to me some warped interpretation of their options, But what it means is that they would have known someone was killing their child and let it happen. AS sure as I am they did not kill her, I am more sure that they did not stand there and let someone murder their child and then cover it up for them.
It is just ludicrous.
Releasing this full verdict shows that there is NO evidence that either John or Patsy killed Jonebenet. The GJ had no idea who did it either and so they just made this odd verdict up.

It is like the juries that award 203,344,334,343.00 for someone spilling coffee on themselves. A bad verdict. A ridiculous verdict.

As for Hunter. I find him upright in not signing that indictment. I would not have put my name on it either.

 

[dodie20]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/ and I quote from the article..."why would a DA have a grand jury deliberate and vote if he is not going to pursue the charges that they bring back? ...And did the grand jury come up with those charges on their own? No way. One of the D.A.s had to provide that verbiage." So, if AH thought the indictment was a joke, he's got no one to blame but himself for the verbiage. moo

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/ and I quote from the article..."why would a DA have a grand jury deliberate and vote if he is not going to pursue the charges that they bring back? ...And did the grand jury come up with those charges on their own? No way. One of the D.A.s had to provide that verbiage." So, if AH thought the indictment was a joke, he's got no one to blame but himself for the verbiage. moo

I think he did not pursue it because it was bunk and he knew it. How does he go to trial and say.. "LADIES and GENTLEMEN of the Jury, We don't know who did it but we know these two stood there and watched as it happened.. And then covered it up for the murderer, We don't know who that is, But we are sure these two watched it and let it happen and then covered it up."

He went to GJ to see if there was enough to charge them with murder, The GJ said NO there wasn't.

 

[dodie20]

I think he did not pursue it because it was bunk and he knew it. How does he go to trial and say.. "LADIES and GENTLEMEN of the Jury, We don't know who did it but we know these two stood there and watched as it happened.. And then covered it up for the murderer, We don't know who that is, But we are sure these two watched it and let it happen and then covered it up."

He went to GJ to see if there was enough to charge them with murder, The GJ said NO there wasn't.

You're missing my point. How could he think what he, himself worded was a joke? Doesn't seem logical or fair to deliberately word something but then later call it a joke. But like I said, I don't believe he thought it was a joke. moo

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You're missing my point. How could he think what he, himself worded was a joke? Doesn't seem logical or fair to deliberately word something but then later call it a joke. But like I said, I don't believe he thought it was a joke. moo

Because it means the GJ had no idea what happened to Jonbenet. They just picked two options so they didn't walk out with a non vote.

That charge to me is one that goes in conjunction with also a murder indictment. Not two that says they did nothing but watch and cover up. That only works if you know who actually murdered the child.

The Gj had no decision on the murder. Their non decision is not prosecutable( if that is a word.. )

 

[CircuitGuy]

How does he go to trial and say.. "LADIES and GENTLEMEN of the Jury, We don't know who did it but we know these two stood there and watched as it happened.. And then covered it up for the murderer, We don't know who that is, But we are sure these two watched it and let it happen and then covered it up."

That's pretty much how I think of it. I don't know if that's a basis for prosecuting them. I do not know if they even stood and watched it as it happened. It sure seems to me, though, like they know who did it.

You agree they know (are familiar with) the person who did it, but you think they they don't know (aren't aware of) who it is. (That would be clearer in Spanish. Estás de acuerdo que conocen la persona que lo hizo, pero tú crees que no saben quién es.)

I suspect they know who did it. I don't know if that can be proven in a court of law and even if it can if that's a crime.

 

[Tawny]

I think that's aiding and abetting? Not positive, but it is a crime. Even with no main suspect, you can be prosecuted for assisting in covering up a murder.

 

[Mama2JML]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/ and I quote from the article..."why would a DA have a grand jury deliberate and vote if he is not going to pursue the charges that they bring back? ...And did the grand jury come up with those charges on their own? No way. One of the D.A.s had to provide that verbiage." So, if AH thought the indictment was a joke, he's got no one to blame but himself for the verbiage. moo

The GJ seemed to believe JB was murdered, in the 1st degree. No one was indicted on that charge. It would have been difficult to prosecute the Rs as accessories to a murder in which a suspected murderer was not identified. If the GJ believed there was an inkling of evidence that the Rs murdered JonBenet, or even if they believed her death may have been an accident, the indictments issued would be QUITE different.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That's pretty much how I think of it. I don't know if that's a basis for prosecuting them. I do not know if they even stood and watched it as it happened. It sure seems to me, though, like they know who did it.

You agree they know (are familiar with) the person who did it, but you think they they don't know (aren't aware of) who it is. (That would be clearer in Spanish. Estás de acuerdo que conocen la persona que lo hizo, pero tú crees que no saben quién es.)

I suspect they know who did it. I don't know if that can be proven in a court of law and even if it can if that's a crime.

BBM, I don't agree with that. I think it is possible that they may know the person that did it but don't know that they did it. I also think it is possible it is someone that knew the R's or of them better than the R's knew them. I have always felt like this was someone on the fringe or a stranger rather than someone in their tight circle..

I know for sure that Patsy knows now. She is with JonBenet and I am sure they know exactly what happened.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think that's aiding and abetting? Not positive, but it is a crime. Even with no main suspect, you can be prosecuted for assisting in covering up a murder.

Sure you can but who they heck did they aid and abet? That is the problem, you have to prove what they did to aid and abet and that person..

They don't have any of that. It is just a trumped up charge. OMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The GJ seemed to believe JB was murdered, in the 1st degree. No one was indicted on that charge. It would have been difficult to prosecute the Rs as accessories to a murder in which a suspected murderer was not identified. If the GJ believed there was an inkling of evidence that the Rs murdered JonBenet, or even if they believed her death may have been an accident, the indictments issued would be QUITE different.

Exactly. If they felt they were responsible, One or both of them for the murder, that is what they would have charged them with. But they didn't.

 

[wengr]

Exactly. If they felt they were responsible, One or both of them for the murder, that is what they would have charged them with. But they didn't.

Maybe the indictments mean exactly what they say?

 

[Tawny]

Sure you can but who they heck did they aid and abet? That is the problem, you have to prove what they did to aid and abet and that person..

They don't have any of that. It is just a trumped up charge. OMO

IMO, it's possible to prove someone aided a crime without knowing who committed the crime.

Fictional example: 4 people live in a house as roommates. One of them is murdered. One of the roommates is proven to have helped clean and dispose of the murder weapon and get rid of the bloody clothing, but is cleared of the murder itself (has an alibi for the time of death but was home when the body was found). Just a made up example of how someone *could* be convicted of aiding and abetting without being able to prove who actually committed the murder itself.

 

[Tawny]

Maybe the indictments mean exactly what they say?

Question since I don't know the answer: Does anyone know if ALL indictments were released? What if there was an indictment for another individual for murder in the first that we've never seen?