BlueCrab said:
The Ramsey grand jury had almost unlimited power to investigate the JonBenet Ramsey murder. They had their own hand-picked staff of professional investigators; they could ask any kind of questions they wanted and the witnesses (about 100 of them) had to answer truthfully or go to jail; and they investigated for 13 months. If that grand jury didn't solve this case then it will never be solved. I'm convinced they solved it.
I agree that if the GJ couldn't indict, this case will probably never be solved. However, the GJ is not there to "solve" the crime. They are there to determine if charges can be filed.
BlueCrab said:
When the grand jury adjourned permanently in October of 1999 it had three choices: indict someone; or not indict someone but provide a written report; or not indict someone and provide no report. The jurors did the latter -- no report.
When no report is issued by the grand jury the details are sealed by the court. IMO, the only reason they would do that in this case is because children too young to even be charged in juvenile court (under 10 years old) were involved in the crime.
This is far from unusual. Not every grand jury results in an indictment, and EVERY grand jury is secretive. Details are always sealed by the court, EVEN WITH AN INDICTMENT. Also, the report they COULD have issued would not go to you or me but to the DA's office. Where do you get the idea that they could not indict and issue a public report? I am well aware of your take on the GJ, and of course, it is your opinion, but don't make more than what is there. This is GJ 101...secret proceedings, files under seal...no big deal! I would think that if they concluded ANYTHING, they would have issued a report to the DA, but you think that a lack of a report shows a conclusion?
However, there is some evidence to point towards your conclusion, that you may or may not be aware of. The Supreme Court has offered a handful of reasons why GJ proceedings are to be kept secret, and most of them expire at the conclusion of the proceedings. Those have to do with protecting witness's from outside influence, insuring full disclosure, etc. However, the final reason, and perhaps, most significant in this case, is the idea that if no indictment is brought, innocent people should stay out of public scorn. BUT...and here's the kicker...oftentimes, the media can stand before the court at the conclusion of the proceedings and request that the transcript be released by the court. The argument the media must present is that the public has a good reason to see the proceedings. The best way to achieve this is when there has been wrongful prosecution or misconduct by police or elected officials. Well, the Ramseys have been screaming about the police and DA missteps since day one, so I would think that the Ramseys themselves might even want the transcript released. The public should have an interest as to what the police and DA did wrong, no? Is anyone aware of any attempts to unseal the record? But if that is not what was contained in the proceedings, and there was more damaging information, then you may be on to something, BlueCrab.