Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[Chelly]

Patsy knew the size 12s were down there. She bought them. IMO, it doesn't really matter who tore the paper. If BR is the one that did it, he was just snooping for his birthday presents. What 9 yr old boy is going to pay any attention? If anything, he probably dropped the package immediately. The chances of JR knowing they were there is slim to none. PR probably rattled on about what she'd bought, who she bought it for, etc. JR most likely acted like he was listening, with an occasional "Oh" "Mm hmm" and it went in one ear and out the other.

So one person knows they're there. Another might have seen them, but paid no attention, and one almost surely doesn't know they're there.

Although I believe JR was involved in her death, if not solely responsible, I think in all likelihood PR did the redressing.

BBM I often think the size 12 redressing of JB appears more important to us than it was to the redresser, even if it was PR. The redresser may have thought "Oh who cares!"..jmo

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Christmas was on a Wednesday that year. The panties were Wednesday panties. A preponderance of coincidence rules out coincidence.

 

[otg]

The 1998 interview was the most comprehensive and therefore the most likely.
The first two interviews were very early in the grand scheme of things, and a question like that would not have been asked during the DSS interview.
December 26, 1996 – Interview by Det. Fred Patterson
January 6, 1997 - DSS interview
June 10-12, 1998 - Interview by DA’s office
May 1998 - Testimony to grand Jury

cynic (or anyone, if they can clarify),

I believe the last date is incorrect. BR testimony was presented in May, 1999. Only reason for pointing that out is to not leave anyone with the misconception that he was questioned again by someone in the DA's office after his GJ appearance.

Also, I've seen different references that make it unclear whether BR's GJ testimony was actually in person, or if it was videotaped prior to the GJ seeing it with "pre-approved" questions. Do we know for sure which is the case, or is this something open to interpretation that we may only find out after Charlie Brennan wins his challenge to the GJ secrecy lease:?

 

[cynic]

cynic (or anyone, if they can clarify),

I believe the last date is incorrect. BR testimony was presented in May, 1999. Only reason for pointing that out is to not leave anyone with the misconception that he was questioned again by someone in the DA's office after his GJ appearance.

That was a typo, thanks for spotting it OTG

Also, I've seen different references that make it unclear whether BR's GJ testimony was actually in person, or if it was videotaped prior to the GJ seeing it with "pre-approved" questions. Do we know for sure which is the case, or is this something open to interpretation that we may only find out after Charlie Brennan wins his challenge to the GJ secrecy lease:?

That will not be revealed in the release of the indictment, unfortunately.

 

[otg]

That was a typo, thanks for spotting it OTG

Cynic, you know you're like EF Hutton: When you speak, everyone listens. Everyone pays attention to what you post because we know how knowledgeable you are, and we know we'll probably learn something.

That will not be revealed in the release of the indictment, unfortunately.

I should know that, but I'm hoping there may be enough written by the GJ in the indictment that it may give us a little more information than they've wanted released. And actually, that's the very reason I think the judge will side with the DA in refusing to release it: because of the justification for charges which should, and may (I think), be in the returned true bill.

I think if the judge does deny the request, it will be very telling as to what is behind the reason. But then, that's JMHO :loser:.

 

[cynic]

I've seen different references that make it unclear whether BR's GJ testimony was actually in person, or if it was videotaped prior to the GJ seeing it with "pre-approved" questions. Do we know for sure which is the case, or is this something open to interpretation that we may only find out after Charlie Brennan wins his challenge to the GJ secrecy lease:?

There is good evidence to suggest that Burke’s testimony before the grand jury was strictly video testimony and that is the way I have always understood it to be.
(There is also some evidence to suggest that it may well have only been portions of his 1998 interview that was played for the jury.)

Kolar doesn’t reveal the method of testimony:
The Boulder Grand Jury was reported to have ended their spring session of 1999 not long after hearing the testimony of Burke Ramsey, JonBenét’s brother, who was 9-years-old at the time of the murder.
Jurors took a summer hiatus of nearly 4 months after their May 25th meeting.

This article is very illuminating:
An attorney representing JonBenét Ramsey's 12-year-old brother reportedly is in town working out a deal to clear the boy's name or arrange a new interview with him that could provide additional information to the grand jury investigating JonBenét's 1996 slaying, according to media reports.
Jim Jenkins, an Atlanta attorney representing Burke Ramsey, is believed to be in negotiations with the Boulder County District Attorney's Office trying to protect his client from having to testify before the grand jury, KOA radio reported. Another report said Jenkins was trying to get the district attorney to clear Burke as a suspect.
Neither report could not be confirmed as of Wednesday night.
Jenkins did not return phone calls, but his wife said he was called out of Atlanta for a business trip for several days.
Jenkins also represents two older Ramsey children, Melinda and John Andrew Ramsey, who are among the few people cleared of the crime.
The grand jury met Wednesday for the first time in two weeks.
The meeting was unusual in that it fell on a Wednesday — the panel usually convenes on Tuesday and Thursdays — and lasted a full day, something that hasn't happened since mid-April.
According to one source, the meeting originally was scheduled for May 11 and then bumped to May 13 for unknown reasons. Prosecutors again rescheduled the session to Tuesday, the source said, and then pushed it up to today, before finally settling on Wednesday.
JonBenét, 6, was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her parents' Boulder home Dec. 26, 1996. Although her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, remain under suspicion, they maintain their innocence.
Their son, Burke, has been interviewed by investigators at least three times since his sister's death, including a six hour interview last June by Broomfield police Sgt. Dan Schuler. Schuler, a 25-year veteran of the Broomfield police department and specialist in juvenile cases, has a master's degree in psychology and counseling.
Although at least some of those interviews were video-taped and could be shown to the grand jury in lieu of direct testimony, the panel may have new questions about the case since beginning its investigation in September.
Burke was the subject of wide-spread media attention last week after a tabloid reported that he was the focus of the grand jury investigation and that attorneys were working out a plea bargain with his parents. The Ramseys' attorneys and District Attorney Alex Hunter said those reports were false.
Investigators believe Burke's voice might be audible in a 911 recording of Patsy Ramsey's frantic call to police the day JonBenét purportedly was kidnapped and later found dead.
That would conflict with statements by John and Patsy Ramsey that Burke was asleep when the call was made, officials have said.
May 20, 1999
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5TcUZBeLKlgJ:web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1999/20crmsy.html+&cd=12&hl=en


There is also this:
Witnesses who testified before the Ramsey grand jury include:
* Burke Ramsey, JonBenet's 14-year-old brother, by video

* John Andrew Ramsey and Melinda Ramsey Long, John Ramsey's adult children from previous marriage

* Lou Smit, former Colorado Springs homicide detective

* Susan Stine, friend of the Ramseys

* Ellis Armistead, investigator hired by the Ramseys Linda Arndt, former Boulder detective

* Craig Lewis, editor at "The Globe," was called to testify, but was exempted due to Fifth amendment and his defense in another related lawsuit. Witnesses who may have testified include:

* Glenn Stine, friend of the Ramseys

* Tom and Enid Schantz, owners of Rue Morgue Mystery Bookshop in Boulder

* Richard French, Boulder police officer

* Boulder police detectives Jim Byfield, Jane Harmer, Tom Trujillo, Michael Everett, Carey Weinheimer and Ron Gosage

* Steve Ainsworth, Boulder County sheriff's detective : Linda Hoffmann-Pugh said she believes the grand jury that investigated the beauty queen's death was focusing on the girl's mother.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:npxn_MNBzmIJ:www.rense.com/general11/benet.htm+&cd=1&hl=en

 

[JC84]

Can you give us some indication of where you got this info from? Is it someone's FB page? Or some wedding registry? Thanks.

I really hope this isn't going to make me sound like a mad stalker (I used to do this type of thing in a previous life as a journalist). But here goes (and I hope all this is within Websleuths guidelines, I won't mention any names/links).

When looking at some people related to the case on Facebook, just by chance I noticed a girl on someone's friends list whose profile pic was of her and Burke. After a little more investigation (ie pictures, she is friends with most of the Rs), clearly his girlfriend.

I Googled her. She's on Pinterest. In the last week she's started up a pin board for wedding ideas and is adding to it regularly. So could be that she just likes to look for ideas, could be that it's for a friend, but most likely, she's getting married...

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I really hope this isn't going to make me sound like a mad stalker (I used to do this type of thing in a previous life as a journalist). But here goes (and I hope all this is within Websleuths guidelines, I won't mention any names/links).

When looking at some people related to the case on Facebook, just by chance I noticed a girl on someone's friends list whose profile pic was of her and Burke. After a little more investigation (ie pictures, she is friends with most of the Rs), clearly his girlfriend.

I Googled her. She's on Pinterest. In the last week she's started up a pin board for wedding ideas and is adding to it regularly. So could be that she just likes to look for ideas, could be that it's for a friend, but most likely, she's getting married...

Okay, yep, I know exactly what girl you're talking about, and I saw that album on her Pinterest too. I think it's possible she's engaged, but a lot of girls like to plan their weddings just for fun, and a website like Pinterest encourages it.

But with Burke being 26 and in a serious relationship, it's probably not long before he does get engaged (if he isn't already).

ETA: If you're a stalker, I'm even worse. I found an album of pictures of JonBenet's classmates (same graduating class) when they were in High Peaks Elementary School. No pictures of JonBenet though (they look to be older than Kindergarten age).

 

[SapphireSteel]

I really hope this isn't going to make me sound like a mad stalker (I used to do this type of thing in a previous life as a journalist). But here goes (and I hope all this is within Websleuths guidelines, I won't mention any names/links).

When looking at some people related to the case on Facebook, just by chance I noticed a girl on someone's friends list whose profile pic was of her and Burke. After a little more investigation (ie pictures, she is friends with most of the Rs), clearly his girlfriend.

I Googled her. She's on Pinterest. In the last week she's started up a pin board for wedding ideas and is adding to it regularly. So could be that she just likes to look for ideas, could be that it's for a friend, but most likely, she's getting married...

Ugh imagine marrying into that family.

On the other hand, I'm glad Burke has found happiness.

 

[cynic]

[SNIP]
...I'm hoping there may be enough written by the GJ in the indictment that it may give us a little more information than they've wanted released. And actually, that's the very reason I think the judge will side with the DA in refusing to release it: because of the justification for charges which should, and may (I think), be in the returned true bill.
[SNIP]

As I mentioned over at FFJ, I think that CB has a fair chance of success, but then again, anything to do with grand juries is typically more guarded than nuclear launch codes.
Perhaps after a loss and an appeal they might be successful?
In terms of the content of the indictment, I would say that we are probably going to see about a four or five page document if it’s released, and I tend to believe Beckner when he says that there is nothing there that “could hamper ongoing or future investigations.”
IOW, nothing new. IMO
For those interested in seeing an example of a true bill of indictment from Boulder, I posted the Midyette indictment over at FFJ.
For those unfamiliar with the case, be warned, it makes for some extremely unpleasant reading.
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=195223&postcount=27"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Colorado Reporters Sue Boulder DA Over Ramsey Case[/ame]

 

[otg]

As I mentioned over at FFJ, I think that CB has a fair chance of success, but then again, anything to do with grand juries is typically more guarded than nuclear launch codes.
Perhaps after a loss and an appeal they might be successful?
In terms of the content of the indictment, I would say that we are probably going to see about a four or five page document if it’s released, and I tend to believe Beckner when he says that there is nothing there that “could hamper ongoing or future investigations.”
IOW, nothing new. IMO
For those interested in seeing an example of a true bill of indictment from Boulder, I posted the Midyette indictment over at FFJ.
For those unfamiliar with the case, be warned, it makes for some extremely unpleasant reading.
Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Colorado Reporters Sue Boulder DA Over Ramsey Case

Thank you for the reference to the Midyette TB, cynic. I had read this before, and in fact, that was the reason I felt if the true bill returned by the GJ was released, it may give us a little more information. Just below where it says, "The offenses charged in counts one through seven of the indictment were committed in the following manner:", it then lays out what the Midyette GJ members believed happened. Even if (as has been reported) the Ramsey GJ members didn't know who did what, they had to have their reasons for charging the parents. If they wrote out how they believed it happened, it may give us a little more information about what they were able to determine. But as I said, if they did write out their justification for charges, I think that is the reason it won't be released. If they felt one of the parents actually struck her head or tied the ligature around her neck and that they were both involved in the coverup, would they not have both at least been accomplices to murder, or as Kolar suggests -- felony murder? Instead they only charged child abuse leading to death.

I guess we'll see in time.:waiting:

 

[UKGuy]

There is good evidence to suggest that Burke’s testimony before the grand jury was strictly video testimony and that is the way I have always understood it to be.
(There is also some evidence to suggest that it may well have only been portions of his 1998 interview that was played for the jury.)

Kolar doesn’t reveal the method of testimony:
The Boulder Grand Jury was reported to have ended their spring session of 1999 not long after hearing the testimony of Burke Ramsey, JonBenét’s brother, who was 9-years-old at the time of the murder.
Jurors took a summer hiatus of nearly 4 months after their May 25th meeting.

This article is very illuminating:
An attorney representing JonBenét Ramsey's 12-year-old brother reportedly is in town working out a deal to clear the boy's name or arrange a new interview with him that could provide additional information to the grand jury investigating JonBenét's 1996 slaying, according to media reports.
Jim Jenkins, an Atlanta attorney representing Burke Ramsey, is believed to be in negotiations with the Boulder County District Attorney's Office trying to protect his client from having to testify before the grand jury, KOA radio reported. Another report said Jenkins was trying to get the district attorney to clear Burke as a suspect.
Neither report could not be confirmed as of Wednesday night.
Jenkins did not return phone calls, but his wife said he was called out of Atlanta for a business trip for several days.
Jenkins also represents two older Ramsey children, Melinda and John Andrew Ramsey, who are among the few people cleared of the crime.
The grand jury met Wednesday for the first time in two weeks.
The meeting was unusual in that it fell on a Wednesday — the panel usually convenes on Tuesday and Thursdays — and lasted a full day, something that hasn't happened since mid-April.
According to one source, the meeting originally was scheduled for May 11 and then bumped to May 13 for unknown reasons. Prosecutors again rescheduled the session to Tuesday, the source said, and then pushed it up to today, before finally settling on Wednesday.
JonBenét, 6, was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her parents' Boulder home Dec. 26, 1996. Although her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, remain under suspicion, they maintain their innocence.
Their son, Burke, has been interviewed by investigators at least three times since his sister's death, including a six hour interview last June by Broomfield police Sgt. Dan Schuler. Schuler, a 25-year veteran of the Broomfield police department and specialist in juvenile cases, has a master's degree in psychology and counseling.
Although at least some of those interviews were video-taped and could be shown to the grand jury in lieu of direct testimony, the panel may have new questions about the case since beginning its investigation in September.
Burke was the subject of wide-spread media attention last week after a tabloid reported that he was the focus of the grand jury investigation and that attorneys were working out a plea bargain with his parents. The Ramseys' attorneys and District Attorney Alex Hunter said those reports were false.
Investigators believe Burke's voice might be audible in a 911 recording of Patsy Ramsey's frantic call to police the day JonBenét purportedly was kidnapped and later found dead.
That would conflict with statements by John and Patsy Ramsey that Burke was asleep when the call was made, officials have said.
May 20, 1999
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5TcUZBeLKlgJ:web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1999/20crmsy.html+&cd=12&hl=en


There is also this:
Witnesses who testified before the Ramsey grand jury include:
* Burke Ramsey, JonBenet's 14-year-old brother, by video

* John Andrew Ramsey and Melinda Ramsey Long, John Ramsey's adult children from previous marriage

* Lou Smit, former Colorado Springs homicide detective

* Susan Stine, friend of the Ramseys

* Ellis Armistead, investigator hired by the Ramseys Linda Arndt, former Boulder detective

* Craig Lewis, editor at "The Globe," was called to testify, but was exempted due to Fifth amendment and his defense in another related lawsuit. Witnesses who may have testified include:

* Glenn Stine, friend of the Ramseys

* Tom and Enid Schantz, owners of Rue Morgue Mystery Bookshop in Boulder

* Richard French, Boulder police officer

* Boulder police detectives Jim Byfield, Jane Harmer, Tom Trujillo, Michael Everett, Carey Weinheimer and Ron Gosage

* Steve Ainsworth, Boulder County sheriff's detective : Linda Hoffmann-Pugh said she believes the grand jury that investigated the beauty queen's death was focusing on the girl's mother.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:npxn_MNBzmIJ:www.rense.com/general11/benet.htm+&cd=1&hl=en

cynic,

Burke Ramsey, JonBenet's 14-year-old brother, by video

According to the Ramsey version of events BR was asleep all night even after JonBenet was registered as missing. JR stated that he helped BR play with some toy then assisted him to bed on the night of 12/25/1996.

Their son, Burke, has been interviewed by investigators at least three times since his sister's death, including a six hour interview last June by Broomfield police Sgt. Dan Schuler. Schuler, a 25-year veteran of the Broomfield police department and specialist in juvenile cases, has a master's degree in psychology and counseling.

Although at least some of those interviews were video-taped and could be shown to the grand jury in lieu of direct testimony, the panel may have new questions about the case since beginning its investigation in September.

Looks like edited excerpts from Burke Ramsey's previous three interviews along with his parents testimony, to the effect, he was not involved should provide his attorney Jim Jenkins with enough leverage to request that Burke Ramsey be cleared as a suspect?

New questions arising from the above could have been prepared, put to Burke Ramsey and videotaped for the GJ.

Assuming the reporting is credible:

An attorney representing JonBenét Ramsey's 12-year-old brother reportedly is in town working out a deal to clear the boy's name or arrange a new interview with him that could provide additional information to the grand jury investigating JonBenét's 1996 slaying, according to media reports.

Seems like the GJ had some new questions. They got to see more of the evidence than we ever have. Given BR was asleep all night, and the next morning, alibied accordingly by both JR and PR, then the GJ focus must be on the period after the R's arrived back from the Whites party, or if there is forensic evidence in JonBenet's bedroom that links to Burke Ramsey?


.

 

[JC84]

Okay, yep, I know exactly what girl you're talking about, and I saw that album on her Pinterest too. I think it's possible she's engaged, but a lot of girls like to plan their weddings just for fun, and a website like Pinterest encourages it.

But with Burke being 26 and in a serious relationship, it's probably not long before he does get engaged (if he isn't already).

ETA: If you're a stalker, I'm even worse. I found an album of pictures of JonBenet's classmates (same graduating class) when they were in High Peaks Elementary School. No pictures of JonBenet though (they look to be older than Kindergarten age).

Thanks! You've made me feel a bit better! Like you say, not a definite, but it'll be interesting to see what publicity there is around a wedding if it happens.

 

[Eldee]

Thanks! You've made me feel a bit better! Like you say, not a definite, but it'll be interesting to see what publicity there is around a wedding if it happens.

My opinion is and always will be BR. I don't think he will ever be able to lead a normal life carrying around the guilt he must feel knowing he accidentally killed his sister. The kids were downstairs snooping at the presents, parents upstairs sleeping, now, if there weren't sexual overtones in this case, I would say the kids got into a fight and BR pushed her and she came at him and he hit her with something over the head.
However, because of the sexual overtones, BR may have tried to rape her, or had been successful in the past but this time she started screaming and he hits her to stop the screaming. He runs upstairs to get his father and then the cover up begins.
I am completely new at this particular JBR forum therefore I haven't been saturated with all of the evidence. First picture in my opinion, perfectly normal beautiful child photo. Second shot, years later, not so normal. I don't know what the photographer was trying to accomplish with this rather sexualized brother sister photo.

 

[SapphireSteel]

My opinion is and always will be BR. I don't think he will ever be able to lead a normal life carrying around the guilt he must feel knowing he accidentally killed his sister. The kids were downstairs snooping at the presents, parents upstairs sleeping, now, if there weren't sexual overtones in this case, I would say the kids got into a fight and BR pushed her and she came at him and he hit her with something over the head.
However, because of the sexual overtones, BR may have tried to rape her, or had been successful in the past but this time she started screaming and he hits her to stop the screaming. He runs upstairs to get his father and then the cover up begins.
I am completely new at this particular JBR forum therefore I haven't been saturated with all of the evidence. First picture in my opinion, perfectly normal beautiful child photo. Second shot, years later, not so normal. I don't know what the photographer was trying to accomplish with this rather sexualized brother sister photo.
View attachment 37749

View attachment 37750

It's important to note that the person who paid for and ordered and distributed that "sexualised" photo was one Patsy Ramsey (and Nedra of course).

I have no doubt she was in the studio calling the shots at the time of the sittings.

As far as Burke being traumatised, I think it is very likely he has completely erased the event from his memory.

:cow:

 

[cubbeegirl]

My opinion is and always will be BR. I don't think he will ever be able to lead a normal life carrying around the guilt he must feel knowing he accidentally killed his sister. The kids were downstairs snooping at the presents, parents upstairs sleeping, now, if there weren't sexual overtones in this case, I would say the kids got into a fight and BR pushed her and she came at him and he hit her with something over the head.
However, because of the sexual overtones, BR may have tried to rape her, or had been successful in the past but this time she started screaming and he hits her to stop the screaming. He runs upstairs to get his father and then the cover up begins.
I am completely new at this particular JBR forum therefore I haven't been saturated with all of the evidence. First picture in my opinion, perfectly normal beautiful child photo. Second shot, years later, not so normal. I don't know what the photographer was trying to accomplish with this rather sexualized brother sister photo.
View attachment 37749

View attachment 37750

That second pic always reminds me of the "Flowers In The Attic " book.....:twocents:

 

[Eldee]

If my theory is correct, it would be really hard to blame ( of course you have to but you could possibly understand ) BR for whatever sexual thoughts he was having of his sister, as she paraded around looking like a 16 year old. Having watched enough episodes of Toddlers and Tiaras and looking at these little girls strutting their stuff in outfits only hookers would wear, and the make up and the hair, I have to ask myself what are these parents thinking. Especially the crazy mothers who stop at nothing to win. In my opinion, I think this family had become very dysfunctional, with little BR paying the price on his conscience for the rest of his life. What must go through the mind of a little 9 year old boy when he sees his little sister dressed up like a sexy 16 year old, day after day, month after month, and mommy and daddy praising and praising her every move.
I would imagine, as the years have gone by, JR and PR may have realized the error of their ways, and perhaps even more blame themselves for what they never noticed. They have done everything within their power to protect their son from what they may feel was entirely their own fault.
I would imagine PR's dying words to her son, would have been "I'm so sorry".

France and a number of European countries are now looking into banning these child pageants as they feel they wrongly hyper sexualize these little girls. Well, yeah....How long has that taken to figure out. In my opinion, beauty pageants are great for teenagers, but little girls that should be playing dolls, soccer or hockey should not be wearing revealing outfits and pancake makeup with their mothers screaming, shake it baby... shake it..... ( shake what??)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24145119

 

[cynic]

Thank you for the reference to the Midyette TB, cynic. I had read this before, and in fact, that was the reason I felt if the true bill returned by the GJ was released, it may give us a little more information. Just below where it says, "The offenses charged in counts one through seven of the indictment were committed in the following manner:", it then lays out what the Midyette GJ members believed happened. Even if (as has been reported) the Ramsey GJ members didn't know who did what, they had to have their reasons for charging the parents. If they wrote out how they believed it happened, it may give us a little more information about what they were able to determine. But as I said, if they did write out their justification for charges, I think that is the reason it won't be released. If they felt one of the parents actually struck her head or tied the ligature around her neck and that they were both involved in the coverup, would they not have both at least been accomplices to murder, or as Kolar suggests -- felony murder? Instead they only charged child abuse leading to death.

I guess we'll see in time.:waiting:

I think that the primary reason for CB is to essentially finish what he started.
He found out that there was an indictment but really it’s all somewhat unofficial.
According to the legal complaint, “There has been to date no official public acknowledgment of this act by the grand jury, and no disclosure of the document that resulted.”

There may be the odd tidbit of information that has not been made public but I believe that there is nothing significant within the indictment otherwise Beckner and Garnett would not be, (at least seemingly,) willing to release it.
What might be useful to the sleuthing community will be the high probability that certain things will be validated within the indictment.
For example, I don’t believe that there would have been an indictment if the grand jury was not convinced that there was chronic abuse and while information relating to that might not necessarily be “new,” as I said, it will nonetheless serve to validate.

Regarding the Midyette indictment, you mentioned the sentence:
“The offenses charged in counts one through seven of the indictment were committed in the following manner:”
Despite what that seems to imply, there is no mention of who the jurors believe did what, or how it was done.
The breakdown of the Midyette indictment is approximately as follows.

The charges to be considered.
A brief history.
Factual highlights of the case.
Suspect and witness statements.
Medical expert statements.
Autopsy results.
Charges outlined.
True bill signed.

I would expect much the same in the Ramsey indictment.
The wording of the charge is likely something along these lines:
John and Patsy Ramsey knowingly or recklessly caused the injuries that resulted in JonBenet Ramsey’s death or by the actions and/or inaction of the defendants , they knowingly or recklessly permitted JonBenet Ramsey to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to, the life or health of her, that resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey.

Regarding why child abuse was considered rather than felony murder or other charges, I guess we don’t what was available for the GJ to ponder.
I don’t need to tell you that it’s quite likely that AH didn’t allow for any charges higher than child abuse resulting in death.

Similarly, with the Midyette case there was considerable outrage that our “friend,” Mary Lacy didn’t push for higher charges.

This blogger explained it well:
The lucky couple
Molly and Alex Midyette should get on their knees every night and thank whatever providential power they might believe in for having the good fortune to live in Boulder County. In almost any other jurisdiction, at least one of them would very possibly be in jail.
Rather than traipsing about the Erie community while being monitored by an ankle bracelet, the suspect would be counting stale hours from the confines of a cell.
But the Midyettes are lucky. They live in a county where the district attorney is the feckless Mary Lacy, engineer of last year’s fiasco involving John Mark Karr as well as other assorted public travesties. And so, when a grand jury under the care and feeding of her office finally got around this week to indicting the two with child abuse for the death early last year of their infant son, Jason, the most serious charge was a Class 2 felony.
Now maybe you think that eight to 24 years, the normal range for a Class 2 conviction, minus “good time” of course, is a punishment fit for the crime. If so, you should read the grand jury’s indictment.
There you will discover that at his death, 10-week-old Jason had more than 20 broken bones “in various stages of healing,” including breaks in his arms, legs, ribs, hands and feet. His skull had been fractured, too, with a “complete loss of gray-white interface involving the cerebrum,” which is as bad as it sounds. And he had “contusions on the right and left temporal lobes of his brain” that were “older than other hemorrhages found in Jason’s brain.”
You will learn, too, from the testimony of an expert at The Children’s Hospital, that while many such injuries are fairly common in serious child abuse because of “abusive squeezing,” “violent shaking” or “twisting or pulling forces applied near the end of a bone,” the “hand and foot fractures are very uncommon, and are likely the result of a direct blow.”
Only one conclusion fits this sickening set of allegations: Jason was not dropped or bumped and thus bruised and broken by accident, or even in a single violent fit of quickly regretted rage. He was roughed up repeatedly, brutally, and without anyone reporting a single incident either to a doctor or a cop.
The only question is, by whom?
The grand jury thinks it knows. It indicted Alex Midyette, among other things, on a charge of knowingly or recklessly causing injury to his son. Molly Midyette was indicted essentially for standing by and failing to act. So why isn’t the father facing a count of first-degree murder, for which bail could easily be denied?
Perhaps only the prosecutors from Lacy’s office who presented evidence to the grand jury know for sure, but here’s what Colorado law says: “When a person knowingly causes the death of a child who has not yet attained 12 years of age and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the child, such person commits the crime of murder in the first degree.”
Former Denver prosecutor Craig Silverman, who’s provided first-rate commentary on this case for KHOW radio’s Caplis & Silverman Show as well as other venues, tells me that “knowingly” in legal parlance does not mean intentionally, let alone after deliberation. It’s a lower standard. Which makes the failure to recommend the more serious charge even more mysterious.
Meanwhile, in Denver, prosecutors waited only four days this week to file first-degree murder charges against a couple who allegedly starved a boy confined to a closet. The final torment of 7-year-old Chandler Grafner must have been indescribable.
But then, so was Jason Midyette’s.
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/onpoint/archives/2007/05/carroll_the_lucky_couple.html

 

[FrayedKnot]

That second pic always reminds me of the "Flowers In The Attic " book.....:twocents:

Ewwww! Yes!

It just screams "Gothic Incest" to me. And is BR wearing as much makeup as JBR in that second pic? I love me some David Bowie but fer reals.....no. Just no.

 

[FrayedKnot]

If my theory is correct, it would be really hard to blame ( of course you have to but you could possibly understand ) BR for whatever sexual thoughts he was having of his sister, as she paraded around looking like a 16 year old. Having watched enough episodes of Toddlers and Tiaras and looking at these little girls strutting their stuff in outfits only hookers would wear, and the make up and the hair, I have to ask myself what are these parents thinking. Especially the crazy mothers who stop at nothing to win. In my opinion, I think this family had become very dysfunctional, with little BR paying the price on his conscience for the rest of his life. What must go through the mind of a little 9 year old boy when he sees his little sister dressed up like a sexy 16 year old, day after day, month after month, and mommy and daddy praising and praising her every move.
I would imagine, as the years have gone by, JR and PR may have realized the error of their ways, and perhaps even more blame themselves for what they never noticed. They have done everything within their power to protect their son from what they may feel was entirely their own fault.
I would imagine PR's dying words to her son, would have been "I'm so sorry".

France and a number of European countries are now looking into banning these child pageants as they feel they wrongly hyper sexualize these little girls. Well, yeah....How long has that taken to figure out. In my opinion, beauty pageants are great for teenagers, but little girls that should be playing dolls, soccer or hockey should not be wearing revealing outfits and pancake makeup with their mothers screaming, shake it baby... shake it..... ( shake what??)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24145119

I agree with your post but for one small part. I will scrub my DD's face with a cake of Ivory and a loofah before I allow her to wear that much hooker makeup even at 16!

My nieces are all grown women now, one doctor , one bridal designer, one veterinarian. And they were all total knockouts as teens. Athletic, tall, gorgeous. And with rare exceptions they lived in yoga pants, flip flops and no makeup. Or maybe wetsuits for surfing. They were healthy, confident and not once did I ever see a duck face pose on social media (oh, and I stalked those babies; my sis and bro were not SM savvy and I was like a hovering Auntie) nor have they ever dressed or behaved like hoo-yas. And no thick black eyeliner. Ugh.

But a teen asserting themselves by choosing to
dress provocatively or cake on the eyeliner is a whole different animal than a MOTHER dressing up a kindergartner as a stripper and teaching her the "moves".

*rinses vomit from the back of my mouth*