Member of Grand Jury speaks on 20/20

[Ambitioned]

Beautiful/handsome! Love pups.
One question, how do you tell them apart?

Well two are male and two female. :rolling: But one has a slight limp and one has a more smushed nose. It isn't too hard once you're living with them!

 

[mrseeker]

Wasted show. Total rehash and the GJ member said nothing. I have no doubt PR wrote the note, and think any handwriting expert who thinks otherwise should be the one not allowed to testify in trials.

 

[8paws]

I have four too! But they are pugs.

I would love Huskies! They are beautiful!!

OMGosh! I'm in love. They are adorable!

 

[Ambitioned]

Thank you all for the puggy compliments. They are all rescues!!

I just watched the 20/20 special and I agree, there really isn't anything new, sadly. All we really have now going forward is Kolar's update (hopefully) and the results of the DNA updated testing.

I was surprised to see Diane Dimond say the R's went on CNN and Diane thought, "Something isn't right." I hadn't seen that before.

The juror says he believes he knows who did it, but he doesn't want to say.
That statement, to me, implicates one of the Ramseys as the person whom he believes did it.

It was good to see Wong on the show!! I like how she explained the handwriting so well.

 

[CoolJ]

I have asked these questions before and never seem to get a direct response but I will try again.

1. Why are the only options BDI, PDI, or IDI? I think the word Intruder is misleading. Why is there no talk of an invited guest? "IGDI"
2. I agree that the RN was most likely written by PR. Would this rule out an invited guest being the perp?
3. Why does the GJ indictment against the Ramseys only point to BDI. Wasnt the indictment supposedly that J&P put JBR in an environment where she could be susceptible to child abuse? Is a child harming another child considered "child abuse"?

I believe the Ramseys are lying, no question about it. And BDI is definitley a possibility. But there are other possibilities that just don't seem to be discussed that much. I find that a little odd. JMO

 

[cubbeegirl]

Speculation only, but I think this thing got a pretty heavy late edit. Lin Wood threaten them?

I must be psychic ...I had a premonition this might happen ....🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

 

[Ambitioned]

I must be psychic ...I had a premonition this might happen ....

Lyin' Lin :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[TeaTime]

The Grand Jury was reviewing the evidence the police presented,

This information would normally be withheld, even if the minor was an adult by the time of the FOIA request.

Edited for space.

I am fully aware of the implications of a nearly 10 year old murderer and the possibility that this was a cover up to protect him as well as every aspect of this case. I, too, interpreted the GJ forms to be the result of the GJ conclusion that BDI and the parents covered it up.

HOWEVER, upon reflection I am no longer convinced of that conclusion because:

The state's case was built on evidence that pointed to the parents and Smit's IDI theory. At that time, there WAS no theory that BDI. Every member of BPD and even the DA's office believed it was PR. There was no evidence presented to support a theory of BDI. GJrs can only make a decision on what is presented.

Further, the GJr stated that he suspects that he knows the ID of the murderer but that it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He can not be talking of BDI as there was no evidence of BDI presented and no investigation into BDI such that the GJr could make a determination about reasonable doubt.

This man is telling us that based upon what he saw and heard during those months he served that one of the parents killed JBR.

Since the parents GJ indictments are identical, it seems the jury was not unanimous as to which parent was the guilty party so they left it as 'both' or 'either' and kicked that determination back to the DA and the courts. The DA was afraid of the courtroom, so nothing happened. But, this one juror thinks he knows and the killer was a parent.

Perhaps the other indictments do in fact charge both parents with FDM. We just do not know. But we do know that the BDI theory was not even on the table for consideration because there wasn't one at that time.

 

[PositiveLight]

for some reason i get so angry when i see mary lacy. She is a coward. She has never done a sit down interview and explained her frothing at the mouth like a groupie over john mark karr. Then that exoneration of the ramseys? Really? No d.a. That has any credibility does something that stupid.

Finally, get over the dna. How do you explain the note? The dna? Easily explained.

But not the note.

Why wasn't this dna all over jonbenet? Why just a degraded skin cell? If this monster was lifting her, and abusing her this touch dna would be all over jonbenet.


Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't there even more unmatched dna deposits on jonbenet? Does that mean there were a number of people in on this plan? According to mary lacy, they must have been because if the other dna belongs to the killer than all the different dna samples must belong to the killers.


I promise you we all have dna matches that can't be identified all over us.

Almost 3-page ransom note that anyone with a working eyeball can see looks like patsy's writing.

Makes me lose sleep i get so angry.

amen!!!!!

 

[PositiveLight]

I have four too! But they are pugs.

I would love Huskies! They are beautiful!!

OHMYGOODNESS!!!!
I'm so IN LOVE WITH YOUR FURBABIES!!!!
How freakin adorable can they be???? :heartluv::heartluv::heartluv:

 

[PositiveLight]

I'll do one better. I'll have them pee on it

:laughing:

 

[PositiveLight]

I love pugs! I was calling the little aliens before men in black ever came out. I also love to talk about how great most dog breeds are: husky, shepard, samoyed, Keeshond, and every other breed. Cats: Scottish folds, Maine coons. And herps: Chameleons (I used to breed Veileds).

Sorry to get off topic, but that image is too cute.

OMG!
My son just bought his long time girlfriend a Chameleon for Christmas! They just "get" each other! LOVE IT!
My inside kitty is a Maine Coon who thinks she is a dog. LOL I went wayyyy out naming her. Miss Kitty. :laughing:
Here is Admiral (in the back) and Keyser Sose in the front.
Admiral looks like I caught him mid sentence LOL!

 

[observation]

I'm starting to think that because JR picked up JBR and threw a blanket and then a sweatshirt over her body contamination prevented any charges in a trial "beyond a reasonable doubt." Here we have a juror saying the same thing. I have read the thread on JR carrying up the body but hearing this again last night has me thinking. No, it's not a DNA case but absent a confession or witness from a family member, here we are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HarmonyE.]

Perhaps the other indictments do in fact charge both parents with FDM. We just do not know. But we do know that the BDI theory was not even on the table for consideration because there wasn't one at that time.

My point is that the grand jury can go where they like with the evidence and they get can indict according to what they think is the likely scenario. They very well could have put BDI on the table if that's where the evidence led. Doesn't matter if he wasn't quite 10. The statute only says he can't be found guilty. As for the unreleased counts, it makes little sense to me that the party releasing the document would be okay with unsealing accessory to first degree murder charges (contradictory ones at that) and child abuse indictments, but not any others against John and Patsy. However, material mentioning persons under 18 is routinely not included in FOIA releases. Not saying that's what happened here; only that it makes the most sense. So I don't agree with your conclusion that the juror is telling us "that one of the parents killed JBR". (and if that person was Patsy, he'd have no fear of being sued by her if he came out and said it as the dead can't sue and no one can sue on their behalf.)

Recall that everyone - including those very involved with the investigation - had no clue the grand jury had even voted to indict. So unless and until the entire indictment is unsealed (and if it's the issue of discussion of a minor, its likely we'll never see it) we'll never know for sure. But looking at the entire picture, no way would I automatically conclude this guy was saying he thinks it was one of the parents. In fact, given what we have seen, Burke seems the most likely candidate.

 

[kanzz]

I'm starting to think that because JR picked up JBR and threw a blanket and then a sweatshirt over her body contamination prevented any charges in a trial "beyond a reasonable doubt." Here we have a juror saying the same thing. I have read the thread on JR carrying up the body but hearing this again last night has me thinking. No, it's not a DNA case but absent a confession or witness from a family member, here we are.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BBM

And remember - this was after Linda Arndt picked up the body and moved it from the top of the stairs to the place under the Christmas Tree. WTH? And there are some who also credit her with placing the Colorado Avalanche sweatshirt on the body.

If Arndt hadn't sent JR to search the house in the first place, none of this would've happened.

 

[otg]

I have asked these questions before and never seem to get a direct response but I will try again.

1. Why are the only options BDI, PDI, or IDI? I think the word Intruder is misleading. Why is there no talk of an invited guest? "IGDI"
2. I agree that the RN was most likely written by PR. Would this rule out an invited guest being the perp?
3. Why does the GJ indictment against the Ramseys only point to BDI. Wasnt the indictment supposedly that J&P put JBR in an environment where she could be susceptible to child abuse? Is a child harming another child considered "child abuse"?

I believe the Ramseys are lying, no question about it. And BDI is definitley a possibility. But there are other possibilities that just don't seem to be discussed that much. I find that a little odd. JMO

The "IGDI" possibility has been discussed and dismissed by most. Sometimes it goes into the conspiracy theory territory of "sex rings" and even satanism. You can see why those theories are mostly dismissed -- because the posters here are more intelligent than to put any serious consideration into it. But there is another "IG" who has been discussed, and whose name keeps cropping up from time to time because his possible involvement would explain a lot of other things. There is just not enough proof to allow any conclusions to be made about it -- only speculation, which many don't want to consider. If you don't know to whom I am referring, I'll simply tell you it was a friend of Burke's.

 

[otg]

Incidentally, it's good to see PositiveLight back. Hope you get to feeling better soon, my friend.

 

[otg]

(bbm)

Thank you all for the puggy compliments. They are all rescues!!

I just watched the 20/20 special and I agree, there really isn't anything new, sadly. All we really have now going forward is Kolar's update (hopefully) and the results of the DNA updated testing.

I was surprised to see Diane Dimond say the R's went on CNN and Diane thought, "Something isn't right." I hadn't seen that before.

The juror says he believes he knows who did it, but he doesn't want to say.
That statement, to me, implicates one of the Ramseys as the person whom he believes did it.

It was good to see Wong on the show!! I like how she explained the handwriting so well.

I haven't seen it mentioned on here yet, but there is a promising new book scheduled to be released on the 20th of December titled Listen Carefully:Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case. Questfortrue posted about it at FFJ.

 

[UKGuy]

I have asked these questions before and never seem to get a direct response but I will try again.

1. Why are the only options BDI, PDI, or IDI? I think the word Intruder is misleading. Why is there no talk of an invited guest? "IGDI"
2. I agree that the RN was most likely written by PR. Would this rule out an invited guest being the perp?
3. Why does the GJ indictment against the Ramseys only point to BDI. Wasnt the indictment supposedly that J&P put JBR in an environment where she could be susceptible to child abuse? Is a child harming another child considered "child abuse"?

I believe the Ramseys are lying, no question about it. And BDI is definitley a possibility. But there are other possibilities that just don't seem to be discussed that much. I find that a little odd. JMO

CoolJ,

The Guest theory has been discussed, many times, under different guises, e.g. pedophile ring, familial abuse, etc.

BlueCrab put forward a theory that explicitly covers your example, yet no evidence was forthcoming to confirm it.

So over the years and by a process of simple elimination the only theories left not rejected are precisely BDI, JDI amd PDI.

The GJ True Bills allows for the rejection of both PDI and JDI, since neither parent was charged with First Degree Murder,

So you could say the case these days is really BDI, but we are missing the details?

.

 

[Miz Adventure]

The "IGDI" possibility has been discussed and dismissed by most. Sometimes it goes into the conspiracy theory territory of "sex rings" and even satanism. You can see why those theories are mostly dismissed -- because the posters here are more intelligent than to put any serious consideration into it. But there is another "IG" who has been discussed, and whose name keeps cropping up from time to time because his possible involvement would explain a lot of other things. There is just not enough proof to allow any conclusions to be made about it -- only speculation, which many don't want to consider. If you don't know to whom I am referring, I'll simply tell you it was a friend of Burke's.

I'm guessing who you are referring to.

My question is this...surely there is no way that Patsy or John are going to cover for a friend who would do this to their daughter?

It's enough that they would cover for their own son.