Poll: was Patsy involved?

[kanzz]

The GJ was investigating the murder of JBR, not home repairs.

Win!

:goodpost:

 

[Pinkland]

The GJ was investigating the murder of JBR, not home repairs.

Snarky and rude. Too bad it does nothing to disprove my point.

And yes. I understand perfectly how a grand jury works. Please tell me you don't honestly believe both parents would have been tried together?

But like I said earlier the grand jury was irrelevant. And if your theory relies heavily on an assumption your making about what the grand jury's thinking was in regard to charges; then your theory is weak.

It's not like you have any physical proof relating to your theory at all. It's all assumptions.

No one in there right mind would have ever convicted anyone beyond a reasonable with what your theory offers.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[kanzz]

Snarky and rude. Too bad it does nothing to disprove my point.

And yes. I understand perfectly how a grand jury works. Please tell me you don't honestly believe both parents would have been tried together?

But like I said earlier the grand jury was irrelevant. And if your theory relies heavily on an assumption your making about what the grand jury's thinking was in regard to charges; then your theory is weak.

It's not like you have any physical proof relating to your theory at all. It's all assumptions.

No one in there right mind would have ever convicted anyone beyond a reasonable with what your theory offers.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

You said:

I can think of one reason off the top of my head. A known broken window posed a threat. If you have broken entryways...and do not fix them that puts your family in danger.

and:

The point is by not fixing a known entryway you invite danger thus a threat and something to slap on the parents in terms of charges.

and:

By the way...it was directly stated by JR...that the window had been broken for months. There is nothing to prove..it's a simple easy charge that could have been used for conviction.

If that were true, people who live in homes with very poor security or even homeless people might be held responsible if their child was murdered. Or what about someone who is walking to their car from the mall? That's ludicrous.

The GJ is "irrelevant"? Please. The GJ is probably one of the most relevant documents we have to date. That both PR and JR were indicted identically is quite telling, imo.

Yes, people in their right minds very well might have convicted. It's just too bad they were not presented all theories and all options.

 

[EtherealMoonRose]

You said:
and:
and:

If that were true, people who live in homes with very poor security or even homeless people might be held responsible if their child was murdered. Or what about someone who is walking to their car from the mall? That's ludicrous.

The GJ is "irrelevant"? Please. The GJ is probably one of the most relevant documents we have to date. That both PR and JR were indicted identically is quite telling, imo.

Yes, people in their right minds very well might have convicted. It's just too bad they were not presented all theories and all options.

ITA with all of this.

Why on earth someone would think the rulings of the GJ are irrelevant is beyond me. They have heard/seen evidence we haven't even heard.

I had to chuckle at the R's being indicted because of a broken window.

Sorry not sorry.

 

[k-mac]

agree kanzz the gj docs are the most important info we have.
but the release of it in only partial form leaves us with so much innuendo and guess work its not providing us with anything near proof or disproof of bdi or pdi.
it is very relevant what pinkland is saying. it could be the cops grasping at straws to load **** on the ramseys.....or it could imply bdi.
that's what I'm taking away from this.......nothing of clarification :thinking:

 

[Pinkland]

agree kanzz the gj docs are the most important info we have.
but the release of it in only partial form leaves us with so much innuendo and guess work its not providing us with anything near proof or disproof of bdi or pdi.
it is very relevant what pinkland is saying. it could be the cops grasping at straws to load **** on the ramseys.....or it could imply bdi.
that's what I'm taking away from this.......nothing of clarification :thinking:

Exactly. Which is why I said the findings are irrelevant.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

I'm not grasping at anything. I am going on evidence. I don't care what the grand jury found, because it is irrelevant. No charges were ever pressed. And we have no idea what evidence or charges were found in totality.

Also BDI seems to act as if John and Patsy were to be charged together..which isn't the case. Thus the existence of a third party is moot. There would be a second party not a third.

My point is BDI is a theory that relies on assumptions. Lots of assumptions. BDI theorists turn even easy explanations into sinister assumptions without proof.

By the way...it was directly stated by JR...that the window had been broken for months. There is nothing to prove..it's a simple easy charge that could have been used for conviction.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

Pinkland
Plenty rhetoric in your posts but little substance, e.g. no proof for BDI. Well how about your favorite theory, do you have proof?

We are here to discuss theories related to JonBenet's death, and that means speculating and forming assumptions.

I don't care what the grand jury found, because it is irrelevant.

They never indicted either parent on Murder 1 charges, yet cited the person for killing and abusing JonBenet, they had the legal power to do so under Colorado Statute.

The case is BDI all day long !

.

 

[kanzz]

agree kanzz the gj docs are the most important info we have.
but the release of it in only partial form leaves us with so much innuendo and guess work its not providing us with anything near proof or disproof of bdi or pdi.
it is very relevant what pinkland is saying. it could be the cops grasping at straws to load **** on the ramseys.....or it could imply bdi.
that's what I'm taking away from this.......nothing of clarification :thinking:

"the cops"? umm... No. That's not how the GJ works.

IMO, because only three living people remained in the house, it does imply BDI.

Because it is pertinent to this discussion, here is the text of the indictments:

COUNT IV (a)

On or between December 25, and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey
did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be 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, a child under the age of sixteen.
As to Count IV (a), Child Abuse Resulting in Death:

A TRUE BILL
Foreman


COUNT VII

On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey
did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, 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.
As to Count VII, Accessory to a Crime:

A TRUE BILL
Foreman


COUNT IV (a)

On or between December 25, and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, Patricia Paugh Ramsey
did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be 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, a child under the age of sixteen.
As to Count IV (a), Child Abuse Resulting in Death:

A TRUE BILL
Forman


COUNT VII

On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, Patricia Paugh Ramsey
did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, 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.
As to Count VII, Accessory to a Crime:

A TRUE BILL
Foreman




http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/10/us/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/?hpt=hp_t1

https://archive.org/stream/810052-r...810052-ramsey-grand-jury-indictments_djvu.txt

 

[Pinkland]

Pinkland
Plenty rhetoric in your posts but little substance, e.g. no proof for BDI. Well how about your favorite theory, do you have proof?

We are here to discuss theories related to JonBenet's death, and that means speculating and forming assumptions.


They never indicted either parent on Murder 1 charges, yet cited the person for killing and abusing JonBenet, they had the legal power to do so under Colorado Statute.

The case is BDI all day long !

.

I didnt put forth a theory. I simply stated that I am PDI.


Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[icedtea4me]

Pinkland
Plenty rhetoric in your posts but little substance, e.g. no proof for BDI. Well how about your favorite theory, do you have proof?

We are here to discuss theories related to JonBenet's death, and that means speculating and forming assumptions.


They never indicted either parent on Murder 1 charges, yet cited the person for killing and abusing JonBenet, they had the legal power to do so under Colorado Statute.

The case is BDI all day long !

.

What do you think was count I for John? What do you think was count I for Patsy?

 

[Pinkland]

What do you think was count I for John? What do you think was count I for Patsy?

I'm not sure if this is directed at me. I don't pretend to know what the grand jury was thinking. As for murder one...I'm not sure they would go with that charge. I think they knew the parents were involved. I do not think they knew who did what. Thus both were given accessory charges.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Let's also not forget that when these indictments were released, it was John that said all of the info should be released. Why? Although the other indictments weren't signed, they were very close. I believe this was posturing on Johns part, a smokescreen. I believe he knew that the other indictments pointed at a minor and that he knew they could never be released, so he did it as a PR move.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

What do you think was count I for John? What do you think was count I for Patsy?

icedtea4me,
Why don't you tell us, sounds like your quite informed on the subject?

There was nothing in Colorado Law to prevent both parents being simultaneously charged with First Degree Homicide. Also check the legal opinion on the CBS show.

.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,
Why don't you tell us, sounds like your quite informed on the subject?*snip*

I asked you first.

 

[andreww]

I asked you first.

Why are you asking questions that you know cannot possibly be answered?

The wording of the released indictments is very clear in that it states that John and Patsy did not protect JB against a "threat". What do you propose that threat was? And please don't say a broken window, non flushing toilet or defective blender.

 

[icedtea4me]

Why are you asking questions that you know cannot possibly be answered? *snip*

I think UKGuy is capable of thinking of what could be on count I for John and what could be on count I for Patsy, don't you?

 

[andreww]

I think UKGuy is capable of thinking of what could be on count I for John and what could be on count I for Patsy, don't you?

Those counts could have been for murder or accessory to murder IMO. Even if BDI, many feel it was Patsy that tightened the noose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kanzz]

Those counts could have been for murder or accessory to murder IMO. Even if BDI, many feel it was Patsy that tightened the noose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm trying to follow what you're saying. Why would the noose need to be tightened? I can see her adding the paintbrush (if it wasn't already there), but don't understand why the noose would need to be tightened when she's already dead. I guess I just wasn't aware that anybody thought/felt this way.

Oh wait, are you saying BR did the head bash and then PR did the strangulation? In that case, I see it as PDI. When I think of "it" - I think of "murder".

But for the strangulation, this might not be a homicide case. (That is probably another topic altogether)

 

[Annapurna]

I'm trying to follow what you're saying. Why would the noose need to be tightened? I can see her adding the paintbrush (if it wasn't already there), but don't understand why the noose would need to be tightened when she's already dead. I guess I just wasn't aware that anybody thought/felt this way.

Oh wait, are you saying BR did the head bash and then PR did the strangulation? In that case, I see it as PDI. When I think of "it" - I think of "murder".

But for the strangulation, this might not be a homicide case. (That is probably another topic altogether)

bbm, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. You can message me if you'd prefer not to post it here.

TIA

 

[Pinkland]

bbm, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. You can message me if you'd prefer not to post it here.

TIA

Even if this case is manslaughter PDI is the theory with evidence.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk