Questions you'd like answers to...

[observation]

Let's say, just for arguments sake, I'm not expecting you to agree, but say evidence came to light now, 20 years down the line, that shows JDI or PDI or J&PDI. And Burke was not involved.

Would you still think Alex Hunter made the wrong decision?

Well hindsight is 20/20 but do you really think that's why AH held out on signing the true bills??? My gut says that's not the reason he didn't sign. He had no trial experience and was a coward to face the R's lawyers.
If you know something we don't share, please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

Well hindsight is 20/20 but do you really think that's why AH held out on signing the true bills??? My gut says that's not the reason he didn't sign. He had no trial experience and was a coward to face the R's lawyers.
If you know something we don't share, please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even in the hypothetical, I see how difficult it is for anyone to say his decision was, in hindsight, the correct one.

Really, you must agree that if such evidence came to light it would be best dealt with by BPD, and not publicised on a forum, if it meant that there could still be a chance for justice for JBR without prejudicing a trial.

 

[Tortoise]

Which decision?
To NOT charge PR and JR for accessory after the fact? Twenty years ago he made the wrong decision.
If he had charged, a jury would have reached the best verdict they could with the evidence presented to them.

If 20 years down the line, evidence came to light that either PR or JR or both had murdered JBR, then I would expect legal arguments as to whether or not they could be tried to for murder, having been tried (and perhaps convicted) as accessories to that murder. And if time had been served, it would count towards any resulting sentence for murder.
And yes, the lawyers would be laughing all the way to the bank.

But if BR was guilty 20 years ago, the law is clear - he could not be charged.
He was a child in a dysfunctional family and he would have needed help not punishment.

If more evidence came to light today that BR was guilty, the legal position remains the same - he cannot be charged.
My view would be the same - he was a child. Help not punishment, especially not for decisions others (adults) made when he was a child.
Put simply, I would have and do "forgive" him.
But I would urge him to stay away from TV studios and litigation. It does him no favours. And all the money in the world will not buy him peace.

BIB it would be proof that there was no evidence of the standard required to convict, at the time, or a sound basis for proceeding to indict on those true bills.

 

[Miz Adventure]

AH knew there could be no prosecution - True Bill or not.

How could he prosecute the parents for 'assisting in a First Degree murder' ? (assisting meaning 'covering up')

The couple would have had to go to trial and be subject to cross examination.

The charges against them?- assisting a murder. The first question the jury would want to know is 'Who were they assisting?'

It would all grind to a standstill because the person they were assisting is not allowed to be named.

Maybe they could have gotten around it by calling Burke 'Mr. X'

 

[kanzz]

AH knew there could be no prosecution - True Bill or not.

How could he prosecute the parents for 'assisting in a First Degree murder' ? (assisting meaning 'covering up')

The couple would have had to go to trial and be subject to cross examination.

The charges against them?- assisting a murder. The first question the jury would want to know is 'Who were they assisting?'

It would all grind to a standstill because the person they were assisting is not allowed to be named.

Maybe they could have gotten around it by calling Burke 'Mr. X'

Just because he could not be charged with the crime doesn't mean that all of the evidence could not be presented at trial or that he couldn't have been called to testify, just as he did for the GJ. He would not have had to be named as the perpetrator of the crime, per se. The real, circumstantial, and timeline evidence would have presented itself as it did for the GJ. And they probably would have had a closed courtroom.

JMO. Is there an attorney in the house?

Better to try to hit one out of the park than never even step up to the plate.

 

[Miz Adventure]

Just because he could not be charged with the crime doesn't mean that all of the evidence could not be presented at trial or that he couldn't have been called to testify, just as he did for the GJ. He would not have had to be named as the perpetrator of the crime, per se. The real, circumstantial, and timeline evidence would have presented itself as it did for the GJ. And they probably would have had a closed courtroom.

JMO. Is there an attorney in the house?

Better to try to hit one out of the park than never even step up to the plate.

A closed courtroom? Surely the public would have the right to hear the case against the Ramseys?

The public would demand to know. The R's had been cossetted for too long already.


I think this is the reason that Hunter would not sign off on the Indictment. He had agreed a deal with the R's lawyers to save BR from the media frenzy that would ensue if the truth became public.

JMHO.

 

[kanzz]

A closed courtroom? Surely the public would have the right to hear the case against the Ramseys?

The public would demand to know. The R's had been cossetted for too long already.


I think this is the reason that Hunter would not sign off on the Indictment. He had agreed a deal with the R's lawyers to save BR from the media frenzy that would ensue if the truth became public.

JMHO.

Hunter is a spineless jellyfish. And maybe he did have some sort of backroom deal with the Rs.


In this case, I doubt there would have been much trouble meeting the requirement of a motion for a closed courtroom:

"Generally, courtroom proceedings are open to the public. A public trial is supposed to ensure that the proceedings are conducted fairly. However, in some circumstances a court is allowed to exclude anyone lacking a direct interest in the case from the courtroom.

A motion to close the courtroom to the public may be granted if there is a compelling reason to justify the closure of a courtroom, for example:

• A trial for sex offenses involving minors under the age of 18
• A trial of criminal proceeding involving a husband and wife
• A trial involving the crime of incest, child *advertiser censored* or criminal sexual conduct"

source: Closing the Courtroom to the Public

 

[Miz Adventure]

I have another question. What evidence do we have that JBR's brain swelled after she was hit with that heavy object? The autopsy reports says nothing about edema or swelling.

What actual evidence was Mark Beckner going on when he stated the following......

Chief Mark Beckner placed more focus on the parents than he normally would. He wrote, "We know from the evidence she was hit in the head very hard with an unknown object, possibly a flashlight or similar type item. The blow knocked her into deep unconsciousness, which could have led someone to believe she was dead.

The strangulation came 45 minutes to two hours after the head strike, based on the swelling on the brain. While the head wound would have eventually killed her, the strangulation actually did kill her. The rest of the scene we believe was staged, including the vaginal trauma, to make it look like a kidnapping/assault gone bad."

I need to know this because I am being challenged on another forum by a very rude and bombastic poster. I shouldn't really bother replying but I have to admit he's asking a question that I don't know the answer to.

 

[OliviaG1996]

I have another question. What evidence do we have that JBR's brain swelled after she was hit with that heavy object? The autopsy reports says nothing about edema or swelling.

What actual evidence was Mark Beckner going on when he stated the following......

Chief Mark Beckner placed more focus on the parents than he normally would. He wrote, "We know from the evidence she was hit in the head very hard with an unknown object, possibly a flashlight or similar type item. The blow knocked her into deep unconsciousness, which could have led someone to believe she was dead.

The strangulation came 45 minutes to two hours after the head strike, based on the swelling on the brain. While the head wound would have eventually killed her, the strangulation actually did kill her. The rest of the scene we believe was staged, including the vaginal trauma, to make it look like a kidnapping/assault gone bad."

I need to know this because I am being challenged on another forum by a very rude and bombastic poster. I shouldn't really bother replying but I have to admit he's asking a question that I don't know the answer to.

Here's one source. Go get 'em, Miz Adventure!

From "Foreign Faction: Who Really Killed JonBenet?" by James Kolar (pg. 73)

There had initially been no outward appearance of an injury to JonBenét’s head. No trace of blood had been observed in her hair, and the scalp did not reveal signs of any type of injury. So as Dr. Meyer began his internal examination, investigators were surprised to learn that she had suffered a severe blow to the upper right side of her skull. A linear fracture covered the entire length of the upper right side of her head, from the parietal to occipital bones of her skull. The injury was rectangular in shape measuring approximately eight and one half inches (8 ½&#8221 in length by one and three quarters (1 ¾&#8221 to one and one- half inches (1 ½&#8221 in width, and fractured bone from the skull had caused extensive damage to the brain below. Fresh subdural hematoma was apparent as well as subarachnoid hemorrhaging. There was cerebral edema (brain swelling) observed.

 

[Miz Adventure]

Here's one source. Go get 'em, Miz Adventure!

Thanks Olivia. I owe you one.


However, it's not going to pacify the idiot who thinks the strangulation came first.

According to this poster if it doesn't say so on the autopsy report then it didn't happen that way.

I don't know why I'm bothering. He deserves to be ignored.

If you go to the last page and read the comments. You'll see what I mean.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T45NJ5GPDB9QBTO2H/p9

 

[ameliak]

Thanks Olivia. I owe you one.


However, it's not going to pacify the idiot who thinks the strangulation came first.

According to this poster if it doesn't say so on the autopsy report then it didn't happen that way.

I don't know why I'm bothering. He deserves to be ignored.

If you go to the last page and read the comments. You'll see what I mean.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T45NJ5GPDB9QBTO2H/p9

Yikes! I had to go read that! I'm just glad that most posters here are pretty civilised towards each other, even when they disagree. Insulting your opponent is usually the first sign that you're losing an argument. I think evidence of brain swelling in the autopsy report is indicated by "narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri". You can tell the polite gentleman that inflammation does NOT equal swelling, especially used in connection with the brain, and usually indicates the body's response to a pathogen, viral or bacterial.

 

[Miz Adventure]

Yikes! I had to go read that! I'm just glad that most posters here are pretty civilised towards each other, even when they disagree. Insulting your opponent is usually the first sign that you're losing an argument. I think evidence of brain swelling in the autopsy report is indicated by "narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri". You can tell the polite gentleman that inflammation does NOT equal swelling, especially used in connection with the brain, and usually indicates the body's response to a pathogen, viral or bacterial.

Thanks for that info, Amelia.

I've copied and pasted it into my notes for future reference but I may not be replyling to that idiot again.

Replying just makes them worse.

 

[AB1]

You might find your answer in here, but I have no idea what the date of this document is

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/NDAA NPS 3rd Ed. w Revised Commentary.pdf

The above revised edition is from 2009, so not the guidance in force at the time of JBR's death &/or GJ - I will try to find a copy. However, it would appear that the revisions were to the commentary sections (which are like expanded exemplars) that are largely concerned with changes in approach to human resources and security - workplace diversity, promotion of multi-agency working, responsibility for training and development of district law enforcement, computer firewalls, conflict of interest etc.

"National District Attorneys Association National Prosecution Standards Third Edition with Revised Commentary
These standards are intended to be an aspirational guide to professional conduct in the performance of the prosecutorial function. Unless otherwise indicated, they are intended to apply to the chief prosecutor (by whatever title) in any office, as well as to deputy and assistant prosecutors. "

I did find some other matters of note, but this is the part I was looking for, and offers direction for what in the UK would be loosely termed "public interest":

"1. The Prosecutor’s Responsibilities


1-1.1 Primary Responsibility
The prosecutor is an independent administrator of justice. The primary responsibility of a prosecutor is to seek justice, which can only be achieved by the representation and presentation of the truth. This responsibility includes, but is not limited to, ensuring that the guilty are held accountable, that the innocent are protected from unwarranted harm, and that the rights of all participants, particularly victims of crime, are respected.

1-1.2 Societal and Individual Rights and Interests
A prosecutor should zealously protect the rights of individuals, but without representing any individual as a client. A prosecutor should put the rights and interests of society in a paramount position in exercising prosecutorial discretion in individual cases. A prosecutor should seek to reform criminal laws whenever it is appropriate and necessary to do so. Societal interests rather than individual or group interests should also be paramount in a prosecutor’s efforts to seek reform of criminal laws.
Commentary

A prosecutor is the only one in a criminal action who is responsible for the presentation of the truth. Justice is not complete without the truth always being the primary goal in all criminal proceedings. A prosecutor is not a mere advocate and unlike other lawyers, a prosecutor does not represent individuals or entities, but society as a whole. In that capacity, a prosecutor must exercise independent judgment in reaching decisions while taking into account the interest of victims, witnesses, law enforcement officers, suspects, defendants and those members of society who have no direct interest in a particular case, but who are nonetheless affected by its outcome.

As a representative of society as a whole, a prosecutor should take an active role in the legislative process when proposals dealing with the criminal justice system are being considered. In that role, the prosecutor once again should exercise his or her independent judgment in supporting legislation in the best interest of society."

BBM

So it would appear that any consideration AH made should have incorporated the interests of JBR,
witnesses (like FW), law enforcement officers, suspects, defendants and members of society at large.
IMO AH failed in this respect
"A prosecutor should put the rights and interests of society in a paramount position in exercising prosecutorial discretion in individual cases. "
Not only did AH fail, all subsequent DAs have failed to do this.
Resulting in the Rs enduring 20yrs of trial by public opinion (that will not go away) and the public mistrusting the very people and system that is supposed to serve and protect them.
Why?
I am very jaundiced about conspiracy theories, but the more I learn, the more I suspect a deal was done.
A travesty of justice ensued that is as grave as a miscarriage of justice.

 

[AB1]

Hunter is a spineless jellyfish. And maybe he did have some sort of backroom deal with the Rs.


In this case, I doubt there would have been much trouble meeting the requirement of a motion for a closed courtroom:

"Generally, courtroom proceedings are open to the public. A public trial is supposed to ensure that the proceedings are conducted fairly. However, in some circumstances a court is allowed to exclude anyone lacking a direct interest in the case from the courtroom.

A motion to close the courtroom to the public may be granted if there is a compelling reason to justify the closure of a courtroom, for example:

• A trial for sex offenses involving minors under the age of 18
• A trial of criminal proceeding involving a husband and wife
• A trial involving the crime of incest, child *advertiser censored* or criminal sexual conduct"

source: Closing the Courtroom to the Public

Thank you for the link. Interesting.

Am I right in assuming that the US equivalent of the family proceeding court can be heard in camera i.e. behind closed doors/in secret?

 

[AB1]

Thanks Olivia. I owe you one.


However, it's not going to pacify the idiot who thinks the strangulation came first.

According to this poster if it doesn't say so on the autopsy report then it didn't happen that way.

I don't know why I'm bothering. He deserves to be ignored.

If you go to the last page and read the comments. You'll see what I mean.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T45NJ5GPDB9QBTO2H/p9

Er... I went, I saw, you conquered!
Well done - his language was vile.

 

[Ambitioned]

Thanks Olivia. I owe you one.


However, it's not going to pacify the idiot who thinks the strangulation came first.

According to this poster if it doesn't say so on the autopsy report then it didn't happen that way.

I don't know why I'm bothering. He deserves to be ignored.

If you go to the last page and read the comments. You'll see what I mean.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T45NJ5GPDB9QBTO2H/p9

Holy shatbuckets!

He's the sort who wouldn't get on a Greyhound bus because he was allergic to dogs. The wheel's spinning but the hamster's dead.

I thought you did very well. Since he's incapable of grasping/comprehending what you wrote and persists in being rude, he's just being trollish IMO.

 

[kanzz]

Thank you for the link. Interesting.

Am I right in assuming that the US equivalent of the family proceeding court can be heard in camera i.e. behind closed doors/in secret?

Apologies, but I'm certainly no attorney and not familiar with the "family proceeding court". But I do know that there are cases in which children testify behind closed doors on camera.. if I follow what you're saying (I hope).

 

[mandystrange70]

BBM

I played around with the idea of the torch being in the car.
Winter's night, snow around, getting in and out of the vehicle to visit friends and drop of gifts - a torch would have been handy.
Tired children arguing on the back seat...

But anything that happened in the car could not have been life threatening otherwise when does JBR consume the pineapple? However, I wonder if snatched pieces of pineapple, as demonstrated in the CBS reconstruction, match the digested quantity found on autopsy?

If they drove straight into the garage then walked into the house, there would be no need for the torch, although someone could have brought it in from the car. And hence (as some say) it could have been lying around, easily available, leading to a spontaneous terrible use.

Yes to the panic. It must have been terrible. It doesn't excuse what followed, and the last 20 years. But it must have been truly horrible.

Maybe Jonbenet got out at the Stines and was given pineapple there. .? It would explain: why jb had to be asleep in the car and not carried gifts in, like Burke said. The Stines silence - they knew p&j were lying. A reaon for pineapple in her system. The pineapple on the table could have been placed there by Patsy to make it look like an intruder fed her it - if it even crossed her mind. Just looking at things from different angles 😧

Thank you - I'll wade through it! (Though not quite the late night reading I had planned...)

Sent from my SM-T210 using Tapatalk

 

[AB1]

Apologies, but I'm certainly no attorney and not familiar with the "family proceeding court". But I do know that there are cases in which children testify behind closed doors on camera.. if I follow what you're saying (I hope).

Sorry, being a limey!
I meant courts that deal with family matters rather than criminal cases. Could be anything from child access in divorces to social services making children wards of court to judges making medical treatment decisions for minors.

Here in the UK the entire case can be held in secret in an FPC and absolutely no reports are allowed. It has resulted in some shocking cases here, only revealed through later (usually criminal) court proceedings.

I just wondered if these closed (then sealed) proceedings are possible in the States?

 

[AB1]

Holy shatbuckets!

He's the sort who wouldn't get on a Greyhound bus because he was allergic to dogs. The wheel's spinning but the hamster's dead.

I thought you did very well. Since he's incapable of grasping/comprehending what you wrote and persists in being rude, he's just being trollish IMO.

:laughing: