You make some good points. But I just notice how they would point fingers with one hand and pat those same people on the back with the other (even if it was just searching for a spot to put the knife in)
RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!
- Thread starter Chrishope
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
New Posts
-
Canada - 2 dead, 1 in critical condition as major fire burns in Old Montreal- Latest: Happypetitvieux01
-
You make some good points. But I just notice how they would point fingers with one hand and pat those same people on the back with the other (even if it was just searching for a spot to put the knife in)
questfortrue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,005
- Reaction score
- 135
Great question, SD, and great insights from everyone. Andrew, I share your cynicism.
To this day, the IDI folks who look at this crime maintain that good Christian parents could never garrote and sexually assault their child. The staging did accomplish a good part of their intention to distance the crime from the family.
But, it wasnt quite enough.
The end goal of the Rs as JR describes in DOI, was not only to escape being charged. It was also extremely important to clear the R name from any stigma from JonBenets homicide. The staging didnt totally accomplish that. It needed the loud proclamation by ML. And for those who havent paid much attention to the crime, except to listen to sound bites, its probably believed that ML spared the family further suspicion by finding the foreign DNA.
Here are a couple of examples how to plant correlations in the publics mind to sustain the R victimization image -
From the H law firm
The H law firm tried to block the release of the TBs correlating some constitutional right of fairness to a defendant (they were never charged, thus never defendants); and moreover the law firm points out the R family was formally exonerated (they were never charged, never acquitted and thus never formally exonerated) by DNA. (Mine is a condensed version. Credit to otg for the longer synopsis of what HH attempted to do. http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...dictment-must-be-released&p=195442#post195442 )
Heres how JR handled JMK arrest
JR tries to caution the public against a rush to judgement when JMK has been arrested because the correlation the media and the BPD rushed to judgement against them, when they were not involved in their daughters death, and he knows the anguish when one is suspected of a crime and one is innocent.
JRs statement does two things. It draws a correlation (JMK could be innocent just like we are), and it makes him look even more the decent Christian who will stand up against rushing to judgement.
____________
SD, you know its too bad all of the TV appearances of the Rs arent available. Jay Leno once described their appearances as the world-wide innocence tour. Some are still on youtube, but many of them have disappeared. In attempting to catch up on their appearances, Ive read some of the forum archives which contain the presentations of PR and JR. Ive also looked at their media statements. It is so apparent that these two had to bury JonBenets death deep into some compartment of their mind. I say that because their dialog is usually focused on how much theyve suffered by being suspected of the crime.
If I were innocent of any cover-up or involvement in my childs death, I would be talking about how much I missed my daughter, how I still cry at night by how she was taken from me. They dont do that. (PR tried in the CNN interview, but it wasnt believable. No tears, just fake scrunchy face. And JR once says that he regrets he couldn't save JB.) In these old interviews they never spoke about JonBenet from the depths of the pain of loss. Whatever happened had to be buried inside their minds in a very deep crevasse. And because of their absolute denial and successful exoneration, it would never occur to JR or BR to confess to shield anyone ever arrested, even if by some remote chance someone found a DNA match to a man from Taiwan, who once worked in a Bloomies factory.
To this day, the IDI folks who look at this crime maintain that good Christian parents could never garrote and sexually assault their child. The staging did accomplish a good part of their intention to distance the crime from the family.
But, it wasnt quite enough.
The end goal of the Rs as JR describes in DOI, was not only to escape being charged. It was also extremely important to clear the R name from any stigma from JonBenets homicide. The staging didnt totally accomplish that. It needed the loud proclamation by ML. And for those who havent paid much attention to the crime, except to listen to sound bites, its probably believed that ML spared the family further suspicion by finding the foreign DNA.
Here are a couple of examples how to plant correlations in the publics mind to sustain the R victimization image -
From the H law firm
The H law firm tried to block the release of the TBs correlating some constitutional right of fairness to a defendant (they were never charged, thus never defendants); and moreover the law firm points out the R family was formally exonerated (they were never charged, never acquitted and thus never formally exonerated) by DNA. (Mine is a condensed version. Credit to otg for the longer synopsis of what HH attempted to do. http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...dictment-must-be-released&p=195442#post195442 )
Heres how JR handled JMK arrest
JR tries to caution the public against a rush to judgement when JMK has been arrested because the correlation the media and the BPD rushed to judgement against them, when they were not involved in their daughters death, and he knows the anguish when one is suspected of a crime and one is innocent.
JRs statement does two things. It draws a correlation (JMK could be innocent just like we are), and it makes him look even more the decent Christian who will stand up against rushing to judgement.
____________
SD, you know its too bad all of the TV appearances of the Rs arent available. Jay Leno once described their appearances as the world-wide innocence tour. Some are still on youtube, but many of them have disappeared. In attempting to catch up on their appearances, Ive read some of the forum archives which contain the presentations of PR and JR. Ive also looked at their media statements. It is so apparent that these two had to bury JonBenets death deep into some compartment of their mind. I say that because their dialog is usually focused on how much theyve suffered by being suspected of the crime.
If I were innocent of any cover-up or involvement in my childs death, I would be talking about how much I missed my daughter, how I still cry at night by how she was taken from me. They dont do that. (PR tried in the CNN interview, but it wasnt believable. No tears, just fake scrunchy face. And JR once says that he regrets he couldn't save JB.) In these old interviews they never spoke about JonBenet from the depths of the pain of loss. Whatever happened had to be buried inside their minds in a very deep crevasse. And because of their absolute denial and successful exoneration, it would never occur to JR or BR to confess to shield anyone ever arrested, even if by some remote chance someone found a DNA match to a man from Taiwan, who once worked in a Bloomies factory.
I bolded the parts that stood out to me, QFT. You hit the nail on the head. That, among other reasons, is why I could no longer support the Rs. When you compare them to John Walsh, Marc Klaas, Erin Runnion, etc., it's the difference between day and night.
Circling back to my main point, I'm not even saying that they would confess to keep someone from going to prison in their place. I'm talking about helping them with a defense or defending them in the media.
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 195
Thats way beyond what I said. We both know that the public is unaware of anything that has ever been discovered or developed that proves WDI. But neither of us can deny that the investigation continued after Steve Thomas left the BPD. I dont doubt that with friends still working on the BPD, Thomas was aware of some of what was going on beyond what the public knows. But in his sworn testimony, he was not aware of anything beyond what he followed... through the media. I suspect (MOO here) that he did in fact know that the RGJ had voted to indict the Ramseys (I also believe that the Ramseys and all of their lawyers knew this too, but used Alex Hunters statement and lack of action to perpetuate the myth that the RGJ did not vote any True Bills.). Read the following exchange and notice Thomas carefully-worded, caveat-laden, non-committal answers to questions about exactly what the RGJ did. Notice also how Lin Wood tries to interject his slant on what is said -- probably knowing full-well that the RGJ did indeed vote to indict (from ACR, link below -- emphasis mine):
Steve Thomas Deposition (Atlanta, Georgia)
Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Action File No. 00-CIV-1187(JEC)
(Grand Jury Discussion)
48
17 Q. Did you ever receive any
18 information about grand jury testimony or
19 evidence in the case?
20 A. Never.
(SNIP)
53
7 Q. Do you have any other documents
8 about this investigation, other than those
9 documents? Do you?
10 A. Oh, I'm sorry. If I understand
11 the question correctly, no, as I said, not
12 that I recall because post-August '98 began
13 the grand jury. And certainly I don't have
14 any information from the grand jury room.
(SNIP)
202
4 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You said very
5 clearly to Mr. Hoffman you do not know the
6 state of the evidence with respect to the
7 JonBenet Ramsey investigation, as you sit here
8 today, the state of the evidence as of
9 September 2001, true?
10 A. After leaving the police
11 department, yes, that concluded my official
12 participation. I have followed the case
13 through the media, but as far as being privy
14 to anything that occurred in the grand jury
15 or continued evidence testing, I'm unaware of
16 that.
17 Q. You knew the state of the evidence
18 as it existed in the case as of March 2001,
19 true?
20 A. That was during the period which
21 -- no, the grand jury had concluded -- no, I
22 -- no, I wasn't inside the police department
23 reviewing evidence at that time either.
24 Q. But what you did know and you had
25 actual knowledge of was that a grand jury had
203
1 met for some 13 months and had not issued an
2 indictment against John and Patsy Ramsey,
3 right?
4 A. I don't know that. Do you know
5 that?
6 Q. Sir, was an indictment issued? Do
7 you have information there was an indictment
8 of my clients that nobody has bothered
9 telling them or me about?
10 MR. HOFFMAN: Actually, Lin,
11 Patrick Burke has information that he should
12 have told you about which he announced to the
13 media that according to him the grand jury
14 actually took a straw poll. Why don't you
15 ask Patrick Burke.
16 MR. WOOD: Let me tell you,
17 Darnay, that won't count against my time.
18 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
19 MR. WOOD: But you're right, it
20 was a straw poll; it was a vote not to
21 indict. Thank you for bringing something to
22 my attention that I already knew.
23 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
24 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Would you answer
25 my question, sir? It's pretty simple. You
204
1 know that no indictment was issued by the
2 grand jury, true?
3 A. I don't know what the grand jury
4 did.
5 Q. I'm not asking you what they did
6 in terms of whether they voted or not, sir.
7 MR. DIAMOND: I think he's asking
8 you --
9 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I'm asking you
10 whether they issued an indictment to indict
11 John and/or Patsy Ramsey?
12 MR. DIAMOND: -- are you aware of
13 any public report of such an indictment.
14 A. No.
15 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You also know that
16 after the grand jury was dismissed that Alex
17 Hunter stated publicly that all seven of the
18 prosecutors in the case unanimously agreed
19 that this was not a case where they felt
20 that evidence was sufficient to justify at
21 that time a prosecution. You know that, too,
22 don't you, sir?
23 A. That Hunter --
24 Q. Made that statement publicly?
25 A. Made the statement that his
205
1 advisors supported that decision?
2 Q. Seven prosecutors, not his
3 advisors, seven prosecutors, you know that,
4 don't you, sir?
5 A. I know that statement was made.
Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Action File No. 00-CIV-1187(JEC)
(Grand Jury Discussion)
48
17 Q. Did you ever receive any
18 information about grand jury testimony or
19 evidence in the case?
20 A. Never.
(SNIP)
53
7 Q. Do you have any other documents
8 about this investigation, other than those
9 documents? Do you?
10 A. Oh, I'm sorry. If I understand
11 the question correctly, no, as I said, not
12 that I recall because post-August '98 began
13 the grand jury. And certainly I don't have
14 any information from the grand jury room.
(SNIP)
202
4 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You said very
5 clearly to Mr. Hoffman you do not know the
6 state of the evidence with respect to the
7 JonBenet Ramsey investigation, as you sit here
8 today, the state of the evidence as of
9 September 2001, true?
10 A. After leaving the police
11 department, yes, that concluded my official
12 participation. I have followed the case
13 through the media, but as far as being privy
14 to anything that occurred in the grand jury
15 or continued evidence testing, I'm unaware of
16 that.
17 Q. You knew the state of the evidence
18 as it existed in the case as of March 2001,
19 true?
20 A. That was during the period which
21 -- no, the grand jury had concluded -- no, I
22 -- no, I wasn't inside the police department
23 reviewing evidence at that time either.
24 Q. But what you did know and you had
25 actual knowledge of was that a grand jury had
203
1 met for some 13 months and had not issued an
2 indictment against John and Patsy Ramsey,
3 right?
4 A. I don't know that. Do you know
5 that?
6 Q. Sir, was an indictment issued? Do
7 you have information there was an indictment
8 of my clients that nobody has bothered
9 telling them or me about?
10 MR. HOFFMAN: Actually, Lin,
11 Patrick Burke has information that he should
12 have told you about which he announced to the
13 media that according to him the grand jury
14 actually took a straw poll. Why don't you
15 ask Patrick Burke.
16 MR. WOOD: Let me tell you,
17 Darnay, that won't count against my time.
18 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
19 MR. WOOD: But you're right, it
20 was a straw poll; it was a vote not to
21 indict. Thank you for bringing something to
22 my attention that I already knew.
23 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.
24 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Would you answer
25 my question, sir? It's pretty simple. You
204
1 know that no indictment was issued by the
2 grand jury, true?
3 A. I don't know what the grand jury
4 did.
5 Q. I'm not asking you what they did
6 in terms of whether they voted or not, sir.
7 MR. DIAMOND: I think he's asking
8 you --
9 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I'm asking you
10 whether they issued an indictment to indict
11 John and/or Patsy Ramsey?
12 MR. DIAMOND: -- are you aware of
13 any public report of such an indictment.
14 A. No.
15 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You also know that
16 after the grand jury was dismissed that Alex
17 Hunter stated publicly that all seven of the
18 prosecutors in the case unanimously agreed
19 that this was not a case where they felt
20 that evidence was sufficient to justify at
21 that time a prosecution. You know that, too,
22 don't you, sir?
23 A. That Hunter --
24 Q. Made that statement publicly?
25 A. Made the statement that his
205
1 advisors supported that decision?
2 Q. Seven prosecutors, not his
3 advisors, seven prosecutors, you know that,
4 don't you, sir?
5 A. I know that statement was made.
As to my earlier reference to the special investigative powers of a Grand Jury, here is some information (from poster Redd Herring -- links below) on those powers and abilities:
- Investigation: The grand jury doesn't just sit idly by as the DA presents its case. It is an investigative body, and grand jurors are allowed to investigate on their own. However, investigation is supposed to be a group activity, not the individual members doing their own investigations.
- Four Boulder Police detectives have been sworn in as grand jury investigators to assist in this area: Sgt. Tom Wickman, Mike Everett, Jane Harmer, and Tom Trujillo.
A list of known (and suspected) witnesses and activities reported in the press by day can be found here (pay particular attention to what occurred on and after Day 49):
Is it coincidence that after Burke testified they had but one special session and then took a 4-month hiatus? When they reconvened, one witness testified for certain: Susan Stine! (It is also speculated that John Andrew Ramsey and Melinda Ramsey may have testified after that.)
From that same link there is this:
Susan Stine, who was referred to in Lawrence Schiller's book about the case, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town,'' as "Patsy Ramsey's pit bull,'' has reportedly remained close to Patsy and staunch in her defense.
Stine's reported appearance came as the grand jury met for the first time in four months. Before that, the last time the panel met was to hear from JonBenet's older brother, Burke, who was in the family's home at the time of her death.
Stine's reported appearance came as the grand jury met for the first time in four months. Before that, the last time the panel met was to hear from JonBenet's older brother, Burke, who was in the family's home at the time of her death.
All of this, of course, is proof of nothing. Infer what you wish. Any one thing can be taken aside and interpreted to mean something else, just as each little piece in the puzzle can be looked at in different ways. But putting it all together just makes me more resolute in what I believe it all means. As we say, my friend, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary, for nubes).
Links :findinglink: :
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramsey-grand-jury.htm
http://www.oocities.org/capitolhill/...rimer5_ce.html
http://www.oocities.org/capitolhill/...imer7_ham.html
http://www.oocities.org/capitolhill/...mer8_gjtl.html
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramsey-grand-jury.htm
http://www.oocities.org/capitolhill/...rimer5_ce.html
http://www.oocities.org/capitolhill/...imer7_ham.html
http://www.oocities.org/capitolhill/...mer8_gjtl.html
Wow otg! Just now had a chance to explore the above links you posted. These are new to me and require some good study. I've read the one at acandyrose.com but not the others. Thanks a millions! :loveyou:
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 195
Those "oocities" links are some kind of cached version of the information Redd Herring put up years ago at "geocities", which is now defunct. Click around and you'll find the other pages. Some of the stuff put up by RH (especially in regards to the RGJ) was very prescient.
(Much of our links to information is disappearing :sigh: .)
(Much of our links to information is disappearing :sigh: .)
elannia
Active Member
Otg, (or whoever would like to answer 
, in the link about the GJ proceedings it said that some of the detectives met with AH to go over the GJ findings after the GJ was dismissed, I just wonder if they were told the truth about the R's being indicted, or if AH lied to them about it and said the GJ came back with nothing, which in fact they had, but surely the detectives wouldnt have kept the secret for so many years
, in the link about the GJ proceedings it said that some of the detectives met with AH to go over the GJ findings after the GJ was dismissed, I just wonder if they were told the truth about the R's being indicted, or if AH lied to them about it and said the GJ came back with nothing, which in fact they had, but surely the detectives wouldnt have kept the secret for so many years
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 195
I don't know who all actually knew for certain that the RGJ had returned the TBs. As we learned when the news was released, James Kolar was aware of them but never even hinted at it in his book or in interviews. He didn't come into the investigation until long after the RGJ had been dismissed, so somehow the information was passed along to him.Otg, (or whoever would like to answer
I have said previously (and I still believe) that many people knew about them but chose not to publicly acknowledge them because of the rules about GJ secrecy and the threat of prosecution. I think that the TBs were an "open secret" within the legal and LE communities. I think someone passed information along to someone else, and then word about the TBs somehow got passed along to Charlie Brennan who chose to file suit to make the information public according to the statutes of Colorado. (Until the entire document -- including the RGJ's "finding of fact" and the "No True Bills" -- is made public, the statutes of Colorado are still not being followed IMO.)
Just recently I posted an old passage I had run across where Greta Van Susteren had questioned Alex Hunter about it way back when. By her wording of the question, I think someone had told her about it but she couldn't say so definitely. She only hinted at it in general terms, but I think by her questions that she knew the RGJ had returned TBs and that Hunter had refused to sign the indictment.
I think Lin Wood knew about it when on two occasions he flaunted the "RGJ's lack of an indictment" knowing that the person (Steve Thomas in deposition, and Mike Kane on LKL) could not dispute it without compromising the information they had.
And yes, I think the Ramseys knew about the TBs when they wrote in their first book that the GJ's not charging them had restored their faith in the American system of justice (or words to that effect).
questfortrue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,005
- Reaction score
- 135
Sorry for a very delayed response to your thoughts. I appreciate your sense of the case. It may be of interest to know that other long-time posters have echoed the very thought that the DA may have decided to let the case go, because of sympathy for a family tragedy. It certainly could be the case. (A rebuttal to that thought is that DAs are not elected to be sole judge and jury, especially in a childs homicide.)
But you know as well as any of us that people many times have a variety of motivations. STs book is very useful in learning more about the DAs office and their actions.
As with all evaluations, its relevant to look at AHs actions in prior cases. Its been mentioned before that he was renowned for plea bargaining cases. (BTW, when AH first ran for office, he, ironically, denigrated the incumbent who he claimed did too much plea bargaining. However, after AH was elected he changed the system by implementing negotiations before a suspect was charged. This meant an alleged criminal and their attorney had a chance to help decide how they would be charged. Anyway . . . ) Another interesting aspect of AHs comments was his reference to the OJ trial. He sounded both compassionate and tough in voicing his concern that the OJ case was lost because the DA rushed to indict. (And the DA in Los Angeles lost his job over the OJ case.) Usually, I dismiss the notion that AH was concerned about losing his job, because he was actually nearing retirement and wasnt going to run for office again.
From what I reviewed in STs book the roadblocks AH established suggest an early conscious decision before the GJ to impair the investigation. This seeming sabotage included not allowing warrants for credit cards, phone records, searching the hangar where the jet was housed, sharing evidence with the defense team, agreeing to the defense attorneys request to seal medical records. The ME should have been able to complete more examination of JonBenets body, but in a brilliant public relations move the deputy DA created a rumor (untrue, btw) that the BPD was ransoming the body in order to secure interviews with the R family. That same deputy DA was later shown in STs book to have a close personal link with JRs attorney. This DA even hand carried the request to the CBI from JRs attorney not to test certain crime scene materials.
Im leaving out some of the more unsettling allegations of skullduggery in obstructing the case. Anyone interested can review them in detail in IRMI. There were FBI who felt AH should have been charged with obstruction of justice.
If some posters here are correct in the conclusion that AH concluded on his own or was told this was not a criminal situation, but rather a family tragedy, it triggers questions about what could have happened behind the scenes. One wonders who conveyed this, what exactly AH was told and when was he told something. Its that old saw one recalls in some political scandals: What did XX know and when did he know it and who told him.
Only someone in the home would know whether it was a family tragedy involving an unstable child. Since we know there were phone records from December 96 which were sealed by a judge because these records had been obtained illegally, a suspicion is that one of the suspects called someone who may have called AH or someone else influential. This idea of an early call to hamper an investigation, relaying that this was a tragedy, not a crime, conflicts, imo, with the cover-up actions of the suspects. I dont doubt that there were likely early phone calls. However, a suspect calling someone and saying something like this whole thing was done by our son, but were going to go ahead and stage an intruder cover-up, so help us establish this, indicates almost too much calculation for distraught parents. Of course, one never knows.
My instinct tells me that AH was simply trying to stay on the right side of the power players in Boulder who had helped keep him in office. Such behavior is very indicative of good ol boy networks. My point is simply that the decision to sabotage the investigation was made very early. As SuperDave says, we dont know what AHs game was.
This was one of the few quotes I found of AH 7 years after the GJ: In 2006 he had an interview where he made this statement: "I think I was coming from a point where I hoped I might be able to shake something out of the bush, and I might suggest to the killer that I knew something that they didn't know.
"I think my heart was in the right place, but I think I was probably operating a little bit from too low in my gut."
( How low in the gut? :thinking
eileenhawkeye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 8,755
- Reaction score
- 132
Okay, apparently there is going to be a documentary made about JBR for the 20th anniversary. Parents are posting picture of their kids who could play JonBenet. They have another post on their page about casting LHP. Interesting that they are using the word "documentary" instead of "movie".
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10153418619599543&id=358793729542
Also, National Enquirer is claiming that the next season of "American Crime Story" will be about JonBenet. I don't think they have an actual source for that but I would not be surprised especially since it would air in the Fall of 2016, right around the anniversary. OJ season will air around 20th anniversary of the verdict, JBR's season would air around the 20th anniversary of her murder.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/cold-case-casting-jessica-lange
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10153418619599543&id=358793729542
Also, National Enquirer is claiming that the next season of "American Crime Story" will be about JonBenet. I don't think they have an actual source for that but I would not be surprised especially since it would air in the Fall of 2016, right around the anniversary. OJ season will air around 20th anniversary of the verdict, JBR's season would air around the 20th anniversary of her murder.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/cold-case-casting-jessica-lange
I don't think Colorado has any "back-up" procedure to deal with children under 10 who commit a crime-regardless of what that crime may be- even murder.
The child in question cannot be identified by name as having been associated with a crime in any way. Even if it is KNOWN that he is involved.
The child in question cannot be identified by name as having been associated with a crime in any way. Even if it is KNOWN that he is involved.
That would surprise me. I would think every state would have its own method of dealing with underage offenders. In Canada there is what is known as the Young Offenders Act which basically hides the identity of the offender, and keeps them from going to adult prison. Their record is also erased once hitting the age of majority.
Obviously there has to be something in place or people would be sending their young children in to stores to shoplift without fear of penalty.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As far as I know, Colorado has nothing in place. There may be juvenile delinquency statues for things such as you mentioned, and misdemeanors and such, but as far as a child under 10 (BR was just a few weeks shy of 10 when this happened) it is as I stated- that a child under 10 cannot be associated by name with a crime under any circumstances. It is stated in Colorado law that children under 10 are incapable of forming the intent needed in order for culpability. Here in the US, every state has a different age for such things. I disagree with Colorado, as kids under 10 can and do commit crimes knowingly, even serious ones like murder and rape. Every once in a while (at least in New Jersey) some horrific crime is in the news where a group of underage boys, even as young as 8-9, have sexually assaulted a classmate or other little girl, and full rape occurs. And yes, parents DO have children commit crimes like shoplifting, knowing the child can't be prosecuted. In some states, the parents can be prosecuted, though the name of the child is not released. However, it is easy enough to determine who the child is. Colorado prevents that- and especially in this case- where the indictments returned by the Grand Jury implicated the parents involvement in a cover-up and obstruction of justice. If there were only 3 living people in the house after JB's death, who would they be covering for? That is why AH refused to sign the indictments (however, LYING about whether the existed should have been a crime in itself). There were other people involved in this fiasco- on the sidelines. The R's friend SS impersonated a police officer in emails and harassed people while pretending to be a law enforcement officer. I know of no state where this is NOT a crime. Yet she got away with it- AH refused to prosecute her either.
DeeDee249,
Even if Colorado has something in place, they sure aint gonna tell us they applied it to BR!
A nice conspiracy theory has it that the case is really PDI, but they staged it as BDI, knowing he was under the age of forming criminal intent, yada yada ... The other parts of the jigsaw are all the Ramsey fellow travellors, Stines, Hunter, Beuf, et al who enabled one big coverup?
I reckon the case is BDI with all involved thinking they were legally empowered to airbrush BR out of the picture by any means possible?
This includes Steve Thomas, James Kolar, Holly Smith, who all know who the prime suspect really is but avoid the answer when asked or claim legal statute prevents them from disclosure.
Holly Smith had aspects relating directly to Ramsey case redacted from her autobiography, never mind being sidelined from the case, since she knew too much!
I always wonder what the GJ members really think, now they know we know it was all a farce, and that their decisions were never intended to see the light of day?
Somebody really wants to interview these people for posterity.
.
OliviaG1996 said:
Lately, I've been giving this subject even more thought, and there's another wrinkle I'd like to add to this conversation. OliviaG1996 started the ball just now on another thread:
To pursue my line of thought, let's go back to the fictional example I gave: the gang in question was chosen as scapegoats because they were known to the police and public as a menace. With this in mind, I thought back to what the Rs said when asked if they suspected anyone they knew: "we don't know anyone that evil." I wonder now if that was less an attempt to defend their circle and more a complaint, as in "damn, too bad we lived in such a crime-free environment."
Too bad JMK wasn't around ten years earlier, huh, Johnny boy? But then, he was Mary Lacy's would-be fall guy, not the Rs'. I think everyone reading this knows what I mean. If not, I'd be happy to explain it.
SuperDave,
Here's my 10-cents worth: Having cleared the evidential path and swept away the theoretical trees, I'm beginning to realize how organized the project was to minimise any attribution of blame towards the R's. Its like the authorities knew the R's were no Mafia Crime Family, so allowed them lots of leeway to get their story right?
The ransom note and the wine-cellar crime-scene are simply staging that offers some rationale for pointing the finger towards the bad guys. Yet the R's must have known this would never fly since its only their forensic evidence thats present at the crime-scene.
The very fact they started implicating the housekeeper, the White's etc, suggests the terrorist plot scenario was pretty weak and they knew it. Lou Smit was their saviour with his IDI theory, climbing in the basement window, publicising those images, so the R's ran with it, the DA scenting political capital, followed on dreaming up intruder scenarios such as attributed to JMK.
So I reckon OliviaG1996 is on the money here, i.e. the R's had no real world specific suspects in mind. Their main aim was to remove forensic evidence and stage a crime-scene.
If otg's suggestion, that JonBenet was internally cleansed using water is correct, then it ramps up the premeditation factor further.
Lets put it this way: would the R's still have fabricated a crime-scene if they knew that criminal statute might not apply to the person who assaulted JonBenet?
Its seems obvious now that the authorities enacted a legal airbrushing of the R's out of the case. This then mandated some pretty questionable backdoor practises to develop, all tacitly agreed, and cumulates in the JMK debacle, testimony to the prevailing mindset!
.
heresjohnny
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
I think on that night John called his attorney for advice on what to do. My question is, why would the attorney have given John and Patsy wrong advice, presumably, the information they wanted to know was, could a 9 year old be charged with murder and thrown in jail. Assuming he trusted the attorney enough to call him, it seems unlikely he would disreguard the advice given. So, how would an attorney not know, that 9 year old's Would NOT be charged with murder?
I've been saying that for years.
I agree, but I'm wondering if that was because they didn't have anyone who would be convenient.