Simple question...

[Holdontoyourhat]

Sufficient evidence to indict and a preponderance of evidence are one and the same.

That was the whole job of the GJ and Hunter, to establish whether or not there was sufficient evidence to indict. There was no indictment, therefore there was no preponderance. It IS black and white. Isn't it you who needs to change this from black and white into something, say, imaginary? Are we now to imagine secrets in the case file, according to you?

Why not just face the fact that the GJ didn't have enough evidence? You don't have to admit PR or JR are innocent, but you DO have to admit there wasn't enough evidence against them for the GJ to indict. Politics aside, there was no smoking gun evidence.

It wouldn't have taken much in the way of evidence to garner an arrest and trial of PR and/or JR. Consider all the cases that did go to trial and even conviction of people who had nothing to do with the crime. The suspects for the monster of florence murders comes to mind. Heck, an investigator even wrote a book about it, chastised anyone who had a differing POV, and has gotten in trouble for his own actions and statements surrounding that case. Sound familiar?

Can't solve it? Write a book.

 

[Ravyn]

Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define which party bears this burden. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her. But in some jurisdiction, the defendant has the burden of establishing the existence of certain facts that give rise to a defense, such as the insanity plea. In civil cases, the plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses.



So if the DA really didn't try then...And Kane said he was there just for show...

 

[Ravyn]

Certainly RDI has no irrefutable evidence stating a parent or parents killed JBR.

And yet, many speak from a position as if there were. As if RDI were somehow a foregone conclusion when its obvious that no such conclusion can be made.

But an innocent parent wouldn't try to leave...An innocent parent would stand steadfast against all odds even if they were being blamed....Preponderance of evidence in a juror eyes it might not went for the R's....DNA to many ways it can go wrong,sometimes it can be right on but I wouldn't put 100% in it....Could the R's show reasonable doubt if they talked to the Grand Jury...

 

[madeleine]

Sufficient evidence to indict and a preponderance of evidence are one and the same.

I disagree.It doesn't matter what you got/know,it's what you can prove in court,sadly, but:Let's say you got a murder weapon with the killer's blood on it but it's inadmissible in court(pick the reason,there are plenty).Does that make the killer less guilty???Don't think so.

 

[madeleine]

Let me add this as well:

The Rs being in the house that night does not, in and of itself, constitute a preponderance of evidence. BUT, it is the framework through which this case MUST be viewed. To break it down, it can be proven that the Rs were in the house that night, which means they had opportunity. Whereas it has still not been proven that anyone else was in the house that night, much less that said person killed her.

I thought I'd made that clear on the thread about the Rs confessing. Looks like I was wrong.

Ita.Let's say one of the R friends gets arrested for the murder tomorrow.And his dna is a match.Okay.How can you prove that he left it there THAT night when he killed her?(he could very well say,well,i helped her out,we all know she asked everybody around for help when she had toileting issues)You can't.Dna is tricky.To me,honestly,it's just something that allows defence lawyers to spin everything in their favour.Even IF IDI,if it's someone known to the Ramsey's the dna is ZERO imo,every defence lawyer will be able to make it look like it got there innocently.My God,IDI's should watch more live trials.

 

[Sophie]

ITA Madeleine.

The thing that IDI - including, shamefully - Mary Lacy keep ignoring is that even if the DNA does belong to someone involved in the death of JonBenet, it doesn't actaully prove that the Ramseys weren't involved. Have they never, for example, heard of the R+IDI theory?

 

[ella971]

Same writer?Don't analyse,what does your first instinct tell you?

Maybe.Looks like the same pen.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I disagree.It doesn't matter what you got/know,it's what you can prove in court,sadly, but:Let's say you got a murder weapon with the killer's blood on it but it's inadmissible in court(pick the reason,there are plenty).Does that make the killer less guilty???Don't think so.

You're confusing indicting with convicting. What you can prove in court is not relevant to who you can indict.

 

[BBB167893]

Sufficient evidence to indict and a preponderance of evidence are one and the same.

Well, you're certainly free to make that argument. Seems to me that you leave out the human factor. You tend to do that.

That was the whole job of the GJ and Hunter, to establish whether or not there was sufficient evidence to indict.

I'm not sure that's true, HOTYH. As I've mentioned several times up to this point, some times grand juries are not convened to get indictments, but for investigative purposes. Because they have subpoena powers, they can get access to things that police and prosecutors normally can't.

More to the point, that assumes that the GJ was supposed to do as you say. From what I can see, it was just political theater, a dog-and-pony show. Because I'm at a loss to explain any other reason for the way they went about it so half-*advertiser censored**ed. Almost none of the investigating police were called. Even the Rs themselves were not called. I hope someone can offer an explanation, because I'm stumped.

There was no indictment, therefore there was no preponderance. It IS black and white.

Like he** it is.

Isn't it you who needs to change this from black and white into something, say, imaginary?

Don't test me, HOTYH. I'm just taking the "big picture" approach. This case is like a reflective gemstone. Don't blame me for trying to see all of the facets.

Let me put it another way. You claim "no indictment=no evidence." Unfortunately, if you read what Kane himself has had to say and what other people have had to say (and they span the spectrum from Thomas to Tracey), there was never MEANT to be an indictment in the first place.

I'm tempted to remember the lawyers for those accused of treason during Stalin's purges of the Soviet Union. No matter how good their arguments were, it didn't matter. Their challenges were defeated before they were even made.

Are we now to imagine secrets in the case file, according to you?

Not at all. I'm just saying that it's pretty easy for you to dismiss the thoughts of people on these forums. We all accept that. But it shouldn't be so easy to dismiss the positions of a career prosecutor who won a lot of difficult cases AND spent several years in the trenches of this case (in start opposition to the people who have been running it for the last few years).

Why not just face the fact that the GJ didn't have enough evidence? You don't have to admit PR or JR are innocent, but you DO have to admit there wasn't enough evidence against them for the GJ to indict. Politics aside, there was no smoking gun evidence.

This may surprise you, HOTYH, but I can work with that. I've said it myself several times.

It wouldn't have taken much in the way of evidence to garner an arrest and trial of PR and/or JR.

In any other part of the country. You left that part out, and it is a crucial part.

Consider all the cases that did go to trial and even conviction of people who had nothing to do with the crime.

You make a strong point. Now allow me to make one:
In this instance, the Rs had a built-in safety device: each other. I think a re-examination of the "cross-fingerpointing" thread is overdue.

The suspects for the monster of florence murders comes to mind. Heck, an investigator even wrote a book about it, chastised anyone who had a differing POV, and has gotten in trouble for his own actions and statements surrounding that case. Sound familiar?

Can't solve it? Write a book.

I have to admit, that was well-played, HOTYH.

 

[BBB167893]

You're confusing indicting with convicting. What you can prove in court is not relevant to who you can indict.

I think that deserves its own thread.

 

[BOESP]

Sufficient evidence to indict and a preponderance of evidence are one and the same.

That was the whole job of the GJ and Hunter, to establish whether or not there was sufficient evidence to indict. There was no indictment, therefore there was no preponderance. It IS black and white. Isn't it you who needs to change this from black and white into something, say, imaginary? Are we now to imagine secrets in the case file, according to you?

Why not just face the fact that the GJ didn't have enough evidence? You don't have to admit PR or JR are innocent, but you DO have to admit there wasn't enough evidence against them for the GJ to indict. Politics aside, there was no smoking gun evidence.

It wouldn't have taken much in the way of evidence to garner an arrest and trial of PR and/or JR. Consider all the cases that did go to trial and even conviction of people who had nothing to do with the crime. The suspects for the monster of florence murders comes to mind. Heck, an investigator even wrote a book about it, chastised anyone who had a differing POV, and has gotten in trouble for his own actions and statements surrounding that case. Sound familiar?

Can't solve it? Write a book.

HOTYH, could you give us the instructions given to the Grand Jury as to what they were actually charged to do? (Not your opinion but the actual charge to the jury.)

 

[BOESP]

You're confusing indicting with convicting. What you can prove in court is not relevant to who you can indict.

Actually, a preponderance of the evidence and a decision to indict are two different animals. The question hanging over a decision to indict in the JBR case is "can we get a conviction without reasonable doubt."

Cross finger-pointing seems to be the holdup in this case.

 

[BBB167893]

Actually, a preponderance of the evidence and a decision to indict are two different animals. The question hanging over a decision to indict in the JBR case is "can we get a conviction without reasonable doubt."

I STRONGLY urge everyone to reread the quote I posted from Henry Lee.

Cross finger-pointing seems to be the holdup in this case.

"Seems" nothing!

 

[Ripley007]

It's called the case file.



Yeah, that's what they said about OJ Simpson too, or have you forgotten?

I honestly don't understand how you can see things in such stark black-and-white terms, especially involving this case, where nothing is on the square. To be fair, I used to view it the same way.

I can't help but to come back to the randsom note everytime I reflect on this case. The randsom note IS the smoking gun IMHO. More LE work should have been done on this. It was dismissed too easily. It was THE most important piece of eviedence, yet it wasn't treated as such.

 

[Ravyn]

I can't help but to come back to the randsom note everytime I reflect on this case. The randsom note IS the smoking gun IMHO. More LE work should have been done on this. It was dismissed too easily. It was THE most important piece of eviedence, yet it wasn't treated as such.

Yes,the RN is important as evidence with alot of different experts looking at it..To me IMO the TOD would be the smoking gun...That would had really open the door to the timeline...But the only thing we have here,is JonBenet ate pineapple before she died...And it takes close to 2 hours to digest....And we know they got home around 9:15 pm on Christmas night...

 

[cynic]

Among the more notable police officers who investigated the Ramsey murder was former detective Steve Thomas, a veteran police officer who had received over a hundred commendations. Thomas, who was logged in as having worked more overtime hours on the case than any other police officer, resigned nearly two years into the investigation and publicly announced that he believed JonBenet's mother, Patsy Ramsey, was responsible for the little girl's death.

Although authorities never officially commented on Thomas’ argument, many law enforcement sources have confirmed that Thomas was merely revealing the conclusion of the Boulder Police Department’s investigation. After former District Attorney Alex Hunter convened a grand jury to investigate the case further in 1998, the law enforcement community’s suspicion of Patsy Ramsey increased, but Hunter decided not to file charges because he did not believe there was enough evidence to obtain a winning verdict.

Despite the fact that a panel of pediatric experts concluded that JonBenet was a victim of long-term sexual abuse, current District Attorney Mary Lacy publicly announced in 2003 that she believed the little girl was murdered by an intruder. Her theory stems from the fact that minuscule particles of foreign DNA were found in JonBenet’s underpants — DNA that renowned forensic expert Henry Lee believes is the result of contamination and totally unrelated to the crime.

Lacy was so convinced an intruder committed the crime that she arrested an otherwise innocent man earlier this year and charged him with the murder. Only a few days after extraditing 41-year-old John Mark Karr from Thailand, forensic tests prompted Lacy to drop charges against the man, leaving the case cold once again.

The most revealing fact that came from the Karr debacle was that there were several details in his arrest warrant that didn’t add up. Lacy’s primary reason for arresting Karr was that he allegedly had inside knowledge of the case that only top investigators and the killer could know. But by the time the warrant was made public, it turned out that the "inside knowledge" had been widely published in local newspapers and supermarket tabloids.

As a result, Lacy quickly came under fire by a number of law enforcement officials and media commentators. Among the many officials who quietly expressed criticism were federal agents who have repeatedly advised Boulder investigators that they suspect Patsy Ramsey and do not subscribe to the "intruder theory." Their suspicions stem from years of analysis and comparison of Patsy’s handwriting with the text and handwriting of the three-page ransom note found in the Ramsey home.

Although the Boulder Police Department and former DA Hunter did an effective job investigating JonBenet’s murder, Lacy’s blind faith that the crime was committed by an intruder now makes it virtually impossible for the case to move forward under her leadership.

The FBI is in a position to assign highly skilled investigators who have spent decades specializing in child murders to JonBenet’s case. Federal prosecutors who have the financial and legal backing of the United States government can effectively consider a long-term strategy that will not be impeded by local taxpayers or politicians.

By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238946,00.html

 

[Sophie]

What an article! Hits a lot of nails squarely on the head.

The point about local taxpayers etc is very interesting in view of some of the comments emanating from Boulder when the case was returned to the BPD: veritable b****fest about yet more resources being expended on the case.


You're finding some excellent stuff just now, Cynic.

 

[BBB167893]

Among the more notable police officers who investigated the Ramsey murder was former detective Steve Thomas, a veteran police officer who had received over a hundred commendations. Thomas, who was logged in as having worked more overtime hours on the case than any other police officer, resigned nearly two years into the investigation and publicly announced that he believed JonBenet's mother, Patsy Ramsey, was responsible for the little girl's death.

Although authorities never officially commented on Thomas’ argument, many law enforcement sources have confirmed that Thomas was merely revealing the conclusion of the Boulder Police Department’s investigation. After former District Attorney Alex Hunter convened a grand jury to investigate the case further in 1998, the law enforcement community’s suspicion of Patsy Ramsey increased, but Hunter decided not to file charges because he did not believe there was enough evidence to obtain a winning verdict.

Despite the fact that a panel of pediatric experts concluded that JonBenet was a victim of long-term sexual abuse, current District Attorney Mary Lacy publicly announced in 2003 that she believed the little girl was murdered by an intruder. Her theory stems from the fact that minuscule particles of foreign DNA were found in JonBenet’s underpants — DNA that renowned forensic expert Henry Lee believes is the result of contamination and totally unrelated to the crime.

Lacy was so convinced an intruder committed the crime that she arrested an otherwise innocent man earlier this year and charged him with the murder. Only a few days after extraditing 41-year-old John Mark Karr from Thailand, forensic tests prompted Lacy to drop charges against the man, leaving the case cold once again.

The most revealing fact that came from the Karr debacle was that there were several details in his arrest warrant that didn’t add up. Lacy’s primary reason for arresting Karr was that he allegedly had inside knowledge of the case that only top investigators and the killer could know. But by the time the warrant was made public, it turned out that the "inside knowledge" had been widely published in local newspapers and supermarket tabloids.

As a result, Lacy quickly came under fire by a number of law enforcement officials and media commentators. Among the many officials who quietly expressed criticism were federal agents who have repeatedly advised Boulder investigators that they suspect Patsy Ramsey and do not subscribe to the "intruder theory." Their suspicions stem from years of analysis and comparison of Patsy’s handwriting with the text and handwriting of the three-page ransom note found in the Ramsey home.

Although the Boulder Police Department and former DA Hunter did an effective job investigating JonBenet’s murder, Lacy’s blind faith that the crime was committed by an intruder now makes it virtually impossible for the case to move forward under her leadership.

The FBI is in a position to assign highly skilled investigators who have spent decades specializing in child murders to JonBenet’s case. Federal prosecutors who have the financial and legal backing of the United States government can effectively consider a long-term strategy that will not be impeded by local taxpayers or politicians.

By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238946,00.html

I wonder if a certain someone will be willing to believe THIS media account! Excellent work!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

This article was bunk even in its time. MD's who never even attended JBR in life or death believe they can know what the coroner and the pediatrician can't. These so-called experts were paid for by the tabloids. Yep, paid for by the tabloids. This article might have well been printed alongside Elvis on Mars.

Now with touch DNA evidence the DNA remarks from this article are exposed as incorrect and presumptuous.

The days of RDI as tabloid faire are gone forever and RDI knows it. Why bother posting obsolete material? Just to further the hype? As if to deliberately mislead the public? There is new information that renders this article somewhere between tabloid hype and obsolete.

 

[BBB167893]

This article was bunk even in its time.

Yeah, that's what I thought!

MD's who never even attended JBR in life or death believe they can know what the coroner and the pediatrician can't.

Do we REALLY have to go through that again? You would do well to pay attention to those experts, HOTYH. I ought to know. It did wonders for me.

These so-called experts were paid for by the tabloids. Yep, paid for by the tabloids. This article might have well been printed alongside Elvis on Mars.

I'm afraid that's wrong, HOTYH. None of these people were paid for by the tabloids or even associated with them. I'd just as soon you didn't embarrass yourself by posting something to easily disprovable.

The days of RDI as tabloid faire are gone forever and RDI knows it.

I don't know about tabloid faire, but I'm talking to a publishing house. So we'll find out pretty soon!