The Case of JonBenet Ramsey-CBS Sept. 18 # 2

[Bill W]

So, in your opinion, and Brendon's, when BR said, "oh", he meant that he had finally figured out what was in that bowl after studying the photo. And yet he didn't say what he thought it was. And in my opinion, he said "oh" because he knew he was on the verge of being busted, so he said what was in the bowl was…"well there's a glass of tea over there."

 

[Magdalyn]

They heard only evidence from Kane. And a grand jury doesn't convict anyone. They just recommend more investigation

Your statement using word "just" implies all they can do is recommend more investigation. And they heard from far more than Kane. My previous links proved that.

I know how a grand jury works. They heard evidence from Kane and I think the case should have gone further.

They heard from dozens of witnesses over 13 months and went over 30,000+ pieces of evidence. Exactly in what way should they have gone further? They 'way a grand jury works' is if they find reason to indict, they indict. Why would they continue? That's not their job.

Yes, a true bill is a vote to indict, which means to bring the case to trial. A grand jury only hears one side of the evidence. I'm not sure what we are disagreeing on?

We're disagreeing on your above stated points that the grand jury

(1) Can "just" recommend more investigation
(2) That the grand jury only heard evidence from Kane.

 

[Tadpole12]

CR,

9
5

http://blabbieville.tripod.com/1995xmasnewsletter.txt

96

http://blabbieville.tripod.com/1996xmasnewsletter.txt


********************
maglight packaging

https://www.google.ca/search?q=magl...ved=0ahUKEwiC5MPbn6TPAhXK6CYKHSojCG0Q_AUIBigB

 

[mauidreemn]

Your statement using word "just" implies all they can do is recommend more investigation. And they heard from far more than Kane. My previous links proved that.



They heard from dozens of witnesses over 13 months and went over 30,000+ pieces of evidence. Exactly in what way should they have gone further? They 'way a grand jury works' is if they find reason to indict, they indict. Why would they continue? That's not their job.



We're disagreeing on your above stated points that the grand jury

(1) Can "just" recommend more investigation
(2) That the grand jury only heard evidence from Kane.

I'm still not sure what we are disagreeing about? And the grand jury met for periodically over the 13 months. I think DA Hunter should have indicted and brought this to trial. So what are we disagreeing about?

 

[Tadpole12]

Wow .. I can't seem.to find the Wikipedia now. I wish I would have screenshot it. It is gone.

Did anyone save a screenshot? It is definitely gone. It was online around 7 hours ago. I was googling things at lunch time in the Midwest.

[h=3]Wikipedia:Requested moves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves

1. Cached
2. Similar

23 hours ago - One theory of the death is that it was caused by her brother Burke, who at age 9 was ... I'm also not quite sure whether "Death of JonBenét Ramsey"or "Killing of ...

 

[PrimeSuspect]

If true it is an extreme act by a very unstable individual.

We have a 9 year old smashing his sister's skull in. Then he dragging her downstairs, after taping her mouth with duct tape, by the neck using a rope and some stick. Since no-one has mentioned violent behavior in him prior, its all escalated pretty quickly. Not that I'm doubting you.

I agree. It's playing out in a frenzy of how Burke maliciously murdered his sister, the same awful story was applied to Lindy Chamberlain's son, Aidan, after her daughter, Azaria was taken by a dingo. Yes, she was taken by a dingo, fact.

 

[Magdalyn]

Yes, a true bill is a vote to indict, which means to bring the case to trial. A grand jury only hears one side of the evidence. I'm not sure what we are disagreeing on?

I know how a grand jury works. They heard evidence from Kane and I think the case should have gone further.

I'm still not sure what we are disagreeing about? And the grand jury met for periodically over the 13 months. I think DA Hunter should have indicted and brought this to trial. So what are we disagreeing about?

I replied to your question in the last 2 sentences of my post.

We're disagreeing on your above stated points that the grand jury

(1) Can "just" recommend more investigation
(2) That the grand jury only heard evidence from Kane.

:seeya:

 

[Bill W]

I agree. It's playing out in a frenzy of how Burke maliciously murdered his sister, the same awful story was applied to Lindy Chamberlain's son, Aidan, after her daughter, Azaria was taken by a dingo. Yes, she was taken by a dingo, fact.

There are some good points there. I think I'm now DDI: Dingo Did It. I always thought that Dingo in the family Christmas picture was strangely out of place, and yet nobody ever mentioned it. And come to think of it, Stine was probably covering for the Dingo after that 911 call on the 23rd

 

[mauidreemn]

I replied to your question in the last 2 sentences of my post.



:seeya:

Excuse my wording. :shame: The grand jury heard overwhelming evidence from a biased and possibly mislead BPD. And indictment means an....indictment. DA Hunter should have followed through. But it still stands, innocent until proven guilty

 

[expat79]

The pineapple. I couldn't make out the picture on it's own. Looked like apples or pear pieces to me. Burke was looking intently at that pic trying to figure it out, not avoiding it.

There's only one big problem with your explanation: his fingerprints were on the bowl.

OF COURSE he knew what it was.

 

[mhenry1]

First time poster here.

I've leaned toward IDI for years now, but the CBS special made a compelling argument for BDI and it's really had me thinking. I do think it makes the most since of any RDI theory, but there's just a part of me that can't make that leap yet. A couple of issues:

-If it was an accident, why do all the elaborate staging? They could have staged her body anywhere. They could have made it look like she fell down the stairs. The whole garrote and tying up is way overboard and quite devious, of which I don't believe the parents to capable of doing that to their daughter. The police would have probably taken them at face value had they claimed it was an accident. Way easier and more believable.
-The ransom note. I find it hard to believe that panicked, desperate, grief-stricken parents would have the state of mind to write that. It could have been 10x shorter. Also, would grief stricken parents use the words "execution" and "beheaded" in reference to their daughter?
-I can't get on board with Burke being a sociopath or even troubled, just by the Dr. Phil interview and snippets of his childhood interviews. In the 20 years of this case, this is the first time anyone has speculated on Burke's psychological well being. I've never heard a family friend, teacher, investigator say anything about Burke being a problem child of any sort.
-The DNA. Does the DNA under her fingernails, her long johns, and her underwear all match the same profile? Does anyone know this? If the DNA was from a factory worker, is this same DNA found on the other unused underwear from the package?
-And while we're on DNA, wouldn't Burke, Patsy, and John's DNA be all over JonBenet had they killed/staged her? I'd expect DNA to be all over the tape, the knot, the garrote, the rope, her clothing. Maybe the parents would have worn gloves, but would Burke have been that sophisticated, especially if he fashioned the garrote?

I'm sure I have more questions, but these are off the top of my head now.

 

[Tadpole12]

These instant experts and various IDI trolls are making this site a chore to read. - s

uhm

 

[Tadpole12]

o
l
y


m
a
r
l
e
r
s

used for initial dna testing

 

[carolinea]

CR,

9
5

http://blabbieville.tripod.com/1995xmasnewsletter.txt

96

http://blabbieville.tripod.com/1996xmasnewsletter.txt


********************
maglight packaging

https://www.google.ca/search?q=magl...ved=0ahUKEwiC5MPbn6TPAhXK6CYKHSojCG0Q_AUIBigB

That 1995 one made me so sad and is a poignant reminder of just what a tragedy this whole thing is.

I did find it interesting that it mentions Burke was in Boy Scouts. Don't they learn how to tie various kinds of knots in Boy Scouts?

 

[mauidreemn]

These instant experts and various IDI trolls are making this site a chore to read. - s

uhm

Most don't post here because we know the side this site is on. We are afraid we will be banned as many have been. That is the biggest travesty. I'm not a troll and I have no idea who did what. But I know that many, many are afraid to post on this site regarding the Jonbenet case

 

[Tadpole12]

LW, Newsweek, framework:


http://www.newsweek.com/jonbenet-ra...burke-ramsey-suing-cbs-over-new-murder-501571

JonBenet Ramsey Family Lawyer: Why Burke Ramsey is Suing CBS Over New Murder Claims

By L. Lin Wood On 9/22/16 at 10:37 AM

 

[Tadpole12]

Most don't post here because we know the side this site is on. We are afraid we will be banned as many have been. That is the biggest travesty. I'm not a troll and I have no idea who did what. But I know that many, many are afraid to post on this site regarding the Jonbenet case

cool ...

 

[mauidreemn]

cool ...

Aces. See my point?

 

[Tadpole12]

four markers used in initial dna testing?

 

[reintarnation]

Most don't post here because we know the side this site is on. We are afraid we will be banned as many have been. That is the biggest travesty. I'm not a troll and I have no idea who did what. But I know that many, many are afraid to post on this site regarding the Jonbenet case

You can review the forum rules that explain the reason for all of that. As far as I have seen, no one who respectfully debates the case in accordance with the known evidence has ever been banned.

Because of the evidence that has been discussed in this forum in thousands of posts and for more than a decade, there are some things that are simply wasteful rehashing if debated again, which ruins the experience for those who have long followed the case and muddies the water for newer folks trying to find the truth. That doesn't mean you have to read all of that before you too can post, but it does mean you should fact check things before posting them as fact, and where you are unsure or can't find what you need to fact check, you should ask questions.

And in all fairness, this is a private website paid for by the individuals who own and operate it (with the help of ads of course). Just because it is free for us to use doesn't change that. It's not like other forums owned by a corporation with paid moderators, attorneys, and terms of service. The owners of this site are free to enforce whatever terms they please, and, IMO, they do so fairly.