Three minus two leaves one

[wengr]

"On or between December 25, and December 26, 1886, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (and a separate document lists 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."

It says what it says. No more and no less.

There imo is really no reason to worry about JAR secretly flying in, or secret santa, or mythical intruders, or satanic sex rituals, or aliens or whatever your personal bias is.
A group of people reviewed evidence and testimony and indicted two of the three people known to have been in the house with permitting JBR to be in a dangerous situation. These jurors saw thru the bullSmit and rejected the intruder theory. That leaves one person in the house to actually be the danger.
Lets not forget:
There was a report of fecal contaminated candy in JBR's room - also
It's possible that someone tried to anonymously leave a clue by bending a dictionary page to a certain word.
And it's very possible that some of the marks on JBR were caused by an item belonging to the third occupant, who by the way cannot legally be named.

Really, what more do we need?
Imo, if the medical records were not sealed we might likely know more about the extent of the dangerous situation that the R's were indicted for. But, of course the R's made sure that the records were sealed.
Now of course this is simply my opinion - but it would seem that the some in the GJ would share it.

 

[LinasK]

"On or between December 25, and December 26, 1886, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (and a separate document lists 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."

It says what it says. No more and no less.

There imo is really no reason to worry about JAR secretly flying in, or secret santa, or mythical intruders, or satanic sex rituals, or aliens or whatever your personal bias is.
A group of people reviewed evidence and testimony and indicted two of the three people known to have been in the house with permitting JBR to be in a dangerous situation. These jurors saw thru the bullSmit and rejected the intruder theory. That leaves one person in the house to actually be the danger.
Lets not forget:
There was a report of fecal contaminated candy in JBR's room - also
It's possible that someone tried to anonymously leave a clue by bending a dictionary page to a certain word.
And it's very possible that some of the marks on JBR were caused by an item belonging to the third occupant, who by the way cannot legally be named.

Really, what more do we need?
Imo, if the medical records were not sealed we might likely know more about the extent of the dangerous situation that the R's were indicted for. But, of course the R's made sure that the records were sealed.
Now of course this is simply my opinion - but it would seem that the some in the GJ would share it.

I disagree- I don't think Burke did it, I have always and still think John did it- molested her and killed her and Patsy helped with the coverup.

 

[x_files]

I disagree- I don't think Burke did it, I have always and still think John did it- molested her and killed her and Patsy helped with the coverup.

I waver between John did and Burke did it.
If Burke did it, I still think JR was molesting both children and Burke play acted and accidently killed JBR.

 

[wengr]

I disagree- I don't think Burke did it, I have always and still think John did it- molested her and killed her and Patsy helped with the coverup.

Ok , fair enough. But imo it's also fair to say that now that we have the actual indictments, that the burden is on PDI, JDI, PandJDI, and IDI etc. to explain why they feel that their opinion should be weighted higher than that of the GJ. Would you agree?

 

[LinasK]

Ok , fair enough. But imo it's also fair to say that now that we have the actual indictments, that the burden is on PDI, JDI, PandJDI, and IDI etc. to explain why they feel that their opinion should be weighted higher than that of the GJ. Would you agree?

I think the Grand Jury is in agreement with JDI/PDI/P&JDI. The only thing I think it rules out is IDI- they've been like crickets in here since the findings were released. Both John and Patsy were named in this indictment. I don't see it letting either of them off the hook. I see no evidence that Burke was involved.

 

[wengr]

I think the Grand Jury is in agreement with JDI/PDI/P&JDI. The only thing I think it rules out is IDI- they've been like crickets in here since the findings were released. Both John and Patsy were named in this indictment. I don't see it letting either of them off the hook. I see no evidence that Burke was involved.

I agree that there is no non circumstantial evidence for BDI.
However, If BDI, and parents are responsible for the staging, etc. then it can be said that there is no non circumstantial evidence for PDI, JDI, etc.
There is debate as to what is staging and what is not. What non circumstantial evidence against JR or PR exists that cannot possibly be considered actually evidence of staging, and therefore analogous with BDI, and the way I interpret the indictments?

 

[ElleElle]

I disagree- I don't think Burke did it, I have always and still think John did it- molested her and killed her and Patsy helped with the coverup.

I think Patsy did the head trauma and John did the sexual assault. No Burke, I believe he was sleeping and had no clue what was going on.

"Wicked Attraction"... Three - One = Two

 

[redheadedgal]

The only thing I think it rules out is IDI- they've been like crickets in here since the findings were released.

IDI are somewhere no doubt, going on and on about how the indictments mean diddly-squat... :facepalm:

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

"On or between December 25, and December 26, 1886, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (and a separate document lists 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."

It says what it says. No more and no less.

There imo is really no reason to worry about JAR secretly flying in, or secret santa, or mythical intruders, or satanic sex rituals, or aliens or whatever your personal bias is.
A group of people reviewed evidence and testimony and indicted two of the three people known to have been in the house with permitting JBR to be in a dangerous situation. These jurors saw thru the bullSmit and rejected the intruder theory. That leaves one person in the house to actually be the danger.
Lets not forget:
There was a report of fecal contaminated candy in JBR's room - also
It's possible that someone tried to anonymously leave a clue by bending a dictionary page to a certain word.
And it's very possible that some of the marks on JBR were caused by an item belonging to the third occupant, who by the way cannot legally be named.

Really, what more do we need?
Imo, if the medical records were not sealed we might likely know more about the extent of the dangerous situation that the R's were indicted for. But, of course the R's made sure that the records were sealed.
Now of course this is simply my opinion - but it would seem that the some in the GJ would share it.

BBM: Wrong century but everything else is spot-on.

 

[questfortrue]

I listened to the radio show Sunday with Karas and Kolar. So the indictment does make it sound like there may have been a 3rd person who committed the murder. And that’s the way Kolar sees it. Beth Karas wasn’t quite as sure, though.

Agree with SuperDave this indictment was likely the only indictment the grand jury felt secure enough about to recommend for trial, totally avoiding a direct murder charge. Where is the murder charge, if one or another of them assisted? I think it might have been in one of the other charges which we didn’t get to see because it was not signed off on by the GJ foreman.

Like a few others have proposed here, perhaps it is meant to be read as one of them was the killer and the other helped. They just didn’t know who the killer was. It does not appear to me, and respectfully others might disagree, that they thought BR was the killer with any kind of absolute certainty at all. Why I consider that the GJ didn’t lean that way is because in all their evidence gathering, in all the BPD and DA investigations of others out there, they did not drop any of the additional footwork to find evidence of a killer. If they (the GJ, DA) thought for sure they had a killer in BR, it would seem to me they would just shut this down. I don’t think it was determined in their months of testimony and evidence review. In fact, it seems like ML considered the indictment worthless and went after MK**r, but that’s another story. All moo

 

[gramcracker]

The only thing I think it rules out is IDI- they've been like crickets in here since the findings were released. Both John and Patsy were named in this indictment. I don't see it letting either of them off the hook.

IDI are somewhere no doubt, going on and on about how the indictments mean diddly-squat... :facepalm:

the crickets now in contrast to the recent ferocious and concentrated campaign clearly shows that it was all about getting in front of the GJ reveal

 

[Ausgirl]

As a poster who was attempting to at least explore the IDI theories here, I will say that I quit posting on the Ramsey forum some weeks ago now, mostly due to having a gutful of the type of spite and scorn toward other posters and their opinions permitted here, as illustrated in the posts above. Must you really be snide? Really?

Sorry, but it really gets a bit much.

 

[madeleine]

If they had no evidence that one of the 2 adults actually killed JB that doesn't mean there was evidence that BR did .It's still possible that one of the adults did it but they were lucky,the cops don't have a murder weapon,there isn't even an exact COD,etc...the juror said "we didn't know who did what".

 

[cf1140]

I think what the grand jury meant is that either Patsy or John killed JBR but they couldn't pinpoint which one so they charged both with this lesser charge.

 

[Cherry]

I think burke did it and I'd like to know some things about him in his college years and life, does he date, what's his PC show..things like that. It would really be of great interest if LE could do a percursory search of his current pc and communique....all forms to see if he has any interest in CP. Does he date, is he normal; is he deviant...etc.

This may be what Patsy was trying to cover up: Maybe what her own son did. I dk; just theories still; but I agree that 3 - 2
= 1. No intruder imo. And; btw all of this is just that MHO.

 

[madeleine]

I think burke did it and I'd like to know some things about him in his college years and life, does he date, what's his PC show..things like that. It would really be of great interest if LE could do a percursory search of his current pc and communique....all forms to see if he has any interest in CP. Does he date, is he normal; is he deviant...etc.

This may be what Patsy was trying to cover up: Maybe what her own son did. I dk; just theories still; but I agree that 3 - 2
= 1. No intruder imo. And; btw all of this is just that MHO.

@bold
based on what?sounds more like harassment IMO

 

[wengr]

If they had no evidence that one of the 2 adults actually killed JB that doesn't mean there was evidence that BR did .It's still possible that one of the adults did it but they were lucky,the cops don't have a murder weapon,there isn't even an exact COD,etc...the juror said "we didn't know who did what".

Yes "We did not know who did what"is an interesting comment. Imo, it is not indicative of one theory over the other. It could simply mean that they don't know which action killed JBR, which parent did each act of staging etc.
Does anyone know if, as a result of these released findings, the GJ members are now allowed to speak?

 

[Darlene733510]

If only we had access to those medical records, I think they would prove that the one who killed JBR was going to counseling, because of hatred for JBR.
The fact that the GJ reached their verdict the day after BR testified, says a lot.That is the biggest reason I think the parents did the staging, and covered up for him.
If he was completely innocent, we may have seen his testimony, but we have the age factor here, so we may never know the real truth.

 

[wengr]

If only we had access to those medical records, I think they would prove that the one who killed JBR was going to counseling, because of hatred for JBR.
The fact that the GJ reached their verdict the day after BR testified, says a lot.That is the biggest reason I think the parents did the staging, and covered up for him.
If he was completely innocent, we may have seen his testimony, but we have the age factor here, so we may never know the real truth.

Agreed. The whole island of privacy and medical record thing is interesting. If my child was murdered by an intruder, one of the last things on my mind would be making sure that my other child's medical records were sealed.