Was Burke Involved # 5

[DeDee]

Politely snipped for focus of the TimeLine

The timeline with John Fernie bothers me too. They described having the RN on the floor back by the study door. The first officer arrives and they explain to him about the kidnapping. They pick up the note and put it back onto the spiral staircase. Some time before they picked the note off of the floor and put it on the spiral staircase, John Fernie was supposed to arrive at the door and see some of the words on the note before he walks around the house to the front door. It would have taken him less than 20 seconds to reach the front door, but John and Patsy had plenty of time to convince the police officer there was a problem. They never mentioned that they were interrupted by Fernie. That doesn't work at all.

From Post 1125 in the "Patsy Ramsey" Thread:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey&p=10604695#post10604695

Thursday, December 26, 1996
Approximate Sequence Events & Approximate Arrival/Departure

Patsy Ramsey called 911 (5:52am)
Patsy Ramsey phoned Whites
Patsy Ramsey phoned Fernies
John Ramsey (reading note)
Burke Ramsey (sleeping??)
JonBenet Ramsey (missing)
Officer Rick French arrived (5:59am)
Officer Karl Veitch arrived
Sgt. Paul Reichenbach arrived
Fleet White arrived (6:30am)
Priscilla White arrived (6:30am)
John Fernie arrived via the alleyway and walked to side patio to read the RN that was on the floor
Barbara Fernie arrived
Mary Lou Jedamus-Advocate (6:45am)
Grace Morlock-Advocate (6:45am)
Officer Barry Weiss (6:45am)
Officer Sue Barchlow (6:45am)
Priscilla White phones home (6:45am) and within 15 min. BR is ushered out of the front door.
Reverend Rol Hoverstock (7:00am)
Burke taken to Whites (7:00am)
K-9 Unit on standby (7:33am)
Sgt. Paul Reichenbach meets Arndt* to transfer recording devices required to LA
Det. Linda Arndt arrives (8:10am)* with the recording equipment, the 1st detective arrives
Det. Fred Patterson (8:10am)
Crime scene investigators dusting prints
JonBenet Bedroom sealed (10:30am)

Back at BPD while this is going on, we know calls were made to assure the Ramsey's were to be treated as victims. Maybe those were conf calls or meetings about the kidnapping in Boulder and Lockheed Martin because actually, the Ramsey's were provided with an island of privacy and lots of other comforts million dollar lawyers can provide.

Linda Arndt phoned Sgt. Mason (12:00pm)
Linda Arndt phoned Sgt. Mason (12:30pm)
JonBenet found murdered (1:10pm)
Det. Linda Arndt dialed 911 (1:12pm)
Officer Barry Weiss returned (1:20pm)
Det. Michael Everett (1:20pm)
Priscilla White phones home (1:30pm)
JRamsey phones Gary Merriman (1:30pm)
John Ramsey phones his pilot (1:40pm)
Sgt. Larry Mason arrives (1:45pm)
FBI Agent Ron Walker arrives (1:45pm)
JR signed search form (2:15pm)
Ramsey left residence (2:15pm)
House empty (2:35pm)
BPD Tech videotaped house
Dr. John Meyer arrived (8:23pm)
Sgt. Larry Mason to press (10:45pm)
Det. Linda Arndt left house (11:44pm)

A proper shoutout to acandyrose for providing the above information by maintaining her website

 

[UKGuy]

Nice red herring. It's not about being broken off at both ends. that's clear as day. It's about being well.... whittled.

You'd have to be blind as a bat to not see it as being whittled down.

If you cannot see that as whittled well, that's your prerogative. I say it's whittled.

Ambitioned,
I do not see any evidence of Whittling on these brushes. The breaks look clean and appear to shoehorn together nicely, something I would not expect if they were whittled.

Why would the person who aspyxiated JonBenet using in combination the broken paintbrush and ligature want to stop practise some Whittling then resume the asphyxiation process?

Burke's knife was not found in the wine-cellar, and from memory, it was not the same one the housekeeper hid away?

So the connection between Burke's knife and JonBenet being in the basement seems tenuous at best.

If Burke's knife was used to cut the ligature what would that tell us? There should be microscopic fibers left on the cutting edge which would be visible and under an electron scanning microscope.

Its just as feasible that Patsy used Burke's knife to cut the ligature cord, simply because it was available.

I reckon its BDI but BR also doing the ligature and paintbrush asphyxiation seems a stretch to me, who knows?

.

 

[DeDee]

Ambitioned,
I do not see any evidence of Whittling on these brushes. The breaks look clean and appear to shoehorn together nicely, something I would not expect if they were whittled.

Why would the person who aspyxiated JonBenet using in combination the broken paintbrush and ligature want to stop practise some Whittling then resume the asphyxiation process?

Burke's knife was not found in the wine-cellar, and from memory, it was not the same one the housekeeper hid away?

So the connection between Burke's knife and JonBenet being in the basement seems tenuous at best.

If Burke's knife was used to cut the ligature what would that tell us? There should be microscopic fibers left on the cutting edge which would be visible and under an electron scanning microscope.

Its just as feasible that Patsy used Burke's knife to cut the ligature cord, simply because it was available.

I reckon its BDI but BR also doing the ligature and paintbrush asphyxiation seems a stretch to me, who knows?

.

BR possessed several knives so I don't know if this was the one hidden from BR or not.

Red pocket knife with broken ornament (41KKY)
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-inventory.htm


(emphasis is mine)
Page 5, Line 15 - 16 from JFs sworn deposition
"...when we were waiting for the calls from the supposed kidnappers,..."

http://www.acandyrose.com/06132001fernie-millertrial5.gif

 

[UKGuy]

BR possessed several knives so I don't know if this was the one hidden from BR or not.

Red pocket knife with broken ornament (41KKY)
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-inventory.htm


(emphasis is mine)
Page 5, Line 15 - 16 from JFs sworn deposition
"...when we were waiting for the calls from the supposed kidnappers,..."

http://www.acandyrose.com/06132001fernie-millertrial5.gif

DeDee,
BBM: It might be. Since BR had more than one knife then we do not know which one is on the evidence list?

If Red pocket knife with broken ornament (41KKY) is Swiss and has his name on it, then I reckon its the one.

shakedowntitle.com are saying this:

[Although] Hoffmann-Pugh never saw the knife again… it resurfaced [in the evidence inventory] following the 10-day police search [of the Ramsey home]…Specifically, Detective Kerry Yamaguchi discovered Burke’s knife on a countertop near a sink just down a basement corridor from the [wine cellar] where JonBenét’s body was found.

Its shakedowntitle who are claiming that the knife found by Detective Kerry Yamaguchi is the same one hidden away upstairs Hoffmann-Pugh?

I'd like something stronger to link BR with the Red Knife found on the countertop. Anyone can use a knife, and leave it anywhere they chose.

What has Whittling got to do with killing JonBenet, and where are the shards resulting from this alleged Whittling?

,

 

[icedtea4me]

Nice red herring. It's not about being broken off at both ends. that's clear as day. It's about being well.... whittled.

You'd have to be blind as a bat to not see it as being whittled down.

If you cannot see that as whittled well, that's your prerogative. I say it's whittled.

Are you saying it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for Burke to have used this paintbrush unless it was whittled?

 

[singularity]

Snipped to address this particular point -- I'm confused by your question: if you are assuming BR committed the crime, are you implying that you don't believe the parents were involved in covering for BR at all? Are you saying BR wrote the ransom note, and not the parents? That his parents didn't stage anything?

I like DeDee and certainly not going to put words in her mouth but that is the problem(well, one of them) that I have with BDI in general.

The deeper it tries to go from its shallow surface, it attempts to make John and Patsy background characters in the story. It has to do this because there is so little linking him to the events that night/morning. It has a fingerprint on a fruit snack(it usually doesn't like to take Patsy's print into account), a knife that may have absolutely nothing linking it to the crime, and some poopy pants that could mean anything or nothing and may not even be his.

Once it gets distance from John and Patsy and fades them into the background, it allows carte blanche for all things Burke(BDI-All as they say). I've seen scenarios where he's a maniacal poop monster running through the house laughing as he's just bludgeoned/strangled his sister. Apparently John and Patsy are in temporary comas as this is occuring.

Where it really goes off the rails for me is the portrayal of Patsy and John as innocent doves who awaken to a nightmare of Burke's making. This is now becoming a pattern in BDI. John and Patsy are completely ignorant of the night's events even though there are less than zero reasons to believe these two people were ignorant of anything that night.

Burke strangled her, whipped up the garrote, etc. even though the only Ramsey that can actually be linked to this is Patsy, who was apparently asleep and clueless to the unfolding events.

Burke redressed her for reasons unknown and she may not have been redressed at all but the Ramsey who can be linked to this is John.....asleep and clueless to the unfolding events.

Two knives have been mentioned, but only one is taken into consideration since it is believed to be Burke's. The other may as well not even exist.


tea bag found in a glass becomes Burke being the only tea drinker in the household.

BDI has him bashing her head in with a flashlight even though he places this flashlight in his own hands. How many murder suspects do you know that go on record placing the supposed murder weapon in their own hands?


Other examples(you guys know the list) but pressed for time at the moment.

Evidence such as the suitcase, cigar, etc. for example is also faded into the background as it doesn't help push the theory. When key pieces of evidence need to be ignored to be able to squeeze the square peg into the round hole, its a sign that its going down the wrong path.

I realize people can change their minds and nothing wrong with that(I used to straddle the fence myself), but it amazes me to see people who were PDI for years and made a damn good, in depth case for it now have Patsy waking up with no clue as to what happened.

Patsy and John are not background characters in this tragedy. They are front and center no matter how many fingerprints are on a bowl of pineapple, how many pairs of poopy pants are in the house, or how many flashlights are in the house.


I'm not aiming this at specific people but more just a post towards BDI in general. Some BDI posters are my favorite posters and I like how otg digs really deep into specific areas of the case, such as trying to figure out what caused the head wound as he doesn't believe it was the flashlight(neither do I).

 

[k-mac]

I like DeDee and certainly not going to put words in her mouth but that is the problem(well, one of them) that I have with BDI in general.

The deeper it tries to go from its shallow surface, it attempts to make John and Patsy background characters in the story. It has to do this because there is so little linking him to the events that night/morning. It has a fingerprint on a fruit snack(it usually doesn't like to take Patsy's print into account), a knife that may have absolutely nothing linking it to the crime, and some poopy pants that could mean anything or nothing and may not even be his.

Once it gets distance from John and Patsy and fades them into the background, it allows carte blanche for all things Burke(BDI-All as they say). I've seen scenarios where he's a maniacal poop monster running through the house laughing as he's just bludgeoned/strangled his sister. Apparently John and Patsy are in temporary comas as this is occuring.

Where it really goes off the rails for me is the portrayal of Patsy and John as innocent doves who awaken to a nightmare of Burke's making. This is now becoming a pattern in BDI. John and Patsy are completely ignorant of the night's events even though there are less than zero reasons to believe these two people were ignorant of anything that night.

Burke strangled her, whipped up the garrote, etc. even though the only Ramsey that can actually be linked to this is Patsy, who was apparently asleep and clueless to the unfolding events.

Burke redressed her for reasons unknown and she may not have been redressed at all but the Ramsey who can be linked to this is John.....asleep and clueless to the unfolding events.

Two knives have been mentioned, but only one is taken into consideration since it is believed to be Burke's. The other may as well not even exist.


tea bag found in a glass becomes Burke being the only tea drinker in the household.

BDI has him bashing her head in with a flashlight even though he places this flashlight in his own hands. How many murder suspects do you know that go on record placing the supposed murder weapon in their own hands?


Other examples(you guys know the list) but pressed for time at the moment.

Evidence such as the suitcase, cigar, etc. for example is also faded into the background as it doesn't help push the theory. When key pieces of evidence need to be ignored to be able to squeeze the square peg into the round hole, its a sign that its going down the wrong path.

I realize people can change their minds and nothing wrong with that(I used to straddle the fence myself), but it amazes me to see people who were PDI for years and made a damn good, in depth case for it now have Patsy waking up with no clue as to what happened.

Patsy and John are not background characters in this tragedy. They are front and center no matter how many fingerprints are on a bowl of pineapple, how many pairs of poopy pants are in the house, or how many flashlights are in the house.


I'm not aiming this at specific people but more just a post towards BDI in general. Some BDI posters are my favorite posters and I like how otg digs really deep into specific areas of the case, such as trying to figure out what caused the head wound as he doesn't believe it was the flashlight(neither do I).

the indictments get passed around as confirmation as BDI.
there is nothing except innuendo and assumption at play.
collectively it could imply a third party but individually (and they are worded so some charges can be dropped etc without compromising the felony)
it reads simply john covering for patsy ...knowing she was physically abusing that child and then helped her clean up.
or pasty covering for john knowing he had been molesting her.
it doesnt support BDI .imo
its taken me awhile to get here. this was my only attachment to bdi was the bills. I reckon the wording would be clearer implying a minor was at fault. especially when its common law that children under 10 can't be prosecuted. there is really no reason to hide it.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinion_Docs/JRamsey Grand Jury.pdf
read them here

 

[UKGuy]

I like DeDee and certainly not going to put words in her mouth but that is the problem(well, one of them) that I have with BDI in general.

The deeper it tries to go from its shallow surface, it attempts to make John and Patsy background characters in the story. It has to do this because there is so little linking him to the events that night/morning. It has a fingerprint on a fruit snack(it usually doesn't like to take Patsy's print into account), a knife that may have absolutely nothing linking it to the crime, and some poopy pants that could mean anything or nothing and may not even be his.

Once it gets distance from John and Patsy and fades them into the background, it allows carte blanche for all things Burke(BDI-All as they say). I've seen scenarios where he's a maniacal poop monster running through the house laughing as he's just bludgeoned/strangled his sister. Apparently John and Patsy are in temporary comas as this is occuring.

Where it really goes off the rails for me is the portrayal of Patsy and John as innocent doves who awaken to a nightmare of Burke's making. This is now becoming a pattern in BDI. John and Patsy are completely ignorant of the night's events even though there are less than zero reasons to believe these two people were ignorant of anything that night.

Burke strangled her, whipped up the garrote, etc. even though the only Ramsey that can actually be linked to this is Patsy, who was apparently asleep and clueless to the unfolding events.

Burke redressed her for reasons unknown and she may not have been redressed at all but the Ramsey who can be linked to this is John.....asleep and clueless to the unfolding events.

Two knives have been mentioned, but only one is taken into consideration since it is believed to be Burke's. The other may as well not even exist.


tea bag found in a glass becomes Burke being the only tea drinker in the household.

BDI has him bashing her head in with a flashlight even though he places this flashlight in his own hands. How many murder suspects do you know that go on record placing the supposed murder weapon in their own hands?


Other examples(you guys know the list) but pressed for time at the moment.

Evidence such as the suitcase, cigar, etc. for example is also faded into the background as it doesn't help push the theory. When key pieces of evidence need to be ignored to be able to squeeze the square peg into the round hole, its a sign that its going down the wrong path.

I realize people can change their minds and nothing wrong with that(I used to straddle the fence myself), but it amazes me to see people who were PDI for years and made a damn good, in depth case for it now have Patsy waking up with no clue as to what happened.

Patsy and John are not background characters in this tragedy. They are front and center no matter how many fingerprints are on a bowl of pineapple, how many pairs of poopy pants are in the house, or how many flashlights are in the house.


I'm not aiming this at specific people but more just a post towards BDI in general. Some BDI posters are my favorite posters and I like how otg digs really deep into specific areas of the case, such as trying to figure out what caused the head wound as he doesn't believe it was the flashlight(neither do I).

singularity,

Where it really goes off the rails for me is the portrayal of Patsy and John as innocent doves who awaken to a nightmare of Burke's making. This is now becoming a pattern in BDI. John and Patsy are completely ignorant of the night's events even though there are less than zero reasons to believe these two people were ignorant of anything that night.

The parents may have been ignorant until they awoke to find JonBenet dead?

Burke strangled her, whipped up the garrote, etc. even though the only Ramsey that can actually be linked to this is Patsy, who was apparently asleep and clueless to the unfolding events.

Maybe BR's touch-dna is on the ligature, maybe its JR's who knows? There is nothing in principle preventing BR from using a ligature to asphyxiate JonBenet.

Burke redressed her for reasons unknown and she may not have been redressed at all but the Ramsey who can be linked to this is John.....asleep and clueless to the unfolding events.

JonBenet wearing those Bloomingdale size-12's along with Burke's long johns is one big Red Flag. So much so, Patsy has a few fairy tales to explain how JonBenet became dressed as she did.

Two knives have been mentioned, but only one is taken into consideration since it is believed to be Burke's. The other may as well not even exist.

The knife found does not prove anything, unless there are fibers from the ligature deposited on the blade edge. A scanning electron microscope would reveal this.

tea bag found in a glass becomes Burke being the only tea drinker in the household.

mmm, you had a relapse there, Burke's fingerprint was found on both the glass and the glass serving bowl. Which links him directly to the breakfast bar.

i.e. Tea drinking and whether pineapple or/and fruit cocktail, cherries etc, were consumed is neither here or there, what matters is that the contents of JonBenet's digestive tract shows us she was awake when the parents claim she was sound asleep.

Its the same with the Pink Barbie Nightgown. It has Burke Ramsey's touch-dna on it, how come? The nightgown was meant to have accidently arrived into the wine-cellar via static transfer from the Dryer. So where did the bloodstains deposited on the nightgown come from?

How about the parents staging a wine-cellar staging just for your delectation? Could it be they were largely successful in removing incriminating evidence linking the death of JonBenet directly with Burke Ramsey?

There is forensic evidence linking both JR and PR to the wine-cellar crime-scene, but not enough to demonstrate either or both were soley responsible for JonBenet's death.

I prefer PDI to JDI and BDI to either of those since BDI explains much more of the forensic evidence including why Patsy is lying over saying she opened the Partially Opened Gifts, Kolar asserts it was Burke. Why Patsy is lying about dressing JonBenet in Burke Ramsey's long johns despite having a complete wardrobe of clothes, feet away, at her disposal. Why Patsy is lying about putting the Bloomingdale size-12's she purchased for her niece Jenny into JonBenet's underwear drawer. BPD say none were found in the drawer, whut!

The common thread here is that Patsy is protecting Burke Ramsey not John Ramsey, JR's fingerprints were not found at the breakfast bar or his touch-dna discovered on the Pink Barbie Nightgown.

It looks to me as if Patsy faked a crime-scene down in the basement which JR later amended to become the wine-cellar crime-scene making other artifact such as the the chair, broken window, suitcase all redundant. So although they played a part, once an abduction scenario was agreed the role they played no longer mattered, i.e they were history, which is why JR was inventing just so stories for them long after they ceased to be relevant.


.

 

[UKGuy]

the indictments get passed around as confirmation as BDI.
there is nothing except innuendo and assumption at play.
collectively it could imply a third party but individually (and they are worded so some charges can be dropped etc without compromising the felony)
it reads simply john covering for patsy ...knowing she was physically abusing that child and then helped her clean up.
or pasty covering for john knowing he had been molesting her.
it doesnt support BDI .imo
its taken me awhile to get here. this was my only attachment to bdi was the bills. I reckon the wording would be clearer implying a minor was at fault. especially when its common law that children under 10 can't be prosecuted. there is really no reason to hide it.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinion_Docs/JRamsey Grand Jury.pdf
read them here

k-mac,
No siree, innocent or guilty Burke Ramsey's name, either explicitly or implicitly cannot be referenced on the True Bill. Colorado Statute says so.

We can only infer either a third party or another Ramsey is who is being referred to in the True Bills.

Due to circumstance and lack of forensic evidence we can safely rule out a third party.

We can rule out either parent since the person accused of First Degree Murder could quite simply have been charged as such had it been a parent.

By default that leaves Burke Ramsey in the frame, also explaining why the True Bills were framed as they were, why AH never made them public, etc.

Its not a Smoking Gun, but its as good as. More so since its based on BPD testimony and Grand Jury protocol, i.e. its not theoretical BS!

.

 

[k-mac]

k-mac,
No siree, innocent or guilty Burke Ramsey's name, either explicitly or implicitly cannot be referenced on the True Bill. Colorado Statute says so.

We can only infer either a third party or another Ramsey is who is being referred to in the True Bills.

Due to circumstance and lack of forensic evidence we can safely rule out a third party.

We can rule out either parent since the person accused of First Degree Murder could quite simply have been charged as such had it been a parent.

By default that leaves Burke Ramsey in the frame, also explaining why the True Bills were framed as they were, why AH never made them public, etc.

Its not a Smoking Gun, but its as good as. More so since its based on BPD testimony and Grand Jury protocol, i.e. its not theoretical BS!

.

uk guy your opinion is not fact.
neither is mine but I dont appreciate everything I say being written off yes no from you when you are the biggest assumption taker around here.
I appreciate your input but you counter validated information because it doesn't suit your bdi.
(not that long ago you were JDI ........)
there is no indication in the released bills that it involves anyone other than JR or PR.
assumption only.

not all the bills were released.
we don't know what they are.
M1 is absolutely a possibility and you know it.

 

[UKGuy]

uk guy your opinion is not fact.
neither is mine but I dont appreciate everything I say being written off yes no from you when you are the biggest assumption taker around here.
I appreciate your input but you counter validated information because it doesn't suit your bdi.
(not that long ago you were JDI ........)
there is no indication in the released bills that it involves anyone other than JR or PR.
assumption only.

not all the bills were released.
we don't know what they are.
M1 is absolutely a possibility and you know it.

k-mac,
BBM: LOL, before I was JDI I flirted with BDI on reading BlueCrab's theories all those years ago. BDI simply explains more of the evidence than either PDI or JDI.

M1 is absolutely a possibility and you know it.

Sure, but there is no legal requirement to hold it back if it was one of the parents, that's the point.

Either or both parents are already charged with assisting an offender and child cruelty, why redact a M1 charge?

You redact the M1 charge only in a BDI case, in all other cases First Degree Murder can be levelled and made public, if not its for you to declare cogently why not?

i.e. no hand waiving, ad hominem remarks, reference to beliefs, explain why either or both parents M1 charges cannot be made public?

.

 

[k-mac]

.


Sure, but there is no legal requirement to hold it back if it was one of the parents, that's the point.

Either or both parents are already charged with assisting an offender and child cruelty, why redact a M1 charge?

You redact the M1 charge only in a BDI case, in all other cases First Degree Murder can be levelled and made public, if not its for you to declare cogently why not?

i.e. no hand waiving, ad hominem remarks, reference to beliefs, explain why either or both parents M1 charges cannot be made public?

.

the m1 charges weren't redacted because its BDI???????

nobody knows what the 7 other charges each were.
doesnt take a genius to figure out in a murder case it has to be in the mix somewhere.

the two charges released were done so because they were the only two each signed off by the GJ foreman. nothing more nothing less.
the judge decided the information could be released because it doesn't compromise the murder investigation specifically. imo

I'd give me husbands lefty to see the unsigned bills !!!!!:laughing:

 

[TeaTime]

The unsigned bills were not released because they were not signed. If they weren't signed, the GJ didn't chose to indict on those charges. If the Gj had indicted on murder charges rather than assisting in the cover up and child abuse, the parents would have been arrested.

There is only one explanation for the charges signed by the GJ and that is because they thought the evidence proved that PR and JR helped a 3rd person after the fact. There was only one other person in the home that night and he was too young to be held culpable or to even be named.

It is very simple.

I have long thought that the murder weapon was a hockey puck that was shot into the air with a golf club.

JR refused to allow BR to play hockey or have a hockey stick. The Stine boy was a hockey player and gave BR one of his used pucks, it had tape on it. This is from PR own words, in her book. It was odd to point out and it stuck out to me because the shape of the puck and the force required for such a fracture would match such an event.

But, then there is BR acting out the swinging motion. So. . .

 

[icedtea4me]

The unsigned bills were not released because they were not signed. If they weren't signed, the GJ didn't chose to indict on those charges. If the Gj had indicted on murder charges rather than assisting in the cover up and child abuse, the parents would have been arrested. *snip*

It didn't occur to you that the other seven counts for each parent still exist, did it?

 

[AndHence]

The indictment discussion is interesting, but it's important to remember that establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this case would have been damn near impossible. There was a lack of strong forensic evidence tying the Ramseys to the murder. Some things that would have made a conviction difficult: 1) Fiber evidence is easily disputed and not iron clad. 2) No handwriting expert was willing to testify that Patsy authored the note and the admissibility of handwriting expert testimony is subject to the whims of a judge. 3) No motive. 4) The GJ didn't know who did what and neither would the prosecution, making the case even more difficult.

I'm a RDI generalist and strongly believe that the weight of the circumstantial evidence indicates their involvement, but I know that establishing their guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' would be a tough threshold to meet for any legal team.

 

[k-mac]

*sorry I meant to use the term counts not charges!

 

[TeaTime]

It didn't occur to you that the other seven counts for each parent still exist, did it?

They weren't signed, therefore they are irrelevant.

 

[TeaTime]

The indictment discussion is interesting, but it's important to remember that establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this case would have been damn near impossible. There was a lack of strong forensic evidence tying the Ramseys to the murder. Some things that would have made a conviction difficult: 1) Fiber evidence is easily disputed and not iron clad. 2) No handwriting expert was willing to testify that Patsy authored the note and the admissibility of handwriting expert testimony is subject to the whims of a judge. 3) No motive. 4) The GJ didn't know who did what and neither would the prosecution, making the case even more difficult.

I'm a RDI generalist and strongly believe that the weight of the circumstantial evidence indicates their involvement, but I know that establishing their guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' would be a tough threshold to meet for any legal team.

The term "reasonable" is what is paramount here. Is it reasonable to believe that an intruder entered the home, took the child from her bed, bashed her in the head, sexually molested her - a little bit - to cover past sexual abuse and then strangled her and stashed her body in a hidden unused closet in the basement without making a sound and leaving zero forensic evidence of their presence in the home? No.

When faced with the choice of the most reasonable explanation for the death and an explanation that defies logic and physics, choose the former.

JR is not connected in any way to the scene. PR and BR are connected. BR is not culpable by reason of tender years. PR is culpable. A jury could have and would have, IMHO, made the right decision and sent PR to prison as an accomplice to murder.

Let's not forget that the DA threw up roadblocks to evidence at every step, refused requests for phone and medical records and hired an investigator to create reasonable doubt out of imagination. The DA wasn't going to prosecute this case under any circumstances and didn't take it to trial for fear of a conviction, not fear of an acquittal.

Had this been the child of a poor person, they would still be in prison. Fact.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*
Had this been the child of a poor person, they would still be in prison. Fact.

No, it's not a fact. It's an opinion.

 

[icedtea4me]

They weren't signed, therefore they are irrelevant.

Signed or not signed, they still exist.