We are only dealing in facts and reasonable scenarios from now on

[inspector rex]

I stand by what I originally said. I didn't see what I'd call praise. I might even call some of it acquiescence.

Approval and agreement then, by those who commented. (Acquiescence is agreement or consent by silence or without objection, which by it's very nature could not be quoted.)

Since a part of his investigative team was the Grand Jury he seemed to have ignored an important part.

You might have to clarify what you meant by this.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

"I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time," Hunter told the reporters assembled outside the Boulder County Justice Center on Oct. 13, 1999.

[snip]

No mention that there was an indictment just that they didn't think they had enough evidence. Lying by omission I believe it is called. Also some of his team DID think they should have gone ahead (as mentioned in that article) so not telling the complete truth there either.

Grant said, "Had there been a question of whether to sign a document or not, I would have been among those advising not to indict, because I did not believe there was a winnable case based on the evidence at that time."

[snip]

I don't see any praise just agreement with his decision.

"I absolutely do" believe Hunter made the right decision, said Wise, who is now retired. "And I thought it was a pretty courageous decision, because I know about the public pressure that was being put on everybody who was involved -- but particularly the elected district attorney. Wise said that those advising Hunter were not all of one mind when the decision was made.
"I would say there was not unanimity, or a unanimous decision, by anyone," Wise said. "I know of at least one, and possibly two (prosecutors), who felt it should have been filed, period, end of discussion. And I know of at least two, if not more than two, probably four, that thought there was not enough evidence to file."

[snip]

Ok, you got me here. Praise and agreement, from a guy on Hunter's team. Yep must be objective.

Quoting unnamed juror: "I'm not saying that I am at peace. But I had sympathy with his (Hunter's) decision. I could see the problem that he was in. I could understand what he was doing."

[snip]


But the juror added that, perceiving that it would be a difficult case to try, Hunter's declining to sign the indictment, also known as a true bill, was understandable. And, the juror said, "I think I did believe that they would get more evidence and figure out who did it."

[snip]

As I said, this juror doesn't even agree, just sympathy and understanding. Don't see any praise either.

"You say, 'Our job was well done, we gave them an opinion.' What happened after that, we went through all that and you find out that the bottom line was the district attorney felt there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with any further effort in this regard.

"Can he do that? Yes, he most certainly can."

You must have just read the other bits

Did you even read that last quote? That juror was basically saying that the jury did this great job, went through all this terrible stuff and then the DA wasted their time because he didn't think he had enough evidence and couldn't be bothered getting anymore. Sounds anything but praise to me. Sounds more sarcastic, frustrated and disappointed.

You have one praise filled quote from a guy on Hunter's team, one guy saying he would have advised Hunter to not file if he had been asked and one juror who felt sorry for Hunter and the decision he had to make.

I noticed you didn't highlight this part of the quote:

""I would say there was not unanimity, or a unanimous decision, by anyone," Wise said. "I know of at least one, and possibly two (prosecutors), who felt it should have been filed, period, end of discussion.""

Plus the fact that there is some argument over whether Hunter was allowed to leave the bill unsigned under the law.

Maybe you didn't read all of it.

 

[BOESP]

ac·qui·es·cent
ˌakwēˈes(&#601nt/
adjective
adjective: acquiescent
ready to accept something without protest, or to do what someone else wants.
"the unions were acquiescent and there was no overt conflict"

synonyms:
compliant, complying, consenting, cooperative, willing, obliging, agreeable, amenable, tractable, persuadable, pliant, flexible, unprotesting

I still stand by what I said. As to the second part of your statement, the Grand Jury is a part of the investigative body used to gather evidence (among other things).

We can agree to disagree -- as in seeing things differently; having differing viewpoints; not seeing eye-to-eye; you go your way and I'll go mine; pick one.

 

[inspector rex]

An interesting little snippet from the NY Times, April 21, 1988 (BEFORE the convening of the Grand Jury)

" For prosecutors, grand juries offer the advantage of being able to compel witnesses to testify without much interference from defense lawyers. Operating in total secrecy, grand juries can also subpoena documents.

The drawback is that a grand jury, with a vote by 9 of its 12 members, can hand up an indictment on ''probable cause,'' a lower threshold than ''beyond a reasonable doubt,'' the standard usually used by prosecutors. Also, the prosecutor does not have to follow the jury's recommendation. "

So, it seems that everyone but RDI knows that Hunter was not wrong in deciding not to file charges.

 

[otg]

An interesting little snippet from the NY Times, April 21, 1988 (BEFORE the convening of the Grand Jury)

" For prosecutors, grand juries offer the advantage of being able to compel witnesses to testify without much interference from defense lawyers. Operating in total secrecy, grand juries can also subpoena documents.

The drawback is that a grand jury, with a vote by 9 of its 12 members, can hand up an indictment on ''probable cause,'' a lower threshold than ''beyond a reasonable doubt,'' the standard usually used by prosecutors. Also, the prosecutor does not have to follow the jury's recommendation. "

So, it seems that everyone but RDI knows that Hunter was not wrong in deciding not to file charges.

I think most people (even “RDI”) realize that the threshold is lower in a GJ than in a criminal proceeding. What people have a hard time accepting is Hunter’s unorthodox refusal to sign the indictment and then deliberately choosing his words to make it appear that the GJ didn’t issue any True Bills. You’ve read the statement by Colorado law professor Marianne “Mimi” Wesson that his doing that is not the “proper legal procedure”, so I don’t have to repeat what she said.

But rex, when someone quotes an article, I always like to read the article for myself and appreciate when the poster provides a link. Even without it though, I found the article you referenced:

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/22/us/grand-jury-refocuses-spotlight-on-jonbenet-case.html

While the article was written before the GJ was impaneled, it wasn’t written ten years before. The date is April 21, 1998 (not 1988).

There are also several other things in the article which may cause you to regret quoting it and sending everyone to read. Here are a few more quotes from the article:

The investigation stalled last winter when, after two months of negotiations, the girl's parents, John and Patricia Ramsey, refused to meet with detectives or to allow their 11-year-old son, Burke, to be interviewed.
​

And yet, even though the Ramseys couldn’t meet with investigators (emphasis mine):

In February, Mr. Tracey filmed four days of interviews with Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, focusing in part on the impact of press scrutiny on their lives.
​

And then there’s this (emphasis mine):

Last fall, police officials renewed a standing appeal to the Ramseys to talk to detectives. Mr. Koby offered to fly detectives to the Ramseys' new home in an Atlanta suburb and even enlisted the services of their Episcopal pastor here for a ''trustbuilding'' session.

Through their lawyers, the Ramseys responded that to build ''good faith,'' the Boulder police should allow the family to review all police evidence in the case, even though evidence sharing is usually restricted to indicted suspects. Then, according to a police press release, the Ramseys would submit to written questions.

By late February, negotiations had broken down. Talks also collapsed with Jim Jenkins, a lawyer hired by Mr. Ramsey to represent JonBenet's brother Burke Ramsey, who, the police say, has never been formally interviewed about her death.

''I am disappointed that we have not had more cooperation from the Ramseys in helping us to get to the truth,'' Mr. Hunter said at a news conference in mid-February.
​

 

[CherCher]

We were all lead to believe that no indictment was handed down by the GJ. Maybe not lying in the strictest sense of the word but there was obviously some sleight of hand going on to make us think that was the case, not the reality that Hunter decided not to follow up on the indictment. If Hunter was honest and clear then why did both sides believe it? Do we have to go back and present all the times that a lack of indictment was used to argue Ramsey innocence by IDI?

If IDIs are now going to insist that Hunter was open about the truth of the matter and didn't deliberately muddy the waters then I think I am done - they are just here to troll and are never going to be open to honest debate.

I guess with that brick removed, the foundation of their case looks a little more wobbly so they have to argue something else.

Didn't the Ramseys themselves (in one of their books or interviews) say outright that a GJ refused to indict them? And AH never corrected them.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Didn't the Ramseys themselves (in one of their books or interviews) say outright that a GJ refused to indict them? And AH never corrected them.

This is one example of the Rs denying their indictment from an article I found thanks to one of BOESP's posts (found here, thank you, BOESP!). (Important points BBM):

Patsy Ramsey says she had high hopes for her latest interview with Boulder authorities, but left disappointed.

"I was happy to be there," she told the Denver Rocky Mountain News Thursday. "I thought it was going to be something about other leads. But it was just apparent pretty soon that it was all about me."

<SNIPPED>

"They've left us high and dry. We haven't (been) indicted, and we haven't been cleared. We're just supposed to walk around under this umbrella, which is no- man's land," Patsy Ramsey said.

"I would like to get a good night's rest and not lay awake every night thinking, 'Who could have done this? How did they get into my house? Why didn't I hear her scream? What must she have gone through?"' she said. "I would just like some closure."

Contact Lisa Ryckman at (303) 892-2736 or ryckmanl@RockyMountainNews.com.

September 1, 2000

This article (found here) was apparently posted in 2000. The Rs were indicted in 1999, but here we have PR denying it a year later. We know that this interview with PR in the article took place in 2000 because of the first sentence I bolded, "she told the Denver Rocky Mountain News Thursday,". September 1, 2000, when the article was posted, was a Friday, probably a day after the interview was given.

 

[inspector rex]

Well, I'm guessing there would have been an indictment, if the DA had signed the 'true bill' following the GJ's finding of 'probable cause'.

But in this case, the DA did not believe 'probable cause' would be able to be prosecuted due to lack of evidence to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

I would have thought this obvious.

My quoting of the NY Times article: "The drawback is that a grand jury, with a vote by 9 of its 12 members, can hand up an indictment on ''probable cause,'' a lower threshold than ''beyond a reasonable doubt,'' the standard usually used by prosecutors. Also, the prosecutor does not have to follow the jury's recommendation. "" was in order to support the above, and yes a typo 1998 not 1988.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

Well, I'm guessing there would have been an indictment, if the DA had signed the 'true bill' following the GJ's finding of 'probable cause'.

But in this case, the DA did not believe 'probable cause' would be able to be prosecuted due to lack of evidence to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

I would have thought this obvious.

My quoting of the NY Times article: "The drawback is that a grand jury, with a vote by 9 of its 12 members, can hand up an indictment on ''probable cause,'' a lower threshold than ''beyond a reasonable doubt,'' the standard usually used by prosecutors. Also, the prosecutor does not have to follow the jury's recommendation. "" was in order to support the above, and yes a typo 1998 not 1988.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt Inspector Rex (even though I will probably regret it) and believe that you truly are not understanding what we are saying. Maybe there was not enough evidence for Alex Hunter to feel comfortable signing the true bill. The operative word here is MAYBE. We don't know what evidence and testimony was seen by the GJ because it is being kept secret. You can quote till the cows come home about the reasons why Alex Hunter MAY have not signed the bill but we don't know for sure.

It is a rare enough event that there is cause to speculate why he didn't go through with it. It is also a little hard to swallow the line of not enough evidence when it has been often said that Hunter was one of the roadblocks to getting said evidence. It is easy to say there wasn't enough evidence when you are the one hampering the gathering of it. It is possible that Hunter's idea of not enough evidence was not the same as others. There are also some suggestions that Hunter's dismissal of the true bill was not standard procedure. That is another reason to doubt Hunter's excuse for why he didn't sign it.

That aside, what we are actually arguing here is not whether Hunter had enough evidence to go through with it - it is whether Hunter deliberately let people think that the GJ did not choose to indict the Ramseys. It was the general assumption and not once did Hunter make the truth known. He could have told the truth about that without breaking any secrecy of the GJ. If he had of gone ahead with the indictment, it would have been made known then, so what's the difference?

It also makes a lie of Wise's statement that he was courageous. Hunter would have had a harder time in the press if, at the time, it was known that the GJ passed an indictment and Hunter didn't follow up than if he let everyone believe that the GJ didn't pass an indictment at all. I believe it was phrased in a way to cover Hunter's backside. So brave!

Now I will sit back and wait for all the quotes that prove Hunter corrected the wrongly held belief that the grand jury never signed a true bill to indict the Ramseys.

 

[tovarisch]

Concerning the GJ indictment I have only one simple question to anyone who can provide a light.

If by the GJ conclusion Ramseys were accessering to the killer rather than had been killers themselves then WHO WAS the killer?

Wasn`t it that the cause of JB death was due to strangulation by the garrote, was it?

Who was the person who constructed the garrote and pulled the cord? ? Have they, GJ seen the garrote? Have they read the autopsy report?

Please, after 13 months of investigation they found accessories? And not the killer?

 

[CorallaroC]

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt Inspector Rex (even though I will probably regret it) and believe that you truly are not understanding what we are saying. Maybe there was not enough evidence for Alex Hunter to feel comfortable signing the true bill. The operative word here is MAYBE. We don't know what evidence and testimony was seen by the GJ because it is being kept secret. You can quote till the cows come home about the reasons why Alex Hunter MAY have not signed the bill but we don't know for sure.

It is a rare enough event that there is cause to speculate why he didn't go through with it. It is also a little hard to swallow the line of not enough evidence when it has been often said that Hunter was one of the roadblocks to getting said evidence. It is easy to say there wasn't enough evidence when you are the one hampering the gathering of it. It is possible that Hunter's idea of not enough evidence was not the same as others. There are also some suggestions that Hunter's dismissal of the true bill was not standard procedure. That is another reason to doubt Hunter's excuse for why he didn't sign it.

That aside, what we are actually arguing here is not whether Hunter had enough evidence to go through with it - it is whether Hunter deliberately let people think that the GJ did not choose to indict the Ramseys. It was the general assumption and not once did Hunter make the truth known. He could have told the truth about that without breaking any secrecy of the GJ. If he had of gone ahead with the indictment, it would have been made known then, so what's the difference?

It also makes a lie of Wise's statement that he was courageous. Hunter would have had a harder time in the press if, at the time, it was known that the GJ passed an indictment and Hunter didn't follow up than if he let everyone believe that the GJ didn't pass an indictment at all. I believe it was phrased in a way to cover Hunter's backside. So brave!

Now I will sit back and wait for all the quotes that prove Hunter corrected the wrongly held belief that the grand jury never signed a true bill to indict the Ramseys.

Very well said, Detective Pinkie! thank you

 

[InstantProof]

Concerning the GJ indictment I have only one simple question to anyone who can provide a light.

If by the GJ conclusion Ramseys were accessering to the killer rather than had been killers themselves then WHO WAS the killer?

Wasn`t it that the cause of JB death was due to strangulation by the garrote, was it?

Who was the person who constructed the garrote and pulled the cord? ? Have they, GJ seen the garrote? Have they read the autopsy report?

Please, after 13 months of investigation they found accessories? And not the killer?

Burke could not be prosecuted.

 

[Mama2JML]

Burke could not be prosecuted.

&???...

There is no reason to suspect Burke.

 

[tovarisch]

Burke could not be prosecuted.

Burke made the garrote and strangled the sister?

Whoever made the garrote and applied it, that who was the murderer. Garrote=murder, it`s simple.

Accessory to the murder means second role to the murder, not the actual murderer. Assisting, so to speak.

Who made and applied the garrote, in GJ opinion if Ramseys found to be guilty of accessory ONLY?

Again, what Burke has to do with the garrote=murder?

 

[tovarisch]

I will make it simple.
Formula:

killer (with the garrote in his hand) + accessory criminals (assisting , knowing the outcome, not stopping the murderer)=body

GJ said Ramsey were the accessory. Who they were assisting? Who was with the garrote in his hand?

Is it simple question or what?

 

[inspector rex]

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt Inspector Rex (even though I will probably regret it) and believe that you truly are not understanding what we are saying. Maybe there was not enough evidence for Alex Hunter to feel comfortable signing the true bill. The operative word here is MAYBE. We don't know what evidence and testimony was seen by the GJ because it is being kept secret. You can quote till the cows come home about the reasons why Alex Hunter MAY have not signed the bill but we don't know for sure.

I don’t think I have quoted any reasons for him not signing the bill except that he did not feel there was enough evidence to go to trial, given the findings of the GJ.

It is a rare enough event that there is cause to speculate why he didn't go through with it. It is also a little hard to swallow the line of not enough evidence when it has been often said that Hunter was one of the roadblocks to getting said evidence. It is easy to say there wasn't enough evidence when you are the one hampering the gathering of it. It is possible that Hunter's idea of not enough evidence was not the same as others. There are also some suggestions that Hunter's dismissal of the true bill was not standard procedure. That is another reason to doubt Hunter's excuse for why he didn't sign it.

No, not really, the NY Times article made the comment before the GJ had even been convened. The true bills that the GJ returned did not name the murderer and did not indicate even whether they thought either Patsy or John was the murderer. In fact, it appears that most people believe (from the wording of the true bill) that the GJ thought “someone else” was responsible. As we don’t know on what evidence they came to this conclusion, it’s hard to speculate, except to say that Hunter’s decision not to proceed means that he thought there was insufficient evidence against this unnamed person and it would seem to me that without a murder charge being laid, the charges against Patsy and John (as detailed in the true bill) was doomed to fail? Don’t you agree?

That aside, what we are actually arguing here is not whether Hunter had enough evidence to go through with it - it is whether Hunter deliberately let people think that the GJ did not choose to indict the Ramseys. It was the general assumption and not once did Hunter make the truth known. He could have told the truth about that without breaking any secrecy of the GJ. If he had of gone ahead with the indictment, it would have been made known then, so what's the difference?

Did he have enough evidence to name the murderer?

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and hope I don’t regret it. If you read what Hunter said, then he didn’t lie. If Hunter had done what you suggest and taken it to trial, without having enough evidence to charge anyone with the murder, and following on from that, not having enough evidence to support the charges against John and Patsy, then the world (RDI and IDI) would have had reason to criticise him. Because I would be surprised that a judge would even try the case. It’s virtually charging them as an accessory to murder, but without the murderer being tried or even named. How could that be successful? So, I think he simply ‘sat on’ the true bill, I suppose in the hope that they could uncover evidence against that ‘someone’, before the statute of limitations had expired.

It also makes a lie of Wise's statement that he was courageous. Hunter would have had a harder time in the press if, at the time, it was known that the GJ passed an indictment and Hunter didn't follow up than if he let everyone believe that the GJ didn't pass an indictment at all. I believe it was phrased in a way to cover Hunter's backside. So brave!

I think there would have been temptation on Hunter’s behalf to sign the true bill, knowing it was an unwinable situation, and ‘give them (the press, BPD and his critics) what they want’. However, his decision to do nothing, was in itself a nod to the work the GJ had done because if something (the murderer, or other evidence) had been revealed in the future that could support the ‘true bill’, he could sign it then and indict Patsy and John at a later date. Whether you think that is courageous I suppose, depends on your point of view.

Now I will sit back and wait for all the quotes that prove Hunter corrected the wrongly held belief that the grand jury never signed a true bill to indict the Ramseys.

I don't think someone is responsible for wrong beliefs of others, simply because they said nothing.

 

[inspector rex]

Lawstudent, maybe this is a question for your or for any others qualified to comment.

When the Grand Jury has completed it's task, what occurs? Do they announce this in front of anyone or is their decision secret also? Do they simply hand a piece of paper to the DA without revealing what it says?

 

[InstantProof]

Burke made the garrote and strangled the sister?

Whoever made the garrote and applied it, that who was the murderer. Garrote=murder, it`s simple.

Accessory to the murder means second role to the murder, not the actual murderer. Assisting, so to speak.

Who made and applied the garrote, in GJ opinion if Ramseys found to be guilty of accessory ONLY?

Again, what Burke has to do with the garrote=murder?

https://www.***********/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/30nfvc/hi_im_chief_marshall_james_kolar_ama/



[–]Lakeofshiningwaters 26 points 2 months ago*




Thanks for answering my question! It's SO FRUSTRATING that you can't share your theory of prosecution!!!!
You said below:

I don’t believe the strangulation with the cord was a part of staging, and its use constituted an underlying part of the motivation involved in the assault on JBR.

This blows the theory that Burke did it by accident and John staged a cover up. So you're saying that a family member strangled her not as a cover up but had some other motivation to strangle her. How does the head blow fit with this?? I'm so confused!! :/
permalink

parent













[–]jameskolar 29 points 2 months ago




Sorry, wading into difficult territory
permalink

parent














[–][deleted] 16 points 2 months ago

I can't imagine a 9-yr old being sexually, intellictually, or physically advanced enough to brutally strangle his sister with a wire and garrotte, even if he had been molesting her in some way.​

I absolutely think this is the key to that question. Think of Ted Bundy. He just couldn't find fulfillment after a while in regular *advertiser censored*/sex acts so he became violent. I think we're thinking too much of how we, as adults, know that things like this can be used in sexual violence and not enough of how maybe a sick child would simply be curious.

Just my 2 cents on that one.

 

[OliviaG1996]

I will make it simple.
Formula:

killer (with the garrote in his hand) + accessory criminals (assisting , knowing the outcome, not stopping the murderer)=body

GJ said Ramsey were the accessory. Who they were assisting? Who was with the garrote in his hand?

Is it simple question or what?

I believe InstantProof has already answered this question. Most believe the Grand Jury thought BR was the suspect in question. Since the documents will likely never be released, there's no way of knowing what information the Grand Jury was privy to regarding the murder or anything prior to the murder.

 

[BOESP]

Here's an interesting take on the True Bill that fits more with my thinking (I believe Patsy did it but Burke and/or JonBenet's actions could have been the trigger Go to message #233 at this link http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey/page16&p=10512572#post10512572