What's eating you alive re this case?

[questfortrue]

BBM- They did decide and voted to charge JR and PR with child abuse resulting in death and with accessory to a crime.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/10/us/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/

And - One of the more unusual actions in the GJ meetings was allowing LS and JD to testify, in order to provide the GJ with evidence in support of an intruder. Usually, exculpatory evidence is not included from professionals (a lead detective LS and famous profiler JD) when the general idea was to determine if there was probable cause of the R’s involvement. FWIW, that further confirms for me that there was enough evidence of their involvement and that they did not feel the intruder theory held enough substance to prevent them from issuing a True Bill. (Forget the tired quote about GJs and Ham sandwich here. GJs usually get it right, and I don't mean that someone is usually convicted after an indictment. We all know why cases are lost.) All moo.

 

[chlban]

Well I can think of one where the parents were questioned briefly on the day the baby disappeared, then "lawyered up" with a very infamous DEATH PENALTY atty that they could never hope to afford (paid for by an "anonymous benefactor"), parents refused to talk to LE again unless they were questioned together (which LE understandably refused), the "mother" took a LDT and "failed miserably". To date the poor child has never been found. Seems they took a page out of the Ramsey play book, improved on it by disposing of the poor girl's body, and so far it's worked for them. SMH

Ah yes. I can think of more than one where the parents seemed to have figured out that not getting rid of the body was a huge mistake. Can't say whether that was based on observing the Ramsey's or not.

I can also think of a number where the parents lawyered up and/or set unrealistic perateters for questioning. But none of the ones I can think of have ever been "cleared". At least in the sense that we know who actually did it and it wasn't the parents.

 

[Anti-K]

BBM- They did decide and voted to charge JR and PR with child abuse resulting in death and with accessory to a crime.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/10/us/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/

Yes, everyone knows this; right?

The point being made is that despite deciding that, in their opinion, there was probable cause the jurors still didn’t seem to be able to say who did what or why. They still had questions, nothing was resolved or answered. They hoped further investigation might answer some of those questions (it didn’t).
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Two sides of the same coin, AK, and indictments were issued, eccentricities notwithstanding.

The fact that the grand jury found probable cause does not impact my original claim, which was “that many of the perceived bizarre aspects and oddities become vanishingly small when we consider the possibility that the Ramseys were not involved and simply had no idea as to what happened.” By this I mean that they are reduced in number.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

In your opinion...

You can count me in that group, too!

 

[BBB167893]

Good luck with trying to unite everyone.

​

OTG, there are some people I would not WISH to be united with.

 

[BBB167893]

Let me see, name of thread is "What is eating me alive regarding this case". Well, I fully expected to hear Patsy Ramsey confess prior to her death and I was very disappointed when she didn't. I figured that she would confess that she killed Jon Benet if the son did it just to stop any finger pointing at him. I figured that she would also confess if she killed Jon Benet for the same reason, to protect her son from any accusations. But! She didn't confess. I'm curious as to WHY NOT. Why on earth would she not confess prior to her death or even in a letter to be read after her death? There are times that I think that she was still furious at both Jon Benet and Burke for screwing up her "perfect" life and she wasn't going to accept any responsibility for any action on her part for what happened to Jon Benet. IMO, she put the full responsibility of Jon Benet's death on Jon Benet.

It might be simpler than that, lonetraveler. When my mom was dying of cancer, she simply couldn't speak at all. But I must admit, your explanation tracks more closely with persistent denial.

 

[DeDee]

And - One of the more unusual actions in the GJ meetings was allowing LS and JD to testify, in order to provide the GJ with evidence in support of an intruder. Usually, exculpatory evidence is not included from professionals (a lead detective LS and famous profiler JD) when the general idea was to determine if there was probable cause of the R’s involvement. FWIW, that further confirms for me that there was enough evidence of their involvement and that they did not feel the intruder theory held enough substance to prevent them from issuing a True Bill. (Forget the tired quote about GJs and Ham sandwich here. GJs usually get it right, and I don't mean that someone is usually convicted after an indictment. We all know why cases are lost.) All moo.

http://crimeshots.com/RamseyTimeline.html


Court documents unsealed Tuesday show Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter obtained a court order in February 1999 prohibiting Smit from testifying before the grand jury investigating the 6-year-old beauty princess's slaying.


http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon031500b.htm

March 15, 2000:

Prosecutors didn't want Lou Smit to tell a grand jury that he believes an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey.

But after the veteran homicide detective sought a court order allowing him to testify, prosecutors relented.

According to the court file, Smit wrote a letter asking to present his intruder theory to the grand jurors. However, Michael Kane, who was leading the investigation, told Smit in a letter that the grand jury was not interested in hearing from him.

Kane eventually agreed to allow Smit to testify, Smit's attorney, Bob Russel said Tuesday.

After he left the investigation in September 1998, the DA's office tried to force Smit to turn over all his files, photographs and other materials collected while he worked on the case...

 

[DeeDee249]

Yes, everyone knows this; right?

The point being made is that despite deciding that, in their opinion, there was probable cause the jurors still didn’t seem to be able to say who did what or why. They still had questions, nothing was resolved or answered. They hoped further investigation might answer some of those questions (it didn’t).
...

AK

Right. But in a case where there are no other eyewitnesses and 2 people are involved, very often it is not possible to determine exactly who did what. In many states, when more than one person is involved in a murder, they are ALL considered equally culpable. It need not matter who did what as long as it can be determined all were involved.
In this case, it is obvious the GJ felt both parents were involved in the COVERUP of her death and both conspired to obstruct justice and protect the killer (also known as harboring a criminal). Of course when the criminal is also your minor child it is difficult not to "harbor" him. So this case had a unique set of problems- some of which will forever prevent it from being prosecuted. However, I do believe it has been solved.

 

[Anti-K]

Sure, okay. I’m not arguing any of that, but I don’t see what this has to do with my claim, the one that started this latest grand jury “discussion:” While I can understand that to posit an unknown suspect with an unknown motive isn’t very satisfying for many, I also think that many of the perceived bizarre aspects and oddities become vanishingly small [reduced in number] when we consider the possibility that the Ramseys were not involved and simply had no idea as to what happened.
...

AK

 

[CherCher]

Sure, okay. I’m not arguing any of that, but I don’t see what this has to do with my claim, the one that started this latest grand jury “discussion:” While I can understand that to posit an unknown suspect with an unknown motive isn’t very satisfying for many, I also think that many of the perceived bizarre aspects and oddities become vanishingly small [reduced in number] when we consider the possibility that the Ramseys were not involved and simply had no idea as to what happened.
...

AK

Well sure. If I were to suspend my belief in the evidence (what you call "perceived bizarre aspects and oddities") that at LEAST one of the Ramseys were involved in the death of their daughter, then yes there's the possibility that they weren't involved.

 

[Meara]

The fact that the grand jury found probable cause does not impact my original claim, which was “that many of the perceived bizarre aspects and oddities become vanishingly small when we consider the possibility that the Ramseys were not involved and simply had no idea as to what happened.” By this I mean that they are reduced in number.
...

AK

Oh AK, I understand what you wrote, and it's a lovely turn of phrase. We just disagree! To me, it's sort of like having the Grand Jury say, Although the consideration that the Ramseys might be completely innocent made the case significantly simpler, clearer, and more coherent, we said to heck with that, let's indict them anyway!

 

[CherCher]

Oh AK, I understand what you wrote, and it's a lovely turn of phrase. We just disagree! To me, it's sort of like having the Grand Jury say, Although the consideration that the Ramseys might be completely innocent made the case significantly simpler, clearer, and more coherent, we said to heck with that, let's indict them anyway!

Yes! A good command of English doesn't make what you are saying any more potent than the facts.
Even with the GJ testimony of Smit...they came back with an indictment. That's powerful stuff.

 

[Anti-K]

I have no idea what went on with the grand jury or how they dealt with Smit or Douglas. But, I don’t think Smit or Douglas could have offered them much by way of explaining why the ransom note was written in the house. And, without that explanation...

There’s so much that we don’t know: did the jurors completely reject IDI, or did they simply think RDI was more likely, or did they merely set it aside, only taking into consideration whether the incriminating evidence was incriminating enough? I don’t know, I’m not sure that it matters. Right now, I still can’t understand how they came up with those charges. I mean, how much more obvious could murder be? What do they think happened? She tripped, fell and landed on a garrote? Very bizarre.

Still, I’m not sure anyone should be too surprised. No judge, no defence, no rebuttals, no objections, no explanation for the note; the testimony of LHP alone could have had a huge impact, and the jurors may have also been influenced by their visit to the house. Even amongst IDI are many who believe that this was an inside job, and, you don’t get any more inside that RDI!
.

Here are a couple excerpts from two different books that give some indication as to what went on in the grand jury proceedings. The first is from “Forensics Under Fire; Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice.” P. 193

Kane cross-examined these well intentioned and highly qualified men [Smit, and document examiners Rile, Cunnigham and Vacca] as though they were enemy defence witnesses at a criminal trial. The last thing Kane needed were four credible witnesses tearing down a case that was already weak, and he took out his frustration on them. Howard Rile, the former Colorado Bureau of Investigation document examiner, was stunned and shaken by the viciousness of Kane’s attack. He would later describe his grand jury appearance as a nightmare. After he recovered from Kane’s unprecedented assault, Riel asked for a second chance before the panel. Kane denied his request.

In his latest book, Law and Disorder, Douglas writes a paragraph or so about his grand jury experience:

…when I got into the grand jury room, they let me read my notes pretty much verbatim into the record, including my candid observations on many of the key players.

Two of the grand jurors had backgrounds in science, so I knew it would be important to explain to them what I did and how we had developed the discipline. I recall one member asking me something like, “What if we told you there was evidence that two people were involved in the crime?”

“I’ve investigated and testified in cases in which I thought there were two people involved,” I replied, “but I don’t see it here.” Then I added, “But if you actually have the evidence you mention, then why am I here? Why are you talking to me? Go with your evidence.”

He backed off. p. 206-7
...

AK

 

[chlban]

Anti-K;10234127

In his latest book, Law and Disorder, Douglas writes a paragraph or so about his grand jury experience:

…when I got into the grand jury room, they let me read my notes pretty much verbatim into the record, including my candid observations on many of the key players.

Two of the grand jurors had backgrounds in science, so I knew it would be important to explain to them what I did and how we had developed the discipline. I recall one member asking me something like, “What if we told you there was evidence that two people were involved in the crime?”

“I’ve investigated and testified in cases in which I thought there were two people involved,” I replied, “but I don’t see it here.” Then I added, “But if you actually have the evidence you mention, then why am I here? Why are you talking to me? Go with your evidence.”

He backed off. p. 206-7

...


So, it appears the GJ took his sage advice and went with the evidence. What's the problem?

However, I do find that quote illuminating so thank you. It certainly clarifies the GJ indictment in that they clearly believed they were both involved and it doesn't sound like the meant with just the cover up, does it?

I bought one book by JD (and would not read another if I was paid to), the one in which he sold his reputation to the Ramsey's and gave his views on this case.

He also commented on several other infamous cases, a couple of which I have studied pretty extensively. He went off popular theory with nothing concrete to back it up. His views on the Zodiac, for example, could have been copied and pasted out of Graysmiths book. Nothing new, nothiing insightful, nothing substantiated. A complete waste of paper.

I am not surprised the GJ would discard his opinion.

 

[Anti-K]

Yeah, I can see how Douglas’ attitude as expressed here could be a turn-off for the jurors. So, I’m not surprised that they would discard his opinion, either.

I’ve read several of Douglas’ books and have enjoyed them all. I read Mindhunter and Anatomy of Motive before my interest and involvement in this case. In fact, Anatomy of Motive inspired me to look into this.

I find accusations of Douglas selling out to the Ramseys to be nonsensical and without basis.
...

AK

 

[Chrishope]

Yeah, I can see how Douglas’ attitude as expressed here could be a turn-off for the jurors. So, I’m not surprised that they would discard his opinion, either.

I’ve read several of Douglas’ books and have enjoyed them all. I read Mindhunter and Anatomy of Motive before my interest and involvement in this case. In fact, Anatomy of Motive inspired me to look into this.

I find accusations of Douglas selling out to the Ramseys to be nonsensical and without basis.
...

AK

Certainly w/o basis, just as similar accusations against LS are w/o basis. Not really nonsensical though.

I don' t think there is any need to say Douglass sold out. It's enough to say that he's human and therefore subject to error, and it's enough to add that he's not involved in anything truly scientific. A human engaged in making non-scientific conclusions can, on occasion, be wrong. IOWs we needn't have blind faith in Douglas.

CASKU is at odds with Douglas's opinion.

 

[midwest mama]

Certainly w/o basis, just as similar accusations against LS are w/o basis. Not really nonsensical though.

I don' t think there is any need to say Douglass sold out. It's enough to say that he's human and therefore subject to error, and it's enough to add that he's not involved in anything truly scientific. A human engaged in making non-scientific conclusions can, on occasion, be wrong. IOWs we needn't have blind faith in Douglas.

CASKU is at odds with Douglas's opinion.

BBM

Nuff said, eh? A team of experts not in sync with that of an individual?

One thing that eats me alive about this case is that the R's were able to have the cream of the crop from each forensic field on their team. And that each of them brought in an opinion that could be published as pro-Ram. Not one of them had to report findings that might have put the R's in a bad light. At least none of the experts hired by the R's that we've heard from.

Regular Mr and Mrs Joe in the same type of crime situation would never have been able to have the type of specialists brought in on their team for their benefit. Those types would have ended up on the prosecution team in a jury trial.

:seeya: Chrishope, Good to see ya again!

 

[Venom]

BBM

Nuff said, eh? A team of experts not in sync with that of an individual?

One thing that eats me alive about this case is that the R's were able to have the cream of the crop from each forensic field on their team. And that each of them brought in an opinion that could be published as pro-Ram. Not one of them had to report findings that might have put the R's in a bad light. At least none of the experts hired by the R's that we've heard from.

Regular Mr and Mrs Joe in the same type of crime situation would never have been able to have the type of specialists brought in on their team for their benefit. Those types would have ended up on the prosecution team in a jury trial.

:seeya: Chrishope, Good to see ya again!

BBM- Add to that how the R's were allowed to pick where their interviews would take place, see the questions, and see their prior answers to questions.

 

[BOESP]

Jmo, but Roy Hazelwood, Gregg McCrary and the late Robert Ressler would be my choices for cream-of-the-crop in the field of profiling, especially for sexual assaults. JMO