Why GJ Likely Solved Case In 1999

[mauidreemn]

No, but it does mean that they have found sufficient evidence to bring the case to court. If they had not found sufficient evidence they would not have brought indictments.

I completely agree.

 

[zencompass]

Which leads me to wonder (I shall never know) what evidence/testimony the Grand Jury read/heard in order to reach those conclusions.

That is why I asked in another thread whether the Grand Jury had the power to unseal medical records or alternatively, subpoena a pediatrician to testify.

Firstly that the parents of JonBenet:


" 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."

and secondly that the parents of JonBenet:

"did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death."



I find these votes to indictment intriguing as well as frustrating. Why did the Grand Jury feel that the parents were responsible for the murder?

Who did they feel the parents covered for?

What are others' thoughts on what the Grand Jury concluded? Thanks in advance!

 

[mauidreemn]

Which leads me to wonder (I shall never know) what evidence/testimony the Grand Jury read/heard in order to reach those conclusions.

That is why I asked in another thread whether the Grand Jury had the power to unseal medical records or alternatively, subpoena a pediatrician to testify.

Firstly that the parents of JonBenet:


" 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."

and secondly that the parents of JonBenet:

"did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death."

I can't wait to finally hear all of the evidence. I think we will finally have our answer to all of this when John Ramsey passes away

 

[BRDotson]

I can't wait to finally hear all of the evidence. I think we will finally have our answer to all of this when John Ramsey passes away

Do you think Burke will tell what he knows? Or someone else perhaps?

 

[mauidreemn]

Do you think Burke will tell what he knows? Or someone else perhaps?

I would love to hear all of the grand jury's info. But Burke was nine. He was a child. He probably doesn't know anything. I can't remember what or where I was at nine on Christmas. What I had to eat or drink. And no, my sister wasn't murdered but he didn't know that and I would be hard pressed to remember anything at nine, regardless of the circumstances. I don't know if Burke had anything to do with it or not and at this point, it doesn't matter.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Wasn't this a special investigative grand jury? They had subpoena power? Correct? Is there anyway to see who all testified? And if any were subpoenaed by the grand jury? Like those "island of privacy" medical records?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Linda7NJ]

I would love to hear all of the grand jury's info. But Burke was nine. He was a child. He probably doesn't know anything. I can't remember what or where I was at nine on Christmas. What I had to eat or drink. And no, my sister wasn't murdered but he didn't know that and I would be hard pressed to remember anything at nine, regardless of the circumstances. I don't know if Burke had anything to do with it or not and at this point, it doesn't matter.

Burke knew she was murdered when he testified at the grand jury. I'm a tad confused...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[mauidreemn]

Burke knew she was murdered when he testified at the grand jury. I'm a tad confused...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Do you know what he said to the grand jury? I don't believe any of that has ever been released. Since BPD has always cleared him in every single way, I have to trust that they don't believe he was involved. Am I missing something?

 

[apabld]

It would be interesting to know what they grand jury was thinking and how they got to their conclusion.

I think the intruder theory was discounted, leaving only Burke, John and Patsy. There wasn't enough evidence to pinpoint which of them killed JB, but with the intruder theory out of the way, the grand jury probably thought it was most likely that both parents did the cover-up, regardless of whether they were covering up for themselves or for Burke.

 

[zencompass]

Exactly apabld!

From what I understand from the Grand Jury's vote to indict the Ramseys:

1. They came to the conclusion that the parents of JonBenet placed her knowingly in harm's way:

" 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."

2. They also came to the conclusion that they covered up for the person who did this to their daughter:

"did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death."

I feel that the findings of the Grand Jury are key to solving this. They found that the parents were responsible for knowingly putting their child in
harm's way and also they found that the parents aided the person who committed this heinous murder.

The Grand Jury heard evidence we will never know. This evidence is available to the D.A. I am hoping and praying that Stanley Garnett, the D.A. will genuinely
act on this.

 

[johnjay]

I think DA Hunter's refusal to sign interesting also. But he didn't. The politics of this case are mind blowing

It's not just that he refused to sign but he gave a false indication of what the GJ wanted.

 

[Heymom]

It would be interesting to know what they grand jury was thinking and how they got to their conclusion.

I think the intruder theory was discounted, leaving only Burke, John and Patsy. There wasn't enough evidence to pinpoint which of them killed JB, but with the intruder theory out of the way, the grand jury probably thought it was most likely that both parents did the cover-up, regardless of whether they were covering up for themselves or for Burke.

If the GJ had believed that one of the parents was responsible for her death, they'd have voted to indict on 1st degree murder. That indictment is missing, but both parents were charged with negligence and assisting in the cover-up. That just leaves the one person who couldn't be indicted.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Did the Ramsey grand jury, after investigating the JonBenet Ramsey murder for 13 months and interviewing an estimated 100 witnesses, solve the crime back in 1999? It appears this could be so.

But if so, why hasn't the name of the killer been released to the public? The only answer that could fit this question is that it would be against the Colorado Children's Code to release the name of a juvenile too young to even be charged with a serious crime.

IOW, if the JonBenet murder was solved by the grand jury in October of 1999, it has been a legal coverup ever since.

By following the money, this scenario makes sense. Boulder had spent over a million dollars to investigate the case through 1999. Since then the Boulder budget to actively investigate the crime has been cut back to nothing.

Mary Keenan was elected to the office of district attorney and assumed her duties in January of 2001 with a promise to pursue the investigation -- but she hasn't requested as much as a penny to continue the investigation. Keenan took over the case from the Boulder Police Department on December 20, 2002 with the conveient comment that she "will not discuss the case".

Keenan hired retired detective Tom Bennett on June 12, 2003, at $25 an hour, to head up the investigation with Lou Smit. The money for Bennett's position is being paid from the funds previously budgeted to hire an attorney for the DA's office. But Bennett and Smit, both working part-time, have produced virtually nothing new.

It's also interesting that Keenan has not asked for any assistance from other LE agencies in Boulder, such as the BPD; the Sheriff's Department; or the CBI. Keenan's two investigators, Linda Wickman and Joe DeAngelo, work on other cases.

Mary Keenan's so-called "new investigation" into JonBenet's murder is obviously a sham. There is no new investigation -- there seems to be nothing but lies and a coverup that appears to be legal. Legal because, under the Colorado Children's Code, it is lawful to lie to protect the identity of children involved in a serious crime, such as murder.

In my opinion, it is highly likely the grand jury solved the JonBenet murder in 1999.

BlueCrab

Just worth bumping. Where oh where is BlueCrab?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Nehemiah]

Just worth bumping. Where oh where is BlueCrab?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I have wondered for a few years about BlueCrab. He always held fast to his BDI theory and seemed to have a lot of inside info (looking back now). He always named some other ppl in his theory (which I won't go into) as well. I asked Tricia about BlueCrab and she didn't know what happened to him either. I assume he has died or something life-altering. Camper too. JMO

 

[mauidreemn]

I have wondered for a few years about BlueCrab. He always held fast to his BDI theory and seemed to have a lot of inside info (looking back now). He always named some other ppl in his theory (which I won't go into) as well. I asked Tricia about BlueCrab and she didn't know what happened to him either. I assume he has died or something life-altering. Camper too. JMO

Oh my. Hope he is okay.

 

[apabld]

If the GJ had believed that one of the parents was responsible for her death, they'd have voted to indict on 1st degree murder. That indictment is missing, but both parents were charged with negligence and assisting in the cover-up. That just leaves the one person who couldn't be indicted.

Ah, I see. It would be interesting to know how the grand jury came to the conclusion that both parents were involved in the cover up but not the murder itself.

 

[zencompass]

The Grand Jury heard evidence which is not known to the public.

Likely evidence from B.R.'s doctor or medical records showing that JBR was not safe around him. Also likely recommendations would have
been made in order to keep JBR safe. Obviously these recommendations were never followed by the R's and that is why the Grand Jury
concluded the parents knowingly kept JBR in harm's way and then they obstructed justice by aiding the murderer.

If the murderer had been over 10 years old then the D.A. would have moved to charge.

Blue Crab knew that everything we needed to know was spelled out in those conclusions by the Grand Jury.

Thank you Blue Crab !! Brilliant !!

 

[johnjay]

The Grand Jury heard evidence which is not known to the public.

Likely evidence from B.R.'s doctor or medical records showing that JBR was not safe around him. Also likely recommendations would have
been made in order to keep JBR safe. Obviously these recommendations were never followed by the R's and that is why the Grand Jury
concluded the parents knowingly kept JBR in harm's way and then they obstructed justice by aiding the murderer.

I wonder what those recommendations could have been. JonBenet couldn't just move next door with her dog.

If the murderer had been over 10 years old then the D.A. would have moved to charge.

Blue Crab knew that everything we needed to know was spelled out in those conclusions by the Grand Jury.

Thank you Blue Crab !! Brilliant !!

 

[zencompass]

I have no words at the moment.

 

[jamesrav]

The Grand Jury heard evidence we will never know. This evidence is available to the D.A. I am hoping and praying that Stanley Garnett, the D.A. will genuinely act on this.

it sounds like Blue Crab settled the issue long ago: there's basically no crime due to the age, so no D.A. should have any reason or interest in pursuing this. My last curious question is what the consequences would be if he confessed. Sounds like no legal consequences, but huge stigma for JR.