Father says DNA could solve one of country’s biggest murder mysteries: Who killed JonBenét Ramsey

[AddieBoo]

The four indictments, forced to be made public, are what we got so far.
The Grand Jury agreed on those four counts which put the spotlight of responsibility on the Ramsey’s.
Not on an intruder. The Ramsey’s.
They concluded that they both were responsible for the death of their child . And probable cause or not, the message is that these jurors sat for 13 months with full subpoena power and hearing both sides, prosecution and defense, probable cause or not did not exonerate the Ramsey’s for their daughters murder.

How do you know these true bills were lacking in evidence? It’s not “prosecutors” it is one prosecutor.
Alex Hunter. He had developed a personal relationship with the Ramsey’s that defies any and all professional standards. If anything the AG should have conducted a full investigation about how Alex Hunter et al. conducted this case. He simply had no interest, for whatever reason, to find justice for JonBenet Ramsey.

The indictments remain as a public record from a jury who deliberated 13 months who did not exonerate the Ramsey’s and in fact handed down four very serious, unfathomable, charges that they agreed had enough evidence for probable cause.

It will not stand that just because this case has been out litigated - so far - and was swimming against an enormous tide of political pressure- the case disappears… the Ramsey’s don’t have their day in court and face a judge and jury just because the powers that be have made sure this case never comes to trial. That the horrendous death of this little girl will not find justice because of some unknown political reason.

But those jurors voted, And they are public record that, so far, is just entering, questioned and debated on the social arena. And the court of public opinion is not persuaded to the innocence of the Ramsey’s. And public opinion can move mountains.
MOO

The plaintiffs believe... that the indictment is a criminal justice record that reflects official action by the grand jury, and accordingly that it is subject to mandatory disclosure upon request," attorney Thomas B. Kelley wrote in the filing. "Alternatively, they argue the indictment should be disclosed to the public because such disclosure would serve the public interest in government transparency and not be contrary to the public interest nor cause undue adverse effect upon the privacy of the individual."
From UPI press release

This is a quote from the plaintiff attorney about the release of the GJ indictments that were sealed.
John Ramsey fought the release.

 

[AddieBoo]

Excellent post based in fact.
I think you observation on the social arena is exactly what is driving this train. It's only a matter of time before someone speaks out. I'm surprised no one has. Occasionally, on different forums you will here stories that may or may not be true. If I had guilty knowledge or was guilty, I'd be plenty worried. Folks like us only offer up theories but without a doubt people know stuff!

And a big AMEN to that!

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

The plaintiffs believe... that the indictment is a criminal justice record that reflects official action by the grand jury, and accordingly that it is subject to mandatory disclosure upon request," attorney Thomas B. Kelley wrote in the filing. "Alternatively, they argue the indictment should be disclosed to the public because such disclosure would serve the public interest in government transparency and not be contrary to the public interest nor cause undue adverse effect upon the privacy of the individual."
From UPI press release

This is a quote from the plaintiff attorney about the release of the GJ indictments that were sealed.
John Ramsey fought the release.

Thank you for sharing that @AddieBoo …… that last statement was surprising. Perhaps.

IIUC, it seems IIRC from public statements over the years, that JR has professed to wanting this crime / matter to be solved and resolved. Now I am confused. I would have thought one in such a position would want to shine light on this unfortunate incident. And to have those documents released.

By example, ABC / KABC News 7 online December 4, 2024 article by Emily Shapiro entitled: ‘JonBenet Ramsey's dad hopes for answers as new documentary puts pressure to solve 1996 murder’:

JonBenet Ramsey's dad hopes for answers as new documentary puts pressure to solve 1996 murder

The Boulder Police Department released in a statement about the JonBenet Ramsey case last week.

abc7.com

IMO another documentary isn’t going to address the matter or solve the crime.

What would help to solve the crime IMO, is to have all of the grand jury testimony evidence and ‘True Bills’, etc. released publicly. So this information can be examined. And the crime(s) solved. Maybe those documents and that evidence could appear in the next ‘documentary’.

Sure wish some investigative journalists and a new Boulder DA or one desiring to run for that office would help move this matter along. MOO

 

[fcavanaugh]

Me too .
I was coming off Wecht’s book. The GJ true bills gave me whip lash. Especially the “murder in the first degree” association.
What the heck did the GJ hear? I do put weight on their decision as an outcome from intense deliberation from jurors who heard both sides.

I have a question, not sure if you know, would the GJ refer to the R’s assisting someone who committed “murder in the first degree” if they felt the R’s were assisting/covering for their 9 year old child (the only other person known to be in the home that night), who by Colorado law could never be charged with “murder in the first degree”? Sorry if that’s a dumb question, IANAL and have always wondered about this.

At any rate, suppose it’s possible the GJ worded it that way because they came to the conclusion the R’s assisted someone other than the 9 year old BR. In other words, they assisted some other adult the GJ just didn’t know who that adult was. Really though, what adult would the R’s assist/cover for? certainly not some intruder!
I used to think perhaps they were covering for the older son JAR until it was learned he had a solid alibi.

Is it possible they thought either PDI or JDI, but couldn’t decide which one and charged them both as assisting/covering thinking one of the parents was responsible and the other is complicit/covering for the other??? I just wish they would unseal/release everything and this case gets solved once and for all ugh, JBR deserves justice!

IMHOO

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Thank you for sharing that @AddieBoo …… that last statement was surprising. Perhaps.

IIUC, it seems IIRC from public statements over the years, that JR has professed to wanting this crime / matter to be solved and resolved. Now I am confused. I would have thought one in such a position would want to shine light on this unfortunate incident. And to have those documents released.

By example, ABC / KABC News 7 online December 4, 2024 article by Emily Shapiro entitled: ‘JonBenet Ramsey's dad hopes for answers as new documentary puts pressure to solve 1996 murder’:

JonBenet Ramsey's dad hopes for answers as new documentary puts pressure to solve 1996 murder

The Boulder Police Department released in a statement about the JonBenet Ramsey case last week.

abc7.com

IMO another documentary isn’t going to address the matter or solve the crime.

What would help to solve the crime IMO, is to have all of the grand jury testimony evidence and ‘True Bills’, etc. released publicly. So this information can be examined. And the crime(s) solved. Maybe those documents and that evidence could appear in the next ‘documentary’.

Sure wish some investigative journalists and a new Boulder DA or one desiring to run for that office would help move this matter along. MOO

Cartoon bubble dialog over described DAs head~ But good Sir, we know who did it!

 

[FergusMcDuck]

The four indictments, forced to be made public, are what we got so far.
The Grand Jury agreed on those four counts which put the spotlight of responsibility on the Ramsey’s.
Not on an intruder. The Ramsey’s.
They concluded that they both were responsible for the death of their child .

Again, I have to repeat, they didn't. That's not what grand juries do and that's not what probable cause is.

And probable cause or not, the message is that these jurors sat for 13 months with full subpoena power and hearing both sides, prosecution and defense, probable cause or not did not exonerate the Ramsey’s for their daughters murder.

That is a complete misunderstanding of the grand jury process. It is controlled by the prosecution. The defense has no access to the prosecution's evidence and can't counter it. Smit was part of the prosecution.

Yet in the end, most of the counts against the Ramseys weren't signed.

How do you know these true bills were lacking in evidence?

Because they weren't signed by the foreman, i.e. they weren't true bills. The grand jury couldn't get a majority to agree with them.

It’s not “prosecutors” it is one prosecutor.
Alex Hunter.

Hunter consulted with the prosecutors who handled the grand jury, and they agreed. As did the panel convened by the governor to see if Hunter erred in not acting on the true bills (verdict: he didn't).

This was never a one man show.

He had developed a personal relationship with the Ramsey’s that defies any and all professional standards.

That's not really true, though.

If anything the AG should have conducted a full investigation about how Alex Hunter et al. conducted this case. He simply had no interest, for whatever reason, to find justice for JonBenet Ramsey.

He had no interest in going into a losing battle. Failed lead investigators who were convinced their case was solid as a rock seems to have clung to Hunter's perfidy as an explanation for why this didn't sail to trial. Because they couldn't have tunnel vision. They couldn't be wrong.

The indictments remain as a public record from a jury who deliberated 13 months who did not exonerate the Ramsey’s and in fact handed down four very serious, unfathomable, charges that they agreed had enough evidence for probable cause.

Out of eighteen charges. With no actual charge for who killed JonBenet. And the grand jurors themselves wouldn't vote to convict on them.

It will not stand that just because this case has been out litigated - so far - and was swimming against an enormous tide of political pressure-

What political pressure? If there was ever any it was against the Ramseys. The governor himself was pressuring Hunter to go with a grand jury and his successor publicly spoke out against the Ramseys and convened the panel I mentioned above.

The supposed pro-Ramsey political pressure never seemed to amount to anything more than phantoms of Thomas's mind. No governor went to bat for them, that's for sure.

the case disappears… the Ramsey’s don’t have their day in court and face a judge and jury just because the powers that be have made sure this case never comes to trial. That the horrendous death of this little girl will not find justice because of some unknown political reason.

It wasn't political.

But those jurors voted, And they are public record that, so far, is just entering, questioned and debated on the social arena. And the court of public opinion is not persuaded to the innocence of the Ramsey’s.

Public opinion tend to go with the latest documentary, right or wrong. If anything I think the public is a bit more pro-Ramsey these days.

The DNA info is also out there, and it is very persuasive.

And public opinion can move mountains.
MOO

In this case? The mountain is unlikely to move in a direction detrimental to the Ramseys.

 

[AddieBoo]

I have a question, not sure if you know, would the GJ refer to the R’s assisting someone who committed “murder in the first degree” if they felt the R’s were assisting/covering for their 9 year old child (the only other person known to be in the home that night), who by Colorado law could never be charged with “murder in the first degree”? Sorry if that’s a dumb question, IANAL and have always wondered about this.

At any rate, suppose it’s possible the GJ worded it that way because they came to the conclusion the R’s assisted someone other than the 9 year old BR. In other words, they assisted some other adult the GJ just didn’t know who that adult was. Really though, what adult would the R’s assist/cover for? certainly not some intruder!
I used to think perhaps they were covering for the older son JAR until it was learned he had a solid alibi.

Is it possible they thought either PDI or JDI, but couldn’t decide which one and charged them both as assisting/covering thinking one of the parents was responsible and the other is complicit/covering for the other??? I just wish they would unseal/release everything and this case gets solved once and for all ugh, JBR deserves justice!

IMHOO

I don’t know.

I can only speculate but here is the second indictment. IMO these indictments have not been the subject of public debate in context to what is written, nor have they been mainstream in the context of what is written. Please note the last few lines,..

“On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Coloraado, John Benett Ramsey 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.

No legal experience here and based solely on what I have read. Burkes age prevented him from prosecution. Did it prevent him from any type of legal consequences, if found responsible.
But PR was also a suspect in the court of public opinion …Steve Thomas thought PR was responsible.”

After every video, book, interview etc etc I only just frickin read the entire indictment,

And there you have one of 4 conclusions that the Grand Jury agreed upon. But as AddieBoo public that’s all I got plus too many opinions and questions that don’t help JonBenet. But my self righteousness helps me deal with injustice….

 

[AddieBoo]

Again, I have to repeat, they didn't. That's not what grand juries do and that's not what probable cause is.



That is a complete misunderstanding of the grand jury process. It is controlled by the prosecution. The defense has no access to the prosecution's evidence and can't counter it. Smit was part of the prosecution.

Yet in the end, most of the counts against the Ramseys weren't signed.



Because they weren't signed by the foreman, i.e. they weren't true bills. The grand jury couldn't get a majority to agree with them.



Hunter consulted with the prosecutors who handled the grand jury, and they agreed. As did the panel convened by the governor to see if Hunter erred in not acting on the true bills (verdict: he didn't).

This was never a one man show.



That's not really true, though.



He had no interest in going into a losing battle. Failed lead investigators who were convinced their case was solid as a rock seems to have clung to Hunter's perfidy as an explanation for why this didn't sail to trial. Because they couldn't have tunnel vision. They couldn't be wrong.



Out of eighteen charges. With no actual charge for who killed JonBenet. And the grand jurors themselves wouldn't vote to convict on them.



What political pressure? If there was ever any it was against the Ramseys. The governor himself was pressuring Hunter to go with a grand jury and his successor publicly spoke out against the Ramseys and convened the panel I mentioned above.

The supposed pro-Ramsey political pressure never seemed to amount to anything more than phantoms of Thomas's mind. No governor went to bat for them, that's for sure.



It wasn't political.



Public opinion tend to go with the latest documentary, right or wrong. If anything I think the public is a bit more pro-Ramsey these days.

The DNA info is also out there, and it is very persuasive.



In this case? The mountain is unlikely to move in a direction detrimental to the Ramseys.

I’m not sure I understand what you understand regarding the facts of the case. But you be you.

I am very grateful for the two souls who sued to have those four indictments released.

One area of this case that is so fascinating are the facts and how they can be manipulated and how the control of the narrative is so powerful to keep those secrets buried. Lin Wood plugged into that early.
Cheers

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I don’t know.

I can only speculate but here is the second indictment. IMO these indictments have not been the subject of public debate in context to what is written, nor have they been mainstream in the context of what is written. Please note the last few lines,..

“On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Coloraado, John Benett Ramsey 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.

No legal experience here and based solely on what I have read. Burkes age prevented him from prosecution. Did it prevent him from any type of legal consequences, if found responsible.
But PR was also a suspect in the court of public opinion …Steve Thomas thought PR was responsible.”

After every video, book, interview etc etc I only just frickin read the entire indictment,

And there you have one of 4 conclusions that the Grand Jury agreed upon. But as AddieBoo public that’s all I got plus too many opinions and questions that don’t help JonBenet. But my self righteousness helps me deal with injustice….

Thank you for the additional work and sharing this @AddieBoo ….

RSBMBFF:

““On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Coloraado, John Benett Ramsey 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.”

IMO, based on what is known of the case and publicly, there is only one individual that seems to fit the ‘person being assisted’ as described above……

And it is most unfortunate that the charges and indictments did not proceed. And the crimes described against JR as written IIUC was a felony. And also have to wonder IMO if the two parents were each charged, how long would the charged individuals remain in ‘concert’ together? SMH.

Once again, the DA office…… SMH. MOO

 

[fcavanaugh]

I don’t know.

I can only speculate but here is the second indictment. IMO these indictments have not been the subject of public debate in context to what is written, nor have they been mainstream in the context of what is written. Please note the last few lines,..

“On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Coloraado, John Benett Ramsey 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.

No legal experience here and based solely on what I have read. Burkes age prevented him from prosecution. Did it prevent him from any type of legal consequences, if found responsible.
But PR was also a suspect in the court of public opinion …Steve Thomas thought PR was responsible.”

After every video, book, interview etc etc I only just frickin read the entire indictment,

And there you have one of 4 conclusions that the Grand Jury agreed upon. But as AddieBoo public that’s all I got plus too many opinions and questions that don’t help JonBenet. But my self righteousness helps me deal with injustice….

Thank you for your thoughtful response and providing the writing in the second indictment which is the one I was thinking of. I’m going to read it over a couple more times to allow to sink in/digest.
You make some great points which are well taken and as to your last couple sentences, I totally get it/can relate.

Thanks again @AddieBoo, I really
enjoy reading your insightful posts,
and great to see so many here supporting justice for JonBenet.

May the day come soon!

IMO

 

[Charlot123]

Same here- I’ve followed this case from the very start. I just finished watching episode 1 on Netflix
I’m shaking with anger at all the evidence that’s being LEFT OUT!
It’s ridiculous….gottta go for a long walk before I watch episode 2

In providing answers, many disciplines express it in a statistical form. So I shall do the same.

MOO. There is a tiny chance that an intruder did it. I would assign it the value of 3.125%. The rest - 96.875% - is that it was someone of the three people prssent in the house that night. Likely, it was an accident that was covered up, at first, stupidly and hysterically, and later, smarter.

The whole family was neither functional nor organized, but it was of the "smokes and mirrors" type, and could outwardly present well. If they had the guts to acknowledge on day one that it was a tragic accident, they would have lost much less.

Another thing is that everyone has, in a way, done his time. The way life treated this family, I think you don't wish it on anyone.

In the shoes of JR, I wouldn't wake a sleeping dog. Unless he wants to monetize it.

 

[ShadyLady]

Thank you for the additional work and sharing this @AddieBoo ….

RSBMBFF:

““On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Coloraado, John Benett Ramsey 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.”

IMO, based on what is known of the case and publicly, there is only one individual that seems to fit the ‘person being assisted’ as described above……

And it is most unfortunate that the charges and indictments did not proceed. And the crimes described against JR as written IIUC was a felony. And also have to wonder IMO if the two parents were each charged, how long would the charged individuals remain in ‘concert’ together? SMH.

Once again, the DA office…… SMH. MOO

Has anyone thought that the reason the DA did not bring charges was because it would have exposed how many mistakes LE made?

Just read the report from first officer on the 26th. JR told him that he had put both kids to bed, and read to them. Why change the story later?

 

[CloudedTruth]

How do you know these true bills were lacking in evidence?

I think probably the only evidence that was lacking was specific to identifying exactly who did what. It was said by the juror who did speak out that they were hoping that the prosecution could / would make that clear at trial.

IMO Alex Hunter was never going to prosecute the Ramseys. It appears that there was no smoking gun (at least that we know of) and the case was circumstantial. He used that as his excuse to say there was not enough evidence to prosecute. And while there is certainly an argument to be made for that conclusion, many prosecutors are very hesitant to take a case to court that they don't think they can win and may be perceived as wasting taxpayer dollars, the disappointment of the prosecution team was palpable when Hunter made his pronouncement. The fact that he also misled the public to think that the jury had not voted to indict is yet another notch in his lack of integrity, ethics and morality as a DA, of which there are a history of many notches that attest to exactly that.

It's one thing to claim you're saving taxpayers money, and another to reduce charges and offer plea bargains to criminals that allows them short sentences and the ability to be back out in society and re-offend. Such was the case of Floyd David Slusher a known molester of boy scouts who finally was adequately held responsible and properly sentenced in the jurisdiction of another county. DA Hunter's decisions in that case are directly responsible for more boys being abused. Hunter should have been removed from office well before the Ramsey case ever came along.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Has anyone thought that the reason the DA did not bring charges was because it would have exposed how many mistakes LE made?

Just read the report from first officer on the 26th. JR told him that he had put both kids to bed, and read to them. Why change the story later?

In a word, no.

The DA's office was responsible for a lot of leaks pushing the narrative that the police completely blundered the case. Did they make mistakes? Yes, absolutely. But the conduct of the DA and his office in actively obstructing the investigation cannot be ignored. I think there's another reason why charges were not brought. One needs to take a close look at the relationships between the DA, his deputies and the Ramsey legal team. Namely Haddon and Morgan. They were running the show, not Alex Hunter.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Has anyone thought that the reason the DA did not bring charges was because it would have exposed how many mistakes LE made?

Just read the report from first officer on the 26th. JR told him that he had put both kids to bed, and read to them. Why change the story later?

It is hard to know on that question @ShadyLady . And I am an out of state not connected individual.

Yet reading what is evident publicly, that could be a part of the reasoning. As well as IMO efforts to protect someone or something? And none of those are valid reasons to forgo justice in the case of a murder victim. And surely IMO not in the case of a young child.

It seems this case is right up there with others that are most regrettable cases for not being properly handled IMO. And this was just over a quarter of a century ago that this happened. IMO it is deplorable. MOO

 

[AddieBoo]

Thank you for the additional work and sharing this @AddieBoo ….

RSBMBFF:

““On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Coloraado, John Benett Ramsey 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.”

IMO, based on what is known of the case and publicly, there is only one individual that seems to fit the ‘person being assisted’ as described above……

And it is most unfortunate that the charges and indictments did not proceed. And the crimes described against JR as written IIUC was a felony. And also have to wonder IMO if the two parents were each charged, how long would the charged individuals remain in ‘concert’ together? SMH.

Once again, the DA office…… SMH. MOO

Is there a Sleuther with legal expertise, here that can address that?
Those are great questions because to me the GJ is referring to either or BR. It’s confusing and ambiguous to me. And perhaps that was exactly the strategy of the DA’s office who crafted those indictments.

They remained in concert for all those years but IMO there is some serious additional evil for leaving this legacy to their kids, if they are guilty. If BR is innocent - that’s double evil. Does JAR ever imagine he could have been used as a scapegoat? For murder!!??

Yeh. That DA…. What a joke. I suspect there is a puppet master sitting high somewhere…

Thoughtful post…now am researching “feloniously”
Thinking this crime was an accident is much safer than the new reality these indictments have led me. It’s all so ugly. All of it.

 

[AddieBoo]

In a word, no.

The DA's office was responsible for a lot of leaks pushing the narrative that the police completely blundered the case. Did they make mistakes? Yes, absolutely. But the conduct of the DA and his office in actively obstructing the investigation cannot be ignored. I think there's another reason why charges were not brought. One needs to take a close look at the relationships between the DA, his deputies and the Ramsey legal team. Namely Haddon and Morgan. They were running the show, not Alex Hunter.

But why? What the heck was going on? Who was the puppet master. It is a conspiracy. But why? Was it the sale of his business that Lockheed wanted to do? Lockheed has major political power - power period.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

In a word, no.

The DA's office was responsible for a lot of leaks pushing the narrative that the police completely blundered the case. Did they make mistakes? Yes, absolutely. But the conduct of the DA and his office in actively obstructing the investigation cannot be ignored. I think there's another reason why charges were not brought. One needs to take a close look at the relationships between the DA, his deputies and the Ramsey legal team. Namely Haddon and Morgan. They were running the show, not Alex Hunter.

Yes @CloudedTruth …. thank you for the recollection. And granted it has been many years having since passed….. yet IMO it seemed that IIRC the DA was all too happy to offer up the Boulder Police department and investigators in that regard. Shameful IMO. MOO

 

[AddieBoo]

I think probably the only evidence that was lacking was specific to identifying exactly who did what. It was said by the juror who did speak out that they were hoping that the prosecution could / would make that clear at trial.

IMO Alex Hunter was never going to prosecute the Ramseys. It appears that there was no smoking gun (at least that we know of) and the case was circumstantial. He used that as his excuse to say there was not enough evidence to prosecute. And while there is certainly an argument to be made for that conclusion, many prosecutors are very hesitant to take a case to court that they don't think they can win and may be perceived as wasting taxpayer dollars, the disappointment of the prosecution team was palpable when Hunter made his pronouncement. The fact that he also misled the public to think that the jury had not voted to indict is yet another notch in his lack of integrity, ethics and morality as a DA, of which there are a history of many notches that attest to exactly that.

It's one thing to claim you're saving taxpayers money, and another to reduce charges and offer plea bargains to criminals that allows them short sentences and the ability to be back out in society and re-offend. Such was the case of Floyd David Slusher a known molester of boy scouts who finally was adequately held responsible and properly sentenced in the jurisdiction of another county. DA Hunter's decisions in that case are directly responsible for more boys being abused. Hunter should have been removed from office well before the Ramsey case ever came along.

Do you think the GJ from all that they heard, knew/had a clear idea of, who was responsible for the murder? Though even the evidence wasn’t good enough for trial - they know? If they are leaving it for the prosecutor- does that mean there was more evidence somewhere that could all the players in their correct parts?

That’s a whole lot of smoke … re Hunter and Slusher. Gotta read up on that. Hunter is a piece of work. A real piece of work.

This case keeps getting darker for me. Have read:heard rumors of nefarious goings on in that community,. but thought that following that thread would complicate the details. But maybe not,

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

But why? What the heck was going on? Who was the puppet master. It is a conspiracy. But why? Was it the sale of his business that Lockheed wanted to do? Lockheed has major political power - power period.

I think it could be as simple as this.
If BR was responsible and parents were attempting to cover it up, their attorney's meet with the DA and say "look, this isn't a prosecutable case, parents have suffered enough, let it go".
Now, there's a lot of undoing that needs to be undone because of the staging. The public won't ever be told the truth to protect BRs privacy per Co. law and there is where many conspiracies are born. I think the only cover up was done by the parents and this created a quagmire for the DA to undue and protect a minor.
This is just my theory..it has zero factual basis. I just think a simple explanation is most likely once the stage had been set. How could they undue it?

Please poke holes were you can.
Theories are just that!