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

[FergusMcDuck]

They issued True Bills on charges they thought could be reasonably met at Trial..... They didnt need to indict on all 18 charges....they indicted on 4 very serious charges.

They didn't indict on the most important charges: who killed JonBenet? They absolutely needed those to have a coherent case at trial.

 

[Chypre]

No more Grand Jury Rinse, Wash, Repeat.

DNA TOPIC OF THREAD!

What is the official status of the fingernails?

 

[AddieBoo]

Sorry. True bills are not verdicts. And the GJ indictments did NOT suggest the Ramseys were guilty of murder. Child abuse (by letting someone else abuse their child) and accessory because they allowed their child to be put in that position. But no. Not murder.

And, the prosecutor said there was not enough evidence to convict.

GJ's almost always hand down some sort of true bill, and in the vast majority of cases, those defendants never go to trial.

Sorry?

The GJ handed down indictments from their beliefs that John and Patsy Ramsey were responsible for the murder of their six year old daughter. Accessory is cover up after the crime in which John and Patsy Ramsey, alleged by the indictment, knew the killer.

The standard of the murder cited by the GJ was First Degree Murder.
Intent to kill and premeditated.

These four true bills stand as public record from the belief of those jurors after 13 months of testimony and evidence, from prosecution and defense witnesses, that John and Patsy Ramsey knew the killer, kept their daughter in a dangerous environment that lead to her death and then acted to cover up the crime.

Those true bills stand as a public record about John and Patsy Ramsey.

The GJ could have issued “no true bill”
They did not.

 

[AddieBoo]

Yeah, some parents are weird that way -- they visit their dead children's graves.

Yeh…especially whenever a camera is around.

 

[AddieBoo]

And mean absolutely nothing regarding the guilt of the Ramseys.



They failed to issue true bills for fourteen of eighteen charges.



The charges they didn't have evidence for are still sealed, yes. John Ramsey has requested they beade public as well.



I doubt anyone's concerned about the contents of that testimony.



He and John Ramsey.



He isn't.

Fleet White…..

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Sorry?

The GJ handed down indictments from their beliefs that John and Patsy Ramsey were responsible for the murder of their six year old daughter. Accessory is cover up after the crime in which John and Patsy Ramsey, alleged by the indictment, knew the killer.

John wasn't charged for the murder. Patsy wasn't charged for the murder.

The standard of the murder cited by the GJ was First Degree Murder.
Intent to kill and premeditated.

For which no one was charged.

These four true bills stand as public record from the belief of those jurors after 13 months of testimony and evidence, from prosecution and defense witnesses, that John and Patsy Ramsey knew the killer, kept their daughter in a dangerous environment that lead to her death and then acted to cover up the crime.

With the lower grade of evidence. The Grand Jury is the start of the process, not the end. The GJ decided the prosecution could make their case at trial for four of the weaker charges, but make no mistake - this was limping across the finish line.
Even so, the GJ determining the prosecutors could attempt to prove their case at trial isn't the same as an actual trial verdict

This isn't some scarlet letter marking the Ramseys.

Those true bills stand as a public record about John and Patsy Ramsey.

And they mean nothing for them. Accusations need to be proven. These weren't.

The GJ could have issued “no true bill”
They did not.

They just scrapped fourteen out of eighteen charges - even with the lower burden if evidence the state couldn't make their case.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Fleet White…..

???

 

[Chypre]

Interesting overview of the different burdens of proof. I think this makes it evident that probable cause, which is the minimum level the grand jury is required to meet in order to file an indictment (true bill), is pretty far away from the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt” burden required for a successful criminal prosecution, imo.

Legal Standards of Proof

Evidentiary Standards: From Reasonable Suspicion to Beyond Reasonable Doubt

www.nolo.com

Thank you. Trying to put the graphic from the article up.

 

[AddieBoo]

Yeah, some parents are weird that way -- they visit their dead children's graves.

As ACCESSORIES to murder in the first degree. Please, AddieBoo, think it through. That leaves open who the killer is. As in the jury did not put themselves in a position to say it was definitely the Ramseys or another person, but the Ramseys PROBABLY involved. NOT definitely. I think they did leave open a loophole for it to be a random person, but the Ramseys failed to protect. The Ramseys are not even there to face their accusers. That is why the results are supposed to be secret.

YES, the decision not to bring forth the bills was done in a sneaky way, but they have to play the long game.

When I read your posts about the grand jury, I read it as you value the grand jury as a full trial because of the POTENTIAL for what is there to be furthered into full justice. But right now those bills and testimony are inventoried. They are only worth what they are separately for now, and if you don't collect EVIDENCE (to prove or disclaim) there is no added value.

You seem to conveniently forget and misrepresent what this document means as a source and as a public record in regards to a sketchy judicial system in Boulder Colorado and persons of interest with vast resources and connections.
There is nothing about this case that is usual. Not the people involved, the community, the past legal history of Alex Hunter, the attorneys, not law enforcement, not the public relations teams, the investigators, and certainly not the crime. Everything about this crime is extraordinary.

The path for justice for JonBenet Ramsey has been anything but usual. The fact that independent jurors came together and issued, legally, their belief that John and Patsy Ramsey were directly responsible for their daughters death is the only decent testimony from justice that continues to be evaded.
The GJ is a trial. It stands as a process of the judicial system of the United States, and therefore should be respected.

Again, please understand- after 13 months of testimony from prosecutors and defense the Grand Jury could have issued “no true bill”
They did not.

 

[AddieBoo]

Thank you. Trying to put the graphic from the article up.
View attachment 557807

 

[FergusMcDuck]

The GJ is a trial. It stands as a process of the judicial system of the United States, and therefore should be respected.

No, it is not. You are absolutely 100% wrong.

 

[AddieBoo]

Can anyone imagine living a life and having one’s legacy be:
Everyone knows the’re guilty, they just can’t prove it.
Yet.

 

[AddieBoo]

No, it is not. You are absolutely 100% wrong.

The Grand Jury could have issued
“No true bill”
They did not

 

[Chypre]

You seem to conveniently forget and misrepresent what this document means as a source and as a public record in regards to a sketchy judicial system in Boulder Colorado and persons of interest with vast resources and connections.
There is nothing about this case that is usual. Not the people involved, the community, the past legal history of Alex Hunter, the attorneys, not law enforcement, not the public relations teams, the investigators, and certainly not the crime. Everything about this crime is extraordinary.

The path for justice for JonBenet Ramsey has been anything but usual. The fact that independent jurors came together and issued, legally, their belief that John and Patsy Ramsey were directly responsible for their daughters death is the only decent testimony from justice that continues to be evaded.
The GJ is a trial. It stands as a process of the judicial system of the United States, and therefore should be respected.

Again, please understand- after 13 months of testimony from prosecutors and defense the Grand Jury could have issued “no true bill”
They did not.

Quit the drama. This thread is about DNA.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Can anyone imagine living a life and having one’s legacy be:
Everyone knows the’re guilty, they just can’t prove it.
Yet.

That's not true either. We don't have numbers on who believes what but it is an extremely far way from everyone who believes in the guilt of the Ramseys.

The Grand Jury could have issued
“No true bill”
They did not

A Grand Jury is still not a trial. This is basic knowledge.

 

[Ponytale]

I wouldn't want to profit either. Neither did the Ramseys. All proceeds from that book went to a foundation in JonBenet's name to fund child safety initiatives.

Actually, it isn't quite true. It is just what the Ramsey's want us to believe.
When ABC News(2000) asked the Ramsey's about the profits from their book sales John answered:
"The proceeds of our book will be used to pay legal expenses and will then go to the foundation we set up to honor JonBenet. That foundation will focus its efforts in the future on protecting children against predators, through legislation, and heightening and awareness of potential predators that may be in our midst."
As I understand, per IRS filings, the foundation has not existed for quite some time now. The foundation was initially set up by the Ramsey's to collect the reward money for information leading to JB's killer. The final year the Ramsey's filed taxes for their foundation was 1999.

KANE: Has any -- to your knowledge -- any of the money that ever has been in that foundation ever been given to any charitable or social -- ?
RAMSEY: Yeah . . . Not to the level we would have hoped. I mean, our original plan was that we were going to sue the hell out of the tabloids and donate it all to the foundation and do some very significant things. That has been a tough process. So we have not been able to do with it what we hoped, but I hope some day we can.

What they actually did was that Ramsey’s set up a “fake” foundation, any the money went to them and their lawyers.

 

[GRT]

Actually, it isn't quite true. It is just what the Ramsey's want us to believe.
When ABC News(2000) asked the Ramsey's about the profits from their book sales John answered:
"The proceeds of our book will be used to pay legal expenses and will then go to the foundation we set up to honor JonBenet. That foundation will focus its efforts in the future on protecting children against predators, through legislation, and heightening and awareness of potential predators that may be in our midst."
As I understand, per IRS filings, the foundation has not existed for quite some time now. The foundation was initially set up by the Ramsey's to collect the reward money for information leading to JB's killer. The final year the Ramsey's filed taxes for their foundation was 1999.

KANE: Has any -- to your knowledge -- any of the money that ever has been in that foundation ever been given to any charitable or social -- ?
RAMSEY: Yeah . . . Not to the level we would have hoped. I mean, our original plan was that we were going to sue the hell out of the tabloids and donate it all to the foundation and do some very significant things. That has been a tough process. So we have not been able to do with it what we hoped, but I hope some day we can.

What they actually did was that Ramsey’s set up a “fake” foundation, any the money went to them and their lawyers.

It was a real foundation -- it was registered as a 501(c)(3) private non-operating foundation with the IRS, under EIN 84-1397683.

But it didn't appear to get many contributions, the book didn't make much money, and the foundation was eventually allowed to close. It's not that odd—foundations that don't get the funding they expect close.

But, it was an officially recognized foundation.

It's too bad the Ramseys weren't successful in suing the tabloids, which lied about them and influenced many gullible people with incorrect ideas. But freedom of the Press and all...

 

[cenazoic]

Freedom of the press / speech doesn’t protect you from slander/libel laws. If there was a case for libel / defamation in the case of the tabloids, I’m sure their attorneys would have been all over it.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

The Grand Jury is a trial,

This is a blatant misunderstanding of the whole process. The Grand Jury is not a trial. It does not issue a verdict. It simply tells the prosecutors if they can even proceed to the actual trial to get an actual verdict. It would be a weird, Kafka-esque institution if it actually was a trial and the true bill was considered a verdict.

Thr jurors are vetted and chosen. This jury was presented with both sides of evidence.

Lou Smit.making a presentation one day out of the prosecution's year-long show does not "both sides" make. The defense had no knowledge of the evidence presented by the prosecution and no way to counter it. In what bizarre dystopia would that be considered a trial?

They had full subpoena power. They deliberated and reached a decision for the first phase of our legal process towards a verdict..

Towards a trial, not towards a verdict.

They did not reach a verdict for prosecution or the opposite. But those independent jurors reached a conclusion that enough evidence and testimony on four counts, were enough to continue the process towards a verdict.

To continue with a trial. And only on four of eighteen charges, and not the main ones. After that the prosecutor made the correct call that the case couldn't be won at trial - as was agreed on by his fellow prosecutor Morrissey and the interviewed Grand Juror.

The Grand Jury could have issued No True Bills”
But they didn’t.

They just didn't sign the majority of the charges, including the main ones.

 

[GRT]

The amount of disrespect and blatant disregard for that GJ decision, for that process in the pursuit of justice, in the face of 28 years of corrupt judicial practices and the myths that are constantly brought into the public sphere, has nothing to do with justice for JonBenet Ramsey.

RSBM

I respect the GJ's true bills, but they weren't what you keep saying they were. They are concerned with "child abuse" and "accessory." They did not indict the Ramseys on murder. They were lesser charges, and even at that, the prosecutor declined to prosecute because there wasn't enough evidence.

That's not rare as some seem to think it is.

Right now, new DNA technology may be able to do a bit more with the unknown male DNA on JonBenet's panties and long johns. That's all anyone is asking for -- including her grieving father. The BPD has long fought against conducting a real investigation, and top detectives, like Lou Smit, quit the department over it.

I have a hunch that even when DNA finally points out the true killer, some will not accept it.