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

[docyabut]

The Ramsey's were innocent in evidence
finding the matching to the unknown male`s DNA found on JonBenét Ramsey's clothing and a weapon in the 1996 murder case

 

[Indy_ar]

The Ramsey defense team WAS allowed to present their evidence.....Lou Smit was allowed to present his intruder theory to the Grand Jury and the GJ rejected it..... John Douglas was allowed to present a similar theory and again the GJ disregarded any intruder did it theory.

After 13 months of reviewing evidence, visiting the Ramsey home, listening to witness testimony the GJ voted to indict the Ramseys of child abuse resulting in death and accessory to murder, one count for each parent.

No, they were not allowed since it is a grand jury, those are the rules. Lou was allowed to present because he was part of the prosecutor's team, not the defense. The case was presented by the police who unfortunately were biased. The grand jury was called because the prosecutors thought that there was not enough evidence for a trial to convict anyone and they from the beginning disagreed with the police. Also, the DNA is the best evidence available. The fact that the blood was mixed with the unknown male DNA on the underwear should be investigated. All males that could have contaminated the evidence were tested and ruled out anyway.

 

[CloudedTruth]

No, they were not allowed since it is a grand jury, those are the rules. Lou was allowed to present because he was part of the prosecutor's team, not the defense. The case was presented by the police who unfortunately were biased. The grand jury was called because the prosecutors thought that there was not enough evidence for a trial to convict anyone and they from the beginning disagreed with the police. Also, the DNA is the best evidence available. The fact that the blood was mixed with the unknown male DNA on the underwear should be investigated. All males that could have contaminated the evidence were tested and ruled out anyway.

Lou Smit testified to the Grand Jury on March 11, 1999. He had resigned from the investigation in September of 1998, so he was no longer a part of the prosecutor's team. He specifically asked to be allowed to testify in order to present the intruder theory, and was initially turned down by the prosecution. He had to go to court to get a special stipulation overriding the prosecution team's denial of him being allowed to testify.

It was unprecedented that testimony for the defense was allowed in a Grand Jury. In keeping with all of the unusual aspects of this case.

DA Alex Hunter had to have his hand forced in even convening the Grand Jury. He was against the police being able to present evidence to a jury. He did much to ensure the investigation by the police was hampered and he was responsible for leaking stories to the press that painted the police in a very negative light. It cannot be ignored that despite Lou Smit's unprecedented testimony for the defense, the jury still returned two true bills for each parent. They obviously felt that the evidence pointed to the parents' responsibility / involvement in their daughter's death. What a juror indicated afterwards, was that they were all agreed on culpability of the Ramseys, they just were unsure of exactly who did what specifically.They had hoped that a trial would be able to determine that. However, DA Hunter refused to sign the true bills.

Whether or not one believes it was the right decision not to prosecute, it is an important part of the story that Hunter did not disclose to the public that the jury had indeed voted to indict on two counts for each parent. Instead he implied that there were no indictments returned on any of the possible charges. This information was only released to the public in 2013 that the grand jury had indeed voted to indict the Ramseys. And that only happened because a reporter and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a lawsuit. The judge agreed that as an official act of the grand jury, the public had the right to know.

 

[FMB]

No, they were not allowed since it is a grand jury, those are the rules. Lou was allowed to present because he was part of the prosecutor's team, not the defense. The case was presented by the police who unfortunately were biased. The grand jury was called because the prosecutors thought that there was not enough evidence for a trial to convict anyone and they from the beginning disagreed with the police. Also, the DNA is the best evidence available. The fact that the blood was mixed with the unknown male DNA on the underwear should be investigated. All males that could have contaminated the evidence were tested and ruled out anyway.

Yes, Grand Jury's only hear the prosecution's side and their job is to decide if there is enough evidence to indict. The GJ voted to indict.

It was unprecedented that a Grand Jury would hear arguments from the defense like they did in the Ramsey case.

Again, Lou Smit and John Douglas presented arguments that an intruder had committed the crime. The Grand Jury rejected these arguments. Yes Lou was hired by the prosecution but He and John presented theories in opposition to the prosecution.

These are the facts.

Its highly irregular that a Grand Jury would be presented theories dissenting from the prosecutions theory but this again highlights the preferential treatment the Ramsey's received and gives us insight into what the GJ thought of the intruder did it theory.

Your statement that the Grand Jury was called because prosecutors thought there was not enough evidence for a trial makes no sense. The Grand Jury is convened to determine if there is enough evidence to indict and subsequently go to trial.

This case was not presented to the Grand Jury by a " Biased Boulder Police" it was presented bu the DA Alex Hunter.

 

[docyabut]

First, I have to believe there have been many so called revelations in the 28 years since the murder. It’s a very well known case, prone to attracting crackpots.
Second, JR has taken it so seriously, but hasn’t handed it off to the FBI, or BPD. He’s given it to his own investigators. He’s tried calling the number given, but the woman hasn’t answered. Oh well. Does this sound like a man despite to solve the murder of his daughter?
IMO

I think this one was about a women who was against her husband. They both had a little girl in the beauty contest . He was tested on the DNA findings and he wasn't the killer . I think it was told in that was in the untold story
Watch Hunting JonBenét's Killer: The Untold Story | A&E

 

[TroyinTX]

A question regarding leaving the note on the back staircase. I'm assuming that isn't or wasn't the main staircase to the upstairs? If it it wasn't, an intruder would have to know that this staircase was the one used by Patsy and/or John in the morning. How would they know that or why would they assume that? Seems there would be much more perceived "visible" places to leave the note for it to be found. For some reason, it's always struck me as an odd place to leave the note.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Your statement that the Grand Jury was called because prosecutors thought there was not enough evidence for a trial makes no sense. The Grand Jury is convened to determine if there is enough evidence to indict and subsequently go to trial.

Yet that was the reasoning, that the Grand Jury would uncover evidence or something that could be incriminating. However, the Grand Jury spent 18 months listening to the prosecution, yet in the end would only indict on a few, weaker charges. Even with a true bill, a prosecutor has to decide if a case is strong enough to take to trial, where the defense would be an active and equal force. Hunter decided it wasn't, and it's hard to disagree. Even a grand juror, interviewed later, said that there clearly wasn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

This case was not presented to the Grand Jury by a " Biased Boulder Police" it was presented bu the DA Alex Hunter.

Actually, they called in a special prosecutor, Kane, to handle the Grand Jury. There was a lot of political pressure on Hunter to either charge the Ramseys or step aside for a special prosecutor who would. Governor Owens, who would publicly criticize the Ramsey family while grandstanding in the media, actually had his office review Hunter's decision not to indict. The panel who did the review found no fault with Hunter's decision.

 

[docyabut]

A question regarding leaving the note on the back staircase. I'm assuming that isn't or wasn't the main staircase to the upstairs? If it it wasn't, an intruder would have to know that this staircase was the one used by Patsy and/or John in the morning. How would they know that or why would they assume that? Seems there would be much more perceived "visible" places to leave the note for it to be found. For some reason, it's always struck me as an odd place to leave the note.

PHOTOS: A tour of the Ramsey house

PHOTOS: A tour of the Ramsey house

www.9news.com

 

[CloudedTruth]

A question regarding leaving the note on the back staircase. I'm assuming that isn't or wasn't the main staircase to the upstairs? If it it wasn't, an intruder would have to know that this staircase was the one used by Patsy and/or John in the morning. How would they know that or why would they assume that? Seems there would be much more perceived "visible" places to leave the note for it to be found. For some reason, it's always struck me as an odd place to leave the note.

It was not the main staircase, correct.

That said, the note was not on the spiral staircase when officer French arrived. We have only Patsy’s account that was where she found it. John did not even see it on the stairs. Then neither could remember how or where it got handed off to John.

Both Patsy and John supposedly handled the note, yet no fingerprints from either one of them were present.

 

[docyabut]

 

[FMB]

Yet that was the reasoning, that the Grand Jury would uncover evidence or something that could be incriminating. However, the Grand Jury spent 18 months listening to the prosecution, yet in the end would only indict on a few, weaker charges. Even with a true bill, a prosecutor has to decide if a case is strong enough to take to trial, where the defense would be an active and equal force. Hunter decided it wasn't, and it's hard to disagree. Even a grand juror, interviewed later, said that there clearly wasn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

They were indicted for child abuse resulting in death and accessory to murder...one count each parent....You are characterizing those charges as a few and weaker? Weaker than first degree murder maybe.....but those are very serious felony charges.

Actually, they called in a special prosecutor, Kane, to handle the Grand Jury. There was a lot of political pressure on Hunter to either charge the Ramseys or step aside for a special prosecutor who would. Governor Owens, who would publicly criticize the Ramsey family while grandstanding in the media, actually had his office review Hunter's decision not to indict. The panel who did the review found no fault with Hunter's decision.

Agreed, lots of political pressure along with corruption in the DAs office ....... The Bottom line is that 12 jurors reviewed copious amounts of evidence over a 13 month period and voted to indict.

 

[Indy_ar]

Yes, Grand Jury's only hear the prosecution's side and their job is to decide if there is enough evidence to indict. The GJ voted to indict.

It was unprecedented that a Grand Jury would hear arguments from the defense like they did in the Ramsey case.

Again, Lou Smit and John Douglas presented arguments that an intruder had committed the crime. The Grand Jury rejected these arguments. Yes Lou was hired by the prosecution but He and John presented theories in opposition to the prosecution.

These are the facts.

Its highly irregular that a Grand Jury would be presented theories dissenting from the prosecutions theory but this again highlights the preferential treatment the Ramsey's received and gives us insight into what the GJ thought of the intruder did it theory.

Your statement that the Grand Jury was called because prosecutors thought there was not enough evidence for a trial makes no sense. The Grand Jury is convened to determine if there is enough evidence to indict and subsequently go to trial.

This case was not presented to the Grand Jury by a " Biased Boulder Police" it was presented bu the DA Alex Hunter.

Regardless of weather Joe had resigned, he investigated the case on behalf of the prosecutor, not the defense. If the case had actually being conducted in a regular trial, the defense would have been allowed to present arguments as opposed to just other investigation sources. The prosecutors did not pursuit this avenue because they believed that they would not be able to make a case with the evidence available, i.e. would have lost. The defense could have brought experts that could talk about the only piece of evidence they had, the ransom note and the writing analysis. Also, the most compelling evidence is still the DNA from the underpants that was found mixed with the blood.

 

[Indy_ar]

DBM

 

[Indy_ar]

DBM

 

[Indy_ar]

Lou Smit testified to the Grand Jury on March 11, 1999. He had resigned from the investigation in September of 1998, so he was no longer a part of the prosecutor's team. He specifically asked to be allowed to testify in order to present the intruder theory, and was initially turned down by the prosecution. He had to go to court to get a special stipulation overriding the prosecution team's denial of him being allowed to testify.

It was unprecedented that testimony for the defense was allowed in a Grand Jury. In keeping with all of the unusual aspects of this case.

DA Alex Hunter had to have his hand forced in even convening the Grand Jury. He was against the police being able to present evidence to a jury. He did much to ensure the investigation by the police was hampered and he was responsible for leaking stories to the press that painted the police in a very negative light. It cannot be ignored that despite Lou Smit's unprecedented testimony for the defense, the jury still returned two true bills for each parent. They obviously felt that the evidence pointed to the parents' responsibility / involvement in their daughter's death. What a juror indicated afterwards, was that they were all agreed on culpability of the Ramseys, they just were unsure of exactly who did what specifically.They had hoped that a trial would be able to determine that. However, DA Hunter refused to sign the true bills.

Whether or not one believes it was the right decision not to prosecute, it is an important part of the story that Hunter did not disclose to the public that the jury had indeed voted to indict on two counts for each parent. Instead he implied that there were no indictments returned on any of the possible charges. This information was only released to the public in 2013 that the grand jury had indeed voted to indict the Ramseys. And that only happened because a reporter and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a lawsuit. The judge agreed that as an official act of the grand jury, the public had the right to know.

Regardless of weather Joe had resigned, he investigated the case on behalf of the prosecutor, not the defense. If the case had actually being conducted in a regular trial, the defense would have been allowed to present arguments as opposed to just other investigation sources. The prosecutors did not pursuit this avenue because they believed that they would not be able to make a case with the evidence available, i.e. would have lost. The defense could have brought experts that could talk about the only piece of evidence they had, the ransom note and the writing analysis. Also, the most compelling evidence is still the DNA from the underpants that was found mixed with the blood.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

They were indicted for child abuse resulting in death and accessory to murder...one count each parent....You are characterizing those charges as a few and weaker? Weaker than first degree murder maybe.....but those are very serious felony charges.

It was "accessory to a crime". Yes, they are weaker charges, and by their very nature they suggest the Grand Jury was not in any way persuaded about a single suspect. And these were the only charges the Grand Jury could get a majority to agree on. We know there were were other charges that they didn't, and this was after thirteen months of looking at evidence, curated by Kane. It is extremely easy to get true bills from a Grand Jury, so this was a clear signal that the case was very weak.

Agreed, lots of political pressure along with corruption in the DAs office .......

The political pressure was against the Ramseys, just to be clear. And there was no corruption in the DAs office that I am aware of.

The Bottom line is that 12 jurors reviewed copious amounts of evidence over a 13 month period and voted to indict.

On the weaker charges, and with a combination of charges that made their uncertainty clear and also made it clear a conviction in court would be near impossible.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Regardless of weather Joe had resigned, he investigated the case on behalf of the prosecutor, not the defense. If the case had actually being conducted in a regular trial, the defense would have been allowed to present arguments as opposed to just other investigation sources. The prosecutors did not pursuit this avenue because they believed that they would not be able to make a case with the evidence available, i.e. would have lost. The defense could have brought experts that could talk about the only piece of evidence they had, the ransom note and the writing analysis. Also, the most compelling evidence is still the DNA from the underpants that was found mixed with the blood.

Of course, your comments are valid had it gone to trial.

The point however, is that Lou Smit (I assume you meant Lou not Joe) was allowed to present evidence for the defense to the Grand Jury, which was unprecedented. And when he did so, he was not working for the prosecution as had been claimed. He was off the case.

 

[docyabut]

View attachment 552826

To add gosh even a unidentified palm print on the wine cellar door.?

 

[CloudedTruth]

To add gosh even a unidentified palm print on the wine cellar door.?

That's from earlier on in the investigation.

The palm prints found on the wine cellar door were all identified and belonged to Patsy and John Andrew.

 

[Indy_ar]

Of course, your comments are valid had it gone to trial.

The point however, is that Lou Smit (I assume you meant Lou not Joe) was allowed to present evidence for the defense to the Grand Jury, which was unprecedented. And when he did so, he was not working for the prosecution as had been claimed. He was off the case.

Yes, I meant Lou . I still disagree on the concept that Lou was presenting evidence for the defense. The evidence he presented benefited the defendants but he got that evidence while working for the prosecutor on his behalf. In a grand jury the defense does not present any evidence as was in this case. Lou wanted to present his findings because he felt that the "police work (his investigation in behalf of the prosecutor)" showed that the letter was not the only evidence available and he strongly believed that a stranger had entered the house based on the evidence he saw at the house.