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

[cenazoic]

Which Grand Jurors stated they understood why Hunter did not bring the case to trial??

For example:

Grand Juror Who Saw Original Evidence in JonBenet Ramsey Case Speaks Out

He believes there was enough evidence to indict the Ramseys of a crime.

abcnews.go.com

JonBenet Ramsey grand jury voted to indict parents in 1999, but DA refused to prosecute

On a brilliantly clear autumn day more than 13 years ago, Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter stepped to the podium before an anxious media horde to announce that the grand jury investigation int…

www.dailycamera.com

Ramsey grand juror welcomes new DNA tests, discusses reasons for indicting parents

A JonBenet Ramsey case grand juror on Friday applauded the news that there is to be a new round of DNA testing in the unsolved investigation, but is unsure that it will necessarily lead to the kill…

www.dailycamera.com

 

[cenazoic]

No indictment is ever contingent on definitely securing a guilty verdict, Its pure speculation as to what the verdict would have been.

Well, of course. A grand jury can give a prosecutor an idea of his odds, though.

Hunter plea bargained almost every case brought before him, He was a lousy prosecutor, sure he was going to say there was not enough evidence for a trial, he never wanted to take it to trial to begin with.

Maybe, but I’m not a mind-reader so I don’t know that for a fact. Regardless, it doesn’t answer why no succeeding DA (there have been 3 since Hunter left office) has brought the case to trial, either.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Which Grand Jurors stated they understood why Hunter did not bring the case to trial?? Grand Jurors are sworn to secrecy....

One spoke anonymously here:

The juror said he believes that there was enough evidence to indict John and Patsy Ramsey for a crime, but he doesn’t think they would have been convicted.

“There is no way that I would have been able to say, ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt, this is the person,’” the juror said. “And if you are the district attorney, if you know that going in, it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars to do it.”

No indictment is ever contingent on definitely securing a guilty verdict, Its pure speculation as to what the verdict would have been. The result of a trial can never be predicted. Maybe additional evidence is found for the trial that had not been presented to the GJ, maybe someone cracks and confesses at the trial etc etc etc

A surefire loss can absolutely be predicted. Prosecutors do it all the time. Here is Mitch Morrissey, who was one of the prosecutors assisting with the Ramsey grand jury (BBM):

Silverman: “Was that a good decision on his part?"

Morrissey: “It was the right decision. Was it a good decision? Well, I don’t know. The answer to that question was not really my bailiwick, but I was brought up—and you were brought up—not bringing cases where you don’t have a reasonable likelihood of conviction. That is your standard. That’s what you live by as a prosecutor. You don’t charge people where you don’t have a reasonable likelihood of conviction. So was it a good decision? Did it answer things? I don’t know. But it was the right decision. Because we did not have a reasonable expectation of conviction of the Ramseys.”

Silverman: “But there was probable cause, right?”

Morrissey: "There was probable cause. How many times, Craig, in your career, did you sit there with an outstanding detective across the table from you, saying, 'Why are you not filing on this case? We’ve got probable cause.' You had probable cause. The grand jury said we had probable cause. That one grand juror they had during that whole time, they asked him that question, they said, 'Would you have convicted him?' He said, 'No. But there was probable cause.' You don’t file cases based on probable cause.

I had a lot of people say to me, 'Why don’t you just file it and let the jury decide?’ Because that’s not ethically correct to do. If you don’t have a reasonable expectation of conviction, you cannot bring the charge. And Alex Hunter, he gets blamed for that. But I’ll tell you, we were advising him of that."

Hunter plea bargained almost every case brought before him, He was a lousy prosecutor, sure he was going to say there was not enough evidence for a trial, he never wanted to take it to trial to begin with.

Most prosecutors plea bargain the majority of their cases. Hunter wasn't an anomaly.

Hunter intentionally misled the world regarding the Grand Jury Indictment. It was a total abuse of process. His actions may have even been unlawful under Colorado law.

How would it be unlawful and why aren't other prosecutors not pointing that out?

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

It certainly doesn't sound like there is incriminating info for the Ramseys in those pages.

I agree with you and understand JR’s reasoning. He wants the court to release all of the, not just those pertaining to the non-prosecuted indictments, so that the public can get a full unbiased picture of all of the prosecution’s allegations and all information or evidence and presented to the grand jury.

In terms of the grand jury, I think it is telling that the documents show that the grand jury allege PR and/or JR aided and assisted the person who committed the murder in the first degree of JBR but not who that person was. Grand juries enable prosecutors to weed out weak cases The evidence seemed too insufficient to satisfy probable cause for either the scenario that PR murdered JBR in a fit of rage due to the bed wetting and then JR helped her cover it up, or JR did after sexually assaulting and PR aided him in covering the crime or BR did it and both parents concealed his role in JBR’s brutal murder. It would appear than that on an individual level the burden of proof was not met in order to reasonably believe that either PR or JR are responsible for the murder. In that case, if it cannot be reasonably determined or believed who committed the murder, how does the prosecution build the case for of and how PR and/or JR assisted? As forensic technology advances and more reliable or credible evidence can garnered from it for reassessing the crime in the future, for example, say hypothetically DNA shows one of the parents is the murderer, how does the prosecution justify charging and bringing both PR and JR to trial now for assisting in the coverup of the murder, but not the murder itself? IMO, that would have been a complicated decision for DA Hunter to in light of where the investigation and case stood then?

On that note, for the child abuse indictments, it does not appear to state which parent was responsible for the alleged child abuse and which parent was aware of its occurrence but failed to protect her or remove her from the danger leading to her tragic death. If even the evidence to designate which parent, PR or JR, was responsible for the abuse and which was neglectful was insufficient, as DA Hunter said, than IMO the prosecution would likely not have succeeded in getting a guilty verdict on that charge either. Without strong enough evidence that would hold up in court, there would have been just too many holes for the defense to poke in the prosecution’s allegations and possible alternatives reasoning to counter their arguments to raise reasonable doubt

9-11.000 - Grand Jury

www.justice.gov

9-11.000 - Grand Jury

www.justice.gov

Jurors wanted child abuse charges against JonBenet Ramsey's parents

Prosecutors decided not to act on the indictment and charge the couple, and the documents remained secret until a newspaper reporter and press-freedom group convinced a judge to unseal them.

www.local3news.com

https://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/index.html

So thank God I see another IDI after coming back from time out. We will see it get solved this year i believe.

MOO, I think IDI is a reasonable theory in light of an unknown male DNA sample found under JBR’s nails on both hands and in her underwear and Touch DNA from that male also on the right upper corner of her long Johns, Dr. Lee stating that JBR was likely received her TBI from a baseball bat, three neighbors saying they thought they saw a blond 6’ man in the alleyway by their house that night and the horrifying breakin and subsequent sexual assault of a teenager that took place nine months later in a home two miles away and whose house security alarm did not detect the perp’ intrusion, meaning unknown to everyone he could have already been in the house when the victim and her mom returned home and turned the security system on. This case in MOO seems to make the IDI theory more plausible since sadly another break-in and subsequent assault that has gone undetected for a time in another people’s home has occurred in that area.

 

[Chypre]

It's downright

I am not surprised the GJ understood the difficulty in prosecuting the case. I believe that is less to do with who they thought was responsible and more to do with the crime scene contamination and intentional misdirection of evidence. Others imply that it was a weak case against the Ramseys, as though they lacked guilt. Legally that is true but I think the GJ had enough information to see through the rouse and they didn't buy the fantasy the Ramseys were peddling and JR continues to SELL They had 13 solid months to sort the nonsense, double speak, selective memory, and gaslighting. They said" No thank you"

Thank you for stating legally that is true.

 

[FMB]

One spoke anonymously here:

Ok, we have one anonymous Grand Juror......right. One anonymous person that is speculating as to the outcome of the trial.

A surefire loss can absolutely be predicted. Prosecutors do it all the time. Here is Mitch Morrissey, who was one of the prosecutors assisting with the Ramsey grand jury (BBM):

Pure speculation as to the outcome of the trial. No verdict can ever be predicted.
I dont think many prosecutors would have predicted the result of the OJ Simpson trial a year earlier.

Most prosecutors plea bargain the majority of their cases. Hunter wasn't an anomaly.

This was not just any case....this was a very high profile case. Its unprecedented that the DA did not seek charges after the Grand Jury returned a True Bill.

How would it be unlawful and why aren't other prosecutors not pointing that out?

Because a Judge later ruled that Hunter should have informed the public that the Grand Jury voted to indict.
Again, he misled the public.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Thank you for stating legally that is true.

I should have said may be true as we don't know for sure but I'm sure the jury understood the task in front of them. The Ramseys did a swell job of cluster mucking the scene up.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Ok, we have one anonymous Grand Juror......right. One anonymous person that is speculating as to the outcome of the trial.

He literally said there was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt presented. As people are eager to point out, the grand jury saw all the evidence they had, including things we haven't seen, and they still only signed true bills for four out of eighteen charges, and one of them said they didn't have enough to win at a trial.

Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is what trials are won by, and the grand juror says they didn't have it.

Pure speculation as to the outcome of the trial. No verdict can ever be predicted.
I dont think many prosecutors would have predicted the result of the OJ Simpson trial a year earlier.

It is usually abundantly clear when the prosecution doesn't have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the grand jurors knew it, as did the prosecutors who were involved.

If they don't have that evidence they shouldn't bring the case to trial because they literally can't win. The defense could have spent all their time playing solitaire and still have won. And what would have happened after that? The Ramseys could not have been brought to trial on these charges ever again. New evidence emerges? Tough luck! So these four charges would have been thrown away for what? Vanity? Appeasing the diehards?

This was not just any case....this was a very high profile case. Its unprecedented that the DA did not seek charges after the Grand Jury returned a True Bill.

And he did try to take this case to trial. He just wanted a thorough investigation and a solid case before doing so. Hunter was careful, not corrupt or cowardly.

Because a Judge later ruled that Hunter should have informed the public that the Grand Jury voted to indict.

No, he didn't.

Again, he misled the public.

No,.he didn't. There was not enough evidence so he didn't charge. That was true then and is true now.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Because a Judge later ruled that Hunter should have informed the public that the Grand Jury voted to indict.

No, he didn't.

Again, he misled the public.

No,.he didn't. There was not enough evidence so he didn't charge. That was true then and is true now.

From Complete Colorado, author Craig Silverman:

Judge Lowenbach ruled that DA Alex Hunter had no right to hide the grand jury’s decision to indict, let alone to actively mislead the public. The true bills had to be disclosed based on case law, statutes and Colorado’s Rules of Criminal Procedure. In their book, The Death of Innocence, the Ramseys claimed clearance by the grand jury. Boulder DA Mary Lacy, who knew of the indictments, never mentioned it when she issued her “exoneration,” a move now belittled by Garnett.

I think it also bears mentioning that the charges the GJ did return indictments on had statutes of limitations attached, as do most indictments. Those expired during the time the indictments remained secret. Statutes of limitations are in place so that charges could still be filed within the timeframe allotted as seen fit. Of course in this case that very likely would not have happened anyway given Hunter's decision. Hunter's misleading the public into thinking no indictments were returned was also an act that closed the doors to any potential action being taken on those indictments. None of this was disclosed publicly until 13 years later. That's just wrong.

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

Correction for earlier post: Smit said it was likely a baseball bat that struck JBR. Dr. Lee suggested that BPD should test the metal baseball bat since nothing was found on the flashlight that was taken as part of police evidence. On an episode of the Prosecutors covering the JonBenet case, the hosts recall that many doctors or experts in the medical field called in to say a strike from a baseball bat is more likely to cause the type of abrasions and trauma seen on JBR’s skull than one from a flashlight, which unlike JBR’s head wound, usually have a higher chance of causing breakage of the skin and bleeding as well.

JonBenet Ramsey Murder Case: The Denver Post

extras.denverpost.com

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

SCottonwood

He literally said there was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt presented. As people are eager to point out, the grand jury saw all the evidence they had, including things we haven't seen, and they still only signed true bills for four out of eighteen charges, and one of them said they didn't have enough to win at a trial.

Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is what trials are won by, and the grand juror says they didn't have it.



It is usually abundantly clear when the prosecution doesn't have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the grand jurors knew it, as did the prosecutors who were involved.

If they don't have that evidence they shouldn't bring the case to trial because they literally can't win. The defense could have spent all their time playing solitaire and still have won. And what would have happened after that? The Ramseys could not have been brought to trial on these charges ever again. New evidence emerges? Tough luck! So these four charges would have been thrown away for what? Vanity? Appeasing the diehards?



And he did try to take this case to trial. He just wanted a thorough investigation and a solid case before doing so. Hunter was careful, not corrupt or cowardly.



No, he didn't.



No,.he didn't. There was not enough evidence so he didn't charge. That was true then and is true now.

Scott Peterson was tried and convicted on circumstantial evidence.
He's trying to sell an intruder theory now also. Who can blame him, he's got nothing to lose.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

SCottonwood

Scott Peterson was tried and convicted on circumstantial evidence.
He's trying to sell an intruder theory now also. Who can blame him, he's got nothing to lose.

You're talking about completely different things. Most evidence is circumstancial, but you still need it to be beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence at Peterson's trial was.

 

[FMB]

He literally said there was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt presented. As people are eager to point out, the grand jury saw all the evidence they had, including things we haven't seen, and they still only signed true bills for four out of eighteen charges, and one of them said they didn't have enough to win at a trial.

Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is what trials are won by, and the grand juror says they didn't have it.



It is usually abundantly clear when the prosecution doesn't have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the grand jurors knew it, as did the prosecutors who were involved.

If they don't have that evidence they shouldn't bring the case to trial because they literally can't win. The defense could have spent all their time playing solitaire and still have won. And what would have happened after that? The Ramseys could not have been brought to trial on these charges ever again. New evidence emerges? Tough luck! So these four charges would have been thrown away for what? Vanity? Appeasing the diehards?

Your proof that this anonymous individual was indeed a Grand Juror is???
If he indeed was a Juror he is breaking Colorado Grand Jury secrecy laws...

You state" even the Grand Jurors knew it" when all you have produced is one anonymous person who claims to have been Juror but you have no proof of.

And he did try to take this case to trial. He just wanted a thorough investigation and a solid case before doing so. Hunter was careful, not corrupt or cowardly.

When did he try to take the case to Trial??

No, he didn't.



No,.he didn't. There was not enough evidence so he didn't charge. That was true then and is true now.

When Did Hunter disclose publicly that the Grand Jury did indeed vote to indict the Ramsey's on very serious felony charges??

Are you saying that the DA does not have any ethical nor moral obligation to inform the public of the 4 signed True Bills indicting the Ramseys???

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Your proof that this anonymous individual was indeed a Grand Juror is???
If he indeed was a Juror he is breaking Colorado Grand Jury secrecy laws...

News organisations vet their sources.

You state" even the Grand Jurors knew it" when all you have produced is one anonymous person who claims to have been Juror but you have no proof of.

Ignore him if you feel like it. But Mitch Morrissey agrees fully. They didn't have evidence enough to win at a trial.

When did he try to take the case to Trial??

The whole process was building s case good enough for a trial. Employing a grand jury came late in the game, but it was aimed at getting charges - the text of which Hunter prepared. A grand jury .

When to employ a grand jury is a matter of disagreement among prosecutors. Hunter wanted to wait until they had more evidence to persuade the jurors, while Kane thought it should have been used to get evidence with their subpoena power. Both paths come with risks.

When Did Hunter disclose publicly that the Grand Jury did indeed vote to indict the Ramsey's on very serious felony charges??

Why would he do that when he didn't have enough evidence to prevail at a trial?

Are you saying that the DA does not have any ethical nor moral obligation to inform the public of the 4 signed True Bills indicting the Ramseys???

Yes. The disclosure would not have changed anything. It was Hunter's choice in the end.

 

[fcavanaugh]

The following is an article about what one of AH’s successor’s who imo has much more integrity/respectable than AH, Boulder DA Stan Garnett.
(Garnett is also the DA that didn’t agree with DA Mary Lacy’s 2008 exoneration of the Ramsey’s. I’ll share a link of his statement regarding the R’s exoneration in another post.)

Here’s what DA Garnett had to say in 2013, snipped from link:

JonBenet Ramsey evidence won't be shared unless case is filed, DA says

Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett is one of the most open and accessible elected officials in the state -- but in the matter of newly released true bills accusing John and Patsy Ramsey of culpability in the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey, their daughter, he's keeping mum, with his only...

By Michael Roberts
October 28, 2013

Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett is one of the most open and accessible elected officials in the state -- but in the matter of newly released true bills accusing John and Patsy Ramsey of culpability in the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey, their daughter, he's keeping mum, with his only public statement an op-ed in which he explains that his office won't share any evidence related to the shocking crime unless a case is filed -- something that seems unlikelier with each passing year. Get details and see documents below.

As we reported on Friday, Boulder Daily Camera reporter Charlie Brennan, working with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, filed a lawsuit asking for access to indictments of the Ramseys delivered by a 1999 grand jury but not acted upon by Alex Hunter, the Boulder DA at the time.

Garnett responded to the suit with a court filing that didn't outright refuse to release the documents, but stated that they would be made public only if a judge authorized their release. The legal response is on view below in its entirety, but here's an excerpt:
In essence, our position is that because the grand jury is supervised by the court, and violations of grand jury secrecy are punishable by the contempt powers of the court, the court must make the determination of whether, even under these unique circumstances, grand jury materials should be made available as you request. Be advised that this office will not object to you seeking court review of our decision before the appropriate judicial officer should you decide to do so.

Senior District Judge J. Robert Lowenbach subsequently okayed the release of the true bills, which accused John and Patsy (who died in 2006) of two crimes: child abuse resulting in death and acting as an accessory to the actual, and unknown, killer.

The national media immediately seized on these incendiary charges and inundated Garnett's office with requests for comment, prompting public information officer Catherine Olguin to issue a statement intended to keep them at bay. It reads:
Many media outlets have contacted the office and are understandably interested in a statement or reaction from the Boulder District Attorney regarding the release of grand jury documents in the JonBenet Ramsey case. This case is a Boulder case and the District Attorney answers to his constituency: the people of Boulder County. Also, the issues surrounding the case are complex and nuanced and do not readily lend themselves to a short sound bite. For these reasons, the District Attorney has decided to issue a statement in the form of an op-ed piece, to be published in this Sunday's edition of the Boulder Daily Camera, Boulder's local newspaper. He will not be issuing any other statement prior to that publication.

In the Camera op-ed, Garnett expresses empathy for those who want a resolution to this matter, but makes it clear that indictments aren't in the immediate future.Continue for more about the Boulder DA's response to the JonBenet Ramsey true bills' release, including multiple documents.

Garnett begins his Daily Camera piece by noting that he's studied the JonBenet case closely and stressing that he has no allergy to prosecution, having tried 200-plus felony cases and fifteen homicides since 2009 -- figures that represent "more than three times the average number of cases tried annually in this judicial district in the twenty years prior to my taking office." He then decries media speculation in the matter based on limited information -- but offers little hope that additional data will be forthcoming. He writes:
Because no case has ever been brought against anyone in Ramsey, the community has had no resolution and the tabloid press has been free to speculate, sometimes recklessly, based on only parts of the evidence. There has been no public airing of all the evidence in open court, nor can there be, unless and until a case is filed, which has been an understandable frustration to the community.

That frustration will continue over the foreseeable future. Garnett points out that the statute of limitations for the counts stated in the true bills expired long ago and his associates doesn't believe there's enough evidence to file new accusations. Not that he's willing to open up the repository of collected material and let others reach their own conclusions. "My, or my staff's view of what the evidence in the Ramsey case proves will only be stated in open court if a case is ever filed," he allows. "In the meantime, everyone, including the Ramsey family, is entitled to the full presumption of innocence."

The bottom line from Garnett's perspective: "These documents mean that this grand jury believed there was 'probable cause' (a lower threshold standard of proof than 'beyond a reasonable doubt') based on the evidence they had heard, that the named defendants had committed the crimes listed. That they were not pursued within the statute of limitations means that the DAs with the authority to do so believed that the evidence did not rise to the necessary level to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury trial. I don't know if I would have made the same decision, but I know how difficult these decisions are."

JonBenet Ramsey evidence won't be shared unless case is filed, DA says

Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett is one of the most open and accessible elected officials in the state -- but in the matter of newly released true bills accusing John and Patsy Ramsey of culpability in the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey, their daughter, he's keeping mum, with his only...

www.westword.com

IMHOO

 

[fcavanaugh]

JonBenét Ramsey Case: DA Says Former Prosecutor Erred with Letter Exonerating Parents and Brother​

"I didn't feel the exoneration was warranted based on the state of the evidence," the prosecutor says.

The current prosecutor in the JonBenét Ramsey murder case tells PEOPLE that as the 20th anniversary of her death approaches, he has not wavered from his belief that his predecessor was wrong to publicly clear from suspicion parents John and Patsy Ramsey as well as brother Burke.

“John, Burke, the Ramsey family are totally covered by the presumption of innocence and are entitled to that,” Boulder, Colorado, District Attorney Stan Garnett tells PEOPLE. “If we ever change our opinion about that with regard to the Ramseys or anyone else, we will file charges and say what we have to say about the case in open court.
But “to issue an exoneration is, I think, misleading,” he says.

As he has stated previously, Garnett says then Boulder DA Mary Lacy jumped the gun on July 9, 2008, when, on the basis of DNA analysis from the crime scene, she issued a letter to John Ramsey stating “we do not consider your immediate family including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son Burke to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime.”

Garnett says he has “a lot of respect” for Lacy, the prior DA. But he adds, “I didn’t feel the exoneration was warranted based on the state of the evidence and the complexity of the case. And I also thought it was a very unusual thing to do in a case where there had never been any charges filed.”

“When any district attorney goes around and starts issuing exonerations based on a particular piece of evidence, that can be very misleading to the public about the nature of the case,” he says.

More at link.

JonBenét Ramsey Case: Prosecutor Says Prior Clearing of Family Was 'Misleading'

"I didn't feel the exoneration was warranted based on the state of the evidence," the prosecutor says

people.com

IMHOO

 

[CloudedTruth]

The statute of limitations on the indictments were 3 years, so they expired in 2002 while it was still being withheld from the public that the GJ had returned two true bills for each parent. Mary Lacy had taken office in 2001 and she was firmly in the IDI camp. She also notably fell for the John Mark Karr bs and issued the nonsensical and non legally binding Ramsey exoneration.

Judge Lowenbach also found and stated in his decision that Hunter did mislead the public and had no right to do so, and also had a legal obligation to disclose to the public that the GJ did vote to indict, based upon case law, statutes and Colorado’s Rules of Criminal Procedure.

 

[Soulmagent]

SCottonwood

Scott Peterson was tried and convicted on circumstantial evidence.
He's trying to sell an intruder theory now also. Who can blame him, he's got nothing to lose.

On a death penalty case . That is why we still hear his name .
If they have not been over adventurous ,he had been done with the court long ago.

 

[Mandala]

The Boulder DA knew what happened on the night JBR was killed and they protected the Ramseys. IMO.

 

[CooperDyl]

The Boulder DA knew what happened on the night JBR was killed and they protected the Ramseys. IMO.

Maybe, but then why continue to until this current day? There’s new DAs, new LE, new judges. Is it a fear that finding an impartial jury would be impossible for such a high-profile case? Have successive DAs not found enough strength in the case, or have they been asked/pressured into not trying due to a bad light that could cast on previous DAs? Rhetorical questions, I’d just love to know the thought process of all that have been involved from day one to day now. Also would love to see what secret evidence there is that hasn’t been made public. Let’s hope any responsible parties are held accountable while(if) they still can be.
All imo.