Has the case fizzled a bit?

[BOESP]

otg,
Also note the contradiction in Hunter's statement, i.e. he believes there is insufficient evidence but the GJ considers the parents should face charges relating to abuse.

So what kind of evidence about abuse did the GJ hear, this is patently what Hunter does not want anyone to know.

It could be the case that the GJ know it is BDI, but also know that JR and PR were involved, one of which may actually have killed JonBenet, so on this basis they wanted them indicted?

If they did not think it was BDI, I reckon they thought JR was responsible.


.

BBM: Why would Patsy be included in the indictment if there wasn't substantial evidence enough to suggest she was responsible too.

 

[Darlene733510]

The day after BR testified they made an announcement that he was cleared. The way AH lied about the GJ decision, makes me wonder if Burke was really cleared, or if his age had something to do with it. Did the GJ talk to his teachers, the Bureau of Social Services, and maybe they thought this kid did have psychological problems, and the parents were to blame. I think the GJ voted to indict because they knew the R's neglect had affected both of their children.
Remember that I posted that records from CPS had magically disappeared. How convenient was that for the R's? Whatever happened BR was free to go on with life, but as he got older, if he did kill JB, I am sure he had it instilled by the parents that it was over, and not to dwell on the matter. What was very chilling to me was when he said that JB was hit on the head with a hammer, and he did it twice making the swoosh swoosh sound. How would an innocent child think up something like this? How much did he partake in the murder, and how much did he see and hear that night? Did it all start with him, and the parents took over from there? I think it did.

 

[madeleine]

The day after BR testified they made an announcement that he was cleared. The way AH lied about the GJ decision, makes me wonder if Burke was really cleared, or if his age had something to do with it. Did the GJ talk to his teachers, the Bureau of Social Services, and maybe they thought this kid did have psychological problems, and the parents were to blame. I think the GJ voted to indict because they knew the R's neglect had affected both of their children.
Remember that I posted that records from CPS had magically disappeared. How convenient was that for the R's? Whatever happened BR was free to go on with life, but as he got older, if he did kill JB, I am sure he had it instilled by the parents that it was over, and not to dwell on the matter. What was very chilling to me was when he said that JB was hit on the head with a hammer, and he did it twice making the swoosh swoosh sound. How would an innocent child think up something like this? How much did he partake in the murder, and how much did he see and hear that night? Did it all start with him, and the parents took over from there? I think it did.

@bold

Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter is among those who privately considered the possibility that Burke played a role in the death of his sister. "I wonder if Burke is involved in this," Hunter mused out loud one day, former Boulder police detective Steve Thomas wrote in his book.

Hunter declared publicly in 1999 that Burke wasn't a suspect in his sister's death. But later events suggested that statement wasn't as definitive as it seemed. In 2000 Hunter refused a request by Ramsey attorney Wood to sign a statement declaring under oath that "all questions related to" Burke's "possible involvement" in the death of his sister "were resolved to the satisfaction of investigators." He also refused to declare that Burke "has never been viewed by investigators as a suspect." Nor would he say that Burke "has not been and is not a suspect."

Hunter did, however, agree to language in which he declared that "no evidence has ever been developed ... to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from witness to suspect," and there is nothing in the transcripts of the interviews of the Ramseys to suggest any such evidence was developed.

So whatever Hunter's suspicions about Burke, he wasn't able to substantiate them.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solving-jonbenet-case-0

 

[Nom de plume]

The day after BR testified they made an announcement that he was cleared. The way AH lied about the GJ decision, makes me wonder if Burke was really cleared, or if his age had something to do with it. Did the GJ talk to his teachers, the Bureau of Social Services, and maybe they thought this kid did have psychological problems, and the parents were to blame. I think the GJ voted to indict because they knew the R's neglect had affected both of their children.
Remember that I posted that records from CPS had magically disappeared. How convenient was that for the R's? Whatever happened BR was free to go on with life, but as he got older, if he did kill JB, I am sure he had it instilled by the parents that it was over, and not to dwell on the matter. What was very chilling to me was when he said that JB was hit on the head with a hammer, and he did it twice making the swoosh swoosh sound. How would an innocent child think up something like this? How much did he partake in the murder, and how much did he see and hear that night? Did it all start with him, and the parents took over from there? I think it did.

BBM Too many adult movies and TV shows? Or maybe his parent(s) told him someone hit her in the head? Or maybe he saw one of his parents hit her in the head?

 

[midwest mama]

BBM Too many adult movies and TV shows? Or maybe his parent(s) told him someone hit her in the head? Or maybe he saw one of his parents hit her in the head?

It very well could have been simply a dramatic demonstration by a child, who was at the time prior to and after JB's death under psychiatric care, of what he "saw" in his mind as he related his knowledge of her death.

But, IMO, he could have very well awakened and managed to "come upon" the killing in progress, perhaps without the killer even realizing it, if Burke managed to get back to his room without being noticed.

 

[UKGuy]

BBM: Why would Patsy be included in the indictment if there wasn't substantial evidence enough to suggest she was responsible too.

BOESP,
I guess a quick review of the forensic evidence suggests both parents were involved, but which one was the more likely to sexually assault and kill JonBenet?

I'm not advocating this as a theory but possibly the GJ thought JDI with PR assisting along the way with pageants and visits to Dr Beuf when required, that is the classic stand by your man theory?


What if AH knew it was BDI, and the law tells him to shut it all down with minimal publicity?


.

 

[UKGuy]

@bold

Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter is among those who privately considered the possibility that Burke played a role in the death of his sister. "I wonder if Burke is involved in this," Hunter mused out loud one day, former Boulder police detective Steve Thomas wrote in his book.

Hunter declared publicly in 1999 that Burke wasn't a suspect in his sister's death. But later events suggested that statement wasn't as definitive as it seemed. In 2000 Hunter refused a request by Ramsey attorney Wood to sign a statement declaring under oath that "all questions related to" Burke's "possible involvement" in the death of his sister "were resolved to the satisfaction of investigators." He also refused to declare that Burke "has never been viewed by investigators as a suspect." Nor would he say that Burke "has not been and is not a suspect."

Hunter did, however, agree to language in which he declared that "no evidence has ever been developed ... to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from witness to suspect," and there is nothing in the transcripts of the interviews of the Ramseys to suggest any such evidence was developed.

So whatever Hunter's suspicions about Burke, he wasn't able to substantiate them.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solving-jonbenet-case-0

madeleine,
Whenever you hear politicians, police, investigators say these words, you just know they have something to hide.

A variant on this is Currently there is no evidence to implicate X in the role of Y, we have found nothing to demonstrate that X is involved

Its the ye olde absence of evidence come on. So when Hunter suggests he could not substantiate his suspicions, does that mean he never tried, or he is suggesting there is an absence of evidence, or the absence of evidence is not evidence that BR was involved?


.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
I guess a quick review of the forensic evidence suggests both parents were involved, but which one was the more likely to sexually assault and kill JonBenet?

I'm not advocating this as a theory but possibly the GJ thought JDI with PR assisting along the way with pageants and visits to Dr Beuf when required, that is the classic stand by your man theory?


What if AH knew it was BDI, and the law tells him to shut it all down with minimal publicity?


.

BBM: John and Patsy must have missed the memo Hunter sent out about shutting it all down with minimal publicity. :silenced:

 

[DeeDee249]

Remember that it is entirely possible that BR was "cleared" because his AGE prevented him from being named a suspect and not because he wasn't one.

 

[madeleine]

Remember that it is entirely possible that BR was "cleared" because his AGE prevented him from being named a suspect and not because he wasn't one.

which leads me to another question...let's say that they will solve the case and that BDI....must they protect his privacy because he was 9 back then or will they make it public...or is it a matter of choice (LE)...can they say we closed the case but can't disclose the details or something to that effect?

 

[midwest mama]

which leads me to another question...let's say that they will solve the case and that BDI....must they protect his privacy because he was 9 back then or will they make it public...or is it a matter of choice (LE)...can they say we closed the case but can't disclose the details or something to that effect?

If that was the case, wouldn't that have been done long ago? It doesn't make sense to me that AH, along with several top LE agents would alter their own lives and continue to take so much heat for a case being kept "open" (though cold) if there could have been a disclosure of that sort years ago.

Neither can I imagine that the R's would have had enough money over these 16 years to keep that kind of information squelched - just MOO.

 

[DeeDee249]

which leads me to another question...let's say that they will solve the case and that BDI....must they protect his privacy because he was 9 back then or will they make it public...or is it a matter of choice (LE)...can they say we closed the case but can't disclose the details or something to that effect?

They still have to protect his privacy. They won't make it public. They'll just say he case is still open but do nothing. Actually, that is exactly what they are doing. So I guess we have our answer. BDI.

 

[DeeDee249]

If that was the case, wouldn't that have been done long ago? It doesn't make sense to me that AH, along with several top LE agents would alter their own lives and continue to take so much heat for a case being kept "open" (though cold) if there could have been a disclosure of that sort years ago.

Neither can I imagine that the R's would have had enough money over these 16 years to keep that kind of information squelched - just MOO.

They really didn't have to do all that much over the years. LW prevents any further accusations and LE must keep silent because of Colorado's laws on child criminals.
How VERY different in other states- a 12-year old boy has just been charged with stabbing his sister to death in their home while the parents were not home. At first, the family blamed it on an "intruder" but there was no evidence of any intruder. No sign of a break-in, no intruder DNA. And she was "found" by her brother in her own home. Sound familiar? Yeah.

 

[midwest mama]

They really didn't have to do all that much over the years. LW prevents any further accusations and LE must keep silent because of Colorado's laws on child criminals.
How VERY different in other states- a 12-year old boy has just been charged with stabbing his sister to death in their home while the parents were not home. At first, the family blamed it on an "intruder" but there was no evidence of any intruder. No sign of a break-in, no intruder DNA. And she was "found" by her brother in her own home. Sound familiar? Yeah.

If they have to keep quiet, then it's just pathetic that all those people who really know what happened have been made to sacrifice so much - with their sense of justice for humanity being totally eroded because of man made laws.

Yet, those being protected are out in the public, flaunting the fact that they have "suffered" so much because of the justice they are being afforded. Just makes me sick. :steamed:

 

[douce40]

If BDI doesn't that mean John and/or Patsy should be charged as "accessories after the fact"? Nobody in their right mind would think Burke could have staged it all by himself. If BDI, don't you think LE would be angry that the parents hid the crime and would relish the opportunity to charge either/both Ramseys as "accessories"?

 

[DeeDee249]

If BDI doesn't that mean John and/or Patsy should be charged as "accessories after the fact"? Nobody in their right mind would think Burke could have staged it all by himself. If BDI, don't you think LE would be angry that the parents hid the crime and would relish the opportunity to charge either/both Ramseys as "accessories"?

Under Colorado law, they can't be, because doing so would reveal who the killer was- a child under 10 can't be revealed as a perp in ANY crime, no matter how grave. I don't think BR staged it al ALL- I think his parents did all the staging. I don't believe he played any part in the staging at all. At that point, he was sent to his room and told to stay there.

 

[Chrishope]

Under Colorado law, they can't be, because doing so would reveal who the killer was- a child under 10 can't be revealed as a perp in ANY crime, no matter how grave. I don't think BR staged it al ALL- I think his parents did all the staging. I don't believe he played any part in the staging at all. At that point, he was sent to his room and told to stay there.

Do you have a citation to the relevant statute? I ask because it is one thing to say a 9 year old can't be tried for a crime. It's another altogether to say he can't even be named as the perp.

 

[DeeDee249]

Do you have a citation to the relevant statute? I ask because it is one thing to say a 9 year old can't be tried for a crime. It's another altogether to say he can't even be named as the perp.

Someone posted it here on WS a while back. You may be able to search it here.

 

[cynic]

Bumping thread

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

I say LET THE JURY DECIDE once and for all. - Previous post.

The Grand Jury did decide and then a juror came out and said they couldn't figure out who did what between John and Patsy.

They vote to indict BOTH parents for neglect leading to death and then say they couldn't figure out who did what?

And a DA is supposed to prosecute based on the fact that something terrible happened and the Ramseys were the only ones there?