Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[Mama2JML]

Wrong! He did lie and say the GJ never brought an indictment against the Ramsey's. If he truely believed he could not win this if taken to trial why not jsut come out and say all this after the GJ handed down their indictment?

Denver Post article from October 14, 1999:

"'The grand jurors have done their work extraordinarily well, bringing to bear all their legal powers, life experiences and shrewdness,' Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter announced at an impromptu news conference about 5 p.m. Wednesday. 'Yet I must report to you that I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at the present time.'

Hunter did not say whether the grand jurors had voted on an indictment - only nine of the 12 jurors need to agree on an indictment - or whether they had written a report on their findings. Hunter did not take questions and said only that the grand jury had completed its work and would not meet again."

Source: http://extras.denverpost.com/news/ram1014a.htm

 

[Tawny]

IT is not spin it is fact. He went to the GJ for an indictment of murder. He did not get one and so there as not enough to bring them to trial for murder.

Respectfully, we don't know what is in the remaining sealed pages.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Respectfully, we don't know what is in the remaining sealed pages.

I would bet more of the same. OMO.. To me they released the papers they felt would be most damning. If there was one in there that said they were indicted for murder, We would have seen AH sign the Indictment and take it to trial.

When applying logic to what we know it only makes sense. OMO

 

[Landonsmom02]

Denver Post article from October 14, 1999:

"'The grand jurors have done their work extraordinarily well, bringing to bear all their legal powers, life experiences and shrewdness,' Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter announced at an impromptu news conference about 5 p.m. Wednesday. 'Yet I must report to you that I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at the present time.'

Hunter did not say whether the grand jurors had voted on an indictment - only nine of the 12 jurors need to agree on an indictment - or whether they had written a report on their findings. Hunter did not take questions and said only that the grand jury had completed its work and would not meet again."

Source: http://extras.denverpost.com/news/ram1014a.htm

BBM
So maybe I didn't word that right. What I was trying to say was why was it so hard for AH to say the GJ voted to indict when he held this news conference? He had no problem saying he felt it didn't warrant filing of charges.

 

[Mama2JML]

Spin it how ever you want to. But the fact is the GJ voted to indict the parents. Not for 1st degree murder, BUT they still held them responsible for not helping her when they could which would have prevented her death. So, therefore, when AH so the GJ didn't indict the Ramsey's he lied! :twocents: Again as many posters have said, they saw the evidence and this case is so messed up in so many ways (because the R's didn't help the matter) they couldn't come out and say who killed her and who covered it up. If they were truely innocent the GJ wouldn't have handed down any type of indictment! The GJ didn't see it as an intruder was responsible, IMO.

1. GRAND JURIES DO NOT DETERMINE GUILT/INNOCENCE. GRAND JURIES SEEK PROBABLE CAUSE.

2. The GJ did NOT see ALLLL the evidence.

3. Hunter did not lie.

4. Again, GJs DO NOT SEEK TO PROVE INNOCENCE, RATHER GJs SEEK TO COMPILE EVIDENCE, FROM THE PROSECUTION, TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE TO FILE CHARGES.

5. Hunter was OBVIOUSLY aware of exculpatory evidence that would likely cause "reasonable doubt" @ trial.

 

[Tawny]

I would bet more of the same. OMO.. To me they released the papers they felt would be most damning. If there was one in there that said they were indicted for murder, We would have seen AH sign the Indictment and take it to trial.

When applying logic to what we know it only makes sense. OMO

IMO, applying logic to what we already know tells me, personally, that they may have released the LEAST damning indictments.

 

[Landonsmom02]

1. GRAND JURIES DO NOT DETERMINE GUILT/INNOCENCE. GRAND JURIES SEEK PROBABLE CAUSE.

2. The GJ did NOT see ALLLL the evidence.

3. Hunter did not lie.

4. Again, GJs DO NOT SEEK TO PROVE INNOCENCE, RATHER GJs SEEK TO COMPILE EVIDENCE, FROM THE PROSECUTION, TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE TO FILE CHARGES.

5. Hunter was OBVIOUSLY aware of exculpatory evidence that would likely cause "reasonable doubt" @ trial.

And that is exactly what they did! They saw probable cause, hence the indictment!

Maybe I will exit stage left too because I feel like I'm talking in circles! :seeya:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

And that is exactly what they did! They saw probable cause, hence the indictment!

Maybe I will exit stage left too because I feel like I'm talking in circles! :seeya:

Not for murder they didn't. Not for manslaughter either.

The indictment simple states the R's let something happen to jonbenet that caused her death. Not who was responsible, Not what happened.

 

[Anyhoo]

I think your theory is interesting and has potential - a blended idea that works with the evidence that points IDI and RDI. However, I do think the wording doesn't exclude BDI (or JARDI). Parents are sometimes held responsible for the actions of their children. If they knew Burke was abusing JonBenet and did nothing, that would fit the wording.

How would the GJ know the parents were aware of the abuse (if it existed) and allowed it to continue without doing anything about it? That seems like a stretch to me. Also, the wording of the indictment does not seem to indicate the behavior of a nine year old boy in relation to his sister. Read it again. Instead it seems to indicate the behavior of one or more adults toward a child. Unlawful and illegal is not what you would describe two children of approximately the same age doing. It is more than that. To me it indicates the parents allowed one or more other adults to sexually abuse their daughter, for whatever reason they allowed it to happen, and she died DURING the sexual abuse.

 

[Mama2JML]

The GJ's indictment does not support BDI theories. (& JAR's alibi was a heck of a lot more solid than that of many other POIs.)

From the indictment: "...the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death."

Burke was cleared. JAR was cleared (...& the Ramseys were cleared. I digress.) Anyway, we all know the expectation here, "Don't accuse innocent people."

 

[Anyhoo]

The GJ's indictment does not support BDI theories. (& JAR's alibi was a heck of a lot more solid than that of many other POIs.)

From the indictment: "...the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death."

Burke was cleared. JAR was cleared (...& the Ramseys were cleared. I digress.) Anyway, we all know the expectation here, "Don't accuse innocent people."

The wording of the indictment in no way indicates it was a child the parents were assisting, as you pointed out, excluding BDI. As for the last part, how do we know who is innocent? I certainly don't and no one is getting excluded from examination as a possible suspect.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The wording of the indictment in no way indicates it was a child the parents were assisting, as you pointed out, excluding BDI. As for the last part, how do we know who is innocent? I certainly don't and no one is getting excluded from examination as a possible suspect.

What is examination???

We don't have anyone charged at all. The R's were cleared by DNA and the DA so they are pretty well out of it. OMO

 

[Mama2JML]

The wording of the indictment in no way indicates it was a child the parents were assisting, as you pointed out, excluding BDI. As for the last part, how do we know who is innocent? I certainly don't and no one is getting excluded from examination as a possible suspect.

Good point...

 

[Mama2JML]

"The Colorado Bureau of Investigation concluded it didn't belong to John or Patsy Ramsey." (Thomas, 2000)

 

[Anyhoo]

What is examination???

We don't have anyone charged at all. The R's were cleared by DNA and the DA so they are pretty well out of it. OMO

I just mean we should be free to discuss anyone as being a possible suspect in this murder even if there is no direct evidence of guilt. That statement was not directed at you, Scarlett. I disagree the Ramsey's are out of it. You can be an accessory to murder without killing anyone yourself. But hey, I'm not trying to change your opinion because I see how firmly you are attached to it. You can believe what you like, but nothing you have said changes my opinion about the Ramsey's.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I just mean we should be free to discuss anyone as being a possible suspect in this murder even if there is no direct evidence of guilt. That statement was not directed at you, Scarlett. I disagree the Ramsey's are out of it. You can be an accessory to murder without killing anyone yourself. But hey, I'm not trying to change your opinion because I see how firmly you are attached to it. You can believe what you like, but nothing you have said changes my opinion about the Ramsey's.

That is okay. I hope no is persuaded by someone else's thoughts or opinions but take the time to look at the evidence themselves. Without bias or spin. Only facts that are true. Not stories or feelings but real facts.

 

[Anyhoo]

That is okay. I hope no is persuaded by someone else's thoughts or opinions but take the time to look at the evidence themselves. Without bias or spin. Only facts that are true. Not stories or feelings but real facts.

Sometimes what is not known about something is more important than what is known, and to limit yourself to only what you have been allowed to know means being without hope of solving anything. There are such a thing as unknown facts, Scarlett, or do you assume all the facts in this case are known even by LE? If someone gives you half the pieces of a puzzle, would you expect anyone to be able to solve it? You wouldn't. I propose that is what we are attempting to do here.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sometimes what is not known about something is more important than what is known, and to limit yourself to only what you have been allowed to know means being without hope of solving anything. There are such a thing as unknown facts, Scarlett, or do you assume all the facts in this case are known even by LE? If someone gives you half the pieces of a puzzle, would you expect anyone to be able to solve it? You wouldn't. I propose that is what we are attempting to do here.

Sometimes what is known is not something known just an opinion that gets passed along as fact. I have found a lot in this case that is not fact but called that. I believe that there are unknown facts but we have to stick to what we know is real and true to find the truth. When we start going and believing things as fact that are not, we skew the truth.

You can not solve a case without the facts. You can not solve a case if people make up facts. You can not solve a case if made up facts become the basis for a theory.

It has to stay in what we know to be true to find the truth.

 

[Mama2JML]

"Stumped by a palm print they can't identify, Boulder police detectives are taking prints from people close to the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, including the local photographer who is suing the slain 6-year-old's father and a national tabloid.

Just two days after filing his defamation suit against John Ramsey and the National Enquirer, Stephen Thomas Miles, 49, was questioned by police and asked to submit a palm print, along with DNA and handwriting samples, his attorney said Friday.

Several sources including other people interviewed by police in connection with the slaying have told the Daily Camera that investigators found a palm print somewhere in the Ramseys' Boulder home that they've been unable to match to any known party." -K. Dizon

Source: http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/02/07-1.html

 

[Landonsmom02]

"Stumped by a palm print they can't identify, Boulder police detectives are taking prints from people close to the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, including the local photographer who is suing the slain 6-year-old's father and a national tabloid.

Just two days after filing his defamation suit against John Ramsey and the National Enquirer, Stephen Thomas Miles, 49, was questioned by police and asked to submit a palm print, along with DNA and handwriting samples, his attorney said Friday.

Several sources including other people interviewed by police in connection with the slaying have told the Daily Camera that investigators found a palm print somewhere in the Ramseys' Boulder home that they've been unable to match to any known party." -K. Dizon

Source: http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/02/07-1.html

Didn't that palmprint turn out to be Melinda Ramsey's???