Member of Grand Jury speaks on 20/20

[UKGuy]

OMG!
My son just bought his long time girlfriend a Chameleon for Christmas! They just "get" each other! LOVE IT!
My inside kitty is a Maine Coon who thinks she is a dog. LOL I went wayyyy out naming her. Miss Kitty. :laughing:
Here is Admiral (in the back) and Keyser Sose in the front.
Admiral looks like I caught him mid sentence LOL!

PositiveLight,
Cute doggies, with names like Keyser Sose, I'll bet they would have found JonBenet in a matter of minutes.

.

 

[CoolJ]

The "IGDI" possibility has been discussed and dismissed by most. Sometimes it goes into the conspiracy theory territory of "sex rings" and even satanism. You can see why those theories are mostly dismissed -- because the posters here are more intelligent than to put any serious consideration into it. But there is another "IG" who has been discussed, and whose name keeps cropping up from time to time because his possible involvement would explain a lot of other things. There is just not enough proof to allow any conclusions to be made about it -- only speculation, which many don't want to consider. If you don't know to whom I am referring, I'll simply tell you it was a friend of Burke's.

The thing with conspiracy theories is that no matter what the truth is, the murder of JBR was a conspiracy. Not sure why "intelligent" people would dismiss "sex rings" as though that is some sort of "out of this world" phenomenon.

 

[HarmonyE.]

CoolJ,

The Guest theory has been discussed, many times, under different guises, e.g. pedophile ring, familial abuse, etc.

BlueCrab put forward a theory that explicitly covers your example, yet no evidence was forthcoming to confirm it.

So over the years and by a process of simple elimination the only theories left not rejected are precisely BDI, JDI amd PDI.

The GJ True Bills allows for the rejection of both PDI and JDI, since neither parent was charged with First Degree Murder,

So you could say the case these days is really BDI, but we are missing the details?

.

And to your bolded, because there seems to be some confusion about this:

Those directed to produce documents under Freedom of Information Acts are bound to follow the law. Which means they cannot pick and choose what they release because they don't want to offend someone or cause a media circus. So if Patsy and/or John were charged with First Degree Murder, those counts would have had to have been released with the other ones.

However, there are a few types of records that may be exempt from disclosure. From the Colorado ACLU's Guide to Open Record Laws.

Colorado laws often exempt records where minor’s privacy interests are involved. Forexample, records regarding children, juveniles, adoption, custody, and individual studentrecords may be exempt from disclosure.[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]What is excluded from the released indictment may be far more telling than one might realize at first glance. Because he was a minor (under 18) at the time of the indictment, this is the most likely reason parts of the document were withheld. This in and of itself doesn't mean Burke was named as a murderer, only that his name likely came up quite a bit. But couple this with the accessory charges for his parents, and I don't see any alternative but that the GJ concluded Burke was the third person, and hence, the killer.

 

[mjak]

I have been following this case since the beginning. I was on the fence for a long time but now lean heavily towards RDI. I found the 20/20 episode lacking in anything new or thought provoking. However, one thing did pop into my mind that seems obvious but I never thought about before. The placement of the ransom note at the bottom of the BACK staircase makes me think it had to be a family member. An outsider is not going to know if the back stairs are used or may not even know they exist. If an intruder took the time to right that novel he or she would want it seen. Leaving it by the front door, the kitchen table, on Jonbenets bed are places logically one might leave it to be seen. The back stair case only makes sense if you know the parents habit of going down those stairs every morning.

 

[CoolJ]

CoolJ,

The Guest theory has been discussed, many times, under different guises, e.g. pedophile ring, familial abuse, etc.

BlueCrab put forward a theory that explicitly covers your example, yet no evidence was forthcoming to confirm it.

So over the years and by a process of simple elimination the only theories left not rejected are precisely BDI, JDI amd PDI.

The GJ True Bills allows for the rejection of both PDI and JDI, since neither parent was charged with First Degree Murder,

So you could say the case these days is really BDI, but we are missing the details?

.

So why does a theory get dismissed only because there is no evidence to confirm it? It would seem to me you should only completely dismiss a theory if there is evidence against it. No?

The reason I bring this up now in relation to the grand juror is because of what we have been presented with regards to the wording of the true bill. I just don't think the meaning of the term "child abuse" would include abuse of a child by another child. My thoughts are that it would be worded differently.

Semantics , I know.

 

[HarmonyE.]

So why does a theory get dismissed only because there is no evidence to confirm it? It would seem to me you should only completely dismiss a theory if there is evidence against it. No?

The reason I bring this up now in relation to the grand juror is because of what we have been presented with regards to the wording of the true bill. I just don't think the meaning of the term "child abuse" would include abuse of a child by another child. My thoughts are that it would be worded differently.

Semantics , I know.

To the bolded, if said child had a history of abusing the smaller child and her parents did nothing to stop it previously they were keeping the victim in harm's way.

Here are the actual counts, identical, against both parents. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/26/us/ramsey-indictments.html?_r=0

I explained above why it's almost impossible that the non-included indictments were murder charges against the Ramseys. The grand jury appears to have concluded that the Ramseys allowed their daughter to be placed in a situation where her life was threatened by a third person. And that they "[FONT=&quot]unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.”[/FONT]

Who do you reckon that person was?

 

[Ambitioned]

(bbm)I haven't seen it mentioned on here yet, but there is a promising new book scheduled to be released on the 20th of December titled Listen Carefully:Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case. Questfortrue posted about it at FFJ.

Awesome!! Thank you so much!

 

[UKGuy]

So why does a theory get dismissed only because there is no evidence to confirm it? It would seem to me you should only completely dismiss a theory if there is evidence against it. No?

The reason I bring this up now in relation to the grand juror is because of what we have been presented with regards to the wording of the true bill. I just don't think the meaning of the term "child abuse" would include abuse of a child by another child. My thoughts are that it would be worded differently.

Semantics , I know.

CoolJ,

So why does a theory get dismissed only because there is no evidence to confirm it? It would seem to me you should only completely dismiss a theory if there is evidence against it. No?

More or less. A theory should allow inferences that can be tested against the evidence.

The Guest theory lacked any evidence to allow any tests, and much of the theoretical speculation was not corroborated.

So the Guest theory has fallen by the roadside or into disuse. It's not been refuted, so it could still be resurrected, but it would have to present compelling new evidence.

I just don't think the meaning of the term "child abuse" would include abuse of a child by another child. My thoughts are that it would be worded differently.

I fail to see why? Child abuse by another child is still child abuse, in fact it might be termed child on child abuse, and it is very common.

BDI has not been conclusively demonstrated, so there is still room for a Guest Did It theory, i.e. GDI, but 20 years on its looking rather remote?

.

 

[mrseeker]

To the bolded, if said child had a history of abusing the smaller child and her parents did nothing to stop it previously they were keeping the victim in harm's way.

Here are the actual counts, identical, against both parents. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/26/us/ramsey-indictments.html?_r=0

I explained above why it's almost impossible that the non-included indictments were murder charges against the Ramseys. The grand jury appears to have concluded that the Ramseys allowed their daughter to be placed in a situation where her life was threatened by a third person. And that they "[FONT="]unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.”[/FONT]

Who do you reckon that person was?

It could be that way or could be the GJ could not decide which of the 3 did it. So they held the two adults responsible. The GJ could have thought the adults should have saved her from the other, or from their son. It is a cop out indictment, and I suspect that is why it never made it to court. Some of the GJ members could have thought it was PDI, some JDI, some BDI, but in the end felt the two adults should have prevented it. If that had made it to court it would have been tossed on the first day or worse they would have been found not guilty. I think the GJ was used to try and turn or break someone and it failed. I am PDI and I will never believe anyone but her wrote that note. Maybe they could have convicted her of filing a false report of kidnapping and obstruction. I think they could have proven she wrote that note and the why, is to mislead and obstruct.

 

[kanzz]

(bbm)I haven't seen it mentioned on here yet, but there is a promising new book scheduled to be released on the 20th of December titled Listen Carefully:Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case. Questfortrue posted about it at FFJ.

Thanks, otg. Interesting.

Available by pre-order on Amazon:
"What really happened to JonBenet Ramsey? Was her death intentional or an accident, covered up to look like a botched kidnapping? What are the facts about the case DNA? What does it really tell us? Is it relevant to the crime or is it contamination? Can it be tied to an intruder, or was District Attorney Mary Lacy’s attempt at exoneration of the Ramseys based on faulty interpretation of the actual lab results?"
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Caref...ruth+and+Evidence+in+the+JonBenet+Ramsey+Case

 

[HarmonyE.]

It could be that way or could be the GJ could not decide which of the 3 did it. So they held the two adults responsible. The GJ could have thought the adults should have saved her from the other, or from their son. It is a cop out indictment, and I suspect that is why it never made it to court. Some of the GJ members could have thought it was PDI, some JDI, some BDI, but in the end felt the two adults should have prevented it. If that had made it to court it would have been tossed on the first day or worse they would have been found not guilty. I think the GJ was used to try and turn or break someone and it failed. I am PDI and I will never believe anyone but her wrote that note. Maybe they could have convicted her of filing a false report of kidnapping and obstruction. I think they could have proven she wrote that note and the why, is to mislead and obstruct.

Grand juries don't usually operate that way. There had to be consensus among at least nine of 12. They could have simply not indicted anyone if there was no clear indication who killed her. Instead, there are some very specific counts indicting John and Patsy that do not include first degree murder.

And keep in mind there were other counts that were not released. What are those about? If they involved John and Patsy they should have been included. However, as I cited above, they could have been withheld from the open records law if there was discussion of a living minor contained within them.

Here's an old think with some info about how grand juries work, and specifically with regard to the JBR GJ.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon185.htm

This is an interesting quote, particularly as it was made before Alex Hunter had to deal with his grand jury's indictments:
But a prosecutor is playing "a wild card'' when he sends a case to a grand jury, said Mueller, the CU law professor.
[FONT=arial, verdana, sans-serif]Conferring immunity on the wrong witness can doom a case. And in rare instances, the grand jurors and the prosecutor may disagree about how to proceed, leading to a "runaway'' grand jury.

[/FONT][FONT=arial, verdana, sans-serif]After reviewing everything known to date, my best guess is that after the GJ returned the true bills, Hunter was faced just such a "runaway grand jury". He had a murderer he could not prosecute with accomplices he chose not to prosecute given the challenges of proving a case with such a botched initial investigation and knowing the Ramseys would have the best attorneys money could buy. And even if he felt he could prove it, he still doesn't end up with a convicted murderer no matter what. [/FONT]

 

[kanzz]

I have asked these questions before and never seem to get a direct response but I will try again.

1. Why are the only options BDI, PDI, or IDI? I think the word Intruder is misleading. Why is there no talk of an invited guest? "IGDI"
2. I agree that the RN was most likely written by PR. Would this rule out an invited guest being the perp?
3. Why does the GJ indictment against the Ramseys only point to BDI. Wasnt the indictment supposedly that J&P put JBR in an environment where she could be susceptible to child abuse? Is a child harming another child considered "child abuse"?

I believe the Ramseys are lying, no question about it. And BDI is definitley a possibility. But there are other possibilities that just don't seem to be discussed that much. I find that a little odd. JMO

It has a lot to do with the rules of the forum, CoolJ. Well, that, and the fact that most here do believe that a RDI. There were only four people in the house that night.. and JBR died. That leaves three.. and one of them killed that little girl. No intruder, no invited guest. Why on earth would the R's cover-up for a guest in their home who killed JB?


Open for Discussion/ The 3 People in the House when JonBenet Died

 

[Ambitioned]

It has a lot to do with the rules of the forum, CoolJ. Well, that, and the fact that most here do believe that a RDI. There were only four people in the house that night.. and JBR died. That leaves three.. and one of them killed that little girl. No intruder, no invited guest. Why on earth would the R's cover-up for a guest in their home who killed JB?

That's been my question for years. :goodpost:

 

[Ambitioned]

Thanks, otg. Interesting.

Available by pre-order on Amazon:
"What really happened to JonBenet Ramsey? Was her death intentional or an accident, covered up to look like a botched kidnapping? What are the facts about the case DNA? What does it really tell us? Is it relevant to the crime or is it contamination? Can it be tied to an intruder, or was District Attorney Mary Lacy’s attempt at exoneration of the Ramseys based on faulty interpretation of the actual lab results?"
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Caref...ruth+and+Evidence+in+the+JonBenet+Ramsey+Case

Fascinating. I never heard of this guild.

 

[mrseeker]

Grand juries don't usually operate that way. There had to be consensus among at least nine of 12. They could have simply not indicted anyone if there was no clear indication who killed her. Instead, there are some very specific counts indicting John and Patsy that do not include first degree murder.

And keep in mind there were other counts that were not released. What are those about? If they involved John and Patsy they should have been included. However, as I cited above, they could have been withheld from the open records law if there was discussion of a living minor contained within them.

Here's an old think with some info about how grand juries work, and specifically with regard to the JBR GJ.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon185.htm

This is an interesting quote, particularly as it was made before Alex Hunter had to deal with his grand jury's indictments:
But a prosecutor is playing "a wild card'' when he sends a case to a grand jury, said Mueller, the CU law professor.
[FONT=arial, verdana, sans-serif]Conferring immunity on the wrong witness can doom a case. And in rare instances, the grand jurors and the prosecutor may disagree about how to proceed, leading to a "runaway'' grand jury.

[/FONT][FONT=arial, verdana, sans-serif]After reviewing everything known to date, my best guess is that after the GJ returned the true bills, Hunter was faced just such a "runaway grand jury". He had a murderer he could not prosecute with accomplices he chose not to prosecute given the challenges of proving a case with such a botched initial investigation and knowing the Ramseys would have the best attorneys money could buy. And even if he felt he could prove it, he still doesn't end up with a convicted murderer no matter what. [/FONT]

You are missing my point. The indictment basically is saying that one or both parents did not protect her from the killer. Since they never indicted a "killer" then its just a guessing game. PR did not protect her from JR or BR. JR did not protect her from PR or BR. I suppose one could also say that JR and PR or either one did not protect her from another person not found in the house that morning, but there was zero evidence of that. If it was an unknown unknown intruder, then you couldn't indict parents for that. They were indicted for not protecting JBR from an unnamed killer but one that was known to them. It is a logical conclusion but would never meet the burden of proof.

 

[HarmonyE.]

You are missing my point. The indictment basically is saying that one or both parents did not protect her from the killer. Since they never indicted a "killer" then its just a guessing game. PR did not protect her from JR or BR. JR did not protect her from PR or BR. I suppose one could also say that JR and PR or either one did not protect her from another person not found in the house that morning, but there was zero evidence of that. If it was an unknown unknown intruder, then you couldn't indict parents for that. They were indicted for not protecting JBR from an unnamed killer but one that was known to them. It is a logical conclusion but would never meet the burden of proof.

No, I'm not missing anything. First, John and Patsy were also indicted for helping the murderer get away with it. Can't skip this important fact. I've posted a link upthread which provides the exact working of that count.

If the GJ thought one or both of the parents killed her they almost certainly would have indicted one or both of them with first degree murder. That's how it's usually done when a GJ can't decide between two closely linked parties when they are sure one is the killer, but not sure which it is. It's left up to the actual trial to sort that out, but of course they'd have to be indicted for murder first for that to happen.

Please also understand that we do not have all of the counts. Some of the indictment including additional counts were not disclosed. See my prior posts regarding why it almost certain that those counts do not solely address the parents as by law this information would have had to have been released under the Freedom of Information act rules along with the rest of the indictment. The most likely reason the holding back of this is that these counts address Burke, who was under 18 at the time of the indictment, triggering the withholding of counts involving him from the FOIA disclosure. I addressed this earlier as well.

Grand jurors are not charged with addressing reasonable doubt, only whether there is probable cause to charge and try suspects. They found probable cause with regard to John and Patsy's counts. We don't know what the other counts address, although neither were charged with murder, or anything further for that matter, as this would have been disclosed. As to what would have happened had the DA gone forward, we will never know. We don't know the specifics of the evidence that led the GJ to determine there was probable cause to charge. And no one can know what would have happened if they'd been tried.

Finally, as this comes up a lot - Burke was old enough to commit a crime. He was not old enough to be found guilty. There is no law that says he couldn't be indicted, and it's possible that's what's in the withheld counts. Of course, the DA wasn't going to charge him with something he couldn't have been found guilty of, which in and of itself makes proving the counts against his parents that much more difficult, although not necessarily impossible.

 

[buggiegirl]

And to your bolded, because there seems to be some confusion about this:

Those directed to produce documents under Freedom of Information Acts are bound to follow the law. Which means they cannot pick and choose what they release because they don't want to offend someone or cause a media circus. So if Patsy and/or John were charged with First Degree Murder, those counts would have had to have been released with the other ones.

However, there are a few types of records that may be exempt from disclosure. From the Colorado ACLU's Guide to Open Record Laws.

Colorado laws often exempt records where minor’s privacy interests are involved. Forexample, records regarding children, juveniles, adoption, custody, and individual studentrecords may be exempt from disclosure.

What is excluded from the released indictment may be far more telling than one might realize at first glance. Because he was a minor (under 18) at the time of the indictment, this is the most likely reason parts of the document were withheld. This in and of itself doesn't mean Burke was named as a murderer, only that his name likely came up quite a bit. But couple this with the accessory charges for his parents, and I don't see any alternative but that the GJ concluded Burke was the third person, and hence, the killer.

What makes a page of an indictment something the foreperson has to sign? Because the articles from the time say the pages released were the ones signed by the grand jury foreperson because those constitute an "official action" by the grand jury and are subject to FOIA. The unsigned pages were not released. Why would some pages/charges be unsigned? Not unanimous vote? Charges concerning a minor?

And as much as we all latch on to the grand jury findings because they are pretty much the only thing we have heard that is both official and from people who have seen the evidence, we need to remember grand jury findings are not necessarily What Happened. Plenty of grand juries have indicted people who have 100% innocent. I completely do not think the Ramseys are innocent, but I also don't put complete faith in grand jury findings.

 

[HarmonyE.]

What makes a page of an indictment something the foreperson has to sign? Because the articles from the time say the pages released were the ones signed by the grand jury foreperson because those constitute an "official action" by the grand jury and are subject to FOIA. The unsigned pages were not released. Why would some pages/charges be unsigned? Not unanimous vote? Charges concerning a minor?

Would you have a link to any of these articles?

 

[buggiegirl]

Would you have a link to any of these articles?

Pretty much every single article about the grand jury info being released mentions it, but here is CNN's: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/

The indictment consists of two pages about the mother and two pages about the father. Only the documents signed by a foreman are being released, according to the judge's order.

I also find this article interesting: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_24381455/jonbenet-ramsey-indictment-released-john-patsy

Specifically that there were 18 pages submitted by the grand jury, 9 concerning each parent. But only 2 per parent, 4 total, were released/signed. So clearly no one but JR and PR was even considered.

According to the court order, the documents submitted to the court by Garnett consisted of 18 pages, nine relating to each of JonBenet's parents. Lowenbach ruled that only pages signed by the foreman of the grand jury would be considered "official actions" of the grand jury and would thus be releasable. In the end, a total of four pages -- two pages for each parent -- were released.

Ok, my googling tells me that maybe the grand jury foreman did not sign the other counts because they couldn't get more than 12 of the jurors to agree? Perhaps the 4 counts that were released were the only ones at least 12 jurors could agree on, so the only ones the foreman could sign?

 

[HarmonyE.]

Ok, my googling tells me that maybe the grand jury foreman did not sign the other counts because they couldn't get more than 12 of the jurors to agree? Perhaps the 4 counts that were released were the only ones at least 12 jurors could agree on, so the only ones the foreman could sign?

Only 9 needed to agree for there to be indictments, and presumably if there were indictments, they were official.

"Lowenbach ruled that only pages signed by the foreman of the grand jury would be considered "official actions" of the grand jury and would thus be releasable. In the end, a total of four pages -- two pages for each parent -- were released."

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Something isn't adding up here. I understand not releasing evidence or transcripts, but why would the grand jury come down with indictments that weren't agreed upon by 9 of the 12? They wouldn't have been valid indictments if that were the case. Could the foreman have been one who disagreed? And if he was one who disagreed with the charges, why did he sign abuse and accessory charges? The official story here makes no sense. [/FONT]