Patsy Ramsey

[bettybaby00]

Burke did it is another thread. And that's not the point I'm making. Those who HAD ACCESS to all the information in the case DID NOT EVER INDICT either Ramsey on murder or manslaughter.

So that rules out the idea that RDI. They were indicted for




There is nothing in here that states Burke did it either. Or let me guess, Grand Juries are regularly in the habit of not indicting murderers and not naming true suspects of a crime because they feel sorry for them as a kid?

I mean that's how it works right? The GJ was paid off by the Ramseys and decided not to mention Burke. But clever sluthers saw through their rouse.

ooooooor

They don't know who did it and think there is enough evidence to indict the Ramseys for covering up a crime.....indict btw, not convict.

Wait, I'm confused, b/c BDI has it's own thread it can't be mentioned in another? we cross discuss things all the time

So if the GJ had access to all the evidence, who then did the Rs expose JRB to that "did ... permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey."

And who did they "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."

???????

 

[UKGuy]

Looks to like the R's rolled the dice and faked an abduction complete with ransom note.

I suspect they took phone advice and changed a prior crime-scene, then brazened it out, even wanting to fly away interstate.

As alleged by the GJ and implied by James Kolar it appears BR was the person being assisted?


.

 

[bettybaby00]

Looks to like the R's rolled the dice and faked an abduction complete with ransom note.

I suspect they took phone advice and changed a prior crime-scene, then brazened it out, even wanting to fly away interstate.

As alleged by the GJ and implied by James Kolar it appears BR was the person being assisted?


.

IMO covering for BR makes a heck of a lot of sense. Those types of charges don't make any sense in the context of a known associate or an intruder.

We know BR couldn't have been indicted at all. and it seems to me they did not discount the evidence of previous molestation.

IA with your first point. The plan was the best they could come up with given the circumstances. It wasn't like they could make a late night run to an all night convince store and grab rope, duct tape, paper, and pens. And the RN bought time. Time for the crime scene to be contaminated, time for the Rs to be viewed as victims, and after JRBs discovery, the much needed time before police started to suspect the parents/someone in the house. That note allowed them to walk out of that house--hell they tried to leave the state--and then be completely insulated from any type of police questioning. All they had to do was keep repeating the kidnapping story, and short of being immediately arrested, they were never going to be subjected to heavy police questioning. In fact they managed to avoid further questioning for 4 months. They had nothing to loose with this strategy, b/c either one of two things were going to happen: they would be arrested, game over; or they get away with it.

As far as staging, there is a reason it's done.

Staging is a conscious criminal action on the part of an offender to thwart an investigation.

This google search also gave me this little tidbit!!!!!

TYPES OF CRIME SCENE STAGING

1. The most common type of staging occurs when the perpetrator changes elements of the scene to make the death appear to be a suicide or accident in order to cover up a murder.

2. The second most common type of staging is when the perpetrator attempts to redirect the investigation by making the crime appear to be a sex-related homicide.

http://www.practicalhomicide.com/articles/staging.htm

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

There was no "they".
Only Patsy was involved.
There was no staging for police.
IMO.

 

[bettybaby00]

There was no "they".
Only Patsy was involved.
There was no staging for police.
IMO.

You don't think the RN was staging????

 

[DeDee]

CNN.com 5:40 PM EDT, Fri October 25, 2013

[Boulder Police Chief Mark] Beckner, in a statement, described Friday how "it was difficult to remain silent" about the voided indictments "for so many years."

snip

"Investigators at the time were disappointed in the then district attorney's decision not to issue indictments," Beckner said. <snip>
"While we believe at this point it is unlikely there will ever be a prosecution, the Boulder Police Department still holds out some hope that one day the district attorney and the Boulder Police Department will be able to put together a case worthy of presenting to a jury," Beckner said.

This is an understatement:

Investigators at the time were disappointed in the then district attorney's decision not to issue indictments

BBM

The grand jury also had alleged that each parent "did ... 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."

Each R was indicted because the GJ felt each R

* knew who "has committed" and "was suspected" of the crime of murder in the first degree and helped the other one cover it up and for

* permitting a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that resulted in her death.

And for allowing a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that led to her death? What exactly would this be under the circumstances?

Boulder Police Department still holds out some hope that one day the district attorney and the Boulder Police Department will be able to put together a case worthy of presenting to a jury

7 months ago, Beckner said both DA and BPD hope to produce a case suitable for prosecution by a jury. Why does Beckner state this? Is it because John Ramsey is still alive?

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

You don't think the RN was staging????

Read my posts carefully! They are actually written with intent. I posted there was no staging for police. The "staging' was done by Patsy for Patsy. The note was written by Patsy for Patsy.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

The Grand Jury was wrong. IMO.

 

[bettybaby00]

Read my posts carefully! They are actually written with intent. I posted there was no staging for police. The "staging' was done by Patsy for Patsy. The note was written by Patsy for Patsy.

Ah, I didn't pick up on that distinction.

 

[Chewy]

Wait, I'm confused, b/c BDI has it's own thread it can't be mentioned in another? we cross discuss things all the time

So if the GJ had access to all the evidence, who then did the Rs expose JRB to that "did ... permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey."

And who did they "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."

???????

It doesn't matter "who" all that matters for the purposes of a RDI theory is that the Grand Jury felt someone else did it and not the Ramseys and since they are the ones that had the information I'll trust their evalution over a bunch of online detectives going by gossip, sensationalized rag mags (I've actually seen people cite the National Enquirer as a source :facepalm

Unless your theory is that Grand Juries don't indict kids because they feel sorry for them, the fact that Burke WASN'T indicted would indicate to me that they don't think he was involved.

Unless we're back to Evil Ramsey conspiracy theories where they bought off the entire Grand Jury.

 

[bettybaby00]

It doesn't matter "who" all that matters for the purposes of a RDI theory is that the Grand Jury felt someone else did it and not the Ramseys and since they are the ones that had the information I'll trust their evalution over a bunch of online detectives going by gossip, sensationalized rag mags (I've actually seen people cite the National Enquirer as a source :facepalm

Unless your theory is that Grand Juries don't indict kids because they feel sorry for them, the fact that Burke WASN'T indicted would indicate to me that they don't think he was involved.

Unless we're back to Evil Ramsey conspiracy theories where they bought off the entire Grand Jury.

HE COULD NOT BE INDICTED......

So my question was: who was the person " which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey."

And who did they "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."

IMO the who part of the equation does matter, cause I don't see either R covering for someone outside of their family, and the idea they would do it for some unknown intruder is absurd.

 

[2 percent]

It doesn't matter "who" all that matters for the purposes of a RDI theory is that the Grand Jury felt someone else did it and not the Ramseys and since they are the ones that had the information I'll trust their evalution over a bunch of online detectives going by gossip, sensationalized rag mags (I've actually seen people cite the National Enquirer as a source :facepalm

Not true. The GJ only indicting on the fourth count doesn't mean they thought someone else did it. It only means the GJ did not feel there was sufficient evidence to indict on the other counts. Counts, I must remind you, we have no information on.

No news source is sterling anymore. Dan Rather, Jayson Blair of the NYT, Stephen Glass of TNR just to name a few "respectable" reporters from "respected" media, who lied their rear ends off for sensationalism.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Ah, I didn't pick up on that distinction.

Neither did the original investigators.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

The Grand Jury couldn't figure out who did what BETWEEN JOHN AND PATSY, not between John, Patsy and an intruder.

 

[Venom]

:sigh:
The GJ or DA could never state/indict/charge BR. In the eyes of CO law, he (at 9 years old) couldn't be/wasn't a suspect.

 

[Chewy]

Not true. The GJ only indicting on the fourth count doesn't mean they thought someone else did it. It only means the GJ did not feel there was sufficient evidence to indict on the other counts. Counts, I must remind you, we have no information on.

No news source is sterling anymore. Dan Rather, Jayson Blair of the NYT, Stephen Glass of TNR just to name a few "respectable" reporters from "respected" media, who lied their rear ends off for sensationalism.

Just because no news source is "sterling anymore" doesn't mean you resort to the lowest common denominator.

Again, bottom line, the Ramseys were not indicted for murder or manslaughter which means the GJ didn't feel there was enough evidence to do so. Grand Juries don't convict. They decide if there is enough evidence to proceed. They felt there wasn't and they had access to all the information. Not just the gossip and speculation that the rest of us have.

 

[TaylurRose02]

Just because no news source is "sterling anymore" doesn't mean you resort to the lowest common denominator.

Again, bottom line, the Ramseys were not indicted for murder or manslaughter which means the GJ didn't feel there was enough evidence to do so. Grand Juries don't convict. They decide if there is enough evidence to proceed. They felt there wasn't and they had access to all the information. Not just the gossip and speculation that the rest of us have.

But they did feel that the parents were guilty of child abuse resulting in her death. Considering the amount of suspicion against the parents, I'd say that's a pretty important clue considering they have "access to all the information, not just the gossip and speculation that the rest of us have."

 

[Venom]

But they did feel that the parents were guilty of child abuse resulting in her death. Considering the amount of suspicion against the parents, I'd say that's a pretty important clue considering they have "access to all the information, not just the gossip and speculation that the rest of us have."

Great post, thank you.

 

[Linda7NJ]

More importantly IMO the grand jury completely and totally dismissed the intruder theory ...in its entirety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Frigga]

It doesn't matter "who" all that matters for the purposes of a RDI theory is that the Grand Jury felt someone else did it and not the Ramseys and since they are the ones that had the information I'll trust their evalution over a bunch of online detectives going by gossip, sensationalized rag mags (I've actually seen people cite the National Enquirer as a source :facepalm

Unless your theory is that Grand Juries don't indict kids because they feel sorry for them, the fact that Burke WASN'T indicted would indicate to me that they don't think he was involved.

Unless we're back to Evil Ramsey conspiracy theories where they bought off the entire Grand Jury.

Um... yes the National Enquirer has been discussed. You are aware that the Ramsey's gave a one on on one interview directly to them- aren't you?