The Grand Jury

[Nehemiah]

I was thinking along these lines this very morning, capps.

What would the 'powers that be' have for a reason to cover up anything? Something that occurred to me is that whether the Rs are innocent/guilty, they definitely had money. Money to be made by attorneys. Perhaps Bynum saw the whole situation as a way to make money; perhaps it didn't matter if the family were involved in the murder or cover up.

Involved = money to keep them out of jail. Not involved = money to keep them out of jail. The whole affair was a money making scheme.
L Wood even bragged about how much he had made off the case.

Just a thought.

 

[capps]

Nehemiah,

That's always a possibility I guess ... I really just don't know.

I've always believed,there just is not enough hard facts on either side,to indict anyone.

It will either be an intruder (known or unknown) to be caught and confess,or a Ramsey to confess.

Neither will ever happen.

 

[Becba]

I think it has always been a move for the LE not to disclose their hand in a GJ hearing. They save evidence for the trial.

 

[BOESP]

My sentiments, exactly.

BlueCrab has his own reasoning on this, but he is absent.

We do know that Melinda, JAR, Burke, and yes, even Doug S testified. It seems that J/P would hold the keys to what the GJ needed to know.

I'm reviewing old messages and found the above. Does anyone know why Doug Stine testified before the Grand Jury? TIA

 

[Toltec]

I'm reviewing old messages and found the above. Does anyone know why Doug Stine testified before the Grand Jury? TIA

Doug Stine saw Patsy and Burke the night of JonBenet's murder.

Lou Smit was able to make his powerpoing demonstration to the grand jurors. The entire demonstration was filled with holes and downright lies.

And who's to say the grand jury chose not to indict. We only have Alex Hunter's words and my belief is that he felt there was not a slam dunk as far as evidence the Ramseys killed their daughter.You have to remember the man has not seen the inside of a court room.

 

[azwriter]

The Ramseys would get access to all the evidence against them if they were arrested.
Perhaps if they were questioned by the GJ they might see evidence LE did not want them to know they had. LE certainly held back evidence from the public. Perhaps it was their strategy to not question the Ramseys because they wanted to save it for the trial and let loose for a conviction.
Some have reasoned LE was afraid the GJ would be sympathetic to the parents testimony.
Does anyone know if it is common for the indicted one to be called before the GJ? I am thinking that doesn't usually happen.

You know Becba, that's a good point. I do know the GJ is not a trial so it would not be necessary for the suspects (parents) to be there. And what I'm wondering, if the session is only looking at a possible arrest and charges, why was Lou S allowed to present his theory of an intruder?
JMO

 

[Ames]

The Ramseys would get access to all the evidence against them if they were arrested.
Perhaps if they were questioned by the GJ they might see evidence LE did not want them to know they had. LE certainly held back evidence from the public. Perhaps it was their strategy to not question the Ramseys because they wanted to save it for the trial and let loose for a conviction.
Some have reasoned LE was afraid the GJ would be sympathetic to the parents testimony.
Does anyone know if it is common for the indicted one to be called before the GJ? I am thinking that doesn't usually happen.

You are right...it NEVER happens. That is saved for the trial. My husband has been called to testify before a Federal Grand Jury before, and the person that was being indicted was not even allowed in the building.

 

[Ames]

You know Becba, that's a good point. I do know the GJ is not a trial so it would not be necessary for the suspects (parents) to be there. And what I'm wondering, if the session is only looking at a possible arrest and charges, why was Lou S allowed to present his theory of an intruder?
JMO

VERY VERY good question. The GJ is only supposed to hear ONE SIDE...the accusing side, and then they decide whether or not there is enough evidence to indict or not. The rest is supposed to be saved for the trial. I believe that this is just another example of the Ramsey's being treated alot better than people that have less money than them. Alot of rules were broken....or overlooked. They were treated with KID GLOVES.

 

[BBB167893]

And what I'm wondering, if the session is only looking at a possible arrest and charges, why was Lou S allowed to present his theory of an intruder?

He essentially bullied them into it.

I don't see how anyone can say there was a runaway train against them. The case never got off the ground, thanks to the DA. This case is often categorized as a miscarriage of justice.

It wasn't a miscarriage.

It was an ABORTION!

 

[Ames]

He essentially bullied them into it.

I don't see how anyone can say there was a runaway train against them. The case never got off the ground, thanks to the DA. This case is often categorized as a miscarriage of justice.

It wasn't a miscarriage.

It was an ABORTION!

Excellent statement and extremely profound!!!! This case was aborted from the beginning....

 

[Rino]

Excellent statement and extremely profound!!!! This case was aborted from the beginning....

In the Susan Reinert case it took 3 GJ's to finally bring charges. Why have they decided to stop with the Ramsey case is what baffles me.

 

[Ames]

In the Susan Reinert case it took 3 GJ's to finally bring charges. Why have they decided to stop with the Ramsey case is what baffles me.

And me too!!...Makes absolutely no sense...

 

[BOESP]

And me too!!...Makes absolutely no sense...

Hi Ames,

Some old threads here also mention that if a child under ten years old was under suspicion, the Grand Jury could never disclose that information or disclose their findings that the child might have been the assailant. Colorado, apparently, has a law that protects children under ten years old from any mention of being involved in a crime.

It was an interesting discussion since it covered all the strange behavior from the Ramseys as well as the DA's department seemingly not delving into the case as they should have. It seems that if a child under ten in Colorado commits a crime, the only thing done is psychiatric counseling. All records are sealed.

I'm not sure how any leak would have been prevented except to say the threads here stated that there were severe penalties for anyone who leaked ANY information concerning a child's possible or prove able involvement.

I still tend to go with Steve Thomas's theory but I certainly found the "child involvement theory" very interesting.

 

[Ames]

Hi Ames,

Some old threads here also mention that if a child under ten years old was under suspicion, the Grand Jury could never disclose that information or disclose their findings that the child might have been the assailant. Colorado, apparently, has a law that protects children under ten years old from any mention of being involved in a crime.

It was an interesting discussion since it covered all the strange behavior from the Ramseys as well as the DA's department seemingly not delving into the case as they should have. It seems that if a child under ten in Colorado commits a crime, the only thing done is psychiatric counseling. All records are sealed.

I'm not sure how any leak would have been prevented except to say the threads here stated that there were severe penalties for anyone who leaked ANY information concerning a child's possible or prove able involvement.

I still tend to go with Steve Thomas's theory but I certainly found the "child involvement theory" very interesting.

Hi!

Colorado has some weird laws. I can understand a child not being mentioned if he/she is under ten year of age. Because we have that same law here, but....JB is not the one that committed the crime on herself, her parents...imo..did. This case should have gone to ten GJ...is necessary. Maybe even taken out of Boulder...if they could have.

 

[BOESP]

Hi!

Colorado has some weird laws. I can understand a child not being mentioned if he/she is under ten year of age. Because we have that same law here, but....JB is not the one that committed the crime on herself, her parents...imo..did. This case should have gone to ten GJ...is necessary. Maybe even taken out of Boulder...if they could have.

The old discussion here mentioned that, potentially, if Burke was involved, he would be protected under Colorado law and if so, that protection might explain the Ramseys odd behavior in all this. The discussion wasn't referring to JonBenet being protected -- I apologize for leaving the wrong impression. :slap:

There were a lot of messages talking about how Burke had never been cleared; that the DA's office said Burke wasn't a suspect (which isn't the same as being cleared). Hunter, supposedly, was caught off guard in an interview and based on Colorado law blurted out that Burke was cleared but the discussion indicated Hunter was abiding by law by making no mention of an under-ten-year-old child's possible connection.

I tend to agree with Steve Thomas's view yet the discussion about the Grand Jury and Burke was interesting reading. It made me wonder how much information was covered-up, if any, due to this law. Yet, the Grand Jury did call Burke to testify.

 

[Ames]

The old discussion here mentioned that, potentially, if Burke was involved, he would be protected under Colorado law and if so, that protection might explain the Ramseys odd behavior in all this. The discussion wasn't referring to JonBenet being protected -- I apologize for leaving the wrong impression. :slap:

There were a lot of messages talking about how Burke had never been cleared; that the DA's office said Burke wasn't a suspect (which isn't the same as being cleared). Hunter, supposedly, was caught off guard in an interview and based on Colorado law blurted out that Burke was cleared but the discussion indicated Hunter was abiding by law by making no mention of an under-ten-year-old child's possible connection.

I tend to agree with Steve Thomas's view yet the discussion about the Grand Jury and Burke was interesting reading. It made me wonder how much information was covered-up, if any, due to this law. Yet, the Grand Jury did call Burke to testify.

LOL, that's okay...we talked about this on another thread, and you explained it better on that one. I think that if Burke had of been involved, that the Ramsey's would have known that nothing would happen to him, so there would have been no need for a cover up. I don't believe that he had anything to do with it, either. Burke was called to testify, but I can assure you, that his lawyers or one of his families lawyers had rehearsed with him what might be asked, and what his reponse would be. BECAUSE when my husband had to testify at a GJ, the prosecution side, met with him...a day earlier, and told him what would be asked...and also told him how to answer. Does that sound fair to you? The justice system is NOT fair....I don't care what people say. He couldn't BELIEVE how the GJ system worked....he was in shock. Contrary to popular believe.....witnesses ARE told what the majority of the questions are, that will be asked...either by their own lawyers, or the proscecution side, and they actually DO rehearse what they are going to say. If their lawyer's do not know what the questions will be, they take a guess...and say..."Well, they will probably ask this, or proably ask that". But, in the case of my husband, he was a witness for the prosecution, so THEY are the ones that took him a day earlier, and went over questions with him. And they are the ONLY side that gets to present their case in front of a GJ. NO..its NOT fair!!!

 

[coloradokares]

And me too!!...Makes absolutely no sense...

It makes no sense because you dont know Boulder. The legacy was handed down from A. Hunter to Keenan/Lacey and the other cast of players who are still still in charge. The case was taken out of the hands of LE and given on a platter to the Office of the DA who immediately deep sixed until it until it was forced to be ressurected with the JMK farce. Business as usual in the Peoples Republic of Boulder Scoreboard reads Thomas and the People and justice 0 The good ol Boys and a few fat cats 1000. And the beat goes on .....la te da de dee ..... la te da de dah. Rythym keeps pounding music in my brain .... no insults to Sonny and Cher intended. Till that changes the beat goes on . That is just my opnion and I dont feel alone.

 

[Toltec]

What I am surprised about is after ten years, not one of the grand jury members leaked what was said in that courtroom.

I wanted to hear Burke's version of what happened. Am I right that grand jury members are allowed to ask the witnesses questions?

 

[Ames]

What I am surprised about is after ten years, not one of the grand jury members leaked what was said in that courtroom.

I wanted to hear Burke's version of what happened. Am I right that grand jury members are allowed to ask the witnesses questions?

Yep, when my husband testified before a grand jury....he was asked questions by the jury members, so I imagine that Burke was asked questions by them, too.

 

[DeeDee249]

What is inane about it is that with that law, if a child under 10 is involved, the crime never happened. So when the case "disappears"....it automatically points a finger at the child!

Now, is the Colorado law concerning a child if the child is GUILTY of the crime or merely INVOLVED in the crime?