Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[andreww]

Still believe in grand jury's after this?

"But according to Wise and several jurors who talked with the Daily camera, the decision was evetually made to indict John and Patsy Ramsey. This was even though the jurors {{{werent' sure who, exactly, had killed young Jonbenet}}}."



[video]http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/28/justice/colorado-ramsey-indictment/index.html[/video]

You put three people and a loaded gun in to a locked room. 12 hours later you open the door and find one person dead, no prints on the gun, and two survivors who say they saw nothing. You know 100% that one of them did it and you know 100% that one of them is lying about knowing who did it. What do you do? You charge them with the only thing that you can prove, that they both lied to the police.

I'm tired of IDIs saying "you're so convinced it is a Ramsey, but none of you can even agree on which one". The truth is that there is not one guilty party here. All three Ramsey's have been complicate in the commission of this crime. Only one of them did it but all of them knew about it and all of them participated in the effort to mislead LE by lying, manufacturing false evidence and destroying or concealing real evidence.

I only wish that they could all be charge with something that covered all of this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TexasTuff]

You put three people and a loaded gun in to a locked room. 12 hours later you open the door and find one person dead, no prints on the gun, and two survivors who say they saw nothing. You know 100% that one of them did it and you know 100% that one of them is lying about knowing who did it. What do you do? You charge them with the only thing that you can prove, that they both lied to the police.

I'm tired of IDIs saying "you're so convinced it is a Ramsey, but none of you can even agree on which one". The truth is that there is not one guilty party here. All three Ramsey's have been complicate in the commission of this crime. Only one of them did it but all of them knew about it and all of them participated in the effort to mislead LE by lying, manufacturing false evidence and destroying or concealing real evidence.

I only wish that they could all be charge with something that covered all of this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your describing a perfectly controlled situation where all the facts are known which is contrary to the Ramsey case.

 

[TexasTuff]

"The grand jury of 12 objective jurors ultimately agreed with investigators that probable cause existed for the filing of charges," the department said in a statement.

On the child abuse count, the grand jury wrote that the Ramseys "did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously 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."

On a second count of accessory to a crime, it alleged that each parent "did render assistance to a person" with the intent to prevent their arrest or prosecution, knowing they had "committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

Although the Boulder DA had earmarked 18 indictment pages for possible release, the judge only put out those that were signed by the grand jury foreperson. It's unclear if the other pages contained more details about the Ramseys' actions or named someone as the killer.


The below link shows the two for John and there were two indentical pages for Patsy:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinion_Docs/JRamsey Grand Jury.pdf

The Jury Foreman's name was removed. Denver Criminal defense lawyer and legal analyst Dan Recht pointed out that the standard of proof for a grand jury to indict, which is probable cause, is a far lower threshold than what Hunter would have had to meet at trial.

 

[andreww]

Your describing a perfectly controlled situation where all the facts are known which is contrary to the Ramsey case.

I think we have a differing opinion on that.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Your describing a perfectly controlled situation where all the facts are known which is contrary to the Ramsey case.

I think we have a differing opinion on that.

My guess is that the GJ knew a lot more about the case than we do, although I see how they could've come up with the charges they did based only on the information we have.

 

[Anti-K]

To begin with thank you for this. Being Johnny come lately to all this I appreciate your help. :loveyou:

So, if i'm getting this correctly the before Codis at the time of JB's death only indentified "a male" and was not specific enough to clarify who that was?

The fingernail and panty “Before CODIS DNA” was male.

I’m not really sure if I understand what you mean by, “was not specific enough to clarify who that was.”

First, let’s remember that these samples were all “specific” enough to tell us “who that was[n’t].” It wasn’t Ramsey and it wasn’t anyone the child was known to have recently been in contact with.

Here’s one way to think of it. Pretend – PRETEND – that each marker is a descriptive feature such as hair color. The Before CODIS (as seen in the 48 Hours screen capture) samples were tested for 5 markers. So, let’s pretend that those markers were hair color, eye color, skin color, height and weight.

The panty Before CODIS DNA sample had one marker. So, let’s pretend that it was hair color; let’s pretend: brown. That doesn’t tell us much, but it does let us eliminate all of the people with a different hair color. A DNA sample with only one marker still creates two groups of people: those who can be excluded and those who can be included. So far, no one has been included.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The housekeeper claims the Barbie nightgown was in the dryer with a blanket and did they ever test the knife she claims was found in the basement room where JB's body was?

http://www.rense.com/general11/benet.htm

The housekeeper hadn’t been in the house for 2 or 3 nights and could not have known if the blanket had moved over that period of time.

I don’t remember anything about any sort of testing on the knife. Maybe someone else remembers something.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Interesting, but a couple of things...

1- as I have said many times, no sample was good enough to be entered in to CODIS. Your weakly drawn line analogy is cute but we both know it took a good part of a year to get that sample ready, it just wasn't as simple as you claim.

2- Whose brilliant idea was it to check that sample with a post CODIS kit when all the other samples were Pre CODIS and the results can't be compared. I think it's obvious that the objective was to get a sample in to CODIS, not to try and corroborate or eliminate any previously collected DNA. Of course by that point in time the DA was already all in on the intruder theory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is in CODIS Andreww. Everyone knows this. It IS in CODIS.

They tested with the After CODIS Kits because it was AFTER CODIS. But, they were probably hoping to get better results then with the Before CODIS testing. It turns out that they were right.
…

AK

 

[BBB167893]

This is the reason there has been no justice.

I KNOW why there's been no justice, CuriousFrog. Although, I guess that would depend on your definition.

 

[BBB167893]

I think it is important to note that this case is not exactly like others because, IMO, the Ramseys became very early on convinced that the police were not their friends.

How does that make it different? I'd dare say that most, if not all criminals regard the police as enemies.

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks for making my point. Always nice to be vindicated.
...

AK

You're NOT welcome.

 

[BBB167893]

“Nobody trustworthy.” I think you mean nobody that RDI considers trustworthy. Which doesn't mean much to me.
...

AK

More's the pity that it doesn't.

 

[BBB167893]

The totality of the evidence INCLUDES THE DNA!! It includes ALL the unsourced evidence. IMO, RDI (see Kolar as perfect example) who say “the totality of the evidence” really mean “the totality of evidence favorable to RDI).

Noooooo. What it means is that the totality of evidence IS favorable to RDI. It doesn't take long to see that. Kolar proves THAT, if nothing else.

 

[BBB167893]

Um, maybe from the cloth or towel that was used to wipe her down? Maybe it was already on the packaged garments? Maybe it was contaminated by someone after the fact. For the millionth time, it is not uncommon for unidentifiable TDNA to be found at a crime scene, in fact I'm willing to bet that it happens more often than it doesn't.

Henry Lee himself said that unidentified, irrelevant DNA is found at roughly half (HALF!) of all crimes where DNA is involved. And he said that back around 2000, when you actually needed a fairly good-sized sample just to perform a test.

I gotta be honest, folks: this tDNA scares the living cr*p out of me, just for that reason.

 

[BBB167893]

How about all the people who are indicted and found not guilty?

Such as? I'm really interested in hearing about some. I forget where, but I read somewhere that close to 98% of those that make it to the indictment stage are guilty.

What about the fact that the DA knew there was not enough evidence to get a conviction and so he did not move forward?

Scarlett, you must be joking. We're talking about Alex Hunter, the man who didn't move forward on cases when there WAS enough to convict. Not exactly Rudy Giuliani.

 

[BBB167893]

Yeah, I don't crawl.. I walk. Mainly I walk in and out of this forum because as much as I am passionate about this case, I can not stand the ridiculousness of people pushing non facts as facts.

Don't I know it!

No one with any real credibility believes it was the ramseys.

Would you like a list of names?

They went around the world to get him because that is what you do when a little girl is murdered and a man who is confessing to the crime is there. Yes, It turned out it was not him.. But really, they should not have gone and gotten him and ran his DNA?

It's the WAY they handled it, Scarlett. They could have run his DNA quietly while he was still in Thailand. Instead, they shipped him back here at taxpayer expense, parading him in front of the media as "the guy" even as his story was already crumbling, only to throw him back because his DNA wasn't it. Which bring me to...

I am always amused that people are willing to clear others based on the DNA but not the Ramseys.

Nothing amusing about it, Scarlett. That's how IDI logic works: if the DNA is automatically taken as relevant, anyone who doesn't match has to be discounted, no matter what else is against them.

I have no doubt in my mind that Mary Lacy intended JMK to take the fall. But when his DNA turned up a zero, she'd already painted herself into a corner. She couldn't just turn around and say that the DNA was iffy (which she TRIED, briefly, let us not forget). Whatever credibility she had left would have gone "pfft."

Let me give you IDI's a nickel's worth of free advice: forget focusing on one piece and take a holistic approach to this case. Did wonders for me.

 

[BBB167893]

Just because he makes up stories does not make them so..

How do you know?

 

[BBB167893]

Except you made that all up. So......

Suddenly, I hear Johnny Cash again.

This is fiction based on your own bias.

It's the CONCLUSION I reached after considering all the evidence. An important distinction, wouldn't you say?

 

[BBB167893]

RDI such as UK GUY BLATANTLY ignores all unsourced trace evidence. Everyone who says that the totality of the case is RDI is ignoring evidence. This is just a fact.

Like hell, it is.

It isn’t a matter of “imagining hard enough.” It’s when one says something like (NOT accusing YOU of this!) “I can’t think of an IDI motive; therefore, IDI cannot be true” that they commit this fallacy (Personal Incredulity).

Change that to RDI, and you've just described the attitude of half the DA's office staff.

 

[BBB167893]

Submitting to CODIS and being admitted as a forensic quality sample are two different things. I understand there must be 13 markers present. Seems like JonBenet's was a 10-marker sample.

AND it took nearly ten years worth of advancement in DNA testing methods just to GET to 10! I find it incredible that people can blithely claim that it matches the tDNA, when, by definition, partial DNA profiles can't match anything.