Why did the Grand Jury not indict the Ramseys?

[icedtea4me]

<snip>


The judge likely refused to release other True Counts and these remain sealed, probably due to Colorado State Statute on children involved in crimes, as these name Burke Ramsey as the person?

Some suggest one of the sealed counts might name a parent as JonBenet's killer, possibly so why not add it to the unsealed counts which also name the parents as co-conspirators?

<snip>

How do prosecutors obtain federal indictments?
By law, a federal indictment can only be brought (or in technical terms “returned”) by a grand jury, which is a body of 16 to 23 citizens chosen from the community. The grand jury hears evidence and testimony from witnesses presented by the prosecution. It has the power to ask questions, and subpoena witnesses and documents on its own. Once the grand jury hears the evidence, it votes to indict or to not indict, based on whether there is “probable cause” to believe the defendant is guilty.

A minimum of 16 grand jurors must be present to vote (a quorum), and at least 12 must vote in favor of an indictment before charges can be brought. If the grand jury votes to indict, it will return a “true bill,” signed by the foreperson of the grand jury. This is why in all federal indictments, there is a stamped or typed statement at the end of each document with the words: “a true bill.”

Federal Indictments: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions - Burnham & Gorokhov, PLLC


Counts IV-a and VII for John and counts IV-a and VII for Patsy were the only ones released because they are the only ones signed by the jury foreman.

 

[UKGuy]

How do prosecutors obtain federal indictments?
By law, a federal indictment can only be brought (or in technical terms “returned”) by a grand jury, which is a body of 16 to 23 citizens chosen from the community. The grand jury hears evidence and testimony from witnesses presented by the prosecution. It has the power to ask questions, and subpoena witnesses and documents on its own. Once the grand jury hears the evidence, it votes to indict or to not indict, based on whether there is “probable cause” to believe the defendant is guilty.

A minimum of 16 grand jurors must be present to vote (a quorum), and at least 12 must vote in favor of an indictment before charges can be brought. If the grand jury votes to indict, it will return a “true bill,” signed by the foreperson of the grand jury. This is why in all federal indictments, there is a stamped or typed statement at the end of each document with the words: “a true bill.”

Federal Indictments: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions - Burnham & Gorokhov, PLLC


Counts IV-a and VII for John and counts IV-a and VII for Patsy were the only ones released because they are the only ones signed by the jury foreman.

icedtea4me,
So it's another signing issue, which tells us ?

Not being signed does not mean they did not indict Burke Ramsey.

Similarly for Patsy on a First Degree Murder count?

The person is either one or both parents or Burke Ramsey?

.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,
So it's another signing issue, which tells us ?

Not being signed does not mean they did not indict Burke Ramsey.

Similarly for Patsy on a First Degree Murder count?

The person is either one or both parents or Burke Ramsey?

.

If Burke had been indicted, then there would've been 19 pages, not 18 (9 for John and 9 for Patsy).

 

[FruityBooger]

FruityBooger,

Theoretically Burke would be charged with child abuse, e.g. Sexual Assault, but due to his age no prosecution would follow along with no publicity as per Colorado State Statute on children involved in crimes, which Hunter ensured by not filing the True Bills as required.

The Grand Jury estimated that both parents played a similar role in JonBenet's homicide, e.g. in plain language they covered up by staging a crime-scene, and allowed JonBenet to be placed in danger.

If the Grand Jury were undecided as to who indict for First Degree Murder counts then there is nothing to prevent them charging both parents with First Degree Murder?

With only three suspects on the table reference to a third party, i.e person is superfluous, e.g. it's either the parents or Burke Ramsey?

The judge likely refused to release other True Counts and these remain sealed, probably due to Colorado State Statute on children involved in crimes, as these name Burke Ramsey as the person?

Some suggest one of the sealed counts might name a parent as JonBenet's killer, possibly so why not add it to the unsealed counts which also name the parents as co-conspirators?

i.e. Naming the parents in specific counts but not in others is legally inconsistent, and patently would serve no purpose.


Yes, it's all possible to do in a small time frame as JonBenet was likely moved from upstairs to down to the basement along with a suitcase of forensic evidence which was then left there, the rest is authoring the ransom note.

Remember the parents forgot all about JonBenet and Burke's pineapple snack, the Breakfast Bar was left in place, totally contradicting the parents claims they put JonBenet straight to bed.

Although the staging time frame would extend beyond 5 or 10 minutes.
.

Thank you for the detailed response. It did clarify a few things I was wondering about. I do wonder though, if more staging took place when JR was "missing" at the R house for an hour or so?

 

[UKGuy]

If Burke had been indicted, then there would've been 19 pages, not 18 (9 for John and 9 for Patsy).

icedtea4me,
Assuming you are correct.

COUNT IV
On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (or alternately, Patricia Paugh Ramsey) 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, a child under the age of sixteen.

As to Count IV, child abuse resulting in death:

What might the situation be that either Patsy or John placed JonBenet in?

.

 

[UKGuy]

Thank you for the detailed response. It did clarify a few things I was wondering about. I do wonder though, if more staging took place when JR was "missing" at the R house for an hour or so?

FruityBooger,
Yes, JR could have tweaked the staging, even moved JonBenet into the wine-cellar, as Fleet White saw nothing suspicious when he looked early that morning and he has better eyesight than John Ramsey!

Which is why the case could really be JDI, with Patsy assisting.

Some of JR's early statements are inconsistent suggesting he was intent on promoting a particular version of events, which eventually changed once Lou Smit exerted his influence on the case.

.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,
Assuming you are correct.

What might the situation be that either Patsy or John placed JonBenet in?

.

One in which they were so furious that they struck her.

 

[UKGuy]

One in which they were so furious that they struck her.

icedtea4me,
I assume everyone interested in the case considers JonBenet was whacked in anger.

Yet everyone who might have a theory to share might agree on the general outline PDI or JDI, etc while disagreeing on the details, e.g. the situation, JonBenet wetting the bed?

We have from the Grand Jury:

COUNT IV
On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (or alternately, Patricia Paugh Ramsey) 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, a child under the age of sixteen.

As to Count IV, child abuse resulting in death:

A TRUE BILL

BBM.

Which suggests one or both parents placed JonBenet in a situation, i.e. one of child abuse which resulted in her death.

Does this accord with your theory?

.

 

[UKGuy]

So why would Alex Hunter not file all the indictments?

Hunter had this procedure as an option:

The Process of Filing Criminal Charges

After an incident happens, a police officer types up a report and gives that to the state attorney’s office. When the prosecutor gets your file, he or she reviews it to determine what, if any, charges should be filed against you. If after reading the police report and it’s determined by the prosecutor that no charges can be proven or that the charge is not likely to be proven, the prosecutor may file what’s called a “No Information Notice,” or a “No Bill.”

A “No Bill” is a formal document that’s filed with the court that lets the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, the judge, and the clerk know that the prosecutor will not be seeking formal charges against the defendant. It doesn’t mean, however, that charges can’t be filed at a later date.
Example of a No Bill

An instance of when a “No Bill” may occur is after a lawyer discusses the case before the trial begins with the prosecutor. There are times when a lawyer will put together the defense of the case along with testimonies and witnesses and basically tell the prosecutor how the trial is going to develop before it even happens.

If the defense seems strong enough, the prosecutor may not even proceed because of the inevitability that the case will more than likely be dropped anyway. Keep in mind that the difference between a case being dropped and a prosecutor taking it to trial can depend solely on whether you have public or private legal counsel.

So why did Hunter not take this route, why decline to file the indictments status with the court when he had a No Bill option to hand?

Here is another speculative view on the Grand Jury outcome:
Who Killed JonBenet (Part 3): The Grand Jury
Who Killed JonBenet (Part 3): The Grand Jury

.

 

[Angiebrads]

I read the article and must say if the Ramseys want us to believe the DNA evidence exonerates them then we must believe the DNA evidence also excludes the Reynolds. I ready somewhere that many of the Ramsey family and friends willingly gave DNA samples to the police Dept. Does anyone know if the Reynolds supplied dna? If so they’ve been eliminated as suspects.

 

[UKGuy]

I read the article and must say if the Ramseys want us to believe the DNA evidence exonerates them then we must believe the DNA evidence also excludes the Reynolds. I ready somewhere that many of the Ramsey family and friends willingly gave DNA samples to the police Dept. Does anyone know if the Reynolds supplied dna? If so they’ve been eliminated as suspects.

Angiebrads,
Well made points.

The thing about the dna sample from JonBenet's underwear is that it is likely a composite sample from different sources, minimally it is incomplete, so matching against it might not guarantee any legal certainty.

So in essence Bill McReynolds' dna testing should have the same status as that of the Ramsey's?

Another disconfirming aspect is that if Bill McReynolds was involved then you might expect some of his forensic exemplars to be distributed over the crime-scene and they are not.

AFAIK only those of the three remaining Ramsey's have deposited forensic markers linking them directly with the Wine-Cellar crime-scene.

Which given the inaccessability of the wine-cellar and the absence of forensic evidence linking to anyone outside the house effectively rules out an Intruder.

.

 

[Angiebrads]

I truly believe the Ramseys were completely and totally responsible for what happened to JonBenet. I don’t think any intruder was involved. They know what happened. Burke knows what happened. Many people have been excluded as suspects and the Ramseys need to stop throwing innocent people to the wolves. ( Santa and his wife, the Whites etc ) The only definitive DNA in that wine cellar belonged to the Ramseys. An intruder would have left more than a small fraction of dna at the crime scene. Poor little girl may not get justice here but those responsible for her death will get theirs on judgment day.

 

[Kel_kel]

I really am not sure.

Well they probably did not indict the ramseys because they're not guilty.. crazy Theory I know.. but I mean they found foreign DNA yeah the family didn't do it that's why they weren't arrested I feel really bad for the family because everyone attacked them
Back then I was just a stupid follower and believed everything I read.. now I know that everyone lies and I know her family didn't do it

 

[icedtea4me]

Well they probably did not indict the ramseys because they're not guilty.. crazy Theory I know.. but I mean they found foreign DNA yeah the family didn't do it that's why they weren't arrested I feel really bad for the family because everyone attacked them
Back then I was just a stupid follower and believed everything I read.. now I know that everyone lies and I know her family didn't do it

The foreign dna could've gotten in those places via secondary transfer. There were two men at the Ramseys' Christmas party on 23 Dec whose dna, to my knowledge, has not been tested yet.

 

[Angiebrads]

If there had been an intruder don’t you think there would be more DNA than the tiny bit found? However there is a lot of Ramsey DNA where it shouldn’t be. ( the garrote, the body where it was wiped down, the sticky side of the tape covering her mouth etc )

 

[UKGuy]

If there had been an intruder don’t you think there would be more DNA than the tiny bit found? However there is a lot of Ramsey DNA where it shouldn’t be. ( the garrote, the body where it was wiped down, the sticky side of the tape covering her mouth etc )

Angiebrads,
Anyone matched against the underwear dna can claim in court that the match is invalid due to it being an incomplete sample.

The underwear dna could have come from anywhere, not necessarily from the person who killed JonBenet.

Any intruder leaving dna in JonBenet's underwear might be expected to leave some elsewhere at the crime-scene and there is none.

Nobody has been matched to date, in the future with the rise of cloud-based dna analysis a familial trace via a trawl of open dna databases will be possible, although possibly not a direct match, i.e. we might find a link to a latino family clan?

Bear in mind all the dna test results have not been made public, where else on JonBenet's clothing or body was Ramsey dna deposited?

Burke Ramsey's touch-dna was deposited on the bloodstained pink barbie nightgown.

Neither artifact should be on the gown as Patsy says she put JonBenet to bed wearing the Gap Top and Burke Ramsey's long johns.

This means you have Burke Ramsey's forensic markers popping up at different points in the forensic timeline, i.e. in the breakfast bar and in the wine-cellar.

Both separated by time and space but linked only by Burke Ramsey with his fingerprints and touch dna.


.

 

[icedtea4me]

<snip>
Bear in mind all the dna test results have not been made public, where else on JonBenet's clothing or body was Ramsey dna deposited?

Burke Ramsey's touch-dna was deposited on the bloodstained pink barbie nightgown.

Neither artifact should be on the gown as Patsy says she put JonBenet to bed wearing the Gap Top and Burke Ramsey's long johns.

This means you have Burke Ramsey's forensic markers popping up at different points in the forensic timeline, i.e. in the breakfast bar and in the wine-cellar.

Both separated by time and space but linked only by Burke Ramsey with his fingerprints and touch dna.


.

It didn't occur to you that Patsy's remark about putting JonBenet to bed was really about redressing her after she struck her down.

 

[UKGuy]

It didn't occur to you that Patsy's remark about putting JonBenet to bed was really about redressing her after she struck her down.

icedtea4me,
Yes, a long time ago, Steve Thomas period.

Why would she elect to redress JonBenet in her niece's size-12 underwear and Burke Ramsey's long johns?

.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,
Yes, a long time ago, Steve Thomas period.

Why would she elect to redress JonBenet in her niece's size-12 underwear and Burke Ramsey's long johns?

.

1. Her Gap top was white. The long johns were white. Coordination.
2. As for the sz 12 underwear Patsy said she was going to give to her niece Jenny... it was an act of desperation by Patsy.

 

[UKGuy]

1. Her Gap top was white. The long johns were white. Coordination.
2. As for the sz 12 underwear Patsy said she was going to give to her niece Jenny... it was an act of desperation by Patsy.

icedtea4me,
You have to wonder why Patsy would be desperate, JonBenet has a drawer full of her own underwear upstairs in her room, along with numerous nightgowns and pajama sets, JonBenet was not spoilt for choice?

Just what did Patsy do all night, assume JonBenet is critically injured sometime in the period 12:30 AM to 1:00 AM. This leaves Patsy at least three hours to fabricate a convincing crime-scene.

She could have redressed JonBenet in clean clothes and either hand or machine washed what she was wearing when injured, put them in the dryer , then placed them back into her clothing drawer upstairs?

By leaving JonBenet wearing Burke Ramsey's long johns she has linked him into the crime-scene, this could have been avoided by using a set of JonBenet's own pajamas.

If the case is PDI, and it could be, an explantion why Patsy dressed JonBenet in the manner she did and what was motivating her would be interesting, as staging goes it simply multiplied the forensic evidence that linked Patsy to the wine-cellar crime-scene!

.