Why GJ Likely Solved Case In 1999

If the DA signed the indictments then the law required the GJ information to be made public. I think the GJ was used as a mechanism to seal information about the case and keep people quiet about what they knew. I think it was a way to protect a minor who couldn't be charged. Without the GJ a lot more information about the Ramsey's would have leaked out to the public but with the GJ they didn't just face threats from Ramsey lawyers but also criminal prosecution.

johnjay,
100% correct. That's why they took the GJ path in the first place. Nothing was ever going to be done, since everyone involved knew a minor was responsible for JonBenet's death, yet the media were screaming for action, so to satisfy public opinion and attempt to keep a lid on things they used the GJ to manipulate what they could, it was a political fix!

.
 
johnjay,
100% correct. That's why they took the GJ path in the first place. Nothing was ever going to be done, since everyone involved knew a minor was responsible for JonBenet's death, yet the media were screaming for action, so to satisfy public opinion and attempt to keep a lid on things they used the GJ to manipulate what they could, it was a political fix!

.

How absolutely maddening for the people who served in that capacity! They must have known that they'd been used....that the fix was in before they were given the first bit of evidence. "Here you go, do what you have to do, here's all this horrible evidence and testimony, now you have to live with it for the rest of your life, knowing that the perp will never be prosecuted!" And for all they know, he might even offend again and then they'd also have to live with some fair amount of guilt b/c they couldn't have charged him. It's a win-win for the DA's office. And a lose-lose for everyone else.
 
How absolutely maddening for the people who served in that capacity! They must have known that they'd been used....that the fix was in before they were given the first bit of evidence. "Here you go, do what you have to do, here's all this horrible evidence and testimony, now you have to live with it for the rest of your life, knowing that the perp will never be prosecuted!" And for all they know, he might even offend again and then they'd also have to live with some fair amount of guilt b/c they couldn't have charged him. It's a win-win for the DA's office. And a lose-lose for everyone else.

Heymom,
It was win-win until the true bills were partially made public, also its possible all the recent publicity might allow everything to be made public, since the R's drew themselves into a corner with their desire for anonymity, we can all by basic elimination work out who killed JonBenet.

Personally one thing remains to be clarified and that's if it was premeditated or accidental?


.
 
Heymom,
It was win-win until the true bills were partially made public, also its possible all the recent publicity might allow everything to be made public, since the R's drew themselves into a corner with their desire for anonymity, we can all by basic elimination work out who killed JonBenet.

Personally one thing remains to be clarified and that's if it was premeditated or accidental?


.

Doesn't the "Murder in the First Degree" part of the indictment tell us all we need to know about that?
 
If I'm reading correctly, each parent was charged with intentionally assisting someone who committed first degree murder and child abuse. If the grand jury decided BR was responsible, did they also necessarily find he committed first degree murder and child abuse? I understand they would not charge him, but would that be their finding, for the parents' charges to be consistent?
 
Doesn't the "Murder in the First Degree" part of the indictment tell us all we need to know about that?

johnjay,
Looks like it does. I really meant pre-planned rather than simply wilful intent.

.
 
If I'm reading correctly, each parent was charged with intentionally assisting someone who committed first degree murder and child abuse. If the grand jury decided BR was responsible, did they also necessarily find he committed first degree murder and child abuse? I understand they would not charge him, but would that be their finding, for the parents' charges to be consistent?

That's the way I read it.
 
Doesn't the "Murder in the First Degree" part of the indictment tell us all we need to know about that?

It certainly does for me. This was not an accident and the GJ knew it as clearly as we now must. The way it makes sense is if the garrotte and possibly the paintbrush were in place when Patsy and/or John first found JonBenet, before midnight on 12/25. They knew she'd been choked to death as well as violated, and they knew the time frame.

The jury knew that the parents had had warning signs and opportunities to protect JonBenet from Burke, yet they had not followed through with those opportunities. And they surely knew that her murder was *not* accidental.
 
If I'm reading correctly, each parent was charged with intentionally assisting someone who committed first degree murder and child abuse. If the grand jury decided BR was responsible, did they also necessarily find he committed first degree murder and child abuse? I understand they would not charge him, but would that be their finding, for the parents' charges to be consistent?

treeseeker,
That's more or less how I read it. Just by True-Billing the parents and identifying an anonymous third party and absenting Burke Ramsey, more or less tells you what you need to know.


.
 
Is it possible that she was hit with a knife just like BR showed us.? ?and I am thinking of the handle of the knife.

I remember PR saying in one of the police interviews that a grapefruit knife was out of place. It had a WOODEN handle.
 
Is it possible that she was hit with a knife just like BR showed us.? ?and I am thinking of the handle of the knife.

I remember PR saying in one of the police interviews that a grapefruit knife was out of place. It had a WOODEN handle.

The flashlight is looking like a good fit for the weapon. It was heavy and long, both contributed to the amount of force JonBenet experienced.
 
Is it possible that she was hit with a knife just like BR showed us.? ?and I am thinking of the handle of the knife.

I remember PR saying in one of the police interviews that a grapefruit knife was out of place. It had a WOODEN handle.

I don't think any knife handle is heavy enough to cause that kind of displacement fracture. Maybe the handle of a machete or a katana, but then the perpetrator would have had to be holding it by the blade which is not a safe thing to do.

Patsy said lots of things were out of place in her interviews, just to try and throw police off the scent. She questioned whether the bowl containing pineapple was theirs, she questioned the Santa Bear that JonBenet had won in a recent pageant, she probably would have claimed *anything* in the house had been brought in by the intruder if she could have gotten away with it.
 
I don't think any knife handle is heavy enough to cause that kind of displacement fracture. Maybe the handle of a machete or a katana, but then the perpetrator would have had to be holding it by the blade which is not a safe thing to do.

Patsy said lots of things were out of place in her interviews, just to try and throw police off the scent. She questioned whether the bowl containing pineapple was theirs, she questioned the Santa Bear that JonBenet had won in a recent pageant, she probably would have claimed *anything* in the house had been brought in by the intruder if she could have gotten away with it.

@bold
not if the handle is big enough and you hold it like a brick or something....
btw here is the knife discussion


15 A kitchen knife.

16 TOM HANEY: What would that be doing there?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know.

18 TOM HANEY: It does look like a kitchen

19 knife.

20 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh. I don't know what it

21 is doing there.

22 TOM HANEY: Do you recall yourself having

23 anything to do with that knife being there?

24 PATSY RAMSEY: No. Is it on something? Is

25 that --

0334

1 TOM HANEY: I think that is just a shadow,

2 but a reflection off the --

3 PATSY RAMSEY: There. There is a tiny

4 yellowish color there. Can you see that?

5 I'm not sure if that is one of my kitchen

6 knives, to tell you the truth. That must be something.

7 TOM HANEY: We would have that.

8 PATSY RAMSEY: I could see that. In the

9 picture it looks like it is a very thin blade, like a

10 grapefruit knife or something.

11 TOM HANEY: What about the handle?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: I had some wooden handle

13 knives, but I don't know why I would have it there in

14 the kitchen, you know. I don't know why it is there.

15 TOM HANEY: Could one of the children brought

16 that?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: No. No. No.
 
Conclusion
It is the belief of the investigative team that the evidence and information gathered to date strongly indicates the Ramsey’s have knowledge, involvement, and responsibility for the death of their daughter. The following is a reiteration of the points that head us to that opinion.

1) Prior vaginal trauma


--------------------

now this is very telling

wonder where they got their info from, medical panel only or were her medical records unsealed, important to know. Btw, did Beuf testify before the GJ?
 
It certainly does for me. This was not an accident and the GJ knew it as clearly as we now must. The way it makes sense is if the garrotte and possibly the paintbrush were in place when Patsy and/or John first found JonBenet, before midnight on 12/25. They knew she'd been choked to death as well as violated, and they knew the time frame.

The jury knew that the parents had had warning signs and opportunities to protect JonBenet from Burke, yet they had not followed through with those opportunities. And they surely knew that her murder was *not* accidental.

Not to mention they left a defenseless six year old girl to sleep alone on the same floor as their obviously troubled boy (and she was his target, I think most of us can agree on that) while they slept on a completely different floor where (apparently) they couldn't hear a thing if there was violence or trouble.

Now, they ARE completely responsible for the very troubled and abnormal, almost 30 year old man we see today.

What I need to know is the same law protecting minors in place today- because if it is- what we CAN do for JonBenet is to make sure it gets changed.
 
what I dont get is... if everybody suspected Br and the gj thought it was premeditated murder... how could they ALL sleep at night without making sure this sick boy is getting proper treatment? I mean if he did it once who is to say he won't do it again? just like PR said there is a killer on the lose. Does it matter how old he is? he could have killed five more kids at school if he was so disturbed no?
 
Not to mention they left a defenseless six year old girl to sleep alone on the same floor as their obviously troubled boy (and she was his target, I think most of us can agree on that) while they slept on a completely different floor where (apparently) they couldn't hear a thing if there was violence or trouble.

Now, they ARE completely responsible for the very troubled and abnormal, almost 30 year old man we see today.

What I need to know is the same law protecting minors in place today- because if it is- what we CAN do for JonBenet is to make sure it gets changed.


Yes, "JonBenet's law" would be fitting justice. That's brilliant.
 
what I dont get is... if everybody suspected Br and the gj thought it was premeditated murder... how could they ALL sleep at night without making sure this sick boy is getting proper treatment? I mean if he did it once who is to say he won't do it again? just like PR said there is a killer on the lose. Does it matter how old he is? he could have killed five more kids at school if he was so disturbed no?

Well, according to what Kolar wrote in his book, this could have been the sort of mental issue that was easily "cured" in a few months. As hard as that is to believe.
 
Well, according to what Kolar wrote in his book, this could have been the sort of mental issue that was easily "cured" in a few months. As hard as that is to believe.

OR maybe this was the deal ....we PROMISE we will get him treatment and keep an eye on him for as long as we live

am pretty sure coward AH would have bought this
 
If the DA signed the indictments then the law required the GJ information to be made public. I think the GJ was used as a mechanism to seal information about the case and keep people quiet about what they knew. I think it was a way to protect a minor who couldn't be charged. Without the GJ a lot more information about the Ramsey's would have leaked out to the public but with the GJ they didn't just face threats from Ramsey lawyers but also criminal prosecution.

Yes, even Fleet White said this in 1998:

"It is our firm belief that the district attorney and others intend to use the grand jury and its secrecy in an attempt to protect their careers and also serve the conflicting interests of powerful, influential, and threatening people who have something to hide or protect or who simply don't want to be publicly linked to a dreadful murder investigation. Also weighing on the district attorney has been the matter of preserving and protecting the now "cooperative" and forthcoming Ramseys' rights as victims."

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?39799-Fleet-White
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
631
Total visitors
764

Forum statistics

Threads
625,645
Messages
18,507,486
Members
240,829
Latest member
The Flamazing Finder
Back
Top