From the Denver Post this morning:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22446410/boulder-grand-jury-voted-indict-ramseys
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22446410/boulder-grand-jury-voted-indict-ramseys
Boulder Grand Jury Voted To Indict-Boulder Dailey Camera
- Thread starter steph5280
- Start date
Nom de plume
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 730
- Reaction score
- 24
Is anyone really surprised by this? If AH had signed it, and moved to have it dismissed, everyone would have had further proof that he'd do anything to avoid prosecuting the Rs. At least this much of the truth has finally come out!
If a GJ could indict on the very limited evidence that was presented to them (and we know they didn't get the whole story otherwise ST and others would have testified), I'm sure a trial jury would have convicted with all the evidence available at the time.
The Golden Rule, Karma, what ever you want to call it....I hope AH gets what's coming to him. :furious: I wish there was some way he could be prosecuted.
If a GJ could indict on the very limited evidence that was presented to them (and we know they didn't get the whole story otherwise ST and others would have testified), I'm sure a trial jury would have convicted with all the evidence available at the time.
The Golden Rule, Karma, what ever you want to call it....I hope AH gets what's coming to him. :furious: I wish there was some way he could be prosecuted.
summerthyme
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2003
- Messages
- 3,056
- Reaction score
- 43
DylansMom34
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,661
- Reaction score
- 11
tezi
Proud member of WS since 2000.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2003
- Messages
- 5,570
- Reaction score
- 1,526
No, not surprised. I have thought all along the GJ returned an indictment, but Hunter refused to prosecute. I am just curious about the timing of this latest bit of news.
JMO, IMO, :moo: , and all disclaimers.
tweezybird
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction score
- 1
Yes, I wonder too what brought this out now.
eileenhawkeye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 8,755
- Reaction score
- 130
Didn't some people speculate that the Grand Jury ruled that Burke was responsible--but since he was under age 10, he couldn't be prosecuted or even named? So I guess this clears that up.
MissJ,
Its all very simple. One DA considered there was not enough evidence to indict, and another DA considered there was enough evidence to clear all the Ramsey's.
Its nice to have friends in high places. A good Catholic might meditate, pray a little, then consider that the moral of this story is that money talks.
.
tezi
Proud member of WS since 2000.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2003
- Messages
- 5,570
- Reaction score
- 1,526
Yes, it does. Considering the indictment was "child abuse resulting in death." To me, it says what many people have thought all along, that BR killed JB, and JR and PR covered the crime up. IOW, one or both discovered her and neither got help, instead they chose to cover their collective behinds.
JMO, IMO, :moo: , and all other disclaimers.
justthinkin
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,223
- Reaction score
- 156
Unless the Ramseys did it, and blamed it on Burke so all could go free. I don't think for a minute that Burke knew anything about garottes.
ahoyhoy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 560
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm not surprised by all this. I am surprised that I cried immediately upon reading it. HOLY *****!
I hope it's the slowest 'regular news' week in history next week, and every station starts re-playing ALL those R interviews & statements & EVIDENCE that we have screaming about here for a decade!
Jonbenet's murder MUST be answered for, no matter where it leads.
I hope it's the slowest 'regular news' week in history next week, and every station starts re-playing ALL those R interviews & statements & EVIDENCE that we have screaming about here for a decade!
Jonbenet's murder MUST be answered for, no matter where it leads.
midwest mama
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2012
- Messages
- 1,303
- Reaction score
- 46
How so? In reading the article, I still get that the Grand Jury voted to INDICT John and Patsy. AH dropped the ball because he was not willing to take the case to trial unless he could be CERTAIN of a guilty verdict: one that was BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT!
How despicably arrogant of him!:furious::furious:
How gutless of him. :chicken::chicken:
A six year old child lay dead, having been abused and murdered, and HE needed to be certain he would be successful?? :maddening:
All they needed to do was get an indictment signed, which was based on REASONABLE CAUSE. A juror stated there was hope of then obtaining further evidence which would give them all the ammunition they needed. That says volumes. That says (even without ST testifying) that the grand jury had seen enough evidence for probable cause to INDICT.
As jurors, don't you think they were aware that once an indictment proceeded that LE would then have every avenue of investigation open and at their disposal? The FBI has been and still is at the ready to assist if this case can be prosecuted. And since this is still open and considered prosecutable, with the only option being Felony Murder or Murder, I say this: Beckner - get off your high horse and get this case back before another Grand Jury for consideration of investigating the charge of Felony Murder. JR is still alive and quite well, according to him. If he was involved, as the former Grand Jury thought, there is already enough evidence of his involvement. If there is even one shred of plausibility that a new Grand Jury can bring an Indictment for Felony Murder, become JB's Hero and get the case prosecuted based on PROBABLE CAUSE! Call in the FBI ...........call in whoever -- the evidence should mount up for a chance of conviction. If you provide the CHANCE, you've done your job, and the rest will be up to the lawyers and the jurors. And God, and Karma, and whatever or whoever else is responsible for at last putting a resolve to this case.
Stan Garnett feels he has a dynamic cold case prosecutor. There are avenues of investigation available beyond the BPD that stand at the ready to work on this case. We have waited too long, but if more time is what it takes to get all the I's dotted and the T's crossed, than for the love of God, take the time you need. But, for once in all of your careers, get past the fear of the failure of an unsuccessful prosecution, and get this case before a trial jury!
If a trial would be what you and your peers might call "unsuccessful", at least believe that it would go down in history as one of the most successful ventures in the carriage of justice for the heinous death of a 6 year old girl that the authority of Boulder could have ever attempted.
It is time to right the wrongs. :justice:
lease:
midwest mama
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2012
- Messages
- 1,303
- Reaction score
- 46
Now is the time all you caring WS'ers. Go back to the link, shoot an email off to Charlie Brennan and plead with him to do whatever he can to keep these types of articles forthcoming.
Remind him of Jim Kolar's Theory of Prosecution being placed into Beckner's and Garnetts hands in 2011. Tell him there's been no transparent response from those offices to that 20 page document.
Encourage him to remind the public that there are those like us who might appear silly to some, but who have put hours and hours of time into studying and following this case, who cling to hope of justice for JB.
Don't lose hope now. HOPE IS ALIVE - JB IS NOT!
Remind him of Jim Kolar's Theory of Prosecution being placed into Beckner's and Garnetts hands in 2011. Tell him there's been no transparent response from those offices to that 20 page document.
Encourage him to remind the public that there are those like us who might appear silly to some, but who have put hours and hours of time into studying and following this case, who cling to hope of justice for JB.
Don't lose hope now. HOPE IS ALIVE - JB IS NOT!
Please, lets include Mary Lacy in this party!:furious:
I agree with this and my signature line states this is imho only.
:furious::furious::furious: Hunter goes blah, blah blah again!
"Colorado statutes, the ethical canons which govern the practice of law, and the Boulder District Court's oaths, instructions and orders in the JonBenet Ramsey grand jury proceedings, are well established and absolutely clear with respect to the various participants' legal obligations, duties and responsibilities, including the inviolate secrecy of the proceedings and the differing burdens of proof applicable to jurors and prosecutors.
"As the duly elected district attorney at the time and as an officer of the court then and now, I must respectfully decline further comment."
:furious::furious::furious:
This the biggest crock of patootie!! It makes me livid!!! It was not his right to decide whether or not to sign the indictment.
:furious::furious::furiousWise acknowledged that in Hunter's time in office, felony trials were not routinely pursued, and rarely did one go forward if the evidence was shaky.
"Absolutely," Wise said. "That is the way we operated in that office for years and years and years.
"We never steamrolled ahead on a case that has less than adequate evidence, to at least have a feeling that you can get a conviction. If that feeling didn't exist, we didn't file the case. We never steamrolled a case.":furious::furious::furious:
Explains how SO many people never paid for their crimes in Boulder.
I don't and never will believe that BR used the garote. I do believe he was neck deep in the rest of the events however. There were multiple crimes here. The actual event and the staging/refusing to try and help Jon Benet.
MWM, I didn't see your post prior to me posting, so I'll just say 'Yea, what she said'!! :rocker::great::seeya: