1269 users online (229 members and 1040 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 21 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 308
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053

    Why GJ Likely Solved Case In 1999

    Did the Ramsey grand jury, after investigating the JonBenet Ramsey murder for 13 months and interviewing an estimated 100 witnesses, solve the crime back in 1999? It appears this could be so.

    But if so, why hasn't the name of the killer been released to the public? The only answer that could fit this question is that it would be against the Colorado Children's Code to release the name of a juvenile too young to even be charged with a serious crime.

    IOW, if the JonBenet murder was solved by the grand jury in October of 1999, it has been a legal coverup ever since.

    By following the money, this scenario makes sense. Boulder had spent over a million dollars to investigate the case through 1999. Since then the Boulder budget to actively investigate the crime has been cut back to nothing.

    Mary Keenan was elected to the office of district attorney and assumed her duties in January of 2001 with a promise to pursue the investigation -- but she hasn't requested as much as a penny to continue the investigation. Keenan took over the case from the Boulder Police Department on December 20, 2002 with the conveient comment that she "will not discuss the case".

    Keenan hired retired detective Tom Bennett on June 12, 2003, at $25 an hour, to head up the investigation with Lou Smit. The money for Bennett's position is being paid from the funds previously budgeted to hire an attorney for the DA's office. But Bennett and Smit, both working part-time, have produced virtually nothing new.

    It's also interesting that Keenan has not asked for any assistance from other LE agencies in Boulder, such as the BPD; the Sheriff's Department; or the CBI. Keenan's two investigators, Linda Wickman and Joe DeAngelo, work on other cases.

    Mary Keenan's so-called "new investigation" into JonBenet's murder is obviously a sham. There is no new investigation -- there seems to be nothing but lies and a coverup that appears to be legal. Legal because, under the Colorado Children's Code, it is lawful to lie to protect the identity of children involved in a serious crime, such as murder.

    In my opinion, it is highly likely the grand jury solved the JonBenet murder in 1999.

    BlueCrab
    Last edited by BlueCrab; 03-12-2005 at 02:12 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,669
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    In my opinion, it is highly likely the grand jury solved the JonBenet murder in 1999.
    BlueCrab
    Minors simply by being participants in the legal process may be protected by default under the Colorado Children's Code.

    Obviously Jonbenet's death was not considered or ruled as an ACCIDENT therefore whatever they decided it was on the basis that it was a homicide.

    The Grand Jury may simply have lacked the evidence to pursue a prosecution!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy

    The Grand Jury may simply have lacked the evidence to pursue a prosecution!

    UKGuy,

    If children under 10 years of age are involved in a serious crime, such as murder, then by Colorado law the state cannot prosecute them and, in fact, must not reveal their names and, from a legal standpoint, LE must pretend the children don't exist and no crime had occurred. The case goes to the district attorney who has total jurisdiction to confidentially dispose of the matter as he sees fit.

    This appears to be what has happened in regard to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. All of the pieces fit.

    BlueCrab

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oriental, North Carolina
    Posts
    939

    Bluecrab

    Your arguments are persuasive. It's hard to try to reason against them. Just wish there was some way to know for sure. It's so frustrating.
    Simplicity...patience...compassion

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,098
    "All the pieces fit" except human nature: given the media pressure and the number of Boulder careers derailed by the case, it is simply unbelievable that the g.j. concluded such a thing and it was never leaked.

    (Edited to add: my view here says nothing as to the truth of BDI. I just don't believe the g.j. came to that formal conclusion.)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    343

    Burke

    How old is he now?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,669
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    UKGuy,

    If children under 10 years of age are involved in a serious crime, such as murder, then by Colorado law the state cannot prosecute them and, in fact, must not reveal their names and, from a legal standpoint, LE must pretend the children don't exist and no crime had occurred. The case goes to the district attorney who has total jurisdiction to confidentially dispose of the matter as he sees fit.

    This appears to be what has happened in regard to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. All of the pieces fit.

    BlueCrab
    BlueCrab,
    Your general point may well be correct.

    Would Colorado Children's Code not apply to all children or minors who fell within its legal scope, Innocent or Guilty?




  8. #8
    less0305's Avatar
    less0305 is offline The face is familiar, but I can't quite remember my name!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    4,243
    It's hard to believe it hasn't leaked by now.....but it does sound plausible.
    It's my own two cents. You don't have to read or like it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by less0305
    It's hard to believe it hasn't leaked by now.....but it does sound plausible.

    It hasn't been leaked because the "leaker" would immediately be arrested, criminally convicted per se, be sent to jail and heavily fined, and lose his job and professional license to make a living.

    The court gag order slapped on the case when the grand jury permanently adjourned in October of 1999 tells the whole story.

    The story can also be told by studying the name index in PMPT pb. (There are about 500 names listed in PMPT's name index.) Publication of PMPT pb was being held up pending the adjournment of the grand jury. When the powerful GJ finally adjourned in October of 1999, after 13 months of investigation, PMPT rushed to publication. It's pages were edited to conform with the GJ's findings and to obey the court's gag order. As a result, there were names removed from the text but, because of the rush, at least one name, although listed multiple times in the name index in the back of the book, appears just once in the text. Another prominent name does not appear at all.

    BlueCrab

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    7,189
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    It hasn't been leaked because the "leaker" would immediately be arrested, criminally convicted per se, be sent to jail and heavily fined, and lose his job and professional license to make a living.

    The court gag order slapped on the case when the grand jury permanently adjourned in October of 1999 tells the whole story.

    The story can also be told by studying the name index in PMPT pb. (There are about 500 names listed in PMPT's name index.) Publication of PMPT pb was being held up pending the adjournment of the grand jury. When the powerful GJ finally adjourned in October of 1999, after 13 months of investigation, PMPT rushed to publication. It's pages were edited to conform with the GJ's findings and to obey the court's gag order. As a result, there were names removed from the text but, because of the rush, at least one name, although listed multiple times in the name index in the back of the book, appears just once in the text. Another prominent name does not appear at all.

    BlueCrab
    Bravo to some serious sleuthing!


  11. #11
    LazyCat08's Avatar
    LazyCat08 is offline I may not be Glenn Beck, but I am a thinker......
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    188
    What other young children were known to be directly involved besides Burke?

    What if an adult and a child were involved? How would they protect the child and prosecute the adult?
    bhp

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Brie
    What other young children were known to be directly involved besides Burke?

    What if an adult and a child were involved? How would they protect the child and prosecute the adult?

    Brie,

    I am no longer allowed to provide the names on this forum. But you can figure it out yourself.

    Good question about an adult's involvement because, IMO, this is exactly what I believe took place. Under Colorado law it is legal to lie to protect the identity of the children, and an apparent high-level coverup was needed to prevent the children being dragged into any criminal proceedings against an adult, and thus revealing the names of the children.

    IMO the legal coverup extends from the DA's office upward and was approved by the court. Judge Roxanne Bailin oversaw the grand jury's investigation.

    BlueCrab

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    The Grand Jury may simply have lacked the evidence to pursue a prosecution!

    If we can believe Hunter--and some of us obviously don't--there is no question that the Grand Jury lacked sufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution:


    >October 13, 1999
    Web posted at: 10:04 p.m. EDT (0204 GMT)

    BOULDER, Colorado (CNN) -- The grand jury that has been examining the JonBenet Ramsey murder case for 13 months will not issue any indictments, Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter announced Wednesday evening. He said the panel has been discharged.

    "We do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time," Hunter told reporters in a brief statement......

    Hunter did not mention the girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, whom he earlier had said were "under an umbrella of suspicion."

    He did praise the members of the panel.

    "The grand jurors have done their work extraordinarily well, bringing to bear all of their legal powers, life experiences and shrewdness," said Hunter.

    The prosecutor said that under Colorado law all proceedings of the grand jury are secret. A court order was distributed to journalists, telling them to stay away from the grand jurors or risk being in contempt of court.

    "Under no circumstances will I, or any of my advisers, prosecutors, the law enforcement officers working on this case or the grand jurors discuss grand jury proceedings -- today or ever -- unless ordered by the court," Hunter said.

    But he announced he would answer questions from the media on Thursday.

    Colorado Gov. Bill Owens said he will review the case and decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor.

    "While I am not presently in a position to comment on the work of this grand jury, I do know one fact: A little girl was brutally murdered in Boulder, Colorado, and the killer or killers remain free today," he said.

    "STUMPED" was the boldface, full-spread banner headline in an "Extra" edition printed by the local newspaper, the Boulder Daily Camera. "Grand jury takes no action in JonBenet Ramsey case," the sub-headline said.


    Ramseys: 'Find the real killer'

    About an hour after the announcement, a family friend from West Virginia, Linda McLean, told CNN she had spoken with Patsy Ramsey, a former Miss West Virginia.

    "We were on our knees holding hands when the statement came out," she quoted Patsy Ramsey as saying. "We are relieved and thankful to God. Now we can proceed with trying to find the real killer."

    Pam Paugh, Patsy Ramsey's sister, said she was glad the Ramseys weren't indicted. But she said on CNN's "Larry King Live" that she was disappointed the jurors could not solve the case.

    There is no statute of limitations on murder in Colorado. The investigation is >expected to stay open and active.


    Gag order? What gag order?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by RedChief

    Gag order? What gag order?


    RedChief,

    News release from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, October 14, 1999 (one day after the Ramsey GJ permanently adjourned):

    "The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press announced today that it protests the expansive gag order signed by the Chief Judge of the Boulder District Court on October 13, 1999, which threatens any member of the public with prosecution for contempt of court if he or she contacts a member of the discharged Boulder County Grand Jury that investigated the JonBenet Ramsey murder."

    "Courts will always make grand jurors swear oaths of secrecy forbidding them to talk to anyone about their investigations, but an order criminalizing the simplest steps in the newsgathering process in such a high-profile case is fundamentally offensive to the First Amendment. A sweeping prohibition of indefinite duration, without any attempt by the court to demonstrate a need or any indication of improper behavior, should not stand."

    Police Chief Koby and others had separate gag orders placed on their personnel.

    Does not these extraordinary gag orders tell us something? I think so.

    They tell me the Colorado Children's Code has been placed into effect.

    BlueCrab

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343

    the legal perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    RedChief,

    Does not these extraordinary gag orders tell us something? I think so.

    BlueCrab
    fact of the matter is, all grand jury testimony is protected. it is a federal offense to discuss any of this with the press. regardless of the gag order by the judge, had the media contacted anyone, they would be acting criminally in speaking with them...on any case!

    granted, this stuff happens. see baseball steroids controversy. most of that broke out by a grand jury leak in the balco testimony. oddly enough, nobody seems to care about the SF chronicle reporter who received illegally obtained information, and then printed it...

    another legal aspect to this case, that i think is worth mentioning, is that we are in the state of colorado. i don't know how many of you are aware, but the legislators of colorado were under the spotlight back in 1996, when they passed amendment 2. under amendment 2, all laws protecting homosexuals were to be repealed, and no new ones were to be made. the supreme court, in romer v. evans struck down this law as a violation of equal protection. now, i don't know what all of your personal beliefs are, and i don't want to get too political here, but i think this law is certainly a violation of our constitution, regardless of your beliefs. i find it very telling of the types of laws that may come from the state of colorado. this doesn't seem like your average law-making state...

Page 1 of 21 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast