Why GJ Likely Solved Case In 1999

BlueCrab

New Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
3,053
Reaction score
133
Website
Visit site
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
 
BlueCrab said:
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!
 
UKGuy said:
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
 
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.
 
"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.)
 
BlueCrab said:
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?



 
It's hard to believe it hasn't leaked by now.....but it does sound plausible.
 
less0305 said:
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
 
BlueCrab said:
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

:clap: Bravo to some serious sleuthing!
 
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 said:
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
 
UKGuy said:
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?
 
RedChief said:
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
 
BlueCrab said:
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...
 
sorry for the double post, but something else that came to mind regarding the legal procedures surrounding this case. prosecutors cannot ethically prosecute on a hunch or circumstantial evidence. they cannot prosecute because they think that they can convince a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...they must convince themselves first. a prosecution should only be sought after the DA is sure beyond a reasonable doubt, and only then, can the question be presented to the jury.

for those that think that charges should have been brought, you are wrong. i hope i don't sound redundant, but a DA cannot say, "it looks like so-and-so is guilty. let's bring them to trial, and see what the jury thinks." that would be a horrible way to run our legal system and it violates a lawyer's legally mandated code of ethics...
 
BlueCrab said:
RedChief,


...."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."....

BlueCrab


OK, BlueCrab,

Thanks for that verification of the existence of the gag order reinforcing the law which requires Grand Jury secrecy and prohibits contact with jurors on the part of the media and the public.

I assume you can obtain this expansive gag order and wouldn't mind posting it for our edification? I, for one, would really appreciate it. You've convinced me that it exists.

I hope this gag order didn't enlarge upon the extant law, as it is not in the power of judges to make law, but rather to interpret it.

Off hand, I'd say the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press must have been protesting something other than Grand Jury secrecy; perhaps the Koby gag and the gag of others with official capacity in the case.

Yes, this is worth looking into.
 
Voice of Reason said:
sorry for the double post, but something else that came to mind regarding the legal procedures surrounding this case. prosecutors cannot ethically prosecute on a hunch or circumstantial evidence. they cannot prosecute because they think that they can convince a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...they must convince themselves first. a prosecution should only be sought after the DA is sure beyond a reasonable doubt, and only then, can the question be presented to the jury.

for those that think that charges should have been brought, you are wrong. i hope i don't sound redundant, but a DA cannot say, "it looks like so-and-so is guilty. let's bring them to trial, and see what the jury thinks." that would be a horrible way to run our legal system and it violates a lawyer's legally mandated code of ethics...


Voice of Reason,

Yep, prosecutors, themselves, should be convinced of the suspect's guilt before they launch their prosecution. However, it is all too often the case that prosecutors don't convince themselves first; they do try cases with less than incontrovertible evidence, in order to let the jurors decide. This is an unfortunate fact. Sometimes the lynch mob pressure is overwhelming.

It always troubles me when I hear prosecutors say they are building a case against so-and-so. It seems to me they should already have built their case long before going to trial. To me, the phrase, "building a case", smacks of putting the cart before the horse--having a gut feeling that so-and-so is guilty; having him arrested (if he isn't already) and declaring charges against him that, once they've been declared, make it hard to turn back, so the case-building process goes into full swing and may continue throughout the trial.

Whereas, as the saw goes, a DA, with the help of a Grand Jury, can indict a ham sandwich, it is probably true in many instances that a clever prosecutor with unlimited funds and robust public backing can convict a plate of potato salad.

And, how about those circumstantial cases where there is lots of "evidence" but it's all, or nearly all, circumstantial. Do you, as DA, refuse to prosecute? Where do you draw the line?

I agree that no one should be prosecuted unless the "evidence" convinces the DA that the person is guilty and he thinks he can bring a strong case before the jury. Of course, it is the jurors' responsibility to evaluate the DA's case, and in so doing, decide whether his case is strong enough for conviction. Unfortunately, too many jurors are influenced by the very fact that so-and-so has been charged. "Well, he's been charged, so he musta' dunnit." "Who else coulda dunnit?"

The DA ought to think the guy is guilty before he commences his prosecution; the Jury ought to assume he's innocent until they hear the evidence against him. Piece of cake.

You apparently don't think there was/is enough evidence against anyone in the Ramsey case, that was/is convincing enough to bring him/her to trial. I can't say that I disagree with you. But, what if snow had begun falling at the rate of 3 inches an hour at the time the Ramseys left for the Whites' and had continued throughout the night, and there was no sign that anyone had entered or exited the house after the Ramseys returned? What then? Just a hypothetical. Might be convinced a Ramsey did it, but which one? Arrest them all?
 
i completely agree with you Red Chief, and these are big questions that are difficult to answer. the system is never perfect, but we can only try by setting the rules that make sense, at least, in theory.

unfortunately, if you look at the effect the media can have on a case, it is tremendous. without offering personal opinions on the following cases, let's just look at two of the biggest "media trials" of the past 10 years or so. we have OJ Simpson, a case involving, perhaps, more hard evidence than a prosecutor could ever dream of, and we had an acquittal. then, we have Scott Peterson, a case with mostly circumstantial evidence, albeit, quite strong, but hardly the amount of evidence you'd expect to have the jury come back with a guilty verdict AND a death sentence. regardless of who was or was not guilty in those cases, we can use them to see how powerful public opinion can be on a case.

as to your hypothetical (3in. of snow), i think that even without the snow, the prosecutor's office essentially went down the same road. they, along with many americans, were convinced that this had to have been done by a ramsey. with enough questioning and pressure, they figured they'd get answers, or at least have someone roll over on one of the others. this did not happen. whether or not that speaks to a ramsey's guilt is a question of opinion, but i think had the snow fallen, the case would've been handled the exact same way, with, perhaps, the exact same results. even if we narrow it down to 3, if there is no stronger evidence to any one of the three, you just can't prosecute...
 
Voice of Reason said:
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!


Voice of Reason,

It's not a federal offense. It was a Boulder County, Colorado grand jury. It wasn't a federal grand jury.

It's universally known that state grand jury information is confidential and grand jurors cannot be approached until after either an indictment is issued or a written report is issued by the grand jury. But the Ramsey grand jury suspiciously did neither, thereby sealing forever the information they obtained after 13 months of investigations.

Moreover, on top of that the court issued an "expansive order" (over and above what is normally ordered) on the day the GJ permanently adjourned, blocking the public, under threat of imprisonment, from even inquiring about what the GJ uncovered. This extraordinary gag order by the court is why the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is objecting.

All of this tells me the Colorado Children's Code, by law shielding the identity of children who are involved in a major crime, had been placed into effect that 13th day of October, 1999.

BlueCrab
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
177
Guests online
2,333
Total visitors
2,510

Forum statistics

Threads
589,984
Messages
17,928,651
Members
228,032
Latest member
Taylor Sage
Back
Top