1165 users online (209 members and 956 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    537

    Grand Jury Indictment Supports my Theory

    Hi, I used to be a poster here quite some time ago and now I am back after seeing the Grand Jury Indictment of both parents, which I found extremely interesting more for what it doesn't say than what it does say. The prevailing theories around here from the vast majority of posters has been that one or both of the parents directly murdered their daughter and then blamed it on an intruder to escape being held responsible. I never really accepted that theory and my own theory was then and is now that someone outside of the family murdered JBR but it was not a stranger. My theory was that the parents were allowing their daughter to be used by someone else in satanic sexual rituals within their own house. This had happened on multiple occasions before but this time something went wrong and JBR died during it. Then the parents did everything they could to hide not only the involvement of the real murderer (which they both know) but also their own involvement in allowing it to happen.

    But, back to the Grand Jury Indictment. If the GJ indicted the parents, the assumption here and elsewhere has always been that one or both of the parents was guilty of the direct murder of their daughter. Now what a surprise to read the actual indictments, which are:

    1. The parents unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly permitted their daughter to be placed in a situation that resulted in the death of their daughter.

    2. The parents obstructed justice by covering up the crime and helping the person who murdered their daughter escape justice.

    I want to point out that both of these indictments support my previous theory. What evidence the GJ saw to come to the conclusions remains unknown but I found it very interesting.

    I am open to comments on this.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Avalon
    Posts
    13,612
    Satanic sexual rituals? Sorry, but ..
    You don't get a medal for switching alliances just before the result, as it becomes apparent the other team is set to win.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Anyhoo View Post
    Hi, I used to be a poster here quite some time ago and now I am back after seeing the Grand Jury Indictment of both parents, which I found extremely interesting more for what it doesn't say than what it does say. The prevailing theories around here from the vast majority of posters has been that one or both of the parents directly murdered their daughter and then blamed it on an intruder to escape being held responsible. I never really accepted that theory and my own theory was then and is now that someone outside of the family murdered JBR but it was not a stranger. My theory was that the parents were allowing their daughter to be used by someone else in satanic sexual rituals within their own house. This had happened on multiple occasions before but this time something went wrong and JBR died during it. Then the parents did everything they could to hide not only the involvement of the real murderer (which they both know) but also their own involvement in allowing it to happen.

    But, back to the Grand Jury Indictment. If the GJ indicted the parents, the assumption here and elsewhere has always been that one or both of the parents was guilty of the direct murder of their daughter. Now what a surprise to read the actual indictments, which are:

    1. The parents unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly permitted their daughter to be placed in a situation that resulted in the death of their daughter.

    2. The parents obstructed justice by covering up the crime and helping the person who murdered their daughter escape justice.

    I want to point out that both of these indictments support my previous theory. What evidence the GJ saw to come to the conclusions remains unknown but I found it very interesting.

    I am open to comments on this.
    Look, folks, I'm gonna say something that won't be very popular, but I NEED to say it. The GJ indictment seems to be deliberately avoiding the charge of murder. Rather, it seems like the GJ were trying to avoid some terrible truths.

    To that end, we have a serious problem in this country as far as justice goes, and that problem is what Mark Steyn calls "countless counts." It used to be that a person would have a big charge brought against him/her and the prosecutor either won or lost. Nowadays, for whatever reasons (politics, polishing a record, etc), Law Enforcement seems to favor a shotgun approach: shoot enough lead into the air, you're bound to hit something.

    Here's what I mean. If the Rs had been brought to trial, they likely would have been facing a large number of charges, and the jury would have had to vote on each one of them. To quote Steyn:

    Multiple charges tend, through sheer weight of numbers, to favor a result in which the jury convict on some and acquit on others and then tell themselves that they’ve reached a “moderate” “compromise” as befits the reasonable persons they assuredly are. It is, of course, not reasonable. Indeed, the notion of a “compromise” between conviction and acquittal is a dagger at the heart of justice. It’s the repugnant “plea bargain” in reverse, but this time to bargain with the jury: Okay, we threw the book at him and it went nowhere, so why don’t we all agree to settle

    Now, I want justice as much as anyone, more than some. But this is not justice. And it seems like the GJ was "shotgunning" in the hope of hitting something without bruising their consciences.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Armpit, AR
    Posts
    5,350

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Anyhoo View Post
    Hi, I used to be a poster here quite some time ago and now I am back after seeing the Grand Jury Indictment of both parents, which I found extremely interesting more for what it doesn't say than what it does say. The prevailing theories around here from the vast majority of posters has been that one or both of the parents directly murdered their daughter and then blamed it on an intruder to escape being held responsible. I never really accepted that theory and my own theory was then and is now that someone outside of the family murdered JBR but it was not a stranger. My theory was that the parents were allowing their daughter to be used by someone else in satanic sexual rituals within their own house. This had happened on multiple occasions before but this time something went wrong and JBR died during it. Then the parents did everything they could to hide not only the involvement of the real murderer (which they both know) but also their own involvement in allowing it to happen.

    But, back to the Grand Jury Indictment. If the GJ indicted the parents, the assumption here and elsewhere has always been that one or both of the parents was guilty of the direct murder of their daughter. Now what a surprise to read the actual indictments, which are:

    1. The parents unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly permitted their daughter to be placed in a situation that resulted in the death of their daughter.

    2. The parents obstructed justice by covering up the crime and helping the person who murdered their daughter escape justice.

    I want to point out that both of these indictments support my previous theory. What evidence the GJ saw to come to the conclusions remains unknown but I found it very interesting.

    I am open to comments on this.
    BBM: Not even the most remote chance...

    I remember this theory, oh do I. I think members of LE that investigated this remember it also.

    JMO
    "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving isn't for you!"

    The above post is my opinion and my opinion only. Please do not copy and past to other forums.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by Anyhoo View Post
    Hi, I used to be a poster here quite some time ago and now I am back after seeing the Grand Jury Indictment of both parents, which I found extremely interesting more for what it doesn't say than what it does say. The prevailing theories around here from the vast majority of posters has been that one or both of the parents directly murdered their daughter and then blamed it on an intruder to escape being held responsible. I never really accepted that theory and my own theory was then and is now that someone outside of the family murdered JBR but it was not a stranger. My theory was that the parents were allowing their daughter to be used by someone else in satanic sexual rituals within their own house. This had happened on multiple occasions before but this time something went wrong and JBR died during it. Then the parents did everything they could to hide not only the involvement of the real murderer (which they both know) but also their own involvement in allowing it to happen.

    But, back to the Grand Jury Indictment. If the GJ indicted the parents, the assumption here and elsewhere has always been that one or both of the parents was guilty of the direct murder of their daughter. Now what a surprise to read the actual indictments, which are:

    1. The parents unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly permitted their daughter to be placed in a situation that resulted in the death of their daughter.

    2. The parents obstructed justice by covering up the crime and helping the person who murdered their daughter escape justice.

    I want to point out that both of these indictments support my previous theory. What evidence the GJ saw to come to the conclusions remains unknown but I found it very interesting.

    I am open to comments on this.
    While I disagree with it being a satanic ritual, I could believe the rest to be true. I would have to brush up on the evidence to give more of what I believe happened. I do believe they knew what was happening and by whom.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Wouldn't it make more sense that Burke was probably abusing her sexually in the basement for some time? He probably had some kind of a mental problem that the parents knew about.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    317

    911 call - phone off the hook

    This book was suggested in an earlier thread and is available on Amazon -

    Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?
    by James Kolar

    I read it today and highly recommend it.

    One of the most poignant pieces of information was the 911 phone call Patsy made on the morning of the discovery.

    After Patsy made the 911 phone call she hung up the phone...but the phone was not fully in the phone holder so that the recording continued.

    The 911 operator brought this to the attention of the investigators. Subsequently, the 911 tape was cleared to better understand the conversation after Patsy thought the phone was properly on the hook and that the 911 call had ended,

    Here is the dialogue exchange at the end of the 911 call which is very revealing:

    Male (angry) : "We're not speaking to you!"

    Female: " Help me Jesus, Help me Jesus."

    Young Male: "Well, what did you find?
    "
    ~ Remembering Lauren, her family & friends ~
    Death leaves a heartache no one can heal, love leaves a memory no one can steal.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,077
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    Look, folks, I'm gonna say something that won't be very popular, but I NEED to say it. The GJ indictment seems to be deliberately avoiding the charge of murder. Rather, it seems like the GJ were trying to avoid some terrible truths.

    To that end, we have a serious problem in this country as far as justice goes, and that problem is what Mark Steyn calls "countless counts." It used to be that a person would have a big charge brought against him/her and the prosecutor either won or lost. Nowadays, for whatever reasons (politics, polishing a record, etc), Law Enforcement seems to favor a shotgun approach: shoot enough lead into the air, you're bound to hit something.

    Here's what I mean. If the Rs had been brought to trial, they likely would have been facing a large number of charges, and the jury would have had to vote on each one of them. To quote Steyn:

    Multiple charges tend, through sheer weight of numbers, to favor a result in which the jury convict on some and acquit on others and then tell themselves that they’ve reached a “moderate” “compromise” as befits the reasonable persons they assuredly are. It is, of course, not reasonable. Indeed, the notion of a “compromise” between conviction and acquittal is a dagger at the heart of justice. It’s the repugnant “plea bargain” in reverse, but this time to bargain with the jury: Okay, we threw the book at him and it went nowhere, so why don’t we all agree to settle

    Now, I want justice as much as anyone, more than some. But this is not justice. And it seems like the GJ was "shotgunning" in the hope of hitting something without bruising their consciences.
    I've been thinking the same thing. I don't know how the evidence was presented to the jury, but I've read it focused on PR. A lot has always been made out of JR's money and power, but I think PR came in with her own 'obstacles'. She was a woman, relatively young, and the mother, a former Miss America contestant, (you don't see many of those accused of murder), AND she was battling cancer! Indicting her for murder would be tough. I mean, who could ever look at a woman like this as an abuser and murderer and not have those other things cloud their judgment? Who would want to stick it to a sick mother? The fact that they charged her at all indicates how strong the evidence was against her, IMO.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,220
    Quote Originally Posted by dodie20 View Post
    I've been thinking the same thing. I don't know how the evidence was presented to the jury, but I've read it focused on PR. A lot has always been made out of JR's money and power, but I think PR came in with her own 'obstacles'. She was a woman, relatively young, and the mother, a former Miss America contestant, (you don't see many of those accused of murder), AND she was battling cancer! Indicting her for murder would be tough. I mean, who could ever look at a woman like this as an abuser and murderer and not have those other things cloud their judgment? Who would want to stick it to a sick mother? The fact that they charged her at all indicates how strong the evidence was against her, IMO.
    I've been thinking the same thing.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8,769
    It makes you wonder if Patsy had gone on trial, would her defense team have pretended that her cancer came back? Well, I am not sure if they could get away with that, but I definitely think the possibility of it becoming back would be a major factor used for sympathy.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,077
    Quote Originally Posted by eileenhawkeye View Post
    It makes you wonder if Patsy had gone on trial, would her defense team have pretended that her cancer came back? Well, I am not sure if they could get away with that, but I definitely think the possibility of it becoming back would be a major factor used for sympathy.
    Oh yeah, if PR had gone to trial, they would have pulled out all the stops. I wouldn't have been surprised to see a Miss America picture beside a cancer picture...the one where she didn't have much hair? or have her sitting there in crown and sash. Not really, just kidding a little, but they would have gotten the point across. I mean, who didn't grow up watching the Miss America pageants and sit there and keep score right along with the judges and pick out your favorites? Not so much now, but back in the day, a Miss America contestant was a big deal.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    156
    I have never been convinced the Ramseys either had a direct hand in what happened, nor that they knew about or participated in any abuse of their daughter. This is strictly IMO, but I have often felt they were the victims of "it's almost always the parents" thinking. The DNA under JonBenet's fingernails did not belong to any family member, and they were exonerated after Patsy's death. I remember the "bedwetting" theory, and I later read that there was absolutely no evidence that she had wet the bed that night - dry mattress, no wet/washed/drying sheets. It's been a long time, so I can't possibly cite which investigator made that statement. I felt they loved JonBenet and would have only attempted to protect one person who may have abused her, and that would have been if it was Burke, but, again, the DNA did not belong to him. YMMV.

    It sounds to me like the GJ felt Burke was most likely to blame and that the Ramseys were somehow complicit, and I have to say I had often wondered if Burke was involved, without their prior knowledge, until the DNA evidence basically exonerated him as well.
    Last edited by renatae; 10-27-2013 at 02:06 PM.
    Freelance curmudgeon commentary at no charge.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,982
    Quote Originally Posted by renatae View Post
    I have never been convinced the Ramseys either had a direct hand in what happened, nor that they knew about or participated in any abuse of their daughter. This is strictly IMO, but I have often felt they were the victims of "it's almost always the parents" thinking. The DNA under JonBenet's fingernails did not belong to any family member, and they were exonerated after Patsy's death. I remember the "bedwetting" theory, and I later read that there was absolutely no evidence that she had wet the bed that night - dry mattress, no wet/washed/drying sheets. It's been a long time, so I can't possibly cite which investigator made that statement. I felt they loved JonBenet and would have only attempted to protect one person who may have abused her, and that would have been if it was Burke, but, again, the DNA did not belong to him. YMMV.

    It sounds to me like the GJ felt Burke was most likely to blame and that the Ramseys were somehow complicit, and I have to say I had often wondered if Burke was involved, without their prior knowledge, until the DNA evidence basically exonerated him as well.
    Respectfully, you indicate it's been a long time...which I take to mean a long time since you've thought/read/considered this case. There is a lot that has come to light over the years.

    I too at first never believed the parents were guilty. I was basing my opinion on my own personal belief systems, as well as what the media fed me. But as the years went by I became more skeptical.

    Even now, the MSM keeps bring up the DNA...it's really not indicative of anything in this case, and as many LE, and prosecutors will tell you, DNA doesn't necessarily exonerate anyone, except when it conclusively points to so wine else. But aside from that. The majority of DNA used to "clear" the Ramsey's was touch DNA, and therefore quite meaningless. I can't recall--anyone?--exactly what the final conclusions were about what was under JBs fingernails, but again, it didn't prove anything, and IIRC, it's was degraded and incomplete.

    As Furman mentioned the other day, DNA needs supporting evidence around it, it can't be the only thing considered. If you haven't read Kolar's book, I highly recommend it.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Dark Side
    Posts
    7,491
    IMO, this was a case of family abuse.
    Patsy may have been one of the first that JR abused (perhaps ex-wife and other daughter also).
    JBR became the next one in line and Patsy, wrote the "ransom letter" to appease John.
    John probably convinced Patsy that if she does not cooperate with this, they will love everything, including Burke.
    "One man's logic is another man's crazy" - Rossi (Criminal Minds)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,982
    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post
    Wouldn't it make more sense that Burke was probably abusing her sexually in the basement for some time? He probably had some kind of a mental problem that the parents knew about.
    One very significant issued highlighted in Kolar's book is the mystery surrounding both JBR and BRs medical records. The Rs and their teem refused to release them to LE..REFUSED, and when their lawyer offered the idea that the Rs "deserved an island of privacy." The DA said, ya...ok I'll agree to that!!!!!

    Why would parents of a murdered child act this way were it not about hiding information. The same parents who contend they will do anything and everything necessary to find their child's killer...that is with the exception of releasing pertinent records, or giving the police a formal interview.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Grand Jury Indictment 3/20/14
    By Insomnia Momma in forum Heather Elvis
    Replies: 255
    Last Post: 06-27-2014, 12:42 PM
  2. 2008.10.14 Grand Jury Indictment
    By Chezhire in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 332
    Last Post: 05-23-2011, 03:23 PM
  3. Casey Anthony Grand Jury Indictment, a Closer Look
    By celticthyme in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 10-01-2009, 02:02 PM
  4. Grand Jury Indictment Possible
    By Salem in forum Sandra Cantu
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-10-2009, 05:06 AM
  5. Grand Jury indictment - Judge apologizes to the Jury
    By frenchvixen in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-24-2008, 01:56 AM