1050 users online (203 members and 847 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 186
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298

    Why did the Grand Jury not indict the Ramseys?

    I really am not sure.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    I really am not sure.
    I guess it depends on who you ask, Roy. It's possible that they did and Alex Hunter didn't pursue it. Indeed, Henry Lee said in an interview that he urged Hunter NOT to go ahead with an indictment. Barry Scheck said the same thing.

    After that, it gets murky. One theme that seems to crop up, regardless of who you talk to, is that the DA's office did not want to convene a GJ and felt forced to do so in the wake of ST's resignation letter. Various sources mention how key witnesses were not called, how the GJ only met for a few days every month, and how people who were more inclined to believe a parent couldn't do this to their child were chosen as jurors.

    One thing's sure: the DA's office has had quite an interest in making sure that no one can ever see the records of the Grand Jury. Makes you wonder what it is they don't want us to see, doesn't it?

    For my money, the Grand Jury was nothing more than a dog-and-pony show. And the doberman never arrived.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    1,040
    What makes a Grand Jury different other than just a Jury on trial..And really they should had got people that believe that parents could do this to their child also....Then it would had been more fair with both sets....
    Last edited by Ravyn; 08-21-2009 at 06:17 PM.
    Knowledge of time is precious.Wisdom of truth is more precious than time..Opinions I write are mine..

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    I really am not sure.
    If I were a juror, I would note the lack of evidence that would unequivocally link a parent to the crime.

    Since the parent lived there, and since they naturally handled JBR the previous day and naturally handled her that morning also, they are obviously going to be linked to the crime scene, but not to the crime itself.

    They needed something to tie them to the crime itself, and that something just wasn't there. There's two explanations for this. Either the parents did it without leaving unequivocal evidence, or the parents didn't do it.

    Again if I were a juror I would think about the cord. Brand new cord freshly cut from a roll they cant find, without a single innocent use for the same cord found anywhere in the house. And its the same story with the tape.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 08-21-2009 at 07:21 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    .....
    Posts
    5,048
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    I guess it depends on who you ask, Roy. It's possible that they did and Alex Hunter didn't pursue it. Indeed, Henry Lee said in an interview that he urged Hunter NOT to go ahead with an indictment. Barry Scheck said the same thing.

    After that, it gets murky. One theme that seems to crop up, regardless of who you talk to, is that the DA's office did not want to convene a GJ and felt forced to do so in the wake of ST's resignation letter. Various sources mention how key witnesses were not called, how the GJ only met for a few days every month, and how people who were more inclined to believe a parent couldn't do this to their child were chosen as jurors.

    One thing's sure: the DA's office has had quite an interest in making sure that no one can ever see the records of the Grand Jury. Makes you wonder what it is they don't want us to see, doesn't it?

    For my money, the Grand Jury was nothing more than a dog-and-pony show. And the doberman never arrived.
    Hey SD.


    "It's possible they did [indict] and Alex Hunter didn't persue it" - SD

    Gee SD, that's the first I've heard of that possibility. I have always been under the impression that the testimomy and evidence did not meet that threshold,

    What leads you to entertain that possibilty?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Tadpole12 View Post
    Hey SD.
    YO!

    "It's possible they did [indict] and Alex Hunter didn't persue it" - SD

    Gee SD, that's the first I've heard of that possibility. I have always been under the impression that the testimony and evidence did not meet that threshold,
    Believe me, I understand how one could get that impression. That's one of the reasons I decided to write the book in the first place.

    Now, HOTYH has given his reasons, and he reads 'em real good. Trouble is, the reasons I gave come from people who were THERE.

    What leads you to entertain that possibilty?
    Ultimately, what makes me consider it is:

    1) The statements of Henry Lee and Barry Scheck, as I mentioned.

    2) The fact that the DA's office has so strenuously tried to keep the records of the GJ sealed.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    I guess it depends on who you ask, Roy. It's possible that they did and Alex Hunter didn't pursue it. Indeed, Henry Lee said in an interview that he urged Hunter NOT to go ahead with an indictment. Barry Scheck said the same thing.

    After that, it gets murky. One theme that seems to crop up, regardless of who you talk to, is that the DA's office did not want to convene a GJ and felt forced to do so in the wake of ST's resignation letter. Various sources mention how key witnesses were not called, how the GJ only met for a few days every month, and how people who were more inclined to believe a parent couldn't do this to their child were chosen as jurors.

    One thing's sure: the DA's office has had quite an interest in making sure that no one can ever see the records of the Grand Jury. Makes you wonder what it is they don't want us to see, doesn't it?

    For my money, the Grand Jury was nothing more than a dog-and-pony show. And the doberman never arrived.


    How do you do the cutting up of a response and make comments. I am about to teach you RDI's a lesson. Not that I say your theory is wrong but GJ thing needs my expertise. And I will tell you why the DA did not pursue.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    How do you do the cutting up of a response and make comments.
    Just put quote tags () around the line you want to isolate.

    I am about to teach you RDI's a lesson.
    Proud words.

    Not that I say your theory is wrong but GJ thing needs my expertise. And I will tell you why the DA did not pursue.
    That promises to get interesting. But there's ONE thing that bothers me. If your expertise affords you the answer, then why did you say you weren't sure in the first place?
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    I guess it depends on who you ask, Roy. It's possible that they did and Alex Hunter didn't pursue it. Indeed, Henry Lee said in an interview that he urged Hunter NOT to go ahead with an indictment. Barry Scheck said the same thing.

    After that, it gets murky. One theme that seems to crop up, regardless of who you talk to, is that the DA's office did not want to convene a GJ and felt forced to do so in the wake of ST's resignation letter. Various sources mention how key witnesses were not called, how the GJ only met for a few days every month, and how people who were more inclined to believe a parent couldn't do this to their child were chosen as jurors.

    One thing's sure: the DA's office has had quite an interest in making sure that no one can ever see the records of the Grand Jury. Makes you wonder what it is they don't want us to see, doesn't it?

    For my money, the Grand Jury was nothing more than a dog-and-pony show. And the doberman never arrived.
    I guess it depends on who you ask, Roy. It's possible that they did and Alex Hunter didn't pursue it

    That is entirely possible. But it seems like prosecution witnesses felt like it was a real bad idea.

    After that, it gets murky. One theme that seems to crop up, regardless of who you talk to, is that the DA's office did not want to convene a GJ and felt forced to do so in the wake of ST's resignation letter.

    Because the DA believed to win a case, he needed more evidence. And he was right. He believed the Ramsey's were under an "umbrella of suspicion" but knew the evidence did not cut the mustard. Thanks, Steve.
    Various sources mention how key witnesses were not called, how the GJ only met for a few days every month, and how people who were more inclined to believe a parent couldn't do this to their child were chosen as jurors.

    Police officers were called and testified for multiple hours. As were some of the top experts in their field that you mentioned above. And let me tell you that in hour terms they met more than 95% of time than any other murder case. The reason they dragged it out is because the prosecution dragged it out the whole year so hopefully they could get something more damning. As far as Jury pool, this is the most ridiculous claim that I have learned yet. I read the profiles of the GJ and that is total BS. And for GJ, it doesn't matter anyway because they didn't have enough Ham. I hope you RDI's aren't gonna claim that, but yeah they might have served an indictment because if they didn't ---you dude's and dame's have been ridiculous criticising the DA.
    One thing's sure: the DA's office has had quite an interest in making sure that no one can ever see the records of the Grand Jury. Makes you wonder what it is they don't want us to see, doesn't it?

    No, it doesn't make me wonder at all. If they did, they would hurt this case even more. And especially if the Ramsey's were guilty. Dave, please, you have to understand that. And do you want more John Mark Karr's. This case already has enough nuts as it is. The truth is that Mr. Hunter felt that one of the Ramsey's were guilty but his collegues and best witnesses advised him otherwise. He was forced in the courtroom and dragged out the whole year that they were entitled to. Sure, he could have indicted anyway and maybe got that confession that you wanted. If he didn't and they subsequently got enough to convict, double jeopardy would have come into play and then he would be the piece of crap that you describe he is now.

    Game, Set, Match. Before responding, I want you RDI's to think about all of this
    .
    Last edited by Roy23; 08-21-2009 at 08:23 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    I guess it depends on who you ask, Roy. It's possible that they did and Alex Hunter didn't pursue it. Indeed, Henry Lee said in an interview that he urged Hunter NOT to go ahead with an indictment. Barry Scheck said the same thing.

    After that, it gets murky. One theme that seems to crop up, regardless of who you talk to, is that the DA's office did not want to convene a GJ and felt forced to do so in the wake of ST's resignation letter. Various sources mention how key witnesses were not called, how the GJ only met for a few days every month, and how people who were more inclined to believe a parent couldn't do this to their child were chosen as jurors.

    One thing's sure: the DA's office has had quite an interest in making sure that no one can ever see the records of the Grand Jury. Makes you wonder what it is they don't want us to see, doesn't it?



    For my money, the Grand Jury was nothing more than a dog-and-pony show. And the doberman never arrived.
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    Just put quote tags () around the line you want to isolate.

    I tried on my own to do it but messed it up. You can read it but no quotes.
    I promise that I didn't set you up. I really did not know the final result to the GJ, I guess because no one does. I am actually shocked because I always assumed that the GJ served an indictment. From what I read today, they didn't.


    Proud words.



    That promises to get interesting. But there's ONE thing that bothers me. If your expertise affords you the answer, then why did you say you weren't sure in the first place?
    I tried on my own to do it but messed it up. You can read it but no quotes.
    I promise that I didn't set you up. I really did not know the final result to the GJ, I guess because no one does. I am actually shocked because I always assumed that the GJ served an indictment. From what I read today, they didn't.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Sophie,

    I really would like your input here as well. I know you work with a legal team.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    That is entirely possible. But it seems like prosecution witnesses felt like it was a real bad idea.
    I don't know about that. The cops were pushing for one from early on. Not necessarily for an indictment, just because a GJ can do things that normally can't be done.

    Because the DA believed to win a case, he needed more evidence. And he was right. He believed the Ramsey's were under an "umbrella of suspicion" but knew the evidence did not cut the mustard. Thanks, Steve.
    Well, to me that's the crux of the matter, Roy. I don't think the DA WANTED an indictment to begin with.

    Police officers were called and testified for multiple hours. As were some of the top experts in their field that you mentioned above.
    Several of the investigators were not called. They were quite upset about that. The Rs were never even called!

    And let me tell you that in hour terms they met more than 95% of time than any other murder case. The reason they dragged it out is because the prosecution dragged it out the whole year so hopefully they could get something more damning.
    And the fact that no one in the DA's office had any real experience with GJs makes no never mind to you?

    As far as Jury pool, this is the most ridiculous claim that I have learned yet. I read the profiles of the GJ and that is total BS.
    Don't give me that. Do you want the actual quote? You've got it:

    "the person who presented the testimony having the greatest impact was the coroner when he described the injuries that were inflicted upon JonBenet, and I think she specifically mentioned the head injury. The GJ said she (they) just couldn't believe that parents could inflict such injuries on their child."

    And for GJ, it doesn't matter anyway because they didn't have enough Ham.
    As ST said, the ham sandwich was in no danger.

    More honestly, I don't suppose you've ever considered the cross-fingerpointing defense?

    I hope you RDI's aren't gonna claim that, but yeah they might have served an indictment because if they didn't ---you dude's and dame's have been ridiculous criticising the DA.
    I have not yet BEGUN to fight!

    No, it doesn't make me wonder at all. If they did, they would hurt this case even more. And especially if the Ramsey's were guilty. Dave, please, you have to understand that. And do you want more John Mark Karr's.
    Mmm.

    This case already has enough nuts as it is.
    I have no doubt of that!

    The truth is that Mr. Hunter felt that one of the Ramsey's were guilty but his collegues and best witnesses advised him otherwise.
    What "Mr." Hunter felt and what he did are two different things. And I'd like to know who these "best witnesses" were.

    He was forced in the courtroom and dragged out the whole year that they were entitled to. Sure, he could have indicted anyway and maybe got that confession that you wanted.
    If it had been me, THAT ALONE would be enough reason to do it.

    If he didn't and they subsequently got enough to convict, double jeopardy would have come into play and then he would be the piece of crap that you describe he is now.
    It's always better to do something, even if it's wrong, than to do nothing.

    Game, Set, Match. Before responding, I want you RDI's to think about all of this.
    As if I hadn't already.

    I promise that I didn't set you up. I really did not know the final result to the GJ, I guess because no one does.
    Water under the bridge.

    I am actually shocked because I always assumed that the GJ served an indictment. From what I read today, they didn't.
    Now THAT surprises me. What made you think that.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Dave,

    For someone who has studied so much, you are a snake oil salesman. Deal with it. You answers and tone prove it. The GJ of all types of different people could not get an indictment. If they did, you would know. A Ramsey may be guilty, Hunter was a plea deal guy, but you, sir, have read so much BS that your arrogance shows you don't understand what you speak.

    Good Day, Pilgrim.

    Let me know if you want to talk Logically.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    Dave,

    For someone who has studied so much, you are a snake oil salesman. Deal with it. You answers and tone prove it. The GJ of all types of different people could not get an indictment. If they did, you would know. A Ramsey may be guilty, Hunter was a plea deal guy, but you, sir, have read so much BS that your arrogance shows you don't understand what you speak.

    Good Day, Pilgrim.

    Let me know if you want to talk Logically.
    You have all prosecution witnesses, not withstanding Henry Lee, Barry Schek, the BPD, the Ramsey son. Fleet White too. They gave the best they got. Hunter was forced to go before he was ready and if he did indict, the prospect for justice would be OVER as far as the Ramsey's are concerned.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    .....
    Posts
    5,048
    Hey SD

    That the Rs weren`t called, couldn`t that have been part of the prosecutions overall strategy. That, as presented, the DA went with the strengths of what the case evidence could provide.

Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Ramseys Indicted by the Grand Jury in 1999
    By Tricia in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-12-2017, 10:12 PM
  2. Boulder Grand Jury Voted To Indict-Boulder Dailey Camera
    By steph5280 in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 502
    Last Post: 06-23-2013, 07:55 AM
  3. Replies: 73
    Last Post: 08-10-2010, 12:09 AM
  4. 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