Why did the Grand Jury not indict the Ramseys?
- Thread starter Roy23
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #181
- Latest: steeltowngirl
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.
Ravyn
New Member
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....
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
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.
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?
YO!
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.
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.
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.
Just put quote tags () around the line you want to isolate.
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 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.
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.
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.
Well, to me that's the crux of the matter, Roy. I don't think the DA WANTED an indictment to begin with.
Several of the investigators were not called. They were quite upset about that. The Rs were never even called!
And the fact that no one in the DA's office had any real experience with GJs makes no never mind to you?
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."
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 have not yet BEGUN to fight!
Mmm.
I have no doubt of that!
What "Mr." Hunter felt and what he did are two different things. And I'd like to know who these "best witnesses" were.
If it had been me, THAT ALONE would be enough reason to do it.
It's always better to do something, even if it's wrong, than to do nothing.
As if I hadn't already.
Water under the bridge.
Now THAT surprises me. What made you think that.
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.
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.
I don't recall seeing anywhere that the cord around her neck was freshly cut from a brand-new roll. But if it was, it points even more to being the item on the R receipt from McGuckins' Hardware showing purchases of the exact amount and from the exact department as the tape and cord. The fact that it never was found doesn't really bother me. PLENTY of places to hide something so small. The golf bag (never checked by LE and removed from the home by PP). And the pockets of the (unsearched) winter coats worn by the R as they left the home that night.
Tadpole,
It would be unusual to call the Ramsey's. Dave is suggesting that the prosecution tampered the jury pool of minorities and all demographic types in a case that they needed next to nothing to indict. They called the BPD, the best forensic people in the world, Fleet White, prosection linguistic team, and many many more. And Dave is crying. It is absolutely unheard of. Hunter was forced to go here before this case was ready. Dave even admits that the greatest forensic guys in this country told Hunter not to indict. But it is a frickin conspiricy for Hunter to tamper a GJ who needs basically nothing to indict. Do you get it?
As far as this thread is concerned, the BPD got their chance to explain all of this speculative evidence. And a panel of DA's, FBI, and whoever said don't indict. Do you get it?
You would think that fact that the police found no forced entry and that JBR lived in the same house as her parents that they could get a GJ indictment. Especially when Henry Lee and Barry Scheck were testifying. But obviously not. The media created all these RDI paper tigers. This case will go down in history if it ever gets solved.
That insult is beneath my consideration.
Never said I wouldn't. Look, I'm convinced that they didn't. Someone asked me why someone might think they did, and I answered.
And all I ask is that people acknowledge that.
WHOA! Where in Odin's name did you get THAT idea? Who said anything about minorities?
MY arrogance? People in glass houses, and all that.