Do you think this case will ever be solved?

[Solace]

I am very interested in everyone's opinion on whether you think this crime will be solved. If so, why and if not, why not.

THANKS VERY MUCH. Solace

[BlueCrab]

Originally Posted by Solace

I am very interested in everyone's opinion on whether you think this crime will be solved. If so, why and if not, why not.

THANKS VERY MUCH. Solace

IMO this case was solved a long time ago. The truth is shielded by a court gag order.

BlueCrab

[Veronica10]

I think we will hear something from Burke after his father dies. I think once he has his own kids this will be different for him. I think in his heart he knows there was no intruder.


No, I don't think there will ever be a formal resolution to this case.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Veronica10

I think we will hear something from Burke after his father dies. I think once he has his own kids this will be different for him. I think in his heart he knows there was no intruder.


No, I don't think there will ever be a formal resolution to this case.

I agree. I don't think there will ever be a formal resolution either.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by BlueCrab

IMO this case was solved a long time ago. The truth is shielded by a court gag order.

BlueCrab

So you think the Court knows who the killer is?

[JMO8778]

I think there are ppl who know *exactly what happened;and I suspect there are other outsiders who have figured it out per the evidence that was released,like Mark Fuhrman,for example.

[BlueCrab]

Originally Posted by Solace

So you think the Court knows who the killer is?

Solace,

Yes, IMO the court knows who was involved in the killing of JonBenet, as do a handful of Boulder authorities and the grand jurors.

The investigative Ramsey grand jury, which had its own staff of experienced investigators, interviewed about 100 witnesses between September of 1998 and October of 1999, finally adjourned, a gag order was placed on the case which remains to this day. The jurors obviously had solved the case.

BlueCrab

[coloradokares]

Originally Posted by BlueCrab

Solace,

Yes, IMO the court knows who was involved in the killing of JonBenet, as do a handful of Boulder authorities and the grand jurors.

The investigative Ramsey grand jury, which had its own staff of experienced investigators, interviewed about 100 witnesses between September of 1998 and October of 1999, finally adjourned, a gag order was placed on the case which remains to this day.

BlueCrab

By gag order you mean they were ordered to never disclose or discuss. Well that is pretty much every grand jury....but this one never even took a vote that I can prove........

[capps]

Originally Posted by BlueCrab

Solace,

Yes, IMO the court knows who was involved in the killing of JonBenet, as do a handful of Boulder authorities and the grand jurors.

The investigative Ramsey grand jury, which had its own staff of experienced investigators, interviewed about 100 witnesses between September of 1998 and October of 1999, finally adjourned, a gag order was placed on the case which remains to this day. The jurors obviously had solved the case.

BlueCrab

So,they spent all that money on Mark Karr,for a charade?

[JMO8778]

Originally Posted by coloradokares

By gag order you mean they were ordered to never disclose or discuss. Well that is pretty much every grand jury....but this one never even took a vote that I can prove........

But given time,ppl will talk...it may be yrs from now,but I suspect one or more will.

[coloradokares]

Originally Posted by JMO8778

But given time,ppl will talk...it may be yrs from now,but I suspect one or more will.

I hope your right.

[amandab]

Originally Posted by Solace

I agree. I don't think there will ever be a formal resolution either.

While I don't know the ins & outs of this case, I have to say that I agree. I don't think there will ever be real resolution in this case, and even if there was, I think a great number of people wouldn't believe it anyhow.

[JMO8778]

Originally Posted by coloradokares

I hope your right.

I really think it will happen,as big as this case has become.I keep thinking of all the stories I've seen on Unsolved Mysteries and how yrs later..ppl started talking,despite being hushed up by the gov't.

[hipmamajen]

I think that the case has already been solved, but that no one will ever be formally charged or imprisoned for the crime.

[coloradokares]

Originally Posted by JMO8778

I really think it will happen,as big as this case has become.I keep thinking of all the stories I've seen on Unsolved Mysteries and how yrs later..ppl started talking,despite being hushed up by the gov't.

I think it was solved before the grand jury convened. But never prosecuted. I think for sure by the end of the grand jury it was still solved but never prosectued. And unless we stampede the fortress en mass.....and refuse to let this stand.....I am not sure even with our current governor .....that much will change. I am hopeful but at this juncture I'd hate to bet the farm either way.

[michelle]

I dont think it will ever be solved.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by JMO8778

I think there are ppl who know *exactly what happened;and I suspect there are other outsiders who have figured it out per the evidence that was released,like Mark Fuhrman,for example.

I agree...and I don't know what everyone is waiting for to tell what they know.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by capps

So,they spent all that money on Mark Karr,for a charade?

LOL..maybe they thought that the pubic was lacking entertainment....

[BlueCrab]

Originally Posted by coloradokares

I think it was solved before the grand jury convened. But never prosecuted. I think for sure by the end of the grand jury it was still solved but never prosectued. And unless we stampede the fortress en mass.....and refuse to let this stand.....I am not sure even with our current governor .....that much will change. I am hopeful but at this juncture I'd hate to bet the farm either way.

coloradokares,

Colorado law, IMO, has placed the state into a catch 22 situation in the JonBenet Ramsey case. The Colorado Children's Code prevents the disclosure of the names of very young children who have been involved in a major crime. Therefore, if the crime has been solved but the perpetrators are too young to even prosecute, how can the public be told who did it without violating Colorado law shielding the names of the children? The public can't be told. And that, IMO, is why this case will stay in limbo for a long time to come as Colorado authorities continue to dance around the tough questions.

John Mark Karr? It appears he was deliberately used to further confuse the case and divert attention from the truth. Incidentally, the evidence reveals there was likely more than one perp involved in the killing of JonBenet. Thus, Karr's DNA simply not matching the DNA in JonBenet's underwear does not automatically clear him as one of the perps.

BlueCrab

[Ames]

Originally Posted by michelle

I dont think it will ever be solved.

My dad, uncle, brother and husband were all in the military Michelle...my brother was in the first war in Iraq, and survived an explosion on his ship. I just want to tell you to tell your brother THANK YOU for serving our country, and I will pray for him. (I saw your signature at the end of your post!)

[michelle]

Originally Posted by Ames

My dad, uncle, brother and husband were all in the military Michelle...my brother was in the first war in Iraq, and survived an explosion on his ship. I just want to tell you to tell your brother THANK YOU for serving our country, and I will pray for him. (I saw your signature at the end of your post!)

Awww, Thank you that is sweet. They can all use the prayer that is for sure.

[Dru]

No offence, BlueCrab, but I don't agree with your theory. However, since it is your theory and you do know about Colorado law in connection with this, does shielding a child who has committed a major crime mean, in effect, that no adults who helped in the perpetration or cover-up of the crime can possibly be charged? Because, if so, that seems like a particularly dangerous legal loophole.

For instance, suppose an adult in CO gives a minor a gun and tells him to stick up a convenience store; he does, and kills a store clerk. Does the fact that the child has committed the crime and must be protected automatically mean that the adult cannot be charged with being an accessory before the fact in a murder case?

Or, to refer to this case, does the fact that the BPD 'knows' that BR has committed this crime mean that the police can never charge his parents with being accessories after the fact, evidence tampering, and obstruction of justice, just to name a few?

I find that incomprehensible, but am willing to be instructed.

For myself, I do think it possible that this case may be solved and even prosecuted, but I admit that's because I think JR did it!

[coloradokares]

Originally Posted by Dru

No offence, BlueCrab, but I don't agree with your theory. However, since it is your theory and you do know about Colorado law in connection with this, does shielding a child who has committed a major crime mean, in effect, that no adults who helped in the perpetration or cover-up of the crime can possibly be charged? Because, if so, that seems like a particularly dangerous legal loophole.

For instance, suppose an adult in CO gives a minor a gun and tells him to stick up a convenience store; he does, and kills a store clerk. Does the fact that the child has committed the crime and must be protected automatically mean that the adult cannot be charged with being an accessory before the fact in a murder case?

Or, to refer to this case, does the fact that the BPD 'knows' that BR has committed this crime mean that the police can never charge his parents with being accessories after the fact, evidence tampering, and obstruction of justice, just to name a few?

I find that incomprehensible, but am willing to be instructed.

For myself, I do think it possible that this case may be solved and even prosecuted, but I admit that's because I think JR did it!

They can indeed be charged. Whether they would be or not is almost at DA descretion. Lets give Blue Crabs theory a bounce and see where the ball lands. John cannot be compelled to testify against Patsy or Patsy John. If Burke copped to it all..... then it'd be hard to press. However......that is if Blue Crab is correct. Thats a big if. As for Karr.....that he's had more than 15 minutes already is ludicrous enough. Why should I keep the clock ticking.

[JMO8778]

Originally Posted by coloradokares

They can indeed be charged. Whether they would be or not is almost at DA descretion. Lets give Blue Crabs theory a bounce and see where the ball lands. John cannot be compelled to testify against Patsy or Patsy John. If Burke copped to it all..... then it'd be hard to press. However......that is if Blue Crab is correct. Thats a big if. As for Karr.....that he's had more than 15 minutes already is ludicrous enough. Why should I keep the clock ticking.

what if...BR didn't do it,but JR and PR put the blame on him anyway..without him knowing it?? I haven't thought about it much so I don't know if the idea fits or not..but seeing as they so willingly threw a lot of their close friends under the bus..maybe they would do the same w their own son..they seemed to be willing to do almost anything to save their arse.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by JMO8778

I think there are ppl who know *exactly what happened;and I suspect there are other outsiders who have figured it out per the evidence that was released,like Mark Fuhrman,for example.

JMO,

Can you direct me to the evidence that Mark Fuhrman released. Really appreciate it. Thanks, Solace