Ramseys Indicted by the Grand Jury in 1999

[observation]

Just to share- grand juries do not hand down/sign indictments without knowledge of probable cause. Had those indictments been handed down to PR and JR they would have been arrested and put in jail immediately. JR and PR knew this and were in CO that day to turn themselves in. Whether they would have had an opportunity to post bail on the 2 charges each, is beyond my scope (maybe someone more familiar with these 2 charges can weigh in). If no bail, they would have been imprisoned while waiting through the entire process of a criminal trial.
This notion that you can indict a ham sandwich is often stated in this case. I call BS as folks try to minimize that 2 counts were brought against the parents- suspects in the death of one beautiful, JBR. I'm not familiar enough to know how often GJ charges are not signed by the DA. Would love to know some stats. What we do know is that it was AH's MO to plea deal left and right and not go to trial. IIRC in one of the JBR's programs- one of the investigators agreed with AH's decisions. Could be because by the protection of the child statute- BR could not legally be named. All just my own speculation mixed in w/ some facts as I have come to learn through reading true crime and sleuthing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[questfortrue]

~RSBM~ IIRC in one of the JBR's programs- one of the investigators agreed with AH's decisions. Could be because by the protection of the child statute- BR could not legally be named.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just to add a little more to your post. (I guess little more is relative. )

Kane led the GJ, not AH, and developed a list of possible charges which could apply. It was much to AH’s dismay that the GJ actually voted. Once he had referenced them as a ‘runaway’ GJ, iow, following the evidence and actually voting to indict.

It was the no-indictment situation which assisted the Rs in accusing innocent folks and ruining some careers of others. I’m probably alone in thinking this, but because of the aggressive lawsuits and the harming of others’ reputations and careers, I would have liked to have seen it taken to court, win or lose. Had they had a prosecuting team for a circumstantial case, imo, the case could have been tried.

If BDI, they would have used the initials of BR, possibly introducing the case in a closed door session with a judge. However, perhaps this would have caused the public to wonder why, after all this, the Rs only received a charge of child abuse (plus the cover-up) and not felony murder.

As otg has explained, if the GJ thought that the adult Rs were involved in causing her injuries which led to her death, they would have named them as co-defendants – both responsible even if they didn’t know what individual role each played. This was also suggested in the Case of by an attorney who said that if the Rs were covering for one another, the indictment would have been worded differently. I’ve also read that some attorneys believed it was an accommodating type of indictment, thinking the Rs should be charged with ‘something.’

In Jane Harmer’s interview on ID Discovery she commented that the attorneys assigned to helping AH agreed that they did not have enough evidence to indict. This point was contradicted somewhat by BW, loyal assistant to AH, who said there were one or two of them who thought it should be taken to court, end of story.

My thoughts on this are speculative because after all they did have an RN which several document examiners believed pointed to Patsy. But from what I deduced in the line of questioning in the year 2000 interviews, after there had been no announced indictment, the attorneys who questioned them attempted to find out specifics in certain areas. The Rs had done many media appearances promoting the Intruder. They had offered a reward, had a website and established a foundation for JB. Also, they had fairly active investigators. What the interviewing attorneys questioned was why those activities were dropped or diminished after the GJ dispersed. LE may have been attempting to demonstrate that the R activities were strictly for show, not because they believed in an Intruder.

They also asked JR specifically about something which adds to my suspicions regarding what he knew about his family. Before Christmas vacation JB’s school spoke to JR. Since he was asked in this LE interview, I believe he was the one approached by the school. They informed him about JB’s distress, needing to go into the panty box to replace wet or soiled panties. Most likely the teacher suggested to JR that JB’s problem needed to be investigated and addressed. This negligence on his and Patsy’s part adds to the child abuse charge since he/they obviously ignored that JB was having significant issues. What kind of father doesn’t care about addressing such issues? What kind of mother? Guess they didn’t think it was ‘any big deal.’

 

[Ambitioned]

Glad WS is back! :loveyou:

 

[No it's not]

Glad WS is back! :loveyou:

..and better than ever.

-Nin

 

[rashomon]

Right. Whoever tied that noose around her neck did so intentionally, thus whoever he/she is, he/she is guilty of 1st degree murder. Forget accident plus staging at that time... it is now murder.

The term "murder" would then refer to the final strangulation of JonBenet committed by either John or Patsy because they wanted to cover up for the family member who had inflicted the horrific head injury on their daughter.

And if either John or Patsy also inflicted the acute sexual injury as part of the cover-up, then the term "child abuse" might refer to this act, because JonBenet was not yet dead when this happened ...

 

[kanzz]

The term "murder" would then refer to the final strangulation of JonBenet committed by either John or Patsy because they wanted to cover up for the family member who had inflicted the horrific head injury on their daughter.

And if either John or Patsy also inflicted the acute sexual injury as part of the cover-up, then the term "child abuse" might refer to this act, because JonBenet was not yet dead when this happened ...

There is no doubt this kiddo was murdered. But we can't assume that either PDI or JDI. I'm personally down with BDI.

 

[FairM1]

From what I have read about the GJ it seems that the prosecutors aggressively pursued these indictments but when they got them surprisingly failed to act on them, that I do not understand, why put the case to the GJ in the first place if they didn't feel they could meet the beyond reasonable doubt test in a trial ? what is the point? plus I know AH had a poor trial record if any but it wasn't just him he had two other prosecutors and it was a joint decision by them not to proceed. Plus if they had have indicted them who is to say they might not have got a plea bargain?

 

[kanzz]

From what I have read about the GJ it seems that the prosecutors aggressively pursued these indictments but when they got them surprisingly failed to act on them, that I do not understand, why put the case to the GJ in the first place if they didn't feel they could meet the beyond reasonable doubt test in a trial ? what is the point? plus I know AH had a poor trial record if any but it wasn't just him he had two other prosecutors and it was a joint decision by them not to proceed. Plus if they had have indicted them who is to say they might not have got a plea bargain?

BBM

Um - What? Aggressive pursued? Nope. Alex Hunter aggressively AVOIDED convening a GJ, from everything I've read. He had to be pushed from every direction, probably not the least or last of which was Steve Thomas' resignation letter that was made public in the Boulder Daily Camera.

Do a find for "Grand Jury" in this piece:
JonBenet Ramsey: How the Investigation Got Derailed -- and Why It Still Matters

Steve Thomas' resignation letter

RE: "two other prosecutors and it was a joint decision by them not to proceed". True. But it was a political arena. He was the chief. It doesn't take much imagination for me to think about the kind of conversation that lead to that decision. They were making easy money by never having to go to trial with cases. Plea bargains? They were real good at that. It was what made them the laughing stock of Colorado.

In an email, University of Colorado Law School professor Mimi Wesson, who has followed the Ramsey case over the years, wrote, "The Colorado statute governing grand jury practice says ... that '(e)very indictment shall be signed' by the foreman of the grand jury and the prosecuting attorney."In the event that the grand jury voted to indict on charges that Hunter did not believe he could prove at trial, Wesson said it is her opinion that proper legal procedure would have been to sign the document, file it with the court and then move in open court to dismiss the charges.
"That would be the more transparent and responsible course, in my opinion," Wesson wrote.
source: http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_22446410/boulder-grand-jury-voted-indict-ramseys

 

[SecretaryGal]

BBM

Um - What? Aggressive pursued? Nope. Alex Hunter aggressively AVOIDED convening a GJ, from everything I've read. He had to be pushed from every direction, probably not the least or last of which was Steve Thomas' resignation letter that was made public in the Boulder Daily Camera.

Do a find for "Grand Jury" in this piece:
JonBenet Ramsey: How the Investigation Got Derailed -- and Why It Still Matters

Steve Thomas' resignation letter

RE: "two other prosecutors and it was a joint decision by them not to proceed". True. But it was a political arena. He was the chief. It doesn't take much imagination for me to think about the kind of conversation that lead to that decision. They were making easy money by never having to go to trial with cases. Plea bargains? They were real good at that. It was what made them the laughing stock of Colorado.

Yes. And further, I think DA wanted to use the Grand Jury to put a lid on all the evidence/testimony (gag order), In my opinion.

 

[FairM1]

BBM

Um - What? Aggressive pursued? Nope. Alex Hunter aggressively AVOIDED convening a GJ, from everything I've read. He had to be pushed from every direction, probably not the least or last of which was Steve Thomas' resignation letter that was made public in the Boulder Daily Camera.

Do a find for "Grand Jury" in this piece:
JonBenet Ramsey: How the Investigation Got Derailed -- and Why It Still Matters

Steve Thomas' resignation letter

RE: "two other prosecutors and it was a joint decision by them not to proceed". True. But it was a political arena. He was the chief. It doesn't take much imagination for me to think about the kind of conversation that lead to that decision. They were making easy money by never having to go to trial with cases. Plea bargains? They were real good at that. It was what made them the laughing stock of Colorado.

no idea what BBM means?

and when i refer to aggressively persue i mean during the actual GJ proceedings , from the information that has leaked out they were not just paying lip service to this they were vigorous in their questioning of witnesses etc

 

[Tortoise]

BBM, bit bolded by me.

 

[kanzz]

no idea what BBM means?

and when i refer to aggressively persue i mean during the actual GJ proceedings , from the information that has leaked out they were not just paying lip service to this they were vigorous in their questioning of witnesses etc

I see what you mean now. It seemed that Alex Hunter stalled on convening a GJ for as long as he possibly could, and when he finally did, the prosecutors were not his hand-selected team. I agree with SecretaryGal that he hoped to put a lid on things. When he made his tainted announcement at the end, it was just 3 months, iirc, before the statute of limitations ran out for JR and PR.

Grand jury team named

 

[FairM1]

I see what you mean now. It seemed that Alex Hunter stalled on convening a GJ for as long as he possibly could, and when he finally did, the prosecutors were not his hand-selected team. I agree with SecretaryGal that he hoped to put a lid on things. When he made his tainted announcement at the end, it was just 3 months, iirc, before the statute of limitations ran out for JR and PR.

Grand jury team named

Yes he was not able to pick his team but that same team presumably had an input on that final decision not to indict the Ramsey's ?

 

[FairM1]

BBM, bit bolded by me.

Thanks !

 

[kanzz]

Yes he was not able to pick his team but that same team presumably had an input on that final decision not to indict the Ramsey's ?

Right, exactly. That's what I meant when I said, "But it was a political arena. He was the chief. It doesn't take much imagination for me to think about the kind of conversation that lead to that decision. They were making easy money by never having to go to trial with cases. Plea bargains? They were real good at that. It was what made them the laughing stock of Colorado."

I don't remember where I read or maybe watched it in a TV program that there was a tabloid reporter with Hunter as he walked towards making the announcement that day. The reporter stopped inside the door of the building and Hunter walked on. He already knew. After Hunter made his announcement, the reporters who had been in Boulder for months and were there for this big news just packed up and left.

Hunter failed miserably. He never wanted this to proceed. At best, he was a Ramsey apologist; at worst, a Ramsey defender.

 

[observation]

Right, exactly. That's what I meant when I said, "But it was a political arena. He was the chief. It doesn't take much imagination for me to think about the kind of conversation that lead to that decision. They were making easy money by never having to go to trial with cases. Plea bargains? They were real good at that. It was what made them the laughing stock of Colorado."

I don't remember where I read or maybe watched it in a TV program that there was a tabloid reporter with Hunter as he walked towards making the announcement that day. The reporter stopped inside the door of the building and Hunter walked on. He already knew. After Hunter made his announcement, the reporters who had been in Boulder for months and were there for this big news just packed up and left.

Hunter failed miserably. He never wanted this to proceed. At best, he was a Ramsey apologist; at worst, a Ramsey defender.

AH thought he could predict the future. This case should have went to trial 20 years ago. Let the trial run its course and decide on "beyond a reasonable doubt."
AH's crystal ball.. mad as heck.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[singularity]

Hunter failed miserably. He never wanted this to proceed. At best, he was a Ramsey apologist; at worst, a Ramsey defender.

It was the latter.

Hunter, like many others in this case, has been dancing on the grave of a six year old girl. When Hunter and others reach their destination a bit south of heaven, hopefully Satan has such sights to show him...

 

[BBB167893]

The term "murder" would then refer to the final strangulation of JonBenet committed by either John or Patsy because they wanted to cover up for the family member who had inflicted the horrific head injury on their daughter.

And if either John or Patsy also inflicted the acute sexual injury as part of the cover-up, then the term "child abuse" might refer to this act, because JonBenet was not yet dead when this happened ...

I'm not so sure, rashomon. According to Alan Dershowitz, murder requires intent. If the person didn't know she was alive when they strangled her, they can't form intent to kill. I know it sounds ridiculous, but AFAIK, it's true.

 

[BBB167893]

From what I have read about the GJ it seems that the prosecutors aggressively pursued these indictments but when they got them surprisingly failed to act on them, that I do not understand, why put the case to the GJ in the first place if they didn't feel they could meet the beyond reasonable doubt test in a trial ? what is the point?

There's a couple of points in there to address, FairM1. One, you have to separate Michael Kane, the man running the GJ "on the ground," as it were, and Alex Hunter, who had the final say. No doubt that Kane was pursuing the indictments aggressively, but as he pointed out subsequently, he was only there as an actor in Hunter's little play. Given Hunter's track record and conduct in this case, it's not really surprising that he wouldn't act on the indictments. Which bring me to the second point, that being why they called the GJ if they weren't going to pursue it. As kanzz has shown with the posted articles, the Grand Jury was never intended to be anything other than a dog-and-pony show. When ST's resignation letter hit the papers, the Governor of CO gave serious consideration to taking the Boulder DA out completely and appointing a special prosecutor. Hunter called the GJ to get the Governor off his back and stay in control of the case. God knows why.

plus I know AH had a poor trial record if any but it wasn't just him he had two other prosecutors and it was a joint decision by them not to proceed

True, but people can agree on something for different reasons. The other people may just have known that Hunter & Co. were not up to the job.

Plus if they had have indicted them who is to say they might not have got a plea bargain?

Now THAT is a very good point! Who's to say they wouldn't? Then, who's to say they would? As usual, I think Hunter was thinking of politics: that if he wrapped up such a high-profile, emotionally-draining case with anything less than a life sentence or the death penalty, the public would want his head on a stake.

 

[BBB167893]

RE: "two other prosecutors and it was a joint decision by them not to proceed". True. But it was a political arena. He was the chief. It doesn't take much imagination for me to think about the kind of conversation that lead to that decision. They were making easy money by never having to go to trial with cases. Plea bargains? They were real good at that. It was what made them the laughing stock of Colorado.

Precisely, kanzz! I've said it before and it bears repeating: God forbid that elected officials getting rich on the people's money should actually do any WORK!