I would imagine it HAS, considering how he tried to deny what he wrote in it to give them a pass. Trouble is, ST caught him red-handed, and he got all p***y about it.
Why did the Grand Jury not indict the Ramseys?
- Thread starter Roy23
- Start date
I would imagine it HAS, considering how he tried to deny what he wrote in it to give them a pass. Trouble is, ST caught him red-handed, and he got all p***y about it.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Lets give the R's the benefit of the doubt, OK? After all, they were exhonerated by the DA's office last year. What did the R's claim to have purchased on December 2, 1996 anyway? Cord, duct tape, flashlight, all those emergency supplies us Boy Scouts need to have on hand??
1) Been there, done that, moved on!
2) To be fair, HOTYH, I was just giving you a possibility. I wasn't thinking of guilt one way or the other.
I wouldn't put too much stock in that, were I you. But that's neither here nor there right now.
I don't know what they claim to have bought, HOTYH. I was just going by personal experience. But you provided a good segue for me. BR was a Boy Scout, right? I ask because I've heard that he was.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Much to learn from the R's, you have. Forgotten long ago by the Dark Side, their beliefs were.
Not forgotten. Just put in proper perspective, is all.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
But, you've condemned the R's without hearing their side of the story. Is this what you call putting things in perspective? A willfull ignorance to their side of the story?
What did they claim to have purchased at the hardware store on December 2, 1996 that cost $2.29?
BTW I'm going to start a thread called $2.29.
HOTYH, have you forgotten who you're talking to? I hardly see how you can accuse ME of all people of not hearing their side of the story!
Go for it. I hope you have better luck with your thread than I did with mine.
It actually isn't character assasination, it is frustration. You guys live in a fantasy world and can't understand the simplest of deduction. The FBI did not want to indict, Alex Hunter did. Getting indicted is very very easy. But you guys can't understand that Barry Scheck, John Douglas, and Henry Lee don't show up every day. And even with all that fire power, they can't get a GJ indictment from your normal every day citizens that include black people, white people, hispanic people, women, men, old and young. And Dave has already cried jury tampering.
Because ST and some other morons forced Hunter's hand. They were all so busy arguing each other instead of keeping an open mind and following the evidence that they forced Alex to make his play. You guys are so wrong about this that i see what your all about.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
http://crime.about.com/od/unsolved/p/jonbenet_case.htm
"No Indictments Returned:
After a year-long grand jury investigation, DS Alex Hunter announces that no charges will be filed and no one will be indicted for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. At the time, several media reports suggested that it was Smit's testimony that swayed the grand jury to not return an indictment."
Does anyone know more about this??
First time I hear it.
"No Indictments Returned:
After a year-long grand jury investigation, DS Alex Hunter announces that no charges will be filed and no one will be indicted for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. At the time, several media reports suggested that it was Smit's testimony that swayed the grand jury to not return an indictment."
Does anyone know more about this??
First time I hear it.
http://crime.about.com/od/unsolved/p/jonbenet_case.htm
"No Indictments Returned:
After a year-long grand jury investigation, DS Alex Hunter announces that no charges will be filed and no one will be indicted for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. At the time, several media reports suggested that it was Smit's testimony that swayed the grand jury to not return an indictment."
Does anyone know more about this??
First time I hear it.
Madeline,
You have asked me a couple of questions on here. Sorry so late in responding. It was a busy weekend. I think it is entirely possible that a Ramsey knows the killer. I also think it is possible that a Ramsey was even somewhat involved. I have seen the inconsistant statements that the RDI's speak of. But if you tied me down, my opinion would be that they were not involved.
But the thing is this. It should have been very easy to get a GJ indictment in that the BPD testified for days on end. And keep in mind that Smit was also part of the BPD. Henry Lee testified, Barry Scheck, John Douglas all testified. But some want to crap on them. John Douglas wrote the book on much of the FBI procedure. He was a prime reason that some FBI wanted to look so hard at the parents anyway. No matter that he testified that he felt the Ramsey's were innocent, he still deserves respect. He has earned it over and over.
I believe that Smit and ST honestly believe their own theory. It is okay for me that ST believes what he does. He certainly did not go about it very well. He could have had his say in the GJ too. But he quit and wrote a book instead, and probably hurt the case.
Anyhow, from all the expert testimony, you would think a GJ would have at least seen a case. A GJ doesn't need to consider "reasonable doubt" like a court case. I think politics in Boulder hurt this case but I choose to believe that all parties are at fault. This case was obviously not ready for a courtroom and there is no other way to spin it. And Dave is right that ST did not help with that. They needed to sit down and communicate no matter RDI or IDI. This ultimately could be a good thing. If a piece of evidence is found that breaks this thing open, it can be pounced on. If Hunter had not followed the advice of specialists, they may not still be working on the case and the Ramseys could not be tried again by law.
I know a little something about frustration when it comes to this case myself. Quite a lot about it. And as such, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt with all that junk about "snake-oil salesmen, fantasy world, what we're all about" and all that and believe that you didn't really mean it the way it sounded because you're really a good guy.
And there is a lot of truth to what you say. At present I can't agree with the notion that AH wanted an indictment, but who knows what's in a man's heart?
But I don't get this "jury-tampering notion." Far as I know, I never claimed that (although having guys like LS and "Trip" choose the jurors does make my antennae crackle). I merely recalled that old saying about leaving justice in the hands of people too stupid to get out of jury duty. If the juror's actual quote isn't good enough for you, then I'm at a loss as to what else I can do.
All in all, I'm willing to call a truce if you are.
Okay, I will actually apologize for my wording.
I am not saying that most people on a jury are the brightest of the bright. I know better. As a matter of fact, I think most people in general are easy swayed by media or what someone else says versus actually trying to develop their own common sense. And that might be why they have issues in their own life.
In many cases a jury or in instances when a group of people are forced to work as a team, they surprise even themselves. They are given very specific direction on the law and follow that. In a Grand Jury, it is even more different. And it certainly does not have to be unanimous. Now, I don't know if they did a good or bad job. But this is a GJ, not a trial.
I think it is really safe to say, they did not have much of a case. At least at that point in time, I don't think it can be argued. Doing so makes it looks like personal bias. This could be for many reasons but most of it would have to fall to BPD and not the DA. I have read some materials where late in the game, the FBI and Hunter became real dejected. I won't put a whole lot of stock in it because too much useless information seems to be out on this case. But, yeah, I am pretty certain that Hunter felt the Ramsey's were under an umbrella of suspicion. I am also sure he wanted to wait.
There is lots of information about what was said and who testified. Is it true? I don't know. The RN was discussed. Fingernail DNA, which I understand that the FBI did get some good information out of. I see so much conflicting information that we all are just spinning our wheels here.
One other thing that I can tell you as fact is that I started reading here to learn a lot about the case. That was a big mistake. A lot of information is out there that seems pretty consistant. And it conflicts from Steve Thomas, the tabloids, and a lot of the threads here.
Water under the bridge.
Sometimes I wonder if the average person really understand what a GJ does.
I see your point. A lot of the fiber evidence wasn't finalized until almost a year after the GJ disbanded.
Well, I guess it's a matter of sources. I always understood that there was nothing to gain from the fingernail DNA.
Really? Because I recommend this place to anyone who wants to learn about the case.
I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. I don't do well with generalities.
As I understand the fingernail DNA, the BPD held onto it for years and categorized it as degraded or compromised. Anyhow years later, they sent it to the FBI lab along with the panty DNA. The FBI was able to decipher the DNA as the same as the other samples. They determine it very useful.
Go into google and type why the GJ did not indict the Ramseys? Much information can be found.
Go into google and type why the GJ did not indict the Ramseys? Much information can be found.
That's not the way I heard it. As I recall, an investigator from the DA's office had to come out and say that the fingernail DNA wasn't worth much at all.
Don't you think I've done that?
I am sure you have done that Dave, sorry. I have heard many sides of the fingernail DNA. I also know that Lacy did not mention it all in the exoneration letter. I have read many things where it was excluded all together. I have also read that they found the foreign DNA in her panties but another blood droplet was not tested. Years later, it was also tested to reveal the same DNA. So two blood droplets contained the same DNA.
After that being bungled by BPD, the fingernail DNA that they deemed degraded was tested. It matched up perfectly from the markers that they could identify. It wasn't perfect but with what was known, it matched up perfectly.
I have also read that the BPD never notified the DA's office of the "Amy" case.
I am going to be reasonable and not call any of this fact or probable. There is just too much that contradicts. I will say that I think so many people mishandled this case. I also think that a whole lot is known now that we are not privy too. And I think that it is designed that way now. I think the RDI's are on the short end of the stick because you don't know new developments that may give you that piece to change your mind.
I really am excited that the investigation gets to start over after more facts are known. Some cases don't this kind of attention. And this case got off to a real bad start. I think they are going to solve it and Voynich will look real good. My .02. If the RDI theorys hold, I will be stunned but I will give you major props. I think the whole case has moved on beyond the discussions we have here.
Dave,
You said that you had a major problem that GJ testimony was kept secret. I remember the riff between Kane and Wood as well. But here is the fact that you should know. By law it cannot be released because:
1. The GJ did not issue a report.
2. The suspects were not indicted.
It is cut and dry. Lin Wood is trying to get information released but he obviously is not going to succeed. Let me know if you need to see the law on it. It should help answer at least that question.
You said that you had a major problem that GJ testimony was kept secret. I remember the riff between Kane and Wood as well. But here is the fact that you should know. By law it cannot be released because:
1. The GJ did not issue a report.
2. The suspects were not indicted.
It is cut and dry. Lin Wood is trying to get information released but he obviously is not going to succeed. Let me know if you need to see the law on it. It should help answer at least that question.
That's more or less consistent with what I know. Though there was one instance where someone said that it wasn't that the other blood spot didn't go tested, it was simply that the testing methods had improved.
"Wasn't perfect" is putting it nicely.
I don't know much about that one.
I changed my mind once. Nothing to stop me from doing it again.
Well, let me throw my two pennies in there and say that when I heard that the BPD was taking back the case, I said straight-out that I would have waited an eternity for it. You might remember because you echoed those sentiments. But I imagine you realized immediately that I was excited for a different reason than you were.
Thanks, but I'm not in this for glory.
Good enough.
The CORONER cut the cord, and mentions it in the report. He marks the severed ends with either one dot or two (with a magic marker) to show where he made the cuts. That's why it looks frayed, but to me, it would look frayed a month later, too so "fresh" isn't really the right way to describe it.
And there are not many RDI who actually believe that the Rs bought the tape and cord for the purposes of murdering their daughter. (though there are some who believe this, I am not among them). Of course they were bought for an innocent purpose. They are common household items, especially the cord, which many amateur artists (Patsy was one) make slings to carry their rolled-up paintings. And what household doesn't have duct tape? ANOTHER reason why is was so suspicious that none was found in the home.
My only explanation for the absence of two very common items? Removed by the Rs.