Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[ScarlettScarpetta]

For some reason, I doubt we know everything. They have held back so much information for so long.

Oh I don't think we know everything either. But I think they released the findings of the GJ. I believe they gave us the final charge of the GJ.

OMO

 

[tezi]

For some reason, I doubt we know everything. They have held back so much information for so long.

No, we don't know everything...I am sure there is stuff in those GJ files that would shock us.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think it would be very helpful to know what the seven other charges were that were considered against the Ramseys. I think we all might be surprised.

JMO

I don't think so. Not if they read like these two ridiculous charges.. I also believe if they had the DNA we have now, They would not have leveled any charges against the R's.

 

[Tawny]

Covering up a murder is not a ridiculous charge.

Even more serious is the child endangerment charge. How is that ridiculous?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Covering up a murder is not a ridiculous charge.

Even more serious is the child endangerment charge. How is that ridiculous?

IT is when you have no idea who committed it. The only reason they charged them is because they were in the house and they wanted to charge them with something. That is my opinion. I used to think they did it. Until I really started looking at things. Taking it apart. Looking for facts and not opinion. So many things I always thought were fact ended up being an opinion or a rumor that was years old and just kept being recycled.

When I look at this case with the eyes of today. The information they have, The facts, the DNA. I do not believe for a moment anyone that lived in that house hurt Jonbenet. I believe it was an outsider.

 

[Tawny]

The carousel has come full circle. I'm hopping off again.

 

[wengr]

IT is when you have no idea who committed it.

There is a big difference in "having no idea" who committed the murder - and not being able to meet the threshold of reasonable doubt as to which of the three in the house committed the murder.
Where are your sources showing that the GJ had "no idea"?

The fact that they found PR and JR to be complicit in the death of JBR is, imo pretty good reason to believe that "having no idea" is a gross misrepresentation.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There is a big difference in "having no idea" who committed the murder - and not being able to meet the threshold of reasonable doubt as to which of the three in the house committed the murder.
Where are your sources showing that the GJ had "no idea"?

The fact that they found PR and JR to be complicit in the death of JBR is, imo pretty good reason to believe that "having no idea" is a gross misrepresentation.

They don't have to do reasonable doubt in a GJ. Just a preponderance of the evidence. If they really felt that John or patsy did this, They could have made that the charge. MURDER 1, 2, Manslaughter, but they did not. They were found complicit in letting something happen to her. Not in the murder because they did not call it murder.

And again, it was only a charge, Not a verdict. It is what they thought they should go to trial on. I believe had they had the current DNA, It would have been completely different.

 

[wengr]

They don't have to do reasonable doubt in a GJ. Just a preponderance of the evidence.

Imo, the preponderance of the evidence shows that someone in the house is responsible. However, we both know that a GJ cannot indict "someone in the house". They must indict someone specifically. They cannot expect AH to get a conviction of "someone in the house". Imo, this is why there is no indictment for murder or manslaughter, which is quite at odds with them having no idea.

If they really felt that John or patsy did this, They could have made that the charge. MURDER 1, 2, Manslaughter, but they did not.

Not neccessarily- see above.

They were found complicit in letting something happen to her.

Yes - something that resulted in her death.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Imo, the preponderance of the evidence shows that someone in the house is responsible. However, we both know that a GJ cannot indict "someone in the house". They must indict someone specifically. They cannot expect AH to get a conviction of "someone in the house". Imo, this is why there is no indictment for murder or manslaughter, which is quite at odds with them having no idea. Not neccessarily- see above.Yes - something that resulted in her death.

I don't think so because it is not a finding.. It is just is there enough to take it to trial.

But they did not indict someone for the murder. Basically it is a hands off indictment IMO.

The point is that they with all they had still could not put a finger on who most likely killed her and they did not have all we have today.

 

[BBB167893]

Thank you, SD. McKinley did source the information to Chet Ubowski.

Remember, Mama2JML: I may be crazy, but I do NOT fabricate!

 

[BBB167893]

Not sure that helps much.. No proof.. Just someone saying someone said something... OMO

But she went into such detail.

 

[BBB167893]

Apparently, we need the case file before we can be believed. Never mind that we have investigators that actually worked telling us what is in the file, because according to the IDI's (or whatever they would like to be called), it's all hearsay.

All I have to say, is whatever. I would believe ST or Kolar over Douglas, Hunter, Lacy, and the entire Ramsey Defense Team.

JMO

Tezi, I'm at the point where I not only would not believe that group, I think some of them should be horsewhipped for what they did in this case.

 

[BBB167893]

However the GJ did and did not vote for murder or even manslaughter.

I wouldn't either. Putting the Rs in prison wouldn't make the world safer.

The Judge looked at this case and ruled that it pointed to an intruder.

The Judge did NOT look at the case. She looked at "evidence" the Ramseys presented.

The DNA points to someone else being there.

That's purely a matter of opinion.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I wouldn't either. Putting the Rs in prison wouldn't make the world safer.



The Judge did NOT look at the case. She looked at "evidence" the Ramseys presented.



That's purely a matter of opinion.

She looked at everything that pertained to the lawsuit. Both sides got their chance.

Again, it is in the record. She felt it was an intruder. Not something a judge would put out there willy nilly.

 

[Tawny]

Juries exist for a reason.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Juries exist for a reason.

Yes they do. Grand juries are supposed to see if there is enough to go to trial, Juries decide guilt or not guilty.

 

[wengr]

Yes they do. Grand juries are supposed to see if there is enough to go to trial, Juries decide guilt or not guilty.

Yep, then I would agree with you that AH should indeed have taken PR and JR to court due to fact that they were indicted.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yep, then I would agree with you that AH should indeed have taken PR and JR to court due to fact that they were indicted.

Not when he knew there was no evidence to support that. The GJ only says what they think.. Not what IS. It is up to AH to prosecute and win. He knew that he would not win because there was not enough evidence to convict them for that or anything else.

 

[Tawny]

He should have let the jury decide. He didn't. He failed.