Member of Grand Jury speaks on 20/20

[Rott Mom]

Absolutely beautiful fur-babies. Thanks for sharing!

 

[8paws]

Anyone watching the show on reelz right now? Pretty good so far. Mostly going over what we already know, but it's Lawerence Shiller investigates. Showing some scenes from his book and movie "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" ....
Guys I'm sorry about last night. The first thread I've ever started and was so excited about......the 20/20 show...a big disappointment. Oh well. Thanks to you guys for commenting on my thread even though the show was a flop.
Oh and just to make some of you jealous .lol...I'm sitting here with my 3 month old beagle (2clyde Clipper) asleep in my lap. He's dreaming ..chasing rabbits I'm sure, little nose twitching and paws jerking and some whining ...you get the picture.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

Fascinating. I never heard of this guild.

I recall this group coming up years ago on FFJ. A poster named Fedorax said they were going to look at the case at their upcoming convention. Their wiki article is interesting.

At meetings, Vidocq Society Members (VSMs) listen to local law enforcement officials from around the world who bring in cold cases for review.

VSMs are forensic professionals; current and former FBI profilers, homicide investigators, scientists, psychologists, prosecutors and coroners who use their experience to provide justice for investigations that have gone cold. Members are selected by committee invitation only, pay a $100 annual fee, and commit to attend at least one meeting per year.
(...)
Vidocq will only consider cases that meet certain requirements: they must be unsolved deaths more than two years old, the victims cannot have been involved in criminal activity such as prostitution or drug dealing, and the case must be formally presented to them by the appropriate law enforcement agency. The Society does not charge for its services, and pays for the travel expenses of the law enforcement agents who come to present cases.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

I have been following this case since the beginning. I was on the fence for a long time but now lean heavily towards RDI. I found the 20/20 episode lacking in anything new or thought provoking. However, one thing did pop into my mind that seems obvious but I never thought about before. The placement of the ransom note at the bottom of the BACK staircase makes me think it had to be a family member. An outsider is not going to know if the back stairs are used or may not even know they exist. If an intruder took the time to right that novel he or she would want it seen. Leaving it by the front door, the kitchen table, on Jonbenets bed are places logically one might leave it to be seen. The back stair case only makes sense if you know the parents habit of going down those stairs every morning.

AND if you knew that was Patsy's "go-to" place for leaving things to remember!

 

[BBB167893]

Anyone watching the show on reelz right now? Pretty good so far. Mostly going over what we already know, but it's Lawerence Shiller investigates. Showing some scenes from his book and movie "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" ....
Guys I'm sorry about last night. The first thread I've ever started and was so excited about......the 20/20 show...a big disappointment. Oh well. Thanks to you guys for commenting on my thread even though the show was a flop.
Oh and just to make some of you jealous .lol...I'm sitting here with my 3 month old beagle (2clyde Clipper) asleep in my lap. He's dreaming ..chasing rabbits I'm sure, little nose twitching and paws jerking and some whining ...you get the picture.

I guess now is as good a place to talk about this as any. For me, the REELZ show had good news and bad news moments.

The bad one for me was when Schiller and @$$-clown (Paula Woodward) trashed on Steve Thomas for wanting to put Patsy in jail to get her to confess. They were in high dudgeon, saying that's not how good detectives work. You follow the evidence. I was not screaming at the TV. I merely face-palmed.

Well, Mr Schiller and Mrs. Woodward, let me tell you this: I'm terribly sorry if your delicate sensibilities were offended (SD makes obscene hand gesture), but being that neither one of you were or are police officers, I strongly suggest that you do a bit more research into this. Because if you do, you'll find that what ST wanted to do is STANDARD procedure in these cases. I can point to its use in the case of Lisa Steinberg, just to name one.

What the public needs to understand, and I hope everyone reading this remembers this well, is that there are two kinds of cases: the kind that needs Sherlock Holmes, and the kind that needs Dirty Harry. This case was the latter.

By contrast, the big bit of good news was that the case investigators now believe what has been batted around here for some time: that the cord and tape were taken off of Patsy's painting frames. Now, I've been flying that flag for a long time now. But I cannot take credit for it: DeeDee249 is who I heard it from (does anyone know where she went? I'm getting worried!), but it may have been around longer than that.

When I heard that, I let out a "YEEHOO" like I was Han Solo! It's so nice to be vindicated.

Any thoughts?

 

[singularity]

3. Why does the GJ indictment against the Ramseys only point to BDI.

It doesn't.

I believe the Ramseys are lying, no question about it. And BDI is definitley a possibility. But there are other possibilities that just don't seem to be discussed that much. I find that a little odd. JMO

All the RDI scenarios have been discussed. BDI is the 'flavor of the month'. It always goes in cycles which is the dominant theory being discussed on the various Jonbenet communities. Before BDI it was PDI and after BDI it will be PDI again and of course a bit of JDI thrown into the mix. None of the three ever go away...it just fluctuates.

Stick around.....you'll see.

The state's case was built on evidence that pointed to the parents and Smit's IDI theory. At that time, there WAS no theory that BDI. Every member of BPD and even the DA's office believed it was PR. There was no evidence presented to support a theory of BDI. GJrs can only make a decision on what is presented.

Valid points but BDI was around at that time. The late 90s is when the "Burke strangled her with the Nintendo cord" BDI theory started. Yes it was quickly laughed at but if the various crime sites at the time were discussing it, I assume that those involved in the case considered it as well.

Specifically that there were 18 pages submitted by the grand jury, 9 concerning each parent. But only 2 per parent, 4 total, were released/signed. So clearly no one but JR and PR was even considered.

Thanks for posting those links, buggiegirl.

 

[k-mac]

I have four too! But they are pugs.

I would love Huskies! They are beautiful!!

sorry to keep the off topic going but ambitoned your pugs are gorgeous!
i have two also!
how the bloody hell do you deal with 4 fawn pugs worth of doublecoats!!!:great:
wanted to post a pic of my girls but ws wont let me atm
(might be no more pet pics ......:blushing: .........we need a pets page! lol)

there we go!
doing what they do best ...noffin!!:loveyou:

 

[Ambitioned]

there we go!
doing what they do best ...noffin!!:loveyou:

OMG they are adorable!!! Yes we need a WS pets page! Thank you for sharing!!

Thank you DFF for that information on the guild!

By contrast, the big bit of good news was that the case investigators now believe what has been batted around here for some time: that the cord and tape were taken off of Patsy's painting frames. Now, I've been flying that flag for a long time now. But I cannot take credit for it: DeeDee249 is who I heard it from (does anyone know where she went? I'm getting worried!), but it may have been around longer than that.

I wonder if that's why Fleet went back to look at it. Possible he recognized it?

 

[Bently]

O/T...

Websleuths does have a thread for pet photos.. :escape: to see all the adorable furbabies at http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93865

 

[UKGuy]

I guess now is as good a place to talk about this as any. For me, the REELZ show had good news and bad news moments.

The bad one for me was when Schiller and @$$-clown (Paula Woodward) trashed on Steve Thomas for wanting to put Patsy in jail to get her to confess. They were in high dudgeon, saying that's not how good detectives work. You follow the evidence. I was not screaming at the TV. I merely face-palmed.

Well, Mr Schiller and Mrs. Woodward, let me tell you this: I'm terribly sorry if your delicate sensibilities were offended (SD makes obscene hand gesture), but being that neither one of you were or are police officers, I strongly suggest that you do a bit more research into this. Because if you do, you'll find that what ST wanted to do is STANDARD procedure in these cases. I can point to its use in the case of Lisa Steinberg, just to name one.

What the public needs to understand, and I hope everyone reading this remembers this well, is that there are two kinds of cases: the kind that needs Sherlock Holmes, and the kind that needs Dirty Harry. This case was the latter.

By contrast, the big bit of good news was that the case investigators now believe what has been batted around here for some time: that the cord and tape were taken off of Patsy's painting frames. Now, I've been flying that flag for a long time now. But I cannot take credit for it: DeeDee249 is who I heard it from (does anyone know where she went? I'm getting worried!), but it may have been around longer than that.

When I heard that, I let out a "YEEHOO" like I was Han Solo! It's so nice to be vindicated.

Any thoughts?

SuperDave,
People have been speculating from the start that the tape and cord were sourced from inside the house, e.g. tape from a doll, tape from a painting, cord from a doll, cord from a painting?

From memory DeeDee249 suggested it was used to carry a painting, e.g. like a suitcase handle, its a common way to move paintings around.

DeeDee249 still reads here, she last posted during the CBS specials.

I think I read about the tape as part of speculation suggesting JR added the tape at the last moment along with the wrist restraints?

Since the tape on JonBenet's mouth was already used it should really have fallen off, whenever JonBenet was moved.

Along with FW neither seeing or smelling JonBenet that morning all plays into JR moving JonBenet into the wine-cellar when he went missing?

He likely did this since finding her in her previous location likely meant making it obvious he already knew she was there!

i.e. JR had made his mind up on what to do once BR was relocated?

so it looks as if Patsy added the cord and used the paintbrush as part of the staging, that all makes sense to me?

.

 

[mrseeker]

No, I'm not missing anything. First, John and Patsy were also indicted for helping the murderer get away with it. Can't skip this important fact. I've posted a link upthread which provides the exact working of that count.

If the GJ thought one or both of the parents killed her they almost certainly would have indicted one or both of them with first degree murder. That's how it's usually done when a GJ can't decide between two closely linked parties when they are sure one is the killer, but not sure which it is. It's left up to the actual trial to sort that out, but of course they'd have to be indicted for murder first for that to happen.

Please also understand that we do not have all of the counts. Some of the indictment including additional counts were not disclosed. See my prior posts regarding why it almost certain that those counts do not solely address the parents as by law this information would have had to have been released under the Freedom of Information act rules along with the rest of the indictment. The most likely reason the holding back of this is that these counts address Burke, who was under 18 at the time of the indictment, triggering the withholding of counts involving him from the FOIA disclosure. I addressed this earlier as well.

Grand jurors are not charged with addressing reasonable doubt, only whether there is probable cause to charge and try suspects. They found probable cause with regard to John and Patsy's counts. We don't know what the other counts address, although neither were charged with murder, or anything further for that matter, as this would have been disclosed. As to what would have happened had the DA gone forward, we will never know. We don't know the specifics of the evidence that led the GJ to determine there was probable cause to charge. And no one can know what would have happened if they'd been tried.

Finally, as this comes up a lot - Burke was old enough to commit a crime. He was not old enough to be found guilty. There is no law that says he couldn't be indicted, and it's possible that's what's in the withheld counts. Of course, the DA wasn't going to charge him with something he couldn't have been found guilty of, which in and of itself makes proving the counts against his parents that much more difficult, although not necessarily impossible.

let's just agree we disagree. GJ are not all knowing all wise. I think the indictment that was leaked is a compromise by the GJ who wanted to do something. The GJ might not concern itself with what is provable beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, but the prosecutor is. As i said, you could have many theories of who did it and why, and still conclude the adults in the house failed to protect JBR. More circumstantial evidence points to Patsy more than anyone else. The letter, still in the same clothes, fingerprints on the pineapple bowl, etc. Even so, based on what we know, there is not enough circumstantial evidence to convict anyone. They needed eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence of some sort, or a confession. Even DNA if its one of the 3 will mean nothing unless its from male semen. I think the GJ was intended to shake up the parents, hoping someone would break. Or perhaps someone with knowledge would come forward. It didn't work. You would need to prove BR did it in order to prove the parents should have protected JBR from him. Same for each parent. I still think back then PR could have been indicted for obstruction when she wrote the fake note.

http://www.denverpost.com/2013/10/2...ed-parents-of-child-abuse-resulting-in-death/

“In part, this vindicates Alex Hunter,” Recht said. “He probably saw this as a classic compromise, and he believed, if he couldn’t prove murder, he couldn’t prove either of these beyond a reasonable doubt.”

this article has a link to the 4 indictments. http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/10/us/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/?hpt=hp_t1

And apparently these are the only 4 indictments the GJ voted a true bill on. Notice the count numbers are not 1-4. The article says the judge ordered the release of these pages due to a press lawsuit. Since the counts were voted true bill then they should be public, but the others could not be released. And the indictment forms are going to be prepared by the DA so he clearly asked for these counts. We don't know what the other counts were, but its possible there was one that accused PR of murder, and one that accused JR...so if they had voted for them, these other counts would be ones to be filed against the other. If it was a third party again there would be a count for murder and then these against the parents would have made sense. Not sure how you handle it if BR is thought to be the perp, since he could not be charged.

 

[Miz Adventure]

SuperDave,
People have been speculating from the start that the tape and cord were sourced from inside the house, e.g. tape from a doll, tape from a painting, cord from a doll, cord from a painting?

From memory DeeDee249 suggested it was used to carry a painting, e.g. like a suitcase handle, its a common way to move paintings around.

DeeDee249 still reads here, she last posted during the CBS specials.

I think I read about the tape as part of speculation suggesting JR added the tape at the last moment along with the wrist restraints?

Since the tape on JonBenet's mouth was already used it should really have fallen off, whenever JonBenet was moved.

Along with FW neither seeing or smelling JonBenet that morning all plays into JR moving JonBenet into the wine-cellar when he went missing?

He likely did this since finding her in her previous location likely meant making it obvious he already knew she was there!

i.e. JR had made his mind up on what to do once BR was relocated?

so it looks as if Patsy added the cord and used the paintbrush as part of the staging, that all makes sense to me?

.

Well that is also part of my theory. I think JBR's body was initially concealed in the trunk of one of the R's cars, or possibly in the crawl space in the train room - which could be why JR put a chair in front of door, hoping to prevent anyone entering.

At that time it was a 'simple' kidnapping - their daughter had been taken so the couple would not have expected anyone to search the house. They had already told the police they had looked everywhere - why wasn't that enough?

The plan was that when the phone call did not materialize then naturally the police would leave the Ramseys home. The couple could then bring the body out, leave her in the cellar and then make another call to the police saying they had discovered their daughter's body - dead. The kidnapper had killed her and returned her body to them because they went against instructions and had called the police.

Unfortunately the plan went wrong. The police showed no signs of going. John knew that if a thorough search was undertaken then his daughter's body may be discovered in his car. He HAD to bring her back inside, which he did. He put her in the wine cellar - this accounts for his 'missing' time.

He went back upstairs and as soon as Arndt suggested another search John was up out of his seat and straight down to the cellar room where he 'discovered' JBR.

You know the rest.

 

[8paws]

I guess now is as good a place to talk about this as any. For me, the REELZ show had good news and bad news moments.

The bad one for me was when Schiller and @$$-clown (Paula Woodward) trashed on Steve Thomas for wanting to put Patsy in jail to get her to confess. They were in high dudgeon, saying that's not how good detectives work. You follow the evidence. I was not screaming at the TV. I merely face-palmed.

Well, Mr Schiller and Mrs. Woodward, let me tell you this: I'm terribly sorry if your delicate sensibilities were offended (SD makes obscene hand gesture), but being that neither one of you were or are police officers, I strongly suggest that you do a bit more research into this. Because if you do, you'll find that what ST wanted to do is STANDARD procedure in these cases. I can point to its use in the case of Lisa Steinberg, just to name one.

What the public needs to understand, and I hope everyone reading this remembers this well, is that there are two kinds of cases: the kind that needs Sherlock Holmes, and the kind that needs Dirty Harry. This case was the latter.

By contrast, the big bit of good news was that the case investigators now believe what has been batted around here for some time: that the cord and tape were taken off of Patsy's painting frames. Now, I've been flying that flag for a long time now. But I cannot take credit for it: DeeDee249 is who I heard it from (does anyone know where she went? I'm getting worried!), but it may have been around longer than that.

When I heard that, I let out a "YEEHOO" like I was Han Solo! It's so nice to be vindicated.

Any thoughts?

Great post SD and I agree with everything you said. I was so angry the way they bashed Steve Thomas. He did everything he could and fought hard for JonBenet. It makes my stomach turn when I hear someone put him down. And I almost screamed when I heard them mention the tape and cord coming from the picture frames!!! I like you have always believed that.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*this article has a link to the 4 indictments. http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/10/us/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/?hpt=hp_t1

And apparently these are the only 4 indictments the GJ voted a true bill on. Notice the count numbers are not 1-4. The article says the judge ordered the release of these pages due to a press lawsuit. Since the counts were voted true bill then they should be public, but the others could not be released. And the indictment forms are going to be prepared by the DA so he clearly asked for these counts. We don't know what the other counts were, but its possible there was one that accused PR of murder, and one that accused JR...so if they had voted for them, these other counts would be ones to be filed against the other. If it was a third party again there would be a count for murder and then these against the parents would have made sense. Not sure how you handle it if BR is thought to be the perp, since he could not be charged.

Actually, wouldn't the count #s be I and II for John and I and II for Patsy? Anyway, the indictment was said to be eighteen pages (nine for each parent). Therefore, counts I, II, III, V, VI, VIII, and IX are unknown for John and for Patsy.

 

[8paws]

sorry to keep the off topic going but ambitoned your pugs are gorgeous!
i have two also!
how the bloody hell do you deal with 4 fawn pugs worth of doublecoats!!!:great:
wanted to post a pic of my girls but ws wont let me atm
(might be no more pet pics ......:blushing: .........we need a pets page! lol)

there we go!
doing what they do best ...noffin!!:loveyou:

Do we have a pet's page? If we don't we need one. I have 6 furbabies and I love to show them off. lol

 

[icedtea4me]

Do we have a pet's page? If we don't we need one. I have 6 furbabies and I love to show them off. lol

See post #129.

 

[mrseeker]

Actually, wouldn't the count #s be I and II for John and I and II for Patsy? Anyway, the indictment was said to be eighteen pages (nine for each parent). Therefore, counts I, II, III, V, VI, VIII, and IX are unknown for John and for Patsy.

Yes they are unknown but we do know the GJ did not vote a true bill for those other counts.

 

[kanzz]

I guess now is as good a place to talk about this as any. For me, the REELZ show had good news and bad news moments.

The bad one for me was when Schiller and @$$-clown (Paula Woodward) trashed on Steve Thomas for wanting to put Patsy in jail to get her to confess. They were in high dudgeon, saying that's not how good detectives work. You follow the evidence. I was not screaming at the TV. I merely face-palmed.

Well, Mr Schiller and Mrs. Woodward, let me tell you this: I'm terribly sorry if your delicate sensibilities were offended (SD makes obscene hand gesture), but being that neither one of you were or are police officers, I strongly suggest that you do a bit more research into this. Because if you do, you'll find that what ST wanted to do is STANDARD procedure in these cases. I can point to its use in the case of Lisa Steinberg, just to name one.

What the public needs to understand, and I hope everyone reading this remembers this well, is that there are two kinds of cases: the kind that needs Sherlock Holmes, and the kind that needs Dirty Harry. This case was the latter.

By contrast, the big bit of good news was that the case investigators now believe what has been batted around here for some time: that the cord and tape were taken off of Patsy's painting frames. Now, I've been flying that flag for a long time now. But I cannot take credit for it: DeeDee249 is who I heard it from (does anyone know where she went? I'm getting worried!), but it may have been around longer than that.

When I heard that, I let out a "YEEHOO" like I was Han Solo! It's so nice to be vindicated.

Any thoughts?

Seems to me that most of these programs want to keep all their viewers satisfied to some extent. The R apologists got their happy moments perhaps, but overall it leaned in our favor - JBR's favor.

I was shouting "Woohoo" when they said investigators believe the cord came from around the paintings. I really didn't know this had been speculated previously, but I posted just recently that I think it might have been used to bundle them and transport them back from Charlevoix. So, it's good to know that you and DeeDee249 both had also posited your theories about it being around them. Feel like I'm in good company.

 

[Ambitioned]

Seems to me that most of these programs want to keep all their viewers satisfied to some extent. The R apologists got their happy moments perhaps, but overall it leaned in our favor - JBR's favor.

I was shouting "Woohoo" when they said investigators believe the cord came from around the paintings. I really didn't know this had been speculated previously, but I posted just recently that I think it might have been used to bundle them and transport them back from Charlevoix. So, it's good to know that you and DeeDee249 both had also posited your theories about it being around them. Feel like I'm in good company.

IDIs will just say well there you go, the intruder used what was handy. Well, previously they said the intruder brought the stuff and left with it. Sorry folks, you cant have it both ways.

It was a Ramsey using what was handy, just like a Ramsey used the pad and pen from the house.

I believe the Whites recognized the tape at least, and put two and two together.

 

[cubbeegirl]

Hey y'all ! I don't have cable anymore since we lost everything in the great Louisiana flood ...I have internet tho ...anyone know a way I cN watch the reels program ?