Why did the Grand Jury not indict the Ramseys?

[Nom de plume]

If you had to guess, how much do you think the R's spent on their team over the past 17 years? In 2000, John said they had spent "more than $1 million". That is pretty vague, and I believe that was intentional. I take that number with a grain of salt though. It might be true, but I think they have reasons for putting it at that amount. Anyway...so what does everyone think they spent? And do you think that a lot of the coverup was due to connections, more so than simply paying people? Like the fact that John and Mike Bynum were good friends before the murder? And wasn't John fraternity brothers with the husband of the Lt. Governor?

Connections. I don't believe that money alone would have bought their freedom. You have to know who to bribe, and with how much, for it to work. Without the connections, all money can buy is high priced attorneys. I don't really believe that JR bribed anyone. I do believe there were connections with too many influentual people that may have had their own skeletons to hide. IMO, they were probably connected in ways most people would never imagine, or want to believe.

 

[midwest mama]

If you had to guess, how much do you think the R's spent on their team over the past 17 years? In 2000, John said they had spent "more than $1 million". That is pretty vague, and I believe that was intentional. I take that number with a grain of salt though. It might be true, but I think they have reasons for putting it at that amount. Anyway...so what does everyone think they spent? And do you think that a lot of the coverup was due to connections, more so than simply paying people? Like the fact that John and Mike Bynum were good friends before the murder? And wasn't John fraternity brothers with the husband of the Lt. Governor?

I would guess multi-millions over the years, but as Nom said, without the connections, someone could have out-priced the Ramsey's funds available for silence.

Money helped put up the 'security fence', but it takes the muscle of the right 'guards' to keep out the fence climbers.

 

[Chrishope]

If you had to guess, how much do you think the R's spent on their team over the past 17 years? In 2000, John said they had spent "more than $1 million". That is pretty vague, and I believe that was intentional. I take that number with a grain of salt though. It might be true, but I think they have reasons for putting it at that amount. Anyway...so what does everyone think they spent? And do you think that a lot of the coverup was due to connections, more so than simply paying people? Like the fact that John and Mike Bynum were good friends before the murder? And wasn't John fraternity brothers with the husband of the Lt. Governor?

Both. Connections were very important, it's always nice to have the prosecutor's office on your side and trying hard to find ways not to charge you.

I believe a famous detective was bribed.

 

[BBB167893]

LOL Dave.

You'll notice I'm not laughing.

I did tell you to rub it in if a Ramsey were proved guilty.

If you look at it a certain way, they have. Like I said, something like 98% of the people who make it to the indictment stage ARE guilty. I realize that's not what you had in mind, but it's helpful to remember.

I didn't get anything too much from Kolar's book besides what I have said all along.

I had a feeling you wouldn't.

The DNA is certainly still a factor in the case.

YOU say. Actually, I'm glad you brought that up, because there was something I wanted to throw out for public discussion. Over this past week, it was revealed that the explosive that was detonated in Boston had female DNA on it that doesn't belong to Tamerlan's turncoat wife. It's fairly obvious at this point that it's not relevant to the case; Jahar's guilt is already proven as far as it ever could be. But, as in this case, there are people who are hinging on this mystery DNA to free him. (WHY people would want him free is best discussed on the 'Politics' board.) To me, it's proof of what I've been telling you for years: the more sensitive these DNA tests get, the more irrelevant DNA is found. In the case of JB, the Rs just got lucky enough that the DA in charge had never taken a case to trial and had no real knowledge of forensics.

Also, I have read over and over again on how you feel about Alex Hunter and Mary Lacey. I am not even going to argue for or against it.

I don't see how you CAN.

Here is the thing ---Mary's gone, Alex is gone, and still ain't nobody doing nothing as far as I can tell.

What is there to BE done, Roy? Tell me that. The case basically died with Patsy. That's not just MY opinion.

They have talked about it and even the new players involved have chosen to do nothing. Law enforcement writing books for profit without taking any action discredits the case more and more over time. But that is just me.

Yeah, I guess it is. I'll keep my opinions on THAT to myself.

 

[douce40]

Alex Hunter just simply wimped out. It reminds me of a friend of mine that plays poker. Almost every hand he gets he folds. There are times he folds and he ends up with the best hand without even drawing any cards:banghead: Then once in a while he doesn't fold and everyone at the table knows he has a great hand. Alex Hunter was waiting for the royal flush that never came and probably will never come.

 

[douce40]

Hey Dave!



LOL Dave. I did tell you to rub it in if a Ramsey were proved guilty. If I said for this too, I have no problem with it as well. I didn't get anything too much from Kolar's book besides what I have said all along. And that is if a Ramsey's were guilty the only thing that makes sense to me is if Burke was involved somehow. The DNA is certainly still a factor in the case.

Also, I have read over and over again on how you feel about Alex Hunter and Mary Lacey. I am not even going to argue for or against it. Here is the thing ---Mary's gone, Alex is gone, and still ain't nobody doing nothing as far as I can tell. They have talked about it and even the new players involved have chosen to do nothing. Law enforcement writing books for profit without taking any action discredits the case more and more over time. But that is just me.

From what I have read about "touch" DNA, it is far better at verifying a known suspect than introducing a brand new one. There are so many ways an innocent DNA transfer could be detected by "touch" DNA because of its sensitivity. Even when proper PPE is worn a contamination can happen. The amount of elimination samples would be extremely large in the JB case but needed before the Ramsey's can be cleared.

The "TIm MAster's" case is different because the DNA came back as an already known suspect. The JB case has unknown DNA. Mary Lacy had to release Masters from jail in early 2008 because of "touch" DNA and then decided to publicly exonerate the Ramseys due, most likely, to the pressure felt from the Masters prison release.

The article I read about "touch" DNA was online, written by Angela L. Williamson, PhD
Bode Technology, Lorton, Virginia, USA

 

[elannia]

But the thing is this. It should have been very easy to get a GJ indictment

Just reading through old threads and reading about why the grand jury didn’t return an indictment... which we find out later on thru the years that they actually had returned one, AH just didn’t see it fit to act upon it

 

[elannia]

Had they indicted anyhow and lost, any change in the case if RDI would be over. They cannot be prosecuted twice and quite frankly no one would still possibly be investigating it now. Especially if they felt RDI due to Double Jeopardy. That doesn't sound good does it?

And then there is this... does anyone think it would have gotten a confession out of the R’’s if AH had acted upon the indictment? Would it have scared them enough for them to talk to try to get some leniency from confessing?

 

[UKGuy]

And then there is this... does anyone think it would have gotten a confession out of the R’’s if AH had acted upon the indictment? Would it have scared them enough for them to talk to try to get some leniency from confessing?

elannia,
Well arresting, separating the suspects then interviewing them should be the normal procedure.

If Hunter said he was filing the True Bills with intention to prosecute then the parents would likely have attempted some kind of negotiated deal

Why Hunter did not recommend both parents for Murder in the First Degree is curious, also knowing he never filed the True Bills suggests maybe he never wanted a public court case at all?

It might be Hunter is guilty of a legal cover up?

.

 

[mickey2942]

Privilege.

 

[icedtea4me]

<snip>Why Hunter did not recommend both parents for Murder in the First Degree is curious, also knowing he never filed the True Bills suggests maybe he never wanted a public court case at all?

It might be Hunter is guilty of a legal cover up?

.

The only two counts out of the nine we are aware of are counts IV-a and VII. That is because these two counts received the proper number of votes from the jury. That wasn't the case with counts I, II, III, IV, IV-b, V, and VI.

 

[UKGuy]

The only two counts out of the nine we are aware of are counts IV-a and VII. That is because these two counts received the proper number of votes from the jury. That wasn't the case with counts I, II, III, IV, IV-b, V, and VI.

icedtea4me,

IMO,

COUNT I
COUNT II
COUNT III
COUNT IV
COUNT IV-b
COUNT V
COUNT VI

were all leveled at the person cited in COUNTS IV-a and VII.

I have specimen details of COUNTS I-IV :

Here is a title excerpt with the person redacted


COUNT I (Murder in the First Degree)
On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, REDACTED did unlawfully kill JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.

The other COUNTS expand with more detail, outlining what they think happened to JonBenet.

.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,

IMO,

COUNT I
COUNT II
COUNT III
COUNT IV
COUNT IV-b
COUNT V
COUNT VI

were all leveled at the person cited in COUNTS IV-a and VII.

I have specimen details of COUNTS I-IV :

Here is a title excerpt with the person redacted


COUNT I (Murder in the First Degree)
On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, REDACTED did unlawfully kill JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.

The other COUNTS expand with more detail, outlining what they think happened to JonBenet.

.

The name would be redacted because...?

 

[David Rogers]

The name would be redacted because...?

Because he was under 10?

 

[UKGuy]

Because he was under 10?

David Rogers,
Since the COUNTS I-IV did not receive the required super-majority as an agreement for an indictment they were returned as NO BILLS. i.e. they have no legal status and the named person cannot be cited in connection with the latter COUNTS.

District Attorney Alex Hunter refused to sign the papers and file them suggesting he thought probable cause would not be sufficient to make a successful prosecution.

Because he was under 10?

District Attorney Alex Hunter likely selected the Grand Jury criminal procedure due to the age of some of the witness's as it protects the potential defendant's reputation in case the jury does not decide to indict.

Consider if Alex Hunter did not think the evidence presented would prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury trial, then what do you call Mary Lacy's exoneration of the parents on the basis their touch-dna as it did not match that of any of the multiple samples recovered from JonBenet's person?

Does this mean Mary Lacy could not exonerate Burke Ramsey as his touch-dna was found on the bloodstained Pink Barbie Nightgown?


IMO Alex Hunter never filed the indictments as he considered them to be probable cause so putting the parents in the dock would not achieve a resolution and only serve to advertise there was another person involved.

.

 

[icedtea4me]

Because he was under 10?

“The court has now reviewed the documents submitted under seal,” Lowenbach wrote in the order. “The documents consist of 18 pages, nine each relating to John and Patricia Ramsey. It appears that the District Attorney, presumably acting at the direction of the Grand Jury, prepared a series of possible charges regarding John Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey based on the fact that the child had died and that there was evidence that a sexual assault of the child had occurred.”

JonBenét Ramsey Case|Indictment to Be Released

The only counts were for John and Patsy. There were no others. If counts IV-a and VII were the only counts against each of them, they'd have been listed as counts I and II.

 

[UKGuy]

“The court has now reviewed the documents submitted under seal,” Lowenbach wrote in the order. “The documents consist of 18 pages, nine each relating to John and Patricia Ramsey. It appears that the District Attorney, presumably acting at the direction of the Grand Jury, prepared a series of possible charges regarding John Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey based on the fact that the child had died and that there was evidence that a sexual assault of the child had occurred.”

JonBenét Ramsey Case|Indictment to Be Released

The only counts were for John and Patsy. There were no others. If counts IV-a and VII were the only counts against each of them, they'd have been listed as counts I and II.

icedtea4me,
It could be John and Patsy had counts of Murder1 leveled at them?

C.R.S. provides:

(1) A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if:
(f) The person knowingly causes the death of a child who has not yet attained twelve years of age and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the victim.


(3) Murder in the first degree is a class 1 felony.

(4) The statutory privilege between patient and physician and between husband and wife shall not be available for excluding or refusing testimony in any prosecution for the crime of murder in the first degree as described in paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of this section.

(4) would be the rationale for hitting JR and PR with the exact same counts?

Specimen Counts might be:

COUNT I-MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE (F1)
On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey unlawfully, feloniously, after deliberation, and with the intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, caused the death of JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen. in violation of section 18-3-102(1)(a), C.R.S.

...

COUNT III-MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE (F1)
On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously alter, destroy, or conceal physical evidence with the intent to affect the outcome of a criminal investigation or court proceeding; in violation of section 18-3-102(1)(x), C.R.S.

COUNT IV-MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE (F1)
On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly caused the death of, a child who had not yet attained twelve years of age, and the defendant was in a position of trust with respect to the victim; in violation of section 18-3-102(1)(f), C.R.S.

There might be separate counts for each of JonBenet's injuries and the staging, etc?

.

 

[UKGuy]

For clarity: John and Patsy receive Murder in the First Degree counts as the Grand Jury likely assumed one of the parents applied the ligature and paintbrush.

So who is the person ? Both parents are charged with assisting the person i.e. knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

So either the parents are not charged with Murder in the First Degree, i.e. no probable cause e.g. lack of evidence and the named person is charged with Murder in the First Degree?

Looks like it boils down to who the Grand Jury thought the named person was?

Neither parent was charged explicitly with a count of Child Abuse so does this mean the named person cannot be one of the parents?

.

 

[bambinoti]

That the Rs weren`t called, couldn`t that have been part of the prosecutions overall strategy. That, as presented, the DA went with the strengths of what the case evidence could provide.

 

[Tobiano8th]

grunching..

i believe the party line was "not a reasonable chance at a conviction"............ my sense is that almost everyone believes RDI by accident (and technically, they may have actually killed their daughter not knowing she was already dead) but that nobody really knows what happened. it is very hard to get a conviction when you don't know what happened. they would have presented one scenario to jurors and then they can't say "or it could have been a bunch of other things, most of which implicate the R's".

i have no opinion as to whether the DA came to that conclusion through the proper analysis/protocols or whether they were going to dismiss things no matter the grand jury evidence.

and i have no knowledge of how DA's and grand juries are supposed to operate in general .... my knowledge of it comes from the Rockford Files