Why doesn't anyone think it could've been John.

[fr brown]

icedtea4me,

We do not know, but the GJ do so it will be leaked eventually.

The release of the True Bills is surrounded by legalese, e.g. official actions then there is the consideration that only specific True Bills were considered, i.e. not everything was put in front of the judge.

All of which underpins the assumption that Hunter was just using the Grand Jury as a legal vehicle to arrive at a particular decision.

Whether he got what he wanted I'm not certain, this is what might have prompted the No File move?

Or it was always the end game as far as Hunter was concerned, i.e. the legal procedures would be followed as required, then regardless of the result Hunter would opt for No File?

If the case is not BDI then why were the parents not hit with First Degree Homicide True Bills?

They were charged with assisting JonBenet's killer, so who is the Third Party mentioned in the True Bills, e.g. the person?

.

Do you have a job? You spend a lot of time posting here. I hope that my tax dollars haven't been paying your wages.

I'm retired so my time is my own.

 

[fr brown]

In 1999 Michael Kane gave an interview to the Denver Post addressing the tabloid rumors about Burke's involvement:

"Kane said prosecutors were outraged by the story.

'This was a little kid. We just thought it was terrible,' Kane said.

As the story began to be picked up by more mainstream media, 'When the New York Post picked it up, when MSNBC started to run with it, we just thought, "Shouldn't we put this to rest,?"'Kane said.

Kane, the father of two, said, 'I considered it to be child abuse, to profit that way' at the expense of a young boy.

And, he said, there was 'no basis for the story.'

In his review of evidence, Kane said, 'I just didn't see anything to support that theory.'"

Michael Kane would not have let Burke get beaten up in the grand jury. But people can be irrational, including people on juries, God knows.

 

[dgfred]

Previous strike with a golf club, weird behavior, evidence of lies about awake or not, evidence of cover-up/staging, etc all led to that/those rumors.

 

[UKGuy]

In 1999 Michael Kane gave an interview to the Denver Post addressing the tabloid rumors about Burke's involvement:

"Kane said prosecutors were outraged by the story.

'This was a little kid. We just thought it was terrible,' Kane said.

As the story began to be picked up by more mainstream media, 'When the New York Post picked it up, when MSNBC started to run with it, we just thought, "Shouldn't we put this to rest,?"'Kane said.

Kane, the father of two, said, 'I considered it to be child abuse, to profit that way' at the expense of a young boy.

And, he said, there was 'no basis for the story.'

In his review of evidence, Kane said, 'I just didn't see anything to support that theory.'"

Michael Kane would not have let Burke get beaten up in the grand jury. But people can be irrational, including people on juries, God knows.

fr brown,
Your use of Kane's opinion has a latin description argumentum ad verecundiam or argument from authority, i.e. appeal to opinion.

Check it all out on wikipedia.org

So it does not fly. I'm sure Michael Kane is a nice guy, good at his job, etc. Yet what he thought in 1999, patently excludes everything revealed since then.

Since we cannot know if Kane was just following Colorado statute on children involved in crime, his opinion cannot dismiss BDI.

Early on in the case I more or less held Kane's opinion, no way could I see how a 9-year old boy was involved, surely the case was PDI or JDI?

I've moved on since then.

.

 

[UKGuy]

What I meant was no jury was likely to convict one of the parents 'if' they could not decide which person did what regarding - blow to head, actual murder

From the outside it looks like the GJ decided BDI... and the parents let it happen.

IMO

dgfred,
Sure, this is how I see it too. Although they had enough to charge Patsy with Murder In The First Degree with her fibers embedded in the ligature knotting?

If the case is not BDI then a public trial with all the evidence on the table would have benefited Burke, so it might be that Colorado Child Statutes have perversely worked against Burke's long term interests?

The clue is the use of the term person. It would not be needed if it referred to one of the parents, by citing a sealed document, since why bother releasing the assisting an offender and child abuse counts but not any Homicide count?

So without further evidence it looks like the case is BDI with Hunter using the Grand Jury to hide the evidence from the public and media, then he buried the case with his No File move, hoping we could all move on?

.

 

[fr brown]

I think it's likely that John's and Patsy's defense lawyers had them submit to private polygraphs. We know, for instance, that OJ Simpson took one privately at the behest of his defense lawyer and failed it miserably. If John and Patsy did take a polygraph, their lawyers would know the truth about their respective involvements and also the truth about Burke's involvement, or lack thereof. Burke providing testimony at the grand jury is an indication that he was both innocent and ignorant of the events of the evening.

 

[icedtea4me]

<snip>Early on in the case I more or less held Kane's opinion, no way could I see how a 9-year old boy was involved, surely the case was PDI or JDI?

I've moved on since then.

.

Why one or the other? Why not both?

 

[dgfred]

I think it's likely that John's and Patsy's defense lawyers had them submit to private polygraphs. We know, for instance, that OJ Simpson took one privately at the behest of his defense lawyer and failed it miserably. If John and Patsy did take a polygraph, their lawyers would know the truth about their respective involvements and also the truth about Burke's involvement, or lack thereof. Burke providing testimony at the grand jury is an indication that he was both innocent and ignorant of the events of the evening.

likely- not unless they wanted/agreed to one. I bet OJ told his lawyers he was innocent regardless of results... and they treated the case as so.

Burke testifying because he had to? Plus they ended up claiming JR and PR were guilty of certain charges. They could not do that to BR because of age, right?
Would BR consider whomping JB on the head a major crime?
Would BR ask 'what did you find' and a parent say- 'we are not talking to you'?
What did BR testify to exactly?

 

[dgfred]

OJ also claimed he dreamed about the killing... so it messed up the poly results. yeh

 

[icedtea4me]

<snip>
Burke testifying because he had to? Plus they ended up claiming JR and PR were guilty of certain charges. They could not do that to BR because of age, right?
Would BR consider whomping JB on the head a major crime?
Would BR ask 'what did you find' and a parent say- 'we are not talking to you'?
What did BR testify to exactly?

Burke asking "What did you find?", imo, is more than likely due to him having heard this from his mother-

911: How long ago was this?
PR: I don’t know. Just found a note a note and my daughter is missing
911: Does it say who took her?

12261996-911.htm

 

[dgfred]

She said what she found.

 

[icedtea4me]

She said what she found.

What if he didn't quite hear that part or, if he did, wanted her to repeat it to make sure it was what he thought she said?

 

[UKGuy]

Why one or the other? Why not both?

icedtea4me,
Because I was influenced by what I read at the time.

Patently Patsy and John both colluded to stage JonBenet's crime-scene, so minimally John and Patsy should be facing homicide counts in some degree, as it appears Patsy applied the ligature?

.

 

[dcountmontecristo]

what would John or even Patsy benefit from the death of this poor little kid?

 

[Tadpole12]

silence?

 

[dcountmontecristo]

silence for what?

 

[dcountmontecristo]

let me change the question, who do you think would benefit the MOST from the death of this child?

 

[Swirlz]

The perpetrator of repeated sexual abuse.

 

[proust20]

The person who would benefit most is the one with best motive.

 

[David Rogers]

The perpetrator of repeated sexual abuse.

An accident might have turned to murder and staging to cover for the previous molestation.