JDI - A Possible Prosecution?

[dodie20]

Yeah, but don't discount John's fibers having even less being where they had NO business being- in JB's panties!!! And I do believe Patsy would cover for John to stand by her man, not just for Burke.

yes, his fibers were in her panties and PR's fibers were in the garotte. I think the grand jury got it right by wanting to indict them both! I remember how shocked I was when they lawyered up, (Nobody did that back then), and then when I found out they had separate lawyers, I was floored. Talk about a united front. NOT! The only reason for separate lawyers at that initial time IMO, was because they both knew they were guilty of crimes, but 1 was more culpable, and the one Less culpable, didn't want to go down with the actual murderer. But which one? moo

 

[SapphireSteel]

If you accept they were both in the coverup together, then it follows they were involved in the crime too.

These two could barely even stand to be in the same room, let alone present the united front they did. Together they withstood LE, the media, the public, never changing their story, never budging, never even hinting that one knew something about the other.

The only thing that explains this partnership is a shared guilt.

One molested, one bashed, on strangled. Or, both molested, one bashed, one strangled.

Based on PR's medical obsession with JB's vaginal area, I would guess that she may have been causing some injuries herself.

If she'd suspected John and she was entirely innocent she would have had those kids out of that house and him to the cleaners (and probably jail) within minutes, not hours. She would've got everything with that sort of ammunition, and ended up a very wealthy woman indeed.

Instead, she lied for him, and he for her...all at the expense of their baby girl.

That implies equal and mutual guilt, to me. Nothing else fits.

:cow:

 

[LinasK]

If you accept they were both in the coverup together, then it follows they were involved in the crime too.

These two could barely even stand to be in the same room, let alone present the united front they did. Together they withstood LE, the media, the public, never changing their story, never budging, never even hinting that one knew something about the other.

The only thing that explains this partnership is a shared guilt.

One molested, one bashed, on strangled. Or, both molested, one bashed, one strangled.

Based on PR's medical obsession with JB's vaginal area, I would guess that she may have been causing some injuries herself.

If she'd suspected John and she was entirely innocent she would have had those kids out of that house and him to the cleaners (and probably jail) within minutes, not hours. She would've got everything with that sort of ammunition, and ended up a very wealthy woman indeed.

Instead, she lied for him, and he for her...all at the expense of their baby girl.

That implies equal and mutual guilt, to me. Nothing else fits.

:cow:

I disagree. She didn't want the social scandal it would bring, that's why no 911 call... She was going to stand by her man, he meant more to her than JB.

 

[Nom de plume]

I understand all your points completely. That is why I now consider JR was putting his ducks in a row all along. I think JB had been pulling away from him, and was threatening to tell Patsy (which I think she did - just prior to the Christmas holiday). I think JR thought he was keeping JB placated (perhaps promising her a special visit from Santa after Christmas with a special new gift - the Barbie doll?). But I think he was also smart enough to know if she gave him up, he'd have to do what he did. The scream was the key. He wasn't expecting it to happen that night, but his reaction put all his fears, and preparations, into play.

In court, the jacket fibers would be explained as secondary transference, accepted as such by many. Otherwise, would it be a challenge to present the option of "planted evidence"? Patsy wore the jacket home that night. She was busy around the home - up and down the stairs, readying for the trip, etc. Do you think she would have kept her jacket layer on throughout all that, or take it off and casually toss it in one of those areas? Very easy pickins' for someone who was a crime novel buff to work into his plan.

I believe all of Patsy's behavior immediately following the crime could have been chalked up to any one person's conception of seeing a more than distraught mother, known to have a dramatic personality, being at the worst possible moment of her life she could have ever imagined. I'm not sure I would have even known what city I was living in at the time if it were me. Especially if I was taking regular mood-altering prescriptions and might have just been given more.

Patsy did make contradictory statements, even during later interviews. She even made statements that seemed unbelievable or aggressive. I think by that time, JR and the RST had prepared her for what she must convey if "they" were going to have a snowball's chance in h*ll of being the wrap. But she also suspected the truth. And gifted as she was at acting, the truth has a way of seeping out. I would think it would have taken extreme skill to balance the 'scripting' with her internal suspicions, even to keep her son protected, which is what she was working for.

Yes, the handwriting experts were well convinced. However, the evolving computer technology at the time could have convinced us of things we might not have considered. Here we are these years later with movies like "Avatar". I do not fault the handwriting analysis at that time, and even now, without considering the use of the special software program to assist in authoring it, the answer would remain the same. That's why the process cannot be considered scientifically accurate, and why, because it might have influenced how might a jury think, handwriting analysis is not always allowed as testimony in some cases. The RST team would have debunked it in a heartbeat in court. Add it to the list of why a DA does not consider there is enough evidence at this time.

Her response to the lie detectors would have been as a result of her own "truths" struggling against what the RST had scripted for her, which confirms the very reason lie detector results are not allowed in court as evidence. And why most suspects are advised by their legal teams not to take them. Too much ambiguity for the public response, as well as no legal reason.

I agree that JB's death was a murder. And given the difficulty of providing enough evidence to file charges of Murder against JR, that is why I also feel that Felony Murder charges would have the best chance of a successful outcome in court. With the statue of limitations expired on any other charges related to this case, the Felony Murder charge is the most viable - especially now that we know the GJ voted to indict.

:seeya:Thanks, Nom - I appreciate your input and respect your opinions!

Thanks for the detailed answers. I knew you'd have thought out all aspects before starting this thread. You have made a pretty convincing argument MM! I never thought I would even consider the possibility that Patsy was not involved up to her neck, but you've got me thinking....:waitasec:

One thing that's still bugging me about this is her "peaking" at LE. What was that about? Seeing if everyone was paying enough attention to her?

Excellent point about JR being the one to promise the later Santa visit. I've always thought he was the one! I wonder why they never tested the Santa suit he owned? No telling what they would have found on it. :sick:

 

[dodie20]

I disagree. She didn't want the social scandal it would bring, that's why no 911 call... She was going to stand by her man, he meant more to her than JB.

Also, even though it's WRONG, there was and still is a social stigma on the VICTIM, when she has been molested by her father. Sometimes, it's not about right and wrong, it's about the effects...and PR, of all people, wouldn't have wanted her daughter to be labeled as 'damaged or dirty', and even though it's wrong, I can understand that. I wouldn't want my daughter or family to go through it either. I know a lady who testified against her step father, when he was accused of molesting his granddaughter. She told me that it was awful, because of the way she was treated afterwards, even by the prosecutor and lawyers, etc. They treated her like she was dirty and her whole family like trash. She said she wished there had been another way to stop the abuse. Also, this woman's mother got calls and letters from old friends blaming Her!. It really was awful. In my family, (like a lot of others), we were taught to keep private family business in the family. Period. Maybe this is what PR was trying to do, but something happened to cause her to rage?

 

[SapphireSteel]

I disagree. She didn't want the social scandal it would bring, that's why no 911 call... She was going to stand by her man, he meant more to her than JB.

I have no disagreement with that re PR and social scandal.

That's why JB had to die. The scandal attached to playing sex games with your daughter and husband would be too much for her to bear.

Pageants are all about winning votes. JB was being groomed to win pageants. There have been many "casting couch" type rumours around the pageant industry.

PR could actually have believed she was training JB for the industry and keeping her husband at home at the same time.

Perhaps Nedra had trained PR that way too. We will never know.

Either way PR's relationship to and dealings with JB were so bizarre that there had to be some deep dysfunction operating.

Bleaching a babies hair and making her wear false teeth and showgirl outfits, while letting her go dirty and untended the rest of the time, to eat with her fingers at a guests house without washing her hands first or after, is just strange.

Consistent parenting is just that - you wash your hands before you eat, after you go to the toilet etc. Patsy's kids didn't and she didn't even notice or care.

The house was a virtual shambles, PR couldn't cope despite having oodles of money, a housekeeper and no job.

I look at her behaviour before and after and I see one deeply strange and delusional woman.

Add in her fondness for the wine bottle, a marriage-saving "Christmas present" for JR from PR...it's a very easy leap for me to make.

:sick:

 

[midwest mama]

Dear MM,

You have such an excellent writing skills. I simply envy you!!!

Your theory is not new (unfortunately or fortunately) and took me not by surprize. Exect the same theory couple peoples on this forum intensively pushed for long time. One of them even have the separate web page dedicated to solving JBR mystery. It's matter of opinion, of course.

And I'll be the last person to argue which RDI theory is better because a lot of critical elements are possible. Probable? Not all of them.

One of the 'probable' element is Ransom Note. And I'll not going to start RN discussion again. I'll simply state that RN is the best evidence in JBR mystery because it gives us the proof WHO wrote it, who was the participant. And this proof is not based on the handwriting only! So, for me, the probability of Patsy writing RN is very-very high. Probability of John writing RN is zero.

Today, I cannot join your 'compain' for JB Justice based on JDI theory. Maybe later, when some 'hidden' elements could be exposed by people who can talk now (thanks for GJ leak!), I'll join you. But not today! I want justice as much as you and thousands others do. And I want John Ramsey prosecution but NOT based on JDI.

I don't want this justice to be lynch-mob type. I want this justice to be fair and truthfull, based on hard evidences and facts so our grand-grand-grand children would never accused us of being near-minded society.

It's always a pleasure talking to you. :seeya:

Thank you for responding and for sharing your conviction of theory. It's a popular one, for sure, and I certainly have bounced around a bit in the RDI camp, because I usually found one statement or another that gave me pause to think.

There is no doubt in my mind of Ramsey guilt in this case. I, like you, want to see justice served, and with this case being 16 years old, it's certainly not going to happen over night. But if (wish I could say WHEN) it does, I hope I am still alive to see it.

I have no lynch-mom desire to see JR, or anyone else for that matter, slung into a courtroom and prosecuted. Quite the opposite. It will take careful, well-developed skills and a lot of irrefutable evidence, both forensic and circumstantial. The prosecution would require someone with immeasurable ability and legal talents, and let's toss in a bit of divine help, to tackle this case with the credibility that is due in bringing a resolve for JB.

I agree that the ransom note is possibly the most distinct element of this case. But I cannot agree with your statement that it gives us "proof" of having been written by Patsy. She did not sign the note, nor are there any witnesses having seen her writing the note. My simple attempt at courtroom statements by a prosecutor.

I also believe you see the probability of Patsy having composed and written the note - given the linguistics. We know an intruder did not write the note. Even though I believe John hoped to set up the crime to look like an intruder did it, he had to have a back up plan in case that would not be believable, and being able to shift blame to Patsy was his back-up plan. So, if John was writing the note, wouldn't he be the most likely individual to be able to mimic his wife linguistically, and wouldn't he want to do this if attempting to implicate her, rather than write the note using his own linguistic mannerisms? He would have WANTED anyone seeing the note to believe it was Patsy (in case an intruder was ruled out) and taken great care with that. Stickler for details, he was. I couldn't dismiss Patsy from writing the note myself until just recently.

I am not asking you to change your mind, unless you can become totally convinced deep in your heart, mind and soul that Patsy did not write the note. But I ask you to humor me, and consider these few things that I see as "blips" in the note:
* all the threats that are made say, "you do this" and she dies, repeatedly. Patsy avoided using contractions in her speaking and writing, deferring to the correct verbiage of "she will", "I will", "we have", etc. That was clearly built into the note. But when it comes to the verbiage describing the terms for JB's death, the masculine declaration of "she dies", parroted from books or movies, is used. I think Patsy might have continued to use her continued linguistic approach if she was composing, such as, "If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she will die", and so on. As the note wraps us, there are two defaults to using contractions, in the word "don't". Not Patsy-like, but very commanding.
(click to enlarge)

Also, if that sounds all too far fetched to you, look at the linguistics in this JR exemplar. No contractions where there could be. And notice the spelling of 'occasions' - with the double s, as in 'bussiness'.
* there is a 'scratch-out' in the "We -- respect your bussiness, but not the country that it serves." I see the scratched out word as "do" and wonder if the thought was to write, "We do not respect your business or the country that it serves", but the writer was unable to slander the Ramsey business, yet found it OK to slander his country. This supports what a narcissist might do or think.
* the word 'delivery' was scratched out and replaced by 'pick-up'. This would insure the plan was to remove JB's body from the house, which would explain why she would be found dead elsewhere, which then would have kept Patsy or Burke from seeing her that way, and would have distanced his dead angel from him as well. (A Christmas tree angel was taken into evidence, he laid next to her on the floor in front of the Christmas tree and called her his angel, and there is an angel on her tombstone.) Or police from finding her in the house, which should have automatically implicated him (them). How could a 'delivery' have been accomplished by a fictional kidnapper, or even if it could have been masterminded by JR to convince someone her body had been brought back to the house after the drop, or even that there was an exchange on the spot, her body would have then been back into the crime scene, or with him again, and he did not want that.
* the usage of the percentages in the note, which JR also did in interviews. Common to numerically oriented businessmen.

OM4U, I envy your passion and desire for accuracy and truth! Hang in there with those of us who share your enthusiasm and are seeking to honor a beautiful, victimized child.
All :moo:

 

[midwest mama]

Another thing. If a prosecutor can convince a jury that JR was the prior abuser, and that abuse led to JB's death? even if he didn't kill her, I think a murder charge of, 'child abuse resulting in death', could be made. Regardless, I want the truth to prevail and justice for whatever crimes were committed. Even if that justice, (because of statute of limitations), is no more than informing the public of what really happened, I want the truth to be known. Jonbenet DESERVES this, and so does the original grand jury. moo

Right on sister! But JR has to be charged either with Felony Murder or Murder, if he is to be taken into a court room.

Once he gets there, THEN he, or his attorneys can work on proving something other than those charges, and I suspect more truth than most of us might even want to hear would come spilling out.

No conviction of a murder charge does not mean he is not guilty. Guilty murderers walk away all the time: OJ, and Casey Anthony just two. But at the very least, only after a completely fair and well-fought judicial battle, could we, hopefully, rest easy that the truth, in honor of JB, was revealed.

 

[midwest mama]

Thank you all for such challenging posts. I will try to respond to as much as I can as quickly as I can, but you all know by now that I have no skills in being brief.

Keep the faith on this case, no matter what your theory is! The only challenge ahead of us is seeing a resolve for JB. :scale:

 

[Nom de plume]

MM I'm not trying to discount your theory, really I'm not. I'm just trying to pick that incredible brain of yours! I'm actually starting to think you may be right about JR setting her up...at least to the extent that he may have written the note. But how do you explain Patsy in the same clothes she wore to the party the night before? She was said to never be seen in the same clothes two days in a row. (Until after her LE interview in the blue suit with white piping that she then wore again for her TV interview the next day.) Like changing her handwriting afterwards, it screams of "cover up". Did she go to bed that night or not? If she didn't, then what was she doing all night, and why didn't she know what her husband was doing to her daughter? If a neighbor heard JB scream, then why didn't her mother?

Do you allow for the possibility that JR did write the note as you say, but that PR was "involved after the fact" of the "abuse gone wrong" and JR bashing her in the head? Could she have helped with the staging and garotting etc.? That would explain the clothes, the peaking at LE, the guilty looking behavior, not turning JR in, etc.

What if JB threatened to tell Mommy, and did, as you suspect, but Mommy didn't save her? Maybe Christmas night, when Daddy came after her again she threatened to tell someone else? Maybe PR DID give JR a special Christmas present and knew she was as guilty as he was for JB's death. Even if she didn't "ok" it, maybe she felt guilty enough for not stopping it that she helped cover it up.

I still have a gut feeling that she knew more than she pretended to know. There are just too many "off" things for her to have been 100% innocent. Maybe more innocent than I've given her credit for, but 100%? Nah....she knew about something more than the abuse. I dunno. Like someone else said before, just throwing sghetti at the wall.

 

[Nom de plume]

Another thing that's bothering me. If PR really did find the note, wouldn't she have read the whole thing? I know I would have. How long could it have taken? 30 seconds? a minute? Immediately calling LE and half of Boulder over just makes me believe she knew JB was already dead and wanted to contaminate the crime scene. What kind of mother wouldn't want to make sure she didn't do anything that would endanger her child? Well ok, what kind of good mother?

Again, not trying to poopoo (no pun intended) your theory, just trying to account for all the totally bizarre actions of a woman that supposedly thought her child had been kidnapped and would be beheaded if they even looked at a stray dog.

If the truth ever comes out, I know it will be some compilation of theories that we've all come up with together. LE may not be hot on this case, but we are! JFJB!

Edited to add: I can almost hear PR saying "John! Stop! You're going to cut her head off!"

 

[Whaleshark]

For the record, when Sapphire Steel states above that the Ramseys' stories never changed, that is not true. Not only did they contradict their own testimonies numerous times, they contradicted each other, and their stories have changed over time, over the years, over and over....

We have posted examples of this exhaustively all over this forum.

 

[midwest mama]

UKGuy,
Here goes: your questions are in italics:

"At the time of JonBenet's death was the technology available to scan written-text, and have it accurately digitised in another font? If so which software? i.e. can we establish the alleged fact?"
I wish I knew an exact indentification of an OCR software readily available to the public in 1995-1996. But I can attest to seeing a document put through that process with my own eyes very near that time, IIRC. A program used by a graphics designer, who produced catalogs, was on a friends computer. A hand-written report was scanned into the computer, and a typed report was created. It blew my mind at the time, since I had just begun using a computer myself near that time, and was barely familiar with word processing. I have no doubt after seeing that done, and having been a military wife myself for nearly 10 years during the '70's and seeing the inner workings of the bridges of an Aircraft Carrier and a Destroyer, and that was just in the areas civilians were allowed, that those computers were programmed for things we surely would have considered science fiction at the time.

"Again, as per above, being discounted as the Ransom Note author, does not render you innocent, it just means you never put pen to paper. The same person could still have asphyxiated JonBenet."
It is my opinion that the same person who wrote the ransom note is the same person who murdered JB. And my opinion is not dependent on those who either agree or disagree. I believe the person who wrote the RN had intended to create a scenario in which he could effectively dispose of the body and make it appear as if an intruder did kidnap and then eventually murder JB, and if that plan failed somehow, the purpose of the RN, while it was also meant to fool Patsy and the police, would then also contain the back-up plan of shifting blame onto Patsy.

"Presumably you discount BR's presence, during the 911 call, as well as JR instructing her to make the call?"
I accept that Burke was present during the 911 call. I would also like to point out that it was John who was tersely telling him "we are not talking to you". According to the accounts of many, John was and 'ice man' and it took a lot to rile him. Obviously, to be speaking like that to your distraught child during such an upsetting time, he might have been very agitated. Maybe at Patsy for making the call? There was no uninvolved witness to John telling Patsy to make the call. Those statements came later, after considerable time had passed during which careful scripting by the RST or John himself could have prevailed. And there was one account by Patsy, later on, that she made the decision to make the call on her own.

"Your theory assumes premeditation, in terms of the font digitisation etc. If this had been the case I would have expected JonBenet to have been dumped outdoors, with the Ransom Note left behind. Also the completely amateur cleanup and relocation of JonBenet to the wine-cellar along with incriminating forensic evidence, does not suggest premeditation, quite the opposite".
I am proposing that JR had been preparing for the possibility he was going to be exposed. While I think he had made the plans for the kidnapping scene to be executed as a means to dispose of JB, I am not sure if he had premeditated Christmas night as the day of the deed. Though he claimed responsibility for choosing that day for the tombstone so the whole world would remember her death. Oh, yes, hell hath no fury like a lover scorned.

But let's speculate that he was just hoping for some special Christmas time with JB, and when the vaginal activity started, it produced a reactionary scream, because of pain she might have been suffering due to the recent former discovered molestation. One of the experts suggested it was withing 72 hours of that night. A six year old. She might have been hurting quite badly. She screamed, the scream was subdued, but he knew the time had come and it resulted in the bash.

Granted, John being an amateur, the clean up was not that of a professional killer, but it was done convincingly enough to even the trained eye that a special light had to be used to determine the base of the fluid left on her thighs. And much of the additional evidence required forensic documentation, which was only found to be 'microscopic', or possibly contaminated. Some evidence clearly received more attention from the killer than other aspects, but those that remained without special attention have been no help in solving the crime, have they? So maybe he would have known a little bit about what to do, after all.

"Patsy Ramsey was involved in the Wine-Cellar staging she has forensic evidence linking her to the ligature, duct-tape, paint-tote, paintbrush etc."
There is forensic evidence suggesting the JACKET that Patsy was wearing when she arrived home from the Whites was in the area of the paint tote and connected to items found on JB. The fibers were described as being "consistent with"her jacket, though, so there might also have been something else responsible for those red (and other color fibers) found, i.e. a Santa Suit, or a scarf - similar to the one that was photographed on the counter of the kitchen? And while the Jacket could have been at the crime scene, it does not mean Patsy had to have been inside of it. Again, no witnesses to seeing her there - circumstantial evidence supported by the possibility of secondary transfer.

"If you think its JDI then there is evidence to directly implicate Patsy Ramsey, and if you think its PDI there is evidence to implicate John Ramsey."
I disagree with both of these statements, since it is entirely conceivable to me that JR acted fully without the involvement of Patsy, and if I had interpreted the evidence to believe Patsy killed JB without the help of John, as others have, then that would be my opinion. There are, by the way, those who do not think John was in any way involved - check out the poll.

"So it appears both parents colluded with each other to stage a homicide crime-scene with their own daughter as victim?"
Not to me.

"Why would either parent agree to assist the other, what have they to gain, given the possiblity of detection and conviction?"
I believe JR and the RST team worked on Patsy to corroborate the theory that an intruder committed the crime, after convincing her that without her compliance, John would be arrested. John needed this theory to keep himself from being arrested, and he preferred to have Patsy free of arrest as well, to continue his masterful charade as a powerful, respected pillar of society with a "normal" (his words over and over) family.

"So assuming both parents did collude then any RDI theory is a starter. So which one answers the most questions, e.g. BDI. This does not make it a smoking-gun since further evidence might emerge making JDI more probable."
Burke was/is a victimized participant, who was unjustly brought into this horror because he had some suspected disorders of his own, and might have been involved in sexual exploration with his sister - a rather common occurrence in childhood between children of their age. But both aspects combined have created a highly suspicious avenue of theory for some.
And in asking others to respect my theory, I offer to respect theirs.
:moo:

 

[midwest mama]

Hi madeleine

I'd like to respond to a couple of the things you posted:

I'm suggesting that the Ramseys loved their child deeply, despite what happened to her. To get rid of her on a cold night in December, by tossing her in a ditch or something of this sort, would have been a very difficult thing for a parent to do. I'm also suggesting, more significantly, that both parents did not participate in this cover-up. Only one. And the cover-up primarily intended to fool not the cops but the other parent. So it had to look credible while accomplishing other things: keeping the child in the house, even though she was dead, and making it look as if someone who knew their family and hated the father had come in and done all this (remember John's comment after finding the body re inside job?)to JonBenet.
I believe this was John's total overall intent, but that he had "penned" as Patsy to take the fall if something happened to interrupt with his plan. It is second nature for someone in John's profession to have a back-up plan ready.

Also, one parent could not easily have left the house that night with the body.

But one parent could have easily driven off early the next morning with the body in his car, once he had convinced his wife and son to take shelter elsewhere for the safety of their son. He had to go after the ransom money. It was "up to John" now to take care of things. If Patsy had read the note fully, John would have been in the driver's seat from then on.

According to John Douglas, the ex-FBI profiler who examined the Ramseys briefly after the murder and concluded they were not child killers, only one parent knew that John Ramsey had recently received a $118,000 bonus and that parent was the father. I believe that a husband's inability to confront his wife at a critical moment because of his desire to protect her feelings played an important role in this case. It is possible to be afraid of the cops, but terrified of your wife.
Under "normal circumstances (if JB had not been such a precocious child who might have already complained enough to her mother about her vaginal pain to arouse suspicion in Patsy, compounded by Dr. Beuf's diagnosis of "vaginitis") JR would not have been a child killer. He would have continued to be his daughter's molester. More frequent in "normal" families than we want to believe. JR was not terrified of his wife. JR was terrified of no one. He looked Det. Arndt square in the eyes and terrified her.

P.S. I believe Patsy might not have known the amount of JR's bonus. As the wife of a multi-millionaire with unlimited credit card privileges, would you need to know if he added another $118,000 to the coffer?
:moo:

 

[midwest mama]

yes, his fibers were in her panties and PR's fibers were in the garotte. I think the grand jury got it right by wanting to indict them both! I remember how shocked I was when they lawyered up, (Nobody did that back then), and then when I found out they had separate lawyers, I was floored. Talk about a united front. NOT! The only reason for separate lawyers at that initial time IMO, was because they both knew they were guilty of crimes, but 1 was more culpable, and the one Less culpable, didn't want to go down with the actual murderer. But which one? moo

The GJ voted to indict them both based on the evidence at hand. It is known that a DA may not present all his evidence to a GJ when seeking an indictment, since the indictment only has to be based on "probable cause". The prosecution usually wants to withhold some evidence from a GJ so there is no chance of that evidence ever getting into the hands of the defense.

With the recent disclosure about the GJ and AH, I would suspect that AH had given as little information to the GJ as he could get away with, in the hopes that the R's would not be indicted - no probable cause.

I am not surprised that the GJ voted to indict both of them. They did so because even with the limited evidence they had, they knew a full out investigation could then transpire, and all pertinent, and perhaps as yet to be discovered, evidence could be carefully collected which might lead to a conviction of one or both of them.

The R's attorneys at the time had even prepared them to be arrested. They made all arrangements for that and had signed off care of Burke to JR's brother. Making JR's brother guardian might have signaled to the public that JR would have been the more pious one, with Patsy being capable of killing her daughter - you sure don't want to turn a child over to that family, do you? Smooth move on JR's part.

Patsy's lawyers were the secondary team brought in. By that time, JR could have figured out that to get her separate lawyers showed they figured she might need extra protection from prosecution. And if he had separate lawyers, and it looked like she was going to bear the brunt of the guilt, he would have his own team to build a wall of protection around him. Or, he was positioning himself to throw her under the bus, if necessary?

One little detail from the day of the crime scene regarding JR's "help" to the police: he readily handed over two note pads (from a selection of several that were later reported to have been on the premises and even taken into evidence, IIRC), one of which was the actual ransom note pad, and one of which was his, which was totally non-related. Kinda like, look here guys, let me help you see right away that we should look at my wife, and not me!
:moo:

 

[DeeDee249]

I ONLY see the note and 911 call as being made AFTER Patsy knew JB was dead. BOTH parents knew what happened and were involved in the coverup. But I can't say for with certainty which of the THREE people (and possibly four) other people in the house that night struck that fatal head bash and tightened that ligature. I just do not see Patsy making that 911 call unaware of what had happened and believing JB was really kidnapped. Part of this is how she sounded on that call- the other part is my unwavering belief that she wrote the note. In order to believe Patsy made a GENUINE 911 call, you have to believe she did NOT write the note. Because if she truly believed JB was kidnapped- and then her husband told her the TRUTH- I can't see her being willing to write the note at that point.

 

[midwest mama]

Respectfully snipped--
If you accept they were both in the coverup together, then it follows they were involved in the crime too.

These two could barely even stand to be in the same room, let alone present the united front they did. Together they withstood LE, the media, the public, never changing their story, never budging, never even hinting that one knew something about the other.

The only thing that explains this partnership is a shared guilt.

:cow:

I do not believe PR was involved in the cover-up at the crime scene. I do suspect she was UNWITTINGLY DECEIVED into participating in the cover-up of John's guilt. I suspect she was made to believe an Intruder had killed JB, and because of his failed kidnap attempt, and leaving her body in the home, they might both be charged as her killers, or even one of them might become a target - perhaps her, if not John.

I believe their public unified front, except for the instances in interviews when they contradicted each other, or even their former statements, was Patsy's only option to keep the wolves at bay, and John's only option to continue to build a shield of innocence for himself. No shared guilt, just a denial of guilt.

 

[midwest mama]

I ONLY see the note and 911 call as being made AFTER Patsy knew JB was dead. BOTH parents knew what happened and were involved in the coverup. But I can't say for with certainty which of the THREE people (and possibly four) other people in the house that night struck that fatal head bash and tightened that ligature. I just do not see Patsy making that 911 call unaware of what had happened and believing JB was really kidnapped. Part of this is how she sounded on that call- the other part is my unwavering belief that she wrote the note. In order to believe Patsy made a GENUINE 911 call, you have to believe she did NOT write the note. Because if she truly believed JB was kidnapped- and then her husband told her the TRUTH- I can't see her being willing to write the note at that point.

I do not believe Patsy wrote the note. I think JR wrote the note to set up exactly what he intended to do with the body - get rid of it later, all the while making it look like she was kidnapped. I also speculate he planned to make the handwriting look like Patsy's, so he could shift blame for the crime to her, if needed - in case there was a glitch in any of the "instructions", which would have insured he would end up with ransom money delivered, his daughter found murdered later on, and after a time of grief, they could carry on as a "normal" family of millionaires - until his dear wife might be stricken once again with the deadly cancer that would leave him a poor, bereaved widow. At which time, after a respectable time of grief, he would start again with another much younger, glamorous wife, as he continued to write a book or two about all his lifetime trauma. Of course, he had to be very resourceful once the "glitch" went into play, and along with resourcefulness, his money and power became a formidable barrier against prosecution.

I totally respect your opinions, DeeDee. You are among the very top percentage of posters on this forum who has hung tight for the course of the cause, and who also amazes us with a wealth of detailed knowledge on the case. You must have a mind like a steel trap! If this case ever gets to trial, and there is a resolve of justice for JB, we'll all be able to celebrate, won't we? :dance:

 

[DeeDee249]

I totally respect your opinions, DeeDee. You are among the very top percentage of posters on this forum who has hung tight for the course of the cause, and who also amazes us with a wealth of detailed knowledge on the case. You must have a mind like a steel trap! If this case ever gets to trial, and there is a resolve of justice for JB, we'll all be able to celebrate, won't we? :dance:

My husband says I never forget anything- unless I WANT to. LOL! Yes, we wlll certainly celebrate!

 

[midwest mama]

Hold on, I promise I'll post back to your #30 and #31. I've spent the better part of today on this forum and I'm bushed. I want to post back after I get some rest and my brain freshens up! Will be back with :twocents: asap. Till then......