If JonBenet's case had gone to trial...

eileenhawkeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
8,755
Reaction score
130
What if in October 1999, the Grand Jury decided to indict John and Patsy? They decide that Patsy delivered the head blow, and John helped to cover it up. What charge(s) would Patsy face in JonBenet's death? Would there be a change of venue? If so, to where? Who would be the witnesses for the prosecution and defense? Would John testify against Patsy in exchange for not being charged with the cover up? What side would Melina and JAR be on since Patsy isn't their biological mother? Do you believe the jury would convict Patsy? If she was acquitted, what factors would be working in her favor?
 
That's a very intruiging proposition, eileenhawkeye.
Watching Spitz' testimony in the CA trial and his presence as an expert, I couldn't help but imagine the same process of Justice if applied to the JBR case, had it gone to trial.
Baez' defense was said to be 'text book'. The Ramsey PR machine laid that same type and pattern of evidence but within the public domain.

I pictured Spitz, flashlight in hand, critiquing Meyers' autopsy findings.
:innocent: Had to stop there.
 
it would have been a disaster,if brought to trial with what we've seen so far (evidence) they would have walked,I am 100% sure.
not only because of the experts they would have hired.
but regarding the evidence we know of all the defence needed was a few experts saying she didn't write the note,a few experts talking about how easily fibers are transfered and Spitz saying hey you got no exact COD+pointing out ALL the mistakes Meyer made.....no murder weapon,you don't even know what came first so how can you establish what she was killed with.no exact TOD because Meyer "forgot" a few procedures when arriving at the crime scene....oh my ,I could go on and on and on and on.....sloppy police work........

a fiasco....better it didn't happen back THEN
 
+ with what they got so far you can't be able to prove which one did what...end of the road....
the interviews in this case were crucial and the cops totally blew it by agreeing to that format.
 
The cops didn't really have a choice. The Rs were not required to talk to them.

Where they really messed up was not having different officers separate the Rs at the house and talk to them. They might still have refused to talk, which is their right, and they might have refused to be separated, but the cops could at least have tried. Who knows what might have been said.
 
What if in October 1999, the Grand Jury decided to indict John and Patsy? They decide that Patsy delivered the head blow, and John helped to cover it up. What charge(s) would Patsy face in JonBenet's death?

Anything from Murder Two to manslaughter, along with evidence tampering, lying to investigators, and obstruction of justice.

Who would be the witnesses for the prosecution and defense?

Hard to say, especially since the DA kept knocking all of his potential witnesses out of the box!

Would John testify against Patsy in exchange for not being charged with the cover up?

Maybe.

Do you believe the jury would convict Patsy?

I used to think it would. Now I don't know. I've lost a lot of faith in the just system.

If she was acquitted, what factors would be working in her favor?

The same ones we hear day after stinking day right here on this forum!
 
That's a very intruiging proposition, eileenhawkeye.
Watching Spitz' testimony in the CA trial and his presence as an expert, I couldn't help but imagine the same process of Justice if applied to the JBR case, had it gone to trial.
Baez' defense was said to be 'text book'. The Ramsey PR machine laid that same type and pattern of evidence but within the public domain.

I pictured Spitz, flashlight in hand, critiquing Meyers' autopsy findings.
:innocent: Had to stop there.

Maybe some of Meyers' findings SHOULD be criticized!
 
+ with what they got so far you can't be able to prove which one did what...end of the road....
the interviews in this case were crucial and the cops totally blew it by agreeing to that format.

The cross-fingerpointing strategy? Now where have I heard THAT before???:innocent:
 
The cops didn't really have a choice. The Rs were not required to talk to them.

Where they really messed up was not having different officers separate the Rs at the house and talk to them. They might still have refused to talk, which is their right, and they might have refused to be separated, but the cops could at least have tried. Who knows what might have been said.

Even Lou Smit agreed with that.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
2,284
Total visitors
2,465

Forum statistics

Threads
589,985
Messages
17,928,700
Members
228,033
Latest member
okaydandy
Back
Top