Evidence threshold crossed?

If there is such a thing as an evidence threshold, where enough evidence exists to solve a given crime, IMO this crime has crossed it. The victim's body, the murder weapon, DNA and handwriting samples, and more, would seem to make this crime solvable, in comparison to other crimes where much less evidence was available:

Broken paintbrush and cord
Second cord
2 1/2 page handwritten ransom note
JBR
Duct tape
Unidentified male DNA

Of course, you could just line through the items that you feel aren't really evidence. That would seem to bring the crime back onto the unsolvable side of the threshold.

...fatally contaminated....There is more than enough evidence in this case, IMO....waaaay more evidence than in the Scott Peterson DP case, for example....However, the fact that the crime scene was completely contaminated, and that there were several breaks in the "chain-of-custody" of evidence samples, etc., contributed to this case never going to trial...

Personally, I 'm glad the above evidence (speculatory evidence) is not enough to send someone to the electric chair. I highly recommend that anyone on this board research the death penalty and all the cases of executing innocent people. The amount of innocent people prosecuted and found guily by a jury of their "speculatory" peers is astounding. IMO, I'd rather err on the side of caution. No reason to sacrifice another innocent life in our rush to judge.

The only hope in this case, IMO, is the DNA. However, you will find a million people (including many on this board) who will debate its relevance.

My opinion: JonBenet's death was not a crime. It was an accident. The person responsible for the accident was a 9-year child. In Colorado, 9-year children cannot be charged with a crime -- and in fact -- are protected from even BEING NAMED as being responsible.

I believe that every level of the justice system, including the last Grand Jury, came to understand this. Thus, the Grand Jury refused to charge anyone.

The only loose end -- and it is considerable -- the TRUTH was never told to the public because the State of Colorado has laws which protect the identity of underage children.

Can we accept on faith that our justice system worked? There is no "intruder/murderer" on the loose. Nobody got away with murder. The Ramsey's made an extreme sacrifice to take it on themselves to destroy evidence and cover-up that their son was responsible. But I truly believe that they realized he did not intend to harm his sister. They forgave him and did everything they could (legal or otherwise) to protect him. Because of that, they heaped much rage onto themselves. It is possible they did the best they knew to do at the time. Who knows what anyone would do in that situation?

To their credit, if this is what happened, they were successful. Burke was never publicly accused or labeled as a murderer. They were able to continue within their family unit (what was left of it), without being separated from each other.

It is difficult to imagine the pain they experienced in losing their daughter (as beloved and dotted on, as she was), coupled with the pain of knowing what could be facing their son, whom obviously they loved very much.

There are lots of people who don't like the Ramseys, out of jealousy or intolerance. Maybe it is human nature for us to "want our pound of flesh."

When you sort it out, maybe what the public is angry about is the simple fact that we, concerned citizens, didn't get the satisfaction of learning what happened. We think it is our right because a crime was committed. Isn't that the problem?

Well, I am starting to accept the fact that there really wasn't a crime. It was an accident, and the family chose to take whatever drastic means they could to keep the details private. Was it their right to keep it private? I don't know, but it is my opinion that is why the public is still upset about it.

This is my opinion of what happened, and I am nearing the point where I am willing to let this go. Are you?

i dont chat---if your theory was really true, then why wouldn't LE simply issue the statement that the investigation has been closed? They wouldn't have to elaborate on who, what , where, when or why---just simply state publicly that the investigation is no longer ongoing.

IF LE "solved" it, I don't see them carrying on a facade of it still being an active investigation. Are you saying that the whole Karr thing was simply a ploy by the DA to make it appear that the case was still active?

As much of a fiasco the Karr thing was, I don't see LE allowing time, taxpayers money and resources to be spent to simply protect Burke Ramsey from being speculated upon.

julianne said:

As much of a fiasco the Karr thing was, I don't see LE allowing time, taxpayers money and resources to be spent to simply protect Burke Ramsey from being speculated upon.

Click to expand...

I agree. That would actually be quite illegal as well.

julianne said:

i dont chat---if your theory was really true, then why wouldn't LE simply issue the statement that the investigation has been closed? They wouldn't have to elaborate on who, what , where, when or why---just simply state publicly that the investigation is no longer ongoing.

IF LE "solved" it, I don't see them carrying on a facade of it still being an active investigation. Are you saying that the whole Karr thing was simply a ploy by the DA to make it appear that the case was still active?

As much of a fiasco the Karr thing was, I don't see LE allowing time, taxpayers money and resources to be spent to simply protect Burke Ramsey from being speculated upon.

Click to expand...

You raise very interesting questions.

There were so many, many things (irresponsible, illegal, stupid, hateful, and self-seeking) done by the police, the DA, the news media, the circle (or circus) of people surrounding the Ramseys.

It has probably gone beyond the point where anyone can be legally charged with anything.

Legal recourse is all we, the public, have left. And it doesn't look likek we are going to get it. When do we accept that the investigation is over? If someone does step forward to "stop the facade", and declare the case closed, might they be starting the avalanche of public disapproval?

I see that a group in Boulder IS trying to get public documents released, showing how the D.A. office overstepped legal bounds in the Karr fiasco. Perhaps we can go down that avenue and get a little satisfaction.

"There is more than enough evidence in this case, IMO....waaaay more evidence than in the Scott Peterson DP case, for example"

Seems to me there's enough for three cases. All that's lacking is the proverbial busload of nuns!

olive said:

Personally, I 'm glad the above evidence (speculatory evidence) is not enough to send someone to the electric chair. I highly recommend that anyone on this board research the death penalty and all the cases of executing innocent people. The amount of innocent people prosecuted and found guily by a jury of their "speculatory" peers is astounding. IMO, I'd rather err on the side of caution. No reason to sacrifice another innocent life in our rush to judge.

The only hope in this case, IMO, is the DNA. However, you will find a million people (including many on this board) who will debate its relevance.

Click to expand...

No one would have gone to the electric chair in case the Rameys had confessed. Patsy would probably have been charged with (voluntary) manslaughter followed by obstruction of justice. Not enough for a death penalty sentence.

rashomon said:

No one would have gone to the electric chair in case the Rameys had confessed. Patsy would probably have been charged with (voluntary) manslaughter followed by obstruction of justice. Not enough for a death penalty sentence.

Click to expand...

I'm not speaking just of the Ramsey's...but of an intruder as well. What do think they would do to a poor, homeless drifter convicted by speculatory evidence? Happens all the time. Ever wonder why the majority of those in prison are poor, male, and an ethnic minority? Even worse, check out death row. But yet the claim is our justice system has no bias.

And if the RDI and the PD has more evidence than what has been released...the ONLY reason they weren't tried is b/c of their wealth, and hence, their power.

julianne said:

i dont chat---if your theory was really true, then why wouldn't LE simply issue the statement that the investigation has been closed? They wouldn't have to elaborate on who, what , where, when or why---just simply state publicly that the investigation is no longer ongoing.

IF LE "solved" it, I don't see them carrying on a facade of it still being an active investigation. Are you saying that the whole Karr thing was simply a ploy by the DA to make it appear that the case was still active?

As much of a fiasco the Karr thing was, I don't see LE allowing time, taxpayers money and resources to be spent to simply protect Burke Ramsey from being speculated upon.

Click to expand...

I hope you are sitting down, julianne. I actually agree with you.

I posted as much a while back - the theory of Burke being guilty of an accident and the R's covering for him was pretty much debunked by the arrest of JMK - no way would the DA's office go to that trouble if the case was actually secretly solved, the truth witheld to protect an underage perp - no way....

i_dont_chat said:

You raise very interesting questions.

There were so many, many things (irresponsible, illegal, stupid, hateful, and self-seeking) done by the police, the DA, the news media, the circle (or circus) of people surrounding the Ramseys.

It has probably gone beyond the point where anyone can be legally charged with anything.

Legal recourse is all we, the public, have left. And it doesn't look likek we are going to get it. When do we accept that the investigation is over? If someone does step forward to "stop the facade", and declare the case closed, might they be starting the avalanche of public disapproval?

I see that a group in Boulder IS trying to get public documents released, showing how the D.A. office overstepped legal bounds in the Karr fiasco. Perhaps we can go down that avenue and get a little satisfaction.

Click to expand...

I am pretty tired but your post seems to be posting for the Ramsey group.And it seems quite defensive.It seems a little more than than an average poster.

concernedperson said:

I am pretty tired but your post seems to be posting for the Ramsey group.And it seems quite defensive.It seems a little more than than an average poster.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply.

I am firmly in the camp with the "Burke Did It" folk. I didn't mean to come across defensive. I post for no group. I didn't even know there WAS a Ramsey group. I guess you are saying that you think I am taking up for the Ramseys. Quite the contrary.

There were lots of laws broken by the John and Patsy Ramsey. They SHOULD have been prosecuted for destroying evidence, obstructing justice, giving false statements. But alas the statute of limitations has run out on these charges.

My opinion, they can't be charged with murder (which has no statute of limitations) because there is no evidence that they killed their daughter. Plenty of evidence that they broke other laws, but not murder.

Why the authorities let the Ramsey get away with manipulating the system, I don't know. It is up to the citizens of Boulder and Colorado to clean house of all of those who were lax in solving this case.

If you are interested in my theory, just go back and read my many posts. It involves sexual expermental on the part of the children -- with legal ramifications for the Ramseys if Burke had confessed to what happened. Of course, the Ramseys got Burke away from the police that morning, so Burke couldn't be questioned and checked for defensive scratches and emotional turmoil. And, of course, the Ramseys immediately got into full gear of coverup and obstructing the truth.

I think I know why the Ramseys did what they did. They feared that they would ultimately be found to be legally responsible for what happened -- because of the involvement they had (or knew about) concerning the deviate sexual activity of erotic asphyxiation. That is what Burke was TRYING to do with JonBenet. He was "acting out" what he had seen being done -- possibly within the past few days. And possibly the Ramseys knew about it. They felt that if the police were to find out what really happened, the police would charge the Ramseys with neglect at best, abuse at worst, and they would probably lose custody of their son. Having just lost their daughter in death, the thought of losing their son was too much -- and they embarked on a course to thwart the authorities. It worked superbly.

This is my opinion, and the only scenario which make sense.

olive said:

Personally, I 'm glad the above evidence (speculatory evidence) is not enough to send someone to the electric chair. I highly recommend that anyone on this board research the death penalty and all the cases of executing innocent people. The amount of innocent people prosecuted and found guily by a jury of their "speculatory" peers is astounding. IMO, I'd rather err on the side of caution. No reason to sacrifice another innocent life in our rush to judge.

The only hope in this case, IMO, is the DNA. However, you will find a million people (including many on this board) who will debate its relevance.

Click to expand...

Personally, I don't believe in the death penalty. It always seemed odd to me that it was ok to kill someone because they killed someone. :waitasec: It's just murder with government sanction and just doesn't make any sense. Now, life in prison with no chance of parol, that's fine with me... some people need to be kept away from society permanently.

:laugh:

SuperDave said:

"There is more than enough evidence in this case, IMO....waaaay more evidence than in the Scott Peterson DP case, for example"

Seems to me there's enough for three cases. All that's lacking is the proverbial busload of nuns!

Click to expand...

I think the DA refused LE permission to interview the nuns,,,,freedom of religion/ religious bias or some such thing.

PagingDrDetect said:

Personally, I don't believe in the death penalty. It always seemed odd to me that it was ok to kill someone because they killed someone. :waitasec: It's just murder with government sanction and just doesn't make any sense. Now, life in prison with no chance of parol, that's fine with me... some people need to be kept away from society permanently.

Click to expand...

Even with Timothy McVeigh, who has been called the poster child for the death penalty for those who don't support the death penalty??

s_finch said:

Even with Timothy McVeigh, who has been called the poster child for the death penalty for those who don't support the death penalty??

Click to expand...

Personal feelings regarding an individual and their guilt really should have nothing to do with whether one supports capital punishment as a concept. In reality, this is often not the case...I realize that. It would be awfully hard to maintain my anti-death penalty stance if I were in the courtroom with someone I suspected hurt someone I love. However, we are discussing the practice, the concept, and the theory. And as a practice, capital punishment simply doesn't work. Not to mention that it is hard to justify taking a life as retribution in order to make us ALL safe or to deter crime. Would it feel good to fry someone we consider evil? Maybe. Is "evil" subjective? Absolutely. Can we ever be 100% certain of innocence or guilt? Never. We're not god. And until we quit acting like we are, we are only causing more grief and pain.

PagingDrDetect said:

Personally, I don't believe in the death penalty. It always seemed odd to me that it was ok to kill someone because they killed someone. :waitasec: It's just murder with government sanction and just doesn't make any sense. Now, life in prison with no chance of parol, that's fine with me... some people need to be kept away from society permanently.

Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%

"No one would have gone to the electric chair in case the Rameys had confessed. Patsy would probably have been charged with (voluntary) manslaughter followed by obstruction of justice. Not enough for a death penalty sentence."

She would probably have gone to some "rich-people's jail" like Martha Stewart did.

"I'm not speaking just of the Ramsey's...but of an intruder as well. What do think they would do to a poor, homeless drifter convicted by speculatory evidence? Happens all the time. Ever wonder why the majority of those in prison are poor, male, and an ethnic minority?"

Well, I'm going to break here and say that not only do I support the death penalty, I think executions should be public.

SuperDave said:

She would probably have gone to some "rich-people's jail" like Martha Stewart did.

Click to expand...

Trust me, WV is far away from Beverly Hills.