breach of promise

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Tadpole12, Oct 8, 2013.

  1. questfortrue

    questfortrue Active Member

    Messages:
    991
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Thank you for that exhaustive list, MWMM. For all those reasons plus the fact of the true bill a light is shone on AH’s decision there wasn’t enough evidence. Since we’ve been told for ages that there is only a portion of evidence in the public view, what else was stuffed down in AH’s and ML’s rush to avoid the RST?

    Also, I remembered one other mysterious thing: If JR wasn’t taking a cue from OJ Simpson (Find the saga of OJ on youtube, in which oj simpson tries to prove his innocence by searching through every golf course till he finds the real killers, from mad tv) why did he ask his sister in law if she retrieved his golf clubs . . . in the middle of winter? All, moo.
     


  2. dodie20

    dodie20 New Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, those quotes were arrogant and smug and in your face and IMO, (worst of all), celebratory! Their daughter was still dead so what was there to get excited about and all woo hoo, 'It worked!'?
     
  3. Nom de plume

    Nom de plume Member

    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Hey everybody! This is some really great news...so far. Let's keep our fingers crossed that this judge is on the up and up, and not on the RST payroll. :please: Has anyone ever found out about this judge? (Sorry to ask, been away a while.) Any ideas on how long we'll wait for the judge to decide?
     
  4. eileenhawkeye

    eileenhawkeye Active Member

    Messages:
    8,766
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I think (and hope) it will get more attention when the indictment is released. Currently, it's just a bunch of hearings. It didn't get as much coverage as I wanted for when the indictment news was released in January, but I tell myself that this is a 17-year-old case. I am just glad that there is *something* happening in it.
     
  5. tezi

    tezi Member of Websleuths since 2000.

    Messages:
    5,393
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Boulder County wants nothing more than to sweep this under the rug. The People's Republic of Boulder do NOT want any more attention given to this. It would show just how corrupt Hunter and his office were. If the GJ stuff is released, we will find out about it from other media outlets other than the Daily Camera. They just don't want to deal with it anymore.

    JMO
     
  6. eileenhawkeye

    eileenhawkeye Active Member

    Messages:
    8,766
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I agree with you about Boulder wanting this case to go away, but I think of that as being the DA's office not the Daily Camera. The Daily Camera was the ones who found out about the indictment, and their reporter is the one who is suing to get it released.
     
  7. Chelly

    Chelly SW New Mexico

    Messages:
    12,463
    Likes Received:
    13,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let up hope that Charlie Brennan, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Daily Camera continue to make a great noise!
     
  8. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,053
    Likes Received:
    242
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I agree. Patsy is dead and BR cannot be named in association with this crime. JR is still here of course, but if his role consisted of covering up the crime there may be a statute of limitations on that- same with tampering with evidence (like the body).
     
  9. questfortrue

    questfortrue Active Member

    Messages:
    991
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    OFFENSE STATUTE COMMENTS
    Murder No time limit
    C.R.S. 16-5-401(1)(a) (2009)
    Kidnapping No time limit
    C.R.S. 16-5-401(1)(a) (2009)
    Treason No time limit
    C.R.S. 16-5-401(1)(a) (2009)
    Sex offense against a child No time limit
    C.R.S. 16-5-401(1)(a) (2009) Applies to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1996
     
  10. madeleine

    madeleine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,972
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48

    mmmm...there's still a tiny hope
     
  11. madeleine

    madeleine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,972
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    pls remind me,what was the statue of lim. for child abuse resulting in death
     
  12. madeleine

    madeleine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,972
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    even if JR can't be charged anymore with child abuse resulting in death,the fact that it will be all made public at least (if he have the decency) will maybe make him shut the $%^# up from now on

    and,who knows,maybe someday someone will dig after other evidence and he will be charged with something else/ no st.of lim. offense (if it can be proven who did what)
     
  13. eileenhawkeye

    eileenhawkeye Active Member

    Messages:
    8,766
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    38
  14. madeleine

    madeleine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,972
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    http://therocky.com/news/2001/dec/18/case-haunts-das-aide-who-led-grand-jury/

    Kane said that with more than half a dozen books published and two movies made about the case, people could assume they know everything there is to know about the murder - other than who did it, of course.

    But, he said, such an assumption would be wrong.

    There remain "dozens" of secrets, he said. "Absolutely. Dozens. And a lot of what the public thinks is fact is simply not fact."


    -----------------

    maybe we will finally be told some of those secrets:please:
     
  15. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,937
    Likes Received:
    8,287
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,937
    Likes Received:
    8,287
    Trophy Points:
    113
  17. BOESP

    BOESP Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    BBM. That echoes what Linda Arndt said after talking to Patsy. Arndt said Patsy was "imprisoned by secrets" or words to that effect.

    I doubt if the Grand Jury even heard all those secrets. :moo:
     
  18. Chelly

    Chelly SW New Mexico

    Messages:
    12,463
    Likes Received:
    13,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anybody know anything about this judge?
     
  19. chlban

    chlban Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    114
    Trophy Points:
    63
    midwest mama;9911735
    I have respectfully snipped your post. You listed all very good reasons.

    However I do not believe it is realistic to charge JR. I tend to believe he was complicit in the ultimate cover up, but not the murder. However I am sure the Statute of Limitations has expired on any type of "Accessory" charge, as it has on any type of child abuse the original GJ wanted to charge them with. .

    Even assuming that JR was complicit in the murder, which I would certainly not dismiss as a possiblity, I don't believe he will ever be charged. I don't think any DA would charge him due to reasonable doubt. All you have to look at is any thread oh this board. While there are certainly far more RDI's than IDI's, we cannot agree on which RDI.

    I have seen a number of well thought out theories, all of which I can find convincing. The problem is that all the theories don't point to the same Ramsey as the killer. I tend to fall back onto my pet theory that Patsy did it and John was not part of the initial cover up, but became involved later, after
    realizing Patsy was the killer.

    Could I be argued out of that pet theory here on this board? Yeah, Absolutely.

    Could I say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that John killed her? Not so much.

    Even when Patsy was alive I always thought Reasonable doubt would sink any prosecution of this case. If John was charged, he points to Patsy. If Patsy was charged she points at John. If they both were charged, they point at Burke, who cannot be charged. Reasonable doubt.

    Obviously with Patsy dead, it becomes even easer for John to point the finger at her, even if it is a subtle rather than direct point.

    I personally beleive 12 jurrors could very wll be convinced that a RDI. I don't personally believe 12 jurors can be convinced which Ramsey did it.
     
  20. eileenhawkeye

    eileenhawkeye Active Member

    Messages:
    8,766
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The juror who spoke to the media even said that they couldn't agree about who did what---and they saw all the evidence.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice