Grand Jury Indictment Supports my Theory

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Anyhoo, Oct 25, 2013.

  1. Anyhoo

    Anyhoo New Member

    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi, I used to be a poster here quite some time ago and now I am back after seeing the Grand Jury Indictment of both parents, which I found extremely interesting more for what it doesn't say than what it does say. The prevailing theories around here from the vast majority of posters has been that one or both of the parents directly murdered their daughter and then blamed it on an intruder to escape being held responsible. I never really accepted that theory and my own theory was then and is now that someone outside of the family murdered JBR but it was not a stranger. My theory was that the parents were allowing their daughter to be used by someone else in satanic sexual rituals within their own house. This had happened on multiple occasions before but this time something went wrong and JBR died during it. Then the parents did everything they could to hide not only the involvement of the real murderer (which they both know) but also their own involvement in allowing it to happen.

    But, back to the Grand Jury Indictment. If the GJ indicted the parents, the assumption here and elsewhere has always been that one or both of the parents was guilty of the direct murder of their daughter. Now what a surprise to read the actual indictments, which are:

    1. The parents unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly permitted their daughter to be placed in a situation that resulted in the death of their daughter.

    2. The parents obstructed justice by covering up the crime and helping the person who murdered their daughter escape justice.

    I want to point out that both of these indictments support my previous theory. What evidence the GJ saw to come to the conclusions remains unknown but I found it very interesting.

    I am open to comments on this.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Mrs G Norris

    Mrs G Norris #JeSuisUrsa

    Messages:
    13,580
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Satanic sexual rituals? Sorry, but ..
     
  4. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Look, folks, I'm gonna say something that won't be very popular, but I NEED to say it. The GJ indictment seems to be deliberately avoiding the charge of murder. Rather, it seems like the GJ were trying to avoid some terrible truths.

    To that end, we have a serious problem in this country as far as justice goes, and that problem is what Mark Steyn calls "countless counts." It used to be that a person would have a big charge brought against him/her and the prosecutor either won or lost. Nowadays, for whatever reasons (politics, polishing a record, etc), Law Enforcement seems to favor a shotgun approach: shoot enough lead into the air, you're bound to hit something.

    Here's what I mean. If the Rs had been brought to trial, they likely would have been facing a large number of charges, and the jury would have had to vote on each one of them. To quote Steyn:

    Multiple charges tend, through sheer weight of numbers, to favor a result in which the jury convict on some and acquit on others and then tell themselves that they’ve reached a “moderate” “compromise” as befits the reasonable persons they assuredly are. It is, of course, not reasonable. Indeed, the notion of a “compromise” between conviction and acquittal is a dagger at the heart of justice. It’s the repugnant “plea bargain” in reverse, but this time to bargain with the jury: Okay, we threw the book at him and it went nowhere, so why don’t we all agree to settle

    Now, I want justice as much as anyone, more than some. But this is not justice. And it seems like the GJ was "shotgunning" in the hope of hitting something without bruising their consciences.
     
  5. tezi

    tezi Member of Websleuths since 2000.

    Messages:
    5,359
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    BBM: Not even the most remote chance...

    I remember this theory, oh do I. I think members of LE that investigated this remember it also.

    JMO
     
  6. sleuthinforfun

    sleuthinforfun New Member

    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While I disagree with it being a satanic ritual, I could believe the rest to be true. I would have to brush up on the evidence to give more of what I believe happened. I do believe they knew what was happening and by whom.
     
  7. aa9511

    aa9511 New Member

    Messages:
    6,639
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wouldn't it make more sense that Burke was probably abusing her sexually in the basement for some time? He probably had some kind of a mental problem that the parents knew about.
     
  8. Sandstorm

    Sandstorm Member

    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    This book was suggested in an earlier thread and is available on Amazon -

    Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?
    by James Kolar

    I read it today and highly recommend it.

    One of the most poignant pieces of information was the 911 phone call Patsy made on the morning of the discovery.

    After Patsy made the 911 phone call she hung up the phone...but the phone was not fully in the phone holder so that the recording continued.

    The 911 operator brought this to the attention of the investigators. Subsequently, the 911 tape was cleared to better understand the conversation after Patsy thought the phone was properly on the hook and that the 911 call had ended,

    Here is the dialogue exchange at the end of the 911 call which is very revealing:

    Male (angry) : "We're not speaking to you!"

    Female: " Help me Jesus, Help me Jesus."

    Young Male: "Well, what did you find?
    "
     
  9. dodie20

    dodie20 New Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've been thinking the same thing. I don't know how the evidence was presented to the jury, but I've read it focused on PR. A lot has always been made out of JR's money and power, but I think PR came in with her own 'obstacles'. She was a woman, relatively young, and the mother, a former Miss America contestant, (you don't see many of those accused of murder), AND she was battling cancer! Indicting her for murder would be tough. I mean, who could ever look at a woman like this as an abuser and murderer and not have those other things cloud their judgment? Who would want to stick it to a sick mother? The fact that they charged her at all indicates how strong the evidence was against her, IMO.
     
  10. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I've been thinking the same thing.
     
  11. eileenhawkeye

    eileenhawkeye Active Member

    Messages:
    8,769
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    36
    It makes you wonder if Patsy had gone on trial, would her defense team have pretended that her cancer came back? Well, I am not sure if they could get away with that, but I definitely think the possibility of it becoming back would be a major factor used for sympathy.
     
  12. dodie20

    dodie20 New Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh yeah, if PR had gone to trial, they would have pulled out all the stops. I wouldn't have been surprised to see a Miss America picture beside a cancer picture...the one where she didn't have much hair? or have her sitting there in crown and sash. Not really, just kidding a little, but they would have gotten the point across. I mean, who didn't grow up watching the Miss America pageants and sit there and keep score right along with the judges and pick out your favorites? Not so much now, but back in the day, a Miss America contestant was a big deal.
     
  13. renatae

    renatae New Member

    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have never been convinced the Ramseys either had a direct hand in what happened, nor that they knew about or participated in any abuse of their daughter. This is strictly IMO, but I have often felt they were the victims of "it's almost always the parents" thinking. The DNA under JonBenet's fingernails did not belong to any family member, and they were exonerated after Patsy's death. I remember the "bedwetting" theory, and I later read that there was absolutely no evidence that she had wet the bed that night - dry mattress, no wet/washed/drying sheets. It's been a long time, so I can't possibly cite which investigator made that statement. I felt they loved JonBenet and would have only attempted to protect one person who may have abused her, and that would have been if it was Burke, but, again, the DNA did not belong to him. YMMV.

    It sounds to me like the GJ felt Burke was most likely to blame and that the Ramseys were somehow complicit, and I have to say I had often wondered if Burke was involved, without their prior knowledge, until the DNA evidence basically exonerated him as well.
     
  14. bettybaby00

    bettybaby00 New Member

    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Respectfully, you indicate it's been a long time...which I take to mean a long time since you've thought/read/considered this case. There is a lot that has come to light over the years.

    I too at first never believed the parents were guilty. I was basing my opinion on my own personal belief systems, as well as what the media fed me. But as the years went by I became more skeptical.

    Even now, the MSM keeps bring up the DNA...it's really not indicative of anything in this case, and as many LE, and prosecutors will tell you, DNA doesn't necessarily exonerate anyone, except when it conclusively points to so wine else. But aside from that. The majority of DNA used to "clear" the Ramsey's was touch DNA, and therefore quite meaningless. I can't recall--anyone?--exactly what the final conclusions were about what was under JBs fingernails, but again, it didn't prove anything, and IIRC, it's was degraded and incomplete.

    As Furman mentioned the other day, DNA needs supporting evidence around it, it can't be the only thing considered. If you haven't read Kolar's book, I highly recommend it.
     
  15. ElleElle

    ElleElle Active Member

    Messages:
    7,492
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    IMO, this was a case of family abuse.
    Patsy may have been one of the first that JR abused (perhaps ex-wife and other daughter also).
    JBR became the next one in line and Patsy, wrote the "ransom letter" to appease John.
    John probably convinced Patsy that if she does not cooperate with this, they will love everything, including Burke.
     
  16. bettybaby00

    bettybaby00 New Member

    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One very significant issued highlighted in Kolar's book is the mystery surrounding both JBR and BRs medical records. The Rs and their teem refused to release them to LE..REFUSED, and when their lawyer offered the idea that the Rs "deserved an island of privacy." The DA said, ya...ok I'll agree to that!!!!!

    Why would parents of a murdered child act this way were it not about hiding information. The same parents who contend they will do anything and everything necessary to find their child's killer...that is with the exception of releasing pertinent records, or giving the police a formal interview.
     
  17. Anyhoo

    Anyhoo New Member

    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My response to this is that if the DNA is not really indicative of anything, then why would the Boulder DA say that the DNA is the basis for finding that the Ramsey's were innocent of the murder and going so far as to publicly apologize to them? It seems like not everyone agrees with your assessment of the DNA as worthless evidence, including myself. It seems like whenever someone mentions the DNA evidence, the immediate response here is that it is meaningless. Please don't tell me: You think the Boulder DA is compromised and corrupt and does not really believe the DNA is significant.
     
  18. SmoothOperator

    SmoothOperator Sadly what connects all these puzzles is that ther

    Messages:
    5,589
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How can anyone dismiss this above FACT??...or find it to be insignificant??.. It is the UNFILTERED, HONEST, INDISCRIMINATE words directly spoken from ALL OF THE HORSES MOUTHS on the MORNING OF THE MURDER..

    JMO but these words spoken rank even far ahead of the excited utterance category of evidence via spoken words from the mouths of those not only present where/when(in the home, that night/morning) she was murdered, but most likely to full well know exactly who killed JBR..
     
  19. bettybaby00

    bettybaby00 New Member

    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BBM

    You pretty much answered your own question.

    Although I don't necessarily consider the current DA corrupt, the previous 2 have a great deal to answer to. Especially Mary lacy.

    I notice in my comment that you quoted, part of my answer went wonky....what I tried typing--although i think my meaning was clear--is that DNA evidence can't be viewed in a vacuum, and DNA doesn't necessarily clear someone unless it conclusively points to someone else. In this case, touch DNA is what was found at the scene, and at any given time, everyone of us can have hundreds of different touch DNA samples on our body and clothing.
     
  20. gramcracker

    gramcracker Indentured Cat Servant

    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    36
    AND Dr B locked the medical records in his safe and declared that he would destroy them rather than produce them (if asked/ordered to do so). Dr B was also included in the conversation during which JR decided to hire his first atty, about six hours after JonBenet's body was discovered. what are they ALL hiding?

    ETA: PR called Dr B four times after office hours on Dec 17th, which is the night of the hang-up 911 call, and couldn't remember what the calls were about
     
  21. LonelyPoet

    LonelyPoet New Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This horrifying murder and The West Memphis 3 trial were the ones that launched my passion for True Crime and child advocacy. Reading all the news about the Ramsey indictment has convinced me that there will likely never be a resolution here. I'm not so sure we'll ever find out who murdered that little angel.

    It has been years since I revisited this case so I was hoping someone could clear this up for me:

    Something I read stated that JobBenet had two small, distinctive burn marks on her body. They were consistent with a stun-gun. It stated that Burke had been given a stun-gun for some reason. (Christmas? Birthday) Did that turn out to be true or was that tabloid fodder. I confess that I did read everything I could get my hands on, including the Enquirer, so I'm sure much of it was fabricated to sell magazines.

    I live in GA and I've been out to leave flowers on her grave many, many times. I have family buried out there as well. I actually saw Patsy one year at Town Center at Cobb shopping mall. It was when she was just beginning to show deterioration due to the cancer. Even if I had not recognized her as JonBenet's mother, I would have told you that she just had this dead, vacant look about her. She was having a bit of a shopping spree, though.

    I just want this case to be solved in my lifetime. I want to know that the animal responsible is either dead, on death row or, upon conviction, will be put out into general population with a hundred dollar bill stapled to his/her forehead.
     

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