Grand Jury True Bills John & Patsy Discussion thread

[burbqueen]

so....what books were found that pointed to a sexually aggressive child??

 

[dodie20]

There's plenty of evidence that points to Burke's possible involvement, it's just been buried so deep or kept so mum, it's almost impossible to find.

I'm not going to list them here b/c then I'd have to find the sources and that would set off my ADD and I'd never come back. A Candy Rose is a great place to find all things related to JBR.

Statements made by PR to the effect that she and JR never spoke of JonBenet to Burke. She said they avoided the magazine racks in stores and didn't allow him to watch the news - they didn't want to upset him. One need not have a degree in rocket psychiatry to analyze that. Why hasn't Burke ever spoken about the death of his little sister? Why hasn't he ever started a campaign to find her killer? I guess maybe he still doesn't know?

I understand where the suspicion towards BR comes from, because he was in that house that night, but I've never see a thing that points to him as the murderer. From the evidence I've seen, it's the adults who look guilty. Lying for their son would be one thing, but PR's clothes fibers were found entwined in the murder weapon. There's just no logical explanation for that if BR was guilty. And her finishing JB off to protect her son isn't logical, IMO. And it would be beside the point anyway...if she finished JB off for her son, that would still be premeditated murder, not much different than if BR wasn't involved at all. As far as them avoiding magazine racks, I don't blame them. Regardless of who did what, no parent would want their child to read such things about their murdered sister or his parents, or have him look at the pictures and headlines. They were pretty shocking. And I'm not sure BR should be judged for not starting a campaign to find JB's killer. He was young, supposedly shielded, and as far as he knows his father spent thousands of dollars on private investigators... maybe he thinks it's a lost cause and all avenues have been exhausted. Also, I posted a link the other day to an article that was written in 2008, and JR was still pointing the finger at FW. If this is what BR grew up hearing, (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), then why would he look elsewhere for the killer? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...exonerated-in-the-murder-of-his-daughter.html The title of the article is "John's Lingering Suspicions', and tells how he still suspects his friend and questions his alibi...so as far as BR is concerned, case could be solved. moo

 

[tezi]

Is there a source link for a list of those who testified at the GJ proceedings? I've looked all over and can't find one.

I have never found one. But, that doesn't mean it isn't out there.

 

[Tadpole12]

Is there a source link for a list of those who testified at the GJ proceedings? I've looked all over and can't find one.

ACR:
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramsey-grand-jury.htm

 

[tezi]

Accessory could easily mean the covering for each other.


:twocents:

Yes, it could. It could also mean they covered for their son. I am not buying they covered for an intruder. They covered for each other or their son, or some combination of that.

Good grief, I have been here too long...Forgive me Sapphire...LOL

 

[tezi]

ACR:
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramsey-grand-jury.htm

Thank you! I am brain dead today.

 

[Chelly]

Thank you! I am brain dead today.

It's been a big day and an important one. Your brain had quite a workout.

 

[deca]

I forgot who said it, but someone working the case (was it Kolar??) said something to the effect that there is quite a lot of evidence that the public doesn't know about. I am assuming the GJ saw this... I wonder what evidence that was? It obviously holds the key to this case.

 

[tezi]

It's been a big day and an important one. Your brain had quite a workout.

Thanks Chelly!

I know we all have waited for a day like this. I am not going to let naysayers ruin on this parade...I never thought that ST would be vindicated. Never. Finally, in a small way he has. He KNEW...Oh, yeah, I forgot, he was just a narcotics cop investigating his first murder. Well, he did a damn fine job of it.

Chief Kolar has so much of my respect. The truth, finally.

Prayers for JonBenet, the victim who lost everything.

JMO

 

[tezi]

I forgot who said it, but someone working the case (was it Kolar??) said something to the effect that there is quite a lot of evidence that the public doesn't know about. I am assuming the GJ saw this... I wonder what evidence that was? It obviously holds the key to this case.

Yes, Kolar said that as did Michael Kane.

Vindication, finally for all those wronged by the Ramseys, the DA's office, the Ramsey Attorneys, and Michael Tracy.

 

[bettybaby00]

Apparently Mary Lacy believed Patsy and John were covering for John Mark Karr:scared:

OMG this made me LOL.....

[/B]ssyBenton;9927558]If Burke killed JonBenet I can see the parents freaking out and not knowing what to do BUT staging the scene and telling the public there is a monster out there? Who could do that and live with themselves? I don’t think I could.

IMO this is pretty much the only reason why you would see 2 parents of a murdered child lie, cover up, and obfuscate the process the way the Rs have/did. There was no intruder.....

If one were covering for the other, then I can't see the lie standing the test of time. It's unsustainable IMO, despite the desperation and willingness felt at the time of the murder. Yet sustain it they did. For me it's one of the key reasons I first began to suspect BR. If you haven't read Kolar's book I highly recommend it.

I'm looking forward to this Sunday's radio show, and hope Kolar can be more forthcoming since this has happened. I sincerely hope the release of these documents proves to be the first crack in the wall of silence that has surrounded this case since the beginning.

 

[midwest mama]

Can someone explain why this is so illuminating? The grand jury's versions of events are not necessarily the true ones - it's fairly easy to get indicted. Not saying that I don't believe the Ramseys are involved, but the jury's opinion of how it happened doesn't seem particularly dispositive to me.

And as for putting her in the zone of danger, that would definitely not be an abusive older brother, broken window, or pageants. That means that either John/Patsy either did something that had a great risk of injury or knew she was injured and didn't seek medical help. It has to be a very direct relationship between their actions and the harm - not just failing to make good parenting decisions, which would be more neglect. The first degree murder thing is interesting.

To me, the first degree murder thing is everything. The DA and GJ knew a 9 year old could not be charged for anything. So why would the reference in the true bill be made unless it could be connected to someone who could be charged?

(From another poster, sorry for no reference): The indictment is pretty clear - it accuses BOTH parents of covering up for someone else. It says: "...each parent "did render assistance to a person" with the intent to prevent their arrest or prosecution, knowing they had "committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death...". So, either they covered up for each other, or they covered up for their son, who was the only other person in the house.

But was BR really the only other person in the house that night? Let's consider the tDNA really DID have some remote connection to the crime...
and remember that it was said Barnhill thought he saw JAR walk up to the house that late afternoon, even though he later recanted. But if not JAR, then who? Would Barnhill have just manufactured that report out of thin air without seeing SOMEONE walk up to the house?

I was told recently that Lucinda never validated JAR's presence at her home on Christmas Day. She and the family were lawyered up before LE could question them. JAR was verified as having been at a church service on Christmas Eve.

WHAT IF:
*JAR decided to get back to spend Christmas Day with Dad? His one friend (think his name was Brad Miller) was a pilot. ... one of the two young men who provided an alibi for JAR.
*The evening game playing/movie by JAR was a concocted alibi?
* JAR and his pal flew up to Boulder and JAR was able to return courtesy of his pal, especially with JR promising a big payoff?
*The ATM photo could have been anyone, and easy for JAR to let them know where another ATM card was kept at Lucinda's.
*A movie stub found later is absolutely no proof of JAR being at the movie. Another easy plant of evidence.

And, let's also remember that Kolar did prepare a Theory of Prosecution. If he was convinced it was BR, and saw evidence that the charge of Kidnapping could be used against one of the parents, then wouldn't that still be a possibility? Using that in his book title, IMO, along with his past blog interviews indicates he thinks a charge might apply with regard to moving a debilitated JB from one location to another within the home before her final strangulation.

It must be just me, but I think the reveal of the GJ indictment is just step one of what is a very possible path to prosecution.

 

[ozazure]

I was expecting 9 pages and some new information, not what we already heard through a "leak" months ago. Actually, did we know about the assisting charge?

So both Patsy and John were indicted with Child Abuse Resulting in Death AND Assisting someone who had committed Murder in the First Degree - we have a jury member quoted as saying "We didn't know who did what but we felt the adults in the house may have done something that they certainly could have prevented, or they could have helped her, and they didn't." And neither are indicted with murder, and there is another person there who cannot be indicted.

It certainly doesn't look great for Burke. But I do wonder if the indictments really do point such an obvious finger at him ... I still feel like the child abuse/death charge could just a holding place for a murder charge and not a way to punish the parents for preventing something Burke did. And I do find a BDI scenario plausible.

I really feel like the ongoing SUCCESSFUL to date cover-up could have obscured things such as the grand jury, even with additional information, could only suspect this was an intimate family homicide with indications that everyone was neck deep - but in muddy muddy water. Alex Hunter was perhaps correct in that there was not enough clarity to go forward. Without more information I feel no more enlightened. That Steve Thomas and Kolar see it so differently is confusing.

The activities on December 26th and the initial delay in being interviewed were extremely successful tactics, and even if we feel like we see through the obstruction - it did the job.

 

[redheadedgal]

I know we all have waited for a day like this. I am not going to let naysayers ruin on this parade...I never thought that ST would be vindicated. Never. Finally, in a small way he has. He KNEW...Oh, yeah, I forgot, he was just a narcotics cop investigating his first murder. Well, he did a damn fine job of it.

Chief Kolar has so much of my respect. The truth, finally.

Prayers for JonBenet, the victim who lost everything.

JMO

i don't have time to "thank" every post in this thread as i'd like to do, so i quoted your post specifically b/c it mentioned steve thomas... a man i admire beyond words. (and now kolar too). thank you for recognizing his work and dedication to get justice for JB. he has been maligned far too much imo.

thank you all for the links, info, posts in this thread and YOUR dedication to jonbenet too... you're all awesome! :loveyou:

 

[chlban]

midwest mama;

9927828To me, the first degree murder thing is everything. The DA and GJ knew a 9 year old could not be charged for anything. So why would the reference in the true bill be made unless it could be connected to someone who could be charged?

.

I'm not getting what one has to do with the other. OK they cannot charge the person who killed her because of his age. But they can charge the ones that covered for him, the parents. I must be missing something because I see this as pretty much conclusive BDI.

I suppose it could mean it was John or Patsy and just sort of a "we don't know which one so we'll charge you both wtih this", but if that was the case, why not just go ahead and charge them both with murder?

My other problem with that is that,while I can get Patsy killing JB in a rage by accident (not the right term, legally, but I think you all know what I mean), but I honestly have never considered that she premeditated it. In fact the only one I can see wih a motive to premeditate murder is Burke. That's a sad reality, but I can see a twisted kid with real anger and jealousy issues doing something like that. It has happened before, children do kill.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Okay CNN is talking about the case...There's a banner behind Wolf Blitzer that says "JonBenet: Secrets Revealed". Umm...what secrets? And one of the reporter goes: "Remember the GJ didn't have access to the DNA". -_-

 

[tezi]

i don't have time to "thank" every post in this thread as i'd like to do, so i quoted your post specifically b/c it mentioned steve thomas... a man i admire beyond words. (and now kolar too). thank you for recognizing his work and dedication to get justice for JB. he has been maligned far too much imo.

thank you all for the links, info, posts in this thread and YOUR dedication to jonbenet too... you're all awesome! :loveyou:

ST is a hero. He stood up for JonBenet, when her own parents would not.

Chief Kolar, another hero, he gave us the truth.

redheadedgal, thank you for being here. It is posters like you that have given me, personally, the courage to go on.

 

[tezi]

Okay CNN is talking about the case...There's a banner behind Wolf Blitzer that says "JonBenet: Secrets Revealed". Umm...what secrets? And one of the reporter goes: "Remember the GJ didn't have access to the DNA". -_-

What secrets? How about the "accessory to a crime" indictments brought against the Ramseys? That was a HUGE secret. No one knew that was there. The child abuse resulting in death, yeah, we knew about that...Not the other.

JMO

 

[UKGuy]

To me, the first degree murder thing is everything. The DA and GJ knew a 9 year old could not be charged for anything. So why would the reference in the true bill be made unless it could be connected to someone who could be charged?

(From another poster, sorry for no reference): The indictment is pretty clear - it accuses BOTH parents of covering up for someone else. It says: "...each parent "did render assistance to a person" with the intent to prevent their arrest or prosecution, knowing they had "committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death...". So, either they covered up for each other, or they covered up for their son, who was the only other person in the house.

But was BR really the only other person in the house that night? Let's consider the tDNA really DID have some remote connection to the crime...
and remember that it was said Barnhill thought he saw JAR walk up to the house that late afternoon, even though he later recanted. But if not JAR, then who? Would Barnhill have just manufactured that report out of thin air without seeing SOMEONE walk up to the house?

I was told recently that Lucinda never validated JAR's presence at her home on Christmas Day. She and the family were lawyered up before LE could question them. JAR was verified as having been at a church service on Christmas Eve.

WHAT IF:
*JAR decided to get back to spend Christmas Day with Dad? His one friend (think his name was Brad Miller) was a pilot. ... one of the two young men who provided an alibi for JAR.
*The evening game playing/movie by JAR was a concocted alibi?
* JAR and his pal flew up to Boulder and JAR was able to return courtesy of his pal, especially with JR promising a big payoff?
*The ATM photo could have been anyone, and easy for JAR to let them know where another ATM card was kept at Lucinda's.
*A movie stub found later is absolutely no proof of JAR being at the movie. Another easy plant of evidence.

And, let's also remember that Kolar did prepare a Theory of Prosecution. If he was convinced it was BR, and saw evidence that the charge of Kidnapping could be used against one of the parents, then wouldn't that still be a possibility? Using that in his book title, IMO, along with his past blog interviews indicates he thinks a charge might apply with regard to moving a debilitated JB from one location to another within the home before her final strangulation.

It must be just me, but I think the reveal of the GJ indictment is just step one of what is a very possible path to prosecution.

midwest mama,
Well that might be the point? You can reference a chargee, so to speak, their legal status as charged persons are another thing?

JAR or BDI seems to be the only story in town?

.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Any astrologers here?

The speed and timing of this case and Madeleine's case suddenly shooting to the headlines again, is remarkable. What's coming out is pointing to the parents, in both cases.

It's just so coincidental. There always were incredible parallels but this takes the cake. Maybe it's Uranus.