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.