The Grand Jury was reviewing the evidence the police presented,
This information would normally be withheld, even if the minor was an adult by the time of the FOIA request.
Edited for space.
I am fully aware of the implications of a nearly 10 year old murderer and the possibility that this was a cover up to protect him as well as every aspect of this case. I, too, interpreted the GJ forms to be the result of the GJ conclusion that BDI and the parents covered it up.
HOWEVER, upon reflection I am no longer convinced of that conclusion because:
The state's case was built on evidence that pointed to the parents and Smit's IDI theory. At that time, there WAS no theory that BDI. Every member of BPD and even the DA's office believed it was PR. There was no evidence presented to support a theory of BDI. GJrs can only make a decision on what is presented.
Further, the GJr stated that he suspects that he knows the ID of the murderer but that it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He can not be talking of BDI as there was no evidence of BDI presented and no investigation into BDI such that the GJr could make a determination about reasonable doubt.
This man is telling us that based upon what he saw and heard during those months he served that one of the parents killed JBR.
Since the parents GJ indictments are identical, it seems the jury was not unanimous as to which parent was the guilty party so they left it as 'both' or 'either' and kicked that determination back to the DA and the courts. The DA was afraid of the courtroom, so nothing happened. But, this one juror thinks he knows and the killer was a parent.
Perhaps the other indictments do in fact charge both parents with FDM. We just do not know. But we do know that the BDI theory was not even on the table for consideration because there wasn't one at that time.