questfortrue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,005
- Reaction score
- 134
Not sure where to post this, but since this thread deals with the DA’s office and decisions, I’m posting it here.
While considering the conclusion of many that the 2 identical Indictments of PR and JR mean that BR was the perp, I reread the indictments and something struck me. What hit me is that all three of the R’s are covered in these indictments: PR and JR if they allowed JB to be exposed to an unsafe and ongoing situation (i.e., BR and molestation) - child abuse. But also, PR or JR as covering up for the perp, in a first degree homicide. Who the perp was, the GJ did either not know, or may not have named because of CO laws covering juveniles under 10. Couldn’t the cover-up of a homicide mean the GJ believed the perp could have been any of the three of them?
IMO, but perhaps some others share this reaction: I get the cross-fingerpointing method of defense, but shouldn’t the parents (both of them) have been found, at a bare minimum, negligent in their daughter’s death, especially considering that incest was at the core of this crime? They both lived there. One can’t prove who incested her, but the parents were her guardians and caretakers. Possibly the jury could have found a cover-up compelling as well. We’ll never know. Was it cowardice on the part of AH, threats from the defense team, kindness to the R’s because of PR’s past cancer fight, simply the way AH did business, or a combination of the four? Again, I guess, we’ll never know.
Even though he lost the case, Jeff Ashton had the courage to take the Casey Anthony case on. When Casey Anthony was tried for murder of her daughter, the DA specifically told the jury that they could consider other charges if they didn’t feel he had proven Anthony guilty of the murder of her daughter. One of those charges, iirc, was negligence in Caylee’s death. Yet, the jury found Anthony not guilty of all charges. There’s some kind of reasoning which may be present, and IDK or understand. But apparently the case was revisited recently by Jane Velez-Mitchell in an HLN review and it seems to me there are some tidbits applicable to the R case. The basis of some of Velez-Mitchell’s reviews of past cases is this: “The theme is secrets can be murder," Velez-Mitchell said. "It's about toxic secrets and double lives." One thing many of the posters here prob’ly agree: The Rs’ led double lives, and held some toxic secrets resulting in JB’s death. All moo.
While considering the conclusion of many that the 2 identical Indictments of PR and JR mean that BR was the perp, I reread the indictments and something struck me. What hit me is that all three of the R’s are covered in these indictments: PR and JR if they allowed JB to be exposed to an unsafe and ongoing situation (i.e., BR and molestation) - child abuse. But also, PR or JR as covering up for the perp, in a first degree homicide. Who the perp was, the GJ did either not know, or may not have named because of CO laws covering juveniles under 10. Couldn’t the cover-up of a homicide mean the GJ believed the perp could have been any of the three of them?
IMO, but perhaps some others share this reaction: I get the cross-fingerpointing method of defense, but shouldn’t the parents (both of them) have been found, at a bare minimum, negligent in their daughter’s death, especially considering that incest was at the core of this crime? They both lived there. One can’t prove who incested her, but the parents were her guardians and caretakers. Possibly the jury could have found a cover-up compelling as well. We’ll never know. Was it cowardice on the part of AH, threats from the defense team, kindness to the R’s because of PR’s past cancer fight, simply the way AH did business, or a combination of the four? Again, I guess, we’ll never know.
Even though he lost the case, Jeff Ashton had the courage to take the Casey Anthony case on. When Casey Anthony was tried for murder of her daughter, the DA specifically told the jury that they could consider other charges if they didn’t feel he had proven Anthony guilty of the murder of her daughter. One of those charges, iirc, was negligence in Caylee’s death. Yet, the jury found Anthony not guilty of all charges. There’s some kind of reasoning which may be present, and IDK or understand. But apparently the case was revisited recently by Jane Velez-Mitchell in an HLN review and it seems to me there are some tidbits applicable to the R case. The basis of some of Velez-Mitchell’s reviews of past cases is this: “The theme is secrets can be murder," Velez-Mitchell said. "It's about toxic secrets and double lives." One thing many of the posters here prob’ly agree: The Rs’ led double lives, and held some toxic secrets resulting in JB’s death. All moo.
