Problems with the DA

[elannia]

It wasn't on murder charges though, was it?

Ummm, my point is that the public went years thinking that the GJ didnt return a indictment(which in fact they had) and the DA at THAT time refused to sign, and led everyone to believe NO charges had been filed(we found out that truth though in 2013). So no, it wasnt murder charges, BUT they thought they could have PREVENTED her death. Obviously they had the evidence showing they were involved, or they wouldnt have filed the charges. The GJ said they knew it was the family, just didnt know who did what

 

[Mama2JML]

Ummm, my point is that the public went years thinking that the GJ didnt return a indictment(which in fact they had) and the DA at THAT time refused to sign, and led everyone to believe NO charges had been filed(we found out that truth though in 2013). So no, it wasnt murder charges, BUT they thought they could have PREVENTED her death. Obviously they had the evidence showing they were involved, or they wouldnt have filed the charges. The GJ said they knew it was the family, just didnt know who did what

Your interpretation of the GJ process is questionable. GJs don't determine guilt. GJs work to establish probable cause based upon the (biased?) information presented by the prosecution.

If a child is found murdered in your home, 'probable cause' is established regardless of your guilt or innocence. IMHO.

The GJ in this case found probable cause to indict the Ramseys, but NOT for murder, manslaughter, etc. THOUGH, the GJ DID find sufficient evidence to deem JonBenét's death a result of first degree murder. Evidence implicating a Ramsey in JB's death must have been nonexistent as the GJ did not establish probable cause to file a murder charge against a Ramsey.

IMHO, MOO, JMO, etc...

 

[elannia]

Your interpretation of the GJ process is questionable. GJs don't determine guilt. GJs work to establish probable cause based upon the (biased?) information presented by the prosecution.

If a child is found murdered in your home, 'probable cause' is established regardless of your guilt or innocence. IMHO.

The GJ in this case found probable cause to indict the Ramseys, but NOT for murder, manslaughter, etc. THOUGH, the GJ DID find sufficient evidence to deem JonBenét's death a result of first degree murder. Evidence implicating a Ramsey in JB's death must have been nonexistent as the GJ did not establish probable cause to file a murder charge against a Ramsey.

IMHO, MOO, JMO, etc...

I am only trying to point out that the GJ accused the R's for "child abuse resulting in death, NOT FOR MURDER, and they perhaps "covered for someone", AH refused to sign the indictment. My point being, everyone was led to believe that the GJ didnt issue ANYTHING, which we later found out they had. Yes, GJ's are called in to hear witness accounts, see and hear the evidence, etc, but they returned an indictment against the parents and it was swept under the rug. Now perhaps that someone they assisted and covered for is BR, and he couldnt be charged, so is could that be the reason AH didnt pursue? I have read that even if BR killed her and someone was an accessory to the crime they couldnt be mentioned(is that the right term I should use), because it would implement him?

 

[andreww]

I am only trying to point out that the GJ accused the R's for "child abuse resulting in death, NOT FOR MURDER, and they perhaps "covered for someone", AH refused to sign the indictment. My point being, everyone was led to believe that the GJ didnt issue ANYTHING, which we later found out they had. Yes, GJ's are called in to hear witness accounts, see and hear the evidence, etc, but they returned an indictment against the parents and it was swept under the rug. Now perhaps that someone they assisted and covered for is BR, and he couldnt be charged, so is could that be the reason AH didnt pursue? I have read that even if BR killed her and someone was an accessory to the crime they couldnt be mentioned(is that the right term I should use), because it would implement him?

AH was spineless. IMO he was too worried about the implications of putting the Ramsey's in court and losing. The DA in Los Angeles had just been fired after losing the OJ Simpson case and I feel this might have weighed on his mind.

AH wast the type of DA that took cases to court either. He was well known for plea bargaining and he probably would have been happy to do that with this case, but the Ramsey legal team was going to have none of that.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Your interpretation of the GJ process is questionable. GJs don't determine guilt. GJs work to establish probable cause based upon the (biased?) information presented by the prosecution.

If a child is found murdered in your home, 'probable cause' is established regardless of your guilt or innocence. IMHO.

The GJ in this case found probable cause to indict the Ramseys, but NOT for murder, manslaughter, etc. THOUGH, the GJ DID find sufficient evidence to deem JonBenét's death a result of first degree murder. Evidence implicating a Ramsey in JB's death must have been nonexistent as the GJ did not establish probable cause to file a murder charge against a Ramsey.

IMHO, MOO, JMO, etc...

Biased? Please explain. And not sure how you can assume probable cause just because she was found in her own house?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WhereAreTheyNow]

I am only trying to point out that the GJ accused the R's for "child abuse resulting in death, NOT FOR MURDER, and they perhaps "covered for someone", AH refused to sign the indictment. My point being, everyone was led to believe that the GJ didnt issue ANYTHING, which we later found out they had. Yes, GJ's are called in to hear witness accounts, see and hear the evidence, etc, but they returned an indictment against the parents and it was swept under the rug. Now perhaps that someone they assisted and covered for is BR, and he couldnt be charged, so is could that be the reason AH didnt pursue? I have read that even if BR killed her and someone was an accessory to the crime they couldnt be mentioned(is that the right term I should use), because it would implement him?

BBM.

Not true. I so, every gang and cartel would bring a kid to crimes they commit. Persons cannot be held responsible for otherwise unlawful acts committed while under 10yo. But that does not provide protection regarding acts committed after 10yo in connection with the same act. For example, BR could be charged with perjury for false statements made under oath, after 10yo, about the death of his sister.

 

[elannia]

BBM.

Not true. I so, every gang and cartel would bring a kid to crimes they commit. Persons cannot be held responsible for otherwise unlawful acts committed while under 10yo. But that does not provide protection regarding acts committed after 10yo in connection with the same act. For example, BR could be charged with perjury for false statements made under oath, after 10yo, about the death of his sister.

Like I said, I read that somewhere on WS.

 

[BBB167893]

How many DAs have been in office since Jon Benet's murder happened?

Not counting AH, who was already there? Two.

Have any of them said they plan to charge one of the Ramseys with her murder? Or have evidence showing they were involved?

Your point?

I know some think ML was biased but she hasn't been the only DA over this case, has she?

Um, it's a bit past "some think." It's pretty much confirmed at this point. JMK should have been the deal-breaker right there.

AH was compromised (in what way, I don't know for sure).

ML was horrifically biased.

SG can't do anything against them, because Patsy's dead and John could blame her for everything.

 

[BBB167893]

Your interpretation of the GJ process is questionable. GJs don't determine guilt. GJs work to establish probable cause based upon the (biased?) information presented by the prosecution.

If a child is found murdered in your home, 'probable cause' is established regardless of your guilt or innocence. IMHO.

The GJ in this case found probable cause to indict the Ramseys, but NOT for murder, manslaughter, etc. THOUGH, the GJ DID find sufficient evidence to deem JonBenét's death a result of first degree murder. Evidence implicating a Ramsey in JB's death must have been nonexistent as the GJ did not establish probable cause to file a murder charge against a Ramsey.

IMHO, MOO, JMO, etc...

I forget where, but I once read that 98% of the suspects that make it to the indictment stage are guilty.

elannia had it right: it's one thing to say that people are responsible, but if you can't decide who did what, you're back to Square One.

 

[BBB167893]

AH was spineless. IMO he was too worried about the implications of putting the Ramsey's in court and losing. The DA in Los Angeles had just been fired after losing the OJ Simpson case and I feel this might have weighed on his mind.

AH wast the type of DA that took cases to court either. He was well known for plea bargaining and he probably would have been happy to do that with this case, but the Ramsey legal team was going to have none of that.

And the worst part, andreww? That's the most innocent explanation. After my brother read ST's book, he seized upon some of the other shady deals that AH had pulled in the past, and on something Henry Lee said to AH about how, if the GJ indicted, he would have to "confess his sins" in order to move on it. Bro then explained his opinion of this to me: that AH had something (he won't say what) that he was afraid would be exposed by either the media, the defense team's dirt-diggers, or the governor's office.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Mama2JML]

Biased? Please explain. And not sure how you can assume probable cause just because she was found in her own house?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...found murdered in her own house, 3 known occupants, aside from the victim herself. Probable cause.

Regarding my side note, "Bias?", what needs to be explained? Seems pretty self explanatory to me. Can you be specific about what needs to be elaborated upon?

 

[BOESP]

I forget where, but I once read that 98% of the suspects that make it to the indictment stage are guilty.

elannia had it right: it's one thing to say that people are responsible, but if you can't decide who did what, you're back to Square One.

SuperDave, I posted in the JonBenet forum a quote from a Warren County, Kentucky, judge as printed in the Park City Daily News who made the above statement (or words to that affect). The quote is a year or two old. The judge was interviewed for some big case at the time, which currently escapes me ... maybe the Jaime Stice case.

 

[Mama2JML]

RSBM

I forget where, but I once read that 98% of the suspects that make it to the indictment stage are guilty...

I have read that statistic here, @ WS, but I have been unsuccessful in finding a supportive source. (Thanks for the helpful hints, BOESP.) Perhaps there has been a misinterpretation (&/or misrepresentation) of the data somewhere along the way. A linked source would be helpful...

 

[andreww]

And the worst part, andreww? That's the most innocent explanation. After my brother read ST's book, he seized upon some of the other shady deals that AH had pulled in the past, and on something Henry Lee said to AH about how, if the GJ indicted, he would have to "confess his sins" in order to move on it. Bro then explained his opinion of this to me: that AH had something (he won't say what) that he was afraid would be exposed by either the media, the defense team's dirt-diggers, or the governor's office.

Make of that what you will.

I agree with your brother. Ive always felt like somebody had something on someone else, allowing the Ramsey's to be treated with kid gloves. I'd love to se an investigative book about the people and the things that went on in the DAs office relating to this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

I agree with your brother. Ive always felt like somebody had something on someone else, allowing the Ramsey's to be treated with kid gloves. I'd love to se an investigative book about the people and the things that went on in the DAs office relating to this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, to expand on what my brother meant, he told it to me like this: when Watergate broke, and Richard Nixon resigned, most people thought he did it either to spare the office the indignity of an impeachment hearing, or to salvage what little dignity he had left. But others, like my brother, think that Nixon resigned rather than take his chances at impeachment because he was afraid (possibly rightly, possibly just out of paranoia) that the investigation would unearth something even worse. Whatever that could have been, draw your own conclusions.

That's his take on this case: that AH didn't want to move forward with this case and didn't want anyone else to take it from him because then his dirty dealings (whatever they might have been) would have been exposed so close to retirement.

I have no idea if Bro is right, but I have no idea if he's wrong either.

But to what you'd like to see, andreww, allow me to add this: some years ago, on a now-defunct forum, someone posted a quote from Larry Pozner saying he'd like to see a GJ investigation of the BPD. I said, "why stop there? Have them investigate the DA's office, Lou Smit and the Haddon Law firm while they're at it!"

The subject was quickly dropped and was never brought up again.

 

[Prahasaurus]

That's his take on this case: that AH didn't want to move forward with this case and didn't want anyone else to take it from him because then his dirty dealings (whatever they might have been) would have been exposed so close to retirement.

I have no idea if Bro is right, but I have no idea if he's wrong either.

So to sum up, you have no idea...

Sorry, but this is the worst type of speculation. And why introduce "dirty dealings," anyway? A simpler answer is that the Ramseys had money, power, and connections, and they would make it very difficult for any DA to prosecute. Not impossible. But extremely difficult.

Yes, I agree justice was certainly not served in this case through the actions of the DA. But you don't need to introduce "dirty dealings" when a simpler explanation would suffice: in America, the rich and powerful are treated differently from the poor and weak.

 

[andreww]

So to sum up, you have no idea...

Sorry, but this is the worst type of speculation. And why introduce "dirty dealings," anyway? A simpler answer is that the Ramseys had money, power, and connections, and they would make it very difficult for any DA to prosecute. Not impossible. But extremely difficult.

Yes, I agree justice was certainly not served in this case through the actions of the DA. But you don't need to introduce "dirty dealings" when a simpler explanation would suffice: in America, the rich and powerful are treated differently from the poor and weak.

Normally I would agree with you on this, but we are talking about a guy that was meeting regularly and sharing info with tabloid editors. We are talking about a guy that lied to the public about the GJ indictments. We are talking about a guy that told his investigators to go easy on the Ramsey's and treat them with respect. Something doesn't add up here and you have to ask yourself why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Prahasaurus]

Normally I would agree with you on this, but we are talking about a guy that was meeting regularly and sharing info with tabloid editors. We are talking about a guy that lied to the public about the GJ indictments. We are talking about a guy that told his investigators to go easy on the Ramsey's and treat them with respect. Something doesn't add up here and you have to ask yourself why?

Incompetence? Fear?

He took the path of least resistance. If the Ramseys were guilty, he figured it would all come out eventually, anyway. Hence the decision to go easy on them during the investigation. If they were innocent, why should he ruin his career attacking the grieving parents of a dead girl? What kind of monster does that? He did the math in his head and determined his best strategy was to believe the parents until they found a smoking gun. That never materialised.

I'm not defending his actions, or his cowardice. I'm just saying you don't need to introduce conspiracy into the equation when a simpler explanation will suffice.

 

[BBB167893]

So to sum up, you have no idea...

Sorry, but this is the worst type of speculation. And why introduce "dirty dealings," anyway? A simpler answer is that the Ramseys had money, power, and connections, and they would make it very difficult for any DA to prosecute. Not impossible. But extremely difficult.

Yes, I agree justice was certainly not served in this case through the actions of the DA. But you don't need to introduce "dirty dealings" when a simpler explanation would suffice: in America, the rich and powerful are treated differently from the poor and weak.

I guess it depends on how generous you're feeling. Given some of his other dealings, I wonder if Bro is right.

OTOH, if one goes the opposite way, it's been suggested that AH felt that PR had been punished enough and was not a threat to anyone else. I can sympathize with that idea, but it's not for him to decide.

In the middle, just plain fear and incompetence.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

In 2009, the case was reopened. A press release says that representatives from the FBI, Attorney General's Office, and other agencies would be part of a task force. It wasn't just Boulder officials. Does that mean they were looking for an intruder? Patsy was dead, Burke can't be prosecuted...what could they have gotten John for? Would they really put a task force together if they didn't think there was some chance that the case could go to trial? Or maybe because it's such a high-profile case, there were investigators who were interested in at least taking a look at it?

View attachment bpdprramseyfeb208.pdf