Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Tricia, May 10, 2015.
Still to come...
Okay, Tricia. You've got my attention (and my curiosity piqued). When will we know more?
Just adding this, as it appears apropos to the thread title.
Not new by any means.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The whole DA should be embarrassed and ashamed about the way they handled this case from Alex Hunter to Mary Lacy..
They had the Ramseys back in a pathetic way that troubled the way of justice..
Found an interesting document (a downloadable .pdf file) that defines child abuse in legal terms with some specifics regarding individual states:
I was just wondering, if the Grand Jury decided each of the Ramseys were individually responsible for "Unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly, and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey.." Why was Burke allowed to remain in the household?
I am just speculating... I often wonder if the Ramsey's dropped BR and JBR off at home, got them settled, told them to have a snack and get their PJ's on while PR and JR dropped the gifts off to their friends. Perhaps the GJ testimony revealed this info. Could easily explain the true bill.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting theory, but very doubtful that a) the Ramsey's would ever leave BR alone in the house with JBR (see my other posts), b) that wouldn't be enough for the indictment, and c) would be impossible to prove outside of an R admission.
I find the indictment very interesting and am surprised it isn't getting much more discussion here.
To me, it seems apparent that the GJ believed that a 3rd person (BR) committed the murder.
The only documents I have found are for Count IV(a) and Count VII. Two charges that have been mentioned repeatedly.
Kanzz, the robust discussion of the Grand Jury can be found here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?20436-Why-GJ-Likely-Solved-Case-In-1999
I agree. To me, the Grand Jury findings were always the key to solving this case.
Is it true that Hunter cannot legally discuss anything that took place in the grand jury? Is this because the evidence contains information regarding Burke who was a minor at the time?
I don't know if that's the reason, Mandala. I think he just doesn't want any secrets to get out.
If that's the case then he has a lot to answer for.
Quote from Count VII:
Does this mean the GJ believed that nine year-old BR committed a First Degree Murder? That what happened was even more than a fierce sibling fight that escalated to the point where BR might have struck JB's head in a rage with an object?
Also, the term child abuse makes me think more of a parent's actions than those of a sibling. (?)
I think the GJ was just labeling the crimes that were committed against JB - "Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death". BR was only 9 at the time and couldn't be charged with the crime of murder. Even though we now know that the head blow would have eventually resulted in her demise, it was the strangulation that ultimately caused her death.
Welcome back! I was getting worried.
As to your questions, I agree the wording about child abuse suggests an adult much more than a fellow child. Problem is, the definitions of these terms can be a bit elastic. As to the first, it might still be considered First Degree murder under the Felony Murder rule: that is, someone gets killed in the course of another crime.
It would help if the Grand Jury would tell us these things!
Right. Whoever tied that noose around her neck did so intentionally, thus whoever he/she is, he/she is guilty of 1st degree murder. Forget accident plus staging at that time... it is now murder.
^^^ That is why LLW and JR NEED the narrative to be the opposite.
From what I have read it is extremely common for grand juries to return indictments the test of finding probable cause is a low one. Presumably the indictment was drafted by Hunter and put to the jury as being one that he wanted them to consider? ie was there enough evidence to bring that indictment to trial