Solved or not?

[gramcracker]

I think the media does include them on the list of innocent parents. Or at least they seem to treat John like he is one. The interviews for John's book were very sympathetic to him, and definitely portrayed him as someone whose daughter was killed by an intruder, and then was blamed for it. When the indictment came out, I watched so many cable news shows about it, and they were still pro-Ramsey, bringing up how they were cleared over and over. John's interviews with the media are no different than how they would be if they were with the parents you mentioned, yet would be much different from an interview with Susan Smith or Casey Anthony.

kay:

 

[BBB167893]

Seriously? More people than ever KNOW the Rs are responsible after the GJ indictments were revealed. JR and/or BR could confess, a "death bed confession" from PR could be revealed, and it would still be "that means nothing to ME" " this person isn't credible to ME" "nothing indicates the Rs are responsible to ME". Blah blah blah...

Welcome to the Twilight zone folks! :banghead: It must be nice to live in "La La Land" where reality and evidence "mean nothing to YOU". Wake up and smell the cold, stale, 17 year old coffee! THEY KILLED HER!

And that's not JMO!

I appreciate your frustration, Nom de plume. But getting angry won't help. I ought to know.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Seriously? More people than ever KNOW the Rs are responsible after the GJ indictments were revealed. JR and/or BR could confess, a "death bed confession" from PR could be revealed, and it would still be "that means nothing to ME" " this person isn't credible to ME" "nothing indicates the Rs are responsible to ME". Blah blah blah...

Welcome to the Twilight zone folks! :banghead: It must be nice to live in "La La Land" where reality and evidence "mean nothing to YOU". Wake up and smell the cold, stale, 17 year old coffee! THEY KILLED HER!

And that's not JMO!

Im sorry but there is nothing to KNOW since there is no finding or resolution in this case. It is all just opinion. At this point none of us can claim to know or be right.

 

[Nom de plume]

Im sorry but there is nothing to KNOW since there is no finding or resolution in this case. It is all just opinion. At this point none of us can claim to know or be right.

Oh yes there is! A Grand Jury decided there was enough evidence to indict both parents. We KNOW that, or do you want to ignore that little tidbit just like all the other evidence of Ramsey guilt? Don't bother answering, it was a rhetorical question. A trial, or lack thereof, does not change what happened, no matter how much you want it to be that way.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Oh yes there is! A Grand Jury decided there was enough evidence to indict both parents. We KNOW that, or do you want to ignore that little tidbit just like all the other evidence of Ramsey guilt? Don't bother answering, it was a rhetorical question. A trial, or lack thereof, does not change what happened, no matter how much you want it to be that way.

Not on murder charges which is what the DA was looking for. They indicted them on standing around and letting someone else kill JBR.

So that indictment does not speak to the murder.
Even with that indictment there is no answer to this case.

It is all just opinion, even the GJ until someone is brought to trial and convicted for her murder.

""It doesn't precisely say that the grand jury thought they killed JonBenet," Toobin said. "It's not precisely clear what they thought they did."
The grand jury in 1999 didn't have the DNA findings that emerged in 2008, Toobin said."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/

 

[Nom de plume]

I appreciate your frustration, Nom de plume. But getting angry won't help. I ought to know.

You're right SD. LOL Just one of those days when I'd already had enough, and this was just one thing too many IYKWIM. Personally, I don't care what certain IDIs think. (Others there might be hope for.) If they want to live with their head in the sand, or wherever it is they have it stuck, that's their problem. I'm just sick of listening to it day after day after day..... Disagreeing on who the evidence points to is one thing, but continually ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist is just ridiculous.

 

[Chelly]

Not on murder charges which is what the DA was looking for. They indicted them on standing around and letting someone else kill JBR.

So that indictment does not speak to the murder.
Even with that indictment there is no answer to this case.

It is all just opinion, even the GJ until someone is brought to trial and convicted for her murder.

bbm:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I wish they had indicted them for Murder. Then at least we would have gone to trial, But I think this indictment says they they could not, even with all they had, put it on the parents.
There was not enough there.

It makes this case what it is.
It speaks to me that the Grand jury could not put their finger on the killer either.

 

[Nom de plume]

Not on murder charges which is what the DA was looking for. They indicted them on standing around and letting someone else kill JBR.

So that indictment does not speak to the murder.
Even with that indictment there is no answer to this case.

It is all just opinion, even the GJ until someone is brought to trial and convicted for her murder.

""It doesn't precisely say that the grand jury thought they killed JonBenet," Toobin said. "It's not precisely clear what they thought they did."
The grand jury in 1999 didn't have the DNA findings that emerged in 2008, Toobin said."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/

This is the best one yet!! :floorlaugh: Just what do you think "child abuse RESULTING IN DEATH" means? How in the world do you get somebody else out of that? Funny, I didn't see anything about "standing around letting someone else kill her". :floorlaugh:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

This is the best one yet!! :floorlaugh: Just what do you think "child abuse RESULTING IN DEATH" means? How in the world do you get somebody else out of that? Funny, I didn't see anything about "standing around letting someone else kill her". :floorlaugh:

That is not what it says. IT is says that "John Ramsey did unlawfully, Knowingly,and feloniously render assistance to a person with the intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such a person for the commission of the crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death. "

That is not him committing anything. They are saying they believe that he may have been involved in cover up but not her death.

"Patricia Ramsey did unlawfully knowingly,recklessly,and feloniously PERMIT a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a thread of injury to the childs life or health which resulted in the death of Jonbenet Ramsey a child under age of sixteen. "

There is just no way around the actual wording of the indictment. This does not say that they killed her or that the GJ thought they killed her. But that they ALLOWED someone to kill her and covered it up.

IT is a strange indictment and to me it gives no more answers but many more questions.

I am not making anything up, Or arguing against the obvious. I am taking the indictment as written and that is what it says word for word.

NOT in one place does it say "WE find that the Ramseys actually killed Jonbenet."
Not one.

Again. I wish it was a murder indictment. I think we would have seen a trial and then had an answer one way or the other definitively as all the evidence would be out there.

I take each piece of this case bit by bit. I am not jumping to conclusions or blind to truth. I am not trying to be argumentative but I see this case in a different way.

 

[Nom de plume]

I wish they had indicted them for Murder. Then at least we would have gone to trial, But I think this indictment says they they could not, even with all they had, put it on the parents.
There was not enough there.

It makes this case what it is.
It speaks to me that the Grand jury could not put their finger on the killer either.

Unbelievable!! First of all, no matter what the charges were, AH was NOT going to bring charges. No matter how much evidence there was, AH was NEVER going to press charges.

How does indicting the parents NOT put it on them? The grand jury DID put their fingers on the killer! CHILD ABUSE RESULTING IN DEATH!! The grand jury decided they ABUSED her TO DEATH! Not someone else! :facepalm:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Unbelievable!! First of all, no matter what the charges were, AH was NOT going to bring charges. No matter how much evidence there was, AH was NEVER going to press charges.

How does indicting the parents NOT put it on them? The grand jury DID put their fingers on the killer! CHILD ABUSE RESULTING IN DEATH!! The grand jury decided they ABUSED her TO DEATH! Not someone else! :facepalm:

From someone else. Not from them though. IT does not say they committed child abuse on that child resulting in her death. But that they PERMITTED it.

That is a big distinction.

I know that it is hard when someone does not see something you see so clearly, But that is what is great about humans. We all bring something different to the mix. I care about this case and I want justice. I just don't know what that is yet here. I don't have any ill will toward anyone who thinks differently than I do on this case. I read all the posts. Some of them make me think and look for more evidence. Some lead me to new trails. But as of yet I still see this case from another place than the majority. Maybe you are all right? Maybe there will be a break through, Maybe not. Until then, I can only stick to what I see as the right place to stand. I am sorry if it is frustrating for some of you. That is not my intent at all.

 

[Chelly]

Come on SS, even you can see it. Fess up, you know the R's are responsible for their daughter's death.

 

[Anyhoo]

From someone else. Not from them though. IT does not say they committed child abuse on that child resulting in her death. But that they PERMITTED it.

That is a big distinction.

I know that it is hard when someone does not see something you see so clearly, But that is what is great about humans. We all bring something different to the mix. I care about this case and I want justice. I just don't know what that is yet here. I don't have any ill will toward anyone who thinks differently than I do on this case. I read all the posts. Some of them make me think and look for more evidence. Some lead me to new trails. But as of yet I still see this case from another place than the majority. Maybe you are all right? Maybe there will be a break through, Maybe not. Until then, I can only stick to what I see as the right place to stand. I am sorry if it is frustrating for some of you. That is not my intent at all.

Scarlett, I agree there is a clear distinction between the GJ indictments and accusing either parent of directly murdering their daughter, but there is also a clear distinction between the GJ indictments and what you have said repeatedly about the Ramsey's: No involvement at all in their daughter's death. Do you admit to the distinction? If so, how do you explain the indictments?

 

[Nom de plume]

From someone else. Not from them though. IT does not say they committed child abuse on that child resulting in her death. But that they PERMITTED it.

That is a big distinction.

I know that it is hard when someone does not see something you see so clearly, But that is what is great about humans. We all bring something different to the mix. I care about this case and I want justice. I just don't know what that is yet here. I don't have any ill will toward anyone who thinks differently than I do on this case. I read all the posts. Some of them make me think and look for more evidence. Some lead me to new trails. But as of yet I still see this case from another place than the majority. Maybe you are all right? Maybe there will be a break through, Maybe not. Until then, I can only stick to what I see as the right place to stand. I am sorry if it is frustrating for some of you. That is not my intent at all.

Ok. I'll play your game. Bring the proof that's what the GJ meant. Where does it say they thouht anyone else was involved? Huh? Where does it say "permitted" it to happen, but didn't do it themselves? Let's see your "proof".

BBM No, I can't see what you see. I only see things that are real, not imaginary. You can't, no strike that, you won't see what the vast majority of people see either. The EVIDENCE they did it, and complete and total LACK of evidence anyone else did it! You know it's there, it just doesn't fit you idea of "the perfect family" that you want to believe they were.

IMO, you don't want justice, because justice would be one or more of the Rs on death row. You only want justice if it's some imaginary boogie man.

 

[Chelly]

From someone else. Not from them though. IT does not say they committed child abuse on that child resulting in her death. But that they PERMITTED it.

That is a big distinction.

I know that it is hard when someone does not see something you see so clearly, But that is what is great about humans. We all bring something different to the mix. I care about this case and I want justice. I just don't know what that is yet here. I don't have any ill will toward anyone who thinks differently than I do on this case. I read all the posts. Some of them make me think and look for more evidence. Some lead me to new trails. But as of yet I still see this case from another place than the majority. Maybe you are all right? Maybe there will be a break through, Maybe not. Until then, I can only stick to what I see as the right place to stand. I am sorry if it is frustrating for some of you. That is not my intent at all.

Scarlett, Why are the R's so important to you that you ignore reason and evidence? Why have you come here day-after-day for nearly a year (perhaps longer) to defend them in such a manner that is obviously embarrassing to you? You frequently say here, "That doesn't make sense" What does not make sense is your blindly defending the R's. Why? Really?

 

[Mama2JML]

Scarlett, I agree there is a clear distinction between the GJ indictments and accusing either parent of directly murdering their daughter, but there is also a clear distinction between the GJ indictments and what you have said repeatedly about the Ramsey's: No involvement at all in their daughter's death. Do you admit to the distinction? If so, how do you explain the indictments?

Who did the GJ investigate? Where was the focus? What evidence was presented? Were GJs aware of the media's portrayal of the crime? In 1997, '98, '99, what was the public's perception of this case?

 

[chlban]

ScarlettScarpetta;10157066]Not on murder charges which is what the DA was looking for. They indicted them on standing around and letting someone else kill JBR.

BBM. Really? Yeah, you know how lazy parents are always standing around while someone murders their children? I hate it when that happens.

Seriously folks: ::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Save your energy.

 

[Linda7NJ]

That is not what it says. IT is says that "John Ramsey did unlawfully, Knowingly,and feloniously render assistance to a person with the intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such a person for the commission of the crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death. "

That is not him committing anything. They are saying they believe that he may have been involved in cover up but not her death.

"Patricia Ramsey did unlawfully knowingly,recklessly,and feloniously PERMIT a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a thread of injury to the childs life or health which resulted in the death of Jonbenet Ramsey a child under age of sixteen. "

There is just no way around the actual wording of the indictment. This does not say that they killed her or that the GJ thought they killed her. But that they ALLOWED someone to kill her and covered it up.

IT is a strange indictment and to me it gives no more answers but many more questions.

I am not making anything up, Or arguing against the obvious. I am taking the indictment as written and that is what it says word for word.

NOT in one place does it say "WE find that the Ramseys actually killed Jonbenet."
Not one.

Again. I wish it was a murder indictment. I think we would have seen a trial and then had an answer one way or the other definitively as all the evidence would be out there.

I take each piece of this case bit by bit. I am not jumping to conclusions or blind to truth. I am not trying to be argumentative but I see this case in a different way.

It's worded that way IMO because they were unable to ferret out exactly who did what. But it's obvious to me that they knew the Ramsey's were in it together and up to their necks. The only other person present was also a Ramsey.
Therefore IMO a Ramsey did it. It's also obvious to me that even among us hardcore RDI there is no consensus on exactly who did what. That was the GJ's only issue too. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anyhoo]

Who did the GJ investigate? Where was the focus? What evidence was presented? Were GJs aware of the media's portrayal of the crime? In 1997, '98, '99, what was the public's perception of this case?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions. And your point in asking them is?