Solved or not?

[questfortrue]

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?

Chelly, don’t expect a response which will answer your questions. (I know you don't expect that :giggle

The percentage of GJ’s getting it right are very high. However, the gist of this thread is “solved or not”.

Respectfully, excluding the IDIs’ or fence-sitting posters , from last year’s GJ revelation, those who’ve read up on this case, or even have a modicum of knowledge beyond the electronic sound bites, have made up their mind as to who was responsible. (I’ve seen a poll with 93% believing the R’s responsible and 7% think an intruder.) So maybe it is solved in the public’s mind. Moo

Cover-up? Permitting? Unless one of the R’s were running a little pedophile club out of their basement, the idea that the R’s were covering up for an intruder is pretty out there. No?

We all wish the GJ True Bill info was more definitive as to which one of them struck her and which one strangled her, but I’ve given some weight to the private words of one of the jurors (spoken to Brennan) that “they didn’t know who (of the R’s) did what.” “And someone could have gotten her help and they didn’t.”

Back to the legal discussion of this. Before the knowledge of the GJ opinion back in 2001 when Marcia Clark spoke to CS, criminal defense attorney, and asked why the DA couldn’t charge the two adult R’s and let the jury figure it out. (Marcia Clark said “we do that in California.&#8221 Back then CS opined that he believed the GJ was weighing whether to charge someone with being an accomplice or an accessory after the fact. But he didn’t think they could go to trial as it was. I believe there was more to AH’s decision than not knowing how to proceed. But that’s only my opinion.

Perhaps PW’s new book is aimed to highlight the R’s innocence, once again. Yet, another book, more religious avowals, and there are still individuals on public forums who are firmly RDI. And the Internet seems to thrive and live on. I know many many young people who only get their news from the Internet. So it’s a new ballgame now. If the RST managed to “pr-hornswoggle” the mainstream media rotten luck that they haven’t been able to silence the Internet. JMHO

 

[DeeDee249]

Is there anyone who would actually thing a parent is INNOCENT of any wrongdoing if they "just stood around and let someone else kill their daughter"?
You can dance around the GJ indictments all you like. But what it says is that the parents KNEW what happened to their daughter, COVERED IT UP and LIED ABOUT IT. THAT is a crime. They are just as guilty, even if they did not kill her themselves.

 

[UKGuy]

Is there anyone who would actually thing a parent is INNOCENT of any wrongdoing if they "just stood around and let someone else kill their daughter"?
You can dance around the GJ indictments all you like. But what it says is that the parents KNEW what happened to their daughter, COVERED IT UP and LIED ABOUT IT. THAT is a crime. They are just as guilty, even if they did not kill her themselves.

DeeDee249,
Too true! They were the only people in that house that night, so one of them definitely killed JonBenet. My money is on one of the parents, and with no medical assistance called for, this makes it a deliberate decision, not an accidental death!

JonBenet was killed so that her abuse could go unrecorded and unreported, she was silenced, so the R's could continue to live their millionare lifestyle and promote themselves, just as JR has done ever since with his foray into politics and business both failures since he is seen as tainted!

AH might have taken a pragmatic decision not to prosecute back then, with new dna techniques, new evidence is possible, Kolar's book suggests a prosecution might be viable, if only on related charges?


.

 

[chlban]

I think it is not solved only because I don't think we know for certain which Ramsey actually killed her. Like most people, I have an opinion on that, but it still waivers under persuasive arguments.

What does not waiver, ever, is that it was RDI. Anything else is just absurd, IMO, for reasons that are covered here on a daily basis

 

[Venom]

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/

Wow. :what:

 

[Darlene733510]

The GJ did find the parents guilty. The fact that they reached their decision the day after BR testified speaks for itself. If only we had access to all of the testimony, IMO, would most likely tell us why the GJ reached that verdict.
I have always wondered why JR and PR were never questioned. Did AH make the decision that they would not testify.

 

[Chelly]

The GJ did find the parents guilty. The fact that they reached their decision the day after BR testified speaks for itself. If only we had access to all of the testimony, IMO, would most likely tell us why the GJ reached that verdict.
I have always wondered why JR and PR were never questioned. Did AH make the decision that they would not testify.

Good question, Darlene. Additionally, I have wondered if the GJ could have requested that the adult R's testify?

 

[BBB167893]

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.

You're overlooking the obvious, Scarlett. The implication is clear: the one parent DID the killing, and the other helped out. They just couldn't say for sure which one did which, as one of the Jurors said last year when the news broke. Just as I've always said.

 

[BBB167893]

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:

You're quite correct, Nom de Plume. AH was never going to press charges. That's not why he called the Grand Jury. The GJ was just a dog and pony show for the media so that the Governor wouldn't take the case away from his office. You have to wonder WHY he felt that way, but that's neither here nor there right now.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

While I appreciate the sentiment in that statement, Nom de plume, speaking purely for myself, justice in this case would not necessarily be a death sentence. Justice and punishment are not always the same. I'm not trying to lecture you. I simply prefer if the company I keep know the ground upon which I stand.

 

[BBB167893]

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?

Those are valid questions. Hopefully, the entire GJ proceeding will be released someday.

 

[Chelly]

While I appreciate the sentiment in that statement, Nom de plume, speaking purely for myself, justice in this case would not necessarily be a death sentence. Justice and punishment are not always the same. I'm not trying to lecture you. I simply prefer if the company I keep know the ground upon which I stand.

Speaking for myself, justice would have been a death sentence.

 

[Anyhoo]

While I appreciate the sentiment in that statement, Nom de plume, speaking purely for myself, justice in this case would not necessarily be a death sentence. Justice and punishment are not always the same. I'm not trying to lecture you. I simply prefer if the company I keep know the ground upon which I stand.

For myself, the beginning of justice would be simply to have the identity of the murderer to be publicly known, whether that person be John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey. This public knowledge would bring about its own justice. The great injustice in this case is the fact that the murderer has been able to successfully hide his or her identity for almost 20 years, all the while blaming others (or allowing others to be blamed) for a crime that he/she knows full well he/she committed. THAT is the real injustice IMO.

I want to rip away the mask this person has been hiding under all these years so the entire world knows them for who they are: a child murderer.

 

[Venom]

SuperDave, do you know why the R's weren't called to testify to the grand jury? I can't understand why all of the 4 people who were in the house that night weren't called to testify? 1 is dead, 1 who was a child did testify, but the 2 adults didn't testify...why?

 

[Anti-K]

The GJ did find the parents guilty. The fact that they reached their decision the day after BR testified speaks for itself. If only we had access to all of the testimony, IMO, would most likely tell us why the GJ reached that verdict.
I have always wondered why JR and PR were never questioned. Did AH make the decision that they would not testify.

This is false. The grand jury did not find the parents guilty. That’s not what grand jurors do. The grand jury simply found that there was cause to charge and try the parents. AH (and his “team,” with some dissent) disagreed with the jurors. The jurors, as far as I’ve seen, understood that decision.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave, do you know why the R's weren't called to testify to the grand jury? I can't understand why all of the 4 people who were in the house that night weren't called to testify? 1 is dead, 1 who was a child did testify, but the 2 adults didn't testify...why?

No, I can't say that I know for certain why they were not called. Many people have pointed out that it doesn't make sense for them not to be called. All I have is speculation. If you believe that AH was trying for an indictment against them, one could speculate that he was afraid the GJ would find them credible. If you believe that AH was not actively pursuing an indictment, maybe he was afraid that their appearance would guarantee an indictment. Only the people who ran the GJ could say for sure, and they're not talking.

 

[Darlene733510]

I will make a correction on my statement that the GJ found the parents guilty. What I meant to say is that the GJ indicted them, but AH refused to acknowledge it to the public at the time. He also decided not to bring them to trial. I hope this makes it clear what I meant.

 

[tezi]

Please take note, another person has been exonerated by the BPD, the BPD who investigated the case....I tried to post a thread but it has to be approved.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...leet-white-jr-again-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder

"A great deal of that reporting and speculation targeted innocent community members whose only connection to the crime was as cooperating witnesses," Beckner said. "This includes the Fleet White, Jr. family of Boulder who suffered embarrassment and damage to their reputations."

***************************

Read the bolded part carefully...I am so tired of innocent people being hurt like this. The GJ indicted John and Patsy Ramsey, not anyone else.

JMO

 

[Venom]

I will make a correction on my statement that the GJ found the parents guilty. What I meant to say is that the GJ indicted them, but AH refused to acknowledge it to the public at the time. He also decided not to bring them to trial. I hope this makes it clear what I meant.

I knew what you meant.

 

[Darlene733510]

Hi Tez - kind of interesting that the BPD made that statement, isn't it? I wonder if there is someone playing the blame game again?
I was reading at another site recently, and there was someone there making accusations against FW.
I do think that he and PW have info, but for some reason don't want to speak about it.
I guess being dragged through the mud by the pit bulls was enough, and I can't blame them.