Why did the Grand Jury not indict the Ramseys?

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Roy23, Aug 21, 2009.

  1. Nom de plume

    Nom de plume Member

    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Connections. I don't believe that money alone would have bought their freedom. You have to know who to bribe, and with how much, for it to work. Without the connections, all money can buy is high priced attorneys. I don't really believe that JR bribed anyone. I do believe there were connections with too many influentual people that may have had their own skeletons to hide. IMO, they were probably connected in ways most people would never imagine, or want to believe.
     
    tezi and mickey2942 like this.


  2. midwest mama

    midwest mama Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,303
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I would guess multi-millions over the years, but as Nom said, without the connections, someone could have out-priced the Ramsey's funds available for silence.

    Money helped put up the 'security fence', but it takes the muscle of the right 'guards' to keep out the fence climbers.
     
    mickey2942 likes this.
  3. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Both. Connections were very important, it's always nice to have the prosecutor's office on your side and trying hard to find ways not to charge you.

    I believe a famous detective was bribed.
     
  4. SuperDave

    SuperDave Former Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You'll notice I'm not laughing.

    If you look at it a certain way, they have. Like I said, something like 98% of the people who make it to the indictment stage ARE guilty. I realize that's not what you had in mind, but it's helpful to remember.

    I had a feeling you wouldn't.

    YOU say. Actually, I'm glad you brought that up, because there was something I wanted to throw out for public discussion. Over this past week, it was revealed that the explosive that was detonated in Boston had female DNA on it that doesn't belong to Tamerlan's turncoat wife. It's fairly obvious at this point that it's not relevant to the case; Jahar's guilt is already proven as far as it ever could be. But, as in this case, there are people who are hinging on this mystery DNA to free him. (WHY people would want him free is best discussed on the 'Politics' board.) To me, it's proof of what I've been telling you for years: the more sensitive these DNA tests get, the more irrelevant DNA is found. In the case of JB, the Rs just got lucky enough that the DA in charge had never taken a case to trial and had no real knowledge of forensics.

    I don't see how you CAN.

    What is there to BE done, Roy? Tell me that. The case basically died with Patsy. That's not just MY opinion.

    Yeah, I guess it is. I'll keep my opinions on THAT to myself.
     
  5. douce40

    douce40 New Member

    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Alex Hunter just simply wimped out. It reminds me of a friend of mine that plays poker. Almost every hand he gets he folds. There are times he folds and he ends up with the best hand without even drawing any cards:banghead: Then once in a while he doesn't fold and everyone at the table knows he has a great hand. Alex Hunter was waiting for the royal flush that never came and probably will never come.
     
  6. douce40

    douce40 New Member

    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  7. elannia

    elannia Member

    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Just reading through old threads and reading about why the grand jury didn’t return an indictment... which we find out later on thru the years that they actually had returned one, AH just didn’t see it fit to act upon it
     
    mickey2942 likes this.
  8. elannia

    elannia Member

    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    And then there is this... does anyone think it would have gotten a confession out of the R’’s if AH had acted upon the indictment? Would it have scared them enough for them to talk to try to get some leniency from confessing?
     
    mickey2942 likes this.
  9. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,337
    Likes Received:
    2,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    elannia,
    Well arresting, separating the suspects then interviewing them should be the normal procedure.

    If Hunter said he was filing the True Bills with intention to prosecute then the parents would likely have attempted some kind of negotiated deal

    Why Hunter did not recommend both parents for Murder in the First Degree is curious, also knowing he never filed the True Bills suggests maybe he never wanted a public court case at all?

    It might be Hunter is guilty of a legal cover up?

    .
     
  10. mickey2942

    mickey2942 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,488
    Likes Received:
    76,225
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Privilege.
     
    SkyBoomer likes this.
  11. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The only two counts out of the nine we are aware of are counts IV-a and VII. That is because these two counts received the proper number of votes from the jury. That wasn't the case with counts I, II, III, IV, IV-b, V, and VI.
     
  12. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,337
    Likes Received:
    2,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    icedtea4me,

    IMO,

    COUNT I
    COUNT II
    COUNT III
    COUNT IV
    COUNT IV-b
    COUNT V
    COUNT VI

    were all leveled at the person cited in COUNTS IV-a and VII.

    I have specimen details of COUNTS I-IV :

    Here is a title excerpt with the person redacted


    COUNT I (Murder in the First Degree)
    On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, REDACTED did unlawfully kill JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.

    The other COUNTS expand with more detail, outlining what they think happened to JonBenet.

    .
     
  13. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The name would be redacted because...?
     
    SkyBoomer likes this.
  14. David Rogers

    David Rogers Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Because he was under 10?
     
    SkyBoomer likes this.
  15. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,337
    Likes Received:
    2,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    David Rogers,
    Since the COUNTS I-IV did not receive the required super-majority as an agreement for an indictment they were returned as NO BILLS. i.e. they have no legal status and the named person cannot be cited in connection with the latter COUNTS.

    District Attorney Alex Hunter refused to sign the papers and file them suggesting he thought probable cause would not be sufficient to make a successful prosecution.

    District Attorney Alex Hunter likely selected the Grand Jury criminal procedure due to the age of some of the witness's as it protects the potential defendant's reputation in case the jury does not decide to indict.

    Consider if Alex Hunter did not think the evidence presented would prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury trial, then what do you call Mary Lacy's exoneration of the parents on the basis their touch-dna as it did not match that of any of the multiple samples recovered from JonBenet's person?

    Does this mean Mary Lacy could not exonerate Burke Ramsey as his touch-dna was found on the bloodstained Pink Barbie Nightgown?


    IMO Alex Hunter never filed the indictments as he considered them to be probable cause so putting the parents in the dock would not achieve a resolution and only serve to advertise there was another person involved.

    .
     
    SkyBoomer, David Rogers and Beltonian like this.
  16. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63


    “The court has now reviewed the documents submitted under seal,” Lowenbach wrote in the order. “The documents consist of 18 pages, nine each relating to John and Patricia Ramsey. It appears that the District Attorney, presumably acting at the direction of the Grand Jury, prepared a series of possible charges regarding John Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey based on the fact that the child had died and that there was evidence that a sexual assault of the child had occurred.”

    JonBenét Ramsey Case|Indictment to Be Released

    The only counts were for John and Patsy. There were no others. If counts IV-a and VII were the only counts against each of them, they'd have been listed as counts I and II.
     
    mickey2942 and David Rogers like this.
  17. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,337
    Likes Received:
    2,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    icedtea4me,
    It could be John and Patsy had counts of Murder1 leveled at them?

    C.R.S. provides:
    (4) would be the rationale for hitting JR and PR with the exact same counts?

    Specimen Counts might be:

    There might be separate counts for each of JonBenet's injuries and the staging, etc?

    .
     
    David Rogers likes this.
  18. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,337
    Likes Received:
    2,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For clarity: John and Patsy receive Murder in the First Degree counts as the Grand Jury likely assumed one of the parents applied the ligature and paintbrush.

    So who is the person ? Both parents are charged with assisting the person i.e. 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.

    So either the parents are not charged with Murder in the First Degree, i.e. no probable cause e.g. lack of evidence and the named person is charged with Murder in the First Degree?

    Looks like it boils down to who the Grand Jury thought the named person was?

    Neither parent was charged explicitly with a count of Child Abuse so does this mean the named person cannot be one of the parents?

    .
     
  19. bambinoti

    bambinoti Former Member

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    That the Rs weren`t called, couldn`t that have been part of the prosecutions overall strategy. That, as presented, the DA went with the strengths of what the case evidence could provide.
     
  20. Tobiano8th

    Tobiano8th Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    303
    Likes Received:
    606
    Trophy Points:
    93
    grunching..

    i believe the party line was "not a reasonable chance at a conviction"............ my sense is that almost everyone believes RDI by accident (and technically, they may have actually killed their daughter not knowing she was already dead) but that nobody really knows what happened. it is very hard to get a conviction when you don't know what happened. they would have presented one scenario to jurors and then they can't say "or it could have been a bunch of other things, most of which implicate the R's".

    i have no opinion as to whether the DA came to that conclusion through the proper analysis/protocols or whether they were going to dismiss things no matter the grand jury evidence.

    and i have no knowledge of how DA's and grand juries are supposed to operate in general .... my knowledge of it comes from the Rockford Files
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice