INDICTMENT ain't a river in Egypt

INDICTMENT ain't a river in Egypt

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: May 11

AOL

#1 Oct 29, 2013
Since the INDICTMENT thread has mysteriously vanished, let's begin a new one. In case some people missed it while tending to their many children or stroking their cats, the RAMSEYS were in fact INDICTED.
I hope KK rewrites her excellent points on the matter and we can all get back to intelligent discussion. Play ball!

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#2 Oct 29, 2013
The indictment undermines John Ramsey's position of vindication. I think he and his lawyers never knew about the Grand Jury's decision. He is now open to further scrutiny from the public as is Alex Hunter.

John is quilty of obstruction of justice for finding the body around 11 am and not reporting to police.

THE QUESTION remains un answered: Who did what between John and Patsy?

The Grand Jury did not figure that out.
Alex Hunter did not figure that out.
Steve Thomas did not figure that out.
Beckner???????

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#3 Oct 29, 2013
THE RAMSEYS WERE INDICTED!

Registered members can access their last dozen or so posts in their profiles.

The Grand Jury did not believe Smit. The Grand Jury did not believe Burke. The Grand Jury believed Thomas and he didn't testify, he didn't have to, the truth speaks for itself. The Ramseys are the killers.

Jonbenetís autopsy showed she was the victim of repeat sexual molestation throughout her short life with chronic changes to her vagina. The Grand Jury understood this fact. The Ramseys disregarded the finding and have made no attempt to uncover who was responsible, as though they already knew.

They saw the death of Jonbenet for what it w

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#4 Oct 29, 2013
I did.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#5 Oct 29, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
Since the INDICTMENT thread has mysteriously vanished, let's begin a new one. In case some people missed it while tending to their many children or stroking their cats, the RAMSEYS were in fact INDICTED.
I hope KK rewrites her excellent points on the matter and we can all get back to intelligent discussion. Play ball!
Thanks for starting this rT- you da bomb!

The documents released Friday show that the grand jury voted to charge both John and Patsy Ramsey with one count of Child Abuse Resulting in Death and one count of Accessory to a Crime. The grand jury issued two separate, but identical indictments for each parent. They state:

On or between Dec. 25 and Dec. 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colo., John Bennett Ramsey did 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, a child under the age of sixteen.

And:

On or between Dec. 25 and Dec. 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colo., John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a 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.

Wash, rinse, repeat for Patsy.

Since: May 11

AOL

#6 Oct 29, 2013
BrotherMoon wrote:
The indictment undermines John Ramsey's position of vindication. I think he and his lawyers never knew about the Grand Jury's decision. He is now open to further scrutiny from the public as is Alex Hunter.
John is quilty of obstruction of justice for finding the body around 11 am and not reporting to police.
THE QUESTION remains un answered: Who did what between John and Patsy?
The Grand Jury did not figure that out.
Alex Hunter did not figure that out.
Steve Thomas did not figure that out.
Beckner???????
Excellent BroMoon! Perhaps Linda Arndt figured it out? I just read her statement about visiting Patsy and it seems to me she has a lot of answers but we don't know to what questions. She did NOT go back on her initial statement about JR, that much is evident.
She said the 'people around' Patsy did not want them to talk, said the things Patsy told her 10 years earlier proved true, and that Patsy went to her grave carrying many secrets. She basically apologized to Patsy, but nowhere in there does she apologize to JR.
Now, if that means Patsy confessed her guilt, she has a very circuitous way of saying so;)

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#7 Oct 29, 2013
moonjack wrote:
The Grand Jury did not believe Burke.
They might have regarding JBR being awake and walking in the house.

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#8 Oct 29, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text> Perhaps Linda Arndt figured it out?
You as a JDI resort to Arndt like IDI's resort to Lacy.

Since: May 11

AOL

#9 Oct 29, 2013
BrotherMoon wrote:
<quoted text>
You as a JDI resort to Arndt like IDI's resort to Lacy.
uh, there's a big difference as I see it,.. Linda Arndt was actually THERE. She was also present at the autopsy.
I resort to her observations and commentary because I resort to reality. If I wanted to live in lalaland and resort to fiction, I'd move to lalaland and yap about Sandy Stranger and her bloody bowl of pineapple and cream all day.
Now, If I wanted the Ramseys to be innocent on the surface (can't unring that bell, you know), I'd check myself into an asylum once I found out the gj RETURNED AN INDICTMENT of BOTH PARENTS! That means they heard things that made them believe JR didn't just get on all fours and moan a bit;)

Since: May 11

AOL

#12 Oct 29, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for starting this rT- you da bomb!
The documents released Friday show that the grand jury voted to charge both John and Patsy Ramsey with one count of Child Abuse Resulting in Death and one count of Accessory to a Crime. The grand jury issued two separate, but identical indictments for each parent. They state:
On or between Dec. 25 and Dec. 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colo., John Bennett Ramsey did 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, a child under the age of sixteen.
And:
On or between Dec. 25 and Dec. 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colo., John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a 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.
Wash, rinse, repeat for Patsy.
Hi LE:D
I didn't see this til now but thank you kindly!

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#13 Oct 29, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
Linda Arndt was actually THERE.
And that is the problem, she is Linda Arndt.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#14 Oct 30, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
Since the INDICTMENT thread has mysteriously vanished, let's begin a new one. In case some people missed it while tending to their many children or stroking their cats, the RAMSEYS were in fact INDICTED.
I hope KK rewrites her excellent points on the matter and we can all get back to intelligent discussion. Play ball!
Thanks for starting this again RT

Yes, the Ramseys were indicted fair and square by a Grand Jury and no amount of semantics will change that fact.

A rose is a rose is a rose. They were never convicted of any crime but no matter what words one chooses to use, the fact remains that a Grand Jury agrees after hearing all the evidence and spin that the Ramseys were responsible for the death of JBR in some fashion.

I have several posts from the old thread and I too hope KK reposts those excellent and informative posts

All we can do now is hope and pray that this news prompts some more attention to this case and after all these years with a whole new generation of students, writers, law enforcement, I'm hoping that someone takes an initial interest in an old, cold crime where nobody has before

The crime itself IMO, has been solved; sadly, several ways LOL but the common thread amongst all who are not Ramsey cheerleaders is that the Ramseys KNOW what happened that night, even if we all do not.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#15 Oct 30, 2013
Do you seriously believe that BM? I think that is naÔve if you do. The Ramsey attorneys had copies of everything going on in the case, I donít see how they could not have known the GJ voted to indict.
BrotherMoon wrote:
I think he and his lawyers never knew about the Grand Jury's decision.
Delta88

Lansing, MI

#16 Oct 31, 2013
One of the charges (paraphrasing) was accessory to murder in the first degree.

This pretty well eliminates BDI theory being the underlying theory the GJ's indictment.

1st degree murder is no accident, and even in a scenario where Burke intends to kill he can't be charged, so if there is no crime there can't be any accessory.
Delta88

Lansing, MI

#17 Oct 31, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Do you seriously believe that BM? I think that is naÔve if you do. The Ramsey attorneys had copies of everything going on in the case, I donít see how they could not have known the GJ voted to indict.
<quoted text>
Yes, they must have known.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#18 Oct 31, 2013
Here is what it actually says from LEís post #5:
[[[ďOn or between Dec. 25 and Dec. 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colo., John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a 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.Ē]]]

Regardless of whether it is/isnít/canít/wonít be prosecuted - there was still a crime. In your scenario, the crime doesnít become a non-crime because the person isnít old enough to prosecute.
Delta88 wrote:
1st degree murder is no accident, and even in a scenario where Burke intends to kill he can't be charged, so if there is no crime there can't be any accessory.
Delta88

Lansing, MI

#19 Oct 31, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Here is what it actually says from LEís post #5:
[[[ďOn or between Dec. 25 and Dec. 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colo., John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a 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.Ē]]]
Regardless of whether it is/isnít/canít/wonít be prosecuted - there was still a crime. In your scenario, the crime doesnít become a non-crime because the person isnít old enough to prosecute.
<quoted text>
So the prosecutor would say a crime was committed even though we can't prove who did it, but we will prove JR and PR were assisted that person? The GJ would certainly be putting the prosecution in a very difficult position.

An event happened, but to classify the event as first degree murder it would be necessary to show premeditation (otherwise it isn't first degree) So how does the prosecutor prove 1st degree w/o proving who did it?

Even if the prosecutor simply says Burke did it but we can't prosecute him, isn't it a defense to the charges to point out that no one has been charged or convicted of a crime so there's no evidence that the adult Rs were accomplices?

My take is that the GJ thought either PR or JR did it with the other assisting. That's why they had identical charges - in case it could be determined at trail who did what.

Also if BDI is the underlying theory on which the charges are based (and it seems clear to me that's not the case) would conspiracy be an additional charge? PR and JR would have to have agree to cover for BR so there would be a conspiracy. I can't see the GJ ignoring possible charges if they apply.

Are there any lawyers here who could answer these questions.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#20 Oct 31, 2013
Delta88 wrote:
<quoted text>
So the prosecutor would say a crime was committed even though we can't prove who did it, but we will prove JR and PR were assisted that person? The GJ would certainly be putting the prosecution in a very difficult position.
An event happened, but to classify the event as first degree murder it would be necessary to show premeditation (otherwise it isn't first degree) So how does the prosecutor prove 1st degree w/o proving who did it?
Even if the prosecutor simply says Burke did it but we can't prosecute him, isn't it a defense to the charges to point out that no one has been charged or convicted of a crime so there's no evidence that the adult Rs were accomplices?
My take is that the GJ thought either PR or JR did it with the other assisting. That's why they had identical charges - in case it could be determined at trail who did what.
Also if BDI is the underlying theory on which the charges are based (and it seems clear to me that's not the case) would conspiracy be an additional charge? PR and JR would have to have agree to cover for BR so there would be a conspiracy. I can't see the GJ ignoring possible charges if they apply.
Are there any lawyers here who could answer these questions.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a noise?

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#21 Oct 31, 2013
Delta88 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are there any lawyers here who could answer these questions.
Try the Thomas Kelly podcast on Boyles' show. You got it right.
robert

Yellowknife, Canada

#22 Oct 31, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a noise?
-- i wish that was my question-- there is no noise- a noise is something you hear.-- the question makes about as much sense as , if you where standing in a garage would you be a car. The tree that fell in the forest made sound waves, ain't my problem no one heard it. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to here it ,does it make sound waves?--Yes ,and those waves are still traveling.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
New movie on the JonBenet Ramsey case 1 hr Jolamom 79
Do you think that... 3 hr Blue Sage 231
Cyril Wecht's Opinion (Mar '09) 10 hr irresponsible ro... 28
Calling a TRUCE with Blue Sage 10 hr okay1234 4
"You will WITHDRAW $118,000.00 dollars from you... (Jul '06) 10 hr okay1234 40
This one is for you BLUE MUCK - what was Patsys... 10 hr okay1234 1
Michael Tracey - what right did you have???? 10 hr okay1234 25
More from around the web