Bill McReynolds
Steve Eller

United States

#1642 Apr 7, 2013
red robben wrote:
<quoted text>
I found this post above.
Will this help?
NEWS FLASH
The GJ look at information that was known at that time. At that time.
Now, Touch DNA was found on many item that proves with out any mistakes, that a white male last touch jonBenet that night.
If the GJ had this importance information, TOUCH DNA, then it would only have taken one day to complete the GJ not a year, and they did not know what to do.
NEWS FLASH RDIs
Now what are you going to post?
:-)
Its the LAW
Check the information timing..........DNA
Learn English...it may prevent you from writing and repeating falsehoods in this case. Hope it helps...
Nobodyudno

Elizabethtown, KY

#1643 Apr 7, 2013
Its the Law wrote:
NEWS FLASH
The GJ look at information that was known at that time. At that time.
Now, Touch DNA was found on many item that proves with out any mistakes, that a white male last touch jonBenet that night.
If the GJ had this importance information, TOUCH DNA, then it would only have taken one day to complete the GJ not a year, and they did not know what to do.
NEWS FLASH RDIs
Now what are you going to post?
:-)
Its the LAW
What were the "many items?" I thought touch DNA (which is easily transferable through secondary contact as well as primary contact) was found only on two small places on the waistband of one garment.

If I shook hands with you and you then brushed your hand along the lapel of your jacket, guess what, you likely would have transferred skin cells from my handshake to your lapel. If you're found murdered ten hours later, how does that prove I did it?

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#1644 Apr 7, 2013
As a rule I avoid all McReynolds threads but since this has been a hot topic for a couple days I decided to come have a look. Iíve only read the last page or so and have no idea what has been previously discussed. If itís been McReynolds, then Iím not interested, but from what Iíve seen the topic has wandered a bit away from that.

Posters who believe that there was an indictment are mistaken. It is true that the Grand Jury voted to indict, but there was no indictment due to lack of evidence. In the recent Brennan article <1> revealing the jurorís decision those jurors referenced all seemed to be understanding of that decision. The vote to indict simply means that the jurorís felt that there was enough evidence to support a charge and a trial.

If a trial had occurred at that time then the ransom note would have been central. Whoever wrote the note committed the crime. If the jurors believed that there was sufficient evidence to support a claim of Ramsey authorship then this would have trumped anything that Smit or Thomas might have had to say. It would have been at trial that the evidence of authorship would have been challenged and it is there that the battle would have been lost.

But, there was no trial (because there was NO indictment due to lack of evidence) and years went by and further evidence was developed and it would be surprising indeed if a present day grand jury would repeat their predecessors decision. I doubt that they would.

<1> http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_22...
Ö

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#1645 Apr 7, 2013
The male, foreign DNA, specifically the panty/leggings DNA, represents a potential suspect who must be identified and investigated. It may have an innocent explanation but so far, despite effort, none has been found.

There are 2 and Ĺ pages of unidentified handwriting. Say what you will about being not excluded, etc. but at the end of it none of the qualified experts has identified anyone as author.

There are un-sourced, brown, cotton fibers found in incriminating locations.

There are items missing from the house; for example: a brown, cotton item used to wipe the body, pages from notepad, roll of tape, length of cord, end of paint brush.

There are items not sourced to the house; for example: cord and tape, various fibers and hairs.

These are all intruder indicators. There may be innocent explanations for each and every one of them, but so far they have not been found, or, at least, none have been shown to be true.
Some intruder evidence is evidence inferred; if they didnít do it, an intruder must have. Kane said, "The things that would normally say it was somebody on the inside were certainly very much there," but, "On the other hand, you had things that said there is no way it could have been somebody on the inside." Garnett said the case file was equivocal. These are acknowledgements of ďintruder evidence.Ē
Ö

AK
deb

Minneapolis, MN

#1646 Apr 7, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you acquired some of the Ramsey traits and it either escaped your attention or you forgot, they actually did one better than arrest Patsy, the INDICTED her!
And just was do you think an indictment means? It certainly does not mean the GJ found her guilty.

All it means, as clarified for you by Mama, is that with the evidence the Prosecutor presented, the GJ thought there was a probability of a crime committed and that there was enough evidence shown to them to bring the Ramseys to trial. NOT that they were guilty.

Consult all the legal info on the www. It may help you express yourself in an intelligent manner.

I think we have all watched enough trials were people are sentenced due to circumstantial evidence which really should not have been used to convict them.

We all need to thank God for prosecutors who are diligent and honest enough not to prosecute based on shaky or incomplete evidence.
Oil Man

Miami, FL

#1647 Apr 7, 2013
deb wrote:
<quoted text>
And just was do you think an indictment means? It certainly does not mean the GJ found her guilty.
All it means, as clarified for you by Mama, is that with the evidence the Prosecutor presented, the GJ thought there was a probability of a crime committed and that there was enough evidence shown to them to bring the Ramseys to trial. NOT that they were guilty.
Consult all the legal info on the www. It may help you express yourself in an intelligent manner.
I think we have all watched enough trials were people are sentenced due to circumstantial evidence which really should not have been used to convict them.
We all need to thank God for prosecutors who are diligent and honest enough not to prosecute based on shaky or incomplete evidence.
Well said, There are some poster that knows the facts.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#1648 Apr 8, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep quoting the spammer/troll. That does much for your credibility.
What credibility?

This is done purposefully and they feel it is somehow spiteful to the RDI so they do it even more. Her and Lynette have always been willing to ruin OTHER boards, allowing their friends and buddies to spam it up and this is no different. The spammer/s are friend/s of Lynette's therefore friends of "mama" ;) so it's odd that the invite to their forum hasn't been forthcoming

Engaging the spammer/s is probably more telling than anything we can say about them anyway so that's a good thing

Hopefully mama and her crew will invite MMichigan and all the other hats to forummotion and their forum so that they can engage them full time and not have to slum here to speak to him/her/them
Steve Eller

United States

#1649 Apr 8, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
As a rule I avoid all McReynolds threads but since this has been a hot topic for a couple days I decided to come have a look. Iíve only read the last page or so and have no idea what has been previously discussed. If itís been McReynolds, then Iím not interested, but from what Iíve seen the topic has wandered a bit away from that.
Posters who believe that there was an indictment are mistaken. It is true that the Grand Jury voted to indict, but there was no indictment due to lack of evidence. In the recent Brennan article <1> revealing the jurorís decision those jurors referenced all seemed to be understanding of that decision. The vote to indict simply means that the jurorís felt that there was enough evidence to support a charge and a trial.
If a trial had occurred at that time then the ransom note would have been central. Whoever wrote the note committed the crime. If the jurors believed that there was sufficient evidence to support a claim of Ramsey authorship then this would have trumped anything that Smit or Thomas might have had to say. It would have been at trial that the evidence of authorship would have been challenged and it is there that the battle would have been lost.
But, there was no trial (because there was NO indictment due to lack of evidence) and years went by and further evidence was developed and it would be surprising indeed if a present day grand jury would repeat their predecessors decision. I doubt that they would.
<1> http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_22...
Ö
AK
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP POSTING 'INTERPRETATIONS' THAT YOU KNOW ARE OUTRIGHT FALSEHOODS?

The Grand Jury voted to indict! In this country that is an INDICTMENT. According to Colorado law, Hunter was obligated to return the true bill and seek its dismissal. There was a specific charge of child abuse resulting in death. A grand jury won't indict if there is a lack of evidence, the threshhold for indicting and convicting are not the same. Alex Hunter refused to pursue the charges because HE felt that there was not enough evidence even though at least two members of his task force disagreed. Start the bouts of 'misrembering' because you are going to need them.
Steve Eller

United States

#1650 Apr 8, 2013
deb wrote:
<quoted text>
And just was do you think an indictment means? It certainly does not mean the GJ found her guilty.
All it means, as clarified for you by Mama, is that with the evidence the Prosecutor presented, the GJ thought there was a probability of a crime committed and that there was enough evidence shown to them to bring the Ramseys to trial. NOT that they were guilty.
Consult all the legal info on the www. It may help you express yourself in an intelligent manner.
I think we have all watched enough trials were people are sentenced due to circumstantial evidence which really should not have been used to convict them.
We all need to thank God for prosecutors who are diligent and honest enough not to prosecute based on shaky or incomplete evidence.
An indictment is different from a conviction and that fact is not in dispute. This crying game about what an indictment means and doesn't mean is just a diversionary tactic because of the strong evidence against the Ramseys. Facts are facts and you can try to spin all you want. A jury of 12 disinterested individuals studied this case for thirteen months, had access to information that we do not, was presented FALSE information about a stun gun that we now know was not used. A Grand Jury was directed in enormous length in reviewing information and presentations in favor of the Ramseys, yet still found that there was cause to prosecute them. Nothing changes that and it is something that Ramsey apologists will never be able to circumvent.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#1651 Apr 8, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
An indictment is different from a conviction and that fact is not in dispute. This crying game about what an indictment means and doesn't mean is just a diversionary tactic because of the strong evidence against the Ramseys. Facts are facts and you can try to spin all you want. A jury of 12 disinterested individuals studied this case for thirteen months, had access to information that we do not, was presented FALSE information about a stun gun that we now know was not used. A Grand Jury was directed in enormous length in reviewing information and presentations in favor of the Ramseys, yet still found that there was cause to prosecute them. Nothing changes that and it is something that Ramsey apologists will never be able to circumvent.
An excellent post Steve

So strange that the cry is so different now. Up until we found out that the GJ did in fact indict the Ramseys, for 15+ years all we have heard that IF there was evidence that any Ramsey was responsible, the GJ would have indicted. Now that we know they did, suddenly it is meaningless LOL

They have nothing left but to drag out old names who are innocent, or just dispute for the sake of disputing, all the medical examiners, prosecutors, and everyone else that knows the Ramseys are in this up to their eyeballs and further

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#1652 Apr 8, 2013
The grand jury voted to indict, but there was no indictment: "I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time," Hunter told the reporters assembled outside the Boulder County Justice Center on Oct. 13, 1999. <1>

If there had been an indictment, then charges would have been filed and the case would have gone to trial. Neither of these things happened.
<1> http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_22...
Ö

AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#1653 Apr 8, 2013
Hunter didn't allow the indictment. The GJ found the Ramseys responsible. Once they voted it was up to Hunter to respect what they had asked for

He chose not to but the fact remains that the GJ voted to indict the Ramseys

You can't change the facts. They voted to indict and Hunter refused

It's just that simple

Hunter had his orders, period!

Hunter chose not to respect the GJ but that doesn't make the Ramseys innocent, and even the GJ didn't find them innocent and considering that Lou Smit also "performed" for them, they still voted to indict so I can only imagine some of the evidence we have yet to hear about that the GJ DID hear about

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#1654 Apr 8, 2013
On the surface, you are correct, the GJ did vote to indict, and Hunter chose not to. That in no way shape or form indicates innocence of the Ramseys.

Many reasons as to why this didnít happen have been discussed, and nowhere has it even been said there wasnít evidence to support it Ė except out of Hunterís mouth. Maybe not enough to support WHICH Ramsey would be charged, but there was evidence, in fact there was enough that the majority of the GJ voted to indict. The only way the Ramseys get a clean bill of health on an indictment and/or charges is had the GJ chosen NOT to indict. That didnít happen.

Without knowing which Ramsey did what part of the crime, well Ė Wendy Murphy explained that one fairly well. If charging both, it would have been an exercise in futility with the cross finger pointing. Not charging both, they would have had a hard time deciding ďWhoĒ was on first!

Another aspect which has been discussed is Hunter was about to retire. Had it been a slam dunker, I am not sure he would have even prosecuted then, but he might have indicted and then offered a plea like he did in all (or most) of his other cases. Iím not even sure if Hunter had ever seen the inside of a courtroom Ė why bother to start when you are ready to retire?
Anti-K wrote:
The grand jury voted to indict, but there was no indictment: "I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time," Hunter told the reporters assembled outside the Boulder County Justice Center on Oct. 13, 1999. <1>
If there had been an indictment, then charges would have been filed and the case would have gone to trial. Neither of these things happened.
<1> http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_22...
Ö
AK
Steve Eller

United States

#1655 Apr 8, 2013
A District Attorney can not issue an indictment. The indictment must be issued by a grand jury and if an indictment is returned it must be processed by the District Attorney. By not processing the indictment at least one legal expert in Colorado believes that Hunter may have violated the law.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1656 Apr 8, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
What credibility?
This is done purposefully and they feel it is somehow spiteful to the RDI so they do it even more. Her and Lynette have always been willing to ruin OTHER boards, allowing their friends and buddies to spam it up and this is no different. The spammer/s are friend/s of Lynette's therefore friends of "mama" ;) so it's odd that the invite to their forum hasn't been forthcoming
Engaging the spammer/s is probably more telling than anything we can say about them anyway so that's a good thing
Hopefully mama and her crew will invite MMichigan and all the other hats to forummotion and their forum so that they can engage them full time and not have to slum here to speak to him/her/them
You do know that Mama/Lynette and GAR are one and the same, don't you?
The Truth Hurts

United States

#1662 Apr 8, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
What credibility?
This is done purposefully and they feel it is somehow spiteful to the RDI so they do it even more. Her and Lynette have always been willing to ruin OTHER boards, allowing their friends and buddies to spam it up and this is no different. The spammer/s are friend/s of Lynette's therefore friends of "mama" ;) so it's odd that the invite to their forum hasn't been forthcoming
Engaging the spammer/s is probably more telling than anything we can say about them anyway so that's a good thing
Hopefully mama and her crew will invite MMichigan and all the other hats to forummotion and their forum so that they can engage them full time and not have to slum here to speak to him/her/them
What was I thinking? LOL
Biz

Port Richey, FL

#1666 Apr 8, 2013
OneWhoCares wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know that Mama/Lynette and GAR are one and the same, don't you?
LMAO. NO they aren't. I know that FOR A FACT.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#1667 Apr 8, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
Hunter didn't allow the indictment. The GJ found the Ramseys responsible. Once they voted it was up to Hunter to respect what they had asked for
He chose not to but the fact remains that the GJ voted to indict the Ramseys
You can't change the facts. They voted to indict and Hunter refused
It's just that simple
Hunter had his orders, period!
Hunter chose not to respect the GJ but that doesn't make the Ramseys innocent, and even the GJ didn't find them innocent and considering that Lou Smit also "performed" for them, they still voted to indict so I can only imagine some of the evidence we have yet to hear about that the GJ DID hear about
The Grand Jury found that there was sufficient evidence to charge the Ramseys with an offence so that they could be tried on that offence. Thatís a very different thing than being found responsible and such a finding was not their providence.

However, I agree that Hunter didnít allow the indictment and not allowing the indictment means that there was no indictment.

I think that the reason Smit/Douglas had little impact on the jurors is simply because whoever wrote the note did the crime and Smit/Douglas would have had nothing to counter evidence of authorship presented to the jurors.
Ö

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#1668 Apr 8, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
On the surface, you are correct, the GJ did vote to indict, and Hunter chose not to. That in no way shape or form indicates innocence of the Ramseys.
Many reasons as to why this didnít happen have been discussed, and nowhere has it even been said there wasnít evidence to support it Ė except out of Hunterís mouth. Maybe not enough to support WHICH Ramsey would be charged, but there was evidence, in fact there was enough that the majority of the GJ voted to indict. The only way the Ramseys get a clean bill of health on an indictment and/or charges is had the GJ chosen NOT to indict. That didnít happen.
Without knowing which Ramsey did what part of the crime, well Ė Wendy Murphy explained that one fairly well. If charging both, it would have been an exercise in futility with the cross finger pointing. Not charging both, they would have had a hard time deciding ďWhoĒ was on first!
Another aspect which has been discussed is Hunter was about to retire. Had it been a slam dunker, I am not sure he would have even prosecuted then, but he might have indicted and then offered a plea like he did in all (or most) of his other cases. Iím not even sure if Hunter had ever seen the inside of a courtroom Ė why bother to start when you are ready to retire?
<quoted text>
Itís true that Hunterís failure to allow the indictment ďin no way shape or form indicates innocence of the Ramseys.Ē
Ö

AK

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#1671 Apr 8, 2013
BrotherMoon wrote:
"The Ramseys" are innocent.
Of the three Ramseys accounted for in the house, with a murdered JB counting as the fourth, two of the three are not chargeable, so, yes, technically, MR RAMSEY, must be considered innocent.....until proven guilty, according to the legal system in this country.

However, if someone in Boulder cares enough about true justice and the fact that JB's remaining parent, once voted responsible for her death, and this same person has enough personal integrity, they will see the option for Felony Murder charges as a possibily against John Ramsey.

Then, let a jury decide once and for all about the innocence of that Ramsey.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
Didn't the Ramseys recognize the note pad paper? (Jul '09) 19 min Verbil 855
the sexual assault (Apr '16) 34 min Tex- 29
Elevator (Jan '16) 1 hr Tex- 31
10-11 am dec 26th 1996 (Mar '16) 1 hr Tex- 4
Dean Ryan Investigation: The Letter 1 hr Steve Eller 22
News 'World's fascination in my sexual abuse forced ... 1 hr Tex- 2
News CBS seeks dismissal of $750M defamation suit br... 1 hr Tex- 123
More from around the web