Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1878 Apr 19, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>Excellent point Seuss,

Again, the issue really is the FACT that the GJ heard the evidence and found that the Ramseys were responsible for the death of JonBenet Ramsey and that is really all that matters.

Whether it was filed or they knew the legalities of every nuance of their responsibilities, I'm sure they were as surprised as anyone else when the DA asked them to hear the evidence, they heard it, voted and were slapped in the face by Hunter

Filed or not, the Grand Jury found that the Ramseys were responsible for the death of JonBenet Ramsey.

The rest is just fodder for stubborn arguments of denial
No, no, no, and no. Your assessment is false on SO many levels.
Steve Eller

United States

#1879 Apr 19, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Why would they vote to indict if they were just going to fold when challenged and say it's ok if the DA doesn't agree with their decision and that they understand? That sounds like a big waste of the 13-month GJ.
Ever been a juror? Were you aware of all the leagal ins and outs AFTER your job as a juror had ended?
<quoted text>
Exactly. If the Grand Jury was unsure or lukewarm, they could have just issued a report and called it a day. Thirteen months is a long time to conduct an investigation. I am amused at the desperate excuses being propagated by the IDI. That panel did not decline to issue charges, they did not file a report, they issued an INDICTMENT, that speaks volumes and tells us all we need to know about the non effect of the Ramsey defense spin.
Terrance

Kitchener, Canada

#1880 Apr 19, 2013
Why don't people respect the original title of this thread? It started out with a discussion of facts but degenerated. I suggest you move the GJ over onto a new thread and have a good ole donnybrook there.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1881 Apr 19, 2013
Terrance wrote:
Why don't people respect the original title of this thread? It started out with a discussion of facts but degenerated. I suggest you move the GJ over onto a new thread and have a good ole donnybrook there.
Good idea...

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1882 Apr 19, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Why would they vote to indict if they were just going to fold when challenged and say it's ok if the DA doesn't agree with their decision and that they understand? That sounds like a big waste of the 13-month GJ.
Ever been a juror? Were you aware of all the leagal ins and outs AFTER your job as a juror had ended?
<quoted text>
We have no way of knowing, do we? All we know is that now, when interviewed by Brennan the jurors seemed to be okay with Hunter’s decision.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1883 Apr 20, 2013
When they voted they would not have known that Hunter was going to “veto” their decision. I’m suggesting that it’s possible that after their vote the rationale for Hunter’s decision was explained to them and that their “rights” were also explained. The Brennan article suggests that the juror’s "understood" Hunter’s decision. Maybe, back then, after the vote, they understood and agreed with Hunter's decision and that is the reason that they did not bypass him.


AK
Steve Eller

Marcus Hook, PA

#1884 Apr 20, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
We have no way of knowing, do we? All we know is that now, when interviewed by Brennan the jurors seemed to be okay with Hunter’s decision.

AK
Only some of the Grand Jurors were interviewed by Brennan off the record because of Grand Jury secrecy, may have been 12 may have been 2. Moreover we don't know the exact questions that they were answering and we know nothing about the context of the answers. Even the most adamant RDI might sympathize with the daunting task of prosecuting parents for murdering their child.
Steve Eller

Marcus Hook, PA

#1885 Apr 20, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
When they voted they would not have known that Hunter was going to “veto” their decision. I’m suggesting that it’s possible that after their vote the rationale for Hunter’s decision was explained to them and that their “rights” were also explained. The Brennan article suggests that the juror’s "understood" Hunter’s decision. Maybe, back then, after the vote, they understood and agreed with Hunter's decision and that is the reason that they did not bypass him.

AK
Hunter did not have a veto. The problem was that Hunter did his best to prevent an indictment but he was flummoxed in part by Michael Kane. Explanations and rationalizations after the fact not withstanding, after a lengthy investigations the Ramseys were indicted by the Grand Jury.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#1886 Apr 20, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
When they voted they would not have known that Hunter was going to “veto” their decision. I’m suggesting that it’s possible that after their vote the rationale for Hunter’s decision was explained to them and that their “rights” were also explained. The Brennan article suggests that the juror’s "understood" Hunter’s decision. Maybe, back then, after the vote, they understood and agreed with Hunter's decision and that is the reason that they did not bypass him.

AK
And there is also the same possibility they never knew their options, or they backed down because they also felt the Ramseys were both guilty but could not discern which one did which deed. It doesn't lessen the vote to indict.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#1887 Apr 20, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
Only some of the Grand Jurors were interviewed by Brennan off the record because of Grand Jury secrecy, may have been 12 may have been 2. Moreover we don't know the exact questions that they were answering and we know nothing about the context of the answers. Even the most adamant RDI might sympathize with the daunting task of prosecuting parents for murdering their child.
Hi Steve,
Excellent post and points made.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#1888 Apr 20, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
And there is also the same possibility they never knew their options, or they backed down because they also felt the Ramseys were both guilty but could not discern which one did which deed. It doesn't lessen the vote to indict.
I agree with you on all points, but I started off with the possibility that the jurors were not aware of their right (post 1873) as lead-off to discussion of the possibility that they were aware. Either way, it does not lessen the fact that the jurors voted to indict.


AK
Nobodyudno

Bowling Green, KY

#1890 Apr 21, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
<respectfully snipped> Even the most adamant RDI might sympathize with the daunting task of prosecuting parents for murdering their child.
It should not be more daunting to prosecute parents than anyone else if the evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt the parents were responsible.
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#1892 Apr 21, 2013
Nobodyudno wrote:
<quoted text>
It should not be more daunting to prosecute parents than anyone else if the evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt the parents were responsible.
To come to terms with the fact that Parents were responsible for their child's death is not only daunting but is harrowing. Any decent human being would at first want to deny this as a possibility and give any possible benefit of the doubt to the Parents, a benefit not enjoyed by most suspects.
Jesse

Saint Albert, Canada

#1893 Apr 21, 2013
Thank you Steve a succinct synopsis again.
Jon Benet was murdered by one of her parents- John ? Probably.
Nobodyudno

Bowling Green, KY

#1894 Apr 22, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
To come to terms with the fact that Parents were responsible for their child's death is not only daunting but is harrowing. Any decent human being would at first want to deny this as a possibility and give any possible benefit of the doubt to the Parents, a benefit not enjoyed by most suspects.
I'm a decent person and I don't see it as you do. No one is better than anyone else. Playing the "parent ... poor me" card is exactly what the Ramseys wanted and expected. Bias is a great distorter of the truth.
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#1896 Apr 22, 2013
Nobodyudno wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a decent person and I don't see it as you do. No one is better than anyone else. Playing the "parent ... poor me" card is exactly what the Ramseys wanted and expected. Bias is a great distorter of the truth.
No one is questioning your decency. It is natural for people to want to believe that someone besides the parents was responsible. In this case nothing is different until you start examining the evidence carefully.

Since: Mar 07

Detroit, MI

#1901 Apr 22, 2013
I did not post the previous post which steals my hat but posts from LA.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#1905 Apr 22, 2013
Jesse wrote:
Thank you Steve a succinct synopsis again.
Jon Benet was murdered by one of her parents- John ? Probably.
Agreed.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1911 May 28, 2013
One Way wrote:
Why not analyze/examine,what the killer left behind?
Seems logical to me.

Did the killer leave behind...

...shoe/boot prints?
...hairs?
...DNA?
...a palmprint?
...a baseball or softball bat?
...a torn-up note in JB's trashcan?
...stansport cord?
...black duct tape?
...the Esprit article and/or the drawings on the article?
...photographs?
...rope?
...books?

This is all that comes to mind for now.

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#1915 May 28, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>Seems logical to me.
Did the killer leave behind...
...shoe/boot prints?
...hairs?
...DNA?
...a palmprint?
...a baseball or softball bat?
...a torn-up note in JB's trashcan?
...stansport cord?
...black duct tape?
...the Esprit article and/or the drawings on the article?
...photographs?
...rope?
...books?
This is all that comes to mind for now.
And now that topix has scribbed MMichigan/MoonJack you appear.
How does that work? Are you even aware?

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
Jonbenet Ramsey murderer 17 min Justice1313 223
JonBenet Investigation (Nov '11) 45 min Justice1313 1,647
Patsy couldn't state, "Our child has been kidna... 1 hr berrytea333 55
Chief James Kolar on the JonBenet Ramsey case, ... (Aug '13) 1 hr Rangette 323
6/23/98 Interview Transcript 6 hr Legal__Eagle 21
Trophy 11 hr gotgum 4
ICU2 's Child Trafficking 14 hr ICU2 63
More from around the web