First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

#1 Jan 31, 2013
We now know that the GJ viewed all of the evidence, and voted to indict, with DA, Alex Hunter refusing to. This means, that after viewing all of the evidence, the GJ concluded that the parents were involved in this crime. It should be very embarrassing for the IDIs to continue with the argument, of their strange belief, that an intruder committed the crime.

What is it?
Stupidity? Stubbornness? Blindness?
Whatever it is, there is no sense in arguing with a fool. They lost, and they will not admit it.
CC
candy

East Lansing, MI

#2 Jan 31, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
We now know that the GJ viewed all of the evidence, and voted to indict, with DA, Alex Hunter refusing to. This means, that after viewing all of the evidence, the GJ concluded that the parents were involved in this crime. It should be very embarrassing for the IDIs to continue with the argument, of their strange belief, that an intruder committed the crime.
What is it?
Stupidity? Stubbornness? Blindness?
Whatever it is, there is no sense in arguing with a fool. They lost, and they will not admit it.
CC
Hi CC,

Great post. I have been posting for years on the phenomena of "cognitive dissonance" from Leon Festinger's classic 1956 study of UFO cult members called "When Prophecy Fails." The cult said on a certain day, the world was going to end. When the world did not end on that day, when that prophecy failed, they tracked what happened to the believers. The believers that didn't have a lot invested in the cult, knew they were had, and left the cult. But strangely, the true believers still believed. They had too much invested emotionally, etc. even then and kept modifying their beliefs, well, it must be a different day, but the true believers stayed true believers. Darnay used to remind me of this phenomena all the time, he learned in it business school, I learned it in psychology, it is taught in marketing about consumer behavior,etc. The bottom line is the true believers will be going off the deep end on this. They won't come around or come to their senses anytime soon. I saw this also with some of them, who believed David Westerfield in the Danielle van Dam case. When it came out at the end of the case that he and his lawyers tried to make a deal to save his life, but LE found the body first, they could not and would not process that news compared to their belief that he was innocent.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

#3 Feb 1, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
We now know that the GJ viewed all of the evidence, and voted to indict, with DA, Alex Hunter refusing to. This means, that after viewing all of the evidence, the GJ concluded that the parents were involved in this crime. It should be very embarrassing for the IDIs to continue with the argument, of their strange belief, that an intruder committed the crime.
What is it?
Stupidity? Stubbornness? Blindness?
Whatever it is, there is no sense in arguing with a fool. They lost, and they will not admit it.
CC
No, the grand jury did NOT view all the evidence. Certain evidence which was favourable to the Ramseys was kept away from them. Witnesses with important information were prevented from testifying by Alex Hunter and others.

There is no reason for the IDI to be embarrassed, but you RDI ought to be very embarrassed by your complete turnabout since the news broke. Before, you were scornful and dismissive of the grand jury, calling it a "horse and pony show". Now you act as though it's the be all and end all of this case. Well it's not. Had this case gone to court, there is absolutely no way the Ramseys would have been convicted.

And there is no need for you to make disparaging comments about the IDI posters, Charlie Chan. There is nothing "strange" about our belief that an intruder murdered JonBenet. If you'd open your mind, you'll start seeing the truth. This case was one big cover-up right from the start.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#4 Feb 1, 2013
The Grand Jury did in fact see the evidence. Such hypocrisy!

When Carnes made her decision, nobody who is IDI disputed her decision, KNOWING that she didn't see the evidence, but lo and behold, all of a sudden, the arrogance of some to assume that the GJ somehow didn't see all of the evidence is astounding but expected.

They saw all the evidence available at the time, INCLUDING Lou Smit's Broadway Hit "The Powerpoint" and STILL indicted them!

Peddle that crap to those who open up wide to swallow. You have many to choose from

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#7 Feb 1, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
"The Ramseys" didn't do it. The evidence doesn't support that theory. The Grand Jury got it wrong. Whatever HUnter's attitude was he got it right in not proceeding with the GJ's advise.
What he got wrong was not supporting a high pressure tactic by the investigators that might have cracked Patsy. But thena gain they didn't know what they were dealing with.
You are partially correct. Whether Hunter was right or wrong in proceeding with the prosecution, the public deserved and PAYS for the truth about their findings. The taxpayers PAY FOR the GJ and had the right to know what they decided no matter what Hunter's eventual decision was insofar as following up on it in court

That is what the issue really is
Steve Eller

United States

#8 Feb 1, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
You are partially correct. Whether Hunter was right or wrong in proceeding with the prosecution, the public deserved and PAYS for the truth about their findings. The taxpayers PAY FOR the GJ and had the right to know what they decided no matter what Hunter's eventual decision was insofar as following up on it in court
That is what the issue really is
Some of these IDI proponents are becoming quite unsettled and the usual disinformation is being spread like wildfire. It is unusual for Grand Juries to receive exculpatory evidence in favor of the suspects. In this case the extraordinary step of having the most distinguished and polished defender of the Ramseys deliver a power point presentation filled with incorrect deceitful information.
For years we heard from the IDI how the Grand Jury was all set to indict until they were 'enlightened' by Lou Smit. We now know that this was nonsense. Their best defender took his best shot and they saw right through it.
As for witnesses not being able to testify in favor of the Ramseys this another whole cloth FABRICATION that is another sign of irrational desperate tactics. The jig is up...

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

#10 Feb 1, 2013
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> No, the grand jury did NOT view all the evidence. Certain evidence which was favourable to the Ramseys was kept away from them. Witnesses with important information were prevented from testifying by Alex Hunter and others.
There is no reason for the IDI to be embarrassed, but you RDI ought to be very embarrassed by your complete turnabout since the news broke. Before, you were scornful and dismissive of the grand jury, calling it a "horse and pony show". Now you act as though it's the be all and end all of this case. Well it's not. Had this case gone to court, there is absolutely no way the Ramseys would have been convicted.
And there is no need for you to make disparaging comments about the IDI posters, Charlie Chan. There is nothing "strange" about our belief that an intruder murdered JonBenet. If you'd open your mind, you'll start seeing the truth. This case was one big cover-up right from the start.
Hi Lynette,
Can you tell us what evidence the GJ did not view? As I see ot. they got a presentation from Lou Smit, and IDI convinced that an intruder did it, then what they reviewed overwhelmed Smit's presentation of his "theory".

This confirms to me, what I have been saying all along, that there is no evidence that supports an intruder.
CC

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#11 Feb 1, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
<quoted text>
Tax payers money is the issue?
Btw Doc MIller is on now.
Please let us know what he had to say if you can; thanks

As for taxpayer money, the money is not the issue in and of itself. The public pays for the DA and the GJ and whether Hunter decided to take it to trial or not, the public AND the taxpayers had a right to know what the GJ decision was. This is not to be confused with the GJ evidence, but the people had a right to know their decision at the very least

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

#12 Feb 1, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Please let us know what he had to say if you can; thanks
As for taxpayer money, the money is not the issue in and of itself. The public pays for the DA and the GJ and whether Hunter decided to take it to trial or not, the public AND the taxpayers had a right to know what the GJ decision was. This is not to be confused with the GJ evidence, but the people had a right to know their decision at the very least
I agree. The Statement made by Hunter in 1999 was deceptive, and dishonest. The taxpayers had a right to know the GJ's votes and decision on the case, and Hunter should have told the truth rather than the half truth.
CC

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#13 Feb 1, 2013
I agree with you SE, this is a very good post. And yes, Smit took his best shot and missed by a mile, and the jig IS up!
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
Some of these IDI proponents are becoming quite unsettled and the usual disinformation is being spread like wildfire. It is unusual for Grand Juries to receive exculpatory evidence in favor of the suspects. In this case the extraordinary step of having the most distinguished and polished defender of the Ramseys deliver a power point presentation filled with incorrect deceitful information.
For years we heard from the IDI how the Grand Jury was all set to indict until they were 'enlightened' by Lou Smit. We now know that this was nonsense. Their best defender took his best shot and they saw right through it.
As for witnesses not being able to testify in favor of the Ramseys this another whole cloth FABRICATION that is another sign of irrational desperate tactics. The jig is up...

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

#15 Feb 1, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
Unfortunately the jig in NOT up. Watch what Garnett does or does not do.
I think the jig is just about up. One of the key people "Under the umbrella of suspicion" is deceased, and 17 years have passed. A child abuse charge is past the statute of limitation because of time, and a murder conviction is impossible.
CC

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

#16 Feb 4, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Lynette,
Can you tell us what evidence the GJ did not view? As I see ot. they got a presentation from Lou Smit, and IDI convinced that an intruder did it, then what they reviewed overwhelmed Smit's presentation of his "theory".
This confirms to me, what I have been saying all along, that there is no evidence that supports an intruder.
CC
Hi Charlie. It was to do with a paedophile ring operating in Boulder involving very important people in "high places". Evan Ravitz and Dr Robert McFarland MD had evidence of this which they desperately wanted to present to the grand jury. They even had the names of certain individuals involved. But their requests to testify were REPEATEDLY denied, not only by Alex Hunter, but by others also, including Michael Kane and Judge Roxanne Bailin. They finally approached the ACLU Intake Director, Simon Mole, who agreed to take on their case, but it was too late as the grand jury was about to disband.

Ravitz and McFarland weren't just ANYBODY. They were respectable people whose excellent work had earned them the respect of the community. They were the main contributors of chapters nine and ten of Stephen Singular's book, "Presumed Guilty". They really wanted to help get to the truth about what REALLY happened to JonBenet but came up against a brick wall every time. You can find corroboration of what I'm telling you at the following link.

http://www.evanravitz.com/ramsey/

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#17 Feb 4, 2013
Lynette,

You were probably just doing a fly-by this morning and won’t be around to respond to this, but I read the article you referenced, and don’t see what it has to do with JBR.

If they could not prove the information they had was related to the crime they would have no place in a GJ regarding JBR’s death.

Just because other alleged crimes exist in the same city, it doesn’t make the information germane to the Ramsey GJ.

You or I could have information regarding pot smoking too, but if it doesn’t correlate to the Ramsey case we could not offer that information at a Ramsey GJ.

Even if as you say,“very important people in "high places" might be involved in these other activities, the GJ (albeit a fact-finding mission) was convened for one reason, and that was not to bring forth or attempt to solve all crime in Boulder.

Bottom line, why does it surprise you so much they were not allowed to testify?
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Charlie. It was to do with a paedophile ring operating in Boulder involving very important people in "high places".

They really wanted to help get to the truth about what REALLY happened to JonBenet but came up against a brick wall every time. You can find corroboration of what I'm telling you at the following link.
http://www.evanravitz.com/ramsey/

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

#18 Feb 5, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Lynette,
You were probably just doing a fly-by this morning and won’t be around to respond to this, but I read the article you referenced, and don’t see what it has to do with JBR.
If they could not prove the information they had was related to the crime they would have no place in a GJ regarding JBR’s death.
Just because other alleged crimes exist in the same city, it doesn’t make the information germane to the Ramsey GJ.
You or I could have information regarding pot smoking too, but if it doesn’t correlate to the Ramsey case we could not offer that information at a Ramsey GJ.
Even if as you say,“very important people in "high places" might be involved in these other activities, the GJ (albeit a fact-finding mission) was convened for one reason, and that was not to bring forth or attempt to solve all crime in Boulder.
Bottom line, why does it surprise you so much they were not allowed to testify?
<quoted text>
I usually try to respond to posts addressed to me, Seuss, even if I only get to them a day or two later. Sorry about that, but I post as time allows.

When a child is found bludgeoned, garroted and sexually assaulted in the middle of the night in her own home and a paedophile ring is known to be operational in the area, I would definitely say that is something a grand jury ought to know about. At least they should have heard the evidence and been allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they felt it was relevant to this case. But they were repeatedly denied this opportunity so it's not correct to say the grand jury heard all the evidence. They did not.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

#19 Feb 5, 2013
Correction to post #16. Ravitz and McFarland were the main sources for chapters ten and twenty of Stephen Singular's book, not nine and ten as I mistakenly stated.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#20 Feb 5, 2013
Since I said there are pedophiles everywhere, are you now suggesting they should be inserted into every GJ on every crime? My question that you did not answer, was why does it surprise you so much they were not allowed to testify?

Just as an aside, my interpretation of the article you cited and your comments to it suggest this “Pedo ring” as you call it had something to say about people ‘high on the food chain”, so I am obligated once again to ask the same question - why does it surprise you so much they were not allowed to testify? They wouldn’t have known anything about a 6 year old – they might have known about someone’s predilections
Who had a high government job, but certainly not JBR unless you are thinking her parents farmed her out for the satisfaction of the “Pedo ring”. Doesn’t it sound to you more like they were trying to attack/out someone higher up? That could easily be the reason they weren’t allowed to testify but I don’t see where it has anything to do with JBR.
Lynette 22 wrote:
When a child is found bludgeoned, garroted and sexually assaulted in the middle of the night in her own home and a paedophile ring is known to be operational in the area, I would definitely say that is something a grand jury ought to know about.
Again,“someone”(other than you) determines relevance. I believe it is safe to say they heard RELEVANT evidence. If someone has an axe to grind against the politicians in Boulder, the JBR GJ was not the venue to expose that.

Did Carnes hear all the evidence before issuing her decision?
Lynette 22 wrote:
At least they should have heard the evidence and been allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they felt it was relevant to this case. But they were repeatedly denied this opportunity so it's not correct to say the grand jury heard all the evidence. They did not.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

#21 Feb 5, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Since I said there are pedophiles everywhere, are you now suggesting they should be inserted into every GJ on every crime? My question that you did not answer, was why does it surprise you so much they were not allowed to testify?
Just as an aside, my interpretation of the article you cited and your comments to it suggest this “Pedo ring” as you call it had something to say about people ‘high on the food chain”, so I am obligated once again to ask the same question - why does it surprise you so much they were not allowed to testify? They wouldn’t have known anything about a 6 year old – they might have known about someone’s predilections
Who had a high government job, but certainly not JBR unless you are thinking her parents farmed her out for the satisfaction of the “Pedo ring”. Doesn’t it sound to you more like they were trying to attack/out someone higher up? That could easily be the reason they weren’t allowed to testify but I don’t see where it has anything to do with JBR.
<quoted text>
Again,“someone”(other than you) determines relevance. I believe it is safe to say they heard RELEVANT evidence. If someone has an axe to grind against the politicians in Boulder, the JBR GJ was not the venue to expose that.
Did Carnes hear all the evidence before issuing her decision?
<quoted text>
BECAUSE there are paedophiles everywhere and because this child was bludgeoned, garotted and SEXUALLY ASSAULTED and because she was put on display and sexualized in the eyes of the depraved via her pageants and because Ravitz and McFarland knew of a probable paedophile ring operating in Boulder and even had the names of "higher up" paedophiles who had plenty of power around Boulder is WHY I'm surprised that they weren't allowed to testify. What surprises me even more (or maybe not) is that you don't see the possible connection.

Carnes has nothing to do with what we are currently discussing.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#22 Feb 5, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Since I said there are pedophiles everywhere, are you now suggesting they should be inserted into every GJ on every crime? My question that you did not answer, was why does it surprise you so much they were not allowed to testify?
Just as an aside, my interpretation of the article you cited and your comments to it suggest this “Pedo ring” as you call it had something to say about people ‘high on the food chain”, so I am obligated once again to ask the same question - why does it surprise you so much they were not allowed to testify? They wouldn’t have known anything about a 6 year old – they might have known about someone’s predilections
Who had a high government job, but certainly not JBR unless you are thinking her parents farmed her out for the satisfaction of the “Pedo ring”. Doesn’t it sound to you more like they were trying to attack/out someone higher up? That could easily be the reason they weren’t allowed to testify but I don’t see where it has anything to do with JBR.
<quoted text>
Again,“someone”(other than you) determines relevance. I believe it is safe to say they heard RELEVANT evidence. If someone has an axe to grind against the politicians in Boulder, the JBR GJ was not the venue to expose that.
Did Carnes hear all the evidence before issuing her decision?
<quoted text>
I guess we have gone from IDI to the Ramseys being pedophiles. A six year old girl who has been murdered at the hands of a pedophile ring, whether there were people in high places or not, would have to suggest that the Ramseys were involved in the ring

A six year old child (and younger) does not go places alone, so if a pedo ring is responsible, then Lynette is suggesting that Patsy and John were pedophiles, which even the RDI don't believe.

I guess that is the next straw after the lying about Hunter's
GJ claim. Now John and Patsy are members of a pedo ring; that's the current theory LOL

No IDI has offered any explanation for Hunter LYING to the public either. The only explanation attempted was for prosecution but everyone else has been quite mum on why he lied to the public and why the lie was continued by others.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#23 Feb 5, 2013
Hypocrisy has everything to do with your mindset! You believe everything wasn’t presented to the GJ so you are outraged.

One whole side of the case wasn’t presented with Carnes yet you quote her findings as the gospel ~ just sayin’.
Lynette 22 wrote:
Carnes has nothing to do with what we are currently discussing.
I am guessing Ravitz and McFarland aren’t the only people who knew of pedophiles in the area.

What do people in “higher up” pedophile power have to do with a child murdered in her own home, with no evidence of an intruder and found in a staged crime scene?

Alex Hunter would have been responsible for sending the subpoenas for the GJ. If he didn’t subpoena Ravitz and McFarland, perhaps he felt they weren’t germane to the case. He didn’t subpoena you and he didn’t subpoena me ~ guess we weren’t germane to the case either. Chances are they just wanted to be heard whether the information was applicable to the case or not ~ and if not ~ did they go to court like Smit did to push the issue? If not, why not?

And leaving something on a desk addressed to the GJ foreman? That isn’t even procedure so why would you think that should do the trick? If procedures aren't followed, every Tom, Dick, and Harry would be trying to be heard.

No Lynette, I don't see conspiracies everywhere like you do. That is what shouldn't surprise you! You ARE grasping at straws.
Lynette 22 wrote:
BECAUSE there are paedophiles everywhere and because this child was bludgeoned, garotted and SEXUALLY ASSAULTED and because she was put on display and sexualized in the eyes of the depraved via her pageants and because Ravitz and McFarland knew of a probable paedophile ring operating in Boulder and even had the names of "higher up" paedophiles who had plenty of power around Boulder is WHY I'm surprised that they weren't allowed to testify. What surprises me even more (or maybe not) is that you don't see the possible connection.

Since: Feb 12

Waipahu, HI

#24 Feb 5, 2013
Hi Capricorn,
Actually, Hunter did not lie. In his statement, which was VERY deceptive, he said that the GJ worked hard, and HE and HIS STAFF felt that there was not enough evidence to indict anyone. He did not say what the GJ vote was, or wasn't.

I feel that he PURPOSELY said it that way, to make the appearance that the GJ decided not to indict, which is STILL DISHONEST, but not exactly a "lie"

I think Hunter owes the public an explanation, and an apology.
CC
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess we have gone from IDI to the Ramseys being pedophiles. A six year old girl who has been murdered at the hands of a pedophile ring, whether there were people in high places or not, would have to suggest that the Ramseys were involved in the ring
A six year old child (and younger) does not go places alone, so if a pedo ring is responsible, then Lynette is suggesting that Patsy and John were pedophiles, which even the RDI don't believe.
I guess that is the next straw after the lying about Hunter's
GJ claim. Now John and Patsy are members of a pedo ring; that's the current theory LOL
No IDI has offered any explanation for Hunter LYING to the public either. The only explanation attempted was for prosecution but everyone else has been quite mum on why he lied to the public and why the lie was continued by others.

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
Note-odd detail? 18 min Sun Shine 2,404
JonBenet Investigation (Nov '11) 23 min Taco 1,630
Fleet and Priscilla White on Peter Boyles show ... 9 hr Mama2JML 45
ICU2 's Child Trafficking 20 hr ICU2 21
JonBenet Ramsey, DNA and the Phantom of Heilbronn Dec 22 Bakatari 6
The Forgotten Suspect Dec 22 Legal__Eagle 227
"Note-Free Case Discussion" Dec 22 Legal__Eagle 99
More from around the web