Why the latest Grand Jury news means ...

Why the latest Grand Jury news means nothing!

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Sunshine

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#1 Feb 7, 2013
Rdi's believe they now have a leg to stand on because of the latest grand jury news who voted to indict....here's why that news means nothing today....first reason, someone once said that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich....also, if you took a public poll back in 2008 you would probably find that almost 90 percent of the public thought the Ramseys were guilty including myself...I thought Patsey had done it up until 2001 when I finally saw the truth...it was the fat cat who was close to the Ramsey's...take that same public poll today and that total would be greatly reduced....there's a reason why they didn't prosecute because they didn't have a case, because the Ramsey's didn't do it. The police now have the investigation again so why haven't they arrested the John Ramsey yet? Why haven't they taken the apology back? Because the Ramsey's didn't do it....only RDI's still hang on to that belief because they are fooled by the fact that John Ramsey is still covering up for this killer which makes him look guilty...which he is of a cover-up. 1998 was a long time ago when most people thought it was the Ramsey's, but RDI's go ahead and hang your hat on it, its just to bad for you that the Ramsey's have an apology letter in their possesion.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#2 Feb 7, 2013
Sunshine wrote:
Rdi's believe they now have a leg to stand on because of the latest grand jury news who voted to indict....here's why that news means nothing today....first reason, someone once said that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich....also, if you took a public poll back in 2008 you would probably find that almost 90 percent of the public thought the Ramseys were guilty including myself...I thought Patsey had done it up until 2001 when I finally saw the truth...it was the fat cat who was close to the Ramsey's...take that same public poll today and that total would be greatly reduced....there's a reason why they didn't prosecute because they didn't have a case, because the Ramsey's didn't do it. The police now have the investigation again so why haven't they arrested the John Ramsey yet? Why haven't they taken the apology back? Because the Ramsey's didn't do it....only RDI's still hang on to that belief because they are fooled by the fact that John Ramsey is still covering up for this killer which makes him look guilty...which he is of a cover-up. 1998 was a long time ago when most people thought it was the Ramsey's, but RDI's go ahead and hang your hat on it, its just to bad for you that the Ramsey's have an apology letter in their possesion.
Their apology letter isn't worth the paper it is written on.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#3 Feb 7, 2013
I told you they would be back, as unrepentant as ever. The cognitive dissonance theory is right again that true believers will ALWAYS believe, even when the world didn't not end for the UFO cult they studied in "When Prophecy Fails". They just MODIFIED the dates and expectations for when the world was going to end and kept on going right off the cliff with the cult. And the pro-Rams too DON'T AND WON'T understand the "UNSINKABLE" "Titanic" has hit the proverbial iceberg....
candy

East Lansing, MI

#4 Feb 7, 2013
When the Rams were or are REALLY in trouble, like when I first posted at the end of the grand jury, out come the HEAVYWEIGHT posters associated with the law firms of the Scams like 'LAKE'. Lake left posting as the threat subsided to the Scams. These fake posters stand out by a mile. They come in at the time of greatest threat to the Scams. That Eduardo at WS is the same situation, who all of a sudden shows up over there when it's discovered taht the Scams WERE indicted, and posts night and day on them, quoting CARNES, using Lin Wood phrases, and how dumb are they over there, he sounds exactly like Lin Wood.

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

#5 Feb 7, 2013
Sunshine> The police now have the investigation again so why haven't they arrested the John Ramsey yet?

CC> The reason for this, is the statute of limitation. The only crime in this case that is open forever, is the charge of MURDER. When the Grand Jury indicted the Ramsey parents, it was for CHILD ABUSE, which led to the death of JB. The CHILD ABUSE charge is way past the statute of limitation, and a murder conviction is basically impossible, because the prosecution cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, that JOHN Ramsey committed the murder. It could have been Patsy or Burke, or any combination of them, or all three.

The GJ indictment DOES mean a lot. The GJ viewed all of the evidence, and voted to indict. WE, and that means the rest of us, did not get the view of evidence that the GJ got. You have been duped, and you should have known it after the news on the GJ indictment.
CC
candy

East Lansing, MI

#6 Feb 7, 2013
Yes, as CC stated, the Grand Jury indictment DOES mean a lot. A grand jury indictment means YOU ARE GOING TO STAND TRIAL for what you were indicted for which in the case of the Scams is or was CHILD ABUSE LEADING TO DEATH. That is, unless you are the Scams, with a weak DA who refused to let a grand jury vote in the last high profile case his office dealt with - The Sid Wells Case - and was not going to indict this one without a confession, etc, NO MATTER WHAT A GRAND JURY SAID . This only happens in Boulder to RICH PEOPLE WITH A LOT OF MONEY, like the Ramseys and MIDYETTES, who Lacy DID NOT charge with first degree murder and first degree child abuse like she did for an identical crime against a POORER person and she tried that case herself also.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#7 Feb 7, 2013
What the Scams don't have this time are ANY FAKE SUSPECTS TO TRY TO GET THE MEDIA TO CHASE INSTEAD OF THEM, ANY MATCH TO THE DNA, ANY CASE WHATSOEVER.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#8 Feb 7, 2013
Well, as I see it, there is a NEW DA and he can reconvene a second Grand Jury and see what happens there.

He has the authority to do just that
candy

East Lansing, MI

#9 Feb 7, 2013
You can't convene a grand jury without "new evidence" you didn't have for the first grand jury.

In the Butts triple homicide case in Texas, one DA said a suspect was not under suspicion any more, another DA convened another grand jury, indicted that same suspect, who ended up pleading guilty...

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#10 Feb 7, 2013
candy wrote:
You can't convene a grand jury without "new evidence" you didn't have for the first grand jury.
In the Butts triple homicide case in Texas, one DA said a suspect was not under suspicion any more, another DA convened another grand jury, indicted that same suspect, who ended up pleading guilty...
The TDNA is new evidence. Wouldn't that be enough to reationalize another GJ?

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

#11 Feb 7, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
The TDNA is new evidence. Wouldn't that be enough to reationalize another GJ?
Hi Capricorn,
It would be enough for a murder indictment, but NOT for a child abuse indictment, because the statute of limitation has lapsed. This case, unless they can indict for a murder charge, is closed, and I don't think they can convict anyone of murder in THIS case, because you have THREE suspects, and you cannot prove the involvement of all three or any one.
CC
candy

East Lansing, MI

#12 Feb 7, 2013
Charlie's article stated what is needed in this case, something tantamount to an admission or confession and some match, explanation, etc. on the DNA. Stan Garnett knows what he needs. He is the one that determines what cases his office is going to try, including the cold cases. He knows what he is looking for, if he gets it, he'll prosecute the case. If not, he won't. No petitions or anything like that move him, he goes by HIS analysis of the evidence, and HIS analysis is GREAT, that's why they have both tried and won so many cases.

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

#15 Feb 8, 2013
candy wrote:
Yes, as CC stated, the Grand Jury indictment DOES mean a lot. A grand jury indictment means YOU ARE GOING TO STAND TRIAL for what you were indicted for which in the case of the Scams is or was CHILD ABUSE LEADING TO DEATH. That is, unless you are the Scams, with a weak DA who refused to let a grand jury vote in the last high profile case his office dealt with - The Sid Wells Case - and was not going to indict this one without a confession, etc, NO MATTER WHAT A GRAND JURY SAID . This only happens in Boulder to RICH PEOPLE WITH A LOT OF MONEY, like the Ramseys and MIDYETTES, who Lacy DID NOT charge with first degree murder and first degree child abuse like she did for an identical crime against a POORER person and she tried that case herself also.
Hi Candy,
I really don't think Alex Hunter was "weak". I do think he was corrupt. The deceptive statement he made after the GJ convened only verifies it to me.

There is nothing to be ashamed of in losing a criminal trial, and Hunter took an oath to uphold the laws and the Constitution, which he did not.

The JB case, along with the OJ Simpson case only proves to me, that you can get away with murder today, if you have enough money.
CC
guppy

Memphis, TN

#16 Feb 13, 2013
The reason Alex Hunter didn't prosecute is because there was no evidence of a conspiracy between John and Patsy, so they would had to choose to prosecute one or the other. Regardless of who they picked to go after, that defendant's lawyer would have told the jury it was equally likely the spouse committed the crime and there is no way a conviction could have been obtained. There was also evidence of an intruder. Since then, the DNA evidence is compelling and precludes the prosecution of John Ramsey.

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

#17 Feb 13, 2013
guppy wrote:
The reason Alex Hunter didn't prosecute is because there was no evidence of a conspiracy between John and Patsy, so they would had to choose to prosecute one or the other. Regardless of who they picked to go after, that defendant's lawyer would have told the jury it was equally likely the spouse committed the crime and there is no way a conviction could have been obtained. There was also evidence of an intruder. Since then, the DNA evidence is compelling and precludes the prosecution of John Ramsey.
Maybe, but why the deceptive statement?
You must remember that the indictment charge was "Child abuse" and NOT murder.
CC
Heloise

Nottingham, UK

#18 Feb 14, 2013
Some excellent stuff on here. Can't respond to all as I'm sneaking a post from work but I agree that one of the major issues with this case was that who did what wasn't clear and everything the RST did was about muddying the waters, even to the extent of getting separate lawyers for family memmbers.
Estel

Livingston, NJ

#19 Feb 15, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Capricorn,
It would be enough for a murder indictment, but NOT for a child abuse indictment, because the statute of limitation has lapsed. This case, unless they can indict for a murder charge, is closed, and I don't think they can convict anyone of murder in THIS case, because you have THREE suspects, and you cannot prove the involvement of all three or any one.
CC
Child sexual abuse(not sure about non-sexual abuse) has no statute of limitations in Colorado. Look up the laws...

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#20 Feb 15, 2013
http://tinyurl.com/aletfnb

No information at this link on the charges the GJ brought down which were child abuse resulting in death of the child, not sexual abuse, or an unlawful sexual offense. It does cover other child sexual charges, and there are limitation on most, although in rare occurances there are also extensions.

If you have the statute that covers the charges the GJ voted to indict on, please give us a link to read. Thanks.
Estel wrote:
<quoted text>Child sexual abuse(not sure about non-sexual abuse) has no statute of limitations in Colorado. Look up the laws...

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

#21 Feb 15, 2013
Hi DrS,
Thanks for posting that. If my reading is correct, there is no statute of limitations for child abuse in the Jonbenet case. This is good, although I doubt that any such charge will stick in court after all these years. Also, I am hoping that they pull an investigation on Hunter and Lacy, and if guilty of some form of conspiracy, they should be held accountable for it, and punished.
CC
DrSeussMd wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/aletfnb
No information at this link on the charges the GJ brought down which were child abuse resulting in death of the child, not sexual abuse, or an unlawful sexual offense. It does cover other child sexual charges, and there are limitation on most, although in rare occurances there are also extensions.
If you have the statute that covers the charges the GJ voted to indict on, please give us a link to read. Thanks.
<quoted text>

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#22 Feb 15, 2013
Hi CC,

Where did you find the statute for Child Abuse Resulting in Death?
Granted, I just had time to skim it when I posted it, but I didn't see it.

We can't confuse the Child Abuse with the Sexual Abuse as I believe they are separate charges.
Bakatari wrote:
Hi DrS,
Thanks for posting that. If my reading is correct, there is no statute of limitations for child abuse in the Jonbenet case. This is good, although I doubt that any such charge will stick in court after all these years. Also, I am hoping that they pull an investigation on Hunter and Lacy, and if guilty of some form of conspiracy, they should be held accountable for it, and punished.
CC
<quoted text>

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
The Ramsey's Were Framed Up And the Police Fell... 1 min Steve Eller 143
Jim Clemente on Twitter 26 min Sheriff Wydell 16
News CBS' "The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey" Premieres O... 42 min Sheriff Wydell 901
Stan Garnett, Boulder DA 45 min berrytea333 25
Cbs doc very bias 1 hr Sheriff Wydell 151
News Boulder Police Ask For Public's Help In JonBene... 2 hr KCinNYC 99
Burke on Phil 3 hr robert 222
It always leads back to Burke (Oct '11) 8 hr Spraguestephens 1,126
More from around the web