Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 166
  1. #25

    Default

    They're discussing this on HLN now. Reading the indictments.

    Actually talking about WHAT THE GRAND JURY BELIEVED.

    Now discussing how rare that a DA refuses to listen to a grand jury.

    Thank you.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  2. #26

    Default

    1. The GJ heard Smit's presentation on the intruder. They rejected it.

    2. The GJ knew, from the evidence, the Ramseys were covering for someone.

    3. The GJ accepted that Patsy wrote the note.

    4. The GJ accepted that JBR was being sexually abused.

    The GJ heard all the evidence, pro and con, and they rejected an intruder and concluded Ramseys were covering even though no one can know who struck first blow. This is big because, for the first time, we had jurors weighing all the evidence; we had jurors listening to the stun gun, basement window entrance, exit of Smit, AND THEY REJECTED IT. This is big.
    People will believe what they want but JR will always, now, live with the knowledge that a jury of his peers weren't fooled by spin.

  3. #27

    Default

    People, listening to HLN read these charges, it seems clear to me that the FIRST DEGREE MURDER mentioned eliminates Burke.

    He could not have been charged with murder.

    So the Grand Jury believed that either John or Patsy committed the murder and the other one helped and helped cover it up.

    Jane Velez Mitchell screaming LEAVE THE RAMSEYS ALONE. Nancy Grace agreeing with her. lol Those bimbos make me sick. I can't watch them; they're both narcissistic, mental midgets.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  4. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    1. The GJ heard Smit's presentation on the intruder. They rejected it.

    2. The GJ knew, from the evidence, the Ramseys were covering for someone.

    3. The GJ accepted that Patsy wrote the note.

    4. The GJ accepted that JBR was being sexually abused.

    The GJ heard all the evidence, pro and con, and they rejected an intruder and concluded Ramseys were covering even though no one can know who struck first blow. This is big because, for the first time, we had jurors weighing all the evidence; we had jurors listening to the stun gun, basement window entrance, exit of Smit, AND THEY REJECTED IT. This is big.
    People will believe what they want but JR will always, now, live with the knowledge that a jury of his peers weren't fooled by spin.
    BAM!

    And that's ONE LESS LIE Team Ramsey can repeat ad nauseam to fool the public.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  5. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    281

    Default

    I believe the mystery is solved. A first degree murder is a first degree murder even if no one can be charged for it. Both parents covered up for someone. Neither of the parents were charged for the murder, no one else was in the house that night. Case closed.

    IMO

  6. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Yeah, I should be used to the pathetic TV media white-wash by now.

    And Banfield has always been an idiot.

    Hey, while I got you, did you listen to Peter Boyles' radio show on this recent development, which cynic posted? Your little "list" from the Ramsey's book was a highlight: he read out your exact quotes, including page numbers. TWICE.

    Sorry he didn't mention you, but we forum posters are lowly worker bees in the hierarchy of this world.

    But you found those quotes, posted them, and the Ramsey lies you pointed out made it all the way to Peter Boyles and his listeners.

    You done good, grrrrl!
    I didn't listen to it yet but I will...and I am GLAD I finally did a ggod thing.very small thing but something.I hate child abuse and arrogant liars,I can't stand it and I bark until I see results.
    M. Lacy: "You know, no-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor… unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime… to clear someone."

  7. #31

    Default

    HLN is playing old video of the Rs and talking about the case. Patsy sure was zonked out by something when she made the "there is a killer on the loose" statement.

    I like Jane Velez-Mitchell except about this case - she is just stupid. Read these forums, Jane - learn something.

  8. #32

    Default

    As I read parts of this GJ indictment, I believe the jury thought the Ramseys
    were covering for BR or another family member. They indicted Patsy
    for placing JBR in harm's way and not keeping her from an abusive situation
    which led to her murder. Almost for certain they were thinking of BR or another family member.

  9. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    As I read parts of this GJ indictment, I believe the jury thought the Ramseys
    were covering for BR or another family member. They indicted Patsy
    for placing JBR in harm's way and not keeping her from an abusive situation
    which led to her murder. Almost for certain they were thinking of BR or another family member.
    That is the way I'm reading it Learnin, but maybe I'm wrong.
    I despise the Ramseys and this is just my opinion

  10. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wombat View Post
    HLN is playing old video of the Rs and talking about the case. Patsy sure was zonked out by something when she made the "there is a killer on the loose" statement.

    I like Jane Velez-Mitchell except about this case - she is just stupid. Read these forums, Jane - learn something.
    Poor Patsy...all that acting experience in high school theater and dramatic speech competition, and she couldn't muster ONE TEAR over the murder of her own daughter for the camera.

    EVEN ON HEAVY DRUGS, all she could do was crunch up her eyes and give a frowny face...but NOT ONE TEAR.

    The woman was a cold sociopath, IMO. That's why she fooled so many people so easily that she was a kind and honest person.

    Except with JonBenet...not so much....

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  11. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thor View Post
    That is the way I'm reading it Learnin, but maybe I'm wrong.
    Great to see you back, Thor! Missed you!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  12. #36

    Default

    How can the Ramseys have been covering for Burke if the charge was for covering up first degree murder?

    Burke was a minor who could not have been charged with First Degree Murder.

    I'm not saying Burke wasn't involved at some level in the various abuses against his sister. Maybe the Grand Jury didn't have much presented to them regarding Burke because clearly the early investigation did not focus on him being part of any of this.

    But Burke could not have been charged for any of it, much less Murder One.

    I've often wondered if that's why the investigators didn't look at Burke too hard for years. Maybe they felt that was a road which would lead them to minimal charges against the parents.

    It's also an even harder reality to accept if you have never studied the research or worked with victims of child abuse. People do not want to believe children can go off the rails so badly.

    At any rate, I don't think these charges support the idea that Burke committed either the head blow or ligature strangulation because of his status as a minor: no first degree murder would have been charged for Burke.

    It appears to me--and I'm no expert--that the Grand Jury believed either John or Patsy committed the murder and the other was guilty of not getting the child medical help and then covering it up.

    Which I interpret as BOTH were PROBABLY involved by the ligature strangulation and therefore would be GUILTY OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER.

    And again, it goes back to Hunter REFUSING to subpoena evidence, to call the Ramseys to testify before the Grand Jury, etc.

    How can LE make a case against a child killer if the DA is OBSTRUCTING THE INVESTIGATION?

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.



Similar Threads

  1. Ramsey grand jury voted to indict parents in 1999, DA refused to prosecute!
    By BobC in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: November 7, 2016, 6:48 pm, Mon Nov 7 18:48:57 UTC 2016
  2. Judge has ruled Ramsey Grand Jury indictment must be released
    By wombat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: August 21, 2016, 5:17 am, Sun Aug 21 5:17:22 UTC 2016
  3. Judge Who Dismissed JonBenet Ramsey Grand Jury To Retire
    By Little in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 7, 2009, 2:49 pm, Fri Aug 7 14:49:57 UTC 2009
  4. Grand Jury is NOT looking into anything Ramsey
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 4, 2004, 9:33 pm, Fri Jun 4 21:33:19 UTC 2004

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •