The Grand Jury indictment of John and Patsy Ramsey

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by cynic, Oct 25, 2013.

  1. cynic

    cynic Member




    [​IMG] Grand Jury.pdf Grand Jury.pdf

    An unprosecuted 1999 grand jury indictment released today revealed the grand jury prepared charges of child abuse resulting in death and accessory to a crime for both John and Patsy Ramsey in the death of their 6-year-old daughter JonBenet Ramsey.
    The four pages released this morning indicated the jury felt that both the Ramseys permitted a child to be "unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey" and rendered assistance to a person "knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."
    Alex Hunter, the Boulder district attorney at the time, never signed the true bill, apparently believing he could not successfully prosecute due to a lack of evidence.
    The criteria for a grand jury indictment is probable cause and does not have to be unanimous among the grand jurors. Hunter would have had to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt to win at trial.
    Both of the charges in the indictment carry a statute of limitation of three years.
    The documents -- which had been sealed since the jury concluded its work in late 1999 -- were released by retired Weld County Judge Robert Lowenbach in response to a lawsuit brought by Daily Camera reporter Charlie Brennan and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press seeking the release of the unprosecuted indictment of the Ramseys.
    After Lowenbach ruled earlier this month that the release of the documents would not violate grand jury secrecy rules, Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett turned over the documents for Lowenbach to review.
    On Wednesday, Lowenbach ruled that the indictment would be released.
    According to the court order, the documents submitted to the court by Garnett consisted of 18 pages, nine relating to each of JonBenet's parents. Lowenbach ruled that only pages signed by the foreman of the grand jury would be considered "official actions" of the grand jury and would thus be releasable. In the end, a total of four pages -- two pages for each parent -- were released.
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2013
  2. heymom

    heymom Member

    That's IT???

    2 pages each???

    Oh dear....


    Well, so much for that...

  3. heymom

    heymom Member

    But wait....Those indictments state that BOTH Patsy and John helped cover up MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE!!! And CHILD ABUSE RESULTING IN DEATH!!

    So if they both helped cover it up....Who else was present on Christmas Eve???

  4. cynic

    cynic Member

    I’m going to look at the bright side.
    At least SEVEN charges were considered against both John and Patsy.
    They were indicted with respect to TWO of those charges.
    Accessory to the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death
    Child Abuse Resulting in Death
  5. madeleine_ws

    madeleine_ws Member

    it sounded like BDI to me at first too but then I remembered what the juror told Charlie Brennan,they didn't know who did what and thats why this vote?
  6. cynic

    cynic Member

    The question is, did they suspect Burke?

    ETA - Sorry Madeleine - posting at the same time.
  7. heymom

    heymom Member

    I don't think they were indicted of Child Abuse resulting in death, cynic. But of allowing or not preventing child abuse resulting in death. So, accessory to both child abuse AND 1st degree murder and child abuse. Very much like Molly Midyette was charged with the same thing, while Alex was convicted of the actual abuse.

    Someone please correct me if I am wrong, I'm no lawyer. I just don't see them being charged with direct child abuse.
  8. wombat

    wombat Member

    I agree with you, heymom. Wow.

    Did the grand jury believe that Burke killed his sister?
  9. madeleine_ws

    madeleine_ws Member

  10. heymom

    heymom Member

    The way the charges were filed, I can't help but think that they did, since neither parent was charged with direct abuse or anything other than accessory.
  11. heymom

    heymom Member

    That is a very hedged response, don't you think? The adults in the house may have done something, that THEY certainly could have prevented...Interesting way to put it. If they did it, why would they then be responsible to prevent it?

    But if someone ELSE did it, then yes, the adults could have prevented it.

    More and more, I think the big red arrow here is pointing straight to Burke.
  12. cynic

    cynic Member

    There is no doubt; count four says that it is a true bill with respect to child abuse resulting in death.
  13. madeleine_ws

    madeleine_ws Member

    if they thought BDI I understand the accessory charge but not the other one (child abuse)

  14. heymom

    heymom Member

    OK, I see that, but in the explanation, it is "unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation, which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health."

    And I understand that if they didn't know who had committed the abuse, they couldn't charge either with it, but they could charge both with being at least an accessory.

    Sigh...back to where we started....
  15. madeleine_ws

    madeleine_ws Member

    hmmmm LOL
    I was wondering if this could backfire in a way that the R team never expected....

    maybe some of the IDI's will now believe this indictment means the Ramsey's covered for the intruder
  16. wombat

    wombat Member


    But why would they do that? Only if the intruder was someone they wanted to another relative...

    Or maybe they were secretly politically affiliated with a small foreign faction after all. (snort)
  17. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well, be careful what you ask for....

    On my TV are reruns of John Ramsey's interviews from his last book. On CNN Ashleigh Banfield is all but crying for "the poor man."

    She also reminded everyone the Ramseys were CLEARED in 2008.

    Ha ha ha! It's official: our media is as corrupt and stupid as Mary Lacy.

    I saw this coming: the headlines for the major news reports on this the last two days have stated pretty much now we'll know WHY Hunter didn't indict the Ramseys. No focus on the truth, just on how now we can see why wonderful DA Hunter couldn't indict and try them.

    NOT what happened to JonBenet.

    NOT who murdered her.

    NOT how this COVER UP for the Ramseys by two DAs is a scar on American justice forever.


    Just...POOR JOHN RAMSEY. boo hoo

    Guess Peter Boyle was wrong. John Ramsey is STILL a professional victim.
  18. madeleine_ws

    madeleine_ws Member

    the only journalist I wanna hear from today is Charlie Brennan
  19. wombat

    wombat Member

    They did have lawyers on who said they have never seen this before, an indictment being held back by a prosecutor.
  20. heymom

    heymom Member

    That's IT, madeleine! They must have KNOWN that intruder and been in cahoots with him! Oh it still Santa Claus??
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice