The Grand Jury indictment of John and Patsy Ramsey

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

  1. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks. I only saw the end where Banfield was about to pull her hair and cry on behalf of poor JR. :puke:
  2. madeleine_ws

    madeleine_ws Member

    thinking now,it was wrong to release only these pages...the public doesn't know how the jurors ended up voting like they did ,based on what evidence ...and the R team is already using it,making the jurors look stupid....,makes me so angry,all the cheap spin....
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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! :takeabow:
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well, sometimes the BS like that backfires.

    People get upset and start talking.
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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.
  6. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    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.
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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.
  8. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member


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

    Harley Member

    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.

  10. madeleine_ws

    madeleine_ws Member

    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.
  11. wombat

    wombat Member

    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.
  12. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    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.
  13. Thor

    Thor Active Member

    That is the way I'm reading it Learnin, but maybe I'm wrong.
  14. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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....
  15. Elle

    Elle Member

    Great to see you back, Thor! Missed you!
  16. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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?
  17. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Oh Woody, making BIG BUCKS shilling for the Ramseys...AGAIN.

    Now MSNBC is vomiting back Wood's propaganda and Lacy's "exoneration" of the poor, pitiful Ramseys who never did nothing but OBSTRUCT the investigation, LIE FOR 17 YEARS to LE and the public, and COVER UP THE MURDER OF THEIR CHILD.

    These people are so afraid of Lin Wood suing them, they're pizzing their pants while they read from Woody's Book of Ramsey LIES.
  18. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Learnin, this list deserves a RE-POST!

    Lin Wood can try to spin it like a Maytag, BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THESE FACTS!

    And now we're hearing from legal experts they've NEVER heard of a DA not prosecuting a case after a Grand Jury issued a True Bill! Furthermore, Alex Hunter kept the Grand Jury's indictment in his safe until the statute of limitations ran out? It's no wonder justice for JonBenet never had a chance!

    At least, John Ramsey (and his partners-in-crime) are having to face the music today! The release of the Grand Jury indictment is ALL OVER the national news - both internet and TV!

    Now, if some intrepid reporter would just dig further into Lacy's worthless exoneration, based on faulty DNA results, THAT would remove the last plank of the Ramsey's innocence façade.

    How INTERESTING that Lacy REFUSED to release the DNA report AND REFUSED to answer any questions at her big dog-and-pony show, er, press conference where she "exonerated" the Ramseys!
    What was SHE hiding like Hunter hid the Grand Jury indictment?

    If Lacy can use alleged "touch DNA" to declare innocence (which cannot be done if you ask any DNA expert), then what prevents a journalist, or anyone, from filing to see Lacy's hidden report? If it's so favorable to the Ramseys, why not release it and let REAL DNA experts, and others, review it? Why not have another lab, other than Lacy's friends at Bode Labs, try to replicate the results?

  19. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    And didn't the GJ get to interview BR, directly?
  20. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    That's precisely it, koldkase. They're afraid of being sued.
  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