The Grand Jury indictment of John and Patsy Ramsey

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

  1. wombat

    wombat Member

    The jury believed that a first degree murder felony offense had been committed by someone. The elements of the crime were present. Burke could not be charged with the crime because he was less than 10 years old, but the crime occurred. These indictments do not rule him out, IMO.
  2. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    Precisely, Cherokee! Let's see that DNA report.
  3. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    It's sickening, isn't it? :puke:

    RAMSEYS = OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, and Lin Wood is their slimy, snake-oil salesman! He's still out there barking up the sale of Ramsey Innocence tonic, while they smirk at the fools who believe it.

    Lin Wood has made lying into an art form. He is a pathological liar and can't quit. John Ramsey could confess on a Bible tomorrow, and Lin Wood would still try to spin it that "when all the facts come out, John will be proven innocent." Part of it is that Lin Wood has to save HIS image. He's made a career of shilling for the Ramseys and declaring their innocence. He can't back down now!
  4. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    I totally agree, Wombat. I do not see how the GJ charges rule out Burke, especially since he was three weeks away from being 10 when JonBenet was killed. They couldn't charge Burke for the murder, but they could say John and Patsy didn't do enough to prevent it and the sexual abuse.
  5. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Maybe I'm a bad person, but I am having fantasies of Lin Wood levitating off the ground like a scene from The Exorcist, projectile vomiting green bile, with steam coming out of his ears. He no longer stomp around, telling people that the Grand Jury "cleared" his precious, innocent clients. OH GOD to see his face right now!!!
  6. wombat

    wombat Member

  7. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Admit it--you were fantasizing about the same thing!
  8. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Learning, I agree with your post #39. Yes, the GJ did interview Burke. They also had to know he was less than 10 years old and therefore could not be charged with murder. They heard all the evidence and held both parents accountable.

    I can't watch all the fawning from the usual talking heads. In the interviews yesterday that Peter Boyles did he said we would only get one or two pages and not the whole transcripts of the GJ. I wish we could see what they said. If those transcripts were released I think even the talking heads would have to agree the Ramseys were the guilty parties.
  9. cynic

    cynic Member

    So predictable

    Lin Wood, an attorney for John Ramsey, said the released indictment means "absolutely zero" in terms of the investigation into JonBenet's death.

    "The documents today are a mere historical footnote, a small glimpse into the grand jury proceedings," Wood said. "It's four pages of what would have likely been hundreds of volumes of testimony and exhibit."

    John Ramsey, in a letter to Garnett on Sunday, objected to the release of the indictment without the entire grand jury record also being released.

    "What you have is nothing more than confusing accusations without any evidence to support the accusations," Wood said today. "It's fundamentally unfair to the Ramsey family and the system of justice. If you're going to make public what amounts to an accusation, let's see the evidence."

    In response to the request, Lowenbach said grand jury transcripts and other evidence did not constitute "official action" and would not be released and would set a bad precedent for future grand juries. But Wood said the Ramsey's deserved an exception.

    "This case is unprecedented, there will never be another case like it," Wood said. "What this family has endured now for 17 years merits an exception to the rule. John Ramsey's request should have been honored, not only because it's fair but because it's the right thing to do."

    Garnett had previously rejected two requests by the Camera and Brennan seeking the release of the indictment under the Colorado Open Records Act.

    Garnett has written a guest opinion that will be published in Sunday's edition of the Daily Camera and declined to comment today on the release before the opinion was published.

    JonBenet Ramsey was found dead Dec. 26, 1996, in the basement of her family's Boulder home, 755 15th St. -- which is now 749 15th St. -- several hours after Patsy Ramsey called 911 to say her daughter was missing and that a ransom note had been left behind.

    On Oct. 13, 1999, more than a year after the case went to a grand jury, then-DA Hunter announced that the grand jury investigation had come to an end and that no charges would be filed due to a lack of evidence.

    Bill Wise, Hunter's former top assistant, said he backs up Hunter's choice.

    "I think it was the correct decision," Wise said. "You just don't have the evidence. The totality of everything that was presented by Boulder Police Department was just insignificant to prosecute."

    Jim Kolar, who is currently chief of the Telluride Marshal's Department, was a DA investigator assigned to the case in 2004 by former District Attorney Mary Lacey. Kolar published a book in 2012 titled "Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?" in which he said evidence pointed toward a family member being involved in the murder as opposed to an intruder.

    Kolar said the portion of the indictment that was released indicates that the grand jury came to the same conclusion.

    "It seems to me that the grand jury thought there was some merit to the theory that the parents, to one extent or another, knew what happened,†Kolar said.

    But in 2008, it was determined that DNA evidence found on JonBenet did not match any of the Ramseys. Then DA Lacey subsequently exonerated the family.

    "I think a lot of people think she stepped over the line by exonerating the family," Kolar said. "She was relying heavily on the DNA, and I don't know that it was appropriate."

    Added Wise, "I never would have done it. I'm not in the business of exonerating people until you have a conviction of somebody, and they don't have a conviction."

    But Wood said the exoneration and the DNA made what was revealed in the documents released today irrelevant.

    "You didn't have DNA testing then, and that fact alone renders these findings by a grand jury in 1999 to be 100 percent wrong," Wood said
  10. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    I think Lin Wood is "UNFAIR TO SYSTEM OF JUSTICE".
  11. wombat

    wombat Member

    I was!
  12. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    Thanks. I thought they had interviewed BR. So, I'm wondering what they heard there or read between the lines. It's clear, from what I read, that the GJ was convinced PR knew about some thing that was placing JBR in harm's way and failed to remove JBR from that situation and this ended up causing her death.

    Or did they consider, and hear, other evidence that we only know in part like the soiling issues, psychological testing, etc.??
  13. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    What you have is nothing more than confusing accusations without any evidence to support the accusations Lin Wood

    Boy, that's rich! The grand jury heard testimony, pro and con Ramsey, and voted to indict on what I see as very clear accusations. Five minutes, that's all I want!
  14. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Ha! I knew Woodsie would be squealing like a stuck hog!!!

    We are in serious trouble if a partial strand of degraded DNA outweighs a mountain of other evidence in a locked house.
  15. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    You've probably seen this, or it may be posted here. If so, sorry for the repeat, but your wish is granted:

  16. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Let's all send sympathy cards to poor Lin Wood, with heartfelt sentiments like "Our deepest sympathies on your loss" or "Wishing you a speedy recovery" or even "Sucks to be you!"
  17. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Which brings me to the #$%&@#$#$^#!!! question: WHO FIRST CALLED THIS STUPID LACY "OPINION" AN "EXONERATION?!

    OTG posted the legal definition of "exoneration"; you'd THINK lawyers might HAVE A CLUE!

    [I bolded sections and tried to duplicate the precise format OTG used, but the original is available at the link and I suggest this reading for anyone who has a doubt as to the level of BS rhetoric Team Ramsey goes to prevent the truth about this murder from being exposed.]

    That's only part of OTG's excellent post on the sheer smoke and mirrors presented by Team Ramsey for 17 years.

    So we have Team Ramsey spreading this BS and I'm shocked...SHOCKED, I tell you! how many lawyers on TV are repeating this BS as if they have NO IDEA what the ef this means in legal terms!

    Clearly the Bar standards for being a lawyer are abysmal at BEST.
  18. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I think it's about TIME the public learns of the ONGOING SEXUAL ABUSE OF JONBENET RAMSEY.

    How's THAT for evidence to support the accusations?
  19. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Apparently the standards now include:

    1. the ability to lie with a straight face

    2. being able to spin like a top to make your client look good in the face of irrefutable evidence

    3. not caring that your client is guilty or a sociopath, just be concerned that you win at all costs to promote your own reputation and fees

    4. have no conscience at all so you can attack the true victims in a case and tear their lives apart, but yet still be able to sleep at night

    5. repeat #1, ad nauseam
  20. LI_Mom

    LI_Mom Member

    I have always believed that Jonbenet & her brother went downstairs after the parents went to sleep & being overtired, over-stimulated by the holiday & excited about the next days trip they were going on all cylinders....

    they got into some kind of petty fight like kids do & her brother lost his patience & hurt her seriously.

    The parents heard the ruckus or B went upstairs to get them on his own & Patsy flew into panic mode & insisted they stage a scene to implicate some stranger in this tragedy.

    They sent B to bed with instructions to not say a thing & to not leave his room until someone came & got him & then they spent the rest of the night concocting the ridiculous ransom note & staging a horrific scene that would divert attention away from loving parents.

    When questioned, they latched onto every & all pieces of evidence that might be believed to be from an intruder... they denied knowledge of the flashlight, the pineapple snack, the baseball bat, the boots, the stuffed bear & I don't remember what else. Anything to suggest a stranger was in the home was their immediate goal.

    IMO, this was a terrible tragedy that was compounded by their refusal to admit the son was responsible for her accidental death or at least her very serious wound that rendered her unconscious & they mistakenly believed she was dead because they were just too frantic to detect any heartbeat.

    A stranger did NOT write that asinine note & a stranger did NOT bother to redress her in the same day of the week underwear except in a too large size. And a stranger did NOT care if she was swaddled in a loving way... not if a stranger was so brutal in murdering her & violating her sexually.
  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