Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).

NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book: I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Monday, July 10, 2017

Onward and Upward (or sideways?)

Please calm down, everyone. I know it's frustrating, as we see no sign of resolution on the Ramsey case. Since that case is going nowhere, I thought it might be more interesting to focus on the Avery case, which does seem to be going somewhere (but who knows where?). In any case (forgive the pun), please try to be civil and concentrate on the issues, not the advocates, OK?

92 comments:

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYac4hcQ7QQ&t=75s

    You might find this interesting ! Consistent with the assertions in your articles ..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They lost me at "Alex Jones".

      Delete
    2. No, that theory is NOT consistent with anything I've written, nor much of anything hardly anyone else writing here has written. Someone did write a book claiming such a conspiracy, which is where this person probably got the idea.

      I wonder what stage of Alzheimer's the author of this "death bed confession" was in. Of course, if you are dead set in favor of satanic conspiracies, feel free to take it seriously.

      But if you do, then please explain:

      Why JonBenet's body was not removed from the house before the police were called. If anyone from outside were involved it would have been little trouble for that person to take the body with him and dump it elsewhere.

      Why the fake ransom note was written on paper from the house rather than brought in from elsewhere.

      Why NO conclusive intruder evidence was ever found. The conspirators could easily have brought some things with them to leave in the house as evidence of a kidnapper's presence.

      How a conspiracy of this scope could have remained a secret for over 20 years.

      Delete
  2. "But one psychological issue only touched on by MWMM some time back is that he has been diagnosed by some psychologists as manifesting many of the traits of a narcissist. Why I believe that’s important to understand is because of what has transpired with his son and the lawsuits." Anon

    That's the first time I've ever heard posited narcissism corroborated by diagnoses of "some psychologists". Certainly these "psychologists" weren't actually John's own hired therapists, for that would mean they would be abusing John's doctor/patient privilege.

    So who are these psychologists, Anon? When were their diagnoses determined, and where can they be found and read? I think the answers to these questions are incredibly important.

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P.S. What does MWMM stand for?

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. Midwest Mama, a longtime contributor here.

      Delete
    3. Yes, Mike. I would think stating diagnoses of some psychologists would need to be sourced. Otherwise it's just gossip.

      Delete
  3. I'm curious and maybe CC can answer this. What would it take to have JonBenet's body exhumed? Court order or parental permission, or both? I think there may be additional evidence on her body that could possibly give additional clues . . . at least more than it did 20 years ago.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Either/or. I know she was embalmed, but I thought that had a limited shelf life of just a couple few years, though I confess I know little about it. Tell me more. What would you expect to find after 20 years?

      Welcome back. Good to see you and Canuck and Anon again. All we need is Gumshoe and Lady Engineer and we could have a proper reunion.

      Delete
    2. Sorry...and you too, evej. Can't forget our Brit.

      Delete
    3. Ah thanks cc. I'm still here reading ;)

      Delete
    4. CC, I'm still here reading, too, when time allows! I haven't posted much but have been trying to talk an investigative reporter who I know from college and reports for a station in ATL into presenting Doc's case. LE

      Delete
    5. Good on you, LE. Miss your contributions, but get how busy you are. Drop in when you can, willya please?

      Delete
  4. Could Burke be called to testify if John were ever brought to trial? Or is there some kind of parent-child privilege?

    Burke gave conflicting answers about last seeing JB alive. If he now claims the last place he saw her alive was in the car, why did he originally say she walked up the stairs slowly? How would he explain saying that?

    I often wonder what Burke would say if he were under oath.

    What would he say about the basement window? Would he agree that it had been broken for months, letting the cold air and bugs in, and never getting repaired?

    Maybe he would also agree with John's stories about the bicycles, but which story would he pick? The one where JB and Patsy get bikes? Or JB, Burke and Patsy? Or would he agree that maybe Dad got a bike, too? Who knows??


    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no parent/child privilege, but no prosecutor who saw that interview with Dr Phil or read a transcript thereof would subpoena Burke. He's a defense witness all the way, and I agree with Anon - regardless of whether he's the son of a narcissist or not - he'd say anything to support the last surviving member of his nuclear family.

      Delete
    2. appreciate your questions K. Kolar suggested a special grand jury inquiry with Burke only, or it was former Chief Beckner who suggested it some time ago. He was questioned once when his parents were but none that focused specifically on him. And if Burke keeps adding details like sneaking downstairs that night and his dad handling the flashlight then by all means, let's find out much much more, like starting at the Stine house all the way home until bed.We could even get some window answers since Burke says he was present on one of the occasions when John had to break into the house.

      Delete
    3. A special grand jury investigates RICO and and other organized crime activities.

      Delete
    4. CC: Could Burke be subpoenaed,deposed, and required to sign an affidavit accounting for the inconsistencies in his various testimonies through the years? The ones he made as a child were all videotaped. Could not his statements made as an adult in some way be used against him, or can one invoke ones fifth amendment right to remain silent whether inside or outside the courtroom?

      Mike G

      Delete
    5. You can take the Fifth in deposition as well as at trial. Deposition is a discovery tool only used in a civil proceeding (in most states), though prosecutors in a criminal matter may interview or attempt to interview, anyone appearing on the defense's witness list - one reason the defendant is always added at the last possible moment if they testify at all.

      If there really are inconsistencies in Burke's stories. Bryan Morgan would never let him take the stand.

      I know of no means by which Burke can be compelled to, essentially, incriminate himself, in or out of a courtroom.

      Delete
  5. Thanks CC. I agree he does appear to be supporting his Dad. I've always hoped that he or someone else who knows something would step up and do the right thing for JB. Maybe that's naïve, but I haven't lost hope yet.

    Inq-I would also like to know more about Burke being taken to bed with the flashlight. I thought John said he took melatonin and went to sleep. Too many conflicting statements.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not only did he say it, and John did not deny it, but both Burke's assertion and John's non-denial are on videotape that either suddenly disappeared or are being kept from the public on grounds that have not been disclosed. That in and of itself smells illegal to me, but it's CC's nose, not mine, that counts.

      Mike

      Delete
    2. correction: "is" being kept

      Mike

      Delete
    3. Are you referring to the Dr Phil interviews? Transcripts are available on Reddit. The LE interviews are part of an open case and an ongoing investigation, and LE is not obligated to release any of 'em.

      Delete
    4. K - it is Chief Bechner in his reddit interview who said he did not believe the family wanted her dead. (Accident then?). Also that two detectives flew out to attempt to interview Burke during the last twenty years, and were turned away by Burke and Lin Wood who said there would be no questions put to Burke, to which Bechner said this was a typical Ramsey response.

      It was Kolar who pleaded with Stan Garnett in his letter dated 1/3/2011 to release the rest of the eighteen pages he turned over to the court (from the grand jury proceedings?) "something he claims he can't do on his own because of the Lowenbach's order." That there may be nothing earth-shattering there, but he goes on to say "when it comes to this dismal, failed investigation, how can we know what else has been hidden away under a veil of secrecy."

      Delete
    5. Inq,
      Just for accuracy sake, the quote you furnished is from Alan Prendergast, respected Boulder journalist, not from a letter from Kolar. It’s in the last paragraph.

      http://www.westword.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey-investigation-distorted-dna-part-of-ongoing-coverup-8451794

      Delete
    6. I congratulated you too soon, Inq.

      Now you're just making things up. Kolar's name doesn't appear at all in Prendergast's article.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Yes, Anonymous you are correct. My notes were incorrect - and appeared at the end of the open letter but are in fact, from the Prendergast article. My apologies, and I stand corrected, it was not from Kolar's open letter.

      Delete
  6. I fear that if you stray too far from the Jonbenet Ramsey case, you'll love your audience. I'm still here, but straying from the topic for too long isn't a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you mean "lose" your audience' Zach?
      A comment left by Zed recently did have me remembering an awesome Styx song -Crystal Ball. :)

      Delete
    2. Why not Zach? I've not heard one person complain about anyone, most of all Doc, trying to change the topic. And as for the current size of the audience relative to its size at any time in the past, please share with us your statistics.

      Rather than Crystal Ball, I'm suddenly reminded of the song Land of Hope and Dreams by the Boss.

      Mike G

      Delete
    3. I do "love" my audience, Zach. :-)

      But I get what you really meant. The problem for me is that I'm, very frankly, getting bored with all the hashing and rehashing of the same old same old Ramsey case issues. I'm hoping new evidence will emerge as Burke's lawsuits progress, but that process is slow as molasses and in the meantime all we have is what's already been discussed here ad nauseum. I happen to be very interested in the Avery case, so was hoping we could generate an interesting debate on that topic. Only everyone here seems to agree with me about Avery, which is nice, but doesn't lead to much in the way of intellectual heat.

      I don't want to shut off discussion of the Ramsey case, and all thoughts on that are welcome, but I don't see much hope of making progress until the lawsuit process perks up.

      Delete
    4. I suppose I could bone up on the Steven Avery case, if the tide here turned that way. Is there anything happening in that case? I do have a question here for Doc or Zed, those who are well versed in the case. What little I read Theresa Halbach expressed misgivings about returning to Avery's auto yard, to Auto Trader magazine, her employer. She was afraid of him essentially. He had come to the door with only a towel on and made inappropriate remarks? However Auto Trader magazine asked her to return one more time (and it was her last). Do they accept any responsibility at all for what happened to her? Thanks.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  7. Here is Bechner's direct quote from his reddit interview:

    "I don't believe the theory they wanted her dead. If you believe someone in the family killed JonBenet, the most likely scenario is that it was accidental in a fit of anger and then they tried to cover it up by making it look like something it wasn't. There are many books out there you can read, including several by the Ramseys that provide plenty of theories, but I have not seen any focused on the family that believe it was a planned situation." (before yours Doc, however).

    In any event he also says that if from the time you were 9 years old and told that you should be suspicious of LE questioning you on the death of your sister, that they were out to get your parents, (even though Beckner adds they were treated with kid gloves from the beginning) you would continue to be wary of answering any questions whatsoever that might have you be the one that trips up your parent's story, as an adult.

    ReplyDelete
  8. CC: Regarding exhuming JonBenet's body . . . . no I don't have any specific suspicions on what, if anything, they might find, but I know JR was anxious to get her buried . . . . " a proper burial" remember? Now, that could be an innocent request coming from grieving parents, or it could be coming from a nervous, guilty parent wanting to bury any incriminating evidence as soon as possible. Traces of semen, missed during the autopsy, comes to mind.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure they looked hard for traces of semen -- and found none. They could use touch DNA methods on the body, but finding John's DNA wouldn't mean anything since he carried it upstairs after "discovering" it. And apparently carried JonBenet from the car to the house earlier that evening.

      Delete
    2. bb..

      Had they exhumed the body, they may have been able to tell if those markings on her body did indeed come from a stun gun. The entire IDI theory is based on a stun gun being used. I never understood why an exhumation wasn't done.

      EG

      Delete
    3. Inq...

      I tend to agree with Bechner that it was an accident. I do not believe that her murder was premeditated.

      As far as the Avery case, that's interesting and I hadn't heard that she didn't like him and requested not to be sent there again.

      EG

      Delete
    4. Hello EG

      Afraid of him the article said. Did not want to return to the auto salvage yard for any more pictures taking. Poor girl. Women should trust their instincts more often and not just hope that nothing bad will happen to them. Nicole Brown Simpson kept a diary and told a friend if O.J. kills me he will get away with it - yet she stayed right there in Brentwood, didn't sue for custody of her children, or move away.


      Delete
    5. Hello Inq..

      I read that he requested her specifically but not sure how true that is. And yep, we should trust our instincts more and learn to say "NO" more often, without feeling guilty about it.

      Not sure if the family has any recourse if that's factual. They may argue that she could've said no, and refused to go.

      EG

      Delete
    6. EG, I needed to source that article - I detest long addresses, I wonder if one's own search shows up in an address tag line but here it is - and is complete with a video.

      people.com/crime/teresa-halbach-magazine-asked-her-to-go-to-steven-averys-house-one-last-time/

      from People Crime by K.C. Baker posted Jan. 14, 2016

      Maybe the family wants to see how Avery's trial will pan out before taking other measures to find someone liable. Isn't the only controversy in here whether the nephew was really involved or not?

      Much like Burke! Both with 9 year old minds.

      Delete
    7. Thanks for the link, Inq! :)

      Too bad she didn't stick to her guns and instead agreed to go there that one last time. I think Avery is definitely guilty. As far as Dassey, I believe his confession was coerced and apparently so did the courts, as his conviction was overturned.

      EG

      Delete
    8. In regards to exhumation and what it might reveal, I am more concerned with the silk scarf John put in JB's coffin.....
      The scarf was new, so it had no sentimental meaning to JonBenet, or John, presumably. Why then did he choose to bury her with this particular item? Of course, such a detail would not have piqued my curiosity had she not been strangled to death (although I would still question why a father chooses a silk scarf to bury with his six year old who would have preferred dolls and stuffed animals in life).....and what better a way to get rid of incriminating evidence than to bury it six feet beneath the earth along with the victim?

      Delete
    9. You have a very dark, twisted, suspicious mind. I like that in a person.

      Delete
    10. Reading the Grand Jury Counts against the Ramseys. Count IV, Count VII. Both of them vague. Read that the D.A. (Hunter) presented multiple charges to the grand jury - likely including murder - but that these two counts were the only ones the GJ could agree on. Does anyone know what other counts Hunter may have presented? (or is this way old news and it's somewhere on a thread here).

      As to Count IV what would be the "reckless, felonious, unlawful, unreasonable situation which posed a threat of injury"? John not setting the alarm? An incestuous child predator? (That would mean since they were both indicted, one knew and did nothing), a drunk mother with anger and domination issues? What was the situation? Makes no sense to me as the situation was not spelled out. And the Ramseys did not appear before the GJ.

      Count VII is more understandable as it refers to an intent to "hinder, delay and prevent the discovery and punishment" of a person who was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death. But it's a weak charge isn't it?

      I really think Hunter had no choice but to not press charges. What were the other counts the Grand Jury could have considered?

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. Hehehe, oh, you have no idea just how twisted and dark it really is, CC.....thanks for the compliment. ;)

      Not turning one's security alarm on is hardly a crime, and anything even remotely in that vein (say, an unlocked door to her bedroom balcony, for example, which led to a fatal fall) would be considered negligence, at best, wouldn't it? I believe the count of "reckless, felonious, unlawful, unreasonable situation etc." specifically refers to JB being knowingly exposed to the ongoing sexual abuse by her father, but the GJ couldn't determine just where Patsy's knowledge of the abuse began or ended, just as they couldn't determine how much - if at all, perhaps - she participated in the subsequent cover up ("hinder, delay and prevent the discovery and punishment of a person who was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.") My guess is the GJ knew John murdered JonBenet, believed that Patsy protected him after the fact, and were hoping she'd throw him under the bus when push came to shove and she was faced with being charged with a murder she didn't commit.
      Thanks to Alex Hunter, we'll never know.
      I've no doubt John would have thrown Patsy under the bus from the very first day of the investigation had she been the one who murdered her daughter.

      Delete
    13. Ok, thanks for your reply. Do you know what other charges Alex Hunter/Mike Kane asked the GJ to consider? I do think that the only two(Count IVa and Count VII)the GJ could agree on were not enough for the DA to go forward.

      Delete
  9. I hope this isn't too far off topic, but we've had an amazing cold case blown open by a journalist here in Melbourne just recently (Have you been following this Ms D??).

    Maria James was killed 37 years ago. Investigative reporter Rachael Brown has been doing her own investigation for the last year or so, and made a series of podcasts that were broadcast on Radio National (our national public broadcaster). After the third podcast was aired the police made a public announcement that they'll be re-examining the investigation. And there's a chance there will be another Coronial inquest into the death.

    It's a fantastic podcast for people who are interested in true crime. And there is interesting stuff in the final episode about DNA evidence, and BUNGLING of evidence. I'm not sure if people can access the podcasts from outside Australia, but here's the link:-

    http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/trace/episodes/

    Good to remember what a dedicated journalist can achieve in striving for justice. I'll always hope you've sowed the seed that leads to justice for Jonbenet here, Doc G.

    - B&B

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just a reminder to all JDI's to stay united.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WomIOTN9UiQ&list=
    at the 4-5 minute mark

    "What happened that morning....take us through it."

    Patsy hedges and hesitates....John angers and misdirects..."we don't remember everything; it was three years ago...all I know is it hit me like....blah,blah,blah....."

    Yeah right John. Your spell on Patsy was wearing off, and King let you off easy, you lying bastard son-of-a-bitch.

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John speaking utter bullshit, as usual.....when he was asked to submit to a polygraph, he said "no", flat out. He said that he "was offended", for crying out loud. Of course, John assures the audience on LKL just how "unreliable" lie detector tests are (but if he happened to pass one with flying colours, he'd be proclaiming this test was infallible proof of his innocence, you betcha) and how useless they are because they're inadmissible in court anyway.
      LK: "Did the police search the house?"
      JR: "Not very well!"
      Yes, and how lucky for you, huh, John? You got to contaminate the crime scene beautifully, you get to continually moan about LE's ineptitude, and you get to blame them for your daughter's murder going unsolved, every chance you get. John never lets you forget who the victim is here....."Jonbenet WHO"???

      Delete
    2. I agree with you there. His insufferable dry-mouth lip pursing is off-putting as well.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the link. It really is extraordinary footage, the way Patsy can't bring herself to lie and say she told John before calling the police. Larry King does well here, asking a couple of times about the minute or two after Patsy got the note and John is seriously pissed about King's persistence. There's just a glimpse of the controlling man who finds himself not in full control.

      Delete
  11. Couple of things - O.J. Simpson will likely get parole July 20. He will be a free man again.

    Second thing - if you tire of waiting for progress reports regarding Burke's case from the media, you can visit the 3rd Judicial Circuit of Michigan court website
    https.//www.3rdcc.org/odyssey-public-access-(opa)
    3rd Circuit Court Wayne County case number 16-012792-CZ
    Burke Ramsey v. Werner Spitz or CBS and see the history

    Search court case, "accept" terms, and "non-criminal" (you can walk yourself through the terms. Not much happening of course, 7/17 there was a review hearing, 1/22 there will be a case evaluation general civil and 3/5/18 a settlement conference. Transcripts would be nice, no dice. But you can keep yourself updated without waiting for media interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link, Inq! :)

      Delete
    2. Always happy to help an animal lover Ms D.

      Delete
    3. You calling me an animal??????!!!!!!

      Delete
    4. cats, dogs, the male animal, we love them all :)

      Delete
    5. Thanks, Inq.....I'm just waxing lyrical about my menagerie as I type! ;)
      The male species? Meh.....not so much.....though, if they're housebroken, it sure helps! ;)

      Delete
  12. Of course that link didn't work. Try this one:

    https://www.3rdcc.org/odyssey-public-access-(opa)

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm not familiar with the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, Inq, but I'll hazard a guess based on my state's:

    1. Murder One
    2. Murder Two
    3. Conspiracy to Commit
    4. Child Abuse Resulting in Death*
    5. Child Sexual Abuse
    6. Accessory before the fact
    7. Accessory after the fact*

    *charged

    ReplyDelete
  14. Interesting CC, thanks. I faulted Hunter all these years, but I can see now that on the two counts the GJ agreed on, he couldn't have prosecuted a case.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I believe I read somewhere that the vote was 9-3. Not overwhelming, when you only need probable cause rather than BARD, but strong enough, imo.

    Hunter could and should have signed the indictments and gone to trial. One doesn't convene a grand jury and then refuse to follow its findings, for one thing, and for another trying them separately may have caused Patsy to turn on John, particularly when she learned of the prior sexual abuse. It's what I would have done, what I think any responsible prosecutor would do.

    Both charges can carry heavy prison terms, up to 30 years in my state, nothing for a cancer survivor and mother of a still-young son to sneer at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was there a differing of opinion between Hunter and Kane?

      Delete
    2. "One doesn't convene a grand jury and then refuse to follow its findings..."

      So why did Alex Hunter?

      Delete
    3. He was pressured into it by the national media, which was extremely critical of his preference for plea bargaining the few murders that occurred in Boulder down to probation, house arrest, weekends in jail - insane, unheard-of deals.

      Hunter had no experience with grand juries and very little trial experience, hence Mike Kane, a former prosecutor in Denver who had a reputation as a grand jury wizard.

      I'm sure they disagreed, Inq - Kane was a hang 'em high type, and Hunter believed in rehabilitation.

      Delete
    4. A “hang ‘em high” type for killers of children? I like that in a person.

      Delete
  16. Mike Kane's resume is very impressive. I read that he made a name for himself in 1984 by securing the conviction of a Denver man who murdered his girlfriend's 9-year-old daughter. There were no eyewitnesses to the crime and the murder weapon was never found. In 1991 he convinced a Pennsylvania grand jury to indict a mother for the murder of her child, a killing that initially had been ruled an accident. The woman later pleaded guilty to third-degree murder. One can see early on his commitment to getting justice for murdered children and so it must have killed him that he couldn't do the same for JonBenet. Does anyone know who he suspected killed her - John, Patsy, or both involved? Seems like in his investigative questioning it could have been John, given his ability to trip John up on a few occasions. He really was a sharp cookie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's obvious to me that he thought John the perp because of the prior sexual abuse and Count IV. Yeah, yeah, I know it can't be proved that it was John that abused her, but he was far and away the most obvious suspect.

      Prosecutors see it all, many times over, one reason we burn out in 2-3 years on average, and I promise you, the simplest explanation is often the best. Think horses, not zebras. The odds of it being her father are, from what I've read, 12 to 1 in favor.

      Delete
  17. If anyone still cares (and I do, moderately, since it's the only justice Brown and Goldman will ever get) OJ's parole hearing will be carried live, this Thursday at noon, on HLN.

    ReplyDelete
  18. and he'll get it, guys, and don't it just suck?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the HLN parole hearing info. Once he's out he'll likely take to the airwaves to make a living, but the good news is the Goldman's say they'll be ready for him. He now owes them 52 million (interest accrued).

      Delete
    2. I still moderately care as well, CC, and I think you're right that he'll get it. It sucks very much.

      Any media outlet would be foolish to employ him, but if his wages can go to the Goldmans, then sure, put the murderer to work.

      Delete
    3. I'm hoping OJ goes the way of Jimmy Hoffa....

      Delete
    4. OJ is and always was a thug. There is no reason to think prison rehabilitated him, in 2013 at his other parole hearing he was still offering up excuses for why he does what he does.

      Delete
  19. Hey all,

    Just wanted to share something that happened earlier today. I was with my nephew at the grocery store and he said, "You know that JonBenet case? They solved it!"

    I stopped dead in my tracks. Had there just been some breaking news?! Did he get an alert on his phone?! (I didn't even know he followed the case!)

    It dawned on me that I'd always remember where I was when I heard the JBR case was finally, at long last, solved.

    "What do you mean, 'they solved it'?" I asked, admittedly feeling just a tiny bit overwhelmed at what I'd just heard.

    "It says so on one of the magazine covers by the check out."

    Did I mention he's 12?

    Fucking hell.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh yes Canuck, it's on the cover of The Globe so it must be true - she was killed by a sex ring - they got a jail house pervert to spill the beans. And the police have been covering it up all of these years. Sad, truly sad, that some people will buy that swill - but most won't care.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JR certainly hasn't taken to the airwaves to either celebrate
      the discovery or chastise the police, has he?

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. I think you feel about John Ramsey the way I feel about O.J. Simpson, Mike. So, he was granted parole. Yet did you all hear his opening statement? This guy is not sorry, he'll never be sorry for anything he's done, and thank you Jeffrey Toobin for pointing out the obvious. Also kudos to Paul Callan, representative of Nicole Brown in the civil suit for what he said about this parole board. To say he's led a "conflict-free life" is just another lie of his. His conflicts are with women/wives and unarmed young men I guess. Then to say "I'd never condone what I did" I was reminded of his book "If I Did It." Women of Nevada, Florida, or wherever he ends up, beware. Narcissistic Predator on the loose.

      Delete
  21. Legal question for cc:
    Judge Lowenbach only released the Indictments IVa and VII. It’s been my understanding from reading internet info that Colorado has a system like a few other states, of voting on both a True Bill and also on a No True Bill. My question involves whether they did not have enough majority votes for issuing No True Bills on those remaining charges or whether there would have been legal considerations to voting those as No True Bills, such as release of information to the Rs. Am I misreading this? Could it also be the grand jurors were not ready to dismiss the other charges but just did not have enough evidence to pronounce those other 7 charges as either No True Bills or True Bills. Can you elaborate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Grand Juries are convened by a prosecutor primarily  to hear evidence and secure an indictment.  They are also very effective investigative bodies with subpoena powers, and can often obtain  evidence police cannot,  by subpoenaing reluctant witnesses, documents like phone and financial records.  Unlike petit juries, they can be presented with hearsay testimony, even unsubstantiated theories (a la Lou Smit in our case).  In addition, they can issue reports based on what they see and hear to help prosecutors and the cops perfect their case by pointing out insufficient evidence, and the reasons they did not find probable cause.


      Most prosecutor's present a GJ with a menu of possible charges, as I outlined above in response to Inq's query.  After hearing testimony and seeing all the evidence they consider each possible charge and vote.  A majority vote results in the issuance of a True Bill.  Failure to obtain a majority automatically results in a No Bill.


      In our case the GJ voted in favor of   two of the possible charges against each Ramsey parent, resulting in the four pages Judge Lowenbach released.  I believe the remaining fourteen pages still under seal are the GJ's report  - something I'm sure we'd all like very much to see.

      Delete
    2. By law the Ramseys would have received copies of any indictments signed by the DA within thirty days of being charged, but as we know, Hunter did not sign the indictments. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that, given his penchant for over-sharing with defense counsel, Bryan Morgan and Pat Burke received copies of the entire GJ report within days.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Would you like to speculate what is contained in those fourteen remaining pages and why they are still under seal, CC?

      Delete
    5. Thanks, CC. I was trying to understand why the other charges were simply in the category of Not a True Bill instead of the grand jury voting them as No True Bills. It was my impression that the gj settled on charges most likely to be able to be proven in court, yet wanted to keep some options open.

      From the Daily Camera in 2001 - Reflecting now on his interviews with the Ramseys, Michael Kane said, "I never felt like I was getting a spontaneous response. John Ramsey always left me with the impression that he was a very smart man, and he is very careful at answering questions."

      Delete
  22. Murder One and Conspiracy to Commit have no statutes of limitation in Colorado, Inq, so if the report includes the GJ reasoning, the testimony heard, and the evidence viewed that supported their inability to find probable cause those crimes had been committed, those pages will remain sealed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thank you for helping us out with all things legal, CC. I think we all want to understand what happened with the Grand Jury, etc. I have another question or two - in regard to Count VII - the phrasing - and just a portion of it:

    the GJ alleged each parent "did render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime." Since Burke could not be prosecuted for a crime (any crime?) is that one of the reasons you believe, at the very least, that the Grand Jury did not think Burke had anything to do with it? Or am I misinterpreting the count.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The part of Count VII that makes me conclude it was not Burke to whom they were referring is a little further on . . ."knowing the person being assisted was suspected of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

      Children cannot be accused of either Murder in the First or Child Abuse Resulting in Death, and it's inconceivable to me that either or both Ramseys would aid an intruder, leaving only one another.

      You're welcome. I've long been passionate about making the law accessible to and understandable by everyone.

      Delete
  25. Maybe this will help. The nomenclature and lexicon of children and crime are completely different from those of adults.

    Children 10-18 are "juveniles" under the law. Burke would have been considered a "juvenile delinquent", and deemed not to have committed a crime, but rather a "delinquent act". He would not be subjected to a criminal trial, but an "adjudication" in juvenile court resulting in a "disposition".

    ReplyDelete
  26. How do you think JR and OJ would interact if they were alone in a room together? Other than the fact that OJ isn't the sharpest tack in the box, they have some similarities in their personalities.

    ReplyDelete