tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post1405947900793226831..comments2024-02-23T18:09:21.379-05:00Comments on Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case: Reasonable Doubt - Part 4DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-86874230550187352312012-09-10T10:34:30.994-04:002012-09-10T10:34:30.994-04:00I guess I didn't make my meaning clear enough....I guess I didn't make my meaning clear enough. Let me try again.<br /><br />Let's assume John's lawyers would want to invoke reasonable doubt on the basis of the possibility that Patsy (or Burke) could have killed JonBenet and not John. But if either of them is the murderer, one would assume John would be aware of it, and would have participated in the coverup. And if John knows about it, then it's no longer a matter of reasonable doubt, it's a matter of calling John to the stand and asking him what he knows.<br /><br />John would then be forced to testify against Patsy or Burke, which could easily backfire because the jury might well see his testimony as self-serving. It would also shred any hope of establishing reasonable doubt based on the intruder theory, since if Patsy did it there obviously wasn't any intruder. So it wouldn't be simply a matter of accepting a perjury charge, it would considerably strengthen the murder case against him by forcing him to admit he lied and that there was no intruder.<br /><br />That's a very high price to pay for that sort of "reasonable doubt." It seems to me their best bet would be to stick to the intruder theory, regardless of how lame it is.<br /><br />The point I'm making about John's credibility is that once he admits he knows what happened, he admits that he's been lying through his teeth for years, and his lies have hurt a great many people. So why would the jury believe him when he claims Patsy or Burke did it? It could easily be another lie. So he'd have to prove it, which would turn reasonable doubt on its head, because the burden of proof is usually on the prosecution.<br /><br />Seems to me that if his lawyers were to decide the intruder theory might not work for them, they might urge John to plea bargain with the prosecution, offering to tell what he knows in return for immunity or a lighter sentence. If in fact Patsy or Burke killed JonBenet, that would be his chance to reveal that information and hope the authorities would believe him. But that would be an act of sheer desperation, as it would totally destroy him in the eye of his family, the public, everyone he's ever known and cared about, including his new wife. My guess is that he would never agree to do that, even if he was "only" an accessory to someone else's crime.<br /><br />And by the way, I don't believe for a minute that he was only an accessory. I'm sure he did it all. So if he tried to cop a plea it would just be another pack of lies.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-56533039182852461992012-09-09T19:39:59.376-04:002012-09-09T19:39:59.376-04:00I'm sorry, but I don't follow this wrt &qu...I'm sorry, but I don't follow this wrt "John's POV". The jury might have a doubt as to JR doing it, if testimony is presented at trail that PR did it. The doubt would be reasonable on the face of it, but at any rate, no juror imagines his doubts to be unreasonable. <br /><br />Yes, JR would have to admit to lying previously, and perhaps would have to do time for perjury. That's infinitely preferable to doing time for murder. <br /><br />I'm also confused about the point you're making about JR's credibility. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com