Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 29
» Latest member: Gildedingold
» Forum threads: 1,072
» Forum posts: 3,357

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 14 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 14 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
$118,000.00
Forum: 118 thousand dollar ransom
Last Post: Summer Dawn
4 hours ago
» Replies: 5
» Views: 574
Dale Yeager
Forum: Discredited and discounted witnesses in this case
Last Post: Summer Dawn
4 hours ago
» Replies: 2
» Views: 2
Important info in "We hav...
Forum: We Have Your Daughter
Last Post: Summer Dawn
4 hours ago
» Replies: 9
» Views: 1,094
Cyril Wecht
Forum: John Ramsey sues CBS
Last Post: Summer Dawn
6 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 5
Judianne Densen-Gerber ...
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
7 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 5
COORS Event center
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: Summer Dawn
10-15-2017, 08:48 AM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 205
Evidence found in JonBene...
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: Summer Dawn
10-15-2017, 08:39 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 20
Look at the flashlight on...
Forum: Flashlight
Last Post: CA4Now
10-15-2017, 08:16 AM
» Replies: 14
» Views: 668
Baseball bats
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: CA4Now
10-14-2017, 09:54 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 18
from John Ramsey v CBS
Forum: Head Injury
Last Post: jameson245
10-14-2017, 02:33 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 13

 
  Questions for BORG
Posted by: Summer Dawn - 05-05-2017, 09:26 AM - Forum: Questions FOR Borg - No Replies

Im failing to understand something.

Since day one, the Ramsey family have been under EXTREME scurtiny.

Every single thing they did.. they were judged for.

A big thing was about their "behavior" after the Ransom note was found.

Which one of you (BORG) have lost a child to murder? Which one of you have lost a child to murder IN YOUR OWN HOME WITH A RANSOM NOTE INCLUDED??

Hello? Nobody?? Thats what I thought.

Its common sense (something these morons dont have) that people react differently to situations.

Patsy was VERY outgoing. EVERYONE says that. John was more reserved. Obviously! So OBVIOUSLY THEY WILL REACT DIFFERENT TO THE SITUATION!!!!!!! COMMON SENSE!!!!! 

Linda Arndt has NO ROOM TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING. She botched the investigation HORRIBLY. She ignored common police protocol for a crime scene. She is irrelevant.

Why would the Ramsey family have SO many plans for their future if they were planning on killing their child?

Dont bother saying"It was an accident".

NO NO AND NO. 

JonBenet was NOT bed wetting because of "Sexual abuse" She wet the bed because she saw her mother FIGHT FOR HER LIFE. Patsy beat all the odds and survived cancer for the first time.  THAT IS A FACT.

Print this item

  Blood on tape
Posted by: jameson245 - 05-04-2017, 01:03 PM - Forum: Duck Tape - Replies (1)

I am reading a pile of files and want to let everyone know they did positively test the tape for blood and that came back positive.

So do you think there was blood coming from her nose or mouth?  I don't because that was not in the autopsy.

I think the tape was put on after the sexual assault, staging, and the blood was transferred from the assailant's fingers. 

I have not seen any lab reports on that - - maybe that is what they will be testing this year.

Print this item

  LE, stop being BORG
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-30-2017, 04:56 PM - Forum: How to solve this mystery - Replies (2)

Found this on another forum and it really shows how.... WRONG the present "investigation" - or non-investigation is.  This is from Blink on Crime

"perhaps you could delete this next part because it’s too close to home for me…but my neighbor is a Boulder native and worked for BPD at the time Jonbenet was killed… she days she’s bff with Jane Harmer and she saw her last week…Jane told her that nothing new has developed as a result of the 20th anniversary specials …nothing BPD will act on anyway…but when i asked her about the DNA being in CODIS she said it isnt…the killer is Patsy and she’s dead so they don’t need to look for an intruder…that JBs body wasn’t bruised and savaged… she said Garnett who also grew up in Boulder agrees…who knows? I realize this can be construed as gossip but for the most part my neighbor believes the Ramseys murdered the BPD along with their daughter…it’s just so painful for the Boulder police everytime it hits the news…they have burried it…"

Print this item

  Notes on interview with pathologist
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-29-2017, 11:24 AM - Forum: Prior sexual abuse - No Replies

I am cleaning out some old files, reviewing them and filing some that had just been tossed to one side.  Came across an old interview with a pathologist and thought I would share what he said.  (Yes, he was a consultant to the case)

He was asked if JonBenét's hymen showed evidence of prior sexual contact with anyone (before the night she died).

The first thing he said was that there is a "great degree" of variables in hymens of little girls.  He said the shape described by Dr. Meyer's during the autopsy was absolutely normal and the fact that there was no evidence of tearing - - - the only evidence of any sexual contact is the very recent scrape to the vaginal wall.

That doctor would swear in court that there was NO evidence of anything happening to her before that horrible night.  No evidence of earlier assaults at all.  Nothing you would find if there was chronic or earlier abuse.  No injury to the anus or skin around the vagina or labia other than from that night, just before her death.

The BORG talk about the evidence of prior abuse like it is a proven fact.  But the doctor who did the autopsy wouldn't testify to such activity and others who WOULD be called into a courtroom will say there is NO evidence of anything happening before the night she died.

Print this item

  Interesting article with details
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-26-2017, 04:57 PM - Forum: What is in the news - staying up to date - Replies (4)

The Murder of JonBenét Ramsey: Why We're Still Obsessed With This Case More Than 20 Years After Her Death
by Natalie Finn | Wed, Apr 26, 2017 1:20 PM




[Image: rs_1024x811-160914131041-1024.JonBenet-R...091416.jpg]Splash News
[Image: rs_285x143-170417100025-285-true-crime-week.jpg]
"The list of suspects narrows. Soon there will be no one on the list but you." –Alex Hunter, Boulder District Attorney, Feb. 13, 1997
JonBenét Ramsey would have turned 27 years old this year. But as we all know, she never even made it to 7.
Instead, the youngest child of John and Patsy Ramsey was found dead in the basement of their Boulder, Colo., home on the afternoon of Dec. 26, 1996—almost eight hours after Patsy frantically called 911 to report that her 6-year-old daughter had been kidnapped.
She had woken at around 5:30 a.m. to find a two-and-a-half-page, sloppily printed ransom note at the bottom of the stairs that threatened to "behead" the child if her parents didn't fork over $118,000 in ransom to some "foreign faction."
It was John who discovered JonBenét's body shortly after 1:30 p.m. on his second search of the house, which by then was already full of police and family friends. He carried the child, who was still dressed in the pajamas she wore to bed the night before, up the stairs and laid her down near the Christmas tree in the living room.
JonBenét appeared to have been garroted and her skull was fractured from a blow to the head. The medical examiner would later discover vaginal injuries that suggested some kind of sexual contact had occurred, and there were spots that appeared to be blood on her underwear though blood smears found on her body weren't in places that would correspond with the stains.

[Image: rs_300x300-160226081301-600.Jon-Benet-Ra...022616.jpg]
Read
The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey: Get to Know the Major Players

[Image: rs_1024x696-160913180945-1024.JonBenet-R...091316.jpg]Karl Gehring/Liaison
What was tragic and horrifying in any respect within moments turned into a crime of baffling circumstances: Why the ransom note when JonBenét wasn't even taken from her house? Or was she? Did someone tamper with that basement window or not? Why weren't there any footprints in the snow outside the house if an intruder was responsible? How did no one find her during the first search of the house, which included a family friend glancing into the wine cellar she was eventually found in but not turning on the light? How would a proper forensic investigation even be possible with so many people in and out of the Ramseys' house on that first day, even before John had moved his daughter's body, seemingly contaminating who-knows-how-much evidence?
Fast-forward to now, with the 20th anniversary of JonBenét's death recently past and yet another onscreen treatment of the case on the horizon, and most of those questions remain unanswered.

[Image: rs_600x600-160914131040-600.JonBenet-Ram...091416.jpg]
Read
3 Bombshells from The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey
[Image: rs_634x1024-160901055329-634.JonBenet-Ra...090116.jpg]ZUMA Archive/ZUMAPRESS.com
Because JonBenét Ramsey's murder remains unsolved. No one was ever charged in connection with her death. One man confessed and was arrested, but his confession was bogus. Other names have been floated about through the years, but nothing conclusive.
John and Patsy Ramsey remained suspects—if not always actively under investigation, than certainly in the public's opinion—for over a decade. Patsy died of ovarian cancer on June 24, 2006, and was buried next to JonBenét, still under a shroud of suspicion. In December 2003, DNA from the scene was submitted to the FBI database. Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy informed John in 2008, in a letter made public, that new DNA testing, thanks to "touch DNA" technology, had convinced her that neither he, Patsy nor Burke was involved in the killing. Rather, test results pointed to an "unknown male."
"To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry," Lacy wrote.
But eight years later, a joint investigation by Boulder's Daily Camera and 9 News questioned the validity of Lacy's decision to officially clear the Ramseys because of that DNA evidence. The outlets reported in October that there were three distinct genetic markers—Lacy knew of two, this was the first public mention of the third—found on the child's pajamas, and that the one sample that had been used to clear suspects could actually have been a composite from multiple people's DNA.
"It's a rather obvious point, but I mean, if you're looking for someone that doesn't exist, because actually it's several people, it's a problem," Troy Eid, a former state's attorney for Colorado who helped review the case for the governor in 1999, told the paper in October.
In an interview with ABC News, Lacy addressed the new findings and the lingering criticism. "I've withstood worse than this...and it's nothing compared to what the Ramsey family has gone through targeted as suspects in their own daughter's murder," she said. "I was trying to prevent a horrible travesty of justice," she continued. "I was scared to death that despite the fact that there was no evidence, no psychopathy and no motive, the case was a train going down the track and the Ramseys were tied to that track."
She maintains that investigators should have done more at the time.

So even in 2017, it doesn't feel right to call this a cold case, because the fascination, the morbid curiosity, the quest for answers—the downright obsession with the murder of JonBenét Ramsey—feels as current as ever. Of course the media and TV in general gave the case the full anniversary treatment, with two new TV documentaries having aired last September, followed by Lifetime's Who Killed JonBenét?, 16 years after the miniseries Perfect Murder, Perfect Town: JonBenét and the City of Boulder premiered on CBS. Lawrence Schiller's adaptation of his own book about the investigation starred Marg Helgenberger as Patsy and Dyanne Iandoli as JonBenét.

[Image: rs_300x300-160830100140-600.burke-ramsey.83016.jpg]

Print this item

  Christmas Night
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-26-2017, 04:21 PM - Forum: Christmas Day, 1996 - Replies (1)

I have seen some photos taken at Fleet White's house on Christmas night.  Patsy in her red sweater and plaid jacket, John in his black sweater and kacky pants.  And a very tired Daphne and JonBenet playing on the floor with that bead making set.  They both looking absolutely exhausted.  Dazed.  Looking at the camera. No smiles left, so tired.  And what did I notice that made me smile?  They were both barefoot.  Childhood personified.  Christmas tree there, gifts and fun and family all around, exhausted , playing.

It should have been a wonderful memory.

Hard to look at the images and think she had just hours left to live.

Print this item

  Roscoe Clark
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-25-2017, 10:53 AM - Forum: Absolutely insane posts - mostly by BORG - Replies (8)

OK, after reading this guys garbage for a year, I have to make a comment.  YES, he has contact with John Ramsey.  YES, he wants John to give him evidence (which John doesn't possess) in order for his nifty-difty new DNA machine to process promising it will come up with an actual IMAGE of the killer.  Yes, John is cordial to him - - John is cordial to everyone (as evidenced on the Larry King Live show when he sat across the table from Steve Thomas and didn't go for his throat.

So he has a page and an audience and some think he is so smart.  Well, I think he is a total fraud.

I asked him to let me submit a blind sample to him - - I would of course know the identity of the source of good DNA and would share that with 5 other people before he did his testing - - let's see how close his image is.  He didn't even respond to the challenge.  I think he hasn't got a real lab and can't do what he says.  He's a man with some sharp ideas, maybe a shop at his house - - but a scientist this man is NOT!

OK, having said that, here is part of his insane theory.  (I promise the evidence does not fit his story.)

He wrote,

"Jonbenet Investigation added 6 new photos.
· April 20 at 5:21pm ·
The intruder that turn into a killer after the 911 call for help got him self lock inside a remodeled elevator shaft after the police search the basement. He had to pry him self out of this space. A broken Red knife was located in the basement.
Profile
After the police tried to open the wine cellar door that had the killer and JonBenet inside this room, the killer left this room soon after the police search the basement and went back upstairs.
Soon as posible the killer exited the wine cellar and as the killer was looking at the basement windows as a possible exit point, a neighbor came walking down the basement steps calling out JonBenet's name.
The killer had to quickly find a hidding place and entered the remodeled elevator shaft space in the train room.
The self closing and self locking door closed and lock him inside this room. There was no inside way to open the door, this was a safty door for the elevator shaft.
When the basement was cleared of people, the killer found himself lock inside this steel door and frame room. He had to pry himself self out with a red knife. He left fresh damage to the painted surfaces. This was reported to the police by John Ramsey that morning.
By this time the police move the people in the house to the Den and the sun room. The basement steps could not be seen from these two locations, the killer simply walk up the basement steps, turn right and exited out the left open and unlock butler kitchen door.
A neighbor seen a tall, brown hair, white male run very fast from the side yard, this was after the police was there at the home for some time.
The killer was still in the house when the police search the basement.
Case fact.
Frost and snow covered the Ramsey's property the early morning at 6 am.
The police with their flashlights search the yard for any signs for foot prints in the snow and frost. There was no track. Case facts.
Why?
Because the killer was still in the basement just like JonBenet was in the wine cellar.
Now you know more about this case.
Team JBI"


My comment - his case facts are fiction.  Don't buy it.

Print this item

  The author has a past
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-23-2017, 04:52 PM - Forum: The Coldest Case: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey - No Replies

Kerns resigns from Legislature

Published: February 19, 2004

[Image: a8c46fbad5b869fd8c53213d16b9671b-f4c1838...8571428571]

CONCORD (AP) - A 23-year-old state representative who faced possible expulsion from the Legislature resigned Thursday rather than defend himself against charges he abused his office. Bedford Rep. John Kerns submitted a two-sentence letter that was read on the House floor and was met by applause. "I'm very sad to leave the House. I really feel that I belong there," Kerns said afterward.

Kerns faced three ethics charges against him: passing a bad check with "State of New Hampshire" written on it; using his title to get a parking spot reserved for school officials; and threatening them when told to stop parking there.

He also faced four criminal charges of passing bad checks.

"It was a good resolution to a tough situation for everyone involved," said House Speaker Gene Chandler. "I think it was in his best interest, certainly. It was the first admission he needs to look at his situation."

Kerns claimed he has a medical condition that caused his behavior, but never provided documentation to prove it.

The legislative Ethics Committee voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend that the House expel him. The House scheduled a vote on the recommendation March 13. If the House had agreed, Kerns would have been the first representative to be expelled since 1913.

Committee members said Kerns' refusal to take responsibility for his actions weighed heavily in their decision. They noted in their report to legislative leaders that he had demonstrated no remorse for his inappropriate conduct, failed to acknowledge that his acts reflected negatively on the Legislature and provided no assurance he would refrain from the behavior in the future.


Kerns had asked a judge last week to suspend the proceedings. He repeatedly has said he is undergoing treatment for a serious neurological illness. He also said he would ask the Legislature for an indefinite leave of absence, but did not follow through.

The committee tried to resolve the issue informally with Kerns, but Kerns did not show up at any committee meetings or at last week's hearing into the charges against him. In its report, the committee acknowledged the seriousness of the situation. "Removal from an elected position is a punishment to be administered only in the most egregious circumstances," the committee said. "Indeed, no one has been removed in such a manner from the New Hampshire House since 1913. But, the conduct of Representative Kerns warrants such an action, not simply because he has abused the trust placed in him by the public, but because he apparently believes that he is entitled to engage in such misconduct."

Clifford Snow of Manchester was the last lawmaker expelled from the House. He was charged with taking bribes in exchange for votes. In 1998, the House voted to censure Rep. Roland Hemon, a Democrat from Dover, for repeatedly filing legislation to impeach the judge that handled his mother's probate case.

Kerns, a University of New Hampshire student, also faces criminal charges of passing four bad checks in Dover. If convicted, he faces up to four years in prison.
This article appears in the April 14 2017 issue of New Hampshire Business Review



And from a google listing...  

hampshire state representative John Kerns (r-new Bedford) was accused of ethics violations in 2004 for bouncing bad checks and threatening a business owner if the man complained. the twenty-three-yearold Kerns also bounced a $3,995 .



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was brought to my attention and i feel I need to address it here.

I bought the book, told Johnny he had a lot of mistakes and privately helped him with corrections.  Glad another NON-BORG book was out there but was not impressed by his knowledge or research skills.  I think I worded my posts on his thread pretty carefully.  But I did NOT investigate his past and am sorry now I did not.

He wanted me to send him a lot of my files, Lou's stuff, photos, other things.  I did not.  Later he snarked at me and asked who did I think I was denying him, an EXPERT, access to my files.  I laughed and asked what he was an expert in because it sure isn't Ramsey.  He posted misleading information on this site and I did the rest of the research and filled his thread on John San Agustin.  He decided to leave the site and I was glad as I deleted his membership.

I don't care if he is BORG or IDI - I will not pretend to support him or his research or his claims to evidence I know he does not have.

I will also tell you I have yet to receive the second, UPDATED (fixed) book.  That being the case, I wouldn't trust him to send a copy to anyone and I apologize to those who trusted him and now feel ripped off.

Print this item

  Why Hunter did not go forward
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-17-2017, 12:38 PM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - No Replies

"I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time," Hunter told the reporters assembled outside the Boulder County Justice Center on Oct. 13, 1999.



The bottom line is that the grand jury was shown evidence over the course of many months - - more than a year.  (90-99% of what they were shown or told was BORG.    Questions were put to witnesses in any way the BORG persecutors wanted - spinning allowed for sure.  Witnesses bringing in evidence of an intruder (and that would be Lou Smit who FORCED his way in by going to the courts) were treated with clear disrespect.  
There is a saying a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich - - and in this case they proved the saying to be true.  They indicted people who they were  - - - coerced into indicting for SOMETHING!

But the job of the District Attorney is to watch over this proceedings and know "the rest of the story" - - and to follow up ONLY on a case he believes he can win.

For example, the "evidence", theory, opinion, brain fart of one Donald Foster could have been presented as good evidence from a respectable EXPERT.  (He didn't appear in person but his information may have been.)  But the DA knew "the rest of the story".  Hunter knew Foster had written a letter to the Ramseys saying he knew they were innocent - would stake his reputation on it.  Hunter knew that Foster had identified another person as the killer - - he had a file an inch think on the "work" of Donald Foster.

He knew the man touted as the "key witness" was not a good witness, would be discredited immediately had he been brought in to a real trial.

Hunter also knew that the suspects WANTED to be called in to speak to the grand jury - - and were denied.

Hunter was not working in a vacuum - - he had a panel of advisers who gave him a list of the clear problems he would face if there was an arrest made based on what was shared in that grand jury room.  

HUNTER would have looked the fool and there would NOT be any conviction based on those problems.

Hunter made the right decision and refused to move forward with the prosecution of people who were the targets of a witch hunt and not guilty parties based on the evidence.

Print this item

  1/28/2013 - jurors talking
Posted by: jameson245 - 04-17-2017, 12:25 PM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - Replies (1)

JonBenet Ramsey grand jury voted to indict parents in 1999, but DA refused to prosecute
By Charlie Brennan
Posted: 01/28/13, 12:01 AM EST

On a brilliantly clear autumn day more than 13 years ago, Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter stepped to the podium before an anxious media horde to announce that the grand jury investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey had come to an end.

"I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time," Hunter told the reporters assembled outside the Boulder County Justice Center on Oct. 13, 1999.

Yet multiple sources, including members of the grand jury, have now confirmed to the Daily Camera what Hunter did not say that day: The grand jury voted to indict both John and Patsy Ramsey on charges of child abuse resulting in death in connection with the events of Christmas night 1996 -- but Hunter refused to sign the indictment, believing he could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

One legal expert, however, believes Colorado law may have obligated Hunter to at least sign the indictment, even if he elected not to prosecute the case.

Advertisement

"We didn't know who did what," one juror told the Camera, "but we felt the adults in the house may have done something that they certainly could have prevented, or they could have helped her, and they didn't."

Boulder attorney Bryan Morgan, who represented John Ramsey through the conclusion of the grand jury process, said Saturday, "If what you report actually happened, then there were some very professional and brave people in Alex's office and perhaps elsewhere whose discipline and training prevented a gross miscarriage of justice."

Former Boulder First Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise was among those confirming the jury's vote.

"It names both of them, John and Patsy Ramsey," said Wise, who was Hunter's top assistant for 28 years but did not participate in the grand jury process.

Child abuse resulting in death, when charged as "knowingly or recklessly," is a Class II felony that carries a potential sentence of four to 48 years in prison. The statute of limitations on that charge in Colorado is three years from the date of the crime.

Legal experts are unsure whether Hunter's decision not to sign the indictment agrees with Colorado grand jury law.

In an email, University of Colorado Law School professor Mimi Wesson, who has followed the Ramsey case over the years, wrote, "The Colorado statute governing grand jury practice says ... that '(e)very indictment shall be signed' by the foreman of the grand jury and the prosecuting attorney."

In the event that the grand jury voted to indict on charges that Hunter did not believe he could prove at trial, Wesson said it is her opinion that proper legal procedure would have been to sign the document, file it with the court and then move in open court to dismiss the charges.

"That would be the more transparent and responsible course, in my opinion," Wesson wrote.

Hunter, who left office in 2001 after 28 years as Boulder County's district attorney, declined to discuss the grand jury's actions, but he did issue the following statement last week via email:

"Colorado statutes, the ethical canons which govern the practice of law, and the Boulder District Court's oaths, instructions and orders in the JonBenet Ramsey grand jury proceedings, are well established and absolutely clear with respect to the various participants' legal obligations, duties and responsibilities, including the inviolate secrecy of the proceedings and the differing burdens of proof applicable to jurors and prosecutors.

"As the duly elected district attorney at the time and as an officer of the court then and now, I must respectfully decline further comment."

Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner also would not discuss the Ramsey grand jury.

"I'm sworn in, and I can't say anything about the grand jury," Beckner said. "I would be violating my oath of secrecy and I can't do that."

Denver criminal defense lawyer and legal analyst Dan Recht pointed out that the standard of proof for a grand jury to indict, which is probable cause, is a far lower threshold than what Hunter would have had to meet at trial.

"It couldn't be more different in a jury trial," Recht added. "So what Alex Hunter was thinking about was, 'But can I prove this beyond a reasonable doubt?' Because that's the burden that the prosecution has at a trial. So he seemingly decided, 'I am not going to be able to prove this child abuse resulting in death beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.'"

'Somebody did something pretty horrible'

Jurors confirming the vote to the Camera -- who agreed to talk only on the condition of anonymity -- nevertheless acknowledged continuing uncertainty about what really went on in the middle of the night in the house at what was then known as 755 15th St., and is now 749 15th St.

"It's still unresolved," one juror said. "Somebody did something pretty horrible that wasn't punished.

"I'm not saying that I am at peace. But I had sympathy with his (Hunter's) decision. I could see the problem that he was in. I could understand what he was doing."

The Ramseys and their now-adult son Burke were exonerated in the case in July 2008 by then-District Attorney Mary Lacy, based on updated analysis of DNA samples from JonBenet's clothing -- although numerous prosecutors labeled her doing so as both unusual and questionable.

Former Ramsey attorney Morgan, however, said, "In the intervening years, the techniques for retrieving and testing DNA improved to the point where it conclusively demonstrated the Ramseys' innocence. "

Still, one juror who spoke with the Camera expressed a feeling of still not being completely reconciled with Hunter's decision. But the juror added that, perceiving that it would be a difficult case to try, Hunter's declining to sign the indictment, also known as a true bill, was understandable.

And, the juror said, "I think I did believe that they would get more evidence and figure out who did it."

Another grand juror who confirmed the vote said, "I think I have conquered the feeling of any acute frustration.

"This is what we thought, and that's what you (the prosecutors) asked us for, and that's what we gave you, our opinion," the juror added. "That was our job, and the rest of the legal procedure, they just do with it what has to be done."

Several grand jurors declined to comment on their vote. One, in doing so, said, "Our job was to try to come up with, to help solve, this crime.

"It has not been solved yet, and we are still under oath to keep silent and I would like to honor that. And I still have all the hope that, in the coming years, this crime will be solved properly."

'Not enough evidence to file'

Because under Colorado law grand jury proceedings are secret, and those participating in the process are sworn to uphold that secrecy, few directly involved would discuss the case on the record. Several agreed to talk, although not all did so for attribution.

Wise did not participate directly in the grand jury proceedings. But he learned of the results after its conclusion, and he defends Hunter's decision not to press forward with a prosecution.

"I absolutely do" believe Hunter made the right decision, said Wise, who is now retired. "And I thought it was a pretty courageous decision, because I know about the public pressure that was being put on everybody who was involved -- but particularly the elected district attorney."

Bob Grant at that time was the district attorney for neighboring Adams County. Grant was among a small group of local prosecutors with whom Hunter met monthly. He used those colleagues as advisers throughout the case, which drew rapt attention from an international audience, spawned more than a dozen books and a television movie, and has ultimately proved to be one of the nation's most enduring criminal mysteries.

"It is a case that has stuck with me for decades now because no one has been held accountable for the murder of a young child," Grant said in a recent interview.

Grant would not confirm or deny the grand jury's actions, citing the secrecy rules.

However, Grant said, "Had there been a question of whether to sign a document or not, I would have been among those advising not to indict, because I did not believe there was a winnable case based on the evidence at that time."

Wise said that those advising Hunter were not all of one mind when the decision was made.

"I would say there was not unanimity, or a unanimous decision, by anyone," Wise said. "I know of at least one, and possibly two (prosecutors), who felt it should have been filed, period, end of discussion. And I know of at least two, if not more than two, probably four, that thought there was not enough evidence to file."

Juror: Process was 'traumatic'

The grand jury process is predicated on a veil of secrecy such that Hunter, in his news conference at its conclusion, said, "Under no circumstances will I or any of my advisers, prosecutors, the law enforcement officers working on this case or the grand jurors discuss grand jury proceedings today or ever, unless ordered by the court."

The grand jurors who have nevertheless now spoken about their Ramsey experience take pride in their service to the judicial system.

"I actually believe that I did a good job with being able to pay attention to the actual evidence that was said," one juror said of the grand jury experience. "I didn't go in there with my mind made up, one way or the other."

That juror talked about being bothered by seeing a disparity between what was presented as evidence and what was being reported outside the courthouse by insatiable media.

Jurors even in routine cases are typically cautioned to avoid media coverage, and the juror said that was the case for the Ramsey grand jury -- but only at first.

"At the beginning, they said, 'Don't look at the media.' But this was a year-and-a-half we were doing this, so some time not long after the beginning, they said, 'We really can't ask you not to look at the media. There is too much stuff going on.'"

And so, the juror said, "The instructions sort of changed to, 'What you need to pay attention to is what's said in this room. You've already seen how much out there is not true. Pay attention to what is said inside this room because this is evidence we can back up. And things that are said outside aren't that way.' They expected us to be grownups about it, if you will."

While speculation was rampant outside the Boulder County Justice Center about what might be going on in the grand jury room, for the eight women and four men deciding the case, the work was both sobering and draining.

"It was pretty traumatic," a juror said. "It was a horrible event, and to really have to delve into all of the evidence and know what happened and get details was difficult.

"The reality is it was a horrible thing, and I didn't have the luxury of picking and choosing what I would pay attention to. I needed to know what happened in every detail, so it was difficult. So many people had been traumatized by this, and hurt, and scared."

Another juror commented on fears that family members might "disown" the juror over that juror's refusal to discuss the ongoing work with relatives.

But that juror was honored to be part of the process.

"I thought, and believe, that they were presenting all of the relevant information we needed to make a decision like that, and that's all we did," said the juror.

As for Hunter's decision not to go forward with a prosecution, the juror said, "That's the way it goes. I don't have any thoughts on what should or should not have been done.

"That's why we, the people, put him there. Alex Hunter was, and is, a very, very intelligent person. It was interesting, and rewarding, being part of the legal justice system."

Wise, Hunter's former top assistant, defended the ultimate decision not to press forward, in part because prosecution would have been difficult with two defendants.

"When you have a true bill that says two people were involved, but it doesn't say what the involvement of the people was, all a good defense attorney has to do is to separate their trials ... and, all of a sudden, you've got nothing," Wise said.

"You're operating under the theory that two people might have been responsible for the death ... and when you separate them, you don't know which of the two people was responsible for what. And so I thought it was the right decision."

More recently, Boulder prosecutors were successful in prosecuting a high-profile child abuse resulting in death case; Alex and Molly Midyette, of Louisville, were indicted by a grand jury and tried in the death of their infant son Jason, who died in 2006. Both were convicted, although Alex Midyette was found guilty of the lesser charge of "criminally negligent" child abuse, which is a Class III felony.

Wise acknowledged that in Hunter's time in office, felony trials were not routinely pursued, and rarely did one go forward if the evidence was shaky.

"Absolutely," Wise said. "That is the way we operated in that office for years and years and years.

"We never steamrolled ahead on a case that has less than adequate evidence, to at least have a feeling that you can get a conviction. If that feeling didn't exist, we didn't file the case. We never steamrolled a case."

Ramsey case forever unresolved?

With Lacy's exoneration of the Ramseys and their son, Burke, in 2008, and the news now that a grand jury in 1999 determined that both parents should face charges, plus the false arrest in 2006 of a confessed intruder suspect, John Mark Karr, and death that same year of Patsy Ramsey, a key witness no matter who the defendant, a case that has seemed star-crossed from the first day might appear farther than ever from seeing a firm resolution.

Current Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett, upon taking office for his first term in January 2009, announced he was returning the Ramsey case -- which Lacy had taken over from the police department -- back to the police. And it is with the Boulder Police Department that the Ramsey case now resides.

"The Boulder police are in charge of the investigation, and if the state of the evidence changes to where charges can be filed consistent with Colorado ethical standards for prosecution, I will do so and will say whatever I have to say about this case on the record and in open court," Garnett said recently. "I will have no comment otherwise about the state of the evidence."

Referring to Lacy's exoneration of the Ramseys, Garnett said, "As I have said before, the exoneration speaks for itself. But all that matters to me as district attorney is the evidence, and where it leads. We'll follow the evidence wherever it leads us."

Wise and Grant both question the validity of Lacy's exoneration, and they say Garnett -- and his successors -- are not bound by it.

"It's more inappropriate than anything else," Grant said. "It's not a prosecutorial duty to exonerate people. It's a prosecutorial duty to seek justice and to prosecute the bad guys. If you don't have a bad guy to prosecute, don't exonerate people who are at least peripherally under suspicion. I didn't think it was appropriate at all."

Many observers, taking note of the many problems and conflicts that have plagued the case over the years, have theorized that it could now never successfully be prosecuted, short of a confession backed by corroborating DNA evidence.

But Garnett rules nothing out.

"In my first term, we made cold case prosecution a priority," Garnett said, "and in Ryan Brackley, I have one of the best cold case prosecutors in the United States on my staff. Certainly, the Ramsey case is one of the cold cases we would take great satisfaction in solving and filing and pursuing in court."

A juror, reflecting on the grand jury experience, and Hunter's decision not to prosecute the indictment, emphasized that the entire matter has long been out of the jurors' hands.

"I believe and feel our effort was well executed, the results of which were, as they say, pro bono publico, for the public good," the juror said.

"You say, 'Our job was well done, we gave them an opinion.' What happened after that, we went through all that and you find out that the bottom line was the district attorney felt there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with any further effort in this regard.

"Can he do that? Yes, he most certainly can."

Contact Camera Staff Writer Charlie Brennan at 303-473-1327 or brennanc@dailycamera.com.

Print this item