03-20-2017, 11:37 PM
Just posted the Dec. 2016 story Charlie Brennan did on a grand juror speaking out. First a quote, then my comments.
The quote:
The grand juror briefly laid out several reasons central to why the grand jury voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey.
The reasons offered by the juror are:
• "No evidence of an intruder. No footprints in the snow, no physical evidence left behind."
• "The killer was in the house for hours between the blow to the head and the strangling."
• "The location of the body in a hard-to-find room."
• "The ransom note written in the house with weird personal information and never a ransom call."
• The juror, after rattling off those points, then posed a question: "Also, how much evidence is there really that this was a sex crime?"
My comments:
Remembering the Grand Jury was seated for over a year, and that the prosecutors were trying to get Patsy arrested. Remembering that while Lou Smit did get to speak to them he felt the persecutors were treating him with disrespect and trying to make the jury see him as less than a stellar investigator - - I have this to say.
Did no one tell them that John Fernie walked from the alleyway to the south door and then to the front door - - and if prints would have shown at all, his would have. There were no prints in the snow because the walkways were CLEAR.
The jury didn't see evidence of anything left behind?
Did they not hear that Dr. Doberson would testify that the marks on her body were, "to a medical certainty", caused by a stun gun and that the police could not link any Ramsey to a stun gun?
Did they not know the cord and tape matched nothing in the house?
How about the fibers, the beaver hair, the prints, the pubic hair found on the blanket?
Did no one tell them about the foreign DNA mixed with the child's blood in her panties?
Did LE actually LIE to them about the head blow coming an hour before she died? Did their common sense not tell them there would have been a lot of bleeding if she had lived any length of time after he skull was broken like that?
The ransom note written in the house - - and the handwriting not matching either Ramsey - - in fact far from a match for either one.
The weirdness - - would it not be more likely for a rich family staging a kidnapping to ask for a million, to include the daughter's name and NOT spend so much time writing a note to leave WITH a body?
Did no one point out the similarities in the note to other documents and movies? The author watched movies and read about old crimes like Leopold, Loeb and Bobby Franks.
Did they really think loving and caring parents would not call for help if they saw their daughter in need?
And to answer the question, she was sexually violated by someone who would torture her with a garrote. Was this a sex crime? It wasn't an invite to a picnic!
The quote:
The grand juror briefly laid out several reasons central to why the grand jury voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey.
The reasons offered by the juror are:
• "No evidence of an intruder. No footprints in the snow, no physical evidence left behind."
• "The killer was in the house for hours between the blow to the head and the strangling."
• "The location of the body in a hard-to-find room."
• "The ransom note written in the house with weird personal information and never a ransom call."
• The juror, after rattling off those points, then posed a question: "Also, how much evidence is there really that this was a sex crime?"
My comments:
Remembering the Grand Jury was seated for over a year, and that the prosecutors were trying to get Patsy arrested. Remembering that while Lou Smit did get to speak to them he felt the persecutors were treating him with disrespect and trying to make the jury see him as less than a stellar investigator - - I have this to say.
Did no one tell them that John Fernie walked from the alleyway to the south door and then to the front door - - and if prints would have shown at all, his would have. There were no prints in the snow because the walkways were CLEAR.
The jury didn't see evidence of anything left behind?
Did they not hear that Dr. Doberson would testify that the marks on her body were, "to a medical certainty", caused by a stun gun and that the police could not link any Ramsey to a stun gun?
Did they not know the cord and tape matched nothing in the house?
How about the fibers, the beaver hair, the prints, the pubic hair found on the blanket?
Did no one tell them about the foreign DNA mixed with the child's blood in her panties?
Did LE actually LIE to them about the head blow coming an hour before she died? Did their common sense not tell them there would have been a lot of bleeding if she had lived any length of time after he skull was broken like that?
The ransom note written in the house - - and the handwriting not matching either Ramsey - - in fact far from a match for either one.
The weirdness - - would it not be more likely for a rich family staging a kidnapping to ask for a million, to include the daughter's name and NOT spend so much time writing a note to leave WITH a body?
Did no one point out the similarities in the note to other documents and movies? The author watched movies and read about old crimes like Leopold, Loeb and Bobby Franks.
Did they really think loving and caring parents would not call for help if they saw their daughter in need?
And to answer the question, she was sexually violated by someone who would torture her with a garrote. Was this a sex crime? It wasn't an invite to a picnic!