Parental Grief / Loss of a Child

[Athena]

Whether you are RDI or IDI there appears to be no understanding of what a parent goes through after losing a child to death. I would imagine the horrific way JBR died would add to those emotions.

I have read posts where the inconsistencies of some of the Ramseys statements (some even very minor) are compared to other characters in this case. I don't understand the comparison since it was not their child.

I watched my mom after losing my baby brother to murder and when our dad died. In both instances she grieved but when she lost her "baby" (20 yrs old) nothing could prepare the rest of the family for what she went through.

I know that LadyFisher lost a child too and my heart sincerely goes out to her.

I just cannot understand the lack of compassion for a parent(s) that have lost their child whether or not you believe it was through some accident the Ramseys caused or if she was murdered. But this article says it better than I ever could IMO:


"Parental grief is overwhelming; there is nothing that can prepare a parent for its enormity or devastation; parental grief never ends but only changes in intensity and manner of expression; parental grief affects the head, the heart, and the spirit.

For parents, the death of a child means coming to terms with untold emptiness and deep emotional hurt. Immediately after the death, some parents may even find it impossible to express grief at all as many experience a period of shock and numbness.

All newly bereaved parents must find ways to get through, not over, their grief-to go on with their lives. Each is forced to continue life's journey in an individual manner.

Parental bereavement often brings with it a sense of despair, a sense that life is not worth living, a sense of disarray and of utter and complete confusion. At times, the parent's pain may seem so severe and his/her energy and desire to live so lacking that there is uncertainty about survival. Some bereaved parents feel that it is not right for them to live when their child has died. Others feel that they have failed at parenting and somehow they should have found a way to keep the child from dying.

Grieving parents often have to adopt what one parent called a "new world view" (Wisconsin Perspectives Newsletter, December 1996, 7). Each parent must almost become a new and different person.

Grieving parents should learn to be compassionate, gentle, and patient with themselves and each other. Grief is an emotionally devastating experience; grief is work and demands much patience, understanding, effort, and energy.

Parental grief can and often does involve a vast array of conflicting emotions and responses including shock and numbness, intense sadness and pain, depression, and often feelings of total confusion and disorganization. Sometimes, parents may not even seem sure of who they are and may feel as if they have lost an integral part of their very being. At other times, parents may feel that what happened was a myth or an illusion or that they were having a nightmare.

Typical parental reactions to a child's death often involve emotional and physical symptoms such as inability to sleep or a desire to sleep all the time, mood swings, exhaustion, extreme anxiety, headaches, or inability to concentrate. Grieving parents experience emotional and physical peaks and valleys. They may think life finally seems on an even keel and that they are learning to cope when periods of intense sadness overwhelm them, perhaps with even more force. (Experiencing any or all of these reactions does not mean permanent loss of control or inability to recover and are usually part of the grief process.)

The death of a child can and often does affect not only personal health but sometimes the marriage, the entire family unit, other relationships, and even plans and goals for the future.

Grieving parents need to know how important it is to express their pain to someone who will understand and acknowledge what they are feeling and saying. They should be honest with themselves and others about how they feel. These parents should allow themselves to cry, be angry, and complain. They need to admit they are overwhelmed, distracted, and unable to focus or concentrate. They may even need to admit to themselves and others that they might show physical and/or emotional symptoms that they don't want or can't even understand.

http://www.athealth.com/consumer/dis...ntalgrief.html

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Athena
Whether you are RDI or IDI there appears to be no understanding of what a parent goes through after losing a child to death. I would imagine the horrific way JBR died would add to those emotions.

I have read posts where the inconsistencies of some of the Ramseys statements (some even very minor) are compared to other characters in this case. I don't understand the comparison since it was not their child.

I watched my mom after losing my baby brother to murder and when our dad died. In both instances she grieved but when she lost her "baby" (20 yrs old) nothing could prepare the rest of the family for what she went through.

I know that LadyFisher lost a child too and my heart sincerely goes out to her.

I just cannot understand the lack of compassion for a parent(s) that have lost their child whether or not you believe it was through some accident the Ramseys caused or if she was murdered. But this article says it better than I ever could IMO:


"Parental grief is overwhelming; there is nothing that can prepare a parent for its enormity or devastation; parental grief never ends but only changes in intensity and manner of expression; parental grief affects the head, the heart, and the spirit.

For parents, the death of a child means coming to terms with untold emptiness and deep emotional hurt. Immediately after the death, some parents may even find it impossible to express grief at all as many experience a period of shock and numbness.

All newly bereaved parents must find ways to get through, not over, their grief-to go on with their lives. Each is forced to continue life's journey in an individual manner.

Parental bereavement often brings with it a sense of despair, a sense that life is not worth living, a sense of disarray and of utter and complete confusion. At times, the parent's pain may seem so severe and his/her energy and desire to live so lacking that there is uncertainty about survival. Some bereaved parents feel that it is not right for them to live when their child has died. Others feel that they have failed at parenting and somehow they should have found a way to keep the child from dying.

Grieving parents often have to adopt what one parent called a "new world view" (Wisconsin Perspectives Newsletter, December 1996, 7). Each parent must almost become a new and different person.

Grieving parents should learn to be compassionate, gentle, and patient with themselves and each other. Grief is an emotionally devastating experience; grief is work and demands much patience, understanding, effort, and energy.

Parental grief can and often does involve a vast array of conflicting emotions and responses including shock and numbness, intense sadness and pain, depression, and often feelings of total confusion and disorganization. Sometimes, parents may not even seem sure of who they are and may feel as if they have lost an integral part of their very being. At other times, parents may feel that what happened was a myth or an illusion or that they were having a nightmare.

Typical parental reactions to a child's death often involve emotional and physical symptoms such as inability to sleep or a desire to sleep all the time, mood swings, exhaustion, extreme anxiety, headaches, or inability to concentrate. Grieving parents experience emotional and physical peaks and valleys. They may think life finally seems on an even keel and that they are learning to cope when periods of intense sadness overwhelm them, perhaps with even more force. (Experiencing any or all of these reactions does not mean permanent loss of control or inability to recover and are usually part of the grief process.)

The death of a child can and often does affect not only personal health but sometimes the marriage, the entire family unit, other relationships, and even plans and goals for the future.

Grieving parents need to know how important it is to express their pain to someone who will understand and acknowledge what they are feeling and saying. They should be honest with themselves and others about how they feel. These parents should allow themselves to cry, be angry, and complain. They need to admit they are overwhelmed, distracted, and unable to focus or concentrate. They may even need to admit to themselves and others that they might show physical and/or emotional symptoms that they don't want or can't even understand.

http://www.athealth.com/consumer/dis...ntalgrief.html

As a facilitator for grief counseling there are two areas of grief that are more difficult the death of a child and murder. Both would apply to the Ramsey family. You are correct in all that you say regarding compassion. However for those who truly believe the Ramseys may have either been responsible for the death of JonBenet accidentally or purposefully and willfully the same compassionate understanding would of course not be extended or understood in the same way. There are also those who feel that while they were not responsible they have known and covered up for what ever reasons the facts regarding the death of their daughter this also would apply. I am sorry that not all agree on how JonBenet died that night in Boulder. Normally compassionate people loose that objectivity and sensitivity when they feel the Ramseys had either knowledge of or responsibility in the death of JonBenet. That is hard for you to understand. Understandably so. You'd have to believe passionately other than you do to comprehend it. Not saying what I believe either way. Just commenting so you understand where their emotions are coming from . I too lost a child to death hours after her birth. Its something that is present every moment of every day.

IMO the lack of compassion is perfectly understandable. For most of us the Rs are complete strangers. There are thousands of murders every year, who's got the time to be compassionate about all of them?

It's just a case. I think it's a real advantage being able to look at the case w/o emotion.

[nuisanceposter]

I do feel deeply sorry for anyone who has endured the loss of a child, but...I'm really tired of hearing the excuse of the Ramseys all-encompassing grief and the subsequent cry for them to be given way more space than any other grieving parent has ever been allowed. What about JonBenet? What about every other little girl out there, and every other mommy and daddy who loves her?

Grieving and needing time is understandable within the first days, weeks, of a child's murder, but at some point the parents have the obligation and responsibility to not only their murdered child to help in the investigation and cooperate as much as possible, but also to society - if this was really was an intruder, than a very dangerous person is on the loose.

The parents of the murdered child should be willing to do as much as they can to ensure another set of parents doesn't have to suffer, and another small child doesn't have to die the same way JonBenet did.

Many other parents of murdered children have done so, yet the Ramseys could never seem to put themselves out very much to help catch this killer. Their grief was more important than justice for their daughter, or making sure another child wasn't murdered by the person who killed JonBenet. John Ramsey came right out and said that he hired attorneys to keep him and Patsy out of jail rather than search for the killer. How sad it is that John and Patsy thought only to place themselves before JonBenet and every other parent and child out there.

And really, even people who think the Ramseys killed or know who killed JonBenet don't doubt that the Rs were mourning her...it just seems like they used it as a convenient excuse whenever they could. Hiring defense lawyers just seven hours after your daughter's body has been found sounds less like the advice of good friends and more a calculated move needed to provide a buffer between them and cops, making their elusiveness due to grief (or being whacked out on pills due to grief) even more successful. I guess JR realized that when the police prevented him from catching a plane out of Boulder less than thirty minutes after JonBenet was found that he needed that buffer - he had lawyers in place by the time he went to bed that night.

IMO.

Don't forget the public relations consultant. Just what every innocent parent needs.

I am a RDI theorist but I believe what Athena is trying to say (correct me if Im wrong) is that no matter if the ramseys are guilty or not they lost a child and it is an overwhelming sense of loss. I cannot exactly feel sympathy for them but I feel compassionate enough to say that patsy's grief seemed real to me, but I cant say for sure that I thought Johns did. I cannot even imagine loosing a child, my heart goes out to ladyfischer too! And Athena sorry for the loss of your brother, who was a baby by all means even at 20. I lost my son for a mere 10 minutes once (he was hiding behind my friends thick long curtains in her house) and I was flipping out because I had searched all over the house and could not find him, he was only 1 at the time and I thought for sure he some how opened her sliding glass door and took off out the back door! I was mortified! I can only tell you that time was like a horror movie that I couldnt wake up from! I really thought he was gone because we looked everywhere and he was no where to be found! My heart was beating throught my chest and the feeling of a deep black hole welled up inside me! I was crying so hard I couldnt breathe while calling 911 and they told me to calm down, you dont know what that is like hearing that when your child is missing, you want to reach through the phone and say "you fricken calm down lady!" When the police arrived as they were walking in the door, here comes my little man out from behind the curtain holding my friends cell phone in his hands (he was hiding because he does that when he does something bad lol) and I was cryign tears of joy and apologizing to the police officers, they were like "dont worry miss it happens all the time!" I felt like a fricken idiot! But I can understand what Athena is talking about when your child is gone, the grief is overwhelming and I couldnt even imagine what that is like. My son was missing for 10 minutes and I thougth I was going to have a coronary! (turns out he called jamaica on my friends cell phone)

[shill]

Wow HpolyG, you really freaked out. Good thing you didn't find a note from a kidnapper and then hours later your baby dead in your basement, because it sounds like there is no way you could of handled that.

[LindaA]

Shill, that was really uncalled for!

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by LindaA
Shill, that was really uncalled for!

[lucky13]

I realize that everyone grieves differently. I also believe that the Ramseys did truly grieve for JonBenet. That is- guilt mixed in with grief. MOO

Originally posted by lucky13
I realize that everyone grieves differently. I also believe that the Ramseys did truly grieve for JonBenet. That is- guilt mixed in with grief. MOO

Too bad people who THINK they know who killed JonBenet have no guilt for judging based a lot of gossip and on no real evidence.

[Ames]

Originally posted by LindaA
Shill, that was really uncalled for!

Agreed....Shill says ALOT of things that are really uncalled for..IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
Wow HpolyG, you really freaked out. Good thing you didn't find a note from a kidnapper and then hours later your baby dead in your basement, because it sounds like there is no way you could of handled that.

Just curious Shill...do YOU have any children??

[shill]

Uncalled for? You're crucifing parents that had to go through it for real.
Where is your sympathy for them?
You show more sympathy for some one who couldn't find their child for an hour then you do for some one who found their child brutally murdered.

IMO I think it was called for.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Ames


Agreed....Shill says ALOT of things that are really uncalled for..IMO

A lot of people say things that are "uncalled" for, e.g, Patsy's makeup, John not crying in public, John putting JB in suitcase and throwing in lake....

JMO

[bullmoose]

Come on, Baby, lets do the Twist! Round and around and around! In truth I find much of the Twister's book and its untruths totally uncalled for. Lets just hope Steve Thomas doesn't put out a sequel, like so many other works of fiction. Maybe he could do it to the song ' paperback writer'. What do you think?

[LindaA]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

A lot of people say things that are "uncalled" for, e.g, Patsy's makeup, John not crying in public, John putting JB in suitcase and throwing in lake....

JMO

Absolutely agreed. But Shill goes beyond that in this case.

But no, Shill I'm not crucifyng anyone, so I assume you comment was not aimed at me. (I'm a fence-sitter who leans toward the IDI theory, but am not 100% convinced.)

[lucky13]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Too bad people who THINK they know who killed JonBenet have no guilt for judging based a lot of gossip and on no real evidence.

SNAP!! -I guess you really told me!!
Are you saying that you have proof that the Ramseys are totally innocent then?? Please share this new evidence.
I do not base my opinions on GOSSIP either. C'mon. That was kinda rude of you to assume that I did. Weren't YOU judging ME by saying that?
I'm RDI, but it doesn't make me a bad person! Geez.

[LindaA]

With all due respect, Lucky13, I think there is a big difference in accusing someone of posting based on gossip and accusing someone of having murdered their child.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by lucky13

SNAP!! -I guess you really told me!!
Are you saying that you have proof that the Ramseys are totally innocent then?? Please share this new evidence.
I do not base my opinions on GOSSIP either. C'mon. That was kinda rude of you to assume that I did. Weren't YOU judging ME by saying that?
I'm RDI, but it doesn't make me a bad person! Geez.

Hey, Lucky, don't even bother trying to reason with breezy1234. That poster is a person who oftens comes across as very condescending to anyone who doesn't agree with her and accuses everyone who thinks the Rs may be guilty of spreading lies and gossip anytime they say so. IMO.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LindaA
With all due respect, Lucky13, I think there is a big difference in accusing someone of posting based on gossip and accusing someone of having murdered their child.

You have to know how breezy operates. What she's said to Lucky is her just getting started.

As for accusing someone of murdering their own child, well...those people are to this day prime suspects in the murder of their daughter, and there's evidence indicating their involvement which makes them so. That's not gossip, that's fact.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter



<snip>
and there's evidence indicating their involvement which makes them so. That's not gossip, that's fact.

What evidence?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


What evidence?

I'm not going to review the case step by step with you. You know what the evidence in this case is, and you know how people such as police and those of the RDI persuasion see it as indicating the Ramseys were involved. Things such as lack of evidence of an intruder such as no prints, hair, or fibers, inconsistent and contradicting stories from the Rs, JonBenet's medical history and the question of prior sexual abuse, the RN Patsy could not be excluded as author of and the way the Rs disregarded the very grave threats to their children's safety, the murder being committed and RN wrote with items from the house, and of course the fiber evidence you insist is all a lie.

Like I said, John and Patsy Ramsey are STILL prime suspects in JonBenet's murder, and there is valid reason why that is so.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Too bad people who THINK they know who killed JonBenet have no guilt for judging based a lot of gossip and on no real evidence.

There is a warehouse full of evidence. Now if or when or against who that warehouse full of evidence shall ever be used against to convict ...well that is up for speculation but evidence was gathered and does exist. Credible sources have said it all pointed in one direction...Till its seen and a jury of peers decides we really cant say "no real evidence" What we can say is Alex Hunter thru our current DA has not utilized the evidence. They want airtight and cofession and even DA Hunter Keenan and Lacey have said this. Lacy acted because she had confession. It was bogus. But she acted on it. JMO

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I'm not going to review the case step by step with you. You know what the evidence in this case is, and you know how people such as police and those of the RDI persuasion see it as indicating the Ramseys were involved. Things such as lack of evidence of an intruder such as no prints, hair, or fibers, inconsistent and contradicting stories from the Rs, JonBenet's medical history and the question of prior sexual abuse, the RN Patsy could not be excluded as author of and the way the Rs disregarded the very grave threats to their children's safety, the murder being committed and RN wrote with items from the house, and of course the fiber evidence you insist is all a lie.

Like I said, John and Patsy Ramsey are STILL prime suspects in JonBenet's murder, and there is valid reason why that is so.

DA Lacy said in her press conference held to announce that they would not proceed to charge John Mark Karr that the Ramseys remain to this day as under the umbrella of suspicion as the only official suspects now that John Mark Karr had been excluded. Colorado mainly I think due to John Mark Karr and reigniting a passion within the people of Colorado regarding JonBenet are making noise about this in the election this year including the Governors race. Elections almost here.....One can only hope we get someone in office who will appoint a Special Prosecutor.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I'm not going to review the case step by step with you. You know what the evidence in this case is, and you know how people such as police and those of the RDI persuasion see it as indicating the Ramseys were involved. Things such as lack of evidence of an intruder such as no prints, hair, or fibers, inconsistent and contradicting stories from the Rs, JonBenet's medical history and the question of prior sexual abuse, the RN Patsy could not be excluded as author of and the way the Rs disregarded the very grave threats to their children's safety, the murder being committed and RN wrote with items from the house, and of course the fiber evidence you insist is all a lie.

Like I said, John and Patsy Ramsey are STILL prime suspects in JonBenet's murder, and there is valid reason why that is so.

I don't see a thing in listed that would get anyone indicted and/or convicted. JMO

[LindaA]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


I don't see a thing in listed that would get anyone indicted and/or convicted. JMO

Right. And neither did a grand jury.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


I don't see a thing in listed that would get anyone indicted and/or convicted. JMO

That's not the same as saying there isn't any evidence.

The Rs haven't been indicted or convicted, but they haven't been cleared, either.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LindaA


Right. And neither did a grand jury.

Right, a GJ led by Ramsey-friendly DA Alex Hunter, with jurors who entered the courtroom already believing a parent couldn't do that to their own child. A GJ didn't even think they needed to hear from the parents of the murdered child who were home at the time of the murder, or the main detective on the case.

There are a lot of problems with that scenario. I don't believe that GJ did its job properly and JonBenet was cheated her chance at getting justice. The very least they could have done was get fair and impartial jurors and listen to testimony from the main people in the case.

[LindaA]

Maybe, NP, but if there were conclusive evidence they'd have been arrested in a heartbeat. Also remember a judge ruled there was more evidence of an intruder than that the RDI.

And they were excluded based on the DNA evidence as was JMK.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LindaA
Maybe, NP, but if there were conclusive evidence they'd have been arrested in a heartbeat. Also remember a judge ruled there was more evidence of an intruder than that the RDI.

And they were excluded based on the DNA evidence as was JMK.

I don't believe the GJ heard all of the evidence. Judge Carnes didn't hear all of the evidence, either. She didn't get to see some 40,000 pages of police documents.

Here's some interesting information on the ruling Judge Carnes made.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...play.php?f=241

http://www.supportramseytruth.com/


The Ramseys have never been excluded. They are still prime suspects in their daughter's murder.

[bullmoose]

I agree,np, that Jonbenet deserved fair and impartial jurors on the Grand Jury; you are stating as fact that they were not, that they went into the courtroom with the belief that the parents' couldn't have done that to their little girl. Right? Is there a link of somekind where this is demonstrated by statements of the Jurors saying this? I can understand that people may choose to believe what you state; because of the frustration at the lack of a resolution in this case; I myself find it frustrating. But a Grand Jury meets to determine by its own set of evidentory rules whether or not there is sufficent proof to indict a suspect or suspects[ yeah, I know-POI]. The fact that the GJ met for a year and indicted no one makes me think that the evidence presented failed to convince the GJ that there was enough evidence of guilt of anyone's involvement in Jonbenet's murder to bind over to trial by indictment. I think the Grand Jury did its job very well. There was no rush to judgment based on popular sentiment, just a careful consideration of the evidence. I agree with you that the Ramseys have not been cleared; however neither has anyone else, not me, not you. Its a mighty big umbrella of suspicion.

[nuisanceposter]

My second link on the Carnes ruling should be this one:

http://www.supportramseytruth.com/index2.htm

Add to it:

http://www.acandyrose.com/05202003keenanletter.htm


Bullmoose, that bit about the juror came from Schiller's latest doc that aired on CTV back in June or July. This juror was on camera stating that when she began the case she was already of the opinion that a parent couldn't do what was done to JonBenet. The sad truth is, parents do things like that to their own children all the time. Even parents who appear to be perfectly normal, everyday people.

The GJ was still waiting on some evidence when they went to make their decision, and that's part of the reason I think they did not get to hear all of the evidence. It's also because of Hunter and because the jurors didn't listen to either the Rs or ST. I cannot understand why they thought they didn't need to hear from those main players in this case.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


I don't see a thing in listed that would get anyone indicted and/or convicted. JMO

Glad your not going to be selected for jury duty in this matter. What if you go in convinced you see nothing and refuse to see anything. They are innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt in your mind Then as the evidence mounts up. The facts really unfold .....
would you be openminded or believe that somehow there is that shadow of a doubt at least in your own mind. Has to be you couldn't have been wrong all that time. Even Alex Hunter said he believed the Ramseys ( Patsy ) did it. But he wanted AIR TIGHT. He wanted a confession. JonBenet Investigation into the Murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Author Steve Thomas. The ones who believed in the Ramsey innocence were DeMuth and Smit.

Also Athena I am on a waiting list for this book and for PMPT not sure how many are infront of me. Seems now that the John Mark Karr thing came up. Books are having waiting lists for them that sat idle on the shelves for a long time.

[bullmoose]

To nuisanceposter: I didn't see that Schiller piece on CTV; my cable doesn't carry that channel, although I wish it did; you say it was one of the members of the GJ that held that view going in. Okay, but did they all hold to that view? In any case, the members of that GJ, or any GJ goes into deliberation with their worldview and points of view intact. They go through evidence and witnesses to draw their conclusions, which in this case was: no indictment. Was there evidence presented that should have produced an indictment; I have no idea, I wasn't there to hear what they heard. When you say that the GJ was waiting on some evidence when they went to make their decision; I'm not sure what you mean, I don't recall them being under a deadline; they met for over a year. If they weren't ready to make their decision when they did, then why did they do it? Unless the evidence was underwhelming towards all suspects.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I agree,np, that Jonbenet deserved fair and impartial jurors on the Grand Jury; you are stating as fact that they were not, that they went into the courtroom with the belief that the parents' couldn't have done that to their little girl. Right? Is there a link of somekind where this is demonstrated by statements of the Jurors saying this? I can understand that people may choose to believe what you state; because of the frustration at the lack of a resolution in this case; I myself find it frustrating. But a Grand Jury meets to determine by its own set of evidentory rules whether or not there is sufficent proof to indict a suspect or suspects[ yeah, I know-POI]. The fact that the GJ met for a year and indicted no one makes me think that the evidence presented failed to convince the GJ that there was enough evidence of guilt of anyone's involvement in Jonbenet's murder to bind over to trial by indictment. I think the Grand Jury did its job very well. There was no rush to judgment based on popular sentiment, just a careful consideration of the evidence. I agree with you that the Ramseys have not been cleared; however neither has anyone else, not me, not you. Its a mighty big umbrella of suspicion.

Not really it was a parasol built for two. And they are still to this day now that Karr was not charged the only ones under it. That is according to Current DA Lacey. Here is your link http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...dex.php/t-7715

[bullmoose]

To coloradokares: Please do not fall into the Trap Of Twisting Thomas. I too, have read his book, but I have read the book PM-PT, Death of Innocence, Cases That Haunt Us, and I find the Tome by Steve Thomas to be the least convincing of the bunch. I would be curious to read where Alex Hunter is on record as saying what you are quoting him as saying; it escapes me. Steve Thomas very much believes he is totally right and doesn't let his lack of training as a murder investigator stand in his way. His relationship with a reporter for the tabloid THE GLOBE forever made me think of him as an unscrupulous cop with very low credability level as to honesty.When you read PT-PM you will see why.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by bullmoose
To nuisanceposter: I didn't see that Schiller piece on CTV; my cable doesn't carry that channel, although I wish it did; you say it was one of the members of the GJ that held that view going in. Okay, but did they all hold to that view? In any case, the members of that GJ, or any GJ goes into deliberation with their worldview and points of view intact. They go through evidence and witnesses to draw their conclusions, which in this case was: no indictment. Was there evidence presented that should have produced an indictment; I have no idea, I wasn't there to hear what they heard. When you say that the GJ was waiting on some evidence when they went to make their decision; I'm not sure what you mean, I don't recall them being under a deadline; they met for over a year. If they weren't ready to make their decision when they did, then why did they do it? Unless the evidence was underwhelming towards all suspects.

Actually I believe they were for lack of better wording renewed in increments of time. Like by this date a conclusion or ask for more time. It was budgetary. The evidence the grand jury saw is under edict to not BE discussed ... ever. A Grand juror is not appointed in the same way a juror in a trial is. Its more an appointment process. Also they can speak of their opinions but never what was discussed after they retire. Its like they are sworn never to discuss. So they could tell you how they felt before they convened. Not tell you how they felt after they retired. It is like nuisanceposter says it was. Also a Grandjury is NOT polled like a jury. It could have been a hung grand jury for lack of my knowing what the proper term to say that would be. Grand jury's have to give thier recommendation what I was told is if even one recommends against.... hung. Or so the "gossip" was out here. Granted that is only the pulse of the communities feelings. That they could NOT believe it. We were thunderstruck that without speaking to Lead Investigators or even the Ramseys. They made their recommendation without a full review. Not long after hearing Smit. Their were predominantely 2 schools of thought. The buy was in. Or they could see due to procedural rules they could covene another millinium and not be able to make any other recommendation....Or so the community buzz was. What people talked about between even strangers in a restaurant. For a while out here you could feel the tension. A lynch mob mentality almost. SHOCKED!!! Here the community was expecting arrests. Even Ramseys admit they arranged to not have the arrest be public but discreet and turn themselves in to be bailed out shortly. When that didn't happen I think then apathy set in. YET their has been a public outcry for office of Special Prosecutor STILL. I think Colorado citizens have come to realize we'll never see the day anything will ever be done. Many comments were made again around the time Patsy passed away. Now after John Karr. Mostly we just figure .....till codis makes a hit and in that manner we can prove once and for all the DNA is artifact or vaild ....the spin just goes on and on.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Glad your not going to be selected for jury duty in this matter. What if you go in convinced you see nothing and refuse to see anything
<snip>

I think jurors have to state whether they can make a judgment in the case based on the evidence presented. If I'm not mistaken I'm not supposed to have any idea relative to innocent/guilty beforehand. Isn't that what they call an unbiased jury? JMO

[shill]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


A GJ didn't even think they needed to hear from the parents of the murdered child who were home at the time of the murder, or the main detective on the case.

The grand jury can compel witnesses to testify before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony.