New details have emerged in the murder case of JonBenet Ramsey, the child beauty queen murdered in her home in Boulder, Colo. in 1996. The grand jury assigned to the case apparently believed Ramsey's parents should have stood trial, according to a new report from Boulder's The Daily Camera.
The murder of the six-year-old pageant star has generated intense media speculation since it occurred nearly 20 years ago. Many people at the time suspected her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, but according to ABC News, "they insisted an intruder was to blame and they were never prosecuted."
The investigation officially came to an end in 1999 due to lack to evidence. Boulder's then-District Attorney Alex Hunter told reporters, "I and my prosecution task force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a filing to charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time."
However, The Boulder Daily Camera reported Sunday that a grand jury in fact voted to indict Ramsey's parents, but the District Attorney "refused to prosecute."
A grand jury is different from a trial jury; it's a jury formed with the sole purpose of determining whether a formal criminal accusation, or indictment, should be issued before a case even goes to trial.
According to The Daily Camera, several sources, "including members of the grand jury, have now confirmed...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...but Hunter refused to sign the indictment, believing he could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt."
The Daily Camera quoted one juror as saying, "We didn't know who did what, 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."
It is still unclear what all this means for the JonBenet Ramsey case. One legal expert interviewed by the Daily Camera suggested that it was improper for the District Attorney to disregard the grand jury's vote to indict, but others insisted that Hunter made the right decision because he did not believe the charges could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
Criminal defense lawyer Dan Recht told the Daily Camera, "That's the burden that the prosecution has at a trial. So [Hunter] seemingly decided, 'I am not going to be able to prove this child abuse resulting in death beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury."
- Contribute to this Story:
- Send us a tip
- Send us a photo or video
- Suggest a correction
