JonBenet Ramsey case takes major twist
 

"DENVER (AP) For more than six years, John and Patsy Ramsey have insisted an intruder crept into their home and killed their 6-year-old daughter JonBenet while police and even Colorado's governor kept them under an ''umbrella of suspicion.''

Now a civil judge in Atlanta and the Boulder district attorney say the parents may have been right all along, agreeing that the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the intruder theory."

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/100/...kes_maj:.shtml

The very fact that a Grand Jury did not indict smacks of corruption and influence. Anyone familiar with the workings of an American Grand Jury knows that the famous syaing about being able to get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich is very true. Your child found dead in your own home, murdered while you were present, should have been sufficient for an indictment in the hands of any competent prosecutor.

SpaceAce

A prosecuter would not want an indictment handed down if he did not have enough evidence to win the case and the prosecuter at that point in time later said that he did not have enough evidence to win the case. An equittal would mean that they could never be tried again.

I for one do not believe that either one of the Ramseys had anything to do with the death of their daughter.

It is vastly easier for a grand jury to indict than a jury to convict in a criminal proceeding. All they need is a mere preponderance of evidence (51% - more likely than not). To convict in a criminal trial, you need "beyond a reasonable doubt" - oh, say 97%. Plus, you can introduce virtually anything relevant in a grand jury trial, whereas the rules of evidence for an actual criminal proceeding are much stricter.