Let's see, they didn't indict, they didn't charge the Ramsey's, they didn't issue an arrest warrant for either of them, they didn't issue any arrest warrants for anyone in the case.
The prosecution asked them to indict (reason for a Grand Jury proceding) therefore, the grand jury refused to indict. Simple logic.
I'd have to agree but I wouldn't be quick to connect "Didn't indict" to "not guilty". With the bungled police work and contamination of the crime scene, the GJ may have found that there wasn't enough evidence that pointed to either as the actual killer. Even on this thread there are definitely some in a "Patsy did it" position, some in a "John did it" position and some in a "Burke did it" position. The problem is that with all three represented by the same counsel and agreed on a defense strategy, it can be hard to pinpoint who played what roles with enough certainty to indict.
And, even with all I've read and heard about this case, there are parts to this that don't make sense. There are some aspects I just can't picture a parent doing to their own child even to cover up an accidental death and there are some aspects I can't picture an outside molestor/rapist doing without taking unnecessary risks of getting caught or leaving clues. You either have to believe that the family are monsters who are covering up the murder of their own daughter or the killer is some unknown molester/rapist who made some frightfully stupid choices and yet managed to disappear with barely a trace.
I can see how a grand jury can be conflicted enough not to indict.
You don't know that Hunter asked them to indict. No report was issued. A Grand Jury is not convened for the sole purpose of issuing an indictment. If he had asked for an indictment and not gotten one, it would result in a "no-bill" and a report would be issued. The report might be sealed, but there would be evidence that a report was issued. No report was issued.
The GJ is convened in the public interest to determine, first of all, whether a crime has been committed. If a GJ investigation found that the death of JonBenet was caused by a 9-almost-10-year-old, there would be no indictment issued, as a person that age in CO in 1996 could not be charged with a crime; therefore, no crime would have been committed.
If a GJ investigation cannot determine who might be responsible for the child's death, i.e., there is not enough probable cause to indict one person or there is enough probable cause to indict two or more people, it is up to the prosecutor who convened the special GJ to guide them in the legalities.
At that point, a prosecutor is looking only at whether or not the case is prosecutable. Hunter's discretion entered into it at that point. From his POV, there was enough reasonable doubt at that point in time, to make any case charged an exercise in futility, because of the possibility of double jeopardy in the future. Do you charge someone now and risk letting a killer go free *forever* or do you wait and develop further evidence before charging and taking it to trial?
We don't know how he instructed the GJ, as no report was issued.