The Grand Jury voted to indict the parents but the DA dropped the case. He was convinced the parents didn’t do it. Speculation was any first year defense attorney would beat holes in the BPD’s incompetency.
My understanding was the GJ voted to indict on charges of “abuse” and “accessories” Not for murder.
The DA was wise IMO not to indict, there are enough holes in the case to create reasonable doubt. I go back and forth as I learn more about the case, yet know there is far enough RD with the circumstantial evidence not to convict.
That's correct. It was always the belief of most of the Boulder PD that some sort of incident happened between Patsy and JonBenet, which ended up causing the skull fracture. Patsy then had a choice to make: a) Call the police and suffer the ridicule and scorn of the wealthy society in which she lived, or b) cover up the accident, making it look like an intruder.
The biggest tip off to the staging is the 2 and a 1/2 page ransom note. Not one FBI investigator could ever recall such a note, much less one that's left AFTER the victim was already dead (and in the house).
As for me, I'm with Detective Steve Thomas. Patsy did it and then covered it up. Yes, she loved her daughter and didn't mean for any of it to happen, but circumstances spiraled out of control.
Just a word of caution if you ever decide to really dig into this case: IT WILL GET INSIDE YOUR HEAD. I recommend using Occam's Razor when sifting through the evidence. From WikiPedia: "Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is."