Was Burke involved?

ScarlettScarpetta said:

It only matters if there is real evidence that is backed up by behavior. Not if they act weird. The Gj heard a lot of things and indicted Patsy.. It may have nothing at all to do with Burke. That is just assumption.

Click to expand...

Real evidence such as JR going almost straight to the body in the basement after being told by LA to search the house from top to bottom? If that is not evidence of knowledge that "innocent" JR shouldn't have had, I don't know what is. I know I won't budge you one inch, but you have your blinders on when it comes to the Ramseys.

Mama2JML said:

Chapter 1 of PMPT, p. 27 on my nook. Burke's interview is mentioned in IRMI, too, but I don't have my book handy.

Click to expand...

Indeed Detective Fred Patterson interviewed Burke while he was at the White's home on Dec. 26. As a matter of fact, Detective Patterson, at one point, momentarily stopped questioning the 9yo young boy so that Burke could finish eating his sandwich.

Chebrock said:

I do not believe Burke knew anything about what happened that night mainly because they let him go to school and be interviewed. Children almost NEVER are able to keep a family secret.

Click to expand...

children NEVER keep a family secret? research says otherwise...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...iencedaily+(ScienceDaily:+Latest+Science+News)

http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/leading-edge/child-sexual-abuse-why-children-dont-tell/

http://www.pandys.org/articles/whyyoudidnttell.html

Anyhoo said:

Real evidence such as JR going almost straight to the body in the basement after being told by LA to search the house from top to bottom? If that is not evidence of knowledge that "innocent" JR shouldn't have had, I don't know what is. I know I won't budge you one inch, but you have your blinders on when it comes to the Ramseys.

Click to expand...

You mean starting to search when it was the cops job? You mean doing a thorough search as opposed to the police search? Since everyone was upstairs and they knew all about upstairs, who wouldn't go and look in the basement?
I think the bigger question is why was jr and fw searching at all?? That they found her, is not evidence.
That's opinion based on what you think he should have done.
The problem with it is if he wanted her to be found and staged it, he would not have touched her. He would have screamed calling the police down. He would have wanted the police to find her as he planned it out. Picking her up disturbs the scene and changes how the staging would work.

He searched his basement. He knew the basement. What would have been awesome is if the police that day had really done the job and searched that house well.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

redheadedgal said:

children NEVER keep a family secret? research says otherwise...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...iencedaily+(ScienceDaily:+Latest+Science+News)

http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/leading-edge/child-sexual-abuse-why-children-dont-tell/

http://www.pandys.org/articles/whyyoudidnttell.html

Click to expand...

It's very possible BR was already used to keeping secrets. He even tells the Dr. During the psych interview, "I have secrets, but I can't tell you bc they're secrets"

MyBelle said:

Actually, how one acts after a crime can be admitted as evidence. The Grand Jury heard Burke as a witness and indicted Patsy. It is the totality of the evidence that matters, not just whether a 9-year-old kid acted "weird." There is no playbook for a nine-year old in how to act after your little sister is found murdered.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/consciousness-of-guilt/

Evidentiary rules allow a prosecutor to introduce testimony that tends to show that the defendants actions prove he knew he was guilty (at least of something). This is sometimes referred to as “consciousness of guilt”. For example, such evidence may include actions the defendant took to “cover up” his alleged crime. Flight, when unexplained, may indicate consciousness of guilt if the facts and the circumstances support it. A person's false statements as to (his/her) whereabouts at the time of the offense may tend to show a consciousness of guilt.

Click to expand...

Check
Check
& check!

When the True Bills against John and Patsy Ramsey were publicly released, I didn’t express my thoughts on what it might mean, because there were still too many unanswered questions in my mind about what it could have meant. News media added to that confusion with their own interpretations and comments from a slew of different legal “experts”. The big question was, “Why find each of the Ramsey parents to be accessories and not charge either of them with the crime of homicide?” Then the possible explanation was that it was because the GJ couldn’t decide which of the two to charge with the murder itself, so they simply charged each as an accessory. The prevailing thought seemed to be that fear of the “cross-finger-pointing defense” blocked Alex Hunter from going forward with an indictment. But after reading some more of the Colorado Criminal Statutes, that explanation doesn’t hold true.

The release of the signed True Bills produced by the Ramsey GJ didn’t give us much more information than we had before about exactly what information was discovered by the jurors. All it did is lay to rest the deliberate misconception that the jurors found no evidence of guilt on the part of the family of JonBenet (which prior to that had been the chorus sung by nearly all in the MSM). No, a True Bill doesn’t prove guilt -- that could only have been determined by a trial which never happened. But what it does tell us is that at least 9 of the 12 jurors felt John and Patsy were equally responsible for the circumstances that caused their daughter’s death. When this information was released, I thought that it might be possible that after 18 months of testimony, evidence, and discussion, the GJ just couldn’t figure it out and decided to charge them equally and let the court system decide who did what. The other possibility was that they had actually figured it out, and that was the reason neither of the parents were True Billed for the homicide itself.

It’s the unanswered questions that still have us all puzzled. Does the failure to indict one person for murder mean that the GJ couldn’t decide which parent actually killed her, and which one was only an accomplice? Or does it mean that the GJ determined that someone else committed murder and the parents were both for some unknown reason complicit in the crime with that person?

We always hear about the “cross-finger-pointing” defense, and how it might have prevented the DA from charging either one without knowing who actually killed her. But that argument doesn’t work because, as I pointed out in [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10371398&postcount=442"]another post[/ame], the DA does not have to prove that in court. If two people are complicit with one another in a homicide, it doesn’t matter which one actually committed the act that actually killed the victim. They both are guilty of the crime, if they acted together. From Colorado Criminal Code C.R.S. 18-1-603:Were this not true, it would mean that two people could act together to shoot and kill someone; but without being able to prove which one actually pulled the trigger, neither one could be charged with murder because of the “reasonable doubt’ that could be injected by their defense attorney. This section of the statute establishes that complicity constitutes guilt of the crime committed. So if the GJ believed there was enough evidence that either one of the two parents committed the homicide, they would have True Billed both parents for murder. And in this case, since it was committed with aggravating circumstances (sexual assault of a child), it would be first degree murder with capital punishment on the table.

One of the members of that GJ has been reported as saying:How carefully that juror chose his or her words is not known, so not too much can be really be gleaned from their exact meaning. Further, I doubt the juror who spoke was even trying to send a clear message about exactly what their decision meant. But if the GJ felt that either of the two actually did something that directly caused her death, I don’t see how they could have NOT True Billed both of them for murder; so I do think we can surmise that they felt someone other than either John or Patsy was the one who directly caused her death. So the next question is why would the GJ True Bill each for aiding a third person who actually committed the homicide when neither parent was charged.

If someone can see it some other way, I really would appreciate hearing a believable interpretation of it. (You know, something more than just, “I don’t think so, I just don’t believe that’s what it means.”)

So if this logic follows that the GJ believed someone else committed the act that ended JonBenet’s life, why would that person NOT be charged? The answer is so obvious to anyone with an open mind that it can’t be ignored by those who don’t want to consider it. The answer is that, regardless of the assailant’s intent, regardless of whether it was premeditated, and even if it was a completely unintended accident, someone should be indicted for causing it to happen unless they had some kind of immunity from prosecution. Even the concept of “diplomatic immunity” is misunderstood to mean that it is “freedom from prosecution”. It is not. Serious crimes (any felony) do not fall within agreements of “diplomatic immunity”. What other immunity from prosecution exists within the Colorado Criminal Statutes? There is only one.

Consider this: Even if they participated without actually causing her death, the Ramseys could still be charged with it unless it never happened. Since the Colorado Criminal Statutes clearly state that an “infant” under the age of ten is “incapable of committing crime because he is presumed not to possess criminal intent”, there was no “murder” -- it never happened. The statute also says: “Although a child under the age of 10 cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts.” So even though an individual can commit an “act that violates the law”, there was no “criminal act” committed if that person is a child under the age of ten. With no “criminal act” committed, the Ramsey parents were not accessories to a criminal act other than the ones committed by them alone in not preventing her from being “placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to (her) life or health, (resulting) in the death of JonBenet Ramsey.”

To me, after reading the applicable statutes, the implications of what the GJ True Bills means is now clear. If this is not correct, the DA’s office is doing a terrible injustice to Burke by not releasing a full report, or the full transcript of the GJ proceedings. I don’t doubt that at least one or a few surviving GJ members probably read here from time to time. If they found otherwise, they really owe it to Burke to make a public statement saying so. I find it hard to believe that other “real” legal analysts don’t see this also and are just keeping it to themselves for fear of being the first to publicly state it.

When you hear, read, or quote someone inside the case saying Burke was never considered a suspect, when you read Hunter’s amended affidavit, or when you read the True Bills returned on John and Patsy Ramsey, pay close attention to the exact wording. There is nothing said that contradicts the conclusion that the GJ actually figured out what happened and that some of those inside the investigation know that the person who caused JonBenet to die could not be charged and could not be considered a suspect.

otg said:

When the True Bills against John and Patsy Ramsey were publicly released, I didn’t express my thoughts on what it might mean, because there were still too many unanswered questions in my mind about what it could have meant. News media added to that confusion with their own interpretations and comments from a slew of different legal “experts”. The big question was, “Why find each of the Ramsey parents to be accessories and not charge either of them with the crime of homicide?” Then the possible explanation was that it was because the GJ couldn’t decide which of the two to charge with the murder itself, so they simply charged each as an accessory. The prevailing thought seemed to be that fear of the “cross-finger-pointing defense” blocked Alex Hunter from going forward with an indictment. But after reading some more of the Colorado Criminal Statutes, that explanation doesn’t hold true.

The release of the signed True Bills produced by the Ramsey GJ didn’t give us much more information than we had before about exactly what information was discovered by the jurors. All it did is lay to rest the deliberate misconception that the jurors found no evidence of guilt on the part of the family of JonBenet (which prior to that had been the chorus sung by nearly all in the MSM). No, a True Bill doesn’t prove guilt -- that could only have been determined by a trial which never happened. But what it does tell us is that at least 9 of the 12 jurors felt John and Patsy were equally responsible for the circumstances that caused their daughter’s death. When this information was released, I thought that it might be possible that after 18 months of testimony, evidence, and discussion, the GJ just couldn’t figure it out and decided to charge them equally and let the court system decide who did what. The other possibility was that they had actually figured it out, and that was the reason neither of the parents were True Billed for the homicide itself.

It’s the unanswered questions that still have us all puzzled. Does the failure to indict one person for murder mean that the GJ couldn’t decide which parent actually killed her, and which one was only an accomplice? Or does it mean that the GJ determined that someone else committed murder and the parents were both for some unknown reason complicit in the crime with that person?

We always hear about the “cross-finger-pointing” defense, and how it might have prevented the DA from charging either one without knowing who actually killed her. But that argument doesn’t work because, as I pointed out in another post, the DA does not have to prove that in court. If two people are complicit with one another in a homicide, it doesn’t matter which one actually committed the act that actually killed the victim. They both are guilty of the crime, if they acted together. From Colorado Criminal Code C.R.S. 18-1-603:

The acts of the principal are the acts of the accessory, and the accessory may be charged and punished accordingly as a principal. Oaks v. People, 161 Colo. 561, 424 P.2d 115 (1967).

A person who aids, abets, or assists in the perpetration of a criminal offense becomes an accessory to that offense and is chargeable and punishable as a principal. Reed v. People, 171 Colo. 421, 467 P.2d 809 (1970).

An accessory who stands by and aids in the perpetration of a crime may properly be charged as a principal. McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309, 490 P.2d 287 (1971).

An accessory charged as a principal for an accessory is deemed and considered a principal, punishable as a principal, and plainly shall be charged as a principal. Fernandez v. People, 176 Colo. 346, 490 P.2d 690 (1971).

In the case of codefendants it is unnecessary to characterize and classify the specific acts of the principal and the accessory. McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309, 490 P.2d 287 (1971).

It is ultimately the jury's responsibility to determine the specific role a defendant plays. People v. Scheidt, 182 Colo. 374, 513 P.2d 446 (1973).
​

Were this not true, it would mean that two people could act together to shoot and kill someone; but without being able to prove which one actually pulled the trigger, neither one could be charged with murder because of the “reasonable doubt’ that could be injected by their defense attorney. This section of the statute establishes that complicity constitutes guilt of the crime committed. So if the GJ believed there was enough evidence that either one of the two parents committed the homicide, they would have True Billed both parents for murder. And in this case, since it was committed with aggravating circumstances (sexual assault of a child), it would be first degree murder with capital punishment on the table.

One of the members of that GJ has been reported 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, but they didn't." (http://www.denverpost.com/jonbenet/...jonbenet-grand-jurors-wanted-charges-da-could)
​

How carefully that juror chose his or her words is not known, so not too much can be really be gleaned from their exact meaning. Further, I doubt the juror who spoke was even trying to send a clear message about exactly what their decision meant. But if the GJ felt that either of the two actually did something that directly caused her death, I don’t see how they could have NOT True Billed both of them for murder; so I do think we can surmise that they felt someone other than either John or Patsy was the one who directly caused her death. So the next question is why would the GJ True Bill each for aiding a third person who actually committed the homicide when neither parent was charged.

If someone can see it some other way, I really would appreciate hearing a believable interpretation of it. (You know, something more than just, “I don’t think so, I just don’t believe that’s what it means.”)

So if this logic follows that the GJ believed someone else committed the act that ended JonBenet’s life, why would that person NOT be charged? The answer is so obvious to anyone with an open mind that it can’t be ignored by those who don’t want to consider it. The answer is that, regardless of the assailant’s intent, regardless of whether it was premeditated, and even if it was a completely unintended accident, someone should be indicted for causing it to happen unless they had some kind of immunity from prosecution. Even the concept of “diplomatic immunity” is misunderstood to mean that it is “freedom from prosecution”. It is not. Serious crimes (any felony) do not fall within agreements of “diplomatic immunity”. What other immunity from prosecution exists within the Colorado Criminal Statutes? There is only one.

Consider this: Even if they participated without actually causing her death, the Ramseys could still be charged with it unless it never happened. Since the Colorado Criminal Statutes clearly state that an “infant” under the age of ten is “incapable of committing crime because he is presumed not to possess criminal intent”, there was no “murder” -- it never happened. The statute also says: “Although a child under the age of 10 cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts.” So even though an individual can commit an “act that violates the law”, there was no “criminal act” committed if that person is a child under the age of ten. With no “criminal act” committed, the Ramsey parents were not accessories to a criminal act other than the ones committed by them alone in not preventing her from being “placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to (her) life or health, (resulting) in the death of JonBenet Ramsey.”

To me, after reading the applicable statutes, the implications of what the GJ True Bills means is now clear. If this is not correct, the DA’s office is doing a terrible injustice to Burke by not releasing a full report, or the full transcript of the GJ proceedings. I don’t doubt that at least one or a few surviving GJ members probably read here from time to time. If they found otherwise, they really owe it to Burke to make a public statement saying so. I find it hard to believe that other “real” legal analysts don’t see this also and are just keeping it to themselves for fear of being the first to publicly state it.

When you hear, read, or quote someone inside the case saying Burke was never considered a suspect, when you read Hunter’s amended affidavit, or when you read the True Bills returned on John and Patsy Ramsey, pay close attention to the exact wording. There is nothing said that contradicts the conclusion that the GJ actually figured out what happened and that some of those inside the investigation know that the person who caused JonBenet to die could not be charged and could not be considered a suspect.

Click to expand...

Doesn't the child under 10 rules apply only in adult court? I think if there was a shred of proof Burke was involved, he could have been charged as a juvenile or taken into custody. Letting him return to school and near other children would be the last thing allowed, yet he did so.

I think the GJ returned an indictment based on the cross finger-pointing and it was impossible for them to conclude who murdered JonBenet and who sexually assaulted her. I also believe it is unfair to accuse Hunter of totally ignoring horrific crimes just because of the age of the suspect.

JMO

otg said:

When the True Bills against John and Patsy Ramsey were publicly released, I didn’t express my thoughts on what it might mean, because there were still too many unanswered questions in my mind about what it could have meant. News media added to that confusion with their own interpretations and comments from a slew of different legal “experts”. The big question was, “Why find each of the Ramsey parents to be accessories and not charge either of them with the crime of homicide?” Then the possible explanation was that it was because the GJ couldn’t decide which of the two to charge with the murder itself, so they simply charged each as an accessory. The prevailing thought seemed to be that fear of the “cross-finger-pointing defense” blocked Alex Hunter from going forward with an indictment. But after reading some more of the Colorado Criminal Statutes, that explanation doesn’t hold true.

The release of the signed True Bills produced by the Ramsey GJ didn’t give us much more information than we had before about exactly what information was discovered by the jurors. All it did is lay to rest the deliberate misconception that the jurors found no evidence of guilt on the part of the family of JonBenet (which prior to that had been the chorus sung by nearly all in the MSM). No, a True Bill doesn’t prove guilt -- that could only have been determined by a trial which never happened. But what it does tell us is that at least 9 of the 12 jurors felt John and Patsy were equally responsible for the circumstances that caused their daughter’s death. When this information was released, I thought that it might be possible that after 18 months of testimony, evidence, and discussion, the GJ just couldn’t figure it out and decided to charge them equally and let the court system decide who did what. The other possibility was that they had actually figured it out, and that was the reason neither of the parents were True Billed for the homicide itself.

It’s the unanswered questions that still have us all puzzled. Does the failure to indict one person for murder mean that the GJ couldn’t decide which parent actually killed her, and which one was only an accomplice? Or does it mean that the GJ determined that someone else committed murder and the parents were both for some unknown reason complicit in the crime with that person?

We always hear about the “cross-finger-pointing” defense, and how it might have prevented the DA from charging either one without knowing who actually killed her. But that argument doesn’t work because, as I pointed out in another post, the DA does not have to prove that in court. If two people are complicit with one another in a homicide, it doesn’t matter which one actually committed the act that actually killed the victim. They both are guilty of the crime, if they acted together. From Colorado Criminal Code C.R.S. 18-1-603:

The acts of the principal are the acts of the accessory, and the accessory may be charged and punished accordingly as a principal. Oaks v. People, 161 Colo. 561, 424 P.2d 115 (1967).

A person who aids, abets, or assists in the perpetration of a criminal offense becomes an accessory to that offense and is chargeable and punishable as a principal. Reed v. People, 171 Colo. 421, 467 P.2d 809 (1970).

An accessory who stands by and aids in the perpetration of a crime may properly be charged as a principal. McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309, 490 P.2d 287 (1971).

An accessory charged as a principal for an accessory is deemed and considered a principal, punishable as a principal, and plainly shall be charged as a principal. Fernandez v. People, 176 Colo. 346, 490 P.2d 690 (1971).

In the case of codefendants it is unnecessary to characterize and classify the specific acts of the principal and the accessory. McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309, 490 P.2d 287 (1971).

It is ultimately the jury's responsibility to determine the specific role a defendant plays. People v. Scheidt, 182 Colo. 374, 513 P.2d 446 (1973).
​

Were this not true, it would mean that two people could act together to shoot and kill someone; but without being able to prove which one actually pulled the trigger, neither one could be charged with murder because of the “reasonable doubt’ that could be injected by their defense attorney. This section of the statute establishes that complicity constitutes guilt of the crime committed. So if the GJ believed there was enough evidence that either one of the two parents committed the homicide, they would have True Billed both parents for murder. And in this case, since it was committed with aggravating circumstances (sexual assault of a child), it would be first degree murder with capital punishment on the table.

One of the members of that GJ has been reported 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, but they didn't." (http://www.denverpost.com/jonbenet/...jonbenet-grand-jurors-wanted-charges-da-could)
​

How carefully that juror chose his or her words is not known, so not too much can be really be gleaned from their exact meaning. Further, I doubt the juror who spoke was even trying to send a clear message about exactly what their decision meant. But if the GJ felt that either of the two actually did something that directly caused her death, I don’t see how they could have NOT True Billed both of them for murder; so I do think we can surmise that they felt someone other than either John or Patsy was the one who directly caused her death. So the next question is why would the GJ True Bill each for aiding a third person who actually committed the homicide when neither parent was charged.

If someone can see it some other way, I really would appreciate hearing a believable interpretation of it. (You know, something more than just, “I don’t think so, I just don’t believe that’s what it means.”)

So if this logic follows that the GJ believed someone else committed the act that ended JonBenet’s life, why would that person NOT be charged? The answer is so obvious to anyone with an open mind that it can’t be ignored by those who don’t want to consider it. The answer is that, regardless of the assailant’s intent, regardless of whether it was premeditated, and even if it was a completely unintended accident, someone should be indicted for causing it to happen unless they had some kind of immunity from prosecution. Even the concept of “diplomatic immunity” is misunderstood to mean that it is “freedom from prosecution”. It is not. Serious crimes (any felony) do not fall within agreements of “diplomatic immunity”. What other immunity from prosecution exists within the Colorado Criminal Statutes? There is only one.

Consider this: Even if they participated without actually causing her death, the Ramseys could still be charged with it unless it never happened. Since the Colorado Criminal Statutes clearly state that an “infant” under the age of ten is “incapable of committing crime because he is presumed not to possess criminal intent”, there was no “murder” -- it never happened. The statute also says: “Although a child under the age of 10 cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts.” So even though an individual can commit an “act that violates the law”, there was no “criminal act” committed if that person is a child under the age of ten. With no “criminal act” committed, the Ramsey parents were not accessories to a criminal act other than the ones committed by them alone in not preventing her from being “placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to (her) life or health, (resulting) in the death of JonBenet Ramsey.”

To me, after reading the applicable statutes, the implications of what the GJ True Bills means is now clear. If this is not correct, the DA’s office is doing a terrible injustice to Burke by not releasing a full report, or the full transcript of the GJ proceedings. I don’t doubt that at least one or a few surviving GJ members probably read here from time to time. If they found otherwise, they really owe it to Burke to make a public statement saying so. I find it hard to believe that other “real” legal analysts don’t see this also and are just keeping it to themselves for fear of being the first to publicly state it.

When you hear, read, or quote someone inside the case saying Burke was never considered a suspect, when you read Hunter’s amended affidavit, or when you read the True Bills returned on John and Patsy Ramsey, pay close attention to the exact wording. There is nothing said that contradicts the conclusion that the GJ actually figured out what happened and that some of those inside the investigation know that the person who caused JonBenet to die could not be charged and could not be considered a suspect.

Click to expand...

I find no fault in your logic and find the road map pretty clear, especially since you've laid it all out so exceptionally well.
Do you remember BlueCrab? I've often wondered if that poster had been a GJ, especially after Kolar's book and the indictment release.
It certainly does connect ALL the dots.
It's really too bad no one is up for the challenge publicly and pushing the envelope, actually naming him. Seems even the threat of a lawsuit is enough. Too bad. If Burke were to be accused publicly and in a meaningful way, the ball would be in the remaining Ramsey's court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MyBelle said:

Doesn't the child under 10 rules apply only in adult court? I think if there was a shred of proof Burke was involved, he could have been charged as a juvenile or taken into custody. Letting him return to school and near other children would be the last thing allowed, yet he did so.



I think the GJ returned an indictment based on the cross finger-pointing and it was impossible for them to conclude who murdered JonBenet and who sexually assaulted her. I also believe it is unfair to accuse Hunter of totally ignoring horrific crimes just because of the age of the suspect.



JMO

Click to expand...

That's simply not true.

In Colorado and many other states a ten year old would never be charged, removed from the home or not permitted to attend school.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

otg said:

When the True Bills against John and Patsy Ramsey were publicly released, I didn’t express my thoughts on what it might mean, because there were still too many unanswered questions in my mind about what it could have meant. News media added to that confusion with their own interpretations and comments from a slew of different legal “experts”. The big question was, “Why find each of the Ramsey parents to be accessories and not charge either of them with the crime of homicide?” Then the possible explanation was that it was because the GJ couldn’t decide which of the two to charge with the murder itself, so they simply charged each as an accessory. The prevailing thought seemed to be that fear of the “cross-finger-pointing defense” blocked Alex Hunter from going forward with an indictment. But after reading some more of the Colorado Criminal Statutes, that explanation doesn’t hold true.

The release of the signed True Bills produced by the Ramsey GJ didn’t give us much more information than we had before about exactly what information was discovered by the jurors. All it did is lay to rest the deliberate misconception that the jurors found no evidence of guilt on the part of the family of JonBenet (which prior to that had been the chorus sung by nearly all in the MSM). No, a True Bill doesn’t prove guilt -- that could only have been determined by a trial which never happened. But what it does tell us is that at least 9 of the 12 jurors felt John and Patsy were equally responsible for the circumstances that caused their daughter’s death. When this information was released, I thought that it might be possible that after 18 months of testimony, evidence, and discussion, the GJ just couldn’t figure it out and decided to charge them equally and let the court system decide who did what. The other possibility was that they had actually figured it out, and that was the reason neither of the parents were True Billed for the homicide itself.

It’s the unanswered questions that still have us all puzzled. Does the failure to indict one person for murder mean that the GJ couldn’t decide which parent actually killed her, and which one was only an accomplice? Or does it mean that the GJ determined that someone else committed murder and the parents were both for some unknown reason complicit in the crime with that person?

We always hear about the “cross-finger-pointing” defense, and how it might have prevented the DA from charging either one without knowing who actually killed her. But that argument doesn’t work because, as I pointed out in another post, the DA does not have to prove that in court. If two people are complicit with one another in a homicide, it doesn’t matter which one actually committed the act that actually killed the victim. They both are guilty of the crime, if they acted together. From Colorado Criminal Code C.R.S. 18-1-603:

The acts of the principal are the acts of the accessory, and the accessory may be charged and punished accordingly as a principal. Oaks v. People, 161 Colo. 561, 424 P.2d 115 (1967).

A person who aids, abets, or assists in the perpetration of a criminal offense becomes an accessory to that offense and is chargeable and punishable as a principal. Reed v. People, 171 Colo. 421, 467 P.2d 809 (1970).

An accessory who stands by and aids in the perpetration of a crime may properly be charged as a principal. McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309, 490 P.2d 287 (1971).

An accessory charged as a principal for an accessory is deemed and considered a principal, punishable as a principal, and plainly shall be charged as a principal. Fernandez v. People, 176 Colo. 346, 490 P.2d 690 (1971).

In the case of codefendants it is unnecessary to characterize and classify the specific acts of the principal and the accessory. McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309, 490 P.2d 287 (1971).

It is ultimately the jury's responsibility to determine the specific role a defendant plays. People v. Scheidt, 182 Colo. 374, 513 P.2d 446 (1973).
​

Were this not true, it would mean that two people could act together to shoot and kill someone; but without being able to prove which one actually pulled the trigger, neither one could be charged with murder because of the “reasonable doubt’ that could be injected by their defense attorney. This section of the statute establishes that complicity constitutes guilt of the crime committed. So if the GJ believed there was enough evidence that either one of the two parents committed the homicide, they would have True Billed both parents for murder. And in this case, since it was committed with aggravating circumstances (sexual assault of a child), it would be first degree murder with capital punishment on the table.

One of the members of that GJ has been reported 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, but they didn't." (http://www.denverpost.com/jonbenet/...jonbenet-grand-jurors-wanted-charges-da-could)
​

How carefully that juror chose his or her words is not known, so not too much can be really be gleaned from their exact meaning. Further, I doubt the juror who spoke was even trying to send a clear message about exactly what their decision meant. But if the GJ felt that either of the two actually did something that directly caused her death, I don’t see how they could have NOT True Billed both of them for murder; so I do think we can surmise that they felt someone other than either John or Patsy was the one who directly caused her death. So the next question is why would the GJ True Bill each for aiding a third person who actually committed the homicide when neither parent was charged.

If someone can see it some other way, I really would appreciate hearing a believable interpretation of it. (You know, something more than just, “I don’t think so, I just don’t believe that’s what it means.”)

So if this logic follows that the GJ believed someone else committed the act that ended JonBenet’s life, why would that person NOT be charged? The answer is so obvious to anyone with an open mind that it can’t be ignored by those who don’t want to consider it. The answer is that, regardless of the assailant’s intent, regardless of whether it was premeditated, and even if it was a completely unintended accident, someone should be indicted for causing it to happen unless they had some kind of immunity from prosecution. Even the concept of “diplomatic immunity” is misunderstood to mean that it is “freedom from prosecution”. It is not. Serious crimes (any felony) do not fall within agreements of “diplomatic immunity”. What other immunity from prosecution exists within the Colorado Criminal Statutes? There is only one.

Consider this: Even if they participated without actually causing her death, the Ramseys could still be charged with it unless it never happened. Since the Colorado Criminal Statutes clearly state that an “infant” under the age of ten is “incapable of committing crime because he is presumed not to possess criminal intent”, there was no “murder” -- it never happened. The statute also says: “Although a child under the age of 10 cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts.” So even though an individual can commit an “act that violates the law”, there was no “criminal act” committed if that person is a child under the age of ten. With no “criminal act” committed, the Ramsey parents were not accessories to a criminal act other than the ones committed by them alone in not preventing her from being “placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to (her) life or health, (resulting) in the death of JonBenet Ramsey.”

To me, after reading the applicable statutes, the implications of what the GJ True Bills means is now clear. If this is not correct, the DA’s office is doing a terrible injustice to Burke by not releasing a full report, or the full transcript of the GJ proceedings. I don’t doubt that at least one or a few surviving GJ members probably read here from time to time. If they found otherwise, they really owe it to Burke to make a public statement saying so. I find it hard to believe that other “real” legal analysts don’t see this also and are just keeping it to themselves for fear of being the first to publicly state it.

When you hear, read, or quote someone inside the case saying Burke was never considered a suspect, when you read Hunter’s amended affidavit, or when you read the True Bills returned on John and Patsy Ramsey, pay close attention to the exact wording. There is nothing said that contradicts the conclusion that the GJ actually figured out what happened and that some of those inside the investigation know that the person who caused JonBenet to die could not be charged and could not be considered a suspect.

Click to expand...

This is an amazing "moving part." I think it's possible the Rs stepped in the "technicality" that gets him off the hook.


Before the police even thought to consider BR he was already too well protected. He only gives 4 interviews, but they all offered the same bizarre behavior, and possible clues into his thought process.

Great post. :loveyou:

DeeDee249 said:

Actually it was her blatant disregard for the basic tenets of a murder investigation, combined with her blind devotion to the Rs that caused her to give that false "exoneration". As anyone in LE knows, NO ONE is cleared in a murder unless and until the killer is identified by NAME. It was never that they were "no longer suspects". They STILL are suspects. The present DA alluded to that when he took over. He said no one was cleared as far as he was concerned. Especially the people who were in the house at the time.

Click to expand...

I thought the DA cleared Burke in 2008 because of the DNA evidence? A DA is a political figure so it wouldn't surprise me that she had a bias toward the Ramseys but she did have genuine, DNA evidence that threw it all into a tailspin.

Even if he had not been nine years old at the time, no jury would convict him now because of that DNA evidence no matter how they believe how it got there. What actual evidence ties Burke to the sexual assault or the murder?

In a variety of news articles, cops have been very careful to say they'd like to talk to Burke as a possible witness, not because they consider him a suspect. I don't believe these agencies/task force would be wasting their time, money and resources on continuing an investigation if they already know their main suspect can't be charged because of his age at the time of the murder.

JMO

MyBelle said:

Doesn't the child under 10 rules apply only in adult court? I think if there was a shred of proof Burke was involved, he could have been charged as a juvenile or taken into custody. Letting him return to school and near other children would be the last thing allowed, yet he did so.

Click to expand...

You need to read my post again, MyBelle. Essentially, the statutes classify offenders as either adult, juvenile, or "infant". Adult is 18 or older. Juvenile is from age 10 to 17. Infant is below the age of 10. According to the Colorado laws, an "infant" under the age of 10 is incapable of criminal intent and therefore unable to commit a criminal act (in the eyes of the law). And while these ages are specifically addressed in the law, there are overlaps in their intent causing the ages between 10 and 14 which in some cases makes a person within that age group exempt from prosecution as well:Burke was not a "juvenile" according to Colorado law, and could not be charged as such.

I think the GJ returned an indictment based on the cross finger-pointing and it was impossible for them to conclude who murdered JonBenet and who sexually assaulted her. I also believe it is unfair to accuse Hunter of totally ignoring horrific crimes just because of the age of the suspect.

JMO

Click to expand...

Again, read my post again -- you seem to have completely missed the point. There is no such thing as "cross-finger-pointing defense" except in the thoughts of people who don't know any better. Read the statutes.

Linda7NJ said:

That's simply not true.

In Colorado and many other states a ten year old would never be charged, removed from the home or not permitted to attend school.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

It happens every day. Every state has a form of a juvenile code. Here's Colorado's.

http://www.denbar.org/docs/Introduction to Juvenile Law.pdf?ID=124

otg, Another great, well explained post. Thanks.
Would anyone care to summarize Bluecrab's theory?

otg said:

You need to read my post again, MyBelle. Essentially, the statutes classify offenders as either adult, juvenile, or "infant". Adult is 18 or older. Juvenile is from age 10 to 17. Infant is below the age of 10. According to the Colorado laws, an "infant" under the age of 10 is incapable of criminal intent and therefore unable to commit a criminal act (in the eyes of the law). And while these ages are specifically addressed in the law, there are overlaps in their intent causing the ages between 10 and 14 which in some cases makes a person within that age group exempt from prosecution as well:

Though the children's code may not in so many words raise the age below which there can be no criminal responsibility as concerns a felony from 10 to 14 years, in effect, that is exactly what it did. People ex rel. Terrell v. District Court, 164 Colo. 437, 435 P.2d 763 (1967).
​

Burke was not a "juvenile" according to Colorado law, and could not be charged as such.


Again, read my post again -- you seem to have completely missed the point. There is no such thing as "cross-finger-pointing defense" except in the thoughts of people who don't know any better. Read the statutes.

Click to expand...

There is a such thing as a cross finger-pointing defense. Blaming the other suspect is often the only defense available. I didn't say it always works but it does exist.

Burke could be could be removed from his home for mental health treatment. His parents could be prosecuted for not providing proper care. There is no way an "infant" is going to be allowed to remain with his parents and amongst other children if they are believed to be guilty of sexual assault and murder of another child.

JMO

Can someone else explain complicity as defined by Colorado law better than I apparently did to show why "complicity constitutes guilt of the crime committed"?

Does this help?

Complicity is the act of helping or encouraging another individual to commit a crime. It is also commonly referred to as aiding and abetting. One who is complicit is said to be an accomplice. But, even though an accomplice does not actually commit the crime, his or her actions helped someone in the commission of the crime.

The concept of accomplice liability means an accomplice faces the same degree of guilt and punishment as the individual who committed the crime. Indeed, accomplices can face the same penalties, including prison time. The key consideration is whether the individual intentionally and voluntarily encouraged or assisted in the commission of the crime, or (in some cases) failed to prevent it.

- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...ccomplice-liability.html#sthash.SM1kbrZp.dpuf


http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-is-complicity-or-accomplice-liability.html

Linda7NJ said:

I find no fault in your logic and find the road map pretty clear, especially since you've laid it all out so exceptionally well.
Do you remember BlueCrab? I've often wondered if that poster had been a GJ, especially after Kolar's book and the indictment release.
It certainly does connect ALL the dots.
It's really too bad no one is up for the challenge publicly and pushing the envelope, actually naming him. Seems even the threat of a lawsuit is enough. Too bad. If Burke were to be accused publicly and in a meaningful way, the ball would be in the remaining Ramsey's court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Burke was publicly cleared. Publicly naming him now would be incredibly foolish and also accomplish nothing of benefit because he can't be prosecuted. I think the FBI learned their lesson with Richard Jewell.

I also do not believe Colorado is continuing to waste exorbitant taxpayer dollars and resources on an investigation if their main suspect can't be prosecuted. While a Grand Jury proceeding is secret, Hunter was under no obligation to keep the evidence secret whether it be evidence against Burke or anybody else.

If there was any evidence at all that Burke was responsible for either the sexual assault or murder of his sister, Alex Hunter would have had no problem using that evidence to convict his parents of child abuse for their failure in providing him with mental health services and their failure to protect his sister.

all, JMO

MyBelle said:

Burke was publicly cleared. Publicly naming him now would be incredibly foolish and also accomplish nothing of benefit because he can't be prosecuted. I think the FBI learned their lesson with Richard Jewell.

I also do not believe Colorado is continuing to waste exorbitant taxpayer dollars and resources on an investigation if their main suspect can't be prosecuted. While a Grand Jury proceeding is secret, Hunter was under no obligation to keep the evidence secret whether it be evidence against Burke or anybody else.

If there was any evidence at all that Burke was responsible for either the sexual assault or murder of his sister, Alex Hunter would have had no problem using that evidence to convict his parents of child abuse for their failure in providing him with mental health services and their failure to protect his sister.

all, JMO

Click to expand...

BBM- How do we even know that there is any investigation going on in this case? Nothing has been said, heard, or leaked about anything at all in a while. I honestly think it's no longer being investigated. imo