Was Burke involved?
- Thread starter GuruJosh
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
UK - Chris Kaba 21, shot dead by armed officers, now a murder inquiry, London.- Latest: Marantz4250b
- Status
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 195
As the concept of complicity relates specifically to Colorado law, it cant be much clearer than what the statutes define. It has been upheld repeatedly in court cases referred to in the statutes:
C.R.S. 18-1-603 (2013)
18-1-603. Complicity
Complicity is merely a theory by which a defendant becomes accountable for a criminal offense committed by another. People v. Thompson, 655 P.2d 416 (Colo. 1982); People v. Thurman, 948 P.2d 69 (Colo. App. 1997); People v. Medina, 72 P.3d 405 (Colo. App. 2003).
B. Indictment or Information.
Defendant need not perform all acts necessary to offense. Where two or more are involved in the commission of a criminal offense and one helps the other, though not actually performing all the acts necessary to the commission of the offense, all are, nevertheless, principal offenders and are punishable as though all have committed the necessary acts. Reed v. People, 171 Colo. 421, 467 P.2d 809 (1970).
No election required as to which defendant was accessory. There was no error in the trial court's refusing to compel the district attorney to elect, before the evidence was presented, as to which defendant was principal and which accessory. Block v. People, 125 Colo. 36, 240 P.2d 512 (1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 978, 72 S. Ct. 1076, 96 L. Ed. 1370, reh'g denied, 344 U.S. 848, 73 S. Ct. 6, 97 L. Ed. 659 (1952).
An accessory who stands by and aids in the perpetration of a crime may properly be charged as a principal, and in the case of codefendants it is unnecessary to spell out which one is the principal and which the accessory, nor is it necessary to characterize and classify the specific acts of each. Schreiner v. People, 146 Colo. 19, 360 P.2d 443, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 856, 82 S. Ct. 94, 7 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1961).
In the case of codefendants it is unnecessary to spell out which one is the principal and which the accessory. McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309, 490 P.2d 287 (1971).
When two persons are charged with the same crime, the prosecution is not required to spell out which one is the principal and which is the accessory. People v. Scheidt, 182 Colo. 374, 513 P.2d 446 (1973).
Applied in People v. Saars, 196 Colo. 294, 584 P.2d 622 (1978); People v. Alonzi, 40 Colo. App. 507, 580 P.2d 1263 (1978).
B. Indictment or Information.
An accessory may be charged as principal. Voris v. People, 75 Colo. 574, 227 P. 551 (1924); Newton v. People, 96 Colo. 246, 41 P.2d 300 (1935); Pacheco v. People, 96 Colo. 401, 43 P.2d 165 (1935); Bacino v. People, 104 Colo. 229, 90 P.2d 5 (1939); Erwin v. People, 126 Colo. 28, 245 P.2d 1171 (1952); Harris v. People, 139 Colo. 9, 335 P.2d 550 (1959); Martinez v. People, 166 Colo. 524, 444 P.2d 641 (1968).
An accessory may be indicted and punished as a principal. People v. Zobel, 54 Colo. 284, 130 P. 837 (1913); Mulligan v. People, 68 Colo. 17, 189 P. 5 (1920); Harris v. People, 139 Colo. 9, 335 P.2d 550 (1959).
If accessories are under the law deemed and considered as principals, then they are principals insofar as the indictment, trial, and punishment are concerned. Mulligan v. People, 68 Colo. 17, 189 P. 5 (1920); Harris v. People, 139 Colo. 9, 335 P.2d 550 (1959).
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).
Can it get any clearer than that?
TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 1.PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY
PART 6. PARTIES TO OFFENSES - ACCOUNTABILITY
ARTICLE 1.PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY
PART 6. PARTIES TO OFFENSES - ACCOUNTABILITY
C.R.S. 18-1-603 (2013)
18-1-603. Complicity
Complicity is merely a theory by which a defendant becomes accountable for a criminal offense committed by another. People v. Thompson, 655 P.2d 416 (Colo. 1982); People v. Thurman, 948 P.2d 69 (Colo. App. 1997); People v. Medina, 72 P.3d 405 (Colo. App. 2003).
B. Indictment or Information.
Defendant need not perform all acts necessary to offense. Where two or more are involved in the commission of a criminal offense and one helps the other, though not actually performing all the acts necessary to the commission of the offense, all are, nevertheless, principal offenders and are punishable as though all have committed the necessary acts. Reed v. People, 171 Colo. 421, 467 P.2d 809 (1970).
No election required as to which defendant was accessory. There was no error in the trial court's refusing to compel the district attorney to elect, before the evidence was presented, as to which defendant was principal and which accessory. Block v. People, 125 Colo. 36, 240 P.2d 512 (1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 978, 72 S. Ct. 1076, 96 L. Ed. 1370, reh'g denied, 344 U.S. 848, 73 S. Ct. 6, 97 L. Ed. 659 (1952).
An accessory who stands by and aids in the perpetration of a crime may properly be charged as a principal, and in the case of codefendants it is unnecessary to spell out which one is the principal and which the accessory, nor is it necessary to characterize and classify the specific acts of each. Schreiner v. People, 146 Colo. 19, 360 P.2d 443, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 856, 82 S. Ct. 94, 7 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1961).
In the case of codefendants it is unnecessary to spell out which one is the principal and which the accessory. McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309, 490 P.2d 287 (1971).
When two persons are charged with the same crime, the prosecution is not required to spell out which one is the principal and which is the accessory. People v. Scheidt, 182 Colo. 374, 513 P.2d 446 (1973).
Applied in People v. Saars, 196 Colo. 294, 584 P.2d 622 (1978); People v. Alonzi, 40 Colo. App. 507, 580 P.2d 1263 (1978).
B. Indictment or Information.
An accessory may be charged as principal. Voris v. People, 75 Colo. 574, 227 P. 551 (1924); Newton v. People, 96 Colo. 246, 41 P.2d 300 (1935); Pacheco v. People, 96 Colo. 401, 43 P.2d 165 (1935); Bacino v. People, 104 Colo. 229, 90 P.2d 5 (1939); Erwin v. People, 126 Colo. 28, 245 P.2d 1171 (1952); Harris v. People, 139 Colo. 9, 335 P.2d 550 (1959); Martinez v. People, 166 Colo. 524, 444 P.2d 641 (1968).
An accessory may be indicted and punished as a principal. People v. Zobel, 54 Colo. 284, 130 P. 837 (1913); Mulligan v. People, 68 Colo. 17, 189 P. 5 (1920); Harris v. People, 139 Colo. 9, 335 P.2d 550 (1959).
If accessories are under the law deemed and considered as principals, then they are principals insofar as the indictment, trial, and punishment are concerned. Mulligan v. People, 68 Colo. 17, 189 P. 5 (1920); Harris v. People, 139 Colo. 9, 335 P.2d 550 (1959).
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).
Linda7NJ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 32,112
- Reaction score
- 8,288
I couldn't figure out how to move this post here....soooo
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Linda7NJ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 32,112
- Reaction score
- 8,288
Blue crabs is very very eerily similar to Kolars ...right down to the talk of feces involvement.
Blue Crab had considered a close friend & male college student that often babysat for the Ramsey's & JonBenet , Blue Crab believed he was ALSO involved. He hinted he was the son of very close friends of the Ramsey's ...and he never questioned or interviewed, apparently never even considered.
BlueCrab also believed JonBenet was found much earlier by John Ramsey, she had been particularly suspended and used Johns own words and autopsy to back it up. He believed John staged and covered her with the blanket to give her a measure of dignity in death.
He believed Burke wrote the note, and further ...states that handwriting analysis failed to exclude Burke as it's author. He does believe the other older young man verbally compose & helped with the note.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it is still being investigated because the people of Colorado want closure and justice for the little girl who died such a horrible death. We know what the prosecutor told the media a year ago. He makes it clear his goal is to prosecute the case. If the main suspect is Burke, a prosecution is impossible so what better way is there than prosecute the father and force the son to testify?
I think the guy intends to go after John Ramsey for murder and will use whatever evidence that persuaded the Grand Jury that he and Patsy were involved. There is no longer a co-defendant to muddy the prosecution.
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_22446410/boulder-grand-jury-voted-indict-ramseys
Current Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett, upon taking office for his first term in January 2009, announced he was returning the Ramsey case -- which Lacy had taken over from the police department -- back to the police. And it is with the Boulder Police Department that the Ramsey case now resides.
"The Boulder police are in charge of the investigation, and if the state of the evidence changes to where charges can be filed consistent with Colorado ethical standards for prosecution, I will do so and will say whatever I have to say about this case on the record and in open court," Garnett said recently. "I will have no comment otherwise about the state of the evidence."
Frigga
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2009
- Messages
- 5,229
- Reaction score
- 36
It is clear from OTG's post, Colorado criminal law codes/procedures, that Burke could never even be named a suspect.
The GJ indicted John and Patsy Ramsey- to this day (thanks in part to the inaction of AH) we still don't know who did what. We may have actually learned, had there been a trial, maybe not. We will never know now.
The police asked to have an interview with Burke- why... because they still want and need answers. Patsy is dead, that doesn't mean investigators don't want to get to the truth of what exactly happened on the night of Decemeber 25th and the early morning hours of Decemeber 26th. It certainly isn't a "case closed"... it is more of a cold case.
People still want answers- JonBenet deserves the truth to be known, iregardless of wether any justice can come of it, or not.
Wouldn't any of us want the same thing?
Look, I hope I'm wrong. I would not be upset about it... I would actually be quite thrilled to learn that those two parents had nothing to do with the crime of cover-up against their beloved baby girl.
Can you say the same?
The GJ indicted John and Patsy Ramsey- to this day (thanks in part to the inaction of AH) we still don't know who did what. We may have actually learned, had there been a trial, maybe not. We will never know now.
The police asked to have an interview with Burke- why... because they still want and need answers. Patsy is dead, that doesn't mean investigators don't want to get to the truth of what exactly happened on the night of Decemeber 25th and the early morning hours of Decemeber 26th. It certainly isn't a "case closed"... it is more of a cold case.
People still want answers- JonBenet deserves the truth to be known, iregardless of wether any justice can come of it, or not.
Wouldn't any of us want the same thing?
Look, I hope I'm wrong. I would not be upset about it... I would actually be quite thrilled to learn that those two parents had nothing to do with the crime of cover-up against their beloved baby girl.
Can you say the same?
Blue Bottle 01
Former Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2013
- Messages
- 551
- Reaction score
- 13
John found the body around 11 am.
He had nothing to do with any of it.
IMO.
He had nothing to do with any of it.
IMO.
Linda7NJ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 32,112
- Reaction score
- 8,288
I disagree.
I'm not saying the powers that be should name him, legally they can not.
I'm saying an investigative reporter should.
Burke was in therapy for years afterward.
Failure to protect is a misdemeanor.
All IMO
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 195
I already answered this point here:
Do you know how much was spent last year "investigating" this? It should be public record and available.
Actually, he was. The proceedings are required by law to be kept secret. And if that weren't enough, Hunter himself reminded everyone at his news conference that anyone who spoke about it would be prosecuted by his office.
And how do you know that? How do any of us know what Hunter would have, or would not have, had a problem with? It seemed like Hunter simply couldn't wait to finish out his term and retire. We don't know, but most people seem to think Hunter wasn't really up to the task of trying to face the Ramsey Dream Team of Lawyers (some of whom had even contributed to his re-election campaign) in court.
I totally agree with you. Which is why I think John Ramsey will be charged with murder. The Statute of Limitations has long expired on the child abuse indictment.
JMO
Linda7NJ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 32,112
- Reaction score
- 8,288
If Burke killed his sister, it wasn't legally murder.
If it wasn't legally a murder committed the Ramsey's didn't cover up a murder.
They interfered with a police investigation. Failure to protect. Not exactly crimes that require even jail time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If it wasn't legally a murder committed the Ramsey's didn't cover up a murder.
They interfered with a police investigation. Failure to protect. Not exactly crimes that require even jail time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know it because the current DA has said he wants to prosecute the case. He has said there is evidence. Members of the grand jury saw real evidence.
The Ramsey dream team of lawyers could have demanded separate trials and made the prosecution very difficult because of the "cross finger-pointing" defense that you claim doesn't exist.
JMO
Investigative reporters have an ethical duty not to name a suspect unless law enforcement has done so.
DA Lacy did "clear" Burke as a suspect in 2008. That unidentified DNA evidence isn't going away.
bettybaby00
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 11
Kolar argues that the Rs brought up BRs pysch record on their own, thereby opening the "island of privacy," but ML cried," NOOOOOOO they're my friends."
&&There's an often-used thing call a subpoena :banghead:
:jail:
She and AH should be investigated IMO.
ScarlettScarpetta
When the going gets tough, drink coffee
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2012
- Messages
- 12,690
- Reaction score
- 175
Absolutely you can. He is old enough to be suspected. He is old enough to be found to be the killer. He us just not old enough to be charged. There is a difference. If it was Burke we would know. It's no just Lacy. Burke had always been cleared.
Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.
ScarlettScarpetta
When the going gets tough, drink coffee
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2012
- Messages
- 12,690
- Reaction score
- 175
Really where is his proof? Things like that don't ring true.
Farfignewton.
Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.
It only needs to be said once and she knew it. Anybody who publicly accuses Burke now will need some kind of basis in the form of evidence he was involved. I've yet to see any actual evidence he was involved or responsible.
JMO
- Status