Boulder Grand Jury Voted To Indict-Boulder Dailey Camera

[Darlene733510]

How can we keep the faith in our legal profession, when JB's murder has been swept under the rug, while there are people without a conscience who do nothing to help solve this case. Some of these people have children, and I wonder if they ever thought about what would have happened if JB had been there child.
Here, in FL, we have Casey Anthony given her freedom by the jury. I watched her case, and the day of the verdict, I could hardly believe their decision.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Okay, just to clarify...the R's were going to be charged with child abuse leading to murder, right? So Hunter didn't bother going for manslaughter or 2nd degree murder? And what about other charges? There was only going to be one count? And would there be two separate trials--one for Patsy and one for John? Could they have run at the same time?

 

[midwest mama]

Clarification: Child Abuse Resulting in Death, different outcome than Child Abuse Leading to Death, IMHO.

J and P were the abuse perpetrators that resulted in JB's death. And, the indictment only had to be based on Probable Cause.

AH could have brought a myriad of charges, yes, since the indictment then would have opened up all avenues of investigation - unsealing sealed records, additional necessary FBI involvement, and the list goes on. AH was more interested in the security of his retirement not being rocked, and did not have the fortitude to do what he should have done. Or the humility he would have needed to ask for another team of prosecutors to handle the case.

As Wendy Murphy pointed out in her book, the availability of cross-fingerpointing as a defense would have been a challenge. But it did not end up working for the Midyettes. Eventually one of them caved. And that might have been the case with the Ramseys, too, especially if there would have been the possibility of permanent custody loss of Burke, who they were fighting so diligently to keep out of the hands of social services.

 

[otg]

I don't know if this little tidbit slipped by others (it did me) without much notice or thought, because a lot was going on at the time. I ran across this quote by one of the jurors who started talking after news of the GJ indictment came out, and wondered if anyone had posted it, so I did a search and found it [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8772644#post8772644"]here[/ame]. It appears no one commented on it after it was posted by eileenhawkeye. But I think the exact wording of the quote is very telling as to why the GJ voted the way they did. The quote was not included in the original article on The Daily Camera, but was updated later on its online article.

Here's what one of the Grand Jurors was quoted 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."
​

After looking at evidence we have never seen, the GJ couldn't come up with a homicide charge against anyone. Ask yourself, why not? And how could it be that they, "the adults in the house", could have helped her, but didn't? If either one of "the adults in the house" had murdered her, why would that person want to help her? How could they, "the adults in the house", be in a situation that their act of omission allowed her death to happen -- but yet they couldn't be charged with some form of homicide?

 

[UKGuy]

I don't know if this little tidbit slipped by others (it did me) without much notice or thought, because a lot was going on at the time. I ran across this quote by one of the jurors who started talking after news of the GJ indictment came out, and wondered if anyone had posted it, so I did a search and found it here. It appears no one commented on it after it was posted by eileenhawkeye. But I think the exact wording of the quote is very telling as to why the GJ voted the way they did. The quote was not included in the original article on The Daily Camera, but was updated later on its online article.

Here's what one of the Grand Jurors was quoted 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."
​

After looking at evidence we have never seen, the GJ couldn't come up with a homicide charge against anyone. Ask yourself, why not? And how could it be that they, "the adults in the house", could have helped her, but didn't? If either one of "the adults in the house" had murdered her, why would that person want to help her? How could they, "the adults in the house", be in a situation that their act of omission allowed her death to happen -- but yet they couldn't be charged with some form of homicide?

otg,
That sounds very much like its BDI. We all know the parents could have dialled for medical assistance, even privately, but they never!

The evidence was likely massaged to produce the opinion cited. It looks like an institutional cover up, but there is no smoking gun.



.

 

[questfortrue]

Discussion of whether the verdict of the grand jury decision was a compromised decision: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_22446411/ramsey-grand-jury-legal-analysis

 

[UKGuy]

Discussion of whether the verdict of the grand jury decision was a compromised decision: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_22446411/ramsey-grand-jury-legal-analysis

questfortrue,
Interesting read. So indicting the parents was a compromise. Thats sounds like We do not think the parents killed JonBenet, but they also never helped, i.e. by calling for medical assistance

Did coroner Meyer offer his opinion? I often wonder what weight he would attach to JonBenet's ligature asphyxiation?

Nearly everyone and their dog reckons this is when JonBenet was killed.


Seems like everyone in this case has compromised including the investigators.


.

 

[Tugela]

Yes, it does. Considering the indictment was "child abuse resulting in death." To me, it says what many people have thought all along, that BR killed JB, and JR and PR covered the crime up. IOW, one or both discovered her and neither got help, instead they chose to cover their collective behinds.

JMO, IMO, :moo: , and all other disclaimers.

According to that report, one of the jurors had this to say:

"We didn't know who did what," one juror told the Camera, "but we felt the adults in the house may have done something that they certainly could have prevented, or they could have helped her, and they didn't."

In other words they thought something had happened but didn't know what or who did it. They didn't actually make a decision, rather they had had enough of being on a GJ for all that time and passed the buck on to the prosecutor.

A responsible DA can't take a case to trial in that sort of situation. Those sorts of cases have a high probability of guilty walking free on insufficient evidence or an innocent person being convicted. Some DA's don't care about guilt or innocence and have the attitude of convict them all and let god sort them out. Most DAs however respect justice and will do the right thing based on the evidence they have to go to trial with. If it is compelling they will proceed, if it is not they won't.

 

[questfortrue]

The view of Dan Recht, a Denver criminal defense lawyer and legal analyst. "JonBenet Ramsey was killed intentionally. That seems clear. The way that she was tied up, the way that she was manipulated physically, everyone would agree that she was intentionally killed.” Even if BR responsible for head strike, did the GJ feel they couldn’t prove one of the parents was responsible for the ligature?

Final statement by Recht: “this is a case that was watched by the whole country. And this new information (of the gj indictment) gives the country, the community, some insight into how the criminal justice system works. And that's helpful, and that's what, in essence, the First Amendment is about, which is to let the citizens, let the community understand how our government works, how the criminal justice system works" . . . yeah, if you have money and friends in power positions. (my cynical view alone though I suspect others here agree.) moo

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Whenever I hear about a high-profile trial, I always wonder what it would be like if the Ramseys went on trial. I suppose...there would be two separate trials, right? One for Patsy and one for John? The GJ indicted them for child abuse resulting in death, but those charges could have been charged by the prosecution, right?

 

[WhereAreTheyNow]

Didn't some people speculate that the Grand Jury ruled that Burke was responsible--but since he was under age 10, he couldn't be prosecuted or even named? So I guess this clears that up.

Could he be charged with perjury committed when he was 12?

I am confused why Kolar said this during his 2006 presentation:

"I pointed out that Ramsey attorneys had effectively withheld medical records from the prosecution during the investigation, and I specifically referred to John Ramsey’s interview of June 1998. 51 I felt , that given the above information, we should be revisiting and intensifying our investigation of the involvement of the family . Among other things, we should be seeking the psychiatric records of Burke to determine if he had had any knowledge of the death of his sister, either through a grand jury or by asking the Ramseys for the information."

Kolar, A. James (2012-06-14). Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Locations 3622-3626). Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition.

Yet he lists BR as being on the list of persons that testified in 1999.

 

[DeeDee249]

Could he be charged with perjury committed when he was 12?

I am confused why Kolar said this during his 2006 presentation:

"I pointed out that Ramsey attorneys had effectively withheld medical records from the prosecution during the investigation, and I specifically referred to John Ramsey’s interview of June 1998. 51 I felt , that given the above information, we should be revisiting and intensifying our investigation of the involvement of the family . Among other things, we should be seeking the psychiatric records of Burke to determine if he had had any knowledge of the death of his sister, either through a grand jury or by asking the Ramseys for the information."

Kolar, A. James (2012-06-14). Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Locations 3622-3626). Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition.

Yet he lists BR as being on the list of persons that testified in 1999.

BR cannot be charged with ANYTHING relating to this crime, regardless when his comments were made. This is all based on his age AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME and not subsequently.

 

[WhereAreTheyNow]

BR cannot be charged with ANYTHING relating to this crime, regardless when his comments were made. This is all based on his age AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME and not subsequently.

Please revisit your response. Perjury can certainly be a crime regardless of the timing of the subject matter. Would you like me to find the code section?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Is it really true that they could never even hint that Burke was involved? I have seen many cases in the media where a very young child is said to have killed someone. A recent example is the 4-year-old in NJ who shot his friend, and the other little boy who shot his father. Their names weren't released, but there were still media reports about what happened.

I've also heard it said that the R's couldn't be charged with anything if Burke did it because that would be revealing to the public what BR did. So if some adult told a little kid to shoot someone, and the kid obeyed, the adult wouldn't be charged?

 

[Chrishope]

Is it really true that they could never even hint that Burke was involved? I have seen many cases in the media where a very young child is said to have killed someone. A recent example is the 4-year-old in NJ who shot his friend, and the other little boy who shot his father. Their names weren't released, but there were still media reports about what happened.

I've also heard it said that the R's couldn't be charged with anything if Burke did it because that would be revealing to the public what BR did. So if some adult told a little kid to shoot someone, and the kid obeyed, the adult wouldn't be charged?

Thank you. I've asked about the same thing and no one here seems to know the statute number. I strongly suspect that they could be charged with other crimes, it's just that no public statement would be made about BR's involvement, if any. Unfortunately I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

 

[WhereAreTheyNow]

§ 18-8-502. Perjury in the first degree

(1) A person commits perjury in the first degree if in any official proceeding he knowingly makes a materially false statement, which he does not believe to be true, under an oath required or authorized by law.

(2) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of this crime, and the defendant's mistaken belief that his statement was not material is not a defense, although it may be considered by the court in imposing sentence.

(3) Perjury in the first degree is a class 4 felony.

§ 18-1-801. Insufficient age

The responsibility of a person for his conduct is the same for persons between the ages of ten and eighteen as it is for persons over eighteen except to the extent that responsibility is modified by the provisions of the "Colorado Children's Code", title 19, C.R.S. No child under ten years of age shall be found guilty of any offense.

Colorado Children's Code:
http://www.denbar.org/docs/Introduction to Juvenile Law.pdf?ID=124

 

[WhereAreTheyNow]

Is it really true that they could never even hint that Burke was involved? I have seen many cases in the media where a very young child is said to have killed someone. A recent example is the 4-year-old in NJ who shot his friend, and the other little boy who shot his father. Their names weren't released, but there were still media reports about what happened.

I've also heard it said that the R's couldn't be charged with anything if Burke did it because that would be revealing to the public what BR did. So if some adult told a little kid to shoot someone, and the kid obeyed, the adult wouldn't be charged?

In this case, Team Ramsey went after anyone that suggested that BR was involved - in civil court.

Colorado Law clearly states that no person under the age of 10 can be charged with any offense. But that doesn't keep LE (including a grand jury) from fully investigating and determining if a person under 10 is/was responsible for a crime.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Okay, so a 9-year-old could not be charged with anything. But could the media still report: "A 9-year-old boy killed his 6-year-old sister in Boulder, Colorado...?" I have seen cases in the past where a very young child killed someone, and it was publicized in the media. It seems odd to me that Colorado law would be so different from other states, such as NJ, Arizona, California, and Michigan, all states where children younger than 9 have killed someone and had their cases be publicized in the national media.

 

[WhereAreTheyNow]

Okay, so a 9-year-old could not be charged with anything. But could the media still report: "A 9-year-old boy killed his 6-year-old sister in Boulder, Colorado...?" I have seen cases in the past where a very young child killed someone, and it was publicized in the media. It seems odd to me that Colorado law would be so different from other states, such as NJ, Arizona, California, and Michigan, all states where children younger than 9 have killed someone and had their cases be publicized in the national media.

I can't find a statute that limits the media's right to discuss minors. Of course, this is a matter of public record (see #7):

AFFIDAVIT of ALEXANDER HUNTER - October 12th, 2000

State of Colorado
County of Colorado

Personally appeared before the undersigned officer duly authorized by law to administer oaths, ALEXANDER M. HUNTER, who being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

1. My name is Alexander M. Hunter. I am over 21 years of age and I am cmpetant to make and give this Affidavit, and do so from personal knowledge.

2. I am an attorney duly licensed in the State of Colorado. Since January 9th, 1973, I have been the elected District Attorney for the 20th Judicial District, County of Boulder, State of Colorado.

3. On or about December 26th, 1996, JonBenét Ramsey, a six year old minor child, was murdered in her home in Boulder, Colorado.

4. Since the date of her death, I have been continuously involved in the investigation of JonBenét's homicide.

5. As part of the investigation into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, questions about any possible involvement by her brother, Burke Ramsey, who was 9 years of age at the time of his sister's murder and who was one of the individuals present in the house at the time of her murder, were raised and investigated as part of standard investigative practices and procedures.

6. From December 26th, 1996, to the date of this affidavit, no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from that of witness to suspect.

7. In May of 1999, I was made aware that tabloid newspapers had indicated that Burke Ramsey was a suspect in the murder of JonBenét Ramsey or was believed to be her killer. As a result of these articles, I was contacted by media representatives and I instructed my office to release a press statement which publicly and officially stated that Burke Ramsey was not a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister and that stated in part, "...almost a year ago (Boulder) Police Chief Mark Beckner stated during a news conference that Burke (Ramsey) was not a suspect and that we are not looking at him as a possible suspect." The information in the May 1999 press release was true and correct.

8. From December 26th, 1996, to the present date, I have never engaged n plea bargain negotiations, talks or discussions with anyone in connection with the investigation into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey based in whole or in part on the premise that Burke Ramsey killed his sister. From December 26th, 1996, to the present date, no member of my office has ever engaged in plea bargain negotiations, talks or discussions with anyone in connection with the investigation into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey based in whole or in part on the premise that Burke Ramsey killed his sister.

9. I am aware that this Affidavit may be used by counsel for Burke ramsey in connection with libel litigation brought on his behalf in various jurisdictions.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT
This 12th day of October, 2000

signed by Alexander M. Hunter
notarized by Susan Ingraham

 

[questfortrue]

Typically juveniles’ names are not mentioned in newspapers, though they can be attributed namelessly in discussion of a crime. Such as, a 7 year old kills another 7 year old with a golf club. It happened in Michigan - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,418904,00.html

A Denver defense attorney stated once that the parents of JB could have been tried for accessory to murder after the fact, if BDI. In fact Kolar also notes that ‘anyone’ in the home (guessing excluding BR) could have been charged as an accessory.

MK, the prosecuting attorney responsible for the presentation to the grand jury, was like AH very protective of mentioning BR’s name in the media. At one point, after the ending of the grand jury, he made a comment that BR was not a suspect. He also commented that he thought that PR was involved in the cover-up. Those are the only 2 people he mentioned. Deliberate omission of JR’s name? It struck me that way.