Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramsey’s death

[BBB167893]

Just want to clarify nothing I say is legal advice and I have no special expertise in Colorado law etc. But I don't think there is any recourse. The "ham sandwich" comment doesn't necessarily mean people think they abused their power or did it intentionally - this isn't a conviction, so the idea is if they are wrong, the investigation or prosecution will fail. It's just a comment that people in general tend to think "where there's smoke, there's fire", and the nature of the proceeding is pretty one-sided, so it makes sense people will go along with what the police present. There's a system of, I guess, checks and balances in place that are considered the way to address it. If the GJ is corrupt, the prosecutor, judge, trial jury, appellate court, or some other entity will hopefully correct it.

But, what if the prosecutor, judge, etc. is corrupt? Who corrects them?

The reason I ask is because I get the feeling that the GJ finally spoke out of conscience.

 

[inspector rex]

But, what if the prosecutor, judge, etc. is corrupt? Who corrects them?

The reason I ask is because I get the feeling that the GJ finally spoke out of conscience.

Weren't you one of the voices who said the GJ was corrupted when you believed they didn't return a true bill?

 

[BBB167893]

Weren't you one of the voices who said the GJ was corrupted when you believed they didn't return a true bill?

What I said was that Alex Hunter never wanted them to return a true bill and did not intend to go through with one if they did.

Like Detective Pinkie said so eloquently, It is easy to say there wasn't enough evidence when you are the one hampering the gathering of it.

 

[tovarisch]

Just want to clarify nothing I say is legal advice and I have no special expertise in Colorado law etc. But I don't think there is any recourse. The "ham sandwich" comment doesn't necessarily mean people think they abused their power or did it intentionally - this isn't a conviction, so the idea is if they are wrong, the investigation or prosecution will fail. It's just a comment that people in general tend to think "where there's smoke, there's fire", and the nature of the proceeding is pretty one-sided, so it makes sense people will go along with what the police present. There's a system of, I guess, checks and balances in place that are considered the way to address it. If the GJ is corrupt, the prosecutor, judge, trial jury, appellate court, or some other entity will hopefully correct it.

Thank you. Easier to breath. At least there is a hope of some control over non professional, randomly selected common people, who are allowed to the lowest threshold of prove, who unanimously and secretly handle someone`s life and death. There is no need to have been corrupted, it`s scary enough without corruption. Unprofessional, uneducated bureaucrats is the evil on earth, IMO.

 

[inspector rex]

What I said was that Alex Hunter never wanted them to return a true bill and did not intend to go through with one if they did.

Like Detective Pinkie said so eloquently, It is easy to say there wasn't enough evidence when you are the one hampering the gathering of it.

Lets just remind me what specifically he hampered in the "gathering of"and see if we can assess how critical that might have been?

 

[lawstudent]

There is no need to have been corrupted, it`s scary enough without corruption.

Certainly true, and hits close to home. I am not actually working as an attorney right now, but in a similar field in a bureaucracy. For all the ire attorneys get, at least they tend to be halfway informed about how things function and how to win. There's nothing scarier than people who have no idea what they are doing making decisions, well-intentioned or not. And then doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

And I am very aware that some balances are "dishonest", or at least that they are certainly imperfect. Unfortunately there is no perfect system. I definitely am one for finding out the truth and being suspicious of anything that does not look right - it's rare anyone has the authority to do much about it, though, unfortunately, and it's hard to come up with a better system than the flawed one we have IMO. But I am definitely aware. In fact, one of the things that recently came up in my bureaucracy that was driving me crazy was those around me kept asking "what happens if quality control doesn't do what it is supposed to do? who is watching them?" They were very worked up, but I mean, the buck has to stop somewhere. It doesn't go all the way to God. We can only have so many checks in place. If every one of them comes to the wrong answer, hopefully that is rare but it is unavoidable. If every one of them is corrupt, then I'd say it's likely we the public did something wrong if that's the government culture.

And in this type of case, the checks/balances thing doesn't really go both ways. Had an erroneous indictment been brought, hopefully at some point they would have been exonerated. Where charges that may have been warranted were not brought, there's not much of a check/balance. That is discretionary for a reason. The system guarantees people certain rights if they are going to be criminally charged. There is no right to having a case prosecuted. That's kind of the antithesis of our legal system - the burden is on the state for a reason. A prosecutor can be morally wrong, but not overruled on a discretionary matter.

 

[tovarisch]

Certainly true, and hits close to home. I am not actually working as an attorney right now, but in a similar field in a bureaucracy. For all the ire attorneys get, at least they tend to be halfway informed about how things function and how to win. There's nothing scarier than people who have no idea what they are doing making decisions, well-intentioned or not. And then doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

And I am very aware that some balances are "dishonest", or at least that they are certainly imperfect. Unfortunately there is no perfect system. I definitely am one for finding out the truth and being suspicious of anything that does not look right - it's rare anyone has the authority to do much about it, though, unfortunately, and it's hard to come up with a better system than the flawed one we have IMO. But I am definitely aware. In fact, one of the things that recently came up in my bureaucracy that was driving me crazy was those around me kept asking "what happens if quality control doesn't do what it is supposed to do? who is watching them?" They were very worked up, but I mean, the buck has to stop somewhere. It doesn't go all the way to God. We can only have so many checks in place. If every one of them comes to the wrong answer, hopefully that is rare but it is unavoidable. If every one of them is corrupt, then I'd say it's likely we the public did something wrong if that's the government culture.

And in this type of case, the checks/balances thing doesn't really go both ways. Had an erroneous indictment been brought, hopefully at some point they would have been exonerated. Where charges that may have been warranted were not brought, there's not much of a check/balance. That is discretionary for a reason. The system guarantees people certain rights if they are going to be criminally charged. There is no right to having a case prosecuted. That's kind of the antithesis of our legal system - the burden is on the state for a reason. A prosecutor can be morally wrong, but not overruled on a discretionary matter.

Agree with you that everyone on the ladder of justice has to be top professional and moral person, this way system will work like a good clock.
Moral means you have all evidence to charge. Immoral means without sufficient evidence charge and sent people to trial, hoping that the top guys will check and correct you is something you started was wrong. it`s greatly immoral if you know you cannot be prosecuted for your wrongdoing.

DA had no sufficient evidence to charge Ramsey. Having the same insufficient evidence to charge them with homicide, the JG somehow came to the conclusion to charge Ramsey as accessory. We don`t know accessory to who, but we may deduct down. What an unexpected twist for DA. Now, was it enough evidence for accessory charge, which IMO even worth, it drags an innocent child in to the grounding machine. AH did not think it was sufficient, IMO. He made a moral thing- did not sign the indictment. The system check/balances worked this time.
I understand that there is no smock without fire. Then go back to the woods, find the source and show it to the world. Show it !! or shut up, Patsy said once.

 

[MissHaley]

Thanks for going to all that trouble.

Jonbenet's case is truly staggering in so many ways, not least because of the political shenanigans that went on.

The only solution is for the good people of Colorado/America to persist in asking for an official and unbiased inquiry into the entire mess.

Jonbenet has been let down by everyone, at every level.

eta: I sometimes think WS is the only place that still cares.

BBM-
This really does sum up my feelings.
Of the many things about this that really sums up JonBenet was 'let down by everyone' is how it continued.
My thing is - the GJ DID submit a true bill. By the DA not signing it & then leading everyone to think it the GJ did not indict! Leading people to think, well, that's it, over.
Then to find out almost a decade later that the GJ did return a true bill!
Really? What a shame!
What made him not want to disclose that?
Too much covering up, IMO

 

[tovarisch]

BBM-
This really does sum up my feelings.
Of the many things about this that really sums up JonBenet was 'let down by everyone' is how it continued.
My thing is - the GJ DID submit a true bill. By the DA not signing it & then leading everyone to think it the GJ did not indict! Leading people to think, well, that's it, over.
Then to find out almost a decade later that the GJ did return a true bill!
Really? What a shame!
What made him not want to disclose that?
Too much covering up, IMO

I answer how I see it and its IMO. What made him not want to disclose it---- ABSURDITY of the charge--- accessory to the killer, knowingly and willingly. While the killer construct and applied the garrote, they watched??. What could be more ABSURD than this?

 

[OliviaG1996]

I answer how I see it and its IMO. What made him not want to disclose it---- ABSURDITY of the charge--- accessory to the killer, knowingly and willingly. While the killer construct and applied the garrote, they watched??. What could be more ABSURD than this?

BBM: An intruder with no obvious motive. JMO.

By the way, who said the accessories watched the murderer construct/apply the garrote?

 

[tovarisch]

BBM: An intruder with no obvious motive. JMO.

By the way, who said the accessories watched the murderer construct/apply the garrote?

Hi, Olivia.
Without additional research, bc it`s obvious to even me, lay person, and just applying a little logic of mine, I believe:

Whoever caused JB`s death is the killer, meaning death by the garrote in this case.


Whoever had not cause the death by the garrote is not the killer, but could have been an accessory to the killer if he had been there, HAD BEEN AWARE of it and HAD NOT STOPPED it.

Whoever slept all time nearby the crime , and had no knowledge that killing was taking place, NEITHER the killer NOR the accessory.

 

[questfortrue]

BBM: An intruder with no obvious motive. JMO.

By the way, who said the accessories watched the murderer construct/apply the garrote?

RBBM

:lol:

Does the 'foreign faction' :scared: qualify for ridiculoso?

 

[OliviaG1996]

Hi, Olivia.
Without additional research, bc it`s obvious to even me, lay person, and just applying a little logic of mine, I believe:

Whoever caused JB`s death is the killer, meaning death by the garrote in this case.


Whoever had not cause the death by the garrote is not the killer, but could have been an accessory to the killer if he had been there, HAD BEEN AWARE of it and HAD NOT STOPPED it.

Whoever slept all time nearby the crime , and had no knowledge that killing was taking place, NEITHER the killer NOR the accessory.

Accessories to a crime are very different from accomplices. otg's post on the first page of this thread gives very important information about this from a friend of his who is an attorney (post can be found here. Thank you, otg.).

<SNIPPED>

But the GJ did not charge John and Patsy as accomplices to the actual killing. They are charged instead as accessories after the fact. (In Colorado this crime is called simply Accessory to Crime; the statute is CRS 18-8-105; you will see that its language matches the language of those counts of the indictment.) This is different from complicity, and carries different (and milder) penalties from the principal's crime. Being an accessory after the fact requires helping the principal criminal escape, or hide, or evade prosecution&#8212; things that happen after the crime is committed.

<SNIPPED>

Note that the passage states, "After the fact," and not, "Before/during the murder,".

 

[tovarisch]

Accessories to a crime are very different from accomplices. otg's post on the first page of this thread gives very important information about this from a friend of his who is an attorney (post can be found here. Thank you, otg.).



Note that the passage states, "After the fact," and not, "Before/during the murder,".

I`ve re-read the True Bill just now. You know what is different? The real wording of True Bill, and the "passages" that you, otg and otg`s attorney are providing here .

If you want to continue discussion please read real wordings, two indictments. The first indictment said they were bad parents.
Second one. Pay attention in the second indictment to the words " knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime... " WAS SUSPECTED ... What month, what year, what suspect had been in place, when Ramsey, knowing he WAS Suspected, assisted him? What point of time ? Not right after the crime, when there was no suspect yet and possibly before 911 call, that you, otg and attorney want to present that it was that what GJ was saying. NO. GJ was saying they assisted person who WAS SUSPECTED. That`s what I call absurd and it`s IMO.

 

[OliviaG1996]

I`ve re-read the True Bill just now. You know what is different? The real wording of True Bill, and the "passages" that you, otg and otg`s attorney are providing here .

If you want to continue discussion please read real wordings, two indictments. The first indictment said they were bad parents.
Second one. Pay attention in the second indictment to the words " knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime... " WAS SUSPECTED ... What month, what year, what suspect had been in place, when Ramsey, knowing he WAS Suspected, assisted him? What point of time ? Not right after the crime, when there was no suspect yet and possibly before 911 call, that you, otg and attorney want to present that it was that what GJ was saying. NO. GJ was saying they assisted person who WAS SUSPECTED. That`s what I call absurd and it`s IMO.

So, you believe Burke was never a suspect? Why would someone who was in the same house as the murder while the murder was occurring not be a suspect? He was almost ten, not a baby by any means. JMO.

 

[LadyTudorRose]

So, you believe Burke was never a suspect? Why would someone who was in the same house as the murder while the murder was occurring not be a suspect? He was almost ten, not a baby by any means. JMO.

I think you're right on the money; he was in the house therefor at the very least he was considered as a possibility. IIRC none of the Ramseys were officially suspects. The term used was 'umbrella of suspicion' and IMHO it's not unusual for none of the people who were involved in a crime to be referred to as suspects until they're brought into custody.

Also it's been said in this thread that publicly naming BR as a suspect would be illegal.


This thread has really made me reconsider BDI, and I think those charges would fit exactly with a scenario where BR killed JB and PR and JR covered it up and staged the scene. That doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened. It could just be the GJ didn't feel there was evidence either parent committed the crime but was plentiful evidence they knew who did and helped cover it up. Sane people from loving, healthy families (who aren't interested in true crime) would naturally be hesitant to believe any parent would do something like this to their child. It might be easier for them to believe BR did it accidentally or because of a severe mental illness or because Marilyn Manson and violent video games made him and that his parents did everything they could, even degrading the body of their daughter, to protect him.

I guess I just think all of them are capable of murder and/or being complicit of murder because none of them have given me a reason to think better of them. If anyone is going to get a pass I think it should be BR because he was a child and his parents were adults. Even if he was capable of doing it (and the Jamie Bulger case is what convinced me he was) the parents were responsible for both of those kids. And while I believe a loving parent could, if necessary stage a crime and even hide the body of their child to protect their other child, the sexual aspect of the staging makes me believe that any parent who is capable of staging their child's body in such a way and inflicting such harm post-mortem is definitely morally bankrupt enough to have killed that child themselves.

I'm not saying I'm dismissive of BDI because as I said this thread and others have made a really good case for it, but I guess I'm just saying I wouldn't believe anything the Ramseys or their lawyers say and I don't think they're above killing JB. And I also don't think they're above hinting at or implying BDI if they believed it would prevent anyone being prosecuted.

 

[tovarisch]

So, you believe Burke was never a suspect? Why would someone who was in the same house as the murder while the murder was occurring not be a suspect? He was almost ten, not a baby by any means. JMO.

Physical evidence of the crime. Just 2 of them is enough for me:

the blow that could kill 300 lbs. man;

the cord of the garrote was applied with such a strength than it was (the cord) twice less than the throat; she was almost beheaded.

measure it to a 9 y.old.

 

[OliviaG1996]

I think you're right on the money; he was in the house therefor at the very least he was considered as a possibility. IIRC none of the Ramseys were officially suspects. The term used was 'umbrella of suspicion' and IMHO it's not unusual for none of the people who were involved in a crime to be referred to as suspects until they're brought into custody.

Also it's been said in this thread that publicly naming BR as a suspect would be illegal.


This thread has really made me reconsider BDI, and I think those charges would fit exactly with a scenario where BR killed JB and PR and JR covered it up and staged the scene. That doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened. It could just be the GJ didn't feel there was evidence either parent committed the crime but was plentiful evidence they knew who did and helped cover it up. Sane people from loving, healthy families (who aren't interested in true crime) would naturally be hesitant to believe any parent would do something like this to their child. It might be easier for them to believe BR did it accidentally or because of a severe mental illness or because Marilyn Manson and violent video games made him and that his parents did everything they could, even degrading the body of their daughter, to protect him.

I guess I just think all of them are capable of murder and/or being complicit of murder because none of them have given me a reason to think better of them. If anyone is going to get a pass I think it should be BR because he was a child and his parents were adults. Even if he was capable of doing it (and the Jamie Bulger case is what convinced me he was) the parents were responsible for both of those kids. And while I believe a loving parent could, if necessary stage a crime and even hide the body of their child to protect their other child, the sexual aspect of the staging makes me believe that any parent who is capable of staging their child's body in such a way and inflicting such harm post-mortem is definitely morally bankrupt enough to have killed that child themselves.

I'm not saying I'm dismissive of BDI because as I said this thread and others have made a really good case for it, but I guess I'm just saying I wouldn't believe anything the Ramseys or their lawyers say and I don't think they're above killing JB. And I also don't think they're above hinting at or implying BDI if they believed it would prevent anyone being prosecuted.

Very well said, LadyTudorRose (I love that screen-name!). I agree, the James Bulger case was a big factor of mine that confirmed my belief that children were capable of such a crime, although I believe the two demons (excuse my bluntness) that murdered that poor little boy were different than BR. I really believe the head blow, although intentional, was not meant to kill JBR. I'm still a bit hesitant to believe BR was the user of the garrote, also.

Which leads me to a question for everyone (which may have already been answered):

Is it possible, if the GJ believed it was one/both of the parents who used the "garotte" on JBR (not knowing she was still alive), to still come up with the same charges of Accessory to Crime, even though the strangulation is technically what killed her? I see the strangulation with cord more as an attempt to cover up what had happened (the head bash and possible first strangulation) instead of an attempt to actually murder JBR, so if it's possible, I believe the GJ was thinking the same way. JMO.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Physical evidence of the crime. Just 2 of them is enough for me:

the blow that could kill 300 lbs. man;

I don't know about that one. I would say a little girl's skull is weaker than a grown man's, how did you determine that?

the cord of the garrote was applied with such a strength than it was (the cord) twice less than the throat; she was almost beheaded.

measure it to a 9 y.old.

If the "foreign faction" wanted to behead JBR, don't you think they would have?

 

[tovarisch]

I don't know about that one. I would say a little girl's skull is weaker than a grown man's, how did you determine that?


If the "foreign faction" wanted to behead JBR, don't you think they would have?

300 lbs man was determined by the expert, it`s a known fact, I do not remember name. Expert on the head injuries, yes.
The horror of the cord twice less than the throat was told to the world by det. Arndt (spelling?)

Olivia, JB was almost beheaded (according to Arndt) with the cord. Yes, they had almost done what they had promised in the note. What stopped them to completely severe the head? Don`t you have an idea? The blood, Olivia, that would get on their clothing.


Concerning foreign faction. They said they were or so they thought. For me it`s only symbol . They could be foreign, they could be local, they could be dear friend, or friend of friend of friend, or ... who knows. When somebody`s ridicules it, somebody ridicules ransom note writer, it does not affect me.
When someone lol-ing terrorism as possibility of existence in this ( or any) country, I look with the sorrow at this short memory individual. It`s not you.