Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramsey’s death

[OliviaG1996]

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?)

Until I read what the expert had to say on the 300 lb. man matter, I can't really form an accurate opinion on that statement other than the fact that I don't think it's true. And, yes, you've spelled Arndt correctly.

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.

But, don't most IDI believe the intruder/intruders were comfortably sitting in the Ramsey home for 3+ hours writing the ransom note with a pen and paper from the home, scoping the place out, making them-self/themselves at home? Besides, what's blood on their shirt going to hurt if they're wearing coats? It was cold outside.

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.

No one is laughing about terrorism being a possibility in this country or any other. Everyone knows terrorism is disgusting (I would surely hope). It's the ridiculousness, in my opinion, of the idea that a terrorist group, or, a "foreign faction", would target one single family instead of a huge organization/group of people. If their problem was with Access Graphics, why didn't they just blow the whole business up?

 

[Anti-K]

BBM: An intruder with no obvious motive. JMO.

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

Another way of phrasing this could be “an unknown person with an unknown motive.”

Incidentally, even with RDI there is no obvious motive.
....

AK

 

[OliviaG1996]

Another way of phrasing this could be “an unknown person with an unknown motive.”

An "intruder with no obvious motive" would be more absurd/unlikely than an "unknown person with an unknown motive”, in my opinion. An intruder does not live in the home whereas an unknown person very well might.

Incidentally, even with RDI there is no obvious motive.

Very true, but there are more likely ones, in my opinion.

 

[LadyTudorRose]

Motive is strange, but in a case like this I believe whether RDI or IDI there isn't a real motive because this wasn't a planned murder.

I think this crime was the act of a sick, depraved individual who was harming JB because of sadism or sexual perversion or perhaps just good-old-fashioned rage and reached a point of no-return; her injuries were so severe it could no longer be covered up or explained away. Once this occurred, there was a realization that medical attention could not be sought without exposing this sick individual for what they were and that without medical attention JB would not fully recover. Therefor a split-second decision was made to end her life before she could die of her injuries or linger on in pain.

The killer didn't want to do it; whether you think it was a family member who cared for JB in a twisted way or an intruder who simply wanted to kidnap her and exploit her sexually and/or financially. At the very least her death meant an end to their twisted games.

All of that is JMO but I guess my interpretation of the facts is part of the reason I am less inclined towards BDI.

 

[lawstudent]

When I think about the accessory charge again, I guess I could see how if a minor was involved, a GJ could still feel the charge was warranted. Since it is a crime largely about mindset, the question is what they thought they were covering up. Even if a murder hadn't occurred in the legal sense, they were acting as if one had, and attempting to obscure it. All of this is pure speculation, of course.

 

[lawstudent]

I don't see why it is weird that only WS still cares. If the victim's family does not pursue it, who is going to? Especially if the victim is too young to have other connections, and there are no other witnesses. There are I'm sure people bothered by it, but it's hard to imagine we'd ever piece together exactly what happened. And Patsy, if she was involved, is gone. Only people who are into the mystery will put in that effort. Actually doing right by the victim seems pretty impossible at this point.

 

[questfortrue]

~RSBM~
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.

Your thoughts about this may be right, but it's difficult to say whether the GJ saw it that way.

This may or may not help anyone’s understanding, but it seems sometimes assumptions occur outside of the legal context and definitions, so here's more info on the charges of Count VII.

Certainly over the years since the True Bills were released many of us have interpreted who is implicated by these indictments. I trust otg’s perspective on this since he had dialog with an attorney. But, what should not really be questioned is that the wording is in any way unusual. The possible charges were developed by the special prosecutor Kane, and given to the GJ for vote. At least 9 of the members of the Grand Jury agreed to the True Bills which were then given to DA Hunter for prosecution. (Additional charges were given to the GJ for vote, but were not agreed upon by the necessary nine grand jurors.) To understand: Kane did not develop the charges out of thin air. Just setting the record straight as to the way the legislature designed and stated the statutes utilized in the True Bills.

Statute 18-8-105.
Accessory to crime, subsection (3) Being an accessory to crime is a class 4 felony if the offender knows that the person being assisted has committed, or has been convicted of, or is charged by pending information, indictment, or complaint with a crime, and if that crime is designated by this code as a class 1 or class 2 felony.

Accessory to crime, subsection (4) Being an accessory to crime is a class 5 felony if the offender knows that the person being assisted is suspected of or wanted for a crime, and if that crime is designated by this code as a class 1 or class 2 felony.

In the indictment the wording is that they “did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.”

Not being an attorney, this is just my opinion, but it seemed as though they were considering the two injuries as relevant under subsection 3 and subsection 4. Since subsection 3 is a class 4 felony and subsection 4 is a class 5 felony, it occurs to me that it would be considered more serious to be an accessory after the fact to murder in the first and that would fall under the subsection 3 charge.

Subsection 4 uses the terminology “is suspected of” and I think that’s relevant for the child abuse charge. Perhaps, IDK, they were considering that the head injury may have occurred in the presence of only two people – the perpetrator and the victim. If it did happen that way, then the accessory might only have suspected that something horrible took place, therefore the charge under subsection 4.

~RSBM~ 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.

As OliviaG1996 commented, no one is laughing at terrorism; but, FWIW, I’m not the first to infer the term ‘foreign faction’ in the RN is pretty, oh, IDK, 'out there'. For the nuance impaired, it might be noted there’s a certain police chief (an intruder iconoclast) who zeroed in on the ridiculousness of the term and even included it in the title of his book. Thanks for your heartfelt expressions.

 

[lawstudent]

It would seem that subsection 4 refers to when the accessory knows the person is being looked at for a crime by the authorities. It's weirdly worded if it is trying to indicate that the accessory is the suspicious one. Subsection 3 applies to when one knows what happened, which seems way more relevant here.

 

[questfortrue]

It would seem that subsection 4 refers to when the accessory knows the person is being looked at for a crime by the authorities. It's weirdly worded if it is trying to indicate that the accessory is the suspicious one. Subsection 3 applies to when one knows what happened, which seems way more relevant here.

Yes, good point. In subsection 4 it seems to infer that the accomplice knows someone is suspected by authorities and conceals information from the authorities. Truly I don’t know if the usage of “has committed” and “was suspected” in the actual VII charge reflects only subsection 3 or not, but I can see why it may fit better. Moreover, I don’t know if there’s anything in the selected terminology of the VII charges which even contributes to more understanding of the thinking of the GJ! I shall give it more thought in light of two accomplices, and perhaps two people involved in her death, which is something a grand juror hinted to John Douglas. (IIRC Kolar in his AMA takes no stand on how many family members were involved in her death, answering a question about it with the statement, “Sorry, wading into difficult territory.”)

 

[BBB167893]

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

It's all in ST's book, rex. I haven't the time nor the space to reproduce all of it. So let's look at some big ones:

We were getting ready to bug the Ramsey home in Atlanta in hopes of overhearing incriminating statements. I had firmed up the operation with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. "Not only is this operation doable, it's necessary," said Ralph Stone, the agent in charge.

The tentative plan was for a GBI technical specialist to enter the house while the Ramseys were in Boulder for interviews. With the bugs in place, we would start listening when John and Patsy returned home after being grilled. All that was needed to launch the operation was a sign-off by the Boulder police, but our fearful leaders chickened out.
-ITRMI, pages 279-280.

The FBI encouraged the District attorney's representatives to convene a grand jury immediately. Get the Ramseys in their to testify under the hammer of perjury.
-ITRMI, page 240

Among the best leads was still another we could not touch. The Ramsey credit card purchases showed up again, this time through the mail from a tabloid newspaper to Sergeant Wickman. He and I took it to Bob Keatley for a legal opinion and he almost had a heart attack. His exact words were most unKeatley-like--s**t, s**t, s**t!--and he snatched the documents away. "put it out of your mind," he ordered. It was a struggle to let those Visa documents vanish into the evidence room, where the Touch Tone records were already gathering dust.
-ITRMI, page 237

These are just a few. Alex Hunter and his merry band resisted search warrants, handed evidence to the suspects as if it was candy on Halloween, and undercut potential witnesses.

And, of course, there's one REALLY big one I keeping returning to:

All the detectives agreed that one major mistake had been made in the first weeks: Patsy had not been arrested. The detectives were sure that if only Hunter had agreed to jail Patsy--even for a short time--she would have caved in.
--PMPT, pages 377-378

This, to me, is numero uno of missed opportunities. The big one, as it were. This is how cases like this get solved: you throw the two parties into separate holding cells and see which one cracks first.

The police WANTED to do it.

The FBI and Dream Team guys TOLD them to do it.

Hell, even Lou Smit said he would have done it!

But AH wouldn't go for it.

I'm sure there are others here who can provide instances I've not mentioned. But let me finish for now with one more. It refers to the interviews done April 1997:

The only time [Patsy's] composure broke was when she was asked to describe the discovery of her daughter's body. She dissolved into weeping, and although it was touching, it was also her weakest point of the session and time for me to press harder. But just as I was about to allow an opening, Pat Burke and Pete Hofstrom ruined the moment, consolingly saying, "let's take a break." Our own DA's chief trial deputy helped destroy what, in my opinion, was the best opportunity of the day. By the time the interview resumed, Patsy had gotten her wind back. I felt she knew she had dodged a bullet.
-ITRMI, page 188

 

[BBB167893]

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.

Whether or not I agree with your ideas, tovarisch, we can agree on one thing: justice without mercy is not justice. I have no problem with Alex Hunter feeling that to put one or more of the Ramseys in prison, possibly death row, would serve no wider purpose.

BUT, and this is the point I've been trying to make all along, I can't respect how he took the coward's path. If Alex Hunter had come right out and said, "Based on the evidence presented before the Grand Jury, I believe (insert suspect) is culpable in the death of JonBenet Ramsey. However, in the interest of justice, I cannot proceed with a prosecution, as that would not serve the public interest and only compound the family's suffering," I would have respected that. The media would have crucified him, but the man from Gallilee was crucified for the sake of others as well, was he not?

 

[BBB167893]

BBM: An intruder with no obvious motive. JMO.

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

I've always interpreted the true bill as saying that they just couldn't tell which one killed her and which one helped with the cover-up.

Cross-fingerpointing strikes again.

 

[BBB167893]

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?

That's the line the Ramseys and Lou Smit have been pushing since Day 3, Olivia.

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

More than that, I don't know what tovarisch is talking about when she says JB was "almost beheaded." Point-of-fact, the neck muscles were not even damaged.

 

[BBB167893]

Incidentally, even with RDI there is no obvious motive.

You forget, Anti-K: RDI doesn't NEED an obvious motive, since the killing was not planned.

And from a personal standpoint, when it comes to someone killing their own child, no motive would make sense to me, anyway.

 

[tovarisch]

Whether or not I agree with your ideas, tovarisch, we can agree on one thing: justice without mercy is not justice. I have no problem with Alex Hunter feeling that to put one or more of the Ramseys in prison, possibly death row, would serve no wider purpose.

BUT, and this is the point I've been trying to make all along, I can't respect how he took the coward's path. If Alex Hunter had come right out and said, "Based on the evidence presented before the Grand Jury, I believe (insert suspect) is culpable in the death of JonBenet Ramsey. However, in the interest of justice, I cannot proceed with a prosecution, as that would not serve the public interest and only compound the family's suffering," I would have respected that. The media would have crucified him, but the man from Gallilee was crucified for the sake of others as well, was he not?

SuperDave,

I do not want mercy for killers. They belong to prison.
I do not see that AH act was done out of some philosophy , but simply because for the lack of evidence. Lack back then, lack now.
Indictment reads also as a lack of evidence, it looks as an attempt, that failed.

Interesting you mentioned the famous case in history, you perhaps did it unconsciously. What happened , the man from Gallilee was innocent and Pontius Pilatus knew it. Pontius was hesitant for a long hours, while Jesus was interviewed by him. But crowd, the crowd SD, shouted under the windows of the palace non stop, and crowd wanted Jesus death and nothing but death ,and crowd wanted today. Pontius was between a rock a hard place, what to choose , moral thing or political success. He got a terrible migraine and decided to end this session, he sent Jesus to death.

It strange you brought it up while discussing AH. But AH did quite opposite! Isn`t it something?

 

[inspector rex]

It's all in ST's book, rex. I haven't the time nor the space to reproduce all of it. So let's look at some big ones:

We were getting ready to bug the Ramsey home in Atlanta in hopes of overhearing incriminating statements. I had firmed up the operation with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. "Not only is this operation doable, it's necessary," said Ralph Stone, the agent in charge.

The tentative plan was for a GBI technical specialist to enter the house while the Ramseys were in Boulder for interviews. With the bugs in place, we would start listening when John and Patsy returned home after being grilled. All that was needed to launch the operation was a sign-off by the Boulder police, but our fearful leaders chickened out.
-ITRMI, pages 279-280.

The FBI encouraged the District attorney's representatives to convene a grand jury immediately. Get the Ramseys in their to testify under the hammer of perjury.
-ITRMI, page 240

Among the best leads was still another we could not touch. The Ramsey credit card purchases showed up again, this time through the mail from a tabloid newspaper to Sergeant Wickman. He and I took it to Bob Keatley for a legal opinion and he almost had a heart attack. His exact words were most unKeatley-like--s**t, s**t, s**t!--and he snatched the documents away. "put it out of your mind," he ordered. It was a struggle to let those Visa documents vanish into the evidence room, where the Touch Tone records were already gathering dust.
-ITRMI, page 237

These are just a few. Alex Hunter and his merry band resisted search warrants, handed evidence to the suspects as if it was candy on Halloween, and undercut potential witnesses.

And, of course, there's one REALLY big one I keeping returning to:

All the detectives agreed that one major mistake had been made in the first weeks: Patsy had not been arrested. The detectives were sure that if only Hunter had agreed to jail Patsy--even for a short time--she would have caved in.
--PMPT, pages 377-378

This, to me, is numero uno of missed opportunities. The big one, as it were. This is how cases like this get solved: you throw the two parties into separate holding cells and see which one cracks first.

The police WANTED to do it.

The FBI and Dream Team guys TOLD them to do it.

Hell, even Lou Smit said he would have done it!

But AH wouldn't go for it.

I'm sure there are others here who can provide instances I've not mentioned. But let me finish for now with one more. It refers to the interviews done April 1997:

The only time [Patsy's] composure broke was when she was asked to describe the discovery of her daughter's body. She dissolved into weeping, and although it was touching, it was also her weakest point of the session and time for me to press harder. But just as I was about to allow an opening, Pat Burke and Pete Hofstrom ruined the moment, consolingly saying, "let's take a break." Our own DA's chief trial deputy helped destroy what, in my opinion, was the best opportunity of the day. By the time the interview resumed, Patsy had gotten her wind back. I felt she knew she had dodged a bullet.
-ITRMI, page 188

You see when you talk about arresting Patsy or putting wire taps on their phones, I start looking for what the Police need to do before they are able to do this. I always come back to information about the law in USA:

The Wiretap Order
The police must first obtain a wiretap order before eavesdropping on your phone conversations. This is similar to a warrant. The police must prove to a judge that they have probable cause to believe that tapping your phone lines will help them to solve a serious crime, such as drug trafficking, money laundering, or terrorism. However, because wiretapping is so intrusive, the police are held to a higher standard when seeking wiretap orders than when they are seeking warrants.
Restrictions on Wiretapping
Wiretapping orders are often restricted in order to minimize any invasion of privacy. In particular, wiretapping orders usually expire after a certain period of time, so the police cannot keep listening forever. Police are also required to limit wiretapping only to phone conversations that are likely to yield evidence against the suspect.
Probable Cause:
"Probable cause" generally refers to the requirement in criminal law that police have adequate reason to arrest someone, conduct a search, or seize property relating to an alleged crime.
The probable cause requirement comes from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be searched."
As seen in those words, in order for a court to issue a warrant -- for someone's arrest, or to search or seize property -- there must be "probable cause."
Police must also have probable cause to arrest without a warrant, and in many cases to search or seize property without a warrant.
Prosecutors must also have probable cause to charge a defendant with a crime.
Warrants and Probable Cause
Typically, to obtain a warrant, an officer will sign an affidavit stating the facts as to why probable cause exists to arrest someone, conduct a search or seize property. Judges issue warrants if they agree that probable cause exists.
There are many instances where warrants are not required to arrest or search, such as arrests for felonies witnessed in public by an officer. Here is more information on when warrants are not required.
If a warrantless arrest occurs, probable cause must still be shown after the fact, and will be required in order to prosecute a defendant.
Probable Cause for Arrest
Probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the police officer's knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause must come from specific facts and circumstances, rather than simply from the officer's hunch or suspicion.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

"Refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause."

The GJ & the DA are separate entities.

The point of the GJ is to decide if there is probable cause. If they signed the true bill then they believed there was probable cause i.e. the case is supported by probable cause.
I believe your reference would be applicable if the GJ didn't indict and the DA went ahead and charged the suspect/s anyway.

I believe the argument is not was there probable cause but if there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I still don't see how your reference is relevant here - unless you are saying that the GJ chose to indict without probable cause. If you believe that is the case, what proof?

 

[WhereAreTheyNow]

Notwithstanding all the mistakes made by the DA's office prior to the GJ, how could AH have prosecuted anyone based on the true bills without proving how the murder was committed?

 

[inspector rex]

This seems to contradict the quote from ST's book above "The FBI encouraged the District attorney's representatives to convene a grand jury immediately. Get the Ramseys in their to testify under the hammer of perjury.
-ITRMI, page 240"
It's likely ST didn't understand the role of the GJ or what needed to be done before a recommendation for a GJ was made.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 12, 1998
Contact: Jennifer Bray, Media Relations, 441-3090

Police ask District Attorney to convene a grand jury in Ramsey investigation

(Ramsey Update #65)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby and Commander Mark Beckner today requested and recommended that the Boulder District Attorney convene a grand jury investigation into the homicide of JonBenet Ramsey. While there is still some investigation left to be done, both Chief Koby and Commander Beckner believe the investigation has progressed to the point at which the authority of a grand jury is necessary in order to have a complete investigation. A grand jury can be utilized to obtain sworn testimony, to obtain items of evidentiary value not otherwise available through routine investigative methods, and to review the case for purposes of seeking an indictment against the person or persons responsible for the death of JonBenet.

Commander Beckner has worked closely with the District Attorney’s Office in recent weeks in preparation of the recommendation for a grand jury. According to Beckner, “We only make this request/recommendation after 14 grueling months of investigation, much consideration and thought, and after consultation with attorneys familiar with, and experienced in the use, of grand juries. We believe the investigation has reached the point at which a grand jury will be very helpful in completing the investigation, thus, our recommendation to the District Attorney.”

As the investigation progressed in recent weeks, the direction the investigation should take became very clear. As stated at a Dec. 5, 1997 news conference, the police were working toward one of three options:

--- Seek an arrest warrant and prosecution --- Ask for a grand jury investigation, or --- Inactivate the case until such time that additional information becomes available

Out of a task list that has now grown to 90 tasks, 64 tasks have been completed or worked on as thoroughly as possible. “The longer we worked on the case, the clearer it became that inactivating the case would not be appropriate,” said Beckner. “The appropriate step at this time is to ask for a grand jury to assist us in gathering additional admissible evidence.”

The next step will be for the police to assist the District Attorney’s Office in the review of case files and evidence. Given the volume of information gathered to date, it is expected that it will take some time for the District Attorney’s Office to complete it’s review of the case files prior to any decision being made. “We have worked well with the DA’s Office in the last five months and I expect to work even closer with them in the months to follow,” added Beckner.

 

[otg]

Notwithstanding all the mistakes made by the DA's office prior to the GJ, how could AH have prosecuted anyone based on the true bills without proving how the murder was committed?

How it was committed, why it was committed, and even exactly when it was committed do not have to be proven. Neither does exactly who did what have to be proven when more than one person is accused of participating in the crime. Granted, any prosecutor would admit that it is more difficult to get a conviction if they can't prove exactly what happened, but it isn't a requirement for conviction. All that is needed is that the prosecutor provide a plausible explanation of what happened to a jury.

Look at Aaron Thompson. He reported his daughter, Aarone, missing two years after she had last been seen. Investigators believe that either he or his common-law wife (Shely Lowe) caused her death, and that they probably buried the body. It was never found. Lowe died before the case could be brought to trial. Prosecutors didn't know how Aarone died or which adult was responsible. Without a body, they couldn't really even provide proof that Aarone was dead. Without Lowe to account for her actions, Thompson's defense attorney tried to implicate Lowe as the one responsible. But the jury didn't buy it. He was convicted on 31 of 57 charges, including child abuse resulting in death. He was sentenced to 114 years in prison.

There are lots of parallels and connections between the Thompson case and JonBenet's, including reporters filing suit to have the sealed GJ indictment released publicly. The decision to release the Thompson GJ indictment was cited in Charlie Brennan's filing for release of GJ True Bills.

Here is the Thompson GJ Indictment that was released in its entirety after the judge's decision:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...mpson/07CR1483ThompsonGrandJuryIndictment.pdf

This is just one more item that pegs the hinky meter (IMO). Why, after that precedent, did Judge Lowenbach decide to only release a portion of the Ramsey True Bills instead of releasing them in their entirety as was the precedent (stare decisis) in Thompson's case?