Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramsey’s death

[Mama2JML]

I understood it just fine.

I did too. Come on now.

Good news! Explain away...

My skepticism with touch DNA is to classify it with all the other forms of DNA science. If it wasn't based on something as small as skin cells, cells that can be transferred, I'd buy into it. It is a relatively new science. It doesn't have the court track record that saliva, semen and blood have. I don't think the small sample of what 'could' be saliva is enough evidence.

If only there were examples of other cases where touch DNA was the only evidence, you'd have more of a convincing case.

The argument I see is that this evidence was found here and here and here; and since it was found in so many areas, it must put the murderer at the scene. I don't see it as saying any such thing. The only thing it does say is that if they ever found a match, then they'd need to do more investigation. Once that happens, the only thing the suspect will need to do is to deny, deny, deny. (Does that sound familiar?) It may belong to the murder and it might not. It is not conclusive. So how does it dismiss any of the other suspects?

I am really struggling to understand your argument. All cells are small, regardless of origin. The CODIS profile was obtained 5 years prior to the two matching DNA profiles obtained via touch collection methods in 2008...

The tDNA is not the result of a “new science.” It’s the same old science, it’s just the way that samples are collected that is relatively “new.”

Everything is transferred. Blood is transferred. Semen is transferred. Al trace evidence of all kinds is transferred.
What this evidence says is that an unidentified person had contact with the victim in incriminating places. It tells us that the person was not a Ramsey or any of the other 200+ persons tested.

The tDNA and the matching CODIS sample represent a potential suspect who needs to be identified and investigated. Until that happens I fail to see how this trace evidence can be dismissed (as Kolar, and others do).
.

The tDNA and the CODIS sample is not the only evidence. There is handwriting. There are hair and fibers (probably if no use in connecting anyone, now). There are the acts committed (DNA-man may have a history). There simply is no way of knowing what an investigation into DNA-man might reveal. But, without that investigation I don’t see how we can dismiss him.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Perhaps the DNA discussion on this thread could be taken to the “DNA Expert” thread?
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

otg, terrific post and I understand the difference between accomplice and accessory but I joined Densa along with questfortrue (they gave us a two-for-the-price-of-one deal). Everything quest said could have been taken verbatim from my line of thinking.

Also, if I read and remember correctly, there was a series of charges the grand jury could have chosen from and the public wasn't informed about those choices. I am keeping an open mind about Burkes' possible involvement.

I suppose that without having the opportunity to review all evidence it is futile to speculate. I am at a loss as to what activity could cause such harm that two extremely tired children who needed to get up very early would have been allowed to participate in without parental involvement.

I just can't come up with anything in the realm of reason that says to me, beyond reasonable doubt, that Burke killed JonBenet.

Btw, did I mention that the first requirement for membership in Densa is being hard-headed? :giggle:

 

[otg]

(sbm, r -- of course)

OTG, IIRC, Kolar indicated a 5 year extension on the 3 year SoL time-frame, when someone leaves the state, effectively taking the ability to charge up to December 25, 2004. But I haven’t looked for that information in any of the statutes, if it is to be found there.

You are correct (not surprising). I couldn't remember if it was a total of 5-years or an additional 5-years. Here is the statute with the applicable section:

TITLE 16. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 5. COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL ACTION
PART 4. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

C.R.S. 16-5-401 (2014)

​

​

16-5-401. Limitation for commencing criminal proceedings and juvenile delinquency proceedings

(2) The time limitations imposed by this section shall be tolled if the adult offender or juvenile is absent from the state of Colorado, and the duration of such absence, not to exceed five years, shall be excluded from the computation of the time within which any complaint, information, indictment, or petition in delinquency must otherwise be filed or returned.​

C.R.S. 16-5-401

 

[BBB167893]

Nope. Not a joke.

Even worse.

Okay. So, what’s the reasonable and believable secondary transfer theory?

My point was that I don't think there is one you would find reasonable. Either way, these last few years, my feeling has been that JB was the vector of transfer herself.

And this matter because?

I should think that would be fairly obvious, Anti-k: JB's DNA was also in the underwear, but IT was fresh. It didn't take leaps and bounds of technology to find its markers. Thus, it's not a big leap to realize that the two were not deposited at the same time.

 

[BBB167893]

Good news! Explain away...

Well, Mama2JML, speaking only for myself (Frigga can do her own thing), BoldBear has illustrated why different kinds of DNA are more and less important than others. Blood and semen are very limited in the ways they can be left. Here's a for-instance: blood belonging to OJ Simpson was found at the scene of the Brentwood killings. Couple that with the fact that the victims were killed with a knife and that Simpson had a fresh cut on his hand which he could not account for satisfactorily. The conclusion is inescapable.

That's not what happened here. To put what BoldBear said another way, back in 2006 when the JMK tempest-in-a-teakettle was raging, Bill O'Reilly was discussing it with a criminologist from the FBI. This woman (again, an ACTUAL FBI agent, not an internet theorist) said in blunt terms that as DNA testing methods get more sensitive, the MORE likely they are to detect DNA which is not relevant to the crime at hand.

There you go. Drop in anytime.

 

[Anti-K]

Even worse.



My point was that I don't think there is one you would find reasonable. Either way, these last few years, my feeling has been that JB was the vector of transfer herself.



I should think that would be fairly obvious, Anti-k: JB's DNA was also in the underwear, but IT was fresh. It didn't take leaps and bounds of technology to find its markers. Thus, it's not a big leap to realize that the two were not deposited at the same time.

I replied to this on the “..DNA expert...” thread: http://tinyurl.com/pkncjuw , and, http://tinyurl.com/pbz54ke
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Well, Mama2JML, speaking only for myself (Frigga can do her own thing), BoldBear has illustrated why different kinds of DNA are more and less important than others. Blood and semen are very limited in the ways they can be left. Here's a for-instance: blood belonging to OJ Simpson was found at the scene of the Brentwood killings. Couple that with the fact that the victims were killed with a knife and that Simpson had a fresh cut on his hand which he could not account for satisfactorily. The conclusion is inescapable.

That's not what happened here. To put what BoldBear said another way, back in 2006 when the JMK tempest-in-a-teakettle was raging, Bill O'Reilly was discussing it with a criminologist from the FBI. This woman (again, an ACTUAL FBI agent, not an internet theorist) said in blunt terms that as DNA testing methods get more sensitive, the MORE likely they are to detect DNA which is not relevant to the crime at hand.

There you go. Drop in anytime.

I replied to this on the “..DNA expert...” thread: http://tinyurl.com/pkncjuw
...

AK

 

[otg]

Your explanation is easy to understand. It makes perfect sense. (Though, call me a member of ‘densa’, but I still leave the door open a little to the idea that if the GJ did “not know who did what”, these could have been lesser charges, the only charges to which they all could agree. Attorney Dan Recht suggested this also, and I recognize Recht and I could be totally off on this idea. :thinking:&#61514

I haven’t completely closed the door on that possibility. I’m only explaining what I see as the more likely of probabilities.

But there is one specific aspect of the TB which is still confusing to me. It’s probably been discussed somewhere, but I’ve missed it. Why is there accessory after the fact to a child abuse charge?

I think (MOO here) the exact charge has to be read very carefully. It doesn’t say that either parent is an accessory to the act of child abuse. Instead it says that he/she is an accessory to the crime by “unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render(ing) assistance” to someone who “committed and was suspected of the crime of” (snip) “Child Abuse Resulting in Death”. Their involvement as an accessory is for having the “intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person” (not for committing the act of child abuse). Do you see the difference, or do you think am I completely misreading it? Here’s the exact wording of the True Bill (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/10/us/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/):

John Bennett Ramsey (or alternately Patricia Paugh Ramsey) did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and 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.
​

Can a child commit child abuse?

I can’t find in the Colorado Statutes a specific crime called “child abuse” -- only “child abuse resulting in death”. They seem to use the term in a broad sense referring to several different offenses. Those offenses are defined by the extent of intrusion(?), from touching inappropriately through the clothes to actual penetration. (We’re talking here only about sexual abuse; there also is physical abuse, mental abuse, and neglect.) So depending on what form the child abuse takes, the legal charge would be for what the act was, unless that abuse results in death. Then the charge of causing the death is a higher crime resulting from whatever the form of child abuse was.

As with any other crime, it would depend on the age of the perpetrator as to whether or not he/she would be charged as an adult or a juvenile, or whether (because of his/her being under the defined age of 10 y.o.) there could be any charge at all brought because the State of Colorado doesn’t believe a child under 10 can form “criminal intent.” Thus, just like M-1, while the crime can be committed by what they refer to as an infant (under the age of ten) -- it is not recognized by law as a chargeable offense.

So back to your actual question before I went off on a tangent... As I understand it, a child can commit what would be considered child abuse, but he/she cannot be charged with a crime if under the age of ten.

Could there have been an accessory after the fact to an aggravated incest charge?

Absolutely! In order to save time and space, I won’t copy everything that applies here, but I’ll give links at the end of this post to what I think are applicable statutes if you or anyone else cares to read in full. But basically, a person can be an accessory to any crime by helping that person escape justice. There are also the following little tidbits from the statutes.

From the statute on “Incest” (non-aggravated):

Neither the age of the victim nor the age of the perpetrator is material as a requisite of this offense (non-aggravated incest). McGee v. People, 160 Colo. 46, 413 P.2d 901 (1966).
​

From the statute on “Aggravated Incest”:

The "unit of prosecution" for the crime of aggravated incest is the same as for the crime of sexual assault on a child because there is no discernible difference between the language used in subsection (1)(a) of this section and the phrase "any sexual contact" used in § 18-3-405.3. People v. Mintz, 165 P.3d 829 (Colo. App. 2007).
​

As I understand the two offenses from reading the statutes, the aggravating factor here could be the either the blood relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, or the age of the victim (if under the age of ten). But this still doesn’t change the fact that the perpetrator, if under the age of ten, cannot be charged. That’s not to say that because the perpetrator could not be charged, an adult who acts as an accessory could not still be charged (just as we discussed earlier in reference to § C.R.S. 18-1-801 (Insufficient age) in my first post in this thread). So because a victim is under the age of ten, it would be a case of “Aggravated Incest” regardless of the age of the perpetrator, and an adult committing acts to prevent or obstruct justice could be charged as an accessory to the crime. For reference (since it keeps coming up), annotation from § C.R.S. 18-1-801 (Insufficient age) states the following:

Although a child under the age of 10 cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092, (Colo. App. 1991).
​

The second piece of my confusion regards the TB interpretation pertains to Kolar’s analysis. Why does Kolar believe the kidnapping charge might have meant a route to prosecution. Wouldn’t kidnapping imply JB was still alive when moved? If BR were responsible for moving her after she had been struck, does that legally implicate the parents, as in a felony murder charge? I'm not meaning to get into evidence interpretation which belongs on another thread, but I’m wanting the legal perspective on it. If the parents found her when she was deceased, could they still be implicated in this kidnapping charge without a SoL? Maybe I’m missing something in Kolar’s thought process. TIA

Are you asking me to explain the thought process of someone else?:giggle: Okay. I’ll give it a go. But mind you, I’m only speculating, I don’t have any real answers here -- only guesses based on what he’s written and what he’s said in public interviews.

First, the technicalities:

I believe (as you seem to) that for there to be a kidnapping, it would require the victim to be alive. Unconscious (or subdued in some way) would count still as alive, so an unconscious person could also be kidnapped. I’m not sure what the charge would be for moving a dead person from one location to another other than “tampering with evidence of a crime” or “concealing evidence”. Doing something to a dead body is also a crime. In CO, it’s § C.R.S. 18-13-101 - Abuse of a corpse, (whereby the perpetrator “Treats the body or remains of any person in a way that would outrage normal family sensibilities.”) (This was one of Aaron Thompson’s convictions even though his daughter’s body was never found.) “Abuse of a corpse” is only a Class-2 Misdemeanor.

Now, as to Kolar’s publicly professed theory:

He leaves a lot to his reader to interpret so as to avoid liability. But he carefully points the way so there is but one conclusion as to who is responsible for precipitating the entire event. He doesn’t say who struck the head blow, who did the ligature strangulation, or exactly how she ended up in the basement. He also doesn’t say who is responsible for the sexual injuries to her body, although he hints at it with his reference to SBP. But he simply does not explain how something could start out as an argument or disagreement over pineapple and then end up with a sexual assault. (This is my biggest problem with the information he has made public.) I’m basing this on his saying in an interview on Tricia’s show that it was his belief that it started in the kitchen because of the pineapple and where the Maglite was found. He doesn’t say (or at least I don’t get) what he thinks the parents did to become involved. But if he believed that one or both of them put the ligature on her with the intent of killing her, there’s no doubt that it would be first-degree murder. But he includes the possibility of using the “felony murder” charge with an aggravating factor of kidnapping. So to me, it seems he is suggesting that Burke struck her with the Maglite (he’s wrong on that IMO) in the kitchen because of a dispute over the pineapple; then someone moved her (unconscious) to the basement (theoretically satisfying the kidnapping charge) where the ligature was applied.

This is the best I can make of Kolar’s theory, but I think it has too many holes in it to be viable. If someone else sees it differently, please explain it to me. I also think the kidnapping charge would be too difficult to convince a jury of, making the felony murder unprosecutable.

Another possibility on the kidnapping element is “enticing” a child into a place or area with the intent of sexual contact. This is a Class-4 felony (§ C.R.S. 18-3-305). But if this was Kolar’s thought for constituting a kidnapping charge, who is he thinking “enticed” her? Enticing her to go somewhere would not require physically moving her and still is considered kidnapping if it is done with the intent of sexual contact. The idea of enticing her would contradict the idea that she was struck over the head in the kitchen and then moved to the basement. So I don’t think this is what Kolar had in mind for his scenario of events.

And the last possibility I see (and I think the most likely) is that Kolar was publicly masking his actual “theory of prosecution” as felony murder with the element of kidnapping to avoid what he really thinks -- that being that the crime of felony murder is based on the element of sexual assault. If JonBenet died (even by accident) during the commission of the crime of sexual assault, her death would be classified as felony murder (even if the perpetrator could not be charged with the crime). This theory (to me) makes more sense and even aligns with the charges that were True Billed by the Ramsey Grand Jury. There charge says that the parents were accessories (after the fact) to a person who had “committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death” (emphasis mine).

Links :findinglink: :

C.R.S. 18-13-101 (Abuse of a corpse)
C.R.S. 18-8-105 (Accessory to crime -- which is also, Obstruction of Public Justice)
C.R.S. 18-6-301 (Incest)
C.R.S. 18-6-302 (Aggravated incest)
C.R.S. 18-1-801 (Insufficient age)
C.R.S. 18-3-305 (Enticement of a child)
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19911...%20v.%20MILLER - People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092 (The precedent case in which a parent appealed her conviction of Contributing the Delinquency of a Minor because the child was too young to be charged with a crime (theft).
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/10/us/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/ (Ramsey True Bills)
​

Disclaimer:

I am not a lawyer. I only give my interpretation of what I read. My opinion is just that: MY opinion. I cannot and will not give legal advice. Do not call me in the middle of the night if you discover a family member has been killed.

 

[BOESP]

Somewhere, iirc, one of the Grand Jurors (or maybe it was Linda Hoffman Pugh) stated that the true bill cause was so-worded because they couldn't decide who did what. Also, iirc, Linda Hoffman Pugh stated she believed that several jurors seemed to believe Patsy was good for it but no consensus could be reached.

I understand all that you are saying in your excellent post shown above otg but I still can not conclude from the true bill that the jurors did not believe Patsy may have done it and John aided her or vice versa (thus both were equally culpable ... right?).

It seems like a good possibility that some action by Burke could have preceded or precipitated the events that caused JonBenet's death but I do not believe he could have caused the type of injury seen on JonBenet's skull by swinging a flashlight alone.

If Burke and JonBenet were engaged in some illicit behavior I can see Patsy and John wanting to keep that hidden from public consumption even if Patsy or John killed JonBenet in connection with any assumed illicit behavior (such as cleaning JonBenet and, maybe, Burke too).

I have often wondered if a fifth person was in the home that night. :dunno:

eace:

 

[otg]

Somewhere, iirc, one of the Grand Jurors (or maybe it was Linda Hoffman Pugh) stated that the true bill cause was so-worded because they couldn't decide who did what. Also, iirc, Linda Hoffman Pugh stated she believed that several jurors seemed to believe Patsy was good for it but no consensus could be reached.

Not long ago I mentioned that quote from one of the RGJ members and what it might mean here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...enet-Ramsey%92s-death&p=11950970#post11950970
​

LHP testified somewhat early in the GJ investigation, and her thoughts about what several of the jurors might have believed doesn’t really mean much (to me, anyway). After Patsy fingered LHP as a suspect, it’s understandable that she would return the favor :giggle: .

I understand all that you are saying in your excellent post shown above otg but I still can not conclude from the true bill that the jurors did not believe Patsy may have done it and John aided her or vice versa (thus both were equally culpable ... right?).

Yes, right. I agree, B. I certainly wish (and believe that eventually this will happen) that the rest of the TBs that were considered would be made public. Reading the Colorado statutes seems to make it clear that this is what is stipulated. But without Judge Lowenbach’s ruling being challenged (as Charlie Brennan did about the mere existence of the TBs), that’s not going to happen. Could be that when someone does challenge it and it does happen, we’ll have a better understanding of what the RGJ found. But then, this is also the very reason (I believe) the judge chose NOT to release the TBs in full -- despite what the applicable statutes mandate.

Until that does happen, I agree that there is still the possibility that the RGJ was completely dumbfounded by what happened.

It seems like a good possibility that some action by Burke could have preceded or precipitated the events that caused JonBenet's death but I do not believe he could have caused the type of injury seen on JonBenet's skull by swinging a flashlight alone.

I don’t think a child swinging a flashlight could cause the damage found in JonBenet’s skull either.

If Burke and JonBenet were engaged in some illicit behavior I can see Patsy and John wanting to keep that hidden from public consumption even if Patsy or John killed JonBenet in connection with any assumed illicit behavior (such as cleaning JonBenet and, maybe, Burke too).

Of course! Secrets are supposed to be kept as secrets. Like Burke said (paraphrased): if a secret is told, it’s no longer a secret.

I have often wondered if a fifth person was in the home that night. :dunno:

eace:

Conspiracy, anyone? ( :thinking: I’ve never completely closed the door on Stine involvement.)

 

[CherCher]

Well, Mama2JML, speaking only for myself (Frigga can do her own thing), BoldBear has illustrated why different kinds of DNA are more and less important than others. Blood and semen are very limited in the ways they can be left. Here's a for-instance: blood belonging to OJ Simpson was found at the scene of the Brentwood killings. Couple that with the fact that the victims were killed with a knife and that Simpson had a fresh cut on his hand which he could not account for satisfactorily. The conclusion is inescapable.

That's not what happened here. To put what BoldBear said another way, back in 2006 when the JMK tempest-in-a-teakettle was raging, Bill O'Reilly was discussing it with a criminologist from the FBI. This woman (again, an ACTUAL FBI agent, not an internet theorist) said in blunt terms that as DNA testing methods get more sensitive, the MORE likely they are to detect DNA which is not relevant to the crime at hand.

There you go. Drop in anytime.

Ab-so-lut-ly. People drop skin cells everywhere. Especially in a sweaty environment. (such as a sweat shop underwear manufacturing plant)

Semen and blood aren't just random droppings. Saliva is a little iffier. If it's in a bite mark it probably belongs to the biter, but saliva can be transferred easily as well. One wipes one's mouth and transfers skin and saliva (pretty much the same thing) cells

 

[elannia]

Otg, I often wonder too if there was a fifth person that night?, perhaps a Stine, going on the trip as well

 

[BOESP]

Otg, I often wonder too if there was a fifth person that night?, perhaps a Stine, going on the trip as well

I often wonder if they *do* know whose DNA it is. Iirc, the powers-that-used-to-be stated the DNA had been run through CODIS and no match was found. That's an ambiguous answer. :thinking:

If they lied once, they'll lie twice .... and maybe for the same reasons.

 

[otg]

Otg, I often wonder too if there was a fifth person that night?, perhaps a Stine, going on the trip as well

You know, don't you, elannia, that there is a theory that this is exactly what happened? I'm not convinced of it, but it WOULD account for many puzzling aspects of what we know (or at least think we know).

 

[OliviaG1996]

Otg, I often wonder too if there was a fifth person that night?, perhaps a Stine, going on the trip as well

That is certainly possible. Either way, I think the Stines (except Doug) knew what had happened, and in my opinion, did not want Doug to lose his young friend BR, so they went along with the intruder story. JMO.

 

[UKGuy]

For a theory involving a Stine, search on BlueCrab ...

 

[UKGuy]

That is certainly possible. Either way, I think the Stines (except Doug) knew what had happened, and in my opinion, did not want Doug to lose his young friend BR, so they went along with the intruder story. JMO.

OliviaG1996,
I reckon the Stine's obviously factor in to the big picture, but just where is uncertain?


.

 

[UKGuy]

otg,
I reckon Kolar is privy to much more forensic evidence than we are currently aware of. Kolar patently thinks JonBenet was dragged by the arms in the basement, it was him who emphasised the upward posture of JonBenet's arms.

.

 

[OliviaG1996]

OliviaG1996,
I reckon the Stine's obviously factor in to the big picture, but just where is uncertain?


.

I wonder that, too, UKGuy. What made me question what the Stines knew about this case was Susan's hacking of Chief Beckner's e-mail account. She may have called it a, "sophomoric prank," but I see it more as obstruction of some kind.

Source:
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-susan-n-glenn-stine.htm