Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramsey’s death

[otg]

Here is some information I've found in similar form on a few law websites:

"Lack of Probable Cause

In the author’s experience, lack of probable cause supporting an indictment is the most common challenge to a Colorado grand jury indictment. On a motion by the defense, the court must dismiss the indictment if, after reviewing the record of the grand jury proceedings, the court determines that the indictment is not supported by probable cause that the offenses charged were committed by the defendant.

In conducting the probable cause review, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. If the testimony conflicts, the court must draw an inference for the prosecution. Only where the trial court failed to follow the rules applicable to preliminary hearings is the probable cause ruling subject to appellate review. It is customary that the judge to whom the criminal case is assigned conducts the probable cause review, not the judge who presided over the grand jury."

In the case of the Ramseys, even if Hunter had signed the True Bill to Indict the Ramsey(s), they would have still had the right to appeal the Indictment on the basis of 'probable cause'.
Even though "In conducting the probable cause review, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution", it seems Hunter was not confident it was supported by evidence.
So, RDI can cry foul, but an indictment not supported by evidence even for 'probable cause', could not be tried successfully 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
And without a murderer being named, I could not see it getting even that far.

I don’t know if you don’t understand the concepts here, or if you are simply attempting to confuse others about the two with a little sleight of hand.

It is not unusual for a defense attorney to challenge the probable cause at a preliminary hearing. That’s the purpose of having it: to see if there are any objections to proceeding to trial. It IS though, very unusual for a judge to rule against the finding of a GJ once the DA has signed off on the indictment and filed charges -- unless there is new evidence to put forth which would cast doubt on the GJ’s finding of probable cause.

So your (false) assumption that “an indictment not supported by evidence even for 'probable cause', could not be tried successfully 'beyond reasonable doubt'” is just that: a false assumption.

 

[otg]

Thanks for the link, otg. I agree with your argument, in premise. Further I am convinced that RDI. But I can't see prosecuting the true bills without foundation, i.e. proving how the murder was committed.

I agree. It would indeed be difficult without overwhelming evidence (as in the Aaron Thompson case) to go to trial without a good idea of exactly what happened -- certainly not a task for a DA of the caliber of Alex Hunter.

Could be though that they did have a pretty good idea of almost exactly (oxymoron, I know) what happened. Or at least enough to know that proceeding to trial would involve informing the public of enough to know what happened. And perhaps (speculation on my part) Hunter felt there was nothing good that would come of the public knowing if no one could be charged with causing her death. (I don't expect agreement here -- just my opinion.)

 

[UKGuy]

I agree. It would indeed be difficult without overwhelming evidence (as in the Aaron Thompson case) to go to trial without a good idea of exactly what happened -- certainly not a task for a DA of the caliber of Alex Hunter.

Could be though that they did have a pretty good idea of almost exactly (oxymoron, I know) what happened. Or at least enough to know that proceeding to trial would involve informing the public of enough to know what happened. And perhaps (speculation on my part) Hunter felt there was nothing good that would come of the public knowing if no one could be charged with causing her death. (I don't expect agreement here -- just my opinion.)

otg,
ITA, if it was not either of the parents, who is left? If Hunter was used to arranging plea bargains, then where did he learn his sleight of hand with the true bill etc?

IMO the case is 100% RDI with a legal twist injected by the DA. With Patsy dead who does Kolar have in mind for his prosecutable case?

.

 

[otg]

The point being, that even if a GJ indicts a suspect, and even if the DA signs off on the indictment, that doesn't make the person(s) guilty or more guilty than they would have been if the true bill was not signed.

"If, if, if, if..." Right. Their “guilt” does not lie in the preceding legal wrangling and machinations, but in a trial which never happened. The fact that no one has ever been found guilty is no indication of guilt or innocence. In fact, as it stands now, there is not even proof that a murder took place.

There still has to be a basis to their 'probable cause'.

That is the purpose of a Grand Jury -- to find “probable cause”. Guess what -- they did!

Alex Hunter, for whatever reasons he has never explained, did not feel that the same evidence that backed up “probable cause” was sufficient to meet his idea of the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. That was his call because the voters of Boulder had placed their confidence in his ability and judgment to determine (no matter how ill-founded that confidence was).

Evidence to back it (probable cause) up.
That's what this case was lacking in.

And how have you (inspector rex) come to that conclusion? Are you privy to the evidence that the RGJ had to consider in making their decision about probable cause? Do you have some inside information you wish to share? (I think not.)

Hunches and hinky meters and suspicion and putting lots of things together and calling it totallity of evidence and believing in a conspiracy to protect them, just doesn't cut it.

For a legal pronouncement, you’re right -- it doesn’t. But for a poster’s opinion -- well, that’s what we’re here for.

Ha ha, UK so funny when you try to blame others for a lack of evidence against your suspects.

Even less against anyone else not named Ramsey.

No Evidence.

Oh, there’s evidence. We just don’t know all of it and can only speculate.

No probable cause.

Now on that, you’re just flat wrong. The RGJ determined there was, and it was their assigned task to determine it based on what they knew. It’s just your “hunch” that it wasn’t enough based solely on what you don’t know.

No indictment.

Correct -- not unless the DA had followed the accepted and proper course of action.

No arrest.

That’s right, and there never will be.

No making any stuff up.

Two-way street there.

No new evidence for 19 years.

That’s a bit of a stretch. Most of the evidence was still being gathered for at least several years after JonBenet’s death.

Oh, except that nasty old DNA in two separate places, found years apart, analysed by two laboratories, WHICH IS 100% NOT RAMSEY.

“100% NOT RAMSEY” DNA only under the conditions set forth in the DNA report. You know the operative word here, rex, since you use it so often: “IF”. From the report:

THE DNA PROFILES DEVELOPED FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M REVEALED A MIXTURE OF WHICH THE MAJOR COMPONENT MATCHED JONBENET RAMSEY. IF THE MINOR COMPONENTS FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M WERE CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, THEN JOHN RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY, PATRICIA RAMSEY, BURKE RAMSEY, JEFF RAMSEY, FLEET WHITE, PRISCILLA WHITE, AND MERVIN PUGH WOULD BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED ON THOSE EXHIBITS.


​

 

[Mama2JML]

RSBM

"100% NOT RAMSEY” DNA only under the conditions set forth in the DNA report. You know the operative word here, rex, since you use it so often: “IF”. From the report:

THE DNA PROFILES DEVELOPED FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M REVEALED A MIXTURE OF WHICH THE MAJOR COMPONENT MATCHED JONBENET RAMSEY. IF THE MINOR COMPONENTS FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M WERE CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, THEN JOHN RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY, PATRICIA RAMSEY, BURKE RAMSEY, JEFF RAMSEY, FLEET WHITE, PRISCILLA WHITE, AND MERVIN PUGH WOULD BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED ON THOSE EXHIBITS.


​

You do realize this statement applies only to those samples collected & tested in 1997, as outlined in the report you've cited, right? The CODIS sample is not a mixture. This forensic profile, found in at least three incriminating locations, belongs to one unknown, (non-Ramsey) male.

 

[UKGuy]

RSBM


You do realize this statement applies only to those samples collected & tested in 1997, as outlined in the report you've cited, right? The CODIS sample is not a mixture. This forensic profile, found in at least three incriminating locations, belongs to one unknown, (non-Ramsey) male.

Mama2JML,
Sure and the other five touch-dna samples? Have you published your IDI theory yet?

 

[Mama2JML]

Mama2JML,
Sure and the other five touch-dna samples? Have you published your IDI theory yet?

..."the other five touch-dna samples"? I think you're mistaken. To which samples are you referring?

 

[UKGuy]

:cheer:

Ciss Boom Bah!! Way to go otg!

IMO, this just supports my conviction that JR has been smearing his "innocence" in the face of society for far too long. And doing it all while continuing to further his good Christian character, and making a statement to the release of the GJ information as being "just more drama". Simply sickening. :burn:

Would your lawyer pal have any info about any ways for normal citizens to shake things up? Civil suit, some kind of petition to the DA, standing on our heads on the state capital steps? Anything? Something!!! :banghead:

midwest mama,
mmm, just where did you find this one? just what is christian character, is it any different from Daoist character or Vedanta character, just what are you on about?

You are one step away from being accorded a phallus accolade, only size considerations allow differentiation.

.

 

[UKGuy]

..."the other five touch-dna samples"? I think you're mistaken. To which samples are you referring?

Mama2JML,
mmm, so accept you ignorance regarding the forensic evidence, which patently allows for any any manner of inference, which I will not indulge in.

I'm mistaken, please itemize how?


.

 

[inspector rex]

Mama2JML,
Sure and the other five touch-dna samples? Have you published your IDI theory yet?

Any number of MSM sources for the touch DNA matching an earlier sample found in blood on her panties.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/touch-dna-cleared-jonbenets-kin/
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/09/jonbenet.dna/
http://www.bodetech.com/forensic-solutions/dna-technologies/touch-dna/

And your source of the "other five touch-dna samples"?

 

[questfortrue]

Well, since we’ve moved into the DNA river, guess I will jump into the current and comment on the “mixed sample” and the denial that it is “mixed.” I’ve read up a bit on the CODIS sample since the past discussions have occurred. Rather than get into a “was not” “is too” dialog, I’ll comment simply on what I’ve learned about the “mixed sample”.

Someone once contended that the lab had JB’s blood, so they could simply remove her DNA from the other sample, rendering the donor’s DNA into the “non-mixed sample,” which was submitted to CODIS. It actually isn’t that simple though. There is something crucial to know about this CODIS sample. This was not simply a “mixed sample” of unknown DNA and JB’s DNA. It was a “mixed sample with allele dropout.” JB’s DNA-rich blood dominated the sample, creating the possibility that some of the unknown donor’s alleles may be masked behind JonBenet’s. (IIRC, this is what SuperDave once referenced via Henry Lee’s explanation.)

Also, since the donor’s sample was degraded and small, the minor component likely suffered the type of problems related to LCN samples. The dropout in the sample suggests that could be the case. In difficult analysis scenarios, which we know this was since they originally had only 9 markers, the DNA lab had to elevate one of the “uncertain” alleles to meet the CODIS standard. This opens up the possibility (not that I’m asserting this is the case, it’s just a possibility) that what has been submitted to CODIS isn’t even representative of the foreign donor’s DNA.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

Some criminals I have NO compassion for, tovarisch. It all depends.

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?

I think you're taking me too literally.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

I don't think I said otherwise. Probable cause was never at issue in this case. That's a direct quote from ST.

 

[BBB167893]

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?

Let's not forget, Pinkie: this DA stated openly that he didn't bring cases based on probable cause.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

Oh, there was plenty of recommendation, rex. AH just didn't bother until ST's resignation letter made the rounds and the CO state government started feeling the heat.

 

[BBB167893]

Here is some information I've found in similar form on a few law websites:

"Lack of Probable Cause

In the author’s experience, lack of probable cause supporting an indictment is the most common challenge to a Colorado grand jury indictment. On a motion by the defense, the court must dismiss the indictment if, after reviewing the record of the grand jury proceedings, the court determines that the indictment is not supported by probable cause that the offenses charged were committed by the defendant.

In conducting the probable cause review, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. If the testimony conflicts, the court must draw an inference for the prosecution. Only where the trial court failed to follow the rules applicable to preliminary hearings is the probable cause ruling subject to appellate review. It is customary that the judge to whom the criminal case is assigned conducts the probable cause review, not the judge who presided over the grand jury."

In the case of the Ramseys, even if Hunter had signed the True Bill to Indict the Ramsey(s), they would have still had the right to appeal the Indictment on the basis of 'probable cause'.
Even though "In conducting the probable cause review, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution", it seems Hunter was not confident it was supported by evidence.
So, RDI can cry foul, but an indictment not supported by evidence even for 'probable cause', could not be tried successfully 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
And without a murderer being named, I could not see it getting even that far.

Your argument might carry more weight if AH didn't have a record of pulling stunts like this.

 

[Anti-K]

Well, since we’ve moved into the DNA river, guess I will jump into the current and comment on the “mixed sample” and the denial that it is “mixed.” I’ve read up a bit on the CODIS sample since the past discussions have occurred. Rather than get into a “was not” “is too” dialog, I’ll comment simply on what I’ve learned about the “mixed sample”.

Someone once contended that the lab had JB’s blood, so they could simply remove her DNA from the other sample, rendering the donor’s DNA into the “non-mixed sample,” which was submitted to CODIS. It actually isn’t that simple though. There is something crucial to know about this CODIS sample. This was not simply a “mixed sample” of unknown DNA and JB’s DNA. It was a “mixed sample with allele dropout.” JB’s DNA-rich blood dominated the sample, creating the possibility that some of the unknown donor’s alleles may be masked behind JonBenet’s. (IIRC, this is what SuperDave once referenced via Henry Lee’s explanation.)

Also, since the donor’s sample was degraded and small, the minor component likely suffered the type of problems related to LCN samples. The dropout in the sample suggests that could be the case. In difficult analysis scenarios, which we know this was since they originally had only 9 markers, the DNA lab had to elevate one of the “uncertain” alleles to meet the CODIS standard. This opens up the possibility (not that I’m asserting this is the case, it’s just a possibility) that what has been submitted to CODIS isn’t even representative of the foreign donor’s DNA.

I don’t think anyone was denying that the CODIS sample was mixed. I think the denial was in reference to the tDNA samples. The two matching tDNA samples validate the CODIS sample. The arguments generally against the reliability of the CODIS sample seem to ignore this fact.

There are a few explanations for allele drop out, and we don’t know which one applies here, but chances are that the absence of all markers tested for is simply a function of degradation (degradation likely being a function of sample type, location and conditions, etc).

Additionally, the arguments against the CODIS sample are generally of the type that DNA-man might make to cast doubt that it came from him. They are problems involving its usefulness in making an identification, BUT, but but but... the usefulness is really a matter of elimination. That DNA, in spite of all concerns raised, still tells us who it did NOT come from. For, example it didn’t come from any of the 200+ people so far compared by the authorities. These people were eliminated (as based on DNA). Without doubt.

And, please – we should all know by now that none of these samples were LCN samples.
...

 

[inspector rex]

Oh, there was plenty of recommendation, rex. AH just didn't bother until ST's resignation letter made the rounds and the CO state government started feeling the heat.

Yet, even after he left, this MSM quote indicates BPD still didn't have the evidence they needed to go to a Grand Jury.
Not even on "probable cause", let alone "beyond reasonable doubt"

We will never agree on whose 'fault' it was, but the fact that all these years later, there is still not sufficient evidence to charge anyone indicates to me there never was during ST's time or even Kolar's time.

Their suspicions are just that and nothing more.

 

[tml]

I'm not exactly sure what your trying to say...I'm having trouble following you :blushing:

But what is so glaringly noticeable to me is....

[...]did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously, permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death[...]​

KNOWINGLY is the word that I can't get past. That's not an indication of an "accident." And the language is repeated in the 2nd true bill as well. Every time I read it, it's a clear indicator for BDI, for me.

The language indicates it was an ongoing problem, and they knew about it. And it would appear that the "child abuse" relates to "prior sexual contact." There was no discounting or diminishing of that evidence by the GJ. It's not like JRB continually showed signs of physical abuse, such as bruises or broken bones, or multiple ER visits, all of which would likely been documented, and or found out about in some way prior to the convening of the GJ.

Did the GJ get JRBs medical records? Or did the pediatrician admit to something damning? When Kolar recounts the "island of privacy" issue(s) he does so with regard to turning the info over to investigators. He gives no real indication of any of the GJ proceedings relating to what was or wasn't subpoenaed (b/c he can't) yet when he makes his presentation to ML, it's BRs records he's after.

If on the other hand, the GJ believed the evidence pointed to JR for the abuse, the true bills wouldn't have been the same for both he and Patsy. The above could have still been applicable for PR, but for JR it would have been completely different.

Ugggghhhh.

Back to your original point. You're questioning the felony 1 vs felony 2 concept, right?

Idk what the answer is, all I know is that when someone commits a crime, or is an accessory to a crime, and someone ends up dead....there shouldn't be a time limit on when they can be prosecuted.

That's a fantastic point. If the GJ believed JR was the perpetrator, he and PR wouldn't be so interchangeable. They are given the same true bill because the evidence reviewed by the GJ couldn't determine which, if either, actually committed or had knowledge prior to the murder. So, they don't have evidence pointing to one parent over the other, but they do have evidence pointing to both parents complicit as accessories. The only POSSIBLE person the R's could be charged as accessories to a crime for is BR.

 

[BBB167893]

Yet, even after he left, this MSM quote indicates BPD still didn't have the evidence they needed to go to a Grand Jury.
Not even on "probable cause", let alone "beyond reasonable doubt"

We will never agree on whose 'fault' it was, but the fact that all these years later, there is still not sufficient evidence to charge anyone indicates to me there never was during ST's time or even Kolar's time.

Their suspicions are just that and nothing more.

Just remember one thing: there's a distinction between not having enough evidence and not having enough evidence as to WHO did WHAT. There's a reason why the vast majority of cases like this are solved through gaining confessions rather than forensic evidence.