Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramsey’s death

[BOESP]

Anti-K,

Why do you persist in repeating this false statement? Its precisely because the touch-dna might not have arrived via direct contact that you cannot assume the above as true.

You, i.e. Anti-K, cannot know how the touch-dna arrived on JonBenet until you have identified the donor suspect. So please desist in stating that it rules out the Ramsey's, its something you have no knowledge about!

.

Thought your post deserved repeating, UKGuy.

As Anti-K once said, DNA is DNA. As I once said, the methods of transfer are several, including secondary and tertiary transfer.

Carrier and collection methods vary as well, which make DNA collected from a semen sample in an incriminating place far more weighty than tDNA collected on a garment that's been exposed to who knows what (sheets, dirty hands, etc.).

Then the contributor has to be placed at the crime scene.

Were the longjohns new? Who folded them? When were they laundered last? What had they been in contact with?

It may very well turn out that the tDNA belongs to a participant in the cover-up or directly responsible but regardless it doesn't discount all the evidence that points to Ramsey involvement.

Off my soapbox.

 

[Anti-K]

The reason I refer to touch DNA as a new science is because of the breakthrough when touch DNA science came into existence. There was a great deal of bragging that 'now' they only needed only a few cells to extract DNA. The example is about 7 or 8 skin cells.

Just from the brief citation from Wikipedia about touch DNA, "The technique has been criticized for high rates of false positives due to contamination — for example, fingerprint brushes used by crime scene investigators can transfer trace amounts of skin cells from one surface to another, leading to inaccurate results."

If a fingerprint brush can transfer trace amounts of skin cells, then how is it that it can't be transferred cloth to cloth? It absolutely can and does.

We slough off about 30,000 to 40,000 skin cells per minute. 30,000 skin cells * 60 minutes = 1,800,000 skin cells per hour. We're leaving genetic material just in the form of skin cells everywhere we go. Some of those cells might stay with a single article of clothing, but if that article of clothing comes into contact with another article of clothing (just by the numbers alone) skin cells will be transferred.

The whole idea that touch DNA can prove someone guilty or innocent in my opinion is crazy. It has to be used with other additional evidence. So where is that other evidence?

You’re confusing tDNA with LCN. This is a common mistake that sometimes occurs BECAUSE in the early days of LCN it was often referred to as touch DNA. None of the DNA in this case was LCN. This renders virtually all of your remarks in the quoted post irrelevant.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

We know JB was wiped down, specifically in her groin area. Coincidentally this is the only place DNA was found. We know that the perpetrator of this crime made use of items already in the basement. We also know that workers were known to use the basement, probably using that very bathroom exclusively. So what is to say that one of those workers didn't vigorously dry their babe or hands with a hand towel from that bathroom? And if that towel was used to wipe JBs groin area,would it be likely that DNA from that towel would transfer? And If the person handling the towel then pulled up the long johns, wouldn't DNA be transferred there as well?

Sure LE tried to discover where this DNA came from, but they could only lol at people that the Ramsey's said were in the house, and the Ramsey's really would have no incentive to uncover the owner of that DNA if they were in fact involved in this crime.

I let's say for example the Ramsey's used that hand towel. And maybe they suspect that the DNA came from a person that had visited in the weeks before the crime. Why would they tell LE about that person?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No DNA was found in the victim’s groin area/where she was wiped down. DNA was found on the inside crotch of her panties, commingled with her blood and it was found on the outside hip area of her leggings.

IMO, your worker/towel scenario is pure fabrication and, no, I don’t see it as being a possible way for this DAN to end up where it was found.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

Why do you persist in repeating this false statement? Its precisely because the touch-dna might not have arrived via direct contact that you cannot assume the above as true.

You, i.e. Anti-K, cannot know how the touch-dna arrived on JonBenet until you have identified the donor suspect. So please desist in stating that it rules out the Ramsey's, its something you have no knowledge about!

.

I persist because the statement is not false.

Primary transfer is always the likeliest method of transfer. That’s a factual statement. Trace evidence found in incriminating locations is presumed to be form most recent contact and left during the course of an assault – that’s the reason why investigators look for it. You don’t get to say that it is the result of innocent transfer unless you can source it and establish the point.

Incidentally I have never said that the tDNA and CODIS sample belong to the killer. I only say that it represents a potential suspect who must be identified and investigated.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Thought your post deserved repeating, UKGuy.

As Anti-K once said, DNA is DNA. As I once said, the methods of transfer are several, including secondary and tertiary transfer.

Carrier and collection methods vary as well, which make DNA collected from a semen sample in an incriminating place far more weighty than tDNA collected on a garment that's been exposed to who knows what (sheets, dirty hands, etc.).

Then the contributor has to be placed at the crime scene.

Were the longjohns new? Who folded them? When were they laundered last? What had they been in contact with?

It may very well turn out that the tDNA belongs to a participant in the cover-up or directly responsible but regardless it doesn't discount all the evidence that points to Ramsey involvement.

Off my soapbox.

Well, there isn’t very much evidence pointing to Ramsey involvement to begin with so there’s really not that much to overcome.

And, a reasonable and believable secondary transfer theory has NEVER been presented by ANYONE.
Also, remember we’re not talking about tDNA only. There is also the no-tDNA CODIS sample.

Etc and onwards...
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

Well, there isn’t very much evidence pointing to Ramsey involvement to begin with so there’s really not that much to overcome.

And, a reasonable and believable secondary transfer theory has NEVER been presented by ANYONE.
Also, remember we’re not talking about tDNA only. There is also the no-tDNA CODIS sample.

Etc and onwards...
...

AK

BBM: Several highly trained investigators a Grand Jury and by all appearances some Ramsey former friends disagree with the above.

I, for one, see real problems with any of the DNA unless and until it is identified. It still won't negate the evidence indicating Ramsey involvement.

 

[Anti-K]

BBM: Several highly trained investigators a Grand Jury and by all appearances some Ramsey former friends disagree with the above.

I, for one, see real problems with any of the DNA unless and until it is identified. It still won't negate the evidence indicating Ramsey involvement.

I’m not sure about the “highly trained” part.

The tDNA samples and the CODIS sample were not available to the Grand Jury and we don’t know how it would have effected their decision.
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

Like I've already said, DNA doesn't disqualify all the other evidence that persuaded the Grand Jury to bring forward a true bill. DNA can be inclusive but it is not exclusive.

The remark about the detectives and FBI agents doesn't deserve a response.

 

[Mama2JML]

Like I've already said, DNA doesn't disqualify all the other evidence that persuaded the Grand Jury to bring forward a true bill.

The remark about the detectives and FBI agents doesn't deserve a response.

BBM

You're right, the evidentiary DNA doesn't "disqualify" or "negate" any other evidence. Who is disputing that?...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BOESP]

BBM

You're right, the evidentiary DNA doesn't "disqualify" or "negate" any other evidence. Who is disputing that?...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anti-K, in post 348, seems to imply the Grand Jury would not have asked for a true bill if the DNA "evidence" was known. Like I've said, DNA can possibly be inclusive but it does not exclude any other person(s) from guilt.

In the eyes of that Grand Jury, the evidence to show probable cause against the Ramseys was there, DNA or not.

Imo, it isn't evidence. At this point, it is just a piece of data that can't yet be applied.

 

[Mama2JML]

Anti-K, in post 348, seems to imply the Grand Jury would not have asked for a true bill if the DNA "evidence" was known. Like I've said, DNA can possibly be inclusive but it does not exclude any other person(s) from guilt.

In the eyes of that Grand Jury, the evidence to show probable cause against the Ramseys was there, DNA or not.

Imo, it isn't evidence. At this point, it is just a piece of data that can't yet be applied.

We don't know how the evidentiary DNA would have affected the GJ's decision, but does it matter? Probable cause to charge someone doesn't nearly equate to that someone's guilt. Reasonable doubt exists for very good reasons. Can you imagine how many innocent people would be wrongfully convicted if probable cause was the standard?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BOESP]

I'm going to say this one last time: DNA may be inclusive but it can not be exclusive. It may indicate or prove that some certain person was at the scene of a crime and/or a participant. It does not prove that someone was not at the scene or was not a participant.

I'm done.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K, in post 348, seems to imply the Grand Jury would not have asked for a true bill if the DNA "evidence" was known. Like I've said, DNA can possibly be inclusive but it does not exclude any other person(s) from guilt.

In the eyes of that Grand Jury, the evidence to show probable cause against the Ramseys was there, DNA or not.

Imo, it isn't evidence. At this point, it is just a piece of data that can't yet be applied.

I did not in any way, shape or form imply or seem to imply that “the Grand Jury would not have asked for a true bill if the DNA ‘evidence’ was known.”

I clearly stated that we do not know how that information would have effected their decision. We do not know.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

I persist because the statement is not false.

Primary transfer is always the likeliest method of transfer. That’s a factual statement. Trace evidence found in incriminating locations is presumed to be form most recent contact and left during the course of an assault – that’s the reason why investigators look for it. You don’t get to say that it is the result of innocent transfer unless you can source it and establish the point.

Incidentally I have never said that the tDNA and CODIS sample belong to the killer. I only say that it represents a potential suspect who must be identified and investigated.
...

AK

Anti-K,

Incidentally I have never said that the tDNA and CODIS sample belong to the killer.

Therefore the killer might be a Ramsey?

.

 

[BBB167893]

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...

I understood it just fine.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, there isn’t very much evidence pointing to Ramsey involvement to begin with so there’s really not that much to overcome.

Is that a joke?

And, a reasonable and believable secondary transfer theory has NEVER been presented by ANYONE.

Just because YOU don't find it reasonable...

Also, remember we’re not talking about tDNA only. There is also the no-tDNA CODIS sample.

Which was so degraded it took six years for technology to reach the point where they could get an incomplete sample. (9-1/2 markers out of 13)

 

[Anti-K]

Is that a joke?

Nope. Not a joke.

Just because YOU don't find it reasonable...

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

Which was so degraded it took six years for technology to reach the point where they could get an incomplete sample. (9-1/2 markers out of 13)

And this matter because?
...

AK

 

[otg]

Thank you otg. I know zero about Colorado law. I interpreted and re-interpreted all possible definitions for "cross-fingerpointing" but I got it now.

Imo, I now agree that it won't fly in the Ramsey case and wouldn't even if they did act together. It's a real sorry shame Hunter didn't take this case to court after a Grand Jury finding probable cause then let the chips fall where they may.

I moved our conversation from the other thread because I thought it had evolved into a discussion that belonged in this one.

Here’s the thing, B (at least I didn’t shorten your username to two letters ): I know we may disagree on our interpretations of what the RGJ was thinking, just as we do about the Low Velocity/High Pressure head blow. But just like the LV/HP head blow, since I can’t prove it or disprove it, I keep open the possibility even if I tend to think otherwise. I won’t try to convince you to agree with me about the meaning of the True Bills, but I’ll explain to you my thought process so you’ll understand it and at least consider the possibility (as I still do the belief by some that the RGJ just didn’t know who was responsible or that their True Bills were some sort of “compromise”).

If the RGJ thought there was a probable cause that one of the parents was guilty of M-1 but didn’t know which one, as accomplices or accessories (before the fact) they could both be charged and tried as principles of the crime according to CO law. Mike Kane knew this and I’m sure explained it to the Jurors. So if the RGJ believed that either one of the parents was the principle (the one who pulled the cord or the one who caused the head wound), the other parent (as accomplice helping the principle) is equally guilty of M-1 according to the law. Even if one parent did the head blow and the other parent did the strangulation, because of the proximate/distal cause relationship, they are each still responsible for the ultimate outcome (the death). (This is going back to my previous post on the other thread here (clickable link)... Would one act have happened “but for” the other?) However neither parent was True Billed as an accomplice, or as an “accessory before the fact” -- they were each TB’d as “accessories after the fact”. This is spelled out in the charge, and it makes the charge lesser than M-1 (as accomplice or accessory before the fact). It also means that there is a Statute of Limitations on it. That SoL would be 3-years from the date of the crime, or (as questfortrue has pointed out) it would be extended (I think an extra 2-years :thinking:) because the person charged had moved out of the state of CO.

OTOH, consider for a moment that the RGJ felt that another person other than one of the two Ramsey parents caused the death. If that third person was guilty of M-1 (as is stated in the text of the True Bills), according to those TBs John and Patsy EACH knowingly aided that person in escaping justice. IOW, they didn’t participate in the crime itself and didn’t know about it or help that person until after the crime had been committed. Read the TB -- this is exactly what it states. This is why they were charged as “accessories after the fact”. The CO Statute on this is CRS 18-8-105 ACCESSORY TO CRIME. Here’s the link:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics...info=off&searchtype=lt&search=C.R.S.+18-8-105


Remember what one of the RGJ members said about their decision:

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

Think about that and what was being said. Paraphrased it would be, “John and Patsy Ramsey may have done something that they could have prevented.” What comes to mind here? What could they have done that may have prevented this from happening? Would their not murdering her come to mind? And also, “They could have helped her, and they didn't.” Helped her in what way? Again, by their not murdering her? I don’t think this juror was thinking that one of the two parents had murdered JonBenet but couldn’t figure out which one did it. Especially taking into account the other True Bill for permitting her “to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to (her) life or health,” resulting in her death, I believe that the RGJ felt John and Patsy had done what they did after JonBenet was already dead. No head blow by the parents, no tightening a ligature to “finish her off” by the parents, nothing was done by either of the parents which contributed to the cause of her death. If they thought either of the parents was (directly) responsible for the death, they would both have been indicted for M-1 and let a jury decide if one was less responsible than the other. I believe the True Bills make what the RGJ thought happened very clear if you think it out.


NOTE: I know the accomplice versus accessory gets confusing -- especially if the accessory can be further defined by one who participates “before the fact” or “after the fact”. I was getting it all confused myself until my lawyer friend explained it better. Anyone having difficulty with this should read back over my first post in this thread where I quoted what he told me and how it applies in Colorado law since it can vary from state to state. Also, the definitions provided in the following two links might be helpful:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/accomplice
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/accessory

 

[questfortrue]

I moved our conversation from the other thread because I thought it had evolved into a discussion that belonged in this one.

Here’s the thing, B (at least I didn’t shorten your username to two letters ): I know we may disagree on our interpretations of what the RGJ was thinking, just as we do about the Low Velocity/High Pressure head blow. But just like the LV/HP head blow, since I can’t prove it or disprove it, I keep open the possibility even if I tend to think otherwise. I won’t try to convince you to agree with me about the meaning of the True Bills, but I’ll explain to you my thought process so you’ll understand it and at least consider the possibility (as I still do the belief by some that the RGJ just didn’t know who was responsible or that their True Bills were some sort of “compromise”).

If the RGJ thought there was a probable cause that one of the parents was guilty of M-1 but didn’t know which one, as accomplices or accessories (before the fact) they could both be charged and tried as principles of the crime according to CO law. Mike Kane knew this and I’m sure explained it to the Jurors. So if the RGJ believed that either one of the parents was the principle (the one who pulled the cord or the one who caused the head wound), the other parent (as accomplice helping the principle) is equally guilty of M-1 according to the law. Even if one parent did the head blow and the other parent did the strangulation, because of the proximate/distal cause relationship, they are each still responsible for the ultimate outcome (the death). (This is going back to my previous post on the other thread here (clickable link)... Would one act have happened “but for” the other?) However neither parent was True Billed as an accomplice, or as an “accessory before the fact” -- they were each TB’d as “accessories after the fact”. This is spelled out in the charge, and it makes the charge lesser than M-1 (as accomplice or accessory before the fact). It also means that there is a Statute of Limitations on it. That SoL would be 3-years from the date of the crime, or (as questfortrue has pointed out) it would be extended (I think an extra 2-years :thinking:) because the person charged had moved out of the state of CO.

OTOH, consider for a moment that the RGJ felt that another person other than one of the two Ramsey parents caused the death. If that third person was guilty of M-1 (as is stated in the text of the True Bills), according to those TBs John and Patsy EACH knowingly aided that person in escaping justice. IOW, they didn’t participate in the crime itself and didn’t know about it or help that person until after the crime had been committed. Read the TB -- this is exactly what it states. This is why they were charged as “accessories after the fact”. The CO Statute on this is CRS 18-8-105 ACCESSORY TO CRIME. Here’s the link:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics...info=off&searchtype=lt&search=C.R.S.+18-8-105


Remember what one of the RGJ members said about their decision:

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

Think about that and what was being said. Paraphrased it would be, “John and Patsy Ramsey may have done something that they could have prevented.” What comes to mind here? What could they have done that may have prevented this from happening? Would their not murdering her come to mind? And also, “They could have helped her, and they didn't.” Helped her in what way? Again, by their not murdering her? I don’t think this juror was thinking that one of the two parents had murdered JonBenet but couldn’t figure out which one did it. Especially taking into account the other True Bill for permitting her “to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to (her) life or health,” resulting in her death, I believe that the RGJ felt John and Patsy had done what they did after JonBenet was already dead. No head blow by the parents, no tightening a ligature to “finish her off” by the parents, nothing was done by either of the parents which contributed to the cause of her death. If they thought either of the parents was (directly) responsible for the death, they would both have been indicted for M-1 and let a jury decide if one was less responsible than the other. I believe the True Bills make what the RGJ thought happened very clear if you think it out.


NOTE: I know the accomplice versus accessory gets confusing -- especially if the accessory can be further defined by one who participates “before the fact” or “after the fact”. I was getting it all confused myself until my lawyer friend explained it better. Anyone having difficulty with this should read back over my first post in this thread where I quoted what he told me and how it applies in Colorado law since it can vary from state to state. Also, the definitions provided in the following two links might be helpful:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/accomplice
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/accessory

~RBBM~
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.

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 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? Can a child commit child abuse? Could there have been an accessory after the fact to an aggravated incest charge?

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

 

[Frigga]

I understood it just fine.

I did too. Come on now.