Grand Jury True Bills John & Patsy Discussion thread

[bettybaby00]

I think people are attributing everything to this law, when that's not the real issue. The law prohibits prosecution of that child, as that child is considered incapable of committing any crime, because crimes require a certain intent. For the same reason, the child can't be named as a suspect. It would be wrong for anyone to say a child was guilty of murder in such a situation, because a child of that age cannot commit murder, which is a criminal term. But just like we hear about a 5 year old shooting another 5 year old after finding a gun, I don't think anyone is forbidden from saying a child killed another child, probably without names, although it would be easy to figure out. Then you go ahead and prosecute the parents if they had any involvement, or decide you are not bringing charges.

The DA had the discretion not to prosecute or taken certain investigatory steps, and he didn't. That's entirely separate from the law against prosecuting children, if they even thought that was what happened. If that law had never existed, the DA could still have simply decided not to prosecute the child, especially if he was as biased as some people claim. I don't know what influenced the DA's decisions in this case, but I think people are way too stuck on the Colorado law, if Burke had any involvement whatsoever.

I agree, however this case is so far beyond the "typical" murder investigation it didn't at the time and never will conclude in a manner we're used to seeing. both Lacey and Hunter are complicit in this failure.

In addition, one of the biggest hurdles in this case centers around the post murder behaviors by the parents/defense team.

In the burning down the house example as well as the personal anctdotes we both recounted, resolution is achieved b/c THE PARENTS have told the truth about what happened.

These parents didn't call 911 and hysterically claim, "we need an ambulance...please help, there's been a terrible accident!"

Once they became part of the crime via the staging, and cover-up the circumstances of the situation changed dramatically.

It's my opinion that by casting suspicion on some mysterious intruder(s) the RN ensured they were viewed as victims. Without the note, the parents would have been hauled down to the police station immediately, or arrested at the hospital, and the crime scene would never have become so contaminated with the exception of any staging.

As victims, they were free to leave the house, and were immediatly protected by their lawyers. They even sought to insulate themselves further by leaving the state before JonBenet's body was even removed from the house!

By the time LE even considered they might have been involved, they were already safely ensconced behind an impenetrable defense.

They had nothing to loose. I think we'd be very hard pressed to cite another case of a murdered child where the parents refused to sit down with LE to be formally interviewed for 4 months.

If it all fell apart, they'll be prosecuted, and likely face serious jail time. If successful, they get away with it. Public suspicion is a hell of a lot preferable to being confined to a jail cell, and it certainly spared their son from being labeled a killer.

Take all of the above, and add a DA with a track record of rarely prosecuting anybody, let alone anyone backed by a defense team like the Ramsey's had, and you've got the perfect storm.

:moo:

 

[questfortrue]

I think people are attributing everything to this law, when that's not the real issue. The law prohibits prosecution of that child, as that child is considered incapable of committing any crime, because crimes require a certain intent. For the same reason, the child can't be named as a suspect. It would be wrong for anyone to say a child was guilty of murder in such a situation, because a child of that age cannot commit murder, which is a criminal term. But just like we hear about a 5 year old shooting another 5 year old after finding a gun, I don't think anyone is forbidden from saying a child killed another child, probably without names, although it would be easy to figure out. Then you go ahead and prosecute the parents if they had any involvement, or decide you are not bringing charges.

The DA had the discretion not to prosecute or taken certain investigatory steps, and he didn't. That's entirely separate from the law against prosecuting children, if they even thought that was what happened. If that law had never existed, the DA could still have simply decided not to prosecute the child, especially if he was as biased as some people claim. I don't know what influenced the DA's decisions in this case, but I think people are way too stuck on the Colorado law, if Burke had any involvement whatsoever.

BBM. Agreed. However, as Bettybaby00 notes, there is so much more involved in this case.

An additional explanation for this can be found in the culture of Boulder. As one outsider phrased it: Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. It is a community which greatly prides ‘itself’ on “itself.’ IOW, Boulder has youth and vitality, the beauty of its environment, a university with many talented people, and city officials who wish to keep the population content. (AH had been originally elected under the suggestion that he would have a moderate policy on prosecuting marijuana usage. Seems humorous now.) As others have noted, the Rs had the help and cooperation of the DA’s office. All this has been enumerated many times on various threads. One has to think of this cooperation bordering or even entering into the realm of corruption.

Then one can see how the image of the Rs would be destroyed if it had been shown that someone in the family had fatally injured and sexually molested their daughter. The FBI called it “Staging within staging.” This was an event so drenched in misdirection that even one GJ member commented “we didn’t know who did what.” Ms. Perfect Image, PR would have gone down fighting, like General Lee, using her husband’s wealth both to rescue her family image and to escape any repercussions. And their efforts paid off.

Footnote: Lest one imagine that perhaps there may be changes in store for Boulder, likely still a ‘Perfect Town,’ the following quote may hold a clue as to what may be on the horizon for this city. From the Daily Camera:

"Boulder City Manager Jane Brautigam said when Testa was named interim chief that the city will go with an internal candidate (to replace Chief Beckner) rather than conduct a national search.

"Boulder has a unique culture of customer service in its police department," Von Keyserling said. "Chief Beckner has worked hard to instill that approach throughout our police department. Part of our preference is to have a Boulder police chief who truly understands the community's values, and we think our best bet will be an internal candidate."

MHO

 

[otg]

Consider for a moment (regardless of how you feel this thing actually happened, or who you think committed the crimes associated with JonBenet’s death) what I have suggested (understated word there) in the past as the circumstances around it. Then consider the following possibility:

What if, when Burke testified to the GJ, he gave enough information that it was obvious that he was responsible and that his parents had simply covered up what happened to protect their only remaining child and their own reputations. Maybe he even broke down and made a complete “confession” of sorts. Had this happened, what might the results be?

Perhaps Kane would explain to the GJ that Burke (as an “infant” in the eyes of Colorado law) could not be charged or even named as a suspect. John and Patsy could not be charged with anything other than accessory after-the-fact and allowing the situation to develop that led up to the unintended death, since they did not directly cause the death. Perhaps when their true bills were signed, a sympathetic DA with ties to the Ramsey lawyers might decide not to even pursue charges against them because it was only a one-time offense that would probably never occur again, and he could certainly understand their inappropriate response in trying to protect their child. IOW, the public was not in jeopardy of a repeat of the crime. The only thing that would happen by taking it to court is that people’s reputations would be ruined, and the DA’s incompetence in court would be on display for the entire world to see. Maybe an agreement was made behind closed doors that no charges would be brought as long as the person responsible would continue going to psychological counseling in the future. So the whole matter was best just swept under the rug and forgotten about. The DA would call a press conference and announce that no one was charged -- not enough evidence (IOW, “everyone go home, there is nothing to see here”). The GJ members would be reminded of their oath to keep silent with the threat of prosecution should they violate it. Perhaps another sympathetic and ambitious DA would someday in the future see a way to lay to rest in the mind of the public the unsatisfied desire for justice by blaming an unquestionably despicable of a pervert. Too bad that it was obvious from the start that he was simply a nutcase who could be proven to be somewhere else when it happened.

We’re not supposed to be here. We should have by now forgotten about this little matter and “moved on with our lives” the way the Ramseys did. “It’s all just more drama,” after all.

FBDO - Ending - YouTube

 

[Theonly1]

I think people are attributing everything to this law, when that's not the real issue. The law prohibits prosecution of that child, as that child is considered incapable of committing any crime, because crimes require a certain intent. For the same reason, the child can't be named as a suspect. It would be wrong for anyone to say a child was guilty of murder in such a situation, because a child of that age cannot commit murder, which is a criminal term. But just like we hear about a 5 year old shooting another 5 year old after finding a gun, I don't think anyone is forbidden from saying a child killed another child, probably without names, although it would be easy to figure out. Then you go ahead and prosecute the parents if they had any involvement, or decide you are not bringing charges.

The DA had the discretion not to prosecute or taken certain investigatory steps, and he didn't. That's entirely separate from the law against prosecuting children, if they even thought that was what happened. If that law had never existed, the DA could still have simply decided not to prosecute the child, especially if he was as biased as some people claim. I don't know what influenced the DA's decisions in this case, but I think people are way too stuck on the Colorado law, if Burke had any involvement whatsoever.

Ex-law student here too. I agree 100 percent with your analysis. Nothing would stop them from saying "a child did it." They say children kill all the time. Sometimes they just do not say the name.

 

[Theonly1]

Consider for a moment (regardless of how you feel this thing actually happened, or who you think committed the crimes associated with JonBenet’s death) what I have suggested (understated word there) in the past as the circumstances around it. Then consider the following possibility:

What if, when Burke testified to the GJ, he gave enough information that it was obvious that he was responsible and that his parents had simply covered up what happened to protect their only remaining child and their own reputations. Maybe he even broke down and made a complete “confession” of sorts. Had this happened, what might the results be?

Perhaps Kane would explain to the GJ that Burke (as an “infant” in the eyes of Colorado law) could not be charged or even named as a suspect. John and Patsy could not be charged with anything other than accessory after-the-fact and allowing the situation to develop that led up to the unintended death, since they did not directly cause the death. Perhaps when their true bills were signed, a sympathetic DA with ties to the Ramsey lawyers might decide not to even pursue charges against them because it was only a one-time offense that would probably never occur again, and he could certainly understand their inappropriate response in trying to protect their child. IOW, the public was not in jeopardy of a repeat of the crime. The only thing that would happen by taking it to court is that people’s reputations would be ruined, and the DA’s incompetence in court would be on display for the entire world to see. Maybe an agreement was made behind closed doors that no charges would be brought as long as the person responsible would continue going to psychological counseling in the future. So the whole matter was best just swept under the rug and forgotten about. The DA would call a press conference and announce that no one was charged -- not enough evidence (IOW, “everyone go home, there is nothing to see here”). The GJ members would be reminded of their oath to keep silent with the threat of prosecution should they violate it. Perhaps another sympathetic and ambitious DA would someday in the future see a way to lay to rest in the mind of the public the unsatisfied desire for justice by blaming an unquestionably despicable of a pervert. Too bad that it was obvious from the start that he was simply a nutcase who could be proven to be somewhere else when it happened.

We’re not supposed to be here. We should have by now forgotten about this little matter and “moved on with our lives” the way the Ramseys did. “It’s all just more drama,” after all.

FBDO - Ending - YouTube

But in this scenario it would not have taken the GJ 6 months! Not even 6 days.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Consider for a moment (regardless of how you feel this thing actually happened, or who you think committed the crimes associated with JonBenet’s death) what I have suggested (understated word there) in the past as the circumstances around it. Then consider the following possibility:

What if, when Burke testified to the GJ, he gave enough information that it was obvious that he was responsible and that his parents had simply covered up what happened to protect their only remaining child and their own reputations. Maybe he even broke down and made a complete “confession” of sorts. Had this happened, what might the results be?

Perhaps Kane would explain to the GJ that Burke (as an “infant” in the eyes of Colorado law) could not be charged or even named as a suspect. John and Patsy could not be charged with anything other than accessory after-the-fact and allowing the situation to develop that led up to the unintended death, since they did not directly cause the death. Perhaps when their true bills were signed, a sympathetic DA with ties to the Ramsey lawyers might decide not to even pursue charges against them because it was only a one-time offense that would probably never occur again, and he could certainly understand their inappropriate response in trying to protect their child. IOW, the public was not in jeopardy of a repeat of the crime. The only thing that would happen by taking it to court is that people’s reputations would be ruined, and the DA’s incompetence in court would be on display for the entire world to see. Maybe an agreement was made behind closed doors that no charges would be brought as long as the person responsible would continue going to psychological counseling in the future. So the whole matter was best just swept under the rug and forgotten about. The DA would call a press conference and announce that no one was charged -- not enough evidence (IOW, “everyone go home, there is nothing to see here”). The GJ members would be reminded of their oath to keep silent with the threat of prosecution should they violate it. Perhaps another sympathetic and ambitious DA would someday in the future see a way to lay to rest in the mind of the public the unsatisfied desire for justice by blaming an unquestionably despicable of a pervert. Too bad that it was obvious from the start that he was simply a nutcase who could be proven to be somewhere else when it happened.

We’re not supposed to be here. We should have by now forgotten about this little matter and “moved on with our lives” the way the Ramseys did. “It’s all just more drama,” after all.

FBDO - Ending - YouTube

I think you summed up my own opinion perfectly
Ya nailed it!
IMO of course..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otg]

But in this scenario it would not have taken the GJ 6 months! Not even 6 days.

The GJ's term was originally 12 months. It was extended another 6 months, which is the maximum allowed by CO statutes. But about 3 months into the extension is when Burke was called to testify. He was one of the last (if not the very last) witness called. It was shortly after that that the GJ wrapped up, adjourned, and was dismissed. (Key witnesses were not called until they had investigated enough to know what questions to pursue.)

 

[bettybaby00]

OMG OTG that video clip...I could tell from the screen shot what movie it was from but wondered what relevance could it possibly have?????

As for the rest of your comments, I've come to expect that anything is possible in this case....also makes me recall Lacy's pissed off written rant to Kolar which showed she never intended to expend too much energy on the case...except of course if some crazy dope was willing to "confess."

I hired you as my Chief Investigator in July 2005. At that time, we discussed your role regarding the Ramsey case. [...]

We made a deliberate decision to put our investigatory priorities on recent cases. You obviously disregarded my direction. You proceeded without my approval and without consulting with me. You were clearly acting outside of your defined role.

[...]

Finally, I need to remind you that as of the date of your resignation from the Boulder District Attorney’s Office, you are no longer protected by any immunity from civil litigation based on your conduct as an investigator.

And then of course, she ends with a threat

 

[bettybaby00]

But in this scenario it would not have taken the GJ 6 months! Not even 6 days.

IRRC BR was the last to testify.

 

[DeeDee249]

Ex-law student here too. I agree 100 percent with your analysis. Nothing would stop them from saying "a child did it." They say children kill all the time. Sometimes they just do not say the name.

I think different states have different criteria. My impression is that in Boulder they couldn't even say "a child did it" because everyone would know (or presume) who that child was. There were 2 children in the R home, only one survived that night. So it's pretty obvious which child did it.

 

[questfortrue]

OMG OTG that video clip...I could tell from the screen shot what movie it was from but wondered what relevance could it possibly have?????

As for the rest of your comments, I've come to expect that anything is possible in this case....also makes me recall Lacy's pissed off written rant to Kolar which showed she never intended to expend too much energy on the case...except of course if some crazy dope was willing to "confess."

And then of course, she ends with a threat

Thanks, BB, for the ML quote.

Guess it worked out well for everyone, especially for JR and AH enjoying their golden retirement years. Oh, and LW, made some dinero in the lawsuits, elevating him to ‘Atlanta Fat Cat’ stature?
Worked out well . . .

Except for . . .

”Doc “ Miller, had to spend his life savings defending himself;

The FW family - reputation shredded;

The McReynolds family – another character ambush;

The BPD – reputation also sliced and diced;

The taxpayers of Boulder - $2,000,000 plus spent;

ST – his law enforcement career destroyed;

Kolar – his work on the case never allowed any standard or customary consideration;

LA – career destroyed;

Kane – his months and months of work demolished by the actions of a weak and corrupt (moo) DA. (MK’s face betrayed his emotions about AH’s actions);

Koby – he left his position after a police union vote of no-confidence;

LHP - especially when ML lied to a judge and said no indictment had been returned;

A boy, now a man, hung with an albatross weight, one of the most famous unsolved murders in the US;

Those of us heartsick that the truth of JB’s death has not been told. The truth about her death is likely the only mechanism left which would provide some small measure of justice.

And last, but very far from least, a tiny girl named JonBenet who died on Christmas in the safety of her own home.

:candle: All moo

 

[lawstudent]

I think there was a case around here where two young children played with an illegal firearm and one ended up dead. The firearm belonged to a young male relative in the home who had put in in his desk. I think initially other adults in the home claimed there had been an intruder who shot that child, in an effort to cover up for the young male who shouldn't have had that gun.

Police sorted it out, told the public what happened, and brought charges against the teen and I think his mom.

This case is definitely complicated by the fact that they lied and so then the police have to explain all the staging and all that, but police can resolve a situation that was not portrayed honestly. If you believe BDI and that the parents covered it up, the parents could easily have been charged with filing false reports, lying, etc., or murder if they ultimately killed her and the initial head blow did not, and they had not realized this.

Obviously if they said a child in the house did this, then yes, it is automatically the brother. But that's not implicating him in a murder - it is implicating him in a killing. I'm sure kids are implicated in all sorts of actions in the Colorado press, but not announced as criminal suspects. Like explaining kids were playing with matches and burned down a home, but not listing them as arson suspects - or even if someone died in the fire, you wouldn't say they were responsible for manslaughter. But you could still report the facts. The act and the crime are different things.

I also find no information that a child can't be named as a suspect - could someone show me where that is substantiated? I found the children's code provision saying they could not be convicted of any crime and that they lacked criminal intent. Logically, you wouldn't name someone as a suspect knowing you could not charge them - there is no point. In that People v. Miller case discussed earlier, they had no problem discussing the fact that the child had taken the videogames and violated the law.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think there was a case around here where two young children played with an illegal firearm and one ended up dead. The firearm belonged to a young male relative in the home who had put in in his desk. I think initially other adults in the home claimed there had been an intruder who shot that child, in an effort to cover up for the young male who shouldn't have had that gun.



Police sorted it out, told the public what happened, and brought charges against the teen and I think his mom.



This case is definitely complicated by the fact that they lied and so then the police have to explain all the staging and all that, but police can resolve a situation that was not portrayed honestly. If you believe BDI and that the parents covered it up, the parents could easily have been charged with filing false reports, lying, etc., or murder if they ultimately killed her and the initial head blow did not, and they had not realized this.



Obviously if they said a child in the house did this, then yes, it is automatically the brother. But that's not implicating him in a murder - it is implicating him in a killing. I'm sure kids are implicated in all sorts of actions in the Colorado press, but not announced as criminal suspects. Like explaining kids were playing with matches and burned down a home, but not listing them as arson suspects - or even if someone died in the fire, you wouldn't say they were responsible for manslaughter. But you could still report the facts. The act and the crime are different things.



I also find no information that a child can't be named as a suspect - could someone show me where that is substantiated? I found the children's code provision saying they could not be convicted of any crime and that they lacked criminal intent. Logically, you wouldn't name someone as a suspect knowing you could not charge them - there is no point. In that People v. Miller case discussed earlier, they had no problem discussing the fact that the child had taken the videogames and violated the law.

I would imagine like juvenile sex offenders that are tried as juveniles...everyone is forbidden to release their name. That goes for the victim/victims and their families as well. The penalty varies but it's REALLY STIFF. An adult can get jail time for violating the offenders right to confidentiality.

Every once in a blue moon you may see it reported. For every one you see...there are 1000 you didn't.
IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lawstudent]

I would imagine like juvenile sex offenders that are tried as juveniles...everyone is forbidden to release their name. That goes for the victim/victims and their families as well. The penalty varies but it's REALLY STIFF. An adult can get jail time for violating the offenders right to confidentiality.

Every once in a blue moon you may see it reported. For every one you see...there are 1000 you didn't.
IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you talking about the U.S. or are you from another country, like England? I know in England they do this. In the US, it is general media/police policy not to name juveniles or sex assault victims, but absent a gag order by the judge, it's not illegal. I think sex offenders charged as juveniles have to go on the registry in most places.

ETA: I actually can't imagine there being much protocol about such a situation - unlike with rape victims or teens charged with crimes, children too young to be prosecuted don't come up much and there's not as much of a concern.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Are you talking about the U.S. or are you from another country, like England? I know in England they do this. In the US, it is general media/police policy not to name juveniles or sex assault victims, but absent a gag order by the judge, it's not illegal. I think sex offenders charged as juveniles have to go on the registry in most places.

ETA: I actually can't imagine there being much protocol about such a situation - unlike with rape victims or teens charged with crimes, children too young to be prosecuted don't come up much and there's not as much of a concern.

I'm in the U.S.

No, most do not go on the registry, it happens ALL the time and at an alarming rate. 9-10-11-11-13 yr olds...
Truth be told, the laws protect them. They even attend public school, could be sitting right next to your kid...and no one knows what they have done.

Talk to a CPS worker, Juvenile Judge, Guardian Ad Litem...they'll tell you stories that will keep you up at night.

All IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bettybaby00]

I think there was a case around here where two young children played with an illegal firearm and one ended up dead. The firearm belonged to a young male relative in the home who had put in in his desk. I think initially other adults in the home claimed there had been an intruder who shot that child, in an effort to cover up for the young male who shouldn't have had that gun.

Police sorted it out, told the public what happened, and brought charges against the teen and I think his mom.

This case is definitely complicated by the fact that they lied and so then the police have to explain all the staging and all that, but police can resolve a situation that was not portrayed honestly. If you believe BDI and that the parents covered it up, the parents could easily have been charged with filing false reports, lying, etc., or murder if they ultimately killed her and the initial head blow did not, and they had not realized this.

Obviously if they said a child in the house did this, then yes, it is automatically the brother. But that's not implicating him in a murder - it is implicating him in a killing. I'm sure kids are implicated in all sorts of actions in the Colorado press, but not announced as criminal suspects. Like explaining kids were playing with matches and burned down a home, but not listing them as arson suspects - or even if someone died in the fire, you wouldn't say they were responsible for manslaughter. But you could still report the facts. The act and the crime are different things.

I also find no information that a child can't be named as a suspect - could someone show me where that is substantiated? I found the children's code provision saying they could not be convicted of any crime and that they lacked criminal intent. Logically, you wouldn't name someone as a suspect knowing you could not charge them - there is no point. In that People v. Miller case discussed earlier, they had no problem discussing the fact that the child had taken the videogames and violated the law.

I have never been able to google the specific language regarding the inability to name a child in any way when he has committed a crime, but can't be held criminally responsible I grappled with this for a long time when I first started posting here. I know something was recently posted (Blue crab ?) during a discussion about AHs affidavit regarding BR. Talk about playing word games!!!!!

Interestingly Kolar stated:

I believe there are still active steps to be taken to achieve resolution and closure in this case. One has to be committed, however, to pursuing the truth, examining every lead of merit that presents itself, and be willing to explore the darker side of human behavior. ​

Seems as if Kolar agrees with you.

Let's consider for a moment that a child committed this crime, and through the course of the investigation, LE determined that the parents covered it up and their actions warranted prosecution, which I believe is what Kolar is alluding to.

In this case the parents never admitted to any wrong doing, and although that's not specifically necessary, it sure would have helped.

The failure to seek resolution in this case in a way that it could have been deemed "closed," IMO, can be laid directly at the feet of the DAs office--both Hunter and Lacy. At times, it appeared as if Hunter seemed determined to sabotage the work of the BPD. We've recounted those actions over and over again, and yet despite them the GJ still drew significant conclusions.

Not only did they believe that her parents covered up the murder of their daughter for SOMEONE, but they also believe they allowed it to happen (the Ramseys "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 of JonBenet Ramsey.")

Hunter's "lack of evidence" argument isn't very convincing IMO. By ignoring the true bills, he forever changed the course of the investigation, and he knowingly duped the public in the process with his word play at the conclusion of the GJ. I'm not saying that when faced with a competent defense team it would have been easy, but many convictions have been achieved on much less.

As for Lacy, she perpetuated Hunter's failures by pretending the true bills didn't even exist. Kolar sums up her problem in the latter part of the above quote, as her blind belief in an intruder, coupled with "her relationship" with the Ramseys ensured she never had the commitment to examine every lead in pursuit of the truth.

When the true bills were finally made public--which would have happened if Hunter had signed them--Stan Garnett stated:

I became aware of the existence of these documents when I took office in 2009. I asked my appellate department to review them and was told that they related to charges for which the statute of limitations had run years ago. ​

That's on Hunter and Lacy. But maybe that's just me.

 

[bettybaby00]

Eta: for some reason the edit button seems to have disappeared.

I have never been able to google the specific language regarding the inability to name a child in any way when he has committed a crime, but can't be held criminally responsible I grappled with this for a long time when I first started posting here. I know something was recently posted (Blue crab ?) during a discussion about AHs affidavit regarding BR. Talk about playing word games!!!!!

I realize I made a typo, I meant to say a previous post by "Bluebottle"' not Bluecrab!

 

[questfortrue]

This statute contains some guidelines on confidentiality.

TITLE 19. CHILDREN'S CODE
ARTICLE 1.GENERAL PROVISIONS
PART 3. RECORDS AND INFORMATION
C.R.S. 19-1-303 (2013)

19-1-303. General provisions - delinquency and dependency and neglect cases - exchange of information - civil penalty

(1) (a) The judicial department or any agency that performs duties and functions under this title with respect to juvenile delinquency or dependency and neglect cases or any other provisions of this title may exchange information, to the extent necessary, for the acquisition, provision, oversight, or referral of services and support with the judicial department or any other agency or individual, including an attorney representing state or county agencies and an attorney appointed by the court, that performs duties and functions under this title with respect to such cases. In order to receive such information, the judicial department, attorney, or agency shall have a need to know for purposes of investigations and case management in the provision of services or the administration of their respective programs. The judicial department or the agencies shall exchange information in accordance with paragraph (b) of this subsection (1).

(2) (b) The judicial department, an agency, an attorney representing an agency, or an attorney appointed by the court described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) shall exchange information with the judicial department or similar agencies or individuals who have a need to know to the extent necessary for the acquisition, provision, oversight, and referral of services and support and if provided in the course of an investigation or for case management purposes. The provision of information by the judicial department shall include electronic read-only access to the name index and register of actions for agencies or attorneys appointed by the court to those case types necessary to carry out their statutory purpose and the duties of their court appointment as provided in this part 3. The state court administrator of the judicial department and the executive directors of the affected agencies shall ensure that there is a process for electronically exchanging information pursuant to this section. Agencies, attorneys, and individuals shall maintain the confidentiality of the information obtained.

By the time of the GJ, the Rs were living in Atlanta. If there had been any disclosure from BR’s testimony, there would have been no need to share any information about BR with any Colorado entities.

And, while there is a fine in place for breaching confidentiality, it’s only $1000. However, it doesn’t seem implausible at all that given how long it has taken for the TBs to come out, that the role of BR is still hidden.

I still believe - from the words of Kolar and reporter Brennan - that there will be more info to come.

moo

 

[lawstudent]

I'm in the U.S.

No, most do not go on the registry, it happens ALL the time and at an alarming rate. 9-10-11-11-13 yr olds...
Truth be told, the laws protect them. They even attend public school, could be sitting right next to your kid...and no one knows what they have done.

Talk to a CPS worker, Juvenile Judge, Guardian Ad Litem...they'll tell you stories that will keep you up at night.

All IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You said juveniles charged with sex offenses as juveniles - are these kids charged and convicted of sex offenses? Juvenile court records are not allowed to be made public - but that's totally different than a kid who was not charged and subjected to court proceedings. For example, if a young child is suspended for sexual harassment, which I've seen happen for 5 year olds who ask inappropriate questions or act out sexual behavior in class, the parents will frequently go on the news to complain, naming the child. But that's not because they are the parents - if the kid happened to be living with non-guardians, they could go on the news as well, or non-family members could comment. It's not a criminal proceeding - they are just discussing the facts and complaining about the school.

This statute contains some guidelines on confidentiality.

TITLE 19. CHILDREN'S CODE
ARTICLE 1.GENERAL PROVISIONS
PART 3. RECORDS AND INFORMATION
C.R.S. 19-1-303 (2013)

19-1-303. General provisions - delinquency and dependency and neglect cases - exchange of information - civil penalty

Thank you - but this seems to apply to cases - child services investigations, or children be investigated for crimes (delinquency). It doesn't seem to apply to children who are not being charged with a crime. I agree it's unlikely BR would have been named for a variety of reasons, but I don't think it was as impossible to do as some people portray.

 

[Linda7NJ]

You said juveniles charged with sex offenses as juveniles - are these kids charged and convicted of sex offenses? Juvenile court records are not allowed to be made public - but that's totally different than a kid who was not charged and subjected to court proceedings. For example, if a young child is suspended for sexual harassment, which I've seen happen for 5 year olds who ask inappropriate questions or act out sexual behavior in class, the parents will frequently go on the news to complain, naming the child. But that's not because they are the parents - if the kid happened to be living with non-guardians, they could go on the news as well, or non-family members could comment. It's not a criminal proceeding - they are just discussing the facts and complaining about the school.









Thank you - but this seems to apply to cases - child services investigations, or children be investigated for crimes (delinquency). It doesn't seem to apply to children who are not being charged with a crime. I agree it's unlikely BR would have been named for a variety of reasons, but I don't think it was as impossible to do as some people portray.

I'm going to reply to your post more fully later...just wanted to quickly say...

If the GJ came to the conclusion Burke did it and the parents covered it up... They are nothing at all like me. I would have blabbed it ALL over!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk