Has the case fizzled a bit?

[midwest mama]

I think it's most likely JR put her in the WC. But I can't prove it.

But she's probably dead when that happens, so we aren't dealing with kidnapping. We're dealing with moving a corpse.

Agree, since there is reason to believe the strangulation ligature might have been applied as JB lay face down on the carpet near the paint tray just outside the WC. The urine stain found in the carpet has been linked to the urine stains on her leggings, to the front, which could have occurred at the time of death.

But, during any other movement of JB up to that point, she would have been alive, and then couldn't the kidnapping aspect apply?

 

[UKGuy]

Agree, since there is reason to believe the strangulation ligature might have been applied as JB lay face down on the carpet near the paint tray just outside the WC. The urine stain found in the carpet has been linked to the urine stains on her leggings, to the front, which could have occurred at the time of death.

But, during any other movement of JB up to that point, she would have been alive, and then couldn't the kidnapping aspect apply?

midwest mama,
From memory there was a bloodstain on JonBenet's bedroom pillow.

Now lets assume the pillow never left the bedroom, and JonBenet did.

Then whilst alive and against her will she is transported down to the basement to be asphyxiated.

That looks like kidnapping and murder to me, i.e. Felony Homicide.


.

 

[rashomon]

I have not read Kolars book either. Was told he felt it was PR that did it by a poster in confidence.

I have read Kolar's book, but did not get the impression that his theory was PDI.

 

[UKGuy]

Sure, if a stranger enters someone's home, disables them and carries them from one part of the house to another against their will, then that would probably be considered kidnapping, according to certain definitions of that term. It would also be assault, breaking and entering, etc.

However, parents do all sorts of things to their children without the child's consent. If it goes beyond a certain point it is child abuse, NOT kidnapping! In the Ramsey case it went all the way to murder. But there's no way John or Patsy could ever have been indicted for kidnapping. Please! Where do these very strange ideas come from?

This case has generated a truly bizarre mythology all its own that would be regarded as totally absurd in any other context, but is taken seriously on these forums.

docg,

However, parents do all sorts of things to their children without the child's consent. If it goes beyond a certain point it is child abuse, NOT kidnapping!

LOL, sooo fuunny. Parents, relatives, friends of the family, etc, who remove children from house, school, almost anywhere really, to anywhere else, even if its just a car ride round the block, or a bus ride downtown, are guilty of child abduction, google the topic.

So John in your theory is already guilty of kidnapping JonBenet!


.

 

[OpenMind4U]

docg,

LOL, sooo fuunny. Parents, relatives, friends of the family, etc, who remove children from house, school, almost anywhere really, to anywhere else, even if its just a car ride round the block, or a bus ride downtown, are guilty of child abduction, google the topic.

So John in your theory is already guilty of kidnapping JonBenet!


.

The first time I heared Kolar's interview with Boyles on August 2, I was surprized to hear his comment about 'kidnapping'. Please listen this interview and you'll hear what Kolar said. Just paraphrasing: 'I believe the head blow happens in kitchen or dinning room. And taking JBR to the basement without her consents is the KIDNAPPING'. Like many people on this forum, I was stunned for two reasons: why Kolar think that head blow happens in kitchen or dinning room and why he called 'the moving to the basement' the 'kidnapping'?...But after cynic's post, I understand the connection! I believe that key is 'without the consent and without lawful justification'.

Of course, when you're taking your child by the hand or caring her/him to the bed when she/he is not in consent with you because she/he doesn't want to go to sleep yet - nothing unlawful here on your part!......But it's much different when in the process of getting your child to sleep you'll bonded child with the rope or put tape on her mouth or bang her on the head or taking her sleep in the basement - the police will arrest you for the child abuse and KIDNAPPING!

jmo

 

[midwest mama]

I have read Kolar's book, but did not get the impression that his theory was PDI.

Agree. My impression was that Kolar felt it important to reveal the suspected degree of sexual psychological irregularity being displayed by both children alongside other childhood psychological abnormalities perhaps present in Burke.

And Kolar focused on clear revelation of JR's inordinate behaviors after the crime, and then specifically devoted an entire chapter to these actions. He did not do so with Patsy.

 

[Chrishope]

Agree, since there is reason to believe the strangulation ligature might have been applied as JB lay face down on the carpet near the paint tray just outside the WC. The urine stain found in the carpet has been linked to the urine stains on her leggings, to the front, which could have occurred at the time of death.

But, during any other movement of JB up to that point, she would have been alive, and then couldn't the kidnapping aspect apply?

Sure, but we still have to prove JR's involvement in the crime.

 

[Chrishope]

The problem with Cynic's approach -quoting statutes- is that it's too simplistic. (And that is not meant to be derogatory to Cynic who seems to be a quite intelligent person)

Non-lawyers frequently believe that if a statute says X,Y, and Z, then it means X, Y, and Z. But the full meaning and application of statutes still comes from the judges as they apply it in particular cases. Thus one needs to read case law to see what the statute really means.

If, for example, you found Smith v. Colorado, and in that case the judge said the kidnapping statute applies to dead bodies, then it does, even though the statute doesn't say so. OTOH, if the judge found that the statute doesn't apply to dead bodies, then it doesn't, even though the statute really doesn't say one way or the other. That's a pretty simple example, but it suffices to make the point.

The reason I point this out is because Doc has said something obviously true, even though the statute appears to say different. Every parent has had the experience of carrying a child to bed - a child that does not want to go to bed. Carrying your 6 year old upstairs to her bedroom while she kicks and screams "I don't want to go to bed!" is carrying her against her will. It is not kidnapping in the US, or, I suspect, anywhere else on this planet. There is something in the statute about "W/o lawful justification". To put that in other words, there needs to be intent on the part of the person carrying the victim. Intent to commit one of the listed crimes for which the felony murder rule can be applied. Or the carrying needs to be part and parcel of committing a crime.

So to apply the felony murder rule, in the context of kidnapping, we'd have to prove JB was moved, against her will, as part of the plan to molest/kill/conceal her from the other parent, etc.


We can have our theories of how she got there, but proving it is difficult.

 

[UKGuy]

The first time I heared Kolar's interview with Boyles on August 2, I was surprized to hear his comment about 'kidnapping'. Please listen this interview and you'll hear what Kolar said. Just paraphrasing: 'I believe the head blow happens in kitchen or dinning room. And taking JBR to the basement without her consents is the KIDNAPPING'. Like many people on this forum, I was stunned for two reasons: why Kolar think that head blow happens in kitchen or dinning room and why he called 'the moving to the basement' the 'kidnapping'?...But after cynic's post, I understand the connection! I believe that key is 'without the consent and without lawful justification'.

Of course, when you're taking your child by the hand or caring her/him to the bed when she/he is not in consent with you because she/he doesn't want to go to sleep yet - nothing unlawful here on your part!......But it's much different when in the process of getting your child to sleep you'll bonded child with the rope or put tape on her mouth or bang her on the head or taking her sleep in the basement - the police will arrest you for the child abuse and KIDNAPPING!

jmo

OpenMind4U,
Yes I listened to Kolar's interview with Boyles on August 2, courtesy of cynic, but I was already aware that taking without consent, as its known in the UK, can be construed as kidnapping.

If you give some thought to it, Kolars opinion that JonBenet was taken from the kitchen or dining room to the basement is flawed.

JonBenet could really have been relocated from anywhere else in the house, in particular, her own bedroom. Add in the bloodstain on her pillow, then the forensic evidence suggests this as the location she was kidnapped from?


.

 

[UKGuy]

The problem with Cynic's approach -quoting statutes- is that it's too simplistic. (And that is not meant to be derogatory to Cynic who seems to be a quite intelligent person)

Non-lawyers frequently believe that if a statute says X,Y, and Z, then it means X, Y, and Z. But the full meaning and application of statutes still comes from the judges as they apply it in particular cases. Thus one needs to read case law to see what the statute really means.

If, for example, you found Smith v. Colorado, and in that case the judge said the kidnapping statute applies to dead bodies, then it does, even though the statute doesn't say so. OTOH, if the judge found that the statute doesn't apply to dead bodies, then it doesn't, even though the statute really doesn't say one way or the other. That's a pretty simple example, but it suffices to make the point.

The reason I point this out is because Doc has said something obviously true, even though the statute appears to say different. Every parent has had the experience of carrying a child to bed - a child that does not want to go to bed. Carrying your 6 year old upstairs to her bedroom while she kicks and screams "I don't want to go to bed!" is carrying her against her will. It is not kidnapping in the US, or, I suspect, anywhere else on this planet. There is something in the statute about "W/o lawful justification". To put that in other words, there needs to be intent on the part of the person carrying the victim. Intent to commit one of the listed crimes for which the felony murder rule can be applied. Or the carrying needs to be part and parcel of committing a crime.

So to apply the felony murder rule, in the context of kidnapping, we'd have to prove JB was moved, against her will, as part of the plan to molest/kill/conceal her from the other parent, etc.


We can have our theories of how she got there, but proving it is difficult.

Chrishope,
cynic seems to be doing a pretty good job in presenting objective factually correct information. Not something either you or docg excel at.

So to apply the felony murder rule, in the context of kidnapping, we'd have to prove JB was moved, against her will, as part of the plan to molest/kill/conceal her from the other parent, etc.

How about JonBenet lying unconcious in her bedroom who is then moved to the basement then asphyxiated.

Proving this would demonstrate Felony Homicide, since JonBenet was unable to offer her consent.

The same principle is involved when men rape intoxicated women, who are so mute, they cannot give consent, or enter into any agreement.


.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
cynic seems to be doing a pretty good job in presenting objective factually correct information. Not something either you or docg excel at.

You aren't very good at it either, as long as we are engaging in pointless attacks.

How about JonBenet lying unconcious in her bedroom who is then moved to the basement then asphyxiated.


Proving this would demonstrate Felony Homicide, since JonBenet was unable to offer her consent.

That would work.

The same principle is involved when men rape intoxicated women, who are so mute, they cannot give consent, or enter into any agreement.


.

 

[Flatlander]

Sure, but we still have to prove JR's involvement in the crime.

What about JR shirt fibers found in the crotch of the size 12 bloomies. If we stick with the R's story ... PR put her to bed and didn't see JB again until JR found her in the cellar. How did his shirt fibers worn to the Whites party and not worn the next morning get there?

And I still believe JB was struck the head blow in the Sunroom with a golf club by BR. Sort of a game of clue is't it.

 

[UKGuy]

You aren't very good at it either, as long as we are engaging in pointless attacks.



That would work.

Chrishope,
pointless to you of course.

.

 

[Chrishope]

What about JR shirt fibers found in the crotch of the size 12 bloomies. If we stick with the R's story ... PR put her to bed and didn't see JB again until JR found her in the cellar. How did his shirt fibers worn to the Whites party and not worn the next morning get there?

And I still believe JB was struck the head blow in the Sunroom with a golf club by BR. Sort of a game of clue is't it.

2ndry transfer is a possibility. I think it was JR who killed her, but the fiber evidence is inconclusive.

It differs from Clue in that it's possible in Clue to prove an answer correct.

 

[UKGuy]

What about JR shirt fibers found in the crotch of the size 12 bloomies. If we stick with the R's story ... PR put her to bed and didn't see JB again until JR found her in the cellar. How did his shirt fibers worn to the Whites party and not worn the next morning get there?

And I still believe JB was struck the head blow in the Sunroom with a golf club by BR. Sort of a game of clue is't it.

Flatlander,
Good question and something else that a jury could decide on. Add in a bloodstain on JonBenet's pillow, pineapple in her stomach, wearing size-12 underwear, Patsy's fibers found on the duct tape and the ligature, then I reckon thats enough to charge JR with Felony Homicide?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DocG, you are WRONG!!! 'Carrying your own child from one part of your house to another' without child's consent is part of kidnapping definition! This quote from cynic post. It fits perfectly, regardless from which room to which room the child was seizing and carring! Especially, when child was found abandon in the room BEHIND the LATCHED DOOR!:

The seizing and carrying of a person from one place to another is the basic asportation element of kidnapping. The elements of Kidnapping in the Second Degree are :
■Knowingly
■Forcibly or otherwise
■Seizing and carrying any person from one place to another
■Without her consent, and
■Without lawful justification.

You are wrong. That would mean a parent can't put a child in bed, a crib or a bathtub or take a child to school or the doctor unless the child wants to. In this country, a parent can bring, take or move a child anywhere they want to. That includes inside the home, car and anywhere else a CUSTODIAL parent wishes to bring a child.
What you quote means actions by an adult who is not the parent of a minor child or legal guardian of the person being moved.

And if JB could be proven to have been dead already when she was places in the wineceller, the charge would be moving a body/tampering with the evidence. While I am not sure about the statue for moving a body, the statute for tampering with the evidence, even in a murder case, may have run out as far as JB is concerned.

 

[UKGuy]

You are wrong. That would mean a parent can't put a child in bed, a crib or a bathtub or take a child to school or the doctor unless the child wants to. In this country, a parent can bring, take or move a child anywhere they want to. That includes inside the home, car and anywhere else a CUSTODIAL parent wishes to bring a child.
What you quote means actions by an adult who is not the parent of a minor child or legal guardian of the person being moved.

And if JB could be proven to have been dead already when she was places in the wineceller, the charge would be moving a body/tampering with the evidence. While I am not sure about the statue for moving a body, the statute for tampering with the evidence, even in a murder case, may have run out as far as JB is concerned.

DeeDee249,
And BR, moving a body etc, he is not a parent or person with custodial status.

Felony Homicide would cover the collusion aspect without requiring to name the particular person who moved JonBenet.


.

 

[midwest mama]

FW reported to investigators that he went back down to the WC after he came up ahead of John upon the discovery of JB, and handled the duct tape and a cigar box. Handling the duct tape I guess I can understand since it was on JB's mouth, but why would he have wanted to handle the cigar box?

John Ramsey was questioned about the cigar box during one of his interviews as well.

Anyone know of any information available about this other than JR responding he kept his Cubans there? Would FW have wanted to take a couple of them back upstairs for someone to smoke?

 

[cynic]

It looks as if I should clarify a few things about my earlier post.
Although the portrayal in television and movies can demonstrate a portion of what the crime of kidnapping includes it doesn’t get into the more technical legal elements.
In general, kidnapping consists of unlawful movement or confinement of another individual, perhaps with a further offensive motive or some other aggravating factor.
It is a very serious crime and can lead to a life sentence
Two “technical” elements which are somewhat surprising and even shocking entail
1. Seemingly insignificant movement of an individual
2. Simple restraint of an individual with or without movement.

Examples of movement considered to be kidnapping:

In State v. Coleman, a man emptied the cash register then ordered the attendant into the back room and raped her at gunpoint.
The additional movement or confinement 1) prevented the victim from summoning help; 2) lessened the risk of detection; 3) created a significant danger or increased the victim’s risk of harm. In the present case the act of dragging victim 30 feet after the initial assault was beyond that necessary to complete sexual battery. His movement lessened the risk of detection which increased the victim’s risk of harm.
http://www.studentweb.law.ttu.edu/ils/Outlines/outlines_criminal_bubany.htm

In a recent criminal case near Jacksonville, FL, the defendant became angry with the victim, hit her with a chair, dragged her by her hair into the next room, beat her until she was unconscious and dragged her outside and continued to beat her. The entire incident lasted approximately seven minutes. The defendant was charged with and convicted of kidnapping and attempted second degree murder. The criminal defense lawyer for the defendant tried to have his conviction for kidnapping reversed based on the fact that the movement of the victim was not independently significant to the attempted murder charge and was only slight and incidental to that charge. However, the appellate court disagreed and found that these facts were sufficient to establish a kidnapping conviction.
http://www.jacksonvillecriminallawyerblog.com/2011/05/the_crime_of_kidnapping_only_r.html

Faison was convicted of five offenses committed during the course of separate sexual attacks on two women. After discovering that the only employee present in a small contractor's office was the receptionist, Faison entered the office and attacked the young woman. To do so, he dragged her from her desk in front of a large window to the rear of the office where he sexually assaulted her. He then forced her into a nearby restroom and raped her again.
About ten minutes later, the receptionist spotted Faison across the street, and her employer attempted to stop him. Faison escaped into a residential area and broke into the home of another young woman. He attacked her and violently dragged her from the kitchen down a hallway into the bedroom. The two continued to fight until the woman was nearly unconscious; Faison then sexually assaulted her.
The jury convicted Faison of two counts of kidnapping, two counts of sexual battery, and one count of first-degree burglary.2 The court sentenced him to three consecutive 99-year prison terms for the kidnappings and burglary and suspended the sentence on the two sexual battery convictions.
http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19830210_0003209.FL.htm/qx


Although the following does not involve movement of a victim it falls under the “restraint” and unlawful denial of the liberty of the victim and is considered “kidnapping.” This is another example of a more “technical” element of kidnapping and one that does not typically come to mind when we think of what kidnapping is, however, OJ Simpson is not in jail for murder currently (although he should be) he is in jail for this very reason, (among others,) that is, for his role in restraining and thereby depriving a man of his liberty in a Las Vegas hotel room.
Restraint means to restrict a person’s movement without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person’s liberty, bu moving the person from one place to another. Restraint is without consent if it is accomplished by force, intimidation, or deception.

Question:
Taylor came up to Professor Hortense after class and demanded that she remain in the classroom after all the students left. She resisted doing so, at which point Taylor told her, "Look, I have a loaded pistol in my back pack. If you don't stay here for another 10 minutes or so, I will shoot you." The professor remained for 10 minutes while Taylor yelled at her about her poor teaching. After 10 minutes, Taylor allowed her to leave.

Did Taylor kidnap the professor?

Answer:

Yes, the kidnapping was complete very soon after Professor Hortense remained in the room against her will. While Taylor will raise a number of fairly serious points in response to the prosecution, none will succeed. It is true that the professor was forced to remain in the room rather that required to move to another location. Kidnapping, however, involves either the removal of the victim or her confinement. Moreover, the fact that the confinement took place in a public area is of no import. The key to the crime is that the defendant has forced the victim to move, or not move, against her will. Finally, the mere fact that the confinement was limited to a ten-minute period does not matter. Essentially, any period of unlawful movement or confinement is sufficient for the purpose of the crime of kidnapping. While some modern statutes have degrees of the crime, linked to the time of the movement/confinement, these laws do not usually redefine the crime; they simply alter the punishment depending on the seriousness of the offense.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/qanda/crimlaw.asp

Hopefully the above examples have shown that there are lesser known, technical legal elements involved in the charge of kidnapping and that a prosecutor could use one of these to serve as an underlying felony on the road to a felony murder charge in the JonBenet case.

It has been mentioned that a parent has the autonomy to be able to move their own child around without their consent, that is, of course, true.
That autonomy does not extend to movement for unlawful purposes.
Parents have been charged with kidnapping and are in prison serving time for the crime.
Most typically it involves a custody dispute and one parent snatching a child away, but I mention it to show that a parent is criminally liable when it comes to UNLAWFUL movement of their child.
In this case, if, for example, JonBenet was moved after being struck on the head to another location and at that location she was asphyxiated, she was kidnapped under the technical legal definition of kidnapping.
The movement would have been for no lawful purpose and would have served to further endanger and ultimately end her life.

What needs to be understood is that presently there is no other possible charge against John Ramsey other than felony murder with the underlying felony of kidnapping.

Note that in the interview with Peter Boyles, James Kolar says the following with respect to the issue of whether kidnapping occurred in the JonBenet case:
Peter Boyles: You call the book, Who Really Kidnapped, was there a kidnapping at all Jim?
James Kolar: Well I think if you look at what I interpret as the evidence, I think she was struck in the kitchen, or the dining room where the pineapple was being consumed and then moved downstairs afterword and if you move one person from one room to another even in the same home or apartment that’s considered a kidnapping when it’s against their will.
(Above quote can be found at 2:51 below.)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcBudyKeOFo&feature=relmfu"]BMKK2 - YouTube[/ame]

A murder charge (not felony murder) would fail because there would be no way to point the finger exclusively at John. There is simply no way to know who did what and that would have to be the case in order to prove a charge of murder.
The statute of limitations has been exceeded on all other possible lesser charges.
As I indicated in my previous post, the “beauty” of felony murder is that is that it removes the need to know who specifically did what, as long as their involvement can be shown.
When Darnay Hoffman and members of the so called “Dream Team” speculated on felony murder as an option they based it on the underlying felony of sexual assault.
Although that is still a possibility, the revelations in Kolar’s book relating to Burke’s possible involvement would make this a very challenging issue in court, IMO.
That leaves kidnapping as the only remaining viable option as an underlying felony, although, it also would not be without its share of problems.
For example, the defense would only need to hint that the head blow and asphyxiation occurred in the same place. Therefore, there is no kidnapping and consequently felony murder becomes unprovable
(This would, of course, be in addition to the reasonable doubt that they would attempt to introduce by way of the intruder theory.)

 

[cynic]

FW reported to investigators that he went back down to the WC after he came up ahead of John upon the discovery of JB, and handled the duct tape and a cigar box. Handling the duct tape I guess I can understand since it was on JB's mouth, but why would he have wanted to handle the cigar box?

John Ramsey was questioned about the cigar box during one of his interviews as well.

Anyone know of any information available about this other than JR responding he kept his Cubans there? Would FW have wanted to take a couple of them back upstairs for someone to smoke?

You might find the following to be of interest:
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-cigar-box.htm