Premeditated?

[otg]

I know. I share your frustration. I've never been able to find anything in Colorado statutes that explicitly says 9year olds and younger can get away with murder. Such a cut-and-dried rule/law should be easy to find.

What I have found is CO juvenile detention facility websites that say they don't take children under 10 and the statute I linked before that says children under 10 can't testify (with exceptions as you noted). If you follow the logic, if a child under 10 can't testify then they can't participate in their defense which pretty much means they are constitutionally unprosecutable.

There's a huge hole in the law, though, right? The law is implying the children are mentally incompetent. But the adults who have committed murder and are mentally incompetent are still legally responsible....but the children 9 and younger walk away?

I highly doubt it. Not if we're talking about a deliberate sexual assault and, at the very least, aggravated assault if not one of the manslaughters. I think cases like this are still handled legally but the precedence is not easily found because it's a cps type office or family court under seal.

Relevant portions of the Colorado Criminal Code (b&ubm):

TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 1.PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY
PART 8. RESPONSIBILITY


C.R.S. 18-1-801 (2013)​

18-1-801. Insufficient age

The responsibility of a person for his conduct is the same for persons between the ages of ten and eighteen as it is for persons over eighteen except to the extent that responsibility is modified by the provisions of the "Colorado Children's Code", title 19, C.R.S. No child under ten years of age shall be found guilty of any offense.

An infant is presumed incapable of committing crime because he is presumed not to possess criminal intent. Calkins v. Albi, 163 Colo. 370, 431 P.2d 17 (1967).

An infant under the age of 10 years shall not be found guilty of any offense. Gallegos v. Tinsley, 139 Colo. 157, 337 P.2d 386 (1959); LeCoq ex rel. LeCoq v. Klemme, 28 Colo. App. 590, 476 P.2d 280 (1970).

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

Though the children's code may not in so many words raise the age below which there can be no criminal responsibility as concerns a felony from 10 to 14 years, in effect, that is exactly what it did. People ex rel. Terrell v. District Court, 164 Colo. 437, 435 P.2d 763 (1967).

[FONT=&quot] Incapacity is a defense. The incapacity of a party, by reason of his tender years, to commit the crime charged may be a good defense on the trial, as it may effectually negative the charge. Mitchell v. People, 24 Colo. 532, 52 P. 671 (1898).[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]


...and the following, in case anyone brings up age at the time of the offense versus the time of realization of commission of the offense:

[/FONT]

TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 1.3. SENTENCING IN CRIMINAL CASES
PART 12. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS - SENTENCING IN CLASS 1 FELONIES


C.R.S. 18-1.3-1201 (2013)​

18-1.3-1201. Imposition of sentence in class 1 felonies - appellate review

[FONT=&quot](4) For purposes of this section, mitigating factors shall be the following factors:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] (a) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime; or[/FONT]


​

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[otg]

More information relevant to recent discussions from the Colorado Criminal Statutes (as relates to "cross-finger-pointing defense"):

TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 1.PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY
PART 6. PARTIES TO OFFENSES - ACCOUNTABILITY


C.R.S. 18-1-603 (2013)​

18-1-603. Complicity

Defendant need not perform all acts necessary to offense. Where two or more are involved in the commission of a criminal offense and one helps the other, though not actually performing all the acts necessary to the commission of the offense, all are, nevertheless, principal offenders and are punishable as though all have committed the necessary acts. Reed v. People, 171 Colo. 421, 467 P.2d 809 (1970).

No election required as to which defendant was accessory. There was no error in the trial court's refusing to compel the district attorney to elect, before the evidence was presented, as to which defendant was principal and which accessory. Block v. People, 125 Colo. 36, 240 P.2d 512 (1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 978, 72 S. Ct. 1076, 96 L. Ed. 1370, reh'g denied, 344 U.S. 848, 73 S. Ct. 6, 97 L. Ed. 659 (1952).

An accessory who stands by and aids in the perpetration of a crime may properly be charged as a principal, and in the case of codefendants it is unnecessary to spell out which one is the principal and which the accessory, nor is it necessary to characterize and classify the specific acts of each. Schreiner v. People, 146 Colo. 19, 360 P.2d 443, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 856, 82 S. Ct. 94, 7 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1961).

In the case of codefendants it is unnecessary to spell out which one is the principal and which the accessory. McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309, 490 P.2d 287 (1971).

When two persons are charged with the same crime, the prosecution is not required to spell out which one is the principal and which is the accessory. People v. Scheidt, 182 Colo. 374, 513 P.2d 446 (1973).

Applied in People v. Saars, 196 Colo. 294, 584 P.2d 622 (1978); People v. Alonzi, 40 Colo. App. 507, 580 P.2d 1263 (1978).

B. Indictment or Information.

An accessory may be charged as principal. Voris v. People, 75 Colo. 574, 227 P. 551 (1924); Newton v. People, 96 Colo. 246, 41 P.2d 300 (1935); Pacheco v. People, 96 Colo. 401, 43 P.2d 165 (1935); Bacino v. People, 104 Colo. 229, 90 P.2d 5 (1939); Erwin v. People, 126 Colo. 28, 245 P.2d 1171 (1952); Harris v. People, 139 Colo. 9, 335 P.2d 550 (1959); Martinez v. People, 166 Colo. 524, 444 P.2d 641 (1968).

An accessory may be indicted and punished as a principal. People v. Zobel, 54 Colo. 284, 130 P. 837 (1913); Mulligan v. People, 68 Colo. 17, 189 P. 5 (1920); Harris v. People, 139 Colo. 9, 335 P.2d 550 (1959).

If accessories are under the law deemed and considered as principals, then they are principals insofar as the indictment, trial, and punishment are concerned. Mulligan v. People, 68 Colo. 17, 189 P. 5 (1920); Harris v. People, 139 Colo. 9, 335 P.2d 550 (1959).

The acts of the principal are the acts of the accessory, and the accessory may be charged and punished accordingly as a principal. Oaks v. People, 161 Colo. 561, 424 P.2d 115 (1967).

A person who aids, abets, or assists in the perpetration of a criminal offense becomes an accessory to that offense and is chargeable and punishable as a principal. Reed v. People, 171 Colo. 421, 467 P.2d 809 (1970).

An accessory who stands by and aids in the perpetration of a crime may properly be charged as a principal. McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309, 490 P.2d 287 (1971).

An accessory charged as a principal for an accessory is deemed and considered a principal, punishable as a principal, and plainly shall be charged as a principal. Fernandez v. People, 176 Colo. 346, 490 P.2d 690 (1971).

In the case of codefendants it is unnecessary to characterize and classify the specific acts of the principal and the accessory. McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309, 490 P.2d 287 (1971).

It is ultimately the jury's responsibility to determine the specific role a defendant plays. People v. Scheidt, 182 Colo. 374, 513 P.2d 446 (1973).
​

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[DeeDee249]

The way I read this is that the cross-finger-pointing defense IS NO defense. If both were there and participated, it is not necessary that it be shown who did what, correct? So what was AH's problem? He was so obsessed with not being able to prove who did what. When really, all he was worried about was not having to go to trial. He had gone to trial, what, ONCE? And lost. That's why he plea-bargained every case, even serious ones like murder. And supposedly he wanted to offer a plea-bargain this one too.

 

[otg]

The way I read this is that the cross-finger-pointing defense IS NO defense.

That's the way I read it too, DD.

If both were there and participated, it is not necessary that it be shown who did what, correct?

:thumb:

So what was AH's problem?

:dunno: Incompetence?

He was so obsessed with not being able to prove who did what. When really, all he was worried about was not having to go to trial. He had gone to trial, what, ONCE? And lost. That's why he plea-bargained every case, even serious ones like murder. And supposedly he wanted to offer a plea-bargain this one too.

 

[midwest mama]

The way I read this is that the cross-finger-pointing defense IS NO defense. If both were there and participated, it is not necessary that it be shown who did what, correct? So what was AH's problem? He was so obsessed with not being able to prove who did what. When really, all he was worried about was not having to go to trial. He had gone to trial, what, ONCE? And lost. That's why he plea-bargained every case, even serious ones like murder. And supposedly he wanted to offer a plea-bargain this one too.

BBM

He was counting on getting out of office unscathed with a retirement fund intact.

And I believe he was given plenty of reasons, by "powers that be" why he would not have that retirement dream become a reality if he would have done what he so clearly should have done.

 

[questfortrue]

BBM

He was counting on getting out of office unscathed with a retirement fund intact.

And I believe he was given plenty of reasons, by "powers that be" why he would not have that retirement dream become a reality if he would have done what he so clearly should have done.

Kind of goes against the typical credo of many DA offices: Fighting for victims and speaking for those who otherwise would have no voice. Imo.

Besides the Law School professor Mimi Wesson’s statement in an email about AH handling the R indictment in a legally improper manner, there was another comment from one of the attorneys (Dan Caplis/Craig Silverman) appearing on a broadcast with Peter Boyles. They referenced Thomas Kelly, a highly respected Denver attorney, who came out and flatly said what AH did was “criminally liable.”

 

[MyBelle]

Kind of goes against the typical credo of many DA offices: Fighting for victims and speaking for those who otherwise would have no voice. Imo.

Besides the Law School professor Mimi Wesson’s statement in an email about AH handling the R indictment in a legally improper manner, there was another comment from one of the attorneys (Dan Caplis/Craig Silverman) appearing on a broadcast with Peter Boyles. They referenced Thomas Kelly, a highly respected Denver attorney, who came out and flatly said what AH did was “criminally liable.”

I think it would have been impossible to obtain a conviction because of the contaminated crime scene and the public perception that Boulder police bungled the investigation.

JMO

 

[questfortrue]

I think it would have been impossible to obtain a conviction because of the contaminated crime scene and the public perception that Boulder police bungled the investigation.

JMO

My reference was to AH choosing essentially to “mislead” the public about a True Bill. That is not my own conjecture, but the view of a number of people. Had it been a transparent process Charlie Brennan would not have had to sue in order to open up the records.

But about a conviction, that's a whole 'nuther topic and probably many would agree with you. . .for too many reasons to list.

 

[2 percent]

Perfect!! Thank you otg!!

 

[DeeDee249]

I think it would have been impossible to obtain a conviction because of the contaminated crime scene and the public perception that Boulder police bungled the investigation.

JMO

Possibly. But there were other charges that could have been brought in this case and won- some of which should have been filed against the DA who LIED publicly about the GJ issuing the True Bill indictments. It was one thing for AH to refuse to sign them (because he was too chicken to go to trial). It is quite another for him to have LIED about their existence.

As for your comment- it wasn't just public perception. The police DID bungle the investigation. Within the very first HOUR- the first officer on the scene did not clear the house of the friends and "victims' advocates". Then, he was unable to figure out how to unlatch a simple wooden latch on the WC door. Had he simply looked UP- he'd have seen it, and JB's body would have remained in an uncontaminated crime scene. Later, he tried to excuse himself by saying that he had seen the latch and thought no one could be hiding in there because it would be impossible to latch the door from the inside. At that point, JB was still believed to be kidnapped or at least missing. He never realized something important to the crime could be inside and I suppose he forgot basic police procedure to CHECK EVERYWHERE, even where you don't expect to find anything.
Later, a detective finished the job of botching the investigation by allowing the "visitors" to wander around, wiping things down (that had been dusted for prints) and allowed JR to "find" his daughter's body, bring it upstairs, where she herself violated procedure by moving her AGAIN and allowing JR to cover her with a blanket and sweatshirt. If there had been a manual to show how to botch a child murder investigation, these two could have written it. Police 101- everyone is a suspect until the killer is identified.

 

[DeDee]

Appreciation to madeleine for posting the vimeo videos in the media thread of the Connecting Point interview with John and Patsy Ramsey. This is Patsy's last live interview.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Media Links Only


I do not possess formal training in body language other than what I have gleaned in several psychology courses, reading what experts say about body language and from my own life experiences.

There is a segment in this interview that I feel needs to be noticed. It is Patsy's reaction to John when he claims he cannot imagine anyone holding enough anger over him to kill his daughter the way they did.

Connecting Point: John & Patsy Ramsey Part I on Vimeo

@ 05:31 begins the segment that includes a snapshot of Beth holding an infant, JonBenét. John describes how, in 1992, JonBenét "latched onto him like glue" [05:50] as he suffered from the death and loss of Beth. Meanwhile, as John exposes his bonding with JonBenet to the audience, Patsy closes her eyes bc she does not want to see [acknowledge] how close father and daughter were becoming. John shrugs his shoulders as he tells us "it was just a neat feeling".

@ 08:30 the familiar photo of the Ramsey family where Patsy is prominent in front. Burke is in the very back. John is seated beside and slightly behind Patsy. JonBenét seated on her Daddy's lap. The video of the photo does not show where John has placed his left hand. His right hand covers JonBenét's entire midriff while his left hand rests on top of her upper left thigh.

@ 09:34 Patsy states she was "grief-stricken beyond description". If JR was sexually abusing his daughter, Patsy was grief-stricken by the betrayal. Betrayal is the emotion most difficult for the heart to recover. JR reacts to her truth by closing his eyes and leaning slightly back [away from the memory].

@ 09:47 the Ramsey's are asked "Why would the kidnappers want JonBenét?"

@ 10:00 Patsy downplays the importance of the beauty pageants JonBenét entered.

@ 10:40 John mentions bringing John Douglas into the case.

@ 11:05 Patsy watches John as he tells us that he cannot imagine someone who was angry at him or jealous of him, "and certainly not that angry" at him, ie., angry enough to kill his daughter. Between 11:09 and 11:10 Patsy blinks twice and is no longer looking at John but beyond him.

@ 11:11 Patsy shakes her head because she was very angry at John the night JonBenét was murdered. Patsy looks straight ahead and then down, sniffs, and moves her body slightly away from John.

@ 11:56 Perhaps still unsettled by John's remarks, oddly enough, Patsy tells us it was Christmas Eve when they were driving home and there was no snow on the ground to indicate "No footprints in the Snow" IDI.


Is Patsy's body language telling us that she was angry at John for abusing their daughter, perhaps while neglecting Patsy in the process, and Patsy had to stop the sensual machine that had become the out-of-control mega-JonBenét thing?


OMO

 

[THE BUNK]

@ 09:47 the Ramsey's are asked "Why would the kidnappers want JonBenét?"

That's an odd phrase.

Closing of eyes is often a reaction to a person re-living the situation in her mind. Trying to push back the memories.

 

[gramcracker]

good friend JF made a big deal of chastising BPD for not seeing his footprints, altho IIRC he arrived after LEO French checked the perimeter of the house for footprints. so was there frost/snow available for footprints, or not? they tried to have it both ways, depending on who they were talking to and when the conversation occurred

 

[bettybaby00]

good friend JF made a big deal of chastising BPD for not seeing his footprints, altho IIRC he arrived after LEO French checked the perimeter of the house for footprints. so was there frost/snow available for footprints, or not? they tried to have it both ways, depending on who they were talking to and when the conversation occurred

It's funny b/c when this started being pushed as evidence of LE incompetence, I thought, "well that sounds reasonable."

Fast forward, and I've come to learn that rationalizing select pieces of evidence in a vacuum was a very successful strategy for the Rs.

And this particular one came to mind the other day when I was in my backyard with the dog. As many may know the Northeast was socked with a record amount of snow and cold weather this year. As a result, snow lingered in piles along the side of the road and on lawns for weeks at a time.

Over the last few weeks, we've finally begun to come out from underneath it all. When I first noticed that there was very little snow left in my backyard, I was suddenly struck by how weak the excuse was regarding the "there was no footprints in the snow, b/c a lot of the snow was beginning to melt argument."

Although it's true much of the snow around the Ramsey house had begun to melt, I realized there still would have been footprints if an intruder walked across the lawn. Why? Because when this begins to happen the ground is saturated from all the melting snow, and wouldn't you know, a person walking across those conditions would definitely leave footprints. Not in snow, but in mud...deep footprints in fact, and likely they would be more pronounced that those created by cold, hard snow!

So yea....weak, rationalization is weak.

 

[RANCH]

It's funny b/c when this started being pushed as evidence of LE incompetence, I thought, "well that sounds reasonable."

Fast forward, and I've come to learn that rationalizing select pieces of evidence in a vacuum was a very successful strategy for the Rs.

And this particular one came to mind the other day when I was in my backyard with the dog. As many may know the Northeast was socked with a record amount of snow and cold weather this year. As a result, snow lingered in piles along the side of the road and on lawns for weeks at a time.

Over the last few weeks, we've finally begun to come out from underneath it all. When I first noticed that there was very little snow left in my backyard, I was suddenly struck by how weak the excuse was regarding the "there was no footprints in the snow, b/c a lot of the snow was beginning to melt argument."

Although it's true much of the snow around the Ramsey house had begun to melt, I realized there still would have been footprints if an intruder walked across the lawn. Why? Because when this begins to happen the ground is saturated from all the melting snow, and wouldn't you know, a person walking across those conditions would definitely leave footprints. Not in snow, but in mud...deep footprints in fact, and likely they would be more pronounced that those created by cold, hard snow!

So yea....weak, rationalization is weak.

I'm not understanding your post. If someone walks on a frozen snowy lawn and their footprints later melt, why would there be deep muddy footprints?

Or are you saying that there was never snow on the lawn that night but it was rather wet and muddy and footprints would have been visible later in the day when LE viewed the lawn?

 

[bettybaby00]

I'm not understanding your post. If someone walks on a frozen snowy lawn and their footprints later melt, why would there be deep muddy footprints?

Or are you saying that the was never snow on the lawn that night but it was rather wet and muddy and footprints would have been visible later in the day when LE viewed the lawn?

Sorry if I was unclear.

On the morning of the 26th, LE made note that there was "no visible footprints" in the snow. (Not sure if that was the exact wording or not.) Whether or not it was LE's intent, the implication was "no footprints = no intruder." It was in the first responder notes simply as an observation in their report regarding the grounds while they looked for signs of a point of entry.

Shortly after this tidbit became public, the Rs pointed to the fact that snow only covered part of the lawn, therefore there wouldn't be "footprints in the snow." The Rs went on to used this statement "made by LE," as an example of LE's ineptitude.

I was relaying my own experience with melting snow on my lawn, and the fact that despite walking in areas where there was no longer snow, the ground is so saturated that one would still leave footprints. This IMO illustrates another example of the R spin machine, b/c regardless of how much snow was on the lawn, an intruder would still have left footprints in the saturated ground.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[gramcracker]

third photo down on the right: accumulated snow/melted snow (saturated ground)
http://hellhole_photos.tripod.com/outsidecrime.htm

crime scene photo #87: accumulated snow/melted snow (saturated ground)
http://www.acandyrose.com/087house-front.jpg

crime scene photo: accumulated snow/melted snow (saturated ground)
http://www.acandyrose.com/082house-front.jpg

the driveway/sidewalks/walkways were frosted (no intruder footprints)

 

[bettybaby00]

third photo down on the right: accumulated snow/melted snow (saturated ground)
http://hellhole_photos.tripod.com/outsidecrime.htm

crime scene photo #87: accumulated snow/melted snow (saturated ground)
http://www.acandyrose.com/087house-front.jpg

crime scene photo: accumulated snow/melted snow (saturated ground)
http://www.acandyrose.com/082house-front.jpg

the driveway/sidewalks/walkways were frosted (no intruder footprints)

!!!! The "hell hole" file names.

 

[Anti-K]

From PMPT
Reichenbach told the detectives that there was light, crusty snow and frost on the Ramsey’s lawn and he had seen no fresh footprints in the snow. The brick walkways were clear of snow.” p. 225
.

From the Thomas book, p. 19: [Reichenbach] went outside. A light dusting of snow and frost lay atop an earlier crusty snow in SPOTTY PATCHES on the grass. he saw no FRESH shoe impressions… …but walking on the driveway and sidewalks LEFT NO VISIBLE prints.
.

From the Thomas depo:
A. Reichenbach.
14 Q. Do you ever recall hearing about
15 what he said when he met with Dr. Henry Lee
16 in terms of whether there was snow on the
17 sidewalk of the house when he arrived that
18 morning? 19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What did he say?
21 A. He said, and he also said this to
22 me, that although there was due to what I
23 think was an 11 degree temperature outside,
24 there was a fresh frost and maybe a light
25 dusting of snow on some of the lawn areas,
241
1 but on the sidewalks and walkways around the
2 house, as he put in his report, as I may
3 have put in one of my reports, as we
4 presented to the VIP conference, that you
5 could not tell whether or not somebody may
6 have walked on those walkways in question.
.

From Kolar, p.27: Reichenbach noted that NO snow had adhered to the rear patio and walkways.
...

AK

 

[DeDee]

July 11, 2001 "Who Killed The Pageant Queen?"

NARRATOR - Smit found other early photographs that also worried him.

LOU SMIT - This photograph does show a lot of snow around the house and if you seen this your first perception would be that a person who entered that house would have to leave some footprints in the snow.

Now look at this photograph. The sidewalks are completely clear of snow. This is another angle. You not only don’t see snow on the walkway area but take a look - even at this table, there's no snow. There's no snow on the chair.

Another rather significant photograph. This is a photograph taken from the alley. A person approaching this house from the alley would leave no footprints around the house.

NARRATOR - Smit was surprised at the lack of snow but says, of course, the fact someone could have reached the house after all, did not mean anyone had. But it did mean Smit had to look for evidence of an intruder which might have been missed.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-20010711-uk-whokilledpageantqueen.htm