Was Burke Involved ? # 3

[nona's mum]

But then their son would be tagged a murderer. How would that work out as he tried to go to school and live his life?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting they did the right thing, I'm just trying to imagine how this should have played out given that, in CO, Burke was too young to be held criminally responsible.

Criminally responsible no but at least he'd have been held responsible on some level instead of being protected and taught that money will get you out of anything. I find it incredibly disrespectful to JonBenet. It's like the Rs thought Burke was worth more

 

[BOESP]

But then their son would be tagged a murderer. How would that work out as he tried to go to school and live his life?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting they did the right thing, I'm just trying to imagine how this should have played out given that, in CO, Burke was too young to be held criminally responsible.

Call 911 first. Let them tend to JonBenet
Call your attorney next.
Keep a low profile and quit trying to be on television every few weeks.

 

[johnjay]

Criminally responsible no but at least he'd have been held responsible on some level instead of being protected and taught that money will get you out of anything. I find it incredibly disrespectful to JonBenet. It's like the Rs thought Burke was worth more

Perhaps the parents blamed themselves for not taking Burke's behavioral issues serious enough, felt the whole thing was their responsibility and wanted to try to salvage Burke's life as they thought best. I could see them thinking something like that. They probably rationalized that the people they falsely accused wouldn't be arrested because of lack of evidence. They were going to protect their family no matter who had to go under the bus. Perhaps that's what Linda Arndt saw in John's eyes when she reached for her gun and started counting bullets.

 

[Hatfield]

JMO
I am certain the death of JBR was caused by someone in that house. I am convinced PR wrote the letter.

I keep flip-flopping between Patsy or BR as far as what actually happened though. It comes down to one of two things to me. Its either

1-PR got really mad at JBR for something she did like bed wetting again or peeing her clothes or opening christmas gifts that were supposed to be for the trip or something else. It doesn't really matter whatever the reason for this option. The bottom line is she loses her temper with her discipline of JBR and it goes too far and JBR hits her head on something which cracks her skull. PR panics as JBR is gurgling but still breathing. PR realizes the injury is near fatal and she doesnt want to get in trouble from JR for her over zealous discipline so she uses a string of some sort to put her out of her misery. She thinks quickly and realizes she needs to remove her body and come up with a plan. She first just hides the body in the basement to get her as far away from JR as possible. Then she remembers her movies and decides a ransom note is perfect. For two reasons. 1-it buys her a lot of time from JR because she goes upstairs and tells him she cant sleep and is going to watch a movie. 2-she can see how they did the note.

So the movies get played and the one with Danny Devito is her favorite. She remembers a couple lines from other movies and throws those in too. One of two things happens here which really doesnt affect this option much.
A-The note writing is taking much longer than she thought and hours start to drag on which is when JR thinks it really strange she is gone so long. He goes down to check on her and catches her writing the note. She breaks down and tells him what happened. He reluctantly agrees with her plan. She convinces him that he would be destroyed in the media just like she would.
B-He stays asleep and has no idea what happened until he reads the ransom note and it is obvious to him that she wrote it so she has to tell him what happened. This happens right before the call to 911 and no time to move the body. Or it finally hits him what she did after the police are already there. Really doesnt matter. The premise of this option 1 is what is important.


2-BR and JBR agree to sneak down to open the christmas gifts that are for the trip or to play with their other gifts. A typical sibling argument breaks out. It doesnt matter why. Could be that BR gets a bowl of pineapple from fridge and JBR uses her fingers to grab some chunks. Or any other infinite reason why brothers and sisters fight. This one is bad though and BR gets really really mad.

BR chases her and she runs down to the basement and hides from him in the dark. He gets even madder because he cant find her so grabs the maglite to find her. He finds her and bashes her in the head. He didnt realize it would hurt her as bad as it did (Lionel Tate probably didnt realize he would kill his 6 year old sister with a wrestling move either).

JBR is gurgling and making loud noises and he panics and gets his play-garrott that he had tormented JBR with before while horsing around. He applies the noose end with the knot and pulls it tight until she stops making gurgling breathing noises.

The commotion wakens PR who comes down to find him standing there like a deer in headlights. She screams "What did you do?!!" Which brings down JR and they take him to his room and shut the door and tells him he is to stay in his room and dont come out until its time for them to talk with him further. (for the dont say anything at all to police when they come. You were here in your room the whole time)

PR+JR meet downstairs to begin the planning of what to do next. The rest is same except no time to get rid of the body. They agree to get rid of it later. What happens is LE is not going anywhere and they cant stand the pressure anymore so JR pretends to find it.


So those are the general two options I keep flip flopping on.
Can someone help me decide which one of those two options is much more likely and why? In a general way .

1-Either PR did it and BR had no involvement or
2-BR was involved in her death and PR or PR/JR helped coverup

 

[TeaTime]

Hatfield - first JBR is said to have been afraid of the basement, so running into the basement in the dark to hide from BR seems unlikely - she could just run up to mom's room or scream and mom and dad would come running.

Second, PR was used to wet beds and poop everywhere - the house was a mess and she was not the housekeeper type. She was also a very busy person all the time. , I don't see her losing it on this night and cracking her baby's skull with a flashlight over a wet bed/poopy pants. This bedwetting was a regular theme in the house and when JBR wet the bed, she would change herself and then go sleep with BR in his bed - according to PR.

BR is the one who admitted that he sneaked downstairs while everyone was asleep. I can see a kid using all their force to swing a flashlight at a siblings head, not realizing the force used and the damage it could cause.

 

[Hatfield]

Hatfield - first JBR is said to have been afraid of the basement, so running into the basement in the dark to hide from BR seems unlikely - she could just run up to mom's room or scream and mom and dad would come running.

Second, PR was used to wet beds and poop everywhere - the house was a mess and she was not the housekeeper type. She was also a very busy person all the time. , I don't see her losing it on this night and cracking her baby's skull with a flashlight over a wet bed/poopy pants. This bedwetting was a regular theme in the house and when JBR wet the bed, she would change herself and then go sleep with BR in his bed - according to PR.

BR is the one who admitted that he sneaked downstairs while everyone was asleep. I can see a kid using all their force to swing a flashlight at a siblings head, not realizing the force used and the damage it could cause.

Thanks. Good points.
I saw the DP episode where BR admitted to going downstairs and that hit me like a ton of bricks. That is huge news because it proves at least one thing. He did go back downstairs while the parents were probably in bed.

 

[MsFacetious]

My guess, Burke was molesting her and the parents knew, but viewed it as no big deal or they thought they handled it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Are they related to the Duggar family? Geez...

 

[just the facts pls]

But then their son would be tagged a murderer. How would that work out as he tried to go to school and live his life?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting they did the right thing, I'm just trying to imagine how this should have played out given that, in CO, Burke was too young to be held criminally responsible.

Hi, how does the state of Colorado deal with juvenile offenders?

 

[HarmonyE.]

Hi, how does the state of Colorado deal with juvenile offenders?

My understanding is that he would not have been treated like an offender at all as he was one month too young to be held criminally responsible. For molestation or murder. Although I'm sure social services would have immediately been become involved with the family if the Ramseys admitted anything to LE, either before or after JonBenet's death, which would have been absolutely horrifying for Perfect Patsy.

 

[just the facts pls]

My understanding is that he would not have been treated like an offender at all as he was one month too young to be held criminally responsible. For molestation or murder. Although I'm sure social services would have immediately been become involved with the family if the Ramseys admitted anything to LE, either before or after JonBenet's death, which would have been absolutely horrifying for Perfect Patsy.

Thanks, so in Colorado a child under ten can do basically anything and not expect to have the state intervene at all? Aside from social services, I mean. Let's say a nine year old did something really terrible like premeditated murder. Colorado would not consider that child a threat to public safety nor require that child be segregated from other children?

 

[minazoe]

I can't imagine giving my nine year old crazy baby to the authorities ..I can understand the desire to cover it up...even if an accident it is so traumatizing to everyone, I can see the insanity arising out of overwhelming grief and fear...

But did they ever get help for him? No....none....He was told he would lose his parents and his home if he opened his mouth..

I totally believe this was a cover up..100percent.

 

[BOESP]

Thanks, so in Colorado a child under ten can do basically anything and not expect to have the state intervene at all? Aside from social services, I mean. Let's say a nine year old did something really terrible like premeditated murder. Colorado would not consider that child a threat to public safety nor require that child be segregated from other children?

Some time early in this case we discussed this here and, iirc, the parents/guardian are required by court order to get psychological or psychiatric counseling for the offending minor for a certain period of time (maybe two years???). I know zilch about Colorado Code so probably should just be quiet. :blushing:

 

[just the facts pls]

Some time early in this case we discussed this here and, iirc, the parents/guardian are required by court order to get psychological or psychiatric counseling for the offending minor for a certain period of time (maybe two years???). I know zilch about Colorado Code so probably should just be quiet. :blushing:

Thanks! No, you're fine, I'm in the same boat you are. I'm very unfamiliar with juvenile offenders and laws and I keep getting surprised at what I'm learning.

I found the Colorado Benchbook for juvenile offenses:

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/13 JuvenileDefenseDelinquencyBenchbook.pdf

Juvenile Court has exclusive jurisdiction in the following proceedings:

Proceedings involving juvenile ten (10) years or older who have violated one or the following:

i. Any federal or state law except:

 

[asyousay]

I can see why in the heat of the moment you may consider covering up for your son but what they did with the body was horrible.

But if he was doing weird sexual stuff to his sister( I'm not sold out on that idea) then 100% I would call the cops even if it's my son. Because that's just plain sick and twisted and that's something that needs more help than what a parent could deal with imo

It's totally warped and goes a lot deeper than lashing out in the heat of the moment!

 

[otg]

Thanks, so in Colorado a child under ten can do basically anything and not expect to have the state intervene at all? Aside from social services, I mean. Let's say a nine year old did something really terrible like premeditated murder. Colorado would not consider that child a threat to public safety nor require that child be segregated from other children?

Relevant portions of the Colorado Criminal Code (emphasis mine):

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=&amp] 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=&amp]


...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]

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

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

[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]

 

[PositiveLight]

A very interesting article about child killers.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/11/s...y-patterns-are-identified.html?pagewanted=all

One group consisted of ''nonempathic murderers,'' children who lacked the psychological ability to put themselves in the place of another, the authors reported in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. Each killer in this category had a history of assaultive behavior, severe reading problems and inability to cope with stress; each had spent the first year of life either in an poorly staffed institution or with a mother who provided little psychological sustenance.
The researchers' second category was ''sexual-identity conflict murderers.'' These boys were often taunted for effeminacy and carried a weapon because they lacked physical confidence. They came from homes where the mother was dominant and the father, if present, was passive. Their murders, though done in passion, had often been subtly encouraged by a parent.

 

[expat79]

But if he was doing weird sexual stuff to his sister( I'm not sold out on that idea) then 100% I would call the cops even if it's my son.

If you are obsessed with public appearances, it is unlikely you would call the police. You would do everything to keep it quiet and within the family, and probably only consult physicians and child psychologists. You would be hoping it's just a phase that he would grow out of.

Also, consider this: what if your son is a pathological liar? What if he denies it, and he is believed, because he lies with such ease? Suspicion would then fall immediately to someone else in the family, which makes it even more impertivave to keep this secret from authorities, friends, and the public.

 

[lost indie]

berke and tormented jbr with a play-garrott before?

 

[BOESP]

Thanks! No, you're fine, I'm in the same boat you are. I'm very unfamiliar with juvenile offenders and laws and I keep getting surprised at what I'm learning.

I found the Colorado Benchbook for juvenile offenses:

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/13 JuvenileDefenseDelinquencyBenchbook.pdf

Juvenile Court has exclusive jurisdiction in the following proceedings:

Proceedings involving juvenile ten (10) years or older who have violated one or the following:

i. Any federal or state law except:

BBM: unfortunately, Burke was not quite 10 years old. The Internet gives his birthday as January 27. That's soooo close but no cigar.

 

[BOESP]

Relevant portions of the Colorado Criminal Code (emphasis mine):

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).

<respectfully snipped>

​

I was hoping you'd show up otg. Thank you.