We are only dealing in facts and reasonable scenarios from now on

[inspector rex]

One of the reasons I have trouble with this case is because what a grand jury found means nothing to me in terms of determining actual guilt or innocence or what exactly happened. And at trial, juries can "nullify" and use opinions on all sorts of issues - there are lots of different rules of evidence that are all over the place. I still believe in the jury system overall and I do believe most juries make a reasonable decision based on the instructions and information before them. I'm sure they made a reasoned decision to indict based on the circumstances. I also find the indictment legally inconsistent and I feel like they didn't fully understand the nuances of the law, which is common. So I find it hard to determine what exactly they were going for, but that's really not what they were tasked with doing. They were just determining the charges should go forward - they didn't have to pin down an exact scenario. A trial would have forced that issue a bit more, but what is an "expert" science is debatable. Juries can make all sorts of calls. Regular people can tell whether one's handwriting looks like another's and assess that as part of the case. If they decided based on that alone with no other circumstances, i think that would be an issue.

Lawstudent, I'd appreciate your opinion on this. The GJ voted to indict on some vague (to me anyway) basis that, as I interpret what you say, seemed designed just to see the case go forward to trial? Someone made the comment about indicting a 'ham sandwich', so I assume that an indictment is 'expected' in every GJ case?

However, the DA decided not to proceed. Was it , do you think, due to the basis of the GJ's decision (child abuse resulting in death) not being able to be supported by evidence or simply that the new evidence that was hoped might come forward did not eventuate? In other words, was it like a 'trial' trial that failed?

 

[BBB167893]

I’m not sure that the case against the Ramseys made any progress between 1998 and the Wolf suit.

I'm not sure it made much progress BEFORE 1998, if you catch my meaning.

Some percentage of the case file would concern leads, investigations, etc into other potential suspects and such. IOWS, the bulk of the case against the Ramseys could be known while leaving a large portion of the case file unknown.

The Carnes ruling came down to plaintiff’s failure to show that Mrs Ramsey wrote the ransom note.

I don't believe I said otherwise. Not to speak ill of the dead, but Hoffman seems to have thought he was pursuing a wrongful death suit rather than libel.

Everything else is – for the Decision – beside the point.

I'm still waiting for the ruling.

 

[lawstudent]

Lawstudent, I'd appreciate your opinion on this. The GJ voted to indict on some vague (to me anyway) basis that, as I interpret what you say, seemed designed just to see the case go forward to trial? Someone made the comment about indicting a 'ham sandwich', so I assume that an indictment is 'expected' in every GJ case?

However, the DA decided not to proceed. Was it , do you think, due to the basis of the GJ's decision (child abuse resulting in death) not being able to be supported by evidence or simply that the new evidence that was hoped might come forward did not eventuate? In other words, was it like a 'trial' trial that failed?

We don't know what the GJ's basis was, but I wouldn't call it "vague" because there wasn't one given. I don't think they have to give a basis other than they think there's enough evidence to move forward with certain charges. Oftentimes the expectation would be that only some of the charges survive as the process progresses, and only some of those result in a conviction, if any. The way it typically works is either the DA argues probable cause or produces a grand jury indictment. Then the judge allows it to go forward (unless probable cause is not established to his/her liking). Very little evidence (or alleged evidence) has to be presented - the judge is just making sure the DA has some basis to go forward. That's why the ham sandwich comment is made.

I assume one reason is it in place is to make sure police aren't just charging people based on nothing because of some sort of political or personal bias or whatever, in order to scare them into cooperating. Because this process is in place, police are unlikely to go into a grand jury and say "hey, we have no evidence of anything - can we go to trial?" If they can't come up with *something*, they're not going to get much further. They're going to have something suspicious or some sort of witness and a grand jury isn't going to want to let someone walk once they've seen that - it's not like they are convicting beyond a reasonable doubt. Where you see some high profile failures to indict, it is usually a controversial issue where people have opinions about the concept - everyone is aware of the self-defense/officer-involved shooting cases that have been in the news. They don't want the person prosecuted because they don't believe he/she did anything wrong and might think the charges were the result of political pressure. In most cases, things are harder for the average person to contemplate - it's easier to tell the police to investigate further if they seem to have no ulterior motive to want to charge them. So yes, I would say indictments are generally expected, except in a few controversial cases.

I'll address the rest of your comment tomorrow, but it's hard to say.

 

[questfortrue]

One of the reasons I have trouble with this case is because what a grand jury found means nothing to me in terms of determining actual guilt or innocence or what exactly happened. And at trial, juries can "nullify" and use opinions on all sorts of issues - there are lots of different rules of evidence that are all over the place. I still believe in the jury system overall and I do believe most juries make a reasonable decision based on the instructions and information before them. I'm sure they made a reasoned decision to indict based on the circumstances. I also find the indictment legally inconsistent and I feel like they didn't fully understand the nuances of the law, which is common. So I find it hard to determine what exactly they were going for, but that's really not what they were tasked with doing. They were just determining the charges should go forward - they didn't have to pin down an exact scenario. A trial would have forced that issue a bit more, but what is an "expert" science is debatable. Juries can make all sorts of calls. Regular people can tell whether one's handwriting looks like another's and assess that as part of the case. If they decided based on that alone with no other circumstances, i think that would be an issue.

RBBM
I've not heard this from any attorney commentators in Colorado. Can you please explain why you find the indictment legally inconsistent? TIA

 

[lawstudent]

I'm not a Colorado attorney, but I have posts on this from back when the indictment was released. I'll try and find one.

The charges the jury chose relate to each other in ways I found inconsistent.

A lot of people don't understand the difference between the crime of sexual assault and the act of sexual abuse - like the difference between the crime of murder and the act of killing. It makes absolutely no sense otherwise to indict them for any sort of contribution to a murder, felony murder or otherwise, without having some third person they believed was guilty of murder.

This is an old post of mine, and it relates to theories about a minor family member being involved (who that is is obvious). That was how most people were reading the indictment. And I believe both parents were charged as accessories to murder but not murder? Basically, indicting people as accessories to murder but no one for murder is inconsistent. I think that was the main point.

And that's not something that should be Colorado-law specific. Just common sense. I know the rules involving offenses by minors are specific to Colorado law, but that doesn't change anything.

ETA again for clarity purposes: As I understand it, a child at the time of that age could not commit murder. People phrase it as "could not be charged with murder", but under the law I think it is more correct to say there is no murder to charge. The idea of the law isn't "You're a murderer but we can't acknowledge it!" It's that they lacked the intent to murder in the first place by virtue of their age and thus while a killing may have occurred, a murder did not. Murder has a specific definition. And if the idea of the GJ is instead that one parent accidentally killed her in a reckless manner that amounted to felony murder and the other helped out, then one should be charged with felony murder, or both if they are unsure. Instead they indict them as accessories to murder and for felony reckless endangerment. It's convoluted.

 

[inspector rex]

I'm not a Colorado attorney, but I have posts on this from back when the indictment was released. I'll try and find one.

The charges the jury chose relate to each other in ways I found inconsistent.



This is an old post of mine, and it relates to theories about a minor family member being involved (who that is is obvious). That was how most people were reading the indictment. And I believe both parents were charged as accessories to murder but not murder? Basically, indicting people as accessories to murder but no one for murder is inconsistent. I think that was the main point.

And that's not something that should be Colorado-law specific. Just common sense. I know the rules involving offenses by minors are specific to Colorado law, but that doesn't change anything.

ETA again for clarity purposes: As I understand it, a child at the time of that age could not commit murder. People phrase it as "could not be charged with murder", but under the law I think it is more correct to say there is no murder to charge. The idea of the law isn't "You're a murderer but we can't acknowledge it!" It's that they lacked the intent to murder in the first place by virtue of their age and thus while a killing may have occurred, a murder did not. Murder has a specific definition. And if the idea of the GJ is instead that one parent accidentally killed her in a reckless manner that amounted to felony murder and the other helped out, then one should be charged with felony murder, or both if they are unsure. Instead they indict them as accessories to murder and for felony reckless endangerment. It's convoluted.

It's hard to understand how they came to that conclusion, or the reasoning behind the decision and the wording of the indictment.

 

[BOESP]

The murder accusation arose from the ligature strangulation (imo). The head blow was reckless endangerment (imo). However, I don't believe there is any way to know if the ligature strangulation was intentionally employed to kill JonBenet outright or to intentionally speed the death process on an already dying child or whether the strangulation was rendered to hide something (such as the manhandling already mentioned) or rendered as staging.

The FBI seemed to believe it was staging although, in the end, it was the final act that killed JonBenet.

All murders are homicides but not all homicides are murder.

A lot of posturing and legal delays were employed to prevent this case from going to trial (imo).

 

[questfortrue]

The murder accusation arose from the ligature strangulation (imo). The head blow was reckless endangerment (imo). However, I don't believe there is any way to know if the ligature strangulation was intentionally employed to kill JonBenet outright or to intentionally speed the death process on an already dying child or whether the strangulation was rendered to hide something (such as the manhandling already mentioned) or rendered as staging.

The FBI seemed to believe it was staging although, in the end, it was the final act that killed JonBenet.

All murders are homicides but not all homicides are murder.

A lot of posturing and legal delays were employed to prevent this case from going to trial (imo).

I know you’ve read this before, but others haven’t so I’ll reference this thread. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Statutes-relating-to-JonBenet-Ramsey’s-death .

There’s been a lot of discussion about the reasons the GJ signed off on those charges in the True Bill and, if anyone’s interested, the best explanation for Accessory after the fact is contained on the first page of that thread. (I believe the legal description of the statutes applied was provided by an attorney.)

Excerpt from an attorney about the accessory charge: The charge of accessory after the fact suggests that (the GJ believed) those who were charged with it (JR and Patsy) had no advance knowledge that the crime was going to be committed, but once they learned of it, they took steps to protect the criminal from detection, prosecution, and conviction. . . Interestingly, the GJ says that the crime to which J&P were accessories after the fact was murder in the first degree. Putting aside highly unlikely forms of first-degree murder, I believe this means the GJ believed that the crime was either deliberate (planned) by BR, or that it occurred while BR was sexually assaulting his sister. (The latter seems to me much more likely.) Felony-murder (that is, killing while in the course of committing a felony) is first-degree murder in Colorado.

However, from the statutes, I had believed there had to be 4 years difference between BR and JB for an assault to have been a felony. So I agree, Boesp, and also imo, it seems to me the GJ was looking at the strangulation which ended her life as possibly deserving the first degree murder charge.

From the “sticky” threads, it looks like Tricia will be providing more information about the indictment as it becomes available to her to publish.

 

[inspector rex]

I know you’ve read this before, but others haven’t so I’ll reference this thread. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...tes-relating-to-JonBenet-Ramsey’s-death .

There’s been a lot of discussion about the reasons the GJ signed off on those charges in the True Bill and, if anyone’s interested, the best explanation for Accessory after the fact is contained on the first page of that thread. (I believe the legal description of the statutes applied was provided by an attorney.)

Excerpt from an attorney about the accessory charge: The charge of accessory after the fact suggests that (the GJ believed) those who were charged with it (JR and Patsy) had no advance knowledge that the crime was going to be committed, but once they learned of it, they took steps to protect the criminal from detection, prosecution, and conviction. . . Interestingly, the GJ says that the crime to which J&P were accessories after the fact was murder in the first degree. Putting aside highly unlikely forms of first-degree murder, I believe this means the GJ believed that the crime was either deliberate (planned) by BR, or that it occurred while BR was sexually assaulting his sister. (The latter seems to me much more likely.) Felony-murder (that is, killing while in the course of committing a felony) is first-degree murder in Colorado.

However, from the statutes, I had believed there had to be 4 years difference between BR and JB for an assault to have been a felony. So I agree, Boesp, and also imo, it seems to me the GJ was looking at the strangulation which ended her life as possibly deserving the first degree murder charge.

From the “sticky” threads, it looks like Tricia will be providing more information about the indictment as it becomes available to her to publish.

It's confusing. The first refers to permitting the child to be placed in a dangerous situation. The second refers to rendering assistance to the murderer in order to help that person escape punishment.

Because neither refers to John or Patsy's involvement in the murder, then it is assumed (on this forum) that Burke was the target of the GJ's suspicion.

If this is what others read into this as well, (RDI or IDI), then I think this is the reason the DA did not proceed.
I cannot imagine what evidence the GJ heard that could have led them to this conclusion.
Whatever it was, it seems that the DA did not agree and did not think it strong enough to go to trial.

 

[BOESP]

I've lost track of a video Alex Hunter appeared in and where, imo, he suggested it didn't go to trial because the person who did it likely had been punished enough and putting them in a Federal pen would not help or hinder public safety (my interpretation based on my memory of what he said). I took it to mean he thought Patsy did it and she was dying from cancer so why put the rest of the family through a trial when time was taking care of it and why spend more public monies on some one who wasn't a criminal. And, in his opinion, the killer had already been punished beyond what any penal system could provide.

I'm too lazy to look up the video since I've already posted links to it before (more than once).

 

[inspector rex]

I've lost track of a video Alex Hunter appeared in and where, imo, he suggested it didn't go to trial because the person who did it likely had been punished enough and putting them in a Federal pen would not help or hinder public safety (my interpretation based on my memory of what he said). I took it to mean he thought Patsy did it and she was dying from cancer so why put the rest of the family through a trial when time was taking care of it and why spend more public monies on some one who wasn't a criminal. And, in his opinion, the killer had already been punished beyond what any penal system could provide.

I'm too lazy to look up the video since I've already posted links to it before (more than once).

Hunter hasn't revealed why, so your assumption is only speculation.

From Daily Camera (BBM):

On Oct. 13, 1999, more than a year after the case went to the grand jury, then-DA Hunter announced that the grand jury investigation had come to an end and that no charges would be filed due to a lack of evidence.

Hunter declined to comment when reached by phone Friday.

But Bill Wise, Hunter's former top assistant, said he backs up Hunter's choice.

"I think it was the correct decision," Wise said. "You just don't have the evidence. The totality of everything that was presented by the Boulder Police Department was just insignificant to prosecute."

So, why then did the GJ come to that conclusion?

 

[BOESP]

The Grand Jury probably came to that conclusion because that's where the evidence presented led them; in addition to their visit to the crime scene, I suppose they put two-and-two together and came up with four.

 

[inspector rex]

"The criteria for a grand jury indictment is probable cause, and the decision does not have to be unanimous among the grand jurors. Hunter would have had to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt to win at trial."

Do you think this is more likely the reason?

 

[BOESP]

I find a DA who will lie about whether or not a true bill was handed down, and fails to file the proper paperwork in court indicating his decision not to indict, is probably hiding something.

 

[inspector rex]

I find a DA who will lie about whether or not a true bill was handed down, and fails to file the proper paperwork in court indicating his decision not to indict, is probably hiding something.

Did he lie?

 

[BOESP]

Did he lie?

Is that a serious question?

Do a "Search" here and at acandyrose.com. You will find all you want to know to answer your question(s).

 

[inspector rex]

Is that a serious question?

Do a "Search" here and at acandyrose.com. You will find all you want to know to answer your question(s).

Of course it's a serious question.

You accused him of lying but you don't have a quote or MSM source?

 

[BOESP]

Like I said, do a search and form your own opinion. That's what I did.

 

[inspector rex]

Like I said, do a search and form your own opinion. That's what I did.

Ok, so you don't have an actual quote from Hunter where he lied, so when you said " I find a DA who will lie about whether or not a true bill was handed down, and fails to file the proper paperwork in court indicating his decision not to indict, is probably hiding something.", you weren't referring to Hunter but to a hypothetical DA whom you believes tells lies?

 

[Mama2JML]

Did he lie?

No, he didn't lie.