What about all these 3's?

[dodie20]

Yes, Boulder is as liberal as everyone thinks they are! I'll bet there aren't a hand full of conservatives in the whole town today. At least there never were in years past, and I know that for a fact. Just look at the gun control laws they're trying to pass in CO now. They recently legalized MaryJane. It's not just Boulder. Colorado is a very liberal state. Hard to believe that they're not on either the left or right coast they're so liberal. Not at all what you'd expect from a midwestern state.

ITA that they weren't persued or prosecuted due to money and status. It really wasn't the BPD that didn't want to, it was the DA's office. It's no secret that AH was connected to JR through several different avenues. In fact, the DA's office, the attys, the govenor, and others were all very powerful players in the Democratic party in CO at the time. You are so right that a poor couple would have been in jail the second that JB was discovered in the basement. JB would have had justice if she were born into a poor family.

this is what I don't get...if they are truly liberal, and not just in name's sake, why haven't they demanded that justice for JB be pursued? IMO, it looks like they don't care and would rather see the whole thing just fade away. Then they could get on with their cool, liberal lives, until another kid is found dead, and then I guess they'd want that to fade away too. If something like this happened in my town, I'd be on the front lines demanding justice.

 

[Nom de plume]

this is what I don't get...if they are truly liberal, and not just in name's sake, why haven't they demanded that justice for JB be pursued? IMO, it looks like they don't care and would rather see the whole thing just fade away. Then they could get on with their cool, liberal lives, until another kid is found dead, and then I guess they'd want that to fade away too. If something like this happened in my town, I'd be on the front lines demanding justice.

Dodie, I'm sure I'm not understanding you correctly. Are you saying liberals want justice and conservatives don't?

I don't really think this has much to do with the citizens of Boulder. They probably know that it was RDI and therefore are not worried for the safety of the children. This murder has made Boulder infamous, and I can understand most people wanting it to just go away. It's all in the hands of the DA's office, where money and politics will always be a factor. This guy doesn't want to step on that guy's toes because he's a major campaign contributor. The guy over here owes the guy over there a favor for having him appointed to whatever. Some other guy has the goods on so and so, therefore so and so can't cross him. It's the same everywhere you go. Once politics becomes involved, black and white suddenly turn to shades of grey.

 

[ukrberserker23]

Don't discount numerology. Lots of people in power believe in the power of numbers. On 9/11, the planes that were hijacked came up as 11, 12, 13, 14. By philosophical addition. 11,93,175, and 77. You add the numbers together to get a two digit number.Any time a number is repeated in a crime, it is significant. Think of the Zodiac Killer.

 

[Chrishope]

Just to interject some reality in this "liberal/conservative" discussion; In the past 10 presidential elections, CO has gone for the Republican 7 times. In this past election, the popular vote was 51% for Obama, hardly a landslide. It's pretty silly to characterize the entire state of CO as being "liberal". If anything, CO tends to be conservative. http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2012/10/13/electoral-history-colorado-voted-republican/83614/

But let's hope the recent trend of electing Dems continues.

Boulder is more "liberal" than the state as a whole, but then so are other major cities.

As far as I can see, it's mostly the police who are to blame for the way things went. They failed to secure a crime scene, and failed to take the Rs into custody when the body was "found". Of course the Rs were not required to talk to the police, and my hunch is that they'd have refused to say anything until their Lawyers showed up, so taking them into custody probably wouldn't have made any real difference. You never know though. In a moment of weakness one or the other may have broken down, or blurted something. Worth a try.

Among the various reasons AH didn't want to prosecute is the fact that there is the cross-fingerpointing defense. No way to tell who did what. The GJ wanted JR/PR both indicted, but to bring them to trial would likely have ended with a not guilty verdict for both of them, and then double jeopardy prevents prosecution, even if new evidence surfaces. It would have been really stupid to prosecute w/o much chance of conviction. As it stands, JR can still be put on trial.

To say this is a problem created by "liberals" is, well, just silly.

 

[gramcracker]

I think PR would have blurted/babbled something which incriminated her if she/JR were in separate rooms, before the first question was asked

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Personally, I would never assume (don't like to do that anyway) that "liberals" are better educated, are beyond corruption, and are impervious to scandal.
That's all nonsense.
And I feel the same about political parties too.

People are going to steal, cheat, lie, commit murder regardless of their political viewpoints, political party, race, religion, culture, etc.

Please shake your inner-conscience "coziness" of assuming things about groups ("variables") 'cause they'll prove you wrong every time.

All of course, moo.

 

[bettybaby00]

Just to interject some reality in this "liberal/conservative" discussion; In the past 10 presidential elections, CO has gone for the Republican 7 times. In this past election, the popular vote was 51% for Obama, hardly a landslide. It's pretty silly to characterize the entire state of CO as being "liberal". If anything, CO tends to be conservative. http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2012/10/13/electoral-history-colorado-voted-republican/83614/

But let's hope the recent trend of electing Dems continues.

Boulder is more "liberal" than the state as a whole, but then so are other major cities.

As far as I can see, it's mostly the police who are to blame for the way things went. They failed to secure a crime scene, and failed to take the Rs into custody when the body was "found". Of course the Rs were not required to talk to the police, and my hunch is that they'd have refused to say anything until their Lawyers showed up, so taking them into custody probably wouldn't have made any real difference. You never know though. In a moment of weakness one or the other may have broken down, or blurted something. Worth a try.

Among the various reasons AH didn't want to prosecute is the fact that there is the cross-fingerpointing defense. No way to tell who did what. The GJ wanted JR/PR both indicted, but to bring them to trial would likely have ended with a not guilty verdict for both of them, and then double jeopardy prevents prosecution, even if new evidence surfaces. It would have been really stupid to prosecute w/o much chance of conviction. As it stands, JR can still be put on trial.

To say this is a problem created by "liberals" is, well, just silly.

BBM

Although I agree that the police botched more than a few things that morning, there's more than enough blame to go around.

The question we have to ask is why weren't the Rs brought straight to the police station? That IMO wasn't a call made by the cops on the scene.

If they had been brought to the station, and treated like any other parents in a similar situation, what might have happened? What could have been revealed?

They would have been separated, and regardless of how little was said, something might have slipped. It would have been much harder for them to play the "I don't remember" card. If nothing else the inconsistencies of their two stories would likely have been very evident.


Would a lawyer have met them at the station? Possibly, but if one had it sure would have blown the "a friend casually suggested we get a lawyer" narrative.


Their clothes would have been taken in as evidence, and non-testimonial evidence would have been secured ie, hair, blood, etc. might of there been odd looking black marks on anyone's hands? Or maybe patsy shoes would shown evidence of having been in the basement that morning. Who knows what john's clothing or shoes might have revealed? And what about Burke...were his clothes ever turned over (including PJs), were they ever even asked for?

Writing exemplars could have been asked for.

It would have been damn near impossible to refuse these types of requests, even if their lawyers were present.

As for AHs reluctance to prosecute. He bears most of the responsibility for having a weak case IMO. I've definitely read more than one article detailing how this isn't as big of an obstacle as some suggest.

 

[DeeDee249]

BBM

Although I agree that the police botched more than a few things that morning, there's more than enough blame to go around.

The question we have to ask is why weren't the Rs brought straight to the police station? That IMO wasn't a call made by the cops on the scene.

If they had been brought to the station, and treated like any other parents in a similar situation, what might have happened? What could have been revealed?

They would have been separated, and regardless of how little was said, something might have slipped. It would have been much harder for them to play the "I don't remember" card. If nothing else the inconsistencies of their two stories would likely have been very evident.


Would a lawyer have met them at the station? Possibly, but if one had it sure would have blown the "a friend casually suggested we get a lawyer" narrative.


Their clothes would have been taken in as evidence, and non-testimonial evidence would have been secured ie, hair, blood, etc. might of there been odd looking black marks on anyone's hands? Or maybe patsy shoes would shown evidence of having been in the basement that morning. Who knows what john's clothing or shoes might have revealed? And what about Burke...were his clothes ever turned over (including PJs), were they ever even asked for?

Writing exemplars could have been asked for.

It would have been damn near impossible to refuse these types of requests, even if their lawyers were present.

As for AHs reluctance to prosecute. He bears most of the responsibility for having a weak case IMO. I've definitely read more than one article detailing how this isn't as big of an obstacle as some suggest.

I believe it was the DA (AH) who would not allow the police to arrest/separate/question the Rs that first day. A directive was sent to "treat these people like victims, not like suspects". Some people believe that directive actually came from the Governor's office to the DA. The Rs powerful defense machine was already at work - from the night of the murder.

 

[bettybaby00]

I believe it was the DA (AH) who would not allow the police to arrest/separate/question the Rs that first day. A directive was sent to "treat these people like victims, not like suspects". Some people believe that directive actually came from the Governor's office to the DA. The Rs powerful defense machine was already at work - from the night of the murder.

For some reason I can't edit my last post

The last part should have read:

"As for AHs reluctance to prosecute. He bears most of the responsibility for having a weak case IMO. I've definitely read more than one article detailing how the cross finger pointing defense isn't as big of an obstacle as some suggest".​

As to your comment, IA. IMO the cops on the scene were not the ones who decided that the Rs should walk out the front door--without further questioning, or providing clothing etc.--without a backward glance.

 

[Chrishope]

For some reason I can't edit my last post

The last part should have read:

"As for AHs reluctance to prosecute. He bears most of the responsibility for having a weak case IMO. I've definitely read more than one article detailing how the cross finger pointing defense isn't as big of an obstacle as some suggest".​

As to your comment, IA. IMO the cops on the scene were not the ones who decided that the Rs should walk out the front door--without further questioning, or providing clothing etc.--without a backward glance.

The cross-fingerpointing defense is a huge problem. You can get both on conspiracy to obstruct justice, but murder requires either proof that both were involved (in the murder) or that one was and not the other.

The cops on the scene had the final decision making authority, regardless of what the DA may have instructed them. His instructions could very well be interpreted as only applying in a kidnapping case.

The cops don't work for the Governor of CO. The state police work for the Governor, but not BPD.

We'll never know what might have happened if they'd been taken in for questioning. I think they'd have called their lawyers and revealed nothing. But who knows.

 

[otg]

(bbm)

The cross-fingerpointing defense is a huge problem. You can get both on conspiracy to obstruct justice, but murder requires either proof that both were involved (in the murder) or that one was and not the other.

The cops on the scene had the final decision making authority, regardless of what the DA may have instructed them. His instructions could very well be interpreted as only applying in a kidnapping case.

The cops don't work for the Governor of CO. The state police work for the Governor, but not BPD.

We'll never know what might have happened if they'd been taken in for questioning. I think they'd have called their lawyers and revealed nothing. But who knows.

The "cross-fingerpointing defence"is a fallacy.

Specifically, from the CO statutes:

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).
​

I posted the applicable statute in its entirety here.

 

[Chrishope]

(bbm)The "cross-fingerpointing defence"is a fallacy.

Specifically, from the CO statutes:

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).
​

I posted the applicable statute in its entirety here.

However, doesn't the "crime" the statute refers to mean a single crime? IOWs if PR is standing by and aiding JR in murder (or vice versa) then both can be charged with murder, even if there is no way to tell who did what. But if the crime the second party commits is only the coverup, after the murder is completed, can the second party still be charged with murder? It would seem rather harsh to charge the other spouse with murder when the other spouse didn't know of the murder until it was complete.

May I respectfully suggest you may be misinterpreting the statue as it would apply in this case. May I also suggest you may be correct, but that I'd like an independent professional opinion to confirm that?

My own view of the case is that JR alone is most likely responsible. However, many see it as either JDI (or PDI) with the other spouse assisting in the coverup, but not the murder.

If the prosecutor believed he show someone murdered and the other necessarily aided, then the cross fingerpointing problem disappears. But it seems very easy to argue that one spouse murdered and the other knew nothing about it, assisting only in the coverup. It's hard to see why the non-murdering spouse (if one was non-murdering spouse) necessarily aided or even stood by, during the murder.

I hope I'm making sense here. Perhaps I'm using cross-fingerpointing in the wrong way.

 

[RANCH]

However, doesn't the "crime" the statute refers to mean a single crime? IOWs if PR is standing by and aiding JR in murder (or vice versa) then both can be charged with murder, even if there is no way to tell who did what. But if the crime the second party commits is only the coverup, after the murder is completed, can the second party still be charged with murder? It would seem rather harsh to charge the other spouse with murder when the other spouse didn't know of the murder until it was complete.

May I respectfully suggest you may be misinterpreting the statue as it would apply in this case. May I also suggest you may be correct, but that I'd like an independent professional opinion to confirm that?

My own view of the case is that JR alone is most likely responsible. However, many see it as either JDI (or PDI) with the other spouse assisting in the coverup, but not the murder.

If the prosecutor believed he show someone murdered and the other necessarily aided, then the cross fingerpointing problem disappears. But it seems very easy to argue that one spouse murdered and the other knew nothing about it, assisting only in the coverup. It's hard to see why the non-murdering spouse (if one was non-murdering spouse) necessarily aided or even stood by, during the murder.

I hope I'm making sense here. Perhaps I'm using cross-fingerpointing in the wrong way.

It seems to me if there's insufficient evidence for a prosecutor to show which person committed which crime it would simply be a case of lack of evidence and not "cross-fingerpointing". JMO.

 

[Chrishope]

It seems to me if there's insufficient evidence for a prosecutor to show which person committed which crime it would simply be a case of lack of evidence and not "cross-fingerpointing". JMO.

Well, fair enough.

All I'm trying to say is if the prosecutor charged both, then PR says I didn't do it, JR did it. I only helped cover it up afterwards. JR of course accuses PR. IMO for the statute to apply it must be possible to prove that the "other" spouse aided in some way. It might not be necessary to be able to specify exactly how the "other" spouse aided, but it would have to be the case that the murder couldn't be committed by one spouse w/o the aid of the other, or at least that it's very improbable. If the murder was completed before the other spouse knew anything about it, then I don't see how the "other" can be charged with anything but conspiracy after the fact.

In a typical PDI scenario, PR kills in a rage over bedwetting, then applies the garrotte, then writes the RN. JR's involvement seems limited to going along with the charade, after the murder. This is basically ST's theory, which I don't subscribe to. But it's not hard to see how JR would argue this in court. I don't see how the statute applies here, as JR's involvement doesn't begin until after the murder is completed.

If the jury can be convinced that both were involved in the murder, directly or only by "standing by and aiding" then the statute otg cites would make it unnecessary to specify who did what. But if the jury isn't convinced both are involved then I'm not sure the statute applies. If I'm correct, both defendants walk because both point the finger at each other.

But I may be wrong. Maybe the statute is intended to meet out the same punishment to someone who strangled their daughter and someone who help the first party coverup the murder afterwards. My feeling is that this is not the purpose of the statute, rather the purpose, I think, is to make it unnecessary to determine who did what so long as both were definitely involved in the crime of murder.

Maybe we can figure this out with further discussion.

 

[otg]

However, doesn't the "crime" the statute refers to mean a single crime? IOWs if PR is standing by and aiding JR in murder (or vice versa) then both can be charged with murder, even if there is no way to tell who did what. But if the crime the second party commits is only the coverup, after the murder is completed, can the second party still be charged with murder? It would seem rather harsh to charge the other spouse with murder when the other spouse didn't know of the murder until it was complete.

I suppose this all depends on what you are thinking happened as to whether it applies or not. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, Chris. You are apparently thinking that this is a case where one parent committed the act of murder and the other parent had no knowledge of it until after the fact. In that case, the first parent would be the principle and the second parent would be an accessory (not an accomplice). If OTOH you were thinking (as many here do) that JonBenet was injured and both parents decided to place the cord around her neck to "finish her off", then in that case they acted together as accomplices (regardless of which of the two did the actual act), and they are therefore equally guilty of murder in the eyes of the law. Until just a few months ago, I didn't recognize the distinction between the two concepts -- accomplice versus accessory.

May I respectfully suggest you may be misinterpreting the statue as it would apply in this case. May I also suggest you may be correct, but that I'd like an independent professional opinion to confirm that?

I think we weren't understanding one another, but I've already got your independent professional opinion for you:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...tatutes-relating-to-JonBenet-Ramsey%92s-death

My own view of the case is that JR alone is most likely responsible. However, many see it as either JDI (or PDI) with the other spouse assisting in the coverup, but not the murder.

If the prosecutor believed he show someone murdered and the other necessarily aided, then the cross fingerpointing problem disappears. But it seems very easy to argue that one spouse murdered and the other knew nothing about it, assisting only in the coverup. It's hard to see why the non-murdering spouse (if one was non-murdering spouse) necessarily aided or even stood by, during the murder.

I hope I'm making sense here. Perhaps I'm using cross-fingerpointing in the wrong way.

Apply what I found in whatever circumstance you choose to see if it works. My own opinion is that the fact that both parents were TB'd equally as accessories to murder (after the fact), and the fact that no one was charged with the actual murder, means something entirely different.

 

[UKGuy]

I suppose this all depends on what you are thinking happened as to whether it applies or not. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, Chris. You are apparently thinking that this is a case where one parent committed the act of murder and the other parent had no knowledge of it until after the fact. In that case, the first parent would be the principle and the second parent would be an accessory (not an accomplice). If OTOH you were thinking (as many here do) that JonBenet was injured and both parents decided to place the cord around her neck to "finish her off", then in that case they acted together as accomplices (regardless of which of the two did the actual act), and they are therefore equally guilty of murder in the eyes of the law. Until just a few months ago, I didn't recognize the distinction between the two concepts -- accomplice versus accessory.I think we weren't understanding one another, but I've already got your independent professional opinion for you:http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...tatutes-relating-to-JonBenet-Ramsey%92s-deathApply what I found in whatever circumstance you choose to see if it works. My own opinion is that the fact that both parents were TB'd equally as accessories to murder (after the fact), and the fact that no one was charged with the actual murder, means something entirely different.

otg,Given JR's behaviour he looks like an accessory to me? This case IMO is either PDI or BDI. Kolar hints strongly at BDI with lashings of dysfunctional behaviour on part of the children. Recently I have considered JonBenet's assault via the paintbrush as possible ritual abuse by BR which was then covered up by wiping down an redressing JonBenet. There is motive here, i.e. assumed neglect by PR?

 

[questfortrue]

Before everything went haywire, the BPD really thought they might have a case of felony murder. In brief, as I understand it, if someone dies in the commission of a felony, then the law could invoke a felony murder charge and not have to specify who pulled the trigger or, in this case, who pulled the ligature cord/struck her. The link to felony murder, possibly pointed to by Kolar in his title of Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, is kidnapping which has no statute of limitations. Guess some think that’s pretty thin reasoning, but then there is also a portion of the law which addressed kidnapping as in enticement of a child to a site with the intent to commit sexual assault or unlawful sexual contact. This is discussed http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...tes-relating-to-JonBenet-Ramsey's-death/page4

Of course, I make no pretense to knowing the law or how “thin” this link to kidnapping and felony murder might be. I thought Carol McKinley’s opinion in an interview with Tricia interesting in this regard. She claimed that Garnett would really like to try this case, and when he returned the case to the BPD he established he was willing if they developed evidence which would assist him towards a prosecution.

moo

 

[Chrishope]

I suppose this all depends on what you are thinking happened as to whether it applies or not. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, Chris. You are apparently thinking that this is a case where one parent committed the act of murder and the other parent had no knowledge of it until after the fact. In that case, the first parent would be the principle and the second parent would be an accessory (not an accomplice). If OTOH you were thinking (as many here do) that JonBenet was injured and both parents decided to place the cord around her neck to "finish her off", then in that case they acted together as accomplices (regardless of which of the two did the actual act), and they are therefore equally guilty of murder in the eyes of the law. Until just a few months ago, I didn't recognize the distinction between the two concepts -- accomplice versus accessory.


I think we weren't understanding one another, but I've already got your independent professional opinion for you:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...tatutes-relating-to-JonBenet-Ramsey%92s-death


Apply what I found in whatever circumstance you choose to see if it works. My own opinion is that the fact that both parents were TB'd equally as accessories to murder (after the fact), and the fact that no one was charged with the actual murder, means something entirely different.

That's exactly the point. It depends on the theory of the case. Whether you believe one parent did it w/o the knowledge of the other, or not, it's easy to see how such a theory can be argued by the defense. The jury would have to conclude both were accomplices to eliminate the "cfpd". If one was an accessory after the fact, but the jury isn't sure which one, they both walk.

 

[otg]

That's exactly the point. It depends on the theory of the case. Whether you believe one parent did it w/o the knowledge of the other, or not, it's easy to see how such a theory can be argued by the defense. The jury would have to conclude both were accomplices to eliminate the "cfpd". If one was an accessory after the fact, but the jury isn't sure which one, they both walk.

Since someone has gone through and voted in some old polls, these old threads have popped up (in case anyone is wondering what happened). But since this one did, it brought up something that is (I believe) a misconception -- the old "cfpd" that Chrishope referred to ("cross finger pointing defense").

If anyone still believes in this, please Google the term and see if it can be found ANYWHERE other than in one of the JonBenet Ramsey forums. It can't. And the reason it can't is because it doesn't exist anywhere outside of these forums. In Colorado (and most other states as well) if two people are involved in a crime and the prosecutor doesn't know which one did what, they are still equally responsible by law. They can point at the other all they want but it doesn't diminish their own involvement.

Accomplice or accessory -- either way, if they are both involved in the same offense, they are both equally guilty. I posted the applicable statutes here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?230052-Premeditated&p=10371398#post10371398

 

[BOESP]

Since someone has gone through and voted in some old polls, these old threads have popped up (in case anyone is wondering what happened). But since this one did, it brought up something that is (I believe) a misconception -- the old "cfpd" that Chrishope referred to ("cross finger pointing defense").

If anyone still believes in this, please Google the term and see if it can be found ANYWHERE other than in one of the JonBenet Ramsey forums. It can't. And the reason it can't is because it doesn't exist anywhere outside of these forums. In Colorado (and most other states as well) if two people are involved in a crime and the prosecutor doesn't know which one did what, they are still equally responsible by law. They can point at the other all they want but it doesn't diminish their own involvement.

Accomplice or accessory -- either way, if they are both involved in the same offense, they are both equally guilty. I posted the applicable statutes here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?230052-Premeditated&p=10371398#post10371398

otg, what if one participated and blamed the other as equally culpable or solely culpable even if the other party was innocent? Do Colorado statutes address this? TIA

I thought "cross finger pointing" also could be a short explanation for one blaming the other when one was innocent. :dunno:

ETA: imo, obviously, both are guilty of at least one covering for the other or both covering for a third party.