Hi, B. I didn’t mean to suggest there is only one way to look at this, and I certainly hope no one (especially you) took offence. I probably let my own frustration influence my words. I understand that there is still a great deal that contradicts my thoughts on it, and for the most part, those who speak about it publicly (newscasters, pundits, lawyers, "experts," etc.) don’t seem to see what I think is obvious -- or they aren’t willing to acknowledge the idea.
No offense taken
otg. I certainly do understand your frustration though.
The disagreement have with this is that if either Patsy or John were responsible for actually doing something that would (or could) have caused her death, then that person should have been charged with M-1 (first degree murder). There are at least a few ways that the “first degree” part could be applied depending on the exact circumstances. For instance: if it was premeditated or intentional, if the death occurred during the commission of another crime (felony murder), or if the cause of her death was done by a person in a “position of trust” (certainly a parent qualifies for that). So if either one of the parents directly caused her death and the other parent acted with the other or participated in the act (IOW, accomplice before the fact), they are still equally responsible under the laws of CO, and there is no SoL. If OTOH one parent only helped the other cover it up (IOW, accessory after the fact), the GJ or the DA doesn’t have to tell a jury which one did what. As co-conspirators it doesn’t matter who is the principal and who is the accessory. They can still both be charged with murder and let the jury decide who to find guilty or not guilty, or guilty of a lesser charge. This is all according to CO statutes and it is the reason I’ve said there is no such thing as a “cross finger pointing defense.” (I challenge anyone to find another case where that term is even used.)
I see it most likely that Patsy was doing something that knowingly endangered JonBenet (such as Steve Thomas saying she used corporal punishment), or Patsy put JonBenet in a position to endanger herself, yet Patsy proceeded with reckless regard for JonBenet's life and limb. I see John as knowing the type punishments Patsy had meted out to JonBenet in the past yet he never stepped in and put a stop to it.
I think the Grand Jury had trouble distinguishing who did what exactly.
I can not see John or Patsy sitting around letting a third party do harm to JonBenet and not trying to stop it. If they did, then the DA's office was more than neglectful in not charging them and letting the trial take the verdict wherever it went.
Yes, in such a case they would indeed both be indicted, but not as accessories. They would both be indicted for M-1 as accomplices. The RGJ instead only indicted them as “accessories (after the fact)” stating in the true bill that each of them “unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render(ed) assistance to a person (unnamed), with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person (unnamed) for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted (unnamed) has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.”
It is possible that Burke did something to inflict the head wound or he may have participated in some other act that infuriated Patsy and JonBenet took the brunt of that anger.
I still think the nature of the wound indicates a high pressure/low velocity injury which your example of croquet balls fits as, relatively, an example of high pressure and low velocity energy exchange.
Why did the RGJ in John’s indictment not name the other person as Patsy, and vice versa? That's what they did when they indicted Aaron Thompson naming Shely Lowe (his common-law wife) as the person to whom he rendered assistance. In that case, even thought the GJ didn't know what happened to his daughter (her body has never been found), they named her in his indictment as the person he assisted. Shely Lowe would most likely have also been indicted the same as Aaron but for the fact that she died while the GJ was convened. Again, remember the indictment doesn’t have to name who is the principal.
I have no way of knowing, just as you have said Linda Pugh had no way of knowing what the Grand Jury thought. However, imo, I think the DA's office went into this event knowing the DA would not sign a true bill should one be issued. I think, based on seeing Alex Hunter on film months afterwards, that he believed it would not serve public good to indict Patsy because her punishment of loosing JonBenet plus cancer would take care of the problem without cost to the public or undo embarrassment to the Ramsey family or Hunter's prosecutorial skills.
Notice also that count IV (a) is not for committing child abuse -- it is for “permit(ting) a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child’s life or health.” Why else would neither parent have been named as committing the child abuse?
You said above that the principal did not have to be named. So, I think the totality of the evidence suggests that John did nothing to curb Patsy's corporal punishment and that Patsy *had* to know in advance that what she was doing for punishment potentially could harm JonBenet.
LHP had no way of knowing what the RGJ was thinking or trying to decide. Her thoughts might well be prejudiced because of her own feelings. As for the grand juror who made that statement, I agree with it. Neither can I figure out who did exactly each part of the cover-up (except that we know Patsy wrote the RN). Did John tie the cord to the broken paint brush, or did Patsy do that because her sweater fibers were found in the knots? Who put the oversized panties on her, since neither parent’s t-DNA was found on them? Who wiped or cleaned up the blood that was found on her thighs? Again, these individual things don’t have to be proven to a jury for them to find guilt if both parents were involved -- and they WERE BOTH involved.
I think John was involved in the cover-up and also had advance knowledge of how Patsy might likely punish or react to JonBenet.
Agreed. And I think if it is ever challenged in court, it will have to be. The statutes say the entire indictment is an “official action” of the GJ and therefore it is information the public is entitled to. But someone with “standing” will have to challenge/appeal Judge Lowenbach’s ruling. (A question about that: Why would Lowenbach
not release the indictment in full considering the CO Supreme Court’s ruling in People v. Thompson?)
:dunno: Narcissism? Money? :dunno:
I know, and I understand why you and so many others continue to think so. Please forgive my frustrated post.
No, you’re not. Your card was revoked long ago. :giggle:
:findinglink:
Other discussions, same subject:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...t-about-all-these-3-s&p=10793663#post10793663
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?230052-Premeditated&p=10371398#post10371398
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?23827-Was-Burke-involved&p=10385499#post10385499
:lookingitup:
CO Supreme Court’s ruling that the entire indictment is an “official action” of the GJ and therefore must be release in its entirety with only the names of victims redacted:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2007/07SA339.pdf
Thank you for the thoughtful post. I do see that someone besides Patsy or John could have killed JonBenet but without access to all information no intelligent opinion can be given.
What is known to the public suggests Patsy to me. But more than anything, justice should be done for JonBenet and so far she has never been given that opportunity.
