Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[UKGuy]

I'd like to add my two cents, UKGuy. As to the first question, you said it yourself: she was ignorant of forensics. These were not master criminals, quite the opposite. And I think the reason there was so much staging was that she was trying to think of everything and didn't have all the time in the world in which to do it. There's also the factor of whether or not there was any kind of argument with JR about what should be done.

As to the second, I strongly believe that JR and PR were in it together. To what end, I'm not 100% yet.

SuperDave,
What's difficult to understand is if Paty's version of events is as reported, why leave the pineapple snack bowl out in full view, then she just disowns it when questioned about it?

There can only be two explanations: she never knew about it at all, similarly with JR, since he is recounting the same version of events, or she forgot?

I'm thinking JonBenet had her pineapple snack and made it to her bed, as per her asymmetric ponytails, and the snack was just lost on Patsy, as you suggest?

If JR or PR are covering for the other and assisting in the staging then one or both must know about the sexual abuse.

If the case is PDI or JDI why were neither charged with homicide in the true bills by the GJ?

I reckon the case is minimally JDI with Patsy helping out with the staging or its BDI with both parents staging for their son.

Before the true bills were published I could never decide now it looks like BDI, with a legal cover up instituted by AH, to make sure nobody ever finds out, also explains why Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, was removed from the case and had her chapter on the Ramsey case redacted from her book, and the island of privacy was erected around the medical records?

Legally none of the LEO or lawyers, solicitors etc will ever appear on TV and tell us who the prime suspect is?

What might happen is that FW or the Stines will do an interview in the near future, more or less eliminating one or more of the R's without explicitly naming a suspect.

From memory in the Black Dahlia case the son pointed a finger at his father, years later?

.

 

[singularity]

Yeah, that's what I'd say every time more of that bull***t comes out, except there's nothing funny about it.

And I'll tell you something else, brother: just because there are *advertiser censored**-clowns like Paula Woodward on your side, don't think that RDI has run out of ammunition. Or have you forgotten that I'm 2-2?

How would RDI ever run out of ammunition?

Hell...back when I was a fence straddler and seriously took FIDI or robbery gone wrong into consideration, I still couldn't factor in all the evidence pointing towards the Ramseys. An IDI hits a brick wall fairly quickly when researching the case. Then you start from scratch taking a fresh look only to encounter the same brick wall.

Once you "see the light", the brick wall disappears and a bizarre maze of clues and paradoxes await that all point towards the Ramsey circle.

Oh and Roy just pointed out why I'm not fond of many IDI sleuths. Its a tactic many of them use and many years ago when I fence straddled, I made sure not to get lumped in with them.

lol!!!

There's nothing funny about her murder and I didn't see anything in superdave's post that would warrant a laugh. Its a bush league tactic used by IDIs since people started talking about this case on the net in 97......just use a laughing smiley or lol!! as a rebuttal to what someone says in an attempt to rile them up.

superdave made a valid point. Most documentaries are IDI and leave out much evidence that points towards the Ramseys. You already know that because you've watched them. Even an IDI can admit that the docs are slanted in that direction. To disagree would mean the person is blind, never watched them, or is trolling.



edit:

There's also the factor of whether or not there was any kind of argument with JR about what should be done..

Agreed and IMO there was at least one argument either during/after the writing of the note. I think John would have blew a gasket after reading that the first time, especially as the note winds down and is mocking him.

As to the second, I strongly believe that JR and PR were in it together. To what end, I'm not 100% yet

Also agree on this as I cant really imagine a scenario where one had no involvement and has no idea what was going on that night or the next day.

 

[singularity]

UK...

If the case is PDI or JDI why were neither charged with homicide in the true bills by the GJ?

Maybe because the GJ couldn't figure out the paradox either? Its a miracle in itself they came out of there with any charges. Can you imagine being on that GJ? Yes they had access to more evidence than we've seen but that doesn't mean the case made any more sense. In fact, it could just as easily be the opposite.


edit:

Legally none of the LEO or lawyers, solicitors etc will ever appear on TV and tell us who the prime suspect is?

Good point. Other than Thomas accusing Patsy, no one involved has stated on the record which Ramsey they believe to be the actual murderer. 2016 sounds like a good year for them to finally speak their minds. They will have many opportunities to do so.

Legally none of the LEO or lawyers, solicitors etc will ever appear on TV and tell us who the prime suspect is?

What might happen is that FW or the Stines will do an interview in the near future, more or less eliminating one or more of the R's without explicitly naming a suspect.

Fleet is number one on my list of people who I hope speak up this year. If he appears on a show that takes phone calls, I'm going to call in and pray that they pick me. I've got some good questions that need answers although I'd much rather a professional investigator ask him those questions. I also wouldn't want to offend him or put him on the spot like that.

He took enough flack from people years ago and doesn't need to be crucified again. Having said that, there's still some splainin' to do on certain things.

Does anyone know how many times he was interviewed by BPD/DA over the past 20 years?

Stines would be interesting as well. Fleet gets much attention due to being on scene and being involved in those events that day and of course the blowup with John and his circle. The Stines have flown under the radar. Time for them to be detected and placed on front street.

 

[UKGuy]

UK...



Maybe because the GJ couldn't figure out the paradox either? Its a miracle in itself they came out of there with any charges. Can you imagine being on that GJ? Yes they had access to more evidence than we've seen but that doesn't mean the case made any more sense. In fact, it could just as easily be the opposite.


edit:



Good point. Other than Thomas accusing Patsy, no one involved has stated on the record which Ramsey they believe to be the actual murderer. 2016 sounds like a good year for them to finally speak their minds. They will have many opportunities to do so.



Fleet is number one on my list of people who I hope speak up this year. If he appears on a show that takes phone calls, I'm going to call in and pray that they pick me. I've got some good questions that need answers although I'd much rather a professional investigator ask him those questions. I also wouldn't want to offend him or put him on the spot like that.

He took enough flack from people years ago and doesn't need to be crucified again. Having said that, there's still some splainin' to do on certain things.

Does anyone know how many times he was interviewed by BPD/DA over the past 20 years?

Stines would be interesting as well. Fleet gets much attention due to being on scene and being involved in those events that day and of course the blowup with John and his circle. The Stines have flown under the radar. Time for them to be detected and placed on front street.

singularity,

Maybe because the GJ couldn't figure out the paradox either? Its a miracle in itself they came out of there with any charges. Can you imagine being on that GJ? Yes they had access to more evidence than we've seen but that doesn't mean the case made any more sense. In fact, it could just as easily be the opposite.

Its more likely they know who did it and charged the parents with assisting an offender etc, but were told they could neither charge or name this person since they were beneath the age of criminal responsibility, kinda explains AH's behavior too?

I'm willing to bet once some others on the inside of the JonBenet case find out the size of the checks paid out to some participants they will want in on the action and start doing deals for their own revelatory interviews?

.

 

[singularity]

Looks like we have two more specials coming out:

September 30: 2-hour CNN special
October 2: 2-hour A&E special

During past anniversaries, I was worried that the 20th anniversary would be...I don't want to say forgotten...but I thought that the coverage would simply be that around December 26, you would see articles summarizing the case and talking about how it's the anniversary. And that would be it. I did not expect there to be this many projects for it so I am pleasantly surprised. Besides OJ and the obvious ones like JFK and 9/11, is there any other case that gets this more attention around an anniversary? 7 projects in the works...and none for December yet, which is the actual anniversary month.

http://www.wehaveyourdaughter.net/new-events/

Really looking forward to that A&E doc. The doc that Bill Kurtis hosted years ago was pretty good.

I expected something this year. The 20th is the last big anniversary of her murder when most of the main people involved are alive. Quite a few are already dead unfortunately and when the 30th gets here, there's a strong chance that more will have died. Once the 40th gets here, Burke might be the last man standing.

IMO its now or never to bust this case wide open and get people talking.

OJ and Jonbenet the two big cases of the 90s that will always be infamous. They both had a huge cultural impact.

AS far as major crimes discussed online, the Zodiac is a big one although no anniversaries are ever associated with it and you rarely see documentaries on the case.

Someone made a good point about December.....that is when most of these shows will rerun.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave,
What's difficult to understand is if Paty's version of events is as reported, why leave the pineapple snack bowl out in full view, then she just disowns it when questioned about it?

There can only be two explanations: she never knew about it at all, similarly with JR, since he is recounting the same version of events, or she forgot?

Well, if I'm right, is it really that far-fetched that she did forget? Speaking for myself, pineapple would drop right to the BOTTOM of my priority list. Of course, as you say, that's if she knew. I'm not sure which of them gave it to her. As for JR recounting the same version, assuming he knew about it, what else is he going to say?

I'm thinking JonBenet had her pineapple snack and made it to her bed, as per her asymmetric ponytails, and the snack was just lost on Patsy, as you suggest?

Something like that.

If JR or PR are covering for the other and assisting in the staging then one or both must know about the sexual abuse.

That's the way I got it figured.

If the case is PDI or JDI why were neither charged with homicide in the true bills by the GJ?

Do we REALLY have to go through all that again?! I've only been saying why for ten years: because they couldn't prove which one actually killed her and which one was just an accomplice.

I reckon the case is minimally JDI with Patsy helping out with the staging or its BDI with both parents staging for their son.
Before the true bills were published I could never decide now it looks like BDI, with a legal cover up instituted by AH, to make sure nobody ever finds out, also explains why Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, was removed from the case and had her chapter on the Ramsey case redacted from her book, and the island of privacy was erected around the medical records?

Legally none of the LEO or lawyers, solicitors etc will ever appear on TV and tell us who the prime suspect is?

What might happen is that FW or the Stines will do an interview in the near future, more or less eliminating one or more of the R's without explicitly naming a suspect.

From memory in the Black Dahlia case the son pointed a finger at his father, years later?

.

UKGuy, I admit that BDI talks a good game. And I can see why people would believe it, if for no other reasons than what you list. Maybe I can't rule it out completely, but almost. There's just too many things that would have to happen. For one, if you knew your son was a killer, even by accident, I can understand why you'd want to protect him. But would you let him out of your sight?

 

[BBB167893]

How would RDI ever run out of ammunition?

Hell...back when I was a fence straddler and seriously took FIDI or robbery gone wrong into consideration, I still couldn't factor in all the evidence pointing towards the Ramseys. An IDI hits a brick wall fairly quickly when researching the case. Then you start from scratch taking a fresh look only to encounter the same brick wall.

Once you "see the light", the brick wall disappears and a bizarre maze of clues and paradoxes await that all point towards the Ramsey circle.

Oh and Roy just pointed out why I'm not fond of many IDI sleuths. Its a tactic many of them use and many years ago when I fence straddled, I made sure not to get lumped in with them.



There's nothing funny about her murder and I didn't see anything in superdave's post that would warrant a laugh. Its a bush league tactic used by IDIs since people started talking about this case on the net in 97......just use a laughing smiley or lol!! as a rebuttal to what someone says in an attempt to rile them up.

superdave made a valid point. Most documentaries are IDI and leave out much evidence that points towards the Ramseys. You already know that because you've watched them. Even an IDI can admit that the docs are slanted in that direction. To disagree would mean the person is blind, never watched them, or is trolling.

I appreciate your support, singularity; more than you know.

edit:

Agreed and IMO there was at least one argument either during/after the writing of the note. I think John would have blew a gasket after reading that the first time, especially as the note winds down and is mocking him.

I can see that happening. But I doubt they had time to do it over by then.

Also agree on this as I cant really imagine a scenario where one had no involvement and has no idea what was going on that night or the next day.

What's that saying about thinking alike?

 

[mrseeker]

I appreciate your support, singularity; more than you know.



I can see that happening. But I doubt they had time to do it over by then.



What's that saying about thinking alike?

I think too many people have emotional attachments to their theories which makes them closed to new ideas. Follow the evidence is what they should do. We have a lot of evidence in the public realm that points to PR as the writer of the note, and that this was a staged scene. I am not emotionally attached to my theory despite some that say I am. I am solely using logic. Lot's of things are possible. The note is like a tornado siren blaring loudly PR did this. I don't think it will ever be solved unless JR tells what he knows. Maybe BR knows something about that night, or about the family that will solve it but I don't count on that. I really don't think JR would have allowed that note be used in the staging. That is all PR's doing so leads me to believe JR found out after the 911 call. The family circled the wagons around PR not BR. If this was a poor family we would already know what happened.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Guess who they brought back for the ID special?

John Mark Karr.

Yep, they went to Thailand to interview him.

This guy is a big producer: https://www.facebook.com/steph.watt...mIEpvbkJlbsOpdCBSYW1zZXksam9uYmVuZXQgcmFtc2V5

I think I can post the link to his facebook post.

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

If the case is PDI or JDI why were neither charged with homicide in the true bills by the GJ?

Or more accurately:
If the case is PDI or JDI why were BOTH NOT charged with homicide in the true bills by the GJ


(rsbm)

Do we REALLY have to go through all that again?! I've only been saying why for ten years: because they couldn't prove which one actually killed her and which one was just an accomplice.

Sorry, SD, but the laws of Colorado disagree with that. The prosecutor doesn’t have to know (or prove) who did what. There is no such thing as a “cross finger pointing defense” in Colorado or, for that matter, any other state TMK. I've posted the statute for “Complicity” before (after 2013’s revision). I see now that it was again revised in 2016, but the basics remain the same. Here are the important takeaways (bbm):

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).

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).
​

If you care to read the current statute in full, here is the link:

C.R.S. 18-1-603

 

[observation]

OTG- I get the feeling that it would have been helpful for you to provide this information to AH back 2 decades ago. Having little to no trial experience one can see he was up against the best defense lawyers in the state. BUT in the name of justice he should have held onto Kane and gave it his best college try.
O/T a young man charged with rape recently in CO got NO jail time but a 20 year probation. I don't understand why CO does not throw folks in the clink that need some serious jail time. That case should have been brought to trial like the TBs indicated. Even the Ramsey's expected it based on their book- JR said they had backup care for BR and were in CO waiting to give themselves up. What gives, Alex??????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otg]

OTG- I get the feeling that it would have been helpful for you to provide this information to AH back 2 decades ago. Having little to no trial experience one can see he was up against the best defense lawyers in the state. BUT in the name of justice he should have held onto Kane and gave it his best college try.
O/T a young man charged with rape recently in CO got NO jail time but a 20 year probation. I don't understand why CO does not throw folks in the clink that need some serious jail time. That case should have been brought to trial like the TBs indicated. Even the Ramsey's expected it based on their book- JR said they had backup care for BR and were in CO waiting to give themselves up. What gives, Alex??????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kane wanted to bring the charges to trial, but Hunter's reputation dictated what to expect from him. Have you ever seen the look on Kane's face when Hunter read his statement leading everyone to believe the RGJ had failed to return an indictment? (It says it all.) Instead of pursuing charges, Hunter allowed the SoL to expire on the only true bills the RGJ returned. So it's not like he was waiting or expecting any new evidence to come in so he could file charges. Just ask SuperDave about how feckless Alex "Monty Hall" Hunter was (and still is). He has documented it very well.


ETA Note: Hunter and Kane were both aware of the Complicity Statute.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

It's really interesting that Kolar will be on the CBS series. Is the BDI theory going to get some MSM attention? Of course they have to be very careful about what they say.but will we see the theory implied?

Another thing is the Investigation Discovery series...which is also three parts and airing very close to the CBS series...is considered to be competition. We know that the Ramseys are behind it, and it will be heavily IDI. Is it possible John got word about this CBS series and started talking to people to put together the ID series as a contrast to it?

The CBS series might not be 100% RDI (I could see them having experts to argue all different theories) but Kolar being one of them makes me certain it's not a Ramsey PR piece.

 

[UKGuy]

otg,
You have the law on your side.

If the case is PDI or JDI why were BOTH NOT charged with homicide in the true bills by the GJ

Sure, but one is enough to publicly demonstrate the case is RDI and not IDI. Also from the true bills we can assume that the GJ implicitly know who the bolded person references

COUNT VII (Accessory to a Crime)

On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (or alternately, Patricia Paugh Ramsey) did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

and ...

COUNT IV(a) (Child Abuse Resulting in Death):On or between December 25, and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (or alternately Patricia Paugh Ramsey) did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously, permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.Statute C.R.S. 18-6-401 says that Child Abuse Resulting in Death is a Class 2 Felony unless certain conditions change that status:
(7) (a) Where death or injury results, the following shall apply:

Here the R's are alleged to have caused child abuse via neglect. Now we know JonBenet had both acute and chronic internal injuries, does this mean the GJ are accusing the R's of direct complicity, or merely looking the other way?

So the big question that requires an answer by all RDI theorists is why the prime suspect was never charged with homicide, since the GJ patently knew who it was, and decided it was neither of the parents?

.

 

[BBB167893]

(rsbm)
Or more accurately:
If the case is PDI or JDI why were BOTH NOT charged with homicide in the true bills by the GJ


(rsbm) Sorry, SD, but the laws of Colorado disagree with that. The prosecutor doesn’t have to know (or prove) who did what. There is no such thing as a “cross finger pointing defense” in Colorado or, for that matter, any other state TMK. I've posted the statute for “Complicity” before (after 2013’s revision). I see now that it was again revised in 2016, but the basics remain the same. Here are the important takeaways (bbm):

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).

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).
​

If you care to read the current statute in full, here is the link:

C.R.S. 18-1-603

I appreciate your help on this, otg. But, that last line you gave tells the story:

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).

How is the jury supposed to make that decision when either one of them could have done it? I'm not claiming that there was a legal impediment to charging them both, I'm saying that what's written in a law book and what a jury actually does are different things. I'll give you a practical example. I know that Florida and Colorado are different states, but in the Casey Anthony trial, the defense tried to put blame on George Anthony. As a result, Casey walked. (I wish she'd have walked out in front of a bus, but that's a whole other pot of coffee!)

 

[BBB167893]

OTG- I get the feeling that it would have been helpful for you to provide this information to AH back 2 decades ago. Having little to no trial experience one can see he was up against the best defense lawyers in the state. BUT in the name of justice he should have held onto Kane and gave it his best college try.
O/T a young man charged with rape recently in CO got NO jail time but a 20 year probation. I don't understand why CO does not throw folks in the clink that need some serious jail time. That case should have been brought to trial like the TBs indicated. Even the Ramsey's expected it based on their book- JR said they had backup care for BR and were in CO waiting to give themselves up. What gives, Alex??????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe Hunter just knew that his best wasn't good enough. Here's an SD original: "Hunter's best is like Rudy Giuliani's worst."

 

[singularity]

It's really interesting that Kolar will be on the CBS series. Is the BDI theory going to get some MSM attention? Of course they have to be very careful about what they say.but will we see the theory implied?

Another thing is the Investigation Discovery series...which is also three parts and airing very close to the CBS series...is considered to be competition. We know that the Ramseys are behind it, and it will be heavily IDI. Is it possible John got word about this CBS series and started talking to people to put together the ID series as a contrast to it?

The CBS series might not be 100% RDI (I could see them having experts to argue all different theories) but Kolar being one of them makes me certain it's not a Ramsey PR piece.

I would assume it will be implied on the Dr. Phil show. I can easily imagine Phil putting his arm around Burke and asking him how it made him feel for some people to believe he murdered his own sister.

You can guarantee Kolar will dance around BDI on any programs he appears on.

Thomas will dance around PDI on any programs he appears on.

Arndt will dance around JDI on any programs she appears on.

Then of course we'll get plenty of IDI spin from several directions.

What makes the usual song and dance more interesting is how more people will be paying attention this time and the possibility of new clues/evidence coming out while all these media outlets battle it out to bust the case wide open and draw in more ratings.

COUNT VII (Accessory to a Crime)

On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (or alternately, Patricia Paugh Ramsey) did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

The wording of that is really frustrating. That person could be anybody.....and it can conveniently fit into any theory imaginable.

COUNT IV(a) (Child Abuse Resulting in Death):On or between December 25, and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (or alternately Patricia Paugh Ramsey) did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously, permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.Statute C.R.S. 18-6-401 says that Child Abuse Resulting in Death is a Class 2 Felony unless certain conditions change that status:
(7) (a) Where death or injury results, the following shall apply:

They both should have been arrested on this charge alone immediately.


The fact AH intentionally let the SOL expire tells you all you need to know about the corruption and conflicts of interest in this case and he belongs in jail as well.

So the big question that requires an answer by all RDI theorists is why the prime suspect was never charged with homicide, since the GJ patently knew who it was, and decided it was neither of the parents?

Big question indeed but the wording of that is wide open to interpretation. When did they decide it was neither of the parents? It can be either/or. Each of them assisted a person. Some think its Burke, some think its some mysterious 4th person in the house that night, or they simply assisted each other.

GJ would have had to flip a coin in trying to decide who did what and when. Amazing it could even be narrowed down to a person.

otg also makes some good points but I'm with dave on this issue......the GJ allowed a loophole so big Helen Keller could easily fly the space shuttle through it.

 

[UKGuy]

singularity,

Big question indeed but the wording of that is wide open to interpretation. When did they decide it was neither of the parents? It can be either/or. Each of them assisted a person. Some think its Burke, some think its some mysterious 4th person in the house that night, or they simply assisted each other.

BBM: Whenever they decided not to level a homicide charge against either parent and only that of child abuse and assisting an offender.

The GJ are explicitly stating that a third person was involved, this is the person the parents staged for and allowed JonBenet to be abused, as per the charges in the true bill.

This person cannot be either parent since the person has been accused of JonBenet's homicide, that's distinct from the charges applied to either parent.

This person might even appear in an interview regarding JonBenet's homicide, how bizarre is that?

.

 

[mrseeker]

I would assume it will be implied on the Dr. Phil show. I can easily imagine Phil putting his arm around Burke and asking him how it made him feel for some people to believe he murdered his own sister.

You can guarantee Kolar will dance around BDI on any programs he appears on.

Thomas will dance around PDI on any programs he appears on.

Arndt will dance around JDI on any programs she appears on.

Then of course we'll get plenty of IDI spin from several directions.

What makes the usual song and dance more interesting is how more people will be paying attention this time and the possibility of new clues/evidence coming out while all these media outlets battle it out to bust the case wide open and draw in more ratings.



The wording of that is really frustrating. That person could be anybody.....and it can conveniently fit into any theory imaginable.




They both should have been arrested on this charge alone immediately.


The fact AH intentionally let the SOL expire tells you all you need to know about the corruption and conflicts of interest in this case and he belongs in jail as well.



Big question indeed but the wording of that is wide open to interpretation. When did they decide it was neither of the parents? It can be either/or. Each of them assisted a person. Some think its Burke, some think its some mysterious 4th person in the house that night, or they simply assisted each other.

GJ would have had to flip a coin in trying to decide who did what and when. Amazing it could even be narrowed down to a person.

otg also makes some good points but I'm with dave on this issue......the GJ allowed a loophole so big Helen Keller could easily fly the space shuttle through it.

It could be they thought JR did it and PR assisted, or PR did it and JR assisted. There is no reason to believe they felt a 3rd or 4th person was involved. Clearly, this was the old ham sandwich play by the Prosecutor. He wanted to walk in with a true bill and force one of the R's to talk. well they didn't because they were lawyered up and done talking. This was a case where the GJ could not decide which did it, and decided the lesser charge against both would work just fine. The Prosecutor never moved forward because it was a BS charge. It was pure leverage that failed. BR is not implicated by this GJ action. The Prosecutor just stood there and said this is what i think we proved by a preponderance of the evidence and please oh please give me this indictment. In the end, it was never beyond a reasonable doubt so it never went to trial. Coming to conclusion that it must be BR is downright nonsense.

 

[FrankieB]

Thoughts on this?

https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-Your...id=1471134840&sr=1-3&keywords=jonbenet+ramsey


In We Have Your Daughter:The Unsolved Murder of JonBenét Ramsey Twenty Years Later, Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist Paula Woodward offers an unprecedented insider perspective on the twentieth anniversary of one of the most heinous, sensationalized, unsolved crimes in American history.


Here for the first time, Woodward examines conversations and information from all sides of those involved in the case. She shares information compiled during the twenty years she reported on the murder, including private conversations with law enforcement individuals directly involved in the case, their thoughts and dissections of what went wrong and right, and who they now believe is the killer.


Woodward has included drawings by JonBenét, letters from her teachers, and photographs that show a normal, happy six-year-old whose life was cut short in such a horrible manner. She shares portions of John Ramsey's private journal,where he wrote of his torment and grief in the aftermath of the murder. And she recounts personal conversations with JonBenét's mother prior to her death from cancer in 2006. JonBenét's brother Burke talks publicly for the first and only time about his sister's death and how it affected the family and his life.