Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[Tadpole12]

http://www.westword.com/news/twenty-times-the-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-has-been-solved-8112365

Twenty Times The Jonbenet Murder Case Has Been Solved
July 19, 2016

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/jonbenet-murder-case-108441
JBR Murder case Michael Vail/ GO

 

[Tadpole12]

@ SD,
could be, SD. Your previous suspicions have been proven to be correct.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I think the DA blocked the investigation because of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!$

 

[BBB167893]

I think the DA blocked the investigation because of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!$

Money didn't talk in this case; it YELLED.

 

[Madge_Ick_Dike]

I'm a newbie so I might be missing some pieces of the puzzle. Is it ridiculous to consider all these cover ups are the workings of paedophile ring members? Police, prosecutors, lawyers, these monsters exist in every occupation and they protect each other. Is there a reason this theory is dismissed? Maybe I am cynical and have read too much about this awful topic.

 

[ozazure]

Could it be something so simple as a frank disclosure from legal representation to LE that Burke was responsible, and money/influence orchestrating so this is never made a legal fact? Because not being legally held responsible is very different to not being held publicly responsible, and it is the latter they were concerned with for their son. I can imagine people being swayed with enticements or threats to keep a lid on it for a young child's sake, if the outcome would be no different, he gets the treatment he'd get anyway, and there are no other minor children in the home to be concerned about.

 

[mrseeker]

Could it be something so simple as a frank disclosure from legal representation to LE that Burke was responsible, and money/influence orchestrating so this is never made a legal fact? Because not being legally held responsible is very different to not being held publicly responsible, and it is the latter they were concerned with for their son. I can imagine people being swayed with enticements or threats to keep a lid on it for a young child's sake, if the outcome would be no different, he gets the treatment he'd get anyway, and there are no other minor children in the home to be concerned about.

First it could be that way. At least the parents could have led LE to believe that. The problem I have Burke did it theory is, parents would not have reacted that way. So say Burke was rough housing, or lashed out and JB get's a head injury and becomes unconscious. I don't think parents would go into coverup mode. Kids hurt each other accidentally and not so accidentally all the time at that age. Usually not a fractured skull, but it is not impossible. IMHO say JB is pushed down the stairs hitting her head, or even if struck by an object, parents would call 9-11 or rush her to the hospital. It would not occur that the offending kid is going to be arrested. That is not what happened here. If a parent struck out and rendered their child unconscious in an intentional act, though not intended result, they would immediately go into fear of what they did mode. They would most likely think, oh what have i done? And secondly, how do i minimize my actions so my spouse and the police do not know. They might not call 911 or seek outside help. I think Patsy did this, either struck her in a rage, or carelessness while in a rage and first tried to care for her. When she believed it was beyond hope, she tried to stage it as a kidnapping. If Burke had done it, none of that silliness would be necessary. They would simply say, she and her brother were rough housing and she fail. Now others try to suggest that there was some ongoing abuse, but again no evidence Burke was involved. Is it possible the lashing out at JB by Patsy was the result of something JB said like someone was doing something? Or was it because she had soiled or wet her bed? Who knows? I think Patsy was not a sober person. She probably was addicted to pain meds from her cancer period, and possible had drank at the party. I think she was not the most stable woman anyway. That is how I see it. I see no reason to blame the child brother. He would also have a memory of this event, and most likely would have told someone in the years since. One possibility I have thought, is that Patsy told John, Burke did it so he would shut up. Since JB was dead by the time John found out, maybe he did start thinking about Burke's future. Not saying that even happened, but imho John decided to go along with Patsy for some reason after the deed was done, and most likely as late as after the police were called.

 

[ozazure]

First it could be that way. At least the parents could have led LE to believe that. The problem I have Burke did it theory is, parents would not have reacted that way. So say Burke was rough housing, or lashed out and JB get's a head injury and becomes unconscious. I don't think parents would go into coverup mode. Kids hurt each other accidentally and not so accidentally all the time at that age. Usually not a fractured skull, but it is not impossible. IMHO say JB is pushed down the stairs hitting her head, or even if struck by an object, parents would call 9-11 or rush her to the hospital. It would not occur that the offending kid is going to be arrested. That is not what happened here. If a parent struck out and rendered their child unconscious in an intentional act, though not intended result, they would immediately go into fear of what they did mode. They would most likely think, oh what have i done? And secondly, how do i minimize my actions so my spouse and the police do not know. They might not call 911 or seek outside help. I think Patsy did this, either struck her in a rage, or carelessness while in a rage and first tried to care for her. When she believed it was beyond hope, she tried to stage it as a kidnapping. If Burke had done it, none of that silliness would be necessary. They would simply say, she and her brother were rough housing and she fail. Now others try to suggest that there was some ongoing abuse, but again no evidence Burke was involved. Is it possible the lashing out at JB by Patsy was the result of something JB said like someone was doing something? Or was it because she had soiled or wet her bed? Who knows? I think Patsy was not a sober person. She probably was addicted to pain meds from her cancer period, and possible had drank at the party. I think she was not the most stable woman anyway. That is how I see it. I see no reason to blame the child brother. He would also have a memory of this event, and most likely would have told someone in the years since. One possibility I have thought, is that Patsy told John, Burke did it so he would shut up. Since JB was dead by the time John found out, maybe he did start thinking about Burke's future. Not saying that even happened, but imho John decided to go along with Patsy for some reason after the deed was done, and most likely as late as after the police were called.

The thing is, I have experienced a family in denial about escalating behaviour from a young boy. I would find it difficult to believe if I hadn't seen what that mother is capable of telling herself about it to minimise it, and the most important thing for her seems to be not accepting facts. A cover up would be as much for their selfish need to not be the parents of a child offender as protecting the child. Most parents find the emotional wear and tear of a troubled child damaging to their self worth and self-image, because despite their best efforts they often remain ineffective - this is aside from their fears for their child, which obviously dominate the healthy parent's concerns. Hard yards. The damage to a narcissist's self-image and public-image quickly becomes the number one priority, over the abuse of another child, over the obvious distress of a child offending. They stop trying to fix things because then they aren't ineffective, they live in denial and put energy into the surface appearance only. They get to the end game inch by inch, week by week ... and in the end the ongoing subterfuge is a refuge for their minds.

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

IMO Hunter knew in the early stages that he was never taking this case to trial. His only plan was to sit on it and let a few people create smoke and mirrors. He passed the torch to the next DA.

Hunter never wanted to prosecute this case. He only impaneled a grand jury because of pressure from the governor's office that he was considering appointing a "special prosecutor." Hunter didn't expect that they would return a true bill -- much less two.

Interestingly, I recently ran across an old article from February 28, 1999 -- before the grand jury had completed its work. Lots of good stuff in the article, including the following passage, indicative (I feel) of Hunter's predisposition in the matter (the Hunter quote is from shortly after the grand jury was seated):

Hunter has said he won't prosecute a "bare-bones" probable-cause indictment. "I wouldn't do that, period," he said last June, vowing to move forward only with a good likelihood of winning a conviction.

"In theory, a prosecutor could get an indictment and wouldn't have to return it to the court," said Terry Gillespie of the Colorado Attorney General's Office. "I don't know why you would want to hang on to it." Findings could be sealed

Should the grand jury return a true bill in the Ramsey case, it's unclear how long Hunter has to decide if he'll sign the indictment and proceed to charging a suspect and taking the case to trial. Even Hunter's office doesn't know if there's a time limit, Laurion said.

"I think the law just assumes you're going to take it across the hall and file the darned thing," said Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, who is advising Hunter on the Ramsey investigation.

But, Ritter pointed out, "a prosecutor still has the ability at any point in time to decide that the evidence in the case is postured as such that they don't feel going forward with it."

Should the grand jury indict someone, it's also not clear when the public will learn of the panel's action.
​

[SIZE=-1]

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1999/0228rams.html


[/SIZE]

 

[otg]

The thing is, I have experienced a family in denial about escalating behaviour from a young boy. I would find it difficult to believe if I hadn't seen what that mother is capable of telling herself about it to minimise it, and the most important thing for her seems to be not accepting facts. A cover up would be as much for their selfish need to not be the parents of a child offender as protecting the child. Most parents find the emotional wear and tear of a troubled child damaging to their self worth and self-image, because despite their best efforts they often remain ineffective - this is aside from their fears for their child, which obviously dominate the healthy parent's concerns. Hard yards. The damage to a narcissist's self-image and public-image quickly becomes the number one priority, over the abuse of another child, over the obvious distress of a child offending. They stop trying to fix things because then they aren't ineffective, they live in denial and put energy into the surface appearance only. They get to the end game inch by inch, week by week ... and in the end the ongoing subterfuge is a refuge for their minds.

Ozazure, what do you suppose might be the result had this "escalating behaviour from a young boy" been present in the Ramsey home? Maybe the parents had been told about incidents of finding unusual behavior from the kids when caught hiding under the covers. Maybe there were other signs that when the concern was expressed to the grandparents, it was thought that some helpful books on the subject might help. Let's say that some of this information made it to the ears of the Ramsey GJ, and they felt that this "escalating behaviour" had a part in what happened when JonBenet died. Of course, the child can't be held criminally responsible for what happened. So who should be held responsible for a child's molestation and death?

Why do so many people have such a hard time seeing that the RGJ might want to hold the "adults" responsible if they knew those "adults" were aware that something was going on?

Count IV (a), Child Abuse Resulting in Death
On or between December 25, and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (and 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.
​

... and if the "adults" then tried to hide what happened and altered the crime scene:

Count VII, Accessory to a Crime
On or about December 25, and December 26,1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (and 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.

​

Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding the RGJ true bills?

 

[UKGuy]

(rsbm)Hunter never wanted to prosecute this case. He only impaneled a grand jury because of pressure from the governor's office that he was considering appointing a "special prosecutor." Hunter didn't expect that they would return a true bill -- much less two.

Interestingly, I recently ran across an old article from February 28, 1999 -- before the grand jury had completed its work. Lots of good stuff in the article, including the following passage, indicative (I feel) of Hunter's predisposition in the matter (the Hunter quote is from shortly after the grand jury was seated):

Hunter has said he won't prosecute a "bare-bones" probable-cause indictment. "I wouldn't do that, period," he said last June, vowing to move forward only with a good likelihood of winning a conviction.

"In theory, a prosecutor could get an indictment and wouldn't have to return it to the court," said Terry Gillespie of the Colorado Attorney General's Office. "I don't know why you would want to hang on to it." Findings could be sealed

Should the grand jury return a true bill in the Ramsey case, it's unclear how long Hunter has to decide if he'll sign the indictment and proceed to charging a suspect and taking the case to trial. Even Hunter's office doesn't know if there's a time limit, Laurion said.

"I think the law just assumes you're going to take it across the hall and file the darned thing," said Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, who is advising Hunter on the Ramsey investigation.

But, Ritter pointed out, "a prosecutor still has the ability at any point in time to decide that the evidence in the case is postured as such that they don't feel going forward with it."

Should the grand jury indict someone, it's also not clear when the public will learn of the panel's action.
​

[SIZE=-1]

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1999/0228rams.html


[/SIZE]

otg,
Excellent find, really relevant to the current discussion.

"I think the law just assumes you're going to take it across the hall and file the darned thing," said Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, who is advising Hunter on the Ramsey investigation.

But, Ritter pointed out, "a prosecutor still has the ability at any point in time to decide that the evidence in the case is postured as such that they don't feel going forward with it."

Well if that's not a public announcement, tell me what is,

Findings could be sealed

, and its all pre-planned, they know where they are going dependent upon the GJ decision.

Hunter's patently not as dumb as has been made out.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Count IV (a), Child Abuse Resulting in Death ...

Count VII, Accessory to a Crime ...

The parents were up to their necks in the smelly brown stuff, charged with child abuse and being accomplices to a homicide, say no more!

.

 

[InstantProof]

The thing is, I have experienced a family in denial about escalating behaviour from a young boy. I would find it difficult to believe if I hadn't seen what that mother is capable of telling herself about it to minimise it, and the most important thing for her seems to be not accepting facts. A cover up would be as much for their selfish need to not be the parents of a child offender as protecting the child. Most parents find the emotional wear and tear of a troubled child damaging to their self worth and self-image, because despite their best efforts they often remain ineffective - this is aside from their fears for their child, which obviously dominate the healthy parent's concerns. Hard yards. The damage to a narcissist's self-image and public-image quickly becomes the number one priority, over the abuse of another child, over the obvious distress of a child offending. They stop trying to fix things because then they aren't ineffective, they live in denial and put energy into the surface appearance only. They get to the end game inch by inch, week by week ... and in the end the ongoing subterfuge is a refuge for their minds.

I knew a family like this also and have always felt this was the situation with the R's. Same with Casey Anthony's parents.

 

[ozazure]

Ozazure, what do you suppose might be the result had this "escalating behaviour from a young boy" been present in the Ramsey home? Maybe the parents had been told about incidents of finding unusual behavior from the kids when caught hiding under the covers. Maybe there were other signs that when the concern was expressed to the grandparents, it was thought that some helpful books on the subject might help. Let's say that some of this information made it to the ears of the Ramsey GJ, and they felt that this "escalating behaviour" had a part in what happened when JonBenet died. Of course, the child can't be held criminally responsible for what happened. So who should be held responsible for a child's molestation and death?

Why do so many people have such a hard time seeing that the RGJ might want to hold the "adults" responsible if they knew those "adults" were aware that something was going on?

Count IV (a), Child Abuse Resulting in Death
On or between December 25, and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (and 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.
​

... and if the "adults" then tried to hide what happened and altered the crime scene:

Count VII, Accessory to a Crime
On or about December 25, and December 26,1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (and 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.

​

Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding the RGJ true bills?

This is it, I think there was probably clear evidence of their neglect of the escalating situation for a grand jury. The "island of privacy" with regards to medical records ... it is completely unnecessary for a normal 9 year old's medical history to be suppressed. And I imagine the medical records were the half of it. Despite this I imagine something approaching the whole picture was relatively easy to piece together. Kolar had to legally withheld additional information yet his dots are fairly closely drawn.

That said, without my own personal experience I would still probably find the parent's actions incredible - in the sense of being not credible. Most people would just involve the authorities without even thinking. An ambulance would be called even if it was clearly useless. Only people who have practice with concealment and contemplating consequences have a different impulse. The few times when what happened in their home has been revealed it was untenable and it was nothing approaching this. This was a no brainer.

 

[mrseeker]

Yeah but we have not heard about Burke being a maladjusted adult or anything that might lead you to believe he was abusing anyone. Why would you think he would kill his sister and go to bed, be awakened then interviewed by police, never mentioning any incident with his sister? He would certainly know if his sister was injured. Why are people so fixated that a child killed a child when there are two adults who clearly could have done it. This child did not write the note. He did not fix a garote to his sister's neck. And I contend he had no knowledge of the entire event. He went to bed and woke to Patsy's work. Leave this kid alone. There is absolutely no evidence that her brother did anything. An adult did this, an adult attempted a coverup, and an adult got away with murder. She is dead now, but Patsy did it. The note says it all.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Yeah but we have not heard about Burke being a maladjusted adult or anything that might lead you to believe he was abusing anyone. Why would you think he would kill his sister and go to bed, be awakened then interviewed by police, never mentioning any incident with his sister? He would certainly know if his sister was injured. Why are people so fixated that a child killed a child when there are two adults who clearly could have done it. This child did not write the note. He did not fix a garote to his sister's neck. And I contend he had no knowledge of the entire event. He went to bed and woke to Patsy's work. Leave this kid alone. There is absolutely no evidence that her brother did anything. An adult did this, an adult attempted a coverup, and an adult got away with murder. She is dead now, but Patsy did it. The note says it all.

BR has a very, very thick cushion of protection surrounding him. It's green, and says "In God We Trust" on it.

 

[singularity]

I'm a newbie so I might be missing some pieces of the puzzle. Is it ridiculous to consider all these cover ups are the workings of paedophile ring members? Police, prosecutors, lawyers, these monsters exist in every occupation and they protect each other. Is there a reason this theory is dismissed? Maybe I am cynical and have read too much about this awful topic.

The reason that the "Jonbenet was killed by some evil, satanic pedo ring" theory is dismissed is because of its absurdity.

She probably was addicted to pain meds from her cancer period, and possible had drank at the party. I think she was not the most stable woman anyway.

I also think she had a pill problem(call it a hunch from a former pill addict)....and besides pain pills I highly doubt she was a stranger to xanax, valium, etc. which she admitted to taking after the murder.

Throw in the cancer and a possible mid life crisis, mix into a blender with pills and dysfunction, and it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Ozazure, what do you suppose might be the result had this "escalating behaviour from a young boy" been present in the Ramsey home? Maybe the parents had been told about incidents of finding unusual behavior from the kids when caught hiding under the covers. Maybe there were other signs that when the concern was expressed to the grandparents, it was thought that some helpful books on the subject might help. Let's say that some of this information made it to the ears of the Ramsey GJ, and they felt that this "escalating behaviour" had a part in what happened when JonBenet died. Of course, the child can't be held criminally responsible for what happened. So who should be held responsible for a child's molestation and death?

Why do so many people have such a hard time seeing that the RGJ might want to hold the "adults" responsible if they knew those "adults" were aware that something was going on?

Count IV (a), Child Abuse Resulting in Death
On or between December 25, and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (and 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.
​

... and if the "adults" then tried to hide what happened and altered the crime scene:

Count VII, Accessory to a Crime
On or about December 25, and December 26,1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (and 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.

​

Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding the RGJ true bills?

Maybe because of its wording? The wording of those counts takes us back to square one. Only thing you can take from it is that the Ramseys were responsible. People can create theories within theories based solely on that info. While I agree with you that Hunter never had any plans to prosecute the case, I bet he literally jumped for joy when he read those counts. While the GJ intentions may have been the opposite, at the same time it was the free pass Hunter so desperately needed. The indictments give too much wiggle room.....and wiggle room makes Boulder DAs and Ramsey attorneys very happy.

The amazing thing is how so few seem to know about it and the media rarely(if ever) mentions it. As everyone here knows, you can currently walk into any store today and see Jonbenet's face on tabloids claiming its been solved and its IDI. Most people don't buy these but they certainly look at that cover/headline while standing in line.

Hunter and his minions work continues to work magic twenty years later. Most of the people involved in this case virtually danced on her grave.....and continue to do so.

 

[UKGuy]

singularity,

Maybe because of its wording? The wording of those counts takes us back to square one. Only thing you can take from it is that the Ramseys were responsible.

Sure but which one instigated it all?

We have BBM:

Count IV (a), Child Abuse Resulting in Death
On or between December 25, and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (and 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.

and ...

Count VII, Accessory to a Crime
On or about December 25, and December 26,1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (and 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.

Note that word alternately which means together i.e. not alternatively.

So if the parents were accessories to a crime and did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, just who might this person be?

.

 

[otg]

singularity,

Sure but which one instigated it all?

We have BBM:


and ...



Note that word alternately which means together i.e. not alternatively.

So if the parents were accessories to a crime and did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, just who might this person be?

.

I added the parenthetic phrase "(and alternately Patricia Paugh Ramsey)" to John's True Bill to simply indicate that Patsy's TBs were exactly the same without having to repeat them. Nothing else was implied by my choice of words.

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

Maybe because of its wording? The wording of those counts takes us back to square one. Only thing you can take from it is that the Ramseys were responsible. People can create theories within theories based solely on that info. While I agree with you that Hunter never had any plans to prosecute the case, I bet he literally jumped for joy when he read those counts. While the GJ intentions may have been the opposite, at the same time it was the free pass Hunter so desperately needed. The indictments give too much wiggle room.....and wiggle room makes Boulder DAs and Ramsey attorneys very happy.

I'm not so sure Hunter "jumped for joy when he read those counts." I think rather that he was "hopping mad" when he found that the TBs were signed. He didn't want to impanel a GJ in the first place. I think he just wanted it all to be "swept under the rug" (to use another colloquialism). He didn't want them to return an indictment. And then when they did, he hid it away and implied in his statement that the RGJ had not returned an indictment.

There is no "wiggle room" in the wording of the TBs; they are the exact words taken from the Colorado Revised Statutes to establish the "class" of the charge (i.e., the severity of the charge and therefore the punishment). For example, under the charge of "Child Abuse" (C.R.S. 18-6-401), the following is written (bbm):

(7) (a) Where death or injury results, the following shall apply:

​

(I) When a person acts knowingly or recklessly and the child abuse results in death to the child, it is a class 2 felony except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection (7).

(II) When a person acts with criminal negligence and the child abuse results in death to the child, it is a class 3 felony.

(III) When a person acts knowingly or recklessly and the child abuse results in serious bodily injury to the child, it is a class 3 felony.

(IV) When a person acts with criminal negligence and the child abuse results in serious bodily injury to the child, it is a class 4 felony.

(V) When a person acts knowingly or recklessly and the child abuse results in any injury other than serious bodily injury, it is a class 1 misdemeanor; except that, if it is committed under the circumstances described in paragraph (e) of this subsection (7), then it is a class 5 felony.

(VI) When a person acts with criminal negligence and the child abuse results in any injury other than serious bodily injury to the child, it is a class 2 misdemeanor; except that, if it is committed under the circumstances described in paragraph (e) of this subsection (7), then it is a class 5 felony.
​

Notice the wording taken from the statute ("knowingly or recklessly") which makes it a Class 2 felony. But notice also the exception in that sentence saying "except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection (7)." Here is that reference from later in this statute:

(c) When a person knowingly causes the death of a child who has not yet attained twelve years of age and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the child, such person commits the crime of murder in the first degree as described in section 18-3-102 (1) (f).
​

​

Anyone care to speculate why Count IV (a) did not fall into this reference to "paragraph (c) of this subsection (7)" ("the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the child")? Perhaps like so many of the pundits we see on TV, so many who post here and at other forums, and even many of the lawyers quoted in articles about it, we could simply say "it doesn't make any sense," "the grand jury must have been confused," or "maybe it was a compromise judgment."


As to Count VII, "Accessory to a Crime," the same thing goes as to Count IV (a) -- the wording comes from the statutes to spell out exactly what crime was committed and to what extent the perpetrator participated.