Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramsey’s death

[bettybaby00]

ITA with virtually this entire post. It has never surprised me that they continued to try to control the story which was just more staging. They made errors during the initial staging. Not surprising, it's not like the death of a child is a common ocurrence and I have never believed it was planned. So they kept tyring to "correcct" the staging. That was their story.

I am pretty convinced PDI, meaning I believe she killed her, but I waiver on the head blow. That may, IMO, have been caused by Burke, with Patsy then stepping in. Or that may have been her as well, in some sort of variation of the Steve Thomas, accidental blow theory. That is the part I waiver on.

Agree with continued media precense was part of the staging. Another important benefit for the Rs was the fact they could say whatever they wanted and it wouldn't be challenged.

Most parents who have lost a child through violent crime (or abducted, but eventually found) usually do 1 of 2 things...
1. Avoid the spot light all together. These parents however, are usually no longer suspects, b/c you know, they cooperated with the investigation.

Or
2) become some sort of advocate regarding crime against children.

Another trait both groups share is they use their child's name when talking about them!!!! It bugs me to no end how the Rs rarely, if ever use JonBenet's name. Why?

Kolar brings up another interesting point: the narrative evolved...a lot, especially JRs.

There were many instances, but the one regarding retaining legal counsel is particularly noteworthy IMO.

 

[BOESP]

Thanks - read the transcript first. I have to say, that gave me a favorable impression of them. At least the preacher guy grilled them a bit, and I thought they had good answers that didn't sound totally scripted.<respectfully snipped>

BBM. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the video from which the Scott Ross transcript was taken. Imo, they were haughty and arrogant when seen in the video. The transcript doesn't show mannerisms and persona. Maybe someone else will have better luck than I did in Googling for it.

The video with the Hawaiian preacher was interesting to me because of body language. Try watching it with the sound turned off (I am assuming a law student has studied body language assessment). I didn't see "innocent" during this interview. I saw deception from both plus a deep resentment of each other.

 

[BOESP]

I've thought that keeping it in the public eye was irresistible to a narcissist, and also perhaps a continuation of the staging within staging: over-correcting. "this is expected, so we will do that"
<respectfully snipped>

ITA with virtually this entire post. It has never surprised me that they continued to try to control the story which was just more staging. They made errors during the initial staging. Not surprising, it's not like the death of a child is a common ocurrence and I have never believed it was planned. So they kept tyring to "correcct" the staging. That was their story.<respectfully snipped>

Agree with continued media precense was part of the staging. Another important benefit for the Rs was the fact they could say whatever they wanted and it wouldn't be challenged.

Most parents who have lost a child through violent crime (or abducted, but eventually found) usually do 1 of 2 things...
1. Avoid the spot light all together. These parents however, are usually no longer suspects, b/c you know, they cooperated with the investigation.

Or
2) become some sort of advocate regarding crime against children.

Another trait both groups share is they use their child's name when talking about them!!!! It bugs me to no end how the Rs rarely, if ever use JonBenet's name. Why?

Kolar brings up another interesting point: the narrative evolved...a lot, especially JRs.

There were many instances, but the one regarding retaining legal counsel is particularly noteworthy IMO.

I didn't want to spend my opinion until I read other ideas but I believe staging is the answer to the question of why did the Ramseys keep it in the public eye although I'm not sure they would risk throwing their son to the wolves by doing that.

Patsy was literally and figuratively a drama queen. It is almost unheard of for a Miss America contestant to win the talent portion of the contest by presenting a dramatic monologue. She definitely was an actress but, imo, couldn't quite pull it off when it came to the most important performances of her life.

John took up the mantle when Patsy had said and done all she could do, whether for health reasons, emotional reasons, or other problems. He was no where near as good an actor as she was, imo.

One thing interesting is the comment he made in a December anniversary interview. When asked if he missed Patsy and often thought about her. His answer was no. :facepalm:

 

[bettybaby00]

I didn't want to spend my opinion until I read other ideas but I believe staging is the answer to the question of why did the Ramseys keep it in the public eye although I'm not sure they would risk throwing their son to the wolves by doing that.

Patsy was literally and figuratively a drama queen. It is almost unheard of for a Miss America contestant to win the talent portion of the contest by presenting a dramatic monologue. She definitely was an actress but, imo, couldn't quite pull it off when it came to the most important performances of her life.

John took up the mantle when Patsy had said and done all she could do, whether for health reasons, emotional reasons, or other problems. He was no where near as good an actor as she was, imo.

One thing interesting is the comment he made in a December anniversary interview. When asked if he missed Patsy and often thought about her. His answer was no. :facepalm:

BBM, I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought?

Are you saying that b/c they remained in the public eye, it also kept the idea of BDI in the spotlight as well?

 

[BOESP]

BBM, I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought?

Are you saying that b/c they remained in the public eye, it also kept the idea of BDI in the spotlight as well?

Yes, bettybaby00, that's what I was saying. Letting sleeping dogs lie seems to be a better strategy or as they say around here, "The more you stir poo the worse it stinks." (Really, they do say that where I live. :blushing: )

 

[BOESP]

Guess what ... I found the video link to the Scott Ross interview.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaK2RstdQQw"]July 20, 2000 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Linda7NJ]

Guess what ... I found the video link to the Scott Ross interview.

July 20, 2000 - YouTube

Disgusting! Appalling!
That smug smirk on Johns face...I swear I'd love to KICK it off his face.
That smirk does something deep inside me...I feel like I would explode if I were in the same room and he smirked like that. I know I would.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lawstudent]

Most parents who have lost a child through violent crime (or abducted, but eventually found) usually do 1 of 2 things...
1. Avoid the spot light all together. These parents however, are usually no longer suspects, b/c you know, they cooperated with the investigation.

Or
2) become some sort of advocate regarding crime against children.

Another trait both groups share is they use their child's name when talking about them!!!! It bugs me to no end how the Rs rarely, if ever use JonBenet's name. Why?

Absolutely agree with this - it's usually one or the other. That being said, I think there are some people who can still speak out sometimes without being so obvious about it, and we don't really think about those people because they are not noticeable.

I agree that Patsy seems pissed off and arrogant - not arguing that. But I view that as her genuine personality and response. They were angry and resentful at a lot of people - whether they were guilty or not.

Law students don't study body language at all. But I've never given a huge amount of weight to that, and I don't think it matters much in this case because either way they've had years to kind of prepare and Patsy likes to act. I pick up on tension, but I think it's pretty obvious things were not really ever the same for them, and Patsy was obviously quite sick at the time. They look like they've been carrying a burden - what exactly that burden is is the question.

 

[questfortrue]

Disgusting! Appalling!
That smug smirk on Johns face...I swear I'd love to KICK it off his face.
That smirk does something deep inside me...I feel like I would explode if I were in the same room and he smirked like that. I know I would.

Not to divert you from wanting to smack JR (‘cuz I might join you ) But I wanted to bring up something you mentioned regarding the Children’s Code. I can believe that a lie to protect the name of a child is tolerated, although it’s not worded in that fashion. The code merely indicates fines for anyone releasing a child’s name. The Children’s Code does stipulate the manner in which reports are to be handled. If a child has committed an unlawful action (violence towards another, e.g.) the report specifically can be shared with a variety of entities. Confidentiality of Records Rev. Stat. § 19-1-307

No idea if BR admitted to something in his testimony or if the GJ would have written up a report about him or not, but MK, the prosecutor attorney would likely know and he’s not talking. (MK actually was hugely compassionate towards BR and always referred to him as a witness.) BR lived in Atlanta at the time of the GJ, so it wouldn’t be CO’s responsibility to release anything to any agency in GA.

Here are some other statistics which may be of interest:
The age of criminal responsibility varies greatly across the world, from six in North Carolina in the US and seven in India, South Africa, Singapore and most of the US, to 17 in France and Poland and 18 in Brazil and Belgium.

And an article from Australia, January 2012:

CHILDREN under 10 are committing hundreds of crimes, including rape and arson without any punishment.

Leaked statistics - kept hidden by Victoria Police - expose 288 children investigated for 305 serious offences in the past five years, the Sunday Herald Sun can reveal. They include burglary of homes, theft of cars, drugs, weapons and explosives and many more. But because the suspects are aged under 10, the law states they do not know right from wrong and cannot be charged with any crime.

Frustrated police officers have dubbed the rising perpetrators "The Untouchables".

The alarming figures have only come to light after a seven-month battle with Victoria Police, which claimed it did not keep the data.

The statistics show 254 boys and 34 girls, aged nine and under, were processed for 11 sex crimes, including rape, 36 burglaries, five counts of stealing a motor vehicle, three drug possessions, or using drugs, and three counts of being armed with weapons or explosives.

 

[BOESP]

<respectfully snipped>
Law students don't study body language at all. But I've never given a huge amount of weight to that, and I don't think it matters much in this case because either way they've had years to kind of prepare and Patsy likes to act. I pick up on tension, but I think it's pretty obvious things were not really ever the same for them, and Patsy was obviously quite sick at the time. They look like they've been carrying a burden - what exactly that burden is is the question.

BBM. I got tickled after you said "I've never given a huge amount of weight to (body language)" because your follow-up statements are examples of reading body language.

 

[lawstudent]

BBM. I got tickled after you said "I've never given a huge amount of weight to (body language)" because your follow-up statements are examples of reading body language.

Lol yes, I mean I think body language means something, but people analyze it to death and make it more than it is. It's not so much the way they move as their facial expressions.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bettybaby00]

Not to divert you from wanting to smack JR (‘cuz I might join you ) But I wanted to bring up something you mentioned regarding the Children’s Code. I can believe that a lie to protect the name of a child is tolerated, although it’s not worded in that fashion. The code merely indicates fines for anyone releasing a child’s name. The Children’s Code does stipulate the manner in which reports are to be handled. If a child has committed an unlawful action (violence towards another, e.g.) the report specifically can be shared with a variety of entities. Confidentiality of Records Rev. Stat. § 19-1-307

No idea if BR admitted to something in his testimony or if the GJ would have written up a report about him or not, but MK, the prosecutor attorney would likely know and he’s not talking. (MK actually was hugely compassionate towards BR and always referred to him as a witness.) BR lived in Atlanta at the time of the GJ, so it wouldn’t be CO’s responsibility to release anything to any agency in GA.

Here are some other statistics which may be of interest:
The age of criminal responsibility varies greatly across the world, from six in North Carolina in the US and seven in India, South Africa, Singapore and most of the US, to 17 in France and Poland and 18 in Brazil and Belgium.

And an article from Australia, January 2012:

CHILDREN under 10 are committing hundreds of crimes, including rape and arson without any punishment.

Leaked statistics - kept hidden by Victoria Police - expose 288 children investigated for 305 serious offences in the past five years, the Sunday Herald Sun can reveal. They include burglary of homes, theft of cars, drugs, weapons and explosives and many more. But because the suspects are aged under 10, the law states they do not know right from wrong and cannot be charged with any crime.

Frustrated police officers have dubbed the rising perpetrators "The Untouchables".

The alarming figures have only come to light after a seven-month battle with Victoria Police, which claimed it did not keep the data.

The statistics show 254 boys and 34 girls, aged nine and under, were processed for 11 sex crimes, including rape, 36 burglaries, five counts of stealing a motor vehicle, three drug possessions, or using drugs, and three counts of being armed with weapons or explosives.

This is why I find it so frustrating when people insist BR was incapable of committing this crime, either in part or all of it!

I posted this in the "Why Christmas?" thread, it popped up when I was searching for stats committed on Christmas...

Although it's not stating the definition of "juvenile" it's pretty clear the group is very capable of violent crime. Kolar outlines some scary stats as well.

 

[BOESP]

Lol yes, I mean I think body language means something, but people analyze it to death and make it more than it is. It's not so much the way they move as their facial expressions.

Just gotta say it: it has a lot to do with the way they move as well as their facial expressions. :waitasec:

Nite All! :blowkiss:

 

[questfortrue]

I know. Confusing subject.

I don’t disagree with BlueCrab’s quote, but it is incomplete. Juvenile records which are sealed pertain to someone who has broken the law and who is between the ages of 10 and 17. It’s different for a minor, under the age of 10. A minor will have a report, not a criminal citation. The minor is too young for criminal intent. Moreover, the court does not automatically seal all juvenile records. It depends on several things like the kind of crime committed, the completion of the probation, etc. A minor’s records are automatically hidden, except from certain entities.

In Colorado, many juvenile records qualify for expungement. If a record is expunged, it is not physically destroyed, but it is sealed or specially marked and treated as though it never existed. In most circumstances, after the record is expunged, you can legally say that you were never the subject of proceedings in juvenile court. However, if you are convicted of a later crime, your record may be obtained by the court for sentencing purposes. (Colorado Revised Statutes § 19-1-306.)

However, in terms of agreement with what you referenced, I’d add that a minor (again under 10) or his family could probably deny anything which he did and someone would have to go and petition the court and give a very good reason to view a report.

 

[THE BUNK]

Lol yes, I mean I think body language means something, but people analyze it to death and make it more than it is. It's not so much the way they move as their facial expressions.

True. Though a more pertinent tell is that people that are guilty tend to view and voice the act as a tragedy, rather than a crime. They are more interested in getting on with their life, then seeing the criminal punished. They will be more interested in grief than vengeance.

 

[lawstudent]

True. Though a more pertinent tell is that people that are guilty tend to view and voice the act as a tragedy, rather than a crime. They are more interested in getting on with their life, then seeing the criminal punished. They will be more interested in grief than vengeance.

I agree with this, but I tend to be biased because I don't really ever get angry or vengeful. I know it's hard to say how I'd act until I was in the situation, but that behavior always turns me off even though I know it's normal to feel that way. I guess it's a defense mechanism, but when people are immediately more focused on getting some harsh law passed than on the grief of the situation, I just don't have much of an empathetic response.

I also feel that way if I feel like someone is displaying exaggerated grief. But I know I react to grief by being pretty stoic and calm, as does most of my family, and I don't think I'd have the reaction most people expect. So that in itself is not a red flag for me. The not seeming to wonder who did it is strange to me, but not the lack of anger.

Recently a crane collapsed locally and killed two workers. One's father showed up at the scene and he was just so heartbroken and crying about how he would love and miss his son and it was just so genuine. I felt so bad for him. I know other people would have been there yelling about how the company was negligent because obviously something was off with either the mechanics or the positioning of the crane - it collapsed and then flipped off a cliff. It may turn out someone was negligent and will be punished, but if that had been his first reaction, I just wouldn't have responded. The Station Nightclub Fire is the one tragedy where I don't blame people for reacting with nothing but anger - that one really gets me.

 

[bettybaby00]

Hi, betty. Not to try and answer for QFT, but I can reference the following two posts for information on Holly Smith (and it's not OT):

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Feces :/


Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - What does Kolar say about

Finally had a chance to look at this, thank you again

What's interesting is the focus of her book is incest, rather than general sex abuse. The fact she intended to devote a chapter to JRB definitely makes me wonder how much she saw and concluded. It's also very strange she was pulled from the case so quickly, and the following comment from the interview suggests it's b/c of her conclusions...

She says she also saw a reluctance to even consider the issue of child sex abuse.

She also states the obvious regarding the Rs.

Smith says she also saw things in the Ramsey investigation that she's seen in other cases, like the factor that money played in it.

"No one is exempt but people with money are able to keep themselves more cushioned,” she says.

 

[THE BUNK]

I agree with this, but I tend to be biased because I don't really ever get angry or vengeful. I know it's hard to say how I'd act until I was in the situation, but that behavior always turns me off even though I know it's normal to feel that way. I guess it's a defense mechanism, but when people are immediately more focused on getting some harsh law passed than on the grief of the situation, I just don't have much of an empathetic response.

I also feel that way if I feel like someone is displaying exaggerated grief. But I know I react to grief by being pretty stoic and calm, as does most of my family, and I don't think I'd have the reaction most people expect. So that in itself is not a red flag for me. The not seeming to wonder who did it is strange to me, but not the lack of anger.

Recently a crane collapsed locally and killed two workers. One's father showed up at the scene and he was just so heartbroken and crying about how he would love and miss his son and it was just so genuine. I felt so bad for him. I know other people would have been there yelling about how the company was negligent because obviously something was off with either the mechanics or the positioning of the crane - it collapsed and then flipped off a cliff. It may turn out someone was negligent and will be punished, but if that had been his first reaction, I just wouldn't have responded. The Station Nightclub Fire is the one tragedy where I don't blame people for reacting with nothing but anger - that one really gets me.

Another thing to add, is that for the Ramsey's this is not over.
There is no guarantee that the killer will not come back to harmagain and maybe kill his other child. A person who may be very close to his inner circle. I do not know if I would even trust my lawyers...maybe they were the ones that killed my daughter. How could you know. I would be more paranoid of my own associates than the cops, if I were in John Ramsey's position.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Another thing to add, is that for the Ramsey's this is not over.
There is no guarantee that the killer will not come back to harmagain and maybe kill his other child. A person who may be very close to his inner circle. I do not know if I would even trust my lawyers...maybe they were the ones that killed my daughter. How could you know. I would be more paranoid of my own associates than the cops, if I were in John Ramsey's position.

I would be the same way, I wouldn't trust anyone ever again around my child.
But ...strangely...John did not become hyper-vigilant. He continued to not set the alarm.
He had empathy for JMK.
He never looked for the killer, never wanted justice for his slain daughter.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk