Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramsey’s death

[bettybaby00]

Yes, and I see now what you're talking about (which was my mistake in not understanding). When we hear about a criminal trial, it gets reported or referred to as "Joe Blow's murder trial". The DA's office (whether a GJ was used or not) will have the charges in their "complaint" on behalf of the people of their state. But that charge (or charges) may change during the court case because of the evidence that the judge allows or because of other factors. After hearing the case, the judge and attorneys may agree to allow lesser charges (Manslaughter, Negligent Homicide, etc.) to be considered by the jury also, if they feel M-1 might not be sufficiently supported by the evidence. Whatever changes might be made from the initial charge(s) will be in the jury instructions issued by the judge when the jury begins deliberation.

Boy, I agree with that!

Not to my knowledge. I think he felt vindicated simply having the TBs acknowledged.

Idk why, but sometimes it seems I understand and know things on a subconscious level, and then when discussion takes a specific turn, it's like...Ding, ding, ding, ding!

Obviously I wish we had all 9 (?) charges that were considered by the GJ, but as we've delved into the ones we know about specifically (thank you for that), the implication(s) becomes more and more clear for me.

I don't agree with the talking heads who have stated these are "compromise" rulings. As you've pointed out, if the evidence supported murder charges (whether M1, M2, M3) but the jurors were unsure who did it, they still could have rightly ruled for For some type of murder charge for both. The laws seem clear regarding that. IMO a M1 (or any variation of murder) charge with a lesser included of "coverup" would more accurately describe a compromise. The fact that the evidence led to the specific charges we are discussing here, strongly indicates a 3rd party was involved.

And then it all circles back to: If a 3rd party was involved, who were they trying to protect?

 

[lawstudent]

With all due respect, you are confusing the terms used in the cited case precedence with the alleged crimes to which it is being applied. In People v. Miller, the illegal act committed was theft, and the mother was charged with having “encouraged” her son (a child under 10) to commit it. Actually, if you read the circumstances, it sounds more like the child was only used as a vehicle for the mother to conceal and transport the computer games out of the store. The child (understandably) didn’t necessarily even know what the mother was doing. Indeed, as the law attempts to account for, he was unable to “possess criminal intent” because he was too young to know that what his mother was doing was wrong. So even though he transported the merchandise out of the store, he did so because of his mother’s “encouragement”. She was charged with Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor (C.R.S. 18-6-701):

(1) Any person who induces, aids, or encourages a child to violate any federal or state law, municipal or county ordinance, or court order commits contributing to the delinquency of a minor. For the purposes of this section, the term "child" means any person under the age of eighteen years.​

I should have been more articulate, as I was very unclear. I read cases every day, so I understand the nuances - my argument made it all sound conflated. Let me try again:

My point was that in People v. Miller, the part of the statute she was accused of violating was "encouraging" a child to commit an unlawful act. The delinquency statute had other verbs in there to account for situations where the child actually could be held responsible and the other person "induced" or "aided", but the prosecutors went with "encouraging" in regard to her conduct, probably because the child wasn't able to be held responsible.

Then, the judge responded to her argument that because the child could not possess the criminal intent to be found guilty, that she couldn't have encouraged him to violate the law. The judge said he can still violate the law even though he can't be prosecuted. I read that as standing for the proposition that he can violate the law but not be considered criminally responsible. The judge did not say he is considered to have committed a crime - just that he violated the law. Court order and other ordinances also are covered by the statute, and the penalties there could be purely civil. A violation of the law and a criminal act are not necessarily the same thing. Just like someone found not guilty by reason of incompetence/insanity for an intentional killing did violate the law, but is not a murderer.

So as applied to the Ramseys, if Burke did do it intentionally and could not be held criminally responsible, there was a legal violation, but not a murder. Murder always involves criminal responsibility, even if just for a felony that ends up leading to the murder. The Ramseys could be charged with crimes related to their involvement in his unlawful activity or covering it up, but not as accessories to a murder. Legally, there was no murder.

Some of this is of course open to interpretation, but I do not read People v. Miller as establishing criminal responsibility on the part of children who commit such crimes. The case just acknowledged that they could violate the law - the statute just bars the prosecution for that violation. The law for theft doesn't say "theft is the taking of property....except by children under 10." If that were true, he wouldn't have violated the law. Police can investigate a theft and establish a violation by that child and his mother, but they can only prosecute the mother. I think if the child could have been held responsible, his mother would have been charged with aiding the theft, not contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

"A person is an accessory to crime if, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for the commission of a crime, he renders assistance to such person."

The key word there is crime. If it said violation of the law, it would be different. There's no crime without criminal responsibility. There has to be a specific crime delineated before you can charge someone as an accessory to it.​

 

[lawstudent]

BBM

So are you thinking that it wasn't BR b/c the GJ specifically refers to a 1st degree murder charge which he couldn't have leagally been charged for?

I don't know what happened, so I have no real clue what the GJ was referring to.

Legally, I don't think they can be referring to Burke. So either they got confused, which happens to prosecutors as well, and didn't bring the correct charge even though it sounded good, or there's some random other murderer they believe is out there (highly unlikely), or they think one of the parents is guilty of murder but maybe didn't know which one and compromised by not charging either with murder.

If this case had proceeded, it seems to me that the charges would have to have been modified, which is very common. I'm not sure if they could make them higher than the grand jury's charges - I think if they established probable cause before a judge they could. But they could lower them, or add new ones if they had probable cause, I believe.

 

[BOESP]

A question appeared in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution yesterday. The question was, "Q: Regarding JonBenet Ramsey, is that case closed? Are her parents dead? Are the police still investigating the murder?" I'll politely (according to WS rules) not post the entire answer found here, but there is this from the article:

The Ramseys were exonerated in 2008, when new forensic analysis techniques found DNA traces of an unidentified man on JonBenet’s clothing and underwear. Attempts to find that man have been unsuccessful, so her murder is still unsolved.
​

:maddening:

And who is Andy Johnston (the fellow who answered the question) and why should he have the correct answer and why should we trust him to be correct?

He didn't cite any references.

BBM. Boy howdy. Sounds like Mr. Johnston has already tried and convicted someone. My opinion of the article is that it is journalistic hogwash.

 

[lawstudent]

And who is Andy Johnston (the fellow who answered the question) and why should he have the correct answer and why should we trust him to be correct?

He didn't cite any references.

BBM. Boy howdy. Sounds like Mr. Johnston has already tried and convicted someone. My opinion of the article is that it is journalistic hogwash.

There's no reason to take that as fact. Newspapers get things wrong or oversimplify them all the time. I'm sure his research indicated that is what happened, because that's how the media tended to report it. But clearly that's not an intense legal analysis of all the possibilities.

 

[bettybaby00]

And who is Andy Johnston (the fellow who answered the question) and why should he have the correct answer and why should we trust him to be correct?

Ha, ha. He lists no references indicating that he has any expertise to answer such a question. Clearly the column can be viewed as a step above "Dear Abby."

He didn't cite any references.

BBM. Boy howdy. Sounds like Mr. Johnston has already tried and convicted someone. My opinion of the article is that it is journalistic hogwash.

He probably called Ramsey lawyers for the answer...but then again, the "they we're exonerated based on DNA" mantra has repeated so many times by LW it's become a fact to both the general public and the majority of talking heads who weigh in on the case.

 

[BOESP]

There's no reason to take that as fact. Newspapers get things wrong or oversimplify them all the time. I'm sure his research indicated that is what happened, because that's how the media tended to report it. But clearly that's not an intense legal analysis of all the possibilities.

Parroting what he had read or rephrasing what he had read is not original research. It is reporting. Sounds like just another chapter in the Book of Public Relations to me. :twocents:

 

[lawstudent]

Parroting what he had read or rephrasing what he had read is not research. Sounds like just another chapter in the Book of Public Relations to me. :twocents:

None of them do any research. I don't think this has anything to do with Ramsey influence - journalism has just really disappeared altogether. The media has always been misleading, but now there's pretty much no responsibility to verify whatsoever.

 

[bettybaby00]

I don't know what happened, so I have no real clue what the GJ was referring to.

Legally, I don't think they can be referring to Burke. So either they got confused, which happens to prosecutors as well, and didn't bring the correct charge even though it sounded good, or there's some random other murderer they believe is out there (highly unlikely), or they think one of the parents is guilty of murder but maybe didn't know which one and compromised by not charging either with murder.

If this case had proceeded, it seems to me that the charges would have to have been modified, which is very common. I'm not sure if they could make them higher than the grand jury's charges - I think if they established probable cause before a judge they could. But they could lower them, or add new ones if they had probable cause, I believe.

As I previously remarked, I don't think what they concluded was a compromise verdict. To me a compromise verdict would have been one that charged them directly with murder, along with the lesser charges associated with murder, i.e., 1st, 2nd degree, manslaughter, etc. Instead the charge is based on knowingly placing JRB in a dangerous situation which led to her death, plus a 2nd charge of covering it up.

If there was confusion, possibly it stemmed from not fully understanding that they couldn't reference a 1st degree murder charge when the perpetrator was a minor?

 

[lawstudent]

As I previously remarked, I don't think what they concluded was a compromise verdict. To me a compromise verdict would have been one that charged them directly with murder, along with the lesser charges associated with murder, i.e., 1st, 2nd degree, manslaughter, etc. Instead the charge is based on knowingly placing JRB in a dangerous situation which led to her death, plus a 2nd charge of covering it up.

If there was confusion, possibly it stemmed from not fully understanding that they couldn't reference a 1st degree murder charge when the perpetrator was a minor?

I was just saying there were a few possible explanations. It's possible it's just confusion about the definition of murder when a young child is involved, as you said. I'm not saying the compromise verdict makes sense, but to be honest the indictment doesn't make sense. The reasoning is just speculation.

My understanding is that they charged them with 1) committing child abuse resulting in death 2) assisting with a murder and 3) assisting in child abuse resulting in death (as phrased simply).

So they both committed and assisted a murder - that indicates the jury either believes both were involved but they don't know who did what, or only one was involved but they don't know which. Yet they committed child abuse, not murder, and also assisted in first degree murder. So who did the murder?

 

[bettybaby00]

I was just saying there were a few possible explanations. It's possible it's just confusion about the definition of murder when a young child is involved, as you said. I'm not saying the compromise verdict makes sense, but to be honest the indictment doesn't make sense. The reasoning is just speculation.

My understanding is that they charged them with 1) committing child abuse resulting in death 2) assisting with a murder and 3) assisting in child abuse resulting in death (as phrased simply).

So they both committed and assisted a murder - that indicates the jury either believes both were involved but they don't know who did what, or only one was involved but they don't know which. Yet they committed child abuse, not murder, and also assisted in first degree murder. So who did the murder?

BBM

I know

It is very difficult to know definitively what was going through their minds, and frankly the few comments we've gotten from them does support what you're saying.

However, I feel their findings also support the notion BR was involved somehow, b/c I think we can all agree that the Rs weren't going to behave the way they did for an intruder, or anyone outside of the immediate family.

Unrelated to this discussion, but important i believe nonetheless, is that BR passed on speaking with LE when he was recently approached. How he can't feel compelled to do anything to potentially help further the investigation makes no sense if the person approached had nothing to hide.

 

[lawstudent]

BBM

Unrelated to this discussion, but important i believe nonetheless, is that BR passed on speaking with LE when he was recently approached. How he can't feel compelled to do anything to potentially help further the investigation makes no sense if the person approached had nothing to hide.

In fairness to Burke, assuming he wasn't involved, there's little good that could come of talking about it. Either 1) he suspects his parents of it or knows of their involvement, but isn't going to want to go after his dad or 2) he has no idea who did it, and if police don't have another suspect, chances are neither does he. If this has been going on basically his whole life, he's probably more than sick of it, and angry at how it has screwed up his family, and I doubt he enjoys discussing it. It wouldn't be like he has anything useful to add if it was a third person and he didn't witness what happened all those years ago - it would be all speculation that could be twisted. I don't see him knowing any more than his dad, so if his dad isn't going to talk, I don't know why he would. He was so young his recollections and analysis are not going to be worth much. Either his dad has said "I told them everything and they just twist it" or his dad has said "look, don't tell them anything, or I/we will get in trouble." Either way, not much for him to add.

 

[bettybaby00]

In fairness to Burke, assuming he wasn't involved, there's little good that could come of talking about it. Either 1) he suspects his parents of it or knows of their involvement, but isn't going to want to go after his dad or 2) he has no idea who did it, and if police don't have another suspect, chances are neither does he. If this has been going on basically his whole life, he's probably more than sick of it, and angry at how it has screwed up his family, and I doubt he enjoys discussing it. It wouldn't be like he has anything useful to add if it was a third person and he didn't witness what happened all those years ago - it would be all speculation that could be twisted. I don't see him knowing any more than his dad, so if his dad isn't going to talk, I don't know why he would. He was so young his recollections and analysis are not going to be worth much. Either his dad has said "I told them everything and they just twist it" or his dad has said "look, don't tell them anything, or I/we will get in trouble." Either way, not much for him to add.

1) valid
2) valid

...yet, combined with everything else, his quick dismissal is in direct contrast to the rhetoric his parents pushed throughout years.

“The Boulder Police would like us to go away. They would like to just close the books on it, pretend that none of it ever happened. But we are not going away. We are going to be their worst nightmare. Patsy and John Ramsey are hanging in there, until the day we die we’ll be looking for the person who murdered our daughter.”
—Patsy Ramsey, quoted during an interview with Barbara Walters aired on ABC News March 17, 2000.
​

And he was approached before the release of the TBs!

 

[lawstudent]

1) valid
2) valid

...yet, combined with everything else, his quick dismissal is in direct contrast to the rhetoric his parents pushed throughout years.

“The Boulder Police would like us to go away. They would like to just close the books on it, pretend that none of it ever happened. But we are not going away. We are going to be their worst nightmare. Patsy and John Ramsey are hanging in there, until the day we die we’ll be looking for the person who murdered our daughter.”
—Patsy Ramsey, quoted during an interview with Barbara Walters aired on ABC News March 17, 2000.
​

And he was approached before the release of the TBs!

No doubt the Ramseys have lied about that. But many people who vow to fight to the end get sick of the police and media real fast when things aren't going their way. I think it's clear that whatever actually happened, the Ramseys did not want to be prodded about certain things. But one of the things that really makes me think RDI is that they never seemed to look for the killer, who seems to have been someone close. Unless they just totally unraveled over it and withdrew after the initial indignance.

 

[BOESP]

No doubt the Ramseys have lied about that. But many people who vow to fight to the end get sick of the police and media real fast when things aren't going their way. I think it's clear that whatever actually happened, the Ramseys did not want to be prodded about certain things. But one of the things that really makes me think RDI is that they never seemed to look for the killer, who seems to have been someone close. Unless they just totally unraveled over it and withdrew after the initial indignance.

I agree with all you said. But what I've never understood is why keep pushing for JonBenet's "story" to remain in the public eye if Burke did it and the adult Ramseys truly were protecting him. The Ramseys seemed to enjoy being seen on television and heard on radio programs. They wrote books, even long after it could have been left to rest. They kept it in the public eye. If Burke did it they were awfully stupid to keep bringing it up at every opportunity. They were their own worst enemies because neither of them was or is a good liar.

I still believe Patsy did it but I think some action between Burke and JonBenet could have precipitated the event that caused Patsy to accidentally harm JonBenet -- some action(s) that Patsy, as an adult, should have been in control of but wasn't.

 

[lawstudent]

I agree with all you said. But what I've never understood is why keep pushing for JonBenet's "story" to remain in the public eye if Burke did it and the adult Ramseys truly were protecting him. The Ramseys seemed to enjoy being seen on television and heard on radio programs. They wrote books, even long after it could have been left to rest. They kept it in the public eye. If Burke did it they were awfully stupid to keep bringing it up at every opportunity. They were their own worst enemies because neither of them was or is a good liar.

I still believe Patsy did it but I think some action between Burke and JonBenet could have precipitated the event that caused Patsy to accidentally harm JonBenet -- some action(s) that Patsy, as an adult, should have been in control of but wasn't.

I have to say that I'm probably not very knowledgeable on this, because I was a young child at the time this story was dominating the headlines. It may just be my impression, then, but it seems like they were quite loud and indignant when the spotlight was shone on them, but then seemed to drop it altogether. I realize part of that was likely Patsy's health issues. I'd forgotten all about the tabloids I'd seen as a child until Patsy's death made headlines and then that crazy Karr guy came out.

 

[BOESP]

I have to say that I'm probably not very knowledgeable on this, because I was a young child at the time this story was dominating the headlines. It may just be my impression, then, but it seems like they were quite loud and indignant when the spotlight was shone on them, but then seemed to drop it altogether. I realize part of that was likely Patsy's health issues. I'd forgotten all about the tabloids I'd seen as a child until Patsy's death made headlines and then that crazy Karr guy came out.

I don't know how many of the links under our "Media Links" are still active but watching the videos are worthwhile. Patsy and John were "interviewing" right up to not long before Patsy passed away. An interview in Hawaii with some minister (I'm sorry I can't remember the pastor's name or the name of the show) is truly enlightening. She was very ill at the time. The link was on our "Media Links," along with another link done, iirc, in Georgia, with yet another pastor. During this interview Patsy, in an arrogant haughty manner imo, faces the pastor and says (my paraphrasing), "What if we were murderers. We would need the church more than others." I kid you not ... she said that or words very close to that.

The links may be in the archive section here. Look at the bottom of any posting page and it says "Forum Archive." Lots and lots of stuff there!

ETA: I just added new links to the Hawaii interviews and the "What if we were murderers" interview but our topic here is drifting. I see a mod coming so I'm out of here.

Media Links Only - Page 5 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[lawstudent]

I don't know how many of the links under our "Media Links" are still active but watching the videos are worthwhile. Patsy and John were "interviewing" right up to not long before Patsy passed away. An interview in Hawaii with some minister (I'm sorry I can't remember the pastor's name or the name of the show) is truly enlightening. She was very ill at the time. The link was on our "Media Links," along with another link done, iirc, in Georgia, with yet another pastor. During this interview Patsy, in an arrogant haughty manner imo, faces the pastor and says (my paraphrasing), "What if we were murderers. We would need the church more than others." I kid you not ... she said that or words very close to that.

The links may be in the archive section here. Look at the bottom of any posting page and it says "Forum Archive." Lots and lots of stuff there!

ETA: I just added new links to the Hawaii interviews and the "What if we were murderers" interview but our topic here is drifting. I see a mod coming so I'm out of here.

Media Links Only - Page 5 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

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. Not saying it makes them innocent, but I thought everything they said sounded natural and reasonable. What kind of gets me is they seem like very logical people in one sense, and can respond very intelligently, but then they go in this show and talk about faith healing and get into demonic stuff. I'm not into religion at all so it's hard for me to reconcile that.

ETA: Watched the video - what does get me is that they don't ask people to come forward or make suggestions as to who might have done it. That could just be because at this point everyone knows the story and the lack of other suspects, so they don't have anything concrete to point to. But it seems like you'd always be wondering who could have done it and keep going back to that, not continually going on these weird religious shows, although I can see for a religious person the importance of going on faith based shows to demonstrate how to deal with tough situations. I also think that when you are accused of something, whether you are guilty or not, at a point you just kind of want to say to people "why do you care so much? why do you spend so much time watching Nancy Grace trying to declare me an evil person?" People do get bizarrely invested in these situations and make them very black and white. So I don't find his "even if we were murderers" comment weird. I make comments like that a lot and I'm not religious. I just hate when people get all self-righteous about "how dare they claim to be religious - they are going to hell" when Christianity teaches repentance even for extremely serious crimes. I'm sure they had people questioning their religion all the time, and at a point, you just want to yell back at these people that they don't understand their own religion. It's not about what others do and ranking sins, it's about trying to repent for mistakes of any kind.

 

[gramcracker]

I agree with all you said. But what I've never understood is why keep pushing for JonBenet's "story" to remain in the public eye if Burke did it and the adult Ramseys truly were protecting him. The Ramseys seemed to enjoy being seen on television and heard on radio programs. They wrote books, even long after it could have been left to rest. They kept it in the public eye. If Burke did it they were awfully stupid to keep bringing it up at every opportunity. They were their own worst enemies because neither of them was or is a good liar.

I still believe Patsy did it but I think some action between Burke and JonBenet could have precipitated the event that caused Patsy to accidentally harm JonBenet -- some action(s) that Patsy, as an adult, should have been in control of but wasn't.

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"

they also were their own worst enemies because they cared nothing about, and weren't apprehensive about, being perceived as bad liars

I waver between PDI/BDI, and which owned the greater percentage

 

[chlban]

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"

they also were their own worst enemies because they cared nothing about, and weren't apprehensive about, being perceived as bad liars

I waver between PDI/BDI, and which owned the greater percentage

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.