Father says DNA could solve one of country’s biggest murder mysteries: Who killed JonBenét Ramsey

[AddieBoo]

BR was called into the GJ, can anyone explain why JR and PR were not? Or is this incorrect info?

Because even back then there were people speculating that he did it. Not to extent that it became in the 2010s, but still.



Burke was never a suspect. The investigators and DAs said

I don't know what that scenario would look like.

Here, Burke was never a suspect, and they confirmed that when asked. I don't think it's more complicated than that.

Burke has not been “exonerated”because he was never convicted.
DA Kane issued a statement saying Burke was not involved. But legally the BPD (before verdict) is the only authority that can clear a subject - like they cleared Fleet White and JAR.
Mary Lacy cannot legally clear anyone. The next DA ithst replaced her, issued a public apology to the public about her legal mistakes and restated the fact that the Ramsey’s were not cleared.

 

[AddieBoo]

I think they could find as many doctors as they needed, of the same caliber as Dr McCann, who would give expert testimony refuting Dr McCann's opinion.

Perhaps, but who would the jury believe?

 

[poppyquiche]

I will almost certainly never know who killed this poor tiny girl.

But I will always know it was someone in that house.

 

[sunspun]

I will almost certainly never know who killed this poor tiny girl.

But I will always know it was someone in that house.

which would include an intruder

 

[poppyquiche]

which would include an intruder

I mean. You’re well within your rights to believe it was whoever. I am almost 100% sure none of us will ever know who did this, so at this point it sadly probably doesn’t matter. But you know what I meant. Just imagine I’d said “household” instead of “house”, I guess.

 

[Ponytale]

Burke has not been “exonerated”because he was never convicted.
DA Kane issued a statement saying Burke was not involved. But legally the BPD (before verdict) is the only authority that can clear a subject - like they cleared Fleet White and JAR.
Mary Lacy cannot legally clear anyone. The next DA ithst replaced her, issued a public apology to the public about her legal mistakes and restated the fact that the Ramsey’s were not cleared.

Thank you for all who have replied and explained. As I am from another country, I do not know much about the justice system and about who and what has the power to indict or exonerate. I'm not asking to dispute anything, but just to understand better myself.

I'm somewhat confused about it all and I still have some questions, as I do not understand why exactly was Burke never a suspect if there were the same reasons and possibilities to name him a suspect as there were for his parents? They all lived in the same house and were all there so, the way I see it, they all share the same amount of doubt on guilt. Don't they all need to be equally proven guilty or not guilty? Or is this the case where the Colorado law of him being under 10 years old at the time comes in?

And why/how did Kane or DA have the power to make a statement that Burke was not involved? There must be a bases for that statement, or no? Can it really be that someone from the DA's office (or representing the DA) just has a power to say such a thing without any clear evidence? What allows this? Shouldn't that statement be only made supported by the actual evidence?

If BPD is legally the only authority that can clear anyone - how was this allowed? If this statement/exoneration was not legal, than how can it be accepted?

To be clear, are the Ramsey's and Burke this day cleared of anything? If the new DA apologized and admitted that mistakes were made, than does this apologize clear everything that was said and done before and allow for the whole case to start again from the beginning?

I'm sorry for so many questions and thank everyone who reads and tries to understand what I'm asking.

 

[Chypre]

Thank you for all who have replied and explained. As I am from another country, I do not know much about the justice system and about who and what has the power to indict or exonerate. I'm not asking to dispute anything, but just to understand better myself.

I'm somewhat confused about it all and I still have some questions, as I do not understand why exactly was Burke never a suspect if there were the same reasons and possibilities to name him a suspect as there were for his parents? They all lived in the same house and were all there so, the way I see it, they all share the same amount of doubt on guilt. Don't they all need to be equally proven guilty or not guilty? Or is this the case where the Colorado law of him being under 10 years old at the time comes in?

And why/how did Kane or DA have the power to make a statement that Burke was not involved? There must be a bases for that statement, or no? Can it really be that someone from the DA's office (or representing the DA) just has a power to say such a thing without any clear evidence? What allows this? Shouldn't that statement be only made supported by the actual evidence?

If BPD is legally the only authority that can clear anyone - how was this allowed? If this statement/exoneration was not legal, than how can it be accepted?

To be clear, are the Ramsey's and Burke this day cleared of anything? If the new DA apologized and admitted that mistakes were made, than does this apologize clear everything that was said and done before and allow for the whole case to start again from the beginning?

I'm sorry for so many questions and thank everyone who reads and tries to understand what I'm asking.

You said you were from another country. In the US , a person is assumed to be innocent first. So the evidence is needed to accuse in a public statement.

 

[sunspun]

Or is this the case where the Colorado law of him being under 10 years old at the time comes in?

I don't know answers to all your questions, but I can say the answer to this one is yes. By Colorado law at that time, BR was too young to be prosecuted for the crime.

an excerpt from Kolar's book on this topic:
"Burke, only nine years old at the time, could not have been prosecuted for any crime because, in Colorado, a child under ten years of age is presumed incapable of forming criminal intent." (Foreign Faction by James Kolar, p. 428)

 

[Ponytale]

You said you were from another country. In the US , a person is assumed to be innocent first. So the evidence is needed to accuse in a public statement.

Innocent until proven guilty, right? But as I understand from the comments here, in the Burke's case, there wasn't even a chance to prove his guilt, or was there? If they exonerated him from the beginning and made a statement that he was not involved, was it possible to even start proving the guilt?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Innocent until proven guilty, right? But as I understand from the comments here, in the Burke's case, there wasn't even a chance to prove his guilt, or was there? If they exonerated him from the beginning and made a statement that he was not involved, was it possible to even start proving the guilt?

It's not just a matter for the trial. For them to even be charged, probable cause is needed. They never got a chance to prove his guilt because there was never any evidence that would give them a reason to try.

 

[Ponytale]

I don't know answers to all your questions, but I can say the answer to this one is yes. By Colorado law at that time, BR was too young to be prosecuted for the crime.

an excerpt from Kolar's book on this topic:
"Burke, only nine years old at the time, could not have been prosecuted for any crime because, in Colorado, a child under ten years of age is presumed incapable of forming criminal intent." (Foreign Faction by James Kolar, p. 428)

Thank you. I know about that Colorado law, yes, is it still so today or has it been changed?
So it seems that the only reason that Burke was not included, not made a suspect and exonerated, was just because this law said so, and everyone just hid behind it.
I wonder if it could have been any different if it had happened in another state.

 

[Ponytale]

It's not just a matter for the trial. For them to even be charged, probable cause is needed. They never got a chance to prove his guilt because there was never any evidence that would give them a reason to try.

Thank you for taking the time explaining.
But wouldn't it have been a reason enough that he was part of the household where the crime was committed? And that he was present at the house at the time of the crime?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Thank you for taking the time explaining.
But wouldn't it have been a reason enough that he was part of the household where the crime was committed? And that he was present at the house at the time of the crime?

They can look at him, sure. But they can also look at anyone connected with the family. If they find no evidence against them it won't go any further.

 

[Ponytale]

They can look at him, sure. But they can also look at anyone connected with the family. If they find no evidence against them it won't go any further.

They can and should look at the whole family and also anyone possibly connected with the family. That is how the justice should be served - leaving no stones unturned. But as I understand, they didn't really look at Burke at all, did they? They just excluded him and didn't even have a chance to find any evidence against him or evidence to exonerate him as a suspect? That's what makes it confusing. You are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[GRT]

Thank you for taking the time explaining.
But wouldn't it have been a reason enough that he was part of the household where the crime was committed? And that he was present at the house at the time of the crime?

If there had been any reason to suspect Burke, it would never have gone anywhere since the law would not recognize him as being legally guilty.

I'm guessing (because the BPD dropped the ball, in my opinion) that they did investigate and then cleared Burke.

Statistically, the odds are very strong against Burke having committed the crime, but when you add in the idea that Patsy cleaned up his mess, the theory descends down a rabbit hole that's beyond comprehension.

It would have been simple for the Ramsey family to withdraw into seclusion after teh fact, but they didn't. They kept pushing for more and better investigative techniques. Even now, JR is an elderly man, but rather than spend his golden years enjoying life, he's pushing the BPD to try harder to solve the crime. Had anyone in his family been truly guilty--that would not be happening. He wants justice for his murdered daughter. And, he wants to clear the family name.

All MOO

 

[Mandala]

I think the BPD and BDA knew BR hit JBR and the parents covered it up. IMO there’s a lot of background information about that family that the public will never know. The whole case was a mess from the start. The book ‘Perfect Murder Perfect Town’ says it all IMO , as to why this was never solved. That town just didn’t know how to deal with it and there were too many people with differing agendas butting heads. This is why justice was never served IMO.

 

[Ponytale]

Yes, it seems to me that there are many puzzle pieces missing for it to be a case of honest and truthful serving of justice. As for that, all three members of the household, presumably innocent, should have been equally investigated and proven to be guilty or not guilty. There are so many but's and if's, that if it was plain and simple, someone should be able to point out the actual evidence that had the grounds of proof to exonerate and exclude Burke. But it seems that there is only a lot of confusion regarding why and how decisions were made, to even whether they were legitimate to begin with.
It seems that any of us here really know on what grounds was Burke eliminated as a suspect. As it usually needs some kind of evidence to say someone is guilty, it also needs some kind of actual proof (not speculations) to say someone is innocent. IMO.
There is reasonable doubt hovering all over this crime...

 

[FergusMcDuck]

They can and should look at the whole family and also anyone possibly connected with the family. That is how the justice should be served - leaving no stones unturned. But as I understand, they didn't really look at Burke at all, did they? They just excluded him and didn't even have a chance to find any evidence against him or evidence to exonerate him as a suspect? That's what makes it confusing. You are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

Who says they didn't really look at Burke?

 

[Ponytale]

Who says they didn't really look at Burke?

No one has said that but it just seems so. I mean, is there any info available for us to see that describes how much investigation did they do regarding Burke? If there is I would love to read it to see what actions were taken there. Since he was never a suspect, did it set its limits on what and how much could they investigate? And after it was said that he "was not involved" (if he was investigated, there should be a bases for that statement) and exonerated, how much info about Burke, if any at all, was presented to the GJ?

If the authorities start by believing that a person is innocent and has to be proven guilty, the guilt must be somehow proved, right? And they do that by investigating. So the result of the investigation in this case must have led them to believe that Burke was not guilty and was innocent, hence, the statements/exonerations. I just would like to see that evidence that led the authorities to believe that he was innocent. Unless there is any, I do not know as a fact that they really did look at Burke. IMO

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

It's not just a matter for the trial. For them to even be charged, probable cause is needed. They never got a chance to prove his guilt because there was never any evidence that would give them a reason to try.

You do not know this unless you sat on the Grand Jury, were the judge, an attorney for the Ramseys, or the DA.
Which are you?