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

[FergusMcDuck]

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?

I'm someone who has read the judge's order and know that the Grand Jury was voting on eighteen charges, nine against John, nine against Patsy, none against Burke. Also, multiple officials have stated that Burke was never a suspect.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I'm someone who has read the judge's order and know that the Grand Jury was voting on eighteen charges, nine against John, nine against Patsy, none against Burke. Also, multiple officials have stated that Burke was never a suspect.

SO The DA was convened to determine the guilt of a minor whose actions if criminal could not be made public and who could not be prosecuted? No. It was convened to see if JR or PR should be tried.
Who was going to announce that BR after being questioned may have revealed his guilt or a high level of suspicion? Not the court.
BR was taken out of the equation due to his age not because innocence was determined.
If BR was guilty how could anything even remotely attached to him be announced?
Just by virtue that the public was aware of him being a possible suspect violated his rights as a minor. I'm sure the judge understood this.
There is no way in hell the Ramseys very competent attorneys would let that lay there without him being protected. The parental involvement made it very difficult to uphold the law that shielded minors under 10.
It is not difficult to see the dilemma.
It would be Not guilty due to the age of the offender just as one would be not guilty by reason of insanity. And that would be truthful.

 

[Tower]

SO The DA was convened to determine the guilt of a minor whose actions if criminal could not be made public and who could not be prosecuted? No. It was convened to see if JR or PR should be tried.
Who was going to announce that BR after being questioned may have revealed his guilt or a high level of suspicion? Not the court.
BR was taken out of the equation due to his age not because innocence was determined.
If BR was guilty how could anything even remotely attached to him be announced?
Just by virtue that the public was aware of him being a possible suspect violated his rights as a minor. I'm sure the judge understood this.
There is no way in hell the Ramseys very competent attorneys would let that lay there without him being protected. The parental involvement made it very difficult to uphold the law that shielded minors under 10.
It is not difficult to see the dilemma.
It would be Not guilty due to the age of the offender just as one would be not guilty by reason of insanity.

I am not completely questioning what you’re saying, but I’m trying to clarify the issue here for myself.

Is the hypothesis that BR committed first degree murder as referenced in the Grand Jury documents? Because that is not possible. A 9-year-old cannot legally form criminal intent, so he cannot murder someone. There is no argument about investigating him for murder or clearing him of murder because murder did not happen if he is the suspect.

A 9-year-old having an accident resulting in death, which I think is the hypothesis here (which I do not believe happened because there is zero evidence) is not criminal, nor is it murder. If a minor under 10 is a “suspect” in an accidental death, he does not need to be cleared of anything. Perhaps he needs court-mandated counseling.

By legal definition, he is 100% innocent of everything, so he does not need to be cleared or exonerated.

Are we saying he intended to “murder” his sister and therefore would be “not guilty” due to his age only? Because the law says he cannot intend to murder since he is too young to understand the permanence of death.

I think BDI folks are speculating here on whether he was responsible for the blow that initiated the terrible cascade of events leading to her death. There still had to be adult involvement or there was no crime, just a tragic accident.

 

[Ponytale]

Then what is the point of discussing who did it if the person who (possibly) did it is by legal definition innocent of everything and will never be convicted in any crime or accident?
What is there to investigate further then what has been investigated already? By legal terms. Only IDI theory, in hopes of DNA? There will never be a conviction not because of evidence, but by law.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I am not completely questioning what you’re saying, but I’m trying to clarify the issue here for myself.

Is the hypothesis that BR committed first degree murder as referenced in the Grand Jury documents? Because that is not possible. A 9-year-old cannot legally form criminal intent, so he cannot murder someone. There is no argument about investigating him for murder or clearing him of murder because murder did not happen if he is the suspect.

A 9-year-old having an accident resulting in death, which I think is the hypothesis here (which I do not believe happened because there is zero evidence) is not criminal, nor is it murder. If a minor under 10 is a “suspect” in an accidental death, he does not need to be cleared of anything. Perhaps he needs court-mandated counseling.

By legal definition, he is 100% innocent of everything, so he does not need to be cleared or exonerated.

Are we saying he intended to “murder” his sister and therefore would be “not guilty” due to his age only? Because the law says he cannot intend to murder since he is too young to understand the permanence of death.

I think BDI folks are speculating here on whether he was responsible for the blow that initiated the terrible cascade of events leading to her death. There still had to be adult involvement or there was no crime, just a tragic accident.

I think all your scenarios could apply.
My understanding of the law at the time, meant a minors involvement in anything criminal must be shielded from the public. I dont think any of the scenarios come into play because we should have never been appraised of any possible involvement if there was any to begin with but I think the True Bills make it hard to ignore the possibility of his involvement. Remember, those were shielded from the public.
I think by even stating it was an accident opens up a can of worms for the child. If you bash your sister over the head with a club because you are angry, some may not see that as an accident. I see it as a mental health issue but you Still out the child.
I hope I'm not going in circles here and am addressing your question.
I think not guilty covers everything.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Then what is the point of discussing who did it if the person who (possibly) did it is by legal definition innocent of everything and will never be convicted in any crime or accident?
What is there to investigate further then what has been investigated already? By legal terms. Only IDI theory, in hopes of DNA? There will never be a conviction not because of evidence, but by law.

I think the GJ was looking at the parents to hang charges on. I think as the evidence unfolded, there was some question as to who did what. If you look at some if the witnesses, you can draw your own conclusions as to why they may question that person.
I think they walked away knowing there was definite suspicion on the 3 but who exactly did what was not clear.

 

[Ponytale]

I think the GJ was looking at the parents to hang charges on. I think as the evidence unfolded, there was some question as to who did what. If you look at some if the witnesses, you can draw your own conclusions as to why they may question that person.
I think they walked away knowing there was definite suspicion on the 3 but who exactly did what was not clear.

Yes, I see that. But it only applies to the parents, not Burke. As I understand, for Burke, his innocence is already determined by the law.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Yes, I see that. But it only applies to the parents, not Burke. As I understand, for Burke, his innocence is already determined by the law.

Yes this seems to be the case @Ponytale …. IANAL…. and from what I read above in other posts, I think another way of stating the last statement is along these lines:

As I understand, for Burke, due to his age at the time, his possible involvement or guilt cannot be determined or applied by the applicable law.

In other words, it’s not that he’s necessarily innocent. It’s just that his guilt cannot be applied or determined.

Any attorneys or one with better knowledge is welcome to clarify or correct this if needed. TIA. MOO

 

[Tower]

Then what is the point of discussing who did it if the person who (possibly) did it is by legal definition innocent of everything and will never be convicted in any crime or accident?
What is there to investigate further then what has been investigated already? By legal terms. Only IDI theory, in hopes of DNA? There will never be a conviction not because of evidence, but by law.

Please carry on discussing if he accidentally hit his sister, but it has nothing to do with murder. The other aspects of this case could be part of an adult committing murder or a coverup of an accident. I am making the point purely that we don’t need to worry about clearing or prosecuting BR then or now because he was incapable of murder in the same way that a 2-year-old shooting their mother dead with a gun is incapable of murder. We can all disagree with the legal definition, of course.

 

[cenazoic]

There is no argument about investigating him for murder or clearing him of murder because murder did not happen if he is the suspect.

I’m not so sure of that.

First off, here is the Colorado statute in question:

C.R.S. 18-1-801 – Insufficient age (2023)

The responsibility of a person for his conduct is the same for persons between the ages of ten and eighteen as it…

colorado.public.law

Very short and sweet, Key phrase: “No child under ten years of age shall be found guilty of any offense.” (emphasis mine)

Now take a minute to read about affirmative defenses.

“An affirmative defense to a …criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct.” (emphasis mine)

Now, take a look at this list of affirmative defenses issued by the state of Colorado for a variety of crimes. See in particular pp 13-14 under “H:13 Insufficient Age - Under Ten”:

“In addition to proving all of the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution also has the burden to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In this case, being under the age of 10 is the affirmative defense for any crime. Since it wouldn’t have been possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that BR was over the age of 10 at the time the murder occurred, any legal consequences of that act would be defeated.

However, more to the question of investigating BR etc, - in my opinion, all of the above absolutely implies that under-10s can be suspects, investigated, and all the rest, and likely explains why BR also had his own attorney at the time.

Just because he couldn’t be prosecuted doesn’t mean he wasn’t investigated- whether he actually was or not is somewhat up for interpretation, but I think it’s likely there was some amount of it, at least - the 3 interviews alone seem to imply it.

Anyway, I’m not a lawyer, but my take here, based on the above reading, boils down to: “there wouldn’t be a need for an affirmative defense for under 10s if they couldn’t be investigated/arrested/etc for committing a crime.”

 

[Ponytale]

However, more to the question of investigating BR etc, - in my opinion, all of the above absolutely implies that under-10s can be suspects, investigated, and all the rest, and likely explains why BR also had his own attorney at the time.

Thank you so much for your reply!
So I understand that there was no actual requirement stated by law that made the DA to decide not to declare Burke a suspect. He could have been declared a suspect and, IMO, he should have been. If probable cause was needed for that , then living in the same household with the other suspects of a crime and being there at the time of the crime would have been that probable cause, wouldn't it?

As far as I understand, the only proof of investigation of Burke's possible involvement comes down to those 3 interviews, that the Ramsey's also tried to avoid. And only one of them was conducted by police, so only one of them could have been accepted in court, right? If there was anything else that we know about please correct me. They did not collect any of Burke's clothing to test the fiber evidence, so what else was there? DNA and blood samples do not prove much in this case. They had nothing on him and it was their own mistake that they didn't. The reason is not that there was a lack of evidence on the crime scene, but rather that there was the lack of collected and investigated evidence. If GJ had nothing to work with, they had no other chance than to exonerate Burke.

 

[AddieBoo]

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.

The information I post is from my own research, digging etc. I am not an authority nor do I have a law degree.
So … doing your own research in addition to the information posted here can give broader perspectives as well as squash all the myths and twisted information that has been in the public domain for years. There are some incredibly intelligent posts of this site. And I’ve had more than one case of whiplash and a foot chewed off…

Mike Kane was the lead prosecutor from the DA’s office, brought in specifically to be the lead prosecutor for the Grand Jury. This Grand Jury was not usual in that not only did they hear testimony from the prosecutor, but also the defense. They heard all of Smits’s theories (which is kinda weird being theories), handwriting experts from the Ramsey team and others. Kane has heard it all and if you want a glimpse of what he was up against, some of his depositions are on You Tube.

One of the most important facts to understand is the scope of impropriety that engulfed this case, some think as soon as hours after the crime…Everything about this case is extraordinary and would not be surprised if university law departments profiled this case as part of their coarse work.

Mike Kane’s opinion carries a lot of weight IMO. So for me, it is base, so far. He has stated more than once that he did not think Burke was involved.

Burke Ramsey could not be criminally prosecuted in the state of Colorado because of his age. Whether or not he can be prosecuted now, for an alleged crime done when he was 9.., I have no idea. But first there must be probable cause for an indictment and so far, Mike Kane’s statement indicates that doesn’t exist. However Burke Ramsey has not been cleared by BPD as a suspect in this case…Unless someone has other information…

I do believe strongly that there is a growing number of the public who are pushing back regarding the flow of misinformation, all the improprieties of how this entire case has been handled as well as the injustices of wealth and power in control of the public narrative and how that control has prevented justice for a 6 year old child.

John Ramsey is leaving this monstrous injustice to his family IMO. He has the power to alter the course of his legacy and give his family and generations of his family the power of peace. He should do this before someone else, who is very credible, shatters the ice he has been standing on, with his family, for 28 years. Secrets fester until they don’t. MOO

 

[Ponytale]

John Ramsey is leaving this monstrous injustice to his family IMO. He has the power to alter the course of his legacy and give his family and generations of his family the power of peace. He should do this before someone else, who is very credible, shatters the ice he has been standing on, with his family, for 28 years. Secrets fester until they don’t. MOO

Thank you for your comment!
Knowing that (if)Burke is still a suspect it should still hold some weight, shouldn't it? As a suspect he can be investigated, as I understand. If not today, maybe one day...

Regarding the quoted part - I recently thought about it myself. I think that maybe all the shows that have been made in the recent months that desperately try to sell the intruder theory have something to do with John's age and the fact that he might not be around for much more longer. He is after all the only one still left who keeps on publicly fighting for that theory, so he has to put it out there for as long as he still has time. Burke does not seem to want that public attention so I doubt that he will continue the job after John is gone. It would be interesting to see what turns will this case take after he is gone.
I'm just entertaining my idea here, but as one option, would there be a chance that John has made a deal with Burke (and the lawyers), that after he is gone Burke should state publicly that he never had anything to do with the crime, as it were Patsy and John who were behind it all and now that they both are gone he can finally lift that burden off of him. As he could not be indicted, he would finally go free and would be seen as innocent by everyone for the first time. I see John making peace with that deal, if there were to be any. Maybe John and Patsy even discussed that amongst themselves too, that after John is gone they will "confess" (via Burkes or the lawyers) and set Burke free of everything. They would take the blame and it all could finally find it's end. It is all only my imagination and predictions, I know... I'm not saying this is how it is going to be. We will see what happens at one time... if anything should happen at all. IMO

 

[cenazoic]

So I understand that there was no actual requirement stated by law that made the DA to decide not to declare Burke a suspect. He could have been declared a suspect

Not that I can find (which isn’t to say it doesn’t exist!). Naming suspects publicly, as far as I can tell, is done for strategic reasons and is at the discretion of LE. In a case where very little evidence, in it’s totality, seems to rise to even the level of ‘probable cause’, in my mind there would be little to gain from declaring BR a suspect, even of they had/have a lot of circumstantial evidence.

The DAs office, among other things, is a political office. I just mean by that that DAs are elected, and as such have to be politicians as well as attorneys. What’s to be gained, in terms of future elections, by announcing a 9-year old is a suspect in the murder of his 6-year old sister (in 1996)? On top of that, BR wasn’t prosecutable due to the insufficient age affirmative defenses, even if they had a video of him committing the act.

living in the same household with the other suspects of a crime and being there at the time of the crime would have been that probable cause, wouldn't it?

I don’t know, but I suspect (no pun) that simply living in the same house at the same time a crime is committed is not sufficient probable cause, especially if you’re a child.

only one of them was conducted by police, so only one of them could have been accepted in court, right?

I don’t think that’s correct. There’s been all kinds of trials which feature a) paid expert witnesses on some topic, or b) testimony by teachers/psychiatrists/etc. of the accused. Outside researchers (handwriting analysis, 911 call) would certainly have been called to testify at any theoretical trial.

 

[Ponytale]

Thank you @cenazoic for your insightful answers! It sure helps to understand it all better.

 

[cenazoic]

Whether or not he can be prosecuted now, for an alleged crime done when he was 9.., I have no idea

Dang it, I was reading about this a few days ago, and of course can’t find the link now. Not about Burke specifically, but more generally: “if a child committed a murder, can they be charged 20 years later ?” I think the insufficient age statute would still apply here - if BR was the alleged killer, he was still 9 at the time, and being 40 or whatever now doesn’t change that.

John Ramsey is leaving this monstrous injustice to his family IMO

Specifically he’s leaving it to Burke, since he’s the only other person who was actually in the house (that we know of).

Here’s where I struggle with BDI - not because it’s outside the realm of possibility, but because - and then what?

Let’s say he’s guilty and it’s revealed publicly. What outcome would satisfy the public? He likely cannot be prosecuted, even if LE/DA had irrefutable evidence of his guilt (which they don’t). I guess we can destroy a man’s reputation and livelihood for something he did when he was a literal child. Our online outrage machine may encourage some actual crazy person to make an attempt on his life in the name of ‘justice for JonBenet’. And would it be, really?

 

[AddieBoo]

Thank you for your comment!
Knowing that (if)Burke is still a suspect it should still hold some weight, shouldn't it? As a suspect he can be investigated, as I understand. If not today, maybe one day...

Regarding the quoted part - I recently thought about it myself. I think that maybe all the shows that have been made in the recent months that desperately try to sell the intruder theory have something to do with John's age and the fact that he might not be around for much more longer. He is after all the only one still left who keeps on publicly fighting for that theory, so he has to put it out there for as long as he still has time. Burke does not seem to want that public attention so I doubt that he will continue the job after John is gone. It would be interesting to see what turns will this case take after he is gone.
I'm just entertaining my idea here, but as one option, would there be a chance that John has made a deal with Burke (and the lawyers), that after he is gone Burke should state publicly that he never had anything to do with the crime, as it were Patsy and John who were behind it all and now that they both are gone he can finally lift that burden off of him. As he could not be indicted, he would finally go free and would be seen as innocent by everyone for the first time. I see John making peace with that deal, if there were to be any. Maybe John and Patsy even discussed that amongst themselves too, that after John is gone they will "confess" (via Burkes or the lawyers) and set Burke free of everything. They would take the blame and it all could finally find its end. It is all only my imagination and predictions, I know... I'm not saying this is how it is going to be. We will see what happens at one time... if anything should happen at all. IMO

IMO there is no escape without the truth for the Ramsey’s. For Burke or JAR. Even after the death of their father.

 

[Ponytale]

Did my quick search and found this:

"Hunter was asked to sign an affidavit declaring that all questions about Burke's possible involvement in JonBenet’s murder were addressed and that he was never viewed as a suspect. He refused to sign it in the presented form. Hunter revised it to: “From December 26, 1996, to the date of this affidavit, no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey’s status from that of witness to Suspect.”

Thomas' letter: "We were told by one person in the district attorney’s office, months before we had even completed our investigation, that this case “is not prosecutable.”

Stan Garnett, DA:
CNN Host: "With the charges that the grand jury had voted to indict, are they referring to a third person?"
Garnett: "It does appear that the theory they were looking at assumed that maybe someone other than the two Ramsey parents had been involved in what happened."

So, politics is behind not being able to solve this case?

 

[Ponytale]

IMO there is no escape without the truth for the Ramsey’s. For Burke or JAR. Even after the death of their father.

But what if a written confession from John will be found? Truth or not, it would still close the case, wouldn't it?

 

[GRT]

Then what is the point of discussing who did it if the person who (possibly) did it is by legal definition innocent of everything and will never be convicted in any crime or accident?

Because the idea that Burke did it is such a long shot, it's not really worth considering, yet it is still an unsolved murder and someone killed that little girl.

What is there to investigate further then what has been investigated already? By legal terms. Only IDI theory, in hopes of DNA? There will never be a conviction not because of evidence, but by law.

John Ramsey has been pushing for a more in-depth investigation using newer DNA methods for years. He would not do that if he thought there was a chance that would incriminate Burke. We know there was male DNA on JBR's underwear that did not belong to anyone in her family. Yet there it was, and it's worth further investigation.

I feel as though the BPD dropped the ball in the early weeks, and the Ramseys were unfairly maligned because Patsy let JBR participate in baby beauty pageants. No matter what anyone thinks about those pageants (I hate them), there's no evidence parents of baby beauty queens are any more abusive than any other parents.

If, on the off chance, Burke did manage to do it--and I don't believe that for a minute--then you'd be right, and there would be no investigation or revelation due to his age.

But again, that's so off-the-wall even to consider.

All MOO