Possible NEW Suspects In JonBenet Ramsey Case?

[SunnieRN]

If Burke held a secret that could put Patsy in John in prison, why did they let him be interviewed by police three times, and all three times, they did NOT insist that they be present in the room (though they could have) and they did NOT insist that Burke's attorney be in the room (though that was their right and Burke's right)?

When Patsy and John when interviewed, they insisted both their attorney and investigator be present in the room.

Because if Burke ever 'confessed', there would be no prosecution, trial or punishment, due to CO law. Burke was unable to be found guilty.

In fact, I think John and Patsy began covering for Burke, prior to their knowledge that he would be 'safe' under CO law. Bye the time they found out, the staging had gone too far to back out. I think that is when the 'fixer' entered the picture to then protect John and therefore Patsy, from prosecution for tampering with a crime scene etc, etc, etc.

In fact, the past day or so, I've wondered if Alex Hunter knew the truth, which was later confirmed by Lou Smit. This would have made the true mission of the 'investigation', to protect the R's reputation as they were 'protecting' their underage child, who could not be prosecuted.

There was also no way to prosecute the parents for any of their 'participation' as that would thereby implicate the guilty party, who could not be NAMED or prosecuted, again, due to CO law.

If this is true, this is truly VERY crappy!! It makes perfect sense to me at this point however, when you consider that there seemed to be a conspiracy, witness tampering, smearing of anyones reputation that was vocal against the R's, as well as a complete inability to 'solve' the case. It could be that it is impossible to solve, because the guilty party can NOT be prosecuted.

 

[cami]

Up until this point, I have thought members of the Ramsey family may have been involved. Perhaps Burke, with Patsy and John covering it up. Perhaps Patsy. Much of the writing on the ransom note has similarities to Patsy's writing. But just as an intruder may have got the information on the $118,000 bonus from a paycheck stub, an intruder might have copied from writing of Patsy Ramsey, not so much to implicate her, but just to disguise his/her own style. Some experts say Patsy Ramsey likely wrote it, others say she did not. Many experts did say the writing and word choice indicated it was probably done by a middle aged white female. A lot of circumstantial evidence points to the Ramsey's. But most of that evidence is disputed and/or has alternative non-incriminating interpretations.

But new DNA evidence appears to clear the Ramsey's. They now have male DNA from three seperate spots on her body or clothes, and that DNA does NOT match Burke or John Ramsey. One of the DNA spots produced 9 markers, meaning it is highly unlikely to have come from a school playmate or other accidental source. The presence of the DNA in three spots also goes against an accidential source. Though I agree an accidential source should not be entirely ruled out.

About nine months after JonBenet's death, a dance school classmate of hers named "Amy" was the victim of an attempted abduction. Nachtsider provided this link previously dealing with "Amy" and other evidence of an intruder in the Ramsey case:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

I am aware this is a controversial case and many have strong feelings in regards to the Ramsey's as suspects or an intruder as a suspect. Other threads are already debating that issue, I don't want to get into it too much here. I am more interested in asking "Do these new suspects have enough evidence pointing to them that they should be investigated?" and "Is there other evidence that can rule these suspects out or evidence that points towards guilt?"

Doug Oswell and myself [AK Wilks] were the sources for the information that led the FBI to recently request a DNA draw on Ted Kaczynski for comparison with possible suspect DNA in the Tylenol Murders case. We are waiting for a court order on the DNA draw and awaiting the outcome of the comparison in that case.

Recently Doug Oswell and I took a fresh look at the Ramsey case, which absent a major lab error, now appears more likely to have been done by an intruder.

We are looking at Brian Mitchell, aka "Brian David Mitchell", aka "Immanuel", aka the kidnapper of Elizabeth Smart, as a possible suspect, along with his accomplice in child abduction and rape, Wanda Barzee.

Comments by Doug Oswell
Analysis by AK Wilks

If you look even superficially at the Ramsey and Smart cases you'll see that they have a great deal in common.

* First, the victims were from two relatively wealthy upper-middle-class families living in large houses where the children's sleeping quarters were separated by some distance from those of the parents.

* Those dwellings were in upscale residential areas on the outskirts of major metropolitan areas, each within a very short distance of wilderness area marked by mountainous and hilly terrain. The cities in question were approximately 300 miles apart.

* In both cases renovation work had been done on the houses shortly before the respective incidents, each involving workers strange to the family.

In fact, Brian Mitchell had briefly worked at the Smart home doing odd jobs. The Ramseys had recently had construction and home improvement work done. In addition, they had lawn and landscape services. While it is unlikely that the name "Brian Mitchell" appears on any list of employees of these companies that did work at the Ramsey home, many of these types of companies employ temp workers, who they often pay "under the table", thus there would be no records.

* In both cases, an audacious entry was made into the dwelling through a small aperture while the family members slept; in each case the perpetrator was familiar with the layout of the house.

* The victims themselves shared the common attributes of blonde hair, angelic looks, and unique personal talents. Both were abducted directly from their beds.

Both children were beautiful and shared a very similar look. Both were talented performers, JonBenet in beauty paegents and Elizabeth a harp player. Many serial killers and child molestors have a certian look or type of victim they seek. The similarity between JonBenet and Elizabeth is noteworthy.

Above: Elizabeth Smart and JonBenet Ramsey

Below: Elizebeth Smart Short Hair, Picture of JonBenet Ramsey and Photoshop Image of What JonBenet May Have Looked Like Older, Elizabeth Smart Long hair

* Brian Mitchell, Elizabeth Smart's abductor, had been classified as a pedophile early in life and was known to have sexually abused young children as an adult. He is an accomplished burglar; small, wiry and thus able to insinuate himself into tight places. He is known to have attempted at least two abductions in addition to that of Elizabeth Smart, both of the audacious "in-house" sort where the dwellings were actually occupied at the time of the attempts.

* Before attempting to abduct Elizabeth Smart's cousin [Olivia Wright] he told Wanda Barzee that he planned the abduction to occur on a holiday because during a holiday the response to the abduction would be slow.

JonBenet Ramsey was killed on a holiday, Christmas night. The July 24th attempted abduction of Elizabeth Smart's cousin, Olivia Wright, happened on Pioneer's Day, and official state holiday in Utah, which recognizes the arrival of the Mormon groups in the area. Most govenrment offices and many businesses are closed. Elizabeth Smart was abducted on June 4, not a holiday per se, but a time of celebration with many school graduations, proms and school events. In fact Elizabeth and her parents were at such an event on the night of June 4, meaning both that they were all out of the house and that Elizabeth was visible at the event.

* Early in 1995, Mitchell and Barzee moved to Idaho, where they lived in a trailer on land belonging to Tom and Betty McKnight. At some point later in the year, after staying on the McKnights' property for about six months, Mitchell decided to sell their possessions and go on a hitchhiking tour with Barzee. Barzee evidently kept a journal about this tour and was questioned about it during testimony given during court proceedings. Prosecutors attempted to elicit details of their itinerary during this tour, but her answers were vague and general, providing information no more exact than that they had ended up in the eastern U.S. before traveling to Florida and then to Los Angeles and Hawaii before returning to Salt Lake City in mid-1997.

* Yet, according to Betty McKnight, upon leaving Idaho, "Brian and Wanda eventually sold their truck and other possessions and left Idaho with very few belongings as they went hitchhiking to Colorado."

See http://www.fox13now.com/news/local/...h-smart-kidnapping-trial,0,3355188,full.story

Article on Betty McKnight testimony: "They said, 'We're just going to go on our own,' and they walked away," she said. "All they had was whatever was in their backpack. He picked apples off the tree that we had and put them in his pockets and jacket and that was going to be their food for a while."

McKnight said she wondered what would happen to them.

"I said, 'Where are you going?' They said, 'Colorado,' " she testified.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY AK WILKS

One objection would be that Elizabeth Smart was 14 years old, and JonBenet Ramsey only 6 years old. Despite the similarity in their looks, a reasonable objection might be raised that JonBenet was likely killed by a pedohile, one who is attracted to pre-pubuesent infants and toddlers, while Mitchell would seem to be attacted to young teenage girls who are in or about to start puberty.

But Mitchell's ex-wife stated that he had molested their daughter between the ages of 18 months and 5 years old, and family members stated Mitchell had earlier exposed himself to a girl who was 3 to 4 years old, thus indicating that he did have a sexual interest in children the age of JonBenet and younger. Numerous psychiatrists testified that Mitchell was in fact a pedophile.

Also, in September 1997, a girl named "Amy" who had been in JonBenet's dance class was the victim of a home invasion and attempted abduction. Many investigators regarded this as perhaps being done by the same man who had killed JonBenet. "Amy" was 14 years old, the exact same age as Elizabeth Smart at the time of her abduction.

Eliabeth Smart testified that Mitchell told her if she screamed or made noise he would "duct tape my mouth shut."

JonBenet was found with duct tape over her mouth. This duct tape had animal hairs, perhaps from a beaver, indicating it may have been from someone who was living outdoors in nature, as Brian Mitchell was.

Elizabeth's sister Mary Katherine stated that during the abduction she thought she head Elizabeth ask "why" she was being taken, and that the abductor said "Ransom".

Of course in the JonBenet case a ransom note was left.

So in both cases the prospect of a kidnap and return for ransom is introduced by the attacker, with no real intent of getting a ransom, but instead to either calm the fears of the victim and/or delay notification of authorities.

In 1995 Brian Mitchell and Wanda Barzee leave Idaho and state they are going to "Colorado". With no real documentation as to their exact whereabouts, it seems very possible if not likely that they are in Colorado during the winter of 1996, the time of the JonBenet murder. It also appears that right around the September 1997 time of the failed abduction of JonBenet's dance school classmate, the 14 year old "Amy", Mitchell and Barzee stop their two years of wanderings and return to Utah.

Is has previously been speculated that the signing of "SBTC" on the JonBenet ransom note may stand for "Saved By The Cross", a Christian expression that may well have appealed to the extremist Mormon/Christian/Esoteric fundamentalist views of Mitchell and Barzee.

The many different handwriting experts who have examined the ransom note often have differing views on aspects of it, but the most consistent opinion in the majority of the expert handwriting analyses I have seen is that the ransom note, judging by both handwriting styles and phrasology, was likely written by a middle aged white female. Wanda Barzee was a middle aged white female. The number of male child sex murderers who have an active female accomplice is extremely small. If the handwriting and word analysis experts are right, it appears that the JonBenet killer likely had such an active female accomplice, which matches Brian Mitchell and Wanda Barzee.

And as noted by Doug Oswell, Barzee gave some very odd testimony concerning her handwriting.

See http://breaking.sltrib.com/mitchell/nov18barzeetranscript.php

Nov 18, 2010 Testimony of Wanda Barzee


Steele: So you sold everything and then did you leave?

Barzee: I think it was Aug. 8 that we were on the property of Fred and Janice Benson and I got a priesthood blessing and I felt that we were given specific instruction on how we were to travel, hitchhiking across the nation to see the sights and early history of the (LDS) church. We were first to stop and Adam-ondi-Ahman (in Missouri) and go from there.

Steele: Is that what you did? Did you write a book about it?

Barzee: I kept a journal.

Steele: What did you call that journal?

Barzee: I can’t remember.

[Steele calls for exhibit. Shows it to Barzee.]

Barzee: I think this is the journal I wrote when we went through the nation.

Steele: If you would look at ... first of all ... is it typed, handwritten?

Barzee: It’s in my handwriting.

Steele: And your handwriting is special is it not?

Barzee: It was then. I was always right-handed but when we traveled through the nation we were up in the Santa Cruz mountains of Palo Alto, California. We stayed there for five months while we pulled a handcart and I felt impressed to practice writing with my left hand. So this was written with my left hand.

Steele: How long did it take to teach yourself to write left-handed?

Barzee: It took me a while. While Brian said he was ministering, I would be at libraries and I would practice writing recipes and things down.

Steele: If I were to call that calligraphy instead of mere handwriting would that be fair?

(answer not heard)

----- ----- ----- -----

This testimony is very strange. It has no real relevance to the Smart case - it makes no difference with which hand she wrote the journal. But if we consider Mitchell a suspect for the JonBenet Ramsey case, and Wanda Barzee as a suspect as an accomplice and possible writer of the ransom note, it then becomes extremely relevant. It might appear as if Barzee wrote the journal after the fact, and after the Ramsey case, as a way to distinguish her writing in the journal from the ransom note writing. There is no logical reason an adult person would suddenly change with hand they write with. It makes no sense. Yet if Barzee wrote the ransom note, she would have a very strong incentive to create a fake journal which has entries that put them on a tour of Mormon historical sites placing them elsewhere than Colorado (when in fact they told Betty McKnight that they were they were going to Colorado) and which has handwriting that is very different from her own natural writing.

There are multiple unconfirmed reports that the DNA found on JonBenet is from a Caucasian. There was also a pubic hair recovered of undescribed color, and a photo of a dark hair on JonBenet's sleeve. Brian Mitchell is Caucasian and has dark hair.

Judging by the suitcase with some of JonBenet's things in it found by the window, and the ransom note probably designed to cause delay in notifying authorities, the intent may have been to kidnap JonBenet, and her death partially accidential as a result of the deviant sexual game involving the cord around her neck. Elizabeth Smart testified that at first she was also bound by a cord, a cord that would be tied to a tree.

CONCLUSION

Thus there are numerous reasons to consider Brian Mitchell and Wanda Barzee as serious suspects in the JonBenet Ramsey case. Of course, Mitchell was convicted on federal kidnapping charges, and sentenced in May 2011. In theory, there should be a DNA draw done on him, with his DNA placed into CODIS. Newspaper reports indicate that some of the DNA found on JonBenet's body and underwear had 9 markers, enough to be entered into CODIS. Thus, in theory, at some point CODIS would indicate a "hit" if there is a match between the Mitchell DNA and the Ramsey suspect DNA.

Theory is one thing, reality is another. Red tape and bureacracy might mean that the Mitchell DNA draw and entry into CODIS could take place in a few months, but it could also be a few years. There are 300,000 DNA profiles waiting for inclusion into CODIS. By routine procedure, if and when the Mitchell DNA draw is done, it would go to the back of this line for entry into CODIS. Thus it could be several years before it is actually entered. And if Mitchell refuses to cooperate, there could be more delays of months if not years in getting a court order to get the DNA.

Ted Kaczynski was convicted on federal charges in 1998, yet the FBI is now seeking a court order to get a DNA draw on him, because Ted never had a DNA draw done from his body and his DNA has never been entered into CODIS.

If he has not already been cleared and the authorities think the evidence pointing to Mitchell as a suspect in the JonBenet Ramsey cases merits investigative follow up, then they MUST request Mitchell's DNA if it is already on record with the FBI and/or Salt Lake City PD, request the federal prison to expedite procedures for the Mitchell DNA draw and inclusion in CODIS or directly request a court to order a DNA draw on Mitchell.


Post from DOUG OSWELL:

AK--Good analysis. There's one thing that throws cold water on it, though. I happened to find a copy of the handwritten journal that Barzee kept after leaving Idaho, and the entries for Christmas of 1996 show them in Portland, Oregon and preparing for a trip to Alaska, where they supposedly stayed for several weeks. See http://unazod.com/odd/birth_zion.pdf . For my part, I have no trouble believing that Mitchell could have ginned up this journal for no other reason than to provide himself with an alibi. But of course, not everyone is going to see it that way. (The journal isn't written in diary fashion; the entries appear to have been made after the fact, and the ones covering the time in question are quite vague, particularly as to events.)

I'm not going to get all worked up about this, but I'll definitely stay alert.

It's hard to do writing comparisons between the Ramsey ransom note and the calligraphic-style handwriting used by Wanda Barzee in her "Birth of Zion" document. Here are some things, however, that really stand out [as common on both documents]: (1) wordspacing is even throughout; (2) there is double-spacing after a period; (3) the abbreviation "a.m." contains no periods; (4) paragraphs are set off with large indents; and perhaps most interesting of all
(5) line spacing is even but tight, with the descenders of one line allowed to run directly into ascenders of the next line.

One particularly noteworthy passage from the Barzee document:

"A significant vision took place 12 January 1999 that I entitled, "Vision of Celebration/Birthday Party - Wedding Feast." The vision was a little girl going to her bedroom to hide behind the headboard of her bed that was covered with stuffed animals so she wouldn't have to participate in the celebration that was about to take place."

AK Wilks: It appears that the entire Barzee Mitchell journal appears to have been written after the fact, and may be a huge attempt at an alibi. For the rough time period of winter 1996, there is nothing I know of to prove that they actually were in Portland/Seattle and headed to Alaska.

In fact given their finances, it appears very unlikely they went to Alaska, or that they could survive as homeless people there. It does give them an excuse why nobody could place them in Utah. So rather than rely on their vague after the fact journal which may be false, I would place more faith in the statement of a thrid party, the McKnights, who testified that in 1995 Mitchell and Barzee said they were going to COLORADO.

In the journal they state that a homeless man gave them $300 for a ticket to Alaska! They state he had this money from disability checks and wanted to help them. This story sounds very fanciful to me. Homeless men do not typically have $300 handy and do not often give it away to strangers.

It would be interesting to see if any hard evidence places them in Alaska, and if so, was it before or after Christmas 1996.

This I think is the passage mentioned by Doug. Reading this, you can picture JonBenet hiding behind her bed, a bed that I do think had stuffed animals.

I also post the ransom note here. I can't really see any major similarities in the writing, but the Journal is done in such an odd calligraphy method it is really hard to make any judgements. Doug makes some interesting observations about certain common formatting and style elements.

When you see pictures of the Ramsey house from the front, it looks small. I used to think "How could they not hear the scream that a nieghbor heard?"

But when you see the rear of the Ramsey home, you realize it was huge, a mansion. It is very probable that the Ramseys sleeping on the third floor would not hear anything from the basement, or even JonBenet's room on the second floor.

And the Ramsey home does look like the Smart home - both are exceptionally large homes. Very similar.

Left: Home of Elizabeth Smart Right: Rear of JonBenet Ramsey Home Bottom: Floor Plan For Basement of Ramsey Home

Two excerpts from the Barzee Mitchell journal. One mentions, in what purports to be around 2001, "failed attempts" to get the first wife, and that they shall take girls "10 to 14" in age. If you go back 4 years, that would indicate a 6 year old to be taken in 1996/1997. But the "failed attempts" may just refer to their efforts to convince adult young women to join them in plural marriage.

The second excerpt refers to the plan to kidnap Smart, wherein Wanda Barzee will offer words to soothe her, and then "bath" her body. The killer(s) of JonBent packed a suitcase with JonBenet's bedding and her Dr. Seuss book. There is evidence an intruder may have given JonBenet a bit of pinaapple to eat. An effort to "soothe" a little girl and make her feel comfortable enough to leave peacefully? And her vaginal area and other parts of her body were "wiped". An effort to "bath" the girl?

Some of this is speculation on my part, I admit that, my point is to raise the question "Have Brian Mitchell and Wanda Barzee already been cleared in the JonBenet Ramsey case? If not, is there enough evidence to suggest that they should at least be looked at?"

None of that changes my mind. The Ramseys are guilty of JonBenet's death. MOO.

The FBI has set 13 markers as human identification. There is no where near 13 markers on any of the Ramsey dna, making those three spots partial dna samples. You cannot convict on partial dna samples.

The R note, the pen, the pad...all of these should have been subjected to touch dna.

Don't let the dna fool you. It will never point to a suspect. There would have to be strong, corroborating evidence of guilt for this dna to be used in court.

 

[SunnieRN]

Because if Burke ever 'confessed', there would be no prosecution, trial or punishment, due to CO law. Burke was unable to be found guilty.

In fact, I think John and Patsy began covering for Burke, prior to their knowledge that he would be 'safe' under CO law. Bye the time they found out, the staging had gone too far to back out. I think that is when the 'fixer' entered the picture to then protect John and therefore Patsy, from prosecution for tampering with a crime scene etc, etc, etc.

In fact, the past day or so, I've wondered if Alex Hunter knew the truth, which was later confirmed by Lou Smit. This would have made the true mission of the 'investigation', to protect the R's reputation as they were 'protecting' their underage child, who could not be prosecuted.

There was also no way to prosecute the parents for any of their 'participation' as that would thereby implicate the guilty party, who could not be NAMED or prosecuted, again, due to CO law.

If this is true, this is truly VERY crappy!! It makes perfect sense to me at this point however, when you consider that there seemed to be a conspiracy, witness tampering, smearing of anyones reputation that was vocal against the R's, as well as a complete inability to 'solve' the case. It could be that it is impossible to solve, because the guilty party can NOT be prosecuted.

I just wanted to add that this in no way excused AH's schenanigans, poor taste or handling of the case and makes me wonder what in the holy bejesus is up with the case today. Would AH be unable to tell anyone else what transpired, if there was a confession, thereby causing ML, BPD and everyone else to spend mone, time and resources to try to solve an unsolvable case?

My gosh. I now have a splitting headache.

 

[CanManEh]

Because if Burke ever 'confessed', there would be no prosecution, trial or punishment, due to CO law. Burke was unable to be found guilty.

In fact, I think John and Patsy began covering for Burke, prior to their knowledge that he would be 'safe' under CO law. Bye the time they found out, the staging had gone too far to back out. I think that is when the 'fixer' entered the picture to then protect John and therefore Patsy, from prosecution for tampering with a crime scene etc, etc, etc.

In fact, the past day or so, I've wondered if Alex Hunter knew the truth, which was later confirmed by Lou Smit. This would have made the true mission of the 'investigation', to protect the R's reputation as they were 'protecting' their underage child, who could not be prosecuted.

There was also no way to prosecute the parents for any of their 'participation' as that would thereby implicate the guilty party, who could not be NAMED or prosecuted, again, due to CO law.

If this is true, this is truly VERY crappy!! It makes perfect sense to me at this point however, when you consider that there seemed to be a conspiracy, witness tampering, smearing of anyones reputation that was vocal against the R's, as well as a complete inability to 'solve' the case. It could be that it is impossible to solve, because the guilty party can NOT be prosecuted.

Ok but if john new then woouldn't him moving her body in the first place from the cellar to the living room be tampering with evidence .

 

[AKWILKS]

"Because if Burke ever 'confessed', there would be no prosecution, trial or punishment, due to CO law. Burke was unable to be found guilty."

What are you talking about?

If Burke confessed to killing JonBenet, he would have been prosecuted for murder (as a juvenile) and John and Patsy would have faced charges of accessory after the fact and obstruction of justice.

If Burke was the killer, IMO there is now way they would have let him be interviewed three times by police with no parent present and no attorney in the room.

And there are THOUSANDS of people in prison who were convicted on the basis of partial DNA profiles!

A 9 marker DNA profile is enough for inclusion in CODIS.

 

[SunnieRN]

Ok but if john new then woouldn't him moving her body in the first place from the cellar to the living room be tampering with evidence .

That is part of my point. They wouldn't have been able to prosecute the R's without implicating Burke for the murder. No do in CO. He was still 9.

 

[SunnieRN]

"Because if Burke ever 'confessed', there would be no prosecution, trial or punishment, due to CO law. Burke was unable to be found guilty."

What are you talking about?

If Burke confessed to killing JonBenet, he would have been prosecuted for murder (as a juvenile) and John and Patsy would have faced charges of accessory after the fact and obstruction of justice.

If Burke was the killer, IMO there is now way they would have let him be interviewed three times by police with no parent present and no attorney in the room.

And there are THOUSANDS of people in prison who were convicted on the basis of partial DNA profiles!

A 9 marker DNA profile is enough for inclusion in CODIS.

At the time of JonBenets death, a child under 10, (Burke was 9 at the time), could not be charged with or prosecuted for a felony crime. Even calling him a 'person of interest' would not have been legal, or allowed.

 

[AKWILKS]

No. Wrong.

A 9 year old can be arrested and adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent, and placed in a youth home.

In certain situations he could even be charged as an adult.

JUVENILES PROSECUTED AS ADULTS

Direct Filings and Transfers

Colorado law allows the prosecution to charge a juvenile as an adult in two situations. First, in certain circumstances, charges can be filed directly despite the fact the offender is less than eighteen years of age. "Direct file" means adult charges may be filed directly in the district court. Second, in certain other situations, charges may be filed in juvenile court but are then transferred to the district court where the offender is treated as an adult. Each of these routes leads to different sentencing options should the offender be convicted.

Regarding direct filings, the sentencing court may impose an adult sentence, a sentence to the youthful offender system (where allowed) or a juvenile sentence.140 This latter option is available only if the offender is less than sixteen years of age and is not convicted of a class one or class two felony or a crime of violence pursuant to CRS § 16-11-309. The option to sentence as a juvenile also is available if the offender is fourteen years old or older and is a habitual juvenile offender.141 If the juvenile offender is sentenced as a juvenile by the adult court, the mandatory, repeat, violent and aggravated juvenile offender statutes all govern the court's sentencing authority.142

Transfer hearings are governed by CRS § 19-2-806. If a case has been transferred to adult court by the juvenile judge, the adult court may impose any sentence that the juvenile court could have imposed had the matter been handled by the juvenile court system, can remand the matter to juvenile court for sentencing or may impose an adult sentence. However, if the juvenile is convicted of a class one felony or has been previously adjudicated a mandatory sentence offender, violent juvenile offender or aggravated juvenile offender, he or she must be sentenced as an adult.143

AK - Also see Colorado Juvenile Law, a "juvenile" is defined as "under 18 years of age", and CAN be charged criminally as a juvenile, and in exceptional cases, as an adult.

http://www.cobar.org/docs/Introduction to Juvenile Law.pdf?ID=124

The "under 10 can't be held" is police rules concerning minor offenses when the parent is not present.

A 9 year old can be charged with murder, as a juvenile. Read the Colorado laws above.

Read page 13 above, a child between the ages of 7 and 16 who does not attend school and does not comply with orders to attend school can be arrested and placed in a group home.

Colorado law defines a juvenile as under 18.

Burke could have been charged with murder.

And his parents could have been charged as accesories after the fact. Thus, it does not seem reasonable to me that if Burke did it and the Ramsey's covered it up, they would have let Burke be interviewed three times by police with no parents present and no attorney in the room.

 

[Chrishope]

http://blogs.westword.com/latestwor...ilyn_long_murders_12_year_old_delay_adult.php

There has never been a 9 year old charged with murder in CO. There may be (may be, not will be) a 12 year old charged with murder, but he killed both parents and wounded his siblings.

The circumstances of the JBR case make it unlikely that 1st or 2nd degree murder charges could have been brought. Burke could have been charged with manslaughter, but even that is unlikely.

And his parents could have been charged as accesories after the fact. Thus, it does not seem reasonable to me that if Burke did it and the Ramsey's covered it up, they would have let Burke be interviewed three times by police with no parents present and no attorney in the room.

Makes sense to me.

 

[SunnieRN]

http://blogs.westword.com/latestwor...ilyn_long_murders_12_year_old_delay_adult.php

There has never been a 9 year old charged with murder in CO. There may be (may be, not will be) a 12 year old charged with murder, but he killed both parents and wounded his siblings.

The circumstances of the JBR case make it unlikely that 1st or 2nd degree murder charges could have been brought. Burke could have been charged with manslaughter, but even that is unlikely.



Makes sense to me.

There have been MANY discussions about this, on other threads and the laws may even be different now, then they were at the time that JonBenet was murdered. You are correct and there was a law in CO that prevented a youth, under 10 from being accused/prosecuted, so no one under 10, would have been tried.convicted of murder, no matter what the circumstances were.

 

[vlpate]

There have been MANY discussions about this, on other threads and the laws may even be different now, then they were at the time that JonBenet was murdered. You are correct and there was a law in CO that prevented a youth, under 10 from being accused/prosecuted, so no one under 10, would have been tried.convicted of murder, no matter what the circumstances were.

But, Patsy's name and reputation (Jackie O), would have been ruined and John's business would have been devastated. I'm also pretty sure they were not certain of what would happen to him and didn't want to take a chance.

 

[AKWILKS]

There have been MANY discussions about this, on other threads and the laws may even be different now, then they were at the time that JonBenet was murdered. You are correct and there was a law in CO that prevented a youth, under 10 from being accused/prosecuted, so no one under 10, would have been tried.convicted of murder, no matter what the circumstances were.

No. You can believe what you wish, but the law I cited is pre-1996. It defines juveniles as those under 18, period, and says they can be arrested, charged and convicted as juveniles for felony crimes, and in exceptional cases, as adults.

It explicitly allows that 7 year olds to 13 year olds may be arrested and charged with truancy for not attending school, and if found guilty, removed from the home and placed somewhere by the state.

Both of those facts disprove the notion that a person under 10 cannot be charged with a crime. That is simply false. I looked at the discussion boards, and people were misinterpreting a law about police custody for those under 10, for minor offenses, when no parent is present.

Burke could have been charged with murder.

And more importantly, his parents could have been charged with accessory after the fact. Had Burke been involved in JonBenet's death, there is no way they would have let him been interviewed three times by police with no parent and no attorney in the room.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Do you have a source that says a 9-year-old can't even be called a person of interest? So LE wouldn't be able to announce, "We have a POI who is underage so we can't release his name"?

 

[tezi]

No. You can believe what you wish, but the law I cited is pre-1996. It defines juveniles as those under 18, period, and says they can be arrested, charged and convicted as juveniles for felony crimes, and in exceptional cases, as adults.

It explicitly allows that 7 year olds to 13 year olds may be arrested and charged with truancy for not attending school, and if found guilty, removed from the home and placed somewhere by the state.

Both of those facts disprove the notion that a person under 10 cannot be charged with a crime. That is simply false. I looked at the discussion boards, and people were misinterpreting a law about police custody for those under 10, for minor offenses, when no parent is present.

Burke could have been charged with murder.

And more importantly, his parents could have been charged with accessory after the fact. Had Burke been involved in JonBenet's death, there is no way they would have let him been interviewed three times by police with no parent and no attorney in the room.

BBM...NO, HE COULD NOT HAVE IN COLORADO IN 1996.

You really need to research the laws in Colorado in 1996, before you start saying things that are simply FALSE.

JMO, IMO, and all other disclaimers.

 

[vulture]

The Ramseys were cleared years ago in my mind. After I boned up on information about the case, I realized my impression that they were involved somehow had been formed by media spin, and it quickly became unformed. I realized, in my opinion, that those who still wanted to blame them were mainly motivated by resentment of their lifestyle and political affiliation. Anyone suspicious who can't be ruled out by other means, I think it's a great idea to test the DNA. What is there to lose?

 

[tezi]

The Ramseys were cleared years ago in my mind. After I boned up on information about the case, I realized my impression that they were involved somehow had been formed by media spin, and it quickly became unformed. I realized, in my opinion, that those who still wanted to blame them were mainly motivated by resentment of their lifestyle and political affiliation. Anyone suspicious who can't be ruled out by other means, I think it's a great idea to test the DNA. What is there to lose?

What? I blame them because any rational person can see that they are involved because of the handwriting matches Patsy and all of their lies to LE. I'm most certainly not jealous of the Ramseys because of their lifestyle or political affiliation.

I see you are new here, so I would like to welcome you to the forum.

 

[AKWILKS]

BBM...NO, HE COULD NOT HAVE IN COLORADO IN 1996.

You really need to research the laws in Colorado in 1996, before you start saying things that are simply FALSE.

JMO, IMO, and all other disclaimers.

I posted two cites that show the Colorado Juvenile Laws, and they make it clear that a "juvenile" is defined as someone under 18, and that juveniles can be charged with felony crimes. The law makes clear a juvenile as young as seven years old can be charged even with the minor offense of truancy, and removed from his home and placed by the state.

Show me a cite to Colorado law that says those under ten can murder and face no charges.

Post it please.

Otherwise don't accuse me of making false posts. I provided a link to the law, people can read it and judge for themselves.

http://www.cobar.org/docs/Introduction to Juvenile Law.pdf?ID=124

 

[cynic]

No. Wrong.

A 9 year old can be arrested and adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent, and placed in a youth home.

In certain situations he could even be charged as an adult.

JUVENILES PROSECUTED AS ADULTS

Direct Filings and Transfers

Colorado law allows the prosecution to charge a juvenile as an adult in two situations. First, in certain circumstances, charges can be filed directly despite the fact the offender is less than eighteen years of age. "Direct file" means adult charges may be filed directly in the district court. Second, in certain other situations, charges may be filed in juvenile court but are then transferred to the district court where the offender is treated as an adult. Each of these routes leads to different sentencing options should the offender be convicted.

Regarding direct filings, the sentencing court may impose an adult sentence, a sentence to the youthful offender system (where allowed) or a juvenile sentence.140 This latter option is available only if the offender is less than sixteen years of age and is not convicted of a class one or class two felony or a crime of violence pursuant to CRS § 16-11-309. The option to sentence as a juvenile also is available if the offender is fourteen years old or older and is a habitual juvenile offender.141 If the juvenile offender is sentenced as a juvenile by the adult court, the mandatory, repeat, violent and aggravated juvenile offender statutes all govern the court's sentencing authority.142

Transfer hearings are governed by CRS § 19-2-806. If a case has been transferred to adult court by the juvenile judge, the adult court may impose any sentence that the juvenile court could have imposed had the matter been handled by the juvenile court system, can remand the matter to juvenile court for sentencing or may impose an adult sentence. However, if the juvenile is convicted of a class one felony or has been previously adjudicated a mandatory sentence offender, violent juvenile offender or aggravated juvenile offender, he or she must be sentenced as an adult.143

AK - Also see Colorado Juvenile Law, a "juvenile" is defined as "under 18 years of age", and CAN be charged criminally as a juvenile, and in exceptional cases, as an adult.

http://www.cobar.org/docs/Introduction%20to%20Juvenile%20Law.pdf?ID=124

The "under 10 can't be held" is police rules concerning minor offenses when the parent is not present.

A 9 year old can be charged with murder, as a juvenile. Read the Colorado laws above.

Read page 13 above, a child between the ages of 7 and 16 who does not attend school and does not comply with orders to attend school can be arrested and placed in a group home.

Colorado law defines a juvenile as under 18.

Burke could have been charged with murder.

And his parents could have been charged as accesories after the fact. Thus, it does not seem reasonable to me that if Burke did it and the Ramsey's covered it up, they would have let Burke be interviewed three times by police with no parents present and no attorney in the room.

The theory of this thread reads like a Michael Tracy documentary without Helgoth or Karr as the stars of the show.
The number of times that the supporting tenets are refuted doesn’t seem to matter.
Since the misinformation about Burke is new, I will comment on that.
It is a fact beyond all dispute that Burke could not have been charged with respect to the death of his sister.

Colorado Statute 18-1-801.
Insufficient age

The responsibility of a person for his conduct is the same for persons between the ages of ten and eighteen as it is for persons over eighteen except to the extent that responsibility is modified by the provisions of the "Colorado Children's Code", title 19, C.R.S. No child under ten years of age shall be found guilty of any offense.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 412, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-901.

ANNOTATION
Am. Jur.2d. See 21 Am. Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 34.

C.J.S. See 43 C.J.S., Infants, § 197.

Law reviews. For article, "Mens Rea and the Colorado Criminal Code", see 52 U. Colo. L. Rev. 167 (1981). For comment, "Arrested Development: An Alternative to Juveniles Serving LIFE Without Parole in Colorado", see 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1059 (2007).

Annotator's note. Since § 18-1-801 is similar to former § 40-1-4, C.R.S. 1963, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

An infant is presumed incapable of committing crime because he is presumed not to possess criminal intent. Calkins v. Albi, 163 Colo. 370, 431 P.2d 17 (1967).

An infant under the age of 10 years shall not be found guilty of any offense. Gallegos v. Tinsley, 139 Colo. 157, 337 P.2d 386 (1959); LeCoq ex rel. LeCoq v. Klemme, 28 Colo. App. 590, 476 P.2d 280 (1970).

Although a child under the age of 10 cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092, (Colo. App. 1991).

 

[vlpate]

The Ramseys were cleared years ago in my mind. After I boned up on information about the case, I realized my impression that they were involved somehow had been formed by media spin, and it quickly became unformed. I realized, in my opinion, that those who still wanted to blame them were mainly motivated by resentment of their lifestyle and political affiliation. Anyone suspicious who can't be ruled out by other means, I think it's a great idea to test the DNA. What is there to lose?

Unfortunately, the media has been pro-intruder (thanks to pay-offs and promised exclusives), for years. The facts implicate the Ramseys, not the media.

 

[SunnieRN]

The theory of this thread reads like a Michael Tracy documentary without Helgoth or Karr as the stars of the show.
The number of times that the supporting tenets are refuted doesn’t seem to matter.
Since the misinformation about Burke is new, I will comment on that.
It is a fact beyond all dispute that Burke could not have been charged with respect to the death of his sister.

Colorado Statute 18-1-801.
Insufficient age

The responsibility of a person for his conduct is the same for persons between the ages of ten and eighteen as it is for persons over eighteen except to the extent that responsibility is modified by the provisions of the "Colorado Children's Code", title 19, C.R.S. No child under ten years of age shall be found guilty of any offense.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 412, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-901.

ANNOTATION
Am. Jur.2d. See 21 Am. Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 34.

C.J.S. See 43 C.J.S., Infants, § 197.

Law reviews. For article, "Mens Rea and the Colorado Criminal Code", see 52 U. Colo. L. Rev. 167 (1981). For comment, "Arrested Development: An Alternative to Juveniles Serving LIFE Without Parole in Colorado", see 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1059 (2007).

Annotator's note. Since § 18-1-801 is similar to former § 40-1-4, C.R.S. 1963, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

An infant is presumed incapable of committing crime because he is presumed not to possess criminal intent. Calkins v. Albi, 163 Colo. 370, 431 P.2d 17 (1967).

An infant under the age of 10 years shall not be found guilty of any offense. Gallegos v. Tinsley, 139 Colo. 157, 337 P.2d 386 (1959); LeCoq ex rel. LeCoq v. Klemme, 28 Colo. App. 590, 476 P.2d 280 (1970).

Although a child under the age of 10 cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092, (Colo. App. 1991).

Thank you Cynic, I've been working extra shifts as I go on vacation in a few weeks and hadn't had time to link the law. As usual, you're the bomb!!!!!:great::seeya:

In fact, I think you are the one that originally brought the law to my attention. I was shocked at the time and there was a discussion about parents 'using their children' to avoid prosecution for a crime and whether that would fly. Thanks again!!!!