Possible NEW Suspects In JonBenet Ramsey Case?

[tezi]

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 so much cynic! I was going to look it up after I took my granddaughter to the doctor, but see you beat me to it! I greatly appreciate you doing this!

 

[tezi]

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%20to%20Juvenile%20Law.pdf?ID=124

cynic was kind enough to find it and post it. Thank you again cynic!

And your post was false. Burke could not be tried for the murder of his sister in 1996 because he was under the age of ten in 1996.

Have you found anything that proves for a FACT that Mitchell and Barzee were in Boulder on December 25-26, 1996? I have asked you at least twice and I haven't seen your answer. If I've overlooked it, please post it again, so I can see it, please.

 

[Patience]

I have not seen any proof to show the whereabouts of Mitchell and\or Barzee on December 25-26th 1996. I don't believe there is proof that shows they were in Utah, Colorado, Alaska or in any specific location. If anyone does then please post links.

Their journal is not something I would necessarily trust when trying to verify their location in Dec. 1996.


Here is a friendly reminder of the Terms of Service. Hope it's ok to post this.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64755"]Terms of Service (TOS) - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
Terms of Service

Welcome to Websleuths.com!

Websleuths is a privately owned forum dedicated to discuss, debate and advocate crime cases. Moderators may delete and edit posts in an effort to keep the site free of forum wars, insults, advertising and off-topic replies. Please be polite and helpful with your replies. Feel free to seek help from a moderator or administrator at anytime. By requesting membership at Websleuths, you agree to abide by the Terms of Service (also known as TOS) contained herein and by any rules or regulations created by the moderators and administration of Websleuths. These Terms of Service and other rules or regulations may be altered at any time, without advance notice, and become effective immediately upon publication on the site.

 

[Roy23]

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

Still feel like it is a warm welcome here?

 

[AKWILKS]

No.

The issue is confusing.

I cited the state juvenile law, you cited a law book which refers to a general statute and court cases that interpret that statute. What you cite deals with specific intent crimes and the fact that infancy, defined as being under the age of 10, can be a defense to a charge of a specific intent crime, like murder.

So, yes, technically speaking, a 9 year old would not normally be charged with "murder", or if so charged would likely have it dismissed on grounds of infancy, though in a heinous case we can't say for sure how a court would rule.

The case law you cite says there is a "PRESUMPTION" that an infant is not capable of forming the intent to commit a crime. But it appears that is a presumption that may be overcome by exceptional evidence. Binding, molesting and killing a six year old may well constitute evidence to overcome the presumption of lack of intent. A judge would have to decide. A five year old would have a much better chance of having any such charge dismissed on grounds of infancy than would a nine year old.

So Burke could have been arrested for "murder", and his lawyers would have the affirmative defense of infancy and lack of capacity, but the prosecution could overcome it.

That doesn't matter much however. Anyone under 18, including "seven year olds", can be charged with a "delinquent act", and as such if found responsible, can be placed in a youth home until the age of 21. That is what the state juvenile law says. The "delinquent act" could be truancy from school, or killing a human being, or setting fire to a building.

So Burke would not be charged with "murder", but doing a "delinquent act".

The law specifically allows that "seven year olds" may be so charged, as can anyone from "7 to 13 years of age".

Also the Colorado Juvenile Law has a catch all clause that allows for the state to take custody if the juvenile under 18, of any age, is deemed to be a danger to himself or others.

 

[Chris_Texas]

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).

Yes, he could not (and even today likely would not ) be convicted or charged with a felony. Nor would his name be officially revealed in the media.

That does NOT mean that the state is powerless to act. He would not be charged with a crime but he WOULD go away. And, since we are talking mental health and child protective services, it's even easier as there is no trial.

 

[AKWILKS]

Yes thats right. While a jury must find an adult "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", in Colorado a juvenile court judge need only find a "reasonable cause" to believe the juvenile committed a "delinquent act". A juvenile can also be detained if the court finds he is a danger to himself or others.

 

[AKWILKS]

The issue is confusing.

I cited the state juvenile law, tezi cited a law book which refers to a general statute and court cases that interpret that statute. What tezi cites deals with specific intent crimes and the fact that infancy, defined as being under the age of 10, can be a defense to a charge of a specific intent crime, like murder.

So, yes, technically speaking, a 9 year old would not normally be charged with "murder", or if so charged would likely have it dismissed on grounds of infancy, though in a heinous case we can't say for sure how a court would rule.

The case law you cite says there is a "PRESUMPTION" that an infant is not capable of forming the intent to commit a crime. But it appears that is a presumption that may be overcome by exceptional evidence. Binding, molesting and killing a six year old may well constitute evidence to overcome the presumption of lack of intent. A judge would have to decide. A five year old would have a much better chance of having any such charge dismissed on grounds of infancy than would a nine year old.

So Burke could have been arrested for "murder", and his lawyers would have the affirmative defense of infancy and lack of capacity, but the prosecution could overcome it.

That doesn't matter much however. Anyone under 18, including "seven year olds", can be charged with a "delinquent act", and as such if found responsible, can be placed in a youth home until the age of 21. That is what the state juvenile law says. The "delinquent act" could be truancy from school, or killing a human being, or setting fire to a building.

So Burke would not be charged with "murder", but doing a "delinquent act".

The law specifically allows that "seven year olds" may be so charged, as can anyone from "7 to 13 years of age".

Also the Colorado Juvenile Law has a catch all clause that allows for the state to take custody if the juvenile under 18, of any age, is deemed to be a danger to himself or others.

 

[cynic]

No.

You may wish to rethink that.

The issue is confusing.

Not really.

I cited the state juvenile law, you cited a law book which refers to a general statute and court cases that interpret that statute. What you cite deals with specific intent crimes and the fact that infancy, defined as being under the age of 10, can be a defense to a charge of a specific intent crime, like murder.

I cited Colorado Statute 18-1-801, yes.
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.
It means that charges would not have been filed against Burke.

So, yes, technically speaking, a 9 year old would not normally be charged with "murder", or if so charged would likely have it dismissed on grounds of infancy, though in a heinous case we can't say for sure how a court would rule.

In some states, a 9 year old could be charged with murder, but not in Colorado which has an explicit statute stating otherwise. As per 18-1-801, there would be no court ruling, because the case would not be in court.

The case law you cite says there is a "PRESUMPTION" that an infant is not capable of forming the intent to commit a crime. But it appears that is a presumption that may be overcome by exceptional evidence. Binding, molesting and killing a six year old may well constitute evidence to overcome the presumption of lack of intent. A judge would have to decide. A five year old would have a much better chance of having any such charge dismissed on grounds of infancy than would a nine year old.

It forms a basis for the statute which does not say, No child under five years of age shall be found guilty of any offense and we are not really sure what happens from 6 – 10, let’s play it by ear. It says, No child under ten years of age shall be found guilty of any offense.

So Burke could have been arrested for "murder", and his lawyers would have the affirmative defense of infancy and lack of capacity, but the prosecution could overcome it.

Once again, not true, there would be no arrest.

That doesn't matter much however. Anyone under 18, including "seven year olds", can be charged with a "delinquent act", and as such if found responsible, can be placed in a youth home until the age of 21. That is what the state juvenile law says. The "delinquent act" could be truancy from school, or killing a human being, or setting fire to a building.

So Burke would not be charged with "murder", but doing a "delinquent act".

The law specifically allows that "seven year olds" may be so charged, as can anyone from "7 to 13 years of age".

That is not what Colorado law says.

Colorado Statute 19-1-103
(36) "Delinquent act", as used in article 2 of this title, means a violation of any statute, ordinance, or order enumerated in section 19-2-104 (1) (a). If a juvenile is alleged to have committed or is found guilty of a delinquent act, the classification and degree of the offense shall be determined by the statute, ordinance, or order that the petition alleges was violated.

The district court still retains original jurisdiction in all criminal cases. This is so because a delinquency proceeding is not a criminal case. People ex rel. Terrell v. Dist. Court, 164 Colo. 437, 435 P.2d 763 (1967).

A delinquent child is defined as one under 18 but over 10, who violates a state law, excepting state traffic laws. I.R. v. People, 171 Colo. 54, 464 P.2d 296 (1970).

19-2-104. Jurisdiction.

(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the juvenile court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in proceedings:
(a) Concerning any juvenile ten years of age or older who has violated:
(I) Any federal or state law, except nonfelony state traffic, game and fish, and parks and recreation laws or rules, the offenses specified in section 18-13-121, C.R.S., concerning tobacco products, the offense specified in section 18-13-122, C.R.S., concerning the illegal possession or consumption of ethyl alcohol by an underage person, and the offenses specified in section 18-18-406 (1) and (3), C.R.S., concerning marijuana and marijuana concentrate;
(II) Any county or municipal ordinance except traffic ordinances, the penalty for which may be a jail sentence of more than ten days; or
(III) Any lawful order of the court made under this title;

 

[AKWILKS]

Did you go to law school?

If not, go, and learn that a PRESUMPTION that an infant cannot have the capacity can be overcome. It can be a rebuttable presumption. Under the common law, that infants lack capacity to form intent to do a crime is a REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION FROM AGES 7 TO 14.

Judges interpret statutes. For that purpose, a 5 year old would be viewed differently from a 9 year old. The nature of the crime would also be considered, and evidence that shows intent. The statute says an infant shall not be CONVICTED of a crime, not that they can't be investigated, detained, arrested or charged. The case law says the intent of the statue is that those under 10 years of age are PRESUMED to lack the capacity to form intent, but it does NOT say that is an irrefutable presumption.

It is an affirmative defense, that can be raised if an infant is charged. If Burke Ramsey were arrested at 9 years old and charged with murder, his lawyer would raise the presumption that an infant lacks capacity to form intent and ask for the charge to be dismissed. A judge would decide, it would be appealed and ultimately decided by the Colorado Supreme Court. That Court may well have decided that in other states those under 10 have been convicted of crimes, the murder of JonBenet was heinous and terrible, the evidence shows the killer had a plan and intent, and that under the circumstances the legislature cannot have intended the absurd result that 7 year old school truants can be arrested and held, but that a brutal murderer must be set free because he is months short of his tenth birthday.

Thus they may have ruled that in this instance of a heinous and terrible molestation and murder, done by implements, the presumption of lack of capacity to inform intent has been overcome.

The job of the courts is to deliver justice, and interpret the laws so that justice is served.

Also the question is not the defintion of a "juvenile deliquent" but what is a "delinquent act".

The statute defintion:

Juvenile. A person under the age of eighteen is considered a juvenile. This term is used
refer to a child who is charged with committing a delinquent act.

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

Note that it does NOT say "10 to 18". It says "under the age of eighteen."

The law also provides that a judge may order a juvenile held if he/she is a danger to himself or others. NO AGE RESTRICTION, JUST UNDER 18. Call me crazy, but I think killing your 6 year old sister would constitute evidence he was a danger to others.

There are also state civil commitment laws. Molestation and murder of your sister could be grounds for mental illness, and the state could committ him under that law.


Also, the state law explicitly provides that those ages "7 to 13" must attend school, and if they do not, they can be arrested, and ordered into state custody.

That would also apply to any other "delinquent act". Not just truancy!

Bottom line is there are about a half dozen legal theories in which a person under 10 years of age, particularly one close to 10 years of age, could be detained and held responsible for murder, or the "delinquent act" of killing, or killing as evidence of mental illness, or killing as evidence of danger to others, or killing with implements and brutality as overcoming the presumption of infant lack of capacity or showing that the parents covered up a murder by the infant and thus they are convicted of felonies and the child is removed from the home and placed by the state for lack of custodial parents and/or unfit parents.

IN ANY EVENT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC THREAD WHICH IS ABOUT POSSIBLE NEW SUSPECTS IN THE CASE, NOT REHASHING SUSPECTS LIKE BURKE WHO HAVE BEEN CLEARED BY DNA ACCORDING TO THE DA.

CAN WE PLEASE KEEP FUTURE POSTS ON TOPIC?

 

[SunnieRN]

Yes, he could not (and even today likely would not ) be convicted or charged with a felony. Nor would his name be officially revealed in the media.

That does NOT mean that the state is powerless to act. He would not be charged with a crime but he WOULD go away. And, since we are talking mental health and child protective services, it's even easier as there is no trial.

The state would first have to have proof I would imagine. They couldn't just walk into the Fernies, take Burke and say, "well, we have no proof, but think you may have molested and killed your sister, so ypu're outta here!"

That's where I believe 'the fixer', the attorneys and the private investigators, hired by John, came in to play. This is also why the distancing of the family from LE was crucial.

This case proved, once again, that it pays to have money. I wonder how much Fleet White knows or suspects?

 

[cynic]

Did you go to law school?

If not, go, and learn that a PRESUMPTION that an infant cannot have the capacity can be overcome. It can be a rebuttable presumption. Under the common law, that infants lack capacity to form intent to do a crime is a REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION FROM AGES 7 TO 14.

Judges interpret statutes. For that purpose, a 5 year old would be viewed differently from a 9 year old. The nature of the crime would also be considered, and evidence that shows intent. The statute says an infant shall not be CONVICTED of a crime, not that they can't be investigated, detained, arrested or charged. The case law says the intent of the statue is that those under 10 years of age are PRESUMED to lack the capacity to form intent, but it does NOT say that is an irrefutable presumption.

It is an affirmative defense, that can be raised if an infant is charged. If Burke Ramsey were arrested at 9 years old and charged with murder, his lawyer would raise the presumption that an infant lacks capacity to form intent and ask for the charge to be dismissed. A judge would decide, it would be appealed and ultimately decided by the Colorado Supreme Court. That Court may well have decided that in other states those under 10 have been convicted of crimes, the murder of JonBenet was heinous and terrible, the evidence shows the killer had a plan and intent, and that under the circumstances the legislature cannot have intended the absurd result that 7 year old school truants can be arrested and held, but that a brutal murderer must be set free because he is months short of his tenth birthday.

Thus they may have ruled that in this instance of a heinous and terrible molestation and murder, done by implements, the presumption of lack of capacity to inform intent has been overcome.

The job of the courts is to deliver justice, and interpret the laws so that justice is served.

Also the question is not the defintion of a "juvenile deliquent" but what is a "delinquent act".

The statute defintion:

Juvenile. A person under the age of eighteen is considered a juvenile. This term is used
refer to a child who is charged with committing a delinquent act.

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

Note that it does NOT say "10 to 18". It says "under the age of eighteen."

The law also provides that a judge may order a juvenile held if he/she is a danger to himself or others. NO AGE RESTRICTION, JUST UNDER 18. Call me crazy, but I think killing your 6 year old sister would constitute evidence he was a danger to others.

There are also state civil commitment laws. Molestation and murder of your sister could be grounds for mental illness, and the state could committ him under that law.


Also, the state law explicitly provides that those ages "7 to 13" must attend school, and if they do not, they can be arrested, and ordered into state custody.

That would also apply to any other "delinquent act". Not just truancy!

Bottom line is there are about a half dozen legal theories in which a person under 10 years of age, particularly one close to 10 years of age, could be detained and held responsible for murder, or the "delinquent act" of killing, or killing as evidence of mental illness, or killing as evidence of danger to others, or killing with implements and brutality as overcoming the presumption of infant lack of capacity or showing that the parents covered up a murder by the infant and thus they are convicted of felonies and the child is removed from the home and placed by the state for lack of custodial parents and/or unfit parents.

IN ANY EVENT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC THREAD WHICH IS ABOUT POSSIBLE NEW SUSPECTS IN THE CASE, NOT REHASHING SUSPECTS LIKE BURKE WHO HAVE BEEN CLEARED BY DNA ACCORDING TO THE DA.

CAN WE PLEASE KEEP FUTURE POSTS ON TOPIC?

We are not talking about truancy, an issue for which there must, of necessity, be a specific law in the Children’s Code of the Colorado Statutes.

We are discussing what is clearly stated in the Criminal Code Section of the Colorado Statutes. (Section 18)

With respect to defined criminal offenses, of course including felonies such as murder a child under 10 cannot be charged, it’s as simple as that.

The following is from a law firm in Colorado that specializes in family law:

Juvenile delinquency refers to antisocial or illegal behavior repeatedly committed by children or adolescents. Juveniles are generally treated differently in the criminal justice system, so it is imperative you understand your child’s rights if he has been arrested for a criminal offence.

If your child is under 17, the police must tell you as soon as possible. Your child should not be interviewed without you being present unless a delay would mean immediate harm to someone or damage to property. In these cases, the police must make certain there is an adult present to make sure your child is treated fairly.

If your child is under 10 years old they cannot be taken to court and charged with a criminal offense. However, once they are 10 or over, they are treated in the same way as any young person under 18 years old and will be dealt with by the Youth Justice System.

Once charged, your child may be bailed (allowed to go home) or they may be remanded in custody (made to stay) before appearing in a Youth Court. Understanding your rights and the legal system where juvenile crimes are concerned is the job of our family law attorneys. Seeking counsel is crucial. The Denver family law attorneys at Elkus & Sisson are seasoned in all aspects of family law and will be the defense you need!
http://www.elkusandsisson.com/category/family-law

Here a lawyer responds to a question in a forum:

Many states have statutes that expressly provide that children under a specific age cannot be charged with a crime. For example, Colorado state law provides that children under the age of 10 cannot be charged with any crime. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-801. Children ages 10 through 17 are generally dealt with under the Children's Code. Id. That means that unless tried as an adult, they are subject to juvenile delinquency proceedings rather than regular criminal proceedings.
http://prairielaw.com/forums/p/114868/563581.aspx

I realize that anything can be challenged, up to the Supreme Court if necessary, but I hope prosecutors have better things to do than waste the their own time and the time of the court.

 

[AKWILKS]

You are ignorant of what a "rebuttable presumption" is in regards to the presumption that infants do not have capacity to formulate the intent to commit a crime. I am not going to waste anymore time trying to teach you about something which is NOT the topic of this thread.

If you want to believe that Colorado law is that 9 year olds may be arrested and placed in a youth home for skipping school, but that there would be no penalty for a brutal murder, that is your right.

The law provides that juveniles (defined as under 18) may be held if they are a danger to themselves or others. The law has provisions for mentally ill children to be held. The law has provisions for children of any age to be removed from the home for various reasons, and I would think parents doing multiple felonies to cover up a murder and allowing such a murder to happen would constitute a valid reason.

Courts also have "emergency powers", mentioned in the juvenile code, to protect the public and protect the interests of children.

 

[BBB167893]

Right! Gelb. I remember the press conference. Tell me more!

Where would you like me to start? Actually, I have a better idea. Just go here:

http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/polygraph/

Didn't PR have to take the test twice because it was inconclusive? They didn't trust the FBI. Yeah, I wouldn't either if I were guilty.

Yeah, that's what Wendy Murphy and Nancy Grace said, too! Since polygraphs aren't admissable in court, about the only purpose they have is to catch a person in a lie and grill them over it. So, yeah, it's easy to see why the Ramseys would want to avoid that!

Look, I'll be perfectly honest (and Wendy Murphy agrees with me on this): in America, if you don't want to take a polygraph, you don't have to. Even if I KNEW I was innocent, I still wouldn't take one! The problem for the Ramseys is not that they refused when asked. The problem is that they went and hired this hump to give them a test that was phony as a $3 bill and wave it around like it meant something!

And Hoffman....may he rest in peace...what a piece of work. He didn't show up, right? Vertigo or something?

That's about right. He really screwed the pooch.

 

[BBB167893]

And I thought your answer was going to be because he has aspirations of being an Author on something he eventually is going to be wearing a Clownsuit about. I don't worry, though, cause nobody going to publish his book on this subject.

You may well find yourself mistaken on both counts, pilgrim. At the very least, I wouldn't take odds on either.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

What do you mean?

I realized, in my opinion, that those who still wanted to blame them were mainly motivated by resentment of their lifestyle and political affiliation.

That's nonsense.

 

[BBB167893]

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

Absolutely. (You left out threats of lawsuits.)

 

[cynic]

You are ignorant of what a "rebuttable presumption" is in regards to the presumption that infants do not have capacity to formulate the intent to commit a crime. I am not going to waste anymore time trying to teach you about something which is NOT the topic of this thread.

I understand perfectly what rebuttable presumption is with respect to infants. Where you are going wrong is that you are taking the common law age span of 7 – 14 and applying it to a state that has a statute which has raised the minimum age from 7 to 10.

If you want to believe that Colorado law is that 9 year olds may be arrested and placed in a youth home for skipping school, but that there would be no penalty for a brutal murder, that is your right.

You are saying the same thing except with your common law definition of 7 as the minimum age, it would be a 6 year old who would face consequences for skipping school but not murder.

The law provides that juveniles (defined as under 18) may be held if they are a danger to themselves or others. The law has provisions for mentally ill children to be held. The law has provisions for children of any age to be removed from the home for various reasons, and I would think parents doing multiple felonies to cover up a murder and allowing such a murder to happen would constitute a valid reason.

Courts also have "emergency powers", mentioned in the juvenile code, to protect the public and protect the interests of children.

That’s not what started the discussion. It started when you stated that Burke could be charged for murder at the age of 9.

 

[AKWILKS]

I have done more reseach, and you are much more right than I first thought.

Burke could be CHARGED with murder, there are a half dozen cases were kids under ten in Colorado were charged with crimes, but for the past 100 years in every Colorado case I can find the judge considered the presumption against infants having the capacity to form intent to be so STRONG that he dismissed the charges.

Now we could debate if the JonBenet would be so considered so heinous, so awful, with such clear evidence of planning and intent in the preparation, the murder and the hiding of the body, that an on the spot judge might say "This is the rare case were the presumption has been overcome, and to release a brutal murderer would be absurd."

The judge might say that since Colorado law now allows for those 7, 8 and 9 to be arrested and jailed for truancy, the legislative intent must surely be to allow murderers to be held to protect the public.

But I agree with most of what you are saying, it is a very strong presumption in Colorado which no judge seems to want to monkey with. Which is NUTS!

There are still several ways Burke could have been held, as you admit.

The question goes to this - IF Burke was the killer, and the parents knew it and helped covered it up, knowing the ways in which Burke could be held for the crime and the ways in which they could charged with accessory, knowing the publicity and scandal, would the parents have let Burke be interviewed three times by police without their presence and without a lawyer in the room? I say "no".

Colorado case law explicitly says that those who help an "infant" do a crime can be charged with a crime, even though the infant can't. The Ramsey's lawyers would have told them that.

 

[vlpate]

Where would you like me to start? Actually, I have a better idea. Just go here:

http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/polygraph/

Keep doing it till you get it right.....or not.

The problem is that they went and hired this hump to give them a test that was phony as a $3 bill and wave it around like it meant something!

They believed everyone was ignorant - as you alluded to, their money bought ignorance.

That's about right. He really screwed the pooch.

Indeed. hehe