What about all these 3's?

[otg]

otg, what if one participated and blamed the other as equally culpable or solely culpable even if the other party was innocent? Do Colorado statutes address this? TIA

I thought "cross finger pointing" also could be a short explanation for one blaming the other when one was innocent. :dunno:

ETA: imo, obviously, both are guilty of at least one covering for the other or both covering for a third party.

It might be better if someone answers this who believes it is used and has discussed it. The concept (as I understand it) is that if a prosecutor can’t prove who (of more than one person involved) committed a specific crime, neither party can be charged/tried/convicted (take your pick here). A suspect simply saying that someone else is responsible is just plain “finger pointing”. An example of this “cross finger pointing defense” might be this:

Two people of similar physical stature rob a bank wearing masks. They both leave fingerprints behind and are identified. During the robbery, a guard is shot and killed by one of the two robbers. When apprehended, each claims the other is the one who fired the shot that killed the guard. If the shooter can’t be proven, does the prosecutor have to drop the murder charges against each? Of course not. As accomplices in the crime, they are each responsible for the outcome -- the death of the guard.

And as a side note to this example, the fact that even though the shooting was not premeditated and some might think therefore that it is not first-degree murder, it is M-1 because it was committed during the commission of another crime (the robbery). This is something some states call an “aggravating circumstance”; other states (Colorado) call it a “felony murder”. “Felony murder” is what makes JonBenet’s death (even if it was accidental) a first-degree murder. Kolar makes the case in his book that the aggravating circumstance was kidnapping, which to me seems like a stretch. I believe he may have been avoiding the obvious for public consumption in that the other crime being committed when she died was sexual assault. If this “felony murder” concept didn’t exist and JonBenet died accidentally, the parents couldn’t have been true-billed as accessories to the crime of first-degree murder. Without the “felony murder” concept, they might only have been true-billed for “child endangerment” by allowing the conditions to continue that led up to her death. Instead the Ramseys were indeed True Billed as accessories to the crime of “Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death”.

I’m not a lawyer (and if I were, I wouldn’t admit to it publicly), and some of these things can get kind of murky and go into gray areas. There are other concepts that could be considered (depending on the circumstances). “Proximate cause” versus “ultimate cause” (or “distal cause”) if anyone cares to research. In law this is called the “but for” causation -- Latin term (since lawyers just love their dead language) “Sine qua non”. Even if an action doesn’t directly cause an injury (or death), would the injury (or death) have happened “but for” the action (or inaction) being charged? In the Ramsey case, did the RGJ think JonBenet would have been killed “but for” the action (or inaction) of the parents in providing her protection from whoever they felt actually caused her death?

You might also want to look into a case where the prosecutor tried separate individuals on the same charge of murder under different theories of who actually committed the act. Each case contradicted the facts of the other case. If the one individual was guilty of bludgeoning the victim, the other two individuals could not have done it. If the other two individuals (brothers) bludgeoned the victim, then the other party could not have done it. The older suspect (Rick Chavis) was tried first with the verdict sealed until the end of trial of the two brothers -- Alex King (age 12) and Derek King (age 13). After all, if Chavis was found guilty of the crime, how could a jury even consider that someone else had committed it? All of which brought into question whether the prosecutor was acting appropriately. The State’s Attorney (or District Attorney) needs “probable cause” to charge someone. In this case, there was probable cause for either scenario. However, in order to get a conviction, the threshold of guilt is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. If someone other than the person being tried could be guilty, does that in itself not establish reasonable doubt? Here’s an article from 2002 that explains this conundrum probably better than I could hope (followed by a picture of the two brothers at their trial for murdering their father):

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020910.html

(Incidentally, something I found peculiar about Florida law is that even though they were juveniles at the time, since they were True Billed by a GJ instead of arrested by police for probable cause, Florida Statutes required that the King Brothers be charged as adults -- as is anyone indicted by a Grand Jury in Florida.)

But to summarize all this rambling, this idea of “cross finger pointing defense” is nonsense. It is codified in the Colorado Statutes that the State does not have to prove which defendant did whatever caused the death if they acted together. Didn’t work for Aaron Thompson (in Colorado), didn’t work for Rick Chavis and the King Brothers (in Florida), and it wouldn’t have worked for the Ramseys (except maybe in Boulder :giggle: ).

 

[BOESP]

Thank you otg. I know zero about Colorado law. I interpreted and re-interpreted all possible definitions for "cross-fingerpointing" but I got it now.

Imo, I now agree that it won't fly in the Ramsey case and wouldn't even if they did act together. It's a real sorry shame Hunter didn't take this case to court after a Grand Jury finding probable cause then let the chips fall where they may.

 

[andreww]

Thank you otg. I know zero about Colorado law. I interpreted and re-interpreted all possible definitions for "cross-fingerpointing" but I got it now.

Imo, I now agree that it won't fly in the Ramsey case and wouldn't even if they did act together. It's a real sorry shame Hunter didn't take this case to court after a Grand Jury finding probable cause then let the chips fall where they may.

I agree BOESP but Hunter never really wanted it to go to court did he? He was the one that was cautioning his detectives to "go easy on the Ramsey's", and refusing to seek warrants for things like phone records. Add that all together with his deceptiveness about the Grand Jury recommendations and you really have to wonder what his game was.

 

[carolbell]

The point I was making, and I think you already figured that out, by your post, is that inadvertently or purposefully, it would have been impossible to have not removed evidence, when removing SO many items from throughout the house. These areas included JonBenets room and the basement.

It should have been left to the original request that they wanted clothing for the funeral, nothing else.

 

[otg]

Thank you otg. I know zero about Colorado law. I interpreted and re-interpreted all possible definitions for "cross-fingerpointing" but I got it now.

Imo, I now agree that it won't fly in the Ramsey case and wouldn't even if they did act together. It's a real sorry shame Hunter didn't take this case to court after a Grand Jury finding probable cause then let the chips fall where they may.

I moved our conversation to here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...enet-Ramsey%92s-death&p=11950970#post11950970

 

[DeeDee249]

It should have been left to the original request that they wanted clothing for the funeral, nothing else.

Even that claim was suspect. A local shop donated the family's clothes for the funeral, according to reports. Patsy sent her sister into the house (with police approval and escort- a MAJOR breach of proper procedure to allow a relative of a murder suspect free rein in removing anything at all from a crime scene) to get clothes for JB- a few pageant dresses, a tiara, etc. That is ALL that should have been allowed to be removed from the house, and frankly I don't see why a police officer couldn't have retrieved them.

 

[BBB167893]

I agree BOESP but Hunter never really wanted it to go to court did he? He was the one that was cautioning his detectives to "go easy on the Ramsey's", and refusing to seek warrants for things like phone records. Add that all together with his deceptiveness about the Grand Jury recommendations and you really have to wonder what his game was.

I've often wondered that, andreww.

 

[UKGuy]

It might be better if someone answers this who believes it is used and has discussed it. The concept (as I understand it) is that if a prosecutor can’t prove who (of more than one person involved) committed a specific crime, neither party can be charged/tried/convicted (take your pick here). A suspect simply saying that someone else is responsible is just plain “finger pointing”. An example of this “cross finger pointing defense” might be this:

Two people of similar physical stature rob a bank wearing masks. They both leave fingerprints behind and are identified. During the robbery, a guard is shot and killed by one of the two robbers. When apprehended, each claims the other is the one who fired the shot that killed the guard. If the shooter can’t be proven, does the prosecutor have to drop the murder charges against each? Of course not. As accomplices in the crime, they are each responsible for the outcome -- the death of the guard.

And as a side note to this example, the fact that even though the shooting was not premeditated and some might think therefore that it is not first-degree murder, it is M-1 because it was committed during the commission of another crime (the robbery). This is something some states call an “aggravating circumstance”; other states (Colorado) call it a “felony murder”. “Felony murder” is what makes JonBenet’s death (even if it was accidental) a first-degree murder. Kolar makes the case in his book that the aggravating circumstance was kidnapping, which to me seems like a stretch. I believe he may have been avoiding the obvious for public consumption in that the other crime being committed when she died was sexual assault. If this “felony murder” concept didn’t exist and JonBenet died accidentally, the parents couldn’t have been true-billed as accessories to the crime of first-degree murder. Without the “felony murder” concept, they might only have been true-billed for “child endangerment” by allowing the conditions to continue that led up to her death. Instead the Ramseys were indeed True Billed as accessories to the crime of “Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death”.

I’m not a lawyer (and if I were, I wouldn’t admit to it publicly), and some of these things can get kind of murky and go into gray areas. There are other concepts that could be considered (depending on the circumstances). “Proximate cause” versus “ultimate cause” (or “distal cause”) if anyone cares to research. In law this is called the “but for” causation -- Latin term (since lawyers just love their dead language) “Sine qua non”. Even if an action doesn’t directly cause an injury (or death), would the injury (or death) have happened “but for” the action (or inaction) being charged? In the Ramsey case, did the RGJ think JonBenet would have been killed “but for” the action (or inaction) of the parents in providing her protection from whoever they felt actually caused her death?

You might also want to look into a case where the prosecutor tried separate individuals on the same charge of murder under different theories of who actually committed the act. Each case contradicted the facts of the other case. If the one individual was guilty of bludgeoning the victim, the other two individuals could not have done it. If the other two individuals (brothers) bludgeoned the victim, then the other party could not have done it. The older suspect (Rick Chavis) was tried first with the verdict sealed until the end of trial of the two brothers -- Alex King (age 12) and Derek King (age 13). After all, if Chavis was found guilty of the crime, how could a jury even consider that someone else had committed it? All of which brought into question whether the prosecutor was acting appropriately. The State’s Attorney (or District Attorney) needs “probable cause” to charge someone. In this case, there was probable cause for either scenario. However, in order to get a conviction, the threshold of guilt is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. If someone other than the person being tried could be guilty, does that in itself not establish reasonable doubt? Here’s an article from 2002 that explains this conundrum probably better than I could hope (followed by a picture of the two brothers at their trial for murdering their father):

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020910.html

(Incidentally, something I found peculiar about Florida law is that even though they were juveniles at the time, since they were True Billed by a GJ instead of arrested by police for probable cause, Florida Statutes required that the King Brothers be charged as adults -- as is anyone indicted by a Grand Jury in Florida.)

But to summarize all this rambling, this idea of “cross finger pointing defense” is nonsense. It is codified in the Colorado Statutes that the State does not have to prove which defendant did whatever caused the death if they acted together. Didn’t work for Aaron Thompson (in Colorado), didn’t work for Rick Chavis and the King Brothers (in Florida), and it wouldn’t have worked for the Ramseys (except maybe in Boulder :giggle: ).

otg,
From memory, there was a homicide case over here in the UK, names escape me, concerning dysfunctional parents, and their dead child.

So I think the father was charged and was in the dock when he pointed his finger at his wife and said words to the effect, She did it, so the case was abandonded.

Next developement was both the parents up on either conspiracy to commit homicide or child neglect leading to death etc. This case was also abandoned due to some legal issue arising from the “finger pointing defense”, even though everyone involved knew who did it!

So it can work ...
.

 

[otg]

otg,
From memory, there was a homicide case over here in the UK, names escape me, concerning dysfunctional parents, and their dead child.

So I think the father was charged and was in the dock when he pointed his finger at his wife and said words to the effect, She did it, so the case was abandonded.

Next developement was both the parents up on either conspiracy to commit homicide or child neglect leading to death etc. This case was also abandoned due to some legal issue arising from the “finger pointing defense”, even though everyone involved knew who did it!

So it can work ...
.

I'm not familiar with the case, or the laws, in the UK. Heck, I'm not really that familiar with the laws in my own home state as much as I am with Colorado because that's what would apply in the case we all gather here to discuss. So I couldn't offer any insight as to what happened in the case you mention. But in Colorado, the statutes are very specific. I they are both involved in commission of the crime -- no matter the extent or amount of involvement -- they both are equally guilty of the crime. The entire applicable statute is posted here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?230052-Premeditated&p=10371398#post10371398


But the important parts are as follows (emphasis mine):

C.R.S. 18-1-603. Complicity

Defendant need not perform all acts necessary to offense. Where two or more are involved in the commission of a criminal offense and one helps the other, though not actually performing all the acts necessary to the commission of the offense, all are, nevertheless, principal offenders and are punishable as though all have committed the necessary acts.

No election required as to which defendant was accessory. There was no error in the trial court's refusing to compel the district attorney to elect, before the evidence was presented, as to which defendant was principal and which accessory.

An accessory who stands by and aids in the perpetration of a crime may properly be charged as a principal, and in the case of codefendants it is unnecessary to spell out which one is the principal and which the accessory, nor is it necessary to characterize and classify the specific acts of each.

In the case of codefendants it is unnecessary to spell out which one is the principal and which the accessory.

When two persons are charged with the same crime, the prosecution is not required to spell out which one is the principal and which is the accessory.

The acts of the principal are the acts of the accessory, and the accessory may be charged and punished accordingly as a principal.

It is ultimately the jury's responsibility to determine the specific role a defendant plays.


​

I'll stand by my original statement that there is no legal standing for a "cross finger pointing defense" -- at least, not in Colorado.

 

[UKGuy]

I'll stand by my original statement that there is no legal standing for a "cross finger pointing defense" -- at least, not in Colorado.

otg,
Without that as a defense why the silence surrounding the parents after they were both indicted for child abuse resulting in death and accessory to first-degree murder by a Boulder County grand jury?

You have to wonder when we will see a documentary asking questions about the parents involvement and the Elephant in the room Q: if it wasn't the parents who was it?

Maybe thats why there is silence, the media have phoned BPD for comment and been told the only person remaining in the Ramsey household was beneath the age of criminal responsibility on the night of JonBenet's death.

.

 

[otg]

otg,
Without that as a defense why the silence surrounding the parents after they were both indicted for child abuse resulting in death and accessory to first-degree murder by a Boulder County grand jury?

You have to wonder when we will see a documentary asking questions about the parents involvement and the Elephant in the room Q: if it wasn't the parents who was it?

Maybe thats why there is silence, the media have phoned BPD for comment and been told the only person remaining in the Ramsey household was beneath the age of criminal responsibility on the night of JonBenet's death.

The silence is deafening, isn’t it, my friend (who is no longer in the EU )? Beckner stated that this is a “cold case.” It’s no longer being actively investigated. And what was the last investigative action they took? If you don’t remember, it was BPD’s attempt to talk to Burke, who (through his lawyer) indicated he would not be talking to them. Why should he? There is nothing for him to be gained from doing it. That was the last dying gasp from a case that has stymied any resolution. As long as it is an open cold case, it will not be pursued, it will not be dropped, and it will not be commented on.

If anyone from the media (or anywhere else, for that matter) phoned BPD for comment, the answer would be the same: It’s an open case and as such they do not comment on leads, evidence, or possible suspects. They certainly would not acknowledge that the case was not being actively investigated because it had already been solved by the RGJ. But face it: You know it, and I know it. That elephant is the only thing that explains all the unexplainable puzzles in everything that happened.

 

[UKGuy]

The silence is deafening, isn’t it, my friend (who is no longer in the EU )? Beckner stated that this is a “cold case.” It’s no longer being actively investigated. And what was the last investigative action they took? If you don’t remember, it was BPD’s attempt to talk to Burke, who (through his lawyer) indicated he would not be talking to them. Why should he? There is nothing for him to be gained from doing it. That was the last dying gasp from a case that has stymied any resolution. As long as it is an open cold case, it will not be pursued, it will not be dropped, and it will not be commented on.

If anyone from the media (or anywhere else, for that matter) phoned BPD for comment, the answer would be the same: It’s an open case and as such they do not comment on leads, evidence, or possible suspects. They certainly would not acknowledge that the case was not being actively investigated because it had already been solved by the RGJ. But face it: You know it, and I know it. That elephant is the only thing that explains all the unexplainable puzzles in everything that happened.

otg,
There was a song that sung Silence Was Golden, but not in JonBenet's case, on this I agree 100% with you, touching on the evangelic, we sing from the the same hymn sheet, LOL.

It must be an insult to the US citizens' intellect for the media to dumb it all down with the usual quotes. Out of the EU over here is a big mistake.

Here is a personal take on it all: The EU and all its friends were portrayed as Big Government, e.g. State v.s. Federal Government, etc. Leave campaign were like a bigger Tea Party except they succeeded.

All the incumbent politicians totally miscalculated, simply because their policies were never going to effect them, so they forgot about the rest of the country, i.e. London and Scotland voted for Remain the rest of the UK, excluding NI, voted Leave. The point being in England per se only London saw any economic advantage in remaining in the EU.

That is the command and control politics issued from London failed big time, the lies and fairy tales about impending Armageddon, years of apocalyptic dystopian societal effects, were all seen for what they were, by the common working man, as hyperbole, or in Greek terms sophistication beyond compare.

For those not versed in UK politics this had nothing to do with Taking control back or Democracy and everything to do with the governing Conservative Party, which is split into two factions one pragmatic the other ideological, with power politics playing out in either faction, resulting in the pragmatic faction calling the referendum hoping to shut the ideological faction up with a win.

As I say above the pragmatic faction along with the opposition party miscalculated massively and went about politics as normal beaming tales of impending End of Days scenarios into the nations houses if we left the EU. Joe Public understandably reacted with total cynicism and voted themselves Leave.


So you can view the result as the Little People, i.e. Leona Helmsley types, asserting their democratic authority, or the politicians so wrapped up in their media bubble and their ability to persuade, i.e. lie, to the public failing so to do. I go for the latter, I have a feel that centralized politics in the age of the internet is dead and buried, e.g. Democrats using cellphones to beam footage out of Congress was not lost on me.

Summarizing: The Conservative Party joined the EU to facilitate free movement of labour, i.e. reduce wage costs and put a stake through the then prevailing ideology Socialism, it worked, so now they wish to finish off the political project by leaving the EU, simples.


p.s. For those aware just watch what might happen to millionaire soccer players in the premiere league, with clubs no longer bound by EU wage regulations, will eye-watering salaries continue or will common sense prevail, as it did in the US Baseball League?

.

 

[otg]

UKG, I didn’t mean to hijack this thread into a political discussion, but I appreciate the personal take on the situation I couldn’t help but make note of in passing. It’s nice to hear how someone who doesn’t have a personal stake in it views Brexit.

You’re right that a lot of what we hear about this, or anything, is filtered through the media with information supplied them by the agenda-driven politicos. And then unavoidably, we as individuals tend to do a bit of filtering in our choice of which news providers we listen to and what we hear or disregard depending on how it registers with us. I think that’s at least partly how the pollsters and pundits got the Brexit vote so wrong.

The same thing seems to go with the reporting of JonBenet’s death and investigation. Once the trend is started going in one direction, they all seem to follow suit. Right now (post Lacy, Carnes, etc.), the trend is that the Ramsey family is free of guilt. Kolar's book was just a little speed bump in the road to exoneration. But then, those of us who really delve into the evidence know better.

Enough though of the rambling philosophizing between you and I; or as someone else always liked to say when she lost control of the conversation, “Back to case.”

[We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.]
​

 

[icedtea4me]

otg,
Without that as a defense why the silence surrounding the parents after they were both indicted for child abuse resulting in death and accessory to first-degree murder by a Boulder County grand jury?

You have to wonder when we will see a documentary asking questions about the parents involvement and the Elephant in the room Q: if it wasn't the parents who was it?

Maybe thats why there is silence, the media have phoned BPD for comment and been told the only person remaining in the Ramsey household was beneath the age of criminal responsibility on the night of JonBenet's death.

.

It wasn't a joint indictment. It was two separate, yet identical, indictments.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonbene...es-1999-indictments-of-john-and-patsy-ramsey/

 

[Sphinx]

Patsy even tells us that JR dictates and she writes


2000 March 18
John and Patsy Ramsey book
"Death of Innocence"

DOI (HB) Page 234:

"John and I wrote message of appreciation to our friends to be printed on the back of the liturgy of the day. We thanked the people for their support through the past year and expressed how much their love had meant to us. We also commended on the meaning of the Christmas season and why it was important to remember the real season we celebrate this time of the year. In composing this expression of appreciation, John and I had each written a version. With both copies in hand, John dictated and I typed at the computer as we merged the two into one. Later Susan Stine and Roxy Walker made a few edits as they type it into the liturgical program. This edited version included the phrase and, hence. Those two words turned out to be the next bombshell!"

Seems to be a habit or hobby of the Rs. They liked playing Dictator and secretary. IMO

Maybe someone obtained or received a copy of the Ramsey's Christmas Letter, and deliberately used some of their phrases, and words like hence in order to frame them. JB was hit so hard, and the skull fracture was so large, it seems as if the killer had a great deal of rage and hate. Perhaps it was someone very envious of JR, who worked with him, or who was a competitor, and knew about his $118,000 bonus. IMO

 

[icedtea4me]

Maybe someone obtained or received a copy of the Ramsey's Christmas Letter, and deliberately used some of their phrases, and words like hence in order to frame them. JB was hit so hard, and the skull fracture was so large, it seems as if the killer had a great deal of rage and hate. Perhaps it was someone very envious of JR, who worked with him, or who was a competitor, and knew about his $118,000 bonus. IMO

So, tell us how this person would have used a Christmas letter that was received in December 1997 to write a note that was written in December 1996. Did this person use a time-turner to go back in time?

 

[Sphinx]

So, tell us how this person would have used a Christmas letter that was received in December 1997 to write a note that was written in December 1996. Did this person use a time-turner to go back in time?

Sorry, that was my first post here, and I thought that the Christmas letter came before the ransom note. Most people send Christmas letters every year. IMO

 

[BoldBear]

Sphinx,

Welcome to WS. There's nothing wrong with making mistakes. I've been corrected many times and probably will be in the future.

 

[Deadhead_Kay]

About the poll, I never noticed the 3's in any significant way. But if they ~were~ intentional, could give an idea behind whoever staged the scene, someone with OCD, or even an undiagnosed issue with repetition.

 

[icedtea4me]

About the poll, I never noticed the 3's in any significant way. But if they ~were~ intentional, could give an idea behind whoever staged the scene, someone with OCD, or even an undiagnosed issue with repetition.

Or perhaps someone is pointing out that this has to do with a threesome.