Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramsey’s death

[SapphireSteel]

Not up to snuff on my law...but would this mean that back in 1996, Burke Ramsey could have been charged with Murder One?

Not without evidence...

Even in Colorado you need evidence!

 

[otg]

Not up to snuff on my law...but would this mean that back in 1996, Burke Ramsey could have been charged with Murder One?

Living in Colorado, one month shy of his tenth birthday, Burke could never (and will never) be charged with anything that he might have done that night (regardless of the evidence). However, as I understand it, if now (as an adult) he were to talk to LE and give them false information, he could be charged with something for that. Good reason to say, "No thanks," should they come asking if he'd like to talk with them.

 

[bettybaby00]

Does anyone else enjoy reading good courtroom drama books, or enjoy watching a great movie about some court case -- either real or fictional? Seems like the better ones always have some moment toward the end where, after you’ve come to identify with the main character, it all looks hopeless for him (or her). Then someone discovers some obscure “loophole” in the law, or they realize that everyone has overlooked some small detail that was right there under their proverbial noses all along and ends up saving the case. Somehow that’s what I thought I had found when I asked my lawyer friend about the two True Bills that were made public. In my legal ignorance, because of what I read in the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS), it appeared to me that while the press had reported that the statutes of limitations had run out on each of the two charges, they still boiled down to Felony Murder (having been committed during the commission of another felony).

This is why I asked my “legal advisor” about the possibility. The first answer I got was about Count VII (Accessory to Crime). Essentially, the answer is that as an accessory (as opposed to an accomplice), it doesn’t raise the charge to the status of M-1 (if I understand the answer correctly). But what it does tell us is what the RGJ seemed to been thinking about what happened based on the information there were able to get, which of course we do not know. [To better understand the concept of an "accessory", think about how the word is used in describing something in your car or your house. An accessory is something not essential to its function, but something that simply makes it better or more effective.]

I haven’t yet gotten a detailed explanation about my question on Count IV (a) (Child Abuse Resulting in Death) (my friend is only doing this in his spare time, and still works full time -- for people who pay him), but I will pass along what he is able to tell me when he finds the time. In the meantime, I’m going to post what was presented to him so we can discuss it here. Maybe someone will see something I’m missing, or might be able to give us more information about it. Here is what I wrote:

I’ll add now that while writing this, I notice a glaring difference in the TB and the statutes I quoted. I’ll look into it myself when I can get to it, but meanwhile I’ll leave it at that and see if anyone else notices it, or can find out if it matters. (It's not the fact that the Denver Post calculated the 3-years from the wrong starting point.)

I'm not exactly sure what your trying to say...I'm having trouble following you :blushing:

But what is so glaringly noticeable to me is....

[...]did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously, permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death[...]​

KNOWINGLY is the word that I can't get past. That's not an indication of an "accident." And the language is repeated in the 2nd true bill as well. Every time I read it, it's a clear indicator for BDI, for me.

The language indicates it was an ongoing problem, and they knew about it. And it would appear that the "child abuse" relates to "prior sexual contact." There was no discounting or diminishing of that evidence by the GJ. It's not like JRB continually showed signs of physical abuse, such as bruises or broken bones, or multiple ER visits, all of which would likely been documented, and or found out about in some way prior to the convening of the GJ.

Did the GJ get JRBs medical records? Or did the pediatrician admit to something damning? When Kolar recounts the "island of privacy" issue(s) he does so with regard to turning the info over to investigators. He gives no real indication of any of the GJ proceedings relating to what was or wasn't subpoenaed (b/c he can't) yet when he makes his presentation to ML, it's BRs records he's after.

If on the other hand, the GJ believed the evidence pointed to JR for the abuse, the true bills wouldn't have been the same for both he and Patsy. The above could have still been applicable for PR, but for JR it would have been completely different.

Ugggghhhh.

Back to your original point. You're questioning the felony 1 vs felony 2 concept, right?

Idk what the answer is, all I know is that when someone commits a crime, or is an accessory to a crime, and someone ends up dead....there shouldn't be a time limit on when they can be prosecuted.

 

[THE BUNK]

Living in Colorado, one month shy of his tenth birthday, Burke could never (and will never) be charged with anything that he might have done that night (regardless of the evidence). However, as I understand it, if now (as an adult) he were to talk to LE and give them false information, he could be charged with something for that. Good reason to say, "No thanks," should they come asking if he'd like to talk with them.

Thanks for clarifying that!

Not to mention that if he were to snitch, he runs the risk of losing any inheritance he might get. Would also ruin his own family.

If Burke knows anything, there is no real incentive for him to talk.

 

[lawstudent]

Knowingly in a legal context would mean they knew of a danger. What that danger is could be anything, especially given how grand juries tend to indict.

 

[THE BUNK]

I wonder if during the original incident with Burke hitting Jonbenet, if this fact came to the Ramsey's attention?

Perhaps when talking to a lawyer, maybe the fact that Burke could be indicted later on came up in small talk.

 

[lawstudent]

I wonder if during the original incident with Burke hitting Jonbenet, if this fact came to the Ramsey's attention?

Perhaps when talking to a lawyer, maybe the fact that Burke could be indicted later on came up in small talk.

Yeah, if Burke had a history of injuring her and they were left alone, I could see a jury indicting. I'm doubtful whether it would have been prosecuted as such a severe crime though. If Burke was regularly seriously injuring her, it probably would have come out.

 

[otg]

I'm not exactly sure what your trying to say...I'm having trouble following you :blushing:

But what is so glaringly noticeable to me is....

[...]did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously, permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death[...]​

KNOWINGLY is the word that I can't get past. That's not an indication of an "accident." And the language is repeated in the 2nd true bill as well. Every time I read it, it's a clear indicator for BDI, for me.

The language indicates it was an ongoing problem, and they knew about it. And it would appear that the "child abuse" relates to "prior sexual contact." There was no discounting or diminishing of that evidence by the GJ. It's not like JRB continually showed signs of physical abuse, such as bruises or broken bones, or multiple ER visits, all of which would likely been documented, and or found out about in some way prior to the convening of the GJ.

Did the GJ get JRBs medical records? Or did the pediatrician admit to something damning? When Kolar recounts the "island of privacy" issue(s) he does so with regard to turning the info over to investigators. He gives no real indication of any of the GJ proceedings relating to what was or wasn't subpoenaed (b/c he can't) yet when he makes his presentation to ML, it's BRs records he's after.

If on the other hand, the GJ believed the evidence pointed to JR for the abuse, the true bills wouldn't have been the same for both he and Patsy. The above could have still been applicable for PR, but for JR it would have been completely different.

Ugggghhhh.

Back to your original point. You're questioning the felony 1 vs felony 2 concept, right?

Idk what the answer is, all I know is that when someone commits a crime, or is an accessory to a crime, and someone ends up dead....there shouldn't be a time limit on when they can be prosecuted.

Yes, I’m questioning the F1 vs F2 class, betty. The accessory (after the fact) being viewed by the law as a lesser crime than being an accomplice (before the fact) I can understand. This was the charge in Count VII.

I know it gets complicated. That’s why I thought the real meaning of the charges may have been lost on anyone reading it. If you read the charge itself and look up the Colorado law that applies, the law itself refers you to another law, and then that law states conditions that may apply which might elevate (or lessen) the class and the punishment. ( :waitasec: Very confusing.) That’s why we have to hire attorneys to maneuver us through this maze when we need help. I’ve taken out the parts that I don’t think are applicable and only quoted the parts that are referred from each section and subsection that I think are applicable.

Basically, what I’m thinking is that if we do this (follow through the referenced sections and subsections of the statutes), even though the basic crime (Child Abuse Resulting in Death) is a Class 2 Felony (with a 3-year SL), the fact that the parents were in a “position of trust with respect to the victim” should elevate the charge to “the crime of murder in the first degree” -- with no SL.

The “knowingly... permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation” indicates to me (my opinion here) that John and Patsy had information that should have made them able to foresee a problem and that with that knowledge they could have prevented harm from coming to her if they had acted “reasonably”. We don’t know what that information might have been. Only the people within the GJ room know that. We can guess that it might be medical records, witness testimony, or even the mysterious phone records. But only those privy to the information the GJ heard know why they thought that John and Patsy could have prevented it.

 

[questfortrue]

I noted the word “recklessly” is left out of the section 7c, and “knowingly” is left in this section. IDK if it makes any difference, but it seems like the felony 2 on child abuse is applied to cover regular domestic violence scenarios. To use the first degree murder, sounds like a parent(s) knew (“knowingly”) a situation for their 6-yr-old young daughter was dangerous to her health and life. It went beyond just reckless. JB was too young to be able to defend herself, or perhaps even realize she could lose her life. Maybe the entire evidence of harm to JB’s body indicated some “deliberate” action happened, which they could have prevented. Just what occurs to me. MHO

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yeah, if Burke had a history of injuring her and they were left alone, I could see a jury indicting. I'm doubtful whether it would have been prosecuted as such a severe crime though. If Burke was regularly seriously injuring her, it probably would have come out.

It did come out. IMO
There was a history of sexually inappropriate behavior between them. Three instances were reported to Patsy in as many months by the housekeeper. IMO it's reasonable to conclude there were many more instances when they weren't caught at all.
And Patsy still allowed them to share a bed.
The housekeeper did testify at the grand jury.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lawstudent]

I agree with what people are saying, but I can't believe a GJ member wouldn't have leaked stuff about them suspecting Burke of sexual abuse by now.

 

[otg]

It did come out. IMO
There was a history of sexually inappropriate behavior between them. Three instances were reported to Patsy in as many months by the housekeeper. IMO it's reasonable to conclude there were many more instances when they weren't caught at all.
And Patsy still allowed them to share a bed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And we DO know that that housekeeper was called to testify to the GJ -- after having been thrown under the bus by the Ramseys.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I agree with what people are saying, but I can't believe a GJ member wouldn't have leaked stuff about them suspecting Burke of sexual abuse by now.

Why? Look how long it took to be leaked they indicted the Ramsey's?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lawstudent]

And we DO know that that housekeeper was called to testify to the GJ -- after having been thrown under the bus by the Ramseys.

I find that shocking too, but if it was due to something so scandalous, I would think someone would want to talk. Versus a hesitant indictment based on a theory that later didn't seem very likely.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I find that shocking too, but if it was due to something so scandalous, I would think someone would want to talk. Versus a hesitant indictment based on a theory that later didn't seem very likely.

We have absolutely no idea what's in the rest of the grand jury pages we are unable to see.

Burke was and remains protected by the Colorado Children's Code. Anyone breathing a single word about him and the sexual abuse of his sister or linking him to death would be prosecuted. The law protects him, fully and with a vengeance.

IMO it's the reason why Kolar walked a very fine line and didn't come straight out and say so.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lawstudent]

We have absolutely no idea what's in the rest of the grand jury pages we are unable to see.

Burke was and remains protected by the Colorado Children's Code. Anyone breathing a single word about him and the sexual abuse of his sister or linking him to death would be prosecuted. The law protects him, fully and with a vengeance.

IMO it's the reason why Kolar walked a very fine line and didn't come straight out and say so.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but usually someone decides to leak something regardless of the laws - they just say it carefully and are quoted "anonymously." Publishing a book is a bigger risk, obviously. At the very least I would think rumors would have surfaced. Things are disclosed illegally all the time, especially when the story is so valuable.

I'm just saying that if the jury didn't really believe the Ramseys had done something wrong, it would make more sense that they wouldn't be eager to talk about the indictment. It's not a big story and makes them look kind of bad. Whereas if they believed they were guilty of ignoring child abuse in their own home, it would be a valuable story and the jurors would probably be angry they weren't prosecuted and be more likely to tell someone.

ETA: Obviously they indicted, but I mean if they weren't sure they did something wrong, especially given the lack of prosecution. They could have decided there was enough for charges without being very convinced.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes, but usually someone decides to leak something regardless of the laws - they just say it carefully and are quoted "anonymously." Publishing a book is a bigger risk, obviously. At the very least I would think rumors would have surfaced. Things are disclosed illegally all the time, especially when the story is so valuable.



I'm just saying that if the jury didn't really believe the Ramseys had done something wrong, it would make more sense that they wouldn't be eager to talk about the indictment. It's not a big story and makes them look kind of bad. Whereas if they believed they were guilty of ignoring child abuse in their own home, it would be a valuable story and the jurors would probably be angry they weren't prosecuted and be more likely to tell someone.

If you read back through all the old tabloid reports, (ones the Ramsey's sued and settled) you'll see the reporters had more than one source and settled when they couldn't reveal their sources.

All IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bettybaby00]

Yes, but usually someone decides to leak something regardless of the laws - they just say it carefully and are quoted "anonymously." Publishing a book is a bigger risk, obviously. At the very least I would think rumors would have surfaced. Things are disclosed illegally all the time, especially when the story is so valuable.

Yet look how the public has been mislead, not only by the Rs "pr machine," but also by the former DAs Hunter, and Lacy.

Hunter let the whole world believe that the GJ did not return anything....it's all in the wording...

"The Boulder County grand jury has completed its work and will not return. No charges have been filed. I must report to you that I and my prosecutorial team believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at this time.
Under Colorado law, the proceedings of the grand jury are secret. Under no circumstances will I or any of my advisors, prosecutors, the law enforcement officers working on this case, or the grand jurors discuss grand jury proceedings, today or forever, unless ordered by the court."

No charges have been filed implies, that was what the GJ decided, therefore, his next sentence appears to say, if the GJ couldn't find cause to file charges, then there is obviously not enough evidence to indict/prosecute.

Years later we find that's not really what happened didn't we?

Idk if it's unprecedented or not, but I find it interesting that he goes on to say how, "today and forever" no one is permitted to talk about the GJ investigation, it's evidence or it's findings.

Add to that the rabid "we'll sue you so hard you won't know what hit you," stance of the Rs team, headed by L. Wood, and it's no wonder no one has been willing to break their silence.

Similarly, Hunter's affidavit "clearing" BR. IMO, is a carefully constructed document that uses precise language to "clear" Burke, yet IMO it's more like an updated version of "who's on first?"

Then we can add another layer....enter ML who saves the day and "exonerates" the entire R family b/c of the "DNA evidence." Not only is this a move that is virtually unheard of within the legal world, but when doing it, she seems to have forgotten that she previously stated "The tDNA could be an artefact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all…there’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else."

So every time someone, journalist, tv reporter, etc., attempted to publicly say anything, L. Wood waved around all the "proof" claiming his clients' innocence. He could go on Larry King, et al, and appear outraged, insisting, "you can't say that about my client! Look at this exoneration, the GJ found nothing. How dare you....we're going to sue you!"

And everyone either ran, or as in the case of many in the media, decided it was better to stay on script.

All MOO, and all that jazz

 

[lawstudent]

If you read back through all the old tabloid reports, (ones the Ramsey's sued and settled) you'll see the reporters had more than one source and settled when they couldn't reveal their sources.

All IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting and makes sense. I was young at the time and only remember it being splashed across the Enquirer, which I never gave much credit to. The settlements could either indicate that yes, they had good sources they did not want to reveal, or they didn't have good sources, and wanted to avoid defamation proceedings. I just thought that in the Internet age, it would come out. A lot of old cases and confidential stuff have come out about a lot of celebrities over the last decade or so. Not as easy to go after all the people making claims anymore. But everyone could have been scared off by previous lawsuits.

Hunter let the whole world believe that the GJ did not return anything....it's all in the wording...

. . .

Idk if it's unprecedented or not, but I find it interesting that he goes on to say how, "today and forever" no one is permitted to talk about the GJ investigation, it's evidence or it's findings.
. . .

So every time someone, journalist, tv reporter, etc., attempted to publicly say anything, L. Wood waved around all the "proof" claiming his clients' innocence. He could go on Larry King, et al, and appear outraged, insisting, "you can't say that about my client! Look at this exoneration, the GJ found nothing. How dare you....we're going to sue you!"

And everyone either ran, or as in the case of many in the media, decided it was better to stay on script.

All MOO, and all that jazz

The attorneys were most definitely calculating the statements to be misleading, but that was great lawyering. Allowing that implication to sit there was very effective, obviously. And I agree the media is terrible for following script.

I did want to point out that the media can say what it wants even if the grand jury refused to indict. The only lawsuit that could arise is if they said the grand jury indicted or something like that, but if they had sources that indicated it actually did indict, which apparently they didn't, if the Ramseys tried a defamation suit, they'd lose. You can't defame someone by telling the truth. If they simply reported facts from the GJ proceedings, that's not grounds for a lawsuit, although it breaks Colorado law so they'd need to protect their sources. It would be the Colorado law keeping the media quiet - to keep sources from being prosecuted. Not the idea that the jury didn't indict.

Is Colorado law still the same regarding GJ proceedings? I want to look into the now and forever language - could be legal language, could be odd. The prosecutors certainly have behaved quite oddly in this case. They may try really hard to convict someone, but rarely to exonerate them, even if the suspects are well-connected. I guess it was more common in the pre-tabloid era, with celebrities/politicians, but it is odd in the 90s.




ETA: I was researching the statute and found the case with the housekeeper challenging the secrecy laws. It wasn't making sense to me how they could make you be quiet forever - now I understand it's until the case resolves, but because murder has no SOL and it hasn't gone anywhere they are still bound. That applies to witnesses, though. What rule applies to grand jury members? Does it have the same time limitations? I don't think you can claim anything stays secret now and forever - there's always some possible endpoint.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Interesting and makes sense. I was young at the time and only remember it being splashed across the Enquirer, which I never gave much credit to. The settlements could either indicate that yes, they had good sources they did not want to reveal, or they didn't have good sources, and wanted to avoid defamation proceedings. I just thought that in the Internet age, it would come out. A lot of old cases and confidential stuff have come out about a lot of celebrities over the last decade or so. Not as easy to go after all the people making claims anymore. But everyone could have been scared off by previous lawsuits.




The attorneys were most definitely calculating the statements to be misleading, but that was great lawyering. Allowing that implication to sit there was very effective, obviously. And I agree the media is terrible for following script.

I did want to point out that the media can say what it wants even if the grand jury refused to indict. The only lawsuit that could arise is if they said the grand jury indicted or something like that, but if they had sources that indicated it actually did indict, which apparently they didn't, if the Ramseys tried a defamation suit, they'd lose. You can't defame someone by telling the truth. If they simply reported facts from the GJ proceedings, that's not grounds for a lawsuit, although it breaks Colorado law so they'd need to protect their sources. It would be the Colorado law keeping the media quiet - to keep sources from being prosecuted. Not the idea that the jury didn't indict.

Is Colorado law still the same regarding GJ proceedings? I want to look into the now and forever language - could be legal language, could be odd. The prosecutors certainly have behaved quite oddly in this case. They may try really hard to convict someone, but rarely to exonerate them, even if the suspects are well-connected. I guess it was more common in the pre-tabloid era, with celebrities/politicians, but it is odd in the 90s.




ETA: I was researching the statute and found the case with the housekeeper challenging the secrecy laws. It wasn't making sense to me how they could make you be quiet forever - now I understand it's until the case resolves, but because murder has no SOL and it hasn't gone anywhere they are still bound. That applies to witnesses, though. What rule applies to grand jury members? Does it have the same time limitations? I don't think you can claim anything stays secret now and forever - there's always some possible endpoint.

Here's a tidbit you may not be aware of. The Ramsey's sued the national enquirer over the Burke did it reporting....it settled, sealed. Guess who gave the National Enquirer an exclusive interview as a condition of that settlement? drum roll please.... THE Ramsey's! And ya want to know what little morsel they let loose? They confessed Burke was awake before the 911 call was placed. After YEARS of lies stating he slept through everything!!!!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk