The cross-fingerpointing defense

[BBB167893]

I want someone to explain to me, if you can, WHY in a case where two people are suspected of a murder, but it can't be proved which one actually committed the murder, why can't they both be charged?

Because if your charge both, you leave too much space for the jury to argue over which one did it, thus you have a hung jury.

If they were both involved, aren't they BOTH responsible, regardless of which one actually did the killing?

Only if you can prove conspiracy. I'm not surprised no one in the DA's office thought about that one.

I don't mean specifically the Rs here, but in general.
Is this just in Colorado? Because I know I have heard of cases where both people were charged as accessories.

It may in fact be CO law.

 

[BBB167893]

This seems maybe a little harsh.

That depends on how you look at it, I guess. I suppose it is, but as far as I go, when a kid is victimized, niceties go right out the window.

And, this is basically just a bluff, when you don't even know if a case exists in evidence and instead you're fishing for testimony.

But it's a bluff that WORKS, HOTYH. That's my point.

This applies to single suspects and their story can be cross-checked with other suspects or witnesses.

Well, I can think of a rather well-known case where this tactic was used to splendid effect: the Lisa Steinberg murder.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it would work in many cases, especially if you knew you had the guilty party but couldn't really prove it with existing evidence or evidence gathered illegally.

You bet your fanny it works!

None of this would work in JBR's case though.

Why NOT? In fact, I strongly believe (and I'm NOT alone, not by a damn sight) that once PR heard that cell door slam, she would have confessed to anything. Because then it would have been REAL, you know?

The idea that this was even a factor in JBR's case is just a claim. Not known to be fact.

Oh, no? Allow me to quote from PMPT, pages 377-378:

All the detectives agreed that one major mistake had been made in the first weeks: Patsy had not been arrested. The detectives were sure that if only Hunter had agreed to jail Patsy--even for a short time--she would have caved in.

Also a bit harsh.

I'm a harsh man, HOTYH. You would be too if you lived the life I've had.

Would a local terrorist group need to have a history of kidnapping and killing little girls before you'd investigate?

I'd have to know that there WAS a local terrorist group before I'd investigate!

BTW I kinda figured out how you came up with kidnapping, killing, little girls, and America but how did you come up with terrorist group?

It's not a big leap of imagination, HOTYH. The "beheading" part pretty much does it for me. I admit, we as a country (I mean Americans) may not have known half as much about Islamo-terror before 9/11 as we do now, but even BEFORE 9/11, it was common knowledge that both the Islamists and the secular Arab governments behead people in the Middle East.

Since when is a 'small foreign faction' automatically a terrorist group?

I think if you were to ask ten people at random as to what their first thought is when someone says the phrase "foreign faction," you'd get "terrorist" nine times out of ten, if not ten out of ten. That's the premise I'm proceeding from.

I'm looking for criteria for a news event search. Either you've got some ideas or you don't. I understand if you don't, believe me.

I don't think you understand a THING about me.

May I suggest events where the US is the larger party and any foreign entity is the smaller party in any less-than-friendly exchange? I can almost guarantee at least one of those.

That's an interesting way to look at it, I suppose.

 

[BBB167893]

Just how long did you want to ignore ransom note contents when some experts say PR didn't write it?

For as long as the majority (the ones who did the most extensive analyses on top of that) say she did. That one's simple.

I don't know about you, but when feds are saying she didn't write the RN and are entering DNA into CODIS, and locals are writing exhoneration letters, it should make one consider every alternative.

Speaking for myself, I HAVE considered them! That's my whole point.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Speaking for myself, I HAVE considered them! That's my whole point.

No you haven't. You considered ONE and you weren't even serious.

You've already stated the one and only event from 1996 that would get your attention. And it was very, very limited in scope.

If you call that considering every alternative, then I now understand why the case is cold. The scope is too narrow to include anything.

 

[BBB167893]

No you haven't. You considered ONE and you weren't even serious.

You've already stated the one and only event from 1996 that would get your attention. And it was very, very limited in scope.

I meant over the last 13 years, not the last five minutes. Like I said, I don't think you understand me at all.

If you call that considering every alternative, then I now understand why the case is cold. The scope is too narrow to include anything.

I don't call it considering every alternative.

 

[BBB167893]

I noticed Linda mentioned this earlier, so let's have at it.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I noticed Linda mentioned this earlier, so let's have at it.

:waitasec:

 

[BBB167893]

:waitasec:

Here's the exact quote:

I believe the reason a Ramsey wasn't prosecuted is because they didn't know which one to charge. That fiber from Johns clothes in JonBenet's panties probably saved Pasty from being charged. If only they had separated John & Patsy and interviewed them each alone from the start this case would have been solved and a conviction would have followed. Pasty would have fessed up her role.

The botched investigation and handling of the case from very early on insured justice would never be reached for little Jon Benet.

This case brought to the public everything wrong with the justice system in Boulder. It's been the mother of all black eyes. Mary Lacy simply attempted to apply some cover-up to that black eye and failed miserably.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Thanks, Dave. There was an interesting case near where I live that involved the death of a four year old girl (a friend of mine's granddaughter). It was determined that she had most likely been kicked in the stomach and died of internal bleeding.
The people in the home that day: Stepmother, father, 9 yo stepbrother, and 2 yeard old half sister. No one called 911 or even attempted to help her at all. She was put to bed where she was discovered dead the next morning. Of course nobody confessed, so the police arrested both the sm and dad. Still no confession so both were indicted and it went to trial. Both went free because the jury could not determine which one actually kicked the child. Lovely. Now, neither has to worry about it ever again because of the double jeopardy laws. This may be one of the reasons they didn't want to charge the Ramseys at that time.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks, Dave. There was an interesting case near where I live that involved the death of a four year old girl (a friend of mine's granddaughter). It was determined that she had most likely been kicked in the stomach and died of internal bleeding.
The people in the home that day: Stepmother, father, 9 yo stepbrother, and 2 yeard old half sister. No one called 911 or even attempted to help her at all. She was put to bed where she was discovered dead the next morning. Of course nobody confessed, so the police arrested both the sm and dad. Still no confession so both were indicted and it went to trial. Both went free because the jury could not determine which one actually kicked the child. Lovely. Now, neither has to worry about it ever again because of the double jeopardy laws. This may be one of the reasons they didn't want to charge the Ramseys at that time.

My $$$ would be on the 9-year old stepbrother. The parents would cover for him. And keep their mouths closed.

 

[joeskidbeck]

My $$$ would be on the 9-year old stepbrother. The parents would cover for him. And keep their mouths closed.

That's exactly what the concensus is around here DeeDee. The little girl's dad has maintained that she was already in bed when he got home that day and he didn't question it because the sm said she hadn't been feeling too good. I'm sure LE had to investigate that angle, but not one word has ever been leaked to the media if they did. If he was responsible for whatever reason, LE is not pressing charges (that we know of).

 

[BBB167893]

Since we have a lot of newbies here, they may not know what I meant when I mentioned it on the "Strongest Evidence thread. So, here 'tis.

Well, I promised I'd start this thread, so here we go!

When people ask me "why were the Rs never charged," whether rhetorically or not, I answer "the cross-fingerpointing defense." I get some pretty odd responses to that. Because most people don't know what I'm talking about. They've never heard of it.

Simply put, with no legal-beagle mumbo-jumbo, the cross-fingerpointing defense is where two people are involved in a crime, one as the leader and one as the accomplice, but the evidence is structured in a way that LE can't be sure which one was in the driver's seat and which one was along for the ride. Under the law as it is in America today, a prosecutor cannot--CANNOT--go before a jury and say "one of these people killed such and such, the other helped cover it up. You make up your mind as to which is which." No way! A prosecutor MUST, MUST bring specific charges against each person.

In other words, 2 suspects equals NO suspects.

I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my nether regions. Three prosecutors, speaking about this case specifically, have said the exact same thing.

One was ADA Pete Hofstrom: "So what if [Patsy] wrote the note. It doesn't prove she killed her kid."

Vincent Bugliosi: "A prosecutor can't argue to a jury, 'Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence is very clear here that either Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey committed this murder and the other one covered it up...' There's no case to take to the jury. Even if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note, that doesn't mean she committed the murder."

And Wendy Murphy: "It‘s why the JonBenet Ramsey parents are both free, because you can‘t try the father, he‘ll blame the mother. You can‘t try the mother, she‘ll—so they both walk." She went a great deal further in her book, And Justice For Some.

You can't charge JR, because there's too much evidence against PR. You can't charge PR, because there's too much evidence against JR. The only way to break that stalemate is for one of them to confess and give the other one up in exchange for immunity. And even then, accomplice testimony without further corroboration is inadmissable. Not to mention how that person would be ripped to pieces by the defense atty. as a "rat" trying to save their own skin, and as such a very likely suspect themself.

And make no mistake: PR's death changes NOTHING about this. In fact, it makes it stronger. If JR were to be charged now, there's nothing to stop him from laying it all on her. She can't defend herself from the grave.

Any questions?

 

[BBB167893]

This was brought up again, so I figured I'd bump it up.

Maybe someone will actually read it this time.

 

[horatio]

Cross-finger pointing might not work in all states/regions/jurisdictions. Check it out:

Re: Can't prove who pulled the trigger.

As long as the prosecutor can prove in your example that each of the two were involved in the felonious activity which resulted in the death of the security guard, then each of these perpetrators(masked or not)would be eligible to be charged and tried for felony murder.

It is true that some jurisdictions have a "trigger

man rule" which requires that the prosecution show

which of the perpetrators actually pulled the trigger in order to qualify for the death penalty.

https://www.lawguru.com/legal-quest...prove-pulled-trigger-law-evidence-146166927/a

Don't know what things are like in Boulder though. Assuming they probably have/had that 'trigger man' rule. Makes sense though, otherwise you could never charge two people with murder - unless they were stupid enough to confess.

 

[wonderllama]

I was also under the impression that here in Australian cross-finger pointing didn't work either. Both parties, or all parties, would be charged.

Of course, we don't have the death penalty, so it's probably not going to be a case of "Well, we know one of you did it, so we're going to fry both of you to be sure."

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't think the death penalty would ever be considered in this case, regardless of how heinous the crime seems. For one, if a R were to be arrested/charged, they'd likely plead to manslaughter, say it was an accidental death (a la Casey Anthony), find some bogus explanation for the vaginal injuries and the rest (the staging) would be charged as desecration of a corpse/tampering with evidence, etc. and none of the charges would carry a death penalty.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

In Colorado, it has to be a first degree murder for the killer to get the death penalty.

"A first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim."

I believe that a Ramsey delivered the head blow, and it was premeditated. On the way home from the Whites, no one thought JBR would be dead in a few hours.

Second degree murder: "1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life."

Delivering a blow to your daughter's head might be not be premeditated, but it is definitely not a complete accident. It was intentional, even if that just lasted a few seconds.

Now this is voluntary manslaughter:

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

Since JonBenet was only 6, I'm not sure what would be considered a logical reason for the head blow. If Patsy had caught John molesting JBR, and she had thrown the flashlight at JOHN's head, then I could see how that would be voluntary manslaughter.

IMO, JonBenet's murder was probably 2nd degree.

 

[joeskidbeck]

If anyone caught JVM tonight, Wendy Murphy was commenting on the cross finger pointing that is going on in the Casey Anthony case when Jane asked her if she thought it would work: "Why not? It worked for the Ramseys!"

 

[horatio]

Actually, depending on the mindset of the prosecutor, any number of people can be charged for the same crime. (He has to be able to get it past a jury, of course.) Rep. Steven LaTourette of Ohio, pulled this off when he was the Lake County prosecutor. A girl was killed in what was probably either a stupid prank gone wrong or a date rape, (or, possibly, a premeditated rape attempt). He found two guys whom he could place at the scene, but not enough eveidence to indicate exactly what happened during the crime. So he tried each guy individually, trying each case using a different scenario (because if he had tried them together, the scenario that would convict one would exonerate the other and vice versa). He got convictions in both trials. (I do not recall what happened in the appeals process; I don't live in Lake County and he went on to run for Congress before the appeals process would have been concluded.)

[ame="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=413618"]Straight Dope Message Board[/ame]

 

[BBB167893]

I was also under the impression that here in Australian cross-finger pointing didn't work either. Both parties, or all parties, would be charged.

Of course, we don't have the death penalty, so it's probably not going to be a case of "Well, we know one of you did it, so we're going to fry both of you to be sure."

In death penalty cases, the problem IS reinforced.