Why GJ Likely Solved Case In 1999

[Voice of Reason]

Voice of Reason,

It's not a federal offense. It was a Boulder County, Colorado grand jury. It wasn't a federal grand jury.

It's universally known that state grand jury information is confidential and grand jurors cannot be approached until after either an indictment is issued or a written report is issued by the grand jury. But the Ramsey grand jury suspiciously did neither, thereby sealing forever the information they obtained after 13 months of investigations.

Moreover, on top of that the court issued an "expansive order" (over and above what is normally ordered) on the day the GJ permanently adjourned, blocking the public, under threat of imprisonment, from even inquiring about what the GJ uncovered. This extraordinary gag order by the court is why the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is objecting.

All of this tells me the Colorado Children's Code, by law shielding the identity of children who are involved in a major crime, had been placed into effect that 13th day of October, 1999.

BlueCrab

i think you are jumping to a massive conclusion as to the implications of the "expansive order". point taken on the federal offense. regardless, the grand jury testimony cannot be legally leaked. take a step back for a moment, and think about what you are saying. here is a family who has lost a 6 year old daughter on xmas day, and just about the whole country thinks they killed her!

in america, you are innocent until proven guilty. nobody has ever suggested (although you seem to come close) that the grand jury did not do a complete job. were there charges to be filed, they would have filed them. but you are using the lack of filing charges and the expansive order as a means to imply guilt!!! don't you think that is exactly what the judge sought to deter? if you let so much as one shred of testimony go public, the media will run wild with it and concoct their own theories. i think that people here have all too much mistrust of the law enforcement and justice system in this country.

and by the way, do you have any knowledge of past cases involving such "expansive orders", because you seem to blindly state that this was over and above what is normally ordered. gag orders are issued all the time, especially in high profile cases. this was perhaps one of the most largely covered cases in the news. it's 2005, and we're still discussing it!! do you know how many crimes go unsolved? why does this one continue to generate discussion almost 10 years later? this seems like a text-book case for an expansive order on the grand jury testimony...

 

[BlueCrab]

Were there charges to be filed, they would have filed them.

Voice of Reason,

The grand jury in Colorado could NOT indict if the perpetrators were under 10 years old.

The case would go automatically and secretly to the district attorney, who would dispose of it without violating the Colorado Children's Code (without disclosing the identities of the children). In such instances the DA would normally assign the perpetrator(s) to psychiatric treatment and counselling and have the court seal the case forever -- as if it never happened.

IMO this is what happened.

 

[Voice of Reason]

Voice of Reason,

The grand jury in Colorado could NOT indict if the perpetrators were under 10 years old.

The case would go automatically and secretly to the district attorney, who would dispose of it without violating the Colorado Children's Code (without disclosing the identities of the children). In such instances the DA would normally assign the perpetrator(s) to psychiatric treatment and counselling and have the court seal the case forever -- as if it never happened.

IMO this is what happened.

burke was called into to testify in front of the grand jury in may 1999. the next day, authorities finally issued a statement declaring burke a witness, not a suspect. now of course, they could be covering for him, but the grand jury met until october 1999. if burke really was a suspect and the GJ concluded that he was their man, but they couldn't indict, what went on in the following 5 months to suggest that? if that's what they concluded, don't you think that he would've returned to the GJ at least once before october?

does anyone have the exact provision of the colorado children's code that speaks to this? i'd like to look up the relevant case law and see how similar cases (if there are any) have been handled?

 

[K777angel]

To this day I believe the NY Post article published back in 1999 or 2000 (forget which at this moment) - claiming inside information that Burke Ramsey was the one who killed his sister and his parents helped cover it up was on target. No other article or story published on any of the Ramseys brought as much action or anger from camp Ramsey than that one did. IMO
(I still find it extremely curious that while a number of slander lawsuits have been filed on behalf of both Patsy and Burke - NONE to date have ever been filed on behalf of John Ramsey. And it wasn't like there were no stories published fingering HIM. There were plenty....)

It should be noted that in Colorado, no one can be charged with accessory to a crime (like John and Patsy who helped stage this crime) - unless someone is charged WITH the crime itself.
So if Burke Ramsey was indeed determined to be the perp (which I think he probably was) - and he was too young under Colorado law at the time of the crime to be charged with anything - then his "accessors" are off the hook too.

Lin Wood was hired to try and salvage the Ramsey's reputations after the grand jury disbanded.
One of his sleazy tactics IMO was to blackmail the city of Boulder through Mary Keenan and threaten to SUE them (and Lord knows he'd probably have a case whatwith the despicable behavior of Alex Hunter during the investigation consorting with tabloid reporters etc....) - if Keenan did not go along with his smoke & mirrors game plan. You know - tell the public you are re-investigating the murder and are no longer looking at the Ramseys....
LOL!!
The public is not that stupid.
Nor was Michigan when they said "HELL NO!" to a John Ramsey vote.

IMO
~ Angel ~

 

[Voice of Reason]

nice work angel on bringing forth some legal background in colorado! i was just going to say that if you support the theory that burke did the deed and john and/or patsy helped with the staging/coverup, then john and/or patsy could still be charged as an accomplice, but you provided that nice tidbit of info that colorado does not allow such charges if the initial perp is not charged.

another thought, though, is that if this is the case, i believe that john and/or patsy could be charged with other crimes, no? interfering with an investigation and/or some other crime related to their own actions (i'm sure a prosecutor could figure out some sort of culpability that is indictable).

for those who do not know, when you are charged as an accomplice, you are actually charged with the crime that you helped someone commit. it is not a different charge. in other words, if A is guilty of murder, and B is an accomplice. B is charged with murder as an accomplice, and can be sentenced equally. however, if A is charged with murder, and B did other things acting as an accomplice, he could be charged with different crimes. this is the scenario i'm suggesting here. since this did not happen, i'm guessing that either this burke theory is not on point, or it is on point, but details were so hazy that they had nothing on patsy and john except that they helped in some way.

 

[BlueCrab]

If Burke killed JonBenet, and the grand jury solved the crime but can't indict because Burke was only 9 at the time, then that ends it under Colorado law.

If you charge the parents with anything criminally then Burke's name would be dragged into the discovery and trial aspects of the case as the defense and the prosecution go at it. That would violate Colorado law protecting the identities of children.

The court wouldn't even allow any of Burke's civil cases to go beyond a certain point because, IMO, it would have violated Colorado law protecting the identities of juveniles involved in serious crimes. I think all of the cases were settled because the court leaned on the litigants to settle out of court or the court would be forced to dismiss the case.

I doubt if any serious money changed hands in those settlements.

 

[K777angel]

We have to remember that if Burke were deemed to be the actual perp in this case and he was protected under Colorado law at the time of the crime due to his age being under 10 yrs old - then there was NO CRIME for anyone else to be connected to. Not as an accessory, not for obstructing justice - nothing. There must be a CRIME to obstruct justice of or to have been an accomplice to.
This is of course just LEGALLY speaking. Of course a crime was committed. MANY crimes were committed in this case.

I still think it is a tradgedy that no one will ever be brought to justice for it - in this life anyway.

 

[Nova]

Says who?! Much internet mythology has arisen with regards to Colorado juvenile law. Okay, so we understand a child under a certain age cannot be charged and his/her name is to be kept confidential.

But what authority says other, "surrounding" crimes concerning the same event cannot be prosecuted? Lots of states have laws protecting juveniles, but they don't give free tickets to everyone else participating in the kids' crimes. A child's name can be withheld from the record and the press without halting all judicial proceedings.

Now as for the g.j. decision...

Alex Hunter will forever be known as the DA who never found justice for Jon-Benet. His obituary will open with a paragraph to that effect! His political career was essentially ended, or at least damaged, by this case.

And we know Alex Hunter is the master of the semantic sidestep, as he or his office coined "umbrella of suspicion" to avoid calling the Rs "suspects" and giving them additional rights under Colorado law. And we know he was privy to the g.j. proceedings.

But this same Hunter never went on Larry King to say, "You know, Larry, sometimes we know who did the crime and we can even prove it, but we are prevented from prosecuting by legal technicalities." Nor words to that effect. The resulting talking-head analysis would have found its way to Burke without Hunter violating secrecy laws.

And we know Lou Smit and Steve Thomas maintain various contacts within the Boulder LE. But no inside friend of theirs ever stopped them from making fools of themselves with books fingering other, known-to-be-wrong, suspects.

And nobody ever tipped off the media who have been sued by the Rs?! Truth is a defense to libel. Major media outlets usually fight attempts to limit freedom of press to the highest possible court. But in this case, huge media corporations simply rolled over and played dead for the state of Colorado?!

And nobody ever tipped off Darnay Hoffmann?! After all, proof of BDI and knowledge thereof on the part of the Rs would have made his client's case. And we're to believe Darnay never heard about the g.j.'s conclusion?

Juvenile confidentiality isn't sacrosanct (even if it should be). There are various ways - legal and illegal - it can be pierced. To believe the g.j. reached a conclusion (and a shocking one, given the prior statements of LE), that was never leaked by any of the numerous participants to any of the multitude obsessed with the case, simply defies common sense.

 

[BlueCrab]

Juvenile confidentiality isn't sacrosanct (even if it should be). There are various ways - legal and illegal - it can be pierced. To believe the g.j. reached a conclusion (and a shocking one, given the prior statements of LE), that was never leaked by any of the numerous participants to any of the multitude obsessed with the case, simply defies common sense.

Nova,

What makes you think the GJ's conclusion HASN'T been leaked? IMO the GJ's conclusion has been leaked a multitude of times -- but who's willing to go public with it and be sent directly to jail without even passing GO to collect $200?

 

[GuruJosh]

But surely if the conclusion of the GJ were known to various people... i.e. if the members of the GJ had indeed blabbed (or others associated with the inquest) - what would stop a non-US resident from revealing the truth?

For instance I am in Australia. Colorado is a brand of hiking boot. If i had the info, i could publish the findings with impunity. There is no way - no international extradition agreement, nothing - that i could be "dealt with" by Colorado law.

Why hasn't such a scenario taken place?

If you doubt my claim that nothing would happen to me from Aussie authorities (even though obviously the Americans could do nothing to me), then consider a more extreme example.

Let's say i was from China.

I am sure the Chinese would laugh in the face of anyone trying to prosecute me from the USA.

I think the question of why no one has revealed the GJ's suspicion, if Burke did it, is a good one... I mean, why no one has given evidence for this decision (despite CO law)

 

[Nova]

What makes you think the GJ's conclusion HASN'T been leaked? IMO the GJ's conclusion has been leaked a multitude of times -- but who's willing to go public with it and be sent directly to jail without even passing GO to collect $200?

As Josh points out, folks outside the USA wouldn't necessarily be subject to Colorado law. But even Americans outside Colorado could make a good, long fight of it.

At the moment, there are two journalists who may go to jail rather than reveal their source in outing a CIA agent. Note that these are not in trouble for printing the agent's name, but for refusing to reveal their source for the name. It is the source who is deemed to be in violation of the law prohibiting the outing of CIA agents, not the writers. Why would a reporter revealing BDI be any different? Are we to believe none of the papers who covered JBR had reporters and/or editors at least as defiant, at least as willing to test the law?

The Ramsey investigation was plagued by leaks, some of which, if not illegal, were at least in violation of deparment policies. I know you draw conclusions based on some statements concerning the g.j., but none of these are leaks as direct as what we are used to in this case.

It is much more likely the g.j. - on its own or at Hunter's direction - simply decided it couldn't know for sure who did what.

 

[BlueCrab]

It is much more likely the g.j. - on its own or at Hunter's direction - simply decided it couldn't know for sure who did what.

Nova,

If that grand jury, with its almost unlimited powers to investigate and interrogate, couldn't solve the crime, then it's not likely it will ever be solved. We might just as well fold up our tents and go home.

But I'm convinced the crime was solved. The parents didn't do it. The evidence points to children. Why else would the Ramseys lie and refuse to fully cooperate with the investigation beginning on day one and continuing to this day, if not children were involved?

The Ramseys would behave like that ONLY if children were involved. And so would the court and Boulder authorities behave the way they do -- none of whom have cleared Burke and have eliminated all funding to actively pursue a perpetrator.

BlueCrab

 

[Nova]

Nova,

If that grand jury, with its almost unlimited powers to investigate and interrogate, couldn't solve the crime, then it's not likely it will ever be solved. We might just as well fold up our tents and go home....

BlueCrab

Maybe so, Blue, but people are still exploring Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac killer and the assassination of JFK. And where's the harm?

The rest of your post is a more general defense of your BDI theory. That's a different issue, IMHO. Your theory does not depend on g.j. verification to be accurate.

I don't, by the way, agree that parents would ONLY cover for a child. Spouses often cover for each other, whether or not you and I find it advisable or even rational. Some people simply think "family" comes before even the rule of law. Some people feel they are defined by their choice of spouse and must defend that choice no matter what. Some people simply refuse to believe a loved one is guilty of a crime.

I've seen all of these reactions in my own family. As I mentioned years ago, my father was - at least until the statute of limitations ran out - wanted by the Feds and the State of Florida for various forms of fraud. His girlfriend not only covered for him, but went on the lam with him for more than 10 years. His brother went to jail for him. His parents refused to believe he had done anything wrong, even though their grandchildren (my siblings and I) were among his victims. Even I - who certainly had no illusions about my father's deeds or character - never turned him in when I learned where he was "hiding out." All of we abettors are otherwise decent, law-abiding people, but family is family and we kept our silence.

In fairness, my father didn't commit violent crimes (and I'd like to think I would have behaved differently if he had). But even in cases of murder, friends and family often refuse to incriminate a loved one.

So the Rs' cover-up doesn't really tell us who they are covering for.

But, as I said, that's a different issue than whether the g.j. came to a BDI conclusion. I'm not trying to refute your basic theory here. I don't know which R did what. But I don't think it's helpful to insist the g.j. decided BDI.

 

[Cain]

Grand Jury solves the case, closes it and don't say a public word... letting scores of people (from Santa, to Helgoth etc etc etc) (and Ramsey's included) in the wild, coping with a public status of "suspects" in an horrible crime??

Please, BC, explain me how it's legally possible (not say say "ethic")

 

[BlueCrab]

Grand Jury solves the case, closes it and don't say a public word... letting scores of people (from Santa, to Helgoth etc etc etc) (and Ramsey's included) in the wild, coping with a public status of "suspects" in an horrible crime??

Please, BC, explain me how it's legally possible (not say say "ethic")

Cain,

If Boulder authorities publicly announced the Ramsey murder was solved, the first question would be, "Who did it?"

To answer the question would violate Colorado law protecting the identities of children.

 

[BlueCrab]

To better provide a basis for this discussion, here's an excerpt from TITLE 18, Colorado Statutes:

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."

And here's some case law:

"An infant is presumed incapable of committing crime because he is presumed not to possess criminal intent." Calkins v Albi (1967)

"An infant under the age of 10 years shall not be found guilty of any offense." Gallegos v Tinsley (1970)

"Although a child under the age of ten 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 (1991)

And from the Colorado Children's Code, which covers all juveniles under age of 18, in regard to the court sealing their records:

"Person who have had their juvenile records sealed may lawfully and properly reply that no such record exists. However, the record is still available to the district attorney, law enforcement, the courts, and the department of human services. Government agencies cannot show the records to anyone without an order from the court."

BlueCrab

 

[Voice of Reason]

To this day I believe the NY Post article published back in 1999 or 2000 (forget which at this moment) - claiming inside information that Burke Ramsey was the one who killed his sister and his parents helped cover it up was on target.

<snip>

It should be noted that in Colorado, no one can be charged with accessory to a crime (like John and Patsy who helped stage this crime) - unless someone is charged WITH the crime itself.
So if Burke Ramsey was indeed determined to be the perp (which I think he probably was) - and he was too young under Colorado law at the time of the crime to be charged with anything - then his "accessors" are off the hook too.

IMO
~ Angel ~

Angel, i'm not so sure about some of this information. where did you get it from? i have looked up all articles pertaining to the ramsey investigation that were published by the post in 1999 and 2000. i read them all. there were 2 or 3 that seemed to fit the bill of what you described, but they were all based on a report in Star magazine. i'd give the credibility factor on a NY Post article citing a Star article as its source about a 1.5 out of 10, and i think i'm being generous. the article they referred to mainly discussed "secret negotiations" that were apparently going on between the DA and the ramsey's attorney discussing a plea bargain for burke. we all know that cannot possibly be true, since a 9 year old cannot be charged with a crime in colorado. what would they be bargaining for?

as for your second point, another article i read, quoted a few colorado lawyers regarding these laws. i am not sure your analysis is correct. i guess this is a question of whose info is better, the NY Post, or a stranger from a messageboard. if you can refute this article with some sources, i'd love to see it. i'll put some of the article i refer to here...

Title of Article: JONBENET'S FOLKS FACE PRISON IF THEY COVERED UP FOR SON
Publication: NY Post
Date: May 14, 1999

"There is absolutely nothing the criminal-justice system can do if Burke was involved in the homicide," said Craig Silverman, former Denver chief deputy district attorney.

"A child under 10 is considered to lack the mental capacity to commit a crime."

His parents, however, would not be off the hook if they admit they engaged in a coverup.

"They would be an accessory after the fact - not viewed as guilty of the primary crime, but subject to possible jail time," Denver defense lawyer Scott Robinson said.

Accessory to murder is a Class 4 felony that carries two to six years in prison in Colorado, the lawyers said.

 

[Voice of Reason]

To better provide a basis for this discussion, here's an excerpt from TITLE 18, Colorado Statutes:

"Although a child under the age of ten 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 (1991)

BlueCrab

nice work on the caselaw, but i believe you pulled miller a bit out of context. allow me to share the next sentence from the opinion...

"We therefore conclude that even though Miller's son was only eight years old at the time of her offense, Miller could be found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor."

hence, if the GJ found burke was the perp, and the parents covered for him, charges could be pressed against them. with all the media scrutiny and public pressure surrounding this case, i highly doubt that the DA would pass up this opportunity, just to protect burke's identity. while the law seeks to keep the juvenile's name under wraps, it does not require crimes by adults to go unpunished in an effort to hide a child's identity.

 

[BlueCrab]

Angel, i'm not so sure about some of this information. where did you get it from? i have looked up all articles pertaining to the ramsey investigation that were published by the post in 1999 and 2000. i read them all. there were 2 or 3 that seemed to fit the bill of what you described, but they were all based on a report in Star magazine. i'd give the credibility factor on a NY Post article citing a Star article as its source about a 1.5 out of 10, and i think i'm being generous. the article they referred to mainly discussed "secret negotiations" that were apparently going on between the DA and the ramsey's attorney discussing a plea bargain for burke. we all know that cannot possibly be true, since a 9 year old cannot be charged with a crime in colorado. what would they be bargaining for?

as for your second point, another article i read, quoted a few colorado lawyers regarding these laws. i am not sure your analysis is correct. i guess this is a question of whose info is better, the NY Post, or a stranger from a messageboard. if you can refute this article with some sources, i'd love to see it. i'll put some of the article i refer to here...

Title of Article: JONBENET'S FOLKS FACE PRISON IF THEY COVERED UP FOR SON
Publication: NY Post
Date: May 14, 1999

"There is absolutely nothing the criminal-justice system can do if Burke was involved in the homicide," said Craig Silverman, former Denver chief deputy district attorney.

"A child under 10 is considered to lack the mental capacity to commit a crime."

His parents, however, would not be off the hook if they admit they engaged in a coverup.

"They would be an accessory after the fact - not viewed as guilty of the primary crime, but subject to possible jail time," Denver defense lawyer Scott Robinson said.

Accessory to murder is a Class 4 felony that carries two to six years in prison in Colorado, the lawyers said.

Voice of Reason,

I agree with your above post. It was 5/10/99 when Hunter's office denied that John and Patsy were trying to negotiate a plea bargain with the D.A., offering Burke up as the sacrificial lamb. But like you said, if it was true, then the negotiations would have benefited only John and Patsy since Burke, age 9 at the time of the death, was too young to be prosecuted.

It appears Burke is home free no matter what.

Which brings us to possible criminal charges against the parents, such as obstruction of justice or being an accessory. With the exception of murder, kidnapping, treason, and forgery, there is a three year statute of limitations on felonies in Colorado, and that time has expired.

It appears John and Patsy are home free no matter what.

BlueCrab

 

[Nova]

It appears John and Patsy are home free no matter what.

Probably so, Blue, unless - and maybe even if - one of them killed JBR. But these are people who care about appearances. (Note to all: we really don't need to debate whether they care more or less than the average person.) And most of us agree they seemed to deeply love JBR. (Again, we don't have to debate whether they loved more or less than anyone else.)

I can't think their life has been easy since their daughter died and they fell under the "umbrella of suspicion." That may not be perfect justice, but they've hardly been home free in life.